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]

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.

[Ryokan]

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?

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

[Darat]

Quote:

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/lo...cle1099365.ece

[chocolatepossum]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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) 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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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!

[Ed]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

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 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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

People CAN make such a stand.

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek


People CAN make such a stand.

Did it stop the military from mowing down the protesters?

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek


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]

Quote:

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.