Weapons

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quite a difficult topic because it is an ethic, a social and a political problem.
living in a country where gun ownership and -carry is restricted and the rate of gun-owners is quite low I see there are basically two concepts:

1. banning guns so that criminals have more difficulties to get one and shooting around if cought (only makes sense if it is not planned to use a gun while committing the crime - burglars, thieves etc. someone who would like to commit murder would get a gun on the black market that grew since the opening of the "iron curtain" in 1989).

2. Allowing guns to make crimes more risky for criminals, as someone might stop them because he is armed in the same or superior way.

There are several " in betweens" - in Switzerland nearly every male has his assoult-rifle in the shelf, because the army`s concept is based on gathering the soldiers - and every male Swiss is one in case of defence - decentralized. Very few crimes are committed with these guns.

Canada has nearly the same per-capita rate of guns as the US - but less people are murdered with guns (by far). Why? (I know he may be a persona non grata to be b´mentioned here but maybe Michael Moore`s thesis is not all wrong: People are scared, they have fear and reduce the fear by carrying guns. This fear could be propelled by the way news are made up (Moore found some significant differences between US and Canadian news). Do not know if there is something about it, but I think some things are obvious.

A weapon gives power (to protect oneself and others, to force someone else to follow ones wishes, to rule, to intimidate, to kill or wound).

It makes a weak fellow equal to a strong one if only he is able to pull the trigger.

In a rural environment guns are things of more or less daily business (even in Germany - for hunting and for self protection - you have to apply and visit courses), people are used to handle them in a responsible way because they are necessary.

In a city a gun would normally not be necessary. Enough people are there to help and there is nothing to hunt.
BUT: people in cities do seldom help each other any more, because the do not know each other very well and are more egoistic. And a growing crime rate gives them fear - they know criminals might use guns.

I guess the problem is modern society where a lot of people are no longer used to act responsible for others.

A critical situation might calm down if one of the contrahents shows he is armed and therefor superior. It might escalate if the contrahents are willing to use what they have to "win". No points to make here, depends on the persons.

I like knives like the khukuries, because they are handmade and beautiful and do what they were made for. I do not like very much Kraton handled machinded ones - so I guess it is not the "knife" I like, but its beauty. I do not like guns nor do I own one. There is no need for me to have one I think. I can use one and know how to operate several types. I like my bows and arrows (which are weapons too) because they give me pleasure and recreation (sport).

Man was meant to protect the family and to hunt. Maybe that is why weapons fascinate so many.

However. In Germany more murders are committed by using pantyhoses to strangulate the victim. They did not yet think to ban pantyhoses.

Concept No. 1 worked for a good time in Germany now, as the flow of weapons was controllable. If it no longer is controllable, concept No. 1 is nonsense. In the US it is no longer controllabe because guns are so widespread - so concept No. 2 is a one-way road but maybe one that has to be taken in a globalized, less controllable world.

huh - longish post, sorry.

Andreas
 
If you increase the number of people who carry a firearm for self defense, you increase the chances that the criminals will.


Hm...trusting the goodwill of our favorite criminal. Not a concept I'd like to test...
 
Good analogy Pan...

I guess it really matters where you live.
Living in the country, I would bet almost every home
out here has some kind of firearm. Then again, if one were
to go hunting or partake in target practice, the backyard
doesnt require any traveling whatsoever. In the 8+ years
I've been here I dont think I've never heard of any firearm
related crime being commited.
Then again, on any ordinary day its not uncommon to hear gunshots
nearby or in the distance...or cannon fire for that matter ;)
 
John, I am not sure its a question of trust, rather that if more members of the public are carrying firearms to defend themselves, then anyone wishing to commit a crime will have to keep that in mind and so is more likely to arm themselves likewise.

I was also thinking about what has been said about safety, over here it is fairly hard to gain posession of a firearm, in order to get a lisence you have to be a member of a club or similar group and so are going to have training in firearms handling. On the other hand in nations without such stringent controls weapons are held by people who actually aren't trained or safe (not that training is guarenteed to make someone safe but you get my drift anyhow). I do not believe in firearms for self defense in Britain simply because it increases the risk to the owner and their family more than any possible benefits simply because of peoples lack of training and the increase in the likelyhood that criminals will get hold of firearms before committing crimes, as Andreas said however if the flow of firearms increased then yeah, I would probably become a believer in option 2.

Incidentally, someone I know is a copper over here, recently coppers started wearing stab vests for protection, he refuses to wear one and his logic behind it is the same as the reason he will never hold a firearm; if you stand there wearing a stab vest with a baton in your hand it says to the criminal 'come on then, just try it', he has seen cases where criminals attacked the coppers who wore stab vests for preciesly this reason. I think the same logic applies, the more civilians are armed, the more criminals are going to have to gear up in order to have the advantage. And as Ferrous said, the chances of you being in a situation where you could use a firearm are minimal. When it comes down to it if someone is pointing a gun at you, how are you going to get at your gun? If you do, you are probably going to be shot. If you are threatened with a knife then you have the advantage, but I suppose it all depends on the situation.

Again, this is only a view from across the pond, obviously things are going to be different in other countries.
 
Overeacting to percieved threats is hardly Michael Moore's idea. And you are correct, he is a person non grata because he LIES.

But to follow this idea, then almost all firearm laws were put into place because of an exagerated fear of the consequences of gun ownership. Firearm accidents are at an all time low, yet storage laws are popular. Statistical studies suggest strongly (John Lott) that storage laws will cost more lives than saved due to the inability to reach a firearm for protection in time. You can't have a loaded gun in a vehicle in Calif because you might shoot a Highway Patrol Officer- so car jacking takes root in Calif.
But people keep passing more feel-good laws that contribute to the problem they were superficially designed to solve.

Another of Pan's major assumption, that in a city a gun would not normally be neccesary, is fantastic on its face. Why? Because police cannot protect you. It is a legal fact the police cannot protect you, and are not REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO SO. That's right. To imply through code or law the police must protect us would be to establish a code that could not be followed and would generate a crushing financial burdon society could not recover from. So why be disarmed in a locality with the highest crime rate?

Pan also mentions assault weapons in Switz have very few crimes associated with them. Pan, in America, legally owned assault and machine guns have zero crime associated with them. The only instance of a legally owned machine gun commiting a crime was owned by a COP.

People tend to forget that the second amendment to the Constitution in America means 'arms'. That leads to the gun debate, right? Well, what about these khukuris you all own? Some of you in distant lands cannot even take your khuks out for a walk in the park or a tour in the garden. Yet you want to discuss gun control as if it were a seperate concern.

I wish America had a more homogenous culture- though many of us, like myself, resist homogenization. Society limits the criminal first, and if it cannot, then LAW is a distant hope of control.
England has not had the overwhelming immigration of the US, and has enjoyed some stability. That is ending. Passing arms bans is contributing mightly to the end of the happy bubble in Australia, England, and Canada. In many measures, violent crime is passing that of the US's.

BTW, in Canada part of the reason for the handgun ban was to prevent suicide, particularly among young people. No guns, no sucicde. Well WEll Well- the suicide rate continues to climb even without handguns. Leaping suicides took the place of the gun.

It never ceases to amaze me how people who own weapons of some kind can discuss limiting some other of 'those' kind of weapons, or registering, or taking mandatory safety training, etc etc.

The argument mirrors that which is provided by the education and media establishments. You don't know any better, but you're willing to limit my and your own freedom, and to jeopardize my safety.

To you I say you've missed the understanding of the weapon. You've cheated yourselves with half measures. You have not completed your educations or trainings or understandings.

One of the last vestiges of individuality and freedom is the weapon, in America, the Right To Keep and Bear Arms. It was not written as a passing idea. The people who wrote and signed it knew what they were doing.

We can see the writing on the wall. Give this a few more generations of "sporting usefullness" and it'll be a cinch. A tax payer will have one vote and no arms. Judge Dredd used to refer sneeringly to these as, "citizens' the way you'd address a carnival mark.

WE can enjoy these discussions. And you can have my arms, all of them, including the khukuris and pocket knives, when you pry them from my
cold
dead
fingers.


munk
 
Originally posted by yerik
As I have gotten older. I cannot help but wonder why things are?
Take the khukuri for example or a gun; Why is man so pre-occupied with them. Is it because they bring death. Or is it that they serve as a tool? Cannot emphasis be put on a beautiful flower, or a cool breeze upon your face? It baffles me.

What makes you think these interests are mutually exclusive? I happen to love gardening and landscaping. I always like art, leatherworking, woodworking, literature, movies and fine autmobiles.

I also like airplanes, pizza, and beautiful women of all races, sizes and shapes (well, mostly all shapes....)

And I also am interested in Khukuris, swords, firearms and military history.

I don't buy the notion that human beings are so limited.

As far as my fascination with weapons, it comes from my study of history, and from my profoundly solid belief in the right of human beings to defend themselves and their families at the moment of attack.

Warfare is an intense national and social experience. It not only brings out the worst in humanity, but the best as well.

Note that I am not saying that the latter justifies war as a means of solving problems or just as end in and of itself. It is just like everything in life, an experience that brings both the noble and ignoble to the forefront.

Don
 
Originally posted by Ben Arown-Awile
The weaker and more threatened a man feels, the more weapons he needs.
A self assured man with strength of character, although he bears no weapons, is always well armed.

That is a very Zen quote. I've seen the results of weaponless females after they've been raped (and in some cases killed), and the results of armed females alive and unharmed standing over the bodies of the rapists they shot in self-defense.

Strength of character counts for much. I firmly endorse it. But in the real world, sometimes it takes more than just being a good person.

Don
 
Originally posted by munk
The weaker and more threatened a man feels, the more weapons he needs.
A self assured man with strength of character, although he bears no weapons, is always well armed....>> Beenaroundawhile


And I'm certain that calbre of character will put him in good stead as he watches helplessly by as his wife and children are brutalized, by animal or man.

Or let me say it another way; The road to a constitutional democracy was not paved by unarmed men of good character, but by armed men of good or better character.


munk

Yep.

Whenever I hear someone say "War never solved anything."

I think, "Well, there's slavery, freedom, Naziism, Ethnic cleansing, Genocide, invasion and occupation......."

Only a person with a shallow philosophy or intellect views all wars as the same, all use of weapons as the same. The use of a weapon for righteous self-defense is not the moral equivalent of a cold-blooded murder.

Some folks are fond of spouting the old misguided saw, "Fighting for peace is like (having sex) for virginity."

Nonsense. People of good character do not fight for peace - they fight for freedom and justice. Animals in a cage have all kinds of peace, but no freedom.

Don
 
..it takes a good person willing to risk everything, to put his money where his mouth is.







munk
 
Originally posted by Ferrous Wheel
"The gun is truly the great equalizer. I fear no man or beast while armed. Perhaps the fear is irrational. Perhaps not. But I FEEL safe knowing I can kill those that would take from me or my family."

In the three instances in which I had guns (or in one instance, an AR-15) pulled on me, a gun would not have benefitted me one bit, it would have escalatesd the situation (must admit my wife and daughter were not present, so perhaps I felt less threatened or protective). The scariest of the three was a drunk getting out at the gas station we were at and waving a gun at us, spouting gibberish and drool.

But these were just my own exp.s, and there was one other confrontation that if I had a gun, I would have used it--and regretted it.

I must admit I never much joined the cult of the gun. Like any good rurally raised boy, I of course have the "American Trifecta": one shotgun, one pistol, and one high power hunting rifle. I have the carry permit fer the .45, but I am much more likely these days to take the ASP collapsible baton along instead, or nothing but my wits.

"I FEEL safe knowing I can kill"--I will think carefully on this.

As Semp says, the gun is the great EQ. Using the above statement and this one, one could deduce that others as well may feel safe knowing that they can kill. with that mindset, is sociey is a bunch of homicidal types held in check by a "holier than thou" Ego-trip:)? Also, does one's feeling of safety leave when the last bullet is fired? When the weapon is knocked away? Will a gun make one feel safe if a bomb is detonanted in their vicinity? The cult of the gun would make guns the security blanket of the new millennium, I don't know if I like that. (P.S. I'm not an anti-gun nut, really)

I'm jest spoutin crap here, not pointing fingers, just enjoying a very fruitful and diverse discussion.


Keith

I disagree. No one but a fool thinks of a gun as lucky talisman tha wards off evil or bad things, or that every situation is solved by drawing a firearm. A firearm is merely one additional tool among many that people should have the option to use if the situation merits it and permits it.

The most important aspects to surviving a lethal force encouter are: mindset, situational awareness, threat identification, and tactics. Weapons come along after those four.

Don
 
I am not sure its a question of trust...anyone wishing to commit a crime will have to keep that in mind and so is more likely to arm themselves likewise.

Sorry, it might seem like a direct relationship, but you cannot interject a direct causal link- though there is a link, it's just not directly transferred. Let's take Florida. When concealed carry legislation was passed some years ago, some crime went up. Some crime went down. The types of crimes that involve fact-to-face confrontation (carjacking, for instance) went steeply down, and types of crimes that did not involve such interactions went up dramatically.

I think you might find it helpful if you took a mental step backward, and just consider a statement or two you have made, and the assumptions behind them. Sometimes we as inviduals accept without question what we have been told by segments of our societies, without adequate thought and examination. Here's a quote you may wish to consider, as though it came from someone else:
I think the same logic applies, the more civilians are armed, the more criminals are going to have to gear up in order to have the advantage.

Okay, here you have the traditional arms race type thing, escalation, etc. But what are you (unconsciously, I am sure) really saying? Let's parcel it out, just cut through to the heart of your message. Here it is: "Criminals have the advantage."

Wow. Tremble in fear, if true. Do they really, though? Well, in a disarmed society, large or physically highly trained individuals do indeed have the advantage over smaller/weaker/less trained individuals. Me? I'm not too worried. I'm in good shape, have years of martial training with bare hands and expedient weapons, and have a tough mindset.

What about Joe Citizen?

Do you know why nations can now produce deadly soldiers in as little as a few months? There is movement training, outdoor adaption, map reading, multiple weapons systems, physical training, hygiene instruction, in addition to time fitting and equipping, poking, prodding, and immunizing. How is it that the best military in the world can give a solid grounding to all its soldiers in only 9 weeks? Hell, in past centuries, it would have taken months for soldiers to gain merely marginal proficiency with their manual weapons, in the time it takes a US soldier to have achieved high competency in all the things I've mentioned, plus assuming a military speciality.

It's the firearms. Practical, dependable firearms sounded the death knell for professional warriorship, in the sense that one had to train for years to achieve true mastery of your weapons. One can take an illiterate farmer, train him for two weeks with a simple rifle, and he would defeat the martial masters of the past with ease. You see, firearms favor the weak. The barely trained. Those who are not idle rich, or who have honed their skills from years of preying on weaker folk. Bullies fear firearms, because they level the playing field, or at least, make it much closer than a bully would prefer.

So, I tend to look with some suspicion at those who want to take my firearms. What do they have to gain? What do I have to lose?

Like the Spartans, who also refused to lay down their weapons, I say: "Molon Labe!"
 
After Hurricane Andrew, small arms in citizens hands were credited with limiting the looting until the National Guard arrived.

Those armed Korean grociers who stayed by their property during the LA riots kept their property. In one instance, a family was asked to leave the area, as it was now secured by Police, and put down their arms. They returned next day to find their storefront burned.

During WWll England had to ask US citizens to donate guns for homeland defense. The Americans responded en masse. After the war, Britan destroyed the weapons.



munk
 
Take the khukuri for example or a gun; Why is man so pre-occupied with them. Is it because they bring death.

Neither khukuries, knives, or guns bring death; nor are they vessels for evil spirits set to dominate our will. They are just tools, and no more dangerous in and of themselves then any other material item. Death is its own master; a natural element that will find us all in its own time. Sometimes it arrives as an aftermath of a bullet, but it can just as easily come as a result of something else. Even at the height of war, we suffer more from deprevation, desease and the breakdown in civilization, then we do from inflicted wounds.

Gun control is a canard. The real problem is a failing and oppressive society which inflicts itself upon its population and frustrates their asperations. Societies that are permissive on the issue of personal weapons tend to be far more economically and politicaly democratic; then the aristocratic classes who would prefer to reserve the power of self determination onto themselves at the expense of others. It is just an excuse for an even more invasive security system. I would never trust a society that no longer has faith in itself.

n2s
 
More food for thought.

If I remember my history lessons correctly, every genocide committed in the 20th century began with gun control which led, eventually, to gun confiscation.

I don't believe 6 million Jews would have climbed in to box cars if they had been armed. China, Africa, Russia, all the same. No firearms equals death to those who are considered inferior.

"It can't happen here.", you say? Tell the dead and not me.
 
The Jews did not climb into boxes alone; roughly 13 million died in the hollocaust, including many millions of gypsies with no one to speak for them today.

Confiscation follows registration every time. It can start with good intentions. Hunter safety, or the BATF retaining 4473's past the 6 months allowed 'for bookkeeping" or hunter saftey courses, or storage laws, or assault weapon bans because no one needs 'that kind of gun'. Or knife bans, because no one needs a blade longer than 2".

Good to see N2sharp.


munk
 
As a historical matter, most gun laws were written post Civil War, and are Jim Crow laws not meant to be applied to whites. It was only later that it became fashionable to enforce them againt the ( insert ethnicicty - example - Irish ) in the big cities.

There are "slobs" out there. Most of them ( that haven't had their license taken away ) drive. Some also own guns. They also tend to drink and drive. They get caught sooner or later. And get caught a second time and cop to a felony to stay out of prison. Then they are no longer "slob" gun owners.

I'm mindful of the wife of a military rifle collector who disliked them intensely. She was home alone when a break-in occurred. She was able to grab a rifle with fixed bayonet ( after the French town of Bayonne )and go charging after the intruder, who left posthaste.

One of the reasons for concealed carry is that in a situation where you have a gun it is sometimes better NOT to respond, and let the threat go away none the wiser. And then sometimes it's better to respond after the threat is lulled into complacency. Other times a threat is ended by the first show of resistance with a weapon - and in well over 95% of cases, willingness to make a stand and displaying the resolve to hurt the offender ends the matter right smartly.

Weapons are not a panacea. But they are sure a hell of a shock to offenders not expecting their presentation.

My idea of the best antiviolence protection is, however, made by Boeing. As many people have noted, concealed carry leads to heightened awareness of the situation around you, which oft times warns you that it's time to get out of Dodge.
 
Another of Pan's major assumption, that in a city a gun would not normally be neccesary, is fantastic on its face. Why? Because police cannot protect you.

Munk cool down - no, not until your fingers get cold too...

I tried to analyze - and if you read my post:
In a city a gun would normally not be necessary. Enough people are there to help and there is nothing to hunt.BUT: people in cities do seldom help each other any more, because the do not know each other very well and are more egoistic. And a growing crime rate gives them fear - they know criminals might use guns.
carefully you will see, that I wrote "normally". This might change here. I guess it has already changed in the US very long ago - I do not know, I have not been there.

Guns are instruments and Auschwitz was not freed by discussions but by soldiers carrying guns. But I think guns in the hands of a criminal can make his crime more dangerous. The question is if gun control would prevent this - and today the answers seems to be "No" or in the best case "Maybe".
I guess traditions and rights play a crtain role. You grew up having this right. I grew up and did not have the right to get a gun without proper training and courses and checks. It does not hurt me at all - but I think the time will come (and I tried to write this in the previous post, maybe my english is still missunderstandable) where the system that worked until now in most parts of Europe (and it worked) will now longer work because the illegal access to firearms has become too easy.
However some control should be - maybe without registration. If you want to prevent litterally insane or mentally ill persons, agressive former prisoners, heavy drinkers etc. from buying guns in a system where it is legal to do so you would have to reveal too much data of each citizen. So no control at all bears the riscs, too much control too because it might victimize the society.

The argument mirrors that which is provided by the education and media establishments. You don't know any better,

Yes. And your arguments show your education, the media you consume - and we have to add: Our arguments mirror what you have experienced and what I have experienced. we depend on this, we do not have any other basis to use our inteligence and to learn.
Andreas

edited because of bad spelling
 
Andreas,
You're obviously thinking carefully, and you're writing without injecting too much ego- thank you.
Personally, I'm not "afraid" of guns. If I'm "afraid" of anything, it's people, especially groups of people intent on having their (insert adjective: financial, political, sexual, etc) way with me. Weapons just tend to level the playing field, and that's all I ask. I seek no advantage over anyone, and I eschew anyone holding power over me.
Best,
John
 
Originally posted by munk
... you can have my arms...when you pry them from my cold dead fingers.
munk

If it's the government whom you fear that is after your guns, that's exactly how they will take them.

I'm suprised that you concur with their methods.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top