Jump to content

Gun Ownership - Are we fit to be free?

Guest $iLk

Recommended Posts


First off, the 2nd amendment of the constitution was for the people to have the SAME weaponry as the government, PERIOD. That is what it is there for. If the government has better and more powerful weaponry then the citizenry, then therefore the government can overpower the people and Tyranny results.

Therefore, a citizen of the United States is allowed ANY weapon that the US military has. This includes Tanks, Jet Aircraft, ships, etc, ad nauseum.


I'll have to ponder this one.

I believe that there are two different purposes for two different arms. The government was supposed to field armies for the external projection of power. The people were supposed to provide some civil defense (militias) and to protect against tyranny. It was recognized that civilian militias would not have the training and regimen that standing armies would have, so it is reasonable to infer that they would not have access to all the weaponry that standing armies would have.

What civilians do have in their favor is the public outcry that would erupt if the military were to overwhelm a sufficiently large armed civilian revolt in opposition to the government (one would hope). Waco was probably not large enough of a slaughter and the people involved were fringe, but if an everyman revolt in opposition to the government (a la Tiannenman Square) were put down (a la Tiannenman Square) with thousands dead or missing, how could the government continue to maintain legitimacy with the people?

Therefore, to me, it's not the actual rebellion but the threat of delegitimacy that would result if a madman would do something like this to his own armed people, that is the strength behind the Second Amendment check on a tyrannical government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Read this tonight, would like to share it with you guys:

A World Without Guns

Be forewarned: ItÔÇÖs not a pretty picture

By Dave Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen of the Independence Institute

December 5, 2001 9:40 a.m.

"Imagine the world without guns" was a bumper sticker that began making the rounds after the murder of ex-Beatle John Lennon on December 18, 1980. Last year, Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono, followed up on that sentiment by announcing she would become a spokeswoman for Handgun Control, Inc. (which later changed its name to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and which was previously named the National Council to Control Handguns).

So let's try hard to imagine what a world without guns would look like. It isn't hard to do. But be forewarned: It's not a pretty picture.

The way to get to a gun-free world, the gun-prohibition groups tell us, is to pass laws banning them. We can begin by imagining the enactment of laws which ban all non-government possession of firearms.

It's not likely that local bans will do the job. Take, for example, New York's 1911 Sullivan Law, which imposed an exceedingly restrictive handgun-licensing scheme on New York City. In recent decades, administrative abuses have turned the licensing statute into what amounts to prohibition, except for tenacious people who navigate a deliberately obstructive licensing system.

Laws affect mainly those willing to obey them. And where there's an unfulfilled need ÔÇö and money to be made ÔÇö there's usually a way around the law. Enter the black market, which flourishes all the more vigorously with ever-increasing restrictions and prohibitions. In TV commercials that aired last August, New York City Republican (sort of) mayoral candidate Mike Bloomberg informed voters that "in 1993, there were as many as 2 million illegal guns on the street." The insinuation was that all those guns were in the hands of criminals, and the implication was that confiscating the guns would make the city a safer place. What Bloomberg never explained was how he planned to shut down the black market.

So let's imagine, instead, a nationwide gun ban, or maybe even a worldwide ban.

Then again, heroin and cocaine have been illegal in the United States, and most of the world, for nearly a century. Huge resources have been devoted to suppressing their production, sale, and use, and many innocent people have been sacrificed in the crossfire of the "drug war." Yet heroin and cocaine are readily available on the streets of almost all large American cities, and at prices that today are lower than in previous decades.

Perhaps a global prohibition law isn't good enough. Maybe imposing the harshest penalty possible for violation of such a law will give it real teeth: mandatory life in prison for possession of a gun, or even for possession of a single bullet. (We won't imagine the death penalty, since the Yoko crowd doesn't like the death penalty.)

On second thought, Jamaica's Gun Court Act of 1974 contained just such a penalty, and even that wasn't sufficient. On August 18, 2001, Jamaican Melville Cooke observed that today, "the only people who do not have an illegal firearm [in this country], are those who do not want one." Violent crime in Jamaica is worse than ever, as gangsters and trigger-happy police commit homicides with impunity, and only the law-abiding are disarmed.

Yet the Jamaican government wants to globalize its failed policy. In July 2001, Burchell Whiteman, Jamaica's Minister of Education, Youth and Culture spoke at the U.N. Disarmament Conference to demand the "implementation of measures that would limit the production of weapons to levels that meet the needs for defence and national security."

And as long as governments are allowed to have guns, there will be gun factories to steal from. Some of these factories might have adequate security measures to prevent theft, including theft by employees. But in a world with about 200 nations, most of them governed by kleptocracies, it's preposterous to imagine that some of those "government-only" factories won't become suppliers for the black market. Alternatively, corrupt military and police could supply firearms to the black market.

We'd better revise our strategy. Rather than wishing for laws (which cannot, even imaginably, create a gun-free world), let's be more ambitious, and imagine that all guns vanish. Even guns possessed by government agents. And let's close all the gun factories, too. That ought to put the black market out of business.

Voilà! Instant peace!

Back to the Drawing Board

Then again.....it's not very difficult to make a workable firearm. As J. David Truby points out in his book Zips, Pipes, and Pens: Arsenal of Improvised Weapons, "Today, all of the improvised/modified designs [of firearms] remain well within the accomplishment of the mechanically unskilled citizen who does not have access to firearms through other means."

In the article "Gun-Making as a Cottage Industry," Charles Chandler observed that Americans "have a reputation as ardent hobbyists and do-it-yourselfers, building everything from ship models to home improvements." The one area they have not been very active in is that of firearm construction. And that, Chandler explained, is only because "well-designed and well-made firearms are generally available as items of commerce."

A complete gun ban, or highly restrictive licensing amounting to near-ban, would create a real incentive for gun making to become a "cottage industry".

It's already happening in Great Britain, a consequence of the complete ban on civilian possession of handguns imposed by the Firearms Act of 1997. Not only are the Brits swamped today with illegally imported firearms, but local, makeshift gun factories have sprung up to compete.

British police already know about some of them. Officers from Scotland Yard's Metropolitan Police Serious Crime Group South recently recovered 12 handgun replicas which were converted to working models. An auto repair shop in London served as the front for the novel illegal gun factory. Police even found some enterprising gun-makers turning screwdrivers into workable firearms, and producing firearms disguised as ordinary key rings.

In short, closing the Winchester Repeating Arms factory ÔÇö and all the others ÔÇö will not spell the end of the firearm business.

Just take the case of Bougainville, the largest island in the South Pacific's Solomon Islands chain. Bougainville was the site of a bloody, decade-long secessionist uprising against domination by the government of Papua New Guinea, aided and abetted by the Australian government. The conflict there was the longest-running confrontation in the Pacific since the end of World War II, and caused the deaths of 15,000 to 20,000 islanders.

During the hostilities, which included a military blockade of the island, one of the goals was to deprive the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA) of its supply of arms. The tactic failed: the BRA simply learned how to make its own guns using materiel and ammunition left over from the War.

In fact, at the United Nations Asia Pacific Regional Disarmament Conference held in Spring 2001, it was quietly admitted that the BRA, within ten years of its formation, had managed to manufacture a production copy of the M16 automatic rifle and other machine guns. (That makes one question the real intent behind the U.N. Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects, which followed several months later: the U.N. leadership can't be so daft as to fail to recognize the implications for world disarmament after learning of the success of the Bougainville Revolutionary Army.)

If this single island of Bougainville can produce its own weapons, the Philippine Islands have long had a thriving cottage industry to manufacture firearms ÔÇö despite very restrictive gun laws imposed by the Marcos dictatorship and some other regimes.

It looks like we'll need to revisit our fantasy, yet again.

Okay. By proclamation of Kopel, Gallant, and Eisen, not only do all firearms ÔÇö every last one of them ÔÇö vanish instantly, but there shall be no further remanufacturing.

