Tell me gun control advocates: how can a dictator be stopped without arms?

Great Debates
81

Point the first: Such mothers would be more likely to be suffering from emotional duress. I would be hesitant to base any laws on emotional outbursts.

Point the second: Any sensible restriction of access to firearms is, by virtue of definition, bound to not be “stupid, pointless, worthless”. I suggest you read your questions a bit more carefully before you ask 'em, as this one comes up with a big, fat “Duh” :slight_smile:

Point the third: Please explain to me how firearm registration or gun locks would have prevented Columbine.

82

Quote: Mr Darryl Williams - Attorney General, Commonwealth of Australia, letter to Mr C. Heston NRA 27 March 2000

“There are many things that Australia can learn from the United States. How to manage firearm ownership is not one of them. The 54 firearm-related homicides in Australia in 1998 equate to a rate of only 0.28 per 100,000 people. This compares with to a rate of 4 per 100,000 in the United States.”

Australians and the USA have common frontier histories, and so many cultural similarities that Australians are often mistaken for Americans when travelling overseas. There is USN carrier battle group here at the moment, and the memorials to US servicemen who died defending this country are never without fresh flowers 60 years on. Australian and American troops fought side by side in WWII, and Australia was America’s only ally in Vietnam, never withdrawing that support even at the expense of Australian lives. My own father was at Midway as a young exchange officer to the USN and during my tour in Vietnam we were ultimately under US military command.

Anyone representing Australian criticism of US gun laws as some form of anti-democratic or anti-American sentiment needs a basic history lesson.

I am not unfamiliar with the USA and its culture, I lived there for almost three years and served alongside Americans in the military. In most respects you will find Australians and Americans are of one mind, not least in our healthy distrust of our own politicians. But the simple facts are,

In the last year for which statistics are available (1998), 54 Australians lost their lives to gun homicides, while in the USA the number exceeded 13,000. Allowing for the population difference the gun homicide rate in the U.S. is about 15 times that of Australia. Firearms are the second highest cause of death in American men aged 14-25 (after car crashes), whereas here they don’t even make the top ten.

Q.E.D

83

“Firearms are the second highest cause of death in American men aged 14-25 (after car crashes), whereas here they don’t even make the top ten”. Incorrect

Firearm HOMICIDES don’t make the top 10, firearm SUICIDES do.

84

[Bob Costas]

And Spoofe tosses up an arcing, underhand softball to Sammy Sosa, who lofts it into deep, deep center. It’s still going back, folks! It’s way past Waverly Avenue, and it finally lands in Lake Michigan! Oh my, I’ve never seen a pitch as stupid as that one.

[/Bob Costas]

I mean, you are joking, right?

85

Rubber Entropy,

That was a great letter. As you can see from some of the responses you have gotten from your other posts, what you are running up against here are some very basic impulses of the American psyche. I think that if there was one thing that I could change about America, it would be our (to speak collectively here) assuredness that we know the one correct way to handle complex concepts like “freedom”, “rights”, and “democracy”, as well as problems like crime and drugs, and that there is nothing that we can learn from our breathren in other democratic countries.

86

ahhh… minty green…

I see that you sidestepped the question. Maybe if you close your eyes and cover your ears, the rest of us will start to think you actually addressed the point.

And you would do this by…

Unilaterally making decisions yourself on how the rest of the country should behave.
Pot calling kettle…

Pot calling kettle…

come back please…

87

I will do it (or, more precisely, make my very small contribution to it) by educating people and working through the political process. [Although the temptation to be a “benevolent” dictator can sometimes be pretty strong! ;)]

88

Since you apparently lack the simple ability to imagine a scenario that does not fit your preconceived bias, Freedom, I see it this way:
Eric: Hey Dylan, toss me the Tec-9!

Dylan: No can do, bro. That bastard at the gun show wouldn’t sell it to my pizza parlor buddy without a background check and instant registration. Pizza guy said he didn’t want to risk 10 years in prison for reselling it to me, since he would have had to register the gun in his name.

Eric: Shit! We’re letting the oppressors escape! And this damn handgun has a trigger lock on it! Did you steal my Dad’s keys so I can unlock it?

Dylan: No, man, I couldn’t find the right key! Besides, the guy at the gun shop couldn’t sell me more than 20 rounds of ammo anyway, since I couldn’t come up with a good excuse why I needed it!

Eric: Dammit, Klebold! That means we’re stuck with these pathetic pipebombs! And they’re not killing anyone! Even that little Jeremy’s Evil Twin twerp is laughing at us!

Dylan: O woe is me! Damn you, Sarah Brady, for enacting sensible gun control measures that prevented our ludicrously easy access to high-powered firearms!
By the way, the term “strawman” has now officially been invoked way too often in this thread.

89

As a non-American, there are several items in this argument that I find illogical.

What is it about guns that gets so many Americans excited? The number of deaths due to firearms in the US is nothing short of ridiculous. Isn’t it possible that efficient gun control just could be the solution to this ridiculous state of affairs, or do the hardcore pro-gun exponents fear that they will be powerless without their thunder?

Do the gun-toters enjoy seeing regular reports of school shooting incidents on the news?

Do the gun-toters feel satisfied that gun-point crimes in the US are more frequent than in any other developed (and probably developing too) nation in the world?

How exactly does the fact that so many guns are distributed among the populace help freedom in any way? Discounting the idiocy of the OP, what really are the benefits of guns as concerns freedom? It seems to me that guns play against freedom if anything by 1) removing equality and encouraging a system of force (might makes right) 2) running the risk of being shot at literally any time 3) giving considerable power to those who are obviously unfit to wield it (hoodlums, criminals, juveniles, etc.).

From my own experience (I lived in the US for a while) guns are nothing but trouble. I got into an argument with an idiot in a bar, he followed me out trying to pick a fight, and when I was about to get rid of him he said he had a gun and reached meaningfully inside his jacket. He ended up in hospital for that, but I was quite surprised at my response. I was so worried that he actually had a gun that I may have crippled him permanently, simply because I was afraid that he would actually pull out a gun and shoot me. When I searched his (rather inert) body for the gun, I found he didn’t have one. But the simple fear of being confronted with a gun in such a situation drove me to damage another person extremely seriously. Is this fear (that there are so many guns in circulation) part of the reason why so many in the US want ownership of a gun?

Or is it because it is a nice toy for men to play with? The gun is a predominantly male possession after all.

Is it a metaphor for manhood? Do notoriously pro-gun Holliwood movies reinforce this incorrect association?

Non-Americans have a really hard time understanding the pro-gun argument. In the absence of very coherent arguments in this thread to date, the comment I read that makes most sense is Czarcasm’s statement that guns are like a religion in the US. 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.

90

Originally posted by Abe *
** Isn’t it possible that efficient gun control just could be the solution to this ridiculous state of affairs,…*
IMHO “efficient gun control” just isn’t a possibility here, if by that phrase one means a big reduction in the number of guns. Becase of the 2nd Amendment and our existing gun culture, all our gun control is just nibbling at the edges. We have thousands and thousands of gun control laws, but as Abe obsered, you’d hardly know it.

**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. **
Great point. The example of Switzerlaond shows that the guns themselves aren’t necessarily the problem.

91

This may seem a bit off the subject, but stick with me a minute.

Quote from my earlier post,

"The US light aviation industry, which through Piper and Cessna once dominated the world market, was virtually destroyed in the 1960’s by no-fault liability litigation costs, and is only now beginning to re-emerge. How come gun manufacturers seem to be exempt from litigation?
The issue here was NOT one of faulty product, in fact it is the whole concept of ‘no-fault’ liability that I was referring to.

No-fault liability originated in the US legal system with cases like the Thalidomide drug deformity suit as follows;

1.Drug company carefully follows, and indeed exceeds, all procedures, trials, and test methods required by law or medical ethics.

2.Horrific side effects appear after years of use.

3.Court case ensues, public opinion dictates that someone must pay.

  1. NO FAULT can be found with defendant due to item 1 above.

  2. Jury decides that defendant, while not in any way found at fault, should still be liable since SOMEONE has to pay !

Now the aviation context’

Scenario No1 - Cessna 150 has 50deg of flap available, 10deg more than other similar types. In the event of failure of the one and only engine, 50deg of flap enables an adequately trained pilot to get safely down in a REALLY small field with a low rate of descent and low touchdown speed. Obviously 50deg of flap is a good thing and will save lives.

Scenario No2 - Pilot without sufficient experience or training on type carelessly selects 50deg of flap at low altitude on approach. Due to lack of experience he is not ready for the nose-up pitch change, airspeed drops, aircraft stalls/spins and pilot is reduced to 200lbs of taco beef.

Wait up ! I thought 50deg of flap was a GOOD thing ?

Yea but this guy got dead !

But it was his own fault, he didn’t know how to use it !

So what, the aircraft design didn’t stop him killing himself so the manufacturer must be at fault.

Court agrees because no-fault liability has an established case precedent. Bye Bye US light A/C industry (French and German builders rub hands with glee).

Substitute ‘safety catch’ for ‘50deg of flap’ and the no-fault liability seems to evaporate, Why ?

92

Switzerland IS an interesting case, and I’m not sure what it tells us ?

It is true that there are a lot of guns there. It is also true that these guns are military weapons.

However, they were issued to every healthy male during his compulsory military service (maybe hers too nowadays, I don’t know), and retained in their care,(not ownership) until retirement age.

These weapons are not for hunting or other civilian fun, they are there because Switzerland has virtually no standing army and relies entirely on its “National Guard”. Their keepers are trained to military standards and storage regulations are strict.

Until the 1950’s here in Australia we had a somewhat similar system of ‘Rifle Clubs’ where the weapons ammunition, and training were provided by the military to civilians volunteers who formed a ready pool of reserves with their weapons at home. These ‘Rifle Clubs’ were distinct from the Army Reserves who undertook compulsory military training and are like the National Guard in the USA. The ‘Rifle Clubs’ just taught how to shoot.

It was actually the Military themselves who ended the system. It worked ok in the Boer war, and WWI, and to a much lesser extent in WWII, but by Korea the problem was that warfare had changed. Simply being able to shoot just didn’t cut it any more, these untrained civilians were a dead liability to the smaller, more highly skilled military that modern war required.

I am not sure what if anything this tells us, but 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.

93

Abe

No, they just influence wacked out posts on the SD that claim the most ridiculous things you could ever imagine.

94

There’s one point that RubberEntropy pointed out that I think a lot of people missed.

“Firearms here are part of the fabric of rural life, and are considered a tool like a hammer or a screwdriver.”

Which is exactly what a significant number of gun owners in this country think. Any tool in the wrong hands can create damage, and a firearm is no different. Banning a tool used in everyday life just doesn’t make sense.

95

In answer to the question of the OP; just trip him…

sorry

96

See: http://frontpagemag.com/guestcolumnists/whelan05-22-01.htm

Some quotes:

97

SPOOFE and some others have mentioned a few times the “infringement of our rights” that those of us in the UK and Australia suffer due to not being allowed to freely purchase a gun.

So I’d like to ask him what he means by a “right”.

From where do such rights derive? The US would have us believe that they are inalienable, intrinsic and inborn - “natural” rights. That viewpoint is reflected in (I believe) the DOI. From this it is generally accepted that Governments don’t grant rights, they secure them. If you do accept this as axiomatic and you also accept that the right to arms is one of such “God-given” rights, then you can see SPOOFE’s point of view.

However I question (a) this view of “rights” and (b) whether the right to arms is so fundamental anyway. I fail to see how rights make any sense outside of the context of an authority to secure them. I also fail to see how in the absence of a higher power one can authorititively state what the axiomatic rights are anyway.

Rights in a country are merely a philisophical statement as to the populace’s priorities. Right now gun ownership in the US is given such priority. It is not, however, given any kind of priority in the UK or Oz.

This does not mean that our “rights” are “infringed”, nor does it mean that we are disadvantaged in some way. It merely speaks of a difference in philosophical intent on the part of our countries.

So you keep your precious guns if you want them, but do not believe that this in any way makes you superior and kindly do not patronise those of us who do not have the same obsessions.

Thank you.

pan

98

December,

you didn’t answer my earlier question: do you think the Pinochet years were good for the people of Chile?

When Chile’s military responded in 1973 to the clamor of the overwhelming majority of Chileans to save them from the chaos and violence, they didn’t stop at simply changing the cast of characters in the presidential palace.

[/quote]

That’s funny, I thought there’d just been an election, and that the violence was orchestrated by the military, backed by the CIA.

That’s funny, I thought the US had backed the coup. Oh, and which Socialist regimes did you have in mind?
It is true that civilised Europeans protested at the overthrow of a democratically elected Government, and the continuing torture and murder - were we wrong?

99

FoD: *The thing about the “legitimate need” is usually what gets me the most. I own a number of firearms - some I have what you might be generous enough to define as having a legitimate need for, but I also own some simply because I wanted them for one reason or another. *

Just to throw some more gasoline on the flames here :)… I’m intrigued by the question of whether a restriction such as Australia’s, requiring some kind of recognized “legitimate need” for gun ownership, would actually be unconstitutional here in the US. Most gun owners probably feel it would, but I’m not so sure. IANAn expert in constitutional law, of course, but it seems to me that the first clause of the 2nd Amendment* might well be interpreted as implying that gun ownership is justified not by people simply “wanting them for one reason or another” but by virtue of a legitimate need for them. We don’t necessarily have to interpret such a need so narrowly as to restrict gun ownership and use specifically to service in a “well regulated militia”, but I think there’s a strong case to be made for the viewpoint that the Second Amendment does not in fact support a right to own a gun just because you want to.

Mind you, I am not particularly opposed to gun owners’ (the sane, responsible, well regulated kind, at least) owing guns just because they want to; I merely doubt whether they are actually guaranteed the ability to do so by the Bill of Rights. Requiring would-be gun buyers to demonstrate some sort of “legitimate need” for a gun might well turn out to be a valid restriction of Second Amendment rights, not an unconstitutional infringement of them.

  • “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
100

It’s always struck me that not enough emphasis is given to the first half of the 2nd Amendment. Someone brought up the example of Switzerland, which clearly is a “well-regulated” militia - there’s a pretty wide gap between the situation there and the situation in the US. On a related note, in the first page of this thread it was pretty much agreed by all sides that the currently legally available arms would have no effect against a military dictatorship. Which I would say disproves the premise on which the 2nd Amendment is based. And that therefore there was no sufficient reason for the people to keep and bear arms.

But I suspect some would disagree. Would that be with proposition a) civilian weapons will not secure a free state, or proposition b)the second amendment is therefore proved false, and should be redrafted, if not scrapped?