The Consolidated White Wing Gun Control Debate

[Betty]

White Wing,

I'm a 25 year old female, 103 pounds and 5' 3-1/2 inches tall. Most everybody is bigger and taller than me, and A LOT stronger. My back isn't very good, so if you pinned me and bent me backwards, I'd snap in two and die. I'm not going to physically tangle with a man much stronger than me. What I lack in strength I compensate with a combination of my mind and hardware.

I've had a handgun permit since I legally could at 21. I've carried every day since and don't intend to stop. My description makes me an "easy target" for any rapist or thief, because as a small female, I'm supposed to be soft and vulnerable and scream and submit to their whim. My handgun gives me the fighting chance to come out alive.

I'm trained, I shoot my handguns well, and I have the proper mindset to carry and use one safely.

Several years ago a man I had recently split relations with called me from a payphone and threatened to "finish things." Since he was calling from a payphone, he could have been right down the street from me! I was safer staying put behind my locked door.

He had been harrassing me for months, and the police couldn't do much "because he hadn't really done anything to me" yet. Police aren't babysitters or personal bodyguards.

I dialed 911 and while I waited for the cops, I had my handgun out and extra magazines loaded. If my ex came through the door to "finish things," I would have been able to STOP him.

It took 20 minutes for the police to arrive.

Had I been unarmed and my ex stormed in within those 20 minutes, I would've been in deep trouble. My handgun is far more efficient than a baseball bat or kitchen knife, because there's no way I'm going to let a crazed man get close enough to me to use a bat or knife.

 

[Chuck Dye]

Runt of the Litter, thank you. I have nothing but track record to go on, but that makes me secure in my thanks.

White Wing, guns in the hands of non-criminals pose a VERY, VERY low threat to me, less, I am sure, than automobiles in the hands of bad drivers, drugs or surgical instruments in the hands of bad doctors, or word processors in the hands of bad legislative assistants. I, in turn, as a gun owner, am a threat only to legitimate targets on the range(frequently), game animals for which I have been licensed to hunt(occasionally), and criminals who present a threat to me or those I choose to protect (very rarely.) There are occasions for which a firearm is the only first aid for a life threatening situation. In those situations, my firearms and the training I have acquired are ever bit as necessary as my Red Cross first aid training or my Heart Association CPR training. What do you know of ME that would justify depriving me of any life saving tool?

 

[hksw]

Welcome aboard White Wing. I'm sorry the first response was less than friendly.

The purpetrator won't carry a gun, since if he's caught with a gun, the penalty will be higher.

Although this would be great, it isn't, IMO, how things work here in the US. The regular US criminal, whether armed or not, has a greater penalty (hazard) going up against an armed law abiding citizen than he does going through the criminal justice system.

Against an armed victim, the criminal risks injury and/or death at the time of the crime at a high relative probability.

If caught committing a violent crime with a weapon were victim(s) are harmed or killed (not premeditated) the likelihood of being sentenced the death penalty is extremely small, low relative probability. Multiple killings and murder (premeditated killing) usually must occur to get a death sentence. In any case, the criminal will have the opportunity to live a much longer life in a cell with three meals a day all pay by the tax payer. If he doesn't get the death penalty, a high probability of eventually being set free.

What kind of laws do they have in Norway concerning the use of weapons in the commission of a crime and what kind of penalties does your justice system serve?

 

[4v50 Gary]

If every man and woman said enough, it would work. But not every man or woman will say enough. Turn to Africa and look at the tribal wars that continue today. The armed tribes kill the unarmed rival tribes. Liberia is perhaps the latest example of the free effusion of blood. In Cambodia the same thing happened by the hands of the Communist Government of Pol Pot. You can't meet a Cambodian who didn't lose a relative. 1 in four Cambodians died under that tyranny.

Even ignoring oppression by the government, the ambition of some political leaders brings war. Saddam Hussein's decision to hit Iran when he thought they were weak. Political ambitions of Napoleon III resulted in war and bloodshed on two continents. 19th Century colonial expansion in Africa & Asia.

Hoping that everyone says enough is too wishful and it will take a Second Coming before mankind can live in harmony. But didn't the Aspotles bicker among themselves? (Help me Preacherman as I'm not well versed in the book. No comic book edition for me as a kid).

 

[litman252]

Gabe,
Those key points are going in the permanent file for why we NEED guns in this world. Thanks for your plain spoken words of wisdom.
Tony

 

[semf]

If he uses his own strength however, his chances are the same, but with less penalty if it goes wrong...

