People living in countries with gun control - please chime in

[DZoolander]

A few questions:

1: Do you believe that your government keeps guns out of your hands, so you will be impotent when they choose to misbehave themselves either now/or in the future?
2: How do you keep yourselves from being slaves without the implicit threat that you might shoot and kill your leaders if they don't behave themselves?
3: Why do you think the government keeps guns out of your hands?

 

[Orris]

I wonder if you will get many responses here. If people don't have the right to defend themselves how long will they have the right to speak freely?

 

[jgarden]

It should be noted that even in America, gun owners and those who think that gun ownership makes them safer represent a distinct minority, whose political influence is far out of proportion to their numbers.
**********************************************************
"Americans and Guns: Danger or Defense?" - by Darren K. Carlson

- 38% of Americans report having a gun in their homes, while an additional 2% keep a gun elsewhere on their properties (a garage, barn, car, etc.)

- 48% of men report gun ownership, compared to 33% of women
- 44% of whites own guns, compared to 24% of nonwhites

- Southerners are more likely to own guns than any other region in the nation
- 56% of those living in rural areas, 40% of suburbanites and 29% living in urban areas report owning a gun

- 53% of Republicans, 36% of political independents and 31% of Democrats own guns

- 62% of gun owners possess more than one gun, 29% have 5 or more guns, leaving 31% with only one gun
- gun owners average 4.4 guns per household.
- Americans own an average of 1.7 guns per household, despite the fact that approximately 60% of all housholds report not owning a gun

- 42% of Americans surveyed thought having a gun in the household made it safer
- 46% of Americans surveyed thought having a gun in the household made it less safe

Americans and Guns: Danger or Defense?

 

[HerbieHeadley]

A few questions:

1: Do you believe that your government keeps guns out of your hands, so you will be impotent when they choose to misbehave themselves either now/or in the future?

They misbehave themselves now with or without them keeping my guns.
They have left me without my choice of weapon, but never impotent....till healthcare Obama style.

2: How do you keep yourselves from being slaves without the implicit threat that you might shoot and kill your leaders if they don't behave themselves?

Generally by not relying on them to take care of me. That, and my pencil, and scarey phsyco stare.

3: Why do you think the government keeps guns out of your hands?

Because they are very medlesome and think they know better.

 

[explodingboy]

1: Do you believe that your government keeps guns out of your hands, so you will be impotent when they choose to misbehave themselves either now/or in the future?

Nope, I mean look at the places with guns, its not like the populace have the government under control with or without.

2: How do you keep yourselves from being slaves without the implicit threat that you might shoot and kill your leaders if they don't behave themselves?

More than 2 political parties is a good start.

3: Why do you think the government keeps guns out of your hands?

Because There isn't exactly that much of a need for them other than some fantasy view that holding gun means a politician in a building hundreds of miles away will suddenly start agreeing with you. Not to mention they have little practical use in modern living.

 

[nolongerhome]

A few questions:

1: Do you believe that your government keeps guns out of your hands, so you will be impotent when they choose to misbehave themselves either now/or in the future?
2: How do you keep yourselves from being slaves without the implicit threat that you might shoot and kill your leaders if they don't behave themselves?
3: Why do you think the government keeps guns out of your hands?

1. No, I believe it does so because we have seen terrible crimes committed with the use of guns and have decided that less guns = less gun crime. If the government wants to send in our well equipped 21st century army, I don't think any firearm I own will do much good, so I'm resigned to the fact that in the remotely possible case that the government decides to impose some sort of military dictatorship I will need to resort to non-violent actions to bring about any change.
2. The many checks and balances in a plural society. We also seem to be able to vote governments out when we don't like them. Worked well so far.
3. I guess I already answered this one in question 1.

 

[Maxwell511]

A few questions:

1: Do you believe that your government keeps guns out of your hands, so you will be impotent when they choose to misbehave themselves either now/or in the future?

No.

2: How do you keep yourselves from being slaves without the implicit threat that you might shoot and kill your leaders if they don't behave themselves?

Democracy.

3: Why do you think the government keeps guns out of your hands?

Originally to stop the Anti-Treaty forces to continue a war. In the last half a century to stop the IRA and other groups from committing acts of terrorism.

In Ireland the possession of firearms has been illegal for centuries yet every time we had a rebellion we imported them pretty quickly.

I find the American 2nd amendment to be cute. You think that you can defend yourselves with guns against the federal government?

Americans have never been on the wrong end of a lopsided war, they don't seem to know that guns are almost useless in such situations. Bombs are way better, does the second amendment cover the right to own explosives?

 

[DZoolander]

Wait, wait, this is heresy!

You mean...you elect people because they're good people...and they don't screw you over? You mean - you can actually have a civil society that does not devolve into a dictatorship without having guns? You mean...your leaders don't behave themselves simply because they're afraid of getting shot if they don't?

Fools!!!

lol

 

[nolongerhome]

Well, I wouldn't say we necessarily elect good people that don't screw us over and that our leaders behave themselves...

But neither do yours.

So it looks like guns don't make a difference either way

 

[LightHorseman]

A few questions:

1: Do you believe that your government keeps guns out of your hands, so you will be impotent when they choose to misbehave themselves either now/or in the future?

Not expressly

2: How do you keep yourselves from being slaves without the implicit threat that you might shoot and kill your leaders if they don't behave themselves?

An entrenched system of checks and balances to limit the powers of any one branch or tier of government... though it is far from a perfect system, I doubt that blowing away democratically elected representatives who enact or support policies we disagree with is likely to be any more effective or efficient.

3: Why do you think the government keeps guns out of your hands?

Mostly because of nanny state concerns and the seriously misguided desire to eliminate all forms of short term risk. The same sort of muddled, possibly well meaning but ultimately counter productive sort of thinking that leads to things like schools banning bikes or walking to school Kids Forbidden to Bike or Walk to School | Strollerderby

 

[7thKeeper]

A few questions:

1: Do you believe that your government keeps guns out of your hands, so you will be impotent when they choose to misbehave themselves either now/or in the future?
2: How do you keep yourselves from being slaves without the implicit threat that you might shoot and kill your leaders if they don't behave themselves?
3: Why do you think the government keeps guns out of your hands?

Funnily, while Finland does have strict laws concerning guns compared to the US in general, we still have the third most guns here per capita in the world.

1. No. One, if they misbehave, it generally is due to someone not thinking things through (yes, I do not have high expectations of politicians in general). If you mean that the government will try to enforce some kind of crackdown against the people by using force? What are they going to do? Call in the military? I'm not personally schizophrenic enough to hold a gun to my own head. And the military (the hired part of it) itself would just look anyone who tried to tell them to do something like that like they were nuts and pull them off the stage at gunpoint.

2. If someone royally screws up or tries to do something, he/she will get the book from the government. There is just too many parties and differing ideologies in Finnish politics to even imagine that all or majority of them will somehow rally together for some kind of a take over.

3. Part of the reasoning I believe is that if you do not hunt or belong to a gun club (aka. it's your hobby), you do not/should not need a firearm. With majority of the men in Finland having gone through military service, we can assume at least that most of the men do have basic training and sense when it comes to using guns, so that isn't a reason to keep guns away though.And considering the Finnish drinking culture... well... I would actually prefer to keep firearms just a little bit out of reach of the average person.

 

[Maxwell511]

I for one, chose to believe our military isn't evil, and wouldn't turn their arms against fellow citizens fighting against an unjust, tyrannical government seeking to impose it's will on us, and strip us of our rights and freedoms.

That is a great hope.

I think standing armies are a very big threat to civil liberties. As far as I know in the military you are trained to follow orders and not think. If some despot gains control of the military civil liberties would be dead in any country.

 

[blook]

A few questions:

1: Do you believe that your government keeps guns out of your hands, so you will be impotent when they choose to misbehave themselves either now/or in the future?

No i don't think that's the main reason. And i'm not really sure how it will play out if the gov tries to misbehave.

2: How do you keep yourselves from being slaves without the implicit threat that you might shoot and kill your leaders if they don't behave themselves?

By maintaining the freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. Our government is mostly diverse enough to stop lunatics from implementing extreme policies. Not always ofcourse, but mostly.

3: Why do you think the government keeps guns out of your hands?

Because it believes they aren't necessary. Because there are a lot of people who can't handle them. Because they don't want people to start taking justice into their own hands.

There are ofcourse many pro's and cons for gun control. I think it's different for countries that are densily populated. For farmers in some rural area of the US i think it's imperative they are allowed guns to protect themselves since the police can't be there that fast. In a large city, however, with all those people packed onto each other, it's a different story.

except that people in the military have families, and do have brains and a sence of morality. if they would take up arms against the citizenry in defence of a dictator, then themselves and their families should be made to feel the sheer brutality that they would witnes upon us.

If they would allowed themselves to be used as the pawns of evil, then the everlasting fires of hell are too good for such threacherous swine.

Yes, military people are not much different from the common folk. But armies have been used by many dictators many times before. I think it's imperative to teach every soldier to think for itself, ofcourse following orders when it's necessary, but not blindly follow orders. I know our Dutch army has been teaching it's soldiers to think for themselves too. Every soldiers has their own responsibility. From what i've read, i think it's a little different for American soldiers who are more taught to follow orders than to think for themselves.

The weird thing is, with the US having that much armed citizens, the government still has invaded the privacy of every citizen. They still have made decisions at least half of the population was against. If the American population would be so organized as a militia, the government would have to fear the people much more than they do now since one armed citizen poses no threat to the government and a hundred million armed citizens do.

 

[LightHorseman]

That is a great hope.

I think standing armies are a very big threat to civil liberties. As far as I know in the military you are trained to follow orders and not think. If some despot gains control of the military civil liberties would be dead in any country.

While it is true that the military is, by and large, likely to follow the orders of a despot, it should be STRONGLY noted that even a large group of civilians armed with hunting and target rifles will be no match for even an irregular Army. The ability to fire a rifle doesn't make one a soldier any more than the ability to hammer in a nail makes one a carpenter.

 

[lemmings]

The notion that an armed populous can beat back a tyrannical, brutal government that doesn't have the support of the citizenry is not outdated, and hopefully, for all our sakes, never will be.

Tanks, planes, long-range missiles: these are all things that didn't exist during our Civil War and Revolutionary War. Militias are useless against these as the Palestine and Israel wars have demonstrated, their last conflict earlier this year had a hundred to one causality ratio. Hiding in urban environments is not going to reduce our losses, it will just kill more civilians. Israel, a country that we consider neither tyrannical nor brutal bombed Red Cross facilities and used civilians as shields.

 

[LightHorseman]

But the strategic value of number and knowledge of the terrain is indissputable. A 2 million man standing army compared to 120 million armed civilians who know their local terrain is one helluva fight. Nukes are out of the question, as the fallout in uncontrolable, and their use can not be hidden, and would seek to undermine any dictatorship to the point that no military force would allow them to maintain control. Tanks are only useful in certain areas in certain scenarios, and as Vietnam taught us, a well organized militia utilizing the support of the locals is a powerful foe, even if they never won a single battle, which the Vietcong never did.

Most likely, it would be a very long guerilla campaign drawn out over decades, with a dictarorship government only able to win military conflicts though sheer brutality which would undermine their support, leading to their ultimate undoing.

The Founders never could have imagined the weaponry of the future, but the philosophy and strategy of a civil war, or revolution is nothing new, and was well known to them and those who lived thousands of years before them.

The notion that an armed populous can beat back a tyrannical, brutal government that doesn't have the support of the citizenry is not outdated, and hopefully, for all our sakes, never will be.

Where did you expect to find 120 million armed civilians willing to comt armed revolt, while 2 million reg troops remain government compliant? Odd and unlikely scenario

 

[LightHorseman]

All it takes is a catalyst. A good reason. Or no other choice.

Really? For the life of me, I can't think of a single case in all of history where the military has been outnumbered 60 to one by a revolting population.

 

[lemmings]

I was talking of rural enviroments, in which such technology is largely negated.

If their weapons fail then they will destroy our will to fight.

 

[Baggins]

A few questions:

Diddly

1: Do you believe that your government keeps guns out of your hands, so you will be impotent when they choose to misbehave themselves either now/or in the future?

Well they haven't misbehaved in the last 100 years - despite general strikes, wars etc - badly enough to make me want to be armed.

In fact during those worst times they've actually formed governments of national unity formed from all parties.

2: How do you keep yourselves from being slaves without the implicit threat that you might shoot and kill your leaders if they don't behave themselves?

British savoire faire. If things get really bad we march around Trafalger Square a bit and they usually back down, if not we vote them out at an election.

We've never shown much taste for coups

3: Why do you think the government keeps guns out of your hands?

Because in a crowded island of 60+ million souls with nothing much to hunt there isn't any reason to own a gun. People who are desperate to hunt what few wild animals we do have can get a license for a shotgun or rifle, hand guns - which are made purely for killing other humans - are not allowed, and I can see no reason why anyone would want to own a weapon made to kill another human.

There are easier ways of holding a government to account that threatening an armed uprising, which would quickly turn into a civil war.

The bizarre thing about Americans who think that owning guns means they can hold a government to account is that they forget there are probably an equal number of armed citizens who think the government are doing a bang up job. So any attempt to hold a government to account using force will not lead to a fall of the government it will rapidly lead to a full blooded civil war.

 

[LightHorseman]

Originally Posted by PatsyG

I was talking of rural enviroments, in which such technology is largely negated.​

As a soldier and veteran, I'm curious to know precisely which rural environments neagte weapons technology?
​