Guns

[armyman_83]

Not exactly, that I feel with a lower ownership rate, you have a safer society, the maths is fairly simple, the lower the numbers of people owning lethal weapons, the less chance there is that there would be fatalities from such weapons.

I agree that defence of other rights is vital, but I don't understand what lethal weapons have to do this. If people feel the govt. is being oppressive you can form a political party, or petition your local MP, or if things are hugely bad, rely on HM The Queen to take the initiative to dissolve Parliament and call an election where if the majority agreed the govt. was being oppressive then they would not be voted back into office. I don't see how owning a lethal weapon would be any great benefit unless you expect something like a modern day Peasant's Revolt with lots of angry people trying to overthrow the govt.

I don't feel Switzerland can be really brought in as a good example; The Swiss way is to take a neutral stance and so the nation as a whole has a fairly pacifistic nature, so the Swiss mindset is wholly different to that of GB of the USA.

Could you explain which rights of mine have been taken away? I have the right to free-speech, the right to vote, the right to life, the right to security, the right to free thought... European Convention on Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The math is simple--take firearms away from the law abiding, and the criminals are left with them. The criminals and the powers of State.

Weapons are an integral part of personal liberty. When the system fails, when the powers that be turn ill. When the people you elect begin to take away your rights and use police/military force to make the people listen. That is when armed revolt is only possible with an armed populace. Otherwise what are you to do? Take up pitchforks against body armor clad soldiers? While it is a drastic and hopfully unlikely event, it is possible that even the best intentioned government can go bad. I agree, vote, and form political groups to usher in good legislation and good laws. But when peaceful means fail, then violent means are necessary.

The Swiss can't be brought into the situation because they support the claim that "More guns don't mean more crime."

Article 2 gives you the, seeming, right to self defense, but your nation has taken from you the most effectual means of that defense, and that is the firearm.

Without a firearm you cannot defend yourself by the most effective means, without being able to defend yourself you depend on the will and mercy of others, of criminals and of the State. What they have taken away from you is the right of self-determination. And without self-determination, there is no freedom.

 

[Sketcher]

Such is where we disagree. Not a fan of the idea of 'good people' owning lethal weapons to run around apprehending criminals, leave that to the Police Force.

But if you have a corrupt regime and a corrupt police force such as in China, or such that Iraq used to have, it's not a good arrangement to have.

You mentioned the gunshops, would you agree that the existance of such things exacerbates the problem. In GB (as far as I know, I've never looked into it) to come to into possession of fire-arms you have to have consciously decided to want one, then gone out of your way to find a way of purchasing one, then you need a license, different licences for different weapons. In the USA having gunshops it becomes 'one of those things you buy' and takes much less determination or seriously thought out desire to want to own a weapon, thus making it much more common for the good the bad and the ugly to own fire-arms. If this is a false or mis-understood hypothesis for some of the difference between our two nations then please say so, but it seems to me that the presence of armouries and the ease of purchase could be a significant factor in America's gun-problem (it's viewed as a problem this side of the pond).

Does the easy purchase of weapons make it more likely that everyone will get them? Of course. Is it a problem? No. Do people get shot here? Yes. But you have to look at who gets shot, who does the shooting, and how the shooters got their weapons. Most people who get shot aren't the ones who are packing. Criminals who do the shooting have no regard for the law, so they get all kinds of things from the black market, which includes some firearms. If guns were to be banned, that would prevent an honest man who wants to protect his family from getting a shotgun, but it would not prevent a criminal from getting an uzi. Drugs are illegal, yet they're on the streets and bad people get them all the time. I don't see why making guns illegal would work any better. Prohibition of alcohol was bad enough!

 

[broken_one]

I believe people should definitely know what they're doing when they shoot a gun, rather than think they know what they're doing. Problem is with "mandatory," that means the government is the one doing it. Which defeats the purpose of the Second Amendment to begin with, because if the government can say who can own firearms and on what conditions, then an oppressive government can use that precedent to prohibit guns from their political enemies. If the government can say "you have to take this safety class," then it can also say "only registered Party members may take this safety class and own a gun." The latter is a much greater violation of the Second Amendment than the former, but they are both violations, and the former creates a precedent for making the latter possible. I prefer to go by the Second Amendment as written:

"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."

Firstly, what you put forth would obviously be struck down as discriminatory.
Oh, and check out how I moved the bolded type and how it makes sense again! Is that because regulations are needed and were put there by the founding fathers? Methinks so. And so does our government. Strange they actually are on the same page as the people on this one, right?

As Keyshawn so eloquently puts it: "Come on, man!"

 

[Mr Dave]

Article 2 gives you the, seeming, right to self defense, but your nation has taken from you the most effectual means of that defense, and that is the firearm.

Without a firearm you cannot defend yourself by the most effective means, without being able to defend yourself you depend on the will and mercy of others, of criminals and of the State. What they have taken away from you is the right of self-determination. And without self-determination, there is no freedom.

British people are allowed to own weapons but we don't have it set in stone as Americans do that it is a right of the people. We do however have the right to security set in stone in an Act of Parliament. Some might say that this is a better thing to have as it works to protect the majority, as opposed to an indivdual...
It would be very difficult for the British state to do as you seem to fear quite strongly, Parliament would never allow such a thing (Why? British Parliament is a mixture of Elected (House of Commons), unelected (Lords Temporal) and Bishops (Lords Spiritual) and so compromise must always be found with each group accountable to something else (all accountable to the People, the Commons accountable to the Lords, the Bishops accountable to the Bible and to God, and the Lords accountable to the Monarch - having a Head of State who is not involved in the politics is a great thing imo, but that's a different debate). This need for compromise in the interests of ultimately the people (as HM The Queen is accountable to/and serves Her people) means that such things as you fear would be difficult/nigh on impossible to get through Parliament. There is no need for the average person to own a lethal weapon.

Self-determination is not dependent on owning a firearm.
If you focus solely on self-determination and personal freedoms you end up in a situation of mauvaise foi where your determination to be as free as possible is only possible to the detriment of others who in turn must sacrifice freedoms for you. As is the case, the individual pursuit to own a weapon comes at the detriment to others in their loss of right to security.

 

[Im_A]

British people are allowed to own weapons but we don't have it set in stone as Americans do that it is a right of the people. We do however have the right to security set in stone in an Act of Parliament. Some might say that this is a better thing to have as it works to protect the majority, as opposed to an indivdual...
It would be very difficult for the British state to do as you seem to fear quite strongly, Parliament would never allow such a thing (Why? British Parliament is a mixture of Elected (House of Commons), unelected (Lords Temporal) and Bishops (Lords Spiritual) and so compromise must always be found with each group accountable to something else (all accountable to the People, the Commons accountable to the Lords, the Bishops accountable to the Bible and to God, and the Lords accountable to the Monarch - having a Head of State who is not involved in the politics is a great thing imo, but that's a different debate). This need for compromise in the interests of ultimately the people (as HM The Queen is accountable to/and serves Her people) means that such things as you fear would be difficult/nigh on impossible to get through Parliament. There is no need for the average person to own a lethal weapon.

Self-determination is not dependent on owning a firearm.
If you focus solely on self-determination and personal freedoms you end up in a situation of mauvaise foi where your determination to be as free as possible is only possible to the detriment of others who in turn must sacrifice freedoms for you. As is the case, the individual pursuit to own a weapon comes at the detriment to others in their loss of right to security.

Props to talking up one's own government in relation to keeping what is in the laws the way it is...something that every fear mongering American gun toting extremists fail to recognize with our own government.

Next we'll read how Germany was a parliamentary republic before it became Nazi. Or we'll read another history lesson that I am sure is in the hearts and minds of our politicians, about China, Russia etc. etc.

 

[Im_A]

I also want to say Mr. Dave in relation to this part of his response:

Self-determination is not dependent on owning a firearm.
If you focus solely on self-determination and personal freedoms you end up in a situation of mauvaise foi where your determination to be as free as possible is only possible to the detriment of others who in turn must sacrifice freedoms for you. As is the case, the individual pursuit to own a weapon comes at the detriment to others in their loss of right to security.

About time someone said it!

 

[armyman_83]

British people are allowed to own weapons but we don't have it set in stone as Americans do that it is a right of the people. We do however have the right to security set in stone in an Act of Parliament. Some might say that this is a better thing to have as it works to protect the majority, as opposed to an indivdual...
It would be very difficult for the British state to do as you seem to fear quite strongly, Parliament would never allow such a thing (Why? British Parliament is a mixture of Elected (House of Commons), unelected (Lords Temporal) and Bishops (Lords Spiritual) and so compromise must always be found with each group accountable to something else (all accountable to the People, the Commons accountable to the Lords, the Bishops accountable to the Bible and to God, and the Lords accountable to the Monarch - having a Head of State who is not involved in the politics is a great thing imo, but that's a different debate). This need for compromise in the interests of ultimately the people (as HM The Queen is accountable to/and serves Her people) means that such things as you fear would be difficult/nigh on impossible to get through Parliament. There is no need for the average person to own a lethal weapon.

You can own firearms, but under the most strict of measures. They might as well say--you can only have blackpowder muskets.

If you don't think your government can fail, then you are optimistic to a fault.

Self-determination is not dependent on owning a firearm.
If you focus solely on self-determination and personal freedoms you end up in a situation of mauvaise foi where your determination to be as free as possible is only possible to the detriment of others who in turn must sacrifice freedoms for you. As is the case, the individual pursuit to own a weapon comes at the detriment to others in their loss of right to security.

What I am saying is--a man without a means for self-defense (i.e. a firearm) is easier to coerce than a man with a firearm. Slaves can't own firearms, Free men can.

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. "
Noah Webster

 

[armyman_83]

Next we'll read how Germany was a parliamentary republic before it became Nazi. Or we'll read another history lesson that I am sure is in the hearts and minds of our politicians, about China, Russia etc. etc.

hmmmmmm I wonder if Oliver Cromwell and his "Protectorate" would be a good one to add to that list. But maybe not since, it actually did happen in the British Islands....

 

[Im_A]

hmmmmmm I wonder if Oliver Cromwell and his "Protectorate" would be a good one to add to that list. But maybe not since, it actually did happen in the British Islands....

Probably another one to add to the list of the justified instances that happened in history to keep up the possibility of it happening by mongering for your right to defend for yourself against the unknown tyrannies.

I mean it was only 1970 that Tonga got liberated from being a protectorate of the Brits right? 40 years is something to give justice to and history lesson to consider your views I'll tell ya. Wanting to expand colonies and such gives a great reason to create a protected state when there were people living there already ya know?

 

[Obzocky]

Short version: I agree with Mr Dave's sentiments.

I shoot things, so yes I have a fire arm. I do not feel it is a right for anyone to own one, it is a privilege, one that does not need to be granted to every Tom, Dick or Harry that feels owning something that has the potential to do lethal damage somehow helps them defend their home or something delightful. I don't know, i'm not in the mood to shift through pages of opinions when it comes to gun ownership. There are too many people who have guns because they make them feel safe, they have them whilst being ignorant on how to care for them, how to use them. Any idiot can shoot a gun, not everyone can deal with the consequences of doing so. Perhaps it's the whole culture difference, I don't know.

I'm bouncing thoughts at the moment, so apologies for this post of mess.

 

[armyman_83]

Probably another one to add to the list of the justified instances that happened in history to keep up the possibility of it happening by mongering for your right to defend for yourself against the unknown tyrannies.

Indeed. One more case of Tyranny. One more reason to own firearms.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
--George Washington

I mean it was only 1970 that Tonga got liberated from being a protectorate of the Brits right? 40 years is something to give justice to and history lesson to consider your views I'll tell ya. Wanting to expand colonies and such gives a great reason to create a protected state when there were people living there already ya know?

I really don't know where this came from. I was talking about domestic tyranny, not external (or imperialism).

 

[armyman_83]

Short version: I agree with Mr Dave's sentiments.

I shoot things, so yes I have a fire arm. I do not feel it is a right for anyone to own one, it is a privilege, one that does not need to be granted to every Tom, Dick or Harry that feels owning something that has the potential to do lethal damage somehow helps them defend their home or something delightful. I don't know, i'm not in the mood to shift through pages of opinions when it comes to gun ownership. There are too many people who have guns because they make them feel safe, they have them whilst being ignorant on how to care for them, how to use them. Any idiot can shoot a gun, not everyone can deal with the consequences of doing so. Perhaps it's the whole culture difference, I don't know.

I'm bouncing thoughts at the moment, so apologies for this post of mess.

Self defense is a privilege? Then those without firearms can expect to have police protection all the time? I am not saying that every firearm owner is a safe and responsible person, just like I would never say that everyone who owns a car knows how to use it properly.

Knives have potential to do lethal damage....should those be restricted too?

 

[Thunder Peel]

I've fired guns before and I believe that gun ownership is a right.

 

[MacFall]

I believe people should definitely know what they're doing when they shoot a gun, rather than think they know what they're doing. Problem is with "mandatory," that means the government is the one doing it. Which defeats the purpose of the Second Amendment to begin with, because if the government can say who can own firearms and on what conditions, then an oppressive government can use that precedent to prohibit guns from their political enemies.

Additionally, the government's safety standards, whether it's for drivers' licenses, restaurant health regulations, or gun ownership absolutely SUCK compared to what private organizations such as insurance companies, chambers of commerce, and sportsmen's clubs produce. I feel safer around a privately-certified gun owner than one with no training at all, but if the state started mandating firearms training and licensure (which would, as always, mean politicizing and monopolizing the process) I would feel no such assurance.

 

[MacFall]

'Freedom is the right to defend your life, your liberty, and your property. The preservation of any one of these things depends on the preservation of the other two!' Frederik Bastiat ~ 'The Law'

Bastiat FTW! If I ever have kids, I will make The Law, Economic Fallacies, and Economic Harmonies core elements of their social studies.

 

[MacFall]

Compared to Great Britain, in the USA where fire-arm ownership is much more commonplace, people are more likely to be shot...

Comparing GB to the USA aggregates far too much.

There are cities in the US where it is illegal to own guns at all, which have the highest crime rates in the country. There are also cities in the US where it is mandatory to own and carry for adults, which have no violent crime at all. There are places where guns are legal that have some crime (but rarely very much) and there are places where guns are illegal that have lower crime rates (but not as low as mandatory carry cities).

Rather than comparing the two amalgamations of distinct cities with differing gun laws, it makes more sense to make national comparisons on the basis of things that are universally different form one place to the other. What is universal in the US, and that is completely different from the UK, is the "War on Drugs". I think it is far more likely that the high rate of violent crime in some US cities has more to do with the incalculably vast violent black markets that have arisen in response to the WoD and to the methods with which it is prosecuted.

On a national basis, there is no accurate or consistent measurement of a ratio of gun ownership to violent crime (though on a local basis it is possible). However, there IS a direct correspondence between the amount of money spent in a given country on the enforcement of prohibitive laws, and the amount of violent crime associated with the prohibited goods and services.

Such is where we disagree. Not a fan of the idea of 'good people' owning lethal weapons to run around apprehending criminals, leave that to the Police Force.

Because as we all know, monopolies are the best way to solve problems! And of course there's just no way that there could ever be dangerous people donning police uniforms and wielding a government-approved right to use force. No, never. /sarcasm

If this is a false or mis-understood hypothesis for some of the difference between our two nations then please say so, but it seems to me that the presence of armouries and the ease of purchase could be a significant factor in America's gun-problem (it's viewed as a problem this side of the pond).

It is a falsehood. Prohibitions NEVER have, do not now, and NEVER will make goods less common. It just changes the way in which people go about obtaining the goods. Namely, they do it in the underground, where there is no regulation by either the market or the state, and no recourse to the law.

It's really easy to buy, sell, or trade guns illegally. Really, really easy. Used to be impossible, back before guns were pressed underground by state prohibition and restriction. And funny thing - there was less violent crime per capita then, too.

Self-determination is not dependent on owning a firearm.
If you focus solely on self-determination and personal freedoms you end up in a situation of mauvaise foi where your determination to be as free as possible is only possible to the detriment of others who in turn must sacrifice freedoms for you. As is the case, the individual pursuit to own a weapon comes at the detriment to others in their loss of right to security.

That is a total strawman. The rights of one person cannot conflict with the rights of another, because rights are universal and equal in each person. If everyone has the right to defend himself against aggression, it follows necessarily that nobody has the right to commit aggression. Inversely, it is not a condition of freedom where one man has the power to control another by force or threat, because that would be the opposite of freedom. Namely, slavery.

 

[MacFall]

Oh, and check out how I moved the bolded type and how it makes sense again! Is that because regulations are needed and were put there by the founding fathers?

No, because in the 1700's "well-regulated" meant "well-equipped". Its modern definition is less than 100 years old. Which, notably, is more than 100 years after the Constitution was written.

Not that it would matter if the Constitution said "nobody can own guns, ever", because as I pointed out earlier, self-defense is an essential part of the basic right of people to live, and laws that violate basic rights are no laws at all as far as I'm concerned; only the (objectively wrong) opinions of the ruling class.

 

[Wren]

I voted that I have not shot a firearm before and that I'm both for and against gun ownership. I also voted for both pro-gun control and pro-gun rights. I like to be difficult, or rather, I thought the options were too narrow and didn't really fit my beliefs.

 

[Sketcher]

Oh, and check out how I moved the bolded type and how it makes sense again! Is that because regulations are needed and were put there by the founding fathers? Methinks so. And so does our government. Strange they actually are on the same page as the people on this one, right?

When the government is doing the regulating, you lose the point of the militia. The militia is there to keep the government honest, and if the government regulates the militia, it's the same principle as a corporate lobbyist writing business regulation. No, a militia is to be regulated by the people, not the government.

Additionally, the government's safety standards, whether it's for drivers' licenses, restaurant health regulations, or gun ownership absolutely SUCK compared to what private organizations such as insurance companies, chambers of commerce, and sportsmen's clubs produce. I feel safer around a privately-certified gun owner than one with no training at all, but if the state started mandating firearms training and licensure (which would, as always, mean politicizing and monopolizing the process) I would feel no such assurance.

Right. People know how to use and care for weapons, and many of us learned without ever joining the military or police, and without taking a government class.

 

[TanteBelle]

Bastiat FTW! If I ever have kids, I will make The Law, Economic Fallacies, and Economic Harmonies core elements of their social studies.

Ditto, mate!!! Someone ought to get into parliament and read that speach out (The Law)!!! Maybe it might clear some heads! But yes, it was a fantastic book!