So are you saying that the weaker members of society should have no recourse. Or that an individual against a gang with knives or chains should be grateful that he is only going to be beaten to death.

A few years ago 4'11" 95lb ex wife was assaulted by a 210lb man. If she had not had a gun she would in all probability have been raped and brutally murdered. I say this because he was the subject of a major manhunt about a month later for that same crime. My only regret is that she used the gun to drive him away instead of killing him.

As far as my carrying I'm 41 with bad knees and back. I have no dillusions that I can protect myself from a determined young man in a criminal attack. 40 is the age that you realize that you aren't as tough as you used to be and probably never were as tough as you thought you were.

 

[Zundfolge]

Welcome to THR White Wing

if he carrys a gun, and I carry a gun, he will realize his chances might not be very high, and will therefore not do it,

Sounds like an excellent reason for law abiding folk to carry guns to me.

The purpetrator won't carry a gun, since if he's caught with a gun, the penalty will be higher.

In many parts of the world, murder is punishable by death. That doesn't stop the criminal from murdering.

Why would any criminal ever think "I was going to rob, rape or kill someone but I wouldn't want to go to jail for carrying an illegal weapon, so I think I'll go to college and get a job and make an honest living!"?

If he uses his own strength however, his chances are the same, but with less penalty if it goes wrong.

Wrong. If he uses his own strength, his chances are much less then if he uses a firearm because if he's unarmed then the odds are more even (unless he's picking on old ladies). A criminal will rarely attack someone they feel is equal to their strength, they pick on the weak (either by attacking old ladies, or by making themself "stronger" with a weapon).

 

[litman252]

Gary hit most of the points, It would be great if everyone said enough. If this was possible, all crime would stop as a result, correct??? If crime would stop because we all wanted it to, why do we need to turn in our guns as law abiding citizens??
Tony

 

[Chris Rhines]

If everybody is familiar with guns, have them in their home, and it is a usual means of self defence; what also becomes natural is to carry one for a crime.

I think you might be making a logical leap there, one that cannot be supported. Do you think that a person who carries a gun for self defense goes through the same mental justification as a person who carries a gun to rob or murder others? I know a few people from each category (more of the former than the latter, thankfully) and I can say quite certainly that they do not.

A question to you, just for clarification: Do you believe that an individual does have the right to defend himself if his life is threatened? Why, or why not?

- Chris

 

[Zundfolge]

How to dispose of guns is not an easy thing.

Disposing of guns is also pointless. All that would do is make the physicaly weak among us even easier targets for the strong.

Read this article http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml

Dave Kopel explains why even if you could magicaly make all firearms dissapear (and even revoke the laws of physics that allow for combustion) the world would be no more peacful then it is now (in fact might be worse).

Long ago Colt Firearms' advertising used to say "God made man .... Sam Colt made them equal."

 

[DorGunR]

I for one don't want to turn in my guns.......ever.
I enjoy shooting them too much, be it paper targets, trap, skeet or whatever.........so why should I give up my guns just to make some socialist happy.

 

[White Wing]

Holly - I am greatly moved by that story in my "hello" thread... Seriously; I lived in the u.s where our lives were in danger, and a dud gas grenade was thrown at me. (Talk about humor...) I know very well the temptation of getting a gun... I have been in disputes with a few people; last night I recieved a threatening call... Just a hidden number; no voice or words; just the sound of being crushed and hit... Prolly made by brushing the mic on his leg and banging it against something... The message was clouded in innudendo, but clear...
I have been worried about them for some time... I have been thinking what the he.. to I do about this?! A gun has frequently been on my mind...

(For the record: I can't give an answer to all of you guys... I used to, back on an old forum, to list all arguments against me and answer them in their good order... But I seriously don't want to keep a debate like that... It ruins the post, as it's supposed to be a continuing story... Not random comments to the random comments I shouted...)

(Help me Preacherman as I'm not well versed in the book. No comic book edition for me as a kid).
-I have only mentioned those proven to exist... I'm not preaching, or throwing the bible at you in order to save your mortal soul. Chill, man... There's no radical moves coming from me...

The thing I'm trying to talk about is that maybe there's answers to how one can get rid of guns... Maybe if you think it's impossible, say why... If no one gets to know the reasons on why it will at leat be *difficult*, I won't be able of speaking this issue at all...

 

[Silver Bullet]

if every man and woman says it's enugh, it can be over

Ummm, does this include all of the world's governments ? The main reason for our Second Amendment is to prevent government tyranny, not self-defense against criminals.

 

[El Tejon]

All throughout human history governments have attempted to wipe weapons from the hands of the people--The Bible, Asia, Africa, the Phillipines, Western and Eastern Europe, in the United States. The goal is not to eliminate crime or to make society "safer." The goal is to make the government safer from the people.

 

[OF]

The thing I'm trying to talk about is that maybe there's answers to how one can get rid of guns

You're missing the point. Getting 'rid of guns' would not bring us into some enlightened violence-free utopia, it would be a horrible step backwards into the dark ages. The invention of the firearm was a major step forward in the progress of man towards the ultimate goal of freedom and liberty for all...at least that's how some have put it in the past.

The reality of the sitaution is that: guns keep people alive, guns keep people free, guns protect the weak from the strong and the minority from the majority. Firearms are a good thing. They are not something to be 'gotten rid of', they are to be celebrated. The man-portable firearm is quite possibly the most important invention in history. To 'do away with it' is not only impossible, it is horrible.

- Gabe

 

[White Wing]

Zuntfolge... Just gonna say two things...

What if you're overpowered?
then...
What if you can't reach your gun?

You can lie down and say "I give up", prolly being spared by the criminal (who doesn't neccesarily want a homicide to go on his permanent record)
Or run to get your gun, getting gunned down by the criminal, fearing that you might reach your gun...

A good measure to get rid of them is that after, and only if the people have been inspired to give up the gun, you take away their right to bear them, and give amnesty and free of prosecution if they turn them in during the next month...
-That method has been used in europe, to make the war veterans from the 40's give up the ole guns they have in their attics... It has proven to work very well... But that's only one of the options...

 

[Silver Bullet]

Firearms are a good thing. They are not something to be 'gotten rid of', they are to be celebrated.

Wish I'd said that ! That's thinking outside the box.

 

[DorGunR]

You can lie down and say "I give up", prolly being spared by the criminal (who doesn't neccesarily want a homicide to go on his permanent record)
Or run to get your gun, getting gunned down by the criminal, fearing that you might reach your gun...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I was going to refute this.....but why even try.
I'm outta here.:banghead:

 

[Mark Tyson]

All good points - but you won't stop criminals from getting guns anyway. There's been cases of whole mililtary arms rooms being emptied, of guns confiscated by police never reaching the evidence room . . . Criminals will steal them from the government, smuggle them into the country or make them underground. If the British navy and all the might of the U.K. government can't stop the terrorists in Northern Ireland from getting all the guns (not to mention RPG's, land mines and explosives) that they want, then how are you going to stop people from getting weapons here in the U.S.A. or any other large country, aside from draconian means?

The US is a violent country, always has been. There are cultural and systemic reasons for this. They have nothing to do with gun availability. If enough people in Norway wanted firearms, I think there'd be a thriving black market for them.

And you know what? I don't care if we really don't "need" guns anymore. Trusting your citizens with guns is what a free society should do. I think a man is entitled to own a firearm in the absence of any evidence that he's violently insane or criminally irresponsible. Being disarmed is a demeaning and degrading way to live. It means the government considers you nothing but a potential criminal.

Well I'll take my chances with the criminals. I've seen gunshot wounds - I know what guns can do to people. I'm willing to risk it. A good, free life is full of risk. Drano kills people. Fire kills people. Electricity kills people. I don't avoid any of these things, I take sensible precautions, that's all. If safety is the condition that we should aspire to at the expense of all else then we'd be living in padded cells playing with nerf toys. Safety is not everything. Freedom is part of man's will to live. If freedom is worth fighting for on the battlefield then it's surely worth the risk that comes with it.

 

[OF]

I'm with DorGunR. After White's last post, I get the feeling this is a waste of time.

Some gulf's are just too large to bridge. White: you talk as if people are nothing but sheep in some grand experiment you can do your will on. Trying to create some shapeless blob of a society where you've found the magic formula to appease criminals to the point where only some acceptable number of people are mutilated, violated and killed around the edges.

Not in this country, my friend. Not ever.

You said in your first post here that you were willing to open your mind. You're going to have to open it a whole lot wider than you are.

- Gabe

 

[4v50 Gary]

Overpowered? Yes that's possible and did you know quite a number of police officers are disarmed and killed with their own guns. If criminals have no respect for the lives of our police officers, then why should they respect an ordinary citizen? To them, the penalties is a bit less as there is generally sentence enhancing measures tacked as additional penalties.

Want us to get rid of our guns? Don't forget that there are folks who are clever even or skilled enough to make our own. Just like the resistence movements in Europe when the Nazis overran their country. The Russians were even churing out submachineguns with sheetmetal barrels. They didn't need accuracy for close quarter combat.

I would suggest an upgrade but that won't work for some of us who like collecting older guns. I have some revolvers and a pistol that are a century old. I wouldn't trade them for a NIB gun. Even financial compensation for full market value will be met with resistence. It's neither about money nor safety.

 

[Zundfolge]

What if you're overpowered?
then...
What if you can't reach your gun?

You can lie down and say "I give up", prolly being spared by the criminal (who doesn't neccesarily want a homicide to go on his permanent record)
Or run to get your gun, getting gunned down by the criminal, fearing that you might reach your gun...

There are many accounts of victims who lied down and said "I give up" to the criminals only to be murdered anyway. Most criminals don't care about their "permanent record" or they wouldn't be criminals in the first place.

I have been robbed before and was unarmed at the time. After that experience I decided that I would rather die on my feet then live on my knees.

A good measure to get rid of them is that after, and only if the people have been inspired to give up the gun, you take away their right to bear them, and give amnesty and free of prosecution if they turn them in during the next month...
-That method has been used in europe, to make the war veterans from the 40's give up the ole guns they have in their attics... It has proven to work very well... But that's only one of the options...

You make the assertion that "giving up all the guns" works, but the facts tell a different story.

Everywhere in the world where the law abiding have been stripped of their right to self defense (and stripped of the tools of self defense) criminals have been emboldened and crime (particularly violent crime) has gone up.

England is an excellent example, but France and Germany have also seen crime rates on the rise, whereas areas in the US that have relaxed gun laws have seen crime rates drop (and South Chicago ain't one of those places ... their gun laws look like Europe, and so does their crime rates).

In addition, go read the article I linked above ... an unarmed society is not a safer one.

 

[AR-10]

I agree with DorGunR.

I don't want to give up my guns, and more bluntly put, I will not give them up.

What makes you think you have the best sollution to this imagined problem? You don't want to own guns. Well, you do want to sometimes, but you don't want me to own guns.

Can I own big long sharp knives? Would you prefer I don't own any baseball bats or fireplace utinsels? Are nail files and scissors permitted?

If I have the advantage of suprise, I can likely overpower and bludgion you with no implements whatsoever. The root of your concerns is not firearms, it is violence. Violence will not go away by removing firearms from our culture.

 

[Holly76201]

Two other posters, and I can't remember their names, forgive me, raise valid points here.
1st - throughout history tyranical governments, including current dictatorships, have begun, early in their grab for power, to disarm their citizens. Once a citizen is unarmed, he becomes a slave.
2nd - It is just a heck of a lot of fun to go out and shoot with even a small degree of accuracy. And I know in my case, the better my skills have gotten the more I've enjoyued shooting. It's like any other recreational activity, the better you are, the more fun you have.
But unlike, say bowling or shooting pool, the shooting of firearms has the practical purpose of self defense as well.
And WW, as for your statements about everyone {good guys and bad guys } laying down their weapons... sorry, I just don't think it's gonna happen. I was a Parole Officer for 5 years and saw way too many people go through the revolving door of the criminal justice system to think that any more than about 30% of 1st offenders can be rehabilitated. And as long as there are bad guys or potential goverment tyrants out there I think I'll keep my guns. It just keeps the playing field a little more leveled out.
More later, I'm almost sure,
H.

 

[Art Eatman]

White Wing, in Runt's post is the reason why an old time Texas Ranger had his pistols engraved with, "God created all men equal. Sam Colt made them all the same size." That's why a gun has long been called an "equalizer".

Insofar as an inanimate object somehow leading one to notions of evil intent, implicit in a couple of your comments, please explain why I haven't done evil in some sixty years of ownership of firearms? Nor any of my family? Nor any of numerous other folks I know?

(When people imply that the mere presence of a firearm might somehow induce a person toward an untoward action, my common response is, "Don't judge others by yourself." )

A gun is a tool for acquiring food. It is a tool with which one can compete with oneself or against others at a target range. And it is a weapon for self defense against those who would offer gratuitous violence--whether singly or in a group.

Guns have been used to overthrow governments; they have been used to protect against "governments gone evil".

And there is a good body of statistical research to indicate that uses for defense of one's person outweighs the misuse for criminal purposes by a margin of some 3:1.

Your turn...

, Art