Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

Ilija...

You say you feel a lot safer without guns. I can guarantee you that I know a ton of bad asses that could make short work out of you in the fairest of fights. Me, as well. But you say you have the ability to fight them off to buy time. Naw... ain't happenin'

Even if you could, what you are basically telling me is that you don't care much about everyone else in the world who cannot use martial arts to help defend themselves. Y'see I want everyone to be able to defend themselves. A gun does just that.

You assume the criminal is breaking in with a blaze of bullets. Maybe not. If the law abiding citizen has no weaponry available, they can rip you up with a baseball bat or tire iron.

Please. Put a sign out in front of your house that reads... I proudly declare that there are no guns in this house. Make sure your neighbor's house says... Intruders will be buried where they are shot. Whose house will more likely be broken into? If you eliminate guns altogether, you will be putting that no gun sign up in front of everyone's house.

And what if you were injured or had surgery like Josh? You ain't kickin' anybody's butt for a while... no?

Sec162...

I sure did like your posts and, especially, the sheep story. :tu

I agree with both of you. and neither of you at the same time.

In the Netherlands it's very difficult to buy a gun. You have to prove that you're capable of handling such a dangerous tool just like you have to prove that you can drive a car (another dangerous tool).
This makes gins very scarce. And gun related incidents as well. Sure there are people being robbed, somtimes stabbed and beaten.
You can't really stop that.

Sometimes people even die from a beating. But when it happends the whole country goes up in an outrage and everything possible is done to find the killer.

Guns are tools like Bill said. But you need to know how to handle any dangerous tool before you get it in your hands. And guns should be the same. If someone wants to protect their family with a gun this should be possible. That doens't mean they should be able to buy one at K-mart, Wallmartk, Tesco's something like that just because they feel like it. That way there will be less guns on the street.

There's only one drawback in that way of handling it: You have to start the situation out like that. And the states being founded upon revolution in a time that guns were more readily available than say the Netherlands (because we too were founded on revolution) means that such a way of dealing with things isn't feasible. In short....I wouldn't know what to think about the gun situation in the states. I'm just happy that a criminal over here can't walk into the supermarket and buy a revolver/shotgun/whatever.

I also have mixed feelings. While I have never owned a gun I have enjoyed shooting them. (Target shooting and skeet(sp) ) However I have seen incidents in NYC go from nothing to all out battle in 10 seconds. I think that if some of these people were armed there would be more dead people. (Humm maybe not a bad thing..:eek: ) On the other hand most of the criminals here are armed so why not the innocent people? As I said I think this is a very confusing issue. I will leave it to better minds to figure out.

You gentlemen are denying the creation of a society based on laws where people are expected to interract with each other without using leathal force. Your fear of criminals is making you work toward a society where people can easily kill each other from a distance. Ideally, the law is supposed to be the great equalizer between the strong and the weak. If you don't want to work towards this ideal, bring in experts from Somalia and Liberia to re-engineer the US society.
The purpose of having LEOs is for them to intervene when "it" hits the fan and to capture the criminals. Too many of you are saying that regular people should be given guns and enforce the law themselves. There are reasons why not everyone is allowed to practice/enforce the law. Without a legal process managed by trained individuals, we go back to savagery.
I am happy it's agains the law to carry a gun in Canada unless you are a LEO or a soldier on duty. We have a much lower incidence of violent crimes and gun crimes because of it. I've been in situations where people had violent outbursts and would have drawn a gun had they carried one. The fact that the only ways they could bring a gun is to go through an extensive licencing process or pay through their noses for (legally) dirty guns smuggled in from south of the border and in any case risk several years of incarceration for just having it on their person greatly reduced the ultimate risk of those situations.
One argument that you frequently tout is that there are too many guns already on the market and available to criminals. Criminals have more guns per capita than law abiding citizens. That happened because people like you actively worked toward saturating the market with guns. What is your solution to that? Bring EVEN MORE guns :eek:
Owning a gun for protection is making two statements:
1) I am afraid of criminals
2) I don't believe our society is based on laws
You can call me a sheep, a walrus or a raccoon, but you won't convince me that a society where having everyone armed with an ability to kill from a distance will prevent or even reduce crime.

Quote:

---

...but you won't convince me that a society where having everyone armed with an ability to kill from a distance will prevent or even reduce crime.

---

Y'see, that's just it. You have closed your mind to truth because you don't like it. You would not change your mind no matter how much evidence supports the other side. And it's ok that you don't like guns or want them in your life. But, the thing is, you have no right to tell me that I cannot have them in mine.

You are not responding to some very good points being made here. My guess is that it is because you know they have validity and you have no argument against them. When I could PROVE to you that communities that are armed have a lower crime rate, would you concede? I know the answer to that, already. It's no. And your points are few and don't hold very much water. We are addressing the points you think that you are making, but you are not responding to the ones you don't have answers for from the other side.

You said gun ownership came with two qualifiers. I already addressed the second point about an armed society. Here is my response to the first one.

You better dang well be afraid of criminals... some of them will kill you without the slightest compunction and for no reason other than you exist. I did not pull that fact out of the air. It came from being amongst them for 10 solid years. I spent more time with them than I did with my family. Don't you think someone who has done what I did just might have a pretty good idea on what they are all about? You cannot discount that credibility. It came from experience, not from books or a professor who taught criminology without ever meeting a single law breaker.

And being afraid of criminals has nothing to do with bravery or being a chicken if you are afraid. I think that the person who enters a battle of any kind needs a healthy fear within to survive. I also think the person without that fear is a fool.

Quote:

---

We have a much lower incidence of violent crimes and gun crimes because of it.

---

Why am I supposed to believe that? Not because it sounds good, I hope.

Quote:

---

Criminals have more guns per capita than law abiding citizens. That happened because people like you actively worked toward saturating the market with guns.

---

I think if you are going to introduce statements that are as strong as this, you need to back them up with something factual and not what you want it to be. Otherwise, those are just one of those "stupid" statements I talked about on the first post. I find it really hard to think you really believe that and wonder where you got the MIS-information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urleebird

Ilija...

If you are going to rely on law enforcement or good samaritans to save you from an ugly situation, just bend over, stick your head between your legs, and kiss your butt goodbye. It'll be all over by then. Police will take a while to get there and no one else will get involved, believe me.

Just tell me what is wrong with making people responsible for their actions. You can't blame criminal behavior on poverty. Poor people have morals, maybe just as many as you. The kind of programs you want to generate will not help or change the behavior of the target group causing all the damage. These guys are violent, they are predators, and they don't have the slightest problem with wiping you off the face of the earth... just because they feel like it.

Fight addiction? Here's how I would fight it. Give anyone who wants them, all the drugs they can possibly use... for free. Make sure you give them enough so they can overdose if they want. These are weak people and don't need to be in the gene pool.

Otherwise, point them in the direction of the churches that will help with their addiction. It's not something that should be a taxpayer's responsibility. Generosity should come from a desire to give, not out of a mandatory requirement of those who had nothing to do with the behavior. And hey, if you give the drugs away for free, it will eliminate the criminal who will rob or kill you to buy them. Eliminates the dealers too. Problem solved...

---

Preach it, brother! And to Sec162...that might be the best post I've ever read.

You are correct, the law (anywhere) is supposed to be an equalizer. Those that have zero regard for human life generally don't care about the law in any way, shape or from. For some of them the only thing they understand is pain, death, or sometimes prison. In other words, what is the risk vs. payoff for them. Can they pull off their crime without getting killed or hurt is first, if so then they need to decide if the risk of getting caught is high or low. Now you will always have your "crack heads" and other morons that do whatever strikes them at a moments notice, these are the winners that give no thought to their "jobs". And you will have your crimes of "passion" or your emotionally disturbed people that assault people for other reasons.

So if they (criminals) are armed and no one else is, the risk is much lower. If they are larger then their prey, then the risk is low. If they are armed with anything (other then a gun) their risk is much lower. You see these guys are not looking for a fair fight. They are doing their crime and use whatever tool will make their job easier, period.


The violent crime rate is rising all over the world, that is a fact. This is not a USA specific problem. This is also not necessarily a gun availability problem. How many school shootings did the USA have in the past? Go back as far as you like. I would venture to guess that it was more common for most men to hunt in some way shape or form in the past. Most of those guns were not locked up. In fact it was not uncommon for public schools to have rifle teams for kids. Guns have been available to kids for many many years, yet only recently do we see school shootings. We need to ask ourselves why this is. I don't have the time to go into details. But if you read the books by Lt. Col. Grossman I think it might open some eyes. It has without a doubt changed what I will allow my kids to be exposed to in the media. We are creating a ever increasing violent population, not just the US, but the world. That needs to stop, but that will not be happening anytime soon. You think the NRA is powerful, try taking on the media!

And no I am not maintaining that anybody with a gun should enforce the law. Protecting yourself is not enforcing the law. It is sometimes necessary to take immediate and violent action to stop someone from seriously injuring or killing you. That is not enforcing the law.

And the argument to seeing people in violent fights that might have pulled guns if they had them. Most areas that have some form of CCW laws also prohibit guns in certain places. Namely places where you will find alcohol served.

1) Yes I am afraid of violent criminals, so should you. I am not paranoid. I do not walk around all day in fear. I maintain awareness of my surroundings and remain prepared. If everyone did that they would be better off. Fear is good, it can keep you alive. Its what that fear does to you that matters.

Quote:

---

but you won't convince me that a society where having everyone armed with an ability to kill from a distance will prevent or even reduce crime.

---

I don't think most of us advocate that "everyone" be armed. It should however be a choice. Not everyone will make that choice, in fact few will decide that it is right for them.

Quote:

---

That happened because people like you actively worked toward saturating the market with guns.

---

Ummmmm actually I do what I can to take them off the street, by actually taking them. Not by having a "gun buy back program" :td or some silly feel good crap like that. I have no problem with background checks or small waiting periods (72hours in WI). And for someone to CCW they should be trained. And those that break gun selling/buying laws should suffer dearly, but they don't. But that again goes back to my point about law breakers being punished in the first place. I have a very good friend that works in the DA's Office of a very large city, the public would be appalled at what does not get prosecuted, or gets pled away to nothing :mad:

I don't trust humans in general. As a race we have 2 bad tendencies:
1) To let our emotions override our better judgement.
2) To do something just because we can -- like get a gun, fire it, fire it AT someone.
I'm not saying that EVERYONE would behave like that. However if more people have guns, more would use them.
Now some of you have this nice little utopian dream of everyone being polite to each other just because everyone carries guns. What would actually happen is that more verbal conflicts and fist-fights would erupt into shooting matches. Are gangbangers polite with each other just because most of them are armed?
Bill, I know you have worked with some nasty criminals, including the criminally insane. However if they're SO crazy that they would want to hurt someone just because they exist, something else in the system failed to prevent/detect/confine/cure his mental disease. Now if that person's mental disease went undetected until he reached the age of majority, he could legally get a gun after a background check and use it.

The gun control measures that I'd take are to legislate the following measures:
1) Every gun(*) owner gets a grace period of let's say a year to submit his gun to the police. No buyback. They become ILLEGAL.
2) After that grace period, the gun registries are searched and uncollected guns are collected by police officers coming to the door.
3) Then, handgun posession other than working pieces for military personnel and LEOs becomes punishable by a MINIMUM of a couple of years in prison. That's for mere posession. And if the handgun is used in the commission of a crime like robbery or assault, additional 10 years should be tacked onto the sentence.

(*)Again, let me reiterate that hunting rifles should be permitted but step 3 would apply in case one was used in the commission of a crime.