Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:Ah, this thread again. As a person who takes no issue with personal gun ownership I think I'll weigh in on this from a slightly different perspective.

It is fairly problematic to pin violent crime in the US on gun ownership. A gun is a tool. It facilitates the cause of of harm to another being. There is nothing intrinsically evil about the gun itself. Indeed, there are plenty of ways in which harm can be done to another person without the use of a gun. I'm sure that virtually everyone who is a member of this forum has, at least once, considered which everyday objects could be easily weaponized. If not, I recommend you do, it is quite illuminating. Once we realize that there are literally hundreds of ways to kill one another at our fingertips the question of gun use becomes one of motive, not possession. What motivates a person to use a gun?

I believe that, generally, there are two broad categories of gun related criminal actions: retributive and profit driven. Retributive crimes are ones of passion; the result of people driven to acts of violence as a result of perceived injury. Such crimes are virtually impossible to do away with. They are simply an extension of human nature. Profit driven crime, on the other hand, is something born of necessity; of the perception that legitimate means of change are beyond reasonable action. These crimes can be prevented, but not through gun control. Rather, social and structural reforms are the proper vehicle. Things like the disassociation of education from property taxes (or property tax pooling), enhanced public transit, and improved unemployment services.

In any case, I think that arms control is largely a dead issue in the US. There are simply too many privately held weapons, and too high a demand for the legitimate purchase of more, for any real political push to restrict ownership. Moreover, focussing on gun ownership as a cause of violence serves to ensconce real social issues in a nigh unto impenetrable maze of partisan rhetoric.

This is a very good post.

I totally agree.

I dislike the whole "a gun is a tool" argument. I was under the impression that a tool is used to create something. I can't think of anything that a gun can make. Guns are designed solely for the purpose of injuring or killing a target.

I know someone is going to say, "BUT KNIVES KILL PEOPLE TOO." Nowadays the knife has become a tool more than a weapon with the advent of the gun. Sure it can kill people, but the most common uses will be for cooking and the like. Anything can kill people, but that doesn't mean it was designed solely to kill or injure. Next you'll be telling me that jet bombers are tools, too.

CorporateLogo wrote:I dislike the whole "a gun is a tool" argument. I was under the impression that a tool is used to create something. I can't think of anything that a gun can make. Guns are designed solely for the purpose of injuring or killing a target.

Well, a gun can help you create your dinner.

A gun can help you feed your family, through hunting as well as the protection of your livestock and crops from the multitude of pests that are massively overpopulated in some areas.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:

malfred wrote:

Ace_of_Spades wrote: she was going to beat his ass with her ASP baton.

She's feisty!

Raw-ow-r?

Sorry, what does this mean? Should I have said "butt" or "glutieus maximus".

It was the obligatory RAWR + the pained OW.

CorporateLogo wrote:I dislike the whole "a gun is a tool" argument. I was under the impression that a tool is used to create something. I can't think of anything that a gun can make. Guns are designed solely for the purpose of injuring or killing a target.

I know someone is going to say, "BUT KNIVES KILL PEOPLE TOO." Nowadays the knife has become a tool more than a weapon with the advent of the gun. Sure it can kill people, but the most common uses will be for cooking and the like. Anything can kill people, but that doesn't mean it was designed solely to kill or injure. Next you'll be telling me that jet bombers are tools, too.

They are tools. Tools for the coercion of nations. Guns, at least in the domestic context, are tools for the coercion of people. Nothing exists for the explicit purpose of destruction. True, destruction follows from the use of some tools, but that destruction is ultimately designed to serve in the preservation of something else. You can keep people from using destructive tools by giving them access to more socially acceptable alternatives, like money. After all, the capitalist system really boils down to a means of channeling man's natural competitive impulses in a way which bypasses violence.

Ace_of_Spades wrote:

malfred wrote:

Ace_of_Spades wrote: she was going to beat his ass with her ASP baton.

She's feisty!

Raw-ow-r?

Sorry, what does this mean? Should I have said "butt" or "glutieus maximus".

