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

[michel]

Originally Posted by Darkdale

Well, it's not really guns that I like. I'd personally rather have a house full of swords, clubs... maybe a mace and a steel studded staff. I just want the right to a gun. I want the right to weapons. If anyone tries to rob me, they are going to find themselves in a very precarious position.

In England, as the law stands, you are allowed to defend yourself if you are attacked; but if you shoot a robber in the back (ie he is not coming towards you) you are the guilty of criminal assault, intent to harm, and any other charge that can be thrown at you.

[Darkdale]

Originally Posted by michel

In England, as the law stands, you are allowed to defend yourself if you are attacked; but if you shoot a robber in the back (ie he is not coming towards you) you are the guilty of criminal assault, intent to harm, and any other charge that can be thrown at you.

Are you serious? If someone brakes into your home, turns his back to you, you shoot him, YOU go to jail? He's in your HOME!!! That's crazy.

[mr.guy]

Originally Posted by Darkdale

Are you serious? If someone brakes into your home, turns his back to you, you shoot him, YOU go to jail? He's in your HOME!!! That's crazy.

Hard to say. Some might say such an intense desire to arrange and commit murder for paltry materialism is crazy. But what fun is shooting without the fish and the barrel?

[robtex]

Originally Posted by Darkdale

This has been a great thread and I think arguments for both sides have been excellent. I think it comes down to whether or not you think weapons themselves serve a positive or negative purpose in society.People want order.

Has been one of the most informative debates I have been in. For instance I thought there was a much higher percentage of first time shooters than presented by stats on here. At this point I have to confess I am tired of looking at this thread. I may make more posts tomarrow but right now I am not feeling gun control at all.

But it is really gray. Hard to qualify many parts of it and much of theories for gun control, not having been tested are speculatory at best. The commonality may be more than people wanting order. I am thinking both sides want safetly and the bigger question may be what level of gun control from 0 -100% would afford the most freedom to the highest number of people.

Many of these posts on both sides revolve around this issue of safety and maybe in the lobbying game in Washington that would be a professional angle to take and an accurate reflection of societies wants and needs on gun control issues.

[Darkdale]

Originally Posted by mr.guy

Hard to say. Some might say such an intense desire to arrange and commit murder for paltry materialism is crazy. But what fun is shooting without the fish and the barrel?

Sorry buddy. You come in my house uninvited, I'm going to kill you. It has nothing to do with materialism.

[mr.guy]

Originally Posted by Darkdale

Sorry buddy. You come in my house uninvited, I'm going to kill you. It has nothing to do with materialism.

I see. Is that the only incentive you need to kill?

[Darkdale]

Originally Posted by mr.guy

I see. Is that the only incentive you need to kill?

If you place either myself or my family or my friends in danger, I will remove you from the picture. That is the idea; you mind your business until someone threatens you and then you are prepared to act and you act, removing the threat. It's very simple. Mix the love of your family with the courage to protect them and that's what you get.

[bartdanr]

Hi Robtex, thanks for your post.

Originally Posted by robtex

Bartdanr, first sorry I misread your source. Great source. Great source.

No problem.

Two points about this post. The percents are low but the numbersm are not. The reason is called the law of large #'s. The current population of the usa is 297 million.
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

Within the population even the 7 % of violent crimes yields big numbers (your site as source)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

True...but numbers vs. percent as significant is I guess a personal judgment. Certainly no one wants to be a casualty, even if "statistically insignificant." The numbers are what the numbers are, but two people can look at the same statistics and say "7%--that's low" or "7%--that's high!". It's a matter of personal judgment.

The question becomes what is the gained benefit of private citizens having asasult rifles and 9 mm pistols with 30 round clips when compared to the damage caused.

True. Although (1) so-called "assault rifles" are used in very little crime and (2) there are few incidents of 30 round magazines used to kill 30 people at a time. (Yes, those incidents are tragic--but they are a tiny percent of the total. Again, it could be that "percent-vs.-numbers" disagreement.)

The arguements I have heard for ownership of automatic weapons and concealable pistols thus far have been

1) protect against the gov for the USA
2) Self defense
3) 2nd ammendment
4) any gun control is an infringement on ones civil liberties
5) comparision small when compared to victimless crimes such as driving deaths, drug use and others.
6) impractical of removing them from society or "if we ban guns only outlaws will have them"

I will reply to each one below...

The arguement for each point is essentially the gain of society having miltary type rifles and concealbe pistols outweighs the arguement for banning them. I am saying it is not and definetly is not if these 5 points are the reasons. (if there is one i am overlooking let me know) I am going to do 1-3 here and 4-6 on the next post. I will talk about the rambo thing after that.

First, we really need to define "military type rifle." Remember, the Springfield .45-70 single-shot black powder cardridge rifle is "military type"; the Springfield .30-06 bolt-action rifle is "military type", etc. The linage of a rifle does not determine its eventual use.

on # 1) protect against the usa. Two points
a) johnny with his m16 and 44, 454 or 9 mm with a 30 round clip with the other locals ain't gonna stop the usa goverment hand held guns and homemade bombs.

It's quite evident that if the government decides to use all means at its disposal to eradicate an insurrection, it probably could do so. It could also then alienate the populace and rule over a barren nuclear wasteland.

Unless a government is completely ruthless it will not necesarily be able to eradicate insurrection. Consider Iraq and Vietnam, for example. Sadaam was able to control Iraq through means that the US government is unwilling to use. It is not evident that we can control it with our current means.

Now, not all dictatorships are alike. Certain dictatorships are (or at least begin) with a lot of popular support, and they are more authoritarian than totalitarian. If the government, even a popular one, starts using ruthless means against an insurrection, it may actually pour fuel on the fire.

My main point is this: we've entered the era of 4th generation warfare, and a military with aircraft carriers, M-1A1 tanks and Apache gunships is not equipped to fight it. It's equipped to fight 2nd or 3rd generation warfare very effectively, but a 4th generational war is something beyond its scope.

b) furthermore the fact that that idea is a forereason for gun ownership of said weapons makes a stronger arguement for gun control than against. Even if the next tim mcveigh is only 1/10 of one percent in a population of 297 million we are going to have continual problems.

But gun control would not have affected McVeigh in the slightest. One of my pet peeves is when people bring up McVeigh in the gun control argument: he didn't use "assault rifles" or handguns in his crime: he used a truck full of diesel fuel and fertilizer. Bombs are a lot more effective as terror weapons, and a lot easier to make than firearms.

c) we live in a democratic republic. You can vote here. The current structure of our goverment is such that a turn to a dictatorship or oppressive goverment would take years not days. We are in no danger of being enslaved by our goverment

Although I agree that we are currently not in danger of being enslaved by our government, it does not necessarily take years to turn a republic into a dictatorship. 9/11 influenced many Americans to gladly hand over some of their civil liberties. Another 9/11 (God forbid) might bring out the cry to eliminate more of them.

Consider what Pearl Harbor did to the civil liberties of Japanese-Americans. It has happened here, and it can happen again.

All of that being said, let me clarify some things: if, for example, Japanese-Americans would have resisted the government roundup with weapons, they probably would have been killed--not only by the Army but lynched by the civil population. It's a poor argument to support the need for arms to keep an oppresive government in place.

I also believe that through non-violent means we Americans have been very effective at checking the growth of government control--even during 9/11.

Finally, it should be clear that not every country that uses strong gun control automatically leads to oppressive government. Much of Europe has strong gun control, and yet these same governments have strong respect for civil liberties (in many cases.)

2) selfidefense

a) If you are pulling your gun likely it is after you have been attacked. your concealed handgun is worthless to you at that time. Tell you what. Get a pvc pipe (they are made of plastic.) . Than buy a plastic rubber dart gun. Put the inside your pocket or conceal it under a coat in a holster. Have the guy with the pvc pipe attack you and practice pulling out your dart gun and killing him.

I would like to see some statistics to show in real life how (a) those who resist crime with a gun fare, (b) how those who resist without a gun fare and (c) those who don't resist with anything fare. I have heard stats in the past, but I don't know where they were from. Talk about dart guns and PVC pipe is fun, but real-life data is, well, real.

b) less lethal meathods are just as affected provided the net desired affect is non-lethal in nature. Pepper spray, stun guns, and others are as easy or easier to deploy and are non-lethal thus offering and win/win situation for the self-defense vs death impact when disscussing this.

Same question as above. I'd like to see how well each method practically is used for self-defense. Otherwise, it's just speculation.

to be continued...

[bartdanr]

continued...

3) 2nd ammendment
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment02/
"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"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...lofrights.html
"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."

a) if you are not a minute man you are not entitled to have a gun by the constitution. Minute men were the pre-runners of the reserves we have today. The reserves having replaced minute men make this ammendment not applicable by today's standards. If we ever do drop the reserves and go back to minute men than hey, its time for us to all go out and buy assult rifles. The amendment as read says, ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.." is not applicable today.

First, there are many constitutional scholars who disagree that the militia clause is a dependent clause, but rather believe it is an independent clause, in the 2nd amendment.

Second, the reserves are not the militia. They are reserves of the regular army. The National Guard and the State Guards are the organized militia.

Second, both in the Federalist papers (showing the framer's intent) and in current law, most American males are in the militia. See 10 USC Sec. 311:

10 USC Sec. 311 01/19/04
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not memb