Question for "Gun Nuts"

[enipla]

@Lumpy

@Rafe_Hollister

But to me, the main reason I am in favor of widespread gun ownership is for our nation’s protection. In 1775, the colonies were defended against the British by common citizens carrying squirrel rifles. It gives me great peace to know that no enemy will put soldiers on the ground here in the U.S. because there are 80 million people like me who would defend our towns with deer rifles, shotguns, .22’s and any other firearm we had in the home.

Umm… sorry, but much as I am personally in favor of gun possession, the “Minuteman” myth isn’t born out by history. The British were defeated, if you can call it that, by Washington’s Continental Army who were full-time regulars. And they won basically by not losing- by withdrawing rather than be annihilated by superior British forces. Almost every battle Washington fought was technically a British victory in that the Continentals had to yield to the British. And Washington himself, the general charged with winning the war, is on record as being extremely dubious of the effectiveness of local militia.

And Washingtons army was able to withdraw into known friendly territory where they where fed and housed. Similar to the dificulty that was Vietnam, and is now Iraq and Afganistan.

[Zeriel]

@steronz

@Susanann

All things considered, a handgun is undeniably the best self-defense tool ever invented, cheapest, handiest, easiest to carry, most reliable, most effective, and that is why all American police carry a handgun for self defense.

I’d like to sidestep this argument and point out that I still don’t feel that a handgun is the best strategy for self defence. Using one means necesarily making yourself vulnerable to a retaliatory strike, and I would do everything imaginable to avoid the situation. I’m guessing you’d agree. And yet, it seems like a lot of my friends/acquaintances live in flimsy houses in bad neighborhoods with lots of easily stolen stuff hidden behind a $10 lock in a hollow wooden door and then talk about how their handguns are for protection. It can certainly be a useful element in a defensive strategy, but I guess I feel that it’s over-emphasized far too often.

Susanann aside, I think you’re probably right. A gun is a useful part of an integrated home defense strategy, but a gun alone is not a particularly intelligent strategy.

As a PERSONAL defense weapon, I’d agree that it’d the single best thing you can have when not on your own property.

–Zeriel (who uses the “hollow doors and a baseball bat” method of home defense, guns in the safe in the basement, in keeping with the current risk level.)

[handsomeharry]

@Lumpy

@Rafe_Hollister

But to me, the main reason I am in favor of widespread gun ownership is for our nation’s protection. In 1775, the colonies were defended against the British by common citizens carrying squirrel rifles. It gives me great peace to know that no enemy will put soldiers on the ground here in the U.S. because there are 80 million people like me who would defend our towns with deer rifles, shotguns, .22’s and any other firearm we had in the home.

Umm… sorry, but much as I am personally in favor of gun possession, the “Minuteman” myth isn’t born out by history. The British were defeated, if you can call it that, by Washington’s Continental Army who were full-time regulars. And they won basically by not losing- by withdrawing rather than be annihilated by superior British forces. Almost every battle Washington fought was technically a British victory in that the Continentals had to yield to the British. And Washington himself, the general charged with winning the war, is on record as being extremely dubious of the effectiveness of local militia.

Actually, the militia wasn’t any kind of slouch. They were, though, about 50 percent good, and 50 percent worthless. (No cite…don’t care enough to look up info.) Wasn’t the Battle of Breed’s hill strictly a militia event? I know that the attacks on the Brits as they were leaving were not regulars.
Washington being dubious has no real bearing. He made money (i.e., his job was) being a professional soldier (yes I know.)
The militia can also be said to be a group that makes occupation too expensive to continue. That’s all that’s needed, not victories.

Best wishes,
hh

[GiantRat]

[quote=“Agent_Foxtrot, post:20, topic:553042”]

@dmatsch

The way it appears to me, many gun advocates feel that buying a gun should be as easy as buying a gallon of milk. Guns are weapons. They kill people. They are not toys. If you feel like target shooting, buy a BB gun. What’s the difference?

[quote truncated]

So are hammers, pencils, screwdrivers, and hands. I’m certainly not of the belief that everyone has the right to have a gun (I can think of plenty of people who shouldn’t - several of them friends of mine). The disparity in the legal rights to purchase/possess throughout the states, though is a bit disturbing - it’s a Constitutional right that is impeded in some places, and essentially encouraged in others.

In NJ, for example, there is a legal process for acquiring a “permit to purchase,” but no legal provision to actually own a handgun. So if I have a few friends over and we’re loud, the neighbors call in a noise violation, and the resulting police officers ask if there are weapons in the home, I can be forced to surrender them for not having a permit to “own” them; even though I was given a “permit to purchase” them.