pk:Good thing I have a leagally possesed (by both federal and my states’ law) automatic rifle(as well as other legally possesed firearms) to defend his rights if this country totally goes to shit.
Trouble is (as gun control opponents and advocates alike spent the first few pages of this very thread pointing out), your fantasy of really being effective in defending anybody’s rights with firearms, in the unlikely event that the government and its military decide to ignore them, is completely unrealistic. You’ve got no factual grounds whatever for your rifle-range daydream of being part of a small stalwart band who manage to wrest the nation’s liberty back from the usurping tyrants. In reality, at best you might take out a soldier or two before being pulped. Thanks anyway, but I don’t think minty would request that fruitless sacrifice from you for the sake of making a futile attempt to defend his rights.
Minty needs to understand the difference between peaceful, law & order abiding type folk who own guns, (even machine guns), and the scum who are shooting each other in the streets.
Trouble is, that “difference” is imaginary, and I think that trying to pretend it isn’t is one of the biggest logical flaws in your thinking. Yes yes, before everybody comes down on me, I do know that there are many gun owners who are peaceful and prudent and would never violate the law in any respect nor risk unnecessary violence to anybody; and there are many gun owners who have demonstrated their toxic criminality so completely that everybody agrees they should never be let within reach of a gun again for their whole lives. Those two sets of people are indeed very different.
But there are also many gun owners who don’t belong in either set, who are perhaps mostly trustworthy until they happen to really lose it one day, or perhaps mostly untrustworthy but no responsible person has noticed it in time, or just totally unknown quantities. Gun control has to be designed with them in mind too. You are trying to talk about gun ownership restrictions as though every gun owner were either perfectly reliable (in which case we could trust him/her with just about any kind of weapon) or perfectly unreliable (in which case we would ideally be able to spot him/her pretty quickly and make sure s/he never owned a weapon again).
That’s an imaginary division. Many, perhaps most, people are liable to do dumb things with a gun under certain circumstances, and I want gun control legislation to reflect that simple fact by putting fairly stringent restrictions on the sorts of guns one can own and keeping fairly close tabs on their purchasers. I don’t think that sort of elementary sanity and prudence is the equivalent of wanting to impose a Nanny State where I refuse to trust anybody with anything or let anybody run any risks at all, and I’m not about to let your mouth-foaming rhetoric intimidate me into agreeing that it is.
You were the one claiming, quite wrongly, that “federal law always trumps state laws.” I have to admit, I did find it amusing how an anti-federal government gun nut suddenly invoked federal supremacy to justify a demonstrably incorrect point of law.
So if you read it in a gun shop, it must be true? Lord knows we wouldn’t want anbody actually reading the law or anything, as I did earlier this week. One of us is now educated on this particular legal topic, pk, and it darn sure ain’t you.
Under federal law, but not necessarily under state law.
<sigh> Never mind the California law I cited earlier in the week, which made no exception whatsoever for class 3 licenseholders. Yet here you go, spouting off the same old ingnorance as before.
That’s a pretty bold legal prediction for somebody who has still apparently not read the relevant law.
If the country totally goes to shit, please stay the heck away from me. The last thing those of us who care about democracy more than firepower need when we get about to fixing things up is a bunch of yahoos with more ammo than sense laying down suppressing fire all over the damn place.
Help me out here, folks. My first reaction is :mad:, but then I remember the source of this ignorant piffle, and my next reaction is a simple :rolleyes:. So which smilie is most appopriate for being compared to racists and anti-semites by a guy whose arguments are this pathetic?
Perhaps this can be a lesson for all of us – never post while drunk.
I’m outraged by shooting incidents like the one in Columbine, and I’m outraged by the sort of “pro-gun” argument that seems to say, “The loss of a few lives is worth the price of my freedom to go down to the range tomorrow and play with my machine gun.” But that’s no excuse for rudely attacking another poster that I haven’t even met yet.
So I just want to take out a second and sincerely apologize to ExTank for my outburst last night (my attack on his argument in my last post). It was totally uncalled for, and I feel like shit about it. I usually don’t act that way, even when I’m drunk; I guess too many years of going over the same ground, listening to the same arguments, while 13-year-olds flip out and shoot up a school and nobody over there does anything about it, or even seems to care, really – well, maybe it’s just getting to me a little bit.
Anyway – sorry, Tank. I’ll take minty’s chiding to heart and give you the benefit of the doubt.
And now I see that Freedom has shown up again. Could I get a couple of those asprin over here as well, please? And by the way, I’m still waiting for you to respond to my previous posts concerning your faulty arguments. If you can’t refute me, at least a you could concede the point in a gentlemanly fashion (as if I have the right to require others to be gentlemanly, but you know what I mean…)
pk’s latest argument isn’t really worth a response, so I’m not going to give it one.
Instead, I’d like to make a small request. Can you guys quit typing so loud?
Originally posted by Kimstu *
**
Trouble is (as gun control opponents and advocates alike spent the first few pages of this very thread pointing out), your fantasy of really being effective in defending anybody’s rights with firearms, in the unlikely event that the government and its military decide to ignore them, is completely unrealistic. You’ve got no factual grounds whatever for your rifle-range daydream of being part of a small stalwart band who manage to wrest the nation’s liberty back from the usurping tyrants. In reality, at best you might take out a soldier or two before being pulped.*
Have you read the hitory of the battle of the Warsaw Ghetto? A group of Jews held off the Nazis for a considerable period, essentially without guns? Hitler might have re-considered his genocidal policy if it would have cost the lives of millions of his soldiers.
**Trouble is, that “difference” [between law abiding gun-owners and scum] is imaginary,…
…there are also many gun owners who are perhaps mostly trustworthy until they happen to really lose it one day, or perhaps mostly untrustworthy but no responsible person has noticed it in time, or just totally unknown quantities. Gun control has to be designed with them in mind too…
You are trying to talk about gun ownership restrictions as though every gun owner were either perfectly reliable or perfectly unreliable …
That’s an imaginary division. Many, perhaps most, people are liable to do dumb things with a gun under certain circumstances, and I want gun control legislation to reflect that simple fact by putting fairly stringent restrictions on the sorts of guns one can own and keeping fairly close tabs on their purchasers.**
Kimstu, thanks for a clear statement of your gun control philosophy. I believe your position is widely held.
One nice aspect about the clarity is that we can more-or-less test your view of reality. E.g. what percentage of murders are committed by “bad guys”? That is people who would be denied a gun as an ex-convict, etc. I suspect most are, but have no data.
First off: I was slightly blotto on some good Greek wine (yes, such things exist), so apologies for misattributing statements and quotes. And my “chills my testicles” comment was just a turn of phrase, not a sexual advance.
Secondly: My cost/benefit analysis post was entirely tongue-in-cheek. After my three admittedly (and purposefully) ludicrous examples, I wrote the next sentence:
I was fully admitting, by exaggerated illustration, the fallacy and futility of cost/benefit analysis. Especially when the costs and benefits are in serious debate by knowledgeable experts, and not us everyday types.
Svinlesha: yes, there are not current mandates on private citizens to perform background checks on other private citizens to conduct private transactions of firearms. One of the “loopholes in the law” that I do advocate closing. I’ll support such reasonable measures as may be proposed or enacted. But until I see one, I’ll continue to voice my opposition (by supporting the NRA), and selling my surplus firearms on consignment at my local gun store, where they run a background check on both the seller and the buyer. This doesn’t happen often, as I don’t purchase firearms for resale, and I discourage other gun owners from doing so.
The Lautenberg Amendment is nothing more than a backdoor-ban on gun shows entirely. And since I’m sure that I have attended many more gun shows than you have, I speak with certain authority that the vast majority of vendors are licensed gun dealers, and run background checks on every transaction. The checks take about 5 minutes. Coincidentally, the same amount of time as it generally takes at a licensed gun store. So why require 72 hours at a gun show? Most are over in 48, and the people who have travelled for many miles, hours maybe even, are SOL. They then have to get UPS to Express Deliver them, at additionla cost, as UPS is the only private carrier that will ship firearms (the U.S. Postal Service is forbidden by Federal Law).
This is just another attempt by gun-grabbers to tack on as many additional costs to gun transaction as they can get away with, to discourage people from buying (and thus owning) guns. At least, that’s how “us gun nuts” see it.
And I do advocate a certain amount of liberalization of some gun control laws; specifically “Assault Weapons Bans” based upon cosmetic appearance of the weapon, as opposed to it’s actual capabilities.
Abe: My comment about myself was an attempt at some self-deprecating humore to take the sting out of my words. Written messages are without the cues of tone, facial expression or body language I might otherwise use to let you know that I am calm and rational (if somewhat inebriated), as opposed to angry and hostile.
I use the same reasoning Hitler’s Field Marshalls used when ol’ Adolf was contemplating his next move after his famous stroll through the boulevards of Paris. He cast his eyes greedily upon Switzerland, with it’s rather famous (and admirable, IMO) republican-based citizen-militia. The military leadership basically told him the raw numbers: "several million armed citizens, in unfavorable terrain. Forget about it; look to Russia instead. Easier pickings.
While that didn’t work out too well either, it at least had the advantage of being feasible, in the abstract. Shoddy logistics and an unexpectedly stalwart Russian defense put paid to that plan.
So the “armed populace defends against tyranny” argument works as a preventative, not a cure. That no tyrant wannabe has tried to take over America is not proof of this concept. Hard to prove a negative. That no tyrant wannabe has tried to take over America can also be attributed to social stability, tri-partite government, and civic virtue (not a Machiavellian principle; he just expanded upon the concept a bit since Plato’s day). Jeff Davis and his ilk don’t count; they didn’t try to take over America. They just tried to take their share and go play by themselves.
As far as numbers, rates higher than other countries are signifigant, but only in context. Japan, with no appreciable private gun ownership, has approx. the same suicide rate as America, with half the population; Norway’s is higher. This is a possible indication that gun ownership has little, if any, impact on suicide rates. More study is required, and I will hungrily devour any forthcoming info on that topic.
And since suicide accounts for 58% of firearm deaths in America, evidence (admittedly sparse) indicates that proliferation of firearms in America is not a causitive factor in suicide. That cuts our firearms death rate down to around 13,300 (approx.) per year, 5 per 100,000 (the method of statistical counting used by the Center for Disease Control’s National Institute for Health Statistics).
We have approximately 900 acidental shootings per year, lower than any other country with comparable rates of firearm ownership. You cannot compare America to Sweden, or Japan, or England or Australia; you admit that you have no appreciable private firearms ownership. That’s apples and oranges.
Discounting suicides and accidents, that leaves 12,400 firearms deaths per year. That’s about 4.6 per 100,000 That’s still high compared to the countries mentioned above, but comparable to other countries with comparable rates of gun ownership.
The biggest spike is for Blacks, especially Black Males, typically ages between 15-29. Not-so-coincidentally, that’s also one of the groups with the highest level of gang/criminal involvement. Overall, Blacks account for 6,160 firearm homicides, which works out to 18 per 100,000 blacks, compared to the 5,600 for whites, or 2.5 per 100,000 whites (a rate very comparable to other countries, even those with low rates of gun ownership). This is not an attempt to point a racist finger and say “it’s a black problem”; but rather to indicate that there is some social factor at work here, causing such high rates of criminal activity. Civil rights, equality of education, opportunity and income will probably alleviate most of the gun violence in America. Countries with more homogenous populations don’t seem to experience much social discord, leading to a marginalized portion of their society. Look at how well England seems to have integrated racially, and look at their crime rates.
So better attention to education and opportunity, civil rights and such, will address the underlying issues, as opposed to slapping an ineffective “gun control” bandage on unaddressed issues.
As far as my introduction of school shootings, yes; I probably should not have introduced it. However, I wasn’t the one tossing about statements concerning how violent America is. School shootings are indeed tragic, and disturbingly more frequent. Nonetheless, overall school violence is down again this year, continuing a several year trend. It is widely held (yet unproven) that these kids crave attention more than anything else, and the media is all-too-willing to give it to them, in the guise of news. Hey, it worked for one distraught kid in one place, so it’ll work for another in another.
So maybe, just maybe if we gave these mass shooters much less media attention, there might be less incentive for a glory hungry nut-job to grab some headlines for himself with a shooting spree.
But before you post again, do us all a favor: perform a search of Great Debates using the keyword gun control, and set your time parameters to “any date”. Then read them. None of this is new territory.
Some questions and thoughts regarding that last post:
How effective can a five minute background check be? Is ID scrutinised? Are fingerprints taken? It sounds to me like a purely cosmetic measure, which will only prevent the brainless from buying guns privately. That’s a good step, but ideally clever criminals should also be prevented from buying guns. (How naive. We can never stop clever criminals from getting guns. So why should we try?)
Suicide is rarely a crime of opportunity, and if you’ve decided to do away with yourself, you’ll find a way. So I wouldn’t expect there to be a correlation between suicide rates and gun ownership.
Of course it’s bad to give attention to kids who have killed. It was also a pretty bad idea to give those kids guns.
It’s no surprise to find that most (gun) homicides occur among criminals. And of course, reducing crime rates is a long-term social endeavour with no easy answers. But is it crazy to suggest restricting the availability of guns to the criminals, by restricting the overall availability of guns, as a means of reducing the wherewithall for e.g. drive by shootings?
And finally: you boldly make the claim that America has lower levels of gun violence than countries with a similar level of gun ownership, and then say that it’s not right to compare the USA’s crime rates to e.g Japan and Britain, because they don’t have those levels of gun ownership. Given that this thread is about gun control, and predicated upon a “wet dream” of a total ban on private guns, I think it’s quite germane to consider countries with lower rates of gun ownership as a comparison.
ExTank thank you for the reasoned response. I apologize for misinterpreting your first post here; after being repeatedly and foully attacked for subscribing to reason I was somewhat frustrated and mistook your post for some of the arguments from religion that were submerging me earlier. I still don’t agree with everything you say, but I am very happy that we can discuss this.
I can see your point of prevention as illustrated by Hitler’s reluctance to attack Switzerland. Earlier in the thread, I brought up the example of Switzerland as a country where gun ownership is high, but gun violence is almost non-existent. I said, “There are plenty of guns in Switzerland, but there is no emphasis on guns as anything more than something you keep locked away for emergencies, and you don’t see anywhere near the same problems.” Rubber Entropy then said, “in both the case of Switzerland today, and Australia then, the weapons were/are in the hands of trained individuals, under strict regulations and not really for any form of civilian use.”
This concept seems to make far more sense than the armed populace the OP referred to, and that many on this board seem to be arguing for.
The other problem is that I don’t think the Hitler illustration is applicable to internal affairs, so I still maintain that an armed populace is primarily a recipe for civil war rather than a means to overthrow a tyrant.
The situation here is definitely complex. amrussel has raised a few issues with your analyses, but I want to take a look at some specific examples. You mention the high suicide rates of Norway and Japan, which can be argued are caused by lifestyle as opposed to a predisposition towards or opportunity for violence. So on the whole I would think that suicide rate per se is not the most reliable indicator of gun violence, and it would probably be less misleading if such statistics were published separately.
But gun violence in the US, if we discount suicides, is still higher than other developed nations. I understand your point that gun violence in the US is actually comparable to some countries with similar rates of firearm ownership (which countries though? Switzerland pops back to mind), but that does not seem to me a reason for arguably the most advanced nation in the world to tolerate such rates, anymore than a nation would tolerate e.g., tubercolosis. The item that leaps to mind after reading your examination of statistics is: firearm ownership seems to increase the incidence of gun violence (excluding suicides). This is probably the best argument that can be made against firearm ownership altogether, and since the US is not about to be invaded by another power, the only other argument that stands up is "self-defence–which has been debated already (the self-defence argument is a vicious circle: the more guns in circulation, the greater the need for everyone to be “protected”).
It’s an interesting hypothesis, but probably requires more examination. I don’t think England can be considered a success of racial integration, although I don’t have English crime rates at hand. There are deep underlying problems of class and race in England, as the Oldham riots in recent days illustrated.
I agree whole-heartedly with your comments on education and opportunity; but efficient gun control laws (here I consider everything from effective control to outright banning) will probably decrease the gun violence rates dramatically. It’s a question of implementing effective laws, and some posters have pointed out the mess of confusing gun laws that already exist.
On school shootings:
I am sure attention craving is an important aspect of such behaviour, but far from the only one. I do not believe there is any way to rationalize school shootings by motive; I do not have data that show such incidents are decreasing or increasing, but the answer, as amrussel pointed out, is simple: no guns, no school shootings–seems to work for many other countries.
Again, I don’t think a desire to be in the eye of the media is the only driving force at work here. On page 2 or 3 of this thread I threw around some ideas for discussion on exactly what may cause these incidents of violence. That discussion, thanks to a few knee-jerk responses, did not go as far as I would have liked.
News Media attention is not such a bad thing, because it frequently serves to highlight problems in a society. If a society is producing an inordinate number of attention-starved people, that particular problem can be addressed once it is brought to the attention of enough people. So I’m not sure I buy the “blame the news media” argument, although I still suspect that the glorification of violence and guns in other media (e.g. films or video games) may have something to do with this matter–perhaps by desensitizing the audience to such violence?
I take your moderate response to my latest postings as a tacit acceptance of my apology to you, for which I am very grateful. I only wish that I was as mellow on rotgut whiskey as you are after a few glasses of good Greek wine!
As for the state of your testicles, I’d rather not go there, if that’s okay with you.
On the other hand, I do have a few stray comments/criticisms of your argument that I would like to share…
1) Regarding your “tongue-in-cheek” cost/benefit analysis, we’ve already seen many serious arguments that take the the same route. Even earlier in this thread we were involved in an argument concerning the difference between firearms and butter knives. It’s a common tactic among “gun-nuts” to use such arguments in all seriousness, which is why I didn’t realize you were joking… But of course, such arguments in favor of liberal gun laws are a joke, as you so astutely point out. (By the way, you can refer to me as an “anti-gun freak” if you like.) 2)
This implies that Abe’s original observation still stands – that it is in fact completely legal for US citizens to sell firearms to ex-cons. A seller isn’t required to do a background check and thus can’t know if the person to whom he is selling the weapon has a criminal record or not. Point of fact, you and Abe actually agree that this is not a good thing, and think that it should be illegal. So I don’t understand your original objection.
Now, riddle me this, if you will – what is the NRA’s stance on the regulation of private firearms sales? Do they also support tighter legislation?
3) M’lady.
4)
Granted I’m no scholar on WWII, but are you actually suggesting here that Hitler decided to take Russia instead of Switzerland because he was afraid of the Swiss militia? Man, you would have to live over here for a while to really understand how ludicrous that sounds. I’d question the advice of any military leader who argued that Russia would be easier to conquer than Switzerland. I mean, what were the Swiss gonna do – yodel at the Nazis? They run around in lederhosen and make cuckoo clocks, for God’s sake.
In other words – back up this assertion with a cite or reference, please.
5)
No tyrant wannabe has tried to take over stable democracies here in Europe, either, despite strict gun legislation. I still don’t think your argument holds water. In fact, that whole line of reasoning should be abandoned by advocates of liberal gun laws in my opinion. It’s one of the weakest links in the chain of their argumentation.
"I use the same reasoning Hitler’s Field Marshalls used when ol’ Adolf was contemplating his next move after his famous stroll through the boulevards of Paris. He cast his eyes greedily upon Switzerland, with it’s rather famous (and admirable, IMO) republican-based citizen-militia. The military leadership basically told him the raw numbers: “several million armed citizens, in unfavorable terrain. Forget about it; look to Russia instead. Easier pickings.” end quote.
By that logic Hitler would also have invaded Sweden and Portugal. He didn’t do so for the same reason he didn’t invade Switzerland, these countries posed no threat to him and did not participate in the defeat and humiliation of Germany in 1918. Russia on the other hand, via communism, posed the greatest threat to National Socialist ideology. Russia had already demonstrated such by arming the Spanish Republicans against Franco’s Hitler supported Nationalists. Russia posed such a threat to Hitler that he was forced to sign a non-aggression pact with Stalin before invading Poland. No, that argument is frankly arrant nonsense.
However, in the spirit of informed debate;
I am surprised that no-one in the pro-gun camp has mentioned Finland. Here is a little country which via an extremely small standing army plus a volunteer militia, defeated and humiliated the great Red Army not once, but twice. Inflicting in bloody hand-to-hand forest fighting, reciprocal casualty rates that belong in a Rambo movie.
My quote about Hitler’s military leadership was seriously condensed and paraphrased from one or several of the Nuremburg defendants, attributed to Field Marshall Erwin Rommel’s professional journal IIRC, confiscated by the Nazi’s upon his death in '44. But the gist is essentially accurate.
Switzerland’s terrain was probably the major attributing factor, not conducive to the Blitzkreig-type war of rapid conquest. Russia, on the other hand, had weak garrison forces holding the Urals, and was heavily committed out east against Japan. So, prima facie, their reasoning wasn’t entirely unsound: a quick thrust across the Urals, to take and hold the passes, then down through the Steppes of Russia to Moscow. But the German High Command had to deal with Hitler, who redirected his forces north to Leningrad and south to the Caspian regions, and they all seriously underestimated the ability of Stalin to redirect and motivate his forces (primariyl using brutal and questionable political tactics against his military leadership). Combined with an early and brutal winter and a logistical system drawn by horses…
As to private citizens: it is illegal for a private citizen to knowingly sell to a felon. The simple question “are you a felon?” to a prospective buyer lets most private gun sellers of the hook, legally. This is absurd. Of course, anyone interested in buying a gun will answer “No”, regardless of their actual status. But the seller is now, legally, in the clear of any wrongdoing. AS I said, absurd.
It’s the investigation and proving of such intent (to knowingly sell to a felon) that’s a bear, which is why the BATF has redirected it’s investigations into licensed gun stores that have a suspiciously high number of firearms originating from their premises turning up in crime scenes.
Point #5: my reasoning is “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. There’s no effective way that I can think of to positively prove that armed Americans have prevented a tyrannical takeover of America. There’s no way to prove that is hasn’t. I listed for your benefit (and ask yourself this: why would I help you make your argument?) some other reasons why no prospective tyrant has tried to take over America: basically, “infertile soil”. Or, social conditions not conducive to such an attempt. Which is back to the OP.
However, (and this bring’s Abe’s point about Switzerland’s Militia into the fray) the Swiss Militia (Switzerland has a very small standing Army, basically a cadre force) are inducted into their military for basic training, and a short period of service, before discharge into what is effectively the equivalent of our U.S. National Guard; what we call “weekend warriors”. There to be called up in the event of a national emergency or war.
Now, in America, we have a much larger standing military, pretty much negating the utility of any citizen militia. But this is not to say that this state of affair will continue forever. There has already been a signifigant pruning of our armed forces, and possibly more to continue. The “two front war” doctrine has been all but abandoned, and our military looks to be conforming itself to a light infantry, rapidly deployable force. Only our Navy and Air Force remain as primary power projectors, and the Big-Carrier fleet doctrine is also under serious scrutiny. There may very well be a need, in the not-too-distant future, for America to again rely on something akin to the Swiss model (and I am a huge advocate of citizen republicanism!) of small Army/large citizen militia.
But even negating all of the above have you ever seen an area in America that’s been devestated by a hurricane? Everyday people, bereft of food, water, shelter and law enforcement, arm themselves at the behest of law enforcement and state officials, to safeguard their communities and themselves until such time as such services are restored. These are not lynch mobs decending upon random strangers; or neighbors shooting at each other in the night. Just armed citizens doing their civic duty, for themselves and their community.
Their does seem to be a tendency among foreigners to look at any American gun owner as some kind of criminally-minded nut-job. Nothing could be further than the truth. Millions of citizens, almost half of our population, safely and lawfully keep and bear arms, and never use them for anything other than hunting or recreational shooting.
But we do seem to have a signifigantly larger criminal population, and a much more violent culture. That easy access to arms facilitates the acts of those with violent tendencies is not in dispute, by myself or the NRA. It’s the curative action that’s in dispute. One side advocates better control over firearms, the other, over criminals (stiffer penalties/longer sentences). Both, IMHO, are right and wrong to certain degree. Draconian penalties will only get you so far (point of diminishing returns), and better control will not necessarily alleviate the impetus to seek a life of crime as a viable alternative to honest employment.
And as I pointed out above, historically in the USA, sweeping bans on commodities have had limited effectiveness in controlling such commodities, and spawn further criminal enterprises to supply the banned commodities to those who still seek them out. It’s like a snake chasing its tail. The solution is to break the cycle by providing abundant, equal opportunity, with an effective social safety net, for all citizens, while maintaining stiff (if not harsh) penalties for law breakers, and a penal system geared towards separating those who can be rehabilitated from those who cannot or will not. Achieve this and control over the commodity becomes a non-issue.
Our FBI estimates that approx. 60% of the firearms falling into the criminal’s hands are stolen from households, usually on “cold burglaries” (in which the occupant is not at home). A common-sense initiative among gun owners on sensible storage (gun safes and such) would alleviate about half of the gun-supply problem, at least for a while, w/o having to have inordinately intrusive legislation (which bumps up against our 4th Amendment) on mandatory storage. As a gun owner, I can tell you that trigger locks only prevent against casual misuse; they are not serious deterrants to thieves, as they can be removed quite simply with some common, basic tools.
The “it’s our right” argument is not unreasonable, at least not to an American; trying to explain it to a foreigner is not worthless, but sometimes impossible. The media use it to justify free speech; civil libertarians as well use it to justify defense against harsh laws passed as knee-jerk reactions by politicians to “do something!”, like New York’s law that a person’s car was forfeit for failing a roadside breathalyzer test, or refusal to take one at a random stop. This has serious 4th Amendment implications against unreasonable search and siezure, and the right to due process. The recent Rampart Heights Scandal is anther prime example of bad law being abused.
Kimstu: The ACLU’s “Collective Right” position is, and has been for a while, a receding view. Read Cecil’s commentary on “What does ‘the right to bear arms’ really mean?” here.. The article he cites, from the Yale Law Journal, is Prof. Sanford Levinson’s The Embarassing Second Amendment, available for reading here. Take note of the first paragraph (not the introduction, but the opening of clause of his article).
Rubber Entropy: Thanks for the info on Finland. One of the fiction writers I like also admiringly mentions that the Finns are some seriously tough, independent-minded bastards when aroused. I did hear an article on NPR back in early March on the “Yoiks” (sp?), or cants and canters, of Finland. Way cool. Any Finlanders or people with ready access to European folk music on the SDMB should feel free to e-mail me regarding transacting music CDs.
As to why Hitler did or didn’t go this-way-or-that, remember that Switzerland was (and still is) quite rich, being an international banking center and repository. I am unaware of Portugal’s or Sweden’s economic status as of WW II (or even today, for that matter), but I’m willing to bet that they simply didn’t represent the same potentially rich pickings of Switzerland. Mother Russia was the next easily accessible country conducive to swift armored warfare. Your point about Russia’s political implications on National Socialism, and Hitler’s desire for revenge against the signatories at Versaille, is valid, and one I neglected to think through, or properly weigh.
But I stand by my assertion that Switzerland’s unfavorable terrain and a numerous, well trained citizen militia gave Hitler’s Field Marshall’s pause to reconsider.
If Germany had taken Russia, and had time to consolidate its acquisitions (as well as truly putting Germany’y economy on a wartime basis), then maybe he, or his successor, could have devoted adequate resources to conquering Switzerland. Of course, such preparations may have been obvious enough for other countries and individuals to remove their valuables from Switzerland, making it less desirable.
It still would’ve been a bloody stone bitch.
*The Prince * Nicolo Machiavelli
Truer words were never spoken. On a side note, I was attempting to dig around for the origins of the quote I paraphrased to Svinlesha. The actual quote seems to be:
I found the original quote in a book review, but it is unattributed. I’ll look up the book and see what it says in detail.
While digging about, I also ran across a reference that said Germany didn’t invade Switzerland for fear that the Swiss would destroy the tunnels through their mountains, thus cutting off a vital transportation link with its ally, Italy. While also unattributed, it also makes enough sense that I could accept that reasoning as well.
A few more thoughts on Hitler invading Switzerland - and other stuff.
I am still at a loss as to why he would bother. Switzerland’s wealth was, and is, largely monetary. While individual Nazis may have found the prospect of that wealth attractive, in the conditions prevailing at the time money, even gold, was of limited usefullness compared to steel, oil, tungsten, phosphates and other strategic necessities of war. By 1944 Junkers JU88 aircraft were using pure platinum contact-breaker points due to the non-availability of tungsten.
While it could be argued that money can buy these things, in practice potential suppliers were either already at war with Hitler or politically aligned with Britain and France, most notably the USA.
As to Hitlers ability to invade Switzerland should he choose. The terrain in Austria is not unlike Switzerland and Hitler had in the Austrians, some of the best mountain troops in the world.
The Swiss munitions industry would have been bombed to rubble in days as they had no airforce or effective anti-aircraft defence. With no logistical support or supply line, the Swiss would have been overrun fairly quickly.
I have no doubt that due to the terrain Nazi casualties would have been high, or that the Swiss would have then put up a fierce and prolonged guerrilla resistance that would have been a permanent pain to Hitler, but this would have happened anyway, as it did in France, Belgium, Norway, Holland, Yugoslavia and any country where the flame of freedom still burned.
An examination of the tactics of guerilla warfare quickly shows that the problem is rarely lack of arms, these are usually supplied rapidly from the outside and large quantities are not required.
The problems are in maintaining security, and building small cohesive fighting units with a functioning chain of command. It was the VC chain of command and ‘cell’ unit structure that we could not counter in Vietnam. Most of the damage done by the VC (as opposed to the NVA), was done by units of twenty or less.
In summary, large numbers of armed individuals are not, and never have been, a threat to an aggressor. If the regular army cannot hold back the enemy then it becomes a guerrilla war and here it is the small highly trained, dedicated unit that is damn near impossible to defeat, I know, I was one of the dumb bastards who played a small part in trying.
Finally you mentioned in an earlier post that the Romans were armed and free. If you mean civilians then you are largely in error.
In the Republican period only those who could afford to arm themselves could serve in the army, at this point you are right. Unfortunately this system ended after the battle of Arausio where a much smaller force of germanic tribes annihilated 80,000 privately armed Romans.
After Arausio the Consul Gius Marius quickly realised that Rome was heading for a serious ‘lickin’ and enlisted the capiti censi (head count - guy in the street) for the first time, and had to arm him from Rome’s treasury.
From then on the average Roman legionary did not retain his weapons and equipment as a civilian, he simply couldn’t afford to. He essentially ‘hired’ his equipment on enlistment, paying with deductions from his ‘stips’ or pay. On discharge he sold his gear back to the Legion for the next guy.
Hmmmm…well. Much better than the standard sorts of arguments I’ve met regarding gun-control, I must admit, Tank. Certainly is nice not to have to argue that I’m not totalitarian, or that there is a difference between a gun and butter knife, for once…
Okay, regarding Switzerland: I can imagine that the terrain, the position of the country vis-a-vis Italy, the need for an independent international financer, and a number of other factors played into the Nazi’s decision not to attack the country. Perhaps they felt as well that the Swiss were de facto allies who would eventually come around after the Germans had taken the rest of Europe. Who knows?
But even granting that fear of the Swiss militia was a significant contributing factor in Third Reich’s decision not to invade her, the pattern of gun ownership in Switzerland is significantly different from that of the States. Firearms and firearm ownership are regulated there in a way that would make the standard American gun-nut howl (I’m basing this statement on an earlier post in this thread):
Again, this point is related to the “pro-gun” argument that an armed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny, both from within and from without. I still find this particular argument lacking, because a smart general is going to be more worried about a well-equipped standing army than an ill-equipped, ill-trained militia.
Regarding the private sale of firearms:
Kazowie. That’s the word I was looking for…“knowingly.” Compare to your earlier statement:
Again, as I pointed out earlier, Abe’s original contention:
is correct.
I don’t understand why “knowing” if a postential customer is a felon or not makes a difference. It should be illegal, period, IMHO. Anyway, you haven’t answered my question regarding the NRA. What is their stance on the issue?
Finally, regarding point 5 again:
I assume that you “help my argument” because you’re interested in uncovering the truth, rather than merely arguing a point. That’s what we have in common.
Perhaps that is correct, and in that case, perhaps one would need to rework an assumed strict gun legislation when and if it occurred. I don’t see the above as a particularly strong argument for the situation in the US as it stands now, however, which is what we are discussing.
At the risk of revealing my ignorance yet again, what do you mean by “citizen republicanism,” and is it related to the issue of gun control?
I’ve run out of time but feel I’d like to address this section of your post as well. It’s all of piece; if I understand you correctly, you’re arguing that gun ownership has a positive social value as well. To a certain extent, I agree. You might be surprised, in fact, to learn how many people here in Sweden also own guns, and use them for recreational purposes. Moose hunting is hugely popular over here, especially out in the country. And I’m well aware that most Americans who own guns are decent, law-abiding citizens. That’s not the problem, unfortunately. The problem, as you point out yourself a bit further down, is criminality. Well, okay, it’s part of the problem.
Because I don’t have enough time, I’ll just try to summerize my position as best I can. As I see it, the real problem with free access to firearms lies in their (oh brother, here goes) synergic potentiality. That is to say, they always make a bad situation much, much worse. A pissed off husband, or wife, with a shotgun is a lot worse than a pissed off husband, or wife, with a baseball bat. I frustated high-school kid with a semi-automatic is much, much worse than a frustrated high-school kid with a cherry bomb. A thief with a handgun is much more dangerous than one with a knife.
So the argument that a society needs to be armed to protect itself from it’s own armed criminal element is to me a circular one, since the laws that allow the citizenry to arm themselves are precisely those laws that allow the bad guys to get their guns in the first place.
Your contention about the problem of a black market is also important, and needs to be addressed, but I don’t have time. One quick observation: stricter gun control laws in Europe have not led to a burgeoning black market in illegal firearms.
I’m not sure how well I’ve addressed your last post, Tank, but, see, now I’m really, really late for work. I blame you.
Er, Svinlesha I did NOT post what you quote me as saying in your last post! It was Cumber! I am not knowledgeable enough to discuss the topic of obtaining guns in the US. Indeed, it may take me years just to understand the web of laws involved.
Not to steal ExTank’s thunder, but I’ll answer in a limited way.
**
[/QUOTE]
Again, as I pointed out earlier, Abe’s original contention:
is correct.**
If you purchase a firearm for someone who is not legally able to purchase one themselves, you are guilty of a strawman purchase and that penalty is a minimum 5 years in jail and $10, 000 fine (IIRC.) If that person is a convicted felon, then you can also be prosecuted for aiding and abetting a felon, whether or not he commits a crime with that firearm.
**
I don’t understand why “knowing” if a postential customer is a felon or not makes a difference. It should be illegal, period, IMHO. Anyway, you haven’t answered my question regarding the NRA. What is their stance on the issue?**
From what I’ve read and heard, the NRA supports the above law, I’m sure ExTank probably has an official cite.
It’s obviously from a right wing-source, but I tried to include the part that spends it’s time talking about the laws in Switzerland, not the conclusions it draws from them. Unless someone can show where the facts themselves are false, I think it is the best thumbnail description I have seen.
Abe:
Sorry, Abe, I meant Cumber – I mean, sorry, Cumber, I meant – no, wait, I mean…I don’t know what I mean. But you know what I mean. Anyway, Tank started it. BF:
The “strawman” law is not at issue here. The point in dispute is not about procurement of a weapon for someone who cannot legally purchase one, it is about the ability of gun owners to privately sell firearms to ex-cons without having to go through the hassle of a background check. Even ExTank agrees that private sales should be more carefully regulated. (In an earlier post, Fenris stated that laws preventing such private sales may violate the right to free assembly, but he never returned to comment on it when I questioned him. That is the only argument I’ve heard thus far that even vaguely supports the current state of affairs in the US regarding this issue.) Freedom:
I curse thee, I curse thee, and I curse thee. And my browser curses thee as well. I must have a dozen pages up right now trying to make heads or tales of your reference. But, it would appear as if you are at least partially right. (You know it hurt me to write that!) I must admit that I was probably mistaken above, when I wrote that the Swiss have gun laws that would “make the standard American gun-nut howl.” It appears, at any rate, that the Swiss have very lax gun regulations (although I keep finding conflicting information regarding the issue. The fact is, I tend at the moment to lend most weight to the “gun-nut” side, because the “lib’rals” seem to be seriously floundering around this question).
But let’s step back and see why we’re discussing Switzerland in the first place. What do the Swiss gun regulations prove?[ul]
[li]Argument 1: An armed citizenry is the best protection from tyranny.[/li]
Still undecided, (arguably impossible to decide) but a weak argument from the pro-gun crowd in my opinion. We have no way of knowing if there has ever been an internal threat to Swiss democracy that failed due to the deterrent effect of its well-armed population. But we do have lots of less-well-armed countries in Europe that have not suffered a military takeover, despite strict firearm regulation.
With regard to an external threat, there is little support for the supposition that the Swiss militia was a significant factor in deterring a German invasion during WWII. There were a lot of other factors involved as well, and most of them seem to have been more important. If Switzerland had a standing army instead of a citizens’ militia, wouldn’t that also have given Hitler pause?
(While I’m at this, I’d just like to inform Tank that his quote:
is in fact taken from the page Freedom links to, and is actually attributed to a Swiss “governmental publication.”)
Historically, as has been pointed out already here a few times, there are plenty of examples of a tyrant being overthrown by an unarmed populace, and a even a few examples of a heavily armed populace ruled by a tyrant.
Finally, if we return to your original argument about the linkage between gun laws and a free society in general (you may remember that I was forced to give you the smackdown regarding that earlier, and that you still have yet to recant), I believe you would certainly find Switzerland to be an extemely restrictive society compared to the US. If you are arguing that more access to firearms leads less majority tyranny, then I think the Swiss example strongly disproves your point.
[li]Argument 2: Levels of gun ownership in a population are not correlated with rates of violent crime.[/li]
Switzerland is cited in this line of reasoning to support the contention that lots of guns don’t necessarily mean lots of violence, but here’s where my sources differ radically. According to Freedom’s site, there is very little, almost no, firearms regulation in Switzerland. Arguments to the contrary, the site claims, are mythological. Unfortunately, other sites say the exact opposite: that gun ownership in Switzerland is highly regulated, and that arguments to the contrary are mythological. But these latter sites are a bit confusing, because they admit at the same time that despite such regulations, Switzerland has a very high incidence of handgun ownership. Dig this:
I don’t know what a “must issue” basis is, and I can’t see how the quote above jives with the site’s previous contention that Switzerland has strict gun regulations. The site then goes on to claim that “Switzerland has the second highest handgun ownership and handgun murder rate in the industrialized world,” (after the US, of course), but this statistic is hard to set into context without being able to compare it to the total number of violent crimes committed. In other words, in a country full of handguns, there will likely be a lot of “handgun murders,” but that might not be significant if the total number of murders is lower than a country with few or no hand guns, if you see what I mean.
Another confusing site makes similar claims, stating that in Switzerland “only 32 percent of the general population own guns,” whereas in American the figure is “49%” – ignoring the difference between handguns, long guns, and military weapons. It then goes on to make the same claim that in actuality, Switzerland has “much stricter gun control laws,” but gives no examples.
Perhaps it is instructive to review some of the conclusions that Freedom didn’t quote from his own linked source:
Hmmm…then where did all these other sites get their statistical info?
In what sense is “gun ownership the most important part?”
Not true. While there may be significantly less crime in Switzerland than in, for example, the US, there is significantly more gun crime in Switzerland than in, say, Sweden. See the link I posted above for comparisons of handgun murders: the rate is 1.42 murders per 100,000 in Switzerland, while in Sweden the rate is .42. (In Japan, the rate is .05, according to this source.) Anyway, do you, Freedom, honestly think that in the “cultural context” of the US, liberal ownership of guns is a good idea? If that’s the case, your own link argues against you:
The site then goes on to state that unfortunately, even though this position actually makes sense, it is impossible to implement gun control legislation in the US because the bad guys would end up with all the guns. The argument that Americans aren’t “responsible enough” to own guns is in fact a tacit admission that, in reality, the US needs more stringent gun control legislation. In a society prone to violence, access to guns can only mean an extra helping of violence. Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp?[/ul]
I’m not arguing that more restrictive gun-ownership policies in the States will, by themselves, necessarily reduce the crime rate. I do think that if implemented intelligently, they can eventually reduce the amount of gun violence over there, and make it a safer place to live, work, and raise a family. There will still always be risks, because of course risk is unavoidable in life; but why go swimming a sea of sharks, when you can swim in a sea of dolphins instead?
This thread has actually reached a point where rational arguments are coming from both sides, impressive by gun-control debate standards.
As I have said before, I am an Australian firearms owner who is in favor of sensible gun control. I largely supported the recent legislation in Australia, particularly the removal of military weapons and the strict requirements for storage. I think it went a little too far in not differentiating between a ‘Rapid Fire’ shotgun and a simple pump-action one, but in general I feel that society demanded the changes and in a democratic country that made it a done deal.
It is worth mentioning that at no time during the debate was self-defence or even national defence raised as an issue. It was sporting, recreational, and agricultural uses that mattered over here in spite of the pathetic SSAA and NRA attempts to say otherwise. Even if self-defence had been an issue it would relate mainly to handguns and there were no new regulations for them, except secure storage requirements that most owners were meeting or exceeding anyway. During the debate the rantings of the SSAA were a serious factor in hardening public opinion against us.
So, why do I largely support legislation that my American compatriots would say restricted my rights ?
Allow me to ramble on a bit here please;
When I was 14 years old I belonged to the Army Cadet Corps, I was trained on the Lee Enfield MkIV, initially in a modified .22 version and then the .303, and I WAS ALLOWED TO KEEP IT AT HOME !! Yes that’s right, a 14yo kid was not only allowed to have a military rifle, the Government actually gave him one.
Just about every kid I knew was raised with firearms of one sort or another. After the Cadet Corps came the Army Reserves (7.62mm Belgian FN), and then the Army. The model here was similar to the Swiss one, but without the compulsion. As I have mentioned in an earlier post it was the military themselves who ended the system as it no longer met the needs of modern warfare.
The point I am making is that Australian society had a much more liberal attitude to firearms ownership and yet firearms crime was virtually non-existant.
Certainly in this country, at that time, lots of guns did not mean lots of gun-crime.
So what changed ? I wish I knew, but it is an undeniable fact that crime rates here and in most places are much higher than they were then, and drugs are probably the answer to the what changed ? question. The bottom line is that I do not live in the world that the 14yo with the Lee Enfield did, I live in a society where respect, discipline, and responsibility are not what they once were, where an animal with an SKS slaughtered 35 innocent vacationers because he felt life had given him a raw deal, where a desperate addict will likely use a gun if he has access to one. The USA is ahead of us in this respect but we and most other developed countries are catching up fast.
I do not feel that society needs to be protected from me or any responsible gun owner, I do feel that society needs protection from elements of itself that do not identify with the society to which they belong.
I wish that the legislation was not necessary, but it is a sad fact that times have changed for the worse and if we gun owners don’t acknowlege this we will face hardened public opinion and more and more restrictive legislation. Last time I looked the USA was a democracy, and if the majority there want to take away your guns you will lose them, or you will render nonsense the democracy that the NRA says those guns are required to defend.
I believe that The SSAA and the NRA would be better served promoting self regulation supported by sensible legislation than prattling on about national defence and tyrants. I enjoy my firearms and want to continue to do so, I really don’t think they are helping me.
