Right to bear arms [Archive] - Unofficial World of Warcraft Forums

Suicidal Zebra

12-08-2005, 11:14 PM

Of course. Force could NEVER be used against a government. It has never happened in the history of the world, that citizens led an armed revolt. Ever. Don't let the history nuts try to fool you, all successful rebellions against government have come about by people who will tap the dictator on his shoulder and ask politely, "Hey, mind if we get some freedoms now?

When was the last time that the differential in weapons technology between Government Armed Forces and the citizens so great? Without the Army on-side a popular uprising will never succeed, and as things stand tyranny is much more likely to have popular support than not. Espeically in a democratic nation with such a close link to its military.

"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."

-- The Second Amendment To The Constitution of the United States of America

Whilst it is in the Constitution you should have a right to ownership. This is of course backed up with enforcing the 'Militia' bit: i.e. providing and ensuring that gun education is a part of the education of every child in the United States likely to come into contact with a gun. And big penalties for miss-use of firearms by the general public.

BTW, paraphrasing is bad, an accurate in-context quote is good. Too often have I seen paraphrasing on the Dii.net OTF completely miss the point that the quoted person was trying to make. For all I know JK may have been trying to denegrate the so-called violent 'gun culture' in the US.

EDIT:

As an aside, I find this by far the most interesting and sensible amendment - the 9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Such a statement is the most significant link between modern-day American and British Law and is very important in any society where government interference is increasing rather than decreasing.

SaroDarksbane

12-08-2005, 11:21 PM

When was the last time that the differential in weapons technology between Government Armed Forces and the citizens so great? Without the Army on-side a popular uprising will never succeed, and as things stand tyranny is much more likely to have popular support than not. Espeically in a democratic nation with such a close link to its military.

I think the populace of the US could take down the US Army if a war broke out between the two. It would be long and costly in lives, but the people would win in the end.
Whilst it is in the Constitution you should have a right to ownership. This is of course backed up with enforcing the 'Militia' bit: i.e. providing and ensuring that gun education is a part of the education of every child in the United States likely to come into contact with a gun. And big penalties for miss-use of firearms by the general public.
My dad got me a BB gun when I was 10, and we went out behind the house with him explaining all the safety rules that applied to it. I whole-heartedly support education concerning guns. You just have to get around all those people who assume that teaching kids the ins and outs of firearms means you are giving them a license to kill people indiscriminately.

I also support harsh sentences for people who use a gun improperly. I'd support a triple-sentence on any crime where a gun was used.

Dementor

13-08-2005, 12:01 AM

Basically your arguments are:

"They would beat us anyway, why even bother."

and

"There are two parts to the second amendment, only the first bit matters."

Whilst it is in the Constitution you should have a right to ownership. This is of course backed up with enforcing the 'Militia' bit: i.e. providing and ensuring that gun education is a part of the education of every child in the United States likely to come into contact with a gun. And big penalties for miss-use of firearms by the general public.

I don't disagree with you. Every child should be taught about guns, gun safety, and gun use. I agree that big penalties should come with mis-using firearms.

Uzi's don't. Their only purpose is to kill people.

Which is the point. The Second Amendment does not exist for hunting. It exists for ensureing that the People of the United States can fight back against a corrupt government. The idea that the second amendment is there to protect hunters is absurd, and NOBODY who knows what they're talking about would use that as an argument.

SpiritWalker

13-08-2005, 12:23 AM

Would be horrible to live life without arms, really. No one should be denied arms. :(

:happy05:

D.K.night

13-08-2005, 12:41 AM

We all heard the phrase "Guns don't kill people. People, kill people." What's a gun for, might I ask? So you join NRA, you have access to all kinds of weaponry, many of them powerful rifles. But how much power would you *really* need, to drop a deer?

*Right* to bear arms? This is sooo about fear. What is everyone so scared of, that they feel they need to tote a rifle by their bedside? We're afraid of each other, is that it? We're afraid some robber might break into our house at night and kidnap us. We're afraid of this and that. Afraid of situations which are possible but not probable. OK how about I go and register for the NRA, but i insist on buying a Sniper Rifle. I wanna kill the SOB before he ever saw it coming.

Here in Canada near everyone I know does not have a gun. We don't need one. I don't want to feel afraid to disagree with someone, for fear that they might point a handgun at my face and tell me to take back what I said. You need protection? Why not just learn Kung fu or something? Learn to fight with your words, and then *only if necessary*, with your fists. Why would you need to wield the power to end a life instantaneously, or at the very least confine the person to the rest of his life in a wheelchair, because the bullet you fired went through his spine?

Make no mistake. If I had a sniper rifle, I might be tempted to use it. Against any number of people who slighted me. Well I'm glad I don't have access to it, and never will.

SaroDarksbane

13-08-2005, 12:42 AM

Would be horrible to live life without arms, really. No one should be denied arms. :(
That's why one of my characters is a druid. I have the right to bear arms!

Suicidal Zebra

13-08-2005, 12:49 AM

Some fantastic images here, most showing just why the pro-gun lobby has such a bad reputation:

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/arms/getshotgun0104

EDIT: Changes to link. Image was overly large.

Sage the Mage

13-08-2005, 01:10 AM

In the case of the need to commence an armed revolution against the government in power, do you really need the Consitution to say its ok? Or are you stockpiling "just in case?"

Dementor

13-08-2005, 01:14 AM

We all heard the phrase "Guns don't kill people. People, kill people." What's a gun for, might I ask? So you join NRA, you have access to all kinds of weaponry, many of them powerful rifles. But how much power would you *really* need, to drop a deer?

The second amendment is NOT to protect hunters. This is a common, but very ignorant mistake.

*Right* to bear arms? This is sooo about fear. What is everyone so scared of, that they feel they need to tote a rifle by their bedside? We're afraid of each other, is that it? We're afraid some robber might break into our house at night and kidnap us. We're afraid of this and that. Afraid of situations which are possible but not probable.

Probability? Look to history. Governments, no matter how good, pure, and democratic they are for a few centuries, go bad. They opress their people, at which time the people need to fight back. The second amendment exists so we can rebel against our own govenrment when the need arises. So say the need will not arrise is turning a blind eye to the vast majority of human history.

OK how about I go and register for the NRA, but i insist on buying a Sniper Rifle. I wanna kill the SOB before he ever saw it coming.

During an armed conflict between yourself and you corrupt and tyranical government, they sill surely use Sniper Rifles against you. Keeping you from buying a sniper rifle would be a clear violation of the second amendment.

Here in Canada near everyone I know does not have a gun. We don't need one. I don't want to feel afraid to disagree with someone, for fear that they might point a handgun at my face and tell me to take back what I said. You need protection? Why not just learn Kung fu or something? Learn to fight with your words, and then *only if necessary*, with your fists. Why would you need to wield the power to end a life instantaneously, or at the very least confine the person to the rest of his life in a wheelchair, because the bullet you fired went through his spine?

If under assault by the military, "kung fu" and "your words" will do you very little good.

Sage the Mage

13-08-2005, 01:26 AM

Probability? Look to history. Governments, no matter how good, pure, and democratic they are for a few centuries, go bad. They opress their people, at which time the people need to fight back. The second amendment exists so we can rebel against our own govenrment when the need arises. So say the need will not arrise is turning a blind eye to the vast majority of human history.

Someone needs to provide a few examples.

Dementor

13-08-2005, 01:29 AM

Some fantastic images here, most showing just why the pro-gun lobby has such a bad reputation:

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/arms/getshotgun0104

EDIT: Changes to link. Image was overly large.

Some of these were kind of silly ("Are anti-gun politicians xenomorphs?") but I didn't see anything in here that was really offensive in anyway.

Dementor

13-08-2005, 01:40 AM

Someone needs to provide a few examples.

Of democracies that devolved into tyrrany? You serious?

Rome? It was a great republic for a while. Then the military took control, and some punk General named Caesar decided it would be a great to be Emperor...

Germany? It had a democratic election where they voted this dude named Hitler into office, then he liked it there so much he decided to stay... I bet millions of jews and other groups had wished he let them keep their guns...

France? They had a good revolution that turned bad real fast, then Napoleon came in to power.

Iraq? They had free elections before the Baath party came into power.

Russia? They were all for communism at first, but Stalin's version was a bit harsh...

I can't believe you were serious about this... can you think of ONE country on EARTH that hasn't been through a bloody revolution at some point in history?

PlagueBearer

13-08-2005, 01:51 AM

In the case of the need to commence an armed revolution against the government in power, do you really need the Consitution to say its ok? Or are you stockpiling "just in case?"

In case of the need to speak out against the government in power, do you really need the Constitution to say its okay? Or are you complaining "just in case?"

When different rights are infringed in a free society, the population will respond differently. We know how people react when their right to free speech is infringed: they protest, "assembling peaceably". The thing is, gun owners aren't joking when they talk about "cold, dead fingers".
Someone needs to provide a few examples.

Are you kidding me? You need examples of governments so corrupt that armed rebellion is the people's only legitimate option? Dementor already said it: the vast majority of human history. It's part of the course of human events. Governments, even those established by the consent of the governed, become destructive to the rights of the same; and in such a case the people have the right to alter or abolish it, and institute new government to protect their safety and happiness.

The govenment can and will become the enemy if you give it half a chance.

The Eggman

13-08-2005, 01:51 AM

Armed revolutions wouldnt exactly be exactly that hard of an endevour. All you need is an ally in the chain of command to stage a proper coup. perhaps a few generals. I simply cant imagine when a WHOLE government is against the citizenry, thats too much. That's why the second ammendment is so important, you truly wouldnt face the ENTIRE military. That's unlikely, hooray for the second ammendment. Also to Sage the Mage, think before you speak. I doubt you are a stupid person but that post makes you look retarded.

Sage the Mage

13-08-2005, 02:12 AM

Of democracies that devolved into tyrrany? You serious?
Yep, democracies.

Rome? It was a great republic for a while. Then the military took control, and some punk General named Caesar decided it would be a great to be Emperor...
Rome was never a democracy. Minus being stabbed, Caesar was pretty popular as well, as his successor.

Germany? It had a democratic election where they voted this dude named Hitler into office, then he liked it there so much he decided to stay... I bet millions of jews and other groups had wished he let them keep their guns...
A popular revolution. Do we call the republic before it happened a democracy? Weren't the conservatives still in power?

France? They had a good revolution that turned bad real fast, then Napoleon came in to power.
Again, a popular figure. So popular, in fact, he came to power twice. France also wasn't technically a democracy.

Iraq? They had free elections before the Baath party came into power.
Well since I'm not exactly the most knowing on Iraq's political situation
Modern Iraq became a British mandate (the British League of Nations Trust Territory of Iraq) at the end of World War I and was granted independence from British control in 1932. It was formed out of three former Ottoman Willayats (regions): Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. The British installed Hashemite monarchy lasted until 1958, when it was overthrown through a coup détat by the Iraqi army, known as the 14 July Revolution. It brought Brigadier General Abdul Karim Qassim's leftist government to power (which withdrew from the Baghdad Pact and established friendly relations with the Soviet Union), from 1958 till 1963, when he was overthrown by Colonel Abdul Salam Arif. In 1968, Salam Arif's brother (who assumed the presidency following Salam Arif's death), Abdul Rahman Arif, was overthrown by the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party. The Ba'ath's key figure became Saddam Hussein who acceded to the presidency and control of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), Iraq's supreme executive decision making body, in July 1979, killing off many of his opponents in the process. Saddam's absolute and particularly bloody rule lasted throughout the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988), which ended in stalemate; the al-Anfal campaign of the late 1980s, which led to the alleged gassing of thousands of Kurds in northern Iraq; Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 resulting in the Gulf War; and the United Nations-imposed economic sanctions and no-fly zones which followed. The American-led 2003 invasion of Iraq removed Saddam Hussein's Government from power, replacing it with an interim American-backed Provisional Authority, and then an interim government. On January 30, 2005, Iraq held new legislative elections, changing the political face of Iraq, which had been mostly dominated by its Sunni minority since its foundation. A coalition of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'ites came to power. The current situation remains volatile while the new government attempts to re-establish security in the country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq
Really doesn't seem like it was a democracy to me either.

Russia? They were all for communism at first, but Stalin's version was a bit harsh...
Popular revolution. Minus the 20 million or so killed, I'd say many people liked Stalin. Couldn't say that Russia was a democracy either.

The Eggman

13-08-2005, 02:21 AM

Many good points, yet Stalin is a different story, with his rule being for so long, and the sheer fact that he turned himself into a living god, propaganda surely is why he was so loved. a few generations grew up with stalin as the only ruler they knew, and therefore bought into many of his ideas. Stalin is the 20th century's most ruthless person IMHO. However I digress. I guess there may not be many examples of a democracy turning to tyranny, however it happens too often in history to think it WONT happen to a democratic society. :thumbsup:

PlagueBearer

13-08-2005, 02:36 AM

Yep, democracies. Rome was never a democracy. Minus being stabbed, Caesar was pretty popular as well, as his successor. A popular revolution. Do we call the republic before it happened a democracy? Weren't the conservatives still in power? Again, a popular figure. So popular, in fact, he came to power twice. France also wasn't technically a democracy.

Wait -- these cases don't count, because the tyranny and corruption was had at the behest of the majority? If an oppressive dictator is "popular", he's fine by you?

On the one hand you claim that the cases aren't democracies, and on the other you claim that the oppressive regime was ushered in by the majority. Which is it?

And how does that fit into our gun control debate? Are you trying to say that our political system is so flawless that it could never devolve into tyranny -- and that we should therefore disarm our populace?

Freemason

13-08-2005, 02:38 AM

Congress recently released a finding that the 2nd amendment isn't just militias. It's everybody. Look it up. I'd like to but the Vicadin is starting to make me loopy.

Suicidal Zebra

13-08-2005, 02:54 AM

The problem with a democracy is that in all likelihood a tyranny will have significant popular support, purely by virtue of the 'vote him in' requirement. In such a situation any civil uprising against the ruling person or group would likely by faced by a counter-revolution in support of the those in tyrranous government.

And then there is the issue of determining what tyranny actually is in a nation that holds any sort of extremist views or reactionary politics. Many people seem to think that tyranny is this black and white concept but in reality it isn't and it's very nature leads to a difficulty in assessing just how effective an armed uprising would be.

My point is two-fold:

1) As in Nazi Germany a dictator may have such a cult of the personality that the population at large do not see those in power as tyrranical, but rather doing things for the good of the nation/people/race. Would one million armed Jews be able to counter 10 million armed non-Jewish Germans?

2) Armed uprisings are fickle things that more than potentially may be countered by counter-revolutionary practices. They required a clear and sizeable majority of the armed populace to agree that the government really is that bad, and I just don't see that happening whilst even the semblance of a democratic process remains in place. Beyond that, trained military would tip be balance, whichever side they fall on.

It is pretty clear to me that a democratic nations best weapon against tyrrany is using your vote intelligently and resisting, using democratic means, the centralisation of power. Hell, the Union movement was pretty successful by creating and supporting political parties for workers rights without armed struggle - in the UK at least - there is no reason why such a movement cannot work a second time by championing the rights of the individual.

To me though the lack protection against government tyranny (that I believe) arming the populace provides does not immediately lead me to the conclusion that guns should be banned. It is clear that the US is not in a state that banning guns would be a good idea, and so to me the best course of action is making sure they are treated safely and with respect so no mistakes are made.

EDIT:

Nerf Vicodin

Sage the Mage

13-08-2005, 06:00 AM

Wait -- these cases don't count, because the tyranny and corruption was had at the behest of the majority? If an oppressive dictator is "popular", he's fine by you?
In the cases given, it wasn't exactly the government imposing their will on the population. In fact, the population supported the governments.

On the one hand you claim that the cases aren't democracies, and on the other you claim that the oppressive regime was ushered in by the majority. Which is it?
A government that's popular with the people need not be a democracy.

And how does that fit into our gun control debate? Are you trying to say that our political system is so flawless that it could never devolve into tyranny -- and that we should therefore disarm our populace?
If the government ever did transform into a tyranny, the population would have already disarmed itself.

Dementor

13-08-2005, 06:35 AM

If the government ever did transform into a tyranny, the population would have already disarmed itself.

And, lo and behold, here you saying "let's disarm!"

Does anyone have any INTELLIEGENT arguments against the right to bear arms?

How about where it stops? Should the people be allowed control over our nuclear arsenal?

How about making sure crazies don't get guns BEFORE they kill?

Come on guys, I'm GIVING these to you! Instead of proclaiming the flawless immortality of our democracy by rewriting history and writing it off as totally irrelevant to our situation, try some, you know, GOOD arguments.

Stoutwood

13-08-2005, 08:35 AM

Shnookems

13-08-2005, 09:35 AM

One cannot dispute that historically the general populace, when armed, organized, and dedicated, can take on a powerful government and succeed (the American and French Revolutions are two popular examples). History has also shown us how easily a populace can be lead willingly into a dictatorship by a popular and charismatic leader (Caesar, Napoleon, and Hitler are popular choices here). Recent history however has shown us time and again that armed revolution is no longer an effective way to challenge a powerful and oppressive state. Violent revolutionaries are easily passed off to the public as “insurgents”, “separatists”, or the current favorite “terrorists”. The Chechyan Rebels are an excellent example. While they have a legitimate claim to independence, their tactics have allowed the Russians to portray them as terrorists, making it difficult for any foreign government to recognize their claim or aid them overtly. The Basques in Spain are another example. Since World War II we have been shown that non-violence is the way to challenge an established power, given the resources and technological advantage of such states in any armed conflict. Gandhi used non-violence to get the British out of India after numerous rebel groups had tried and failed. Martin Luther King Jr did more for Civil Rights in the United States than the Black Panthers could ever have hoped of achieving. Solidarity freed Poland. Years of violence in South Africa were ignored by the world, but Nelson Mandela captured global attention, and with it the political pressure that eventually put an end to Apartheid without firing a single shot. The fall of the Soviet Union was caused by social and economic pressure, not armed revolution. Communication has become the key component of change, putting a premium on free speech and press. Guns aren’t the answer to a corrupt government anymore, words are. A militia won’t defeat a powerful state, but an idea can. The Second Amendment as it was intended is about as useful as a surfboard in the Gobi Desert.
Meanwhile gun violence is at an all time high in this country. It’s not just criminals holding up convenience stores or gang members in turf wars. Kids are walking into schools and killing classmates. Employees are going to work and killing coworkers. Guns aren’t used to protect civil liberties anymore; they’re used to settle arguments. Banning guns isn’t the answer, controlling them is. Military firearms shouldn’t be accessible to civilians. John Q. Public doesn’t need an AK-47 to protect himself from bears while camping (unless the bears have some coordinated offensive planned we don’t know about), and it wont be of much use against the military if the government (see Waco, Texas, Ruby Ridge, Idaho, or Jordan, Montana). Handguns and other non-military firearms should be registered so that the government can identify those responsible for gun violence, instead of wildly accusing gun owners in general or the firearms themselves. Above all, education is essential. People need to know how to handle firearms safely and responsibly. Firearms safety training should be a prerequisite to gun ownership much like drivers education is a prerequisite to getting your driving license. Will this end gun violence? No, but it’ll help.
And no offense Dementor, but if you're looking for intelligent arguments, ‘we need guns to protect ourselves from the government’ is about as intelligent an argument as ‘we need Captain Crunch to protect us from Count Chocula’. The Second Amendment is antiquated. We absolutely should be able to own guns, but it’s about personal property and the pursuit of happiness, not fighting off an oppressive monarch (IN YOUR FACE GEROGE III).
:happy34:

edit: Having spoken my peace, I leave this thread to the rest of the community.

Sage the Mage

13-08-2005, 06:37 PM

So, my question is, why are all of the other rights granted in the Constitution so much more valuble than the right to bear arms? It certainly can't be because that one is capable of helping criminals, since the Frouth Amendment probably helps criminals more than any right in the Constitution. So could it be, that the only people that feel like voting it away won't be affected by it in any way, shape, or form? Quit trying to pass laws that only apply to other people and quit trying to make my hobbies illegal.Well, for the first amendment at least, its required for any goverment with rule by the people. Can't really debate all that effectively without it.

Come on guys, I'm GIVING these to you! Instead of proclaiming the flawless immortality of our democracy by rewriting history and writing it off as totally irrelevant to our situation, try some, you know, GOOD arguments.Please then, correct me.

Dementor

14-08-2005, 03:08 AM

Sage, dude leave your side of the argument to people like Shnookems. You're just making your whole side of the aisle look dumb.

To Shnookems: You are absolulty correct, armed revolutions have become less useful in the modern era, but they are not useless. The Palestinian Rebels, though marked as terrorists they are, have gained more for the rights of their people than they would have been able to by peaceful means. The Irish Rebellion has been able to secure themselves a compromise in rule of Northern Ireland. Granted, both of these revolutions had a strong political message to back up their military power, but an armed rebellion was ESSENTIAL to their success.

A good example of a successful modern armed insugency? Look to Iraq. They haven't won anything (due to their detatchment from the political process) but they are certainly effective, and against the most powerful military in the world.

History's rule, as far as I can see: An Armed Rebellion, backed by a strong political mesage, stands a good chance of making headway, but either by themselves is unlikely to have success.

Ghandi's revolution was a notable exception to this, but even it was preceded by armed rebellion. Had the armed rebellions not occured, who is to say where his non-violent revolution would have taken him. Not to mention the unique situation of the Brittish control of India; they were there for resources. Without the people willing to harvest the resources of India for the Brittish, it was simply no longer profitable to remain in occupation. This situation had more in common with a labor strike than a true rebellion, and cannot be held up as a typical example of an anti-government uprising.

Nelson Mandela was simply one face of the South African rebellion, the riots his imprisonment created were just as imporant for his cause.

A revolution needs both might AND right to be sucesssful.

Sage the Mage

14-08-2005, 03:28 AM

Sage, dude leave your side of the argument to people like Shnookems. You're just making your whole side of the aisle look dumb.
Please skip the insults and correct me then.

Dementor

14-08-2005, 05:40 AM

Please skip the insults and correct me then.

What would you like me to correct you on? The idea that history is irrelevant to our situation? The idea that somehow, because our situation is not EXACTLY like the situation of past failed governments, that our system is somehow immortal? You HAVE to see how innane your arguments are.

Now, Schnookems, he made some very valid points, and backed them up with some very good examples which illustrate his point. I happen to disagree with his analysis on several points, but the fact is he made a very intelligent rebuttal.

You, not so much. Here's a challenge for you: show me any country, any society, any landmass that hasn't had a revolution, civil war, or period of anarchy. Show me any single society that's managed to survive 500 years without a major social upheaval.

I'm all for intelligent discussion, but proclaiming our system immortal is just stupid.

Suicidal Zebra

14-08-2005, 06:05 AM

Dementor, I think all he's asking for is an example or two of democratic nations (i.e. one with near-enough universal sufferage) devolving into tyranny and then that tyranny being overthrown by a popular (non-democratic) revolution. He's not anywhere assuming that they wouldn't devolve into tyranny, but rather whether that tyranny might not 'tyranny of the majority over the minority'. And if that were the case, would an attempted violent overthrow work, or would a gradual pull back to democracy over time be more likely (especially through economic pressures and other external factors).

India and Palestine dont really fit (no universal sufferage, all you're essentially proving here is that at some point tyranny has been overthrown), and I have other reservations about your Ireland example (not least of which is the help from a foreign power).

HR_Hellfire

14-08-2005, 08:43 PM

I live in Canada, here you do not have the *right* to bear arms, you just can. Lately guns have become a problem showing up in gangs and guess where those guns come from? The major contributors are America at about 50% and lazy home owners who can't be botherd to lock up their guns at roughly 30%. Now Americans may say 'what do we care?' well you see the guns coming over border are being traded for Canada grade drugs.. mainly Mary-Jane I'd guess. Seeing as how the DEA is paid for with tax dollars and lack of gun control is putting stress on the system it begs to reason that it directly affects every American. I'm not saying the right to bear arms should be contested.. god knows I'll buy one some day. I'm just saying that rules should be placed upon said right. Locking up guns, maybe rules, training and psychological evaluations for certain grades of fire arm like automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Just a thought but the right to bear arms isn't really effective when anyone can have them. Responsible people will hesitate to use them against other people and the rest will use them in excess as I'm sure many are already aware (turn on news channel for major city and see what I mean).

Stoutwood

14-08-2005, 10:04 PM

Lord save me from groups like the NRA and people with bumper stickers like "Gun Control is a steady hand!" Those idiots will get guns outlawed faster than any of the groups that are actually against them.

Kosmo

15-08-2005, 01:38 PM

1. If in my country (Romania) you would be alloud to have guns freely I'll have some holes in my skin already. Our police will chase you if you have an illegal fire weapon like for murder. If you want to buy a hunting weapon you have to have a hunters licence and for a hand gun you must meet some special criteria like handeling large amounts of money. The weapons will have to be numbered and their marks on the bullets registred. There is little violence on the streets and almost no use of guns for violent acts. If there is a violent injury or death it will be made with knife, axe, club, etc, usually while drunk.
When people fight on close quaters it is harder to kill because pity or the surrender of the opponent when is overpowered. The deadly ranged weapons greatly increase the casualty number in case of conflict. If two fight with clubs one will be injured if they don't stop before that and that will be the end of it, because it is very hard and dirty to clubb someone to death. If they fight with guns one will die in seconds because it is very easy to pull the trigger.
So for the safety of people against crime it is better not to have guns freely around.

2. Your main argument is that you need weapons to fight an eventual tyrany.
In modern days individual weapons, even miltary ones, are no match to the firepower, armor and skill of a professional army like US Army.
It is even more difficult to imagine that US will become a dictatorship and that dictator will send the army and/or National Guard to quel the opponents.
I cannot imagine the man and women of US Army using fire power against US civilians.
As a romanian from the capitol Bucharest I was a witness to the Romanian Revolution in december 1989 that toplled the dictator Ceausescu.
When large protests started all over the country in 21 of december Ceausescu order the Army, police and special units to end the protests in the central square. Those who refused to stop their protest were fired at during the night and some were killed some injured and others arrested.
In the morning almost all people joined the protest. As one column of protesters was marching on the boulevard in front of my house an army unit made a line in front of them with armored infantry carriers and foot soldiers while an assault helicopter was above them.
The people did not stop and the unit fired a volley of blanks at the crowd. When the officers realized that they can not stop the crowd they turned their unit around and went back to the base.
A couple of hours laters the army had joined the revolution and Ceausescu was runing for his life.
It is difficult to fire at a mass protest and no one will do that when he knows his family and friends might be there. It was a big chance that the soldiers fire at the officers if they ordered live ammunition.
If this happened in Romania after 50 years of brainwashing dictatorship with a communist army of the Warshow Treaty I believe that you should not be worry about the US Army bombing your suburb.

3. The examples of democracy ended by a dictator are incorect.
Rome was a republic, not a democracy. Only the rich were senators and they were not ellected. You can not compare a political sistem of the first century BC with that of today US. And by the way thay had weapons to fight Caesar and they used them in a long and bloody civil war.
A civil war was fought before Lenin could become Russia's dictator and Stalin just succeded him in the job. And before Lenin Russia was not a democracy, but an absolut monarchy (forget about Kerensky).
Hitler was elected as Germany prime minister and he was so popular that his opponents (jews, communists, catholics etc) could not dream to rebel against him. Most germans believed in him and they fought bravely to the bitter end. Germany surrendered some 10 days after his death. Not even the army could stop him despite the fact they tried many times to get rid of him.
Before Hitler came to power there was an attempt of coup in Germany by general Kapp and a cavalry division. As the elected goverment fled a general strike was called and the coup failed.
France was no democracy before Napoleon and the french had weapons.
Iraq was never a democracy and will not be a democracy in the predictable future.

4.Dementor you should have chosen better.
The history is full of exemples of legal goverments overthrown by the military. Like the 1954 CIA coup against the legal goverment of Costa Rica.
The Mossadegh affair so nicely solved by Kermit Rossvelt in Iran.
Or the nice overthrow of Allende by gen. Pinochet and ...I let you guess.
Well, the ukrainian orange "revolution" it's kind of disapointing, Milosevic and Shevardnatze were not really elected so let's go to Central Asia!

Dementor

15-08-2005, 10:43 PM

3. The examples of democracy ended by a dictator are incorect.
Rome was a republic, not a democracy.

Actually, the United States is also a Republic.

Only the rich were senators...

Same as here.

and they were not ellected.

Well, we get to pick from two choices... does that count?

You can not compare a political sistem of the first century BC with that of today US.

I disagree, you certainly can compare the two.

I had a worry during the 2004 election: the scenario is this. We get a simmilar situation as occured in 2001, with one state deciding the electoral vote and a different winner with each recount, and unclear rules on what do do.

Reinquist dies before the supreme court can make a decision, and the court is locked 3/3 on who wins. Bush's nominee is naturally filabustered, so no decision can be made. With no legal way to solve the matter, Bush simply decides he'll stay in office for another four years.

Protests turn to riots on Pennsylvania Avenue, and the national gaurd steps in and there are casualties. Riots begin to break out all over the US, and the National Gaurd turns to restricting the right to assembly. Cerfews are established. Riots breaking out on campuses get more and more violent, until some University is actually taken over and held by a protest group: the rebellion is under way.

All this was well within the scope of possibility; the election was sure as hell going to be close (thank god it wasn't as close as 2000) and Reinquist will not be around much longer... and those two things happening at one would be all that it would take.

So don't feel so secure, we were just VERY close to a second American Civil War.

Sage the Mage

16-08-2005, 05:05 AM

I really can't see how such a scenario could have possibly happened, its too big of a "What if?"

On a side note, the Bush admin did look into delaying elections in case of a terrorist attack.

Stoutwood

16-08-2005, 06:04 AM

I agree. I find the "gov't is out to get me" approach to be rather weak. Please abandon it before you make me consider gun control.

Kosmo

16-08-2005, 03:24 PM

With no legal way to solve the matter, Bush simply decides he'll stay in office for another four years.
...
So don't feel so secure, we were just VERY close to a second American Civil War.

What about the Supreme Court and Congress? Do you think that a party will ever agree that their nominee becomes president without wining the elections? Does the president of US has the constitutional power to decide he'll stay in office?
There are a lot of solutions to that weird case like having another erection.
When the result of election was in doubt in 2001 the candidate that held public power as vicepresident gave up, not call for the national guard.

SaroDarksbane

16-08-2005, 03:42 PM

There are a lot of solutions to that weird case like having another erection.
You mean allowing Bill Clinton to sit in as president while it's figured out?

:D

rutty

16-08-2005, 04:38 PM

The biggest problem you have in the States is that any idiot can have a gun, whether he's capable of handling it or storing it safely or not. I read a statistic somewhere that there was a day in August 2004 that was the first day in FIVE YEARS that the were NO DEATHS from gunfire in Chicago. That is an insane statistic. You need to have some control on who can have a gun.

Some supporting evidence:

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

From there:

[QUOTE]FACT: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

* 373 people in Germany
* 151 people in Canada
* 57 people in Australia
* 19 people in Japan
* 54 people in England and Wales, and
* 11,789 people in the United States

(*Please note that these 1998 numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise and even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings).
- Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence/QUOTE]

Whether you like it or not, your right to bear arms is a root cause of this. You have too many idiots with too many guns.

Sage the Mage

16-08-2005, 06:16 PM

- Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Do you have another source for this?

SaroDarksbane

16-08-2005, 06:46 PM

The biggest problem you have in the States is that any idiot can have a gun, whether he's capable of handling it or storing it safely or not. I read a statistic somewhere that there was a day in August 2004 that was the first day in FIVE YEARS that the were NO DEATHS from gunfire in Chicago. That is an insane statistic. You need to have some control on who can have a gun.

Some supporting evidence:

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

From there:

FACT: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

* 373 people in Germany
* 151 people in Canada
* 57 people in Australia
* 19 people in Japan
* 54 people in England and Wales, and
* 11,789 people in the United States

(*Please note that these 1998 numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise and even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings).
- Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Whether you like it or not, your right to bear arms is a root cause of this. You have too many idiots with too many guns.
1. Account for population differences.
2. What is considered a "homicide"? Does a police officer killing a person count?
3. What about nations with no guns, but with say, machetes? In other words, how does being killed by other means relate to these stats. If Great Britain banned handguns, and handgun related deaths went down, but muggings went up, and other weapon (not a gun) related deaths went up, does the gun control policy make sense?

rutty

16-08-2005, 08:08 PM

1. Account for population differences.
2. What is considered a "homicide"? Does a police officer killing a person count?
3. What about nations with no guns, but with say, machetes? In other words, how does being killed by other means relate to these stats. If Great Britain banned handguns, and handgun related deaths went down, but muggings went up, and other weapon (not a gun) related deaths went up, does the gun control policy make sense?

I think you're missing the point. The numbers speak for themselves. The USA has an INSANE number of gun deaths every year, even on a per-capita basis. You can work out how many total gun deaths there were from the following site:

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

In 2002 there were 30,242 gun deaths in the USA, of which 11,829 were considered "homicide" (only 300 "legal intervention"). Your lack of gun control is surely a contributing factor considering how much the per-capita deaths by firearms rates are in countries with at least some gun restriction.

I'll compare to the UK:

http://www.connected.gov.uk/facts/statistics/

81 homicides by firearms in 2002/2003 (I'm assuming a 12-month period here). There are about 60 million people in the UK and about 300 million in the USA, so multiply that by five to compare per-capita, making 405.

You have nearly 30 times more murders per-capita by firearms than we do. Congratulations!

And so that we can see if we are suffering as a consequence of not being tooled up, let's see if the UK if the general populace is living in fear from violent crime. Let's start with total murders:

17,638 total "homicides" in the USA (from the same site as before, but selecting "all injury types")
1.043 in the UK x 5 = 5215. Same period. Data from: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimeew0405.html

It would appear that you 3 times as many total murders as we do, per capita. Congratulations! We obviously use sticks or something more primative.

I really have to do some work otherwise I'd pick out some "violent crime" statistics and see how that works out. I fail to see how owning a gun is benefitting the average man on the street. Protection against rogue governments? Well, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you ;)

SaroDarksbane

16-08-2005, 08:25 PM

I think you're missing the point. The numbers speak for themselves.
Um, no they don't. Statistics never speak for themselves. They speak for whoever wants them to speak, and say whatever people want them to say. That's why you ask questions about them.

If I say "2978982 children were killed by firearms last year", you should immediately ask the following:
1. Where did this number come from? The government? The NRA? It matters.
2. What is a "child"? Anyone under 5? 10? 18? 21?
3. Does it include deaths due to police intervention?
4. What is a "firearm"? Rifles, handguns, both?
5. If the stat is used as an advocate against gun control, how many guns in that statistic were already illegal to own under current laws? I.e. Uzis, etc.
6. If the stat is used as an advocate against gun control, how many of those deaths were attributed to someone for whom it was already illegal to own a gun?

See the problem? Just a quote of stats says nothing unless you know all the factors that went into it.
The USA has an INSANE number of gun deaths every year, even on a per-capita basis.
Alright, I'll accept that. Now prove more gun control would help.
You have nearly 30 times more murders per-capita by firearms than we do. Congratulations!
Here's an example with some made up stats thrown in, just to show the logical problem with your view:

Start:
The USA has 10 homicides per 1000 people every year (9 are from handguns).
The UK has 2 homicides per 1000 people every year (1 is from handguns).

Change:
The UK bans guns.

End Result:
The UK now has 3 homicides per 1000 people every year (0 are from handguns).

Now, did handgun restrictions help the UK? According to your logic, the fact that the US homicide rate is still triple the UK rate means that it did. To say that the handgun ban had a positive effect, you can't compare apples and oranges. You have to compare before and after. What was the homicde rate in the UK just before the ban, and what is it now. If the homicide rate has changed, you can present a logical hypothesis about the effect of the ban.

EDIT:

For instance, look at this view:
Link (http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml)
In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

RE-EDIT:
Even better are the stories of how carry a weapon is a serious offense:
• In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.

• In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.

• In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.

• In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted £5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.

rutty

16-08-2005, 08:46 PM

The number of deaths by firearms in the USA clearly shows that you have a problem. Times have changed since you gained your right to bear arms, and yet you cling to it. What/who are you afraid of?

Using weapons like that for fun/sport/farming is fine. I've had plenty of rifles in my time - I served 12 years in the military. It's a real buzz firing one off at the range. Hunting? Don't care for it myself, but you have plenty of wilderness and wild animals - go for it.

Allowing just about anybody have a gun? Idiocy. Surely you have to understand that many people are far too irresponsible to be allowed to own or have access to one of these things? Surely it's not going too far against your precious constitution to insist on licensing and safe storage? Insist on training and responsible usage?

I understand your point, but what would you suggest is the answer to your problem?

*edit* OK, I see you've added to it. Let me see....

From your source:

Historically, America has had a high homicide rate and England a low one. In a comparison of New York and London over a 200-year period, during most of which both populations had unrestricted access to firearms, historian Eric Monkkonen found New York’s homicide rate consistently about five times London’s. Monkkonen pointed out that even without guns, "the United States would still be out of step, just as it has been for two hundred years."

Well, looks like you're screwed one way or another. ;)

It's funny, comparisons between New York and London. I visited NY a few years ago and felt as safe as I've ever been (without having a gun, natch) anywhere. Whereas, London not so much. Fair enough, all countries have crime problems, but I maintain that the US as a whole has this gun culture that scares the crap out of me.

It is good to see that on the whole the USA seems to be improving with some of your problems:

Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America’s has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was "in startling free-fall." We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.

You still have 3.5 times the murder rates that we do though. What are you going to do about that?

If you check the statistics for the last few years, the government would argue that violent crime has levelled out or even fallen in the UK.

SaroDarksbane

16-08-2005, 08:51 PM

The number of deaths by firearms in the USA clearly shows that you have a problem.
Granted.
Times have changed since you gained your right to bear arms, and yet you cling to it. What/who are you afraid of?
Becoming like the UK? Being arrested for detaining a robber with a toy gun?
Allowing just about anybody have a gun? Idiocy.
Convicted felons can't own guns. If you use a gun improperly, you lose that right to own one. But no, we don't pre-emptively remove people's rights.
Surely you have to understand that many people are far too irresponsible to be allowed to own or have access to one of these things? Surely it's not going too far against your precious constitution to insist on licensing and safe storage? Insist on training and responsible usage?
Registration has a long history of leading to confiscation by authorities. I approve of handgun safety being taught to children, but don't ask me to put my name on a list so the government knows who to track down (and before you ask, yes, it has happened before in the US.)
I understand your point, but what would you suggest is the answer to your problem?
The US culture glorifies violence. Banning guns only lessens the deterrent to commit violence, it doesn't actually change anything.
You still have 3.5 times the murder rates that we do though. What are you going to do about that?
I don't know, but if we know:

US crime is falling while UK crime is rising.
US has guns while the UK doesn't.

Can we conclude gun control would help?

Dementor

16-08-2005, 09:32 PM

I really can't see how such a scenario could have possibly happened, its too big of a "What if?"

This required two uncertaintys:

A too-close to call election in 2004, an event which was fairly likely to occur.

Reinquit's death, something that could happen at any moment.

What about the Supreme Court and Congress?

The supreme court, minus Reinquist, would be deadlocked 3/3 on this issue. O'Connor might have broken ranks and sided with Kerry just to keep the peace, but I doubt it.

Do you think that a party will ever agree that their nominee becomes president without wining the elections?

Both claimed their candiade won the 200 elections, though neither really "won." Our electoral process is quite flawed.

Does the president of US has the constitutional power to decide he'll stay in office?

With no clear winner in the election, and no Supreme Court ruling in favor of one candidate, and a near 50/50 Congress using the stalling tactics which have become cannon for them so they can prevent any new legislation which would benefit either party? There isn't any precedent for this situation, and with every branch of government deadlocked, there isn't a contingency for this kind of situation.

There are a lot of solutions to that weird case like having another e[l]ection.

This was one of the issues brought up in 2000; there CANT be another election.

When the result of election was in doubt in 2001 the candidate that held public power as vicepresident gave up, not call for the national guard.

Couple of differences. One, he had the Supreme Court rule against him, I doubt he'd have given up otherwise. Also, he was not currently a sitting Commander in Chief. Though he was Vice President, there is a world of difference between presiding over the Senate and commanding the armed forces in light of a conflict of this magnitude.

rutty

16-08-2005, 09:58 PM

I don't know, but if we know:

US crime is falling while UK crime is rising.
US has guns while the UK doesn't.

Can we conclude gun control would help?

That depends on who's figures you believe. Recent figures have suggested that crime isn't rising in the UK on the whole. Some crime is going up, some is going down. It's pretty steady on the whole. I would concede we did have a problem in the 90s - let's blame Thatcher for that eh? ;)

Some stats would suggest that violent crime is down 43% since 1995: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4702821.stm
Some stats would suggest that violent offences are up 8% since last year: er, same source.

Some interesting stats on crime:

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Crime

Assaults per captita: http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cri_ass_cap&int=-1

Not too dissimilar between us

Burglaries oer capita: http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cri_bur_cap&int=-1

Aussies come out on top! Looks like having a gun stuffed under your pillow may help you here, but I'd prefer to be have a low chance of getting shot in the face thanks:

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap&int=-1

The US stats are bad, but nowhere near as bad as in South Africa ;)

I suppose I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with all this. It's difficult to provide any concrete evidence that the USA would benefit one way or the other from restricting access to handguns. The UK has never had a particularly big gun-culture, so we're generally happy with the restrictions, whereas you all seem to think that you need one just in case. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

SaroDarksbane

16-08-2005, 10:14 PM

That depends on who's figures you believe.
So the numbers don't speak for themselves? ^_^
Aussies come out on top! Looks like having a gun stuffed under your pillow may help you here, but I'd prefer to be have a low chance of getting shot in the face thanks:
Between being shot in the face and being stabbed in the face, such that the resulting damage resulted in me dying, I'd have to say it was a toss up. However, should I survive in either case, I would rather not go to jail because I wonked my attacker on the head with a lead pipe in self-defense. The whole, "If someone is coming to kill you, just let it happen. The police have the obligation to protect people, not the individual, so just let them do it. I'm sure they'll catch whoever it was that killed you." idea is small consolation to me, I'm afraid.
I suppose I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with all this. It's difficult to provide any concrete evidence that the USA would benefit one way or the other from restricting access to handguns. The UK has never had a particularly big gun-culture, so we're generally happy with the restrictions, whereas you all seem to think that you need one just in case. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
That's all I ask. You live in your society, we'll live in ours. Whose society is more civilized is up to interpretation. =)

And thanks for a reasonable and calm debate. Gun debates can get crazy. o_O

rutty

16-08-2005, 10:44 PM

And thanks for a reasonable and calm debate. Gun debates can get crazy. o_O

Hey, you're welcome. I just didn't want you to come over here and shoot me! ;p

Seriously, I'm glad we don't have that gun culture over here. Sure, we have our problems, as do everyone, but getting shot isn't particularly high up on the percentages.

Oddly, you taken one news story about an absurdity of our justice system (regarding the toy gun thing) but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have to look very hard to find something similar from over there. What about something from that lovely "three strikes and you're out" farce? I remember someone getting a life sentence for stealing pizza or something. Perhaps you have falling crime in the states because almost everyone is in prison? http://www.thehoya.com/viewpoint/040502/view2.cfm

The thing with the toy gun: yes, the system is screwed here. I think I should be able to brain any burgler that comes in my house with my cricket bat but the government seem to insist that I just tell them to go away while handing them my car keys. That isn't much of an argument as to why you shouldn't have handguns - maybe you should all have cricket bats instead? :D

Sage the Mage

16-08-2005, 10:52 PM

Oddly, you taken one news story about an absurdity of our justice system (regarding the toy gun thing) but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have to look very hard to find something similar from over there.
I know schools that expell/bring in police for bringing in a toy gun at least.

SaroDarksbane

16-08-2005, 11:41 PM

Hey, you're welcome. I just didn't want you to come over here and shoot me! ;p
I don't actually own a gun right now. Haven't lived anywhere I felt the need for one yet.
Seriously, I'm glad we don't have that gun culture over here. Sure, we have our problems, as do everyone, but getting shot isn't particularly high up on the percentages.
It's not the gun culture, it's the violence culture. If no one in the US had a gun, but your chances of being knived for your wallet were 50/50, would that be okay?

But seriously, there's a only been a couple of times where I felt edgy about the area I was in, and they were mostly places I delievered pizza to (i.e. didn't have much of a choice of visiting or not).
Oddly, you taken one news story about an absurdity of our justice system (regarding the toy gun thing) but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have to look very hard to find something similar from over there.
It was more about the attitude it represented. Defend yourself, get life in prison. The burglar gets a few months and gets to sue you for emotional damage as an added insult. That's just ****ed up.
That isn't much of an argument as to why you shouldn't have handguns - maybe you should all have cricket bats instead? :D
I'm not gonna be afraid of an old lady with a bat. And old lady with a .38? I'm staying the hell away. Guns are the great equalizer among humans.

rutty

17-08-2005, 12:17 AM

It's not the gun culture, it's the violence culture. If no one in the US had a gun, but your chances of being knived for your wallet were 50/50, would that be okay?

Nope, it would not. I agree, both our countries have a violent culture. Yours seems to want to back it up with Uzis, while we're relatively free from all of that. I'm never in a position here in the UK where I feel threatened or am in danger of a knifing/glassing/beating even when I hit the town.

Having said that, where I'm living now has a bad reputation for gun-related crime (Nottingham) but even that is relatively rare. You don't hear about it every day. You can't say that in Chicago.

Put it this way, I don't feel the need to own a gun, and neither do the majority of Britons.

It was more about the attitude it represented. Defend yourself, get life in prison. The burglar gets a few months and gets to sue you for emotional damage as an added insult. That's just ****ed up.

Yes, that's pretty messed up. I sometimes wonder about the British justice system myself. However, yours doesn't leave me with a much better impression.

I'm not gonna be afraid of an old lady with a bat. And old lady with a .38? I'm staying the hell away. Guns are the great equalizer among humans.

Seen the stats for accidental deaths in the home due to discharge of a firearm? That old lady is probably more likely to shoot herself than a burgler.

I do take your point though.

Volja

17-08-2005, 02:25 AM

Some fantastic images here, most showing just why the pro-gun lobby has such a bad reputation:

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/arms/getshotgun0104

EDIT: Changes to link. Image was overly large.

Are they real advertisements?! They all look like some kind of sick joke too me.

I know im late, haven't read the whole thread and its probably been argued out, but..

I don't argree with owning or bearing arms. The principle of it is good, to protect yourself. But as sad as it is, many people have them for much more horrific reasons. And you can protect yourself without guns. When i think about, i keep my Shinai and Bokton (Swords for a martial art i practice, called Kendo) under my bed. This obviously wont provide protection in the unlikely event somebody breaks into my house and reaches my room without me waking up. Their either going to kill me (if they really wanted too im sure they could even i stopped them once.) Or they are going to steal my stuff. Id rather have my things stolen than shoot somebody.

Perhaps its a matter of pride, of feeling vunreable when faced with a gun or an intruder without arms of your own. I would personally rather swallow my pride and accept it not hurt somebody more than they needed too be to detain them.

Their bad people? They deserve too be hurt? I really think thats a bad mentalitiy too have, revenge gets you nowhere and two wrongs dont make a right and all that.

As for the whole gun culture street crime thing, well i still think we are naturally violent and pre-disposed too be. So murder will happen until we figure a better way to stop it, than police, which is for the most part, responding in kind until detainment can be achieved. So making guns freely available isn't going to help is it?

Also, just because you have a gun doesn't make you immune to all situations and totally invunreable, so its not taking your life into your own hands. Next it will be "the right to bear auto-matic nuclear bomb counter-attack missile devices"

On the other hand i think the law in Britain is far too strict on what we can do to intruders or attackers, its ridicolous and i fail too see the logic behind. Everything seems to be reversing itself in this way, racism, sexism "over-liberation"

Its late, i apologise if i have completely missed the point and i hope you don't mind me adding my thoughts.

Kosmo

17-08-2005, 09:53 AM

First you said "the army is out to get me", now you say "the criminals are out to get me". If you want to have a gun for selfdefense it's fine with me. Just don't let your childrens play with it.

If all criminals in my country would have guns I'll buy a gun even a illegal one and if I had a gun i'll be tempted to use it.

A friend of mine from Turkey, where is illegal to have weapons but everybody has one, told me about "road rage" gunfights. In my trips there I never saw a violent incident but I guess he knows better. In a club in Istanbul and in a mall in Antalya I was as carefully cheked as in an international airport checkpoint.

"if in the first act you see a gun, in the third act it will be used" or something like this.

AgeOfAbnegation

17-08-2005, 09:37 PM

Volja

18-08-2005, 12:58 AM

My position is that any government which prevents people from bearing arms "for their own good", is not a free state. I can kill someone with the pencil sitting a foot from this keyboard if I wished. The problem is culture. No way in hell the government is taking my guns.

I know this is going to sound really close minded now but i cant believe i have been interacting with people who own guns etc.

I guess because its so uncommon for people to admit to owning guns here. I just think its unecessary, and violently vindictive to own a gun. I trust that i will never need it, just like i will never need a tank.

AgeOfAbnegation

18-08-2005, 01:14 AM

Volja

18-08-2005, 01:44 AM

A gun owner could be any person who enjoys hunting or other reasons that can't be linked to human violence. I think the idea of being able to posess a firearm is what's at stake, not the actual ownership thereof. To me, having a government tell me I'm unable to posess a self defence mechanism would be to tell me that the government controlled much more of my life than I'd be comfortable with. The same violence that moves a punk to cap a schoolkid is the same evil that dwells in a velvet dictatorship.

I always thought it was a case of protection. I mean, you by the sounds would be very capable of owning a firearm and not using it unless absoloutely neccessary (whether there is ever such an occassion is debatable but not important in my point here.)

However, their are people who for whatever reason would do stupid things with it. It could be argued if this the case they would do stupid things to themselves or others in other ways, but a gun just makes it so much easier to happen, and so many more oppurtunities for it to happen.

Thier are other self defence mechanisms just none as effective i guess, meh *shrug* i really dont know.

And at the end of the day, nothing i think or say will change anything anyway :P

Stoutwood

18-08-2005, 05:43 AM

I know this is going to sound really close minded now but i cant believe i have been interacting with people who own guns etc.

I guess because its so uncommon for people to admit to owning guns here. I just think its unecessary, and violently vindictive to own a gun. I trust that i will never need it, just like i will never need a tank.

I own several guns. I own them because I enjoy hunting and competition shooting. I am more responsible with them than the authority figures in my own state, who have racked up an impressive tally of accidental shootings in the past year (the most interesting one being an old man who was shot because he was holding a can of Coca-Cola when the police got the wrong address in a no-knock raid). I do not own one because I am afraid of my government, or other human beings. The fact that I own guns does not make me a paranoid militiaman and/or potential mass murderer, and I am very insulted whenever some pantywaist that has never owned or fired a gun decides to restrict my access to them because of that label.

I think that anyone who owns a gun should know how to handle it safely. I would be perfectly fine with making Hunter's Safety mandatory for anyone who wishes to purchase a gun. Since convicted felons aren't allowed to vote, I also see no problem with restricting their access to firearms as well. I don't approve of any other types of control. It's not the government's business how many guns I own, and should the population of gun-haters get large enough to successfully restrict my rights, I will not give them a list of what they can take away. I wouldn't mind losing my newer firearms, but quite a few of my guns are family heirlooms going back as far as 1860.

Kosmo

18-08-2005, 12:06 PM

SaroDarksbane

18-08-2005, 03:39 PM

Self-Defense is "vindictive"? That's an odd view of life.

"He's coming to kill me, should I shoot him?"
"No, don't give into revenge!"

o_O

Stoutwood

18-08-2005, 10:28 PM

I don't know what this thread is about anymore.
Nobody here said that you should not have a gun if you want to Stoutwood. I don't think there is a country in this world where you are not aloud to own hunting or collection guns.

If you want to hunt with an AK-47 or a sniper rifle it will be a problem. In my country just some types of weapons are aloud for hunting. To own one you must have a hunting permit. To get a hunting license you have to go thru some testing about handling of the weapon, hunting rules and fire arm posession rules. You must by a sane person with no criminal record.
Corruption makes it easyer for some.

Well for starters, a "sniper rifle" is a vague term that can mean a multitude of different guns. The vast majority of sniper rifles are bolt-action rifles that are not much different from a hunting rifle. For example, the M40A3 that the Marine Corps uses is simply a customized version of the Remington Model 700, which is the rifle I use. The Army's M21 is a modified M-14, which is basically my grandpa's M1 Garand with a box magazine (by the way, I use box magazines so I can switch to different sorts of loads depending on the size of the animal I find). Making a "sniper rifle" illegal because you saw how much damage they can do in Counter-Strike is not a sane way to go about abolishing rights.

As for my collection guns, I agree that no one would want to declare my antiques before 1898 illegal. As for my great uncle's .45 that he carried in North Africa in WWII or the pocket pistol that one of my great-grandfathers carried when he first came to America, they are indistinguishable from modern semi-automatic handguns, and I imagine jumpy people would be all too happy to relieve me of those. But hey, I'm not willing to register all of my weapons, so I must be planning a mass shooting somewhere.

gmf1

22-08-2005, 01:39 PM

In Australia after a shooting in Hobart we had our gun laws tightened, we are not alowed guns with a magazine capacity of over 8 rounds, no semi auto's, no pistols, and some other stupid stuff (im not sure on that exactly).

The worst part is this guy killed something like 30 people, with a relatively low powered rifle (22 i think dont quote me but) so he had maybe 9 rounds in an extended magazine so he had to reload several times but noone jumped him? WTF. But if someone had a pistol there they would have shot him at his first reload and only 9 people would have died.

Another thing is bad people with always get there hands on guns ALWAYS, so why ban good people from owning weapons to defend themselves and have fun? baning guns only stops bad people making a phone call to there mate in the blackmarket wich costs 20cents over here so whats the point?

Stoutwood

22-08-2005, 04:46 PM

Didn't I hear somewhere that Australia's crime rate actually went up after you tightened down on guns?

D.K.night

22-08-2005, 07:24 PM

I still don't agree with feeling the need to arm yourself "just in case" the government or something decides to go wacko on everyone. Seriously - you really think this is gonna happen? You really have something to fear there? Let me ask you a few questions here:

1) You're seated in a restaurant - fine dining at that. The pleasant waiter comes and greets you, lets you know what the specials of the evening are, and in the most polite fashion, asks you what you'll have for dinner. Then you notice it. Attached to his belt, just visible above the lining of his apron - is a gun. No mistake about it. Would you still feel comfortable dining there? Why would a waiter feel the need to carry a gun around? "Just in case" ? Just in case, what? In case a customer disagrees with him? In case the customer is being difficult? In case the customer stiffs him on the tip? Let's face it - the waiter under NO circumstances should be armed. None. I challenge everyone here once and for all, with that example, to tell me *why* a waiter should be armed.

2) Admit it - it's about fear. Why do you install an alarm in your car? Your house? Theft deterrant. Now what if instead of just a mere alarm, I install machine guns pointed at the entrance which are programmed to fire when the alarm is not successfully deactivated huh? Hey man - right to bear arms!

3) Right to bear arms. OK - I don't want just a gun. I arm myself with hand grenades. Those are arms. Same damn thing. I'm scared I'll get bombed. And if I do, by god and by the law that enables me to bear arms, I'll take those suckers with me.

4) Back to the sniper rifle. The ones I see in video games that allow me to fire at something a jillion yards away. That's what I want. Yeah man. Shoot the corrupt goverment official in the stomach. Yeah. Right to bear arms. He might kill me. So i should snipe him first.

5) Forget kind words. Forget negotiation. Forget wise-cracking to get the bullies off your back. Just cap the suckas.

Right to bear arms. Yup. It's my holy, god-given friggin' RIGHT. I have the right to kill anyone I choose I think he just, might, pose a threat. Words are useless anyways.

AgeOfAbnegation

22-08-2005, 08:48 PM

I still don't agree with feeling the need to arm yourself "just in case" the government or something decides to go wacko on everyone. Seriously - you really think this is gonna happen? You really have something to fear there?

I think you've "jumped the gun". Bearing arms precedes any fear of government reprisal, its simply a symbolic understanding of individual rights. If anything, the removal of this tenet from constitution would reflect a problem of morals and values in culture, not a problematic with the weapon used to kill someone.

D.K.night

22-08-2005, 11:18 PM

I think you've "jumped the gun". Bearing arms precedes any fear of government reprisal, its simply a symbolic understanding of individual rights. If anything, the removal of this tenet from constitution would reflect a problem of morals and values in culture, not a problematic with the weapon used to kill someone.

So if you and I met on the street, exchanged our hellos', talk and promptly begin disagreeing with each other. I whip out a handgun, point it at your face, tell you I don't like what you just said, and tell you to take that back or else.

You have 2 choices. You either back down, or take the chance that your life ends right there on the spot because you and I had a disagreement with each other. Your life can be snuffed out, or at the very least severely crippled with one little pull of the trigger from me.

If you're willing to accept that, then OK - I have nothing further to say from my end of things. But if you see something seriously wrong with the above situation - as I do - then you're starting to see my side of it.

And this is not a made up story. This situation actually happened to an ex-collegue of mine. Thankfully he backed down or he wouldn't be alive today to tell the tale.

Stoutwood

22-08-2005, 11:25 PM

Interesting. I've had the same thing happen to me with knives several times.

D.K.night

22-08-2005, 11:43 PM

Interesting. I've had the same thing happen to me with knives several times.

I can threaten you with a spoon if I wanted to. Point that round end menacingly in your face and scoop out your eye like an ice cream unless you take your little statement back. And - uh oh - you chose to stand your ground.

It's not a fair comparison. There's a good reason why you don't "bring a knife to a gun fight". So he points a knife in your face. You know martial arts? You can do something about it. You'll still probably get stabbed but you'll at least minimize the damage. The same cannot be said about a gun in your face. How long does it take to execute a stabbing motion, versus a measly pull of the trigger? Or you can even beat a hasty retreat against a knife. Good luck against a gun.

Vorlin

22-08-2005, 11:46 PM

Amendment II - 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.

I don't have a problem with anyone owning a gun. I do have a problem with people running around with a gun in a purse (for those just in case moments probably), or on their hip. All it takes is one second losing control of that gun in a confrontation outside and some poor innocent is getting shot in the head. Course, drive-bys do the same thing more times than not...I just hope their tires explode at 95 miles an hour.

Defending your home and personal effects is all good with me. If someone breaks into my house and even STARTS up the stairs where I'm at with my woman, you best believe the most chilling sound anyone can hear in the middle of the night will be heard (that's the sound of a shotgun loading a round) and I'm about to put buckshot followed by a slug through the door. And that whole ****** up rule about how you can't shoot them without getting sued just because they're "running away" and "no longer a threat"....yeah right, I'll unload all rounds down range and make sure that THIS house is the LAST house he/she would ever break into.

It's the mentality that people have nowadays. To think that people have to resort to mindless violence using guns instead of actually talking out problems or even simple fist fighting it out...that's the underlying problem, IMHO.

The dad in "Friday" said it best..."You win some, you lose some...but you live, you live to fight another day".

D.K.night

22-08-2005, 11:56 PM

Now we're getting somewhere. Owning a firearm, but keeping safe and sound at home(or locked away so junior won't glock his little sister playing cops and robbers). The only people who should have it out and in the open are the police. Anyone else should be liable for arrest, plain and simple. Keep the damn deadly weapons at home. Someone merely frightening-looking starts running up to you. That alone is NOT a reason to suddenly pull your gun out. But that's the mentality that you'll be getting into when you *know* you have the power to end a life instantaneously if you felt you needed to. That kinda power you just don't need. oh oh, you scare me, you...you die!

*BANG*

No...noo....i was..i was just...running...to...catch...the...bus

AgeOfAbnegation

23-08-2005, 12:46 AM

So if you and I met on the street, exchanged our hellos', talk and promptly begin disagreeing with each other. I whip out a handgun, point it at your face, tell you I don't like what you just said, and tell you to take that back or else.

You have 2 choices. You either back down, or take the chance that your life ends right there on the spot because you and I had a disagreement with each other. Your life can be snuffed out, or at the very least severely crippled with one little pull of the trigger from me.

If you're willing to accept that, then OK - I have nothing further to say from my end of things. But if you see something seriously wrong with the above situation - as I do - then you're starting to see my side of it.

And this is not a made up story. This situation actually happened to an ex-collegue of mine. Thankfully he backed down or he wouldn't be alive today to tell the tale.

You've missed the point. The root here is not the weapon itself, but rather the person holding it. Guns may kill more effectively and easily, but as Stoutwood said, other weapons can do the trick. How about we just outlaw malicious intent? You see, the issue is not about weapons, the issue is about morals. The focus of a government should be best directed at looking at what composes human nature, and how to best order society so that one would not feel the urge to bear arms against another. As I said, the mere symbolic notion that one is able to posess a firearm is a sign of individual freedom, which is inherent to human nature.

Stoutwood

23-08-2005, 02:59 AM

That kinda power you just don't need. oh oh, you scare me, you...you die!

*BANG*

No...noo....i was..i was just...running...to...catch...the...bus

Hey, that sounds like the London Police Department. Aren't they the ones that are supposed to be responsible with guns?

Dementor

23-08-2005, 03:50 AM

I can threaten you with a spoon if I wanted to. Point that round end menacingly in your face and scoop out your eye like an ice cream unless you take your little statement back. And - uh oh - you chose to stand your ground.

It's not a fair comparison. There's a good reason why you don't "bring a knife to a gun fight". So he points a knife in your face. You know martial arts? You can do something about it. You'll still probably get stabbed but you'll at least minimize the damage. The same cannot be said about a gun in your face. How long does it take to execute a stabbing motion, versus a measly pull of the trigger? Or you can even beat a hasty retreat against a knife. Good luck against a gun.

You make a good point. Martial Arts should be banned was well as knives. (And they have been, in the past.)

PlagueBearer

23-08-2005, 06:02 AM

You're seated in a restaurant - fine dining at that. The pleasant waiter comes and greets you, lets you know what the specials of the evening are, and in the most polite fashion, asks you what you'll have for dinner. Then you notice it. Attached to his belt, just visible above the lining of his apron - is a gun. No mistake about it. Would you still feel comfortable dining there? Why would a waiter feel the need to carry a gun around? "Just in case" ? Just in case, what? In case a customer disagrees with him? In case the customer is being difficult? In case the customer stiffs him on the tip? Let's face it - the waiter under NO circumstances should be armed. None. I challenge everyone here once and for all, with that example, to tell me *why* a waiter should be armed.

In case a customer disagrees with him. In case the customer is being difficult. In case the customer stiffs him on the tip.

Reasonable people can own guns for reasonable reasons. Having a gun does not make you a power-hungry psychopath -- in fact, in an armed society, the man who threatened your ex-colleague would be more likely to be shot than your ex-colleague was -- assuming that you're still in the restaurant, the waiter is thankfully packing heat of his own.

Heinlein said it best -- an armed society is a polite society.

But then again, I'm referring to something I don't see happening anytime in the near future in America. I don't expect us to become an armed society -- those are usually frontier societies, and we haven't had one of those in ages. Regardless, we maintain our right to bear arms for the express purpose of revolution against a corrupt government. We are not above and apart from the tide of history, and to ignore it is to repeat it. Our government can and may become corrupt, and the people have a right to throw off such corruption. A government that cannot acknowledge the possibility of corruption within itself has already become corrupt.

D.K.night

23-08-2005, 10:13 AM

In case a customer disagrees with him. In case the customer is being difficult. In case the customer stiffs him on the tip.

Reasonable people can own guns for reasonable reasons. Having a gun does not make you a power-hungry psychopath -- in fact, in an armed society, the man who threatened your ex-colleague would be more likely to be shot than your ex-colleague was -- assuming that you're still in the restaurant, the waiter is thankfully packing heat of his own.

Heinlein said it best -- an armed society is a polite society.

But then again, I'm referring to something I don't see happening anytime in the near future in America. I don't expect us to become an armed society -- those are usually frontier societies, and we haven't had one of those in ages. Regardless, we maintain our right to bear arms for the express purpose of revolution against a corrupt government. We are not above and apart from the tide of history, and to ignore it is to repeat it. Our government can and may become corrupt, and the people have a right to throw off such corruption. A government that cannot acknowledge the possibility of corruption within itself has already become corrupt.

So if said waiter gives you shoddy service, but packs a gat, you'd be forced to give him a good tip "or else". Or you'd just put your gun on the table and next thing you know -

Waiter: I gave you what I could give you in terms of service. Don't make me use this on you. Just give me that 15% tip and we'll all walk away from this, OK?

You: You gave me shoddy service. You didn't refill my water, my food took far too long, and I'm exercising my god-given right to tell you to back off and accept the meager tip I rightfully think you deserve. Come to think of it, maybe I shouldn't tip you at all.

Waiter: Listen here friend. I give you one last warning and that's all I've got for you.

You: I give YOU one last warning. You back down or else.

*BANG* *BANG* *BANG*

Now both of you are dead. This could all have been avoided. I'm sick and tired of the defense "oh, oh, what's the difference between a knife and a gun" it could have been a knife or a pencil, so what's the difference". Big huge hairy difference. "Polite society". You want an example of a polite society? Then go to Japan. No one's packing heat there. The crime rate's low. You'd feel perfectly safe on the streets there. WITHOUT THE NEED OF A WEAPON FOR YOU TO DO SO.

Tell me why that is. And don't tell me it's just a slanty-eyed yellow-skinned cultural thing.

D.K.night

23-08-2005, 10:21 AM

You make a good point. Martial Arts should be banned was well as knives. (And they have been, in the past.)

Every respectable martial arts teaches you one thing - you do *not* use this knowledge in a dishonourable fashion. You use this knowledge only in self-defense. Not to threaten others. Not even to prove a point. Only as a last resort where your survival is at stake. And wouldn't you look silly going "Wooooaaaaaaaahhhaaha" and making chopping motions for any other reason than self-defense. Still a huge difference between knowledge of martial arts and packing heat.

BANG - You're dead.

Wooaahahaaaaa - I'll hurt you enough to stop you, but I won't kill you. Just hurt you enough so that I can run away and call the police. What is that I'm hearing? That police is ineffectual? Oh, so we're gonna be a nation of vigilantes now?

Stoutwood

23-08-2005, 10:39 AM

Every respectable martial arts teaches you one thing - you do *not* use this knowledge in a dishonourable fashion. You use this knowledge only in self-defense. Not to threaten others. Not even to prove a point. Only as a last resort where your survival is at stake. And wouldn't you look silly going "Wooooaaaaaaaahhhaaha" and making chopping motions for any other reason than self-defense. Still a huge difference between knowledge of martial arts and packing heat.

BANG - You're dead.

Wooaahahaaaaa - I'll hurt you enough to stop you, but I won't kill you. Just hurt you enough so that I can run away and call the police. What is that I'm hearing? That police is ineffectual? Oh, so we're gonna be a nation of vigilantes now?

And every single Firearms Safety course teaches you the same crap. What's your point?

You want an example of a polite society? Then go to Japan. No one's packing heat there. The crime rate's low. You'd feel perfectly safe on the streets there. WITHOUT THE NEED OF A WEAPON FOR YOU TO DO SO.

Tell me why that is. And don't tell me it's just a slanty-eyed yellow-skinned cultural thing.

You're right, it's not just a slanty-eyed yellow-skinned cultural thing. Because Western Europeans have always had lower crime rates as well, even when they had guns too. So yes, it is a cultural thing, and you can blame it on guns as long as you want, but all of Texas has a lower crime rate than Washington D.C., and take a guess at which one has the strictest gun control laws in the country?

Americans just like killing each other. Our culture is violent. Just look at our movies and books. It's not uncommon for the protagonist to be motivated by revenge, and sometimes we glorify criminals as well. The fact is, if all guns in America just disappeared, I'm willing to bet that America would have just as much violent crime. Guns would just be replaced with baseball bats and knives. Comparing America to other countries that have had lower crime rates throughout history points to a cultural problem. Firearms are just a scapegoat.

SaroDarksbane

23-08-2005, 03:17 PM

A waiter with a gun on his hip is a different argument because businesses are free to institute any dress code they want. If customers don't like their waiters packing, the restaurant would probably not permit them to do so.

Your argument is akin to the following:

"Free speech? Yeah right! What if a guy walks into my house and starts shouting and cussing all over the place??? Can I not kick him out because he has free speech?? Free speech is clearly an abomination!"

And no, as odd as it would be, a waiter with a gun would not make me nervous. It's just a hunk of metal (or plastic). It's not like it's going to bite you or something.

EDIT:

And unfortunately for you, I know what the constitution intended:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. -- Thomas Jefferson
I know how gun control has worked in the US:
Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It's quicker to pull your Smith & Wesson than to dial 911 if you're being robbed. -- Lieutenant Lowell Duckett, Special Assistant to DC Police Chief; President, Black Police Caucus, The Washington Post, March 22, 1996.
I know what happens when people don't have the will or means to resist:
How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt. -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Heck, even Gandhi agrees:
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. -- Gandhi

Volja

23-08-2005, 05:43 PM

And every single Firearms Safety course teaches you the same crap. What's your point?

The point is you dont have to go to a firearms safety course to have a gun, do you?

In martial arts you cannot learn anything until they are satisfied with your mentality.

AgeOfAbnegation

23-08-2005, 06:38 PM

In martial arts you cannot learn anything until they are satisfied with your mentality.

LOL.. I'm sure the "little ninjas" program at the local "100% martial arts" place down the road really appeals to discipline. Martial arts here isnt really martial arts - its just a means to make money and give a kid some excercise. You've been watching too much Tarantino :p.

D.K.night

23-08-2005, 07:12 PM

LOL.. I'm sure the "little ninjas" program at the local "100% martial arts" place down the road really appeals to discipline. Martial arts here isnt really martial arts - its just a means to make money and give a kid some excercise. You've been watching too much Tarantino :p.

Then I'm sad to inform you that the 'sensei' at that school is is exactly the kind of person that the old school Chinese *didn't* want Bruce Lee to teach their precious knowledge to.

My ex-collegue taught others martial arts - until his sensei humbly came up to him and asked to never, ever use his knowledge of martial arts ever again. He became such a deadly weapon with his knowledge that he promised never to use it. And it's a promise that he's kept to this day.

You see that? THAT'S what martial arts is all about. Respect of your elders, the honor, the frame of mind...I can't even begin to explain it all.

Now try again and tell me how this firearms safety even comes *close* to what I just described above.

Stoutwood

23-08-2005, 09:15 PM

The point is you dont have to go to a firearms safety course to have a gun, do you?

In martial arts you cannot learn anything until they are satisfied with your mentality.

Depends on the state you're in. And yes, I support mandatory firearms safety classes.

You see that? THAT'S what martial arts is all about. Respect of your elders, the honor, the frame of mind...I can't even begin to explain it all.

Now try again and tell me how this firearms safety even comes *close* to what I just described above.

As for you D.K., I've had the pleasure of taking both Firearms Safety and two martial arts. That "respect for your elders" thing is a load of crap. You are taught "respect for your elders" in the same way you are taught it in any class anywhere, i.e. you are being taught by an older person who knows more than you so you shut up and listen to what he has to say. As for "honor" and "frame of mind", go take a firearms safety class and get back to me. At this point you are overglorifying martial arts, and your bias is becoming very apparent.

AgeOfAbnegation

23-08-2005, 10:14 PM

Now try again and tell me how this firearms safety even comes *close* to what I just described above.

You continue to repeat the idea that "guns are more dangerous". Thats fine, but you have yet to comment on the arguments I've posted earlier. Give that a shot. :thumbsup:

Volja

24-08-2005, 02:53 PM

SaroDarksbane

24-08-2005, 08:49 PM

Well then i feel sorry for wherever you are. I practise martial arts and its a very serious responsibility.
Wait, so you're saying it's a mentality and not the gun itself?

D.K.night

24-08-2005, 09:40 PM

Depends on the state you're in. And yes, I support mandatory firearms safety classes.

As for you D.K., I've had the pleasure of taking both Firearms Safety and two martial arts. That "respect for your elders" thing is a load of crap. You are taught "respect for your elders" in the same way you are taught it in any class anywhere, i.e. you are being taught by an older person who knows more than you so you shut up and listen to what he has to say. As for "honor" and "frame of mind", go take a firearms safety class and get back to me. At this point you are overglorifying martial arts, and your bias is becoming very apparent.

Then I wonder what kind of teachers you had who taught your martial arts. Were they stingy, pessimistic, ancient, white-bearded asian men who refused to teach you until you proved yourself worthy ie. on your knees in the pouring rain before his temple/home for days on end until he came out and grudgingly gave in to teach you Wing Chun? Or were they the type of schools more akin to diploma mills, teaching "way of the cobra" or some nonsense like that?

I'm not going to take a firearms safety class. I don't even want to register myself with the NRA. I have no need for a gun, and I will never have a need for a gun. I will rely on my wits and proceed with my life as usual. Instead, I will ask you questions about this firearms class:

1) Do they explicitly say to you "Do NOT use your gun. I repeat, you are NOT to use your gun. We will teach you, but we *forbid* you to use your gun"

2) Or do they say "oh yeah, as long as you have attended this course, yeah, it's up to you, just use your common sense.

Volja

25-08-2005, 01:24 AM

Wait, so you're saying it's a mentality and not the gun itself?

Yes, which i have said all along. Like i said before, the gun makes it easier. Too me, its that simple.

Stoutwood

25-08-2005, 12:03 PM

Then I wonder what kind of teachers you had who taught your martial arts. Were they stingy, pessimistic, ancient, white-bearded asian men who refused to teach you until you proved yourself worthy ie. on your knees in the pouring rain before his temple/home for days on end until he came out and grudgingly gave in to teach you Wing Chun? Or were they the type of schools more akin to diploma mills, teaching "way of the cobra" or some nonsense like that?

Neither. But then again, not all martial arts are Asian.

I'm not going to take a firearms safety class. I don't even want to register myself with the NRA. I have no need for a gun, and I will never have a need for a gun. I will rely on my wits and proceed with my life as usual. Instead, I will ask you questions about this firearms class:

1) Do they explicitly say to you "Do NOT use your gun. I repeat, you are NOT to use your gun. We will teach you, but we *forbid* you to use your gun"

2) Or do they say "oh yeah, as long as you have attended this course, yeah, it's up to you, just use your common sense.

Well, for starters, you don't have to sign up with the NRA for a firearms safety course. In fact, I hate the NRA because they are a bunch of overcompensating, paranoid, tactless, militiaman idiots that stir up more negative sentiment against people like myself than any gun control group could ever hope to do. As for your questions, what safety instructors say most closely resembles the first one. Naturally they have no problem if you hunt with the firearm, but they make sure to pound it into your head that you should NEVER point a gun at a person, let alone consider using it against them. The more self-defense oriented classes are even more strict about this, and make damn sure that people taking the class realize that it is a last resort.

SaroDarksbane

25-08-2005, 05:09 PM

Yes, which i have said all along. Like i said before, the gun makes it easier. Too me, its that simple.
Unfortunately for you, your opinions aren't born out by actual events in the states.

EDIT:

That is, that "gun makes it easier" part. I've already conceded the culture in the US is primarily to blame. =)

Eiger

26-08-2005, 07:45 PM

Thought I'd make a thread about the right to bear arms, and related topics.

For one, I'd like to say that one sentace cost John Kerry my father's vote:

"The first thing we need to do to get rid of terrorists is get rid our guns here in America." (Paraphrased from one of the presidential debates)

Thanks Dementor - we've only hashed this one out in a million other threads. Anyway - I just thought that I'd point out that the above quote is paraphrased. Since Kerry has made perfectly clear in numerous other quotes that his position does not include "getting rid of guns in America" I'm pretty confident in saying that:

That quote is a totally bogus fabrication, or
Your father should have put his hearing aid in before listening to the debates
Now, I recognize that the above might crank you off, but this kind of bs mis and disinformation totally pisses me off. You'll find the correct Kerry policies on his campaign website - I'll bet it's still up. The guy is a gun owner himself and a hunter, too for whatever that matters.

SaroDarksbane

26-08-2005, 08:38 PM

Kerry didn't impress me on the gun issue. (Either he clearly had no idea what the "assault weapons" ban actually did, or he was peddling inaccurate information about it during the debates to attack Bush. Neither or those seems promising.)

Kerry as president would have still been better than, say Clinton, with respect to gun rights though, IMO.

AgeOfAbnegation

26-08-2005, 10:14 PM

Heh, anyone would be better than Bill (well, except for Hilary :p). Under the Clintons, America would be well on its way to becoming a UN puppet state.

Eiger

30-08-2005, 01:45 AM

Under the Clintons, America would be well on its way to becoming a UN puppet state.

Hehe. Sorry but that's too absurd to even be funny. We've never been and never will be a UN puppet state. We had 8 years of Bill and still never paid up what we owe the UN. Suffice it to say that your statement is most incorrect.

AgeOfAbnegation

30-08-2005, 06:14 AM

Hehe. Sorry but that's too absurd to even be funny. We've never been and never will be a UN puppet state. We had 8 years of Bill and still never paid up what we owe the UN. Suffice it to say that your statement is most incorrect.

Thanks for returning here after the 8 month absence. I see you're still limited to a "face value" perspective. Becoming a UN puppet state isn't about the money, its about culture. The clintons espoused the "global village" culture, while we see Bush on the other hand preaching national pride. Under the democrats, American culture will be taken from its traditional roots and mutated into the libertarian morass that is preached by Annan and his cohort. Much like Canada is now, and most of europe, America would become in time under the Clintons. Any ideology that omits nationalism is one which loses its own cultural identity.

Dementor

30-08-2005, 12:58 PM

Thanks Dementor - we've only hashed this one out in a million other threads. Anyway - I just thought that I'd point out that the above quote is paraphrased. Since Kerry has made perfectly clear in numerous other quotes that his position does not include "getting rid of guns in America"

Hence Kerry's main problem; it's often quite easy to find different quotes from different times that say totally different things about what he believes in and doesn't.

SaroDarksbane

30-08-2005, 07:14 PM

Hence Kerry's main problem; it's often quite easy to find different quotes from different times that say totally different things about what he believes in and doesn't.
But it makes for a good ad (http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/).

:D

Drewstein

31-08-2005, 12:20 AM

Let me just say I'd rather have my gun and not need it, than not have it and need it.

D.K.night

01-09-2005, 10:13 PM

Hence Kerry's main problem; it's often quite easy to find different quotes from different times that say totally different things about what he believes in and doesn't.

Kerry never had a goat's chance in hell anyways. It was as scripted as a reality TV show that he was NOT going to win.

Stoutwood

02-09-2005, 01:54 AM

I wish Wesley Clark had won the primaries instead of that tool Kerry. I would have actually voted for him.

Dementor

03-09-2005, 01:15 AM

Kerry never had a goat's chance in hell anyways. It was as scripted as a reality TV show that he was NOT going to win.

He came close. Just about any of the other Democratic candidates would have come closer. His selection as their candidate shows just how stupid the democratic party has become.

Me, I was backing Dean. I don't really understand why he lost to this day. Rather, I don't get why Kerry beat him in Vermont, though I understand perfectly why he beat him since... The Dems figure "Some of us already voted for Kerry; Lets ALL do it! Baaaah, baaaaaaah!"

Methinks some rethinking of the primary process is needed...

Andarcel

03-09-2005, 07:03 AM

He came close. Just about any of the other Democratic candidates would have come closer. His selection as their candidate shows just how stupid the democratic party has become.

Me, I was backing Dean. I don't really understand why he lost to this day. Rather, I don't get why Kerry beat him in Vermont, though I understand perfectly why he beat him since... The Dems figure "Some of us already voted for Kerry; Lets ALL do it! Baaaah, baaaaaaah!"

Methinks some rethinking of the primary process is needed...

You mean Iowa?

I didn't much care for Dean. He reinvented himself from a moderate pro-business governor into the raging representative of the liberal wing while attacking every major Dem politician. Dishonesty and hypocrisy are not an appealing combination. But yeah, the primary system is screwed up. More screwed up is the "vote-for-the-winner" psychology that piles people on the bandwagon.

Kosmo

05-09-2005, 03:59 PM

As I said, the mere symbolic notion that one is able to posess a firearm is a sign of individual freedom, which is inherent to human nature.
Can you tell my why you think that? What the right to posess a firearm has to do with freedom?
I am free and I don't have a gun. My freedom is based on my ability to die for what I believe in and not in my ability to kill for it.

edit: If I'll live in US I will think otherwise.
I did not like the scenes of looting from New Orleans. I hate mobs and when I see violence I tend to react one way or the other.
How much it's an AK 47 ? (7,62 caliber, not puny 5,45)

AgeOfAbnegation

05-09-2005, 06:09 PM

Can you tell my why you think that? What the right to posess a firearm has to do with freedom?
I am free and I don't have a gun. My freedom is based on my ability to die for what I believe in and not in my ability to kill for it.

