NationStates Jolt Archive

Gun Control: The Idiot Society

"Ideas are more dangerous than guns.
If we don't trust people with guns, why let them have ideas?"
Attributed to Stalin

Ever since the late 19th Century, most countries of the West have acted, repeatedly and continuously, to reduce the availability of weapons – particularly firearms – to the general population. Today, we have reached a state where, in most Western countries, you cannot purchase any weapons at all without some for of licensing procedures. The only exceptions to this rule are, to some measure, Austria, Switzerland and, of course, the United States. Today, we cannot even imagine a return to the situation of, say, early 20th century Britain, where you could walk into a store in London and walk out, five minutes later, lugging a weapon of your choice, whether a rifle, a handgun, or a Lewis machinegun.
If one will suggest the return to a situation where firearms even limited by type, let's say, handguns only, where available commercially to civilians without license and without registration (like they are in most of the modern United States and Switzerland) to a modern European or Israeli, he would probably freak out. Case in point: Colonel Jeff Cooper, probably the best self-defense instructor on the planet, recounts the visit of a United Kingdom citizen to Vermont.
For those not in the know, Vermont is U.S. state where, (a condition rare in the modern world), people may not only purchase some weapons without license, but also carry them without license, both concealed and openly (concealed carry of weapons still requires a license in most of the US, but the process is extremely liberal). The Englishman in question was shopping in a supermarket and saw a man carrying – openly – a large handgun (or, at least, large by the Englishman's standard). He proceeded to call the police on his cellphone, scared out of any proportion, and to report that "there's a man with a GUN in the supermarket! Come quick!". The policeman that arrived within several minutes asked the gentleman to point out to him the evil man with the huge gun. The bad guy turned out to be peacefully standing in the line to check out his groceries. The officer asked the British visitor what was wrong with the man, to which the tourist replied, "He's got a gun!". The policeman then lifted an eyebrow and asked: "So what?" The foreigner then went on to shriek frantically: "But he's got a GUN!". "And?" –replied the officer. Unfortunately, history didn't keep a record of what the tourist did when he heard this. I personally think it's probably not worth mentioning.
As the above example points out perfectly, the idea of US-styled gun laws is anathema to a modern Western person (besides the American, Swiss, and, to some degree, an Austrian or Canadian). If we establish such laws in Europe, Israel, or somewhere else in the civilized West, horrible things will happen. Blood shall flow in streets, men with AR-15 rifles will battle it out over parking lot space, and the Michigan Militia Wolverines will march through London (though the latter not necessarily such a bad idea). The gates of Hell will open, and Al Capone will walk out with the Sicilian mafia at his heels to re-enact a Valentine's Day Massacre in Paris, while Harris, Klebold, and Thomas Hamilton will follow to exterminate every first-born child in Europe. The world will collapse.
This perception is based on a perception of reality which is radically different from that behind American or Swiss gun laws. From the viewpoint of a legislator who supports gun control, the average person can be trusted with a gun unless that person belongs to a small minority that can't be the (generally, the insane or the criminals), thus, U.S. federal law prescribes no licensing or registration for most arms. On the other hand, the pro-control legislator believes that the average person is not to be trusted. Thus, European gun laws generally tend to limit harshly the ownership of arms only to a small minority of people who have passed testing and licensing procedures which an inhabitant of Vermont would probably see as draconian. Of course, most Western countries follow the pro-control paradigm on this issue.
What is it that creates the difference between the two points-of-view? From the point of view of the anti-control legislator, the average person is not the person who commits most acts of violence. The threat is not the suburban dweller with his shotgun, but the thug with his sawed-off, the street hoodlum with his baseball bat, the terrorist with his bomb. Thus, there's very little point in depriving the middle-class suburbanite of his gun.
On the other hand, a pro-control legislator sees a world in a different way. To him, the threat is not the thug or the madman – or at least not mainly the thug or the madman. The gun control activist sees the main threat in the plain person "just going postal". Every criminal, a gun-controller would say, "has once been a law-abiding person. Fear him to whom fear is due: the schoolteacher who blows a fuse and comes in to calm down his class with fire and lead, the abused high school pupil executing his revenge on the local geek-hunting party with an Intertec Tec-9, the redneck whose cross-breed of pickup truck and mobile armoury is ready to fire on whichever minority member cuts him off in traffic. Your "dangerous fellow" is, most simply, you.
Thus, there is only one way out. Because everybody (or almost everybody), is a Thomas Hamilton waiting to happen, nobody (or almost nobody) may be trusted to own or carry a gun. That is the logical conclusion of gun control policy, even if not all those who work to further that agenda directly support it. As Gill Marshall-Andrews, an activist who successfully pushed for gun bans in New-Zealand, Australia, and the United Kingdom put it when interviewed by NRA-TV (sic!): "to increase public safety, you must reduce gun ownership". There's no conspiracy – only the logic of the worldview the gun controllers espouse. In Israel, those worldview has lead from the relatively benign provisions of the Firearms Act 1949, to today's abomination – a society wherein only about 5% of the population own guns, licensed according to a corrupt "may-issue" system, in a nearly random way , and air guns are de-facto banned.
However, it is notable by now that the gun control paradigm is demonstrably false. Leave alone the fact that in Israel (where little people own guns), more people, as a percentage of the population, routinely carry privately owned firearms, than in the US (about 4% and 1%, respectively, considering the fact that the oppressive majority of Israeli gun owners carries their guns). No slaughter over parking lots. Let be the studies that prove that the oppressive majority of people who commit serious crimes of violence have a history of previous violent crime of lesser degree (and are not your run-off-the-mill law-abiding citizen by any measure.) Forget the fact that those states of the US which have European-type have also the highest murder rates – and that there are no bloodbaths in Vermont and Alaska, where people can carry a Glock-17 semi-automatic handgun under their coat without any license – or in New-Hampshire, where they can do the same if it's openly carried. Forget that most famous "school shooters", like Hamilton, Harris, or Malvo were not supposed to have legal access to arms, but got those arms through corruption, like Hamilton, ingenuity, like Harris, or simple theft, like Malvo.
Much more importantly, the logic behind laws such as Israel's Firearms Act 1949, Britain's ban on .22 handguns or New-York's Sullivan Law is fatally flawed because it's based on fundamental misperception of human nature. Imagine, for a moment, a person who you would never trust with a gun. Somebody who could snap out and start violently attacking you in the street because you cut him off in traffic, go out and shoot his classmates for calling him a geek, or massacre random people in the street because he though he was getting subliminal messages from his neighbours' dog. Even if such a person didn't have a gun, would you want to live next to him? Would you trust him with anything else? I know your answer. And, more importantly, why would you accept your country to be run by those who believe you to be as dangerous until you prove otherwise?
This alone is one of the great dangers of gun control. A free society (which is not the same as a "democratic society", a democratic society is not necessarily "free") is a society that trusts each and every adult person to be sane and responsible. Western law rests on the presumptions of sanity and innocence – the idea every person can be responsible for his actions until, by his own actions, he proves otherwise. To espouse this idea requires a certain trust of the fellow man. The gun-control advocates claim that a person is not to be thought responsible (in the area of life they want to control) until he proves otherwise – or even not to be thought responsible at all. They effectively want to establish tyranny, limited to the particular area of the ownership of personal arms. The only legitimization they need for their actions is the support of 50.1 percent of the population.
Those who seek the proliferation of this worldview lend support, willingly or not, to all those who seek, in their own small fields, restrictions of human liberty in the name of safety. If humans cannot indeed be trusted with the freedom to choose– heck, we don’t let them own guns, do we? – why not enact reasonable restriction on freedom of speech to protect us from dangerous sects ? If we don't trust people with freedom – why not regulate election campaigning, to protect us from the influence of money on politics ? Why not try to ban a party from running for Parliament because they have a "pro-criminal" message? These might be minor restrictions for you – maybe you follow a mainstream religion, don't own or want to own a gun, and vote for some major party which will never be banned. But they are steps towards a trap which will be very difficult to get out of – a new kind of tyranny, a tyranny of the majority – and of those with the tools to influence majority opinion.
Gun control is one of the first steps on that road – and the Altalena disaster, Waco, and Ruby Ridge have shown us exactly were it leads. Gun control should be opposed – and the repeal of the Firearms Act 1949 and it's kin promoted – by all who cherish liberty. Gun control is the foot in the door, and the foot has a jackboot on. If you do not wish to be ruled by those who thinks you're a dangerous idiot who cannot be trusted, in a society, where that opinion is the basic for public policy – step on that foot now.

I haven't got time to read all of that. Can you just give me the jist of it?

I haven't got time to read all of that. Can you just give me the jist of it?

ROFL!

I haven't got time to read all of that. Can you just give me the jist of it?

ROFL!

"Ideas are more dangerous than guns.
If we don't trust people with guns, why let them have ideas?"

how the hell does that make any sense?! somebody else having an idea is a wonderful thing, and is part of what makes life great. their idea won't kill me or my family, only the weapons they use to enforce their idea will.

i would rather my kids play with ideas than guns...how about you?

I think that it says gun-control is good. Without out them appocalyspe.

Celacks "Long post condesernator"tm

I haven't got time to read all of that. Can you just give me the jist of it?

amen brotha

I haven't got time to read all of that. Can you just give me the jist of it?

And maybe get the tellytubbies to provide visuals

i argree with bottle becouse you can always buy a gun but when you have an idea yuou can get more peaple and those peaple have guns and the peaple with guns have differnt ideas and they fight over who's is the best :twisted:

"Ideas are more dangerous than guns.
If we don't trust people with guns, why let them have ideas?"

how the hell does that make any sense?! somebody else having an idea is a wonderful thing, and is part of what makes life great. their idea won't kill me or my family, only the weapons they use to enforce their idea will.

i would rather my kids play with ideas than guns...how about you?


*points to the fact this is a Stalin quote, but still..*

Would you prefer your kids to participate in a safe shooting sport or join the NSDAP?

go gun control...like we need any other ways to put our kids at risk.

Gun Control - Idiot society??

What are you talking about???

Gun Control - Idiot society??

What are you talking about???

Read the article.

"Ideas are more dangerous than guns.
If we don't trust people with guns, why let them have ideas?"

how the hell does that make any sense?! somebody else having an idea is a wonderful thing, and is part of what makes life great. their idea won't kill me or my family, only the weapons they use to enforce their idea will.

i would rather my kids play with ideas than guns...how about you?


*points to the fact this is a Stalin quote, but still..*

Would you prefer your kids to participate in a safe shooting sport or join the NSDAP?

i'd rather my kids find better things to do with their time than worry about gun control. you know, like education, music lessons, foreign languages, karate or other martial arts for physical and mental strength...guns are a waste of time and energy, and i tend to find gun control activists (on either side) extremely boring. i would hope any children of mine would be more interesting than that.

You are talking about Gun Control, not banning them completely. As always you have a strike a balance. You cant just ban all guns and you cant let em have anything they want.

And besides, In case you havnt noticed your Governemnt IS being taken over, and your not going out and killing politicians. So Does it really matter. There are different kinds of powergrabs other than the forceful Armed coup, or invasions.

You are talking about Gun Control, not banning them completely I see you missed the point.

you cant let em have anything they want.


Why not?

nd besides, In case you havnt noticed your Governemnt IS being taken over, and your not going out and killing politicians.

My government? Where do you think I live?

I assume you Live in the USA but frankly it doesnt matter. The best way to take over a country is surreptitiously. Because then the people dont realise they are being Conquered, so how can they Resist?

And I didnt read the Article, but im sure its interesting. Why dont you post a link, or at least take it out of quotation bracks.

Good article. It missed out or failed to emphasise a few points though.

1./ If someone is a peaceful gun owner minding his own business does anybody else have the right to threaten him with a jail sentence? See "right to bear arms".

2./ States without gun control have LESS crime.

3./ Banning guns doesn't mean nobody has guns, it means no LAW ABIDING citizens have guns. The criminals still have the guns only now the "good guys" can't defend themselves.

4./ Guns are necessary to defend your community from evil governments, foreign or domestic.

5./ People have a right to defend themselves. Does your grannie know kung fu? Didn't think so. Then how's she supposed to protect herself from robbers and muggers?

6./ Most "have a go heros" are gun owners. It's typical of govts that they first take away peoples' ability to defend themselves and then criticise citizens for not intervening when they see muggings in progress.

7./ Gun owners have more success when encountering criminals than the average police officer does.

8./ Guns are cool.

It's always "think of the children" when someone wants to restrict liberty. The best gift you can give your children is freedom. The bad guys have guns, you can't change that, it's simply a given. Governments are as incompetent at enforcing firearm bans as they are at doing anything else. Question is, are you and your family safer if YOU have a gun or not? Do you have a right to make this decision for anyone other than yourself?

2./ States without gun control have LESS crime.

How the hell does that work. Wether or not a Criminal gets shot dead during a home invasion a crime has still been commited. And Is lkess gun control really a deterent. As a criminal you must always be prepared for resistance of your victim, so One assumes he has a gun anyway.

And arent those statistics technicalites and generalisations?

you cant let em have anything they want.


Why not?

Good question. Criminals might be banned from owning firearms as part of their punishment but what is the justification for banning a law abiding citizen from owning a gun? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

Because you cant have fools going out and buying M249's, Stingers and ICBMS

you cant let em have anything they want.


Why not?

Good question. Criminals might be banned from owning firearms as part of their punishment but what is the justification for banning a law abiding citizen from owning a gun? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

LOL! That went out the window With trial By media and the "threat" from Peadophiles. From now on you are guilty till proven innocent.

2./ States without gun control have LESS crime.

How the hell does that work. Wether or not a Criminal gets shot dead during a home invasion a crime has still been commited. And Is lkess gun control really a deterent. As a criminal you must always be prepared for resistance of your victim, so One assumes he has a gun anyway.

And arent those statistics technicalites and generalisations?
The more likely the prospect that your victim has a gun the less inclined you'll be to agress against him in the first place. The detterent effect is a fact. Deal with it.

How could statistics be anything other than generalisations? I don't understand what you mean by technicalities.

There are still six more points to debate, ignoring the last one.

4./ Guns are necessary to defend your community from evil governments, foreign or domestic.

I do not see communities rising up in defence against the evils of the Bush administration.

It should be noted that crime is the result of poor education, insufficient welfare and high unemployment. If these factors are solved, then the need to defend oneself is less and guns are not required.

3./ Banning guns doesn't mean nobody has guns, it means no LAW ABIDING citizens have guns. The criminals still have the guns only now the "good guys" can't defend themselves.

Not necessarily. It is true that Law Abiding citizens do not have guns. You should consider the fact that Law Abiding citizens can turn into criminals very quickly.

It is however extremely difficult to obtain guns through illegal methods. You should also consider the fact that the bad guys would run out of ammunition eventually. Guns just would not be worth the hassle. They would cost too much on the black market and would be too troublesome to conceil from open view.

I assume you Live in the USA but frankly it doesnt matter. [quote]

I will note the USA has quite a large pro-freedom movement right now.

[quote]States without gun control have LESS crime.


Uhm, they're kinda still arguing about that. THe point is that gun control doesn't decrease crime - because the main logic behind it is wrong. It is not necessary to prove that gun control decreases crime to prove it's a bad idea.

Because you cant have fools going out and buying M249's, Stingers and ICBMS

I'd like to point out that an American could still buy a 120mm cannon, unregistered, in 1968, and you can still get flamethrowers. Nothing bad ever came out of it.

you cant let em have anything they want.


Why not?

Good question. Criminals might be banned from owning firearms as part of their punishment but what is the justification for banning a law abiding citizen from owning a gun? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

LOL! That went out the window With trial By media and the "threat" from Peadophiles. From now on you are guilty till proven innocent.
Ha ha. That's true.
[quote]
Because you cant have fools going out and buying M249's, Stingers and ICBMS[\quote]
Well, even I might draw the line at ICBMs and possibly Stingers. What makes you think foolish people shouldn't have guns? Does the right to self defense only apply to people with high IQs?

I didnt read the rest. For instance. What state has less guncontrol and less crime. Does it have a smaller population? Secondly, was those reduced crime statistics violence related?

"Ideas are more dangerous than guns.
If we don't trust people with guns, why let them have ideas?"

how the hell does that make any sense?! somebody else having an idea is a wonderful thing, and is part of what makes life great. their idea won't kill me or my family, only the weapons they use to enforce their idea will.

i would rather my kids play with ideas than guns...how about you?
It makes absolute sense. This is the reason why most governments throughout history have limited the freedoms of the press, speech, assembly, and religion in some fashion. Even today, I can think of no country that has an equivalent to the American First Amendment.

"Ideas are more dangerous than guns.
If we don't trust people with guns, why let them have ideas?"

how the hell does that make any sense?! somebody else having an idea is a wonderful thing, and is part of what makes life great. their idea won't kill me or my family, only the weapons they use to enforce their idea will.

i would rather my kids play with ideas than guns...how about you?
It makes absolute sense. This is the reason why most governments throughout history have limited the freedoms of the press, speech, assembly, and religion in some fashion. Even today, I can think of no country that has an equivalent to the American First Amendment.

so you think it is safer for people to have unrestricted access to guns than for them to have unrestricted access to information and ideas?

wow, the crazies are out in full force today, aren't they?!

4./ Guns are necessary to defend your community from evil governments, foreign or domestic.

I do not see communities rising up in defence against the evils of the Bush administration.

It should be noted that crime is the result of poor education, insufficient welfare and high unemployment. If these factors are solved, then the need to defend oneself is less and guns are not required.

3./ Banning guns doesn't mean nobody has guns, it means no LAW ABIDING citizens have guns. The criminals still have the guns only now the "good guys" can't defend themselves.

Not necessarily. It is true that Law Abiding citizens do not have guns. You should consider the fact that Law Abiding citizens can turn into criminals very quickly.

It is however extremely difficult to obtain guns through illegal methods. You should also consider the fact that the bad guys would run out of ammunition eventually. Guns just would not be worth the hassle. They would cost too much on the black market and would be too troublesome to conceil from open view.
Perhaps one day soon Bush will be overthrown.....

Poor education and unemployment are also caused by govt mismanagement, but that's a whole different debate. Giving people more welfare might stop them stealing but only because the govt is doing the stealing for them. Hardly an ideal to aspire to. If guns were not required then people wouldn't buy them legal or otherwise so it is still pointless to ban them. Criminals cause crimes and nobody else but them should bear the costs. These people chose to commit crimes and their unfortunate circumstances don't excuse this.

Perhaps we should put surveillance cameras in every home to catch those law abiding citizens before they transform into the criminal element. If you value security above responsibility you will have it, but the price is slavery and totalitarianism.

Gun crime is rising in Britain despite a ban on handguns.

4./ Guns are necessary to defend your community from evil governments, foreign or domestic.

I do not see communities rising up in defence against the evils of the Bush administration.

It should be noted that crime is the result of poor education, insufficient welfare and high unemployment. If these factors are solved, then the need to defend oneself is less and guns are not required.

3./ Banning guns doesn't mean nobody has guns, it means no LAW ABIDING citizens have guns. The criminals still have the guns only now the "good guys" can't defend themselves.

Not necessarily. It is true that Law Abiding citizens do not have guns. You should consider the fact that Law Abiding citizens can turn into criminals very quickly.

It is however extremely difficult to obtain guns through illegal methods. You should also consider the fact that the bad guys would run out of ammunition eventually. Guns just would not be worth the hassle. They would cost too much on the black market and would be too troublesome to conceil from open view.
Perhaps one day soon Bush will be overthrown.....

Poor education and unemployment are also caused by govt mismanagement, but that's a whole different debate. Giving people more welfare might stop them stealing but only because the govt is doing the stealing for them. Hardly an ideal to aspire to. If guns were not required then people wouldn't buy them legal or otherwise so it is still pointless to ban them. Criminals cause crimes and nobody else but them should bear the costs. These people chose to commit crimes and their unfortunate circumstances don't excuse this.

Perhaps we should put surveillance cameras in every home to catch those law abiding citizens before they transform into the criminal element. If you value security above responsibility you will have it, but the price is slavery and totalitarianism.

Gun crime is rising in Britain despite a ban on handguns.

I didnt read the rest. For instance. What state has less guncontrol and less crime. Does it have a smaller population? Secondly, was those reduced crime statistics violence related?
Sorry, I'm too amateur to remember where I read this. If I remember I'll post it.

It is however extremely difficult to obtain guns through illegal methods. You should also consider the fact that the bad guys would run out of ammunition eventually. Guns just would not be worth the hassle. They would cost too much on the black market and would be too troublesome to conceil from open view.

This is all the evidence I need:

April 29, 2004
Detroit Free Press

Intruder's killer: 'I had no choice'
Detroit woman tells of self-defense shooting

Their eyes locked.

Then Barbara Holland saw the barrel of the gun.

She lay on the floor in her house after an intruder had knocked her down while pushing through her side door. While on her back, she drew a 9mm handgun from a holster on her waist.

Her assailant's glare suddenly changed.

"He looked surprised," Holland said.

Then she pulled the trigger.

Holland, a 38-year-old Detroit business owner and mother, remembers firing three shots. Detroit police told her she fired six.

Either way, she killed the 42-year-old man, Clabe Hunt -- who had shoved into her home on Troester, near Hayes, on Detroit's east side at 8:10 p.m. April 13.

He was an ex-con with five children and was armed with a loaded, nickel-plated semi-automatic handgun that was not registered to him. Autopsy reports indicate he was shot in the head multiple times. He never fired his weapon.

Police officers said Holland's gun was licensed, and they determined the shooting to be self-defense. Wayne County prosecutors continue to investigate, which is routine in most fatal shootings.

Citizens defending themselves are precisely what backers of Michigan's controversial concealed-weapons law had in mind when they worked to pass the legislation in 2001. The law makes it easier for anyone without felony convictions or mental illnesses to obtain a permit to carry concealed weapons.

"The more the criminal element knows that Michigan residents can protect themselves and will protect themselves, the more crime goes down," said state Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-Dewitt.

Some opponents of the law predicted a large increase in self-defense-type shootings. Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who opposed the measure when she was state attorney general, has acknowledged that has not occurred.

so you think it is safer for people to have unrestricted access to guns than for them to have unrestricted access to information and ideas?

wow, the crazies are out in full force today, aren't they?!

Bottle, what's wrong with you? it was a Stalin quote!

Do you think everyone hould have a gun?

so you think it is safer for people to have unrestricted access to guns than for them to have unrestricted access to information and ideas?

wow, the crazies are out in full force today, aren't they?!

Bottle, what's wrong with you? it was a Stalin quote!

erm, i'm responding to someone's comment on it. you're the one who used the quote in your article, so what's wrong with you? if you don't believe it is appropriate or accurate then why post it in that context?

Do you think everyone hould have a gun?
No. Only if they want one and have not been prohibited from owning firearms as part of the punishment for a crime they have been convicted of.

Do you think everyone hould have a gun?
No. Only if they want one and have not been prohibited from owning firearms as part of the punishment for a crime they have been convicted of.

should mental capacity or mental health have any bearing on this? should age? should ethnicity or religious affiliation?

2./ States without gun control have LESS crime.

How the hell does that work. Wether or not a Criminal gets shot dead during a home invasion a crime has still been commited.
No. At least in the USA, most state have something known as the castle doctrine, either in their common law or by statute, which recognizes the right of the citizen to stand his ground and defend with deadly force. If an intruder is killed by a person acting under the castle doctrine, no crime has been committed.

I do not know where you live, but every nation I know of in the Anglo-American legal tradition has the concept of justifiable homicide.

so you think it is safer for people to have unrestricted access to guns than for them to have unrestricted access to information and ideas?

wow, the crazies are out in full force today, aren't they?!
Wow, you were able to combine a straw man with a false bifurcation in one sentence. You are a master of fallacious argument.

You missed my point entirely. Even thought I tried to clarify it in my post. Looks like I failed. Im talking about the crime that the guy who got shot commited, not the person who did the shooting.

You missed my point entirely. Even thought I tried to clarify it in my post. Looks like I failed. Im talking about the crime that the guy who got shot commited, not the person who did the shooting.

But he won't commit a crime again!

It should be noted that crime is the result of poor education, insufficient welfare and high unemployment. If these factors are solved, then the need to defend oneself is less and guns are not required.
It should be noted that you are full of crap. I don't know if you have ever heard of white collar crime, but white collar criminals tend to be well educated and employed.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on how education and unemployment would prevent rape, drunk driving, and arson.

so you think it is safer for people to have unrestricted access to guns than for them to have unrestricted access to information and ideas?

wow, the crazies are out in full force today, aren't they?!
Wow, you were able to combine a straw man with a false bifurcation in one sentence. You are a master of fallacious argument.

i do what i can. so what exactly were you trying to say? did you have a point, or just a defensiveness unrivaled by any i have yet seen on the forums? :)

It should be noted that crime is the result of poor education, insufficient welfare and high unemployment. If these factors are solved, then the need to defend oneself is less and guns are not required.
It should be noted that you are full of crap. I don't know if you have ever heard of white collar crime, but white collar criminals tend to be well educated and employed.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on how education and unemployment would prevent rape, drunk driving, and arson.

actually, direct correlations between increased education and decreased violent crimes have been established by pretty much every study ever run on the subject. white collar crime is non-violent in nature (though certainly not excusable for that reason), so you pretty much answered your own question. personally i would rather have somebody defraud me than rape and murder me or burn my house down, but that's just me...perhaps you feel differently? if violent crime can be reduced through better education and employment options then i say let's go for it; and if white collar crime goes up as a result i will still feel like we all came out ahead.

so you think it is safer for people to have unrestricted access to guns than for them to have unrestricted access to information and ideas?

wow, the crazies are out in full force today, aren't they?!
Wow, you were able to combine a straw man with a false bifurcation in one sentence. You are a master of fallacious argument.

i do what i can. so what exactly were you trying to say? did you have a point, or just a defensiveness unrivaled by any i have yet seen on the forums? :)
My point is that ideas can be more dangerous than a person brandishing a weapon. That is why free speech is such a big deal. I am sorry that you missed my point the first time. I typed this post very slowly, so perhaps you can keep up this time.

Wow all that because Bottle left out one word. Tan dont try to take people out of context.

It should be noted that crime is the result of poor education, insufficient welfare and high unemployment. If these factors are solved, then the need to defend oneself is less and guns are not required.
It should be noted that you are full of crap. I don't know if you have ever heard of white collar crime, but white collar criminals tend to be well educated and employed.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on how education and unemployment would prevent rape, drunk driving, and arson.

actually, direct correlations between increased education and decreased violent crimes have been established by pretty much every study ever run on the subject. white collar crime is non-violent in nature (though certainly not excusable for that reason), so you pretty much answered your own question. personally i would rather have somebody defraud me than rape and murder me or burn my house down, but that's just me...perhaps you feel differently? if violent crime can be reduced through better education and employment options then i say let's go for it; and if white collar crime goes up as a result i will still feel like we all came out ahead.
Can you please show how education and employment decreases rape? TIA!

