Please stop! :)

Remove all ads!

Ragusa
I never intented to make you or any German citizen defend themselves for the actions of the Nazis.That would not be fair.Germany has come a long way since World War II (who would have thought the wall would come down in our lifetimes).
Contrary to your belief I do think an armed population can deter dictatorship.I am a peaceful person and woul not want to see armed conflict in any country.However it happens almost everyday.
You have valid points for your beleifs and I think I do as well.Trying to insult my intelligence because we do not see eye to eye on this subject is pretty sad though.
You seem well informed on world events and should know I am as well.Even if we dont agree it is no reason to hurl insults at each other thats just foolish.
The reason for my Nazi referance was just to show an extreme case of gun control and how it may affect a country.In no way was it inteded to put you on the defensive for crimes you and most of the german population had nothing to with.

 

Hey, my British friends...

enjoy.

http://www.nraila.org/images/Sendagun.GIF

 

I'd just like to reply on something Ritwingr said about the guns beeing used in a crime beeing illegal guns.

If you checked I think you would find that many of those guns started out as legal guns, but got stolen, sold or whatever an ended up illegal guns...

I mean it's just Murpy's Law: The more you have, the more you spend.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out that the more guns there are, the more crimes involving guns there will be.

 

Hmmm. I completely missed any salient points Ragusa made that were not answered by my pointing out that the fear and intimidation he mentioned were caused by the ability to bring superior force to bear.

At any rate, yes, I think we need to preserve the right to be armed against government, including ours. No, I don't think it's necessary right now (or I would own a gun). Our government isn't that corrupt... at least not everywhere in the nation. But will it be a free nation in 100 years? I don't know. And I don't want to be responsible for disarming the population that might need to defend itself in my grandchildren's generation.

And regardless of the effectiveness of a police force, it cannot be everywhere at all times. Nor do I want a police force that is.

 

Just remember: Guns don't kill people...People kill people!

 

A few questions Shralp:

Interesting statement, yet no argument or proof. Could you perhaps find a historical example where your concept of deterrence worked and try to elaborate to find points to underline that thesis?

Since you cannot know the future you can try to justify about anything with that argument. Like shooting the president, sure he isn't mad now, but who knows - maybe tomorrow ... better safe than sorry ... Don't you have something more convincing to offer?

Definitely. However, even though I don't share your point of view I understand the desire to be able to defend yourself. However, that still leaves open the questions which weapons you need for that purpose, more clearly: Doesn't this usually include short-range weapons like pistols and shotguns - ruling out the ever popular semi-automatic rifles? Since they are just as useless for hunting (there is a reason why the military uses bolt actions for sniping) - is there a need to own such weapons? Do you think a restriction to certain weapon types for civvies would make sense?

[ October 18, 2002, 18:12: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

You must remember one thing. We are not like you. We don't have maniacs running around with guns, forcing themselves into people's homes...

We don't NEED to own guns. You apparently do. What does that say to you?...

 

Actually, the UK violent crime rate is higher than that in the US. I provided an article to that effect some time ago in Whatnots.

Ragusa asked for an example of deterrence. How about Switzerland, which up until recently required everyone to have an automatic weapon in their homes? As a result of that and its other defensive advantages, it managed to remain neutral and uninvaded through several wars.

Your parallel with shooting the president is ridiculous. I'm talking about preserving a right that may prove vitally necessary in the future. You're talking about murder.

 

In Switzerland there was mainly and especially the factor of a very small, restricted area to defend and a very favourable terrain for defence. However, you are referring to agression from outside. Weren't we talking about guns deterring dictators *inside* the country from commiting cruelties against their own population? I don't know any recent cases of swiss dictators even beeing in existence to be deterred by their citizen's firepower. Try again.

And as for the uncertain futures: I'm just using your own argument as a justification. Consequently - as weak as it actually is. You can use that argument to force hispanics/ chinese/ marsians to leave the country - eventually they could commit a crime, who knows? You could also use it to allow them to stay in the country - perhaps one of them will make a revolutionary invention good for your country. Who knows?
As i said before, since you can justify *anything* with it, it needs some back-up arguments or it is kinda useless. Since you don't know the future, you cannot bring it up as an argument, eventually you don't know it. It is kinda hard to find a counterargument for something even you don't know. You need a little more to make a point.

[ October 18, 2002, 19:32: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Hmmmm.

Remember after we (the US) started pulling troops out of Iraq? Remember when we were yanking our guys out of Somolia? Remember on CNN, right after we took a couple of planes to New York (almost like taking a brick to the head, but a little different)?

I dunno 'bout anyone else, but I saw "Baghdad, IRAQ" in the lower portion of the screen, and heard/saw an AK-47 going off whilist the selector was in the semi-auto mode. The guy was smiling, and there was some kind of Arabic prattle going on in the background.

What's the crime rate like in Iraq? Saudia Arabia? Iran, Syria?

Is the average Schmoe allowed to own weapons there?

 

Z you are wrong.

