Guns, a fresh start.

[chocolatepossum]

And part of this freedom is the government trusting me to own guns. If a government can't trust me, a citizen who has never even been arrested, with guns, then I will not trust them in turn.

I sympathise very much with that sentiment. I tend to be quite socially libertarian, and disagree with the idea that the government should try and protect people from themselves. However, I think that the ownership of guns is not a private matter in the way that, say, taking drugs, is. In a society such as the UK where guns are still relatively scarce ( growing less so) I would consider it a very reasonable curtailment on individual freedom to ban handgun ownership in order to prevent the sort of exponential growth in legal and illegal gun ownership I would expect to see with legalisation.

 

[LW]

The how is it even remotely relevant. LW (I think) said that guns are no help against tanks.

Actually, not me. My position is that an armed militia can successfully fight against tanks if they have an extremely favourable situation. (Like what happened when Russians advanced to Grozny the first time in 1994).

Though, in the vast majority of cases lightly armed people fighting tanks end up dead very, very quickly. That is why lightly armed people who have even a small grain of sense in them don't fight tanks but instead get out of the area very quickly when the enemy sents them in. And then carry on guerilla raids where the enemy doesn't have them. Of course, even then their chances are not too great against modern armies with strong air forces that can be summoned on a short notice.

 

[Kerberos]

Actually, not me. My position is that an armed militia can successfully fight against tanks if they have an extremely favourable situation. (Like what happened when Russians advanced to Grozny the first time in 1994).

Though, in the vast majority of cases lightly armed people fighting tanks end up dead very, very quickly. That is why lightly armed people who have even a small grain of sense in them don't fight tanks but instead get out of the area very quickly when the enemy sents them in. And then carry on guerilla raids where the enemy doesn't have them. Of course, even then their chances are not too great against modern armies with strong air forces that can be summoned on a short notice.

Sorry, I just checked, and it was SlippyToad.

 

[Leif Roar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Guns, a fresh start.

In my country, this is already true. Not even the police carry guns here

That's not correct. Norway has a relatively high percentage of gun-owners (at least by European standards,) primarily hunters but there's also a significant number of soldiers in the heimevern who keep their AG-3 rifles and ammunition in their homes. That said, Norway has a low percentage of hand-guns; the majority of the weapons owned by private citizens are shotguns or rifles.

Ah, of course, I gave you the simplified version. If they respond to a crime where guns are reported, they can take guns with them.

They will also be armed for certain guard duties (for instance, the permanent police guards at some embassies are carrying MP-5 machine guns,) and I believe that in some precincts they can keep weapons stored in some of the patrol cars on a general basis.

The philosophy behind it is that if the police don't (as default) carry guns, criminals won't feel the need to carry guns, either.

That's part of it, but I think an equally important reason is the belief that easier access to firearms for the police officers will lead to more cases of needless shootings, and that the threat the Norwegian police face in their job does not warrant this increase in excessive shootings.

Comparisons with the other Scandinavian nations (who have roughly comparable situations when it comes to crime, but where the police is generally armed) would seem to support this notion. In the period 1996 to 2002, Norway had 2 shots fired by police officers per year, per million population. Denmark had 14, Finland 16 and Sweden 26.

[SNIP]

I've never seen an armed policeman before. Not an armed criminal, either. Actually, I've never seen a civilian firearm in my enitre life.

Well, in that you are not representative for Norwegians in general. Armed policemen is a rare sight, but not unknown, and most people know someone who owns a rifle or shotgun.

Guns against baby seals? That wouldn't be fair, would it? No, seal hunters use sharp picks!

The hakapik or sealer's club is only used for killing the "kvitunger", baby seals who still have their downy white fur. Adult seals are killed with rifles.

 

[Sushi]

Modern democracies have been common for 50 years, and have existed for significantly longer than that (depending on you definition). That's plenty of time to draw a conclusion, what's intellectually dishonest is you dismissing this simply because it doesn't fit you predetermined conclusions.

50 years is a significant amount of time to draw a conclusion about democracies not needing guns?


Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

Using your (rather hilarious) reasoning, I might as well say that the United States will be around forever since it has been for the last 50 years.

Oh man, this is too funny, I'm tempted to put this in my signature.

That's possible, in theory at least, personally I can think of relatively few, if any, cases where the majorities in developed democracies have done really oppressive things to minorities. I suppose it depends a little on what you call "really oppressive" and “developed democracies".

Oh, I see, if the democracy is tyrannical it isn't a "developed democracy". I'm not playing this definition game with you.

Two points, first of all which part of "developed democracy" is it you don't understand? I don't think there exists a mind expanding substance strong enough to allow one to consider Nazi Germany a developed democracy. Secondly, no, even disregarding that mind-boggling huge flaw in you argument that is not a good example. Guess why? Because it didn't work, so they might have held out a few weeks or months (because the army was otherwise occupied), but it didn't change anything, they still got send to Auschwitz or wherever.

What part of "developed democracy" do I not understand? I understand it fine. It is a loose, meaningless term you use to hide behind every time someone points out the fact that a group can take a stand against injustices of another entity.

So? They still made some stand even at a small scale.

It really does depend on the size of the group you are opposing; however, having guns makes the fight a little fair.

I wouldn't necessarily consider the US of that time a developed democracy, but let's ignore that for a moment. Was it guns that gave Blacks their civil rights? I'm not familiar with the specifics of the US civil rights movement, but it's not my impression that it took the form of an armed insurrection. There was the civil war of course, but that wasn't necessarily about slavery, and in any case that wasn't armed citizens. I’ve never said that democracies, even developed democracies can do no wrong, simply that I have never seen anything even remotely resembling evidence that guns have helped to correct such wrongs.

Ignoring the fact that you arbitrarily decide whether the US is a "developed" democracy or not (and don't even define the terms, to your convenience).

My point is that if a black man had a gun he would stand a better chance of defending himself from "racial activists" than without a gun.

I read a book once, called "the Future of Freedom" by one Fareed Zakari. According to him no democracy with a BNP greater than 6000 dollars/person (I'm not 100% on the number, but I think that was it) has ever colapsed, with the exception of countries whose wealth came from natural resources.

So? Historically, democracies are recent, and there are many other ways a democracy could fall or a group otherwise lack representation (or even be oppressed with representation) besides economically.

I've relied on other people to protect me my whole life, it's worked fairly well so far. So have you actually, and just about every other citizen of a western nation for the last several hundred years, though the protection we get today is probably significantly superior to what we got in the past.

You are not guarenteed protection from anyone, and you cannot protect yourself by dialing your cell phone and calling the cops while someone is trying to mug you.

I personally do not think people actually will stand against a tyrannical government, because obeying the law is seen as a virtue (opposing the government would be seen as radical and would not be met with much sympathy as long as people have become used to the oppression) and organization is a huge problem, along with the size of the government, ALTHOUGH it is conceivably possible for a small group to defend themself against, say, a corrupt, smaller, more local government.

 

[Sushi]

Well, if memory serves the (west) Roman empire colapsed more than 1500 years ago. Has it occoured to you that the modern world just might not be directly comparable? The " we need guns to protect us from governement" argument has always struck me as rather paranoid. Modern democracies have been shown to be extremely stable, regardless of whether or not the population is armed.

Oh, since "stable" means "fair government?"

and if memory serves me correct, the Roman Empire/Greece/whatever lasted longer than the United States was around.

Also, "modern democracies" may still be around simply because of favorable conditions. The conditions may very well change, likewise, another war may come about and we may not be the victor this time.

 

[Soapy Sam]

My own preference would be to have no guns at all, legal or illegal, police or civilian.

However. Any crime involving the use of a firearm , in my humble, but draconian opinion, should incur a mandatory death sentence for everyone directly involved- ie not just the person using the gun, but any and all associates. This should apply whether the gun is loaded or not loaded, real or fake, used or not used.

But then, I'm a British pinko liberal.

