Guns, guns, guns

[angrysasquatch]

Alright guys, thanks for the responses. I think I'm about done, I don't really have any more fuel for the fire. An interesting read, for sure. I seriously doubt that the U.N. would sit idly by while a G8 country went to heck, although there is no telling for sure until such an event occurs. I still think unused firearms kept in a locked steel cabinet is a good idea. drg- politicians are always looking for somebody to support them, if that means giving lip service to anti-gun people, then they'll do it. Coolhand- Hitler did bring them out of the gutter. The things he did after are obviously bad, and bad for Germany, but creating such a large force from essentially nothing so quickly is rather impressive. maxama- Yes, I watched Lord of War, it is a very good look at the gun trade. I really doubt the German citizens had any idea of the death camps until after the war. I can't really seem to articulate why I think that, just a hunch, I guess. grEnAlEins- The reason, or at least part of the reason why Hitler never bothered with Switzerland was because of the mountains and their skiing army. I guess the army on skis part never made much sense to me, but the mountainous terrain would have definitely been a factor. I never heard about the heavily-armed civilians, though. Guess you learn something new every day. Every other nation appeased Germany because they wanted to believe that this was really "just the last country" and didn't want to fight Germany, a superpower by then over it.

Anyways, good talking with you guys, always good to look at another's perspective.If anybody else has something to add, I'll keep an eye on this thread.

[CoolHand]

There are 2 aspects to the gun control debate that most discussions fail to reconcile, availability and culture. Fact is, availability DOES indeed have a huge impact on gun violence and crime. You get rid of most of the guns in a given area, there won't be much gun crime. Japan is a good example of this.

This is not entirely true. Japan does indeed have a very low gun crime rate, and it also has very few guns, but the coexistence of those two facts does not necessarily establish a cause/effect relationship.

The thing that most people who cite Japan's low crime rate as the result of this no-gun nirvana forget to mention (or do not know themselves) is that the criminal justice system in Japan is far far different than it is here.

Read this for the low down, I wouldn't do it justice (ha!) to try to paraphrase, and the result could be the loss of the gist of things. Just give it a read, it's not that long.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=42&issue=015

Here's another one about a study done by two Harvard Law researchers (there's a link to the full research paper text as well, so don't play the ol' cherry picked the data out of context card, go read the full paper too).

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=247

There's another article about why Japan has a low crime rate and whatnot, but I'm struggling to find it back.

I'll make another post if I happen to run it down.

Here's an article about genocide:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=201

RE: Germany and Switzerland

It's been said that Switzerland doesn't have an army, it IS an army.

Do a little research and you will find that not only is firearm ownership mandatory, but so is military marksmanship, survival, and tactical training. There's a reason that Swiss neutrality is unilaterally respected, and it's not because they make cool watches . . . . .

[maxama10]

Alright guys, thanks for the responses. I think I'm about done, I don't really have any more fuel for the fire. An interesting read, for sure. I seriously doubt that the U.N. would sit idly by while a G8 country went to heck, although there is no telling for sure until such an event occurs. I still think unused firearms kept in a locked steel cabinet is a good idea. drg- politicians are always looking for somebody to support them, if that means giving lip service to anti-gun people, then they'll do it. Coolhand- Hitler did bring them out of the gutter. The things he did after are obviously bad, and bad for Germany, but creating such a large force from essentially nothing so quickly is rather impressive. maxama- Yes, I watched Lord of War, it is a very good look at the gun trade. I really doubt the German citizens had any idea of the death camps until after the war. I can't really seem to articulate why I think that, just a hunch, I guess. grEnAlEins- The reason, or at least part of the reason why Hitler never bothered with Switzerland was because of the mountains and their skiing army. I guess the army on skis part never made much sense to me, but the mountainous terrain would have definitely been a factor. I never heard about the heavily-armed civilians, though. Guess you learn something new every day. Every other nation appeased Germany because they wanted to believe that this was really "just the last country" and didn't want to fight Germany, a superpower by then over it.

Anyways, good talking with you guys, always good to look at another's perspective.If anybody else has something to add, I'll keep an eye on this thread.

Yeah, thanks for making such a thread. AO has been pretty quiet for a while

Take it easy.

-Max

[DevilMan]

This is not entirely true. Japan does indeed have a very low gun crime rate, and it also has very few guns, but the coexistence of those two facts does not necessarily establish a cause/effect relationship.

The thing that most people who cite Japan's low crime rate as the result of this no-gun nirvana forget to mention (or do not know themselves) is that the criminal justice system in Japan is far far different than it is here.

Read this for the low down, I wouldn't do it justice (ha!) to try to paraphrase, and the result could be the loss of the gist of things. Just give it a read, it's not that long.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=42&issue=015

Here's another one about a study done by two Harvard Law researchers (there's a link to the full research paper text as well, so don't play the ol' cherry picked the data out of context card, go read the full paper too).

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=247

There's another article about why Japan has a low crime rate and whatnot, but I'm struggling to find it back.

I'll make another post if I happen to run it down.

Here's an article about genocide:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=201

RE: Germany and Switzerland

It's been said that Switzerland doesn't have an army, it IS an army.

Do a little research and you will find that not only is firearm ownership mandatory, but so is military marksmanship, survival, and tactical training. There's a reason that Swiss neutrality is unilaterally respected, and it's not because they make cool watches . . . . .

You beat me to it CoolHand.... I lived in Japan for 4 years and can tell you that there IS gun crime and it IS limited but the other side of that is the rest of their culture. Don't get me wrong I loved living there. But there are still places ya don't go... AS A ROUND EYE that exist... hmmmmm... lets see. Could that be possible without guns???

And if you want to compare notes... Take a look at Singapore. Ever been there??? Try finding a pack of Juicy Fruit to buy. Can't find any?? Try spitting on the sidewalk... Don't do that anyway??? Try finding a bit of mary jane to toke on.... No??? hmmmmm wonder why that is???

Wait?? What about China??? Anyone have any idea what prison is like there?? Let me tell ya this. From what I remember learning when I was there. You get in trouble and get put in jail.... Do you know what your day consists of??? Give you 3 guesses.... Did ya guess "sit in a cell" ??? No??? Well too bad cause you would have been right. That's correct. And I could be wrong but it was told to me by a chinese man in China.... You go to jail. You get sentenced to 3 years, you go in a cell and you sit. If I recall you get escorted maybe 2 times a day I think it was to the loo and you get a shower every other or every 3 days. Oh what about food??? Yeah.... You know that EAT thing. From what I was told if you don't have someone on the outside who is willing to bring you stuff to eat then you sit there.... waiting... waiting... and pop... there ya go. The chinese government has no obligation to keep it's crooks fed and watered. If you did something that gets your butt in the slammer you pay for it. Now if you were to enforce that style of prison system over here what do you think it would do to those that wish to do things because "prison is a cakewalk" What if you simply enforced the "Kill and Be Killed" law.... Why not just make folks RESPONSIBLE... You try that and alot of your problems will go away....

As for Switzerland... Yeah it was the SkiArmy that kept the Germans out... Sorry boss... but you do realize there were such folks as ParaTroopers right??? You know those folks that jump outta planes??? Now lets say that Germany wanted Switzerland... You paratroop in enough troops into a concentrated area and you could eliminate any opposition right??? Now try landing them all when the common folk that you are trying to land in the back yard of greet you with automatic weapons.... hmmmmm... think that may have had anything to do with the by-pass that was done???

Anywho..... Gun Control Means Hitting Your Target...

DM

[custar]

Don't you think that if they were taken the means to dispatch somebody quickly, from some distance, possibly quietly that gang violence would die down? Or at least that would be no innocent bystanders?

No. More crime is committed using knives than hand guns. If you want a crusade, try outlawing knives. Removing all knives will eliminate more armed crime than taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. I concede the deaths of innocent bystanders will decline if all guns are removed from gangs, at least until the gangs adapt and adopt other armaments. On a more practical note, how do you propose guns be taken away from the gangs? They aren't exactly going to line up and drop off all their guns at the local precinct house. After all, if they were law-abiding citizens, they wouldn't be in gangs in the first place. If you want to reduce gun crime, you need to raise the ante. Right now, America prisons--especially federal prisons--are far too cushy.

custar

[drg]

This is not entirely true. Japan does indeed have a very low gun crime rate, and it also has very few guns, but the coexistence of those two facts does not necessarily establish a cause/effect relationship.

The thing that most people who cite Japan's low crime rate as the result of this no-gun nirvana forget to mention (or do not know themselves) is that the criminal justice system in Japan is far far different than it is here.

Read this for the low down, I wouldn't do it justice (ha!) to try to paraphrase, and the result could be the loss of the gist of things. Just give it a read, it's not that long.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=42&issue=015

Here's another one about a study done by two Harvard Law researchers (there's a link to the full research paper text as well, so don't play the ol' cherry picked the data out of context card, go read the full paper too).

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=247

There's another article about why Japan has a low crime rate and whatnot, but I'm struggling to find it back.

I'll make another post if I happen to run it down.

Here's an article about genocide:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=201

RE: Germany and Switzerland

It's been said that Switzerland doesn't have an army, it IS an army.

Do a little research and you will find that not only is firearm ownership mandatory, but so is military marksmanship, survival, and tactical training. There's a reason that Swiss neutrality is unilaterally respected, and it's not because they make cool watches . . . . .

Seems like you stopped reading my post after the first sentence. Please read the whole thing. That's the real problem with the gun debate. For too many people, their brains shut down once they even THINK they are talking to someone on the 'other side'.

[CoolHand]

Seems like you stopped reading my post after the first sentence. Please read the whole thing. That's the real problem with the gun debate. For too many people, their brains shut down once they even THINK they are talking to someone on the 'other side'.

No, I read the whole thing, I just didn't pat you on the back for the part where you conceded that the culture difference makes such a gun ban unattainable in the US. So, you're a realist. Congratulations.

Many a gun ban proponent seek to bill themselves as "realists" because they believe it gives their ideas more weight than if they stood on some sort of ideological platform. This is the kind of tactic that the NRA falls for all to often, sometimes going so far as to help draft and then support a gun control measure, as though braiding the rope you are hung with somehow makes you less dead.

The fact is, that you were (and still are) wrong when you said: "Fact is, availability DOES indeed have a huge impact on gun violence and crime. You get rid of most of the guns in a given area, there won't be much gun crime. Japan is a good example of this."

That is false. It's false now, it will be false tomorrow, and very likely will still be false ten years from now. There are studies done by independent sources that confirm what I am saying here.

Read the articles I posted, and read the research paper that inspired the one. The facts in the real world (found through actual study and research) do not jive with the "facts" you just posted, so I answered with proof to refute your claim.

The reason Japan has less crime is not because there are fewer guns, but because the society as a whole places great value in doing what is expected and following the rules. Their society is very homogeneous, their culture is very old and very closed to outside influence, and their standard of living is pretty high (for most everyone). Their police also have very broad and sweeping powers, which are far beyond what anyone would dream of allowing here, and they have a judicial system that operates on a nearly 98% confession rate (whether said confession is extracted via force or coercion is of little concern to them). This is also true of many other countries that have many guns but still have low crime. Take Norway or Sweden for example. Read the articles and see if you still think that the availability of guns and the rate of crime are direct corollaries.

While you may not see yourself as "the other side", your spouting the same nonsensical crap they do, so from this end of things, it looks pretty much the same. You make a statement of "fact" that is wrong, and then go on to lament how it can never happen in the US because it's too ingrained in our nature and enshrined in law. Maybe I mistook the tone, but the nonsensical content and attempt to seem "reasonable" to all sides remains. One cannot be on both sides of an issue at once, without being a liar.

My brain did not "shut down", nor did I stop reading, you just don't like what I thought of your post, or how I replied to it. Sorry man, but you're gonna have to have thicker skin than that, if you're gonna play in the big kid pool.

[drg]

No, I read the whole thing, I just didn't pat you on the back for the part where you conceded that the culture difference makes such a gun ban unattainable in the US. So, you're a realist. Congratulations.

Many a gun ban proponent seek to bill themselves as "realists" because they believe it gives their ideas more weight than if they stood on some sort of ideological platform. This is the kind of tactic that the NRA falls for all to often, sometimes going so far as to help draft and then support a gun control measure, as though braiding the rope you are hung with somehow makes you less dead.

The fact is, that you were (and still are) wrong when you said: "Fact is, availability DOES indeed have a huge impact on gun violence and crime. You get rid of most of the guns in a given area, there won't be much gun crime. Japan is a good example of this."

That is false. It's false now, it will be false tomorrow, and very likely will still be false ten years from now. There are studies done by independent sources that confirm what I am saying here.

Read the articles I posted, and read the research paper that inspired the one. The facts in the real world (found through actual study and research) do not jive with the "facts" you just posted, so I answered with proof to refute your claim.

The reason Japan has less crime is not because there are fewer guns, but because the society as a whole places great value in doing what is expected and following the rules. Their society is very homogeneous, their culture is very old and very closed to outside influence, and their standard of living is pretty high (for most everyone). Their police also have very broad and sweeping powers, which are far beyond what anyone would dream of allowing here, and they have a judicial system that operates on a nearly 98% confession rate (whether said confession is extracted via force or coercion is of little concern to them). This is also true of many other countries that have many guns but still have low crime. Take Norway or Sweden for example. Read the articles and see if you still think that the availability of guns and the rate of crime are direct corollaries.

While you may not see yourself as "the other side", your spouting the same nonsensical crap they do, so from this end of things, it looks pretty much the same. You make a statement of "fact" that is wrong, and then go on to lament how it can never happen in the US because it's too ingrained in our nature and enshrined in law. Maybe I mistook the tone, but the nonsensical content and attempt to seem "reasonable" to all sides remains. One cannot be on both sides of an issue at once, without being a liar.

My brain did not "shut down", nor did I stop reading, you just don't like what I thought of your post, or how I replied to it. Sorry man, but you're gonna have to have thicker skin than that, if you're gonna play in the big kid pool.

Well, reading comprehension is not your strong point, then. I never even made a hint of a suggestion that I support a gun ban of any type, so that conclusion comes from your own biases. I did, however, say a lot more than just one thing about Japan, and getting hung up on that one aspect of what I said is a typical zealot's response to an inconveniently sensible or truthful statement. You have exactly proved my point about brain shutdown.

1. Availability as pertains to gun crime does not refer to the availability to legal owners. Availability refers to criminals, the train of possession from the manufacturer to the criminal's hand during a crime. There are MANY factors which affect the ability or likelihood of a criminal to obtain a gun and utilize it in a violent crime. This includes factors such as population density, regulation of legally owned arms, municipal gun policies and national culture. As such, solutions need to be tailored to the situation with a clear understanding of ALL the factors in play (or as many as possible).

2. All countries you cite as having guns and low gun crime have far stronger gun regulations than the US.

3. There is nothing incongruous about supporting both rights and regulations, and the 2nd amendment is well-served by regulation (containing that very word). While you may consider it "taking both sides of the issue," it is a perfectly sound stance to take and is indeed the more sensible one than a rigid, exclusionary stance on "either side" of the issue.

4. Slippery slope is a concern, and it is an unfortunate feature of American politics that things must be "all or nothing". That culture needs to change.

I'd like to note something you said earlier:

Laws in no way effect those who choose not to abide by them. It's just that simple.

This is absolutely, positively untrue in any society where there are law-abiding citizens. The environment criminals operate in is very well affected by the laws that govern the people therein, which in turn affects the criminals.

This is a duplicitous argument espoused by many RTKBA crusaders ... On one hand they try to say laws don't affect criminals, but in the same breath they are suggesting that a populace's disposition as armed or unarmed BY LAWS makes some kind of difference to the criminal-victim relationship. (Note these are usually the same people that want tougher LAWS on the books to deter crime).

If laws are impotent against criminals, why does it matter whether it is legal to own guns? The answer is it doesn't. Thus by accepting that it is better to be able to own a gun than not with regards to crime, or that, say, a harsher prison can deter crime, you are accepting that laws indeed affect criminals.

[Lohman446]

The ownership of firearms designed to defend oneself with is a question of personal responsibility. Perhaps its where I live, perhaps its the fact many people around here have more firepower in their gun safes than the local PD.

It is my moral obligation to provide for my family, equally it is my moral obligation to defend my family in the face of harm to the best of my abilities. I have a moral obligation at work to provide my employees with a safe and secure working environment.

I own several firearms that have very little purpose (yes, I enjoy shooting them) outside of defense of my family. I'm not going to make any justification that my MAC-11 carbine with laser sight is useful for hunting. I'm not going to tell you that my Kimber .45 has any other purpose but family defense.

I am going to tell you that this reliance on government by Americans is fundamentally unsound and goes against historically what this country was made of. "I don't need to own a gun, I can call the police" is a joke. First off anyone that intends to do you harm is going to have done it well before the police arrive,

Handing over your obligation to defend yourself and your family is one of many steps down a path that makes one sheep. Then again, so is handing over the obligation to feed your family and pay your bills and far too many people seem to have no problem doing that.

Yes, the conversation is about rights. The right as an American to provide for the needs of myself and family and live an independent life not reliant on the government for food, shelter, or security on a personal level.

[Lohman446]

Firearms where illegal in England to the point that police officers did not carry. You know why they started carrying? Because the criminals were armed, and offered no respect to officers who were not. Its historical proof that gun control, even carried to the extreme, does not work.

[drg]

The ownership of firearms designed to defend oneself with is a question of personal responsibility. Perhaps its where I live, perhaps its the fact many people around here have more firepower in their gun safes than the local PD.

It is my moral obligation to provide for my family, equally it is my moral obligation to defend my family in the face of harm to the best of my abilities. I have a moral obligation at work to provide my employees with a safe and secure working environment.

I own several firearms that have very little purpose (yes, I enjoy shooting them) outside of defense of my family. I'm not going to make any justification that my MAC-11 carbine with laser sight is useful for hunting. I'm not going to tell you that my Kimber .45 has any other purpose but family defense.

I am going to tell you that this reliance on government by Americans is fundamentally unsound and goes against historically what this country was made of. "I don't need to own a gun, I can call the police" is a joke. First off anyone that intends to do you harm is going to have done it well before the police arrive,

Handing over your obligation to defend yourself and your family is one of many steps down a path that makes one sheep. Then again, so is handing over the obligation to feed your family and pay your bills and far too many people seem to have no problem doing that.

Yes, the conversation is about rights. The right as an American to provide for the needs of myself and family and live an independent life not reliant on the government for food, shelter, or security on a personal level.

It's a sham argument to suggest that only the proponent of unfettered gun rights is concerned with personal and family defense. To the contrary, the whole point of taking the stances opponents do is to improve safety of their persons and families.

[Lohman446]

It's a sham argument to suggest that only the proponent of unfettered gun rights is concerned with personal and family defense. To the contrary, the whole point of taking the stances opponents do is to improve safety of their persons and families.

You misunderstand the argument. Its not about if you have a right, or want of personal safety.

Its about who you place responsible for it. You place the government (by making laws), and other people (by following said laws) as responsible for it. You shift the obligation.

By being prepared to directly defend it I place myself as most directly responsible for it.

Its exactly what I wrote it is, about how you place responsibility for your obligations. You place it on the government and society, I place it on me.

[drg]

You misunderstand the argument. Its not about if you have a right, or want of personal safety.

Its about who you place responsible for it. You place the government (by making laws), and other people (by following said laws) as responsible for it. You shift the obligation.

By being prepared to directly defend it I place myself as most directly responsible for it.

Its exactly what I wrote it is, about how you place responsibility for your obligations. You place it on the government and society, I place it on me.

I'm going to assume that by "you" you mean "proponents of gun bans", since I have not indicated what my beliefs are.

Anyway, indeed you correctly identify the philosophical distinction, however people who believe such action is the right thing do probably feel they are taking an active role by advocating such laws and policies. After all, the government is ostensibly the same thing as the people, in America. Or do RTKBA-crusaders not believe that part of the founding documents?

Whatever the answer there, who is to say which philosophy is right? Are you more or less able to defend against something than the apparatus of the government? Does it depend on what that is?

[CoolHand]

I agree with Lohman that this is a question of personal responsibility. If you can't see that by now, you're never going to.

Also, in light of your circuitous argument and tendency to dismiss whatever anyone else says, even when backed with hard evidence, I'm thinking you're really more of a troll here for the argument's sake than anyone concerned with actually discussing the facts at hand.

Why else would you dismiss research out of hand, in favor of what you "know" to be true, and contradict everything anyone posts without providing a single shred of evidence to back what you say, unless you simply wish to see the argument continue indefinitely?

Your posts are well written, but your arguments are circuitous and rambling at best, and your conclusions, which you seem to think are obvious, require many odd dodges of logic and a general disregard for the truth to arrive at.

I think rather that it is you who has made up his mind long ago, and no matter how much data is presented to the contrary, you will continue to spout your "facts" that you "know", but provide no proof of.

If anyone is a zealot in this argument, it is most decidedly you.

However, I think you're really just a run of the mill troll.

Good day, sir.

[Pneumagger]

DRG,

The freedom of possessing means to defend yourself is not synonymous with the freedom from having to defend yourself.
Liberals often think of "freedoms from" where the framers of the costitution envisioned freedoms.

We should be free to bear arms if we so please. You do not have to if you don't wish - but don't sit there and claim I shouldn't be able to own a gun because you fear I'll infringe on your freedoms. If you feel that way then you should consequently feel free to arm yourself.
Firearms are the ultimate moderator in society, leveling the playing field by allowing power to the individual as well as power to the people via organized militias. If a group doesn't wish to have guns that is thier choice, but they should not ask that the playing be leveled by taking other's guns away.
If a pump team showed up at a PSP tourney and demanded no one be allowed to use electros they'd get laughed at. How is this any different fundementally?