It seems that the same idea has indeed gone out like a clarion call from many watchtowers and mountain tops and it must be a great time to be in the gun store business in the good ol’ U.S. of A.
(joyous tip of the hat to Freedom Sight for the link)
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
A call to arms: answeredSeptember 15th, 2004 |
 78 comments to A call to arms: answered |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Found your blog while doing some political research – keep up the great work! You talk about things that mainstream media doesn’t, and I wish more people would pay attention.
Thought you might be interested in this website:
http://www.renegadetalkradio.com
It’s an internet-only talk web broadcast with no FCC regulation – which means the ultimate in free speech. Discusses news, entertainment, social issues and politics, and is very no-holds-barred. I’d love it if you would take a listen and let me know what you think!
What a fantastic front page! Not only does it show an assault weapon being purchased and carried out by an genial looking old man who looks about as unthreatening and law abiding as possible; it also juxtaposes this with “Putin power grab” right above it – with the implied warning that the only way to resist Putin-style authoritarian tyranny is for citizen OAPs to possess hardcore assault weapons. Superb stuff, this really puts the British press to shame! When can I emigrate?
All nice and well, but not exactly practical.
For personal security a handgun is the best bet. As for ‘resisting tyranny’, please pull the other one, its got bells on it.
well bob, in croatia we found much use for private weapons when war came, particularly in early days of break free from yugo-communism, so pull the other one, it has a a grenade on it 😛
Bob wrote – “For personal security a handgun is the best bet.”
You must be kidding. Most handguns simply aren’t powerful enough to guarantee an immediate kill against an intruder in your own home, let alone multiple assailants. A shotgun or wieldy SMG such as an MP5 is the minimum necessary to have confidence in being able to repel the threat.
Imagine trying to defend a mansion during the LA riots against a gang of marauding street thugs armed with Tec-9s. Anything short of a fully automatic machine gun (and preferably a few grenades) would have been wholly inadequate. What use would a handgun be in such circumstances? Even the police admitted they could not protect people, for a whole 4 days.
Some years ago, when our children were still children, my wife and I had to come up with a defense plan for our home. We lived outside Houston, had just had our office burgled and thought we had better consider what to do if next time it was our domicile. It became abundantly clear that the only function of the police department was to take a report afterwards and certify the loss for the insurance company. As far as protection – forget it.
There are two requirements that any responsible firearm user must consider:
1. You must make sure you incapacitate your opponent. Most of the time this means you must kill him – quickly, ruthlessly and certainly. If you are not mentally prepared to do this, you have no business with a gun. Get a big dog or a baseball bat and good luck to you.
2. You must make equally sure that you do not injure or kill anyone else. Bullets keep going after they leave the muzzle. Only sheetrock or, at best, brick veneer stands between the bullet and your wife, your children or your neighbor. Furthermore, in a surprise firefight, you are not going to have time to consider what is behind your target as you would on a range. If you can’t be sure you will not hit an innocent, you also have no business with a gun.
Our solution was a couple of 12 gauge pump shotguns loaded with heavy buckshot. We tried them on some sheetrock and found that while a worse case might result in some “collateral damage”, it would likely not be fatal. Shotguns have the added advantages of forgiving a hurried aim and insufficient practice, huge noise and blast effect and truely fearsome wounds for the victim on your side of the sheetrock.
As it turned out, they also have a great psychological effect. Our one encounter with a wouldbe intruder ended when, after our hearing his efforts to pry our door, he heard us rack one of the shotguns. The next thing we heard was running footsteps quickly receding in the distance.
Handguns are great in an emergency (the bad guy(s) is already in your bedroom, or has surprised you at the ATM machine. Rifles (assault and otherwise) have their place for self defense (just ask the civilians of Beslan) and as a deterent to too enthusiastic government, but for urban home defense, give me a shotgun.
I have favored pumps in the past, because of their reliability and the unreliability of semi-autos. Now that the law has changed, I want to investigate a semi-auto shotgun that I saw in a magazine a couple of years ago. It was a Kalishnakov action in 10 and 12 guage. I’ve forgotten the manufacturer so I would be grateful if anyone could enlighten me.
(By the way, another part of our defense plan was a sort of battle drill in which the kids got on the floor or in a bathtub when they realized there was trouble.)
Is this the shotgun you’re talking about?
Despite the “assault weapons ban”, these have been on sale in the United States for some time (e.x. here). I’ve seen them at a few gun shows.
Doug:
Was the Saiga what you were thinking of? I think there’s some legal issues with versions of it based on magazine capacity and/or barrel length, so you may have to check with the ATF and make sure you aren’t getting a “Class III Destructive Device”.
You’re all fucking nuts! More guns – that’s exactly what the world needs….. harp on about your libertarian freedoms all you like – but they won’t do you much good when you’re dead
What a wonderful picture! Hooray America!
Yep that’s the one! Thanks for the quick answer and the great links. Anybody know if these are any more reliable than other semi-auto shotguns?
On second thought, after reading John Sane’s comment, it might be best to just order one tomorrow morning at the nearest gun store on my way into work and find out for myself. Perry’s correct. With people like Sane able to vote too, we ought to take advantage of the repeal early and often.
Doug,
In my humble opinion, when it comes to killing trolls invading your home, the most reliable semi-automatic shotgun money can buy is the Benelli M series (M1, M3, M4, etc.).
See http://www.benelliusa.com/firearms/m4.tpl for more information.
Felix-
Thanks. I had looked at the Benellis and have to admit that they are impressive. I still have doubts about gas operated semi-auto shotguns. The amount of debris in a shotgun shell detonation has got to be a problem when designing close tolerance gas ports and pistons.
I like the US military imprimatur on weapons as a general rule. It certainly is valid for the .45 and the Garands. I think it was a little less so for the M-16. I’m just not that certain for gas operated shotguns. My thought about the AK type action is that, since it can apparently be manufactured in all kinds of primitive factories, it is probably a semi-auto that works with loose parts and sloppy tolerances. Although that sounds bad, it can be the recipe for a reliable weapon. The finely made Luger was an American pistol too, but it lost out to the loose, sloppy, reliable Colt that kept firing after being dropped in mud and sand.
Have you tried the Benelli? Is their reliability comparable to a pump?
“You’re all fucking nuts! More guns – that’s exactly what the world needs….. ”
Admttedly, I’m taking this out of context. However he may have written truer than he knew.
I wonder how many world troublespots could be cleared up with a liberal application of cheap, reliable shotguns and shells. Take the genocide in the Sudan, for an example. While I welcome Colin Powell’s straight talk on the situation, I keep wondering what would happen if the US would simply supply each of the persecuted heads of families with a shotgun and a box of shells. These are not very good offensive weapons because their range does not even begin to approach that of a rifle. So no one could seriously accuse us of ‘destabilizing’ the country. But as defensive weapons, especially against official banditry, shotguns are without peer.
Or during the Ruanda genocide – if the same amount of money that was spent on UN politiking and pointless seas of ink had been put into arming the victims; What horrors might they have been spared?
That fellow in the grey shirt DOES seem to be bucking for a Darwin award, don’t you think?
Meanwhile, California –which has a version of the AWB that’s even stricter than the just-expired Federal one–just passed a bill outlawing the .50 caliber bolt-action rifle.
This is a bolt-action rifle that has never been used in a crime in its 80-odd year existence (too expensive, awkward, etc.), yet somehow is evil enough to be deserving of banishment.
Do you feel safe now?
While I’d like to have the choice not to have a gun, I do think John Sane has a point. I enjoyed Charlton Heston in The Omega Man too, but there is an unhealthy element of violent fantasy in a lot of libertarian and quasi-libertarian gun-love.
E.g. – Cobden’s “Imagine trying to defend a mansion during the LA riots […]” that’s an image that merits some unpicking. Why a mansion, specifically? How many mansions (as opposed to neighbourhood covenience stores) were actually sacked in the LA riots (or are even within several miles of their centre)? And why the LA Riots, rather than a group of freelance robbers or government agents? Is the subtext of communal conflict important?
My ideal of a free society is definitely not the war of all against all. But I fear that’s not true for some, at least, of my comrades in arms.
I’m 58. I have never been burgled, never been mugged, never had my car stolen. In that time I have lived in London and other cities in the UK as well as very rural areas, I’ve walked around New York, Paris and Amsterdam at 2.00 – 3.00 am in the morning.
In all that time, the only place I’ve ever really felt unsafe was a small town in Arizona, where the diner I stopped at seemed to be populated by people with same the slightly deranged attitude to weaponry that turns up here from time to time and the cops looked like Boss Hogg.
I live in Newcastle and I have been raped once (more if you include my ex-husband but he doesn’t seem to count), mugged three times and my place broken into so many times I have lost count so I do not bother buying stuff anymore. I keep a baseball bat next to my bed and I carry a knife with me at all times, for which *I* can be arrested for trying to defend myself. Hey Ian, fuck you.
Doug Collins wrote:
“Thanks. I had looked at the Benellis and have to admit that they are impressive. I still have doubts about gas operated semi-auto shotguns. The amount of debris in a shotgun shell detonation has got to be a problem when designing close tolerance gas ports and pistons.”
You doubts are understandable, but unfounded. The thing about modern gas-operated semi-automatic shitguns is that they really don’t use close-tolerance ports, pistons, etc. Whether it’s a venerable design like the Remington 1100 series, or more modern thinking like the Beretta and Benelli designs, all use large-capacity expansion chambers with (relatively) sloppy tolerances and specific self-cleaning features.
These shotguns will reliably fire thousands of rounds without any attention to the gas system whatever. The Remington design has been in mass-production for over 40 years and has a well-earned reputation for sterling reliability.
llater,
llamas
Did I really type ‘sh*tguns’, above? My bad, an honest mistake, the ‘i’ is next to the ‘o’ and I didn’t mean to type that. No offense intended.
But hey, maybe they can use me at CBS as a typing expert!
llater,
llamas
If the weapon is pointed at you, then maybe that’s a good description of it 🙂
As for the venerable Ian, well sir, you’ve obviously shunned the SAS’ advice to cultivate awareness in all situations. London’s NOT a safe city at night in some parts. Hell, there’s areas of Dublin city I wouldn’t walk through the dark side of 8pm.
You were FAR safer with the gun toters around you. That you don’t realize that doesn’t change that reality one bit.
“Hey Ian, fuck you”
Molly, I like your style!
Hmm…… can we expect a turn-round in the stupid gun laws when the majority of people have been burgled/assaulted? It is quite easy to think that the police are as active in protecting the individual as they are in checking the individual’s driving, so long as that protection isn’t called upon. Or am I too cynical? Are there any commentators who can say “Well, I have been burgled lots of times and my car stolen so often that my premiums are crippling, but hey, these people are the real victims of society! It isn’t really their fault that they are forced to steal! I will happily help them carry away my TV!”.
Ok, over-doing it there, I admit. But has anyone out there been robbed a few times and maintained their ‘no to self defence’ viewpoint?
There is a common misconception that shotguns are more forgiving of poor aim than handguns or rifles.
While this may be true at longer ranges (20+ yards, where the pattern will spread and lose lethality on robust targets such as people), it is not true at “indoor” ranges of 5 yards or less. At 5 yards, a shotgun’s pellets have not had time to spread appreciably, and will likely all hit in a very dense pattern (not necessarily a bad thing!) that is at most a few inches across. To hit your target with a shotgun at indoor ranges, you have to be just as careful with your aim.
It might interest some of the anti-gun loons above that the state my parents live in has a very low crime-rate. Maine also has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the US. You think there might be link? Criminals are like terrorists, keen on soft targets. A well-armed populace is a well-protected one.
RC Dean wrote:
‘While this may be true at longer ranges (20+ yards, where the pattern will spread and lose lethality on robust targets such as people), it is not true at “indoor” ranges of 5 yards or less. At 5 yards, a shotgun’s pellets have not had time to spread appreciably, and will likely all hit in a very dense pattern (not necessarily a bad thing!) that is at most a few inches across.”
With all due respect – not so.
Here’s a primer on forensic details of GSW’s, from the University of Dundee. Details of shotgun wounds and ranges are a ways down the page.
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/forensicmedicine/llb/gunshot.htm#Shotgun%20Wounds
From my own experience, 12 gauge buckshot (doesn’t matter what size) at about 15 feet from a short cylinder barrel makes a pattern about 18″ wide. Birdshot tends to make slightly smaller patterns at this range.
llater,
llamas
Probably not, and if there is it will not necessarily be the most significant factor.
Some other cultures with widespread gun ownership have low crime rates, some have astronomical crime rates, and some cultures with low ownership rates also have low crime rates. There is more to it than simply private citizens owning guns.
I’m not an anti-gun loon, BTW. I see no reason why people should not be allowed to own guns, either for sport, professional use or self-defence. I don’t, however, understand why the hell anyone would want a semi-automatic rifle, or still less a machine gun, for self-defence.
EG
Then it appears all the militaries and special ops teams (not to mention LEO and SWAT) in the world know something you don’t.
You may not agree with the idea but it is not hard to understand at all. It is simply easier for most people to hit a person with an auto-loading rifle or shotgun, other than at VERY short range, than it is to hit them with a handgun (which requires far more training to be effective with). It is also more likely per hit on the intruder that they will go down before they can strike you with whatever weapon they may have (be it a knife, club or firearm).
When you are fighting for your life and limb, it behooves you to use the best weapon available, rather than just using ones which cause less dyspepsia for statists. So no reason for you to not understand anymore, right?
Wow, llamas, that’s some spread you got there. Is it cut-down?
I can tell you that on my full cylinder 12 gauge, I don’t see spreads like that until at least 15 yards. My gun with a turkey gauge puts all the pellets in about a 16 inch circle at 30 yards.
At five yards, my bird gun on full cylinder bore puts up a spread of maybe 4 inches. Your link shows quite a bit of variation (makes me wonder if my cylinder bore is really full cylinder, in fact), but shows full cylinder spreads at five yards of 8 inches, and full choke spreads at five yards of 3 inches.
Bottom line – shoot your gun, and know what it does! With shotguns in particular, there seems to be a lot of variation.
Down-range lethality – I was speculating, and pointlessly. No question that a solid hit from a shotgun is very bad news.
The testing I saw done with shotguns used an 18″ cylinder bore – in other words, a standard-issue police ‘riot gun’.
At 15 feet, with buckshot, the biggest pattern was 18″ from edge to edge. To be sure, the bulk of the shot would concentrated in a small group, especially with the larger shot. But the particular load of interest for that testing was #4 buckshot (27 pellets), and at those sorts of ranges, the central concentration had already expanded enough that individual pellet holes could be seen, rather than a single, ragged hole.
Here’s a link with some photographs showing actual patterns results. Note that one image shows the results on a live victim, don’t go there if you don’t like that sort of thing.
http://www.ballistics-experts.com/Forensic%20ballistics/Wound%20&%20Terminal%20ballistics/Overview.htm
Now, these results are for even shorter barrel lengths, so the spread of shot would be even greater, but I think the point is made.
llater,
llamas
And this might shock a few people…but some of us enjoy target shooting with semi-automatic weapons. Not obsessing over them, just occasionally going to a range and blasting the daylights out of a few targets.
Some may call it warped, but to each is own. I mean, after all, I think expending any money, emotion or time over a sports team is completely illogical.
To quote Clint Smith (who heads a self-defense facility here in Texas): “A handgun is what you use to buy time while you get to your shotgun or rifle.”
Oh, and Ian: the time I feel the SAFEST is when I’m surrounded by a bunch of gun-toting folks. Less chance of a Dunblane- / Killeen-style massacre, you see.
Another quote, from a neighbor: “The problem with this country is that not enough of the right kind of people are carrying guns.”
More guns, less crime. More guns, for sure less tyranny.
Now, if you’ll all excuse me, I’m off to do a little shopping for a new gun…
I am aware of the relative accuracies and ease of use of various different weapons. For shotguns I’d agree with your point, but I’m not so sure about SLRs – accurate, yes, but not as easy to use properly. Unless of course you are suggesting spraying the area with so much phosphor-bronze that something is bound to get hit?
Not necessarily.
High velocity rounds are designed for greater accuracy over a longer range, as are the weapons that fire them. However, to get longer range the aerodynamic properties of the bullet tends to mean that, on impact with flesh, they don’t meet so much resistance – they tend to pass through fairly cleanly (unless they hit bone, of course).
Low velocity rounds, on the other hand, are designed for close quarters work, and hence the weapons that use them are relatively inaccurate and are physically smaller to permit easier use in potentially confined situations. The shape of the bullet means it will tend to flatten on impact, whatever it hits, rather more than the high velocity round, and consequently tend to do more damage. Because they tend not to pass clean through the body as often as high velocity rounds, they will generally, if they hit, impart rather more momentum to whatever it is they’ve just hit. Hence the relatively greater short range stopping power. This is what they are intended for.
It’s just physics. Whatever the emotional appeal of assault rifles over handguns, this is how and why ammunition is designed the way it is, and for that matter why the weapons that fire it are designed the way they are.
They aren’t using them in the same way as a householder defending his life & property, though, are they? The householder is generally not at war with the neighbourhood, either. Although I concede that if the less sane anarchistic proposals frequently vented around here were put into practice, this would probably change fairly quickly.
You think militaries don’t issue things like Browning and Tokarev pistols? There are times when these are more appropriate weapons.
EG
I often think that the real reson assult weapons were banned was that they LOOK like the fully automatic weapons the army uses in the movies…
The average lib hears “semi-automatic” and thinks “automatic”…
tanstafl@gmail.com
What you write is quite logical, Euan. It is also quite wrong and suggests you need to spend more times butchering dead animals that you have shot. I have always found that quite instructional.
If you think getting shot with a 9mm or even a 45 ACP is more likely to put someone down more effectively than getting shot with a full bore rifle, which is just not the case. Even if a rifle round expends 50% of its energy on the wall behind the target after exit, which will usually be more energy delivered to the target that 100% of the energy of a handgun round.
In fact I would say that there is much to commend the 7.62×39 for close in work as it has less chance of over-penetrating whilst putting lots of joules where it hurts and lots of nice hydrostatic shock that you just do not get with any handgun… Moreover I have heard credible accounts of handgun rounds being deflected by buttons! That is rather less likely with a Kalashnikov.
When I was in the USA, I always loaded hydrashock ammo to maximise expansion and energy dump in my SIG226 but I was never under any illusions that a handgun was really an optimal solution if confronted by an armed goblin. A handgun’s role is to be easy to carry and deploy in order to fulfil Jeff Cooper’s first rule of gunfighting (which is “…have a gun”).
Sounds like the ideal home defense weapon is thus something like the Ruger Deerfield carbine (.44 magnum), if they made a magazine bigger than four rounds for it.
Someone comes out with a 20 round and, well, there you go.
Small, handy, accurate (not that it matters much at those ranges), powerful enough to be effective on bears, let alone humans, and light enough recoil to not punish people who don’t shoot a lot or don’t weigh much.
Maybe Ruger will step up, if nobody else does first.
Interesting conversation here , as usual.
My problem with the leftist intellegentsia and media elites (and people like Ian) is that they take MY choice to be armed or unarmed away from me by banning all firearms. This is wrong. Now if they do not like guns (and especially assault rifles) then they have the choice to be UNARMED. No libertarian will EVER force them to buy a gun or use it.
Regarding “gun control”, crime statistics show CONCLUSIVELY and ABSOLUTELY that banning ALL firearms did NOT lower the firearm-related in the UK over long perioid of time and in the fact had the actual opposite effect.
Eventually these ineffective and harmful will go the way of other useless laws… ie. when crime gets bad enough people will just ignore the law and arm themselves. Sure, some innocent people will be jailed for time to time protecting themselves, but people will keep arming themselves as long as the law will not protect them. Exceptions will become the norm, norm will become the standard and eventually the standard will become the law.
Yes, as backup weapons. Used when the Auto weapon is out of comission. Standard tactic for the SAS, among others. Never said there wasn’t a use for semis, simply that they’re subordinate to autos when the crap hits the fan.
Another standard SAS tactic for a full-auto long arm malfunction? Clearing it while your mate covers you…. With his automatic weapon.
Euan,
there are other factors in the physics of which you are speaking. Try this simple experiment: Set up 2 1/2 gallon plastic milk jugs, full of water. Shoot a hole in one with a .45 cal pistol, and a hole in the other with a .243 high-powered rifle, a bore of only half the size. You can use hoolow point rounds in the .45 and there will be considerable damage to the jug. You can use non-spreading rounds or whatever you want in the .243 and good luck finding all the peices of the jug. Essentially the velocity of the bullet passing through the target creates a vacuum followed by a rush of air sufficient to annhilate the internals of the target, super-sonic rounds can be incredibly devastating. muzzle velocitys on a .45 will be around 800 fps, on the .243, around 2,400 fps at least. The physics of such a round despite passing through the target, are far more damaging. This is the reason for the howitzer mounted rail gun, a projectile weapon that can destroy a tank without using an exploding round. Speeds of said rounds exceed 10,000 fps.
As for Ian’s safety concerns, I couldnt help but notice that they were based soley on perception. I am safe depending on the character of the people around me, and on what is in their heads. I can change that safety level by changing who I am around or by changing my own attitude, defense ability, and counter-offense ability. Despite what it sounds like at times when those of us who like weaponry get together and talk, we self-defense people think less about safety and self-defense than most people. I find that the more confident I am in my ability to defend myself, and the more aware of my surroundings I am, the less fearful I am and the less I worry about what will happen or what I would do. I am a martial artist, and I love talking about martial arts and practicing it with fellow enthusiasts, but I do not walk down the street thinking about whether I could handle a self-defense situation. I used to do that before I learned how to defend myself. The people who are gun enthusiasts tend to be the least violent and the most calm and unfearing people in society. This is not always the case, but I have found that such a generalization will not lead me astray often.
llamas –
Interesting. I note the guns are all what I would call cut-down; I’ve never shot one, and am going off of my experience with full-size bird guns, which have some disadvantages as home defense weapons – they tend to be long and somewhat awkward indoors. I’m a .45 man myself for home defense.
Never shot a cut-down shotgun, although my dad (ex-Marine, well, no longer in uniform, and a Texan) carries one that is the legal minimum length in his vehicle. I know what I will be shooting next time I visit!
Few things can beat a shotgun for close range stopping power – certainly a load of buckshot on target at 5 yards is almost certain to put a man down immediately and with one shot, far more so than even my trusty .45. I may have to add a cut-down pistol-gripped “tactical” shotgun to the armory. Dang! I hate it when that happens.
limberwulf wrote:
‘there are other factors in the physics of which you are speaking. Try this simple experiment: Set up 2 1/2 gallon plastic milk jugs, full of water. Shoot a hole in one with a .45 cal pistol, and a hole in the other with a .243 high-powered rifle, a bore of only half the size. You can use hoolow point rounds in the .45 and there will be considerable damage to the jug. You can use non-spreading rounds or whatever you want in the .243 and good luck finding all the peices of the jug. Essentially the velocity of the bullet passing through the target creates a vacuum followed by a rush of air sufficient to annhilate the internals of the target, super-sonic rounds can be incredibly devastating. muzzle velocitys on a .45 will be around 800 fps, on the .243, around 2,400 fps at least. The physics of such a round despite passing through the target, are far more damaging. This is the reason for the howitzer mounted rail gun, a projectile weapon that can destroy a tank without using an exploding round. Speeds of said rounds exceed 10,000 fps.’
Well, here we go again.
While the demonstrations described may be true, as far as they go, they also demonstrate the fundamental principle that, while all models are wrong, some are useful.
Yes, there is a hydrostatic shock effect. But it is not the magic bullet described. I’m old enough to remember the claims of the high-velocity mavens of the 60’s, who claimed that the hydrostatic shock effect of their 4000+ fps .22 caliber slugs was enough to kill any animal dead, regadless of where and how it was hit.
Burst milk jugs notwithstanding, it’s just as true that you can hit a thin-skinned animal, like a deer, with these fast, small bullets and have them pass right through with virtually no damage. The ‘annihilating’ effect referred to – isn’t always. In fact, isn’t often.
These are complex, multi-factored situations. There is no one, single, magic bullet.
llater,
llamas
The federal Assault Weapon ban did not actually ban any weapon. It banned certan ‘cosmetic’ characteristics of rifle type weapons and large size magazines.
For instance muzzle flash suppressors, grips that look like pistol grips and bayonet lugs were banned. None of these features have anything to do with the main purpose and use of the weapon.
All banned weapons were grandfathered — if you already had one, you could keep it.
All banned models were ‘up-graded’ (or is it ‘down-graded’) to perfectly functional models with out the ‘scarey’ cosmetics.
Machine guns were banned in the US in the 1930’s (1932, I think). They are still banned.
Automatic rifles (weapons ?) were banned in the 1980’s. They are still banned.
The Assault Weapon ban has always been an essentially do nothing feel good law.
Existing state laws are not affected, on way or the other.
Sheesh. Not exactly relevant or particularly useful in the case of domestic self-defence, though, is it? I’m not talking about what bloody armies use guns for, still less special forces. I’m talking about self-defence for the private individual, as I would have thought would have been tolerably clear. Apparently it wasn’t.
Unless Johnny Householder expects the buglarious equivalent of the 7th Cavalry to be after his VCR and hi-fi, I fail to see the relevance of “standard SAS tactics” or for that matter the finer points of self-loading assault weaponry to the task of domestic self-defence.
I’m not arguing people shouldn’t be allowed to own these things, I just think it’s daft to keep one expressly for domestic self-defence. Not that it couldn’t do the job, it’s just that there are more practical tools – a shotgun, for example, or a pistol.
I mean, FFS, domestic self-defence does not, or should not in any half way sane environment, consist of picking off potential house-breakers half a mile down down the road, nor filling the local atmosphere with so much metal that not only will the burglar be dead but you’ll probably need to build a new wall in your house, not to mention getting sued by the neighbours for blasting their truck into scrap metal and turning the cat into an expanding ball of pink fleshy vapour. Life is not the movies, although I do appreciate some people have difficulty telling the difference.
Assault weapons are fine for fun on the range, or indeed for taking out your local neighbourhood Communist redoubt, but home self-defence? This may work for adolescent power-trip fantasies amongst the socially inadequate, but I don’t think it’s exactly sane in reality.
Perhaps my minor ear infection is making me a tad bilious today.
EG
To coin a phrase You’re all fucking nuts
…and thanks Molly but no thanks. Nice to see you raising the standard of debate. (incidently – one of the places I have lived was Newcastle)
Absolutely, yes. It’s called “Room Clearing”. You know, rooms. Like what 99.9% of all households have?
It’s absolutely clear what you’re talking about, you’re just simply incorrect.
Then there’s not much I can say to help you, you’ll have to work this one out by yourself. Perhaps a visit to a firearms training institute might do the trick. Many run courses in the use of “assault weapons” at close range and in buildings.
Overpenetration aside (and that’s a risk with any weapon), most would do a better job than a pistol, as has been stated here by posters more experienced than both of us.
Christ, you sit there thinking of exploding cats and minced cars? Gotta love that imagination. We were talking about “domestic defence”. You know, close range? I think you’re mixing that up with “perimeter defence”. Personally, I don’t own a half mile long house.
Please, please, please don’t ever own a firearm. If this is what runs through your mind, I doubt I’d trust you with a slingshot.
Must be one *hell* of an ear infection.
Sorry, guys. I tried.
Perhaps that was my mistake.
Ian, you are entitled to your views but forgive me if I find them uncompelling. You seem to be suggesting that if you have not been mugged or robbed, then clearly there is no problem. Molly obviously thinks otherwise and given what she says her experiences were, perhaps you might try actually answering her and telling her why you think it is ok for her to be defenseless and how your seemingly charmed life gives you insight into her rather different experiences.
Certainly I have had occasion to beat someone insensible with a MagLite in one incident six or so years ago and was involved in a significent fracas a couple years ago. All but one of the houses on my street have been broken into whilst I have lived here (20 years). I have been in far, FAR more violent confrontations in Britain than when I lived in the USA (I lived New York City, New Jersey and Washington DC). And I hardly reside in the ‘mean streets’: I live in well heeled Tory Kensington & Chelsea.
I’m merely pointing out that while the prevailing line of the comments is as if all hell was breaking out everywhere, for the vast majority of people – even in supposedly unsafe surroundings – life isn’t like that.
If everything from a small handgun up to an RPG is available to eveyone – and they all think and act as if their every move puts them into life threatening situations – well it will, because they will end up as the victims of their own paranoia.
As for Molly – I’m not the one who tells people to fuck off am I? If she is so intolerant online of anyone who’s experience and views are different to hers, what is she like with a gun in her hand?
Someone very close to me suffered similar experiences in Newcastle, & yet both she & I would not support general ownership of handguns.
For a start, a number of the young men I was friendly with in Newcastle would most likely be dead if guns were around; so many relatively petty but vicious conflicts could easily have got much worse. And all this stuff about guns reducing crime or whatever, I think we’ve previously established that there are poster boy cases for both sides, so it looks as though perhaps there’s actually little correlation between the two, & other social factors play a much bigger role.
For that reason alone, i’d be very uneasy about having generalised firearm ownership in the UK; a country where extreme drunkenness & random public violence are common and have been for some time.
(to those unfamiliar with the UK, I should point out that Newcastle is a previously industrial Northern town which now is now depressed, suffering hefty unemployment & poverty; probably analogous in US terms to Detroit. As far as I understand, Michigan permits concealed carry with a license, but from a glance at Detroit’s homicide statistics, as well as anecdoctal evidence from people who know the place, I’m pretty sure which city I’d rather live in; even if I or people I care about are more likely to be victims of theft or violence in Newcastle, we’re more likely to be alive afterwards. You can get over most things given time, but when you’re dead, you’re dead.)
Having said all that, I understand the pro-gun-ownership viewpoint & respect it, but the moral calculus just doesn’t convince me personally.
BS. Your assumption of paranoia gives you away. Basically, you think that “most people are irresponsible morons, and that’s why they cannot have guns! They’ll scare one another into gunfights!”
On the contrary, those trained in the proper usage of guns and bearing knowledge of the responsibility of bearing weapons, are responsible and not stupid at all. As for the irresponsible ones, the responsible people will take care of them. For every Columbine, we have another incident where a gun-aware citizen prevented a crime.
TWG
So you feel the utilitarian calculus of leaving a woman defenceless to be raped and robbed is outweighted by the benefits to young men of having a lower cost for their violent thuggish behaviour and propensity to hang out in places where that is endemic (as you correctly point out “extreme drunkenness & random public violence are common”)? Would that be a fair summary of your position? BTW, I am not really being snarky, I am just making sure I understand what you are saying.
Llamas,
I stand corrected in my presentation. You are certainly correct that hydrostatic effects do not always occur. Many factors are involved, including the physiology of the target, its movement, where it is hit, etc. The aspect of physics I described is similarly narrow in scope as the on Euan described, tho both are possible. I have seen the hydrostatic effect work on a deer, I have also seen it not work.
I guess the main point is that any given weapon has its pros and cons, some relating to effectiveness, some cost, some ease of use. The market would not have created such a variety if there was not a demand for said variety. Everyone has their preferences and the reasons for them. Honestly in most situations I prefer a knife or a throwing axe, and I have my reasons for this, but there is no magic in those weapons either.
I do appreciate the demand for accuracy tho, its what makes this site great.
My assumption of paranoia is vindicated every day when I come to this site. I don’t think paranoia is the same as irresponsibility – I think it is far worse.
Ian,
In what world does rational discussion involving weapons, the participators in which have not commited any criminal acts using said weapons, equal irresponsibility? Fear and paranioa have led to far more errors in history than anything else, and in my experience, irrational fear leads to irresponsible behavior quite often. There is nothing on this site to “vindicate” your way of thinking, because the negative effects of our way of thinking exist only in your mind and the minds of others who think like you. There is no historical evidence that legal gun ownership increases crime. There may not much evidence of the reverse either, but the fundamental key is that most people on this site would rather live free and accept the risks involved, than live under the control of anyone else. Especially since that someone else is not garaunteed to be wise, incorruptable, or even good and caring.
So no real answer from Ian then. Your type makes me sick.
Perry, in Newcastle it’s hard to avoid random violence & extreme drunkenness, so you’d have to move to somewhere else entirely.
Given that this is the case, I’d rather see 10 women raped than one killed (and possibly raped beforehand, who knows). This isn’t to belittle rape as a crime; it utterly disgusts me & I have had many a homicidal thought about rapists, but the victim is still alive afterwards, and can go on to live the rest of their life.
As for arguments involving reduction in crime against property, I can’t even imagine how much property you’d have to steal before I thought it was worth my own life or that of anyone I care about, or even that of a random stranger.
The main thing I know is, there were a lot of people in Newcastle who I would be very scared of if they had access to handguns. Having one myself would be scant compensation, & it’s not just the lives of foolhardy young men I would fear for; as I said, much of the violence is quite random.
Then you should really try it some time. Getting raped, that is. The dental work afterward was almost as bad. Getting mugged is almost as much fun. And do you really think that if grabbing a woman and trying to drag her into a piss sticking ally might get your fucking head blown off, that quite as many rapes would happen? And I have news for you, if a bunch of shits in a pub get tanked and kill each other, that is just fine by me.
The fact I was not killed was not because the gobshite did not have a gun (he did have a knife), but that I suppose he didn’t kick my thick Irish skull quite enough times when he was finished. He didn’t stab me so I don’t guess he wouldn’t have shot me either. I’m alive because he could not bothered to try to kill me hard enough, not because he did not give it a try.
You’re right that I can live the rest of my life because he didn’t kill me, but I will do so hating the people who set things that made me defenceless every time some man decided to kick the shit out of me for no other reason that I had something they wanted and I couldn’t stop them.
For me this blog was the first time I realised not everyone in this fucking country didn’t have a problem with that.
When I see some rational discussion about gun ownership I’ll let you know. I’ll say it again – paranoia is not the same as irresponsibility – it is worse.
Rationality involves the construction of arguments or at least the exchange of views. A rational discussion does not involve being told to fuck off. Every time I have ever entered into a discussion on gun ownership on this or any other site, I have always – without exception – been told to fuck off, that I’m ignorant, that I’m stupid and far worse. I’ve had people threaten in e-mails to come and find me.
That is not rationality – it is a simple demonstration of why unfettered gun ownership is a bad idea.
Now I’ve tried but there is clearly no point in trying further. I’ll leave you all to your fetish.
The thing I find encouraging Molly, is that you have taken on the project of defending yourself. All too often victims stick out their hands and ask for someone else to protect them, not realizing that 1) defense by another will never be as readily available as self-defense and 2) its not really anyone else’s responsibility. I personally try to look out for those around me, but I do so by choice, not because it is “my duty”. Any duty I feel I have placed on myself, it has not been placed on me by societal pressure. Im proud to see a person who has taken it on themselves to stop bad stuff from happening to them.
Weapons, (be they skills, such as martial arts, or items, such as knives or guns) are equalizers in an otherwise unequal world. Some people are bigger and more physically powerful than others, but size matters less when effective weapons are employed, even when both parties have the weapons. The threat of weapons has always been an excellent deterent against would-be hostile actions. This is especially the case with crime such as rape, since the perpetrators are generally driven by a power-lust, not a sexual one, and generally they are typical bullies: powerful yet easily frightened. Besides, if more women were armed, the extra dead would likely be the attackers, not the other way around.
I personally would like to see that happen.
Ian,
not sure if you are still following this thread, but here goes.
A rational discussion does indeed involve the construction of arguments, however it also requires rationale, not simply feelings. I will agree that being told to f*ck off or threatened is not rational, nor is it conducive to a reasonable discourse on a subject. however, you must also recognize the manner in which you entered the discussion.
This was the beginnings of a construction, one which perhaps held a viewpoint. However, what was described was a “feeling” not a rational theorum, conclusion, or concept. I could say that I “feel unsafe in a world in shich I am not permitted to defend myself the way I choose”. That is pretty meaningless compared to: “I find that because of my personal experience or due to watching the experiences of those around me, I am safer when I ahve the means to defend myself. This is because defense by police is untimely or insufficient, or because the culture of the place I am in is such that I am at high risk of being targetted”. It could also be, as in Molly’s case, that personal experience showed her own physique insufficient for her defense, and the places which she frequented, by necessity or by choice, made her vulnerable to attack. You, as a 58 year old man, have either not been in a situation in which you were at risk, or have not been targetted because there was nothing about you that was desired by a would-be attacker. Your statements about gun-toting people and boss hog looking policeman is essentially little mroe than a prejudice that is no more rational or justifiable than a racial prejudice. I too have been in all sorts of neighborhoods at all times of night, I have been around man races and creeds in the US and abroad. I have not been mugged or robbed either, nor do I carry a gun, but I recognize the need for some to do so.
In other words, present a rational argument, not your feelings, unless you are willing to have the response be the feelings of others. The problem with emotions, is that they are not rational, and they tend to escalate when they are opposed. Enter one of these rooms with a rational thought, and you may find your response better. You will still find it difficult, since there are so many people out there, using nothing more than emotions in their arguments, that many of us have grown so sick of that we tend to respond automatically with the only argument that we assume will be heard, an emotional one.
A_t, bless his authoritarian little heart, states:
And I agree with him so far, in very broad terms. There are some very interesting longitudinal effects of increasing or decreasing gun control within a single society that he may want to think about (that is, when gun control is increased, crime in that society tends to go up, when it is decreased, crime tends to go down).
I fall right off the bus on his conclusion, though:
If crime is unaffected by gun ownership levels or gun laws, then it seems to me that there is no reason to outlaw gun ownership. The default state should be permission, not prohibition. Those who would limit freedom should have to carry some burden of showing a benefit, and A_t admits that there is no benefit to gun control.
Maybe if the women were armed, fewer would be raped. Wouldn’t that be preferable?
Guy Herbert wrote:
“E.g. – Cobden’s “Imagine trying to defend a mansion during the LA riots […]” that’s an image that merits some unpicking. Why a mansion, specifically?”
Pretty obvious really – a mansion is much harder to defend with a handgun, due to its size, and large open grounds. Same with a ranch or other similar dwelling. A handgun generally won’t have the range or power to defend it properly.
“How many mansions (as opposed to neighbourhood covenience stores) were actually sacked in the LA riots (or are even within several miles of their centre)?”
I have no idea. But why does it matter? It’s a hypothetical example, after all. Substitute “school in Beslan” or “church in Rwanda” if you want.
“And why the LA Riots, rather than a group of freelance robbers or government agents? Is the subtext of communal conflict important?”
Why not the LA riots? I have to give one example, so just picked a well known one off the top of my head. Surely you don’t expect me to list every possible scenario?
As for communal conflict, I wasn’t thinking of it specifically, but many such conflicts result in danger to civilians. Being heavily armed improves the odds and gives you more choices if you become a target for attack.
I thought I’d just address the viewpoint of Ian and A_t.
Firstly, your personal experience is utterly irrelevant in deciding upon the morality of banning anything. Laws are not right or wrong based on how your life has turned out, how you feel, what you are comfortable with etc.
Secondly, your personal opinions about the utilitarian tradeoffs between two laws are only valid if you assume that one person’s rights can be legitimately infringed to protect another person’s self-interest. This assumption is controversial to say the least (especially on a libertarian site), and should be justified before you use it to support your position.
Remember, a gun ban does not mean that guns suddenly disappear into thin air. It means that you support *throwing in jail* people who try to defend themselves with guns. If Molly had been armed and used her gun at the time of her assault, then both of you would not only want, but would *demand* that she be violently kidnapped and then imprisoned for a period of several years. That is what a handgun ban means – imprisoning rape victims, imprisoning people who avoided murder at the hands of criminals, jailing mothers and fathers who wanted to protect their children from violence and death.
Now, you claim that this is justifiable because if it were not done, then lots of young people would kill each other with guns each time they lost their tempter. Now, even assuming that is true, what makes you think that in any way justifies imposing restrictions on other *innocent* people’s ability to defend themselves? It is wholly immoral to punish an innocent person for the crimes of another. You are suggesting punishing innocent people (by throwing them in jail for owning guns), because *criminals* are violent.
So my question to you is this – how do you justify punishing innocent people for the crimes of violent criminals? What kind of morality do you subscribe to that allows such a seemingly unjust state of affairs?
Hey maybe the rapist will think twice before dragging you into an alley and raping you! There is a certain idea of ‘just desserts’ that self defence entails.
But you know what? The rapist would think twice if he knew that the police would take his crime seriously, try him fairly but speedily, and punish appropriately like castration and 20 years in jail.
It isn’t wrong that the state is powerful and able to overcome its citizens. But it is wrong that the state does not act in the interests of its citizens.
It is the wrong tactic to stock up on guns and wait for the war against the corrupt government. You’d be better off hounding the state day in day out ensuring it stays on an even keel. Bads thing happen because good people (that’s you lot) stop giving a shit. So don’t.
We give a shit, bob, we really do. We just think your approach is worse than the problem because we have a better idea than you what states are actually like.
Snide, thanks for proving that at least some of you have already given up.
Unless you are some kind of anarchist, you must believe that a state needs to exist in one form or another. So even if you overthrow the old one, a new one needs to be built in its place.
Check the evidence for yourself (civil wars, revolutions and so on) and you will see that you have alot to lose (property, life) for taking to violence, with no guarantee of results. Reform is better than revolt.
Maybe you guys are just too lazy. Keeping the state in check is a full time job. Take your eyes of the ball and you end up with the Terrorism Act or the USA PATRIOT Act. Don’t pretend that you are some political genius by buying a gun to defend your family against ‘tyranny’, its not big and its not smart.
Ian and A_t get sentimental over the criminal’s “right to rape,” not Molly’s right to self-defense and self-respect.
Case closed.
I’ll be the first to admit that draconian gun laws can work. Hell, my country is an excellent example. But it works because of a brutal legal system that criminals quake in fear at, a willingness to inflict capital punishment on anybody who owns a gun illegally, and an effective police force. The fact that much of the male population, even without ready access to firearms, are trained in their use due to military service is also a factor. Sorta.
I just don’t see any other place able to concoct the same weird combination, and that’s why I support gun rights in general.
TWG
RC Dean, admittedly I tied myself up in my own logic (or lack thereof) there! Actually, I think a more accurate assessment would be “guns are only one factor among many” when looking at crime. From my knowledge of the culture in Newcastle, & in the UK in general, widespread ownership of firearms would make me very uneasy & I’d be surprised if the murder rate didn’t rise.
That isn’t to say that my mind is made up forever; I’m quite open to discussion & possibly swayable; I think in order to convince me though, you would either have to convince me that more bad guys than good guys would get shot if guns were legal, or impress upon me the absolute right of people to be armed with deadly weapons. Currently, I’m not convinced about either.
a_t: I think most would concede (pace NRA) than just having guns available is not enough. Guns are just tools and impart no special wisdom to people who own them. That is why I always say guns AND a culture of liberty… but you do need both.
And perhaps the lack of guns is what led to some of the less delightful aspects of urban British culture. Certainly I have been in *far* more violent incidents in Britain than in ‘well armed’ America (and I have spend almost 1/3rd of my life in the USA).
Bob: If you actually want to get anyone to take your views seriously, you would do well to read lumberwulf’s excellent comment posted in this very comment thread yesterday at 10:20 pm, aimed at Ian, on how to express rational arguments.
Moreover, the argument is not one of anarchy vs. statism, but rather not trusting the state with the totality of your personal security needs. I am not an anarchist (I have no idea if ‘snide’ is or is not) and have no problem with the idea of a state police force… but unless the state asigns me a personal police bodyguard 24/7 to protect me from harm, I demand to have the means to protect myself… and in fact, would it really be a good idea to live in such a police state? I suspect that is what snide was saying when he said that ‘more state’ is likely to be worse than the problem it (supposedly) solves.
Wobbly guy wrote – “I’ll be the first to admit that draconian gun laws can work. Hell, my country is an excellent example. But it works because of a brutal legal system that criminals quake in fear at, a willingness to inflict capital punishment on anybody who owns a gun illegally, and an effective police force. The fact that much of the male population, even without ready access to firearms, are trained in their use due to military service is also a factor. Sorta.”
Sure, it is possible to almost eliminate gun ownership (which is quite different to gun laws “working”) – but other things being equal, if your home gets broken into in Singapore or you get assaulted in the street (which does happen), then you are in more trouble without a gun than with one. The government is still forcing you to be less safe. Switzerland is extremely safe, yet guns are legal there – who is to say Singapore would not be just as safe if not more so with gun ownership permitted?
Also let us look at the cost of extremely strict law and order system. Yes, criminals are very much deterred by harsh punishment. They are in N Korea too. The problem is that this deterrence of crime comes at the cost of executing people for exercising their civil liberties. It also comes at the cost of allowing the government totally unlimited power over its citizens. You may agree with strong enforcement of drug laws and gun bans, backed by capital punishment. But what if they impose capital punishment for “libel” of government ministers? There goes your freedom, and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
The complete inability of the Singapore populace to mount any resistance whatsoever to oppressive government measures is to a large extent responsible for the level of authoritarianism seen in that country. Many of the currently existing laws in Singapore would literally cause armed revolt if a US government tried to impose them. That alone is a good enough reason to allow firearm ownership. And if the Singapore authorities became significantly more oppressive, then the civilian population would have absolutely no means of stopping it. There is absolutely nothing to deter, let alone stop, them from becoming as dictatorial as they please.
A population being armed is not about “preventing tyranny” alone – it is about deterring it by raising the costs of imposing tyrannical and oppressive laws. If you believe in the “slippery slope” argument (see Germany circa 1930-1940), the necessity of deterring even minor cases of tyranny & oppression is even more important.
That only occurs when a populace views gun ownership as an intrinsic right – and not just a utilitarian measure to improve one’s ability to defend oneself.
“I think in order to convince me though, you would either have to convince me that more bad guys than good guys would get shot if guns were legal, or impress upon me the absolute right of people to be armed with deadly weapons.”
Ok, let’s try to persuade you of the latter. I can think of three arguments. Firstly, do you accept a right of self-defence? If so, then we can simply postulate a case where possession of a deadly weapon is the only way that someone can possibly defend themselves – e.g. an infirm 65 year old grandmother in her home, confronted by a burly psychopathic rapist or a gang of robbers. In that case, denying her the right to own a deadly weapon is denying her the right to defend herself.
Given that you oppose this right to be armed, then by simple logic you are clearly opposing the absolute right to self-defence. So let’s try and persuade you that opposing this right is morally unacceptable.
Postulate a person who simply wishes to defend themselves, and who has committed no other crime or broken any other law. You are saying that, the moment they use arms to defend themselves, it is morally acceptable to lock them up in prison. But surely in order to use violence and kidnap against someone, they must have done something morally wrong? Isn’t unprovoked violence entirelly immoral and unacceptable? If so, then you must demonstrate that simply carrying the means to defend oneself constitutes “doing wrong”.
The only way I can see out of this is to say that yes, it is acceptable to violently attack people who are doing nothing wrong, if that would (in your opinion) benefit society. In which case, would you not also agree that if one could benefit society by murdering unpopular people or groups of people, then there would be no argument against doing so?
To support a gun ban – i.e. using unprovoked violence against people who are simply owning the necessary means of self-defence – you either have to accept that any action is justified in principle if it benefits society, no matter how evil the consequences to any individual; or that the simple ownership of a deadly weapon contitutes a moral wrong done to another person. Both those positions seem hard to defend, but I would be interested to see you try.
Finally, even if you take the utilitarian route (which would make you a monster in most people’s eyes), there is still the utilitarian objection to a disarmed populace, in that it makes them incredibly vulnerable to government tyranny and foreign invasion. An armed populace can deter, and sometimes forcibly prevent, government tyranny and foreign invasion. Given that this improves the chance of national survival, surely it outweighs the small possible (and debateable) cost of a few more people dying each year? In utilitarian terms, what is an extra few hundred dead a year, versus the difference between tyranny and freedom for 60 million?
Bob,
I do think reform is better than revolt, and I find keeping the government in check even better. However, having weapons as a deterent is on check and balance keeping the government in line, as has been argued in this thread, i.e. increasing the cost of tyranny, etc.
I totally disagree with the idea that it is ok for a government to be able to overcome its populace. Overcoming an individual offender, as in the police arresting criminal, is certainly a necessity, but this does not require keeping the population weak. Also, the role of government is to protect the freedoms of its people. It is not the role of government to prevent bad stuff from happening. Taking away the means of deadly force from a populace with the intention of preventing bad stuff is out of line.
Even assuming that the goal was reached, the means used are essentially the same means used by parents over children. A child is not given access to many things because that child does not have the rational ability to be held responsible for the results of poor choices with that access. I can beleive that an adult would have a better idea of what is wise and right than a child. I do NOT beleive for one second that the government knows better than the populace what is right and good. This is a particularly foolish concept in a democracy where the government is chosen by the people, from among the people, and therefore could in no way be ultimately superior to the populace as a whole.
The desire of many to be lazy and let the government run their lives is tantamount to an attempt to return to childhood. Childhood is a time of low responsibilty and restricted choices. There are two reasons that returning to such a state is a pipe-dream. 1) Someone has to pay for that time in our lives, this is generally done by our parents/guardians. There is no one to pay for the resources needed to return to that time as adults. 2) Our parents knew better than we did, and educated us during that time. There is no such individual or group of individuals capable of such things once we have reached adulthood. It does no good to wish for a return to our youth, that is a thing for dreamers and wishers.
Do not assume that we gun ownership supporters are politically lazy, as many of us are quite avidly working towards making changes in our government and in educating our fellowman to assist us in such actions. I would even go so far as to ask what it is that you have done or are doing to keep your government in line. I find it admirable that you remain optomistic towards reform. I would love to know what you are doing or would recommend others do to enact said reforms. Also, recognize that many of us that do still beleive in reform, but are not putting all of our eggs in that basket. Anti-tyrranical gun ownership may be a fall-back position, but I find fall-back positions and strategies to be quite wise as a general rule.
Ian and A_t get sentimental over the criminal’s “right to rape,”
Lying about what others have said doesn’t help to make your case or persuade others to listen to you. It is especially stupid when everything said is there in front of us.
As for Limberwulf’s comment, the statement of mine that he quotes isn’t actually where I entered the discussion, which began on a previous post of Perry’s. I agree though that offering personal experience is not enough – on its own – to make the case. Which is why I haven’t done so as looking at what I’ve said over the two sets of comments will show.
And that is really the end of this thread for me – there clearly is little chance of ever reaching common ground and it’s a waste of time to try.
Cobden
Because there are certain… pressures present in our hectic country which may manifest itself in unpleasant ways if guns are available. I remember the incidents of road rage in drivers here, and shudder at the possibilities if they had guns.
The high population density here also carries certain inherent risks that larger countries do not have. It’s worse than New York, as some of my friends have told me.
In short, allowing guns may not lead to more or less crime, but I’m pretty sure the accidental death rate will go up. Not a good idea.
No, it’s not. It’s an endemic feature of asian countries. We’re authoritarian because it suits our purposes. More importantly, the government gets results, which in many ways is viewed as the fruits of having an authoritarian style.
Don’t think we can’t vote out the present government. We can, quite easily. Unfortunately, the only alternatives are leftist leaning parties.
Finally, what you consider to be oppressive is a subjective matter. People here don’t consider it so. How much oppression is oppressive? Many of the laws here which the West derides is functionally geared towards enhancing economic aspects, to provide an enticing spot for investment and business.
When you come right down to it, would a multi-national corporation do business here or in an anarcho-capitalist nation, if such a thing exists?
So? It’s true, but then again, so what? There are societal and cultural differences. Or do you subscribe to the theory that the US ideal is the ‘only and best’ ideal available?
I see you do not understand the powerful check by having a conscript army made up of the common citizenry. When the civilian population also makes up the military might of the nation, it’s rather difficult for the government to go against the wishes of the majority by using force.
*wears a tin-foil hat*
Still, I would classify my country as a prototype ‘corporate nation state’, a giant company with guns and all.
PH33R US!!!
TWG
For home defense I have a Mossberg 590 loaded with 2 /34″ #6 shot (definitely WON’T go through much other than bad-guy. For in the car (open carry here in Arizona, but also CCW) it’s a Combat Commander with Winchester SXT’s.
When we go camping (Coleman “Utah” popup trailer) it’s usually fairly remote, so we take a pre-ban CAR15 and the Mossberg.