Gun control

[fakepeeps7]

Should there be gun control or not?

Discuss.

[whiterider]

Yes. Various people have various views as to how far guns should be controlled, but that's not really relevant to the question - I don't think anyone would argue that gun criminals, or children, or mentally ill people prone to hallucinations or violent tendencies should be allowed to buy, own or use guns.

[Nekowolf]

NRA, the Tea Party, they would. They have. Because they are absolutely against any form of gun control. Now they could say they don't "want" that stuff to happen, but by being against such, they are saying "but we're okay with it!"

Anyway, yes. I'm for.

[fragglerocks]

Good luck with that. Gun control would work about as well as drug control. No matter what you do, unstable people will still find a way to get a gun.

But God help someone who decides to take mine away. After 2 stalker exes (I pick winners-yay), I had to get one. The last guy was very dangerous, and while the police arrived before I got a shot off, it could have been worse. Five more minutes and I probably would have shot him. When the police arrived, he had already shattered a glass patio door and was breaking through my locked bedroom door. My little girl and mother were in there with me. And I had my gun ready. I'm not very strong, and I haven't had fight experience to know if I'd be quick enough in close combat with another weapon.

[fakepeeps7]

Nobody needs an Uzi. Just sayin'.

Here in Canada, we have a bit of a different perspective. And fewer gun nuts. People still commit crimes, but the damage is probably more limited than it might otherwise be if everyone was allowed to run around with a machine gun.

(I think most of the illegal weapons come from the U.S., so gun control is something that we tend to be concerned about. The more guns down there, the more will end up here.)

[Vanito]

When people do not have guns available it saves a lot of impulse shootings, because people cannot shoot in an impulse of anger or frustration anymore. However, one might suppose this will only work in countries with not too much criminality and a proper level of protection for citizens on itself.

[Oaktree]

I think that there should be a moderate amount of gun control. There will always be illegal ways to get a hold of guns, so the citizens who follow the law should have some method of getting a gun legally to protect themselves against those who get them illegally. The average citizen won't need anything more powerful than a handgun or maybe a shotgun, so I think it is reasonable to outlaw automatic weapons, sniper rifles, silencers, etc. - basically anything that would only be useful if the attack is premeditated or the intent is to cause as much harm as possible.

I think that it is possible for a society which outlaws guns to function, but I think that one that allows guns (in a restricted manner) is safer. There seem to be two points at which gun crime is lowered - when guns are outlawed and when guns are only very moderately controlled. In the US, states that allow citizens to carry guns openly tend to be safer for their law-abiding citizens, as criminals have to be more cautious.

[fakepeeps7]

In the US, states that allow citizens to carry guns openly tend to be safer for their law-abiding citizens, as criminals have to be more cautious.

Do you have statistics on that? I find it a little hard to believe. A lot of gun criminals are not in a state of mind to be making rational decisions. I'm not sure they're going to say to themselves, "Well, my next-door neighbour might have a gun, so I'd better not have a psychotic episode and shoot half my apartment complex."

[grumpy_otter]

I have a very personal attitude about this issue because I own several historic weapons. My prize is a 1911 Colt .45 that was awarded to my grandfather because he was the best shot in the country in 1944, during World War II.

I care for it properly and shoot it regularly. I would hate to lose it because it is a part of my history, and this country's history.

If the law could somehow grandfather in the historic weapons?

[Clashfan]

I am for gun control, yes. My biggest issues with the gun control laws in the US are that they are established at the State level and fluctuate wildly. I am in favor of a uniform Federal law governing the sale, distribution and use of firearms that would be enforced at State level.

It is unrealistic to think that banning guns completely could or would happen in this country. I do support a full ban on assault rifles and automatic weapons, no one needs to own an Uzi.

While I concede there are grounds for the owning of handguns for protection purposes I do not think they should be easily obtained. In order to obtain a permit to own and carry a handgun I think you should be required to take a course in gun handling and usage and pass a safety test. You are buying a weapon not a toy you should at the very least have to demonstrate you know how to put the safety on.

I also support a 7 day mandatory waiting period prior to purchase. While this would not deter premeditated crimes it might lower the murder suicide rates. Really you can't wait a week? Then you probably shouldn't be buying that gun in the first place.

[Oaktree]

Do you have statistics on that? I find it a little hard to believe. A lot of gun criminals are not in a state of mind to be making rational decisions. I'm not sure they're going to say to themselves, "Well, my next-door neighbour might have a gun, so I'd better not have a psychotic episode and shoot half my apartment complex."

I suppose I spoke too strongly, as there is little to establish a correlation. According to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif):

-Vermont, one of the states that does not require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, has the second lowest gun homicide rate. Alaska (another not requiring a permit) also falls, albeit only barely, into the lower half of state rankings by gun homicide percentages.
Arizona (yet another), on the other hand, has the 4th highest rate.

-Illinois, which does not allow its citizens to carry concealed weapons at all has the 8th highest rate of gun homicide, though Wisconsin, the other state which does not allow concealed weapons is in the lower half of gun homicide rankings.

-Maryland, which is highly selective about issuing concealed weapon permits, has the 2nd highest rate of gun homicide. California and New York are similar in restriction and both fall in the top half of the gun homicide rankings, while the other three states with similar restriction fall in the lower half.

-The rest of the states are somewhat more permissive than Maryland and comparable states, but less so than Vermont and comparable states.

So, ultimately, there seems to be little correlation. Lower on the page it talks about studies and published works that are similarly divided. It does show that those who have concealed carry permits are not generally responsible for committing gun crimes, however.

Researching this has made me realize that I live in one of the worse states (Maryland) for gun crime, though. :|

[el_flel]

The gun laws here in the UK are fairly tight: you need a licence to own a gun. This involves filling in an application from the police station which includes declaring any criminal convictions and providing medical history. It must also be countersigned by someone of 'good social standard' who has known you for two years. Whilst the application is going through, you are visited by the police who will check that you have a safe, lockable gun cabinet to keep it in and will ask you more questions. If a licence is granted you are routinely checked. My dad owns guns for shooting, I also found it hilarious that the photo on his gun licence makes him look like a criminal!

I am perfectly happy with the current gun laws in my country and I must admit I find it odd that in America it is so easy to purchase something so dangerous. Personally I do understand why people feel the need to have guns as a means of protecting themselves; why a gun? Do people feel this because they want to protect themselves against other guns? If the laws were tightened so that it is much harder to get a gun would that need to own one lessen? I honestly don't get it. Yes, there is gun crime in the UK but because of the law here, homicides involving firearms are, on average, about 45 per year, and the majority of these are carried out with illegal weapons. We also have far fewer gun killing sprees (about four in the last 25 years).

I also agree with Vanito. I think that with guns it is too 'easy' to shoot someone when they didn't need to be shot, and this includes police use.

Basically, I don't they should be completely banned for civilian use, but there need to be stringent security checks on people who wish to own them. They are not a necessity.

[TRIriana]

^ Agreed, El flel.

I don't recall what magazine it was that I read; something random on the table at work, but it had an article about the States that allow people to carry weapons unconcealed. Apparently it's a large thing for women, because it makes them feel empowered and makes them believe they're less likely to be attacked. That's all very well, but the people they interviewed about it were wearing them like fashion accessories. They can buy them in "pretty, girly" colours. I find that reprehensible, that they can go out an buy a deadly weapon and then make sure it matches their outfits. You can kill with a gun, it should not be used like an accessory or a toy. Hell, they were wearing it whilst they were ironing. That's more than a little obsessive, and is suggestive of a deeper problem.

I don't understand that mentality.

[fragglerocks]

^ Agreed, El flel.

I don't recall what magazine it was that I read; something random on the table at work, but it had an article about the States that allow people to carry weapons unconcealed. Apparently it's a large thing for women, because it makes them feel empowered and makes them believe they're less likely to be attacked. That's all very well, but the people they interviewed about it were wearing them like fashion accessories. They can buy them in "pretty, girly" colours. I find that reprehensible, that they can go out an buy a deadly weapon and then make sure it matches their outfits. You can kill with a gun, it should not be used like an accessory or a toy. Hell, they were wearing it whilst they were ironing. That's more than a little obsessive, and is suggestive of a deeper problem.

I don't understand that mentality.

Well, that's the thing. Power is addictive. So wearing a gun all the time literally could be an issue of empowerment, but also an issue of one getting drunk on it.

It doesn't have to mean a deep problem. Wanting to feel safe is a fairly normal thing. When you come out of a scary situation alive, you tend to not want to be in that vulnerable position again.

[TRIriana]

Well, that's the thing. Power is addictive. So wearing a gun all the time literally could be an issue of empowerment, but also an issue of one getting drunk on it.

It doesn't have to mean a deep problem. Wanting to feel safe is a fairly normal thing. When you come out of a scary situation alive, you tend to not want to be in that vulnerable position again.


These people hadn't come out of a scary situation alive. They were soccor mom's and an eighteen-year-old, going about their regular day. It was their blase attitude that was the problem, and their actions contradicted what they verbally claimed.

And one could argue that getting drunk on power, to the point where you do not take off your gun at all, is a deeper problem.

[Purity4]

Alaska (another not requiring a permit) also falls, albeit only barely, into the lower half of state rankings by gun homicide percentages.


Alaska's total human population is around 700,000, and nearly 300,000 of them all live in the city of Anchorage.

Alaska is the first state to adopt carry laws mimicking Vermont's (normally referred to as "Vermont Carry"), in which no license is required to carry a handgun either openly or concealed. However, to be in complete compliance with Federal Gun Free School Zone act, licenses are still issued to residents who want them for purposes of carrying in other states via reciprocity. The term "Alaska Carry" has been used to describe laws which require no license to carry handguns openly or concealed but licenses are still available for those who want them. Some city ordinances do not permit concealed carry without a concealed carry license, but these have been invalidated by the recent state preemption statute.

But that doesn't mean people comply. I went on a camping trip with my sister-in-law, her family and my family. I was watching the youngest kids while she and the other adults went up the river to fish. She failed to tell me that under her jacket she'd left her handgun in a holster draped over the chair, safety off. I will not understand Alaskans and their need to always carry a firearm.

[Synthesis]

I think we can all agree that there should be some form of gun control, insomuch as your neighbors have no reason to own an infantry fighting vehicle, an attack helicopter, a tank, or a grenade launcher.

You might laugh, but not only does a "ceiling" form of control exist, it's necessary, since it has been shown that, in many countries, people will seek to acquire things like assault rifles. They do so in the US, for example, wherein certain provisions (how many bullets can be fired from a single weapon without reloading, the rate of fire, the size of the bullets) were skirted around until the Federal Assault Weapons ban expired (leaving the states themselves to deal with the issue, which they all have in varying ways). It respects the notion of Americans to have the right to own firearms in a defensive measure (Which is often agreed upon as the most reasonable request to have a gun) or for certain sports (hunting), but not to own a firearm in different capacities (for example, something that could shoot through an armored police vehicle--open rebellion is de facto, if not de jure, illegal, and the state and federal governments have no need to make a provision to facilitate it in their populations).

Of course, that's just the US. In Taiwan, our civil law code and gun control provisions are derived from Japan, and there isn't a hunting culture (outside the aboriginal population). So there isn't a practical reason not to forbade gun possession period (with the exception of the aboriginal population).

[omgrawr213]

This goes without saying, yes!
Then again, one has to take into account all the ''tough-living'' areas, where a person or family might wish to carry a gun simply out of self defense.
However, firearms have become to common, to the point where there are huge advertisements for gun shops adorning tour buses (for sure in Vegas, I saw one myself) and on billboards across cities and highways.
Based on fragglerocks's explanation though, I see it as a hit or miss. Some people need the security that could be provided through the ownership of a gun.
Unfortunately others use such an item for all the wrong purposes, and too many times we hear on the news of various tragedies across the nation (many of them
domestic disputes) involving guns.
So we can't technically 'control' them unless we know who is using them and for what purpose... and that's always tricky. :/

[fragglerocks]

Let me clarify that I really don't much like guns. (I noticed the disagrees ha) I have never had to fire mine off in self-defense. I pray to God that I never, ever have to! But I feel I have a right to own it. I am a good citizen. My records are squeaky clean (except for a speeding ticket I got when I was 16). I have only been in two fistfights in my entire (almost) 30 years, and they were not started by me. I am not aggressive and I do not do drugs or drink. I did have a bad time with liking bad boys, but I haven't dated since my daughter's father, and she's almost 4 now.

Gun control is already in place. It could be tougher, I guess, but I do not know how to do it. But if you take away the rights for the good citizens to own a firearm, you make them vulnerable to the bad ones who will still find a way to get a hold of whatever it is they need to rob, steal and kill other human beings. Have you ever seen cops try to tase a perp who is high on meth? They shock him over and over, and he just keeps going! I've seen videos where it has taken over ten cops to bring one man down. Its a scary world.

[TRIriana]

Gun control is already in place. It could be tougher, I guess, but I do not know how to do it. But if you take away the rights for the good citizens to own a firearm, you make them vulnerable to the bad ones who will still find a way to get a hold of whatever it is they need to rob, steal and kill other human beings. Have you ever seen cops try to tase a perp who is high on meth? They shock him over and over, and he just keeps going! I've seen videos where it has taken over ten cops to bring one man down. Its a scary world.


People are already going to be vulnerable to the men and woman who would rob, steal or kill. There are certain situations that increase the likelihood of you (the general "you", not you personally) of being a target. It might make you feel safer by carrying a firearm, but that doesn't necessarily make you safer. If you come into contact with someone who wants to mug and/or kill you, and they have a weapon and are used to mugging and/or killing, then their victim having a weapon isn't necessarily going to be a deterent.

They would be used to using their gun, and until the gun-carrying potential victim has been ina situation where they may actually have to used their gun to kill someone else, to protect themselves, they won't know if they can actually use their weapon. No amount of practising (I'd like to assume that most who carry a gun to protect themselves have had some basic training), can prepare you for the moment when you actually have to fire on a living being.

I bolded the one part of the statement, because I was curious about why it was there. Is it a suggestion that instead of tasing the person numerous times, they just shoot him?

[fragglerocks]

I bolded the one part of the statement, because I was curious about why it was there. Is it a suggestion that instead of tasing the person numerous times, they just shoot him?

Ah, no. I should have clarified better. :lol:

I don't mean the cops bring him down by shooting him, as they've had a lot of training for dealing with that specific situation.

I was just wondering, I guess to myself a bit, what the average citizen could do if they encounter someone like that who is after them. No amount of self-defense classes could help when you are dealing with a person who doesn't feel pain.

Sorry for not being more clear. :)

[TRIriana]

Ah, no. I should have clarified better. :lol:

I don't mean the cops bring him down by shooting him, as they've had a lot of training for dealing with that specific situation.

I was just wondering, I guess to myself a bit, what the average citizen could do if they encounter someone like that who is after them. No amount of self-defense classes could help when you are dealing with a person who doesn't feel pain.

Sorry for not being more clear. :)


That's fine, :lol:. I thought it sounded a bit random and unlikely that that's what you meant!

I suppose it does depend on the situation, and the people involved. Not all addicts are going to attack people, for example.

[Elyasis]

I like guns (any kind of precision/skill weapon) and would hate to see them gone. Honestly I feel the root problem is the people who use them to kill others have no respect for human life. Often times this isn't necessarily their fault but a problem of biology (overly aggressive/psychotic people have physiological reasons behind their issues). That is why I think gun control should focus on who they distribute to more strictly. Disagree with me all you like but firearms are not the issue, people are... As with most things, people make living on this planet a lot harder than it has to be.

[fakepeeps7]

Honestly I feel the root problem is the people who use them to kill others have no respect for human life.

I could argue that any person who wants to carry guns has no respect for human life. Or, at best, they're pretty selective about which human lives deserve respect.

I'm not saying that to be disrespectful. I'm just pointing out how I see it. Don't try to tell me that, by carrying a weapon whose intended purpose is to end human life, you're actually respecting human life. That doesn't make sense.

[iCad]

I own guns and know how to use them, although I have never shot anything living except a rabid raccoon once. To counter what fakepeeps said, I respect ALL life, not just human life. I do not hunt, and it would take a LOT for me to shoot a person, probably involving that person trying to hurt a child, whether it be mine or another person's. And even then I would not shoot to kill (although I'm fairly confident that I have the aiming ability to do so, I'm not at all sure that I have the guts), but only to disable. I would aim for the knee, not the head or the chest. As a bumper sticker on my redneck truck says, "Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than my gun."

And it should be pointed out that guns are not used solely to kill either humans or animals. In my case, I simply enjoy shooting targets, for several reasons. I believe that it helps to keep my eyesight sharp, for one. (I don't know if this is really true, but I do know that most people my age -- mid-40s -- start to lose visual acuity, but I have not, and I shoot targets regularly. I just came in from doing so, in fact.) When using large, heavy rifles with powerful recoil, extended target-shooting is a good physical challenge, promoting muscle endurance. And it is very satisfying to blow, say, a watermelon to kingdom come when you're annoyed, as opposed to hauling off and hurting a person either with actions or words. :) I also enjoy entering (and occasionally winning) dot shooting tournaments, for which there is sometimes a cash prize. Both my son (almost 16) and my daughter (12) own their own guns and know how to use them. My son is a dead-eye sharpshooter and has definite plans to join the Army when he graduates from high school, with hopes to get into the Rangers. My daughter simply likes to shoot targets, as I do. I live in rural Colorado, cowboy country and prime hunting grounds for in particular elk, and it is not at all unusual to see people walking around openly carrying a rifle or crossbow around here, especially during hunting season. No one panics.

All that said, I don't believe that anyone "needs" to own an assault rifle or automatic weapons of any kind, and I also believe that some sort of licensing program should be required, to ensure that people know how to properly care for and are competent at using the guns that they buy. Kind of like how you have to have a license before you can drive a car. This would ensure that people who buy guns for "self-defense" would actually be able to use them for that purpose, should they ever be put into a position where they have to do so. People who buy them for that purpose without learning how to use them are fooling themselves that they could be at all effective and, in fact, are a potential danger to society. But I also know that, in reality, those who wish to kill with a gun or commit a crime with a gun as "backup" will acquire one no matter how "controlled" they are. For those who have a yen to kill...even if they can't get a gun they will simply find another way to do the killing they want to do. Like, they will build bombs, which can be made out of common household materials that can't be regulated and that have the potential to do FAR more damage to life and to property than any one person can do with a gun. (Oklahoma City, anyone?) So really, any "controls" only apply to people who will obey laws that are made about them...and those people don't tend to be the people who have the capacity to go out and kill another person, yes? Those who think "gun control" will make crime go away and create some sort of utopia are dreaming in the extreme, just as much as a person who buys a gun for "self-defense" but then never takes the time to learn how to use it. What is required to reduce crime is "people control." As the old adage goes, it isn't the guns that kill, it's the people pulling the triggers.

[Elyasis]

I could argue that any person who wants to carry guns has no respect for human life. Or, at best, they're pretty selective about which human lives deserve respect.

I'm not saying that to be disrespectful. I'm just pointing out how I see it. Don't try to tell me that, by carrying a weapon whose intended purpose is to end human life, you're actually respecting human life. That doesn't make sense.

A lot of the guns I'm familiar with were intended for hunting animals, not humans. I recognize the difference between having something that can kill and killing with it. And as iCad said I would always go for a disabling shot unless pushed to a hasher action. Guns aren't the only thing that can kill. Yes, they are easier and quick. Which makes impulse killing more common. But they do not cause any murders. We arrest people not the weapons they use.

[el_flel]

I also believe that some sort of licensing program should be required, to ensure that people know how to properly care for and are competent at using the guns that they buy. Kind of like how you have to have a license before you can drive a car.That's a really good point. People need a license to drive, but not to own a weapon with deadly potential? It's bizarre to me.

And, yes, of course a gun on it's own isn't dangerous but not everyone manages to use them responsibly, which is why there should be some sort of control. Many other things which can cause less damage than a gun are more controlled, such as drugs.

[AnnoyingCrabapple]

People need a license to drive, but not to own a weapon with deadly potential?

I myself am kind of a gun nut, but do support a measure of gun control. As to this quote, I also support drivers licenses. Automobiles are just about as deadly as firearms, and so far I had numerous (minor) injuries that were automobile related, but none so far that were firearm related (thank God). I do feel as though I have to end this by saying that cars or guns don't kill people, but rather the other people behind them do.

[Sunbee]

I live in a state where there are dangerous wild animals at the doorstep, frequently. I've never had to personally deal with the big carnivores, just coyotes and mountain lions, but moose in the front yard are annoying enough, and pretty dangerous, for those of you who aren't from areas where they live. Fish and game officers might take an hour or two to get there, and police, even if they are within an hour, are trained for humans, not critters.
No one boggles at someone open carrying when they know there are dangerous animals about. It's city folks, in general, who are less comfortable with guns, as I see it, than country folks. Something to think about for those of you who are not used to bears and wolves in the yard.
I think, in the US, we have a pretty big divide between country folks and city folks on the subject of guns. I think that's pretty natural, but it really makes those of us who are out here in the wilder areas uncomfortable because when you talk about some gun control you come across as thinking we shouldn't be safe. Unfortunately, the wildlife don't understand legal boundaries and get into ranch and farm country pretty quickly, and as long as folks like to eat there are going to be farmers and ranchers out here.
I'm personally more concerned about gun control because of the examples we have of governments going after their own citizens. In my view the main reason for citizens to have guns is to keep the governments that go beyond what's reasonable (Nazi Germany, for ex.,) from killing their own population. Unfortunately, and human nature being what it is, it happens.

[fakepeeps7]

I'm personally more concerned about gun control because of the examples we have of governments going after their own citizens. In my view the main reason for citizens to have guns is to keep the governments that go beyond what's reasonable (Nazi Germany, for ex.,) from killing their own population. Unfortunately, and human nature being what it is, it happens.

How is having a gun going to help? The government and police already know that people are armed. That doesn't stop them from going after them if they've broken the law. It's not a deterrent.

[TRIriana]

If you're using guns to protect yourself against animals that could cause actual harm to your person, due to the fact that you're in the country surrounded by potentially dangerous wildlife, gun control should reflect that. People in the country who carry specifically as a precautionary measure against said potentially dangerous animals shouldn't have anything to worry about, if that's what they're using guns for. A good gun control measure should take into account everything, I think.

It certainly is interesting hearing the different points of view on this subject matter though.

[AnnoyingCrabapple]

How is having a gun going to help? The government and police already know that people are armed. That doesn't stop them from going after them if they've broken the law. It's not a deterrent.

It may be that the citizens in possession of firearms are abiding by the law anyway, and the government in question is using new laws to erode the rights of the citizens so the only way they can fight the tyrannical rule is by breaking the law they have worked so hard to follow. Sunbee mentioned the Nazis, so I ended looking up the 1938 German Weapons Act. Without it, Hitler probably wouldn't have been able to take over Germany so readily, let alone the rest of what his armies conquered.

Gun control is a double-edged sword. It keeps guns out of the hands of bad guys, but only if they aren't written by bad guys to keep guns out of the hands of good guys. I know that sounds vague and is wide open to interpretation about who good guys and bad guys are, but it makes sense.

[thetinhouse]

I'm personally more concerned about gun control because of the examples we have of governments going after their own citizens. In my view the main reason for citizens to have guns is to keep the governments that go beyond what's reasonable (Nazi Germany, for ex.,) from killing their own population. Unfortunately, and human nature being what it is, it happens. I read this about 6 times! You live in a place where you expect your government to violently turn on its people? Fakepeeps makes a valid point. If your government wants to come after you, there is very little you will be able to do to stop them. They have resources at their disposal you cant even begin to imagine, having one or two guns is not going to help. Having an arsenal is the quickest way to get them to notice you too!!

[TRIriana]

I'm personally more concerned about gun control because of the examples we have of governments going after their own citizens. In my view the main reason for citizens to have guns is to keep the governments that go beyond what's reasonable (Nazi Germany, for ex.,) from killing their own population. Unfortunately, and human nature being what it is, it happens.


Indeed, I agree with fakepeeps and thetinehouse in regards the that statement. If the government decided to come after you, having a few guns yourselves wouldn't help. It sounds vaguely paranoid. I am of course, assuming we're talking about the States, considering the topic seems to be revolving around gun control in the States. At which point, the examples of governments going beyond what's reasonable isn't particularly valid. The parameters are quote different.

[Oaktree]

If the government became a tyrannical authoritarian regime that suppressed the rights of its citizens, it would be necessary for a large number of citizens to have guns for it to be properly rebuffed. So Sunbee's idea is feasible if you can rely on your neighbors. Moderate gun control would allow this, while stricter gun control would make this less and less likely. With the current gun control in the US, it might be possible to combat a tyrannical government by forming a citizens' militia, but places like Britain and Canada would have to get much more creative. None of this is to say that I think it is likely to be necessary; I'm merely pointing out that revolution requires organization.

[PDXWinn]

I personally don't see any reason for anyone owning an automatic weapon or assult rifle and I doubt you'll get an intelligent argument for owning one other than it being our 2nd Ammendment. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms has since day one been one of our countries most treasured rights. It in itself sets us, the U.S., apart from any other country. No other country, that I know of, gives its citizen the right to keep arms with the intent to protect themselves from our government and/ or to rebel.

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' - To me, that is pretty clear.

No, the 2nd Ammendment wasn't put in to place in regard to self protection against criminals or to shoot at targets. The right is there to insure the U.S. stays on course as to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Now, me personally - I think our country is already off course from our Constitution and Bill of Rights but that isn't the discussion here.

As I was saying above - I see no reason to own an assult rifle or an automatic weapon. However, I am also a strong believer in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Scrape away all the b.s. that has been splattered across them over the last 200+ years and those rights are every bit as important today than they were then. Every right we have - we need to keep. If one gets stripped away - the rest will be sure to follow.

Sure, that may sound paranoid but our Rights have been repeatedly tested over the last couple centuries and - both our government and our citizens have made numerous attempts to limit or abolish our Rights as they are described in the Bill of Rights. We still have the Rights we do only because the issue at hand finally made it's way to our Supreme Court and was ruled against. That to me isn't a very secure fail safe.

Even if you don't believe in a Right as set aside in our Bill of Rights or Constitution - know it is there for a reason. You may not see or understand it or you may understand the reason but not think it applies any longer. Again - know they are there for a reason and should be upheld for the good of the country.

Yes, it is a given that, in the common good of our citizens, guns and gun ownership should have stricter rules. Purchasing a gun - any gun - should have at least a 7 day waiting period AND it should REQUIRE a psychological test. No, psychological testing wouldn't stop someone from suddenly flaking out and killing numerous people but it would help lessen the chance.

Understand - I don't own a gun though I have shot a great variety of guns over the years. I just don't feel the need to own one. I don't hunt, I don't shoot targets, and though I may not agree with how our government is being run - I don't believe it's to the point of rebellion either.

I appreciate the argument that if there were no guns within society - there would be no gun crime but - that is nonsense. A great many guns that are used in crimes are stolen off of military bases - not from the average Joe - so, yes, gun crime might be lessened by the absense of guns within our society but gun crime will never cease.

Further - anyone that thinks the right to own guns within the U.S. will suddenly end is not looking at the future. The % of people in the U.S. that owns guns is approximately 1 of every 10 Americans. Understand, each one of those gun owners don't own just one gun - they own several or dozens. Each U.S. gun owner could potentially arm dozens of people.

If and when the government decides to take our Rights from us and attempt to remove firearms from those gun owners - that will be the time our country will see it's next civil war.

*****
US Gun Statistics

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)

Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
****

Yes, by all means, purchasing a firearm should be more difficult.

No, we should never, ever, limit or attempt to take away our own freedoms.

[TRIriana]

If the government became a tyrannical authoritarian regime that suppressed the rights of its citizens, it would be necessary for a large number of citizens to have guns for it to be properly rebuffed. So Sunbee's idea is feasible if you can rely on your neighbors. Moderate gun control would allow this, while stricter gun control would make this less and less likely. With the current gun control in the US, it might be possible to combat a tyrannical government by forming a citizens' militia, but places like Britain and Canada would have to get much more creative. None of this is to say that I think it is likely to be necessary; I'm merely pointing out that revolution requires organization.


Simply having citizens that own weapons isn't likely to be enough to bring down their government, if that government was the States (in a hypothetical situation, of course!). It would be necessary for said citizens to have large scale training in order to work together in a way that isn't simply a mob, in the use of their firearms for more than just shooting animals. Then there are the people who would simply use their weapons for widescale crime, because now they don't have a governing body to stop them committing crimes. You'd also need to have access to ammo - once it's gone, you'd need to start creating your own bullets for said firearms yourselves for everyone.

The States, off the top of my head, has the police, SWAT, FBI, CIA, SS, National Guard, Navy, Army, Marines, and the AF and would need the co-operation of said organisations for such a takeover to work. If they didn't have said support, those organisations could easily bring down the government themselves and they'd be no need for the citizens to become involved physically. If they did have support, they are all trained to a high degree, and they would be brought in to stop the armed citizens from revolting. Then there are the families of said highly trained citizens, who would need to make a choice whether to help their loved ones or pick up arms against them.

And if the States did do something like that to its citizens, there are allies and neighbouring countries who wouldn't idly sit by and allow them to subjugate it's citizens like that.

For a governing body like the States to be brought to a standstill via the civilian route, would simply be refusing to work. The gas companies, electric companies, telecommunications companies, distribution for food and other vital supplies, miners and foundries - the people who make the weapons such as guns and bullets would just need to stop working. They needn't pick up arms. If they just didn't turn up to work, the government would be screwed. It'd be far more effective than taking up arms against the military.

It isn't simply about fire power.

It's slightly-ish off-topic, but considering it was brought up, I just thought I'd add that.

[PDXWinn]

The States, off the top of my head, has the police, SWAT, FBI, CIA, SS, National Guard, Navy, Army, Marines, and the AF and would need the co-operation of said organisations for such a takeover to work. If they didn't have said support, those organisations could easily bring down the government themselves and they'd be no need for the citizens to become involved physically. All of which are trained to a high degree, who would be brought in to stop the armed citizens from revolting. Then there are the families of said highly trained citizens, who would need to make a choice whether to help their loved ones or pick up arms against them.

And if the States did do something like that to its citizens, there are allies and neighbouring countries who wouldn't idly sit by and allow them to subjugate it's citizens like that.

For a governing body like the States to be brought to a standstill via the civilian route, would simply be refusing to work. The gas companies, electric companies, telecommunications companies, distribution for food and other vital supplies and foundries - the people who make the weapons such as guns and bullets would just need to stop working. They needn't pick up arms. If they just didn't turn up to work, the government would be screwed. It'd be far more effective than taking up arms against the military.

It's slightly-ish off-topic, but considering it was brought up, I just thought I'd add that.


I can appreciate your thought process here but at the same time - I just can't accept that the great majority of our military or police force would actually fire on it's own citizens. Most of these highly trained professionals, I would think, would take up arms in defense of it's citizens.

Yes, they are our military BUT these men and women, for the most part, understand the difference between being loyal to your country and loyal to your government. There is a huge difference.

Ask any American how they feel about our government and its politics - you'll have a heated discussion that'll last all night because all Americans have issues with how our government runs this country. Politicians are not seen in a good light here. We are sick to death of the double and triple standards they think they can live by. They spout the need for ethics and morals all the while they are having extra-marital affairs and making illegal deals in the back room of their political offices.

However, ask an American how he feels about the U.S. (leaving out feelings over the government) and you'll see total and unbridled patriotism. We love the U.S.

The idea that those people should just not work and that will bring the U.S. back in line is laughable. Sorry, I don't mean to be offensive but that is entirely to naive. The U.S. can and will outlast any mass employment walk-out. The American people don't have the money, food, or fuel to outlast the government. I'm not talking about just those people that decided to not work can't last - I'm also referring to the people that receive those supplies. We all depend on one another to survive. Each link is just as important as the next. . . .or the last.

However, and this is the one and only way the U.S. government can and, in the end, will most likely take the firearms from the American people - Gun and ammo manufacturers in the U.S. are slowly becoming extinct. The business is being outsourced over seas and at some point, the government will step in and end whatever is left of ammo manufacturing in the U.S. and they will increase the taxes/ tariffs on imported guns and ammo which will effectively make them a luxory item and unaffordable at best - and/ or useless to anyone that owns them.

Yes, many people will continue to try to make their own bullets but in the grand scheme of things - it won't be enough even if they could get enough gun powder to make them at all.

Further - the idea that one of our foreign neighbors will help the American people against the government. . . . . . . were you serious? lmao!! There is no way any country will face off against the U.S. unless they are sure the our revolution will succeed. Canada, Britain, France, Japan? No one wants the brunt of the U.S.'s displeasure if the American people fail if we have a civil war.

It is possible that the UN might try to put together a sizable force drawn from several countries to help but just one or two countries trying to help? Would never happen!



Yes, organization would be helpful in a revolution and eventually there will be organization but more than likely not in the beginning.


***Awesome topic by the way and many great points from a great many people here.

[TRIriana]

I can appreciate your thought process here but at the same time - I just can't accept that the great majority of our military or police force would actually fire on it's own citizens. Most of these highly trained professionals, I would think, would take up arms in defense of it's citizens.

Yes, they are our military BUT these men and women, for the most part, understand the difference between being loyal to your country and loyal to your government. There is a huge difference.

I already said that for a hostile takeover by the government to be successful they would need the support of the vast majority of the armed forces, which includes a body as low-tech as the police or as high-tech as NASA. To successfully take over, they would require those forces behind them, otherwise the people of said forces could dismantle the government without help from untrained private citizens.

You might notice that, historically, speaking, any coup attempted without the support of the armed forces and the manufacturing infrastructure, has always failed.

The idea that those people should just not work and that will bring the U.S. back in line is laughable. Sorry, I don't mean to be offensive but that is entirely to naive. The U.S. can and will outlast any mass employment walk-out. The American people don't have the money, food, or fuel to outlast the government. I'm not talking about just those people that decided to not work can't last - I'm also referring to the people that receive those supplies. We all depend on one another to survive. Each link is just as important as the next. . . .or the last.

However, and this is the one and only way the U.S. government can and, in the end, will most likely take the firearms from the American people - Gun and ammo manufacturers in the U.S. are slowly becoming extinct. The business is being outsourced over seas and at some point, the government will step in and end whatever is left of ammo manufacturing in the U.S. and they will increase the taxes/ tariffs on imported guns and ammo which will effectively make them useless to anyone that owns them.

I didn't say that stopping working would restore order, I said that it would collapse the current government. It's not about performing a siege, it's about not giving the government resources. It sounds like you're saying that arming people to the tooth would lead an armed rebellion, but not enough to stop working and cripple the country.

Any outsourcing during such a coup would be unviable. This is because the situation would be so unstable, foreign manufacturers would stop importing to your country. It would be a huge net loss to them, because they would be losing workers, product as the situation would be far too dangerous.


Yes, many people will continue to try to make their own bullets but in the grand scheme of things - it won't be enough even if they could get enough gun powder to make them at all.

That was my point. I was noting that because it simply is not feasible long-term.


Further - the idea that one of our foreign neighbors will help the American people against the government. . . . . . . were you serious? lmao!! There is no way any country will face off against the U.S. unless they are sure the our revolution will succeed. Canada, Britain, France, Japan? No one wants the brunt of the U.S.'s displeasure if the American people fail if we have a civil war.

It is possible that the UN might try to put together a sizable force drawn from several countries to help but just one or two countries trying to help? Would never happen!


I think you're being rather arrogant to assume the entire world would not and could not take out the US. The US is certainly a superpower against one country, however the entire might of the UN... the US would have a problem. We're talking about a situation where a tyrannical regime has suddenly gotten access to the US's nuclear arsenal, it is in the UN's best interests to take decisive action whilst there is still civil unrest. Bearing in mind, that the US would have to deal with countries going against them at the same time as dealing with subjugating its own citizens, who even while unarmed - as you pointed out - would be patriotic enough to put aside their numerous differences, and attack the government in response.


If a governing body in the US suddenly decided to attack its own people, it's allies would not be allies any more the moment you have tanks running through your streets. It would literally be a situation where the government is killing a large amout of citizens, Britian is not afraid of the United States. A lot of countries are not afraid of the United States, and the US isn't invincible. Particularly if a situation panned out as described above - where the armed forces are split between taking out their own citizens and fighting a foreign incursion.

[PDXWinn]

I think you're being rather arrogant to assume the entire world would and could not take out the US. The US is certainly a superpower against one country, however the entire might of the UN... the US would have a problem. We're talking about a situation where a tyrannical regime has suddenly gotten access to the US's nuclear arsenal, it is in the UN's best interests to take decisive action whilst there is still civil unrest. Bearing in mind, that the US would have to deal with countries going against them at the same time as dealing with subjugating its own citizens, who even while unarmed - as you pointed out - would be patriotic enough to put aside their numerous differences, and attack the government in response.

We seem to be saying the same thing here - yes, the UN, backed by numerous countries could stop the U.S.

However, 1, 2 or even 3 countries, whether they are afraid of the U.S. or not, would not attack even in defense of the U.S. citizens. Regardless of whether they believe it was the right thing to do or not.

If the citizens of Britain all the sudden decided to rebel - the U.S. may push their way in and demand they initiate talks and cease firing on their own citizens but even a country as ballsy and in to sticking our noses where they don't belong as the U.S. is - we still wouldn't attack Britain in defense of their citizens; at least not right away.

Eventually, yes, I'm sure even without the backing of the U.N. countries like Britain, Japan, Canada and actually probably China would step in and force the U.S. to settle the problems.

Eventually is the key word. And now that I think about it - who is to say they wouldn't back the U.S. government instead of its citizens? I would hope they would back the people but it is always possible that they wouldn't.

This:
You might notice that, historically, speaking, any coup attempted without the support of the armed forces and the manufacturing infrastructure, has always failed.

Is an excellent observation and lesson in history. It should be noted that a country that's citizens are armed to the teeth has never been invaded either. Yet another reason for not allowing the removal of our 2nd Ammendment.


I didn't say that stopping working would restore order, I said that it would collapse the current government. It's not about performing a siege, it's about not giving the government resources. It sounds like you're saying that arming people to the tooth would lead an armed rebellion, but not enough to stop working and cripple the country.

No, I'm not saying an armed rebellion is the only way. I'm saying a employment walk-out will never work - at least not by itself.

A proper coupe or revolt, if done intelligently and using that organization mentioned above - a revolt would require very little armed citizens and no employment walk-outs. But that would require a great deal of organization - maybe more than is possible but it could be done.

[TRIriana]

We seem to be saying the same thing here - yes, the UN, backed by numerous countries could stop the U.S.

However, 1, 2 or even 3 countries, whether they are afraid of the U.S. or not, would not attack even in defense of the U.S. citizens. Regardless of whether they believe it was the right thing to do or not.

If the citizens of Britain all the sudden decided to rebel - the U.S. may push their way in and demand they initiate talks and cease firing on their own citizens but even a country as ballsy and in to sticking our noses where they don't belong as the U.S. is - we still wouldn't attack Britain in defense of their citizens; at least not right away.

Eventually, yes, I'm sure even without the backing of the U.N. countries like Britain, Japan, Canada and actually probably China would step in and force the U.S. to settle the problems.

Eventually is the key word. And now that I think about it - who is to say they wouldn't back the U.S. government instead of its citizens? I would hope they would back the people but it is always possible that they wouldn't.

As we are talking about a hypothetical evil, tyrannical regime that's taken over the US, it's in another countries own national interest, to make sure they don't stabilise enough to use the nuclear arsenal.

What you're effectively talking about is a hypothetical regime potentially worse than Hitler. An ally such as Britain wouldn't sit back and watch their ally turning into an evil superpower, Hellbent on destroying everything. We didn't stand back and watch during WW 1 and 2, we wouldn't in what is shaping up to be a hypothetical WW3. But I digress, this is getting off-topic.

The whole point of this scenario was to point out that any situation, which is so bad that you must arm the private citizens or else face extinction, is too bad for the private citizen to countermand themselves. It's not the eighteenth century, where a group of armed civilians could overhtrow their government through tactics and luck


Is an excellent observation and lesson in history. It should be noted that a country that's citizens are armed to the teeth has never been invaded either. Yet another reason for not allowing the removal of our 2nd Ammendment.

Yes, but bringing it back around to the actual debate topic - Britain has never been successfully invaded since the advent of gun control. You can't corrolate two things that are unrelated. Gun ownership amongst private citizens isn't the concern of an invading force, who don't care whether you're an armed soldier or civilian, as long as you're shooting at them. My example was a corrolation, because you can invert it and it continues to be true.



No, I'm not saying an armed rebellion is the only way. I'm saying a employment walk-out will never work - at least not by itself.

A proper coupe or revolt, if done intelligently and using that organization mentioned above - a revolt would require very little armed citizens and no employment walk-outs. But that would require a great deal of organization - maybe more than is possible but it could be done.


I assume you're American from the way that you're debating, so I presume you don't know about the miner's strikes in the UK. It is VERY easy to cripple an infrastructure provided you have the worker's on your side. It does not take an excessive amount of organisation, beyond which is already inherent in the organisation itself. As you said, Americans are such patriots that you would all want to band together to destabilise the evil regime. It would be far more effective, and get less people killed. You got up with guns against someone who has guns - someone will get shot.

I may be wrong, but itt seems like you think the Government is some independant nebulous entity that needs no supplies or support from the people to exist, rather than an organisation made up of elected people.

[PDXWinn]

I assume you're American from the way that you're debating, so I presume you don't know about the miner's strikes in the UK. It is VERY easy to cripple an infrastructure provided you have the worker's on your side. It does not take an excessive amount of organisation, beyond which is already inherent in the organisation itself. As you said, Americans are such patriots that you would all want to band together to destabilise the evil regime. It would be far more effective, and get less people killed. You got up with guns against someone who has guns - someone will get shot.

I may be wrong, but itt seems like you think the Government is some independant nebulous entity that needs no supplies or support from the people to exist, rather than an organisation made up of elected people.

No, I've never heard of the miners strike. I, admittedly, don't know very much in the way of British history or much detail in a great many countries.

No, I'm not suggesting the government is 'some independant nebulous entity that needs no supplies or support from the people to exist'.

The government needs a great many things especially when faced by a coupe/ civil war. First and foremost is the support of its military. Preferably its entire military.
** If the U.S. ever had to face such circumstances - they would not have the militaries full support. Probably not even half.

As far as supplies - the U.S. government has supplies stored away to keep the U.S. running for months, possibly years, depending on circumstances and usage. So as far as crippling the infrastructure - I'll admit it's possible. . . . . . . . but the length of time it would require to do it is simply not feasible to a rebellion though it definitely would aid and speed up the process.

I don't believe most employment walk-outs would have much effect at all. However, to truly do some damage to the infrastructure - a complete shut down of all transportation in and out of the U.S. would be first and foremost. More specifically - it's import/ export docks would have to be siezed and shut down.

Do you have a link that has good info for the miners strike? I'm always interested in learning.

[TRIriana]

No, I've never heard of the miners strike. I, admittedly, don't know very much in the way of British history or much detail in a great many countries.

Do you have a link that has good info for the miners strike? I'm always interested in learning.

Miner's Strike 1972 & 1974 (http://www.agor.org.uk/cwm/themes/events/1972_1974_strikes.asp)

UK Miner's Strikes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike)


A lot of the in-depth information I have is only available on access-only University websites, so I can't give you those. The couple of links above should give you a little information though, as to how serious and crippling such an effect can have on the economy and the countries ability to continue.

[PDXWinn]

Miner's Strike 1972 & 1974 (http://www.agor.org.uk/cwm/themes/events/1972_1974_strikes.asp)

UK Miner's Strikes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike)


A lot of the in-depth information I have is only available on access-only University websites, so I can't give you those. The couple of links above should give you a little information though, as to how serious and crippling such an effect can have on the economy and the countries ability to continue.

Thanks, I appreciate the info.