# The Number One Reason Free People Should Be Armed Is... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 28, 2000, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388 "2000-01-28T05:35:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Zor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/848f3c/32.png) [@Zor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zor)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2000, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388/21 "2000-01-29T06:42:00Z")
Just to toss in a few things… Pro-gun arguments about Jews and Kosovo, Chechnya are irrelevant to the issue at hand. The United States government is not even remotely close to the Nazi, Serbian, or Russian government. Things change, and if we want to advance, we have to look at our old views and ask if they are reasonable today. This is not to say the banning guns is the magical solution, but it’s pretty clear that no restrictions at all is not a good thing. Furthermore, I often see arguments comparing gun related crime rates in different cities with different gun control laws. It is my opinion that all these arguments suffer from the same problem: they can’t reasonably isolate the variable to guns alone. Who knows if someone just smuggled in a couple trucks of guns into a city with tough gun control. Who knows if the city with less gun control just have less violent citizens. On other hand, if you try to compare Japan the US, you’ll see a big difference in gun related crimes. Such a comparison holds more weight because it is better at isolating the gun varibale. I for one believe that guns do need to be put under controlled. Banning guns (that’s a total ban, not control) may not be the best thing, but if forced to choose between that and complete freedom on gun ownership, I’d must rather see guns banned altogether. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Bredin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@John\_Bredin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Bredin)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2000, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388/22 "2000-01-28T19:11:00Z")
“Guns are useless. Obviously, the original purpose of the right to bear arms was to protect the citizenry from being under the thumb of the government with its federal army. Today’s army will not be kept at bay by mere guns.” I agree that if the federal government decided to declare war on the citizenry, a shotgun is of little use against a tank. I also believe that such an eventuality is exceedingly unlikely, since the army, FBI, police, etc. 1)grew up amongst the people and are recruited from amongst the people, 2)except for active-duty military personnel, live, play, worship, etc. daily amongst the people, and 3)have families and friends amongst the people. In other words, contrary to the rhetoric of militia types, “THE Government” is not some occupying force from somewhere else. But there’s another government-related reason for people to be able to arm themselves,and it’s both more subtle and potentially more insidious than a government gone mad. A person has to be able to defend themself against _criminals_ because law enforcement cannot be everywhere and cannot reasonably **guarantee** protection from crime. I am not making an emotional “crime is out of control and we can only rely on ourselves” argument. Most police officials work hard to protect the public, and feel a moral duty to do so. Many criminals ARE caught or even prevented from carrying their plans to fruition by diligent police work. But even an efficient and diligent law enforcement agency cannot be everywhere and cannot prevent a determined criminal. To make a concrete example: if someone broke into your house, and you immediately called 911, the operator immediately answered, the call went out to a police car within a minute, and the police unit arrived at your house as quickly as possible, the intruder could **still** stab you and be gone before the police arrived. The legally-enforcible protections of our Constitution are prohibitions and limits on what the government can do TO people. With a handful of very limited exceptions, the Bill of Rights is not, and was never envisioned to be, a prescription of what the government must do FOR people. I’m not spouting “Bill of No Rights” rhetoric here: the courts have ruled time and again that law enforcement agencies have no legally-enforceable Constitutional duty to protect citizens from crime. And I’m not questioning the correctness of that rule. If the courts recognized a right to reasonable police protection that was enforceable through a Section 1983 (civil rights) suit, every victim of a crime could sue the local police, and expensive expert witnesses would be needed to prove in each case that the police failure to prevent the crime was reasonable. Needless to say, it’s very hard to prove the reasonableness of an absence of action. The insidious part comes in because a police department can’t be sued for not protecting someone. While most police are honorable and diligent, if for some reason an individual law enforcement official or agency were to dislike or disfavor someone for whatever reason, and decided not to diligently protect them when they called in an emergency, there would be no legal recourse. In summary, for the right to life, liberty, and property to be meaningful, people must be able to defend themselves directly, without having to put ALL reliance in the police. And a right to self-defense means little without a corollary right to have a reasonably adequate means of doing so. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2000, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388/23 "2000-01-28T19:17:00Z")
Me too, Zor, and that was my point, George and Freedom. The ‘right to bear arms’, by making guns so easily available, seems to entail a lot of people in this country being on the receiving end of a bullet each year, through no fault of their own. What about the effect of this on _their_ right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? It’s a reality that the Second Amendment giveth rights on the one hand, and taketh rights away on the other. _At what point do we say that the rights we, as a people, lose are greater than what we gain by the Second Amendment?_ (I’m willing to assume for discussion that the right conferred by the amendment is an individual right.) I bring up guns in particular because (a) that’s the topic of this thread - not automobiles, machetes, etc., (b)(i) the comparison with automobiles is one of aples and oranges, (b)(ii) I’m for greater restriction on cars, and greater public spending on mass transit, precisely because of the annual death/injury toll on our highways, and have repeatedly made that clear on the SDMB, and © guns are many times more effective than other murder weapons. Gun types frequently advocate the notion that we should all walk around armed. The problem with this is that _most people just don’t want to_. Expecting all of us to make a significant change in our lifestyle for the benefit of a relative handful of gun advocates seems an exceptional demand, don’t you think? I think there are obvious ways to restrict gun ownership and use much more stringently than we do, _without interfering in the least with use of guns for hunting or self-defense_. But I think a total ban on guns would be an improvement over the current state of gun-related violence. ---
**Author:** ![techchick68](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea5d25/32.png) [@techchick68](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/techchick68)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2000, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388/24 "2000-01-28T19:21:00Z")
RTF, You said “Where’s the right of people to not be shot with guns?” If the current laws had any merit, we all have that right EXCEPT the moment someone enters my home with the intent to harm or rape me, at that moment the MF lost his right not to be shot. There is no particular reason anyone should be armed, IMO, but it sure beats the hell out of being defenseless against an attacker. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2000, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388/25 "2000-01-28T19:45:00Z")
Techchick, I agree that someone who breaks into your home has lost the right not to be shot. My point, though, was about the many “people in this country being on the receiving end of a bullet each year, through no fault of their own.” While they have a _legal_ right (of sorts) not to get shot, for a fairly large number of people, that right hasn’t amounted to much. Their rights have been violated in a major (and frequently permanent) way by the abundance of guns in our country. What I’m asking is, is this a reasonable cost of the right to bear arms? ---
**Author:** ![Freedomx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@Freedomx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedomx)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2000, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388/26 "2000-01-28T20:09:00Z")
I don’t even know where to begin. I don’t think there is any other topic out there with so many untruths floating around as truths. Ok, I 'm going to try and address as many points up there as I can. RTFirefly: Every law abiding citizen has a right not to be shot. I agree that it sucks when an innocent person gets shot. Unfortunately in the real world, people get hurt. The logic in taking away people’s right to defend themselves because a tiny percentage of people get hurt with firearms, is the same as saying we should all walk because of the deaths automobiles inflict on society. Can anyone tell me why we should look at accidental gun deaths any different than accidental automobile deaths? Or, in the immortal words of Archie Bunker, “Would you feel better if they had died falling out of windows?” Second… Your definition of a Right. The Second Amendment does not give me any rights. It only recognizes a right that already exists. To illustrate this, take away the first Amendment. (if it is possible to repeal the 2nd, it is possible to repeal the 1st) If the Constitution did not recognize the right to practice your own religion, would you lose that right? No. It is impossible to lose a Right. A Right can neither be taken or given. It can only be recognized or ignored. Far from losing your Rights, the government actually loses its legitamacy when it ignores the rights of it’s citizens. The total ban on guns… Who would obey this? I promise you that the criminals would not. You would only do two things. You would make it a lot safer for a criminal to rob people and you would make criminals out of a signifigant part of the population. People like me would stand still while the line of being a criminal was redrawn on the other side of us. I promise you that if you make outlaws out of 50 million people in this country, you will not make things better. Plus, if you think gun related violence is bad now, why do you think banning guns would make it any better? Look at Australia. They recently banned all guns and now they are griped by a violent increase in crime. ---
