[quote]DemiAjax wrote:
Sorry for the double post, but how many of you would consider yourselves libertarians rather than republicans? I’m just curious.
[/quote]
Definitely NOT a republican.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Gun laws generally piss me off because they penalize the law abiding. Do something about the criminals dammit![/quote]
I want it noted that I agree with vroom. Call it the Christmas Spirit if you must but this is one of vroom’s best posts in the political forums.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Gun laws generally piss me off because they penalize the law abiding. Do something about the criminals dammit![/quote]
Can this be? Have we actually got Rainjack, Fightin’ Irish, Zap Branigan, Hedo, AND Vroom all on the same side…on the Politics Forum?!
Outfuckingstanding!
Welcome, brothers. Welcome all.
[quote]Mr Rossi wrote:
Two delurks in one day.[/quote]
Congratulations! You’ll be up to 10 posts by the end of the year at this rate!
Agreed. Most sweeping generalized statements are usually bullshit.
Ah, yes, but note that I said disarmed, not unarmed. The difference is a subtle one, but still significant, I believe.
Hooliganism would, in my opinion, be a lot less prevalent if the louts in question knew they risked getting shot in the course of their misdeeds. The criminal element in London seems to have become quite uninhibited in the years following the Dunblane ban. Hence my generalized statement.
It was from the British, after all, that we poor Yanks inherited the idea of a right to keep and bear arms.
It is merely sad to see the Lion brought so low.
In no way I want to criticize the american way of life, if that’s what you thought.
Still, you’re all gun-nutty
Why do I generalize so wildly? Because this thread’s opinion is clearly pointing in a crazy direction.
I agree with above posts who mentioned that in old times, a weaponless society was easier to rule, no question.
But today it’s different.
There is NO example of a modern state overthrowing it’s tyrannic government through the use of small handguns. Do you really think that a modern army could be overthrown by a gang of concerned daddies with rifles? What a nice dream. I see the people of Belorussia overthrowing the regime, the opressed people of Zimbabwe putting a bullet in Mugabe’s Head, etc.
Fact is, that’s never gonna happen. A Regime doesn’t just appear in front of the people. The system creates it.
@Varqanir: You really think that the german state in 1930 could have been defeated with a handful armed and upright men? You’re not serious.
I know that once a society is armed, it may be pretty useless to try to ban the guns, because you seem to disarm only the stupid & lawful.
The Brits may have done a shitty job in disarming good citizens, apperently granting the criminal scum weapon monopoly.
I also understand Fighting Irish’s concern about living in a bad neighbourhood. Now that’s the real tragedy: Once a system is f**ing armed, you have no choice but to lock and load.
I would certainly do so myself, epecially when with family and kids.
I don’t say that violence always follows guns. This would be foolish. As already posted, there are a lot of states having no trouble with citizens armed to the rim. But it doesn’t seem to do you good, my fellow americans.
Sleep safe tonight -
Schwarzfahrer
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
… One thing though, japan has low levels of crime compared to the US. …
[/quote]
The Japanese society is so different from ours it is impossible to blame guns as the reason for the higher murder rate in the US.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Congratulations! You’ll be up to 10 posts by the end of the year at this rate![/quote]
And my life will be complete!
Apologies for the misread. However I don’t feel you can class Britain as a disarmed society, I can’t remember a time, in recent history, when we were armed as such (not in the sense of protecting ourselves). I own a shotgun for Clay Pigeon shooting at present and many others do also, does that count?
I’m not sure how I would feel living in an armed society, never been in that position, I know I would not like to be around if the rules were suddenly changed here and it suddenly became a lot easier to own a gun.
As a side note, I personally love guns, I was brought up in a military family with access to the range from an early age, served within the British Army and still enjoy shooting in various guises. Oh and I’m not on the anti American gun culture mob either.
Rossi
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
@Varqanir: You really think that the german state in 1930 could have been defeated with a handful armed and upright men? You’re not serious. [/quote]
Deadly serious, my friend. Perhaps not defeated in a strategic sense, but certainly in a tactical one.
If every Jew in Europe had kept a weapon, and had blown a hole in the head of the first Gestapo agent to come through the door, who knows? Perhaps the Final Solution would have started looking too expensive to continue. Surely the outcome wouldn’t have been worse than what actually happened.
Disarmed and demoralized people are always easier to enslave and exterminate. Ever hear of the massacre at Wounded Knee? How about the sacking of Carthage? In both cases the order was, “throw down your weapons, and you won’t get hurt.”
Then the killing started, and didn’t end until there was nobody left to kill.
Not for me, thanks.
Schwarzfahrer,
you should know that Germany and Austria are not as gun-free as you claim.
Every citizen above the age of 18 and without a criminal record in Austria can go into a gun shop and buy a rifle or a shotgun. You have to pass a test first to make sure you know the law concerning guns and that you won?t unintenionally kill yourself but that?s basically it.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
In no way I want to criticize the american way of life, if that’s what you thought.
Still, you’re all gun-nutty
Why do I generalize so wildly? Because this thread’s opinion is clearly pointing in a crazy direction.
I agree with above posts who mentioned that in old times, a weaponless society was easier to rule, no question.
But today it’s different.
There is NO example of a modern state overthrowing it’s tyrannic government through the use of small handguns. Do you really think that a modern army could be overthrown by a gang of concerned daddies with rifles? What a nice dream. I see the people of Belorussia overthrowing the regime, the opressed people of Zimbabwe putting a bullet in Mugabe’s Head, etc.
Fact is, that’s never gonna happen. A Regime doesn’t just appear in front of the people. The system creates it.
@Varqanir: You really think that the german state in 1930 could have been defeated with a handful armed and upright men? You’re not serious.
I know that once a society is armed, it may be pretty useless to try to ban the guns, because you seem to disarm only the stupid & lawful.
The Brits may have done a shitty job in disarming good citizens, apperently granting the criminal scum weapon monopoly.
I also understand Fighting Irish’s concern about living in a bad neighbourhood. Now that’s the real tragedy: Once a system is f**ing armed, you have no choice but to lock and load.
I would certainly do so myself, epecially when with family and kids.
I don’t say that violence always follows guns. This would be foolish. As already posted, there are a lot of states having no trouble with citizens armed to the rim. But it doesn’t seem to do you good, my fellow americans.
Sleep safe tonight -
Schwarzfahrer[/quote]
“Gun nutty”? Any more insults as you lose this battle of ideas?
In reference to your post, this says it all:
“There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the [German] people were not “brainwashed” about gun ownership and had been well armed. . . . Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half-starved group of Jews took 10 handguns and made asses out of the Nazis.”
Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
@Varqanir: You really think that the german state in 1930 could have been defeated with a handful armed and upright men? You’re not serious.
Deadly serious, my friend. Perhaps not defeated in a strategic sense, but certainly in a tactical one.
If every Jew in Europe had kept a weapon, and had blown a hole in the head of the first Gestapo agent to come through the door, who knows? Perhaps the Final Solution would have started looking too expensive to continue. Surely the outcome wouldn’t have been worse than what actually happened.
Disarmed and demoralized people are always easier to enslave and exterminate. Ever hear of the massacre at Wounded Knee? How about the sacking of Carthage? In both cases the order was, “throw down your weapons, and you won’t get hurt.”
Then the killing started, and didn’t end until there was nobody left to kill.
Not for me, thanks.
[/quote]
I agree. I think that if an armed rising had formed against the Nazis in the 30s, or even an internal one in the 40s, it would have been a bad day for Hitler (however unlikely such a rising was).
To keep average people from having guns is simply an oppressive measure that has no other aims than to prevent an armed rising.
People kill with knives- in fact, I hear far more about stabbings, and know more people who have been either stabbed or threatened with a knife, than I know those who are threatened with or shot by a gun. Should we outlaw knives too? Or knives over certain lengths?
I just think that not allowing a law abiding citizen, one who has never been in any real trouble, to not own a gun is something that is expressly political. Murders will happen wether there are guns or not.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DemiAjax wrote:
I’d be curious to see what you all think about this site. The central thesis is that there is absolutely no statistical evidence that concealed-carry laws reduce crime in any way, shape or form. The author at one point allows Lott to defend his arguments, and then refutes all of the counter-arguments in a fairly systematic fashion.
http://timlambert.org/guns/lott/lott.html
By the way, I read the Cato.org article posted on the first page of this thread, and part of it is based on the arguments refuted in the above site.
Well, as Ben Franklin said, “Lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
[/quote]
No, see, if you actually READ what the guy writes, you’ll see that quotation better applies to Lott’s ORIGINAL study equating guns with reduced crime.
And by the way, gun control in England REDUCED violent crime. You just gave us a bunch of sensational news headlines without ANY STATISTICAL evidence.
Here’s some REAL history for you. Minor and ineffectual gun control was introduced in England in 1903. Then in 1920 stricter gun control was introduced. Guess what? England’s average murder rate over the next 10 years went down 12%!! Wow… what a surprise. Here’s another thing, every other country studied at the time (Germany, US, Italy, Japan, Scotland) had its murder rate go up, except Australia. Why Australia? Because New South Wales introduced gun control in 1920, Victoria introduced gun control in 1921, and Queensland introduced gun control in 1927.
Oh, and V, I have no idea where the hell you got the idea that violent crime ROSE in Britian after the handgun ban, but you’re completely wrong. Here are the statistics from the British government.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf
Check out the sections beginning on pages 22 and 55. Page 101 also has a nice table showing that assaults, woundings and robberies all decreased.
And please, save me the trouble and don’t try to quote anything from this dishonest fanatic, as he represents the worst of the pro-gun lobby.
Suter, Edgar, M.D., ?Guns in the Medical Literature?A Failure of Peer Review?, Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, March, 1994.
You can read it if you want to, but actually check his sources first. He blatantly falsifies statistics. He cites a graph showing international homicide rates, and claims East Germany’s rate is 50x HIGHER than what the graph shows. So yeah, to use your own words V.
“Well, as Ben Franklin said, ‘Lies, damned lies, and statistics.’”
Can somebody give me statistics and sources for guns preventing crime rather than skewed historical summaries and tabloid headlines? And by the way, the odd frequency with which people are using the ancient greeks to defend handguns and the rights of “free men and citizens” is amusing. It’s true that weapon and military training were given to Athenian Citizens. BUT 10% of their population were citizens. However, in Sparta, military training was compulsory and every male was highly trained in combat. BUT THEY HAD NO PROPERTY RIGHTS AND WERE A TIMOCRACY/DUAL MONARCHY. Comparing Ancient Greece to modern times much less reasonable than comparing Japanese culture to American culture.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
“Gun nutty”? Any more insults as you lose this battle of ideas?
In reference to your post, this says it all:
“There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the [German] people were not “brainwashed” about gun ownership and had been well armed. . . . Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half-starved group of Jews took 10 handguns and made asses out of the Nazis.”
Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor[/quote]
Thank you, JD. The Warsaw Uprising is precisely what I had in mind. If it had been even only 100 rifles and 100 shotguns, in every city in Europe, the Nazis would have been made into even bigger asses. 1000 rifles, shotguns and handguns, in every city, town and village, and they would have had a hell of a job even getting past the Sudetenlands.
Never underestimate the power of free, armed and angry people. Even against a “modern army”.
Just a wild guess here, Ajax, but what you’re trying to say is…you’re against us?
Fine.
Like I have said before, gun control laws tend to punish those who follow the law more than it affects criminals. Criminals, by definition, do not follow laws.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Just a wild guess here, Ajax, but what you’re trying to say is…you’re against us?
Fine.[/quote]
I’m actually more for statistical and historical truth than I am against handguns, but whatever suits your fancy.
Edit: In fact, I consider your “us vs. them” rhetoric in regards to handgun ownership to be more inflammatory and polarizing than accurate. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld that a US citizen has no right to own a handgun. The act of handgun ownership does not fall under the Second Amendment. See Morton Grove, Illinois’ banning of handguns after 1981 and the court’s upholding of this decision.
As an empiricist, I will consider anything that has scientific, unbiased evidence supporting it. The articles linked thus far supporting guns have had numerous source issues and statistical falsehoods, as I have demonstrated. If anyone wants further proof that the statistics in these articles are misconstrued, I’ll explain the reasons in even clearer terms. I’m also not against the Second amendment, so don’t try and call me an “anti-freedom nut.”
If you have any articles and or studies that provide evidence for the widespread ownership of handguns reducing gun deaths and increasing socio-political stability, I’d be more than willing to read them and cross reference their sources and evidence.
DA
Folks who want to kill you, take your money and rape your sister may not have the same appreciation of statisitcs as you do. Most likely they will not be looking for a robust debate on the subject before they take those actions.
I’m pretty sure I’d get thru to them with my .45 ACP however. I am sure I could get them to see things my way with a high degree of certainty.
Something to be said for the value of emperical evidence.
[quote]DemiAjax wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Just a wild guess here, Ajax, but what you’re trying to say is…you’re against us?
Fine.
I’m actually more for statistical and historical truth than I am against handguns, but whatever suits your fancy. [/quote]
Yes, I gathered that by the number of times you use the word “statistical” in your posts.
It was intended to inflame and polarize. Glad that came across.
The Supreme court also upheld the results of the 2000 presidential election. How do you feel about that decision?
Certainly you don’t mean to say that you consider the Court’s every ruling to be just and correct? They made a bad call in upholding Morton Grove. Washington and Jefferson should have risen from their graves and horse-whipped all nine of those pompous shysters all the way to West Virginia.
I don’t feel it necessary to call you any more names than I already have.
I feel under no obligation to try and convince you of anything, nor do I imagine that any refutation of our views by you would convince us of anything. Please do not imagine that there is a middle ground here. The Second Amendment of the Constitution is unequivocal, whatever the dyslexic Supremes might think. Here is the way I read it:
A well-equipped, well-trained armed civilian population is the best defense of a free nation. Therefore, the right of the people to own and carry weapons shall not be limited or diminished.
There are no asterisks next to it with notes on the bottom of the page that say “except those icky handguns.”
You either agree with that, or you do not.
I’m surprised no one else has come out in support of gun control. I am starting to wonder why its such a large issue if most of the liberals agree with the conservatives here…
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I’m surprised no one else has come out in support of gun control. I am starting to wonder why its such a large issue if most of the liberals agree with the conservatives here…[/quote]
You know, Irish, I was wondering the same thing myself. Snipeout’s Gun Control thread a few months ago featured quite a few members of the “Guns are Icky” crowd. Where did they all go?
Maybe the reason is because, as I and Rainjack and others including yourself mentioned early on, the issue really isn’t about guns after all, but about remaining free in an increasingly unfree world.
So. The question then becomes one of semantics. If you are dedicated to conserving your personal liberty, does that make you a conservative, or a liberal?