An Armed Society is a Polite Society (?)

[JRslinger]

I think that if an armed society existed where most people carried a gun it would be polite. Being rude would be too risky and sociopaths would weed themselves out quickly.

1. A household weapon is more likely to kill you than a burglar.

This statment makes no distinction between law abiding people and violent criminals, or suicidal vs. non-suicidal people. If you are a responsible and non suicidal person you are more likely to use a gun in self defense than anything else.

. Gun's don't care who your kids are. While it is unlikely that a person trained in the use of firearms will shoot themselves, their children or their children's friends may not be as careful. Gun accidents are do not kill many people, in fact more are killed by doctor malpractice, but is it a risk we need?

It's not your job to make that choice for other people. Gun laws punish responsible gun owners much more than criminals. Law abiding gun owners are statistically safer by owning a gun.

. Why the fuck do we need guns? the second amendment was originally intended for the revolutionary- era national guard. Are we still under British invasion?

I hear this one a lot. The wannabe tyrants in government know that they could win a war against civilian gun owners. These wannabe tyrants also know that some of them will get shot and that scares them. It scares them enough to think persecuting us on a large scale is not worth the risk. Also it's not a coincidence that many evil regimes used strict gun control, such as Turkey did before the Armenian genocide and the Japanese army right before the rape of Nanking.


I believe therefore that countries with strict gun laws are at greater risk of government tyranny

 

[CapnGod]

Guns kill people. So do many other things, but guns are man made, very lethal, and extremely easy to use (compared to many ancient weapons and the like). I've shot my share of guns and while it is fun the reasons why we shouldn't distribute arms en masse to the public, outweigh the reasons we might need them.

1. A household weapon is more likely to kill you than a burglar, studies have shown that many burglars actually target gun owners over normal folks. The reason: Gun owners have guns that, if used against them will only trace back to the owner. If you're asleep your gun is either near you and loaded, which makes it the first thing an intruder will take. Or it's locked in a cabinet, which makes it about as useful as a box of tissues.

2. Gun's don't care who your kids are. While it is unlikely that a person trained in the use of firearms will shoot themselves, their children or their children's friends may not be as careful. Gun accidents are do not kill many people, in fact more are killed by doctor malpractice, but is it a risk we need?

3. A person with a gun tends to use it as a "fix-all". While there are MANY responsible gun owners, the sins of the irresponsible far outweigh any positive from private gun ownership. Someone giving you guff? Use a gun! Your wife cheat on you? Use a gun! Lose money in a bet? USE A GUN! my point is that guns in the hands of the lazy or crazy are VERY dangerous.

4. Why the fuck do we need guns? the second amendment was originally intended for the revolutionary- era national guard. Are we still under British invasion? (I think most of the Beatles are gone)

Gun's arn't going to protect you in any sort of street mugging either. A criminal usually has the drop on you in that sort of situation. and they probably have less compunctions about killing than you do.

The only guns that should be legal, in my book, would be hunting rifles and small pistols.

Small pistols? Define. Please. Also, as for guns not being advantageous in a mugging, well, bullshit.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/14224999/detail.html?rss=det&psp=news

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/labels/carjacking.html

http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx <-- Do a search for your state (Americans, really, not to exclude anyone, but this searches stories from American papers). These are only the ones that made it in to the Armed Citizen. They are by no means the only examples.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Also criminals will always have weapons so banning it to make innocent people less safe is also silly.

Bad argument.

Criminals assume the innocent is more likely to be armed therefore bring weaponry to make their point.

Breaking in to an empty house in America could result in you pinching a gun. The ease of getting guns in America is the problem and why they are used so much by criminals.

Hardly since not alot of people do not bother with owning one because of the fees. Weapons make it that much easier for criminals to operate.

This is a simple argument like the one over free thought by removing free thought we create a "better" society, thus by removing one more right one more freedom from the individual you may make society some how better. But the trouble is it dose not end until all or most rights are in the hands of authority.

Guns are not the issue human frailty is. Guns are tools the same as any other and like drugs you will further black market power and influence if you try and ban it. So in the end we humans must understand that we can not protect humanity from being human but we can promote responsibility and mitigate insanity with solid rules and laws without banning it and making it far worse than it is.

I don't buy the black market argument. Some will inevitably slip through the net. Some in the UK are modified. Guns, totally will not disappear. But guns drastically decrease in number. Only place i've even see a Policeman carrying a gun (MP5, no less) was at the Airport in the UK.

And it's 'hardly' easy to break in and steal a gun in America. I absolutely guarantee you it's easier than it is in the UK.

And i would argue, it makes sense for Civilians not to have weaponry. It's just many Americans must defend their constitutional right to have them. Course, lets face it some civvies with weaponry is hardly going to protect you from oppression if the government wanted to.

Ignoring the fact they pretty much have most of America under control through fear and have done for many years.

FYI Gun bans work in the UK because you didn't have millions of guns int eh street and a health constitution to protect the right to own a weapon. Guns are a health part of the black market anywhere you go and like drugs you ban and heavy enforce it the price and demand will go up on them anythign that gains the black market a dime equates to dollars in trouble for government.

If that was not clear you have a slightly different setup in the UK you can not simply ban guns in the US, de weaponization works ebst after hard conflicts when the people are mentally weak and tried from the warring. The US is also despite evidence otherwise is are republic of the people and the people would fuss, sue and minorly revolt if the government took guns away through a ban.

Hell look at states that have lax guns laws its maixed bag of crime rates to state its worth the anythign to remove guns from the public. Tragedies happen its part of life and the human experience you can not simply remove one thing because it might be tragic, lets limit vehicles to not go over 40MPH make them heaver more protective and cost 2-4X to use and buy lets burden the people more by trying to effect wishy washy moralisim from the top down.

Ack rant mode is over 9000!
Anyway my point being it would not work for the US but for a society not use to guns and weapons or is in between warring you could easily ban them and control them in a reasonable manner however you will never get rid of them since drugs are literally everywhere.

automatic shotgun to kill rabbits at his farm

I thought the point of killing rabbits was 1) to stop them munching your crops and 2) to give you rabbit meat to sell/eat. While it might do 1 quite sufficiently, wouldn't it basically 'pulpify' (is that a real word? eh, who cares) the rabbit and make it inedible?

It's just many Americans must defend their ambiguous constitutional right

Bolded the important part. The fact that people are still debating it even now calls into question how much of a right it really is. Considering the wide variety of types weapons on sale to the general public, I'd have to say that they've buggered up something along the way.

Newest word for SCOTUS is that it is a right to bear arms and frankly there is lil difference in mods and what not the whole thing needs to be overhauled and simplified. Your right to bear arms should be akin to your right to vote(felony=losing those rights) only with mental checks

It's not going to kill someone to wait a week for processing to get their gun.

Could someone translate that post for me?

Also criminals will always have weapons so banning it to make innocent people less safe is also silly.

Bad argument.

Criminals assume the innocent is more likely to be armed therefore bring weaponry to make their point.

Breaking in to an empty house in America could result in you pinching a gun. The ease of getting guns in America is the problem and why they are used so much by criminals.

Hardly since not alot of people do not bother with owning one because of the fees. Weapons make it that much easier for criminals to operate.

This is a simple argument like the one over free thought by removing free thought we create a "better" society, thus by removing one more right one more freedom from the individual you may make society some how better. But the trouble is it dose not end until all or most rights are in the hands of authority.

Guns are not the issue human frailty is. Guns are tools the same as any other and like drugs you will further black market power and influence if you try and ban it. So in the end we humans must understand that we can not protect humanity from being human but we can promote responsibility and mitigate insanity with solid rules and laws without banning it and making it far worse than it is.

I don't buy the black market argument. Some will inevitably slip through the net. Some in the UK are modified. Guns, totally will not disappear. But guns drastically decrease in number. Only place i've even see a Policeman carrying a gun (MP5, no less) was at the Airport in the UK.

And it's 'hardly' easy to break in and steal a gun in America. I absolutely guarantee you it's easier than it is in the UK.

And i would argue, it makes sense for Civilians not to have weaponry. It's just many Americans must defend their constitutional right to have them. Course, lets face it some civvies with weaponry is hardly going to protect you from oppression if the government wanted to.

Ignoring the fact they pretty much have most of America under control through fear and have done for many years.

FYI Gun bans work in the UK because you didn't have millions of guns int eh street and a health constitution to protect the right to own a weapon. Guns are a health part of the black market anywhere you go and like drugs you ban and heavy enforce it the price and demand will go up on them anythign that gains the black market a dime equates to dollars in trouble for government.

If that was not clear you have a slightly different setup in the UK you can not simply ban guns in the US, de weaponization works ebst after hard conflicts when the people are mentally weak and tried from the warring. The US is also despite evidence otherwise is are republic of the people and the people would fuss, sue and minorly revolt if the government took guns away through a ban.

Hell look at states that have lax guns laws its maixed bag of crime rates to state its worth the anythign to remove guns from the public. Tragedies happen its part of life and the human experience you can not simply remove one thing because it might be tragic, lets limit vehicles to not go over 40MPH make them heaver more protective and cost 2-4X to use and buy lets burden the people more by trying to effect wishy washy moralisim from the top down.

Ack rant mode is over 9000!
Anyway my point being it would not work for the US but for a society not use to guns and weapons or is in between warring you could easily ban them and control them in a reasonable manner however you will never get rid of them since drugs are literally everywhere.

automatic shotgun to kill rabbits at his farm

I thought the point of killing rabbits was 1) to stop them munching your crops and 2) to give you rabbit meat to sell/eat. While it might do 1 quite sufficiently, wouldn't it basically 'pulpify' (is that a real word? eh, who cares) the rabbit and make it inedible?

It's just many Americans must defend their ambiguous constitutional right

Bolded the important part. The fact that people are still debating it even now calls into question how much of a right it really is. Considering the wide variety of types weapons on sale to the general public, I'd have to say that they've buggered up something along the way.

Newest word for SCOTUS is that it is a right to bear arms and frankly there is lil difference in mods and what not the whole thing needs to be overhauled and simplified. Your right to bear arms should be akin to your right to vote(felony=losing those rights) only with mental checks

It's not going to kill someone to wait a week for processing to get their gun.

Could someone translate that post for me?

What I am getting at its moot to ban things because it dose not work you wind up with more trouble because you as a governmental body refuse to regulate something maturely its far easier to ban and ignore any and all issues surrounding the subject but for trying to create more restrictions ALA knife bans because guns are already banned, next up bats and brinks!

Like with the blame game to games and media why can't we "ban" the crime and not the thought the tool the film the game, why must we take it to to such a absolute level where failure is always guaranteed because humans and absolutism(perfection,ect) are incompatible....(IE "murder" is not always illegal there is to many shades of gray to mark all things in black and white).

 

[JokerGrin]

I'm way too tired to expand on this but I'd just like to say, I think that statement sounds like a complete load of toss. A polite society, is a polite society.

 

[scotth266]

Look at the UK. We don't all have guns but we've got some serious knife crime issues.

I agree that guns aren't going to solve the problem but if someone wants to harm another person, they'll find something to arm themselves with.

This pretty much. Even if guns were banned, real criminals DON'T obey the law and WILL find some way of getting their hands on them.
You have a right to defend yourself with whatever you feel like.

 

[SmogCzar]

A person may only buy a firearm within his own State except that he may buy a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides.

[18 U.S.C 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 178.29]

It is a lot easier to conceal a pistol than it is to conceal a rifle or shotgun. I am assuming that you mean the robber in question is a resident of heavy gun control state so even if he left he could only buy a difficult to carry and/or conceal long gun. This also relies on the neighboring state allowing nonresident long gun sales as indicated above.

Snip

I was just saying that it would be the guns dealers who would be making the sale so they wouldn't sell certain guns in certain circumstances to this person. I am an avid hunter and sport shooter along with being an NRA member. I like using my AR for sport shooting because of its ease of use and ability to be modified. Armor piercing ammo is not available on the civilian market.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Look at the UK. We don't all have guns but we've got some serious knife crime issues.

I agree that guns aren't going to solve the problem but if someone wants to harm another person, they'll find something to arm themselves with.

This pretty much. Even if guns were banned, real criminals DON'T obey the law and WILL find some way of getting their hands on them.
You have a right to defend yourself with whatever you feel like.

This. People who want to break big laws (like Grand Theft Auto and Larceny) aren't going to obey little laws (like gun control). Besides, guns are deeply ingrained into the culture of American Crime. It is impossible, no matter WHAT we try, to remove guns from the hands of American criminals at this point.

 

[Bullfrog1983]

I really can't see any way that guns would affect my politeness. However, I guess if I was scared to death that everyone around me had guns then I'd be more polite. The presence of guns just makes aggresive behaviour seem more likely to occur the way I see it.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

Look at the UK. We don't all have guns but we've got some serious knife crime issues.

I agree that guns aren't going to solve the problem but if someone wants to harm another person, they'll find something to arm themselves with.

This pretty much. Even if guns were banned, real criminals DON'T obey the law and WILL find some way of getting their hands on them.
You have a right to defend yourself with whatever you feel like.

This. People who want to break big laws (like Grand Theft Auto and Larceny) aren't going to obey little laws (like gun control). Besides, guns are deeply ingrained into the culture of American Crime. It is impossible, no matter WHAT we try, to remove guns from the hands of American criminals at this point.

Pretty much what I always say. It is logistically impossible to remove all guns from the US populace.

 

[notmyoldaccount]

Obviously. If I'm going to go to jail for using either one I'm going to use the one that's more effective. Why? Because I'm a robber and I genuinely believe I wont get caught, which is why I've got the guff to rob people in the first place. If I did believe I'd get caught, I either wouldn't do it or I want to be caught which says something about my psychological standing where my cries for help manifest in beating up the young or elderly and taking their stuff.

Criminals dont care. Criminals that rob old men or young women dont care. Comparitively, a rapist with aids isn't going to bother to wear a condom because it's illegal to have sex with someone without consenting in them that you have a deadly incurable virus and a robber isn't going to bother making sure his knife or gun meets state code because he's currently breaking the law.

Well that doesn't seem to ring true in the real world. Someone will risk burglary and getting caught because it's only a 6 month custodial sentence on average. If you just had a gun on you on the way to a burglary, that's a minimum of five years without parole.

There've been several documentaries on this in the UK, and it shows that most of the criminals do it because they don't mind a bit of time if they do get caught. But 5-10 years is a huge chunk of your life.

 

[Mew_chan]

Guns Bad!
Holding hands good!

^^^ WTF?

Hey dont ask me... I dont even know...

 

[tsb247]

I like using my AR for sport shooting because of its ease of use and ability to be modified.

Thank you for saying this! This isn't 100% on topic here, but it does have some relevance seeing as I too love my AR for the same reasons, and I can make the connection.

I don't understand how people can't seem to fathom that so many gun owners are simply people who enjoy shooting for sport. In fact, the only thing I have ever used my AR for is putting holes in a piece of paper that just happens to be 100 yards away. That's it. I have no other motive for having that rifle. I love that I can adapt it to shoot in any situation, and it is easy to use, so I am quite proficient with it. The same goes for all of my rifles/pistols really. All I do is hunt and shoot targets, and that is something I enjoy doing. If the tools of my hobby happen to be semi-automatic, have a pistol grip, telescoping stock, and a vertical foregrip, how does that make me a homicidal maniac again?

My point is that an all-out ban would destroy my hobby as well as the hobbies of many other Americans. It would take away from me that which I enjoy and find a great deal of relaxation in doing. That being said, why would it be a good idea to punish the good people along with the bad. Is that really fair? Nope, not in the least.

 

[CapnGod]

I like using my AR for sport shooting because of its ease of use and ability to be modified.

Thank you for saying this! This isn't 100% on topic here, but it does have some relevance seeing as I too love my AR for the same reasons, and I can make the connection.

I don't understand how people can't seem to fathom that so many gun owners are simply people who enjoy shooting for sport. In fact, the only thing I have ever used my AR for is putting holes in a piece of paper that just happens to be 100 yards away. That's it. I have no other motive for having that rifle. I love that I can adapt it to shoot in any situation, and it is easy to use, so I am quite proficient with it. The same goes for all of my rifles/pistols really. All I do is hunt and shoot targets, and that is something I enjoy doing. If the tools of my hobby happen to be semi-automatic, have a pistol grip, telescoping stock, and a vertical foregrip, how does that make me a homicidal maniac again?

My point is that an all-out ban would destroy my hobby as well as the hobbies of many other Americans. It would take away from me that which I enjoy and find a great deal of relaxation in doing. That being said, why would it be a good idea to punish the good people along with the bad. Is that really fair? Nope, not in the least.

Problem is that gun control advocates just don't give a shit about what's fair. They don't care that you're a law abiding citizen. Actually, strike that, they like the idea. They just want the law to say you can't have your guns. And then you'll obey the law. They'll like that. Fair? That they don't give a shit about.

 

[tsb247]

Very true, I realize that, but I was just hoping to strike a logical chord. Most anti-gun activists are generally very selfish in that respect. They don't care if banning guns will affect law-abiding citizens. They also don't care to realize how it would negatively affect violent crime rates in the lnog run.

 

[SmogCzar]

I like using my AR for sport shooting because of its ease of use and ability to be modified.

Thank you for saying this! This isn't 100% on topic here, but it does have some relevance seeing as I too love my AR for the same reasons, and I can make the connection.

I don't understand how people can't seem to fathom that so many gun owners are simply people who enjoy shooting for sport. In fact, the only thing I have ever used my AR for is putting holes in a piece of paper that just happens to be 100 yards away. That's it. I have no other motive for having that rifle. I love that I can adapt it to shoot in any situation, and it is easy to use, so I am quite proficient with it. The same goes for all of my rifles/pistols really. All I do is hunt and shoot targets, and that is something I enjoy doing. If the tools of my hobby happen to be semi-automatic, have a pistol grip, telescoping stock, and a vertical foregrip, how does that make me a homicidal maniac again?

My point is that an all-out ban would destroy my hobby as well as the hobbies of many other Americans. It would take away from me that which I enjoy and find a great deal of relaxation in doing. That being said, why would it be a good idea to punish the good people along with the bad. Is that really fair? Nope, not in the least.

The only thing I would ever consider hunting with my AR would be Coyotes. The 5.56 round is very nice for picking off the little fur bags. That is the only sport gun besides me Ruger New Vaquero everything else has a purpose whether it be waterfowl, upland game or deer and elk. It's like that story about the Army Colonel that is teaching Boy Scouts how to shoot safely and the reporter asks why he is train these young boys to be like killers? To which he replies, in effect, they may be equipped to kill but they won't just like you are equipped to be a hooker but you aren't. Something like that. Them liberals like everyone to be equal, equally miserable that is.

 

[tsb247]

Obviously. If I'm going to go to jail for using either one I'm going to use the one that's more effective. Why? Because I'm a robber and I genuinely believe I wont get caught, which is why I've got the guff to rob people in the first place. If I did believe I'd get caught, I either wouldn't do it or I want to be caught which says something about my psychological standing where my cries for help manifest in beating up the young or elderly and taking their stuff.

Criminals dont care. Criminals that rob old men or young women dont care. Comparitively, a rapist with aids isn't going to bother to wear a condom because it's illegal to have sex with someone without consenting in them that you have a deadly incurable virus and a robber isn't going to bother making sure his knife or gun meets state code because he's currently breaking the law.

Well that doesn't seem to ring true in the real world. Someone will risk burglary and getting caught because it's only a 6 month custodial sentence on average. If you just had a gun on you on the way to a burglary, that's a minimum of five years without parole.

There've been several documentaries on this in the UK, and it shows that most of the criminals do it because they don't mind a bit of time if they do get caught. But 5-10 years is a huge chunk of your life.

I'm going to counter that by saying that in many states here in the U.S. the penalty for using a gun in a crime can range from 10 years to life (with or without parole depending on the decision), and of course there is still the death penalty in some states depending on whether or not said criminal harmed anyone. Our laws on gun crime are FAR stricter here, and still, they find a way to happen. The funny part is that a lot of them still happen in areas with the strictest gun control.

Why would someone risk these consequences? It's simple. They don't believe they will get caught, and they certainly have no respect for the law if they are out knocking over convenience stores with a Glock in the first place.

As it has been stated many times before, criminals won't respect any ban that were to be passed, and they all think they are too slick to get caught. A gun ban would only hurt those who do follow the laws. It's not like the gang memebers and thugs are going to turn in their weapons because they suddenly became illegal.

 

[matsugawa]

An Armed Society is a Polite Society...
so long as everyone agrees with that particular society and all its credences and laws. Basically, this distinctly euro-centric phrase seems to be a variation on, "might makes right" or "speak softly and carry a big stick", only with the logical order switched around (as if having guns makes one sophisticated and intelligent).

 

[notmyoldaccount]

I'm going to counter that by saying that in many states here in the U.S. the penalty for using a gun in a crime can range from 10 years to life (with or without parole depending on the decision), and of course there is still the death penalty in some states depending on whether or not said criminal harmed anyone. Our laws on gun crime are FAR stricter here, and still, they find a way to happen. The funny part is that a lot of them still happen in areas with the strictest gun control.

Why would someone risk these consequences? It's simple. They don't believe they will get caught, and they certainly have no respect for the law if they are out knocking over convenience stores with a Glock in the first place.

As it has been stated many times before, criminals won't respect any ban that were to be passed, and they all think they are too slick to get caught. A gun ban would only hurt those who do follow the laws. It's not like the gang memebers and thugs are going to turn in their weapons because they suddenly became illegal.

Not every criminal is a smooth operator, or a crazy person. I'm talking from experience here, there are some people in the UK that before such strict laws against owning a firearm would happily consider using a gun rather than a knife for general "protection" on the street a.k.a. for sorting out arguments, drug deals, small scale mugging etc. But now think it's not worth the risk for the extra protection it provides over a knife.