# Right To Bear Arms **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2001, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914 "2001-06-15T11:26:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2001, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914/21 "2001-06-15T15:55:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > \*\*A proper question would be, why does the state “need” to prohibit or regulate a particular gun or guns? Why should we, the people, permit our government to take such an action? > \*\* How about the mutual safety of we, the people, as a valid reason? Of course, this consideration can be (and no doubt will be) argued both ways. Comparative crime statistics is a subject fraught with problems. Nevertheless, consider the following report produced in 1998 by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics. Its comparison of American and English crime statistics was intended to be unflattering towards the English. [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cjusew96.htm](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cjusew96.htm) One way of summarising its findings would be that burglary, car theft, assault and (possibly) robbery are more common in England, but that murder and rape are more common in the U.S. One could argue that both sides of that contrast are functions of the long-established differences in policy towards guns. The widespread availability of guns both discourages _and_ encourages certain types of crime. ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2001, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914/22 "2001-06-15T17:13:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > **Anthracite: while I absolutely do not quibble with your right to kill a man attempting to rape you, I humbly suggest that you consider, for a first offense, shooting off on arm or a leg.** This is very foolish from a logistic standpoint as others have suggested but from a legal one as well. Under Arizona law the act of merely pointing a gun at someone is considered to be use of deadly force. If the threat has reached the point that you are justified to use a weapon you had better use it well and not try to “wing him.” You’ve been watching too many movies if you think that shooting a person in a limb is as effective or any less deadly than a center mass or central nervous systm shot. A person can quickly bleed to death from an artery hit but remains a threat. The only goal of a defensive shooting is to make the goblin (can you tell whose column I read regularly?) stop being a threat immediately. “Is that a super Redhawk in your pocket, 'cause you don’t seem at all happy to see me…” Anthracite, I know the reality of disparity of force for women but if you can handle a .44 magnum your aren’t _that_ weak. BTW, well spoken Anthracite and Johnny L.A. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2001, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914/23 "2001-06-15T17:19:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by APB \* > \*\*…Its comparison of American and English crime statistics was intended to be unflattering towards the English. > > [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cjusew96.htm](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cjusew96.htm) > > One way of summarising its findings would be that burglary, car theft, assault and (possibly) robbery are more common in England, but that murder and rape are more common in the U.S. One could argue that both sides of that contrast are functions of the long-established differences in policy towards guns. The widespread availability of guns both discourages _and_ encourages certain types of crime. > \*\* One could just as easily say that that the differences are due to differing national attitudes, character, and mores, or differing social contracts, or differing levels of opportunty, or differing laws in regards to how specific crimes are handled, or… The list goes on. Comparing _any_ culture’s behavior to any other is an exercise in ‘apples and oranges’, unless you’re willing to go to very detailed level and broad scope. The above study doesn’t come close. Also note, that prior to 1920, firearms ownership in the UK was rather _encouraged_. From this [site:](http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/1920.html) > [@](#): > > The 1920 Firearms Act resulted from the recommendations of the secret [Blackwell Committee report](http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/1-blackw.htm), it was a comprehensive piece of legislation and established a system of controls that remains one of the strictest in the Western world. It is all the more remarkable because it represents a complete and utter reversal in the way in which the state considered the private ownership of firearms. In 1900, the Prime Minister stated that he would “laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England.” That year the Lord Mayor of London hosted a meeting at Mansion house that was attended by the great and the good, including such figures as the Archbishop of York and the Duke of Westminster. The stated aim of the meeting was that of founding a Society of Working Men’s Rifle Clubs for facilitating rifle shooting. > > The aim of the government was to establish Rifle Clubs which could teach working men basic marksmanship skills and how to handle a rifle. This would create a pool of trained marksmen who could then be quickly absorbed into a conscript army. And: > [@](#): > > What little academic study has been done in this area would indicate that the law achieves little, that is not to say that controls are without purpose or effect. However, the law as it stands is a mass of bureaucracy, the way it is implemented is often confrontational and at times it penalises law abiding citizens who seek to comply with the law. What is needed is a calm and unemotional evaluation of the firearms laws. And: > [@](#): > > …At the time it was introduced firearms crime was at all time low… So note that the most restricive laws in regards to firearms ownership in English history, to that date, were enacted at time when firearms crimes were at low-ebb. I wonder why? > [@](#): > > The act was presented as an anti-crime measure, which would not impact upon the legitimate ownership of firearms. Yet the act imposed stringent controls that stopped little short of outright prohibition. The attitude of the government earlier in the century, the reasons given for the act and the reassurances that legitimate owners had nothing to fear are in stark contrast to the sweeping powers that the act conferred upon the state. Finally: > [@](#): > > Crime and armed crime in particular, usually involves young men and so in this period it could be expected that crime would be reduced. _On the other hand as the result of the war firearms and ammunition were, despite the restrictions, more easily available and so if it were the availability of guns that contributed to armed crime it would reasonable to have expected armed crime to have risen_ \ > > Whilst the pre-war anarchists had not been regarded as a real threat to the government, it is clear that the cabinet thought that Communism may have wider support among the lower classes, the unthinking mass of labour. The cabinet was told: > “_A bill is needed to license persons to bear arms. This has been useful in Ireland because the Authorities knew whom was possessed of arms._” \ > The 1920 act was the result. Whilst the Home Secretary Edward Short reassured the House the Bill was necessary to to safeguard the public from crime, the cabinet _discussed strafing the working class from the air_ \. > Twenty years earlier the government had put its faith and its trust in the decency and patriotism of the working class, exemplified by the founding of the Society of Working Men’s Rifle Clubs. In the paranoia of the times, the government felt it could no longer trust the working class and sought to deny the working man access to firearms. At the same time it sought to ensure that: > “_weapons ought to be available for distribution to friends of the Government_.”\ > The 1920 Firearms Act made possession of certain firearms illegal without a Firearms Certificate (FAC) issued by the Chief Constable. An applicant for a FAC had to satisfy the Chief Constable that he was a suitable person to be entrusted with firearms and that he had a good reason for possession of a firearm. What is not generally realised is the sweeping powers that the act conferred on the Chief Constable. In assessing the suitability of an applicant _the Chief Constable may seek any relevant information he desires, he may take hearsay, gossip and rumour into account and pursue any enquires he deems necessary_\. The burden of proof is on the applicant to prove that he is a person suitable to be entrusted with firearms I think that says it all, but please, go check it out for yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2001, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914/24 "2001-06-15T17:53:58Z")
While we’re at it, please note that restrictive laws don’t prevent school-yard massacres: > [@](#): > > Dunblane > Dunblane was a terrible tragedy and such an act of senseless brutality that it is difficult to comprehend. Few people can fail to have been moved by the appalling murder of 16 innocent children and their teacher. I would like to extend my sympathies to those bereaved by this tragedy, I know words of comfort will never dull the pain of your loss. I can understand the terrible hurt caused by Thomas Hamilton and why they have displaced their anger toward shooting sports. > > The Response: > The emotion which lead to the call for certain firearms to be banned is understandable. But emotion by itself should never be the reason for legislation. The Firearms (Amendment) Act which followed the terrible tragedy of Dunblane is based purely on emotion. > The law has deprived people of their livelihood, their property and the pleasure of their chosen sport. When confronted with the image of dead children such considerations may at first glance seem foolish but the legislation will not prevent further such tragedies. The result of the law is to victimise and scapegoat those who have only sought to obey the law. > > In an outspoken speech the Rt. Hon Martyn Jones MP eruditely remarked that the emotional appeal for legislation defied logic. > > “_Against whom should the natural human reaction of anger be directed? The anger of the children’s parents and others has been directed against the means that Hamilton used to commit the atrocity–the handgun; more specifically, the repeating full-bore weapon. The motive must be anger; otherwise logic would dictate banning all guns, especially shotguns, which are the firearms most often used in crime and murder. " > "Taken to its logical extreme, however, this natural reaction is unworkable. Some firearms are used as legitimate tools. Many categories of firearm that would be encompassed by such a reaction are plainly harmless to public safety, such as antiques and even the nail guns used in construction work_.” > > Over 57,000 law abiding citizens were scapegoated following the Dunblane massacre. 57,000 law abiding citizens who have never harmed anyone, never done anything wrong but who were blamed for the actions of a madman and the incompetence of the Scottish police. Sorry that is a little unfair, looking at the evidence submitted to the Dunblane enquiry some of the junior police officers got it exactly right. It was the incompetence of senior Scottish Police officers that was so lamentable. Perhaps if police forces were run by Sergeants we’d all be a lot better off! From Austrailia, data from an UN study: > [@](#): > > The methodology we chose to analyse the UN data was to list, in descending order, the highest ranked five nations in each of the categories of overall suicide, overall homicide and firearm homicide, and to then link these respectively to the firearm density ranking of each of the five nations listed in the individual categories. The aim is to highlight the relationships, if any, that homicide and suicide supposedly have to firearm ownership density. The results are shown in the tables. > > Suicide (overall) Suicide (firearm) Firearm density > > 1. Estonia 1. USA 14th. Estonia > 2. Hungary 2. Finland 18th. Hungary > 3. Finland 3. Estonia 1st. Finland > 4. Belarus 4. Canada 18th. Belarus > 5. Japan 5. New Zealand 27th. Japan > Homicide (overall) Homicide (firearm) Firearm density > 6. South Africa 1. South Africa 7th. South Africa > 7. Jamaica 2. Brazil 21st. Jamaica > 8. Brazil 3. Jamaica Brazil (13th in ownership) > 9. Estonia 4. USA 14th. Estonia > 10. Moldova 5. Zambia 24th. Moldova > > New Zealand rated 2nd, Canada 4th and Australia 5th in firearm density. No firearm density figures were given for the USA. However, the USA ranks 11th in overall suicide, while Zambia ranks 7th in and the USA 9th in overall homicide > It is suggested to look first at the country ranking in one of the columns, then look at that country’s corresponding ranking in the firearm density column. The gun density ranking of Australia is shown for comparison… Interesting reading. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2001, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914/25 "2001-06-15T20:35:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kat22 \* > **I want to know why people feel they need a gun?** I like the feeling of power you get from shooting. It extends your destructive reach. For example, on a hunting trip I go on a few times a year with a bunch of guys, we have trap shooting contests for a dollar a man. If you win a round, you win 12-15 bucks, depending on how many people enter. But not only do you win money, you also walk away with the illusion that, at least until the next round, you are the deadliest dude there. It’s kind of cool. ---
**Author:** ![eunoia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eunoia/32/97_2.png) [@eunoia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eunoia)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2001, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914/26 "2001-06-16T02:20:59Z")
Since zev\_ already used my favourite line: Some U.S. nightclubs won’t even let you in if you’re wearing a muscle shirt. Right to bare arms my arse! ---
**Author:** ![gwar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/96bed5/32.png) [@gwar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gwar)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2001, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914/27 "2001-06-16T03:40:45Z")
Oh come on, people. Let’s blame the schoolyard shootings on the real problem – listening to Marilyn Manson. ---
**Author:** ![evilhanz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba8739/32.png) [@evilhanz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/evilhanz)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2001, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914/28 "2001-06-16T03:52:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gwar \* > \*\*Oh come on, people. Let’s blame the schoolyard shootings on the real problem – listening to Marilyn Manson. > \*\* How ironic coming from someone named “Gwar” 🙂 _Hail and Kill_ indeed. On the OP, > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gwar \* > \*\*I want to know why people feel they need a gun? > \*\* To keep the King of England out of our face, of course 😉 Seriously … others have stated it more eloquently, but apart from the practical aspect of self-defense in the face of violent crime, an informed, educated, and armed populace is the best defense against tyranny. Some Americans, like myself, live in states where the right to revolution against tyrannical governments is guaranteed by our state constitutions. I know of no instance in world history where this has been accomplished with kind words. ---
**Author:** ![Neurodoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Neurodoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurodoc)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2001, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914/29 "2001-06-16T06:45:24Z")
The 2nd Ammendment (SA) to the US Consitution recognizes the right of Ameican citizens to keep and bear arms. The operative language in the SA is that this right belongs to “the people.” It is clear that “the people” refers to free citizens and not members of the military or National Guard. The only folk who try to say that the SA does not apply to “the people” would never think of depriving “the people” of the other enumerated items in the rest of the Bill of Rights. Frankly, I could care less what the citizens of Great Britain, the British Commonwealth, or Japan think about our SA and the RKBA. As I recall, we went to war with those nations in our past, and we righteously kicked their butts. As for the Brits, our gun-toting cowboys saved their asses from Hitler and Hirohito’s goons. These other nations are free to criticize our ways all they want. None of them grant their citizens the rights and freedoms that we Americans enjoy. No society will be free of sociopathic predatory scumbags. In my opinion the best protection the average citizen has from these scumbags is the RKBA. I have no problem whatsoever with sane and law-abiding citizens packing heat. I think that if more pwople like Anthracite were packing heat, fewer scumbags would try to rape women or assualt any other law-abiding citizen for fear of being shot dead. There is something about being armed that promotes courtesy in the law-abiding populace, which at the same time discourages the will of antisocial predators to assault their fellow armed citizens. It has been said that “an armed society is a polite society.” I routinely carry a concealed pistol on my person, and I can say that this awesome responsibilty has made me even politer than I would have been otherwise. The armed citizen can afford to “speak softly and carry a big stick.” What applied to the US under Teddy Roosevelt applies to each of us US citizens. The gunophobes of the rest of the world can criticize our SA all they want. When they grow up, they can try to emulate our ideals. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2001, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914/30 "2001-06-16T13:25:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kat22 \* > **…I live in England… > …dis-arming, surely its a good idea…** England? Arms? Need I say more? We did it '76; (okay, you won in '12) we did it in '61; we did it in '44; we’ll do it again, until we get it right. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2001, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914/31 "2001-06-16T14:53:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by evilhanz \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by gwar \* > > \*\*Oh come on, people. Let’s blame the schoolyard shootings on the real problem – listening to Marilyn Manson. > > \*\* > > How ironic coming from someone named “Gwar” 🙂 > _Hail and Kill_ indeed.\*\* Actually, Hail and Kill was done by Manowar, not Gwar. I’m listening to it as I type, thanks to you. Gwar gave us such gems as “We Kill Everything”, “Gonna Kill U”, and “Pre-Skool Prostitute”. 😃 On the OP, > [@](#): > > \*\*Seriously … others have stated it more eloquently, but apart from the practical aspect of self-defense in the face of violent crime, an informed, educated, and armed populace is the best defense against tyranny. Some Americans, like myself, live in states where the right to revolution against tyrannical governments is guaranteed by our state constitutions. I know of no instance in world history where this has been accomplished with kind words. \*\* Hear, hear. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2001, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914/32 "2001-06-16T17:55:13Z")
Well. Almost 5 years on the net, and I still haven’t learned a fundamental lesson- _body language doesn’t come across on a message board, you have to use a smilie_. Anthracite, my comments were tongue in cheek…of course, if you are being threatened, you should use whatever force you need to counter the threat. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2001, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914/33 "2001-06-16T20:44:24Z")
Wow, almost 32 hours in GQ… Jill and I are clearly not spending enough time online, lately. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2001, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914/34 "2001-06-16T21:53:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chronos \* > \*\*Wow, almost 32 hours in GQ… \*\* Damn… Busted. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2001, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914/35 "2001-06-16T23:13:43Z")
Kat22… > [@](#): > > If every man and his dog has a gun, then you increase the chances of some bullied kid going to school and gunning down 30 innocent(?) kids before turning the gun on themselves. Foolishness. Absolute foolishness. What does a “man and his dog” have to do with “some bullied kid”? What sort of logic are you using to assume that one unrelated factor affects another? > [@](#): > > Would you leave meths and matches lying around, or bleach in an old lemonaide bottle, or razor blades? More foolishness. Of course you wouldn’t leave such things lying around. Nor would you leave a gun and/or ammunition lying around. Your fictional arguments bear no weight. > [@](#): > > But bring in the suicidal, insane, ignorant or vigilante and you may have problem. A problem? On a very, very small scale, yes. But exactly how many “suicidal, insane, ignorant or vigilante” instances have there been in the past year, here in America? Three, maybe? Yeah. Three instances. That’s SUCH a big problem. THREE WHOLE FRIGGIN’ TIMES it’s happened! What a _hu-u-u-u-uge_ problem. ::sigh:: People… if you think Gun Control is a good idea, take my advice: Avoid association with people like Kat22. ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2001, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914/36 "2001-06-17T04:30:25Z")
I wish I could find the article, or remember the name of the town, or even the general location… But I think it was here in Oregon. A town passed a rather unusual and controvertial law, which when I first heard about, sounded flat-out insane… The law REQUIRED every household with an “able” member (IE, one that would legally be able to buy a firearm, and is deemed safe to own one) to have a self-defence firearm on the property. But I was particularly surprised by the drop in violent crimes involving entering the homes (Home invasion, robbery, etc): 0.2 % No, not BY 0.2%. TO 0.2%… One fiftieth the level before the law. I’m still not sure if I should believe it or not, that seemed rather excessive 🙂 And I see school shootings being used again as a “prop” for gun-controll. I put a post in a Pit thread about how it might not have only made little difference, but possibly worse (If the shooters at Columbine had made the fuse right for the bomb placed in the caffeteria, it would have been MUCH worse… And at Thurston, if Kip had brought along one of his many bombs instead of guns, it would have been over before anyone could do anything, and many more would have been killed). Personally, though, I get rather annoyed when someone starts pointing at a school shooting and using it to prop up their own vaguely-related political goals as some catch-all “solution” to the problem. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Lao](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dr.Lao](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Lao)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2001, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914/37 "2001-06-17T05:59:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Phoenix Dragon \* > \*\*I wish I could find the article, or remember the name of the town, or even the general location… But I think it was here in Oregon. A town passed a rather unusual and controvertial law, which when I first heard about, sounded flat-out insane… > > The law REQUIRED every household with an “able” member (IE, one that would legally be able to buy a firearm, and is deemed safe to own one) to have a self-defence firearm on the property. > > But I was particularly surprised by the drop in violent crimes involving entering the homes (Home invasion, robbery, etc): 0.2 % > > No, not BY 0.2%. TO 0.2%… One fiftieth the level before the law. I’m still not sure if I should believe it or not, that seemed rather excessive :)\*\* IIRC this was in a small town in Georgia that never had many violent crimes to begin with. A single home invasion type crime committed (or not committed) could throw it off significantly from year to year. I don’t know of any study that has successfully linked increased gun ownership with a decrease in crime. Admittedly, though, it would be nearly impossible to do so. I’m not sure how requiring guns in homes would reduce break-ins, though. If I were a criminal and I needed a gun, I would know exactly which town to go to. Wait until no one is home and steal all their guns. Move on to the next house. In a short time you could get all the guns you need. Home invasion is a relatively rare form of robbery, IIRC. Whether you know for sure they have a gun, or you are not sure, a break-in while people are home is a risky business. Why chance it when it is so much easier to rob them when they aren’t there? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2001, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914/38 "2001-06-17T06:43:37Z")
We had a thread on the Georgia town a while back. Someone linked us up to a Freeper article which claimed that crime had dropped in that one town, thus this same ordinance would _obviously_ work all over the country. A closer analysis of the article, however, found that there wasn’t any actually proof that crime had dropped; the article was very misleading. > [@](#): > > **Seriously … others have stated it more eloquently, but apart from the practical aspect of self-defense in the face of violent crime, an informed, educated, and armed populace is the best defense against tyranny. Some Americans, like myself, live in states where the right to revolution against tyrannical governments is guaranteed by our state constitutions. I know of no instance in world history where this has been accomplished with kind words.** But here’s the problem: throughout American history, firearms have not been used to overthrow tyrants. When Joe McCarthy was ruining the lives of thousands of innocent Americans, why didn’t someone just shoot him? Would you gun supporters be happier if the issue had been resolved that way? When Martin Luther King Jr. led the Montgomery bus boycott and subsequent protests, did the protesters break out their weapons and start slaughtering police officers? Should they have? > [@](#): > > \*\*No society will be free of sociopathic predatory scumbags. In my opinion the best protection the average citizen has from these scumbags is the RKBA. I have no problem whatsoever with sane and law-abiding citizens packing heat. I think that if more pwople like Anthracite were packing heat, fewer scumbags would try to rape women or assualt any other law-abiding citizen for fear of being shot dead. \*\* The number of American households that own at least one firearm hovers around fifty percent. How many gun owners do we need before crime actually goes down? ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2001, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914/39 "2001-06-17T09:03:28Z")
> [@](#): > > **We had a thread on the Georgia town a while back. Someone linked us up to a Freeper article which claimed that crime had dropped in that one town, thus this same ordinance would _obviously_ work all over the country. A closer analysis of the article, however, found that there wasn’t any actually proof that crime had dropped; the article was very misleading.** Ah, okay. I -thought- it seemed a little questionable 🙂 > [@](#): > > **But here’s the problem: throughout American history, firearms have not been used to overthrow tyrants.** Most people include the American Revolution in American history. 🙂 Though I guess you meant throughout as in it doesn’t happen -regularly- throughout American history. Nevermind 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2001, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914/40 "2001-06-17T09:15:44Z")
> [@](#): > > throughout American history, firearms have not been used to overthrow tyrants. Well, it has succeeded 100% of the times it was attempted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/right-to-bear-arms/68914.md?page=3)