Debate and Discussion

The importance of an ARMED population.
Croi Dhubh at 11:25PM, Aug. 27, 2008
(offline)
posts: 1,202
joined: 11-16-2007
You'd think so, and yet it's still a huge problem in the United Kingdom, just for instance.

People are always going to find a way to illegally arm themselves. If there is a finite supply of guns, the most powerful will have guns, and the rest will use what they can, such as knives.

It's happened constantly throughout history. The very first thing a ruling party does in order to gain ultimate power is outlaw any kind of weapons for the general population. The general population is then left without armaments, but the criminal elements still have them, as do the ones charged with “protecting” the general population. After a very short while, the general population begins using what they can in order to arm themselves because the “protectors” are stretched very thin.

Outlaw weapons and only the criminals will possess them, as the saying goes. Throughout history people have found ways to protect themselves after being disarmed and they are then labeled as criminals.

No one has the right to tell me I cannot have a means of defending myself outside of my own closed fists. Damn straight if someone brings a baseball bat, I'm at least bringing a knife. If someone brings a knife, I'm bringing a gun. If someone brings a gun, I'm going to have five guys with guns or a tank. Defending myself doesn't mean fighting fair, and piss on anyone who would claim you should.

The difference here is, I'm WILLING to do so. It's those who think that having it makes them safer without the will to use it who muck it up for the rest of us.
Liberate Tutemae Ex Inferis
Moderatio est Figmentum: Educatio est Omnium Efficacissima Forma Rebellionis

http://weblog.xanga.com/CroiDhubh - Home to the “Chuck E. Cheese Terror” stories
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:54AM
JoeL_CQB at 11:33PM, Aug. 27, 2008
(online)
posts: 546
joined: 4-17-2007


california has pretty stupid gun laws.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:10PM
ozoneocean at 11:59PM, Aug. 27, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
Croi Dhubh
You'd think so, and yet it's still a huge problem in the United Kingdom, just for instance.
The U.K. just has stricter laws than the U.S. There is no restriction on the supply of arms though, in that: they make their own on a large sale and import on a large scale. What weapons that get through in the smuggling channels are only going to make those on the black market already a bit cheaper. :)

————–
The rest of your contention is just part of the justification for why we have police forces, legal systems, governments… The funny thing is that when people use those arguments, they're talking as if there is no civilisation and they just live in some war torn lawless part of Chechnya or Somalia or somewhere…


Yep, ALL that works and is justified IF you're living in the same place and time as Mad Max.

Wanna join me in the Thunderdome? :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
Croi Dhubh at 12:07AM, Aug. 28, 2008
(offline)
posts: 1,202
joined: 11-16-2007
Yes, and the UK has a higher violent crime rate and home invasion than here in the USA. Regardless of how they are getting them, they are getting them. The criminals are going to have weapons regardless of the laws because they aren't getting them legally. No one goes to Wal*Mart to buy a pistol so they can rob a bank, so laws restricting sales or carrying laws don't matter.

The average police response time, for my area, is five to ten minutes AFTER you call for the police to START GOING. Now you have to figure in travel time. Do you know what I can do to you in even two minutes? You make that phone call and I'll show up to take pictures of your busted up body or even corpse.

This all has NOTHING to do with thinking there is no civilization, it has to do with people's rights to defend themselves against others who are there to do them physical harm. The police aren't your personal body guard. You're responsible for your own immediate protection. Remember, generally the police are there as reactive enforcement.


JoeL_CQB
california has pretty stupid gun laws.
Quite right. And don't get me started on the laws in California…

Like I said, I treat everyone as if they were armed regardless, so it wouldn't affect me negatively.
Liberate Tutemae Ex Inferis
Moderatio est Figmentum: Educatio est Omnium Efficacissima Forma Rebellionis

http://weblog.xanga.com/CroiDhubh - Home to the “Chuck E. Cheese Terror” stories
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:54AM
ozoneocean at 1:12AM, Aug. 28, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
It's not “regardless of how they're getting them”. That just supports Custards magic conjuring idea to a T lol!

How people get them is the only important factor. It's very easy to cut off the supply of weapons, easier than anything else.

——
It IS about a break down of civilisation because you're supporting a course based on the idea that civilisation is irrelevant. Funny for a police officer…
Especially since it's actually rather tricky to prove self defence in cases of violent action, no matter what the reason. You know what I mean? Society frowns on people settling disputes violently, those are the sorts of things police are supposed to prevent… And arrest people for after the fact.

Or maybe my understanding of the world is upside down? Anything is possible :)

——
Your point about the U.K. is nonsense so please let that drop now ok? ;)
Apart from anything, how are you thinking it's a good idea to compare specific crime rates of a country of around 60-70 million people with one of over 300 million and made up of many radically different communities with all sort of different law enforcement regimes.

So… how about we compare the Tunbridge Wells in England to the City of New Orleans or Detroit in the U.s. Eh? Sound fair? :)
Of COURSE it's not. ;)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
Croi Dhubh at 1:50AM, Aug. 28, 2008
(offline)
posts: 1,202
joined: 11-16-2007
It has nothing to do with “magic” or the like, and you using that as a type of debate is basically implying that I'm a child and so you're going to treat me like one.

I'm NOT talking about a break down of civilization, I'm talking about a civilization and private citizen having the basic human right to self defense.

Society openly frowns on settling the disputes violently because that is the politically correct way to do it. “Secretly” people agree with me and when they are allowed to be anonymous, the majority will support otherwise.

The point about the UK is actually quite valid as it's a case-in-point that disarming the society does little to improve the safety of it's citizens.

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
– Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Liberate Tutemae Ex Inferis
Moderatio est Figmentum: Educatio est Omnium Efficacissima Forma Rebellionis

http://weblog.xanga.com/CroiDhubh - Home to the “Chuck E. Cheese Terror” stories
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:54AM
ozoneocean at 2:25AM, Aug. 28, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
I'm not using the “magic” thing to treat you like a child, only to illustrate the silliness of your “regardless” method of dismissal ;)

That IS a break down of civilisation; if citizens are required to defend themselves with that level of force, things aren't working as they should :)
-To prevent that we have those laws, governments, and the police I talk so much about…

“Secretly” and “politically correct”…? Look, you should know from personal experience that your “frown” means an actual prison term for many of the sorts of imbecile that decide it's a good idea to shoot their neighbour to settle a dispute. Jebus man…
lol!

It's “valid in a point by point case by case basis” is it? Like that magic gun acquisition spell I suppose :)
Come on, give me the points then. Tell me how New Orleans is a safer place to live than Tunbridge Wells.
And all the rest… Or just don't bother and we can drop that. :)
or you could have a look at the actual figures

——–
As for your Franklin quote, he's not talking about an actual lamb, is he?
Nor about wolves, interestingly…
Why would you think he's being literal about the “well armed” part?

Well armed = knowledgeable about who you're voting for. ^_^

——–
I don't mean to be patronising or unpleasant, so I apologise if I seem that way. -I know at times that I can. I don't mean to be offensive in my manner :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
Croi Dhubh at 11:37AM, Aug. 28, 2008
(offline)
posts: 1,202
joined: 11-16-2007
It's not a break down of civilization. The populace isn't expected to use physical force to deal with all issues, only against physical force.

There are times when a person MUST defend themselves with that level of force. This is very obvious in Washington DC where the murder rate is much higher than the rest of the country, and they had the strictest gun laws in the entire USA.

Police, military, and other type of “defenders” cannot sit around each person every day to make sure nothing bad happens to them. The fact remains there are people who are willing to break any and all laws regardless of the punishments, and the citizens have a right to defend themselves against it. Even where I am, the officer to citizen ratio is 1:300. You better have a way of defending yourself because I nor any other person is going to be sitting next to you when shit hits the fan.

In no way am I stating all issues are to be dealt with by use of physical force, nor did I imply it. You're associating an armed populace with a populace of criminals and that's where your fault lies. For some reason, probably because of where you live, you're thinking that when people have weapons, they run around like mad men shooting randomly into the air and at each other. That is only Hollywood and not the real life.

The entire “magic gun acquisition” is faulted compared to showing a comparison. Using your argument here, no one can draw comparisons during a debate. We aren't talking about apples and oranges, we're talking about a red apple and a green apple.

The “actual figures” are quite skewed. The UK doesn't report anything which occurs inside the house as anything other than a “domestic issue”. This may have changed, but for a very long time, this is how they were doing it. The USA figures include suicides, officer involved shootings, cook offs (better know what I mean and if not, I can explain), accidental discharges not involving human error, and the like. Of course the numbers are going to be higher with the USA numbers because of how we do the books compared to how, say, the UK does it.

Why would I think he's being literal about the “well armed” part? Because he, like the vast majority of our founding fathers, believed that the populace is only safe when the private citizens were armed for defense against individuals and corrupt governments. That is the reason we have the 2nd Amendment here in the United States. The Japanese didn't invade after Pearl Harbor because they were afraid of the USA citizens. We were the most armed privately in the world at the time. They knew the military was stretched thin and wouldn't have been any help to the US citizens, but the citizens themselves were too well armed.

In addition, while you can get all philisophical and say you can apply Franklin's quote to mean an education, a well educated sheep against ravage wolves isn't going to help the sheep. Regardless of the points the sheep will make, the wolves are still going to over power the sheep and eat him. An armed sheep has the chance to enforce his points and defend himself against being eaten. What you propose is the sheep scream for the farmer or sheep dog and allow them to take care of it. Sheep scream all the time, but they are usually killed while waiting for the help to arrive. If the sheep were like the wolves, the wolves wouldn't bother eating it. Wolves may fight with each other, but they don't try to devour one another until things become very extreme.


Case and point:

DRMC News
911 goof slows cops' arrival in killing

By Marlys Duran
Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer

GREENWOOD VILLAGE - A 911 glitch prevented police from responding immediately to a deadly domestic-violence situation, and Greenwood Village authorities want to know why.

“It might have made the difference,” police Lt. Dave Fisher told KCNC-TV Channel 4.

Officers were delayed eight minutes because the apartment's address did not show up on a police dispatcher's 911 screen. When police did arrive Sunday night at an apartment at S. Yosemite St., they found a young woman dead, a man armed with a knife and a scared 3-year-old boy.

Officers shot the man when he refused to drop the knife and charged at them, police said.

A police officer had pulled the 3-year-old from the apartment before the shooting, Fisher said. The youngster, believed to be the dead woman's son, was uninjured, Fisher said.

The 24-year-old suspect was in serious condition Monday at Denver Health Medical Center with gunshot wounds in his abdomen and lower legs, hospital spokeswoman Heidi Hattenbach said.

Police received a 911 call from a third-floor apartment at the Hermitage about 8:40 p.m. Sunday. No one spoke, but a dispatcher could hear sounds of an apparent struggle. The 911 system is supposed to display both a phone number and an address, but only the phone number appeared on the screen, Fisher said.

After calling the number twice and getting no response, a dispatcher asked Qwest to trace the location, Fisher said. Eight minutes had elapsed when police finally got an address, he said. “Once we got the information, we were there within one minute,” Fisher said.

The database that links phone numbers and addresses to Qwest's 911 system has been provided by SCC Communications of Boulder since 1996. SCC spokeswoman Sherri Hughes-Smith referred queries to Qwest. “We are supporting Qwest in a thorough investigation of the occurrence,” she said.

Gronbach declined to discuss how the 911 system, including the database, is constructed. “That's something we wouldn't talk about,” he said.

The failure of an address to appear on a 911 screen is rare but not unheard of, said Englewood Safety Services Director Chris Olson, who heads Arapahoe County's E-911 Authority board.

“The master address list is hopefully constantly updated, but there could be a glitch in the system,” Olson said. “You really don't know until somebody tries to access the system.”

Is it the fault of the police? Not really. The police have to wait for the information to be relayed by the dispatch center. Had the women possessed the means to defend herself and was willing to do so, this would have been much different.

Keep in mind that people like Diane Feinstein and Sarah Brady would have this be a common theme in America. In their eyes, you shouldn't have a gun to protect yourself in a situation like this. Invariably, when asked about situations like this the reply is either “Call 911” or “Call the police.” Tragically, this is all too often what would happen.


CBS Channel 2, Los Angeles
911 Systems Overburdened and Imperiled
Channel 2000/CBS-2 LOS ANGELES, Posted 9:50 a.m. July 13, 1997 – You are in trouble. There is a fire, or perhaps an intruder; you dial 911. The line is busy. Why? Because someone wants to know the time. Or whether the smelt are running. Or how to get to Dodger Stadium. Or how long to cook a turkey.

These “emergencies” all of them actual calls to 911 operators would be funny if the consequences were not so serious.

In big cities across America, 911 mostly saves lives, but it loses others fending off unforeseen problems of every sort: Too few officers. Too few operators. Not enough training for any of them.

But the system's biggest emergency, and arguably the hardest to believe, is that millions don't understand what 911 is for.

In Los Angeles, a recent audit disclosed that 85 percent of the 3.6 million calls flooding the city's 911 system last year were not emergencies at all. Nationwide, that figure ranges from 50 percent to 90 percent.

“You wouldn't believe the calls we get,” said Los Angeles 911 supervisor Barbara Pakenham. “People don't have a clue. Someone doesn't like that their neighbor's stereo is really loud. So they call 911.”

“Some people think it's a number that you use for any type of service,” said police Cmdr. Carlo Cuido. “We're going to get silly calls no matter what. But we want the people who do have life-threatening emergencies to get through.” An estimated 180,000 calls went unanswered last year in Los Angeles, according to the new city audit. New York City installed a $156 million state-of-the-art 911 system, only to be embarrassed by 1996 reports of callers being put on hold for as long as eight minutes.

Cellular phones have added new difficulties and an estimated 18 million calls each year. Unlike standard phones, cell phones don't supply the caller's number and location.

In L.A. County, the California Highway Patrol fielded 579,000 cellular 911 calls in 1996 many of them non-emergencies, many of them multiple reports of the same traffic accident. Like those using regular phones, 911 cellular callers often receive a busy signal or are placed on hold.

The latest pitch to cure the country's clogged emergency lines is 311, a non-emergency number endorsed by President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno, and approved in February by the Federal Communications Commission.

But not everyone likes the idea notably, national trade groups representing 911 operators, equipment manufacturers and managers, who say 311 would just sow confusion.

Bill Stanton, executive director of the National Emergency Number Association, said the existing system would work just fine with public education on how to use it.

Too many calls is only one threat to 911. Many of the people who answer those calls are stressed out, poorly paid and ill-trained.

In 1995, the Better Government Association and a local television station videotaped 10 operators in Chicago sleeping on the job. “People were kicked back with their headsets on, asleep,” said Terrence Brunner, executive director of the BGA. “The pictures were amazing because you could see some of these people being jerked awake by the phone ringing off the hook.” Chicago police spokesman Paul Jenkins said a mammoth, high-tech communications center that opened not long after the report aired has corrected the problem. Nearly 100 percent of 911 calls, Jenkins said, are now answered on the first ring.

In Philadelphia, the 1994 beating death of altar boy Eddie Polec on the steps of a church prompted a national outcry when 911 tapes chronicling 20 calls made by friends and neighbors were made public.

Operators were hostile. “Don't talk to me like that!” one yelled at a distraught friend begging for help.

It took 41 minutes for police to arrive. By then, Eddie was dead. John Polec, the boy's father, doesn't blame the operators. The problem was Philadelphia's antiquated dispatching system for his neighborhood, which relied on a single radio band for all communication.

Mobile computer terminals installed in about 125 of the city's 500 cruisers have helped by allowing officers to run license plates, vehicle registrations and other functions without tying up radio airwaves.

Still, Philadelphia's is an overloaded 911 system. About 55 percent of calls are non-emergencies, and there aren't enough cops to answer all of the real ones. John Polec has a simple explanation for those who ask why he presses to reform 911.

“Because I've got two other kids that might need a cop one day,” he says.
Note that 180,000 calls a year is just under 500 per day that go unanswered.


You can try and say this is all points for your “things aren't working correctly”, but the fact remains, these problems exist, and in the time it takes for police to respond, you're hurt or dead.

Your argument of people not being allowed to defend themselves against physical threats is disturbing and unnerving.


Now, I'm all for education, but the biggest brain isn't going to help you with someone intent of beating you to near death in your own home because they want your stereo or television. This isn't about fear, it's about safety.

The biggest thing people need to be taught to do is just to fight back. This “don't ever fight” mentality is creating more problems than solutions. Parents are constantly teaching their children that “fighting is never okay”. Guess what? There are times when fighting is okay, is needed, and is justified. Being a pacifist doesn't help, it hurts.

When there are problems, it is the lesser man who depends on people like me to do the right thing on his request because he is too scared to act.
—–
Not to be a rent-a-modding…shouldn't this be in the Debate forum?
Liberate Tutemae Ex Inferis
Moderatio est Figmentum: Educatio est Omnium Efficacissima Forma Rebellionis

http://weblog.xanga.com/CroiDhubh - Home to the “Chuck E. Cheese Terror” stories
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:54AM
bravo1102 at 4:21PM, Aug. 28, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,323
joined: 1-21-2008
An unscientific observation:

The majority of people I have met who work in law enforcement (prosecuters, criminal attorneys, prison guards, police officers, state troopers, federal marshalls, Social Workers etc.) believe in a legally armed populace protecting itself against crime. Having been in the Army reserve and my wife a legal secretary, I know more than my share of law enforcement types.

Why? They know that police nearly all the timerespond to reports of criminal activites, not catch them in the act. Nor can police prevent a crime that hasn't happened yet except by arresting a criminal for a previous crime.

It's kind of funny to say that armed thugs beating up on others is a break down of civilization when in fact it has always been a part of human life civilized or not. There have been few (if any) cultures where has been no crime of someone with a weapon threatening or hurting someone without one. I say it isn't a break down of civilization, it is civilization. When humans live on top of one another a reason to hurt another and/or take their stuff will come up. You might as well be ready for it.

Remember why people first probably organized themselves into villages and then cities; protection from outsiders who wanted their stuff. Sounds like an armed population to me. Though it was a lot easier to defend yourself when it was guy with a flint knife around the corner or a group of marauding horsemen at the gate.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
ozoneocean at 12:47AM, Aug. 29, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
Now both of you are speaking from a North American perspective, but more importantly, BOTH of you are speaking from the perspective of people who have been legally empowered (at one time in the case of Bravo) trained, and taught to be empowered, to expect to be empowered in difficult situations. NEITHER of you are speaking from a typical civilian mindset. The proper handling of force, lethal force, has been a reality for both of you, not some hypothetical fantasy the way it is for most people who desire it, but actually a part of your working lives. ;)

Out there, the rest of the people aren't trained soldiers.
————————-

Bravo, you're merely justifying civilisation, not armed populations. Civilisation has to start somewhere, and hopefully won't need to reverse it's course back there. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
bravo1102 at 12:46PM, Aug. 29, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,323
joined: 1-21-2008
It's the people who serve and protect who just might know a bit more about how crime effects our culture than the average civilian. They have a lot more experience with it, it is their job after all. The peopel who've been there, done that and have the drawer full of tee-shirts will know a bit more than joe six-pack does.

I can count prosecuters and other criminal attorneys among the people I've had the honor (or horror) to discuss this with as well as former inhabitants of really really bad areas in the USA. I merely repeat their observations as they've lived it. (So did I but only to an extent. I taught the kids who had grown up under those conditions and heard their stories)

I never handled a weapon until I enlisted and I own no firearms. For the most part I'm repeating what I've heard as well as some reading on the history of crime and violence. Then I also have to listen to my NRA member gun-nut brother. :)

A government takes away a weapon, criminals will procure that weapon and prey upon the unarmed. The unarmed will then have to find another way to protect themselves. With firearms it's not so easy as it was for the Chinese and French peasant to fight back with modified agricultural implements against sword wielding bullies and robbers. It's not just North America and not just the 20th Century you can look at.

An armed law-abiding populace is a great help to law enforcement and they know it. ;)

If you knew how many times I heard the stories from my DA friend about armed store& home owners who stopped robberies and how grateful he and the cops were that it took care of something so they wouldn't have to deal with it, just come in and arrest the perp. One less thing they have to worry about.




last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
ozoneocean at 1:15PM, Aug. 29, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
bravo1102
An armed law-abiding populace is a great help to law enforcement and they know it. ;)
The statistics show that doesn't make a difference one way or the other.

The more guns a populace owns, the more shooting deaths they have. That's just what happens. Your and Cori's position is standard rhetoric of most gun lovers. I don't say that either of you are gun lovers, but you're using those arguments. :)

So much is just plain anachronistic…

But then, as what you tend to say indicates, you come from a culture where these things are ingrained and endemic. If you pull a weapon on someone here (of any sort), or even confront someone unarmed you had better be very careful in justifying your actions later to the police.

Just very very different places… But I'm still right. ;)
-less guns in the hands of the populace here, less shooting deaths, criminals aren't in control. Whereas you have freer gun laws, higher crime rates, more guns, more crime, and the same is broadly true everywhere like that, depending on the culture and the most common sorts of weapons.

-I'll move this to the debate forum now.= like Cori suggested.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
JoeL_CQB at 12:14AM, Aug. 30, 2008
(online)
posts: 546
joined: 4-17-2007
but it also has been proven that an armed populace decreases crime.

And of course the more guns a populace owns would result to more gun deaths, but how many stabbing deaths would you hear?

