People are surprised, it seems, to discover that I am not only pro-gun, but vehemently so. I strongly advocate the responsible ownership of firearms. I actually feel guilty that I haven't maintained my skills in that area, and will be taking measures to correct that. Everyone should at least know the basics of how to safely operate common firearms. Everyone should know basic firearm safety. I feel that should be taught in schools.
When one of my coworkers learned that I had gone out shooting one weekend not that long ago, she was surprised and confused. I had shattered her stereotype of gun-users. In short, I had all my teeth and was not married to my cousin. The question some people ask is "why"?
Today is a great demonstration of some of the reasons I believe everyone should own a gun: 1, 2, and 3. The fact that reasonable people on my friends page read between the lines and feel the need to make proclomations like this is a reason.
Oh, and if you're ever looking for a group that has a nearly inarguable stance on why gun ownership and the second amendment are crucial, don't look to the NRA, ask these folks.
When one of my coworkers learned that I had gone out shooting one weekend not that long ago, she was surprised and confused. I had shattered her stereotype of gun-users. In short, I had all my teeth and was not married to my cousin. The question some people ask is "why"?
Today is a great demonstration of some of the reasons I believe everyone should own a gun: 1, 2, and 3. The fact that reasonable people on my friends page read between the lines and feel the need to make proclomations like this is a reason.
Oh, and if you're ever looking for a group that has a nearly inarguable stance on why gun ownership and the second amendment are crucial, don't look to the NRA, ask these folks.
I don't believe an armed populace is a panacea for crime- although it couldn't hurt.
When you have a fortunate confluence of government benificence, guns seem needless. Responsible, just people in government render it that way. But in the end, it suffers from the same failing as any other form of government- it always tends towards corruption.
Government is at its best, a rabid dog in a cage. There is no possibility of mutual trust between citizens and the government. All governments enforce their will through force or the threat of force, and the final safety net is that citizens may also use force against the government.
Guns exist, and every government on Earth has them. I do not trust any government on Earth to use them wisely, and so, it is a fact of life that I too, must posess firearms.
Also - you claim to need guns (and you're far from the only one) to be able to stand up to a tyrannical government. Well, seeing what happens in the U.S. I'd assume it's due time but I don't see this happening.
Factually incorrect. There are signifigant case studies within the 20th century of poorly armed, poorly trained rabble standing up against highly trained and equipped militaries. Afghanistan (in the 80s), Vietnam, and Iraq all disagree with you.
Body armor does not protect against rifle rounds. It protects against pistol fire. There is a new body armor that claims to protect against rifle rounds, but that claim is unlikely.
Finally, in the US- we can still vote and it (sorta) counts, we aren't rounding up people for simply speaking out against the Government, there are still elected officials that are responsive. It's a near thing- but we're not ready to go to the ammo box yet- we'll give the ballot box another go.
While I somewhat agree with your remark regarding body armor, I keep hearing that the number of casualties in Iraq would be much higher (and the number of wounded lower) if not for body armor. Which keeps me thinking of the impact the use of arrows and swords (and the psychological effects it would have facing someone who charges you carrying a sword) could have.
But good to read that you have some optimism left.
Guns are a critical "final veto" against government oppression. The United States would not exist if not for private ownership of firearms. Many people say that the typical small arms citizens hold can't stand against a modern army... I say look at Vietnam and Iraq, where the US military had far less reason to hold back than they would in a fight on American soil. We got our asses kicked in Vietnam and are barely keeping our heads above water in Iraq. No, armed citizens can't stand against an armored division. But they can take out critical communications and command locations, paralyzing government forces and winning the overall effort. People who use that argument are stuck in old thinking about wars of attrition, ignoring developments in maneuver warfare(which were really pioneered by Sun Tzu somewhere aroudn 600BC).
The effect on crime is marginal as far as why we should have guns. Making the government hesitate before going all hitler on us is far more important IMO.
As far as crime goes though, criminals would still have guns. A ban would probably reduce gun availability to criminals to some degree, but effective firearms can be made without electricity(to the extent that experts have trouble telling them apart from officially manufactured examples), so to think that we could stop criminals from having guns is ridiculous. The bad guys might end up with fewer guns, but the good guys would be disarmed to a much greater degree. The balance of power would shift in favor of murdering assholes.
Japan is often held up as an example of an effective gun ban. What those people fail to mention is that personal weapons have been heavily restricted there since the 1600s. They also fail to consider the vast difference in culture between the US and Japan. American culture and Japanese culture are very different.
Guns are far more permeated into society here than they were in Europe- Europe has a long tradition of keeping the peasants unarmed. The US only exists because the peasants were armed- and armed better than the British.
It wasn't only the better weapons, but they played a big role in change the tactics that could be used. The guerilla force was able to do things that no major military could.
Personally, I oppose standing militaries as a waste of public funds, and instead would support militias, which is what the Constitution really leant itself towards. There's no provision in the Constitution for a standing military.
In light of the massacre in this Amish community and the two incidents before that - when balancing the risk that irresponsible gun-owners shoot innocents because they snap or are criminals against the need to be able to defend oneself against a tyrannical government, I'd still argue for taking guns away from the general public. One simply cannot enforce responsibility, as can be seen time and again.
Every Government is evil- some just moreso than others.
I'd also like to point out that it makes more sense to deal with the underlying problem (proclivity for violence) than the symptom (people use guns for violence). England's violent crime has increased since they banned guns, although the body count has dropped. I'd rather have the low body count and the guns.