For those that doubt the wisdom of a citizens right to bear arms

[padren]

Just on the topic of Iraq and Vietnam:

 

I am pretty sure the weapons that insurgents use are smuggled or stolen military weapons - not Ma and Pa Iraqi polishing up the AK-47 they kept under their pillow during Saddam's reign.

I don't know the stats on "citizen weaponry" when it comes to Vietnam, but I am pretty sure the vets I talk to are correct when they talk about lots of supplies getting in enemy lines.

 

Its not fair to call those scenarios "successful armed citizenry" scenarios.

 

 

Secondarily, if the US government ever hit a point where people would raise arms against it, you have to expect there would be some claim to legitimacy...and that some portion (probably substantial) would support it. Military desertion would probably be a larger deterent than an armed citizenry - how many people in the US armed forces are going to sustain a war against their own parents and neighbors? They aren't robots afterall.

 

If the military did side with a totalitarian US state, then chances are so would a large number of the citizens - if for no other reason than the desire to "restore balance" in a manner that did not expose our borders and give our enemies the opportunities that a civil war scale rebellion would.

 

Cities and towns that rebelled would be cut off from trade and starved out with blockades...half the people with guns would be looking to hunt down the "trouble makers" so that they could get their livihoods back.

 

I honestly don't think that an armed polution has much to do with keeping the government in check - it is useful against an invading army...just not in a civil rebellion.

 

If anything the idea does more damage than good because it leads to the false idealistic concept that the government will stay in check out of fear of the citizens...when the true power to keep a government in check lies in the ability to mass strike (union style not militarily) and use the tools at our disposal (such as voting) to maintain balance.

 

PS:

 

I actually support the ability to own firearms, I just don't think it is relevant to keeping the government in check.

[insane_alien]

ok so i thought about it some more and this is what i think would happen.

 

1. the US government introduces a series of lisences for owning firearms

2. the people who have reasons to own guns and those that are safe to have a gun go and get liscences and everything is peachy

3. the nuts and people who shouldn't be let within 5 miles of anything pointy get their weapons taken off them

4. bit of uproar at "human rights infringement" or some crap

5. nut finally gets hands on guns and kills the people who refused him a liscence

6. majority finally comes round and sees its a good idea.

[Pangloss]

I don't have the patience for a responsible, non-atomic war \o/

 

Well that makes two of us.

 

BTW, not to change the subject, but I love that "\o/" emoticon -- is that your invention? That's supposed to be the head and arms of a person cheering, right? That's awesome...

[Sequence]

The only problem I have is that some people who shoouldn't have guns do. Come to my town. Redneck capital. There are probly more illegal guns then there are people.

[ParanoiA]

The only problem I have is that some people who shoouldn't have guns do. Come to my town. Redneck capital. There are probly more illegal guns then there are people.

 

See, I hear this said alot and certainly the hollywood depiction of the classic southern redneck would lead you to believe they just sit around all day drinkin' beer, drivin' their pick-em-up trucks and shootin' thangs that move.

 

Quit it. It's not 1960 anymore. They are certainly out there, but how many incidents involving gun misuse actually involve drunken rednecks? Please. Everytime some idiot shoots an innocent person (or themselves) it's a city slicker or a criminal. Southern rednecks are the people that should have guns. If our government was to turn on us, it's the rednecks of the country that are going to be doing most of the fighting while us city folk run for it.

[Pangloss]

Minnesota is the redneck capital? The land of Garrison "my momma told me never to vote Republican" Keillor and Al "Bush lied kids died" Franken? Ooookaaayy.....

[mr d]

Hello

 

First off thank you for the replies.

 

I would like to ask a futher questions for those respondants whom demonstrate more of a conviction in the right to bear arms.

 

My question is not so much should people be allowed the right to bear arms, but should it be required they demonstrate and understanding of weapons before giving access to them.

 

Done a tad of shooting and amoung the fun things I've seen at the range are.

