Escape Artists
The Lounge at the End of the Universe => Gallimaufry => Topic started by: Chodon on December 19, 2007, 05:14:34 PM
-
I don't even know where to start with this one. I'm guessing with my avatar most of you can guess where I stand on the issue. If not, I will summarize:
There are three types of people (taken from Dave Grossman who has many great books on the topics of personal defense and combat):
1) Sheep - The average person who thinks the government's job is to keep them safe and they do a good job at it. Unfortunately, this is the majority of the population and it seems the majority of the posters here.
2) Wolves - This is a minority. These are the people who prey on the sheep. That is what they do. They will do it by any means necessary and have no qualms about killing the sheep.
3) Sheepdogs - These people appear as sheep from a distance, and are part of the flock. However, when the wolf attacks they find out this is not a mere sheep. They will fight back and protect themselves and the rest of the flock.
The thing with laws about weapons is that the only people that follow them are the sheep and sheepdogs. The wolves don't care about the laws or they wouldn't be preying on the sheep in the first place! Laws banning weapons give the wolves the advantage.
As far as Simon's post about Americans killing each other with guns more than in the UK he would find most murders are committed with ILLEGALL handguns. That doesn't stop criminals (people who are willing to break the law anyway) from using them. Also, for a number of reasons that could each have their own thread, Americans are most apt to use violence to solve their problems. It's an unfortunate part of our culture going waaaaaay back to the revolutionary war when we decided we didn't like the British telling us what to do. It's been there ever since, and it's one of our biggest strengths and our biggest weaknesses.
The only way to prevent you or your loved ones becoming a victim of violence is to become a sheepdog by preparing yourself to defend against the wolves at all times. The police are not always going to arrive in time. If you tell Mr. Samurai sword wielding mugger he is in volation of Statute # XYZ subsection 5 he's going to laugh at you. I, personally, am ready to demonstrate to him he just made the biggest mistake of his life by thinking I'm just another sheep.
-
As far as Simon's post about Americans killing each other with guns more than in the UK he would find most murders are committed with ILLEGALL handguns.
I tried, tried, tried to leave this one alone. I'm sorry in advance to everybody for going even further off topic with this. I am going to at least limit myself to only one NRA misnomer.
Over 98% of "Illegal handguns" were not imported illegally or originally sold illegally. They have changed hands illegally. Mostly by straw purchases, where someone goes into a gun shop to buy a specific gun for someon else who isn't allowed to buy it. Or they have crossed a border from someplace like Virginia and ended up in DC where it is illegal. If there were tighter controls on who could get the guns and verification that they continued to possess the gun, the numbers of "Illegal handguns" would decrease.
-
As far as Simon's post about Americans killing each other with guns more than in the UK he would find most murders are committed with ILLEGALL handguns.
I tried, tried, tried to leave this one alone. I'm sorry in advance to everybody for going even further off topic with this. I am going to at least limit myself to only one NRA misnomer.
Over 98% of "Illegal handguns" were not imported illegally or originally sold illegally. They have changed hands illegally. Mostly by straw purchases, where someone goes into a gun shop to buy a specific gun for someon else who isn't allowed to buy it. Or they have crossed a border from someplace like Virginia and ended up in DC where it is illegal. If there were tighter controls on who could get the guns and verification that they continued to possess the gun, the numbers of "Illegal handguns" would decrease.
Exactly. It goes to show that laws do not stop people from commiting crimes. The US is flooded with guns. I think something on the order of 100 million.
I'm assuming you're saying 98% of handguns are not registered to those who are in posession of them, or they were illegally transported across state lines. The majority of these are stolen guns. Not many people are willing to buy a gun for someone they know is a criminal. If they are, then they are a criminal themselves and probably have a record meaning they can't legally buy guns.
I feel the need to point out that picking up a gun (legally or illegally owned) does not suddenly turn someone into an armed robber or murderer. People are so convinced that guns hold this magical aura that turns people into a killer. It's just a chunk of aluminum, steel, and plastic. The real problem is the criminal intent. People are going to kill each other like they always have since Kain and Abel.
Does that last line mean Russel is going to come at me with a samurai sword...
-
The only way to prevent you or your loved ones becoming a victim of violence is to become a sheepdog by preparing yourself to defend against the wolves at all times. The police are not always going to arrive in time. If you tell Mr. Samurai sword wielding mugger he is in volation of Statute # XYZ subsection 5 he's going to laugh at you. I, personally, am ready to demonstrate to him he just made the biggest mistake of his life by thinking I'm just another sheep.
Which raises the problems of escalation, injury due to accidental discharge, and children in the house (both accidental shootings and suicide by gun). Now, I've been to places where having a gun is a sensible precaution and not having one, especially if you have something valuable/are seen as having something valuable, can be suicidal. The United States is not one of these places (Guatemala mostly, for anyone wondering what the dangerous places were). While training, teaching your kids, keeping the gun and the ammo in separate locked boxes hidden away reduces these risks, if you have it for protection you're probably not keeping the gun and ammo separate (or even unloaded) and probably not locked well.
I'm from the DC area, I was on my school's rifle team. I don't think all guns should be banned from private ownership, but DC's handgun ban is sensible, and I don't have a problem banning guns with a decidedly aggressive use. You don't need a M-16 to hunt anything(not that I hunt, I shot black dots). It's like using an ATV in a forest instead of walking or biking or canoeing. When it comes to the second amendment, I've always seen it as a militia's right to bear arms instead of an individual's.
is it illegal in the US to carry a sword on you? like anywhere? just out in the open...?
does it have to be registered?
Depends on the jurisdiction and the size of the blade. I think most places would ban anything over 6-12 inches.
-
I apologize if I sounded condescending, Simon. My attempt at satire is aimed as the general philosophy of banning things to solve problems. That it was aimed at the British in this case is incidental. If the story had come from Illinois, I would have said "Future Illinois Headlines." (There's plenty of stupidity on this side of the Atlantic too.)
Russell: Assault weapons ban? Please. What proportion of murders are carried out with "assault weapons" as opposed to handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns (or kitchen knives)? I can't recall any killing that was done with an "assault weapon," although I can think of lots that were done with low-caliber handguns. Banning assault weapons is a silly stunt to make politicians feel like they're increasing their karma. Thugs use guns that they can hide in their pants. Only responsible citizens like Chodon are interested in assault weapons, and I feel safer with huge and deadly weapons in such people's hands.
I find it telling that no one ever calls for a ban on alcohol. How many of these katana-related deaths involved alcohol? All of them, I'm guessing? Alcohol is way more dangerous than guns and swords combined, so why not ban that? The reason: Politicians can't get away with banning something that the average person wants or needs: People get pissed off. So when they feel the urge to make useless laws, they go after stuff that only a few people want, like samurai swords or assault rifles. It's not because those things are more dangerous, just that they're less popular. Banning them creates the perception that politicians are "doing something" without risking large-scale public objection.
Chodon, you're my homeboy.
-
I can't recall any killing that was done with an "assault weapon,"
Really? What about the Omaha mall shooting on December 6th?
-
As far as Simon's post about Americans killing each other with guns more than in the UK he would find most murders are committed with ILLEGALL handguns.
I tried, tried, tried to leave this one alone. I'm sorry in advance to everybody for going even further off topic with this. I am going to at least limit myself to only one NRA misnomer.
Over 98% of "Illegal handguns" were not imported illegally or originally sold illegally. They have changed hands illegally. Mostly by straw purchases, where someone goes into a gun shop to buy a specific gun for someon else who isn't allowed to buy it. Or they have crossed a border from someplace like Virginia and ended up in DC where it is illegal. If there were tighter controls on who could get the guns and verification that they continued to possess the gun, the numbers of "Illegal handguns" would decrease.
Exactly. It goes to show that laws do not stop people from commiting crimes. The US is flooded with guns. I think something on the order of 100 million.
I'm assuming you're saying 98% of handguns are not registered to those who are in posession of them, or they were illegally transported across state lines. The majority of these are stolen guns. Not many people are willing to buy a gun for someone they know is a criminal. If they are, then they are a criminal themselves and probably have a record meaning they can't legally buy guns.
I feel the need to point out that picking up a gun (legally or illegally owned) does not suddenly turn someone into an armed robber or murderer. People are so convinced that guns hold this magical aura that turns people into a killer. It's just a chunk of aluminum, steel, and plastic. The real problem is the criminal intent. People are going to kill each other like they always have since Kain and Abel.
Does that last line mean Russel is going to come at me with a samurai sword...
Moderator note: Sorry about this folks. One more post and I'll split it off to it's own thread.
I was going to do a big point by point thing, but it's not worth it. This is one of the topics where I pay attention to everything I hear about it. I make a point out of knowing this stuff. I don't just listen to one special interest group. I will correct a couple of points you misstated from my last post.
1) I never said all gun owners are criminals.
2) I didn't say 98% of guns are illegal. I said over 98% (I think it's over 99.8%) of illegal guns are bought legally
3) Samurai swords are for pussies. Didn't really state it, but I thought my posts from throughout the year made my position clear.
Now instead of getting into an arguement with you about how I'm right and you're not I'm linking to this article that asked where guns used in crime came from (http://www.cleveland.com/crime/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/iscri/119780981440320.xml&coll=2). It deals with Ohio, because Ohio is the 6th largest supplier of guns used in crimes. Here's to opening paragraph:
Ohio ranked seventh in the nation as a source of guns used in crimes. 6,135 guns sold in Ohio were used to commit crimes last year . 1,819 guns used in crimes in 39 states last year were first sold in Ohio. 123 crime guns traced by Cleveland police last year were first sold at one suburban dealership -- Atlantic Gun & Tackle in Bedford Heights. Cleveland seized 1,095 guns in 2006 and 956 so far in 2007. Some guns used in crimes are stolen or borrowed. Others, criminals say, are found in bushes or under rocks. The origins of some guns can never be traced because they are too old or the serial numbers are filed off. The majority, though, are bought legally from federally licensed gun dealers and then resold on the streets. And local law enforcement can't do much about it.
-
I was referring to people who are stright out willing to kill to protect big illegal business. It's almost exclusively drug dealers and they carry big firepower.
NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15691319)
Time (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1666750,00.html)
USAToday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-14-copshoot_N.htm?POE=click-refer)
The Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071119/NATION/111190027/1002/NATION))
All of these mention cops being killed by assault weapons that were banned, but now aren't
-
I'll bet just as many cops died by assault weapons before the ban as after. All the AWB did was ban import of detachable magazine rifles with 3 or more "deadly features" including flash supressors, bayonet lugs, and pistol grips and ban the import of magazines with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds. Oooohhh...pistol grips. Scary! I'm glad the government is here to protect us against all those bayonettings I've been hearing about. They also banned the US's most popular squirrel rifle as an "assault weapon", the Ruger 10/22.
I don't think laws preventing the sale/posession of guns will solve gun crime in America. The market is flooded with them and criminals disregard the laws by definition. I choose to be a sheepdog instead of a sheep. I'll leave it at that.
-
Samurai swords are for pussies.
Ouch! Hope no samurai were insulted by that. Watch your back, Russell!
I can't recall any killing that was done with an "assault weapon,"
Really? What about the Omaha mall shooting on December 6th?
Does a semi-automatic rifle count as an "assault weapon?" I guess I don't know. Depends on who you ask, I guess. I was thinking of machine guns... If so, I guess I do recall a notorious killing with an assault weapon. Still a small minority of the total, in any case.
The incident really proves Chodon's point, though. Guys like this are able to commit these mass killings only because their victims are unarmed. If the average person was armed, this sort of thing would never happen, because the victims would be able to defend themselves. Laws are ineffective in keeping guns out of evil hands. This gun was stolen: The killer was breaking the law just by having it.
-
Does a semi-automatic rifle count as an "assault weapon?" I guess I don't know. Depends on who you ask, I guess. I was thinking of machine guns... If so, I guess I do recall a notorious killing with an assault weapon. Still a small minority of the total, in any case.
At least in the US, the term "assault weapon" (as defined by law, such as the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban which expired 3 years ago), always refers to a semi-automatic rifle. Machine guns are not rifles, and as far as I know, they are illegal in the US (which might explain why you don't recall killings using them).
Also, I don't really plan on staying involved in this thread, since this is one of those issues which is more about individual prejudices than any sort of rational thought. I feel that like several other issues, debating this is more a matter of ideology than anything else. I will say two things: First, that the only time I was ever feared my life was at risk from a rifle it was the one assigned to me by the military. And the second, which is in a way direct result of my army experiences, is that if Chodon and Tweedy are actually correct about the fact that you need to be armed to survive a shopping trip, I'd honestly prefer not to survive.
-
At least in the US, the term "assault weapon" (as defined by law, such as the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban which expired 3 years ago), always refers to a semi-automatic rifle. Machine guns are not rifles, and as far as I know, they are illegal in the US (which might explain why you don't recall killings using them).
I guess I didn't know that... I had assumed that "assault weapon" had some relevant meaning. If all we're talking about is something as pedantic as whether a weapon holds 15 rounds or 30, or whether it has two grips or one, then who gives a shit? If I am attacking unarmed targets, such factors aren't going to make the least bit of difference. If I'm a mafioso who fights cops for a living, then I'm not going to be getting my weapons legally anyway and the ban won't effect me. Unless we're talking military-grade firepower, then it's a meaningless issue.
If Chodon and Tweedy are actually correct about the fact that you need to be armed to survive a shopping trip, I'd honestly prefer not to survive.
A-Okay, if that's what you believe. Just, please, don't inflict your choice on me. Let me make my own.
-
There are three types of people (taken from Dave Grossman who has many great books on the topics of personal defense and combat):
1) Sheep - The average person who thinks the government's job is to keep them safe and they do a good job at it. Unfortunately, this is the majority of the population and it seems the majority of the posters here.
2) Wolves - This is a minority. These are the people who prey on the sheep. That is what they do. They will do it by any means necessary and have no qualms about killing the sheep.
3) Sheepdogs - These people appear as sheep from a distance, and are part of the flock. However, when the wolf attacks they find out this is not a mere sheep. They will fight back and protect themselves and the rest of the flock.
This type of thinking scares me. It feels like the justification of someone who wants to live in a wild-west fantasy world in which the only law is that which you can take into your own hands. It also goes back to the good/evil discussion we had earlier in response to EP 134: Me and My Shadow. Part of the fallacy, in my opinion, is the idea that you can simply divide people into "good guys" and "bad guys" and that bad acts will always be carried out by bad people. I have very little faith in the average person on the street to be able to store and use a gun responsibly and judiciously. I have no faith that innocent bystanders would not be killed by someone defending his property or life against a perceived threat, that the average gun ownwer wouldn't let his weapon fall into the wrong hands, that people wouldn't buy weapons legally and sell them to those who couldn't legally own them because of failed background checks or other circumstances.
I suppose my question to you, Chodon, is how is society to decide who is a "wolf", who is a "sheepdog", and who is just to short-sighted and careless to own a weapon? Is there some kind of test in your mind, or should we just let everyone arm themselves to the best of their ability and means and let the chips fall where they may?
-
If Chodon and Tweedy are actually correct about the fact that you need to be armed to survive a shopping trip, I'd honestly prefer not to survive.
A-Okay, if that's what you believe. Just, please, don't inflict your choice on me. Let me make my own.
Well, that depends on what you mean by choice here. If you live in a dystopia where your personal safety is threatened whenever you leave the house, you should have the choice to defend yourself. I'm not sure that, if it were up to me, I'd give you the choice of creating such a dystopia to live in.
-
If Chodon and Tweedy are actually correct about the fact that you need to be armed to survive a shopping trip, I'd honestly prefer not to survive.
A-Okay, if that's what you believe. Just, please, don't inflict your choice on me. Let me make my own.
Well, that depends on what you mean by choice here. If you live in a dystopia where your personal safety is threatened whenever you leave the house, you should have the choice to defend yourself. I'm not sure that, if it were up to me, I'd give you the choice of creating such a dystopia to live in.
That's just a petty insult, eytanz. That's beneath you.
-
If Chodon and Tweedy are actually correct about the fact that you need to be armed to survive a shopping trip, I'd honestly prefer not to survive.
A-Okay, if that's what you believe. Just, please, don't inflict your choice on me. Let me make my own.
Seriously? An incident like that happens once every few years. Dividing by malls, the population at large, days, and so on, your odds of getting killed like that are several billion to one. Statistically your odds of shooting yourself with the gun by accident or by suicide, or of a child or other person not trained in firearms safety shooting someone are an order of magnitude or two more likely.
Add to that that the police rushing into a situation like that don't know the shooter from you, that you could panic, or miss and hit someone else. It's a freaking mall. Even if there's no one you can see behind the shooter, a lot of those walls would barely slow down a bullet.
The other problem with your argument is that you're too tightly defined on what happens to you. Governmental policy is made with the masses in mind, and I'd have a very hard time believing that more guns == less violence when taken over the population as a whole. Actually, I don't need to, because Britain has less guns, and as more guns have entered the island, there has been more gun violence. Knives and blackjacks and samurai swords can kill as well, but a gun lets you get back from the person and feel a little disconnected with the act. Not a lot because there's recoil (which is one of the problems with tazers), but enough to make that decision a little easier and less personal than a sword. It's not like it's a new critique of guns either, as I seem to remember Paradise Lost critiquing cannon in the same manner.
I suppose my question to you, Chodon, is how is society to decide who is a "wolf", who is a "sheepdog", and who is just to short-sighted and careless to own a weapon? Is there some kind of test in your mind, or should we just let everyone arm themselves to the best of their ability and means and let the chips fall where they may?
Also, he's breaking down the population into tightly defined groups that the population doesn't like to be broken down into.
Honestly, if you think there's such a problem with gun violence here that you need a shotgun to get some milk go someplace where they don't respect the rule of law and see if you still think we do afterwards.
As to the assault weapons ban I agree that that definition wasn't the best, and that a better option would probably be the ATF rating guns on an individual basis. That said, by it's definition it's a weapon used in an assault capacity, which has no place anywhere where people are congregating.
And the ban is useful in that it controls the supply of the weapons inside of the states, driving up black market prices. While some will always get through, there will be a smaller population of guns, and their rarity and higher price will price out a lot of the lower-level shooters that form the majority of street violence.
-
I can't recall any killing that was done with an "assault weapon,"
Really? What about the Omaha mall shooting on December 6th?
Does a semi-automatic rifle count as an "assault weapon?" I guess I don't know. Depends on who you ask, I guess. I was thinking of machine guns... If so, I guess I do recall a notorious killing with an assault weapon. Still a small minority of the total, in any case.[/quote]
Very broad definition here, but assault weapon is a manufactured word from the mid 80's or so. It basically means the civillian version of a military rifle. It's semi-automatic meaning you just keep pulling the trigger and it fires, no re-cocking, and capable of being fired rapidly. It's uses a rifle cartrage, more powerful than a handgun (there are exceptions I'm sure). And it has a rifle length barrel, more power and more accurate.
The incident really proves Chodon's point, though. Guys like this are able to commit these mass killings only because their victims are unarmed. If the average person was armed, this sort of thing would never happen, because the victims would be able to defend themselves. Laws are ineffective in keeping guns out of evil hands. This gun was stolen: The killer was breaking the law just by having it.
He was only breaking the law as much as if he'd driven his mother's car. He took the gun from his stepfather (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0564256720071206). Depending on state law it probably depends more on if he has a firearms license whether or not he was breaking the law.
Edit: Apologies to Eytanz
-
cough Joe Horn /cough
http://www.khou.com/news/local/crime/stories/khou071126_tnt_burglarshooting.41772f2e.html (http://www.khou.com/news/local/crime/stories/khou071126_tnt_burglarshooting.41772f2e.html)
-
If Chodon and Tweedy are actually correct about the fact that you need to be armed to survive a shopping trip, I'd honestly prefer not to survive.
A-Okay, if that's what you believe. Just, please, don't inflict your choice on me. Let me make my own.
Well, that depends on what you mean by choice here. If you live in a dystopia where your personal safety is threatened whenever you leave the house, you should have the choice to defend yourself. I'm not sure that, if it were up to me, I'd give you the choice of creating such a dystopia to live in.
That's just a petty insult, eytanz. That's beneath you.
Um, what insult? I apologize if I insulted you - I certainly didn't intend to, and for that matter, I still don't see how. I answered your question, albeit in different terms than you put it, but not in a way that seemed to me to be insulting in any way.
Let me reverse this - if I were to tell you "imagine a world in which the government regulates people's lives, to the degree that people do not have a right to privacy from the government, and a wide array of behaviors that are currently acceptable would be prohibited" would you not think of it as a dystopia? Would you give me the choice to create one?
Just to clarify this post since re-reading it it looks a bit unclear: I'm not being sarcastic. I seriously do not understand what about my earlier post is an insult.
-
If Chodon and Tweedy are actually correct about the fact that you need to be armed to survive a shopping trip, I'd honestly prefer not to survive.
A-Okay, if that's what you believe. Just, please, don't inflict your choice on me. Let me make my own.
Well, that depends on what you mean by choice here. If you live in a dystopia where your personal safety is threatened whenever you leave the house, you should have the choice to defend yourself. I'm not sure that, if it were up to me, I'd give you the choice of creating such a dystopia to live in.
That's just a petty insult, eytanz. That's beneath you.
Um, what insult? I apologize if I insulted you - I certainly didn't intend to, and for that matter, I still don't see how. I answered your question, albeit in different terms than you put it, but not in a way that seemed to me to be insulting in any way.
Let me reverse this - if I were to tell you "imagine a world in which the government regulates people's lives, to the degree that people do not have a right to privacy from the government, and a wide array of behaviors that are currently acceptable would be prohibited" would you not think of it as a dystopia? Would you give me the choice to create one?
Equating my view with a fantastic worst-case-scenario is indeed an insult. If (for instance) you were arguing for government-funded health care, it would be insulting for me to equate that with the desire to create a police state. That is what you did to me: I am arguing the average citizens should be permitted to carry arms, and you equated that with a desire for violent anarchy. I obviously don't want that and it's insulting for you to insinuate that I do.
If Chodon and Tweedy are actually correct about the fact that you need to be armed to survive a shopping trip, I'd honestly prefer not to survive.
A-Okay, if that's what you believe. Just, please, don't inflict your choice on me. Let me make my own.
Seriously? An incident like that happens once every few years. Dividing by malls, the population at large, days, and so on, your odds of getting killed like that are several billion to one. Statistically your odds of shooting yourself with the gun by accident or by suicide, or of a child or other person not trained in firearms safety shooting someone are an order of magnitude or two more likely.
What? Of course not "seriously!" Eytanz offered a dichotomous choice as a rhetorical device and I responded in kind. No one thinks American malls are so dangerous that you're likely to be murdered unless you're packing a shotgun. Geez.
-
Equating my view with a fantastic worst-case-scenario is indeed an insult. If (for instance) you were arguing for government-funded health care, it would be insulting for me to equate that with the desire to create a police state. That is what you did to me: I am arguing the average citizens should be permitted to carry arms, and you equated that with a desire for violent anarchy. I obviously don't want that and it's insulting for you to insinuate that I do.
Oh, I see the confusion. Let me clarify - I did not, and do not, believe, or wish to imply, that you desire a violent anarchy. I never even used the word "anarchy". What I did mean is as follows:
You said: "Guys like this are able to commit these mass killings only because their victims are unarmed." I read that as not only advocating that average citizens should be permitted to carry arms, but as saying that you think it's a good idea. As far as I am concerned, any society where it is a good idea for average citizens to carry arms to protect themselves is a dystopia.
In other words, I wasn't saying you desire things to get any more violent or anarchic. I was saying that I think that if you are correct in your analysis of the situation, you already are living in a violent dystopia.
And I wouldn't be offended if you would say I desire to create a police state, since I'm pretty sure that if the kind of ideal government I desire actually existed, you would call it a police state. So, from a certain viewpoint (which, based on what I know of you, you probably possess), you would be justified in saying that, even though the government I desire does not actually resemble any actual police state that ever existed.
-
Oh, I see the confusion. Let me clarify - I did not, and do not, believe, or wish to imply, that you desire a violent anarchy. I never even used the word "anarchy". What I did mean is as follows:
You said: "Guys like this are able to commit these mass killings only because their victims are unarmed." I read that as not only advocating that average citizens should be permitted to carry arms, but as saying that you think it's a good idea. As far as I am concerned, any society where it is a good idea for average citizens to carry arms to protect themselves is a dystopia.
In other words, I wasn't saying you desire things to get any more violent or anarchic. I was saying that I think that if you are correct in your analysis of the situation, you already are living in a violent dystopia.
And I wouldn't be offended if you would say I desire to create a police state, since I'm pretty sure that if the kind of ideal government I desire actually existed, you would call it a police state. So, from a certain viewpoint (which, based on what I know of you, you probably possess), you would be justified in saying that, even though the government I desire does not actually resemble any actual police state that ever existed.
