Goodie, Another gun debate...

[Spiny_Norman]

Oh, armed civilians are a definite threat to armoured forces - those annoying handguns have a tendency to get jammed into the tracks when you run over people, and it takes forever to get them out again. Much easier when you can just use a water hose.

Seriously: If each and every civilian is sufficiently pissed that they want to attack their government, of course they’ll win. If the sentiment is that outspread, the Army will suffer mass defections and the result will be a given thing - a la Ceauzescu’s downfall. You can’t even get a society to run if everyone is mad enough that they’re ready to head for the hills and become partisans.

But on a smaller scale, it just doesn’t compute: If a modern army is ruthless enough, it takes more than just handguns, numbers & courage to stand against it.

You might be able to make a stand in urban areas, where the regular army won’t be able to utilize the advantage of armour and where their better sensors don’t make that much of a difference. Think Grosnyj.
Of course, nothing will keep them from bombarding the city from a safe distance. Or from cutting off food & water. When the number of wounded start growing and the supplies start dwindling, you’d better be one hell of a leader or people will start wanting to surrender. Might be a problem to talk people in the next town into joining you, as well.

In terrain, you’ve had it. Your weapons won’t punch through armour and tanks with thermal sensors and light amplification can see & kill you at a range where your handgun only damages the paint job. Helicopter gunships fill in nicely where the tanks would rather not go. You’re outgunned and outmaneuvered. “Red Dawn” is a great movie about how NOT to fight an army.

Right, you say, we’ll attack the tank depots and helicopter bases. Mmmm - only these places will be guarded by people with machine guns in dug-in positions, with concertina wire in front and with support from heavier weapons. Anyone up for a WWI replay ? Only without artillery support, of course.

Then what can you do ? Tactically speaking, when you’re the underdog, you gather intelligence, harrass, inflict losses and delay. Of course, not having weaponry that’ll kill armoured vehicles restricts what combat you can do - nothing is more annoying than being mowed down by a pissed APC commander after ambushing the supply column he was supposed to protect. (I’ll recommend ambushing across a natural obstacle, such a s a river. Unfortunately, soldiers read maps, too.)

You can go underground and start sabotage and perhaps a bit of sniping. This can keep the conflict alive, probably for years, and you might get some political attraction and outside assistance. This is the scenario where having unregistered guns might really make a difference - though fertilizer bombs might work just as well. Anyway, this is the sort of fight that gives you a chance of survival if you’re seriously outgunned. Of course, you’ll also have to outsmart the tyrannical governemnts agents.

So, pick your scenario. I’m not saying that armed civilians are chanceless in combat, but odds against them have become steadily worse over the last 50 years.

Yes, I’ve read about the Warsaw ghetto. If people are fighting with that sort of conviction on a nationwide scale, then you’ve already won, even if they’re only armed with broomsticks. But I believe this was an exceptional case, born of utter desperation. Courage of this sort can not be counted upon.

For that matter, I’ve also read about the Afghan war. It took 10 years for what is arguably some of the worlds toughest fighters, born into a warrior culture and armed to the teeth with automatics and RPGs, to expel an Army that was nothing near what the modern American army is. And they needed considerable outside assistance to do so.

S. Norman

[pldennison]

Of course, all this back-and-forth is just so much sophistry. The fact is, the 2nd Amendment is in there. No other Amendment, save perhaps for the 4th, is subject to so much under-the-radar regulation and legislation.

If HCI and other organizations are so secure in their conviction that Americans want handguns banned, why don’t they lead a drive to repeal the 2nd Amendment? Put their money where their mouths are, so to speak? I’ll tell you why–it would fail miserably. Knowing that, they try this bit-by-bit tactic, and people sit idly by and let them, until eventually we’re left with an Amendment that protects nothing at all.

[QuickSilver]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
If HCI and other organizations are so secure in their conviction that Americans want handguns banned, why don’t they lead a drive to repeal the 2nd Amendment? Put their money where their mouths are, so to speak? I’ll tell you why–it would fail miserably. Knowing that, they try this bit-by-bit tactic, and people sit idly by and let them, until eventually we’re left with an Amendment that protects nothing at all.

I guess they are simply illustrating that there is more than one way to skin a cat… not that anyone is suggesting we actually skin any cats… alive or otherwise… that would be cruel! ;).

[Mr.Zambezi]

assume you’re a leader, a tyrant and a blood thirsty mongrel. Imagine that you have gotten control over the armed forces and want to istall martial law and annex personal property. But you know the pepole are dead set against it and are fed up.

Now, which would be easier: to take over a country of unarmed people with no handguns and no rifles, or an armed populace?

I think that any ruler, when waging war on his own lan, is going to be hesitant about laying waste to the infrastructure, buildings, factories, etc. Hence my squirrel pants anology. A ruler bombing New york would, in essence, be shooting his dick off.

The point is that an armed citizenry is at least a deterrent if not insurance against tyranny.

we could all imagine scenarios all day long about what the uprising would look like, but it wont do us much good.

[pldennison]

*Originally posted by Gary Kumquat *
**

*Originally posted by pldennison *
**And the fact that someone is willing to face charges of misdemeanor assault or robbery doesn’t mean they’re willing to face murder charges. **

Sure, but you wanted the gun for self defence against those who had guns and were prepared to use them against you, didn’t you? **

Yep, but the simple fact is, most criminals who carry guns for use in the commission of street crimes do so precisely because they can be fairly sure that their potential victims aren’t carrying them. Therefore, they can wield them with little thought of repercussion.

If, OTOH, they know there’s a good chance that not only their intended victim but several bystanders have handguns, they are unlikely to simply shoot people for wallets. The potential returns, as it were, far outweigh the benefits from a single wallet.

[Max_Torque]

What gun control thread would be complete without the words of Cecil himself:

What does “the right to bear arms” really mean?

Important passages:

The states-rights view is that the Second Amendment merely guarantees the states the right to organize militias and citizens the right to join. (Militia here means any armed force raised for the common defense, not just the national guard.) The individual-rights view is that the Second Amendment means what it says: citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. The states-rights view currently prevails in federal case law, but the individual-rights view is probably closer to the framers’ intent. A reasonable restatement of the amendment might go something like this: “Since we as a nation have found it necessary to organize citizen militias to defend against tyranny and may be compelled to do so again, and since these militias are necessarily composed of volunteers supplying their own weapons, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

. . .

In almost every other aspect of law the Bill of Rights has been broadly construed to restrain the states as well as the federal government. Few today would argue that states can abrogate the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Yet many are prepared to let them gut the second, on the grounds that the framers did not foresee urban violence on the scale we face now. Maybe they didn’t, but so what? Civil-liberties advocates don’t accept urban violence as an excuse to curtail other constitutional rights, such as the protection against unlawful search and seizure.

. . .

However odd it strikes us today, the framers regarded private gun ownership as one of the pillars of their liberty. They had recently defeated one of the most powerful nations in the world using an army that in the early going had consisted of amateur soldiers using their own weapons. They considered these citizen militias vastly preferable to standing armies, which in their experience had been instruments of oppression. They also had no professional police force upon which to depend for defense of their lives and property. It seemed natural to them that ordinary folk should have the right to own guns.

That was then, you may say, and this is now. In the 1990s it may well be foolish, as a matter of public policy, to allow law-abiding private citizens to own guns (although I’m not persuaded this is so). But it seems pretty clear that’s what the founders intended, and it eats at the heart of the constitutional process to simply wave that right away.

And in support of pldennison’s statements, here’s a scary quote from Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc., as reported in New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976, pg. 53:

We’ll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of hand guns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.

[QuickSilver]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
Yep, but the simple fact is, most criminals who carry guns for use in the commission of street crimes do so precisely because they can be fairly sure that their potential victims aren’t carrying them. Therefore, they can wield them with little thought of repercussion.

If, OTOH, they know there’s a good chance that not only their intended victim but several bystanders have handguns, they are unlikely to simply shoot people for wallets. The potential returns, as it were, far outweigh the benefits from a single wallet.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’ll ask this again. But why are criminals in the US seemingly more likely to carry a gun in the commission of a crime than their counterparts in the UK? Each is presumably as criminally minded as the other and ultimately cares very little about gun laws.

[Max_Torque]

Rats, UncleBeer beat me to the quote. Sorry for only skimming your post, UB.

[Shodan]

Part of the argument that arming citizens prevents tyrannical government comes into play before the Nazis take over.

Without suggesting that I agree with anything relating to Waco, do you think anyone would have heard or cared about the Branch Davidians if they weren’t armed? The fact that they had weapons made it impossible for the ATF to simply swoop down and put the weirdos away quietly. Same for Randy Weaver. Nobody knew what the rules of engagement were for the FBI before they shot and killed his pregnant wife and son. Not the same as slapping the cuffs on and ordering everyone else to “Move along. Nothing to see here.”

