Some of out strongest supporters are women, like catsix - so no, your snarky remark is out of line.
No, you assume that we assume that. Most of us only want responsible, trained people within the civilian population to have and carry guns.
here, I agree with you, and I think most other rational people would as well.
Murder is a bad thing. Killing people is a bad thing.
Killing more people is preferable to killing fewer people.
Hell, even if lots of people were protected by guns, having people murdered by them is still a bad thing.
You do realize that there are ways of protecting yourself that don’t involve lethal force, right?
Nice piece of rhetoric.
Now want to discuss what I’ve actually said rather than giving a blanket condemnation?
What do you see as wrong?
Okay… but we’re also talking 18 year old kids who drive their cars way to fast so they can impress their friends.
Wouldn’t dealing with the root causes of violence be better than blowing away anybody who steps out of line?
Further, you want to give citizens’ the right to decide when to use lethal force?
Police undergo training so that they know when to use apply certain levels of force, are you proposing that we do the same for the entire populace?
If not for the entire populace, how will we ensure that all potential gun holders know how to behave with a gun?
Damn preview!
Killing more people is not preferable…
~sighs~
good evening all.
That’s because you are the only one bringing up “arming everyone.”
None of the rest of us advocate “arming everyone.”
can you please get off this strawman?
Want me to say it?
More to the point, in every state (in the U.S.) crime has fallen, regardless whether or not they have relaxed restrictions on guns. Similarly, Australia’s increase in crime is exactly on the trend that they have mainrtained for many years. In each case, the situation seems to have the same cause: crime increases or decreases with the proportion of the population who are males between 17 and 45. The crime statistics are easily manipulated by ignoring that point.
There was a small rash of incidents in New South Wales the year following the Australian gun ban that spiked that year’s violent crime figures, but the real numbers over multiple years do not support the notion that banning guns increases crimes.
If we’re going to have a legitimate discussion (despite the silly article in the OP) then let’s use valid numbers and real life situations.
We’ve been through this before. I believe your cite last time was for increasing numbers of burglaries, not overall crime levels. I debated the validity of that cite, and the link between an increase in burglaries and restrictions on semi-automatics, had the cite been valid. Care to clarify your position here?
I’m in favor of increased gun ownership (responsible ownership in particular) among the US electorate.
However, I think that the Op-ed piece in the OP is mostly just plain silly.
I’m willing to accept the increase in the number of gun related injuries and deaths as just another price that is paid for liberty.
The reason why is because money is what makes the world go round.
I think that private gun ownership makes it more costly for d’gubmint to forcibly engage the electorate. This makes forcible engagement of the electorate a less attractive option.
I firmly believe (no cites forthcoming) that the easier it is for d’gubmint to us wrong, the more likely it is to happen.
Therefore, private gun ownership is one of the many things I favor because they make it more difficult for d’gubmint to do us dirty.
There’re lots of things about ‘society’ that need changing. The symptoms of a number of these things are violence. The use of guns renders the effects of this violence more dramatic.
Also, one day, the USA might not be a superpower. One day, we may be liberated. When that day comes I hope that We the People make the occupation of our country as big of a hassle as possible. A strong tradition of private weapon ownership can help ensure that the populace is a force to be reckoned with.
Good night, Finn - when you come back, let’s stick to the OP, OK? Let’s forget about nuking everyone for peace.
Let’s talk about the article, and what the article says, which is that putting all the force in the hands of a few government employees is short-sighted, inefficient, and just won’t work!
In the 20’s and 30’s there were some problems with criminals using guns. Part of this was due to corrupt police, part of it was organized crime.
Police crackdown and restriction of access to fully automatic weapons made the 40’s and the 50’s and even most of the 60’s some of the most peaceful times in the US. During this time, many places had little or no restrictions on weapons of personal protection.
When I was 16 years old, in Greenwich, Connecticut (1963), I was able to walk into a local jeweler’s store and bought my first pistol. Nobody died from that pistol. Such sales were common, but Greenwich and even the surrounding towns were very peaceful places.
When I was 18 (1965) I got a permit to carry the pistol concealed. Lots of people had concealed carry permits. No shootouts.
Criminals occasionally obtained and used guns illegally, but it was not viewed as a major problem.
Then, VietNam happened, and other things, and people started getting upset with government and a few assasinations occurred, so the government (for it’s own protection, and for the protection of the rich, the elite and the priviledged) started clamping down on guns (1968), making it harder and harder to own and carry guns.
The more they restricted guns the more things got out of hand. Now, I’m not saying there was a direct relationship, other things changed as well, and if we are to be honest we’ll have to factor in all the different ways things changed.
However, statistics are showing that less guns = more crime, and concealed carry permits for carefully screened citizens = less crime.
Those statistics sound good to me.
That’s the facts. Hyperbole (nukes???, stinger missiles???) won’t solve anything. Let’s engage in some sensible debate here.
Well, I guess we might conclude that, (leaving aside the clear post hoc ergo propter hoc issue), except that even with more guns the U.S. still has higher crime rates than Britain, Australia, Canada, and Ireland with fewer guns.
I just do not believe that this is a fruitful line of reasoning.
I pretty sure you don’t have to worry about someone stepping to ya’ in G-Town. It’s one of the wealthiest suburbs on the East Coast.
Not true. When I lived in Fort Worth, there was a big ruckus outside my place. A girl who lived a few doors down had been in an argument with her “boyfriend”. This guy then got in his truck and tried to run her over. He missed, and turned the truck around for another try. I came out with a 30-30 in hand and a 44 magnum in my belt. He saw the hardware, did a fast turnaround, and took off. The police caught him later. In this case, a little firepower definitely did prevent violence.
Recently I pondered how lucky I was to be raised and living in a western country free of the daily observation of firearms paticularly hand guns. I was considering what it was like to live in Iraq or Afghanistan where it seems like every adult (never mind ther adult part) male citizen is bearing arms to the full extent as permitted in the American constitution.
And then I thought about Iraq under Saddam…
No easy answers here.
Yeah, as we demonstrated in another similar thread:
Relationship between guns and crime
always has, always will. It’s a cultural issue, and has nothing to do with numbers of guns.
Emphasis mine…
No, we don’t have assault weapons, nor do we have full automatic weapons, nor do we have explosives, grenades, rockets and the like…
Let me guess, you get your news from Teddy Kennedy and Diane Feinstein, right?
The US constitution currently permits us only some types of auto-LOADING weapons, as long as they only have 10 or fewer rounds… and meet other arbitrary criteria.
Yeah, right next door to Port Chester, where we used to go to drink.
Rough town that.
Still, no firearms problems before the 70’s.
The point is TIME not PLACE.
What’s YOUR point? If you have one.
I hope SnakeSpirit will agree with me when I say that a central idea in the linked article is that existing gun control laws (the article mentions the problems involved in aquiring submachine guns) makes it harder for civilians to defend likely terrorist targets. The suggestions seems to be to let the militia guard the homeland while the army roams abroad.
The problems are, as always with this sort of scenario, that a bunch of strangers with firearms does not constitute a unit. With no command structure, no lines (or means) of communication, no training in unit (or even standard) tactics, I’d not cherish the perspective of being anywhere around a bunch of shit-scared-but-determined, well-armed volunteers. The losses to friendly fire would be tremendous, once the bullets started flying. How do you identify the bad guys ? This is why it’s hard to get on a SWAT team. I’ve been trained in small-unit law enforcement tactics, and it’s seriously goddamned hard to keep tactical control, even with a squad of people who’ve trained together for ages. Militiamen are supposed to do the job in a sudden combat situation with adrenalin flowing and panic spreading ? Won’t happen.
You can defend your house or your store, sure. With time to meet up and come up with a plan, you might be able to line up a militia to guard, say, a block in the suburbs - IIRC, something like that often happens to prevent looting after hurricanes etc.
But an unorganized militia is not a good anti-terror weapon, and the problem is not due to lack of firearms.
One thing I can agree with:
Of course, we can then start fighting over what constitutes “responsible” and “trained”. We can most likely agree that people with a violent record are not exactly the ones we want carrying firearms. I’d like to see “carrying a firearm while drunk” to be as heavily penalized as drunk driving. If you want to carry an instrument designed to resolve situations with deadly force, you’d better keep your wits around you.
As for “trained”, I’d like to see a 3-part test: First, can you use your firearm in a way that’s safe for the bystanders ? I.e., do you hit what you’re aiming for without spreading bullets all over the landscape ? That’s the easy part.
Second, do you know when and where you can apply deadly force ? Learn the law. Demonstrate knowledge of the law. And third, do we judge you to be level-headed enough to make the decision under stress ? Pass a practical test where we’ll do our best to get your adrenalin going and then force you to make a lot of shoot-don’t shoot decisions.
Guns, like 18-wheeler trucks, can have a heck of a lot of unintended consequences when in the hands of unskilled people. It does not seem unfair to me that we insist that people who’ll bring either out among other people demonstrate that they know the safe operation of both.
So it is, at best, a bit disingenuous of you to be making the “number of guns relates to number of crimes” argument in this thread.
There are valid arguments for gun ownership and possession. We’d be better off using those than getting into specious claims based on faulty use of statistics.
OK, that makes no sense at all. Guys, work with me here - what I mean is that we don’t let people drive 18-wheelers without them first showing they know how. Same should go for guns. Well, not that you drive guns, I know that. Damn, what’s in that drink, anyhow ?
It is always amusing to see snakepirit try to defend lack of gun control.
Since you are using Australia as an example, I think you should be aware of some statistics from Australia.
In NSW:
murder - 1999-2003 down 7.3%
robbery with a firearm - 1999-2003 stable
From the NSW Buraeu of Crime Statistics and Research.
As more and more handguns and unlicenced firearms are taken out of circulation the LOWER THE RISK of violent acts being perptrated with these weapons.