Duckman on gun control

[Kendo 2]

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? . . ."

 

Alexander Solzhenitsyn in Archipel Gulag

 

BRAVO! :thumbsup:

 

*menaces overwhelming force of bad guys with a pointy stick*

 

"I GOT NOTH'N TUH LOSE, SUCKAS!"

[ginnyfizz]

. I guess my British ironic sense of humour just went over people's heads.

No its just looks like you don't know what you are talking about. This isn't the right topic for joking around.

Neither this nor any other is the right topic for making personal attacks. It's perfectly possible to make a serious point with a touch of irony/humour.

 

I certainly would not say that the Second Amendment was outdated. It is perhaps more relevant than ever today, where government control freakery is becoming such a concern in many countries.

[Ghogiel]

Good question, why should I justify my collection of bombs?

Exactly, why should you? I have one pound of binary explosives(unmixed) sitting on my desk right now. It's perfectly legal. Should I justify my possession of them? I'm thinking no.

By that logic, someone who collects pictures of child pornography should be allowed to as long as they aren't pleasuring themselves to it.

Not really a good example imo. A better and more apt example would be RPGs, AA weapons, tanks etc. It has a purpose for defence against an oppressive government after all.

[ginnyfizz]

Yes, that's what I was thinking, the context is weapons as a defence, and the fact that they are sitting there maybe unused, but capable of being brought into effect for use against that oppressive government.

 

And yes, what starts as a few folk with firearms, or even a few peasants with pitchforks, can and has brought down governments or kicked out colonial powers many times before. The USA, France, Russia, all the upheaval in the Middle East currently. We even had a few rebellions in the UK, two of which achieved regime change, including the shortening of a rather inept King by a head. The English Civil War in fact was a prime example of what happens when it starts with some rumblings and a few malcontents, and then they get organised - the Roundheads had the good fortune to have their cause directed by skilled commanders like Cromwell, Fairfax and Blake, which is why they won in the end. And then they got boring and we decided to have the monarchy back again. But having got a taste for rebelling and having seen what making an armed stand could do, we then kicked out headless Charlie's even more inept second son and substituted him with King Billy.

[Vindekarr]

What are the chances a civil war in America would ever happen, anyway? You need to understand, some aspects of American culture are incomprehensible to non Americans-hearing people saying "lets give every private citizen an RPG because that way IF the government becomes evil, they can resist it" just doesn'rt make sense from an Australian perspective. For one thing, America ius denocratic so wouldn't the government be ellected? and if it was a coup, wouldn't there be the military to handle them? And anyway, from an anti-gun perspective, hearing people say "if you try to take away my "contitutional human right" to wield weapons of war and commit murder I'm going to attack and attempt to kill the officers of the law who attempt to relieve me of my weapon" is self-vindicating, as it speaks of a major problem of violence just waiting to emerge.

 

In australia a recentish law change saw the government offer to pay shooters to hand in their guns and licences and give up the hobby, you know how many accepted? more than a quater of the nation's gun owners. Did incidents of murder and robbery increase since people couldn't "defend themselves"? No, they actualy went down. An unarmed society can be a very peaceful one.

[Ghogiel]

An unarmed society can be a very peaceful one.

It can be, but there really is no guarantee that it would.

[mizdarby]

What are the chances a civil war in America would ever happen, anyway? You need to understand, some aspects of American culture are incomprehensible to non Americans-hearing people saying "lets give every private citizen an RPG because that way IF the government becomes evil, they can resist it" just doesn'rt make sense from an Australian perspective. For one thing, America ius denocratic so wouldn't the government be ellected? and if it was a coup, wouldn't there be the military to handle them? And anyway, from an anti-gun perspective, hearing people say "if you try to take away my "contitutional human right" to wield weapons of war and commit murder I'm going to attack and attempt to kill the officers of the law who attempt to relieve me of my weapon" is self-vindicating, as it speaks of a major problem of violence just waiting to emerge.

 

In australia a recentish law change saw the government offer to pay shooters to hand in their guns and licences and give up the hobby, you know how many accepted? more than a quater of the nation's gun owners. Did incidents of murder and robbery increase since people couldn't "defend themselves"? No, they actualy went down. An unarmed society can be a very peaceful one.

As another non-american, I agree that the perception I have of the USA, is one of stability, with the no apparent reason to assume there will be any sort of 'civil war' in the foreseeable. Thus the arguments that self-protection includes the need to defend yourself against 'hostile' Government Agencies, seems a little paranoid.