About the level of violence in the UK and Japan...I'm from TX but I spent 8 years in the UK (4.5 living north of London) and 8 years in Japan (Mom's from Okinawa)...so let me weigh in on both. Growing up I didn't see a lot of violence in either country (but the Japanese have some ultra violent anime) unless you add "soccer violence" since I played in both countries. But when I got older and was stationed back in each country I saw my fair share of violence.

Sorry to say this to all the British Bros on board but I saw a ton more violence in the UK. For awhile we (mil types) were banned from most of the pubs/clubs around the base because of fights with locals. At the time there was a problem with "Yanks" getting jumped by local guys who were angry with them for talking/dancing/dating some of those beautiful British women. Unfortunately most Yanks don't go party by themselves. So the fights were never little affairs.

So you'd end up with Yanks and the girls we would meet and the pissed of local suitor and his mates throwing down. It got so bad that the nearest pubs/clubs we could go to where almost 15 miles away from base.

This was a regular occurance and we could never figure out why. We were under orders not to fight and most of us didn't go lookng for fights since we knew the book would be thrown at us. But week in and week out there was/were fights.

I guess my point is that it isn't guns/knives/slingshots/staplers (wicked cut once from a staple ) it's about mindset. You get yobs and douche bags in every society and if they are looking for violence they tend to be able to find it or manage to create it for themselves.

Brits love to scrap, but it's *very* rare for someone to die in a fistfight, less so in a shootout. Also, imagine if all those beery louts had guns...christ, I'd never go to the football, that's for sure!

Ace_of_Spades wrote: About the martial arts idea...I've got training and so does my wife and I can tell you that while it's nice to have some ability it's not going to completely "save" your butt in a fight. Close quarters combat is down and dirty and nothing is fancy about it at all. Most times if someone wants to get in your face they are going to throwdown but it's their buddy you have to watch out for. That rotten bastich might have a gun or a knife and be willing to use it when your not expecting it.

Here in Las Vegas there are plenty of folks who get shot but some punk who brings a gun to a martial arts/knife fight.

Frazzled wrote:

Railguns wrote:But martial arts won't stop a gun. Criminals need control, violent crime gives control, and the easiest way to secure it is through the advantage of a gun. If you don't have one yourself, you are intentionally gimping yourself against someone with one.

Many people have gotten hurt or killed believing that martial arts will save them from firepower. History has dramatically proven this time and time again. I shouldn't have to point out where.

Exactly. I took martial arts for ten years. Did all the velociraptor young punk stuff. Do I think I can take a 210 man at my age barehanded? Maybe if I know he's coming. Maybe not. With pistol my wife can. She's been trained to and knows whats at stake. Otherwise, she's defenseless. As the old saying goes, a Kentucky Rifle makes every man six feet tall.

The point I was making was about training, not about starting a pissing contest with gun fans. Part of Martial Arts is knowing when to fight and when to walk away. Fighting over pride will get you killed with or without a gun in the picture. Believing you are safe because you carry a gun will also get you killed. Safety is just as dangerous an illusion as the myth of the gun is.

Crimson Devil wrote:

Ace_of_Spades wrote: About the martial arts idea...I've got training and so does my wife and I can tell you that while it's nice to have some ability it's not going to completely "save" your butt in a fight. Close quarters combat is down and dirty and nothing is fancy about it at all. Most times if someone wants to get in your face they are going to throwdown but it's their buddy you have to watch out for. That rotten bastich might have a gun or a knife and be willing to use it when your not expecting it.

Here in Las Vegas there are plenty of folks who get shot but some punk who brings a gun to a martial arts/knife fight.

Frazzled wrote:

Railguns wrote:But martial arts won't stop a gun. Criminals need control, violent crime gives control, and the easiest way to secure it is through the advantage of a gun. If you don't have one yourself, you are intentionally gimping yourself against someone with one.

Many people have gotten hurt or killed believing that martial arts will save them from firepower. History has dramatically proven this time and time again. I shouldn't have to point out where.

Exactly. I took martial arts for ten years. Did all the velociraptor young punk stuff. Do I think I can take a 210 man at my age barehanded? Maybe if I know he's coming. Maybe not. With pistol my wife can. She's been trained to and knows whats at stake. Otherwise, she's defenseless. As the old saying goes, a Kentucky Rifle makes every man six feet tall.

The point I was making was about training, not about starting a pissing contest with gun fans. Part of Martial Arts is knowing when to fight and when to walk away. Fighting over pride will get you killed with or without a gun in the picture. Believing you are safe because you carry a gun will also get you killed. Safety is just as dangerous an illusion as the myth of the gun is.

Respectfully, I'd bet good money you're a man who's never been in a bad neighborhood, or worked in one late at night. This has nothing to do with a "who has the biggest cojones" fight. This has to do with preventeing assault, rape, potentially murder. This advice is irrelvant if a nutjob is trying to kill you, or someone is trying to rape you.

To paraphrase the immortal words of Gurney Halleck "Mood? Mood is for cows and love play. Thats not fighting. you have to be ready to fight at any time."

It also has to do with a reasonable appreciation of how likely any of those things is, and avoiding neighborhoods where your risk of them is elevated.

It isn't so much that the safety factor of gun ownership is artificially elevated (though to a certain extent I believe that it is), but that the danger of being raped, murdered, or assaulted is largely negligible. Especially when one considers the ancillary social problems that go with mass gun ownership; like weapon theft, accidental injury, disposition to crimes of passion.

Do many Americans carry concealed firearms for everyday protection?

Chimera_Calvin wrote:

It could be argued therefore that the second ammendments provision for armed citizens is now redundant because there is no 'well regulated militia' for them to serve.

Actually, I've been given to understand the various forms of National Guard are a hybrid. Part state Militia, part Reserve force. From what I remember/understood they're nominally under the command of the Governor of their respective state, unless called to active duty by the President- which is why the Governor can call them out during riots, or other emergent situations- i.e. Floods.

If this is the case, and the National Guard web site supports it, then there is no reason for private citizens to bear arms since they can join the Guard in order to do so.

And that is the crux of the 2nd Amendment arguement. Is it an amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms, or providing for a well armed militia? Personally I think we have the least of three evils here, and any fix would just break it worse.

I don't think it can be fixed. The USA is swimming in weapons -- apparently over 200 million in private hands,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art29.shtml

I don't see how that many weapons can be gathered in without the full support of the great majority of the population, which clearly does not exist.

Kilkrazy wrote:If this is the case, and the National Guard web site supports it, then there is no reason for private citizens to bear arms since they can join the Guard in order to do so.

The Governor is in charge as long as the Commander in Chief of the military calls and says "hey, guess who I want to go do whatever?" and that is pretty much all it takes to nationalize them. A militia would need to be more autonomous then that. You also don't get to take your weapons home from the National Guard so it wouldn't be very hard to just take them all away, like at Concord.

So if a state wishes to rebel against the Federal government, their National Guard forces would desert and fight on the Federal side.

Or would they decide to fight for the state government.

Kilkrazy wrote:So if a state wishes to rebel against the Federal government, their National Guard forces would desert and fight on the Federal side.

Or would they decide to fight for the state government.

It would really depend on the individuals. If a state truly rebelled, it would probably be because of mass popular support for the state and little to no respect for the federal government. In that case, I'd imagine most Guardsmen would stay home.

Legally, they would follow the president's orders, but in a rebellion people might start breaking federal law....

That's pretty much what I thought. If a new civil war arose, the Guard forces would behave as the state militias did in the ACW.

It would seem that the legal status of the National Guard as a quasi-Federal force, compared a State militia, is not essential to consideration of the need to be able to rebel against the Federal government.

Do US citizens feel a need to arm themselves against their state governments? I have read that the constitution of Massachusetts guarantees citizens the right to overthrow the state government by force.

Frazzled wrote:

Crimson Devil wrote:

Ace_of_Spades wrote: About the martial arts idea...I've got training and so does my wife and I can tell you that while it's nice to have some ability it's not going to completely "save" your butt in a fight. Close quarters combat is down and dirty and nothing is fancy about it at all. Most times if someone wants to get in your face they are going to throwdown but it's their buddy you have to watch out for. That rotten bastich might have a gun or a knife and be willing to use it when your not expecting it.

Here in Las Vegas there are plenty of folks who get shot but some punk who brings a gun to a martial arts/knife fight.

Frazzled wrote:

Railguns wrote:But martial arts won't stop a gun. Criminals need control, violent crime gives control, and the easiest way to secure it is through the advantage of a gun. If you don't have one yourself, you are intentionally gimping yourself against someone with one.

Many people have gotten hurt or killed believing that martial arts will save them from firepower. History has dramatically proven this time and time again. I shouldn't have to point out where.

Exactly. I took martial arts for ten years. Did all the velociraptor young punk stuff. Do I think I can take a 210 man at my age barehanded? Maybe if I know he's coming. Maybe not. With pistol my wife can. She's been trained to and knows whats at stake. Otherwise, she's defenseless. As the old saying goes, a Kentucky Rifle makes every man six feet tall.

The point I was making was about training, not about starting a pissing contest with gun fans. Part of Martial Arts is knowing when to fight and when to walk away. Fighting over pride will get you killed with or without a gun in the picture. Believing you are safe because you carry a gun will also get you killed. Safety is just as dangerous an illusion as the myth of the gun is.

Respectfully, I'd bet good money you're a man who's never been in a bad neighborhood, or worked in one late at night. This has nothing to do with a "who has the biggest cojones" fight. This has to do with preventeing assault, rape, potentially murder. This advice is irrelvant if a nutjob is trying to kill you, or someone is trying to rape you.

To paraphrase the immortal words of Gurney Halleck "Mood? Mood is for cows and love play. Thats not fighting. you have to be ready to fight at any time."

I've had guns pointed at me because someone thought it was funny, I've been threaten by someone with a gun, and I've lived and worked the graveyard shift in a not nice neighborhood.

Having lived in Texas and now in Utah, I've known a lot of gun owners. And out of all of them, Art would be the only one I would place money on using his gun to stop an assault, rape, or potential murder. Keeping a cool head and having the guts to kill someone is actually rather rare. I've seen a lot of gun stroking bravado in my time and very little responsibility. If proficiency with a gun was as common as gun ownership, I might buy into your argument.

I once had a really old guy order me out of his liquor store with a shotgun because he didn't like my long hair. His loss, I was about to spend $100 in his crappy establishment.
Actually, the only state that would have a chance to successfully rebel is Texas, and then only if the rebellion had the support of Fort Hood, the largest military base on Earth. That would be a truly nasty situation.Not that it's likely to happen, at least one would hope. Another civil war is the last thing we need right now.

Man, there's a veritable cornucopia of threads in here to choose from. It's almost like a forum within a forum. Has anyone every named this phenomenon of thread fracture, moving OT?

Killkrazy: Gun ownership in the US. Part of the culture for quite a number of us. Not all, but a large number. Concealed? Yeah, there are quite a lot of people who carry. I don't own a regitered firearm, haven't been to a range in a long time, cold not be considered a firearm afficianado or "enthusiast" by much of anyone on earth. It's not like I hang with the NRA, or paramilitary, or militias or anything. And still I know a large number of people who carry concealed firearms. I know that county orders more forms for Application To Carry a Concealed Firearm than any other application, period. Those things are parking-ticket common. They carry nice firearms, they carry crap firearms; they carry good ones and some idiots carry crap I'd never bother shooting b/c the metal is so bad they couldn't do anything but blow your own face off. But they pack heat.

Do US citizens feel the need to arm themselves against the government? Quite a few do. Many of us feel an immense distrust of/disconnect with the federal government. Can we be blamed? As diverse a nation as we are, it's inevitable. And no, I'm not raging on my government there so much as I am refering to the statistics and demographics of Mark Twains' take on democracy.
Retaining the right to bear arms is a subtle thing, in some ways. It gives some citizens the impression that if their fedgov screws up enough that the armed citizenry can do something about it. It also gives some in fedgov pause. Would the citizenry, as a whole, ever take up arms against the fedgov? In my not so friggin humble opinion, it would take a massive amount of motivation, motivation that is not there right now, or even close to it. However, one small part of the beauty of the right to bear arms is that the possibility is there. Remote to be sure, but there. A very real check-and-balance, even if it stands about as much chance of being used as I have of being the first man on the moon without benefit of a space suit.

Some of our people misuse firearms. We have accidents with them. Our children find poorly stored fireamrs and shoot themselves and their friends. Schoolyards and post offices become shooting galleries. I cannot express how gak ty I feel that is, how horrible and bad. But you musn't forget that these things sell papers and advertisements, which is why we hear about them and yet never hear about the times that Joe Average gets it right. About the families and groups and individuals andpeople of every description who safely handle firearms. There is blood and death and destruction. There is also responsibility and sober care.

Worth the price? I am embarrassed to say that, judging by our laws, I guess so, because we can still carry them legally. How do I personally feel about whether or not it is worht the price? I feel it is a chice of evils. I feel on the one hand that any childs life is immeasurably prescious. I also know for a fact that so many despots don't care about anyone. They grind children along with the rest.

I feel that life is about death, in the end. I feel that, in a world of SUV's and Crackberries and Chicken McNuggets and Incredibly Expensive Plastic Toy Soldiers, it is easy to lose track of the jungle. But the jungle is always there. Ask the Ossetians. Right, wrong, whatever; I bet they have been reminded very painfully that the jungle is there. Would they have been invaded by Russia if they had had firearms, every man woman and child? Probably, but I bet it would have takem much more motivation on the part of ol Vlad. Wouldn't have changed the outcome much, except to get more people killed. But to be killed defending my home against a foriegn invader? My house, my family? Good enough, if my kids get away.

I don't own a registered firearm. Haven't fired one in years. However, to paraphrase, you can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers. Come and get it, if you want it. Not literal invitations or challenges or epeen, just an expression of a mindset.

Crimson Devil: You mentioned the myth of the gun. I have a fair idea that I know what you are refering to, but I have never heard that phrase before. Could you elaborate for me please? I'd love to hear about it. Seriously, no eRichard here.

Dogma: One point of yours jumps out at me as being somehting that I am sad to say I thoroughly disagree with. Gun control largely being a dead issue in the US? I friggin wish. I think that there are Brady Bills yet to come, my friend, and furhter restrictions than those are being planned, I would bet. Will they ever "get all the firearms?" Not in my lifetime, m'fren. But they will try. Oh yes, some poor grieving widow, or orphan, will try. And in their grief, it is hard to blame them.

grizgrin wrote:Man, there's a veritable cornucopia of threads in here to choose from. It's almost like a forum within a forum. Has anyone every named this phenomenon of thread fracture, moving OT?

Killkrazy: Gun ownership in the US. Part of the culture for quite a number of us. Not all, but a large number. Concealed? Yeah, there are quite a lot of people who carry. I don't own a regitered firearm, haven't been to a range in a long time, cold not be considered a firearm afficianado or "enthusiast" by much of anyone on earth. It's not like I hang with the NRA, or paramilitary, or militias or anything. And still I know a large number of people who carry concealed firearms. I know that county orders more forms for Application To Carry a Concealed Firearm than any other application, period. Those things are parking-ticket common. They carry nice firearms, they carry crap firearms; they carry good ones and some idiots carry crap I'd never bother shooting b/c the metal is so bad they couldn't do anything but blow your own face off. But they pack heat.

Do US citizens feel the need to arm themselves against the government? Quite a few do. Many of us feel an immense distrust of/disconnect with the federal government. Can we be blamed? As diverse a nation as we are, it's inevitable. And no, I'm not raging on my government there so much as I am refering to the statistics and demographics of Mark Twains' take on democracy.
Retaining the right to bear arms is a subtle thing, in some ways. It gives some citizens the impression that if their fedgov screws up enough that the armed citizenry can do something about it. It also gives some in fedgov pause. Would the citizenry, as a whole, ever take up arms against the fedgov? In my not so friggin humble opinion, it would take a massive amount of motivation, motivation that is not there right now, or even close to it. However, one small part of the beauty of the right to bear arms is that the possibility is there. Remote to be sure, but there. A very real check-and-balance, even if it stands about as much chance of being used as I have of being the first man on the moon without benefit of a space suit.

Some of our people misuse firearms. We have accidents with them. Our children find poorly stored fireamrs and shoot themselves and their friends. Schoolyards and post offices become shooting galleries. I cannot express how gak ty I feel that is, how horrible and bad. But you musn't forget that these things sell papers and advertisements, which is why we hear about them and yet never hear about the times that Joe Average gets it right. About the families and groups and individuals andpeople of every description who safely handle firearms. There is blood and death and destruction. There is also responsibility and sober care.

Worth the price? I am embarrassed to say that, judging by our laws, I guess so, because we can still carry them legally. How do I personally feel about whether or not it is worht the price? I feel it is a chice of evils. I feel on the one hand that any childs life is immeasurably prescious. I also know for a fact that so many despots don't care about anyone. They grind children along with the rest.

I feel that life is about death, in the end. I feel that, in a world of SUV's and Crackberries and Chicken McNuggets and Incredibly Expensive Plastic Toy Soldiers, it is easy to lose track of the jungle. But the jungle is always there. Ask the Ossetians. Right, wrong, whatever; I bet they have been reminded very painfully that the jungle is there. Would they have been invaded by Russia if they had had firearms, every man woman and child? Probably, but I bet it would have takem much more motivation on the part of ol Vlad. Wouldn't have changed the outcome much, except to get more people killed. But to be killed defending my home against a foriegn invader? My house, my family? Good enough, if my kids get away.

I don't own a registered firearm. Haven't fired one in years. However, to paraphrase, you can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers. Come and get it, if you want it. Not literal invitations or challenges or epeen, just an expression of a mindset.

Beautiful post.

There is so many things that can be said to support our 2nd Amendment. So many reasons why that it is there, and why it is still applicable today. Lets take Britain case in point. For so long your society has been without firearms. There really is no means to resist violently against the government if for some reason (not saying there is any), that you need to. You can't say that the need may never arise. 30 years before the American Revolution, do you think the majority of American colonists thought they'd be fighting a war with their sovereign government?

I see the 1st and the 2nd Amendments as going hand in hand with each other. The first is there to gaurantee the population of the US the means and rights to peacebly speak out against the Government. In the event that it fails, or is taken away, the 2nd is there to back it up. Further more, I've lately been finding myself backing the idea that the Government (state or federal) has no legal right to restrict our ownership of firearms in any manner, be it a .22 handgun, or a Mini-Gun. When the Constitution was written, the war against the British government was still fresh in their minds. They fought a superior army, with superior equipment. They intended to ensure that in the event the American people ever did need to take up arms against their government again, that they would have the means to do so. We can't be expected to take out an M1-A2 with a 30.06.

Granted, America is not what it once was 250 years ago. The population has exploded to what was probably undreamed of numbers. Weapons technology today is, again, beyond the wildest dreams of what they had in the 18th century. Given the number of crazies that we have out there, we really shouldn't be able to make it so anyone can go out to buy RPG's or TOW missiles. But when it comes to matters of gun control, the government really should have no rights to dirty their hands into it, and personally I'll fight against anyone who intends to do so.

Breton wrote

And that is the crux of the 2nd Amendment arguement. Is it an amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms, or providing for a well armed militia? Personally I think we have the least of three evils here, and any fix would just break it worse.

This is the problem with the second ammendment, as I stated in my initial argument. The amendment is a single sentence which covers both aspects.

The framers wanted people to have the power to defend themselves, their country and their beliefs and so they allowed the people to bear arms. My argument, however, is that they also recognised the danger inherent in allowing people access to deadly weapons without any form of control - hence the key inclusion of the word 'regulated'.

I think the issue is that any attempts at regulation are deemed in some quarters as an attempt to overturn the entire amendment.

National Guard are to large and paid by the Fed to be an analogue of Militias in any way. They weren't based on States, it would be more proper for each town/city to have a militia, and each person would be responsible for themselves, seeing it as civic duty. As stated in an earlier post you were in the militia as long as you considered an able bodied man.

If you really don't understand it, then you really don't understand US history and culture nearly as well as you think you do. It's a fundamental part of our psyche and has been for a very, very long time.

Chimera Calvin: Of course some see any minute spec of regulation as an attempt by the government to lock down the proles. If it weren't for people "like that", we wouldn't have extremists of any cloth in this world. Extremists are just people who take it beyond the third standard dev. They are outliers. But, in a free-thinking, free-speaking society, you will hear from them as well as everyone else motivated enough to open their mouths (hopefully having engaged their brains first). Regulation is the opposite of freedom, if you take both in an absolute sense. Freedom is doing as you see fit. Regulation is having someone else set our limits. Life in these United States is somewhere in the middle. No I am not advocating anarchy. No, I am not advocating a crushing central govt. I am saying that life is in the middle of the two, for most countries. The middle is a big place.

grizgrin wrote:I feel that life is about death, in the end. I feel that, in a world of SUV's and Crackberries and Chicken McNuggets and Incredibly Expensive Plastic Toy Soldiers, it is easy to lose track of the jungle. But the jungle is always there. Ask the Ossetians. Right, wrong, whatever; I bet they have been reminded very painfully that the jungle is there. Would they have been invaded by Russia if they had had firearms, every man woman and child? Probably, but I bet it would have takem much more motivation on the part of ol Vlad. Wouldn't have changed the outcome much, except to get more people killed. But to be killed defending my home against a foriegn invader? My house, my family? Good enough, if my kids get away.

OT side track:

FYI, the South Ossetians fought the Georgians to make sure that they wouldn’t get cut off from the Russians.

Most of the people who live in South Ossetia consider themselves Russian and quite a lot of them hold Russian passports. When Georgia invaded South Ossetia (their own province), their attack was focused at two points- crushing the capital, and cutting off the single route for Russia to get in and stop them. The South Ossetians put a skeleton distraction/holding n force in their capital, and concentrated the majority of their local forces to stopping the Georgian forces’ attempt to cut them off from Russia. They were successful, and thus Russia was able to come to their aid by invading.

Is it okay for Russia to invade a neighboring country? No.
Is the situation as simple as just being Russian hegemonic aggression? Again, the answer is no.

I think you are right.

It's hard to find statistics to back up the rational arguments in favour of guns. For example, all the concealed weapons seem to have no beneficial effect on the murder, rape and assault crime statistics.

The American desire to own guns seems to be an instinctive or emotional response, something inherent in their culture.

I don't think gun control can be done, anyway. There are too many guns and not enough desire to do away with them.

grizgrin wrote:

Dogma: One point of yours jumps out at me as being somehting that I am sad to say I thoroughly disagree with. Gun control largely being a dead issue in the US? I friggin wish. I think that there are Brady Bills yet to come, my friend, and furhter restrictions than those are being planned, I would bet. Will they ever "get all the firearms?" Not in my lifetime, m'fren. But they will try. Oh yes, some poor grieving widow, or orphan, will try. And in their grief, it is hard to blame them.

Yes, there's a reason guns and supporting material are flying right now. There is great concern that there will be attenmpts to impose Chicago or Washington DC style gun laws on the nation, or mayhaps lesser but more stupid California legal definitions.

That reminds me i need to go vote. Bull Moose 2008!

Kilkrazy wrote:
I can't think of any or understand any rational arguments in favour of guns so I'll just assume that my point of view is right even though I obliviously have trouble understanding the fundamental cultural differences.

Fixed it for you. Hell, pretty much all your posts in this thread I just fixed.