Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

ColWTH · Sep 16, 2003, 10:16 pm

Even the Thais know that gun ownership just makes SENSE!
___________________________________

Thais shoot down Thaksin proposal to ban guns

BANGKOK - A proposal by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to make Thailand a gun-free society over the next five to six years has met with a poor response as more than 78 per cent of Thais want the right to hold firearms to protect themselves.

This is despite the open expression of support to ban firearms by most liberals and the media in Thailand.

A poll conducted by the Ramkamhaeng University found that 78.3 per cent of respondents felt they should be allowed to own guns - to protect themselves and their families from burglaries and robberies, especially while travelling.

full story
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asia/stor...,210226,00.html?

G. Adams · Sep 17, 2003, 10:28 am

Now I personally support gun ownership, not quite to the level of everyone sporting miniguns, but generally small arms are good with me.

But, I would like to know why you, ColWTH, support gun ownership.

RebelWithanAK · Sep 17, 2003, 12:04 pm

G. Adams, you only support gun ownership because it helps spark the revolution and you know it. =p

I, however, can't find a single good reason why anyone should own guns in a just society.

G. Adams · Sep 17, 2003, 02:56 pm

If we, in Britain, hadn't banned guns from poor people in the early 1800's, we would have had our revolution already.

But there are some none revolutionary reasons.

If you ban guns, then all the law abiders hand them in. Criminals don't. So we have an armed criminal population, and a disarmed and vulnerable innocent population.

Also, if your a libertarian as most of us are, you support freedom in all areas that arn't infringing other peoples rights, like drug use. Now you might argue that gun crimes most certainly do affect more than their user. However, if people are so enraged they are going to kill someone, or are part of a gang that wants weapons for protection, it doesn't matter if they take the guns off them. In GB, we have a ban on all handguns, and its very hard to get a rifle or shotgun license. So we have a low gun crime rate. BUT, instead we do have a high knife attack, and even more increasingly sword attacks. The point I am making is that banning guns won't save lives.

And importantly, I have a human right to protect myself. If someone attacks me am I expected just to take a beating/stabbing/bullet, hope I live and then call the police? No, I have the right to defend myself. And although my martial arts might help me stop beating, even knifings, it won't stop a bullet. Thus, the government has no right to stop me from owning a firearm, unless they each and every person their own armed policeman.

combatrhino · Sep 17, 2003, 03:09 pm

i am against gun ownership. when compared to other countries gun violence in america is insane. michael moore makes a lot of good points if you have not watched Bowling for Columbine. guns seem pointless. other countries have shown that police are able to control society without guns, using mace and other detterants like that. general citizens have absolutely no use for guns. hunting is the only practical and possibly reasonable reason to own a gun. owning a gun for target practice is foolish. owning a gun to protect yourself from an external threat is foolish; you are afraid of what? people with other guns? thus, if you took away their guns, you would no longer need a gun.

in response to the above mentioned "honest citizens are the only that will abide".. that is very true, but it is true with anything. i would suggest higher penalties (MMS?) for gun-inclusive crimes and a crack down on weapons dealing.

also in response to the above "if people are so enraged they are going to kill someone, or are part of a gang that wants weapons for protection, it doesn't matter if they take the guns off them." you are from GB so i am not knowing how much statistics you know of america, but we have a significant accidental death stat for firearms. also, allowing people to have guns is proven to increase their desire to cause crime in the first place. it creates a mentality of purpose for the gun and a social acceptance. Adams also says knifing is higher, but I would guess that those knifing casualties are far below the would-be gun casualties, based on the simple psychology behind that act.

clearly there is something wrong when america has tens times higher gun casualties than any other country. we also own and produce more guns than any other country. these two are parallels people.

the only revolution coming is corporate. o_O

"I have the right to defend myself. And although my martial arts might help me stop beating, even knifings, it won't stop a bullet. " this seems a little silly if you think about it. it is understandable that you would fend off a physical attack with martial arts, or even a knife attack, but true, it would be useless against a bullet. but if you had a gun what would you do? shoot the bullet in midair? or would you use your john wayne skills and shoot the gun right out of their hand? chances are you would shoot to kill, knowing your life is in danger. so then, do you have the right to take someones life? the problem with the above concept is this: if someone has a gun for "protection" and someone tries to mug them, they will shoot them. if someone tries to rape them, they will shoot them. if someone doesnt use their turning signal, they will shoot them. tally up the number of firearm deaths where the person shot did not have a gun, and you might be surprised. in fact, instances where someone uses a gun to protect against someone else using a gun is probably reserved for gang violence.

RebelWithanAK · Sep 17, 2003, 04:49 pm

This isn't the wild west, G. Adams. If police are so useless as to provide no assistance to the law abiding populace against the mob of armed and unruly thugs, then obviously we're already in a warzone. There's a reason I don't live in Beirut or Johannesburg (and this is other than the fact that my choices of weaponry would either have supported the Soviet Union or the State of Israel =p). I may not like this administration, but I trust myself not to get into a situation where my life is threatened, and I trust the police to come to my assistance if it does. We've had a great policing policy here in NYC and the entire USA under Clinton (who ran as a law-and-order candidate), and homocide rates (especially gun murders) have gone down considerably, so it is possible. Of course, statistics show the figures rise right back up whenever a "bring 'em on" Republican comes into office, so maybe your revolution idea might just pan out. =P

Besides, in a mugging or a burglary with an armed suspect, it's simply safer to give up the goods than play John Wayne. If an assailant were to pull a gun on you, what would you do? Pull one out, too? Then he'd shoot you and would get off scot free on charges of self defense. I'd had friends mugged at gunpoint, and the events were definitely not put up for dispute. Hand over the money, and nobody gets hurt - and it's true to a point (statistically, more gun deaths are by domestic problems and accidents than by violent crime). Sure, there's the awful travesty and massacre (6 employees tied up and shot in a Wendy's in Flushing, Queens two years ago) but methinks heroics are not par for the course, here.

indierockboy · Sep 17, 2003, 04:55 pm

i fail to see how public opinion on guns infers gun ownership makes "good sense".

G. Adams · Sep 17, 2003, 08:02 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by combatrhino@09-17-2003 03:09 PM
i am against gun ownership. when compared to other countries gun violence in america is insane. michael moore makes a lot of good points if you have not watched Bowling for Columbine. guns seem pointless. other countries have shown that police are able to control society without guns, using mace and other detterants like that. general citizens have absolutely no use for guns. hunting is the only practical and possibly reasonable reason to own a gun. owning a gun for target practice is foolish. owning a gun to protect yourself from an external threat is foolish; you are afraid of what? people with other guns? thus, if you took away their guns, you would no longer need a gun.

in response to the above mentioned "honest citizens are the only that will abide".. that is very true, but it is true with anything. i would suggest higher penalties (MMS?) for gun-inclusive crimes and a crack down on weapons dealing.

also in response to the above "if people are so enraged they are going to kill someone, or are part of a gang that wants weapons for protection, it doesn't matter if they take the guns off them." you are from GB so i am not knowing how much statistics you know of america, but we have a significant accidental death stat for firearms. also, allowing people to have guns is proven to increase their desire to cause crime in the first place. it creates a mentality of purpose for the gun and a social acceptance. Adams also says knifing is higher, but I would guess that those knifing casualties are far below the would-be gun casualties, based on the simple psychology behind that act.

clearly there is something wrong when america has tens times higher gun casualties than any other country. we also own and produce more guns than any other country. these two are parallels people.

the only revolution coming is corporate. o_O

"I have the right to defend myself. And although my martial arts might help me stop beating, even knifings, it won't stop a bullet. " this seems a little silly if you think about it. it is understandable that you would fend off a physical attack with martial arts, or even a knife attack, but true, it would be useless against a bullet. but if you had a gun what would you do? shoot the bullet in midair? or would you use your john wayne skills and shoot the gun right out of their hand? chances are you would shoot to kill, knowing your life is in danger. so then, do you have the right to take someones life? the problem with the above concept is this: if someone has a gun for "protection" and someone tries to mug them, they will shoot them. if someone tries to rape them, they will shoot them. if someone doesnt use their turning signal, they will shoot them. tally up the number of firearm deaths where the person shot did not have a gun, and you might be surprised. in fact, instances where someone uses a gun to protect against someone else using a gun is probably reserved for gang violence.

combatrhino

Bowling for Columbine made a good case for gun restrictions, and I'm for that. I would want all people who want a gun to be licensed. All those who want to be licensed have to attend a six week training course in how to look after, handle and shoot a weapon safely, as well as a psych evaluation. I want guns taken from criminals. I want the guns registered.

BfC made a greater case for dealing with poverty, which devestates communities and vastly increases the risk of gun crimes being committed.

If we take away the criminals guns? Do you really think an amnesty would bring all the criminals guns in? Not a chance. The point is, we can't take guns away from criminals. Even if you take it off a criminal, it is easily replaced. In the UK, decommisioned weapons are being illegaly recommisioned, brocock air guns are being bored out and altered to take rounds, mechenisms are being pieced together to shoot single rounds. Not to mention I can just go to France, buy the weapons, stick them on a boat and pick them up back in the UK. Hell, the IRA have smuggled M16's and stingers from the US for gods sake. You can't get the guns off criminals.

And target practice isn't a bad arguement, because ITS A SPORT. I personally prefer air pistols, as apart from proper handguns being illegal, they don't leave any holes in my fence. But the British Pistol shooting team has to go to France to practice now. And when it comes to rifles, its more important that we can fire for target practice. I've been shooting air rifles since I was ten, and now at 18, I can't progress my marksmanship until I get proper rifle so I can shoot at a full size range (up to 1000m)

And you also have massive numbers of deaths from car accidents, are you going to ban them? Cars and guns are both tools, if used by people who don't know how to use them they are dangerous.

From 1992 to 2002, there were 2130 fatalities due to knife attacks, but I can't find the number of attacks overall. You have to remember, as Moore pointed out, that better welfare results in lower crimes of this sort. And we do have a much better welfare system than the US. And, many knife attacks will go unreported, because few people in poverty stricken areas, rightfully (i'll get into it later) don't trust the police.

There has also been many (quite possibly just scaremongering sensationalism) programs on British TV reporting the increase in knife attacks in order to steal mobile phones, which is the fastest growing crime here.

The socialist revolution will follow the corporate one. It'll take its completion for everyone to realise we are being screwed by the rich.

If someone points a gun at me with the intent of shooting me, or even the risk of shooting me, my conscience is clear if I shoot them.

rebelwithanAK

Perhaps you live in a better area than myself but in the last three years I have been mugged twice, attacked for I guess must have been fun five times, and ended up in fights to protect friends more times than I can count. Thankfully no guns have been involved, but when someone brandishes twin butterfly swords at you, you'd rob the damned mobile phone shop for him. Now I am no easy looking target, I'm 6'1, 185lbs and broad, so thats not why I'm attacked. In those attacks, some I dealt with without taking a scratch, other times I've had the shit kicked out of me. Surprisingly enough, the police wern't running in to help me. Until the police can do that, I have the right to protect myself.

the pigs

Okay, I know not all police are like the ones I've encountered. Hell, I'm supposedly related to one. However my three experiences with police are:

the one and only time I reported a crime was the butterfly swords incident (my kung fu group uses them so I wanted to report it to clear them in the future). I was told that they would look out for them, but there was little they could really do.

Being thrown into a police van for protesting outside of a US army base here in the UK. I was originally told it was under the terrorist act, but later it got moved to blocking a public highway.

Being thrown against the floor, knee on my back and boot on my face on a night out. Why? Because I was splitting my friend apart from fighting someone. When I tried to explain I was told that they "couldn't care less, it's almost 3am and my shift ends, which is the only reason your not getting chucked in the van and spending a night in the cells".

Thats just my personal experience. Friends have been stopped and searched by police just because they wear hoodies and trackie bottoms. The best fights I ever see are the ones at Redcar while i'm sitting in the kebab shop when the police launch themselves into a couple of people scrapping. The beating they take from the police is worse than they would get from the other guy.

So, strangely, I don't really count on the police to give two shits about me, my rights or my protection.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 17, 2003, 11:09 pm

Should have known this one was coming.

combatrhino

First, I would like to see this 'proof' of yours. All I see is a lot of polarized opinion claiming that anyone that does not think exactly like you is somehow 'foolish'.

Second, thinking that all of us are capable of defending ourselves w/o a gun is a really lame arguement, most of the population are not males in the prime of their lives that know how to fight. A much greater percentage of criminals are, and only the stupid ones would go after a target that obviously more than he can handle. Even if you did manage to remove all guns they would simply use baseball bats and steel pipe. Seems to me we would have trouble banning those... I consider myself a large male that is able to take care of himself, but I would rather not face a couple of dudes with pipes unless I had a gun.

Third, as far as your accidental shootings, by law and minor being shot by a minor is classified as an accidental shooting for statistical purposes. So remember when you read those 'accidental' shooting a lot of them are gang members shooting each other and innocents that get in the way. Police shooting a fugitive is also documented as an accidental shooting.

BTW: In 1996, 187 people were killed by accidental shootings from pistols more than twice as many people managed to electrocute themselves...
source

combatrhino · Sep 18, 2003, 12:02 am

"Second, thinking that all of us are capable of defending ourselves w/o a gun is a really lame arguement, most of the population are not males in the prime of their lives that know how to fight. A much greater percentage of criminals are, and only the stupid ones would go after a target that obviously more than he can handle. Even if you did manage to remove all guns they would simply use baseball bats and steel pipe. Seems to me we would have trouble banning those... I consider myself a large male that is able to take care of himself, but I would rather not face a couple of dudes with pipes unless I had a gun. "

you see, the beautiful thing is that even if people revert to new weapons, they will be significantly weaker than guns. you dont have to have a black belt in kungfu to protect yourself. as i stated earlier, there are tons TONS of effective ways both for state police and individuals for that sort of personal protection. if you are that afraid that you are going to get clocked in the face with an Easton, a good shot of mace or effective tazer will be equally effective. your argument turns back to the fact that, if someone is coming at you with a baseball bat, should you be able to put a hollow-point 9mm into their skull? if you get jumped from behind while walking through a park at night, im sure you would want to use your gun. well, in the midst of being strangled or beaten, you expect to pull out your gun and get a good shot off? what i see happening is you flailing your hands around, fireing aimlessly into the air. you see, the basis of the idea that "i'd feel safer with a gun against a group of thugs with bats and steel bars" is that you would actually know they are coming after you or something to that extent. if you are that honed in on your telepathic skills to know you are about to be attacked by a group of men in time enough to pull out your gun, arm it, and get off enough shots to disable all your assailants, then i applaud your Superman-like abilities. does that make sense? i can picture you now... walking down city streets with your handgun cocked and loaded, waving it around in front of you, prepared for those ally-thugs. if you try answer my earlier argument of legality of killing in defense by saying you would shoot them just to disable them, you are pretty wrong as well. if you give a firearm-trained person a gun and let them loose, that scenario may hold true. but if you give a gun to a 22 year old grad student/nurse/waiter/waitress do you think they will have the same skill? most people who own handguns have never even fired a gun before.

maybe i should get myself a gun... to protect from all you scaries who already have guns.... right?

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 18, 2003, 12:32 am

Quote:

Originally posted by combatrhino@09-18-2003 12:02 AM
you see, the beautiful thing is that even if people revert to new weapons, they will be significantly weaker than guns. you dont have to have a black belt in kungfu to protect yourself.

Er, I think I would be exactly as dead killed by a steel pipe as I would killed by a steel jacket... and if you think you do not need fighting skill to take a couple of thugs with pipes, you need to have your head examined before you try it and get yourself killed.

Paavo · Sep 18, 2003, 07:24 am

I think it's a tricky question...

however, if a country's people need a firearm to feel safe, then something's very wrong. In my opinion, it puts the US in there with 3rd world countries with anarchy and chaos as a individual's surroundings.
I don't know if you US people can imagine how absurd the idea of civilians carrying guns would be taken here in Finland, for example. And I'm sure that applies pretty much for the rest of "the civilized world" as your president likes to put it. *rolls eyes* :P

RebelWithanAK · Sep 18, 2003, 09:35 am

G. Adams - I've lived in Washington Heights/Inwood most of my life, where I'm sure most of northern New Jersey's drug trade begins, thanks to the George Washington Bridge. When I was growing up (violins play in the background), we know what was going on in the park a block away at 3 am because of what was left in the park that morning, and it wasn't too surprising to hear a shot fired from that direction during the night. My friend from Crown Heights can remember getting mugged at gunpoint three blocks from her home, and I've found myself at the wrong end of a knife twice. Thing is, it got better in Washington Heights in the 90's - so did a lot of other places, thanks in no small part to Clinton's pledge (and success) in putting in 50,000 more uniformed policemen countrywide and instating new rules of conduct. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the "broken window" theory but it was utilized to great effect.

I'm not saying it's perfect - that Flushing incident happened when I was living in Flushing, and it shook up the entire place for a while, but I'll take my stock in the police, thankyouverymuch.

G. Adams · Sep 18, 2003, 10:16 am

Quote:

Originally posted by combatrhino@09-18-2003 12:02 AM
"Second, thinking that all of us are capable of defending ourselves w/o a gun is a really lame arguement, most of the population are not males in the prime of their lives that know how to fight. A much greater percentage of criminals are, and only the stupid ones would go after a target that obviously more than he can handle. Even if you did manage to remove all guns they would simply use baseball bats and steel pipe. Seems to me we would have trouble banning those... I consider myself a large male that is able to take care of himself, but I would rather not face a couple of dudes with pipes unless I had a gun. "

you see, the beautiful thing is that even if people revert to new weapons, they will be significantly weaker than guns. you dont have to have a black belt in kungfu to protect yourself. as i stated earlier, there are tons TONS of effective ways both for state police and individuals for that sort of personal protection. if you are that afraid that you are going to get clocked in the face with an Easton, a good shot of mace or effective tazer will be equally effective. your argument turns back to the fact that, if someone is coming at you with a baseball bat, should you be able to put a hollow-point 9mm into their skull? if you get jumped from behind while walking through a park at night, im sure you would want to use your gun. well, in the midst of being strangled or beaten, you expect to pull out your gun and get a good shot off? what i see happening is you flailing your hands around, fireing aimlessly into the air. you see, the basis of the idea that "i'd feel safer with a gun against a group of thugs with bats and steel bars" is that you would actually know they are coming after you or something to that extent. if you are that honed in on your telepathic skills to know you are about to be attacked by a group of men in time enough to pull out your gun, arm it, and get off enough shots to disable all your assailants, then i applaud your Superman-like abilities. does that make sense? i can picture you now... walking down city streets with your handgun cocked and loaded, waving it around in front of you, prepared for those ally-thugs. if you try answer my earlier argument of legality of killing in defense by saying you would shoot them just to disable them, you are pretty wrong as well. if you give a firearm-trained person a gun and let them loose, that scenario may hold true. but if you give a gun to a 22 year old grad student/nurse/waiter/waitress do you think they will have the same skill? most people who own handguns have never even fired a gun before.

maybe i should get myself a gun... to protect from all you scaries who already have guns.... right?

Nope, cause its black sash in kung fu.

Mace (or any disbaling spray), tazers, batons etc are all also banned in the UK.

As for being skilled, I already said you had to have done a six week course to give you some experience. Perhaps this could be extended to having to be a gun club member?

And Rebel, I live in Middlesbrough, Heroin capital of Europe. (its dirt cheap here, like a big market for all dealers). So this isn't the safest place to live, and at 18 i don't have the money to move. And a lot of people fight for fun around here, because there simply is nothing better to do. I don't personally mind fighting, one on one anyway, but you know that if you ever have the upper hand in a fight the other guys six mates are gonna pounce on you.

Broken window?.... You mean a bad looking neighbourhood reinforces a ghetto mentality, thereby encouraging more crime? Well it seems no-one at my ward council has heard of it, because there are boarded up houses everywhere, graffitti, at least one new burnt out car every morning.

RebelWithanAK · Sep 18, 2003, 02:08 pm

It's just the musings of a city planner in Newark, NJ; which extolls, among many other items, police who match the color (and origins) of the populace, who enforce 'neighborhood' rules - however in line they are with written law, who patrol on foot instead of in squad cars, who give more importance to preventative measures as compared to responsive measures, etc. William Bratton used some of the principles of this "broken window" theory to clean up Boston and NYC - before getting fired by republican Rudolph Giuliani for trying to take the credit for having reduced crime.

indierockboy · Sep 18, 2003, 03:10 pm

the interesting thing about using a gun for self defense is that you have to pull it out of it's holster (or your pocket or purse, etc), remove the safety, chamber a round, aim, and then fire. you need time to do all of this. if someone chooses to mug or attack you, they are not going to start from 50 meters away shouting a warning. most muggings and assaults take place at point blank, and whatever weapon of defense you are carrying is rendered completely useless. you could have a bazooka in your pocket, but it's not going to do you a load of good.

most muggers have no intention of hurting you. they just want your money, they have their knife/gun as an intimidation device. but lets say, for arguments sake, you manage to get your hand on your gun and you start to draw it from it's hiding place. the moment you become a recognized threat is the moment you are in the most trouble. if he knows you can hurt him, he's not going to hesitate to use that intimidation device to kill you before you kill him. in most cases, trying to pull out a weapon is only going to increase the likelihood that you're going to get killed. whatever you have in your wallet isn't worth dying for.

a gun doesn't really offer you protection. if they are easy enough to get then - surprise surprise - everyone will have one. which means you're on the same level as if everyone had lead pipes. or nothing at all. it doesn't offer you any significant advantage over your assailant unless you know they are coming from a mile away.

G. Adams · Sep 18, 2003, 05:10 pm

How the hell did I get on this side of the fence...I started only wanting to bait ColWTH.

Look, humans have the right to own arms in order that, should a government become tyrannical, it can overthrow that government. Without weapons, it would be impossible to do so, as a tyrannical government has an army, you would have what, rhetoric? God? Sure, you have numbers, but unless they are armed numbers, your only 'weapon' would be to try and crush with the weight of your dead comrades onto an army. Not an option I'd run with.

This is the central, primary reason why firearms should ALWAYS be legal. There doesn't have to be another reason, this one is important enough to work on its own.

ColWTH · Sep 18, 2003, 06:20 pm

Here are two things I wrote about gun ownership. Instead of writing them all over again, I hope you will just go to these links.

http://www.mindspring.com/~indguard/2ndamend.html

http://www.mindspring.com/~indguard/2ndamend.html

As to the lies in Michael Moore’s Bowling for Col., this fantasy movie has been proven to be purposely filled with lies by Mr. Moore by several researchers. It is not worth the celluloid it was filmed on.

By the way, G Adams. You are totally correct that one of the biggest reasons the founders wanted gun ownership is to "scare" the government inot fearing the power of the people. I am absolutely FOR that reason.

G. Adams · Sep 18, 2003, 06:33 pm

I havn't seen any reputable sources attacking BfC, although there is obvious whinings from some corners about its bias.

But, whether its right or wrong, I think it correctly addresses the need for gun control, but general gun ownership MUST be allowed. Hell, its not a must, it IS allowed whatever the government say as it is a democratic right.

Put simply, how is power in the hands of the people if the people are unarmed and the government controls an army, navy and airforce?

RebelWithanAK · Sep 18, 2003, 08:14 pm

You'll notice, G, that in my first post I said that you only agreed in the sense of defending yourself against the government (viva la revolucion!) and I said that in a just society guns aren't necessary. The point being, post-humously as it were, that we are on opposite sides of the fence on whether or not our society is 'just', or at least sufficiently unjust to require revolt. =P After all, if disarming criminals is impossible - which you imply - and we are all outlawed...

Sep 17, 2003, 10:28 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Now I personally support gun ownership, not quite to the level of everyone sporting miniguns, but generally small arms are good with me. But, I would like to know why you, ColWTH, support gun ownership. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Sep 17, 2003, 12:04 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	G. Adams, you only support gun ownership because it helps spark the revolution and you know it. =p I, however, can't find a single good reason why anyone should own guns in a just society. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 17, 2003, 02:56 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	If we, in Britain, hadn't banned guns from poor people in the early 1800's, we would have had our revolution already. But there are some none revolutionary reasons. If you ban guns, then all the law abiders hand them in. Criminals don't. So we have an armed criminal population, and a disarmed and vulnerable innocent population. Also, if your a libertarian as most of us are, you support freedom in all areas that arn't infringing other peoples rights, like drug use. Now you might argue that gun crimes most certainly do affect more than their user. However, if people are so enraged they are going to kill someone, or are part of a gang that wants weapons for protection, it doesn't matter if they take the guns off them. In GB, we have a ban on all handguns, and its very hard to get a rifle or shotgun license. So we have a low gun crime rate. BUT, instead we do have a high knife attack, and even more increasingly sword attacks. The point I am making is that banning guns won't save lives. And importantly, I have a human right to protect myself. If someone attacks me am I expected just to take a beating/stabbing/bullet, hope I live and then call the police? No, I have the right to defend myself. And although my martial arts might help me stop beating, even knifings, it won't stop a bullet. Thus, the government has no right to stop me from owning a firearm, unless they each and every person their own armed policeman. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Sep 17, 2003, 03:09 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
combatrhino Molten Ash Location: university of iowa, iowa Posts: 26	i am against gun ownership. when compared to other countries gun violence in america is insane. michael moore makes a lot of good points if you have not watched Bowling for Columbine. guns seem pointless. other countries have shown that police are able to control society without guns, using mace and other detterants like that. general citizens have absolutely no use for guns. hunting is the only practical and possibly reasonable reason to own a gun. owning a gun for target practice is foolish. owning a gun to protect yourself from an external threat is foolish; you are afraid of what? people with other guns? thus, if you took away their guns, you would no longer need a gun. in response to the above mentioned "honest citizens are the only that will abide".. that is very true, but it is true with anything. i would suggest higher penalties (MMS?) for gun-inclusive crimes and a crack down on weapons dealing. also in response to the above "if people are so enraged they are going to kill someone, or are part of a gang that wants weapons for protection, it doesn't matter if they take the guns off them." you are from GB so i am not knowing how much statistics you know of america, but we have a significant accidental death stat for firearms. also, allowing people to have guns is proven to increase their desire to cause crime in the first place. it creates a mentality of purpose for the gun and a social acceptance. Adams also says knifing is higher, but I would guess that those knifing casualties are far below the would-be gun casualties, based on the simple psychology behind that act. clearly there is something wrong when america has tens times higher gun casualties than any other country. we also own and produce more guns than any other country. these two are parallels people. the only revolution coming is corporate. o_O "I have the right to defend myself. And although my martial arts might help me stop beating, even knifings, it won't stop a bullet. " this seems a little silly if you think about it. it is understandable that you would fend off a physical attack with martial arts, or even a knife attack, but true, it would be useless against a bullet. but if you had a gun what would you do? shoot the bullet in midair? or would you use your john wayne skills and shoot the gun right out of their hand? chances are you would shoot to kill, knowing your life is in danger. so then, do you have the right to take someones life? the problem with the above concept is this: if someone has a gun for "protection" and someone tries to mug them, they will shoot them. if someone tries to rape them, they will shoot them. if someone doesnt use their turning signal, they will shoot them. tally up the number of firearm deaths where the person shot did not have a gun, and you might be surprised. in fact, instances where someone uses a gun to protect against someone else using a gun is probably reserved for gang violence. my cachinnation my rhino

Sep 17, 2003, 04:49 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	This isn't the wild west, G. Adams. If police are so useless as to provide no assistance to the law abiding populace against the mob of armed and unruly thugs, then obviously we're already in a warzone. There's a reason I don't live in Beirut or Johannesburg (and this is other than the fact that my choices of weaponry would either have supported the Soviet Union or the State of Israel =p). I may not like this administration, but I trust myself not to get into a situation where my life is threatened, and I trust the police to come to my assistance if it does. We've had a great policing policy here in NYC and the entire USA under Clinton (who ran as a law-and-order candidate), and homocide rates (especially gun murders) have gone down considerably, so it is possible. Of course, statistics show the figures rise right back up whenever a "bring 'em on" Republican comes into office, so maybe your revolution idea might just pan out. =P Besides, in a mugging or a burglary with an armed suspect, it's simply safer to give up the goods than play John Wayne. If an assailant were to pull a gun on you, what would you do? Pull one out, too? Then he'd shoot you and would get off scot free on charges of self defense. I'd had friends mugged at gunpoint, and the events were definitely not put up for dispute. Hand over the money, and nobody gets hurt - and it's true to a point (statistically, more gun deaths are by domestic problems and accidents than by violent crime). Sure, there's the awful travesty and massacre (6 employees tied up and shot in a Wendy's in Flushing, Queens two years ago) but methinks heroics are not par for the course, here. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 16, 2003, 10:16 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
ColWTH Sedimentary Rock Posts: 22	Even the Thais know that gun ownership just makes SENSE! ___________________________________ Thais shoot down Thaksin proposal to ban guns BANGKOK - A proposal by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to make Thailand a gun-free society over the next five to six years has met with a poor response as more than 78 per cent of Thais want the right to hold firearms to protect themselves. This is despite the open expression of support to ban firearms by most liberals and the media in Thailand. A poll conducted by the Ramkamhaeng University found that 78.3 per cent of respondents felt they should be allowed to own guns - to protect themselves and their families from burglaries and robberies, especially while travelling. full story http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asia/stor...,210226,00.html?

Sep 17, 2003, 04:55 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
indierockboy Molten Ash Location: ontario canada Posts: 104	i fail to see how public opinion on guns infers gun ownership makes "good sense". http://www.autophobic.net/tmesis/sig.gif

Sep 17, 2003, 11:09 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	Should have known this one was coming. combatrhino First, I would like to see this 'proof' of yours. All I see is a lot of polarized opinion claiming that anyone that does not think exactly like you is somehow 'foolish'. Second, thinking that all of us are capable of defending ourselves w/o a gun is a really lame arguement, most of the population are not males in the prime of their lives that know how to fight. A much greater percentage of criminals are, and only the stupid ones would go after a target that obviously more than he can handle. Even if you did manage to remove all guns they would simply use baseball bats and steel pipe. Seems to me we would have trouble banning those... I consider myself a large male that is able to take care of himself, but I would rather not face a couple of dudes with pipes unless I had a gun. Third, as far as your accidental shootings, by law and minor being shot by a minor is classified as an accidental shooting for statistical purposes. So remember when you read those 'accidental' shooting a lot of them are gang members shooting each other and innocents that get in the way. Police shooting a fugitive is also documented as an accidental shooting. BTW: In 1996, 187 people were killed by accidental shootings from pistols more than twice as many people managed to electrocute themselves... source

Sep 18, 2003, 12:02 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
combatrhino Molten Ash Location: university of iowa, iowa Posts: 26	"Second, thinking that all of us are capable of defending ourselves w/o a gun is a really lame arguement, most of the population are not males in the prime of their lives that know how to fight. A much greater percentage of criminals are, and only the stupid ones would go after a target that obviously more than he can handle. Even if you did manage to remove all guns they would simply use baseball bats and steel pipe. Seems to me we would have trouble banning those... I consider myself a large male that is able to take care of himself, but I would rather not face a couple of dudes with pipes unless I had a gun. " you see, the beautiful thing is that even if people revert to new weapons, they will be significantly weaker than guns. you dont have to have a black belt in kungfu to protect yourself. as i stated earlier, there are tons TONS of effective ways both for state police and individuals for that sort of personal protection. if you are that afraid that you are going to get clocked in the face with an Easton, a good shot of mace or effective tazer will be equally effective. your argument turns back to the fact that, if someone is coming at you with a baseball bat, should you be able to put a hollow-point 9mm into their skull? if you get jumped from behind while walking through a park at night, im sure you would want to use your gun. well, in the midst of being strangled or beaten, you expect to pull out your gun and get a good shot off? what i see happening is you flailing your hands around, fireing aimlessly into the air. you see, the basis of the idea that "i'd feel safer with a gun against a group of thugs with bats and steel bars" is that you would actually know they are coming after you or something to that extent. if you are that honed in on your telepathic skills to know you are about to be attacked by a group of men in time enough to pull out your gun, arm it, and get off enough shots to disable all your assailants, then i applaud your Superman-like abilities. does that make sense? i can picture you now... walking down city streets with your handgun cocked and loaded, waving it around in front of you, prepared for those ally-thugs. if you try answer my earlier argument of legality of killing in defense by saying you would shoot them just to disable them, you are pretty wrong as well. if you give a firearm-trained person a gun and let them loose, that scenario may hold true. but if you give a gun to a 22 year old grad student/nurse/waiter/waitress do you think they will have the same skill? most people who own handguns have never even fired a gun before. maybe i should get myself a gun... to protect from all you scaries who already have guns.... right? my cachinnation my rhino

Sep 18, 2003, 07:24 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
Paavo Location: Finland Posts: 712	I think it's a tricky question... however, if a country's people need a firearm to feel safe, then something's very wrong. In my opinion, it puts the US in there with 3rd world countries with anarchy and chaos as a individual's surroundings. I don't know if you US people can imagine how absurd the idea of civilians carrying guns would be taken here in Finland, for example. And I'm sure that applies pretty much for the rest of "the civilized world" as your president likes to put it. rolls eyes :P

Sep 18, 2003, 09:35 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	G. Adams - I've lived in Washington Heights/Inwood most of my life, where I'm sure most of northern New Jersey's drug trade begins, thanks to the George Washington Bridge. When I was growing up (violins play in the background), we know what was going on in the park a block away at 3 am because of what was left in the park that morning, and it wasn't too surprising to hear a shot fired from that direction during the night. My friend from Crown Heights can remember getting mugged at gunpoint three blocks from her home, and I've found myself at the wrong end of a knife twice. Thing is, it got better in Washington Heights in the 90's - so did a lot of other places, thanks in no small part to Clinton's pledge (and success) in putting in 50,000 more uniformed policemen countrywide and instating new rules of conduct. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the "broken window" theory but it was utilized to great effect. I'm not saying it's perfect - that Flushing incident happened when I was living in Flushing, and it shook up the entire place for a while, but I'll take my stock in the police, thankyouverymuch. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 18, 2003, 02:08 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	It's just the musings of a city planner in Newark, NJ; which extolls, among many other items, police who match the color (and origins) of the populace, who enforce 'neighborhood' rules - however in line they are with written law, who patrol on foot instead of in squad cars, who give more importance to preventative measures as compared to responsive measures, etc. William Bratton used some of the principles of this "broken window" theory to clean up Boston and NYC - before getting fired by republican Rudolph Giuliani for trying to take the credit for having reduced crime. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 18, 2003, 03:10 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
indierockboy Molten Ash Location: ontario canada Posts: 104	the interesting thing about using a gun for self defense is that you have to pull it out of it's holster (or your pocket or purse, etc), remove the safety, chamber a round, aim, and then fire. you need time to do all of this. if someone chooses to mug or attack you, they are not going to start from 50 meters away shouting a warning. most muggings and assaults take place at point blank, and whatever weapon of defense you are carrying is rendered completely useless. you could have a bazooka in your pocket, but it's not going to do you a load of good. most muggers have no intention of hurting you. they just want your money, they have their knife/gun as an intimidation device. but lets say, for arguments sake, you manage to get your hand on your gun and you start to draw it from it's hiding place. the moment you become a recognized threat is the moment you are in the most trouble. if he knows you can hurt him, he's not going to hesitate to use that intimidation device to kill you before you kill him. in most cases, trying to pull out a weapon is only going to increase the likelihood that you're going to get killed. whatever you have in your wallet isn't worth dying for. a gun doesn't really offer you protection. if they are easy enough to get then - surprise surprise - everyone will have one. which means you're on the same level as if everyone had lead pipes. or nothing at all. it doesn't offer you any significant advantage over your assailant unless you know they are coming from a mile away. http://www.autophobic.net/tmesis/sig.gif

Sep 18, 2003, 05:10 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	How the hell did I get on this side of the fence...I started only wanting to bait ColWTH. Look, humans have the right to own arms in order that, should a government become tyrannical, it can overthrow that government. Without weapons, it would be impossible to do so, as a tyrannical government has an army, you would have what, rhetoric? God? Sure, you have numbers, but unless they are armed numbers, your only 'weapon' would be to try and crush with the weight of your dead comrades onto an army. Not an option I'd run with. This is the central, primary reason why firearms should ALWAYS be legal. There doesn't have to be another reason, this one is important enough to work on its own. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Sep 18, 2003, 06:20 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
ColWTH Sedimentary Rock Posts: 22	Here are two things I wrote about gun ownership. Instead of writing them all over again, I hope you will just go to these links. http://www.mindspring.com/~indguard/2ndamend.html http://www.mindspring.com/~indguard/2ndamend.html As to the lies in Michael Moore’s Bowling for Col., this fantasy movie has been proven to be purposely filled with lies by Mr. Moore by several researchers. It is not worth the celluloid it was filmed on. By the way, G Adams. You are totally correct that one of the biggest reasons the founders wanted gun ownership is to "scare" the government inot fearing the power of the people. I am absolutely FOR that reason.

Sep 18, 2003, 06:33 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	I havn't seen any reputable sources attacking BfC, although there is obvious whinings from some corners about its bias. But, whether its right or wrong, I think it correctly addresses the need for gun control, but general gun ownership MUST be allowed. Hell, its not a must, it IS allowed whatever the government say as it is a democratic right. Put simply, how is power in the hands of the people if the people are unarmed and the government controls an army, navy and airforce? Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Sep 18, 2003, 08:14 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	You'll notice, G, that in my first post I said that you only agreed in the sense of defending yourself against the government (viva la revolucion!) and I said that in a just society guns aren't necessary. The point being, post-humously as it were, that we are on opposite sides of the fence on whether or not our society is 'just', or at least sufficiently unjust to require revolt. =P After all, if disarming criminals is impossible - which you imply - and we are all outlawed... . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.