Wanted to start a second thread so we don't derail the healthcare thread too much.

I'll post my thoughts in a second (since I'm at work, "a second" has a tendency to evolve into hours), but I wanted to start a thread to get the ball rolling.

My thoughts - I am definitely "pro-gun ownership."

As a native Texan, guns were part of every day life, and something you were familiar with, even in an urban city like the Dallas area. While I never shot a gun until I was over 20, I had a very different mentality compared to friends who were from other states (especially the northeast). I've found that the younger generation (born 1970 and after) from strict gun control based states are much more skittish around guns. They are taught a very one-sided argument that guns kill and you should always fear guns, no matter what the circumstances.

In comparison, Texas doesn’t even really preach about gun control. The biggest news I had heard relating to guns was that the concealed handgun license law was passed - other then that, nothing before or after. However, in house and home, most parents own guns and teach their children how to handle them from an early age. Fathers still go hunting with their kids, to the shooting range, and even to gun safety classes. Father and son marksmen events are pretty common; and mother and daughter competitions aren’t that uncommon either. Kids are taught from an early age that you should respect guns, not fear them. A child of 10 from such a family could probably tell you more about gun safety than a police officer from a state with strict gun control laws; not to mention having better aim.

Now days, all of the major metropolitan areas of Texas are getting huge influxes of people from out of state. Large companies moving to areas like Dallas, Austin, and Houston are very common – due to the cheap cost of land, business-friendly tax laws, consistent weather (hot but not a lot of major disasters), and cheap cost of living (comparatively). Many of these companies are moving from areas like California, New York, Washington and other strict gun control states. When they arrive, they think it’s “cool” how easy it is to buy and own a gun in Texas, but have no real respect for the gun, and succinctly, they don’t teach their kids. So now you have a combination of a family who owns a gun, but has no idea how to handle it, and yes, I do believe that it’s a flaw in the current Texas gun ownership laws.

However, I don’t believe that the whole “Brady Law” does anything. The two week waiting period means nothing to someone intent on causing a homicide. Rifles have no waiting period, nor do shotguns. If someone wants to get a hold of a gun, they can do it – just not a handgun (well, not as easily as a rifle). I do believe in gun registration and safety classes. I think that before a person can purchase a gun, they should be required to finish a state-approved gun safety class, which includes all members of the family or household that may interact with the gun itself. I believe that if you have a gun registered in your name, you should be required to take a safety class refresher every three years and carry a license just like for drivers. I believe that gunlocks should be required in homes as well as secured storage containers for guns and ammo – especially in households with children under 16. Gun ranges, hunting grounds, and sporting events should all be required to validate licenses before allowing gun use on their property.

Please don’t even try to bring the cost argument into this because guns are expensive, period. A “cheap” handgun costs over $150 for anything over .22 cal, beyond that, “quality” handguns can easily go to $700 and beyond. .22 ammo costs $5/100, while .45 goes up to nearly a $1 a bullet (or more). A $150 class and a $100 license fee every few years should be nothing.

Now, I know it’s a long post already, but I’d also like to bring up the whole “Switzerland” argument.

Switzerland has the second highest percentage of gun ownership in the world (second just behind the United States), yet when compared to the United States on the issue of murders using a handgun, they are no where near the same bracket. <a href=” http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm”>(Reference)</a> More information about <a href=” http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/home/legaff/Fact/gunown.html”>gun ownership in Switzerland</a>.

I don’t believe that the right to gun ownership should be taken away, but I do believe that the responsibility and requirements of ownership should be brought up to par with the possible consequences.

There's not too many topics I can truly get passionate about. This is one of them.

I suspect I may step on some patriotic American toes, but I feel sick when I listen to the arguments of the pro-gun lobby. Sick means a physical, queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach when I realize that apparently sane, intelligent and successful people truly believe the things they say when they defend widespread gun ownership.

I hear gun ownership equated with things such as personal freedom, constitutional rights and the wisdom of America's first leaders. High-sounding words, and great at stirring up patriotic feelings. Unfortunately, I see images of Columbine, drive-by shootings, random killings and children dying because they found loaded guns at home. I'm sorry folks, but there is nothing noble and patriotic about dead people!

There is a deep-seated, pervasive gun and weapon culture in the United States. When you live it, it probably seems normal. As a frequent visitor to the U.S., I find it disturbing, repulsive and bizarre. I've lived in a number of Western societies, and I've seen nothing like it anywhere else.

What does a gun and weapon culture look like?

Look at coats-of-arms, symbols, flags and other emblems. You'll notice that a large number contain weapons of some sort. It might be a minuteman holding a rifle, an eagle holding arrows, or soldiers raising a flag on a battlefield.

Listen to the chatter on chat lines, TV/radio shows and lunchtime conversations about guns and weapons.

I personally don't know enough about gun clubs, gun shows and the ease of purchasing a weapon.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a pacifist. Although I don't own a gun, I've handled them. Twice I received my Firearms Acquisition Certification - a Canadian requirement for purchasing or handling firearms. I lived in the far north where there was a small but real danger from black and grizzly bear attacks. As a Scout leader, I was armed taking my troup on overnight walking/camping trips into wilderness areas.

I also don't have any deep-seated issues about hunting. It's not something I personally enjoy, but if you enjoy it, go for it.

What I can't fathom is the benefit of having personal firearms in a city home, handguns, military weapons and similar paraphernalia not associated with hunting. People die because of this weapon culture. Innocent people. Wake up folks.

Thicket

Actually, I know quite a few people who purchase handguns for recreational purposes. Going to a shooting range was a lot more fun than I thought it would be. The reason I purchased a handgun (<a href="http://www.heckler-koch.de/html/english/behoerden/01_pistols/01_02_index.html">H&K 9mm</a> for those interested) was because I fired my friends' guns at the range and found I truly enjoyed the activity (sport?). The fact that I was the only female and shooting with a 90% accuracy rating (better than most of the guys :grin) was also a kick.

I've found that the people who buy handguns solely for the purpose of home safety are the ones you have to worry about. Almost any true gun owner will tell you that the #1 most effective firearm for home defense is not a handgun at all, but a shotgun. Shotguns rely less on the shooter's accuracy in close quarters, do less penetration damage, and also have a larger psychological effect (the sound of a shotgun cocking has been enough to disarm a lot of intruders).

And the “armed society” myth is exactly what Switzerland disproves. Guns do not make a violent society.

From the article I read, Switzerland is a special case, since individual gun ownership is an element of national defense. Obviously that's no longer true for the United States. Americans keep guns almost exclusively to shoot other Americans, or themselves.

What I find hardest to swallow is the <i>reason</i> for gun ownership. Are you afraid of being attacked by wild animals or a foreign army in the middle of Dallas? No, most likely you want to use the gun to protect yourself against other gun owners, like yourself -- completely circular reasoning when it comes to justifying gun ownership. I can understand owning a shotgun for protection if you live in the wilderness, but guns should be forbidden any in rural area with police protection. If suicide is your goal, as is often in the case of gun owners, you have many other options, so you also don't need a gun.

Even if you ignore the <a href=http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pd072500a.html>tens of thousands of gun-related deaths</a> per year in the United States, the rate of gun-related <i>accidents</i> -- about 1,000 year according to the article -- is reason enough to ban guns. These deaths could not have happened without the gun, so the silly argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" cannot possibly apply. It's funny how the population screams bloody murder when 1,000 soldiers die in Iraq, yet they could not care less when 1,000 per year die needlessly in gun-related accidents.

Often, when logic fails for the pro-gun advocate in a gun-control-in-the-U.S. debate, he will bring up the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which says "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." This is a red herring, though. The Second Amendment refers to the right of the government to maintain a well-regulated militia, not to individual rights -- as the U.S. Supreme Court held in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). It also only applies to actions by the federal government, not gun control laws passed by the states -- as the U.S. Supreme Court held in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886). The Second Amendment is <i>irrelevant</i> to the gun-control issue.

My god. Listen to yourself!!

Quoting your handgun of choice and providing a link to it. Commenting on the merits of shotguns over handguns for home defense... and I know that you believe this to be perfectly normal conversation.

I really can't think of anything else to say. Please don't come to Canada.

This is one of those arguments I hate, sort of like abortion. People have very set beliefs about it and no one ever changes their mind. These beliefs are visceral rather than intellectual. I freely admit my gun beliefs are driven by strong emotions. Its a belief you don't form on your own, its given to you by your parents or friends. Discussing it always feel like I'm bashing my head against the solid block wall, sort of like arguing about health care with liberatarians (/giggle).

I'll add something from the perspective of a country with strict gun control. Guns are dangerous, and we don't want to live in a dangerous society. The police don't want anyone to have access to guns as they create danger. They don't want guns in the hands of the public as they eventually end up in the hands of criminals or vigilantes. The police don't want to carry guns themselves (except when necessary) as it puts them in more danger as well.

I expect a disproportionally high number of the gun deaths in the US are gang members and other criminals who are themselves owners. If you want to watch a movie which shows the effect of guns on criminals, search out the excellent recent Brazillian film 'City of God'. It's fantastic (violent) entertainment as well as being based on a true story.

The Switzerland argument is in some ways a distraction. You can probably find as violent a society as the US without the same number of gun deaths, and you've already found Switzerland which is without the same number of gun deaths as the US. That doesn't mean you can ignore both the number of guns and the violence in society.

