Happy Atheist Forum

When the constitution was written it included the right to bear arms. However when this was written the most sophisticated weapons were good out to 300 yards or so and were single shot muzzle loaders? The sort of weapons  available today would have been considered science fiction in their levels of lethality when the decision reached then was made. Does this difference in weapon lethality between then and now warrant reconsideration of the clause?

Hahaha, it depends on who you talk to and how they feel about the second amendment.  Personally, I would say yes to a degree, but I am not a gun person.  I don't believe that a waiting period so that someone's background can be checked to make sure they're not obviously batshit insane, for example, is a bad thing.  Others would argue that criminals and the gov'ment don't got a waitin' period, so neither should anyone else.  And honestly, I can understand the logic behind this argument.  It's not a subject I'll often debate about, however, because gun people are crazy and I don't want them coming to my house and shooting me in the face.   :)

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Also, If you regard the second amendment largely as a guarantee that the American people will be able to protect themselves against both an undemocratic government and an invasion from a foreign entity, I don't see why the advancements in technology would matter.  After all, the undemocratic government or invading force is presumably going to have the same level of technology in their weapons, so it all kind of evens out, right?  Kind of a same shit, different century type thing.  

Follow all of the bit I snipped. The bit I have underlined interests me. So you think that there was a serious element of allowing the population to protect its rights and freedoms from its own government when the second amendment was written?

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Also, If you regard the second amendment largely as a guarantee that the American people will be able to protect themselves against both an undemocratic government and an invasion from a foreign entity, I don't see why the advancements in technology would matter.  After all, the undemocratic government or invading force is presumably going to have the same level of technology in their weapons, so it all kind of evens out, right?  Kind of a same shit, different century type thing.  

Follow all of the bit I snipped. The bit I have underlined interests me. So you think that there was a serious element of allowing the population to protect its rights and freedoms from its own government when the second amendment was written?

That's what I was taught in school.  The wiki article on the second amendment pretty much follows what I was taught in my government class -

QuoteStruggling under the inefficiencies of the Articles of Confederation, delegates from Virginia and Maryland assembled at the Mount Vernon Conference in March 1785 to fashion a remedy. The following year, at a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, 12 delegates from five states (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia) met and drew up a list of problems with the current government model. At its conclusion, the delegates scheduled a follow-up meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for May 1787 to present solutions to these problems, such as the absence of:[59][60]

interstate arbitration processes to handle quarrels between states;
sufficiently trained and armed intrastate security forces to suppress insurrection; and
a national militia to repel foreign invaders.

It quickly became apparent that the solution to all three of these problems required shifting control of the states' militias to the federal congress and giving that congress the power to raise a standing army.[61] These changes were codified in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to ... provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; ... (12) To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; (13) To provide and maintain a navy; (14) To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; (15) To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; (16) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Proposals to enlarge federal powers were met with distrust among some representatives, concerned by the inherent risks of centralizing power. These representatives sought protection. A debate ensued.

Federalists, including James Madison, initially argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary, sufficiently confident that the federal government could never raise a standing army powerful enough to overcome a militia.[62] Federalist Noah Webster argued that an armed populace would have no trouble resisting the potential threat to liberty of a standing army.[63][64] Anti-federalists, however, advocated amending the Constitution with clearly defined and enumerated rights providing more explicit constraints on the new government. Many anti-federalists feared the new federal government might choose to disarm state militias. Federalists countered that in listing only certain rights, unlisted rights might lose protection. Nevertheless, upon realizing there was insufficient support to ratify the Constitution without a bill of rights, federalists conceded, promising that upon enactment they would support amending the Constitution with a bill of rights. Enough anti-Federalists were persuaded by this compromise to vote for the Constitution, allowing for ratification.[65] The Constitution was declared ratified June 21, 1788, when nine of the original thirteen states had ratified it. The remaining four states later followed suit, although the last two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, ratified only after Congress had passed the Bill of Rights and sent it to the states for ratification.[66] James Madison drafted what ultimately became the United States Bill of Rights, which was proposed to the first Congress on June 8, 1789 and came into effect on December 15, 1791.

I think there was definitely concern about people being able to defend themselves against the government if things got out of control and the government began trying to force people to do things the people didn't want to do.  Our government is supposed to be by, of, and for the people - the government is supposed to be a tool we use, not an entity that controls us.  I think maybe that's why some people are so intent about making sure the second amendment isn't changed or weakened - the government now has far more power and control over the lives of the American public than I think the founding fathers ever intended - a lot of people see the second amendment as a kind of last guarantee against tyranny.

Which, although I sympathize with it, is completely obsolete as an argument, given the firepower and technology the military possesses.

I learned shooting at age 9, and am teaching my son how to handle a gun.  This is something every person ought to know, if for no other reason than safety.  Also, it does a kid good to see what a gun can do; that's the quickest way to show them exactly how dangerous they can be.

Quote from: "Tank"When the constitution was written it included the right to bear arms. However when this was written the most sophisticated weapons were good out to 300 yards or so and were single shot muzzle loaders? The sort of weapons  available today would have been considered science fiction in their levels of lethality when the decision reached then was made. Does this difference in weapon lethality between then and now warrant reconsideration of the clause?

I don't think so. At the time those weapons were indeed advanced military hardware. At the time of the 1st Amendment books were printed by a crude device by today's standards. Does that mean it only applies to publications printed on a manual press?

On a side note, if you come to my neck of the woods, we'll go out and blast away on my AK and M4 as well as my .357 mag and the other stuff I own. It's a lot of fun.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Also, If you regard the second amendment largely as a guarantee that the American people will be able to protect themselves against both an undemocratic government and an invasion from a foreign entity, I don't see why the advancements in technology would matter.  After all, the undemocratic government or invading force is presumably going to have the same level of technology in their weapons, so it all kind of evens out, right?  Kind of a same shit, different century type thing.  

Follow all of the bit I snipped. The bit I have underlined interests me. So you think that there was a serious element of allowing the population to protect its rights and freedoms from its own government when the second amendment was written?

Yes, yes there was. Many letters and quotes by the Framers made it clear that they believed that one day the citizens might have to take up arms again to overthrow a tyrannical government, an enemy that could be foreign or domestic.

I'm one on the fence, I see both sides of the gun control thing.  Where idiots can do real damage with a military type weapon, it's good in the hands of a person who knows what they are doing and isn't a homicidal maniac.
Hubby was against guns for the longest time, now that we've lived in TX for a few years he understands why we need one on hand.  I grew up with guns and know how to use most of them, don't bother me at all to see a rifle or 3 or a shotgun hanging in the back window of someone's truck.  I just don't like the idea of a concealed weapon in a vehicle.  Can lead to too many problems in the wrong situation with the wrong people.

As for defensive issues... y'all Texans do know those along the border who have not left have been told to arm themselves heavily in case of the Mexican drug war coming further into the state right?  My info is from the sheriff's department  

Quote from: "KDbeads"I'm one on the fence, I see both sides of the gun control thing.  Where idiots can do real damage with a military type weapon, it's good in the hands of a person who knows what they are doing and isn't a homicidal maniac.
Hubby was against guns for the longest time, now that we've lived in TX for a few years he understands why we need one on hand.  I grew up with guns and know how to use most of them, don't bother me at all to see a rifle or 3 or a shotgun hanging in the back window of someone's truck.  I just don't like the idea of a concealed weapon in a vehicle.  Can lead to too many problems in the wrong situation with the wrong people.

As for defensive issues... y'all Texans do know those along the border who have not left have been told to arm themselves heavily in case of the Mexican drug war coming further into the state right?  My info is from the sheriff's department  

I'm more of a "punish the ones who are a problem" type of people. Banning people from carrying guns on them is going to just affect those who actually obey the law. If you're intent on committing crime, gun laws are not going to stop you.

You know what's really funny? People act like semi-auto rifles (assault rifles are capable of select-fire ie Auto or Three-Round Burst) can mow down a lot of people. They really can't do as well as someone who stakes out and picks people off with a good scoped deer rifle (Charles Whitman methodically wiped out 19 people with no need to spray bullets) than someone who fires spray and pray style.

Just want to point out that most "assault" rifles you see are actually a lot less powerful (ballistics wise) than a deer rifle or a bolt action WWII weapon (my Mosin-Nagant fires a 7.62x54R which way more potent than the 7.62x39mm my AK-47 fires and doubly so for the small 5.56x45mm my M4 fires).

I don't disagree, in the wrong hands guns are a very dangerous item. But so are cars, knives, matches, computers (deranged hackers not being very common but still), household chemicals, baseball bats, chairs, weights, etc.

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "Tank"When the constitution was written it included the right to bear arms. However when this was written the most sophisticated weapons were good out to 300 yards or so and were single shot muzzle loaders? The sort of weapons  available today would have been considered science fiction in their levels of lethality when the decision reached then was made. Does this difference in weapon lethality between then and now warrant reconsideration of the clause?

I don't think so. At the time those weapons were indeed advanced military hardware. At the time of the 1st Amendment books were printed by a crude device by today's standards. Does that mean it only applies to publications printed on a manual press?

Printing lots of books is rarely fatal  

Quote from: "Big Mac"On a side note, if you come to my neck of the woods, we'll go out and blast away on my AK and M4 as well as my .357 mag and the other stuff I own. It's a lot of fun.

I have shot at Bisley as a kid. And shot clays and target pistol. My father brought a number of 'trophies' back from WWII but gave them up in the 70's during a firearms amnesty as they were unlicensed. I used to love having a real gun as a toy!

I agree, I can do a lot of damage with a regular rifle.  But I know how to use it  
Too many are not taught how to and where to use guns so they fear them, all of them, that I think is the crux of the 'control' problem.  Especially if they get all their info from Hollywood.  Plus the idiots who abuse the right to own a gun need to be dealt with, as you said.

Quote from: "KDbeads"I agree, I can do a lot of damage with a regular rifle.  But I know how to use it  
Too many are not taught how to and where to use guns so they fear them, all of them, that I think is the crux of the 'control' problem.  Especially if they get all their info from Hollywood.  Plus the idiots who abuse the right to own a gun need to be dealt with, as you said.

Hollywood really makes it seem like guns are the death rays. Especially love the thing where a handgun will send a man flying. Ignoring the basic laws of physics. Or the classic "you don't even have to aim a shotgun!". Or how like it's either really quiet or like a nuclear blast when it comes to sound. If you fire a gun like a .357 magnum in a small room, you will go temporarily deaf or suffer permanent hearing loss.

Or I love the whole "one guy takes on 20". In real life, that'd be one dead guy. I don't care if you were a SEAL, Green Beret, etc. you aren't invincible. But of course that's all entertainment so you suspend your disbelief.

It's unfortunate some people get their info from movies and TV. Though I admit they have gotten better about it (1st episode of the show K-Ville was real accurate about wearing a vest and getting hit by a bullet, the guy still goes down but lives but he's hurting bad from it.)

Here's an example of media misrepresenting guns badly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8U5gu38718 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8U5gu38718)

I have no idea what "Drop the chambers in" even means...it's almost as bad as Senator McCarthy here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo)

I got one more that will top it off. Apparently incendiary bullets are now "Heat seeking bullets". LULZ keep coming in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ)

I think the issue with 5.56 rounds is their propensity to tumble, which, when combined with a relatively high muzzle velocity, results in a wound pattern that is much harder to treat.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I think the issue with 5.56 rounds is their propensity to tumble, which, when combined with a relatively high muzzle velocity, results in a wound pattern that is much harder to treat.

Which is exactly what it was designed to do as the use of dumdum, fragmenting and explosive rounds in war was banned under the Haig convention.

Quote from: "Tank"Does this difference in weapon lethality between then and now warrant reconsideration of the clause?

No. The constitution wasn't written for some absure view of bullet range, accuracy and lethality.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I think the issue with 5.56 rounds is their propensity to tumble, which, when combined with a relatively high muzzle velocity, results in a wound pattern that is much harder to treat.

Which is exactly what it was designed to do as the use of dumdum, fragmenting and explosive rounds in war was banned under the Haig convention.

Understood.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "Tank"Does this difference in weapon lethality between then and now warrant reconsideration of the clause?

No. The constitution wasn't written for some absure view of bullet range, accuracy and lethality.

Good answer. From the founding fathers point of view I would agree completely. But do you think that the founding fathers had in mind weapons the like of which could lead to the Columbine shooting? Do you think this knowledge would have made them adjust the concept they were driving at?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I think the issue with 5.56 rounds is their propensity to tumble, which, when combined with a relatively high muzzle velocity, results in a wound pattern that is much harder to treat.

That's actually a misunderstanding. They don't tumble like people claim. They will, under certain conditions, yaw and fragment in the body. Depends on the rate of twist in the barrel (1:9 and 1:7 have different affects) as well as length of barrel, bullet weight (62 grain vs 55 grain in the case of 5.56mm) and distance the target is engaged.

Muzzle Velocity isn't the same as the actual velocity of the bullet once it has left the barrel. Given that down range it will lose its energy (some rounds doing so very rapidly depending on the weapon and type of ammo used) and make the muzzle velocity a moot consideration.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "Tank"Does this difference in weapon lethality between then and now warrant reconsideration of the clause?

No. The constitution wasn't written for some absure view of bullet range, accuracy and lethality.

Good answer. From the founding fathers point of view I would agree completely. But do you think that the founding fathers had in mind weapons the like of which could lead to the Columbine shooting? Do you think this knowledge would have made them adjust the concept they were driving at?

The founding fathers seemed to like freedom over a few dangerous incidents. I'm sure they knew people could and would use guns to murder each other, it's not like that kind of thing didn't exist back then, but instead of trying to limit a freedom they thought was necessary for some kind of painful illusion of security, they protected the right to bear arms. Yes people can use a gun to kill someone, but they can also use knives, swords, brooms, rocks, cars, baseball bats, ice picks, nail files, poisons, household chemicals... etc.. Trying to prevent people from owning guns for the fear that they may use it for something bad is a poor reason, of course in my opinion.

Quote from: "Davin"The founding fathers seemed to like freedom over a few dangerous incidents. I'm sure they knew people could and would use guns to murder each other, it's not like that kind of thing didn't exist back then, but instead of trying to limit a freedom they thought was necessary for some kind of painful illusion of security, they protected the right to bear arms. Yes people can use a gun to kill someone, but they can also use knives, swords, brooms, rocks, cars, baseball bats, ice picks, nail files, poisons, household chemicals... etc.. Trying to prevent people from owning guns for the fear that they may use it for something bad is a poor reason, of course in my opinion.

I agree. Humans were adept at killing each other well before guns made it to the scene. Swords, spears, maces, bows/arrows, etc. did a great job at killing/maiming people. In fact, I'll wager people were more predisposed to violence (there's a great video with Steven Pinker that talks about this) than they are today. Now we have a lot more to lose in a society where one mistake can easily haunt you worse than in the days where there were no photo ids and databases.

Ben Franklin said it best - They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Quote from: "Tank"When the constitution was written it included the right to bear arms. However when this was written the most sophisticated weapons were good out to 300 yards or so and were single shot muzzle loaders? The sort of weapons  available today would have been considered science fiction in their levels of lethality when the decision reached then was made. Does this difference in weapon lethality between then and now warrant reconsideration of the clause?

No, but blindly following something laid down a few hundred years ago makes it worth reconsideration.

Quote from: "dogsmycopilot"

Quote from: "Tank"When the constitution was written it included the right to bear arms. However when this was written the most sophisticated weapons were good out to 300 yards or so and were single shot muzzle loaders? The sort of weapons  available today would have been considered science fiction in their levels of lethality when the decision reached then was made. Does this difference in weapon lethality between then and now warrant reconsideration of the clause?

No, but blindly following something laid down a few hundred years ago makes it worth reconsideration.

Yes, but I don't see anything that needs to be changed, maybe add some things, but overall it's good enough.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "dogsmycopilot"

Quote from: "Tank"When the constitution was written it included the right to bear arms. However when this was written the most sophisticated weapons were good out to 300 yards or so and were single shot muzzle loaders? The sort of weapons  available today would have been considered science fiction in their levels of lethality when the decision reached then was made. Does this difference in weapon lethality between then and now warrant reconsideration of the clause?

No, but blindly following something laid down a few hundred years ago makes it worth reconsideration.

Yes, but I don't see anything that needs to be changed, maybe add some things, but overall it's good enough.

I disagree. I think it's pretty silly to think you can protect yourself from the government anymore and beyond that the only other use for weapons is self protection which is a whole different story. i think we need to seriously revisit gun laws in this country.

Quote from: "dogsmycopilot"

Quote from: "Davin"Yes, but I don't see anything that needs to be changed, maybe add some things, but overall it's good enough.

I disagree. I think it's pretty silly to think you can protect yourself from the government anymore and beyond that the only other use for weapons is self protection which is a whole different story. i think we need to seriously revisit gun laws in this country.

Then what do we change?

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "Tank"Does this difference in weapon lethality between then and now warrant reconsideration of the clause?

No. The constitution wasn't written for some absure view of bullet range, accuracy and lethality.

Good answer. From the founding fathers point of view I would agree completely. But do you think that the founding fathers had in mind weapons the like of which could lead to the Columbine shooting? Do you think this knowledge would have made them adjust the concept they were driving at?

Do I think the founding fathers considered that future baseball bats could cause mayhem, death and injury in singular or riotous cases? No. The idea the FF's had was to protect the people from tyranny. It doesn't matter if you have an armed populace. What matters is that the government outguns it's people so much that an UNDERarmed populace is rendered insignificant.  
Take for example...well, your example of Columbine. Let's say the perpetrators were armed as 17th Century pirates. Six primitive grenades, a blunderbuss, four single shot pistols, a large knife, a boarding axe and a cutlass. How much damage could they have done? How many could these asshats kill or severely injure with weapons commonly used in the times of the American forefathers? Quite a few I wager.
How many could they have killed if they had driven trucks through a line of kids walking out of school at the end of the day?
Firearms are tools, useful for protecting lives and recreational use. And I want a high capacity battle rifle when the Canadians decide to invade....*laffin*

Columbine is the root of a fallacious argument used by anti-gun people. I know a lot of people that have firearms. I know several, not in law enforcement, that have silencers and machine guns. None of them have committed a crime with their firearm.

That's about the end of me discussing firearms/politics. All it does is piss me off...*grinnin*

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I think the issue with 5.56 rounds is their propensity to tumble, which, when combined with a relatively high muzzle velocity, results in a wound pattern that is much harder to treat.

That's actually a misunderstanding. They don't tumble like people claim. They will, under certain conditions, yaw and fragment in the body. Depends on the rate of twist in the barrel (1:9 and 1:7 have different affects) as well as length of barrel, bullet weight (62 grain vs 55 grain in the case of 5.56mm) and distance the target is engaged.

Muzzle Velocity isn't the same as the actual velocity of the bullet once it has left the barrel. Given that down range it will lose its energy (some rounds doing so very rapidly depending on the weapon and type of ammo used) and make the muzzle velocity a moot consideration.

This is true, Thump. In the early M16 days, the twist and bullet weight in these early rifles were not good enough. Actually, it was good enough, but there were several things wrong with the rifle before the government took it. Other than the bullet* itself, most of those things have been rectified.
* My opinion is that 5.56mm bullets are not heavy enough for combat. The .308/7.62 should never have been shoved aside. AND soldiers should be taught how to shoot accurately, not carry more ammo and spray the countryside hoping to hit something.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Ben Franklin said it best - They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

"Hear hear!"...*standin up an clappin"

Quote from: "dogsmycopilot"No, but blindly following something laid down a few hundred years ago makes it worth reconsideration.

If the constitution is changed so much from the original intent of the framers, then one does not have the country in which they envisioned.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "dogsmycopilot"No, but blindly following something laid down a few hundred years ago makes it worth reconsideration.

If the constitution is changed so much from the original intent of the framers, then one does not have the country in which they envisioned.

Just a thought but if one applied the logic of what our ancestors wanted for their country was what it should be now then there would be no progress as such would there?

The issue I have with current gun laws is the fact it only hinders law-abiding citizens. How often do you see a weapons violation charge get thrown onto a guy who has committed murder with an illegal weapon? Yeah I know court systems don't have time to pick up on EVERY crime a person commits but it seems like gun laws are used to help disarm folks for minor things like carrying a weapon in their car (which is slowly changing due to the fact certain states are letting citizens carry in their vehicles when they travel).

I think there should be only a few simple laws. Background check and stiffer penalties for misusing a weapon like a jackass. Other than that, I think most other gun control laws are about the middle word: control.

 "An armed society is a polite society."

Quote from: "Gawen"Do I think the founding fathers considered that future baseball bats could cause mayhem, death and injury in singular or riotous cases? No. The idea the FF's had was to protect the people from tyranny. It doesn't matter if you have an armed populace. What matters is that the government outguns it's people so much that an UNDERarmed populace is rendered insignificant.

Understood. If the civilian government of the USA tried to 'pull a fast one' on the population why do you assume (if you do, it sort of looks that way) that the military would automatically assist them? Given the pride the military of most countries take in being the defenders of that country I would suggest that if a civilian leader attempted to seriously undermine the constitution there could well be a coup in America?
 

Quote from: "Gawen"Take for example...well, your example of Columbine. Let's say the perpetrators were armed as 17th Century pirates. Six primitive grenades, a blunderbuss, four single shot pistols, a large knife, a boarding axe and a cutlass. How much damage could they have done? How many could these asshats kill or severely injure with weapons commonly used in the times of the American forefathers? Quite a few I wager.
How many could they have killed if they had driven trucks through a line of kids walking out of school at the end of the day?
Firearms are tools, useful for protecting lives and recreational use. And I want a high capacity battle rifle when the Canadians decide to invade....*laffin*

Columbine is the root of a fallacious argument used by anti-gun people. I know a lot of people that have firearms. I know several, not in law enforcement, that have silencers and machine guns. None of them have committed a crime with their firearm.

That's about the end of me discussing firearms/politics. All it does is piss me off...*grinnin*

I agree that a gun is in effect simply a tool and it is at the discretion of the owner how they use it. I have mixed feelings about the gun laws in the UK for this very reason. The last labour government was diabolical in its removal of personal responsibility, the 'nanny state' had become the norm. I'm quite looking forward to a term of right'ish government to wash away some of the stupidity associated with a stale careless administration.

However I'm still not comfortable with the idea of firearms being as readily available as they are in the US. When I was over there I went and had a look in  weapons store. I asked if I could buy a short barrelled revolver. The guy would sell it to me but only for cash and I had to wait a week because of the cooling off period in Illinois. Because of the culture I grew up in (and that's a major issue here) I found this quite shocking.

Living in a country where the only place you will ever legally see a gun in public is on a police officer in an airport I personally find it difficult to see the benefit of an armed populous most of the time. The defence argument is a little thin in my opinion as the only reason one needs a gun is to defend against a gun. I believe that a hand gun kept for defence is also more likely to kill its owner or a family member or friend of the family than it is ever likely to be used for its intended purpose. Which, if true, makes gun ownership pretty pointless.

I think the point I'm reaching is that the default condition should be something that is specifically designed to kill should not be readily available to anybody and everybody in a civilised society. Yes guns are fun, they give one an illusion of power, I say illusion because if one ever tried to express that power one would end up in prison or dead, or both.

Interesting and thought provoking discussion.

Quote from: "Big Mac"The issue I have with current gun laws is the fact it only hinders law-abiding citizens. How often do you see a weapons violation charge get thrown onto a guy who has committed murder with an illegal weapon? Yeah I know court systems don't have time to pick up on EVERY crime a person commits but it seems like gun laws are used to help disarm folks for minor things like carrying a weapon in their car (which is slowly changing due to the fact certain states are letting citizens carry in their vehicles when they travel).

I think there should be only a few simple laws. Background check and stiffer penalties for misusing a weapon like a jackass. Other than that, I think most other gun control laws are about the middle word: control.[/qupte]
Fascinating insight. I agree about the law issues as well.

Quote from: "Big Mac""An armed society is a polite society."

"An armed society is a scared society." Would be more appropriate. One doesn't need the immediate threat of death to act in a polite manner (except in the case of the 14 to 16 year old adolescent male). Seriously though I can't think of an unarmed society that isn't peaceful and polite. Consider all the democracies around the world. They tend to be basically peaceful, I can't think of one off the top of my head that isn't . The effective rule of law, a considerate upbringing and an equitable division of wealth is what keeps a society polite, if guns are needed there is something seriously wrong with that society IMO.

Quote from: "Tank"I agree that a gun is in effect simply a tool and it is at the discretion of the owner how they use it. I have mixed feelings about the gun laws in the UK for this very reason. The last labour government was diabolical in its removal of personal responsibility, the 'nanny state' had become the norm. I'm quite looking forward to a term of right'ish government to wash away some of the stupidity associated with a stale careless administration.

However I'm still not comfortable with the idea of firearms being as readily available as they are in the US. When I was over there I went and had a look in  weapons store. I asked if I could buy a short barrelled revolver. The guy would sell it to me but only for cash and I had to wait a week because of the cooling off period in Illinois. Because of the culture I grew up in (and that's a major issue here) I found this quite shocking.

Living in a country where the only place you will ever legally see a gun in public is on a police officer in an airport I personally find it difficult to see the benefit of an armed populous most of the time. The defence argument is a little thin in my opinion as the only reason one needs a gun is to defend against a gun. I believe that a hand gun kept for defence is also more likely to kill its owner or a family member or friend of the family than it is ever likely to be used for its intended purpose. Which, if true, makes gun ownership pretty pointless.

I think the point I'm reaching is that the default condition should be something that is specifically designed to kill should not be readily available to anybody and everybody in a civilised society. Yes guns are fun, they give one an illusion of power, I say illusion because if one ever tried to express that power one would end up in prison or dead, or both.

Interesting and thought provoking discussion.

Imagine if you were a paraplegic  or someone who was extremely small. Imagine if you have an attacker who is bigger, meaner, faster, and eager to hurt you for your money you earned or just because they have been pumping poison in their arm the past couple of days.

Having a weapon that evens these odds sounds pretty good, doesn't? Police don't stop most crimes, they solve them after the fact. I guess we see it differently because, like you said, you don't see the benefits because guns have been so far removed in your society that it's a foreign concept. Movies/TV/News do not help because they portray guns as inherently evil as if they cause a man to snap and shoot everyone in sight.

I grew up with that stuff being paraded out. Some of the logic never ceases to amaze me. Do I dream of a day where I will blow someone's head off? Hell no!!! Will I do it if push comes to shove and I need to live? I'm confident I could do it if it came to that. Not something I look forward to but life is rough like that.

Quote from: "Tank""An armed society is a scared society." Would be more appropriate. One doesn't need the immediate threat of death to act in a polite manner (except in the case of the 14 to 16 year old adolescent male). Seriously though I can't think of an unarmed society that isn't peaceful and polite. Consider all the democracies around the world. They tend to be basically peaceful, I can't think of one off the top of my head that isn't . The effective rule of law, a considerate upbringing and an equitable division of wealth is what keeps a society polite, if guns are needed there is something seriously wrong with that society IMO.

Society/civilization is at times a very harsh illusion, look at riots and social upheaval. People don't mess with venomous snakes because they have a bite to them. Same with other people. You won't see as many criminals eager to attack a victim who might be able to turn the tables on them.

I know plenty of people who are "peaceful" but extremely rude.Hell, I dealt with art dealing hipsters today. Little hippies were rude as shit when I pointed out there mistake. Where I come from, you get your ass kicked for spewing off something disrespectful. How nature works.

I am not scared. I am prepared to meet any challenge to my safety and effectively take it out.

Quote from: "Big Mac"Imagine if you were a paraplegic  or someone who was extremely small. Imagine if you have an attacker who is bigger, meaner, faster, and eager to hurt you for your money you earned or just because they have been pumping poison in their arm the past couple of days.

Having a weapon that evens these odds sounds pretty good, doesn't? Police don't stop most crimes, they solve them after the fact. I guess we see it differently because, like you said, you don't see the benefits because guns have been so far removed in your society that it's a foreign concept. Movies/TV/News do not help because they portray guns as inherently evil as if they cause a man to snap and shoot everyone in sight.

I grew up with that stuff being paraded out. Some of the logic never ceases to amaze me. Do I dream of a day where I will blow someone's head off? Hell no!!! Will I do it if push comes to shove and I need to live? I'm confident I could do it if it came to that. Not something I look forward to but life is rough like that.

I think part of the issue is the actual level of threat here or in the US. The sort of crime you suggest are very rare here. One would normally carry a gun all one's life and never have cause to use it. If there were a 'clear and present danger' for a significant percentage of the time then what you suggest could be necessary. Personally I have never met anybody who has been mugged or stolen from in the street in any way.

In fact the only example of violence any of my family have ever been subjected to was at the hands of the police. They mistook my daughter for somebody they were looking for and two plain clothes officer jumped out of an unmarked car an the late evening and started to chase her down the street, she ran for it! They shouted 'Stop police' and as my daughter remarked 'Fuck that for a game of soldiers!' They caught her, cuffed her and only then showed her their warrant card. It gave her a good story to tell her mate but she was terrified until she was sure they were police. So if she had had a gun would she have been within her rights to have killed those two police officers if she had felt in mortal danger?

There is no easy answer and what might be right in the USA may not be right in the UK.

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "Tank""An armed society is a scared society." Would be more appropriate. One doesn't need the immediate threat of death to act in a polite manner (except in the case of the 14 to 16 year old adolescent male). Seriously though I can't think of an unarmed society that isn't peaceful and polite. Consider all the democracies around the world. They tend to be basically peaceful, I can't think of one off the top of my head that isn't . The effective rule of law, a considerate upbringing and an equitable division of wealth is what keeps a society polite, if guns are needed there is something seriously wrong with that society IMO.

Society/civilization is at times a very harsh illusion, look at riots and social upheaval. People don't mess with venomous snakes because they have a bite to them. Same with other people. You won't see as many criminals eager to attack a victim who might be able to turn the tables on them.

I know plenty of people who are "peaceful" but extremely rude.Hell, I dealt with art dealing hipsters today. Little hippies were rude as shit when I pointed out there mistake. Where I come from, you get your ass kicked for spewing off something disrespectful. How nature works.

I am not scared. I am prepared to meet any challenge to my safety and effectively take it out.

Fair enough. I think we hold very disparate views of the world in general and we do live in very different parts of it. I don't think your world view is needed in the UK, it's a very different place. And my world view may be equally invalid where you are.

Would you like to live in a place where you didn't have to worry about having to carry a gun for self defence?

Have to get on and do some RL work now so I'll catch your answer later.

Quote from: "Tank"Fair enough. I think we hold very disparate views of the world in general and we do live in very different parts of it. I don't think your world view is needed in the UK, it's a very different place. And my world view may be equally invalid where you are.

Ah, my friend you assume I constantly think about weapons and danger. I don't. I do take precautions such as scanning areas at night when I'm walking home from the bus (it gets a bit dark) and other things. I do train with my weapons because I like the skill it takes to effectively use them. You can't just pick up a gun and blast away, you have to actually train with it and be familiar with it to make it an efficient weapon. Your view isn't unnecessary as you would think. The good thing about having a variety of views is the fact you get a bigger picture of what others feel and think.

Quote from: "Tank"Would you like to live in a place where you didn't have to worry about having to carry a gun for self defence?

No place like that exists. If you tell yourself there is then you're only deluding yourself. Violence and danger is always present in the world no matter where you are. Just because you weren't robbed yesterday doesn't mean it can't happen today.

Quote from: "Tank"Have to get on and do some RL work now so I'll catch your answer later.

Had to catch some sleep last post myself.

Quote from: "Big Mac"That's actually a misunderstanding. They don't tumble like people claim. They will, under certain conditions, yaw and fragment in the body. Depends on the rate of twist in the barrel (1:9 and 1:7 have different affects) as well as length of barrel, bullet weight (62 grain vs 55 grain in the case of 5.56mm) and distance the target is engaged.

Understood, it is the jacketing that helps keep the bullet together in the body, and helps in the conservation of energy, too.  I use the colloquial "tumble" for ease of communication.

QuoteMuzzle Velocity isn't the same as the actual velocity of the bullet once it has left the barrel. Given that down range it will lose its energy (some rounds doing so very rapidly depending on the weapon and type of ammo used) and make the muzzle velocity a moot consideration.

Other considerations being equal, muzzle velocity has a direct effect on impact velocity.

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "Tank"Would you like to live in a place where you didn't have to worry about having to carry a gun for self defence?

No place like that exists. If you tell yourself there is then you're only deluding yourself. Violence and danger is always present in the world no matter where you are. Just because you weren't robbed yesterday doesn't mean it can't happen today.

Sorry the question was sort of hypothetical in the 'would you like to live' in such a place. Beg pardon if we have ended up discussing across each other and you were referring to the situation in the USA. I would contend that 99.9% of the UK population never even consider the the need to carry a gun in self defence. It's simply not necessary. I would say that would also be the case in most of Europe. And I don't think I'm deluding myself either as I've lived here for 50 years and never even heard a gunshot outside of a range.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "dogsmycopilot"No, but blindly following something laid down a few hundred years ago makes it worth reconsideration.

If the constitution is changed so much from the original intent of the framers, then one does not have the country in which they envisioned.

Just a thought but if one applied the logic of what our ancestors wanted for their country was what it should be now then there would be no progress as such would there?

Well, the Constitituion doesn't say anything about 'no progress'. That's one reason free Americans can have high capacity firearms and why we're not driving horse and buggy's.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "Tank"Would you like to live in a place where you didn't have to worry about having to carry a gun for self defence?

No place like that exists. If you tell yourself there is then you're only deluding yourself. Violence and danger is always present in the world no matter where you are. Just because you weren't robbed yesterday doesn't mean it can't happen today.

Sorry the question was sort of hypothetical in the 'would you like to live' in such a place. Beg pardon if we have ended up discussing across each other and you were referring to the situation in the USA. I would contend that 99.9% of the UK population never even consider the the need to carry a gun in self defence. It's simply not necessary. I would say that would also be the case in most of Europe. And I don't think I'm deluding myself either as I've lived here for 50 years and never even heard a gunshot outside of a range.

And at the same time, it is easily demonstrable that some areas are statistically safer than others.

Quote from: "Tank"Sorry the question was sort of hypothetical in the 'would you like to live' in such a place. Beg pardon if we have ended up discussing across each other and you were referring to the situation in the USA. I would contend that 99.9% of the UK population never even consider the the need to carry a gun in self defence. It's simply not necessary. I would say that would also be the case in most of Europe. And I don't think I'm deluding myself either as I've lived here for 50 years and never even heard a gunshot outside of a range.

Well obviously yes. I would love to live in a place where I would not need a weapon. But to me there is no place in the world where that exists. You may think you're safe but really you have yet to run into a reason why you need a gun. There are plenty of them walking on two legs (and if you're out in the country, 4 legs) that are likely to just about to bump into you on day.

Do you study martial arts at all?

Quote from: "Tank"I think the point I'm reaching is that the default condition should be something that is specifically designed to kill should not be readily available to anybody and everybody in a civilised society.

Then, that raises the subject of what and who is civilised and assuming that a civilised people are capable of right thinking, obeying laws, etc.

QuoteYes guns are fun, they give one an illusion of power, I say illusion because if one ever tried to express that power one would end up in prison or dead, or both.

I don't agree with that. It's not an either/or scenario.

QuoteInteresting and thought provoking discussion.

I've been arguing this crap for the last 40 years. It gets old.

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "Tank"Sorry the question was sort of hypothetical in the 'would you like to live' in such a place. Beg pardon if we have ended up discussing across each other and you were referring to the situation in the USA. I would contend that 99.9% of the UK population never even consider the the need to carry a gun in self defence. It's simply not necessary. I would say that would also be the case in most of Europe. And I don't think I'm deluding myself either as I've lived here for 50 years and never even heard a gunshot outside of a range.

Well obviously yes. I would love to live in a place where I would not need a weapon. But to me there is no place in the world where that exists. You may think you're safe but really you have yet to run into a reason why you need a gun. There are plenty of them walking on two legs (and if you're out in the country, 4 legs) that are likely to just about to bump into you on day.

Do you study martial arts at all?

No. I have never studied martial arts other than watching 'Enter the Dragon' when I was a kid.  

Have you ever been to the UK?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Big Mac"That's actually a misunderstanding. They don't tumble like people claim. They will, under certain conditions, yaw and fragment in the body. Depends on the rate of twist in the barrel (1:9 and 1:7 have different affects) as well as length of barrel, bullet weight (62 grain vs 55 grain in the case of 5.56mm) and distance the target is engaged.

Understood, it is the jacketing that helps keep the bullet together in the body, and helps in the conservation of energy, too.  I use the colloquial "tumble" for ease of communication.

QuoteMuzzle Velocity isn't the same as the actual velocity of the bullet once it has left the barrel. Given that down range it will lose its energy (some rounds doing so very rapidly depending on the weapon and type of ammo used) and make the muzzle velocity a moot consideration.

Other considerations being equal, muzzle velocity has a direct effect on impact velocity.

My apologies, you're actually right on the muzzle velocity. Silly me. Bit of old info that I need to stop passing on. I see what you mean by tumble now. Sort of a lay man thing. Gotcha.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "Tank"Sorry the question was sort of hypothetical in the 'would you like to live' in such a place. Beg pardon if we have ended up discussing across each other and you were referring to the situation in the USA. I would contend that 99.9% of the UK population never even consider the the need to carry a gun in self defence. It's simply not necessary. I would say that would also be the case in most of Europe. And I don't think I'm deluding myself either as I've lived here for 50 years and never even heard a gunshot outside of a range.

Well obviously yes. I would love to live in a place where I would not need a weapon. But to me there is no place in the world where that exists. You may think you're safe but really you have yet to run into a reason why you need a gun. There are plenty of them walking on two legs (and if you're out in the country, 4 legs) that are likely to just about to bump into you on day.

Do you study martial arts at all?

No. I have never studied martial arts other than watching 'Enter the Dragon' when I was a kid.  

Have you ever been to the UK?

Just curious if you took any precautions on self-defense at all. I'd love to visit the UK but it will most likely not dispel my view on safety. One thing I learned in life is there are two ways to face danger: scared or prepared. Scared is learned helplessness in my opinion. Diving your head in the sand and hoping danger goes away.

I like to think of myself as prepared for situations such as that. I still enjoy life and go out and stuff. But I don't let my guard completely down. That's just me, I guess.

Quote from: "Tank""An armed society is a scared society." Yes, and jesus is your saviour...*winkin*
An armed society is a prepared society. I'm armed and I'm not scared. An armed populace has the means to back itself up when it comes time to do the dirty back to a dirty government. Think of what may have happened had the Germans or Soviet peasants had the means to protect themselves from their own governments. It seems to work well in Switzerland.

QuoteWould be more appropriate. One doesn't need the immediate threat of death to act in a polite manner (except in the case of the 14 to 16 year old adolescent male). Seriously though I can't think of an unarmed society that isn't peaceful and polite. Consider all the democracies around the world. They tend to be basically peaceful, I can't think of one off the top of my head that isn't . The effective rule of law, a considerate upbringing and an equitable division of wealth is what keeps a society polite, if guns are needed there is something seriously wrong with that society IMO.

And now you deal with a free...well...so-called free....American society that has provisions in it's constitution to allow firearms to its people. Some of the toughest gun control laws in the world and it still doesn't stop the idiot that that whacked 12 people in Cumbria a week or so ago.
The thing about most of us Yanks is that were free to have guns and were free to deal with the asshats that use them wrongly...whether it's on our own or after the fact.

Quote from: "Tank"Fair enough. I think we hold very disparate views of the world in general and we do live in very different parts of it.

Of course we do. Europeans have a difficult time understanding private ownership of firearms.

QuoteI don't think your world view is needed in the UK, it's a very different place.

That's neither hear not there for me to say. All I'll say is that we have it here and I wish it to stay.

QuoteAnd my world view may be equally invalid where you are.

Not at all.

QuoteWould you like to live in a place where you didn't have to worry about having to carry a gun for self defence?

Sure, but only if I can carry my own police officer...*chucklin*

Quote from: "Big Mac"My apologies, you're actually right on the muzzle velocity. Silly me. Bit of old info that I need to stop passing on. I see what you mean by tumble now. Sort of a lay man thing. Gotcha.

NP, my apologies for my own lack of clarity.

I had a German friend come over here about two years ago. He spent 3 years in the BundesWehr. But he never shot a gun outside the military. When he came here, we were at the range 3 times. He couldn't get enough of it. I actually ran out of ammo...and that's unheard of. He couldn't get over the fact that he could legally shoot a firearm that his grandfather may have used 70 years ago (I have 2 Mausers). I have 4 handguns and I swear, after he got done with them they needn't a break-in period (one of them was brand new). We was very excited when I asked him if he wanted to go shooting. At the same time, he was saddened that he couldn't do this in Germany. Apparently the permits are so time consuming that no one wants to go through the process. Not to mention that private firearms are not to be kept at your home but at the range.

Quote from: "Gawen"I had a German friend come over here about two years ago. He spent 3 years in the BundesWehr. But he never shot a gun outside the military. When he came here, we were at the range 3 times. He couldn't get enough of it. I actually ran out of ammo...and that's unheard of. He couldn't get over the fact that he could legally shoot a firearm that his grandfather may have used 70 years ago (I have 2 Mausers). I have 4 handguns and I swear, after he got done with them they needn't a break-in period (one of them was brand new). We was very excited when I asked him if he wanted to go shooting. At the same time, he was saddened that he couldn't do this in Germany. Apparently the permits are so time consuming that no one wants to go through the process. Not to mention that private firearms are not to be kept at your home but at the range.

Hahaha, we took this German exchange student out shooting when I was in high school. Man she had the most amazing blue eyes.

I remember she wanted to fire off an SKS so we gave her one and showed her what to do. Damn girl nearly burned herself on the barrel when we were packing up. Had to explain that it was very hot. But yeah, she loved it and she said that no one really owns guns besides police.

Quote from: "Big Mac"Just curious if you took any precautions on self-defense at all.

Apart from not to going to known places of danger, I've never taken any precautions on self defence ever. There really is no need in the UK, it's a basically safe place to live.

Quote from: "Big Mac"I'd love to visit the UK but it will most likely not dispel my view on safety.

Well it might change your view of safety in the UK if not in the USA. It might be the 'safety of the naive' but I never felt really threatened anywhere in the US either, except when my own prejudice got the better of me. I got lost driving in Chicago and ended up in a not very nice area. My car was getting low on gas and I had not had to fill it up yet. I looked for a big station with lots of lights and pulled in. At the time there were no pumps in the UK that took a credit card. You fill up and then pay in the shop. So I tried to do this only for the assistant to call over the PA for me to come to the shop. It was like a small fortress! She asked for my card, so I left it and went to fill up. When I went into the shop there were two huge MrT look alikes!! I thought my number was up!!! While paying one of these guys clocked my accent. He asked where I was from we got chatting and I told him I was lost and he drew me a map and gave me perfect directions back to the freeway, nice chap.

Quote from: "Big Mac"One thing I learned in life is there are two ways to face danger: scared or prepared. Scared is learned helplessness in my opinion. Diving your head in the sand and hoping danger goes away.

That's fine. But there isn't much danger where I live.

Quote from: "Big Mac"I like to think of myself as prepared for situations such as that. I still enjoy life and go out and stuff. But I don't let my guard completely down. That's just me, I guess.

There is nothing wrong with being prepared. It's just not needed in the UK.

Quote from: "Gawen"And now you deal with a free...well...so-called free....American society that has provisions in it's constitution to allow firearms to its people. Some of the toughest gun control laws in the world and it still doesn't stop the idiot that that whacked 12 people in Cumbria a week or so ago.

Yes. But this happens about once a decade so it really isn't indicative of the normal state of affairs.

Actually if any of you ever get to this side of the pond I live 2 miles from here http://www.royalarmouries.org/home (http://www.royalarmouries.org/home) I'm sure Big Mac and Gerwan would love to see this.

Quote from: "Tank"Apart from not to going to known places of danger, I've never taken any precautions on self defence ever. There really is no need in the UK, it's a basically safe place to live.

Everywhere is a potential danger zone. If you let yourself get too lax on that fact, you might regret it if you live long enough to do that.

Quote from: "Tank"Well it might change your view of safety in the UK if not in the USA. It might be the 'safety of the naive' but I never felt really threatened anywhere in the US either, except when my own prejudice got the better of me. I got lost driving in Chicago and ended up in a not very nice area. My car was getting low on gas and I had not had to fill it up yet. I looked for a big station with lots of lights and pulled in. At the time there were no pumps in the UK that took a credit card. You fill up and then pay in the shop. So I tried to do this only for the assistant to call over the PA for me to come to the shop. It was like a small fortress! She asked for my card, so I left it and went to fill up. When I went into the shop there were two huge MrT look alikes!! I thought my number was up!!! While paying one of these guys clocked my accent. He asked where I was from we got chatting and I told him I was lost and he drew me a map and gave me perfect directions back to the freeway, nice chap.

Perhaps he was a nice fellow but there's a reason that shop was like a fortress. Convenience store clerk is one of the most dangerous occupations to have (at least in the US). People have been kidnapped, murdered, raped, robbed, etc. because they are open late and they often deal with cash (though that's changing nowadays).

Quote from: "Tank"That's fine. But there isn't much danger where I live.

Or perhaps you haven't seen it yet.

Quote from: "Tank"There is nothing wrong with being prepared. It's just not needed in the UK.

See this just perplexes me how one can state that. I guess considering military training and just what life has taught me makes me really view this kind of thinking as foreign. Not knocking your views, I just am amazed that's how you guys think.

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "Tank"There is nothing wrong with being prepared. It's just not needed in the UK.

See this just perplexes me how one can state that. I guess considering military training and just what life has taught me makes me really view this kind of thinking as foreign. Not knocking your views, I just am amazed that's how you guys think.

I know! I find your attitude equally jaw dropping and I'm not knocking your view either, it is almost literally alien to me. It just goes to show how different people and places are!

I think maybe I belong in England.  

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I think maybe I belong in England.  :D

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Gawen"And now you deal with a free...well...so-called free....American society that has provisions in it's constitution to allow firearms to its people. Some of the toughest gun control laws in the world and it still doesn't stop the idiot that that whacked 12 people in Cumbria a week or so ago.

Yes. But this happens about once a decade so it really isn't indicative of the normal state of affairs.

But it happens. And yes, massacring a bunch of people isn't normal at all...not even here  *grinnin*. But if just one person where this guy was had a legal pistol and could carry it legally, I reckon there wouldn't be much of a massacre.

There's two problems here as I see it. There's us with legal gun ownership and there the rest of the world where guns are outlawed. We deal with it in a particular way and the rest of the world pretends that if guns are outlawed there won't be any crime whatsoever...because that's the civilised way to do things. Pretty much like New York and Chicago feel. "Nope, we've outlawed guns here and there's no crime now until the outlaws decide they want to rape or rob someone at gunpoint." The argument is just plain 'ol stupid.

If you're gonna have a society that allows swords, then everyone has that right to have a sword. Remember, this is an American 'right'. Not a privilege. So when that drunk hooligan decides they want to ravish your wife in the middle of the night, you better hope you're there with a sword or she can handle one as well.

If you're gonna outlaw swords, when the same situation comes along, you better hope that you can swing that bat faster and more accurate than that drunk hooligan with a sword can. And if you don't have a bat, maybe a golf club....maybe have a bucket of rocks sitting next to your bed...
Or you can run and yell for the police.

To me, gun control is being able to hit your target. I'm for making every person that buys a gun to have instructional courses in using and maintaining it, even if they have to pay for the course themselves. I'm for the most strictest punishment for crimes involving firearms.

And...one last thing...if the state is only allowed to have firearms, you have a police state...regardless how fraking polite everyone is.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Gawen"And now you deal with a free...well...so-called free....American society that has provisions in it's constitution to allow firearms to its people. Some of the toughest gun control laws in the world and it still doesn't stop the idiot that that whacked 12 people in Cumbria a week or so ago.

Yes. But this happens about once a decade so it really isn't indicative of the normal state of affairs.

But it happens. And yes, massacring a bunch of people isn't normal at all...not even here  *grinnin*. But if just one person where this guy was had a legal pistol and could carry it legally, I reckon there wouldn't be much of a massacre.

But it couldn't be just one person carrying a gun would it, as lots of people would have been having to carry guns for any one of them to have been in the proximity of the killer? But you do have massacres in the USA where people are allowed to carry guns, you have more massacres (don't know if it's proportional give the two countries relative population?) and you have lots of incidental murders, accidents and suicides on top of the massacres so I think that rather puts the lie to that argument.

Quote from: "Gawen"There's two problems here as I see it. There's us with legal gun ownership and there the rest of the world where guns are outlawed.

Guns are not outlawed in many, many places, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel and Saudi Arabia spring to mind.

Quote from: "Gawen"We deal with it in a particular way and the rest of the world pretends that if guns are outlawed there won't be any crime whatsoever...because that's the civilised way to do things.

I don't think you really think that the worlds population is that naive do you? It definitely not like that in the UK. Outlawing guns will not stop crime but it has reduced the use of guns by criminals in the UK.

Quote from: "Gawen"Pretty much like New York and Chicago feel. "Nope, we've outlawed guns here and there's no crime now until the outlaws decide they want to rape or rob someone at gunpoint." The argument is just plain 'ol stupid.

Don't understand this bit.

Quote from: "Gawen"If you're gonna have a society that allows swords, then everyone has that right to have a sword.

Having the 'right' to do something does not make it the correct thing to do. Just because Whites had the 'right' to sit in the front of a bus at the expense of Blacks didn't make racial discrimination the correct thing to do, did it?

Quote from: "Gawen"Remember, this is an American 'right'. Not a privilege.

As people created the 'right' they can un-create it if they wish to. Am I correct in saying the the constitution and the 'rights' enshrined in it get amended every now and then? You appear to be arguing that the constitution is some sort of sacred document ie God given and unalterable, which is patently not the case. People at one time had a 'right' to own slaves. They do not now. Why? Because after due consideration it was agreed to be wrong by enough people that the 'right' was withdrawn.

Quote from: "Gawen"So when that drunk hooligan decides they want to ravish your wife in the middle of the night, you better hope you're there with a sword or she can handle one as well.

You can't stop people breaking the law, there are criminals and they carry out crimes. Giving law abiding citizens the right to carry guns won't stop criminals as they can carry guns too. So all you get is a gunfight. If somebody chose to rape my wife, I'd rather have her alive after the event than dead, which would be very likely if she tried to pull a gun on a thug.

Quote from: "Gawen"If you're gonna outlaw swords, when the same situation comes along, you better hope that you can swing that bat faster and more accurate than that drunk hooligan with a sword can. And if you don't have a bat, maybe a golf club....maybe have a bucket of rocks sitting next to your bed...
Or you can run and yell for the police.

I think I covered this above.

Quote from: "Gawen"To me, gun control is being able to hit your target. I'm for making every person that buys a gun to have instructional courses in using and maintaining it, even if they have to pay for the course themselves. I'm for the most strictest punishment for crimes involving firearms.

If one is going to allow private gun ownership then I would agree that there are strict controls and training. I would say that would be absolutly necessary.

Quote from: "Gawen"And...one last thing...if the state is only allowed to have firearms, you have a police state...regardless how fraking polite everyone is.

Well that simply isn't true in the UK. Police in the UK do not carry guns except at airports and places of likely terrorist attack or when hunting somebody with a gun. The police in the UK protect my right to free speech by upholding the laws regarding the right to assembly and peaceful protest.  

This is absolutly fascinating. It's great to be able to discuss this sort of thing in a reasoned and reasonable manner (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg268.imageshack.us%2Fimg268%2F7475%2Fteah.gif&hash=974e3ef02680bc29a956eeb3296cd6601baa8c94)

Man, Tank you would fit in with some of my liberal friends so well.

The massacres you refer to in the US happen in "gun-free zones". It's obvious why the killers choose these places. They know that there is little chance someone will be able to fight back against them. Outlawing weapons has little impact on violent criminals. They're criminals, they will commit crimes no matter what. They will also obtain weapons given the determination to do so.

Most incidents where people use weapons to defend themselves do not even involve the person shooting the perpetrator. Just the mere sight a weapon tends to make the problem go away. Criminals are lazy cowards who are not going to stick around for a firefight. Not to mention they suck at shooting and have that stupid sideways aiming thing that is fucking stupid. I wouldn't be scared of that, since I can actually line up my sights and shoot.

If you don't fight back, you embolden them. You give them the idea it's okay to be little anti-social shits. So I'm all for using lethal force to put down a violent offender. Save the tax-payers some money and get rid of a two-legged rat while we're at it. And the rest of his buddies may rethink what a shitty existence they're leading. Or not, frankly I have no issue putting a hollow-point in their cranium as well. Criminals get no sympathy from me.

The recent events in China (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1988758,00.html) show that dreadful mass attacks can happen without guns.

Also, Mac, the biggest mass shooting in American history happened in Virginia, where the laws regulating gun ownership are not very restrictive.  Do you have a cite for your claim that these shootings all happen in gun-control states?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The recent events in China (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1988758,00.html) show that dreadful mass attacks can happen without guns.

Also, Mac, the biggest mass shooting in American history happened in Virginia, where the laws regulating gun ownership are not very restrictive.  Do you have a cite for your claim that these shootings all happen in gun-control states?

It happened on a campus that didn't allow concealed carry so it was like being in Boston or LA where you have nearly no real gun rights. It was supposed to be a gun-free zone.

Name one massacre where the shooter went to a shooting range or to place where people who were packing heat are known to congregate. I bet you can't find one.

So far every major mass shooting seems to be in places that are "gun free" zones. Guess the killers should have thought about where they choose to commit their violent crimes. They were breaking a gun law!

This is where I bow out of the discussion, matter of fact I won't even read the thread any longer. No hard feelings towards anyone, though.

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The recent events in China (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1988758,00.html) show that dreadful mass attacks can happen without guns.

Also, Mac, the biggest mass shooting in American history happened in Virginia, where the laws regulating gun ownership are not very restrictive.  Do you have a cite for your claim that these shootings all happen in gun-control states?

It happened on a campus that didn't allow concealed carry so it was like being in Boston or LA where you have nearly no real gun rights. It was supposed to be a gun-free zone.

Name one massacre where the shooter went to a shooting range or to place where people who were packing heat are known to congregate. I bet you can't find one.

So far every major mass shooting seems to be in places that are "gun free" zones. Guess the killers should have thought about where they choose to commit their violent crimes. They were breaking a gun law!

The first thing that sprung to my mind was the shooting at that military base not too long ago.  But I'm not a gun person, so I don't know the specifics of gun free zones and whatnot, I'm just assuming an army base would fall into your category of 'place where people who were packing heat are known to congregate'.  

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33678801/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Quote from: "Big Mac"Man, Tank you would fit in with some of my liberal friends so well.

I'm not sure if that's an insult or a compliment    I'll assume compliment.

Quote from: "Big Mac"The massacres you refer to in the US happen in "gun-free zones". It's obvious why the killers choose these places. They know that there is little chance someone will be able to fight back against them. Outlawing weapons has little impact on violent criminals. They're criminals, they will commit crimes no matter what. They will also obtain weapons given the determination to do so.

Most incidents where people use weapons to defend themselves do not even involve the person shooting the perpetrator. Just the mere sight a weapon tends to make the problem go away. Criminals are lazy cowards who are not going to stick around for a firefight. Not to mention they suck at shooting and have that stupid sideways aiming thing that is fucking stupid. I wouldn't be scared of that, since I can actually line up my sights and shoot.

If you don't fight back, you embolden them. You give them the idea it's okay to be little anti-social shits. So I'm all for using lethal force to put down a violent offender. Save the tax-payers some money and get rid of a two-legged rat while we're at it. And the rest of his buddies may rethink what a shitty existence they're leading. Or not, frankly I have no issue putting a hollow-point in their cranium as well. Criminals get no sympathy from me.

Well what gets done in Texas and the USA in general for its citizens to decide. I think one of the issues for the US in general is IF some sort of more stringent control on gun ownership were proposed would be the fact that it would have to be federal in nature, no point in banning guns in any of the continental states as guns could be shipped from state to state. In addition there are so many firearms already in circulation that it would take decades of prohibition to get them out of circulation. So gun control on the continental USA is a moot point anyway.

Quote from: "Gawen"This is where I bow out of the discussion, matter of fact I won't even read the thread any longer. No hard feelings towards anyone, though.

Thanks for your contribution, much appreciated as usual (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg32.imageshack.us%2Fimg32%2F2922%2Fcheersi.gif&hash=d22c932723fd55512134b1ae98b018246ccbb424)

Had a look on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence)

The death rate due to firearms per 100,000 of the population in the UK is 0.12 in the USA it's 2.97 or 25 times higher. Only Singapore has a lower rate than the UK (0.03). However the non-firearm homicide rate is much closer at 1.58 (US) and 1.33 (UK). So in the UK the overall homicide rate is 1.45 while in the US it's 4.55, 3 time higher and virtual all of that difference is accounted for by gun related homicide. Now these numbers, in and of themselves, don't prove anything as this is a complex picture. However I would say figures this different in any area of investigation (particularly the 25:1 ratio) would lead me to consider further detailed investigation.

It is also worth noting the overall numbers that died. In the US 65 (year 2000) people died in firearm related incidents while in the same year 37,526 people died in road traffic accidents (577 times more). This relates to 14.87 deaths per 100,000 which means that a car is 5 times more likely to kill you than a gun in the USA. In fact 2,897 motorcyclists died in 2000 in the USA. So you'd best ban motor bikes! (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg43.imageshack.us%2Fimg43%2F4330%2Fgring.gif&hash=636178b2f4403fbb79bac6871d86223491c20eb4)

Motor vehicle stats from here http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx)

Put into context of violent deaths those related to firearms don't really show on the radar.

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The recent events in China (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1988758,00.html) show that dreadful mass attacks can happen without guns.

Also, Mac, the biggest mass shooting in American history happened in Virginia, where the laws regulating gun ownership are not very restrictive.  Do you have a cite for your claim that these shootings all happen in gun-control states?

It happened on a campus that didn't allow concealed carry so it was like being in Boston or LA where you have nearly no real gun rights. It was supposed to be a gun-free zone.

Good point.  He, however, had no problem obtaining, legally, the firearms in his rampage; that was my point.

[quot]Name one massacre where the shooter went to a shooting range or to place where people who were packing heat are known to congregate. I bet you can't find one.[/quote]

I'm sure you're right.

QuoteSo far every major mass shooting seems to be in places that are "gun free" zones. Guess the killers should have thought about where they choose to commit their violent crimes. They were breaking a gun law!

Aside from Pinkocommie's cogent point above, did Texas have concealed-carry when Luby's happened?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Aside from Pinkocommie's cogent point above, did Texas have concealed-carry when Luby's happened?

It did, in fact one of the Statesmen (or woman) was there with her parents eating. Texas law prohibited her from carrying her gun into the restaurant. It was a decision she says she regrets. Basically if she had broken the law and taken her weapon into the store she had several clear shots at this guy while he was gunning people down like fish in a barrel.

I imagine if people carried more frequently these little incidents of violence would be much lower and often much shorter.

Gun laws simply don't stop crime. It just controls people who actually obey the law. The ones who don't commit violent/property crime against others.

Quote from: "Tank"Had a look on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence)

The death rate due to firearms per 100,000 of the population in the UK is 0.12 in the USA it's 2.97 or 25 times higher. Only Singapore has a lower rate than the UK (0.03). However the non-firearm homicide rate is much closer at 1.58 (US) and 1.33 (UK). So in the UK the overall homicide rate is 1.45 while in the US it's 4.55, 3 time higher and virtual all of that difference is accounted for by gun related homicide. Now these numbers, in and of themselves, don't prove anything as this is a complex picture. However I would say figures this different in any area of investigation (particularly the 25:1 ratio) would lead me to consider further detailed investigation.

It is also worth noting the overall numbers that died. In the US 65 (year 2000) people died in firearm related incidents while in the same year 37,526 people died in road traffic accidents (577 times more). This relates to 14.87 deaths per 100,000 which means that a car is 5 times more likely to kill you than a gun in the USA. In fact 2,897 motorcyclists died in 2000 in the USA. So you'd best ban motor bikes! (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg43.imageshack.us%2Fimg43%2F4330%2Fgring.gif&hash=636178b2f4403fbb79bac6871d86223491c20eb4)

Motor vehicle stats from here http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx)

Put into context of violent deaths those related to firearms don't really show on the radar.

Usually when one uses a gun to defend one's self, the mere threat of lethal force makes most threats go away. Case in point.

I was about 9 months old when this happened.

We had a collie (Lassie's breed) that was barking to high heaven in the backyard. This was unusual because she hardly barked at anything. Turns out a guy was climbing our fence. My dad slams the storm door open, racks a shell into the 12 gauge he was holding and tells the guy that if he takes one more step towards our home he'd have a giant pink mist instead of a head.

The guy disappeared so fast and never returned. Turns out he tried it again at another neighborhood and was gunned down by the home-owner. Problem solved. Tax-payers were saved money and this punk was hopefully a clear message to his buddies that Texans don't tolerate that shit.

But for the most part, the biggest killer of Americans isn't guns. It's accidents, heart disease, and other things that are often preventable. The media doesn't touch on these because guns are a scary boogey man for news people. They act like they are death rays that one person can wield and kill thousands of people with. In reality it's a very advance skill to engage targets with a weapon. Movies make it seem like you can just pick one up and blast away. But they don't show how hard it is to nail a target, especially a moving target.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The recent events in China (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1988758,00.html) show that dreadful mass attacks can happen without guns.

Also, Mac, the biggest mass shooting in American history happened in Virginia, where the laws regulating gun ownership are not very restrictive.  Do you have a cite for your claim that these shootings all happen in gun-control states?

It happened on a campus that didn't allow concealed carry so it was like being in Boston or LA where you have nearly no real gun rights. It was supposed to be a gun-free zone.

Name one massacre where the shooter went to a shooting range or to place where people who were packing heat are known to congregate. I bet you can't find one.

So far every major mass shooting seems to be in places that are "gun free" zones. Guess the killers should have thought about where they choose to commit their violent crimes. They were breaking a gun law!

The first thing that sprung to my mind was the shooting at that military base not too long ago.  But I'm not a gun person, so I don't know the specifics of gun free zones and whatnot, I'm just assuming an army base would fall into your category of 'place where people who were packing heat are known to congregate'.  

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33678801/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Soldiers don't carry guns on them all the time when they are on base, you know. Also, he had the element of surprise. Not to mention that this was a very rare and isolated case. Most deaths by guns on base are often suicides. That's more of a mental health issue with PTSD and such.

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Aside from Pinkocommie's cogent point above, did Texas have concealed-carry when Luby's happened?

It did, in fact one of the Statesmen (or woman) was there with her parents eating. Texas law prohibited her from carrying her gun into the restaurant. It was a decision she says she regrets. Basically if she had broken the law and taken her weapon into the store she had several clear shots at this guy while he was gunning people down like fish in a barrel.

I imagine if people carried more frequently these little incidents of violence would be much lower and often much shorter.

Gun laws simply don't stop crime. It just controls people who actually obey the law. The ones who don't commit violent/property crime against others.

I saw her being interviewed. It was very sad. She had to see her parents get gunned down in the full knowledge her hand gun was in her car in the parking lot.

In my opinion the damage was done a long time ago when it was considered necessary to carry a gun to stay safe. There's no way you can de-weaponize the US now. It would cause more harm than good to try to do this. It only works in European countries because we've had a long history of gun control, so, everyone is already used to a gunless society.

The day the problem is solved is the day they are able to stop people dying from gunshot wounds with 100% efficiency.

Quote from: "karadan"In my opinion the damage was done a long time ago when it was considered necessary to carry a gun to stay safe. There's no way you can de-weaponize the US now. It would cause more harm than good to try to do this. It only works in European countries because we've had a long history of gun control, so, everyone is already used to a gunless society.

The day the problem is solved is the day they are able to stop people dying from gunshot wounds with 100% efficiency.

I think the damage was done when gun control was entered into the equation. The most violent places in the US have STRICT gun control laws yet that doesn't stop criminals from getting their guns.

The problem can be solved by letting law-abiding folks carry the tools that can and will deter criminals.

Quote from: "Big Mac"Soldiers don't carry guns on them all the time when they are on base, you know. Also, he had the element of surprise. Not to mention that this was a very rare and isolated case. Most deaths by guns on base are often suicides. That's more of a mental health issue with PTSD and such.

I'm aware.  Like I said, this was what popped to mind when you said you bet no one could list a shooting at a place where people were known to be armed.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "Big Mac"Soldiers don't carry guns on them all the time when they are on base, you know. Also, he had the element of surprise. Not to mention that this was a very rare and isolated case. Most deaths by guns on base are often suicides. That's more of a mental health issue with PTSD and such.

I'm aware.  Like I said, this was what popped to mind when you said you bet no one could list a shooting at a place where people were known to be armed.

It does happen but the frequency of it happening is NOWHERE near what it is like when the place makes it clear that you can't have a gun on you.

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "karadan"In my opinion the damage was done a long time ago when it was considered necessary to carry a gun to stay safe. There's no way you can de-weaponize the US now. It would cause more harm than good to try to do this. It only works in European countries because we've had a long history of gun control, so, everyone is already used to a gunless society.

The day the problem is solved is the day they are able to stop people dying from gunshot wounds with 100% efficiency.

I think the damage was done when gun control was entered into the equation. The most violent places in the US have STRICT gun control laws yet that doesn't stop criminals from getting their guns.

The problem can be solved by letting law-abiding folks carry the tools that can and will deter criminals.

But the UK doesn't have a gun problem because there aren't any guns. There was never a shit load of guns that they'd have to take off everyone in the first place. If you've never had it, you will not miss it. That's my point. It wouldn't work in the US because they're already tooled up to the max. Controlling guns in a society where everyone already has them will be counter productive. Because of this, i feel you guys should carry on carrying guns :)

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "karadan"In my opinion the damage was done a long time ago when it was considered necessary to carry a gun to stay safe. There's no way you can de-weaponize the US now. It would cause more harm than good to try to do this. It only works in European countries because we've had a long history of gun control, so, everyone is already used to a gunless society.

The day the problem is solved is the day they are able to stop people dying from gunshot wounds with 100% efficiency.

I think the damage was done when gun control was entered into the equation. The most violent places in the US have STRICT gun control laws yet that doesn't stop criminals from getting their guns.

The problem can be solved by letting law-abiding folks carry the tools that can and will deter criminals.

But the UK doesn't have a gun problem because there aren't any guns. There was never a shit load of guns that they'd have to take off everyone in the first place. If you've never had it, you will not miss it. That's my point. It wouldn't work in the US because they're already tooled up to the max. Controlling guns in a society where everyone already has them will be counter productive. Because of this, i feel you guys should carry on carrying guns :)

+1
If one added more guns back into the UK system there would be more deaths caused by firearms, end of story.

Quote from: "karadan"But the UK doesn't have a gun problem because there aren't any guns. There was never a shit load of guns that they'd have to take off everyone in the first place. If you've never had it, you will not miss it. That's my point. It wouldn't work in the US because they're already tooled up to the max. Controlling guns in a society where everyone already has them will be counter productive. Because of this, i feel you guys should carry on carrying guns :)

Are you serious? Prison doesn't deter criminals. They live off my dime while they're there. Frankly I think we should do what the Soviets did and have gulags. Prisons in the US are so babying to prisoners. The bastards get TV and exercise equipment. So when they get out they are stronger and even more violent. Up to me I'd make them live in utter darkness and break them down mentally to the point I reshape them into productive members of society. Harsh but they are in need of mental adjustment to live in society. Those who fail should be executed in my opinion. Sorry if I sound extreme but I have nothing but contempt and hatred for criminals. They solicit not a bit of sympathy from me.

That's why if I ever get confronted in my home by an intruder, I'm going to shoot to kill. No point wasting tax payers money and letting someone get better at committing crime. And dead men can't sue. In Texas the Castle Doctrine prohibits the surviving family members of the dead man to sue the home owner.

England used to have guns as well. I know for a fact there is a sizable group of folks who aren't too happy with the handgun ban and such. Not to mention the gun laws didn't really kick off like they did until the 20th century.

Perhaps not to the extent the US has (I own about 15 myself and I know people who dwarf that number) but I'm sure there were a good number of guns.

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "karadan"But the UK doesn't have a gun problem because there aren't any guns. There was never a shit load of guns that they'd have to take off everyone in the first place. If you've never had it, you will not miss it. That's my point. It wouldn't work in the US because they're already tooled up to the max. Controlling guns in a society where everyone already has them will be counter productive. Because of this, I feel you guys should carry on carrying guns :)

Are you serious? Prison doesn't deter criminals. They live off my dime while they're there. Frankly I think we should do what the Soviets did and have gulags. Prisons in the US are so babying to prisoners. The bastards get TV and exercise equipment. So when they get out they are stronger and even more violent. Up to me I'd make them live in utter darkness and break them down mentally to the point I reshape them into productive members of society. Harsh but they are in need of mental adjustment to live in society. Those who fail should be executed in my opinion. Sorry if I sound extreme but I have nothing but contempt and hatred for criminals. They solicit not a bit of sympathy from me.

That's why if I ever get confronted in my home by an intruder, I'm going to shoot to kill. No point wasting tax payers money and letting someone get better at committing crime. And dead men can't sue. In Texas the Castle Doctrine prohibits the surviving family members of the dead man to sue the home owner.

England used to have guns as well. I know for a fact there is a sizable group of folks who aren't too happy with the handgun ban and such. Not to mention the gun laws didn't really kick off like they did until the 20th century.

Perhaps not to the extent the US has (I own about 15 myself and I know people who dwarf that number) but I'm sure there were a good number of guns.

No I wasn't being serious. Hence the smiley and the word 'supposed'

That's some pretty radical thinking you have there Big Mac. The problem is, your methods would not deter criminals and it wouldn't cure the root cause of why they become criminals in the first place. Instead of throwing hundreds of thousands of people into an inhumane environment, maybe the resources should be spent on investigating why people become like this in the first place. I'm pretty sure I already know the reasons, though.

Class division, poverty and overpopulation (there are others, of course, but these are the main factors). It is documented that when people's lives slip away from them, they turn to the only thing which gives them solace and happiness… Drugs. This leads to a slippery slope of addiction which will lead to crime in order to fund the habit. In the short term, drugs and alcohol relieve the user by stopping them dwelling on how shit their lives are. There are so many tragic stories all over the world of people who never stood a chance at life. People being born into broken homes and unloving environments. There's a reason that kids born into environments such as this eventually (usually) grow into criminals with no moral compass. It was never nurtured and instilled within them by a stable and loving background. Put someone in a hopeless situation and their actions will become increasingly desparate and inconsiderate.

There's a reason there's a correlation between the instance of poverty in a given area and the higher levels of crime. The foundations of modern society will inherently give more opportunity to people born into wealthier environments. That is what has to be fixed. Just killing off all the criminals is akin to burying your head in the sand. It will not solve the issue. It will also breed further hatred for the system because 'moderate criminals' (tax evaders, petty thieves, etc) will fall under your category of criminal. Should someone who stole a pair of shoes because they didn't have any in mid winter deserve to go to a gulag? If your answer is yes then you lack a certain type of empathy which I'd normally reserve for a sociopath. The absence of a smiley there means I'm being rather serious too.

People in Russia are hardy folk. They can seemigly take a hell of a lot due to the oppressive nature of their society. They also have a dire human rights record. Seemingly, life isn't as important there as it is in other countries. That's not the best cycle to get into, especially if a country wants to advance itself morally for future generations. If you show empathy to someone, they will respond positively. It is a very simple concept not enough people understand.

The main gun laws in the UK were imposed in the 30's. Hand guns were banned in the 90's. The main differences between the two countries' laws is geography (the UK is easier to police seeing as it is smaller than most US states) and we don’t have a constitution which tells people it is their right to have firearms. There may be a group of people who do not like the laws as they are, but the amount of people who prefer the UK as a gunless nation dwarfs that figure.

Quote from: "karadan"No I wasn't being serious. Hence the smiley and the word 'supposed'

That's some pretty radical thinking you have there Big Mac. The problem is, your methods would not deter criminals and it wouldn't cure the root cause of why they become criminals in the first place. Instead of throwing hundreds of thousands of people into an inhumane environment, maybe the resources should be spent on investigating why people become like this in the first place. I'm pretty sure I already know the reasons, though.

Class division, poverty and overpopulation (there are others, of course, but these are the main factors). It is documented that when people's lives slip away from them, they turn to the only thing which gives them solace and happiness… Drugs. This leads to a slippery slope of addiction which will lead to crime in order to fund the habit. In the short term, drugs and alcohol relieve the user by stopping them dwelling on how shit their lives are. There are so many tragic stories all over the world of people who never stood a chance at life. People being born into broken homes and unloving environments. There's a reason that kids born into environments such as this eventually (usually) grow into criminals with no moral compass. It was never nurtured and instilled within them by a stable and loving background. Put someone in a hopeless situation and their actions will become increasingly desparate and inconsiderate.

There's a reason there's a correlation between the instance of poverty in a given area and the higher levels of crime. The foundations of modern society will inherently give more opportunity to people born into wealthier environments. That is what has to be fixed. Just killing off all the criminals is akin to burying your head in the sand. It will not solve the issue. It will also breed further hatred for the system because 'moderate criminals' (tax evaders, petty thieves, etc) will fall under your category of criminal. Should someone who stole a pair of shoes because they didn't have any in mid winter deserve to go to a gulag? If your answer is yes then you lack a certain type of empathy which I'd normally reserve for a sociopath. The absence of a smiley there means I'm being rather serious too.

People in Russia are hardy folk. They can seemigly take a hell of a lot due to the oppressive nature of their society. They also have a dire human rights record. Seemingly, life isn't as important there as it is in other countries. That's not the best cycle to get into, especially if a country wants to advance itself morally for future generations. If you show empathy to someone, they will respond positively. It is a very simple concept not enough people understand.

The main gun laws in the UK were imposed in the 30's. Hand guns were banned in the 90's. The main differences between the two countries' laws is geography (the UK is easier to police seeing as it is smaller than most US states) and we don’t have a constitution which tells people it is their right to have firearms. There may be a group of people who do not like the laws as they are, but the amount of people who prefer the UK as a gunless nation dwarfs that figure.

They can save their little sob stories for someone else. I don't give two shits about someone not having enough money for shoes. There are tons of organizations that help out the poor. Poverty is not a valid reason. It's just a manipulative ploy they use on people like you who have too much empathy. I say dry your tears and harden your heart. Everyone's got a sad story to tell. I have to work to pay for rent, tuition, food, etc. I work at a job I hate but guess what, that's life. It's rough and you gotta toughen up or else die. Nature has it set that way. I feel no pity for a thief. A thief is a thief. They can cry all they want about how they only stole to feed themselves. I don't buy it. There are food banks and charity organizations to go to. Not to mention government assistance. I'd like to see some government cheese myself. Won't happen though because I don't fail at life like those sad Darwin cases.

And if you go to drugs/alcohol when times get hard, then you are probably unfit to use up resources that could go to someone who isn't a weak-willed sissy. I'm not radical, my friend, I just don't let someone's sob story get to me. And nature and me are in tune. The stronger, more determined inherit the earth, the meek and weak die off. Like I said, dry your tears, they won't get an ounce of pity out of me. I guess growing up with parents who reinforced the idea of self-reliance I don't pity those who can't survive on their own. And frankly I kind of welcome the end of the world. Be nice to watch the dead weight fall off the planet.

I merely advocate that when criminals don't have the protection of draconian gun laws, they tend to be wary of robbing someone. Kick down someone's door in Texas, they'll be within their rights to blow your head off. I can't imagine having it any other way. Nor do I want to.

One caveat to that. I do believe in helping people who are willing to help themselves. I've volunteered at the literacy coalition and helped tutor people working on their GED. I do believe in charitable work that isn't just giving stuff, but teaching people the skills they need to be productive. I'm not completely heartless. I just don't buy the "I'm desperate so it's okay I break the law" bit.

Quote from: "Big Mac"They can save their little sob stories for someone else. I don't give two shits about someone not having enough money for shoes. There are tons of organizations that help out the poor. Poverty is not a valid reason. It's just a manipulative ploy they use on people like you who have too much empathy. I say dry your tears and harden your heart. Everyone's got a sad story to tell. I have to work to pay for rent, tuition, food, etc. I work at a job I hate but guess what, that's life. It's rough and you gotta toughen up or else die. Nature has it set that way. I feel no pity for a thief. A thief is a thief. They can cry all they want about how they only stole to feed themselves. I don't buy it. There are food banks and charity organizations to go to. Not to mention government assistance. I'd like to see some government cheese myself. Won't happen though because I don't fail at life like those sad Darwin cases.

And if you go to drugs/alcohol when times get hard, then you are probably unfit to use up resources that could go to someone who isn't a weak-willed sissy. I'm not radical, my friend, I just don't let someone's sob story get to me. And nature and me are in tune. The stronger, more determined inherit the earth, the meek and weak die off. Like I said, dry your tears, they won't get an ounce of pity out of me. I guess growing up with parents who reinforced the idea of self-reliance I don't pity those who can't survive on their own. And frankly I kind of welcome the end of the world. Be nice to watch the dead weight fall off the planet.

I merely advocate that when criminals don't have the protection of draconian gun laws, they tend to be wary of robbing someone. Kick down someone's door in Texas, they'll be within their rights to blow your head off. I can't imagine having it any other way. Nor do I want to.

One caveat to that. I do believe in helping people who are willing to help themselves. I've volunteered at the literacy coalition and helped tutor people working on their GED. I do believe in charitable work that isn't just giving stuff, but teaching people the skills they need to be productive. I'm not completely heartless. I just don't buy the "I'm desperate so it's okay I break the law" bit.

My dad stole to feed us (my sister and I) when we were young a few times.  He was a drug addict and a Vietnam vet with PTSD.  I think it's pretty offensive to paint someone who was fucked up because he fought for this country and used drugs to help deal with his experiences as a 'weak willed sissy'.  I find this post to be disheartening and indicative of an aspect of America I greatly dislike.

You sure are ignorant of reality.

I wonder Big Mac, did your father rape you from the age of six? Did he force you to watch whilst he raped your mum? Did he drug you and violate you for a camera? Did he hold you down and put pins under your scalp telling you that if you screamed, he'd cut your mums tits off? If that did happen to you from the age of six, i wonder how well adjusted you'd be in later life. I wonder how it would make you feel walking past a macdonalds as a homeless teenager, seeing all the happy families in there. I wonder how much rage that would make you feel, knowing your life had been robbed from you by a tyrant for a father, now dead by suicide. You think you'd just keep your chin up and get on with life without having learnt any of the social and intellectual skills necessary to function properly in this society, regardless of all the horrendous psychological baggage such an upbringing would entail? I really doubt it, but, it must be easy not having to give a shit about those less fortunate than yourself. Ignorance is bliss, as they say. The untold cycle of perpetual suffering happens across the planet on a daily basis, just like the true story above, and that doesn't give you pause to wonder why this happens?

You seem able to implant your own cozy existence upon the lives of the far, far less fortunate than yourself and expect them to abide by the same rules. It is a puzzling frame of mind to be bereft of all and any empathy for any fellow human and to be completely indifferent as to what makes other people tick. I'm simply interested in cause and prevention and the long term generational study into why this happens. You only seem interested in yourself and the harsh and gleeful retribution for anyone who interferes with your ego-imposed sadistic status quo.

What you seemed to glean from my earlier post was that i'm excusing the crimes people make because they've had a bad life. Not at all. If someone commits a crime, they deserve to be punished but i was more concerned with why people become criminals in the first place. You are lucky enough to be educated which means you are able to get a job and earn a living. What astounds me is that you seem to think anyone else should be able to do the same even though their background might be polar opposite to yours, having had all the tools for a normal life taken away from them before they had a chance. Put it this way, how many doctors, psychologists, bankers, teachers, and anyone else with a well paid profession are on death row? If there are any, i'm sure the proportion is incredibly low. The same probably goes for normal inmate rates. See the corellation there?

Yes, there are agencies and government run programmes who are there to help the needy but you cannot say with a straight face that there aren't enormous holes in those systems.

At least you're honest, i guess.

Gentlemen, please.  

I'll echo Tank's last post and add to it: "Gentlemen please! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
 

Seriously, I just read the entire thread for the first time, and it's been going well until this page. Please just keep it real and civil, everyone. This is yet another difficult issue for people from different cultures to agree on or even understand one another on. No one person has been truly way out of line here, but we are heading in that direction in this last page here. So bring it on back, please.

In fairness, remember, Tank, that you, a Brit, started this by asking about an American Constitutional right. So you may not agree with the American view of this, no matter how much it is discussed. You asked if America, not the UK, should re-look at the Second Amendment.

As for other things, let's not inflate the rhetoric to make points. Can we keep gulags and other inflammatory stuff out, possibly? Pretty please?

Thanks all.

Quote from: "Big Mac"Frankly I think we should do what the Soviets did and have gulags.

What crimes, in your opinion, justify being simultaneously worked and starved to death?

Why do you think it is appropriate for the government to profit from the justice system?

Quote from: "BM"And frankly I kind of welcome the end of the world. Be nice to watch the dead weight fall off the planet.

I refer you to John Donne.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Big Mac"Frankly I think we should do what the Soviets did and have gulags.

What crimes, in your opinion, justify being simultaneously worked and starved to death?

Why do you think it is appropriate for the government to profit from the justice system?

Quote from: "BM"And frankly I kind of welcome the end of the world. Be nice to watch the dead weight fall off the planet.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I refer you to John Donne.

And I refer you to my post, directly above yours, in which I asked for people to steer away from this and get back on track. Drop this line of argument, move away from the gulags, torture, personal feelings on prison effectiveness, and keep it civil. I did ask nicely before.

My 2cts. I don't have problem with people owning guns. What I don't like is seeing guns in the hands of irresponsible people.  Here in Europe we frown upon the gun "laws" in America, because to us it looks like that every idiot would be able to get a gun without any problems. We also think it is madness that some street gangs are better armed than the police. On the other hand, I fully agree with BigMac that people must have the right to defend their homes and family. If a crazy punk would dare to threaten my family and I would have a gun in my possession than I would also plunge some big bullet holes in his body. Yes, we do have tougher gun laws here in Europe, but that doesn't stop criminals from buying guns on the black market. Nevertheless, the chances that an ordinary  burglar would carry a weapon here in Germany is practically zero. Another difference with the USA is that our welfare system guarantees that no-one has to live below the poverty line. So basically there is not a single valuable excuse for committing crimes here.

Quote from: "karadan"You sure are ignorant of reality.

I wonder Big Mac, did your father rape you from the age of six? Did he force you to watch whilst he raped your mum? Did he drug you and violate you for a camera? Did he hold you down and put pins under your scalp telling you that if you screamed, he'd cut your mums tits off? If that did happen to you from the age of six, i wonder how well adjusted you'd be in later life. I wonder how it would make you feel walking past a macdonalds as a homeless teenager, seeing all the happy families in there. I wonder how much rage that would make you feel, knowing your life had been robbed from you by a tyrant for a father, now dead by suicide. You think you'd just keep your chin up and get on with life without having learnt any of the social and intellectual skills necessary to function properly in this society, regardless of all the horrendous psychological baggage such an upbringing would entail? I really doubt it, but, it must be easy not having to give a shit about those less fortunate than yourself. Ignorance is bliss, as they say. The untold cycle of perpetual suffering happens across the planet on a daily basis, just like the true story above, and that doesn't give you pause to wonder why this happens?

You seem able to implant your own cozy existence upon the lives of the far, far less fortunate than yourself and expect them to abide by the same rules. It is a puzzling frame of mind to be bereft of all and any empathy for any fellow human and to be completely indifferent as to what makes other people tick. I'm simply interested in cause and prevention and the long term generational study into why this happens. You only seem interested in yourself and the harsh and gleeful retribution for anyone who interferes with your ego-imposed sadistic status quo.

What you seemed to glean from my earlier post was that i'm excusing the crimes people make because they've had a bad life. Not at all. If someone commits a crime, they deserve to be punished but i was more concerned with why people become criminals in the first place. You are lucky enough to be educated which means you are able to get a job and earn a living. What astounds me is that you seem to think anyone else should be able to do the same even though their background might be polar opposite to yours, having had all the tools for a normal life taken away from them before they had a chance. Put it this way, how many doctors, psychologists, bankers, teachers, and anyone else with a well paid profession are on death row? If there are any, i'm sure the proportion is incredibly low. The same probably goes for normal inmate rates. See the corellation there?

Yes, there are agencies and government run programmes who are there to help the needy but you cannot say with a straight face that there aren't enormous holes in those systems.

At least you're honest, i guess.

No, my father just showed me that a man must lift himself up higher than what life pushes on him. My father lead a hard life and was able to be a loving and good father. He taught me how to survive and thrive in a hostile world. He showed tenderness when it was necessary but he also showed tough love when it called for it. He taught me how to hunt, how to fish, how to seduce, how to sell myself in the world. He taught me how to be functional in a world that is chaotic and violent. He showed me skills that I hope to never use but have no qualms if it came to that. The more I live my life, the more I see the value in these simple but profound lessons. He had his own demons but he never abused us. I admit, I did enjoy a loving childhood from my parents who came from extremely dysfunctional families. I am not heartless completely despite my posturing.

I think we're taking extreme stances on our views because we both feel very passionate about these views. I agree that a lot of times people are desperate to commit certain crimes. The problem with being overly empathetic to it is that criminals will try to con that from you. Sometimes you have to be a little harsh to maintain order in society. It's a grim but real fact of life. I do care about other people. I really really do. If you let a violent criminal go on about his merry way, he will wreak havoc on a weaker element of society. He will target a small woman, a paraplegic, a blind child, an elderly man, etc. because they will not put up the same resistance as an able-bodied guy like me. My heart goes out to those folks. The person who preys on them is the person who I feel nothing but contempt and hatred for. A coward will do that. So I feel nothing but joy when I see people like that suffer horrible pain for their misdeeds on people.

I've had kids who I tutored who would be a pain in my ass. I'd do what my dad would do and show some tough love. I'd have a little speech I'd go through that went basically, "Look kid, you wanna ignore my lesson? There are literally 25 kids behind you who need help on this subject. Get out of my booth and go waste your life somewhere else. I'm gonna spend my time on someone who wants to learn." Harsh? Hell yeah! Abusive? Hell no! I was hard because I cared. To quote the great Johnny Cash, "This world is rough and if a man's gonna make it he's gotta be tough."

Every time it would work and the kid would shape up and be a model student. These kids weren't dumb at all, very quick and eager to learn the subject at hand. I'm talking kids who had nothing in life. Family was abusive and ignored them, etc. (this was at a Boys & Girls club) I have dealt with people who society has pushed away from its materialistic and vapid psyche. Tough love works most of the time. If I went all bleeding-heart on them, I'd be laughed at and a door mat. By being strong and determined I helped them see the value of behaving quicker than asking nicely. I have no idea how these kids turned out (it's been almost 7 years now since I last worked at that club, but I imagine it was a marked improvement over what they were used to) but I hope they are on to a brighter future. The sad part is I can't make a living tutoring kids from the ghetto. A lot of them showed potential and I admired their stubborn nature to refuse defeat from a world that told them to give up and die. Kind of made me cry manly tears.

I'm not heartless, I'm just not going to sympathize with the person who kicks down my door with the intent to rob me at 3 in the morning. They are going to receive a wall of lead from my end.

You know, there are times I've bought a meal for a panhandler if he honestly said he was hungry and willing to take a meal. If said person needed shoes and was believable I would go to Good Will and buy them a 10 dollar pair of shoes (hypothetical because that one never popped up). What burns me up is people who bemoan the lack of resources without trying them. Where I'm from you'd be amazed at the generosity of people if you demonstrate a basic human need.

But all my sympathy goes out the window when you victimize the weaker/vulnerable member of society. I don't care what your story is. You are now just a jackal who needs putting down.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"My dad stole to feed us (my sister and I) when we were young a few times.  He was a drug addict and a Vietnam vet with PTSD.  I think it's pretty offensive to paint someone who was fucked up because he fought for this country and used drugs to help deal with his experiences as a 'weak willed sissy'.  I find this post to be disheartening and indicative of an aspect of America I greatly dislike.

I'm sorry to hear about the troubles your father had after serving in that conflict. That was not who I was referring to. I'm referring to people who just give up and think that because they had a hard life that they are entitled to be drug fueled assholes to the rest of society. It sickens me when vets are ignored by the people they fought and died for like they are now second class citizens. I hope the current crop of troops do not experience the same thing that Vietnam vets do when coming home. That was a senseless war that people took a lot of their anger out on the troops.

That was never the intent of that and I'm sorry if it came off as that.

McQ's request being honored. Gulags will no longer be touched on. See other posts please.

On the subject of welfare programs. I actually agree with the original intent behind them. No one should suffer the pain of hunger. No one should worry about having a roof over their head. It sickening to think we as a society have trouble providing housing to others. It's a sign of a society that focuses on some of the stupidest shit. It's frustrating and at times can be overwhelming to imagine how the world can be so harsh.

I do not lack empathy for people despite my harsh posturing. I want that to be clear. My contempt is toward violent criminals for the most part. I do support charitable organizations that help people. I feel that we need to attack the source of grinding poverty and not just temporarily alleviate the symptoms. I am fully behind helping others out in society. Who in their right mind wants to live in a world where NO ONE will help you when you desperately need it? Would we really want a society where there is no charitable organizations out there? It'd be like Hobbes view on certain societies. Life would be short, violent, and brutish.

As PC brought up, there are plenty of people who turned to drugs who are mentally ill (in the case of her father serving in wartime and being cast aside by society once he returned to the states). I would love to see a focus on providing quality mental health care to them. I'm not opposed to helping people seek professional help.

My point is I see no issue killing someone in self-defense if it comes to that. You will not see me bat an eye at destroying whoever/whatever aims at destroying me and my loved ones.

Quote from: "McQ"In fairness, remember, Tank, that you, a Brit, started this by asking about an American Constitutional right. So you may not agree with the American view of this, no matter how much it is discussed. You asked if America, not the UK, should re-look at the Second Amendment.

Quite right, I did ask the question and the responses have been very interesting to read. The 'sub-plot' of individual/national attitudes to gun control is also of interest. I don't think this thread is going to change any minds one way or the other in either country as each person is a product of their culture, and there are tribal overtones bubbling under the surface as well. I thing the best one could hope for is that the various parties agree to differ as the actual circumstances each finds themselves in is unique. One of the nice things about forums is that one can discuss things at a grass root level with individuals in the situation being discussed. We're not looking at each other with the media or agenda laden politicians in the way, we're just imperfect people getting on in the world.

There is absolutly no need to get personal about this and start sniping at each other. It's just an interesting exchange of ideas and there really is no need to fall out over this at all.

Not at all Tank, I'm enjoying this discussion. I didn't think some of my thoughts out and may have come off a little more heartless than I should want to be. I just find it foreign to view guns as bad instead of the bad person behind the gun doing bad things with it. Guns to me are tools (not toys) that cannot be evil. Just like a car, a butcher knife, a large wrench, etc. They do whatever the person wielding them does.

I'm a big advocate of being responsible for your own actions. I'm not saying you guys aren't either.

This is a very charged issue and I admit in the heat of the discussion I got a little carried away with some of the more hyperbolic stuff.

Quote from: "Big Mac"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"My dad stole to feed us (my sister and I) when we were young a few times.  He was a drug addict and a Vietnam vet with PTSD.  I think it's pretty offensive to paint someone who was fucked up because he fought for this country and used drugs to help deal with his experiences as a 'weak willed sissy'.  I find this post to be disheartening and indicative of an aspect of America I greatly dislike.

I'm sorry to hear about the troubles your father had after serving in that conflict. That was not who I was referring to. I'm referring to people who just give up and think that because they had a hard life that they are entitled to be drug fueled assholes to the rest of society. It sickens me when vets are ignored by the people they fought and died for like they are now second class citizens. I hope the current crop of troops do not experience the same thing that Vietnam vets do when coming home. That was a senseless war that people took a lot of their anger out on the troops.

That was never the intent of that and I'm sorry if it came off as that.

It's ok, it's an emotional subject for me and I'm sorry I let my emotions take the lead by posting something like that.  I can completely understand and I share in your frustration with people who take advantage of the system.  It's in part those kind of people creating issues with the social security and welfare system that made it even more difficult for my dad to receive help.

I don't think empathy is a bad thing at all and I felt like your previous post made it seem like empathy was somehow a weakness.  I don't think that's what you actually meant though, having read the rest of your replies, so I'm sorry for reacting so harshly instead of asking for clarification before reacting.

Internet hugs, etc.  

Quote from: "Big Mac"Not at all Tank, I'm enjoying this discussion. I didn't think some of my thoughts out and may have come off a little more heartless than I should want to be. I just find it foreign to view guns as bad instead of the bad person behind the gun doing bad things with it. Guns to me are tools (not toys) that cannot be evil. Just like a car, a butcher knife, a large wrench, etc. They do whatever the person wielding them does.

I agree with you 100% and cars kill way more people than guns and almost all due to improper use or maintenance, the exception being the unmissable pedestrian.  

Quote from: "Big Mac"I'm a big advocate of being responsible for your own actions. I'm not saying you guys aren't either.

Again I agree 100%.

Quote from: "Big Mac"This is a very charged issue and I admit in the heat of the discussion I got a little carried away with some of the more hyperbolic stuff.

And who hasn't at some time or another, I know I've cringed at some things I have written as I wouldn't have even dreamt of saying the same thing in real life.  

For me the 'tool' description of guns is 100% accurate but not necessarily the whole story. While cars cause most violent deaths they are not supposed to, for a gun to be anything other than a toy (in the context of target shooting) it must cause violent death. To fulfil its function as a tool a gun must kill. The counter to this is MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) on the personal scale. If everybody carried guns nobody would have a significant advantage in their ability to threaten and thus dominate anybody else.

However, I do follow the point regarding the OP that the nature of the weapons owned is of secondary importance to the Idea behind the second amendment. But I do think the FF did leave the population of the USA with a rather poisoned challis in this case.

I disagree, the Founding Fathers knew that when people are armed it is harder to oppress them. The modus operandi of any invading army to is take away any arms from the civilian population. We see it in Iraq right now. An armed resistance from civilians who are packing military grade weaponry (granted it's beat up and old soviet tech but it still functions). Imagine them being armed and trained as well as a good number of Americans (a lot of gun owners are former military/LE or can get training from someone who is). It'd be hard to maintain morale when you have a group of folks sniping, ambushing, etc. your men so much more effectively. Kind of like a Red Dawn situation but not as cheesy (though I'd hold up an AK and scream WOLVERINES!!!! like Patrick Swayze RIP).

I think the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment for what I call the three T's: Thugs, Tyrants, and Trespassers. Thugs were the highwaymen of the day who feared the coachman's blunderbuss. Tyrants are well....tyrants. Trespassers refers to an invading military that the people needed to help push back. There is some debate as to whether the oft-quote Japanese admiral said, "I'd never invade America, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." I'm not sure if that was actually said but I imagine that they were keenly aware of how heavily armed US civilians are.

I admit, guns are scary in that they are designed solely to fire lead down range in a lethal manner. Even the target pistol you refer to is still a deadly weapon. It can kill just the same as the Sig Sauer P226 X-Five Tactical sitting on my computer desk right now. The problem I think lies in the fact a lot of kids hear these rappers talk about weapons like that somehow makes you a man to own a deadly weapon and use it on people. They think "That's cool!" and go out and buy something illegal. In my opinion that's the big reason we have a lot of gun deaths in this country.

A lot of those kids lack a father figure (or at least a positive one) so they look up to these men who glorify violence and other anti-social behavior and make it seem like a requisite for being a man. I've seen it too many times and it's disheartening. They come from a world that tells them to just give up and sadly a lot of them listen to this mantra and do just that. I think that breaking that cycle like Karadan mentioned would probably go a long way to reduce crime. Every kid I dealt with in that tutoring work responded to me quite well. I wasn't completely harsh.  I just made it clear that while we can have fun while we learn that I was the tutor and the student listens to me. And if they didn't agree to that to hit the bricks because I didn't have time to play pity party with them. I don't think these kids got that kind of attention at home. Perhaps their parents were neglectful or just couldn't because they are working and such. It is a very harsh cycle.

However, my sympathy has no place in self-defense when someone is breaking into my home. They have made a choice to do something violent and I will respond with lethal force. It's a harsh duality but I feel a necessary one.

It's just like any other tool. You don't respect it, it will bite you bad. Just like a butcher knife, you don't watch how you're cutting, you're gonna get cut.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the countryside in the US but it's a necessity to have a gun in the home because it will take police forever to respond. You can literally be miles away from anything remotely called a home. Not to mention wildlife can be quite aggressive at times. Killing things like cougars, coyotes, rattlesnakes, etc. requires a gun. And there are plenty of two-legged predators out there.

So yes, in the wrong hands a gun is a liability. I fully agree with background checks and certain restrictions on WHO can own a gun. If you have a history of violence, no gun. If you have a restraining order against you, no gun. If you are mentally ill, no gun.

These are already in place. It's not like you can walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun without doing some paper work. After you finish said paperwork the dealer takes your license and calls the NCIS (Background checking people, before they existed it was a waiting period while they did a background check for a few days).

Dealers follow the law to the t. There are some out there that violate the law but the vast majority would not risk the severe penalties that come with breaking the law. The problem with the Cho (the V-Tech Shooter) was that he showed different warning signs to different people. Seemed like most of them didn't report his disturbing behavior (or maybe they didn't know how). That boy did not need a single deadly object. Just reading his plays it's obvious he was deranged.

Thought provoking post. In the UK more people die from bee stings than snake bites. We have only one poisonous snake and no other lethal creatures to worry about. So in the UK a gun is only really employed to eliminate vermin and for hunting. The hunting establishment is mostly an expensive clique in the UK not a weekend hobby, as I believe it to be in some areas of the USA, and is pretty self regulating. Vermin control is usually rabbits and rats in rural locations with shot guns, or .22 cal rifles and in many cases high powered air rifles.

On the home land defence front I can't see any country starting on the USA, or the UK for that matter, so while that argument may have held water at some point in the past, possibly up until 1945, but with the advent of the A-bomb an invasion of the USA has become unthinkable.

I still find this dichotomy between the government and the population an interesting subject. I don't trust politicians but I'm getting the impression, possible incorrectly, that the US citizenship positively loathes its politicians. Is this impression anywhere near the truth?

Quote from: "Tank"I still find this dichotomy between the government and the population an interesting subject. I don't trust politicians but I'm getting the impression, possible incorrectly, that the US citizenship positively loathes its politicians. Is this impression anywhere near the truth?

That is certainly a fair characterization of my perspective on politicians.  I'm shooting in the dark here, but it may be why Obama's rhetoric was so effective with some people during the election.  He successfully marketed himself as an antidote to the overpowering cynicism many feel about politics.

This article (http://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-scotus-guns-new-20100629,0,1145238.story) seems pertinent:

QuoteOn Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that states and localities â€" not just the federal government â€" are prohibited from infringing on the right to bear arms. That ruling followed a 2008 decision in which the court ruled the right is an individual one, not just part of a right to form a state militia.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"This article (http://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-scotus-guns-new-20100629,0,1145238.story) seems pertinent:

QuoteOn Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that states and localities â€" not just the federal government â€" are prohibited from infringing on the right to bear arms. That ruling followed a 2008 decision in which the court ruled the right is an individual one, not just part of a right to form a state militia.

That could hardly be more relevant or timely  

Quote from: "Tank"I still find this dichotomy between the government and the population an interesting subject. I don't trust politicians but I'm getting the impression, possible incorrectly, that the US citizenship positively loathes its politicians. Is this impression anywhere near the truth?

You don't even know the half of it. I hate most politicians because they only say what they think people want to hear. It's frustrating because if you live in an area where people are dense you get slick talking asshole who will manipulate the dumber populations into jingoistic bullshit.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"That is certainly a fair characterization of my perspective on politicians.  I'm shooting in the dark here, but it may be why Obama's rhetoric was so effective with some people during the election.  He successfully marketed himself as an antidote to the overpowering cynicism many feel about politics.

Which seems to bite him in the ass now that he really hasn't done anything different than Bush. Some of the controversies he is involved in are taking a toll on his poll numbers. I think 2012 will be an interesting election year if the Republicans can actually must a moderate candidate instead of a "maverick"  

Obama is like any other politician. He says what you want to hear and he seems to do a decent job compared to the previous one. But he's in it for himself, not the people. They all are.

Quote from: "Big Mac"But he's in it for himself, not the people. They all are.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.  That's about my take.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "Big Mac"But he's in it for himself, not the people. They all are.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.  That's about my take.

The biggest problem is how they want to dictate how and what we protect ourselves from while they hire heavily armed bodyguards, have Secret Service Agents, freely get CCW permits, etc. all the while we peons are not worthy protecting ourselves and our loved ones. To me it's pure Bizarro logic.

They sit their in their ivory towers and say we don't need more than 10 rounds to a magazine, then they say we don't need a certain caliber, then they say we don't need a gun at all because we can use mace, stunguns, and other inferior (compared to a pistol, these things are ANEMIC!)  self-defense items.

Most gun control laws in the US are based on racism. A lot of them were to keep blacks (and to a slightly lesser extent Hispanics) from carrying the means to defend themselves way back when Jim Crow laws were in full effect. It's sad to see a lot of minority politicians advocate disarming everyone when really it seems to be arming people helps lower violence.

People tend to be less willing to attack someone when the threat of armed resistance is a very possible threat.

In my view (feel free to call me a cynic, I honestly will wear it as a badge of honor) society and civilization is a very slim veneer and underneath is some very barbaric stuff. Sad but true, most people resort to violence and hold violence as the ultimate deterrent. Do I think every person I meet is a savage monster? No, but you never know what someone else (or yourself for that matter) is capable of when pushed to certain limits.

Quote from: "Big Mac"I'm not heartless, I'm just not going to sympathize with the person who kicks down my door with the intent to rob me at 3 in the morning. They are going to receive a wall of lead from my end.

You know, there are times I've bought a meal for a panhandler if he honestly said he was hungry and willing to take a meal. If said person needed shoes and was believable I would go to Good Will and buy them a 10 dollar pair of shoes (hypothetical because that one never popped up). What burns me up is people who bemoan the lack of resources without trying them. Where I'm from you'd be amazed at the generosity of people if you demonstrate a basic human need.

But all my sympathy goes out the window when you victimize the weaker/vulnerable member of society. I don't care what your story is. You are now just a jackal who needs putting down.

There you go. I knew there was a heart in there somewhere

I don't think our views are that opposing to be honest. I'm all for harsh retribution for anyone stupid enough to try to rob a house, especially if that home owner owns fifteen guns. If the thief lives in a country where guns are legal, they should expect to be shot when robbing a property. I have no problem with this. I'm not going to cry for someone who rapes a woman and I'm not going to cry for someone who shoots a bank teller. What disheartens me is the process by which people become delinquents in the first place. If you study the personal history of most criminals, you will find they've come from broken homes or have had horrendous upbringings. Unfortunately this is a vicious cycle. Criminals can still have children and they instil their own bullshit into the minds of their kids. My ex girlfriend used to despair at the kids who she made a little progress with in any given day in the full knowledge that all the good work she did would be undone by a criminal father or mother. She was at that inner-city London school long enough to see the transition from cute and quiet kids with potential, to young rebellious thugs.
Really very sad.

Quote from: "karadan"I don't think our views are that opposing to be honest. I'm all for harsh retribution for anyone stupid enough to try to rob a house, especially if that home owner owns fifteen guns. If the thief lives in a country where guns are legal, they should expect to be shot when robbing a property. I have no problem with this. I'm not going to cry for someone who rapes a woman and I'm not going to cry for someone who shoots a bank teller. What disheartens me is the process by which people become delinquents in the first place. If you study the personal history of most criminals, you will find they've come from broken homes or have had horrendous upbringings. Unfortunately this is a vicious cycle. Criminals can still have children and they instil their own bullshit into the minds of their kids. My ex girlfriend used to despair at the kids who she made a little progress with in any given day in the full knowledge that all the good work she did would be undone by a criminal father or mother. She was at that inner-city London school long enough to see the transition from cute and quiet kids with potential, to young rebellious thugs.
Really very sad.

I remember one time I was tutoring a kid who was 12 but couldn't read past the 2nd grade level. 2 weeks later the kid is doing leaps and bounds better, and he was not a genius either. One day when his mother comes to pick him up she has the nerve to say "That reading junk ain't gonna help him that much in life!" She was apparently angry that he was now trying to read more and more at home. I had told him that libraries have tons of books and had given the kid reading suggestions. So when he picked up a book at home and was actively reading it, it bothered her. I think it was Reader's Digest or something completely innocuous. It wasn't like I told him to get a Playboy and have at it. Might as well have in her thick skull.

She comes to pick him up, sees me and goes on about how I'm filling his head with unrealistic expectations (except she probably wouldn't know the last two words). How I'm making him think he can go to a brighter future that isn't possible with reading (she said he needed to instead play more basketball and get good at that). Kind of like that scene from Coach Carter: "Deez kids ain't supposed to be learning, dey supposed to be playing basketball." That was what she saw as the key to success.

It was probably one of the most sickening things I've ever seen. But I think it's a sign of how effective mass control of people works. I've met tons of people who have been conditioned to be self-destructive enough to not advance too much in life but also be good cogs in the labor machine that don't burn out too soon. I think a lot of the hostility towards reading/intellectual pursuits is a fear beaten into their heads to not think and that reading is "faggy".

Kind of like this pic:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffuturewatch.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F10%2Famerica_reading_is_for_faggots2.jpg&hash=820f35da869a0019867a73fc3a796187b26ed9d1)