 

Fellow with a semi-auto cocked back the slide, then try and force the slide back foreward. Not understanding how to release the slide catch.

 

Fellow cocking a semi then having a friend want to see the gun. So he removed the clip from the weapon to be safe, and let his friend start toying with the weapon. Fortunately a fellow shooter standing nearby asked to see the weapon as well, then showed how cocking a semi loads a round in the chamber by recocking the slide and ejecting the shell.

 

And amoung others a person with a borrowed over-under shotgun trying to load shells by pushing then on the bottom barrel. As if loading a pump action, and when that failed trying to see if the shell slid down the barrel.

 

Now I'm not saying these people should not be allowed arms (though the thought they are makes me a bit nervous), but how do you feel about their being required to obtain training on their weapons before actually being allowed to take full possession of them? Or have been required to take a general course on the operation and handling of weapons?

 

Mr D

[Glider]

I think general weapons training, range discipline and training on the particular weapon of choice should be mandatory before taking posession of any firearm.

 

The cases you list are a danger to themselves and everybody around them. "I didn't know it was loaded" is never an excuse. If you don't know, check. If you think you know, check. Even if you believe, check. If you take posession from somebody who tells you it's unloaded (even an armourer), check. Until you have checked, consider it loaded.

 

If somebody doesn't know that cocking a semi puts one in the breech, they shouldn't be allowed near one.

 

I haven't been near a firearm since I left the Army, but recently I got an air pistol to deal with the local tree-eating vermin that have started eating my bonsai. The drills I learned on the ranges are so ingrained that even though I'm the only one to use it, and even though it's only an air pistol, I can't take it out of the case without cocking the bolt, checking the breech is clear, uncocking the bolt and putting the safety back on, even though I will have done the same thing before putting it away. It actually feels uncomfortable to handle it unless I have done that. Punishment by the range marshall for failures in safety were swift and harsh

[ParanoiA]

Now I'm not saying these people should not be allowed arms (though the thought they are makes me a bit nervous), but how do you feel about their being required to obtain training on their weapons before actually being allowed to take full possession of them? Or have been required to take a general course on the operation and handling of weapons?

 

Well, let's get a few things straight first. You are not allowed to go running around in your car with a loaded weapon, even to the shooting range. So, people are only allowed to have a loaded weapon in their hand at home or in rural shooting areas, maybe an inside shooting range. It's these rural shooting areas and so forth that the learning takes place. So, I would expect to see some funny things in that process.

 

Shooting accidents don't generally happen on the range or during hunting - they happen at home because people didn't keep their gun in a locker or safe and some kid finds it and starts playing with it. You're more likely to die on the way to the shooting range in your car - and that's with a trained and certified driving public.

 

Conceal and carry laws and training is what covers what we're worried about - people running around with loaded weapons. In Missouri and Oklahoma, you must have a conceal and carry license, which requires a juicy fee and a training day/weekend. So, they already have to prove they're worthy to carry a loaded firearm out in public.

 

I can't stress enough the importance of keeping the right to bare arms as unrestricted as possible. I'm not even sure I agree with denying access to automatics and etc, but currently they are banned for public ownership.

 

With all of the home invasion, murder and rape going on, far more people are being killed and injured by others on purpose than those killed and injured by accident.

[Sisyphus]

 

With all of the home invasion, murder and rape going on, far more people are being killed and injured by others on purpose than those killed and injured by accident.

 

Wouldn't it be more relevant to compare accidental gun deaths to cases where a gun was actually used successfully for self-defense? For example, a gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used to commit a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit suicide than to be used in self-defense.

 

And as well as we're throwing around statistics, these are interesting:

 

Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:

In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

 

* 373 people in Germany

* 151 people in Canada

* 57 people in Australia

* 19 people in Japan

* 54 people in England and Wales, and

* 11,789 people in the United States

 

(*Please note that these 1998 numbers account only for HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides, which comprise and even greater number of gun deaths, or unintentional shootings).

