An Armed Society is a Polite Society (?)

[Rolling Thunder]

If all the police in Britain were armed, then I would demand that the citizenry be permitted to own firearms that are not just shotguns and hunting rifles. But as they are not, I am quite happy not being permitted to carry a weapon.

PS: What would you do if your government tried to opress you, with those guns. I'll tell you: You'd die. Professional soldiers are not going to be taken down by a bunch of militiamen.

 

[Sane Man]

If all the police in Britain were armed, then I would demand that the citizenry be permitted to own firearms that are not just shotguns and hunting rifles. But as they are not, I am quite happy not being permitted to carry a weapon.

PS: What would you do if your government tried to opress you, with those guns. I'll tell you: You'd die. Professional soldiers are not going to be taken down by a bunch of militiamen.

Exactly, The American Revolutionary War was won by professional....oh wait, no, militiamen. But at least they weren't up against professionals....oh wait, they were.

 

[notmyoldaccount]

I'd say less guns = safer citizens.

I sort of agree with that, except the level of knife crime in Britain kind of disproves that. Whilst guns are pretty much restricted, people are still shanking each other with much enthusiasm.

Yeah but that's because you can outright ban handguns/machine guns- they do not have any use other than to intimidate or shoot people. But most knives, stanley knives, kitchen knives, pen knives, etc all have legal and very normal uses. So you can't just completely remove them from society like handguns/machineguns. However there are knives that are merely made for "shanking" people, and those are most definitely banned, like flick knives and gravity knives.

 

[ae86gamer]

Gangs oftentimes know rival gangs are armed, yet that doesn't stop them from violence.

^This
Also whenever I look at your avatar I cant help but sing Alright from Supergrass. "We are young, we run green,Keep our teeth, nice and clean,See our friends, see the sights, feel alright." :/

 

[klarr]

The amount of firepower doesn't show how friendly you are. Its either your comfortable in situations because you know your packing, or the next step is you think you can do anything, because your packing.

you took the words right out of my mouth. i agree!

 

[notmyoldaccount]

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?

 

[notmyoldaccount]

I just want to throw this out there to clear this up for some who may be unclear on American gun laws. I only mention this because it was hinted ar by ZippyDS.

If you are convicted of a felony in the U.S., not only do you lose your right to vote, but you are barred from purchasing a firearm. That's the law. That's the way it is, and it is enforced with the instant background check that takes place before a firearm purchase is completed. The BATF form 4473 also tracks who is purchasing the gun, what kind of gun it is, where it came from, and aids in the verification of the purchaser's identity.

I know I will probably get flamed for this, but there is nothing wrong with a country allowing its civilians to own guns. Just because that's how it works in the U.K. doesn't mean it's the best way to be, and I often wonder why so many Europeans seem to care so much about American guns laws anyway, and they seem to take a personal interest in seeing guns taken from American civilians for no other reason than, "That's the way it is in my country." I mean no insult to anyone, but that's just the feeling I get from these kinds of threads. Removing guns from society will in no way eliminate violent crime.

Why should the U.S. adopt a gun ban anyway? There is no evidence that banning guns will decrease crime; especially when you take into account the size of the U.S. and some of its major cities. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its crime rate is through the roof. The same is true with Washington D.C.! If nothing else, the U.S. has shown that crime is higher in cities where guns are more strictly controlled. This is not true in every case, but has shown to be accurate in far too many cases to be ignored.

I'll just throw this out here to clear this up. We are happy to not be armed, and we're not saying that you should adopt our laws and policies, but like you say our way isn't necessarily the best way to be, but for our society it is, just like the american way may not be the best way to be. I don't think anyone in this thread that is European is arguing vehemently that america should be disarmed.

 

[CapnGod]

According to your logic, you would have me assume that in a society without guns there would be no murders. That is not only ignorant, it is stupid. I could go a step further and say that (using your logic again), I am part of an armed society, and therefore I must be a murderer. Yeah, that doesn't hold water either.

Did I say that? No. I said that a society with weapons think that they're entitled to murder criminals and such. They're murderous.
I've noted a lot of Americans with this attitude (in discussions and such).

I never said that being part of an armed society makes you a murderer, it just makes it easier (and you more willing) to murder a person perceived as a criminal.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murderous

1 a: having the purpose or capability of murder.

What with the point of a weapon being to kill, it only makes sense that having an armed populace would make them murderous. That's the point, right?

Quotey stuff.

Actually, I think he was trying to say that it's a fearful society because they have to buy weapons to feel safe and happy.

Anyway, I wouldn't feel happy in America unless I was wearing a bullet-proof vest rigged up with fake blood (to fake out any gunman that decides it's a good idea to shoot me up).

Well, you're still a kid. Don't worry, I thought I knew everything at your age, too.

I've stood, at night, unarmed, on the streets of Detroit wearing a black suit standing next to a limo. I'm here to tell about it. It's not as bad as you think.

As for your definition, I'm murderous because I'm big enough and strong enough to choke someone to death or beat their head against the ground unti lit is squishy. I'm unarmed (and truth be told, I just got up... wearing some gym shorts and a shirt) but still theoretically capable of murder. Your saying that having the capability is quite misleading. Then any time you get behind the wheel of a car, you are murderous. I'm sure you'd beg to differ; most would.

Having a gun does not make you murderous. It does not make you fearful. There are times, it could be argued (as I think I'm about to do) that it makes you wise, even. I bought my girlfriend a gun. Fairly concealable, pretty powerful (Beretta 9000s is .40S&W 10+1, in case you were wondering), and not so she can go hunting criminals. She has learned the basic tenets of gun safety (treat it as if it were loaded at all times, keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, verify the status of any firearm you are handed, etc....) and now has to practice. It is so that I can feel a little better if she has to go into a city like Pontiac. Which she does. It's like Detroit, only with less police protection. The thing about police is that when second count, they are only minutes away. Arming her is taking a precaution.

Much like your bullet proof vest, a gun is not necessarily the final answer. But it does provide some measure of protection. Remember all my size and strength I mentioned earlier? It doesn't count for much if someone pulls a gun on me. Even if the person on the other end of the gun weighs 115lbs and stands 5'4". (Those aren't her measurements, but tiny ones chosen for effect.) Now, I am not going to go murder or rape someone, but someone my size is now not holding the advantage as they may have previously thought.

 

[notmyoldaccount]

Thought puzzle: you're a robber.

You live on the border of two states in America. One has heavy restricted gun control, the other doesn't. You have a knife.

Which one you gonna do business in?

Thought puzzle; you're a robber.

You live in a country where guns are banned, and the jail sentence for carrying a gun is much higher than the jail sentence for robbery. You have a knife.

Do you go out and try to get a gun?

 

[tsb247]

According to your logic, you would have me assume that in a society without guns there would be no murders. That is not only ignorant, it is stupid. I could go a step further and say that (using your logic again), I am part of an armed society, and therefore I must be a murderer. Yeah, that doesn't hold water either.

Did I say that? No. I said that a society with weapons think that they're entitled to murder criminals and such. They're murderous.
I've noted a lot of Americans with this attitude (in discussions and such).

I never said that being part of an armed society makes you a murderer, it just makes it easier (and you more willing) to murder a person perceived as a criminal.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murderous

1 a: having the purpose or capability of murder.

What with the point of a weapon being to kill, it only makes sense that having an armed populace would make them murderous. That's the point, right?

Quotey stuff.

Actually, I think he was trying to say that it's a fearful society because they have to buy weapons to feel safe and happy.

Anyway, I wouldn't feel happy in America unless I was wearing a bullet-proof vest rigged up with fake blood (to fake out any gunman that decides it's a good idea to shoot me up).

Again, you are generalizing. You pointed out that, "you (are) more willing," to commit murder if you own a gun. You also stated that, "(Americans are) more entitles to murder criminals," which is hardly an informed comment. Can you honestly say what every gun owning American thinks? I think not. If you can, you need to quit your day job.

I own a gun. So that means I must be more willing than those without to commit murder? No, not at all. That is again, ignorant. I own guns for the sheer joy of shooting. I shoot targets and I hunt. I would defend myself if need be, but that hardly makes me more willing to murder.

You have obviously never been to America, or at least, not a good part of it. Like any country out there, there are parts that are not the best, but it is hardly a place requiring the wear of bullet proof vests.

And no. The point of an armed populace is not simply to kill every percieved foe. The idea is defense, nothing more. Most people who have guns for defense never have to use them, and would rather not have to.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Quotey stuff.

Actually, I think he was trying to say that it's a fearful society because they have to buy weapons to feel safe and happy.

Exactly.

Quotey stuff (Again!).

Ironically, you actually underline my point pretty well.

You mention School/campus/workplace shootings, how many of those would have happened at all if the perpetrator did not have easy and cheap access to firearms?
Those kids at Columbine had amassed a small arsenal of weaponry, they'd never have been able to do that here in the UK, not without attracting massive Police attention at any rate.

You also mention peace of mind and personal safety a lot, which reinforces my point a bit more, you actually state that seeing people armed puts you at ease. Which I find a slightly bizarre situation.

Anyway, in answer to your hypothetical situation. I would either wait for said lady to leave. Or incapacitate her before starting my robbery, most likely via stabbing (if I'm going to be an armed robber, may as well be a well armed robber). The possibility of her being armed makes her the first target as she is a variable, one that has to be removed quickly and totally.

 

[notmyoldaccount]

Exactly, The American Revolutionary War was won by professional....oh wait, no, militiamen. But at least they weren't up against professionals....oh wait, they were.

May I point out that whilst the fighting skills of a layman has not changed much since historical times, the difference between the general populus's training and skilled military training is much greater. And the difference in equipment is huge.

 

[Sane Man]

Exactly, The American Revolutionary War was won by professional....oh wait, no, militiamen. But at least they weren't up against professionals....oh wait, they were.

May I point out that whilst the fighting skills of a layman has not changed much since historical times, the difference between the general populus's training and skilled military training is much greater. And the difference in equipment is huge.

True, but equipment has also been bettered for the civilian. SWAT Teams and such are a bit misconceived in actually how good they really are. Not to put them down at all, but when someone KNOWS you are coming and you are willing to shoot them, that takes a lot of the advantage away. We just had an incident in America with a criminal shooting and killing 3 police officers (2 SWAT members) and critically injuring another.

I'm not saying they would be a cohesive fighting unit at all, but it would certainly make hell for a government that wishes to supress their people by force. I mean the American military is the most advanced in the world and we are having trouble in Afghanistan and they are not fighting "professional" soldiers. Occupations are tough, and occupying your former country would be pretty damn tough.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Again, you are generalizing. You pointed out that, "you (are) more willing," to commit murder if you own a gun. You also stated that, "(Americans are) more entitles to murder criminals," which is hardly an informed comment. Can you honestly say what every gun owning American thinks? I think not. If you can, you need to quit your day job.

I own a gun. So that means I must be more willing than those without to commit murder? No, not at all. That is again, ignorant. I own guns for the sheer joy of shooting. I shoot targets and I hunt. I would defend myself if need be, but that hardly makes me more willing to murder.

You have obviously never been to America, or at least, not a good part of it. Like any country out there, there are parts that are not the best, but it is hardly a place requiring the wear of bullet proof vests.

And no. The point of an armed populace is not simply to kill every perceived foe. The idea is defense, nothing more. Most people who have guns for defense never have to use them, and would rather not have to.

SOME people SEEM to act like it's their right to murder anyone who breaks into their house, which I always think of as a bit silly.
Also, after I heard about that law where you can legally murder anyone who breaks into your house, my bias against American gun-owners was set.

I'm sorry, but I can't change that. It's just another one of my biases.

 

[Kevvers]

Thought puzzle: you're a robber.

You live on the border of two states in America. One has heavy restricted gun control, the other doesn't. You have a knife.

Which one you gonna do business in?

TBH if *I* were a robber I would probably go to the state with guns, buy a gun, and rob someone who looks like they are vulnerable and doesn't have a gun in an isolated place... Cowardly perhaps, but that's mainly because I couldn't imagine ever being able to intimidate anyone even with a knife, not being all that brawny. Consequently, I wouldn't ever be a robber in state without guns, because I simply wouldn't be that good at it, and I would be shit scared of being caught with a gun if I had one.

However, this doesn't apply to the burly mugger who could quite easily pull off the knife mugging, and that is the kind of person who is a robber anyway, so that didn't really help me decide.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Oh wait- they also massively outnumbered said professionals. And we were pretty tied up in India at the time, so you'll have to wait until our empire rises again before we reclaim our full American territories. Don't worry- you can have three seats in parliment.

And besides- warfare back then was a matter of aim, shoot and pray. Warfare now is aim, fire, watch massive warplane swoop down and blast into tiny pieces. It's a lot more proffessional, and a lot more dangerous.

 

[CapnGod]

I'm pretty sure you're not going to get it. I won't argue that it isn't perfect here, but I will argue that you don't know as much as you think. Banning guns is not the answer. Washington D.C. has been a pretty good example of that.

Also, I point you to Colorado, and a situation that didn't receive a huge national story. It involved someone who decided to shoot people. Similar to the other situations, yes, but it didn't go as far.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7137615.stm

Because she was armed and was able to defend herself and most everyone else in that church. It could have been much, much worse, but a gun stopped the carnage.

What people seem to forget is that guns have no intent. They are inanimate, lifeless objects. It is the person who wields the guns that puts it to a purpose. Blaming the gun is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Blaming access to the gun is, too. The person holding the gun is responsible. The woman in that story was a private citizen. Former law enforcement, perhaps, but a private citizen at the time.

Most people tend to feel safer in the presence of armed people. You just forget that cops are armed. Unless they aren't in the UK; I don't rightly know.

 

[Sane Man]

Oh wait- they also massively outnumbered said professionals. And we were pretty tied up in India at the time, so you'll have to wait until our empire rises again before we reclaim our full American territories. Don't worry- you can have three seats in parliment.

And besides- warfare back then was a matter of aim, shoot and pray. Warfare now is aim, fire, watch massive warplane swoop down and blast into tiny pieces. It's a lot more proffessional, and a lot more dangerous.

So you are saying that the American military outnumbers American civilians? Hmm, strange. As for modern strategies, I already mentioned Afghanistan. It does not even include the fact that because a situation is incredibly difficult you should just give up and we should hand over the only thing that can protect us in case something like that ever happened.

Besides, go watch Red Dawn! GO WOLVERINES!

 

[Booze Zombie]

More quotey stuff.

No, I was saying you'd need a gun because you ARE afraid, not that having one makes you afraid.

Note that my dictionary quote was "having the purpose of murder", which is because a weapon is designed to end lives. That's why you're afraid of them being used on you. You wouldn't be afraid of having a gun pulled on you if it fired chocolate sauce.

The purposes a weapons serves are: Enhancing your ability to murder, scaring off criminals (you think a criminal would let you reach, though?) and hunting animals for your dinner.

And being behind a wheel can make some people murderous. Would road-rage exist if that didn't happen?

Thought puzzle: you're a robber.

You live on the border of two states in America. One has heavy restricted gun control, the other doesn't. You have a knife.

Which one you gonna do business in?

I do business in the gun owning State and I stab someone who I catch off guard and take their gun.

 

[CapnGod]

Again, you are generalizing. You pointed out that, "you (are) more willing," to commit murder if you own a gun. You also stated that, "(Americans are) more entitles to murder criminals," which is hardly an informed comment. Can you honestly say what every gun owning American thinks? I think not. If you can, you need to quit your day job.

I own a gun. So that means I must be more willing than those without to commit murder? No, not at all. That is again, ignorant. I own guns for the sheer joy of shooting. I shoot targets and I hunt. I would defend myself if need be, but that hardly makes me more willing to murder.

You have obviously never been to America, or at least, not a good part of it. Like any country out there, there are parts that are not the best, but it is hardly a place requiring the wear of bullet proof vests.

And no. The point of an armed populace is not simply to kill every perceived foe. The idea is defense, nothing more. Most people who have guns for defense never have to use them, and would rather not have to.

SOME people SEEM to act like it's their right to murder anyone who breaks into their house, which I always think of as a bit silly.
Also, after I heard about that law where you can legally murder anyone who breaks into your house, my bias against American gun-owners was set.

I'm sorry, but I can't change that. It's just another one of my biases.

It's not murder. It's self defense. There is a difference. You can shoot and yes, you can kill someone who has broken into your house with unknown intent. It IS their right to DEFEND their life and the lives of others in their house with deadly force.

You know, because people who have broken into your house have so much respect for you in the first place. If you agree not to break in to my house, I agree that I don't have the right to shoot you.

My Eyewitness News, Memphis, TN, 2/21/2008
State: TN
American Rifleman Issue: 2/21/2008
A convicted sex offender was shot and killed after he broke into a Tennessee home, intending to rape two young sisters inside. The younger sister escaped after being tied up and ran to her aunt?s house next door for help. The sisters? cousin, a Right-to-Carry permit holder, shot the intruder after the intruder attacked him.

But, you know, you're right. Maybe we should have the right to defend ourselves. /sarcasm