I found these quotes recently on guns that I thought people might find interesting:
If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." --The Dalai Lama
"I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." From The Essential Ghandi
"If you know how to shoot, and are quite ready to shoot, the chances are that you won't have to shoot." - Blackjack Pershing
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one" Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, criminologist, 1764
Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud) .
And speaking of Freud, here's an article published at the Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. website that deals with the psychological defense mechanisms that underly why some people are so scared of gun ownership.
[ June 16, 2004, 03:30 AM: Message edited by: michaele8 ]
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Gun control is dumb, but so are straw men.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
and their rat-bastard icy tipster bretheren.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Is there no compromise? Would any of the men you quoted defend a person's inalienable right to own an assault rifle with cop-killers?
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Ohio has just recently added the "conceal and carry" law that apparently so many people were in favor of...except, apparently, everyone who owns a business. Now we are littered with "NO GUNS ALLOWED" signs on the doors and windows of just about every business that I visit. Apparently they don't trust c-n-c folks to remember that they can't carry guns in schools, churches or government buildings so we get signs making that space ugly, too.
Gee, I feel so much safer knowing a ton of strangers around me could be armed.
Call me immature sexually (Freud was obviously high when he wrote that), I guess.
fil
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity
That was Freud's pat answer for every single thing....
FG
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Gun control is reasonable. You simply cannot allow any person to get a gun any time they want to. Limits must be imposed. That's all there is to that.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Hate to break it to you, but it's already quite possible.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Ordinary people *should* be able to own assault rifles, assuming the second amendment applies to ordinary people.
I've heard arguments that by "militia" it refers to the national guard. I don't buy it and, to my knowldge, the supreme court has never ruled that it suffers from such limitation.
BUT, back to the point-- Unless I've been grossly misinformed, the last supreme court precedent on the issue was that a hunting shotgun could be legally banned without violating an individual's 2nd amendment rights because the shotgun was *not* a military weapon. In other words, 2nd amendment rights regard weapons of military significance, such as true assault weapons (by which I mean fully automatic light weapons such as the mp5 or m-16, not merely guns with banana clips, bayonet lugs, and flash suppressors)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I've heard arguments that by "militia" it refers to the national guard. I don't buy it and, to my knowldge, the supreme court has never ruled that it suffers from such limitation
Actually, that is from a supreme court ruling. I'll look for the reference for you.
The quote from Gandhi above is one of the worst examples of strip quoting I've ever seen. If you have read much of Gandhi you will realize that his key point was that it was not necessary to choose between cowardice and violence -- in fact he frequently taught that the resort to violence was a form of cowardice. His life's work "Satyagraha" or "Truth Force" was to teach people to use truth or righteousnes rather than violence to defend their rights.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Ordinary people do own assault rifles. They're lots of fun. Most are not full auto, of course, but that's of dubious value without lots of training and the modification is pretty straightforward should the need arise. Sometimes I wonder if it's actually a good thing that tree-huggers consider bayonets evil.
Rabbit: as you probably know there are a variety of ways of diagramming the subordinate clause(s) in the 2nd Amendment. I think it's clearest to read it as a universal right, but let's assume they did in fact intend to restrict arms to a state-sponsored militia. If so, what's that piece of random regulation doing in the Bill of Rights?
[ June 16, 2004, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Richard Berg ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Interesting point coat-tailing on Mr. Berg here, ownership of even fully automatic weapons is not illegal... there's just a heavy tax on them. I have a friend who has a fully automatic, silenced H&K MP5 (made famous by any number of 1st person shooter games) and two stamps (one for the selector switch, one for the silencer) that say he can.
I've seen him fire it. It's quite cool . One thing people often forget about with silencers: the bullets are still fast traveling pieces of metal and make a $%#@load of noise when they hit something even remotely solid... like when you run over a wire or branch with your lawnmower.
Rabbit, if you can post the cite, I'd appreciate your remedying my ignorance.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It might not be illegal to own them, but isn't it illegal to manufacture new ones, like the high-capacity magazines for handguns?
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Full auto, yes.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Well, it can't be illegal to manufacture them because someone still has to make them for the military.
I strongly suspect that ownership is not illegal, but as I said, requires a specific license and tax, like the MP5 (and the high capacity magazines) mentioned above.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Long live the Second Amendment!
Posted by SoberTillNoon (Member # 6170) on :
I am a proponent of gun control, to a point.
Limits on owner ship: yes. The three day waiting peroid: good. Background checks: thumbs up.
However, it is when they speak of taking the right to bare arms that I start to get worried...
There was more to this point, but I lost it. So i end with this: Gun control itself needs limits.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's way too hot in the South to take away that right.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
*Bares his arms*
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Well the Right to bear arms IS a Right (with a capital 'R'). But just because it's a Right doen't mean we can't have some limitations. Some limitations are good.
An armed society is a free society.
Posted by SoberTillNoon (Member # 6170) on :
:: shakes fist in the manner of an old man running kids off his lawn ::
That is right, I messed up, sue me. Though, I am serious about keeping the freedom to wear sleevless shirts.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
I, for one, think that the so-called right to bare arms should be severely restricted. I mean, some people look good in shortsleeved shirts, but there should be a law against... Oh, never mind.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Ok folks, now you offen hear the term assault weapons bandied around alot by the media and politicians, but the plain fact is the majority of the weapons they are talking about, aren't assault weapons. Such as in the brady bill, collapsing stocks and sawed off barrells, those don't make an assault weapon. An assault weapon is by it's technical defenition a weapon that can switch from automatic to semi-automatic fire with the flick of a switch I.E. M-16, Car-15. The Maryland snipers gun, though called an assault weapon by the media, could only fire in a semi-automatic mode.
Now anyway, to gun control. The country with the lowest crime rate in the world, is Switzerland. Why you ask, because every single household has one sub machine pistol, and one pistol, per person over the age of 18. More guns, less crime. One of the most criminal western countries, is yes, France. Where it is almost impossible to get a firearm.
Their is a great book on this subject, called "More Guns, Less Crime"
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I know I'd feel safer if everyone had a gun. Heck, we wouldn't need the police no more cuz everybody'd have a gun. Makes sense.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, I think Switzerland may have the lowest gun crime rate because it is a small, largely homogenous society, with mandatory military service, which then allows you to use guns, only during/after said military service.
Comparing Switzerland to France, or the USA, is like comparing watermelons to cantaloupe (sp).
-Bok
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Who cares about the police....I'm worried about Tyranny. The Second Amendment is an insurance policy against it...just in case checks and balances breaks down and an oppressive regime takes over.
[ June 16, 2004, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Yes, as the constitution says.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
They said it first, they said it right.
Plus, what part of "shall not be infringed" isn't clear?
[ June 16, 2004, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Rhaegar The Fool ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Soooo, you're saying Bok's right? That the situation in Switzerland is entirely due to their culture, small population size, mandatory military service (although I think this point is the weakest) and things like that?
Ok, I agree with that.
But the only way to guard against a tyranny moving in and taking over your government is to shoot them?
You'll pardon me if I think that's sad.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Yeah, country analogies are rough. Although, taken in aggregate, they do seem to indicate something -- the only major homicide downturn as a result of gun laws was in Jamaica, where the government did a complete Gestapo-style crackdown that would cause a civil war here. Unfortunately, crime was back up to pre-ban levels within 5 years.
Culture isn't homogenous even within the U.S., but among major urban areas it's close enough. I have yet to see an example where gun control made a significant dent (adjusted for national criminology trends), or liberalizing restrictions led to an increase.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think there are more profound cultural aspects that explains why the Swiss can have weapons and be peaceful, while the urban US can't (although, I would guess urban USA _does_ have plenty of weapons, though mostly illegally obtained).
-Bok
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
BtL,
it *is*, ultimately, the only way to combat it if the government is tyrannical enough.
<insert relevant Churchill, Chesrterton, and Jefferson quotes about the Blood of Patriots and fighting when there is no hope of victory along with poignant excerpts from "Braveheart" script here>
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Oh, certainly. Even here where a gun is $50 on the street corner, the U.S. has more murders by blunt object than the rest of the industrialized world has murders, or something silly like that.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Do you actually think that a militia could defeat the U.S. government if they needed to? War has changed quite a bit since the Revolutionary War.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
RRR,
quote:you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory because it is better to perish than live as slaves...
-Winston Churchill
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
(A), see nice quote that beat me to it. (B), see the hassle a few thousand ragtag Iraqis with hand-me-down AK-47's are giving America's finest. Urban warfare where your opponents know the streets is rough no matter how many toys you have. (C), scale that up to tens of millions of pissed-off citizens spread across 6 million square miles, many or most of whom have prior training in a professional military. The government wouldn't stand a chance.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Three cheers for Jim and Rich! Great posts.
All power to the Proletariat! Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
<is suddenly nervous about being branded a communist> Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
hehehe
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
This is one of those debates in which I have no part to play. Not being of your country I find it impossible to understand your gun culture. I've read a lot of these threads and I'm still no closer to understanding why they're necessary. I mean, I understand but I don't *get* it. If you see what I mean.
Anyway, it's all good. It doesn't really impact me anyway.
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
Someone's opinion on gun control. There's nothing that should stop citizens from being able to own them, but pretending we live in the nonexistant Wild West is just stupid and dangerous.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
BtL,
It's no big, man. But real tyrrany can only be opposed by force and secrecy... Lawyers may be the first line of defense against the excesses of government, but they *have* failed in the past.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst and all that.
I'm not sure what the wild west has to do with it, but the incidences of violent assault are threatening to kill off the local music district here in Dallas. More people learning to defend themselves at close quarters would be a very good thing. Be aware that, by this, I don't mean "learning to shoot". Guns are ranged weapons and bringing a gun to a knife fight is every bit as bad as bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Richard, the quote doesn't say why guns could defeat an army just why you should fight and die rather than be enslaved. Furthermore, some Iraqis are giving the US military a hassle but they're far from getting the military out of Iraq for tactical reasons as opposed to political ones. In a civil war both sides would know the streets and if the US government became tyrannical I don't think they would care too much about casualties. How do you get tens of millions of citizens with a significant number having professional training in a military? Of all the current veterans we have now how many are even capable of fighting and how many of those would actually put their life on the line again? In reality the only to justify gun ownership as a check on tyranny is to also say that "law abiding" citizens whould also be able to get tanks, fighters, bombers, military helicopters, aircraft carriers, artillery etc.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Why not? I mean, if you can buy a hummer, why not a tank? Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
nfl,
so being grossly outgunned is sensible, being *really* grossly outgunned is stupid, and being COMPLETELY outgunned is best of all?
I'm not sure I'll buy that.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
I agree with a lot of what that guy has to say. He doesn't state it explicitly, but certainly a big reason many people CCW is due to a general preoccupation with fear fueled by media etc. etc.
I don't have huge problems with CCW, but I think open carry should be preferable; secrecy in general is not my thing. Certainly the deterrent factor is greater.
I must object to his point about police training. I know a lot of gun owners, and I know a lot of cops. Without exception, I'd rather have one of the private citizens on my back. Not all gun owners are as responsible as my friends, obviously, but it's almost indisputable to me that cop training in these matters is pisspoor outside of elite/veteran units. If you think the number of accidental shooting deaths perpetrated by American cops is outrageous, wait 'til you hear the stories that were only averted by luck.
The point about handgun popularity before the Civil War also belies a lack of technical knowledge, FWIW. Before the modern revolver, pistols were pretty useless.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
There are 26 million veterans, at least half of which are not infirm, and not counting over a million current Reserves who'd probably resist a coup. A tyrannical government might not care about casualties -- and there'd be tons -- but they would care about having an actual people + infrastructure to rule. Heck, they could decide to nuke themselves, but we have to have some rationality in our farfetched scenarios
By "know the streets" I don't mean having access to the blueprints. I mean having an occupying force never know which window the next sniper will appear from, which average-looking passersby are scouting ambush locations, which neighborhood gardeners are making fertilizer bombs. The history of traditional militaries against urban resistance is just horrifically bad -- a bunch of starving kids with scavenged ammo defended the Jewish ghetto of Warsaw against the Nazis for ten times longer than the entire national army lasted on the battlefield.
Stealth fighter jets do not take and hold territory. Manpower does.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Hey, somebody had to say it. Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: see the hassle a few thousand ragtag Iraqis with hand-me-down AK-47's are giving America's finest
So you are advocating terrorism if the government gets too oppressive? I thought this was a democracy?
quote: Who cares about the police....I'm worried about Tyranny. The Second Amendment is an insurance policy against it...just in case checks and balances breaks down and an oppressive regime takes over.
Just a note: an oppressive regime took over in 2000 and not a shot was fired. $$$ and key positions of power trump guns any day.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
So, Richard, are you saying that the Civil War might have gone a different way if the South had used urban terrorist tactics vs. meeting the enemy on the field of battle?
fil
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Fil,
I think that is precisely what he is saying.
As for the oppressive regime, if you really think that you can always leave the country (which, I will point out for the slow, is a salient point and not merely a rude remark).
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:I know I'd feel safer if everyone had a gun. Heck, we wouldn't need the police no more cuz everybody'd have a gun. Makes sense.
Yeah, that's right. We wouldn't need cops, just more coroners. I suppose speeders would be taken care of the gun toting proletariat.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: As for the oppressive regime, if you really think that you can always leave the country (which, I will point out for the slow, is a salient point and not merely a rude remark).
...or, as someone on here said, we could arm and shoot the oppresive regime. Hmmm...
fil
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I suppose I have a lot of things to say about gun control and what not. The fact is there are many things in American society that lead to our high rate of homocides. Just look at Canada, lots and lots of people there own firearms, but their murder rate is much much much lower. We've created alot of our own problems with issues like prohibition, and the simple cultural divides that have never really been fixed in our society. How many of the crimes out there do you see done by an assault rifle anyhow. Plus the fact is a high powered deer rifle can be amuch more effective tool for urban terror than an assault rifle ever could be simply due to their higher caliber.
In my mind it is the ultimate liberty to allow a populace to walk around with a "ticking timebomb" as some would say. Yes people should have that right, simply because we are not peasants. I say that in the sense that not so long ago a lot of people needed a rifle not just for protection, but survival in the woods. Yes for the most part in THIS time and day we don't require all of the weapons a lot of people have. The thing is a liberty and freedom such as that is not for today or yesterday, it is for tomorrow. You may not excercise your right to free speech in protest in your entire life. Do you want it taken away.
You say what could an urban miliia equipped with assault rifles do? Well quite a bit if you ask me. I know that I have enough training to do enough hurt in an enivornment which I'm familiar with.
I'm sure most of you know about the war on drugs and the war on terror. I can give you one major reason why both of those campaigns have done so poorly in my humble opinion. They target the product. We try to kill the terrorists, get the drugs off the street. The fact is the desire is still there, while it is there something will happen. You're worried about armed thieves etc. Well are they going to quit stealing because they don't have a pistol anymore? For the most part I think there should be a detailed look into what part of society is killing people and their motives. Really fix the problem, don't go for something that simply seems to fix the problem to the rest of society so you can get some free votes.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I am for certain types of gun control
I am against limiting the types of weapons that a law abiding citizen can own. If the founding fathers were alive today they would insist on the general public being able to have assault weapons to protect against tyranny. Even with assault weapons a third revolution would be difficult in this day in age...but without them it would be impossible. I don't foresee it being necessary...BUT the founding fathers did put the line in there for a reason.
I do agree with putting limits one WHO can own guns. I am for the 3 day waiting period, and background checks (which the purchaser should have to pay for). If someone has committed a crime with a gun, that should take away their right to own guns in the future. They have shown that they cannot be trusted. If you are going to have assault weapons, sniper riffles, silencers and such there should be extra licensing and background checks (again you should have to pay for them). People should also be held accountable for what their guns are used for. If you leave guns unlocked and your kids get to them and use them, you should be punished. It should be manslaughter at the very least.
While guns are a right...they are also a responsibility. If you are going to have a gun, you need to secure it...and make sure that you are adequately trained to use it.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Since people are so focused on "shall not be infringed" and invoke the old "what isn't clear about that?" how come they are so quick to overlook the whole "well regulated militia" part of it? Nothing about a bunch of random citizens carrying loaded weapons into Wendy's for a burger strikes me as "well regulated" or "Militia." Just curious.
thanks!
fil
PS Don't shoot me.
PPS Guns don't kill people. People with guns do.
PPPS "3 days? But I want to shoot someone now!" -Homer Simpson.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Speaking of the opposite of CCW...carrying it out for all to see! I am wondering if the fictional world of "Kill Bill" would be more to people's tastes. In that world, motorcyles, cars and air planes have slots so that everyone has a place for their samurai swords. Do gun advocates also think it would be fine to get rid of that whole length limit with blades that we have? I think it would be cool to have gun toters walking among dudes with samurai swords on their backs. Finally, my life can LOOK and FEEL like the video games I am told I shouldn't play!
fil
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I'm fine with people walking around with swords. Heck, I think it would look kind of cool to see someone come into the office wearing a broadsword.
Though, since they are major weapons, they should be licenced as well.
[ June 16, 2004, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
I think it's clear we're talking about a different level of oppression. At first glance it seems like the biggest obstacle would be rousing popular support especially if the threat came from within "the establishment," but militia power is very clearly a defensive thing only. Turning it into an offensive force would get them massacred. Thus, we're really only talking about foreign invasions and military coups.
Would the South have won a guerrilla war? Tough. They certainly wouldn't have outright lost as is possible when you bleed tens of thousands of men in a day's fight. OTOH, despite the stereotype, most Southern soldiers did not have military-grade weapons already. Even the Confederacy itself was short on inventory.
It's an interesting question, though, especially once they realized that guys like Sherman would show no leniency for civilians. If they had taken that as a sign to abandon the battlefield and fortify the cities, they could've made occupation life hell for years if not decades despite the disparity in arms and manpower. Keep in mind that unless the scenario is a Chinese invasion, the ratio of attacking regulars to "militia" is vastly less than the conscripted labor force of the entire North vs. an antebellum South.
But really, urban warfare just wasn't in the vocabulary. Guerrilla tactics yes, but the goal was to defeat the army of the North just as we did to Cornwallis and thus gain independence by offense. Militias can't do that -- and frankly, the Confederate army was much less prepared for open battle than a group of sharpshooting vets would be today. Moreover, the last century has taught us that independence by brute force doesn't always work, but opportunistically blowing up lots of soft targets often does.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Fil, I really do think that yes, the Founders really did intend for the citizens to be able to overthrow the government by force, as a last resort. Remember, they had just done exactly that. (Whether it was really a "last resort" is open to question, but that's how they saw it.)
At the same time I suspect that the point is basically moot by now. I suspect the military experts are right that a newly assembled militia isn't going to defeat government troops on the battlefield; at the same time the Revolution does show it can at least buy time to get some training in or move better trained troops where you need them. Or rather, it did; at this point a fairly disorganized militia isn't going to do a lot of good.
So even though I disapprove of gun control in theory, I'm willing to support it in practice iff it will actually reduce crime. *watches and waits*
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: I really do think that yes, the Founders really did intend for the citizens to be able to overthrow the government by force, as a last resort. Remember, they had just done exactly that. (Whether it was really a "last resort" is open to question, but that's how they saw it.)
Really? You really think that the rich landbarons that made up the Continental Congress wanted their citizens armed so that if they had a bad year in Congress, the people could up and shoot them? I doubt that very seriously and would LOVE to see some backing for this.
I think they created a Democracy where loser representatives could be voted out of office if they became tyranical. I think they created three sides to the government that could balance each other out so that a government couldn't become tyranical.
I go back to "well regulated militia." I think the Congress wanted to have a standing army so that they wouldn't have to work so hard to get up and running when the English came back, or the French or the...whatever. A well regulated militia, being necessary (for what? revolution? why?) for defense, I would think.
fil
PS I would be much more supportive of a "arm everyone" bit if "everyone" had to do time in the military, like those in Sweden, was it? Or, better yet, you have to do time in the military if you want to carry a gun outside of your home...and can be called up to go back to war if the country needs it. Well...regulated...militia.
Say it proud. Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
quote: Really? You really think that the rich landbarons that made up the Continental Congress wanted their citizens armed so that if they had a bad year in Congress, the people could up and shoot them? I doubt that very seriously and would LOVE to see some backing for this.
I'll look for what I can find. Sadly, I never remember where I read things. I'm sure I've read this in a dozen places, but it could be anywhere at all.
Also, you keep saying things that seem to reduce "tyranny" to an unpopular law or two ("if they had a bad year in Congress"). I'm not sure I understand why you're suggesting such a low threshold.
quote:I think they created a Democracy where loser representatives could be voted out of office if they became tyranical. I think they created three sides to the government that could balance each other out so that a government couldn't become tyranical.
Obviously those are in the Constitution too, Fil, and I don't mean to discount them. But the best laid plans of mice and men go awry. The Founders did the best they could, but even they couldn't be sure exactly how things would work. Consider Washington--he was influential enough that if he had told Congress what to do, they'd likely have done it, and once that had gone on for a few years, it could easily have become "the way things are done". Or if he'd decided to keep running for president and stay in office till the day he died--well, think how much influence a president could build up in that time.
All kinds of things could have gone wrong--some still could go wrong, I would say. (It wouldn't surprise me if twenty years from now the Supreme Court was ordering the other two branches of government around.) And if they go too far wrong, votes aren't going to cut it.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Sweden still has mandatory conscription on the books, but nobody actually does it in the absence of a Red Army breathing down the Finns. You're thinking of the Swiss.
As for the Framers' opinon on militias and so on...I'm more of a Jefferson scholar than anyone else, so I'll sum up his view.
- America should never have standing armies except in times of war (he did support a navy). - Drafts are affronts to liberty. - The militia are absolutely vital to the defense of a nation, especially in the first moments of defense before regulars can be formed (no standing army, remember). - As such, we must make sure able-bodied men are always armed and trained. Every citizen must be willing to be a soldier, both for maximum military strength and for fairness. Tactics should be required study in colleges. (The more radical of these views came about when the Canucks burned our Capitol.)
On revolution: - Even good governments go bad. When this happens, be ready to fight as we once did. - A healthy country should have a rebellion every 20 years at least. (Rebellion being something that inspires a minority to take up arms, showing they still care about the process, NOT necessarily a successful overthrow of the government.) - Actual revolutions are dangerous because even when despotism is toppled, democracy is hard to come by. A revolutionary generation usually cannot overcome its entire history at once. The French suck at it.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Maybe gun control types feel comfortable witht the idea that the only people who would have gun access if they had their way would be the police and the military.
I don't feel comfortable with this.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Again, a psychological explaination for what makes a gun controller tick.
quote:In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
Full details are available at the link above.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As many people here know, I hate it when people assign motives to their political opponents without proof. Here's another example where the side I'm on (generally anti-gun control, with some reasonable regulation allowed) is painting the other side as repressed, psychologically weak, or otherwise incapable of thinking clearly.
The linked article is mostly pop-psychology which assumes the worst about the people who don't agree with the author. For example, it's just as easy to say that the author can't imagine someone fearing being murdered by a gun-owning neighbor having a bad day without thinking he would do that himself because the author can't imagine someone fearing another's actions without wanting to do that action themself.
His reasoning is false from the get-go. Gun control advocates have a colorable argument. Most of the guns sought to be banned are specifically designed to kill people. Having lethal force that requires little training to use does heighten the stakes of many confrontations. The U.S. does have one of the worst murder rates in the industrialized world and one of the highest gun ownership rates.
I think there are perfectly good responses to each of these, as well as some good reasons beyond these to allow private gun ownership. But it does no good to dismiss these arguments as proof of psychological weakness.
The author purports to be an advocate. He has basically stated that the people's minds he should be changing (those that disagree with him) are not capable of rational thought. Does he honestly expect to change someone's mind by saying, "Here's why you're a little nuts; don't you feel better knowing it was just projection and weakness?"
The problem with political advocacy in this country is that too many people are trying to show how bad their opponents are not how good their own ideas are. Sure, refute your opponents ideas. But you should be trying to convince people who disagree with you, not insult them.
Dagonee
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Rabbit,
Pardon me for being lazy, but does elsewhere in the link define the state guard units as "militia"? The ambiguity of the term militia is what I was saying. The units that are currently the National Guard and etc. were not considered militia at the time, but regular forces. Also, what would the sense be of maintaining private and personal weapons for units equipped by the state and federal governments?
I think the militia refers exclusively to the private citizens in a town engaged in armed resistance...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Jim-Me, The supreme court ruling does not boil down into sound bites very well. I strongly suggest that you take the 5 to 10 minutes necessary to read the entire thing.
The statement below is explains in part why the term well-regulated milita in the constitution refers to a a state governed force.
quote: The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
Since the term "National Guard" post dates the constitution and could be changed at anytime, the Supreme Court statement does not use this terminology. Their ruling does how ever make it clear that states have the authority and responsibility to regulate these militias and at this time I know of no militia's that meet the definition given in the supreme court ruling other than the National Guard.
This rule is the primary reason that the anti gun regulation lobby does not fight this battle in the courts, they lobby against regulations in legislatures. Furthermore, I do not know of any case where the supreme court has ruled that state laws regulating the ownership of arms were unconstitutional. In fact, they have consistently ruled that states have the right to regulate private gun ownership. If you can find any supreme court ruling to the contrary, I would be pleased to see it.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Hmmm... it does certainly seem that the states are responsible for regulating and maintaining militia forces, but, again, this calls into question the need for a "right" to keep and bear arms if we are merely expecting the states to simply pass out the guns if and when it deems it necessary. Even if the national guard and reserves are the only existing organizations that fit this criteria, it needn't mean that they are the only ones possible or plausible, nor does it mean that the application of the second amendment is limited to them.
I'm sure several veterans organizations would consider themselves as fitting the description, even though their rank and drill are strictly ceremonial these days.
As I haven't said this yet, I would also agree that there is a massive difference between firearm restriction and firearm banning. My problem with the Brady Bill is that it is stupid and ineffective... not that it actually violates the second amendment.
Also, as I and others have alluded to, firearms are not the olny weapons to be addressed.
Here in the supremely armed state of Texas, where it is absolutely legal to carry loaded rifles in your gun rack and legal to carry a concealed weapon with a license, it is illegal to carry a knife or stick larger than certain sizes, period. I have known friends who were harassed for leaving baseball equipment in their car (the bat was an "illegal weapon") and have been myself accosted for carrying a walking staff. If I were jumped on the street in close quarters, I'd much rather have my ash quarterstaff than a Glock, but the option is denied me... because a quarterstaff is not of any military significance.
Edit: forgot to note, for the person who suggested that those who have committed crimes with guns not be allowed to own them... it's already illegal for any convicted felon to own a gun.
[ June 17, 2004, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Jim-Me, Please just read the whole ruling. I explains quite clearly that when the constitution was written, Militia's consisted of men who used their privately owned firearms as part of a well-regulated militia. States weren't passing out guns to the members of the militia, they were expected to bring their own. The key point of the ruling is that the Supreme court sees the "well-regulated milita phrase" and the "right to bear arms" as integrally linked and that the right to bear arms is only protect where it can be reasonably expected that these arms will be used for the common defense with-in the context of a state regulated militia. This means that the supreme court believes that the constitution offers no protection for ownership of arms used, individuals for sport or for personal protection.
Note that I am not saying that such uses should be banned, only that the Supreme Court, which has the final say on constitutional matters, has clearly ruled that ownership of arms for purposes other than those connected with a state regulated militia is not constitutional protected.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: If the founding fathers were alive today they would insist on the general public being able to have assault weapons to protect against tyranny
Lupus -- I would love to see how you could possible "prove" this statement you made, seeing as how it is improbable that back then they could even imagine some of the types of weapons now currently available to us.
I just don't like it when one person says how he is SURE how others would think.
FG
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
FG, I agree with that. I think if the Founding Fathers saw what weapons could do today, their wigs would fly off. I am all for keeping in mind what the Founding Fathers were thinking at the time...a single-shot musket above the fireplace in case the Brits attack! Of that, we can be sure.
fil
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I'm not disagreeing with you, Rabbit, that the right to bear arms is inextricably linked with the idea of the militia. I was the one who brought up that precise point, saying that the second amendment is applicable to military weaponry.
I disagree with the idea that the current National Guard is the only thing that the second amendment applies to. I don't see them saying, in the ruling, that he, as a private citizen, doesn't come under these protections... only that the weapon in question doesn't serve a purpose for a militia under the state's direction. The militia, as they have described them in that ruling, have certainly fallen by the way side, but I do not see that they have ruled that the second amendment is in any way rendered inapplicable by this.
I'm no legal scholar, and I am reading quickly and distractedly, but the sense I get from the ruling is precisely what I was previously maintaining it was: the second amendment applies to military weaponry, held by the common citizen with the intent of resisting armed conflict, and not to having a sawed off shotgun to defend your house or a goose gun with which to feed your household or decorate your mantle.
I would also note, again, that the ownership and transport of the weapon are not the crime, but the failiure to posess the appropriate tax stamp for it. I reiterate that the ownership of restricted weapons is not illegal if you can afford the tax and pass a background check... i.e. - if the government likes you and you pay them enough.
Current firearm law, I maintain, is one of the more deeply inequitible laws towards the poor and marginalized on America's books at the moment.
[ June 17, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
quote:Edit: forgot to note, for the person who suggested that those who have committed crimes with guns not be allowed to own them... it's already illegal for any convicted felon to own a gun.
Actually, that's only a very recent thing. from the earlier link:
quote:In 2000, more than 3,300 licensed concealed-carry owners were arrested for crimes between the beginning of January and the end of April for that year in Texas. Four months! And these are not just traffic or fine violations, either. Murder, rape, assault, sexual assault, and various weapons violations were rampant. Beginning February of 2000, in Utah, the state began doing regular background checks of licensed handgun owners. By April of 2001, there was over a 200% increase in license revocations. The largest reason for revocation was for outstanding warrants. Since 1990 in Florida, at least 690 known criminals applied for concealed carry permits. At one point, more than 150 of them managed to get and keep a permit for up to two years. Almost 300 others were convicted of crimes after recieving the permit.
And these are just conceal-and-carry permits, not just licenses to own. What this means is that while the purpose is to keep guns out of the hands of felons, it is by no means definitively effective. On the other hand, legislating to death is never going to solve the issue of heat-of-moment violent crimes or known criminals getting their hands on weapons. There is no single answer, and this is the largest flaw of the majority of pro-gun-legislation groups and arguments.
Richard, you seem to be somewhat mistaken about what the author there was saying. He didn't say that police are better trained, but that there is normally not even the training a novice officer has had as a requirement to be issued a gun. Whether police officers heed the training they receive is not stated, and the statement he made, "Even police are trained in methods to prevent such situations, and it's still happened. To police. What makes you think that someone with criminal intent won't take advantage of you?" pretty much agrees with what you said. Also, the statement about pistols has to do with their not being as common as motion pictures portraying them. Rifles were a staple on frontier property, but pistols were not common for several reasons (cost, skill, manufacturing, etc.). I believe you are misundersstanding the statements that were made, because they seem to be a different context than what you disagreed with. Forgive me if I misunderstand, though.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
It's not a recent thing. It is unlawful for a convicted felon to own a gun and has been for some time. G. Gordon Liddy mentioned frequently on his radio program (in the early 90's when I used to listen to him) that that was precisely why he didn't own one. Just because there were failures in the background check system does not mean it wasn't on the books.
As an aside, I find the Texas statistics, in particular, a little hard to believe, but I have nothing to contradict them.
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
quote:As an aside, I find the Texas statistics, in particular, a little hard to believe, but I have nothing to contradict them.
quote:In August of 2000, the Violence Policy Center released License to Kill III, a report that details the number of concealed weapons licensees in Texas who have been arrested for crimes after getting a concealed weapons permit. Using data from the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Violence Policy Center found that Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for a total of 3,370 crimes between January 1, 1996 and April 30, 2000, including very serious violent offenses like murder, rape, sexual assault, and weapons-related crimes. An analysis of the Texas data also reveals that, between 1996 to 1999, Texas CCW permit holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate that was 66% higher than that of the general population of Texas
quote:Washington, DC - A new study released today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) shows that Texas concealed handgun license holders have been arrested 5,314 times since the concealed handgun license law went into effect--an average of two and one-half arrests every day from January 1, 1996, until August 31, 2001. Texas has a "shall issue" concealed carry system, in which an adult (21 or over), is issued a license that allows them to have a handgun on or about their person as long as it is not visible or discernible through ordinary observation after they meet specific, objective criteria.
The numebrs in those links are meaningless without knowing the number of CCLs, the number of comparable adults w/o CCLs, and the numbers for arrests of those non-CCL-holders.
Dagonee
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
well, your first post said
quote: In 2000, more than 3,300 licensed concealed-carry owners were arrested for crimes between the beginning of January and the end of April for that year in Texas. Four months!
and your second one says
quote: Using data from the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Violence Policy Center found that Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for a total of 3,370 crimes between January 1, 1996 and April 30, 2000
which shows that you were only off by a factor of 13 in your time frame.
3300 crimes in 4 1/3 years in a state as populous as Texas isn't that surprising. In 4 months would have been.
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
Check the search results linked. At least one of the studies is linked, where the numbers of licenses and population would be pointed out. The only reason you're claiming the numbers are meaningless is because they are summaries of the studies, which is why one search result was given in order to allow anyone who wishes to show where the numbers were incorrect. For more information, a contact number was given.
Contact: Naomi Seligman Violence Policy Center 1140 19th Street, NW Washington, DC Phone: 202-822-8200 www.vpc.org Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The summary included nothing about the rate of criminality by CCL-holders versus none holders. Had the study reached a conclusion on this issue, I'd expect it to be in the summary.
I'm commenting on the numbers YOU chose to post, and stand by my original statement that they are not relevant to the debate. We know people commit crimes. Ergo, we know some people with carry permits will commit crimes. Is anyone surprised by this? How is it relevant to whether we should allow CCLs?
Dagonee
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
You are not reading:
quote:An analysis of the Texas data also reveals that, between 1996 to 1999, Texas CCW permit holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate that was 66% higher than that of the general population of Texas
It does compare to nonlicensed population. Thus, it has relevance. You're jumping into semantics without reading the details.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
That makes no sense whatsoever. I'd be willing to bet that <3000 isn't representative of 5/8 of the violent crime arrests for the City of Dallas during that time period, much less for the entire state.
edited to fix the math.
[ June 17, 2004, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, I'm trying to find some basis for analyzing the results other than the conclusions made by anti-gun advocates.
The 66% higher is a conclusion. Excuse me if I fail to take the Brady organization's word for it.
Dagonee Edit: Oh, and the reaosn I didn't comment before on this part is that it's "weapon-related" offenses. Is anyone surprised that the people who carry weapons commit more offenses with them, and the licensed ones are subjected to more scrutiny, making detection of such crimes more likely.
The text is incredibly biased in it's presentation, giving a number in the thousands and then saying including such and such horrihble crimes which number in the dozens each.
[ June 17, 2004, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
One other possibility... it specifies "weapon-related offenses." If by this they mean "carrying without a license" that makes perfect sense. Under the state law, if you have your firearm on you without your license to carry you can, and likely will, be arrested. All this would then mean is that 2/3 of the people arrested in Texas for carrying illegal weapons actually had the license to do so.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's true - everytime a CCL is stopped in Virginia, the holder must show the gun (if he's got it) and the license (if he's carrying the gun).
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
quote:The 66% higher is a conclusion. Excuse me if I fail to take the Brady organization's word for it.
Considering the Brady organization didn't perform the study, I once again submit that you aren't even bothering to read.
You're accusing of bias when displaying your own like a flag. I think that's enough for me to stop bothering to try to discuss it, since you aren't discussing it back.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Read my edit on the type of charges, which you failed to bold, I notice. Got some biases of your own, perhaps?
Further, the 66% summary was Brady text, not quoted from the study. You're showing your biases even more.
Dagonee
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Alai, since you have yet to apologize or correct your own completely incorrect posting, I suggest you take a little more cordial attitude.
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
Jim, I didn't write the original number. I quoted from something someone else wrote. You wish forme to apologize for someone else's mistakes?
And my bias is that I think rampant gun control legislation is not worthwhile. I think you're reading into too much and tossing veiled insults, Dagonee. You should stop while you're ahead.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You're the one who posted a bunch of statistics that are largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Dagonee
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
As Dagonee points out, you placed it on the board, which makes you responsible for the misrepresentation.
I called the statistics unlikely, and in attempting to bolster your position you revealed yourself to be quoting inaccurately. You have yet to acknowledge this, and someone in such an exposed position is foolhardy to get arrogant and condescending about other people's arguments.
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
No, what I did was correct the original quote with others that were closer to the source. In other words, I rectified it. I think both you and Dagonee are attributing intentions from me that are not there.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It still doesn't explain how the statistics are relevant.
Dagonee
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I'll be honest in my opinion many people who support gun-control and those who so violently oppose it do so out of one major thing, Fear. Its something Americans really don't know how to handle well. Our society is one that does not handle the stresses of existence well. We fear the government, we fear this and that. We do so over some legitimate reasons, but people we should not fear our fellow citizens! I live in a nation where so many people of the same group fear each other. It is to this day one of my greater sorrows that this is true.
You gun control advocates fear for your lives, fear that someone is going to shoot you, that anyone might have a gun. Well I suppose if you're a smaller person, say 5'8 and below you should fear for your life around me. I'm more than capable of ending your life without many troubles. Do you honestly fear me though, no. Because you know me, or at least I hope you know me well enough that I would never do such an act. The thing is say even with 11,000 gun deaths in our nation a year, which means around one in 25,000 will die every year from gunshot. Its just.. you are dozens and dozens of times more likely to die from a cheeseburger than you are of someone shooting you. Why do you fear it so much? Yes its wrong, but why do you oppose a weapon so much. I think for the most part its because a weapon is simply used for one thing, death, while all the other ways you will die of are not only intended to bring death.
Many that oppose gun control are afraid for the loss of their liberties, even when they are not honestly in danger. They are afraid to lose what their fathers and fathers before them had. My famil for instance has a long line of swords men from Friesland ( what is now the Netherlands and Northern Germany). I do as a person honestly enjoy hunting, but to me it would be enough just to spend a few weeks in the woods alone or with friends. So why do I fear losing my liberties, many many reasons, but then I will be honest as a human being I am more afraid of the loss of my liberties, freedom, my honor/respect then I ever will be for the loss of my life.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
and after bolding the first one, I would have appreciated something like "oops, I was wrong... here's the actual numbers" rather than merely leaving a couple of quotes and links...
edit... maybe I ask too much <shrug> since I'm the only one who seems worked up about it.
[ June 17, 2004, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Alai's Echo (Member # 3219) on :
quote:It still doesn't explain how the statistics are relevant.
This thread is about gun control laws. I pointed out how even with the gun control laws, criminals are still obtaining legal permits for the most difficult licenses, and how some who get those licenses are committing felonies. You, on the other hand, came after me with a knee-jerk response and insulting intentions that were not there. Considering what you stated here in this very thread, I find your attacks hypocritical, at best. "As many people here know, I hate it when people assign motives to their political opponents without proof." You did exactly the thing you claim to hate. Leave me alone, please.
Jim, I provided corrected links after you questioned them. I'm sorry I didn't say the thing you wanted me to say, but I linked the very data to substantiate your claim. Should I go back and edit my older post as well?
I agree with Black Fox about the fear thing being the major driving factor with those vehemently pushing for more legislation instead of trying to find solutions for the criminal behavior instead.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"An assault weapon is by it's technical definition a weapon that can switch from automatic to semi-automatic fire"
You'd surprise a lot of military, special ops folks like DeltaForce, and SWAT personnel. The only reasonable use for a short-barreled shotgun is in hostage rescue operations and close-range combat. The current USmilitary assault rifle allows only three-shot bursts on full automatic. And we shouldn't need to mention rocket propelled grenades and launchers.
More to the point, the weapons legally designated as assault rifles are designed and manufactured to have automatic fire capability. The only disablement from autofire mode is through removing a spring&lever/etc. The plans&specifications for which are readily accessable public information. So anyone who can teach themselves a minor knowlege of machining and has access to low-level machine tools can make an auto-fire kit. And anyone with a small amount of money can purchase an autofire kit to convert an assault rifle into a weapon which has an autofire mode.
[ June 17, 2004, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What motive did I assign except to turn your bias charge around on you. Not nice when that happens, is it? And even that's not questioning your motives, but the quality and applicability of the information you provide.
And how was my response knee-jerk? I questioned the relevance of certain statistics to the discussion. I provided reasons for my opinion on their relevance. The statistics aren't relevant to how much gun control effects illegal gun ownership or other crimes, mainly because there's no control group presented with the statistics. Further, there's no way of knowing what the situation would be without the law in question. Finally, the fact that CCL in Texas is must-issue means that some people who get the license WILL commit crimes afterwards. The CCL must issue law isn't gun control, it's gun rights. The revocation is gun control, and the study didn't look at that, at least not in the statistics you quoted.
Dagonee
[ June 17, 2004, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"the U.S. has more murders by blunt object than the rest of the industrialized world has murders"
Subtracting murder-by-handgun, the US murder rate isn't greatly higher than Canada's. If US social welfare programs and criminal law&rehabilitation were as advanced as Canada's, it'd probably be less. BTW - Canadian restrictions on handgun ownership is far beyond those of the US.
"The country with the lowest crime rate in the world, is Switzerland. Why you ask, because every single household has one sub machine pistol, and one pistol, per person over the age of 18."
Amongst all the other reasons given, Switzerland allows addicts to use heroin. And drug rehabilitation is the norm instead of the US default of temporarily warehousing addicts with other addicts. Add a higher minimum wage with the relative cheapness of their prefered high, and even addicts are busy working and nodding off rather than engaging in criminal activity to pay for an unneccesarily expensive habit. The US "War on Drugs" merely makes drug dealing a highly profitable enterprise at the cost of endangering the public.
Those militarily-required guns are issued only to people found to be eligible to serve in the military. Which automaticly screens out the majority of the unstable and the criminal. And the military-issued weapons are kept in a lock box. Basicly they aren't thought about much: just like all the junk Americans have buried in their attics, basements, garages, etc. Heck, I constantly find stuff in the kitchen cabinets and drawers that I forgot I possessed.
Switzerland has very tight gun control otherwise. A private handgun license is very hard to obtain. Privately owned handguns, rifles, and ammunition must be registered; and must be stored in a government-licensed facility, with a sign-in and sign-out system which includes writing out the intended use. So no impulse shootings. For that matter, no planned gun crimes in the expectation that the Swiss police couldn't sort out the guilty from all the other people who had guns in their possession during the time of the crime.
Unlike the US, where an impulse of the moment is the most common cause of shootings because guns always remain highly noticible&accessible. And guns are so common that the use of a gun doesn't even narrow down the list of suspects.
[ June 17, 2004, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That comparison sums up most of the issues of gun control pretty well: impulse, screening of owners, and monitoring of owners.
Dagonee
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Everyone afraid of automatic rifle fire from an Assault rifle has honestly never fired one in the first place. Most people who get on a machine gun the first time are highly inaccurate, and they have bipod legs to assist them and they still fire in 3-6 rounds bursts for the M249 machine gun or 6-9 for the M240B machine gun. The real benefit an assault rifle gives you is a high capacity magazine. Basically you can shoot more between reloadings. You'd be amazed how hard it is for a beginner to reload a weapon under stress. We used to drill each other by blind folding ourselves ( you shouldn't be looking at your weapon when your reloading but scanning your sector for threats) and then screaming , throwing arti simulators, fire crackers, anything that makes a lot of noise to distract them. It can take some people minutes. When you have it down its a smooth drill completed in seconds through the most harrowing of words, anyhow back to the point.
There is no real set defintino of an assault rifle, but to my knowledge a assault rifle is an automatic ( Any semi-autmatic weapon is really autmatic in the sense) rifle ( centerfire rifle cartridge as a sub-machine gun uses pistol cartridges) with a high capacicty magazine using small caliber rounds. The idea is that most real fighting occurs at a rather close distance as far as infantry is concerned so it makes more sense to bring more smaller caliber rifle rounds to the fight that will be effective at short range. That and at least 5.56mm nato is highly effective in wounding people ( not so much in killing) due to the fact that it fragments so much inside the targets body ( loses around 60% of its mass inside the target body/ballistic gelatin). So I will ask you, why is it wrong to own an assault rifle. You fear it so much but for the most part major gun killings aren't conducted with assault rifles. For one they are WAY too expensive for the average crook, a cheap AR-15 is like 600 dollars while most good ones are far into the 1000 dollar range. Why buy that fancy looking rifle that has lots of bullets when you have to carry it in full view. Heck, even the killers in Columbine used shotguns for the most part, not asault rifles. That and sawing off a shotgun is a simple task anyone can do to a shotgun with a hacksaw, to be honest I've even done it before ( In Iraq ).
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I will ask you one question, Why do you fear the impulse of the average American. Then I ask you why do you think Americans have the impulse to kill more than people in other nations. That is far more important than gun control.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"I hate it when people assign motives to their political opponents without proof."
"are you saying that the Civil War might have gone a different way if the South had used urban terrorist tactics vs. meeting the enemy on the field of battle"
The South would have gained a high degree of autonomy (possibly even full independence) if the Confederate leadership hadn't been primarily composed of terrorists who assumed that murder and destruction would terrify the North into conceding. And when the North finally decided to strike back, the South did engage in "urban" terrorism. Sherman countered by turning "the urbs" into "field"s. Different times, different rules of engagement.
[ June 17, 2004, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, that's why we get along so well. I can always count on you to mindlessly dismiss others' opinions.
Dagonee
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Actually the Confederacy came dangerously close to defeating the north with simple attrition. Even with their ragtag group of fighters they consistently defeated the North in defensive engagements in Virginia and even managed to keep a superior force in Tennesse at bay for a considerable amount of time. If not for a Northern Victory at a few battles ( narrow victories even with the Norths numerical advantage) during southern offensives there very well could be two nations instead of one.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"The point about handgun popularity before the Civil War also belies a lack of technical knowledge, FWIW. Before the modern revolver, pistols were pretty useless."
As you demonstrate. Before the War of 1812 -- when EliWhitney introduced mass-production to military arms, and the subsequent awarding of rifles to soldiers in lieu of cash -- the rifle was handmade, and therefore pretty unaffordable. In terms of disposable income -- ie money left over after the necessities of life are paid for -- the purchase of a safely usable rifle would have been as affordable for the pre1812 common man as the purchase of a new car is to the minimum-wage worker of today. Possible, but requiring extremely strict financial discipline over a long period of time.
"Plus, what part of "shall not be infringed" isn't clear?
And so whatever the Founders might have meant, there were no safely usable inexpensive rifles available to be purchased by the common man. And therefore the Founders' intent could not have been to allow everybody to run around with guns.
BTW - The first US restriction on arms wasn't about guns. It was about the knives which tended to be waved about at meals in taverns during heated preRevolutionary "discussion"s inre independence. And so the American etiquette -- of cutting with the fork in the left hand and the knife in the right hand, then laying down the knife, and placing the fork into the right hand before eating -- instead of the European etiquette of cutting&eating with the fork in the left hand while keeping the knife in the right hand.
[ June 18, 2004, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Maybe gun control types feel comfortable with the idea that the only people who would have gun access if they had their way would be the police and the military."
On the contrary, I believe the "ballots for bullets" exchange to have been literally true. It wasn't coincidence that "UniversalSufferage" (for white men) became the norm only after rifle possession became more commonplace post1812. It's hard for wealthy property owners to argue that "Only we have the power to affect your&our future, so only we get to decide the laws." when a credible portion of the "you"s can point rifles in "our" direction.
On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable to require that a tool-designed-to-kill be possessed only by sane, sober, mild-tempered, and responsible people.
One wouldn't want a person who hallucinates driving a car, why would one want that person to have control of a rifle? One wouldn't want a person who fantasizes about the "triumph of Good over Evil in the coming Apocalypse" to control the nukes, why would one want a person who fantasizes about becoming a "hero wiping out tyrants" to own arms?
One wouldn't want a habitual drunk to be allowed to drive, why would one want that person to be allowed to run around with a gun?
Do you really think that a "soccer hooligan", a "school bully", an "anarchist" who wants to turn every protest into a riot, a "racial war"rior, a wife/etc beater, a stalker, etc should be allowed to intimidate others through gun ownership?
Finally we come to responsibility. How many times do we have to hear about "adult"s leaving weapons laying around for children to discover and play with? Gun theft is the most often reported felony: I think ~40% of all reported property crimes in a city like Phoenix. Yet people who are so careless that they allow their guns to be "found" or stolen are allowed to just go out purchase another one.
Then there is the absurd total lack of control of the secondary sales market. Steal a bulky stereo or TV, and the burglar would be lucky to sell it for 10% of its replacement value. A stolen gun is sold for more than a new gun. And any non-felon jerk can purchase and resell four guns per day -- over 1400 guns per year -- and make a very good profit without even being registered as a gun dealer, with the government being legally forbidden to keep records that could be used to track an unusual volume of gun purchases.
If requiring car insurance is a reasonable restriction on drivers, then gun insurance is a reasonable requirement for gun owners. And if car registration and licenses are reasonable for owners and drivers, then gun registration and licenses are reasonable for gun users.
[ June 17, 2004, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"see the hassle a few thousand ragtag Iraqis with hand-me-down AK-47's are giving America's finest"
Only a tiny fraction of the serious injuries -- ie those which require medical evacuation out of the theater of operations -- to the Coalition are due to rifle fire. The overwhelming majority are due to rocket-propelled grenade attacks and improvised explosives using artillery shells. Which were looted out of Iraqi armories cuz the USpolitical decision-makers insisted upon a small occupation force against the best advice of USmilitary planners, and upon the USpolitical insistence that the Iraqi army and police be disbanded rather than put in a stand-down mode as guards.
Coulda hired the entire Iraqi army and all Iraqi civil personnel for a year for less than the additional cost of a month of combat operations by UStroops. As it was, the DubyaAdministration told a few million Iraqis and their families to go off and starve for an indefinite amount of time while USpoliticos figured out what they wanted to do.
With a Coalition occupation force too small and no Iraqi support to secure&protect the Iraqi armories, it was unsurprising that some of the suddenly incomeless turned to looting&resale of arms. Within days of the collapse of Saddam's regime, normally unarmed Iraqis could purchase military armament for pennies on the dollar: grenades were being openly hawked in the street markets for the equivalent of a quarter, etc.
[ June 18, 2004, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I have to admit that the Iraqis with some ragtag AK-47s weren't giving us a hard time. To be honest even the ones with RPGS weren't something close to accurate, believe me. Many a time have I had tracer fire go a good 4-5 meters over my head.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I would prefer it if only people currently serving in the military and police officers had guns.
However, I fully realize that is NEVER going to happen in this country. So, I support waiting times and background checks; restrictions on automatic weapons; and crackdowns on illegal weapons.
I also will not allow my children to visit any home where there are guns (exceptions may be made if I am with them). I don't care how secure you think your guns are.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
I live in Texas. I own various pistols and rifles, including what could be considered assault rifles if they weren't semi auto. I have two children, ages 8 and 9.
That said- I support waiting periods and background checks for people wanting to purchase a gun. I am not a member of the NRA. I don't have a concealed carry license. I don't want a concealed carry license. I don't take the guns out of the case except for cleaning and when I go out to the range. The ammo is kept separate from the guns, in another part of the house. The guns all have trigger locks, the keys to which are kept in another part of the house.
Most of the crimes in my area that involve guns do not involve a concealed carry license, and in most cases the gun was purchased illegally. Most legal gun owners I know are like myself, responsible people who enjoy going out for target shooting once in a while.
People who want to use guns to commit crimes don't care if the gun they have is legal or not. People who want to do violence to others don't need a gun to commit that violence. People will continue to rob, injure and murder other people regardless of how strict the control laws get.
The problem isn't the guns. The problem is us.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
yes, but most people aren't willing to believe that. , or at least accept it.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: they believe that the officers were shot by SKS automatic rifles as they approached a house to serve the warrant.
According to officials, an SKS rifle would be powerful enough to penetrate the bulletproof vests that are a standard item issued to each Birmingham officer.
Tell me again why the right to keep/bear arms should cover such weapons as these?
[ June 18, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Disclaimer: I may be thinking of the wrong rifle here, but the SKS, IIRC, is a chinese variant of the AK-47. If I have the right gun, then:
First off, if the bulletproof vests can get penetrated by a 7.62x39 round they are somewhat out of date.
Second, ANY hunting round is more powerful than that round, with the possible exception of the 30-30. Should we ban all those guns, too?
Third, if they were, indeed, fully automatic, they were almost certainly owned illegally already.
Fourth, exactly how are the guns responsible for this again?
Fifth, as I pointed out earlier, these would be precisely the weapons protected by the second amendment. Though the extent of that protection to "joe citizen" is, as evidenced by the arguments on this thread, in dispute.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Fourth, exactly how are the guns responsible for this again?
I never said at any point that guns were responsible for the crime.
I simply said I do not understand why the right to bear arms should have to include ALL kinds arms -- where is the cutoff? Why support cop-killer bullets and guns?
I did not know that most hunting rounds are more powerful that this round -- IF what you say is true. If those vest can't stop normal hunting rounds, then what good are they?
Jim-Me, if you have followed any of my previous posts in other threads, you know that I'm not anti-gun-ownership. I just think you need to draw the line at some point as to what kind of "arms" are covered by that amendment. Nuclear arms? Anti-aircraft shoulder rockets? semi-automatics such as these SKS and AK-47's? Bullets designed specifically to pierce armor? Just were is that line in our expansive types of different guns?
Farmgirl
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I'm not trying to antagonize you Farmgirl... sorry if I came off that way.
The "where do you draw the line?" is a very good question that I haven't worked out an answer to... all I know is that I don't like the *way* the current line is drawn (you can have certain types of weapons if you pay the government enough).
The hunting round thing is a fairly simple one once you think of it: most game animals are significantly bigger and stronger than humans. Taking them down in one shot requires a more powerful round... and believe me, you want to take them down in one shot-- the last thing you want to deal with is a large, wounded beast.
Military rifles like the SKS and the AR-15 only have to kill people, and so are much less potent.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
The SKS is the precursor to the AK-47 I believe. Mine is Chinese manufacture but my friend owns one that was made in Russia. The only difference between mine and his is that his is heavier (the stock is made out of mahogany or something). The NATO 7.62x39 rounds it fires are waaaay smaller than the 30-06 round we use in our hunting rifle. I'm holding them both in my hand and the hunting round is longer than my index finger. The .223 rounds that my AR-15 fires are actually smaller than both.
Also if I am not mistaken, the ballistic vests that police officers wear is only made to stop handgun ammo, it couldn't stop any rifle bullet- assault or hunting. And as Jim-Me said, if they were fully auto they were illegally modified. Mine is a semi-auto.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Well, not necessarily illegally modified, but considering they opened fire on police coming to serve a warrant, I think it's likely that they didn't have the stamps to do it.
I'm not up on my body armor, but when I first became really aware of it, the *top of the line* body armor would stop a 7.62 NATO round (known to sportsmen as the .308) which is significantly more powerful than the 7.62x39 in the SKS/AK-47 (note to Misha, these are two different rounds-- the 7.62 NATO is Western and the smaller 7.62x39 is Eastern Bloc). If they could only stop pistol rounds, they were designed that way.
<gamer mode> Much to my chagrin, Counterstrike continues to make the Scout (7.62 NATO) one of the weakest weapons in the game and the AK-47 (7.62x39) one of the most potent. </gamer mode>
The .223 (5.56mm) from the AR-15/M-16 is pretty much a varmint round and generally considered too weak to use on anything much bigger than a small dog (like a coyote) in terms of hunting, though it's fairly standard throughout the Army, used in all the M-16 variants(M-4, CAR-15, etc.) as well as the M-249 SAW.
[ June 18, 2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I certainly have felt the draw of guns, how they must be aesthetically pleasing and all. But I can't help thinking it is a lot like finding pharmaceuticals pleasing. I have no doubt there are ways to trip or get high safely. But just as there is not rational reason not to, there is no rational reason for it.
I guess they are equally like cars, which of course kill far more people than guns in the U.S. I'm assuming.
One argument my brothers use against tighter registration is that registration is always followed by confiscation. They give Australia as an example. Anyone know more about this?
P.S. Is there in fiber in the logic that we have a right to bear arms, not necessarily to collect dozens or even hundreds of arms?
[ June 18, 2004, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
D'oh, you're right, my brain was elsewhere when I typed in NATO 7.62 - the 7.62x39 is the leetle one.
Top of the line body armor yeah, but I was under the impression that the police were issued stuff that couldn't stop anything bigger than a .45 pistol (slow moving rounds). I always thought that the armor which could stop a high powered round was only issued to military personnel, but I could be wrong.
Are there circumstances where you can legally mod a semi-auto to full auto in the US? As a civilian? Not that I'd want to... I like having a lot of control over where each bullet goes.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
The rational reasons for me are very similar to the reason I study Kung Fu... it is the mastery of a physical skill and the more I know how to defend myself against attack, the less likely it is that someone can force me to do something I don't want to do. A foundation of freedom is to avoid being coercable.
Cars do kill more people than guns, yes.
I don't know about the idea of limiting the number of guns, but, per the supreme court decision referenced herein, it wouldn't seem to dircetly contravene the second amendment.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Misha, all it takes is a background check and a hefty tax stamp. If you look further back in the thread, I have a friend here in Dallas who owns (or owned-- I haven't seen him in a few years) a fully automatic, silenced MP5. Two stamps, one for the full auto selector switch, one for the silencer.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
pooka-
Its less philosophical for me really... I enjoy collecting them and I enjoy firing them. If the gun is too big/unpleasant to fire I get rid of it. The SK1 we had was like firing a small cannon and uncomfortable for my shoulder. The .44 Ruger Blackhawk I wouldn't even touch, too much gun for me.
Jim-Me
Huh, I learn something new every day. Silencer too! That's pretty neat. The only full auto I would want is a vintage BAR to add to my collection, so maybe now I can really start looking. Then if I can just find an affordable M1 Garand...... *drools*
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Last I looked M1 Garands were fairly cheap... I wanted one myself actually... used to be less than $500... what do they go for these days?
don't confuse them with the M1A, now... that's a semi-auto only version of the M14 and is much more expensive...
edited to correct: the M1A is a rifle, the M1A1 is a tank...
[ June 18, 2004, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
You know, this really underscores the point I wanted to make about Switzerland, which is that they eat more chocolate per capita than Americans do. That's why they have less violence. It's not the guns. Chocolate releases the same biochemistry as love, supposedly. And it sounds like wicked sexy guns do as well.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Btw, its not the vest in the Militarys body armor that stops 7.62x39, its the ceramic/kevlar plates that you can insert in the pouches that do that. A buddy of mine was killed when a round richoted off an M1A1 and through the thinner layer of kevlar right above the plate.
That and most kevlar vests can only stop 9mm hand gun ammunition. That and if you get hit in the chest vest or no you are going down, thats alot of kinetic energy and would most likely break the person's ribs.
That and in reality most body armor is really more about stopping shrapnel from explosions, even with the plates you are still highly vunerable to rifle fire. Though I've seen the snipers in our scout section put 6 rounds onto one of those ceramic/kevlar plates and they didn't crack it at all.
That and though I dislike to say this, but the idea is that a person who owns a weapon CAN own a weapon which can penetrate through body armor etc. See if the military and the police were the only ones to own and operate weapon systems it would be a poor day for civilians in the United States. I'll tell you right now that there are many soldiers who detest civilians for a number of reasons. Its not "All" civilians now, simply the way that we get treated at times. Remember that the average soldier is pretty much poor. We aren't officers, we don't become generals, at the very most we might become a sergeant major one day or if we are really lucky somehow have the chance to get college credits ( that doesn't happen in the infantry) and go to OCS etc.
I just.. ::thinks a moment:: take a look at the newest homicide reports that come out. Now murder has been on the downfall for a long time now, but look at who conducts it. African Americans participate in slightly over 50% of homicides while making up around.. 15-20% of the population. Now believe me I have nothing against African Americans, but here is the thing do you think it should be legal to arrest African Americans easier? Do you think its African Americans fault that we have so much murder in the USA? To say that, well in my opinion is the same as blaming guns for the killing in America.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
Garands are still going for about $500, I am just having a hard time parting with that much cash (not that the Garand isn't worth it).Plus I have to argue with my husband-
"ooooh a Garand..." "But you already have a M1 carbine!" "yes but I want the Garand toooooo...." "now, do you want the Garand or the Colt .45 1911A1 I'm getting you for Christmas?" "whimper"
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I think most of the Garands are overpriced to be honest, especially the new new ones, but its honestly a good design, especially the new ones. I have a buddy that has a brand new one in a carbon fiber stock, cost him well over 1000 dollars if I remember correctly. Its nice though, match barrel and everything.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Black Fox, I guess the answer is we have to examine ourselves and all the ways we have oppressed, objectified, and enslaved guns over the centuries.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
lol... I don't know if I should have laughed at that.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
All I can do is sing a line from a favorite song of mine by Tonic "I won't die for England"
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Tonic will never rise back to the level of their first big album, Lemon Parade
Misha, you might try pointing out that the M1 Carbine is a notoriously weak round, while the .30-06 in the Garand is generally superior in all respects to the current 7.62 NATO round...
Also, unless you are just going for Vintage, I'd go with the H&K USP .45's over the Colt 1911. .45ACP's are just cool in general, though.
Pooka, I hope you meant that comment to be wryly funny, because I, too, laughed at it.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
Slightly OT, but this looks like the thread to ask : Are there any restrictions on civilian ownership of body armor ?
I seem to recall California making a stink about it about ten years ago when the bank robbers with the full armor were standing up to the police. Did CA pass any laws ? Any other states ?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
A rapper was charged for possessing a bullet proof vest some years back in NY, if I recall correctly.
Dagonee
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I honestly don't know... there are restrictions, yes, but I really don't know what they are...
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: I'll tell you right now that there are many soldiers who detest civilians for a number of reasons
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)