UK gun policy makes plenty of sense. After Hungerford and Dunblane we had to take action which is why proportionately we have much less gun crime than the United States, which is a similar scenario across Western Europe.

Also the right to defend yourself in you own home with a gun. You end up with guys like Tony Martin shooting a 16 year old in the back as he ran away. How can possessions be so important to someone that they feel they have the right to kill to defend them.

What makes Britain a safer nation to live in is our gun control. Knowing the chance of being shot, deliberately or accidentally, is extremely small.

It should be noted that crime is the result of poor education, insufficient welfare and high unemployment. If these factors are solved, then the need to defend oneself is less and guns are not required.

Whether one needs or does not need to carry a gun is every person's private choice imho.

so you think it is safer for people to have unrestricted access to guns than for them to have unrestricted access to information and ideas?

wow, the crazies are out in full force today, aren't they?!
Wow, you were able to combine a straw man with a false bifurcation in one sentence. You are a master of fallacious argument.

i do what i can. so what exactly were you trying to say? did you have a point, or just a defensiveness unrivaled by any i have yet seen on the forums? :)
My point is that ideas can be more dangerous than a person brandishing a weapon. That is why free speech is such a big deal. I am sorry that you missed my point the first time. I typed this post very slowly, so perhaps you can keep up this time.

and my point is that you are wrong. show how an idea is harmful to any individual, please. ideas can harm a regime, and many regimes try to silence alternative perspectives to maintain their control, but in that case the ideas are actually beneficial to people. an idea isn't harmful, only the way people act on them. prove otherwise or say you're sorry, naughty one!

so you think it is safer for people to have unrestricted access to guns than for them to have unrestricted access to information and ideas?

wow, the crazies are out in full force today, aren't they?!
Wow, you were able to combine a straw man with a false bifurcation in one sentence. You are a master of fallacious argument.

i do what i can. so what exactly were you trying to say? did you have a point, or just a defensiveness unrivaled by any i have yet seen on the forums? :)
My point is that ideas can be more dangerous than a person brandishing a weapon. That is why free speech is such a big deal. I am sorry that you missed my point the first time. I typed this post very slowly, so perhaps you can keep up this time.

So much for friendly debate....

Lighten up!

It should be noted that crime is the result of poor education, insufficient welfare and high unemployment. If these factors are solved, then the need to defend oneself is less and guns are not required.
It should be noted that you are full of crap. I don't know if you have ever heard of white collar crime, but white collar criminals tend to be well educated and employed.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on how education and unemployment would prevent rape, drunk driving, and arson.

actually, direct correlations between increased education and decreased violent crimes have been established by pretty much every study ever run on the subject. white collar crime is non-violent in nature (though certainly not excusable for that reason), so you pretty much answered your own question. personally i would rather have somebody defraud me than rape and murder me or burn my house down, but that's just me...perhaps you feel differently? if violent crime can be reduced through better education and employment options then i say let's go for it; and if white collar crime goes up as a result i will still feel like we all came out ahead.
Can you please show how education and employment decreases rape? TIA!

according to the UCR (Uniform Crime Report), as well the American Psychological Association, a male is 8 times more likely to commit a violent crime if he has not completed high school. men who finish college are about 1/10th as likely to commit a violent crime against a domestic partner, including "date rape" or forced sexual situations with a female romantic interest. as a recent example, 85% of rapes committed in the Western US in 1999 were by hetersexual males without a college degree; of those, almost half were by men who had not completed higher than middle school education.

women who have college degrees are 60% less likely to be raped by a romantic partner than women who end their education after high school. women with college degrees are also less likely to be abused physically. the likelihood a woman will report a rape increases exponentially in correlation with her education level; women who are more educated are more likely to report an attack, and more likely to correctly identify their attacker for authorities.

that's just from a brief flip through UCR and APA stats, and that's just for the education part of it. want more?

My point is that ideas can be more dangerous than a person brandishing a weapon. That is why free speech is such a big deal. I am sorry that you missed my point the first time. I typed this post very slowly, so perhaps you can keep up this time.

and my point is that you are wrong. show how an idea is harmful to any individual, please. ideas can harm a regime, and many regimes try to silence alternative perspectives to maintain their control, but in that case the ideas are actually beneficial to people. an idea isn't harmful, only the way people act on them. prove otherwise or say you're sorry, naughty one!
By my count, it seems that Communism was harmful to about 100 million individuals.

I might say "show how a gun is harmful, please" or "A gun isn't harmful, only the way people act with them".

Can you please show how education and employment decreases rape? TIA!

according to the UCR (Uniform Crime Report), as well the American Psychological Association, a male is 8 times more likely to commit a violent crime if he has not completed high school. men who finish college are about 1/10th as likely to commit a violent crime against a domestic partner, including "date rape" or forced sexual situations with a female romantic interest. as a recent example, 85% of rapes committed in the Western US in 1999 were by hetersexual males without a college degree; of those, almost half were by men who had not completed higher than middle school education.

women who have college degrees are 60% less likely to be raped by a romantic partner than women who end their education after high school. women with college degrees are also less likely to be abused physically. the likelihood a woman will report a rape increases exponentially in correlation with her education level; women who are more educated are more likely to report an attack, and more likely to correctly identify their attacker for authorities.

that's just from a brief flip through UCR and APA stats, and that's just for the education part of it. want more?
I can't want more because you still haven't given me what I requested. You have shown only correlation. If you think that corellation is causation, then you will be bowled over by my study showing that eating ice cream increases rape.

Bottle I dont think that those people finihsng Highschool would make them much less disposed to commiting crimes. You gotta nip the problem in the bud earlier.

2./ States without gun control have LESS crime.

Untrue. On equal freedom level, countries tend to have the same crime level, though states with gun-control policies have less gun related crime. But you still have rape, robbery, etc. Just with knifes or just threatening to use force.

Same that another thread discussing the possible implementation of ID cards in England. The idiot advocating this thought it would make harder for terrorists to attack. I live in a country with ID cards from the age of 14 (Spain), though terrorism is a daily problem here. Remember what happend on the past March, 11? ID cards didn't avoid any terrorist action here.

I wanna gun now

2./ States without gun control have LESS crime.

Untrue. On equal freedom level, countries tend to have the same crime level, though states with gun-control policies have less gun related crime. But you still have rape, robbery, etc. Just with knifes or just threatening to use force.
It seems to me that when he said "states", he meant the political subdivisions of American federalism rather than a synonym for "country". If that is what he meant, his statement is empirically true.

UK gun policy makes plenty of sense. After Hungerford and Dunblane we had to take action which is why proportionately we have much less gun crime than the United States, which is a similar scenario across Western Europe.

Also the right to defend yourself in you own home with a gun. You end up with guys like Tony Martin shooting a 16 year old in the back as he ran away. How can possessions be so important to someone that they feel they have the right to kill to defend them.

What makes Britain a safer nation to live in is our gun control. Knowing the chance of being shot, deliberately or accidentally, is extremely small.
Why did "we" have to take action? The only action that needs taking after a crime is to punish the criminal. If I remember rightly he shot himself. This is not why we have less gun crime. We had less gun crime than the US before we banned guns.

I believe someone has a right to use as much force as is necessary to defend his property. Tony Martin went way overboard and got put in jail for it. That's the end of the story.

My chances of being shot in Britain were small anyway. The reason is nothing to do with the banning of handguns.

It should be noted that crime is the result of poor education, insufficient welfare and high unemployment. If these factors are solved, then the need to defend oneself is less and guns are not required.
It should be noted that you are full of crap. I don't know if you have ever heard of white collar crime, but white collar criminals tend to be well educated and employed.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on how education and unemployment would prevent rape, drunk driving, and arson.

actually, direct correlations between increased education and decreased violent crimes have been established by pretty much every study ever run on the subject. white collar crime is non-violent in nature (though certainly not excusable for that reason), so you pretty much answered your own question. personally i would rather have somebody defraud me than rape and murder me or burn my house down, but that's just me...perhaps you feel differently? if violent crime can be reduced through better education and employment options then i say let's go for it; and if white collar crime goes up as a result i will still feel like we all came out ahead.
Maybe the folks who go to university or get good jobs are the type of people who wouldn't normally consider committing violent crimes anyway.

Well constructed essay.
But it does not say why if you can have a gun I can't have an A10.
At what point do we think there should be control?
We appear not to like that fact that Iraq could have nukes? Why? they have never used them before (unlike some) so using the same logic they should be allowed to have them if they want.
Sorry but the whole thing is flawed.

That thing is way too long for anything even remotely human to want to read. I want an MI95 .50 cal sniper rifle, nuff said.

Guns are awesome. We love our guns. Second amendment is our friend. Case closed.

Guns are awesome. We love our guns. First amendment is our friend. Case closed.

I thought the right to bear arms was the 2nd amendment. :?

Anyways, I also ant an m16 and two AMT hardballers.

4./ Guns are necessary to defend your community from evil governments, foreign or domestic.

I do not see communities rising up in defence against the evils of the Bush administration.

It should be noted that crime is the result of poor education, insufficient welfare and high unemployment. If these factors are solved, then the need to defend oneself is less and guns are not required.

3./ Banning guns doesn't mean nobody has guns, it means no LAW ABIDING citizens have guns. The criminals still have the guns only now the "good guys" can't defend themselves.

Not necessarily. It is true that Law Abiding citizens do not have guns. You should consider the fact that Law Abiding citizens can turn into criminals very quickly.

It is however extremely difficult to obtain guns through illegal methods. You should also consider the fact that the bad guys would run out of ammunition eventually. Guns just would not be worth the hassle. They would cost too much on the black market and would be too troublesome to conceil from open view.
What the hell are you talking about? If I had the money, I could probably illegally purchase a semi-automatic handgun within a week or so.
Great article, and very true. I'll echo other posters in disappointment about their failure to emphasize points. However, the primary purpose of the article wasn't to examine every minor detail of the issue.

Guns are awesome. We love our guns. First amendment is our friend. Case closed.

I thought the right to bear arms was the 2nd amendment. :?

Anyways, I also ant an m16 and two AMT hardballers.

my bad :?

4./ Guns are necessary to defend your community from evil governments, foreign or domestic.

I do not see communities rising up in defence against the evils of the Bush administration.

It should be noted that crime is the result of poor education, insufficient welfare and high unemployment. If these factors are solved, then the need to defend oneself is less and guns are not required.

3./ Banning guns doesn't mean nobody has guns, it means no LAW ABIDING citizens have guns. The criminals still have the guns only now the "good guys" can't defend themselves.

Not necessarily. It is true that Law Abiding citizens do not have guns. You should consider the fact that Law Abiding citizens can turn into criminals very quickly.

It is however extremely difficult to obtain guns through illegal methods. You should also consider the fact that the bad guys would run out of ammunition eventually. Guns just would not be worth the hassle. They would cost too much on the black market and would be too troublesome to conceil from open view.
What the hell are you talking about? If I had the money, I could probably illegally purchase a semi-automatic handgun within a week or so.
Great article, and very true. I'll echo other posters in disappointment about their failure to emphasize points. However, the primary purpose of the article wasn't to examine every minor detail of the issue.

In the US, anyone can go out and buy a gun and go rob a petrol station or whatever.
In the UK, not only is it very difficult to acquire a gun, simply possessing one carries a penalty of 5 years imprisonment. The only people who have guns are members of the various drugs cartels, who are only interested in shooting eachother.
There is simply no need for people to have guns.

there is no way the government could enforce a total ban on guns, even for law abiding citizens, because of the groups like the NRA, which i happen to be a member of. the people using the guns are the real problem, not the guns. blaming guns on all of the deaths in America is like blaming a toolset for building a house, when its really the carpenter's fault.

In the US, anyone can go out and buy a gun and go rob a petrol station or whatever.
In the UK, not only is it very difficult to acquire a gun, simply possessing one carries a penalty of 5 years imprisonment. The only people who have guns are members of the various drugs cartels, who are only interested in shooting eachother.
There is simply no need for people to have guns.

Hunting, clay pidgeon shooting?

Admittedly, guns used for these practises are heavily regulated. Have to have licence, must be kept somewhere secure (gun club, police station etc.), only certain types are allowed (no pistols, not automatics or semi-automatics) plus a load of other stuff.

Personally I agree with you, I have no desire to hunt or shoot clay pigeons (although target practise can be quite fun), and can see no reason for people to have guns.

4./ Guns are necessary to defend your community from evil governments, foreign or domestic.

I do not see communities rising up in defence against the evils of the Bush administration.

It should be noted that crime is the result of poor education, insufficient welfare and high unemployment. If these factors are solved, then the need to defend oneself is less and guns are not required.

3./ Banning guns doesn't mean nobody has guns, it means no LAW ABIDING citizens have guns. The criminals still have the guns only now the "good guys" can't defend themselves.

Not necessarily. It is true that Law Abiding citizens do not have guns. You should consider the fact that Law Abiding citizens can turn into criminals very quickly.

It is however extremely difficult to obtain guns through illegal methods. You should also consider the fact that the bad guys would run out of ammunition eventually. Guns just would not be worth the hassle. They would cost too much on the black market and would be too troublesome to conceil from open view.
What the hell are you talking about? If I had the money, I could probably illegally purchase a semi-automatic handgun within a week or so.
Great article, and very true. I'll echo other posters in disappointment about their failure to emphasize points. However, the primary purpose of the article wasn't to examine every minor detail of the issue.

In the US, anyone can go out and buy a gun and go rob a petrol station or whatever.
In the UK, not only is it very difficult to acquire a gun, simply possessing one carries a penalty of 5 years imprisonment. The only people who have guns are members of the various drugs cartels, who are only interested in shooting eachother.
There is simply no need for people to have guns.
Is there simply put any need for people to have anything beyond a cup of soup, a blanket, and a moderately sheltered doorway to sleep in?

If you're unconvinced of the need for guns check out my 8 reasons on the first page.

Great Leveller: Aren't you an anarchist, of sorts? What excuse can you have for initiating violence against those who have committed no crime and only have guns for sport or self protection?

Somone on another forum told me, I haven't checked it myself, that last year 11 347 people were killed by handguns in the US compared with 34 in Switzerland which, I think, has comparable or even less gun control laws. If any of this is blatently false I apologise for making a fool of myself.

Great Leveller: Aren't you an anarchist, of sorts? What excuse can you have for initiating violence against those who have committed no crime and only have guns for sport or self protection?

Here's my stance on guns:

I think adult are capable of using firearms without resorting to criminal behaviour. I personally wouldn't have one. Because I have no interest in any activities which need a gun (that is hunting, killing, clay pidgeon shooting or target practise*). Because I cannot see why people need guns doesn't mean I am anti-gun. To be anti-gun I think you have to have a distrust of your neighbours and of humanity in general.

Not a very thought out philosophy, but I have never needed(/been able) to own a gun, so it was never at the top of my priorities.





*actually, I tell a lie, I quite enjoyed target practise when I did it.

Somone on another forum told me, I haven't checked it myself, that last year 11 347 people were killed by handguns in the US compared with 34 in Switzerland which, I think, has comparable or even less gun control laws. If any of this is blatently false I apologise for making a fool of myself.
I think you are right. As far as I can remember it is mandantory for Swiss houses with more than two male adults to have a gun, also there are far fewer restrictions on the type of guns you can have.
America. approx 4%
Switzerland approx 3%

Not much difference, but it would be interesting to compare it to the amount of people killed and compare it to other countries.

I am always amazed how certain gun ownership advocates raise holy hell that their freedoms are being abridged because they can't own a bazooka, yet are more than willing to either ignore or even oppress the freedoms of others on issues such as marriage rights or freedom of choice. For some reason, this hypocracy makes it hard for me to take them seriously.

>1./ If someone is a peaceful gun owner minding his own business does anybody else have the right to threaten him with a jail sentence? See "right to bear arms".

This most likely applies in the US, yes. But not for other countries. They don't have any "seccond amendment" like the US has.

>2./ States without gun control have LESS crime.

Two questions:

1.Do you have any facts to support this theory?

2.Isn't it pretty likely that people from states that have little or no gun control go and do robberies/crimes in states with guncontrol?


>3./ Banning guns doesn't mean nobody has guns, it means no LAW ABIDING citizens have guns. The criminals still have the guns only now the "good guys" can't defend themselves.

It seems to work perfectly well in my country. There are very few times I hear about people being threatened by guns or being gunned down. Anyway it's easier to recognise a "bad guy" in a gun control country: anyone who isn't a hunter, a police officer or a soldier and carries a gun is a "bad guy"

>4./ Guns are necessary to defend your community from evil governments, foreign or domestic.

In this age of cruiser missles, nukes and other long range weapons I don't think this can apply any longer. Possibly it can help if your country was invaded by a low tech nation (which is not very likely)

As for the domestic threat:

If a "evil goverment" would arise and if there was no gun control. Don't you think that the leader of that goverment would think of the threat of a rebellion? Don't you think he/she would have a plan? He/She would most likely do allot of things to distract the public and either make the gun owners happy (so that they won't rebel and maybe even fight for his/her side) or they could simply slowly make sure that he has enough power to crush the ones with guns and then wait for the right moment? Then he/she would most likely use propaganda to portray the rebelling gun users as terrorists or something.


>5./ People have a right to defend themselves. Does your grannie know kung fu? Didn't think so. Then how's she supposed to protect herself from robbers and muggers?

Simple: If you're too weak to fight: give them what they want then call the cops when they have left. You money/valuables/whatever can hardly be as much worth as your life now can it? I don't think allot of muggers wants to avoid hurting people since this raises the punishment for them. Or if you think you can stand a chance at a fight: Grab a knife or whatever you have within reach and fight like hell.

>6./ Most "have a go heros" are gun owners. It's typical of govts that they first take away peoples' ability to defend themselves and then criticise citizens for not intervening when they see muggings in progress.

Maybe that's true in the US. But it's not true in my country. Like I say: very few criminals use guns against innocent people (even criminal vs. criminal shootings are rare) And if they only have knives or their fists they have a chance to defend themselves (even if they shouldn't since it's not very smart)

>7./ Gun owners have more success when encountering criminals than the average police officer does.

Do you have anykind of proof of that?

>8./ Guns are cool.

Yup, they're pretty cool actually. But I don't think I would want one in my house.

Note that I don't say that the US shouldn't have guns. That's something I leave to the Americans to decied. I'm just saying that liberal guns laws isn't the best alternative for all countries and countries don't become ruled by crime syndicates/opressive goverments etc just because the country has gun control.

Even though you didn't not personally say that every country should have gun control, the first poster did. I get a bit angry when a person says that every country that has gun control are idiots, how can s/he know the situation of every country in the world!?

Every country should decied this for themselves! The AMERICAN right to bear arms should not be forced upon the world. The rest of the world is NOT the same as the US!

>1./ If someone is a peaceful gun owner minding his own business does anybody else have the right to threaten him with a jail sentence? See "right to bear arms".

This most likely applies in the US, yes. But not for other countries. They don't have any "seccond amendment" like the US has.

>2./ States without gun control have LESS crime.

Two questions:

1.Do you have any facts to support this theory?

2.Isn't it pretty likely that people from states that have little or no gun control go and do robberies/crimes in states with guncontrol?


>3./ Banning guns doesn't mean nobody has guns, it means no LAW ABIDING citizens have guns. The criminals still have the guns only now the "good guys" can't defend themselves.

It seems to work perfectly well in my country. There are very few times I hear about people being threatened by guns or being gunned down. Anyway it's easier to recognise a "bad guy" in a gun control country: anyone who isn't a hunter, a police officer or a soldier and carries a gun is a "bad guy"

>4./ Guns are necessary to defend your community from evil governments, foreign or domestic.

In this age of cruiser missles, nukes and other long range weapons I don't think this can apply any longer. Possibly it can help if your country was invaded by a low tech nation (which is not very likely)

As for the domestic threat:

If a "evil goverment" would arise and if there was no gun control. Don't you think that the leader of that goverment would think of the threat of a rebellion? Don't you think he/she would have a plan? He/She would most likely do allot of things to distract the public and either make the gun owners happy (so that they won't rebel and maybe even fight for his/her side) or they could simply slowly make sure that he has enough power to crush the ones with guns and then wait for the right moment? Then he/she would most likely use propaganda to portray the rebelling gun users as terrorists or something.


>5./ People have a right to defend themselves. Does your grannie know kung fu? Didn't think so. Then how's she supposed to protect herself from robbers and muggers?

Simple: If you're too weak to fight: give them what they want then call the cops when they have left. You money/valuables/whatever can hardly be as much worth as your life now can it? I don't think allot of muggers wants to avoid hurting people since this raises the punishment for them. Or if you think you can stand a chance at a fight: Grab a knife or whatever you have within reach and fight like hell.

>6./ Most "have a go heros" are gun owners. It's typical of govts that they first take away peoples' ability to defend themselves and then criticise citizens for not intervening when they see muggings in progress.

Maybe that's true in the US. But it's not true in my country. Like I say: very few criminals use guns against innocent people (even criminal vs. criminal shootings are rare) And if they only have knives or their fists they have a chance to defend themselves (even if they shouldn't since it's not very smart)

>7./ Gun owners have more success when encountering criminals than the average police officer does.

Do you have anykind of proof of that?

>8./ Guns are cool.

Yup, they're pretty cool actually. But I don't think I would want one in my house.

Note that I don't say that the US shouldn't have guns. That's something I leave to the Americans to decied. I'm just saying that liberal guns laws isn't the best alternative for all countries and countries don't become ruled by crime syndicates/opressive goverments etc just because the country has gun control.

Even though you didn't not personally say that every country should have gun control, the first poster did. I get a bit angry when a person says that every country that has gun control are idiots, how can s/he know the situation of every country in the world!?

Every country should decied this for themselves! The AMERICAN right to bear arms should not be forced upon the world. The rest of the world is NOT the same as the US!

The ratio of having a gun versus not haveing a gun when an armed burglar breaks into your house and kills you is 9:1, just FYI.

The ratio of having a gun versus not haveing a gun when an armed burglar breaks into your house and kills you is 9:1, just FYI.

The ratio of having a gun versus not haveing a gun when an armed burglar breaks into your house and kills you is 9:1, just FYI.

Not my house. Ah, merry olde Englande :wink:

Anyone know where I can find homocide levels, internationaly and/or within the states.

The ratio of having a gun versus not haveing a gun when an armed burglar breaks into your house and kills you is 9:1, just FYI.

Not my house. Ah, merry olde Englande :wink:

Anyone know where I can find homocide levels, internationaly and/or within the states.

To be fair, I think Umojan's statistic says that you are nine times more likely to be killed during a burglary at your home if you have a gun than if you don't. Which is a refutation of the argument that people have guns for protection in these types of situations. They offer no further protection and, in fact, seem to make the chances of a fatality even higher.

The ratio of having a gun versus not haveing a gun when an armed burglar breaks into your house and kills you is 9:1, just FYI.

Not my house. Ah, merry olde Englande :wink:

Anyone know where I can find homocide levels, internationaly and/or within the states.

To be fair, I think Umojan's statistic says that you are nine times more likely to be killed during a burglary at your home if you have a gun than if you don't. Which is a refutation of the argument that people have guns for protection in these types of situations. They offer no further protection and, in fact, seem to make the chances of a fatality even higher.

Well, it stands to reason that the burglar is more likely to shoot you if you have a gun, than if you don't. Most gun nuts seem to be under the delusion that the mere act of owning a gun means that criminals are unable to inflict physical damage upon you.

Well, it stands to reason that the burglar is more likely to shoot you if you have a gun, than if you don't. Most gun nuts seem to be under the delusion that the mere act of owning a gun means that criminals are unable to inflict physical damage upon you.


Not near true:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

UK gun policy makes plenty of sense. After Hungerford and Dunblane we had to take action which is why proportionately we have much less gun crime than the United States, which is a similar scenario across Western Europe.

Also the right to defend yourself in you own home with a gun. You end up with guys like Tony Martin shooting a 16 year old in the back as he ran away. How can possessions be so important to someone that they feel they have the right to kill to defend them.

What makes Britain a safer nation to live in is our gun control. Knowing the chance of being shot, deliberately or accidentally, is extremely small.

Dunblane - uhh, would that be the licensed gun owner who blasted little kiddies with his licensed gun?

Aye, gun licensing really helped there.

And I don't know if you're old enough to really remember Hungerford, but if that guy didn't use a gun he would have used a bomb. The guy completely flipped, and no amount of legislation can legislate for that.

In a way, I almost want compulsory ID cards to come in, so that when the psychos carry on killing as before, when identity theft continues as before, when terrorists blow people up as before, I can point, laugh at the fools who thought it would stop them and shout "I told you so!"

And my posessions are worth defending. If you encourage a state where the default response is "go ahead, take my things, I won't hurt you", then how does that make this a safer place to live? Have you ever thought that such feeblism is what's making violent crime rise in this country? Have you ever thought that such an apathetic attitude is why various authoritarian bastards now get away with locking someone up without trial indefinitely? Have you ever considered that passing the buck continuously until you need government permission to sneeze is not a good thing?

<!-- Double-post deleted //-->

DP

"Ideas are more dangerous than guns", great quote that. Unfortunately the impact of the quote is lessned when you consider the fact that the person who said it had about 30 million people lined up against a wall and shot during his purges and who used to raise party funds for the Bolsheviks by robbing banks.

DP

2./ States without gun control have LESS crime.

How the hell does that work. Wether or not a Criminal gets shot dead during a home invasion a crime has still been commited. And Is lkess gun control really a deterent. As a criminal you must always be prepared for resistance of your victim, so One assumes he has a gun anyway.

And arent those statistics technicalites and generalisations?

Look at it this way, say your home invader home invades on a weekly basis since he has to supplement his MacDonald's paycheck. Now say he has a career run of 15 to 20 years with time off for court appearances and such other administrivia appurtenant to his chosen field of endeavor offset by his making good the lost hours of invading. So then between say 700 to over 1,000 jobs pulled.

Now say he get plugged at job 156 because he was feeling a wee bit cocky. That would result in a net loss of completed home invasions.

See? Wasn't that straightforward enough?

Now, let's try this. Ready? Here we go.

On one hand, base fellows of the lower sort will likely think twice about shoving through Granny's door when Granny is probably packing, has trained since she was nine years old and goes to the range on seniors nights. On the other hand if all she has is a stinky old cat she is less likely to deter someone with ill intentions unless he has severe allergies.

So then in places like say, New York City (where gun control is utterly in place) as opposed to say, Amarillo, Texas (where they may just shoot you for talking trash about it like some kind of pinko bastard) the odds are that the New York City based miscreant will be less likely disinclined to try his luck with Grams while the Amarillian with felonious intentions will find another approach to his financial straights.

See, when the law prohibits gun ownership, it only stops the very people who should have them while those who could care less about the law have no trouble breaking that one too.

:shock:

Well, it stands to reason that the burglar is more likely to shoot you if you have a gun, than if you don't. Most gun nuts seem to be under the delusion that the mere act of owning a gun means that criminals are unable to inflict physical damage upon you.


Not near true:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

Anyone can quote statistics to support their argument.

Mine is based solely on the fact that I'd be more likely to shoot someone if there was a possibility of them being armed.

Well, it stands to reason that the burglar is more likely to shoot you if you have a gun, than if you don't. Most gun nuts seem to be under the delusion that the mere act of owning a gun means that criminals are unable to inflict physical damage upon you.


Not near true:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

Anyone can quote statistics to support their argument.

Mine is based solely on the fact that I'd be more likely to shoot someone if there was a possibility of them being armed.

Hmmm, sheer curiosity. Are you the invader or the invadee in this scenario?

:shock:

Well, it stands to reason that the burglar is more likely to shoot you if you have a gun, than if you don't. Most gun nuts seem to be under the delusion that the mere act of owning a gun means that criminals are unable to inflict physical damage upon you.


Not near true:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

Anyone can quote statistics to support their argument.

Mine is based solely on the fact that I'd be more likely to shoot someone if there was a possibility of them being armed.

Hmmm, sheer curiosity. Are you the invader or the invadee in this scenario?

:shock:

:shock:

I want to be able to defend myself against the government.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Hmmm, sheer curiosity. Are you the invader or the invadee in this scenario?

:shock:

I'd apply this to any situation where I have a gun, and I suspect the other guy has one too. Abundance of guns = More people getting shot.

Guns are boring, anyway. I'd rather have someone invade my house with a sledgehammer, where I can then fight them off with my Viking Sword.

Where this argument largely breaks down for me is how they always immedate jump from "gun control" to "gun banning". In the US, it seems that ANY attempt to regulate weapons in any way is vehemently opposed as it might represent the start of the disarming of the populace.

Simply put - in the US there are simply too many guns in circulation ever to have that happen. So it won't. And what gun advocates rarely do is propose any sort of methodology whereby these weapons can be kept out of the hands of criminals.

They complain about the criminals and use them as the excuse to need their own gun. Lots of that in this thread. But boy they don't want to make it easy to keep the guns away from the criminals in the first place. Nope - because that might inconvience their ability to get a Beretta with their beer and cigarettes if it catches their eye in the display case...


Clearly law-abiding citizens should be allowed to keep guns. Hell they can even play useless games like golf for all I care. But if that person is reckless with the weapon doing stupid things like getting drunk and firing it in an urban area - then I think it should be taken from them. And they aren't even violent criminals - just morons. IS that gun control? perhaps. I call it "protecting myself from idiots". Hell - I see nothing wrong with making a firearms handling course mandatory before getting your weapon.

But noooooooooooo - it's a right to have one no matter how stupid you are. Leave it lying around the kids room loaded... so what! If you want one you should be able to have whatever one you want... becuase they're "cool".


I sometimes wonder if these same people would advocate that serial drunk drivers could not have their keys taken from them if freedom of car ownership had been written into the Constitution....

I'd never advocate a ban. Hey, I might need one if the Americans' ever start looking to invade.... but I sure don't mind putting the controls in place so that I don't have to worry about every crook being able to get one from the local bartender, and ensuring that my neighbour gets taught not to clean his gun loaded when my kids are playing out in the yard.

Canada and the US have roughly the same break and enter rates. But where the Americans worry that they need a gun to keep out the equally well armed crook who might kill them, here in Canada we worry that the insurance paperwork to get our stuff replaced is going to be a pain in the ass to complete.

And I kinda prefer not living in fear. Not feeling like I need protection from violent home invasions.

So - you can keep your guns. And your fears. Frankly - I think that's a dumb tradeoff but it's your country....

-Z-

There is an overabundance of 'gun control laws' here in the U.S. The thing to do is simply enforce the ones on the books not make more of them. The latest surge is that if all guns were registered and regulated and limited as to what is deemed to be an 'acceptable' type then put on a major program to program people into believing guns are 'bad' the laws will not have to be enforced.

More laws restricting gun sales/ownership, registration, and type are not the answer. Let's face it, it has been said over and over, laws only affect law abiding citizens. No such law is going to limit/deter a criminal from owning a gun any more than more drug laws reduce the availability to those that really want them.

Background checks prior to purchase, training and education about firearms, much tougher sentences for crimes committed with a firearm, and strict enforcement of these laws will help. Laws that extend to the responsible use of firearms and punishment for those that do otherwise. A gun is nothing more than a tool, it is neutral in and of itself. Tools are dangerous in untrained and careless hands.

I am a gun owner. I no longer hunt but still enjoy competitive shooting and just plain old plinking. I believe myself to be a responsible gun owner, I use trigger locks and store my guns safely. I took the time to educate my children about guns so that they would understand the safety issues of firearms and also to remove their curiosity about them.

Should someone break into my home, I will call the police and allow the burglers to take what they will but as soon as anyone makes a move to threaten my family with physical harm I will shoot them stone cold dead.
As stated above, this is not the primary reason I own guns. I look at it as a perk.

Zeppistan, you seem to be a decent sort of person, I do not agree with many of your ideas but I think we could have some lively debates. My best guess is that you are young, easy going, thoughtful, idealistic, and although intelligent, somewhat sheltered from the world. What you know is what you have read more than what you have seen or experienced. That is a good thing if you are young, it is also good to get a little dirt under your fingernails. Do not depend on your government to supply you with everything from personal protection to health care. I sincerely wish that you and those close to you can go through life without having more than a few reality checks. The world is not as nice a place as we would want, there are people out there that are not as nice as we would want, there are people out there that view intelligence and compassion as a weakness to be exploited. There are plenty of good people out there as well, many more good than bad. Sometimes the good have to act against their basic tenets to deal with the bad. Fact of life.

Zeppistan, you seem to be a decent sort of person, I do not agree with many of your ideas but I think we could have some lively debates. My best guess is that you are young, easy going, thoughtful, idealistic, and although intelligent, somewhat sheltered from the world. What you know is what you have read more than what you have seen or experienced. That is a good thing if you are young, it is also good to get a little dirt under your fingernails. Do not depend on your government to supply you with everything from personal protection to health care. I sincerely wish that you and those close to you can go through life without having more than a few reality checks. The world is not as nice a place as we would want, there are people out there that are not as nice as we would want, there are people out there that view intelligence and compassion as a weakness to be exploited. There are plenty of good people out there as well, many more good than bad. Sometimes the good have to act against their basic tenets to deal with the bad. Fact of life.

Well, if by young, idealistic, and sheltered from the world you mean "almost forty, married with children, who left home before finishing high school to make his own way. Who eventually worked his way back through college, started his own company and have travelled several continents" then you hit the mark dead on!

Actually, I think you will find that many of us who have lots of dirt under our nails have even greater compassion and a desire to try and mold theo world to what it should be rather than what it is.

I am not Liberal due to youth and idealism. I am liberal due to my experiences, and I find most conservatives have no first-hand clue on what poverty really means. Or what it takes to drag yourself up from it. People who have no real apreaciation for suffering. People who have seen the world on a first class ticket without ever really stopping to talk to the poor schmuck carrying their bags.

Now some of my diferences from the American point of view is from my geography. There are some basic philosophical diferences between most Americans and most Canadians regarding guns and health care. My personal philosophy is also doubtless colored by my family who are all very liberal. Actually - I am considered the family conservative!

Anyway. It's 2:00. I'm going to go feed the baby and get three hours of sleep before I have to drag my ass off to work. Fortunately my boss will understand my lethargy.... sometimes being self-employed does have it's advantages.

But I look forward to the lively debates!

:wink:

-Z-

Incidentaly, if you reread my post I never advocated more controls. I just critiqued some of what I feel are deficiencies in the standard arguments of the anti-gun control proponents. They mostly don't even advocate using the laws you noted, but do point (as I stated) to the criminal with the easily accessible gun as the primary reason why they need an easily accesible weapon. That is a circular argument.

My assessment of golf still stands though. 'A good walk ruined' as Samuel Clemmens said.

"Ideas are more dangerous than guns.
If we don't trust people with guns, why let them have ideas?"

how the hell does that make any sense?! somebody else having an idea is a wonderful thing, and is part of what makes life great. their idea won't kill me or my family, only the weapons they use to enforce their idea will.

i would rather my kids play with ideas than guns...how about you?
It makes absolute sense. This is the reason why most governments throughout history have limited the freedoms of the press, speech, assembly, and religion in some fashion. Even today, I can think of no country that has an equivalent to the American First Amendment.

so you think it is safer for people to have unrestricted access to guns than for them to have unrestricted access to information and ideas?

wow, the crazies are out in full force today, aren't they?!
Which is scarier for Stalin (assuming he can be credited with the quote)

A) Bob and his friends with guns.

or

B) Bob and his millions of followers with an ideology that threatens Stalins power.

Guns and armies, these can be destroyed.
Ideas, cannot. And to make things worse, ideas spread.


Think about it, the great massacres and wars, they weren't caused by a gun, they were caused by the ideas and beliefs that people held.

Should you be able to have whatever conceivable weapon you want.

According to the forefathers of the US, yes.

Some of you undoubtably wish to counter "but the forefathers didn't foresee, machine guns and such", I point you to the fact that the second amendment garantees the right to bear "arms". Notice that that they use the term arms, not "bows", "swords", "muskets", etc. But rather a coverall term.
This is so that you are garanteed the right to any arm.

But why would they do that?

Keep in mind that they were just getting out of an oppressive government and were setting up a government for the people. Regarding "human rights" there is one truth. There is no such thing. Or rather, they are not simply given to you. They are something that you must maintain. You only have those rights which you yourself can maintain.

So how do you ensure that the people get to keep their rights? Give them the power to fight to keep them.

So why the use of "arms" instead of a more restrictive term?
Simple, to allow you to arm yourself with whatever the government has.

Yes, allowing people to have an M1A2 abrams on the front driveway does sound odd at first, but if the person is responsible, what do you have to fear.

I am going to restate this, because it is important:

The only rights you have, are those you are able to maintain.
There is no such thing as natural rights. The very concept is a human creation and as such something which you are not simply born with.

History has shown that if you are unable to maintain your rights, they can, and will be taken away.

In the US, anyone can go out and buy a gun and go rob a petrol station or whatever.
In the UK, not only is it very difficult to acquire a gun, simply possessing one carries a penalty of 5 years imprisonment. The only people who have guns are members of the various drugs cartels, who are only interested in shooting eachother.
There is simply no need for people to have guns.

In Singapore, possession of a gun can land you up for a long stretch in prison. Use of a firearm in a crime can carry the death penalty.

Result- next to no gun crime.

Gun control is wrong.

People should have the right to defend thier properties.

I have read your article allanea, but there is one thing i can not understand. If there is one per cent of the population in a country which most probably will commit a schoolmassacre/shoot someone because their neighbour's dog tells them to, why chance and sell people firearms and thus say goodbye to everything that democracy and parlamentarism stands for, that the inhabitant in the socity is protected from other civilian's ability to do whatever they like to but to he/she must in return give up his freedom to do as he like.

What you call "freedom" is freedom for a few, the strongest and the most skilled marksmen, anarcho-capitalism or just plain anarchy I call it.

Yes, I would rather that my children join the nsdap than that they play with guns. At least in Europe we have a term which is called teen-rebellion, this reflects even in nsdap, kids who join without having a competly trashed childhood quit it soon, or can be convinced to do it and be engaged in a normal youth-movement.

Zeppistan... your reply makes the reading and debate even more interesting. Thanks for the correction and info seems that I missed the mark on some aspects by a fair country mile.

I tend to be rather contradictory issue to issue. I consider myself neither a conservative nor liberal in the main but never seem to find myself standing in the middle of the road on any issue.

Seems we both would like to mold the world into a better place and I do believe, as with most folks, the end result would be much the same. Differences are mostly the means used to get there. Hence the debate.

My youngest is graduating college this weekend but I do remember the late night feedings, changings, rocking and softly singing (good thing they were all so young they could not critique the singing)

BTW...I always take time to talk to those that sweep, clean and carry bags. They put up with enough during the day and they don't need me adding to it. I used to appreciate it... still do!

As for golf.... the idea of hitting a ball then walking tither and yon to find it only to hit it far away again escapes me. Perhaps some doctor or lawyer will post and explain it.

In Singapore, possession of a gun can land you up for a long stretch in prison. Use of a firearm in a crime can carry the death penalty.

In Singapore, you're lucky not to get executed for farting.

Oh, Canemtopia, now defending yourself and your property is stupid? I'm not a punk, if I can defend myself or my property without getting killed, I'll do it. You seem to be advocating simply bending over and allowing the criminals to take everything for which you worked hard.

I am not a big fan of killing...but thanks for playing.

If there is one per cent of the population in a country which most probably will commit a schoolmassacre/shoot someone because their neighbour's dog tells them to, why chance and sell people firearms and thus say goodbye to everything that democracy and parlamentarism stands for

Because to punish the innocent from the deeds or the guilty is absurd.

that the inhabitant in the socity is protected from other civilian's ability to do whatever they like to but to he/she must in return give up his freedom to do as he like

No, Sir.

Freedom is about being able to do whatever you wish, as long as you harm nobody else. It is on that idea that freedom is based.

The power of that democracy of yours, those 51%, to infringe upon my rights, is limited by my rights. A state where my rights are limited by the whim of the 51% will slowly slide down towards a tyranny by the majority.

If you don't trust people to be sane and innocent, if you treat the citiznes of your country as suspects, freedom dies.

If there is one per cent of the population in a country which most probably will commit a schoolmassacre/shoot someone because their neighbour's dog tells them to, why chance and sell people firearms and thus say goodbye to everything that democracy and parlamentarism stands for

Because to punish the innocent from the deeds or the guilty is absurd.

that the inhabitant in the socity is protected from other civilian's ability to do whatever they like to but to he/she must in return give up his freedom to do as he like

No, Sir.

Freedom is about being able to do whatever you wish, as long as you harm nobody else. It is on that idea that freedom is based.

The power of that democracy of yours, those 51%, to infringe upon my rights, is limited by my rights. A state where my rights are limited by the whim of the 51% will slowly slide down towards a tyranny by the majority.

If you don't trust people to be sane and innocent, if you treat the citiznes of your country as suspects, freedom dies.

If there is one per cent of the population in a country which most probably will commit a schoolmassacre/shoot someone because their neighbour's dog tells them to, why chance and sell people firearms and thus say goodbye to everything that democracy and parlamentarism stands for

Because to punish the innocent from the deeds or the guilty is absurd.

that the inhabitant in the socity is protected from other civilian's ability to do whatever they like to but to he/she must in return give up his freedom to do as he like

No, Sir.

Freedom is about being able to do whatever you wish, as long as you harm nobody else. It is on that idea that freedom is based.

The power of that democracy of yours, those 51%, to infringe upon my rights, is limited by my rights. A state where my rights are limited by the whim of the 51% will slowly slide down towards a tyranny by the majority.

If you don't trust people to be sane and innocent, if you treat the citiznes of your country as suspects, freedom dies.

Gun control is wrong.

People should have the right to defend thier properties.

I couldn't agree more. Tony Martain had the right idea. If those burgulars hadn't been stupid enough to break into someone else's house, then they wouldn't be dead or 'injured'.

Gun control is wrong.

People should have the right to defend thier properties.

I couldn't agree more. Tony Martain had the right idea. If those burgulars hadn't been stupid enough to break into someone else's house, then they wouldn't be dead or 'injured'.

In all fairness, Tony Martin went a shade too far. Gunshot in back != self defense.

But yes, defense of yourself, your friends and your property should be enshrined in the law of any country daring to call itself "free".

I would agree with you on that, he did overstep the mark by an absolute fraction. My understanding is that his house had been broken into many times previously and because he lived in a remote area, the police couldn't do a lot.

I can understand his actions, even if they were ever sol slightly extreme.

I would agree with you on that, he did overstep the mark by an absolute fraction. My understanding is that his house had been broken into many times previously and because he lived in a remote area, the police couldn't do a lot.

I can understand his actions, even if they were ever sol slightly extreme.

Ashtria, I agree.

Martin should have been ruled not guilty, IMHO - but that's an entirely different story.

"Ideas are more dangerous than guns.
If we don't trust people with guns, why let them have ideas?"

how the hell does that make any sense?! somebody else having an idea is a wonderful thing, and is part of what makes life great. their idea won't kill me or my family, only the weapons they use to enforce their idea will.

i would rather my kids play with ideas than guns...how about you?

I don't exatcly agree with that but it is somewhat true. Ever heard the phrase "The pen is sharper than the sword" or something like that. It's bascially the same thing. It's how communism started, and when has communism EVER done a good thing?

Oh, Canemtopia, now defending yourself and your property is stupid? I'm not a punk, if I can defend myself or my property without getting killed, I'll do it. You seem to be advocating simply bending over and allowing the criminals to take everything for which you worked hard.

Of course you should defend your property if you feel that you have a chance. But before you start defending your property there is one thing you should really ask yourself: is it worth risking your life for material things? I mean they're replaceable (even though for some, they might be hard to replace, but they're none the less replaceable). If you live to tell about your experience, you can always start over. And if you have insurance you might even make some money out of it...

Gun control is wrong.

People should have the right to defend thier properties.


How about this by the same logic:

Nuclear proliferation restricts are wrong.

Nations (like Iran, Cuba etc) have the right to defend their country.

"Ideas are more dangerous than guns.
If we don't trust people with guns, why let them have ideas?"

how the hell does that make any sense?! somebody else having an idea is a wonderful thing, and is part of what makes life great. their idea won't kill me or my family, only the weapons they use to enforce their idea will.

i would rather my kids play with ideas than guns...how about you?

I don't exatcly agree with that but it is somewhat true. Ever heard the phrase "The pen is sharper than the sword" or something like that. It's bascially the same thing. It's how communism started, and when has communism EVER done a good thing?

The quote "the pen is mightier than the sword" is only true if you live in a society where a lot of paper exists. Besides, the only reason that Communism was able to survive for so long was that it used harsh and oppressive methods to eliminate resistance and stifle the spread of ideas which did not fit with the party line. Communism was symptomatic of the victory of "the sword over the pen" and not the opposite as you argue.