You guys and your guns...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

True. There's a difference between being interested in guns and being obsessed with them.

[Blind groper]

Gawdzilla

I can understand you being interested in guns, since you were a Viet Nam veteran, and your life, no doubt, at times depended on them.

However, what is the excuse for a person who has never been to war, and never goes hunting, and yet obsesses about not just guns, but the worst and most vicious people killers?

To me, a gun is :
1. A tool to perform a purpose
2. An extremely dangerous item that kills people. This takes into account the fact that lots of gun owners are basically idiots.

Bearing that in mind, the tool should be in the hands only of those who have a good, solid, legitimate use for it, and are fully and properly trained in the restrained use of that tool.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gawdzilla

I can understand you being interested in guns, since you were a Viet Nam veteran, and your life, no doubt, at times depended on them.

However, what is the excuse for a person who has never been to war, and never goes hunting, and yet obsesses about not just guns, but the worst and most vicious people killers?

To me, a gun is :
1. A tool to perform a purpose
2. An extremely dangerous item that kills people. This takes into account the fact that lots of gun owners are basically idiots.

Bearing that in mind, the tool should be in the hands only of those who have a good, solid, legitimate use for it, and are fully and properly trained in the restrained use of that tool.

There's a spectrum of gun owners, mild to wild. The vast majority of the people trend toward the mild in my experience. I don't see them as any more dangerous than anything else. I've killed people with knives, clubs, very handy objects and my bare hands. When you're scared enough, anything can be a weapon.

However, I do see attitudes toward gun ownership to be divided along cultural lines. When you step out of those lines and have an honest look at the situation, then you begin to work toward the real heart of the matter.

[Blind groper]

I live in a parkland area with wonderful views. We have a gate with a remote lock, keeping people out. In many ways, that is a crying shame, since most people are mild and decent, and should be permitted to enjoy what I enjoy. The sad thing is that we absolutely need that gate. Experience from a time when it was out of action taught us very painfully that there are plenty of nasty people who will enter and wreak havoc through vandalism and burglary.

The same applies to guns, and especially to hand guns which can be easily carried and easily concealed. I have no doubt that most people would not use them to kill others. But enough nasty people exist who will, and do. For that reason, like our lockable gate, it is necessary to keep hand guns locked away from those without a good legitimate use for them. Where that does not happen (the USA), the murder rate goes through the roof.

[Wumbologist]

Where that does not happen (the USA), the murder rate goes through the roof.

France, Switzerland, Austria, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Germany all have legal handgun ownership with varying levels of regulation. I believe most require some sort of "reason", but typically something like sport shooting or collecting is considered a good enough reason as far as licensing goes, meaning that anyone who wants to do the paperwork for it can go out and get a handgun in these countries, and many others I'm sure. Yet none of them, including Switzerland with a rate of firearms ownership that isn't all that far from the US, have "through the roof" homicide rates.

But by all means, keep going on about a pattern that you've established from a single data point as if it means anything to anyone looking at this from a reasoned point of view.

[Blind groper]

Wumbo

I do not have to look far to see your fallacy.

France for example has a gun ownership of less than 5% of the population, of which hand guns are much less, due to regulations. In France, the number of homicides with hand guns is so low it barely registers in the official statistics. The USA has a gun ownership with 33% to 50% of all homes having at least one gun, of which a third are hand guns. In total, the USA has about 300 million guns, with 100 million being hand guns. Clearly you cannot compare France to the USA in terms of gun ownership or gun interest. I predict the same holds for the rest of your list, Wumbo.

In fact, the USA has a larger civilian gun ownership than the whole rest of the world combined.

It is also noteworthy that, parallel to the recent drop in numbers of homicides, is a drop in gun ownership in the USA. Gun ownership and homicides are linked, and especially to hand gun ownership. Sporting rifles and shotguns by comparison are rarely the tool used for murder.

[JimC]

History teaches us a simple lesson relating to tyranny.
That is : when it happens and good people rise against it, they find the means to fight with. The people of Syria today, fighting the tyranny of their so-called president, did not have much at all in the way of weapons before the revolution. Today they are defeating a modern army.