Tuda - your link was very confusing. The overall consensus seemed to be that the crime rate fell, but they don't have any reasoning as to why (or at least anything concrete). <i>edit: Btw Tuda, to answer your question, I own a handgun for recreational purposes. I kept it unloaded, the bullets completely separated from the gun when not at the shooting range.</i>

For those statistics of people who have died by handgun/firearm use, are you so sure that those incidents would not have occurred without the firearm? Are you saying that the people in jail right now for murder or other violent crimes would have been happy shiny citizens if they did not have guns? Are you so sure that without guns, those assaults would have never happened? Yes, guns are the highest violent crimes percentage, but that's due in large part to the fact that gun ownership is so loosely regulated. (IE: People who shouldn't have guns, do have guns, but no one does anything about it.)

As for the police, well, if you had the time to call 911 and wait for an officer to arrive, you probably aren't in danger of becoming one of those numbers. Average 911 response time in many major cities is well over the ten minute mark - in fact, many 911 call centers give hold messages due to lack of staffing/budget, and non-emergency issues. They tell you in gun safety classes that most confrontations involving firearms take place in a distance less than three yards and take less than two minutes from confrontation to resolution (in other words, the high drama on TV of some guy bawling his eyes out for ten minutes while people “talk him down” is pretty rare).

Here’s a good document which breaks down violent crime weapon usage in the US: <a href=” http://www.law.uh.edu/cdrom/CIUS_97/97crime/97crime2.pdf”>PDF Format</a>
See Section 2 / Crime Index Tabulation / Table 20

One more - worldwide:
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

Also, some good reading from both sides of the argument: http://www.enotes.com/can-gun/1047

As for Thicket, Canada has its own share of events (re: École Polytechnique) that prove that even with strict gun control laws, none of it matters if you don’t enforce the laws; and even if you do, the wrong people can still get their hands on guns when they are intent on it. (<a href="http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/other_docs/notes/rural/default.asp">Reference</a>).

Yes, The Ecole Polytechnique was a great tragedy. It stands out as the single most disturbing mass killing in Canada. It's etched in the national psyche. One disturbed young man with a gun.

You describe Canada as having strict gun control laws. Not true. The gun registry legislation enacted a number of years ago was a dismal failure and a huge embarassment for the government. It doesn't work, it's not followed, and it's not enforced. Many Canadian provinces have gone on record stating that they won't enforce the gun registry requirements. Most Canadians feel that the registry is an expensive bureaucracy that does little to curb illegal gun use.

Certain types of gun ownership are more restricted in Canada than in the U.S. but there is seldom a peep of controversy about it (unlike the U.S. where it's a major issue).

What is different in Canada is people's attitudes and behaviors towards guns. There isn't the 'gun and weapon culture' that there is in the U.S. People don't think that having weapons in your home is normal. They make jokes about Americans who come across the border with a loaded shotgun in the trunk of their car only to be deported to the U.S. after a day in jail, leaving behind their gun and car.

I lived in a small, remote town of 4500 people on the Alaska highway. There was a summertime visitor's program for tourists traveling through the town. Us locals always got a great kick out of American tourists trash talking about weapons when the town's police chief did a presentation. I've no idea whether they were experts or not, but they sure talked it up.

Barring certain professions, guns just aren't a part of everyday life in Canada. It's not built into the Canadian psyche. ... and yes, there are always exceptions.

Thicket

Careful on the generalizations. Guns aren't an everyday part of many american's lives.

I must've met a lot of the "exceptions" then. Both when I was working at Microsoft (MS has a semi-large campus up there now), and my next job afterwards, we had a large amount of Canadian immigrants (or Canadian nationals who had their green card). Most of them were either pro-gun ownership, or very nonchalant about the entire issue. This was the same feeling I got from Canadians both in Texas and when I was in Washington and California. In fact, the biggest recreational hunter friend I have is a Canadian. He and his son(s) go to the shooting range almost every weekend to both the pistol and rifle ranges. He also hunts deer, wild birds, and wild pigs when they’re in season (and yes, you actually do use a pistol instead of a rifle/shotgun in various wild game hunts).

For those statistics of people who have died by handgun/firearm use, are you so sure that those incidents would not have occurred without the firearm?

A sizeable number of those incidents would not have started or resulted in death if one or more of the people involved did not own a gun. Just consider what percentage of people killed by the police were carrying guns.

If anyone has a link to demographic statistics on gun crime they would be interesting to see. I suspect the figures will probably show that young men involved in gangs or drug culture are the most likely victims of gun crime. They are also people likely to be carrying firearms.

You either met a lot of exceptions, or you naturally migrate to individuals with similar interests. Since I've lived and worked in six of the ten Canadian provinces, may I suggest the latter is more likely. The vast majority of people I talk to never talk about guns.

My apologies to Drake. You are absolutely correct. The topic is Gun Control and not sweeping generalizations.

There's not too many topics I can truly get passionate about. This is one of them.

I suspect I may step on some patriotic American toes, but I feel sick when I listen to the arguments of the pro-gun lobby. Sick means a physical, queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach when I realize that apparently sane, intelligent and successful people truly believe the things they say when they defend widespread gun ownership.

I hear gun ownership equated with things such as personal freedom, constitutional rights and the wisdom of America's first leaders. High-sounding words, and great at stirring up patriotic feelings. Unfortunately, I see images of Columbine, drive-by shootings, random killings and children dying because they found loaded guns at home. I'm sorry folks, but there is nothing noble and patriotic about dead people!

There is a deep-seated, pervasive gun and weapon culture in the United States. When you live it, it probably seems normal. As a frequent visitor to the U.S., I find it disturbing, repulsive and bizarre. I've lived in a number of Western societies, and I've seen nothing like it anywhere else.

What does a gun and weapon culture look like?

Look at coats-of-arms, symbols, flags and other emblems. You'll notice that a large number contain weapons of some sort. It might be a minuteman holding a rifle, an eagle holding arrows, or soldiers raising a flag on a battlefield.

Listen to the chatter on chat lines, TV/radio shows and lunchtime conversations about guns and weapons.

I personally don't know enough about gun clubs, gun shows and the ease of purchasing a weapon.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a pacifist. Although I don't own a gun, I've handled them. Twice I received my Firearms Acquisition Certification - a Canadian requirement for purchasing or handling firearms. I lived in the far north where there was a small but real danger from black and grizzly bear attacks. As a Scout leader, I was armed taking my troup on overnight walking/camping trips into wilderness areas.

I also don't have any deep-seated issues about hunting. It's not something I personally enjoy, but if you enjoy it, go for it.

What I can't fathom is the benefit of having personal firearms in a city home, handguns, military weapons and similar paraphernalia not associated with hunting. People die because of this weapon culture. Innocent people. Wake up folks.

Thicket

The single most important reason for permissive firearms laws is simple. It is not so people can hunt (who hunts for survival anymore in the US?). It is not for recreation. It is only barely for defense of self or home (but those play a role). The reason we must have permissive firearms laws is so the People can realistically defend against and overthrow the Government should our Government forget it is by the People and for the People.

Laws restricting the ownership of firearms do not promote a safer society. They promote a society where those willing to flout the law outarm those who abide by it. It creates a society of sheep who are dependant upon governmental protection (which is not geared towards prevention of crime but punishment thereof). Nor can our police prevent crime very often, without this nation becoming a police state.

If we give up our right to bear arms...in order to protect ourselves against criminals we must also give up our rights to due process, our protections against unreasonable search and seizure, and the privacy we so much value.

More people die from car accidents than gun accidents, yet people do not wish to outlaw cars. They say cars are necessary. I hold that weaponry in the hands of citizens is just as necessary.

The reason we must have permissive firearms laws is so the People can realistically defend against and overthrow the Government should our Government forget it is by the People and for the People.


What's the basis for this argument? It's not in any historical or constitutional documents that I'm aware of.

The Delcaration of Independence has the seed:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Gun ownership is seen as a guarantee that the People will retain the power to overthrow their government.

If we give up our right to bear arms...in order to protect ourselves against criminals we must also give up our rights to due process, our protections against unreasonable search and seizure, and the privacy we so much value.
Your analogy is flawed, since we have no "right" to bear arms (see above), whereas we <i>do</i> have express rights relating to due process, search and seizure, and privacy. You can't give up something that you don't have; don't confuse the argument with irrelevant pseudo-legal babble.

Practically speaking, you'd have to be quite paranoid to believe citizens should own guns just in case their government will turn against them. The odds of that happening are infinitesimal, given all the checks and balances in the U.S. government and the relative historical stability of the country. However, the other dangers of gun ownership are very real and cause tens of thousands of real deaths per year. Besides, if the military really wanted to turn against you, a handgun won't help -- you'd probably be vaporized before you even had a chance to point it at your enemy.
Tuda - your link was very confusing.
The link says there were about 30,000 gun deaths and about 3.5% (roughly 1,225) were accidental. Accidental gun deaths <i>can not happen</i> without a gun. My point had nothing to do with the rate of increase or decrease of gun-related crime.
Tuda, to answer your question, I own a handgun for recreational purposes. I kept it unloaded, the bullets completely separated from the gun when not at the shooting range.
If you own a gun <i>only</i> for recreational use at the shooting range, then I assume you'd had no objection to (a) banning all types of bullets which can penetrate a human body and (b) being forced to keep the gun on the premises of the shooting range at all times. In fact, why use a <i>real</i> gun at all, when you can practice your shooting skill with a simluated gun?

While you may or may not agree, I bet the majority of "recreational" gun owners would not agree, because the "recreation" argument is just a smoke screen to hide their desire to own a gun so that they have the capability of shooting at another person.
For those statistics of people who have died by handgun/firearm use, are you so sure that those incidents would not have occurred without the firearm? Are you saying that the people in jail right now for murder or other violent crimes would have been happy shiny citizens if they did not have guns?
No one is speaking in absolutes here. Obviously, removing guns will not <i>eliminate</i> all violent crime or turn <i>all</i> criminals into productive members of society. There was violence before guns were invented and there will continue to be violence if they are banned. However, eliminating a quick, cheap, easy, impersonal method of killing that requires very little skill and effort (compared to other methods of killing) will act as a major deterrent to homicide and <i>reduce</i> the homicide rate, as the information in your last link points out.

Besides, if the military really wanted to turn against you, a handgun won't help -- you'd probably be vaporized before you even had a chance to point it at your enemy.
I will admit that because of the advanced firepower available to our military at present, the individial ownership of firearms is largely a symbolic representaion of our duty to overthrow the government (see above =) should they fail to meet their responsibilities to the People.

Symbolic or not (and I happen to believe it is not merely symbolic on an individual level), it doesn't absolve the citizen of that duty. So, owning a gun is a physical token of a belief in the ideal that it's still "we, the People".

It is certainly an issue which generates strong feelings on both sides. I don't believe anyone who has more differing veiws of gun ownership than I do has a prayer of dissuading me from my position, and I don't attempt to convince them I'm right (or that they're wrong).

But I try to let my government know that THEY are wrong when I think they've made mistakes, and I'll continue to do so.

But I try to let my government know that THEY are wrong when I think they've made mistakes, and I'll continue to do so.


Yeah, but most of us don't use a gun to do that. We go to the polls on election day.

For all they owned guns in Iraq, it sure didn't help them to throw off their dictator. I don't know of very many governments that the people over threw.

I heard a guy talking about, I believe Brazil, when he was growing up and how the military would periodically take over and kick out the corrupt leader du jour and then turn things back over to the people. They'd rinse and repeat a few years down the road when the new government went sour.

So, owning a gun is a physical token of a belief in the ideal that it's still "we, the People". But I try to let my government know that THEY are wrong when I think they've made mistakes, and I'll continue to do so.
You let your government know they're wrong by voting them out of office, or alternatively by putting pressure on them by speaking out and demonstrating, which can ultimately lead to a public opinion which causes them to be voted out of office.

You're certainly not going to sway your government by owning a gun. Do you really think that the decisions of any member of Congress, or the President, or the judiciary, are going to be swayed because some Texan owns a handgun? They couldn't care less since they're physically safe from you. By promoting gun ownership you're just putting ordinary citizens in danger.

Your analogy is flawed, since we have no "right" to bear arms (see above), whereas we <i>do</i> have express rights relating to due process, search and seizure, and privacy. You can't give up something that you don't have; don't confuse the argument with irrelevant pseudo-legal babble.

Take a closer look at Miller. It never actually rules on an individual's right to bear arms. It simply makes a judgement as to which arms an individual has a right to own. The decision was that since a sawed off shotgun was not a weapon in use by militas at that time, the second amendment doesn't necessarily protect a person's ownership of that.

Following Miller's thought process, given todays military, you can own just about any style of weapon you wish. Pistols, assault rifles, shotguns, sub-machine guns, knives, tanks, missles...the list goes on.

Further, if you look at references listed in the decision, they fairly argue for the "individual right" view of the 2nd amendment.

In Presser v Illinois, the case had nothing to do with the right to bear arms. The defendants attempted to claim that when they were arrested for marching w/o the required permits, it violated their 2nd amendment rights. This wasn't a 2nd amendment issue, and so did the Court rule. Along with a statement that the States do not have the right to prohibit the people from bearing arms.

The fact remains no Supreme Court case has directly addressed the individual's right to bear arms.

Practically speaking, you'd have to be quite paranoid to believe citizens should own guns just in case their government will turn against them. The odds of that happening are infinitesimal, given all the checks and balances in the U.S. government and the relative historical stability of the country. However, the other dangers of gun ownership are very real and cause tens of thousands of real deaths per year. Besides, if the military really wanted to turn against you, a handgun won't help -- you'd probably be vaporized before you even had a chance to point it at your enemy.

Ah, so because we can't wage revolution with a pistol..it should be outlawed?

That argument, to me, works more along the lines of "the people need access to military hardware". Granted...its been shown time and again that we really need nothing more than AK-47s and RPGs to prosecute the guerilla warfare with which our own Revolution began .



No one is speaking in absolutes here. Obviously, removing guns will not <i>eliminate</i> all violent crime or turn <i>all</i> criminals into productive members of society. There was violence before guns were invented and there will continue to be violence if they are banned. However, eliminating a quick, cheap, easy, impersonal method of killing that requires very little skill and effort (compared to other methods of killing) will act as a major deterrent to homicide and <i>reduce</i> the homicide rate, as the information in your last link points out.

That is naive. You will not remove guns. The guns will remain. They may remain illegally, but they will be there. Just like drugs are illegal but they are there. You'll simply ensure that law abiding folk are unarmed, while those who are already criminally minded, have access to them. Oh, and the government (which you claim I have to be paranoid to fear).

Yeah, but most of us don't use a gun to do that. We go to the polls on election day.

For all they owned guns in Iraq, it sure didn't help them to throw off their dictator. I don't know of very many governments that the people over threw.



A good number of colonies from the various Colonial powers.

Including ours.

You let your government know they're wrong by voting them out of office, or alternatively by putting pressure on them by speaking out and demonstrating, which can ultimately lead to a public opinion which causes them to be voted out of office.

You're certainly not going to sway your government by owning a gun. Do you really think that the decisions of any member of Congress, or the President, or the judiciary, are going to be swayed because some Texan owns a handgun? They couldn't care less since they're physically safe from you. By promoting gun ownership you're just putting ordinary citizens in danger.

And what happens when those rights of voting or speaking out have been eroded by the government? Don't say it can't happen. We're watching our right to bear arms be nibbled away.

The first step to totalitarian rule is to remove the means of violent revolt from the people, so they have no recourse when you remove peaceful means.

Living in the UK, where a group of people have tried for 30 years to impose political change upon a majority population using guns and bombs, I find some of the comments very disturbing. If every minority took it upon themselves to defend their personal ideals by force then you would not have society, you would have anarchy, similar anarchy to some african nations. Demonstration marches, general strikes, etc are very wishy washy and often poor methods of protest against government, but they're a damn sight better than shooting guns at people. The velvet revolution in Georgia last year is surely something to be commended and an aspired method of forcing a poor government from power.

If we give up our right to bear arms...in order to protect ourselves against criminals we must also give up our rights to due process, our protections against unreasonable search and seizure, and the privacy we so much value

Absolute garbage. I live in a country without arms and I have as much right to due process as you have. After your frequent and well stated posts on the palestinian issue I'm surprised you're making a statement so strongly supporting armed resistance against unpopular government.

The velvet revolution in Georgia last year is surely something to be commended and an aspired method of forcing a poor government from power.

I saw a documentary about that a few weeks ago, that was just incredible. Amazing that they managed that. Remarkable people.

Let me say that an armed society is essential for remaining a free society. And that my response is going to be long, since I saw this opinion expressed in the thread.

What's the basis for this argument? It's not in any historical or constitutional documents that I'm aware of. -Panamah

Not historically based? Not intended by the Constitution? Uh, I will attempt to show you, using quotes of people who were there if you want. However, by your own words, you will not be convinced of the Constitutionality of all forms of gun ownership. But I'll try anyways. Words bolded for emphasis.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense...."
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No.28

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self defense."
John Adams

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption for authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the People against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well. But they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
Senator Daniel Webster, New Hampshire

"These amendments to our proposed Constitution, hereafter known as The Bill of Rights, are established in order to protect and guarantee the rights of the individual citizen against the tyranny of the federal government. A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no government should refuse".
Thomas Jefferson, Dec. 20, 1787

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;..."
Thomas Jefferson to Justice John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45. (Complete letter of June 5, 1824)

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law abiding deprived the use of them." Thomas Paine, 1775.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one"
Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, criminologist, 1764

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. . . . What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Thomas Jefferson, Letter to W. S. Smith, 1787

"The Constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ..."
Alexander Hamilton

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison, Author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms....." Samuel Adams, United States Congress, Bill of Rights Ratification, 1779

"It is because the people are citizens that they are with safety armed. The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the government, not to the society." Joel Barlow: Equality in America, 1792

"Our safety, our liberty depends on preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the US are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts - Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution" Abraham Lincoln

And I was able to find many cases dealing with this issue, even a commentary from the Supreme Court justice, William Douglas.

"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."
Ark. Supreme Court, 1878

"The closest the Framers came to the affirmative side of liberty was in 'the right of the people to bear arms'. William O. Douglas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, New York University Law Review 38:233(1963)

"...The right of the people peacefully to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is and always has been one of the attributes of a free government. It `derives its source,' to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v Ogden, 9 Wheat., 211, `from those laws whose authority is acknowledged by civilized man throughout the world.' It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution... The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of `bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government..." UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK; 92 US 542; (1875)

"`The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." NUNN v. STATE, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)

Congress did numerous fact finding subcommittees on this very same issue:

"What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear--and long-lost--proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms."
Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Committee Print I-IX, 1-23 (1982).

And finally, a quote from a person from a country in which gun control came to its logical conclusion.

"There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people were not "brainwashed" about gun ownership and had been well armed. ... Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half-starved group of Jews took 10 handguns and made asses out of the Nazis. ... These Sarah Brady types must be educated to understand that because we have an armed citizenry, that a dictatorship has not happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to Liberty than street criminals or foreign spies." Theodore Haas, Dachau Survivor

For those of you that don't like to read long posts, I have crafted a summary:

Gun ownership by all citizens = Liberty
Gun ownership by only the government = Tyranny.

