An armed society is a polite society

[batgeek]

let us ask some of those Korean business owners, during the King riots in '92, what they think....

 

[Frisco]

That was the biggest crock I've read in awhile, and I live in AZ, where gun nuts run everything, or at least think they do. AZ has almost no gun control whatsoever, outside of what Federal regulations require, and yet we still have a crime rate; children getting their parents guns and either shooting someone, bringing it school or shooting themselves accidentally. The idea that the person next to you may be armed doesn't enter a criminal's mind. Nor would it enter the mind of someone who's rioting.

I know people think we still live in the Wild West here, but arming everyone has not and will never be the answer. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply fooling themselves.

"Everyone" being armed won't help much in an already dysfunctional state or city, of course you're right.

The reason for that is that in such a place there is a shrunken, nearly undetectable population base of citizens who are educated in when and where and under what circumstances to use deadly force. That is one of the most repeated points made in concealed carry classes in most states with such laws in place.

 

[trackball]

As much as I love going to the shooting range, I don't think arming people is the solution to creating a sane and orderly society. There are too many people who would abuse that power (but lets not discredit those who would wield that power responsibly), which kind of leads to the only thing that would actually work to reduce mob violence and well...violence in general: A change in the culture of violence, hate, jealousy, megalomania, and narcissism that run rampant in today's "modern societies" especially in young people. The riots in London are a case study in all the above. Lets not forget the racial mob attacks going on now in Wisconsin, and the flash mob assaults and robberies too.

This article seems to have it right on the money in my opinion.

They are illiterate and innumerate, beyond maybe some dexterity with computer games and BlackBerries.
They are essentially wild beasts. I use that phrase advisedly, because it seems appropriate to young people bereft of the discipline that might make them employable; of the conscience that distinguishes between right and wrong.
They respond only to instinctive animal impulses

 

[ElasticNinja]

HAHAHAHA The Daily Mail. Trackball I guess since you are from the US you don't know the background of that paper.

London Riots Blame Game!

 

[Crude]

As much as I love going to the shooting range, I don't think arming people is the solution to creating a sane and orderly society. There are too many people who would abuse that power (but lets not discredit those who would wield that power responsibly), which kind of leads to the only thing that would actually work to reduce mob violence and well...violence in general: A change in the culture of violence, hate, jealousy, megalomania, and narcissism that run rampant in today's "modern societies" especially in young people. The riots in London are a case study in all the above. Lets not forget the racial mob attacks going on now in Wisconsin, and the flash mob assaults and robberies too.

This article seems to have it right on the money in my opinion.

That article seems reasonably accurate. It doesn't change my mind that we as a society should be able to defend our selves and our property. I feel gun owner ship is a great way to accomplish this.

 

[mikedt]

I thought this one was interesting...
http://www.slate.com/id/2301314/"Why Are They Using Baseball Bats Instead of Cricket Bats in the U.K. Riots?"

 

[Vihzel]

I thought this one was interesting...
Why are Londoners using baseball bats instead of cricket bats in the riots? - By Brian Palmer - Slate Magazine"Why Are They Using Baseball Bats Instead of Cricket Bats in the U.K. Riots?"

That's reasonable. The different mediums of media do use baseball bats to use as weapons.

 

[lordofthereef]

When talking strictly as a weapon, is a baseball bat not easier to wield than a cricket bat? I have never held a cricket bat, but have a baseball bat. The baseball bat looks (and feels) balanced. Cricket bat doesn't look (but I could be wrong) so balanced at all.

 

[Frisco]

When talking strictly as a weapon, is a baseball bat not easier to wield than a cricket bat? I have never held a cricket bat, but have a baseball bat. The baseball bat looks (and feels) balanced. Cricket bat doesn't look (but I could be wrong) so balanced at all.

Cricket bats have edges.. although not sharp, I'd hate to think what could happen if one were swung hard and edge on at a person's neck.

 

[OutofDate1980]

I thought this one was interesting...
Why are Londoners using baseball bats instead of cricket bats in the riots? - By Brian Palmer - Slate Magazine"Why Are They Using Baseball Bats Instead of Cricket Bats in the U.K. Riots?"

Great publicity for MLB, I can see a franchise coming to Britain soon. Naturally, they'll play under the American League designated hitter rule.

Designated hitter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[trackball]

HAHAHAHA The Daily Mail. Trackball I guess since you are from the US you don't know the background of that paper.

London Riots Blame Game!

No I don't know about it, and I don't care. That doesn't change that the article (or opinion piece or whatever you want to call it) makes valid points and is a thought provoking message about how the youth of today are acting.
Actually, the less I know, the better...so my prejudices and bias on the source don't infect my opinion.

 

[Frisco]

Best avatar in the thread?


..easy:

 

[HGUser99]

If you want to see what an armed society would do in the face of rioting like that in England, you need look no further than the United States. Here, we have more firearms than citizens, and we have had riots very similar to the current English ones. The difference is that here, you are more likely to be shot in the riot.

It's true that if you have a gun, you are more likely to be able to defend yourself, all else being equal. But in America, it's also much more likely that the rioters will have guns too. Given that situation, it's not clear that a person would, be better off in America than in England.

Guns have a potential to escalate a violent conflict into a violent, deadly conflict. Since in America, both the aggressor and the defending person are more likely to have guns, it's a toss up who winds up bleeding on the pavement.

As for guns producing a more polite (or respectful) society, it's simply not borne out. England has the reputation of being a relatively polite society, present conflict excepted. America, the heavily armed counterpart of England, is a much less polite society.

And even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. The threat of violence is not an efficient nor a justified means of producing politeness.

 

[Crude]

If you want to see what an armed society would do in the face of rioting like that in England, you need look no further than the United States. Here, we have more firearms than citizens, and we have had riots very similar to the current English ones. The difference is that here, you are more likely to be shot in the riot.

It's true that if you have a gun, you are more likely to be able to defend yourself, all else being equal. But in America, it's also much more likely that the rioters will have guns too. Given that situation, it's not clear that a person would, be better off in America than in England.

Guns have a potential to escalate a violent conflict into a violent, deadly conflict. Since in America, both the aggressor and the defending person are more likely to have guns, it's a toss up who winds up bleeding on the pavement.

As for guns producing a more polite (or respectful) society, it's simply not borne out. England has the reputation of being a relatively polite society, present conflict excepted. America, the heavily armed counterpart of England, is a much less polite society.

And even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. The threat of violence is not an efficient nor a justified means of producing politeness.

The failure in your logic is that you assume rioters will produce a weapon legally or illegally obtained to commit a crime. Weapons are not cheap and something you want to caught with as a criminal. In fact to MY knowledge a riot has never included a weapon in the US. What I do know is that on an almost daily basis a crime is foiled by a gun owner....the media just doesn't report it ( though fox news some times does ).


As for the title of the thread, I don't recall American rioters targeting individuals as much as shops. Seems to me there's a little more respect there then in the UK.

I think it's funny how many people want to take away the evil guns from other because they don't like them. The facts on smoking leave no good reason why it shouldn't be banned but I support your right to do it? If we don't start living with the rights that other choose to pursue we will soon be left without any at all....

 

[keale18]

The failure in your logic is that you assume rioters will produce a weapon legally or illegally obtained to commit a crime. Weapons are not cheap and something you want to caught with as a criminal. In fact to MY knowledge a riot has never included a weapon in the US. What I do know is that on an almost daily basis a crime is foiled by a gun owner....the media just doesn't report it ( though fox news some times does ).


As for the title of the thread, I don't recall American rioters targeting individuals as much as shops. Seems to me there's a little more respect there then in the UK.

I think it's funny how many people want to take away the evil guns from other because they don't like them. The facts on smoking leave no good reason why it shouldn't be banned but I support your right to do it? If we don't start living with the rights that other choose to pursue we will soon be left without any at all....

You say that guns are used daily to foil a crime? OK whats your source? How many crimes are stopped and by whom? Now of the guns sold each year how many are used in crimes or on family members or accidentally shooting someone?

 

[HGUser99]

I don't just assume that criminals in America sometimes have weapons. I know that they do. Your lack of awareness does not mean it doesn't happen. An example is posted here:
Six arrested in early-morning Albany riot - troyrecord.com

You may not think weapons are cheap, but in America, both legal and illegal firearms ARE pretty cheap. Stolen guns are of course free, aside from the risk of getting caught stealing them.

I'd be interested in knowing where you get your statistics that "on an almost daily basis a crime is foiled by a gun owner." In America, where about 50% of households are those of gun owners, chances of a crime foiled being by a gun owner would necessarily be extremely common, regardless of whether having the gun was helpful in foiling the crime. In fact, many more crimes are foiled by people who are unarmed at the time, because most people, regardless of whether they are gun owners, go about unarmed almost all the time.

I agree that nothing I've seen here amounts to a sufficient reason why guns ought to be banned. I own one myself.

What I object to is kneejerk reactions and faulty reasoning. The London riots happening is neither a reason why the public ought to be armed nor a reason why they shouldn't be, to my mind, because the same sort of thing happens in countries where guns are allowed and in countries where they aren't, and the consequences for those affected seem hardly any different, if at all.

 

[Crude]

I don't just assume that criminals in America sometimes have weapons. I know that they do. Your lack of awareness does not mean it doesn't happen. An example is posted here:
Six arrested in early-morning Albany riot - troyrecord.com

You may not think weapons are cheap, but in America, both legal and illegal firearms ARE pretty cheap. Stolen guns are of course free, aside from the risk of getting caught stealing them.

I'd be interested in knowing where you get your statistics that "on an almost daily basis a crime is foiled by a gun owner." In America, where about 50% of households are those of gun owners, chances of a crime foiled being by a gun owner would necessarily be extremely common, regardless of whether having the gun was helpful in foiling the crime. In fact, many more crimes are foiled by people who are unarmed at the time, because most people, regardless of whether they are gun owners, go about unarmed almost all the time.

I agree that nothing I've seen here amounts to a sufficient reason why guns ought to be banned. I own one myself.

What I object to is kneejerk reactions and faulty reasoning. The London riots happening is neither a reason why the public ought to be armed nor a reason why they shouldn't be, to my mind, because the same sort of thing happens in countries where guns are allowed and in countries where they aren't, and the consequences for those affected seem hardly any different, if at all.

Gun Control this whole website is good info.


Murders with firearms (per capita) statistics - countries compared - Crime data on NationMaster
in contrast to
Motor vehicle deaths statistics - countries compared - NationMaster Health

I'm not sure what articles to post that will satisfy your request for proof that daily a crime is prevented with a weapon. The reason is that obviously any source I list will have a clear bias towards gun ownership. For crying out loud, do you really think any of the big media groups are going to shoot themselves in the foot by saying something positive about gun ownership?

I suppose this article from the us dept of justice might do, even though it is dated over a decade ago.

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/165476.pdf

I'm going to be honest. I formed my opinion on guns and gun ownership a long time ago. Of all the political back and forth I've spent more time on this topic then any other. From statistics, to individual experience, if I can find it I've used it to form my opinion. Obviously I can't possibly get references for everything I've read. So please forgive me for not being able to post the exact articles I've read.

Finally I have to ask. If you have a criminal record how do you acquire a gun? Pretty much by theft or black market? If you do not have a criminal record why would you buy a gun that will cost you upwards of 300$ to commit a crime? If a legally obtained gun costs 300$ how much more will the same thing cost on the black market? I just don't see how firearms are that cheap? How many criminals have 300$ laying around?

All I'm saying is that a citizen would likely still be wearing his clothes home if there was a chance, even if ever so slightly, that he was armed. I think it's reasonable for a person to be able to protect himself without the help of the police. Yes there is a chance things won't go your way but and option is better then none at all. I don't think this is a kneejerk reaction or faulty reasoning? The argument is for the choice to arm one self or not.

 

[lordofthereef]

I am trying to understand what you are proposing here. I am not attempting to put words in anyone's mouth, which is why this is the form of a question. Are you advocating we (as US citizens) should all be allowed to carry a firearm with us wherever we go?

 

[Frisco]

Are you advocating we (as US citizens) should all be allowed to carry a firearm with us wherever we go?

As most are already aware of, gun laws from state to state in the U.S. vary on that. Where I live I cannot carry on any school campus, government building, church or other house of worship, retail outlet with a "no guns" notice, court building, etc.. I may have missed a few.

The classes we had to take to acquire the permit were extensive in the legal use of firearms from a concealed carry standpoint, and we had a few walk out after the presentation about how "there is an attorney attached to every bullet you fire in self defense."

In Utah it is now legal to carry on campuses, after the training and permit is issued, of course. No, not high school students, adults with the permit, which also must survive an FBI fingerprint background check, along with local authority DUI checks (none allowed in the past 10 years in my state), etc. You have to be a proven law abiding citizen to acquire the cc permit.

 

[lordofthereef]

Ok. That much I understand. What I am still unclear on is what, exactly, is being advocated here. Are we advocating that people be able to carry anywhere and everywhere? Are we advocating that there are certain places where they should never be able to? Are we advocating that we do away with licenses? Are firearm laws simply too strict?

 

[Frisco]

Gun rights advocates don't all agree on those things. I'm at odds with those who want fully automatic assault weapons available to anyone who wants to purchase them, for example.

I like the permit system in my state, and I think it should be expanded to all firearms, long guns and shot guns included. I also think ammunition should be tied to the permit system, regulated by each state as they see fit, not by the federal government beyond the FBI fingerprint background check.

My NRA friends argue with me a lot about this stuff.

 

[lordofthereef]

Ok, I now understand your (Frisco's) stance. Still, based on what I am reading from other members, I would like some clarification.

I have never owned a gun, fired a gun, nor do I ever plan to (unless somehow society cahnges enough that I legitimately feel I need one). That said, I am seriously able to recognize that guns probably do get a bad wrap, or at least one worse than they deserve. The issue probably stems from the fact that they were invented as a killing device and really have no other purpose. If you grew up in an environment largely devoid of guns (as I did), it is easy to consider them a bad thing. That said, there is little to no violent crime anywhere that I have lived, which likely changes my viewpoints. What I would certainly hate to see is laws becoming so lax that everyone and their baby are carrying. That sort of thing puts pressure on those who have no interest (again, such as myself) to carry as well.

 

[Frisco]

Ok, I now understand your (Frisco's) stance. Still, based on what I am reading from other members, I would like some clarification.

Yes, and I realize you were querying somebody else about that. I chimed in because I thought the things about how different states approach it was important, along with reciprocity (permits issued in some states recognized by other states, etc). Plus I wanted to see how those you're talking with about all this feel about strict permit laws, etc.

Edit: .. and then there's open carry.

 

[trackball]

I have never owned a gun, fired a gun, nor do I ever plan to (unless somehow society cahnges enough that I legitimately feel I need one). That said, I am seriously able to recognize that guns probably do get a bad wrap, or at least one worse than they deserve. The issue probably stems from the fact that they were invented as a killing device and really have no other purpose. If you grew up in an environment largely devoid of guns (as I did), it is easy to consider them a bad thing. That said, there is little to no violent crime anywhere that I have lived, which likely changes my viewpoints. What I would certainly hate to see is laws becoming so lax that everyone and their baby are carrying. That sort of thing puts pressure on those who have no interest (again, such as myself) to carry as well.

I was in the exact same boat as you (plus my parents hate guns) until about 2 years ago when I went to my first shooting range. I got my own guns and have taken up target shooting as one of my hobbies, probably my favorite too. I don't view my guns as killing devices, they are to punch holes in paper at specified distances. My concern is irresponsible people and criminals making one of my favorite hobbies illegal.

 

[Crude]

Ok. That much I understand. What I am still unclear on is what, exactly, is being advocated here. Are we advocating that people be able to carry anywhere and everywhere? Are we advocating that there are certain places where they should never be able to? Are we advocating that we do away with licenses? Are firearm laws simply too strict?

I'm not really advocating anything, just trying to get people to think. I don't want America to end up like the UK, that's really the extent of my intentions.

Though, since you bring it up, I would like to carry every where