dksuddeth

Host, a very good overall post with great thoughts. This one hit home with me and I wanted to put it out there what I think about the reasons why I carry.

In the past, when I lived in Illinois where carrying is not allowed, I've had the unfortunate experience of domestic violence in many shapes and forms. Husband/Wife, Boyfriend/Girlfriend, and even Brother/Brothers wife. I've often had to step in to schoolyard/back alley fights between kids, and sometimes even adults, to try to stop someone from getting seriously hurt. It doesn't always work out. I ended up in the hospital once because some jackass who weighed 50 lbs more than I did, felt that it wasn't my place to stop him and his buddies from beating a friend of mine, so he tried to gouge my eyes out with his fingers. I was blind for a week. I'm lucky to see out of both eyes and could have lost the left one that nite. It took only 2 minutes for the local cops to show up and cause them to run off, what would have happened to me if it would have been a minute longer? I don't like to think about it much, but it did prove to me that nite, that any tool I can use to defend myself, or others, should not only be allowed, but encouraged.

Now, when I look at the part of your post that I quoted, I actually do acknowledge that there is always the possibility of making a mistake and causing more harm than good, but I also have to balance that with the thought of someone being victimized/killed and knowing that I did nothing to stop it. I've accepted that I may have to live with the spectre of a mistake the rest of my life, but it pales in comparison to the nitemares I would have if someone died that didn't have to, because I did nothing.

__________________
"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

If it had been a state that allowed carry laws, that guy might have shot you instead.

dksuddeth

that would have been murder, wouldn't it? Had there been carry laws, I could have shot and defended myself from the possibility of losing my eyes. Of course, if there had been carry laws, the fight wouldn't have started in the first place. The fear of being shot tends to limit that kind of violence.

See, this is the issue I have with the gun grabbers. Instead of supporting the right of people to defend themselves, they try to tell you its better to be maimed and MAYBE killed than to allow people to carry guns.

I ask you, IF he'd shot me, he would have been breaking the law anyway, so why would he worry about following a carry law? He wouldn't have worried about it. Laws preventing people from carrying guns are not going to stop people who are intent on breaking the law anyway.

__________________
"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

Yes it would have been murder. He would have broken a law - just like he did when he assaulted you. Would the fight not have started? Maybe, maybe not. But you probably wouldn't have felt safe enough to step in and stop the attack. You see if 3 guys have guns and you only have one, it's always going to be you who loses out. You can be the best shot in the world, hit people in the face, chest or wherever, but if there's a gang - you lose, each time. Unless you get your own gang. But that's besides the point.

Am I telling you it's better to be maimed and maybe killed, than to carry a gun? Nope. I was just pointing out that in the situation you described, it could have turned out worse if the guy was packing.

Why would he worry about a carry law? Because if he's a criminal in a state that has a carry law - he HAS to carry a gun. If he's a criminal in a non-carry state, he doesn't NEED to pack, and is going to be less likely to. Instating a carry law means that all criminals are forced to carry weapons. If you want your criminal underclass to feel the need to arm themselves, then fine - but if there are more of them than there are of you, you lose - no matter what you carry.

dksuddeth

you really believe that, don't you? So those states that are not 'shall issue' states, all of their criminals are unarmed? sorry, that logic makes no sense. criminals don't care about whether they are in a carry state or not. They use a gun because it makes being a criminal easier when you're victim is unarmed. a carry law doesn't 'force' a criminal to carry a gun, they are going to anyway.

__________________
"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

So did the guy who nearly blinded you carry a gun? Would you have been more or less in danger if he and his friends were carrying?

I'm not saying that non-carry states = gun free criminals - what I am saying is that they wont feel as though they HAVE to carry a gun. However, if someone is planning on running foul of the law in a carry state, they'd be a fool not to carry. Because they know the other guy will be. In that case, they have to be sure you either outnumber, or outdraw their victim. Nobody has been protected.

Having a gun in your pocket can help you feel much safer as you walk home, but it's a comfort-blanket. If you're going to get mugged, you're going to get mugged. There really isn't anything you can do about it. The only difference is that if you draw your weapon, you're more likely to get shot.

dksuddeth

No, as far as I know, people in illinois who obey the gun laws don't carry. Now, the sad thing about this is that I knew this guy. Grew up with him and his family. Would I have been in more/less danger? The way I see it, this 'gang' thought that they could just use numbers and size to bully two people they saw as easy targets. If Illinois was a carry state, they just might have rethought their little plan if they thought we might be carrying. Nobody, not even a criminal, wants to get shot.