 

A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.

 

Taxpayers pay more than 85% of the medical cost for treatment of firearm-related injuries.

 

Among 26 industrialized nations, 86% of gun deaths among children under age 15 occurred in the United States.

 

So WHY do Americans shoot each other so much? What the hell is going on? That's a genuine question.

[bascule]

Urban warfare has generally been the stumbling block of any highly organized, systematic military force.

 

Look at the American Revolution.

[Mokele]

handguns murdered

 

Sorry, but no. I know it's cliche, but guns don't do squat without a person behind them.

 

As for the numbers, what are they per-capita? And what are the *total* homicide rates for each country, including attempted homicides? How much of that drastic difference is merely a shift in preferred/availible weapons? If the latter, people aren't safer, just being killed by more non-gun means.

 

Mokele

[bascule]

Wouldn't it be more relevant to compare accidental gun deaths to cases where a gun was actually used successfully for self-defense?

 

I think it would be more relevant to compare a percentage decrease in gun violence after gun control was implemented.

 

And as well as we're throwing around statistics, these are interesting:

 

Yes, they would appear to be straight from Michael Moore's propaganda film Bowling for Columbine.

 

So WHY do Americans shoot each other so much? What the hell is going on?

 

I'm going to hazard a guess and say gang violence and drug smuggling

[Sequence]

Yes. Minnesota is redneck capital. Come up north. People deer hunt with AK-47s for god sakes. BUt my main point is not about my states people. There should be some kind of competancy test that is based on multiplte things.

[ParanoiA]

Wouldn't it be more relevant to compare accidental gun deaths to cases where a gun was actually used successfully for self-defense?

 

No it wouldn't. I'm not talking about self-defense. I'm referring to those 11,789 homocides. That pales in comparison to the number of accidental shootings, let alone deaths. With everyone doing so much murder on purpose, I don't see the magnitude of relevancy for accidents.

 

I do find those numbers highly suspicious. I found some Illinoise website that posted those same stats, using the same comments and bullets as your post, so I suspect you got those stats from them. Of course, being an anti-gun site, I don't see why anyone should trust them.

 

How about some bias free stats? I tried looking myself, but all I found was anti-gun websites. Everyone knows you don't trust liberals with numbers. I've heard some crazy figures from those democrats and they always go unchallenged. Weird...but I'll keep looking.

 

Yes. Minnesota is redneck capital. Come up north. People deer hunt with AK-47s for god sakes. BUt my main point is not about my states people. There should be some kind of competancy test that is based on multiplte things.

 

Maybe a competency for Ak-47's, but that's it. My country's free state status is more important than gun competency.

[insane_alien]

ok, paranoia, hypothetical question here.

 

your walking along the street, a couple of gangs are having a turf war or summat and you get hit by a stray/ricochet. would you be very happy? would you want those people to be allowed guns?

[ParanoiA]

ok, paranoia, hypothetical question here.

 

your walking along the street, a couple of gangs are having a turf war or summat and you get hit by a stray/ricochet. would you be very happy? would you want those people to be allowed guns?

 

Of course not. But they are criminals. Criminals already can't have guns. Now, if they've never been convicted of anything, then they can have guns and yes I would rather potential criminals walk around with guns in a free state than no guns and held prisoner by the state - like China.

 

Freedom isn't free. The cost of freedom has always been associated with war and liberation - but there's an eternal maintanence fee as well. There are plenty of cons to freedom and gun misuse is one of them. But, the pros trump the cons.

[insane_alien]

ok, then make it a coupla rednecks shooting at cans while your having a stroll in the woods.

[ParanoiA]

ok, then make it a coupla rednecks shooting at cans while your having a stroll in the woods.

 

Well since I don't own the woods, then it would depend on who was there first wouldn't it? It's their responsibility to be sure no one is in the direction they're shooting and they are liable if they hurt someone. If they've checked the area to be sure it's clear, but then I walk up in the line of fire - perhaps downstream from where they're shooting - then that's not really their fault.

 

If I'm there first, then they should see whether or not I'm in the direction of their can shooting and move or adjust appropriately or else they're at fault.

 

Either way, I don't get your point. You seem to think that if I take a bullet from someone behaving stupidly that I will somehow change my mind and wish for a gunless, freedomless society. I will not. Most gunowners operate guns responsibly, including the rednecks that hollywood as fooled you into believing are idiots.

[Sisyphus]

I do find those numbers highly suspicious. I found some Illinoise website that posted those same stats, using the same comments and bullets as your post, so I suspect you got those stats from them. Of course, being an anti-gun site, I don't see why anyone should trust them.

 

How about some bias free stats? I tried looking myself, but all I found was anti-gun websites. Everyone knows you don't trust liberals with numbers. I've heard some crazy figures from those democrats and they always go unchallenged. Weird...but I'll keep looking.

 

Yeah, I know. That's the problem. I couldn't find any bias-free stats. The only ones I could find were from people who were trying to convince me of something - usually something drastic. It was really mostly the first one I considered important, since it so clearly runs contrary to the implication I thought you were trying to make. (The rest were just to show the ambiguity.) So yes, there are a lot more homicides than accidental deaths, but there are also far more of either than successful self-defense uses. That's all.

[ParanoiA]

So yes, there are a lot more homicides than accidental deaths, but there are also far more of either than successful self-defense uses. That's all.

 

I found a couple of pro-gun sites that were as bad as the anti-gun ones. They played with the numbers and used them for ignorant little conclusions to make a case that self-defense uses are higher than homicide uses. I know that's BS.

 

But, I do believe that self-defense is way under reported. I'm not sure why. This latest school shooting, I don't remember where that was, but the associated press reported that the students attacked and subdued the shooter. There were only a couple of news outlets that actually mentioned a teacher went to his car and retrieved his gun and had the shooter starring down the barrel of it when the students took him down. That's a huge part of the story left out. That changes everything really.

 

Seems like you'd want kids to know this so they'll at least consider the fact that if they try this shit, they just might get a gun pointed back at them.

 

I'm one of those wacky people that thinks teachers, principals, janitors and etc.. should be allowed to carry guns - with a conceal and carry license of course.

 

Hell I think everybody who can afford a gun, should go buy one. Learn how to use it, teach their kids how to use it and respect it ( this isn't difficult, you should see the look on a kid's face when he feels and hears the power of a pistol - they realize very quickly this isn't like the movies ). Buy a gun locker or safe, and regularly go shooting and have them help you clean it when you get home. They see the gun as the tool that it is when you present the whole picture to them on how a gun is used and cared for and shooting is alot of fun. Women are usually better shots than men, so they get a kick out of that.

[ecoli]

perhpaps laws concerning lock-up of guns should be introduced. How to enforce it though...

[ParanoiA]

perhpaps laws concerning lock-up of guns should be introduced. How to enforce it though...

 

I would absolutely love that. But yeah, I'm not sure about enforcing it. I wonder if they could do it like the seatbelt laws in Oklahoma, where they can ticket you for not wearing the seatbelt, but they can't pull you over for it - something about abuse, I don't remember. So, if the police come to your house, for any reason, they can check your weapons possession and storage.

 

I don't know...doesn't sound like it would catch very many idiots...there are lots of them

[CurvKyle]

But, I do believe that self-defense is way under reported. I'm not sure why.

 

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

 

These guys keep a running archive of every civilian gun self-defence news report they find.

[CurvKyle]

perhpaps laws concerning lock-up of guns should be introduced. How to enforce it though...

 

There's no way this could be enforced. I don't think you should have to have all your firearms locked up, it somewhat defeats the purpose of having one. The only alternative I can think of is to buy a fingerprint safe, and they are not cheap. You have to use your best judgement as to keep firearms out of the wrong hands (children).