I agree with the second point even more strongly, my own virtually gun free city, has a firearm homicide rate of precisely zero. And to quote wikipedia

"In the United Kingdom in 2009 there were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0, about 40 times higher", so a relatively unarmed society, can and does thrive, without the 'weak' unarmed being slaughtered by those few that have firearms.

In fairness to the people of the USA, as I have already stated, the wide availablity of cheap easy to purchase firearms, means the cats' already out of the bag, and their society requires more self-protection than my own does.

[Vindekarr]

What are the chances a civil war in America would ever happen, anyway? You need to understand, some aspects of American culture are incomprehensible to non Americans-hearing people saying "lets give every private citizen an RPG because that way IF the government becomes evil, they can resist it" just doesn'rt make sense from an Australian perspective. For one thing, America ius denocratic so wouldn't the government be ellected? and if it was a coup, wouldn't there be the military to handle them? And anyway, from an anti-gun perspective, hearing people say "if you try to take away my "contitutional human right" to wield weapons of war and commit murder I'm going to attack and attempt to kill the officers of the law who attempt to relieve me of my weapon" is self-vindicating, as it speaks of a major problem of violence just waiting to emerge.

 

In australia a recentish law change saw the government offer to pay shooters to hand in their guns and licences and give up the hobby, you know how many accepted? more than a quater of the nation's gun owners. Did incidents of murder and robbery increase since people couldn't "defend themselves"? No, they actualy went down. An unarmed society can be a very peaceful one.

As another non-american, I agree that the perception I have of the USA, is one of stability, with the no apparent reason to assume there will be any sort of 'civil war' in the foreseeable. Thus the arguments that self-protection includes the need to defend yourself against 'hostile' Government Agencies, seems a little paranoid.

I agree with the second point even more strongly, my own virtually gun free city, has a firearm homicide rate of precisely zero. And to quote wikipedia

"In the United Kingdom in 2009 there were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0, about 40 times higher", so a relatively unarmed society, can and does thrive, without the 'weak' unarmed being slaughtered by those few that have firearms.

In fairness to the people of the USA, as I have already stated, the wide availablity of cheap easy to purchase firearms, means the cats' already out of the bag, and their society requires more self-protection than my own does.

 

Aye mate. I would feel safer in a country with no guns than having a gun myself but knowing that the country is populated by people who wouldn't think twice about killing their fellow humans in "self defence" I am myself a weapon owner, I have a pair of competition-spec crossbows which I use for just that, but they don't make me feel any safer, even though they have enough draw to kill a man. Quite the opposite actually, if the "pay to trade in your licence" deal was still going, I think I'd take the govt up on it.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Vindekarr

[ginnyfizz]

An unarmed society can be a very peaceful one.

It can be, but there really is no guarantee that it would.

 

Absolutely correct, I think a lot of Americans look across the pond at what is happening in an unarmed society and see that nope, peaceful is not quite the way to describe it. They see a society that is heavily weighted in favour of the criminal, whether it be the guy with the bag marked swag or the ones in government (in the UK at the moment you would be hard pressed to notice the difference). Try even whacking a burglar caught in the act with your handbag (or manbag) and see who is the one who ends up in the dock). Some of the guys that are officially armed - yup Metropolitan Police tactical firearms units I'm looking at you - certainly alarm me on the grounds that they get it horribly wrong so often. And I begin to think that the days of the sort of state that you might need to defend yourself against are a little close for comfort.

 

mizdarby quotes the relative homicide figures between the UK and the US as a good example of how an unarmed society can thrive. Well I live in it, it does not thrive and there are other types of crime that feature guns that don't include homicide. What those figures don't tell you is that one section of society that is thriving is the gang culture - it used to be only the Triads and the Yardies, but now we have the Russian and other East European mob too. And they can thrive because they obtain their guns illegally and know that they can then rob, assault and intimidate (one reason why the gun crime figures are suspiciously low, people daren't report them) with impunity, because they are not going to face a pissed off householder/shopkeeper with a firearm.

 

And the USA did indeed have a bloody and protracted Civil War. It can happen anywhere.

[JimboUK]

What are the chances a civil war in America would ever happen, anyway? You need to understand, some aspects of American culture are incomprehensible to non Americans-hearing people saying "lets give every private citizen an RPG because that way IF the government becomes evil, they can resist it" just doesn'rt make sense from an Australian perspective. For one thing, America ius denocratic so wouldn't the government be ellected? and if it was a coup, wouldn't there be the military to handle them? And anyway, from an anti-gun perspective, hearing people say "if you try to take away my "contitutional human right" to wield weapons of war and commit murder I'm going to attack and attempt to kill the officers of the law who attempt to relieve me of my weapon" is self-vindicating, as it speaks of a major problem of violence just waiting to emerge.

 

In australia a recentish law change saw the government offer to pay shooters to hand in their guns and licences and give up the hobby, you know how many accepted? more than a quater of the nation's gun owners. Did incidents of murder and robbery increase since people couldn't "defend themselves"? No, they actualy went down. An unarmed society can be a very peaceful one.

 

A functional democracy should offer the people a choice, when that choice is between one group of self serving whores and another group of self serving whores then that democracy becomes a sham.

 

 

What are the chances a civil war in America would ever happen, anyway? You need to understand, some aspects of American culture are incomprehensible to non Americans-hearing people saying "lets give every private citizen an RPG because that way IF the government becomes evil, they can resist it" just doesn'rt make sense from an Australian perspective. For one thing, America ius denocratic so wouldn't the government be ellected? and if it was a coup, wouldn't there be the military to handle them? And anyway, from an anti-gun perspective, hearing people say "if you try to take away my "contitutional human right" to wield weapons of war and commit murder I'm going to attack and attempt to kill the officers of the law who attempt to relieve me of my weapon" is self-vindicating, as it speaks of a major problem of violence just waiting to emerge.

 

In australia a recentish law change saw the government offer to pay shooters to hand in their guns and licences and give up the hobby, you know how many accepted? more than a quater of the nation's gun owners. Did incidents of murder and robbery increase since people couldn't "defend themselves"? No, they actualy went down. An unarmed society can be a very peaceful one.

As another non-american, I agree that the perception I have of the USA, is one of stability, with the no apparent reason to assume there will be any sort of 'civil war' in the foreseeable. Thus the arguments that self-protection includes the need to defend yourself against 'hostile' Government Agencies, seems a little paranoid.

I agree with the second point even more strongly, my own virtually gun free city, has a firearm homicide rate of precisely zero. And to quote wikipedia

"In the United Kingdom in 2009 there were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0, about 40 times higher", so a relatively unarmed society, can and does thrive, without the 'weak' unarmed being slaughtered by those few that have firearms.

In fairness to the people of the USA, as I have already stated, the wide availablity of cheap easy to purchase firearms, means the cats' already out of the bag, and their society requires more self-protection than my own does.

 

Check the figures for knife crime. Anyway taking away guns does make a society peaceful, there will of course be less shootings, criminals face unarmed victims, no need to actually open fire.

 

 

An unarmed society can be a very peaceful one.

It can be, but there really is no guarantee that it would.

 

Absolutely correct, I think a lot of Americans look across the pond at what is happening in an unarmed society and see that nope, peaceful is not quite the way to describe it. They see a society that is heavily weighted in favour of the criminal, whether it be the guy with the bag marked swag or the ones in government (in the UK at the moment you would be hard pressed to notice the difference). Try even whacking a burglar caught in the act with your handbag (or manbag) and see who is the one who ends up in the dock). Some of the guys that are officially armed - yup Metropolitan Police tactical firearms units I'm looking at you - certainly alarm me on the grounds that they get it horribly wrong so often. And I begin to think that the days of the sort of state that you might need to defend yourself against are a little close for comfort.

 

mizdarby quotes the relative homicide figures between the UK and the US as a good example of how an unarmed society can thrive. Well I live in it, it does not thrive and there are other types of crime that feature guns that don't include homicide. What those figures don't tell you is that one section of society that is thriving is the gang culture - it used to be only the Triads and the Yardies, but now we have the Russian and other East European mob too. And they can thrive because they obtain their guns illegally and know that they can then rob, assault and intimidate (one reason why the gun crime figures are suspiciously low, people daren't report them) with impunity, because they are not going to face a pissed off householder/shopkeeper with a firearm.

 

And the USA did indeed have a bloody and protracted Civil War. It can happen anywhere.

 

These days it feels like the political class sees the people as a problem that needs to be controlled, they don't even pretend to serve us any more. You listen to the ramblings of government ministers, all they want is more of our money so can they throw it away, I expect sooner or later "Dieu et mon droit" will be replaced by "Arbeit macht frei".