posted
Let me put my position on self-defense in this way - Imagine three situations:
Situation A: A victim's life is being threatened by an aggressor. The victim is your child.
Situation B: A victim's life is being threatened by an aggressor. The aggressor is your child.
Situation C: A victim's life is being threatened by an aggressor. Both the victim and aggressor are your children.
I think most people conceive of a self-defense situation as sort of like situation A. In that situation, I think most people would be okay with killing the aggressor to protect their child. However, in situation B, I think a significant number of people would consider it wrong of us to kill their child unless it was absolutely necessary.
The government, I think, is in situation C. It should care a lot about both the victim and the aggressor. However you'd approach that situation is how the law should try to approach self-defense.
posted
Assuming the aggressor is a child, with respect to the law of the land, takes a lot of the responsibility off the aggressor. We have a built in assumption that children shouldn't be held as responsible for their actions, the same can't be said for aggressive adults.
I'd still say to side with the defender, not the aggressor, and not to make no choice at all. The aggressor is still making a conscious decision to do something we've been trained since birth that it is wrong to do, and doing so comes with automatic consequences, and a forfeiture of safety.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off I'd like to apologize if what I said was viewed as a personal attack. I did not mean it as one, but just a response to the idea that guns "have little use besides enticing people to make serious life-destroying mistakes".
As to ownership of guns and having to overthrow a tyrannical government, you are not alone Kat. The founding fathers knew that it might come to that, as it just had come to that. If citizens are armed then they can fight off invasion, they can throw off a government that has gone to far, defend themselves, live off the land by hunting and keep the country strong.
On the other hand Lyrhawn makes a good point. Our army is entirely voluntary and made up of our citizens.
On the other other hand, it was exactly that same army that opened fire on a protest rally under Nixon.
In response to what Tresopax said about owning a gun and no bullets and the use of deadly force in self protection as a negative I say: Dag's situation is exactly right. "Stop or I will shoot." is a gun being used as a nonlethal deterrent. If the person continues to be a threat by noncompliance, they deserve to get shot. You have made your intentions clear.
As to not having bullets, that is just irresponsible. The only person that an empty gun will kill is the person bearing it. Sure you don't have to fire for a gun to be useful, but if you point a gun at someone you had damn well better be willing to shoot them. You are presenting yourself as a threat, and some people will attack, with deadly intent.
That's the whole point, it is the attacker's choice, to be reasonable and simply stop, or to continue under risk of death. You do not control their actions or reactions. You wouldn't be pointing a gun at them in the first place if they hadn't been doing something wrong.
Which Canadian examples are you referring to twinky?
P.S. Sorry it's taking me so long to respond, I'm at work and trying to do three things at once.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm pretty sure that's an argument saying more guns in the hands of common people makes us safer from criminals.
Which is very different from saying that any of our problems go away.
Huh? Not being safe from criminals isn't a problem?
Criminals are a problem, but nobody said that having guns will make the problem of violent crime "go away" (your words). They just said that it would make the situation better.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems like the people that are extremely pro-gun control are far more likely to live in a city or suburbs than a rural area. In rural areas, it can take extremely long periods of time for the police to reach those who need help. The isolation that comes from rural areas leaves nowhere to run to and no chance of anybody helping you but yourself. In such cases, guns are absolutely necessary. My grandparents used to live on a ranch in the middle of nowhere. I think it would have been irresponsible for them to not have a gun in the house. In the nice suburban home in which I live, I think it would be highly unnecessary for us to have guns. Just because a gun brings no benefit to one lifestyle, that does not mean it isn't vital to another.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think most people conceive of a self-defense situation as sort of like situation A. In that situation, I think most people would be okay with killing the aggressor to protect their child. However, in situation B, I think a significant number of people would consider it wrong of us to kill their child unless it was absolutely necessary.
Allowing for the fact that human beings are the ones making the call, there's a necessity element to the analysis for both A and B. I don't think either situation should be treated differently once the person deciding whether to defend is a threat.
Presumably I have more information to evaluate about whether my child is a threat or not, but that's a factual difference, not a difference in the moral calculus.
Since I would regret that victim-child had to shoot aggressor-child, but not hold victim-child morally culpable, I don't see why you think this leads to a different conclusion.
Moreover, I disagree that aggressor and victim are in the same moral position with respect to the government or their parents. Once someone decides to use or threaten deadly force against a non-aggressor, one has a lower claim against violence than someone who has not intitiated such force in such a manner. There are two parts to this change in status. The first is similar to assumption of risk - it's well known that people will attempt to defend themselves against aggression. Therefore, aggressors have assumed the risk of responsive violence. Second, and more important, by violating the social contract of non-aggression, they have also forfieted some (note I said some) of the benefits of that contract.
We have, in general, delegated most of our use of force to the government. In exchange for that is the assurance that others have done so as well. As soon as someone acts outside that contract, the victim is not bound to allow his own death because he agreed to waive some uses of violence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm pretty sure that's an argument saying more guns in the hands of common people makes us safer from criminals.
Which is very different from saying that any of our problems go away.
Huh? Not being safe from criminals isn't a problem?
Criminals are a problem, but nobody said that having guns will make the problem of violent crime "go away" (your words). They just said that it would make the situation better.
At which point I think we're in a semantic argument. You said what I said is "very different" from what he said (heh, now there's a fun sentence).
How do you define a problem? or a state of having a problem?
I wouldn't say that Europe has a gun crime problem, but they do have gun crimes. Compared to Iraq right now, we don't have a civil war problem, but there is a vast divide here that can get violent. There was a case of plague earlier this year, but we don't have a problem with it, it was a one time fluke. And we don't have a bird flu problem at all, it's never been here, but we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on it just to be sure.
How is calling Iraq a civil war rather than a sectarian struggle between competing factions any different? (for example)
Alleviating, "go away," solving, lessening, "make the situation better." Are we really going to get that caught up in word choices that basically mean the same thing? Are they all "very different" from each other?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I do think that the words you used to belittle your opponent's argument are significaly different in meaning from what your opponents actually said.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright then, I'll amend my original statement, use YOUR words, and ask the same question.
If anything, your words leave my "opponent's argument" far more open to criticism than mine did.
And I take offense at the word "belittle." I wasn't trying to "belittle" anyone. If an honest question comes across as belittling, I think it has more to do with the insecurities of the person being asked, than the person asking.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which Canadian examples are you referring to twinky?
Well, I'm not referring to the gun registry specifically, which overspent its budget many times over and is widely regarded as a boondoggle, but rather to the relative rates of gun ownership and gun crime in Canada and the U.S. coupled with the relative strictness of our regulations. For example, there is essentially no legal way for a regular citizen to carry a concealed firearm.
In your other examples, gun crime rates rose dramatically within a few years of those nations enacting stricter gun laws. Our gun laws are already tight here, and have been for a long time, yet our gun crime rates are lower than yours. This doesn't jive with your other examples, and suggests that maybe there isn't a causal relationship between stricter gun regulation and increased gun crime.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excuse me. I should have said NRA Spokesmen instead of NRA Supporters.
In fact, there is one argument for limiting or disallowing gun controls that I can not argue against.
Its not the argument about hunting rights.
Its not the argument about defending oneself against bad guys.
Its not even the argument that guns are safer than baseball bats.
Its the simple argument that was the main reason the founding fathers put it in the Constitution.
As Mao said, "Power comes from the barrel of a gun."
In a country where the Government owns all the guns, the government owns all the power. It is the inalienable right of all Americans to overthrow thier government in self defense if neccesary. When the government has all the guns, such rebellion dies too quickly.
No bat, knife, or stone wielding mob could stand up to soldiers with guns. While cars might be occasionally useful, they are expensive ammunition.
Much like a pre-nup is a debatable clause in a marriage contract, the right to bear arms is a debatable clause in our bill of rights--does it promote the end of the government by predicting its violent overthrow, or does it secure that government by allowing it?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
twinky: I just read an interesting article about Canada's gun laws. Linky. And would have t say that the reason that Canadian stats don't match the trend I was describing is that guns were not banned, simply registered. Further, safety classes and background checks were put in place, something I am completely for.
Not sure who, but someone mentioned responsibility and freedom. The freedom to own firearms comes with the responsibility to get training to handle/store them safely.
As to the draft: Don't even joke, it's not funny.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not entirely convinced that's what the Second Amendment means Dan.
quote: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.
That suggests to me that the arms of the people were meant specifically to be used as a militia, for the protection of a state that had no standing army, in a nation that at the time didn't want or believe in a standing army.
Look at the discussions government was having at the time of it's foundation and you'll see them centered squarely around the subject of militias. They meant what we would today probably call the National Guard (though it's function and apperance have drastically changed), and specifically were afraid of non-governmental citizens banding together against the government. The discussion began after Shay's rebellion had taken place, I believe. I don't think they were keen on giving the people the ability to toss them all overboard.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're appear to be trying awfully hard to make this thread devolve into the shouting of rhetoric.
The initial question was equally rhetorical and extreme, and just as absurd as my follow-up. I'm trying to shine a mirror on the rhetoric, to show it for what it is - ridiculous.
I guess I'm failing at that.
quote:
quote:Those wishing to do harm will find a way - whether it's with a gun, a knife, or a baseball bat.
But the harm they'll be able to inflict will be much less, which is a good thing.
...or a car, or a bomb, or an arson attempt, or...
It really seems like the concept of "gun" has been given all manner of evil connotations and overtones. It's a hunk of metal. It doesn't motivate someone to kill. It doesn't cause the behaviors in society that lead to violence and crime. It's an inanimate object, and doing away with it will not do away with criminality or other socially deviant behavior.
If someone wants to go on a killing spree, they will. Whether it is a nut with shooting people in Columbine, a nut running multiple people down with his car in California, a nut bombing a building in Oklahoma City, or a nut releasing Sarin gas on a Tokyo subway.
Violence does not stop when you make a tool illegal.
To be fair, though, I'm not advocating giving guns out to every person living within the borders of the US. Responsible use is key. We license and register cars, and so it makes sense to license and register guns. People take driving tests, and it makes sense to have gun tests. Car manufacturers are held to a certin standard of safety from malfunction, and so should gun manufacturers.
However, I don't want someone telling me I can't buy a Hummer because they were used too often to run people off the road. Or that I can't buy a Ferrari because they go too fast and someone could get hurt.
posted
I don't know. Take everything I've said here with a grain of salt. It's quite possible that I'm seeing piss and vinegar where there is none.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok I personally am in favor of gun control but with that aside I can't help but think about this problem.
In the US or most any country if you want to operate a motor vehicle, then you are required to in many states go to drivers ed, take a test that has written and actual driving components, and there are policeman who monitor your performance, other motorists can honk at you if you are out of line.
Why do we have all these measures? Because driving a motorized vehicle should only be done by responsible, trained individuals. It even goes so far as to say that if you reach a certain age you have to go in for an eye exam to make sure you can still see well enough to drive. You cannot drink and drive, because alcohol makes anybody a dangerous liability.
If I want to purchase a firearm all I need is a history of non violence, the money, and I have to wait a few days.
If I want a concealed weapons permit so that I can carry it on my person "just in case a bank robber decides he wants me dead." in some states its a fundamental right and the govt must grant me one, in most states it again falls to a simple background check. In SOME states you actually have to take a course to carry a concealed weapon. It ranges from state to state but it basically goes from "no issue" to, "may issue" to, "shall issue", to finally, "unrestricted."
My point is, (sorry for the long windedness) if we can't ban guns, why can't we have the sorts of measures we expect motorists to take if they want to drive?
Why can't people take a course if they want to own a gun PERIOD. Have a written exam, and an actual practice exam where the subject is put in tense situations where he has the option of using his firearm but finds other ways to resolve the situation, as well as situations where he must use his firearm and if he fails to do so in the correct manner, (i.e he hits a pedestrian needlessly) encourage them to continue training before taking on the responsibility of owning a fire arm.
I just feel like, its still far too easy to get a concealed weapons permit, to say nothing of a gun period. Does anybody oppose better education, and training before allowing ANYONE to have a gun?
Background checks are fine, but you know if the drivers ed place had only looked up my history of accidents BEFORE I got my first license, I'm not sure how they could have failed me even if they should have.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree completely BlackBlade. There should be a course to take, a test to pass, training with a certified instructor, and safety tests in order to gain a gun license.
I even think there should even be mandated refresher tests and courses.
I just can't get behind flat out gun bans, or the concept that guns are somehow inherently violent or evil.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a valid point about driver's training and gun training that I've never heard (put that way) before.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do we have all these measures? Because driving a motorized vehicle should only be done by responsible, trained individuals.
Another important reason is that since the government is building the roads I drive on, it has a right to control things on those roads.
If you want to drive your car on your own property, the government can't even say "boo", even if you don't have a license, and that's not even a right explicitly given to us in the constitution.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Its the simple argument that was the main reason the founding fathers put it in the Constitution.
(...)
No bat, knife, or stone wielding mob could stand up to soldiers with guns. While cars might be occasionally useful, they are expensive ammunition.
I believe you are probably correct that this is the reason it's in the COnstitution. However, I think military technology has advanced to the point where, in the second paragraph, you might as well give the mob handguns. Between tanks, automatic rifles, and artillery, no bunch of civilians is going to stand up to a modern military unit as long as that unit is prepared to use deadly force. That just wasn't true back in 1789, when a particularly well-equipped regular force might have a two-pounder popgun capable of firing every two minutes or so; civilian and military equipment was very comparable - and you should note, irregular militia units still ran away on an extremely regular basis in your rebellion.
The true protection of the population is that the modern US military is officered and manned by literate, well-educated (*) volunteer citizens, who just won't open fire in support of an oppressive government. That protection is quite independent of the number of handguns in the population.
(*) That is, literate and well-educated by any reasonable, historical standard. Not alienated mercenaries or peasant conscripts, is the point I'm making here.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even though a fully armed citizenry couldn't stand toe-to-toe against the U.S. military, having the citizens armed would make "conquering" and holding territory much more difficult. Knowing that it would be difficult would be a deterrant for such an action.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Though I think regardless of the problems inherent within, I agree with you.
But I'm not sure if having everyone walk around fully armed is better than just having an armory in every town.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the trouble with an armory, for this kind of argument, is that it's rather easy to seize by surprise, disarming the citizenry. If you're going to have a decentralised military force to prevent government control, then it doesn't make much sense to centralise it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, we disagree there too then, as I don't believe the intent of the Bill of Rights was to distribute guns to the citizenry to fight the government.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That suggests to me that the arms of the people were meant specifically to be used as a militia, for the protection of a state that had no standing army, in a nation that at the time didn't want or believe in a standing army.
It's important to note that the generation who wrote and ratified the 2nd ammendment had used the colonial militias to rebel against what they perceived to be a tyrannical government. They thought going to war against your government was a good and noble thing to do if it was warranted.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but they'd also done so in concert with a regular colonial army, recognizing that they won the war in spite of using untrained militias.
Also keep in mind that this is the same nation that had just finished fighting Shay's Rebellion. They weren't particularly keen on individuals overthrowing the government at the moment. They also specifically included that the government would control all militias in the Constitution.
Edit to add:
quote: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;
From Aticle I section Eight of the Constitution.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There should be a course to take, a test to pass, training with a certified instructor, and safety tests in order to gain a gun license.
There is, in some states. In Virginia, for example, you must complete 20 hours of training every 5 years to be issued a concealed-carry permit. You must provide proof of the training and proof that you are reasonably proficient with handguns. You must swear an oath that all of your information is correct. You don't have to do that in Georgia, but you are fingerprinted with your application. For information on each state's gun laws, go here.
I'm a member of the NRA and I have no problem with requiring firearms education and training for gun owners. I, myself, have been shooting since I was a little girl and have hundreds of hours of training and practice. Much of my training was from former or current law enforcement officers. The NRA provides a huge amount of trainings for gun owners.
BTW, Dan, the first thing you're taught in a beginner NRA course: The best way to win a gunfight is to not get into one. We're not like the rich Texan on The Simpsons - most of us are very passionate about education and safety and support reasonable gun laws. The NRA provides, free of charge to anyone, a safety program for children called Eddie Eagle. From the NRA Eddie Eagle page:
quote:Eddie Eagle is never shown touching a firearm, and he does not promote firearm ownership or use. The program prohibits the use of Eddie Eagle mascots anywhere that guns are present. The Eddie Eagle Program has no agenda other than accident prevention -- ensuring that children stay safe should they encounter a gun. The program never mentions the NRA. Nor does it encourage children to buy guns or to become NRA members. The NRA does not receive any appropriations from Congress, nor is it a trade organization. It is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition.
The reason I carry a gun is because it is the only way that I can live my life without fear. I am a 5'4'' woman - a gun is the only way that I can defend myself against an attacker. This August, an acquaintance of mine, Kate Robertson, was kidnapped by a convicted felon from a local mall parking lot at gunpoint and killed. I truly believe she'd be alive today if she had been carrying a gun of her own. I don't know if I'd ever be able to go back to that mall if I didn't have my gun.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well, we disagree there too then, as I don't believe the intent of the Bill of Rights was to distribute guns to the citizenry to fight the government.
If this was addressed to me, you are misunderstanding my position. I'm just saying if your reason for allowing guns is to enable people to overthrow the government, then it doesn't make much sense to put the guns in easily-seized armouries. (It also doesn't seem to make much sense for self-defense; if you need a gun against a criminal, you're going to need it right now, yes?) So, assuming that your previous post was a suggestion to mph on how arming the citizenry should be accomplished, it wasn't a very good suggestion. If that's not what you meant by your previous post, you'll have to clarify.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I was agreeing, without specifics, that the only reason I really support an armed citizenry is to repel foreign invaders. Given that, I don't see the problems with an armory.
I don't see where the confusion is.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: twinky: I just read an interesting article about Canada's gun laws. Linky. And would have t say that the reason that Canadian stats don't match the trend I was describing is that guns were not banned, simply registered.
I'm actually Canadian, and familiar with our gun laws, but thanks for the link.
It actually supports the point I was getting at: since the passage of more restrictive gun ownership laws in 1977, gun violence has declined.
quote:The 1977 firearms control legislation (Bill C-51) established the first general screening process for prospective firearm owners. This was accomplished through the introduction of a statutory requirement stipulating that anyone who wishes to acquire a firearm must first obtain a Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC). Possession of a valid FAC entitled its holder to legally purchase any non-restricted or restricted firearm. An FAC could be refused if an applicant had: a) a criminal record for any violent offence within the previous five years; b) been treated for a mental disorder involving violence; and/or c) a history of any other violent behaviour. The 1977 amendments also introduced requirements for Firearms and Ammunition Business Permits (i.e., licensing of firearms businesses), created mandatory and discretionary judicial weapons prohibition orders, introduced new definitions for prohibited and restricted weapons, provided for wider police search and seizure powers, established basic rules for gun collectors, introduced regulations for safe handling and storage for businesses, broadened the definition of a prohibited weapon, and established a range of new firearms-related criminal offences along with more severe penalties.
Bill C-51 didn't ban all firearms, but it banned a large class of them and significantly restricted ownership of the rest. Those restrictions have only tightened in the intevening decades, including the banning of more kinds of guns, and, at the same time, gun crime has declined.
Anyway, if you favour regulation and registration, we probably aren't at odds.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everything I've read concerning the history of the second amendment disagrees with Lyrhawn's historical interpretation.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everything I've read concerning the history of the second amendment tends to disagree with itself.
First of all, the people who originally wrote the law don't even agree with themselves, where are you getting it that there was some universal feeling at the time of its writing?
Second, it favors the Revolutionary War as the only part of the historical context, that sure, we had just fought off a government using a militia, but that ignores the fact that we had a regular army, and that the militia was still under a degree of control by the state (depending on the state). It also ignores that we had just finished fighting off a couple local rebellions using both regular and militia troops to do so, and that those rebellions themselves were made up of what you could call "militia."
The states are specifically given the power to appoint officers, and much more so than the federal government, to control the state militias. The amendment, in my opinion, directly links the arming of the people to the formation of militias, which have historically been controlled by states, and which the constitution gives that power to.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't help but draw the parallel that there is only 3 options before us in regards to countries that now have nuclear weapons.
Either we,
1: Make sure every single country has at least one nuclear bomb (maybe even enough to blanket the entire earth once) and that way because everyone has one nobody will dare use it.
or
2: Make sure every single one is destroyed perhaps even destroy all evidence of the technology used to create one. <--- a VERY unrealistic option IMO but still the better one TBH.
Again anecdotes where people are powerless to stop criminals because of a lack of guns to me are outnumbered by the number of instances where the criminal wouldn't have the gun in the first place if good legislation were in place.
Obviously if done half as..eerr baked a gun control program does more harm then good as only honest citizens will give up their guns while criminals will retain them.
All I can say is I grew up in a society where I knew only the police and PERHAPS high ranking Mafiosos had guns, and crime involving a gun was so rare it was front page news when it occurred.
A man just last week across the street from my school got in an argument with his wife and as she walked out the front door he grabbed his shotgun and blew her away. The police found him in his garage with the gun on the floor just talking to himself.
I don't know about you but I'd rather not have every couple the breaks up or has a falling out, do it Mr. and Mrs. Smith style.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know about you but I'd rather not have every couple the breaks up or has a falling out, do it Mr. and Mrs. Smith style.
Even if every single person in America had a firearm on their person at all times, we would not get a shooting every time a couple breaks up or has a falling out.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Not really a fair comparison. They both survived, and actually, it saved their marriage.
We'd be so lucky if everyone would do it Mr. and Mrs. Smith style, we might have more successful marriages, and the home construction industry would be booming again. Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I was agreeing, without specifics, that the only reason I really support an armed citizenry is to repel foreign invaders. Given that, I don't see the problems with an armory.
I don't see where the confusion is.
Oh, ok, now I see what you're saying. You might want to consider the German invasion of Norway in 1940, where the armouries of the militia was the first thing the invaders went for. The US, admittedly, is a bit bigger and has non-coastal cities, and one hopes it would have a more competent government than the one Norway was saddled with in 1940; Bush would do quite nicely, actually. So would that chimpanzee the websites are always comparing him with. But I digress. Even so, for a guerrilla movement (and again, your citizenry won't be standing up to any modern military forces, I don't care how patriotic they are) there are obvious disadvantages to a centralised distribution of their weapons.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is little comparison between 1940 Norway and 2006 America.
First of all, Norway didn't have a large network of satelites in orbit letting us know whenever something is coming, nor do they have an utterly massive radar net and navy guarding both oceans that border us.
Anyone that comes after us has to either cross an ocea with our naval wall stopping them, or has to come through Canada or Mexico. Regardless, we're going to know they are coming, and we'll have troops at the border to stop them.
By the time anyone would get across our borders into towns, our people will have already gotten to the armories and will be ready and waiting. Centralizing also allows for uniformity and training, so weapons are interchangeable, easily maintained, fixed, loaded, and proficiency is universal. I suppose that isn't limited to centralization, but if the local government is the keeper of the guns, I'd be willing to be they'll be the ones procuring them as well.
Our citizenry would stand up to any foreign occupier at least as well as Iraqi insurgents do. We'd make anyone pay for an occupation.
I'm not convinced that an armory is the BEST way of doing it, but I haven't seen a convincing argument one way or the other to rule anything out. I think this is at best an academic argument, but it might be useful at some far future date. It would take the combined military forces of most of the world's modern armies to invade and successfully hold the United States mainland, and they would pay very, very dearly for it.
I should add:
Since I haven't specifically stated it, I'm not in favor of taking away EVERY gun from the people. I'm also not in favor of selling any gun willy nilly to anyone who wants it. I think the types of guns we sell should be limited, and that everyone who has a gun should be required to get a license, and should have weapons training before they are allowed to get a license. I think people should be allowed to keep guns in their homes, but I don't agree with carrying guns in public. I disagree that weapons were specifically protected in the Constitution so that the people would have the ability to overthrow the government whenever they felt like it was necessary. I think they were meant for individual defense of homes and for ordered protection of the state in recognized militias as regulated by the state.
And I reserve the right to add to, delete from, or change any of the above as I see evidence that may change my mind.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the idea of someone invading the US in the first place is so far-fetched that you cannot possibly know what the conditions will be - for rpecisely the reasons you outline. Certainly, if I were a mad dictator of Eurasia, hell-bent on world conquest, I would precede any such invasion with a nice nuclear bombardment to knock out navy, satellites, and - how convenient! - armouries. The point is, if that's your only reason for handing out guns, you might as well ban them. Why bother?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only Russia has enough bombs to knock out more than a handful of major US cities, and of the thousands of US cities and people scattered throughout the countryside, by the time they took out all the armories, there wouldn't be much left to occupy.
But who is to say what the future holds? Maybe we'll perfect point defense and we'll be able to shoot down all those ICBMs you're mad little Eurasian tyranny was lobbing at us. And maybe by then, you'll be able to as well.
That leaves us with conventional forces, where an armed militia, which I'd count as the reserve that stands behind the National Guard, may play a role.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, there are a few problems with the quotes in Stone_Wolf_'s first post.
England and Wales
quote: Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States.
The crime rate in the UK did rise during the 80's and early 90s. Over the course of the next fifteen years, however, it fell about as much. Source.
quote:Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000.
I didn't bother to do a lot of research on this one, but the fact that these numbers are given per million rather per 100,000 indicate something funny is going on; I've only ever seen crime statistics given per 100,000. Even 15 homicides per million is fantastic. The US had 56 homicides per million in 2005, which doesn't jive with the other claim that violent crime in the UK is "more serious than in the United states".
Australia
quote:...the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again.
According to this source, the murder rate has fluctuated between 1.6 and 1.8 per 100,000 from 1993 till 2001. Since 2001, it has fallen to 1.4 per 100,000 as of 2005. The manslaughter rate has remained relatively stable at 0.2 per 100,000.
quote:Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise – for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.
Here's a graph from the same site showing different statistics on violent crime. I'm not sure which line represents sexual assault and which robbery, but both seem to have remained relatively stable. The level of assaults have risen quite a bit, which could explain why "the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise". That, however, doesn't necessarily indicate any increase in gun violence.
The USA
quote:In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.
In 1976 the murder rate was 26.8 per 100,000. In 2005 it was 35.4 per 100,000. While the 2005 rate was roughly 134 percent of the '76 rate, it did not rise 134 percent. It's still a pretty bad increase, but no need to oversell it.
Incredibly, the numbers for both Hawaii and New Jersey are fairly accurate. However, both statistics deal with a time period - the late sixties into the seventies - where crime nationwide was on the rise. Many states display a pattern where violent crime began to rise during the sixties, fluctuated during the seventies and eighties, then fell during the nineties. Incidentally, the Brady bill was passed in 1993. In Freakonomics, Steven Levitt theorizes that the decrease had more to do with the effects of the legalization of abortion though, so make what you will of it.
posted
I also think the Australian stats are misleading (at best) and just plain wrong (at worst).
The 'sweeping reforms' happened after a massacre in Port Arthur in 1996.
Here's an article from a local paper from this year with some of the statistics in context – some salient quotes below.
quote: The new laws specifically addressed mass shootings, banning rapid-fire rifles and shotguns...
In the decade up to and including the Port Arthur event, Australia experienced 11 mass shootings, which are defined as taking five or more victims. One hundred people were shot dead and another 52 wounded. In the 10 years since Port Arthur and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting has occurred in Australia.
But for each Australian killed in a mass shooting in the past 17 years, 80 have died by gunshot in less high-profile events, many of them in family violence. It is here, in the day-to-day tragedy of firearms-related homicide and suicide, that Australia's new restrictions and, perhaps equally importantly, changing attitudes to guns and gun owners, can most plausibly claim to have had the most effect.
quote:Even before Port Arthur, gun-related deaths - suicides, homicides and unintentional shootings - were declining slowly. But the rate of decline accelerated markedly after the tragedy. From 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot, with an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997-2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331.
With firearm homicide - the gun deaths that attract the most attention - the downward trend has been even more dramatic. In the same two periods, the average annual number of gun homicides fell from 93 to 56. But it was the acceleration in the rate of this decline which proved most remarkable: it fell 70 times faster after the new gun laws, than before.
quote:Have murderers simply switched methods? While the annual average number of all homicides has increased since June 1996, the rate per 100,000 people has fallen marginally, but can be described as steady.
So it's clear that gun control doesn't equal a decrease in violent crime. But it does (duh!) lead to a decrease in gun-relatedviolent crime.
As guns have a high “lethality index” (as termed in the linked article) and can be used to kill a lot of people in a very short space of time, I can differentiate clearly between them and other weapons used in violent crimes.
Other publications by the Australian Institute of Criminology (for example here ) indicate that homicide rates have been staying steady or decreasing since 1989. So while violent crime (eg armed robbery) may be increasing, homicide is not.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(And I see Juxtapose already linked to some of those sources. )
On reflection, I am sure it is an increase in armed (not necessarily with a gun!) robbery that would be driving the overall increase in violent crime figures.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't live in the US, so I dont really get this, but why is it necessary to own a gun?
Do people genuinely feel so threatened?
The various times I've been in the US I haven't felt at risk or vunerable for my lack of a gun.
Do you feel it is necessary to have a gun with you for you protection?
This is a genuine query, I'm not trying to be clever. I just don't get it.
I don't find it necessary to own a gun. In fact, I don't own one. I also don't feel threatened enough (at least at present) to feel the need to purchase a gun for personal protection.
However, the discussion isn't about whether you *need* a gun, but whether you're *allowed to have* a gun.
It's almost like a "You'll shoot your eye out" style of government - all guns are bad, because certain people use them inappropriately.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In a country where the Government owns all the guns, the government owns all the power. It is the inalienable right of all Americans to overthrow thier government in self defense if neccesary. When the government has all the guns, such rebellion dies too quickly.
No bat, knife, or stone wielding mob could stand up to soldiers with guns.
Guns are not nearly enough to defeat the advanced weapons of the modern American military. If you truly believe we need the capacity to overthrow our government if necessary, then we'd need a right to Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Overview: (please let me know if you feel the stated status aren't accurate or if I didn't hit a major topic of discussion)
*Gun ownership/carrying by citizens keeps down violent crime. Status: Disputed.
*Gun ownership/carrying should require licensing/safety training/physiological evaluations/background checks. Status: Agreed.
*High explosives, automatic weapons, & weapons that could be used to wipe out a large segment of people should be restricted. Status: Mostly Agreed.
*The US constitution's second amendment is designed to give citizens the ability to overthrow its own government. Status: Moderatly Disputed
*The use of deadly force on an assailant is appropriate as they have forfeited their social contract of nonviolence. Status: Mostly Agreed.
*Firearms ownership has multiple purposes, i.e. protection, sport, hunting, collecting, etc. Status: Moderatly Disputed.
*Firearms risk of accidental death is much like other dangerous objects, minimal with proper handling and training. Status: Disputed.Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
