Guns used for lawful self defense

Locked
User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Guns used for lawful self defense

Post by FBM » Sat Sep 01, 2012 5:14 am

Guns, Crime, and the Swiss
by Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D., J.D.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shorter versions of this article were published in 1999 in the Wall Street Journal on June 3 (European edition) as "Armed to the Teeth, and Free" and on June 10 (American edition) as "Where Kids and Guns Do Mix."
For more information on Switzerland, see Stephen P. Halbrook's book Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II and other articles.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back in 1994, when the U.S. Congress was debating whether to ban "assault weapons," a talk show host asked Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, a sponsor of the ban, whether guns cause crime. The host noted that, in Switzerland, all males are issued assault rifles for their militia service and are required to keep them at home, yet little crime exists there. Bradley responded: "My guess is--Swiss are pretty dull--so my guess is that probably didn't happen."

Actually, for those who think that target shooting is more fun than golf, Switzerland is anything but "dull." By car or by train, you see shooting ranges all over the country, but only a few golf courses. If there is a Schuetzenfest in town, you will find rifles slung on hat racks in restaurants, and you will encounter men and women, old and young, walking, biking, and taking the tram with rifles over the shoulder, to and from the range. They stroll right past the police station and no one bats an eye (in the U.S. a SWAT Team might do you in).

Tourists--especially those from Japan, where guns are banned to all but the police--think it's a revolution. But shooting is really just the national sport, although it has the deadly serious function of being the backbone of the national defense.

Although there is more per capita firepower in Switzerland than any place in the world, it is one of the safest places to be. To the delight of Americans who support the right to keep and bear arms, Switzerland is the proof in the pudding of the argument that guns don't cause crime.

According to the UN International Study on Firearm Regulation, in 1994 the homicide rate in England (including Wales) was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was almost 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the argument goes, the homicide rate is far lower than in the United States. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: in 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.

Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study Crime and Justice concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the United States. Only the murder and rape rates in the United States were higher than in England.


The UN Study omits Switzerland from its comparative analysis. The Swiss example contradicts the Study's hypothesis that a high incidence of firearm ownership correlates with high violent crime.

The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that, in 1997, there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms (the statistics do not distinguish firearm use in consummated murders from attempts). With its population of seven million (which includes 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, giving a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these criminal acts were committed by non-resident foreigners, which is why one hears reference in casual talk to "criminal tourists."

Sometimes, the data sounds too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva.

In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.

The world was horrified on April 20 when two students used guns and bombs to murder a dozen classmates and a teacher in Littleton, Colorado. The Congress is now stampeding to pass additional restrictions on the acquisition of firearms.. Yet in 1996, a pederast who legally owned guns under England's strict regulations went on a rampage in which he murdered 16 children and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland. The Parliament responded with an outright ban on all handguns and most rifles.

There have been no school shootings in Switzerland, but guns and kids sure do mix there. At all major shooting matches, bicycles aplenty are parked outside. Inside the firing shelter the competitors pay 12-year olds tips to keep score. The 16-year-olds shoot rifles along with men and women of all ages.

What, asks the tourist brochure Zürich News, are the annual events that one must see in Switzerland's largest city? Under "Festivals and local customs" is the entry: "Knabenschiessen (boy's shooting contest), the oldest Zürich tradition, takes place on the second weekend in September. It consists of a shooting contest at the Albisgüetli [range] for 12 to 16 year-old boys/girls and a colorful three-day fun-fair." After that, the next big event is St. Nicholas Day in December.

The Neue Zürcher Zeitung devoted an entire page to the 1996 Knabenschiessen, noting that 3,667 teens had participated and announcing the shooting "king" and "queen." Large pictures of girls and boys with assault rifles and driving bumper cars (not at the same time!) laced the page. The event has been held since 1657.

I once attended a shooting match near Lucerne where the prizes--from rifles and silver cups to computers and bicycles--were on display at the local elementary school. You could see the children's art show while you were there.

Prof. Marshall Clinard writes in Cities With Little Crime: "Even in the largest Swiss cities crime is not a major problem. The incidence of criminal homicide and robbery is low, despite the fact that firearms are readily available in most households." The low crime rate is even more remarkable in that the criminal justice system is relatively lenient.

Besides the militia system requiring automatic rifles and/or semiautomatic pistols to be kept in the homes of all males aged 20 to 42, firearms are readily available for purchase in gun shops. Yet firearms are rarely used in violent crime. Notes Clinard, "These facts contrast strikingly with the belief that a low criminal homicide rate is due to strict firearms regulations." Homicide is tied to a willingness to resort to violence, not the mere presence of firearms. The prevalence of firearms in the home and the participation of youth in shooting matches bind youth to adults and precludes the creation of a generation gap.

Criminal homicide rates are highest in the less developed countries. These same countries often ban private possession of firearms. In some of them, such as Uganda, private murder does not compare to the genocidal murder committed by governments against their unarmed subjects.

In American society, firearms take on a sinister reputation from the nightly news and excessively-violent movies. In Switzerland, firearms symbolize a wholesome, community activity. The typical weekend shooting festival brings out the entire family. By the range will be a huge tent where scores or even hundreds of people are eating, drinking, and socializing. With colorful banners of the Cantons and of the rifle clubs fluttering in the wind, the melody of rifle fire blends with Alpine music and cow bells. Event sponsors may include banks, supermarkets, watch makers, and Die Post--the telephone and postal system.

Some 72,000 competitors participated in the Federal Schuetzenfest in Thun in 1995, making it the largest rifle shooting match in the world. (The American National Matches that year attracted only 4,000 shooters out of 260 million citizens.) The President of Switzerland and other dignitaries gave speeches. There was no "Secret Service" to protect them, and none was needed, although thousands of guns cluttered the assembly.

Since the founding of the Swiss Confederation in 1291, Switzerland has depended on an armed populace for its defense. William Tell used a crossbow, the armor-piercing ammo of the age, not only to shoot the apple from his son's head, but also to kill the tyrant Gessler. For centuries, the cantonal republic defeated the powerful armies of the European monarchs and kept its independence. Machiavelli wrote in 1532: "The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom."

Monarchist philosopher Jean Bodin, writing in 1606, denounced free speech and arms possession by commoners. Averring that "the most usual way to prevent sedition, is to take away the subjects arms," Bodin denounced the wearing of arms, "which by our laws, as also by the manners and customs of the Germans and Englishmen is not only lawful; but by the laws and decrees of the Swiss even necessarily commanded: the cause of an infinite number of murders, he which weareth a sword, a dagger, or a pistol." That argument remains a staple of Sarah Brady and Handgun Control, Inc. today.

American interest in the Swiss did not begin with John McPhree's prize-winning essay La Place de la Concorde Suisse. In 1768, as conflict with the Crown worsened, the colonists called for the strengthening of the militia, so that "this country will have a better security against the calamities of war than any other in the world, Switzerland alone excepted." By the time the new Constitution was being debated in 1787, John Adams wrote a treatise which praised the democratic Swiss Cantons, where every man was entitled to vote on matters of state and to bear arms. The famous orator Patrick Henry praised the Swiss for maintaining their neutrality and independence from the great monarchies, all without "a mighty and splendid President" or a standing army: "Let us follow their example, and be equally happy."

The Swiss influence was partly responsible for the adoption of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides: "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." This has become the orphan of the Bill of Rights which some love to hate.

When the first U.S. Congress met and turned to defense measures in 1791, Representative Jackson argued: "The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a militia, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords." A law was passed requiring every able-bodied citizen to provide himself with a firearm and enroll in the militia, and it stayed on the books for over a century.

President Teddy Roosevelt's strictures about training youngsters to shoot in order to promote the national defense were quoted in Why School Boys Should be Taught to Shoot by General George Wingate. Wingate, a founder of the National Rifle Association (NRA), pointed to the Swiss model as the ideal. American military observers were repeatedly sent to Switzerland, and recommended that the U.S. adopt the Swiss system.

In a 1905 report, U.S. Army Captain T.B. Mott lauded the universal participation of the Swiss population in shooting matches, his only reservation being "the evil attendant upon all such assemblages of the people, drinking and carousing and the spending of money during sometimes a whole week." Actually, the party atmosphere probably ensured the survival of the Swiss militia. Perhaps the suppression of the "drinking and carousing" which characterized the early American militia musters was the reason for the eventual demise of the American militia system.

After the Great War, the Congress, after hearing laudations about Swiss shooting skills, enacted the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which continues to this day to sell surplus military rifles to civilians, much to the sargrin of Senator Ted Kennedy. Indeed, Switzerland has been debated in Congress whenever firearms prohibitions have been an issue. In testimony against a 1935 handgun-registration bill, Col. Calvin Goddard noted that crime was every bit as low in Switzerland as in England, adding: "Any Swiss citizen may carry a pistol, his pockets may bulge with pistols, without a permit, but if he kills somebody he is out of luck."

In a 1994 gun debate, Senator Larry Craig, who is an NRA board member, argued that in Switzerland "there are as many guns as there are people," yet the crime rate is low. "But there is also a fundamentally different social attitude in that country." Now that's an understatement. The Swiss may complain about their occasional "criminal tourists," but there are too many American criminal subcultures with that "different social attitude" which results in a disgraceful rate of violent crime.

While the United States is victimized by embarrassing episodes of criminal degradation, the twentieth-century European experience suggests that tyrannical governments kill far more than private criminals. In 1933, the Nazis seized power via massive search-and-seizure operations for firearms against "Communists," i.e., all political opponents. In 1938, in preparation for and during the Night of the Broken Glass, they disarmed the Jews. And when the Nazis occupied Europe in 1939-41, they proclaimed the death penalty for any person who failed to surrender all firearms within 24 hours.

There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that every Swiss man had a rifle at home. The Nazi invasion plans themselves state that, because of the Swiss gun ownership and shooting skills, that country would be difficult to conquer and occupy. The European countries occupied by the Nazis usually had strict gun controls before the war, and their registration lists facilitated confiscation of firearms and, in many cases, execution of their owners.

By being able to keep out of both world wars in part through the dissuasive factor of an armed populace, Switzerland demonstrates that possession of firearms by civilians may help prevent large numbers of deaths and even genocide. The Holocaust never came to Switzerland, the Jewish population of which was armed just like their fellow citizens. In the rest of Europe, what if there had been not just one, but two, three, many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings?


Traditionally, the Swiss Cantons had few firearm regulations. The first federal gun control law ever to be enacted became valid in 1999. Carrying of machineguns, but not possession thereof, is prohibited. Semiauto conversions of military machineguns may be bought with a permit, except that the retiring soldier needs no permit. Purchase of some types of firearms from a commercial dealer requires a permit, but private sales do not. Repeating rifles, both military and hunting, are exempt. Carrying a loaded weapon requires a permit. Surplus assault rifles may be purchased by any Swiss citizen from the Military Department, which has 200,000 for sale.

The bottom line is one of attitude. Populations with training in civic virtue, though armed, generally do not experience sensational massacres or high crime rates. Switzerland fits this mold. But the United States does not. As H. Rap Brown declared in the 1960s, "Violence is as American as apple pie."
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles ... swiss.html

All bolding is mine, as well as enlarged font, and not in the original.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
Blind groper
Posts: 3997
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
About me: From New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Guns used for lawful self defense

Post by Blind groper » Sat Sep 01, 2012 5:36 am

Rather defeatest, do you not think?

I get the impression, JBM, that you recognise a problem exists. However, you are not prepared to consider that there may be a way to reduce the problem. Is that a fair assessment?

Edit : since I wrote the above, your Swiss quote appeared.
My comments.
First, the stats are out of date. The USA now has more guns in civilian hands per capita than Switzerland.
Second : the article you referenced was dealing mostly with rifles. As I have said many times, rifles and shotguns are not the problem. The problem is hand guns. Switzerland does not permit hand guns in public except by police and a few security people. The USA permits vast numbers of people to carry hand guns in public. The result is tragedy, many fold.
Third. One thing that is correct is the importance of attitude. The problem in the USA is actually two fold. First : the availability of hand guns, which can be carried in public concealed. Second : the gun culture. Americans glorify the person who 'solves' problems by shooting people. The Dirty Harry syndrome.
For every human action, there is a rationalisation and a reason. Only sometimes do they coincide.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Guns used for lawful self defense

Post by FBM » Sat Sep 01, 2012 5:54 am

Blind groper wrote:Rather defeatest, do you not think?

I get the impression, JBM, that you recognise a problem exists. However, you are not prepared to consider that there may be a way to reduce the problem. Is that a fair assessment?
Yes, I recognize a problem. I know I can't expect you to keep up with my past posts on the issue, so I'll try to summarize them:

Yes, there is a problem. But there is also a problem with drinking and driving and other behaviors that cause at least as many fatalities. Whether or not firearm ownership is important enough to justify the disruption that would certainly arise from an attempt at prohibition is a matter of personal opinion. I'm not convinced that it is, because I know a lot of legal gunowners who have stated that they would fight before having their constitutional right taken from them. I'm not saying they're right or wrong; I'm just describing what I've heard many, many times.

Too many people are being victimized with guns of all sorts, including handguns. The overwhelming majority of those homicides are committed by people who already had a criminal record. The existence of the guns used by such people is already beyond the control of law enforcement in the current situation. Such criminals will have practically unrestricted access to illegal firearms for the foreseeable future, regardless of legislation, because a) they don't care about the law in the first place and, b) there are plenty of cross-border suppliers. Taking firearms, handguns or otherwise, would only endanger innocent, law-abiding citizens even further. It would be counter-productive to its stated objective. It would make statutory criminals out of formerly law-abiding citizens who have never committed a crime with a firearm nor intended to.

Firearm ownership advocates have a strong point in the constitutionality of their right to bear arms. I'm not a legal expert, but it does seem to me that an amendment to the Constitution would be required to completely outlaw firearm ownership. Such a proposed amendment would be overwhelmed with public opposition as soon as it were proposed. Politically, it's suicide. Therefore, it's untenable as a solution for political reasons, not moral or practical ones.

Prohibition is not a realistic option in the US (though other countries have accepted it); we stand a better chance of improving the situation if we consider only the realistic options. The public would most likely accept more intensive psychological background checks and screenings, if the proper controls were applied. They would probably accept more stringent licensing requirements along the magnitude of what it takes to get a driver's license, at least. The public would most likely support increased penalties on those who commit a crime with a firearm. There may be other options, but these are the main two that have occurred to me up to this point. Whatever the case, prohibition isn't a realistic option for US society.

Edit:

But I can boatloads of shit from extremists on each end of the issue. One end paints me up to be Sarah Brady for even suggesting that firearm ownership might be regulated in any way whatsoever, while the other end paints me as a gun-loving lunatic because I don't scream 'Prohibition!' from the rooftops. :roll: There's no place for reason in political discussions.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
Blind groper
Posts: 3997
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
About me: From New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Guns used for lawful self defense

Post by Blind groper » Sat Sep 01, 2012 6:09 am

Well, FBM, I have to say that is a much more reasoned and sane discussion than I have seen from a whole bunch of other people. Congratulations on living up to the ideal of being a rational thinker. And I mean that sincerely.

I do not totally agree with everything you said, because I do not believe that anything is that unchangeable. Problems are made to be solved, and cannot be solved until the people in power develop the will to act. Obviously, no one here has that kind of power, and the problem of hand guns and unhealthy gun culture will continue indefinitely, until those in power are motivated to act. From that point of view, anything we discuss here is totally academic, anyway, but it always pleases me to see discussion that is rational and smart.

You may well be correct in suggesting that the first step (if politicians can be persuaded to do something) would be small actions related to better screenings. However, the statistics show clearly that hand guns are the problem, and I still tend to think that the focus needs to be on hand guns and how to restrict their use.
For every human action, there is a rationalisation and a reason. Only sometimes do they coincide.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Guns used for lawful self defense

Post by FBM » Sat Sep 01, 2012 6:15 am

Blind groper wrote:Well, FBM, I have to say that is a much more reasoned and sane discussion than I have seen from a whole bunch of other people. Congratulations on living up to the ideal of being a rational thinker. And I mean that sincerely.

I do not totally agree with everything you said, because I do not believe that anything is that unchangeable. Problems are made to be solved, and cannot be solved until the people in power develop the will to act. Obviously, no one here has that kind of power, and the problem of hand guns and unhealthy gun culture will continue indefinitely, until those in power are motivated to act. From that point of view, anything we discuss here is totally academic, anyway, but it always pleases me to see discussion that is rational and smart.

You may well be correct in suggesting that the first step (if politicians can be persuaded to do something) would be small actions related to better screenings. However, the statistics show clearly that hand guns are the problem, and I still tend to think that the focus needs to be on hand guns and how to restrict their use.
Thank you for also being reasonable in your discussion. It doesn't bother me to agree to disagree. For example, I think saying that handguns are the problem is over-simplified. Given the Swiss example, I'd say 'handguns in the hands of criminal-minded people" is more accurate. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I've got to get back to my weekend workload. :cheers:
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
Robert_S
Cookie Monster
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Guns used for lawful self defense

Post by Robert_S » Sat Sep 01, 2012 6:42 am

I still fear mental health screenings. We've had forcible institutionalization and even lobotomies here and I don't trust the mental health profession in the US.

It's a great idea in principle though.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P

The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Guns used for lawful self defense

Post by FBM » Sat Sep 01, 2012 6:49 am

What do either of those things have to do with mental health screenings before buying a handgun, though? And for that matter, we still have forcible institutionalization when someone had been adjudicated as unable to care for themselves or as a danger to the public. Anyway, such a screening would only disallow the applicant from purchasing a handgun. I'm not advocating a full-scale, professional psychological evaluation. For one thing, that would just be too expensive, even if it were questionable for other reasons. Not practical. But a paper-based psych screening of the sort that I've seen given to police cadets would be about right, I'd guess.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
Woodbutcher
Stray Cat
Stray Cat
Posts: 8320
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:54 pm
About me: Still crazy after all these years.
Location: Northern Muskeg, The Great White North
Contact:

Re: Guns used for lawful self defense

Post by Woodbutcher » Sat Sep 01, 2012 4:33 pm

Reminds me of a Barney Miller episode where Wojo had to undergo a psychiatric evaluation after threatening a prisoner. Episode 33, season 2. Can't access it from here.
If women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.-Red Green
"Yo". Rocky
"Never been worried about what other people see when they look at me". Gawdzilla
"No friends currently defined." Friends & Foes.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Guns used for lawful self defense

Post by Seth » Sat Sep 01, 2012 4:54 pm

Blind groper wrote:
Seth wrote:
Damned right it's about power.

Good to see you admit it.

We know all about power and the corruption of power. The power and the emotions related to power, from holding a weapon capable of killing people, are enormously corrupting. It is this emotional obsession that is the basic cause of a major sickness in the USA.

As I said before, I understand this, because I have also handled firearms, including a hand gun. I found the same sickness stealing over me. A bit like getting hooked on a drug. I was able to shake off the loathsome fixation, and return to sanity. Others are still hooked.
Yup, freedom and personal safety are seductive indeed, because once you have a taste for freedom and safety, you're unwilling to surrender it peacefully.

Well, that applies to most people, but evidently not to slaves like you who cannot imagine freedom and safety and must therefore cower in fear at the very concept of the instrument of your liberty.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Guns used for lawful self defense

Post by Seth » Sat Sep 01, 2012 5:00 pm

Robert_S wrote:I still fear mental health screenings. We've had forcible institutionalization and even lobotomies here and I don't trust the mental health profession in the US.

It's a great idea in principle though.
Yup, the devil's in the details. Any sort of mandatory psychological screening as a condition of exercising one's fundamental rights will ALWAYS be abused by the government to restrict the exercise of rights to suit the political and control needs of those in power. The Soviets used precisely such tactics on dissidents, locking them up in insane asylums and forcibly treating them to shock therapy and lobotomies on the false premise that objecting to the slavery and evil of communism had to be insanity because a sane person would understand it's all being done for the good of the collective.

The only safe alternative that prevents government from abusing it's power is to require it to wait until someone actually performs an insane act before punishing (treating) them for it. It's worked out remarkably well as regards Americans and their guns, given the fact that there are 300 million of us and more than 260 million guns in our society. The number of times guns are actually used by the insane as a percentage of the total number of guns in society has a great many zeros after the decimal point.

Government can NEVER be given power to engage in prior restraint on the exercise of fundamental rights. It must always be required to wait for someone to violate the law before acting, otherwise tyranny and despotism are inevitable.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39291
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Guns used for lawful self defense

Post by Animavore » Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:05 pm

Seth wrote:
Animavore wrote:But what if I was just offering to cut you a nice slice of cake?
Then you wouldn't be threatening me. If, however, you suddenly snap into a psychotic episode merely because you have touched a deadly weapon (the knife) and attack me, cake be damned, I'll go right ahead and shoot you. I'd have to worry about that because evidently in Britain, people tend to go suddenly and unexpectedly psychotic and begin murder sprees simply because they have possession of something that can be turned into a deadly weapons. It appears that Brits are so mentally unstable as a nation that it's probably a good thing they ban guns and demand blunt-tipped kitchen knives.

Sheesh. :fp:
Yeah. That British are a bit funny like that.

We Irish, though, know how to use guns. And mortars and car-bombs... :whistle:
Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Blind groper
Posts: 3997
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
About me: From New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Guns used for lawful self defense

Post by Blind groper » Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:38 pm

Seth wrote: Well, that applies to most people, but evidently not to slaves like you who cannot imagine freedom and safety and must therefore cower in fear at the very concept of the instrument of your liberty.
Actually, Seth, you are the slave.
You are a slave to your own fears and paranoia.
When I walk out in public, I do so with my head high, a spring in my step, and no fear. And no guns either.

You go in public, you carefully prepare your guns, and hide them. You look at the people around you with fear and trembling and your hand near your gun in case one of them turns out to be one of the assholes responsible for 8,000 hand gun murders each year.

When you are home, you buy and stockpile horrible weapons designed to kill people wholesale. You hide them somewhere and you skulk about afraid of your own shadow. You are living a life of fear and suspicion. I live a life that is free of fear. I am free where you are a slave.
For every human action, there is a rationalisation and a reason. Only sometimes do they coincide.

User avatar
macdoc
Twitcher
Posts: 9209
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:20 pm
Location: BirdWing Home FNQ
Contact:

Re: Guns used for lawful self defense

Post by macdoc » Sat Sep 01, 2012 9:00 pm

Yup - whacked worldview.
I've travelled all over the planet Sierra Leone, Japan. South Africa, China, Europe the Caribbean including exceptionally poor areas like Bequia and Freetown and Cuba outside the tourist areas and never ever once felt the need for any sort of a weapon beyond a walking stick to fend off the occasional loose guard dog kept by people imprisoned in their fear and paranoia like Seth.

Freedom is getting on a plane to Cuba Seth - can't do that can you.....I can....don't talk about freedom....you haven't a clue and live in proto-police state going downhill fast. :coffee:
Resident in Cairns Australia • Current ride> 2014 Honda CB500F • Travel photos https://500px.com/p/macdoc?view=galleries

User avatar
Blind groper
Posts: 3997
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
About me: From New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Guns used for lawful self defense

Post by Blind groper » Sat Sep 01, 2012 9:18 pm

Thanks, macdoc.
You said it better than I could.

I am off to Fiji next week for a 10 day holiday, to scuba dive. Fiji is a military dictatorship, but I have no fear or worry about that. I go with anticipation for a wonderful 10 days. Could Seth do that, I wonder? Difficult for a slave like him.
For every human action, there is a rationalisation and a reason. Only sometimes do they coincide.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Guns used for lawful self defense

Post by Seth » Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:57 pm

Blind groper wrote:
Seth wrote: Well, that applies to most people, but evidently not to slaves like you who cannot imagine freedom and safety and must therefore cower in fear at the very concept of the instrument of your liberty.
Actually, Seth, you are the slave.
You are a slave to your own fears and paranoia.
When I walk out in public, I do so with my head high, a spring in my step, and no fear. And no guns either.
Right up until some thug decides to beat your skull till the white meat shows with a cricket bat, then you're fucked. But that's okay with me, you get to make the choice whether or not to be vulnerable to anyone who is bigger, stronger or better armed than you are. What you don't get to do is tell me or anyone else that they have to be a helpless victim.
You go in public, you carefully prepare your guns, and hide them. You look at the people around you with fear and trembling and your hand near your gun in case one of them turns out to be one of the assholes responsible for 8,000 hand gun murders each year.
Nah, I walk about fearlessly because I'm armed and I know I'm prepared to respond to ANY emergency quickly and effectively. I don't have to worry whether some beer-soaked thug is going to try to steal my wallet when I'm walking home from the pub late at night precisely because I know I can deal with any such eventuality. I don't worry about driving through a "bad part of town" because I'm armed, and can take care of business if called upon to do so. You may trust your fellow citizens, and you may be justified in doing so in main, but the one time you're wrong, it will be your last mistake. The one time I'm wrong in assessing the character of my fellow citizens, it will be the last mistake THEY make.

Big difference. Huge.
When you are home, you buy and stockpile horrible weapons designed to kill people wholesale.
They aren't horrible, they are beautiful examples of firearms manufacturing and are the epitome of the gunmaker's art. And yes, they will kill people wholesale if I need to use them for that purpose, which is fine with me, because so long as nobody threatens me on a wholesale basis, they will rest quietly and inanimately in the gun safe. But, it's better that I have them in case there is a need to kill people wholesale than not, because if I need to do so, it will be in defense of my life, the lives of others, or the defense of the nation and the Constitution, in which cases having the epitome of the gunmaker's art will serve me and the nation well.
You hide them somewhere and you skulk about afraid of your own shadow.
No, I secure them and walk free, when and where I please.
You are living a life of fear and suspicion.
No, I live a life of realistic analysis of risk and routine situational awareness that relieves me of fear.
I live a life that is free of fear.
Right up until someone victimizes you and you're unable to defend yourself or your loved ones.
I am free where you are a slave.
No, you just think you are. In truth you're the slave of any criminal who chooses to victimize you, including your own government. You're a slave because you're helpless to resist them.

I'm free because I can defend myself and my family and my nation against anyone who seeks to do us harm.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests