Guns in America

[Simon]

"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, 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...

[Anarkey]

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.

[Chodon]

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.

[Heradel]

...  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.

[Anarkey]

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?

[The Outlaw Kyle]

...  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

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 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. 

[Chodon]

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.

[Russell Nash]

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]

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.

[The Outlaw Kyle]

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.

[Anarkey]

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. 

[Russell Nash]

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.

[Heradel]

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.

[Russell Nash]

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.

[Chodon]

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.

[Czhorat]

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.

[Simon]

"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

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 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.

[Chodon]

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.

[Mr. Tweedy]

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.

[Planish]

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."

[qwints]

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.

[Czhorat]

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.

[Czhorat]

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.

[Simon]

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), 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

[Russell Nash]

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.