If you look closely I said "able to posess a firearm". That is the key, the being able. Whether one owns one or not isn't the issue.

Stoutwood

06-09-2005, 10:27 AM

How much it's an AK 47 ? (7,62 caliber, not puny 5,45)

Well, a fully auto AK is illegal here unless you have a difficult-to-obtain assualt weapons license, so I imagine you would pay a fairly steep price for an illegal one. A semi-automatic AK is somewhere in the neighborhood of $800 US. On another note, why in God's name would you pay that kind of money for a low-tech hunk of crap with poor accuracy?

Kosmo

08-09-2005, 11:45 AM

A semi-automatic AK is somewhere in the neighborhood of $800 US. On another note, why in God's name would you pay that kind of money for a low-tech hunk of crap with poor accuracy?
Thank you for the answer.
I have no ideea about the prices of miltary weapons as owning one is illegal in my country.
From what I heard AK 47 (I never fired a gun) is easy to use, solid and is good for short and mid range fire. In a city you don't need a long range weapon.
All the armies of east european nations, that were in the Warshaw Treaty and are now Nato members, keep using the AK 47. They changed only the caliber from 7.62 to 5.45

Andarcel

09-09-2005, 01:16 AM

Thank you for the answer.
I have no ideea about the prices of miltary weapons as owning one is illegal in my country.
From what I heard AK 47 (I never fired a gun) is easy to use, solid and is good for short and mid range fire. In a city you don't need a long range weapon.
All the armies of east european nations, that were in the Warshaw Treaty and are now Nato members, keep using the AK 47. They changed only the caliber from 7.62 to 5.45

Standard NATO round is 5.56, so I'm guessing that's what they changed to.

Eiger

09-09-2005, 01:34 AM

Any ideology that omits nationalism is one which loses its own cultural identity.

You just frighten me more and more. If I ever buy a gun, it's going to be because I'm going to have to defend my freedoms from the nationalists of the day.

Nationalism is a relatively modern phenomenon. I'm guessing that cultures over the vast majority of human history maintained their identities just fine without it.

AgeOfAbnegation

09-09-2005, 07:54 PM

Mastgrr

09-09-2005, 09:06 PM

Perhaps the term "patriotism" would have served better in this case.We don't choose the country we're born in.

AgeOfAbnegation

09-09-2005, 09:35 PM

We don't choose the country we're born in.

No, but we do choose the country we live in. If you don't like America (or at least a right-wing america), you have the option to move somewhere else. Try europe, or perhaps Canada. I have a feeling you'd like it up here.

Mastgrr

09-09-2005, 10:11 PM

No, but we do choose the country we live in. If you don't like America (or at least a right-wing america), you have the option to move somewhere else. Try europe, or perhaps Canada. I have a feeling you'd like it up here.Being a patriot means you love a country. Love is taking the good with the bad.

Suggesting that someone ought to move purely due to a different opinion is against everything the liberal democracy stands for. My political opinion, which is at the core of the foundation of the western world, is that you're allowed to voice your opinions, but that you're to be subject of scrutiny. What you suggest me doing would in other words be more appropriate for yourself if you follow your own logic.

I'm more patriot than you because I don't tell people of dissent in my country to go elsewhere. I argue and talk them down -- showing them that their ideas are wrong, which is the case I am doing now with you.

Good job being "patriotic", because you're far from it.

Andarcel

10-09-2005, 06:15 AM

You just frighten me more and more. If I ever buy a gun, it's going to be because I'm going to have to defend my freedoms from the nationalists of the day.

Nationalism is a relatively modern phenomenon. I'm guessing that cultures over the vast majority of human history maintained their identities just fine without it.

No, they didn't, except in peripheries where they had little to no contact with the outside world. In the center, the ruling elite basically made the culture.

Nationalism as a philosophy holds a)all people are naturally part of a particular nation, and b)nations ought to be governed by a state with a domain coextensive with the nation. There have been nations before this idealogy (Judea in 20 A.D, for example) but people began to believe nations were universal. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Nationalism has two major positive results:

1) In areas where nations have been clearly settled, this philosophy ensures perpetual peace. You want to find the real reason why the U.S. will never conquer Canada, it's nationalism. They have their nation, we have ours. Such a situation would have been unthinkable before the rise of nationalism.To reach this point, there is frequently a massive struggle, but once reached it appears unbreakable.

2)It makes democracy possible. In order to have democracies, you have to have citizens, and in order to have citizens you have to have a nation. Without the concept of that allegiance, you can't make the system work. Try it.

Of course, specific nationalisms can be pernicious. In areas without broad agreement on the border of nations, such as Israel or Kashmir, nationalism breeds violence. Nationalisms tied to race can fuel Hitleresque expansionisms. But these nationalisms seem to die out over the generations, painful as their beginning may be. A consensus emerges among all parties about the boundaries of the nation, and those within the nation start growing up with that identity.

AgeOfAbnegation

10-09-2005, 09:28 AM

Being a patriot means you love a country. Love is taking the good with the bad.

Suggesting that someone ought to move purely due to a different opinion is against everything the liberal democracy stands for. My political opinion, which is at the core of the foundation of the western world, is that you're allowed to voice your opinions, but that you're to be subject of scrutiny. What you suggest me doing would in other words be more appropriate for yourself if you follow your own logic.

I'm more patriot than you because I don't tell people of dissent in my country to go elsewhere. I argue and talk them down -- showing them that their ideas are wrong, which is the case I am doing now with you.

Good job being "patriotic", because you're far from it.

You no doubt missed my sarcasm. Thus far, the plethora of posts you elicit are token stabs at the Bush administration or right-wing ideologies. I don't see you offering anything constructive whatsoever - hence the suggestion to move out. Try serving the system, instead of just complaining.

Mastgrr

10-09-2005, 01:29 PM

You no doubt missed my sarcasm. Thus far, the plethora of posts you elicit are token stabs at the Bush administration or right-wing ideologies. I don't see you offering anything constructive whatsoever - hence the suggestion to move out. Try serving the system, instead of just complaining.Good job proving my point yet again.

If you followed your own advice you'd be telling yourself to serve the system, instead of just complaining.

If you believe in what this country stands for, you will let me speak without telling me to leave.

2)It makes democracy possible. In order to have democracies, you have to have citizens, and in order to have citizens you have to have a nation. Without the concept of that allegiance, you can't make the system work. Try it.You don't need to be a nationalist to have a social contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract). It's mutual agreements.

AgeOfAbnegation

10-09-2005, 05:03 PM

Good job proving my point yet again.

If you followed your own advice you'd be telling yourself to serve the system, instead of just complaining.

If you believe in what this country stands for, you will let me speak without telling me to leave.

My question to you was how do you serve? Your posts contain lots of criticism, but virtually nothing constructive. Didn't Abe Lincoln (or one of those guys) say that "its not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"?

Andarcel

10-09-2005, 08:45 PM

You don't need to be a nationalist to have a social contract. It's mutual agreements. In fact you do. Without a nation, you have no way of delimiting the scope of the contract, nor any means of preventing those within the contract from arbitrarily seceding to form smaller and smaller contracts until you have anarchy. The great weakness of social contract theory is that by far the majority of people bound by the contract never agreed to it; if you attempt to make perpetual informed consent the criterion for belonging to a state, the system falls apart. If it doesn't fall apart, then it's because people have so closely identified with the state that they grew up under that they almost never break from it. That kind of identification is by definition a nation, of exactly the kind we have here in the US.

Suicidal Zebra

10-09-2005, 10:04 PM

My question to you was how do you serve? Your posts contain lots of criticism, but virtually nothing constructive. Didn't Abe Lincoln (or one of those guys) say that "its not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"?

J.F. Kennedy. Otherwise known as 'that stinking commie liberal hippie'.

SaroDarksbane

12-09-2005, 02:44 PM

In fact you do. Without a nation, you have no way of delimiting the scope of the contract, nor any means of preventing those within the contract from arbitrarily seceding to form smaller and smaller contracts until you have anarchy. The great weakness of social contract theory is that by far the majority of people bound by the contract never agreed to it; if you attempt to make perpetual informed consent the criterion for belonging to a state, the system falls apart. If it doesn't fall apart, then it's because people have so closely identified with the state that they grew up under that they almost never break from it. That kind of identification is by definition a nation, of exactly the kind we have here in the US.
Andarcel: 1
Opponents: 0

^_^

Mastgrr

15-09-2005, 10:31 PM

In fact you do. Without a nation, you have no way of delimiting the scope of the contract, nor any means of preventing those within the contract from arbitrarily seceding to form smaller and smaller contracts until you have anarchy. When did I say I rejected the notion of a nation? The great weakness of social contract theory is that by far the majority of people bound by the contract never agreed to it; if you attempt to make perpetual informed consent the criterion for belonging to a state, the system falls apart. If it doesn't fall apart, then it's because people have so closely identified with the state that they grew up under that they almost never break from it. That kind of identification is by definition a nation, of exactly the kind we have here in the US.People agree not to go live in the 'jungle' because they consider living in a society with law and order better, nationalism has nothing to do with this.
Andarcel: 1
Opponents: 0

^_^Go back to O'Reilly. (http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?string=o%27reilly) (kudos to you if you can find anything there that can be debunked, because it's not likely)

SaroDarksbane

15-09-2005, 11:24 PM

Go back to O'Reilly. (http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?string=o%27reilly) (kudos to you if you can find anything there that can be debunked, because it's not likely)
Thanks for the completely off topic attack. Keep up the irrational hatred and in no time people will flock to your opinions like maggots to a corpse.

Oh, and when I want a media/political watchdog, I'll take someone who I can see is out for the truth (http://www.factcheck.org/), and not a political agenda.

Mastgrr

16-09-2005, 02:13 AM

Thanks for the completely off topic attack. Keep up the irrational hatred and in no time people will flock to your opinions like maggots to a corpse.I did it to provoke, which is what you did earlier as well. Provocation sucks, doesn't it?

Oh, and when I want a media/political watchdog, I'll take someone who I can see is out for the truth (http://www.factcheck.org/), and not a political agenda.Yep. Factcheck.org is awesome.

Media Matters is unique. They are pretty much like Factcheck.org except that they focus on Republican misinformation in the media (David Brock's expertise!). They post their findings without editorializing, and a clear display of sources.

Andarcel

16-09-2005, 02:46 AM

People agree not to go live in the 'jungle' because they consider living in a society with law and order better, nationalism has nothing to do with this. I think you misconceived what I meant by the term nationalism in the first place. I pretty carefully distinguished between particular nationalisms and nationalism as a philosophical stance. If you believe in nations you are a nationalist as I've been using the term. Of course, to make nationalism of the second sort workable you have to have people with nationalism of the first sort.

People agree not to go live in the 'jungle' because they consider living in a society with law and order better, nationalism has nothing to do with this. Which doesn't tell us why Vermont, say, can't secede from the US, or why the town of Burlington in Vermont can't. From a rational point of view, it would be in the best interests of any particular town that doesn't receive massive federal funding because they would gain all the major benefits of being part of the US without paying the taxes. It also doesn't tell us why Canada doesn't become part of the US, or why chunks of it don't change hands arbitrarily (as border areas tended to in the days before nationalism).

Anyway, suppose someone did take his family and go "live in the jungle," as you say, somewhere in the US. Do you sincerely believe that they are no longer bound by US law? That if he murders his wife he should not be prosecutable in US courts? It's all well and good to suggest that everyone consents to a social contract because they would choose to go into the wild, but take a case of someone going into the wild and suddenly it kinda seems like they should still be bound by the contract. No consent involved.