Why Guns?

Great Debates
61

Could guns be necessary prevent tyranny? As LaurAnge says, there’s been no problem in Canada or Britain. On the other hand, if you look at the whole world over the last century, we’ve seen scores of instances where tyranny took over by force of arms, including much of Africa and many latin American countries at certain times, not to mention fascism and Communism.

Would legalized gun ownership have saved the European Jews from Hitler or saved the Cambodians from Pol Pot? I don’t know. I’ve read about the Jewish resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto, even with hardly any weapons. Maybe if they had been armed, they could have deterred Hitler, or at least slowed the genocide process.

Could anything like fascism or communism conceivably take over the US or Canada? I doubt it. Still, legalized gun ownership is like insurance – worth the cost, because it might be crucial in the remote contingency that tyranny were to arise.

62

My point all along.

Ahem, this is rather what I was attempting to address earlier.

In re “tyranny” in Africa. In my on the ground experience, the problem is rarely monopoly of arms or lack of arms in the populace – Sudan for example strikes me as fairly awash in god damned AKs. Rather, it is the political culture.

Your supposition is that tyranny occurs where folks can not resist it. A wonderfully American supposition. That presupposes that resistance will in fact be against tyranny as opposed to the bloody bastard who’s holding power. Political culture.

No. In the former, the majority of Germans were in support of the regime. Armed resistance by Jews in most cases strikes me as being a suicidal proposition easily marginalized. (This leaves aside the issue if it is factually correct that the populace of 1933 Germany was without access to American 2nd amendment arms). In re Pol Pot, again, I believe that factually speaking it was not lack of arms but rather discipline and motivation that was the differential. Again, this goes to political culture. As in the case of Afghanistan, where the Taliban certainly do not reflect majority ideas of civil society, but they got the gumption and the org. Arms, everybody has those.

Crushed like fucking bugs.

I repeat, in re gun ownership, political and social context must be considered. Having travelled and done business (well prospected, rather abortively) in places where every third fucker has an AK, I feel confident in assuring all that the socio-political context has great meaning. I continue to posit the assumption that this is the primary issue in re liberty.

63

Collounsbury wrote:

And just imagine what a ticking time-bomb such a place would be if the non-fuckers had AK-47s too! Sexual frustration can make one awfully quick-tempered…

64

This is a classic example of how American rights are diminishing. There are others but I’ll respond to this one. If we had retained our right to posses whatever the government pointed at us, which was the intent of the right, then you would not be able to make such a statement. Instead it has been reduced small arms for hunting and protection against intruders.

I guess once the government promises venison in every freezer and an armed guard in every neighborhood you will posit an argument about the total uselessness of any gun ownership.

You may argue weather or not gun ownership ensures liberty but without a doubt once they are taken away you will have lost a liberty granted to us by our creator.

65

sQuote by 71-Hour Achmed
You go right ahead and put up a big sign in front of your house saying “no guns present or allowed on this property”.

That is an interesting idea.
It could be a thread of it’s own.
What would the timeline, and rate of position reversal look like if people started putting up signs like that.

66

As of 1977, Canadian gun control was like this (from site For Sale Domain: 2ndlawlib.org)

A Firearms Acquisition Certificate (F.A.C.) obtained from the police was required to purchase any sort of gun. This allowed purchaser to buy almost all long guns (rifles and shotguns), and was the only legal step required for these guns.
Guns which were considered more dangerous were classified as “restricted weapons”; this included handguns and certain long guns such as centerfire semi-automatic rifles with short barrels or a folding stock.
Short shotguns, sawed-off rifles, and silencers are completely illegal.
The gun control laws in Canada have been tightened since 1998.

What is also very interesting is that (according to the above site), Canada has one of the highest per capita gun ownership rates in the world, almost equal to that of the U.S.

From the site I found comparing homicide and robbery rates from Canada and the U.S.: (from site http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/research/other_docs/factsheets/canus/default.html)

“A much greater proportion of homicides in the United States involve firearms. For 1987-96, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada. Handgun homicide data are available for 1989-95. During those years, 52% of homicides in the U.S. involved handguns, compared to 14% in Canada…While homicide and robbery rates are significantly higher in the United States, firearm homicide rates and firearm robbery rates show even greater differences between the two countries.”
Another site I found discusses an analysis of policies regarding gun control as performed by the National Center for Policy Analysis at this site http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s176/s176c.html
(I did a little research on them, and couldn’t really tell if they are a legitimate, neutral organization or not).

“The experience of these countries [Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and Finland] shows that widespread gun possession is compatible with low crime rates. On the other hand, nations like Japan and England also have low crime rates but low gun ownership. There is no simple relationship between firearm availability and crime.”
My conclusion? This is a very hot topic, with no clear solution available. For some reason, Canadians have almost as many guns as Americans do, but we don’t seem to be using them on each other as much. Maybe it’s because we’re just so nice and polite :slight_smile:

67

Good posts (not too hot just yet) from all, and good insoght from Collounsbury. Just for my own personal curiosity: are you an American living abroad, or a foreign national really familiar with American politics and culture?

Not that it alters your perspective, but it gives many of us a frame of reference for understanding you much better (with all the chees flying about, my guess is a Wisconsin native working abroad).

The “guarantee” of the 2nd. Ad., as I see it, works more as a preventative than a cure.

A cursory examination of the quotes, journals and other documents of the FF shows that their concern was not of a pre-WWII Germany-style popular shift of attitude allowing a “Hitler” into power; in this eventuality, any open armed resistance would quickly die as it lacked the popular support to sustain it.

It was more along the lines of a clique, or a band of elites, siezing power through subterfuge (if you disagree, remember that, at the time, most of the world was ruled by a Monarch of some form or another; even the King of England had considerable power, parliament notwithstanding).

Regardless of how much “official” support any such band of elites may garner, an armed populace can make the process problematical enopugh to be not worth the effort (re: the “M.A.D.” comments before).

Unlike Afghanistan and Vietnam (fighting external foes on home turf), an armed American populace (fighting internal foes on home turf) to defeat any theoretical tyrant has ready access to many of the nation’s tender and juicy industrial and infrastructural weak spots.

The North Vietnamese surely kicked our ass a few times, but overall came out on the dirty end of the lolipop. After we gave up in disgist and went home, the South Vietnamese were relatively easy pickings to the ChiCom and Soviet-backed, excellently armed and organized N. Vietnamese.

(note that the S. Vietnamese gov’t wasn’t really popular amongst the people, which certainly lends some credence to Collounsbury’s assertion on the longevity of unpopular tyrannical regimes, which, IMHO, reinforces the arguments for the 2nd. Ad. and an armed populace; nip the fuckers in the bud, I says.)

The Afghani’s certainly had terrain and U.S. support on thier side, not to mention a sufficient degree of American-style Soviet ineptness to aid them. But the Afghani’s couldn’t strike directly at the factories churning out T-72s and HIND helicopters; they could only fight a [losing] war of attrition against the end product in hit-and-fade strikes, while garnering international aid and support to their cause.

Had the Soviets the political will to commit more forces and draw the war and occupation out, it’s not entirely impossible the the rebels could’ve withered and died in a hostile environment (maybe this is saying something about protracted conventional strategic warfare in our time? Another thread/debate maybe?)

Anywho, “prevention against tyranny”, self defense, home defense, hunting, target shooting and good old fashioned plinking are all acknowledged, legal uses of firearms in America.

With an estimated 1/3 of the American population under arms, if law-abiding gun owners were truly the homicidal, neurotic paranoids anti-gunners (and not a few of our fellow board members) like to paint us as, the other 2/3’s would’ve bought up the remaining guns on the shelves, rounded us up and locked us all safely away a long time ago.

In reference to Europe’s Jews, dead is dead. But I’m sure that at least some may have desired the means to resist certain extermination at least a while to make some Nazi thugs pay dearly in Aryan (a curious choice of terms) blood for the privelege.

A “You can burn my body when you can toss my cold, dead, bullet-riddled body into the oven, you pig-fucking Hun bastard!” kinda attitude. Bang on, bro!

Else why the Warsaw Uprising? Were these people aberrant? While certainly not the norm, Polish Jews finally said “enough is enough” and made the Nazi regime commit considerable resources to clearing out the Warsaw Ghetto, before giving up in disgust and just burning down a significant portion of it.

What if the Jewish resistance had begun earlier? During Kristalnacht? Might the Nazi’s have reconsidered? Might the German reunification been slowed by armed Jewish resistance?
The only thing that we know for certain is that by 1943, the writing was on the wall: the Jews were too weak and dispersed, the Nazi too firmly ensconsed, for the tide to be effectively changed by the Warsaw Uprising.

Even if armed resistance had begun sooner, the net result may have not been significantly different.

But then explain to us why Israel isn’t a pacifist state. Might they be trying to prevent a repeat of the Holocaust? I would be curious to know if any Holocaust survivors, had they any inkling prior to November 9, 1938, of what was in store for them, might they have reacted differently.

Maybe, you know, got a hold of a few guns and bleed the Nazi’s as they could?

68

daddymack - The 2nd Amendment was created at a time in history where the most powerful weapons on the battlefield were muskets and some small cannons. I’m sure they would be horrified to see how a company of modern soldiers using the latest weapons could decimate an entire army of soldiers. (Picture regiment after regiment of Redcoats being mowed down by a platoon of US Rangers with machineguns hiding in trees 500 meters away. Now picture Gen Cornwallis crapping his pants).

Besides the fact that the average citizen can’t afford a tank, I’m pretty comfortable with the fact that the government limits possession of such heavy weapons to people who are trained to use them properly.

What is the deal with these paranoid NRA types anyway? Who are they expecting to rise up against? If the US is threatened by an external enemy, we do have pretty good armed forces. I certainly hope the safety of American doesn’t rest in the hands of a few rednecks with hunting rifles.

So the question remains, who do these people think they would rise up against? The legally elected government? I’m pretty sure the founding fathers didn’t create the 2nd Amendment so that people could revolt if they didn’t like the politics of their duly elected leader.

69

msmith

What weapons are being used today in Cheshnia? in Bosnia?
How about in the rest of the world. There are brushfire wars going on in several places. What is the resistance using for weapons.

If you are worried about weapons that are more sophsticated than hunting rifles with scopes then why are you worried about hunting rifles with scopes?

If you do not think that these weapons are useful in modern warfare why are you worried about them.

Quote
What is the deal with these paranoid NRA types anyway? Who are they expecting to rise up against? If the US is threatened by an external enemy, we do have pretty good armed forces. I certainly hope the safety of American doesn’t rest in the hands of a few rednecks with hunting rifles.

If I understand your point of view then I don’t understand your stand. It should be " Oh yeah grandpa , I know you are one mean son of a gun"

70

msmith
Quote
So the question remains, who do these people think they would rise up against? The
legally elected government? I’m pretty sure the founding fathers didn’t create the 2nd
Amendment so that people could revolt if they didn’t like the politics of their duly elected
leader.

I believe they were providing a way for the people to stop someone from abusing the
system.
History was and still is full of leaders that abused the system and took liberty away from
the people.
The founders were allowing the people to fight back.

They ,unlike those who would take this right away, could not see the future and they showed that they were concerned that it could happen.

71

American, although sometimes I feel a foreigner.

Ah, I remember when the Gov proposed the slogan eat cheese or die. I was happy, almost wanted to move to Wisconsin, but I’m a NY-New England boy.

Armed Clique

I suppose, although I believe political culture is a better guarantee.

True, however I remain convinced by my earlier argument that a small clique making a coup d’etat is not a likely scenario because of the political culture, including the role of the armed forces. With or without 2nd amendment ownership, I see this as failing.

In re Jewish resistance to Nazis.

I believe you have to put this in context
(a) Nazi rise to power:
(i) backed by majority of population
(ii) Jews well-integrated and dispersed population in 1920s-1930s Germany. “Resistance” in no way realistic. How? Already a marginalized minority, acts of “resistance” would have simply pushed the process forward faster. As I have read the history --far from an expert of course-- most German Jews remained convinced until a late date that German civicness would in the end carry the day. W/o German resistance, no real resistance was possible.

72

I don’t understand your reply but let me see if I can clarify my own position a little:

  1. Arming the populous is effective as a deterent against foreign occupation. Much like Vietnam, it would be dificult to occupy and hold a country as large as ours with the entire population armed and pissed off.

  2. A milita armed with rifles and homemade bombs can’t win against a mechanized force in a direct confrontation any more than the VietCong could stand against American artillery and air power. The advantage a militia has is their ability to fight and then blend into the local population. They also don’t have to “win”. A gurilla only has to “not lose” long enough for the enemy to lose political will and go home.

  3. The founding fathers did not view the 2nd Amendment as a tool for excercising political power. If that was the case, we wouldn’t have elections, we would have armed coups every four years, or two years, or every week.

  4. The founding fathers DID realize that allowing the citizenry guns to protect themselves and their homes made them less DEPENDENT on a central government for their security. If you are dependent on another for your protection, that person has power over you.

  5. I am worried about ANY weapon in the hands of someone who does not know how to use one. That includes pistols, rifles, tanks, planes, and atomic bombs.

  6. Many of these brushfire wars (former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Chechnia) are because of the collapse of the government. Without a strong central govt, the countries have split into violent factions all determined to seize control. Imagine the US government collapsing and Delaware going to war with New Jersey over control of NYC.

  7. Guns are fine for hunting, home protection, and target shooting. They need to be used responsibly. If you are a responsible person who has been properly trained, you can own an M60 for all I care. Just don’t bring it to work or school.

  8. The problem is there are A LOT of people who too irresponsible to own a water gun, much less a real one. Criminals, insane people, and jackasses should not own guns. They are a danger to themselves and others.

73

Here we agree.

Again, we agree. What you’re missing is this: Given a worst-case conspiracy-theory scenario where an oppressive government has been installed against public will: There IS no direct confrontation between the militia and the Army. That’s the point. You fight where you have to fight, then you hide. Hit supply lines. Hit fuel depots. Then disappear. Apparently you have visions of citizens in bright red coats marching in block formations against an armored column. You’re about 220 years too late, bub.

This is almost true, but irrelevant. Those were minor concerns in the debates leading up to the adoption of the 2nd Amendment. It was in place specifically as a check on the power of government and to empower the people to throw off an oppressive one. Don’t forget we aren’t talking about white-haired old men debating in a vacuum. These were recent and successful Revolutionaries who fought off the rule of the most powerful Nation in the world.

Additionally, the Bill of Rights did not “grant” rights, or “allow” us to have guns. The original ten Amendments were put into place as “further declatory and restrictive clauses” to stop government from overstepping its bounds, and in recognition of pre-existing human rights, to protect them against infringement.

So then as long as an acceptable percentage of people learns to use their guns responsibly, there should be no objections to free ownership, as intended in the beginning, right?

No problem. In 1998, according to CDC, there were 30,708 deaths from firearms in the US. That makes 11.3 per 100,000 population. Of those, approximately 17,400 were suicides. Discounting suicide (since somebody determined to die will manage, regardless of the tools they can access), that leaves about 13,300 deaths where the victim did not INTEND to die, and was not, therefore, a victim.

Of those 13,300 deaths, approximately 12,200 were homicides. In my opinion, these can be discounted as well, because if somebody is determined to kill others, they will succeed regardless of the tools they can access.

That leaves 1100 accidental and defensive firearm deaths. I was unable to find how many deaths were due to a defensive use of a firearm, so for argument’s sake, I will assume those are counted as homicide, and all 1100 unaccounted deaths were due to accident (a generous assumption).

Taking into account the widely accepted estimates of about 80 million legal gun owners in the US, that gives an accidental death rate of approximately .00138%, or about [sup]1[/sup]/[sub]72,700[/sub] accidental deaths per gun owner. Pretty damned respectable, wouldn’t you agree?

Actually, I think Vermont and Virginia would conquer the entire Eastern seaboard, given that they have the most liberal gun ownership laws. :slight_smile: But I’m fairly certain you’re oversimplifying the causes of the little wars.

Guns do need to be used responsibly. You sound just like the NRA leadership when you say this, surprisingly enough. I agree that they should be handled only after proper training (which I received the old-fashioned way–from my father). Unfortunately, all the gun control laws have made guns “magical, mysterious” things, not household objects. In days past, every man knew how to handle his rifle, and made sure his family had the same knowledge. So you may thank HCI and their predecessors for the sad lack of gun safety in this country.

But guns are not only for hunting, home protection and recreation. They are also for prevention of abuses of governmental power, and a remedy if need be, as happened here in 1776.

Criminals and insane people are already disallowed from firearms ownership. More laws will not change anything. Re: Jackasses, I would agree with you more, if not for the fact that Jackasses are also entitled to the rights all the rest of us enjoy. I would still like to see better-trained Jackasses running around, but you cannot mandate training anymore than you can issue a speech license. And, as Jefferson said, “I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away.”

Think on that. Safety, or Liberty? I choose the latter.

74

Not now, certainly. Maybe not even a year from now. But can you make the guarantee that the political climate will be the same ten years from now? Twenty? With more and more influence of the UN over the US, who knows what wacky new ways the government can turn in a decade?

In any case, the “Maintaining of liberty” argument is just one of several for the pro-gun cause. And the fact remains that the 2nd Amendment was meant (in part, at least) for that very purpose.

No offense, but this is the weakest argument. “They’d be horrified to see how many bodies can be piled up with an MP-5.” I disagree entirely. These are people who know EXACTLY about the harsh realities of war… the methods are different, but the results are the same: Dead people. Or are you suggesting that the Founding Fathers all had the testicular fortitude of Ned Flanders?

75

More influence of the UN over the US? In black helicopter land only. Bother, I hate this kind of crap.

In re change in political climate, I refer to my prior observations and arguments.

Otherwise, I find the supposition above unworthy.

(However, I should terminate this since my discussion really is more about society and differntial effects than guns per se)

76

Actually, dearie, you’re completely ignoring the focus of the argument: guns aren’t being used actively to threaten others, generally speaking – they’re passively owned so that if it becomes necessary to counter a threat (with another threat), then they’re around with which to do so.

I don’t schlep around a gun to wave in peoples’ faces. I schlep around a gun so that if some criminal scumbag decides to rob me, I can defend myself (or, conceivably, someone else) against him.

No one has ever been threatened by any of my guns – at least not during the periods that I’ve owned them. I doubt that most of my neighbors even know I have them (two of them helped me do some work in my basement and know that I own some, but haven’t seen any of them). If you pass by me on the street, you won’t notice that I’m carrying one. However, if I do need to counter a threat made by someone else, I have guns around as tools to use for that purpose.

So far, I’ve been lucky. When someone kicked my fence gate open at 4:30am a couple of years ago and started fiddling with the back door, he (maybe they) went away when he/they found out it wasn’t unlocked. The would-be mugger in downtown Seattle evaporated when I didn’t even have a gun on me, just because I acted as if I did (I wonder if I could have acted convincingly if I had never carried one?). And many years earlier, the burglars kicked in the door of the apartment across the hall from mine, instead of mine – my neighbors got cleaned out, but nothing happened to me.

But I don’t stick my head in the sand and hope that this continues forever. If someone breaks into my house while I’m at home, and if they try to harm me, they aren’t going to be allowed to. I will fight back as necessary.

As such, guns act as a deterrent. Criminals think twice before they act, or at least some do. This is why home-invasion robberies have increased in Britain since the gun bans got stricter a few years ago – the British crooks don’t care if people are home or not, since they’re a protected class (especially since that Gypsy kid was shot when he robbed a house a year or two ago, and the homeowner was thrown in jail for murder over it).

So you’ve formed your opinion without even looking at a gun, much less handling and learning to use one?

You know, you’ve ignored another use for guns entirely: they’re fun. They’re nice to own as artistic works, utilitarian examples of good engineering, and as plain old playthings. The sporting aspects are enjoyable – can you improve your shooting skills? can you improve the gun itself? can you learn enough to make better ammunition? can you punch a smiley-face in your target? how fast can you train yourself to shoot accurately?

Do you listen to nuns’ opinions about sex?

Funny. Quite a few of my coworkers are Canadians who have moved to Seattle to escape your government, especially (but not entirely) its taxes. :smiley: I don’t think they would agree.

Then of course there was Carl Drega in New Hampshire, and that old guy in England who shot a town councilman who was about to bulldoze the old guy’s house in the name of progress. Drega’s story never really got reported by the press; it took Vin Suprynowicz to get to the real story:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8786/drega.htm

Tyranny is what you make of it; a lot of Germans were sittin’ fat and happy when dear old Uncle Adolf made the trains run on time. Death camps aren’t a sine qua non for oppressive nannyism. . . . Oh well. Enough for the day. A bit of humor to end with, and I’ll shut up:

77

I guess my previous post was a bit much. It was removed. I imagine someone could have taken it to mean, “Lets attack Washington”. I apologize.

I think it’s ok however to ask that if the government promised venison in every refrigerator and an armed guard in every neighborhood, then what? A total ban on all firearms. You can’t understand why anyone would want a gun. What I can understand is that if you posses a right why would you give it up even if you knew it was useless. There is a future waiting for our prodigy, not knowing the obstacles they will have to face, why deny them any of the rights and privileges that we are the holders of?

I didn’t see a need to try John Henkley everybody saw him do it and it was even caught on camera. What, do we give up trial by jury in the face of overwhelming evidence?

78

Collounsbury:

Stiupulated. If you’ll acknowledge that, say, 25,000 individual acts of violent resistance can stir the kettle enough to raise the issue to a higher visibility.

Perhaps an international one?

Maybe causing some German military assets to be redeployed from their assault positions on the Western Front, to ensure domestic tranquility against the untermensch? Maybe causing the conquest of France to take a little longer? Cost a little more in German casualties? Hasten the change of opinion from liebensraum to leben und lassen leben?

Rosa Parks did it with a simple, yet dignified act of passive resistance when she said “I ain’t movin’!” That worked fine and dandy with a nation unwilling to commit genocide in furtherance of racial oppression. Jewish pacifism was tailor-made for a people ready, willing and able to rub them off of the face of the Earth.

79

What crap? The fact that the UN is an important entity in the world? Or this instant “I don’t agree with your views so you must be another nutcase conspiracy theorist” stuff you’re spewing?

80

No, I just happen to know a bit about the real life UN, not the paranoid fantasy UN, to be blunt. The UN does not have any real influence over the USA. The bloody institution can’t even get the US to pony up back dues fer chrissakes.

I suggest you are mistaking a number of other influences, including constraints of globalization, for “the UN.”