**Author:** ![Freedomx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@Freedomx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedomx)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2000, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388/27 "2000-01-28T20:14:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Their rights have been violated in a major (and frequently permanent) way by the abundance of guns in our country. That got posted while I was posting. The abundance of guns in this country has not violated ANYONE’S rights. Why is everyone so willing to shift the blame from the person to the object? It takes PEOPLE to make decisions and take actions. Guns are nothing more than a tool. ---
**Author:** ![Freedomx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@Freedomx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedomx)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2000, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388/28 "2000-01-28T20:25:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Freedom: the whole country has seen a steady decrease in violent crime since 1993, so I don’t think you can credit concealed carry laws. Have you heard of John Lott? If not, that may explain your confusion on crime statistics in relation to legal firearms ownership and concealed carry laws. Let me try and introduce him to you… These quotes are taken from an interview with John Lott called “Cold Comfort” > [@](#): > > Analyzing 18 years of data for more than 3,000 counties, Lott found that violent crime drops significantly when states switch from discretionary permit policies, which give local officials the authority to determine who may carry a gun, to “shall issue” or “right-to-carry” laws, which require that permits be granted to everyone who meets certain objective criteria. That conclusion, first set forth in a 1997 paper that Lott co-authored with David Mustard, now an economist at the University of Georgia, heartened defenders of gun ownership and dismayed their opponents. Arguing that “shall issue” laws are beneficial, while other gun laws are ineffective at best, Lott quickly became one of the most widely cited–and reviled–scholars in the gun control debate. I think these two quotes form Lott may be relevant here: > [@](#): > > John R. Lott Jr.: About six years ago, I was teaching a class dealing with crime issues at the University of Pennsylvania, and it dawned on me that my students would be interested in some papers on gun control. It forced me to look at the literature systematically to decide what papers to assign to the class. I was shocked by how poorly done the existing research on guns and crime was. > You had very small samples. By far the largest previous study on guns and crime had looked at just 170 cities within a single year, 1980. Most of the rest looked at, say, 24 counties or 24 cities within a single year. No one had tried to account for things like arrest rates or conviction rates or prison sentence lengths. And the studies were all very limited in the sense that they were purely cross-sectional, where you look at the crime rates across jurisdictions in one year, or [purely longitudinal], where you pick one city or one county and look at it over time. > It was basically because of that class that I saw the benefit to going out and trying to do it right. So I put together what I think is by far the largest study that’s ever been done on crime. The book has data on all 3,000-plus counties in the U.S. over an 18-year period. And simply having that large a data set allows you to account for hundreds of factors, thousands of factors, that you couldn’t have accounted for in those smaller data sets. And… > [@](#): > > There are different types of information, and they’re all pointing in the same direction. > After these laws are adopted, you see a drop in violent crime, and it continues over time as the percentage of the population with permits increases. If I look at neighboring counties on either side of a state border, when one state passes its right-to-carry law, I see a drop in violent crime in that county, but the other county, right across the state border, in a state without a right-to-carry law, sees an increase in its violent crime rate. You try to control for differences in the legal system, arrest and conviction rates, different types of laws, demographics, poverty, drug prices --all sorts of things. You look at something like that, and I think it’s pretty hard to come up with some other explanation. I think you’re seeing some criminals move [across the state line]. > You find the types of people who benefit the most from these laws. The biggest drops in crime are among women and the elderly, who are physically weaker, and in the high-crime, relatively poor areas where people are most vulnerable. ---
