Gun rights

[badasshairday III]

You either admit one thing of two. You admit your society is horribly violent, far more than 25 other industrialized nations COMBINED. Why not give everyone RPGs? They don't kill anyone, people do. Imagine the success rate in catching criminals in a getaway car with an RPG!

You bring up an important point. Yes, the United States is very violent compared to other industrialized nation. Why is that? I don't know. The Swiss can own guns, so can the Swedes and the Fins, yet their societies are not nearly as violent as the United States. Why is that?

 

[Hammy070]

I don't know for sure. Could be genetic. Who are Americans? Mostly descended from either colonizers or slaves. Colonizers had no moral issue with the uprooting of Natives' territory with ethnic cleansing etc. Slaves were bought in Africa, criminals, delinquents, mentally defficient etc. were often sold as slaves by slavetraders in Africa to Americans and others. Possible explanation for over-representation of blacks in some crime areas, both groups having some of the inherited traits.

That's a purely speculatory theory that at best could be a FACTOR but not a reason. Very politically incorrect, and probably wrong. :innocent: Don't call me racist either, it's actually opposite-of-racist, it's saying simply certain people featured prominently at various times in history, a cluster of traits that are passed down among a significant proportion of the population that was unrepresentative of their ethnicity.

Or maybe it's playstation and movies. :roll: Of course, in Japan, a playstation has a violence reduction beam with every console that makes Japanese people immune. :woot:

 

[JayBear]

I don't know for sure. Could be genetic. Who are Americans? Mostly descended from either colonizers or slaves. Colonizers had no moral issue with the uprooting of Natives' territory with ethnic cleansing etc. Slaves were bought in Africa, criminals, delinquents, mentally defficient etc. were often sold as slaves by slavetraders in Africa to Americans and others. Possible explanation for over-representation of blacks in some crime areas, both groups having some of the inherited traits.

The vast majority of us are descended from willing immigrants. The vast majority of colonials were either religious puritans, or simple farmers. Not justifying the horrible actions of the others, just pointing out the truth.

That's a purely speculatory theory that at best could be a FACTOR but not a reason. Very politically incorrect, and probably wrong. :innocent: Don't call me racist either, it's actually opposite-of-racist, it's saying simply certain people featured prominently at various times in history, a cluster of traits that are passed down among a significant proportion of the population that was unrepresentative of their ethnicity.

Sorry to do the thing that you asked me not to, but to say that black americans are violent because they are descended from mentally deficient african criminals and that white people are violent because they are descended from savage colonials is not only politically incorrect, it is very specifically racist. There are good, valid, researched and studied sociological reasons for the high prevalence of violence in certain areas of America. Your reasons are none of these.

 

[patagonia]

Mexico does not allow guns, right? Don't they have extreme shooting down there, way more than up here?.

Mafias have the guns in Mexico. Its a very very complex situation. The drug business is the main responsible for this. the Kalashnikov (Ak-47) is one of the weopons of choice for this groups that u can also call cartels. This criminal organizations are deeply tied in the political system and on every political party in the country.

One of the biggest suppliers of guns and amo for Mexico is the US. You can read in the mexican press of detentions of cargo, trucks etc etc...of weopons that come from the US into mexico...

These arsenals give the different factions muscle, which different interests groups in the country use to control Drugs, trade zones, oil... yes, oil as well.

There are no gun stores or gun shows in Mexico that I have ever heard of .... the average citizen does not own guns usually. For example It is still rare to hear of a fist fight at a school between young people that turned into a gun fight...like you do in other parts of the world.

*dont feal like getting into a heated debate about how someone here went to a club in CanCun and got harrased by a local with a gun...and how that never would happen in Springfield Kentucky or wherever.......

the guns come tied to the "Drug Business" in Mexico, and to who controls territories and other resources. Its intersting to think who profits from the instability of Mexico..... I have no answers......just allot of questions.

 

[patagonia]

You know gansters are just going to get their guns from another country, bring them in here, and then shoot whom they want since they know we don't have any.

Guns Flow Easily Into Mexico From the U.S.
'Cop-killer' guns from US seen crossing into Mexico

Thanks for that one!

I was gonna look for one article I read about a year ago about
this Mexican reporter who got shot/killed in Texas (where he had to live because of death threats in Mexico)

He had been writing about the arms traffic into Mexico from the US as well as the Drug Business.

 

[CCS]

Come on now. If someone breaks into your house, you are going to wish you had a gun to protect your family.

As someone pointed out earlier, you got a 50/50 chance of killing them. If all your family members have guns, you might have a better chance, or friendly fire. You stand a much better chance of using 4 unarmed family members against 1 unarmed burgler, than to have a gun fight. Make them illegal, and the price will mean far fewer criminals have them.

And what about people who don't have guns? We pay with our lives daily, and don't get any benefit.

Let's just say the US and China get into some serious beef 10 years from now... Do you realize how much manpower the Chinese Army has? If they were able to perform some full scale invasion on us with their 10 million soldiers, they wouldn't have a problem raping our moms, sisters, wives, daughters, and looting our families and killing us if we did not have the right to bear arms. You wouldn't be able to do sh*t to protect yourself without a gun. But the fact is that since we do have the right to bear arms, you can basically add our domestic army manpower by another 100 million because we'd have grandma's blasting shots. Now that sh*t is called homeland defence. :firing:

Would you feel safer at home with your shot gun when the chinese invade, or would you rather enlist a month ahead of schedule and fight them with military weapons, along side your platoon members?

And if grandma has a gun, you can be sure the chinese army does too.

 

[CCS]

[quote="Old Baldy":1vukfvoe]Firearms save lives. Been known for a long time. Do your research Hammy if you're going to debate.

The countries that stand out to me are, USA, Finland and Switzerland. All gun countries.

Doesn't really disprove his point because we don't know what the figures are for peoples' whose lives were saved by gun ownership. (e.g. A vigilante taking out a psychopathic gunman on the loose)[/quote:1vukfvoe]

I was taught in class that families with guns are more likely to kill themselves with friendly fire on a peaceful night than save their life from a criminal, by a long shot. I bet some of that "friendly fire" is actlually domestic violence. I think some wives get guns to feel safe from their husbands. Anyway, the NRA rebuttal is that those families need to take a weapons safety course.

 

[powersam]

I give up Aussie. You just don't get it. No insult intended because you only want what you feel is best, but I knew you and Hammy would be unwilling to listen to anything reasonable. How you can discount a real world experience is way out there if you get my drift.

So you think because you haven't experienced violence you're in a better position to know the value or detriment of owning a firearm moreso than someone who has experienced life threatening violence?

I'm totally baffled.

Edit: I was being very objective. A firearm saved my life and the prosecutor agreed with me.

I think the point being made OldBaldy is that though the availability of guns arguably saved your life, it also 'arguably' costs lives. Therefore your position here is one concerned simply with your situation rather than what is needed. What is needed is a quantitative analysis of which happens more, the saving of lives because of the availability of guns, or the loss of life for the same reason.

My question to you Oldbaldy is, if an analysis were done, and it was found that gun laws in America were causing more innocent civilian death than they were preventing, would you then change your opinion? Do you truly believe that widespread gun ownership is better for society, or just that it is better for you personally?

you were being very objective yes, but you are only looking at the subject through your experience. They think they are in a better position to know the value or detriment of owning a firearm simply because they have the freedom and advantage of not being biased by a personal experience coloring their views of the subject. Basing your opinion of a very wide ranging and complex subject on a single experience is not sensible.

nb/ the above analysis should include ALL deaths by guns, ie/ kids who take them out of their parents cupboard, accidents with poorly maintained weapons, accidental police shootings et al

 

[CCS]

I'm confident that the Chinese, with their distinct lack of morals, would be able to crush any guerilla movement pretty quickly. It's easy when you don't have to concern yourself with civilian casualties etc

Good point. Guns are only useful for preventing occupation if the occupying force does not want to kill civillians. But what if they just want to make us slaves? Even then, the guns would just be an annoyance to them. I think in France during the German occupation, some people would drive around in cars and do hit and runs on germans at coffee shops. Not enough to defeat them, but maybe enough to persuade them to leave willingly.

 

[badasshairday III]

Good point. Guns are only useful for preventing occupation if the occupying force does not want to kill civillians. But what if they just want to make us slaves? Even then, the guns would just be an annoyance to them. I think in France during the German occupation, some people would drive around in cars and do hit and runs on germans at coffee shops. Not enough to defeat them, but maybe enough to persuade them to leave willingly.

What about the Afghans in the 1980's versus the Soviet Union? It was far more than an annoyance. It resulted in an embarrassing defeat for the USSR.

 

[Hammy070]

I don't know for sure. Could be genetic. Who are Americans? Mostly descended from either colonizers or slaves. Colonizers had no moral issue with the uprooting of Natives' territory with ethnic cleansing etc. Slaves were bought in Africa, criminals, delinquents, mentally defficient etc. were often sold as slaves by slavetraders in Africa to Americans and others. Possible explanation for over-representation of blacks in some crime areas, both groups having some of the inherited traits.

The vast majority of us are descended from willing immigrants. The vast majority of colonials were either religious puritans, or simple farmers. Not justifying the horrible actions of the others, just pointing out the truth.

That's a purely speculatory theory that at best could be a FACTOR but not a reason. Very politically incorrect, and probably wrong. :innocent: Don't call me racist either, it's actually opposite-of-racist, it's saying simply certain people featured prominently at various times in history, a cluster of traits that are passed down among a significant proportion of the population that was unrepresentative of their ethnicity.

Sorry to do the thing that you asked me not to, but to say that black americans are violent because they are descended from mentally deficient african criminals and that white people are violent because they are descended from savage colonials is not only politically incorrect, it is very specifically racist. There are good, valid, researched and studied sociological reasons for the high prevalence of violence in certain areas of America. Your reasons are none of these.

Oh man, the "good, valid, researched and studied sociological reasons" is what I know already. They weren't mentioned intentionally because I emphasised a different perspective and that it was probably wrong. Something that is proposed from a new angle that most wouldn't even venture into because of the stigma. You proved me right. And I am definitly not racist in the slightest, if the blacks colonised initially and the whites were slaves, the environmental factors would have equally applied to both. It's racist because only blacks were slaves and only whites were colonialists!

 

[Old Baldy]

Powersam: I believe gun ownership for law abiding citizens is beneficial to society. It prevents tyranny from ever taking hold IMHO. (Or goes a long way towards preventing it IMHO.)

It also, like you have said, benefitted me IMMENSELY.

Convicts have been interviewed and polled on many occasions and they overwhelmingly favor prohibitions on firearms ownership. You know why that is.

To me guys, it is pie in the sky to ever think firearms will be unavailable to criminals. They'll get them.

I've linked an article by a respected scholar, who has passed peer review, proving firearms ownership in America saves lives. If you guys choose to not accept this fact, there's nothing I can do. (IIRC, that study was cited in DC vs. Heller, [i.e., the Sup. Ct. decision where it was held the individual has the right to own a firearm for self-defense purposes].)

But those are fair, logical questions Powersam. It boils down to a fundamental philosophy one has on the freedom of the individual IMHO. Me being a rabid right winger, obviously opts for ensuring the freedom of the individual over the collective. And, in self-defense areas, this is especially so for me.

I could be wrong Powersam, this is only my personal belief.

You know, it's akin to the abortion issue. I don't think a woman should be thrown in jail for getting an abortion, even though none of us like abortions. She has the individual right to determine the outcome of that sort of life changing event. (Although, maybe it is a good thing that she can only choose one before it gets "too late", if you get my drift.)

But it's the individual who I always go with philosophically wise. (Within reason of course! :mrgreen: )

Like I said Powersam, these are only personal beliefs. I could be wrong.

 

[Hammy070]

Good point. Guns are only useful for preventing occupation if the occupying force does not want to kill civillians. But what if they just want to make us slaves? Even then, the guns would just be an annoyance to them. I think in France during the German occupation, some people would drive around in cars and do hit and runs on germans at coffee shops. Not enough to defeat them, but maybe enough to persuade them to leave willingly.

Why not just accept the occupying force? For the sake of peace? If they don't really perform ethnic cleansing, what's the point in further violence? Let them decide how to run your country. Clearly they should, an occupying country is better than the occupied, stronger.

 

[Hammy070]

Powersam: I believe gun ownership for law abiding citizens is beneficial to society. It prevents tyranny from ever taking hold IMHO. (Or goes a long way towards preventing it IMHO.)

It also, like you have said, benefitted me IMMENSELY.

Convicts have been interviewed and polled on many occasions and they overwhelmingly favor prohibitions on firearms ownership. You know why that is.

To me guys, it is pie in the sky to ever think firearms will be unavailable to criminals. They'll get them.

I've linked an article by a respected scholar, who has passed peer review, proving firearms ownership in America saves lives. If you guys choose to not accept this fact, there's nothing I can do. (IIRC, that study was cited in DC vs. Heller, [i.e., the Sup. Ct. decision where it was held the individual has the right to own a firearm for self-defense purposes].)

But those are fair, logical questions Powersam. It boils down to a fundamental philosophy one has on the freedom of the individual IMHO. Me being a rabid right winger, obviously opts for ensuring the freedom of the individual over the collective. And, in self-defense areas, this is especially so for me.

I could be wrong Powersam, this is only my personal belief.

You know, it's akin to the abortion issue. I don't think a woman should be thrown in jail for getting an abortion, even though none of us like abortions. She has the individual right to determine the outcome of that sort of life changing event. (Although, maybe it is a good thing that she can only choose one before it gets "too late", if you get my drift.)

But it's the individual who I always go with philosophically wise. (Within reason of course! :mrgreen: )

Like I said Powersam, these are only personal beliefs. I could be wrong.

It's not about being right or left wing or any wing. It's a simple question, does mass gun possession result in less or more deaths than mass gun absence.

Criminals everywhere have access to firearms. This I don't disagree with. But since I work in crime directly, the issue is much more complicated, and really cannot be simplified.

Let's just say, the harder the access to guns, the more likely highly organized criminals will be able to obtain and afford them. Thus, the less likely a petty robber or thug will have them.

This results in guns being used primarily by Serious Organized Criminals for protection/use against other Serious Organized Criminals.

That is why the criminal argument works in favour of gun bans than gun access.

Secondly, I think the 'protection against the state' argument is really just an inherited reflex argument from 18th+19th century America. It's application today is invalid. Also, firearms simply result in a guerilla movement. You do realise, if a tyrant assumes power and the people don't want him, and the tyrant fears an uprising, then he'll ban weapons, and enforce the ban through the army and police, which the tyrant owns. Most people everywhere, do not fight, guns or no guns. So owning a projectile firing weapon doesn't qualify you as a fighter or a soldier. Remember, millions of Americans support their families via State employment, if the State is a tyrant, they will care more about paying the mortgage, feeding the children etc. than reading the second amendment and inspiring themselves into action. That's what happened in Iraq under Saddam, many people work for Government, most people were completely safe if they didn't involve themselves in politics, aside from that, people were basically free in everything, except politics, and so calculated that having national warfare would be worse than gaining the vote, and choose between one liar or the other. :roll:

 

[Old Baldy]

Well, that's your opinion Hammy. I obviously disagree with almost every major point you make, but your anti-gun talk made me think Obama might just agree with you, so I put my order in for the following pistol:

http://www.coltsmfg.com/cmci/Defender.asp
As Will Smith would say: "Now, that's what I'm talkin' about!!" :jump: :jump: :jump:

 

[Hammy070]

Well, that's your opinion Hammy. I obviously disagree with almost every major point you make, but your anti-gun talk made me think Obama might just agree with you, so I put my order in for the following pistol:

http://www.coltsmfg.com/cmci/Defender.asp
As Will Smith would say: "Now, that's what I'm talkin' about!!" :jump: :jump: :jump:

I really do not mind the act of disagreement. Let's make it simpler for you:

1) Name one developed country with gun bans that does NOT have a lower rate of murder than the USA.

2) Name one developed country with a tyrant in recent history, that would have been preventable or fixable if the people were armed. Or name one developed country now, that is armed, and if unarmed, would likely be vulnerable to tyrannical rule.


That's it. Simple, if you're right, your Theory of Gun should be replicated elsewhere at LEAST once! You have about 35 nations to choose from.

If it's not possible. Then I have 35 examples of why you're wrong. You need to find at least 17, to even debate with me on equal terms. Even if you found 10 which you won't, that's still 25 that are better off.

 

[powersam]

OldBaldy - Good answer. I completely disagree, but at least i know where you're coming from and why. Ultimately this seems to come down to individual freedom vs collective safety...

The question that remains unanswered though, if it was shown without a doubt that mass gun ownership was causing the deaths of many more civilians than it was saving, would you still be pro gun?

 

[Old Baldy]

Hammy: Russia, where some of my ancestors come from, stated alot of the atorcities of Stalin would have been prevented if he had not banned firearms. They could have defended themselves during the "starving" years and outright purges. (Look at what the Afghani's did for Godsakes.)

Many Jews would have survived the massacres had Hitler not disarmed them years before. This comes from Jews I have known who survived the massacres and concentration camps.

China - many citizens would have survived the "purges" of Mao if they had been allowed to own firearms.

But as is always the case, dictators disarm the population before conducting their atrocities.

My remaining ancestors, (i.e., the Armenians), were disarmed by the Turks and many thousands were massacred as a result.

The list goes on, and on, and on ....... and on.

As to the murder rate in America, you have a point. We are a more violent society in our inner cities. No doubt about that. Poverty in those areas is terrible and does lead to more violent crime.

You do have a reasonable, logical point on that one Hammy. It's a price I feel we have to pay for real freedom though. But that is the most glaring "flaw" in my position. I will admit that. So, you're batting .500 IMHO and that would put you in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Not too bad an average.

Powersam: If we could rid the world of evil people, rid the world of any chance of a dictator coming to power, rid the world of any objects that could be used for killing, then, I would go for no firearms ownership. This would have to apply to individuals, police and military. That's as far as I go Powersam.

The exact answer to your question......hmmm.......no, because the honest individual should never be prevented from having access to firearms for self-defense.

Nor should the common man/woman be disarmed due to the possibility of tyranny.

Once again, this is my belief system. I could be wrong. However, you and Hammy could be wrong also. I'm disappointed to see that neither one of you have admitted that you could be wrong. (Well, you have in so many words Powersam, but Hammy is too steadfast and doesn't see any flaws in his argument. That is unreasonable IMHO and is the type of attitude that leads to fanaticism, the exact type of thing I feel safer to guard against with the 2nd Amendment.)

Remember, all dictators and fanatics feel they are doing the right thing. Problem is they are human and oftentimes their extremism jades and clouds their judgment. Plus, because they are human, they could be just plain wrong.

I mean, let's look at Hammy's "high horse" attitude he has relative to how he views people in America.

He feels we are a "genetic" mutation of sorts when it comes to our violent tendencies and he wonders where we got those tendencies from.

Well maybe we got them from the following "societies":

1 - Roughly 50 million people died, I repeat, 50 million died (i.e., combined) in WWI and WWII in Europe (including Russia). This occurred less than one hundred years ago. How's that for a murder rate Hammy?

2 - The sun never set on the British empire up to roughly 60 years ago. Hmmm... wonder if the British ever had to kill someone to get their way? How's that for a murder rate Hammy?

3 - The Spanish and Dutch were the main slave traders bringing slaves into the Americas. How's that for a murder rate Hammy?

4 - The French, Spanish, Dutch and Germans had extensive colonial holdings over the centuries. Some are currently held or have their societies still basically imitating their conquerers. Hmmm.... wonder if any of those countries ever had to kill people to have their way? How's that for a murder rate Hammy?

5 - The English ruled America with an iron hand until the Revolution. The straw that broke the camel's back arguably occurred when firearms were (1) confiscated in Boston and (2) their military set-up "shop" in various private households, in those areas identified as "hot-beds" of political revolt, in order to smash any "questionable" political activities. I wonder how many people died in America from England's tyrannical rule Hammy?

(Tidbit: Our 3rd Amendment was ratified because England set-up shop in private homes, [i.e., where they felt they could better quell political unrest].)

6 - Firearms were invented (i.e., or perfected) in European countries. (I think Italy was on the forefront.) Ok, a little off-base but still a fact.

7 - Russia has killed so many of its own people that I have lost count. How's that for a murder rate Hammy.

So where do we get our "philosophies" in this area Hammy? We get them from "you" Hammy.

You would probably say, "well, we're beyond that now". Bull cookies, people and societies don't change that fast.

You add up all the above killings in (1) your own area of the world and (2) by people coming from your area of the world and it dwarfs the killings on American soil.

No, honest law abiding citizens need to be armed to guard against such atrocities brought upon societies by people from your area of the world Hammy.

And if it can happen as often as it has from your area of the world Hammy, it could happen here also. No, people don't just change overnight Hammy IMHO.

 

[ali777]

Come on saf, let's be real. No they aren't plotting to invade America so they can rape and steal tvs. I'm just saying that in any invasion there is this type of crap that goes on. I'm just saying we don't know what the future holds. Nobody could have predicted WWII or any major conflict before it happens. Have you heard of the Rape of Nanking? It was when the Japenese invaded China during WWII and they basically pillaged the town called Nanking. The sh*t they did was heinous. If the Chinese were armed back then, I doubt it would have been as terrible as it was.

Someone has already answered this, and I'll say it again... A few armed civilians are not a match to a well trained and armed to teeth with technology army. The wars aren't fought on the ground anymore.....

The way I see it, the potential of civilian militias is an important counterbalance against extreme abuses of state power. I'm sure the Nazi party would have opted for a more peaceful solution to the Jewish problem if every German had the right to bear arms.

I believe what you are describing here is nowadays termed as TERRORISM. There are many examples of this scenario around the world, and we call them terrorists.... Take the IRA, ETA, etc for example.

I just don't trust a society where all the firearms are owned by the police and military.

The same as before... You would be classed as a TERRORIST....

Powersam: I believe gun ownership for law abiding citizens is beneficial to society. It prevents tyranny from ever taking hold IMHO. (Or goes a long way towards preventing it IMHO.)

Tyranny by who? I don't know who the tyrant is you are talking about...

Why not just accept the occupying force? For the sake of peace? If they don't really perform ethnic cleansing, what's the point in further violence? Let them decide how to run your country. Clearly they should, an occupying country is better than the occupied, stronger.

Hammy, I largely agree with you, but accepting occupation is a point where I would disagree with you. Many nations around the globe have an extremely strong sense of self determination. I know self determination has been around only since the French Revolution (funny how they were the ones to introduce it but not defend it), and we could argue that the humanity could survive without it.

Although, I do have a very strong sense of self determination, I can't see how the right to bear arms would help me. If there ever was an invading force, they wouldn't be coming around with pistols. They would bomb the sh*t out of the infrastructure and bring the country to a stand still, then move onto changing laws, etc. A small gun is not a match to mechanised army....

 

[badasshairday III]

Someone has already answered this, and I'll say it again... A few armed civilians are not a match to a well trained and armed to teeth with technology army. The wars aren't fought on the ground anymore.....
[/quote]

:whistle: I'd think the Afghans and Iraqis would beg to differ. The Afghani Taliban fighters are giving a damn hard time to the US, just like they did to the USSR.