Part of the argument for private ownership of guns is that as freedom suffers the death of a thousand cuts, we arrive at the point of embarassing public revelations about government abuse (sound familiar?) much sooner if there is a public gun battle than if the government can snatch away your rights without anyone much noticing.

Don’t you think that the Nazis would have had a lot more trouble herding the Jews into the death camps if the Jews shot back, even if the Nazis won in the end? If for no other reason than other countries might be asking why, instead of being allowed to look the other way and avoid embarassing questions.

Is it “Godwin’s law” that ends a thread after H**ler is mentioned? Not my intention at all, so if this does not add to the discussion (IMO a worthwhile and important one) please ignore it and I will lurk.

[Max_Torque]

*Originally posted by QuickSilver *
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’ll ask this again. But why are criminals in the US seemingly more likely to carry a gun in the commission of a crime than their counterparts in the UK? Each is presumably as criminally minded as the other and ultimately cares very little about gun laws.

I’ve posted to this point before, but what’s one more time: “criminal behavior” in the collective mind of the UK is associated with property crime. In other words, when a Brit decides to act like an outlaw, he tends to commit crimes such as vandalism or burglary. In contrast, “criminal behavior” in the US is associated with crimes against persons. There are a few reasons for this, including pop culture influence and past broad use of the death penalty in Britain for crimes against persons, which I’m too tired to produce references for at the moment. Tomorrow, K?

Also, your statement that criminals in the US are more likely to carry a gun may be correct, but the percentage gap isn’t as large as you might think. Recent government research revealed that one in three young British criminals owns or has access to a firearm. I’m also amazed at the sorts of crime Britain finds tolerable in order to keep its citizens and police force gun-free, such as gunmen bursting into a crowded courtroom and fleeing with the prisoners on trial.

[stofsky]

*Originally posted by UncleBeer *
**Stofsky, I don’t think you can separate types of firearms that neatly for the purpose of ownership restrictions and bans. The slippery slope must be considered here. I’m sure you feel this is a fallacy, but Pete Shields, in an interview by Richard Harris of The New Yorker said this: (snipped for brevity)
This sounds very much like the founder of the most influential gun control organization in the U.S. strongly advocates a total gun ban.
**

Unc, how many times did he say “handguns?” And how many times did he say any other kind of weapon. Every reference is to handguns i.e. pistols. That doesn’t take away the ability to shoot deer, doves, skeet, cans, bottles, etc. I’m a rabid anti-handgun person. But I grew up in hunting country and I make a mean venison chili. I can see the difference. Can you?

[pldennison]

*Originally posted by stofsky *
**

Unc, how many times did he say “handguns?” And how many times did he say any other kind of weapon. Every reference is to handguns i.e. pistols. That doesn’t take away the ability to shoot deer, doves, skeet, cans, bottles, etc. I’m a rabid anti-handgun person. But I grew up in hunting country and I make a mean venison chili. I can see the difference. Can you? **

Would you support laws allowing citizens to carry rifles in public to defend themselves against criminals who would, most likely, defy the handgun ban?

[UncleBeer]

*Originally posted by Max Torque *
**Rats, UncleBeer beat me to the quote. Sorry for only skimming your post, UB. **

No sweat, Max. The point bears repetition, since apparently, for many, it’s too simple to understand.

[UncleBeer]

No, stofsky. I can’t see the difference. I’m merely showing that the argument against the “slippery slope” is a fallacy. Total bans are the ultimate goal of the gun control crowd. That quote may only address handguns, but you tell me how many restrictions are now placed on rifles of any kind. Read the California Roberti-Roos list if you doubt me.

[Edited by UncleBeer on 09-26-2000 at 04:49 PM]

[Joe_Malik]

There are many different issues tied up with the gun control, gun abolition and the Second Amendment: historical, political, social, and individual.

Historical arguments generally do not persuade me regarding current politcial or legal debate. We may sometimes look to the founders for wisdom and guidance, but I consider myself legally bound by the text only of the Constitution, as well as the Supreme Court’s current interpretation, and morally bound only by my own conscience. One can borrow or cite a founder’s argument to persuade me; I give little weight, however, to the position that an argument is correct merely because a founder subscribed to it. By the latter logic I must consider, for instance, a slave to be 3/5 (or whatever) of a person. The difference between these two arguments is subtle but important. Besides, revisionism and inherent conceptual problems complicate the study and interpretation of history. As I do not work as a professional historian, I find most history of passive intellectual interest only.

It is fact that certain political gun control proponent organizations favor the ban of all private ownership of guns. It is is also a fact that certain political gun control opponent organizations support the armed overthrow of the secular government and replacement by a Christian theocracy. Regardless of their numbers, neither the presence of these groups nor the their advocacy of a particular issue affects the content of that issue. Indeed, the relative abundance of gun abolition advocates among the gun control proponents compared to the that of traitors among the gun control opponents argues merely that abolition is vastly more popular than treason (sorry for the tortured syntax there; I mean to imply that traitors are rare among gun control opponents). And in a political debate, popularity deserves weight on its own merit.

The Second Amendment, as written, contains the phrase, “a well regulated militia”. The interpretation of the entire amendment, especially this phrase, is not obvious. Certainly extremes do not fulfill either its letter or spirit: One clearly cannot read it to allow either abolishing all private weapon ownership or handing out atomic bombs to school children. I agree with Cecil: Any political agenda which seeks to abolish all private weapon ownership must first repeal the Second Amendment; I cannot determine if this task lies within the realm of political possibility.

Gun ownership is not the only way to defend one’s self, family and property. One may or may not agree that gun ownership is a good way to defend one’s self, but certainly the countries that have abolished or heavily controlled gun ownership are not hotbeds of unrestricted criminal activity. Actually, the self-defense issue doesn’t work well for either side of the debate. Gun abolition does not mean abandonment of self defense; contrawise, the personal risk/benefit analysis of gun ownership is properly a matter of personal preference.

The issue of the necessity of private gun ownership to resist tyranny is contradicted by the facts. Numerous oppressive regimes, including the most brutal and entrenched, have fallen before non-violent opposition: India, Poland, Czechoslovakia, even the Soviet Union have fallen without serious armed resistance. Which is not to say that an armed populace does not give serious pause to a potentially oppressive government. But if the country is united, no regime, however much dependent on terror and violence, can long survive. And one cannot seriously believe that a minority, without popular support, could effectively oppose a competent professional military or police force that does have the support of the people. The resistance to tyranny argument works poorly for both sides.

There is one serious gun control argument I have seen stressed time and again and I am baffled that relatively few responsible gun owners of this country seem to wholeheartedly support serious measures to address this issue: It has been empirically demonstrated that any idiot with $300 and basic mechanical competence can obtain serious automatic weaponry,and any penny-ante criminal can get a handgun for $20.

Of course the gun abolitionists use this issue as a lever. Understandably - it’s a good issue and serious in its own right. Support of measures to restrict access to serious weaponry to criminal, insane and dangerous people is a matter of pragmatic political reality. It is not enough to say, “enforce the existing laws.” It is my impression that most of our police officers are competent and dedicated professionals; furthermore, they are generally in favor of gun control. Nor can I seriously believe that it is the fault of “liberal judges”; the same judges that are imprisoning people for suspicion of drug use and permitting the entrapment of alleged militia members? These arguments seem self-contradictory.

We move closer politically towards gun abolition (including repeal of the Second Amendment) every time some whacko mows down a bunch of civilians or a bandits outgun a professional police force. Gun ownership advocates weaken themselves and their interests when they appear to ignore, discount or obfuscate the very sincere and legitimate interest of non-gun-owners in this issue.

[pldennison]

Joe Malik, just to address a couple of your points:

It has been empirically demonstrated that any idiot with $300 and basic mechanical competence can obtain serious automatic weaponry,and any penny-ante criminal can get a handgun for $20.

Unfortunately, despite the proliferation of laws making it a felony to attempt to obtain a gun if you have a criminal record, or increasing the penalties for crimes committed with guns, there are in fact a paucity of people prosecuted and sentenced under those laws. A toothless law is a useless law.

It is my impression that most of our police officers are competent and dedicated professionals; furthermore, they are generally in favor of gun control.

I can (and will, if necessary) produce several cites from police unions across the country indicating that this is not the case. Many police departments, especially in urban areas, know that they simply cannot be everywhere at once and cannot always protect everyone (nor, according to the Supreme Court, are they legally obligated to). Therefore, many police department support efforts among the citizenry both to adopt stronger crime prevention and community watch efforts, and to defend themselves with guns in their homes.

[ExTank]

Several good points have been raised and I’ll address them in order.

Spiny Norman: a very good analysis of force components, lacking only a take on our current force structure.

Our esteemed Commander-in-Chief has downsized the “heavy” divisions, in favor of more “light” units.

Armor forces, with the exception of Armored Cavalry, are singularly unsuited for anti-partisan work. They certainly possess the firepower and mobility to do the job, but lack the training and institutional mindset to be effective at it. Plus, the extended-mode of operations necessary for partisan suppression leaves the large logistic organization needed to support these formations extremely vulnerable.

As far as training/mindset are concerned, OJT is a mother, but the best mother of all.

The “light” forces that the current administration favors are much better suited to anti-partisan work, especially Airmobile (helo-borne infantry), with gunship support.

In open-country warfare, these forces will eat partisans alive; in urban environments it becomes a lot more problematic, especially if the partisans in question decline direct engagement (the standard mode of ops. for partisans anyway) and concentrate on the military-industrial complexes that produce the high-tech part needed to keep a modern force up-and-running, as well as targeting the communications and transportation nexus too cripple their logistical life-line.

The strength of partisans is that your enemy can’t cover everything all the time, so you have the initiative to pick and choose your engagements.

And our entire military mind-set is not geared for a protracted partisan war.

Well, damn. PLD beat me too it.

Joe Malik: what PLD said. I’ll add that there were many Texas law-enforcement leaders officially opposed to Gov. Bush’s CCW permit laws; but after several years, with no “Willd, Wild West” shoot-outs, they have come around and now support CCW permits, and quite a few states are moving more-and-more to “shall-issue” CCW.

ExTank
“Mostly Harmless :p”

[Kami_Bum]

Here’s my ignorant take on this.

If guns were to be banned, a rather large black market for them would arise. Organized crime would have huge profits and grow.
Citizens opposed to the gun ban would either a. join the mafia or b. join the militia or the unlikely c. give up their guns. Now we have PO'd armed citizens, and rich gun lords with lots of cronies ready to bash stuff.

Sounds like the perfect making for a big civil war. Of course this is probably the worst case scenario.

[Joe_Malik]

Unfortunately, despite the proliferation of laws making it a felony to attempt to obtain a gun if you have a criminal record, or increasing the penalties for crimes committed with guns, there are in fact a paucity of people prosecuted and sentenced under those laws. A toothless law is a useless law.

I work neither as a politician nor in the field of criminal justice. I don’t dispute that laws exist, and few are prosecuted under them. But since I don’t subscribe to the theory that our criminal justice system is entirely corrupt, I conjecture that more complex reasons underly the facts to which you refer (e.g. the laws are poorly written or unconstitutional). My point is that enforcement of reasonable and constitutional laws is not generally a controversial issue; if such enforcement could dramatically reduce the number of idiots and whackos with automatic weapons, there would be no controversy. Since many people believe the contrary with apparently reasonable cause, the claim that mere enforcement of existing laws seems unresponsive.

Therefore, many police department support efforts among the citizenry both to adopt stronger crime prevention and community watch efforts, and to defend themselves with guns in their homes.

Again, I will take your (and ExTank’s) word for it, but it’s not germaine to my point. If our law enforcement and criminal justice systems are not completely (or at least pervasively) corrupt, one must assume that the failure of existing laws is a fault of the laws themselves and not of corruption of the system itself; If our system is pervasively corrupt, asking for better law enforcement and prosecution seems self-contradictory.

I’m making a larger point: people are worried about idiots with guns. It seems blatantly obvious that everyone should be worried about idiots with guns. Existing laws are not working. In a democratic society, we address problems by passing, amending or repealing laws. Therefore it seems a reasonable activity for legitimate citizens to address a problem of serious concern through legislation. If there are problem with the laws, fix them. If the laws address situations for which most people have little concern (or exacerbate negative situations), repeal them. I’m just saying that the argument, “everything will be fine if we just enforce existing laws,” seems to dodge the issue.

I can think of few, gun control advocate, opponent or neutral; liberal or conservative politician, prosecutor, judge or police officer, who doesn’t support the idea, for instance, of a lengthy prison sentence for a violent felon who is caught in the possession of a gun. To what other laws do you refer? Why are few people sentenced under them? Just saying “there are 20,000 laws on the books” is non-responsive; there are thousands of stupid laws, most of them unenforced for very good reasons having nothing to do with the underlying issues.

I’m not arguing or supporting gun abolition here. I’m observing that many Americans have a legitimate concern and that gun control opponents seem to ignore or deflect attention from their concern. Eventually Americans will substatively address this issue, with or without the support of responsible gun owners. Without their support, I don’t see any serious political alternative to gun abolition.

[Joe_Malik]

… the claim that mere enforcement of existing laws will substantively address the issue of whackos and idiots with guns seems unresponsive.