# Guns Guns Guns



## Inferno (Jan 18, 2007)

I'm relatively new here and I've got a lot of reading to do to bring me up to speed and catch the swing of things here but I've seen a reoccuring Motif.  It seems that every thread I read, there is an overwhelming majority of users who talk about them carrying around several firearms from .357 Magnums to glocks.  I find this troubling and this could be because I reside in Canada.

Is it normal for Americans to "pack heat" when they go out?  Or is this forum just packed with people who fear for their safety more so than the general public and feel the need?

I do not mean to offend anyone and if I have, I apologize.  I just find this disturbing considering when I think Martial Arts I think about strengthing your mind and body for self defense and enlightenment not polishing my artilery.

Cheers.


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 18, 2007)

I'd say it's probably not common for Americans to "pack heat", though it's hard to say since the weapons are concealed.  A martial arts forum is going to be packed with people who put more than the usual thought into self-defense, and guns are one aspect of that.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 18, 2007)

Inferno said:


> I'm relatively new here and I've got a lot of reading to do to bring me up to speed and catch the swing of things here but I've seen a reoccuring Motif.  It seems that every thread I read, there is an overwhelming majority of users who talk about them carrying around several firearms from .357 Magnums to glocks.  I find this troubling and this could be because I reside in Canada.
> 
> Is it normal for Americans to "pack heat" when they go out?  Or is this forum just packed with people who fear for their safety more so than the general public and feel the need?
> 
> ...


I used to be rather anti-weapon too.

But the bad guys are intent on using whatever they have and if they don't have it, they make it.  I  now believe in being able to make use of whatever tool you have available to you.

Use of natural weapons came about because people were forced to relinquish their actual weapons.  You would call your hands, feet, elbows, knees, shins, shoulders all weapons.  Just about anything can be used as a weapon.

Let me ask you:  if you disarm someone, what are you going to do with that weapon?  What if there are armed others?  If you have no other choice than to use a gun or knife, are you going to lie down and meet your maker?  And do you think this devalues your life in any way?


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 18, 2007)

Inferno said:


> I'm relatively new here and I've got a lot of reading to do to bring me up to speed and catch the swing of things here but I've seen a reoccuring Motif. It seems that every thread I read, there is an overwhelming majority of users who talk about them carrying around several firearms from .357 Magnums to glocks. I find this troubling and this could be because I reside in Canada.
> 
> Is it normal for Americans to "pack heat" when they go out? Or is this forum just packed with people who fear for their safety more so than the general public and feel the need?


 
People who lawfully own handguns, and especially those who have concealed weapons permits, in the USA, have no felonies on their records.  They also do not have the more serious misdemeanor offenses on their records, and have gone through background checks to confirm this.  This is done every time someone goes to purchase a firearm from a dealer, in that the ATF4473 form must be filled out, and that background checks are conducted on the spot.  Lying on this form is a felony, and can result in you spending time in a federal prison.  

If anything, I would lay a good amount of money, that if you took a group of law-abiding firearms owners, and compared them to a group of non-firearms owners, you'll have a much, much, lower rate of criminal activity amongst the law-abiding firearms owners.  

I don't worry about law-abiding Americans (or anyone who is law-abiding) carrying concealed firearms, as long as they keep them concealed, and choose to use such firearms in a lawful manner.  

The people that everyone should be worried about are the criminals, not the law-abiding firearms owners.  Criminals do not obey the laws, and will obtain their firearms unlawfully, whether it's by stealing, black market (very easy to do, by the way), etc.  

Trying to restrict the law-abiding folks has no effect on the activities of criminals, and resources are better spent towards helping law enforcement take criminals off the street, since it's the criminals who make the conscious decision to commit crimes, not some inanimate object.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 18, 2007)

well...

First of all, this is the "Self-defense" board. The idea here, as I understand it, is to discuss realistic, workable options for personal protection. This being the case, the discussion of weapons, particularly firearms, is going to be prevalent among those of us who don't look at the problem through "rose colored glasses." Let's face it, until someone comes up with a practical laser-blaster, a firearm is the most effective tool for stopping a threat. 
As SheSulsa pointed out, empty-hand/natural-weapons are used because one does not or cannot have a weapon readily available. When faced with a deadly threat it would be foolish to limit yourself to empty-hand methods if you have a weapon that you can deploy.

I personally have issues with the idea that the use of firearms is somehow at odds with the practice of martial-arts. The last time I checked, "martial" was defined as "warlike" or "suitable or associated with war." Given those definitions, I don't see how one could say that weapons, particularly firearms, are beyond the scope of the martial-arts.  Really, I feel that many "martial-artists" place too much value on the "art" and not enough on the "martial." In other words, they get so caught up in the internal aspects of the training that they forget that what they are learning was originally designed with the goal of neutralizing one's enemy as efficiently as possible. It makes no difference whether that "enemy" is a soldier on a battlefield, or some meth-head in a poorly lit parking lot.


----------



## Tarot (Jan 18, 2007)

I don't fear for my safety, I look at it as being prepared as much as possible for what might come my way.  Do I pack and own a gun?  No, but I'm hoping that will change very soon.  

*Fingers crossed I get a nice surprise for my birthday*

It will be awhile before I own one of my own, but I am looking forward to training and learning how to use one.  Why?  I don't ever want to be in a situation where a gun comes into play, I'm able to get control of it only to find myself unable to use it because I don't know how.  IMO, this would be very bad.

KenpoTex is spot on in his reply.


----------



## Lisa (Jan 18, 2007)

Inferno said:


> I'm relatively new here and I've got a lot of reading to do to bring me up to speed and catch the swing of things here but I've seen a reoccuring Motif.  It seems that every thread I read, there is an overwhelming majority of users who talk about them carrying around several firearms from .357 Magnums to glocks.  I find this troubling and this could be because I reside in Canada.
> 
> Is it normal for Americans to "pack heat" when they go out?  Or is this forum just packed with people who fear for their safety more so than the general public and feel the need?
> 
> ...



Inferno,

First off, welcome to MT.  I am glad you have joined us.

I do understand your comments and can relate to them being Canadian myself and not being "allowed" to carry a concealed weapons. The whole idea of it, to us, is so foreign it is hard for us to grasp it.  However, please don't take what is written in the threads out of context.  The people (or a majority of them) that talk about "packing heat" do so because it is part of their everyday lives.  Beit it that they are part of the military, LEO, or private personal protection of others.  I think you are overwhelmed because it is so foreign to you.  Hang around a bit, get to know the members of this community and you will soon have a better understanding of the "whole" picture.


----------



## Drac (Jan 18, 2007)

Inferno said:


> when I think Martial Arts I think about strengthing your mind and body for self defense and enlightenment not polishing my artilery.
> 
> Cheers.


 
Welcome to MT...I remember when I discoverd one of my Sensei's always packed..When I asked him why he said "I know karate, I no crazy"...


----------



## Blindside (Jan 18, 2007)

Inferno said:


> I do not mean to offend anyone and if I have, I apologize. I just find this disturbing considering when I think Martial Arts I think about strengthing your mind and body for self defense and enlightenment not polishing my artilery.


 
I know of at least five "grandmasters" of various arts that carry regularly, these are men with 40+ years in the arts.  Guns are simply an option, one that requires just as much training and dedication as learning how to punch, kick, and throw.  Take a look back into the histories of whatever art you would like, and you will find that when people were truly serious about self-protection they picked up a weapon, preferably the best weapon they could get their hands on.  In the modern world, that means firearms.

Lamont


----------



## wade (Jan 18, 2007)

After much thought and consideration of all that has been said on this subject in this thread my only response is "What they said". Thank you.


----------



## tellner (Jan 18, 2007)

Let's start out with something I said to another Canadian in another thread...



> Not many people carry a knife or gun for self defense. And most of the ones who do just wind up lugging it around for their whole lives without ever using it. Even the majority of police officers never fire a shot except on the range. But there are bad people out there. And there are dangerous situations. A knife or gun is only useful in a very few circumstances. When it is, nothing else will do. And the smaller, weaker or less physically fit you are the worse it is. Something which might not be a deadly force situation for you or me is for a 50 kilo woman.
> 
> Think of one of these tools as a fire extinguisher or smoke alarm. It's a highly specialized piece of safety equipment useful for only one or two things. You will probably never need one. It sits there and takes up space. It needs maintenance. But that one time makes it all worthwhile. Through combinations of bad luck and poor planning I've had that "one time" more than once. So I carry a pistol from time to time. And I've grown so used to having a knife around since I was thirteen or fourteen that I feel undressed without one.



I used to be anti-weapon, particularly anti-gun. Knives were strictly tools. Martial arts were about using your unaugmented body. Weapons were for people who didn't train, a reflection on one's skill and character.

Things changed, obviously. 

First, I started to learn a little about the history of martial arts and found that throughout history almost all of them taught the empty hand as a backup. If you had a weapon, you used it because it would be stupid not to. The emphasis on non-weapons martial arts was largely a post-WWII thing. Judo had to be made less scary. Aikido went strongly in its current direction. "China Hand" became "Empty Hand" and so on. 

Then I actually got exposed to firearms. I'd never handled or fired one before. My first Silat teacher, last of the real Colorado hillbillies, took me shooting and taught basic firearm safety. As these things became less mysterious I was able to look at them a bit more objectively. About that time Oregon started allowing an Oregon CCW as another form of ID and allowing CCW holders to bypass the fifteen day waiting period to buy a gun. I didn't have any guns, but damned if I was going to wait around for something that someone with a card and a training class could walk in and pick up. I also didn't have a car and had let the driver's license lapse.

I got a CCW and bought an old (but safe!) revolver from a friend who was very broke. I carried it for a while for educational purposes and learned a few interesting things. Then I moved to an area that I could afford, which is to say a place where having that pistol turned out to be a great comfort once or twice. Over the years I've also found that people who are trying to get into my house may not understand "Get the **** off my porch!" in English. But the sound of a 1911 cycling is something they can understand perfectly. 

Do I still train the empty hand portions of my martial arts? Of course. Would they be my first choice to defend myself or family against a life-threatening attack? No. Will they be when I am 70? Hell, no. If we're lucky enough to conceive this time would I want my wife to get in a fist fight while six months pregnant and waddling around or would I rather she defend herself and the baby a little more effectively? It doesn't take a lot of thought to figure that one out.

Since then I've found that all but one of my martial arts teachers also owned firearms and carried them where it was legal.

The teacher of my first Silat teacher put it this way: "I don't live in a tree. I don't eat with my fingers. Why would I fight with them?"


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 18, 2007)

Is learning how to handle a firearm a martial art? Short awnser: Definately!

Do I feel he need to carry a gun on the streets? Short awnser: Definately not!

Some interesting reading: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/pdf/litreviewfirearmdeaths.pdf


----------



## Inferno (Jan 18, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> Let me ask you:  if you disarm someone, what are you going to do with that weapon?  What if there are armed others?  If you have no other choice than to use a gun or knife, are you going to lie down and meet your maker?  And do you think this devalues your life in any way?



Well if there are a group of individuals with guns all against me with the intent of killing me, the only option I feel I'd even have was to sue one as a human shield or possibly a hostage and back away and get out of there.  If they really wanted to kill me though they'd just fire before I can even get close, carrying a gun myself (which would be illegal) would still probably not help me because again, they could fire before they even get close and in the event that they try to mug me, with lets say four guns pointing at me, reaching for a gun is pretty dumb considering they just want my wallet, it's not worth it not to mention I'd be locked up for having a weapon and would spend time in jail for it.



Lisa said:


> Inferno,
> 
> First off, welcome to MT.  I am glad you have joined us.
> 
> I do understand your comments and can relate to them being Canadian myself and not being "allowed" to carry a concealed weapons. The whole idea of it, to us, is so foreign it is hard for us to grasp it.  However, please don't take what is written in the threads out of context.  The people (or a majority of them) that talk about "packing heat" do so because it is part of their everyday lives.  Beit it that they are part of the military, LEO, or private personal protection of others.  I think you are overwhelmed because it is so foreign to you.  Hang around a bit, get to know the members of this community and you will soon have a better understanding of the "whole" picture.




Thank you very much.  I think I am just weirded out because outrunning a psycho in a car trying to run me over is more likely than coming across someone with a gun, legal or otherwise.  I'd almost bet that I have a better chance of a helicopter or hot air balloon landing and having criminals jump out at me.  This must just be a Canadian thing and like I said I mean no disrespect, I personally just don't understand.  

I think that hand-to-hand and knife disarms are the most likely event in my surroundings and the whole armed citizenry is an American thing.


----------



## Carol (Jan 18, 2007)

Inferno said:


> Thank you very much. I think I am just weirded out because outrunning a psycho in a car trying to run me over is more likely than coming across someone with a gun, legal or otherwise. I'd almost bet that I have a better chance of a helicopter or hot air balloon landing and having criminals jump out at me. This must just be a Canadian thing and like I said I mean no disrespect, I personally just don't understand.
> 
> I think that hand-to-hand and knife disarms are the most likely event in my surroundings and the whole armed citizenry is an American thing.


 
In terms of reasons...I have a job doing what I love to do, which is a senior engineering position in a 24x7x365 industry. There is a lot of crap that goes on after Midnight that people working "normal" business hours don't see because they are (rightfully) home in bed. 

I don't think a lot of Americans carry concealed.  Granted, my state is not gun friendly, but the Salem (MA) News reported that between 2 and 3 percent of the town where I live as well as the bordering town that I live near have carry permits.  That isn't a lot of people.


----------



## tellner (Jan 18, 2007)

On the other hand, the NYPD estimates that 7% of all adults in the city are carrying, almost all of them illegally.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 18, 2007)

Inferno said:


> I think that hand-to-hand and knife disarms are the most likely event in my surroundings and the whole armed citizenry is an American thing.


 
Guns aren't just for gun on gun, they are for any deadly force situation, this can include knife, club, baseball bat, multiple attackers, or significant size disparity.  Does it still sound far fetched?

Lamont


----------



## Blindside (Jan 18, 2007)

tellner said:


> On the other hand, the NYPD estimates that 7% of all adults in the city are carrying, almost all of them illegally.


 
I seem to recall that in South Dakota 7% are LICENSED to carry, at the time it was the highest rate in the nation.

Lamont


----------



## Inferno (Jan 18, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Guns aren't just for gun on gun, they are for any deadly force situation, this can include knife, club, baseball bat, multiple attackers, or significant size disparity.  Does it still sound far fetched?
> 
> Lamont



Guns aren't an option for me or anyone but LE and the very rare criminal in my country.  Running shoes,a  cool head, some skills (both verbal and defensive) will keep the majority of the public safe in my opinion.

I don't get me wrong either, I like marksmanship both with firearms and archery but the thought of knowing that Americans believe guns are the answer to being safe sort of scares me.  If people didn't have guns to carry around, the chance of you coming into contact with an attacker is highly reduced, look at Canada, Japan, the UK as some examples.  More guns, means more criminals with guns.

I'm not trying to rain on anyones parade, I just think arming yourself might be adding to the problem as opposed to fixing the problem.  But on the flip side, I can understand that one can feel protected with guns, if I had a handgun I'd feel empowered and less scared, it's a huge physiological boost in morale.

I feel like I've opened a can of worms, but I guess I asked for it bringing up the 2nd Amendment with armed Americans .


----------



## Blindside (Jan 18, 2007)

Inferno said:


> I'm not trying to rain on anyones parade, I just think arming yourself might be adding to the problem as opposed to fixing the problem. But on the flip side, I can understand that one can feel protected with guns, if I had a handgun I'd feel empowered and less scared, it's a huge physiological boost in morale.
> 
> I feel like I've opened a can of worms, but I guess I asked for it bringing up the 2nd Amendment with armed Americans .


 
You are lucky this isn't a gun board, the wrath of God would be descending right about now.  

I will say, that just because we carry, we don't also learn all the skills you already mentioned.


----------



## Carol (Jan 18, 2007)

Be careful about assumptions.  Not everyone that is not ignorant about guns is an armed American.  

There are many other factors that go in to crime statistics as well.  Colder cities tend to have less crime than warmer cities.  Cities with greater ethnic diversity often have more crime than cities with less ethnic diversity.  Areas where the populace is more educated and has higher socioeconomic strata enjoy less crime than areas where the populace is less educated and is of lower socioeconomic strata.   That gets in to a lot of very touchy issues that are over and beyond the use of guns.  

There is also a difference in mentality.  Some people think if a woman is in an abusive relationship, it is her fault for getting beat up because she didn't leave the guy.  Others think that a guy that pulls in to a gas station at 3am and faces an attacker was asking for it and therefore is his own fault.  Still others think that if they don't see something that it's not their problem.  Personally, I don't subscribe to these mentalities.

Martial Arts that "work" on the street are a good thing.   However, I don't know that many 6 feet tall 200 pound guys that are effective at defending themselves against 7' 2" 400 pound men in a way that always works on the street.  That may sound like a ridiculous theory but if women face an attacker, it can easily be someone 20% taller than they are and twice their weight.  Martial Arts schools in general do not have a great track record at retaining women.

Guns may not be one's cup of tea.  I don't think anyone should be forced in to owning or using a weapon that they do not want to use.  However, I prefer that the prosecution of people is focused on people that break the law, not on those that abide by it.


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 18, 2007)

Inferno said:


> carry around, the chance of you coming into contact with an attacker is highly reduced,


 
You are comparing unlawful carry to lawful carry.  This comparison is simply invalid.  



> look at Canada, Japan, the UK as some examples. More guns, means more criminals with guns.


 
On the other hand, look at Jamaica.  No firearms ownership is allowed by the law-abiding, yet they are always amongst the world's highest violent crime rates.  

Look within the USA.  Washington DC and Chicago forbid handgun ownership, yet they are amongst the highest rates of violent crime in this nation.  At the same time, the city of Kennesaw, Georgia, requires firearms ownership in each household, and their crime rate is exceptionally low.  

It's not a firearms issue, and especially not amongst the law-abiding.  It's always going to be a cultural issue.


----------



## Inferno (Jan 18, 2007)

Blindside said:


> You are lucky this isn't a gun board, the wrath of God would be descending right about now.
> 
> I will say, that just because we carry, we don't also learn all the skills you already mentioned.



I agree, and like I said I'm just surprised is all.  I also understand when I read that martial arts is meant to be a backup and a real weapon is the main defense/offense.



Carol Kaur said:


> Be careful about assumptions.  Not everyone that is not ignorant about guns is an armed American.
> 
> There are many other factors that go in to crime statistics as well.  Colder cities tend to have less crime than warmer cities.  Cities with greater ethnic diversity often have more crime than cities with less ethnic diversity.  Areas where the populace is more educated and has higher socioeconomic strata enjoy less crime than areas where the populace is less educated and is of lower socioeconomic strata.   That gets in to a lot of very touchy issues that are over and beyond the use of guns.



I do understand and agree with this as well.  I'm not trying to assume anything.  Guns are tools, but their specialized tools, they are made for harming others and animals whether in a defensive or offensive (and eventually became a sport as well).  By making those tools more readily available, it's going to have people on both end, the defensive and the offensive.  

I'd also like to thank everyone who has replied.  I'm also very grateful this hasn't blown into a flame war that it would be if it was on another board (like a gun board as stated above), users here show a great deal of intelligence and possibly restraint.

In retrospect, I probably should have refrained from posting such a topic, I realize the right to bare arms is a big one in America and the possibility of a newbie being flamed into oblivion was a bit risky.


----------



## Carol (Jan 18, 2007)

Nothing wrong with posting the topic at all!   You have a right to your opinion like everyone else.  

There are certainly folks that disagree with you, but I don't think you are being flamed.   There are challenges to your posts but no one is calling you names or making a personal attack.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 18, 2007)

Inferno said:


> In retrospect, I probably should have refrained from posting such a topic, I realize the right to bare arms is a big one in America and the possibility of a newbie being flamed into oblivion was a bit risky.


 
You didn't come across as a troll, this board is a pretty safe one, so feel free to ask questions.  Lord knows I've said some stupid things in the past, and the board was fairly forgiving. (and what you asked wasn't stupid, and you did it politely.)

Lamont


----------



## Lisa (Jan 18, 2007)

Inferno said:


> Thank you very much.  I think I am just weirded out because outrunning a psycho in a car trying to run me over is more likely than coming across someone with a gun, legal or otherwise.  I'd almost bet that I have a better chance of a helicopter or hot air balloon landing and having criminals jump out at me.  This must just be a Canadian thing and like I said I mean no disrespect, I personally just don't understand.
> 
> I think that hand-to-hand and knife disarms are the most likely event in my surroundings and the whole armed citizenry is an American thing.



I have to disagree with it being a Canadian thing.  There are many Canadians that believe our gun laws are wrong and are working towards changes that fight "crimes with guns" and not "gun control" and I happen to be one of them.

You live in Regina don't you?... which I happen to know has the highest murder rate per capita next to Winnipeg.  (We usually switch back and forth, your city takes it one year, mine the next )  I too, feel safe in my city and I am not sure how many of those are gun related, I will have to do more research.  



> More guns, means more criminals with guns.



Now, I am not trying to start anything, but this is what I hear the politians in Canada say who believe "gun control" not proper legislation is the way to deal with our problems.

On that note, I remember reading and article where the journalist was talking with a motorcycle gang member who were lobbying for tougher gun legislation in Canada.  Their attitude was "hey, take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens just makes it easier for me."  That was a sobering thought.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 18, 2007)

Inferno said:


> Guns aren't an option for me or anyone but LE and the very rare criminal in my country.  Running shoes,a  cool head, some skills (both verbal and defensive) will keep the majority of the public safe in my opinion.


There are some other Canadians on this board who may disagree with you on some of that.  As to Running shoes, a cool head and some skills keeping the majority of the public safe, you've forgotten some other very important elements - awareness, prevention education are two of the most important and used with Good Choices, you have a really good chance of avoiding most crime.  And honestly, you're probably right when it comes to avoidance.  But I've lived my life trying to avoid this kind of conflict and have been on the wrong side of violence five times ... four of them from people I knew ... the fifth was on the wrong side of a gun.



Inferno said:


> I don't get me wrong either, I like marksmanship both with firearms and archery but the thought of knowing that Americans believe guns are the answer to being safe sort of scares me.  If people didn't have guns to carry around, the chance of you coming into contact with an attacker is highly reduced, look at Canada, Japan, the UK as some examples.


Those are easy things to say.  Guns aren't THE ANSWER ... there is no panacea for violence - there always has been and always will be violence; the only answer to it is Armageddon if that's really gonna happen.  I suppose you need to walk a mile or two in our moccassins in downtown L.A., Watts, the barrios in Chicago and much of New York.  Sometimes just reaching for your holster is enough to thwart an attack - just ask Paul Janulis on this board.  


Inferno said:


> More guns, means more criminals with guns.


Maybe ... but there are already a lot of criminals out there with illegal guns.  If more responsible citizens are armed then it makes things a little more fair.  But that's still not enough - there are other things we must do as a society to keep things safer and that takes being in the public eye, taking risks and holding ground - something most people don't wanna do.



Inferno said:


> I'm not trying to rain on anyones parade, I just think arming yourself might be adding to the problem as opposed to fixing the problem.  But on the flip side, I can understand that one can feel protected with guns, if I had a handgun I'd feel empowered and less scared, it's a huge physiological boost in morale.


Hm.  I don't know about that.  I *personally* think that anyone who feels empowered just because they own a gun doesn't really understand what it means that they have brought this weapon into their home.  It is a huge responsibility, not to be scoffed at nor taken advantage of.  It also means caring for family relations healthily and carefully.  It means being responsible for one's anger, frustration, jealousy without taking that gun into one's hands.



Inferno said:


> I feel like I've opened a can of worms, but I guess I asked for it bringing up the 2nd Amendment with armed Americans .


For Americans specifically, totalitarianism was so hated and so feared, people took enormous risks to leave their secure homes and come here to start fresh.  Many, many died on the trip and many more died because they failed.  Our founding fathers knew that all forms of government are subject to failure, to corruption and wrote in a protection for the people of the land that should be need to overthrow our government we would have the tools with which to do so.  It is old but important.

I hope I'm not coming across as too argumentative here, just trying to point out some things.


----------



## Inferno (Jan 18, 2007)

Lisa said:


> You live in Regina don't you?... which I happen to know has the highest murder rate per capita next to Winnipeg.  (We usually switch back and forth, your city takes it one year, mine the next )  I too, feel safe in my city and I am not sure how many of those are gun related, I will have to do more research.


It is the murder capital, and usually the only murders committed are intimate ones, where a wife kills her abusive husband and the junk like that.  I pass through the "most dangerous park in the city" everyday between 9pm and 3:30am, and I've never had a problem at all, and I'm not a big guy (I'm a pale Caucasian computer geek).  As for guns, I know a lot of the gangs (Unfortunately primarily being Indigenous people) have them and flash them a lot and recently I've heard of rising gun related gang activity going on which is quite scary.



> Now, I am not trying to start anything, but this is what I hear the politians in Canada say who believe "gun control" not proper legislation is the way to deal with our problems.
> 
> On that note, I remember reading and article where the journalist was talking with a motorcycle gang member who were lobbying for tougher gun legislation in Canada.  Their attitude was "hey, take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens just makes it easier for me."  That was a sobering thought.



I don't believe in gun control personally, it's a waste of money.  I also don't have a problem with people owning guns, I'd like to have a handgun and a scoped rifle, for home protection but in extreme cases such as looting etc.  (Recently a friends house burnt down, and when they put the fire out, people started looting, which is just unreal.  I expect that from a weird comedy sketch not reality).

It's a very weird issue that I can stand on both sides of the fence on.  Sort of like the legalization of Marijuana (which is a whole new thread altogether).  I just wanted to know the general feel of how board users stand on it since this is a crowd that I look up to for guidance as the combined experience on this board is overwhelming.


----------



## bigkicks (Jan 18, 2007)

inferno



most people who" pack heat" are not scared nor do the live in a constant state of fear. They are just well prepared for any scernio. You will find that most of us that carry also carry knifes, and flashlights. Prepared!! this is a crazzy world and at any moment things can run a muk. If the fight is fair, we play fair but if weapons are drawn its always nice to know you have your sidearm with you. Better to have and not need it, than need it and not have it. Martial arts is agreat for the mind, body and sprit. However, we are living in the 2007 era, were human live is not vauled by criminals nor, do our advesaries live by any code of honor. like the great masters did ions ago when martial arts and the sword were the common in the field of battle. 

 Why should we be victims. 

welcome !!


----------



## Carol (Jan 18, 2007)

Inferno said:


> I just wanted to know the general feel of how board users stand on it since this is a crowd that I look up to for guidance as the combined experience on this board is overwhelming.


 
The opinions vary widely.  We have a few people here that are anti-gun as well.  One thing is for sure...those of us that shoot, if we didn't feel MA training was important, we wouldn't be spending any time here talking about it and getting to know other folks that train.


----------



## Inferno (Jan 18, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> There are some other Canadians on this board who may disagree with you on some of that.  As to Running shoes, a cool head and some skills keeping the majority of the public safe, you've forgotten some other very important elements - awareness, prevention education are two of the most important and used with Good Choices, you have a really good chance of avoiding most crime.  And honestly, you're probably right when it comes to avoidance.  But I've lived my life trying to avoid this kind of conflict and have been on the wrong side of violence five times ... four of them from people I knew ... the fifth was on the wrong side of a gun.


Agreed.    I did miss those qualities, not that I feel they aren't needed but I suppose I didn't put enough thought into the post.  As for violence, there really is none, there is some drama once in awhile when two people get in a fight and then they bring 12 people to "back them up" and the other does as well leading to an arms race that turns into absolutely nothing to begin with.  Very childish, but preferable to a full scale riot or something.



> Those are easy things to say.  Guns aren't THE ANSWER ... there is no panacea for violence - there always has been and always will be violence; the only answer to it is Armageddon if that's really gonna happen.  I suppose you need to walk a mile or two in our moccassins in downtown L.A., Watts, the barrios in Chicago and much of New York.  Sometimes just reaching for your holster is enough to thwart an attack - just ask Paul Janulis on this board.
> 
> Maybe ... but there are already a lot of criminals out there with illegal guns.  If more responsible citizens are armed then it makes things a little more fair.  But that's still not enough - there are other things we must do as a society to keep things safer and that takes being in the public eye, taking risks and holding ground - something most people don't wanna do.


I think the difference in opinions comes from the fact that we both live in very different social circumstances.  



> Hm.  I don't know about that.  I *personally* think that anyone who feels empowered just because they own a gun doesn't really understand what it means that they have brought this weapon into their home.  It is a huge responsibility, not to be scoffed at nor taken advantage of.  It also means caring for family relations healthily and carefully.  It means being responsible for one's anger, frustration, jealousy without taking that gun into one's hands.


I have to disagree, I think everyone at least at first feels a little empowered by owning a gun.  I realize and agree that it does or at least SHOULD be a lot of responsibility ESPECIALLY if you have children etc, but with such a power weapon that can literally take life by a movement of a finger, it's hard to believe one wouldn't feel empowered.  Take this with a  grain of salt though as I don't own a gun, but have fired many . 



> For Americans specifically, totalitarianism was so hated and so feared, people took enormous risks to leave their secure homes and come here to start fresh.  Many, many died on the trip and many more died because they failed.  Our founding fathers knew that all forms of government are subject to failure, to corruption and wrote in a protection for the people of the land that should be need to overthrow our government we would have the tools with which to do so.  It is old but important.


Which is a great idea, unfortunately I feel that the American people are letting a lot happen that they shouldn't.  The founding fathers gave the means, but there has to be a will in order for change, people would have to be willing to die, and as long as people have their conveniences and aren't starving there won't be any revolution on a grand scale.  So as long as the bread and circuses continue, I don't expect much to happen, which is unfortunate but thats a very dangerous and off-topic discussion.



> I hope I'm not coming across as too argumentative here, just trying to point out some things.


Not at all, I appreciate the feedback, it helps me work things out myself, I try to keep an open mind so my opinions can grow and evolve as opposed to some who have their opinions set in stone and do nothing but try to drive it into other people's skulls.



Carol Kaur said:


> The opinions vary widely.  We have a few people here that are anti-gun as well.  One thing is for sure...those of us that shoot, if we didn't feel MA training was important, we wouldn't be spending any time here talking about it and getting to know other folks that train.



That they do, we're all [SIZE=-1]different and thats what makes life interesting.[/SIZE]

This thread has really made me mull it all over and I think I can understand why you individuals would choose to have guns on your person even if it seems strange in my circumstance.  I thank you all for giving me this better understanding.  I think this thread has done it's purpose at lest for me.  Thanks again.


----------



## AzQkr (Jan 18, 2007)

Cirdan,

Don't believe everything you read out of Harvard [ that link you provided ]. It's a cesspool of liberalism at it's finest.

I live in a state where open carry is not only accepted but the population is quite accustomed to seeing armed citizens with guns on their belts in holsters.

Some of those who move here for the winter from other more "liberal" states have tried and continue to try to take that right away from us, and it may happen one day in the future, but for now, we exercise the rights we were granted by the founders of this country where firearm ownership and carry them is concerned.

It's the free state of Arizona, moved here from one of the most liberalized repressive states in the country called Massachusetts a few years ago. Could not be happier to be here and enjoying and experiencing those freedoms while they last.

Brownie


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jan 18, 2007)

Inferno said:


> In retrospect, I probably should have refrained from posting such a topic, I realize the right to bare arms is a big one in America and the possibility of a newbie being flamed into oblivion was a bit risky.


 

While some people like to wear sleeveless shirts, I prefer not to. But, if you are referring to the right to bear arms, then yes I am all for it.  The police are not obligated, nor should they be expected to protect individuals from harm. That responsibility belongs to you and you alone.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jan 18, 2007)

AzQkr said:


> Cirdan,
> 
> Don't believe everything you read out of Harvard [ that link you provided ]. It's a cesspool of liberalism at it's finest.
> 
> ...


 

Yup, The states and cities that have liberal politicians in charge have out of control murder and crime rates. It's kind of sad that many of the 13 colonies have repressive gun control laws.


----------



## pstarr (Jan 18, 2007)

Yep!  The year that it became illegal to even possess a firearm in Washington, DC, that place had the highest homicide rate in the nation...


----------



## tellner (Jan 18, 2007)

Guns didn't use to be a liberal/conservative thing in this country. It became a wedge issue over the years for a variety of political and historical reasons that are well beyond the scope of this forum.

There are certainly some people who carry - I've never heard of anyone who does so refer to it as "packing heat" - who are overly cautious to mildly paranoid. You find the same sorts in the dojo. But for the overwhelming majority, no. Again, before I did myself I thought so. It seemed obvious. After having a CCW for a while and meeting a lot of other people who did it became obvious that that was incorrect.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 19, 2007)

wade said:


> After much thought and consideration of all that has been said on this subject in this thread my only response is "What they said". Thank you.


 
Same here. Great responses.


----------



## Dave Leverich (Jan 19, 2007)

It's been a real pleasure to see what very likely would have been a shouting match... held to a dull roar, and respectful.

My own background:
I could field strip a Berretta blindfolded at 10. Back together  with a clip and one in the pipe, in about 25 seconds. I'm only somewhat guestimating on time, as I can picture all of the parts in my head, and I haven't stripped a Berretta in 15 years.

At 12 I knew that a 380 would fit in a 9mm, but not the other way around.
I knew the value of a stagger grip, hollow points, hydroshocks...

You can see how I grew up. I could blow a nickle off the hind of a bullfrog at 300 yards etc etc.

That being said. I own one gun, a plinking .22 old revolver.

It's not that I don't love guns, I think they are great, I love and respect them. There's nothing like watching a jug explode at 100 yards through a 20 power Nikon as the blowback ports on the 300 Win mag stop it from making my shoulder part of my back. Even the smell of a spent shell of the right caliber is great heh.

I just don't need to have one on my person, where I live. That might change, I have absolutely nothing against carrying a weapon if it's warranted. I've carried when I lived in Phoenix, I can't side kick someone who's throwing slugs, luckily I never had to. But, in one summer there... we had 2 'snipers' hole up and start picking off pedestrians, innumerable bank robberies, hold-ups, drive-bys... EVERY night there were police helecopters overhead with infrared going looking for someone.

Yes, in Phoenix, I carried. Here I don't. If I go camping in deep woods, sure thing. To me it's simply an awareness of surroundings.


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 19, 2007)

AzQkr said:


> Cirdan,
> 
> Don't believe everything you read out of Harvard [ that link you provided ]. It's a cesspool of liberalism at it's finest.


 
I merely found it to be interesting, I don`t neccecarily agree with all of it. However I think it i quite obvious that the US has a gun problem. The number of firearm related deaths you have every year over there is staggering. It would appear not all members of society who are allowed to posess guns are as responsible as the members of this forum. Having instructed a fain number of persons how to handle arms myself I find that most need a harsh lesson in respecting the weapon.


----------



## Carol (Jan 19, 2007)

Cirdan said:


> I merely found it to be interesting, I don`t neccecarily agree with all of it. However I think it i quite obvious that the US has a gun problem. The number of firearm related deaths you have every year over there is staggering. It would appear not all members of society who are allowed to posess guns are as responsible as the members of this forum. Having instructed a fain number of persons how to handle arms myself I find that most need a harsh lesson in respecting the weapon.


 
The U.S. has more of a crime problem than a gun problem, for many reasons.  A lot of gun violence stems from illicit usage.  There are some irresponsible firearms users and I don't support irresponsible behaviour at all...however, I also think the stories get a bit sensationalized in the press.  Unfortunately, responsible firearm use (including no use at all) doesn't sell news.


----------



## tellner (Jan 19, 2007)

Back when I did more research on this kind of thing I found that the "typical" American murder (better than half fell into that category) were either people with felony records killing other people with felony records or domestic violence in which the police had been called at least once in the last year. What can you do?


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 19, 2007)

Inferno,

I'll make a couple of points, and then I have some questions for you.

1. When you live in a place where certain things are controlled by the government, it becomes hard to imagine what it would be like if these things weren't regulated. Then, you go to such a place, or here from people about that place, and realize that it is incidental that these things aren't regulated.

It is easy to come up with chaotic scenarios in ones head to describe if guns were legal, or if drugs were legal, or if alcahol wasn't regulated, or if there were no speed limits, and so forth. Then, when you observe places that don't regulate these things. These chaotic predictions are never true due to lack of regulation.

In places that are "open carry" states (like Arizona, Michigan, etc.), people carry firearms all the time. It is no big deal. Life goes on the same as it would anywhere else, just with more freedom. There isn't havok and mass killings in the streets. There isn't a climate of fear and violence in these areas. And this is because material things (like guns or alcahol) are not going to make or break a social climate.

This is no different then places in Europe where there is little to no alcahol regulation, or where speed limits are obsolete or not enforced. There isn't mass incident of vehicular manslaughter, or drunk elemetry school kids roaming the playgrounds, as many doomsayers predict. In fact, it is my understanding that accident rates and alcaholism and abuse is actually lower in many of these areas where these things aren't regulated.

2. Back to a point I touched on in #1, it is not a matarial thing that could be solved by regulation that makes or breaks a society. Example, In Iraq right now, people are not allowed to carry guns on there person, and people are only allowed to own 1 firearm in the home. And we can all see how well that is working out.

If weapon regulation was the thing that controlled and prevented violent societies, then Iraq would be a calm state, and Michigan would be in total chaos with mass killings in the streets. Yet, the opposite is true. Why?

Violence has to do with the social climate of a locale, not what tools are or aren't allowed. The social climate in Iraq right now is no where near peaceful, making their fairly strict gun regulation obsolete.

If you were to, right now today, lift any and all bans and regulations on firearm ownership and carry in a place with low crime, like the entire Georgian Pennincula Ontario, nothing much would change. There would be no increase in violence or violent crime. Daily life would commence as usual.

Conversly, if you take a place like Wayne County, MI., where crime rates are much higher then the entire province of Ontario, and were to ban all firearm purchase or carry, you would see a spike and increase in crime. Why? This is because the criminals who already don't obey the law would use the fact that law abiding citizens aren't carrying firearms to their advantage.

Both of these facts have been proven true numerous times. In places where crime is significant, weapons bans almost always cause an spike in violent crime. Where as regardless of crime rate (high or low), when a weapon regulation is removed, there is no spike or increase of crime at all. In fact, in some cases violent crime actually goes down. We have seen this in states, cities, and countries when weapons regulations are implimented. We have also seen the converse here in the states, when "duty to retreat" laws are removed, or when Concealed Pistols Licensing is moved to "shall issue," and crime actually decreases.

The above tells us 2 things. First, weapons ownership and carry isn't the problem; the problem is always the social climate and cultural of violence in that local. Therefore, weapons regulation is most often not the answer to these problems, and these measures often backfire greatly.

#3. Now that I have made some points, I have some questions for you:

a. I know that you said that firearms regulation is a "waste of money." I agree. But money aside, philosophically do you think that weapons regulation is the answer to anything or the right thing to do, and why?

b. Would it be uncomfortable for you if people around you did carry weapons more often, and what do you think would change if this occured in your town?

c. Do you think that it is wrong for people to carry weapons? Do you think that people should not carry weapons, period?

I am curious to get your perspective here...


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 19, 2007)

I am curious.. how many of you have actually used firearms in self defense? I`d like to hear some stories.


----------



## Lisa (Jan 19, 2007)

Cirdan said:


> I am curious.. how many of you have actually used firearms in self defense? I`d like to hear some stories.



Wouldn't that be the subject for a new thread?  (hint hint)


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 19, 2007)

Lisa said:


> Wouldn't that be the subject for a new thread?  (hint hint)


 
Aww it`s weekend and I`m too lazy to follow two threads. Besides I can barely see trough the gunsmoke in here. Love the smell tough. Makes me wish I was back in the valley where I could shoot wild cats. Hey they were peeing on our dormat! :shotgun:


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 19, 2007)

Cirdan said:


> Aww it`s weekend and I`m too lazy to follow two threads. Besides I can barely see trough the gunsmoke in here. Love the smell tough. Makes me wish I was back in the valley where I could shoot wild cats. Hey they were peeing on our dormat! :shotgun:


 
This has been asked before. It is an interesting read, but keep in mind that there are a lot of people who have been in violent situations involving firearms who won't divulge that information on the forum.


----------



## Inferno (Jan 19, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Inferno,
> 
> I'll make a couple of points, and then I have some questions for you.
> 
> ...



Deregulation without chaos stems from time, if suddenly America or Canada didn't have speed limits, I bet you collision rates would skyrocket immensely.  However After time, people would get some sense in them and drive as fast as they can responsibly this could take quite some time though.  

Just as if we were to remove the drinking limit or move it to near 12 or 13 like it is in some European countries (Denmark doesn't have a limit but they think 13 is when they can be introduced to alcohol).  I think we'd have little drunk children everywhere for awhile and then once it's not so Taboo it would stop being an issue (which I'm assuming would take many years of having drunk children unless parents intervene because they disagree with the law).

What I was hypothesizing earlier is that if guns were suddenly illegal and were destroyed after many many years it'd be near impossible to get a gun unless your in organized crime etc like Japan, the UK etc.  I understand you'd probably disagree with this but that's besides the point.  It's just as easy to think of good scenarios through regulation as it is to think of chaos theories with deregulation.





> 2. Back to a point I touched on in #1, it is not a material thing that could be solved by regulation that makes or breaks a society. Example, In Iraq right now, people are not allowed to carry guns on there person, and people are only allowed to own 1 firearm in the home. And we can all see how well that is working out.
> 
> If weapon regulation was the thing that controlled and prevented violent societies, then Iraq would be a calm state, and Michigan would be in total chaos with mass killings in the streets. Yet, the opposite is true. Why?


To answer your question, the reason why Iraq is in chaos and Michigan appears civilized is because one is a country another is a state, It's Baghdad that's in chaos (one city).  It's also because their in a state of civil war.  War will cause gun violence to shoot up as their effective killing machines.  Compare it to the American Civil War and Iraq, thats a much better comparison than Michigan gun crime and Iraqi Civil war in Baghdad.

I personally don't agree with regulation.  Criminals will still get them, and people will need them to protect themselves against criminals.  It's really an all-or-nothing approach.  But I don't have a preference myself as I don't live in an immediate dangerous society but I do currently believe Canada should do away with the gun registry.



> Violence has to do with the social climate of a locale, not what tools are or aren't allowed. The social climate in Iraq right now is no where near peaceful, making their fairly strict gun regulation obsolete.
> 
> If you were to, right now today, lift any and all bans and regulations on firearm ownership and carry in a place with low crime, like the entire Georgian Pennincula Ontario, nothing much would change. There would be no increase in violence or violent crime. Daily life would commence as usual.
> 
> ...


I also disagree that violent crime would not rise.  It'd mean that when there are house break-ins, there would be guns stolen which means they'd sell them to whoever wants them which would be criminals that are looking towards violence who currently use knives.  This would lead to muggings with guns instead of knives and since it's a lot less risky for the criminals, it'd probably lead to an influx inc rime.  Overtime however it may decrease again as Canadians choose to learn how to use their firearms and begin carrying them around like Michigan.  All in all, I feel it would do nothing but escalate the whole situation.

I also agree that if you cut out a little town or city and don't allow them weapons, they'll get overridden with crime, because they'd be weaker targets.  But if you remove guns from everyone everywhere, guns would work themselves out of society except for organized crime (as they have resources to smuggle), which are more interested in fraud and other crimes, not muggings.



> #3. Now that I have made some points, I have some questions for you:
> 
> a. I know that you said that firearms regulation is a "waste of money." I agree. But money aside, philosophically do you think that weapons regulation is the answer to anything or the right thing to do, and why?


Regulation is a great idea on paper but it does not work in reality.  Criminals will get a hold of guns if guns are readily available.  Regulation will do nothing, as I said it's an all-or-nothing approach.



> b. Would it be uncomfortable for you if people around you did carry weapons more often, and what do you think would change if this occured in your town?


I would be a little worried, because it escalates the situation a lot like when warfare technology advances.  We use to fight with sticks, then swords, then guns, now missiles that can be fired from the upper atmosphere.  This all leads to more danger, but the military sees it as "safer", but by introducing that technology it makes it worse, because now we're all worried from nutjob in North Korea will launch a nuke and flatten the south east corner of America like he promised.  

I think the only thing that would change is people would need to be even more careful then before.  You can more easily run from a guy with a knife then you can with a guy with a gun.  One has range the other doesn't.  So we'd be safer in the sense that we all had powerful weapons to protect ourselves, but we'd be less safe because there would be more powerful weapons aimed at us then before as well.



> c. Do you think that it is wrong for people to carry weapons? Do you think that people should not carry weapons, period?


This is a very hard question for me to answer as I believe in everyones ability to make their own decisions.  I understand why people feel the need for them, and thanks to this thread I think my understanding is now even broader.  I do not feel I can make any decision such as this for fear of offending someone, and because I simply need a lot more information and time to think it over to come out with a conclusion I'd be willing to stand by.

Thanks, and again I'm not trying to offend anyone in the gun loving camp, I'm still trying to decide for myself and am simply answering questions to the best of my ability and knowledge at this time.  Much appreciated for the courtesy I've received thus far.


----------



## Dave Leverich (Jan 19, 2007)

Inferno said:


> Deregulation without chaos stems from time, if suddenly America or Canada didn't have speed limits, I bet you collision rates would skyrocket immensely.  However After time, people would get some sense in them and drive as fast as they can responsibly this could take quite some time though.




I know it's a quasi-offshoot, but...
The reason the speed limits came into being had nothing to do with safety, it was due to skyrocketing gas prices and public road upkeep. Originally that is. I'm sure many have used the 'safety' card since then to alter the number up or down in places. 

Am I off on that? I do like to have my facts right when possible heh.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 19, 2007)

Dave Leverich said:


> I know it's a quasi-offshoot, but...
> The reason the speed limits came into being had nothing to do with safety, it was due to skyrocketing gas prices and public road upkeep. Originally that is. I'm sure many have used the 'safety' card since then to alter the number up or down in places.
> 
> Am I off on that? I do like to have my facts right when possible heh.


Uh ... wow ... that's way off-topic.  Wanna, maybe, start another thread for that one?


----------



## Carol (Jan 19, 2007)

Inferno said:


> But if you remove guns from everyone everywhere, guns would work themselves out of society except for organized crime (as they have resources to smuggle), which are more interested in fraud and other crimes, not muggings.


 
That I don't particularly agree with.  My ex works for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security which (among other things) has the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol under its jurisdiction.  There are many small-time and onsie-twosie cases of gun smuggling, drugs, jewels...even industrial chemicals that are not as environmentally friendly as other that are in use.  It seems it doesn't depend on what the item is...as long as there is a demand for the item (legal or not) there are going to be people (large and small) that plot to get it in to our respective countries.   

In many ways, I wish it was only organized crime that we had to worry about in terms of weapons smuggling.  

Our common border is a particular concern for immigration officials as there is so much that is unguarded due to the good relationship between our two countries. Unfortunately there are some bad people that exploit that and harm both of our nations in the process.


----------



## tellner (Jan 19, 2007)

Inferno, on Madagascar and Jamaica guns for civilians are completely illegal with ferocious penalties for simple possession. They have a higher rate of firearms homicide than the US. Britain completely outlawed the ownership of handguns except for things like a veterinarian's smoothbore .22. The crime rate with guns has been going up steadliy. Of course that also has to do with things like the UK's ghastly rate of drunkeness and an increased tolerance for violence. 

If islands can't manage this how can a country with two long unfortified land borders and plenty of coastline? Heck, just smuggle a few guns in on routine shipments of cocaine, weed or heroin. If they really are that illegal they'll sell for a higher price. 

What will you have accomplished? About a hundred million people will suddenly become criminals. They will resent the government, and it will lose support. The "ugly gun" ban of 1994 cost the Democrats the House and Senate according to ex-Speaker Tom Foley and ex-President Clinton. Many will buy guns illegally which would swamp the criminal justice system.

If you could magically uninvent firearms it would be wonderful. For the bad people. You've just made the women, the elderly, the weak and the peaceful victims. The big, strong and aggressive criminals suddenly have an even greater advantage. Yes, you may be a kick-*** martial artist who would be able to handle them. But you won't always be one. And most people never will, nor should they have to take what amounts to an extra quarter time job just to undo some of the advantages of the predators.


----------



## Inferno (Jan 19, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> That I don't particularly agree with.  My ex works for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security which (among other things) has the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol under its jurisdiction.  There are many small-time and onsie-twosie cases of gun smuggling, drugs, jewels...even industrial chemicals that are not as environmentally friendly as other that are in use.  It seems it doesn't depend on what the item is...as long as there is a demand for the item (legal or not) there are going to be people (large and small) that plot to get it in to our respective countries.
> 
> In many ways, I wish it was only organized crime that we had to worry about in terms of weapons smuggling.
> 
> Our common border is a particular concern for immigration officials as there is so much that is unguarded due to the good relationship between our two countries. Unfortunately there are some bad people that exploit that and harm both of our nations in the process.



I'm going off of the Canadian perspective, there isn't much gun running going on here except people from America bringing them up (my references being the huge busts that are made and put in the news, because we have little much else to broadcast besides new speed bumps).  I'd highly doubt there is much going down the other way (besides Marijuana from British Columbia) since it's hard to obtain firearms here legally let alone illegally.  It'd be less cost effective than getting them in America and selling them there as opposed to risking smuggling many firearms from Canada and trying to sell them in America.



tellner said:


> Inferno, on Madagascar and Jamaica guns for civilians are completely illegal with ferocious penalties for simple possession. They have a higher rate of firearms homicide than the US. Britain completely outlawed the ownership of handguns except for things like a veterinarian's smoothbore .22. The crime rate with guns has been going up steadliy. Of course that also has to do with things like the UK's ghastly rate of drunkeness and an increased tolerance for violence.
> 
> If islands can't manage this how can a country with two long unfortified land borders and plenty of coastline? Heck, just smuggle a few guns in on routine shipments of cocaine, weed or heroin. If they really are that illegal they'll sell for a higher price.
> 
> ...



Well I wasn't actually referring to Madagascar and Jamaica but more along the lines of the G8 countries since they are more well developed and would be able to actual enforce the laws passed a lot better than countries like that would be able to.

As I said I'm not trying to change people's opinions because most have them set in stone beforehand so there is not much point.  But compare the gun deaths/injuries compared to Japan or the UK who don't allow the freedoms you have in America, even considering the population difference it's obscene.  I don't doubt someone can provide statistics for gun deaths in a third world country that contradict this but that doesn't change the fact.

It's not like other countries have never had guns, they outlawed them and they did work them out of society.  I realize that the NRA and this debate has been going on forever so I don't see an end in sight.  You will counter what I say, I would need to counter again ad infinitum.  I just wanted to know how people felt about firearms and how they mingle with self-defense and martial arts.  I'm now aware of the general opinion (guns=good, a necessity), so I think I'm done.  So to stop an ugly dispute arising I concede and will probably stop posting in this thread.  I don't want to open any can of worms any farther then it already has been opened.

Cheers.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 19, 2007)

Inferno said:


> What I was hypothesizing earlier is that if guns were suddenly illegal and were destroyed after many many years it'd be near impossible to get a gun unless your in organized crime etc like Japan, the UK etc. I understand you'd probably disagree with this but that's besides the point. It's just as easy to think of good scenarios through regulation as it is to think of chaos theories with deregulation.To answer your question, the reason why Iraq is in chaos and Michigan appears civilized is because one is a country another is a state, It's Baghdad that's in chaos (one city). It's also because their in a state of civil war. War will cause gun violence to shoot up as their effective killing machines. Compare it to the American Civil War and Iraq, thats a much better comparison than Michigan gun crime and Iraqi Civil war in Baghdad.


 
Sure, Iraq is a war zone. But it doesn't have to be. It is this way because certain factions refuse to move forward, despite disagreements, in a nonviolent way. In Michigan, we have white supremicists and militia extremist, the highest population of Muslims in North America (some of them extremists), and a large population of African Americans who belong to some extreme leftist groups. And, they all have access to weapons (some of them harbor what would be considered stockpiles). Yet, we aren't in "Civil War." We don't even have a significant % of "gang violence" against different groups. This is because our societal structure is as such where these groups who hate each other can still cohexist without mayhem in the streets for the greater good of society. People in Iraq, at the moment, are unable to do this.

But, if you still feel that this is an "apples to oranges" comparison, then we can look at some areas in the Caribean, South America, and Africa that have very strict gun regulation with very high gun violence. Thus, still proving the point that it really is the social climate that determines the level of violence rather then lack of regulation on weapons. 



> What I was hypothesizing earlier is that if guns were suddenly illegal and were destroyed after many many years it'd be near impossible to get a gun unless your in organized crime etc like Japan, the UK etc. I understand you'd probably disagree with this but that's besides the point. It's just as easy to think of good scenarios through regulation as it is to think of chaos theories with deregulation.


 
Hey, I would be happy if we were to remove all the guns from the planet, and erase the technology away to make them on the black market. I always thought it would be cool to live in medival times anyway! lol :viking3: 

But on a serious note, the reality is that this is of course impossible. For better or worse, guns, and the reality of them, are not going away. Just like how doomsday scenarios thought up of for deregulation are complete fantasy, so is utopia dreams brought forth with regulation. Neither are rooted in reality.

Understanding reality means dealing with the fact that people have guns, and some of these people would do us harm. Regulation does not deal with this reality well.



> I personally don't agree with regulation. Criminals will still get them, and people will need them to protect themselves against criminals. It's really an all-or-nothing approach. But I don't have a preference myself as I don't live in an immediate dangerous society but I do currently believe Canada should do away with the gun registry.


 
I agree with you there, and really respect that stance. This tells me that you are willing to deal with reality, even though you choose not to carry or own guns because you don't feel it necessary.

Making that choice while being willing to allow others the freedom to choose differently is very honorable and respectable, in my opinion! 



> I also disagree that violent crime would not rise. It'd mean that when there are house break-ins, there would be guns stolen which means they'd sell them to whoever wants them which would be criminals that are looking towards violence who currently use knives. This would lead to muggings with guns instead of knives and since it's a lot less risky for the criminals, it'd probably lead to an influx inc rime. Overtime however it may decrease again as Canadians choose to learn how to use their firearms and begin carrying them around like Michigan. All in all, I feel it would do nothing but escalate the whole situation.
> 
> I also agree that if you cut out a little town or city and don't allow them weapons, they'll get overridden with crime, because they'd be weaker targets. But if you remove guns from everyone everywhere, guns would work themselves out of society except for organized crime (as they have resources to smuggle), which are more interested in fraud and other crimes, not muggings.


 
What you say is not illogical by any means; it is just untrue. Sometimes what seems logical simply does not occur when put into application.

There have been many situations and areas, particularly in the states, where weapons regulations are lifted, yet you would be hard pressed to find a case where crime spiked because of it. It just doesn't happen, for multiple reasons. 

And large areas (like Australia) where strict weapons bans are in place has always led to a spike in crime when these bans were inacted. These are the facts, not hypothetical scenarios.

But the reason why banning all guns in most areas would be bad has little to do with whether or not crime goes up or not. The real problem is with gun bans you then create a "survival of the fittest" society where the weaker, law abiding person has no means of self-protection. So the young lady who is being stalked by an ex-boyfriend has no means of protecting herself if he decides to come after her. She has to live in fear and paranoia rather then use an effective option for self-protection. This is not fair or moral, in my opinion. It is morally wrong to take away peoples means of self-defense. And this is the real reason why gun regulation is wrong.

Also, you seem more comfortable with the idea that people would use knives or other weapons for crime rather then a firearm. This is strange to me. Do you know that if a person is going to do a violent crime and has to use a knife or bludgen, they will feel they have to escalate the force level to get what they want? In order to psychologically and physically feel that they have overcome the victim enough to reach their goal, criminals are going to be more violent and injurous to their victims. So instead of putting a gun in someones face to get them to empty the cash register, they are going to stab them repeatedly in the chest, or bludgeon them repeatedly in the head. And to defend himself, the poor old store owner now has to go toe to toe with a knife or bludgeon himself with a young man twice his strength and half his age? 

You see, the society without guns is not a good tradeoff, in my opinion. We need to work on making a society without violent crime, and the gun thing will work itself out. 



> Regulation is a great idea on paper but it does not work in reality. Criminals will get a hold of guns if guns are readily available. Regulation will do nothing, as I said it's an all-or-nothing approach.
> 
> I would be a little worried, because it escalates the situation a lot like when warfare technology advances. We use to fight with sticks, then swords, then guns, now missiles that can be fired from the upper atmosphere. This all leads to more danger, but the military sees it as "safer", but by introducing that technology it makes it worse, because now we're all worried from nutjob in North Korea will launch a nuke and flatten the south east corner of America like he promised.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you for a good discussion. No offense taken from this side of the computer.

It is understandable, this issue of an "arms race." What needs to be stopped is the technolgical push to make bigger and better weapons. This is more on a business level between the iron triangle of governments, research facilities, and weapons manufacters. This "arms race" doesn't effect us much on the streets. Who cares if someone is shooting the latest glock with laser sites, or an old school snub nose revolver? A bullet is a bullet at that point. So, this really doesn't matter on a street level. The "arms race" issue is more on a governmental level. One can certainly be against the arms race, and in support of individuals having the freedom of self-protection.

And that is really what it is about. It is about giving people the freedom to protect themselves. There are many people who have been able to protect themselves and other citizens because they had a firearm with them at the time. There are many children, wives, and husbands who are alive because someone had the courage to carry their weapon that day, and use it when the **** hit the fan. 

Allowing people to be free to take the measures for self-defense, that isn't bound to physical health or poweress, is the moral thing to do.

And as to other self-defense measures, like avoidence, awareness, running if one can from a theat, etc.; people who legally carry a firearm are more apt to know about and exercise these other important self-defense options. This is because with a self-defense equalizer like a firearm comes power, and with power comes more responsibility to do the right thing. Most people who carry know that they will be facing severe moral and legal consequences if they are in a shooting, and if any part of that shooting is unclean they are screwed. So they take any and all measures for self-protection before pulling that trigger. Most people don't want the consequences for taking a life. And the ones that do want those consquences and that would unlawfully do violence, are not the ones getting permits to carry guns, I can assure you. And in these concealed carry classes, these self-defense measures are covered extensively. I have observed that the average person who lawfully carries knows more about general self-defense then the average martial artist.

Most people will choose not to carry in a society where firearms are not the commonplace. It is just that giving people the freedom and option for effective self-defense, which means gun carry if they choose, is the only moral choice here...


----------



## tellner (Jan 19, 2007)

Now that I think of it, if you were to ban guns, especially handguns, effectively it would lead to greater carnage. Consider the Sten Gun. It is cheap and effective. The plans are everywhere. Any competent and most incompetent guys with access to a fairly primitive shop can turn out one in under eight hours. Handgun or submachine gun. Which would you rather see the criminal element carrying?

Point two. Consider what my first Silat teacher said when I speculated about just that scenario. He said "I'm a big strong man who carries Pencak Silat and carries knives. That would make me Super Bandit."


----------



## Inferno (Jan 20, 2007)

The reason I don't get much enjoyment from this thread anymore is because it's now a debate about guns are good or bad and is no longer a learning experience for me.  However  decided I will try to answer any questions of my current opinion to those who can keep it civil to be fair as it may still be interesting to some.



Cruentus said:


> Sure, Iraq is a war zone. But it doesn't have to be. It is this way because certain factions refuse to move forward, despite disagreements, in a nonviolent way. In Michigan, we have white supremicists and militia extremist, the highest population of Muslims in North America (some of them extremists), and a large population of African Americans who belong to some extreme leftist groups. And, they all have access to weapons (some of them harbor what would be considered stockpiles). Yet, we aren't in "Civil War." We don't even have a significant % of "gang violence" against different groups. This is because our societal structure is as such where these groups who hate each other can still cohexist without mayhem in the streets for the greater good of society. People in Iraq, at the moment, are unable to do this.
> 
> But, if you still feel that this is an "apples to oranges" comparison, then we can look at some areas in the Caribean, South America, and Africa that have very strict gun regulation with very high gun violence. Thus, still proving the point that it really is the social climate that determines the level of violence rather then lack of regulation on weapons.



As I stated before, Africa and South America are not G8 countries, they are not as secure in their governments and well developed enough to handle such a massive change (for some).  Africa is literally in tatters if you ask me, when a huge chunk of people are starving (but not all countries are hurting so bad), as the Bolshevik revolution and many others show, when people are starving their more than willing to take up arms and fight just about anyone.



> Hey, I would be happy if we were to remove all the guns from the planet, and erase the technology away to make them on the black market. I always thought it would be cool to live in medival times anyway! lol :viking3:
> 
> But on a serious note, the reality is that this is of course impossible. For better or worse, guns, and the reality of them, are not going away. Just like how doomsday scenarios thought up of for deregulation are complete fantasy, so is utopia dreams brought forth with regulation. Neither are rooted in reality.
> 
> Understanding reality means dealing with the fact that people have guns, and some of these people would do us harm. Regulation does not deal with this reality well.


I'm not talking about regulation, if I was to take the stance against firearms, it'd be elimination, NOT regulation.  I also believe it is possible, it would not be extremely easy, but it would take sacrifice and patience.

To do it safely, it'd probably require some sort of stepping system, possibly regulation that gets stiffer and stiffer and then eradicates them all together.  This makes it a steady slope meaning there is less chance of it all going to hell in a hand basket.

Eventually life would go back to normal (probably quite quickly if it's setup right) and gun violence and crime would go down because of a lack of guns to do said crime.  It'd be just like Japan, the UK or Canada which have much lower gun violence even if you take population into account.

And unlike what some forum users tend to believe it wouldn't lead criminals to all grab firearms and take the citizenry hostages as this simply doesn't happen in countries with huge restrictions on firearms.  Even if the criminals who had weapons now and refused to turn them in, in a small amount of time they'd become quite rare as many weapons are picked up daily by LE and would be disposed of.  

Are there risks?  Definitely.  Everything worth doing has risks or will cause damage to some extent, this is how we justify war and medical research with the deadliest viruses known to man.



> What you say is not illogical by any means; it is just untrue. Sometimes what seems logical simply does not occur when put into application.


If it's not illogical, but you claim it's untrue?  How can this be so?  It would need to be illogical and would need some sort of precedence to be not factual and thus would be illogical, no?  Not to get picky, but I felt this statement could easily be rewritten as "No, your wrong."



> There have been many situations and areas, particularly in the states, where weapons regulations are lifted, yet you would be hard pressed to find a case where crime spiked because of it. It just doesn't happen, for multiple reasons.
> 
> And large areas (like Australia) where strict weapons bans are in place has always led to a spike in crime when these bans were inacted. These are the facts, not hypothetical scenarios.


In the Unites States it's an amendment to carry a gun, I don't understand how there could have ever been a restriction on carrying firearms?  Or do you mean an "open carry" law?  I'm pretty sure that many people carry handguns despite laws if they have them available just as I know a percentage of Canadians carry pocket knives for protections which is against the law here.  Just because a law states something it won't happen, thats why guns would need to be eliminated, not giving people an option.

As for Australia, I understand that at first it would be extreme, thats why a step system and there would need to be a period where it'd probably be a little rougher, thats progress.  A small amount of discomfort for a period of time would outweigh the safety matters afterwards.  Hell I don't even carry cash on me, so mugging me would be futile.  I don't see much sense in mugging anymore, I can see B&E, but that can be done with or without a firearm.  I think it'd pass but I can understand you'd feel uncomfortable without having a firearm.



> But the reason why banning all guns in most areas would be bad has little to do with whether or not crime goes up or not. The real problem is with gun bans you then create a "survival of the fittest" society where the weaker, law abiding person has no means of self-protection. So the young lady who is being stalked by an ex-boyfriend has no means of protecting herself if he decides to come after her. She has to live in fear and paranoia rather then use an effective option for self-protection. This is not fair or moral, in my opinion. It is morally wrong to take away peoples means of self-defense. And this is the real reason why gun regulation is wrong.


I understand what you mean, we have that her ein Canada, it's illegal for me to even give my wife mace or pepper spray (there is a whole thread saying it's useless anyway but just for example), I feel at times this is unfair.  But I could consider having an RPG at my side for safety as well in case some crazy lunitic wants to hit me with his car.  It sounds crazy, and it's just as crazy as the firearm thing if you think about it.  Where do you draw the line when it comes to self-defense?



> Also, you seem more comfortable with the idea that people would use knives or other weapons for crime rather then a firearm. This is strange to me. Do you know that if a person is going to do a violent crime and has to use a knife or bludgen, they will feel they have to escalate the force level to get what they want? In order to psychologically and physically feel that they have overcome the victim enough to reach their goal, criminals are going to be more violent and injurous to their victims. So instead of putting a gun in someones face to get them to empty the cash register, they are going to stab them repeatedly in the chest, or bludgeon them repeatedly in the head. And to defend himself, the poor old store owner now has to go toe to toe with a knife or bludgeon himself with a young man twice his strength and half his age?


I think a better weapon to mug people with would be a vial of blood.  Personally I find that rather scary, if you didn't know where it came from you may think he has AIDS or some other disease.  More scary to me than a knife.  I'd also like to see some statistics on that (I'll google them later) as to me, someone just has to pull a trigger to kill me, if they ahvea  knfie they have to get close enough to me and somehow jab or slice me with it.

I also think that your conclusion that they'd just stab an old man instead of threatening him with a gun is based soley on opinion as I've seen many cases where they just opened fire then took the money.  It's about the person, I don't think either has a disposition to make it more violent or not, in fact I think guns would give criminals more confidence as it's so easy to use in comparison to a knife.



> You see, the society without guns is not a good trade off, in my opinion. We need to work on making a society without violent crime, and the gun thing will work itself out.


I think guns are a short term fix, when eradication of guns is a long term one.  When it's so easy to hurt someone, and you can do it from a distance, it removes fear and it removes compassion.  If you stab someone have have their blood run all over your hands, you get a more personal experience than if you were to fire a gun at someone running away from you in fear from 30 yards.  Especially when video games make killing people with guns so damn fun and addicting.



> Thank you for a good discussion. No offense taken from this side of the computer.


No offense on this side either, but I feel this thread is on a slippery slope now as posts are directed at me, and are about protecting gun rights and against gun regulation which is a very touchy topic for most gun wielding Americans.



> It is understandable, this issue of an "arms race." What needs to be stopped is the technolgical push to make bigger and better weapons. This is more on a business level between the iron triangle of governments, research facilities, and weapons manufacters. This "arms race" doesn't effect us much on the streets. Who cares if someone is shooting the latest glock with laser sites, or an old school snub nose revolver? A bullet is a bullet at that point. So, this really doesn't matter on a street level. The "arms race" issue is more on a governmental level. One can certainly be against the arms race, and in support of individuals having the freedom of self-protection.


I disagree, anything made in the military will dribble down to the streets and people in general.  When laser pistols come out that allow us to shoot through walls and "stun people" as in knock them out ala Star trek, this will escalate the situation further as you can get mugged with no harm done to you, which will lead to bigger protection and other weapons and yadda yadda.  It's a slippery slope whether it's the government problem or not.  People buy more powerful and reliable guns as opposed to old sling shots, so they would take a laser pistol over a bullet as well.

As I said this relates to the streets as well, if everyone carries a gun, criminals will AT LEAST need a gun to take advantage of the people.  This is one of the reasons why cops don't carry bigger guns,  because then criminals will carry BIGGER ones, because they need them against the cops.  It's a vicious cycle.

Guns are more dangerous than knives as they have range, you don't even need to be next to your enemy and all you do is point and squeeze the trigger.  Anyone who disagrees, you get a combat knife and I get a shotgun, we start 40 paces away.  Which would you rather have criminals carrying?

And no, I'm not saying no criminals would carry guns, sure there would be.  Just like I'm sure some carry fully automatics now.  It's all a matter of escalation and supply and demand.  Criminals NEED guns?  They'll get them.



> And that is really what it is about. It is about giving people the freedom to protect themselves. There are many people who have been able to protect themselves and other citizens because they had a firearm with them at the time. There are many children, wives, and husbands who are alive because someone had the courage to carry their weapon that day, and use it when the **** hit the fan.
> 
> Allowing people to be free to take the measures for self-defense, that isn't bound to physical health or poweress, is the moral thing to do.


Safety of yourself and loved ones is a necessity, but again where do you draw the line.  RPG?  Hand grenades?  Bullet proof vests for everyone?  How about armored vehicles?



> And as to other self-defense measures, like avoidence, awareness, running if one can from a theat, etc.; people who legally carry a firearm are more apt to know about and exercise these other important self-defense options. This is because with a self-defense equalizer like a firearm comes power, and with power comes more responsibility to do the right thing. Most people who carry know that they will be facing severe moral and legal consequences if they are in a shooting, and if any part of that shooting is unclean they are screwed. So they take any and all measures for self-protection before pulling that trigger. Most people don't want the consequences for taking a life. And the ones that do want those consquences and that would unlawfully do violence, are not the ones getting permits to carry guns, I can assure you. And in these concealed carry classes, these self-defense measures are covered extensively. I have observed that the average person who lawfully carries knows more about general self-defense then the average martial artist.


I have a hard time seeing how an inanimate object in someones possession could cause them to act honourably  and feel the need to be responsible.  Not all criminals carry firearms illegally, many murders every year are by people who have legal firearms they sued to perform the murders which makes them criminals.  The same white supremacists and militia extremists you talked about for instance.  The same Iraqis you were referring to who are having issues keeping their weapons in their home.



> Most people will choose not to carry in a society where firearms are not the commonplace. It is just that giving people the freedom and option for effective self-defense, which means gun carry if they choose, is the only moral choice here...


I am fine with people carrying guns, but I feel it's an all-or-nothing approach.  I plan to own a pistol, and a scoped rifle for protection (in severe cases such as looting or revolution) and firing ranges, so I'm not all anti-gun or anything, just debating a point and would favour any REAL ideas to the issue at large.  However the governments of today are lacking and leave me with a sour taste in my mouth, so it'd have to be one hell of a plan, that's for sure.



tellner said:


> Now that I think of it, if you were to ban guns, especially handguns, effectively it would lead to greater carnage. Consider the Sten Gun. It is cheap and effective. The plans are everywhere. Any competent and most incompetent guys with access to a fairly primitive shop can turn out one in under eight hours. Handgun or submachine gun. Which would you rather see the criminal element carrying?
> 
> Point two. Consider what my first Silat teacher said when I speculated about just that scenario. He said "I'm a big strong man who carries Pencak Silat and carries knives. That would make me Super Bandit."



How is this any different then someone who can make C4 out of bleach?  Or a pipe bomb with gunpowder?  I am not any more worried then I would be now.  As for your second point, I don't quite understand...perhaps you can rephrase the question or statement?


----------



## Lisa (Jan 20, 2007)

:lurk:

This is excellent conversation and I must say, I am impressed with it not escalating to a shouting match.

Inferno, you wrote:



> No offense on this side either, but I feel this thread is on a slippery slope now as posts are directed at me, and are about protecting gun rights and against gun regulation which is a very touchy topic for most gun wielding Americans.



First off, I feel it is a touchy subject for non gun weilding Americans too.  I have yet to meet anyone on this board who likes having their civil liberties violated.  Their opinions may vary, but they hold strong on holding up what is theirs to protect.

Secondly, when someone comes onto a board this size and starts a thread called "GUNS GUNS GUNS" and furher writes:



> It seems that every thread I read, there is an overwhelming majority of users who talk about them carrying around several firearms from .357 Magnums to glocks. I find this troubling and this could be because I reside in Canada.
> 
> Is it normal for Americans to "pack heat" when they go out? Or is this forum just packed with people who fear for their safety more so than the general public and feel the need?



..people are going to ask you to back that statement and you have peaked their curiosity.  It would be the same if it were a multitude of other subject.  They are an extremely smart bunch on this board. 

So, I thank you for sharing with us your opinions and views.  I am one of those Canadians that believes we should be able to carry weapons if we so chose.  Not saying I would, because the responsibilities attached with it but I believe it is a personal choice to be able to protect yourself and your loved ones.

Twenty years ago, when I was your age, my opinions differed.  I would love to have this conversation with you twenty years from now just to see if your views have changed.


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 20, 2007)

Inferno said:


> As I stated before, Africa and South America are not G8 countries, they are not as secure in their governments and well developed enough to handle such a massive change (for some). Africa is literally in tatters if you ask me, when a huge chunk of people are starving (but not all countries are hurting so bad), as the Bolshevik revolution and many others show, when people are starving their more than willing to take up arms and fight just about anyone.


 
Thus, you have just completely agreed with me, that it is not a firearms issue, but rather a cultural issue.  It has nothing to do with the lawful ownership of firearms.  



> I'm not talking about regulation, if I was to take the stance against firearms, it'd be elimination, NOT regulation. I also believe it is possible, it would not be extremely easy, but it would take sacrifice and patience.


 
Incorrect.  As Tellner stated correctly, anyone with a rudimentary understanding of how to operate a milling machine can easily manufacture the whole receiver for a STEN submachine gun, or manufacture the frames of a handgun.  You don't even need sophisticated tools or good facilities for this, as evidenced by the loads of small arms manufactured by the British population during WWII, after all of their factories had been bombed by the German Luftwaffe.  

Here's a bit of a lesson for you: In the USA, we tried to eliminate the consumption of alcohol back in the 1920's, and all it did was simply drive alcohol manufacturing underground, and produce some very powerful criminals who made their living off such manufacture as well as smuggling.  One particular rumrunning criminal family even managed to become a powerful force in the political field that still wields considerable power today (Kennedy).  

Anyone who wanted to get a drink illegally could easily do so by going to various speakeasies (unlawful bars).  Anyone who wanted to, could set up a still in their back yard, and make their own alcohol.  The only guy who couldn't get alcohol was the law abiding individual, who was now unable to get a cheap drink or a nickel beer without breaking the laws.  


Attempting to eliminate lawfully owned firearms will accomplish nothing.  All you will do is give the "might makes right" crowd more power, since you've now taken away the equalizer.  




> To do it safely, it'd probably require some sort of stepping system, possibly regulation that gets stiffer and stiffer and then eradicates them all together. This makes it a steady slope meaning there is less chance of it all going to hell in a hand basket.


 
Again, this accomplishes nothing.  Look at the failed 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that ignorant politicians foisted onto the American people, which banned various weapons that fired one shot per trigger pull.  

It did absolutely nothing to reduce the use of such weapons in crimes (which was pretty much but a fleeting blip on the radar).  Instead, all it did was jack up the prices of such weapons.  




> Eventually life would go back to normal (probably quite quickly if it's setup right) and gun violence and crime would go down because of a lack of guns to do said crime. It'd be just like Japan, the UK or Canada which have much lower gun violence even if you take population into account.


 
Incorrect.  People in a more violent culture will continue to commit acts of crime, just using different methods.  

As you have already admitted above, it's not a gun issue.  It's a cultural issue, and one that must be addressed in the home by caring parents.  Trying to blame an inanimate object for being the source of "evil" is akin to trying to blame the Jack Daniels Distillery for the actions of one US Senator at Chappaquidick.  




> And unlike what some forum users tend to believe it wouldn't lead criminals to all grab firearms and take the citizenry hostages as this simply doesn't happen in countries with huge restrictions on firearms. Even if the criminals who had weapons now and refused to turn them in, in a small amount of time they'd become quite rare as many weapons are picked up daily by LE and would be disposed of.


 
And more could simply be manufactured on a whim.  Unless you plan to outlaw milling machines and steel ownership by the civilian populace, this would be a waste of time.  



> Are there risks? Definitely. Everything worth doing has risks or will cause damage to some extent, this is how we justify war and medical research with the deadliest viruses known to man.


 
Incorrect.  Viral research in today's society is not performed on living humans when full strength, living virii are involved.  There really is no risk to the human populace.  





> unfair. But I could consider having an RPG at my side for safety as well in case some crazy lunitic wants to hit me with his car. It sounds crazy, and it's just as crazy as the firearm thing if you think about it. Where do you draw the line when it comes to self-defense?


 
Now you're entering the territory of exaggeration.  I would challenge you to find a law abiding human being who would carry a rocket propelled grenade launcher  in the street for personal defense.  First of all, it's impractical, since you would probably be caught in the blast radius.  Second, I doubt you have the training and ability to hit a moving vehicle going at the speeds that you are mentioning. 




> I think guns are a short term fix, when eradication of guns is a long term one.


 
I do have a question for you: How would you propose someone who lives in the rural areas, where animal attacks are frequent, to defend themselves?  Using a bow and arrow against a brown bear is only going to get you killed, after all, and that's one animal that you don't want to close quarters with in a battle.  



> I disagree, anything made in the military will dribble down to the streets and people in general. When laser pistols come out that allow us to shoot through walls and "stun people" as in knock them out ala Star trek, this will escalate the situation further as you can get mugged with no harm done to you, which will lead to bigger protection and other weapons and yadda yadda.


 
Incorrect.  You are contradicting youself again.  Law-abiding people will continue to obey the laws.  Criminals will still refuse to obey the laws.  

By the way, you won't have to worry about laser-based small arms.  The diodes used to generate such light are incredibly fragile, and unsuitable for use in a firearm.  



> As I said this relates to the streets as well, if everyone carries a gun, criminals will AT LEAST need a gun to take advantage of the people. This is one of the reasons why cops don't carry bigger guns, because then criminals will carry BIGGER ones, because they need them against the cops. It's a vicious cycle.


 
Incorrect.  Criminals will use whatever weapons are available to them by stealing them or from the black market.  They don't really have a say in what they get.  

And for your information, many police officers carry fully automatic weapons in the trunks of their cars.  Almost all police cars also have at least a 12 gauge shotgun available to them, and the 12 gauge shotgun is the king of small arms-based manstopping power.  Trust me.


----------



## Carol (Jan 20, 2007)

Lisa said:


> Twenty years ago, when I was your age, my opinions differed. I would love to have this conversation with you twenty years from now just to see if your views have changed.


 
Oh heck, I'd love to have this same conversation with everyone here 20 years from now to see if anyone's views have changed.  

Props to you, Inferno.  I am really enjoying listening to your point of you.  Personally, I think I've learned a lot by listening to people I don't agree with and understanding why they feel differently than I do.  

There are plenty of people in my family that have a strong opinion about guns, one way or another.  I couldn't have a discussion like this with my own family.  Instead of trying to hear each other out, the conversation would degrade in to emotional knee-jerk responses.  Which is a shame. 

I'm really glad that you brought the topic up.


----------



## Cirdan (Jan 20, 2007)

I did some reading on the subject and I see there are reports indicating that in the US over 80% of homocides by gun happens during altercations at home not involving breaking in, however it is hard to find any solid information. If this is correct if would seem much of the problem is people with guns acting in the height of passion and possibly the wrong person getting his/her hand on the weapon because it was not stored properly. In other words, locked up seperately from the ammunition.

Thoughts on this?


----------



## bydand (Jan 20, 2007)

First off I would like to extend a hearty "Good Job!" to everyone who has posted on this thread and topic for this long without it degrading into an unreasonable shouting match.  I do respect others feelings on the subject and their personal convictions about firearms.  Weather it be: "nobody should have them",or "everybody should have them", or anyplace in between these two sides. I would expect the same from both sides as well.  You don't want to own a firearm, good, follow your personal ideals; other side of the coin though, I want to own firearms, fine, just don't try to force me to behave according to your personal ideals.  That would be like me trying to make firearm ownership manditory or everybody weather you like them or not.  Doesn't make sense and  wouldn't harbor good feelings toward the other side either.





Inferno said:


> Guns are more dangerous than knives as they have range, you don't even need to be next to your enemy and all you do is point and squeeze the trigger.  Anyone who disagrees, you get a combat knife and I get a shotgun, we start *40 paces* away.  Which would you rather have criminals carrying?
> 
> And no, I'm not saying no criminals would carry guns, sure there would be.  Just like I'm sure some carry fully automatics now.  It's all a matter of escalation and supply and demand.  Criminals NEED guns?  They'll get them.





As for this question, in this case I would want them to have the knife.  If we were to look at the question from the aspect of you being the criminal it changes things greatly.  I think the second part I quoted underlines the importance of the average citizen having the option to carry a firearm *IF THEY CHOOSE*.  That is the key, choice.  Don't make it so the criminal is the only one with the choice to carry if they want.


 Change the situation a little bit then ask the same question: Guns are more dangerous than knives as they have range, you don't even need to be next to your enemy and all you do is point and squeeze the trigger. Anyone who disagrees, you get a combat knife and I get a shotgun, we start *1 foot* away. Which would you rather have criminals carrying?

The answer to this question would be for the crimal to have the shotgun personally.

Change it again slightly:  Guns are more dangerous than knives as they have range, you don't even need to be next to your enemy and all you do is point and squeeze the trigger. Anyone who disagrees, you get a *.357* and I get a shotgun, we start 40 paces away. Which would you rather have criminals carrying?

I want them to have the shotgun again.  Sure you are going to get pegged with some pellets probably, but...


I think this goes to show that each side can (and do) come up with situations and guestions that support their side (of course, that is just common sense.)  Inferno I really respect your stand, I really do.  I disagree, but that shouldn't change your point of view and I know you don't expect your stand to change my point of view.  That is what makes this such a great forum, we can disagree, but dont have to lose respect due to hotheaded posts 99% of the time, sure it happens but not as much as other forums.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 20, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> This has been asked before. It is an interesting read, but keep in mind that there are a lot of people who have been in violent situations involving firearms who won't divulge that information on the forum.



That is true. 

There are times when firearms are invovled and the other does not, and people still live.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 20, 2007)

Inferno said:


> Deregulation without chaos stems from time, if suddenly America or Canada didn't have speed limits, I bet you collision rates would skyrocket immensely. However After time, people would get some sense in them and drive as fast as they can responsibly this could take quite some time though.




Here is a thought, we drive on two lane roads. What stops people from going over to the other lane and crashing head on? 

People recognize the value of staying in theri lane and do so. 

On an expressway here in Michigan, I know it is not the Autobahn, but it is called I-696. The actual minimum speed is 45 MPH and the Max is 65 MPH. Yet we all joke that this three and some times four lanes or more travels at 69 MPH in the slow lane and 96 MPH (* about 153 kph *) in the fast lane. Note: that people travel much faster as well and they are also traveling real close to each other. Some would call it bumber to bumper traffic at excessive speeds. Which is pakced a lot tighter than when I as on the Autobahn myself. I noticed that most people there traveled 100 kph to 120 kph even in the no speed limit zones.

So we do not have a law against crossing the  center line, we do it because it is the smart thing to do.  We have laws for speed and lots of people break them and do not think about it yet in areas where there is no regulation the speeds are slower. 

Peace




Inferno said:


> Just as if we were to remove the drinking limit or move it to near 12 or 13 like it is in some European countries (Denmark doesn't have a limit but they think 13 is when they can be introduced to alcohol). I think we'd have little drunk children everywhere for awhile and then once it's not so Taboo it would stop being an issue (which I'm assuming would take many years of having drunk children unless parents intervene because they disagree with the law).


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 20, 2007)

Inferno said:


> The reason I don't get much enjoyment from this thread anymore is because it's now a debate about guns are good or bad and is no longer a learning experience for me. However decided I will try to answer any questions of my current opinion to those who can keep it civil to be fair as it may still be interesting to some.


 
I am not so sure why this wouldn't be a learning experience if it is a debate. I have learned many things through debate. It just depends on the approach. Many people approach debates where they are only in it to prove that they are right, and nothing more. That is the mistake, because nothing is learned. I approach it as a chance for me to learn a different view point. This allows me to either strengthen my own view, or change my view.

Not many people are open to change, though, when they have their self-worth wrapped up in the outcome of an argument. This is often why Religious debates can turn out so disasterous.

But no one should have their self-worth wrapped up in a "gun" debate. I would think that someone would have deeper problems to deal with if this was the case.

Regardless, it was through debate that I changed my position on Gun regulation. I at one time believed in "reasonable gun regulation" and thought that if there was a way to eliminate them that we should persue that. I am glad to say that because I was open minded, I was able to see the inherent flaws of this position.

[/quote]
As I stated before, Africa and South America are not G8 countries, they are not as secure in their governments and well developed enough to handle such a massive change (for some). Africa is literally in tatters if you ask me, when a huge chunk of people are starving (but not all countries are hurting so bad), as the Bolshevik revolution and many others show, when people are starving their more than willing to take up arms and fight just about anyone.





> Which says exactly what I have been saying; gun violence has to do with the social climate (or we could say socioeconomic climate) rather then regulation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Inferno (Jan 20, 2007)

Grenadier said:


> Thus, you have just completely agreed with me, that it is not a firearms issue, but rather a cultural issue.  It has nothing to do with the lawful ownership of firearms.



Some G8 countries (such as Japan) don't allow firearms of any kind, are there very rare issues with firearms yes.  But very minimal considering the country has a population of 127,463,611.  Their culture is very different than America.  But what about the UK, they have extremely strict gun laws as well, and they seem to be doing fine, and their culture is more similar to America, especially considering American colonists came from England.

Here's a quote from wikipedia on the subject as well, a debatable reference of course, but for this discussion I think it's sufficient(considering people are saying Harvard is a poor resource):


> Between 1995 (calender year) and 2005/06 (April to March financial year), violent crime in England & Wales fell by 43%.[11] In 2005/06 there were 765 homicides, including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings.[12] The population of England and Wales is 53,046,000 (out of the UK total - including Scotland and Northern Ireland of 59,835,000),[13] which translates as 1.4 homicides per 100,000 residents. By comparison, in 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 murders for every 100,000 of population.[14] In addition, 70% of murders in the United States involve firearms (of which 75% used are illegally obtained) compared to 9.4% in the United Kingdom (77 out of 820 in 2004/05).[15] Both New York City and London have over 7 million residents, with New York reporting 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004 to London's 2.4 per 100,000, also in 2004.[16]



This shows me that less guns, less gun violence, simple.  The UK doesn't have an issue with criminals building sten machine guns and running amok either.  To me it sounds like fear mongering which is quite normal in American news.  Reality isn't that bad, criminals are LAZY that's why most of them mug/steal etc, because they don't want to get a job.  I doubt many criminals would take the time to machine a sten gun or any gun for that matter.  It'd be easier for them to just strap a homemade bomb to themselves and hold you hostage for money, which is something they can do now, and "should be doing" in countries that aren't as firearm friendly as America.



> Incorrect.  As Tellner stated correctly, anyone with a rudimentary understanding of how to operate a milling machine can easily manufacture the whole receiver for a STEN submachine gun, or manufacture the frames of a handgun.  You don't even need sophisticated tools or good facilities for this, as evidenced by the loads of small arms manufactured by the British population during WWII, after all of their factories had been bombed by the German Luftwaffe.



And anyone can create giant bombs in vans and blow up a building despite it being legal, if someone is adamant enough they will create a homemade gun just as they would a bomb.  We can't stop people from making bombs, so should we make them legal too?  It would still make it harder/more of a pain to acquire firearms which is the whole point.



> Here's a bit of a lesson for you: In the USA, we tried to eliminate the consumption of alcohol back in the 1920's, and all it did was simply drive alcohol manufacturing underground, and produce some very powerful criminals who made their living off such manufacture as well as smuggling.  One particular rumrunning criminal family even managed to become a powerful force in the political field that still wields considerable power today (Kennedy).
> 
> Anyone who wanted to get a drink illegally could easily do so by going to various speakeasies (unlawful bars).  Anyone who wanted to, could set up a still in their back yard, and make their own alcohol.  The only guy who couldn't get alcohol was the law abiding individual, who was now unable to get a cheap drink or a nickel beer without breaking the laws.



Making alcohol is quite easy compared to machining a gun, and even so look at the countries that don't allow firearm freedoms such as Canada you don't see everyone making Sten machine guns like you propose?  I don't see your relevance in your argument as it simply does not happen and there are many examples.  Would some people make guns?  sure.  Do some people build bombs and kill innocent people, yes.  There is no difference, but it's a small percentage that do as opposed to a grand scale.  It'd save more lives than it protects.  The end justify the means.



> Attempting to eliminate lawfully owned firearms will accomplish nothing.  All you will do is give the "might makes right" crowd more power, since you've now taken away the equalizer.



I disagree I think if done right it'd deescalate the violence in many countries even if you feel the American people are unable to be civil having doing so. It's worked for other countries, why not yours?



> Again, this accomplishes nothing.  Look at the failed 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that ignorant politicians foisted onto the American people, which banned various weapons that fired one shot per trigger pull.
> 
> It did absolutely nothing to reduce the use of such weapons in crimes (which was pretty much but a fleeting blip on the radar).  Instead, all it did was jack up the prices of such weapons.


 
Thats because it takes quite a bit of time for the weapons to be removed from society, it's not an overnight thing and anyone who thinks it would be needs to think it over more.  Japan didn't become gun and sword free overnight, it took a long damn time.  So small acts enacted in America that lasted less than two full years, I'm not surprised it failed horribly.



> Incorrect.  People in a more violent culture will continue to commit acts of crime, just using different methods.
> 
> As you have already admitted above, it's not a gun issue.  It's a cultural issue, and one that must be addressed in the home by caring parents.  Trying to blame an inanimate object for being the source of "evil" is akin to trying to blame the Jack Daniels Distillery for the actions of one US Senator at Chappaquidick.


Exactly, but with less guns, there will be less gun violence.  I don't see how this doesn't make sense.  If I were to give hids knives, knife accidents and violence would go up.  Now, give them AK-47s, gun violence and accidents will shoot up like crazy.  Then inact a regulation to remove the guns, it'd take more than a day to make sure your all clear, but gun violence would go down again.  Now imagine it's on a full scale of a country over many years.  

More guns = more gun violence.  I thought it was a simple idea.



> And more could simply be manufactured on a whim.  Unless you plan to outlaw milling machines and steel ownership by the civilian populace, this would be a waste of time.



Not really, as I said, we don't outlaw bleach, and gunpowder and diesel fuel to prevent bomb making.  Like you said, the lawful wouldn't make them.  ORGANIZED or EXTREMELY determined criminals will cough up the money for such a machine and possibly make firearms, but again this would become a rare occurrence given time.  I somehow doubt it'll be on such a large scale as some of you propose with every street thug building homemade firearms and going on a looting-spree.



> Incorrect.  Viral research in today's society is not performed on living humans when full strength, living virii are involved.  There really is no risk to the human populace.



 Would you want to live near a Viral research lab?  Viruses do get out once in awhile.  Same thing as Nuclear power plants, they have tremendous use but have risks, which spawned the whole NIMBY ideology.  Many things have risks, but as I said, the end justifies the means.



> Now you're entering the territory of exaggeration.  I would challenge you to find a law abiding human being who would carry a rocket propelled grenade launcher  in the street for personal defense.  First of all, it's impractical, since you would probably be caught in the blast radius.  Second, I doubt you have the training and ability to hit a moving vehicle going at the speeds that you are mentioning.


 
How is this any different than people proposing carrying handguns with them?  It's bigger physically, sure.  Can it cause more damage?  Sure it can.  But people who would choose to carry one, would be responsible enough to learn how to use it properly and in situations that need it.  If you have a drive-by going on, you could knock the car out.  It has uses and is just as logical as a gun wielding individual, but people will draw the line here.  So why not draw the line further.  We don't have people making homemade RPGs either, despite how useful they could be in gang wars etc.

I don't see how carrying a firearm that could (in the wrong hands) kill many many children, but an RPG who can take out a bunch of thugs in a car is out of the question.  I'd like some consistency, why exactly is THIS where you draw the line?  Because if we had RPGs, criminals would get ahold of RPGs too?



> I do have a question for you: How would you propose someone who lives in the rural areas, where animal attacks are frequent, to defend themselves?  Using a bow and arrow against a brown bear is only going to get you killed, after all, and that's one animal that you don't want to close quarters with in a battle.



Well for one, I personally don't feel too bad for people who move to an area and get trampled by nature (such as building a home near a volcano then losing everything).  Bear mace apparently works quite well, but not so well on drugged out human beings.  Brown and black bears will also apparently run if they hear you coming, so wear a bell on your foot or something.  If you choose to live in a rural area or a tornado-ally trailer park, you take risks.  So off hand, my proposal for animal defense is: bear mace, avoidance, awareness and a bell to scare them away.  And there is also what hikers do when their in the wild, play dead.



> Incorrect.  You are contradicting youself again.  Law-abiding people will continue to obey the laws.  Criminals will still refuse to obey the laws.
> 
> By the way, you won't have to worry about laser-based small arms.  The diodes used to generate such light are incredibly fragile, and unsuitable for use in a firearm.



Currently the diodes may not exist, but many things we have now didn't exist 100 years ago.  Give it time, I'm sure it'll come as they say "You can't stop progress.".



> Incorrect.  Criminals will use whatever weapons are available to them by stealing them or from the black market.  They don't really have a say in what they get.
> 
> And for your information, many police officers carry fully automatic weapons in the trunks of their cars.  Almost all police cars also have at least a 12 gauge shotgun available to them, and the 12 gauge shotgun is the king of small arms-based manstopping power.  Trust me.



Criminals will use whatever weapons are easily available to them, in America?  Guns are plentiful.  Which will lead to guns being in the black market in surplus, and very easily attainable from breaking and entering.  Leading to more guns in criminals hands.

Well that may be an American thing, since assault rifles are easily attainable there, cops need to be prepared for the weapons that fall into criminals hands.  If they didn't sell/produce and import these guns, less would fall into criminal hands, leading to less risk for your LE.  Same deal with shotguns.


----------



## Inferno (Jan 20, 2007)

Rich Parsons said:


> Here is a thought, we drive on two lane roads. What stops people from going over to the other lane and crashing head on?
> 
> People recognize the value of staying in theri lane and do so.



I agree, but puttign up a concrete divider removes the option to ahrm in such a way, just like gun elimination would.  Sure someone who *REALLY* wanted to, could find a way to do it.  Just as we have some crazies that go out of their way to harm children despite the schools and parents best efforts to keep children safe.


----------



## Inferno (Jan 20, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I am not so sure why this wouldn't be a learning experience if it is a debate. I have learned many things through debate. It just depends on the approach. Many people approach debates where they are only in it to prove that they are right, and nothing more. That is the mistake, because nothing is learned. I approach it as a chance for me to learn a different view point. This allows me to either strengthen my own view, or change my view.
> 
> Not many people are open to change, though, when they have their self-worth wrapped up in the outcome of an argument. This is often why Religious debates can turn out so disasterous.
> 
> ...



This isn't really a learning experience because a debate makes it so I must pick a side, since I can see both sides, it forces me to be the "bad guy" in regards to the general opinion on the forum debating with an individual whose username is named after a type of armed soldier who's opinion is very easy to see.

Unfortunately this is taking up quite a bit of my time trying to respond to all the posts directed my way and to be able to come up with a legible response.  My whole point is that less guns would mean less guns in criminals hands.  This to me is a good thing.

I'm sorry to all those that I didn't get to reply to.  I also feel that this debate is turning into a vicious circle of "your wrong, heres how it would be" ad infinitum.  Based on my references of countries that have strict gun laws, they see less violence, but violence in other areas (knives) will rise, but it's still a lot less violence period.

Thank you all for your time and input.

-Inferno


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 20, 2007)

Inferno said:


> This shows me that less guns, less gun violence, simple.


 
Once again, incorrect.  

Look at Switzerland.  Every able-bodied man must serve in the military, and he is given a fully automatic sturmgewehr.  This is a fully automatic weapon that fires rifle cartridges.  

After he is finished with his service, he is given the option to keep it, or turn it in.  Many of those men keep their weapons, as well as the government issued ammunition, and yet there has only been one incident in recent history where one used his lawfully owned, fully automatic rifle, to commit crimes.  

Thus, the assertion that less guns = less crimes can pretty much be dumped into the gutter.  It never has, and never will, be a firearms issue, as you already agreed; it's a cultural issue.  



> The UK doesn't have an issue with criminals building sten machine guns and running amok either.


 
Once again, look at the points that you already agreed to, and you'll see that it's still a cultural issue.  



> To me it sounds like fear mongering which is quite normal in American news.


 
It seems that the only fear mongering here, is from the anti-gun side.  For some reason, the anti's seem to believe that inanimate objects are completely responsible for the coherent thoughts of living human beings.  The truth is, that they aren't.  It's a cultural issue, not a firearms issue.  




> And anyone can create giant bombs in vans and blow up a building despite it being legal,


 
???  I doubt that's lawful...



> if someone is adamant enough they will create a homemade gun just as they would a bomb. We can't stop people from making bombs, so should we make them legal too? It would still make it harder/more of a pain to acquire firearms which is the whole point.


 
Anyone is permitted to make explosives with the proper permits, which can be obtained with the proper background checks.  

Also, people use bombs all the time.  The two murdering nazis at Columbine had a whole bag of pipe bombs, and had even constructed a series of propane cylinder-based bombs with boxes of nails attached to them.  I, for one, am grateful that they never had a chance to detonate all of those bombs.  




> Making alcohol is quite easy compared to machining a gun,


 
Incorrect.  Machining the receiver and frame is something that anyone with a milling machine and the plans can do in a day, or less.  The slides can also be made quickly.  Manufacturing alcohol takes many days, since you have several steps that need to be performed along the way.




> and even so look at the countries that don't allow firearm freedoms such as Canada you don't see everyone making Sten machine guns like you propose? I don't see your relevance in your argument as it simply does not happen and there are many examples.


 
Again, you need to look at the fact that it's a cultural issue.  Trying to claim that no guns in a country that already had a culture that was not a violent one is irrelevant.  That county's populace would simply not be the type to commit crimes like that.  

If you are so certain about firearms being the cause of evil, then you should answer my question as to why Jamaica, with its extremely high violent crime rates, destroys that theory?  

As I have already stated (and you already agreed to), it's a cultural issue. 



> I disagree I think if done right it'd deescalate the violence in many countries even if you feel the American people are unable to be civil having doing so. It's worked for other countries, why not yours?


 
It didn't work for Jamaica.  If you can convince the Jamaican drug lords to put down their arms, maybe it would work, but I strongly doubt they'll listen.  The same goes for almost any criminal.  



> Thats because it takes quite a bit of time for the weapons to be removed from society, it's not an overnight thing and anyone who thinks it would be needs to think it over more. Japan didn't become gun and sword free overnight, it took a long damn time.


 
Again, you are looking at a cultural issue, not a firearms one.  



> So small acts enacted in America that lasted less than two full years, I'm not surprised it failed horribly.


 
This lasted for a decade, and failed to do any good.  



> More guns = more gun violence. I thought it was a simple idea.



Once again, I will give you a great example that shows your assertion is incorrect.  

Let's look at the 2002 FBI Uniform Crime Report (easily available at fbi.gov if you choose to verify this).  

Washington DC has outlawed lawful firearms ownership, yet is only 15 miles away from the city of Alexandria, VA.  Alexandria has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the nation.  

*City**Murder rates: 25 years after DC's ban**Washington, DC **46.4 per 100,0001**Arlington, VA **2.1 per 100,0002 **(Arlington is just across the river from D.C.)**Total VA metropolitan area **6.1 per 100,0003*

*1FBI, "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports (October 28, 2002): 77. 
2Id. At 190. According to Arlington County's Department of Planning, Housing and Development, the population in Arlington, Virginia for 2001 was 190,1092. *


Once again, this simply proves that the availability of firearms has no effect on the crime rates.  Good people will be good people, bad people will be bad people, no matter what arms are availabe.  It's that simple.  




> ORGANIZED or EXTREMELY determined criminals will cough up the money for such a machine and possibly make firearms,


 
Just look at the price of milling machines.  You'll see how "expensive" they can be.  




> Would you want to live near a Viral research lab? Viruses do get out once in awhile. Same thing as Nuclear power plants, they have tremendous use but have risks, which spawned the whole NIMBY ideology. Many things have risks, but as I said, the end justifies the means.


 
I do live and work near many labs that use virii and bacteria in their research.  In fact, my lab uses them all of the time.  



> I don't see how carrying a firearm that could (in the wrong hands) kill many many children, but an RPG who can take out a bunch of thugs in a car is out of the question. I'd like some consistency, why exactly is THIS where you draw the line? Because if we had RPGs, criminals would get ahold of RPGs too?


 
Crimomals who want RPG's and can find uses for them DO get them.  Just look at the Somali pirates who try to hijack cruise ships.  



> Well for one, I personally don't feel too bad for people who move to an area and get trampled by nature (such as building a home near a volcano then losing everything). Bear mace apparently works quite well, but not so well on drugged out human beings. Brown and black bears will also apparently run if they hear you coming, so wear a bell on your foot or something. If you choose to live in a rural area or a tornado-ally trailer park, you take risks. So off hand, my proposal for animal defense is: bear mace, avoidance, awareness and a bell to scare them away. And there is also what hikers do when their in the wild, play dead.


 
This happens on farmlands, you know...  Are you then chastising people who work hard in the agricultural industry for their choice of lifestyles?  




> Currently the diodes may not exist, but many things we have now didn't exist 100 years ago. Give it time, I'm sure it'll come as they say "You can't stop progress.".


 
Simply put, lasers are impractical as antipersonnel weapons.  You cannot manufacture a diode-based weapon that will take nearly the same level of abuse that a projectile-based weapon.  Lasers need focussing devices, and lenses are, and always will be, a limiting factor, since they are fragile, and that the mounting precision must be nearly perfect.  




> Well that may be an American thing, since assault rifles are easily attainable there,


 
Only unlawfully owned ones are easily available.  To purchase one lawfully, you must have a Class III permit, and must also buy one that was manufactured before the GCA 86 ban.  





> cops need to be prepared for the weapons that fall into criminals hands. If they didn't sell/produce and import these guns, less would fall into criminal hands, leading to less risk for your LE. Same deal with shotguns.


 
Incorrect.  Criminals would simply find ways of killing LEO's, regardless of weapons availabe.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 20, 2007)

Inferno,

You say that you can see both sides, but I think that this is an attempt at diplomacy. You started the thread off talking about how you disagreed with gun carry, and you are ending it with oversimplifications such as "less guns equals less violence" and "if we get rid of guns, then gun crime will go down."

I am not sure how scrupulous you are being in this discussion at this point; it seems more as if you were looking for an outlet to present your views in hopes that more people would agree with them. Since that isn't what is happening, and people are bringing facts to the table that contradict your view, you are bailing at this point. Your choice.

But before you leave the topic, consider this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm

The title is "Gun Crime Soars by 35%." This is an article detailing how gun crime in the UK had soared from over 7,300 to almost 10,000 incidents in 1 year (01-02). This is in that "Utopia" that you and others give as the example of gun "elimination" at work.

Well I am sure it didn't feel like utopia for those almost 10,000 victims of gun crime. Not to mention, I am sure that it doesn't feel like utopia for those larger numbers of people in the UK who are victims of beatings and stabbings either. Many of these victims are innocent victims who could have at least had the option for self-defense against the stronger attacker had they of been able to carry lawfully. But I guess the weaker in these areas get to walk around in fear, paranoia, or denial because they couldn't legally choose a viable self-defense option if they wanted to.

The reason crime is prevelent in the US, or in any nation for that matter, has nothing to do with the availability of guns.

So, I'll take my freedoms of self-defense and be glad that I don't have to live in a state of fear and denial, thank you very much...


----------



## tellner (Jan 20, 2007)

Inferno said:
			
		

> This isn't really a learning experience because a debate makes it so I must pick a side, since I can see both sides, it forces me to be the "bad guy" in regards to the general opinion on the forum debating with an individual whose username is named after a type of armed soldier who's opinion is very easy to see.



It doesn't force you to be "The Bad Guy". What it does is force you to defend your position against articulate and informed people who generally hold a different position. This is always an educational experience, albeit sometimes unpleasant. It is perfectly acceptable, in fact encouraged, in a discussion like this to say "I see your point. I may have to modify my opinion on this matter. But I don't think you've convinced me on this part." 

The other sig I use (not Sig. I carry a Kahr  ) is a quote from William Blake: "The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds reptiles of the mind." I've altered my opinion on many things over the years from religion to guns to the designated hitter rule. It isn't a defeat. It's a chance to improve and keep the mind exercised.

The bit about screen names is very, very close to an _ad hominem_ attack. Looking at this thread one notes that a plurality is using variations on his or her own name. 



> Unfortunately this is taking up quite a bit of my time trying to respond t
> o all the posts directed my way and to be able to come up with a legible response. My whole point is that less guns would mean less guns in criminals hands. This to me is a good thing.



The difference is that you are making a bald assertion. Almost all of those taking a different assertion are basing their opinions on more complete facts. "It's true because I think it  must be true" is a much weaker position "I believe it is true because of the following pieces of evidence." One really has no cause to complain about that. The best reaction is to come up with better information more rigorously analyzed. This is all old ground in the gun debate.



> I'm sorry to all those that I didn't get to reply to. I also feel that this debate is turning into a vicious circle of "your wrong, heres how it would be" ad infinitum. Based on my references of countries that have strict gun laws, they see less violence, but violence in other areas (knives) will rise, but it's still a lot less violence period.



This is probably the least vicious gun debate I've seen online. The facts do not seem to support what you are saying. Taking a hard look at that information is a large part of what caused me to change my mind. The assertion that more draconian gun control laws would cause more crime does not seem to be borne out by the evidence. The restrictions on firearms in the UK have not decreased the use of firearms by criminals. Neither have the ones in Australia. Neither have the ones in various jurisdictions of the United States. The criminals still have guns and always will. The honest people do not. 

In fact there is excellent evidence starting with Kleck and on up to Lott that two confounding factors may be at play. 

First, there are defensive uses of firearms. Less than one in ten results in the gun being fired. Usually the deterrent effect is enough. Of those, relatively few hit the target. And of those very few are fatal. The ones where no shots are fired tend not to show up in crime reports at all. The ones where shots are fired but nobody is hit or the criminal is not seriously wounded will also be under-reported.

Second, there seems to be a "herd immunity" effect. Correcting for a large number of demographic variables it has been pretty well established that concealed carry laws slightly but measurably decrease the rate of violent crimes. There seems to be a slight increase in nonviolent property crimes as if criminals substitute activities with less perceived risk for ones with greater, but that has not been fully investigated. 

At the very least this should indicate that a simple assertion that "Stronger gun laws mean less crime" is not easy to support.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 20, 2007)

> The other sig I use (not Sig. I carry a Kahr  ) is a quote from William Blake: "The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds reptiles of the mind." I've altered my opinion on many things over the years from religion to guns to the designated hitter rule. It isn't a defeat. It's a chance to improve and keep the mind exercised.


 
I couldn't agree more. Having been on this forum for about 5 years now, I can see where my opinions and attitudes have evolved for the better just by searching up old threads. Sometimes I'll read old stuff and cringe!  Yet, I always make it a point to admit fault if I am wrong or mistaken, otherwise I won't grow. It's that simple.

Interestingly, here is a thread from 3 years ago almost to the date; about 25,000 or more rounds ago and prior to my Concealed Carry license. I was never a rabid anti-gun person, but I had bought into a lot of beliefs that were flawed. It took a couple of good debates and some research for me to be able to admit it. And I am glad I did; otherwise I would be a different person today! 

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12616&highlight=Gun+Control


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 20, 2007)

I remember when MartialTalk did not even have an Armory and Self Defense fora, and the few initial gun-related threads were a fairly rough to start...  As months and years went by, I watched the evolution of threads and the thoughts/comments of those who contributed.  Some stayed and some left, but all have helped prompt me to consider ideas I've never thought.

One thing I can say that was very striking--the people have managed to become more civil along the way and willing to discuss this subject without resorting to flames.  They bring up references for everyone to ponder.  When the two fora, the Armory and General Self Defense, finally came, we found a home for our discussions.  

I've been on different websites that are gun related, and this one, so far, has been able to remain level-headed.  Thank you, MartialTalk.

- Ceicei


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 20, 2007)

I gotta say, it takes level-headed people who are willing to calmly and rationally discuss this kind of thing to build this quality conversation and content that we have in the likes of this thread.

I want to take a moment to thank everyone for refraining from flaming, shouting, insulting and all other unsavory behavior.  This is a GOOD THREAD!!

Thanks!!


----------



## Inferno (Jan 20, 2007)

I'm not ditching this thread, but I started this thread wondering everyones opinions of firearms on a martial arts forum.  Since this was not an NRA forum, I thought the gun owners would be in the minority and felt how others see this when it comes to martial arts as I learn them for traditional value not because I fear for my safety or want to be prepared in a self-defense scenario.

When some people started raising questions, I decided to play Devil's Advocate by taking the less popular stance since the pro-gun side seems to overwhelm this board, this I felt would help open the topic for further discussion but it lead to a barrage of questions and deflections to make the thread no longer worth my personal interest as it'd take way too much of my time to answer them (I don't get much time to talk on forums, I have a lot to do, hence why I disappeared for 2+ years after signing up)  .

American's tend to have very different views when it comes to many things including firearms, and as Grenadier has stated over and over it's a cultural thing which means Americans need to evolve their society/culture so they can become civilized or at least on the level of many other countries with a lot less crime.  And yes I'm aware other third world countries have worse crime I'm sure, no need to drive that home (as I don't think they should be the ones one should compete with).

I'm making no effort to "bail" I just have lost interest in playing Devil's Advocate and have stopped, you are welcome to take my place.  I believe arguing on both sides of the fence gives you a better understanding of the topic.  Since I have argued the side of pro-gun before, I thought the flip side could be interesting.

This thread has been extremely friendly but since it's me vs everyone else and is getting repetitive, it's not much fun nor informative.

-Inferno


----------



## Cris (Jan 21, 2007)

Inferno said:


> American's tend to have very different views when it comes to many things including firearms, and as Grenadier has stated over and over it's a cultural thing which means Americans need to evolve their society/culture so they can become civilized or at least on the level of many other countries with a lot less crime. And yes I'm aware other third world countries have worse crime I'm sure, no need to drive that home (as I don't think they should be the ones one should compete with).
> -Inferno


Heh, there's the fuse to a powder keg if I ever saw one. Luckily the people
here seem to be level headed so no flame to light the keg:boing1:


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 21, 2007)

Inferno said:


> American's tend to have very different views when it comes to many things including firearms, and as Grenadier has stated over and over it's a cultural thing which means Americans need to evolve their society/culture so they can become civilized or at least on the level of many other countries with a lot less crime.


 
I can agree with that. We here in the U.S. do have a very violent culture, among other things. Most people that live here don't think of it that way, but this is true based on the data. Unfortunatily, the cure to our problems isn't as simple as controlling firearm ownership or carry; these measures are usually politically driven measures that do nothing to actually solve our problems.

Our problems of violence, I would argue, stem from an erosion of values rooted in economic factors. Where Europe has free health care, no more then 40 hour work weeks usually, and 6 weeks of vacation a year, we have created a climate where 2 parents have to work, and at least one of those parents are working over 40 hours (50, 60, 70 hours). Often, there is no vacation time. People are lucky to get a week off anymore. We have been effectively eroding our middle class, which means that a lot of people are going to get left behind. Kids are raised by TV which chases sensationalism, deteriorating mental aversions towards violence. Violent solutions to problems become the norm more and more, as does the importance of "getting ahead." In the end, we end up with higher crime rates, and probably the most violent culture in the civilized, 1st world.

So, you are right. We have some things to work on. But this means that "gun control" is the least of our concerns. I would rather our politicians work on creating better job and wage opportunities for the middle class then taking away my self-defense rights. Most Americans on all sides of the political spectrum would agree on this.

But I'll tell you what; I'll take the tradeoff. I will take our problems that we in the U.S. have in exchange for the civil liberties that other "safer" places don't have. We may have our problems, but other countries have their own set of problems that I wouldn't want to deal with in exchange for my freedom. Most American's would agree with this one too. Because once you've lived free, it becomes hard to move to a place that isn't.


----------



## Inferno (Jan 21, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I can agree with that. We here in the U.S. do have a very violent culture, among other things. Most people that live here don't think of it that way, but this is true based on the data. Unfortunatily, the cure to our problems isn't as simple as controlling firearm ownership or carry; these measures are usually politically driven measures that do nothing to actually solve our problems.
> 
> Our problems of violence, I would argue, stem from an erosion of values rooted in economic factors. Where Europe has free health care, no more then 40 hour work weeks usually, and 6 weeks of vacation a year, we have created a climate where 2 parents have to work, and at least one of those parents are working over 40 hours (50, 60, 70 hours). Often, there is no vacation time. People are lucky to get a week off anymore. We have been effectively eroding our middle class, which means that a lot of people are going to get left behind. Kids are raised by TV which chases sensationalism, deteriorating mental aversions towards violence. Violent solutions to problems become the norm more and more, as does the importance of "getting ahead." In the end, we end up with higher crime rates, and probably the most violent culture in the civilized, 1st world.
> 
> ...



I agree with you for the most part, there is no real fix that I can see without doing a huge cultural overhaul.  I don't understand however how one can say they live in a free country when their government is spying on them (AT&T scandal) and then uses the constitution to shove it down your throats so you can't do anything about it.  There are many issues in America that frankly scare me to death.  From voting "issues" to congress needing to pass an act to prevent their President and many people in power from being dragged off to stand trial for war crimes.

It's scary, and I'd really like America to get back on their feet, it sue to stand for many great things but I think the American people are slow to act and only a small fraction of the country seem capable of making independent thoughts.  

This is a bit off topic though, so I'll stop now.  Might be a good topic for a new thread though.

As for a "fuse to a gunpowder keg", it wasn't meant that way, but I can't change the way you choose to interpret written conversation unfortunately.  No offense if anyone else took it the wrong way.  I'll take it back if it makes you feel better.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 21, 2007)

Inferno said:


> I agree, but puttign up a concrete divider removes the option to ahrm in such a way, just like gun elimination would. Sure someone who *REALLY* wanted to, could find a way to do it. Just as we have some crazies that go out of their way to harm children despite the schools and parents best efforts to keep children safe.




Actually your arguement is not for concrete diividers.

Your arguement is for cars to be removed from the road.

The concrete dividers are the safety and or trigger locks or cable locks.

The Driver's Licenese is similiar to the (CPL) Concealed Pistle License. 

I have no problems with taking a calss to be certified.

I have no classes with locking a gun in a safe in my house or having some other form of lock on it. (* Assuming it is locked to protect others in the house from accidents. *)

So, I repeat that I believe your arguement is for all vehicles to be removed from the road. 

There are people who drive without a license and without insurance or registration. And they cause issues for those who do when they get into accidents. 

The same is true for guns, people and I mean lots of people have them, and nothing bad happens. There are those that still have them and cause problems, and most likely they are not registered or licensed. 

Of course there are crimes of passion. Yet this is related to Road rage as well. A certain percentage will be there. And if you take away the gun the crime would be committed with a kitchen knife or on the motor cycle or bicycle they were riding, depeneding upon which arguement example one was following. 

So while I respect you have an opinion. I have to disagree with it and your currently presented arguement based upon my rebuttle above. 

Peace


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 21, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> Uh ... wow ... that's way off-topic.  Wanna, maybe, start another thread for that one?



Since I brought this up I will address this once here and look to see if another thread is created. 



Dave Leverich said:


> I know it's a quasi-offshoot, but...
> The reason the speed limits came into being had nothing to do with safety, it was due to skyrocketing gas prices and public road upkeep. Originally that is. I'm sure many have used the 'safety' card since then to alter the number up or down in places.
> 
> Am I off on that? I do like to have my facts right when possible heh.



I agree and understand this. The Oil Crisis of 1973 caused a lot of people to  try to find ways to get more MPG out of a vehicle. When the manuafactures and or independantly tested results came back the answer was 55 MPH. After a few years approximately 1977 time frame the Drive 55 abd bring 'em back alive campaign began, becuase they noticed a decrease in deaths due to auto accidents. With Seat belts and Supplemental Restraint systems, and better designed cars people survive accidnets all the time in newer vehilces that would have caused great or serious injuries or psosible death before. 

So I repeat my last post, sorry for doing so, instead of getting rid of the vehicles the industry made them safer, and the governement implemented seat belts  and later SRS laws. 

Sorry for the side note. Back to the topic of Guns.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 21, 2007)

Inferno said:


> I agree with you for the most part, there is no real fix that I can see without doing a huge cultural overhaul. I don't understand however how one can say they live in a free country when their government is spying on them (AT&T scandal) and then uses the constitution to shove it down your throats so you can't do anything about it. There are many issues in America that frankly scare me to death. From voting "issues" to congress needing to pass an act to prevent their President and many people in power from being dragged off to stand trial for war crimes.


 
Yes, it is true that our civil liberties and privacy are under attack. We do have this habit of spying on each other, which is a bit freightening.

However, we also have a wonderful system of checks and balances, and constitution that we have put in place that allows us to control and change these measures. There is an "ebb and flow" to these things, but we the citizens of our nation have the power to make these changes. Things may seem particularly ****** now, but that is likely to change in elections to follow.

I can't say the same thing about other, more socialist nations, unfortunatily. There are things that they do well, but one thing that is lacking is the ability to make these changes effeciently, or check and balance these things effectively.

There are many times and situations where governments in more socialist countries have crossed the line and done way worse things then what our current government has been doing in terms of violating privacy and civil liberties. And those citizens have little power to change it. Why don't you take a trip to Germany and tell their police that they don't have probable cause to search your bags, and just see what happens. Or, how about drive through Ontario with a the wrong large breed dog or secured hunting rifle, and watch your belongings get searched and seized while you face inprisonment.

So, once again, we have problems, but I'll take the tradeoff. At least we still have the power to change our problems. Can't say the same for many other places.



> It's scary, and I'd really like America to get back on their feet, it sue to stand for many great things but I think the American people are slow to act and only a small fraction of the country seem capable of making independent thoughts.
> 
> This is a bit off topic though, so I'll stop now. Might be a good topic for a new thread though.


 
Well, sonny, let's not be too condencending there. Yes, I in fact do suggest you make that into a seperate thread and see how well that goes over.

I think that to claim that Americans are exceptionally incapable of independent thought is a pretty arrogent statement to make. Sure, we have our "sheep," but I don't think that we are worse then the rest of the civilized world on this. If anything we are a little bit better because we have the freedom to say and do what we want in ways where a lot of the "civilized world" cannot; meaning that at least we aren't cowards unless we use our freedom to choose to be...


----------



## Cris (Jan 21, 2007)

"As for a "fuse to a gunpowder keg", it wasn't meant that way, but I can't change the way you choose to interpret written conversation unfortunately. No offense if anyone else took it the wrong way. I'll take it back if it makes you feel better." 
I was being silly for the most part. I didn't take it the wrong way. However, it does send the message "Americans are a bunch of cavemen" but frankly I don't care one way or the other. I'm not an american. I'm a person who happens to live in the US(I hate labels). So, to not derail this train I shall stop here. Chuga chuga choo choo!


----------



## Lisa (Jan 21, 2007)

*ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.  Please feel free to use the ignore feature to ignore those members whose posts you do not wish to read.

Thank you.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Super Moderator
*


----------



## Inferno (Jan 21, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Yes, it is true that our civil liberties and privacy are under attack. We do have this habit of spying on each other, which is a bit freightening.
> 
> However, we also have a wonderful system of checks and balances, and constitution that we have put in place that allows us to control and change these measures. There is an "ebb and flow" to these things, but we the citizens of our nation have the power to make these changes. Things may seem particularly ****** now, but that is likely to change in elections to follow.
> 
> ...



I don't understand how other democracies could be less able to change thing within their countries but there are many and the world is quite disturbing so I'll take your word for it.  As for being condescending, I didn't mean to sound that way, but America does have problems.  In the eyes of the International community America is frowned upon.  My wife (Who's American, I'm Canadian) had some friends who went to the UK as part of their University courses and they stated at least 1/4 of the population literally spit on them when they heard they were America, they were refused entry to several stores and couldn't make any friends.

I wouldn't be surprised if they looked like skin headed tattooed punks, but she's just a kind average girl from Texas.  I was even a bit shocked, I don't think it's fair to judge all Americans, but it really shows me how America as a superpower is seen in the European limelight.

This is going horribly astray though and I don't like how I'm pushing it further.  Perhaps we can continue this conversation (if you want to that is) in private messages or a new thread?


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 21, 2007)

No need to take it PM. You came off condensending but as you know it is difficult to tell voice inflection and tone with writing. So, I'll take your word for it that you didn't mean it to come across that way.

And I do agree with you, unfortunatily. The international community isn't too happy with Americans right now, and enough of us act like jerks when traveling abroad to back the stereotypes up, unfortunatily. I always try my best to be extra polite when I travel because of this; to try to undue some of the damage we have done. Plus, I have been told I look intimidating as it is, which doesn't help.

Anyway, we can agree on the international perception as being less then favorable.

We all have our own things to work on, I guess...

Cheers!


----------