Good. Apology accepted (or whatever).
I do think that it would be a good thing if the average man (woman) on the street were armed. But that is not because I think I live in a violent dystopia. Rather, I think that an armed populace is a good way to prevent the creation of a dystopia, violent or otherwise.
Related to what Heradel was saying: I don't want to carry a gun to the mall because I expect someone to shoot at me. I want to carry a gun to the mall because I think that makes it less likely that someone will shoot at me. An armed populace is a harder target, hence the bad guy is less likely to start shooting in the first place. The common factor in every massacre is that only the killer is armed.
I won't ask what your ideal state looks like...
-
Related to what Heradel was saying: I don't want to carry a gun to the mall because I expect someone to shoot at me. I want to carry a gun to the mall because I think that makes it less likely that someone will shoot at me. An armed populace is a harder target, hence the bad guy is less likely to start shooting in the first place. The common factor in every massacre is that only the killer is armed.
Well, in that case, to return to your original question, I don't think that if it were up to me I'd give you the choice to do so. I believe that people only have a reactive right to defend themselves, not a proactive right. That is what the police is for (and if the police is not effective, my solution would be to strengthen the police, not the rest of the population).
I won't ask what your ideal state looks like...
Well, I partially answered that above anyway, but a full answer would take us very far afield from this thread, so I'll leave it to a more appropriate time.
-
And there we have a divergence in philosophy that goes way beyond guns.
-
I do have a few real questions for Chodon or Mr. Tweedy if either cares to answer. Perhaps the mere asking will make my point a bit clearer.
1) How should it be decided who is to be allowed access to weapons? Would you draw the line at convicted killers or other felons? The mentally disabled? Some other criteria? If there is a line to be drawn, how would you keep people with the legal access to weapons from distributing them to those from whom you wish to withhold such access?
2) Are there any limits on the type of weapon with which you would allow citizens to arm themselves? Would you consider disallowing any of the following: easilly concealed weapons, semi-automatic weapons, full automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets, rocket-propelled grenades, flamethrowers, or anything else? What about body armor?
3) Finally, how would you arm law enforcement personnel? Do you think your answer to questions one and two have any impact on this question and, if so, would it create a safer or more dangerous environment overall?
-
Hello Guys,
Please excuse me, I had a Kung Fu class all evening and only just got back to see the fight I managed to kick off... So let me respond.
I don't even know where to start with this one. I'm guessing with my avatar most of you can guess where I stand on the issue. If not, I will summarize:
There are three types of people (taken from Dave Grossman who has many great books on the topics of personal defense and combat):
1) Sheep - The average person who thinks the government's job is to keep them safe and they do a good job at it. Unfortunately, this is the majority of the population and it seems the majority of the posters here.
2) Wolves - This is a minority. These are the people who prey on the sheep. That is what they do. They will do it by any means necessary and have no qualms about killing the sheep.
3) Sheepdogs - These people appear as sheep from a distance, and are part of the flock. However, when the wolf attacks they find out this is not a mere sheep. They will fight back and protect themselves and the rest of the flock.
I really don't know where to begin in refuting this... It is so obviously fallacious to try to divide human beings into broad groups based on their macho prowess that there doesn't seem a reasonable way to take this on. People respond to circumstances as they are used to behaving, and an unexpected criminal conflict will illicit an unusual response out of someone who is not used to this happening in their life. I can say from experience that on an occasion where I was mugged on the tube, both I and the mugger were completely baffled by my response (I gave him a stern, and carefully considered lecture on why it was a bad idea to do this, then threw him off the train). I say this to illustrate that both I, and the mugger, were acting on the spur of the moment... Not as some grand category of humanity. If you're claiming that all criminals are identical and have the same attitude, you are mistaken , for they are as diverse as any grouping of humanity, and I don't think the stupid wretch who mugged me deserved to have his head shot off. If you're claiming that having some survivalist-type attitude of self-sufficiency allows you to stand above the average man without this attitude then you are again mistaken. People are people, and each of us has their own story.
The thing with laws about weapons is that the only people that follow them are the sheep and sheepdogs. The wolves don't care about the laws or they wouldn't be preying on the sheep in the first place! Laws banning weapons give the wolves the advantage.
As far as Simon's post about Americans killing each other with guns more than in the UK he would find most murders are committed with ILLEGALL handguns. That doesn't stop criminals (people who are willing to break the law anyway) from using them. Also, for a number of reasons that could each have their own thread, Americans are most apt to use violence to solve their problems. It's an unfortunate part of our culture going waaaaaay back to the revolutionary war when we decided we didn't like the British telling us what to do. It's been there ever since, and it's one of our biggest strengths and our biggest weaknesses.
This is, again, a nonsense. I will not - ever - accept arguments based on American Exceptionalism as justification for acts of barbarism, but let's address that later. If you reduce the supply of weapons, then you will find that the need for a threatening weapon in organised crime and personal protection is massively reduced. A macho-man will, in the UK, be content with a baseball bat under the bed to protect his family. In the US he needs a gun. In the UK, a young hood will go around with a pretty hefty knife (I live in an unusually rough neighbourhood, and police crackdowns on knives are a monthly occurance at the local tube station) because it is all they need to make their point... In the UK, a heavy duty thug will be able to use a knife to hammer his point home.
The chances of a fatality either accidentally or intentionally with a knife are far, far lower than those with a gun. These "wolves" you speak of are less likely to kill people when they are equipped with a sharp object than with a device for projecting hot lead... Guns exist, but the paucity of supply, and the abundance of less-fatal alternatives means that they are simply never going to be the weapon of choice for burglars and muggers. Not while the ban is in place. Banning weapons does not give advantage to some mythical "wolf" species, it reduces the total supply of deadly devices into the black-market and thereby makes it more likely that only serious organised criminals are found "packing".
America is not fundamentally different to the rest of the planet. Gun control has been demonstrated to work in numerous countries, and the only reason it doesn't work in the US is because of massive vested interests struggling to prevent this happening. When it comes to guns there is only one word for US culture: Barbaric.
The only way to prevent you or your loved ones becoming a victim of violence is to become a sheepdog by preparing yourself to defend against the wolves at all times. The police are not always going to arrive in time. If you tell Mr. Samurai sword wielding mugger he is in volation of Statute # XYZ subsection 5 he's going to laugh at you. I, personally, am ready to demonstrate to him he just made the biggest mistake of his life by thinking I'm just another sheep.
Or alternatively there might be less than a dozen samurai sword wielding muggers, and they might be drunk enough for you to work out your way to deal with them... They might be people, and you can usually work out a way to deal with a person. They are certainly easier to deal with than a kid with a pistol.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say the people of Britain and the US are pretty fundamentally similar... Yet you have 40* the homicide rate with guns... You really ought to work on that.
-
I can't speak for Chodon, but here are my answers:
1) How should it be decided who is to be allowed access to weapons? Would you draw the line at convicted killers or other felons? The mentally disabled? Some other criteria? If there is a line to be drawn, how would you keep people with the legal access to weapons from distributing them to those from whom you wish to withhold such access?
Anyone who has been convicted of deliberately victimizing someone else should be bared from owning a weapon. This applies most obviously to violent crimes, but I would extend it to the guy who scams people with email hoaxes too. If you have demonstrated that you are willing to hurt or exploit another person then you have no business wielding deadly power that might help you do so again. The mentally disabled would be bared too, just as they are bared from operating any dangerous equipment.
Withholding access? Well, obviously you'd punish anyone who sold guns to people not authorize to own them–fines, jail, that kind of thing–but there isn't going to be any foolproof solution to that problem. Thugs are going to get guns no matter what law you make, especially in a place like America that is so big and has so many borders.
2) Are there any limits on the type of weapon with which you would allow citizens to arm themselves? Would you consider disallowing any of the following: easilly concealed weapons, semi-automatic weapons, full automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets, rocket-propelled grenades, flamethrowers, or anything else? What about body armor?
I would put a strict limit on what kind of weapon a person can carry with them. Carrying a sawed-off shotgun in public is going to do more harm than good, even in the best-intentioned hands. I would limit this to low-caliber weapons with small magazines, or, say, only revolvers. This would provide provide ample force to stop any bad guys but minimize possible damage from incompetent and/or anger-prone individuals.
As for what kind of weapon a person can have at home, I'd be very liberal. A big part of my rationale for weapon ownership is so that citizens can band together to fight the government should it become too oppressive. Consequently, big guns in private hands is fine with me. How big? I'd probably draw the line at explosives, and I'd limit how many weapons a single person or entity can own. The idea is that the citizenry, as a whole, can resist tyranny, not that any one group can field a private army. We want to keep the power distributed.
Body armor is in the "keep it at home" category.
3) Finally, how would you arm law enforcement personnel? Do you think your answer to questions one and two have any impact on this question and, if so, would it create a safer or more dangerous environment overall?
Cops can have any gun they need. No restriction (except for obvious stuff like, you know, nerve gas, none of this is talking about weapons of mass destruction).
As for the overall safety of the environment, that is a question I can't answer because it depends on too many things. I expect that more handguns on the streets would have the immediate effect of making all public places safer, but beyond that the question involves too many cultural variables to provide a pat answer. Ultimately, the safety of an environment depends on the attitudes and values of the individuals who inhabit it, and those are influenced by many things. What guns do is take the edge away from the ones who would do violence.
-
Simon, you are talking out both sides of your mouth. You say that you will not accept an argument based upon cultural difference ("American exceptionalism") because American and British cultures are fundamentally similar; what works in one must work in the other. But in the same breath say that American culture is barbaric and we have the wrong values. I'm afraid you can't have it both ways.
And you obviously haven't got a clue what Chodon is saying if you think "macho prowess" or "survivalist self-sufficiency" has anything to do with it. Your appeal to such caricatures demonstrates this.
-
I can't speak for Chodon, but here are my answers:
Anyone who has been convicted of deliberately victimizing someone else should be bared from owning a weapon. This applies most obviously to violent crimes, but I would extend it to the guy who scams people with email hoaxes too. If you have demonstrated that you are willing to hurt or exploit another person then you have no business wielding deadly power that might help you do so again. The mentally disabled would be bared too, just as they are bared from operating any dangerous equipment.
Withholding access? Well, obviously you'd punish anyone who sold guns to people not authorize to own them–fines, jail, that kind of thing–but there isn't going to be any foolproof solution to that problem. Thugs are going to get guns no matter what law you make, especially in a place like America that is so big and has so many borders.
Citing the borders as an source of illegal guns is disingenuous if you allow essentially any kind of weapon to be sold to anyone who isn't a convicted criminal. An obvious source of illegal weapons are weapons purchased legally and then re-sold at a steep mark-up to make some easy money.
I would put a strict limit on what kind of weapon a person can carry with them. Carrying a sawed-off shotgun in public is going to do more harm than good, even in the best-intentioned hands. I would limit this to low-caliber weapons with small magazines, or, say, only revolvers. This would provide provide ample force to stop any bad guys but minimize possible damage from incompetent and/or anger-prone individuals.
It makes the damage lower than in the case of automatic weapons, but still creates a very good chance of your incompetent or anger-prone individuals killing one or two people at a time in an angry rage. Do you see violence as so prevalent that the citizenry needs to be armed to this degree? In my thirty five years living in a major metropolitan area, I personally know one person who was mugged. He lost some money and was banged up a bit, but otherwise OK. Would you rather he have shot his assailant?
As for what kind of weapon a person can have at home, I'd be very liberal. A big part of my rationale for weapon ownership is so that citizens can band together to fight the government should it become too oppressive. Consequently, big guns in private hands is fine with me. How big? I'd probably draw the line at explosives, and I'd limit how many weapons a single person or entity can own. The idea is that the citizenry, as a whole, can resist tyranny, not that any one group can field a private army. We want to keep the power distributed.
Body armor is in the "keep it at home" category.
I see this as an outdated mode of thinking. The size and power of a modern government along with the scope of what is possible with modern military hardware makes the citizens revolt feel anachronistic to me. Besides which, I'd be at least as scared of the armed mobs as I would of the government.
Cops can have any gun they need. No restriction (except for obvious stuff like, you know, nerve gas, none of this is talking about weapons of mass destruction).
As for the overall safety of the environment, that is a question I can't answer because it depends on too many things. I expect that more handguns on the streets would have the immediate effect of making all public places safer, but beyond that the question involves too many cultural variables to provide a pat answer. Ultimately, the safety of an environment depends on the attitudes and values of the individuals who inhabit it, and those are influenced by many things. What guns do is take the edge away from the ones who would do violence.
I see it just the opposite. Guns give those who would do violence the power to cause more harm. Giving police departments bigger and more dangerous weapons to keep pace with more dangerous weapons to which criminals have access because you've chosen to legalize them just creates more dangerous cross-fires in which innocents can be killed. An armed citizen can protect himself, but can also kill in a moment of rage. If you add up all the mass-shootings that could have been stopped by an armed citizen and compare that to the number of people already killed in gun accidents or crimes of passion you'd find that guns are already making the country more dangerous, not less. Increasing guns might reduce the former, but will be guaranteed to increase the latter.
-
And you obviously haven't got a clue what Chodon is saying if you think "macho prowess" or "survivalist self-sufficiency" has anything to do with it. Your appeal to such caricatures demonstrates this.
Not to jump in on this, but the idea that unarmed citizens are "sheep", criminals are "wolves", and the armed heroes defending all that is good are "sheep-dogs" has the feel of a sort of macho survival of the strongest mindset. If Simon is using a caricature, but he's only responding to a similar set of simplistic ideas from Chodon.
In any event, it's dinner time. I'll see where this has gone when I wake up in the morning.
-
Everyone: Statistics and links to sources will make you case more effectively than stating what you think or feel.
Mr. Tweedy, Chodon: Do you guys have a problem with the US gun laws as they are now?
Simon: When it comes to guns there is only one word for US culture: Barbaric.
I find this insulting and surprising considering that you just read a very active thread featuring Americans with strong opinions on both sides of the issue.
-
Mr. Tweedy, Chodon: Do you guys have a problem with the US gun laws as they are now?
Not where I live. They aren't the laws I would make if I were king of the world, but I think they are reasonable.
-
Okay, everyone is talking about how guns are the root of crime. Seriously? Does anyone else see the flaw in this logic? There ARE gun laws in the US. They don't work because criminals still get guns. This is not a point of debate, it's a fact. Then you say we need more non-functional laws to prohibit gun ownership? Does anyone else see the flaw in this logic?
This type of thinking scares me. It feels like the justification of someone who wants to live in a wild-west fantasy world in which the only law is that which you can take into your own hands.
I take this as an insult, Czhorat. You take my choice to defend myself and my family and make me out to be some gun-toting lunatic. There are laws out there, but some people refuse to follow them. You are delusional if you think there isn't someone out there who would kill you and your loved ones for $20. I make the choice to put up a fight. Not everyone can make that choice and I accept that. Don't think I'm some kind of lunatic because I refuse to be a victim.
I would like to point out if there were one armed individual at Virgina Tech, or the mall in Oklahoma that there would have been much less bloodshed. Instead people reacted the only way their government let them...as sheep.
1) How should it be decided who is to be allowed access to weapons? Would you draw the line at convicted killers or other felons? The mentally disabled? Some other criteria? If there is a line to be drawn, how would you keep people with the legal access to weapons from distributing them to those from whom you wish to withhold such access?
Honestly, there is no way to 100% restrict access to firearms in the United States. The market is flooded. In a perfect world none of the above would be allowed to own weapons. However, in a perfect world they would not exist.
2) Are there any limits on the type of weapon with which you would allow citizens to arm themselves? Would you consider disallowing any of the following: easilly concealed weapons, semi-automatic weapons, full automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets, rocket-propelled grenades, flamethrowers, or anything else? What about body armor?
Technically, flamethrowers are legal. I don't think any of the above weapons should be restricted. I know everyone is really going to think I'm a gun-toting looney now (maybe even Mr. Tweedy), but I believe the 2nd amendment exists to protect individuals from their government as well. I, personally, would not be interested in owning most of those weapons. I believe that our government, while flawed, has no malice toward its citizens at this point. However, if history is any judge, any government can get out of control and it is the job of its citizens to reign it in.
3) Finally, how would you arm law enforcement personnel? Do you think your answer to questions one and two have any impact on this question and, if so, would it create a safer or more dangerous environment overall?
I believe the police should be armed no better or worse than the populace.
-
Mr. Tweedy, Chodon: Do you guys have a problem with the US gun laws as they are now?
First of all, I think we have already pointed out that the gun laws themselves do not work. An interesting example is that in Michigan registration of handguns is required, and a purchase permit is required. An assault rifle can be bought in 15 minutes. However, I think laws can serve some purposes.
I am a huge fan of waiting periods. If you need a gun now, you need a waiting period. Of course this doesn't help if people don't follow the law and buy from a non-dealer.
The only thing I wish the law required was more training before gun ownership. All that is required currently is an instant background check. I think if people were better trained I think that there would be fewer kids getting their hands on guns. The first two things I learned about firearms (when I was two) 1) don't point them at anything you aren't willing to destroy. This included toy guns. 2) always treat a gun like it's loaded. If everyone followed these two rules there would be no accidental gun deaths.
-
I suppose my question to you, Chodon, is how is society to decide who is a "wolf", who is a "sheepdog", and who is just to short-sighted and careless to own a weapon? Is there some kind of test in your mind, or should we just let everyone arm themselves to the best of their ability and means and let the chips fall where they may?
I missed responding to this part of your question in my previous post. Society identifies Sheepdogs and Wolves through the justice system. I identify a wolf as anyone that is physically threatening me. I already have my mental "triggers" worked out in my mind when someone crosses over into wolf territory.
1) close proximity combined with an aggressive stance
2) physical contact
3) presentation of a weapon
-
Here are some interesting statistics about concealed weapon permits in Michigan. In my county there were ~1200 concealed weapon permits issued in 2005-2006. Only 5 were revoked. 1 for carrying under the influence, and 4 for getting a misdemeanor. None committed while carrying. To me that's a pretty interesting statistic that most people who will go to the effort of getting a concealed permit to legally carry a handgun are law-abiding citizens who are not cowboy-wannabes. Also, it points out those who are illegally using handguns are ignoring the laws.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/CCWAnnualReport_181416_7.pdf (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/CCWAnnualReport_181416_7.pdf)
* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida homicide rate -36%
United States homicide rate -0.4%
Florida firearm homicide rate -37%
United States firearm homicide rate +15%
Florida handgun homicide rate -41%
United States handgun homicide rate +24%
* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)
Definition of "assault rifle": semiautomatic rifles which accept a detachable magazine are classified as "assault weapons" if they have two of the five following features: folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, grenade launcher, threaded barrel for flash suppressor.
* Assault weapons were involved in less than 1% of homicides before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The same is true as of 1998.
* In October of 1996, Bill Clinton met with the widow of Police Officer Jerome Harrison Seaberry. Later that day at a political event, Clinton stated:
“I still think we ought to ban those bullets that are built only for one purpose, to pierce the bullet-proof vests that our police officers wear. I don't see why we need those things out there. … Today, I met with the first -- the family of the first one of the police officers hired under our Crime Bill, killed in the line of duty. I met here in Louisiana, in Lake Charles I met with that officer's widow and two beautiful, beautiful young sons. And I thought to myself, you know, if people like these folks here are going to put their lives on the line for us, the least we can do is tell them if they put on a bullet-proof vest, it will protect them from being killed. That's the least we can do for them.” (66) (67)
* Officer Seaberry was killed in a car crash. No guns or bullets were involved. (68)
* As of 1998, no law enforcement officer has ever been killed because an armor-piercing bullet defeated a bulletproof vest. (3)
* There were 259 fatal firearm accidents for 15-19 year olds in 1995.
* There were 6,319 fatal motor vehicle accidents for 15-20 year olds in 1996. (9) (good God! We need to ban cars!)
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent..., or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp)
edited to remove a citation that showed up as a smiley...about children and gun crime...
-
If you're claiming that having some survivalist-type attitude of self-sufficiency allows you to stand above the average man without this attitude then you are again mistaken. People are people, and each of us has their own story.
I would like to say one thing for the record. I am anything but a macho man. I don't watch sports. I don't hunt. I drive a small car with good gas mileage, not some gas-guzzling SUV. For God's sake, I belong to a science-fiction forum! I don't fit into any stereotypes any of you have of Americans. I am merely someone who refuses to be a victim. Some people here are okay with being a victim from time to time, and that's okay. I don't have any plans to be a vigilante. I don't want to be a hero. If I see someone else getting mugged I'm not going to do a damn thing about it. If you are comfortable entrusting your safety to the police officer who might or might not get there in time, fine. Or better yet, to the mugger with a heart of gold who might not stab you after taking the $40 out of your wallet. I, however, am not willing to bet my life or my family's lives on anyone else. It's my responsibility, and nobody else's.
Or alternatively there might be less than a dozen samurai sword wielding muggers, and they might be drunk enough for you to work out your way to deal with them... They might be people, and you can usually work out a way to deal with a person. They are certainly easier to deal with than a kid with a pistol.
Are you willing to bet your life on it? Your mother's? You child's?
I'm going to stick my neck out and say the people of Britain and the US are pretty fundamentally similar... Yet you have 40* the homicide rate with guns... You really ought to work on that.
I am working on it. I'm not going to be a victim of homicide. That's helping the statistics.
-
There's no way I can start going point by point (silly me for studying for a final), but I do want to ask Chodon why he's so worried about being murdered.
—
Mr Tweedy— I believe the portion of US society that Simon was calling Barbaric were the people that are perpetuating the gun state in this society — mostly the NRA.
—
As to handguns — I still don't understand why people need most of these. They're purely for physical protection — target shooting is possible, but target shooting is more with rifles. I have a hard time believing that people need them hunting. And they are dangerous, especially as they're a lot easier to conceal than a M-16 up your pant leg. They're usually more subject to bans because police get shot at by them more than they get shot at by assault weapons.
I'm from (northern) Virginia/DC metro, and I can count on one finger the number of times I've seen a civilian with a gun in public and not within the parking lot of a shooting range. White male in his twenties with a handgun on his belt, and everybody was giving him the evil eye and a ten meter berth. Granted, I've walked past my share of Mp-5's in the hands of guards around triple letter agency's buildings, and sometimes in the subway system, but I have some confidence that they're not gonna start shooting up the place. That twenty year old...
These days I'm in NYC, and the only guns I've seen have been NYPD or National Guard. There is no one walking around with a gun as protection, and the crime stats are hard to beat. Now, there are incidents like the two police auxiliaries (http://gothamist.com/2007/03/15/cop_shot_on_hou.php) down in the village a while ago, but those things are by far the exception.
-
There's no way I can start going point by point (silly me for studying for a final), but I do want to ask Chodon why he's so worried about being murdered.
I wouldn't call myself worried. I carry a spare tire in my car, but I don't worry about getting a flat. I have a first aid kit in my house, but I don't worry about cutting my finger. It's just something I am prepared for. I know being attacked is a possibility, so I take means to prevent it. I know two women who have been raped. I went to school with a guy who had his home invaded by 5 armed thugs. He waited for them at the top of the stairs with a 12 gauge. When he racked it they knew exactly what that sound was and promptly left his house. It is simply a fact that there are people out there who would kill any one of us for little or no reason. It's not likely we would run across them, but it is possible so I have mentally prepared myself for that possibility. I think most of the posters here believe the world is a good place and they can solve issues with their wits instead of force. This is true for most situations. Unfortunately, not all.
-
As for what kind of weapon a person can have at home, I'd be very liberal. A big part of my rationale for weapon ownership is so that citizens can band together to fight the government should it become too oppressive. Consequently, big guns in private hands is fine with me. How big? I'd probably draw the line at explosives, and I'd limit how many weapons a single person or entity can own. The idea is that the citizenry, as a whole, can resist tyranny, not that any one group can field a private army. We want to keep the power distributed.
Body armor is in the "keep it at home" category.
I see this as an outdated mode of thinking. The size and power of a modern government along with the scope of what is possible with modern military hardware makes the citizens revolt feel anachronistic to me. Besides which, I'd be at least as scared of the armed mobs as I would of the government.
Wow. That, that scares the hell out of me. Do you even realize what you're saying? Let me paraphrase: "Government are so big and so powerful that there's nothing anyone could possibly to stop them if they turned bad. It would be stupid to try or even think about how one might try, and certainly stupid to be prepared. And who's to say the citizenry would be right to resist anyway? Average people aren't smart enough or good enough to be anything other than a disorganized mob. Resistance is futile. The only viable option is to just go with the flow, wherever it happens to lead."
The attitude of acquiescent helplessness you seem to be advocating is absolutely deadly. Who said that? Was it Einstein? "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
EDIT: Nope, it was Edmund Burke. Where'd I get Einstein?
Mr Tweedy— I believe the portion of US society that Simon was calling Barbaric were the people that are perpetuating the gun state in this society — mostly the NRA.
No, I'm pretty sure he was calling me a barbarian. I think it's a good idea for average Joes and Janes to be packing heat in their purses and backpacks. I do believe that was the attitude he referred to as "barbaric." Besides, I support the NRA, as far as I am aware of their activities.
---------------------------
For the record: I live in a quite, middle-class neighborhood in the good part of town. Earlier this year a police car chase ended, literally, within ten feet of my front door. The suspect fled and ran about half a mile down the street, where he started shooting at the cops before they returned fire and shot him dead. Turns out he was a drug dealer who was carrying the gun illegally. The marks his car left in my front yard are still visible. He ran down the street, but he could just as easy have ran into my house, where my family would have made convenient hostages.
This incident served to reinforce my views on gun ownership.
-----------------------
Thanks to Chodon for the insights and the stats. Molon Labe.
-
I have a question: how many people on this forum have:
1) Been properly trained in the proper handling of firearms
2) Have spent time at a gun range
3) Have handled a firearm
4) Have discharged a firearm
I think there is a lot of "magic" people place around firearms. They see them portrayed in movies as these mystical objects that make mild mannered individuals into murdering psychopaths. Like the "Chekov's Gun" thread, if there is a gun in a story it has to go off. That's not what it's like in real life. I know people who legally own and carry concealed weapons and have only fired at the range. Hell, they never even had to pull it on anyone in decades of carrying. I don't think the average person (especially in Europe) knows about gun ownership.
I see this as an outdated mode of thinking. The size and power of a modern government along with the scope of what is possible with modern military hardware makes the citizens revolt feel anachronistic to me. Besides which, I'd be at least as scared of the armed mobs as I would of the government.
So you aren't scared of a government armed to the teeth, but you are scared of an armed mob? I have two scenarios where an armed mob defeated the two biggest armies in the world. Vietnam vs. USA and Afghanistan vs. USSR. Right now where I live, I would actually agree with Czhorat, armed mobs are scarier than the government. However, unlike Czhorat, I am not okay with saying I would prefer to be at the mercy of an armed mob or the government. I trust neither. Also, how soon we forget the lessons of (recent) history.
1989 Romanian Revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989) I work with 3 people who were in Bucharest when this went down. One of them had a bullet crash through her window and go through the chair she was sitting in seconds after she got up. She was holding her infant son. The other remembers trying to get to his aunt's house and walking past burned out APCs protesters destroyed with Molotov cocktails. It is not at all uncommon for the populace to rise up against an oppressive government. This happened less than 20 years ago!
-
Okay, everyone is talking about how guns are the root of crime. Seriously? Does anyone else see the flaw in this logic? There ARE gun laws in the US. They don't work because criminals still get guns. This is not a point of debate, it's a fact. Then you say we need more non-functional laws to prohibit gun ownership? Does anyone else see the flaw in this logic?
I'll just pull up an Economist article at this point: http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10259217 (http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10259217). I read this last week, and generally hold The Economist to higher standards than normal journalism. According to that, the black market in guns in the US is highly inefficient, with the majority of gang-owned guns being semi-functional... Illegal gun trading is not an excellent earner. So saying "criminals will get guns and use them" is demonstrably flawed. If you control the black-economy, and reduce the total supply, you can deal with specific instances of high, criminal gun ownership. This is pretty straightforward black-economics, and to adopt a "criminals will always get guns" attitude is defeatist.
As for what kind of weapon a person can have at home, I'd be very liberal. A big part of my rationale for weapon ownership is so that citizens can band together to fight the government should it become too oppressive. Consequently, big guns in private hands is fine with me. How big? I'd probably draw the line at explosives, and I'd limit how many weapons a single person or entity can own. The idea is that the citizenry, as a whole, can resist tyranny, not that any one group can field a private army. We want to keep the power distributed.
Body armor is in the "keep it at home" category.
I really don't understand the protection against the state side of gun ownership. A successful revolution comes down to an absolute plethora of different factors, and numerous ones occur in different circumstances. If I were to try to single out the single most important factor in holding a successful revolution, it would probably be having a major metropolitan area near the capital, that has become opposed to the regime (Bucharest in '89, Berlin in '89, Belgrade in '01 to name only a swarm of bees.)... Uprisings that begin in the sticks nearly always get struck down (I've actually been stuck in one of these, when I got caught up in the Ferghana province in Uzbekistan in 2004, the Uzbeks concerned were pretty well armed by the Kyrgyz across the border). America is a big, big, big country so gun ownership anywhere outside the wider DC area would have absolutely sod all affect (Red Dawn fantasies to the contrary), and it still comes way down the list, somewhere far beneath a free press opposed to the regime. And further, such uprisings are usually improvisational. A well organised revolutionary mob is more than capable of taking on most governments (They bring horses, you bring marbles. They bring sticks, you bring bricks. They bring tear gas, you bring molotovs...). Guns just turn the whole business into a Haitian style splatterfest.
But somewhere this idea has gained some momentum in the US that wider gun ownership means that the people would be more capable of taking down the largest military force on the planet (and the Viet Cong were anything but a mob, they'd spent the last few decades kicking shit out of the French). It's always struck me as a bizarre fantasy - Lets imagine one particular type of oppressive regime, and a set of key circumstances when it might be taken down, then lets set all our laws of the moment to prevent this bizarre potential occurrence.
I think there is a lot of "magic" people place around firearms. They see them portrayed in movies as these mystical objects that make mild mannered individuals into murdering psychopaths. Like the "Chekov's Gun" thread, if there is a gun in a story it has to go off. That's not what it's like in real life. I know people who legally own and carry concealed weapons and have only fired at the range. Hell, they never even had to pull it on anyone in decades of carrying. I don't think the average person (especially in Europe) knows about gun ownership.
What magic? It is a deadly weapon that if you point it at someone they feel threatened, and know you could end their life within seconds... It's pretty straightforward. I am glad that in a society where guns are abundant, most people who are stupid enough to carry one aren't likely to kill, or threaten to kill, anyone with it... But that doesn't change the fact that there is an element of escalation with gun ownership, and that having epidemic gun ownership amongst criminals means the whole game is different. I have not handled a gun, I have not shot a gun. I do however live for on average 2 months of the year on the island of Crete, where rifle ownership is epidemic... You wont find a Cretan roadsign without bullet holes making it look like a swiss cheese... But on Crete these guns aren't part of the criminal economy, they're rifles owned by everyone (mainly bored people but some Mediterranean Marijuana growing mafioso), and this seems to work just fine. They get pulled out at weekends, and weddings... They're part of the local character. What I have a problem with is gun ownership as protection against some great unknown threat.
So I will say it again. I consider widespread handgun ownership, with offensive guns owned by the populace to protect themselves from criminals who also own offensive guns, to be Barbaric... There is no other suitable word.
-
Wow. That, that scares the hell out of me. Do you even realize what you're saying? Let me paraphrase: "Government are so big and so powerful that there's nothing anyone could possibly to stop them if they turned bad. It would be stupid to try or even think about how one might try, and certainly stupid to be prepared. And who's to say the citizenry would be right to resist anyway? Average people aren't smart enough or good enough to be anything other than a disorganized mob. Resistance is futile. The only viable option is to just go with the flow, wherever it happens to lead."
The attitude of acquiescent helplessness you seem to be advocating is absolutely deadly. Who said that? Was it Einstein? "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."
EDIT: Nope, it was Edmund Burke. Where'd I get Einstein?
What I'm saying is not that a populace should be "helplessly acquiescent". What I am saying is that the state is powerful enough that an overthrow by the populace through force of arms is unlikely, difficult, and very, very bloody. Last century the United States government had policies and laws that were terribly discriminatory against African Americans and other minorities. The American civil rights movement, lead by leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, successfully fought these policies nonviolently. Mohandas Ghandi lead a successful resistance to British Colonial rule in India without creating crossfires in which mothers and their infant sons were almost (and I'm sure in many cases actually) shot to death. Nelson Mandela fought against a racist South African government without needing to call on armed mobs. An unarmed populace is not a helpless populace, nor is it a herd of sheep.
I wouldn't call myself worried. I carry a spare tire in my car, but I don't worry about getting a flat. I have a first aid kit in my house, but I don't worry about cutting my finger. It's just something I am prepared for. I know being attacked is a possibility, so I take means to prevent it. I know two women who have been raped. I went to school with a guy who had his home invaded by 5 armed thugs. He waited for them at the top of the stairs with a 12 gauge. When he racked it they knew exactly what that sound was and promptly left his house. It is simply a fact that there are people out there who would kill any one of us for little or no reason. It's not likely we would run across them, but it is possible so I have mentally prepared myself for that possibility. I think most of the posters here believe the world is a good place and they can solve issues with their wits instead of force. This is true for most situations. Unfortunately, not all.
The problem that some of us have with this logic is that by allowing you access to firearms you are also increasing access to firearms for everyone else in society. You've never responded to the fact, brought up several times by several posters, that the overwhelming majority of "illegal guns" have been purchased legally and changed hands illegally. In other words, it is the easy availability of legal guns that creates a supply of illegal guns. Your desire to have a firearm is creating the very threat which you fear.
-
So I will say it again. I consider widespread handgun ownership, with offensive guns owned by the populace to protect themselves from criminals who also own offensive guns, to be Barbaric... There is no other suitable word.
There are barbarians out there no matter what. If it's not guns, it's knives or samurai swords (as in the UK). Sometimes one has to momentarily turn to barbarism to stop a barbarian. I don't think you should be able to place your beliefs of right or wrong or martial prowess on me and my ability to keep myself safe. I am a legal firearms owner. I have never committed a crime except Toilet Papering a kid's house in 11th grade.
You never answered my question if you would bet your family's life on a prompt police response or the mugger's heart of gold.
The problem that some of us have with this logic is that by allowing you access to firearms you are also increasing access to firearms for everyone else in society. You've never responded to the fact, brought up several times by several posters, that the overwhelming majority of "illegal guns" have been purchased legally and changed hands illegally. In other words, it is the easy availability of legal guns that creates a supply of illegal guns. Your desire to have a firearm is creating the very threat which you fear.
I have answered the issue that illegal guns have been legally purchased originally. I have said that this is evidence that gun laws do not work to prevent gun ownership. If it were that easy we could pass laws against being stung by mosquitoes and bees. It may sound ridiculous at first, but it is a direct parallel. Insects don't care about laws and neither do criminals. THAT IS WHAT MAKES THEM CRIMINALS.
The right to defend one's self is just as much a right as free speech or freedom of religion. In fact, it's the most important right because it protects all the other rights. If your government decided to censor your free speech tomorrow what recourse would you have? Protest. Excellent first choice. What if that protest is violently put down (Tienanmen Square)? Well, I guess you're just going to have to deal with censorship. What if they keep eroding freedoms? Where do you draw the line and what can you do when they cross it?
I also keep hearing the term "fantasy" used. This is not a fantasy. I do not revel in the thought of killing some attacker. I recognize he is a person and has a family just like me. If it's a question of him going home to his family or me going home to my family I know which one I'm going to fight for. The rest of this board seems content to not fight. They seem to think this attacker's life has as much value as theirs, so why should he not go home? My answer: because he is a predator. Every murder, every mass shooting, every robbery could be stopped if an armed individual was on hand to use legal force to stop the aggressor. Czhorat and Simon seem to think a few murders with inferior weapons like knives and clubs are okay as long as our neighbor doesn't own a gun. I do not see it that way.
-
You never answered my question if you would bet your family's life on a prompt police response or the mugger's heart of gold.
This one I can answer in all good humour, athought I do feel that by moving into anecdotage we lose the meat of this discussion... Ridiculous as it may sound, I have actually been mugged on six separate occasions (it probably comes down to walking along while looking at my feet too often). Twice with a knife, once with a bottle, and the most dramatic was the above mentioned tube one which left me with twin black eyes and blood in my left ear (it's a great story that has served me well in numerous pubs, the hospital was initially convinced I had a fractured skull and I got a week off work because no one wanted to look at me, ask me for the full version over a beer). I have fortunately never been mugged with a gun.
No mugger has ever got their hands on my wallet, despite their best attempts. You can usually out-think a mugger (the best, best thing I've found to do in a mugging is to step into oncoming traffic, because it will confuse the hell out of a mugger and bring a third party with a vehicle into the situation... I've got away with that twice). I don't want to come out as a great macho man, but I am the sort of person who is convinced they can take on situations as they come along, and feel neither that I am depending on the police or the mugger... I see no need to add guns to this.
-
I also keep hearing the term "fantasy" used. This is not a fantasy. I do not revel in the thought of killing some attacker. I recognize he is a person and has a family just like me. If it's a question of him going home to his family or me going home to my family I know which one I'm going to fight for. The rest of this board seems content to not fight. They seem to think this attacker's life has as much value as theirs, so why should he not go home? My answer: because he is a predator. Every murder, every mass shooting, every robbery could be stopped if an armed individual was on hand to use legal force to stop the aggressor. Czhorat and Simon seem to think a few murders with inferior weapons like knives and clubs are okay as long as our neighbor doesn't own a gun. I do not see it that way.
No, no and NO! I'm not saying that its acceptable... I'm saying that if you take guns out of the situation everything becomes a lot simpler. A protective type guy can keep a baseball bat (or cricket, although they make a lesser weapon) under his bed, an idiot can keep a knife at hand. Take guns away from both the neighbour and the criminal and it becomes a much more straightforward human interaction. There are more ways to hold the upper hand on someone than lethal force.
Personally, I'm not the sort to even consider using weapons, it's all a bit vulgar and paranoid... But that doesn't turn you into some sort of "sheep" - particularly if the criminal is unarmed as well!
-
Simon, I think I finally got the divergence in our opinions. You are looking at this issue as gun laws in the UK. Do you think your muggings would have had the same result (you being relatively okay) if your assailant had a firearm? In all likelyhood you would not be alive to post right now (which, believe it or not, would make me sad...I really enjoy discussions like this). Firearms laws may work in the UK. I haven't seen the data. Your anecdotal evidence seems to say thay do, and I will accept that at face value. However, here in the US the facts speak for themselves. Criminals use firearms. Why you you think I should be deprived of the right to defend myself from them?
It is a fact that in the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." The victim turned the tables on their attacker by the legal, judicious use of a firearm. The statistics from Florida show that private citizens armed legally LOWER these murder rates. Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. That is .008%! Why are we still arguing about the facts? It is clear that more guns in the hands of private citizens means lower crime rates, fewer guns in the hands of private citizens means higher crime rates. These are not opinions or anecdotes. These are facts.
-
Simon, I think I finally got the divergence in our opinions. You are looking at this issue as gun laws in the UK. Do you think your muggings would have had the same result (you being relatively okay) if your assailant had a firearm? In all likelyhood you would not be alive to post right now (which, believe it or not, would make me sad...I really enjoy discussions like this). Firearms laws may work in the UK. I haven't seen the data. Your anecdotal evidence seems to say thay do, and I will accept that at face value. However, here in the US the facts speak for themselves. Criminals use firearms. Why you you think I should be deprived of the right to defend myself from them?
It is a fact that in the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." The victim turned the tables on their attacker by the legal, judicious use of a firearm. The statistics from Florida show that private citizens armed legally LOWER these murder rates. Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. That is .008%! Why are we still arguing about the facts? It is clear that more guns in the hands of private citizens means lower crime rates, fewer guns in the hands of private citizens means higher crime rates. These are not opinions or anecdotes. These are facts.
And I'm going to keep on referring to this attitude as barbaric. In the mafia parts of Europe (Naples and southern Italy, Corsica, Crete, The Balkans), in Australia, Canada and most parts of the first world (I'm not sure about gun-crime in Japan and Korea, I'd have to look that up) gun crime is either a problem primarily internally among gangs, or a problem of heavily armed mafioso who keep out of sight... Only in America have guns gained their lethal ubiquity in the criminal economy.
No where is the level of citizens paranoia so great that they all have to pack for "protection"... It is that attitude that has lead to insanely lax gun laws, and those gun laws that have led to the impression of criminal ubiquity. Checking out that paper I mentioned earlier http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=842472 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=842472), it's abundantly clear that the gun economy is weak, and could easily be distorted... You are operating on the assumption that the criminal gun economy is a given, and I'm saying that it is exactly people with your attitude that lead to the ubiquity. You're ongoing effort to convince us that an increase in private gun ownership would reduce the number of such crimes, doesn't change the fact that criminals have far too much access to guns. Even if your statistics were the case, the current gun laws are what has led to the level of gun ownership among the criminal classes.
I could go through an dissect your statistics (Correllation does not equal causation, and that Washington DC stat is especially lacking in meat) but the fact is each individual circumstance is an individual circumstance... Different cultures react differently to weapons, and different groups will react differently to different behaviours. But beyond this, the black economy in weapons, and the resulting insane attitude of self-protection it has resulted in in America... Is utterly utterly B...
Switzerland and Crete (armed for military and cultural/historical reasons respectively) are both societies that are armed to the teeth with rifles, but there is a big difference between a rifle and a handgun, and a huge difference in how your cultures react to them... A gun should not be "protection".
-
"If you reduce the supply of weapons..."
I think this is the crux of many of these discussions. Two things I would like to add:
1. I feel that the UK, europe, and the rest of the world can do whatever it pleases with it's gun laws. Ban them all, hand them out, I care not. It's your country to run (or be run) as you will. It seems to me, that everyone all over the world has an opinion about our (the us) gun laws. To you I say: nuts. If you don't like our laws, don't come here. Don't tell us how to run our country. But for the sake of argument...
2. My estimed fellow board member Chodon made the 100 milion guns quote. That is incorrect. There are almost 270 million. Most stats (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070829/ai_n19487699) put us at 90 guns for every 100 people. How should we reduce this? Masive sweeps, door to door searches, opressive laws? Get this: when you pass a law, that means that you HAVE to enforce it. Should the 70 year old lady get beat up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Qx0cTze0M) for having a 80 year old revolver? Gov't is force. When you say "ban handguns" do you really know what that would entail? If there 65 million handguns at 2 lbs each that's 65,000 TONS of guns to get rid of some how. Just look how much it has cost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_gun_registry#Cost_overruns) Canada just to register 7 million (http://www.lufa.ca/quickfacts.asp) with a 70% non-compliance. What those of you who are advocateing for gun bans don't ever seem to realize is that it's simply not workable. Even if you could wave a wand and take away all the guns in the world, all that would do would reduce the weak who now need not rely on physical strength for defence to mere chattle at the hands of the strong. You, sir, are the barbarian. Guns are Civilzation. They are what seperate us from the beasts of the field. Were it not for guns, we would have never progressed beyond chipping spear tips from flint. And to keep guns in the hands of the establishment only is a recipe for tyranny. If that yoke sits well on your sholders, then so be it. For me and mine, we'll stay armed.
-
A gun should not be "protection".
Then what should? The statistics show a need to defend one's self from attack by firearm. The options are to fight back or be a victim. I don't care what choice you make. I will not be a victim. Some more interesting statistics from the National Center for Poilcy Analysis http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176c.html (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176c.html).
After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.
20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.
New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
Other countries have had similar experiences. After Canada passed a gun control law in 1977, the murder rate failed to decline but armed robbery and burglary, crimes frequently deterred by gun ownership, increased.(Canadian homicide rates are slightly lower than those in states along the U.S. border.) Violent crime accelerated in Taiwan and Jamaica after handguns were banned.
Your attempt to marginalize the US's gun laws by labeling them "barbaric" isn't very fitting, and the facts are at odds with your position.
I also agree wholeheartedly with TOK. However, I feel I should disclose that he is my brother (literally), so I'm a little partial.
-
"If you reduce the supply of weapons..."
I think this is the crux of many of these discussions. Two things I would like to add:
1. I feel that the UK, europe, and the rest of the world can do whatever it pleases with it's gun laws. Ban them all, hand them out, I care not. It's your country to run (or be run) as you will. It seems to me, that everyone all over the world has an opinion about our (the us) gun laws. To you I say: nuts. If you don't like our laws, don't come here. Don't tell us how to run our country. But for the sake of argument...
Sometimes you just have to stick your hand in the air and admit you are wrong. To my knowledge, this discussion began when I yelled "condescension" at the American members of a related thread about Britain's proposed Samurai Sword law (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1236.0 (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1236.0), I haven't cracked hyperlinks on this place yet)... Therefore it would be rank hypocrisy to suggest I had a right to an opinion on your gun laws... Lets just say I moved from "pluck the beam from your eye" to a stronger position, because I cannot rationally get a handle on why 4.5 million of the 8 million firearms sold annually worldwide (your stats site) end up in the US. A country that is not in the grip of an internal war, not subject to a host of vicious animals, has a stable economy and is 300 million of the Earth's six billion population. It strikes me as an elephant in the room, a cancer, that there should be such titanic demand for a device made for killing.
By instincts I am a libertarian on all issues, and I'd like to agree with you about a persons mandate to do what they wish with any object... But then you come up against that insane statistic and fall back in awe... 4.5 million firearms per annum. My name is death, and I come in plastic, aluminium and steel at an affordable price.
So, yes, I do not have a right to an opinion. Take this as you will. But for the sake of argument...
-
I have a question: how many people on this forum have:
1) Been properly trained in the proper handling of firearms
2) Have spent time at a gun range
3) Have handled a firearm
4) Have discharged a firearm
If you're going to set all these requirements for people to prove they don't think firearms are magic (this pacifist meets all four criteria, by the way, with the possible exception of 1 if 1 is formal training and not the patient explanation of a relative), how about a basic requirement that people positing about what is and isn't possible under a totalitarian dictatorship actually have lived under one? If direct experience is required to understand an object, I would say direct experience is required to understand a far more nuanced and complex thing like a political system. I find most of the commentary here on what a dictatorship is like laughable and ludicrous, much more like Hollywood than reality. I'll grant Simon a waiver, because he's demonstrably widely read and comes across semi-informed, but the rest of you, at least based on what you have said so far, have NO IDEA. As a person who has routinely been on the wrong end of a machine gun, I think you guys definitely have romanticized, dare I say magical?, ideas about what your common citizen with a gun could possibly accomplish under an oppressive regime.
(and what Simon says about the capital is definitely accurate, both from my personal experience and my own studies of political science).
I don't think the average person (especially in Europe) knows about gun ownership.
Wow, way to tar a whole continent with the same brush of declared ignorance. My reply is: Switzerland. Do we have any Swiss here? I only sort of know how their regulated militia works, and I'd much prefer it if someone Swiss were to explain. But even anti-gun me would be 100 % down with a Swiss style militia in the US. They've done it right. And their stats bear it out. Compulsory armament of their population, gun ownership just behind the U.S., yet relatively low murder rate (lower than England, anyway). Disclosure: if I could afford it and it snowed less, I'd live in Switzerland RIGHT NOW. I love that place.
I see this as an outdated mode of thinking. The size and power of a modern government along with the scope of what is possible with modern military hardware makes the citizens revolt feel anachronistic to me. Besides which, I'd be at least as scared of the armed mobs as I would of the government.
So you aren't scared of a government armed to the teeth, but you are scared of an armed mob?
Actually, he didn't say he wasn't scared of a government armed to the teeth. He just said that as a regular citizen in a civil war, his nation's military vs. random armed individuals, he's at least as scared of the random armed individuals. That implies he's scared of both. Try reading more slowly and maybe you won't be putting words in people's mouths.
Edited to adjust quote marks.
-
Anarkey, your "can't win, don't try" attitude to your own protection doesn't work for me. If you are comfortable with it that is fine, but don't try to interfere with my right to protect myself.
I did not mean to paint Europe with a wide brush as ignorant about guns. It did come across that way. However, I believe Europeans as a whole do not have as much experience with firearms as Americans. This is not meant to be a negative or positive comment, but is instead an observation backed up by the high proportion of firearms ownership in the US.
I'll grant Simon a waiver, because he's demonstrably widely read and comes across semi-informed, but the rest of you, at least based on what you have said so far, have NO IDEA.
Because I disagree with your positions on firearms laws does not mean I am semi-informed or not widely read. What are you basing this accusation on? Simon has presented one paper about one American city and the availability of firearms in this city. I have presented statistics proving laws restricting firearms ownership make areas LESS SAFE. Nobody has any response to this besides "you are barbaric" and "you are not well read".
Try reading more slowly and maybe you won't be putting words in people's mouths.
Anarkey, I think you're above comments like this. I am not an idiot, and I was not trying to put words in anyone's mouth. I am trying to better understand Czhorat's point of view.
-
... Even if you could wave a wand and take away all the guns in the world, all that would do would reduce the weak who now need not rely on physical strength for defence to mere chattle at the hands of the strong. You, sir, are the barbarian. Guns are Civilzation. They are what seperate us from the beasts of the field. Were it not for guns, we would have never progressed beyond chipping spear tips from flint. And to keep guns in the hands of the establishment only is a recipe for tyranny. If that yoke sits well on your sholders, then so be it. For me and mine, we'll stay armed.
I don't really know where to start, because the first part of your argument was serious, but this bit went out the window. Personally, I always thought what separated us from the beasts of the field was opposable thumbs and higher-level cognitive thinking, along with an ability to learn in groups not matched by other primates. A gun is civilization? Because if that's the case, everyone from the 16th century back was not part of a civilization, and I think the Romans would like to have a word with you if that's the case.
-
Try reading more slowly and maybe you won't be putting words in people's mouths.
Anarkey, I think you're above comments like this. I am not an idiot, and I was not trying to put words in anyone's mouth. I am trying to better understand Czhorat's point of view.
Chodon -
I'm sorry you are insulted by my suggestion that you read what's written. I could have perhaps phrased myself with more caveats and less directly, but I didn't suspect you needed the kid glove handling. I apologize for being brusque. My interpretation was actually the charitable one: because of your eagerness and passion on the subject you had skimmed Czhorat's post and replied too quickly. The less charitable interpretation would have been that you were creating (maliciously or out of ignorance) a straw man argument. Another less charitable interpretation would have been that you are incapable of reading what's written as written. I elected to believe that you were just too rushed.
I cannot address the rest of your post, because it doesn't appear to directly relate to what I wrote. I might suggest you re-read what I wrote and go from there or that you might perhaps connect the dots between what I typed and your replies to better help me see how they relate...can I do so without you being offended and declaring that beneath me?
-
... Even if you could wave a wand and take away all the guns in the world, all that would do would reduce the weak who now need not rely on physical strength for defence to mere chattle at the hands of the strong. You, sir, are the barbarian. Guns are Civilzation. They are what seperate us from the beasts of the field. Were it not for guns, we would have never progressed beyond chipping spear tips from flint. And to keep guns in the hands of the establishment only is a recipe for tyranny. If that yoke sits well on your sholders, then so be it. For me and mine, we'll stay armed.
I don't really know where to start, because the first part of your argument was serious, but this bit went out the window. Personally, I always thought what separated us from the beasts of the field was opposable thumbs and higher-level cognitive thinking, along with an ability to learn in groups not matched by other primates. A gun is civilization? Because if that's the case, everyone from the 16th century back was not part of a civilization, and I think the Romans would like to have a word with you if that's the case.
Okay...the culmination of one part of civilzation. Look at what it takes to build a functional, reliable and astheiclly pleaseing handgun. If that is not a pocket size example of what opposeable thumbs can do I don't know what is. But I think my point stands. At the base of civ is that we (some of us) are wiling and able to fight the hordes. The most effective, not to mention the most democratizing, way to do that is with guns.
"4.5 million firearms per annum..." Would 3.5 Mil be better? 2? How about only .5? What number do you think is an appropriate ammount of guns for our country to purchase? Would you please plan that for us, and set the prices? Call your self a libertarian?
"My name is death, and I come in plastic, aluminium and steel at an affordable price." - I should get that engraved on my brothers AR15 for Christmas :o
To the larger point about resisting a "gov't gone mad", wether one can win or not is irrelevant. Right is right and wrong is wrong. If the gov't in question is commiting crimes, being morally reprehensiable, etc, then one must resist. Resistance comes in many forms, of which only one is guns. I think the White Rose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose) in WWII Germany is an example. I don't think one of us would not try to stop a train on it's way to Auschwitz, knowing what we know now, even if it ment using a gun to do it. I'm not a pacifist, and useing defensive force is not wrong. But using agressive force to disarm people, people who have commited no crime but owning "plastic, aluminium and steel" IS wrong.
As far as who is more dangerous, gov't or armed mobs (assumeing that gov'ts aren't just the biggest armed mobs that is), I'd like to see some stats that show armed mobs have killed as many people as the dictatorships of the 20th century did. Heck, even democracies do a pretty decent job of offing citizens, either there own or other countries.
-
Okay, Anarkey. I'll address your post point by point.
If you're going to set all these requirements for people to prove they don't think firearms are magic (this pacifist meets all four criteria, by the way, with the possible exception of 1 if 1 is formal training and not the patient explanation of a relative), how about a basic requirement that people positing about what is and isn't possible under a totalitarian dictatorship actually have lived under one?
My point about handling firearms is, in my experience, after taking people to the range they have a more moderate thought of firearms ownership. They realize they can control a firearm, and do not fear them as some malice given form into iron, wood, plastic, and aluminum. It was not meant to discredit anyone's responses because they had not handled a firearm. Only, to try to put them in perspective for myself. I do not have experience with living under a totalitarian regime, thank God.
If direct experience is required to understand an object, I would say direct experience is required to understand a far more nuanced and complex thing like a political system.
I have studied political systems and history. I enjoy speaking with friends and co-workers who have lived outside of the US. Some of them have lived under tyrrany. I work with several Romanians who survived the Romanian revolution, and a Bosnian who escaped during the war.
I find most of the commentary here on what a dictatorship is like laughable and ludicrous, much more like Hollywood than reality.
Any examples? I don't think I mentioned any specifics about fighting the government, just that the bill of rights was written with that in mind. This is proven by Thomas Jefferson's personal letters on the subject.
I'll grant Simon a waiver, because he's demonstrably widely read and comes across semi-informed, but the rest of you, at least based on what you have said so far, have NO IDEA.
How did Simon come across as more well-informed than I? I don't argue that he may be, but how can you tell that from a couple of forum posts? It seems you are just trying to discredit my views by making an arbitrary decision about how well read I am because my views differ from yours. Also, I didn't say I plan to win against an oppressive government, only that I think it is my duty to resist. If I have no idea, please elaborate and give me an idea of your experiences.
As a person who has routinely been on the wrong end of a machine gun, I think you guys definitely have romanticized, dare I say magical?, ideas about what your common citizen with a gun could possibly accomplish under an oppressive regime.
I haven't had a weapon pointed at me. I haven't pointed a weapon at anyone else. I haven't lived under tyrrany. I am very thankful for this. However, this does not make my points any less valid. If you have information to share that could change my point of view I would love to hear it.
(and what Simon says about the capital is definitely accurate, both from my personal experience and my own studies of political science).
I am currently studying business and economics at the masters level, so I am familiar with how this would work. However, as TOK pointed out, the United states is flooded with firearms. This model works on a small scale, but the crime statistics show it is not true overall.
I don't think the average person (especially in Europe) knows about gun ownership.
Wow, way to tar a whole continent with the same brush of declared ignorance. My reply is: Switzerland. Do we have any Swiss here? I only sort of know how their regulated militia works, and I'd much prefer it if someone Swiss were to explain.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Switzerland is the exception to the rule in Europe. I know several Swiss (my mom keeps in touch with her exchange student from high school, and when his kids came to visit I let them drive my car around). Every male must serve in the military for one year, and every male must keep a military rifle in their house. I'm on the fence about the military service in the US because we are not a neutral nation. We use our army for offensive reasons, so it wouldn't work here. However, required firearms training in the US would be a good thing.
But even anti-gun me would be 100 % down with a Swiss style militia in the US. They've done it right. And their stats bear it out. Compulsory armament of their population, gun ownership just behind the U.S., yet relatively low murder rate (lower than England, anyway). Disclosure: if I could afford it and it snowed less, I'd live in Switzerland RIGHT NOW. I love that place.
I haven't been there, but why do you think they have the low murder rate compared to the US? My .02: it has a lot to do with the US preoccupation with material posessions and the view of entitlement. Most Americans think they are entitled to be rich. The "American Dream" and all that. This is evident from the 'sue happy' mentality of lots of Americans. Being rich doesn't make one happy though. Lots of Americans seek drugs to be happy, which increases violent crime for a whole host of reasons. When they realize it isn't easy to get ahead, some decide to take the easy way of crime. This is not something I am proud of. I think it is one of the major flaws in my nation, and I think it is the real root cause of the disparity in violence between the US and the rest of the world, not firearms ownership. YMMV.
I see this as an outdated mode of thinking. The size and power of a modern government along with the scope of what is possible with modern military hardware makes the citizens revolt feel anachronistic to me. Besides which, I'd be at least as scared of the armed mobs as I would of the government.
So you aren't scared of a government armed to the teeth, but you are scared of an armed mob?
Actually, he didn't say he wasn't scared of a government armed to the teeth. He just said that as a regular citizen in a civil war, his nation's military vs. random armed individuals, he's at least as scared of the random armed individuals. That implies he's scared of both. Try reading more slowly and maybe you won't be putting words in people's mouths.
Edited to adjust quote marks.
I think I already covered this point, but just to be sure I didn't mean to put words in Czhorat's mouth. I was just trying to understand his position.
-
Here's the fun part. I'm not against gun ownership. I'm for responsible possesion of guns. Chodon loves to say we have accused all gun owners of being criminals (we didn't). The problem is the huge number of guns that move from legal ownership to illegal. What do we do about that?
One end is round up and destroy all guns.
The other end is let everyone "gun-up" and may the best shot win.
Let's stop screaming about the ends, because we know the answer is never there. There is no black. There is no white. The answer is in the grey.
What are our gun-loving maniacs willing to accept? What do our weak kneed liberals think will work?
Let's leave the cherry-picked stats on the sidelines.
Anarkey: I got an AK-74 shoved in my face in East Berlin in 1988. I'm proud to say I didn't embarrass myself. I just stopped held up my hands and called to my German teacher to talk me out of trouble.
Chodon(?): The East European revolutions of 1989 were gun-less and esentially non-violent. They toppled the governments anyway. Most historians say that's the only reason why they worked. I crossed over the line where the wall was at least four times today.
Kyle: Most of the people saying the laws were insane are Americans. There were I think only 2 Brits in the conversation.
-
Chodon loves to say we have accused all gun owners of being criminals (we didn't).
Is this the quote you're talking about?
I feel the need to point out that picking up a gun (legally or illegally owned) does not suddenly turn someone into an armed robber or murderer. People are so convinced that guns hold this magical aura that turns people into a killer. It's just a chunk of aluminum, steel, and plastic. The real problem is the criminal intent. People are going to kill each other like they always have since Kain and Abel.
I just wanted to clarify because some people with no experience with firearms truly view them this way. I wasn't sure of the persuasion of the individuals in this forum, so I wanted to throw this out there. Some people truly believe this.
Chodon(?): The East European revolutions of 1989 were gun-less and esentially non-violent. They toppled the governments anyway. Most historians say that's the only reason why they worked. I crossed over the line where the wall was at least four times today.
I'm not saying a bloody, gun toting revolution is the only way to change a corrupt government. But sometimes it does happen. There are examples of bloodless revolutions and examples of bloody revolutions. Obviously a bloodless one is better, but I would rather be prepared to defend myself and my family against all eventualities.
I want to let everyone know I really am enjoying this discussion. It makes me think critically about why I believe what I believe and I think that makes my beliefs even stronger. Thanks for bringing up these points.
-
Kyle: Most of the people saying the laws were insane are Americans. There were I think only 2 Brits in the conversation.
Point taken. I did go back and look at the samurai sword post, and I see that it was "us" who started questioning UK laws. Poor form on "our" part.
-
Okay, Anarkey. I'll address your post point by point.
Thanks, I am much better able to follow what you are saying this time around.
My point about handling firearms is, in my experience, after taking people to the range they have a more moderate thought of firearms ownership. They realize they can control a firearm, and do not fear them as some malice given form into iron, wood, plastic, and aluminum. It was not meant to discredit anyone's responses because they had not handled a firearm. Only, to try to put them in perspective for myself. I do not have experience with living under a totalitarian regime, thank God.
I'll take that clarification at face value, then: your "raise your hand if you've held a gun" quiz coupled with your "people who haven't held guns think they're magic" statement was not meant to discredit the arguments of people who have not fired guns. I'm glad, actually, that you don't hold that position, since even people who have not fired guns can be shot by them, which is qualification enough for having a stake in the discussion.
I was mostly irked by the assertion that other people's views are "magic" but yours are "reality". Thus my follow through on how you seem to have no problem just making stuff up about how guns would work in an area you have no direct experience with (a tyranny). Basically I have no problem with people making stuff up (it is one of my favorite past times, after all, and made up stuff is why we're all here), so long as they acknowledge they are doing so. If they do not clearly say "I imagine" or "I think" or "It may be" as a qualifier to their making stuff up, I'm going to be right there calling them on it, especially if said making stuff up is used as an auxiliary tact to an argument whose other arm is "and by the way you don't know what you're talking about". Though you now say that's not what you meant, and I accept that.
I'll step out now and say I do not, in fact, believe that if you haven't lived under a dictatorship you have no right to speak on it. I just figured if we were going to put direct experience out there as a requirement for participation, then I could just extend it to this area of the subject under discussion, since I am finding the unsophisticated and simplistic approaches given here more than a little smug and unrealistic.
Take note, though, there is always someone who has lived an experience you are describing. If you fake it, they will know.
I have studied political systems and history. I enjoy speaking with friends and co-workers who have lived outside of the US. Some of them have lived under tyrrany. I work with several Romanians who survived the Romanian revolution, and a Bosnian who escaped during the war.
I don't need your credentials, Chodon. For the purposes of this forum your arguments live and die on how well you make them, not on getting an A in your Politics 101 course. I don't need to know about your refugee friends either. I'm not going to grant or withhold cred on your second and thirdhand nearness to dictatorship. I'm starting to be sorry I mentioned I had firsthand experience in this area, but there's only so much blowhard bs one can stand on a topic they actually are knowledgeable on without popping.
A few examples of what I mean follow (since you ask):
from Tweedy: "A big part of my rationale for weapon ownership is so that citizens can band together to fight the government should it become too oppressive."
from Chodon: "I have two scenarios where an armed mob defeated the two biggest armies in the world. Vietnam vs. USA and Afghanistan vs. USSR."
from Chodon: "The right to defend one's self is just as much a right as free speech or freedom of religion. In fact, it's the most important right because it protects all the other rights. If your government decided to censor your free speech tomorrow what recourse would you have? Protest. Excellent first choice. What if that protest is violently put down (Tienanmen Square)? Well, I guess you're just going to have to deal with censorship. What if they keep eroding freedoms? Where do you draw the line and what can you do when they cross it?"
And conversely, you asked me why I judged Simon to be somewhat knowlegeable, it was primarily for this paragraph: "A successful revolution comes down to an absolute plethora of different factors, and numerous ones occur in different circumstances. If I were to try to single out the single most important factor in holding a successful revolution, it would probably be having a major metropolitan area near the capital, that has become opposed to the regime (Bucharest in '89, Berlin in '89, Belgrade in '01 to name only a swarm of bees.)... Uprisings that begin in the sticks nearly always get struck down (I've actually been stuck in one of these, when I got caught up in the Ferghana province in Uzbekistan in 2004, the Uzbeks concerned were pretty well armed by the Kyrgyz across the border). America is a big, big, big country so gun ownership anywhere outside the wider DC area would have absolutely sod all affect (Red Dawn fantasies to the contrary), and it still comes way down the list, somewhere far beneath a free press opposed to the regime. And further, such uprisings are usually improvisational. A well organised revolutionary mob is more than capable of taking on most governments (They bring horses, you bring marbles. They bring sticks, you bring bricks. They bring tear gas, you bring molotovs...). Guns just turn the whole business into a Haitian style splatterfest."
The salient point being that if you are interested in revolution, you have to be where the seat of government is. It doesn't matter how many guns I have in St. Louis. If I don't march on the capital, the seat of government, I get nothing done. That's basic political theory. Now maybe some of you in this thread live in or near the D.C. area and are preparing for the inevitable day when you must rise up in revolt, but I doubt it.
Not appreciating revolutions require certain factors to work and one of those factors is not necessarily guns, but is ready access to the capital tells me Simon knows more about it than you do.
It seems you are just trying to discredit my views by making an arbitrary decision about how well read I am because my views differ from yours. Also, I didn't say I plan to win against an oppressive government, only that I think it is my duty to resist. If I have no idea, please elaborate and give me an idea of your experiences.
As illustrated, my decision was not arbitrary, and I hope by example and explanation I have elucidated why I think your views (and others expressed in this thread) fail to account for the necessarily complex underpinnings of revolutions and popular uprisings. I hope, too, you understand that saying "You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to revolution or tyranny" is not the same thing as saying "You don't know what you are talking about." I'm not discrediting much of any of your ideas, except the one: that your gun ownership is some sort of duty you take on for the rest of us, to keep us safe not just from the 'wolves' but even from our own government.
I will refrain, actually, from going into my experiences, but thanks for your interest. I don't trust the users of this forum enough to go into my personal past. As I said, I regret having brought it up. I'm not all that sure it's deeply relevant to the discussion anyway, being largely anecdotal.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Switzerland is the exception to the rule in Europe.
Sure, Switzerland is its own thing and different from a lot of other European countries. But last time I checked, it's in Europe. Just watch the random generalizations is all I'm saying, specially when you're coupling the generalizations with statements about people's ignorance.
I'm on the fence about the military service in the US because we are not a neutral nation. We use our army for offensive reasons, so it wouldn't work here.
I find this statement totally befuddling. Conscription wouldn't work here because the army is used offensively? Those seem like not causally related statements. Conscription has worked here and in many, many other nations with offensive armies in the past.
-
Chodon loves to say we have accused all gun owners of being criminals (we didn't).
Is this the quote you're talking about?
I feel the need to point out that picking up a gun (legally or illegally owned) does not suddenly turn someone into an armed robber or murderer. People are so convinced that guns hold this magical aura that turns people into a killer. It's just a chunk of aluminum, steel, and plastic. The real problem is the criminal intent. People are going to kill each other like they always have since Kain and Abel.
I just wanted to clarify because some people with no experience with firearms truly view them this way. I wasn't sure of the persuasion of the individuals in this forum, so I wanted to throw this out there. Some people truly believe this.
The thing is nobody here has said anything about crime caused by legal gun owners. This was a classic off-topic rant to pull the discussion away from where it was. A perfect example is the way anyone who criticized Bush was called liberal, so that the arguement then turned into why the person was against Bush instead of if the criticism had any weight.
Chodon(?): The East European revolutions of 1989 were gun-less and esentially non-violent. They toppled the governments anyway. Most historians say that's the only reason why they worked. I crossed over the line where the wall was at least four times today.
I'm not saying a bloody, gun toting revolution is the only way to change a corrupt government. But sometimes it does happen. There are examples of bloodless revolutions and examples of bloody revolutions. Obviously a bloodless one is better, but I would rather be prepared to defend myself and my family against all eventualities.
I want to let everyone know I really am enjoying this discussion. It makes me think critically about why I believe what I believe and I think that makes my beliefs even stronger. Thanks for bringing up these points.
Somebody(and I didn't want to go back a page and look who) said that it was because of guns that all of these revolutions happened. It was because there were no guns involved that the USSR lost control of those countries. If the people had used violence, the armies would have mowed them down.
Kyle: Most of the people saying the laws were insane are Americans. There were I think only 2 Brits in the conversation.
Point taken. I did go back and look at the samurai sword post, and I see that it was "us" who started questioning UK laws. Poor form on "our" part.
That wasn't my point. You said
If you don't like our laws, don't come here. Don't tell us how to run our country.
And my point was that there were 2 Brits (Actually one Brit and an Isreali living in Britain) and between 4 and 6 Americans critizing the availability of guns in America. You tell us to not come here, but it's our country too.
-
Okay...the culmination of one part of civilzation. Look at what it takes to build a functional, reliable and astheiclly pleaseing handgun. If that is not a pocket size example of what opposeable thumbs can do I don't know what is. But I think my point stands. At the base of civ is that we (some of us) are wiling and able to fight the hordes. The most effective, not to mention the most democratizing, way to do that is with guns.
I'm fully willing to fight the hordes, but the only one I see around here are clutching shiny bags and fighting over sales, so somewhat of a conundrum. I guess I could go and start fighting them in the Barrens or outside of Iron Forge when the bastards try to raid us, but I've gone off gaming recently.
Honestly, I'd much rather point to other things as examples of our civilization. The Empire State building, the Mona Lisa, the internet or the Apollo program all make better examples of our skill in construction and materials technology than a gun does, and they haven't been responsible for wiping out large swaths of the population from time to time. As for pocket sized, my cell phone is a good choice, or a wristwatch, or a fob watch. There are far better measures of how far we have come than a gun.
As far as who is more dangerous, gov't or armed mobs (assumeing that gov'ts aren't just the biggest armed mobs that is), I'd like to see some stats that show armed mobs have killed as many people as the dictatorships of the 20th century did. Heck, even democracies do a pretty decent job of offing citizens, either there own or other countries.
Rwanda was a bunch of armed mobs. So is Darfur and a lot of the smaller conflicts in Africa. I'd call the KKK an armed mob, though their relevance is fading in the discussion as the old bigots die and less and less of the younger generations pick up that damned stupid philosophy.
Armed mobs have killed several million, and while they can't match the efficacy of the state in the brutalization and murder of innocents, they come pretty damn close. And those smaller armed mobs have a distressing habit of taking over and continuing the brutalization on a wider scale.
-
Chodon(?): The East European revolutions of 1989 were gun-less and esentially non-violent. They toppled the governments anyway. Most historians say that's the only reason why they worked. I crossed over the line where the wall was at least four times today.
I'm not saying a bloody, gun toting revolution is the only way to change a corrupt government. But sometimes it does happen. There are examples of bloodless revolutions and examples of bloody revolutions. Obviously a bloodless one is better, but I would rather be prepared to defend myself and my family against all eventualities.
I want to let everyone know I really am enjoying this discussion. It makes me think critically about why I believe what I believe and I think that makes my beliefs even stronger. Thanks for bringing up these points.
Somebody(and I didn't want to go back a page and look who) said that it was because of guns that all of these revolutions happened. It was because there were no guns involved that the USSR lost control of those countries. If the people had used violence, the armies would have mowed them down.
OK I went back and looked a little bit. Simon actually mention Berlin and I agree with what he wrote for all the same reasons Anarkey pointed out. I had that confused with your comments about Romania and all those others.
Of course I now point out that the reason these protest were non-violent and successful was that private ownership of guns was banned in all of these countries. The revolutions you mentioned IIRC were mostly breakdowns where the military opposed the government or the country split ethnically and the armies started fighting themselves.
In the first case privately owned weapons would have caused the revolutions to fail.
In the second case privately owned weapons would have added to the amount of lead flying around (may two shots would have come through your friend's window instead of just one), but I don't know what else it really would have done. It would have added to the bloodshed, but the gun owners would have been distributed in the same ratios as the soldiers. A person with a gun would have been a threat to the soldiers instead of just someone trying to not get shot.
We can argue about the second. That's really debatable, since many of the armies did start "deputizing" citizens and guns made it out everywhere anyway. But the fiirst is really accepted history.
-
The only point we need to agree upon is that there are oppressive governments. You have first hand experience with this. I do not. Sometimes these governments are overthrown. Sometimes it is peaceful. Sometimes it is not. I am not okay with putting my loved one's safety at the mercy of others, be it the government an armed mob, looters, or whatever the case may be. Don't I have the right to fight back if something, no matter how improbable, happens? Is it likely? No. Is it impossible. No. We can give examples of peaceful and bloody revolutions all day. The point is, they aren't all peaceful.
I'm not discrediting much of any of your ideas, except the one: that your gun ownership is some sort of duty you take on for the rest of us, to keep us safe not just from the 'wolves' but even from our own government.
Okay, I think this is where you don't quite understand my philosophy. I don't want to protect anyone except myself and my family. I don't see myself as some revolutionary general, or even a freedom fighter. I just want to have the capability to keep my family safe from any threats (as I referred to them previously, the "wolves"). I don't see it as a duty. It's a right everyone is born with. It is also a conscious choice they have to make, and it is not an easy one. I don't see myself as better than anyone because I am ready to defend myself. It's just a choice I have made, and I don't want anyone preventing me from making it.
I find this statement totally befuddling. Conscription wouldn't work here because the army is used offensively? Those seem like not causally related statements. Conscription has worked here and in many, many other nations with offensive armies in the past.
I don't agree with how the US uses it's military so I would not be okay with being a conscript. Currently the US army is all volunteer. Soldiers know what they are signing up for. Conscription for civil defense (like Switzerland), okay. Conscription for foreign wars (like the USA), not okay.
-
Wow. This is devolving fast into "agree to disagree" territory. I think I've made most of the points I wanted to, but will add just a couple more questions for the gun-rights supporters.
1) Simon mentioned having been mugged, and Chodon mentioned defense against violent criminals such as muggers as one reason to arm oneself. Random crimes such as muggings are more likely to be against property than against life and limb. If someone drew a knife and asked me for my wallet, I'd rather give it to him than risk being stabbed to death. There's nothing in my wallet worth dying for. I'll go on to say that there's not now, nor is there ever likely to be, anything in my wallet worth killing for either. Would you be willing to use deadly force to protect property? If so, is there some minimum level of property that would have to be at risk?
2) I just have to reply to a few things from Chodon.
I have answered the issue that illegal guns have been legally purchased originally. I have said that this is evidence that gun laws do not work to prevent gun ownership. If it were that easy we could pass laws against being stung by mosquitoes and bees. It may sound ridiculous at first, but it is a direct parallel. Insects don't care about laws and neither do criminals. THAT IS WHAT MAKES THEM CRIMINALS.
No, it's a very false parallel and a silly one. I'll try to explain this to you more time. Let me break it down into a few simple facts.
1) Permissive gun laws create a supply of easily available guns to be sold on the black market.
2) More restrictive gun laws would reduce the supply of guns and make it harder to legally acquire weapons which could then be sold on the black market.
3) The reduce in supply caused by such restrictive gun laws would make black market guns more scarce, harder to come by, and more expensive.
4) This would reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals.
5) Therefore, your right to own a gun increases the chance of a criminal being armed with a gun.
If you disagree with any of the above statements, please tell me which one and explain why. Otherwise, admit that at least part of the issue is your emotional need to feel in control of your own protection and not rely on the state.
I also keep hearing the term "fantasy" used. This is not a fantasy. I do not revel in the thought of killing some attacker. I recognize he is a person and has a family just like me. If it's a question of him going home to his family or me going home to my family I know which one I'm going to fight for. The rest of this board seems content to not fight. They seem to think this attacker's life has as much value as theirs, so why should he not go home? My answer: because he is a predator. Every murder, every mass shooting, every robbery could be stopped if an armed individual was on hand to use legal force to stop the aggressor. Czhorat and Simon seem to think a few murders with inferior weapons like knives and clubs are okay as long as our neighbor doesn't own a gun. I do not see it that way.
No, that's not at all what Simon and I are saying. What I am saying is that and armed populace is more dangerous than an unarmed populace. There are increased chances for accidental shootings. Increased chances for crimes of passion to escalate to the use of lethal force. Increased chances for innocents to get caught in a crossfire. That while some lives may be saved by having an armed citizen to stop a mass killer before he or she can kill too many people, that number is far esclipsed by the number of additional casualties greater access to lethal force would allow. We also agree that the ability of an enlightened citizenry to overthrow a corrupt government looks good on paper, but in every instance you mentioned nonviolent protest was a much greater part of the movement's success than the availability of firearms. Also, I've not read the thread very closely, but I suspect that nobody on the gun-availability side of the debate has anything to say about what an armed populace does in places like Kosovo where the combination of lethal force and ethnic hatreds lead to truly horrific crimes. I might not always trust governments, but I have no greater trust for armed mobs.
-
"4.5 million firearms per annum..." Would 3.5 Mil be better? 2? How about only .5? What number do you think is an appropriate ammount of guns for our country to purchase? Would you please plan that for us, and set the prices? Call your self a libertarian?
Identifying the sickness does not make me know the cure. But if your country is hoovering up half of the world's annual arms production, and your inner cities don't look like downtown Baghdad, you probably have a problem... Now is the time for rehab.
I know that American's have polarised over the differences between different types of "freedom worshipper", and that's why I'm iffy about pulling out the tag Libertarian, but it is valid for my politics... I'd probably call myself a free-market anarchist, or more specifically a mutualist... But Libertarian is pretty close.
So I don't want to say "make the state ban guns" because the state is bloody awful at executing a prohibition, but sometimes it's necessary to realise that there is a big enough sickness that social-engineering is the only answer... And when that comes up you jam the legislation you are enacting full of sunset clauses so that when the disease is cured, the laws will go away.
Hell, if I lived in your country I'd be a Ron Paul voter, so please don't use your gun-fetish as a justification for undermining my politics.
"My name is death, and I come in plastic, aluminium and steel at an affordable price." - I should get that engraved on my brothers AR15 for Christmas :o
Yes, I am rather fond of that bit of phrasing, cheers!
To the larger point about resisting a "gov't gone mad", wether one can win or not is irrelevant. Right is right and wrong is wrong. If the gov't in question is commiting crimes, being morally reprehensiable, etc, then one must resist. Resistance comes in many forms, of which only one is guns. I think the White Rose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose) in WWII Germany is an example. I don't think one of us would not try to stop a train on it's way to Auschwitz, knowing what we know now, even if it ment using a gun to do it. I'm not a pacifist, and useing defensive force is not wrong. But using agressive force to disarm people, people who have commited no crime but owning "plastic, aluminium and steel" IS wrong.
As far as who is more dangerous, gov't or armed mobs (assumeing that gov'ts aren't just the biggest armed mobs that is), I'd like to see some stats that show armed mobs have killed as many people as the dictatorships of the 20th century did. Heck, even democracies do a pretty decent job of offing citizens, either there own or other countries.
Then I really don't see where arms come into this... As The White Rose demonstrated, free press/information is far more important than a flaccid armed uprising... If you remove guns from both sides, the citizens are still capable of showing their resistance to a regime, as we've said again and again.. So I really don't see what you are improving by holding onto a gun... It has no relevance to the likelihood of dealing with a repressive government.
-
Wow. This is devolving fast into "agree to disagree" territory. I think I've made most of the points I wanted to, but will add just a couple more questions for the gun-rights supporters.
I feel the same way Czhorat. I really like the conversation, but it's becoming clear nobody is going to change anyone else's mind.
1) Simon mentioned having been mugged, and Chodon mentioned defense against violent criminals such as muggers as one reason to arm oneself. Random crimes such as muggings are more likely to be against property than against life and limb. If someone drew a knife and asked me for my wallet, I'd rather give it to him than risk being stabbed to death. There's nothing in my wallet worth dying for. I'll go on to say that there's not now, nor is there ever likely to be, anything in my wallet worth killing for either. Would you be willing to use deadly force to protect property? If so, is there some minimum level of property that would have to be at risk?
I am not willing to bet my life the mugger will not stab me after I hand over my money. As soon as a weapon is presented I would use of deadly force. If I was not in fear for my life, but my property was being taken I would not use deadly force.
3) The reduce in supply caused by such restrictive gun laws would make black market guns more scarce, harder to come by, and more expensive.
This is the point I disagree with. The market in the US is so flooded that the supply would not reduce.
Otherwise, admit that at least part of the issue is your emotional need to feel in control of your own protection and not rely on the state.
This is also true, although I don't think it's an emotional need. I think it is a god-granted right.
No, that's not at all what Simon and I are saying. What I am saying is that and armed populace is more dangerous than an unarmed populace. There are increased chances for accidental shootings. Increased chances for crimes of passion to escalate to the use of lethal force. Increased chances for innocents to get caught in a crossfire. That while some lives may be saved by having an armed citizen to stop a mass killer before he or she can kill too many people, that number is far esclipsed by the number of additional casualties greater access to lethal force would allow. We also agree that the ability of an enlightened citizenry to overthrow a corrupt government looks good on paper, but in every instance you mentioned nonviolent protest was a much greater part of the movement's success than the availability of firearms. Also, I've not read the thread very closely, but I suspect that nobody on the gun-availability side of the debate has anything to say about what an armed populace does in places like Kosovo where the combination of lethal force and ethnic hatreds lead to truly horrific crimes. I might not always trust governments, but I have no greater trust for armed mobs.
There are a lot of claims here with not much evidence to back it up, and some of them are a stretch. I have already shown that an armed populace reduces crime and deaths by firearms.
I'm not even going to touch Kosovo, because I'm not well versed enough in the history to make an educated comment.
-
Long rant. Beware of eyestrain.
First, Simon: Your duplicity astonishes me and should be obvious to you. You insist that America's affinity for guns is a sign of barbarism but at the same time think it's just great that Crete and Switzerland are full of them. Do you not take into account the significance of guns in our culture? Our heritage is being a rebel colony. Our heritage is being pioneers. Our heritage is sending soldiers around the world to defend liberty many times in the last century. Guns are a part of our culture just as much–I would expect more–than Crete or Switzerland. I can only judge your insistence that our love of weapons is barbaric as prejudice.
As for why America is the biggest market for guns: America is the world's biggest market for almost everything. Do you take that into consideration? How does our disproportionate purchasing of guns measure up against our disproportionate purchasing of cars of computers or microwave ovens? We like to buy stuff. I know several people who own dozens of guns just for the sake of having a collection. That makes them barbarians? Also, I would think the fact that we bring 4.5 million new guns in every year but do not see a corresponding upward creep in homicide would be ample demonstration that more guns do not equal more crime and that our love of weapons does not stem from a love of violence.
Second, Czhorat: Chodon and I are only to happy to agree to disagree, but you are not. You are the one who wants to make it so we can't buy guns. You want to control us. We, on the other hand, support your right to do whatever you think best.
Third, everybody: Why are you all assuming that me and Chodon want a disordered mob? What's this crap about one guy with a gun verses the state? We don't want a bunch on macho loners going Rambo. We want a populace is that is disciplined and competent so that if need be we would be able to mount a serious, organized resistance that could accomplish something. Your assumption that an armed populous equates with a mob of rowdy cowboys is unfounded and insulting.
Need I remind you that the only reason the United States exists is because an armed populace offered organized resistance to an oppressive government?
Fourth: This idea that you have to control the capital is ridiculous. I live 1000 miles from Washington DC. If a tyrant came to power in Washington, we in Illinois could resist and hold our own quite well, if we were armed and organized, that is. Illinois could be entirely self-sufficient, if it came down to it, as could a hundred other regions of America. The idea that I have to bow to whoever rules in Washington is just more of that acquiescent helplessness I was talking about earlier. If the people have power, then they have the option to give their capital the finger if they choose. That's the whole point!!
Your comparing the United States the Soviet Bloc in 1989 is absurd. Fact is, a situation like that in the modern United States is unprecedented and no historical example exists to illustrate how things might turn out if we had a revolution here. The logistics are unique.
Fifth: The talk of "peaceful revolutions" is foolish. Peaceful revolution works under two circumstances: 1.) When the state is about to die anyway (collapse of the Soviet Union) or 2.) when the state is good and decent enough to refrain from mass murder (peaceful resistance to the British in India).
Harry Turtledove wrote an excellent story called "The Last Article" that addresses that topic. In a hypothetical history, the Nazis win WWII and move in to take over the British colony of India, where they clash with Mohandas Gandhi. The non-violent resistance that was so effective against the British is a distrous failure against the Third Reich because the Nazis have no decency. Whereas the morality of the British compelled them to tolerate non-violent resistance, the Nazis simply mow the protesters down with machine guns and execute Gandhi is a back alley.
Adolf Hitler: "The one means that wins the easiest victory over reason: terror and force." Non-violence does not work if the oppressor is both strong and ruthless. This should be blindingly obvious. To cherry-pick historical examples of times when tyrannies that were weak or soft-hearted were peacefully defeated only proves my point. Find me an example of a time when a real iron-fisted bastard was taken down without bloodshed.
Sixth: All this banter about death rates and crime is largely superfluous. Even it were true–which it isn't–that guns equal violence, I would still want Chodon to have his gun.
The goal and purpose of gun ownership is ultimately not to reduce overall death rates. It is ensure freedom by keeping power in the hands of citizens. "Give me liberty or give me death" is not just a slogan: Some of us take it seriously. If my freedom is secured by maintaining an armed populace, then I am more than willing to sacrifice a degree of my safety for it. If I had to pick between a state of anarchy where there was a real chance of getting shot every time I went outside or a totalitarian state where I was physically safe but not allowed to go outside, I would pick anarchy hands down. I have two daughters, and I would much rather they live in a place where they are free to live as they choose and have a small possibility of being murdered than in a place where they are guaranteed to live to be decrepit old ladies but have no say over what kind of lives they will have.
Freedom is more important than safety, and violence is not the only evil. Freedom is required to fully live, but you can be dead inside while your heart keeps beating. For that reason, even if it were true that outlawing guns would reduce murder, I would still want guns.
-
I would put a strict limit on what kind of weapon a person can carry with them. Carrying a sawed-off shotgun in public is going to do more harm than good, even in the best-intentioned hands.
What's the difference? A sawed-off shotgun sounds like an excellent defensive weapon, and a bit harder to conceal than a small handgun.
Why stop there? Why not leave it full length, and paint it fluorescent orange, sticking out of a scabbard slung over your back. Then you wouldn't have to pull it out to make a point.
I can only judge your insistence that our love of weapons is barbaric as prejudice.
Um... The barbaric part is feeling the need to have one in order to feel safe from your neighbours. Nothing to do with sporting uses, or as part of collections.
I was reading a thread in another forum where the original poster was asking about transporting guns, concealed carry laws, etc. in various states of the U.S. He wanted to do some traveling around the country by car for his next vacation and wanted to take a handgun with him "just in case", and he wanted to have all his paperwork, proper storage, and such in order. My reply was (in effect) "dude - find another holiday destination if you think you might need one."
-
Adolf Hitler: "The one means that wins the easiest victory over reason: terror and force." Non-violence does not work if the oppressor is both strong and ruthless. This should be blindingly obvious.
Why is this obvious? The movement for Indian independence and the Civil Rights movements both faced violent oppression and succeeded. Just maybe a massive non-violent movement could have stopped the Nazi's. There would have been a lot of death, but World War II wasn't bloodless.
I would think the fact that we bring 4.5 million new guns in every year but do not see a corresponding upward creep in homicide would be ample demonstration that more guns do not equal more crime and that our love of weapons does not stem from a love of violence.
Very good point. America may have a high murder rate, but it is a long way from anarchy.
One point which has briefly been addressed in this thread is the militarization of police. I think it is a very bad idea to arm the police to the teeth, and our willingness to allow a heavily armed populace has raised the stakes in every traffic stop, every execution of a search warrant and every arrest for both police and citizens. When cops know that any car could have a handgun in the glove compartment or that any residence could contain criminals armed with automatic weapons, excessive force is likely to occur because of their justified fear.
Arming the populace ups the stakes in every encounter. Consider the case of Cory Maye, a man who shot the first police officer through his door during the execution of a no-knock search warrant. There are a lot of the case, but removing guns from the equation would almost certainly have saved the police officer's life. I tend to come down on the side of gun owners, but we, as a society, must realize the cost to society. It should not be an easy decision.
-
3) The reduce in supply caused by such restrictive gun laws would make black market guns more scarce, harder to come by, and more expensive.
This is the point I disagree with. The market in the US is so flooded that the supply would not reduce.
Not at all? From where would guns seized during arrests for violent crimes come? You surely can't be arguing that, over the long term, the finite supply of guns already on the market would be exhausted. Similarly you should understand that with tighter laws limiting the supply black market weapons would quickly become more expensive and therefore less accessible to petty criminals.
Otherwise, admit that at least part of the issue is your emotional need to feel in control of your own protection and not rely on the state.This is also true, although I don't think it's an emotional need. I think it is a god-granted right.
I'll for the moment ignore the fact that we have obviously different religious beliefs and ask in what religious text says that any god granted that right? It seems at odds with the tenets of most religions with which I am familiar.
-
A couple of quick answers, then I think I'm getting off this train.
Second, Czhorat: Chodon and I are only to happy to agree to disagree, but you are not. You are the one who wants to make it so we can't buy guns. You want to control us. We, on the other hand, support your right to do whatever you think best.
First off, I'll remind you that Chodon started this discussion by referring to unarmed citizens as "sheep". That doesn't strike me as a respectful agreement to disagree. More to the point, society is interconnected. What freedoms you are given have a direct impact on my safety. I'll repeat again my argument regarding gun rights:
1) Permissive gun laws create a supply of easily available guns to be sold on the black market.
2) More restrictive gun laws would reduce the supply of guns and make it harder to legally acquire weapons which could then be sold on the black market.
3) The reduce in supply caused by such restrictive gun laws would make black market guns more scarce, harder to come by, and more expensive.
4) This would reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals.
5) Therefore, your right to own a gun increases the chance of a criminal being armed with a gun.
I'll rephrase that last point to say that your right to own a gun interferes with my right to be free from the threat of deadly force. In this case I believe the latter to be more important.
Harry Turtledove wrote an excellent story called "The Last Article" that addresses that topic. In a hypothetical history, the Nazis win WWII and move in to take over the British colony of India, where they clash with Mohandas Gandhi. The non-violent resistance that was so effective against the British is a distrous failure against the Third Reich because the Nazis have no decency. Whereas the morality of the British compelled them to tolerate non-violent resistance, the Nazis simply mow the protesters down with machine guns and execute Gandhi is a back alley.
You are aware that this didn't really happen, are you not? When last I checked, Mr. Turtledove wrote fiction. There's no way to know if this is how these events would have unfolded in the real world.
The goal and purpose of gun ownership is ultimately not to reduce overall death rates. It is ensure freedom by keeping power in the hands of citizens. "Give me liberty or give me death" is not just a slogan: Some of us take it seriously. If my freedom is secured by maintaining an armed populace, then I am more than willing to sacrifice a degree of my safety for it. If I had to pick between a state of anarchy where there was a real chance of getting shot every time I went outside or a totalitarian state where I was physically safe but not allowed to go outside, I would pick anarchy hands down. I have two daughters, and I would much rather they live in a place where they are free to live as they choose and have a small possibility of being murdered than in a place where they are guaranteed to live to be decrepit old ladies but have no say over what kind of lives they will have.
Freedom is more important than safety, and violence is not the only evil. Freedom is required to fully live, but you can be dead inside while your heart keeps beating. For that reason, even if it were true that outlawing guns would reduce murder, I would still want guns.
My disagreement is with your equating gun ownership with freedom. Canada has more restrictive gun laws than the US. So do most of the nations in Western Europe. When last I checked, England had not devolved into a police state and they had quite a bit more time for it than the US.
-
Long rant. Beware of eyestrain.
First, Simon: Your duplicity astonishes me and should be obvious to you. You insist that America's affinity for guns is a sign of barbarism but at the same time think it's just great that Crete and Switzerland are full of them.
No worries Mr Tweedy, but please... Since I think my argument continues to hold water, and my view of armed-barbarism still stands, I'll just argue you point by point rather than try to defend myself from accusations of "duplicity"... And I'll get back to the topic of Switzerland later in this post.
Do you not take into account the significance of guns in our culture? Our heritage is being a rebel colony. Our heritage is being pioneers. Our heritage is sending soldiers around the world to defend liberty many times in the last century.
...
Need I remind you that the only reason the United States exists is because an armed populace offered organized resistance to an oppressive government?
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Every country is allowed to have its national-founding myth, however preposterous they may sounds to those not indoctrinated in it. French schools are allowed to teach a history of the first modern European constitutional republic (actually it was Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_3rd_May)), Greece's education is allowed to dwell heavily on the ancient civilisation that existed roughly where their country is, while avoiding all mention of The Turks, British monarchists are permitted to discuss at length 1066 as if the founding of the royal bloodline were the starting point for the habitation of these islands (it's always baffled me that Magna Carta plays a bigger role in the American national narrative than it does in the British). These national narratives are convenient shorthand for teaching children your cultural values, and they make very good movies... But they are national founding myths. And the older and more inflexible they are, the staler they become.
Almost every country in the world has, at some point or another, had a large scale revolution/major exchange of power (I'm rather fond of Britain's Glorious Revolution of 1688, and the radicals of the English Civil War were a pretty impressive bunch too). I think it's fair to say that the Eastern Europeans who overthrew communism, the Africans who overthrew colonialism and the Indians who kicked out the British have every bit as much right to claim a rebel heritage (did I mention we kicked out The Romans? No, because it isn't relevant.). I don't want to get into an argument that smells of Anti-Americanism, so lets stop this one here... Suffice to say that I regard the pioneer people/broke the nefarious British 200+ years ago argument as intellectually bankrupt.
Guns are a part of our culture just as much–I would expect more–than Crete or Switzerland
Switzerland is unique (although it is becoming less so, and more like the legendarily work-shy German army)... Up until 2003 it had a full-blown citizens militia but this was deemed expensive and inefficient. Now they have conscription for all men for an initial training period of 150 days followed by 1/3rd of the male population of becoming reservists for the next 15 years, with a small professional army of officers... Reservists have to do 10 15-day repeater courses after this to remain reservists, and reservists are loaned a semi-automatic gun by the local arsenal, invading Switzerland is done at your own risk. The main social benefit is keep Switzerland mixing (the Swiss cantons are very separate entities with different cultures, languages and mountains isolating different communities), and conscription forces them to get along (this section was written under advisement from a Swiss friend).
Thus I don't think there is any comparison with treating guns as a consumer product for the purpose of protection.
Rifle ownership is common in many, many countries. Hunting, target shooting, etc... I'm not sure this is sensible either, but I think it's fair to make a distinction between rifle ownership and treating handguns as a consumer good, as you did here:
As for why America is the biggest market for guns: America is the world's biggest market for almost everything. Do you take that into consideration? How does our disproportionate purchasing of guns measure up against our disproportionate purchasing of cars of computers or microwave ovens? We like to buy stuff. I know several people who own dozens of guns just for the sake of having a collection. That makes them barbarians?
Ahem.
Second, Czhorat: Chodon and I are only to happy to agree to disagree, but you are not. You are the one who wants to make it so we can't buy guns. You want to control us. We, on the other hand, support your right to do whatever you think best.
This attitude to guns is having a distinct, definite, negative effect on the lives of people who also live in your society... The patient has cancer doctor, what is the best way to deliver a cure? Sunset Clauses?
Fourth: This idea that you have to control the capital is ridiculous. I live 1000 miles from Washington DC. If a tyrant came to power in Washington, we in Illinois could resist and hold our own quite well, if we were armed and organized, that is. Illinois could be entirely self-sufficient, if it came down to it, as could a hundred other regions of America. The idea that I have to bow to whoever rules in Washington is just more of that acquiescent helplessness I was talking about earlier. If the people have power, then they have the option to give their capital the finger if they choose. That's the whole point!!
Your comparing the United States the Soviet Bloc in 1989 is absurd. Fact is, a situation like that in the modern United States is unprecedented and no historical example exists to illustrate how things might turn out if we had a revolution here. The logistics are unique.
Fifth: The talk of "peaceful revolutions" is foolish. Peaceful revolution works under two circumstances: 1.) When the state is about to die anyway (collapse of the Soviet Union) or 2.) when the state is good and decent enough to refrain from mass murder (peaceful resistance to the British in India).
This argument is, to be frank, preposterous. A Swiss-style citizen's militia may, just, act as a form of check and balance on the government. A Turkish-style interventionist military may act as a similar check and balance on the government (and does, although the EU fiercely disapproves). Randomly owned guns with no formal national training and the majority of the guns held in the hand of the most paranoid individuals does not, in any way, constitute a check and balance on the government, and I'd like to see a single occasion where it has acted as one. So, let's first remove any suggestion that the presence of guns, at the moment, is in any way playing a role in restraining the decisions of government.
Next, some hypothetical tyranny... In discussing the idea of responding to tyranny with some people on this board, I've tried to use genuine examples of tyrannical regimes and how they've been overthrown to illustrate that it is far, far more complicated than "The Russians have taken over Washington, lets form a team called the Wolverines and take over the backwoods of Colorado" (I love that movie, very, very, much). There are countless, countless factors in each and every tyranny. Under Milosevic a large proportion of the Serb population supported the government's actions, but it was still a tyranny. I have personally stood by as the government and the armed forces came down and crushed the uprising in Andijann, The Uzbek government had the upper hand, and no amount of passion, armed resistance or revolutionary fervour could stop the army (which keeps a standing military checkpoint at the entrance and exit to every town and hamlet) crushing them.Tyranny is a graded progress, that usually starts far more subtly than it becomes... Your hypothetical Illinois Revolution would only occur is the people of Illinois were in agreement (I suspect they would be divided), they acted in an organised fashion, and they were able to hold off the might of the rest of the country... That's a hell of a lot of ifs, and that's without even mentioning the flavour of the hypothetical regime. In Britain we have extremely heavy gun control laws, and our police are gun-less, I think we'd be on a pretty level pegging with Americans if it came to taking Downing Street. The guns are an irrelevance, a fantastical device that has been added to the national myth of self-sufficiency... A hangover from a pioneer mentality that no longer bears any relation to reality.
It's not a check and balance, and your dealing in fantasies with your hypothetical tyranny...
Now that's finished, let's move onto the things I agree with you about:
Harry Turtledove wrote an excellent story called "The Last Article" that addresses that topic. In a hypothetical history, the Nazis win WWII and move in to take over the British colony of India, where they clash with Mohandas Gandhi. The non-violent resistance that was so effective against the British is a distrous failure against the Third Reich because the Nazis have no decency. Whereas the morality of the British compelled them to tolerate non-violent resistance, the Nazis simply mow the protesters down with machine guns and execute Gandhi is a back alley.
Adolf Hitler: "The one means that wins the easiest victory over reason: terror and force." Non-violence does not work if the oppressor is both strong and ruthless. This should be blindingly obvious. To cherry-pick historical examples of times when tyrannies that were weak or soft-hearted were peacefully defeated only proves my point. Find me an example of a time when a real iron-fisted bastard was taken down without bloodshed.
