Guns, a fresh start.

[chocolatepossum]

Who here, if they could, would click there fingers and have all the guns not in the hands of the police or army of their country disappear?

I would, and I'm interested to hear about Americans' views on this issue in particular. For the record, I'm not sure if I lived in the US that I would be in favour of much tighter gun laws. I'd probably think "If the muggers have them I want them too!" or something to that effect. I did, however, see a couple of American gun enthusiasts asked this question on TV and being completely put off their whole cause when they said "HELL NO!" (or something to that effect).

[RandFan]

Originally posted by chocolatepossum
Who here, if they could, would click there fingers and have all the guns not in the hands of the police or army of their country disappear?

I would... Why?

ETA: Based on your sentence construction I'm not exactly sure of your meaning.

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by chocolatepossum
Who here, if they could, would click there fingers and have all the guns not in the hands of the police or army of their country disappear?

In my country, this is already true. Not even the police carry guns here :)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Ryokan
In my country, this is already true. Not even the police carry guns here :)

Sometimes they do: http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1099365.ece

[chocolatepossum]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by chocolatepossum
Who here, if they could, would click there fingers and have all the guns not in the hands of the police or army of their country disappear?

I would...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why?

ETA: Based on your sentence construction I'm not exactly sure of your meaning.


Sorry. What I meant was, if you could get rid of all the privately held guns IN YOUR COUNTRY, would you? This includes all currently illegally and legally held guns. Why you would choose, or choose not, to do this is up to you...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by chocolatepossum
Sorry. What I meant was, if you could get rid of all the privately held guns IN YOUR COUNTRY, would you? This includes all currently illegally and legally held guns. Why you would choose, or choose not, to do this is up to you... Thank you.

No, history has demonstrated that governments are not very good at policing themselves when it comes to the use of force.

[chocolatepossum]

In my country, this is already true. Not even the police carry guns here

No guns at all in Norway? What about all your seal hunters? Oh wait...

[Ed]

So a government armed to the teeth and a completely unarmed populace. Is that it?

[Freakshow]

I would not. Guns are the most effective means of self defense. It is not guns that result in the high murder rate in the US. It is other factors, mostly related to our culture and to our legal system. I mentioned this in another thread, discussing comparisons of gun ownership rates to murder rates among many countries. They do not correlate as you would expect them to, if guns were the problem. It may look like they do , if all you do is compare the US to other countries. But when you start comparing other countries to each other, there is not such a correlation.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Ed
So a government armed to the teeth and a completely unarmed populace. Is that it?

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

One of the greatest human beings that ever lived...

[Ed]

Originally posted by Freakshow
I would not. Guns are the most effective means of self defense. It is not guns that result in the high murder rate in the US. It is other factors, mostly related to our culture and to our legal system. I mentioned this in another thread, discussing comparisons of gun ownership rates to murder rates among many countries. They do not correlate as you would expect them to, if guns were the problem. It may look like they do , if all you do is compare the US to other countries. But when you start comparing other countries to each other, there is not such a correlation.

I did such an analysis and posted it here some time ago. There are outliers but by and large there is no correlation.

[chocolatepossum]

So a government armed to the teeth and a completely unarmed populace. Is that it?

If there were no privately owned guns then the police wouldn't routinely carry guns either. The army would be "armed to the teeth" though.

But basically, in answer to your question, yes. I don't really see the problem with that either. I thought all democratic societies accepted the fact that the government has a near monoploly on the legitimate use of force. If we take the US as an example then surely the army is so overwhelmingly superior to private citizens in terms of firepower as to make the idea of an armed uprising of citizens using 9mms seem ridiculous, even if one considered that a desirable way of resolving a political impasse, which I do not.

[Ed]

Originally posted by chocolatepossum
If there were no privately owned guns then the police wouldn't routinely carry guns either. The army would be "armed to the teeth" though.

But basically, in answer to your question, yes. I don't really see the problem with that either. I thought all democratic societies accepted the fact that the government has a near monoploly on the legitimate use of force.

Well, you have an absolute right to use deadly force if your life or that of a loved one is in danger.

[Ed]

Originally posted by chocolatepossum
I would, and I'm interested to hear about Americans' views on this issue in particular. For the record, I'm not sure if I lived in the US that I would be in favour of much tighter gun laws.

Candidly now (I have had this discussion innumerable times with ferriners so I suspect I know the answer) do you have the slightest idea of the status of gun laws in the US?

[clarsct]

Originally posted by chocolatepossum
If there were no privately owned guns then the police wouldn't routinely carry guns either. The army would be "armed to the teeth" though.

But basically, in answer to your question, yes. I don't really see the problem with that either. I thought all democratic societies accepted the fact that the government has a near monoploly on the legitimate use of force. If we take the US as an example then surely the army is so overwhelmingly superior to private citizens in terms of firepower as to make the idea of an armed uprising of citizens using 9mms seem ridiculous, even if one considered that a desirable way of resolving a political impasse, which I do not.

So an Army armed to the teeth, and no one else has guns.
Have you studied Roman history? Just curious.


At any rate, the Army's advantage would be in technology, not firepower. A cruise missle is hard to argue with. The problem you would have is the classical problem of any society, the few trying to control the many. Take the problems in Iraq, give the people better technology and more know-how, then multiply it by the land area/population ratio between Iraq and the US, and you'll begin to see what problems that would bring. An armed populace is merely harder to control than an unarmed populace. It's like home security. Your mission isn't necessarily to fight the guy to the death, but rather make it unworthwhile for him to continue.

If I were paranoid, I might think that the spike in gas prices was a planned event to try to make America less mobile. After all, a WALKING populace is easier to control, still....

Fortunately, I don't have THAT much faith in our government's abilities.

[chocolatepossum]

Candidly now (I have had this discussion innumerable times with ferriners so I suspect I know the answer) do you have the slightest idea of the status of gun laws in the US?

Well, I gather it varies a whole deal from state to state, but while I would say I have some idea about US gun laws (not as strict as over here) I wouldn't claim any detailed knowledge.

[chocolatepossum]

Clarsct and Ed.

So can I take your position to be that it is desirable for the general population of a country to posess handguns so that a group of them can attempt to take control of the country if they want to?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by chocolatepossum
I thought all democratic societies accepted the fact that the government has a near monoploly on the legitimate use of force. If we take the US as an example then surely the army is so overwhelmingly superior to private citizens in terms of firepower as to make the idea of an armed uprising of citizens using 9mms seem ridiculous, even if one considered that a desirable way of resolving a political impasse, which I do not. The British army was overwhelmingly superior to the militia of the United States. If the nation wanted to oppress its people it is ever so much easier if the populace is unarmed. Sure, the United States would likely win any skirmishes but at what cost to itself? (see Ruby Ridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge)) and would if it openly attacked armed citizens to disarm them would many in the military begin to desert and would it cause civil war.

It's not so simple to say that America forces are superior and therefore guns would have no effect.

[clarsct]

If the government has become tyrannical, then yes. You've stumbled on one of our founding tenets. A tyrannical government cannot last in a society that has the use of arms and the courage to use them. All of our 'rights' come with responsibilities. Any militia group could stage a coup, but unless the populace was behind them, they know they would not succeed.

Our government is our responsibility, which is why I get upset when people don't get upset. Sometimes they should. A country that allows itself to fall to sheer apathy doesn't deserve to exist.

[chocolatepossum]

The British army was overwhelmingly superior to the militia of the United States.

Where they though? I am by no means a scholar of this period, but I thought the Americans and British were armed fairly similarly. In fact, didn't the Americans have rifles? Also, didn't the Americans have French support? And weren't the British armies miles from home in a largely hostile country?

Correct me if I'm wrong because I love to learn about war!

:)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by chocolatepossum
Where they though? That is my understanding. Of course my understanding could be based on a biased history and I am by no means a scholar either. AIU the British mostly saw the revolutionaries as a minor nuisance.

In any event perhaps a scholar will inform and perhaps correct my understanding.

[chocolatepossum]

[QUOTE]That is my understanding. Of course my understanding could be based on a biased history and I am by no means a scholar either. AIU the British mostly saw the revolutionaries as a minor nuisance.

In any event perhaps a scholar will inform and perhaps correct my understanding. [QUOTE]

OK, we're not the best informed people to be debating this then, but I think we can probably agree that the British were at least not vastly superior in terms of weaponry to the Americans. I would suggest, however, that the American armed forces are vastly superior to the general American populace in that area. Would you consider it desirable for the American people to be better armed to redress this imbalance? For example, would you consider it a good idea for RPGs, anti-personnel mines, and heavy machine guns, or even tanks to be available for purchase by the general public?

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by Darat
Sometimes they do

Ah, of course, I gave you the simplified version. If they respond to a crime where guns are reported, they can take guns with them.

The philosophy behind it is that if the police don't (as default) carry guns, criminals won't feel the need to carry guns, either.

And you know what? It seems to be working. Not saying it works 100% of the time, but it works.

I've never seen an armed policeman before. Not an armed criminal, either. Actually, I've never seen a civilian firearm in my enitre life.


Originally posted by chocolatepossum
No guns at all in Norway? What about all your seal hunters? Oh wait...

Guns against baby seals? That wouldn't be fair, would it? No, seal hunters use sharp picks! :D

[Ed]

Originally posted by chocolatepossum
Well, I gather it varies a whole deal from state to state, but while I would say I have some idea about US gun laws (not as strict as over here) I wouldn't claim any detailed knowledge.

Thank you.

So then might it not be a problem with the laws per se but rather the enforcement of them?

Incidentially, as a frame of reference there are an estimated 250,000,000 guns in civilian hands, there are 25,000 gun laws at a federal, state and local level. The Bigger entity prevails in case of conflict. A majority of states have a "right to carry" law which allows one to carry a concealed firearm, many states have a more clearly written version of the second amendment in their State Constitutions. For these reasons and more --if you believe in "cultural diversity" we might have an interesting discussion--a high handed and superior lecturing from foreigners often is pointless and reflects their ignorance.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by RandFan
The British army was overwhelmingly superior to the militia of the United States. If the nation wanted to oppress its people it is ever so much easier if the populace is unarmed.

It can still be really difficult though. Weren't Gandhi and his followers unarmed? They caused no end of trouble for the British.

Btw can a nation be armed and also oppressed? Wasn’t the Iraqi population armed during Saddam's rule?

[chocolatepossum]

Thank you.

So then might it not be a problem with the laws per se but rather the enforcement of them?

Incidentially, as a frame of reference there are an estimated 250,000,000 guns in civilian hands, there are 25,000 gun laws at a federal, state and local level. The Bigger entity prevails in case of conflict. A majority of states have a "right to carry" law which allows one to carry a concealed firearm, many states have a more clearly written version of the second amendment in their State Constitutions. For these reasons and more --if you believe in "cultural diversity" we might have an interesting discussion--a high handed and superior lecturing from foreigners often is pointless and reflects their ignorance.


OK, I hope you don't think I'm lecturing in any way. I often make the point arguments with other Brits that it isn't so much the gun laws in America that are a problem, as the fact that everyone's got guns, and that so many are illegally held by criminals. That's why I started this thread. I wanted to know whether, if you could start again in a completely gun-free society (apart from government), you would.

[Bikewer]

I'm in law enforcement, and have since the 60s been an active "hobby" shooter, reloader, and weapons enthusiast as well.

I have rather ambivalent feelings on the entire issue. Although as a "thought exercise" this may be an interesting question, the fact is that there are many millions of firearms in this country, and a very strong cultural affinity for them.

Regardless of how correct these images are, we have powerful associations with the "minuteman" concept, the "citizen soldier", the pioneer battling out a new place for himself with guts, determination, and firearms.

It's difficult (outside of a draconian round-up by a totalitarian government) to imagine how such a goal might be achieved.
Firearms are, after all, not all that difficult to manufacture, and easier to smuggle than many other forms of contraband.
If there's a desire for something, it will be filled....

I am well familiar with the idea that an armed citizenry is a bulwark against tyranny. This has been a mainstay of NRA philosophy for many years, as well as the philosophy of many hard-core militia-type groups.
One could not say that a totalitarian takeover would never occur; we have history as a guide. I must admit it seems highly unlikely, and I wonder how effective militia groups would be against contemporary armed forces.

I do strongly believe in the right of self-defense, and it also cannot be argued that there is a substantial risk of violence in American society. This is more the case in certain areas, of course. The danger of attack by criminals is in general so slight as to be in the highly unlikely category. The effectiveness of self-defense applied by most citizens is minimal as well. A pistol carried in a purse is of little use against a purse-snatcher...

I am generally in favor of mandatory training prior to purchase of at least handguns, both in proficiency and legality.
I don't see anything particularly wrong with "waiting period" laws, but I also don't think they accomplish what the writers want.
Just as a final thought; I carry a weapon daily at work. Say, 10 hours a day, 5 days a week.
I very seldom carry one off-duty.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Bikewer
One could not say that a totalitarian takeover would never occur; we have history as a guide. I must admit it seems highly unlikely, and I wonder how effective militia groups would be against contemporary armed forces.



Dunno. How is Iraq going?

[Ed]

Originally posted by chocolatepossum
OK, I hope you don't think I'm lecturing in any way. I often make the point arguments with other Brits that it isn't so much the gun laws in America that are a problem, as the fact that everyone's got guns, and that so many are illegally held by criminals. That's why I started this thread. I wanted to know whether, if you could start again in a completely gun-free society (apart from government), you would.

Fair point. I wouldn't. I get enjoyment from collecting, shooting, and so on and I think that it is more appropriate to deal with the people that cause the problem than to impact those that are law abideing.

[Bikewer]

The Iraqi insurgents are pretty effective at suicide bombings against "soft targets", and occasional ambushes of US patrols. Tactics that guerillas have used for a long time.

They have found that they cannot fight toe-to-toe with US forces, and everytime they have tried has resulted in heavy casualties.

The conduct of a guerilla war by militia or resistance against a totalitarian government takeover of the the US is pretty far away from the original intent of the thread, I'd think. I brought up the scenario as a commonly-used argument by firearms enthusiasts.

Back when I was in my teens, I joined the NRA primarily to get the monthly magazine, The American Rifleman. The rag had a lot of good technical articles on reloading and such, and a question service as well.
Each month, they would publish a column called "The Armed Citizen", which consisted of news items culled from national media. (no internet in those days!)
At any rate, each month they would come up with 20-30 instances of folks using firearms to defend themselves from burglars, armed robbers, etc. (with citations to the original source)

I don't know if they are still doing this or not; havn't subscribed in many years.

[shanek]

Originally posted by chocolatepossum
Who here, if they could, would click there fingers and have all the guns not in the hands of the police or army of their country disappear?

I wouldn't, because then I'd have to worry about the police or the army (the main reason behind the Second Amendment).

And even if you included them, I still wouldn't because I'd have to worry about the people who make guns.

And even if you fixed it so that no one could make guns, I still wouldn't because then I'd have to worry about the people who are bigger than me.

So, no.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Bikewer

They have found that they cannot fight toe-to-toe with US forces, and everytime they have tried has resulted in heavy casualties.



I submit that there is a fair liklihood that they will prevail. As the Afganis did against the Russkis.

You don't have to win to win.

[Jon_in_london]

Why would you want to get rid of legally held firearms?

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by Freakshow
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

One of the greatest human beings that ever lived... Our government has guns that Jefferson could have only dreamed of. If you think the .45 you have in your glovebox will protect you from a row of tanks or a wing of stealth bombers you're more delusional than you look.

Your most powerful weapon is not your gun -- it's your voice. And your voice only works if you raise it with the voices of those around you. Allowing your government to manufacture consent and lie to you is letting your guard down, and when you've done that your gun is useless -- but you still have your voice. If you let that slip away, then you've no weapons at all.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
Our government has guns that Jefferson could have only dreamed of. If you think the .45 you have in your glovebox will protect you from a row of tanks or a wing of stealth bombers you're more delusional than you look. Fighting and killing your own citizens in order to disarm them is not a very good way to keep one's power. (see Waco and Ruby Ridge). It is far easier to oppress and control an un-armed citizenry than it is an armed one (see Iraq). Odd huh? We have vastly superior weapons than the Iraqis yet they are making our life over there hell. Sure our government could prevail but it wouldn't be easy and it would be the first thing they consider if they ever think of forcibly taking away our rights.

[LW]

Originally posted by Ryokan
Ah, of course, I gave you the simplified version. If they respond to a crime where guns are reported, they can take guns with them.

How can there be guns in a crime scene when you just said that there are no guns in Norway except in the hands of the army and the police? Are the criminals soldiers or police?

[shanek]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
Our government has guns that Jefferson could have only dreamed of. If you think the .45 you have in your glovebox will protect you from a row of tanks or a wing of stealth bombers you're more delusional than you look.

http://i.timeinc.net/time/time100/images/main_rebel.jpg

People CAN make such a stand.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
http://i.timeinc.net/time/time100/images/main_rebel.jpg

People CAN make such a stand.

Did it stop the military from mowing down the protesters?

[Ed]

Originally posted by shanek
http://i.timeinc.net/time/time100/images/main_rebel.jpg

People CAN make such a stand.

I seem to recall that that guy died in captivity. There were massive protests in Europe, of course.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by clarsct
So an Army armed to the teeth, and no one else has guns.
Have you studied Roman history? Just curious.
Well, if memory serves the (west) Roman empire colapsed more than 1500 years ago. Has it occoured to you that the modern world just might not be directly comparable? The " we need guns to protect us from governement" argument has always struck me as rather paranoid. Modern democracies have been shown to be extremely stable, regardless of whether or not the population is armed.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by shanek
http://i.timeinc.net/time/time100/images/main_rebel.jpg

People CAN make such a stand.
Ehh, no they can't, this guy did not use a gun so the picture is a total non sequiter. Didn't do much good either.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by chocolatepossum
Also, didn't the Americans have French support?
They did, without the French they'd all be speaking English now.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
People CAN make such a stand.He didn't have a gun. It is very likely that if he had a gun, he could not have made such a stand for as long as he did.Originally posted by Ed
I seem to recall that that guy died in captivity.According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_man), the identity of the man and what happened after the incident is still unknown. If you have any information about him, let's hear it.

[Rolfe]

You need a few more exceptions - for example, a racehorse has just broken its leg, badly. I don't know any other way of putting the poor beast out of its misery quickly, effectively, and relatively safely.

But accepting that, I'd be very willing to give it a go.

Rolfe.

[chocolatepossum]

I think I can understand people in America resisting limitations on handun ownership now. If all the legal hanguns in America were confiscated tomorrow that would just leave people more vulnerable IMO. However, once you take away the incentive to posess handguns for self-defence against criminals, I cannot see why one would want to keep them, in light of all the deaths they must cause or at least facilitate. `

I tend to agree with Kerberos that the need for guns as a defence against government seems a little paranoid, I also feel that it sits at odds with the rule of law. Maybe I'm being complacent about the danger of the UK sliding into tyranny but as I look out of my window onto the leafy cul de sac where I live, the idea of such a thing happening seems a little farfetched. Hardly the most convincing argument I know :)

Finally, I would like to know whether those who see guns as a defence against a potentially tyrannical government would support further arming of the citizenry. As I said before

... would you consider it a good idea for RPGs, anti-personnel mines, and heavy machine guns, or even tanks to be available for purchase by the general public?

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by chocolatepossum
I think I can understand people in America resisting limitations on handun ownership now. If all the legal hanguns in America were confiscated tomorrow that would just leave people more vulnerable IMO. However, once you take away the incentive to posess handguns for self-defence against criminals...
And how would you do this?


I tend to agree with Kerberos that the need for guns as a defence against government seems a little paranoid, I also feel that it sits at odds with the rule of law. Maybe I'm being complacent about the danger of the UK sliding into tyranny but as I look out of my window onto the leafy cul de sac where I live, the idea of such a thing happening seems a little farfetched. Hardly the most convincing argument I know :)

This may come as a shock to you, but I live in the United States because I want to, not because I have to. I have the resources and work experience to move to other countries, if I really wanted to. But I can't think of any other country I would prefer to live in. One of the reasons (not the only reason) is because I don't think most other countries are as free as the United States. In most other industrialized nations, taxes are too high, there's too much social spending, and too many social programs. (I think this about the US, too. But everything is relative.) I would like to see more freedom in the US. I am not happy with it as it is now. But when having to choose a modern industrialize nation in which to live, freedom is a big part of it. I was thinking of starting a thread on this, asking for feedback from fellow posters around the world, regarding freedom in other industrialized nations. Hey, I might want to move if I can find a country that I consider to be more free. I'm serious.

And part of this freedom is the government trusting me to own guns. If a government can't trust me, a citizen who has never even been arrested, with guns, then I will not trust them in turn.


Finally, I would like to know whether those who see guns as a defence against a potentially tyrannical government would support further arming of the citizenry. As I said before...would you consider it a good idea for RPGs, anti-personnel mines, and heavy machine guns, or even tanks to be available for purchase by the general public?
Strawman.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
Our government has guns that Jefferson could have only dreamed of. If you think the .45 you have in your glovebox will protect you from a row of tanks or a wing of stealth bombers you're more delusional than you look.

Your most powerful weapon is not your gun -- it's your voice. And your voice only works if you raise it with the voices of those around you. Allowing your government to manufacture consent and lie to you is letting your guard down, and when you've done that your gun is useless -- but you still have your voice. If you let that slip away, then you've no weapons at all.

As others have posted, history has shown that small groups of armed citizens can give governments serious trouble.

You will find that I, and many other posters here, respond best to logical argument, rather than statements such as "you're more delusional than you look." Statements like that have no effect whatsoever on convincing me that you are right, and I am wrong.

[luchog]

Originally posted by LucyR
It can still be really difficult though. Weren't Gandhi and his followers unarmed? They caused no end of trouble for the British.
No. While Ghandi did advocate the use of non-violent tactics for the beginning of the rebellion, and only used non-violence himself; he also advocated violent tactics when appropriate, and condoned the the violent resistance against British suppression by some of the northern Indian states. He was, ultimately, a pragmatist.

Btw can a nation be armed and also oppressed? Wasn’t the Iraqi population armed during Saddam's rule?
Nope, they weren't.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
I seem to recall that that guy died in captivity. There were massive protests in Europe, of course.

There are several theories on who that guy is. No one really knows for sure. He's an anonymous, unsung hero.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
He didn't have a gun.

So? The point is that people can and do make stands against a mightier opponent.

[shanek]

Originally posted by chocolatepossum
I think I can understand people in America resisting limitations on handun ownership now. If all the legal hanguns in America were confiscated tomorrow that would just leave people more vulnerable IMO. However, once you take away the incentive to posess handguns for self-defence against criminals, I cannot see why one would want to keep them, in light of all the deaths they must cause or at least facilitate.

Stats? And do you have stats either showing that this outweighs or at least other info calling into question the numerous instances of defensive gun use every year?

I tend to agree with Kerberos that the need for guns as a defence against government seems a little paranoid,

Ask the ravers in Utah, or the homeowners in New London, or José Padilla, etc.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Freakshow
As others have posted, history has shown that small groups of armed citizens can give governments serious trouble.
And history has also shown that developed democracies doesn't need guns.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by shanek
So? The point is that people can and do make stands against a mightier opponent.
So the fact that people can make a stand without a gun proves that they need guns?

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by RandFan
It is far easier to oppress and control an un-armed citizenry than it is an armed one (see Iraq).

