Gun Crimes

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[Mike Sigman]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece

Although I tend to agree with Bill Clinton... rising gun crimes tend to be demographic.

Mike

[Mark Freeman]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece

Although I tend to agree with Bill Clinton... rising gun crimes tend to be demographic.

Mike

Interesting article, but I'm not sure how much I can agree with a man who cites a fictional character's experiences ( Dr Watson ) as one that should be taken wholely seriously.

I think some of the replys given by members of the public were a little more balanced.

Personally, I thought the taking away of the rights of indidividuals to own a hand gun was outrageous. At the time it was very difficult to legitimately own one, you had to be a recognised member of a gun club and be police checked to a great degree. The number of shootings by legitimate hand gun owners was virtually zero.

My guess is that the vast majority of people in the UK do not want to posess a firearm of any sort, and we'd rather nobody else had one either.

Unfortunately, illegal firearms are not that difficult to obtain for those that really want one. However, I and many like me, would have no idea how to go about laying our hands on one.

I'd rather we worked on social cohesion, eliminating the criminality associated with drug distribution ( taken into the hands of govt - taxed heavily as alchohol tobacco ), education, and very severe sentencing for unlawful posession. I think the majority of gun crimes in this country are due to drug related 'turf wars', and people getting caught in the crossfire.

I just can't get my head around the concept that flooding the world with deadly weaponry makes it a safer place. But then I live in rural Devon where the only thing that gets shot is the occasional rabbit;)

regards,

Mark

[Mike Sigman]

Interesting article, but I'm not sure how much I can agree with a man who cites a fictional character's experiences ( Dr Watson ) as one that should be taken wholely seriously.It's known as a rhetorical point; not meant to be taken literally. My guess is that the vast majority of people in the UK do not want to posess a firearm of any sort, and we'd rather nobody else had one either. Similarly and in actual fact, the vast majority of people in the UK wanted to unilaterally disarm in the face of Hitler's rising threats. I'd rather we worked on social cohesion, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/
eliminating the criminality associated with drug distribution ( taken into the hands of govt - taxed heavily as alchohol tobacco ), education, and very severe sentencing for unlawful posession. I think the majority of gun crimes in this country are due to drug related 'turf wars', and people getting caught in the crossfire. Actually, the problem is that the old views of ethics, respect, and responsibility have been liberally triviallized. You now have some pretty bad people in your country who didn't wind up being grateful for your patronage. ;) I just can't get my head around the concept that flooding the world with deadly weaponry makes it a safer place. But then I live in rural Devon where the only thing that gets shot is the occasional rabbit;) I often think that in the olden days, maybe they were smarter due to experience than we are today with our theorizing..... we didn't think everyone would be our pals just because we handed over our country back then.

Best.

Mike

[ChrisHein]

Firearms make the weak equal to the strong, and old equal to the young. Being against equal distribution of firearms is being against equality. A fine idea for Fascists, but for the rest of us...

[Neil Mick]

Firearms make the weak equal to the strong, and old equal to the young. Being against equal distribution of firearms is being against equality.

Only if equality = the ability to harm others, equally.

Personally, I don't measure equality along a scale of one's ability to do violence.

[ChrisHein]

Only if equality = the ability to harm others, equally.

Personally, I don't measure equality along a scale of one's ability to do violence.

How bout to keep others from doing violence to you?

[Neil Mick]

How bout to keep others from doing violence to you?

If this were the number #1 concern for equality, I'd say that you have a point. In any case, equality is better served in insuring that all ppl have it, rather than arming yourself.

Considering the downsides of gun ownership (increased injury to others, etc), however; I'd also say that owning a firearm is hardly a qualifier, for equality. I am far, far more concerned about the inequalities of economics, race, and governmental interference on my civil liberties, than I am about owning a weapon that can just as easily be used against me in a struggle.

[Mark Freeman]

It's known as a rhetorical point; not meant to be taken literally.

I know, I was just taking a cheap shot;)

Similarly and in actual fact, the vast majority of people in the UK wanted to unilaterally disarm in the face of Hitler's rising threats.

We have thousands of years of history over here. Monarchies have jostled for power, revolutions have taken place, Empires have been built and lost, Wars have been commonplace. It would be more interesting to use any of the other 'mistakes we have made' illustrations to your point, than the lead up to WW11. :p [/QUOTE]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/

An interesting article, Made alot of sense to me.
I guess that things will just play out as they will. They may be statistically correct in their findings, and we need to take notice of this type of research. But, right or not, I see the great multicultural cities of the world, just carrying on as they've always done. People will carry on moving to them because of the wealth that they can generate there. I mean, how, if they are correct that we need less diversity to be somehow better, would you de-diversify somewhere like London or New York?

Actually, the problem is that the old views of ethics, respect, and responsibility have been liberally triviallized. You now have some pretty bad people in your country who didn't wind up being grateful for your patronage. ;)

Both of our countries have those.

I often think that in the olden days, maybe they were smarter due to experience than we are today with our theorizing..... we didn't think everyone would be our pals just because we handed over our country back then.

I agree with the first part, but I don't get the handing over our country back then bit, What does this mean?

The UK spent the better part of last century 'giving' countries their 'independance' after 'aquiring' them in our period of Empire. I am not sure we've ever 'handed over' our country though.

Mind you if you mean that we have handed over the country to the ruling political elites to do with us what they will, then I guess you are right.

In moments of optimism, I fantasize that the common man will realise that our salvation is in collective self interest, and that enough people have a collective 'kick up the butt' to start making better choices.;)

regards,

Mark

[ChrisHein]

If this were the number #1 concern for equality, I'd say that you have a point. In any case, equality is better served in insuring that all ppl have it, rather than arming yourself.

Some people are born big and strong, while others weak and sickly. And youth has the advantage physically over the old. Those are inequalities. If insuring that all people are equal is your goal, then arming everyone is a sure way to even out those differences.


Considering the downsides of gun ownership (increased injury to others, etc), however; I'd also say that owning a firearm is hardly a qualifier, for equality. I am far, far more concerned about the inequalities of economics, race, and governmental interference on my civil liberties, than I am about owning a weapon that can just as easily be used against me in a struggle.

The "downsides" to owning a fire arm are no different then the downsides of owning a vehicle. In fact many more people are killed yearly by automobiles then firearms. We justify owning vehicles because they make our lives more livable. Why would you not justify something that is just as necessary in a crisis situation?

If fear of "governmental interference on your civil liberties" is a concern of yours, how is letting the government take away your right to defend yourself helping your plight?

[Mike Sigman]

We have thousands of years of history over here. Yes, but you don't have thousands of years of history, Mark, unless you're older than I think. This arrogation of wisdom based on the fact that you can simply trace your forebears is strange.... particularly since you make it a point not to adhere to their mores or disciplines. I mean, how, if they are correct that we need less diversity to be somehow better, would you de-diversify somewhere like London or New York? Better yet, examine the components of your diversity and see what each is really contributing to your idea of "civilization". Civilization is tenuous, indeed. It's like stacking a house of cards.... so easy to lose. Look at all the continuously failing "cultures" and "civilizations" around the word, as we speak. Do you think that introducing their "culture" enables the stability of, say, Liverpool or Manchester? Read of any downturns in Liverpool and Manchester's quality of living over the last decades, Mark? Granted, I'm baiting the hook, fairly obviously, but surely you don't think that somehow a trendy watchword like "diversity" is going to make everyone turn out to think like you do on the good days, do you? See the conceit? The UK spent the better part of last century 'giving' countries their 'independance' after 'aquiring' them in our period of Empire. I am not sure we've ever 'handed over' our country though. You did "hand over" a few, though. And look at how many have been able to handle a stable society and how many have not. The interesting question is whether you, for instance, "helped" the people of Sierra Leone by turning over the government to them or whether you doomed a lot of people to death by thinking you were doing them a favor. Look at it from both sides about what "doing good" actually means and it's interesting. In moments of optimism, I fantasize that the common man will realise that our salvation is in collective self interest, and that enough people have a collective 'kick up the butt' to start making better choices.;) Of course you fantasize that. You're a Leftist and you think that if you just give them enough money, everyone will act just like good Christian white-people are supposed to act. That is the absurdity of the Left and the liberal Democrats. Don't get me started on how the Far Right thinks pretty much the same absurdity, when you cut to the chase. ;)

Best.

Mike

[Neil Mick]

Some people are born big and strong, while others weak and sickly. And youth has the advantage physically over the old. Those are inequalities. If insuring that all people are equal is your goal, then arming everyone is a sure way to even out those differences.

If violence were the default mode of opening social discourse in this country, again: I might be inclined to agree with you. But since it isn't, I'm inclined to feel that there are far more pressing issues to equality, than the prosiac idea that arming oneself makes one "equal."

The "downsides" to owning a fire arm are no different then the downsides of owning a vehicle.

Well, I'm not too crazy about the need to own one of those, either. I'd far, far prefer to live within the means of my bike.

But, since I would need to drive my car far more than I'd need to shoot someone, let's just say that this statement is apples vs oranges.

In fact many more people are killed yearly by automobiles then firearms. We justify owning vehicles because they make our lives more livable. Why would you not justify something that is just as necessary in a crisis situation?

Sorry, but I have yet (thank whatever fates, martial training, whatever) to encounter a crisis situation where a gun would help me out of it.

However, I CAN imagine a universe of crisis situations caused by OWNING a gun, not the least of which involve kids, theft of said gun (leading to a mistaken ID upon discharge), etc.

If fear of "governmental interference on your civil liberties" is a concern of yours, how is letting the government take away your right to defend yourself helping your plight?

Ah, now: this is a completely different topic. Government interference. Up to this point, you have been providing rationales as to the need to own a gun (none of which I agree, as I mentioned).

Since we're on a different subject, my opinion is this: I don't WANT the gov't to take away a SINGLE civil liberty, at this time...and that includes guns--even tho I don't personally like guns, or plan ever to own one.

[dps]

Sorry, but I have yet (thank whatever fates, martial training, whatever) to encounter a crisis situation where a gun would help me out of it.

However, I CAN imagine a universe of crisis situations caused by OWNING a gun, not the least of which involve kids, theft of said gun (leading to a mistaken ID upon discharge), etc.

CAN you imagine a situation that a gun would help you out?

David

[Neil Mick]

CAN you imagine a situation that a gun would help you out?

David

Emptied of bullets: using the handle to pound nails, with? :freaky:

[HL1978]

Sorry, but I have yet (thank whatever fates, martial training, whatever) to encounter a crisis situation where a gun would help me out of it.

It doesn't take much imagination to think of situations where it would be very desirable:)

Here are a couple:

New Orleans. Post Katrina before the return of the police and national guard. Oddly enough, the police disarmed lawfully armed people inside their homes, ones who could use them for self defense as they weren't outside looting.

1992 riots in LA. 53 people died, dozens were beaten. You don't think Reginald Denny might have been better off if he had a firearm in his truck?

You are a pilot and go down in bear country miles from civilization.

Of course if you don't live in the inner city, and you live out in the suburbs or countryside, you are less likely to be in an area where gun violence predominantly occurs. On the other hand, the above situations where civil order has broken down, or you are out in the wilderness, firearms are a very useful tool.

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Equality only has meaning in discourse where people have an "equal" understanding and respect of such; or people have the power somehow or other to enforce their idea of equality on one another to a mutually-acceptable compromise distance. After all, equality by definition cannot be absolute. It is also, by definition, not compatible with results in the real world (i.e., the idea of equality does not refer to equal results).

[Neil Mick]

It doesn't take much imagination to think of situations where it would be very desirable:)

Here are a couple:

New Orleans. Post Katrina before the return of the police and national guard. Oddly enough, the police disarmed lawfully armed people inside their homes, ones who could use them for self defense as they weren't outside looting.

I'm not sure how firearms would help, here. Sure, there were cases of looting, but it's been shown to be overblown. Personally in such cases, I'd rather have a good bokken, handy...but a live blade works, too.

1992 riots in LA. 53 people died, dozens were beaten. You don't think Reginald Denny might have been better off if he had a firearm in his truck?

How many ppl might he have killed, in the ensuing gun-battle?

All the proposed scenarios imply a "Wild West Main Street" background, where the bad guyz are dressed in black, waiting at one end.

In reality, stray bullets kill innocent bystanders, too.

You are a pilot and go down in bear country miles from civilization.

But, I'm NOT a pilot, and I doubt the FAA would look to kindly upon my packing my Smith & Wesson along with me, for my next flight, if I were. :freaky:

Of course if you don't live in the inner city, and you live out in the suburbs or countryside, you are less likely to be in an area where gun violence predominantly occurs. On the other hand, the above situations where civil order has broken down, or you are out in the wilderness, firearms are a very useful tool.

Yes, they can be. Their usefulness as a means to restore civil order is, IMO, vastly overrated.

[Dirk Hanss]

How bout to keep others from doing violence to you?
So you are telling us, that fire-armed street gangs are keeping their 'counterparties' from doing violence?

With fire-arms there is only one way to stop violence. You have to shoot first - and you have to hit or even kill them. That means you do not only have to buy a weapon, you have to train to draw fast and shoot precisely and probably the bad ones do it more than the 'good normal citizens'. So it is not equality at all.

There is some logic behind the idea that some people might not try to do people harm, if tere is a significant chance to receive a bullet in one's head. So there might be less crime - in numbers. On the other hand, if someone wants to get your money and had to fear fire-armed reaction, he would not even risk to threat you. He would knock you down or even kill you and then look for anything useful.

There an older idea, that armed citizens would be more difficult to suppress by a junta. In effect the idea does not work either.

Best regards

Dirk

[Michael Varin]

I fear this post may get lengthy.

This is a most critical issue. Unfortunately, many take a stand based on emotion without taking the time to see how all the pieces fit together. If their stance on the issue is well thought out and they still fall on the side of "gun control," they automatically reveal themselves as anti-rights.

Personally, I thought the taking away of the rights of indidividuals to own a hand gun was outrageous. At the time it was very difficult to legitimately own one, you had to be a recognised member of a gun club and be police checked to a great degree. The number of shootings by legitimate hand gun owners was virtually zero.

It's good to hear you were outraged, but in the situation you describe individuals had already lost their right. What they had was a privilege.

The danger of confusing rights and privileges cannot be overstated. I hear people talking about "rights" all the time, but they clearly lack an understanding of what a right is, and where they come from.

A right is something that you don't have to ask permission to do, and has no conditions or limitations. On the other hand, a privilege is something that requires permission, and can be revoked at any time. Rights pre-exist any governments or other groups. They are expressions of the nature of man. All rights can only be understood through property, the most basic of which is the individual's own body.

I just can't get my head around the concept that flooding the world with deadly weaponry makes it a safer place.

It's not about "flooding the world with deadly weaponry." It's allowing humans to live in freedom that makes the world a safer place. Owning weapons is just a part of that.

Some people are born big and strong, while others weak and sickly. And youth has the advantage physically over the old. Those are inequalities. If insuring that all people are equal is your goal, then arming everyone is a sure way to even out those differences.

This is true, which is why guns have been referred to as the great equalizer; however we have to be careful when we start to talk about "equal." Absolute equality is not achievable nor is it desirable, and our attempts to get there would be just as criminal as they would be futile. Equal rights, equal laws, but not absolute equality.

Considering the downsides of gun ownership (increased injury to others, etc), however; I'd also say that owning a firearm is hardly a qualifier, for equality. I am far, far more concerned about the inequalities of economics, race, and governmental interference on my civil liberties, than I am about owning a weapon that can just as easily be used against me in a struggle.

However, I CAN imagine a universe of crisis situations caused by OWNING a gun, not the least of which involve kids, theft of said gun (leading to a mistaken ID upon discharge), etc.

I'm curious, Neil. What is your first hand experience with firearms? Have you ever learned how to properly handle and fire a gun? What about guns repulses you so much? (By the way, if you don't want to own a gun, I have absolutely no problem with that.)

Since we're on a different subject, my opinion is this: I don't WANT the gov't to take away a SINGLE civil liberty, at this time...and that includes guns--even tho I don't personally like guns, or plan ever to own one.

At this time! When is the right time to take away civil liberties?

It never ceases to amaze me that people who are concerned with losing their civil liberties fail to recognize that guns in the hands of the citizens (it helps if they are informed and used to exercising their rights) is one of the largest obstacles for tyranny. Look at the actions of Stalin, Hitler, or countless others.

The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press. -- Thomas Jefferson

But, I'm NOT a pilot, and I doubt the FAA would look to kindly upon my packing my Smith & Wesson along with me, for my next flight, if I were.

What a shame. How easily could the worst of 9/11 have been prevented if the cockpit crew had been armed, with a randomly seated armed security guard in the cabin? Once again, the government infringing on people's rights (self-defense in this case) causes more harm than good.

[Taliesin]

Interesting Debate

The Civil Liberties argument - that there was/is no legitimate basis for withdrawing the entitlement to own a gun. This is an argument based by both sides of the relative advantages to society as a whole on banning/allowing gun membership. In other words it all comes down to the virtues or otherwise of gun control

The arguments both for and against Gun Contol are based on their effectiveness for self defence against general harm.

Which would leave on these grounds - an obligation to show that guns are either more or less effective at providing protection than other tools of seld defence, pepper spray, CS Gas, etc

[HL1978]

I'm not sure how firearms would help, here. Sure, there were cases of looting, but it's been shown to be overblown. Personally in such cases, I'd rather have a good bokken, handy...but a live blade works, too.

Id rather have a firearm than a live blade personally, and I've got about 10 years of kendo and iaido experience. Depending on if it is a shotgun or handgun, it may be more maneuverable in tight quarters like inside a building.

