New Orleans in the last few days....
: Helicopter evacuation flights being shot at by people upset because they aren't the ones being evacuated.
: Looting, murder and rape at gunpoint.
: Military men on their way to repair a bridge in the city being shot at too.
Tell me again how simple and easy access to guns for all is a good idea. Tell me how restricting gun ownership, and/or criminalising the possesion of handguns is NOT a good thing in light of this.
And before the flames start.....
I'm not saying that Americans are immoral people (I can imagine similar things happening in London in a similar situation, only without many shootings). Bad situations like this bring out the worst in people. Which is why I feel even more so that ensuring that anyone can easily buy a gun (which of course leads to gun shops being around, which are then looted when things like this occur) is not a clever idea.
Full Version: I know it's been done to death
Yes, there would be less shootings without guns. But there is no supporting evidence that there would be less killings, rapings, or lootings. Not to beat a dead horse, but American's need the 2nd amendment for protection.
Imagine you are a criminal, and you wish to rob some houses. You know that odds are, at least one of the homeowners owns a firearm. Wouldn't that deter you from committing the crime?
Imagine you are a criminal, and you wish to rob some houses. You know that odds are, at least one of the homeowners owns a firearm. Wouldn't that deter you from committing the crime?
(This is one of my few conservative views:)
I don't believe in destroying the Second Ammendment.
(Supplimented by my liberalism!)
But I do believe in some sort of gun control. The only people that could even find a remotely productive use for a machine gun are in the military (granted this takes me into an anti-war rant that's an entirely different conversation.) A civilian should not be allowed anything of the sort. Guns, ideally, are used for three things: hunting, target shooting, and self defense. Let's look at these for a minute, huh?
Hunting: with a rifle, it's perfectly fine. It'll make a bullethole, and a family gets to eat (yes, I do know many people who hunt for their meals.) With an automatic? It blows the deer to pieces. Not helpful.
Target shooting: see above. Same rules.
Self defense: it only takes on bullet to stop an intruder or whatever else is threatening you or your family. You don't need twenty bullets in half a second.
Yes, I know that was slightly off topic, so here we go with some on topic things: Mob mentality is nigh-inescapable. I do not condone any of the morons looting or shooting, but until order is restored, it won't stop. That said, if people are found doing these things, and it is reasonably practiced, they should be tried for double the amount of time.
It pisses me off to no end that people could be this animalistic.
I don't believe in destroying the Second Ammendment.
(Supplimented by my liberalism!)
But I do believe in some sort of gun control. The only people that could even find a remotely productive use for a machine gun are in the military (granted this takes me into an anti-war rant that's an entirely different conversation.) A civilian should not be allowed anything of the sort. Guns, ideally, are used for three things: hunting, target shooting, and self defense. Let's look at these for a minute, huh?
Hunting: with a rifle, it's perfectly fine. It'll make a bullethole, and a family gets to eat (yes, I do know many people who hunt for their meals.) With an automatic? It blows the deer to pieces. Not helpful.
Target shooting: see above. Same rules.
Self defense: it only takes on bullet to stop an intruder or whatever else is threatening you or your family. You don't need twenty bullets in half a second.
Yes, I know that was slightly off topic, so here we go with some on topic things: Mob mentality is nigh-inescapable. I do not condone any of the morons looting or shooting, but until order is restored, it won't stop. That said, if people are found doing these things, and it is reasonably practiced, they should be tried for double the amount of time.
It pisses me off to no end that people could be this animalistic.
QUOTE (sjbbandgeek @ Sep 5 2005, 03:52 PM)
Imagine you are a criminal, and you wish to rob some houses. You know that odds are, at least one of the homeowners owns a firearm. Wouldn't that deter you from committing the crime?
Bearing in mind that, as a criminal there is an even greater chance of you yourself owning a firearm, no probably not.
QUOTE (CheeseMoose @ Sep 5 2005, 06:07 PM)
QUOTE (sjbbandgeek @ Sep 5 2005, 03:52 PM)
Imagine you are a criminal, and you wish to rob some houses. You know that odds are, at least one of the homeowners owns a firearm. Wouldn't that deter you from committing the crime?
Bearing in mind that, as a criminal there is an even greater chance of you yourself owning a firearm, no probably not.
Yeah, I was about to say that - if I thought my intended target would have a firearm, why, I'd just buy my own damn firearm from any number of stores.
QUOTE (CheeseMoose @ Sep 5 2005, 05:07 PM)
QUOTE (sjbbandgeek @ Sep 5 2005, 03:52 PM)
Imagine you are a criminal, and you wish to rob some houses. You know that odds are, at least one of the homeowners owns a firearm. Wouldn't that deter you from committing the crime?
Bearing in mind that, as a criminal there is an even greater chance of you yourself owning a firearm, no probably not.
Not only that, I'd have it in my hand, which is likely more than can be said for the person in the house.
QUOTE (Greeneyes @ Sep 5 2005, 06:49 PM)
QUOTE (CheeseMoose @ Sep 5 2005, 05:07 PM)
QUOTE (sjbbandgeek @ Sep 5 2005, 03:52 PM)
Imagine you are a criminal, and you wish to rob some houses. You know that odds are, at least one of the homeowners owns a firearm. Wouldn't that deter you from committing the crime?
Bearing in mind that, as a criminal there is an even greater chance of you yourself owning a firearm, no probably not.
Not only that, I'd have it in my hand, which is likely more than can be said for the person in the house.
Not to mention I'd make sure it was bigger than their's.
Aww, what a lovely vicious spiral we have going now...
[edit]Gnah! This is moop.[/edit]
QUOTE (Greeneyes @ Sep 5 2005, 06:49 PM)
Not only that, I'd have it in my hand, which is likely more than can be said for the person in the house.
Who, because she is a responsible citizen, has it unloaded and locked in a safe.
Funny, I was always under the impression that the second amendment was put into place in case America was invaded, or if the government became oppressive or what not and needed to be overthrown. Not so you could have a shoot out with someone over your DVD player or, in the case of New Orleans, shoot at people who are getting help before you, because dammit, having a gun makes you more important than them!!
The second amendment was written at a time when a standing army was a luxury, not the norm. At a time when, if the Thirteen United States of America were attacked by another country, oh, say Britain, we would need a militia to defend ourselves. It wasn't really intended for hunting, I believe. I believe that most people got their meat from a farm, not from hunting. I don't believe that it was really intended so that we could overthrow the government - the Federalists would never have allowed that. I doubt it was for self-defence, simply because that shouldn't be a Constitutional issue - it should be decided on a state by state basis, given the nature of the United States. The only reason for having that amendment in a national constitution would be for national importance. Given this interpretation of the Constitution, I don't believe that private citizens need to be able to own guns.
I ressurected this old topic to post one of my favorite tirades, from one of my favorite Libertatian writers.
QUOTE
The first firearms were used to kill people. They were called cannons.
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be possible."
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959
"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law."
-- Malcolm X, March 12, 1964
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."
-- Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government --and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
-- Edward Abbey in Abbey's Road, p.39 (Plume, 1979)
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-- Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952)
"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt."
--Alexander Solzhenitsyn
"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it."
-- Daniel Webster, in a speech on 3 June, 1834
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon, 1942
"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie."
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
"Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power." -- Yoshimi Ishikawa, author of Japanese best-seller Strawberry Road
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Because the ownership of firearms is constitutionally protected, its regulation is a matter of statewide concern. The constitution does not provide that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, where it may be abridged at will, but that it shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth."
--Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 545 Pa. 279; 681 A.2d 152; 1996 Pa. Lexis 1447, May 1, 1996, Argued July 18, 1996, Decided.
"I like automatic weapons. I fought for my right to use them in Vietnam."
-- Oliver Stone, 1994
"I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence."
-- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
"A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand."
-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.
"Today's liberals wish to disarm us so they can run their evil and oppressive agenda on us. The fight against crime is just a convenient excuse to further their agenda. I don't know about you, but if you hear that Williams' guns have been taken, you'll know Williams is dead."
-- Walter Williams, Professor of Economics, George Mason University.
"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state controlled police and the military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an 'equalizer.' Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny."
-- Edward Abbey
"Tyranny derives from the oligarchy's "mistrust of the people; hence they deprive them of arms, ill-treat the lower class, and keep them from residing in the capital. These are common to oligarchy and tyranny."
--Aristotle in Politics (J. Sinclair translation, pg. 218, 1962)
"If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying -- that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, and the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 -- establishes the repeated, complete, and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime."
-- Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Subcomittee on the Constitution (The Making of America, p.695)
"A man cannot lay down the right of resisting them that assault him by force, to take away his life."
--Thomas Hobbes in The Leviathan, 1651
"It is also in the interests of a tyrant to keep his people poor, so that they may not be able to afford the cost of protecting themselves by arms and be so occupied with their daily tasks that they have no time for rebellion."
--Aristotle in Politics (J. Sinclair translation, pg. 226, 1962)
"For we may not think ever to keep that people in subjection which hath always lived in liberty, if they be not disarmed."
-- Jean Bodin, in Six Books of a Commonweale, 1606 AD (R. Knolles translation, pg. 615, 1606)
"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military."
-- William Burroughs, The War Universe, taped conversation (published in Grand Street, no. 37; reprinted in Painting and Guns, 1992, in a slightly different form).
"To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form."
-- Roy Innis, National Chairman of Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), The Washington Post, September 5, 1988
"Some princes, so as to hold securely the state, have disarmed their subjects.... But when you disarm them, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred against you. And because the government cannot remain unarmed, it follows that the government turns to hired police. Therefore a wise prince has always distributed arms to the general population."
-- Nicolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 20 (L. Ricci translation, pg. 105, 1952)
"They'll have to shoot me first to take my gun."
-- Roy Rogers, 1982, in Cowboy Wisdom, by Terry Hall (Warner Books, 1995)
"The Constitution of the United States of America clearly affirms the right of every American citizen to bear arms. And as Americans, we will not give up a single right guarenteed under the Constitution. The history of unpunished violence against our people clearly indicates that we must be prepared to defend ourselves or we will continue to be a defenseless people at the mercy of a ruthless and violent racist mob."
-- Malcolm X, in Malcolm X at 337, J. Clarke ed. (New York, N.Y., 1969)
"You see in this world there's two kind's of people my friend, those with loaded guns, and those who dig ... you dig!"
-- Stranger in 'The Good, The Bad & The Ugly'
"There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right."
-- Marcus Tulius Cicero (106-53 BC)
"People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically 'right.' Guns ended that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work."
-- L. Neil Smith, The Probability Broach
"Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It's quicker to pull your Smith & Wesson than to dial 911 if you're being robbed."
-- Lieutenant Lowell Duckett, Special Assistant to DC Police Chief; President, Black Police Caucus, The Washington Post, March 22, 1996.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How's that? Not a single founding Father in the bunch. Imagine that...
Please note such violent warmongers as Ghandi and Freud were in there with such noted gangster criminals as Aristotle and Roy Rogers. These were lumped with Malcolm X and Cicero and Machiavelli and Daniel Webster to name a few.
Gun control is suppression of freedom and government control at it's worst.
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be possible."
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959
"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law."
-- Malcolm X, March 12, 1964
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."
-- Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government --and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
-- Edward Abbey in Abbey's Road, p.39 (Plume, 1979)
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-- Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952)
"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt."
--Alexander Solzhenitsyn
"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it."
-- Daniel Webster, in a speech on 3 June, 1834
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon, 1942
"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie."
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
"Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power." -- Yoshimi Ishikawa, author of Japanese best-seller Strawberry Road
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Because the ownership of firearms is constitutionally protected, its regulation is a matter of statewide concern. The constitution does not provide that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, where it may be abridged at will, but that it shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth."
--Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 545 Pa. 279; 681 A.2d 152; 1996 Pa. Lexis 1447, May 1, 1996, Argued July 18, 1996, Decided.
"I like automatic weapons. I fought for my right to use them in Vietnam."
-- Oliver Stone, 1994
"I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence."
-- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
"A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand."
-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.
"Today's liberals wish to disarm us so they can run their evil and oppressive agenda on us. The fight against crime is just a convenient excuse to further their agenda. I don't know about you, but if you hear that Williams' guns have been taken, you'll know Williams is dead."
-- Walter Williams, Professor of Economics, George Mason University.
"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state controlled police and the military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an 'equalizer.' Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny."
-- Edward Abbey
"Tyranny derives from the oligarchy's "mistrust of the people; hence they deprive them of arms, ill-treat the lower class, and keep them from residing in the capital. These are common to oligarchy and tyranny."
--Aristotle in Politics (J. Sinclair translation, pg. 218, 1962)
"If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying -- that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, and the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 -- establishes the repeated, complete, and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime."
-- Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Subcomittee on the Constitution (The Making of America, p.695)
"A man cannot lay down the right of resisting them that assault him by force, to take away his life."
--Thomas Hobbes in The Leviathan, 1651
"It is also in the interests of a tyrant to keep his people poor, so that they may not be able to afford the cost of protecting themselves by arms and be so occupied with their daily tasks that they have no time for rebellion."
--Aristotle in Politics (J. Sinclair translation, pg. 226, 1962)
"For we may not think ever to keep that people in subjection which hath always lived in liberty, if they be not disarmed."
-- Jean Bodin, in Six Books of a Commonweale, 1606 AD (R. Knolles translation, pg. 615, 1606)
"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military."
-- William Burroughs, The War Universe, taped conversation (published in Grand Street, no. 37; reprinted in Painting and Guns, 1992, in a slightly different form).
"To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form."
-- Roy Innis, National Chairman of Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), The Washington Post, September 5, 1988
"Some princes, so as to hold securely the state, have disarmed their subjects.... But when you disarm them, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred against you. And because the government cannot remain unarmed, it follows that the government turns to hired police. Therefore a wise prince has always distributed arms to the general population."
-- Nicolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 20 (L. Ricci translation, pg. 105, 1952)
"They'll have to shoot me first to take my gun."
-- Roy Rogers, 1982, in Cowboy Wisdom, by Terry Hall (Warner Books, 1995)
"The Constitution of the United States of America clearly affirms the right of every American citizen to bear arms. And as Americans, we will not give up a single right guarenteed under the Constitution. The history of unpunished violence against our people clearly indicates that we must be prepared to defend ourselves or we will continue to be a defenseless people at the mercy of a ruthless and violent racist mob."
-- Malcolm X, in Malcolm X at 337, J. Clarke ed. (New York, N.Y., 1969)
"You see in this world there's two kind's of people my friend, those with loaded guns, and those who dig ... you dig!"
-- Stranger in 'The Good, The Bad & The Ugly'
"There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right."
-- Marcus Tulius Cicero (106-53 BC)
"People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically 'right.' Guns ended that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work."
-- L. Neil Smith, The Probability Broach
"Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It's quicker to pull your Smith & Wesson than to dial 911 if you're being robbed."
-- Lieutenant Lowell Duckett, Special Assistant to DC Police Chief; President, Black Police Caucus, The Washington Post, March 22, 1996.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How's that? Not a single founding Father in the bunch. Imagine that...
Please note such violent warmongers as Ghandi and Freud were in there with such noted gangster criminals as Aristotle and Roy Rogers. These were lumped with Malcolm X and Cicero and Machiavelli and Daniel Webster to name a few.
Gun control is suppression of freedom and government control at it's worst.
All the U.S. shootings in history were fueled by unregiestered guns- Not one legally owned automatic weapon was ever used in the U.S. for a crime.
Re: big list of quotes: ah, that would explain why the UK and most of Europe have become totalitarian dictatorships, then. I wondered why that had happened.
Hey, and the Jews were all criminals and needed to be controlled. Thank God Hitler came along and installed some gun control laws so everyone would be safe.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -Adolph Hitler 1938
Stalin did the entire USSR a favor by outlawing guns- those 50 million people who died might have been criminals!
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -Adolph Hitler 1938
Stalin did the entire USSR a favor by outlawing guns- those 50 million people who died might have been criminals!
History repeats itself, always has, always will, and those who haven't learned their history is doomed to repeat with it.
QUOTE (arachnidoc17 @ Sep 8 2005, 02:23 AM)
Hey, and the Jews were all criminals and needed to be controlled. Thank God Hitler came along and installed some gun control laws so everyone would be safe.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -Adolph Hitler 1938
Stalin did the entire USSR a favor by outlawing guns- those 50 million people who died might have been criminals!
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -Adolph Hitler 1938
Stalin did the entire USSR a favor by outlawing guns- those 50 million people who died might have been criminals!
Textbook ad hominem fallacy. "This argument was used by a bad person; therefore, this argument is bad."
Do you think the world is round? You know, Hitler and Stalin both thought the world was round. You fascist.
I'm not trying to create a fallacy here. My point is, gun control is the first step towards dictatorship.
If you think that criminals, ready to kill for profit, will spend months and hundreds of dollars (thousands in the case of rifles, tens of thousands and years for things like the RPG-9 or a Chaingun) on purchasing a liscence, buying the gun AND ammo, taking tests and waiting for reports to be filed to get a gun LEGALLY (remember that anyone who has commited a crime cannot own a gun), or buy one for much less, immediately (Yes, the Black Market is real), then you have problems that need to be solved.
So, what, you're going to fight off the government with your 9mm? Hell, you're going to fight off the government with your AK-47? Good luck with that.
The government doesn't fear being overthrown by the general populace, armed or no. In a revolution situation, the only question is whose side the Armed Forces are on. On the side of the people, and the government is overthrown. On the side of the government, and the revolt is put down.
The government doesn't fear being overthrown by the general populace, armed or no. In a revolution situation, the only question is whose side the Armed Forces are on. On the side of the people, and the government is overthrown. On the side of the government, and the revolt is put down.
QUOTE (CommieBastard @ Sep 7 2005, 09:42 PM)
So, what, you're going to fight off the government with your 9mm? Hell, you're going to fight off the government with your AK-47? Good luck with that.
The government doesn't fear being overthrown by the general populace, armed or no. In a revolution situation, the only question is whose side the Armed Forces are on. On the side of the people, and the government is overthrown. On the side of the government, and the revolt is put down.
The government doesn't fear being overthrown by the general populace, armed or no. In a revolution situation, the only question is whose side the Armed Forces are on. On the side of the people, and the government is overthrown. On the side of the government, and the revolt is put down.
Because the Minutemen were obviously miliatary-trained soldiers of the British Army, and not just the general populice armed with whatever hunting rifles they had. (Hint: Look at the name Minutemen)
QUOTE (arachnidoc17 @ Sep 8 2005, 02:40 AM)
If you think that criminals, ready to kill for profit, will spend months and hundreds of dollars (thousands in the case of rifles, tens of thousands and years for things like the RPG-9 or a Chaingun) on purchasing a liscence, buying the gun AND ammo, taking tests and waiting for reports to be filed to get a gun LEGALLY (remember that anyone who has commited a crime cannot own a gun), or buy one for much less, immediately (Yes, the Black Market is real), then you have problems that need to be solved.
It's not criminals I'm worried about. They want guns, they're going to get guns. It's the level of destructive force immediately available to John Q. Public I'm afraid of. It's living in a world where any idiot who gets sufficiently pissed off can use lethal force at the touch of a button. You get people whose first reaction when angry and frightened is to have a gun in their hand, to make them feel big and safe and powerful. I know plenty of people who'd be good, responsible gun owners - and I can think of more than a few of the other kind, too.
QUOTE (CommieBastard @ Sep 7 2005, 09:48 PM)
It's not criminals I'm worried about. They want guns, they're going to get guns. It's the level of destructive force immediately available to John Q. Public I'm afraid of. It's living in a world where any idiot who gets sufficiently pissed off can use lethal force at the touch of a button. You get people whose first reaction when angry and frightened is to have a gun in their hand, to make them feel big and safe and powerful. I know plenty of people who'd be good, responsible gun owners - and I can think of more than a few of the other kind, too.
Hey- Any man of moderate intelligence can make a BOMB out of household items if he looks hard enough. The internet is a dangerous thing.
And, if the populace can't DEFEND themselves with guns, what will stop the same man from rampaging with a chainsaw in Time Square?
Again, I'm not talking about calmly premeditated attacks. Most anyone can pull those off. I'm talking about moments of anger and fear - moments when you really don't want a gun in some thug's hand.
QUOTE (CommieBastard @ Sep 7 2005, 09:53 PM)
Again, I'm not talking about calmly premeditated attacks. Most anyone can pull those off. I'm talking about moments of anger and fear - moments when you really don't want a gun in some thug's hand.
Which would most likely be there anyways, considering that the same man who will kill you will probably not care about breaking any gun control laws.
Again, that would require him to have, previously, sought out somebody who could sell him a gun and invested a non-trivial amount in buying one, something most people don't do.
QUOTE (CommieBastard @ Sep 7 2005, 09:59 PM)
Again, that would require him to have, previously, sought out somebody who could sell him a gun and invested a non-trivial amount in buying one, something most people don't do.
Compared to buying a gun, gun liscence, and all that bull hockey, it's much simpler.
I really don't see how saying "If we see you with a gun, you're under arrest" will somehow stop illegal smuggling of guns, something which would be illegal anyways.
QUOTE (CommieBastard)
So, what, you're going to fight off the government with your 9mm? Hell, you're going to fight off the government with your AK-47? Good luck with that.
But, if the people fight against the army, they will do so as a guerrilla force, using improvised weapons, and not fighting an open war. We'd fight like the Vietcong did - work during the day, and fight at night. The military couldn't simply attack ALL citizens, so they would be resigned to fighting on OUR terms. We'd be able to out manuver them, and we'd use our small size to our advantage. Assassinations would probably be key for a citizens' revolt. And remember, a 9mm, while less powerful than an M16, will still kill.
What's this we stuff, man? Are you part of a coup?
Anyway, I don't think it's necessary at present to overthrow the government with violence nor do I think it would be practicable. If the government had the US Army at its side, citizen guerrillas wouldn't stand a chance. Even with the maneuvering eventually the government would get fed up with it and decimate the rebels. Therefore, I submit that change not only should happen peacefully but it must.
Anyway, I don't think it's necessary at present to overthrow the government with violence nor do I think it would be practicable. If the government had the US Army at its side, citizen guerrillas wouldn't stand a chance. Even with the maneuvering eventually the government would get fed up with it and decimate the rebels. Therefore, I submit that change not only should happen peacefully but it must.
Call me crazy for simplifying this, but does this equation make sense to anyone else:
less guns = less things to shoot each-other with?
When I ask myself 'in what circumstances would I consider trying to kill another person?' my answer is always along the line of 'when they show convincing signs of lethal intent towards me or other people'. To me, brandishing a gun is lethal intent.
Now, I'm not about to be breaking in to anyone's house, but let's just assume that a similar line of logic can be applied to a thief: they will only feel trigger happy if their life is at risk. Despite Hollywood and the general media's best efforts, pulling the trigger is still a very large psychological barrier, so that thief will be highly unlikely to try to kill you if you are unarmed. More to the point, why would a thief be armed (risking the far more serious penalty for armed robbery) when they are likely to be able to do exactly the same job when not armed? The only reason to carry a weapon is if they assume their victims will be armed.
Another issue raised in a previous thread was simply: would you be prepared to shoot someone over a VCR? I know I wouldn't be.
At the end of all debates there has to be a few statistics, and, according to many surveys, a family becomes substantitally more at risk of death from shooting if they own a gun than if they do not, primarily through drunken arguments between partners, but also through children playing with unsecured weapons and through unprepared people confronting far more chemically shielded robbers (drugs lower judgement, so if you pull a gun on an armed drug user then you still are scared, but they are more likely to react on instinct. Guess who comes off worst?).
So, to restate that, owning a gun makes you more likely to be a victim of gun crime than not owning a gun. How much more complicated do we need to make this?
As for the list of quotes: I'm educated enough to know that every educated person in the world has spoken complete rubbish many times in their life. I believe it was Aristotle (I could be wrong) who said that eating beans was a crime equal to killing your own mother. He believed beans had souls. He was also one of the founders of modern thought. Lists of quotes are frequently pointless, although they can often be amusing!
less guns = less things to shoot each-other with?
When I ask myself 'in what circumstances would I consider trying to kill another person?' my answer is always along the line of 'when they show convincing signs of lethal intent towards me or other people'. To me, brandishing a gun is lethal intent.
Now, I'm not about to be breaking in to anyone's house, but let's just assume that a similar line of logic can be applied to a thief: they will only feel trigger happy if their life is at risk. Despite Hollywood and the general media's best efforts, pulling the trigger is still a very large psychological barrier, so that thief will be highly unlikely to try to kill you if you are unarmed. More to the point, why would a thief be armed (risking the far more serious penalty for armed robbery) when they are likely to be able to do exactly the same job when not armed? The only reason to carry a weapon is if they assume their victims will be armed.
Another issue raised in a previous thread was simply: would you be prepared to shoot someone over a VCR? I know I wouldn't be.
At the end of all debates there has to be a few statistics, and, according to many surveys, a family becomes substantitally more at risk of death from shooting if they own a gun than if they do not, primarily through drunken arguments between partners, but also through children playing with unsecured weapons and through unprepared people confronting far more chemically shielded robbers (drugs lower judgement, so if you pull a gun on an armed drug user then you still are scared, but they are more likely to react on instinct. Guess who comes off worst?).
So, to restate that, owning a gun makes you more likely to be a victim of gun crime than not owning a gun. How much more complicated do we need to make this?
As for the list of quotes: I'm educated enough to know that every educated person in the world has spoken complete rubbish many times in their life. I believe it was Aristotle (I could be wrong) who said that eating beans was a crime equal to killing your own mother. He believed beans had souls. He was also one of the founders of modern thought. Lists of quotes are frequently pointless, although they can often be amusing!
What if the government were to ban guns not by going after the owners directly, but by going after the gun manufacturers? I mean, if they shut them down, and there are no more guns being manufactured, or only ones that are sold to the armed forces, under surveillence, then eventually, all the guns in civilian hands would be confiscated, and there would be very little violence, right?
Ok.. my turn (and I do so like having turns)
Ok, step right up and explain to me someone in what way a gun is a defensive weapon? Does a gun stop you from being shot? No, it does not, it does not deflect bullets out of the air or anything. Ask the soldiers of any war if they felt immune to bullets because they had a gun themself. I'm sure all the ones with scars will say the same thing.
"Shut up you ignorant fool"
Guns are NOT defensive weapons. They are designed to do one thing, "kill them before they kill me". I am not talking about hunting rifles. i'm talking about those small arm 9mm. I don't often see people going hunting deer with 9mm small arm pistols.
If you want to protect yourself, buy locks for your doors, be aware of your own safety at night. If you're really paranoid, buy a bullet prood vest.
I find this "gun's for defense" arguement very odd. Are people in countries with guns any safer than places without... the answer, no.
People talk about it being oppressive and what not.. ok let's follow this through?
Should I be allowed to just grow anthrax cultures in my basement if I promise not to use it? Or start stockpiling C4 explosives because I'm an explosives collector?
If everyone in the street I live were to get given an anthrax culture in a sealed packet in an envelope with the words "use responsibly and only on bad evil people". Is the impression that the people on my street would suddenly be more liberal, or feel safer and more in control of their lives?
Sorry but I'm inclined to think no. If someone attacked my house and hit me, I'd be pissed off, if everyone could get guns and they came into the house and shot me finding out I had a gun, I'd be slightly more miffed.
Guess which side of the debate I'm siding on.
Ok, step right up and explain to me someone in what way a gun is a defensive weapon? Does a gun stop you from being shot? No, it does not, it does not deflect bullets out of the air or anything. Ask the soldiers of any war if they felt immune to bullets because they had a gun themself. I'm sure all the ones with scars will say the same thing.
"Shut up you ignorant fool"
Guns are NOT defensive weapons. They are designed to do one thing, "kill them before they kill me". I am not talking about hunting rifles. i'm talking about those small arm 9mm. I don't often see people going hunting deer with 9mm small arm pistols.
If you want to protect yourself, buy locks for your doors, be aware of your own safety at night. If you're really paranoid, buy a bullet prood vest.
I find this "gun's for defense" arguement very odd. Are people in countries with guns any safer than places without... the answer, no.
People talk about it being oppressive and what not.. ok let's follow this through?
Should I be allowed to just grow anthrax cultures in my basement if I promise not to use it? Or start stockpiling C4 explosives because I'm an explosives collector?
If everyone in the street I live were to get given an anthrax culture in a sealed packet in an envelope with the words "use responsibly and only on bad evil people". Is the impression that the people on my street would suddenly be more liberal, or feel safer and more in control of their lives?
Sorry but I'm inclined to think no. If someone attacked my house and hit me, I'd be pissed off, if everyone could get guns and they came into the house and shot me finding out I had a gun, I'd be slightly more miffed.
Guess which side of the debate I'm siding on.
QUOTE (Mata @ Sep 8 2005, 03:39 AM)
As for the list of quotes: I'm educated enough to know that every educated person in the world has spoken complete rubbish many times in their life. I believe it was Aristotle (I could be wrong) who said that eating beans was a crime equal to killing your own mother. He believed beans had souls. He was also one of the founders of modern thought. Lists of quotes are frequently pointless, although they can often be amusing!
He also said that women had fewer teeth than men. He was married twice, and yet apparently never thought to check this statement...
QUOTE (CommieBastard @ Sep 8 2005, 10:08 AM)
QUOTE (Mata @ Sep 8 2005, 03:39 AM)
As for the list of quotes: I'm educated enough to know that every educated person in the world has spoken complete rubbish many times in their life. I believe it was Aristotle (I could be wrong) who said that eating beans was a crime equal to killing your own mother. He believed beans had souls. He was also one of the founders of modern thought. Lists of quotes are frequently pointless, although they can often be amusing!
He also said that women had fewer teeth than men. He was married twice, and yet apparently never thought to check this statement...
He also said women were incapable of rational thought and were merely fertile earth in which the seeds men planted grew. Oh and that the children inherited nothing genetic (although he didn't use that word) from their mothers, only from their fathers.
I feel far safer in a country were guns are illegal than if half the people I know were allowed by law to own them. As has been previously said, a gun is not a defensive weapon and if the person you are up against also has one and is a hardened criminal you are far less likely to be the one to come out alive and unharmed. I get that you can pick up a weapon illegally but only if you are determined enough.
The "we use our weapons to defend against the oppresion of government!" also doesn't really stand up to scrutiny any more.
Have you seen how strong modern type-3 US body armour is? Ak's can't penetrate it. That's right, an AK. A weapon that can shoot through FRIGGIN RAILWAY SIDINGS. Even more depending on the bullets used. If the US military suddenly all decided to stage a coup then nearly all the weapons in the hands of civilians would be useless.
And that isn't mentioning tanks. Coastal barrage. Air strikes.
Even high explosive weapons arn't guaranteed to do much. Modern main battle tanks can shrug off explosives like it was water. I know a Challenger-2 tank in Iraq managed to survive something like 8 direct hits and still make it back to base for repairs.
The civilian populationof the US would need to be supplied with military grade equipment for them to stand any chance against the military. Even if they do take up spectacular guerilla tactics and manage to evade all the hi-tech suvailance equipment the US has amassed over the years, it doesn't mean much if the weapons you have can't do a damned thing once you have the enemy in your sights. The technology gap is just too great.
This isn't the late 1700's. Your hunting rifle of French purchased weapon was nearly an equal to modern military guns, and all the armour you had to penetrate was a few layers of cloth. You were also dealing with an enemy that had precious little force projection capability, they had to stay near the coasts to keep supplied.
Nowdays the potential US military can move troops anywhere in hours. It can keep them supplied and up to speed with instant information on deployments and enemy movements. It is also practically invunerable to anything but top-knotch weaponry, which would probably be too expensive and cumbersome to keep well maintained for any serious duration by guerrila forces.
If the Second Amendment was designed to protect from hostile military forces or oppressive government then it is woefully inadequate. If the government willfully supplied its citizens with SAM sites and anti-tank weapons then it may have a place.
Have you seen how strong modern type-3 US body armour is? Ak's can't penetrate it. That's right, an AK. A weapon that can shoot through FRIGGIN RAILWAY SIDINGS. Even more depending on the bullets used. If the US military suddenly all decided to stage a coup then nearly all the weapons in the hands of civilians would be useless.
And that isn't mentioning tanks. Coastal barrage. Air strikes.
Even high explosive weapons arn't guaranteed to do much. Modern main battle tanks can shrug off explosives like it was water. I know a Challenger-2 tank in Iraq managed to survive something like 8 direct hits and still make it back to base for repairs.
The civilian populationof the US would need to be supplied with military grade equipment for them to stand any chance against the military. Even if they do take up spectacular guerilla tactics and manage to evade all the hi-tech suvailance equipment the US has amassed over the years, it doesn't mean much if the weapons you have can't do a damned thing once you have the enemy in your sights. The technology gap is just too great.
This isn't the late 1700's. Your hunting rifle of French purchased weapon was nearly an equal to modern military guns, and all the armour you had to penetrate was a few layers of cloth. You were also dealing with an enemy that had precious little force projection capability, they had to stay near the coasts to keep supplied.
Nowdays the potential US military can move troops anywhere in hours. It can keep them supplied and up to speed with instant information on deployments and enemy movements. It is also practically invunerable to anything but top-knotch weaponry, which would probably be too expensive and cumbersome to keep well maintained for any serious duration by guerrila forces.
If the Second Amendment was designed to protect from hostile military forces or oppressive government then it is woefully inadequate. If the government willfully supplied its citizens with SAM sites and anti-tank weapons then it may have a place.
QUOTE (Calantyr @ Sep 8 2005, 02:00 PM)
If the Second Amendment was designed to protect from hostile military forces or oppressive government then it is woefully inadequate. If the government willfully supplied its citizens with SAM sites and anti-tank weapons then it may have a place.
Well, as for SAM sites, I dunno, but I do know you can own Stingers, RPGs and the like.
QUOTE (arachnidoc17 @ Sep 8 2005, 09:32 PM)
Well, as for SAM sites, I dunno, but I do know you can own Stingers, RPGs and the like.
Unfortunately they are already out-dated. RPG's against a modern armoured battle-tank are pathetic. I believe the cost of the most modern armour is far cheaper than the weapons it takes to breech them. As warefare has always been about economics... well it's simply cheaper and far more sensible to just not bother. Find other methods.
Stingers against modern countermeasures are pathetic too. In an age where point defense lasers (I kid you not, theres are already Hummvee's in Afghanistan going around zapping mines that are more effective than other methods) are being developed for planes they really don't stand a chance, this is on top of other more conventional avoidance measures.
Really, to stand up against a modern state the individual needs to have their own private army. However only the most rich and powerful have this ability. And THEY are more likely to be on the side of the state as their wealth is generate by stability and the laws of the state.
So if laws are laxed to allow more hardware, they will benefit more... and if the state DOES turn on it's citizens they are likely to side with the state... so the weakness of the citizen compares to the state raises exponentially.
*shrugs*
The price of progress has taken all capability out of the hands of the individual.
Call me crazy for simplifying this, but does this equation make sense to anyone else:
less guns = less things to shoot each-other with?
=Playground for criminals, conisdering they know every law-abiding citizen will not have a gun and not be able to defend themselves.
When I ask myself 'in what circumstances would I consider trying to kill another person?' my answer is always along the line of 'when they show convincing signs of lethal intent towards me or other people'. To me, brandishing a gun is lethal intent.
How many times do you drive with a spare tire, intending to blow one? Install a new fire alarm, intending to burn your own house down?
Now, I'm not about to be breaking in to anyone's house, but let's just assume that a similar line of logic can be applied to a thief: they will only feel trigger happy if their life is at risk. Despite Hollywood and the general media's best efforts, pulling the trigger is still a very large psychological barrier, so that thief will be highly unlikely to try to kill you if you are unarmed. More to the point, why would a thief be armed (risking the far more serious penalty for armed robbery) when they are likely to be able to do exactly the same job when not armed? The only reason to carry a weapon is if they assume their victims will be armed.
They carry guns because they know it gives immense superiority over their targets, sepecially if their target has no gun. Even if the person being robbed or mugged is a world-class Karate master, the thief still has the advantage.
Another issue raised in a previous thread was simply: would you be prepared to shoot someone over a VCR? I know I wouldn't be.
Crazy, isn't it?
I wouldn't be willing to blow myself up over someone else's religion, but it happens anyways.
At the end of all debates there has to be a few statistics, and, according to many surveys, a family becomes substantitally more at risk of death from shooting if they own a gun than if they do not, primarily through drunken arguments between partners, but also through children playing with unsecured weapons and through unprepared people confronting far more chemically shielded robbers (drugs lower judgement, so if you pull a gun on an armed drug user then you still are scared, but they are more likely to react on instinct. Guess who comes off worst?).
Also according to surveys, the death rate is 80 times lower in states with gun control as opposed to states without.
So, to restate that, owning a gun makes you more likely to be a victim of gun crime than not owning a gun. How much more complicated do we need to make this?
As complicated as possible.
As for the list of quotes: I'm educated enough to know that every educated person in the world has spoken complete rubbish many times in their life. I believe it was Aristotle (I could be wrong) who said that eating beans was a crime equal to killing your own mother. He believed beans had souls. He was also one of the founders of modern thought. Lists of quotes are frequently pointless, although they can often be amusing!
Fallacy.
"X said (or believes in) Y, so therefore X's argument about Z is wrong." I realise I am correcting myself there.
[/quote]
less guns = less things to shoot each-other with?
=Playground for criminals, conisdering they know every law-abiding citizen will not have a gun and not be able to defend themselves.
When I ask myself 'in what circumstances would I consider trying to kill another person?' my answer is always along the line of 'when they show convincing signs of lethal intent towards me or other people'. To me, brandishing a gun is lethal intent.
How many times do you drive with a spare tire, intending to blow one? Install a new fire alarm, intending to burn your own house down?
Now, I'm not about to be breaking in to anyone's house, but let's just assume that a similar line of logic can be applied to a thief: they will only feel trigger happy if their life is at risk. Despite Hollywood and the general media's best efforts, pulling the trigger is still a very large psychological barrier, so that thief will be highly unlikely to try to kill you if you are unarmed. More to the point, why would a thief be armed (risking the far more serious penalty for armed robbery) when they are likely to be able to do exactly the same job when not armed? The only reason to carry a weapon is if they assume their victims will be armed.
They carry guns because they know it gives immense superiority over their targets, sepecially if their target has no gun. Even if the person being robbed or mugged is a world-class Karate master, the thief still has the advantage.
Another issue raised in a previous thread was simply: would you be prepared to shoot someone over a VCR? I know I wouldn't be.
Crazy, isn't it?
I wouldn't be willing to blow myself up over someone else's religion, but it happens anyways.
At the end of all debates there has to be a few statistics, and, according to many surveys, a family becomes substantitally more at risk of death from shooting if they own a gun than if they do not, primarily through drunken arguments between partners, but also through children playing with unsecured weapons and through unprepared people confronting far more chemically shielded robbers (drugs lower judgement, so if you pull a gun on an armed drug user then you still are scared, but they are more likely to react on instinct. Guess who comes off worst?).
Also according to surveys, the death rate is 80 times lower in states with gun control as opposed to states without.
So, to restate that, owning a gun makes you more likely to be a victim of gun crime than not owning a gun. How much more complicated do we need to make this?
As complicated as possible.
As for the list of quotes: I'm educated enough to know that every educated person in the world has spoken complete rubbish many times in their life. I believe it was Aristotle (I could be wrong) who said that eating beans was a crime equal to killing your own mother. He believed beans had souls. He was also one of the founders of modern thought. Lists of quotes are frequently pointless, although they can often be amusing!
Fallacy.
"X said (or believes in) Y, so therefore X's argument about Z is wrong." I realise I am correcting myself there.
[/quote]
QUOTE (arachnidoc17 @ Sep 8 2005, 09:53 PM)
=Playground for criminals, conisdering they know every law-abiding citizen will not have a gun and not be able to defend themselves.
Again, I would hardly describe the UK and most of Europe as a playground for criminals.
QUOTE
Fallacy.
"X said (or believes in) Y, so therefore X's argument about Z is wrong."
"X said (or believes in) Y, so therefore X's argument about Z is wrong."
You misunderstand Mata. He's not saying "Aristotle said silly things about beans, therefore everything Aristotle said is wrong", he's saying "Aristotle may be generally considered a very clever man, but he was prone to saying silly things, so let's not take everything he says as gospel, eh?".
QUOTE (CommieBastard @ Sep 8 2005, 04:59 PM)
QUOTE (arachnidoc17 @ Sep 8 2005, 09:53 PM)
=Playground for criminals, conisdering they know every law-abiding citizen will not have a gun and not be able to defend themselves.
Again, I would hardly describe the UK and most of Europe as a playground for criminals.
QUOTE
Fallacy.
"X said (or believes in) Y, so therefore X's argument about Z is wrong."
"X said (or believes in) Y, so therefore X's argument about Z is wrong."
You misunderstand Mata. He's not saying "Aristotle said silly things about beans, therefore everything Aristotle said is wrong", he's saying "Aristotle may be generally considered a very clever man, but he was prone to saying silly things, so let's not take everything he says as gospel, eh?".
Ah.
QUOTE (arachnidoc17 @ Sep 8 2005, 09:53 PM)
Also according to surveys, the death rate is 80 times lower in states with gun control as opposed to states without.
... did you mean to put that the other way around, or are you trying to prove our point for us, or what?
QUOTE (CommieBastard @ Sep 8 2005, 05:11 PM)
QUOTE (arachnidoc17 @ Sep 8 2005, 09:53 PM)
Also according to surveys, the death rate is 80 times lower in states with gun control as opposed to states without.
... did you mean to put that the other way around, or are you trying to prove our point for us, or what?
Excuse me. My source website has been buried in my favorites list for quite some time, I didn't give exact quotage. I mixed up some of the info.
QUOTE
Gun control and crime
In 1976, Washington, D.C., instituted one of the strictest gun-control laws in the country. The murder rate since that time has risen 134 percent (77.8 per 100,000 population) while the overall rate for the country has declined 2 percent. Washington, D.C., politicians find it easy to blame Virginia’s less-stringent gun laws for the D.C. murder rate. Yet Virginia Beach, Virginia’s largest city with almost 400,000 residents, has had one of the lowest rates of murder in the country — 4.1 per 100,000.
In New York City, long known for strict regulation of all types of weapons, only 19 percent of the 390 homicides in 1960 involved pistols. By 1972, this proportion had jumped to 49 percent of 1,691. In 1973, according to the New York Times, there were only 28,000 lawfully possessed handguns in the nation’s largest city, but police estimated that there were as many as 1.3 million illegal handguns there.
In 1986, Maryland banned small, affordable handguns called Saturday night specials. Within two years, Maryland’s murder rate increased by 20 percent, surpassing the national murder rate by 33 percent. Then Maryland passed a one-gun-a-month law. Yet between 1997 and 1998, 600 firearms recovered from crime scenes were traced to Maryland gun stores. Virginia, one of only two other states with a similar law, ranked third as a source of guns used by criminals in other states.
On the other hand, New Hampshire has almost no gun control and its cities are rated among the safest in the country. Across the border in Massachusetts, which has very stringent gun-control laws, cities of comparable size have two to three times as much crime as New Hampshire.
Vermont has the least restrictive gun-control law. It recognizes the right of any Vermonter who has not otherwise been prohibited from owning a firearm to carry concealed weapons without a permit or license. Yet Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in America, ranking 49 out of 50 in all crimes and 47th in murders.
States which have passed concealed-carry laws have seen their murder rate fall by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent and robbery by 3 percent.
Texas is a good example. In the early 1990s, Texas’s serious crime rate was 38 percent above the national average. Since then, serious crime in Texas has dropped 50 percent faster than for the nation as a whole. All this happened after passage of a concealed-carry law in 1994.
In 1976, Washington, D.C., instituted one of the strictest gun-control laws in the country. The murder rate since that time has risen 134 percent (77.8 per 100,000 population) while the overall rate for the country has declined 2 percent. Washington, D.C., politicians find it easy to blame Virginia’s less-stringent gun laws for the D.C. murder rate. Yet Virginia Beach, Virginia’s largest city with almost 400,000 residents, has had one of the lowest rates of murder in the country — 4.1 per 100,000.
In New York City, long known for strict regulation of all types of weapons, only 19 percent of the 390 homicides in 1960 involved pistols. By 1972, this proportion had jumped to 49 percent of 1,691. In 1973, according to the New York Times, there were only 28,000 lawfully possessed handguns in the nation’s largest city, but police estimated that there were as many as 1.3 million illegal handguns there.
In 1986, Maryland banned small, affordable handguns called Saturday night specials. Within two years, Maryland’s murder rate increased by 20 percent, surpassing the national murder rate by 33 percent. Then Maryland passed a one-gun-a-month law. Yet between 1997 and 1998, 600 firearms recovered from crime scenes were traced to Maryland gun stores. Virginia, one of only two other states with a similar law, ranked third as a source of guns used by criminals in other states.
On the other hand, New Hampshire has almost no gun control and its cities are rated among the safest in the country. Across the border in Massachusetts, which has very stringent gun-control laws, cities of comparable size have two to three times as much crime as New Hampshire.
Vermont has the least restrictive gun-control law. It recognizes the right of any Vermonter who has not otherwise been prohibited from owning a firearm to carry concealed weapons without a permit or license. Yet Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in America, ranking 49 out of 50 in all crimes and 47th in murders.
States which have passed concealed-carry laws have seen their murder rate fall by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent and robbery by 3 percent.
Texas is a good example. In the early 1990s, Texas’s serious crime rate was 38 percent above the national average. Since then, serious crime in Texas has dropped 50 percent faster than for the nation as a whole. All this happened after passage of a concealed-carry law in 1994.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp
The bolded is probably what I remembered.
I'm out of arguments, arachnidoc. Without any strong evidence to contradict you - I tried to find comparable gun crime rates since the UK's ban on guns, but couldn't - I'll concede that gun control is an ineffective way to control crime.
QUOTE (CommieBastard @ Sep 8 2005, 05:27 PM)
I'm out of arguments, arachnidoc. Without any strong evidence to contradict you - I tried to find comparable gun crime rates since the UK's ban on guns, but couldn't - I'll concede that gun control is an ineffective way to control crime.
Thank-you. Not many people can admit that.
You were right about one thing, however, I can't really see the genral populace winning a revolution through the use of firearms, but if the need were to arise (God forbid), then we should take a Ghandi-inspired passive-aggressive approach.
It goes against my instincts, which is what's hard about it. It's just sort of intuitive for me that guns = bad, so guns should = illegal.
When handguns were outlawed in the UK, it was because of a public outcry following a massacre in a school. Though I don't remember the events surrounding it well (I was young), I don't think there was ever a proper investigation into the effect it would have.
Regardless, the UK is not the US. Even when firearms were legal, we were never an armed populace, really.
When handguns were outlawed in the UK, it was because of a public outcry following a massacre in a school. Though I don't remember the events surrounding it well (I was young), I don't think there was ever a proper investigation into the effect it would have.
Regardless, the UK is not the US. Even when firearms were legal, we were never an armed populace, really.
Hey folks it's kittenessay time!!!!
Summary (for all you nice people who don't have the time to read it all):
- Gun control on it's own doesn't work - it needs to be effective and requires better law enforcement to back it up.
- If people are concerned about protecting their state they should join a militia-like state based national protectorate (who don't just protect against invasion / oppression but also natural disaster)
- Guns shouldn't be needed for self defence - criminals should be caught for (i.) having guns illegally and (ii.) trying to break into people's homes. Concealled weapons on the street is a bad idea as it may lead to vigilanteism and the mistakes / injustices that can accompany the lynch mob.
And now the long bit:
Thank-you. Not many people can admit that.
You were right about one thing, however, I can't really see the genral populace winning a revolution through the use of firearms, but if the need were to arise (God forbid), then we should take a Ghandi-inspired passive-aggressive approach.
Gun control on its own does not affect the illegal use of firearms as the Hand Gun Act in the UK has proved. The Snow Drops campaign (who effectively leeched off massive public sympathy after the Dunblane disaster - with great political effect, as most political parites jumped on the populist bandwagon) launched an unprecedented attack on handgun ownership after the horrific murders of a class full of young children and teachers in Dunblane Scotland.
Problem 1.
The paedophile lunatic who killed these innocents (then killing himself) should never have legally possessed the handguns, shotguns and rifles he used on those kids. He had a history of abuse and had used guns to threaten parents who had removed their kids from the youth group he ran after he had attempted to abuse them. And yet the Scotish police who had received these complaints did nothing.
Actually that isn't true. They did something, they renewed his firearms license. To the best of my knowledge no officer has been reprimanded for this. Gun control laws were sufficient, good policing was deficient.
Problem 2.
The Snow Drops Campaign was organised by people who don't understand gun ownership in the UK. With the exception of the once a decade madman like the evil nutter in Dunblain or earlier tossers like the sicko at Hungerford, 99.9% of gun owners in the UK use them for peaceful legal means. Criminal activity involving guns very rarely involves licensed weapons - except on a few odd occasions, and those that have been stolen. Snow Drops concentrated on legal users whilst ignoring the fact that the UK didn't need new laws to help decrease illegal gun crime - It needed extra money to be spent on the police to stop illegal gun usage, and better enforcement of existing gun control legislation to ensure gun owners were compliant.
Problem 3.
When handguns were made illegal to own in the UK - gun owners were compensated in full - at a cost of several million pounds sterling. This money should have gone to the police to help curb the rise in illegal gun crime that occurred later on in that year. South London (where I live) faced a crack war and the number of shootings rose to almost two per night in affected areas. More people were shot and in such a short period than at any other time in London's history.
And still gun crime is a problem, it increased since the 1997 ban, for example from June 2003 to June 2004, recorded gun crime in the UK rose by 3% to 10,590 incidents. On it's own outlawing a gun isn't going to help - what is needed is effective policing, and ultimately a crack down on crime and the causes of crime (a New Labour political slogan, which like many of it's kind sounds good, is based on good ideas, but was never properly organised nor implemented).
____________________
So how do you lessen criminality re: guns?
Suggestion A.
Intorduce effective and far reaching gun crontrol (which we have to an extent in the UK and in certain parts of the US) - this can include such measures as:
1. requiring firearms to be licensed - owners, after going through a rigorous background check (including mandatory weapons safety training), have to register each gun they keep and for that info plus balisitics and background data of all registered guns to be maintained on a database; and they must store the weapon where no-one else can get them / adopt advanced smart gun features/
. and/or
2. banning certain firearms such as fully automatic and some semi automatic weapons - then backing this up with banning their sale and rigorously enforcing this law, including weapons that can be easily converted to rapid fire / semi / fully automatic.
. and/or
3. introducing measures like gun owner recognition in firearms ensuring that only the registered owner can use that particular weapon. Also banning features like fingerprint proofing on the grip or slide of the weapon.
. and/or
4. ban certain people from ever owning firearms - those who suffer from certain mental illnesses, and those who have committed violent crimes or have used or threatened to use weapons to commit crimes.
. and/or
5. enforce similar restrictions on ammunition - only licensed gun owners can obtain ammunition for their type of firearm; tagging ammunition casings so whoever purchased them can be traced; and making it illegal to create your own ammunition.
If you require records to be maintained then when a weapon is used to commit a crime you can trace the criminal who used it. This will mean crims will only attempt to get guns from illegitimate sources... which leads on to:
Suggestion B.
Back up this gun control with a crack down on:
1. illegal gun trafficking / smuggling (better intel required, better protection of borders and ports of entry, will assist in the siezure of other illegal goods)
2. less than compliant gun dealers - who sell a few items under the counter (should be tried with harsh penalties if found guilty)
3. gun smiths who reactivate or even create their own weapons or modify other weapons to help criminals escape detection (treated as above)
4. firms that legally manufacture weapons for domestic sale - ensuring compliance with gun control laws (with corporate malpractice being included as a criminal offence to affect directors / managers involved personally to be made liable)
This will help styme criminal acquisition of firearms, though it will often prove difficult to keep guns out of criminal's hands, so on to:
Suggestion C.
Clamp down on criminals by:
1. siezing all firearms from criminals who have been convicted of violent or gun related crimes.
2. raiding known criminal propoerties with a view of confiscating anything that could asssist in criminality.
3. developing better intelligence on criminals to locate and sieze them and their weapons - especially gangs who use and those who traffick guns.
4. better policing in areas hit with high levels of gun crime - start at the top and work your way down
5. introduce heavier maximum penalties for illegal gun ownership though tieing this in with much greater rehabilitation schemes in prison (though I would suggest that this is accross the board for all criminals)
____________________
The Second Ammendment:
Regarding the constitutional right to bear arms - to provide a standing militia to protect the state against invasion and (perhaps) to protect against a tyranical federal government.
I don't believe that this should manifest itself as private citizenry being allowed handguns or rifles or even S.A.M.s etc to defend against invasion / oppressive federal regiemes.
If someone wishes they should be allowed to join a National Protectorate - similar to the national guard - but specifically to protect one's home state from any kind of man-made or even natural disaster. This will discourage federal governments from using these armed civillians as back ups or even front line troops in time of war - unless they volunteer; as well as providing a state militia to protect against anything from invasion (unlikely), oppression (though peaceful resistance / political action - as suggested by Commie and Arachnidoc is more likely to work), and natural disasters such as bushfires, floods, hurricanes / tornadoes etc etc.
____________________
Use of guns for self defence:
At home for home protection - this matter has been dealt with above, and I am not convinced that home protection with a gun is particularly a good thing. If criminals are using guns when breaking and entering - surely this should be met with a greater police responce. Ordinary tax payers shouldn't be expected to put up with this and become their own police. The powers that be should tackle both gun crime and break-ins (either armed or unarmed).
Concealled weapons in public for self defence - this worries me a lot... firstly that there are areas where lawlessness has become so rampant that the public need to arm themselves; this is a police failure and has to be addressed with better policing. Secondly there is the problem of giving someone a gun to protect themselves. This increases the opportunity for vigilanteism which is never a good thing. The Police are trained to handle crime and criminality - and this shouldn't be left up to ordinary civillians, who like all vigilante groups make mistakes that can (and often do) lead to gross miscarriges of justice. Mob rule or even the individual prejudice of the have-a-go hero should be prevented not encouraged.
Often the best way to deal with criminality should be to:
1. help allieviate poverty, inequality and failling healthcare and education (often the greatest sources of criminal motivation) - getting tough on on the sources of crime
2. clamp down hard on criminals through fairer and more effective policing, prosecution, sentencing (with sentencing looking at effective rehab combined with non-custodial sentences rather than prison for lesser offences, and tougher yet fair prison sentences with madatory rehab for serious crimes), and more effective probation / after prison rehab - getting tough on crime and preventing reoffences after time served
____________________
Finally:
It is important to note that with many of the statistics presented on rising and falling rates of gun crime with or without gun control, these areas are affected by all sorts of other factors - usually large populations in concentration combined with massive poverty, poor welfare and the associated lawlessness.
It doesn't make sence to say gun control in Washington is failling as gun crime rises - compared to gun crime in Vermont reducing without there being any gun control at all. This doesn't take into account the other important factors such as Washington's spiralling levels of unemployment, linked to urban overcrowding and infrastructure decay - whereas Vermont is maintaining relative economic stability. Washington has a higher percentage of densely packed urban areas with poor policing, whereas Vermont has fewer projects and ghetos, more sub-urban sprawl with relatively good / well funded policing.
Perhaps one should look at the possibillity of Washington's gun crime rates being even higher if there wasn't any gun control? Perhaps it isn't the gun control that is to blame but the poor enforcement of existing crime prevention laws by an over worked under manned and poorly funded police force?
Summary (for all you nice people who don't have the time to read it all):
- Gun control on it's own doesn't work - it needs to be effective and requires better law enforcement to back it up.
- If people are concerned about protecting their state they should join a militia-like state based national protectorate (who don't just protect against invasion / oppression but also natural disaster)
- Guns shouldn't be needed for self defence - criminals should be caught for (i.) having guns illegally and (ii.) trying to break into people's homes. Concealled weapons on the street is a bad idea as it may lead to vigilanteism and the mistakes / injustices that can accompany the lynch mob.
And now the long bit:
QUOTE (arachnidoc17 @ Sep 8 2005, 11:44 PM)
QUOTE (CommieBastard @ Sep 8 2005, 05:27 PM)
I'm out of arguments, arachnidoc. Without any strong evidence to contradict you - I tried to find comparable gun crime rates since the UK's ban on guns, but couldn't - I'll concede that gun control is an ineffective way to control crime.
Thank-you. Not many people can admit that.
You were right about one thing, however, I can't really see the genral populace winning a revolution through the use of firearms, but if the need were to arise (God forbid), then we should take a Ghandi-inspired passive-aggressive approach.
Gun control on its own does not affect the illegal use of firearms as the Hand Gun Act in the UK has proved. The Snow Drops campaign (who effectively leeched off massive public sympathy after the Dunblane disaster - with great political effect, as most political parites jumped on the populist bandwagon) launched an unprecedented attack on handgun ownership after the horrific murders of a class full of young children and teachers in Dunblane Scotland.
Problem 1.
The paedophile lunatic who killed these innocents (then killing himself) should never have legally possessed the handguns, shotguns and rifles he used on those kids. He had a history of abuse and had used guns to threaten parents who had removed their kids from the youth group he ran after he had attempted to abuse them. And yet the Scotish police who had received these complaints did nothing.
Actually that isn't true. They did something, they renewed his firearms license. To the best of my knowledge no officer has been reprimanded for this. Gun control laws were sufficient, good policing was deficient.
Problem 2.
The Snow Drops Campaign was organised by people who don't understand gun ownership in the UK. With the exception of the once a decade madman like the evil nutter in Dunblain or earlier tossers like the sicko at Hungerford, 99.9% of gun owners in the UK use them for peaceful legal means. Criminal activity involving guns very rarely involves licensed weapons - except on a few odd occasions, and those that have been stolen. Snow Drops concentrated on legal users whilst ignoring the fact that the UK didn't need new laws to help decrease illegal gun crime - It needed extra money to be spent on the police to stop illegal gun usage, and better enforcement of existing gun control legislation to ensure gun owners were compliant.
Problem 3.
When handguns were made illegal to own in the UK - gun owners were compensated in full - at a cost of several million pounds sterling. This money should have gone to the police to help curb the rise in illegal gun crime that occurred later on in that year. South London (where I live) faced a crack war and the number of shootings rose to almost two per night in affected areas. More people were shot and in such a short period than at any other time in London's history.
And still gun crime is a problem, it increased since the 1997 ban, for example from June 2003 to June 2004, recorded gun crime in the UK rose by 3% to 10,590 incidents. On it's own outlawing a gun isn't going to help - what is needed is effective policing, and ultimately a crack down on crime and the causes of crime (a New Labour political slogan, which like many of it's kind sounds good, is based on good ideas, but was never properly organised nor implemented).
____________________
So how do you lessen criminality re: guns?
Suggestion A.
Intorduce effective and far reaching gun crontrol (which we have to an extent in the UK and in certain parts of the US) - this can include such measures as:
1. requiring firearms to be licensed - owners, after going through a rigorous background check (including mandatory weapons safety training), have to register each gun they keep and for that info plus balisitics and background data of all registered guns to be maintained on a database; and they must store the weapon where no-one else can get them / adopt advanced smart gun features/
. and/or
2. banning certain firearms such as fully automatic and some semi automatic weapons - then backing this up with banning their sale and rigorously enforcing this law, including weapons that can be easily converted to rapid fire / semi / fully automatic.
. and/or
3. introducing measures like gun owner recognition in firearms ensuring that only the registered owner can use that particular weapon. Also banning features like fingerprint proofing on the grip or slide of the weapon.
. and/or
4. ban certain people from ever owning firearms - those who suffer from certain mental illnesses, and those who have committed violent crimes or have used or threatened to use weapons to commit crimes.
. and/or
5. enforce similar restrictions on ammunition - only licensed gun owners can obtain ammunition for their type of firearm; tagging ammunition casings so whoever purchased them can be traced; and making it illegal to create your own ammunition.
If you require records to be maintained then when a weapon is used to commit a crime you can trace the criminal who used it. This will mean crims will only attempt to get guns from illegitimate sources... which leads on to:
Suggestion B.
Back up this gun control with a crack down on:
1. illegal gun trafficking / smuggling (better intel required, better protection of borders and ports of entry, will assist in the siezure of other illegal goods)
2. less than compliant gun dealers - who sell a few items under the counter (should be tried with harsh penalties if found guilty)
3. gun smiths who reactivate or even create their own weapons or modify other weapons to help criminals escape detection (treated as above)
4. firms that legally manufacture weapons for domestic sale - ensuring compliance with gun control laws (with corporate malpractice being included as a criminal offence to affect directors / managers involved personally to be made liable)
This will help styme criminal acquisition of firearms, though it will often prove difficult to keep guns out of criminal's hands, so on to:
Suggestion C.
Clamp down on criminals by:
1. siezing all firearms from criminals who have been convicted of violent or gun related crimes.
2. raiding known criminal propoerties with a view of confiscating anything that could asssist in criminality.
3. developing better intelligence on criminals to locate and sieze them and their weapons - especially gangs who use and those who traffick guns.
4. better policing in areas hit with high levels of gun crime - start at the top and work your way down
5. introduce heavier maximum penalties for illegal gun ownership though tieing this in with much greater rehabilitation schemes in prison (though I would suggest that this is accross the board for all criminals)
____________________
The Second Ammendment:
Regarding the constitutional right to bear arms - to provide a standing militia to protect the state against invasion and (perhaps) to protect against a tyranical federal government.
I don't believe that this should manifest itself as private citizenry being allowed handguns or rifles or even S.A.M.s etc to defend against invasion / oppressive federal regiemes.
If someone wishes they should be allowed to join a National Protectorate - similar to the national guard - but specifically to protect one's home state from any kind of man-made or even natural disaster. This will discourage federal governments from using these armed civillians as back ups or even front line troops in time of war - unless they volunteer; as well as providing a state militia to protect against anything from invasion (unlikely), oppression (though peaceful resistance / political action - as suggested by Commie and Arachnidoc is more likely to work), and natural disasters such as bushfires, floods, hurricanes / tornadoes etc etc.
____________________
Use of guns for self defence:
At home for home protection - this matter has been dealt with above, and I am not convinced that home protection with a gun is particularly a good thing. If criminals are using guns when breaking and entering - surely this should be met with a greater police responce. Ordinary tax payers shouldn't be expected to put up with this and become their own police. The powers that be should tackle both gun crime and break-ins (either armed or unarmed).
Concealled weapons in public for self defence - this worries me a lot... firstly that there are areas where lawlessness has become so rampant that the public need to arm themselves; this is a police failure and has to be addressed with better policing. Secondly there is the problem of giving someone a gun to protect themselves. This increases the opportunity for vigilanteism which is never a good thing. The Police are trained to handle crime and criminality - and this shouldn't be left up to ordinary civillians, who like all vigilante groups make mistakes that can (and often do) lead to gross miscarriges of justice. Mob rule or even the individual prejudice of the have-a-go hero should be prevented not encouraged.
Often the best way to deal with criminality should be to:
1. help allieviate poverty, inequality and failling healthcare and education (often the greatest sources of criminal motivation) - getting tough on on the sources of crime
2. clamp down hard on criminals through fairer and more effective policing, prosecution, sentencing (with sentencing looking at effective rehab combined with non-custodial sentences rather than prison for lesser offences, and tougher yet fair prison sentences with madatory rehab for serious crimes), and more effective probation / after prison rehab - getting tough on crime and preventing reoffences after time served
____________________
Finally:
It is important to note that with many of the statistics presented on rising and falling rates of gun crime with or without gun control, these areas are affected by all sorts of other factors - usually large populations in concentration combined with massive poverty, poor welfare and the associated lawlessness.
It doesn't make sence to say gun control in Washington is failling as gun crime rises - compared to gun crime in Vermont reducing without there being any gun control at all. This doesn't take into account the other important factors such as Washington's spiralling levels of unemployment, linked to urban overcrowding and infrastructure decay - whereas Vermont is maintaining relative economic stability. Washington has a higher percentage of densely packed urban areas with poor policing, whereas Vermont has fewer projects and ghetos, more sub-urban sprawl with relatively good / well funded policing.
Perhaps one should look at the possibillity of Washington's gun crime rates being even higher if there wasn't any gun control? Perhaps it isn't the gun control that is to blame but the poor enforcement of existing crime prevention laws by an over worked under manned and poorly funded police force?
QUOTE
At home for home protection - this matter has been dealt with above, and I am not convinced that home protection with a gun is particularly a good thing. If criminals are using guns when breaking and entering - surely this should be met with a greater police responce. Ordinary tax payers shouldn't be expected to put up with this and become their own police. The powers that be should tackle both gun crime and break-ins (either armed or unarmed).
For that to be valid, you have to assume that the following statements apply to every robbery.
A The person raiding your home is fairly far away from your bedroom at all times or has bad hearing, so he cannot hear you talking to the police.
B The person raiding your home is slow, and will allow at least five minutes for the police to come before looting your house and/or shooting you.
C The person raiding your home is either careless or merciful, and will not shoot you on sight, allowing you to give the police a description of said person.
I don't care if the culprit is caught, if my face is blown off, it doesn't matter.
QUOTE (arachnidoc17 @ Sep 9 2005, 02:32 AM)
QUOTE
At home for home protection - this matter has been dealt with above, and I am not convinced that home protection with a gun is particularly a good thing. If criminals are using guns when breaking and entering - surely this should be met with a greater police responce. Ordinary tax payers shouldn't be expected to put up with this and become their own police. The powers that be should tackle both gun crime and break-ins (either armed or unarmed).
For that to be valid, you have to assume that the following statements apply to every robbery:
A. The person raiding your home is fairly far away from your bedroom at all times or has bad hearing, so he cannot hear you talking to the police.
B. The person raiding your home is slow, and will allow at least five minutes for the police to come before looting your house and/or shooting you.
C. The person raiding your home is either careless or merciful, and will not shoot you on sight, allowing you to give the police a description of said person.
Is arming homeowners across the US the best way to deal with this problem? Or are their better ways involving low cost brighter street lighting, CCTV, better alarms etc? Is the problem really that wide srpead, or is it symptomatic of a small percentage of all break-ins? What percentage of criminal acts in the US covers armed break-ins? Is this issue being unrealistically blown out of proportion to make a political point? I cannot comment on the US stats - perhaps you can help? If possible, please explain how many robberies / home invasions result in shootouts or slayings? How many robberys involved guns at all?
With regard to your points:
A. Better burglar / intruder alarms, linked to security firms are gradually becoming more tamper-proof, less costly, and more effective in detering burglars. Panick alarm buttons linked to police / private security firms also help. Calling the police in the US has historically been problematic and varies in effectiveness from state to state - this needs to be resolved with better policing, it's what you pay your taxes for.
B. The police responce time in cities in the UK is three minutes - I'm sure the US can and should improve their 5 minutes. Also if an alarm has been triggered which burglar is going to waste time killing victims or even trying to take anything, knowing the cops are only 5 minutes away - how much can you steal after killing a family within 5 minutes?
C. Most burglars in the UK wear ski masks to avoid successful identification both outside and inside property their are raiding, I'm guessing this is true of US burglars too. Armed burglars should rightly fear successful police intervention within 5 minutes and harsh penalties for murder so they don't end up killing anyone. Why kill the occupiers if the cops have already been called and you're wearing a mask? Why kill them when even if the cops aren't on the way? If the occupier has a gun then yes you kill or be killed, if not surely threatening them will be enough?
____________
Additionally:
1. If there are break-ins with guns in an area the area needs better police protection - you pay your taxes, you deserve it.
2. If there were better gun control laws (see all other points above) then there would be less opportunity for burglars to get access to guns.
____________
As I said above I am not convinced that armed home protection is really sensible - I may well be wrong, but from the arguments I've read here and on other boards, I'm still not convinced.
QUOTE (arachnidoc17 @ Sep 9 2005, 02:42 AM)
I don't care if the culprit is caught, if my face is blown off, it doesn't matter.
Which culprit is going to face a murder rap just over a few household items? If the cops have been called, why would he kill you? Unless it was to prevent you from killing him 'cos you've also got a gun?
QUOTE (arachnidoc17 @ Sep 9 2005, 02:42 AM)
I don't care if the culprit is caught, if my face is blown off, it doesn't matter.
But the point remains, why would a burglar shoot you unless you were pointing a gun at him? He's a burglar, and if he's not stupid, he'll know that the penalties for being caught for burglary are much less than for murder. He has no desire to shoot you. Up until you point a gun at him, he's much better off running than hurting anyone.
If I were to catch a burglar in my own home in the UK, I would rush him and attempt to tackle him, take him down. If I caught a burglar in the US, I would be aware that he's way more likely to have a gun. I would call downstairs to him, tell him to take whatever he wants and get out, and that I'd give him a ten minute head start before calling the cops. Screw it, he can have my TV, I'm insured.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.