And from what stand point would it be? would it be the murderer killing their victim, or the defender defending themselves?

and actually, in the US, I don't know about other places, areas that have freer gun laws actually have less violent crime.

refering back to the video that i posted, incase you didn't watch it. a town in Georgia, US, made it mandatory for every household to have a fire arm. instead of an increase of crime, there was actually a decrease.

Washington DC got a spike in violent crime after the passed a ban on firearms.

an airsoft prevented me from getting mugged when I used to live in Richmond, hopefully Croi would know where I'm talking about seeing that he used to live in Cali.

I was walking back home after playing a skirmish with my friends, and this is when I was playing with marui springers. dude comes up to me with a knife and tells me to empty my pockets, and guess what was the first thing in my pocket?

I was an idiot back then and shouldn't have been carrying it around in my pocket with the orange paint. but hey, I didn't get robbed.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:10PM
ozoneocean at 4:31AM, Aug. 30, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
JoeL_CQB
but it also has been proven that an armed populace decreases crime.
No it hasn't.

WHoopdeedo if you have more stabbing deaths, I can block a knife with my hand, they're also easy to outrun. Try blocking a bullet. Hey, try to outrun one. lol!

Psst; all weapons aren't equal. There's a reason why we use guns and missiles in war these days and not catapults, longbows, and swords. lol!
——————

Of course your silly local laws aren't going to do much! What does it matter of one city in the U.S. has stricter laws against guns? That's irrelevant when the entire country is swamped by them and they're not illegal in most other places. Those arguments are without merit or logic.

The only ones that do have any merit are the laws against aspects of the more powerful weapons: because those laws are relatively widespread you simply DON'T have a lot of full machine-gun type guns swamping the country.
—————–

As for silly towns with their own silly fantasy laws, you have to realise that they're small towns to start with, where people mostly know each other anyway. They're not going to have a high crime rate in any case. I think you'll find though that history proves that crime rates there just even out to normal over time.
——————

The facts still stand,: places with less guns like here don't have criminals in control, don't have high shooting deaths etc.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
JoeL_CQB at 10:03AM, Aug. 30, 2008
(online)
posts: 546
joined: 4-17-2007
ozoneocean
As for silly towns with their own silly fantasy laws, you have to realise that they're small towns to start with, where people mostly know each other anyway. They're not going to have a high crime rate in any case. I think you'll find though that history proves that crime rates there just even out to normal over time.
——————

The facts still stand,: places with less guns like here don't have criminals in control, don't have high shooting deaths etc.

it seems like you're accepting one fact, and dismissing the other.

how is the law a fantasy, when it's proven to be work. you're idea may sound like a fantasy over here, because we tried banning firearms. it didn't work.

it may have worked over there because you guys don't have a bunch of firearm manufacturers.

and what do you mean, by criminals in control? we don't have cities that a are being run by mob bosses.
——————

and if somebody tries to kill you, they will do what ever it takes to do so. you block the knife, they'll try to stab you again. you try to outrun it, they'll chase you. if they missed you with the first shot, they'll shoot again.

and also, shooting death isn't shooting crime. the death could be caused by the defender defending themselves.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:10PM
arteestx at 10:21AM, Aug. 30, 2008
(online)
posts: 285
joined: 6-1-2007
Croi Dhubh
In no way am I stating all issues are to be dealt with by use of physical force, nor did I imply it. You're associating an armed populace with a populace of criminals and that's where your fault lies. For some reason, probably because of where you live, you're thinking that when people have weapons, they run around like mad men shooting randomly into the air and at each other. That is only Hollywood and not the real life…
The biggest thing people need to be taught to do is just to fight back. This “don't ever fight” mentality is creating more problems than solutions. Parents are constantly teaching their children that “fighting is never okay”. Guess what? There are times when fighting is okay, is needed, and is justified. Being a pacifist doesn't help, it hurts.
I once heard an interview of an inner city guy who used to avoid certain people on his street, not look them in the eye, not cause trouble, and he'd go to the other side of the street when he saw trouble ahead. Finally he decided to buy himself a gun for protection. After a while, he started asking himself, “why should I cross the street when I see these guys?” so he didn't. After a while, he asked “why can't I just look these guys in the eye, let them know they can't push me around?” And so on. Ultimately trouble came, and he got involved in a scuffle where several people were killed.

It's not black-and-white about an armed populace acting like criminals. But this guy talked about how the gun gave him power and he stopped avoiding trouble and avoiding a confrontation. I'm not saying gun laws are the solution, and I don't know what the answer is. Sometimes fighting IS ok. But just like it's not good to assume an armed population will act like criminals, it's also not good to assume that an arming a population won't change behaviors and not always for the good.

Xolta is not intended for anyone under 18 years old.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:02AM
arteestx at 10:26AM, Aug. 30, 2008
(online)
posts: 285
joined: 6-1-2007
Croi Dhubh
No one has the right to tell me I cannot have a means of defending myself outside of my own closed fists. Damn straight if someone brings a baseball bat, I'm at least bringing a knife. If someone brings a knife, I'm bringing a gun. If someone brings a gun, I'm going to have five guys with guns or a tank.
I'm curious. Should the population have the right to own tanks and surface-to-air missles? If not, why not? That is, what's the difference between outlawing individuals owning surface-to-air missles and outlawing individuals owning AK-47s?


Xolta is not intended for anyone under 18 years old.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:02AM
ozoneocean at 10:31AM, Aug. 30, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
JoeL_CQB
it seems like you're accepting one fact, and dismissing the other.

how is the law a fantasy, when it's proven to be work. you're idea may sound like a fantasy over here, because we tried banning firearms. it didn't work.
I dismiss you non-facts :)

Look Joel, the main trouble here is you're jumping in and responding to me when what I said was mainly in response to Bravo and cori. That means that a lot of my reply to YOU assumes you've read both cori and Bravo's posts since they are the ones putting that position in this thread. If you're not going to read their posts, OR all my responses to them, then it's not really fair on me because it means I'll have to be arguing the same points all over again.

-ie. your point about the firearm manufacturers has already been addressed. Criminals in control was something Cori and Bravo mentioned, the idea being of lawful citizens don't have guns then the criminal gangs take over because they do.

——————

No Joel, Guns are better weapons than knives, which as I said before is why soldiers now use guns instead of swords and daggers. ;)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
JoeL_CQB at 11:29AM, Aug. 30, 2008
(online)
posts: 546
joined: 4-17-2007
i never said knives were better weapons than guns, i don't know where you're getting that from.

and i did bother to read both of their posts and yours.

where are your statistics/sources?

what's bothering me that you say the facts about the things that happened to be false. unless you're joking around and being a dick.

i decided to jump seeing, how croi and bravo come from a law enforcement/military stand point.

you stated that because of that, they will most likely side with being armed.
so here i am as a civilian, i'd prefer to be armed rather than unarmed.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:10PM
ozoneocean at 12:35PM, Aug. 30, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
1. In response to my point about the efficacy of guns you said: “and if somebody tries to kill you, they will do what ever it takes to do so. you block the knife, they'll try to stab you again. you try to outrun it, they'll chase you. if they missed you with the first shot, they'll shoot again.”
Basically a nonsense bit of sophistry to make knives sound as dangerous as guns. They aren't, so you're being silly.

2. No you didn't since most of the stuff you bring up has already been answered.

3. I linked to an extremely authoritative statistical source in a previous post. So I refer to point number 2 here. :)

4. Your “facts” are a story about a town with a law that said people have to have guns and they apparently have less crime now. Interesting anecdotal bit of trivia. I responded to it and indicated why that isn't really as cogent as it sounds. ;)

5 and 6. I said they hold their positions and can speak with authority because they have training and experience, and “not some hypothetical fantasy the way it is for most people who desire it”.

If you're claiming to speak for that position, then by all means, enjoy that “hypothetical fantasy”. ;)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
JoeL_CQB at 2:30PM, Aug. 30, 2008
(online)
posts: 546
joined: 4-17-2007
ozoneocean
1. In response to my point about the efficacy of guns you said: “and if somebody tries to kill you, they will do what ever it takes to do so. you block the knife, they'll try to stab you again. you try to outrun it, they'll chase you. if they missed you with the first shot, they'll shoot again.”
Basically a nonsense bit of sophistry to make knives sound as dangerous as guns. They aren't, so you're being silly.

i never meant to say knives are as dangerous as guns. i was trying bring out something from a criminal mindset.
if I really wanted to kill somebody for whatever reason, say i've gone insane. the only thing is going stop me is my victim taking me down first, whether it be by their own hands or the police.

obviously this is getting nowhere, since we're clinging to our own opinions pretty tightly. and i'll enjoy my “fantasy” because i don't want to feel defenseless.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:10PM
arteestx at 8:25PM, Aug. 30, 2008
(online)
posts: 285
joined: 6-1-2007
JoeL_CQB
refering back to the video that i posted, incase you didn't watch it. a town in Georgia, US, made it mandatory for every household to have a fire arm. instead of an increase of crime, there was actually a decrease.
Actually, what I've read is there wasn't a decrease at all…

“….a study by David McDowall, Brian Wiersema and Colin Loftin, published in the journal Sociology and Social Research, argues that Kennesaw's crime statistics show that rather than a decrease, there was a statistically insignificant increase in crime afterward. ….

Here are the facts. In 1982, there were 35 burglaries in Kennesaw. In 1983, after passing their mandatory gun ownership law, there were 35 burglaries in Kennesaw. In 1986, there were 70.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/mandating-guns_b_39450.html

"Burglaries in Kennesaw did not change significantly, while Morton Grove's {a similarly sized town in Illinois that passed a gun ban around the same time–arteestx} burglary rate fell by 4.5 burglaries per month. "
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/kennesaw_gun_ordinance_yet_aga.php


Xolta is not intended for anyone under 18 years old.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:02AM
StaceyMontgomery at 9:30PM, Aug. 30, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
bravo1102
Remember why people first probably organized themselves into villages and then cities; protection from outsiders who wanted their stuff. Sounds like an armed population to me. Though it was a lot easier to defend yourself when it was guy with a flint knife around the corner or a group of marauding horsemen at the gate.

Is there any evidence to support the idea that this was the primary reason for forming into villages and cities? It seems to me that there were many reasons, and it is not at all clear that the need for protection from outsiders was the primary one. I could easily make the argument that people formed villages and cities mostly to pool resources (like access to trade and irrigation projects that need lots of labor).

As I recall, when anthropolgist study the development of tribal cultures into early states, the big dividing line is the Nationalization of violence. That is, in tribal societes, there is often a lot of murder and personal violence. As the society develops, all that violence gets in the way, and the idea of “state authority” is invented - from then on, some kind of police will protect you - but the cost of that protection in that the police will also claim a monopoly on the use of violence.

Obviously, the amount of power given to the state and given to individual varies wildly - some states claim absolute control over violence, some rather less. But there is some evidence that the rise of state power over history has brought down murder rates overall - Lawrence Stone at Princeton has estimated that the homicide rate in medieval england as many times higher than modern Englands, on Average: 110 homicides per 100,000 people in 1304 - compare that to 5.7 homicides per 100,000 in the USA in 1992!

Of course, in 1304 the murders were mostly committed with knives and sticks - but then again, everyone carried a knife and a stick.

Personally, I'm in favor of an “armed populace” overall - governments should fear the people, the people should not fear the government. But the evidence that such weapons control violence seem weak to me. Overall, the lowest crimes rates appear to happen when governments have the MOST power.

But there are other reasons for not wanting governments too have too much power. Anyway, i just wanted to say - the issue of gun ownership is not (in my humble opinion) really about crime at all. At least, it shouldn't be.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
BffSatan at 11:10PM, Aug. 30, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,478
joined: 3-2-2008
John Howards best move in his time as prime minister was banning guns, we have been a safer country since, pro-gun is stupid and illogical.
One of the dumbest comments I've ever heard is that having a gun works because the attacker won't expect you to use it. In all probabillity they would and they would have a gun ready to shoot the crap out of you as soon as they see you've got a gun.
This clip is stupid because rapist don't run out in front of you in a balaclava, the spike your drink and then rape you.
“Guns don't kill people, people kill people,” is such an amazingly stupid idea. Guns make it easier to kill people, alot easier. In Australia we've had two big attacks on schools this year, no one died in eiter because all the attackers had was machetes and baseball bats, compare that to the amount of people who die in school shootings in America.
Can you really trust someone to care for a gun? no, people do careless stupid things all the time with their weopons.
Imagine a world where everyone had a gun with them at all times, two men could get into an argument, one brings out a gun, in a short matter of time a full on gunfight could start.
Can guns even protect people? if someone has a gun pointed at you and your being mugged what do you do? pull out a gun? unless your Clint Eastwood you'd be dead before you can fire.
Guns are stupid and people who support gun rights are stupid.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:20AM
yanlin at 7:00AM, Aug. 31, 2008
(offline)
posts: 3
joined: 8-19-2008
I agree that carrying a weapon can protect you from crime under circumstances, and it's not true rapists only attack their victims by spiking their drinks ^^; while the best precaution against a crime like that is not letting your guard down around anyone, anywhere, sometimes sex offenders break into a victim's house, or attack them outside. So I do think that guns can be effective means of self-protection, although everyone should be obligated to learn about proper gun use before getting one.

The “I need guns to stand up to the government in times of tyranny” folks are living in a complete fantasy world, though. o_o If you belong to a population group the government wants deported or killed, you can discuss your constitutional rights until you're blue in the face, you'll be disarmed before you can count to ‘10’. The reason your government lets you protest your right to gun ownership and own weapons is they know no one's going to overthrow them. And no, your government's not afraid of you.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:52PM
bravo1102 at 11:33AM, Aug. 31, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,323
joined: 1-21-2008
An antrhopologist lookign at the people combining into villages and then towns sees sharing of resources. A military historian sees the walls, rise in agricultural implements that cut and the evidence of pastoral peoples raiding.

I side with the military historians. Actual tribal warfare is mostly bloodless often the fighting only going on until several wounds or even two champions. It's only when peoples are defending their lives and property against extermination that the nationalization of violence takes on the form of armies. (or looking at conquest) Once conquest enteres the picture, it's no holds barred but even then the armies were usually formed of “come as you are” militias. An armed citizenry who are also the warriors. Sometimes the warriors do become their own class, but not always. (Germans, Zulus and Goths were all warriors, as were many ancient armies)

You also made my point about the citizenry being unarmed giving rise to criminals to prey upon them. English people in 1304 were specifically prohibited from carrying swords. Only criminals had swords. Though everyone did have a knife to eat with. However, did this study take into account benefit of clergy? If you could read, (or recite a passage) from the bible the state did not try you, the Church did and you got off with religious penance. So there could be lots of repeat offenders until that loop-hole was closed.

It could also be argued that after 1304 (1304 was the beginning of the famines caused by global cooling then came 1346-8 and the Black Death. *poof* one third less people) Crime may have decreased because there was one third less people who had 33% more stuff. The 14th Century though did mark the entrenchment of the shire reeve as a law enforcer. After 1400 more people were entitled to carry swords with the rise of the Middle Class. There are lots of variables.

During the Wars of the Roses no one was really prosecuted for home invasions and robbery. It was a war. You rob someone and you're doing it for the House of York (or go to France, Killing Frenchmen is always okay) That trend would continue until the rise of a national army that put the criminals in uniform or very rigorous capital punishment that didn't exist in 1304. But rigorous Police? Just a few armed citizens (there are those armed citizens again, no swords, but they had polearms) helping out the shire reeve and circuit judges? Again too many variables for the plain numbers to be conclusive.

As for the work More Guns, Less Crime; the authors have felt it necessary to qualify their results repeatedly. So it is becoming more doubtful.

last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
statikpunk at 1:54AM, Sept. 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 26
joined: 10-2-2006
As Far as this discussion goes I am on the pro gun side for many reasons.
one: besides cartooning all of my hobbies involve guns, I like shooting them collecting them, and I also enjoy hunting which makes them very valuable. and also my father is a gunsmith so it also provides a lively hood for him.

two: the way I look at it, even if all guns where outlawed and no one ever died again except for old age, it would still be wrong in my eyes to outlaw guns, I dont like the idea of our governments towering over us like some omnipresent Mary Poppins telling us what is safe to do (governments should be there to protect and inform, not dictate and deny!) I guess Im saying that I would rather live a free life with the possibility of a violent death then a long life under the thumb of oppression.(no I'm not William Wallace incarnate)
I realize that whenever I make that kind of argument I sound like some sort of anarchist or crazy redneck nutjob, but that is the only way I can put it.

three: I also believe that many of the people that make the argument for gun control, do so because they have no use for them and have never used them in one of the many POSITIVE ways that they can be used. i have converted a couple of people who used to believe in “NO GUNS for anyone!” just by taking them out shooting and saying there we had fun and no one got hurt. while I didn't convert them completely they did admit that there are some reasons to own guns besides the off chance you might need to shoot someone. and hopefully they will no longer support complete disarmament.

Four: people who have no way of fighting back are a people who are ripe for overthrow.(foreign or domestic) what do we do when Russia decides that they are not satisfied with Georgia, and come over here to get rid of the biggest threat to communism that the world has ever seen. Our army is the most powerful on Earth, but they still don't have infinite numbers. It is a well known fact that during WWII the Japanese never planned to attack mainland US because they knew that most American citizens where armed (and in the 40's that was certainly true)

there are many reasons to argue against gun control but in my opinion, personal protection is “important,” but low on the list. chances are that I will never be attacked, robbed, raped, carjacked, kidnapped or otherwise in my life but I will blow the dust off my AK-47 while shooting tin cans with my friends, and walk the woods at dawn beside my father in search of game, for the rest of my life. These are the things that “I” am willing to fight for, and no promise of “a safer life” will ever convince me otherwise.

A true “Gun owners” passion for firearms extends far beyond just “personal protection” and I don't think anyone that has never experienced these things will ever understand.

Oh and BffSatan, when the world goes to sh*t and my family needs to be fed I will be taking your food because I have guns and you don't!…just because you have no use for a gun doesn't make them stupid or the people who want to use them stupid. You are a sad ignorant person who has no concept of the world around yourself. when you spew that ignorant cr*p, it only hurts your cause! you need to grow up!

Yanlin If you insist that our governments are not afraid of us, then why don't you tell that to northern Ireland or grab a history book and look up how the Panama canal got built. remember we the people have the power and if that's ever not true then something is wrong. that being said we as gun owners can also work with our governments. After hurricane Katrina armed citizens roamed the streets protecting their neighborhoods from looters when the police and military where busy helping with the injured, and relief efforts.
“Speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far.”
Theodore Roosevelt.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:57PM
statikpunk at 2:14AM, Sept. 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 26
joined: 10-2-2006
yanlin
The reason your government lets you protest your right to gun ownership and own weapons is they know no one's going to overthrow them. And no, your government's not afraid of you.

Also there are approximately 1,426,713 U.S. Military serving active duty and, according to its website there are a little over 4,000,000 members of the NRA alone, and an estimated 52,000,000 households own at least one gun. assuming that non of those servicemen decide to side with their families I still say that's pretty good odds in our favor. If they are not afraid they should be :)
“Speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far.”
Theodore Roosevelt.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:57PM
ozoneocean at 2:38AM, Sept. 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
statikpunk
Also there are approximately 1,426,713 U.S. Military serving active duty and, according to its website there are a little over 4,000,000 members of the NRA alone, and an estimated 52,000,000 households own at least one gun. assuming that non of those servicemen decide to side with their families I still say that's pretty good odds in our favor. If they are not afraid they should be :)
That's one of the funniest things I've ever read :)

I'd love to see that war…
-Weapons and numbers VS advanced training, military experience, advanced strategy and tactics. ;)
Plus aeroplanes, helicopters, tanks, heavy machine guns and canon mounted on light vehicles etc.

Of course that doesn't take into account the fact that the soldiers wouldn't always be happy fighting their own people (although history is full of more cases where they are than not). And in that scenario you're talking open war on home ground, so not so much like the guerilla tactics in Vietnam or the occupation and policing actions in Iraq.
—————————–
Guns as an antidespotisom tool are a silly idea. There's a reason that part of the constitution talks about “militias”. They're a little bit more than a few people who have guns and know each other… And not something you want hanging around in any case. Your American democratic system is far, far better than fantasies about revolution and counter-revolution.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
statikpunk at 2:41AM, Sept. 2, 2008
(online)
posts: 26
joined: 10-2-2006
ozoneocean
The way I look at this is; if I was walking into town to go to the shop to buy milk or whatever, I would really rather NOT have every idiot on the street having their own gun… morons with itchy trigger fingers.

Mass armed populations can't work. It's a stupid idea championed by stupid people.

Ozone I think its sad that you think all people are just retarded Baboons just itching to cut each others throats, and that everyone who could ever want a gun must obviously be a blithering idiot. I guess Im just more optimistic than that. I believe people are plenty capable of handling the responsibility of firearms.

and as for “mass armed populations cant work” look towards Switzerland young man. here is an excerpt from Wikipedia's entry on Switzerland's gun control laws.
“The gun policy in Switzerland is unique in Europe. The personal weapon of militia personnel is kept at home as part of the military obligations. This, in addition to liberal gun laws and strong shooting traditions, has led to a very high gun count per capita. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, but also one of the lowest firearm related crime rates in the world.”

their violent gun crime rate is so low they don't even bother recording it! If they can do it so can we! And I don't think the Swiss would appreciate being called stupid.
“Speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far.”
Theodore Roosevelt.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:57PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved