Willravel

dksuddeth hasn't posted about guns in a few hours and I'm worried if he's alright.

dksuddeth

I thank you for your concern will, i'm fine. Just a touch of stomach flu.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Oh jeez, I was kidding. I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you feel better soon. Try to keep hydrated and get plenty of rest!

dksuddeth

will, i knew you were kidding. relax. and thanks for the advice. =)

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Daniel_

One of my concerns about cases like those listed in this thread is that pro gun people often seem to argue along these lines:

News Story = Nutter With Gun Kills Innocents, Hero Citizen Stops Nutter With Own Gun

Argument of made-up pro-gun person = "See - this proves that we need guns to protect ourselves from gun wielding nutters"

Secondary argument of pro-gun fictional character = "you would leave us at the mercy of gun wielding nutters/criminals/etc because you want to prevent heroes/cops/teachers/security men/etc having guns to protect themselves/us"

============================

You see, to me (and I am not speaking for all anti-gun people, just myself), the pro-gun person has started their argument a step to late.

In a world where random nutters can buy guns (or steal them from self-defence conscious citizens) surely the argument ought to be not "make sure heroes can have guns" but rather "stop nutters getting them".

That's why I dislike guns - not to prevent the sane rational sport shooters and careful people that want to prevent themselves becoming victims, but that to curtail those "freedoms" in order to prevent the nutters and criminals from having guns.

==============================

There is also the right to bear arms and form a militia argument. I understand that in a nation that was born in rebellion from a tyrannical army (as the citizens saw it) there would be a strong will to be able to ensure that the government could b overthrown by an armed militia.

However - would it not be fair to say that a militia trying to protect the liberty of citizens does not need the variety of weapons that seem to be available in the States.

As an outsider, I wonder (and I'd love sensible answers on this one) why it isn't better to encourage a small range of firearms that have a common standard for ammunition types, and less chance of being used in crime (i.e. some sorts of rifle/carbine/SMG - rather than pistols, hand-guns etc).

That way, if it ever gets to the point that the people need to form a REAL militia for self defence, the logistics will be more likely to achieve a good outcome - if everyone is using 7mm rounds of type "X", no problem with your militia having 9mm handguns and only .303 riffle ammo.

Now - all tell me why I'm wrong.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

Daniel_

Sorry to double post, but I've just realised your sig contains an argument that I feel enhances my point, and you probably feel enhances yours.

=================

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

=================

You SEEM to read it showing that the key point is that the people should be armed.

I read it to mean that IF the people are going to be armed, they ought FIRST have discipline.

All the rugged individualists may have personal discipline, but I find it hard to see that they could in time of need be welded into a valuable fighting force.

And another thing - what would people now be saying if the constitution had been written long enough ago that it gave citizens the specific right not to "bear arms" but to "carry swords" or "own bows"?

Would you now be seeking to argue that the founders MEANT high powered riffles? And what arms are included in "bear arms"? It seems acceptable to most people to restrict the use of military aircraft, missiles, rockets, tanks and the like.

What would happen if the Minutemen on the Canadian border wanted a fully armed A10? Or if a militia was founded off Portland and wanted an aircraft carrier?

Just asking.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

dksuddeth

To sum up and answer most of your points/arguments, all too often in any society do the loudest groups make the case that in order to stop the smallest minority that caused the most damage, everyone has to pay. In some of these cases, where they (those in power/read that as lawmakers) create such legislation so that, say with guns/crime, because a handful of people over a period of time have caused so much havoc that we feel compelled to make carrying a gun illegal......with the noted exceptions of military, law enforcement, and public servants such as us. All this does is create an elite class that now has priviledges while the rest of society does not. chicago is a classic example of this. gun ownership in the city of chicago is effectively illegal. In order to get around constitutional legalites, they grandfathered weapons that were registered before 1982, BUT, city alderman/council members and state representatives are either allowed to carry concealed weapons for their own protection OR they get assigned chicago policemen for their bodyguards....all at taxpayer expense.

To answer the second part of your argument, the right shall not be infringed does not mean that all people SHALL own a firearm, but those that wish to should not be restricted in any way, shape, or form. The 'militia' issue has been degraded to the point of uselessness because the government/media have been able to 1) present the issue that people don't need militias anymore, they have the police and the military/national guard for their protection. They conveniently avoid ANY founding father statements about the concern for standing armies and government corruption/oppression. 2) That any 'militia' that IS formed is soundly and immediately cast in to suspicion as being 'anti-government' with allegations of intent to take down and destroy the federal government. It also doesn't hurt their cause any to be able to sprinkle untruths about other predatious criminal activity like child molestation, religious fanatacism, and occultism whether they are true or not. It becomes a damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario.

Arms were defined as personal weapons. It didn't matter a whit if they were bows/arrows, knives/swords, or rifles/pistols. My george washington quote says it all. "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

What he is saying is that we should ALWAYS remember the lesson that the british army taught us, that the first step in to establishing their rule/authority over us is to disarm us and that in order for us to always be prepared to show anyone, including our own government, that if they choose to abuse the powers that we've given them, that we can and will fight back. The 1934 national firearms act was the most important step in disarming the people and having it upheld by the media argument that it was necessary to fight moonshine running criminals who were using automatic weapons to skirt the law, thereby making automatic weapons imaged as 'criminalistic weapons'. Once they got that foot in the door, it was baby steps to make all guns look evil and that 'civilized, law abiding people didn't need them, we had the police and military to protect us.

'Arms', as would be defined then and now, would be that any personal firearms that the individual can carry and use, same as our government. That means all pistols and all rifles (including automatics or 'machine guns'). Rockets, Tanks, Planes, and Ships are not arms. They are instruments used in warfare, but not individual arms. Now, some people don't want to get past that strawman argument because it helps make their case when they argue that the second amendment is a 'states' right, not an individual right but they have been consistently proven wrong on that point, although, some circuit courts are still loaded with judicial activists who want to see the populace disarmed.

There will be no way to stop 'nuts' from getting a gun. It's impossible as long as the 'nut' still has freedom. The ONLY way to stop the nut from being able to commit the murder and mayhem that some have, is to stop infringing on the peoples right to bear arms. Once 'nuts' (the milder ones at least) see that there are other people out there ready to kill them if they try to commit violent crimes, they will not be as 'nutty'. There will always be the psychos, but fewer of them and after time, it will be handled. They will eventually die out from attrition.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Daniel_

You've covered a ot there, friend. I hope you don't mind me taking some of your comments a little further.

Yep - that what I like about society. We all pay for hospitals/schools/prisons/courts/the military/air traffic control/etc., even though only some of us use them. That's civilisation.

I like the fact that society as a whole can get it's shit srted to ban dangerous things (like unsafe cars, crashing aircraft, madmed with guns, etc). This is the point - my personal "freedom" to market a deadly car is curtailed by law - and so is my "freedom" to own my own weight in lethal armaments - it's one of the tings I love about my country.

We clearly have very differnt world views - I accept that your's has merit, but it's far from mine. It seems that many pro-gun people do not acept my right to have the opinion I hold - I am not accusing you, I do not know what you think of my ideas.


As a foreigner, this one looks to me like the more sensible gun owners (and I accept that there are some) being painted with the brush that the worst type of gun fan made and gave to the media - there are certainly people that are so paranoid about federal govt. that they do think of the federales as "the enemy" in some way.

It's sad but true. If you want the decent gun ownrs to be treated fairly in the media, get your friends together and stop the extremists on the fringes of your own camp.

I asked about the use of discipline in the quote. Any thoughts?

Got no knowlege to answer this section - but do my county the honour of giving us a capital letter.

OK - didn't understand this one previously. Did the founders make that clear? What was there position on individuals or townships owning cannon or mortars and other "heavy" weaponry of the day?


See - this is where you and I fundementally differ. I feel that if there were hardly any guns, then nutters would have great trouble getting them.

I see the arguments used in this thread about the 85,000,000 gun owners (or whatever the stat. was) and the arguments about not banning them because you'd never collect them all.

Private guns were legal and indeed cmmon in the UK in the first decades of the 20th C, but were banned for reasns of public safety. At the time people made the same arguments that have been common in the US lately. Over the rest of the century the number of guns in society fell dramatically, and nowadays most illegal firearms in the UK come from legal sales in other "civilised" countries diverted to illegal imports, rather than from 3rd world countries (I was told this by a friend in the Home Office some time ago, but I have not researched the actual data, sorry).

All in all if NEW guns were banned now in the US, how long would it be before the number of gun deaths fell? And would it be worth it?

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

dksuddeth

hospitals, schools, prisons, etc are much different things in that they are services that are provided by and available to the whole community. Thats nowhere close to the same as depriving a whole society of something because of the illegal actions of a few.