Wait a minute... I thought the U.S. was there to liberate and install democracy. What's all this "oppress and control" stuff about?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by shanek


Ask the ravers in Utah, or the homeowners in New London, or José Padilla, etc.
Did they have guns? If so you defeat your own point, if not then you need to prove or at least provide some evidence that guns would have helped them. It certainly wouldn't have helped Padila, except perhaps to get him shot rather than arrested, but I don't think that qualifies as "help". I cannot think of a single case where citizins of a developed democracy have succesfullly resisted or topled their governenement using guns. I can think of countless cases where they have resisted or topled a governement using the ballot box or demonstrations.

[Sushi]

Originally posted by Kerberos
So the fact that people can make a stand without a gun proves that they need guns?

Oh please, he's not saying that guns are needed in every circumstance.

[Sushi]

Originally posted by Kerberos
And history has also shown that developed democracies doesn't need guns.

"Democracy" is a more recent practice (disregarding the Greeks), so to claim that history tells us anything about democracies not needing guns is just plain intellectually dishonest.

Also, in a "democracy", whatever is "right" is whatever the majority wants, so I don't think there will be very much occasions where you will find the "democracy" to be very wrong. It is an unpopular opinion but even the majority can be horrible, and a minority may need to fend themselves off from the oppression of the rest of society. A good historical example would be the Jews in Nazi Germany (the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto apparently held out longer than Poland, if my memory serves me correctly...what is this about people making a stand?) and blacks in earlier America. Representation today does not mean representation tomorrow; and just having representation of some sort does not guarentee you safety.

The issue regarding guns should be individual safety. You cannot rely on anyone else to protect you. General safety today is no guarentee of safety tomorrow.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Sushi
Oh please, he's not saying that guns are needed in every circumstance.
The how is it even remotely relevant. LW (I think) said that guns are no help against tanks. Shanek then replyes with a picture of an unarmed man facing tanks and a comment that people can make such a stand, happilly ignoring the fact that the guy is not using a gun, and thus isn't making "such" a stand. Now there might be cases of armed populations topling opresive regimes, but this isn't such a case, since guns weren't used and no regimes were topled.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Sushi
"Democracy" is a more recent practice (disregarding the Greeks), so to claim that history tells us anything about democracies not needing guns is just plain intellectually dishonest.
Modern democracies have been common for 50 years, and have existed for significantly longer than that (depending on you definition). That's plenty of time to draw a conclusion, what's intellectually dishonest is you dismissing this simply because it doesn't fit you predetermined conclusions.

Originally posted by Sushi
Also, in a "democracy", whatever is "right" is whatever the majority wants, so I don't think there will be very much occasions where you will find the "democracy" to be very wrong.
Sorry, but I have no idea what you just said.


Originally posted by Sushi
It is an unpopular opinion but even the majority can be horrible, and a minority may need to fend themselves off from the oppression of the rest of society.
That's possible, in theory at least, personally I can think of relatively few, if any, cases where the majorities in developed democracies have done really oppressive things to minorities. I suppose it depends a little on what you call "really oppressive" and “developed democracies".
Originally posted by Sushi
A good historical example would be the Jews in Nazi Germany (the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto apparently held out longer than Poland, if my memory serves me correctly...what is this about people making a stand?)
Two points, first of all which part of "developed democracy" is it you don't understand? I don't think there exists a mind expanding substance strong enough to allow one to consider Nazi Germany a developed democracy. Secondly, no, even disregarding that mind-boggling huge flaw in you argument that is not a good example. Guess why? Because it didn't work, so they might have held out a few weeks or months (because the army was otherwise occupied), but it didn't change anything, they still got send to Auschwitz or wherever.

Originally posted by Sushi
and blacks in earlier America.
I wouldn't necessarily consider the US of that time a developed democracy, but let's ignore that for a moment. Was it guns that gave Blacks their civil rights? I'm not familiar with the specifics of the US civil rights movement, but it's not my impression that it took the form of an armed insurrection. There was the civil war of course, but that wasn't necessarily about slavery, and in any case that wasn't armed citizens. I’ve never said that democracies, even developed democracies can do no wrong, simply that I have never seen anything even remotely resembling evidence that guns have helped to correct such wrongs.
Originally posted by Sushi
Representation today does not mean representation tomorrow; and just having representation of some sort does not guarentee you safety./B]
I read a book once, called "the Future of Freedom" by one Fareed Zakari. According to him no democracy with a BNP greater than 6000 dollars/person (I'm not 100% on the number, but I think that was it) has ever colapsed, with the exception of countries whose wealth came from natural resources.
Originally posted by Sushi
[B]The issue regarding guns should be individual safety. You cannot rely on anyone else to protect you. General safety today is no guarentee of safety tomorrow.
I've relied on other people to protect me my whole life, it's worked fairly well so far. So have you actually, and just about every other citizen of a western nation for the last several hundred years, though the protection we get today is probably significantly superior to what we got in the past.

[chocolatepossum]

And how would you do this?

I'm not suggesting it could be done in practice, read my post at the start of the thread.





Finally, I would like to know whether those who see guns as a defence against a potentially tyrannical government would support further arming of the citizenry. As I said before...would you consider it a good idea for RPGs, anti-personnel mines, and heavy machine guns, or even tanks to be available for purchase by the general public?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Strawman.



No, it's not a stawman, I am not misrepresenting your views. I am ASKING YOU whether you hold these views because they seem to me to be the logical conclusion of the position that the citizenry should be armed in order to be able to fight against a tyrannical government if need be. If these are not your views, why not?

[chocolatepossum]

And part of this freedom is the government trusting me to own guns. If a government can't trust me, a citizen who has never even been arrested, with guns, then I will not trust them in turn.

I sympathise very much with that sentiment. I tend to be quite socially libertarian, and disagree with the idea that the government should try and protect people from themselves. However, I think that the ownership of guns is not a private matter in the way that, say, taking drugs, is. In a society such as the UK where guns are still relatively scarce ( growing less so) I would consider it a very reasonable curtailment on individual freedom to ban handgun ownership in order to prevent the sort of exponential growth in legal and illegal gun ownership I would expect to see with legalisation.

[LW]

Originally posted by Kerberos
The how is it even remotely relevant. LW (I think) said that guns are no help against tanks.

Actually, not me. My position is that an armed militia can successfully fight against tanks if they have an extremely favourable situation. (Like what happened when Russians advanced to Grozny the first time in 1994).

Though, in the vast majority of cases lightly armed people fighting tanks end up dead very, very quickly. That is why lightly armed people who have even a small grain of sense in them don't fight tanks but instead get out of the area very quickly when the enemy sents them in. And then carry on guerilla raids where the enemy doesn't have them. Of course, even then their chances are not too great against modern armies with strong air forces that can be summoned on a short notice.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by LW
Actually, not me. My position is that an armed militia can successfully fight against tanks if they have an extremely favourable situation. (Like what happened when Russians advanced to Grozny the first time in 1994).

Though, in the vast majority of cases lightly armed people fighting tanks end up dead very, very quickly. That is why lightly armed people who have even a small grain of sense in them don't fight tanks but instead get out of the area very quickly when the enemy sents them in. And then carry on guerilla raids where the enemy doesn't have them. Of course, even then their chances are not too great against modern armies with strong air forces that can be summoned on a short notice.
Sorry, I just checked, and it was SlippyToad.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Ryokan
In my country, this is already true. Not even the police carry guns here

That's not correct. Norway has a relatively high percentage of gun-owners (at least by European standards,) primarily hunters but there's also a significant number of soldiers in the heimevern who keep their AG-3 rifles and ammunition in their homes. That said, Norway has a low percentage of hand-guns; the majority of the weapons owned by private citizens are shotguns or rifles.

Ah, of course, I gave you the simplified version. If they respond to a crime where guns are reported, they can take guns with them.

They will also be armed for certain guard duties (for instance, the permanent police guards at some embassies are carrying MP-5 machine guns,) and I believe that in some precincts they can keep weapons stored in some of the patrol cars on a general basis.

The philosophy behind it is that if the police don't (as default) carry guns, criminals won't feel the need to carry guns, either.

