Ehehe! I’m a British Citizen living in the US. The smartest person I’ve ever known, who is American, said americans like guns because Americans enjoy loud noises, and also because Americans have the theory implanted at birth by other Americans (supposedly from colonial times) that anyone who opposes the country must die IMMEDIATELY, no exceptions. So guns give Americans a false sense of “I can kill that guy if he opposes me!”. I agree with this view.
Ehehe! I’m a British Citizen living in the US. The smartest person I’ve ever known, who is American, said americans like guns because Americans enjoy loud noises, and also because Americans have the theory implanted at birth by other Americans (supposedly from colonial times) that anyone who opposes the country must die IMMEDIATELY, no exceptions. So guns give Americans a false sense of “I can kill that guy if he opposes me!”. I agree with this view.
Only a fool would suggest that carrying and using a firearm is not a considerable responsibility can carries with considerable repercussions for the user when used to end another human life (I have discussed these at length in another thread… namely “Mark of Cain” complex, impotence, nightmares, possible criminal and civil proceedings, etc). However, that is the choice for the responsible citizen to decide to bear or not.
The notion amongst some anti-gun people is that people are just dying to use thier guns. This is far from the truth when talking about the bulk of gun owners (a large segment of civilian gun owners are: doctors, lawyers & social workers). It is like saying “Atheists are immmoral”. It is too broad a brush. Are there idiots with guns? Yes. And those guns should be removed. However, a total ban of guns is foolishness at this time. Study after study (see the material above) show that guns reduce crime, and that the #1 fear of criminals is that the civilian they attack will be armed. Of course, in states where people are not allowed to legally carry that fear is greatly reduced for the criminal, and for this reason (amongst others) crime rises. (compare “hot” burglary rates in Canada vs USA, for example).
Should every able bodied person be carrying a firearm? No, not unless every able bodied person were also to receive training and examined to make sure that they have a degree of responsibility consummate (sp?) with carrying a firearm.
Anti-gun people (which is very different from pro-gun control) seem to be chalk full of rhetoric but don’t seem to have a lot of solid reasoning and fact behind their suggestions other than I just really think this is the way it should be. Personally, I think the way it should be is that we don’t have violent crime and then we wouldn’t have to worry about it. That is best accomplished by what some would call “draconian” imprisionment. But from my prespective it is real simple, 80-90% of all crime is commited by recividists. Why do we keep letting them out? Because the notion of rehabilitation, good behaviour and parole has become our mode of imprisonment. Rehabilitation and parole are good ideas, but it is obvious that the current implementation is all wrong (80-90% of ALL violent crime is commited by recividists, it beared repeating). I say scrap the current system, keep people locked up for their sentences and if possible work on a new system of rehabilitation, except this time lets make sure it works before we use it on a wide scale.
Wage: Is this friend a:
- criminologist?
- psychologist?
- sociologist?
- historian?
What research has he done to support his conclusion? Any? Has any of it been published? Or is this more “Hey, this is what I think, therefore it must be true because I have observed it a couple of times and drawn a hasty conclusion”?
Things I have a problem with:
I think there is a quote from one of the founding fathers that goes something like:
"Those that surrender some freedoms to gain some security deserve neither.
Actually, I really liked this line. I hope you don’t mind, but I plan to use it in future gun debates 
This logic never seems to be applied to the first amendment. Computers and the internet never get the 200 year old technology arguement. Muskets were the weapons of the 1700’s foot soldiers. To act as a gaurd against governmental tyranny, the 2nd Amendment needs to protect current weapons.
I don’t know what a 4.5 inch gun is, and what certain lady?
The point is that they will have guns if they do ever need to defend their country. By the time you realize you need them, it is to late to get them.
Or a soldier I guess.
If people take the attitude that only the government should be trusted with weapons, the people will lose control of this country.
There was an article posted on a previous gun thread about the criminals in England outgunning the cops. The was also another piece about how Manchester is now being called Gunchester. Now that guns are illegal, only criminals have guns
Screw the klan guy up there, but this statement is bullsXXt.
UUUUmmmmmmmmm…
Especially if they are the only ones with guns.
After all these gun debates, I think this is the CORE disagreement between the two camps. Pro-gun control/Anti-Bill of Rights people thend to think that it is possible to remove enough guns from circulation that there won’t be any left for the criminals.
Pro-Bill of Rights people tend to think that the cat is already out of the bag, and there is nothing we can do except even the playing field.
I think Glitch was born in Canada. Otherwise, I think this idea is pure crap. Not even die hard evolutionists think that we are passing traits this soon. This theory also dicounts that a majority of Americans are not decended from people who around in the 1700’s.
Lets just ask the antis to register -names addresses etc. -maybe a web site of thier very own.
Then we’ll just sit back and watch to see if they are systematically raped murdered and plundered.
Did you see the story where a Colorado (IIRC) newsparer posted the names and addresses of all the CCW permit holders in the state?
I think the names and addresses of the unarmed are fair game.
http://www.frii.com/~buchanan/hgc/
Of course, they could voluntarily put one of these in their front yard. If the idea is all that great, take it to the people
http://www.frii.com/~buchanan/hgc/sign01.gif
And this is for the car:
Is that whites being murdered or whites murdering.?
The 2nd ammendment has really never been tested before the supreme court. I would be interested to see the courts actual interpretation on the general public’s right to have automatic weapons. That being said, I think it’s time we just admitted that man is violent species and America is particularly violent culture within that species. And that’s not really a bad thing. If we were not so violent, we would not have secured our own country or seen it grow into a world power. We would have trembled before Napolean, Hitler, Stalin, Kaiser Wilhelm, and of course, King George. For better or worse, Americans kick ass.
Freedom, those signs and the attitude that goes with them are silly. C’mon, would you put out a sign that said “I keep $20,000 cash laying around in my house, but I own a gun”? Of course not. Anyway, if I were a crook and saw one of those “unarmed” signs, I’d say, “Right. That sucker’s probably sitting in there with a 12 gauge, just waiting for me”.
casdave;
Most of the people I know who own guns have them because they like guns. They like the feel, the sounds, the loud bang, the slapping in of the magazine. I like that stuff too, but I don’t own a gun. Never go hunting, noboby ever envades my house. I lead a pretty boring life, I guess.
There is a guy on another thread who might shoot me if I come within 20ft. of him, but I think I can stay out of his way. 
Peace,
mangeorge (Unarmed and secure)
Nor has anyone ever invaded my home. :o
Mangeorge
The image of an armed populace resisting tyranny is noble enough, all those ideas that end up getting people killed got a nice ring to them. But lets consider: resisting whom? Well, tyranny!
Foreign tyranny? That necessarily implies occupation by foreign troops. A treacherous backstabbing blitzkreig from…Canada?
OK, so maybe a Steven King political scenario, the AntiChrist, or Alan Keyes, UNICEF, whatever…siezes control of the US government, and sets the US Army to tyrannize the citizenry WHO RISE UP!! Armed with Glock 9’s, shotguns, rabbit ammo. Against an Army with REAL guns, and planes and helicopters oh yeah tanks… An Army with some of our kids scattered here and there within it.
Let us just say implausible and and leave it at that.
There is no realistic threat of foreign invasion. The only plausible threat of domestic tyranny can arise only if we are stupid and docile enough to vote our tyrant to power.
If we do that we pretty much deserve whatever happens. But the Orange County Militia and the Idaho Irregulars will not ever, repeat never, offer any kind of strategic or tactical threat to any modern Army, much less the US Army.
Walk around your block, get to know your neighbors. Ask yourself: do I want to argue with this guy about his noisy dog when we are both drunk and on full auto?
O.K I showed a lack of consideration to a few
of you so here’s a bit of clarification-
A 4.5 inch gun is just that,the bore is,
yup,4.5 inch,such weapons are used by navies around the world they are most efective especially when employed in shore bombardment.When I was being trained to operate this gun I was told that you stood a
2% chance of death if a shell went off 200yards away from you and of course the kill
rate rises dramatically if you are closer.
Who did I fire them at -Argentinians-as I say
in the defence of freedom(Falklands war-thanks for your support U.S it could have been much worse for us without it)
The certain lady was Margaret Thatcher,her government prior to that war was the most unpopular since records had been kept and was due for annihilation at the polls.After
successful conclusion to war she was reelected by a landslide,the boost to her popularity was known as the ‘Falklands factor’
This seems at first to be irrelevant to this thread but bear with me.
In 1977 a small fleet of warships was sent to the Falklands by the defence secretary David Owen,who was acting on intelligence, it was believed that Argentina was preparing to invade,result-they stayed at home.
During the intervening years,and with a change of government,statements were made
about the cost of maintaining a presence in the area,the Falklanders pointed out the message that this gave Argentina.
Roll forward several years David Owen is being interviewed on t.v,he states quite baldly that the Argentinians had prepared for war on 3 occasions when he was a minister of state,that this had been acted upon each time and no war had taken place,and more to the point those same intelligence sources had given the same warning to the most unpopular Thatcher government-Owens question was
“Why was no preventative action taken?”.
Yes we did in the round put paid to a dictatorship,yes we defended freedom ,but
this war need not have taken place at all
and the dictatorship of Gen Galtieri was on the verge of collapse anyway the war was a
last desparate attempt by him to garner credibility in his own land.
Finally the point is this,in the guise of freedom,me and my colleagues were used to support our own unpopular government at a cost of some 2000 lives where no such loss need have taken place.
I would suggest that those who use defence of freedom as a reason to bear arms should be treated very cautiously.I accept that sometimes war will be necassary-I think that the intention of the founding fathers was to protect citizens from the state now it seems citizens must also protect themslves from each other.
I’ve had my rant thanks for reading and giving your point of view-time to let it go eh.
elucidator: Well said, I quite agree. Even the Afghans (and I guess that’s stretching the definition of “armed civilians” to the very limit) needed some high-tech weaponry before they were able to evict the Russian Army. And the Afghans were considerably better armed that any US civilian could ever lawfully be.
The armed civilian is not the military force he was when the US Constitution was drafted. He has insufficiently equipped with grenades, anti-tank rockets, night-vision equipment, arillery, armor and helicopters - to name a few.
Of course it’s nice to think “I’m doing my bit against tyranny” when buying a handgun, but it’s not really so, sorry.
Norman
KM2 wrote:
Then casdave wrote:
Somethin’ ain’t right here …
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
In that case, you may be interested to know that there are more civilians with guns then there are police with guns. Yet, police are involved in a higher ratio of accidental shootings (i.e. shooting the wrong person) then the civilians. You would think that if civilians were so incompetent and the police were so qualified, it wouldn’t be so.
Lesson #1: Don’t automatically put your trust in someone who’s armed based solely on the fact that they’re wearing a badge.
Lesson #2: Don’t automatically distrust a civilian who carries a firearm. They may someday be in a position to save your life.
Disclaimer: I’m sure I’ll be challenged on the statistic I just referred to. I’ll try my best to dig up a cite. I guarantee that it wasn’t one of those “off the top of my head” made-to-order statistics that are so commonly bandied about.
Ahhh, but the Afghans weren’t exactly lawfully armed either. When they revolted, they mostly used Russia’s own weapons against them.
Something similar to that could easily happen here in the U.S., I know that if I were in the military and was told to fire upon my own fellow Americans, I would have at the very least some serious misapprehensions.
It is quite conceivable that if such a “military vs. the populace” civil war broke out, there would be a significant number of soldiers going AWOL, taking with them enough military hardware and know-how to help level the playing field.
Although, I don’t foresee anything this large in scale ever taking place. I think the powers-that-be realize that they could never successfully mobilize their troops against their fellow Americans and still expect them to remain loyal.
Before you guys want to dismiss the idea of an armed populance causing the government a bunch of trouble, go research the Warsaw Ghetto during WWII. They held out for a month and there were only 10 guns against a whole army.
Just imagine if they had 60, 000 weapons instead of ten. Imagine they were already armed instead of having to get “smuggled” arms.
http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/resist.htm
Yes, the military is nowhere near as almighty and powerful as they are made out to be. Look at what a bunch of unorganized combatants did to two of our most elite and well-equipped military units in Mogadishu.
http://www.philly.com/packages/somalia/nov16/default16.asp
This excellent series, Blackhawk Down, documents exactly what took place in the streets of Mogadishu that left 18 U.S. Rangers dead and 73 others wounded. These heavy casualties to the Airborne Rangers and the Delta Force, after less than 24 hours, are what caused the U.S. to turn tail and pull two of its most elite units out of Somalia.