Do you believe in guns?

[Tez3]

As to your second question, yes, our government allows the states to pass oppressive legislation all the time. In some states, consenting adults can be prosecuted for private acts of intimacy because of their gender. In other states, individuals can be imprisoned for imbibing purely recreational substances purchased in a mutually beneficial manner without fraud and used in the privacy of their homes. In others, a woman can have sex with as many men as she wants in return for a twenty dollar dinner and a ten dollar movie, but if they decide to cut out the middle man and trade sex for thirty dollars, they're both guilty of a crime.

State oppression takes many forms. How much of the fruits of your labor are being confiscated by your government every day to pay for programs you didn't vote for, don't want, and can't participate in?

You argue that your country is free from oppression, I would argue that no man who pays tribute to another man at the point of a gun is free from oppression.


-Rob
__________________

Hmmmm, and yet, your ownership of guns doesn't seem to be preventing the govt from passing oppressive laws/edicts. Does it? By your logic, because of all the gun ownership in the States, the rate of oppressive law passing wouldn't exist, or exist at a much lower rate - comparable to what, I don't know. Yet, the last 8 years in particular have been quite a ride in that sense... I'm not sure I agree with your argument here. But that's fine.

However, a gun is a great leveller in my view. That said, I don't own one, or feel the need to own one. I don't believe my owning one, or everyone in my road owning one would make the govt a more or less tyrannic lot. There is quite a lot of gun ownership in the UK, not always legal, but it's there, and yet, we also have a govt that couldn't tie it's own shoelaces. For crying out loud, at the recent visit of the Chinese premiere they even hung the Union Flag upside down, fools.





I always feel, and this is by no means a pop at the Americans on here, that gun ownership, and the discussion of it, always gets pretty emotive. I think that from a Brits perspective, I simply do not understand the fondness for the humble gun that many (notice the word "many", and not "all") Americans seem to have. Does that mean that because I'm not interested in owning a gun I am suddenly a pacifist, and would idly stand by while I or my family were in danger? Of course not. Nor does it mean that I feel the need to arm myself to the teeth, my home contains enough nasty things as it is, katana (fully tempered - battle ready so to speak), a roman gladius (an amazing stabbing weapon) and a pair of tempered, hardened butterfly knives. So I certainly don't feel undefended.

Defend yourself from tyranny by all means, it's merely that there are a multitude of ways of doing it, in which owning a gun is just one, and, in my view, by no means the most pragmatic/practical/superior.

Good post!
The flag may have been a deliberate cry for help lol! probably a MOD Plod with a sense of humour. ( a lot of us have very warped senses of humour lol)


Guns are tools, nothing more nothing less. theres a time and a place for it's use, having one doesn't guarantee your safety or liberty. It doesn't mean you are better people for carrying one, it means you're armed not better. You don't have more freedoms because you have a gun, doesn't mean you have less because you don't carry a gun.

The best way to fight tyranny is to be active in defending your freedom though keeping an interest in your public servants and services, attend local council meetings, campaign for your rights, don't just sit there and let others do it for you. Keep yourself informed of everything that will affect you, planning permissions in your area, education programmes in schools, whats your mayor and other elected officials up to, be a citizen not just a couch potato. Remember if you don't do anything others will and it may not be done how you'd wish it.

 

[mozzandherb]

Ok, how do you square this with your earlier comments?





So at first you seem to be saying that you don't accept the practice of using firearms in self defense, and yet now you are contradicting that statement. What is your justification for that?

Either you accept that firearms have their place in self defense or you don't. You can't say that it's ok for you to use them, but not ok for others to do so. You can't say that there are some situations that are severe enough to warrant their use, but that they should not be used to kill people. Not and be logically consistent.

As a tool, their purpose in self defense is killing people. Not hurting them. Yes, you can shoot to maim or injure, but the reason they work as a deterrent to crime is specifically because of their lethal nature. If a situation warrants using potentially lethal force, than you accept that a person may end up dead. It is directly contradictory to say that you are willing to use a gun in self defense, but not to kill a person with a gun.

Of course there are mitigating circumstances in any violent encounter which determine the appropriate use of force. If a 13 year old is trespassing on your property he is violating your rights. The appropriate response is probably not to pull out a pistol and blow his head off. At the same time, if you and your wife are out for a walk one night and are confronted with a trio of knife wielding assailants, shooting to kill might save both you and your wife from more than simple assault. Most legitimate cases of self defense probably can be resolved with little more than brandishing a firearm and demonstrating the will to use it.

The fact that you feel the need to make statements about mitigating use of force and crazy life and death circumstances would seem to imply that you don't think others have considered the same. As though the rest of us who promote defensive firearms practice think they are the hammer for every nail. They clearly are not. They are a specialized tool with a specific purpose. When you need a firearm, nothing else will do, but that doesn't mean you always need a firearm.

If your aims are humanitarian, I would argue that the defensive use of firearms falls well within that category. If I'm attacked by a drunk, stepping into a fighting stance might encourage violence, drawing a firearm will probably deter it. If I'm attacked by a psychopathic monster, fighting with my hands might allow him to live to prey on others, shooting him will end the threat he poses to a civil society.

You seem to be conflicted on your position on self defense. I've always felt that an important part of defending one's self and the things one holds dear is preparing one's self ahead of time by deciding what you believe and what you are willing to do in the name of those beliefs.


-Rob

It's all within the realm of context. Your example of the 13 y/o tress passer is a perfect example of why I dont believe guns are useful. Because there are too many people whose first reaction to such a minor situation will be to pull out their gun. I'm sorry, but too many things can go wrong and this is just my point is that there are too many firearms in the hands of people who don't know how or when to properly use them and as a result many people die.
Our positions differ because of our history and our culture. I am Canadian so my stance on firearms will be different than yours and just imagine that I or anyone else who has lost someone due to negligent use of a firearm, ask them and see what their position will be.
Of course there are mitigating circumstances, but just because there are mitigating circumstances it does not change my views or beliefs towards firearms.

 

[Mark L]

I'm picking up my concealed carry permit later today (in Massachusetts, not really easy to get at all). I will be purchasing a pistol soon, after which I will practice with it alot. After becoming familiar and comfortable with the tool, maybe, I'll learn how to incorporate it into my martial art. I think that will be harder with a pistol than with other weapons in my toolbox.

Actually carrying a firearm as part of my routine isn't something I can envision, but keeping it at the ready in my home is.

 

[Thesemindz]

Hmmmm, and yet, your ownership of guns doesn't seem to be preventing the govt from passing oppressive laws/edicts. Does it? By your logic, because of all the gun ownership in the States, the rate of oppressive law passing wouldn't exist, or exist at a much lower rate - comparable to what, I don't know. Yet, the last 8 years in particular have been quite a ride in that sense... I'm not sure I agree with your argument here. But that's fine.

Defend yourself from tyranny by all means, it's merely that there are a multitude of ways of doing it, in which owning a gun is just one, and, in my view, by no means the most pragmatic/practical/superior.

You're right. Our government is passing progressively more oppressive laws and violating more and more civil rights, not only of Americans but of people all over the world. Our federal government has essentially claimed proprietary ownership of every man, woman, and child on earth by saying it has the right to pick up anyone, from anywhere, on the basis of a thought crime, hold them without charges, representation, or hope of release, torture a confession out of them, and then imprison them in perpetuity.

I'm not arguing that our government isn't tyrannical, in fact quite the opposite. I believe all states survive on fraud, theft, and violence. That is precisely why I think we need every means of self protection we can aqcuire.

Things aren't going to suddenly get better.


-Rob

 

[Thesemindz]

It's all within the realm of context. Your example of the 13 y/o tress passer is a perfect example of why I dont believe guns are useful. Because there are too many people whose first reaction to such a minor situation will be to pull out their gun. I'm sorry, but too many things can go wrong and this is just my point is that there are too many firearms in the hands of people who don't know how or when to properly use them and as a result many people die.
Our positions differ because of our history and our culture. I am Canadian so my stance on firearms will be different than yours and just imagine that I or anyone else who has lost someone due to negligent use of a firearm, ask them and see what their position will be.
Of course there are mitigating circumstances, but just because there are mitigating circumstances it does not change my views or beliefs towards firearms.

So you're position is based on projecting your fears of irresponsible behavior onto all gun owners and assuming that because some people can't make rational decisions none of us should be allowed to own firearms.

Our cultures certainly are different. But saying that people who have experienced loss will have a different perspective is a meaningless statement. Of course they probably will. They are emotionally involved. I was in a horrible car accident once and for years didn't feel comfortable in cars. That doesn't mean people shouldn't own cars. It means I was unable to divorce rational thought from my emotional fears.

You still seem to be offering two conflicting views on firearms defense. You don't approve of their ownership or use, yet you would use them in your own defense, yet that doesn't change your beliefs.

Ok.


-Rob

 

[just2kicku]

Do I believe in guns? Let me think....YES!!
I believe in my right to bear arms. I do not believe that guns kill or hurt people, just as a car doesn't kill or hurt anyone. I do believe that it is the uneducated idiot who is responsible for that.

 

[mozzandherb]

Do I believe in guns? Let me think....YES!!
I believe in my right to bear arms. I do not believe that guns kill or hurt people, just as a car doesn't kill or hurt anyone. I do believe that it is the uneducated idiot who is responsible for that.

But if that uneducated idiot never has the possibility to have or own a firearm then maybe a life of two would be saved.

Our cultures certainly are different. But saying that people who have experienced loss will have a different perspective is a meaningless statement. Of course they probably will. They are emotionally involved. I was in a horrible car accident once and for years didn't feel comfortable in cars. That doesn't mean people shouldn't own cars. It means I was unable to divorce rational thought from my emotional fears.

You still seem to be offering two conflicting views on firearms defense. You don't approve of their ownership or use, yet you would use them in your own defense, yet that doesn't change your beliefs.

Ok.


-Rob

A car is not meant for killing and I am sorry to hear about your accident, but a car is not meant for killing whereas a gun is.
And my position is not conflicting I'm pretty sure that I made it clear that I do not believe in the use of firearms. I respect your decision to use them, but unless there is a mitigating circumstance that I have already mentioned I would not use one

 

[Sukerkin]

I forget who it was but a member here had a quote in their signature that was a nice twist on the "guns don't kill people, people do" truism. It's intent was something along the lines of "If guns kill people, does that mean I can blame my pencil for spelling errors?".

I actually do agree that a gun is just a tool, neither inherently good or evil.

However, it is a tool whose designed purpose is to inflict great injury at a distance, primarily on other humans. Further, it is all too easy to become competent enough with one to inflict such injury. With ready access to a firearm, a fit of temper can end in someones death because it is a lot 'easier' to point a pistol and pull the trigger than it is to assault someone physically - there is no time to come to your sense or calm down before the deed is done.

So altho' it is true that people kill people, a gun makes it one heck of a lot simpler and quicker.

Where do I stand on gun ownership, given that attitude?

Oddly enough, I think that here in Great Britain we used to have it pretty close to 'right' with enough licensing and regulation to allow people to 'enjoy' firearms without the country becoming the Wild West.

I used to be on my unversity rifle team, go hunting small game for the table and even tried my hand at pistol shooting (I was terrible at that by the way ). Then we had a few high profile tragedies with firearms and the knee-jerk legislation jerked the guns right out of our hands. Well, that's not quite fair and Tez can tell you pretty clearly how the laws stand these days, better than I can anyhow.

All that I know is that many of my friends had to turn in their gun collections and I can't find a rifle club anywhere and the British Olympic shooting team has to train in Switzerland because they can't train here.

I'd like things to go back to the way they were with, as others have pointed out i this thread, sensible regulation of who can own what and under what conditions that ownership can continue.

 

[thardey]

Do I believe in guns? No, I believe in God. That is, me personally, I look to God for guidance, protection, etc.

There are some who replace their gods or whatever religious/non-religous object of worship with guns. That is, they look to guns for protection, well-being, self-worth and such.

Guns are simply a means to an end. They are a tool designed to violently put holes in things. They are designed to cause damage with the minimal amount of effort.

To me, guns are a natural extention of the Martial Art. They are not "THE" extention of martial arts. They're part of a continuum. Some people are only comfortable with grappling arts. Some with non-striking arts. Some with striking arts. Some with arts with "force-multipliers" like bo, cane, or escrima. Some with bladed arts, like knife and sword. Some with slow-fire target shooting. Some with combat-oriented pistols. Some with combat-oriented rifles and shotguns. And by no means is the continuum done there.

It is up to each and every one of us to evaluate our own ablilites, needs, culture, situations, and laws to determine where on that continuum is appropriate for ourselves. It is only after a long, hard look at my own situation that I decided that it was a good thing for me to carry daily. It is certainly not a forgone conclusion for everybody else. I also continue to re-evaluate whether it is appropriate for me to continue carrying. I had to come to that decision based on my own system of decision-making, which is by no means universal.

I have also talked with local law enforcement, and all of them have encouraged me to remain armed. At least keeping it in my truck, loaded. Most of them encouraged me to carry on my person daily. That's specific to my situation.

But, I do believe in the right to own and carry guns. That is, just as I don't have to right to force others to protect me using guns, I also don't have the right to not allow someone else to protect themselves using guns. And if the US seems militant about that right, it is because we are taught that that right is "self-evident" that the right to appropriately protect ourselves is a basic human right, not a government-granted right.

However, the exact application of that right is vague. It does not only refer to carring concealed pistols, whether the "tactical model" or not. It also included the question of shotguns, rifles, knives, swords, and more. The constitution was not written specifially to allow me to carry a 13-round Glock .45 conclealed with hollow-point bullets. It was written to ensure that I keep the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." There are also people who are not allowed to own guns, based on previous convictions, and I'm okay with that.

And, to be fair, fully-automatic guns, and silencers are available in certain states, but they require a special license, and permission from the Sheriff. (Called a "Class III" license.) The tax on the license is enormous, though. Someone like me could apply for and probably receive permission. But I have no desire for an "assault weapon." Even though I often shoot an AR-15, I do not consider it an "assault weapon" any more than I consider my stock Glock an "assault pistol."

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

I live in Miami of course we belive in guns and knives and 3 on 1.

 

[Thesemindz]

A car is not meant for killing and I am sorry to hear about your accident, but a car is not meant for killing whereas a gun is.
And my position is not conflicting I'm pretty sure that I made it clear that I do not believe in the use of firearms. I respect your decision to use them, but unless there is a mitigating circumstance that I have already mentioned I would not use one

Alright. You don't see that as a contradtiction. Fine.

You say that you would only use a firearm to defend yourself if there were "mitigating circumstances." When do you think the rest of us would use one? When someone took our parking space? When someone stepped on our foot at the school dance?

Come on. Of course no responsible person would use one unless there were serious mitigating circumstances. Your continued use of that caveat implies that no one else could be responsible enough to make that determination.

Fine. I'm not going to convince you, I knew that going in. And you clearly don't even see a contradiction in your position. Alright. I will continue to choose to keep my options open with regards to defending myself with firearms. You will continue not to. Unless there are mitigating circumstances.


-Rob

 

[just2kicku]

But if that uneducated idiot never has the possibility to have or own a firearm then maybe a life of two would be saved.



A car is not meant for killing and I am sorry to hear about your accident, but a car is not meant for killing whereas a gun is.
And my position is not conflicting I'm pretty sure that I made it clear that I do not believe in the use of firearms. I respect your decision to use them, but unless there is a mitigating circumstance that I have already mentioned I would not use one

Like it or not, the bad seed will always get them somehow. Full auto guns are illegal (at least where I live) yet the criminal always finds a way to get them. So now no law abiding citizen can have a gun but that does not stop "idiot" from getting one. The life that gets saved might be my own and family.

 

[Tez3]

I forget who it was but a member here had a quote in their signature that was a nice twist on the "guns don't kill people, people do" truism. It's intent was something along the lines of "If guns kill people, does that mean I can blame my pencil for spelling errors?".

I actually do agree that a gun is just a tool, neither inherently good or evil.

However, it is a tool whose designed purpose is to inflict great injury at a distance, primarily on other humans. Further, it is all too easy to become competent enough with one to inflict such injury. With ready access to a firearm, a fit of temper can end in someones death because it is a lot 'easier' to point a pistol and pull the trigger than it is to assault someone physically - there is no time to come to your sense or calm down before the deed is done.

So altho' it is true that people kill people, a gun makes it one heck of a lot simpler and quicker.

Where do I stand on gun ownership, given that attitude?

Oddly enough, I think that here in Great Britain we used to have it pretty close to 'right' with enough licensing and regulation to allow people to 'enjoy' firearms without the country becoming the Wild West.

I used to be on my unversity rifle team, go hunting small game for the table and even tried my hand at pistol shooting (I was terrible at that by the way ). Then we had a few high profile tragedies with firearms and the knee-jerk legislation jerked the guns right out of our hands. Well, that's not quite fair and Tez can tell you pretty clearly how the laws stand these days, better than I can anyhow.

All that I know is that many of my friends had to turn in their gun collections and I can't find a rifle club anywhere and the British Olympic shooting team has to train in Switzerland because they can't train here.

I'd like things to go back to the way they were with, as others have pointed out i this thread, sensible regulation of who can own what and under what conditions that ownership can continue.

We have several clubs that use the military ranges up here, it might be worth seeing if there's any near you. I know many shooters including rifles use the military facilities.
I don't know why the Olympic team would have to use facilities in another country we have plenty here including Bisley.
http://www.nsc-bisley.co.uk/

I think giving up weapon collections was a bit of a panic move tbh as you can get a licence for rifles as well as shotguns. Bit of a fuff around but you can licence all your weapons.
http://www.nra.org.uk/


The thing is while I agree it was a knee jerk reaction to what people wanted after those events, and it may well be a mistake, it was what people wanted. The government was besieged by petitions and campaigns to ban guns...so they did.
It may well be a mistake but those who think it's our government trying to oppress us and we are behaving like sheep should realise that the government responded to what people were clamouring for at the time. Perhaps the government is at fault for listening to people!

 

[JadeDragon3]

I believe you have the right to defend yourself as the great Malcolm X said "by any means neccessary". I think that you should be able to defend your self with whatever you have around wheather that be a gun, a knife, or a sword, etc.... Especially if its in your home. A man's home is his castle.

 

[Sukerkin]

It may well be a mistake but those who think it's our government trying to oppress us and we are behaving like sheep should realise that the government responded to what people were clamouring for at the time. Perhaps the government is at fault for listening to people!

Thanks for the information and links, Tez :tup:.

Also, your last there is a valid point that probably doesn't get as much weight as it should. I do fear, however, that altho' the outcome might seem as if it was by public demand, that there was a good deal of 'perception management' indulged in to generate the prime conditions to get the law the powers that be desired.

That might be a little paranoid but it's something that the government (of whatever colour) does all the time.

 

[mozzandherb]

Alright. You don't see that as a contradtiction. Fine.

You say that you would only use a firearm to defend yourself if there were "mitigating circumstances." When do you think the rest of us would use one? When someone took our parking space? When someone stepped on our foot at the school dance?

Come on. Of course no responsible person would use one unless there were serious mitigating circumstances. Your continued use of that caveat implies that no one else could be responsible enough to make that determination.

Fine. I'm not going to convince you, I knew that going in. And you clearly don't even see a contradiction in your position. Alright. I will continue to choose to keep my options open with regards to defending myself with firearms. You will continue not to. Unless there are mitigating circumstances.


-Rob

It was never my intentions to impose me beliefs on anybody, or for that matter to have my views changed, I was just defending the OP of my view of guns.

 

[tellner]

I'm not being funny here but the ownership of weapons will not stop a dictatorship or a government being oppressive..

QFT, Tez. The Taliban was about as oppressive a government as you will find outside of North Korea and other portions of Hell with the fire put out. Afghanistan is swimming in guns. Same with Somalia. Same with Congo. Same with any number of other nasty places. Guns are mostly illegal in Russia and similar places with repressive governments. Lots of good people get them anyway. It doesn't do anything

A bit closer to home George Bush shredded the Constitution, took a dump on the Bill of Rights and wiped His butt with the Rule of Law. And that was before "The Commander Guy" got serious about declaring Congress - and I quote - a "subordinate branch of government" and declared that He could "crush the testicles of a ten year old child" in order to get His prisoners to talk. The psychos and sycophants who worshipped the Decider are among the most heavily armed civilians in America. Their guns didn't do diddly to stop tyranny.

That's because guns are just extensions of the will. If the brain doesn't point them in the right direction they don't do any good. Sure, if you have to kill someone they make it easier. And "the tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." But they are just means. What's important is ends and the will to carry reach them. Small arms haven't done much of anything to stoip the US Army and Marine Corps in Iraq. When lightly armed individual and militias come up against a modern military they die pretty quickly. So they find other more effective means like IEDs.

The Czechs and the Hungarians fought the Soviets and lost. Running around with popguns didn't get them their countries back. It was fundamental changes in political will that put people like Walensa and Havel in power. The Soviet Union fell when the Army collectively said "Enough!" and stopped obeying orders.

I'm not running down force as a tool of politics. But it's only a tool. More often than not it's the wrong one. And it only works if people have the will, the organization, the smarts and the mental toughness to use it effectively.

What would happen if the American People with all their small arms rose up and tried to throw down the government? Unless other things had changed very drastically the Glorious Revolution would never get off the ground. The cells would be infiltrated. Communications would be monitored. Most of the really dangerous leaders would be rounded up. The media campaign would completely discredit them. Almost everyone would be convinced that they were losers and lunatics. A few televised funerals of "good cops gunned down by domestic terrorists" would cut it off at its knees. One IED in Oklahoma City effectively destroyed the nascent Militia Movement.

 

[tellner]

I'm picking up my concealed carry permit later today (in Massachusetts, not really easy to get at all). I will be purchasing a pistol soon, after which I will practice with it alot. After becoming familiar and comfortable with the tool, maybe, I'll learn how to incorporate it into my martial art. I think that will be harder with a pistol than with other weapons in my toolbox.

Actually carrying a firearm as part of my routine isn't something I can envision, but keeping it at the ready in my home is.

Mark, if I can make a suggestion, save up your pennies and get some good training. Some of the best training in the world can be found close at hand in New Hampshire. LFI will not only teach you how to shoot and how to use your firearm for self defense. It will also teach you when to shoot, when not to shoot and help you deal with the after effects of a lethal force situation. There are other excellent facilities out there. Mr. Ayoob's happens to be one with which I have personal experience.

There are good courses in firearms retention and disarming. I'd really recommend taking at least one of those. A firearm changes just about everything about how you fight.

I'm not a Krav Maga practitioner, but I have a great deal of respect for the way I've seen advanced Krav people, mostly former or active IDF soldiers - dunno about what you find at the regular schools, integrate their gun work with their empty hand tactics.

 

[Cryozombie]

One other thing I would like to point out.

"Tyrrany" doesn't always come in the form of a Government. IMO Tyrrany can be the street gang operating in the park down the street, that the law has not been able to do anything about who harrass women who walk by, beat people and take their money, and drive by and shoot at each other while children are at play.

At some point, being an armed citizen, if they come to injure you, rape you, or kill you, you can stand by and dial 911 and do some of that praying people are so opposed to, or you can fight back. For the latter, The gun is a great equalizer in the hands of someone who knows how it is used.

 

[Sukerkin]

Whilst that is undoubtedly a valid point, would it not be better, rather than 'packing heat' to have a society where such things do not happen?

I am at a loss to point to exactly where things went wrong but over here in England's Green and Pleasant Land, the rule of law actually worked for a time in the last century. In the big cities, it is true, the criminal gangs still operated and those at the top of them did much as they liked but it was to each other rather than to the population at large.

Now things are starting to feel as if they are falling apart, with hostility and degradation of the values we used to hold at every turn. Why is that? I most assuredly do not want to live in a society where my only choices are the rule of the mob, might-makes-right or tyrannical oppression (secular or religious).

We have more and more laws and more and more coppers, who largely seem to be engaged in harassing motorists and doing paperwork to prove they're doing something constructive. Why then are things worse for the ordinary person?

In part it is because the criminal or would-be criminal classes have learned that there is no meaningful consequence for their actions, certainly not in comparison to what they have cumulatively done to their victims.

However, we used to run things with a much more draconian slant than we do now and there was still crime. It is tempting to introduce the death penalty for many offenses for it certainly prevents an offender from offending again. But is it really a deterent?

Similarly, getting round to the point at long last {}, does an armed citizenry really deter? Or does it just mean that the criminals make sure they are better armed and better prepared than their victims?