**Author:** ![Freedomx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@Freedomx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedomx)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2000, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388/29 "2000-01-28T20:33:00Z")
This quote almost does the job for me: > [@](#): > > The United States government is not even remotely close to the Nazi, Serbian, or Russian government. Things change, and if we want to advance, we have to look at our old views and ask if they are reasonable today. Yes, things change. So just because the USA 2000 isn’t just like Germany 1940 doesn’t mean it will always be that way. A better question might be if the US today resembles Germany 1935. I am sure in 1935 the average German did not expect what would happen in the next ten years. If I recall correctly, after the Americans liberated one concentration camp, they forced the local Germans to come in and help bury the dead bodies. Even in 1944 the average German did not understand the horrors its government had commited. I agree that we need to look forward to advancement. However, we can never close our eyes to the past and present to do so. The 1900’s was the biggest arguement for individual gun ownership that could ever exist. The 1900’s proved that people should NEVER trust their government to have their best interests at heart. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2000, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388/30 "2000-01-28T20:43:00Z")
Freedom wrote: > [@](#): > > A better question might be if the US today resembles Germany 1935. And the answer is: No, it does not. In 1935, Germany was in the midst of a big ol’ economic recession, after having just barely survived a period of hyperinflation. In 2000, the U.S. has the strongest economy in the world. A better question might be if the U.S. today resembles Rome circa 40-25 B.C.E. ---
**Author:** ![Felice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e4f/32.png) [@Felice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Felice)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2000, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388/31 "2000-01-28T20:54:00Z")
Okay, a couple of points: Zor said: [quote] Furthermore, I often see arguments comparing gun related crime rates in different cities with different gun control laws. It is my opinion that all these arguments suffer from the same problem: they can’t reasonably isolate the variable to guns alone… On other hand, if you try to compare Japan the US, you’ll see a big difference in gun related crimes. Such a comparison holds more weight because it is better at isolating the gun varibale. [quote] Huh? If you can’t compare two different American cities because of too many variables between them…how can you POSSIBLY compare two different countries? The US and Japan have far more radical differences in their cultures, history, philosophical beliefs about life and death, government responses to violent crime, personal beliefs and behaviors, than any two American cities do! Don’t even try to make that comparison. and Freedom said: > [@](#): > > Can anyone tell me why we should look at accidental gun deaths any different than accidental automobile deaths? ## Yes, I can. Because let’s look at the number of accidental gun deaths **among people who own guns** compared to the number of accidental automobile deaths **among people who drive automobiles**. I’ll bet anything you like that the proportion is MUCH, MUCH HIGHER in the former than the latter. Felice “There’s always a bigger fish.” ---
**Author:** ![Felice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e4f/32.png) [@Felice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Felice)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2000, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388/32 "2000-01-28T20:55:00Z")
Ack. Lost a “/” in there. Sorry! ---
**Author:** ![Freedomx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@Freedomx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedomx)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2000, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388/33 "2000-01-28T21:13:00Z")
Hey Felice, I thought you might like to put a little perspective on the problem we are talking about. > [@](#): > > Source: Fort Worth Star (Sports Section p9D) Author: Bob Hood Accidental deaths by firearms during 1998 reached an all-time low of 900, the fewest since record-keeping began in 1903, according to a recently released report from the National Safety Council. The decline represents a drop of 18% from the previous year and decline of 40% for a 10-year period Many officials have touted state hunter sefety programs, such as the one conducted by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, for the decrease. There are more than 75,000 hunter safety instructors in the United States, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Also cited for helping reduce firearms accidents were programs by the Boy Scouts and 4-H. **Firearms (900) rank BELOW other accidental deaths,** such as motor vehicles (41,200), falls (16,600), drownings (3,700), fires (unreported), chokings (3,200) and poisonings (9,400), according to Safety Council reports. So actually, I would be willing to take you up on your challenge. Tracer… Would you like to follow up your thought about Germany in 1935? What helped the German people ignore the direction Hitler lead their country in? It is fairly accepted that the improvement of the economy allowed Hitler to do things that would have been undreamed of if they were still in a depression. ---
**Author:** ![Chrissy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/858c86/32.png) [@Chrissy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chrissy)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2000, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388/34 "2000-01-28T21:26:00Z")
Guns I think are a must-have these days. If you want to walk around at night time… what else can you do? That can of mase might not be the best option for you. That doesn’t always totally stop the attacker. In most cases of robbery… I would say use the mase but in extreme cases which are becoming frequent cases… You need to have a weapon of danger * * * Thoughts by Chrissy “What you think is what you think…but what I think is how it is.” -me’00 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2000, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388/35 "2000-01-28T21:27:00Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t think there is any other topic out there with so many untruths floating around as truths. You said it. > [@](#): > > If the Constitution did not recognize the right to practice your own religion, would you lose that right? It’s pretty clear that I have that right _because of_ the First Amendment. > [@](#): > > Look at Australia. They recently banned all guns and now they are griped by a violent increase in crime. I’d be interested in numbers: population of Australia, and numbers of murders, etc. Seriously, I hadn’t heard about Australia. But what do you think will happen? There will be a short-term spike in crime, but as criminals’ guns get confiscated, they will have an extremely hard time replacing them. I would bet that in, say, ten years, the level of crime in Australia will be well below the level before the ban. (I’m not sure what we’re betting, but depending on the outcome of Australia’s experiment, one of us should change his stance about the value of banning guns in a decade. If I’m wrong, I’ll do so.) > [@](#): > > “Would you feel better if they had died falling out of windows?” No, but we’d be doing a damned sight more to prevent window-related deaths than we **are** doing about gun murders. > [@](#): > > Why is everyone so willing to shift the blame from the person to the object? I’m not. We’ve made a societal choice to do things a certain way. It has benefits; it has costs. I’m asking whether the benefits are worth the costs. I think it’s a reasonable question. > [@](#): > > It takes PEOPLE to make decisions and take actions. Guns are nothing more than a tool. And a very effective one, I might add, by an order or two of magnitude. ---
**Author:** ![Cooper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/50afbb/32.png) [@Cooper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cooper)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2000, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388/36 "2000-01-28T21:38:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Can anyone tell me why we should look at accidental gun deaths any different than accidental automobile deaths? Because cars are not designed to kill people. Guns are. Try holding up a 7-11 with a car. If you buy a gun for home defense, you are more likely to kill yourself or someone you love with it than you are to defend yourself from an intruder. In any case, home defense is not the stated purpose of the 2nd amendment. As many have said, the purpose is for the maintenance of a militia that can assumedly defend itself from a hostile government. How this is applicable today is beyond my comprehension. George: violent crime has dropped in nearly every American city since 1993, and across the country as a whole. You probably wouldn’t know this, since all your ‘facts’ come from NRA bulletins and people like Freedom. My facts come from an AP wire. Maybe not perfect, but better. ---
**Author:** ![Freedomx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@Freedomx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedomx)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2000, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388/37 "2000-01-28T22:36:00Z")
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Ok, I’m trying to breathe deeply… Wheeew… Ok… The AP? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Sorry… wheeeeewwwww… C’mon, stop kidding around. Please name ONE FACT that I have stated about guns that you think is false. Please show me **ONE**. I cite the ONE PERSON who has studied EVERY county in the US over 18 RECENT years, he has even submitted his study to PEER REVIEW. Yet all you can do is talk about the AP and try to belittle me. The next time you are at Barnes and Nobles, go flip through [More Guns, Less Crime](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226493636/o/qid=949098281/sr=8-2/002-8567318-8758604#amzn-reviews) by Johnathan Lott. (online review available there) I understand why so many people follow the AP, but I always thought that when you hit the net you became aware of how BS and controlled the whole thing is and made an effort to educate yourself to the real facts. (they did a great job on getting the numbers of dead albanians correct prior to our invovlement in Kosovo) I bet you think it is OK that our government is trying to implant messages into popular TV shows to try and direct our behavior and opinions. To those who think cars have no relevance to this discussion: [How to Rob the Local 7-11 With Your Car](http://planettimes.com/features/opinion/2000/january/results.shtml) > [@](#): > > Perhaps motor vehicles need to be more heavily regulated as well. According to a commercial security report titled “New Wave in Retail Crime”, British bandits are using vehicles to smash storefronts in a type of crime called “ramraiding”, which would be impractical if shopkeepers had the option of arming themselves. The report states that, “Many retailers have actually gone out of business because of the repeated attacks on their premises.” Tracer, do you really think the government gives you the right to practice you religion? They are charged with PROTECTING your right, but they do not give it to you. They no more give you the right to practice your own religion than they give you the right to breathe. If they tried to legislate your right to breathe out of existence, it would still exist no matter what they did. I will look for some hard numbers on Australia for you. We won’t have to wait ten years though, I think they are 4 or 5 into it already. Can we apply the same rules to this as to the cities? Since Australia has no guns, shouldn’t we eliminate gun control altogether here? At least a freeze on new laws would be nice 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2000, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388/38 "2000-01-28T22:37:00Z")
Y’know, if the pro-gun types are so concerned about automobile deaths when we bring up gun deaths, how come they never give a flip about them the rest of the time? I think the NRA would be a great lobby for mass transit spending if they put any effort into it. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Rousseau](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Rousseau](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rousseau)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2000, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388/39 "2000-01-28T23:08:00Z")
I believe Homer Simpson said it best: “If I didn’t have this gun, the King Of England could waltz right in here and start pushing you around! Is that what you want? Is it?” The United States government will never become similar to that of Nazi Germany. That’s a guarantee. It can’t happen, because the citizens have the power. The right to bear firearms guarantees that power. It’s as simple as that. Running the risk of sounding cliche, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. One of the things that nearly set me off last night was when Clinton used the Columbine tradgedy as a springboard for his anti-gun agenda. Let’s imagine for a moment that Harris and Klebold hadn’t been able to get their hands on any guns. They would have walked into the school that day with dynamite strapped to their chests. If not that, then they would have brought blow darts or something. The point is, if I really want to kill somebody, I’m going to find a way. Guns just happen to be the most effective and convenient method we have on hand now, which makes them handy for self-defense. Yes, there are a number of morons and crackpots who own guns. Yes, the moron/crackpot to normal citizen ratio is too high. The conundrum is that a legal ban on guns brings the denominator closer to zero, while the numerator remains constant. BTW, **Zor** > [@](#): > > On other hand, if you try to compare Japan the US, you’ll see a big difference in gun related crimes. Such a comparison holds more weight because it is better at isolating the gun varibale. Japan is the best argument that the pro-ban side has, but you jumped the tracks at the end there. Two American cities have considerably less variables than two different nations, especially two such drastically different ones. Claiming that Japan “isolates the gun variable” is implying that the only difference between the US and Japan is that private citizens own guns here. Do you see how absurd that sounds? * * * The IQ of a group is equal to the IQ of the dumbest member divided by the number of people in the group. ---
**Author:** ![Felice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e4f/32.png) [@Felice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Felice)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2000, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388/40 "2000-01-29T03:03:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Firearms (900) rank BELOW other accidental deaths, such as motor vehicles (41,200), falls (16,600), drownings (3,700), fires (unreported), chokings (3,200) and poisonings (9,400), according to Safety Council reports. Yes, freedom, so what? That’s a raw statistic, it means nothing. I was talking about proportions. There are far, far fewer gun owners in the country than there are vehicle drivers. That’s like saying 500 dogs are black, and 1000 cats are black, so cats are more likely to be black than dogs. But if we only have a total of 504 dogs (500 are black), but we have 10,000 cats (only 1000 are black), wouldn’t you say dogs are more likely to be black than cats? * * * Felice “There’s always a bigger fish.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-number-one-reason-free-people-should-be-armed-is/17388.md?page=3)