That's part of it, but I think an equally important reason is the belief that easier access to firearms for the police officers will lead to more cases of needless shootings, and that the threat the Norwegian police face in their job does not warrant this increase in excessive shootings.

Comparisons with the other Scandinavian nations (who have roughly comparable situations when it comes to crime, but where the police is generally armed) would seem to support this notion. In the period 1996 to 2002, Norway had 2 shots fired by police officers per year, per million population. Denmark had 14, Finland 16 and Sweden 26.

[SNIP]

I've never seen an armed policeman before. Not an armed criminal, either. Actually, I've never seen a civilian firearm in my enitre life.

Well, in that you are not representative for Norwegians in general. Armed policemen is a rare sight, but not unknown, and most people know someone who owns a rifle or shotgun.


Guns against baby seals? That wouldn't be fair, would it? No, seal hunters use sharp picks! :D

The hakapik or sealer's club is only used for killing the "kvitunger", baby seals who still have their downy white fur. Adult seals are killed with rifles.

[Sushi]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Modern democracies have been common for 50 years, and have existed for significantly longer than that (depending on you definition). That's plenty of time to draw a conclusion, what's intellectually dishonest is you dismissing this simply because it doesn't fit you predetermined conclusions.

50 years is a significant amount of time to draw a conclusion about democracies not needing guns?


Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

Using your (rather hilarious) reasoning, I might as well say that the United States will be around forever since it has been for the last 50 years.

Oh man, this is too funny, I'm tempted to put this in my signature.

That's possible, in theory at least, personally I can think of relatively few, if any, cases where the majorities in developed democracies have done really oppressive things to minorities. I suppose it depends a little on what you call "really oppressive" and “developed democracies".

Oh, I see, if the democracy is tyrannical it isn't a "developed democracy". I'm not playing this definition game with you.


Two points, first of all which part of "developed democracy" is it you don't understand? I don't think there exists a mind expanding substance strong enough to allow one to consider Nazi Germany a developed democracy. Secondly, no, even disregarding that mind-boggling huge flaw in you argument that is not a good example. Guess why? Because it didn't work, so they might have held out a few weeks or months (because the army was otherwise occupied), but it didn't change anything, they still got send to Auschwitz or wherever.

What part of "developed democracy" do I not understand? I understand it fine. It is a loose, meaningless term you use to hide behind every time someone points out the fact that a group can take a stand against injustices of another entity.

So? They still made some stand even at a small scale.

It really does depend on the size of the group you are opposing; however, having guns makes the fight a little fair.




I wouldn't necessarily consider the US of that time a developed democracy, but let's ignore that for a moment. Was it guns that gave Blacks their civil rights? I'm not familiar with the specifics of the US civil rights movement, but it's not my impression that it took the form of an armed insurrection. There was the civil war of course, but that wasn't necessarily about slavery, and in any case that wasn't armed citizens. I’ve never said that democracies, even developed democracies can do no wrong, simply that I have never seen anything even remotely resembling evidence that guns have helped to correct such wrongs.

Ignoring the fact that you arbitrarily decide whether the US is a "developed" democracy or not (and don't even define the terms, to your convenience).

My point is that if a black man had a gun he would stand a better chance of defending himself from "racial activists" than without a gun.



I read a book once, called "the Future of Freedom" by one Fareed Zakari. According to him no democracy with a BNP greater than 6000 dollars/person (I'm not 100% on the number, but I think that was it) has ever colapsed, with the exception of countries whose wealth came from natural resources.

So? Historically, democracies are recent, and there are many other ways a democracy could fall or a group otherwise lack representation (or even be oppressed with representation) besides economically.


I've relied on other people to protect me my whole life, it's worked fairly well so far. So have you actually, and just about every other citizen of a western nation for the last several hundred years, though the protection we get today is probably significantly superior to what we got in the past.

You are not guarenteed protection from anyone, and you cannot protect yourself by dialing your cell phone and calling the cops while someone is trying to mug you.

I personally do not think people actually will stand against a tyrannical government, because obeying the law is seen as a virtue (opposing the government would be seen as radical and would not be met with much sympathy as long as people have become used to the oppression) and organization is a huge problem, along with the size of the government, ALTHOUGH it is conceivably possible for a small group to defend themself against, say, a corrupt, smaller, more local government.

[Sushi]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Well, if memory serves the (west) Roman empire colapsed more than 1500 years ago. Has it occoured to you that the modern world just might not be directly comparable? The " we need guns to protect us from governement" argument has always struck me as rather paranoid. Modern democracies have been shown to be extremely stable, regardless of whether or not the population is armed.

Oh, since "stable" means "fair government?"

and if memory serves me correct, the Roman Empire/Greece/whatever lasted longer than the United States was around.

Also, "modern democracies" may still be around simply because of favorable conditions. The conditions may very well change, likewise, another war may come about and we may not be the victor this time.

[Soapy Sam]

My own preference would be to have no guns at all, legal or illegal, police or civilian.

However. Any crime involving the use of a firearm , in my humble, but draconian opinion, should incur a mandatory death sentence for everyone directly involved- ie not just the person using the gun, but any and all associates. This should apply whether the gun is loaded or not loaded, real or fake, used or not used.

But then, I'm a British pinko liberal. :D

But I say this in the British context as the OP asked. Different countries have different needs and traditions. The traditional way to stop the British Army overthrowing the government is to ring strategic locations with public houses.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam

However. Any crime involving the use of a firearm , in my humble, but draconian opinion, should incur a mandatory death sentence for everyone directly involved- ie not just the person using the gun, but any and all associates. This should apply whether the gun is loaded or not loaded, real or fake, used or not used.


So if I use a cap gun to steal a box of smarties I should be put to death but you are happy with 25 to life for arse-raping and stabbing your mother to death with a knife?

Why do you hate guns so much Sam?

[Soapy Sam]

I don't. I quite like them. I don't like the effect they have on society.


And I don't believe I mentioned knives at all. The OP was about guns.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
My own preference would be to have no guns at all, legal or illegal, police or civilian.

However. Any crime involving the use of a firearm , in my humble, but draconian opinion, should incur a mandatory death sentence for everyone directly involved- ie not just the person using the gun, but any and all associates. This should apply whether the gun is loaded or not loaded, real or fake, used or not used.

But then, I'm a British pinko liberal. :D

But I say this in the British context as the OP asked. Different countries have different needs and traditions. The traditional way to stop the British Army overthrowing the government is to ring strategic locations with public houses.

I do think we are too soft on violent crime in the US, and too hard on non-violent crime (particularly drug offenses). We are spending a lot of money, and taking up a lot of prison space, by arresting, prosecuting, and jailing people for consensual, non-violent drug offenses. I would like that time, money, and prison space made available to take real criminals (the ones that commit violent offenses against other people) and keep them locked up, away from the rest of us who CAN live our lives without committing violent crimes against our fellow citizens.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by shanek
Ask the ravers in Utah, or the homeowners in New London, or José Padilla, etc.
Padilla? You think gangbangers should have guns? Even those who have murdered in the past? Does he also have the right to any and all weapons, including nuclear, as you have defended in the past?

[BracesForImpact]

I think using the difficuties the U.S. is having in Iraq as a comparison for a militia defending itself from a tyrannical government in the U.S. is way off.

The insurgency in Iraq is better equipped than the average gun owner. They have fully automatic weapons, they have RPG's and they have mines, etc. Even with their heavier weapons they still do not have even a passing success rate in ambushing U.S. forces and their allies. Instead, the majority of the casualties both civilian and military come from the use of impromptu explosives.

Just a thought...

[Beerina]

Originally posted by chocolatepossum
Who here, if they could, would click there fingers and have all the guns not in the hands of the police or army of their country disappear?

I would, and I'm interested to hear about Americans' views on this issue in particular.

Lions, tigers, bears, etc. generally don't fight to the death. Why? Because the liklihood of a bigger lion getting killed attacking a smaller lion is non-trivial, and thus not to its advantage.

They all have nasty claws and teeth built in, see?

Now imagine humans had nasty claws and teeth, such that a man trying to, say, rape a woman stood a good chance of getting eviscerated by the woman, regardless of his size advantage.

Would violence, rape, murder go up in such a world, or go down?

If you believe in gun control, you must believe it would go up. Yet that is obviously not the outcome that would happen.

It's completely disgusting to think about, but many of the problems of humanity are due to lacking vicious teeth and claws. Or some other way for people to effectively defend themselves.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Beerina
It's completely disgusting to think about, but many of the problems of humanity are due to lacking vicious teeth and claws.
I love that! I'd use it as a sig but you might take it the wrong way... :D

[Ed]

Originally posted by Beerina
Lions, tigers, bears, etc. generally don't fight to the death. Why? Because the liklihood of a bigger lion getting killed attacking a smaller lion is non-trivial, and thus not to its advantage.



er, no. They rarely kill because the loser "bares his throat" as a sign of submission.

[Bikewer]

We should not forget that humanity was quite capable of committing vicious crimes and horrific violence long before there were any firearms.

Like it or not, we are a tool-using species, and weapons have always formed a part of our "tool kit" as the anthropologists say.

How many people was Samson supposed to have slain with the jawbone of an ass?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Sushi
50 years is a significant amount of time to draw a conclusion about democracies not needing guns?


Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

Using your (rather hilarious) reasoning, I might as well say that the United States will be around forever since it has been for the last 50 years.

Oh man, this is too funny, I'm tempted to put this in my signature.
I'm glad you're amused, small brains, small pleasures and all that, I'll try to explain this to you using simple words. There is one (1) of the United States. There are many) that’s more than one) democracies. Therefore you can reach conclusions about democracies with greater certainty. The sample size (do you know what that is?) is bigger. Using your (rather hilarious) line of reasoning we couldn't say anything meaningful about the effect of fx most medicine because it hasn't been around for 50 years,


Originally posted by Sushi
Oh, I see, if the democracy is tyrannical it isn't a "developed democracy". I'm not playing this definition game with you.
I suppose I could go with Zakari's BNP greater than 6000$/person that does not come from natural resources and which is of course a democracy with universal suffrage except for children and perhaps a few other small groups (say criminals, clinical retards, and similar).

Originally posted by Sushi
What part of "developed democracy" do I not understand? I understand it fine. It is a loose, meaningless term you use to hide behind every time someone points out the fact that a group can take a stand against injustices of another entity.
Nobody who understand the term developed democracy, or just democracy could possibly apply the term to Nazi Germany.

Originally posted by Sushi
So? They still made some stand even at a small scale.
Which didn't do any good, and wasn't in a democracy, developed or not.

Originally posted by Sushi
Ignoring the fact that you arbitrarily decide whether the US is a "developed" democracy or not (and don't even define the terms, to your convenience).
My most profound apologies for assuming you had the basic intelligence to figure out that developed democracy means universal suffrage, it won't happen again.


Originally posted by Sushi
My point is that if a black man had a gun he would stand a better chance of defending himself from "racial activists" than without a gun.
I know what you point was, you have provided no evidence for it though.





Originally posted by Sushi
So? Historically, democracies are recent, and there are many other ways a democracy could fall or a group otherwise lack representation (or even be oppressed with representation) besides economically.
Other ways than what?




Originally posted by Sushi
You are not guarenteed protection from anyone, and you cannot protect yourself by dialing your cell phone and calling the cops while someone is trying to mug you.
The issue was not protection against criminals, but protection against government. According to Ed though guns seem to make little difference there either, or perhaps that was only for murder rates.

Originally posted by Sushi
I personally do not think people actually will stand against a tyrannical government, because obeying the law is seen as a virtue (opposing the government would be seen as radical and would not be met with much sympathy as long as people have become used to the oppression) and organization is a huge problem, along with the size of the government, ALTHOUGH it is conceivably possible for a small group to defend themself against, say, a corrupt, smaller, more local government.
So you agree that guns probably won't help, but you think it's “conceivably� that it would? I'll let you in on a little secret, everything is "conceivable". I think I’ll just go with the facts and say there’s no evidence that is actually has in developed democracies. Actually I can’t think of armed populations having made a difference in developing democracies either, but I could be missing some cases for that.

[Sushi]

Originally posted by Kerberos
I'm glad you're amused, small brains, small pleasures and all that, I'll try to explain this to you using simple words. There is one (1) of the United States. There are many) that’s more than one) democracies. Therefore you can reach conclusions about democracies with greater certainty. The sample size (do you know what that is?) is bigger. Using your (rather hilarious) line of reasoning we couldn't say anything meaningful about the effect of fx most medicine because it hasn't been around for 50 years,


We can experimentally isolate variables in regarding medicine. We cannot do that (easily) regarding democracies. Being stable for 50 or more years does not mean another superpower can emerge through unpredictable circumstances.

Using your pea-brained logic, living 50 years in a monarchy and seeing other monarchies remain relatively stable is proof that monarchies are stable entities. Also using your logic, slavery lasted for thousands of years in even "developed" nations like the Roman Empire; and according to your logic major nations would never outlaw it.

Also, the whole point regarding guns was in case of unpredictable circumstances leading to a loss of freedom--or personal protection.


Nobody who understand the term developed democracy, or just democracy could possibly apply the term to Nazi Germany.

And again, why does it matter? You are suggesting a "democracy" could never turn hostile to minorities or could ever fall to a more authoritarian power (or even elected officials introducing a heavily military state)?

Going back in time, would the Japanese put into concentration camps have been justified if they defended themselves from the federal government using guns so they would not be relocated? Or should they just have obediently followed through, losing their homes?


Which didn't do any good, and wasn't in a democracy, developed or not.

So, basically, your attitude is not to use guns and to obediently march to the gas chambers instead of fighting back?

And again, I don't see why "developed democracy" is significant, a democracy could conceivably fall or turn hostile to a group.


My most profound apologies for assuming you had the basic intelligence to figure out that developed democracy means universal suffrage, it won't happen again.

Your insulting of my intelligence just goes to show how emotional your arguments are instead of rational.

Why don't you try insulting people when asked to clarify your terms in a science paper? You'll get far, champ.

When you say criminals, do you mean those incarcerated or even convicted felons? I could then argue there is not "universal suffrage". I am sorry, I am not Sylvia Browne, I cannot read minds or see into the future.


I know what you point was, you have provided no evidence for it though.


So there's no evidence that being armed means you can more easily defend yourself, or defend others? Although greater numbers are always one of or the largest factor in how a conflict turns out, having a firearm levels the playing field.



The issue was not protection against criminals, but protection against government. According to Ed though guns seem to make little difference there either, or perhaps that was only for murder rates.
I was bringing up the protection issue. Even if statistically guns means more violent crimes, it does not change the fact that a person not responsible for violent crime should still have an opportunity to defend himself.



So you agree that guns probably won't help, but you think it's “conceivably� that it would? I'll let you in on a little secret, everything is "conceivable". I think I’ll just go with the facts and say there’s no evidence that is actually has in developed democracies. Actually I can’t think of armed populations having made a difference in developing democracies either, but I could be missing some cases for that.

If the federal government decided to go to war against a small town for unscrupulous reasons, then yes, that small town is probably doomed. However, on a larger scale the dissenters could have a greater chance.

[chocolatepossum]

Now imagine humans had nasty claws and teeth, such that a man trying to, say, rape a woman stood a good chance of getting eviscerated by the woman, regardless of his size advantage.

Would violence, rape, murder go up in such a world, or go down?

If you believe in gun control, you must believe it would go up. Yet that is obviously not the outcome that would happen.


Firstly I don't accept that, in the scenario described above, it is obvious that violence, rape, and murder would all go down. I find it more reasonable to say that violent incidents might decrease but that they would more often be fatal due to the big, sharp claws posessed by the combatants.

I think you are possibly giving too little weight to the fact that the majority of violent incidents happen when people are either drunk or agitated in some way and therefore less likely to think rationally in this way.

Secondly I do not accept that the scenario above is perfectly analogous to a society where everyone is armed with a gun. I am no expert on, or even particularly knowledgable about, guns, but I can think of several differences between the two situations. For example, the scenario above does not take into account the fact that, in a confrontation between two people armed with guns, there is an advantage to drawing your gun first. In fact, one could argue that this is a straight "Prisoner's Dilemma" type situation. It's always logical to pull out your gun first and turn a non-violent confrontation into one that is likely to turn violent.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Ed
Originally posted by Beerina
Lions, tigers, bears, etc. generally don't fight to the death. Why? Because the liklihood of a bigger lion getting killed attacking a smaller lion is non-trivial, and thus not to its advantage.
er, no. They rarely kill because the loser "bares his throat" as a sign of submission.

er, no. That's why baring their throat works. If they wanted to push the issue, they could tear major holes in their opponent, even if it were a losing battle in the long run -- and it would be losing for both sides, more likely than not. Hence animals don't fight to the death -- unlike humans. Were humans to have such features, and were a rapist or murderer out to rape or murder, "baring one's throat" is not a viable option -- only going down swinging is, and with claws and teeth, that's much more damaging to your opponent.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by chocolatepossum

I think you are possibly giving too little weight to the fact that the majority of violent incidents happen when people are either drunk or agitated in some way and therefore less likely to think rationally in this way.

Knowing your opponent could eviscerate you would indeed help deter even those "agitated". Nothing un-agitates quite like knowledge that your opponent is not some pushover.

Secondly I do not accept that the scenario above is perfectly analogous to a society where everyone is armed with a gun. I am no expert on, or even particularly knowledgable about, guns, but I can think of several differences between the two situations. For example, the scenario above does not take into account the fact that, in a confrontation between two people armed with guns, there is an advantage to drawing your gun first. In fact, one could argue that this is a straight "Prisoner's Dilemma" type situation. It's always logical to pull out your gun first and turn a non-violent confrontation into one that is likely to turn violent.

Your last sentence disproves the one before it. I disagree it's logical to pull out your gun and turn a non-violent confrontation into a possibly violent one just to be guaranteed to "have the drop on someone." You assume too much in the superiority of that position. As soon as you pull out a gun, you're fair game for your opponent, or anyone else standing around there. One who does so is not likely to be successful too many times in a row.

[merphie]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
Our government has guns that Jefferson could have only dreamed of. If you think the .45 you have in your glovebox will protect you from a row of tanks or a wing of stealth bombers you're more delusional than you look.

Your most powerful weapon is not your gun -- it's your voice. And your voice only works if you raise it with the voices of those around you. Allowing your government to manufacture consent and lie to you is letting your guard down, and when you've done that your gun is useless -- but you still have your voice. If you let that slip away, then you've no weapons at all.

I don't think any war has been won by air power alone. If the government takes away the freedom of speech then you don't have a voice. With out arms you have no method to get the freedom back.

I think the British were better equipped and trained than the American Rebels. The French didn't come into the war until the end. However England had other problems and didn't commit 100% to the war in the Americas in the first place. (If I remember correctly)

A good example of a civilian population rebelling against a repressive government is the American Civil war.

I would agree that in a democracy your voice is the most powerful weapon. Regardless if you are using a gun or your voice a powerful army is needed. I heard somewhere that less than 50% of eligible voters voted last time. Which I understand when you consider our choices.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Two points, first of all which part of "developed democracy" is it you don't understand? I don't think there exists a mind expanding substance strong enough to allow one to consider Nazi Germany a developed democracy. Secondly, no, even disregarding that mind-boggling huge flaw in you argument that is not a good example. Guess why? Because it didn't work, so they might have held out a few weeks or months (because the army was otherwise occupied), but it didn't change anything, they still got send to Auschwitz or wherever.

Hitler Enjoyed popular support.

Was it guns that gave Blacks their civil rights? I'm not familiar with the specifics of the US civil rights movement, but it's not my impression that it took the form of an armed insurrection.

There are some examples of blacks protecting themselves from the KKK with guns.

There was the civil war of course, but that wasn't necessarily about slavery, and in any case that wasn't armed citizens. I’ve never said that democracies, even developed democracies can do no wrong, simply that I have never seen anything even remotely resembling evidence that guns have helped to correct such wrongs.

No it wasn't about slavery specifically. But the rebels were poorly equipped and for the most part were citizens. You could try some research to look for examples of guns righting wrongs. Soviet invasion of Afghanistan would probably be a good one.

[shanek]

Originally posted by merphie
Hitler Enjoyed popular support.

And the Nazis were voted into power.

[luchog]

Originally posted by merphie
Hitler Enjoyed popular support.
Originally posted by shanek
And the Nazis were voted into power.

Neither of these was true.

Hitler was not voted into power. His Nazi party only held a minority of seats in the Bundestag; and he never received more than 37% of the popular vote. He was appointed chancellor by President Hindenburg in a violation of German parlimentary procedure; in an attempt by Hindenburg to create a solid right-wing voting block to oppose the Communists who were gaining power. Once he held the position, he engineered the Reichstag fire, and used that to bully Hindenburg and the Bundestag into granting him "temporary" dictatorial powers; and he continued throughout his tenure to maintain the illusion that they were temporary.

His edicts did not significantly change life for most Germans, who were used to a militaristic culture (at least the Prussian Germans); and so he did not enjoy popular support, but rather popular apathy until he had managed to consolidate control and have large numbers of troops patrolling the streets.

More detailed information on Hitler's rise to power: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp

[shanek]

Originally posted by luchog
Hitler was not voted into power. His Nazi party only held a minority of seats in the Bundestag; and he never received more than 37% of the popular vote. He was appointed chancellor by President Hindenburg in a violation of German parlimentary procedure;

And Hindenburg got into power how? And he was a member of which party?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by merphie
[B
I think the British were better equipped and trained than the American Rebels. The French didn't come into the war until the end. [/B]
False, the french declared war on the British in 1778 and the war effectively lasted 1775-1781 (though peace wasn't declared untill 1783), that's hardly "the end". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

If memory serves though a lot of the British-French action, happened other places than North America, so you might have missed it.

[LW]

Originally posted by shanek
And Hindenburg got into power how? And he was a member of which party?

Hindenburg was a non-party independent from the right side. Admiral von Tirpitz persuaded him to enter into the race to prevent Wilhelm Marx from winning. Marx belonged to Catholic Center Party and was also supported by Social Democrats. He won the 1925 elections largely by his status of a war hero.

In 1932 he was already started going senile but non-nazi right-wingers persuaded him to run for a second term because he was the only right-wing candidate that could beat Hitler in elections. [Man, did that plan backfire...]

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by merphie
I don't think any war has been won by air power alone.

Bosnia.

Kosovo.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Kerberos
False, the french declared war on the British in 1778 and the war effectively lasted 1775-1781 (though peace wasn't declared untill 1783), that's hardly "the end". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

If memory serves though a lot of the British-French action, happened other places than North America, so you might have missed it.

Yeah, according to the article it was almost a world war. Several countries were involved.

I was not completely wrong. Apparently you didn't read the whole article.

Saratoga was the turning point of the war. Patriot confidence and determination, suffering from Howe's successful occupation of Philadelphia, was renewed. Even more importantly, the victory encouraged France to enter the war against Great Britain. Spain and Holland soon did the same. For the British, the war had now become much more complicated

I wasn't completely wrong in my statements.

The reasons for Great Britain's misfortunes and defeat may be summarized as follows: Misconception by the home government of the temper and reserve strength of her colonists; disbelief at the outset in the probability of a protracted struggle covering the immense territory in America; consequent failure of the British to use their more efficient military strength effectively; the safe and Fabian generalship of Washington; and finally, the French alliance and European combinations by which at the close of the conflict Great Britain was without a friend or ally on the continent.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by merphie
Yeah, according to the article it was almost a world war. Several countries were involved.

I was not completely wrong. Apparently you didn't read the whole article.



I wasn't completely wrong in my statements.
It's true that I didn't read the entire article, but I didn't need to, you said that France didn't enter the war untill the end, which was flat out, not true. If by not being completely wrong you refer to the implication that the French Contribution wasn't desicieve the very passage you quoted said that the victory at Saratoga was a turning point mainly because it caused the French to enter the war. Ther armed population at the time does seem to have played an important role, but then again Britain at the time wasn't democratic.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Ryokan
Bosnia.

Kosovo.

Yeah and that's why NATO is still there as a "peacekeeping" force.

I think the victory was due mainly to Finnish and Russian diplomatic efforts and the fact that Russian would not back the serbs against NATO.

IMHO, the bombing had little effect because NATO was about to lanuch a ground invasion.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Kerberos
It's true that I didn't read the entire article, but I didn't need to, you said that France didn't enter the war untill the end, which was flat out, not true. If by not being completely wrong you refer to the implication that the French Contribution wasn't desicieve the very passage you quoted said that the victory at Saratoga was a turning point mainly because it caused the French to enter the war. Ther armed population at the time does seem to have played an important role, but then again Britain at the time wasn't democratic.

I realize I didn't have it complete right. I was trying to go off memory because I didn't have time to refresh on the subject.

There are several instances of where the militia played a very important role which affected the outcome of some battles.

Running short on supplies, in August Burgoyne sent a detachment to raid nearby Bennington, Vermont. The raiders were decisively defeated by local Patriot militia, depriving Burgoyne of nearly 1,000 men and the much-needed supplies

The main problem is that the revolution couldn't be attributed to or against an armed populace. Half supported the British and the other half the Patriots.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by merphie
Hitler Enjoyed popular support.
Some yes, but his rise to power was never democratic. the Enabling act which was what gave him dictatorial powers was passed only by jailing the Communist representatives and intimidating the rest using Hitler’s tame paramilitary groups. That doesn’t really strike as an argument in favour of armed citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act

Originally posted by merphie
There are some examples of blacks protecting themselves from the KKK with guns.
KKK isn't government though.

Originally posted by merphie
No it wasn't about slavery specifically. But the rebels were poorly equipped and for the most part were citizens.
Weren't the North States pretty poorly equiped too? It's my impression that the US at the time of the had little in the way of an army and that both sides had to built one from scratch. It still isn't a case of armed citizens resisting their govenement though, but of two govenements building armies to fight a war.


Originally posted by merphie
You could try some research to look for examples of guns righting wrongs. Soviet invasion of Afghanistan would probably be a good one.
I've never said guns have never righted wrongs. Simply that I cannot think of examples where citizens of developed democracies (or any democracies actually, though I'm less sure here) successfully using armed force against their government. The Soviets weren't exactly democratic (if you think so I'd love to see an example of a non-democracy). Besides I don't think Afghanistan was a case of armed citizens rising up against their government. It was a case of a foreign invasion into a territory that's a nation in name only, which was resisted by the already established armies of the warlords aided by the US. I'd be hard pressed to find a situation less comparable to the modern US, France or Denmark.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Sushi
We can experimentally isolate variables in regarding medicine. We cannot do that (easily) regarding democracies. Being stable for 50 or more years does not mean another superpower can emerge through unpredictable circumstances.
Anything can emerge though unpredictable circumstances, that's what unpredictable means.

Using your pea-brained logic, living 50 years in a monarchy and seeing other monarchies remain relatively stable is proof that monarchies are stable entities. Also using your logic, slavery lasted for thousands of years in even "developed" nations like the Roman Empire; and according to your logic major nations would never outlaw it.
I strongly doubt monarchies were ever that stable, but if you wish to contest that you should feel free to provide evidence for it. As for the Roman empire, I see you still have trouble with the concept of statistical significance.
Also, the whole point regarding guns was in case of unpredictable circumstances leading to a loss of freedom--or personal protection.


And again, why does it matter? You are suggesting a "democracy" could never turn hostile to minorities or could ever fall to a more authoritarian power (or even elected officials introducing a heavily military state)?
Never? no, not never, but it hasn't happened so far, under circumstances that would have made guns useful, and there's no sign of it happening anytime soon. There’s really very little that could “never� happen.

Going back in time, would the Japanese put into concentration camps have been justified if they defended themselves from the federal government using guns so they would not be relocated? Or should they just have obediently followed through, losing their homes?
Sure they'd have been justified, it just wouldn't have helped them any. Or perhaps I should say that guns did not help them any. They might very well have had access to guns, though I don't know much about US weapon laws at that time.

So, basically, your attitude is not to use guns and to obediently march to the gas chambers instead of fighting back?
Nop, it isn't, do you have difficulty reading, or do you just create straw men for fun?

And again, I don't see why "developed democracy" is significant, a democracy could conceivably fall or turn hostile to a group.
And armed militias could conceivably go on a killing rampage, or topple the government and install a dictatorship. "conceivable" is such a handy word, don't you think? It allows you to totally ignore whether something is even remotely plausible.

Your insulting of my intelligence just goes to show how emotional your arguments are instead of rational.

Why don't you try insulting people when asked to clarify your terms in a science paper? You'll get far, champ.
I expect I will. Here let me give you a tip; if you want to complain about other people's manners you might want to display some yourself, it helps you gain the moral high ground and all that. I've read a number of scientific papers and I don't think I've read "pea-brained" or "Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha" yet.
When you say criminals, do you mean those incarcerated or even convicted felons? I could then argue there is not "universal suffrage". I am sorry, I am not Sylvia Browne, I cannot read minds or see into the future.[B][QUOTE]
There is never universal suffrage, Children and retarded people are seldom allowed to vote. You should know which people I'm referring to since I was thinking of the US system which has some limitations on criminals voting.

[B][QUOTE] So there's no evidence that being armed means you can more easily defend yourself, or defend others? Although greater numbers are always one of or the largest factor in how a conflict turns out, having a firearm levels the playing field.
No, it doesn't "level the playing field" it simply makes it unequal according to different criteria’s. And no, there is no evidence that people in developed democracies are better protected form their government if they're armed.

I was bringing up the protection issue. Even if statistically guns means more violent crimes, it does not change the fact that a person not responsible for violent crime should still have an opportunity to defend himself.
It's nice to see that you won't let facts and logic interfere with your beliefs.

If the federal government decided to go to war against a small town for unscrupulous reasons, then yes, that small town is probably doomed. However, on a larger scale the dissenters could have a greater chance.
Yet you cannot produce even a single example.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Some yes, but his rise to power was never democratic. the Enabling act which was what gave him dictatorial powers was passed only by jailing the Communist representatives and intimidating the rest using Hitler’s tame paramilitary groups. That doesn’t really strike as an argument in favour of armed citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act

You're probably right. I wasn't saying Nazi Germany was a case for an armed populace. From what I understand, Germans were armed, but conquered areas were not.


KKK isn't government though.

No, but guns are mainly a method of self defense. Personally I think defense against the government is a small reason for having guns. I still believe that we can (and should) work through the government to make changes.

I just wish we had some good people in the government and better choices at election.

I think guns are about self defense, hunting, and a hobby.

Weren't the North States pretty poorly equiped too? It's my impression that the US at the time of the had little in the way of an army and that both sides had to built one from scratch. It still isn't a case of armed citizens resisting their govenement though, but of two govenements building armies to fight a war.

No, the North was well equipped. The south didn't have a Uniform and usually the soldiers didn't have shoes. This was not the case in the North.

I would say the South resembled more of citizens against the government than an army.

I've never said guns have never righted wrongs. Simply that I cannot think of examples where citizens of developed democracies (or any democracies actually, though I'm less sure here) successfully using armed force against their government. The Soviets weren't exactly democratic (if you think so I'd love to see an example of a non-democracy). Besides I don't think Afghanistan was a case of armed citizens rising up against their government. It was a case of a foreign invasion into a territory that's a nation in name only, which was resisted by the already established armies of the warlords aided by the US. I'd be hard pressed to find a situation less comparable to the modern US, France or Denmark.

You are probably right. As I said I would consider to defense against the government a small reason for owning guns.