I'll give an example by comparison:
In Providence, R.I., where I live, I read an article about a group of 'alleged' gang members, getting pulled over after acting suspicious at a traffic light. The officer then searched the vehicle and found a bag of hands, in the car. It was discovered to be part of some gang vs. gang violence, right of passage, etc.

Pretty sick right?

I read another article, about a couple of guys that were pulled over in London, for using hand turn signals at corners. The thing is, it wasn't the drivers hand. The psyco was using a severed arm, in public, for his turn signals.

So the two countries aren't that different after all, I guess.

Edited to add a link to the English case:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_148366.html?menu=news.latestheadlines

[ October 18, 2002, 22:25: Message edited by: ArtEChoke ]

 

Rags, here's the difference:

You're talking about committing a crime NOW in order to prevent some evil in the future.

What I'm talking about is not committing a crime, harming someone else, or anything immoral, unjust, or evil. It's preserving a right.

By your argument, no one should ever plan for the future.

If you want an example of an armed uprising getting rid of a dictator, how about Ceaucescu? America's case is applicable as well. Pretty much revolutions of independence everywhere, ya know?

 

Yes, but this is just gang warfare. Like Shralp, you are comparing figures, without actually seeing it for yourself. I have never ever even seen a crime in progress before.All of this violence happens in the rough areas of our big cities (Like London and Liverpool). Only a select few police units ever carry guns. All the gun crime in concentrated into areas people with any money avoid.

 

Given the president would go mad, tomorrow, then it probably would be justified, and not a crime but ... tyrant killing ...

 

Well, the president is mad but thats another issue entirly.

The question is, why do people need guns that can rip things to shreds in seconds. won't a .22 or a handgun be sufficient?

[ October 19, 2002, 13:20: Message edited by: Aikanaro ]

 

"The question is, why do people need guns that can rip things to shreds in seconds. won't a .22 or a handgun be sufficient?"

This really, really depends on your target. If you're hunting skunks in the backyard so they don't fight with your cats, or owls in the trees so they don't swoop down and eat your cats, then yes; a small caliber firearm is all that is needed.

Let's take this to the exact opposite extreme. Let's say a "criminal" has broken into your house. He is currently dual wielding Smith&Wesson .45cal handguns. Let's say it's in Britian, so that the automatic label of "criminal" is already defined. Now, the .45cal doesn't have a whole lot of penetration power unless you're using steel rounds, long slides, and cordite. But for non-body armour wearing individuals, you don't need high penetration, you just need a lot of kinetic energy transferred, which is exactly what the .45cal is designed for.

Now, you shoot him with a .22. Center of mass, in the heart. Get this; he does not die instanteously. All of the cells in your body (excluding a few organs like the kidneys and bone marrow) have a 2-second buffer of ATP. That is, they have enough intra-cellular ATP to allow operations to continue for 2 seconds if the supply is cutoff; which is what happens when your blood stops pumping. There is, barring shock, mind you, up to and including 10seconds where that target still maintains enough reserve energy to pull the trigger of those .45cal weapons. This is due to intra-cellular ATP, the small amount of blood that is around the tissue, and the ability to go anerobic.

So, when you are "defending" your life, you want that target incapacitated instantaneously. You do not want that target to have any futher ability to harm you, or those your are "defending". This can very easily include a "knockout". But since we are using the extreme, death is the most relavent state.

You want that target dead, by any means available, as quickly as possible.

Or you die. And natural selection takes it's logical course of action, and weeds your weak strain out so that the strong rule the world.

 

BTA, of course not, I never said that. I know it'd be the poorer areas with most of the gun crime as well. Just by the TV shows that i've seen you get guys screaming down Highways shooting out of the window. That'd never happen here... And of course this'd be rare in America, but it does happen.

 

Z, I lived in the city of Pittsburgh for 7 years, and I was never robbed, mugged, shot, or anything like that. There was a place up the street that got robbed a few times, and a shooting at the video store, but I never felt like I was in danger walking out of my front door. Not to say there are no crimes committed here, but it's hardly the one step from chaos in the streets that you're describing.

BTW, a woman shot a rapist in the East end last week. The guy was a serial rapist, accused of raping 8 or 9 women, and threatened this woman while she was out jogging. She went back and got her gun, then continued her jog. She ran into the same guy again, and he pulled a rifle and was threatening her with it. So she pulled her gun out and shot him. She was licensed to carry a gun.

So, if there are criminals that have guns, it will be necessary for law-abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves from them.

The real problem, IMO, is the number of criminals who own guns. Gun control is not going to help this problem. The police already confiscate illegally owned guns if they catch someone with one. There are already laws that require background checks when purchasing firearms. Many, if not most, people here who commit crimes with guns own them illegally.

Even if you passed a law right now making gun ownership illegal by anyone except the police and the millitary, it wouldn't solve a thing. There are far too many guns out there already.

Maybe, at some distant point in the past, strict gun control laws could have prevented so many guns from being in this country. But it is far too late for that at the present time.

 

Eh? Describing Chaos in the streets?... I never said that. I know America is a lovely place to live. Nicest place in the world in alot of areas. It's just you do get alot of gun crime on account of the amount of guns in the country.