Four more years!

dscott8 wrote:The most fundamental right in a free society is the right to defend yourself. If you can't fight back against thugs, you have anarchy. If you can't fight back against oppressive governments, you have tyranny. If you can't fight back against foreign invaders, you have no country anyomre. All of the other rights -- freedeom of speech and conscience, freedom to worship as you please or not at all, etc. -- must be defended, because there will always be someone who wants to take them from you.

The right to self-defense is meaningless without the tools to exercise it. Those who ignore rights and laws will have weapons regardless of any laws against them, so laws banning weapons are impractical. They do not work. How can you enforce them? With the same methods that have kept our streets free of illegal drugs for decades?

I live in the state of Florida in the USA. I know very few people who do not own a firearm, and I'd say that probably 60 - 70% of my acquaintances have concealed weapons permits. Aside from drug and gang related stuff (bad guys versus bad guys), there is very little violent crime against the person here, because there is a huge chance that the bad guy will wind up looking down the barrel of a gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen who is guaranteed by law the right to put a bulllet through him. This is called deterrence. It works, and in the few cases where the bad guy is too stupid to be deterred, it is he, not the law-abiding citizen, who gets shot.

A win-win situation, if you ask me.

As someone brought up with a very differet perspective, your view just doesn't make sense to me. The fact that guns are very tightly controlled in my country doesn't mean I live in an anarchic, tyrannical non-country. It is very rare for me to even see a gun (as even the police don't normally have them).

I can see many good arguments for the legality of guns (mostly on the practial side - hunting etc). But to me two of the biggest I so often hear from Americans just don't stand up. Firstly, the crime one - ie 'if we outlaw guns then the only people with them will be criminals and we'll have just increased the potential victim pool', just doesn't hold up when you look at international crime rates vs gun availability. Secondly, the defense against government tyranny doesn't work for me either. It may have used to make sense when we were talking about muskets, but in the modern day it just wouldn't work. In a modern-day coup/revolution in a first-world country it wouldn't matter. It would all come down to which side the military came down on. If they joined the side of the revolutionaries then it wouldn't matter, if they joined on the side of the state then it still wouldn't matter how many assault rifles or antique machine guns the civilians had. The whole 'armed citizenry keeps the government in check' thing doesn't work unless that citizenry has access to SAMs, tanks, drones etc.

JimHacker wrote:Secondly, the defense against government tyranny doesn't work for me either. It may have used to make sense when we were talking about muskets, but in the modern day it just wouldn't work. In a modern-day coup/revolution in a first-world country it wouldn't matter. It would all come down to which side the military came down on. If they joined the side of the revolutionaries then it wouldn't matter, if they joined on the side of the state then it still wouldn't matter how many assault rifles or antique machine guns the civilians had. The whole 'armed citizenry keeps the government in check' thing doesn't work unless that citizenry has access to SAMs, tanks, drones etc.

It is the principle of the matter. It doesn't matter if the weapons are ineffective. It is a constant reminder to our current government (whoever is in power) that our nation's foundation was established in a revolution against a government that we had felt no longer represented our interests.

Spacekiwi wrote:I don't disagre with the right to bear arms, and indeed, would bear them myself if need be. however i do find it interesting in what Americans seem to consider essential guns. I saw some stuff on a gun show a while back, and one guy was offering rocket launchers and military assault rifles, as well as submachine guns with 60 round mags. Another was selling scoped pistols and night vision 50 cal sniper rifles.

As someone who (if I had the money) would gladly be collecting vintage weapons (WW1, WW2, Vietnam) as part of a collection and not intended to be used, I can see where these are logical purchases for collectors to make. Heck if I could get a tank I'd do it too! Maybe start a museum somewhere. Regardless, when we see awful things happen I don't believe they generally include military-grade heavy weapons. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. And no, an assault rifle is not a military-grade heavy weapon like a machinegun or rocket launcher is.

The whole 'armed citizenry keeps the government in check' thing doesn't work unless that citizenry has access to SAMs, tanks, drones etc.

Actually it is possible though extraordinarily difficult. If we all woke up one morning and a Coup had taken place. The arms owned by the citizenry would become the basis for an armed insurgency. Key figures could be shot from somewhat of a distance with hunting rifles. Handguns could be used for closer range assaults. IEDs built could reduce the tank advantage etc. This all could be organized by the ex-military out there. Since the US has a volunteer army there are a large number of people with very good military training who have decided not to go the career route. And of course over time the citizenry would gain access to SAMs, tanks etc through commandeering government equipment, defectors from the military (even if you somehow managed to get all the senior brass on board, do you really think that all of the rest of the military is going to follow orders in a situation like this???), purchasing them from Mexico etc. As in every situation where there is such a force imbalance the casualties would be enormous. But numbers do matter and there are a LOT of armed citizens.

For those who doubt, take a look at Syria. As the insurection obtained more guns, the tide turned against the current regime. Up until very lately, they had a strangle hold on heavy weapons. Once that hold was broken and the rebels started getting their own, things went down-hill fast for the incumbents. An armed, pissed population is hard to resist.

Darman wrote:

JimHacker wrote:Secondly, the defense against government tyranny doesn't work for me either. It may have used to make sense when we were talking about muskets, but in the modern day it just wouldn't work. In a modern-day coup/revolution in a first-world country it wouldn't matter. It would all come down to which side the military came down on. If they joined the side of the revolutionaries then it wouldn't matter, if they joined on the side of the state then it still wouldn't matter how many assault rifles or antique machine guns the civilians had. The whole 'armed citizenry keeps the government in check' thing doesn't work unless that citizenry has access to SAMs, tanks, drones etc.

It is the principle of the matter. It doesn't matter if the weapons are ineffective. It is a constant reminder to our current government (whoever is in power) that our nation's foundation was established in a revolution against a government that we had felt no longer represented our interests.

Spacekiwi wrote:I don't disagre with the right to bear arms, and indeed, would bear them myself if need be. however i do find it interesting in what Americans seem to consider essential guns. I saw some stuff on a gun show a while back, and one guy was offering rocket launchers and military assault rifles, as well as submachine guns with 60 round mags. Another was selling scoped pistols and night vision 50 cal sniper rifles.

As someone who (if I had the money) would gladly be collecting vintage weapons (WW1, WW2, Vietnam) as part of a collection and not intended to be used, I can see where these are logical purchases for collectors to make. Heck if I could get a tank I'd do it too! Maybe start a museum somewhere. Regardless, when we see awful things happen I don't believe they generally include military-grade heavy weapons. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. And no, an assault rifle is not a military-grade heavy weapon like a machinegun or rocket launcher is.

It wasn't a collectors fair however. he was selling at a hunting show, and claiming the pistols were great for vermin hunting, and the night vision scoped .50 was for hunting 'bear'. i put the quote marks because of how he said it, and the way in which he said it, gave the impression of someone who would prefer the cops not take too close a look at what he was doing. same with the rocket launcher etc. they were all apparently in full working order, and several came with ammo. yes you have the right to bear arms, and yes you as a country do, but you seem to take an unhealthy interest overall. i fail to see how you can put a submachine gun into general use as a run of the mill civilian, and while a assualt rifle is not a military heavy grade weapon, its probably at least a medium, especially as it has fewer legitimate uses than a pistol or normal bolt or semi auto rifle. and it seems to be that a lot of the gun massacres recently seem to include military assualt rifles, including the tragedy in conneticut, the batman movie shootings, and many others.

this website (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map) has a chart partway down looking at massacres. apparently, around half used a assualt weapon. handguns are used more, but i suspect that is due to price, concealability, ease of relaod and portability.

Now looking at the numbers, America does have less gun deaths per million then New Zealanad, but i would point out this. we haven't had a full on mass murderer since the 90's, in a town called Aramoana. Theres a movie called out of the blue about it, and the movie was shaped by the family of the survivors, so it is very accurrate. of particular note is the fact it could have been stopped sooner, except for a requirement of police at the time to call upon an offender, even armed, twice to surrender first, even if there was risk of death. now they can shoot if there is risk to life, so that wont happen again. However, we still have a few stupid loopholes in our laws that allow easy theft of guns, and for guns to go 'missing' quite easily. and if the military comes down on the side of the government, it will be a long time before the public can win against the government, as shown by the arab spring, despite a liberal ownership of guns in the middle east.


The biggest problem though with guns is probably the mindset. i have seen videos of parents teaching children to shoot, and are effectively teaching their children that guns are normal and toys. there is also the fact that american culture seems to idolise guns and the use of them on other people as a position to be admired. makes you wonder....


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
its not paranoia if its justified...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have a number of guns, legally registered and safely stored, so am not anti gun as such. However one obscure item in the news reporting of this latest tragedy that stunned me was the report of how well the brave teachers implimented the rehearsed plan for evacuation of students in the event of such an atrocity happening. I'm willing to bet that no school in a normal suburb in countries such as the UK, New Zealand or Australia would have even considered the possible need for such a plan, let alone practiced it.
What sort of society sees the need to preplan how to cope with a gun attack in a junior school?

Daryl wrote:I have a number of guns, legally registered and safely stored, so am not anti gun as such. However one obscure item in the news reporting of this latest tragedy that stunned me was the report of how well the brave teachers implimented the rehearsed plan for evacuation of students in the event of such an atrocity happening. I'm willing to bet that no school in a normal suburb in countries such as the UK, New Zealand or Australia would have even considered the possible need for such a plan, let alone practiced it.
What sort of society sees the need to preplan how to cope with a gun attack in a junior school?

we dont practise them much at primary schools as such as to avoid disturbing the kids, however, our teachers have training for pretty nuch every disaster. gun toting comes under the same catergory as a person with a bomb/bomb threat, or meee armed offender. the curtains are to be closed, and the kids collected in the centre of the room and made to lie down, while being told its a game. the doors and windows are then barricaded and until an all clear is given by the police or head staff, the teachers dont let anyone out or near the windows or door. at high school, similar, but the real reason is told, and the kids help barricade, then return to the centre of the room, with the same all clear warning. come to think of it, same emergency hand book used by the teachers is at my university as well. and i know about the plans because i was a prefect, and had to help the teachers in drills, and so had to read the booklet.


we may not have them, but we still prepare as if someone is about to use them on us.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
its not paranoia if its justified...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good points and I should have been more specific. All our government buildings and those belonging to large corporations have fire escape plans, natural disaster and bomb threat plans; however what I read was that this US school had a specific "what to do if an armed maniac appears" type plan. Great that they did as it undoubtly saved lives.
Saw a photo of one of the victims today - blonde and 6 yr old, description fits a grand daughter of mine & looks similar. Heart wrenching.

My high school had a plan in place to deal with an armed intruder. Lock and barricade the doors and hide out of sight-line from the doors. One of the teachers (also a softball coach) had also decided to arm her class with softball bats she kept in her classroom. We all treated it as a great joke, albeit with serious undertones. Its not a bad plan to have because honestly, how often does it happen? Not often at all. But better to have the plan and never use it. We have plans for fires, gas leaks, nuclear attacks, earthquakes, pretty much everything else under the sun. The only plan ever practiced is a fire drill.

Darman wrote:My high school had a plan in place to deal with an armed intruder. Lock and barricade the doors and hide out of sight-line from the doors. One of the teachers (also a softball coach) had also decided to arm her class with softball bats she kept in her classroom. We all treated it as a great joke, albeit with serious undertones. Its not a bad plan to have because honestly, how often does it happen? Not often at all. But better to have the plan and never use it. We have plans for fires, gas leaks, nuclear attacks, earthquakes, pretty much everything else under the sun. The only plan ever practiced is a fire drill.

The basics of the fire drill actually seem to cover most of the other disasters on the emergency checklist book from what i have seen. a big rule on each page is if you are reading this, you are now in charge. put on the accompanying marshall hat, and start saving your ass, and the ass of everyone around you, or words to that effect. makes it simple and easy to work through al the disasters, especially as there are 3 in each lecture hall, one in each seminar room, and several in the foyers and halls with big signs over them and right next to the fire fighting kit, so in an emergency, anyone can take charge just by following the instructions. its almost fool proof.


what i find interesting about the current gun controversy is how the republicans are saying that more guns would have stopped him earlier if one of the teachers or the principal could have shot him. I can see one bog problem with this straight away. Yes, they could have shot him, if they had had the chance, but if the staff had stopped him after the first classroom, when they heard the shots, that still leaves the first few people dead. the republican stance is that of a reaction to the crime, not a preventative. No matter how many people are armed, the first few deaths will always occur in this scenario as when the killer opens fire, they are prepared, and their guns are ready. the general people surrounding them wont be, and the first reaction will automatically be look for cover,then shoot back, allowing the killer more time. In contrast, the democrats plans for tightening up gun rules seem to be a more active/preventative approach, because by increasing the controls on guns, you should be able to stop the killers getting guns and ammo in the first place. and those that they do get will be less able to be used for massacres, due to the fact that pistols and rifles have shorter ranges than assualt rifles, and normal rifles have a slower rate of fire, preventing spray and pray.


Also, my dad as a professional policeman, with over 15 years service, and who has bravery certificates for dealing with armed offenders while unarmed, pointed this out to me earlier today. the excepted rate of hits, by a professional who trains a lot with a pistol, like a cop, is around 50%. Of those shots, 50% of those that hit can be expected to hit in such a way as to incapacitate, for an incapacitation rate of 25% from a person whose job it is to do this correctly, and has been trained to use a mindset to accept that they are about to kill someone. the expected rate of a trained but normal person who uses a pistol is expected is about half that of a police man, so a civilian might incapacitate with one shot in a mag of 8. However, while the miss rate is a lot lower with a rifle, the incapacitation rates are still a lot lower for the trained normal person with a rifle, as they still dont have the mindset and training.

thoughts?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
its not paranoia if its justified...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~