The people of the IRA (who I think were mistaken) found the wherewithall to rebel.
There is no need to do what Seth claims he is doing (I do not believe his rationalisations. I think he just has a sick fascination with weapons of murder.) In the extremely unlikely event that the government of the USA became tyrannical, the people would find the means to fight. For a start, as in Syria, half the armed forces would defect and bring their tools of the trade with them. In addition, friends of the rebels in other countries would supply tools and weapons. More weapons would be bought in. Weapons dealers always find a way to supply any rebellion.

For people like Seth to be running round with terrible weapons today is not protection. It is an invitation to disaster, like the nutter who attacked the Batman movie and the white racist who attacked the Sikh temple.

[Warren Dew]

History teaches us a simple lesson relating to tyranny.
That is : when it happens and good people rise against it, they find the means to fight with.

History also teaches us that such uprisings in the modern era, without guns, get crushed, as in Czechoslovakia in 1968.

The people of Syria today, fighting the tyranny of their so-called president, did not have much at all in the way of weapons before the revolution. Today they are defeating a modern army.

And the reason it took so long is because they got no traction until Turkey started smuggling arms in.

If the U.S. government becomes tyrannical, who is going to risk the wrath of the superpower to ship guns to the revolutionists? I doubt anyone will.

[JimC]

History teaches us a simple lesson relating to tyranny.
That is : when it happens and good people rise against it, they find the means to fight with.

History also teaches us that such uprisings in the modern era, without guns, get crushed, as in Czechoslovakia in 1968.

And a Czech population with rifles and handgun would still have been crushed, undoubtedly with more casualties than the historical reality, given the inevitable reprisals...

[Warren Dew]

History teaches us a simple lesson relating to tyranny.
That is : when it happens and good people rise against it, they find the means to fight with.

History also teaches us that such uprisings in the modern era, without guns, get crushed, as in Czechoslovakia in 1968.

And a Czech population with rifles and handgun would still have been crushed, undoubtedly with more casualties than the historical reality, given the inevitable reprisals...

LIke Afghanistan got crushed by the same Soviet Union two decades later?

[Svartalf]

Reading Seth's last post reaffirms for me that American gun culture is totally insane.

Wrong, it only reveals that a number of Merkin gun bunnies are totally insane.

Next, you'll tell me that all French folk wear striped tops and berets.

[Seth]

History teaches us a simple lesson relating to tyranny.
That is : when it happens and good people rise against it, they find the means to fight with. The people of Syria today, fighting the tyranny of their so-called president, did not have much at all in the way of weapons before the revolution. Today they are defeating a modern army.

The people of the IRA (who I think were mistaken) found the wherewithall to rebel.
There is no need to do what Seth claims he is doing (I do not believe his rationalisations.

No need? You yourself just expressed the need, the dire need, for the populace to be armed. Thousands, or tens of thousands, or in the case of Saddam hundreds of thousands of people, or in the case of Stalin and Mao a hundred million people lost their lives trying to preserve their liberty and fight against tyranny. What's sick is your dismissal of the lives that were needlessly sacrificed in order for the people of Syria to become effective in fighting the tyranny of its despotic leader. If the Syrian people had always been armed, as Americans are, they would likely not have had to sacrifice thousands of unarmed patriots trying to win the day, they would likely never have been the subjects of despotic rule in the first place, because when politicians know the populace is well armed and capable of killing them, they tend not to abuse the people. That's precisely the argument that the Founders made when they created the 2nd Amendment to protect the natural right of the citizenry of ANY country to be armed against tyranny.

I think he just has a sick fascination with weapons of murder.)

I think you have a sick fascination with despotism and tyranny, and you're a complete slave to your masters, the ones who have the guns, if not their minion. Marxists always like to argue for gun control because they too know that an armed citizenry will never stand for Marxism once they find out what it really is.

In the extremely unlikely event that the government of the USA became tyrannical, the people would find the means to fight.

Yes, we would. I'd find my means in my gun safe, where I have enough arms and ammunition to arm not just myself, but to effectively arm at least a dozen other people who may not have arms of their own. A close friend of mine could easily arm nearly 200 people from his arms cache.

For a start, as in Syria, half the armed forces would defect and bring their tools of the trade with them.

Indeed. And the Founders thought of that as well when they argued in the Federalist Papers that no state militia commander would march his troops across another state to do the bidding of a despot in Washington. That's precisely WHY we have a relatively small (around 2.5 million max) standing army and a huge (more than 150 million) reserve militia who have their own arms and ammunition they can bring to any fight. And defecting National Guard units would augment those patriots with the sophisticated military gear that is stashed in National Guard armories all over the US. And this doesn't count the regular military forces who would refuse to fire on American citizens at the orders of a tyrannical despot in Washington. You see, our military swears fealty to the Constitution and the People of the United States, not to the President.

In addition, friends of the rebels in other countries would supply tools and weapons. More weapons would be bought in. Weapons dealers always find a way to supply any rebellion.

Wouldn't really be necessary because we're very well armed already, but any additional arms would be welcome, including those we take from the minions of the despot.

For people like Seth to be running round with terrible weapons today is not protection. It is an invitation to disaster, like the nutter who attacked the Batman movie and the white racist who attacked the Sikh temple.

Interestingly, there are more than 260 million firearms that the BATFE knows about in private hands (and there are actually way more than that in circulation), and only the tiniest fraction, less than one-thousandth of one percent, are ever used in ANY sort of crime. This rather puts paid to your vacuous and paranoid fears. My guns come out when the Blue Helmets try to take control of this country, or when a tyrant in the government attempts to take my arms.

And the handgun that I carry concealed every day, and that I have carried concealed in public for nearly 25 years now, has never been discharged in self-defense, though it has been presented a couple of times as a completely effective deterrent. Had I been present when the "nutter who attacked the Batman movie" or the "white racist who attacked the Sikh temple" showed up, it would have been used in defense of every innocent, unarmed civilian in the area, even at the risk of my own life.

Just because you have a paranoid fear of firearms doesn't mean that everyone who has a gun is a nut, it means you're nuts.

[Seth]

History teaches us a simple lesson relating to tyranny.
That is : when it happens and good people rise against it, they find the means to fight with.

History also teaches us that such uprisings in the modern era, without guns, get crushed, as in Czechoslovakia in 1968.

And a Czech population with rifles and handgun would still have been crushed, undoubtedly with more casualties than the historical reality, given the inevitable reprisals...

And that justifies disarming them how, exactly?

[JimC]

History teaches us a simple lesson relating to tyranny.
That is : when it happens and good people rise against it, they find the means to fight with.

History also teaches us that such uprisings in the modern era, without guns, get crushed, as in Czechoslovakia in 1968.

And a Czech population with rifles and handgun would still have been crushed, undoubtedly with more casualties than the historical reality, given the inevitable reprisals...

LIke Afghanistan got crushed by the same Soviet Union two decades later?

A rather different national context. Afghanis have been using weapons to dispute their being ruled by anyone for a long, long time, without ever the vaguest possibility of "gun control"...

And what a wonderful society Afghanistan has achieved by the actions of its sterling armed citizenry...

Not the best poster child for that particular version of gun craziness, I would have thought...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I live in a parkland area with wonderful views. We have a gate with a remote lock, keeping people out. In many ways, that is a crying shame, since most people are mild and decent, and should be permitted to enjoy what I enjoy. The sad thing is that we absolutely need that gate. Experience from a time when it was out of action taught us very painfully that there are plenty of nasty people who will enter and wreak havoc through vandalism and burglary.

The same applies to guns, and especially to hand guns which can be easily carried and easily concealed. I have no doubt that most people would not use them to kill others. But enough nasty people exist who will, and do. For that reason, like our lockable gate, it is necessary to keep hand guns locked away from those without a good legitimate use for them. Where that does not happen (the USA), the murder rate goes through the roof.

Slippery slope argument.