The path to world peace

[Skipjack]

If you are going to keep something in the nightstand, your best bet is probably a snub .38 as its hard to grab the barrel.

That is why I prefer long blade weapons. Unless the perp is Rob Roy or wearing chainmaille gloves, he would severely regrett touching that blade. A heavy sabre is a scary weapon, it does not just kill your enemy, it butchers him. Sure fullfills the deterrend part too.

[MirariNefas]

In my current state many establishments prohibit entry with guns, even the non-concealed kind.

This is also a state with a high level of gun ownership. People mostly use them for hunting, and don't have such a big need to drink their coffee with a revolver in their pants.

For personal defense, I like tasers. Cheap, concealable, regulations are laxer, not as likely to kill your kid, and sure to fry pacemakers (hands off, grandma!). They won't really help you overthrow the government, but neither will a handgun.

[Diogenes]

That's one way early governments (tyrannies/monarchies) got established. However, ever read Rousseau? Even the biggest SOB has to sleep sometimes. If he pisses everyone else off too much, some of them will just kill him when he's not expecting it.

Then whoever kills him becomes the new SOB. Same Sh*t, Different Dictator.

Governments also naturally got established by a bunch of people getting together and deciding that, collectively, they had to establish rules for society. They also needed to be able to effectively organize themselves into military forces when threatened by other tribes. As a result you got early republics - everywhere from ancient Greece to some of the native tribes in North America (Iroquois Confederacy).

My recollection of history says that Ancient Greek "Democracy" lasted 55 years, by which point the simple minded people bankrupted the treasury. (what else can you expect of Democrats?) Monarchy was reestablished.

Now, you could argue that the guys who got together to form such a republic were a collection of SOBs who were tougher than everyone else they ran into. Well, so be it - someone had to do the job (just like the Pax Britannica and Pax Americana). Yes, in ancient republics only a minority of people were citizens - many were slaves (and women were often treated as property, although not in the Iroquois example). But, government does not necessarily derive simply from one person bullying the others.

Normally it does. Even in the case of the US Republic, the founders were all leaders in their own states.

[Diogenes]

The thing is, that I dont even mind guns. My father is a hunter and I am was a member of the Schützenverein (gun club) once. I did however strictly shoot for sports with rifles. I personally dont see any reason why anybody would need a handgun.

You can carry it with you on your person should the need arise for someone to be shot.

If you need to defend your home, a rifle will do.

A shotgun is better. Rifles will penetrate many walls and possibly kill someone two house further down. Most American homes are made with Sheetrock. A shotgun blast will kill anyone it is aimed at, but will be mostly stopped by two layers of Sheetrock, making it safer for home use. Most experts recommend a shotgun for home defense.

For military purposes, rifles do.

Military Officers carry side arms. So do Police Officers. Apparently they disagree with you on this.

For doing your anti government revolution whatshallmacallit, rifles would do.

Well, perhaps at one time. They are no longer as effective as they once were. Nowadays, remote controlled RPGs and bazookas would be far more effective.

Rifles, unlike handguns are very impractical for commiting crimes with, since you can not conceal them very easily.

You mean robberies. They are perfect for sniping other people, which is a different sort of crime.

Anyway, my point is not so much that guns are bad. However some here have been stating that stricter gun laws are bad and they clearly are not (because then we would have infinitely more crime here than you have).

If we shipped a representative section of big city America over to you, you would find out just how much more crime you had.

It also do believe that there has to be a neutral entity keeping the control on the streets. Without that, you will soon have feudal battles between clan lords, or gangs respectively.

You mean like the crips and bloods? Or how about that shootout along the Arizona border yesterday? 21 killed.

Some here clearly said that you dont need a police (if everybody is armed) and I object that.

No one said that that I noticed. They said the police CANNOT protect you from violent people. The police DO arrest quite a few of the worst people in a community, and thereby reduce violence and crime, so they ARE beneficial.

[Diogenes]

So, the answer to guns is simple, no? Ban all guns, except for single-shot breech-loading rifles over 5 foot long. That way, if anyone tries to run-amok shooting at random, they are gonna get a pile of people rushing them in between each shot.

Simples.

And as for 'civil defence against one's own Government' (the purpose of the 'right to bear arms'), then the only way to put up an effective defence against an on-slaught of "Government forces" is to have hundreds of people all shooting their breech-loading rifles sequentially. A sort of 'democracy in action' as you can only shoot quick enough if enough of you agree together to shoot as a squad!