But I say this in the British context as the OP asked. Different countries have different needs and traditions. The traditional way to stop the British Army overthrowing the government is to ring strategic locations with public houses.

 

[Jon_in_london]

However. Any crime involving the use of a firearm , in my humble, but draconian opinion, should incur a mandatory death sentence for everyone directly involved- ie not just the person using the gun, but any and all associates. This should apply whether the gun is loaded or not loaded, real or fake, used or not used.

So if I use a cap gun to steal a box of smarties I should be put to death but you are happy with 25 to life for arse-raping and stabbing your mother to death with a knife?

Why do you hate guns so much Sam?

 

[Soapy Sam]

I don't. I quite like them. I don't like the effect they have on society.


And I don't believe I mentioned knives at all. The OP was about guns.

 

[Freakshow]

My own preference would be to have no guns at all, legal or illegal, police or civilian.

However. Any crime involving the use of a firearm , in my humble, but draconian opinion, should incur a mandatory death sentence for everyone directly involved- ie not just the person using the gun, but any and all associates. This should apply whether the gun is loaded or not loaded, real or fake, used or not used.

But then, I'm a British pinko liberal.

But I say this in the British context as the OP asked. Different countries have different needs and traditions. The traditional way to stop the British Army overthrowing the government is to ring strategic locations with public houses.

I do think we are too soft on violent crime in the US, and too hard on non-violent crime (particularly drug offenses). We are spending a lot of money, and taking up a lot of prison space, by arresting, prosecuting, and jailing people for consensual, non-violent drug offenses. I would like that time, money, and prison space made available to take real criminals (the ones that commit violent offenses against other people) and keep them locked up, away from the rest of us who CAN live our lives without committing violent crimes against our fellow citizens.

 

[WildCat]

Ask the ravers in Utah, or the homeowners in New London, or José Padilla, etc.

Padilla? You think gangbangers should have guns? Even those who have murdered in the past? Does he also have the right to any and all weapons, including nuclear, as you have defended in the past?

 

[BracesForImpact]

I think using the difficuties the U.S. is having in Iraq as a comparison for a militia defending itself from a tyrannical government in the U.S. is way off.

The insurgency in Iraq is better equipped than the average gun owner. They have fully automatic weapons, they have RPG's and they have mines, etc. Even with their heavier weapons they still do not have even a passing success rate in ambushing U.S. forces and their allies. Instead, the majority of the casualties both civilian and military come from the use of impromptu explosives.

Just a thought...

 

[Beerina]

Who here, if they could, would click there fingers and have all the guns not in the hands of the police or army of their country disappear?

I would, and I'm interested to hear about Americans' views on this issue in particular.

Lions, tigers, bears, etc. generally don't fight to the death. Why? Because the liklihood of a bigger lion getting killed attacking a smaller lion is non-trivial, and thus not to its advantage.

They all have nasty claws and teeth built in, see?

Now imagine humans had nasty claws and teeth, such that a man trying to, say, rape a woman stood a good chance of getting eviscerated by the woman, regardless of his size advantage.

Would violence, rape, murder go up in such a world, or go down?

If you believe in gun control, you must believe it would go up. Yet that is obviously not the outcome that would happen.

It's completely disgusting to think about, but many of the problems of humanity are due to lacking vicious teeth and claws. Or some other way for people to effectively defend themselves.

 

[WildCat]

Re: Re: Guns, a fresh start.

It's completely disgusting to think about, but many of the problems of humanity are due to lacking vicious teeth and claws.

I love that! I'd use it as a sig but you might take it the wrong way...

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: Guns, a fresh start.

Lions, tigers, bears, etc. generally don't fight to the death. Why? Because the liklihood of a bigger lion getting killed attacking a smaller lion is non-trivial, and thus not to its advantage.

er, no. They rarely kill because the loser "bares his throat" as a sign of submission.

 

[Bikewer]

We should not forget that humanity was quite capable of committing vicious crimes and horrific violence long before there were any firearms.

Like it or not, we are a tool-using species, and weapons have always formed a part of our "tool kit" as the anthropologists say.

How many people was Samson supposed to have slain with the jawbone of an ass?

 

[Kerberos]

50 years is a significant amount of time to draw a conclusion about democracies not needing guns?


Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

Using your (rather hilarious) reasoning, I might as well say that the United States will be around forever since it has been for the last 50 years.

Oh man, this is too funny, I'm tempted to put this in my signature.

I'm glad you're amused, small brains, small pleasures and all that, I'll try to explain this to you using simple words. There is one (1) of the United States. There are many) that’s more than one) democracies. Therefore you can reach conclusions about democracies with greater certainty. The sample size (do you know what that is?) is bigger. Using your (rather hilarious) line of reasoning we couldn't say anything meaningful about the effect of fx most medicine because it hasn't been around for 50 years,

Oh, I see, if the democracy is tyrannical it isn't a "developed democracy". I'm not playing this definition game with you.

I suppose I could go with Zakari's BNP greater than 6000$/person that does not come from natural resources and which is of course a democracy with universal suffrage except for children and perhaps a few other small groups (say criminals, clinical retards, and similar).

What part of "developed democracy" do I not understand? I understand it fine. It is a loose, meaningless term you use to hide behind every time someone points out the fact that a group can take a stand against injustices of another entity.

Nobody who understand the term developed democracy, or just democracy could possibly apply the term to Nazi Germany.

So? They still made some stand even at a small scale.

Which didn't do any good, and wasn't in a democracy, developed or not.

Ignoring the fact that you arbitrarily decide whether the US is a "developed" democracy or not (and don't even define the terms, to your convenience).

My most profound apologies for assuming you had the basic intelligence to figure out that developed democracy means universal suffrage, it won't happen again.

My point is that if a black man had a gun he would stand a better chance of defending himself from "racial activists" than without a gun.

I know what you point was, you have provided no evidence for it though.

So? Historically, democracies are recent, and there are many other ways a democracy could fall or a group otherwise lack representation (or even be oppressed with representation) besides economically.

Other ways than what?

You are not guarenteed protection from anyone, and you cannot protect yourself by dialing your cell phone and calling the cops while someone is trying to mug you.

The issue was not protection against criminals, but protection against government. According to Ed though guns seem to make little difference there either, or perhaps that was only for murder rates.

I personally do not think people actually will stand against a tyrannical government, because obeying the law is seen as a virtue (opposing the government would be seen as radical and would not be met with much sympathy as long as people have become used to the oppression) and organization is a huge problem, along with the size of the government, ALTHOUGH it is conceivably possible for a small group to defend themself against, say, a corrupt, smaller, more local government.

So you agree that guns probably won't help, but you think it's “conceivably” that it would? I'll let you in on a little secret, everything is "conceivable". I think I’ll just go with the facts and say there’s no evidence that is actually has in developed democracies. Actually I can’t think of armed populations having made a difference in developing democracies either, but I could be missing some cases for that.

 

[Sushi]

I'm glad you're amused, small brains, small pleasures and all that, I'll try to explain this to you using simple words. There is one (1) of the United States. There are many) that’s more than one) democracies. Therefore you can reach conclusions about democracies with greater certainty. The sample size (do you know what that is?) is bigger. Using your (rather hilarious) line of reasoning we couldn't say anything meaningful about the effect of fx most medicine because it hasn't been around for 50 years,

We can experimentally isolate variables in regarding medicine. We cannot do that (easily) regarding democracies. Being stable for 50 or more years does not mean another superpower can emerge through unpredictable circumstances.

Using your pea-brained logic, living 50 years in a monarchy and seeing other monarchies remain relatively stable is proof that monarchies are stable entities. Also using your logic, slavery lasted for thousands of years in even "developed" nations like the Roman Empire; and according to your logic major nations would never outlaw it.

Also, the whole point regarding guns was in case of unpredictable circumstances leading to a loss of freedom--or personal protection.

Nobody who understand the term developed democracy, or just democracy could possibly apply the term to Nazi Germany.

And again, why does it matter? You are suggesting a "democracy" could never turn hostile to minorities or could ever fall to a more authoritarian power (or even elected officials introducing a heavily military state)?

Going back in time, would the Japanese put into concentration camps have been justified if they defended themselves from the federal government using guns so they would not be relocated? Or should they just have obediently followed through, losing their homes?

Which didn't do any good, and wasn't in a democracy, developed or not.

So, basically, your attitude is not to use guns and to obediently march to the gas chambers instead of fighting back?

And again, I don't see why "developed democracy" is significant, a democracy could conceivably fall or turn hostile to a group.

My most profound apologies for assuming you had the basic intelligence to figure out that developed democracy means universal suffrage, it won't happen again.

Your insulting of my intelligence just goes to show how emotional your arguments are instead of rational.

Why don't you try insulting people when asked to clarify your terms in a science paper? You'll get far, champ.

When you say criminals, do you mean those incarcerated or even convicted felons? I could then argue there is not "universal suffrage". I am sorry, I am not Sylvia Browne, I cannot read minds or see into the future.

I know what you point was, you have provided no evidence for it though.

So there's no evidence that being armed means you can more easily defend yourself, or defend others? Although greater numbers are always one of or the largest factor in how a conflict turns out, having a firearm levels the playing field.

The issue was not protection against criminals, but protection against government. According to Ed though guns seem to make little difference there either, or perhaps that was only for murder rates.

I was bringing up the protection issue. Even if statistically guns means more violent crimes, it does not change the fact that a person not responsible for violent crime should still have an opportunity to defend himself.

So you agree that guns probably won't help, but you think it's “conceivably” that it would? I'll let you in on a little secret, everything is "conceivable". I think I’ll just go with the facts and say there’s no evidence that is actually has in developed democracies. Actually I can’t think of armed populations having made a difference in developing democracies either, but I could be missing some cases for that.

If the federal government decided to go to war against a small town for unscrupulous reasons, then yes, that small town is probably doomed. However, on a larger scale the dissenters could have a greater chance.

 

[chocolatepossum]

Re: Re: Guns, a fresh start.

Now imagine humans had nasty claws and teeth, such that a man trying to, say, rape a woman stood a good chance of getting eviscerated by the woman, regardless of his size advantage.

Would violence, rape, murder go up in such a world, or go down?

If you believe in gun control, you must believe it would go up. Yet that is obviously not the outcome that would happen.

Firstly I don't accept that, in the scenario described above, it is obvious that violence, rape, and murder would all go down. I find it more reasonable to say that violent incidents might decrease but that they would more often be fatal due to the big, sharp claws posessed by the combatants.

I think you are possibly giving too little weight to the fact that the majority of violent incidents happen when people are either drunk or agitated in some way and therefore less likely to think rationally in this way.

Secondly I do not accept that the scenario above is perfectly analogous to a society where everyone is armed with a gun. I am no expert on, or even particularly knowledgable about, guns, but I can think of several differences between the two situations. For example, the scenario above does not take into account the fact that, in a confrontation between two people armed with guns, there is an advantage to drawing your gun first. In fact, one could argue that this is a straight "Prisoner's Dilemma" type situation. It's always logical to pull out your gun first and turn a non-violent confrontation into one that is likely to turn violent.

 

[Beerina]

Re: Re: Re: Guns, a fresh start.

Originally posted by Beerina
Lions, tigers, bears, etc. generally don't fight to the death. Why? Because the liklihood of a bigger lion getting killed attacking a smaller lion is non-trivial, and thus not to its advantage.

er, no. They rarely kill because the loser "bares his throat" as a sign of submission.

er, no. That's why baring their throat works. If they wanted to push the issue, they could tear major holes in their opponent, even if it were a losing battle in the long run -- and it would be losing for both sides, more likely than not. Hence animals don't fight to the death -- unlike humans. Were humans to have such features, and were a rapist or murderer out to rape or murder, "baring one's throat" is not a viable option -- only going down swinging is, and with claws and teeth, that's much more damaging to your opponent.