Do we NEED guns? (evolution, America, pagan, Zen)

[fromthe heart]

Originally Posted by robtex

F.T.H. , does it have to be an all or nothing question? Would you be in favor of eliminating some guns but not all of them? For instance I am an advocate of eliminatitng assult rifles and concelable pistols. But I am against outlawing shotguns and deer rifles.

In your opinion are there some that are some that should be banned and if so which and why?

True...there ARE some unnecessary weapons...and yes they need to go...but who decides? I haven't really heard of anyone who has come up with a decent list of weapons to take out of the hands of people. There is always someone with bucks who says this one or that one is in their collection and tehy pay someone off to not include it....the plain fact is they should never have allowed these sorts of weapons to be made in the first place let alone allowing them to get into the general public. It's just another part of a declining society that feel the only way to out do crime is to be the bigger criminal.

I agree, though, with you on getting rid of those you mentioned as well as probably more.

[Darkdale]

Originally Posted by Kowalski

I'm for all citzens owning an M16, or AK47, assorted handguns and unlimted ammo, after all it's only a matter of resposibility and training.

Cheers
K

Exactly.

[linwood]

I`m still up in the air on this one.

I don`t buy the protection argument simply because if you don`t carry concealed it`s worthless.
I don`t buy the home protection argument because most folks store their firearms unloaded and seperate from ammo so it`s worthless.
However I will soon be purchasing a riot gun as a part of my survival gear.
Thats the only sense I can see in the ownership for security argument.

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Well Linwood,

I do carry concealed, and I do keep a loaded 1911 on the nightstand. Try carjacking or home invading in Texas. You run a high risk of finding someone like me on the other side of the door. And for a further argument on the protection issue, read the Federalist Papers. some good reading there by those who founded this country.

B.

[ayani]

no, Maize, i don't feel that we do.

in my experience, having a gun around makes it much easier for someone who's steamed to act rashly and hurt or kill someone. true, they could also use that anger to punch through a wall, beat the other guy up, or puncture some tires. in other words, be destructive in other ways.

but a loaded gun? it just makes doing something ridiculous and un-fixable with your anger that much easier. especially when young people have access to them.

[linwood]

Originally Posted by MdmSzdWhtGuy

Well Linwood,

I do carry concealed, and I do keep a loaded 1911 on the nightstand. Try carjacking or home invading in Texas. You run a high risk of finding someone like me on the other side of the door. And for a further argument on the protection issue, read the Federalist Papers. some good reading there by those who founded this country.
B.

Then you are the exception to the rule Mdm and I have no quarrel with your use of the protection argument.

As I said I`m really sitting on this fence with this topic and have been for awhile.
I cannot ignore the stats that show free ownership of firearms does indeed increase the potential for public harm.
On the other side I can also understand the reluctance to give up this American right that is ingrained in our very society and understand alot of the previously mentioned harm could be controlled and eliminated with proper regulation and education.

For myself personally I have never wanted to own a firearm, due to my exceptionally crazy youth I could see it being more of a bane than a benefit for me.

A few points to further clarify my thoughts.

Kids and firearms:
I believe if I were to buy a weapon and if I do by a riot gun I will pack the kids in the truck and head out to the swamps for a day or two specifically to let them fire it handle it and learn how to use it.
My 5 year old girl would be the first to learn all she could grasp about it.
The point that is always brought up by the anti-gun crowd about kids killing themselves with firearms is valid but they tend to ignore the fact that in many of those stories the kids say "We found it in the drawer..under the bed..in the closet and were curious"
I believe if the stigma and taboo nature of a firearm in the house is taken away so is alot of the potential for kids hurting themselves with it.
Especially if you teach them about it and let them see for themselves the potential for destruction it holds.

Protection:
While a firearm would be worthless to me for home defense simply because no matter how I educate my kids about it I could not ethically keep it loaded and ready in my house recent events have pushed my internal debate over gun ownership more to the pro side.
Crime is very low in my neighborhood but not in my town.
I live on the gulf coast and last year came within a hairs breadth 4 times of being slammed by four hurricanes ranging in strength from cat 3 to cat 5.
I drove 20 minutes south after hurricane Charlie last year (cat 4) and personally witnessed destruction on a biblical scale.
I also witnessed looting and muggings and intimidation on a large scale.
I carry a complete survial set-up in my vehicle, a 20 minute trip to a grocery store and I can live in the woods with my family for a week if I must without ever needing to be near civilization.
Or I can live on my property as long as need be without power or water.
the one thing I couldn`t contend with would by organized looting and that has led me to the decision to stow a shotgun in with my survival gear.

Katrina convinced me that the last thing I will do in such and event is depend upon anyone but myself.

I need the firearm.

[Kowalski]

Originally Posted by Darkdale

Exactly.

I wish we had that right in the UK, but the laws against gun ownership are so draconian, it's not worth the effort of applying for one.

Are we any safer or not, certainly there are many people here who if they owned guns would be a menace to the GP.

Cheers

K

[bartdanr]

Hi All,

I attempted to read the whole thread before replying, but it was too long and I started seeing the same points over and over again. So in an attempt to continue to beat this dead horse, here's my two cents worth:

First, does anyone really know what an "assault rifle" is? Some people believe it to be a fully automatic weapon (i.e., a "machine gun")--but often it simply means "a gun that looks mean."

A true assault rifle is one cabable of selective fire--that is, it can make single shots with each pull of the trigger (i.e., semi-automatic) as well as automatic bursts (i.e., a "machine gun"), depending on the selection. However, in political debate the term "assault rifle" is now used to refer to semi-automatic firing weapons that have no automatic firing capability--they just look a lot like true assault rifles. They have things like pistol grips, bayonet lugs and flash supressors--nothing which inherently makes this pseudo-assault rifle any more deadly than any other semi-automatic rifle of a similar caliber. (And keep in mind, the standard calibar of these weapons--like .223, 7.62 X 39mm or even .308 is generally far inferior to that of most hunting rifles. Hunting rifles, round for round, are more powerful.)

Second, I didn't read far enough, but did anyone bring up the example of Switzerland? It's a heavily armed society, with pretty much every male by law having true assault rifles as home (since they are all considered members of the militia). Yet crime is very low in Switzerland. There is no necessary correlation between the presence of firearms and a high crime rate.

Third, saying that the U.S. military could wipe out any armed revolution is pretty naive. Our military is not well organized to fight against a fourth-generation war (see William Lind's analysis on the generations of war). As painfully evident in Iraq, Vietnam and other examples, it is exceedingly difficult to use M-1A1 tanks and Apache gunships to fight these kind of wars. Revolution can and is often very effective against powerful military forces.

Fourth, I am a member of the organized militia, organized and commanded by the Governor of my state. I don't have much use for rump militias that are not answerable to duly elected civilian authorities. I am also a gun owner. However, I don't think everyone has to be part of the organized militia in order to have he right to own guns. (Although we sure could use more help, if you want to volunteer...)

Fifth, there are many statistics on gun deaths, very few on lives saved by guns. Not every use of a gun in self-defense results in a crimminal death or even a shot fired. Saying "x lives would be saved if guns were eliminated" does not address this, because the lives that were saved by the defense use of firearms would be forfeited. And the number is not insignificant.

Sixth, guns are a great leveler. It takes skill and strength to use most other forms of weapons, but using a pistol makes an 80 year old woman as powerful as a 250 pound young man. Eliminating guns makes it impossible for the 80 year old woman to realistically defend herself from that 250 pound young man. (Sure, he could have a gun now, too--but he doesn't need it if she doesn't have one. He can still break her in half like a matchstick.)

I guess this post isn't much of an organized argument as it is just a list of some points I have. Perhaps later I can post something with a more coherent argument.

Peace

[Darkdale]

Originally Posted by Kowalski

I wish we had that right in the UK, but the laws against gun ownership are so draconian, it's not worth the effort of applying for one.

Are we any safer or not, certainly there are many people here who if they owned guns would be a menace to the GP.

Cheers

K

You are correct in assuming that the existence of guns makes society more dangerous, but it hasn't been more than 400 years sense Americans learned the importance of being armed. We are still a new nation are have not forgotten what tyranny looks like. Great Briton seems to still remember the threat of tyrannical empires, but it's been a great long time since any foreign nation invaded, it's been even longer sense the government in GB persecuted it's own people (of course, I suppose the Scottish may disagree somewhat). I haven't hardly disagreed with the idea that gun violence is awful, but I still believe it is somewhat naive to believe they are needed. A brief study of world history makes it pretty clear that the better armed you are, the more secure you are; simply trusting your government to protect is worse than naive in my opinion.

I understand we are you coming from; what I don't understand is how you'all don't understand where us pro-gun people are coming from.

[gtrsgrls]

Yes,I think we definantly NEED guns.What if everybody were asked to turn in their guns.Do you think everybody would do it?Some people would and some people wouldn't.But the people who are planning on using them in a bad way definantly wouldn't turn them in.Don't you think the fact that a lot of people have guns is keeping some theives from breaking into houses.I mean,I know if I were going to break into a house I would be wondering whether or not I'm going to be looking down the barrel of a shotgun when I open the door.I think people just having guns keeps the crime rate down.