Gun control

[Papabear1]

If we start to ban things that cause mass deaths in this country we will be walking everywhere. There are many more deaths caused by drunk drivers than guns. Try banning alcohol, proabition (sp) did not work. Try telling people they can not drink beer without a license and training. I would dare say that there are more deaths attributed to Big Macs than guns but they are prevalent. I have handguns and carry often, I am disabled and can not defend myself as I would have when younger. The dangers of this world are everywhere and I believe we should be able to defend ourselves in whatever way we can. Ban alcohol and cars and maybe I will give you my guns.

 

[Kalamos]

Ban alcohol and cars and maybe I will give you my guns.

Fine with me! I don't drink and drive anyway! 😀

...

-> Val [and all...]

I read the Gun Facts sheet.
Since I do not advocate gun banning, it didn't really raise a brow.
There are some weaks points, though.

First, it is assumed people buying guns legally aren't going to misuse them.
[No statistic on misuses or crimes by legal gun owners].

Criminals are always expected to find weapons by illegal means.
[Statistics hints they get might get them from "lost" FBI caches...]

I reality, criminals and citizens aren't two worlds apart.
Facts sheet fails to mention it.


About Second Amendment: gun advocates claim that the Justification won't curtail the Right.

But we cannot ignore bits as we see fit.
Even if we intend "well regulated militia" as a "well-behaved" or "well-trained", we have to recognise the need for *education*.

This is my whole point. Educate people in gun use, so they won't misuse and misfire guns.

Have people read the NIJ specifications. Have people read about terminal ballistics.
Have people *know*.

Let them know and let them respect - guns, neighbours, people, themselves.
This is why I would find licensing fascinating - even if unfeasible.


People have rights - but they also have duties.
Let's not forget the latter when upholding the first.

 

[Goodieluver]

The reasons germans did not revolt against hitler is because they feared communism more.

heh and to quote family guy humorously
"Guns are good. Did you know Jesus and Moses used guns to conqure the Romans? Now remember, guns dont kill people, dangerous minorities do!"
"WARNING! Guns are extremly dangerous. Do not use, clean, own, or opperate guns at any time!"

 

[Kalamos]

The reasons germans did not revolt against hitler is because they feared communism more.

This goes to show how effective was Hitler's propaganda.

 

[Janus4385]

Well, I have read the WHOLE thread and honestly can't even remember about half of what it said. Anyway, here's some thoughts...

First of all, I don't really think having a gun will do you any good if don't even have a basic training on how to use it, a person can't just go get a gun and expect to go Rambo on the world if necesary(I'm not saying that getting a gun will automatically transform you into a maniac or something, not at all, just that if buy a gun for safety, you are probably willing to use it even if you don't know how), so I stand with the whole training and schooling idea.

Still, I am not really in favor of gun control, it wouldn't do any good either. It would be better to put all that effort into educating people. Also, I don't believe in changing a constitutional right unless you really have proven it's wrong, you can't change something because you THINK it MIGHT work better, and lets face it, gun control is not an exact science.

I have no idea of how this thread got into world wars, regimes and dictators. I don't think that has anything to do with gun control this days, you seem to claim that guns provide you with a safety net in case you have to take action against an enemy, even your own goverment(please correct me if I'm wrong, but thats what I got from what I read), well, here's the thing, even if you are able to get Ak-47s and M-16s, the goverment has tanks, helicopters, submarines and fighter jets(not to mention the whole set of WMDs they have), the whole nine yards, no Ak-47 is gonna take on an F-18y or a Blackhawk(also means you are not gonna be defending your country with any weapons you purchased on your own). And you might think I'm being a little overdramatic, but unfortunatly, thats the way war is fought this days, Irak is a good example, first you bomb the place(and this was done taking all the precautions to avoid as much civilian casualties as posible, at war, even an H-bomb might be droped), and then, you move in to see if there is something left(not in the H-bomb scenario of course)... But I don't think a goverment would attack it's own country, as Kalamos said, all dictators were chosen to rise to power, why would it be any diferent now?

I still have some thoughts, but I should go to sleep now, maybe I'll continue later... growing weaker... must sleep... ah... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[plumr2003]

Kalamos makes a good point about gun education, in the days our laws were written gun knowledge was inherent in everyone as guns were more of an everyday tool . In today's " sophisticated" societies guns have taken on an exotic aura. That's why I mentioned the Swiss mandation of gun ownership and qualification.When you take away the mystique of an object it becomes more mundane and less fascinating. To janus4385 I'm afraid I am the reason that we got onto dictators; because I find it difficult to separate the second ammendment from the issue of gun control. I truly believe that our founding fathers put the issue of the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights because they were all to aware of the possibility of a danger to our freedom from domestic and foreign sources.You are right janus about the superior firepower of an army as opposed to a citizen's militia. That is also the reason why the constitution says that there shall NOT be a standing army for any longer than 2 yrs., except in time of war. They feared the power that a standing army might pose to the populace. If a viable third party of true patriots can be formed that is the best answer to the problem. However given the choice of going quietly into that good night and fighting impossible odds I think most of us would choose to fight.

 

[Janus4385]

Kalamos makes a good point about gun education, in the days our laws were written gun knowledge was inherent in everyone as guns were more of an everyday tool . In today's " sophisticated" societies guns have taken on an exotic aura. That's why I mentioned the Swiss mandation of gun ownership and qualification.When you take away the mystique of an object it becomes more mundane and less fascinating. To janus4385 I'm afraid I am the reason that we got onto dictators; because I find it difficult to separate the second ammendment from the issue of gun control. I truly believe that our founding fathers put the issue of the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights because they were all to aware of the possibility of a danger to our freedom from domestic and foreign sources.You are right janus about the superior firepower of an army as opposed to a citizen's militia. That is also the reason why the constitution says that there shall NOT be a standing army for any longer than 2 yrs., except in time of war. They feared the power that a standing army might pose to the populace. If a viable third party of true patriots can be formed that is the best answer to the problem. However given the choice of going quietly into that good night and fighting impossible odds I think most of us would choose to fight.

I am not from the US(so why am I in this thread again???? 😀 ), so I'm not all that familiar with the US constitution, so I try not to get into that part(all the quotes in this thread about it have been very educational though :happy: ). I just thought I should drop a few ideas you might have overlooked(when people defend a point with passion, they tend to focus too much and eventually they skip something... I know I do....).

(this is not from your posts plumr2003)
As for the comparisson about taking alcohol and cars away from people, I don't know if that is so accurate, 'cause, well, on itself, alcohol can only cause damage the person who is consuming it, it is when combined with driving that it becomes exponentially dangerous, but wouldn't it also be greatly dangerous for a drunken person to have a gun on him/her, the diference here between one and the other is that in order to drive a car you have to take a driving course, a test and then they get their permit, not for the gun... I'll be sure the world is doomed when they replace driver-ed with gun-ed at schools, lets not blow this out of proportion, you don't need a shooting range on high school, personally I'd be happy if it came only up to taking a written test before you get a gun(I'd like to see one of those... What do you do if there is an intruder in your house?
a- call the police
b- aim at him with your gun and ask them to leave
c- shoot first ask later
d- shoot in the balls and ask him if he's ever gonna steal again)
Besides, what does a car have in common with a gun?????????????????????
And alcohol, take that away and you got yourself a rebellion...

The paragraph above doesn't state that you should need a permit to own a gun, just that guns and cars shouldn't be compared to make an argument, they are completly different objects and scenarios...

This a very interesting thread, a little long maybe, but I'm sure it can hold on a little longer...

 

[Goodieluver]

I think the key point being missed is that the concept of someone carrying a concealed weapon deters crime because no longer is there a defenseless victim. Its a proven fact that in states that have concealed handgun laws that violent crime goes down. Nowhere is it stated that if guns are 100% unrestricted we're gonna see scenes like in the middle east where kids and reg grownups are prowling on the streets with ak-47's and uzi's. It can be accepted that most people are good, and if armed, that states most good people will be armed and good with guns, yes there are bad people but they are dangerous with or without guns.

a slug in the brain ends a rape instantly

 

[Kalamos]

Janus made an interesting point about standing armies.
If government *really* wanted to take your guns, they could send tanks and 'copters.
Harsh, unlikely but effective. It would be a blood bath.
Where are you going to buy a tank, anyway?

Problem with "third party army of patriots" is it *could* work over US.
It would fail over Europe.
Why?
Because there is no European patriotism. Over Europe we have nationalistic patriotism, and it usually overlaps with extreme right-wing nationalism [eg. fascism and nazism].

They just uncovered, over Italy, a splinter cell party of former soldiers and cops.
They were a self appointed corp of "patriots", fighting against terrorism.
And they were fascists, secretly working besides regular army.