That last part's a bit tricky. Auto repair shops, hobbyists, revolutionaries ÔÇö everyone with decent machine shop skills ÔÇö can make a gun from something. This takes us down the same road as drug prohibition: With primary anti-drug laws having proven themselves unenforceable, secondary laws have been added to prohibit possession of items which could be used to manufacture drugs. Even making suspicious purchases at a gardening store can earn one a "dynamic entry" visit from the local SWAT team.

But laws proscribing the possession of gun-manufacturing items would have to be even broader than laws against possession of drug-manufacturing items, because there are so many tools which can be used to make guns, or be made into guns. What we'd really have to do is carefully control every possible step in the gun-making process. That means the registration of all machine tools, and the federal licensing of plumbers (similar to current federal licensure of pharmacies), auto mechanics, and all those handymen with their screwdrivers. And we'd need to stamp a serial number on pipes (potential gun barrels) in every bathroom and automobile ÔÇö and everywhere else one finds pipes ÔÇö and place all the serial numbers in a federal registry.

Today, the antigun lobbies who claim they don't want to ban all guns still insist that registration of every single gun and licensing of every gun owner is essential to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands. If so, it's hard to argue that licensing and registration of gun manufacturing items would not be essential to prevent illicit production of guns.

Thus, we would have to control every part of the manufacturing process. That would add up to a very expensive, complicated proposition. Even a 1% noncompliance rate with the "Firearms Precursors Control Act" would leave an immense supply of materials available for black-market gun making.

In order to ensure total conformity with the act, it's difficult to imagine leaving most existing constitutional protections in place. The mind boggles at the kinds of search and seizure laws required to make certain that people do not possess unregistered metal pipes or screwdrivers!

For example, just to enforce a ban on actual guns (not gun precursors), the Jamaican government needed to wipe out many common law controls on police searches, and many common law guarantees of fair trials. We'd have to trash the Constitution in order to completely prevent a black market in gun precursors from taking hold. Still, as the gun-prohibition lobby always says, if it saves just one life, it would be worth it.

But, what if, despite these extreme measures, the black market still functioned ÔÇö as it almost always does, when there is sufficient demand?

It's time to seriously revisit our strategy for a gun-free world. Maybe there's a shortcut around all of this.

Okay. We're going to make a truly radical, no-holds-barred proposal this time, take a quantum leap in science, and go where no man has gone before. There may be those who scoff at our proposal, but it can succeed where all other strategies have failed.

We, Kopel, Gallant, and Eisen, hereby imagine that, from this day forth, the laws of chemical combustion are revoked. We hereby imagine that gunpowder ÔÇö and all similar compounds ÔÇö no longer have the capacity to burn and release the gases necessary to propel a bullet.

Peace for Our Time

Finally, for the first time, a gun-free world is truly within our grasp ÔÇö and it's time to see what man hath wrought. And for that, all we have to do is take a look back at the kind of world our ancestors lived in.

To say that life in the pre-gunpowder world was violent would be an understatement. Land travel, especially over long distances, was fraught with danger from murderers, robbers, and other criminals. Most women couldn't protect themselves from rape, except by granting unlimited sexual access to one male in exchange for protection from other males.

Back then, weapons depended on muscle power. Advances in weaponry primarily magnified the effect of muscle power. The stronger one is, the better one's prospects for fighting up close with an edged weapon like a sword or a knife, or at a distance with a bow or a javelin (both of which require strong arms). The superb ability of such "old-fashioned" edged weapons to inflict carnage on innocents was graphically demonstrated by the stabbing deaths of eight second graders on June 8, 2001, by former school clerk Mamoru Takuma in gun-free Osaka, Japan.

When it comes to muscle power, young men usually win over women, children, and the elderly. It was warriors who dominated society in gun-free feudal Europe, and a weak man usually had to resign himself to settle on a life of toil and obedience in exchange for a place within the castle walls when evil was afoot.

And what of the women? According to the custom of jus primae noctis, a lord had the right to sleep with the bride of a newly married serf on the first night ÔÇö a necessary price for the serf to pay ÔÇö in exchange for the promise of safety and security (does that ring a bell?). Not uncommonly, this arrangement didn't end with the wedding night, since one's lord had the practical power to take any woman, any time. Regardless of whether jus primae noctis was formally observed in a region, rich, strong men had little besides their conscience to stop them from having their way with women who weren't protected by another wealthy strongman.

But there's yet another problem with imagining gunpowder out of existence: We get rid of firearms, but we don't get rid of guns. With the advent of the blow gun some 40,000 years ago, man discovered the efficacy of a tube for concentrating air power and aiming a missile, making the eventual appearance of airguns inevitable. So gunpowder or no gunpowder, all we've been doing, thus far, amounts to quibbling over the means for propelling something out of a tube.

Airguns date back to somewhere around the beginning of the 17th century. And we don't mean airguns like the puny Daisy Red Ryder BB Gun with a compass in the stock, longed for by Ralphie in Jean Shepard's 1984 classic A Christmas Story ("No, Ralphie, you can't have a BB gun ÔÇö you'll shoot your eye out!").

No, we're talking serious lethality here. The kind of powder-free gun that can hurl a 7.4 oz. projectile with a muzzle energy of 1,082 foot-pounds. Compare that to the 500 foot-pounds of muzzle energy from a typical .357 Magnum round! Even greater projectile energies are achievable using gases like nitrogen or helium, which create higher pressures than air does.

Before the advent of self-contained powder cartridge guns, airguns were considered serious weapons. In fact, three hundred years ago, air-powered guns were among the most powerful and accurate large-bore rifles around. While their biggest disadvantages were cost and intricacy of manufacture, they were more dependable and could be fired more rapidly than firearms of the same period. A butt-reservoir .31 airgun was carried by Lewis and Clark on their historic expedition, and used successfully for taking game. [see Robert D. Beeman, "Proceeding On to the Lewis & Clark Airgun," Airgun Revue 6 (2000): 13-33.] Airguns even saw duty in military engagements more than 200 years ago.

Today, fully automatic M-16-style airguns are a reality. It was only because of greater cost relative to powder guns, and the greater convenience afforded by powder arms, that airgun technology was never pushed to its lethal limits.

Other non-powder weapon systems have competed for man's attention, as well. The 20th century was the bloodiest century in the history of mankind. And while firearms were used for killing (for example, with machine guns arranged to create interlocking fields of fire in the trench warfare of World War I), they were hardly essential. By far, the greatest number of deliberate killings occurred during the genocides and democides perpetrated by governments against disarmed populations. The instruments of death ranged from Zyklon B gas to machetes to starvation.

Imagine No Claws

To imagine a world with no guns is to imagine a world in which the strong rule the weak, in which women are dominated by men, and in which minorities are easily abused or mass-murdered by majorities. Practically speaking, a firearm is the only weapon that allows a weaker person to defend himself from a larger, stronger group of attackers, and to do so at a distance. As George Orwell observed, a weapon like a rifle "gives claws to the weak."

The failure of imagination among people who yearn for a gun-free world is their naive assumption that getting rid of claws will get rid of the desire to dominate and kill. They fail to acknowledge the undeniable fact that when the weak are deprived of claws (or firearms), the strong will have access to other weapons, including sheer muscle power. A gun-free world would be much more dangerous for women, and much safer for brutes and tyrants.

The one society in history that successfully gave up firearms was Japan in the 17th century, as detailed in Noel Perrin's superb book Giving Up the Gun: Japan's Reversion to the Sword 1543-1879. An isolated island with a totalitarian dictatorship, Japan was able to get rid of the guns. Historian Stephen Turnbull summarizes the result:

[The dictator] Hid├®yoshi's resources were such that the edict was carried out to the letter. The growing social mobility of peasants was thus flung suddenly into reverse. The ikki, the warrior-monks, became figures of the past . . . Hid├®yoshi had deprived the peasants of their weapons. I├®yasu [the next ruler] now began to deprive them of their self respect. If a peasant offended a samurai he might be cut down on the spot by the samurai's sword. [The Samurai: A Military History (New York: Macmillan, 1977).]

The inferior status of the peasantry having been affirmed by civil disarmament, the Samurai enjoyed kiri-sute gomen, permission to kill and depart. Any disrespectful member of the lower class could be executed by a Samurai's sword.

The Japanese disarmament laws helped mold the culture of submission to authority which facilitated Japan's domination by an imperialist military dictatorship in the 1930s, which led the nation into a disastrous world war.

In short, the one country that created a truly gun-free society created a society of harsh class oppression, in which the strongmen of the upper class could kill the lower classes with impunity. When a racist, militarist, imperialist government took power, there was no effective means of resistance. The gun-free world of Japan turned into just the opposite of the gentle, egalitarian utopia of John Lennon's song "Imagine."

Instead of imagining a world without a particular technology, what about imagining a world in which the human heart grows gentler, and people treat each other decently? This is part of the vision of many of the world's great religions. Although we have a long way to go, there is no denying that hundreds of millions of lives have changed for the better because people came to believe what these religions teach.

If a truly peaceful world is attainable ÔÇö or, even if unattainable, worth striving for ÔÇö there is nothing to be gained from the futile attempt to eliminate all guns. A more worthwhile result can flow from the changing of human hearts, one soul at a time.


The answer is with people, not guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FOX NEWS and AP (Jan 09, 2002)

Surge in Gun Crimes Alarms Britain

Wednesday, January 09, 2002

LONDON ÔÇö In a country where most police are armed with little more than batons and the closest many people get to crime is a TV drama, criminals with guns have been seen as the kind of problem that afflicts other nations.

But a surge of murders, robberies and assaults involving guns in London, including the mugging of a teenage girl who was shot in the head for a mobile phone, has shaken Britain's traditional attitude that guns are other peoples' problems.

According to figures released by the London police, muggings involving a firearm have risen by 53 percent, from 435 during the six months ending November 2000 to 667 during the same period last year.

The number of murders with a gun in London jumped by 90 percent during the same time, from 16 to 30. That's a far cry from the 640 murders ÔÇö many gun-related ÔÇö in New York alone last year, but that figure is way down from the peak of 2,262 in 1992.

Street crime in Britain's capital has also skyrocketed in recent months, with 19,248 robberies reported between September and November 2001, up more than 100 percent from the 8,614 robberies during the same period the previous year.

Much of the crime wave involves a massive rise in the theft of mobile phones. Government figures show that more than 700,000 mobile phones were stolen last year.

Police insist gun violence is largely confined to disputes between criminal gangs and drug dealers.

But an incident on New Year's Day, in which the 19-year-old girl was shot in the head even though she had given up her phone, has raised fear that violence is spilling over into mainstream society.

Three days earlier, a 10-year-old boy was held at gunpoint for a mobile phone and 25 pounds cash ($36) in southeast London.

"Is anyone safe in Britain in 2002?" asked a front-page headline of the Daily Express, as it reported the mobile phone attack.

The Daily Telegraph said people were worried violence is spiraling out of control in Britain. "Police fear a new crime explosion as school-age muggers graduate to guns," it said.

Despite police and government claims that crime is falling nationally, many Londoners are frightened.

"The shooting of this young woman is off the scale of comprehension," said Nigel Whiskin of the charity Crime Concern, which provides advice and help to professional and voluntary agencies working to reduce crime and the fear of crime.

"Quite a large number of people will be very worried about their own personal safety and the safety of their kids. It is very demoralizing for us as a community," he added.

For Charlotte Clarke, a 28-year-old worker for a department store, the shooting was a sign that violence is escalating.

"From a knife to a gun, it's just a step up," said Clarke, who moved from south London to a more fashionable area in the north of the city she thought would be safer.

"I wanted to get away from the violence and the crime, but 18 months down the line there have been stabbings, a mugging right outside my door, friends have had their purses taken and credit cards stolen," she added.

Hand guns were outlawed in Britain in 1997 after the massacre of 16 children and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Some 160,000 handguns were surrendered to police.

Dave Rodgers, vice chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said the ban made little difference to the number of guns in the hands of criminals. According to a recent survey, the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased nationally from 2,648 in 1997-98 to 3,685 in 1999-2000.

"The underground supply of guns does not seem to have dried up at all," he said.

Professor John Benyon, a criminologist at Leicester University, said that although Britain is still a "relatively low gun-use society," there is a public perception that "we are moving closer toward the problems that America has."

"People are increasingly concerned that we are losing the fight against armed crime," he said

---I think this says it all. Taking guns away from the average man just leaves them in the hands of criminals. The "London is better because they have no guns" arguement has met it's just end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way...

I am hurt by all the potshots at Special Forces ... Most of us are not racist nutjobs! I swear! Bo Gritz was a great soldier, but his views on people leave alot to be desired.

Silk brought up the point about the MP5 not having stopping power. The 9mm version I would agree....The new .40 caliber I would not. It has great stopping power for a CQB weapon.

Just my two cents...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally posted by Valiant_One:

FOX NEWS and AP (Jan 09, 2002)

True stuff.

I wholeheartedly agree with that article. By removing guns from the bormal public, all that the government is doing is making us defenceless from attacks. Recently a man was stabbed with a screwdriver when he tried to stop his car from being stolen. Where were the police then?

Tony Martin, a man that has been tormented by burglers, is now behind bars for defending himself and his property. How does the police justify this? If they were doing their job in the first place, an innocent man wouldn't be behing bars.

The answer to my first question is that they were too busy raking up money from traffic offences. A traffic police even blatantly admited that he would rather solve traffic crimes as it is much easier to solve traffic crimes than real crimes.

Unfortunately Britain is run by beurocrats that does not listen to their people. I have sooo many bad experience with the cops that I have totally lost any ounce of faith in them.

Here's another unrelated clincher, if an intruder injures themselves in your property, they can automatically claim compensation. Whats up with that??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to put up a sign on my house that translates into about 5 or six languages ( WARNING, ACHTUNG, etc. By coming onto these premises you agree that I am not responsible for any bodily or head injuries you may aquire.)

And one of the nice, SCREW THE DOG, BEWARE OF OWNER signs would be cool too.

Anyone found here tonight will be found here in the morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally posted by $iLk:

I'm going to put up a sign on my house that translates into about 5 or six languages ( WARNING, ACHTUNG, etc. By coming onto these premises you agree that I am not responsible for any bodily or head injuries you may aquire.)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live with my disabled wife in the area of Stoke on trent, the police budget is cut every year, criminals are given more and more rights every year at the expense of law abiding citizens.

The knee jerk reaction got so bad because of a few shootings and knife attacks (played on by the extremists) that now you can't even use a pistol in the uk even at a gun club and legally all im allowed to have in my house is a 3 inch blade.

In the UK if I stand up to a burglar I am more likely to be sued than him, I am more likely to be put through the legal system as a criminal.

An English mans home is no longer his castle.

The laws against dangerous impliments in the UK only ONLY affect the law abiding comunity and not the criminals, there are gangs that hang around outside your house in certain areas of the UK who have no problem getting guns and knives (before I moved from bentilee a rough council estate I was offered a Browning hi-power for £50 with one clip).

Stun guns aren't even legal in the uk, they say its to protect the citizens and especially ladies from getting mugged, well a couple of weeks ago a local girl was raped using a stun gun, guess the rapist wasn't up on the laws.

When I go out to shop or visit my mother, I worry about my disabled wife, what happens if someone breaks in? A stun gun would be perfect protection.

My mother works shifts late at night she goes out to catch a bus, i'd feel alot safer knowing she could defend herself.

I am fully in favor of home defense and personal defence, you may say unarmed combat etc but when the criminals can carry Brownings/stun guns/machettes what good is that ?

Against the law, I have a katana under my bed and an axe hidden away in the living room, anyone breaks into my house I will use them because my alternative is to call the police (one active police car patrolling the city of stoke on trent) after all they may not be at another emergency and only take 30 mins to get to me.

Any ******* who breaks into my house threatens my wife dies, my wife has delt with cancer I will not let her haveto deal with a life of terror because of some political dweebs who live in there nice houses with security guards.

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Pyros ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a former police officer, I agree with Silk (except the stereotype donut shop...I worked my a$$ off kiddo ).

It should be EVERY persons right, and indeed responsiblity, to provide for some form of self protection. Anybody coming into your house at night is not there to play Twister...

Police are present to deter, and investigate crime. It is impossible for a patrolman to be everywhere, or "know" where the next crime will occur. It is a simple fact, if someone wants you bad enough...they will get you (my time on protection services with US Special Forces taught me that). An assailant will think twice if the "victim" is armed however.

I think, in the States, you are seeing the REAL people coming forward. Real people are tired of the Rosie O'Donnell's of the world telling them they can't protect themselves, all the while walking around with armed guards for their own protection.

[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Valiant_One ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...


Originally posted by $iLk:

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.

I don't think so. In Italy we don't use guns. Only policemen and people who need them for job (as jewelers or private eyes) can use them and usually obtaining the permission is not easy even if need it for job.

Well... i think that bank robbers in theory would be scared by the idea that if they try to rob a bank not only they must face the policemen but also the armed citizens.

But in practice, this is not real. More guns are in the world, more violence exists. I'm not talking about big criminality (economical, financial and political criminality). I'm talking about micro criminality.

Communities without guns are less violent communities. And in these communities the micro criminality is at lower levels than in communities where everyone can have a gun.

By the way... in Italy we don't have a good legal system to face a situation where everyone is armed. When a shopper kills a robber, he goes in jail.

No self defence... well... self defence exists, but it's difficult to prove it.

At the end when you are robbed in a dark street, rarely a thief has a pistol. He gots a knife or only his hands. Sometimes thiefs are kicked in the ass by courageous victims

In Italy there are no deads in the streets, no deads in the schools... no deads in the offices cause a mad man with a uzi decides to kill everyone... so... very few deads for microcriminality. And this is because guns are not available to the citizens.

Gun ownership a hallmark of a truly free society?

Maybe... but i think no actual society is ready to be armed. Maybe in 3000AD people will be so wise to be all armed and to not use at all their guns.

But at that time, civilization will be very high, and we'll not need anymore guns

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally posted by Dredd:

Most of the outspoken people on "guns not helping", are those who would almost never need a gun because they don't live in an area they probably need it, travel in areas they would probably need one, or have bodyguards to protect them to begin with.

Of course... when everyone can use a gun, everyone should have one

But in a community where guns are not permitted, thiefs will not come to your house with an AK47 probably only with knifes.

But you can't understand my statement if you don't live 2 or 3 years in Italy to see with your eyes how we live without guns.

So probably no one will agree with me in this thread well... nevermind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns, banning and gun control. Issues I don't really understand. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. (Cliche I know, but true nevertheless).

Take away guns, and they'll just find other ways. For instance, a mother in Texas drowns all her children. You don't hear anyone touting 'Tub Control', or 'Bathtub Banning'.

I'm a firm believer when you take away the rights of people to bear arms, you take away another form of defense against agression. For when you ban guns, you only take them out of the hands of citizens, not criminals.

Sure, some nutcases will use them in a wrong way. Same way some nutcases will use a car (or a plane) as a weapon. Stuff happens. Stop blaming guns, and put the blame on the shoulders of those who misuse them.



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

  • Create New...