I'm not sure how many murders occurred in New Orleans post Katrina, but when cops are looting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN2DmtIm6Qo) on film, I'm not sure how much they would be able to do to help me or my family.

How many ppl might he have killed, in the ensuing gun-battle?

Displaying a firearm doesn't mean that a firearm has to be shot. Simply displaying it may be enough that people have second thoughts. A mugger (usually) displays his weapon, he doesn't shoot you or stab you in order to get you to give over your money. Maybe he would have killed people. maybe he wouldn't, but it would have been a defensive use, and he likely wouldn't have been beaten.

All the proposed scenarios imply a "Wild West Main Street" background, where the bad guyz are dressed in black, waiting at one end.

In reality, stray bullets kill innocent bystanders, too.

Sure, but again, you are assuming that a firearm has to be fired, to be effective for defense. However, situations like this, where the police can't come to help and you are on your own do occur. If for whatever reason you can't get out of such an area (injury, sick relative, all routes blocked) you wouldnt feel safer with one, assuming proper training?

Some states have castle doctrine, IE when someone enters your house, you don't have to retreat, you can shoot them. Pretty harsh.


But, I'm NOT a pilot, and I doubt the FAA would look to kindly upon my packing my Smith & Wesson along with me, for my next flight, if I were. :freaky:

this isn't commercial flying on Delta/AA. Alaskan law requires it.

http://amd.nbc.gov/safety/library/alsehb.pdf
http://www.atlasaviation.com/AviationLibrary/FlyingInAlaska/FlyinginAlaska.htm

for general aviation, they don't really care as much about it. The pilot can do far more damage with their plane, than firing a small firearm from a plane. Commercial is different, and after 9/11 pilots can carry if they are trained.

I realize you might not be a pilot, nor live in New Orleans post Katrina, nor likely lived in LA during the riots, but these are just a few situations I can think of where having a firearm would be useful.

Yes, they can be. Their usefulness as a means to restore civil order is, IMO, vastly overrated.

I disagree. Asides from their status as authority figures with arrest powers, one of the reasons people don't mess with cops is because they carry firearms, and usually appear in superior numbers. Same for the National Guard. When they are called in to restore order, they aren't carrying sticks, they are carrying M16s. Unlike the UK, the US has a high rate of gun ownership, and without the police being armed, they would have no way to restore civil order.

I'm not out there looking for a scenario straight out of Red Dawn, but wanted to point out that there are scenarios where a firearm would be useful.

[ChrisHein]

If you see yourself as a victim. You will always see guns as "evil". You can only imagine people more powerful then yourself using their weapons to take advantage of you. This is the victims mentality.

If you are not a victim you can see firearms are just another tool. No different the kitchen knives, cars, or matches.

[Taliesin]

Chris

Most of us have grown out of the 'it can't happen to me' philosophy of life - it's a shame you aren't one of them.

[Hogan]

Mmmmmmmmmm.. GUNSSS..

http://dcist.com/attachments/dcist_martin/2005_0520_Homer%2520With%2520Gun.jpg

[ChrisHein]

Chris

Most of us have grown out of the 'it can't happen to me' philosophy of life - it's a shame you aren't one of them.

"It can't happen to me", you mean like, "no one will ever come into my house to do me harm"...

[Neil Mick]

What a shame. How easily could the worst of 9/11 have been prevented if the cockpit crew had been armed, with a randomly seated armed security guard in the cabin?

Could've...would've...should've. It's all speculation. You have no idea, for instance: if there WERE armed guards in the cockpit of the planes, if the hijackers would have found something to deal with them, as well. In short, you're dealing in speculation.

Once again, the government infringing on people's rights (self-defense in this case) causes more harm than good.

Did you know that the FBI was NOT allowed to investigate gun-ownership of the hijackers because it would interfere with their right to privacy, and to bear arms? :freaky: :freaky: It works both ways.


I'm curious, Neil. What is your first hand experience with firearms? Have you ever learned how to properly handle and fire a gun? What about guns repulses you so much? (By the way, if you don't want to own a gun, I have absolutely no problem with that.)

Very little. I had some experience with BB guns on a target-range when I was a kid: that's about it. And no: I don't want to own a gun; but neither do I want to take away someone else's right to own one, either...even tho I find the "right to bear arms" one of the most controversial and contentious of the Bill of Rights.

At this time! When is the right time to take away civil liberties?

In the midst of a long, carefully thought-out debate in a climate free from emergencies or strife, amongst all sectors of society. In other words, this may never happen.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who are concerned with losing their civil liberties fail to recognize that guns in the hands of the citizens (it helps if they are informed and used to exercising their rights) is one of the largest obstacles for tyranny.

No, not by a long shot. One of the largest obstacles to tyranny is the freedom to speak your mind. THAT is the first liberty to go.

THAT, followed closely by repression of women's rights (check, it's one of the first official mandates of all tyrannies; but they usually disguise the fiat as something more all inclusive).

Id rather have a firearm than a live blade personally, and I've got about 10 years of kendo and iaido experience. Depending on if it is a shotgun or handgun, it may be more maneuverable in tight quarters like inside a building.

Well, that's you...not me. I've had more than a score of years' experience in martial arts: and even if I had gun-training--I might feel less twitchy about guns in general; but I doubt I'd feel different about their impact upon society.

Displaying a firearm doesn't mean that a firearm has to be shot. Simply displaying it may be enough that people have second thoughts. A mugger (usually) displays his weapon, he doesn't shoot you or stab you in order to get you to give over your money. Maybe he would have killed people. maybe he wouldn't, but it would have been a defensive use, and he likely wouldn't have been beaten.

Then, in this case: a toy-gun (or one with blanks) would have done the job, just as well.

Sure, but again, you are assuming that a firearm has to be fired, to be effective for defense. However, situations like this, where the police can't come to help and you are on your own do occur. If for whatever reason you can't get out of such an area (injury, sick relative, all routes blocked) you wouldnt feel safer with one, assuming proper training?

No, as a loaded weapon could be taken from me and used against me (or others).

Some states have castle doctrine, IE when someone enters your house, you don't have to retreat, you can shoot them. Pretty harsh.

And some burglars in OTHER states have sued (and won) against people protecting themselves IN THEIR OWN HOMES, with firearms. It all depends upon what state we're referring.

this isn't commercial flying on Delta/AA. Alaskan law requires it.

This doesn't make the skies any safer, IMO. Just more likely that someone will get shot.

I'd feel FAR safer if the US weren't the #1 seller of small arms in the world; or if we decided that we had to invade the heart of the Middle East in order to control the flow of oil.

Failing that, I see little rationale that using the same logic we approach in our foreign policy (that is, the one with the biggest weapons wins, and can tell everyone else what to do, and how to behave) in our daily lives and commercial security will make life noticeably safer.

You might disagree, and I respect that. I even respect it so much, that I would fight to preserve a civil liberty, of which I don't personally value.

I realize you might not be a pilot, nor live in New Orleans post Katrina, nor likely lived in LA during the riots, but these are just a few situations I can think of where having a firearm would be useful.

In the surface, I disagree with these examples. But, I CAN see certain examples where owning a gun might be justified (but not by me, personally).

I disagree. Asides from their status as authority figures with arrest powers, one of the reasons people don't mess with cops is because they carry firearms, and usually appear in superior numbers. Same for the National Guard. When they are called in to restore order, they aren't carrying sticks, they are carrying M16s. Unlike the UK, the US has a high rate of gun ownership, and without the police being armed, they would have no way to restore civil order.

Nope, I disagree, again...at least, in quantity. Sure, there OUGHT to be specially armed police units who go after the "armed and dangerous" crowd: but you can make a very good argument that the arming the average patrolman causes more harm, than good.

I think that Sean Bell; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell) Amadou Diallo; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo) and many, many others who met the wrong end of a police revolver, might well agree with me.

I'm not out there looking for a scenario straight out of Red Dawn, but wanted to point out that there are scenarios where a firearm would be useful.

Yes, there are: but a firearm as a means to preserve the peace is a misnomer, and way overrated. IMO, at least.

If you see yourself as a victim. You will always see guns as "evil". You can only imagine people more powerful then yourself using their weapons to take advantage of you. This is the victims mentality.

If you are not a victim you can see firearms are just another tool. No different the kitchen knives, cars, or matches.

Absolute nonsense. Kitchen knives, cars or matches were NOT designed to harm, or injure. Guns are designed for nothing else.

And I am not a victim, because I see guns as easily misused. This is called putting words (and thoughts) into my mouth. Someone who comes into my house with intent to harm will find very few victims awaiting him. They won't find any guns, but this does not mean that s/he can just walk into my space, without worries.

[Neil Mick]

Which would leave on these grounds - an obligation to show that guns are either more or less effective at providing protection than other tools of seld defence, pepper spray, CS Gas, etc

And don't EVEN get me started on stun-guns! :eek:

[James Davis]

Did you know that the FBI was NOT allowed to investigate gun-ownership of the hijackers because it would interfere with their right to privacy, and to bear arms? :freaky: :freaky: It works both ways.
Yes it does work both ways, but I would personally rather be free than have everybody watched 24-7.


I had some experience with BB guns on a target-range when I was a kid: that's about it. And no: I don't want to own a gun; but neither do I want to take away someone else's right to own one, either...even tho I find the "right to bear arms" one of the most controversial and contentious of the Bill of Rights.
It is controversial, but only because people make it so. Statistics repeatedly show that private citizens' legal ownership of weapons results in less crime. I don't think that this is the reason that the founders of our country gave us this right, though. I think that they wanted to give us the ability to resist an oppressive government, just like they'd finished doing. They didn't have the benefit of seeing crime rates climb in England or Australia after a gun ban, and they didn't know what Hitler would do after confiscating the guns of the citizens.


In the midst of a long, carefully thought-out debate in a climate free from emergencies or strife, amongst all sectors of society. In other words, this may never happen.
Not as long as "If it bleeds, it leads; If it burns, it earns." holds true for our media. We never hear about the crimes that are prevented by a citizen with a firearm. The media would rather scare us.


No, not by a long shot. One of the largest obstacles to tyranny is the freedom to speak your mind. THAT is the first liberty to go.

THAT, followed closely by repression of women's rights (check, it's one of the first official mandates of all tyrannies; but they usually disguise the fiat as something more all inclusive).
I don't trust a government that doesn't trust me with a gun.


I've had more than a score of years' experience in martial arts: and even if I had gun-training--I might feel less twitchy about guns in general; but I doubt I'd feel different about their impact upon society.
Bows and arrows, knives, swords, all the way back to sharp rocks and sticks have been used to help us kill each other forever. Education, not indoctrination:rolleyes: , is the key to making things better. There are still idiots out there that hate people because they're a different color, and I think that their teaching their kids to be the same way is just as harmful as any weapon.


No, as a loaded weapon could be taken from me and used against me (or others).
I know by the end of your post that you're not a defeatist and that you won't just roll over for somebody, but people in their seventies who live alone need options. Guns are a (comparativley) cheap way of someone defending theirself when they can't afford high concrete walls and bodyguards. Why even put a lock on the door when they'll just break it in? Why even try to be safe? Because our lives have value, and people don't want to just give up.

some burglars in OTHER states have sued (and won) against people protecting themselves IN THEIR OWN HOMES, with firearms. It all depends upon what state we're referring.
and the laws that enabled them to sue suck. Hell, if they had cut their ankle breaking through the window, they could have sued too.

Anyone care to submit a solution to this...?:dead:


I'd feel FAR safer if the US weren't the #1 seller of small arms in the world; or if we decided that we had to invade the heart of the Middle East in order to control the flow of oil. Failing that, I see little rationale that using the same logic we approach in our foreign policy (that is, the one with the biggest weapons wins, and can tell everyone else what to do, and how to behave) in our daily lives and commercial security will make life noticeably safer.
Even guys with AK-47s don't want to get shot with my wife's .22! If there is any threat of being shot, scumbags will look for an easier target. It's not about an arms race on my street.

You might disagree, and I respect that. I even respect it so much, that I would fight to preserve a civil liberty, of which I don't personally value.
Thank you.


In the surface, I disagree with these examples. But, I CAN see certain examples where owning a gun might be justified (but not by me, personally).
What kind of examples?


Sure, there OUGHT to be specially armed police units who go after the "armed and dangerous" crowd: but you can make a very good argument that the arming the average patrolman causes more harm, than good.
The SWAT team is called when there's a big problem. A police presence that can take care of business prevents big problems. I know some great cops, but we need to realize that we have no right to police protection. If we call because a murderer is at our door, they don't necessarily have to respond at all. They can't be sued for the crimes they don't prevent, regardless of how many times we call, panicked and fearing for our lives.

Just Google "Do you have a right to police protection?" for a list of cases that show us who we should depend on.

Yes, there are: but a firearm as a means to preserve the peace is a misnomer, and way overrated. IMO, at least.
How do you stop a bad man with a gun, short of making everyone and everything bulletproof? Take his gun? He can get another one. For as long as there is a buyer, there will be a seller. Drugs are illegal, and they are plentiful.


And I am not a victim, because I see guns as easily misused. This is called putting words (and thoughts) into my mouth. Someone who comes into my house with intent to harm will find very few victims awaiting him. They won't find any guns, but this does not mean that s/he can just walk into my space, without worries.



That's great, Neil. I'm glad that you're taking responsibility for your safety and protecting the people that you love. What about your neighbors? If they don't know aikido, or can't walk, shouldn't they have options?

[Hogan]

Neil Mick wrote: Did you know that the FBI was NOT allowed to investigate gun-ownership of the hijackers because it would interfere with their right to privacy, and to bear arms?....

Source??

[Neil Mick]

Source??

DemocracyNow (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/23/0452213) (amongst many others)

At a December 2001 hearing, Attorney General John Ashcroft declared that FBI checks of gun records into foreigners being detained on suspicion of possible connections to the September 11 hijackers would "violate their privacy."

[Mike Sigman]

DemocracyNow (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/23/0452213) (amongst many others)Sure... and that was the law at the time (before the Patriot Act). Dem lawmakers were stuttering trying to show that all the laws hampering intelligence agencies and building a "wall" where agencies couldn't share information about bad guys wasn't really their fault. It was their fault, though, starting the with the Church Commission. I watched that crook Bob Torricelli trying to explain why he'd rammed through a law saying that the CIA couldn't have any informants on the payroll that had criminal histories.... thus killing our human intelligence prior to the WTC attack.

Liberals have this thing about not wanting to be able to track criminals so that the criminals' rights won't be violated (forget the victims, you know... in fact, hide the statistics about victims and you won't have to do anything about them at all). ;)

Mike

[Neil Mick]

Yes it does work both ways, but I would personally rather be free than have everybody watched 24-7.

Freedom does not necessarily equate to gun ownership. Gun ownership can be considered a freedom: but there are other freedoms more important to yours, truly.

It is controversial, but only because people make it so.

Wrong. It's controversial because we're talking about the right to own a weapon that can easily cause accidental damage. Also, guns in 1789 are not the same animals, as guns in 2007.

Statistics repeatedly show that private citizens' legal ownership of weapons results in less crime.

Uh huh. Let's see 'em.

I don't think that this is the reason that the founders of our country gave us this right, though. I think that they wanted to give us the ability to resist an oppressive government, just like they'd finished doing.

true.

They didn't have the benefit of seeing crime rates climb in England or Australia after a gun ban, and they didn't know what Hitler would do after confiscating the guns of the citizens.

Anyone can play with these sorts of statistics to prove one's point.

Bows and arrows, knives, swords, all the way back to sharp rocks and sticks have been used to help us kill each other forever. Education, not indoctrination:rolleyes: , is the key to making things better. There are still idiots out there that hate people because they're a different color, and I think that their teaching their kids to be the same way is just as harmful as any weapon.

You're completely ignoring the role of guns in extending injustice in various national foreign policies. As a global force, guns hardly make the world safer, now does it?

In the past two decades, our production of small arms has soared, as have our profits and business. Is this making the world safer?

I don't know about you: but I feel a lot LESS safer now, than I did in the '90's.

I know by the end of your post that you're not a defeatist and that you won't just roll over for somebody, but people in their seventies who live alone need options. Guns are a (comparativley) cheap way of someone defending theirself when they can't afford high concrete walls and bodyguards.

Guns are also a comparatively easy method to accidentally blow the head of the hapless mailman, visiting nephew, or yappy dog next door, should said elderly-person mistake the noises for something more dire. :freaky:

Why even put a lock on the door when they'll just break it in? Why even try to be safe?

Because our lives have value, and people don't want to just give up.

You know something? I'm beginning to notice something about pro-gun post'ers. They seem to have an obsession with spinning these tales about eevel home-burglars, young sociopaths and the like. And, funny, but I always end up picturing a Wild West Main Street, where the baddies are at one side; the good guys are at the other, a la OK Corral.

Newsflash...it's almost NEVER like this setup. There's chaos, a lack of information, sometimes poor lighting, etc.

More guns in the equation mean more stray bullets, to hit innocent bystanders. Why can't you pro-gun types ever acknowledge this possibility?

Even guys with AK-47s don't want to get shot with my wife's .22! If there is any threat of being shot, scumbags will look for an easier target. It's not about an arms race on my street.

There goes that "Wild West" scenario again, raising its ugly head.

What if it were at night; the baddies had already sneaked into the house; your wife alone; she hears a noise and fumbles for her gun, but the baddies get there first, knock the gun away and are REALLY mad that she tried to arm herself? It's equally possible.

What kind of examples?

Understand, that I am not a proponent of enacting anti-gun laws. For me, this is still an open question, and I don't intend to have it answered, here (as, I have read all these arguments before).

But, around the late '90's I lived in a nasty area of SF. I was told that it used to be a LOT nastier: gangs roaming around shooting at innocents because they wore the wrong color that day, etc. The gangs were thinning each other out (or going to jail): but the story also is that local homeowners armed themselves and ran the gangbangers out of the neighborhood. Maybe they did: or maybe it was just gang-attrition. I don't know, but I do keep an open mind on the subject. It could be both, or either.

The SWAT team is called when there's a big problem. A police presence that can take care of business prevents big problems. I know some great cops, but we need to realize that we have no right to police protection. If we call because a murderer is at our door, they don't necessarily have to respond at all. They can't be sued for the crimes they don't prevent, regardless of how many times we call, panicked and fearing for our lives.

Just Google "Do you have a right to police protection?" for a list of cases that show us who we should depend on.

How do you stop a bad man with a gun, short of making everyone and everything bulletproof? Take his gun? He can get another one. For as long as there is a buyer, there will be a seller. Drugs are illegal, and they are plentiful.

And, they are much, much more plentiful, thanks to foreign policies and gov't'l corruption. Crack cocaine was largely introduced into the US in the late '80's thanks to GB 1 and the Contra connection. I don't see why the reliance of weapons as international policy also plays into the increasing violence in our communities.

That's great, Neil. I'm glad that you're taking responsibility for your safety and protecting the people that you love. What about your neighbors? If they don't know aikido, or can't walk, shouldn't they have options?

Yes, my neighbors would just LOVE me, should I pop off a few rounds to save their lives, but accidentally shoot their kids in the process...:dead:

[James Davis]

Uh huh. Let's see 'em.
If you think I'm a liar, just say it.

Now why the heck would I bother to cite any statistics when you'll just say something like

Anyone can play with these sorts of statistics to prove one's point.
:D


You're completely ignoring the role of guns in extending injustice in various national foreign policies. As a global force, guns hardly make the world safer, now does it?
You are correct in that I'm ignoring the global impact of guns, for the moment. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about trusting my neighbors to go get their background checks and own a gun legally.


In the past two decades, our production of small arms has soared, as have our profits and business. Is this making the world safer?

Not as long as there are "leaders" who go about terrorizing the people of other nations and "leaders" who do nothing to stop them.


I don't know about you: but I feel a lot LESS safer now, than I did in the '90's.

I'm old enough to carry a concealed weapon, so I actually do feel safer.

I was beat down and robbed by seven guys and came away with a fractured face when I didn't have a pistol. I wasn't allowed to carry one.


Guns are also a comparatively easy method to accidentally blow the head of the hapless mailman, visiting nephew, or yappy dog next door, should said elderly-person mistake the noises for something more dire. :freaky:
Yeah. We should take their cars away, too.:rolleyes:


You know something? I'm beginning to notice something about pro-gun post'ers. They seem to have an obsession with spinning these tales about eevel home-burglars, young sociopaths and the like. And, funny, but I always end up picturing a Wild West Main Street, where the baddies are at one side; the good guys are at the other, a la OK Corral.

Newsflash...it's almost NEVER like this setup. There's chaos, a lack of information, sometimes poor lighting, etc.

More guns in the equation mean more stray bullets, to hit innocent bystanders. Why can't you pro-gun types ever acknowledge this possibility?
It can happen. There, I acknowledged it.

Newsflash...I'm aware that it's "almost never like this setup". You're the one who "always ends up picturing it".

I'm aware that there's chaos, poor lighting, lack of information, and often only a split second to make the decision to fire. I've had the training.

Want me to spin a tale, since I have such an "obsession" with doing so?:p How about after a hurricane, the power goes out and a family has a generator. A group of people think that they'll just gang up on the family, beat them down, take their food, and leave them with nothing unable to call for medical attention. It happens. Don't tell me that it doesn't.


What if it were at night; the baddies had already sneaked into the house; your wife alone; she hears a noise and fumbles for her gun, but the baddies get there first, knock the gun away and are REALLY mad that she tried to arm herself? It's equally possible.
You're right. She should just give herself up.:disgust:


Understand, that I am not a proponent of enacting anti-gun laws. For me, this is still an open question, and I don't intend to have it answered, here (as, I have read all these arguments before).

So there's no point in our talking, then? True, our discussion isn't going to solve the world's problems. I'm gonna speak my mind anyway, regardless of how I or my beliefs are ridiculed.

But, around the late '90's I lived in a nasty area of SF. I was told that it used to be a LOT nastier: gangs roaming around shooting at innocents because they wore the wrong color that day, etc. The gangs were thinning each other out (or going to jail): but the story also is that local homeowners armed themselves and ran the gangbangers out of the neighborhood. Maybe they did: or maybe it was just gang-attrition. I don't know, but I do keep an open mind on the subject. It could be both, or either.

Yes, my neighbors would just LOVE me, should I pop off a few rounds to save their lives, but accidentally shoot their kids in the process...:dead:


Even so much as the possibility of a gun being in your home reduces the chance of theirs being burglarized. If they know that there's no gun in either home, then it doesn't make their behavior nearly as risky.

[Jim Sorrentino]

isa thought-provoking article written by attorney (and former aikidoka!) Jeffrey Snyder. It's at http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.html.

It's one of the best defenses of the right to own and carry weapons that I've read. Enjoy ---

Jim

[Neil Mick]

If you think I'm a liar, just say it.

You, a liar? Naah! Take the statement at face value: I wanted to see the statistics.

Now why the heck would I bother to cite any statistics when you'll just say something like

:D

Ehh...ya caught me. :)

You are correct in that I'm ignoring the global impact of guns, for the moment. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about trusting my neighbors to go get their background checks and own a gun legally.

Given the choice btw walking down the street with unarmed residents, vs walking down one with armed residents: I'd feel safer walking down the former, every time...

Not as long as there are "leaders" who go about terrorizing the people of other nations and "leaders" who do nothing to stop them.

I was beat down and robbed by seven guys and came away with a fractured face when I didn't have a pistol. I wasn't allowed to carry one.

In your shoes, then: I'd probably feel more the same.

Yeah. We should take their cars away, too.:rolleyes:

Yes, take their cars away...please! Make them walk down to the corner store, instead of driving. :drool:

It can happen. There, I acknowledged it.

:D ...and the crowd goes WILD... ;)

Newsflash...I'm aware that it's "almost never like this setup". You're the one who "always ends up picturing it".

I'm aware that there's chaos, poor lighting, lack of information, and often only a split second to make the decision to fire. I've had the training.

Want me to spin a tale, since I have such an "obsession" with doing so?:p How about after a hurricane, the power goes out and a family has a generator. A group of people think that they'll just gang up on the family, beat them down, take their food, and leave them with nothing unable to call for medical attention. It happens. Don't tell me that it doesn't.

Again, you can come up with many scenarios, I'm sure. But, my mind always comes back to the kids playing in dad's closet: finding a gun and deciding to play William Tell.

You're right. She should just give herself up.:disgust:

Nooo...this is called putting words in my mouth.

So there's no point in our talking, then? True, our discussion isn't going to solve the world's problems. I'm gonna speak my mind anyway, regardless of how I or my beliefs are ridiculed.

Good. And, I wasn't ridiculing your beliefs. I much prefer you speak your mind, rather than go away.

[Dirk Hanss]

If you think I'm a liar, just say it.

Now why the heck would I bother to cite any statistics when you'll just say something like

:D


I don't know about, Neil - I don't think that you are a liar, but you definitely misunderstand reading statistics. They do never tell something about cause and results, just about coincidences.
You might get an idea about which is the cause and which the effect, by knowing more about possible functionalities, but you even have to check, which information might have been neglected.
You did not lie, statistics often do it, that is why it would be interesting to see them and the details about collecting the sample.

Just an exaggerating joke to understand, what might happen:
Do you know, how dangerous breast feeding is? I ran a test about all people in the 17th century, who were raised by breast feeding. They are aall dead - 100%! So breast feeding results in death - for sure :!: :?:

Another one that is not clear. If you know some vegetarians, much more oof them might look unhealthy according to your meat-eating friends. - So living as vegetarian is not good for health :?: You might just not know, how many of them were ill and thus switched to vegetarian food. You just might recognise people much easier as vegetarian, when they look unhealthy. So without knowing more about the details and how to raise and filter data, you cannot conclude anything out of this statistic.

Best regards

Dirk

[Michael Varin]

I don't think that this is the reason that the founders of our country gave us this right, though.

James, you sound like a freedom-minded individual, so forgive me if this seems like nit-picking. No one gave us our rights. The founders may have recognized them, they may have been enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but they were already ours and if the Constitution ceases to exist they will still be ours. I think words are important and we must select them carefully, especially when talking about ideas that may be foreign to some (many?).

I'm talking about trusting my neighbors to go get their background checks and own a gun legally.

Once again, with the behavior that you are describing, it sounds like gun ownership is a privilege, not a right.

isa thought-provoking article written by attorney (and former aikidoka!) Jeffrey Snyder. It's at http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.html.

It's one of the best defenses of the right to own and carry weapons that I've read. Enjoy

I first read Nation of Cowards in 1994. The first third of the essay is in our dojo booklet that we give to our students.

You know something? I'm beginning to notice something about pro-gun post'ers. They seem to have an obsession with spinning these tales about eevel home-burglars, young sociopaths and the like. And, funny, but I always end up picturing a Wild West Main Street, where the baddies are at one side; the good guys are at the other, a la OK Corral.

Newsflash...it's almost NEVER like this setup. There's chaos, a lack of information, sometimes poor lighting, etc.

More guns in the equation mean more stray bullets, to hit innocent bystanders. Why can't you pro-gun types ever acknowledge this possibility?

There was a show I used to watch on Court TV (it might still be on) called Most Shocking. You are easily able to see the difference in how the situations progress when the store-owners/employees have guns (any weapon really) versus when they don't. It is the criminals running away in terror v. major property loss, severe beatings/stabbings all the way to execution style murder. No joke!

There goes that "Wild West" scenario again, raising its ugly head.

What if it were at night; the baddies had already sneaked into the house; your wife alone; she hears a noise and fumbles for her gun, but the baddies get there first, knock the gun away and are REALLY mad that she tried to arm herself? It's equally possible.

Are you really concerned about angering people who are assaulting you?

By the way, the "Wild" West was a lot less wild than most urban areas today.

Given the choice btw walking down the street with unarmed residents, vs walking down one with armed residents: I'd feel safer walking down the former, every time...

Here is a blog entry that I came across a few months ago:

Why the gun is civilization (http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

[Neil Mick]

There was a show I used to watch on Court TV (it might still be on) called Most Shocking. You are easily able to see the difference in how the situations progress when the store-owners/employees have guns (any weapon really) versus when they don't. It is the criminals running away in terror v. major property loss, severe beatings/stabbings all the way to execution style murder. No joke!

No, I'm sure it isn't. But by your own admission, that was TV...a show with an editor and a producer, who decide what runs. Hardly an indicator of reality.

Are you really concerned about angering people who are assaulting you?

It was just a hypothetical...:rolleyes:

By the way, the "Wild" West was a lot less wild than most urban areas today.

True. But my point is that few gunfights are set out like a target range, in the middle of the day, or OK Corrall.

Here is a blog entry that I came across a few months ago:

Oh good...a great, big strawman for me to tilt against. And, you've opened a new can of worms for me to wriggle through. :yuck: Strap in, this could get ugly. :freaky: :)

Why the gun is civilization (http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

Sorry, but on its face: this is complete nonsense. Human beings deal in a VARIETY of methods besides force or reason. There's also being completely emotive/irrational (and yes, this mode CAN involve a response neither reasonable, nor forceful); not dealing with a person at all (not knowing the language, etc); off the top of my head.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

Notice how limiting this person's idea of civilization is, that all exchange involves getting HIM to do something for ME.

It gets better.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

You start to notice it right here. It's subtle, but pervasive--this implicit notion that guns somehow "ennoble" the user, yet limits his ability to empathize, as we shall see.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

Bowl me over with your "stunning" logic. :yuck: I have been in mor than a few confrontations where the addition of a firearm would have ended badly. Instead, no one struck a blow. Confrontations are ALSO won with guile, quick-thinking, martial training, mediation, non-violent communication, and empathy.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.

Exactly. So, rather than issue a public weapons arming program: I think it much better to start those free community MA classes.

But cutting to the chase, we come to the most revealing sentence in the whole diatribe:

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone.

What a revelation of cynical sentiment and distrust of people and society, this statement is. He carries a gun because he "wants to be left alone." :freaky: Really, he's NOT "looking" for a fight, but should one arise, he'll be ready, the ennobled rationalist, to make sure that the playing-field is level (just like OK Corrall).

Throughout this thread, all of you pro-gun types have been providing numerous examples on why guns would be useful in this or that situation, etc. And, yes, some of them I can see.

But, NONE of you have yet to talk about the effect of guns upon a society. OUR society, specifically. This blog shows some of the pervasive dangers of living in a violent gun-happy society (a society addicted to faux-violence, pimped hourly by a corporate, mainstream media)...an oversimplification of human behavior and interaction (people are either to be reasoned with, or dealt with, by force), coupled with a strange dehumanization and separation of oneself, from society.

By owning a gun, the implication is that I suddlenly become a rational person, incapable of letting my emotions guide my actions. I just want to be left alone, isolated from the very society I am trying to supposedly protect.

This narcissistic sociopathy pervades our culture through our media. We see it in movies, we're warned of imminent dangers hourly on TV and radio, our entertainment and upbringing of our kids, in the form of "1st person shooter" computer games.

It even infects our language. It CERTAINLY affects our choice of leaders and foreign policy. Who is more highly lauded in American society, than the gunslinging adventurer of the Wild West, fighting to bring civilization to the wild jungle (cf, John Wayne, any Jerry Brookheimer film, et al)?

Isn't this what the US basically did, in 2003? Thumbed their nose at the "obsolete" UN, walk into Iraq like a rootin' tootin' cowboy: stood tall as our Wild West hero proclaimed "Mission Accomplished," and taunted the Indians to "Bring It On!" Did this behavior in the world make us safer?

To all you people who own guns and it makes you feel safer, bully for you. I am not interested in taking away your right to own a gun: so long as you don't try to pass a law FORCING me to own one. But, funny how all of you like to skirt the elephant in the room, of how guns affect us as a society.

[Mike Sigman]

From Santa Cruz, California, home of "Lost Boys" and the Tie-dyed Capital of the Universe:
Hardly an indicator of reality. Thanks. Haven't had a guffaw like that one in years! :D

[Neil Mick]

From Santa Cruz, California, home of "Lost Boys" and the Tie-dyed Capital of the Universe:
Thanks. Haven't had a guffaw like that one in years! :D

Coming from someone who finds amusement in where people live...well, no thanks are necessary, Mike.

You must get LOADS of yucks just passing a map on the wall! Not very challenging to my burgeoning career-skills as online comic! :uch: :D

[HL1978]

To all you people who own guns and it makes you feel safer, bully for you. I am not interested in taking away your right to own a gun: so long as you don't try to pass a law FORCING me to own one. But, funny how all of you like to skirt the elephant in the room, of how guns affect us as a society.

There are somewhere around 60-80 million gun owners in the US.

There are about 1500 accidental gun deaths each year (only 143 of which were of age 19 and under in 2004 according to the Brady campaign http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/children.pdf), about ~150 or so from hunting accidents. I'm sure many of these could be prevented with proper storage of firearms (yet locking away/safety locks/ not loaded doesn't help if you need to utilize it for home defense) and education for young children, however the concerns are overstated when more kids drown in pools, die in fires etc each year. Most of the deaths which aren't suicides don't occur in the suburbs, don't occur in the posh neighborhoods in the city, nor in the rural areas. Apparently, in states/counties with liberal carry laws, there has been no statistical increase in accidental shootings, and ~1% of permit holders have their permits revoked on any given year.

Firearms deaths are tragic, and some are preventable, but the scale of their damage to society is dwarfed by damage dealt automobile deaths, yet we don't see cries from the public for "car control" as in more stringent licensing, requiring drivers to develop better car control skills, retesting the driving portion of the exam every other year, prohibiting cars on the road without ABS or stability control etc.

For suicides, a more effective approach than gun control would be effective treatment of those who need help.

Would outlawing firearms in the US bring down the number of deaths by firearms? Undoubtedly. For those who wish to injure one another would simply start using knives, bats etc (see the rise of knife crime in the UK). Further, given how easy it is for one who has access to a machine shop to construct a firearm on their own, they would still exist. For me, the prevalence of firearms in this country provides an acceptable risk, with acceptable costs, much like we as a society tolerate the risks of highly unskilled and inattentive drivers on our roads for the sake of convenience.

[Mark Freeman]

Not very challenging to my burgeoning career-skills as online comic!

Don't give up the day job yet, Neil:D ;)

I'm lucky enough to live in a virtually gun free environment, which suits me fine. I've only ever had a gun pointed at me with any threat behind it once, back in 1960, I was 5 and the "big boys" were probably about 10, they certainly made me wish I had been wearing brown trousers at the time:eek: . They only had a .22 air pistol but it was a Luger replica, to my young eyes, it was real enough.

I applaud the stand you are taking against the pro lobby, but methinks you are going to be battling for a long time. Your country's love affair with the gun is deep, and the partnership enduring. :sorry:

There is a big difference between a single / double shot rifle and a modern automatic hand gun some of those things could be quite comfortably called WMD.

There is virtually no pro gun lobby in the UK, and as much as our US cousins try to persuade us that we'd be better off with their system, we will probably just muddle along being approx 90+% gun free. ( those figures are just an educated guess, so no one start asking me to name my statistical sources ).

Come and live in Devon for a while Neil, I know of a good dojo you could practice in, and we'd love to have you ;) Totnes is like a sister town to Santa Cruz, without the surf and the seals :( ( and the guns :) ).
It is a bit of an idealistic bubble, but hey, I've lived in a lot worse places, ( the Hillbrow district in Johannesburg to name but one ) I chose this one, mainly cos it's a great place to bring up kids.
I just can't imagine that my life would be enhanced by everyone potentially concealing a deadly weapon, call me dim, but I just can't:crazy:

It's late over here, I'm going to bed, the only weapon hidden under my pillow to ward of any attackers, belongs to my girlfriend.:o

regards,

Mark

[Mike Sigman]

It is a bit of an idealistic bubble, but hey, I've lived in a lot worse places, ( the Hillbrow district in Johannesburg to name but one ) I chose this one, mainly cos it's a great place to bring up kids. Well gee.... you've moved into a safe-harbour basically homogeneous northern-european refuge. Sure, that's safe. As long as you don't allow people who don't respect your culture into your haven. But perhaps we can encourage you to believe that if you just give them things they'll be nice to you?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

[Neil Mick]

I applaud the stand you are taking against the pro lobby, but methinks you are going to be battling for a long time. Your country's love affair with the gun is deep, and the partnership enduring. :sorry:

I'd just wish one gun-enthusiast would make a statement like: "Sure, I own a gun, because there might be some emergency where I might need it, to defend myself. Guns also play an important role in law enforcement.

However, I live in a society which seems to have guns on the brain. We fetishize guns; macho-ize them; consider them extensions of ourselves, the "instant" way to gain "respect" on the street, the great leveller. In reality, guns significantly heighten violence in many social and law enforcement situations where violence might have been otherwise averted.

Guns play an all-too-important symbol in our foreign and social affairs, and enriches an unsavory element of the corporate military-industrial complex."

It makes me think of Nancy Grossman's work, "Gunhead." We Americans have guns on the brain: :freaky:

http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images%5C97523%5C57849.jpg

Come and live in Devon for a while Neil, I know of a good dojo you could practice in, and we'd love to have you ;) Totnes is like a sister town to Santa Cruz, without the surf and the seals :( ( and the guns :) ).

Thanks for the invite...I may take you up on it, someday. But, I can't live away from the water and the mountains for very long. :cool:

It is a bit of an idealistic bubble, but hey, I've lived in a lot worse places, ( the Hillbrow district in Johannesburg to name but one ) I chose this one, mainly cos it's a great place to bring up kids.

Ohh...now look what you did! evileyes

Well gee.... you've moved into a safe-harbour basically homogeneous northern-european refuge. Sure, that's safe. As long as you don't allow people who don't respect your culture into your haven. But perhaps we can encourage you to believe that if you just give them things they'll be nice to you?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

And I was proceeding so NICELY on weening him off this idea that ppl in a community all think alike!

Don't encourage Mike's provincialism!! :D :freaky:

[Mike Sigman]

And I was proceeding so NICELY on weening him off this idea that ppl in a community all think alike!

Really? There's no crime in Santa Cruz????? How strange! Just in case there's the tiniest bit of it, what are the demographics?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

[Neil Mick]

Really? There's no crime in Santa Cruz????? How strange! Just in case there's the tiniest bit of it, what are the demographics?

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Reading my comment and attaching a relevant response is not just a good idea, Mike...it's called "being rational."

Try it sometime: it'll do you good!

[Mark Freeman]

Well gee.... you've moved into a safe-harbour basically homogeneous northern-european refuge. Sure, that's safe.

And the problem is? most places outside of the 'inner city' are very similar to here, there may be a correlation between the lack of fire arms and the relative safety, god forbid, that this could be the case.

As long as you don't allow people who don't respect your culture into your haven. But perhaps we can encourage you to believe that if you just give them things they'll be nice to you?


Please don't encourage me to believe anything Mike. Us 'Liberals' need little prompting, we collectively just don't know how to think for ourselves do we. We eagerly await a good book from the 'right' to awaken us from our leftist delusions and so to be led towards the light/right.;)

regards,

Mark

[Taliesin]

Mark

You do know that MS is likely to take that as a cast iron 'confession'.

[Fred Little]

I'd just wish one gun-enthusiast would make a statement like: "Sure, I own a gun, because there might be some emergency where I might need it, to defend myself. Guns also play an important role in law enforcement. :

How about: "Sure, I own a gun because I and other members of my family have experienced emergencies in which we needed one to defend ourselves."

Nothing so concentrates the attention as the almost universally recognized sound of a round being chambered in a pump-action shotgun.....

Best,

FL

[Neil Mick]

How about: "Sure, I own a gun because I and other members of my family have experienced emergencies in which we needed one to defend ourselves."

Nothing so concentrates the attention as the almost universally recognized sound of a round being chambered in a pump-action shotgun.....

Best,

FL

You didn't even come close to stating the whole thing, and so it doesn't count... :p

[Taliesin]

Neil

I appreciate Fred may have been facetious in his thread, but you gave him the opening (although I'm generally in favour of gun control)

Fred

A few more details would be intersting in tjis ongoing debate.

[HL1978]

http://tinyurl.com/2qlbp9

"In Florida, for example, permit holders are about 300 times less
likely to perpetrate a gun crime than Floridians without permits."

http://tinyurl.com/2v285e

"According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, who conducted
a study of Texas concealed carry revocation rates in the year 2000,
Texas concealed carry holders proved to be 5.7 times less likely to
commit a violent crime, and 14 times less likely to commit a
non-violent offense.

This is what I do find somewhat disconcerting about those who are nervous around concealed permit holders. If someone has a permit, due to the background checks involved, you know that they lack a criminal history, and if those stats are true, they are highly unlikely to commit a crime compared to the general public.

[Neil Mick]

This is what I do find somewhat disconcerting about those who are nervous around concealed permit holders. If someone has a permit, due to the background checks involved, you know that they lack a criminal history, and if those stats are true, they are highly unlikely to commit a crime compared to the general public.

I have a problem with the idea of guns as a cureall for personal and public security. Since your 2nd article was inspired by the VA Tech shootings, let's start there.

What could have been more of a preventative to VA-Tech massacres, than if the student-body were concealed permit-holders?

How about listening to the teachers and counselors who were giving off early-warnings about the shooter?

Katherine Newman on "Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings" (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/08/1328236)

AMY GOODMAN: And talk about the information we now have on how the university, how individual professors, particularly the English department, the chair of the English department, professors like Nikki Giovanni, the well-known poet and writer, had been seeking help for this young man for quite some time, had understood from the plays that he had written how violent he was, the turmoil inside.

KATHERINE NEWMAN: The most tragic thing about the Virginia Tech case is that Cho was on everyone's radar screen. That is actually quite unusual. And the faculty was very proactive in seeking help for him, in trying to shield other students from his aberrant, violent tendencies. Honestly, I don't think the faculty could have done more than what they did do, and it's tragic that it didn't work, because in most cases faculty are more limited in their actions, but they were aware.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain what they did.

KATHERINE NEWMAN: Well, they first refused to teach him in a setting in which he could continue his violent ideation. They tried then to provide him with individual tutoring, and they did -- the head of the English department did -- to try and both coax him into treatment and to simply assist him in thinking through his situation and trying to calm him down. But most of all, they really tried to get him into mental health treatment. So, too, did his roommate, who called the police and tried to, again, get him into treatment. Everyone who connected with Cho attempted to do something for him to get him treatment or to simply remove him from a situation which they saw as increasingly threatening.

He was ultimately, as you said, diagnosed as a danger to himself and to others, and therein lies a tale we will need to learn more about. Why did that not result in his being sent home for the protection of the rest of the campus? I don't really understand what happened there, because it would seem that the grounds were there to take such a dramatic action. We do protect people's civil liberties, and we don't take them away lightly, but in this particular instance, it would appear there were ample grounds to treat the situation differently.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, the young women who were concerned when he was stalking them, either physically, individually, or on the internet, and his roommates, when there was concern expressed about this, he was actually taken away, taken from the dorm, taken to a mental institution.

KATHERINE NEWMAN: That's exactly right. But apparently he was ultimately declared treatable on an outpatient basis, and this seems to be the place where everything fell apart. And again, I think there's a great deal we don't know and will need to be investigated thoroughly, because he was so much more prominent on the radar screen than any of the other shooters I've studied, with the possible exception of one in Springfield, Oregon, some years ago, who also was identified and one day away from being involuntarily committed before he shot his parents and others in his school. But Cho was really recognized for the danger he represented, but he was not ultimately segregated in a way that protected people.

But I suppose if I were to talk about it personally: sure, I'm much more comfortable around a permit-carrier with a concealed weapon than not. Still, guns in anyone's hands make me nervous. I think, tho, that we're talking on two different wavelengths...neither of them wrong, as such, just different.

You're looking at the practical nature of guns in the hands of a fully authorized permit carrier; and I am looking at guns as a social and pyschological influence on society.

[MM]

I have a problem with the idea of guns as a cureall for personal and public security.


Well, I think you'd find that most "pro-gun" people agree with you. :)
Carrying a gun isn't a cure all for most. It's a last resort that most don't really want to use. And when it comes to life and death, one phrase is oft repeated: I'd rather have a tool and not need it than need it and not have it.

But, as I said, it's last resort. The people that I know who carry also take classes (safety, defensive shooting, etc), read books on all aspects (legal, ethical, etc), and understand that not putting oneself in a bad situation in the first place is number one for safety.

But, things happen. You could be in a McDonalds and someone can come in and open fire. You can be at a University and someone can come in and open fire. If it comes down to life and death ... some people prefer to have a tool to help keep living. Especially since you can't outrun or stop a bullet.


Since your 2nd article was inspired by the VA Tech shootings, let's start there.

What could have been more of a preventative to VA-Tech massacres, than if the student-body were concealed permit-holders?

How about listening to the teachers and counselors who were giving off early-warnings about the shooter?


Sure. Most people agree with you. Something should have been done before. But, you won't catch all of them that way. So, then, what would have been more preventative -- disarming all of the campus or allowing concealed carry on the campus? Did you ever wonder why there's been no psychotic, mass shootings at: an NRA event, a gun show, or anywhere there are multitudes of pro-gun people congregating?

Even though killers like the one at the VA tech school are psychotic, they aren't stupid. They know that to inflict mass damage on that kind of scale, they have to go where there are "no-gun" zones or where someone can't stop them. In other words, schools.


But I suppose if I were to talk about it personally: sure, I'm much more comfortable around a permit-carrier with a concealed weapon than not. Still, guns in anyone's hands make me nervous. I think, tho, that we're talking on two different wavelengths...neither of them wrong, as such, just different.

You're looking at the practical nature of guns in the hands of a fully authorized permit carrier; and I am looking at guns as a social and pyschological influence on society.

You're in the wrong area, then. :) Move to West Virginia. Guns are integral to the society. We're a hunting/shooting state. Even our Democratic congress critters understand that they can't be "anti-gun". One fact of life is that if you grow up around guns, the "fear" isn't there. But if you grow up in a place where guns are portrayed as "bad" and are legally outlawed, then the gov't instills a "fear" into its citizenry. It becomes a negative social and psychological influence on society, but only because it is created that way.

IMO,
Mark

[HL1978]

Neil, I agree that more could have been done in the past to stop the shooter, and this is a failing in our society which happens again and again and minimal steps are taken to prevent it. for something which the public does seemed concerned about it, it is a curious thing.

Mark does have a valid point though that people in these situations generally choose (there was an incident last year in VA where a gunman choose a police station instead) places where people are unlikely to be armed. The problem is, since we as a society have not taken more steps to prevent these incidents before they occur, what options can be implemented when such an event arises? Clearly better security measures, communication and coodination, but I don't see why one can't take measures for their own self defense.

Even if America became suddenly gun hostile, I would assume unbalanced individuals might do the same as in japan, and have mass knifings.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,129899,00.html

(8 dead, 15 students and 2 teachers injured)

Mark is correct, utilizing a firearm is a last resort.

Neil, I appreciate your honest answers about permit holders. At least online, few people are willing to admit that.

[Mike Sigman]

Nothing so concentrates the attention as the almost universally recognized sound of a round being chambered in a pump-action shotgun..... No, no, Fred.... that just gets their attention. The first round fired into the air has the effect of making everyone listen so intently to what you have to say that it would make a preacher smile. ;)

Mike

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

From discussions I've had with people in the pro- and anti- gun camp, as well as several US citizens who had grown up in homophobic pro-gun homes and changed their minds to become neutral on the issue, I conclude provisionally that both camps have members who have particular fantasies in their heads which when pressed cannot match reality in several critical respects. This to me explains why it is so common to not be able to have constructive discourse, because the critical problems in each fantasy are glaringly obvious to the other camp.

[Hogan]

From discussions I've had with ... several US citizens who had grown up in homophobic pro-gun homes ...

That's a large number, is it??

[Neil Mick]

Well, I think you'd find that most "pro-gun" people agree with you. :)
Carrying a gun isn't a cure all for most. It's a last resort that most don't really want to use.

It certainly cannot compare with can openers and nonlethal appliances, for our needs in daily life.

I need my car to go to work: but I don't need a gun to keep me safe (at least...so far).

And when it comes to life and death, one phrase is oft repeated: I'd rather have a tool and not need it than need it and not have it.

I'd rather have a tool that cannot be used against me, or my loved-ones.

Sure. Most people agree with you. Something should have been done before. But, you won't catch all of them that way. So, then, what would have been more preventative -- disarming all of the campus or allowing concealed carry on the campus?

Honestly, IMO? I'd go with choice A. If the guy were never allowed to own a gun, followed up by extensive counselling and occasional searches for those proven to be a danger (I'm not advocating this, as it would be illegal. But, just as a hypothetical)..well there you go. No guns...no widespread massacre.

Did you ever wonder why there's been no psychotic, mass shootings at: an NRA event, a gun show, or anywhere there are multitudes of pro-gun people congregating?

There are very few mass-shootings ANYWHERE in the US. The bulk of gun-related deaths are not mass-murders.

Even though killers like the one at the VA tech school are psychotic, they aren't stupid. They know that to inflict mass damage on that kind of scale, they have to go where there are "no-gun" zones or where someone can't stop them. In other words, schools.

A determined psyhopath doesn't need a gun to commit mass-murder...viz, the OK city bombings, etc

Clearly better security measures, communication and coodination, but I don't see why one can't take measures for their own self defense.

Neither do I. We're all MA's, after all. I'm all for self-defence.

But what a lot of you are failing to acknowledge is the militarizing effect of guns upon our society. It also affects how we experience the world. Just look at a 1st person shooter videogame, as a good example. How does a player in "Doom" greet everything he sees?

Rifle-barrel first, locked and loaded.

Even if America became suddenly gun hostile,

Highly improbable. The 2nd amendment is likely to be the last civil liberty we lose. It's too encoded in our cultural matrix, to change at the present.

For that to happen, about 20 years (a whole generation) would have to go by without the NRA, Hollywood, or media equating guns with ennobled individualism, much like the article quoted earlier in this thread that I critiqued in post #37.

I would assume unbalanced individuals might do the same as in japan, and have mass knifings.

Sorry, but I don't agree. Stories about "mass knifings" in the media
are rare: and I think there's a reason for that. In this society, we don't identify knives with masculine power in the same manner that we do with guns.

Neil, I appreciate your honest answers about permit holders. At least online, few people are willing to admit that.

Thank you. Again, I want to reiterate that I am not suggesting that guns be made illegal.

But in the meantime, here's a program to give a little perspective:

Bad Cop No Donut (http://www3.sympatico.ca/ron666/bcnd.html)

The tales of gun fatalities inflicted by the police upon us even as they supposedly protect us are sobering.

Bad Cop, No Donut! is a weekly radio program and podcast hosted by Ron Anicich and produced at CKLN 88.1 FM in Toronto. Each week the show reviews criminal acts committed by law enforcement as reported in the North American media. The show also frequently features interviews and occasionally reports from other independent journalists and in depth looks at particular issues in policing. Sexual abuse, whistleblower cops, domestic violence, tasers... Bad Cop, No Donut! looks at all of them - and a lot more.

Bad Cop, No Donut! relies on information sent in from our listeners. Please let us know if you have been the victim of police abuse, have any story idea or comments.

From discussions I've had with people in the pro- and anti- gun camp, as well as several US citizens who had grown up in homophobic pro-gun homes and changed their minds to become neutral on the issue, I conclude provisionally that both camps have members who have particular fantasies in their heads which when pressed cannot match reality in several critical respects. This to me explains why it is so common to not be able to have constructive discourse, because the critical problems in each fantasy are glaringly obvious to the other camp.

Good point.

[Neil Mick]

No, no, Fred.... that just gets their attention. The first round fired into the air has the effect of making everyone listen so intently to what you have to say that it would make a preacher smile. ;)

Mike

Yes. Especially if the guy is a roofer, eyeing the hole you just made as a potential future contract... :D ;)

[James Davis]

It certainly cannot compare with can openers and nonlethal appliances, for our needs in daily life.There's no such thing as a nonlethal appliance; All it takes is a little imagination.:rolleyes:


I need my car to go to work: but I don't need a gun to keep me safe (at least...so far).
I'm glad of that.


I'd rather have a tool that cannot be used against me, or my loved-ones.
Suggestions?


Honestly, IMO? I'd go with choice A. If the guy were never allowed to own a gun, followed up by extensive counselling and occasional searches for those proven to be a danger (I'm not advocating this, as it would be illegal. But, just as a hypothetical)..well there you go. No guns...no widespread massacre.
but...

A determined psyhopath doesn't need a gun to commit mass-murder...viz, the OK city bombings, etc


Neither do I. We're all MA's, after all. I'm all for self-defence.
What about defense of others? If my daughter, or some other non-combatant, is with me and we are outnumbered, what can my aikido do to protect them? I say "thin out their numbers".

But what a lot of you are failing to acknowledge is the militarizing effect of guns upon our society. It also affects how we experience the world. Just look at a 1st person shooter videogame, as a good example. How does a player in "Doom" greet everything he sees?

Rifle-barrel first, locked and loaded.
If a horned mutant toting a lazer gun is what greets me around the corner, I'm emptying my clip!:D


Sorry, but I don't agree. Stories about "mass knifings" in the media
are rare: and I think there's a reason for that. In this society, we don't identify knives with masculine power in the same manner that we do with guns.
We do, however, identify cars with freedom. There are plenty of people out there that, based on their driving, should be taking the bus.

Again, I want to reiterate that I am not suggesting that guns be made illegal.
Good.

The tales of gun fatalities inflicted by the police upon us even as they supposedly protect us are sobering.


So on whom should we depend for protection...?

[Neil Mick]

There's no such thing as a nonlethal appliance; All it takes is a little imagination.:rolleyes:

Point.

But I feel less threatened by a man coming at me with a can opener than with a .45.

Suggestions?

Again, a bokken works.

What about defense of others? If my daughter, or some other non-combatant, is with me and we are outnumbered, what can my aikido do to protect them? I say "thin out their numbers".

We've gone over this already. I am not comforted by the use of a firearm to protect others: too much of a possibility to accidentally injure passersby.

You feel differently. I can respect that.

If a horned mutant toting a lazer gun is what greets me around the corner, I'm emptying my clip!:D

:D "PEOPLE OF EARTH! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfpSXI8_UpY) :D

I'VE COME A LONG WAY TO GIVE YOU THIS MESSAGE!!!

THIS UNIQUE and attractive POTATO SHREDDER IS for YOU!!!"

"GUN!!!!" Blam! Blam! :D

We do, however, identify cars with freedom.

You might ALSO remember a time when cars were identified with masculinity...'60's, muscle-cars, and James Dean. And it is easily debatable that cars, for all their vaunted claims to provide "freedom," also mean gridlock, increased global warming, more fatalities than the deaths from the Civil War, WW's 1 and 2...combined; and the effective end of trolley-car transit in American cities (a campaign waged quite consciously by Standard Oil).

It is important to understand the uses of technology: but it is equally important to examine how they negatively impact on our lives and our society.

Guns are no different.

So on whom should we depend for protection...?

The police, of course. But we don't have to accept them as blameless public servants with a spotless record.

I'd just as well have everyone armed with swords. Now, there's a lobbying organization I could get behind...the NBA!!! (National Blades Assoc) ;) A katana in every home~~!! :freaky:

[Mattias Bengtsson]

According to the Small Arms Survey 2007
out of the 875million military, civilian and police firearms in the world, 650million of them are civilian, and 270million (41%) are owned by Americans.

This means that there are 90 firearms per 100 citizens in the US...

My neighbourhood country Finland are on 3rd place with 56 firearms per 100 citizens and yet only 14% of homicides are gun-related. (America have 2/3rds)

My own country Sweden are on 8th place with 31 guns per 100 citizens, putting us on the same place as Canada and Austria. Countries with comparatively low gun related homicides, and yet a pretty high ownership of guns.

in America there is an average gun-killing rate of 3.97 per 100,000 of the population; in Canada it is 0.59; in Switzerland it is 0.51; in Sweden it is 0.37; in England and Wales it is 0.14 (12). from here: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2877/

But these weapons are long arms, they're used for hunting and sport. Not self defence of robberies. (although there are exceptions naturally)

Also i found this: it is a federal crime for a gun to be possessed by the following people (even in cases of recreational hunting):

# A convicted felon
# An illegal drug user or addict
# An illegal alien
# A dishonorably discharged military member
# Anyone convicted of domestic violence
# A fugitive
# Anyone under indictment
# Anyone subject to a final protection order
# Anyone adjudicated mentally defective
# Anyone engaged in a federal crime of violence or a drug crime


on a site about Gun control in West Virginia.. (since Mark brought it up)
So.. basically these are people in West Virginia Who don't have rights to own a gun legally..
I don't know about you, but I sure have no problems with that..

[Taliesin]

Can soeone onthe pro-gun side please explain why the argument is always put forward that only guns are a defence to other guns???

[Mattias Bengtsson]

One thing that struck me is that calling a gun a equalizer isnt really correct.

Pulling the trigger on another human being is harder than people think.

So arm two people and have them face off each other in a room, the advantage would fall to the one with the most violent or less empathic tendencies.. Which would most likely be the criminal...

[James Davis]

The police, of course. But we don't have to accept them as blameless public servants with a spotless record.


The case histories listed are pretty horrible, and not for the faint of heart:

http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html

Legal cases have repeatedly decided that we have no right to police protection. They don't have to help us. I know a lot of great cops who do a great job, but I want to have the ability to not have to wait for them to defend my life. My safety, and the safety of my family, is my responsibility. I don't see why some stranger should have to risk his life to protect me, even if he's a cop.

[James Davis]

Can soeone onthe pro-gun side please explain why the argument is always put forward that only guns are a defence to other guns???

Kevlar's expensive.

Guns aren't the only defense available when threatened by another person with a gun, but I'd rather try and defend myself with a gun than with a letter opener.

What would you suggest, David?

[Neil Mick]

The case histories listed are pretty horrible, and not for the faint of heart:

http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html

Legal cases have repeatedly decided that we have no right to police protection. They don't have to help us. I know a lot of great cops who do a great job, but I want to have the ability to not have to wait for them to defend my life. My safety, and the safety of my family, is my responsibility. I don't see why some stranger should have to risk his life to protect me, even if he's a cop.

Cops cannot guarantee your safety.

Guns cannot guarantee safety.

The NRA, NVC, FBI, or any other acronym cannot guarantee safety.

Walls and security guards do not guarantee safety.

In short, "safety" and security is relative, and the notion of being "completely safe" can be filed under "Tooth Fairies, Santy Claus and Other Myths We Tell Ourselves, To Make Us Feel Better (or, TFSCOMWETOTMUFB, if you like acronyms.)" No one is completely safe from harm. And IMO, guns only raise the bar a little.

[Mashu]

Can soeone onthe pro-gun side please explain why the argument is always put forward that only guns are a defence to other guns???

Because flamethrowers are illegal?

[Michael Varin]

We've gone over this already. I am not comforted by the use of a firearm to protect others: too much of a possibility to accidentally injure passersby.

You feel differently. I can respect that.

As you stated earlier, Neil, you have almost no experience with firearms. If you handle a gun confidently and with respect, and practice the correct habits, accidental shootings are very unlikely. There are only four rules of gun safety:
1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target and you are ready to shoot.
4. Identify your target, and what is behind it.

All "pro-gun" people that I've been around handle their weapons with care. I've never been uncomfortable around them or felt threatened. My one bad experience was in police academy. We were on the firing line; a female cadet turned to ask the instructor a question and pointed her gun at my side of the line. The instructor laid into her so severely that she cried and then quit.

But I feel less threatened by a man coming at me with a can opener than with a .45.
Again, a bokken works.

Would you feel more threatened by a man coming at you with a .45 or a bokken?

It is important to understand the uses of technology: but it is equally important to examine how they negatively impact on our lives and our society.

Guns are no different.

I'm not so sure of your vilification of guns. Here's some American history. Although, the country was more rural, there was a time when it was common for little boys to bring their rifle to school and do some shooting or hunting after school was out. To my knowledge there were no reported school shootings in those days. Also, "gun control" laws in America have a racist origin. From the times of slavery to the Black Panthers, some people have just never liked the idea of black people owning firearms.

If you want to talk about negative impact on our lives and society, I think welfare, making victimless "crimes" illegal, inflation, and lack of respect for property have caused far greater damage than guns.

The police, of course. But we don't have to accept them as blameless public servants with a spotless record.

Court cases aside, can anyone describe a time when they or someone they knew was protected by the police?

Police are simply the apprehension arm of the criminal justice system. Their presence deters crime, for sure, but do we really want or need to live in a world where every block is assigned its own cop?

Guns cannot guarantee safety.

I don't think anyone is saying that they do.

I'd just as well have everyone armed with swords. Now, there's a lobbying organization I could get behind...the NBA!!! (National Blades Assoc)

Not sure if this was a joke. The Japanese had a society where one class of people carried swords, and could kill lower class people for no reason. People often hate guns, but fantasize about swords and samurai. Changing the weapon of choice from gun to sword to stick to fist doesn't change the reality of violence, nor does it create respect for life. I posted this video before; hardly anyone touched it, but everyone should take a look:

(Warning: graphic footage of sword/machete wounds)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glv57eIHScE

One thing that struck me is that calling a gun a equalizer isnt really correct.

Pulling the trigger on another human being is harder than people think.

So arm two people and have them face off each other in a room, the advantage would fall to the one with the most violent or less empathic tendencies.. Which would most likely be the criminal...

You are giving criminals too much credit. They are looking for easy targets. Most of the time just the presence of a gun is enough to deter crime. No shots need to be fired.

[Neil Mick]

Michael....do you work for a gun manufacturer? :D Cause I feel like you're trying to pitch me a sale...:hypno:


All "pro-gun" people that I've been around handle their weapons with care. I've never been uncomfortable around them or felt threatened.

That's great. It's not the pro-gun people I'm worried about. It's the pro-gun people's weapons getting stolen, getting lost, misused.

Accidents and mischief happen.

Somehow, tho: my trusty weapons-bag, filled with all manner of dangerous wooden objects, don't seem to fill me with the same anxiety.

My one bad experience was in police academy. We were on the firing line; a female cadet turned to ask the instructor a question and pointed her gun at my side of the line

:eek:

Would you feel more threatened by a man coming at you with a .45 or a bokken?

Depends upon range, and intent.

I'm not so sure of your vilification of guns. Here's some American history. Although, the country was more rural, there was a time when it was common for little boys to bring their rifle to school and do some shooting or hunting after school was out. To my knowledge there were no reported school shootings in those days.

That's great. But, that was then: this is now. And, I wasn't simply villifying "guns." I was talking about their wider cultural significance in our society.

Guns are a symbol of misplaced, misogynous masculinity. The movies which promote the gun as this symbol are easy to rattle off...Dirty Harry; Reservoir Dogs (or, ANY Quentin Tarantino, Sam Peckinpah, etc film), Unforgiven (or just about any Western made pre-Unforgiven).

The power and symbol of the gun is amply related in American art, culture, books, TV, video and PC games (cf, Doom, Hexen, Hitman, et al). Our culture is saturated with it (cf, Happiness is a Warm Gun. )

The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. Now, how many OTHER Bills of Rights are so well protected as the 2nd Amendment? When you hear of a Anti-Search and Seizure Lobby, please let me know. :freaky:

Now, why is this lobby so powerful? Simple: follow the money. The US deals in about 60% of the small-arms purchases in the world. Firearms are BIG business.

Also, "gun control" laws in America have a racist origin.

The enforcement of gun control laws had a racist origin. Bit of a difference. But, you're not going to box me into a pro-gun control position, thanks.

From the times of slavery to the Black Panthers, some people have just never liked the idea of black people owning firearms.

If you want to talk about negative impact on our lives and society, I think welfare,

Welfare? Sorry: agree to disagree. But too off topic.

making victimless "crimes" illegal, inflation, and lack of respect for property have caused far greater damage than guns.

Not if you count all the deaths from our small arms exports. And yes, I think it counts.

Think about it: the manufacturer that made the gun you likely own, also probably made the weapons getting sold to whomever wants one, outside the US.

And I DO mean whomever.

And you know what? Even tho it's such good and big business...I only know of ONE movie/book that honestly deals with the topic.

Lord of War. (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lord_of_war/) Good flick. :cool: But, in brief: our society does not have a healthy relationship with guns. We fetishize firearms.

Court cases aside, can anyone describe a time when they or someone they knew was protected by the police?

Yes, I felt that there were times the police protected. I don't feel that way any more (and I know a fair number of police), certainly after I've had to face down whatever-city's-finest, protesting.

Police are simply the apprehension arm of the criminal justice system. Their presence deters crime, for sure, but do we really want or need to live in a world where every block is assigned its own cop?

Um...no. But, that wasn't my point.

I don't think anyone is saying that they do.

But, those of you who speak up (James, etc) talk about it as if there is no other way to preserve one's safety, than to buy a gun.

Not sure if this was a joke.

Yeah, it was.

The Japanese had a society where one class of people carried swords, and could kill lower class people for no reason. People often hate guns, but fantasize about swords and samurai.

Can't help it. It's the martial artist in me. :hypno:

Changing the weapon of choice from gun to sword to stick to fist doesn't change the reality of violence, nor does it create respect for life.

Never said that it did. I think you're running a little far with a simple offhand joke.

You are giving criminals too much credit. They are looking for easy targets. Most of the time just the presence of a gun is enough to deter crime. No shots need to be fired.

But you know something? I had the same experience with aikido. Back when I first started I noticed a sharp difference in the way people acted towards me, after about six months' training. I just stopped getting harassed.

I'd walk through some areas that were deep in the innercity, but people would leave me alone. One time I walked by a 10-year old who looked up, nodded, and said, "Yeah, I have a gun, too."

Did this made me feel safer? No, but clearly the kid thought that I was "packing." Maybe it was simply that aikido taught me how to walk wherever I wanted, without fear or giving off the "victim" vibe.

[James Davis]

Guns are a symbol of misplaced, misogynous masculinity. The movies which promote the gun as this symbol are easy to rattle off...Dirty Harry; Reservoir Dogs (or, ANY Quentin Tarantino, Sam Peckinpah, etc film), Unforgiven (or just about any Western made pre-Unforgiven).

Guns are tools, for good or ill.


Yes, I felt that there were times the police protected. I don't feel that way any more (and I know a fair number of police), certainly after I've had to face down whatever-city's-finest, protesting.

Police officers are just human beings behind those badges. If I call the police because someone is breaking into my house, I think that they would rather arrive on the scene to find that I've shot the intruder than have to risk their lives to deal with them for $30 grand a year. :crazy:


But, those of you who speak up (James, etc) talk about it as if there is no other way to preserve one's safety, than to buy a gun.


Hmm. No. I said:


Guns aren't the only defense available when threatened by another person with a gun, but I'd rather try and defend myself with a gun than with a letter opener.


If I thought that guns were the only way to protect myself, I wouldn't have ever walked into a dojo.;)

[Mattias Bengtsson]

(Warning: graphic footage of sword/machete wounds)

Ok, that was absolutely horrible.

But bullet wounds don't look the least better, especially when they're on children.

[Mattias Bengtsson]

Guns are tools, for good or ill.


I thought it was "Weapons are tools of ill omen"...........

[Neil Mick]

Guns are tools, for good or ill.

As a symbol and cultural icon, guns are a lot more than that...by definition.

Hmm. No. I said:

Guns aren't the only defense available when threatened by another person with a gun, but I'd rather try and defend myself with a gun than with a letter opener.


Sorry, my mistake.

[James Davis]

I thought it was "Weapons are tools of ill omen"...........

Weapons are tools of ill omen. Wielded by the ignorant. If their use is unavoidable,. The wise act with restraint.

[Mattias Bengtsson]

Weapons are tools of ill omen. Wielded by the ignorant. If their use is unavoidable,. The wise act with restraint.

I perfectly agree, so where's the harm in trying to make sure those ignorant people can't get a hold of guns, leaving only the wise who are able to act with restraint able to have them?

I have no problems with people owning guns for legitimate reasons, like hunting, sport or even collecting.
It's when people call "self-defence" a valid reason It starts get worrisome. Because the same people who tell you you need to buy a gun from them for protection are the same people who don't want to make it harder for criminals to get hold of guns, because if they did, then you wouldn't need to buy any guns from them, would you?

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

I perfectly agree, so where's the harm in trying to make sure those ignorant people can't get a hold of guns, leaving only the wise who are able to act with restraint able to have them?

I have no problems with people owning guns for legitimate reasons, like hunting, sport or even collecting.
It's when people call "self-defence" a valid reason It starts get worrisome. Because the same people who tell you you need to buy a gun from them for protection are the same people who don't want to make it harder for criminals to get hold of guns, because if they did, then you wouldn't need to buy any guns from them, would you?

Hehe, in any situation, there are winners and losers. You can choose to join the winners, or stand on the side-lines if you don't want to be a loser. It does not pay to go against the stream. Secrets and their sharing among an exclusive group are a great help of course, if one does not want to be at the mercy of the stream.

[James Davis]

I perfectly agree, so where's the harm in trying to make sure those ignorant people can't get a hold of guns, leaving only the wise who are able to act with restraint able to have them?
Who gets to decide who's ignorant and who's wise?:confused:


I have no problems with people owning guns for legitimate reasons, like hunting, sport or even collecting.
It's when people call "self-defence" a valid reason It starts get worrisome.


Self defense is not a valid reason to own a firearm? But collecting them is?

In some people's opinion, self defense might not be a valid reason to own a gun in some parts of the world. It's been a perfectly good reason to own a gun in every place that I've lived.
Whether I pick up a can-opener, butcher knife, bokken or gun, I am entitled to fight for my life and the lives of my family regardless of what anyone tells me. Being an American and watching Clint Eastwood movies didn't give me this worldview; Love of my family and fear of losing them is giving me cause to take an active role in keeping them safe from those who would do them harm.

Because the same people who tell you you need to buy a gun from them for protection are the same people who don't want to make it harder for criminals to get hold of guns, because if they did, then you wouldn't need to buy any guns from them, would you?


What?:crazy:

Every gun store owner I've known seriously agrees with the process of background checks. They, and I, both think that there are plenty of laws on the books already, and that they need to be better enforced instead of just making more laws. I've known a few gun store owners, and they're not the scumbags that you just described.:disgust:

No gun store clerk ever said anything to convince me to own a gun. My personal experience with random violence, and the experiences of some friends of mine who were sexually assaulted convinced me to get a gun. In fact, a gun store worker convinced me to buy a lower caliber, cheaper pistol for my wife because she'd be better able to use it than one that was more powerful.

Some of the people who run gun shops are not all about the money; They might actually think that the lives of their clientele have value, and are worth defending!:eek: I, for example, don't teach aikido because it's a lucrative business; I teach it because I think people might need it, and I think their lives are worth defending.

[Mattias Bengtsson]

Who gets to decide who's ignorant and who's wise?:confused:


Is that what worries the pro-gun people, that "the man" would deem them unfit of ownership of a gun?

I'd rejoice over the fact that someone took away guns from people who shouldn't have one anyway as "one less off the list who could potentially do harm to me or my family" instead of "they infringed upon my rights to kill anyone who might become my enemy"


Self defense is not a valid reason to own a firearm? But collecting them is?

In some people's opinion, self defense might not be a valid reason to own a gun in some parts of the world. It's been a perfectly good reason to own a gun in every place that I've lived.
Whether I pick up a can-opener, butcher knife, bokken or gun, I am entitled to fight for my life and the lives of my family regardless of what anyone tells me. Being an American and watching Clint Eastwood movies didn't give me this worldview; Love of my family and fear of losing them is giving me cause to take an active role in keeping them safe from those who would do them harm.



You're right, ownership of a weapon for self-defence where I live isn't a valid reason....
It might be due to the fact that NOBODY ELSE are allowed to get one for that purpose either...
Hence, no need for me to get one.

I repeat, I don't own a gun because the off-chance me or my family would get assaulted by someone with a gun are close to non-existent, astronomically small even.
I'm not saying we don't have gun crimes in Sweden, because we do, but they are used in bank robberies, security transports or against other criminals as disputes of the underworld.

It's a case of "the chicken or the egg", do you get weapons to protect yourself armed criminals, or do the criminals get weapons just in case the victim might be armed?

What?

Every gun store owner I've known seriously agrees with the process of background checks. They, and I, both think that there are plenty of laws on the books already, and that they need to be better enforced instead of just making more laws. I've known a few gun store owners, and they're not the scumbags that you just described.


It wasn't the gun store owners I was referring to, they sound like good people with the right idea (not more laws but enforce the one we have, -and i support that, and from the sound of it, so do you) but the weapons manufacturer. The big companies with the money who decides which candidate becomes senators of even president.

[Mattias Bengtsson]

The big companies with the money who decides which candidate becomes senators of even president.

I know this makes me come off as some sort of "conspiracy theorist" but I can't help it. I just recently watched a Tv series where this was part of the main plot :D
So I guess this part off my reply was influenced by that;)

[James Davis]

Is that what worries the pro-gun people, that "the man" would deem them unfit of ownership of a gun?

To a certain extent, yeah. Hitler couldn't have run roughshod across europe without having disarmed the people first. He left the Swiss alone, because they didn't disarm.


I'd rejoice over the fact that someone took away guns from people who shouldn't have one anyway as "one less off the list who could potentially do harm to me or my family" instead of "they infringed upon my rights to kill anyone who might become my enemy"
It's not about "my right to kill anyone who might become my enemy". It's about my right to kill anyone who is attempting to kill me. Perhaps your laws are different over there, but legal precedent in the U.S. tells me that I can not depend on anybody else, not even the police, to keep me safe. It is my responsibility.


You're right, ownership of a weapon for self-defence where I live isn't a valid reason....
It might be due to the fact that NOBODY ELSE are allowed to get one for that purpose either...
Hence, no need for me to get one.

I sincerely hope that there is never a need for you to defend yourself at all. I've never been attacked by someone with a gun; I've been attacked, and nearly beaten to death, by guys who enjoyed seven to one odds.


I repeat, I don't own a gun because the off-chance me or my family would get assaulted by someone with a gun are close to non-existent, astronomically small even.
Same here, but I plan for the contingency. I don't rely on anybody to take care of things for me.


I'm not saying we don't have gun crimes in Sweden, because we do, but they are used in bank robberies, security transports or against other criminals as disputes of the underworld.
You guys don't have innocent bystanders over there? When the banks and security transports prove too tough a target, do you think that robbers will just go legit and get a job? They will choos another target, one that's easier to steal from.


It's a case of "the chicken or the egg", do you get weapons to protect yourself armed criminals, or do the criminals get weapons just in case the victim might be armed?
Criminals generally like to overwhelm their victims with size, numbers, or a weapon of some kind. I've never heard of a mugger coming to someone face to face and challenging them to a duel!:rolleyes:


It wasn't the gun store owners I was referring to, they sound like good people with the right idea (not more laws but enforce the one we have, -and i support that, and from the sound of it, so do you) but the weapons manufacturer. The big companies with the money who decides which candidate becomes senators of even president.


I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist, too. That's why I don't trust a government that doesn't trust me with the power to defend my family.

Some people believe that taking someone's life in self defense is a horrible thing to do, but it's perfectly moral if they have a cop do it for them.:drool:

[Mattias Bengtsson]

To a certain extent, yeah. Hitler couldn't have run roughshod across europe without having disarmed the people first. He left the Swiss alone, because they didn't disarm.


this is so incorrect that it isnt even funny.
no wait, i change my mind. it IS funny.
I can vision Hitler standing around with some of his generals:
"Vell, ve haf reclaimed the Rhineland, which was Ztolen from us by that treaty of Versailles, annexed Austria to join the germans there into greater Germany, it was very popular and the masses cheered when we rolled in. Then we liberated the germans living in Sudetenland from their Czechoslovakian rule, after all, they vere once part of the great holy roman empire which we seek to recreate.
Then those cursed French and British went and allied themselves with Poland. So we had to go to war with them as well.
But not before we had taken Norway to control the swedish Iron ore."
"And Denmark, mein fuhrer"
"What? yes, and Denmark.. almost forgot about them, vell.. they do their part in preventing the British navy into crossing into the baltic sea i suppose.
As luck would have it, Stalin decided to take his chance into invading Finland in the hopes that the none of the allied countries would interfere, he was right, so they turned to us to help them withstand Stalins aggression. So, now between our forces in Norway and in Finland, Sweden caved in and promised to sell us the iron ore we need as long as we dont invade them as well and they stay neutral.
We had to take France so that they dont attack us in the back while we take care of the Russians. I guess we have to send Benito some troops into Africa so that he can secure the Mediterranean sea... Put Rommel on that will you? And now.. lets go east, we got a score to settle with Herr Stalin.."
"Aber, mein Fuhrer, have you not forgotten something?" (points at a large white piece on the map)
"Switzerland? Ach mein Gott Gustaf, are you mad?! zey have RIFLES Gustaf, BIG honking Hunting rifles, every man, woman and child are running around armed to the teeth! How possibly can our Tanks, bomber planes, and Waffen-SS who rather die than surrender compete with them? No Gustaf, lets leave the Swiss alone..."


It's not about "my right to kill anyone who might become my enemy". It's about my right to kill anyone who is attempting to kill me. Perhaps your laws are different over there, but legal precedent in the U.S. tells me that I can not depend on anybody else, not even the police, to keep me safe. It is my responsibility.

People getting guns because they dont believe in the Law Enforcement system to protect them dont solve the problem but rather add to it..


I sincerely hope that there is never a need for you to defend yourself at all. I've never been attacked by someone with a gun; I've been attacked, and nearly beaten to death, by guys who enjoyed seven to one odds.
had a gun helped you in this situation? or had these seven people disarmed you and likely killed you with your own gun?


Same here, but I plan for the contingency. I don't rely on anybody to take care of things for me.

You guys don't have innocent bystanders over there?

No...
Its very rare at least.
When rivals criminals kill each other of they do so by break into their homes and shoot them, or force them into a car and drive them out into the woods and shoots them there, or sneaks up behind them on the street and shoot them in the back..
Even if these people are armed they will not get a chance to use their weapon as they are taken by surprise.
Generally, criminals avoid knocking each other off in public where bystanders are, but not because they are concerned about their welfare, but to limit the number of witnesses.

When the banks and security transports prove too tough a target, do you think that robbers will just go legit and get a job? They will choos another target, one that's easier to steal from.
There are no armed security guards in banks or on transports, so there wont be any major shootouts where bystanders can get hurt.
rob a bank or transport and you will only get a paint cartridge in with the loot destroying all the money, making it worthless..
Unless youre one of the professional criminals who know how to bypass such a device, in which case you can rest assured youre in the police files and will get wakened by a knock on the door by some officers who have some questions concerning your whereabouts at the time in question.


Criminals generally like to overwhelm their victims with size, numbers, or a weapon of some kind. I've never heard of a mugger coming to someone face to face and challenging them to a duel!:rolleyes:

Neither have I.
If a Mugger wants to rob someone, the fact that you are armed will only make them go after someone else, it wont stop the actual robbing.
And if for some reason they really want to rob YOU, (maybe you have just recently withdrawn a huge amount of money to pay for something in cash) the fact that you are armed will only make them either get bigger guns or take you by surprise so you wont get a chance to use your weapon anyway.


I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist, too. That's why I don't trust a government that doesn't trust me with the power to defend my family.

Some people believe that taking someone's life in self defense is a horrible thing to do, but it's perfectly moral if they have a cop do it for them.:drool:

Up until yesterday weve only had over the last couple of months one fatal shooting in Sweden.
A family in a small community have over the past two years been harassed by a group of teenagers. The eldest son in the family have had his moped attempt to being stolen, been forced of the roads, the mother have been harassed while going shopping. mailbox destroyed, eggs been thrown at the windows. Basically harassed and terrorized over two years.
Then, in the middle of the night, a small group of these harassing teenagers show up, armed with clubs and want to "talk" to someone in the family over something that transgressed earlier that day.
The father in the family finally "snaps", goes out on the porch with his shotgun and fires two times, killing one 15 year old and severely injuring a 16 year old..
Then he returns inside and calls the police..
Self defence?
Not according to Swedish law. But the case is still in court.. so we will have to wait and see.

The other shooting happened just yesterday, and other than the victim being "known to the police" there is not much to tell..

[Tom Fish]

There is a potential to abuse every civil right as well as evidence to prove that it does happen. If this potential abuse is an argument to suspend any right, the same thing would apply to all of the other rights. If you think more laws will ensure freedom, your understanding of freedom might be a little skewed.

[Mattias Bengtsson]

There is a potential to abuse every civil right as well as evidence to prove that it does happen. If this potential abuse is an argument to suspend any right, the same thing would apply to all of the other rights. If you think more laws will ensure freedom, your understanding of freedom might be a little skewed.

Like... the patriot act?

[Tom Fish]

Like... the patriot act?
In my opinion this would be an example.

[Bronson]

People getting guns because they dont believe in the Law Enforcement system to protect them dont solve the problem but rather add to it..

Just a quick point. I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement agencies are not duty bound to provide protection.

Bronson

[James Davis]

Just a quick point. I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement agencies are not duty bound to provide protection.

Bronson

Yup. Please see the link in post #65.

[James Davis]

"Switzerland? Ach mein Gott Gustaf, are you mad?! zey have RIFLES Gustaf, BIG honking Hunting rifles, every man, woman and child are running around armed to the teeth! How possibly can our Tanks, bomber planes, and Waffen-SS who rather die than surrender compete with them? No Gustaf, lets leave the Swiss alone..."
I believe that the Swiss are required to have military grade weaponry in their homes.

People getting guns because they dont believe in the Law Enforcement system to protect them dont solve the problem but rather add to it..
:yuck:
Yech! What is that awful taste?!

Oh. It's words in my mouth.:rolleyes:

I never said that I "didn't believe in the law enforcement system". I said that the courts have repeatedly decided that my government does not have to do anything to protect my family. They have taken that particular responsibility and dropped it in my lap! I don't have a choice in the matter!

had a gun helped you in this situation? or had these seven people disarmed you and likely killed you with your own gun?

If I'd been old enought to have a gun legally at the time, I could have emptied the clip long before they reached me in that situation.

If a Mugger wants to rob someone, the fact that you are armed will only make them go after someone else, it wont stop the actual robbing.
Unless I shoot them!:rolleyes:


And if for some reason they really want to rob YOU, (maybe you have just recently withdrawn a huge amount of money to pay for something in cash) the fact that you are armed will only make them either get bigger guns or take you by surprise so you wont get a chance to use your weapon anyway.

Having a bigger gun doesn't necessarily save one from being shot!:D

Look; I'm not saying that guns are going to save everyone in every situation. I'm simply saying that I want to have the option of defending my family.

Especially when legal precedent says that the police don't have to do anything when my life is in danger.

The father in the family finally "snaps", goes out on the porch with his shotgun and fires two times, killing one 15 year old and severely injuring a 16 year old..
Then he returns inside and calls the police..
Self defence?
Not according to Swedish law. But the case is still in court.. so we will have to wait and see.


In my opinion, there's nothing to wait and see about. The father is a murderer. He might try for an insanity plea, but his actions were definitely not legal.

He should have called the cops and told them he'd already shot the people who were threatening his family. That would bring the cops running, and the boys might be in jail, and not dead.:(

[Mattias Bengtsson]

I believe that the Swiss are required to have military grade weaponry in their homes.
in 1940?:rolleyes:
Sorry, but I was only making fun of your inadequate knowledge of history. In reality Hitler had plans on invading Switzerland, he just decided it wasn't worth the effort since they, as well as Sweden, decided to go all defensive and "digging" in, concentrating on slowing down a invasion. Hitler was in a hurry to attack Soviet Union and since he had Great Britain backed up to their island and the only guys left close to him basically showing their hands and backing away saying they dont want to fight it wouldve only been a waste of time jumping them and giving Stalin more time to prepare his forces.

But to say that He didn't attack the Swiss because they hadnt disarmed their civilian population just sound like pro-weapon lobbyist propaganda to me..:crazy:

I should've gone with Godwins law and declare myself a winner of this particular argument the moment you brought up Hitler :p


:yuck:
Yech! What is that awful taste?!

Oh. It's words in my mouth.:rolleyes:

I never said that I "didn't believe in the law enforcement system". I said that the courts have repeatedly decided that my government does not have to do anything to protect my family. They have taken that particular responsibility and dropped it in my lap! I don't have a choice in the matter!

oops, my bad, wasnt my intention to put words in your mouth.:o

Anyway, its a sad thing the precedence that your government has taken to decide upon when it comes to handle crime prevention.
In Sweden, the duties of the Police are declared in Polislagen 1984:387 in which the first and second article declare that the tasks of the Police are to "..promote Justice and Safety [....] uphold public order and safety as well as in other matters ensure protection and other aid."
Naturally, mistakes are made, sometimes people who are under threat of being victimized don't get the protection they need. In those cases investigations happen to decide whether there was a mistake in the judgement of threat assessment, but not swept under the rug as "not our problem".



If I'd been old enought to have a gun legally at the time, I could have emptied the clip long before they reached me in that situation.

unless those people had been armed with firearms themselves you would not have been able to plead self defence for that over here. And of course, HAD theyve been armed with firearms they would have returned the gesture, but hell, at least you would've gone down in a blaze of glory... :cool:


Unless I shoot them!:rolleyes:


yes... a very Aikido approach... :rolleyes:



Having a bigger gun doesn't necessarily save one from being shot!:D

Look; I'm not saying that guns are going to save everyone in every situation. I'm simply saying that I want to have the option of defending my family.



And all I'm saying is that the high rate of Gun crimes is the price you have to pay for the right to do so...

[HL1978]

Anyway, its a sad thing the precedence that your government has taken to decide upon when it comes to handle crime prevention.
In Sweden, the duties of the Police are declared in Polislagen 1984:387 in which the first and second article declare that the tasks of the Police are to "..promote Justice and Safety [....] uphold public order and safety as well as in other matters ensure protection and other aid."

There is the issue of response time. Having the means to defend yourself (as in being proactive) is in my opinion much preferable to being reactive when time may be of the essence.

This runs true whether you are learning first aid, self defense, or hiking in the woods.

[Mattias Bengtsson]

I recognize the logic about "Its better to have a gun and dont need it, than to need a gun and dont have it"

But theres also the issue of "using a gun when you don't need to" as well.

Can you to a 100% guarantee that never ever will you become so angry at someone else that you'll fetch your gun and shoot that other person and not give a damn about the consequences?

Can you to a 100% guarantee that never ever will anyone in your family get so angry that they don't care about the consequences and get hold of your gun/guns?

The more guns people have in their homes to defend themselves with, the more guns will get stolen by burglars (when youre not home to defend it) and then sold on to other criminals.

Thats what I was referring to in a previous post when I said that, "owning a gun adds to the problem rather than solving it"

[Tom Fish]

If a 100% safety guarantee was required for ownership of garden tools, steak knives, lawn mowers, dogs,cars, planes,etc. then you would have a legitimate argument.

[James Davis]

In reality Hitler had plans on invading Switzerland, he just decided it wasn't worth the effort since they, as well as Sweden, decided to go all defensive and "digging" in, concentrating on slowing down a invasion. Hitler was in a hurry to attack Soviet Union and since he had Great Britain backed up to their island and the only guys left close to him basically showing their hands and backing away saying they dont want to fight it wouldve only been a waste of time jumping them and giving Stalin more time to prepare his forces.
But to say that He didn't attack the Swiss because they hadnt disarmed their civilian population just sound like pro-weapon lobbyist propaganda to me..:crazy:

I should've gone with Godwins law and declare myself a winner of this particular argument the moment you brought up Hitler :p

Hitler decreed that firearms should be registered; It seemed reasonable enough at the time. Then, when he had the names and addresses of all the gun owners, he went and took them away.

He took the Jew's firearms first.


oops, my bad, wasnt my intention to put words in your mouth.:o

No big. It seems to happen all the time. Good thing we have documentation.:cool:

Anyway, its a sad thing the precedence that your government has taken to decide upon when it comes to handle crime prevention.
In Sweden, the duties of the Police are declared in Polislagen 1984:387 in which the first and second article declare that the tasks of the Police are to "..promote Justice and Safety [....] uphold public order and safety as well as in other matters ensure protection and other aid."
Naturally, mistakes are made, sometimes people who are under threat of being victimized don't get the protection they need. In those cases investigations happen to decide whether there was a mistake in the judgement of threat assessment, but not swept under the rug as "not our problem".

It sounds like you have a court system that doesn't stink. Do everything you can to keep it that way.:straightf

unless those people had been armed with firearms themselves you would not have been able to plead self defence for that over here. And of course, HAD theyve been armed with firearms they would have returned the gesture, but hell, at least you would've gone down in a blaze of glory... :cool:


unless...

would've...

We can both wax intellectual about what might or might not have happened, but the fact remains that I was nearly killed and I will never just allow that to happen to me again. Or my wife. Or my daughter.

From your posts, I'm concluding that you live in a much less violent place than I do. Congratulations. The fact remains that all of us are one natural disaster away from survival of the fittest.


yes... a very Aikido approach... :rolleyes:


Aikido's great for multiple assailants when they're all attacking you. What are your plans for the contingency of these attackers splitting up to attack you, your significant other, your child, and grandma all at the same time? It might not have ever happened to you, but it happens.


And all I'm saying is that the high rate of Gun crimes is the price you have to pay for the right to do so...


All I'm saying is that is wrong. When guns are taken away, gun crimes go up.


Sorry, but I was only making fun of your inadequate knowledge of history.
Thanks. Have you noticed that regardless of what your beliefs are or what you've said to me, that I have yet to do that to you? A very aiki approach.;)

pro-weapon lobbyist propaganda to me..:crazy:

Characterise me as a gun nut if it makes it easier for you, but my sincere hope is that neither you or I ever need a gun. I don't want to shoot anybody, either.

[Mattias Bengtsson]

He took the Jew's firearms first.

now THAT I can believe. A happy revelation that you do have a better knowledge of history than I was first led to believe ;)



All I'm saying is that is wrong. When guns are taken away, gun crimes go up.


source please


Characterise me as a gun nut if it makes it easier for you, but my sincere hope is that neither you or I ever need a gun. I don't want to shoot anybody, either.

Heck, you might not have guessed it, but I'm somewhat of a gun nut too.. with quite a few books about Firearms, tanks, military aviation..
But the closest thing I have to a firearm is a Colt Army replica ;)
http://jimrobins.cherokee-online.com/images/1860navy.jpg

Now that we might have found some common ground, I can mention that its not the actual ownership of the gun I'm objecting too. But the reason for that ownership.

I don't see a danger of letting hunters own a rifle or a few to go out hunting with.
I am not objecting to those people owning a gun who like to drive out to the firing range on a saturday afternoon with their buddies.
Because these are the kind of people who have a healthy degree of respect and knowledge about guns. Quite possibly they have a weapons safe to keep the gun(s) in when they're not used and to prevent the risk of having them stolen if there is a burglary.

But people who buy a gun for the sole reason to protect them self with but in reality have no ******* clue as to what they just bought or how to use it with respect are just idiots.:disgust:

For your sake, and your family, I hope you belong to the part of gun owners that use your gun now and then in a safe environment (the range), bring your kids and wife along and confer that respect for the handgun to them. And not keep it in a drawer for it waiting to be used... cuz thats a gun with accident written all over it.

[MM]

source please


http://www.gunblast.com/Gun_Facts.htm
All backed by listed sources.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/10/ngun10.xml
News article with sources listed.

[DonMagee]

My whole life I was raised that it was my right, nay, my duty to own firearms. I have owned shotguns, rifles, revolvers, etc. When I moved out on my own I was not comfortable keeping firearms in my apartment with 6 party loving college kids, so I sold them all off. Now, as an older adult with a wife I have decided again to keep my duty as an American to be armed.

I am in the process of introducing my wife to firearms. We have found a 22 that fits her well and she has been shooting at the range each week. I am about to buy myself a SAXD 9mm and probably a compact for a carry.

I think everyone should be armed. Not for self defense, but to prepare ourselves to defend ourselves. This might mean hunting for food, defending against robbers, protecting the life of another, or even defending yourself against a larger power.

In my state, I have the right to kill anyone who is threatening me, my property, or anyone else. That is how the law is written. I would hope to never need to do such a thing. But if you break into my house, you are dead. I'm not going to risk myself to try to save you and confine you in a safe way. I'm going to protect myself from an unknown and just shoot.

This does not concern me, in fact it reassures me to know people in my state know the law and know what can happen when they break into a house. What does concern me, a good bit, was what I found when looking into my CCL. In my state, you do not need any training to get a carry permit. All you have to do is fill out a form and pass a background check. That is it. Untrained gun owners are scary. A person who is wearing a weapon without any training on it's use AND it's retention is even more scary. The thought that a person wearing a weapon near me might not even be trained on keeping someone from taking that weapon away from them and hurting him, me, or others is something I wish my state would address. I think before you are allowed to carry a weapon you should need to pass marksmanship, gun ownership, and weapon retention classes.

I know I will be taking refresher courses on all 3, and so will my wife.

[James Davis]

http://www.gunblast.com/Gun_Facts.htm
All backed by listed sources.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/10/ngun10.xml
News article with sources listed.

Thanks for fielding that one, Mark. It looks like I'll get to eat lunch today!:)

[James Davis]

My whole life I was raised that it was my right, nay, my duty to own firearms. I have owned shotguns, rifles, revolvers, etc. When I moved out on my own I was not comfortable keeping firearms in my apartment with 6 party loving college kids, so I sold them all off. Now, as an older adult with a wife I have decided again to keep my duty as an American to be armed.
Sounds similar to my story, except I kept my .22 rifle. It was locked up in a box at my parents' house and never saw the light of day, but I still owned it.


What does concern me, a good bit, was what I found when looking into my CCL. In my state, you do not need any training to get a carry permit. All you have to do is fill out a form and pass a background check. That is it. Untrained gun owners are scary. A person who is wearing a weapon without any training on it's use AND it's retention is even more scary. The thought that a person wearing a weapon near me might not even be trained on keeping someone from taking that weapon away from them and hurting him, me, or others is something I wish my state would address. I think before you are allowed to carry a weapon you should need to pass marksmanship, gun ownership, and weapon retention classes.

I know I will be taking refresher courses on all 3, and so will my wife.



Yeah, that's pretty alarming. That's why I've always thought that as a person who knows how to shoot, doesn't have a drug or alcahol habit, and has the ability to floor someone if they get close enough to take my pistol, it is my duty to carry one.

Carrying this thing around is not fun. It's uncomfortable, and quite an inconvenience at times, and it doesn't make me feel like a "BIG MAN". I carry it because I have the ability to, and I want to have another option when I need to protect myself or my neighbors.

The other side of the coin concerning ones ability to retain the weapon is the option of gun ownership for the disabled and the elderly. I think that they should be able to have the option to protect themselves with a firearm too. Small caliber might be better for people who need a lighter weapon for increased accuracy. My wife has a .22, 'cause she's too light for a .357.:D

[MM]

Another article with sources listed:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176c.html

It states what most of us have known for years. The large cities here in the US have the most restrictive gun control laws, but also have the highest crime levels.

It's interesting to note this:

Defenders of the Washington law say it isn't working because criminals are getting guns in Virginia, where the laws are more relaxed. But just across the Potomac River, Arlington, Va., has a murder rate less than 10 percent of that of Washington (7.0 murders versus 77.8 per 100,000 population). Can the difference be explained by the fact that Washington is a large city? Virginia's largest city, Virginia Beach, has a population of nearly 400,000, allows easy access to firearms - and has had one of the country's lowest murder rates for years (4.1 per 100,000 population in 1991).

Also, another article discussing the "a person with a gun in the home is 43 times as likely to shoot someone in the family as to shoot a criminal" quote that a lot of people like to use - incorrectly.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml

And some perspective on accidental deaths broken down by age groups and causes.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

[Walter Martindale]

Ok... Long discussion of the need/right/obligation to own, not own, use, not use firearms from people from vastly different cultures.
I'm Canadian, currently living and working in New Zealand. Had a little bit of abuse from family members when very young, had an attempted male rape when I was 14, by a 21 year-old (broke his nose with the back of my head). These may be factors surrounding my having taken up wrestling, then judo and now Aikido.
Father was an "instructor of gunnery" in the Canadian artillery, gave me my first air rifle and some very strict training when I was 9. and my first .22 cooey rifle at 12. In the Manitoba prairie, gophers were in big trouble. Dad also sent me to a junior rifle club for target, hunter, and safety training - I was certified to be a safety instructor at 16.
that's my background - since 12 years old, I've continuously owned at least 1 firearm (had at one point about 26, all legally registered to me in Canada). Currently classed as "expert" in fullbore rifle, ISSF free pistol, Centre fire, rapid fire, and air pistol, and "Master" in ISSF Standard Pistol. I train rowing coaches for my employment.

Cultural differences between USA and Canada commence with how the nations migrated westward from the original colonies, and the fact that the US broke away from England, while Canada still recognizes the British Monarch as the official head of state.

In the US, the settlers, ranchers, and explorers migrated westward ahead of the lawkeepers, and the nation was formed out of a revolutionary war that ended up with the entrenched right to keep and bear arms, against tyranny (and, concurrently, against buttheads that want to deprive you of your property, life, liberty, etc.) In Canada, the North West Mounted Police migrated westward ahead of the settlers, and people didn't have as much need to defend themselves against the aforementioned buttheads. Mainly against wolves, bears, cougars, and other predators, (or competitors for food animals).

So, the laws of the two nations have evolved differently.. In many of the US states, given that you pass certain tests of sanity and so on, you can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon (ccw referred to in other's posts) partly for self-protection. In those states that have enacted ccw legislation, violent crimes rates have fallen significantly (there are citations, but I won't dig them up) in part because the butthead who would have previously robbed convenience store "a" might not do it now, because the clerk, or other customers, for that matter might just be in a position to shoot back.

In Canada, where it is virtually impossible to get CCW for protection purposes (despite enabling legislation, permits are almost never issued), armed robbery of convenience stores, other stores, banks, people in their homes, and people on the street is rising quite significantly, because the bad guys don't care about firearm law, and arm themselves (with un registered firearms, stolen firearms, etc., and they themselves don't carry a "Possession and Acquisition License" (PAL). ("If you make gun ownership a crime, then only criminals will own guns," can be interpreted a number of ways, can't it?)

In many parts of the USA, it is legal to shoot a person breaking into your home with the intent of committing burglary or other acts because you don't know the person's intent for breaking in, and with the "my home, my castle" philosophy, it's better to be safe than to be sorry.

In Canada (and, I understand, the UK) if you happen to have a firearm that is not locked in a gun safe, separate from the ammunition, and that is loaded for use on a person attacking your home, person, family, you can be severely prosecuted for defending your own life, etc. (same true here in NZ).

The thing about "armed response" at home - there's an often quoted phrase "Dial 911 and die"... (for those in other countries, 911 is the North American emergency call number that gets you to a central dispatcher who flings you off to police, fire, or ambulance, depending upon what you tell them - the number in NZ is 111).

As others have stated, the police in the US (and Canada) are NOT obligated to protect you, only to pick up the pieces later on, and arrest the bastard that killed you, if they can figure out who it was, and then find the person.

If someone is breaking into YOUR house, and you dial 911 in the USA, in most cases you can tell the cops why you had to kill the bastard(s) who were assaulting your little castle.

In a similar situation in Canada, you are expected to try to escape the situation (HA!!!) and wait for the police. So - you dial 911 - whoever was at the time breaking in to your abode, has now breached the door or window, and is RUNNING at you with a firearm, blunt weapon, or edged weapon, and you're trying to get out the words "yes, my name is ______, and I live at ______, and I think that the 100 kg person who is currently lunging at me is going to cause me trouble, could you please come here and stop him?" (please note the ironic tone?) The Police, in response to the EMERGENCY call from you, show up sometimes 2-3 hours later, and pick up the pieces.... After all, they are busy people.

Cultures differ - in the US, there's the concept that "an armed society is a polite society". I've seen the difference - when people in the US disagree, it's usually words and not too often a fight, because someone might just pull out a firearm to "equalize" a fight.

In Canada and NZ, when people disagree, someone uses the F word, sticks a middle finger in the air, and often fisticuffs ensue. Lately, individuals have been ending up severely beaten when set upon by several people.

Sweden probably has a more polite and safer society because it is older, has been through it's frontier days (of the vikings, for example), and has matured past the stage that the US and other former colonies of England are going through now. NZ, for example, has the colonizer Europeans and the colonized Maori (who were a warrior society - there's a famous NZ opera singer, who happens to be Maori, who sometimes says to people who treat her in a racist way that it's OK, my ancestors used to eat your ancestors), and pretty strict firearm laws - it's a very safe place, unless you're out wandering around the wrong district after the pubs close - but that's true anywhere, isn't it.

Anyway - this is getting long enough (the birthday bottle of bubbly will do that to a person), The Swede and the "Merkan" are both right, for their cultures. The Swede would be safe, if out of place, in most of the US. The "Merkan" would be much safer in Sweden than he is at home, despite being unarmed.

Whew - sorry - this started with most of a bottle of wine in me and there's only an ounce or so left. oops, gone...
Cheers,
W

[Taliesin]

Interesting posts although I have a few comments

Firstly in the UK you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself and your home - so laying into a burglar and splitting his head open with, for example a golf club, is well with in the law. So it is misleading to say in the UK we are obliged to call the police and protect ourselves. And no you cannot be prosecuted for defending your own life. (Unless you consider shooting someone in the back as they are running away from you 'self defence')

Secondly nobody has come up with an argument to explain why the 'only' protection from guns comes from more guns.

With regard to armed Robberies in Canada - How many gun related deaths there. (Murders and 'Accidents')

[Tom Fish]

Secondly nobody has come up with an argument to explain why the 'only' protection from guns comes from more guns.



I don't think that the "only" protection from a gun comes from more guns. I do think that I would prefer a gun if one were needed. So far, after owning firearms for over forty years, I've neither shot anyone nor been shot. Owning a gun does not make me anything other than a gun owner. It doesn't make me smart, stupid, handsome or dangerous. However, just like the tools in my garage, if I need one, I have it. So owning one perhaps does give you some peace of mind. Particularly living in an area with home invasion crimes on the rise. I would much rather face unknown assailants with something more effective and available for protecting my family than say, a stern look, or a grand discussion.

[DonMagee]

[QUOTE=David Chalk;192348]

Secondly nobody has come up with an argument to explain why the 'only' protection from guns comes from more guns.
/QUOTE]

Until somebody comes up with a better idea.

[Taliesin]

Guard Dogs??
Tazers??
CS Gas Canisters??
Pepper Spray??

[MM]

Secondly nobody has come up with an argument to explain why the 'only' protection from guns comes from more guns.


Hi David,
I don't think that most people look at it as the "only" protection. Most of the people I know also use common sense - Don't wander around the "wrong" areas in major cities at night, alone; don't go into bars to start fights; keep track of your surroundings; don't place yourself in a corner if things look like they could go bad; etc.

However, that said, it's a matter of proper tool usage. In the right hands, a hammer can be more lethal than a knife. A knife can actually be more lethal than a gun, depending on distance and skill levels. But, overall, the one tool that bridges the self defense gap easier and overwhelmingly, is the gun.

So, yeah, the best protection against a gun is ... to not be there at all. But if you are there, a knife or a hammer isn't going to turn you into a superman or wonder woman. You can't dodge bullets or use the outside of your arms to deflect a bullet.

And, yes, some people say just give over whatever you have and you'll be safe. Unfortunately, all that is doing is playing the statistics game and hoping that you're lucky. Plenty of hard evidence out there where people have given robbers what they want and a) were left alone or b) were injured/killed.

And there's building evidence that gun owners stop anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions of criminal acts per year. So, if not for gun owners, would we have that much more crime? Here in the US, I believe it. Just look at those places where guns are illegal and outlawed (DC, Chicago, NYC) and you'll find that crime is extremely high compared to the rest of the nation.

It will be very interesting to see what impact the current cases against DC will have once the Supreme Court weighs in. If they are upheld (which means that the gun ban in DC goes away and people can have guns in their homes), what impact on crime will it have? You'll go from a complete and total ban on guns (where law abiding citizens can't have guns but criminals can) to law abiding citizens allowed to own guns (until DC passes stringent laws again).

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/justices-to-consider-gun-case-nov-9/

These cases are some of the more important decisions facing the US today. And for politicians, mostly Democrats, they're really nervous about the situation. In either case, Democrats are going to fare badly. If the Supreme Court rules against DC, it means one of the fundamental Democrat principles (anti-gun) has suffered a major blow. If the SC rules for DC, 2nd amendment conservatives will rally and vote again, pushing Democrats out of office and out of power.

These are interesting times ... :)

Mark

[MM]

Guard Dogs??
Tazers??
CS Gas Canisters??
Pepper Spray??

As I said, nothing compares to the ease of use and to bridging the self defense gap as a gun.

Guard Dogs?
There are stories about even police dogs being killed.

Tazers?
I've been tazered. Once the button is released, I had full functionality in micro-seconds. You going to rely on being able to tazer someone for hours?

Gas and pepper spray?
Been through CS gas. Not fun, but certainly not that debilitating. Also, wind and area size factor in quite heavily.

Those are just some downsides, not all. Add in the intimidation factor and nothing really does compare with a gun. If you are a criminal and are robbing a 60 year old woman -- what's worse for you? She pulls out mace/pepper spray or a gun?

Mark

[Mattias Bengtsson]

Interesting posts although I have a few comments

Firstly in the UK you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself and your home - so laying into a burglar and splitting his head open with, for example a golf club, is well with in the law. So it is misleading to say in the UK we are obliged to call the police and protect ourselves. And no you cannot be prosecuted for defending your own life. (Unless you consider shooting someone in the back as they are running away from you 'self defence')

Secondly nobody has come up with an argument to explain why the 'only' protection from guns comes from more guns.

With regard to armed Robberies in Canada - How many gun related deaths there. (Murders and 'Accidents')

You have of course the right to self defence in Sweden as well.
You are only allowed however, to reciprocate with the same amount of force (according a scale) as your attacker(s)
The scale goes unarmed - simple weapon - Blade (knife) - Weapons (firearms and for come reason collapsible batons)
I am always allowed to "match" my attacker in terms of weapon but not going over.
So if I'm attacked by someone with a knife I'm theoretically allowed to use a knife to defend myself, (but I'm not allowed to carry a knife for protection purposes, I AM however allowed to carry a knife if I have a job that requires the need of a knife or if I'm travelling to or from a place where I might need a knife, like if I'm going fishing.

I have already answered the question about gun related murders in a previous post. But I can put in the quote again.
in America there is an average gun-killing rate of 3.97 per 100,000 of the population; in Canada it is 0.59; in Switzerland it is 0.51; in Sweden it is 0.37; in England and Wales it is 0.14 .

Naturally, in countries like UK and Sweden, gun related crimes seems to be on the rise..
But to assume this is because we don't have guns to defend ourselves with are erroneous. As I've already stated, Sweden are at place number 8 in the top list of civilian owned weapons (weapons owned/citizen) when the reason are that the criminals are getting their hands on illegally smuggled guns.

To me, the only natural response would be to increase the efforts of stopping the smuggling of guns..

But back to the statistics I presented earlier.
Are the reason Americans are so much more "triggerhappy" if you pardon my use of the word because:
1) They still hasn't matured as a country/society yet (as Walter hinted at)
2) To easy to get weapons/to easy to get permit for weapons
3) are just more violent than other people
4) not enough homogeneous culture, to diverse.
5) not enough trusting of their leadership/government
6) Government choosing the wrong methods in trying to deal with the issue.
7) not enough people own guns to protect themselves against criminals.

if 1) is true, then we must recognize the factors which makes other countries much more "mature" and the citizens of the US of A must not fear change but rather try and emulate those factors.
If we look at history, almost every country in Europe have been a Superpower at one time or another: Sweden under Gustavus Adolphus, Spain and Portugal in the days of the Armada, Britain in the Victorian age and the French before that. Germany had their time in the limelight during the Holy Roman empire, and speaking of Romans, we have Italy and Greece before them.
Right now, we are in the age of the American empire, and sorry to disappoint you, but it will not last forever...
Maybe that's what's required to mature..

if 2) is true then some gun control could be the answer. Don proposed some courses on how to handle, fire and safeguard guns.
Unfortunately there are some elements who are paranoid about the government taking their guns away from them and don't want to listen to the arguments.
Ask yourselves before objecting to gun control, if you need a drivers license to drive a car, shouldn't you then need a firearms license for a gun?
Do you personally object to having to take a course in proper procedure before being allowed to own a gun? And if so, why?
if 3) then why are you more violent? Is it congenital or due to environment?
if 4) then your basically ****ed because isn't that's what USA are all about?
if 5) then how do you propose the government getting your trust back? Is it time to reform the Constitution? It's like the government see their citizens like their enemy and vice versa sometimes. And considering it is the citizens constitutional rights to depose of a "tyrant" and revolt, no wonder..
if 6) then you have to make the law enough balanced so as to not restrict the rights of those with valid reason to own a weapon but only those who shouldn't have one in the first place. See 2) for a suggestion of such a law.
about 7) well, I had to put it in there for a balanced vision didn't I :p

[DonMagee]

Guard Dogs?? Shoot it
Tazers?? Maybe, but what would you rather get shot, or tazed over and over by some ticked off guy with a taser. Seems just as bad.
CS Gas Canisters?? Hehe
Pepper Spray?? I'd shoot anybody who hit me with that.

[Taliesin]

Mark

I hate to break it to you - but there are also stories of gun owners being killed.

As far as the intimidation factor is concerned - all you are saying is easier = better although you don't take into account the 'power high' possession of a gun can bring and the effect that has on individuals.

Mattias

I do take the view that any society that reveres use of force and lack of self discipline will inevitably be a violent society

Tazer incapacitate - long enough for other means of incapacy

Gas and Pepper Spray - see above are you claiming you your prevent being restrained right those are shoved in your face.

[Mattias Bengtsson]

I'd shoot anybody who hit me with that.

Or
"Today's lesson is about how to perform a Kotagaeshi on someone showing a canister of pepper spray in your face"

:D

[MM]

Mark

I hate to break it to you - but there are also stories of gun owners being killed.


To help with perspective here in the US:
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm


As far as the intimidation factor is concerned - all you are saying is easier = better although you don't take into account the 'power high' possession of a gun can bring and the effect that has on individuals.


"power high"? That's a myth. That's like the old saying liberals used years ago before concealed carry passed in so many states. They used to cry, the streets will run red with blood from old west style shootouts if you allow people to carry guns. Uh, yeah. Not true. Neither is the "power high". Especially considering that the concealed carry group (people with cc licenses) is *THE* most law abiding group ever. There are no power highs, no wild west shootouts, no road rage shootings by cc people. They are very law abiding, very courteous, and very conscious of the fact that they are carrying a gun.

If you really want to know the facts, do some research and get the breakdown on where and who used guns. Factor out suicides. Then dig deeper and find out the age groups. Sadly, a good portion ends up being inner city black youths. And that is a problem, we (as a society in the US) have yet to tackle, but guns aren't the problem there either. If it were, then all the poor, rednecks would have the same problems. Or other inner city racial groups.


Tazer incapacitate - long enough for other means of incapacy

Gas and Pepper Spray - see above are you claiming you your prevent being restrained right those are shoved in your face.

Good luck with the tazer. I've heard of people who ignore it, doped up people ignore it, and you've got to be able to use it effectively. And anyone with a club or knife is going to whack you while you try to taze them.

I was in a room full of gas. Completely cloudy and thick. Was it incapacitating? For some but not for others. Overall, nothing that lasted long and certainly not debilitating. Someone hyped up on adrenaline or drugs will probably shrug it off. In open space, wind and area will minimize the effect. And as before, someone with a club or knive will bash and cut you while you're trying to hopefully spray it to good effect.

Mark

[James Davis]

To me, the only natural response would be to increase the efforts of stopping the smuggling of guns..
Yeeesss! And leave the law abiding people the heck alone! Sounds great!



Are the reason Americans are so much more "triggerhappy" if you pardon my use of the word because:
1) They still hasn't matured as a country/society yet (as Walter hinted at)

It might surprise you, but I can agree with that. Way too many people don't know how to forgive. Too many don't realize how much a heartfelt apology can fix. Not enough people look in the mirror and acknowledge what is wrong with them and start making attempts at improvement. The problem is dwelling on who's to blame instead of fixing anything.

2) To easy to get weapons/to easy to get permit for weapons

If one has been a victim of violent crime, then going to the concealed carry class, taking the required test, practicing at the range, and registering with the government DO seem easy.

3) are just more violent than other people

Grrr! I'll get you!:grr:

:D

4) not enough homogeneous culture, to diverse.

Too much blame, not enough forgiving; Too much dwelling on the past, not enough planning for the future. See #1.

5) not enough trusting of their leadership/government

Government in general screws up a lot of stuff, and not just my government.

6) Government choosing the wrong methods in trying to deal with the issue.

Bill Clinton's cabinet banned firearms that looked dangerous. People who didn't know their butts from their elbows were banning rifles with black synthetic stocks while leaving the identical guns with wooden stocks alone.:rolleyes:

7) not enough people own guns to protect themselves against criminals.

Too many people doing everything they can to insure that the criminals are armed and that their rights are protected while trying to disarm law abiding citizens.

if 1) is true, then we must recognize the factors which makes other countries much more "mature" and the citizens of the US of A must not fear change but rather try and emulate those factors.
If we look at history, almost every country in Europe have been a Superpower at one time or another: Sweden under Gustavus Adolphus, Spain and Portugal in the days of the Armada, Britain in the Victorian age and the French before that. Germany had their time in the limelight during the Holy Roman empire, and speaking of Romans, we have Italy and Greece before them.

Plenty of war long before guns were invented. We're doing the same things that everyone else has done, and dealing with the same issues. Our technology has just gone crazy.

Right now, we are in the age of the American empire, and sorry to disappoint you, but it will not last forever...
Maybe that's what's required to mature..

I'm not disappointed, but thanks for your concern.;) I think that if our "empire" were to collapse, a lot of our citizens and a lot of other nations would have to get real self reliant real fast.

if 2) is true then some gun control could be the answer. Don proposed some courses on how to handle, fire and safeguard guns.
Unfortunately there are some elements who are paranoid about the government taking their guns away from them and don't want to listen to the arguments.
Ask yourselves before objecting to gun control, if you need a drivers license to drive a car, shouldn't you then need a firearms license for a gun?
Do you personally object to having to take a course in proper procedure before being allowed to own a gun? And if so, why?

I took a concealed carry course. I don't have a problem with that. If the government ever decides to take our guns, I don't think it will be very difficult for them.
if 3) then why are you more violent? Is it congenital or due to environment?

I don't think that Americans are any more violent than anyone else.
if 4) then your basically ****ed because isn't that's what USA are all about?

Diversity and exchange of ideas are great when everybody can behave themselves. I don't think that diversity is the problem.
if 5) then how do you propose the government getting your trust back? Is it time to reform the Constitution? It's like the government see their citizens like their enemy and vice versa sometimes. And considering it is the citizens constitutional rights to depose of a "tyrant" and revolt, no wonder..

Our government has done so many things that our nations founders never intended, income tax being among them. Our government has shown repeatedly that they don't trust us.
if 6) then you have to make the law enough balanced so as to not restrict the rights of those with valid reason to own a weapon but only those who shouldn't have one in the first place. See 2) for a suggestion of such a law.

It's been done. Registration and monitering of firearms always ends in confiscation from law abiding citizens. Except here, at least so far.
about 7) well, I had to put it in there for a balanced vision didn't I :p



Yeah. This balances your "trigger happy" comment quite nicely.:drool:

[Bronson]

Ask yourselves before objecting to gun control, [I]if you need a drivers license to drive a car, shouldn't you then need a firearms license for a gun?


The difference between the two examples, at least here in the U.S., is that driving is a privilege that can be awarded or taken away while the ownership of arms is a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Bronson

[Bronson]

Guard Dogs??
Tazers??
CS Gas Canisters??
Pepper Spray??

Just to address some of these.

I am also an advocate for a home self-defense system. While being pro-firearms I also feel it should be your last line of home defense. I always recommend to others to first get good locks, lights, and dog(s) (if possible) as these will go a long way to deter potential break-ins.

Here in Michigan tazers are not allowed for civilian use and the pepper spray concentration that is legal for civilian carry is generally felt to be well below the level considered effective for personal defensive purposes. Also collapsible batons are not allowed for personal defense. So I can go through my class, pass my test, pay my fees and be given a permit to carry a lethal form of self-defense (a handgun) but this does not allow me to carry any of the "less than lethal" alternatives out there. So based on the laws here I am allowed to carry nothing to defend myself or a lethal weapon, but nothing in between.

Bronson

[Walter Martindale]

You have of course the right to self defence in Sweden as well.
You are only allowed however, to reciprocate with the same amount of force (according a scale) as your attacker(s)
The scale goes unarmed - simple weapon - Blade (knife) - Weapons (firearms and for come reason collapsible batons)
I am always allowed to "match" my attacker in terms of weapon but not going over.
So if I'm attacked by someone with a knife I'm theoretically allowed to use a knife to defend myself, (but I'm not allowed to carry a knife for protection purposes, I AM however allowed to carry a knife if I have a job that requires the need of a knife or if I'm travelling to or from a place where I might need a knife, like if I'm going fishing.

(snip)

5) not enough trusting of their leadership/government

(more snip)

Canada has similar rights about self defense except you'll go a long way before you'll get judicial blessing for using a firearm for self defense - seems that a 60 kg woman, raped and bleeding on the ground is more honourable than that same woman standing over a 100 kg attacker who has a few new holes leaking red stuff.. She has a mobile phone, and is saying "could you send the police, I've just shot an attacker".

It's true, if you carry a firearm for self-defense, it's possible that an attacker will disarm you before you get a shot off - it's also been shown that an attacker with a knife who is within 7 m of a person with a gun, but whose gun is still holstered will get the knife into the gun owner before the gun can be brought into action. That's unless you've had some very specific training, and then you're still likely to get knifed - however - if you carry a firearm for self-defense it's also MUCH more likely that simply demonstrating the presence of the firearm and willingness to use it will, more often than not, dissuade an attacker.

The business about 5).. The folks who designed the US constitution were, I believe, conscious of the possibility that armed revolution against an out of control government might be necessary at some time in the future.
We Aikido people must be pretty big wheels, we keep going round in circles - oh, wait, that's part of Aikido ;)
W

[MM]

The difference between the two examples, at least here in the U.S., is that driving is a privilege that can be awarded or taken away while the ownership of arms is a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Bronson

To go into detail a little more ...

I can buy any car, anywhere. I can buy any truck, anywhere. I can buy a foreign car. I can do *all* this without a license, without a background check, and without the government's approval. I can't do that with a gun.

If I own 100 acres, I can buy any automobile and drive it on my land without ever needing a driver's license *or* a vehicle license plate. I can't do that with a gun.

To drive on the publicly funded interstate system is a privilege that is funded by licensing. There are two licenses, a driver's and a vehicle plate. It only takes paying taxes to get the vehicle plate. It only takes a cursory test or two (written and/or driven) to get the driver's license. Neither involve background checks. If I have both, I can drive into any state without fear of being illegal. I can't do that with a gun.

The right to a gun is an inalienable, constitutionally backed right. Yet it is more strict than the licensing for an automobile. Not only that, there are lots more people killed by an auto than a gun. But, the gov't still gives out millions of driver's licenses a year, even to illegal, felony aliens.

So, license guns like cars? Sure. In a heartbeat. There would be a whole lot less problems. Places like DC, Chicago, NYC, California would be forced to obey my home state's licensing. That'd be great.

Mark

[Hogan]

To go into detail a little more ...

I can buy any car, anywhere. I can buy any truck, anywhere. I can buy a foreign car. I can do *all* this without a license, without a background check, and without the government's approval. I can't do that with a gun.

True - but that car or truck will be sitting in your driveway unusable, since you need a license, etc... to operate it. So, you really do need government approval if you want to use it legally. Hey, just like a gun!

If I own 100 acres, I can buy any automobile and drive it on my land without ever needing a driver's license *or* a vehicle license plate. I can't do that with a gun.
Yeah, but if you do damage to person or property with that vehicle, & you were unlicensed, guess what?

[MM]

True - but that car or truck will be sitting in your driveway unusable, since you need a license, etc... to operate it. So, you really do need government approval if you want to use it legally. Hey, just like a gun!

Not true. Legally, I can drive that vehicle anywhere on my property w/o gov't approval. Heck, if I have good neighbors, I can drive all over the area without gov't approval and/or licensing. In fact, there are even certain circumstances where I can drive that vehicle on the road w/o gov't licensing.

If I want to exercise a privilege & drive on public roads, I get a license. Even then, the licensing is less restrictive & all States are forced to accept the home State's license.


Yeah, but if you do damage to person or property with that vehicle, & you were unlicensed, guess what?

Then you have that person arrested for trespassing & sue for damages. ;) Best lawyer wins.

Seriously, licensing has little to do with it. It's your property and most states have home castle doctrine. People coming into your property have little recourse if they are there illegally.

[Mattias Bengtsson]

So, license guns like cars? Sure. In a heartbeat. There would be a whole lot less problems. Places like DC, Chicago, NYC, California would be forced to obey my home state's licensing. That'd be great.

Mark

Dont get your hopes up. If states like California can forbid people from transporting fruits over the border, you betcha they can forbid people from transporting weapons over the border ;)

[James Davis]

Dont get your hopes up. If states like California can forbid people from transporting fruits over the border, you betcha they can forbid people from transporting weapons over the border ;)

Lol!!:D

Things get transported over our borders all the time. Forbid it all you want, it'll still happen as criminals aren't particularly concerned with laws.;) Laws only target the law abiding.

[sutemaker17]

Thanks James,
That reminded me of what my Grandfather used to say: "Laws are for honest men." (and women) :)
Regards,
Jason