Milosevic. Next question. But still, I do agree with you... While I'm a big fan of Gandhi he was a canny operator, and one should never forget he was a trained lawyer. There is a famous essay of his called "If I were A Czech" about how the people of Czechoslovakia should resist Hitler using satyagraha, a farcically naive viewpoint from a man who wasn't in the least bit naive. I view this as lawyerly propaganda, where Gandhi was manipulating his image of saintly non-violence to get extra leverage over the British. But, even assuming you couldn't take the hypothetical regime down with non-violence, it's false to equate gun-less with defenceless. The classic weapon of urban insurgencies is the bomb, not the rifle... And before we get into that let's move on.
Sixth: All this banter about death rates and crime is largely superfluous. Even it were true–which it isn't–that guns equal violence, I would still want Chodon to have his gun.
The goal and purpose of gun ownership is ultimately not to reduce overall death rates. It is ensure freedom by keeping power in the hands of citizens. "Give me liberty or give me death" is not just a slogan: Some of us take it seriously. If my freedom is secured by maintaining an armed populace, then I am more than willing to sacrifice a degree of my safety for it. If I had to pick between a state of anarchy where there was a real chance of getting shot every time I went outside or a totalitarian state where I was physically safe but not allowed to go outside, I would pick anarchy hands down. I have two daughters, and I would much rather they live in a place where they are free to live as they choose and have a small possibility of being murdered than in a place where they are guaranteed to live to be decrepit old ladies but have no say over what kind of lives they will have.
And I will keep on maintaining that in terms of keeping power in he hands of the citizens, an armed populace is an irrelevance. I don't think anyone here is likely to argue in favour of tyranny duh, but most of us realise there are a lot more factors in this than guns. For some reason you have convinced yourself that guns form a check and balance, and I see absolutely no support whatsoever for this argument.
woh, that was a lot of work
-
1) Simon mentioned having been mugged, and Chodon mentioned defense against violent criminals such as muggers as one reason to arm oneself. Random crimes such as muggings are more likely to be against property than against life and limb. If someone drew a knife and asked me for my wallet, I'd rather give it to him than risk being stabbed to death. There's nothing in my wallet worth dying for. I'll go on to say that there's not now, nor is there ever likely to be, anything in my wallet worth killing for either. Would you be willing to use deadly force to protect property? If so, is there some minimum level of property that would have to be at risk?
I am not willing to bet my life the mugger will not stab me after I hand over my money. As soon as a weapon is presented I would use of deadly force. If I was not in fear for my life, but my property was being taken I would not use deadly force.
The only people I've ever seen who could actually say this are Armored car drivers. Ever watched one of these guys when they do a pick-up at a supermarket or something? The whole walk from the safe room at the supermarket to the truck they have their hands less than an inch from the pistol grip.
If a mugger jumped you with a knife with the intent of stabbing you no matter what, he's not going to stand in front of you and ask for your wallet. He'll stab you before you know he's there and he'll take your wallet. If he asks for wallet, can you guarantee you'll be able to draw, cock and point your weapon before he can close the ten foot distance between you? When you are zipped up in your winter coat how long does it take you to reach it? If you do anything other than reach for your back pocket and he's the type that might stab, he's going to attack. And if he has a gun, you don't even have the time it takes to cover ten feet.
Third, everybody: Why are you all assuming that me and Chodon want a disordered mob? What's this crap about one guy with a gun verses the state? We don't want a bunch on macho loners going Rambo. We want a populace is that is disciplined and competent so that if need be we would be able to mount a serious, organized resistance that could accomplish something. Your assumption that an armed populous equates with a mob of rowdy cowboys is unfounded and insulting.
Are you and Chodon out there drilling with several thousand of your well organized populace? No. Therefore unorganized.
Fourth: This idea that you have to control the capital is ridiculous. I live 1000 miles from Washington DC. If a tyrant came to power in Washington, we in Illinois could resist and hold our own quite well, if we were armed and organized, that is. Illinois could be entirely self-sufficient, if it came down to it, as could a hundred other regions of America. The idea that I have to bow to whoever rules in Washington is just more of that acquiescent helplessness I was talking about earlier. If the people have power, then they have the option to give their capital the finger if they choose. That's the whole point!!
See above point about organized.
Illinois is not self-sufficient. If you did have all of Illinois, the government would just cut you off and starve you out. Blow up all road connections, cut power, cut phones, cut all shipments, freeze all bank accounts.
If you did offer any real military resistance and the government wanted to flex their muscles, they'd just bomb you or run you over with tanks.
The most you could hope for would be localized anarchy. That means your neighbor with the guns will come to get what he needs from you. Nobody will be there to help you, so you better be a good shot.
-
Tweedy - besides all the really good points Russel is making, I'd like to point out something I've recently mentioned in a different thread. I am currently visiting my parents in Israel. If I walk less than a mile, I cross over into the occupied Palestinian territories. The population there lives under a very oppressive regime. They do not have almost any rights. Hell, if they are sick, they can be stopped from going to the hospital and they can do nothing about it.
They are also one of the most armed populaces in the world. Far more than Illinois. And they are organized - not only on a local level, but they have proper training camps, and they well funded by external governments. There's a constant supply of new weapons and ammunition. Israel has tried to block that out, but hasn't been succesful. The armed struggle has been going on for over 20 years now.
Do you really think this is a model for a succesful resistance? or that your considerably less organized, considerably less well funded, grouping of well-meaning armed civilians has any chance of doing better against the US government and military should they choose to direct their ire at you?
Remember that one big advantage the Palestinians have is that Israel can't direct nuclear weapons at them since the country is so small. The US government has nukes to spare, and can easily keep surviving if Illinois is an irradiated mess.
-
Fifth: The talk of "peaceful revolutions" is foolish. Peaceful revolution works under two circumstances: 1.) When the state is about to die anyway (collapse of the Soviet Union) or 2.) when the state is good and decent enough to refrain from mass murder (peaceful resistance to the British in India).
Harry Turtledove wrote an excellent story called "The Last Article" that addresses that topic. In a hypothetical history, the Nazis win WWII and move in to take over the British colony of India, where they clash with Mohandas Gandhi. The non-violent resistance that was so effective against the British is a distrous failure against the Third Reich because the Nazis have no decency. Whereas the morality of the British compelled them to tolerate non-violent resistance, the Nazis simply mow the protesters down with machine guns and execute Gandhi is a back alley.
This discussion inspired me to re-read "If I Were a Czech", it only takes 5 minutes... It's an interesting piece of history, and you can find it here (http://books.google.com/books?id=XpWO-GoOhVEC&pg=PA332&lpg=PA332&dq=%22if+i+were+a+czech%22&source=web&ots=ExxVenS7jL&sig=B5aEHYZhJhzTagcBfwZiphIedp4#PPA334,M1).
He was a devious piece of work.
-
I think I'm going to follow Czhorat and bow out after this post.
It seems as though this discussion has become one of trying to decide how to resist an oppressive government. It has turned into throwing around theories about how it would happen and the best way to resist. Let's face it: nobody knows if it's going to be something as obvious as a zombie attack or something as insidious as the government slowly rotting from the inside over generations. Both armed and unarmed revolutions have occured, worked, and failed in the past. We can all bring up examples of each in an attempt to support our argument. I think Churchill said it best:
"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."
That is true in any revolt as well. I have no clue what is going to happen. In all likelyhood nothing will. But I want to be prepared to defend myself and mine as best I can in any circumstance.
Nobody seems to be able to argue with the fact that statistics show a legally armed populace decreases violent crime. The statistics I presented about this prove the point. As far as a right to defend one's self, I don't want to get into a theological discussion. I shouldn't have used the term "God-given". Everyone is born with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Anyone who is being deprived, or is in danger of being deprived of those rights has the right to defend them.
If a mugger jumped you with a knife with the intent of stabbing you no matter what, he's not going to stand in front of you and ask for your wallet. He'll stab you before you know he's there and he'll take your wallet. If he asks for wallet, can you guarantee you'll be able to draw, cock and point your weapon before he can close the ten foot distance between you? When you are zipped up in your winter coat how long does it take you to reach it? If you do anything other than reach for your back pocket and he's the type that might stab, he's going to attack. And if he has a gun, you don't even have the time it takes to cover ten feet.
There is something called an OODA loop that needs to be cycled through before any actions can be taken. It stands for Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. The whole thing takes about two seconds. It can be reset by changing circumstances, but when something new is observed the cycle resets. This is how flashbangs work. It stops the first two parts of the OODA loop. If you're blind and can't hear you can't observe or orient yourself, so you can't act.
If I have observed an attacker has a knife, oriented myself, and decided I am going to use deadly force, then draw a handgun the attacker is about 1.5 seconds behind me in the OODA loop because he just observed my action. This means I have 1.5 seconds from acting to stop the attack before the attacker can act. I don't want to dive into the mechanics of firearms usage too deeply, but this is plenty of time if one is familiar with their firearm.
To demonstrate the OODA loop have someone put their finger to your head as though it's a gun. Tell them to say bang as soon as they think you're going to take the "gun" from them. Then grab their hand and move it away from your head. You will be able to do it 100% of the time.
Also, I feel the need to point out when I referred to the unarmed populace as sheep I did not mean followers. I meant prey for wolves. I still think the analogy is apt. It goes even farther because sheep don't know they need to be protected (not that I'm willing to do it) and they have a hard time telling the wolves from the sheepdogs. I'm cool with that. I hear it all the time, not only on this forum. It's part of the decision I made to not ever be a victim.
I think overall I have to cry uncle. I've been losing sleep over this discussion, and It's pretty clear nobody is changing anyone's mind. I just want to close with this. Everyone has a right to defend themselves from agressors and protect their rights. It's not easy to stand up and fight, and not everyone is going to do it. That is fine. Just don't look down on me because I'm willing to meet savagery with savagery in order to live peacefully, and don't remove my right to protect myself.
-
Nobody seems to be able to argue with the fact that statistics show a legally armed populace decreases violent crime. The statistics I presented about this prove the point. As far as a right to defend one's self, I don't want to get into a theological discussion. I shouldn't have used the term "God-given". Everyone is born with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Anyone who is being deprived, or is in danger of being deprived of those rights has the right to defend them.
The main reason I haven't disagreed with you on this Chodon, is that actually I agree with you... I do think that the threat of a legally armed home-owners is likely to be a disincentive to burglary (assuming that there are a large enough number of armed home-owners for it to be a going concern for the burglar), and that legally armed concealed-carriers would be a disincentive to mugging (under the same circumstances). Much like I think that the threat of Capital Punishment is probably a disincentive among organised criminals (if you've got execution hanging over your head, your career choices as a rational mafioso will probably be affected). I think it would be pretty ridiculous to say otherwise.
The problem is that if you maximise this disincentive (everyone in society is armed, and every crime is responded to with execution) you still aren't going to eliminate crime totally, and I'm not sure how big the total effect would be. Because there are numerous, numerous disincentives to criminal activity that work - widespread public CCTV has proved very effective in the UK in reducing public violent crime, despite it being hideously illiberal and making me come out in a cold sweat when I even think about it, an efficient police service is a disincentive to all crimes, the nature of criminal detention, widespread employment accompanied with the prospect of a ruined employment record, and so on... but even with a perfect disincentive, it's effectiveness is linked to 1) how rational the person is 2) how keen/desperate the person is, 3) the social/situational implications (e.g. things like gang-culture, or finding yourself in a tight spot). Britain used to have both concealed weapons and capital punishment, but the removal of them hasn't caused the place to devolve into chaos, and other factors can be used to reduce crime. If you've got poverty and wealth, you are going to get violent, low-brow, economic crime whatever disincentives you have in place.
With the effect of a blackmarket in guns taken into account, I'd reckon that the evils of armed criminals, and the accidental/anger caused effects of ubiquitous guns, outweigh the benefits of a (might I suggest marginal?) disincentive, as it currently is... Just like I'd say that capital punishment is so morally wrong you should depend on other disincentives (but please, no one follow up the fire I just lighted by mentioning that... we all know what we think). I'm quite happy having to deal with unarmed criminals with more physical means. And I have... And I probably will have to again.
-addendum-
Writing this I am reminded of Primo Levi's If This Is A Man... And I'm self-indulgent enough to mention it. It's his autobiographical book about his experiences in Auschwitz. There's a big, and utterly fascinating, section in that book about the criminal economy within the camp. It was a society where food was distributed with less than was required for survival (bread was the common currency of the camp), and where all infractions were met with summary execution. This is pretty much the idealised worst case scenario of both incentive to commit crime (starvation otherwise) and disincentive (execution if caught). Suffice to say, the entire society of the camp revolved around the black market.
I think overall I have to cry uncle. I've been losing sleep over this discussion, and It's pretty clear nobody is changing anyone's mind. I just want to close with this. Everyone has a right to defend themselves from agressors and protect their rights. It's not easy to stand up and fight, and not everyone is going to do it. That is fine. Just don't look down on me because I'm willing to meet savagery with savagery in order to live peacefully, and don't remove my right to protect myself.
This makes me sad, I've enjoyed discussing this with you...
-
If a mugger jumped you with a knife with the intent of stabbing you no matter what, he's not going to stand in front of you and ask for your wallet. He'll stab you before you know he's there and he'll take your wallet. If he asks for wallet, can you guarantee you'll be able to draw, cock and point your weapon before he can close the ten foot distance between you? When you are zipped up in your winter coat how long does it take you to reach it? If you do anything other than reach for your back pocket and he's the type that might stab, he's going to attack. And if he has a gun, you don't even have the time it takes to cover ten feet.
If I have observed an attacker has a knife, oriented myself, and decided I am going to use deadly force, then draw a handgun the attacker is about 1.5 seconds behind me in the OODA loop because he just observed my action. This means I have 1.5 seconds from acting to stop the attack before the attacker can act. I don't want to dive into the mechanics of firearms usage too deeply, but this is plenty of time if one is familiar with their firearm.
So you carry your gun in a holster on your hip everywhere you go. Otherwise you could never get it in 1.5 sec. You can not unzip a jacket and get to a shoulder holster in less time than it takes to get stabbed or shot. Try it with your brother and get back to us.
-
First, Simon: Your duplicity astonishes me and should be obvious to you.
Dude, for someone who is the first in any argument to complain: "ad hominem! that's beneath you!" you sure do feel free to pile the insults on. I'm sure it's water off a duck's back to Simon, but since it lowers the overall level of discourse, I'm asking you to cut it out.
Our heritage is being a rebel colony. Our heritage is being pioneers.
Ditto everything Simon said about national myth making, because he said it better than I could. Though I'm waiting with bated breath for you to dust up and trot out Horatio Alger's mythology next.
Our heritage is also genocide of indigenous peoples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_tears), ecological devastation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_bowl), and wealth built on slavery. You going to stand up and trumpet those ideals also? They're integral to our wonderful pioneerness, if nothing else. Seriously, nothing in our national past is an unalloyed glorious good, because hello, human beings involved. And you know? It's not bad to admit it. I can hold the view that our past is tainted, even down to the founding fathers, and still be impressed by the constitution and the bill of rights. I don't have to renounce my faith in my country when I let go of the immature notion that it is (or was, at some earlier golden time) perfect in every way, sacred in every way, better in every way. In fact, my faith in my country can be much stronger, because it doesn't require a false image of perfection to work. This, in fact, is how I still tolerate calling myself an American when my nation has become a bully torturer state which I find deeply abhorrent.
Whoops, sidetracked. Let's narrow that down to: examining held notions = good, and move on.
Fourth: This idea that you have to control the capital is ridiculous.
Just claiming ridiculousness in a vacuum, without proof, does not make it so (except perhaps to you). You have not presented a counter-argument. To control the nation, you must control the capital. This is basic political theory, it is not something Simon and I made up to vex you.
I live 1000 miles from Washington DC. If a tyrant came to power in Washington, we in Illinois could resist and hold our own quite well, if we were armed and organized, that is. Illinois could be entirely self-sufficient, if it came down to it, as could a hundred other regions of America.
Hmmmm, I see what you mean. We're at a semantic difference here. What you're describing, I would not call resistance, rebellion or uprising. It's not an attempt to wrest back the government, but to establish your own area of control. What you're describing here is a situation where the federal and state governments have failed (or cannot exert control, for whatever reason), and every area must govern itself or be ungoverned. I can conceive of such a scenario. But what you're talking about, defending your compound or whatever and "holding your own" is not revolution. It's warlordism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord). I am not a constitutional scholar, but I don't believe anything in the constitution or the various and sundry state and local regulations (castle laws notwithstanding) enshrine your right to become a warlord if the nation goes to hell in a handbasket.
The idea that I have to bow to whoever rules in Washington is just more of that acquiescent helplessness I was talking about earlier. If the people have power, then they have the option to give their capital the finger if they choose. That's the whole point!!
You bow to these rulers every day. You pay taxes. You own guns because they let you (and in fact, fear a day might come when they might pass a law to not let you, or you wouldn't be in this thread, arguing so vociferously). You ride on the right side of the road. You vote. You take every stupid test they require of you to get the little license that lets you drive, as often as they demand. You pay parking tickets if they issue them to you. You even get insurance on your home and car, because they demand it. What exactly do you think you're doing if not bowing?
You think you can secede, but you haven't actually tried it, and so far all American secessions, big and small, violent and non-violent, have failed. To the best of my knowledge (and I'd be happy to be told of an exception) the United States has never given up any territory it has annexed, not even to its angry citizens. So while I do enjoy your romantic view that your gun is all that stands between you and "bowing down", I don't believe it. If the state bellies up and you decide to become your own warlord? Well, that's on you, but I think Simon's coining of the term savage remains apt under those circumstances.
The goal and purpose of gun ownership is ultimately not to reduce overall death rates. It is ensure freedom by keeping power in the hands of citizens. "Give me liberty or give me death" is not just a slogan: Some of us take it seriously.
You realize, surely, that "Give me liberty or give me death" means I'd rather die than not be free, not I'd rather shoot people than not be free?
But still, I do agree with you... While I'm a big fan of Gandhi he was a canny operator, and one should never forget he was a trained lawyer. There is a famous essay of his called "If I were A Czech" about how the people of Czechoslovakia should resist Hitler using satyagraha, a farcically naive viewpoint from a man who wasn't in the least bit naive.
Definitely with you on this, Simon. In fact the other names that have risen repeatedly in this thread: Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela are also excellent examples of quite canny and stunningly charismatic figures. MLK, unfortunately, was not canny enough to keep from getting himself assassinated, but the revolution went on without him, so it counts as a success in the wider social sense. In fact, I'd say more important to revolution than guns (or bombs, and I agree that bombs are the more useful) is canny and charismatic leadership, such as the examples we have given in this thread.
So, in short, my plan for revolution is this: everyone run out and learn how to make speeches! Join your local debate club! Practice in front of a mirror!
Lastly, Chodon, about people not changing their minds. I once believed that an armed populace might be of benefit against an oppressive government. I have made many of the same arguments you have made in this discourse (in fact, I found it quite nostalgic on some level). It was not a conversation like this one that changed my mind, I'll admit, but I did change my mind. Primarily, I realized that taking up arms against anyone, even an oppressive government, is diametrically opposed to my religious beliefs and that it was a reactionary position, based on the fear of my own prior experiences. Obviously this is a personal position, not one that necessarily translates to anyone else, and I haven't addressed any of my arguments to the fundamental reasons why Anarkey doesn't believe in arming herself against the government. I tried for many years to rationalize and weasel my way around non-violence as a necessary personal philosophy, mostly by way of Liberation Theology (one of my favorite subjects) and Bonhoeffer, but in the end it's incontrovertible. My understanding of my religion does not allow for the taking up of arms against other human beings.
These conversations are worth having, in my opinion, even if no one changes their mind about anything right this second. Thank you, Chodon, for being willing to have it. It takes a lot of mental energy and focus, and I accept that after a while, one has to back off.
-
Illinois is not self-sufficient. If you did have all of Illinois, the government would just cut you off and starve you out. Blow up all road connections, cut power, cut phones, cut all shipments, freeze all bank accounts.
Okay, I haven't finished reading everything, but I've just got to stop and respond to this.
Russell, this is a statement of such ignorance that is makes me hesitate to take anything else you say seriously. Illinois could easily be self-sufficient. Cut us off? From what? Illinois grows enough food to feed itself many times over. Illinois has ample reserves of coal and oil (although much of it is currently untapped). Illinois has facilities to produce steel, fabric, plastic, medicine, machinery, etc. Illinois makes its own electricity, has it's own communication and highway systems, and has plenty of water. We have 13 million people (almost twice as many as Switzerland) in whom can be found expertise in absolutely anything to solve any problems that might arise.
I can't believe you know so little about the geography of the United States that you would even think of something as silly as "cutting us off and starving us out." If the entire rest of the world were to simply vanish tomorrow, the people of Illinois would be able to survive, and do so without privation. The same applies to most–if not every–one of our 50 states.
Do you really not understand that or were you just typing off the cuff and not thinking?
(http://as.wn.com/i/a9/2118521f59cd72.jpg)
Cut us off!
Continuing to read...
-
First, Simon: Your duplicity astonishes me and should be obvious to you.
Dude, for someone who is the first in any argument to complain: "ad hominem! that's beneath you!" you sure do feel free to pile the insults on. I'm sure it's water off a duck's back to Simon, but since it lowers the overall level of discourse, I'm asking you to cut it out.
First, That is not an ad hominem attack. I am not saying that his argument is wrong because he is a duplicitous person, I am saying his argument is duplicitous. I find Simon's opinions to be based upon prejudice which leads him to judge motives and values according to an unfair double standard. When an argument purports to be based on reason and experience while appealing to nothing (as it seems to me) but ethnocentric preconception, I think it's fair to call that duplicity. Whether Simon himself is a duplicitous person, I can't say because I don't know anything about him. I suspect he is not: My impression is that he is probably honest, but his person honesty does not redeem his argument.
An ad hominem attack would be Simon is duplicitous, so you can't believe anything he says. If you will notice my phrasing: "Your duplicity astonishes me and should be obvious to you." I am assuming that he is unaware of the nature of his argument and trying to call his attention to it. I was giving the benefit of the doubt, even if I was admittedly a little aggressive in my phrasing.
Not guilty, thank you very much.
Secondly, my "that's beneath you" earlier in this thread was aimed at eytanz alone because of something specific which he said (something I misinterpreted, as it happens). For you to rip that out of context and wave it in my face demonstrates nothing other than that you like to rip things out of context.
Sigh... I must go to bed now.
-
First, Simon: Your duplicity astonishes me and should be obvious to you.
Dude, for someone who is the first in any argument to complain: "ad hominem! that's beneath you!" you sure do feel free to pile the insults on. I'm sure it's water off a duck's back to Simon, but since it lowers the overall level of discourse, I'm asking you to cut it out.
First, That is not an ad hominem attack. I am not saying that his argument is wrong because he is a duplicitous person, I am saying his argument is duplicitous. I find Simon's opinions to be based upon prejudice which leads him to judge motives and values according to an unfair double standard. When an argument purports to be based on reason and experience while appealing to nothing (as it seems to me) but ethnocentric preconception, I think it's fair to call that duplicity. Whether Simon himself is a duplicitous person, I can't say because I don't know anything about him. I suspect he is not: My impression is that he is probably honest, but his person honesty does not redeem his argument.
An ad hominem attack would be Simon is duplicitous, so you can't believe anything he says. If you will notice my phrasing: "Your duplicity astonishes me and should be obvious to you." I am assuming that he is unaware of the nature of his argument and trying to call his attention to it. I was giving the benefit of the doubt, even if I was admittedly a little aggressive in my phrasing.
Not guilty, thank you very much.
Secondly, my "that's beneath you" earlier in this thread was aimed at eytanz alone because of something specific which he said (something I misinterpreted, as it happens). For you to rip that out of context and wave it in my face demonstrates nothing other than that you like to rip things out of context.
Sigh... I must go to bed now.
Hmm.. I think you both have something of a point... Anarkey is certainly right that you're undermining this discussion by throwing loaded expressions like "prejudice" and "duplicity" around, and you seem convinced that my characterisation of Switzerland and Crete as tangibly different to the US is a double standard (I do have family in the US, I'm not totally ill-educated), and are trying to undermine my whole argument with it. It's a pity that, rather than dwelling on this, you didn't take on some of the other page of argument since your last post.
You're wrong Tweedy, go to these countries... Switzerland's weapons culture is demonstrably different from the US, I thought I'd addressed this in my last post. There is no common ground between semi-automatics held by reservists on government order, and a gun-club-culture. The Cretan system isn't particularly healthy either, and I think they only just get away with it because its a small, wealthy, island with extremely low "blue collar crime" (and pretty high mafioso crime). Sicily is one of the safest places in Italy, but I wouldn't recommend anyone try to duplicate the reason for their low crime statistics.
My beef with American gun culture doesn't apply to either of these, which is basically - armed, blue collar, criminals, and the paranoia among the middle classes that comes about because of their existence . It is these that encourage your attitude of "protection" for both home defence and mugging-defence, and it is these that have caused the escalation so that you, and Chodon, feel that you need weapons to protect you from them. Blue collar criminals do not scare me, they're mostly idiots and they're likely to be unarmed - even in a place as nasty as my neighbourhood of North London.
But surely, surely, you can see a difference between wealthy, low crime, countries where people keep rifles for target shooting, rabbit hunting, and to defend their Marijuana crops... And the attitude of:
For the record: I live in a quite, middle-class neighborhood in the good part of town. Earlier this year a police car chase ended, literally, within ten feet of my front door. The suspect fled and ran about half a mile down the street, where he started shooting at the cops before they returned fire and shot him dead. Turns out he was a drug dealer who was carrying the gun illegally. The marks his car left in my front yard are still visible. He ran down the street, but he could just as easy have ran into my house, where my family would have made convenient hostages.
This incident served to reinforce my views on gun ownership.
When I use the word Barbarism, I'm talking about the paranoid, escalating culture of gun owners as protection (both for the criminals and for the homeowners). This tangibly, and demonstrably exists in parts of the United States, and does NOT exist in Switzerland or Crete. I am not claiming Americans are barbarians... I am claiming that the gun culture common in the united states (and specifically urban and suburban areas) is barbaric.
The criminal you spoke of was, as I said, a Barbarian...
On the other hand, looking back you've been nailing me with personal attacks since the beginning of this thread when you accused me of "talking out both sides of my mouth" after you appeared to misunderstand the meaning of the term American Exceptionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism). What's up with that, Mr Tweedy?
So please, can we leave accusations of prejudice and ethnocentric preconception at home, along with discussion about me in third person. They might be considered, well, rude...
-
First, Simon: Your duplicity astonishes me and should be obvious to you.
Dude, for someone who is the first in any argument to complain: "ad hominem! that's beneath you!" you sure do feel free to pile the insults on. I'm sure it's water off a duck's back to Simon, but since it lowers the overall level of discourse, I'm asking you to cut it out.
First, That is not an ad hominem attack. I am not saying that his argument is wrong because he is a duplicitous person, I am saying his argument is duplicitous. I find Simon's opinions to be based upon prejudice which leads him to judge motives and values according to an unfair double standard. When an argument purports to be based on reason and experience while appealing to nothing (as it seems to me) but ethnocentric preconception, I think it's fair to call that duplicity. Whether Simon himself is a duplicitous person, I can't say because I don't know anything about him. I suspect he is not: My impression is that he is probably honest, but his person honesty does not redeem his argument.
Oh for heaven's sake, have I got to break this down even further?
Fine. "Your duplicity". Your: belonging to you. Duplicity: deceitfulness.
You called him a liar. I believe you meant it, too (since you said it twice, but I was going to forgo mentioning the "talking out both sides of your mouth" incident the first time around in an attempt to be gentle). It's possible I'm wrong, and you just phrased it poorly. That happens too.
"Your duplicity" is not about his argument. It's about him.
Even if it were about his argument, as you claim, whether his argument is duplicitous or not has no bearing on whether the argument is true or not. Hypocrisy, if it were even true that Simon was being hypocritical, is a fallacious counter to an argument. It falls under "irrelevant conclusion". It's an ad hominem attack.
Seriously.
I asked you to cool it with the ad hominem, but your response makes it obvious you aren't willing to. Your weaseling about whether it was him or his argument is painful to watch. If something is observed to be insulting, whether by the party being insulted or some bystander, it is insulting. You don't randomly get to decide it's not insulting just because it came out of your mouth.
Now maybe you didn't mean it, but since you feel obligated to defend it, I'm guessing you did.
Russell, you want to know why I participate less in the forums? This bullshit, right here.
Ad hominem's left to stand, and calling someone on their boorish behavior not eliciting the civil, 'ok, my bad, let me try a different tact' but this long-winded explanation about why it's ok to be a dick.
I am so done here.
P.S.
Sorry about using you as a third person example, Simon. I know you can well and truly speak for yourself, but this is a perfect object lesson on why I find debate here interminably frustrating.
-
Czhorat: You are absolutely correct in saying that everything we do effects everyone else, but that does not negate my argument. As a matter of personal liberty, what you can do, I desire no restriction on you. I want you to be allowed to behave as you choose according to your own reasoning and values. You do not extend that same respect to me. You want to prevent me from behaving as I choose according to my reasoning and my values. Your theory that doing so will make us all a little safer does not negate this difference in our viewpoints.
I am not suggesting that guns create freedom or peace. Eytanz’s Israeli example illustrates that this is not the case. I am saying that an armed populace is indispensable to preserving freedom where it exists and can be very helpful in creating it. When, as in Palestine, the other necessary ingredients for freedom are absent, adding guns to the mix will do no good. I am not saying guns of themselves are good or result in any sort of positive outcome. I am saying that guns in hands of level-headed people who love freedom are good. Part of the philosophy of gun ownership, as Chodon has tried and tried to point out, is to be that kind of person and teach others to be as well.
Your point about Canada and Europe not being police states as of 2007 is fairly moot. Canada would have a very hard time becoming a police state without US complicity, and many of the European states haven’t existed in their current forms for even 100 years. Add to that the fact that up to a generation ago, there was a Cold War keeping everyone on their toes. The point is that there is nothing stopping these places from becoming police states. (And, frankly, a lot Europe is too close now for my peace of mind.)
Simon: As much as I trust that you are earnest, I simply cannot make any sense of your arguments. You say that I have barbarians living in my town but that my desire to defend myself from them is paranoia. You claim that America’s disproportionate love of guns is due to unique qualities of the American mentality, but you insist that European solutions would work here because we’re all the same. You say that you have been assaulted by strangers six times but insist that your country is safer than mine. You say you are not prejudiced but your arguments seem to depend primarily on the idea that Europeans are inherently more civil than Americans.
I apologize if my use any certain term came across as personal defamation. It’s just that all of your arguments seem... um... insert-term-that-means-simultaneously-making-two-claims-that-contradict-each-other-but-doesn’t-sound-like-an-insult.
There is one thing you have clearly shown me, and that is that you do not understand America. For you to dismiss the significance of the Revolution to America as equal to the memory of ancient Athens to Greece or of the Magna Carta to England shows a complete failure to grasp what and why America is, as well as being factually inaccurate.
The only conclusion I can draw from all that you’ve said so far is this: America is a mystery to you. (Don’t feel bad, America is a mystery to many Americans too.)
Russell: You point out that my talk of citizens resisting tyranny is largely bluster without an organized militia. I concede that there is truth in this, but it is a not a reason to take guns away. If we are disorganized, then the solution is to become organized. Education in America sucks, and I think some basic knowledge of warfare is one of the many, many ways it could be improved.
But even without formal organization, individuals who are competent with and in possession of weapons would be a hell of a lot better than nothing. Guerrilla warfare has been shown to be effective in many times and places. You also discount the ability of neighbors who know and love each other to band together spontaneously, which is something that Americans are famously good at.
While it would be better if there were more formal organization, the lack of it does not make weapons useless and it is certainly not a reason to take them away.
You (and others) also fail to take into account the unique cultural and logistical situations in America that would make revolution here different from anywhere else in the world. This is not Serbia. This is not India. This is America, and that does make a difference, on many levels. (Even if only because of geography, it would make a difference.)
Everyone: It seems to me that all of the anti-gun arguments here essentially come down to assumptions about worst-case-scenarios.
It is assumed that the thug will get the drop on Chodon, and that if Chodon does get a shot off, he will miss and hit a bystander. It is assumed that the oppressive government will resort to nuclear force. It is assumed the freedom fighters will be a small minority. It is assumed that they will be unable to organize. It is assumed that being armed will make citizens thoughtless and rash in their use of violence. It is assumed that only the most paranoid individuals will have guns. Worst and most unfairly, it is assumed that in an anarchic situation my neighbor will turn on me rather than help me. (I don’t know what kind of neighbors you all have, but I would expect my neighbors to do everything in their power to help me survive in such a situation, as I would most certainly do for them. My neighbors are not an obstacle to my survival: They are my most important asset.)
I do not make assumptions like this. I do not know what the future holds, I do not know what situations I might find myself in and I do not know what the best course of action might be in those situations. I do not know whether or not my gun will be useful. The future is fluid, and so I think it wise to be as prepared as possible for any eventuality. Whatever else any of you may argue, you cannot claim that giving up my gun will make me more prepared for or increase my chances of doing good in any situation. Giving up my gun has the singular effect of limiting my options.
When it comes down to it, a weapon is power, and who you think should have weapons is determined by who you think should have the final say. This is a moral and philosophical point that has nothing to do with statistics. I believes that power comes from and ultimately should rest with the common person. I have no faith in the nebulous abstraction of “society,” which has proven so horribly evil so many times in the last century. I have faith in myself, in my family, in my friends and–although with frequent and dire doubts–I have faith in the people of the United States. We are the ones I want wielding power. If the price of keeping power in the hands of individuals is a higher murder rate, then I am willing to pay that price. Freedom is never free. (Although, as Chodon so well pointed out, guns do not equal murder. I don’t recall any refutation of his statistics.)
If you can understand that last paragraph, Simon, it might help you understand why the American Revolution remains such a significant event.
Chodon: Your guns are a comfort to me. Thank you.
And that, I think, is my final word on this topic. I’ve proved to a monstrous hypocrite with such statements in the past, but as of now my plan is to drop it. I’ve found this conversation enlightening and, as usual, feel that I’m taking valuable insights away from it. Thanks to everybody.
-
insert-term-that-means-simultaneously-making-two-claims-that-contradict-each-other-but-doesn’t-sound-like-an-insult.
I find "contradictory" and "inconsistent" to do the job relatively well.
-
Czhorat: You are absolutely correct in saying that everything we do effects everyone else, but that does not negate my argument. As a matter of personal liberty, what you can do, I desire no restriction on you. I want you to be allowed to behave as you choose according to your own reasoning and values. You do not extend that same respect to me. You want to prevent me from behaving as I choose according to my reasoning and my values. Your theory that doing so will make us all a little safer does not negate this difference in our viewpoints.
I'll note that you completely ignored my argument in favor of making vague noises about your freedom. I'll repeat: your freedom to own a gun impacts my personal safety. Do you disagree that this should ever be a consideration or would you be willing to restrict, for example, someone's right to operate a chemical plant next door to you? After all, he's giving you the right to not operate one. You're the one assaulting his freedom.
I am not suggesting that guns create freedom or peace. Eytanz’s Israeli example illustrates that this is not the case. I am saying that an armed populace is indispensable to preserving freedom where it exists and can be very helpful in creating it. When, as in Palestine, the other necessary ingredients for freedom are absent, adding guns to the mix will do no good. I am not saying guns of themselves are good or result in any sort of positive outcome. I am saying that guns in hands of level-headed people who love freedom are good. Part of the philosophy of gun ownership, as Chodon has tried and tried to point out, is to be that kind of person and teach others to be as well.
And many other people here are saying that this is false. That allowing easy access to firearms demonstrably increases the availability of deadly force to those who would use it irresponsibly. You've ignored this point as it doesn't fit with your ideology.
Your point about Canada and Europe not being police states as of 2007 is fairly moot. Canada would have a very hard time becoming a police state without US complicity, and many of the European states haven’t existed in their current forms for even 100 years. Add to that the fact that up to a generation ago, there was a Cold War keeping everyone on their toes. The point is that there is nothing stopping these places from becoming police states. (And, frankly, a lot Europe is too close now for my peace of mind.)
Huh? With the exception of Germany all of Western Europe has been pretty much fixed for quite a bit longer than the United States has. Your discounting England why? I'd also be curious to know why you think Canada would require "US complicity" to become a police state.
Everyone: It seems to me that all of the anti-gun arguments here essentially come down to assumptions about worst-case-scenarios.
I had to read this sentence three times to make sure I didn't misread it. You and Chodon are saying that you want guns so you can overthrow the government when it becomes a police state and you accuse others of relying on worst-case scenarios? I'm not even sure how to react.
It is assumed that the thug will get the drop on Chodon, and that if Chodon does get a shot off, he will miss and hit a bystander. It is assumed that the oppressive government will resort to nuclear force. It is assumed the freedom fighters will be a small minority. It is assumed that they will be unable to organize. It is assumed that being armed will make citizens thoughtless and rash in their use of violence. It is assumed that only the most paranoid individuals will have guns. Worst and most unfairly, it is assumed that in an anarchic situation my neighbor will turn on me rather than help me. (I don’t know what kind of neighbors you all have, but I would expect my neighbors to do everything in their power to help me survive in such a situation, as I would most certainly do for them. My neighbors are not an obstacle to my survival: They are my most important asset.)
I make no such assumptions. I assume that guns available legally will become an easy source of weapons for a black market. This is already happening. I assume that people will get careless and leave their guns where kids can find them and accidentally shoot themselves. This already happens. I assume that police forces will constantly have to up-arm to keep up with increasingly heavily armed criminals, creating more deadly police shootouts and more deadly crossfires. This already happens. I assume nothing, but observe much.
When it comes down to it, a weapon is power, and who you think should have weapons is determined by who you think should have the final say. This is a moral and philosophical point that has nothing to do with statistics. I believes that power comes from and ultimately should rest with the common person. I have no faith in the nebulous abstraction of “society,” which has proven so horribly evil so many times in the last century. I have faith in myself, in my family, in my friends and–although with frequent and dire doubts–I have faith in the people of the United States. We are the ones I want wielding power. If the price of keeping power in the hands of individuals is a higher murder rate, then I am willing to pay that price. Freedom is never free. (Although, as Chodon so well pointed out, guns do not equal murder. I don’t recall any refutation of his statistics.)
The common person includes you and Chodon. It also includes criminals, thieves, racialist groups, anarchists, people opposed to any kind of government regulations, and radical true believers on all sides of all causes. I don't think that you, Mr. Tweedy, are a danger to me. I think that the unfettered availability of deadly force to any citizen who asks for it is a danger to myself, my family, and to society as a whole. You want to protect your family by personally wielding deadly force. I want to protect my family and everyone else's by limiting the availability of deadly force to the police and the military. Freedom is never free, but nor is it absolute.
-
You (and others) also fail to take into account the unique cultural and logistical situations in America that would make revolution here different from anywhere else in the world. This is not Serbia. This is not India. This is America, and that does make a difference, on many levels. (Even if only because of geography, it would make a difference.)
Mr. Tweedy you continue to confuse revolution with secession.
This continuing belief that America is unique is why the country is in such a mess at the moment. "America is the best at everything and can do what it wants" is why we're stuck in Iraq, the dollar has plumetted, and why we've completely lost out standing in the world. You can say we're unique, but only in the same way most countries are unique.
Everyone: It seems to me that all of the anti-gun arguments here essentially come down to assumptions about worst-case-scenarios.
The majority of your arguement is about what happens when the government collapses. You accuse us of worst case scenarios??
The American Revolution connection is preposterious and I say this as an American who understands the country. That is a last ditch effort to avoid the real discussion. Nobody brought that up as a reason to buy a gun until the NRA first proposed it. The real reasons are: Hunting, sport, defense, collecting, and crime.
Hunting: Well unless we really re-introduce natural predators. Most of the legitimately hunted animals in the US would overpopulate and then starve and then repaet the cycle. We need hunters. (I said legitimate. I'm all for outlawing these hunting farms like the ones Cheney goes too. They're for pussies.)
Sport: This is why I would get one if I could. I like sqeezing off a few rounds. I've never shot a .45, but man do I want a 1911.
Defense: I find carrying one with you to be impractical. As I argued with Chodon, if I have my coat and gloves on in a normal way for winter, I can't draw a gun to defend myself without notice. In a place where I have notice I defend my family and myself far better by finding a way out.
There have been situations where it would have been better if someone had a gun to stop the shooter, but I have a better chance of shot by a police officer than by one of these shooters.
A side issue on these shooters. Normally they're committing suicide and just trying to take as many people as possible with them. They wouldn't be dissuaded by the presence of citizens with guns. The professional killers don't run amok. They're there to do a specific job: kill a target, rob the bank, etc.. If you're not the target, the safest thing to do is stay out of the way and don't watch. I hate to use fiction as an example, but in Serenity Zoe said, "the definition of hero is somebody who gets other people killed."
For home defense I have a far better weapon and it's one the kids can play with. A forty pound dog with a good bark and an excellent snarl. A far lower percentage of homes with dogs are ever broken into. The robber doesn't want to have to deal with a possibly dangerous animal and the owners are now awake. Your gun doesn't do you any good if you're asleep. Even if I did have the 1911, it wouldn't be anywhere near my bedroom. It would be unloaded in a safe in my office. The dog and my steel baton are all I need.
Collecting: If it floats your boat, fine. Store them in a locked case with security glass and remove the firing pins.
Crime: We all get it.
My point which I'm getting to in a long about manner is that there are a shit load of legitimate reasons to have guns, but they are extremely dangerous when in the wrong hands.
You guys have called us defeatist for saying we don't think you can stage an armed insurrection in the US, but your answer to criminals with guns is "there's just too many."
The article I posted at the very beginning (http://www.cleveland.com/crime/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/iscri/119780981440320.xml&coll=2) said most guns used in crime come from straw purchases. This means that guns used in crimes are not being used by thier proper owners. This means that most guns used in crimes are relatively new (the article says IIRC that over half of these straw-purchased guns were less than five years old when they were recovered by police). Wouldn't really going after these people be a good place to start? To start getting the guns out of the hands of the most dangerous wouldn't that help? The muggers and the home thieves are the most dangerous to us personally. If we could just make the guns a little harder to get a little more expensive for them, wouldn't that cut down on the numbers?
-
Illinois is not self-sufficient. If you did have all of Illinois, the government would just cut you off and starve you out. Blow up all road connections, cut power, cut phones, cut all shipments, freeze all bank accounts.
Okay, I haven't finished reading everything, but I've just got to stop and respond to this.
Russell, this is a statement of such ignorance that is makes me hesitate to take anything else you say seriously. Illinois could easily be self-sufficient. Cut us off? From what? Illinois grows enough food to feed itself many times over. Illinois has ample reserves of coal and oil (although much of it is currently untapped). Illinois has facilities to produce steel, fabric, plastic, medicine, machinery, etc. Illinois makes its own electricity, has it's own communication and highway systems, and has plenty of water. We have 13 million people (almost twice as many as Switzerland) in whom can be found expertise in absolutely anything to solve any problems that might arise.
I can't believe you know so little about the geography of the United States that you would even think of something as silly as "cutting us off and starving us out." If the entire rest of the world were to simply vanish tomorrow, the people of Illinois would be able to survive, and do so without privation. The same applies to most–if not every–one of our 50 states.
Do you really not understand that or were you just typing off the cuff and not thinking?
image
Cut us off!
Continuing to read...
Not a single state or for that matter country is capable of being self-sufficient while maintaing a first-world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_world) lifestyle.
I won't get into modern manufactoring realities, but instead I'll point out raw resources.
Illinois has no Iron ore deposits (http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mapdata/minesmap.gif) therefore it has no future steel industry.
Illinois produces less than 900,000 barrels of oil a month (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=IL). A barrel is 42 gallons and yields 51% of that volume as gasoline (http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/whats_in_barrel_oil.html). Using your number of 13 million people that 1.4 gallons of gas per person per month. That's 5.6 gallons a month for your family minus whatever the new government and industry needs. In 2005 Illinois used 33.5 gallons (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=IL) per person per month.
Illinois produces no cotton or wool. And you can't get the sheep or the seeds after we close the border. That means you could only wear synthetic cloth. Plus you can't import the seeds for large production of other foods so I hope you like corn and soy beans (http://library.thinkquest.org/J001571/crops.htm).
Illinois doesn't produce raw plastics. So much for the synthetic cloth and any plastic manufacturing.
Illinois doesn't have silicon or copper deposits (http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mapdata/minesmap.gif). So much for any kind of electronics.
You could probably have a very nice industrial age life.
Sorry for the dose of reality.
-
Canada would have a very hard time becoming a police state without US complicity, ...
??? What does that mean?
I can't say I agree or disagree, because I have no idea what you were trying to say.
The closest we've come to it in recent history is probably the October Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis) in 1970.
A few wikipedia quotes:
The size of the FLQ organization and the number of sympathizers in the public was not known. However, in its Manifesto, the FLQ terrorists stated:
"In the coming year Bourassa [Provincial Premier Robert Bourassa] will have to face reality; 100,000 revolutionary workers, armed and organized."
Given that declaration, along with seven years of bombings and the wording of their communiques throughout that time that strove to present an image of a powerful organization spread secretly throughout all sectors of society, the authorities took significant action.
When a CBC Radio reporter asked how far he was willing to go to stop the FLQ, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said, "Just watch me".
(FLQ = Front de libération du Québec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_liberation_du_Quebec))
Mixed reactions, from high fives to "WTF?". A few days later...
In 1970, Quebec nationalists and FLQ members kidnapped British diplomat James Cross and Quebec provincial cabinet minister Pierre Laporte, who was later murdered. What is now referred to as the October Crisis raised fears in Canada of a militant terrorist faction rising up against the government. At the request of the Mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau, and the government of the Province of Quebec, and in response to general threats and demands made by the FLQ, the federal Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau invoked the act. He did this so police had more power in arrest and detention, so they could find and stop the FLQ members. There was a large amount of concern about the act being invoked as it was a direct threat to civil liberties.
So, if our elected officials want to become leaders of a police state, they at least have the paperwork prepared.
All that was years before the FAC was instituted.
In 1977, Bill C-51 required Firearms Acquisition Certificates (FACs) for the acquisition (but not possession) of all firearms and introduced controls on the selling of ammunition. FAC applicants were required to pass a basic criminal record check before being issued an FAC.
Debates about the usefulness of the much-deprecated gun registry program (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada ) never mention any notion of "an armed populace that can resist an oppressive state". It's usually urban anti-crime issues versus rural "it's just another tool" and "waste of tax-payers' money" issues.
On a less serious note, some "gun" owners have been registering their nail guns, staple guns, glue guns, hair dryers as a protest to the Registry, as the government has to process each application, regardless of the type of gun. Some people went as far as registering their children's cap guns.
Rather than rise in armed opposition, Canadians are far more likely to form a national party, like the Bloc Québécois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois)
The Bloc Québécois (BQ) is a federal political party in Canada that defines itself as devoted to the promotion of sovereignty for Quebec. It holds as its goal the "defence of the interests of all Québécois in Ottawa"[citation needed] (notably by promoting, in the federal parliament, the consensus of the National Assembly of Quebec). As such, it contests elections only in constituencies in Quebec. It has very close relations with the Parti Québécois (PQ, whose members are known as "Péquistes"), the provincial party that advocates the secession or separation of Quebec from Canadian Confederation.
After the 2006 federal election, the BQ held 51 seats out of 308.
-
Russell, I didn't say Illinois would not suffer from being isolated or that we could maintain our cozy lobster-and-lattes lifestyles. I said we could survive without privation (privation: a state in which things that are essential for human well-being such as food and warmth are scare or lacking). Illinois could endure a siege indefinitely. None of your "dose of reality" has any effect on that statement.
Anyway...
-
Could you get rid of the guns in private ownership in the States? I mean if the political will power was there.
You could melt down all of the guns that are currently legal. Then obviously stop thier sale so that no more enter circulation. Then in theory, every gun picked up by the police would reduce the number of illegals in circulation.
I imagine this would lead to a short period of chaos as some members of the criminal frat' go wild. I imagine this might call for the mobilisation of militia in some cases.
How long would it take for gun crime to go down... Not long I imagine.
-
Could you get rid of the guns in private ownership in the States? I mean if the political will power was there.
Well, that's the crux of it. The political willpower isn't there. Chodon and Tweedy aren't a lunatic fringe - they may or may represent the majority opinion (I don't know), but they certainly represent a mainstream view.
While I certainly am not a fan of the culture of gun ownership in the US, I also think that it is not something that can be addressed directly. If it will ever change, it will change because the attitudes behind it will change. And I'm not referring to a so-called "macho posturing" attitude that was mentioned several times above; that's not the underlying cause for guns, and it isn't really a fair characteristic of any American I've met in my five years there, including those who were avid gun owners. Rather I'm referring to the (in my view) highly dysfunctional relationship between the US public and their government, which comes out pretty clearly in Tweedy's posts. But that's a different topic, and not one I'm too interested in arguing about at the moment.
-
Russell, I didn't say Illinois would not suffer from being isolated or that we could maintain our cozy lobster-and-lattes lifestyles. I said we could survive without privation (privation: a state in which things that are essential for human well-being such as food and warmth are scare or lacking). Illinois could endure a siege indefinitely. None of your "dose of reality" has any effect on that statement.
Anyway...
With no manufacturing there would be no capability to replace parts at any major facility. The only choice would be canabalism of parts. This means a steady decline in power generation, fuel, transportation and farming. Besides the lack of transportation and farming capability due to lack of diesel fuel just from not having any imports.
Privation: a lack of the usual comforts or necessaries of life. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/privation) That doesn't describe what would happen after the total breakdown of capabilities and services? You're looking at mass starvation within two years.
I'm sure they explained all of this to you when you studied graphic design. When you go back to work after the holidays why don't you walk up to the economics writer and ask him how long you'd all last.
-
Mass starvation due to lack of tractor parts? We have hands, man. Granted, 1000 manual laborers couldn't grow crops with the same efficiency as 5 guys with tractors. Total yields would be a tenth of what they are now, but, again, so what? Illinois exports almost everything it grows. Even if we could only grow crops with 5% of the current efficiency, that would still be plenty to feed 13 million people.
I maintain: Even if Illinois were completely cut off from all trade and communication right now, and the siege lasted 100 years, there is no logistical reason why even a single Illinois resident would have to starve.
If you want to define privation as having to build with brick instead of steel, having to eat corn at every meal, having to ride a bike instead of drive and not being able to download Escape Pod, then, yeah, we'd have to give up a lot of luxuries and simplify our lifestyles. It wouldn't be fun. But if you're talking about people dying for lack of food and shelter, then no, sorry.
-
Tweedy - I'll take your word for how self-sufficient Illinois may be. But one thing that all your estimations seem to share is that the entire state will work in a unified fashi on. I find this unlikely - a tyrant would have a hard time arising in DC without at least some support among the people. I'd assume that a non-negligable percentage of DC loyalists will be found in Illinois. And an non-negligable percentage of people who may not like the Federal government, but dislike other group in Illinois even worse.
A self-sufficient group of 100, or maybe even 1000 can survive for a quite a while under siege. With 13 million, even if only 10% of them are Federalists, you have a civil war on your hand from inside. So, even if the Federal Government is not actively bombing you (which may complicate all your predictions, which seem to assume that the DC tyrant will just sit idly letting the free Republic of Illinois be), I think you may be facing a harder time than you are estimating.
-
Russell: Did you know that corn, is addition to corn-flakes, can also be used to make motor fuel, plastics, synthetic fabrics, and be burned for heat? Great stuff, corn.
Eytanz: This is obviously an unrealistic scenario. Russel asserted that the people of Illinois would starve if the borders were closed, and that's all I'm arguing against. That it could never actually happen so cleanly and neatly, I have no doubt.
-
Russell: Did you know that corn, is addition to corn-flakes, can also be used to make motor fuel, plastics, synthetic fabrics, and be burned for heat? Great stuff, corn.
Eytanz: This is obviously an unrealistic scenario. Russel asserted that the people of Illinois would starve if the borders were closed, and that's all I'm arguing against. That it could never actually happen so cleanly and neatly, I have no doubt.
Mr.Tweedy, I'm sick and tired of being your research man. It would amaze everyone here if you actually looked into something before you opened your mouth.
Commercial corn type number 3 (The kind ADM produces in Illinois) is inedible without being processed. It is also a hybrid. You cannot replant it each year without new seeds. If you try, you get useless and in some cases poisonous corn. Corn also needs more nitrogen based fertilizer than any other crop.
Corn cannot be grown without an infrastructure of chemical plants, oil and natural gas production, refineries, seed production farms, and finally food processing. See above posts for why you won't have that.
I'll give you credit that Illinois is more capable than most places and with an open port on the lake could get everything it needs from Canada, but if that is blockaded you die.
Edit: Adding closing.
Even if your fantasy world could exist on corn, one bombing run of the ADM facility would destroy all seed production. One fly over of herbicides would destroy the year's crop. One bombing run of the fertilizer facility would destroy any chance of farming corn or soy.
-
Russell: Did you know that corn, is addition to corn-flakes, can also be used to make motor fuel, plastics, synthetic fabrics, and be burned for heat? Great stuff, corn.
Eytanz: This is obviously an unrealistic scenario. Russel asserted that the people of Illinois would starve if the borders were closed, and that's all I'm arguing against. That it could never actually happen so cleanly and neatly, I have no doubt.
Mr.Tweedy, I'm sick and tired of being your research man. It would amaze everyone here if you actually looked into something before you opened your mouth.
Commercial corn type number 3 (The kind ADM produces in Illinois) is inedible without being processed. It is also a hybrid. You cannot replant it each year without new seeds. If you try, you get useless and in some cases poisonous corn. Corn also needs more nitrogen based fertilizer than any other crop.
Corn cannot be grown without an infrastructure of chemical plants, oil and natural gas production, refineries, seed production farms, and finally food processing. See above posts for why you won't have that.
I'll give you credit that Illinois is more capable than most places and with an open port on the lake could get everything it needs from Canada, but if that is blockaded you die.
I'm braking my moratorium on replying to you to back up Russell on this one.
Corn, as we grow it, is more tobacco and mold than maze (maze is another name for corn). F1 (first generation), or "mommy and daddy corn" is what you see in the fields, the F2 (second generation), or "baby corns" never gets planted because the genetics, or building instructions, won't hold up and you get nasty corn, poisonous corn, and some times not even corn. Farmers have tried to get out from under the thumb of mean old seed suppliers by planting the F2 themselves and have ended up poisoning their cattle or having fields of tobacco instead. That means that Illinois won't have corn seed to rely on for more than a year, and that's not good.
If you have internet access try googling it.
Secondly, type three isn't edible by humans. Not all corn is created equal. The corn you eat is called "sweet corn" and doesn't actually provide any nutritional value anyway. Feed corn is fed to cattle, cows are called ruminants because they have a stomach full of tiny little bugs that break down cellulose and turn it in to something the other stomachs can eat. Do you have more than one stomach? Does the rest of Illinois?
Where do corn flakes get made? Is the Kellogg corporation located in Illinois? No, no it isn't. It's in Kalamazoo Michigan. So where are these corn flakes coming from?
-
Feed corn is fed to cattle, cows are called ruminants because they have a stomach full of tiny little bugs that break down cellulose and turn it in to something the other stomachs can eat.
Thanks for the back-up, but not even cows can eat corn without help. Ruminants eat grass. Cows have to be given medicine so the corn doesn't make them sick. The corn also changes the Ph of the cows stomach so that it is no longer a hostile enviroment to E.coli. This is why cow manure is no longer viable as a fertilizer.
This country became dependant on corn after WWII simply because we had all of this nitrogen processing capability left over from making bombs. It is a stupid ass crop. The only reason it has remained such a dominant crop is because of the political power of the Iowa Caucas.
-
You are all right. I see it now.
I am a pawn and must accept this fact. Any attempt to move sideways will result in doom. I am helpless, utterly. All circumstance of life that allow me remain alive are so far beyond my control that nothing I or any sized group of my fellows could do cold possibly make the least bit of difference. We are legless grubs who need to be fed and cleaned by Society if we are to survive for even a day. The world is too rigid and inflexible, too dependent on immutable processes for anything other than the status quo to ever be possible. Human ingenuity is a myth: Free people cannot invent solutions to problems. Only bureaucracy can do that, lack-of-god bless it. I am dependent on the benevolence and wisdom of Society for all things, and I should not question it or presume that it can be changed.
Thanks all for the lesson. I am reformed.
-
You are all right. I see it now.
At least your first sentence was right
The whole point was that the world is far more complex that you are ever willing to acknowledge. Trying to just pull out guns and change the world doesn't work. Just rying to say, "We won't play with you anymore," doesn't work. If you want to change the world, be knowledgable of your subject and use words. Becoming an activist or a political volunteer will do far more than running away and trying to start your own country or trying to kill low level enforcers of the law.
-
Sigh.
I see again that you have completely failed to comprehend my arguments. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is because of my poor pedagogical skills.
Later, all.
-
Sigh.
I see again that you have completely failed to comprehend my arguments. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is because of my poor pedagogical skills.
Later, all.
Ok, so maybe you could please explain what your actual arguments are, sans the sarcasm and petulent sulking? Honestly, I normally enjoy debating stuff with you even when I disagree, but I can't figure out what it is you are trying to say in this thread.
Could you please explain to me how is our saying that arming the population of Illinois is not a good solution against a hypothethical tyrranical federal government is saying that human ingenuity is a myth?
-
Sigh.
I see again that you have completely failed to comprehend my arguments. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is because of my poor pedagogical skills.
Later, all.
I ignored all of your sarcasm, because, as usual, it was totally irrelevant to the arguement. None of it explained how you expected 13 million people without survival training to survive a blockade by a vastly superior force. Sulking and trying to play Martyr doesn't answer anything. Why can't you just admit that you answered my comment about self-sufficiency without thinking it through?
No matter what you say it won't change the fact that we are all interdependant. This is a good thing. This is what keeps major wars from breaking out. This is the reason behind the EU. An area of the world that has seen the most wars in the last two centuries is now a no fighting zone. For the first time in history France and Germany can't even think of starting a war against each other. It's all good. Not perfect, but good.
-
Feed corn is fed to cattle, cows are called ruminants because they have a stomach full of tiny little bugs that break down cellulose and turn it in to something the other stomachs can eat.
Thanks for the back-up, but not even cows can eat corn without help. Ruminants eat grass. Cows have to be given medicine so the corn doesn't make them sick. The corn also changes the Ph of the cows stomach so that it is no longer a hostile enviroment to E.coli. This is why cow manure is no longer viable as a fertilizer.
This country became dependant on corn after WWII simply because we had all of this nitrogen processing capability left over from making bombs. It is a stupid ass crop. The only reason it has remained such a dominant crop is because of the political power of the Iowa Caucas.
Just what do you do for a living Russell? Edit Encyclopedias? Coach Ken Jennings?
-
Neither of you proved that Illinois could not survive! I know full well that most of our corn does not go to feed humans and I understand hybrid seeds. Neither you or Thaurismunths takes into account two very salient facts 1.) Illinois produces a superabundance of crops. Most of Illinois's crops are not grown to feed Illinois: They're put to a 1001 other uses. Removing the 1001 uses is irrelevant if all we're talking about is food. Also note that corn is far from being our only crop. 2.) People are flexible. The fact the we plant specialized hybrid corn now would not prevent us from planting edible corn in future seasons (or in shifting to planting more pumpkins and watermelons, for that matter). It is a minority of the crop, but edible corn does exists in Illinois (I've eaten it) and we could shift production from one type to the other.
The two of you have a very rigid view of what is possible. The current agricultural economy of Illinois is not geared toward feeding Illinois. It is geared toward exportation for profit and is as much a part of world industry as food supply. I say it could be re-geared in short order. If the economy was re-geared to focus internally, Illinois would have no problem feeding itself, even if it operated at only a tiny fraction of its current efficiency. You assume that Illinois residents would behave with unfathomable stupidity and keep on growing the same crops and running the same industries as if there were no siege. I say we would use our brains and find ways to put our vast resources to work in solving our problems. We would not continue growing inedible crops for export if there was no market to export them to. Duh.
We'd change our ways and lifestyle to match the new situation. For instance, Chicago would become a ghost town. My job making ads at this lousy paper would disappear and I would have to start spending half my day tending a garden. We'd all have to learn to sew to patch up our clothes. Things would change and be harder, but we would not die. We would not blithely continue out currently lifestyle as if things had not changed. We would adapt. (Those who refused to adapt would die, but I would consider that a form of suicide.)
As for spraying herbicide on the fields: The original conditions were that Illinois was "cut off" for purpose of being "starved out". You were the one who came with the unrealistic hypothetical situation. Adding chemical warfare to your scenario at this late point in the game is cheating. You can't make up new rules once the game is in progress.
This is really the last thing I'm going to say simply because I don't have time to argue perpetually:
It is my judgement that our differences of opinion come down to this essential difference:
I understand that the future is infinity uncertain. There is infinite potential for destruction and suffering and infinite potential for progress and happiness. Anything can happen, and I have no crystal ball. Understanding this, I think it is wise to be as prepared as possible for any eventuality. I do not expect my society to devolve into tyranny, and I do not expect my home to be assaulted, but I understand that the future is not determined by my expectations.
You all do not embrace this idea. You judge that the current social order is immutable and place limits on what you judge to be possible that are both rigid and arbitrary. You think you have a crystal ball in which you have already seen all possible outcomes, and so you feel no need to be prepared for any future other than that which you expect. You take on faith that there will be no tyranny and no assault and have no Plan B should your faith prove unjustified.
And now I really should be done. (Curse my lack of discipline.)
-
Neither of you proved that Illinois could not survive!
No Mr. Tweedy. It is you who has not proven that Illinois can survive.
Also, I didn't say it couldn't, I just said that Russell is right about the corn.
This is really the last thing I'm going to say simply because I don't have time to argue perpetually:
I (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=838.0) Think (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=816.0) You (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1062.0) Do (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=910.0) Mr. Tweedy (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1220.0)
-
Feed corn is fed to cattle, cows are called ruminants because they have a stomach full of tiny little bugs that break down cellulose and turn it in to something the other stomachs can eat.
Thanks for the back-up, but not even cows can eat corn without help. Ruminants eat grass. Cows have to be given medicine so the corn doesn't make them sick. The corn also changes the Ph of the cows stomach so that it is no longer a hostile enviroment to E.coli. This is why cow manure is no longer viable as a fertilizer.
This country became dependant on corn after WWII simply because we had all of this nitrogen processing capability left over from making bombs. It is a stupid ass crop. The only reason it has remained such a dominant crop is because of the political power of the Iowa Caucas.
Also, could you cite something for this? I'm not coming up with anything.
I understood that bovine rumination was able to break down corn along with other roughage and only the seed coat was an issue.
-
Neither of you proved that Illinois could not survive!
Thaurismunths - I think he means me and Russel. I concede that we didn't prove that Illinois couldn't survive. I also agree with Thauris that you didn't prove that it can. I don't think that that matter can be resolved. I also really am not sure why we're focusing on this, which seems to be an interesting, but peripheral tangent.
As for spraying herbicide on the fields: The original conditions were that Illinois was "cut off" for purpose of being "starved out". You were the one who came with the unrealistic hypothetical situation. Adding chemical warfare to your scenario at this late point in the game is cheating. You can't make up new rules once the game is in progress.
Huh? I'm really confused by this. What exactly are we talking about here? I thought we were talking about actual possible futures. In the real world, new rules are made all the time. I'm perfectly willing to concede that in whatever thought experiment you are running, Illinois is perfectly capable of surviving. Explain to me how this relates to a possible real war.
Remember, the whole discussion emerged out of the question of "what do you need guns for". I assume you're not in favor of arming yourself and Chodon for the purpose of playing some sort of role playing game. You're assuming they're going to help in a real revolution, if one is necessary. So let me re-frame the question. Lets stop debating if Illinois can survive under a particularly far-fetched set of circumstances that Russel came up with, and instead let me ask you: what are the circumstances in which you think having a gun can help you?
You all do not embrace this idea. You judge that the current social order is immutable and place limits on what you judge to be possible that are both rigid and arbitrary. You think you have a crystal ball in which you have already seen all possible outcomes, and so you feel no need to be prepared for any future other than that which you expect. You take on faith that there will be no tyranny and no assault and have no Plan B should your faith prove unjustified.
That's a particularly black&white way of presenting the discussion, which is therefore entirely untrue.
I do reject the proposition that anything can happen. But I also reject the view that "the current social order is immutable" and that there are narrow limits on what is possible. I think that there's a certain set of things that are likely to happen, and there are a certain set of things that are highly unlikely to happen. I also believe that there are consequences to every action taken to prepare. It is my belief that you are preparing for a very unlikely set of circumstances. And I believe that in doing so, you are paying a heavy price.
Imagine that I came to you and said "I have a proposal for you. There's a chance that genetic weapon tests will create a mutant super-virus that will decimate our society. But, if you pay me $500, I will sell you this paper face mask that will protect you from mutant super-virus attack." I doubt you would give me the $500 for the t-shirt. The reason is twofold - while a mutant super-virus is not impossible in this day and age, it's also not likely enough for you to necessarily want to pay $500 for protection. And even if you would, a paper face mask is unlikely to help you much. Not impossible - but it's not particularly likely to be an effective protection.
It is my view that not only the kind of collapse of society you seem to be preparing for is pretty unlikely (though not impossible), I think that it's also pretty unlikely that if it happens, arming the population with conventional weaponry would actually be much help.
Now, we can debate the above for a long time, and I respect that you may not be interested in doing so anymore. But I ask you to please not assume that just because I don't agree with you on what is likely and what is effective, I also hold a bizzarely rigid world view. I do you the courtsey of not assuming you are a moron just because we disagree, and I expect you to extend the same to me.
-
Neither of you proved that Illinois could not survive! I know full well that most of our corn does not go to feed humans and I understand hybrid seeds. Neither you or Thaurismunths takes into account two very salient facts 1.) Illinois produces a superabundance of crops. Most of Illinois's crops are not grown to feed Illinois: They're put to a 1001 other uses. Removing the 1001 uses is irrelevant if all we're talking about is food. Also note that corn is far from being our only crop. 2.) People are flexible. The fact the we plant specialized hybrid corn now would not prevent us from planting edible corn in future seasons (or in shifting to planting more pumpkins and watermelons, for that matter). It is a minority of the crop, but edible corn does exists in Illinois (I've eaten it) and we could shift production from one type to the other.
Already handled. See above mention of seeds.
The two of you have a very rigid view of what is possible. The current agricultural economy of Illinois is not geared toward feeding Illinois. It is geared toward exportation for profit and is as much a part of world industry as food supply. I say it could be re-geared in short order. If the economy was re-geared to focus internally, Illinois would have no problem feeding itself, even if it operated at only a tiny fraction of its current efficiency. You assume that Illinois residents would behave with unfathomable stupidity and keep on growing the same crops and running the same industries as if there were no siege. I say we would use our brains and find ways to put our vast resources to work in solving our problems. We would not continue growing inedible crops for export if there was no market to export them to. Duh.
Already handled. See above mention of seeds. Different crops also need different equipment and different knowledge.
We'd change our ways and lifestyle to match the new situation. For instance, Chicago would become a ghost town. My job making ads at this lousy paper would disappear and I would have to start spending half my day tending a garden. We'd all have to learn to sew to patch up our clothes. Things would change and be harder, but we would not die. We would not blithely continue out currently lifestyle as if things had not changed. We would adapt. (Those who refused to adapt would die, but I would consider that a form of suicide.)
You said without privation. Returning to the 18th century would be privation. See above about starvation.
As for spraying herbicide on the fields: The original conditions were that Illinois was "cut off" for purpose of being "starved out". You were the one who came with the unrealistic hypothetical situation. Adding chemical warfare to your scenario at this late point in the game is cheating. You can't make up new rules once the game is in progress.
You're the one who came up with the entire changing of a large economy in less than one growing season. That is beyond unrealistic. You also said without privation and then changed it to just survive. I gave you your fantasycornland and proved that if you somehow did it losing less than half of your population to starvation it could easily be removed.
This is really the last thing I'm going to say simply because I don't have time to argue perpetually:
It is my judgement that our differences of opinion come down to this essential difference:
I understand that the future is infinity uncertain. There is infinite potential for destruction and suffering and infinite potential for progress and happiness. Anything can happen, and I have no crystal ball. Understanding this, I think it is wise to be as prepared as possible for any eventuality. I do not expect my society to devolve into tyranny, and I do not expect my home to be assaulted, but I understand that the future is not determined by my expectations.
You all do not embrace this idea. You judge that the current social order is immutable and place limits on what you judge to be possible that are both rigid and arbitrary. You think you have a crystal ball in which you have already seen all possible outcomes, and so you feel no need to be prepared for any future other than that which you expect. You take on faith that there will be no tyranny and no assault and have no Plan B should your faith prove unjustified.
And now I really should be done. (Curse my lack of discipline.)
My point was that it was Assinine to be prepared for the need to rise up against your government, when taking to the street with a gun will make you the first to die. Fighting the powers that be with words before the government becomes a tyranny will have a far greater chance of making an armed uprising even more unlikely and unneccesary. But you'd just rather sit there and wait for the need to raise arms does come.
There is a problem now and it is criminals getting guns and legal gun owners not securing thier weapons. But you'd rather have an armed criminal come skidding his car across your lawn and threatening your family than try to make it harder for him to get a gun. Assinine!
As I type this my home defense system is stretched out on the couch next to me. She also is a good mobile personal defense system. On a cold winter's night she's also a foot warmer.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2120/2133576965_1bb1d4d0a9.jpg)
-
Feed corn is fed to cattle, cows are called ruminants because they have a stomach full of tiny little bugs that break down cellulose and turn it in to something the other stomachs can eat.
Thanks for the back-up, but not even cows can eat corn without help. Ruminants eat grass. Cows have to be given medicine so the corn doesn't make them sick. The corn also changes the Ph of the cows stomach so that it is no longer a hostile enviroment to E.coli. This is why cow manure is no longer viable as a fertilizer.
This country became dependant on corn after WWII simply because we had all of this nitrogen processing capability left over from making bombs. It is a stupid ass crop. The only reason it has remained such a dominant crop is because of the political power of the Iowa Caucas.
Also, could you cite something for this? I'm not coming up with anything.
I understood that bovine rumination was able to break down corn along with other roughage and only the seed coat was an issue.
There's a whole section in The Omnivore's Dilemma (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0143038583/escapepod-20). In general it's just a great book.
-
Feed corn is fed to cattle, cows are called ruminants because they have a stomach full of tiny little bugs that break down cellulose and turn it in to something the other stomachs can eat.
Thanks for the back-up, but not even cows can eat corn without help. Ruminants eat grass. Cows have to be given medicine so the corn doesn't make them sick. The corn also changes the Ph of the cows stomach so that it is no longer a hostile enviroment to E.coli. This is why cow manure is no longer viable as a fertilizer.
This country became dependant on corn after WWII simply because we had all of this nitrogen processing capability left over from making bombs. It is a stupid ass crop. The only reason it has remained such a dominant crop is because of the political power of the Iowa Caucas.
Just what do you do for a living Russell? Edit Encyclopedias? Coach Ken Jennings?
I got bored with professional sports and cars and put all of that brain capacity to other uses. Try it. It's amazing how much space it frees up. Being curious also helps. Oh yeah, never trust what someone tells you. Research it yourself. Also ignore most pop culture trends. They're another waste of brain capacity. I had to look up Ken Jennings, so I could get your joke.
Last but not least. When you don't know anything about a subject, shut your mouth. That way people don't realize it when you don't know something. It's all in other people's perception.
-
I'll cover both at once:
I've hear of The Omnivore's Dilemma, and I'll have to bump it up on the reading list. Thanks.
---
I'm with on that. Shwankie and I don't watch TV just the occasional movie, we're both avid readers of more than just SF. Currently most of our energies go in to wilderness survival, as we are avid hikers, and organic foods. Neither of us have any delusions of 'living off the land' at TEOTWAWKI, but we know all about preserving foods (ever canned butter?) and are learning how to subsidize our meals off of wild foods. We also take a special interest in organic and sustainable food practices.
The real trick to keeping your ignorance cloaked is to know what you're ignorant about. I'm surprised to hear about the corn intolerance because of the growing trend in whole plant silage feeding programs. Very fascinating.
-
The real trick to keeping your ignorance cloaked is to know what you're ignorant about. I'm surprised to hear about the corn intolerance because of the growing trend in whole plant silage feeding programs. Very fascinating.
Mostly I was just joking. I'm just a curious guy and I only talk when I know what I'm talking about. If I'm ignorant, I listen and learn.
-
Now the scaffold stood high and eternity was near
She stood in the crowd but she shed not a tear
but sometimes at night when the cold wind blows
She comes to my grave and she mourns over my bones
Guns help people kill people.
-
Now the scaffold stood high and eternity was near
She stood in the crowd but she shed not a tear
but sometimes at night when the cold wind blows
She comes to my grave and she mourns over my bones
Nick Cave, nice.
-
Now the scaffold stood high and eternity was near
She stood in the crowd but she shed not a tear
but sometimes at night when the cold wind blows
She comes to my grave and she mourns over my bones
Nick Cave, nice.
Not really, no. The song is originally by Lefty Frizzell, and was first recorded in 1959, though it was covered many, many times over the years. Nick Cave's version is the best one I've heard, though.
-
Now the scaffold stood high and eternity was near
She stood in the crowd but she shed not a tear
but sometimes at night when the cold wind blows
She comes to my grave and she mourns over my bones
Guns help people kill people.
Well, um, there's no mention of guns in that song.
Ten years ago, on a cold dark night
Someone was killed, 'neath the town hall light
There were few at the scene, but they all agreed
That the slayer who ran, looked a lot like me
I like The Band's cover version best.