Guns Guns Guns

[Cruentus]

Inferno,

I'll make a couple of points, and then I have some questions for you.

1. When you live in a place where certain things are controlled by the government, it becomes hard to imagine what it would be like if these things weren't regulated. Then, you go to such a place, or here from people about that place, and realize that it is incidental that these things aren't regulated.

It is easy to come up with chaotic scenarios in ones head to describe if guns were legal, or if drugs were legal, or if alcahol wasn't regulated, or if there were no speed limits, and so forth. Then, when you observe places that don't regulate these things. These chaotic predictions are never true due to lack of regulation.

In places that are "open carry" states (like Arizona, Michigan, etc.), people carry firearms all the time. It is no big deal. Life goes on the same as it would anywhere else, just with more freedom. There isn't havok and mass killings in the streets. There isn't a climate of fear and violence in these areas. And this is because material things (like guns or alcahol) are not going to make or break a social climate.

This is no different then places in Europe where there is little to no alcahol regulation, or where speed limits are obsolete or not enforced. There isn't mass incident of vehicular manslaughter, or drunk elemetry school kids roaming the playgrounds, as many doomsayers predict. In fact, it is my understanding that accident rates and alcaholism and abuse is actually lower in many of these areas where these things aren't regulated.

2. Back to a point I touched on in #1, it is not a matarial thing that could be solved by regulation that makes or breaks a society. Example, In Iraq right now, people are not allowed to carry guns on there person, and people are only allowed to own 1 firearm in the home. And we can all see how well that is working out.

If weapon regulation was the thing that controlled and prevented violent societies, then Iraq would be a calm state, and Michigan would be in total chaos with mass killings in the streets. Yet, the opposite is true. Why?

Violence has to do with the social climate of a locale, not what tools are or aren't allowed. The social climate in Iraq right now is no where near peaceful, making their fairly strict gun regulation obsolete.

If you were to, right now today, lift any and all bans and regulations on firearm ownership and carry in a place with low crime, like the entire Georgian Pennincula Ontario, nothing much would change. There would be no increase in violence or violent crime. Daily life would commence as usual.

Conversly, if you take a place like Wayne County, MI., where crime rates are much higher then the entire province of Ontario, and were to ban all firearm purchase or carry, you would see a spike and increase in crime. Why? This is because the criminals who already don't obey the law would use the fact that law abiding citizens aren't carrying firearms to their advantage.

Both of these facts have been proven true numerous times. In places where crime is significant, weapons bans almost always cause an spike in violent crime. Where as regardless of crime rate (high or low), when a weapon regulation is removed, there is no spike or increase of crime at all. In fact, in some cases violent crime actually goes down. We have seen this in states, cities, and countries when weapons regulations are implimented. We have also seen the converse here in the states, when "duty to retreat" laws are removed, or when Concealed Pistols Licensing is moved to "shall issue," and crime actually decreases.

The above tells us 2 things. First, weapons ownership and carry isn't the problem; the problem is always the social climate and cultural of violence in that local. Therefore, weapons regulation is most often not the answer to these problems, and these measures often backfire greatly.

#3. Now that I have made some points, I have some questions for you:

a. I know that you said that firearms regulation is a "waste of money." I agree. But money aside, philosophically do you think that weapons regulation is the answer to anything or the right thing to do, and why?

b. Would it be uncomfortable for you if people around you did carry weapons more often, and what do you think would change if this occured in your town?

c. Do you think that it is wrong for people to carry weapons? Do you think that people should not carry weapons, period?

I am curious to get your perspective here...

 

[Cirdan]

I am curious.. how many of you have actually used firearms in self defense? I`d like to hear some stories.

 

[Lisa]

I am curious.. how many of you have actually used firearms in self defense? I`d like to hear some stories.

Wouldn't that be the subject for a new thread? (hint hint)

 

[Cirdan]

Wouldn't that be the subject for a new thread? (hint hint)

Aww it`s weekend and I`m too lazy to follow two threads. Besides I can barely see trough the gunsmoke in here. Love the smell tough. Makes me wish I was back in the valley where I could shoot wild cats. Hey they were peeing on our dormat! :shotgun:

 

[Cruentus]

Aww it`s weekend and I`m too lazy to follow two threads. Besides I can barely see trough the gunsmoke in here. Love the smell tough. Makes me wish I was back in the valley where I could shoot wild cats. Hey they were peeing on our dormat! :shotgun:

This has been asked before. It is an interesting read, but keep in mind that there are a lot of people who have been in violent situations involving firearms who won't divulge that information on the forum.

 

[Inferno]

Inferno,

I'll make a couple of points, and then I have some questions for you.

1. When you live in a place where certain things are controlled by the government, it becomes hard to imagine what it would be like if these things weren't regulated. Then, you go to such a place, or here from people about that place, and realize that it is incidental that these things aren't regulated.

It is easy to come up with chaotic scenarios in ones head to describe if guns were legal, or if drugs were legal, or if alcahol wasn't regulated, or if there were no speed limits, and so forth. Then, when you observe places that don't regulate these things. These chaotic predictions are never true due to lack of regulation.

In places that are "open carry" states (like Arizona, Michigan, etc.), people carry firearms all the time. It is no big deal. Life goes on the same as it would anywhere else, just with more freedom. There isn't havok and mass killings in the streets. There isn't a climate of fear and violence in these areas. And this is because material things (like guns or alcahol) are not going to make or break a social climate.

This is no different then places in Europe where there is little to no alcahol regulation, or where speed limits are obsolete or not enforced. There isn't mass incident of vehicular manslaughter, or drunk elemetry school kids roaming the playgrounds, as many doomsayers predict. In fact, it is my understanding that accident rates and alcaholism and abuse is actually lower in many of these areas where these things aren't regulated.

Deregulation without chaos stems from time, if suddenly America or Canada didn't have speed limits, I bet you collision rates would skyrocket immensely. However After time, people would get some sense in them and drive as fast as they can responsibly this could take quite some time though.

Just as if we were to remove the drinking limit or move it to near 12 or 13 like it is in some European countries (Denmark doesn't have a limit but they think 13 is when they can be introduced to alcohol). I think we'd have little drunk children everywhere for awhile and then once it's not so Taboo it would stop being an issue (which I'm assuming would take many years of having drunk children unless parents intervene because they disagree with the law).

What I was hypothesizing earlier is that if guns were suddenly illegal and were destroyed after many many years it'd be near impossible to get a gun unless your in organized crime etc like Japan, the UK etc. I understand you'd probably disagree with this but that's besides the point. It's just as easy to think of good scenarios through regulation as it is to think of chaos theories with deregulation.

2. Back to a point I touched on in #1, it is not a material thing that could be solved by regulation that makes or breaks a society. Example, In Iraq right now, people are not allowed to carry guns on there person, and people are only allowed to own 1 firearm in the home. And we can all see how well that is working out.

If weapon regulation was the thing that controlled and prevented violent societies, then Iraq would be a calm state, and Michigan would be in total chaos with mass killings in the streets. Yet, the opposite is true. Why?

To answer your question, the reason why Iraq is in chaos and Michigan appears civilized is because one is a country another is a state, It's Baghdad that's in chaos (one city). It's also because their in a state of civil war. War will cause gun violence to shoot up as their effective killing machines. Compare it to the American Civil War and Iraq, thats a much better comparison than Michigan gun crime and Iraqi Civil war in Baghdad.

I personally don't agree with regulation. Criminals will still get them, and people will need them to protect themselves against criminals. It's really an all-or-nothing approach. But I don't have a preference myself as I don't live in an immediate dangerous society but I do currently believe Canada should do away with the gun registry.

Violence has to do with the social climate of a locale, not what tools are or aren't allowed. The social climate in Iraq right now is no where near peaceful, making their fairly strict gun regulation obsolete.

If you were to, right now today, lift any and all bans and regulations on firearm ownership and carry in a place with low crime, like the entire Georgian Pennincula Ontario, nothing much would change. There would be no increase in violence or violent crime. Daily life would commence as usual.

Conversly, if you take a place like Wayne County, MI., where crime rates are much higher then the entire province of Ontario, and were to ban all firearm purchase or carry, you would see a spike and increase in crime. Why? This is because the criminals who already don't obey the law would use the fact that law abiding citizens aren't carrying firearms to their advantage.

Both of these facts have been proven true numerous times. In places where crime is significant, weapons bans almost always cause an spike in violent crime. Where as regardless of crime rate (high or low), when a weapon regulation is removed, there is no spike or increase of crime at all. In fact, in some cases violent crime actually goes down. We have seen this in states, cities, and countries when weapons regulations are implimented. We have also seen the converse here in the states, when "duty to retreat" laws are removed, or when Concealed Pistols Licensing is moved to "shall issue," and crime actually decreases.

The above tells us 2 things. First, weapons ownership and carry isn't the problem; the problem is always the social climate and cultural of violence in that local. Therefore, weapons regulation is most often not the answer to these problems, and these measures often backfire greatly.

I also disagree that violent crime would not rise. It'd mean that when there are house break-ins, there would be guns stolen which means they'd sell them to whoever wants them which would be criminals that are looking towards violence who currently use knives. This would lead to muggings with guns instead of knives and since it's a lot less risky for the criminals, it'd probably lead to an influx inc rime. Overtime however it may decrease again as Canadians choose to learn how to use their firearms and begin carrying them around like Michigan. All in all, I feel it would do nothing but escalate the whole situation.

I also agree that if you cut out a little town or city and don't allow them weapons, they'll get overridden with crime, because they'd be weaker targets. But if you remove guns from everyone everywhere, guns would work themselves out of society except for organized crime (as they have resources to smuggle), which are more interested in fraud and other crimes, not muggings.

#3. Now that I have made some points, I have some questions for you:

a. I know that you said that firearms regulation is a "waste of money." I agree. But money aside, philosophically do you think that weapons regulation is the answer to anything or the right thing to do, and why?

Regulation is a great idea on paper but it does not work in reality. Criminals will get a hold of guns if guns are readily available. Regulation will do nothing, as I said it's an all-or-nothing approach.

b. Would it be uncomfortable for you if people around you did carry weapons more often, and what do you think would change if this occured in your town?

I would be a little worried, because it escalates the situation a lot like when warfare technology advances. We use to fight with sticks, then swords, then guns, now missiles that can be fired from the upper atmosphere. This all leads to more danger, but the military sees it as "safer", but by introducing that technology it makes it worse, because now we're all worried from nutjob in North Korea will launch a nuke and flatten the south east corner of America like he promised.

I think the only thing that would change is people would need to be even more careful then before. You can more easily run from a guy with a knife then you can with a guy with a gun. One has range the other doesn't. So we'd be safer in the sense that we all had powerful weapons to protect ourselves, but we'd be less safe because there would be more powerful weapons aimed at us then before as well.

c. Do you think that it is wrong for people to carry weapons? Do you think that people should not carry weapons, period?

This is a very hard question for me to answer as I believe in everyones ability to make their own decisions. I understand why people feel the need for them, and thanks to this thread I think my understanding is now even broader. I do not feel I can make any decision such as this for fear of offending someone, and because I simply need a lot more information and time to think it over to come out with a conclusion I'd be willing to stand by.

Thanks, and again I'm not trying to offend anyone in the gun loving camp, I'm still trying to decide for myself and am simply answering questions to the best of my ability and knowledge at this time. Much appreciated for the courtesy I've received thus far.

 

[Dave Leverich]

Deregulation without chaos stems from time, if suddenly America or Canada didn't have speed limits, I bet you collision rates would skyrocket immensely. However After time, people would get some sense in them and drive as fast as they can responsibly this could take quite some time though.

I know it's a quasi-offshoot, but...
The reason the speed limits came into being had nothing to do with safety, it was due to skyrocketing gas prices and public road upkeep. Originally that is. I'm sure many have used the 'safety' card since then to alter the number up or down in places.

Am I off on that? I do like to have my facts right when possible heh.

 

[shesulsa]

I know it's a quasi-offshoot, but...
The reason the speed limits came into being had nothing to do with safety, it was due to skyrocketing gas prices and public road upkeep. Originally that is. I'm sure many have used the 'safety' card since then to alter the number up or down in places.

Am I off on that? I do like to have my facts right when possible heh.

Uh ... wow ... that's way off-topic. Wanna, maybe, start another thread for that one?

 

[Carol]

But if you remove guns from everyone everywhere, guns would work themselves out of society except for organized crime (as they have resources to smuggle), which are more interested in fraud and other crimes, not muggings.

That I don't particularly agree with. My ex works for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security which (among other things) has the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol under its jurisdiction. There are many small-time and onsie-twosie cases of gun smuggling, drugs, jewels...even industrial chemicals that are not as environmentally friendly as other that are in use. It seems it doesn't depend on what the item is...as long as there is a demand for the item (legal or not) there are going to be people (large and small) that plot to get it in to our respective countries.

In many ways, I wish it was only organized crime that we had to worry about in terms of weapons smuggling.

Our common border is a particular concern for immigration officials as there is so much that is unguarded due to the good relationship between our two countries. Unfortunately there are some bad people that exploit that and harm both of our nations in the process.

 

[tellner]

Inferno, on Madagascar and Jamaica guns for civilians are completely illegal with ferocious penalties for simple possession. They have a higher rate of firearms homicide than the US. Britain completely outlawed the ownership of handguns except for things like a veterinarian's smoothbore .22. The crime rate with guns has been going up steadliy. Of course that also has to do with things like the UK's ghastly rate of drunkeness and an increased tolerance for violence.

If islands can't manage this how can a country with two long unfortified land borders and plenty of coastline? Heck, just smuggle a few guns in on routine shipments of cocaine, weed or heroin. If they really are that illegal they'll sell for a higher price.

What will you have accomplished? About a hundred million people will suddenly become criminals. They will resent the government, and it will lose support. The "ugly gun" ban of 1994 cost the Democrats the House and Senate according to ex-Speaker Tom Foley and ex-President Clinton. Many will buy guns illegally which would swamp the criminal justice system.

If you could magically uninvent firearms it would be wonderful. For the bad people. You've just made the women, the elderly, the weak and the peaceful victims. The big, strong and aggressive criminals suddenly have an even greater advantage. Yes, you may be a kick-*** martial artist who would be able to handle them. But you won't always be one. And most people never will, nor should they have to take what amounts to an extra quarter time job just to undo some of the advantages of the predators.

 

[Inferno]

That I don't particularly agree with. My ex works for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security which (among other things) has the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol under its jurisdiction. There are many small-time and onsie-twosie cases of gun smuggling, drugs, jewels...even industrial chemicals that are not as environmentally friendly as other that are in use. It seems it doesn't depend on what the item is...as long as there is a demand for the item (legal or not) there are going to be people (large and small) that plot to get it in to our respective countries.

In many ways, I wish it was only organized crime that we had to worry about in terms of weapons smuggling.

Our common border is a particular concern for immigration officials as there is so much that is unguarded due to the good relationship between our two countries. Unfortunately there are some bad people that exploit that and harm both of our nations in the process.

I'm going off of the Canadian perspective, there isn't much gun running going on here except people from America bringing them up (my references being the huge busts that are made and put in the news, because we have little much else to broadcast besides new speed bumps). I'd highly doubt there is much going down the other way (besides Marijuana from British Columbia) since it's hard to obtain firearms here legally let alone illegally. It'd be less cost effective than getting them in America and selling them there as opposed to risking smuggling many firearms from Canada and trying to sell them in America.

Inferno, on Madagascar and Jamaica guns for civilians are completely illegal with ferocious penalties for simple possession. They have a higher rate of firearms homicide than the US. Britain completely outlawed the ownership of handguns except for things like a veterinarian's smoothbore .22. The crime rate with guns has been going up steadliy. Of course that also has to do with things like the UK's ghastly rate of drunkeness and an increased tolerance for violence.

If islands can't manage this how can a country with two long unfortified land borders and plenty of coastline? Heck, just smuggle a few guns in on routine shipments of cocaine, weed or heroin. If they really are that illegal they'll sell for a higher price.

What will you have accomplished? About a hundred million people will suddenly become criminals. They will resent the government, and it will lose support. The "ugly gun" ban of 1994 cost the Democrats the House and Senate according to ex-Speaker Tom Foley and ex-President Clinton. Many will buy guns illegally which would swamp the criminal justice system.

If you could magically uninvent firearms it would be wonderful. For the bad people. You've just made the women, the elderly, the weak and the peaceful victims. The big, strong and aggressive criminals suddenly have an even greater advantage. Yes, you may be a kick-*** martial artist who would be able to handle them. But you won't always be one. And most people never will, nor should they have to take what amounts to an extra quarter time job just to undo some of the advantages of the predators.

Well I wasn't actually referring to Madagascar and Jamaica but more along the lines of the G8 countries since they are more well developed and would be able to actual enforce the laws passed a lot better than countries like that would be able to.

As I said I'm not trying to change people's opinions because most have them set in stone beforehand so there is not much point. But compare the gun deaths/injuries compared to Japan or the UK who don't allow the freedoms you have in America, even considering the population difference it's obscene. I don't doubt someone can provide statistics for gun deaths in a third world country that contradict this but that doesn't change the fact.

It's not like other countries have never had guns, they outlawed them and they did work them out of society. I realize that the NRA and this debate has been going on forever so I don't see an end in sight. You will counter what I say, I would need to counter again ad infinitum. I just wanted to know how people felt about firearms and how they mingle with self-defense and martial arts. I'm now aware of the general opinion (guns=good, a necessity), so I think I'm done. So to stop an ugly dispute arising I concede and will probably stop posting in this thread. I don't want to open any can of worms any farther then it already has been opened.

Cheers.

 

[Cruentus]

What I was hypothesizing earlier is that if guns were suddenly illegal and were destroyed after many many years it'd be near impossible to get a gun unless your in organized crime etc like Japan, the UK etc. I understand you'd probably disagree with this but that's besides the point. It's just as easy to think of good scenarios through regulation as it is to think of chaos theories with deregulation.To answer your question, the reason why Iraq is in chaos and Michigan appears civilized is because one is a country another is a state, It's Baghdad that's in chaos (one city). It's also because their in a state of civil war. War will cause gun violence to shoot up as their effective killing machines. Compare it to the American Civil War and Iraq, thats a much better comparison than Michigan gun crime and Iraqi Civil war in Baghdad.

Sure, Iraq is a war zone. But it doesn't have to be. It is this way because certain factions refuse to move forward, despite disagreements, in a nonviolent way. In Michigan, we have white supremicists and militia extremist, the highest population of Muslims in North America (some of them extremists), and a large population of African Americans who belong to some extreme leftist groups. And, they all have access to weapons (some of them harbor what would be considered stockpiles). Yet, we aren't in "Civil War." We don't even have a significant % of "gang violence" against different groups. This is because our societal structure is as such where these groups who hate each other can still cohexist without mayhem in the streets for the greater good of society. People in Iraq, at the moment, are unable to do this.

But, if you still feel that this is an "apples to oranges" comparison, then we can look at some areas in the Caribean, South America, and Africa that have very strict gun regulation with very high gun violence. Thus, still proving the point that it really is the social climate that determines the level of violence rather then lack of regulation on weapons.

What I was hypothesizing earlier is that if guns were suddenly illegal and were destroyed after many many years it'd be near impossible to get a gun unless your in organized crime etc like Japan, the UK etc. I understand you'd probably disagree with this but that's besides the point. It's just as easy to think of good scenarios through regulation as it is to think of chaos theories with deregulation.

Hey, I would be happy if we were to remove all the guns from the planet, and erase the technology away to make them on the black market. I always thought it would be cool to live in medival times anyway! lol :viking3:

But on a serious note, the reality is that this is of course impossible. For better or worse, guns, and the reality of them, are not going away. Just like how doomsday scenarios thought up of for deregulation are complete fantasy, so is utopia dreams brought forth with regulation. Neither are rooted in reality.

Understanding reality means dealing with the fact that people have guns, and some of these people would do us harm. Regulation does not deal with this reality well.

I personally don't agree with regulation. Criminals will still get them, and people will need them to protect themselves against criminals. It's really an all-or-nothing approach. But I don't have a preference myself as I don't live in an immediate dangerous society but I do currently believe Canada should do away with the gun registry.

I agree with you there, and really respect that stance. This tells me that you are willing to deal with reality, even though you choose not to carry or own guns because you don't feel it necessary.

Making that choice while being willing to allow others the freedom to choose differently is very honorable and respectable, in my opinion!

I also disagree that violent crime would not rise. It'd mean that when there are house break-ins, there would be guns stolen which means they'd sell them to whoever wants them which would be criminals that are looking towards violence who currently use knives. This would lead to muggings with guns instead of knives and since it's a lot less risky for the criminals, it'd probably lead to an influx inc rime. Overtime however it may decrease again as Canadians choose to learn how to use their firearms and begin carrying them around like Michigan. All in all, I feel it would do nothing but escalate the whole situation.

I also agree that if you cut out a little town or city and don't allow them weapons, they'll get overridden with crime, because they'd be weaker targets. But if you remove guns from everyone everywhere, guns would work themselves out of society except for organized crime (as they have resources to smuggle), which are more interested in fraud and other crimes, not muggings.

What you say is not illogical by any means; it is just untrue. Sometimes what seems logical simply does not occur when put into application.

There have been many situations and areas, particularly in the states, where weapons regulations are lifted, yet you would be hard pressed to find a case where crime spiked because of it. It just doesn't happen, for multiple reasons.

And large areas (like Australia) where strict weapons bans are in place has always led to a spike in crime when these bans were inacted. These are the facts, not hypothetical scenarios.

But the reason why banning all guns in most areas would be bad has little to do with whether or not crime goes up or not. The real problem is with gun bans you then create a "survival of the fittest" society where the weaker, law abiding person has no means of self-protection. So the young lady who is being stalked by an ex-boyfriend has no means of protecting herself if he decides to come after her. She has to live in fear and paranoia rather then use an effective option for self-protection. This is not fair or moral, in my opinion. It is morally wrong to take away peoples means of self-defense. And this is the real reason why gun regulation is wrong.

Also, you seem more comfortable with the idea that people would use knives or other weapons for crime rather then a firearm. This is strange to me. Do you know that if a person is going to do a violent crime and has to use a knife or bludgen, they will feel they have to escalate the force level to get what they want? In order to psychologically and physically feel that they have overcome the victim enough to reach their goal, criminals are going to be more violent and injurous to their victims. So instead of putting a gun in someones face to get them to empty the cash register, they are going to stab them repeatedly in the chest, or bludgeon them repeatedly in the head. And to defend himself, the poor old store owner now has to go toe to toe with a knife or bludgeon himself with a young man twice his strength and half his age?

You see, the society without guns is not a good tradeoff, in my opinion. We need to work on making a society without violent crime, and the gun thing will work itself out.

Regulation is a great idea on paper but it does not work in reality. Criminals will get a hold of guns if guns are readily available. Regulation will do nothing, as I said it's an all-or-nothing approach.

I would be a little worried, because it escalates the situation a lot like when warfare technology advances. We use to fight with sticks, then swords, then guns, now missiles that can be fired from the upper atmosphere. This all leads to more danger, but the military sees it as "safer", but by introducing that technology it makes it worse, because now we're all worried from nutjob in North Korea will launch a nuke and flatten the south east corner of America like he promised.

I think the only thing that would change is people would need to be even more careful then before. You can more easily run from a guy with a knife then you can with a guy with a gun. One has range the other doesn't. So we'd be safer in the sense that we all had powerful weapons to protect ourselves, but we'd be less safe because there would be more powerful weapons aimed at us then before as well.

This is a very hard question for me to answer as I believe in everyones ability to make their own decisions. I understand why people feel the need for them, and thanks to this thread I think my understanding is now even broader. I do not feel I can make any decision such as this for fear of offending someone, and because I simply need a lot more information and time to think it over to come out with a conclusion I'd be willing to stand by.

Thanks, and again I'm not trying to offend anyone in the gun loving camp, I'm still trying to decide for myself and am simply answering questions to the best of my ability and knowledge at this time. Much appreciated for the courtesy I've received thus far.

Thank you for a good discussion. No offense taken from this side of the computer.

It is understandable, this issue of an "arms race." What needs to be stopped is the technolgical push to make bigger and better weapons. This is more on a business level between the iron triangle of governments, research facilities, and weapons manufacters. This "arms race" doesn't effect us much on the streets. Who cares if someone is shooting the latest glock with laser sites, or an old school snub nose revolver? A bullet is a bullet at that point. So, this really doesn't matter on a street level. The "arms race" issue is more on a governmental level. One can certainly be against the arms race, and in support of individuals having the freedom of self-protection.

And that is really what it is about. It is about giving people the freedom to protect themselves. There are many people who have been able to protect themselves and other citizens because they had a firearm with them at the time. There are many children, wives, and husbands who are alive because someone had the courage to carry their weapon that day, and use it when the **** hit the fan.

Allowing people to be free to take the measures for self-defense, that isn't bound to physical health or poweress, is the moral thing to do.

And as to other self-defense measures, like avoidence, awareness, running if one can from a theat, etc.; people who legally carry a firearm are more apt to know about and exercise these other important self-defense options. This is because with a self-defense equalizer like a firearm comes power, and with power comes more responsibility to do the right thing. Most people who carry know that they will be facing severe moral and legal consequences if they are in a shooting, and if any part of that shooting is unclean they are screwed. So they take any and all measures for self-protection before pulling that trigger. Most people don't want the consequences for taking a life. And the ones that do want those consquences and that would unlawfully do violence, are not the ones getting permits to carry guns, I can assure you. And in these concealed carry classes, these self-defense measures are covered extensively. I have observed that the average person who lawfully carries knows more about general self-defense then the average martial artist.

Most people will choose not to carry in a society where firearms are not the commonplace. It is just that giving people the freedom and option for effective self-defense, which means gun carry if they choose, is the only moral choice here...

 

[tellner]

Now that I think of it, if you were to ban guns, especially handguns, effectively it would lead to greater carnage. Consider the Sten Gun. It is cheap and effective. The plans are everywhere. Any competent and most incompetent guys with access to a fairly primitive shop can turn out one in under eight hours. Handgun or submachine gun. Which would you rather see the criminal element carrying?

Point two. Consider what my first Silat teacher said when I speculated about just that scenario. He said "I'm a big strong man who carries Pencak Silat and carries knives. That would make me Super Bandit."

 

[Inferno]

The reason I don't get much enjoyment from this thread anymore is because it's now a debate about guns are good or bad and is no longer a learning experience for me. However decided I will try to answer any questions of my current opinion to those who can keep it civil to be fair as it may still be interesting to some.

Sure, Iraq is a war zone. But it doesn't have to be. It is this way because certain factions refuse to move forward, despite disagreements, in a nonviolent way. In Michigan, we have white supremicists and militia extremist, the highest population of Muslims in North America (some of them extremists), and a large population of African Americans who belong to some extreme leftist groups. And, they all have access to weapons (some of them harbor what would be considered stockpiles). Yet, we aren't in "Civil War." We don't even have a significant % of "gang violence" against different groups. This is because our societal structure is as such where these groups who hate each other can still cohexist without mayhem in the streets for the greater good of society. People in Iraq, at the moment, are unable to do this.

But, if you still feel that this is an "apples to oranges" comparison, then we can look at some areas in the Caribean, South America, and Africa that have very strict gun regulation with very high gun violence. Thus, still proving the point that it really is the social climate that determines the level of violence rather then lack of regulation on weapons.

As I stated before, Africa and South America are not G8 countries, they are not as secure in their governments and well developed enough to handle such a massive change (for some). Africa is literally in tatters if you ask me, when a huge chunk of people are starving (but not all countries are hurting so bad), as the Bolshevik revolution and many others show, when people are starving their more than willing to take up arms and fight just about anyone.

Hey, I would be happy if we were to remove all the guns from the planet, and erase the technology away to make them on the black market. I always thought it would be cool to live in medival times anyway! lol :viking3:

But on a serious note, the reality is that this is of course impossible. For better or worse, guns, and the reality of them, are not going away. Just like how doomsday scenarios thought up of for deregulation are complete fantasy, so is utopia dreams brought forth with regulation. Neither are rooted in reality.

Understanding reality means dealing with the fact that people have guns, and some of these people would do us harm. Regulation does not deal with this reality well.

I'm not talking about regulation, if I was to take the stance against firearms, it'd be elimination, NOT regulation. I also believe it is possible, it would not be extremely easy, but it would take sacrifice and patience.

To do it safely, it'd probably require some sort of stepping system, possibly regulation that gets stiffer and stiffer and then eradicates them all together. This makes it a steady slope meaning there is less chance of it all going to hell in a hand basket.

Eventually life would go back to normal (probably quite quickly if it's setup right) and gun violence and crime would go down because of a lack of guns to do said crime. It'd be just like Japan, the UK or Canada which have much lower gun violence even if you take population into account.

And unlike what some forum users tend to believe it wouldn't lead criminals to all grab firearms and take the citizenry hostages as this simply doesn't happen in countries with huge restrictions on firearms. Even if the criminals who had weapons now and refused to turn them in, in a small amount of time they'd become quite rare as many weapons are picked up daily by LE and would be disposed of.

Are there risks? Definitely. Everything worth doing has risks or will cause damage to some extent, this is how we justify war and medical research with the deadliest viruses known to man.

What you say is not illogical by any means; it is just untrue. Sometimes what seems logical simply does not occur when put into application.

If it's not illogical, but you claim it's untrue? How can this be so? It would need to be illogical and would need some sort of precedence to be not factual and thus would be illogical, no? Not to get picky, but I felt this statement could easily be rewritten as "No, your wrong."

There have been many situations and areas, particularly in the states, where weapons regulations are lifted, yet you would be hard pressed to find a case where crime spiked because of it. It just doesn't happen, for multiple reasons.

And large areas (like Australia) where strict weapons bans are in place has always led to a spike in crime when these bans were inacted. These are the facts, not hypothetical scenarios.

In the Unites States it's an amendment to carry a gun, I don't understand how there could have ever been a restriction on carrying firearms? Or do you mean an "open carry" law? I'm pretty sure that many people carry handguns despite laws if they have them available just as I know a percentage of Canadians carry pocket knives for protections which is against the law here. Just because a law states something it won't happen, thats why guns would need to be eliminated, not giving people an option.

As for Australia, I understand that at first it would be extreme, thats why a step system and there would need to be a period where it'd probably be a little rougher, thats progress. A small amount of discomfort for a period of time would outweigh the safety matters afterwards. Hell I don't even carry cash on me, so mugging me would be futile. I don't see much sense in mugging anymore, I can see B&E, but that can be done with or without a firearm. I think it'd pass but I can understand you'd feel uncomfortable without having a firearm.

But the reason why banning all guns in most areas would be bad has little to do with whether or not crime goes up or not. The real problem is with gun bans you then create a "survival of the fittest" society where the weaker, law abiding person has no means of self-protection. So the young lady who is being stalked by an ex-boyfriend has no means of protecting herself if he decides to come after her. She has to live in fear and paranoia rather then use an effective option for self-protection. This is not fair or moral, in my opinion. It is morally wrong to take away peoples means of self-defense. And this is the real reason why gun regulation is wrong.

I understand what you mean, we have that her ein Canada, it's illegal for me to even give my wife mace or pepper spray (there is a whole thread saying it's useless anyway but just for example), I feel at times this is unfair. But I could consider having an RPG at my side for safety as well in case some crazy lunitic wants to hit me with his car. It sounds crazy, and it's just as crazy as the firearm thing if you think about it. Where do you draw the line when it comes to self-defense?

Also, you seem more comfortable with the idea that people would use knives or other weapons for crime rather then a firearm. This is strange to me. Do you know that if a person is going to do a violent crime and has to use a knife or bludgen, they will feel they have to escalate the force level to get what they want? In order to psychologically and physically feel that they have overcome the victim enough to reach their goal, criminals are going to be more violent and injurous to their victims. So instead of putting a gun in someones face to get them to empty the cash register, they are going to stab them repeatedly in the chest, or bludgeon them repeatedly in the head. And to defend himself, the poor old store owner now has to go toe to toe with a knife or bludgeon himself with a young man twice his strength and half his age?

I think a better weapon to mug people with would be a vial of blood. Personally I find that rather scary, if you didn't know where it came from you may think he has AIDS or some other disease. More scary to me than a knife. I'd also like to see some statistics on that (I'll google them later) as to me, someone just has to pull a trigger to kill me, if they ahvea knfie they have to get close enough to me and somehow jab or slice me with it.

I also think that your conclusion that they'd just stab an old man instead of threatening him with a gun is based soley on opinion as I've seen many cases where they just opened fire then took the money. It's about the person, I don't think either has a disposition to make it more violent or not, in fact I think guns would give criminals more confidence as it's so easy to use in comparison to a knife.

You see, the society without guns is not a good trade off, in my opinion. We need to work on making a society without violent crime, and the gun thing will work itself out.

I think guns are a short term fix, when eradication of guns is a long term one. When it's so easy to hurt someone, and you can do it from a distance, it removes fear and it removes compassion. If you stab someone have have their blood run all over your hands, you get a more personal experience than if you were to fire a gun at someone running away from you in fear from 30 yards. Especially when video games make killing people with guns so damn fun and addicting.

Thank you for a good discussion. No offense taken from this side of the computer.

No offense on this side either, but I feel this thread is on a slippery slope now as posts are directed at me, and are about protecting gun rights and against gun regulation which is a very touchy topic for most gun wielding Americans.

It is understandable, this issue of an "arms race." What needs to be stopped is the technolgical push to make bigger and better weapons. This is more on a business level between the iron triangle of governments, research facilities, and weapons manufacters. This "arms race" doesn't effect us much on the streets. Who cares if someone is shooting the latest glock with laser sites, or an old school snub nose revolver? A bullet is a bullet at that point. So, this really doesn't matter on a street level. The "arms race" issue is more on a governmental level. One can certainly be against the arms race, and in support of individuals having the freedom of self-protection.

I disagree, anything made in the military will dribble down to the streets and people in general. When laser pistols come out that allow us to shoot through walls and "stun people" as in knock them out ala Star trek, this will escalate the situation further as you can get mugged with no harm done to you, which will lead to bigger protection and other weapons and yadda yadda. It's a slippery slope whether it's the government problem or not. People buy more powerful and reliable guns as opposed to old sling shots, so they would take a laser pistol over a bullet as well.

As I said this relates to the streets as well, if everyone carries a gun, criminals will AT LEAST need a gun to take advantage of the people. This is one of the reasons why cops don't carry bigger guns, because then criminals will carry BIGGER ones, because they need them against the cops. It's a vicious cycle.

Guns are more dangerous than knives as they have range, you don't even need to be next to your enemy and all you do is point and squeeze the trigger. Anyone who disagrees, you get a combat knife and I get a shotgun, we start 40 paces away. Which would you rather have criminals carrying?

And no, I'm not saying no criminals would carry guns, sure there would be. Just like I'm sure some carry fully automatics now. It's all a matter of escalation and supply and demand. Criminals NEED guns? They'll get them.

And that is really what it is about. It is about giving people the freedom to protect themselves. There are many people who have been able to protect themselves and other citizens because they had a firearm with them at the time. There are many children, wives, and husbands who are alive because someone had the courage to carry their weapon that day, and use it when the **** hit the fan.

Allowing people to be free to take the measures for self-defense, that isn't bound to physical health or poweress, is the moral thing to do.

Safety of yourself and loved ones is a necessity, but again where do you draw the line. RPG? Hand grenades? Bullet proof vests for everyone? How about armored vehicles?

And as to other self-defense measures, like avoidence, awareness, running if one can from a theat, etc.; people who legally carry a firearm are more apt to know about and exercise these other important self-defense options. This is because with a self-defense equalizer like a firearm comes power, and with power comes more responsibility to do the right thing. Most people who carry know that they will be facing severe moral and legal consequences if they are in a shooting, and if any part of that shooting is unclean they are screwed. So they take any and all measures for self-protection before pulling that trigger. Most people don't want the consequences for taking a life. And the ones that do want those consquences and that would unlawfully do violence, are not the ones getting permits to carry guns, I can assure you. And in these concealed carry classes, these self-defense measures are covered extensively. I have observed that the average person who lawfully carries knows more about general self-defense then the average martial artist.

I have a hard time seeing how an inanimate object in someones possession could cause them to act honourably and feel the need to be responsible. Not all criminals carry firearms illegally, many murders every year are by people who have legal firearms they sued to perform the murders which makes them criminals. The same white supremacists and militia extremists you talked about for instance. The same Iraqis you were referring to who are having issues keeping their weapons in their home.

Most people will choose not to carry in a society where firearms are not the commonplace. It is just that giving people the freedom and option for effective self-defense, which means gun carry if they choose, is the only moral choice here...

I am fine with people carrying guns, but I feel it's an all-or-nothing approach. I plan to own a pistol, and a scoped rifle for protection (in severe cases such as looting or revolution) and firing ranges, so I'm not all anti-gun or anything, just debating a point and would favour any REAL ideas to the issue at large. However the governments of today are lacking and leave me with a sour taste in my mouth, so it'd have to be one hell of a plan, that's for sure.

Now that I think of it, if you were to ban guns, especially handguns, effectively it would lead to greater carnage. Consider the Sten Gun. It is cheap and effective. The plans are everywhere. Any competent and most incompetent guys with access to a fairly primitive shop can turn out one in under eight hours. Handgun or submachine gun. Which would you rather see the criminal element carrying?

Point two. Consider what my first Silat teacher said when I speculated about just that scenario. He said "I'm a big strong man who carries Pencak Silat and carries knives. That would make me Super Bandit."

How is this any different then someone who can make C4 out of bleach? Or a pipe bomb with gunpowder? I am not any more worried then I would be now. As for your second point, I don't quite understand...perhaps you can rephrase the question or statement?

 

[Lisa]

:lurk:

This is excellent conversation and I must say, I am impressed with it not escalating to a shouting match.

Inferno, you wrote:

No offense on this side either, but I feel this thread is on a slippery slope now as posts are directed at me, and are about protecting gun rights and against gun regulation which is a very touchy topic for most gun wielding Americans.

First off, I feel it is a touchy subject for non gun weilding Americans too. I have yet to meet anyone on this board who likes having their civil liberties violated. Their opinions may vary, but they hold strong on holding up what is theirs to protect.

Secondly, when someone comes onto a board this size and starts a thread called "GUNS GUNS GUNS" and furher writes:

It seems that every thread I read, there is an overwhelming majority of users who talk about them carrying around several firearms from .357 Magnums to glocks. I find this troubling and this could be because I reside in Canada.

Is it normal for Americans to "pack heat" when they go out? Or is this forum just packed with people who fear for their safety more so than the general public and feel the need?

..people are going to ask you to back that statement and you have peaked their curiosity. It would be the same if it were a multitude of other subject. They are an extremely smart bunch on this board.

So, I thank you for sharing with us your opinions and views. I am one of those Canadians that believes we should be able to carry weapons if we so chose. Not saying I would, because the responsibilities attached with it but I believe it is a personal choice to be able to protect yourself and your loved ones.

Twenty years ago, when I was your age, my opinions differed. I would love to have this conversation with you twenty years from now just to see if your views have changed.

 

[Grenadier]

As I stated before, Africa and South America are not G8 countries, they are not as secure in their governments and well developed enough to handle such a massive change (for some). Africa is literally in tatters if you ask me, when a huge chunk of people are starving (but not all countries are hurting so bad), as the Bolshevik revolution and many others show, when people are starving their more than willing to take up arms and fight just about anyone.

Thus, you have just completely agreed with me, that it is not a firearms issue, but rather a cultural issue. It has nothing to do with the lawful ownership of firearms.

I'm not talking about regulation, if I was to take the stance against firearms, it'd be elimination, NOT regulation. I also believe it is possible, it would not be extremely easy, but it would take sacrifice and patience.

Incorrect. As Tellner stated correctly, anyone with a rudimentary understanding of how to operate a milling machine can easily manufacture the whole receiver for a STEN submachine gun, or manufacture the frames of a handgun. You don't even need sophisticated tools or good facilities for this, as evidenced by the loads of small arms manufactured by the British population during WWII, after all of their factories had been bombed by the German Luftwaffe.

Here's a bit of a lesson for you: In the USA, we tried to eliminate the consumption of alcohol back in the 1920's, and all it did was simply drive alcohol manufacturing underground, and produce some very powerful criminals who made their living off such manufacture as well as smuggling. One particular rumrunning criminal family even managed to become a powerful force in the political field that still wields considerable power today (Kennedy).

Anyone who wanted to get a drink illegally could easily do so by going to various speakeasies (unlawful bars). Anyone who wanted to, could set up a still in their back yard, and make their own alcohol. The only guy who couldn't get alcohol was the law abiding individual, who was now unable to get a cheap drink or a nickel beer without breaking the laws.


Attempting to eliminate lawfully owned firearms will accomplish nothing. All you will do is give the "might makes right" crowd more power, since you've now taken away the equalizer.

To do it safely, it'd probably require some sort of stepping system, possibly regulation that gets stiffer and stiffer and then eradicates them all together. This makes it a steady slope meaning there is less chance of it all going to hell in a hand basket.

Again, this accomplishes nothing. Look at the failed 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that ignorant politicians foisted onto the American people, which banned various weapons that fired one shot per trigger pull.

It did absolutely nothing to reduce the use of such weapons in crimes (which was pretty much but a fleeting blip on the radar). Instead, all it did was jack up the prices of such weapons.

Eventually life would go back to normal (probably quite quickly if it's setup right) and gun violence and crime would go down because of a lack of guns to do said crime. It'd be just like Japan, the UK or Canada which have much lower gun violence even if you take population into account.

Incorrect. People in a more violent culture will continue to commit acts of crime, just using different methods.

As you have already admitted above, it's not a gun issue. It's a cultural issue, and one that must be addressed in the home by caring parents. Trying to blame an inanimate object for being the source of "evil" is akin to trying to blame the Jack Daniels Distillery for the actions of one US Senator at Chappaquidick.

And unlike what some forum users tend to believe it wouldn't lead criminals to all grab firearms and take the citizenry hostages as this simply doesn't happen in countries with huge restrictions on firearms. Even if the criminals who had weapons now and refused to turn them in, in a small amount of time they'd become quite rare as many weapons are picked up daily by LE and would be disposed of.

And more could simply be manufactured on a whim. Unless you plan to outlaw milling machines and steel ownership by the civilian populace, this would be a waste of time.

Are there risks? Definitely. Everything worth doing has risks or will cause damage to some extent, this is how we justify war and medical research with the deadliest viruses known to man.

Incorrect. Viral research in today's society is not performed on living humans when full strength, living virii are involved. There really is no risk to the human populace.

unfair. But I could consider having an RPG at my side for safety as well in case some crazy lunitic wants to hit me with his car. It sounds crazy, and it's just as crazy as the firearm thing if you think about it. Where do you draw the line when it comes to self-defense?

Now you're entering the territory of exaggeration. I would challenge you to find a law abiding human being who would carry a rocket propelled grenade launcher in the street for personal defense. First of all, it's impractical, since you would probably be caught in the blast radius. Second, I doubt you have the training and ability to hit a moving vehicle going at the speeds that you are mentioning.

I think guns are a short term fix, when eradication of guns is a long term one.

I do have a question for you: How would you propose someone who lives in the rural areas, where animal attacks are frequent, to defend themselves? Using a bow and arrow against a brown bear is only going to get you killed, after all, and that's one animal that you don't want to close quarters with in a battle.

I disagree, anything made in the military will dribble down to the streets and people in general. When laser pistols come out that allow us to shoot through walls and "stun people" as in knock them out ala Star trek, this will escalate the situation further as you can get mugged with no harm done to you, which will lead to bigger protection and other weapons and yadda yadda.

Incorrect. You are contradicting youself again. Law-abiding people will continue to obey the laws. Criminals will still refuse to obey the laws.

By the way, you won't have to worry about laser-based small arms. The diodes used to generate such light are incredibly fragile, and unsuitable for use in a firearm.

As I said this relates to the streets as well, if everyone carries a gun, criminals will AT LEAST need a gun to take advantage of the people. This is one of the reasons why cops don't carry bigger guns, because then criminals will carry BIGGER ones, because they need them against the cops. It's a vicious cycle.

Incorrect. Criminals will use whatever weapons are available to them by stealing them or from the black market. They don't really have a say in what they get.

And for your information, many police officers carry fully automatic weapons in the trunks of their cars. Almost all police cars also have at least a 12 gauge shotgun available to them, and the 12 gauge shotgun is the king of small arms-based manstopping power. Trust me.

 

[Carol]

Twenty years ago, when I was your age, my opinions differed. I would love to have this conversation with you twenty years from now just to see if your views have changed.

Oh heck, I'd love to have this same conversation with everyone here 20 years from now to see if anyone's views have changed.

Props to you, Inferno. I am really enjoying listening to your point of you. Personally, I think I've learned a lot by listening to people I don't agree with and understanding why they feel differently than I do.

There are plenty of people in my family that have a strong opinion about guns, one way or another. I couldn't have a discussion like this with my own family. Instead of trying to hear each other out, the conversation would degrade in to emotional knee-jerk responses. Which is a shame.

I'm really glad that you brought the topic up.

 

[Cirdan]

I did some reading on the subject and I see there are reports indicating that in the US over 80% of homocides by gun happens during altercations at home not involving breaking in, however it is hard to find any solid information. If this is correct if would seem much of the problem is people with guns acting in the height of passion and possibly the wrong person getting his/her hand on the weapon because it was not stored properly. In other words, locked up seperately from the ammunition.

Thoughts on this?

 

[bydand]

First off I would like to extend a hearty "Good Job!" to everyone who has posted on this thread and topic for this long without it degrading into an unreasonable shouting match. I do respect others feelings on the subject and their personal convictions about firearms. Weather it be: "nobody should have them",or "everybody should have them", or anyplace in between these two sides. I would expect the same from both sides as well. You don't want to own a firearm, good, follow your personal ideals; other side of the coin though, I want to own firearms, fine, just don't try to force me to behave according to your personal ideals. That would be like me trying to make firearm ownership manditory or everybody weather you like them or not. Doesn't make sense and wouldn't harbor good feelings toward the other side either.

Guns are more dangerous than knives as they have range, you don't even need to be next to your enemy and all you do is point and squeeze the trigger. Anyone who disagrees, you get a combat knife and I get a shotgun, we start 40 paces away. Which would you rather have criminals carrying?

And no, I'm not saying no criminals would carry guns, sure there would be. Just like I'm sure some carry fully automatics now. It's all a matter of escalation and supply and demand. Criminals NEED guns? They'll get them.

As for this question, in this case I would want them to have the knife. If we were to look at the question from the aspect of you being the criminal it changes things greatly. I think the second part I quoted underlines the importance of the average citizen having the option to carry a firearm IF THEY CHOOSE. That is the key, choice. Don't make it so the criminal is the only one with the choice to carry if they want.


Change the situation a little bit then ask the same question: Guns are more dangerous than knives as they have range, you don't even need to be next to your enemy and all you do is point and squeeze the trigger. Anyone who disagrees, you get a combat knife and I get a shotgun, we start 1 foot away. Which would you rather have criminals carrying?

The answer to this question would be for the crimal to have the shotgun personally.

Change it again slightly: Guns are more dangerous than knives as they have range, you don't even need to be next to your enemy and all you do is point and squeeze the trigger. Anyone who disagrees, you get a .357 and I get a shotgun, we start 40 paces away. Which would you rather have criminals carrying?

I want them to have the shotgun again. Sure you are going to get pegged with some pellets probably, but...


I think this goes to show that each side can (and do) come up with situations and guestions that support their side (of course, that is just common sense.) Inferno I really respect your stand, I really do. I disagree, but that shouldn't change your point of view and I know you don't expect your stand to change my point of view. That is what makes this such a great forum, we can disagree, but dont have to lose respect due to hotheaded posts 99% of the time, sure it happens but not as much as other forums.

 

[Rich Parsons]

This has been asked before. It is an interesting read, but keep in mind that there are a lot of people who have been in violent situations involving firearms who won't divulge that information on the forum.

That is true.

There are times when firearms are invovled and the other does not, and people still live.