Well, Gary, you have to admit that the quote in question really shows a “fatalist/pessimistic” attitude: “They’ve got nicer toys, so why bother competing?” Of course, it’s really not so much a matter of firearms education so much as it’s a matter of rationality, namely, gunships/tanks/etc. can only be so effective for so long… and the pilots/crew can’t stay in them forever. And let’s not even discuss the issue of numbers of people on each side…
No, I do not feel that it shows a “fatalist/pessimistic” attitude. I believe that the idea that people need guns to protect themselves from tyranical leadership shows a “fatalist/pessimistic” attitude. I also think that if, in some hideously unlikely event, such a force did gain government of the US, they would have little chance of enforcing their regime without the Army’s support. However, if both such events were to occur (and what part of the probability curve are we now at) then I think armed militas would be a lousy way of fighting against it. I always did reckon Gandhi was a genius.
Gary, I see, and this isn’t entirely your fault, that you are still concentrating on the historical reasons for the validity of the 2nd amendment. I’d still like to see someone address Phil’s post on the moral aspects of preventing a citizen from defending himself armed criminals with the same means.
And by the fucking way. what the hell happened to *Lethal Lynx, who started this damned thread? I think we’re the victims of a hit-and-run.
Joe, my first inclination was to call you out on your 30 minutes from semi- to full-auto statement, but that’s already been done. Twice. I will ask this though. If it’s so damned easy, why aren’t these converted guns being used by criminals? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a news report of criminals using weapons converted to full-auto. Where does this leave your argument?
You’ve also stated:
Again, this is nonsense, and a pathetically poor basis for making law. I still much prefer reality. There was a perception that automobile air-conditioner refrigerant was harming the ozone layer and causing global warming, too. We made laws on that perception and it’s not proved to be nearly the problem that was initially perceived. Junk science is what you are promoting.
You saw my credibility is weakened by dismissing someone’s perception that we have a serious problem. I suggest you back up some of your statements with some facts, or studies, or reports, or something other than your perception. I suggest that failure to do so seriously undermines your credibility, especially since you have asked, “Cites please, preferably from neutral sources, and predating the enactment of such legislation.” Up to now you’ve dodged that responsibility yourself. And while you’re doing your homework, I’d like to see something to back up your claim of the pervasiveness of the libertarian-like element on the 'net, because what it looks like now is just whining that you aren’t getting much support from the anti-gun crowd. Something else that might help your credibility, would be posting your actual positions on gun control. My perception is that, by not stating your views, you are being disingenuous. See how perception can be a tricky thing? I can foresee what’s going to transpire. Someone, form the pro-gun crowd is going to claim you are in favor of a total gun ban, or something along those lines and you’re going to become indignant and accuse that person of misunderstanding or misstating your intentions. I’ve seen it happen many times here and this thread fits that pattern admirably. So, put up, or shut up.
It should be noted that there is a rather simple and obvious reason why there is a perception as described by Joe Malik. The news outlets from which most people get their news regularly report on horrific incidents of gun violence, particularly if a child is involved (despite the rather low proportion of children in the set of gun violence victims). It’s dramatic, it’s eventful, it often provides good pictures–it’s news.
On the other hand, despite the many thousands of defensive gun uses cited by sources on both sides (and even sources as disparate as Lott and Lambert agree that there are many thousands), you rarely see them on the news. An armed citizen shooting and stopping a criminal might be dramatic, but it detracts from a pervasive anti-gun editorial position. An armed citizen merely brandishing a weapon and scaring off a potential criminal isn’t dramatic at all, from a news standpoint, so you rarely if ever see it on the news.
Everybody can call out Paducah, Ky. as one incident in the “epidemic” of school shootings; how many know that the shootings were stopped and the perpetrator prevented from escaping because the principal (or vice-principal, don’t remembers) went to his car and got his gun? Maybe if the principal or some staff member at Columbine had been armed, that tragedy could have been abbreviated, too.
OK - may I ask the sort of scenario you’re talking about here? Rape, mugging, domestic robbery - that sort of thing?
So far, the thread has been an interesting read.
Here’s my take:
Let me mention that I’m not a gun lover, nor a gun hater.
Also, hunting rights mean nothing to me (since I’m an animal lover).
Another argument I don’t buy is that armed citizens can protect themselves from a corrupt government. I can see how the second Amendment would have protect the citizenry when it was written. But with today’s weapons, I don’t know. I have a hard time believing that AK-47s can be a match for nukes.
Seems to me, that if the citizens truly want to protect themselves using arms, they would have to at least match tank for tank, copter for copter, bomb for bomb… Sure the arguement was made that the rulers wouldn’t want to damage their own buildings. Well, then the ruler could always use biological weapons.
So should we allow citizens have tanks and bombs (obviously, those who can afford them) in the interest of the principle protecting ourselves from possible government tyranny? That’s why I think arguing under the principle of protecting ourselves from a corrupt government is not going to work with most sensible people.
At the same time, it was pointed out that societies with lower gun crimes also have lower other crimes (which I’d love a cite for) ex: knifings. So guns may not have much influence one way or another.
Which also brings up another point, if someone gets knifed, should we ban all knives? You might say, but most people don’t kill with knives. That’s right, but some do. Just like most gun owners don’t kill.
How far do we go one way or another? Ban knives or allow nukes? That is why I asked for the principles.
What would you do about this issue if you were in control?
Personally, if I were running things, I’d legalize drugs well before considering getting rid of guns. Undoubtely, that would drastically reduce crime. Then we’d be able to redirect our resources toward gun regulation. And if there are corrupt lawyers as some say, use the resources to weed em out. If after all that, the crime rate was still more than other countries, I’d consider gun control. I would basically try to keep the countries freedoms (ones that don’t hurt others) intact.
Finally, just a comment on this whole debate. My biggest problem is how emotional people can get over it. It is hard to get unbiased information so that you can make a logical judgement. This hasn’t been the case with this thread, so perhaps members of both sides could give cites on violence levels, how local laws affected different areas…
Maybe, just maybe, I can make sense out of this issue.
malik said
And here is the central problem with gun control (and the liberal mindset, IMHO).
Thre is no description of what a “kook” is. IS is it a schizophrenic? Is it a right wing separatist? IS it a group of fervent christians (waco anyone?) And who decides.
I have seen handgun registration in action in New York (Rochester, not the City.) The local sheriff has the right to deny the permit. So if he is a born again and I am a known Athiest agitatior, I am a “kook” not worthy of a gun. IN fact, to some, the mere fact that you want heavy firepower make one a de facto kook.
So how do we measure kookhood and who makes the call? Heaven forbid it is an anti-gun kook, who will surely deny all permits.
Everyone is a kook except for me and you, and sometimes I not so sure about you. A good reason to remove personal liberty.
No, it is very clear what they meant if you study the writings of the framers. Even a review of the sentence shows that this clause is subordibnate to the right of the people…"
Let me use an example: “an educated populace being necesary for a free state, the right of the people to own books shall not be infringed.”
This sentence does not indicate that only the educated shall have books. it states that the reason to have the absolute right to books is to allow for the creation of an educated populace.
We know the intent, we know the purpose, we can understand the language, but some still refuse to admit that it meanns what it means.
In Response to Mr Zambezi, it should not be hard for your legislators to create a reasonable list of people who should not be allowed a gun license (people with a criminal conviction, people with mental incapacity, people below age of maturity). Or don’t you trust the democratic process to produce people capable of setting such a list?
Jesus Christ! We’ve already got such a list. It’s part of the goddamned Brady Bill. You are suggesting something that’s already been tried. And it doesn’t work. The Brady Bill is an utter failure. We debated this not too long ago. I think Mr. Z even posted the topic. In any case, read this: http://www.saf.org/journal/10_brady.html
Yes, Gary. Those are exactly the types of crime and criminals I suggest citizens should be able to arm themselves against.
Well if you’ve voted in a bunch of idiots who can’t even come up with a short, clear list of people who can’t be trusted with guns you’ve got real problems. I reckon you’re just going to have to go back and pick a new set of idiots.
OK Beer, my question has to be “and by arming themselves, achieve what?” I have no idea if you’ve ever been assaulted by a person carrying a gun. If you have, I’d like to know whether you had your gun to hand at the time, and if it helped. A person walks up to you, pulls a gun, and demands either your wallet/body/whatever. What are you going to do about it? I write this, postively grinning at the thought of the macho responses this question is likely to generate.
I also know that no-one is going to respond with a tale along the lines of “Well I had a gun, but was way too scared way to use it”, or “They took my gun and my wallet”, or “I tried to go John Wayne, and spent six months in hospital recovering from the GSW’s I received”. But they are the likely outcomes of the situation for anyone who isn’t combat trained, very quick, incredibly cool headed, and still very lucky. The reason being, how many situations are there where the criminal doesn’t get the first move?
Please read the JAMA article before continuing with this argument. They had a good list but the criminal element apparently was able to get around the law. Furthermore, they never prosecuted felons who tried to buy guns.
the article showed statistically that Brady type laws do not reduce crime. In fact, in some states where they were enacted, rapes went up.
Heh. We are in the process of picking a brand new set of idiots to represent us right now. But that’s a different topic and is quite adequately represented here in Great Debates right now.
What are potentially armed citizens going to achieve? How about preventing themselves from becoming victims. Here’s a bit of research backing that up.
[ul]
[li]In 1991, Gary Kleck of Florida State University estimated defensive handgun use at between 850,000 and 2.5 million incidents per year. Every year an estimated 2,000-3,000 criminals are killed by armed citizens acting in self-defense.[/li][li]As many as 75 lives are protected by a gun for every life lost to a gun, reported Kleck in “Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America” (New York: Aldine de Gruyter Books, 1991).[/li][li]And a Cato Institute study this year (1998) found that violent crime rates dropped dramatically in the 24 states that have passed “concealed-carry” laws – with murders dropping by 7.7%, rapes falling by 5.2%, and aggravated assaults reduced by 7.7%.[/li][/ul]
It’s obvious that an armed citizenry is far more effective at stopping criminals than anything else. If you want anecdotes or published personal stories, since I know you are adverse to statistics as answers, let me know and I’ll see what I can dig up.
And to sate your curiosity, no, I’ve never been assualted by a criminal, armed or otherwise. I have no idea how I’d react were the situation to arise. Incidentally, I live in the state of Ohio and concealed carry is illegal here. If this situation were to arise, the potential criminal would have to either break into my home, or very foolishly confront me at the pistol range where I shoot.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Gary Kumquat *
**
Uh, read what he said. They did come up with a short, clear list, and all kinds of laws to keep guns away from them. Guess what happened?
I bet you are. It would certainly justify your inflated sense of the worth of your opinion on this matter.
Let’s try these, for starters (all emphasis mine)
Woman changes stance on guns after robbery
By PAUL PINKHAM
07/24/2000
Associated Press Newswires
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. (AP) - Bleeding and weakened from the bullet wound in her chest, Susan Gonzalez aimed her husband’s .22-caliber pistol, the one she hated, and emptied it into one of the robbers who had burst through the front door of her rural Jacksonville home.
Those shots ended the life of one robber, led to a life prison term for another and became an epiphany for Gonzalez, a 41-year-old mother of five who runs a photography studio.
**Despite risks, more use guns in self-defense **
Frank J. Murray
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
05/02/1999
. . . Among them: a pair of elderly grandmothers in snowbound Moses Lake, Ore., who repelled an attack by four men at home; an Apache Junction, Ariz., church deacon who wounded an armed robber in his church; and a Bangor, Maine, man who shot a robber in his front hallway after being slashed with a knife . . .
“I’d do it again in the same situation. I felt we were probably going to get raped and murdered and whatever. I’ve still got two shotguns,” Marty A. Killinger, 64, said in an interview this week from the Oregon home she defended with fellow “pistol-packing grandma” Dorothy Cunningham, 78.
“If you’re not willing to defend yourself or your family, you’re just going to be a dead gun owner instead of somebody who is alive and safe,” said **Phoenix apartment manager Rory Vertigan, 27, whom the National Rifle Association invited to yesterday’s Denver convention for standing up to three heavily armed men who murdered a police officer. **
Bangor robber Michael Chasse was so surprised when his victim drew a gun that he pleaded self-defense at his trial. He was sentenced April 2 to 12 years in prison after a jury rejected that claim . . .
Most reported self-defense cases are from 31 states that allow some degree of carrying a concealed weapon . . .
When robber Roger W. Green put a gun to the head of the wife of store owner In Doi Choi at his Minnesota Avenue SE convenience store on July 25, 1997, Mr. Choi killed the bandit with a shot in the back. The merchant was not prosecuted, either for the shooting or for illegal gun possession . . .
The fate of being charged with illegal gun possession was not escaped by Carl Rowan when the pro-gun-control columnist used a .22 pistol to shoot a midnight intruder, who turned out to be a teenage skinny-dipper using his backyard pool. Mr. Rowan’s sensational 1988 trial ended in a hung jury and he was not retried.
**Teen shot during burglary **
JANN CLARK CREDIT:World Correspondent
06/28/2000
Tulsa World
STILWELL – After more than 25 burglaries in seven years, an Adair County businessman said he was forced to defend himself when three juveniles broke into his country store, authorities reported Tuesday.
Sheriff Charles Hartshorne said a 16-year-old was taken to the hospital after he was shot with buckshot through the store’s front window by property owner George Bowlin.
Hartshorne said the trio burglarized the Cherrytree Grocery store five miles south of Stilwell on U.S. 59 around 1 a.m. Tuesday.
**GUNSHOTS: THE VICTIMS AND THE COSTS TONY EASTON; Burglar paralyzed in break-in points finger only at himself **
ANDREW WOLFSON, The Courier-Journal
06/18/2000
The Courier-Journal Louisville, KY
Tony Easton blames no one but himself for the gunshot wound that has forced him to use a wheelchair for nine years - much of which he’s spent in prison.
Desperate for money, he broke into a house in his hometown of Morehead on Feb. 23, 1991, rousing Penny Alderman, the ex-wife of stock car driver Darrell Alderman. She shot Easton, according to the lawyers who later prosecuted and defended him for burglary.
These were just from a slapdash search on Dow Jones Interactive using “gun and defended and (burglar or rapist)” as search terms. Want me to keep going?
Apparently not. See above.
“Combat trained”? Jesus, come on! Criminals are likely less well-trained than the average gun owner, have guns that (having been purchased from less-than-reputable sources) are more likely to misfire, are less level-headed and don’t expect to be confronted. I mean, if you’re going to chide others for potentially engaging in fantasy crime-fighting, at least make sure your own assumptions rest on solid ground, huh?
Sorry, but you’re right - I do hate statistics. If you like, I can cite counter claims to each of the stuides you’ve proposed, but that will get very boring, very quickly. For example:
2.5 million incidents of self defence using guns per year. Aye, right! Fleck has received an awful lot of criticism from statisticians about this claim. If you’d care to check http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt you’ll see some fairly good arguments dismissing Klecks method and his survey data (one women said she’d used her gun in self defence 52 times in a year - bad neighbourhood or what?)
Anyway, you get the idea - we can banter statistics back and forth all day long. I still stick by my argument - in the scenarios you’ve accepted, i.e. where a citizen is faced by an armed criminal, the most likely outcome is not helped by the citizen having a gun.
Thanks pld, so good to see you start to get tantrumish the moment someone doesn’t absolutely agree with you. You know, I could have sworn this forum had the word Debates in the title. The idea is someone proposes something, then other people put forward counterideas, etc. If you want to get personal, I believe that’s what the pit is for. Otherwise, shall we try to stick to discussion?
Anyway, thanks for trawling through the archives for those clippings. I take it you didn’t see any clippings about handguns being taken off victims, victims being shot going for guns, or anything like that?
True, absolutely true. But they get the first go, which is rather a nice little advantage. The only way to get over this advantage, is for the victiom to be well trained, level headed, and prepared - and still be lucky. Then, they might have the chance to get their own gun out. Failing that, what would you think is the likely outcome.
This comes up in almost every gun debate I’ve seen on on this board.
Most criminals are not “combat trained, very quick, incredibly cool headed, and still very lucky”. So why do I have to be all these things to defend myself? Are you saying that you think people couldn’t really defend themsleves, so they shouldn’t even try?
That’s your misguided, wrong opinion. The problem I have with it is that your kind want to the rest of us to be the same kind of spineless, defenseless person that you appear to be. I see the reason that you don’t like statistics: they don’t fit your perception of the way things should be.
Then do so. I highly doubt that you can come up with something that hasn’t been posted here in another thread and debunked thoroughly.
Gary:
Oh you mean like “grinning at the macho responses this question is likely to produce”? It appears to me that you think you have the lowdown on just precisely how likely a citizen is to disarm, wound, kill or fend off an attacker, when in fact you have nothing more than idle speculation. Based on that fact, my comment concerning your estimation of your own opinion stands.
Considering that I explicitly stated my search terms were “gun and defended and (burglar or rapist),” no, I did not. I’m sure there are plenty, but I’ll stake a Guinness on the proposition that, among potential crime victims who are armed, they comprise a smaller proportion than those who successfully defend themselves. Incidentally, I left out several examples from the UK.
Criminal:“Gimme your wallet, sucker!”
Victim:“OK, it’s in my inside jacket pocket.” reaches in pocket, pulls out .22
Criminal: “Whoops–wrong victim!”
I’ll provide you with several dozen more cites for successful defensive gun use when I get home tonight.
Guy, Unlce beer and pld have been very kind to give good cites without being “tantrumish.” The Brady law bit shot your credibility. It would be helpfull if you did actually back up your argument. You could, for instance try to show that gun laws have decreased crime, or that concealed carry has done likewise. I am sure we would all like to see it.