And what happens when those rights of voting or speaking out have been eroded by the government?
The point is, <i>they haven't</i>. Elections in the United States are free and fair and free speech rights in the United States are among the strongest in the world. Many people fought and died so that you could have those rights (though not as many people as have been killed by guns in times of peace).
The first step to totalitarian rule is to remove the means of violent revolt from the people, so they have no recourse when you remove peaceful means.
Irrelevant, since handguns aren't a means of recourse against the government. If the government really wanted to wage war on you, you'd be dead long before you could reach for your handgun, and even if you could reach for it, it would be a useless weapon against the tanks, gunships, and massive bombs available to the military. In the meantime, citizens are killing each other by the tens of thousands per year using handguns.

I don't see Europeans (many european countries) and Canadians and Japanese being tyrannized by their governments. They've got nice stable democracies and they don't generally allow their citizens to own guns.

If I were going to rob a bank or commit a murder, yea, having a law against owning guns would make me think twice.... NOT!

Own a gun if you want to, if you shoot someone because your out of control, your fully to blame.

Outlaw chair legs if you want to keep weapons out of people's hands. After all, I can use a chair leg to brain someone and they'd be just as dead as they would be if I used a gun.

I know people will think I'm a nut when I say this but one other reason to allow citizens to have weapons is so we don't end up with a total nut in charge in the house on the hill.

On a more basic level, I'd love to be a violent criminal in a society that has no weapons allowed. After all, my victims would be those law abiding citizens who have no weapons.

Yea, yea, be sick if you want to. I don't harbor the belief that all would be happy and wonderful if everyone in the world gave up weapons. That's just a naive product of the safe society such weapons were used to bring about.

God !

I'm I really seeing people saying that a well armed populace is needed for a good democary ?

That's scary as hell and disturbing on so many levels.

The reason you have the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated miltia is because the founding fathers had a distrust of a large standing army.

Since you seem to have gotton over that issue maybe you should scrap you weapons.

Not historically based? Not intended by the Constitution? Uh, I will attempt to show you, using quotes of people who were there if you want.

Exactly. The need to carry arms to force governmental change is 200 years old. The great revolutions of modern society are peaceful, examples being the collapse of communism in eastern europe and the velvet revolution in Georgia last year. Nelson Mandela became the greatest world statesman of late 20th century by renouncing violence and bringing about peaceful change in a segregated society that had all the potential for bloody civil war.

The historical quotes above are entirely correct for the time they were written. They reflect a young american nation wary of colonial oppression, short of military to patrol borders, and unable to enforce law across a distant nation. This does not mean that they are applicable to a modern 21st century superpower with a massive military superiority over all enemies and even it's own citizens.

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law abiding deprived the use of them."

I'm not sure the spanish send many galleons over nowadays.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense...."

Shooting politicians is tempting but ....

"It is because the people are citizens that they are with safety armed. The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the government, not to the society."

Not true in the face of modern terrorism. Terrorists attacks democratic society in an attempt to manipulate society against government. Terrorists come from both within and without.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure"

Really? I'm not sure that was even applicable at the time of writing

The list was actually very interesting though, very profound, and it does give me much more understanding of american culture. Thank you for posting it. However, let me put down a final modern statement.

Wouldn't the day that one honest American needs to shoot another honest American to effect political change be an absolute disgrace to the nation? Can anyone argue against that?

Pana, Japan is not so neat and dry as you think. First off, they have one of the highest suicide rates in the world, they commonly have fist fights break out in their version of Congress, have a large amount of organized crime and terrorism on their own soil by their own people and other Asian influences. And this is in a country which has very strict gun and weapon laws.

Tuda - to answer your question about gun ownership and recreational purposes, I do own my gun just for recreation, in fact, I own it only for recreation. Proof? I left it in Texas when I moved to New York because I didn't think I'd be going to shooting ranges up here. And your bit about leaving it at gun ranges? Well actually many ranges do that, and many families opt for that choice due to small children in the household. You're not talking about a society suddenly going insane and everyone who owns a gun going off and shooting everyone on the streets - you're worried about the same thing everyone else is worried about - guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

Taking away all guns will not work, mostly because you can't unless you rewrite the whole of the Constitution. Argue semantics all you want, but the bottom line is that the Constitution guarantees the right to own a gun. You can debate what types, how big, repeating/non-repeating, whatever, but that's the gist of it. And as we're all pretty much agreed on the fact that the two-party system will never let any major changes pass, well you're not going to see handguns taken away for a very long time, if ever. However there are times when a person's Constitutional rights are taken away - such as when they've committed a Federal crime. So no more right to bare arms for people who have committed a Federal crime? Yeah, I think that'd be a good idea.

For all of those "if you staged a rebellion the army would crush you" people, if a true rebellion or rift such as the causes of the Civil War ever occurred again, you can believe that suddenly the Armed Forces of the United States wouldn't be so "United" anymore. Texas has the largest standing military contingent in the United States, and the majority of the officers stationed there are from Texas. How easy would it be to tell a soldier to bomb his own state when the governor of that state has annexed itself from the US? New Mexico and Colorado have nukes (IIRC - my military history is a bit rusty, but I believe that's right) in the same vein, do you think that they would be willing to nuke their own state if someone in Washington told them to do it? There is no way you can compare a true governmental uprising to a group of thirty nutzoids with guns.

On a more basic level, I'd love to be a violent criminal in a society that has no weapons allowed. After all, my victims would be those law abiding citizens who have no weapons.

I live in the UK and we have violent thugs, just like anywhere else. Less of them have guns than in the US. Thugs with guns do get apprehended by the police, who usually aren't even armed themselves. Thugs don't run about with impunity. Since illegal gun ownership itself such a serious offence, many professional criminals avoid using them. It's much easier to prove ownership of illegal weapons in court than most other offences, it usually carries a prison term, and the criminal risks arrest at any time he possesses the weapon.

Loonies with guns can always find unarmed victims if they want to. Columbine is an example but we had a similar shooting at Dunblane school in Scotland.

Taking away all guns will not work, mostly because you can't unless you rewrite the whole of the Constitution. Argue semantics all you want, but the bottom line is that the Constitution guarantees the right to own a gun.Actually, the bottom line is that it doesn't. Though both are inherently dangerous, guns aren't banned for the same reason tobacco isn't -- powerful lobbying efforts by self-interested parties who have a lot of money to burn. It's not as if the states and federal government are trying to pass gun control laws but the U.S. Supreme Court is invalidating them on constitutional rights. The "Second Amendment" arguments are irrelevant to this discussion, as the Second Amendment is not the obstacle to gun control.

Actually <a href="http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/35.htm">this</a> is a good summary on what the Supreme Court has or hasn't said.

- Many people fought and died so that you could have those rights (though not as many people as have been killed by guns in times of peace).

- In the meantime, citizens are killing each other by the tens of thousands per year using handguns.

Just a small nitpick. You can't make up statistics on the spot (well, I guess you can, but not advised)

First off, arguing for gun control on the basis of how many people are killed by them is a non-starter for an argument. If you are basing removal of an object on the sole basis of the number of deaths it causes, you have to outlaw many things ahead of the gun, such as the automobile. But, let's address your other point.

Second, your claim is citizens killing citizens, so that's homicide, since, of course, you can't include gun suicides, or suicides under the "family-saving-face-option" of "gun-cleaning accident", which is only believed by people that have little to no experience with guns. Believe me, you would really have to try to shoot yourself while cleaning them, considering it would be impossible to run the cleaning rod through the barrel with a round chambered within it. Also, suicides are completely a non-argument, considering we have the same suicide rate per capita as other countries with extreme anti-gun laws. And suicides will just kill themselves in another manner. (1)


2001, United States Homicide Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: X93-X95, *U01.4

Number of Deaths: 11,348
Population: 285,317,572
Crude Rate Percentage: 003.98
Age-Adjusted Rate Percentage**: 003.91

* Rates based on 20 or fewer deaths may be unstable. Use with caution.
** Standard Population is 2000, all races, both sexes.

So, that's about .004% of the US population a year killed in homicides involving firearms. That is 1 out of every 25,143 of the population that has to worry about being killed with a gun in the US. This figure also doesn't include the 323 legal intervention firearm deaths, since I figure in your gun controlled fantasyland, you would still want the officers to have them.

Considering in total, there were 157,078 injury related deaths in 2001, 30,000 of which were suicides, and they being triple the number of homicides, I'd advise you get at least three times as concerned about depressed people as you seem to be about guns, and be 10 times more worried you will die through some other injury other than someone shooting you.







(1) Going to this (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html) site will yield hours of data research if you desire. I found that .001% of the American population off themselves in some fashion or another each year (30,622/285,317,572 for Year 2001)

Living in the UK, where a group of people have tried for 30 years to impose political change upon a majority population using guns and bombs, I find some of the comments very disturbing. If every minority took it upon themselves to defend their personal ideals by force then you would not have society, you would have anarchy, similar anarchy to some african nations. Demonstration marches, general strikes, etc are very wishy washy and often poor methods of protest against government, but they're a damn sight better than shooting guns at people. The velvet revolution in Georgia last year is surely something to be commended and an aspired method of forcing a poor government from power.



Absolute garbage. I live in a country without arms and I have as much right to due process as you have. After your frequent and well stated posts on the palestinian issue I'm surprised you're making a statement so strongly supporting armed resistance against unpopular government.

I support anyones right for armed uprising against a government (conversely that government has the right to attempt to put down said revolt). What I do not support is the purposeful targetting of civilians. Five times the Arabs have attempted conventional military force against Israel and failed. Now they resort to blowing up discos and pizza parlors. Synogogues and hotels. They aren't taking shots at police..or soldiers. They are gunning down unarmed civilians. It isn't even collateral damage (which is acceptable to a point). The civilians themselves are the target.

The point is, <i>they haven't</i>. Elections in the United States are free and fair and free speech rights in the United States are among the strongest in the world. Many people fought and died so that you could have those rights (though not as many people as have been killed by guns in times of peace).

There are quite a few Floridians who would disagree with you there, regarding elections. And I said..the first step is the removal of arms from the citizenry, for if you attempt to remove free election and speech from the American populace before removing their weapons...then they will rise up.

Irrelevant, since handguns aren't a means of recourse against the government. If the government really wanted to wage war on you, you'd be dead long before you could reach for your handgun, and even if you could reach for it, it would be a useless weapon against the tanks, gunships, and massive bombs available to the military. In the meantime, citizens are killing each other by the tens of thousands per year using handguns.


A few points on this.

First..you say handguns are useless in a revolt against a modern military, and thus serve no purpose and should be banned. Yet, it is already illegal to own military grade weaponry. You cannot own a weapon with multi-fire capabilities. You cannot own a grenade. You cannot own an anti-tank weapon. So the answer is to outlaw more weapons because they are of "no use" in revolution? We should only be able to own small guage shotguns and rifles? What next? Limit the rifles to .22 caliber rim-fire? Limit shotgun shells to birdshot? Eventually remove those as well, since they are ill suited to revolution? Your way still leads to a disarmed society.

Secondly, if handguns serve no military purpose..why does the military still use them and insist many occupations within the military qualify on them? Why do the police use handguns instead of just rifles and shotguns? Because they have use. Good use.

Comparitive statistics from the UK here. I did a google search and found this interesting little article. Many of the problems are probably famliar to US readers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3112818.stm

The number of people killed in the UK in 2001-2 by firearms was 23. Population just under 60 million people.

Exactly. The need to carry arms to force governmental change is 200 years old. The great revolutions of modern society are peaceful, examples being the collapse of communism in eastern europe and the velvet revolution in Georgia last year. Nelson Mandela became the greatest world statesman of late 20th century by renouncing violence and bringing about peaceful change in a segregated society that had all the potential for bloody civil war.

The Cold War is an excellent example. It was the threat of violent response which caused the downfall of the Eastern Bloc. The US spent more money on weaponry than the Soviets could afford.

It is the ultimate threat of violent response which provides the working basis of democracy. The idea that tyrrany will be opposed with blood and violence is the foundation which permits us to use non-tyrranical means to choose our government.

When that threat is removed by the Government...it no longer needs to fear answering to the People, for the People are ultimately impotent.

It is the ultimate threat of violent response which provides the working basis of democracy. The idea that tyrrany will be opposed with blood and violence is the foundation which permits us to use non-tyrranical means to choose our government.

Georgia proved that is not always the case. The people of Georgia only had to show that they would not be ruled for their rulers to become powerless.

Violence is an option avalaible to everyone in every situation and is ignored with peril. It is not however the answer to everything or the foundation of society.

And I said..the first step is the removal of arms from the citizenry, for if you attempt to remove free election and speech from the American populace before removing their weapons...then they will rise up.
Paranoia at its finest.

I guess we should outlaw physicians (http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/30/doctors_death.htm) while we are at it :D

J/K...the rest of this guys website is trying to sell his suppliments.

I don't the problem is with firearm ownership. I think its just as much an economic and social issue. Take a look at these quotes from the U.S Department of Justice Website (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/wuvc01.htm)
From 1993 through 2001 blacks accounted for 46% of homicide victims and 54% of victims of firearm homicide but 12% of the U.S. population.
If recent incarceration rates remain unchanged, an estimated 1 of every 15 persons (6.6%) will serve time in a prison during their lifetime. In 2000, State and Federal courts convicted a combined total of nearly 984,000 adults of felonies -- State courts convicted an estimated 924,700 adults and Federal courts convicted 59,123 adults (accounting for 6% of the national total.) Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 17% of Hispanic males and 5.9% of white males. Guns are a symptom and a by-product of other pressing social issues such as poverty, housing, drug abuse, etc that the U.S. is facing. The vast majority of gun related deaths are the symptom, not the cause.

Aidon's "paranoia" has as much foundation as your assumption that removing all guns will fix violent crimes using firearms, Tuda.

Paranoia at its finest.

If echoing the concerns and fears of the men who founded this country is paranoid, then it isn't whether we are paranoid, but rather if we are paranoid enough.

Oh, and if gun control is the answer, maybe we are asking the wrong question.

Enter the suburb of Atlanta known as Kennesaw, Georgia. According to Tudamorf and others, this should be the most dangerous place in the United States, the streets running with blood. Since it requires, by law, every household to own a firearm. Goes right along with property ownership, there. Read all about it (http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/kennesaw.html). Pay special attention to the fact that, and I quote, : "after the law went into effect, crimes against persons (including homicide and rape) plummeted 74 percent as compared to the year before. They fell another 45 percent in the next year. Burglaries have fallen by around 80 percent."

"A spokesperson for the police department told The New American that simply eroding criminal confidence, as the pro-gun law does, means that "people are going to think twice before they break in on you or try to hurt you."

On the flip side, Morton Grove, Illinois, enacted a total ban on firearms the same year Kennesaw required them. As of last year, crime rates have essentially gone unchanged in the gun control town of Morton. Their crime rates did not experience the 2-year cumulative 87% drop in crime rates in Kennesaw.. and, in Kennesaw, have remained at those low, low rates for 20 years.

Summing up. . near Atlanta, at least, when the wanna-be thief knows for a certainty he will be facing a gun in any house in the suburb of Kennesaw, he drives 20 minutes to a neighboring suburb to try his luck there.

Gun control is not effective at what the gun control advocates state it is. Preventing crime. Gun ownership, mandatory ownership, does. We have the social pioneers in Kennesaw to thank for that information.

Comparitive statistics from the UK here. I did a google search and found this interesting little article. Many of the problems are probably famliar to US readers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3112818.stm

The number of people killed in the UK in 2001-2 by firearms was 23. Population just under 60 million people.

Checking the statistics (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/xsdataset.asp?More=Y) for all assault deaths in the UK in 2001, since you don't have many guns to kill people with, the firearms numbers aren't really significant. In total, you have 1,127 assault deaths, not 23. Still, a lower homicide rate than America. Must be the warm beer or something. . :grin:

Aidon's "paranoia" has as much foundation as your assumption that removing all guns will fix violent crimes using firearms, Tuda.Accidental gun deaths can't occur without guns. It's not even an assumption, it's common sense. As for reducing the crime rate, reasonable minds will differ, but it's certainly a plausible conclusion.

Aidon's conclusion, that our country would suddenly declare war on all its citizens after over 200 years of prosperity and democracy, is so outrageous that it can properly be labeled paranoia. Can you give me one example from history where something like that happened to such a country with such a long history of democracy and stability? Or can you even give a plausible <i>motive</i> for the U.S. government suddenly wanting to destroy itself by killing off its citizens?

What I find hardest to swallow is the reason for gun ownership. Are you afraid of being attacked by wild animals or a foreign army in the middle of Dallas?

(Saw a article, and can't resist!)

On the lighter side, we in the South, not in Dallas, but say, in the state of Georgia, do have to worry about Hogzilla (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/07/28/hogzilla.ap/)! Wild boars are no fun when they get big enough to overturn small cars, and you sure ain't gonna be knifing that bad boy to death!

Don't take our guns away! The hogs are angry! Angry, I say! :eek:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/US/South/07/28/hogzilla.ap/vert.hogzilla.ap.jpg

Accidental gun deaths can't occur without guns. It's not even an assumption, it's common sense.

Accidental vehicle deaths can't occur without vehicles. Accidental bathroom deaths can't occur without bathrooms. Accidental deaths happen and there isn't much one can do to stop them. That is why they are called accidents.

Shall we start outlawing any potentially deadly device or artifact?


Aidon's conclusion, that our country would suddenly declare war on all its citizens after over 200 years of prosperity and democracy, is so outrageous that it can properly be labeled paranoia. Can you give me one example from history where something like that happened to such a country with such a long history of democracy and stability? Or can you even give a plausible <i>motive</i> for the U.S. government suddenly wanting to destroy itself by killing off its citizens?

Now now, Tuda. I never said the U.S. government would suddenly start massacring its citizens. I suggested that the removal of the right of the People to keep and bear arms lays the foundation for a tyrranical government.

It doesn't take much...not even a majority vote for the wrong candidate...

Read "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis, or look at how Hitler came to power. Or even how Julius became Caesar.

When that threat is removed by the Government...it no longer needs to fear answering to the People, for the People are ultimately impotent.


Sadly, those of us who think so are labeled a nutcase.

The point is, they haven't

Because??? All people are inherently nice? I think not.

I'm not going to say that everyone who is elected to government is a tyrant in the waiting. However, all it takes is one.

Despite hearing it many, many times, I admit to still being deeply bothered by the logic of the pro-gun lobby. Yes, it's an emotional thing, not a rational, logical thing and there are many folks on either side that will never have their minds changed.

I do find encouragement in recent history. Having been around a few years, I've seen societal changes in North America that cause me to be optimistic.

When I was young,

* It was socially acceptable to drink and drive.
* My exposure to second-hand smoke in public places was high.
* Environmental issues were on the very fringe of public concern.
* Recycling/reducing waste was almost unknown (talking N.A. here, not Europe).
* Civil rights/racism/aboriginal rights were in the spotlight and undergoing major changes.

These are all areas where there have been fundamental societal changes for the positive.

I believe that the same thing is happening regarding guns in America. The gun advocates will become increasingly marginalized over time. There is no significant good news for the gun lobby. Killings, suicides and accidents involving guns will continuously raise the issue of gun control. Societal forces are moving inexorably.

Oh... when I was young

* Gun control? What's that? (In truth, almost total silence regarding gun control. It wasn't on the radar screen.)

Perhaps in 100 years bored History students will be studying early 21st century American history, and pondering the section on Gun Control. Perhaps they will shake their heads at the lunacy of their forefather's desire to have weapons in their homes.

I'm optimistic.

Yes, it's an emotional thing, not a rational, logical thing and there are many folks on either side that will never have their minds changed.
Yep, it's emotional. In my mind, patriotism is wholly emotional - a love for one's country. I wish to never see America walk the path that Germany did in the 1930's (just as an example). I'm not saying that's likely, but I can't say it's not possible. If you look at what some regard as an alarming erosion of personal freedoms since the fall of 2001, it becomes even more emotional. I can compare that to the events leading up to World War II in Germany and see parallels. This frightens me.

It's about slippery slopes. The guns that are currently legal to own are ineffective for a revolt because of a slow erosion of their capabilities by laws enacted at various times since 1968.

Many people argue that your freedoms are being taken away, bit by bit, due to laws like the Patriot Act, the DMCA, the NET act, etc. There are a lot of thin edges of large wedges in those acts. Have you read them?

In response to an earlier reply to a post of mine - the way I tell my government I think they're wrong is by voting. And I will continue to do so. I suggest you do the same, no matter which side of this argument you're on.

If the People of the United States decide that I don't have a legal means to own a firearm, then I'll not own one. Since I disagree, though, until that day I'll be voting for the other candidate. And I hope, that if the unimaginable comes to pass, I'll still be enough of a patriot to speak up if they come for you, whether I'm armed or not.

Claeopha. Although we are on different sides of the gun control issue, we have similar perspectives in other areas.

I'd like to comment on your points about Germany and America and democracy in both.

First, I'm German by birth. Many in my family fought in WW II. My father spent 5 years as a German POW in Russia.

You wonder whether what happened in Germany can happen in the U.S. You believe the answer is No, but you have your doubts. I also have doubts, and I'll tell you why.

Last year I was in Houston on business. The afterwork activity was attending a rodeo and George Strait concert. It was a spectacular event. Lights, sound, movement... everything! George Bush Sr. was driven around the stadium to huge roars of approval. There were four separate patriotic songs performed with the enthusiastic involvement of the crowd. The raw power, emotion and patriotism was overwhelming. Not being American, I found the spectacle disturbing. It reminded me of the Nazi extravaganzas from the 1930's. Please understand that I'm not comparing values, policies or ideologies. I'm comparing public support and emotion.

Remember, patriotism is the positive word applied to your own country. Nationalism has the same meaning, but is a negative word applied to another country.

I don't think the American people will ever be unwillingly tyrannized by their government. If it happens, it will be with overwhelming support and emotion. That's what happened in Germany. The tyrant Hitler was democratically elected. When he became a dictator, he still had the overwhelming support of the German people. It wasn't until the war started to go badly, that people had second thoughts. Also, despite growing resentment, there never was real opposition to Hitler from within Germany. He was overthrown by external force.

To say that the American people could never be duped like the German people is naive.

If what happened in Germany ever happened in the U.S., having guns in your homes will make zero difference. The only attempt against Hitler was a failed coup by some of his officers. There were no public uprisings, no assassination attempts... nothing. It would be no different in the U.S.

There is one very large difference between WW 2 Germany and the United States. The U.S. has a long standing history of democracy, which was not the case in Germany. The imbedded democratic societal values are the biggest defence America has against totalitarian rule.

... but the raw nationalistic emotion I saw in Houston unsettled me.

Shall we start outlawing any potentially deadly device or artifact?
When it has no peaceful use, of course. Unless you're out in the wilderness, guns have no use other than to kill other citizens, or yourself, and should be banned.

Claeopha. Although we are on different sides of the gun control issue, we have similar perspectives in other areas.

Thank you for your comments. I must say it's nice to be able to discuss such a sensitive issue with someone who disagrees with me without it devolving into ... what these things can devolve into.

As for me, I'm an American Jew of European descent. I have ancestors who imprisoned during the war, and ancestors who fought in it. My feelings on gun control, freedoms, privacy, patriotism, nationalism, etc. are colored by that history.

Do I think owning a gun is an effective defense against the U.S. becoming a tyrannical state? I cannot say. Do I believe voting for the preservation of gun ownership rights is an effective political tool? Emphatically, yes.

As I stated before, owning a gun may be largely a symbolic thing at this point, but symbols are very important, especially in politics.

When it has no peaceful use, of course. Unless you're out in the wilderness, guns have no use other than to kill other citizens, or yourself, and should be banned.
Guns, like bows, are used for sporting purposes such as target practice, trap and skeet shooting, competition shooting, and exhibition shooting of various types.

Pistol and rifle shooting are Olympic events, as is archery. The Olympic Games are traditionally an event which all countries can participate in, in the interest of peaceful competition.

You may not enjoy recreational shooting, but I -- and many others -- do.

Most countries that have firearm bans still allow sporting weapons under license.

I don't own a gun. Never have and probably never will unless something major changes simply because I cant justify the expense for the reletivly few times a month/year I would actually use it for sport shooting.

That said, I am against gun control because I don't believe its realistically possible to enforce it in the U.S.

I believe all that would happen would be the people who aren't causing problems anyway would give up their guns and the criminals would keep theirs because ummm...well...they're criminals.

Black market guns would be just as available as black market drugs are today and just as expensive/inexpensive depending on the flavor you are looking for.

Last year I was in Houston on business. The afterwork activity was attending a rodeo and George Strait concert. It was a spectacular event. Lights, sound, movement... everything! George Bush Sr. was driven around the stadium to huge roars of approval. There were four separate patriotic songs performed with the enthusiastic involvement of the crowd. The raw power, emotion and patriotism was overwhelming. Not being American, I found the spectacle disturbing. It reminded me of the Nazi extravaganzas from the 1930's. Please understand that I'm not comparing values, policies or ideologies. I'm comparing public support and emotion.

... but the raw nationalistic emotion I saw in Houston unsettled me.

You must realize that the Bushes are Texans and Texans are exuberant about that fact. In fact, Bush Jr. is quite carefully crafting his audiences he is campaigning to. They only give out tickets to events he speaks at to registered republicans or those who pledge to support his campaign. Makes for much better TV footage when you can screen out those annoying protesters and hecklers. So who knows? The Republicans might have seeded that event.

In GWB's home state, Texas, he only has about 58% support.

But yes, I can understand your discomfort with that scene.

The Bush's aren't Texans, they're actually yankees who made their money in Texas and own land/homes there (enough to qualify to run for office at any rate).

Despite hearing it many, many times, I admit to still being deeply bothered by the logic of the pro-gun lobby. Yes, it's an emotional thing, not a rational, logical thing and there are many folks on either side that will never have their minds changed.

I do find encouragement in recent history. Having been around a few years, I've seen societal changes in North America that cause me to be optimistic.

When I was young,

* It was socially acceptable to drink and drive.
* My exposure to second-hand smoke in public places was high.
* Environmental issues were on the very fringe of public concern.
* Recycling/reducing waste was almost unknown (talking N.A. here, not Europe).
* Civil rights/racism/aboriginal rights were in the spotlight and undergoing major changes.

These are all areas where there have been fundamental societal changes for the positive.

I believe that the same thing is happening regarding guns in America. The gun advocates will become increasingly marginalized over time. There is no significant good news for the gun lobby. Killings, suicides and accidents involving guns will continuously raise the issue of gun control. Societal forces are moving inexorably.

Oh... when I was young

* Gun control? What's that? (In truth, almost total silence regarding gun control. It wasn't on the radar screen.)

Perhaps in 100 years bored History students will be studying early 21st century American history, and pondering the section on Gun Control. Perhaps they will shake their heads at the lunacy of their forefather's desire to have weapons in their homes.

I'm optimistic.

More likely, if we go down your desired path, in 100 years bored History students will be reading about how George Bush VII was lifted over the heathens and smote them by Divine Command, and please don't forget to attend the mandatory Spiritual Services at 1800.

That, or reading about how Hillary Clinton VII brought peace and prosperity to the People, and please recall that tobacco, drugs, red meat, motorized vehicles and unfriendly sayings are now illegal due to Directorate 7365 (Police Exemption withstanding).

When it has no peaceful use, of course. Unless you're out in the wilderness, guns have no use other than to kill other citizens, or yourself, and should be banned.

Who said a use must be peaceful to be legitimate? Defense of self and home is a legitimate use, yet is not peaceful.

Thank you for your comments. I must say it's nice to be able to discuss such a sensitive issue with someone who disagrees with me without it devolving into ... what these things can devolve into.

As for me, I'm an American Jew of European descent. I have ancestors who imprisoned during the war, and ancestors who fought in it. My feelings on gun control, freedoms, privacy, patriotism, nationalism, etc. are colored by that history.

Do I think owning a gun is an effective defense against the U.S. becoming a tyrannical state? I cannot say. Do I believe voting for the preservation of gun ownership rights is an effective political tool? Emphatically, yes.

As I stated before, owning a gun may be largely a symbolic thing at this point, but symbols are very important, especially in politics.

On a side note, its nice to see another American Jew who realizes the importance of the issue. Too many I know think guns are evil and shouldn't be there...willing to accept the goodwill of mankind, when our history has proven otherwise time and again.

The Bush's aren't Texans, they're actually yankees who made their money in Texas and own land/homes there (enough to qualify to run for office at any rate).

Wait... GWB was the govenor of Texas and you don't claim him as a Texan? I thought GWB grew up in Texas and tried to make a living as a Texas oil guy. Not sure about Poppa bush though. What's it take to be a Texan?

Well technically all you have to be is registered there, but most people take it to mean born there. Besides, people with money like the Bush's don't really "live" anywhere, until they retire like George Sr. Who retired in Mass or Conn, something like that.

<B>Aidon - people who quote entire posts make me sad :*(</b>

Aw, c'mon. That was a good post. =)

When it has no peaceful use, of course. Unless you're out in the wilderness, guns have no use other than to kill other citizens, or yourself, and should be banned.

I would say the people who use guns about 2,000,000 times a year in self defense would disagree that guns have no other use.

What is wrong with rallies/gatherings designed to make Americans proud and excited to be Americans? I cannot see anything wrong with it, but maybe we need an 'unbiased outside' viewpoint.


Not being American, I found the spectacle disturbing. It reminded me of the Nazi extravaganzas from the 1930's. Please understand that I'm not comparing values, policies or ideologies. I'm comparing public support and emotion.

Remember, patriotism is the positive word applied to your own country. Nationalism has the same meaning, but is a negative word applied to another country.

The Germans were attending rallies designed to bolster lagging national spirit from those years of economic depression. The American rally is also designed to bolster spirits, so they have the same basic design behind them both. This is not a bad thing. The use to which national patriotism is put can be good or bad. Not the emotion itself. That's as irrational as calling guns instrinically evil because of the ways some humans use them.


To say that the American people could never be duped like the German people is naive.

With all due respect, you, sir, underestimate Americans, American culture, and the strong, ingrained beliefs that growing up in the greatest nation on earth gives us. One of the most cherished is: I completely disagree with what you say, but I will lay down my own life to protect your right to say it. So say on about how the Americans will all be deceived, and that gun ownership is a primitive, backward idea, that will be swept aside by the progress of enlightened minds. By our ideals of freedoms, you will always be able to state your views.

Now, admittedly, some American people could, indeed, be deceived by such a charismatic force as Hitler. The American people as one cohesive whole could not. Our diversity is our strength in that respect. It is not naive to think so, and if you had been raised in America, you would understand this fact more completely.

And do not think for one minute the Germans had any choice to rise up if they wanted to or not. One of the very first things Nazis did was capitalize on a national registration of firearms, by using the registration lists to take up all the citizens' firearms.

First: the 'military' ones. .

"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately...The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every responsible [citizen] opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above-named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon...must be regarded as an enemy of the national government." -- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933.

Then 'military' was dropped, and it became just firearms.

Heinrich Himmler: "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."

You are worried America might go the way of Fascist Germany? So am I. Gun ownership will prevent that from ever occurring.


... but the raw nationalistic emotion I saw in Houston unsettled me.

And so we see how you view American patriotism. As a (using your own words) 'negative word applied to another country', I wholeheartedly reject your interpretation of that event. Being an actual American, I see things a little differently. My question is, would you also feel uncomfortable at a Canadian political rally?

Finally, during my roaming web research for my post, here is a site I found that was quite interesting. I have always admired the stubborn tenacity of the Jewish culture and race, and found the "Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership" (http://www.jpfo.org/) site very intriguing. Particularly their theory (http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm) that the American Gun Control Act of 1968, was based on the Nazi Gun Control act of 1938. Not that I necessarily agree with that, not enough clear evidence, but a very interesting theory.

I would say the people who use guns about 2,000,000 times a year in self defense would disagree that guns have no other use.Self-defense against <i>another person</i>? That just proves my point. You justify having guns by saying that you need them to protect you from other people with guns, totally circular reasoning.

Whoa, wait a minute. Why does self defense have to be against another person with a gun? I don't think Talyena mentioned that at all. And as per your previous <a href="http://forums.thedruidsgrove.org/showpost.php?p=136385&postcount=55">post</a> Tuda, all other forms of self defense - mace, tasers, knives, clubs, are all potentially lethal and therefore should be banned. Karate, and other forms of martial arts are also potentially lethal and used only for purposes of beating people up (I mean, if all people who own guns secretly want to use them against other people, then all people who know martial arts must crave physically harming others - why else would they learn martial arts, right?) and should be banned as well.

Self-defense against <i>another person</i>? That just proves my point. You justify having guns by saying that you need them to protect you from other people with guns, totally circular reasoning.

Not quite circular. You see, you are operating under a grave misconception, that I would like to correct for you.

The Misconception: If every gun was banned for use by law abiding Americans, the criminals would either: A) Give theirs up as well, or B) Tudamorf's Magic Wand of Gun Dissolution would cause all their guns to go *poof* in a torrent of magic fairy dust.

The Reality: With a total ban on all guns everywhere, criminals would not give up their guns, criminals would still break into people's homes, criminals would enjoy complete free reign to do as they wished in the home, or on the streets, because only a stark raving mad fool attacks a person with a gun with only a knife or bat.

Also, you are not quite tracking the legal definition of self-defense. If I shoot someone in self defense, the court system has ruled that the other (dead) person involved was engaging in wrongful activity, in which it was legal and just for me to use lethal force in stopping said activity. So anyone who uses a gun in self defense is using it properly, by the court's ruling.

The only way that gun control would be safer, and protect lives (which is the only semi valid reason you can give to take them away), is if you could somehow assure the complete removal of all the guns in America period. The statistics that were previously quoted on the thread in the UK, an gun control country, showed around 20,000 "firearm violations", which I will assume, were illegal possession charges. And that is probably just the tip of the iceberg in the UK. The only people that were caught with guns are those that were not as good hiding them, as the police were in finding them. What about everyone in the UK who is better at the police in hiding their guns than finding?

Until you create the Magic Wand of Gun Vaporization, owning a gun is a much more sure way of ensuring any criminal will not harm me, my family, friends or loved ones. Plus, if you did somehow create such a thing, it would then be incumbent upon me to learn and excel in hand to hand combat and knife fighting, in order to protect loved ones from anyone bent on wrongful aggression with whatever weapon they could lay ahold of.

Well technically all you have to be is registered there, but most people take it to mean born there. Besides, people with money like the Bush's don't really "live" anywhere, until they retire like George Sr. Who retired in Mass or Conn, something like that.

<B>Aidon - people who quote entire posts make me sad :*(</b>

I'm sorry mistress, please don't throw me to the penguins mistress. It'll never happen again! :eek:

Self-defense against <i>another person</i>? That just proves my point. You justify having guns by saying that you need them to protect you from other people with guns, totally circular reasoning.

No, realistic reasoning. Because you can outlaw guns all you want...they will still be in society. Or do you really think making them illegal will remove them?

And what if the guy only has a knife...or is a huge guy with a chunk of wood? Either one is deadly..

Finally, during my roaming web research for my post, here is a site I found that was quite interesting. I have always admired the stubborn tenacity of the Jewish culture and race, and found the "Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership" (http://www.jpfo.org/) site very intriguing.
I think you may find that Jews who feel as Aidon and I do are rather rare. JPFO membership is not restricted to Jews, by the way. =)

I don't agree completely with everything the JPFO posits, but I'm with you in that they provoke a lot of thought about these issues.

On a side note, its nice to see another American Jew who realizes the importance of the issue. Too many I know think guns are evil and shouldn't be there...willing to accept the goodwill of mankind, when our history has proven otherwise time and again.
Likewise.

The only way that gun control would be safer, and protect lives (which is the only semi valid reason you can give to take them away), is if you could somehow assure the complete removal of all the guns in America period. The statistics that were previously quoted on the thread in the UK, an gun control country, showed around 20,000 "firearm violations", which I will assume, were illegal possession charges. And that is probably just the tip of the iceberg in the UK. The only people that were caught with guns are those that were not as good hiding them, as the police were in finding them. What about everyone in the UK who is better at the police in hiding their guns than finding?

Firearm violations are probably something different. There is no use finding some statistics to try to prove the UK is a dangerous place when the most obvious figures to look at show we had 23 gun deaths in 2002 compared to 11000 in the US. Many of the posters feel that you need a firearm in your home for self defence. I feel as safe from murder in my own home as I can expect in modern society. I have never seen a gun in real life except for sports and museums. I do not feel the need for extra home defence. You do.

Having said that, I can see how Americans culture accepts guns for self defence and a widescale ban (as in the UK) seems inappropriate. I'm not sure however why self defence weapons shouldn't be licensed, restricted to private property and gun clubs, given 5 yearly checks by the police, and limited to modest firearms and basic ammunition (not semi-automatic rifles and machine guns).

On the other hand, telling me that my nation

(a) is prone to tyranny
(b) is subject to the mercy of gun toting criminals
(c) is subject to a large number of violent deaths
(d) contains a large number of firearms used by criminals,

just because you are certain a nation without public gun ownership must be failing, isn't a great way to persuade me of anything. I actually live here and see with my own eyes a society that has many flaws, but lack of guns certainly isn't one of them.

And what if the guy only has a knife...or is a huge guy with a chunk of wood? Either one is deadly..

We ban unneccesarily lethal knives, deadly force catapults, immitation guns, etc, as well as guns. The fact that a lot of our criminals try to use imitation handguns instead of real guns is actually very reassuring on many levels.

Tuda, all other forms of self defense - mace, tasers, knives, clubs, are all potentially lethal and therefore should be banned.Mace and tasers aren't desiged to be lethal, they're designed to stun opponents.

Karate, as well as other martial arts, is a skill you have to learn, and it's also much more difficult to kill someone in hand to hand combat (for physical as well as psychological reasons) than it is to pull a trigger.

Knives and clubs are potentially lethal, but you can defend against them without using a gun. (On the other hand, if someone is pointing a gun at you from 5 meters away, a knife or club isn't going to help.)

The problem with guns is more than just the fact that they're <i>potentially</i> lethal. They also require no skill to use, can be instantly and easily acquired, are very difficult to defend against, and allow the user to distance themselves mentally from the act (i.e., it's very easy to press a button and kill someone from a distance). The other "weapons" you mentioned don't suffer from all of these problems.
The Misconception: If every gun was banned for use by law abiding Americans, the criminals would either: A) Give theirs up as well, or B) Tudamorf's Magic Wand of Gun Dissolution would cause all their guns to go *poof* in a torrent of magic fairy dust.I refuse to believe that the situation is completely hopeless and that we should therefore throw in the towel and arm everyone. If guns and ammo were outlawed in the U.S., and the government stopped wasting its time battling drugs and started strictly controlling the import of guns and ammo, I think you'd see a drop in gun-related crime over time. It won't happen overnight, but if ammo were made very difficult and expensive to acquire on a black market, eventually many criminals would stop wasting their time with it. We don't need <i>every</i> gun to disappear; it would be good enough if a large number of them disappeared.

Karate, as well as other martial arts, is a skill you have to learn, and it's also much more difficult to kill someone in hand to hand combat (for physical as well as psychological reasons) than it is to pull a trigger.

Regardles, it has the potential to kill. How am I to defend myself against someone with that ability and the desire and will to use it?

Knives and clubs are potentially lethal, but you can defend against them without using a gun. (On the other hand, if someone is pointing a gun at you from 5 meters away, a knife or club isn't going to help.)

Yes, you can defend yourself against Knives and Clubs without a gun, at much higher and greater risk to yourself. Why should you have to risk physical harm or even death to defend yourself if you do not have to?

The problem with guns is more than just the fact that they're <i>potentially</i> lethal. They also require no skill to use, can be instantly and easily acquired, are very difficult to defend against, and allow the user to distance themselves mentally from the act (i.e., it's very easy to press a button and kill someone from a distance).

They are more difficult to obtain than most other deadly weapons. The military would also beg to differ on ease of use and distancing ones self. Your average untrained person firing a handgun will miss at 20 yards.

As for disassociating. The military did a study after WWII. They found that the majority of the rounds fired by US forces were deliberately misaimed because US forces could not bring themselves to kill. Since then the military has specifically trained its infantry to disassociate themselves from the target by learning to fire immediately upon aquisition without thought (via the use of pop-up targets).

It isn't easy to kill human psycologically regardless of the weapon used. Generally if you're "in the heat of the moment" enough to use lethal force, you won't care if the weapon is a knife, bat, or gun.

The other "weapons" you mentioned don't suffer from all of these problems.
I refuse to believe that the situation is completely hopeless and that we should therefore throw in the towel and arm everyone. If guns and ammo were outlawed in the U.S., and the government stopped wasting its time battling drugs and started strictly controlling the import of guns and ammo, I think you'd see a drop in gun-related crime over time. It won't happen overnight, but if ammo were made very difficult and expensive to acquire on a black market, eventually many criminals would stop wasting their time with it. We don't need <i>every</i> gun to disappear; it would be good enough if a large number of them disappeared.

As I said, initially, it is foolish to voluntarily place yourself without recourse against the excesses of the Government. Regardless of crime, recreation, self-defense, etc. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was primarily as the ultimate protection for the People against the ravages of an abusive Government.

Is there anything wrong with rallies/gatherings designed to make Americans proud and excited to be Americans?

Of course not. Similarly there's nothing wrong with gatherings to celebrate a sports victory, or a pilgrimage to Mecca.

The event I attended in Houston was a rodeo and a concert. The excitement it generated may have been somewhat orchestrated. I don't think it was manipulated, but I could be wrong. The emotion there was real, not contrived. Although I felt uncomfortable, there was nothing inherently wrong with the event. My point was that raw emotion and nationalism/patriotism can be channeled by a charismatic leader in horrible ways. I was not suggesting that this is what was happening in Houston.

I did get a chuckle about whether I would feel uncomfortable at a Canadian political rally. My partially tongue-in-cheek answer is that I would be terribly uncomfortable and fidgeting in my chair. Canadian political rallies... /snore.
I do get your point though.

Can American people be deceived by a charismatic leader? You say no, I say yes. Do you really think that Americans don't choose their leaders based on charisma? Don't you agree that a major national event (e.g. 9-11) rallies overwhelming support for political leaders that might otherwise enjoy lower popularity? Can't you imagine some future major issue rallying support for a corrupt leader?

You say that guns will guard against totalitarian rule. People will rise up to overthrow corrupt government. Many people feel that way, including American leaders that were at the forefront of formulating Iraq policies.

Here are the elements.

- Corrupt dicatator -- Saddam Hussein
- Lots of weapons, and we're not talking mere handguns and shotguns kept at home
- Major destructive conflicts -- war with Iran, invasion of Kuwait and subsequent Desert Storm
- Dictator humiliated by overwhelming military defeat
- Hated with a passion by the majority of people in his country - Shiites in the south, Kurds in the north
- Major physical external support for anti-Hussein elements via air cover and weapons

We know the result, don't we? Hussein was firmly entrenched in power until overthrown by external force.

I could paint a similar picture with Slobodan Milosevic and Yugoslavia, but I think you understand my point.

So I state again. Having guns at home will have zero impact in overthrowing a corrupt totalitarian regime.

I do agree that the entrenched democratic culture in the U.S. is the strongest defence against totalitarian rule. Regardless whether you love them or hate them, I think American leaders sincerely and wholeheartedly believe in democracy.

So I state again. Having guns at home will have zero impact in overthrowing a corrupt totalitarian regime.

This is a case where none of us will convince the others and that isn't our goal.

The above quote, however, is only seeing half the picture. It is totally correct. Equally correct as saying having a wrench won't keep your car fixed, you have to actually use it.

I submit that the people in your examples lacked the will to make a change. You must have both will and the means. Having only one or the other will yield nothing.

Wait... GWB was the govenor of Texas and you don't claim him as a Texan? I thought GWB grew up in Texas and tried to make a living as a Texas oil guy. Not sure about Poppa bush though. What's it take to be a Texan?

I don't know the answer to this but I'd like to submit another example. Hillary isn't technically a New Yorker either. She became a resident there just before elections to meet the requirements. Much the same way that is being suggested of Bush.

People in the examples lacked the will to make a change?? Wow! Do you really mean that?

Whatever you might think of their values, motives and brainwashing, I'd say suicide bombers definitely have a will to make a change. When's the last time you heard of an American suicide bomber (or a Canadian, British or German one for that matter)? I'd say the Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq paid for their will in blood. So did the gassed Kurds in the North.

Do you really think a Texan with a handgun living in a comfortable home, in an affluent society, in a (hypothetical) corrupt totalitarian state will have more will than a destitute, starving Arab refugee with a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher or an explosives belt around his waist?

I think not.

When's the last time you heard of an American suicide bomber (or a Canadian, British or German one for that matter)?

Richard Reed, the 'shoe bomber', was a British Muslim.

People in the examples lacked the will to make a change?? Wow! Do you really mean that?

WOW, yes I do. They may have had desire, but not the will.

To use a very simplistic example, I can desire to have a new car all I like, but unless I take the steps necessary to obtain it, it won't happen.

In such a case of Iraq, the real possibility of death existed and still does. It doesn't make the cause any less valid or doable unless you dislike death more than you dislike making a change for the values you hold close to yourself. It is a matter of what price you are willing to pay. I submit, that their desire to be rid of Saddam did not outweigh their desire to live.

In your example, neither the Texan nor the stereotypical starving Arab (no they aren't all starving) have any more will than the other given no other information. They both have the desire, perhaps. Now, if the Arab goes out and does something about it, he has more will than the lazy Texan who just complains about wanting a change.

Richard Reed... aye... any others? Of course, he didn't actually die or get hurt, did he? He's more like a wannabee suicide bomber. I'm not trying to trivialize the incident, but I think that most suicide attempts aren't successful because people don't really want to die. I'm out of my league here so correct me if I'm wrong.

Chrysamere. I won't change your mind that Americans have more will than other people in the world to fight oppressive governments. Suffice it to say that I believe that this will exists throughout the world, and that in many places people exercise that will. In the U.S., thankfully few people are required to exercise it (foreign placed Armed Forces notable exception).

People in the examples lacked the will to make a change?? Wow! Do you really mean that?

Whatever you might think of their values, motives and brainwashing, I'd say suicide bombers definitely have a will to make a change. When's the last time you heard of an American suicide bomber (or a Canadian, British or German one for that matter)? I'd say the Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq paid for their will in blood. So did the gassed Kurds in the North.

Do you really think a Texan with a handgun living in a comfortable home, in an affluent society, in a (hypothetical) corrupt totalitarian state will have more will than a destitute, starving Arab refugee with a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher or an explosives belt around his waist?

I think not.

Conversely, Arabs aren't known for their elite militaristic abilities. Seriously. I'd be more afraid of your average Texan with .306 Springfield bolt action than your average Arab with an AK-47.

Oh, to counter your points, however, allow me to point out Haiti and yes the former Yugoslavian states (where they were at least able to fight back...even if they did require foreign aid).