Whether its a carry state or not, if a criminal can get a gun, they will use it. They will use it because an unarmed person staring down a gun will comply quicker and quieter. The only thing that makes MOST of them pause, is the thought that their 'victim' may be armed and possibly shoot them.

I have posted dozens and dozens of real life incidents where people have used guns to save their lives or the lives of their families. Your assumption that a mugger will just stop after he/she gets what they want is just that, an assumption, and as a victim, having a gun could save your life. Criminals are more afraid of their victim being armed than they are the cops. Criminals also don't regularly practice with their illegally obtained firearms, unlike law abiding citizens who are licensed to carry theirs.

__________________
"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

Do you think it might be easier for a criminal to carry a gun where they are commonplace among civilians? Do you think it might be difficult for a criminal to carry a gun where no one but police officers carry gund? These are yes or no questions that might give you an idea of where we are coming from. Please answer the questions honestly.

nezmot

Yes, having a gun *could* save your life - or, it *could* get you shot. No assumptions there. The mugger is *much* more likely to stop after he is happy that his victim is unarmed - because he doesn't want to be shot in the back as he's running away.
According to your quote from earlier, only between 40% and 60% of them are bothered either way, the rest (the remaining 40%-60%) don't care.
How do you know? Plus, in a mugging/robbery/crime situation, practice has nothing to do with it. A criminal however is more likely to have experience of someone pointing a gun at them. A criminal is also more likely to have experience of pointing a gun at someone else. Sure, a law-abiding person may be able to hit a target at 50m, but how many crimes are committed at a range of 50m? The psychological effects of pointing/having a gun pointed at you are something it is very hard to train for. This is something that civilians (thankfully) generally have little experience of, in contrast to cops and criminals.

Furthermore, criminals are perfectly capable of attaining firearms legally too. Nobody has a sticker on their forehead telling the authorities who is a bad guy or a good guy. But it has to be said that obtaining (and carrying) a gun is easier, (either through legal or illegal channels) in states that sell more guns.

dksuddeth

for those that do not lock up their guns, yes, its easier when the criminal steals them from the civilian.

chicago has effectively forbidden gun ownership, yet criminals posess, and use, them on a daily basis. gun ownership is illegal in D.C., yet criminals use them on a daily basis. No, I do not think its difficult at all for a criminal to get a gun in either place.

there are your honest answers. Now, answer this question honestly.

Does it matter if guns are 'controlled' yet criminals still easily obtain them? Do 'controlling' guns make law abiding citizens more safe or less safe by denying them effective self defense?

__________________
"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."

dksuddeth

and by stating this, you are telling people to just 'trust in the odds'. If you die, then you die, so sorry, but thats the odds.

which is all the more reason you should carry to defend yourself. If a criminal is not worried about their victim being armed, its much more likely that they are going to kill you anyway to prevent a witness.

This is all wrong. MOST, not all but most, criminals don't pursue expertise in firearms. They want to be in and out as quick as possible. In an actual crime experience, practice has EVERYTHING to do with it and if criminals actually HAD more experience in having a gun pointed at them(not sure where you actually came up with that one) then they probably would give up being a criminal. A citizen who actively practices at a range doesn't just shoot at 50m targets. they shoot up close and personal also, like 7m and less. Now, the actual dealing of an actual gun being pointed at you/having to point a gun at someone will weed out the ones that shouldn't carry right away. I've met a couple people who got their CCW, actually had to deal with being a crime victim, then store their gun in the closet or outright sell it because they couldn't deal with it. More civilians shoot rounds downrange than most cops. less than 25% of the cops I actually know practice on a weekly basis, unlike civilians who are serious about their self defense. Their are civilians I would rather have covering my back in a hostile situation than I would in having the police there. Criminals? BS. criminals are more experienced in pointing a gun at someone instead of having it pointed at them.

All states sell guns, and it's illegal to sell to convicted felons. considering that background checks are also required to buy guns at shops and shows, most criminals get their guns off street sales. It is a very stupid criminal indeed to go out, legally purchase a handgun at a shop or show (they are not cheap) just to use it in a crime when they can buy a practically untraceable gun off the street for less than half the price.

__________________
"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

That's not what I asked. I asked if it would be easier to carry. The question had nothing to do with acquisition. If you are to answer my question, then answer the question I ask, not the question you want to hear.
Again, that's not what I asked. Neither of my questions had anything to do with the acquisition of the guns, they had to do with a criminal on the street carrying a weapon. Again I ask: Do you think it might be difficult for a criminal to carry a gun where no one but police officers carry guns?
Question 1: As I've said before, the current system of gun control is broken and either in neeed of repair or replacement. I have no illusions about how many guns are in the hands of people who have no buisness having guns.

Question 2: Guns are hardly the only form of self defence, so your second question is fundamentally flawed. 'Controling guns' should be an effort to keep guns from the very people you seek to defend yourself from. We seek the same result. Also, what gun control law denies 'law abiding citizens' from getting guns? Before you answer that question, remember that a gun ban is not gun control just like a fast is not a diet.

dksuddeth

My apologies. I did misread your question. My answer is no. It would NOT be any easier for a criminal to carry in a carry state vs. a no carry state. criminals conceal their weapons, they do not wear them open.

This would be a NO again. Since criminals conceal their weapons, it is not any more difficult for a criminal to carry a gun in a no carry state as it is in a carry state.

The national firearms act of 1934. The gun control act of 1968. The registration restrictions in chicago. The ban on handguns in morton grove. The pending handgun ban in san francisco. The gun ban in D.C. The firearm owners protection act of 1986. The lautenburg amendment of 1996.

I did not say that guns are the only form of self defense, just the most effective. Gun controls flaws at this point are that the 'laws' in place only prevent or inhibit law abiding citizens from obtaining them. The only good form of gun control is to enforce heavy punishments upon the criminals who use them illegally.

__________________
"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

As the burden of proof is on both sides in this discussion, I will need to see some statistic on how many criminals conceal weapons. Also, there are many places in the US where every citizen has the legal right to conceal their guns.
-National firearms act of 1934: the registration, and the taxing of the transfer, of a class of weapons described as NFA Title 2 weapons. This does not keep guns from the hands of law abiding citizens any more than the price of a gun.
-Gun control act of 1968: prohibited the direct mail order of firearms by consumers and mandated that if a person wants to buy a gun from other than a private individual, he or she has to go to a Federally licensed firearms dealer to buy the gun. The Act also bans unlicensed individuals from acquiring handguns outside their State of residence, although long guns (rifles and shotguns) may (under Federal law) be acquired from Federally licensed firearms dealers located in other States, provided this is allowed by both the State of purchase and the State of residence. So this also doesn't keep guns from law abiding citizens. If you're keeping score, thats 0/2 so far.
-registration restrictions in chicago: do you want to be more specific?
-D.C. gun ban: gun ban is different than gun control. They are not the same.
-Firearm owners protection act of 1986: Prohibits the following from owning guns: Anyone who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, anyone who is a fugitive from justice, anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance, anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution, any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa, anyone who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions, anyone who, having been a citizen of the United states, has renounced his or her citizenship, anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, a person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information. In other words, criminals and such cannot get guns. You are making a strong case! That's 0/4, yes?
Lautenberg amendment of 1996: prevents people with any ‘domestic violence’ convictions from ever owning a gun. So how does that keep guns from law abiding citizens? It doesn't.

None of the cases you cited were cases involving taking the guns from law abiding citizens. You see tyrany where there is none.
Wrong. Preventative measures are the only way to save lives. Arming everyone is an act of desperation that only leads to danger and the spread of fear. I know that while we disagree about gun control, we do agree about the current presidency. What is the greatest tool of the Bush administration? Fear. Would you want to use his weapon?

dksuddeth

Will, are you seriously trying to tell me that criminals carry their weapons openly in this country? If you are, then there are bigger issues here that deal directly with you.

If a branch of government cannot make something illegal because of the constitution, the next method of removing it from society is to make it too expensive. Look at how the current administration/DoJ is attacking online pornography for an example of this. The NFA has had this exact effect by making it near impossible for the average income citizen to be able to afford the $200 tax. It's also caused the supply of these to go down making the costs very expensive.

You missed a few.
Implemented the Form 4473 (yellow form) for purchases - a registration system, a precursor to confiscation.

Attempted to address "Saturday Night Specials" by prohibiting from import small handguns. - The basic removal of inexpensive handguns market to those who don't have alot of money.

establish of minimum ages for firearms purchasers - Back in the days before a 'nanny' state, a 16 year old could go buy a rifle or shotgun. In the more rural areas, this was the mark of a boy becoming a man. Not any more.

Not the way I see it.

In 1986, Mayor Daley and the chicago council passed several ordinances. One of them being that there would be no more handgun registration in the city limits. This was grandfathered so that all those that were registered before a certain date could be kept, all others must be turned in. Later, it was extended to long guns. Now, with the Firearm owners ID system, any citizen of chicago that buys a gun gets a visit from the friendly neighborhood jack booted thugs and a search warrant. This keeps guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens only, since criminals do not go out and buy guns legally leaving a paper trail.


Semantics, they are the same. Gun Control is a Gun Ban with limits. Gun Bans are a total attempt at gun control. They are indeed the same.

This removed the right to own a gun from a huge group of people whos sole crime could have been a couple of bounced checks. This is an egregious example abuse of power to limit who owns a gun instead of trying to keep it out of violent criminals hands.

This was the only thing it had right, so you get half a point here.

restraining orders are rubberstamped on the word of the supposed victim and therefore you are removing the right from a person who's accused of something with no proof.

Criminals cannot get a gun through legal means, it also makes criminals of people who make simple mistakes and get made examples of. what a great justice system you support.

Yes I am, the real score is 3.5 to .5, my favor.

Lautenberg also made those under a domestic restraining order into prohibited persons. Restraining orders require little to no proof, making it possible to deny a right to someone who never actually committed a crime.

Lautenberg also made those under a domestic restraining order into prohibited persons.None of the cases you cited were cases involving taking the guns from law abiding citizens. You see tyrany where there is none. [/QUOTE]Here you are wrong, as I plainly showed you. You should do more research or use more credible resources instead of relying on biased information. If you want a real life example of removing guns from law abiding citizens, just take a look at post hurricane katrina. Let me know if you need a few links.

You are wrong, you can take all the preventative measures in the world and unless you live in a mini fort knox, Your life can still be taken by a criminal with a gun/knife/baseball bat. A gun can and will still save your life.

The last part is just your spin. I DO want criminals to fear me, it makes them decide to go elsewhere. In the world we have today, arming everybody is the only answer. You could only get me to acknowledge and decide to turn in my guns on one condition, guarantee me that no criminal will ever be able to lay his hands on a weapon against me. Can you do that? Didn't think so.

__________________
"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

Unless we have the statistics, your talking down to me is meaningless.
Then Porsche is guilty of keeping fast cars from law abiding citizens. I'm sorry, but if there were to be a law that prevented people rom getting guns, it would keep all people from getting guns.
You aren't going to convince anyone by citing examples of 'precursers'. Apollo 11 was a precurser to the first mission to Mars, but we're not there yet.
Same argument as above.
If they can't vote, then they shouldn't have weapons.
So it's a gun ban. A gun ban is not gun control. Gun control is an effort to regulate of the sale and use of rifles and handguns. A ban is not regulatin, it is a ban. Also, it isn't semantics because you were answering a question that I asked: "...what gun control law denies 'law abiding citizens' from getting guns? Before you answer that question, remember that a gun ban is not gun control just like a fast is not a diet."
If you are sent to prison for a year or more, you can't get a gun. If yoiu bounce checks repeatedly, you can go to jail. It's no abuse of power, it's simple common sense.
Without photos of bruises, police reports, doctor's reports, tape recordings of telephone conversations, etc. the judge usually won't grant a restraining order. The decision on a restraining order is no less important than a court ruling. There cannot be a restraining order without proof.
Your 'people who make simple mistakes' are criminals. Do you want criminals to have guns or not?
You should contact a local lawyer about restraining orders. They have a lot of useful and tested information on them, and could teach you a lot.
Do you know what resources I used? Nope. I didn't list any because I found all of it in my encyclopedia. If you want to argue with the encyclopedia, go right ahead. No need to shoot the messsenger. None of your examples showed guns being taken from law abiding citizens, so I don't know why you see this hidden menace with the intent of taking your gun. If you become a criminal, they will be within their legal right to take your guns and make sure you can't legally purchase guns.
This is the fear I was talking about. So you're saying that even if I had military protection and several foot deep steel doors (fort knox) a criminal will come and get me? A gun is not a magic shield of protection. Guns are machines built to kill people. A gun is what you are afraid of, and yet you are willing to get a gun yourself for the purpous of defence. That is truely confusing.
You mean spin like half your posts? Spin like posting articles that feature people getting killed and saying "See, a gun would have helped them!!!"?

I never aked you to turn your gun in, so stop trying to make it seem as if I had.

Edit: This is becoming adversarial again. My intent is to teach and learn on the subject, not win or lose. I apologize if anything I've written has been inapropriate to these ends. Know that I have a great deal of respect for you and have no wish to bring harm (potential or otherwise) or discomfort to you and yours.

dksuddeth

ok will, you are right. I have no statistics and do not know the number of criminals who carry their guns openly in america. I'll find that and post it up here for you.

This is a complete apples and oranges comparison. Porsche does not make their automobiles expensive because of numerous regulations. They put a price on their product by supply/demand/costs. the government makes products and services MORE expensive by taxes/regulations/controlling supply.

how about examples of the past? I've posted numerous examples, but that would never happen in america, would it?

why not? we let them drive, we let them get married?

A gun ban IS gun control by different means. They both are intended to keep guns out of civilian hands. One by restrictions on the person, the other by restriction of living in a municipality. Same effect.

There is nothing common sense about making laws to keep guns out of violent felons hands and collecting non violent misdemeanors in the process.

Then you're sorely lacking in experience and knowledge on domestic violence restraining orders. This even affects people who were inappropriately convicted for spanking their kids. It's a bad law to begin with and it's effects are even worse with sympathetic judges who issue restraining orders on the words of a vindictive spouse/significant other.

I don't want violent felons to have guns. Somebody who makes a simple mistake in a victimless crime should not lose their constitutional rights.

Thats why I want to be a lawyer myself, I know how to find this info.

[QUOTE=willravel]Do you know what resources I used? Nope. I didn't list any because I found all of it in my encyclopedia. If you want to argue with the encyclopedia, go right ahead. No need to shoot the messsenger. None of your examples showed guns being taken from law abiding citizens, so I don't know why you see this hidden menace with the intent of taking your gun. If you become a criminal, they will be within their legal right to take your guns and make sure you can't legally purchase guns.

If you were a prisoner there, I'd say no. But in the really real world, you have to go out on a near daily basis, right? Again, A gun is NOT a magic shield, nor is a taser or mace, but it greatly increases your odds of survival. Guns are a tool to defend yourselves, much like a baseball bat is made to hit home runs. It's who uses it and how that makes the difference.


I've taken no offense by anything you've written in this thread. No apologies are necessary. If it seems adversarial, well, thats because it is. You say you aren't asking me to turn my gun in, technically thats true, but you also say that you think gun bans will work, you want to run for office to make those changes, so I make the natural assumption that you want me to turn my gun in.

My intent is to teach and learn on the subject as well, maybe we're so ingrained in our beliefs that we will never come to terms.

__________________
"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

Fair enough. This could be a way of controling the flow of weapons to people with lower levels of disposable income.
My point is that it hasn't happened yet. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it.
If you're not considered by the law to be mature enough to drink alcohol, fight in a war, or vote for your representatives, then I don't see how they could be considered legally responsible enough to purchase a rifle or shotgun. If the aim is safety, then wouldn't you want them to have small arms anyway? A rifle or shotgun is hard to hide from a criminal (or anyone for that matter).
Same effect does not mean same cause, and they don't even have the same effect. Gun control is set up to make sure that dangerous people can't get guns. Gun bans are set up to make sure no one gets guns. Those are two very different situations.
I;ve read this 4 timees now and I think I need claraification. I think what you mean is that as far as gun control violent and nonviolent criminals should not be grouped together. I think that stalkers are just as dangerous with guns as gang members. They are both antisocial and could have the intent to use guns.
I have to go with the judicial system on this. If you are given a restraining order, then you are legally a danger or threat to someone. Someone who is a legal danger to someone else should not be given a firearm. I disagree with many court rulings, but they are legal. Gun control can't be on a case-by-case basis.
We've already agreed to disagree on the constitutional legitimacy of the 'right to bear arms', so I'll leave this alone.
I'm not convinced that a gun greatly increases your odds for survival.
I don't support gun bans. I hate guns and support gun control, but I don't support gun bans. I see no reason to take your gun from you. I see reason to better monitor the flow of weapons, but not the seizure of all guns from everyone. The reason I supported the San Fran gun ban (which rhymes) is because it was their decision. San Francisco voted on it, so it's theirs to deal with. It's not the place of you, me, or the NRA to say that their votes didn't count.

When I run for office, my first order of buisness would be environmental measures. Then I'd focus on traffic, then population growth control. Then I'd work on full disclosure of all city matters (to let the interested citizens have better understanding of what's going on in City Hall). Gun control is hardly a city matter. Even if it were, I wouldn't support a ban. I know how crazy our police are, and a bun gan would cause a civil war.
I hope not. I hope that I am not so sure of my beliefs that I cannot be open minded. I suspect that our upbringings account for a great deal of our differences of opinion.

magictoy

That didn't help the Jews in Nazi Germany. What should they have done differently?

The Sudan. Cambodia. Somalia. Etc.

Willravel

Are we in Nazi Germany? I don't think so. IF things like Waco were still happening, then I might be inclined to agree with you, but they're not. Th government doesn't currently have the power to enact the same types of programs as Nazi Germany.
All cases involving 3rd world countries. Apples to oranges. Our military is too closely conected to home to have a military vs. civilians war. My uncle works at the Pentagon. He and I may not see eye to eye when it comes to the president, the administration, gun cotnrol, etc., but I know he would never turn on me just like I'd never turn on him.

nezmot

Well for a start, the Nazi party got into power after they went out on armed rampages and were strong enough to commit their acts of brutality because they had weaponry that matched the government police/troops who might have been able to stop them if there had been any kind of gun control in place at the time.

If they hadn't been so freely able to arm themselves, the chances are that Hitler would never have gotten into power. But that's it - this thread has now been officially Godwined - and the prize goes to magictoy - well done!

dksuddeth

Actually, they do have the same effect. They do not work to keep guns out of the criminals hands. They only work to make it harder or impossible for law abiding citizens to have them.

correct.
they are. I'm not saying that they aren't, but i've read enough stories and seen enough vindictive people that go get a restraining order in a divorce case for spite, despite the fact that there never was any abuse to begin with. It usually goes a long way in to settling custody issues after the fact.

so you support oligarchy. If a court decides a case wrongly, then tough shit? it's legal and we must live with it?

__________________
"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."

dksuddeth

would they if the people were disarmed? thats the point, I think.

and yet, we have THIS video of troops and police disarming civilians.
Or This video of CHP tackling an old woman and forcibly removing her from her home.

__________________
"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

Gun control and gun bans don't work to keeep guns out of the criminals hands? Listen I am really trying to find middle grouand and am making an effort to understand what you're saying, but you've gotta give me some sort of wiggle room here. You have to admit that gun control and gun bans have kept some criminals or bad people from getting guns. You have to admit that, I mean that's reality. Whether or not they are effective on the whole is up for debate, but they do stop SOME criminals from getting guns.
But like I said, we can't make laws that assume that the courts are wrong. We have to fix the problems in the courts and then make the laws accordingly. Gun control can't be a case by case thing.
I don't support oligarchy, but we have to fix the problems with the judicial system ourselves (as responsible citizens), not simply make laws that ignore it.
As stated above by Nezmot, "the Nazi party got into power after they went out on armed rampages and were strong enough to commit their acts of brutality because they had weaponry that matched the government police/troops who might have been able to stop them if there had been any kind of gun control in place at the time." Thdere has to be checks and balances of control between government and the general populace. Firearms for everyone is a great way to destroy our species.
What about the 256 million cases in which that didn't happen? I mean yes www.gunowners.com has some great articles, but I suspect that that same bias of sources you were talking about before is present here.

dksuddeth

Ok, I can agree with that. SOME criminals are stopped. IMHO, not enough are stopped to make the laws worthwhile and we should be examining other methods.

checks and balances between the populace and the government? Will, in the united states, the government gets their power FROM us. WE are the last check on government run amok. The only checks and balances that should exist are between the three branches of gov. Just like in pre WW2 germany, a large enough civilian populace took matters in to their own hands, dissassembled their government and created another one.....a really crappy murderous one, but it was within their power to do so....just like our ancestors did in the revolutionary war. just like we should in todays times.

so I can use hypotheticals, right? also, IMHO, all sites have some bias which is why I look at dozens before I decide to use information so I can glean the biased from the reality. gunowners.com was used this time simply because I knew they had the links for those videos, which were from CBS and a local channel.

__________________
"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

Well I'm glad you recognise that at least some criminals are stopped. Don't forget that I think that current gun control laws need an overhaul.
Wait, what are we talking about here? I though we were talkng about gun control, not a civilian coup.

dksuddeth

we are/were. this was an aside to the nazi/hitler/populace not as armed as the military thing. we don't need to continue with this particular bit.

__________________
"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."

magictoy

I am unable to find a reference that gives the above statement any credibility. I AM, however, able to find much documentation of the ascent of the Nazi party by the systematic abrogation of the people's rights. For convenience, I used Wikipedia. I imagine most people will skim over this, because it's common knowlege, except, apparently, to you.

Link

I didn't see a word about "armed rampages" being a significant factor.

I hope you will post references to back up your theory, as I did for mine. And congratulations for using Godwin's Law as a "substitute race card" when all else was failing.

Willravel

Magictoy, that is what we call a threadjack. Despite the fact that dksuddeth and I are the best of adversaries in this thread, I'm sure both of us would agree that there are similarities between the rise of power by the Nazi party in germany after WWI and the current actions of the US administration. The fact is this thread is about gun control and the gun control people's opinions of pro gun people, not about the events leading to WWII.

nezmot

Ha!

majictoy, you wanted links to help your understanding of Hitler's rise to power, these too are from wikipedia. The event I was thinking of was the Beer Hall Putsch - which, though it failed in the short term (sending Hitler to prison) it managed very well to display his later methods, which after forming part of the coalition government, he unleashed on the Night of The Long Knives (Where despite the name, the para-militaries involved, predominately used guns) to effectively sieze control of power, destroy his dissenters and successfully intimidate any remaining political opponents into silence.

But as willravel said - please don't threadjack - your points were slapped down because they were poorly formed (there was no gun-control in place, so the Jews were able to arm themselves anyway) and factually incorrect, not to mention irrelevant to the conversation in hand.

Nimetic

You know - I've been thinking about this further.

Perhaps, in certain societies and conditions, it is not feasible to control guns.

Despite my prediliction towards gun control - I can imagine that legal guns may be more useful or even necessary, in other societies, countries and situations.

dksuddeth

April 29th, tomorrow, marks the anniversary of the Los Angeles riots. A day when an overwhelming number of gun control advocates finally grasped the meaning of the second amendment and attempted to do something that they never thought they would ever do. Buy a gun to protect themselves from the approaching thousands of angry and violent people looting and burning their city. Having to buy a gun because the police were not there to protect them, and they weren't coming either. They were ordered out of the area for their own safety.Imagine the horror they started to feel when they were told that they had to wait the required 15 days to purchase a weapon.

The second amendment is not JUST about protecting a free state, it's about the individual right of a person to keep and bear arms for their defense and the defense of the state.

__________________
"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

The thing is dk, that if there was adequate gun control way back when, the LA Riots would not have been so violent, or so lawless. Guns point both ways.

But, I accept that in the US, things have gone too far - there are too many guns freely available for anyone, be they criminal, rioter, law abiding citizen, or paranoid parking-lot sniper to get their hands on.

In that world, you're damn right I would want to be armed.

Isn't that a shame though? To live in so much fear that you have to plan ahead for the day when you have to shoot your countrymen in order to defend your family and your own property.

That is not something to be proud of.

Any country who's citizens feel these levels of fear and distrust among their own people, is in serious trouble. No wonder there are so many stories of people shooting first and asking questions later.

dksuddeth

the thousands of people running around looting and burning weren't using guns, they were able to use sheer numbers as a mob to be violent and target people and shops. Gun control HURT people because they weren't able to get guns for protection. Others were told this huge lie about the police would be there to protect them, and they weren't. People died not because the mobs had guns, but because they, as victims, did not.

i've got a growing philosophy in my head, that if we stopped coddling violent criminals and incarcerated them for 25 to life, or life without parole for any crime in which they use a weapon, then we'd have less to fear. I also believe, despite the doom and gloom scenarios by anti-gun people, that there would be less crime if more people were armed. Now, do I think that will bring about some peaceful utopia? no, not at all, and we'd still have all the gang violence in the inner cities BUT, and I know this sounds nuts, these gangbanger drive by shootings would soon stop after a few trained civilians emptied a magazine or two in to the cars of these idiots that spray bullets all over a city block trying to kill some other gangbanger. Even the gangbangers don't want to get shot and if they think that initiating a drive by could get them killed by someone they didn't see with an automatic, they'd certainly reconsider.

would this result in deaths? certainly. But the cost in lives would be far less than doing absolutely nothing or worse, disarming those that WANT to be safe.

__________________
"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."

smooth

I certainly hope that a "few trained civilians" wouldn't even think of emptying "a magazine or two" into passing cars, regardless of who is inside them.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

dksuddeth

If that car has 4 people in it and 3 of them are pointing shotguns/handguns/rifles out the window to kill someone else, I certainly hope that someone would empty a magazine at the car. I know I would. I'd rather kill those 4 idiots intent on a drive by than to have their spray of lead take out another kid having a birthday party.

__________________
"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."

smooth

You know, I don't begrudge you your viewpoints on guns and all that, but as you increasingly post on these types of subjects your rationality seems to unravel. Even cops don't do stupid shit like you're suggesting, why would you think your neighbors (although I have this suspicion you don't live near drive-bying gangsters and haven't ever seen a drive-by other than in a movie) would want more bullets flying around their street?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

dksuddeth

I don't begrudge you yours either, although I certainly don't agree with them. You can question my rationale all you like, it's not going to bother me. I know at times I'm wrong, I know at times I'm right. This is one of those times I'm right.

You say cops don't do stupid things like that? You don't watch or read the news much i'm guessing.
Remember Amadou diallo? An african immigrant that was shot and killed by new york cops on his porch. 4 cops fired 41 bullets at him and he was unarmed.

The north hollywood bank robbery shootout - these two morons had automatic weapons and were just spraying lead all over the place. Now, what would you rather have, these two continuing to indiscriminately shoot the hundreds/thousands of rounds they had in all directions or 2-4 people with automatic arms firing back at them in their direction trying to stop them?

I know, like most people who have been led to believe that we mere humans are incapable of handling such an episode without totally crumpling down in to a catatonic mass of human flesh, never to recover from such awful violence are totally inferior to the superhuman law enforcement because they wear body armor and qualify with a pistol once a year, you choose to have two psychotics running loose in the streets killing people instead of having any civilian fire back because that would just cause pure pandemonium and might get someone killed.

I've never been around a drive by, had to live in downtown south dallas for a week once though. I hadn't heard that much gunfire since my last time on the rifle range as a marine. Nobody wants more bullets flying around, but any intelligent person that wants to stop those that are shooting up the place should know that the only thing thats going to stop them is their fear of being shot back at.

__________________
"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."

jorgelito

I think one of the issues being overlooked is that the main problem of gun violence today (i.e. - criminal activity) is being perpetrated by illegal guns. That is a key issue because pro-gun people are not pro-criminals, they are pro the right to have their own guns to protect themselves from said criminal.

Point 2, we should definitely look up and compare statistics. While not perfect, it would be a great start in furthering this discussion. For example, comparing crime rates (with gun or whatever) in carry states vs non-carry states so on and so forth. I always wonder, in Texas where they can carry (right?), is crime less? (such as muggings etc).

Consider this: If a burglar was standing between two houses, contemplating which one to rob. One house has an NRA sticker on the door and the other has Greenpeace sticker...which one would he rob?
(I know this is kind of silly but I wanted to interject a little bit of lightheartedness to the thread).

smooth

First of all, since you don't know my stance on guns, don't make asinine comments about whether you agree with them or not (inverting my comments doesn't demonstrate much thought in your response). The most I've done is subject your arguments to scrutiny. You probably object to that position, with little wonder, since they haven't held up to any close examination so far.

Secondly, if you are military trained, I'm surprised you would advocate indiscriminant magazine dumping into soft targets. but whatever, like I said, your responses increasingly clarify your irrationality on this subject.

I watch and read the news all the time. Neither of your examples approximate the norm of police behavior, were roundly criticized when they occurred, and in the north hollywood example, specifically, the streets were closed off and it was in a business district so I don't even see how that's relevant to whether citizens should respond to gun-weilding criminals with a hail of bullets.


BUT, I'm not here to debate the finer points of your position on this or tangentially related subjects, my point in posting was to clue you in to the fact that you often step right up to the line of rational discourse in these subjects and sometimes, like these past few comments, you fall right off the cliff. Tone down the rhetoric f you want anyone to take you seriously.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman