Why Gun is Civilization...

[warriorsfan]

The blog also perpetuates the myth that the gun is the great equalizer, that young and old, healthy and infirm, skilled and unskilled, lightly and heavily armed can all be on a level playing field simply by carrying a gun, period, despite the huge amount of historical precedent to the contrary. With the exception of perhaps Mutually Assured Destruction by nukes (which has worked so far), people have never really tended to shy away from conflict completely simply because the other guy has weapons too. They just try and get more/better weapons, more skilled users, more armed people, or the element of surprise. They rarely just throw in the towel and say "well, that guy's got a gun too, so I guess it's a stalemate."

False.

http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Considered-Dangerous-Firearms-Institutions/dp/0202305430

Researchers Peter Rossi and James Wright did a survey of incarcerated felons in which they were asked questions about their own use of guns as well as their habits in choosing victims:

-Three fifths of the criminals said they would NOT attack a victim that they knew to be armed

-Two fifths responded that they had declined to commit a crime in the past out of fear that the victim may be armed

-Three quarters of the criminals agreed that the primary reason to avoid robbing a house where someone is home is to avoid the possibility of being shot by the homeowner.

Criminals, in general, target victims who they believe will pose the LEAST threat to them.

 

[Surefire]

Until a police officer is assigned to protect each citizen 100% of the time, this notion that responsible citizens must be defenseless sheep is dangerous.

The criminals are armed, and will continue to be so regardless of the laws.

There will never be enough police officers to protect. Also, this notion that police officers are somehow better than everyone else is a dangerous line of thought. There are plenty of corrupt, or incopetent officers out there that shouldn't be carrying guns. There are usually several cases each year of accidental police discharges while cleaning guns. Only an idiot would discharge a firearm while cleaning.

Allowing only elite classes to carry is dangerous.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I don't need a gun, and neither does anyone else.

Who said anything about a need, RJ. This guy probably thinks he needs one for himself.

Well, there you go then.

Carrying a gun today is no more civilized than it was in the Old West. I don't need a gun, and neither does anyone else.

Why wouldn't I need to protect myself? Why should I put a burden on someone else to do it?

Because that's one of the purposes of civilization: To protect its members. That's "Why Gun NOT Civilization."

 

[Captain Intrepid]

Anyone can compare crime rates of various countries. Anyone who does so notices that there is no correlation between those who grant their citizens the right to carry weapons, and those who don't. Anyone who carried a gun here in Canada because they feared criminals would be laughed at, and yet we have much less crime and violence than the US. Switzerland also has a low crime rate and yet they have one of the highest instances of gun ownership.

So in the end, owning a gun doesn't make you safer, not living in a shithole where you fear for your life does.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

The blog also perpetuates the myth that the gun is the great equalizer, that young and old, healthy and infirm, skilled and unskilled, lightly and heavily armed can all be on a level playing field simply by carrying a gun, period, despite the huge amount of historical precedent to the contrary. With the exception of perhaps Mutually Assured Destruction by nukes (which has worked so far), people have never really tended to shy away from conflict completely simply because the other guy has weapons too. They just try and get more/better weapons, more skilled users, more armed people, or the element of surprise. They rarely just throw in the towel and say "well, that guy's got a gun too, so I guess it's a stalemate."

False.

http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Considered-Dangerous-Firearms-Institutions/dp/0202305430

Researchers Peter Rossi and James Wright did a survey of incarcerated felons in which they were asked questions about their own use of guns as well as their habits in choosing victims:

-Three fifths of the criminals said they would NOT attack a victim that they knew to be armed

-Two fifths responded that they had declined to commit a crime in the past out of fear that the victim may be armed

-Three quarters of the criminals agreed that the primary reason to avoid robbing a house where someone is home is to avoid the possibility of being shot by the homeowner.

Criminals, in general, target victims who they believe will pose the LEAST threat to them.

So you mean 40% of criminals would attack you no matter what, even if they knew you were armed?

60% of criminals have never "declined to attack" someone because they thought they were armed?

25% would rob your house even knowing you were armed?

I don't see how your gun is making you any safer from being attacked. There are just oodles of criminals out there salivating at the thought of you reaching into your pants for your rod.

 

[Michael_One]

Regarding police officers: much of their training is in defusing tense and/ or dangerous situations without using thier guns. They are also heavily trained in teamwork: strength in numbers.

The FBI keeps a lot of statistics on firearms; one statistic is about a third of police oficers freeze when confronted by armed criminals when the officer is alone ( this is one reason police are trained to call for backup in these situations ).

Well over half of civilians who try to protect themselves using a gun end up disarmed by the criminal. ( You're not gonna find that one on the NRA website!!)

The 'Wild West' setting is wrong on soooo many counts, for one thing there were only enough guns to arm twenty percent of the population. Most of the firearms in the 1870-1890 period were single round break-open shotguns, not the six shooters the movies would have you believe.

Neat thing about being a researcher is I know how to find out all sorts of cool stuff...

So a guy thinks he's going to be safe if he packs his gun? Puh-leeeze!

I've taken training in defensive handgun techniques. It's quite an experience doing a house clearing exersize in a specially built training set that looks like a house... here I am checking out individual rooms looking for poster size pictures of people, some have guns, others don't, all the while there's a pair of instructors shouting "Look out!! What's wrong with you? SHOOT HIM!!!". On the first run there were seventeen posters; seven were armed and ten were unarmed. I shot all seven armed targets and three of the unarmed ones, I'm told its not unusual for first timers to shoot them all. Yes, you can hear a grown man shouting into your ear even with your earmuffs on while shooting.

The later runs were with the lights out... I rate this in the top ten most stressful things I've done in my life. I've come to understand why family members are frequently shot during 'Dad checks for intruders' episodes... with all that anxiety and adrenaline going you are likely to shoot anyone you encounter.

Why did I take the course? To build self confidence. Then again. the co worker who threatened to assault 'that fat dyke bitch' with a baseball bat might have had something to do with it... he got fired real quick so there was some justice.

If I hear an intruder in the house while I'm asleep I'm not going hunting, I just hunker down and call 911. I had a drunk guy pound on my door at three a.m. once and that's what I did. The police came and took him away, he was so sloshed he misread my address and thought he was at his girlfriend's place. Glad it turned out well.

All that being said, I support the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. I just wish the macho guys would let some reality in.

 

[TheBrew]

I would just like to have one on me for the fun of it all.

And that's exactly the reason you shouldn't be allowed to carry yours. People who are responsible, maybe. But it's not a toy for you to have "fun" with.

Exactly. If anything, people with this attitude should be banned from ever having a gun.

There is one simple reason why I do not own a gun: I respect the amount of responsibility that it should entail and I cannot shoulder that right now. Which is why I am in favor of militia-style training being mandatory before getting a gun license. Fuck, there is more training involved to get a driver's license.

 

[xoEJox]

Because only a licensed, legal organization with authority to do so, can ever be trusted to keep the peace and prevent disorder.

What you would call putting a burden on someone else to protect you, I call taking the burden OFF the common citizenry. None of us should be expected to be continuously armed just so we won't be killed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

It is, of course, up to the individual to decide whether or not they trust the police to protect them. And it is up to the police to decide if they will (or can) do that, as they are not legally obligated to do so.

"When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!"

Also, it should be remembered that there are still plenty of places in the US where guns are a real necessity. There are swaths of rural areas in which humans are not the top of the food chain. There are people even in my tiny social circle that have had to shoot at bears from their rooftops, when the bears show up to go shopping for lunch at their homes. In those places, there is "civilization by gun".

However, I think this particular person is probably carrying for the wrong reasons. People like them give real marksmen a bad image.

 

[msbae]

The blog also perpetuates the myth that the gun is the great equalizer, that young and old, healthy and infirm, skilled and unskilled, lightly and heavily armed can all be on a level playing field simply by carrying a gun, period, despite the huge amount of historical precedent to the contrary. With the exception of perhaps Mutually Assured Destruction by nukes (which has worked so far), people have never really tended to shy away from conflict completely simply because the other guy has weapons too. They just try and get more/better weapons, more skilled users, more armed people, or the element of surprise. They rarely just throw in the towel and say "well, that guy's got a gun too, so I guess it's a stalemate."

^^^Now this is what I call a very good counter-argument.

The MAD theory works pretty well when all sides with the bomb are sane and rational. Unfortunately, there are some people in this world developing nukes right now that aren't so rational. Yes Iran, I'm talking about you.

 

[msbae]

I would just like to have one on me for the fun of it all.

And that's exactly the reason you shouldn't be allowed to carry yours. People who are responsible, maybe. But it's not a toy for you to have "fun" with.

I never said or meant to imply that guns are a toy, unless I'm at the range. Besides, Cops can't be everywhere and I wouldn't trust a New Orleans cop with a baton, let alone firearms. If they aren't incompetent, they're just as bad as the crooks. Living in this city, it makes very good sense to be armed.

Carrying a gun today is no more civilized than it was in the Old West. I don't need a gun, and neither does anyone else.

Why wouldn't I need to protect myself? Why should I put a burden on someone else to do it?

Because only a licensed, legal organization with authority to do so, can ever be trusted to keep the peace and prevent disorder.

What you would call putting a burden on someone else to protect you, I call taking the burden OFF the common citizenry. None of us should be expected to be continuously armed just so we won't be killed.

Only a licensed, legal organization with authority to do so, can ever be trusted to keep the peace and prevent disorder? You obviously don't read history books, do you?

Protecting myself is not a burden, it's my duty as a Human Being and a Citizen.

Also, I think it's worth noting that some of the founders of our civilization vehemently disagreed with the Left-wing position on the Firearms debate...

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teen-aged nephew.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest."
- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment

And the best one of all, even if it's not from a politician...

"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater."

- Peter Venetoklis

Source: http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/quotes.html

 

[Gertch]

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teen-aged nephew.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest."
- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment

And the best one of all, even if it's not from a politician...

"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater."

- Peter Venetoklis

Source: http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/quotes.html

As the old saying goes, "If the Arabs had no guns, there would be no war; if Israel had no guns, there would be no Israel."

 

[FrontLine]

Carrying a gun today is no more civilized than it was in the Old West. I don't need a gun, and neither does anyone else.

Why wouldn't I need to protect myself? Why should I put a burden on someone else to do it?

Because some dont want the responsibility.


I own and I carry. Some would say that they make it through their daily routines just fine. I can counter that it is by coincidence that they do and the person that carries does so by design.

Another reason, why have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen? How many folks have actually used them? Not a whole hell of a lot but isnt it nice knowing that it is there for you if you need it?

Carrying a gun today is no more civilized than it was in the Old West. I don't need a gun, and neither does anyone else.

Why wouldn't I need to protect myself? Why should I put a burden on someone else to do it?

Because only a licensed, legal organization with authority to do so, can ever be trusted to keep the peace and prevent disorder.

Curiously enough many people, the US Supreme Court, and even law enforcement agencies disagree and state that you not only have a right, but a duty to provide your own protection. But the great thing is that no one is forced to carry. But they have the responsibility to defend themselves as best they can

Carrying a gun today is no more civilized than it was in the Old West. I don't need a gun, and neither does anyone else.

Why wouldn't I need to protect myself? Why should I put a burden on someone else to do it?

Because that's one of the purposes of civilization: To protect its members. That's "Why Gun NOT Civilization."

So you love restricting the freedom of others? What other restrictions would you place upon someone who is doing no one any harm? When did you become the arbiter of rights? Oh and please cite (philosophers, courts, stand up comedians) who say that is the purpose of civilization and how widely they are accepted?

Anyone can compare crime rates of various countries. Anyone who does so notices that there is no correlation between those who grant their citizens the right to carry weapons, and those who don't. Anyone who carried a gun here in Canada because they feared criminals would be laughed at, and yet we have much less crime and violence than the US. Switzerland also has a low crime rate and yet they have one of the highest instances of gun ownership.

So in the end, owning a gun doesn't make you safer, not living in a shithole where you fear for your life does.

Comparing Canada to the US to Switzerland is comparing Apples to Oranges to self sealing stem bolts. The better comparison is the rate of crime between similar US municipalities and look at the rate of crime in cities that have low barriers to ownership and posession of firearms and those that have high barriers.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

False.

http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Considered-Dangerous-Firearms-Institutions/dp/0202305430

Researchers Peter Rossi and James Wright did a survey of incarcerated felons in which they were asked questions about their own use of guns as well as their habits in choosing victims:

-Three fifths of the criminals said they would NOT attack a victim that they knew to be armed

-Two fifths responded that they had declined to commit a crime in the past out of fear that the victim may be armed

-Three quarters of the criminals agreed that the primary reason to avoid robbing a house where someone is home is to avoid the possibility of being shot by the homeowner.

Criminals, in general, target victims who they believe will pose the LEAST threat to them.

And yet, as Lax Scrutiny pointed out, according to your own statistics plenty of criminals would still proceed with committing the crime regardless of the known or suspected presence of weapons.

I'm not making a plea to ban guns by the way, I was just opposed to the premise of the article which seemed to imply that the very presence of a gun is the ultimate deterrent and equalizer for people of all skill levels and backgrounds. It certainly can be a deterrent in some cases, but just because an old woman is carrying a weapon doesn't mean every person determined to do her harm is going to be intimidated by it or thinks they can't overpower her before she pulls her weapon.

History clearly shows that the mere presence of weapons in the hands of the enemy is not a foolproof deterrent to violence. It may deter some, but not everyone, which was my point. You shouldn't feel completely safe just because you are armed.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Also, this notion that police officers are somehow better than everyone else is a dangerous line of thought.

They've got training. They've got organization, a chain of command to follow. They've also got responsibility and accountability. They have order. That's all the proof I need.

There are plenty of corrupt, or incopetent officers out there that shouldn't be carrying guns.

There are also plenty of citizens who shouldn't be carrying guns either.

There are usually several cases each year of accidental police discharges while cleaning guns.

And the police are the only ones who've ever done that?

Think of it this way. An example, if you will. You are driving your car and there is an accident - somebody hits you (or you hit someone else). Would you feel any more at ease if the person behind the wheel of the other car had a gun and thought this would be a great time to use you as target practice? Or you go to your local bar and there's some asshole who's had one too many and is looking to start some shit. Don't tell me you want them to be armed too?

Don't even try to tell me that I don't know what gun violence is like. I've fucking well seen it right here. Ah, but you ask, what if everybody else in that store was also armed? Probably they would have found out what the ending to a Sam Peckinpah movie is like.

 

[FrontLine]

Also, this notion that police officers are somehow better than everyone else is a dangerous line of thought.

They've got training. They've got organization, a chain of command to follow. They've also got responsibility and accountability. They have order. That's all the proof I need.

Factually incorrect. The training is mediocre at best. Most officers dread going to the range for their annual or semi-annual qualifications and shoot the minimum number of rounds needed. Private citizens are more likely to pursue additional training than a Law enforcement officer is. Oh and they have order? So that explains the Rodney King situations of the world?

There are plenty of corrupt, or incopetent officers out there that shouldn't be carrying guns.

There are also plenty of citizens who shouldn't be carrying guns either.

and indeed many of those who shouldnt be carrying (the mentally ill, criminals) are indeed not. But there are those who illegally get their firearms. Yep, illegally. They have broken the law to get their firearms. So what is the law abiding citizenery supposed to do. Nothing? Or are you willing to put a LEO at every street corner and in everyones home to gurantee their protection?

There are usually several cases each year of accidental police discharges while cleaning guns.

And the police are the only ones who've ever done that?

Is the laughter supposed to broadcast ignorance. All he did was refute your assertation that LEOs are some how better suited to carry. All you can do is laugh?

Think of it this way. An example, if you will. You are driving your car and there is an accident - somebody hits you (or you hit someone else). Would you feel any more at ease if the person behind the wheel of the other car had a gun and thought this would be a great time to use you as target practice? Or you go to your local bar and there's some asshole who's had one too many and is looking to start some shit. Don't tell me you want them to be armed too?

Absolutely non-sequitor scenarios. First of all, it doesnt matter what the other guy has. It matters what you can do to protect your self. So if you are being set up for a carjacking (your first scenario) then yes, Id want to be armed. For the second scenario, of all that states that allow either concealed or open carry, I cant think of one that allows you, by law, to carry in a bar.

Don't even try to tell me that I don't know what gun violence is like. I've fucking well seen it right here. Ah, but you ask, what if everybody else in that store was also armed? Probably they would have found out what the ending to a Sam Peckinpah movie is like.

Wrong. If there were armed individuals in that store the chances are very high that the gun man could have been stopped or people could have protected themselves. Tell me again, how effective so called 'gun free zones' are? Thats right, ZERO. All they do is ensure that the law abiding people are unarmed.

 

[Surefire]

There are also plenty of citizens who shouldn't be carrying guns either.

Agree.

I don't think most pro-carry proponents would say every citizen should be armed. Rather, those that want to take on the responsibility and pass the CCW requirements should be allowed to.

The point of disagreement is whether responsible citizens that pass training and testing (as CCW licenses require) should have the option to be armed.

Some want to FORCE everyone to be like them, unarmed and depending on OTHERS to protect them. Not everyone wants to be a defenseless lamb. I'm all for calling the police for help, but it takes MINUTES for a response -- until the police arrive a trained and licensed CCW holder should have the means to defend themselves.

When the police can protect every citizen 24 hours of the day (1 cop per citizen), there will be no need for carry.

Think of it this way. An example, if you will. You are driving your car and there is an accident - somebody hits you (or you hit someone else). Would you feel any more at ease if the person behind the wheel of the other car had a gun and thought this would be a great time to use you as target practice? Or you go to your local bar and there's some asshole who's had one too many and is looking to start some shit. Don't tell me you want them to be armed too?

The nutjobs/criminals are going to carry anyway, regardless of the law. Restricting carry to criminals and police only is not going to deter road rage incidents with guns. I'd rather take my chances of both being armed (criminal AND law abiding CCW holder), than be shot down in cold blood with no means of protection.

Regarding bars, there is absolutely no excuse to carry or use a gun while drinking. I WOULD restrict legit CCW users from carrying in a bar.

 

[warriorsfan]

I don't see how your gun is making you any safer from being attacked. There are just oodles of criminals out there salivating at the thought of you reaching into your pants for your rod.

Yeah, I'm sure there are. You are clearly an expert on criminology, and your knowledge of the criminal mind is unsurpassed. We should craft our laws based on your assumptions of what criminals think. Obviously criminals are just salivating at the chance to get into a gun battle that they might very well lose, that's just makes plenty of sense.

How does a gun make you safer from attack? It gives you a means of self-defense, that's how. And there are tens of thousands of instances every year in which citizens use firearms to legally defend themselves.

I can recall one incident where I live where a pizza delivery guy was attacked by two armed robbers. He had a permit to carry a gun, and he was able to defend himself and kill one of his attackers. Had he been unarmed, he quite likely would have been killed, as one of his attackers had been repeatedly beating him in the head with a lead pipe. I know it upsets you greatly that the pizza delivery man had a gun, and I know you would much rather that he have been murdered rather than have the means to defend himself.

 

[msbae]

So far, Frontline and Surefire are making the best Pro-Gun arguments. The Anti-Gun arguments have been fairly weak.

Trusting any form of the Government to protect me is like asking a hungry lion to protect me from a hungry wolf. The only thing that would happen differently is that I get eaten by a lion instead of a wolf.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Re: Why Gun is Chaos...

Restricting carry to criminals and police only is not going to deter road rage incidents with guns.

The fewer people who have guns, the less likely it will be that road rage - or indeed any rage - would escalate into gunplay.

For instance, it would decrease the likelihood that my batshit-insane next door neighbor, who is firmly convinced that anytime I do any sort of work on my house or yard it somehow causes damage to his property, might just decide to get a gun and shoot ME because of this. So I freely admit that self-preservation also colors my attitude on this issue. Fine. I get that.

Since I personally have never even held a gun, let alone shot one, I obviously wouldn't last two seconds in a gun battle anyway. So I suppose my death would be one of the added little perks in the kind of society you would advocate that we build. You will forgive me if I don't want to give you that advantage.

 

[Amaris]

So far, Frontline and Surefire are making the best Pro-Gun arguments. The Anti-Gun arguments have been fairly weak.

Trusting any form of the Government to protect me is like asking a hungry lion to protect me from a hungry wolf. The only thing that would happen differently is that I get eaten by a lion instead of a wolf.

I guess I'm stuck in the middle then. I don't own a gun, and I think the author of that article is deluded into thinking that because he's got a gun he's safe. No one is ever safe. A gun can improve one's chances if one is well trained. However, this particular person seems to think he's a cowboy on the open prairie, and that's a dangerous idea to hold.

That being said, I'm very pro-gun, and am staunchly in favor of gun rights.

J.