Easier said than done. How do you REQUIRE these courses? Do you force ALL American citizens to take the courses, whether they own a gun or not? Or is it just for gun owners? How do we identify who the gun owners are? How do you insure that all gun owners actually take the courses? Who pays for this education? All of this smacks of exactly the kind of firearms regulation that the NRA is fighting against.
I’m, frankly, not sure how to respond here. I’ll assume you’re talking about principles and not just some paranoid ramblings about our specific peace keeping agencies. In principle, if you’re going to rely on armed citizens to police the police, then they have to be armed similarly and they have to be organized. Given the relatively low proportion of the population that is armed and the nature of that armament, versus the arms of the military, I’d say your principles are a lost cause. Our law enforcement works because of trust and because their members are held accountable to the same set of laws as everyone else in this country. It’s just silly to think that armed citizenry somehow keep the peacekeepers in check.
Of course, all sane people want this. But you illustrate my points. (1) A tyrant would only be able to rise to power in our government WITH the support of the people. If he has the support of the people and the military, then any use of force to oppose him will be deemed subversive. (2) One of the things that makes our form of government so effective is that there is no absolute power in individuals. A tyrant, anywhere in our government would have his hands tied to the point where he couldn’t do anything tyranical anyway.
We’re not talking about these countries. I agree, there are countries where armed citizenry may be a necessity. I’m arguing that America is not one of these countries. If you think that the 20% of the American private population that is armed is somehow responsible for America being different, “you’re foolish and naive”.
Just what powers do you think the President has?
No contest. Half a million, well armed, well trained military personel would have your 50 million citizens under control fairly quickly - especially after the citizens used up their one box of bullets shooting at shadows, each other, and themselves…
I’m not going to continue to argue this point about guns as a deterrent against tyrany. I think it’s a silly proposition and I don’t think most people who own guns believe that’s why they own them. Most people own hand guns either because they anticipate using them for a crime or because they anticipate needing to use one to stop a crime or defend themselves in a life threatening situation.
This is not an example of passive deterrent - this is active deterrent. Passive deterrent would be if Bob was considering breaking into the house, but reconsiders because the owner might be there and might have a gun. No doubt, passive deterrence occurs, but it’s not measurable.
First, this number is in debate. As I have already explained this number is far too high to pass the general sanity test. Also, this number includes many other kinds of defensive gun uses than merely waving them about menacingly at burgulars. The number includes shots fired into the air, shots fired into the wall (missed the bad guy), shots fired into the bad guy, and shots fired into innocent people who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, but looked like a bad guy. It includes not just defensive uses against burgulars, but also battered wives shooting their husbands, abused children shooting their guardians, people shooting their angry neighbors whose wives they were sleeping with. It also includes a few crackpots who never used their gun defensively at all, but think it would be a bad idea to let the government take their gun away so they feel they need to justify having it by lying on random surveys…
I doubt that most break-ins are designed to find guns. The guns are just a nice side benefit (if you’re a crook). Most crooks are after your electronics and other valuables they can sell.
No one said being a crook didn’t have it’s risks, but the risks really are not as bad as you paint. The bad guy generally looks for an isolated house where the lights are all out in the early evening, with no cars in the drive or the garage (houses with windows into the garage are more likely to be victimized). He’s pretty sure to be alone. Entry is usually through the rear of the house, leaving the back door open so he can bolt if the homeowner shows up. BTW, many burgulars don’t carry weapons because the penalties for armed robbery are much stiffer than simple burgulary and they are much more likely to be nabbed by the police than confronted by an armed homeowner.
Wait a second. I’m paranoid? Call me naive or too trusting, but paranoid is silly. I’m not the one who has a gun just in case Bill Clinton decides he wants another, more permanent term of office or just in case some inept criminal breaks into my house to steal my TV and decides to pull a gun on me rather than running away.
Check out the CDC reports mentioned earlier. They support my position. However, just think of it logically. People who want to end their lives are feeling emotional pain - the last thing they want is to feel physical pain in their last moments. For this reason, most suicide victims choose painless methods for their death. Sleeping pills are a common method, but sleeping pills that are sure to be lethal are almost as hard to get as a gun, so it usually takes some preparation. Preparation means time to think. Time to think means that the victim might change their minds or at least, their intent might be detected by others who might intervene. Sleeping pills are not foolproof. They take time to kill and time to kill is time to save if someone intervenes. There’s always the carbon monoxide in the garage stunt. Again this takes some setup and there is plenty of time to reconsider or for someone to intervene. Some suicides (a much smaller number) try hanging. Again you have the issue of setup. You have to have a place suitable to get the job done. It’s almost certainly not painless, which will give the victim cause to reconsider. You can jump off of buildings or cliffs, but you first have to find a suitable height that can insure you die and then you have to get there. You have to insure that no one is going to intervene. Lots of time to think and rethink. Razors? Pretty painful and bleeding to death can be slow. Finally - consider the gun. So easy to go to the closet, point the thing at your head and pull the trigger. No thinking, little chance of intervention, probably no pain, very effective. If guns are not available, would that reduce the incidence of suicide attempts? Probably not, but it would force people to use other, less effective, means and this would probably result in fewer successful suicides. A large number of people who have failed in their suicide attempt have then gone on to have happy and fulfilling lives.
Swedes are not required to own guns or rifles. The Swedish weapons law is like most other Scandinavian weapons laws: You apply to the police for a permit and you’d better be prepared to document that you need the weapon.
Handguns and automatic weapons are mentioned in the same paragraph, stating that permits for these should be issued with extra care.
Sweden - again, like other Scandinavian countries - does have a Home Guard as an integrated part of their defence. And homeguardsmen (and -women) keep their (automatic) weapons and ammunition in their homes. This might have started the misunderstanding ?
I’ve never in my life seen a Swedish civilian carrying a firearm.
Relax. He made a small mistake. He most likely meant to say Switzerland, not Sweden. Switzerland does require assault rifles in every household. Not the pretend “assault weapons” that congress cries about (any scary-looking rifle) constantly, but true assault-rifles (high velocity longguns capable of both semi- and fully-automatic fire).
By the way, any weapon used in an assault is an assault weapon. That means if I hit you with a pointed stick or a rock, that stick or rock is an assault weapon. HCI and congress made up a purely arbitrary definition of the term in order to prey on the public’s fear of machine guns, because the terms sound alike.
OK, perhaps I should have been able to figure that out.
OTOH, in the spirit of fighting ignorance, I suppose it’s OK to correct a factual error. And there are major differences between Sweden and Switzerland, after all.
"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend
themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
"In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to
1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
"Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939
to 1945,13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend
themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
"China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to
1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
"Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964
to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.
"Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to
1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
“Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975
to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.”
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the
20th Century because of gun control: 56 million
JoeyBlades, I would like to point out the rudeness of dismissing information provided as “dribble”, “irrelevant”, etc., AND in classifying other posters as “insane”, just because they don’t agree with you.
NOBODY said anything about policing the police. The United States Armed Forces, the body meant to be held in check by the presence of an armed population, is the threat, not individual policing forces. Apparently, you’ve seen too many movies where every soldier is a good soldier. You see, the army is trained very vigorously to follow orders. Their orders go all the way up to the top to their Commander-In-Chief. Ergo, should a rogue president, be he popular or no, somewhere down the line decide to subjugate the populace with said military, he’d need to disarm the citizens of the United States first.
I’ll give you a basic rundown of numbers: 50 to 1. Which means every 1 US soldier has to kill 50 citizens. If you had a quarter of a brain, you’d be able to see the tactical disadvantage the military has.
I like how you pain all gun owners as doddering clutzes. It’s nice to know that you have such a high opinion of your fellow people. Contrary to popular belief, it ain’t too damn hard to use a gun.
Why does a tyrant need popular consensus to take over the government? A rebellion, after all, isn’t based on popularity. The colonists during the American Revolution didn’t have the popular support of England, and they managed to get by just fine.
And it doesn’t MATTER if a leader has the support of the people… if he uses the military to force people to abide by his wishes then he’s BREAKING THE LAW, and the Constitution.
Now I’m convinced you’re naive. If someone were to overthrow the US government, they wouldn’t give a crap about “our form of government”.
Why not? Because their example proves you wrong?
He’s in charge of the military, which is one of his powers that we’re talking about. If a President were popular, just as Hitler was popular, people would be more lenient to what he does. Eventually, this “Rogue President” would have the country in his grip. That is the worst-case scenario, but sane people must prepare for the worst and hope for the best. And based on the examples given (“In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control…” etc.), I’m amazed that you can even consider this to be that astronomical of a possibility.
YOU’RE the one that made the example of crooks stealing guns from people. I was showing you how irrational and paranoid of an idea this is.
In 19-something-or-other, Great Britain established gun control. From that year to the present, about 0 dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
To begin with, why does it make a difference what “purpose” the gun is intended to serve? If I’m out hunting rabbits, and a thug attempts to rob me, I won’t cast away my rifle because I bought it for rabbit hunting. Second, that estimate of households owning guns is far, far too low. The generally accepted number by scholars in the field is roughly 50% of American households, or 70 million households. Two million DGUs (defensive gun uses) per year, distributed evenly among the gun owners, would mean 2.8% of households with firearms used their guns defensively. Of course, it’s unlikely that crime is distributed that evenly, but let’s go with it: that means that a given gun-owning household will defend itself with its gun once in 35 years. Somehow, that doesn’t stretch the limits of my beliefs.
Kleck addresses the flaws in this argument in POLICY AND PERSPECTIVE: THE ILLEGITIMACY OF ONE-SIDED SPECULATION: GETTING THE DEFENSIVE GUN USE ESTIMATE DOWN, 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1446 at 1452 (1997):
Your assumptions are neither generous nor even remotely fact-based. Note well that Philip Cook, the author of the article you linked to above and former believer in the “rare DGU”, has since retracted his support of the National Crime Victimization Survey, whose numbers you appear to believe. I quote Kleck, from the above article, page 1451:
Indeed, later in the article Kleck mentions the study to which you linked, on page 1460:
Translation: Kleck’s numbers aren’t precise, just as any survey numbers aren’t precise. But he’s a lot closer than most, and the lowballing NCVS survey was flawed in its execution and does not jive with numbers produced by other surveys.
(snip)
I can’t argue with you about the company you keep; that’s your own business.
That’s not the assertion; I’ll type slower for you. Before guns were tightly restricted in Britain, Britain’s homicide rate was already very low, much lower than the rate in the States. I make fun of your logic because you’re giving a cause (gun control) credit for an effect (low homicide rate) that PRECEDED the cause. It would be more honest to attribute Britain’s lower homicide rate to their broad use of the death penalty in murder cases prior to 1960 and the lingering effects on criminal behavior; while criminal behavior in America has long been associated with violence against persons, criminal behavior in Britain has long been associated with property crime.
Possibly. So where do you want to take this discussion?
(snip…we ain’t talking about rape here)
And if it has a zero-percent impact? Handgun homicide wasn’t a major problem before the ban, it’s not a major problem now. I still fail to understand how you can credit the ban with a low homicide rate that existed before the ban.
Damned if I can remember when I said the above. Care to dig out a quote?
The murder rate in Texas has never even approached the vehicle accident death rate. The numbers I cited from the CDC give a difference of 1,323 deaths. Unless crime has skyrocketed recently (which would mean roughly a 62% increase in murdersin less than 2 years), vehicles still hold the throne. The news was wrong, plain and simple.
Your privilege. I find it hard to believe that the FBI and the CDC have anything to gain by skewing statistics; if anything, they’d OVER-report the number of gun homicides in order to “ban guns and get them away from people so no one can hurt anyone ever again.” But the numbers don’t seem to demonstrate that.
Keeping that in mind, we do the best we can. We read scholarly articles, multiple surveys, government statistics, and come to our own conclusions. I’m frankly amazed, however, than anyone could possibly, when considering the available evidence, conclude that laws restricting the law-abiding from purchasing guns will solve society’s ills.
I haven’t tallied such stats about my own family and friends, but I can tell you the following: a guy who served as an usher at my brother’s wedding was later arrested and convicted for the earlier rape/murder of a young girl, along with two accomplices. No firearms were used by either party, unfortunately for her.
The only murder I can think of in my family was committed with a length of pipe. A cheating husband killed the wife who was about to leave him. This was in Minnesota farm country, where guns are extremely common. Too bad she didn’t have one handy.
Two guns have been stolen from my family, a shotgun and a 30-30. They were probably stolen because they’d have high resale value, just like the TV and VCR taken in the same robbery.
And finally, more people in my immediate family have died as a result of HIV (1) or a car accident (1) than a gun (0).
Well, then, go ahead and believe the sole DGU survey with a result under 700,000, and believe Handgun Control Inc. when they claim “children” up to age 24 in their death statistics. But don’t cite them back to us as fact. The great weight and preponderance of the evidence is against you.
Heh - Actually the Switzerland/Sweden angle is quite interesting, seing as both countries have very low crime rates.
Of course, the Swiss are armed because every male Swiss is a member of the military reserve, not because they have easy access to buy handguns on their own. And I’m willing to bet quite a lot that these assault rifles are inspected, registered and kept under very strict control by the Swiss Gvt.
[tangent]
MY WAG is that the reason most European countries have low gun crime rates is twofold: Guns are hard to come by, and the armed civilian is not considered a remotely heroic figure, but a loonie.
[/tangent]
Norman, you bring up an interesting point… America has a very different attitude about EVERYthing (including guns), and in ANY debate, those different attitudes need to be taken into account.
The reason it’s rarely taken into account, however, is that “country attitude” is hard to measure.
Norman: in Switzerland, the “armed citizen” IS the army, and they are very proud of it. Altho there are restrictions on those assault rifles, they are still there, in nigh every home in Switzerland. If Herr Switzer really wanted to, he could pull out his full-auto assault rifle and go “postal” just about anytime. But they don’t, mostly, because they are SWISS, and not Americans, or Germans, or Albanians. But, also, because occasionally when some idiot thugs try to rob Herr Switzer’s clockshop with their Sat Nite spcls, he blows them away with his machinegun. But they would have to be REAL idiots, as everyone knows that every able- bodied “Herr Switzer” is a trained marksman with machine gun. Keeps the “scum” down pretty good.
Does this mean this would work in America? Probably not, we are not Swiss. But does that mean you can compare some other European country with few guns & a low crime rate to America? Equally, NO! Comparing Americans & American crime rates to other counties is worthless.
Oh, and if we ARE going to compare “rates”? Japan & Sweden, nearly gunless countries, have suicide rates many times that of the USA. Hell, if we are going to ban things because people kill themselves with them, the Golden Gate bridge, with some 4000 suicides, should be closed down yesterday.
Daniel: More or less what I was trying to say. Cutting and pasting from European crime stats isn’t really useful in a debate about American weapons laws. And being European, it of course irks me a bit when faulty information is presented about my fellow Europeans (and Scandinavians) - enough to make me delurk for a while.
Darkpyre mentioning Sweden by mistake made it impossible for me to resist the temptation of bringing up the restrictive Swedish weapons laws (and low crime stats).
About the Swiss being able to defend their homes (and country): It’s an admirable system, no doubt - and I’m sure you’re right, it probably cuts down on the breaking and entering. Still, the Swiss don’t carry weapons outside their homes (assault rifles do so clash with three-piece banker outfits), and yet they’re not set upon by handgun-toting criminals. Again, a cultural thing.
Finally: Yup, Scandinavia has high suicide rates - it’s not the culture, it’s the bloody climate.
Background: Timothy Emerson had a temporary restraining order (a kind of restraining order that doesn’t require a hearing before it’s issued) filed against him by his ex-wife. Because he owned a handgun, he found himself in automatic violation of a provision of a Texas law that prohibits persons under restraining orders from owning firearms.
A federal judge right here in Lubbock, Texas decided the case on Second Amendment grounds (rather than on “failure to meet notice and hearing requirements” grounds), stating that the law violated the Second Amendment right to individual gun ownership. The text of the decision can be read in full here in PDF format.
The United States appealed, and the case is now before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The first day of arguments has passed, and the link above recounts some of what happened. A few quotes:
Looks like we’ll soon have a favorable interpretation of the Second Amendment from a federal Court of Appeals.
In 1787 the American Revolution was still fresh in everyone’s mind, and the last thing anyone wanted was another monarchy. However, the Articles of Confederation had proven too weak, and the constitutional convention met for the purpose of STRENGTHENING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
They did the best they could with available resources, but they and the entire public understood government’s inherent tendency to tyranny - thus the Bill of Rights, including the second amendment to prevent government from rendering the public powerless.
Ah… so you agree that gun control in these countries is directly RESPONSIBLE for ALL of these deaths? That is what Darkpyre said. I submit that whether or not these people had access to guns (and I’m sure many still did), they would have most likely been killed anyway. Also, there are plenty of examples where gun control was instituted and no tyrany ensued. That’s why I think it’s dribble. I called it irrelevant because, as I said in my previous post, very few Americans believe that they keep handguns in their homes to guard against this type of scenario. In other words, this is not THE argument. However, SOME PEOPLE seem to be holding on to this position…
I did not classify anyone as insane. Darkpyre opened that door.
I use the term ‘police’ in the generic sense - An agency or government body to regulate, control, or keep order. I included the military in my generic use of the term. I might point out that if the military is a potential threat, so too are the local police.
I suggest you read the “Posse Comitatus Act”. This basically says the President can’t do what you propose unless “expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress”. This addresses some of your later statements so I won’t bother to repeat later.
No please. Run it down for me. I’d like to know how these untrained citizens of limited armament are going to compete with trained soldiers with automatic weapons, grenades, tear gas, and armored tanks. True, the citizens COULD inflict some damage, but realize that not all of them are even going to fight. Some would undoubtedly be in agreement with the government, more would be simply apathetic, and many more would be petrified with fear.
Note: I wasn’t even going to respond to this at first, but you insulted the size of my brain… [wink]
Not ALL. I think there are many responsible people with guns. I just think they are in the minority. The “doddering clutzes”, not to mention the malicious vermin, are in the majority. If we lived in a world where only responsible law abiding people could own hand guns, we would not be having this discussion. The only time this discussion comes up in countries like Great Britian is when they discuss the chaos that the American people must endure. They look at us as simpletons, quick to shoot our load at the first sign of excitement. Sadly, the first question that I was asked by people I met for the first time when I lived in the UK was, “How many guns do you own?” Questions 2-7 usually had to do with firearm violence in the US, as well. This is our sad, pathetic legacy to the rest of the world.
I callz 'em as I seez 'em…
And even easier to misuse one.
I’m the one who said a large number of guns used for criminal activities are stolen and that a large portion of these are stolen from citizens who owned the guns for self protection. I’m not the one who said that crooks break into homes specifically looking for guns. Big difference.
I’ll assume you meant to say that gun related crimes have risen, since this is the point of the discussion. I checked and you’re right, in 1998 the incidence of gun related crimes rose 10%. I also checked on the nature of this increase. According to the UK National Crime Squad, an estimated 50% of these crimes were committed with ‘imitation’ firearms. Many of the remaining ‘genuine’ firearms are Berettas, 9mm Uzis, MAC 10s, or some other automatic weapons and they are usually related to gang or IRA activity. These kinds of firearms are controlled, even in our nation of ‘generous’ gun laws.
If you really did mean to say the overall crime rate has risen in the UK… right again, however that is largely attributed to auto theft which is undeniably out of control in the UK. This is because it’s so easy to get stolen cars out of the UK and into neighboring countries with high demand.
Which is why with 200,000,000 guns out there, we see 12,000 accidents and homicides a year.
As for your dismissal of the “protection against tyranny” argument. You can’t dismiss something merely because a “majority of americans don’t believe it.” First of all, you have no knowledgeof what the majority thinks. Second, a majority of Americans might not understand their rights as they are delineated in the constitution, but that does not diminish their rights contained therin, nor does it change teh reasons for granting such rights.
What the hell are you talking about? I said no such thing. The quote that you referred to me as saying had nothing to do with crime, it was referring to the “potential tyranny” issue, not crime rates.
Man, you really ARE naive, aren’t you? There’s a law that says someone can’t do something, so he won’t do it. Sure. Go ahead and think that.
Here’s a BIG surprise for you, genius… there’s a law that says you can’t take something that doesn’t belong to you, yet people are doing it every day.
Why the hell do you think I used the term “rogue president”?
As someone else pointed out, the Vietnamese did an excellent job of it, and they were OUTNUMBERED. Imagine the same scenario, 'cept the Viet Cong have ten times as many people on their side.
The “local police” aren’t trained every day to unquestionably obey the orders of their commanding officer. The “local police” would be part of the body resisting subjugation by the military.
Now you’re just lying. True, you didn’t literally use the word “insane”, but you tried to make certain people out to be insane with your arguments:
If you have a counter for someone else’s argument, present it. However, just because an argument contradicts your beliefs, and you can’t counter it, don’t just pooh-pooh the argument by saying it’s all just “nutcase conspiracy theories” or what-not.
AND you said all that before Darkpyre joined the thread. Present facts, not lies.