Found this post on slashdot (and originally written by a Marine, so take with a grain of salt). I think it makes a pretty eloquent argument for the carrying of personal arms, and would like to discuss.
The Gun is Civilization, by Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or make me do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
So what happens when I'm having a bad day, and I'm not thinking reasonably?
Suddenly it doesn't matter that everyone has guns, and the situation is just escalated. The author of this article is incredibly naive to think all human beings will act rationally 100% of the time, which is the fault in a world that relies on order by a Mutual Assured Destruction like leviathan.
Not only that, guns give the power to the aggressor, ie the person who acts first. If you think about the 'prisoner's dilemma' type arguments, that means it's more attractive to act first and take control, than to hope the other person doesn't act at all.
Threats do not save lives; They escalate otherwise less harmful situations.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
Sure, this is true. But while you can do lethal damage with a stone, or a bat, you can't have a school shooting where 40 people die because of some upset person with a gun. You get maybe one or two deaths, and even at that, if the person committing the violence is not a military trained killer, it's a lot harder to stomach killing someone by beating and stabbing, than it is to just squeeze a trigger.
On November 26 2008 13:22 Chef wrote: So what happens when I'm having a bad day, and I'm not thinking reasonably?
Suddenly it doesn't matter that everyone has guns, and the situation is just escalated. The author of this article is incredibly naive to think all human beings will act rationally 100% of the time, which is the fault in a world that relies on order by a Mutual Assured Destruction like leviathan.
Not only that, guns give the power to the aggressor, ie the person who acts first. If you think about the 'prisoner's dilemma' type arguments, that means it's more attractive to act first and take control, than to hope the other person doesn't act at all.
Threats do not save lives; They escalate otherwise less harmful situations.
Yeah. I also think guns make the act of hurting someone a lot less personal, and thus easier to perform.
Pulling a trigger from 20 feet away is NOT the same as walking up to someone and knifing them. You may have the courage to pull the trigger but the knife? Maybe not.
On November 26 2008 13:22 Chef wrote: So what happens when I'm having a bad day, and I'm not thinking reasonably?
Suddenly it doesn't matter that everyone has guns, and the situation is just escalated. The author of this article is incredibly naive to think all human beings will act rationally 100% of the time, which is the fault in a world that relies on order by a Mutual Assured Destruction like leviathan.
Not only that, guns give the power to the aggressor, ie the person who acts first. If you think about the 'prisoner's dilemma' type arguments, that means it's more attractive to act first and take control, than to hope the other person doesn't act at all.
Threats do not save lives; They escalate otherwise less harmful situations.
If a person is having a bad day and not thinking reasonably, its still easy for them to get a gun, even if you ban them, and now instead of people being able to stop this person, this person has a leg up on everybody else until the cops come, which could be 5 minutes of people dying unnecessarily.
Remember that crazy Japanese guy that ran over people with a truck and stabbed people to death? He wasn't thinking reasonably, but had the other people had guns, I can guarantee that he would've killed far less people.
People don't rationally kill people. If you're have the guts to kill somebody with a gun, you can kill them with a knife too. It doesn't make a difference. A rational person would not do this.
By your argument we should also ban scissors, as they can cut wires that could electrocute a whole bunch of people in a pool. And we should also ban cars, as crazy people might go on rampage and kill people with it. And we should also ban planes, because its easy for somebody to hijack it and kill hundreds of people with it.
Wow, a shootout. That sounds fucking great, Caller. I really want to live in that world. No, I don't remember that at all, but it sounds incredibly statistically irrelevant.
I'm thinking that the argument is that an unreasonable (or socially unacceptable), ie force-initiating person, otherwise known as an "attacker," is uncontrollable from the defender's point of view. We're past thinking everyone's nice and friendly; we're aware that there are people out there who will try to force you to do things, such as giving up your possessions or dying. Since that's not OK with many of us, (although some will argue that it's God's will that you met that mugger that day, or whatever,) having overwhelming force makes it infeasible to force you to do something.
Now, despite this argument, you believe that an armed defender makes for a more dangerous situation for the defender. Surely it makes a more dangerous situation for an attacker, but I don't see why I should care about that. How it is more dangerous than being at the mercy of an obviously unsociable attacker?
On November 26 2008 13:28 Chef wrote: Wow, a shootout. That sounds fucking great, Caller. I really want to live in that world. No, I don't remember that at all, but it sounds incredibly statistically irrelevant.
okay so give me an example where people currently owning guns legally decided to start killing each other. Please. I'd love to see your statistics here. Even Steven Levitt said that drowning in a pool is far more likely to happen than your kid killing another kid with a gun. it's not the actual risk, it's the outrage.
and the school shootings you will inevitably bring up don't count, because most of the time the shooters acquired their weapons illegally.
Chef, your suggested scenarios where an attacker has a gun and thereby does more damage ignores the possibility that the defenders also have guns, which would change the outcome, to put it lightly.
On November 26 2008 13:28 BottleAbuser wrote: I'm thinking that the argument is that an unreasonable (or socially unacceptable), ie force-initiating person, otherwise known as an "attacker," is uncontrollable from the defender's point of view. We're past thinking everyone's nice and friendly; we're aware that there are people out there who will try to force you to do things, such as giving up your possessions or dying. Since that's not OK with many of us, (although some will argue that it's God's will that you met that mugger that day, or whatever,) having overwhelming force makes it infeasible to force you to do something.
Now, despite this argument, you believe that an armed defender makes for a more dangerous situation for the defender. Surely it makes a more dangerous situation for an attacker, but I don't see why I should care about that. How it is more dangerous than being at the mercy of an obviously unsociable attacker?
Think about the people you meet everyday. I don't trust these idiots with a gun. I don't trust drunk guys riding around in a car who yell profanity at people walking home at night to also have a gun. What if you get in an argument with someone, and they happen to feel very passionate about it and lose their temper?
I'm not talking about robbers with a gun. I'm talking about ordinary people with guns. I don't even trust myself with a gun, cause I'd have killed someone or killed myself if it were that easy in certain situations of hysteria.
On November 26 2008 13:22 Chef wrote: So what happens when I'm having a bad day, and I'm not thinking reasonably?
Suddenly it doesn't matter that everyone has guns, and the situation is just escalated. The author of this article is incredibly naive to think all human beings will act rationally 100% of the time, which is the fault in a world that relies on order by a Mutual Assured Destruction like leviathan.
Not only that, guns give the power to the aggressor, ie the person who acts first. If you think about the 'prisoner's dilemma' type arguments, that means it's more attractive to act first and take control, than to hope the other person doesn't act at all.
Threats do not save lives; They escalate otherwise less harmful situations.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
Sure, this is true. But while you can do lethal damage with a stone, or a bat, you can't have a school shooting where 40 people die because of some upset person with a gun. You get maybe one or two deaths, and even at that, if the person committing the violence is not a military trained killer, it's a lot harder to stomach killing someone by beating and stabbing, than it is to just squeeze a trigger.
qft.
If I was walking around in a world where every other person was packing heat, I would be so fucking afraid for my ass.
If you trust wikipedia, it says in there that the homicide rate for New York is about 3 times high than the homicide rate in London(In Britain guns are banned, if you didn't know...). I think there might be some relation between the homicide rate and gun bans, just maybe.
On November 26 2008 13:28 Chef wrote: Wow, a shootout. That sounds fucking great, Caller. I really want to live in that world. No, I don't remember that at all, but it sounds incredibly statistically irrelevant.
okay so give me an example where people currently owning guns legally decided to start killing each other. Please. I'd love to see your statistics here. Even Steven Levitt said that drowning in a pool is far more likely to happen than your kid killing another kid with a gun. it's not the actual risk, it's the outrage.
and the school shootings you will inevitably bring up don't count, because most of the time the shooters acquired their weapons illegally.
I wasn't aware the argument was about making guns legal. I was under the impression the OP was about a hypothetical world where you could choose for guns to exist or not. My bad.
Yes. I'm imagining a situation, such as a population of people going to work, who can go thru a metal detector to prevent guns from entering a place, where everyone doesn't have a gun.
In a world with guns, of course some of my arguments don't make sense My understanding of the OP was that overwhelming force via guns created peace, as opposed to a world without guns, where people who are just bigger, younger, and stronger rule the world.
Fontong, we're talking more about the theoretical aspects. I'm not sure how relevant statistics are, unless you can show that they have a very direct relevance. For example, many more people (in terms of % of population) died in war BEFORE the gun was invented...
"When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone."
lol. Please. This sucks from an argument point. What if he want's to force me? He has a gun now. Imagine I had a gun too. He's trained to fire arms, I'm not.
Where the gun putting everything on equal. There's reports of people getting injured because the bad use of guns. How does he address this issue?
Kids? Unstable people?
He's thinking of a world where muggers will be paranoiac of people they assault because they could have guns. For people who muggers for whatever reason this may stop them, or not. But somebody who steals to survive it will only lead to more pre-preemptive shots, more deaths, more gun accidents.
The force monopoly should be left to the armed forces of a nation alone. These are the people trained to use guns and who follow a set of rules to do the best for society.
A civil with a firearm could be somebody who uses it for recreational purposes, a weapon maniac, someone who may flip out some day, somebody who is instructed, or someone who's not; he may or may not follow the rules the armed forces follow.
I would like the random factors to be as small as possible thx.
I'll say right now, in Canada, I don't know anyone who owns a gun. If I had to guess, I'd say less than 1 in 10,000 people carry a gun with them at all times (and maybe a bunch of people just have a gun from WWII hung up on their wall). I feel very safe.
If you live in Detroit, where I imagine a lot more people carry guns around with them all the time... Would you feel safer than I do? I wouldn't.
On November 26 2008 13:42 Chef wrote: I'll say right now, in Canada, I don't know anyone who owns a gun. If I had to guess, I'd say less than 1 in 10,000 people carry a gun with them at all times (and maybe a bunch of people just have a gun from WWII hung up on their wall). I feel very safe.
If you live in Detroit, where I imagine a lot more people carry guns around with them all the time... Would you feel safer than I do? I wouldn't.
the man who trades freedom for the illusion of security gets neither, as somebody once said (Ben Franklin?)
ITW, unfortunately there are actually civilians out there with guns, and who use them to attack other civilians. Forget "should be left to the armed forces." They got guns. They're shooting people with them. Some aren't properly trained in how to use them, either, nor do they follow any rules of engagement.
How do you deal with a man with a gun, who will use this gun instead of persuasion to make you do what he wants? I'd much prefer having a gun myself than putting myself at his mercy.
See, these arguments of "there are more guns in x, and it is less safe in x" are neglecting a critical fact: many, many, many (I hesitate to say "most") of these guns are owned and carried by people who intend to use them to attack other people. In such locations, if the number of guns was increased by giving everyone a gun, I really wonder at how much unsafer these places would become. I think they would become safer than they currently are. Naive, perhaps, but such is my thinking.
On November 26 2008 13:39 BottleAbuser wrote: Fontong, we're talking more about the theoretical aspects. I'm not sure how relevant statistics are, unless you can show that they have a very direct relevance. For example, many more people (in terms of % of population) died in war BEFORE the gun was invented...
Ok, theoretically speaking then, if I had a choice to be attacked with either a gun or a chainsaw/katana/baseball bat. Which would a choose?
Definitely not the one which will kill me even if I sprint away as fast as possible. I would much rather be unarmed and attacked by someone with a melee weapon than be armed and attacked by a likewise armed person. Why? They are attacking me, they have the advantage because they are shooting first. If someone wants to mug me and just sticks a gun in my face, it doesn't matter if I'm armed or not, he will still shoot me if I try to pull my gun on him.
ish0wstopper said "it makes sense until you think about the fact that guns arent merely deterrents. they are weapons of aggression"
Well, from my point of view you are only thinking of them as weapons of aggression, and neglecting their use as deterrents. Very understandable, considering that their current use in civilian contexts are almost always as weapons of aggression.
On November 26 2008 13:42 Chef wrote: I'll say right now, in Canada, I don't know anyone who owns a gun. If I had to guess, I'd say less than 1 in 10,000 people carry a gun with them at all times (and maybe a bunch of people just have a gun from WWII hung up on their wall). I feel very safe.
If you live in Detroit, where I imagine a lot more people carry guns around with them all the time... Would you feel safer than I do? I wouldn't.
the man who trades freedom for the illusion of security gets neither, as somebody once said (Ben Franklin?)
I don't feel like I'm trading freedom for an illusion.
That's like saying that you're trading your right to rape any girl you want for the illusion that big men named bubba won't also be allowed to rape you. We have police for a reason. Laws are enforced by professionals, not fucking vigilantes who each have their own interpretation of justice.
On November 26 2008 13:51 BottleAbuser wrote: ish0wstopper said "it makes sense until you think about the fact that guns arent merely deterrents. they are weapons of aggression"
Well, from my point of view you are only thinking of them as weapons of aggression, and neglecting their use as deterrents. Very understandable, considering that their current use in civilian contexts are almost always as weapons of aggression.
How can you deter someone who needs to steal from you to live? Like ITW said, it just encourages preemptive striking (such that we see in global politics now... If everyone had nukes, would you feel safe? America doesn't, and America's willing to invade countries to make sure it doesn't happen). What happens is that you aren't evening the playing field, you're giving the advantage to the person who pulls their gun out first. Unless you're planning on a world of everyone walking around with their guns drawn, you're still going to get people using their gun to take advantage of people who's guns are still holstered.
On November 26 2008 13:42 Chef wrote: I'll say right now, in Canada, I don't know anyone who owns a gun. If I had to guess, I'd say less than 1 in 10,000 people carry a gun with them at all times (and maybe a bunch of people just have a gun from WWII hung up on their wall). I feel very safe.
If you live in Detroit, where I imagine a lot more people carry guns around with them all the time... Would you feel safer than I do? I wouldn't.
the man who trades freedom for the illusion of security gets neither, as somebody once said (Ben Franklin?)
I bet he is turning in his grave right now...I doubt he intended that quote to be used for that purpose.
I wrote an essay/ thesis on carrying guns and the second amendment. I started out unsure. I wrapped up very much for the civilian carry.
Can you blame a pen for what is written? Outside of Harry Potter, not really. A gun is a tool. When used by a responsible citizen it saves lives. When carried by a bad guy, the bad guy is now dangerous.
I accept bad people kill good people with guns. I also accept that, when necessary, good people kill bad people with guns. You have to realize that the bad people are going to be bad whether they have access to guns or not; and if they want access to guns they will find a way.
Banning our rights to own and carry weapons is not only breaking the second amendment to the constitution but also disarms the people.
Step, for a moment, in the bad-guy's shoes. You are mad and you want to shoot people. To you go to Washington DC where nobody is aloud to carry weapons, or somewhere else? Hell, I'd go lol washington dc ez-mode gogo.
Hah! I found my 10th Grade final essay =) Note, that I haven't even touched this since I last read it so it might sound I dunno... 10th grade-ish.
Imagine all of the violent crimes that are on the news and even those that aren’t. Now picture the outcome if the victim or an observer had a concealed gun. Lives would be saved. It is evident through research and studies that if more citizens carried guns that crime rates would decrease dramatically. There are many people who wish and fight for a gun-free society. But they are neglecting the number of lives that have been saved, and crimes stopped and deterred. Countries and cities have put regulated gun control on an extreme level and we see the same results: armed civilians create a safer community.
The right to possess and carry handguns is at risk. Groups such as the Million Mom March and Stop the NRA are trying to raise gun control to a ridiculous level; in all essentiality, they want a gun-free society. It is true that guns kill. They even kill innocent people. But saying that guns mean innocent death is just like saying the pencils cause spelling errors.
Do they forget that the King of England took away the weapon of the people and what effect it had on England? By disarming the people not only he had total control, but the military also. The military exploited this as an opportunity to, simply put, pillage the people. In the Declaration of Independence it clearly states that disarming the people is wrong and that the people should be given the right to protect themselves and their rights. Ireland has followed this trend and banned guns on their island. The results? A spike in crime (Moore).
Many arguments are based around the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights. It reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It seems pretty clear that the general public should have the right to own a gun for self protection. The other groups only see the word “militia”. They believe that this amendment is outdated and has become a problem.
These people that fight for strict gun control don’t accept, or see, the whole picture. They see what the news and media tells them. Research performed by James Gazori in 1985 concludes that %.0142 of the US population get killed due to firearm-related deaths each year. That is a total of about 2,367,247 deaths due to firearms (not including war and military casualties) from 1791-1985; a 200 year span. This includes homicide, suicide, and accidental deaths. From surveys and averages the low estimate of 37,659,948 people have had their lives saved by a gun. This, however, does not even include how many crimes have been prevent by the mere presence of a gun. The sum number of lives directly saved and lives saved due to the presence brings us up to 62,541,548 people.
More modern research performed by Gary Kleck, Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, has researched violent crimes’ association with gun ownership. He has said that “robbery or assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection of those who did not resist at all” (Boatman 4). Other research performed by Kleck has shown that every year citizens who own a gun protect themselves or prevent crime 2.5 million times.
Gazori’s study gives us estimates that probably become pretty rough. But side-by-side we see that about 50 million more lives have been protected than taken. Kleck’s more recent study (taken about 2004) are more reliable and recent, and still show that more lives a year are protected than lives that have been taken within the past 200 years.
Out of the two studies it is factually proved that having responsible guns owners. There is a difference between responsible and irresponsible gun owners. The people who abuse the power and right to defend themselves are irresponsible gun owners. The current gun license ship procedure is made to weed out the irresponsible gun owners. It is not the guns fault if it is used wrongly. It is a rightful tool made to protect. Often times the people who abuse guns have obtained them illegally and should not be carrying them. Removing the citizen’s right to protect themselves makes them vulnerable. The shooter in the Trolley Square massacre was carrying a weapon illegal to be concealed—shotgun with 80 shells—and on top of everything, he was only 18 years old. He had a shotgun with 80 rounds and two handguns also with many rounds.
An off-duty police officer was nearby when the shooting started and was able to chase off the shooter before he could kill more people, which he easily could have done with how much ammo he was packing. He is a hero, and doing his job. But many people were injured and killed before he could arrive. If just someone closer had a gun who knows how many lives could’ve been saved. Similar situation at Virginia Tech: if a responsible student carrying a gun had been there, more than likely many lives would’ve been saved.
Many cities and areas have experimented with the idea of requiring the citizens carry guns. Less than surprising, crime rates went down. A city that enforces this is Kennesaw, George. Even though the population went from 5,000 to 30,000 crime rates has stayed at a minimum after dropping 89% (Wikipedia). A few quotes from worldnetdaily.com say:
In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or
defender.
The article continues with some statistics:
Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.
They finish by telling us that Kennesaw, Georgia has been murder free for 25 years; pretty impressive considering the not-so-small population. Some places such as Washington D.C. does not allow weapons in their area. It is now known as the Murder Capitol of the nation. Not a very proud name to live up to. It’s kind of like those no-gun-safe-zones. It’s inviting criminals with the bonus of no resistance or risk. Safe…right.
Logically and statistically, and armed civilian is a safe civilian and is contributing to a safer society in which we all live in. Also, the second amendment is very much alive and with it’s time. It’s simple. More guns, more crime deterrent.
Absolutes are very sticky things... non-professional law enforcement is actually quite lawful, desired, and encouraged (in the correct situation, of course...): example.
I'd like to stay away from these overly extrapolated arguments, by the way... it would be quite unreasonable to say that every criminal has a gun and we should therefore automatically give up our possessions to anyone who asks, lest we enrage the potential criminal and provoke him to crime.
Chef, I'm not afraid of dying to a nuclear weapon. Really, I'm not.
Personally, I doubt very many people in the world are afraid of the possibility, remote as it is. I mean, it would be undesirable should it happen, but so would being hit by a meteor or lightning.
Maybe it's because I know that nuclear weapons are not a sustainable method of warfare. And I know that you know, and you know that I know that you know, etc. Okay, so one of us might be unreasonable and illogical, and use one anyways. So the other one will die. It is then useless to have a deterrent in the first place, which kept the reasonable and logical ones from using weapons until the illogical one came along?
On November 26 2008 13:42 Chef wrote: I'll say right now, in Canada, I don't know anyone who owns a gun. If I had to guess, I'd say less than 1 in 10,000 people carry a gun with them at all times (and maybe a bunch of people just have a gun from WWII hung up on their wall). I feel very safe.
If you live in Detroit, where I imagine a lot more people carry guns around with them all the time... Would you feel safer than I do? I wouldn't.
the man who trades freedom for the illusion of security gets neither, as somebody once said (Ben Franklin?)
I bet he is turning in his grave right now...I doubt he intended that quote to be used for that purpose.
ok then mr wise guy what did he intend for that quote to mean, seeing as how you know he'll be turning in his grave
perhaps i dunno the patriot act? which, among other things...
On November 26 2008 13:49 ish0wstopper wrote:the police have numbers and guns but that doesnt stop drug dealers or murderers from shooting at them
This pretty much concludes the article. If I have a gun that doesn't mean someone else can't shoot me. If all innocent civilians were armed, I'd still bet that the "evil guy" would shoot first and it'd be gg.
If anything, having force would make rational communication less effective. You know those movies where the cop walks in without a gun to talk? That isn't entirely fiction. In a lot of cases it's useful to talk to someone without the presence of force. It helps create a rational decision rather than a spontaneously fatal one.
1.) Guns are only weapons, nothing else. they will never be anything else. They are not tools, deterrents or empowering devices. They are meant to kill. 2.) Life lesson: you cannot take the edge off of a knife. A weapon will always be dangerous no matter who holds it. 3.) The means doesn't matter, only the method. A criminal will still kill you with a knife if he wants to. Taking guns away from him does nothing. 4.) The point I cannot stress enough is every single person that thinks that banning, destroying or simply making it too bothersome to own a gun is going to do ANYTHING to reduce criminal action, fatalities, w/e is wrong. The source from the OP makes the true point that (hand)guns are equalizers. When you take away law-abiding citizens weapons (regardless of what they are), you only victimize them. You make them sheep. Theres two parts to this. A) criminals are not law-abiding citizens. They will procure their weapons regardless of how difficult the law makes it to get one. The law then in effect only takes them away the law-abiding citizen who, in the course of following the written doctrine like they must, gives up his right to defend himself. B) Hypothectically, lets say all guns, period, are destroyed. Not banned, not given exclusively to law enforcement and military forces, but destroyed. Completely eliminated. They don't exist anymore. No matter what you think has been achieved here, there will still be violent crime, killings, robberies, hold ups, what-have-you. Again, the means doesn't matter...only the method. Criminals are just that, criminals.
Disagree if you like, its just my POV. The one political issue I've *ever* personally felt compelled to follow is gun control, and personally I think the concept it fucking stupid. Its just a watered down version of martial law, and the constitution of this country bans infringement on the right to have them anyway. I won't get into that though, that's a whole 'nother whopper of an argument just over what the constitution really means.
I'd like anybody who's interested to look at the weapons policies in Israel, Australia, Switzerland, etc. just so you can see for yourself how non-existent the correlation between gun control and crime rates is.
On November 26 2008 13:49 ish0wstopper wrote: guns are what makes neighborhoods dangerous and make even the police scared to roll through high crime areas
that article was total bullshit
it makes sense until you think about the fact that guns arent merely deterrents. they are weapons of aggression
the police have numbers and guns but that doesnt stop drug dealers or murderers from shooting at them
This post illustrates how this particular person has missed the point entirely. Even in this example, the guns aren't the problem...the fuckers USING them are. There is no such thing as a weapon of agression either. All *weapons* are meant to KILL PEOPLE. You aren't treating a gun like what it really is if you add human traits to it.
On November 26 2008 13:42 Chef wrote: I'll say right now, in Canada, I don't know anyone who owns a gun. If I had to guess, I'd say less than 1 in 10,000 people carry a gun with them at all times (and maybe a bunch of people just have a gun from WWII hung up on their wall). I feel very safe.
If you live in Detroit, where I imagine a lot more people carry guns around with them all the time... Would you feel safer than I do? I wouldn't.
Would you feel safer in Detroit even if there weren't guns? And if you had to walk around a Detroit ghetto, would you want to bring a gun or stay unarmed?
On November 26 2008 13:42 Chef wrote: I'll say right now, in Canada, I don't know anyone who owns a gun. If I had to guess, I'd say less than 1 in 10,000 people carry a gun with them at all times (and maybe a bunch of people just have a gun from WWII hung up on their wall). I feel very safe.
If you live in Detroit, where I imagine a lot more people carry guns around with them all the time... Would you feel safer than I do? I wouldn't.
Would you feel safer in Detroit even if there weren't guns? And if you had to walk around a Detroit ghetto, would you want to bring a gun or stay unarmed?
Of course I would. Want to know why? Because now it gives me the option of running my ass off. What a silly question lol. And no, I wouldn't bring a gun, because I don't want to be charged with murder.
no, I mean would you feel safter in Detroit than in Canada, even if Detroit didn't have any guns? Guns aren't the only thing that makes a rough neighborhood dangerous. You're more likely to be mugged by someone without a gun than someone with a gun. Thus, if you carried a gun, you'd more likely have an advantage over the person that is mugging you.
edit: and also, shooting someone that is mugging you isn't murder. It's self defense.
gun control doesn't stop shit. If a criminal is out to kill, he find any means necessary, and most criminals get their guns illegally. P&T on Gun controlllll
I would feel safer in Detroit without guns, than in Detroit with guns.
Shooting someone that is mugging you isn't self-defence. Self-defence is shooting someone who is trying to kill you. If they just want your money, you're not actually allowed to kill them, you're only allowed to run.
All discussion is on the case of all civilians carrying a lethal sidearm. Analysis of such an extreme end of the spectrum holds little relevance to analysis of the spectrum of legal firearm restrictions seen in countries across the world.
This goes along with Chef's point on page 2 about pre-emptive striking, but I believe from a mugger's perspective if all possible targets can be assumed to be armed and able to retaliate with lethal force, that promotes the option of killing a target to preclude retaliation in lieu of merely threatening the target with lethal force. Thus my best options would all include murder, whether it is murder in a place where no one sees or a place where the only people who see are members of my gang. Merely having a gang also obviates the deterrence the single target may have of carrying a firearm, because he will assuredly be destroyed by my allies should he open fire on any of us.
BottleAbuser, you may not be afraid of dying to a nuclear weapon, but if you lived in America 30 years ago that would not be true. You fear for your life when a party believes it can only stand to benefit from your utter destruction and it has the means or potential means to execute this destruction. MAD can provide a deterrence but it clearly did not prevent an arms race during the Cold War.
If a civilian's deterrence from personal firearms is negated in cases of gang assault, further deterrence can come from augmenting firepower (packing an assault rifle for example), augmenting numbers (joining or starting one's own gang), or relying on law enforcement. We don't live in a Big Brother state with indomitable and omnipresent law enforcement, so relying on it cannot always ensure safety, meaning lingering or constant fear will remain.
Escalation in the other options would be akin to an arms race and ultimately if violence does break out between augmented parties, more deaths will occur.
Reason why violence could be prevented even after escalation: change in cost/benefit analysis. If the criminals (or vigilantes) conclude that potential deaths outweigh predicted benefit. This won't occur via escalation of potential deaths alone since the aggressive party can always pick their battles to minimize casualties. Likely the change will come from outside, for instance the cost of law enforcement punishment or the net benefit of gang banging instead of advancing one's career decreasing due to a better economy.
Note that in this analysis, if they are acting rationally, they will consider the sunk costs of having actually organized/armed, in other words escalated to whatever level. People may overemphasize the cost, but the reason of "not wasting what is invested" is a persuasive one, especially if it's only abstracted, not demarcated.
Note again that when parties are moved by irrational thought, the consequences will be amplified by however much escalation occurred.
On school shootings: These are such isolated incidents that they're barely worthy of discussion. The results of these events historically have been to make a statement and to generate notoriety. The criminals here are so irrational that it's a moot exercise to rigorously confirm their goals. But a criminal planning to commit a shooting like this will know that he will be gunned down by his classmates if it is common practice for heat to be packed in his school. He will end up killing less people and thus generating less notoriety. Supposing he actually wants to kill many people and generate much notoriety, he'll look for options that kill more people before he's caught and/or dies. One such option is bombing. Even bombing 1 room or 1 school bus could reach a similar scale in deaths as a vicious shooting.
Ultimately we really don't have much to go on in considering a society with all members holding lethal retaliation capacity. Even if international politics is a helpful analogue, it's still a stretch. I just hope people will think thrice about the implications of the instinctually appealing notion of lethal retaliation as a deterrent.
On November 26 2008 15:13 Chef wrote: I would feel safer in Detroit without guns, than in Detroit with guns.
Shooting someone that is mugging you isn't self-defence. Self-defence is shooting someone who is trying to kill you. If they just want your money, you're not actually allowed to kill them, you're only allowed to run.
well i dont know what the law is in canada, but you can definitely shoot someone that is mugging you here in the U.S. lol
for example, here is the new york state law
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless: (a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is: (i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or (b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or (c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.
On November 26 2008 13:42 Chef wrote: I'll say right now, in Canada, I don't know anyone who owns a gun. If I had to guess, I'd say less than 1 in 10,000 people carry a gun with them at all times (and maybe a bunch of people just have a gun from WWII hung up on their wall). I feel very safe.
If you live in Detroit, where I imagine a lot more people carry guns around with them all the time... Would you feel safer than I do? I wouldn't.
Canada isnt America though, you dont have a part of your basic government that says you have the right to bear arms. Now I dont think that the amendment is good in particular, but it was written there and until it is changed people have the right to have a gun. Also, Canada is full of sissies what are you afraid of?
On November 26 2008 13:22 Chef wrote: So what happens when I'm having a bad day, and I'm not thinking reasonably?
Suddenly it doesn't matter that everyone has guns, and the situation is just escalated. The author of this article is incredibly naive to think all human beings will act rationally 100% of the time, which is the fault in a world that relies on order by a Mutual Assured Destruction like leviathan.
Not only that, guns give the power to the aggressor, ie the person who acts first. If you think about the 'prisoner's dilemma' type arguments, that means it's more attractive to act first and take control, than to hope the other person doesn't act at all.
Threats do not save lives; They escalate otherwise less harmful situations.
By your argument we should also ban scissors, as they can cut wires that could electrocute a whole bunch of people in a pool. And we should also ban cars, as crazy people might go on rampage and kill people with it. And we should also ban planes, because its easy for somebody to hijack it and kill hundreds of people with it.
If there was a magical way to get rid of all guns that'd be great. Unfortunately I think the problem we face (at least here in America) is that if guns were banned there would be many years of black marketing and there would also be the question of whether or not the standard police officers could carry guns or not.
I think getting over the initial hump of the few criminals who kept/stockpiled weapons while law-abiding citizens are defenseless would be very difficult to get over but afterward the result would be a safer country. It's a lot harder to rob a bank with a knife or to go on a rampage.
And once again we see an American defending his guns while the rest of the world stands around perplexed at his flawed opinion.
If I was having a bad day, there is NO way I would be able to get my hands on a gun in Australia. I dont know anyone who owns one, I dont know if there even are gun stores where I am, and I sure as hell wouldnt be able to buy one if I could find a store. And 99% of Aussies are in the same boat.
What does this mean? It means that the only people who are going to kill with guns are the ones who premeditate murder. The ones that plan out a method of aquiring a gun so they can kill someone. People do stupid things without thinking, so lets not arm everyone with a weapon that is designed to kill.
And just as a sidenote
(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20
Your law encourages vigilantes? I hope everyone can see how insane that is.
If I get attacked by some gangbanger or druggie asshole there's no way in hell a cop is somehow coming to magically protect me. That's when I need to protect myself.
Of course, if you live in a nice quiet suburb this can be difficult to understand...
On November 26 2008 15:51 cgrinker wrote: Maybe this is a good short term solution, but shouldn't we eventually stop being violent?
The idea is that you use force (in this case in the form of a gun) to be able to equalize the playing field between everyone.
I think that the short term vs long term discussion has almost no merit, because the weapons might change, but I don't think anything in the discussion changes.
Legalized guns would flood my country with guns. The crimefigures in my country are lower because a lot less people dare to attack or threaten somebody armed with a knife then with a gun. Hoodlums are a lot more daring with a gun.
Guns make crime easy. The criminal chooses situations where he has the initiative. So he already a has the gun drawn and aimed at you. So your right to bear arms is useless. Most murdervictims are killed by a familymember or a friend. So how does this work out for ya.
Having firearms at home works as a deterent. That is the only pro I see.
Since he's saying that all citizens should be equally armed, then why aren't we giving nuclear weapons to every country in the world? In fact you should give everyone enough nukes to destroy the world, then we'll all have to 'reason' with and 'persuade' each other to stay alive. Sounds like a great civilization to me.
it might depend on the culture. japan has no guns, yet it's very safe, probably because people havent had guns... ever.
but in america, you cant really get rid of guns, simply because the criminals knowing people arent armed will make them more dangerous. if they have to guess whether one has a gun or not, they might rather play it safe.
im not for guns, but in america at least, you cant really get rid of them because it'll cause more problems that the status quo
yea i have mixed feelings on this. Banning guns in America would definitely have more immediate negative side effects than positives...but it might work out better in the long run.....
As it stands now, I'm more for strict regulation than banning guns.
Why do people assume that most criminals are rational people who fear for their lives?.
Scenario 1: A drug addict greatly ravaged by withdrawal symptoms breaking into a villa to steal money for a new fix:
Person living in villa hears the cat, wakes up and goes down to let it in. Drug addict notices and has now a choice; stay or run. In most cases he will probably run, no matter what. It is simply easier to steal from people who doesn't notice. If he is desperate enough or high enough he will stay. If there is a decent liklihood of the owner carrying a gun our drug addict now has one option only, to shoot the owner before he can see him.
Most violent crimes are commited by people who are either drunk or high. In a world where everyone is armed these people don't have the option to just knock you down or hold you att knife point to take your money. (Don't try to argue that in a world with free guns noone will be poor or desperate~~) So instead they will shoot you from behind. Guns, more than any other weapon give the power to the agressor (criminal per definition). First one to shoot, wins.
In a city were civilians aren't armed your average violent drug addicted assholes won't have guns, they will have knives. You can run from somone with a knife (or fight him if you are so inclined), and even if you can't or if he happens to have a gun anyway there is still a decent chance of you surviving if you just give him your money.
Criminals will always be _more violent_ and better armed than the average joe, that's how they make their living. Thus, giving everyone guns will only force the criminals to arm themselves more heavily, and be more violent.
The only way to make people not want to rob, steal and murder (The ultimate civilization or whatever the OP called it) is to somehow create a society where _everyone_ is well fed, happy, content and most importantly integrated into society. I have no idea how to do that but arming everyone will do nothing.
On November 26 2008 16:21 village_idiot wrote: I agree with that article 100%
If I get attacked by some gangbanger or druggie asshole there's no way in hell a cop is somehow coming to magically protect me. That's when I need to protect myself.
Of course, if you live in a nice quiet suburb this can be difficult to understand...
If you're getting attacked by a gangbanger or druggie asshole, it's not as if you won't be assaulted with a gun in the first place. Add a gun legalization law in addition to that, and you're even more likely to be threatened with a gun.
Not really trying to put a place for myself in this debate here, just wanted to say your post lacks substance and is not a strong argument at all for gun legalization.
On November 26 2008 16:21 village_idiot wrote: I agree with that article 100%
If I get attacked by some gangbanger or druggie asshole there's no way in hell a cop is somehow coming to magically protect me. That's when I need to protect myself.
Of course, if you live in a nice quiet suburb this can be difficult to understand...
If you're getting attacked by a gangbanger or druggie asshole, it's not as if you won't be assaulted with a gun in the first place. Add a gun legalization law in addition to that, and you're even more likely to be threatened with a gun.
Not really trying to put a place for myself in this debate here, just wanted to say your post lacks substance and is not a strong argument at all for gun legalization.
We can just as easily assume you'd be less likely to be attacked at all.
On November 26 2008 16:21 village_idiot wrote: I agree with that article 100%
If I get attacked by some gangbanger or druggie asshole there's no way in hell a cop is somehow coming to magically protect me. That's when I need to protect myself.
Of course, if you live in a nice quiet suburb this can be difficult to understand...
If you're getting attacked by a gangbanger or druggie asshole, it's not as if you won't be assaulted with a gun in the first place. Add a gun legalization law in addition to that, and you're even more likely to be threatened with a gun.
Not really trying to put a place for myself in this debate here, just wanted to say your post lacks substance and is not a strong argument at all for gun legalization.
We can just as easily assume you'd be less likely to be attacked at all.
Well, I can see it going either way. However, either way I believe that it's better not to retaliate violence with gun possession, since I see it as detrimental to society overall. Why? As people had mentioned before, a gun serves two main purposes: to kill, or to deter. Say you find yourself in that situation where you're assaulted and you're forced to whip out your gun. The way I see it, it breaks down like this in a one-on-one scenario:
1. Assuming both of you own a gun, it comes down to whoever can draw first, or even possibly, whoever is more professionally trained with a gun. The shot goes off, and one of you will be either dead or severely injured. Same thing if the other guy does not own a gun, except the situation now becomes one sided.
2. Neither of you shoot, but both have the fear of the gun going off. I believe this may produce worse outcomes in the long run, messing with psychological issues coming from both the knowledge that even the guy next to you can take away your life in a heartbeat, and the desensitization that eventually comes after multiple gun usage scenarios.
Simply put, I believe owning a gun provides immediate protection from harm, but that in the long run, we'll find more damage done than good.
To support this OP's argument, you have to be one to believe that being mugged is worse than defending yourself and killing the mugger. I feel a lot of people in this thread would rather see a mugger get away with a small amount of money than for anyone to get hurt. It's kind of hard to argue this side if people believe that, for obvious reasons.
On November 26 2008 21:36 KlaCkoN wrote: Why do people assume that most criminals are rational people who fear for their lives?.
Scenario 1: A drug addict greatly ravaged by withdrawal symptoms breaking into a villa to steal money for a new fix:
Person living in villa hears the cat, wakes up and goes down to let it in. Drug addict notices and has now a choice; stay or run. In most cases he will probably run, no matter what. It is simply easier to steal from people who doesn't notice. If he is desperate enough or high enough he will stay. If there is a decent liklihood of the owner carrying a gun our drug addict now has one option only, to shoot the owner before he can see him.
Most violent crimes are commited by people who are either drunk or high. In a world where everyone is armed these people don't have the option to just knock you down or hold you att knife point to take your money. (Don't try to argue that in a world with free guns noone will be poor or desperate~~) So instead they will shoot you from behind. Guns, more than any other weapon give the power to the agressor (criminal per definition). First one to shoot, wins.
In a city were civilians aren't armed your average violent drug addicted assholes won't have guns, they will have knives. You can run from somone with a knife (or fight him if you are so inclined), and even if you can't or if he happens to have a gun anyway there is still a decent chance of you surviving if you just give him your money.
