Should the United Nations Be Allowed To Disarm Amerika ??ns

As to the idea that somehow gun ownership is needed to protect me from the British government I’d still tell you to look at the link I presented earlier

Can guns save you from suppression?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...&postcount=217

And that the best defence against tyranny is a balanced political system and the best hope of bring one down is an army that isn’t willing to open fire on its own people.

 

When was that? Britain has always had restrictions even after the Enlightenment and your laughable bill of rights the right to arms was an empty shell.

Thing is, your centuries long standing gun control was enacted for political control and to that end, the British being what they are, it has worked extremely well. That explains your present comfort with the degraded nature of your liberty; you loyal subjects are quite accustomed to it.

And very little effect on crime as well. The UK's more recent attempts at gun control for crime control have not been so successful because the Yardies and Bangali drug gangs aren't so accustomed to being well-mannered subjects and honoring British standards of society.

Gun control as crime control is a miserable failure and the UK is a great example.

And we have questions as well regarding the British subjects acceptance of disarmament of the law-abiding whilst so much criminality is evident and apparently unencumbered by the UK's gun laws. Can you point to any evidence that late 20th century gun control has impeded the criminal culture in Britain in the least?

Keeping a compliant subjected population under the thumb of government with a few centuries of politically driven gun control is not hard to explain. And after that, it isn't hard to explain why those subjects so heartily endorse more gun control on themselves as a cure for violent criminality. Ya just gotta love that self-blaming quality Brits have for things like that!

I laugh at the suggestion that such an insult like your gun laws can be imported to the USA and our resistance to having that shoved down our throat is evidence of our cultural barbarism. If the Brit's are the benchmark for civility I'd rather de-evolve and rub sticks together for fire . . .

You talk often of fear, it is quite evident who is harboring the irrational fear and why you have it.

And I'm sure that such fears/projection allow you to hold your beliefs with little or no intellectual scrutiny or openness to the arguments of others (especially constitutional ones that show what you want to do, JUST CAN'T BE DONE).

Yeah, I KNOW, read posts 304 and 305 in the other thread . . .LOL!

 

Thank you Rick OShea. I am not that smart nor do I claim to be. On the other hand I think you are highly intelligent and if I read this right you are a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and for that I thank you Sir.

 

I don't own a gun and it doesn't keep me from being greedy or angry.

 

It's not going to happen. Period. This talk has been going on for years in here with sides taken and arguments put forth from each side. With no resolution. We won our freedom with guns. We saved the globe from subjugation with guns. It's our heritage and that's the way it is. If or when chaos rules because of worldwide food shortages coupled with unlimited population growth,( and I believe that it is inevitable) is not addressed as it should be (and who and how will that get done?)it will come down to weapons again--as usual and is known throughout human history. And it continues today. The facade of civility is only skin deep and we humans are the absolute best at reverting to savagery. We may have them taken away some day---but only if there comes a time when some country thinks they can take us--tries--and succeeds. So short term --it's not going to happen. Period. Long term--who knows. History and in fact,all that exists is constant change.

 

Rick

I’d wish people would read my posts…
OK again –
Here is a short version –

The false sense of power that guns can give people also seems to appear in the idea that they are a protection against government persecution.

For example over the years several pro-gun people have implied that the Jews would have been safe and the holocaust may never have happened if the Jews had just been armed.

The problem is that the German people had been taught the Jews were dangerous. So what if some of them had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this as a justified reaction and come to their defence or just seen it as proof the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed taking care of?

Think about US history, did the Native Americans that fought back against the treaty breaking US government get the support of the American citizenry? What if the US citizens of Japanese decent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them after Pearl Harbour and had shot at the police, do you think they would have got general and popular support? What about those hauled in front of McCarthy or the un-American committees, would Americans have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?

Here is the long version –

Can guns save you from suppression?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...&postcount=217

*

 

Rick

And all I have to do is cut and paste once more –
OK lets put gun related homicides for the UK and US in context

UK – 73 (2001, BBC)

USA - 11,348 (2001, University of Utah)

The UK has 60 million people compared with the USA’s of 250 –280 million so lets boost the UK’s figure

60 million – 70 deaths
120 million – 140 deaths
180 million – 210 deaths
240 million – 280 deaths
300 million – 350 deaths

In fact I believe to get to the USA’s levels of gun related homicides we would need to increase the UK’s population some 160 times to 9,600 million people, the worlds population at this time is only 6,500 million
*
But again I think it comes back to fear -
My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

 

Rick

Yes questions but not many answers it seems.
OK lets put gun related homicides for the UK and US in context

UK – 73 (2001, BBC)

USA - 11,348 (2001, University of Utah)

The UK has 60 million people compared with the USA’s of 250 –280 million so lets boost the UK’s figure

60 million – 70 deaths
120 million – 140 deaths
180 million – 210 deaths
240 million – 280 deaths
300 million – 350 deaths

In fact I believe to get to the USA’s levels of gun related homicides we would need to increase the UK’s population some 160 times to 9,600 million people, the worlds population at this time is only 6,500 million

The false sense of power that guns can give people also seems to appear in the idea that they are a protection against government persecution.

For example over the years several pro-gun people have implied that the Jews would have been safe and the holocaust may never have happened if the Jews had just been armed.

The problem is that the German people had been taught the Jews were dangerous. So what if some of them had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this as a justified reaction and come to their defence or just seen it as proof the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed taking care of?

Think about US history, did the Native Americans that fought back against the treaty breaking US government get the support of the American citizenry? What if the US citizens of Japanese decent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them after Pearl Harbour and had shot at the police, do you think they would have got general and popular support? What about those hauled in front of McCarthy or the un-American committees, would Americans have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?

Here is the long version –

Can guns save you from suppression?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...&postcount=217

 

Rick

And who has suggested that it is evidence of American cultural barbarism? If anything I think it is the pro-gunners who repeatedly portray Americans as murderous barbarians with all the scaremongering about murders and rapists seemingly on every street corner just waiting to pounce. And believing that US civility is only skin deep and that they think Americans are the absolute best at reverting to savagery.

Please explain?

Sorry but this whole post although high in bilious indignation and rhetorical assertion doesn’t seem to address the criticisms I and others have raised.

Rather than engaging in juvenile point scoring why not actually tackle the criticisms?

But first, yes I suggest you should actually read them.

 

Scratcho

Well from my experience here, many pro-gunners present the same arguments over and over again, but never seem willing or able to address the criticisms levelled at their arguments.
It is therefore likely to be no resolution if one side refuses to address what has been said (sometimes clearly not even reading it) and never produces counter arguments.

*

Military forces made up of American and French soldiers gained American independence.

Please clarify?

Again we are taking here of US civilian gun ownership in what way has that “saved the globe from subjugation”?

*

Again this posts just oozes fear but again it doesn’t address the issues that have been raised.

To you chaos is inevitable, civilisation is only a vainer with savagery just below and the only thing standing between you and the barbarians red in tooth and claw - are guns.

 

I don't know about all this back and forth banter, but I use my guns to get food.

If they outlaw guns, i'll use blackpowder. if they outlaw blackpowder, i'll use traps and airguns.

some of us aimlessly argue and debate policy, and some of us find a way to survive.

It seems to me that;
If the powers that be,whom ever they are, want to take our guns,then by golly they will take them. Yes even when they pry them from your cold dead hands.

Ya can't fight a well supplied armed force with a .22 caliber rifle or a shotgun.If they pull a tank up to your front door,you will surrender your guns.

That said, I don't know why someone from another country cares about what I use to shop for groceries.But understand this, It is not the squirrel rifles that won our independence from England. It was and is an unparalleled spirit of every American to fight against any and all odds. This is something that no enemy force has ever understood and has always failed to consider,and lost.

So, they can take my guns, but they can't take my will to survive.
Yesterday, today and tommorrow,as Hank Williams jr. said in a song.
A country boy can survive.

 

And not one syllable of that addresses what I said.

Gun control enacted for political control is very effective and when it has been in place for centuries the premise for its existence is accepted and parroted and new "justifications" for even more restrictive measures (for your own good) are swallowed without any sugar. 400 years ago guns in the hands of commoners (along with free speech) were considered the engines of sedition and in modern times the commoners were again told the limited, controlled guns in their hands were dangerous to society . . . The one constant is that commoners can't be trusted.

Your debased state is such that you embrace edicts from government that restrict your actions so it is no mystery why arms in the hands of 75,000,000 citizens who believe themselves free and independent such a uncomfortable, frightening thing for you.

 

Ide liek to see em try!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Well, I realize that's a lot easier than actually addressing what I write.

To actually address my point you would have demonstrated how the gun control enacted as CRIME CONTROL has actually reduced gun crime.

You can't do that. A nation like the UK with centuries of political gun control applied to a compliant, submissive population is not a good test bed of the effectiveness of gun control enacted as crime control.

Why don't we discuss another island that has nearly 40 years of strict gun control enacted to disarm criminals and protect the law-abiding?

The emigre's from this island are a significant driver of your island's gun crime; do you think that your gun ban is going to work where their homeland's has not? Do you think that the gun ban is a reason the Yardies feel so at home in Britain; guns being banned (for everyone else) is what they are used to after all!

Guns have been banned in Jamaica since 1974's Gun Court Act . . . A law enacted to," "take guns off the streets, out of the hands of criminals, and to lock up and keep gunmen away from decent society." Instead, it has accomplished exactly the opposite. The Gun Court took guns out of the hands of Jamaica's law-abiding, leaving them at the mercy of the criminals and the state.

That is the eventual culmination of strict gun control being enforced . . . Subjugated citizens unable to protect themselves from criminals that easily evade regulatory proscriptions on an item that gives them absolute superiority over their victims.

Criminals will not surrender their tools of the trade and government's response to escalating criminality, the only response available to them is more draconian legislative measures and brutal enforcement methods.

What is happening in Jamaica is a story that has been told before. This scenario has been decried as the siren song of gun control by pro-gun people for a long time. Jamaica is descending into ordered, legislated anarchy.

The government is becoming the oppressor in its zeal to enforce laws that in practice work only toward chaos. The criminals become untouchable and the citizens are terrorized by those who should be protecting them.
When the citizens fear the "security forces" more than the criminals, you can be sure of one thing.



It all started with something as feel good and innocuous as "The Gun Court Act."

And if the USA with 309,000,000 people were to get to the homicide levels of COMPLETE GUN BAN Jamaica we would have 195,000 murders annually.

A fabrication of your own mind. You have assigned 75,000,000 Americans a group mentality and that is just . . . well, illogical and ridiculous.

Why don't you try to actually discuss this topic within the parameters of the real world? That being the constitutional and political realities of the USA. Your half-assed psychiatry is about as useful as tits on a nun.

You really need to take your own words to heart. The castle in the sky that you have built to define US gun owners is the epitome of a myth built to reinforce the imprudent and senseless.

 

Rick

Oh Rick I really wish you’d read my posts rather than pumping out yet more tangential rhetoric, you might then actually see that it does address what you said.

You were arguing that you believe civilian gun ownership somehow protected your ‘liberty’.

What I’m saying is that the false sense of power that guns can give people can give them the impression that they are a protection against government persecution - and I’m asking is the question – is that true.

I mean in what way does that gun protect your ‘liberty’ from ‘government’ and has it done so in the past?

Did the Native Americans that fought back against the treaty breaking US government get the support of the American citizenry? What if the US citizens of Japanese decent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them after Pearl Harbour and had shot at the police, do you think they would have got general and popular support? What about those hauled in front of McCarthy or the un-American committees, would Americans have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?


Imagine a police officer comes to a gun owner’s house and finds a big bag of heroin, the homeowner knows it wasn’t there before and that the police officer must have planted it, if the person used their gun to threaten or even shoot the police officer, do you think that would make the situation better or worse for them?

My point is at what point is the gun going to be used to protect liberty?

Civilian gun ownership doesn’t seem to have been of much use in the past and it didn’t help at Ruby Ridge or Waco. My argument is that many people that are looking to the gun as protection against government suppression would be better off putting more effort into having a political system that they had confidence in and didn’t fear.

 

Rick
It seems to me that your argument is that gun control is just a cynical ploy by ‘government’ to steal liberty from the ‘people’. A 400 year old conspiracy, if you will, to keep the people in order and stop them from improving their lot. That gun control is a form of social control.
But as I point out in my theory - civilian gun ownership could also be seen as a form of social control.

- As I’ve said many Americans attitude toward guns is just one aspect of a more general attitude of intimidation in US society.

For example the US has the largest prison populations in the world (686 per 100,000) and has one of the highest execution rates in the world (in the company of such countries as China, Iran, Pakistan and now Iraq). It is also about zero tolerance and the three strike rules.

(Switzerland prison population is 83 per 100,000, England and Wales 148 per 100,000. Both countries do not have the death penalty)

To me this seems more about ruling through intimidation and the fear of violence (especially since US prisons are often described as extremely brutal especially compared with those in the UK and Switzerland, - Amnesty International).

**

Guns can also be a means of intimidation, the whole movement to legalise the carrying of a concealed weapon is based on the premise that ‘criminals’ will be too afraid to act.

But while many pro-gunners talk about using guns to deter crime, what crimes can a gun deter or tackle?

Guns in the hands of ‘decent’ ordinary citizens are not much use in tackling, corruption, white collar or computer crime neither is it against the mostly closed worlds of organised crime.


So that leaves street crime, the deterrence being talked about is basically lower class crime the protection being sort is mainly against the lowest level of criminal.

It could be said that it is about keeping the economic lower orders in their place?

It might be interesting to note that Black households have traditionally had some of the lowest median incomes according to the US census and at the same time although black people only make up around 13 per cent of the US’s population they made up half the prison population in 1999 and in 2000 one in three young black men were either in prison or on probation or parole. Today in the US they make up 41.8% of those on death row.

Now while any group can become involved in criminal activity social, economic and educational backgrounds often have a way of determine the type of crime someone is going to undertake.

And those closer to poverty are much more likely to become involved in street crime (which isn’t that profitable) than white collar or computer crime (which is)

**

So again who is this intimidation been directed at?

It seems to me that many people who have guns come to see them as a way and means of dealing with or ignoring socio-political problems.

Basically they do not see any urgency in dealing with the social or economic roots of crime since they are armed and believe that if a criminal comes for them they will have the means of dealing with them.

 

Rick

As I’ve said you seem more interested in rather childish point scoring than in honest debate.

As I explained the reason why I’ve been basically just been able to cut and paste is because the same issues remain outstanding with people seemingly unwilling or unable to address them.

And here we have it again you’d rather go off on a hissy fit rather than join in sensible debate, and then try and sideline addressing the issues.

So off we go to Jamaica.

Why – because it is a classic bit of misdirection.

We start with comparisons with the UK but that doesn’t work out for you so you bring up Jamaica and I’m sure if that didn’t work out for you then you move over to somewhere else and if that didn’t work out well so on and so on…the trick being that the original issues are never actually addressed, bravo a clever performance but rather than play games can we actually get back to what was raised?

*

As I’ve said your argument seems to be that gun control is just a cynical ploy by ‘government’ to steal liberty from the ‘people’. A 400 year old conspiracy, if you will, to keep the people in order and stop them from improving their lot.

But in the UK the lot of common people has improved vastly in the last 400 years. Due in large part to the agitation of common people.

Your other contention that ‘gun control’ never helps to reduce crime comes back to the point I’ve made several times that there seem too much concentration on ‘guns and crime’ amongst the pro-gunners than on ‘crime and society’.

For them it seems to be all about guns rather than social, economic and political factors that seem to have a much greater influence on crime.

And this is where the misdirection over Jamaica comes in again - yes the two countries (Jamaica and Britain) might have ‘gun control’ but that is all you highlight without actually pointing out the differences in the social, economic and political situation in both countries.

http://www.jamaicans.com/articles/primecomments/jamaicacrimedilemma.shtml

(PS: I’m a member of Amnesty international)

 

Rick

It is a theory that I readily admit - but one that seem to be supported by you and many other pro-gunners that have visited this site not all of course but enough that it still stands up rather well.

Just dismissing it does not make it go away, I’ve explained often and at length why I think it seems valid, you are not explaining why you think it isn’t, you’re just saying that because you don’t like it, it must be wrong.

But sorry that doesn’t mean it goes away.

LOL and if denial doesn’t work try ridicule.

Sorry that doesn’t work either, the theory is based on what pro-gunners have stated here, a number of studies and websites that some of them have pointed out to me, along with a number of books.

You are not putting up any rational, logical or reasonable counter-argument, you’re just dictating that you’re right, so I must be wrong.

Again where is the rational counter argument?

Just saying it is ‘a castle in the sky’ doesn’t make it so, I mean the fact that you have not presented any rational counter-argument other than denial and ridicule seems to point to it being rather stable.

 

Perhaps, yes; the first to control of the masses and the later to control unwelcome direct interaction between individuals.

Gun control assumes the masses are not to be trusted; private gun ownership assumes nothing, it is insurance in case someone acts in a illegitimate fashion. Forced disarmament cultivates two detrimental outcomes; it nurtures the actions of criminals (because they can commit crimes without facing effective resistance) and it nurtures anti-government sentiment among the law-abiding who have had the means to resist attack removed and then are sent out into a society that government can not secure.

Indisputably proven fact.

Back in 1994 the US Dept of Justice put a number on how many people defended themselves against a crime of violence with a firearm. BACK THEN it averaged 62,000 times annually plus 20,000 more people stopping property crimes.

• "During the same period an estimated annual average of 62,000 violent crime victims . . . used a firearm in an effort to defend themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000 victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft attempted to defend their property with guns. -- U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs - Bureau of Justice Statistics: Crime Data Brief Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft April 1994, NCJ-147003

That was 170 people a day nationwide that defended their lives and person from bodily harm. What is the old saying . . . If it saves one life?


Interestingly, those who use a firearm to defend themselves are the least likely group to sustain injuries in the incident. They were even less likely to be injured than those who offered no resistance.

• At a minimum, victims use guns to attack or threaten the perpetrators in . . . about 70,000 times per year--according to NCVS data for recent years. These victims were less likely to report being injured than those who either defended themselves by other means or took no self-protective measures at all. Thus, while 33 percent of all surviving robbery victims were injured, only 25 percent of those who offered no resistance and 17 percent of those who defended themselves with guns were injured. For surviving assault victims, the corresponding injury rates were, respectively, 30 percent, 27 percent, and 12 percent. -- National Institute of Justice - Firearms and Violence. by Jeffrey A. Roth

Those armed citizens have an impact on criminal behavior.

• Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." -- Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (1986). See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994).

These papers were written before the cascade of Concealed Carry in the USA; there are probably 10 times the number of armed citizens out there now then were permitted to carry in 1986 - 1994 (currently estimated at 9 million)

Well, if in their place means not in my face trying to rob me then yeah . . .

Where I live violent crime is pretty much a black on black thing. My actual chances of being a victim of violent crime (being a 50y.o. white guy not involved in criminal activity or out on the streets at 2am) is on the level of being struck by lightning while cashing in a million dollar lottery ticket. Blacks involved in drug and/or gang activity are the driving force behind the murders and shootings in the city I live in and North Philly and South-West Philly are war-zones (I live in the North-East part).

Here is a startling map. It shows the murders in my city for 2006. You can filter results for age, sex, race, weapon and time of day . . .

PHILADELPHIA HOMICIDES 2006

To show my risk, filter for a 41-60 year old white male, figure work hours 6am to noon . . . a grand total of one homicide. How about noon to 6pm? (back in my house by then), two homicides . . .

Now filter for white male, all ages, all times, all weapons. . . 55 homicides -- note that for this data set, Hispanics are considered "white" (mouseover each dot and victim's name pops up).

Now just change one filter, change race to black . . .

The social effects that drive that murder frequency has nothing to do with me, my actions or my decision to be a gun owner and my choice to carry a gun for defense. I avoid being in those areas (tough, because I work in the heart of North Philly at Temple University) and I minimize my interactions with people that I perceive as risks to my safety in those areas (and I'm sure the racist labels will soon follow, oh well) . . .

That you consider my ownership of a gun and advocating for the responsible and legal use of that weapon in self-defense as "intimidation" is too absurd to even address. What the hell is wrong with me just wanting to mind my own business and desiring to not be assaulted?

What a sorry example of projection your statement is . . .

What the hell is my responsibility to remediate the ills of society? Sorry if it seems like I want to ignore their plight but I'm too damn busy working 12+ hours a day to pay for the social safety net.

Yup!

 

What I can say about Balbus at this point,is that in every gun thread that has ever come thru these parts,and there have been many,many,many of them--he has been given at some point in every one of them--every possible opinion and every possible perspective from every possible angle that rational humans could possibly give him, from societal causes to political causes to psychological causes,to prehistorical causes to modern causes and to any other causes that could possibly exist, to try and answer his constant,never changing quest for -----well ,I'm not sure anybody can figure exactly what he needs. Every time I answered him ,my posts--"reeked with fear" or some such. I don't know why anyone keeps trying, it just is an impossibility-but I know that if I'm still alive in 10 years and still coming in here--so will Balbus ,recommending to "please read my post 304". Totally a one note poster and about as interesting as watching my laundry go 'round and 'round in the dryer. Boring-boring-boring. If I even LOOK at one of threads again --I'm going to shoot myself,just like a typical gun-crazy ,fearfull american.