Foamy T. Squirrel Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 I have trouble understanding how disarming law-abiding citizens makes them safer from people who would murder, rob, or try to control them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linked Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Thanks for breaking it down Linked. So if I understand correctly then the National Guard is not regarded as the 2nd amendment's militia because the majority of its funding comes from the federal government, is that right? If that is the case, then where else is the organised militia that gives the right to bear arms? I can't see any other type of organisation that regulates statewide militias that can justify such an easy access to weapons in the US. If the US government did become totalitarian then who and what would organise ordinary gun owners into a resistance movement - and what practicable use would handguns, sport rifles and shotguns be against the weight of the professional US Army? I've got absolutely no problem with trained soldiers, regular, reserve or indeed a structured militia, having weapons in their homes in case of need but I fail to see how having guns so easily available to people like the high school murderers, gangs and other criminal elements is supposed to make people safer. You've got an AR-10, you're a National Guardsmen, I'm fine with that. My neighbour on the other hand is a batshit crazy (non-military) alcoholic and I think very soon him and I may come to blows - now if I was in the US I'd be worried about whether he has a battle rifle propped up behind the door when I knocked on it and if it would it be sensible for me to bring my firearm just in case he was drunk and didn't take too kindly to being told to clean his shit up. That potential to turn a neighbourly dispute into a potentially fatal firefight is insane. Surely the 2nd amendment needs to be looked at to stop the batshit crazy people getting access to guns? How about YOU DO NOT GO TO YOUR BAT SHIT CRAZY NEIGHBORS. You know I have a gun in every room of my house. Even if I wasn't a guardsman, and someone came to my house starting shit on my property, they would have my .45 1911 in their face in a heartbeat. (it has happened). If you have a problem with your neighbor you take it up with whatever authorities you need to. you don't go to his house and start shit. Just as I would expect him not to come to your house and start shit and if he did I would expect you to defend yourself by whatever means you had. Guns put food on the table, Guns are for self protection, If guns are outlawed then only outlaws would have them. that simple. For clarification, Every Guardsmen I know personally would not take orders from the federal govrn't when/if the order comes to disarm American citizens. and did you not get my piece about the selective service? every male has to sign up to be drafted if the need arises. Would you not want at least some training of marksmanship to take place before that happens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maturin Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Yes, but does being signed up for selective service mean that males that are of the age automatically recieve weapons training? I'm willing to bet it doesn't and therfore I'm willing to bet that the majority of men on selected service (even if they own a gun or not) have not recieved anything near the type of weapons training needed to mount an effective resistance against the US Army or any other aggressor- so what's the point? My batshit crazy neigbour was hypothetical but if I did have an issue with a neighbour then, I'm sure any of the European commentators on here would agree, that the first step to sorting it out would be to meet with them and talk about the grievance to see if it coud be resolved. Going to the authorities without even talking it through with the guy, because you're not sure if he would use his gun on you or not, is thankfully something we don't have to deal with - and I'd hazard a guess that communities are stronger and safer because of this than in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozi Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 The argument about gun ownership in the US is irrelevant. You can’t disarm honest citizens if you don’t first disarm the thugs and gang members, which will never happen. Despite tight gun controls in Australia, including compulsory buy backs of weapons from honest citizens, gun crimes are on the increase with illegal not legal weapons. You can argue with facts or logic, or maybe stats. Australia has 15,000 guns for 100,000 and 1.1 murders per 100,000 USA has 112,000 guns per 100,000 and 4.7 murders per 100,000 UK has 7,000 guns for 100,000 and 1 murder per 100,000 So assuming every murder is a gun crime: -Australia has .000073 murders per gun -USA has .000042 murders per gun -UK has .000142 murders per gun So potentially guns could kill twice as many Brits as Aussies and three times as many Yanks. No wonder they won’t let the Brits have weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maturin Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 The argument about gun ownership in the US is irrelevant. You can’t disarm honest citizens if you don’t first disarm the thugs and gang members, which will never happen. Despite tight gun controls in Australia, including compulsory buy backs of weapons from honest citizens, gun crimes are on the increase with illegal not legal weapons. You can argue with facts or logic, or maybe stats. Australia has 15,000 guns for 100,000 and 1.1 murders per 100,000 USA has 112,000 guns per 100,000 and 4.7 murders per 100,000 UK has 7,000 guns for 100,000 and 1 murder per 100,000 So assuming every murder is a gun crime: -Australia has .000073 murders per gun -USA has .000042 murders per gun -UK has .000142 murders per gun So potentially guns could kill twice as many Brits as Aussies and three times as many Yanks. No wonder they won’t let the Brits have weapons. Why would you assume that pretending every murder in the statistics was with a gun is a valid point? It's not at all! Obviously the statistics are going to be screwed in favour of the countries that have more guns - there is no useful ratio here unless you want to post the actual ratio per capita of gun related homocide. The only thing that is useful from what you have posted is the apparent corroleation between the UK and Aus with tighter gun controls having a 1/4 of the homocide rate than the US. Based on the actual data you've posted (not the odd assumption that all the murders were committed with guns) then it shows that looking into the gun crime statistic would perhaps yield some actual evidence. I'll do that now... Percentage per 100,000 deaths that were caused by guns, including suicides, accidental fatalities, and justifiable homicides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate Australia 0.86 United Kingdom 0.26 United States 10.5 So yeah, laying that strange assumption aside it seems like you're onto something that the figures above agree with and that the argument about gun ownership isn't irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Going off on a slight rant regarding gun control. I live in Los Angeles. Chief of police liked boasting how violent (gun) crimes has decreased the past several years. I knew better for as a hobbyist, I listen to the police scanner 2-3 hours nightly. Just during the hours I listen daily there are several calls either of a man w/ a gun or of actual shootings. Getting back to the police chief, it was recently discovered that many of the gun-related calls the past several years were mis-categorized as either (non-violent) assault calls or minor offenses. To make a long story short, it is believed this mis-categorization of incidents was so that the police department can represent themselves as being a more efficient dept AND that current "buy-back' gun programs sponsored by the city is (was) effective. If you know anything about the city of L.A. (besides Hollywood) is parts of L.A. county (Watts, Compton, Wilmington) is riddled with crime (gangs). Violent crimes that occur in Beverly Hills or other influential parts of L.A. county, cops immediately go to the nearest highway entrance as they known 95% of these criminals are heading back to Watts or Compton (15 miles away). One last thing regarding the absurdity of gun control being effective (which it isn't: In 2013, only one murder w/ a firearm occurred in Iceland. Why? Because bad guys in Iceland know that 96% of Icelandics own at least one pistol and 62% own a shotgun. oops! One last thing: The state of California refuses to keep statistics of how guns have saved lives. They don't want to "glorify" the ownership of firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foamy T. Squirrel Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 Yes, but does being signed up for selective service mean that males that are of the age automatically recieve weapons training? I'm willing to bet it doesn't and therfore I'm willing to bet that the majority of men on selected service (even if they own a gun or not) have not recieved anything near the type of weapons training needed to mount an effective resistance against the US Army or any other aggressor- so what's the point? My batshit crazy neigbour was hypothetical but if I did have an issue with a neighbour then, I'm sure any of the European commentators on here would agree, that the first step to sorting it out would be to meet with them and talk about the grievance to see if it coud be resolved. Going to the authorities without even talking it through with the guy, because you're not sure if he would use his gun on you or not, is thankfully something we don't have to deal with - and I'd hazard a guess that communities are stronger and safer because of this than in America. That's odd. I've had plenty of problems with some neighbors, but we've always been patient and worked it out, and generally I work with my fellow neighbors to ensure that our houses and children are living in a safe environment. Some of them are highly armed, but the possibility that any of my neighbors could defend themselves is enough of a deterrent to unwelcome nasty visitors in the middle of the night. Regarding the problem houses -- all of which are supported by the US Government mind you, and all of which have grown to fruition in the Obama years -- we keep a eye on them and work with our LOCAL police department to ensure that their meth sales and possession of stolen goods, etc., is kept to a minimum. We are not vigilantes here. We are the citizens that formed the police force, we control the police force, and they are the professionals we cooperatively work with to combat crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maturin Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 Can you point to evidence submitted by other states or nations that do publish a record of how many guns have saved lives? That would be the killer statistic right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maturin Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 That's odd. I've had plenty of problems with some neighbors, but we've always been patient and worked it out, and generally I work with my fellow neighbors to ensure that our houses and children are living in a safe environment. Some of them are highly armed, but the possibility that any of my neighbors could defend themselves is enough of a deterrent to unwelcome nasty visitors in the middle of the night. Regarding the problem houses -- all of which are supported by the US Government mind you, and all of which have grown to fruition in the Obama years -- we keep a eye on them and work with our LOCAL police department to ensure that their meth sales and possession of stolen goods, etc., is kept to a minimum. We are not vigilantes here. We are the citizens that formed the police force, we control the police force, and they are the professionals we cooperatively work with to combat crime. Here's a chart of the number of robberies per capita. The USA is 20th on the list, beaten by countries such as Nicaragua, Columbia, Mexico and Belize. Interesting to note that it is 2 EUropean countries that top the list and win hands down, Spain and Belgium. I've lived in Spain and my house was actually broken into whilst I was at work and the fuckers stole literally everything, robbery is a massive issue in that country. I'm sure that the vast majority of that figure is street crime, purse snatches and pickpocketing fuelled by the tourist industry. The fact that the US is not towards the bottom of the list when it comes to robbery rates leads me to assume that its current gun laws are not effective in controlling robbery and are indeed detrimental to the country when taking into account the fact that 10% of all deaths occur at the wrong end of a gun. http://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/robery/#USA Even as a person who grew up with an unarmed police force, I have no problem with officers of the law carrying weapons (even though I'd hate to see UK culture degenerate to a level in which the police feel they need to be armed in the carrying out of their routine duties), that's not the issue. The issue facing the US is that the wrong sorts of people can get guns easily yet no one is willing to do something about that because of their own personal beliefs or fear that they would have to give up their own weapons for the good of everyone. Weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozi Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ww_watcher Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 Maturin asked if signing up for the selective service in the US means firearm training. The answer is NO. Only if you actually join the military and it depends on the service you enter. It is merely an acct of the eligable males between 18yo and 26yo. All services require small arms training - that's learning safety, care, and shooting of an M-16 that's usually been rechambered for a .22 long rifle. The Army and Marines learn more about the use of various firearms because they protect the US Air Force and Navy respectively. The military police train on whatever sidearm du jour is, in whatever branch of service they're in. In my time, late 70s, it was a S&W .38 or a .45 Colt Commander. Now I believe it is some Italian made hunk of junk (I always prefered the Colt 45 semi-auto. I can field strip it, clean it, and reassemble it with my eyes closed in about 3 minutes). Though I don't have any weapons in my house - I don't need them for home defence because I have baseball bats and a wife with twirling skills turned martial by me - I do own a Webley Service Revolver with a cylinder made for .45ACP w/ halfmoon clips for fast reloads and an Enfield .303 long barrel. I was an Avionic Sensor specialist but I also wore a badge on the weekends to help clean the airmen out of off-limits bars and chase down those who've gone AWOL. Not to have weapons in my house is a choice I made when I developed the ability to defend my household without the need for them, but I will never give up the weapons I own and if necessary will use them against a percieved threat to my family and friends (not myself because I can run...well...hobble real fast). Yet, even in my choices I have misgivings about casual ownership by a great many folks who have Concealed Carry licenses. Half-a-century back I wouldn't have these same worries because folks who grew up in Texas were more mature than today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozi Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Detroit police chief gives credit to armed citizens for drop in crime. Detroit has experienced 37 percent fewer robberies in 2014 than during the same period last year, 22 percent fewer break-ins of businesses and homes, and 30 percent fewer carjackings. [Police Chief James] Craig attributed the drop to better police work and criminals being reluctant to prey on citizens who may be carrying guns. "Criminals are getting the message that good Detroiters are armed and will use that weapon," said Craig, who has repeatedly said he believes armed citizens deter crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts