Jump to content

Gun Ownership - Are we fit to be free?


Guest $iLk
 Share

Recommended Posts

Alright everyone, I know we've had discussions about gun ownership before, but this essay I read the other day has stuck in my head and made me think about the subject.

Gun ownership is a hallmark of a truly free society. That's my belief and the main point of this essay is for us to ask ourselves if we truly are fit to be free.

Read through and we'll talk about it afterwards.

quote:

Gun Ownership ÔÇô Are We Fit to Be Free?

Phil Brennan

Wednesday, Dec. 19, 2001

It happened again. Some poor guy caught in a love triangle he couldn't handle went berserk and shot a number of co-workers before killing himself.

These things are happening more and more frequently, the list of victims continues to grow, and much of the blame for the deaths and woundings can be laid squarely at the doors of the nation's rabid anti-gun zealots.

If that sounds harsh, keep in mind the fact that in every single instance of mass shootings, the victims were all defenseless, largely because anti-gun laws and irrational anti-gun sentiments kept victims and bystanders from having weapons that could have been used to stop the killers in their tracks.

That could have been true at Columbine High School where, had just one teacher had a concealed handgun to protect his students, the killing spree could have been ended and the list of victims sharply diminished.

In every single case, by the time police arrived on the scene the damage had been done, dramatically underscoring the fact that Americans cannot rely on the police to protect them in such circumstances. As a result, laws banning or prohibitively restricting citizen gun ownership are putting Americans at the mercy of murderous crackpots and felons.

Had pilots on the three hijacked planes on Black Tuesday been armed, there is every chance that the twin towers at the World Trade center would still be standing, the Pentagon would be intact, and thousands of innocent victims would still be among us, alive to celebrate Christmas with their loved ones.

That they aren't is largely the fault of the fascistic anti-gun fanatics who have used dishonest statistics and outright lies to blame firearms, and not those who criminally use them, in order to create a national distaste for firearms.

Gun Control Studies

A February 2000 study by acclaimed researchers John R. Lott Jr. and William M. Landes concludes that "the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws."

The study conclusively shows that such crime deterrents as more police and wider use of the death penalty tend to curb "normal" instances of murder. They do nothing, however, to prevent such school shooting tragedies as have occurred in a number of the nation's public schools since 1997.

To support their insistence that the availability of guns in or near public schools prevented more death and injury, Lott and Landes cited a number of examples, including the following:

In the Pearl, Miss., shooting, an assistant principal retrieved his gun from his office and used it to physically immobilize the shooter before he caused additional harm.

In an Edinboro, Penn., shooting, which left one teacher dead, "a shotgun pointed at the offender while he was reloading his gun prevented additional harm. The police did not arrive for another 10 minutes" after the assailant was apprehended by school staff.

According to Lott, far and away the best-informed scholar on the subject, "in the U.S., the states with the highest gun ownership rates have by far the lowest violent crime rates. And similarly, over time, states with the largest increases in gun ownership have experienced the biggest drops in violent crime.

"Research by Jeff Miron at Boston University, examining homicide rates across 44 countries, found that countries with the strictest gun control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates," Lott wrote.

News reports in Britain showed how crimes with guns have risen 40 percent since handguns were banned in 1997. Police are extremely important in stopping crime, but almost always arrive on the scene after the crime occurs. Passive behavior is much more likely to result in serious injury or death than using a gun to defend oneself. The only serious research on this issue has been conducted in the United States.

"The National Crime Victimization Report, done by the U.S. Department of Justice, indicates consistently that women who behave passively are 2.5 times more likely to be seriously injured than women who defend themselves with a gun. It is the physically weakest people (women and the elderly) who benefit the most from having a gun.

"Criminals, overwhelmingly young males, like to attack the targets that will give them the least trouble. A gun represents a great equalizer. Defensive gun uses are almost completely ignored by the media, but Americans use guns defensively about two million times a year, five times more often than guns are used to commit crimes."

Media's Role

Lott takes aim at the media, pointing the finger of blame for the disinformation that abounds about gun ownership directly at those who report the news.

"No one would ever learn this by simply watching the news. In part this disregard by the media might arise because an innocent person's murder is more newsworthy than when a victim brandishes a gun and an attacker runs away with no crime committed.

"Unlike the crimes that are avoided, bad events provide emotionally gripping pictures. But covering only the bad events creates the impression that guns only cost lives. Even the rare local media coverage of defensive gun use seldom involves more than very brief stories. News worthiness also dictates that these stories are not the typical examples of self-defense, but the rare instances where the attacker is shot. In fact, in up to 98 percent of the cases, simply brandishing a gun is sufficient to stop a crime.

"Fewer than one out of 1,000 defensive gun uses results in the attacker's death. Worldwide we hear about crimes like the public-school shootings, as we should, but we never even hear locally about the many more lives saved. Since the well-known public shootings started in the fall of 1997, 32 students and four teachers have been killed in any type of shooting at elementary or secondary schools, an annual rate of one death per 4 million students. This includes deaths from gang fights, robberies, accidents, as well as attacks such as the one at Columbine.

"But some sense of proportion is needed. During that same period, 53 students died playing high school football."

Shall we ban high school football?

Concealed-Carry Laws and Crime Reduction

Noting that he analyzed the FBI's crime statistics for all U.S. counties by year from 1977 to 1996 as well as extensive cross-county information on accidental gun deaths and suicides, Lott explained that his study examined states that adopted so-called "objective" or shall-issue concealed handgun laws. Thirty-one states, he wrote, "now have shall-issue laws, while another 12 permit citizens to carry guns if they can demonstrate a need to public officials."

The findings of the study, he said, were dramatic. The more people obtain permits over time, the more violent crime rates decline. For each additional year that these laws are in effect, murders declined.

"Giving law-abiding adults the right to carry concealed handguns had a dramatic impact. Thirty-one states now provide such a right under law. When states passed right-to-carry laws, the number of multiple-victim public shootings plummeted below one-fifth, with an even greater decline in deaths. To the extent attacks still occur in states after enactment of these laws, such shootings tend to occur in those areas in which concealed handguns are forbidden. The drop in attacks in states adopting right-to-carry laws has been offset by increases in states without these laws."

He cites the following incidents where citizen gun ownership proved decisive:

Clearwater, Fla.: At 1:05 a.m., a man started banging on a patio door, briefly left to beat on the family's truck, but returned and tore open the patio door. At that point, after numerous shouts not to break into the home, a 16-year-old boy fired a single rifle shot, wounding the attacker.

Columbia, S.C.: As two gas station employees left work just after midnight, two men attempted to rob them. The sheriff told a local television station: "Two men came out of the bushes, one of the men had a shovel handle that had been broken off and began to beat [the male employee] ... about the head, neck and then the arms." The male employee broke away long enough to draw a handgun from his pocket and wound his attacker, who later died. The second suspect, turned in by relatives, faces armed robbery and possible murder charges.

Detroit: A mentally disturbed man yelled that the president was going to have him killed and started firing at people in passing cars. A man at the scene, who had a permit to carry a concealed handgun, fired shots that forced the attacker to stop shooting and run away. The attacker barricaded himself in an empty apartment, fired at police and ultimately committed suicide.

West Palm Beach, Fla.: After being beaten during a robbery at his home just two days earlier, a homeowner began carrying a handgun in his pocket. When another robber attacked him, the homeowner shot and wounded his assailant.

Grand Junction, Colo.: On his way home from work, a contractor picked up three young hitchhikers. He fixed them a steak dinner at his house and was preparing to offer them jobs. Two of the men grabbed his kitchen knives and started stabbing him in the back, head and hands. The attackers stopped only when he told them that he could give them money. Instead of money, the contractor grabbed a pistol and shot one of the attackers. The contractor said, "If I'd had a trigger lock, I'd be dead."

Columbia Falls, Mont.: An ex-boyfriend is accused of entering a woman's home and sexually assaulting her. She got away long enough to get her handgun and hold her attacker at gunpoint until police arrived.

Salt Lake City: Two robbers began firing their guns as soon as they entered a pawn shop. The owner and his son returned fire. One of the robbers was shot in the arm; both were later arrested. The shop owner's statement said it all: "If we did not have our guns, we would have had several people dead here."

Baton Rouge, La.: At 5:45 a.m., a crack addict kicked in the back door of a house and entered. The attacker was fatally shot as he charged toward the homeowner.

What advice would gun control advocates have given these victims? Should they have behaved passively? Unfortunately, by making it difficult for law-abiding people to get the most effective tool to defend themselves, gun control often puts victims' lives in jeopardy.

On the other side of the coin, gun control has proved deadly, as is the case in England where under the Firearms Act of 1997 all handguns and most rifles were outlawed and confiscated.

Wrote Richard Poe in his best-selling book, "The Seven Myths of Gun Control":

"What happened next is something most Americans know nothing about because the press has not reported it in this country. A terrifying crime wave swept England. Stripped of the ability to defend themselves, Britons were left helpless against criminal attacks. And the criminals knew it. Their attacks grew bolder, as well as more frequent."

To prove how true is the old adage "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns," Poe reports that "Between April and September 2000, street crime in London rose 32 percent over the same period in 1999."

Lies and Progaganda

Aside from keeping such vital information from their fellow Americans, the mainstream U.S. media have shamefully promoted anti-gun propaganda and lies.

Take, for example, Professor Michael Bellesiles' book in which the author claims that the idea of a well-armed America in revolutionary times and afterward was a myth.

As NewsMax reported at the time: "Frenzied anti-self-defense zealots hailed his book as proof that colonial Americans owned few guns and that the idea of a nation of well-armed citizens was a myth, and he won a prestigious award for his rooting out the truth about guns in early America. But new research indicates that in many instances historian Michael A. Bellesiles simply twisted the facts to fit his own agenda.

"In a blockbuster expos├® published in the Boston Globe, much of Bellesiles' book ''Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture'' was called into question.

"According to Bellesiles, he examined more than 11,000 probate records of more than 1,200 counties, counting the number of guns listed in probate inventories. He wrote that he learned that between 1765 and 1821, no more than 17 percent of the inventories listed guns. He claimed that the rate of gun ownership was even lower in the 1760-1795 period ÔÇô a mere 14 percent, he said. "[O]ver half of these guns were listed as broken. ... "

According to a Dec. 9 story in the New York Times, "Emory University professor Michael Bellesiles, whose book 'Arming America: The Origins of the National Gun Culture' caused a sensation with Second Amendment foes last year with its claims that gun ownership in the U.S. was 'an invented tradition,'" may have perpetrated what the Times described as "one of the worst academic scandals in years."

According to the Times, scholars who examined Bellesiles' data were unable to substantiate his claim that 11,000-plus probate records from 40 counties in colonial America showed that fewer than 7 percent actually owned working guns. Those scholars who tried to corroborate the book's sensational findings were stunned by "an astonishing number of serious errors," the Times reported, "almost all of them intended to support [bellesiles'] thesis."

"In some cases his numbers were off by a factor of two or three or more," Randolph Roth, a history professor at Ohio State University, told the Times.

"The number and scope of the errors in Bellesiles' work are extraordinary," Roth told the Times, saying they include "misinterpretation of militia returns, literary documents and data from many other sources."

The academics who studied Bellesiles' contentions found that his book was filled with blatant misrepresentations.

For example, Bellesiles told one critic that he'd managed to obtain detailed probate records from the 1850s from the San Francisco Superior Court. But the courthouse said all probate data from that decade had been destroyed in the great earthquake of 1906.

"[The San Francisco records] were not available in two other Bay area libraries, either," the Times said. "Mr. Bellesiles now says he must have done the research somewhere else and cannot remember where."

"Arming America" won Columbia University's prestigious Bancroft Prize in American History and Diplomacy. Before the book's rampant errors were discovered, legal scholars had said Bellesiles' work could impact on several court challenges to Second Amendment protections.

Despite this obvious fraud, the U.S media have failed to apologize for initially giving the book such wide publicity and praise.

The Second Amendment

Finally, the gun control nuts and their socialist allies in the media have sought to distort the meaning of the Second Amendment's provisions which guarantee the right of the citizens to bear arms, even though the intent of those who wrote the Bill of Rights is crystal clear.

Wrote Patrick Henry, for example, "The great object is that every man be armed. ..."

Then there was Richard Henry Lee, who said, "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

In his book, Richard Poe cited a speech in the House during the debates concerning adoption of the Bill of Rights that sets out the clear meaning of the Second Amendment:

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Poe explores the history of the militia concept, showing how it applied, for example, in the case of the Minutemen, armed citizens who formed the backbone of the colonial forces who won our liberty. After the American Revolution it was understood that the militia ÔÇô specifically consisting of men between the ages of 16 and 60 ÔÇô constituted the force that would prevent the new government from becoming a tyranny.

Said Noah Webster, "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the body of the people are armed. ..."

During the debates about the adoption of the Bill of Rights, delegate members of the Anti-Federalist forces demanded that the 10 amendments include one that would guarantee the right, as Patrick Henry put it, "that every man be armed. ..."

The result was the Second Amendment, and its meaning was as clear as a bell: All Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. All Americans!

We live in dangerous times. The threats we face are more numerous than merely those posed by al-Qaeda and other terrorists groups. We live in a society where hordes of conscienceless criminals are armed. Not a single gun control measure has changed that fact. They have instead restricted gun ownership by honest Americans.

In short, these laws have allowed the outlaws to have guns while depriving honest Americans of their Second Amendment right of self-defense.

Sure, there are dangers inherent in widespread gun ownership. Accidents will happen. Some people will do stupid things with their guns. Some people are simply unfit to own weapons.

There are dangers inherent in widespread ownership of automobiles. Accidents will happen. Some people will do stupid things behind the wheels of their cars. Some people are unfit to own cars.

Let's ban autos. After all, they kill tens of thousands of Americans every year ÔÇô far more than are killed in firearms accidents.

Citizen gun ownership is a feature of a free society. We are either fit to be free or we are not.


Are we? If you disagree with gun ownership, what are your reasons? Surely ample proof has been shown that guns don't get up by themselves and kill people, and any legislation against guns only affects those who obey the law anyway.

I believe that the ownership of any weapon that may be used against you personally is a moral right.

Collective rights I believe should only apply to Nuclear, Chemical, or Biological weapons. Weapons which are more likely to fall into the hands of a state, rather than under control of individuals.

I believe that the right to self defense is nothing more than the human instinct of self-preservation.

Guns are an equalizer of sorts, for those who normally wouldn't be able to defend against a physically stronger opponent.

If you deny guns, you deny these people their right to an effective self-defense. And those who don't follow your laws anyway, will still have guns.

So does anyone still oppose gun ownership, and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Surely ample proof has been shown that guns don't get up by themselves and kill people, and any legislation against guns only affects those who obey the law anyway."

And so giving easy access to everyone, including those who will potentially not obey the law, is a better choice? What's the % of gun related crimes commited by legally-acquired weapons vs black market/homemade ones? Ill put good money the legally acquired ones (stolen, swindled, etc) dominate that %.

"I believe that the ownership of any weapon that may be used against you personally is a moral right."

See above.

"Collective rights I believe should only apply to Nuclear, Chemical, or Biological weapons. Weapons which are more likely to fall into the hands of a state, rather than under control of individuals."

Without a question.

"I believe that the right to self defense is nothing more than the human instinct of self-preservation."

Correct. Self-defense dont mean carrying highly offensive weapons though.

"Guns are an equalizer of sorts, for those who normally wouldn't be able to defend against a physically stronger opponent."

The argument that guns are equalizers is in my view, FALSE. There is no difference between a guy with huge muscles beating the crap out of a wimpy nerd and a wimpy nerd with a pistol facing the same guy with huge muscles wielding an assault rifle. There will always be a bigger fish in the sea. And it wont be you.

"If you deny guns, you deny these people their right to an effective self-defense. And those who don't follow your laws anyway, will still have guns."

Effective self defense quite oftenly translates into effective offense. You stand the same chance of getting killed by a gun totting crook if you are armed or unarmed. In fact, its even higher if you're armed and oppose them. They will have the advantage not only is experience using the weapon (they're criminals) and in "first strike" (they come with a purpose, gun drawn and ready to fire while yours is stuffed in your shirt, with safety on and probably unloaded!), not to mention they probably dont give a rat's ass if the screaming pack of school kids between the 2 of you get cought in the crossfire.

Perhaps ex-military and ex-police should be allowed to carry arms with permits, they have the REAL training and experience, compared to the lame 3-day THEORETICAL course you must take to get a permit to carry the gun. Heck, my cousin who didnt speak ENGLISH got a shotgun and 2 glocks and permit to carry them. Interesting these laws. Unbelievable.

Then why is it illegal to carry a sword in public? Even when hidden? Last time I checked you could run from a psycho with a knife, but not from one with a 9mm automatic.

I DO believe the law abiding citizen should be allowed to use tools to defend themselves, but guns are not the answer. I'd say non-lethal weapons like a tazer, that paintball-like gun that fired stun pellets would also be good.. I dont know, just as long as it doesnt endanger all those around you..or your kids at home. Id carry a tazer (damn those things are $$$$!!!) and a short sword/long knife with me if it was legal to do so, if they pull a gun at me, i've already lost (even if I had a gun to pull at them, drawing it would get me and others around me killed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think a lot of people's opinions will (possibly) be biased to their own countries laws, and with my self being British, this is mine :

I feel very comfortable living in the UK where there are very strict laws against gun possession. IÔÇÖm only 20 years of age and the only times I have ever seen a gun has been on Police officers at airports.

With regards to the opinion that everyone has a right to defend themselves, I think that strict gun laws like those in the UK help stop such situations from arising in the first place.

And another product of having such strict laws, is that any civilian in this country who is carrying a gun, can be instantly recognised as a dangerous person with intent to harm, and Police are fully justified to take any strong measures against this person before they do any harm. An example of this is that in the past 6 months or so someone was shot dead by the Police in a rough area of London for carrying a gun shaped cigarette lighter, a tragic mistake, but it was the last thing they wanted to do.

And on a much more brighter and subjective note, not even my local bobby (Police) carry guns! Which I think is great, because it simply means they donÔÇÖt need them I was actually speaking to a Police officer on the street a few weeks ago (You know, as you do ) and one of the questions I asked was whether they (the Police) ever got concerned for their safety while doing their job. His answer was no, and that even when they had do to do the things like local raids etc, they get kitted out in Knife proof jackets first for protection, which theyÔÇÖre completely happy with.

So, being a Brit , my opinion is that guns are best left for the really good people and the really bad people, and that the people like us left in the middle should just take our chances and go about living life. Since after all, if youÔÇÖre staying out of trouble then you shouldnÔÇÖt need to worry

Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've raised many points I would like to address, and then I'd like to here your rationalization against.

quote:

And so giving easy access to everyone, including those who will potentially not obey the law, is a better choice? What's the % of gun related crimes commited by legally-acquired weapons vs black market/homemade ones? Ill put good money the legally acquired ones (stolen, swindled, etc) dominate that %.


Point 1: Giving easy access to everyone makes it more likely for the person threatened to be armed as well as the perpetrator. If you must go through legal mumbo jumbo and a 400 form questionaire and jump through hoops to get a gun, a person will bypass this by stealing/illegally obtaining one. This would make them a criminal. A person who is able to go through the difficult checks is the exception rather than the rule.

But you already know that guns can be easily aquired through this method. I'm saying that those who legally SHOULD be able to own a gun are basically pushed away from being able to own one by being intimidated by anti gun fanatics who want to observe them like rats in a cage, while the criminals proceed unobserved.

I don't understand how stolen guns, swindled guns, etc are considered "legally-aquired" by you.

A good question would be how many guns obtained through all this questioning and permitting are used in a crime, versus those that are illegally obtained. Illegally obtained guns of course.

I'm going to throw up some percentages from the United States on average:

"Since there are 650,000 crimes involving guns each year and 201 million firearms, the maximum number of guns that could be used to commit a crime each year would be 650,000/201,000,000 or 0.3 percent." - Keep in mind the MAXIMUM number of guns used would be .3% assumming that not a single gun is used twice

"Long guns are twice as numerous as handguns, yet account for only a sixth of gun crime."- as we know, handguns are more likely to be used in a crime.

From these statistics:

"Only one out of every 123 handguns (less than 1 percent) and one out of every 1,247 long guns (less than one-tenth of 1 percent) are used in crime in any given year.

Even under very generous assumptions to maximize the estimated percentage of guns used in a crime, at most 6.7 percent of handguns would ever be involved in a crime.

If we realistically allow for repeated criminal uses of the same weapons, the fraction of all guns that are ever involved in crime would be less than 1 percent, with long guns under 0.5 percent and handguns under 2 percent.

Gun control laws cannot possibly reduce the crime rate unless they affect the 1 percent of guns that are actually used in crimes. Even if the laws did this, criminals would find it easy to acquire new guns. The numbers by themselves raise doubts about the efficacy of general restrictions on gun ownership in decreasing the frequency of gun use in violent crime."

What this leads me to believe, is that less than 1% of all guns in the United States is used for a crime. I'm not sure if that bleeds over to gunowners, but if so, less than 1% of gun owners are committing these crimes. That's just screaming for legislation - let me tell you.

"The National Crime Survey estimates that there are about 5.4 million violent crimes (both reported and unreported) and that guns of all types are involved in some 650,000 or 12 percent.10 In other words, 88 percent of violent crimes do not involve firearms."

I'm going to throw in general international studies:

"The experience of other nations also provides little support for the notion that guns causecrime:

Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, and it requires all able-bodied males between the ages of 20 and 50 to have a military-issued automatic weapon, ammunition and other equipment in their dwellings.

Israel, which has an extremely low crime rate but is vulnerable to enemies including terrorists, depends on the defensive value of widespread civilian gun possession.

Denmark and Finland also have high rates of gun ownership and low crime rates.

The experience of these countries shows that widespread gun possession is compatible with low crime rates. "

Keep in mind this is a general observation, and of course we can only assume that the reason they have low crime rates is high gun ownership, but it makes you think.

But anyway, now that you are aware of these statistics, I want to visit a certain part of your post first.

quote:

And so giving easy access to everyone, including those who will potentially not obey the law, is a better choice?

Would you agree then that giving drivers licenses to everyone, including those who will "potentially" not obey traffic laws(speeding,swerving,drinking,etc.), is a bad choice?

What about selling knives to people who will "potentially" stab someone?

What about selling baseball bats to people who will "potentially" beat someone.

What is the psychological disorder of fear of the unknown again? Potentially is a very big word, and to me it appears that you would simply be afraid of what you can't prove or don't know.

Why not the current law prohibiting those who HAVE commited a crime from owning guns?

quote:

"I believe that the ownership of any weapon that may be used against you personally is a moral right."

See above.


I did, but I don't understand how it applies. Anyone can "potentially" do anything. Your logic basically says take anything from anyone they could "potentially" use it for a bad reason. That's kind of silly.

quote:

Correct. Self-defense dont mean carrying highly offensive weapons though.


First off, why are they "highly-offensive"?

Second, why worry if protecting your own life is "highly-offensive" to some people.

Third, what is self defense worth if you cannot carry out an effective self defense?

quote:

The argument that guns are equalizers is in my view, FALSE. There is no difference between a guy with huge muscles beating the crap out of a wimpy nerd and a wimpy nerd with a pistol facing the same guy with huge muscles wielding an assault rifle. There will always be a bigger fish in the sea. And it wont be you.


I'm gonna do some math problems

Defender with Gun better than Attacker with Knife

Defender with Gun equal to Attacker with Gun

Weak Defender with Gun equal to Strong attacker with Gun

Weak Defender with Gun better than Strong attacker with knife

Weak Defender with Knife going to lose Strong attacker with knife.

Replace Knife with any other device (bat, chain, stick, etc.) and that rings true.

The gun is your best defense always, when facing any attacker with any weapon.

I wonder why you didn't mention anything but different classes of guns in the argument instead of bringing up knives or weapons of equal deadliness regardless of who holds them.

I'll put it differently - being able to own - and having, any weapon your attacker could possibly have is the great equalizer. If he has an assault rifle, then so should you. If not, you still have SOME kind of chance.

If all you have is a pillow, and a man breaks into your house with a knife, and he is bigger than you - you are dead.

If you have a knife as well, but he is bigger than you - you are dead in all liklihood.

If you and your attacker have a gun - your chances are equal depending upon that you took the time to master your weapon.

quote:

Effective self defense quite oftenly translates into effective offense. You stand the same chance of getting killed by a gun totting crook if you are armed or unarmed.

And if his purpose in coming IS to kill you? You stand a better chance of living if armed. If armed you have a better chance of protecting your wife, children if his purpose is to rape or molest your children. If armed, quite possibly, he is not. If he is, you have the ability to fight back.

And no it doesn't oftenly translate into effective offense. In 97% of cases where a gun is used in self defense - it is never fired. The threat of getting shot is usually enough to subdue or cause the criminal to retreat.

quote:

In fact, its even higher if you're armed and oppose them. They will have the advantage not only is experience using the weapon (they're criminals) and in "first strike" (they come with a purpose, gun drawn and ready to fire while yours is stuffed in your shirt, with safety on and probably unloaded!), not to mention they probably dont give a rat's ass if the screaming pack of school kids between the 2 of you get cought in the crossfire.


Those who are serious at self defense KNOW how to use their weapons. They KNOW how to shoot. This mindset of only the criminals know how to use guns is incorrect.

Second, if you are unarmed and he is armed, you are at his mercy - whereby if you are armed, you have the ability to defend yourself AND your family. Just because you don't resist doesn't mean he isn't going to kill you. He has no business in your house, and it is your responsibilty to defend your home and family.

And if anyone is serious about self defense, their gun is readily accessible, without a trigger lock, and within reach. If a person breaks into my home, and he is armed, I may only have an instant to grab my shotgun, but if I didn't have that shotgun, I am at his mercy either way.

quote:

Perhaps ex-military and ex-police should be allowed to carry arms with permits, they have the REAL training and experience, compared to the lame 3-day THEORETICAL course you must take to get a permit to carry the gun. Heck, my cousin who didnt speak ENGLISH got a shotgun and 2 glocks and permit to carry them. Interesting these laws. Unbelievable.


The course to get a weapon is very different from the real training you must prepare yourself with in order to effectively use it.

If I want to defend myself - seriously I'm not going to buy a gun, throw it in the closet and wait for the time to use it. By God i'm going to target practice and get the feel for it UNTIL I am comfortable with it.

To get a gun, you should be proficient in safety, not in actual target practice and self defense procedures. If you are serious, you'll teach yourself, if not, you should give your gun to someone who can use it. Some of us grow up learning about gun safety, and this 3 day course is nothing but a refresher.

So I don't think that your argument that only the trained should have guns is worthy of attention, considering you can only get the training WITH a gun.

quote:

Then why is it illegal to carry a sword in public? Even when hidden? Last time I checked you could run from a psycho with a knife, but not from one with a 9mm automatic.


It is illegal to carry ANY weapon concealed (knife, gun, etc) UNLESS you have a permit. And your running situation is nice, but tell me exactly what you would think about running from someone attacking your home, while your wife and kids remain inside. And yes, you can't run from someone with a gun, therefore you need to be able to shoot back.

quote:

I DO believe the law abiding citizen should be allowed to use tools to defend themselves, but guns are not the answer. I'd say non-lethal weapons like a tazer, that paintball-like gun that fired stun pellets would also be good.. I dont know, just as long as it doesnt endanger all those around you..or your kids at home. Id carry a tazer (damn those things are $$$$!!!) and a short sword/long knife with me if it was legal to do so, if they pull a gun at me, i've already lost (even if I had a gun to pull at them, drawing it would get me and others around me killed).

You prove my point, you are saying that law abiding citizens should be at the mercy of criminals, and THIS is why I disagree with you.

AFTER EDIT : I would also like to add, that having a gun is not immediately a danger to everyone else around you. Assuming you know anything about gun safety, and can instill those values in your children, having a gun is as safe as having a car. Accidentally you may kill someone either way, but with proper training, you minimize the likelihood of that happening.

And if you assume that if you have a gun, and they pull one on you - you've already lost just shows that you don't have confidence in yourself to handle a firearm. Please don't confuse that with assuming that everyone is as inadequate to the owning of guns. Some of us take the responsibility very seriously, and the likelihood of me accidentally shooting someone are slim to none. I never point even an unloaded weapon towards someone. The only time I am going to point it at someone is IF I am going to kill them. So there will be no "accidental".

The only time I am going to kill someone is if I feel in danger of losing my own life.

Your argument that drawing a weapon will only antagonize your attacker is foolhardy. By refusing to defend the sanctity of your home and the moral right of defending yourself and your family, you have let a criminal - intent on causing you harm - have the say on whether you live or die, and whether your wife and children become sex toys or die themselves.

Are you willing to let a criminal have this power over your life?

[ 12-23-2001: Message edited by: $iLk ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While waiting for Tac's reply to my previous post, I want to offer my personal feelings on liberty and the main reason I started this topic.

I believe that the ownership of a means of effective self defense and the ability to resist tyrannical forces - be they government or individual - is a hallmark of a FREE country. How free are you when the government feels no fear from it's populace for making bad decisions?

As Thomas Jefferson once said;

"When the Government fears it's people there is LIBERTY, but, when the people fear their Government there is TYRANNY."

Gun Ownership goes beyond self-defense, it goes to the very foundations of what this country was founded upon - the right of the people to choose how they ought to be governed.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson, June 1776

This view was also supported by Abraham Lincoln;

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln

To those who do not possess the ability, if necessary to forcefully overthrow your government, I say you are not FREE.

You are not free because if your government wanted to intervene in your social life in any way they could on a whim. If the government wanted to strip away your rights under the law, you can't do anything. If the government wanted to do anything to you, what can you do but let them.

I believe that government is there to serve the people, not vice-versa. If the government enacts a law that I do not agree with, I have the constitutional right not to uphold it.

That's where the term "jury-nullification" came from. Jurors in the United States have the right NOT to uphold a law that they believe is unjust. In fact, throughout history this last stand of freedom has saved many. In early America, the Supreme Court upheld that anyone who assisted escaping slaves was a criminal. If the Law was the Law, then slavery surely would have not ended so soon considering that many jurors refused to convict abolitionists on the underground railroad.

Same goes for prohibition. How many people were aquitted during the Prohibition era because of Jurys refusing to convict?

In the same way, what will happen when gun prohibition begins?

The law as written is not above the power of the people. That's a prime foundation of American government, and that's why we are free. If gun ownership became illegal today, that would make me a criminal in the governments eyes. But to true Americans, I would be a patriot.

I know and respect the ideals this government was founded upon. I can only preach to other countries, who have not known the same ideals we have enjoyed. Although our own government seeks to outgrow it's purpose, as governments do, we have held fast in our desire to preserve the Constitution and our way of life.

First it'll be the 2nd ammendment, then the 1st, then all the rest. The right to bear arms is second only to our sacred right of free speech, and surely without the 2nd, we wouldn't be guaranteed the 1st or any of the others for that matter.

What power do we have other than the ability to stand up to tyranny>?

That gives us all the power we need.

To those who would rather sit on the sidelines and enjoy other rights while joining the government in their destruction of the one right that has guaranteed all the rights they and their fathers have enjoyed for over 220 years, I only say this, and I quote ;

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the

animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your

counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" -Samuel Adams

If you are an American citizen, and you don't believe in the right to keep and bear arms, why should I believe in your right to free speech?

If you seek to deny rights protected under the constitution, I say you are a tyrant, and not willing to be called an American.

If you are not an American, I can only say that if your government doesn't trust you with the ownership of guns, then how safe are you?

-----------------------------

These are my personal feelings on the matter and in no way, shape, or form prohibit my ability to live along side, or to engage in casual conversation with any of you.

I believe in the rights of the individual OVER the right of the government to impose restrictions on the individual.

If you think I am a "gun-nut" or "fanatic" then I say only that the founding fathers of this great nation agreed with me. And they disagree with you. In these times of worrying about what's constitutional, and what isn't, how can you disregard the wishes of those who WROTE the constitution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tac, some of what I read in your post shows basically that you haven't been educated in the positive facts about firearms.

That's the problem with many anti-gun groups and individuals is that they aren't educated about firearms, and see them as a mysterious evil that needs to be vanquished.

I'm going to provide you some material that I would like you to consider reading, and after reading it, see if you feel the same way.

The following is based entirely in fact, PDF form of Gun Facts 3.0

That's a great resource. In addition -

I'd like you to read The Parable of the Sheep

teach2.jpg

And here are the famous 15 myths about gun control:

15 Myths about Gun control (followed by facts)

Firearms are used to commit as many as 650,000 crimes each year. But firearms are also used to prevent crimes as many as 2.5 million times each year. In fact, criminals are three times more likely to be killed by armed victims who resist them than by the police. Would tougher gun control laws make our lives safer? Fair appraisal of the issue requires us to put aside some common myths.

[*]Myth No. 1: Guns cause crime. A careful review of 18 academic studies shows that there is no relationship between the number of guns and the amount of crime in the United States. International evidence tells a similar story.

[*]Myth No. 2: Gun control laws reduce crime. The nation already has 20,000 gun control laws, and the police arrest 220,000 people a year on weapons violations. Yet the violent crime rate is at an all-time high. Moreover, considering that fewer than 1 percent of all guns are involved in a crime and only 12 percent of all violent crimes involve a gun, gun control laws could have only a modest effect on crime - even if they worked exactly as intended, which they don't. For example, New Jersey, Hawaii and Washington, D.C., experienced sharp murder-rate increases after passing tough gun control laws. Canada, Taiwan and Jamaica reported similar experiences.

[*]Myth No. 3: Guns are of little help in defending against criminals. In fact, guns are a big help. Each year, potential victims kill from 2,000 to 3,000 criminals and wound an additional 9,000 to 17,000. And mishaps are rare. Private citizens mistakenly kill innocent people only 30 times a year, compared with about 330 mistaken killings by police. Criminals succeed in taking a gun away from an armed victim less than 1 percent of the time.

[*]Myth No. 4: Killing someone is the only reason to buy a handgun. The vast majority of gun owners cite protection from crime as one of the main reasons they own a gun. And for good reason. Americans use guns for self-protection about one million times a year. In 98 percent of the cases, they simply brandish the weapon or fire a warning shot.

[*]Myth No. 5: People who buy guns are more prone to violence and crime than are other people. Violence and crime are higher among black than white, lower-income than middle- or upper-income, young than middle-aged, single than married, and urban than rural individuals - all contrary to the pattern of gun ownership.

[*]Myth No. 6: Criminals mainly have guns in order to commit crimes. The number one reason criminals acquire guns is for self-protection against other criminals. Fewer than half of felons think handguns are important for use in committing crimes.

[*]Myth No. 7: Killings and other violent crimes were prevalent in the Old West because guns were so plentiful. Much of the violence on the frontier involved clashes with Indians, bandits and foreigners. Even so, the frontier was a lot safer than America is today. There was very little ordinary crime - less than in most cities in the East.

[*]Myth No. 8: Gun controls keep criminals from obtaining guns. In surveys of prisoners, a majority said that prior to imprisonment they had owned a handgun. But fewer than one in six guns had been purchased from a retail dealer. Three-fourths of the felons said they would have no trouble obtaining a gun when they were released, despite legal prohibitions.

[*]Myth No. 9: Required waiting periods would prevent some of the most vicious crimes. If the Brady bill were law, it would not have saved Jim Brady. Nor would it have prevented the Killeen, Texas, massacre or the slaughter at McDonald's in Stockton, Calif. However, an instant records check (to identify felons when they try to purchase guns from retail dealers) and better enforcement of existing laws (to turn criminals into convicted felons) might well prevent some vicious crimes.

[*]Myth No. 10: Most murders are committed by people killing friends or family members. The actual number is about one out of five. Most in-household killings are not crimes of passion. They're the culmination of years of abusive behavior, and often it is the abuser who is killed.

[*]Myth No. 11: The availability of guns contributes to crimes of passion. In about 90 percent of "crime-of-passion" domestic homicides, the police had been called in previously to break up violence. In half the cases, the police had been called in five or more times. There is no evidence that a significant number of homicides occur simply because a lethal weapon is handy.

[*]Myth No. 12: Automatic rifles and so-called assault weapons are too dangerous to be left in private hands. Over the past 50 years no civilian has ever used a legally owned machine gun in a violent crime. And despite their repeated use by drug dealers on "Miami Vice" and in the movies, no Uzi has ever been used to kill a police officer. Even gun control advocates concede that so-called assault weapons play a minor role in violent crime.

[*]Myth No. 13: Gun control laws are especially needed to prevent the purchase of "Saturday Night Specials." Inexpensive handguns are involved in only 1 to 3 percent of violent crimes, and criminals are no more likely to use one than any other type of handgun.

[*]Myth No. 14: People don't need guns for self-protection because they can rely on the police. About 83 percent of the population will be victims of violent crime at some point in their lives, and in any given year serious crime touches 25 percent of all households. Considering that, effectively, there is only one police officer on patrol for every 3,300 people, the odds are not likely to improve. And the courts have ruled that government has no duty to protect individual citizens from crime.

[*]Myth No. 15: Gun ownership is not a constitutional right. The Second Amendment reflects the founders' belief that an armed citizenry (called the "general militia") was a necessary precaution against tyranny by our own government and its army. The idea that government has a constitutional right to disarm the general citizenry is totally foreign to the intent of the Constitution's framers.

Sometimes education is all it takes to change someone's view on the subject. Read all of that, and if you have any doubts, try and apply your logic to what you learn.

That goes for anyone who is against individual gun ownership. If you would like to learn from the other side of the coin, feel free to use the materials I have provided.

http://www.handguncontrol.net/Common_Sense/index.htm

You will teach your children many things in life, to ride a bike, change a tire, connect to the internet, Why not teach them respect for a firearm and how it is to be properly handled? The life it saves may be their own.... Click on the link above to get started

And for anyone who believes that the militia in the 2nd ammendment is not the people, I quote :

According to the United States Code Title 10, Section 311...

"§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(B) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. "

"The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death." - Edmond Burke , English Statesman 1729 - 1797

I found this tonight : A Nation of Cowards

[ 12-23-2001: Message edited by: $iLk ]

[ 12-23-2001: Message edited by: $iLk ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, I find this whole argument insane. Personally, I'm for gun ownership. Some people are not, and that's fine too. However, here's the whole issue boiled down and simplified:

Gun control is not an issue of guns themselves. Rather, it is the issue of the bully and the victim.

On one side, you have the bullies. Every person that chooses to take what is not their's (i.e., life, property, hapiness, freedom) falls into this category.

The other side is populated by the victims. And this is where things get interesting. There are two kinds of victims: The A-type victim (those that immediately or eventually fight back), and the B-type victim (those that bury their heads in the sand).

Now, we all know that the bullies are always outnumbered. Why then, are there still bullies?

The main reason bullies still exist is because the B-types sharply outnumber the A-type victims.

But, that's just the nature of things, right?! Everything naturally takes the path of least resistance. It takes far less work to run away, hide, or pass the responsibillity of defending one's self to an external group (i.e., police).

However, that exactly opposes what this country was founded on. This country was founded by protecting its citizens from the bullies of the world. Sadly, those that still hold the "American Dream" in value (A-types) are quickly diminishing in numbers. Americans are no longer politically correct. Americans don't consider the rest of the world enough. Americans have too much and share too little. Sound familiar?

B-types would like us all to believe that the victims are more dangerous than the bullies. In fact, if it weren't for the victims, the bullies would'nt even exist, right?! That's what happens when you stick your head in the sand. Everything's dark and nothing exists that can harm you.

But, it's not the B-type's fault. They can't help what they are. Fear is a powerful and all consuming spirit. When allowed, it can control your every waking and sleeping moment. It distorts reality and bends logic to fuel its fire.

So, B-types creat laws. They can't fight in any other fashion. They can't see that paper stops nothing because it would invalidate their work and cause them to question their fear. So, more laws are created to bolster other laws. A foundation of lies, half truths, and false bravado are held in place by the weighty mass of the new laws added atop the old.

Granted, there is a place for law. In its purest form, it defines the line between right and wrong. It's the difference between justice and vigilanty revenge.

However, law only affects those that abide by its precepts. Law is nowhere to be found between the moment a bully makes his/her move and the result of the bully's choice. Law does nothing to prevent those that choose to from becoming bullies. Law is, and can only be a tool useful AFTER THE FACT. Sadly, though, it's the only tool the B-type ever wants anyone to use.

The A-type, however, chooses to take an active not a passive role in life. A-types understand that the only way to stop a bully is to confront a bully. Unfortunately, there are far too few A-types left in the world. Those that are left don't realize they are A-types until the bully does something to bring it out of them. Some, though, realize from day one that in order to have any sense of order in chaos one must live life constantly as an A-type.

That doesn't mean A-types proactively seek out the bullies to "nip the problem in the bud". It means that, even though the moment may never arive, the A-type is constantly prepared. The A-type is vigilant in protecting his/her rights.

However, because of their few numbers, and their tendancy to only take action during or after a bully's travesty, A-types are the constant target of B-types. B-type's fear does not allow them to see the real problem, but it does shift the blaim to where it doesn't belong.

Although they are in the right, the A-type just doesn't have the numbers necessary to take on the bullies and the B-types. So, the B-types legislate what the A-types can and can't do under the guise of protecting innocents.

The bullies, just like any predator, know where week points exist and exploit them. The B-types, not willing to look at the real problem, can only see the A-types. Since the problem can't be the B-types, the A-types must be the problem (they're the only ones left). B-types do what they do best and pass even more laws.

A-types, being the only truly law abiding citizen do what they can to hold the tidal onslaught of B-type, but can't win in the end. So, A-type abides by the law and prepares in any way possible for the inevitable because they know that the only thing standing between Bullies and B's are themselves.

But, hey, we're just talking about controling the use of guns by those that abide by the law, right!?

So, the real question is not whether you agree with gun control. The real question is: Are you an A, a B or just another Bully?

The answer is very obvious. Providing your an A-type or a Bully, that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are assuming that everyone is "well trained" or "well meaning" AND responsible in the use and keeping of their firearms.

If they were TRULY sold for "self defense", why can you purchase anything bigger than a pistol?

Im sure 9mm automatic carbine, or an M16 or shotgun are needed to protect oneself from the boogyman. Face it, if the bad guy comes at you with something like that, you're SCREWED no matter what you do. Reminds me of that AMAZING POLICE videos I saw of 2 guys with AK's and bulletproof vests giving the police hell.

BTW, what I meant by legally obtained and used in crimes is that X person with no criminal record can buy anything from a semi pistol to an assault weapon and use it in crime. They can be lost, stolen, and documents to buy them can be forged easily.

I am very biased against guns. I can understand why people need to have them for "self defense", yet I know what happens when everyone achieves "self defense" by having guns. It becomes an arms race. First a pistol, then the other side uses a shotgun ones, so you have to get something better, like that UZI, other side gets something bigger... and so on and on. Eventually each gang together for protection, then the need for another equalizer arises...and so on. And it gets messier and messier.

Heard it, seen it, been there. Thank god I was lucky to get out.

Trust me on this, it aint nice to live in fear of everyone you see in the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Trust me on this, it aint nice to live in fear of everyone you see in the street.

You don't have to look very far to experience this in the US Tac. I spent nigh on 18 years in the hood aka as LA. Arms race? You bet and the poor residents living in fear cowering in their homes 'cause the bangers ruled the street.

Believe it or not they (the bangers) learn who they can mess with, and who the can't. They always go for the easy prey (B types). I survived, and I'm not a B-Type either

TTFN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume that everyone who is serious about self-defense (A types) is well trained and knows how to use a weapon, yes. By well trained, I don't mean they are trained to assault and take down an enemy base or anything. I assume that if someone is truly serious, they will learn their gun well enough to be comfortable in it's operation.

If you are biased against guns, that's fine - but to restrict the right to own one is wrong.

If you want to work to restrict my rights under the second ammendment, why shouldn't I restrict your right to free speech? Because I have an idea of what being a true American is about.

If you simply don't want to own a gun, that's fine, that's your prerogative. But the moment B types start infringing on the rights of A types, is the point where lines are drawn. B types won't know what is going to happen until they cross those lines in the sand, and frankly, most A types don't know either.

It could get messy.

But you assume that firearms are useful only for self defense. Have you ignored my entire point, and Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln's points? Firearms are a check against government tyranny.

quote:

Im sure 9mm automatic carbine, or an M16 or shotgun are needed to protect oneself from the boogyman. Face it, if the bad guy comes at you with something like that, you're SCREWED no matter what you do. Reminds me of that AMAZING POLICE videos I saw of 2 guys with AK's and bulletproof vests giving the police hell.


If a bad guy comes at me with a 9mm automatic carbine, he chose the wrong caliber. If he comes at me with an M16 or shotgun, he's met a pretty much evenly armed foe. I have a Mossberg 500 pump 12 guage and a pre ban AK47 with 9 30 round mags and 400 rounds of ammunition. (1 loaded mag of course)

If guns were outlawed and I had to give up my weapon and these well armed "bad-guys" swooped on my home, I have no chance to defend myself.

quote:

BTW, what I meant by legally obtained and used in crimes is that X person with no criminal record can buy anything from a semi pistol to an assault weapon and use it in crime. They can be lost, stolen, and documents to buy them can be forged easily.

You can hardly forge good enough documents to get a pistol, but I grant that you can get a long gun from a gun shop and face a 50/50 chance of getting caught. If someone's going to get a gun illegally, they are going to either straw buy, or they are going to steal it.

And by your argument - what gun control law is going to prevent this? It's only going to prevent those who wouldn't do that from getting guns.

quote:

Trust me on this, it aint nice to live in fear of everyone you see in the street.

Yeah it's hard to be the unarmed law abider in a sea of criminals isn't it? -irony

So do you respect the Constitutional right of me to own a gun? If so I won't take your arguments personally.

I can't help but take it personally when someone attempts to further their own inadequacy to respect and own a firearm and apply it to everyone.

That's not being mean, that's just the way it is.

And what would you do if someone were to come into your home this instant with a 9mm pistol - a derringer even, and force you to lie face down, and inform you that he is about to rape your daughter and you are going to watch?

Would you run?

Wouldn't it be such a perfect world to be at the mercy of criminals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$ilk,

My respect for you has just grown by leaps and bounds.Between you and Akira you've covered alot of my own personal thoughts and beliefs,based on my experiences in life.

So,Instead of trying to add anything to what you've said about the gun control issue,I'll instead ask some questions,and maybe give an opinion or two on things that I think might be closely related to this issue.

Do any of you think that this tendency by the government and media to heighten and play upon the fears of the public is a precursor to a deliberate attempt to radically change the fundemental civil freedoms of the American people?

Do any of you think that the "War on Drugs" is more or less a sham? By the simple rules of supply and demand,the Government is assuring that there will always be a drug trade.

What is the possibilty that the smartest of Akira's "Bullies" have gravitated to the hall's of government with the action's of the "B"s paving the way....intentionally or not?

and finally,

It is astonshing to me, that alot of the "B"'s remain so adament in their views as long as someone else is bearing the brunt of their convictions,but quickly convert to "A"s when they,or their loved ones are at risk.

Would love to hear what the reat of you have to say on these topics.

Everyone have a Merry Christmas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to meet you Stormshadow

It seems that some of what you are saying borders on Libertarian philosophy, (war on drugs and such) and I'd like to let you know my stance and opinion on your questions.

Since you asked me that is

quote:

Do any of you think that this tendency by the government and media to heighten and play upon the fears of the public is a precursor to a deliberate attempt to radically change the fundemental civil freedoms of the American people?

As Mencken said;

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." (H. L. Mencken.)

In short - yes. I believe that the government and media are attempting to supplant true patriotism with thoughts of imaginary evils in order to usurp the people's constitutional right to remain more powerful than their government.

They are constantly drilled into by talk show hosts, media types, and government spokesment that certain things are a problem in society - guns for instance. When accidental shooting deaths are far outweighed by accidental car accidents, and the positive uses of a gun.

Guns are supposedly evil, with perhaps 650,000 violent crimes commited every year using guns, while in over 2.5 million cases every year guns are used in self defence (97% of the time the gun is never fired, 1% of the time a warning shot is sufficient, and in the last 2% of the time, the intruder must be shot)

School mass shootings are declared an "epidemic" even though we've only had what, 3 or 4 in our entire history?

And isn't it coincidence that Columbine took place right after laws were passed prohibiting teachers from having guns at the school?

And doesn't it call for "more" gun laws even though the kids who shot up the school were already breaking 20 federal,state, and local gun laws? Would 21 have helped?

There are already 20,000 gun laws on the books. If gun laws worked - we should be free of crime. And since the 1950's where we were more open to allowing guns to now where gun laws have dramatically increased, isn't it something how crime has increased despite all these new laws? Or is it BECAUSE of these laws?

The brady bill was a super success, considering we've only had ONE conviction in the nearly 9 years since it was created.

1% of guns are used in a crime, so why should everyone have to suffer, and why is it blown out of proportion? Because a well-armed citizenry is against the wishes of our government, who seeks to expand more and more anti-American power over us.

That's just guns, let's not forget Mediscare, Racism, and other buzzwords that evoke fear in some demographic of society.

Sadly ignorance allows most of these "evils" to be confronted when in reality they are being used to further a Socialist system.

quote:

Do any of you think that the "War on Drugs" is more or less a sham? By the simple rules of supply and demand,the Government is assuring that there will always be a drug trade.


The War on Drugs is a failure. If we legalized drugs today, the same people would be doing them. After prohibition we didn't turn into a nation of alcoholics did we? Same thing for drugs, the people who are gonna do them are gonna do them regardless.

Our jails are filled with those in non-violent drug offenses, paving the way for parole of child molestors, rapists, and murderers.

I agree with libertarians that education, and rehabilitation should be used, with jail only as a last resort for people addicted.

I don't necessarily believe that legalizing them will be as harmless as the end of prohibition was, but at the same time, you make them legal, you run business away from the cartels. The only way to win the war on drugs is to legalize drugs. In order to do that we must be ever vigilant in our educational efforts to ensure that people are aware of what they are doing when they take drugs.

quote:

What is the possibilty that the smartest of Akira's "Bullies" have gravitated to the hall's of government with the action's of the "B"s paving the way....intentionally or not?

Somewhat, I believe that some have, but mostly it is B's who are in government. B's are enacting their own inadequacy's to make themselves feel better.

At the same time remember that many "anti-gun" groups are simply milking people's simple mindedness as a cash-cow, much like Jesse Jackson milks racism. Neither really want the "problem" fixed because if it was they couldn't exploit money for it.

quote:

It is astonshing to me, that alot of the "B"'s remain so adament in their views as long as someone else is bearing the brunt of their convictions,but quickly convert to "A"s when they,or their loved ones are at risk.

Or not. Rosie O Donnel for instance, she declared live on TV that she would like to see all guns taken away from private citizens, yet she keeps armed bodyguards.

Hypocrisy.

The anti-gun crowd I believe is right to have their thoughts, and to speak out against guns, but I believe that it is illegal and unconstitutional for them to be able to enact gun laws that aim at preventing gun ownership and gun confiscation.

As has been noted by the Supreme Court - the Constitution does not grant the rights in the Bill of Rights. They are considered to have existed before the constitution, and to be protected from legislation against.

That includes the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms - as noted by the Supreme Court in 97% of it's cases involving the 2nd ammendment. Only in 3% of it's cases did it mention so-called "collective-rights"

I believe it's anti-American to attempt to take this right away from true patriots.

For criminals - ENFORCE the existing laws. NEW laws aren't the answer. There have been less than 10 convictions in the past couple of years over existing laws.

Reason most commonly given is that the Justice Department (under Reno go figure) isn't interested in those cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, time for me to jump in here with my 56K UGH!!

What are you doing starting a thread like this when I'm outta town $iLk? Ya BUM!!

I am a constitutionalist and a hardocre gun rights advocate.

Tac does NOT like guns, that is because he came from a society that I would consider lawless, and full of criminals.

In the US, the criminals are a VERY small minority, and always have been!!

I have CWP's for both Washington and Oregon, I carry a CZ-70 .32 caliber pistol with me whereever I go. IT IS LOADED, ONE IS IN THE chamber, and there are 9 in the clip, I pull it out, flip the safety with my thumb and FIRE. An unloaded gun is USELESS, why would you carry an unloaded gun? Or for that matter without a bullet in the chamber?

I am WELL trained, and keep myself up to snuff with range time at least once a month if not more.

ANY gun owner who is serious about weapons WILL train in the use of firearms, if they don't They deserve what they get.

Also, assault weapons as they are called, should NOT be illegal, whatever the government has, We as citizens should be allowed to have. PERIOD!!!

Weapons of Mass Destruction should not be owned by individual persons, this is the proper role of the military. BUT, those weapons CANNOT be allowed to be used on Citizens.

I believe in personal responsibility, and if someone shoots themselves or someone else due to the fact that they did not get the proper training for the use of fireaarms, then they SHOULD be jailed or buried, but the rest of should not suffer because of someone elses stupidity!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

And so giving easy access to everyone, including those who will potentially not obey the law, is a better choice?

I'll only use this quote as a springboard.

What we can't have is tyranny of the minority. You don't shut the whole thing down because a few might abuse it (whatever "it" is). You put measures in place to punish the abusers and allow the rest to do "it" responsibly. Otherwise, you are treating everyone like children who can't be trusted, and the one's doing the "treating" are somehow more superior in that they can decide who gets to do what. That's not what this society is all about.

I sense that this thread was meant to focus on guns as a self-defense/crime deterrent, not as a Constitutional defense against a tyrannical government, so I'll limit my comments to that.

I believe that there are other underlying causes for the spate of school shootings and other workplace shootings. It's interesting that nobody has discussed the effect of Ritalyn (sp?) on our children. The media never reported on whether the children shooters were on this drug or not. I suspect that they were. These drugs are supposed to address Attention Defecit Disorder in children, but I believe that they are being used by schools to subdue fidgety children and make them more docile in the classroom so that teachers can control larger and larger classes. Kids are just being kids. They like to run around. They are going through great growing spurts and have lots of energy that need outlets that are being denied. Schools are cutting back on extra-curricular activies that would normally be outlets for exhuberant children. Look at other young in nature (watch the nature shows on TV) and see how they behave: puppies, ponies, birds, bears. They are all running around expending energy while their bodies grow.

Human children are the same but they are being denied their outlets, so they get fidgety in class and then labeled ADD and drugged until they are 13 or 14 years old. So now what happens when they come off these drugs? First, the drug puts them in an emotional stupor so they never learn how to deal with their emotions. Second, at puberty (when they stop taking the drugs), two things happen: 1) their body chemistry changes, and 2) their emotions heighten. The drugs have already messed up their chemistry -- who knows what residual effects they have on kids after their bodies start changing? Also, they are uprepared to deal with the stronger emotions that they are beginning to feel, like attraction to the opposite sex and sexual arousal.

When children start to date, or just try to form lasting social bonds, they are bound to experience serious rejection for the first times in their lives, especially when the rejection comes from the opposite sex. It is my belief that the children today are unprepared to deal with this. They have been raised in a coddled environment that teaches that self-esteem and just trying is more important that accomplishment and achievement. That's why we have all these alternative schools where grades don't count, kids are socially promoted, and sports leagues don't keep score. We don't want our children's feelings to be hurt when they don't win or don't pass. Life isn't so simple, and when these kids grow up a little more and get rejected "big time," they lash out in ways that the drugs prevented them from doing before. It's an all or nothing world for them -- if I can't have it then nobody can. If the girl says no, or the girl breaks up for another boy, or the bully humiliates them, they go for the guns to settle things because there is no middle ground. There is no concept of working through the pain and anquish and understanding that it will pass with time. There is no passing with time when you are raised to expect instant gratification, so the kids lash out. With guns. I think a lot of this, if it doesn't come out in the schoolyard, eventually comes out in the workforce, but it comes out sooner or later when they aren't taught how to deal with it when they are young.

Is the answer to take away the guns? No. The answer is to raise our children properly. Let them feel a little pain so they can learn how to overcome adversity.

There will always be the criminal. There will always be crimes of passion. Eliminating the guns may reduce some of the deaths, but eliminating cars will probably eliminate more deaths than by guns, but we don't talk about eliminating cars. Knives? Ropes? Where do we stop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

That's just guns, let's not forget Mediscare, Racism, and other buzzwords that evoke fear in some demographic of society.

Sadly ignorance allows most of these "evils" to be confronted when in reality they are being used to further a Socialist system.

You mean a fascist system, don't you?

I see no reason why a socialist (especially a revolutionary socialist) would be against gun ownership (how else would the ruling class be overthrown? ).

Before you start paraphrasing me from previous gun control debates, note that those opinions were personal and had nothing to do with any political position.

quote:

But you assume that firearms are useful only for self defense. Have you ignored my entire point, and Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln's points? Firearms are a check against government tyranny.

The argument that extensive gun ownership would serve as an effective check on government tyranny is full of false assumptions.

1. It assumes that there would be widespread agreement over what is tyrannical and what is not.

2. It assumes that tyrannies conspicuously restrict everyone's rights.

3. It assumes that the citizenry is united against tyranny.

Clever tyrants are very selective about whose rights they restrict, because it keeps the less discriminated majority on its side. They tend to discriminate against anti-government elements that are part of marginalized social groups, labelling them as troublemakers and enemies of ordinary people, which appeals to the reactionary and conservative elements. It also alienates every other anti-government individual, because whenever they openly criticize such a government, they are quickly associated with the marginalized groups. When the media sides with the status quo (which it usually does when it comes right down to it), the state's ability to divide the citizenry is so effective it's terrifying. Make no mistake: Owners of private and/or commercial media are not independant; they will side with any tyranny that benefits them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Menchise, excellent post, and I don't disagree with the main point.

I'm sorry but every time I read fascist or National Socialist literature, they use Karl Marx and Socialist thought as a spring board. They simply diverge from the idea of global community, and concentrate instead on National Community.

Other than that, I can't differentiate many quotes from Hitler and Mussolini, when compared with Marx and Communist leaders.

The idea of people working toward the "greater good" is prevalent in both ideologies.

National Socialism focuses only on indiginous citizens, facism focuses on everyone in country, and Socialism focuses on everyone.

Mussolini, Franco, and there are several contributors to fascist ethics that rely on the teachings of Marx in order to futher their ideas. They simply stop in a Stalinist type period, and change the basic idea of to each his requirements, with to each his deserves.

The more you put in the more you get out. It eliminates residual wealth and only repays harder work. The less you work the less you get back.

So it's very similar, it's just diverged differently than standard socialism.

A Socialist country would outlaw guns AFTER the revolution to keep a counter-revolution from developing.

and standard practice for a revolution is to kill the revolutionaries because the government isn't going to be what they fought for so hard.

quote:

Clever tyrants are very selective about whose rights they restrict, because it keeps the less discriminated majority on its side. They tend to discriminate against anti-government elements that are part of marginalized social groups, labelling them as troublemakers and enemies of ordinary people, which appeals to the reactionary and conservative elements. It also alienates every other anti-government individual, because whenever they openly criticize such a government, they are quickly associated with the marginalized groups. When the media sides with the status quo (which it usually does when it comes right down to it), the state's ability to divide the citizenry is so effective it's terrifying. Make no mistake: Owners of private and/or commercial media are not independant; they will side with any tyranny that benefits them.


I mostly agree. It's not so black and white, but basically you've got the gist of it.

I believe that weapons in the hands of a minority is better than an unarmed majority when it comes down to it. The time will come where it may be very oppressive, but the powers that be have successfully prevented any organization. Then we're talking about 1984.

I hope it doesn't come to that, and as long as there are as many who agree with me, we'll know when the time is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I'm sorry but every time I read fascist or National Socialist literature, they use Karl Marx and Socialist thought as a spring board. They simply diverge from the idea of global community, and concentrate instead on National Community.

Other than that, I can't differentiate many quotes from Hitler and Mussolini, when compared with Marx and Communist leaders.

The idea of people working toward the "greater good" is prevalent in both ideologies.


Whether they use Marx as a springboard or not is irrelevant, because the differences in both ideologies are significant. Fascists believe that the individual is nothing without the state. Communists believe that the state is nothing without class division. Fascists believe in unquestioning obedience to a supreme leader. Communists believe that there is no such thing as a supreme leader. Fascists glorify war. Communists believe that war will end when class division ends. Fascists believe in an organically unified community with a strict hierarchy and an umbrella state. Communists believe in a classless and stateless society.

quote:

A Socialist country would outlaw guns AFTER the revolution to keep a counter-revolution from developing.

That would be pointless, and your arguments prove it. If gun control doesn't stop crime, then it won't stop a counter-revolution, so the system would be better off with gun ownership, so that the people can a) Maintain the proletarian state's accountability, and B) Defend the revolution if necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the fact that they use Marxist thought is completely relevent.

They adapt it to suit their needs - just as any leader who took control after a socialist revolution would.

Despite what the revolutionaries believe, the government formed after a revolution will not match what they fought for.

It will match whatever the leader of the movement wants.

quote:

Fascists believe that the individual is nothing without the state. Communists believe that the state is nothing without class division.

Individuals enjoy no freedom under either system.

quote:

That would be pointless, and your arguments prove it. If gun control doesn't stop crime, then it won't stop a counter-revolution, so the system would be better off with gun ownership, so that the people can a) Maintain the proletarian state's accountability, and
B)
Defend the revolution if necessary.

I seriously doubt that whoever takes control after a revolution will allow the citizens to keep their weapons.

As Adolf Hitler proved, taking away their weapons made the people more susceptible to their wishes.

Come what may, I believe that in the event of a revolution in America, you will see the country carved into pieces instead of united under any one system.

Anyway I'd rather not worry about Socialism in this thread. My main point in this thread has been that citizens who have the ability to defend themselves against each other and their government are free from tyranny.

And Jaguar, sorry about starting the debate after you left, I kind of didn't notice until after I posted before I remembered your trip. Anyway everyone have a Merry Christmas - and when we continue this debate, I would like to debunk any falsehoods about guns - which contrary to popular belief are only as bad as the person who holds them. On that token, they are as good as the person who holds them as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I believe the fact that they use Marxist thought is completely relevent.

They adapt it to suit their needs - just as any leader who took control after a socialist revolution would.

Despite what the revolutionaries believe, the government formed after a revolution will not match what they fought for.

It will match whatever the leader of the movement wants.

It is not the fault of Marx if his words have been twisted. To say that Marxist thought contributes to Fascism because fascists used it as a springboard is the same as saying that Christianity contributes to Racism because the Afrikaans used The Bible as the springboard for Apartheid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Individuals enjoy no freedom under either system.

Another issue for the other thread.

quote:

I seriously doubt that whoever takes control after a revolution will allow the citizens to keep their weapons.

The founders of America made sure it was allowed. What makes you think that socialist revolutionaries would be any different?

quote:

As Adolf Hitler proved, taking away their weapons made the people more susceptible to their wishes.

Firstly, Hitler was not a revolutionary or a socialist. Secondly, I don't think the German people were armed in the first place. Thirdly, a significant percentage of the German people supported Hitler (at least initially).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Firstly, Hitler was not a revolutionary or a socialist. Secondly, I don't think the German people were armed in the first place. Thirdly, a significant percentage of the German people supported Hitler (at least initially).

First - Hitler was a member of the German Socialist Party after World War I until the government cracked down on Socialists. Hitler used his Socialist upbringing as a springboard for National Socialism. So what could have been a socialist leader, changed his mind and became what we know. So Hitler WAS a socialist before the rise of the NSDP

Second - Germany allowed private gun ownership under the government. Hitler began a program of gun registration (in fact was the same form of registration used by the United States to the embarrasment of some public officials hehe.) and once he knew who had the guns, he began the process of taking them away from "undesirables". Then every country that Hitler conquered found their weapons taken from the private individuals.

Third - Initially only 33% of the German people supported Hitler's rise to power - not a majority. After the last elections held in Germany, where anyone who ran against Hitler lived in fear of their life, Hitler got a little over 60% of the vote - but I wouldn't call it a democratic process.

More interesting notes about Hitler is that he is the founder of two things many of us know well:

The Volkswagon beetle

&

Labor Day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Hitler was a member of the German Socialist Party after World War I until the government cracked down on Socialists. Hitler used his Socialist upbringing as a springboard for National Socialism. So what could have been a socialist leader, changed his mind and became what we know. So Hitler WAS a socialist before the rise of the NSDP

He still wasn't a revolutionary, and there are many types of socialism, many of which use Marx as an initial springboard but adopt positions that are far from Marxist. Secondly, Hitler used many springboards, including the history of German militarism under Bismarck. Thirdly, the socialist element of the Nazi Party was very small in the beginning, and became non-existent over time. Finally, Nazi Germany had a mixed economy on the market side.

quote:

Germany allowed private gun ownership under the government. Hitler began a program of gun registration (in fact was the same form of registration used by the United States to the embarrasment of some public officials hehe.) and once he knew who had the guns, he began the process of taking them away from "undesirables". Then every country that Hitler conquered found their weapons taken from the private individuals.

Well then, that just indicates that gun ownership is required to defend the revolution against so-called "supreme leaders".

quote:

Third - Initially only 33% of the German people supported Hitler's rise to power - not a majority.

I never said it was a majority (I knew that it wasn't), I said a significant percentage.

[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...