Comparing US with Europe doesn't work.
We split up over 500 years ago. While you were signing Constitution [1779], France hadn't revolted against its kings yet [1789].

We took different ways - we should keep that in mind.

...

About gun myth, maybe guns got an exotic aura because time has passed, since the signature of Second Amendment.
Some people probably don't consider guns a viable option as they used to be 200-300 years ago; resorting to guns might be considered clinging on to the past.

Resorting to guns could be dangerous too, if they offer a false sense of security.
Sure, a ball in the head will stop a raper dead in his track. What if he were beating a woman's head on the turf with his bare fists, though?
A gun is only as good as the shoooter using it.

No gun will make a Rambo out of average Joe or Jane - as Janus pointed out - so even a full-auto combat rifle will do just so much, in protecting yourself and your family from hostiles.

That is why I advocate gun *education*. Know what a gun can do for you, before trusting lives to it.

Most citizens who buy a gun won't care about country defense or Second Amendment.
They just think a gun will come in handy when cops are not around.

We can't do without cars. That is why we have driving schools.
If you can't do without guns either, consider having shooting schools too.
There is nothing worse than the uninformed shooter.

 

[Triple T1]

When I was 12 a gang of strangers came out of a van,circled the house,and started to make a move.I faced them with my Dads #38 detective special and they ran like hell. I was brought up with guns in the house so I was taught to respect them and also how to use them.

 

[Goodieluver]

Kalamos, thats interesting about the italian cell i did not hear that

Lately around the US\Mexico border, citizens have begun arming themselves, calling themselves "minutemen" which was the name for specially trained colonial soldiers who could wake up, dress in a minute and be on the way to alert of enemy movements\fight and made famous by the minuteman paul revere who alerted the colonial army on the brittish attack. Citizens are arming themselves and patrolling the border because they have had enough with border jumpers since the govt can no way patrol the entire border.

Granted there is no euro patriotism and more nationalism\nation pride, there have been a great deal of fighting in europe between socialism and with nazism\facism which is something we dont really have here(i mean extremist group fighting) But i will agree there is an extremist viewpoint there, case in point with the NPD winning key votes in saxony

As for the french revolution, some state it was thanx to the american revolution that the french revolution happened, lead by example perhaps?

Reason why anti gun people teach prohibition and not education on it is because they dont want the informed citizen to learn it, they want their side and only their way. Its the same with how i hate PETA, they believe any exploitation of animals is vile\evil and even owning a pet is slavery, they refuse to balk at anything other than their viewpoint, which supports financially the firebombing of clinics.

 

[Kalamos]

Kalamos, thats interesting about the italian cell i did not hear that

The interesting point is, former cell leader was kidnapped and killed in Iraq about one year ago.

This sheds a different light on his presence in Iraq - and unless he was really unlucky, it might explain why kidnappers had released everybody but him.

But i will agree there is an extremist viewpoint there, case in point with the NPD winning key votes in saxony

Extreme groups rarely have a point.
They usually have agendas and *exploit* real problems for their own gain.
Where extreme groups entere the picture, the real point is usually overlooked.
This is why I usually dislike extremes, of any kind.

Call me mr neutral grey. 😉

As for the french revolution, some state it was thanx to the american revolution that the french revolution happened, lead by example perhaps?

That would be fascinating.
As far as I know, French revolution happened after centuries of peasant exploitation.

As a point *against* gun control, I might add that England never experienced this kind of class strife, since rulers allowed subjects to wield arms [the famed longbows] and those archers maybe shared a love for their country.
This might sound familiar to american patriots - even if it happened some 350 years before minutemen had ever existed.

Reason why anti gun people teach prohibition and not education on it is because they dont want the informed citizen to learn it, they want their side and only their way.

Ironically, if more citizens *knew* of the effect of a bullet wound, fewer would buy a gun...
😀 😀 😀

Maybe Evan Marshall's books should be sold over schools.
I read excerpts, and those were "interesting"!
😀 😀 😀

Its the same with how i hate PETA, they believe any exploitation of animals is vile\evil and even owning a pet is slavery, they refuse to balk at anything other than their viewpoint, which supports financially the firebombing of clinics.

Same as above.
Any extreme is questionable.

Extreme freedom leads to anarchy.
Extreme control leads to slavery.
Extreme faith leads to fanaticism.
Extreme detachment leads to apathy.

And so on...

 

[Goodieluver]

eason why some credit the american rev with helpin the french is because it came after the american revolution, which the french did aid greatly in. Also, it was one of the few sucessful revolutions that lasted into modern times

 

[Kalamos]

Some claim Italians could have used a Revolution as well.

It never happened cause Italy was made up of independent city states - so they would have to rally together and then overthrow their rulers, something few would do.

Second, it was effectively split in half by the presence of Papal States - which enjoyed a mixed status as both a country and a religious seat.

That's the reason why Italy still has separatist movements - one is even a political party.

 

[Goodieluver]

But was not italy unified under mussolini for a decade or so untill his death? Yes it was a dictatorship but for a small time it did bring order. I think the issue is true that its due to the independant states which ranges all the way back to the roman empire, every region has its own ruler who reported to the 1 ceasar, you had alot of sepratism within italty with the different dialect speakers. And hell, whomever controlled the army decided who would rule next.

 

[Kalamos]

That's the problem with dictatorship.
Citizens must be willing to merge into a single country - and to stay that.

Forcing people under a single rule, with no space for dissenters, leads to strife.

...

About Mussolini bringing "order" to Italy, please refer to my signature quote:
"ubi solutudinem faciunt, pacem appellant" - "they make a desert, and call it peace".

Mussolini's inception happened in a completely different scenario from Hitler's.
While Germany had been defeated in WWI, and Hitler rallied a downtrodden country back to its feet, Italy had *won* WWI, and excited about victory, Mussolini effectively tried a golpe, and siezed power - cfr. Marcia su Roma.

He hadn't been elected, but he forced Parliament into recognising him as the de facto ruler.
His brawlers beated populance into cooperation, and weeded out dissenters.

So, if you consider a coup a viable way to power and a military junta a legitimate government, then, yes, under that fashion he did bring "order"...
Not the kind of order you would fancy, though.

...

Now, interesting point: you might argue that if people had had guns, they could have forestalled Mussolini's coming to power, or avoided it altogether.

Problem: people who owned weapons [or were willing/capable to use them] *supported* Mussolini's coup.

 

[Goodieluver]

well, the also main difference too is that hitler was totalitarian and mussolini was facist, and thanx to a class on national socialism, i actually learned there was a difference..heh

Dictatorships do have benefits, hell, i believe it was due to mussolini that he created the most exact replica of what Rome looked like back in the empire days, to spark national pride in their history.

 

[Kalamos]

Dictatorships do have benefits, hell, i believe it was due to mussolini that he created the most exact replica of what Rome looked like back in the empire days, to spark national pride in their history.

Inaccurate.
Both the notion and the replica.

Fascism only sparked an architectural style called "littorio" that *tried* to hint classical roman - and failed [it was stern and dull].

They could only demolish medieval buildings, in the vain pursuit for classical perfection; something professional archaeologists can tell you never existed.

Rome was founded around 753 B.C., probably by Etruscan or Greek traders.
It had been destroyed and rebuilt several times and by early Empire it was a sprawling megalopolis, easily the largest in the known world - with figures rivalling European capitals from XIX century.

It was first destroyed around 388 B.C. by Brennus's Gauls.
Then it suffered civil strife, around 100 B.C.
It was raided by Vandals, in 410 A.D., and its pignora, the signs of power, sent over to Byzanthium around 473 A.D - I am quoting dates by heart, might be wrong.

Landsnechts' victory over Pavia allowed them to sack Rome around 1527 A.D., leaving smoking remains in their wake.

...

Destroying and reshaping a city, only to spark "national pride" was a folly - since that city had never existed, not the way fascists imagined it to exist.

Consider also, Empire was by no means a *national* entity [in the modern sense].

Many ethnicity and countries existed within it. It was more like a "federation" of provinces, than a whole national kingdom.
National kingdoms emerged from christian barbarian rulers - centuries later.

...

Historically fascist restoration of Rome was a fake, and an ill conceived at it.

If they ever read those books, instead of burning them, they could have learnt a few useful tidbits.

You shouldn't really be advocating dictatorship, goodieluver; if you really have, at least advocate "victorious" dictators.
I heard Castro is still alive...
😉

 

[plumr2003]

My aunts and uncles who were born in the U.S. used to say " at least Mussolini made the trains run on time ". But my grandparents used to say what good were the trains being on time if you oppress the people who ride them. My grandfather was shot by nazis when he refused to give them food from the family farm outside Naples, he escaped to the U.S. and became a naturalized citizen A.S.A.P..He always said we didn't know how good we had it in this country.