Criminals will always be _more violent_ and better armed than the average joe, that's how they make their living. Thus, giving everyone guns will only force the criminals to arm themselves more heavily, and be more violent.
The only way to make people not want to rob, steal and murder (The ultimate civilization or whatever the OP called it) is to somehow create a society where _everyone_ is well fed, happy, content and most importantly integrated into society. I have no idea how to do that but arming everyone will do nothing.
there is also quite a good chance that if he has the gun and you fork over the money he'll kill you anyways to not leave any witnesses. By our own argument, these are very unstable people, and they can do crazy things.
The argument that people seem to be floating is that its better to let a mugger take ur money than to shoot and kill him. Here's the thing: without a negative deterrant, you'll have more and more muggers, who would be like "hey these guys are mugging people and getting away with it, we can do it too!" sure we have law enforcement but they are pretty bad at dealing with muggers, lets face it.
On November 26 2008 21:36 KlaCkoN wrote: Why do people assume that most criminals are rational people who fear for their lives?.
Scenario 1: A drug addict greatly ravaged by withdrawal symptoms breaking into a villa to steal money for a new fix:
Person living in villa hears the cat, wakes up and goes down to let it in. Drug addict notices and has now a choice; stay or run. In most cases he will probably run, no matter what. It is simply easier to steal from people who doesn't notice. If he is desperate enough or high enough he will stay. If there is a decent liklihood of the owner carrying a gun our drug addict now has one option only, to shoot the owner before he can see him.
Most violent crimes are commited by people who are either drunk or high. In a world where everyone is armed these people don't have the option to just knock you down or hold you att knife point to take your money. (Don't try to argue that in a world with free guns noone will be poor or desperate~~) So instead they will shoot you from behind. Guns, more than any other weapon give the power to the agressor (criminal per definition). First one to shoot, wins.
In a city were civilians aren't armed your average violent drug addicted assholes won't have guns, they will have knives. You can run from somone with a knife (or fight him if you are so inclined), and even if you can't or if he happens to have a gun anyway there is still a decent chance of you surviving if you just give him your money.
Criminals will always be _more violent_ and better armed than the average joe, that's how they make their living. Thus, giving everyone guns will only force the criminals to arm themselves more heavily, and be more violent.
The only way to make people not want to rob, steal and murder (The ultimate civilization or whatever the OP called it) is to somehow create a society where _everyone_ is well fed, happy, content and most importantly integrated into society. I have no idea how to do that but arming everyone will do nothing.
there is also quite a good chance that if he has the gun and you fork over the money he'll kill you anyways to not leave any witnesses. By our own argument, these are very unstable people, and they can do crazy things.
The argument that people seem to be floating is that its better to let a mugger take ur money than to shoot and kill him. Here's the thing: without a negative deterrant, you'll have more and more muggers, who would be like "hey these guys are mugging people and getting away with it, we can do it too!" sure we have law enforcement but they are pretty bad at dealing with muggers, lets face it.
Yes, that risk is there (and it happens). About 2000 meters from my home back in Sweden someone got jumped from behind by two kids he didn't know. They literally tore his face of before taking his wallet and running away.
No my argument has nothing to do with wether or not it is wrong to shoot someone in selfdefense. My argument is based on the fact that there is no correlation between number of guns around and number of desperate outcasts. If there are a lot of guns around that forces said desperate outcasts to step up the level of violence (ie kill first ask later). And as a law abiding citizen you will always lose out in such a situation, since you can never shoot first and ask later.
On November 26 2008 21:36 KlaCkoN wrote: Why do people assume that most criminals are rational people who fear for their lives?.
Scenario 1: A drug addict greatly ravaged by withdrawal symptoms breaking into a villa to steal money for a new fix:
Person living in villa hears the cat, wakes up and goes down to let it in. Drug addict notices and has now a choice; stay or run. In most cases he will probably run, no matter what. It is simply easier to steal from people who doesn't notice. If he is desperate enough or high enough he will stay. If there is a decent liklihood of the owner carrying a gun our drug addict now has one option only, to shoot the owner before he can see him.
Most violent crimes are commited by people who are either drunk or high. In a world where everyone is armed these people don't have the option to just knock you down or hold you att knife point to take your money. (Don't try to argue that in a world with free guns noone will be poor or desperate~~) So instead they will shoot you from behind. Guns, more than any other weapon give the power to the agressor (criminal per definition). First one to shoot, wins.
In a city were civilians aren't armed your average violent drug addicted assholes won't have guns, they will have knives. You can run from somone with a knife (or fight him if you are so inclined), and even if you can't or if he happens to have a gun anyway there is still a decent chance of you surviving if you just give him your money.
Criminals will always be _more violent_ and better armed than the average joe, that's how they make their living. Thus, giving everyone guns will only force the criminals to arm themselves more heavily, and be more violent.
The only way to make people not want to rob, steal and murder (The ultimate civilization or whatever the OP called it) is to somehow create a society where _everyone_ is well fed, happy, content and most importantly integrated into society. I have no idea how to do that but arming everyone will do nothing.
there is also quite a good chance that if he has the gun and you fork over the money he'll kill you anyways to not leave any witnesses. By our own argument, these are very unstable people, and they can do crazy things.
The argument that people seem to be floating is that its better to let a mugger take ur money than to shoot and kill him. Here's the thing: without a negative deterrant, you'll have more and more muggers, who would be like "hey these guys are mugging people and getting away with it, we can do it too!" sure we have law enforcement but they are pretty bad at dealing with muggers, lets face it.
No my argument has nothing to do with wether or not it is wrong to shoot someone in selfdefense. My argument is based on the fact that there is no correlation between number of guns around and number of desperate outcasts.
But there is a correlation between the number of guns around, and the number of defenseless people that are easy victims for muggers. The OP cares less about a so called mugging deterrent, and more about people trying to take away his right to protect himself. If there is no correlation between the number of guns and the number of desperate outcasts, why bother taking guns away from law abiding citizens? Isn't that exactly what muggers want?
When one or two knives, canes, bats, or sprays are in play, it's likely that somebody will get seriously hurt. Guns are similar, except instead of getting hurt, you get killed. In addition, it's impossible to be defensive with a gun. If somebody has a knife and you have something to defend yourself with, the mugger needs to think twice about attacking, because he might get hurt, and you have the ability to put yourself on the defensive, or run if need be. This is not so with a gun; if somebody is pointing a gun at you, the only thing you can do to "defend" yourself is pull out your own gun, and somebody will probably die. Suddenly every confrontation becomes lethal.
And to be honest, suppose you get jumped by a mugger with a gun. Expecting you to have a gun, he orders you to put your hands up and lie face down on the ground rather than waiting for you to reach into your pocket. The difference between that and a normal mugging is that people are much more liable to die. Keeping your hands in your pockets? What if you see somebody with their hands in their pockets? What if they're about to mug you? If you make a (read-as) threatening motion, will he pull it out? Will you let him pull it out? Again, every confrontation is potentially lethal.
The idea is not to give the mugger the monopoly on force. The idea is to grant the police the monopoly on force.
And with respect to completely fucked up people, come on. If they have a gun, they can kill you whether or not you have a gun.
And to be honest, suppose you get jumped by a mugger with a gun. Expecting you to have a gun, he orders you to put your hands up and lie face down on the ground rather than waiting for you to reach into your pocket. The difference between that and a normal mugging is that people are much more liable to die. Keeping your hands in your pockets? What if you see somebody with their hands in their pockets? What if they're about to mug you? If you make a (read-as) threatening motion, will he pull it out? Will you let him pull it out? Again, every confrontation is potentially lethal.
Getting mugged when you don't have a gun is not much different than getting mugged with a gun that you don't pull out. Unless you're crazy, you're probably not going to pull out a gun on a mugger that already has a gun on you. But you will have an advantage against muggers without guns, or even the ones with guns when they turn their back to make their get away lol
May I point out that people who are not considered old enough to drink have a very available, much more lethal weapon than guns? A maniac in a car could easily kill dozens of people if he was in a crowded area and thought it through beforehand.
As an aside, do you drive every day terrified of every other driver around you, afraid that he might turn out to be a killer, and freak out at every "threatening motion?" Remember, these things are more powerful than guns.
Giving crazies a weapon isn't, in my opinion, a factor that should keep us from an otherwise desirable option - they will always, always end up getting a weapon anyways, and nothing says that the alternative will be any "safer."
Now, I won't pretend to know how many muggers, facing a hypothetical armed population, would say "fuck it let's go home" rather than "shoot first steal later." But my understanding is that many robbers try very hard not to kill anyone, even as they are performing other criminal acts. I doubt that suddenly every mugging will turn into a murder, as EmeraldSparks suggested.
To clear things up a little, the OP was suggesting that everyone carries guns in a civilized society (and I think that in a civilized society, the opposite could also be true). It is not discussing the legality of carrying guns. But since this seems to interest some people, I point out that making guns illegal simply keeps law-abiding citizens (by definition!) unable to carry guns, and does not keep the criminals from killing others.
A little bit more about the legality of carrying arms:
The second amendment specifically states that a private citizen can own and carry arms. There's only one way to read that. If the reasoning behind this law is outdated (and there are some pretty compelling arguments that it is), then we can change it - remember, we're talking about the constitution, which can be amended as the times and situations change. How gun control legislators passed gun control laws without first removing the second amendment (via another amendment) is astonishing to me. Gah, they're worse than the biblical literalists who say it's now OK to eat pork and no longer OK to marry more than one person - at least they don't have the means to change their authority.
I'm very much against gun control, but not from the angle of promoting a more peaceful society or dealing with crime (though i'm sure countless lives have been saved by the responsible use of firearms in self-defense).
The argument made by proponents of the 2nd amendment (maintaining the relevance of democracy) is much stronger imo.
what happens when every innocent, responsible citizen has a gun? the muggers are gonna keep mugging people unarmed? or they're magically gonna get real jobs and contribute to society because everyone they try to mug has a gun?
I don't know. I'm sure that they won't simply implode because the physical law that muggers have to exist was violated. Maybe they really will get real jobs, or they'll start stealing more sneakily, or they'll just attack people anyways and get shot. The "I can't imagine your scenario" is a non-argument.
On November 28 2008 19:59 BottleAbuser wrote: I don't know. I'm sure that they won't simply implode because the physical law that muggers have to exist was violated. Maybe they really will get real jobs, or they'll start stealing more sneakily, or they'll just attack people anyways and get shot. The "I can't imagine your scenario" is a non-argument.
its just dumb to assume that giving people guns will solve anything
"It's dumb." That's better. Care to point out which parts? I mean, it's pretty dumb to assume that the problem will solve itself. And equally as dumb to say so.
the problem wont solve itself, but its the police job to solve it not some untrained civilians with guns. We have strict gun laws and it works fine. Sure you can get a gun on the black market, but if he is found having a gun he will face serious consequences. Owning a gun isnt the problem, but carrying it in public is and should be forbidden.
Surely you don't leave your door unlocked because the police would enforce any trespass or theft laws that might be broken on your property. Some people even install potentially fatal deterrent devices, such as electric fences and trained dogs.
Yes, there is a difference between your own property and walking around in public, but it still stands that it is accepted and maybe even encouraged to take "the law into your own hands" in this manner.
Eletric fences or fatal deterrent devices? never heard of that here and the door is only locked if you are not at home. Depends on the neighbourhood though.
Lollll, all these pro-gun people watch too many movies. You're not John McClaine, you're not gonna be able to shoot a guy when he's got it pointed at your head already.
Think rationally for a second—why the hell would the guy who is mugging you book when he sees you go for your pocket? He's robbing YOU, meaning he's got nothing to lose. In jail, he'd have three meals a day and access to all sorts of drugs to get his fix. Cornered animals just don't bend over. Most criminals are just looking for the money and trying to run, but shit, they certainly aren't going to give you the chance to pull something out.
And even if everyone is strapped, I'm going to echo the honorable FakeSteve's comments—what the fuck do you expect them to do? Get a 9 to 5? It's just going to mean more pre-emptive shootings, more trigger-happy trash. Not to mention, they aren't totally retarded.
Who here has been mugged, or knows someone who was? 9 times outta 10, you don't even see it coming. They get you from behind, and you wouldn't have a chance to do anything.
And just giving guns to any random idiot assumes that the world is filled with rational people. I'm sorry, I don't feel like having the bar fight that would normally end up with a few bruises and a lumped ego turn into doctors plucking shells outta my ass. Or the road rage incident end with a slug in my temple.
To handle a situation like getting mugged with a gun responsibly is impossible in most situations (because the mugger is already pointing a knife or gun at you usually), even with lots of psychological and physical training. You would be too scared to do anything, instead of forming theories about being mugged what some of you are doing, you should imagine someone pointing a gun at you, I think you gun supporters would be a little more realistic then.
Allowing people to carry guns in the most pointless constitutional right I've ever heard. A gun is useless without the proper training. Even cops accidentally shoot people dead in situations that could've been easily handled with a simple shot in the leg, consider that.
And that piece of text quoted in the OP is written by a total idiot. Who the hell argues about reason and force without considering the fact that guns only lead to more violence from either side, you don't make a policy that endangers both parties over something as trivial as a few dollars in most cases. Death is something we want to avoid, yes, even with muggers. Killing someone over a mugging is pathetic. And we don't want people to walk around with guns untrained because hotheaded douchebags will be likely to pull out a gun in other situations as well.
The amount of anti gun arguments vs pro gun arguments is overwhelming, the supposed freedom that having a gun grants is trivial anyway, you won't be able to do shit with it.
On November 26 2008 14:55 Ghost151 wrote: The source from the OP makes the true point that (hand)guns are equalizers.
Yes, they are equalizers in the sense that it makes the criminals get on an equal footing with the law enforcement. A city with barely any civilan/criminal guns is a city where the criminals can't even try to fight the police, if the police comes the criminals have no other choice than to run and thus policemen do not need to fear the criminals.
On November 26 2008 15:12 ._. wrote: gun control doesn't stop shit. If a criminal is out to kill, he find any means necessary, and most criminals get their guns illegally. P&T on Gun controlllll
However almost all illegal guns in the USA were once legal guns, thats the reason it is so easy to get the illegal ones, that you are each year making enough guns to arm 5% of your population. If you live in a country where the amount of legal guns are extremely low the black market will also be in a short supply and therefore criminals will have a very hard time getting one which means that most criminals you will ever meet do not got a gun.
On November 26 2008 13:42 Chef wrote: I'll say right now, in Canada, I don't know anyone who owns a gun. If I had to guess, I'd say less than 1 in 10,000 people carry a gun with them at all times (and maybe a bunch of people just have a gun from WWII hung up on their wall). I feel very safe.
If you live in Detroit, where I imagine a lot more people carry guns around with them all the time... Would you feel safer than I do? I wouldn't.
Would you feel safer in Detroit even if there weren't guns? And if you had to walk around a Detroit ghetto, would you want to bring a gun or stay unarmed?
I live in Detroit, and I definetly feel safer with my gun!
What if there was a world wide kalamity and we had to use them to hunt our own food?
Aren't guns also to protect us from our own government? I believe it is part of our freedom.
U guys can all give your money to muggers, but I'm going to protect my family.
On November 26 2008 13:42 Chef wrote: I'll say right now, in Canada, I don't know anyone who owns a gun. If I had to guess, I'd say less than 1 in 10,000 people carry a gun with them at all times (and maybe a bunch of people just have a gun from WWII hung up on their wall). I feel very safe.
If you live in Detroit, where I imagine a lot more people carry guns around with them all the time... Would you feel safer than I do? I wouldn't.
Would you feel safer in Detroit even if there weren't guns? And if you had to walk around a Detroit ghetto, would you want to bring a gun or stay unarmed?
I live in Detroit, and I definetly feel safer with my gun!
That's because you think you know how to pull a gun on someone, wait till someone actually does, you'll piss your pants I guarantee it.
What if there was a world wide kalamity and we had to use them to hunt our own food?
Very rational, good point.
Aren't guns also to protect us from our own government? I believe it is part of our freedom.
I have never even heard this argument before. What are you going to do anyway? Kill the army by yourself? Who the fuck do you think you are, lol.
U guys can all give your money to muggers, but I'm going to protect my family.
If a mugger points a knife at you and comes at you and you lose your nerves and shoot him, you might end up in jail, all this over losing a few dollars. Good job protecting your family there ace! Because muggers are famous for robbing families instead of lonely old guys in dark alleys, right?
P.S. People get mugged in other cities..
Oh wow I see we're dealing with a very intelligent guy here, yeah the point was that only in Detroit people get mugged, good reading skills. No chance he meant Detroit is a more criminal city than most.
People like you is why there need to be gun laws, you think you're some goddamn hero but you're just some stupid kid who's going to get himself killed. You're not rambo, just give up and accept losing some money once in awhile while humanity is figuring out a better way. Humans have very strong coping behavior for losing some money, loss of life on the other hand is where our limitations begin.
And if you think shooting a mugger has anything to do with justice you're sadly mistaken.
On November 28 2008 23:40 BottleAbuser wrote: "It's dumb." That's better. Care to point out which parts? I mean, it's pretty dumb to assume that the problem will solve itself. And equally as dumb to say so.
it's enough to say that if you disagree with me, i know how the world works a liiiiiiittle better than you do
Aren't guns also to protect us from our own government? I believe it is part of our freedom.
I have never even heard this argument before, this goes against democracy. What are you going to do anyway? Kill the army by yourself? Who the fuck do you think you are, lol.
You kind of have to understand that this is how America was founded, hence the reason it was written into the constitution. If you think an armed populace cannot resist organized military force, think again. Look at Iraq, look at countless examples in history of how successful guerilla campaigns can be even in a total war scenario.
The rise of the Nazi Party in Germany was preceded by harsh gun control measures and eventual confiscation. The same thing happened before Stalin's reign in the USSR.
Gun control is a band-aid, ineffective solution to fundamental problems in American society.
I only read the first page. The problem with Chef's counter to the OP is this: The OP speaks on behalf of the rational, common person. He assumes people are rational. Chef's counter-argument is to bring up the irrational people, a view that seems to inflate the number of "crazies" out there. I think this distrust of the general public is the result of TV shows. Despite popular broadcasting and popular music, most people DO think twice about killing someone or inflicting pain in someone.
I mean, I could use the same argument and say, "WHAT, DON'T LET EVERYBODY VOTE! WHAT ABOUT ALL THE CRAZIES, THEY HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY!" It doesn't make sense to vest your argument in the deficiencies of a minority group of people. Pro-gun people are vesting themselves in individual responsibility. Why would you think another person is more likely to kill you because they have a gun on them? Because you watch too much Sopranos, that's why. And every anti-gun nut seems to ignore the significant deterrent to violence that an armed populace brings. Why would you disenfranchise good people from defending themselves against the few predators that are out there?
If guns are so efficient to reduce criminality why US is a more dangerous country than most of the European Western countries where guns are banned or restricted ?
Let's take mugging as an example. As it is right now, there are some people who mug other people. Most of these are armed and some of these carry guns. Most of their victims are unarmed, some carry personal defense items such as mace and some even carry firearms. Now, there are a lot of permutations here where either the mugger wins or the victim wins but let's ignore these.
If everyone were to carry firearms, it's reasonable to say that every single mugger would carry one too. Thus, the argument that firearms discourage criminals lacking them doesn't pan out, because if every person who doesn't commit crime is able to and feels the need to get a gun, criminals certainly will. Now, we have every mugger armed with a firearm and who will always be the first one to draw their weapon, being the aggressors. Since everyone carries firearms, the mugger is certainly aware that his victim has the potential of drawing his/her own weapon and using it (Disregarding the fact that many people would be soiling themselves under gunthreat). Now, the mugger might be experienced or cool headed enough to be business like about the whole thing, leaving you alive and him with your possessions, including your weapon.
He might also be the nervous type who squeezes the trigger as you reach into your pocket, since you might have a gun there, yes? He might even consider simply shooting you first to make sure that it won't be an issue.
See where I'm going with this? By granting everyone weapons, you are in effect cementing the worst case scenario of a mugging: Your assailant is carrying a firearm. While you carry one yourself, the likelihood of being able to use it is slim. Even if you do have the opportunity to use your gun, not everyone reacts to a situation like that by whipping it up and capping the other dude one. Some people freeze, some people just hesitate, some people are flooded with adrenaline, causing their hands to shake and them to miss. Whipping out a gun against another person with a gun and failing to use it will result in you getting seriously hurt or dying.
On December 03 2008 19:47 Boblion wrote: If guns are so efficient to reduce criminality why US is a more dangerous country than most of the European Western countries where guns are banned or restricted ?
:>
I don't think guns are the biggest problem in the criminality issue in America, though it certainly plays a part. The fact that most western-euro societies have vastly superior social safety nets is by far the biggest reason for the difference in criminalty between Western Europe and America.
I mean, sure you can try to defend yourself against a mugger, using a gun if that is your preference, but I just can't see the point. You might die, you might have to kill the mugger and the possibility that you get away unscathed is slim. If you cooperate then the chance of you getting away without being seriously injured or killed is much higher. I guess the point is you have to measure your own capabilities to defend yourself and if it's even worth it to try. I'm leaving out the fact that the mugger would take your money, because in Sweden you get it all back + more from insurance, crime-victim fund and things like that. But that again, is a social safety net-issue.
I don't live in America and I try not to believe everything I hear or see about the criminality there but I can imagine that criminals are more ruthless and that people don't have the same security for their money, in which case people might feel inclined to try to defend themselves. Though I can't imagine why your money (the money in your wallet nonetheless, not in the bank) would be worth more than your life, even the risk of losing it. And taking a beating has to be prefereable to getting killed, no?
I can't really say much about guns as there practically are none in Sweden, and the criminals that have them rarely use them (other than to threaten) except when they kill eachother in gang-wars. Having a gun to defend yourself here is stupid beyond measure. Even if a mugger mugged you with a gun it would be better just to give him your money instead of attempting to kill him (which would be illegal in most cases). The mugger would'nt "make it easier" by killing you to get your money in a million years because he would have close to zero chance of getting away with it. But again that's a difference in societies. And that's my point, America needs a safer economy, especially for poor people if they want to tackle crime, not making everyone their own bodyguard with a license to kill, because people will just wind up dead, on either side of an argument.
On December 03 2008 19:47 Boblion wrote: If guns are so efficient to reduce criminality why US is a more dangerous country than most of the European Western countries where guns are banned or restricted ?
:>
Nobody is saying guns reduce criminality. The OP is making the conjecture that if most or all law abiding citizens carried guns, there would be less crime. The United States is not an example of this. A country like Switzerland is an example of this. Besides, there are many factors that make a country "dangerous" such as population density, poverty, and racial tension in heterogeneous societies. Look at the state of North Dakota, they have plenty of guns because hunting is a recreation there, but much less crime than most other States.
On December 03 2008 19:47 Boblion wrote: If guns are so efficient to reduce criminality why US is a more dangerous country than most of the European Western countries where guns are banned or restricted ?
:>
Nobody is saying guns reduce criminality. The OP is making the conjecture that if most or all law abiding citizens carried guns, there would be less crime. The United States is not an example of this. A country like Switzerland is an example of this. Besides, there are many factors that make a country "dangerous" such as population density, poverty, and racial tension in heterogeneous societies. Look at the state of North Dakota, they have plenty of guns because hunting is a recreation there, but much less crime than most other States.
:> means sarcasm. I just wanted the pro-guns guys to acknowledge the others factors