(OK, so this isn't my discussion.. Just thought I'd add the quip...I'll go back to sleep...)

Tongue in cheek. Might I recommend "a Modest Proposal" ?

[GIThruster]

If you are going to keep something in the nightstand, your best bet is probably a snub .38 as its hard to grab the barrel.

That is why I prefer long blade weapons. Unless the perp is Rob Roy or wearing chainmaille gloves, he would severely regrett touching that blade. A heavy sabre is a scary weapon, it does not just kill your enemy, it butchers him. Sure fullfills the deterrend part too.

For indoors you don't want a sabre. Sabres are large, heavy cavalry weapons designed to be swung from the shoulder against targets on the ground. For close infighting, if you want a slashing weapon, you want something like the shorter cutlas, which was designed for use aboard ship where the confines prohibit long-reach weapons.

Still, always bad to bring a knife of any length to a gunfight. . .

Reducing the issue to that of home defense does however slant the playing field of the debate. When I lived in Portland Oregon, there were something like eleven bank robberies in town every week, and many times this number in robberies of gas stations and convenience stores. That number dropped fantastically (I don't remember the exact value but more than 90% IIRC) in the first week Portland began to issue concealed carry permits. It's not safe to rob a convenience store if anyone there might have a firearm.

The real issue is even broader than either of these, home defense and self-defense in public. The real issue ought to go back to the question of whether it is lawful to use lethal force in defense of private property. When it is not legal, the bad guys are going to be robbers. When it is legal to use lethal force in defense of private property, the bad guys are always severely restrained in their actions, and far fewer of them become a real threat.

Anyway, that's what the statistics say I've seen over the years but arguing without them is pretty pointless. Anti-gun folks will always just say "I don't believe you" which is all too tiresome for me.

[KitemanSA]

Just yesterday, Virginia put into effect a law that permits people with concealed-carry permits (for which a specific background check is required) to wear them concealed in bars or restaurants.

I can see why. Spotting someone carrying a gun on the table next to you, can severely ruin your appetite.

Most people, including many Virginians mis-understand the law. What has been illegal has been to carry CONCEALED. It has long been legal to carry UNconcealed.

I was out with a group of about five other folks when we decided to get lunch at a Chinese restaurant. As we entered, one of the guys said, "This place has a liquer licence" and he and two others drew their pistols out of concealment, clipped them on their belts, and proceeded to enjoy their meal; all entirely legally.

Didn't seem to ruin my appetite or anyone elses at that restaurant.

[KitemanSA]

If you are going to keep something in the nightstand, your best bet is probably a snub .38 as its hard to grab the barrel.

That is why I prefer long blade weapons. Unless the perp is Rob Roy or wearing chainmaille gloves, he would severely regrett touching that blade. A heavy sabre is a scary weapon, it does not just kill your enemy, it butchers him. Sure fullfills the deterrend part too.

Which makes you a bit of a bully, doesn't it?
Here you are, recommending allowance of weaponry YOU can use against others, but prohibition of weaponry that they could use against you.
Planning to threaten any 35kilo girls anytime soon? Don't want them able to shoot your ass off for trying? Bully!

[Skipjack]

Most experts recommend a shotgun for home defense.

Ok, then this must have been the language barrier striking again. I thought that shotguns were a kind of rifle. I guess I just learned something new.
Yes, I do agree, shotguns are good for hunting ducks and burglars alike

Military Officers carry side arms.

Only those that do not take directly part in the action.

So do Police Officers.

I included police officers in the list of those that have a real reason to carry a handgun. Read a few posts back.

Nowadays, remote controlled RPGs and bazookas would be far more effective.

Yeah, I feel much saver now that my neighbour has installed that sentry gun in his front yard.

You mean robberies.

Robberies, burglaries, etc.

They are perfect for sniping other people, which is a different sort of crime.

Yeah, the last sniper that I remember was the one in Washington. I think that there are generally rather few snipings happening (luckily and yes there are some, but comparably few, I am sure).

If we shipped a representative section of big city America over to you, you would find out just how much more crime you had.

I would trade that for our multi cultural explosive package any time. We have a high muslim faction in the big cities.

No one said that that I noticed.

And of course police and criminals have very similar personalities so it would be bad to give one the power over the other.

There are several more posts on page one that basically say that police is not good.

You mean like the crips and bloods?

You make my point.

They said the police CANNOT protect you from violent people.

I disagree with this sentiment. I have personally been involved in a situation, where exactly that happened.

The police DO arrest quite a few of the worst people in a community, and thereby reduce violence and crime, so they ARE beneficial.

Here the solve rate for violent crimes is pretty high. I cant quite remember anymore where it was exaclty.
It is lower for property crimes though and those have been increasing recently thanks to said minorities(we have those too, you know) that are growin in this country.

[Skipjack]

Sabres are large, heavy cavalry weapons designed to be swung from the shoulder against targets on the ground.

I am talking about a light sabres as it was in use by police and infantry until the end of the 19th century. They are not that heavy (the blade is only 2.5 cm wide at its widest), but rather long (between 75 and 90 cm, depending on the model).
They are a fast wielded weapon. You wield it by only turning your wrist. You dont move your entire arm.

You are probably thinking more of a cutlass, which are much heavier

[Skipjack]

Which makes you a bit of a bully, doesn't it?
Here you are, recommending allowance of weaponry YOU can use against others, but prohibition of weaponry that they could use against you.
Planning to threaten any 35kilo girls anytime soon? Don't want them able to shoot your ass off for trying? Bully

I absolutely dont understand what you are trying to say here. I was talking about defending my home. You are talking about me threatening malnourished girls, which I have no intention of doing. I know a few girls that are reeeally good at wielding a light sabre, btw.
Anyway, a weapon like this is rather impractical for an assault against citizens, especially in public. Try picturing the situation and you will understand why. It is practical for keeping a perp at bay however until authorities arrive. That is unless the perp is armed with handguns. Then you have to be lucky (still possible to place a few well places hits and stabs though).

[Diogenes]

Chris,

You are probably pretty close to the intent of the Founding Fathers of this country. It did take us a while to learn to reload as fast as the guys in red coats we were rebeling against, though. They could reportedly fire about four times a minute, but we cheated by hiding behind trees between shots.

As Simon said much earlier, the real reason for the right to bear arms in our Constitution is to retain the ultimate right to rebel against a sufficiently unjust goverment, should our experiment in democracy fail. The principle was so important to the founders that they accepted the resulting collateral damage.

On tomligon.com I have a link to a picture of the first Ligon in the New World, also a Thomas Ligon. One of his claims to fame was a battle with indians circa 1644. He fired three shots from a gun later described as being "8 feet long" (the gun still exists, on a different stock, and presently measures only about 7 ft long). The three shots killed 7 indians ... the effects of a fowling piece that would today be classified as a cannon. So you might revise your statement to even longer guns, but account for the effects of a handful of "buck and ball".

http://www.tomligon.com/Toms.html

I will introduce a point that I see discussed far too seldom. Beyond keeping governmental tyranny at bay, (like that worked during the Civil War.) there may be another factor which the founders had in mind. The ready availability of men who knew how to handle and use firearms.

I have read that in several of America's wars, it is those men who grew up using guns that were the most effective in combat. A couple of examples are Audie Murphy and Sgt. Alvin York.


The notion that knowledgeable men trained in a skill useful to the defense of the nation was likewise behind the section of the communications act of 1934 concerning Amateur radio operators.

Whereas these regulations, set forth in Part 97 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations clarify and extend the purposes of the amateur radio service as a--

(1) voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications;

(2) contributing service to the advancement of the telecommunications infrastructure;

(3) service which encourages improvement of an individual's technical and operating skills;

(4) service providing a national reservoir of trained operators, technicians and electronics experts; and

My point is, the founders may have been thinking along similar lines when they said " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state; The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The wording shows full well that the founders intended, among other things, to use the mass of gun toting populace to defend the state. If you have read the Federalist papers, and the Anti-Federalist papers, you know that there was a very great fear of the Central government oppressing individual states. The Federalists rejected the idea because the State Militias would be armed and able to fight off a Federal attempt at tyranny, and that the OTHER states would refuse to use their militias in such a manner.

(Like THAT happened during the civil war. The Federalists were wrong about a LOT of stuff.)

Here is an amusing example of Alexander Hamilton's wishful thinking on this score. He even made fun of people who suggested such a thing!

When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.

From Federalist # 28

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federal ... /fed28.htm


Of course this was the silly ass that didn't think Burr would shoot him!

[Diogenes]

So, the answer to guns is simple, no? Ban all guns, except for single-shot breech-loading rifles over 5 foot long. That way, if anyone tries to run-amok shooting at random, they are gonna get a pile of people rushing them in between each shot.

Simples.

And as for 'civil defence against one's own Government' (the purpose of the 'right to bear arms'), then the only way to put up an effective defense against an on-onslaught of "Government forces" is to have hundreds of people all shooting their breech-loading rifles sequentially. A sort of 'democracy in action' as you can only shoot quick enough if enough of you agree together to shoot as a squad!

(OK, so this isn't my discussion.. Just thought I'd add the quip...I'll go back to sleep...)

But the US or any major government has military grade, full auto, mega death dealing guns. If the people want to start a new government or overthrow the old regime because they are breaking the Constitutional Law or precepts of treaty for any Government, it would be a truly ridiculous disproportionate fight. If the people wanted to fight that way and not vote and complain. The local militias need military grade weapons for just that very reason.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Any weapon could be made or used whether or not there is there is a law banning it.

Considering what our army was capable of doing to Iraq, it is quite apparent to me that rifles alone will not be very effective in stopping them. At the moment, I am at a loss for thinking of anything that will, other than their Moral Upbringing, which is becoming less and less reliable, the more the country moves toward secularism and what used to be called "evil."

[Diogenes]

Chris,

You are probably pretty close to the intent of the Founding Fathers of this country. It did take us a while to learn to reload as fast as the guys in red coats we were rebeling against, though. They could reportedly fire about four times a minute, but we cheated by hiding behind trees between shots.

As Simon said much earlier, the real reason for the right to bear arms in our Constitution is to retain the ultimate right to rebel against a sufficiently unjust goverment, should our experiment in democracy fail. The principle was so important to the founders that they accepted the resulting collateral damage.

On tomligon.com I have a link to a picture of the first Ligon in the New World, also a Thomas Ligon. One of his claims to fame was a battle with indians circa 1649. He fired three shots from a gun later described as being "8 feet long" (the gun still exists, on a different stock, and presently measures only about 7 ft long). The three shots killed 7 indians ... the effects of a fowling piece that would today be classified as a cannon. So you might revise your statement to even longer guns, but account for the effects of a handful of "buck and ball".

http://www.tomligon.com/Toms.html

And the Brits at the time called the Americans dirty fighters and terrorists and insurgents too!

Americans also specifically targeted British Officers. Another tactic which they thought was dirty pool.

Fight dirty to win, can we blame our enemies for suicide bombers and crashing planes into buildings?
Bill Mahr got his ass kicked off ABC stating that you would have to respect the enemy for the fact that they take the fight personally with box knives and crashing planes into buildings rather than launch a few cruise missiles from 4000 miles away.

I hate Bill Mahr. He is scum as far as i'm concerned, but I happen to agree that what he said was true.

What he said was something along the lines of " The terrorists exhibited more courage taking over planes with box cutters and crashing them into buildings than WE do when we launch a cruise missile from 4000 miles away."

This is true. However, I don't have any desire to fight fair with terrorists. I don't care if it's cowardly to kill them in a way in which they can't fight back. I don't care about being fair, I care about stopping them from killing innocent people.

They may be courageous, but they are exhibiting courage in the commission of an immoral act. F**k Them.

[Diogenes]

Bill Mahr got his ass kicked off ABC stating that you would have to respect the enemy for the fact that they take the fight personally with box knives and crashing planes into buildings rather than launch a few cruise missiles from 4000 miles away.

I have to concur that I find this kind of reaction is odd.

Maybe someone can explain to me why I hear suicide bombers often referred to in the media as 'cowards'. Seems an odd use of the word.

It is common place for people to call someone cowardly when they attack someone who is not capable of fighting back.

We want the terrorists to fight our military head to head, where all the advantage is on our side. Refusing to do so, we deride them as cowardly for attacking people who are non military.

Don't pay any attention to it, it's just human presumptions.

Interestingly enough, when England, During World War II, decided to engage in bombing campaigns on Germany, they announced that they would only strike "Military Targets." After a series of bombing attempts, it was pointed out to them that Aerial bombardment was so inaccurate, that it was impossible for bombers to hit "Only" military targets.

After that, the Allies decreed that civilian targets were now military targets because the civilian work force supports the military fighting force. All pretense of Moral concern vanished with that rationalization. They then embarked on a massive bombing of civilian AND military targets.


I guess if the only tool you've got is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails.