Print Page | Close Window

Gun Control

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: DEMILITARIZED ZONE
Forum Name: General Current Affairs
Forum Description: A place to debate current events
URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=127694
Printed Date: 19 Dec 2018 at 00:55
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Gun Control
Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Subject: Gun Control
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2012 at 17:02
"....the country does have a bit of a problem on its hands: 30,000 gun deaths a year from about 300,000 gun-related assaults; a gun in 47 per cent of American households; assault weapons available at every pop stand; Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood and so on..."
 
Despite recent events in the US, the sentiment there still seems to be (curiously) for liberal ownership of guns. What do you think? How much should they be restricted? Should they be controlled at all?
 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/america-has-surrendered-to-the-nra/article4436780/" rel="nofollow - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/america-has-surrendered-to-the-nra/article4436780/



Replies:
Posted By: Paradigm of Humanity
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2012 at 19:31
Without civilian access to weapons, how citizens could overthrow a despotic government Tongue 


Posted By: Lao Tse
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2012 at 19:52
i would say the third option, because in some cases, it is like giving a monkey a machine gun! But other cases show that people need guns as a self-deffence weapon and sportsmen use them for target shooting. I am only prejudiced to hunting without eating the meat. That is a waste of ammo and a cute little animal's life.

-------------
在財富的害處,而是一件好事永遠不持續。我在和平中仅居住在新的風下。 Wei Jia Hong No harm in wealth, but a good thing doesn't last forever. I live only among peace under


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2012 at 20:07
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Without civilian access to weapons, how citizens could overthrow a despotic government Tongue 
 
Utter crap.
 
Egypt had one of the strictest gun laws and they overthrew the government while Syria doesn't even have gun laws to begin with (anyone can licence an AK-47) and yet have been mired in a civil war for nearly two years now.
 
Outright bans like Britain are simply ridiculous (to the extent that the British Olypmic team is training in Ireland because parliament refused to ease the ban even for the freaking London Olympics). They achieve nothing and in fact may lead to more harm than good (since all guns in the UK are basically illegal this means tracing gun crimes is virtually impossible).
 
The current situation in the US is just as much ridiculous. There is no legitimate reason whatsoever for military type weapons like fully automatic assault rifles, high capacity magazines and high power large calibre pistols and riles to be publically traded with virtually no control. I get it that some people (me included) like to go on the firing range or the desert and target practice using these weapons but that doesn't legitimise it. People should be allowed to practice their hobbies of course but within bounds of reason and limiting the use of those weapons to firing ranges is a reasonable thing in my view.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2012 at 20:55
To put things in perspective, 30,000 deaths from guns per year is similar to the number killed on America's roads every year. That said its way to many on both counts.

Tend to be middle of the road on this, anally retentive legislation like in the UK is silly and rather misses the point in many ways (it somehow didn't stop a mentaly unstable lawyer from owning a shotgun in central London, I mean, WTF, what's he supposed to use it for, shoot pigeons off his balcony?). But the near religious obsession some lobbies in the US have with gun ownership is just creepy and difficult to relate too.


Posted By: Paradigm of Humanity
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2012 at 20:58
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Without civilian access to weapons, how citizens could overthrow a despotic government Tongue 
 
Utter crap.
 
Egypt had one of the strictest gun laws and they overthrew the government while Syria doesn't even have gun laws to begin with (anyone can licence an AK-47) and yet have been mired in a civil war for nearly two years now.
 
Outright bans like Britain are simply ridiculous (to the extent that the British Olypmic team is training in Ireland because parliament refused to ease the ban even for the freaking London Olympics). They achieve nothing and in fact may lead to more harm than good (since all guns in the UK are basically illegal this means tracing gun crimes is virtually impossible).
 
The current situation in the US is just as much ridiculous. There is no legitimate reason whatsoever for military type weapons like fully automatic assault rifles, high capacity magazines and high power large calibre pistols and riles to be publically traded with virtually no control. I get it that some people (me included) like to go on the firing range or the desert and target practice using these weapons but that doesn't legitimise it. People should be allowed to practice their hobbies of course but within bounds of reason and limiting the use of those weapons to firing ranges is a reasonable thing in my view.
 
Al-Jassas

I knew this was coming  Big smile


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2012 at 23:33
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Without civilian access to weapons, how citizens could overthrow a despotic government Tongue 
 
The problem with this arguement, as I see it PH, is that the kind of weapons that cause such mayhem in society are not the ones of much use against an organized state. What is needed to overthrow a state are the same arms it has- automatic weapons, anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, land mines, etc. Even the NRA would pause anxiously before endorsing some of these.
 
Handguns, sporting rifles, and the like would be crushed immediately by a determined military force. They are sufficient though to cause many deaths by crime or by accident.


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2012 at 23:46
Originally posted by Lao Tse Lao Tse wrote:

i would say the third option, because in some cases, it is like giving a monkey a machine gun! But other cases show that people need guns as a self-deffence weapon and sportsmen use them for target shooting. I am only prejudiced to hunting without eating the meat. That is a waste of ammo and a cute little animal's life.
 
Indeed this is an issue- those with  judgement and  intellect marginally higher than a simian can obtain machine guns in many parts of the US.
 
Statistics have often indicated that the defense issue doesn't stand up. Gun owners are still shot by criminals that don't wait for a possible response, or they have their guns stolen and used against them or others, or the very fact of their presence ups the odds and convinces criminals to arm and to fire at the first doubt.
 
As for eating meat, how many hunters (in our modern society) could obtain meat much more easily and at about the same cost at a supermarket? Hunting is about the gratification of chasing and killing animals, and except for a tiny minority of individuals still living a hunter/gatherer lifestyle in remote regions, that's what it is all about.
 
 


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2012 at 23:53
Originally posted by Cywr Cywr wrote:

To put things in perspective, 30,000 deaths from guns per year is similar to the number killed on America's roads every year. That said its way to many on both counts.

Tend to be middle of the road on this, anally retentive legislation like in the UK is silly and rather misses the point in many ways (it somehow didn't stop a mentaly unstable lawyer from owning a shotgun in central London, I mean, WTF, what's he supposed to use it for, shoot pigeons off his balcony?). But the near religious obsession some lobbies in the US have with gun ownership is just creepy and difficult to relate too.
 
The proof is in the pudding as the Brit's say. There are many, many more gun deaths per capita due to crime and accident in the US than in Britain. No law is 100% enforceable. In the case of guns of course a small minority of transgressors can have tragic impact, but that seems insufficient reason to chuck out the rules.


Posted By: Lao Tse
Date Posted: 25 Jul 2012 at 00:00
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
 There is no legitimate reason whatsoever for military type weapons like fully automatic assault rifles, high capacity magazines and high power large calibre pistols and rifles to be publically traded with virtually no control.
But you must understand, that is not legal to the public anyways, unless you are willing to spend atleast 200 dollars for each permit, which could come to over 3000 dollars for all of those permits. Many firearms don't have short-capacity magazines, they just aren't created for that guns. High powered rifles are so common, and sometimes neccesary for home defense, that no one cares. High powered Pistols are so expensive that, unless you are either obsessed with guns, or trying to scare off invaders without hurting anyone or even firing a shot. Example: An old friend of mine had a first husband that gave her phonecalls threatening to kill her after the divorce in the 1980s, the police wouldn't do anything until he actually acted, and he was very willing to kill her. One night, the ex-husband actually was trying to break into her house. She had a 1930s Sweet 16 shotgun, it wasn't loaded and almost jammed. She flashed the gun in front of the door (which he saw through the window), and he went away. No one was hurt, and he never returned. He finally went to prison for selling diseased cattle (but that's another story). Another example, her father owned a 357 Magnum Desert Eagle( like Clint Eastwood's, but not a revolver), which is one of the most powerful, and expensive pistols in the world. In Owensboro, although the crime rate is extremely low (because of the small town mentallity), there were still occaisionally robberies and small crimes. Someone tried to break into his house, and he showed the gun to the robber through the window. The robbers went away because of the size of the gun itself.


-------------
在財富的害處,而是一件好事永遠不持續。我在和平中仅居住在新的風下。 Wei Jia Hong No harm in wealth, but a good thing doesn't last forever. I live only among peace under


Posted By: Lao Tse
Date Posted: 25 Jul 2012 at 00:03
And how would you decide military-style weaponry? that would depend on which factor? Because that would mean getting rid of antique weapons, which often don't work, and several weapons that can be useful for home defense.

-------------
在財富的害處,而是一件好事永遠不持續。我在和平中仅居住在新的風下。 Wei Jia Hong No harm in wealth, but a good thing doesn't last forever. I live only among peace under


Posted By: Paradigm of Humanity
Date Posted: 25 Jul 2012 at 09:25
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Without civilian access to weapons, how citizens could overthrow a despotic government Tongue 
 
The problem with this arguement, as I see it PH, is that the kind of weapons that cause such mayhem in society are not the ones of much use against an organized state. What is needed to overthrow a state are the same arms it has- automatic weapons, anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, land mines, etc. Even the NRA would pause anxiously before endorsing some of these.
 
Handguns, sporting rifles, and the like would be crushed immediately by a determined military force. They are sufficient though to cause many deaths by crime or by accident.


Practically most (if not all) revolutions saw massive defections of military personnel to revolutionary side. They only needed to escalate violence. Then events followed...


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 25 Jul 2012 at 11:22

Police and Military only? I'm sorry, why do the police need guns?
I voted for "Pry 'em from my cold, dead fingers- it's a right", because this is America we are talking about. But otherwise I also see a strong argument for only giving guns to the military and a few special units in the police.
Practically though, I wouldn't mind being able to own a rifle myself for sport, farming & recreational hunting. So I'm not entirely sure where I sit.

Originally posted by CV CV wrote:

As for eating meat, how many hunters (in our modern society) could obtain meat much more easily and at about the same cost at a supermarket? Hunting is about the gratification of chasing and killing animals, and except for a tiny minority of individuals still living a hunter/gatherer lifestyle in remote regions, that's what it is all about.

I heard some ridiculous number of Americans actually get the majority of their meat from hunting. They are too poor to buy it at the supermarket.
Originally posted by AJ AJ wrote:

Outright bans like Britain are simply ridiculous (to the extent that the British Olypmic team is training in Ireland because parliament refused to ease the ban even for the freaking London Olympics). They achieve nothing and in fact may lead to more harm than good (since all guns in the UK are basically illegal this means tracing gun crimes is virtually impossible).

Malaysia and Singapore take the position that if you are in possesion of a gun, you must be intending to use it. Therefore, the punishment for having a gun is the death penalty. This is quite logical and very effective.
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Without civilian access to weapons, how citizens could overthrow a despotic government  

The problem with this arguement, as I see it PH, is that the kind of weapons that cause such mayhem in society are not the ones of much use against an organized state. What is needed to overthrow a state are the same arms it has- automatic weapons, anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, land mines, etc. Even the NRA would pause anxiously before endorsing some of these.
 
 
 
Handguns, sporting rifles, and the like would be crushed immediately by a determined military force. They are sufficient though to cause many deaths by crime or by accident.

It is the position of US mythology and the consitution that the populuce of the nation should have the weaponry to overthrow the government by revolutionary means. Questions of hunting, sport or self defence are irrelevant.

So really the question is by what right are automatic weapons, IEDs, and RPGs restricted in the US? There should be caches that, if not available to everyone, are sufficently easily distributed if the US people ever decided they needed to fight the US Army.
Recent wars have shown that reasonably poorly equipped military forces can be very effective against high tech militaries.

The cost of this security from foriegn imposition is less personal security. You can be like Pakistan, armed to the teeth but completely insecure, or you can be like Singapore, completely secure but completely reliant upon your government. Americans have always desired to be closer to the Pakistani model.

 
PS. In fact the sucess of the Mexican drug gangs against the Mexican army show that the availablity of weapons in the US really does help you fight a modern army.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25 Jul 2012 at 13:16
Omar has made the point quite well that arms restriction is heavily dependent upon the culture of the nation in question.

A similar parallel can be drawn with drug policy. The two most successful drug laws in the world seem to be those nations which take extreme approaches. Portugal and Saudi Arabia are polar opposites, but have both enjoyed great success in restricting drug abuse. Portugal by decriminalising it and encouraging counseling and rehabilitation, Saudi Arabia by beheading virtually anyone involved in the drug supply chain. By neither country's approach would suit the other, and that's due to cultural differences. And we must recognise that before pontificating on what should be done: cultural norms cannot be ignored or taken to be easily changed.

A better question to ask would be: if you want Americans to change culturally so they are receptive to the idea of civilian firearm ownership reduction, how would you achieve that?


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 25 Jul 2012 at 13:49
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:


A better question to ask would be: if you want Americans to change culturally so they are receptive to the idea of civilian firearm ownership reduction, how would you achieve that?

You'd think that going out and massacring a few dozen people would help the process on. But it doesn't.

Statistics don't help. People carrying a gun are more likely to be shot in an assault than those not carrying one.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/" rel="nofollow - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

An interesting sidenote is the Supreme Court's decision throwing out the handgun ban in Chicago, while allowing the ban on grenade launchers and machine guns, which seems to be based essentially on the fact that handguns are popular while grenade launchers and machine guns aren't.
Quote U.S. Supreme Court cases that knocked down handgun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C., play key roles in the Cook County case. The nation's high court has determined that handguns represent a class of weapons that law-abiding citizens overwhelmingly choose for lawful self-defense, but one of the questions about the Cook ban is whether that same standard applies to assault weapons.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-06/news/ct-met-illinois-supreme-court-assault-weapons-ban--20120406_1_assault-weapons-county-ban-handgun-ban" rel="nofollow - http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-06/news/ct-met-illinois-supreme-court-assault-weapons-ban--20120406_1_assault-weapons-county-ban-handgun-ban

It is somehow seen or felt to be unAmerican to set the good of the community above one's own perceived best interest. I don't know how you change that. 

(PS: yes the British legislation is in some areas silly, but wasn't the law always a jackass?)  



-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2012 at 03:21
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Police and Military only? I'm sorry, why do the police need guns?

Because there are bad people out there.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


I voted for "Pry 'em from my cold, dead fingers- it's a right", because this is America we are talking about. But otherwise I also see a strong argument for only giving guns to the military and a few special units in the police.
Practically though, I wouldn't mind being able to own a rifle myself for sport, farming & recreational hunting. So I'm not entirely sure where I sit.

Originally posted by CV CV wrote:

As for eating meat, how many hunters (in our modern society) could obtain meat much more easily and at about the same cost at a supermarket? Hunting is about the gratification of chasing and killing animals, and except for a tiny minority of individuals still living a hunter/gatherer lifestyle in remote regions, that's what it is all about.

I heard some ridiculous number of Americans actually get the majority of their meat from hunting. They are too poor to buy it at the supermarket.

 
Not sure about the US, but here in BC the licensing fees are so high it wouldn't make sense to hunt for food.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Originally posted by AJ AJ wrote:

Outright bans like Britain are simply ridiculous (to the extent that the British Olypmic team is training in Ireland because parliament refused to ease the ban even for the freaking London Olympics). They achieve nothing and in fact may lead to more harm than good (since all guns in the UK are basically illegal this means tracing gun crimes is virtually impossible).

Malaysia and Singapore take the position that if you are in possesion of a gun, you must be intending to use it. Therefore, the punishment for having a gun is the death penalty. This is quite logical and very effective.
 
And so strict laws do have an effect?
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Without civilian access to weapons, how citizens could overthrow a despotic government  

The problem with this arguement, as I see it PH, is that the kind of weapons that cause such mayhem in society are not the ones of much use against an organized state. What is needed to overthrow a state are the same arms it has- automatic weapons, anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, land mines, etc. Even the NRA would pause anxiously before endorsing some of these.
 
 
 
Handguns, sporting rifles, and the like would be crushed immediately by a determined military force. They are sufficient though to cause many deaths by crime or by accident.

It is the position of US mythology and the consitution that the populuce of the nation should have the weaponry to overthrow the government by revolutionary means. Questions of hunting, sport or self defence are irrelevant.

So really the question is by what right are automatic weapons, IEDs, and RPGs restricted in the US? There should be caches that, if not available to everyone, are sufficently easily distributed if the US people ever decided they needed to fight the US Army.
Recent wars have shown that reasonably poorly equipped military forces can be very effective against high tech militaries.

The cost of this security from foriegn imposition is less personal security. You can be like Pakistan, armed to the teeth but completely insecure, or you can be like Singapore, completely secure but completely reliant upon your government. Americans have always desired to be closer to the Pakistani model.

The idea of having guns as a defense against government stems from the 18th century, when having rifles at home would indeed make a difference against a pre-industrial, pre-technological army. It is also grounded in the context of the times, when the US had just finished with what some thought was a rebellion against an autocratic regime.
 
As for Pakistan, if an honest poll could be taken among the populace, I'm willing to bet my next grog ration that a majority would vote for more stability, less violence, less guns. They don't really have a vote though. In the US, the mania for guns has reached an apex only lately; as the piece in the Globe and Mail points out, a few decades ago a majority of Americans were also for more gun restrictions.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

  
PS. In fact the sucess of the Mexican drug gangs against the Mexican army show that the availablity of weapons in the US really does help you fight a modern army.
 
Fight perhaps, but not win. The drug cartels have done massive damage to the country, but they can never win outright. And Mexico is far from being the most extreme government in existence. A tougher (or perhaps less corrupt) country could have done away with them all by now.


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2012 at 03:38
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Omar has made the point quite well that arms restriction is heavily dependent upon the culture of the nation in question.

A similar parallel can be drawn with drug policy. The two most successful drug laws in the world seem to be those nations which take extreme approaches. Portugal and Saudi Arabia are polar opposites, but have both enjoyed great success in restricting drug abuse. Portugal by decriminalising it and encouraging counseling and rehabilitation, Saudi Arabia by beheading virtually anyone involved in the drug supply chain. By neither country's approach would suit the other, and that's due to cultural differences. And we must recognise that before pontificating on what should be done: cultural norms cannot be ignored or taken to be easily changed.

A better question to ask would be: if you want Americans to change culturally so they are receptive to the idea of civilian firearm ownership reduction, how would you achieve that?
 
To put it briefly Constantine- less spin. I think the cultural link has only a limited amount of meaning. Culture can be rather thin; it varies from generation to generation, from individual to individual. This is especially so in countries like the US, which is highly multicultural, and dynamic in the sense of high immigration and acceptance of change. A lot of what is considered culture today is simply the spin put out by interest groups- be they ones seeking profit, or ones after political gain. Even 30 years ago, much of what is considered American culture today would have been cringed at by the population at large.
 
The gun culture has grown in parallel with the far right movement in the US. It is beneficial to the most affluent and powerful to promote the myth of the independent individual, devoid of community or state support. Low or no taxes, less or no regulation, less or no social programs all enhance the life of the "one percent". The idea of packing guns because society at large is distant, ineffective, inefficient, unable to provide for even basic security, all feeds into the paradigm. One has to ask, when extreme policies are advocated, who do these benefit?


Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2012 at 15:30
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

 
Despite recent events in the US, the sentiment there still seems to be (curiously) for liberal ownership of guns. What do you think? How much should they be restricted? Should they be controlled at all?


Well CV, that is because we are stupid in having surrendered to the NRA's spin on things and haven't yet surrendered to the gun control advocates spin on things, just yet! But, give it time. We'll be indoctrinated thoroughly and soon enough to either sides correct way of thinking!


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2012 at 20:40
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Culture can be rather thin; it varies from generation to generation, from individual to individual. This is especially so in countries like the US, which is highly multicultural, and dynamic in the sense of high immigration and acceptance of change. A lot of what is considered culture today is simply the spin put out by interest groups- be they ones seeking profit, or ones after political gain. Even 30 years ago, much of what is considered American culture today would have been cringed at by the population at large.

Consider the very much more fundamental culture changes with regard to the acceptance of homosexuality, racial discrimination, pornography, unmarried mothers, for instance. All those changed in a generation (not only in the US), say from 1955 to 1985. 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 28 Jul 2012 at 04:10

Originally posted by CV CV wrote:

Because there are bad people out there.

If the police need a gun they can call a gun. For the vast majority of cases, the 'bad people' are not carrying guns, and can be delt with without guns.
Quote
Quote
Malaysia and Singapore take the position that if you are in possesion of a gun, you must be intending to use it. Therefore, the punishment for having a gun is the death penalty. This is quite logical and very effective.

And so strict laws do have an effect?

I don't have statistics, but I believe Singapore has the lowest level of gun crime anywhere in the world.
Quote The idea of having guns as a defense against government stems from the 18th century, when having rifles at home would indeed make a difference against a pre-industrial, pre-technological army. It is also grounded in the context of the times, when the US had just finished with what some thought was a rebellion against an autocratic regime.
 
As for Pakistan, if an honest poll could be taken among the populace, I'm willing to bet my next grog ration that a majority would vote for more stability, less violence, less guns. They don't really have a vote though. In the US, the mania for guns has reached an apex only lately; as the piece in the Globe and Mail points out, a few decades ago a majority of Americans were also for more gun restrictions.

I too believe that most Pakistanis would vote for more stability, less violence, less guns. But, assuming gun regulations could even be enforced in Pakistan, they would not vote to disarm the nation. Why? Because Afghanistan has been invaded twice in 30 years by superpowers, and twice, with nothing more than small arms, have advanced armies been humbled by militias. The US ideology does stem from post-revolutionary pre-industrial war, but it isn't any less true in the modern age. Having a heavily armed populace does help you defend you country from invasion and this has been indisputaly shown in recent years.
If Americans did decide to overthrow their government, they wouldn't need to fight the US navy with cruise missiles.

Whether this is an acceptable cost-benefit analysis is a totally different question.



Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 29 Jul 2012 at 00:54
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Culture can be rather thin; it varies from generation to generation, from individual to individual. This is especially so in countries like the US, which is highly multicultural, and dynamic in the sense of high immigration and acceptance of change. A lot of what is considered culture today is simply the spin put out by interest groups- be they ones seeking profit, or ones after political gain. Even 30 years ago, much of what is considered American culture today would have been cringed at by the population at large.

Consider the very much more fundamental culture changes with regard to the acceptance of homosexuality, racial discrimination, pornography, unmarried mothers, for instance. All those changed in a generation (not only in the US), say from 1955 to 1985. 
Exactly. Culture is fragile- it may endure, or it may change fairly quickly, depending on popular belief and prevailing fashion.


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 29 Jul 2012 at 02:00
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by CV CV wrote:

Because there are bad people out there.

If the police need a gun they can call a gun. For the vast majority of cases, the 'bad people' are not carrying guns, and can be delt with without guns.

In an ideal world, yes. In an ideal world, most would have some respect for the law, and police would be experts at conflict resolution, negociation tactics, and also have top notch martial arts skills. But how many actually live up to these levels? I can assure you they don't in my corner of the world. Many police have only modest physical and psychological skills, yet are run up against the worst of humanity on a daily basis, many of whom are dangerous even without firearms. Would you take on the job of subduing drug dealers, bikers, bar room drunks, football hooligans, and other assorted riff-raff with a gun "on call"?
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Quote
Quote
Malaysia and Singapore take the position that if you are in possesion of a gun, you must be intending to use it. Therefore, the punishment for having a gun is the death penalty. This is quite logical and very effective.

And so strict laws do have an effect?

I don't have statistics, but I believe Singapore has the lowest level of gun crime anywhere in the world.
 
Then maybe they are doing something right.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Quote The idea of having guns as a defense against government stems from the 18th century, when having rifles at home would indeed make a difference against a pre-industrial, pre-technological army. It is also grounded in the context of the times, when the US had just finished with what some thought was a rebellion against an autocratic regime.
 
As for Pakistan, if an honest poll could be taken among the populace, I'm willing to bet my next grog ration that a majority would vote for more stability, less violence, less guns. They don't really have a vote though. In the US, the mania for guns has reached an apex only lately; as the piece in the Globe and Mail points out, a few decades ago a majority of Americans were also for more gun restrictions.

I too believe that most Pakistanis would vote for more stability, less violence, less guns. But, assuming gun regulations could even be enforced in Pakistan, they would not vote to disarm the nation. Why? Because Afghanistan has been invaded twice in 30 years by superpowers, and twice, with nothing more than small arms, have advanced armies been humbled by militias. The US ideology does stem from post-revolutionary pre-industrial war, but it isn't any less true in the modern age. Having a heavily armed populace does help you defend you country from invasion and this has been indisputaly shown in recent years.
If Americans did decide to overthrow their government, they wouldn't need to fight the US navy with cruise missiles.

Whether this is an acceptable cost-benefit analysis is a totally different question.

The strategy Afghans have employed is a simple one. Just keep killing someone whenever an opportunity arises, and hope that at some point a logical calculation will take place: the intruder will say to himself, is this remote wasteland worth endless attrition? This is much different from overthrowing a government. There are no doubt many in Afghanistan who would like to overthrow the government, but they cannot, even with significant military weapons, and a safe haven nearby. It takes very little to shoot a few people here and there, especially if personal belief reassures one that they are not going to get hurt themselves. If being killed really means floating to heaven and partaking of seventy virgins, and other thrills, then risk becomes much more manageable. Can you really see some future American patriots behaving this way? Throwing away lives indefinitely, in the belief God will prevail? (They would need another set of incentives of course, as most westerners have topped the seventy virgin milestone long before their judgement day, so  perhaps....endless WalMarts with sale days.....cheap gas.....free internet? It would have to be culturally appropriate.)
 
Taking on a modern military means having similar weapons, and also a steady supply chain. Thousands of rounds can be expended in even one very short encounter. Without more supplies coming, any force quickly becomes ineffective. The only alternative then is low level guerilla warfare, that is, isolated acts of terrorism that will hopefully, eventually at some point, cause one's enemy to loose heart. And even that only works when dealing with relatively civilized people. A ruthless oponent will simply crush anyone and everyone that is suspect, as some in Syria may unfortunately be about to find out. Without a supply chain of arms they will fall, or at best be pushed into an underground, very limited, dissident group.
 
A hypothetical American revolution would indeed face cruise missiles, and other forms of high tech that would seek out, discover, and attack any sort of individual or congragation. And today these are many. Handguns, sporting rifles, and even automatic weapons would be of limited use against a truly determined and armed government. The arguements the NRA and other like institutions make in this regard are self-serving and dishonest.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 29 Jul 2012 at 04:06
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Without civilian access to weapons, how citizens could overthrow a despotic government Tongue 


Nonsense. In case of a REAL revolution, guns will always be available.

It is in peace times when we should limit the power of guns. It doesn't make sense that civilians keep at home automatic weapons, grenades, bazookas or telescopic sights. Why are they for if not for killing another people?

Both the salesman and the owner of those weapons should be sent to jail.


Posted By: Lao Tse
Date Posted: 29 Jul 2012 at 04:42
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Without civilian access to weapons, how citizens could overthrow a despotic government Tongue 


Nonsense. In case of a REAL revolution, guns will always be available.

It is in peace times when we should limit the power of guns. It doesn't make sense that civilians keep at home automatic weapons, grenades, bazookas or telescopic sights. Why are they for if not for killing another people?

Both the salesman and the owner of those weapons should be sent to jail.
Pinguin, they allow bazookas to be owned because it is illegal to sell its ammo. They only allow people with permits to own automatic weapons, which is why it takes months to purchase a firearm, to take a background check on the customers. Grenades, are severely scrutinized, and the majority of legal purchases of grenades have already been discharged (emptied without exploding). Telescopic sights? Those are called scopes, and many people cannot shoot with the iron-sights on the barrel, and if you hunt for sport or food, and you do not shoot very well with iron-sights, it can prevent many accidents. Scopes can show a more detailed view of the area in sight, and if you can't see a person in the traditional sights, you can with a scope, and it is always a good thing to see what is behind your target.


-------------
在財富的害處,而是一件好事永遠不持續。我在和平中仅居住在新的風下。 Wei Jia Hong No harm in wealth, but a good thing doesn't last forever. I live only among peace under


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 29 Jul 2012 at 06:34
Originally posted by Lao Tse Lao Tse wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Without civilian access to weapons, how citizens could overthrow a despotic government Tongue 


Nonsense. In case of a REAL revolution, guns will always be available.

It is in peace times when we should limit the power of guns. It doesn't make sense that civilians keep at home automatic weapons, grenades, bazookas or telescopic sights. Why are they for if not for killing another people?

Both the salesman and the owner of those weapons should be sent to jail.
Pinguin, they allow bazookas to be owned because it is illegal to sell its ammo. They only allow people with permits to own automatic weapons, which is why it takes months to purchase a firearm, to take a background check on the customers. Grenades, are severely scrutinized, and the majority of legal purchases of grenades have already been discharged (emptied without exploding). Telescopic sights? Those are called scopes, and many people cannot shoot with the iron-sights on the barrel, and if you hunt for sport or food, and you do not shoot very well with iron-sights, it can prevent many accidents. Scopes can show a more detailed view of the area in sight, and if you can't see a person in the traditional sights, you can with a scope, and it is always a good thing to see what is behind your target.
 
Glad to hear, Lao Tse, that potential gunmen must wait a bit before getting their assault rifle, and only some hand grenades go out armed and ready for combat.
 
This is madness; a symptom of a society in trouble. When paranoia and xenophobia reach such a pitch that citizenry are arming to the teeth with military weapons, something is askew.
 
What's needed here is a period of societial introspection, and honest public debate, and politicians courageous enough to speak the truth. Obama came close, but then chickened out. Too bad that the next set of victims will likely be school kids or movie goers.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 29 Jul 2012 at 08:36

Quote
Quote If the police need a gun they can call a gun. For the vast majority of cases, the 'bad people' are not carrying guns, and can be delt with without guns.
In an ideal world, yes.

The UK is an ideal world?
As in, police in the UK do not carry firearms.
Quote Would you take on the job of subduing drug dealers, bikers, bar room drunks, football hooligans, and other assorted riff-raff with a gun "on call"?

Definitely. What are you going to do with a gun? It only kills, and if you kill any of these people you've failed your job. At the most, you'd need one or two officers with guns in any situation. Never all. Provided, of course, that the criminals are not armed themselves, which in the US and even Canada is far more likely to be true than over here.
Quote The strategy Afghans have employed is a simple one. Just keep killing someone whenever an opportunity arises, and hope that at some point a logical calculation will take place: the intruder will say to himself, is this remote wasteland worth endless attrition?

Not really true but whatever.
Quote This is much different from overthrowing a government. There are no doubt many in Afghanistan who would like to overthrow the government, but they cannot, even with significant military weapons, and a safe haven nearby.

They've overthrown four governments in 35 years and are pushing for a fifth so I don't really know what you are talking about there.
Quote It takes very little to shoot a few people here and there, especially if personal belief reassures one that they are not going to get hurt themselves. If being killed really means floating to heaven and partaking of seventy virgins, and other thrills, then risk becomes much more manageable.

That's propaganda, originally invented by the Byzantines if you want to know how old some of these lies are.
It's also suggests a pretty weak understanding of why men go to war.
Quote Can you really see some future American patriots behaving this way? Throwing away lives indefinitely, in the belief God will prevail?

Absolutely! Hell, I can even see Canadians doing it. You've just got to wrap it up in the right words. Can you see God-fearing Americans standing up for their rights and freedoms against tyranny?
Quote Taking on a modern military means having similar weapons,

It helps, but it isn't essential. Hizbullah is another recent example.

I'm not suggesting that a determined, unified and well equiped force can't crush a force with small arms. But it is a lot harder. In a revolution, where armies are shooting at their own people they are rarely determined or unified. But if for a moment we pretend that small arms are useless in the face of big arms, then doesn't that just beg the question why shouldn't big arms be available in some respect to civilians?

If it's not clear from arguing for & against arms in different paragraphs, I'm not suggesting that either extreme is a good idea, but I am suggesting they are logical and there are reasons you may wish to adopt such a position. Dismissing them all as gun-nuts or pacifists doesn't do the issue justice.

Originally posted by Lao Tse Lao Tse wrote:

Pinguin, they allow bazookas to be owned because it is illegal to sell its ammo

That, potentially, is a really good idea. Force ammunition to be so expensive that people are very careful about using it. You could then control guns by controlling the supply of ammunition - eg, firing ranges get it cheaper and therefore everybody goes their for sport shooting.



Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2012 at 09:06
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Quote
Quote If the police need a gun they can call a gun. For the vast majority of cases, the 'bad people' are not carrying guns, and can be delt with without guns.
In an ideal world, yes.

The UK is an ideal world?
As in, police in the UK do not carry firearms.

Perhaps the UK is a little closer to ideal than a number of other juristictions. How long this will last is uncertain. The time span between a culture exhibiting a respect for institutions in society, and displaying no interest in them at all can be unsettlingly short.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Quote Would you take on the job of subduing drug dealers, bikers, bar room drunks, football hooligans, and other assorted riff-raff with a gun "on call"?

Definitely. What are you going to do with a gun? It only kills, and if you kill any of these people you've failed your job. At the most, you'd need one or two officers with guns in any situation. Never all. Provided, of course, that the criminals are not armed themselves, which in the US and even Canada is far more likely to be true than over here.
 
The true value in weapons is not in their use, but in their deterrence. Unfortunately there are many that will not give pause for thought short of being presented with a melodramatic warning.
 
And when deterrence doesn't work, it's still not necessarily a failure. Every day there are some that act out in ways that that can easily have deadly consequences- by picking up a knife in a moment of rage, or a club, or a broken beer bottle, or by acting in some other way that is likely to kill or critically injure someone. It would be great if counselling skills, unarmed combat techniques, or just the threat of backup on the way would be enough to save the situation, but very often these are just not enough. Those threatened with death deserve the protection of the law, and those willing to threaten death or critical injury have, unfortunate as it may be, little recourse if they find themselves shot in the process.
 
Arming only some police might work, although it certainly wouldn't here, as budget constraints mean usually two, and often only one policeman attend potentially violent events.
 
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Quote The strategy Afghans have employed is a simple one. Just keep killing someone whenever an opportunity arises, and hope that at some point a logical calculation will take place: the intruder will say to himself, is this remote wasteland worth endless attrition?

Not really true but whatever.
Quote This is much different from overthrowing a government. There are no doubt many in Afghanistan who would like to overthrow the government, but they cannot, even with significant military weapons, and a safe haven nearby.

They've overthrown four governments in 35 years and are pushing for a fifth so I don't really know what you are talking about there.
 
 
 
Where Afghans have been succesful is when they have had military backing, including sophisticated weapons, a supply train, and safe rear areas. The US supplied the Afghans fighting the Soviets with all manner of weaponry, including surface to air missiles, among other items. When it came time to back another faction, they were there again, with everything up to B-52's to provide support.
 
My point here is simply that in a hugely asymetrical situation, with civilian type guns going up against a modern military, the only hope is a terrorist/guerilla type of campaign that might win by psychological attrition.
 
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Quote It takes very little to shoot a few people here and there, especially if personal belief reassures one that they are not going to get hurt themselves. If being killed really means floating to heaven and partaking of seventy virgins, and other thrills, then risk becomes much more manageable.

That's propaganda, originally invented by the Byzantines if you want to know how old some of these lies are.
It's also suggests a pretty weak understanding of why men go to war.
 
Come come Omar, the Koran offers all sorts of luxuries to those that are good boys and do the right thing. That's the whole point. One of the great attractions of religion is that it offers methods of social control: do as I say now, and in the next life you will have all manner of fun things- lovely women, buckets of wine with no hangover- trust me. Handy device, isn't it?
 
As for men going to war, the sad fact is that the reasons can be, to put it politely, insufficient to a disappointing degree. They go for adventure, to prove their manhood, to discharge personal angst, to impress friends or family, to act out some unrealistic fantasy, to gain access to some percieved group or community, because they are afraid to say no, or because they simply haven't thought about it, or because they don't have the facilties to think about it. I'm sure the list could go on.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Quote Can you really see some future American patriots behaving this way? Throwing away lives indefinitely, in the belief God will prevail?

Absolutely! Hell, I can even see Canadians doing it. You've just got to wrap it up in the right words. Can you see God-fearing Americans standing up for their rights and freedoms against tyranny?
 
 
Interesting point, but I think the reality today is that westerners will not accept mass loss of life for some religious or nationalistic enterprise. Military adventures must be pulled off by a very small group of individuals that consider themselves professionals, and even here gratuitous loss of life is not culturally acceptable.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Quote Taking on a modern military means having similar weapons,

It helps, but it isn't essential. Hizbullah is another recent example.
 
Hizbullah is a good example. They have basically committed terrorist acts, but in the recent conflict with Israel they stood their ground- didn't win, but stood their ground. They did this because they have been armed by Iran in recent years, with both numbers of weapons and the degree of technical sophistication increasing dramatically. They even took on an Israeli warship with an anti-shipping missile. Without this supply of military weapons, and also a thorough training program, they would still be hoping to blow up some schoolkids or a border guard.
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

 

I'm not suggesting that a determined, unified and well equiped force can't crush a force with small arms. But it is a lot harder. In a revolution, where armies are shooting at their own people they are rarely determined or unified. But if for a moment we pretend that small arms are useless in the face of big arms, then doesn't that just beg the question why shouldn't big arms be available in some respect to civilians?

If it's not clear from arguing for & against arms in different paragraphs, I'm not suggesting that either extreme is a good idea, but I am suggesting they are logical and there are reasons you may wish to adopt such a position. Dismissing them all as gun-nuts or pacifists doesn't do the issue justice.

Originally posted by Lao Tse Lao Tse wrote:

Pinguin, they allow bazookas to be owned because it is illegal to sell its ammo

That, potentially, is a really good idea. Force ammunition to be so expensive that people are very careful about using it. You could then control guns by controlling the supply of ammunition - eg, firing ranges get it cheaper and therefore everybody goes their for sport shooting.

Ammunition for the rich, none for the poor. This is hardly the way to overthrow the US government Omar. It would just further entrench the status quo.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2012 at 15:27
A very interesting take on the situation by the PM who brought in heavy firearms restriction laws nearly two decades ago. There is a lot here which I agree with:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/brothers-in-arms-yes-but-the-us-needs-to-get-rid-of-its-guns-20120731-23ct7.html

Quote

Brothers in arms, yes, but the US needs to get rid of its guns

Date

EARLY in 2008 Janette and I were guests of the former president, George H. W. Bush or ''41'', as he is affectionately known, at his Presidential Library in College Station, Texas. I spoke to a warm and friendly audience of more than 300 who enthusiastically reacted until, in answer to a request to nominate the proudest actions of the Australian government I had led for almost 12 years, I included the national gun control laws enacted after the Port Arthur massacre in April 1996.

Having applauded my references to the liberation of East Timor, leaving Australia debt free, presiding over a large reduction in unemployment and standing beside the US in the global fight against terrorism, there was an audible gasp of amazement at my expressing pride in what Australia had done to limit the use of guns.

I had been given a sharp reminder that, despite the many things we have in common with our American friends, there is a huge cultural divide when it comes to the free availability of firearms.

Just under two weeks ago, my wife and I were in Dallas, Texas, when the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, took place. The responses of President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, his presumed Republican opponent, were as predictable as they were disappointing. While expressing sorrow at such a loss of life, both quickly said that they supported the Second Amendment to the US constitution: long regarded as providing an extensive right for Americans to bear arms.

Advertisement

The Second Amendment, crafted in the immediate post-revolutionary years, is more than 200 years old and was designed to protect the right of local communities to raise and maintain militia for use against external threats (including the newly formed national government!). It bears no relationship at all to the circumstances of everyday life in America today. Yet there is a near religious fervour about protecting the right of Americans to have their guns - and plenty of them.

In this respect it is worth noting that the local police claim that James Holmes, the man now formally charged over the Aurora shootings, had in his possession an AR15 assault rifle (similar to one used by Martin Bryant at Port Arthur), a shotgun and two Glock handguns and 6000 rounds of ammunition. All had been legally obtained.

Obama and Romney are both highly intelligent, decent men who care deeply about the safety of Americans. Yet such is the strength of the pro-gun culture in their country that neither felt able to use the Aurora tragedy as a reason to start a serious debate on gun control.

There is more to this than merely the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association and the proximity of the November presidential election. It is hard to believe that their reaction would have been any different if the murders in Aurora had taken place immediately after the election of either Obama or Romney. So deeply embedded is the gun culture of the US, that millions of law-abiding, Americans truly believe that it is safer to own a gun, based on the chilling logic that because there are so many guns in circulation, one's own weapon is needed for self-protection. To put it another way, the situation is so far gone there can be no turning back.

The murder rate in the US is roughly four times that in each of Australia, New Zealand, and Britain. Even the most diehard supporter of guns must concede that America's lax firearms laws are a major part of the explanation for such a disparity.

On April 28, 1996, Bryant, using two weapons, killed 35 people in Tasmania. It was, at that time, the largest number of people who had died in a single series of incidents at the hands of one person.

The national gun control laws delivered by the Howard government, following this tragedy received bipartisan support. They, nonetheless, caused internal difficulties for some of my then National Party colleagues. Tim Fischer and John Anderson, then leader and deputy leader of the National Party federally, as well as Rob Borbidge, then National Party premier of Queensland, courageously faced down opponents in their own ranks to support a measure they knew to be in the national interest. Many believed, in the months that followed, that hostility towards these gun laws played a role in the emergence of Pauline Hanson's One Nation cause.

These national gun laws have proven beneficial. Research published in 2010 in the American Journal of Law and Economics found that firearm homicides, in Australia, dropped 59 per cent between 1995 and 2006. There was no offsetting increase in non-firearm-related murders. Researchers at Harvard University in 2011 revealed that in the 18 years prior to the 1996 Australian laws, there were 13 gun massacres (four or more fatalities) in Australia, resulting in 102 deaths. There have been none in that category since the Port Arthur laws.

A key component of the 1996 measure, which banned the sale, importation and possession of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, was a national buy-back scheme involving the compulsory forfeiture of newly illegal weapons. Between 1996 and 1998 more than 700,000 guns were removed and destroyed. This was one-fifth of Australia's estimated stock of firearms. The equivalent in the US would have been 40 million guns. Australia's action remains one of the largest destructions of civilian firearms.

Australia is a safer country as a result of what was done in 1996. It will be the continuing responsibility of current and future federal and state governments to ensure the effectiveness of those anti-gun laws is never weakened. The US is a country for which I have much affection. There are many American traits which we Australians could well emulate to our great benefit. But when it comes to guns we have been right to take a radically different path.

John Howard was prime minister from 1996 to 2007.





Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2012 at 15:50
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Quote
Quote
Malaysia and Singapore take the position that if you are in possesion of a gun, you must be intending to use it. Therefore, the punishment for having a gun is the death penalty. This is quite logical and very effective.

And so strict laws do have an effect?

I don't have statistics, but I believe Singapore has the lowest level of gun crime anywhere in the world.
 
Then maybe they are doing something right.


As one who disapproves of the application of the death penalty in almost all modern cases, I was a bit shocked to read that last bit. I think that comment bears a bit more thought, Captain Vancouver, and I'm fairly certain that you'd agree with me if you'd give it a second look. I understand the frustration that surrounds the issue of gun ownership, but I don't think that seeking to apply the death penalty to gun owners is any sort of answer. Would you please clarify?

-Akolouthos, Council Chairman


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2012 at 18:05
Citizens in the US don't have a right to bear arms, only militias do - apparently.  heard that on the radio the other night.

-------------
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2012 at 19:00
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Citizens in the US don't have a right to bear arms, only militias do - apparently.  heard that on the radio the other night.
 
There is actually a debate over the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Many gun-control advocates advance an argument running along those lines. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 31 Jul 2012 at 20:12
If I am not mistaken the English Bill of Rights (1688) was the one that set the precedent for gun rights for all free Englishmen. The 2nd amendment was built on this and the right to bear arms was always understood to mean individual arms.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2012 at 03:26
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Quote
Quote
Malaysia and Singapore take the position that if you are in possesion of a gun, you must be intending to use it. Therefore, the punishment for having a gun is the death penalty. This is quite logical and very effective.

And so strict laws do have an effect?

I don't have statistics, but I believe Singapore has the lowest level of gun crime anywhere in the world.
 
Then maybe they are doing something right.


As one who disapproves of the application of the death penalty in almost all modern cases, I was a bit shocked to read that last bit. I think that comment bears a bit more thought, Captain Vancouver, and I'm fairly certain that you'd agree with me if you'd give it a second look. I understand the frustration that surrounds the issue of gun ownership, but I don't think that seeking to apply the death penalty to gun owners is any sort of answer. Would you please clarify?

-Akolouthos, Council Chairman
 
To be honest here Mr A, I hadn't taken a long look at the laws in Malasysia and Singapore. A quick scan of the net seemed to indicate that in Malaysia at least, the death penalty is only applied to those discharging a gun during the commission of a crime. Pretty harsh by western standards yes, but we are talking about those that are murderers or at least willing and potential murderers, not simply gun owners. I wouldn't go that far myself, but on the other hand I think the combat zone mentality in the US is completely out of touch with reality.


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2012 at 03:42
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Quote
Quote
Malaysia and Singapore take the position that if you are in possesion of a gun, you must be intending to use it. Therefore, the punishment for having a gun is the death penalty. This is quite logical and very effective.

And so strict laws do have an effect?

I don't have statistics, but I believe Singapore has the lowest level of gun crime anywhere in the world.
 
Then maybe they are doing something right.


As one who disapproves of the application of the death penalty in almost all modern cases, I was a bit shocked to read that last bit. I think that comment bears a bit more thought, Captain Vancouver, and I'm fairly certain that you'd agree with me if you'd give it a second look. I understand the frustration that surrounds the issue of gun ownership, but I don't think that seeking to apply the death penalty to gun owners is any sort of answer. Would you please clarify?

-Akolouthos, Council Chairman
 
To be honest here Mr A, I hadn't taken a long look at the laws in Malasysia and Singapore. A quick scan of the net seemed to indicate that in Malaysia at least, the death penalty is only applied to those discharging a gun during the commission of a crime. Pretty harsh by western standards yes, but we are talking about those that are murderers or at least willing and potential murderers, not simply gun owners. I wouldn't go that far myself, but on the other hand I think the combat zone mentality in the US is completely out of touch with reality.
 
Gotcha, and you have put my mind at ease. All I knew about the laws of Malaysia and Singapore was what was in the thread, so you can understand my initial reaction. I generally wouldn't support the death penalty in murder cases either, but those who do are at least embracing an understandable position.
 
Thanks for getting back with me so soon, Captain Vancouver; hope all is well with you. Smile
 
-Akolouthos, Council Chairman


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2012 at 03:55
The second amendment is hazy because the topic was not an issue at the time. A militia made sense- it had just worked fairly well for the revolutionaries- and anyway other countries had similar arrangements. Guns in individuals possession also made sense. Many at the time lived in remote areas, and needed guns for protection, or for hunting. There was no police force as we know it today, and urban living was for the minority. Why spell out in excruciating detail what was obvious?
 
The problem is, it is not at all obvious why a university student in Salt Lake City today needs a gun to attend classes, and why, if we are to take the NRA seriously, his or her Prof also would be wise to have one tucked into his belt. This is a long, long way from farmers living in a near wilderness, or a flegling state trying to organize some sort of defensive measure. The second amendment is a 230 year old document that has been hijacked in the most absurd fashion by those with soaring testosterone levels, those suffering from intellectual apathy, and those with political motivation.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2012 at 15:29
With regard to the death penalty for crimes, the present situation in the US allows anyone to convict, sentence and execute a trespasser.

-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2012 at 22:01
After reading some of the crap that's been written in this forum regards "Guns", my opinion of the anti gun crowd remains the same, or even reinforced. You guys just don't get it. What is it about "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"  is it that you guys don't get? Europeans can have guns....if you're one of the elite. God blessed America, I do love this country so.

-------------
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.


Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2012 at 22:04
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

With regard to the death penalty for crimes, the present situation in the US allows anyone to convict, sentence and execute a trespasser.

That's correct Graham. It's so nice to start off with you again on an agreeable note sir. LOL


-------------
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.


Posted By: Buckskins
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2012 at 22:15
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Citizens in the US don't have a right to bear arms, only militias do - apparently.  heard that on the radio the other night.
 
There is actually a debate over the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Many gun-control advocates advance an argument running along those lines. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
 
-Akolouthos

There is no debate, and it was turned out many years ago by our Founding Fathers.
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. 

Anyone of consequence that runs on a platform of gun control best not quit their day job.




-------------
May you live as long as you want to,
and may you want to as long as you live.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 20 Dec 2017 at 00:21
The gun lobby in the US is strong, that means that it doesn't have to be right, but can muscle their way through any issues that might come up.  That is how I interpret "Anyone of consequence that runs on a platform of gun control best not quit their day job."  Let us not bother to examine what they think or advocate, the gun lobby will save us the time thinking, by shutting them down, unheard.

I don't necessarily have a problem with firearms, I do find it ironic though that you get people who can't afford a decent car or a house payment, but they can afford an HK assault rifle, or half a dozen handguns.  On the one hand they are ready for the government and its onslaught to "take away their guns."  On the other hand, they read for the government, and the welfare check in the mail.  What would happen if they sold their guns, and paid the bills instead?  But, financial independence is not as macho, as having a handgun.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 20 Dec 2017 at 01:13
Unfortunately the USA has lost control of firearm ownership. The freedom with which citizens can legally acquire anything from a simple hand gun to a fully automatic Assault Rifle is stunning in it's madness. http://www.worldhistoria.com/new_reply_form.asp?TID=127694&PN=2&TR=40" rel="nofollow - http://www.worldhistoria.com/new_reply_form.asp?TID=127694&PN=2&TR=40" width="1px" height="1px" style="display: none;">

The other side of the coin, unlawful firearm posession/ownership is a great unknown. Who knows what some people have stashed away in their houses, Anti-Tank weapons? Surface to Air Missile launchers? Who knows? Certainly not the ATF or any other arm of government.

But with a populaton of what, some 350 million people to police, lawenforcement agencies have a snowflakes chance in hell of controlling weapons sales and possession.

What the government does have the abiity to do, is tighten it's security on military armouries so that the theft and sale of military weapons and other equipment is stopped.




-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net