That would be how things are done in your country, however, here in the US things are written differently. Due to the second amendment, banning any ownership of any weapon should not ever happen. The back and forth arguments about less guns/more guns is only going to provide two effects...either you are depriving a whole nation of a constitutional right therefore leaving them defenseless against criminals with guns, or you leave their right alone and work with them to limit the effect that nuts/criminals can do with them.

It is not that they don't accept your right to your opinion, its that they don't accept that your opinion has merit. You are absolutely free to have any opinion you wish to, it's using that opinion to force others to be deprived of something that is god given that makes it unjust.



Is that anything like saying that Islam is a religion of terrorists because the peaceful ones will not speak up? It's a catch 22, how do the 'sensible' gun owners silent the radicals? If we try to be louder than they, we come off looking like the radicals. It's a no win situation for us.



I believe, as do others, that Washington meant discipline as in being able to use them responsibly, keep them workable, and be able to join together under a common cause with efficiency.


Basically, the major catalyst that started the revolutionary war was when the British army started confiscating arms. The colonists KNEW that this was the precursor to absolute authority for King George to have over the colonists. That was something they were not going to live with because they knew, once they were disarmed, it was all over with. It is the same anywhere/everywhere in time throughout history.


Many of the documents that contain the founders words refer to arms, rifles, muskets, pistols, even swords and knives. They do not refer to cannons that I am aware of. My belief is that they felt that as long as the citizens had the same 'arms' and ammunition as any standing army, they could not be defeated. This may have had something to do with the fact that the standing army back then was only about 2% of the population, not much different than it is now actually.




Two things would happen if guns were hard to come by. 'Nuts' would either wait til they could come upon one to use, OR they would simply use whatever was available anyway. Look at the latest massacre in Seattle. The guy used a shotgun, but he had a handgun, a rifle, a machete, AND a baseball bat. He was ready to use all that he had until he was stopped.

It would be a very long time. Look at Washington D.C. They instituted a gun ownership ban in 1968. Their murder rate rose 200% and stayed that way until just recently. Even then, it's only dropped slightly. Blaming this on the illegal importation is just an excuse. It should also show the gun grabbers that gun control did not work and will not work the way they thought it would. I would even go so far as to say that nearly every murder thats happened since gun control got serious in 68 lies squarely in the hands of those who instituted it and those who advocate it. I wonder how many of those murders may have been prevented, had those people been able to be armed.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

The view of the Supreme Court is in line with my beliefs. The so called "right to bear arms" is in fact the right to maintain a militia. If you are not an active member of a militia, then you do not have the constitutionally protected right to bear arms. If you believe that you have a fundamental right to bear arms, that can be your belief, but to own a gun is a privelage for the responsible, not a right for the masses.

As to the handgun ban in the UK, it is not an apt comparison to the DC gun ban. The UK gun ban is occouring on an island, and is country-wide. The same is hardly true for Washington D.C. That might explain the differences in success. Just for the sake of information, Britain remains one of the countries with the lowest homicide rate in the world accounting for 853 homicides in the reporting period 2003/04 according to the Home Office's Crime Statistics. (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp) I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate our older brother, the UK ,for several years of decreasing violence.

dksuddeth

A commonly misinterpreted ruling, vehemently pushed forward by the anti gun crowd. In truth, the USSC has only had 5 cases come before it regarding the second amendment and all 5 times have declined to make a decision on individual vs. collective(states) rights. The miller case opinion only rules on whether or not the sawed off shotgun has relevance to a militia weapon, or in other words, is it used by the military. At that time, it was ruled that it did not, but only because miller was not there to present evidence that it did. And how is it a 'so called' right to bear arms when it is plainly stated there?

While the UK may have a low homicide rate (although in 2003, chicago had 599 murders), the rest of violent crime (rapes, robberies, home invasions, and assaults) have risen dramatically, not all committed with guns, but against defenseless citizens none the less.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Just so we're clear, I'm only personally anti gun (I won't ever own or even use one), but I am a gun control advocate poltically. I have no want to take your gun. My only concern is doing anything and everything imaginable to make sure that the antagonists that we both so often mention are unable to procure guns. While you see the 'right to bear arms' as a civil liberties issue, I see it as a serious liability for those who want to control gun use, and for those past, present, and future gun victims. Back to the courts...
I take this to mean that there is supposed to be a civilian counterpart to the federal military, in order to maintain balance of power (bear in mind that the UK had a very strong military and almost no militia at the time of the 13 Colonies). The Second Amendment is quite simply a guerentee by it's creators that the federal government will not overpower the militia, at the risk of breaking it's own rules. If you are a member of the militia, then you have the right to bear arms to the ends of being a second line of defence against exterior threats, and to maintain the balance of power between federal government and civilians. If you own a gun and do not belong to a militia, the right to bear arms ceases to be a legal civil right. It is a privilege.

Just so you know, the quoted statement above is by Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School. I am not a lawyer, but he is (and quite a good one at that).
The dramatic rise still pales in comparison with the crime rates in the US. That information cannot be discounted, as it is telling. At a population of more than 60 million that translates into less than 1.3 homicides per 100,000 residents in the UK. By comparison, in 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 population. Both New York City and London have over 7 million residents with New York suffering 952 homicides in 2000 to London's 189 in 2003.

Also, the citizens of the UK are hardly defenceless. That is an exageration at best, and a lie at worst. They have available to them the same defensive technologies as Americans such as security systems, safety doors and windows, clubs, panic rooms, tasers, defensive aerosols, and the likes. I will say this again for clarity: a gun is not the only defence against criminals.

dksuddeth

A quick comment on this and then we can hold the rest of this for a thread on the second amendment like I had proposed last week. There were two types of militia back then, organized and unorganized. The power for congress to call forth, organize, and arm the militia was written so that congress could legally supply arms to those that did not own arms. In the time of the writings of the founders, every reference to civilian ownership of arms was considered an absolute right and not a privilege. As I stated before, the confiscation of civilian arms by the British (capitalized for Daniel ) was a catalyst for the revolution. There should be no doubt as to the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right IF the courts were to take in to account the founders writings during the debates for ratification.


security systesm, safety doors and windows, and panic rooms are not defensive items. They are prevention items. Any hand held, non-missile projecting weapon requires that the intended victim be within arms reach of said assailant, an inherent risk in and of itself and most people are not up to that task mentally or physically. With the risk of bodily injury so readily at hand during that close up encounter, most people choose to submit quietly and hope for the best and I, personally, think that it is an offense against law abiding people to deprive them of a means of defense from a distance. It is an unnecessary risk to their own physical well being just so that the 'state' can institute a 'feel-good' law about gun control.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

stevo

Go 'noles!

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Willravel

I look forward to that thread.
Are you sure that safety doors and windows, and panic rooms are not defensive items? If someone came to your door with a gun, and you had a safety door, they probably could not get in your house. If they are shooting at you from outside the house 1) they are a lot less likely to hit you and 2) they will attract a lot of attention. I'd call that an excelent defence. As for panic rooms (hopefully with Jodie Foster in them), they are obvsiously a defensive tool, as they defend you from anything but a nuclear blast. Those could be used for prevention, but they are active defensive measures when put to the test. If you had a choice between owning a gun or a panic room (where price is not an issue), which would you choose?
As I stated before, give us a better gun control option. You and I agree that current gun control measures, espically in the US, are ineffective and even counter productive. By the way, it's not often pro gun and gun control people can come together on such an issue.

As I stated in an earlier post:

nezmot

When guns get into the hands of people who will use them for criminal purposes, the people responsible should be held responsible. If the right to hold is so important, it must also come with the responsibility to hold in a way that does not endanger others.

That responsibility has been taken <b>far</b> too lightly in the past - and is the primary reason why gun-control is seen as being necessary.

dksuddeth

The lubys massacre that I've written and posted about in these gun control threads was an event that was directly responsible for the texas legislature passing the concealed carry law in 95. this video link shows Suzanna Gratia, now a texas state representative, testifying in front of congress and then representative charles schumer about the assault weapons ban. Probably the best video and statement that could ever be made against gun control

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ontrol&pl=true

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Nimetic

It's quite possible that the majority of gun owners are ok.

What bothers me is that some pro-gun posters on this board post messages that show a clear ignorance of other parts of the world.

There are many countries with fully functioning stable democracies, strong restrictions no (legal) gun ownership, and a low incidence of gun related injuries.

Given that - I tend to respond if I see a poster acting as if the sky will fall, as soon as weapon X is restricted. Ok, guns might be useful/necessary for defense in some parts of the world - but this sure doesn't seem to be the universal case.

The_Dunedan

The problem is this: it doesn't matter how stable the democracy ( and what's so great about mob-rule anyway? ), how strong the restrictions, or how low the incidence of injury. What matters is FREEDOM. Without the ability to resist with arms, the people are unfree. Period. Freedom, not safety or public image or democracy, is what's important here. "Without freedom, there can BE no Justice."

In Japan, for instance, which is often touted as an anti-gun paradise, the Police can enter your home and search it at any time, without a warrant or probable cause. You can be arrested without a warrant, and the burden of proof is on the defendant; you are presumed Guilty until proven otherwise. This is not Freedom, this is a Samurai fiefdom redefined as a Corporatocracy.

Likewise in the UK, where six men can be arrested, tortured, convicted on the basis of coerced and inconsistant testimony...and then, when all of the above is discovered, the Judge can refuse to acquit or release them because it might make the courts look bad. Look up the Birmingham Six if you don't believe me.

Ireland is the one truly glaring exception to this; IMO, this is because of an extremely active and engaged electorate which wields its' venom and votes like a bullwhip. The threat of a resurgent ( Official ) Irish Republican Army also probably helps.

Willravel

I am free, yet I bear no arms. I am allowed free press, free religion, freedom of speech, and freedom to assemble. My existence disproves your statement.

dksuddeth

but you are powerless to resist, should the government decide that the free press, speech, religion, and assembly is outdated.
Which really means that you are only free as long as the government lets you be free.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

First, this is a hypothetical situation. While I do think that the government is trying to take away freedoms, they have been largely unsuccessful. While the Patriot Act does test the boundries of reason, it is still widely considered wrong and there are many people, myself included, who have take active rolls against it.

Also, even though the government has guns, I am one man standing among many. I would not be alone in the fight against tyrany IF my freedoms were to be taken away.

The fact is that the situation that you propose is only hypothetical, as right now there is no need for weapons to defend our freedoms. We have tools such as the law and the ability to protest.

nezmot

Two words. Guantanamo Bay.

Two more words.

Special Rendition.

Freedom, don't make me laugh!!

Mojo_PeiPei

UK has absurdly high violent crime rates however, something that actually greatly increased, in some cases tripled, once gun restrictions were placed.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

dksuddeth

It's all imaginary and hypothetical at the moment, the worst part of this whole issue is that it's only a mistake we'll be able to make once.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Okay, here's the thing:
1) Guns are used as weapons by people with ill intent to threaten or cause harm. While this is illegal, current law enforcement is unable to fix the problem completly. I think we can both agree that at least part of the reason that they are unsuccessful is the obvious failures of gun control laws. There are only a few general ways to stop the forementioned people from aquiring guns: I say these are a complete gun ban, or better gun control, while you say allowing everyone to carry. I suggest that better control and monitoring of gun production and sales will improve the success rate of those trying to stop illegal gun sales and use. I say that holding those that produce guns liable for what is done with them is a way to force the industry into being responsible. I say that a more difficult test to get firearms would benifit all. You say that a sort of mutually assured destruction standpoint to gun control; if everyone has a gun, then everyone will be less likely to use it because they'd be afraid of being shot themselves. My question to you is: wouldn't this make you, the victim, less likely to fire on criminals out of the feear of being fired upon yourself? Also, wouldn't the career criminal simply do what's necessary to be a successful criminal in a world covered in guns? Couldn't he or she just toss a gernade into your window, then rob what's left of your house or other escilation? Or maybe they could snipe you through an open window? In other words, I think that your solution is begging for escelation.

2) How likely is the government to take away your freedoms by force? Doe ths US military and police really have the manpower to take away our freedoms?

nezmot

I'm not sure what you regard as 'absurdly' high violent crime rates - but they have nothing at all to do with gun restrictions being, or not being in place. There has never been a weapon-carrying culture in the UK. The statement you make is both foundless, and fails to recognise that there are a vast number of more important factors that would be the 'cause' of any apparent rise in violent crime figures since the '20s and '50s.

On a slight tangent, it does seem to me to be stretching the argument a little to be drawing on figures that are over 50 years old.

No, it's unlikely - and yes, they have the manpower to do whatever they like. It's just a matter of isolation, and taking things one person at a time.

dksuddeth

Not I. Law enforcement will NEVER be able to 'fix' the problem. All they can do is enforce the laws. The reason they are unsuccessful is because the rest of the wheels of justice do not punish criminals the way they should.

and yet a complete gun ban has not worked for D.C. or chicago. There will never be a way to stop bad people from acquiring a gun, never. The only thing that can prevent most crime from bad people with guns will be good people being allowed to carry one for their defense.

criminals are not afraid of the police, in fact, they are more afraid of their victims being armed. 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they
knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided
committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
I wonder if those in new orleans thought the same thing? How about Mayor Daleys gun grab in chicago? what will san francisco do about those that refuse to turn in their arms? 'free speech zones'? 'sneak and peek' search warrants? warrantless wiretaps?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

nezmot

You've used these reported figures twice here - my concern with them is that if you think about those statistics, it means that between 40 and 60% of criminals <b>don't give a damn</b> whether their victim is armed or otherwise.

Regardless of whether you agree with gun control or not - it really is an unconvincing statistic.

dksuddeth

Thats just one stat that comes out of a book by James Wright and Peter Rossi, “Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their
Firearms”

It's a good read.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Those wheels of justice are the failures that I speak of. I am well aware of the function of alw enforcement (thus the word "enforcement"). I would suggest that the legislature and judicial branches have a lot to do with the problems in gun control, and that those out ther like you who seem to have an appretication, familiarity, and knowledge of guns and their various functions and effects should take action in doing what you can to make sure that guns don't end up in the wrong hands. I will do what I can, but I do not have a lifetime of experience with guns like you do. I've only fired a gun once, and it was at a friends ranch. I do not have experience or training.
I need to specify something: complete gun ban = nationwide gun ban, at least to me. Also, you have a very pesimistic view towards disarming criminals. I'll bet you that if someone were to really apply themselves, they could find an illegal arms dealer (someone who sells guns from their trunk). With that person, one could find a supplier and thus cut off one of the many arms supliers to criminals. While there may not be a way to completly stop the problem, there are certianally ways to slow the flow of guns to the streets. Wouldn't that be worth a try?
nezmot and I are in agreement that these stats don't really give a lot of support to your argument. A 60% is a D-, and 40% is an F. Are there comparitiable statistics about how other forms of defence score with convicted felons? Are there statistics about defensive home measures such as bars on windows and security doors? Are there statistics about tasers, aerosols, and other nonlethal weapons? How about big dogs? Without a comparison to other options, there really is no function to your statistics.

dksuddeth

Absolutely its worth a try. At least it would be a welcome change to fighting crime instead of banning ownership.

There are but I will have to get them together and post them later after work. Defensive home measures are not 'bad' or worthless. It's just that they are not enough. Personally, I don't think there are ever 'enough' safety and security measures, but thats just me. home security is one thing, but its after those are breached that is an issue. Tasers, sprays, and nonlethal weapons require very close contact and, as such, are not as safe as something used from a considerable distance. They are also not as effective as lethal weapons. Big dogs are great, for alarm systems. They are not so great at protection. I know this from personal experience as MY big dogs only dangerous attributes are its tail (that might knock you out if it hit you) and its tongue, by licking you to death.

Your sentiment of sparing life is admirable, but concerning people who care so little about life that they have no problem killing 85 year old grandmothers and 1 year old children, it is totally unwarranted. It is these types of violent and dangerous people that should be exterminated at every opportunity.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

I'm beginning to think that we are making the same argument, but simply have different perspectives. If it were possible to have ONLY responsible gun ownership without worrying about criminals (or bad governments, organizations, etc.) getting their hands on guns, then I would be the first to sign up. I don't want to take away rights that people believe are theirs. You are a responsible gun owner (based on what you've written), and it wouls seemingly serve no one to take your weapon. The problem is that just like you say a gun ban won't work, neither will guns for everyone. There has to be SOME element of control or responsibility. That is why we have background checks and waiting persiod when purchasing guns here in the US. The problem is that these measures, while usefull, are not nearly as effective as they should be. Changes must be made. Steps have to be taken to ensure that guns fall into responsible hands. Do you know how many unrigestered guns there are in the US alone?
My beagle is pretty much the same.
And this is where we differ. You want to exterminate people? The fact that I disagree with the death penatly aside, it is up to the courts to decide whether or not we execute members of society. If you are a responsible gun owner, you will seek to DISABLE your assailent, not execute them. There is a big difference betwen the two, similar to the difference between a responsible gun owner and a gun nut.

dksuddeth

IF we are to have a safe, civilized, and happy society then we can tolerate no evil. Now, when I say 'exterminate', I do not mean that I become judge, jury, and executioner. I am simply saying that those who commit heinous acts of violence upon people do not deserve the life that they have been given. As a responsible gun owner, my position is that I will seek to STOP the threat to my life, my families lives, or any innocent bystanders life. Does that mean that to 'disable', I should go for the knees? No. To me, it means I rely on what works to stop a threat, which is usually two to the chest and if that doesnt stop it, then two to the head.

Do I 'want' to kill the threat? No, but I will not shy away from it if necessary. I prefer the 'extermination' to be done through the justice system as an example to that criminal element, but I also want that criminal element to know that it CAN happen at the hands of their victim if necessary.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

I know it may not seem that way, but you are playing the part of judge, jury and executioner based on your last sentence. those who commit heinous acts of violence upon people do not deserve the life that they have been given suggests that you decide that they do not deserve their lives. Do you believe that the criminal gave you the right to make this heavy decision by attacking you? If so, then I would request on behalf of the criminals that you do absolutely everything you possibly can to save the lives of all parties involved in the situation. I beg that you do everything you possibly can to spare them their lives as you defend yourself or your family. Do not shoot them in the chest when a shot in the leg, arms, or shoulders will stop them, please.
Those are both potentially and specifically lethal shots. I see no reason for using lethal force when you have a weapon such as a gun.
You would make a statement by taking a life?

I'm afraid I may have misjudged you.

dksuddeth

It is my 'personal' belief that those who rape and murder others are not worthy of their own life because they do not respect the lives of others, but I do not believe that I am the judge, jury, and executioner all in one. I do believe in a system of justice, but the one we currently have isn't working all that well. Did the criminal give me the right to decide to take his life when he attacked me or others? yes, I do. It's called self defense or defending others who weren't able to defend themselves.

are you a presbyterian by any chance? There are always situational factors that one has to take in to account when employing lethal force. If someone is being brutally attacked and I draw my weapon, if that individual then stops and sits there afraid that I will shoot them, then I will keep him there until police arrive. If that individual refuses to stop even though i'm aiming at him, I will shoot where it will ensure the threat is stopped. That is usually the chest (biggest target area and unlikely to hit anyone else).

That is precisely the point of a gun. To meet lethal force with lethal force.

Yes, I would. If my 'statement' prompts others with criminal intent to take pause and reconsider, then my 'statement' was worth it.

I do not see how. You already know I'm a proponent of the death penalty. You already know that I'm a former active duty marine. I would do the same for anyone. I don't know you or your family, yet were I to ever chance upon a scene of one or more people trying to victimize you or yours, I would stop them, by whatever means necessary and if that entails taking the life/lives of someone intent on causing you or yours harm, then so be it. That is how we take care of our fellow man against the predators of this world.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Nimetic

Maybe so. Mind you, I don't think that they ever had gun ownership equivalent of the US. After all, their police don't traditionally carry guns.

But what about Japan, Australia, and other European countries. And as a friend said (he was working on crime stats) - these are very unreliable. The less work the police do, the less crime is recorded, and hence (statistically speaking) the less crime there is.

But yeah.. Crime stats are all we have to go on I suppose.

pan6467

I find it interesting and maybe I am just misreading, but it seems that DK argues for everyone owning a gun.

I am hypothetically believing that is the case. If I am wrong I sincerely appologize, and I am not trying to attack DK personally, but the issue that I see here, which is people not believing they must tell others that they NEED to own a gun for protection and if they do not own one then they are asking for trouble.

Now the issue I have is if that is the case, then why can they not respect the other side of the coin and the people that believe gun ownership in any case is wrong?

Or at the very least, a person's belief (such as my own), that I simply choose not to own a gun because I don't want to. I respect those that do own, because it is their right to do so.

Why can they not respect my freedom NOT to own a gun?

Why must I be warned and asked how I will defend myself and blah blah blah....? It is my choice and freedom just as it is theirs.

I do not need to be warned or treated with disrespect or talked down to or treated as some low life that cannot handle the gun and is so dense and weak that without a gun I could never protect anyone or anything.

I know the risks of owning a gun, I know the risks of not owning one and I choose not to own one. That is my choice. I do not sit and preach them, I may give my reasons why I do not own a gun or want one in parks, bars, amusement parks, schools, privately owned businesses where the owner exorcises his right to ban them in his establishment and so on, but I make my point and move on.

So why do I not seem to get the same respect I show for those that choose to own, from those that choose to own.

As I said before this issue, like abortion, alcohol, gambling, drugs and a few others, are personal choices that are about respecting the other person's choice.

And what these issues have boiled down to in the past few years are the extremists demanding they be heard and that they get what they want.... and so neither side (on any issue) really shows respect or care about rights to the other side. And the people that are neutral and respectful get yelled at from both sides and treated like we don't know anything or we are too weak to take a stand.

I am not weak, I just do not care about this or the above issues enough to push one way or another until my rights are affected..... (i.e. no choice or someone telling me I have no right to tell them I do not want guns on my property)..... I choose to want to focus on, speak out on and work on bigger issues like education, healthcare, the infrastructure, the economy and issues that affect me and my children.

I don't need either side dictating to me how my opinion on gun ownership is wrong or lectured on why I need/do not need to own a gun.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

host

You may be someone who is perceptive enough to sort out correctly what is happening, as far as who the aggressor(s) is in the scenario you described, quickly (assuming that you come on scene at an opportune time that is early enough in the sequence of events to afford you time to make and act on reasonable assumptions), and then to control your projection of force in a way that avoids shooting both the perp and the victim.

Consider that police have trouble doing that.....plain clothes officers are sometimes mistakenly shot by uniformed colleagues. Consider that police are trained to police, and to prudently and minimally resort to firearm use.

I may be mistaken, but I assume that your military training was more similar to my stepson's military combat training. At his graduation from a 16 week, enhanced basic training course, his commander described the company of graduates as your former civilian sons and daughters who have been trained to kill. We relearned in post invasion Iraq that combat troops are ill suited for policing duties.

The boot camp graduation description of my stepson's company...civilians transformed into trained killers, actually triggered speculation as to what the military experience does to a person who later tries to transition back to civilian life. Police officers, who receive less intense training than combat troops, have statistically higher rates of divorce, domestic difficulties, than the general population and they tend to lose most former friends who are not employed in law enforcement.

My impression is that you cannot conceive of an outcome where you decided it was appropriate to insert yourself and your firearm into an altercation in progress, where the result was that you did more harm than good, as far as the wellbeing of whoever you perceived was being victimized.

My stepson is now part of an elite military combat unit. I see how three years in the military has changed him. Most likely, he is on the cusp of experiencing a combat environment. Even without that experience, I expect that he has changed to the point that he will have difficulty transitioning unevently back into civilian life. Somebody has to serve in the capacities that you and my stepson chose to serve in. With no intent to detract in any way from the contribution you have made by your service, for all of our benefit, I have to wonder if the military does all that it ought to do to help "debrief" the intesity of the aggressive "mindset" that it intentionally instills in the folks that it transforms and refines into soldiers.

It might be fairer to you if the military trained you to "stand down" around the time of seperation from service, with the same enthusiasm and knowhow that it trained you to "stand up". I don't recognize a commitment to potentially be your "protector". It is a burden for police officers to have that responsibility, it takes a toll on their personal lives, and they get paid to do it.

If a consequence of their work is that they always have a sense that they are "on the job", it isn't fair to them, or to the people who try to love them.
If your service training has left you with that sense of yourself, that isn't fair to you either, IMO. I suspect that the military could be of greater assistance, if it wanted to. They may have decided that it is to their potential advantage, to send you back into civilian life, along with the thinking that you described above. It's slick of them if they imparted that thinking in you, knowing from their collective experience that most former soldiers never recognize it as a burden that amounts to a post service, quality of life issue.

dksuddeth

I can see how alot of my arguments could be construed in that fashion, so I take no offense at your perceptions of that, nor do I see it as a personal attack.

What I see as the issue is one side (anti-gun) saying that 'civilians' have no business, are not professional (qualified) enough, or not competent enough to use a gun while the other side argues the complete opposite. As I present my case for the 'pro-gun' side, I stress that the right to individual self defense is paramount because that right exists for me to exercise. When the anti group tries to deny me my right to self defense, or to only allow lesser alternatives, I have issue with that. The hard part about determining what/who has rights is having to look at it as NOT what you are allowing some to have, but what you are denying to others.

I have the right to use a gun for self-defense/defense of my family. Everyone has that right, whether you choose to exercise that right or not, is completely up to you, but it is not anyones right to deny me/mine that right to life. The anti-gun crowd feels that it is. The ones who are 'on the fence', like you Pan, are simply choosing not to exercise your right to own/use a gun for self-defense while not denying it for others, and there is absolutely no problem with that.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."