The Consolidated White Wing Gun Control Debate

[4v50 Gary]

BTW, shooting sports doesn't preclude wheelchair bound people. Can't ask them to play touch-football or shoot a few hoops (our basketball) or play with the frisbee at the beach but darn if they can't drill out targets like the rest of us. Will you deny these people their sport?

 

[White Wing]

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

I read up the thread that the main reason for guns, is to give aids for the people to make a revolution. I am gratly enticed by that. It is prolly a grand thing for a government to do. Give the people the power to say enugh is enugh... Sadly, such things seem to maifest themselves in oklohoma and the two towers. (Not 9/11... the basement attempt)
It's done with bombs... And with bombs because people don't mass together on that subject... If it went serious enugh, with guns as the means, it would result in more or less a civil war.
Have a look at venezuela... The Hugo Chavez crisis didn't lead to full out war on the government military... Students did protests and workers striked... Noone wants the bloodshed of an open revolution. In venezuela, gun control is less than in the U.S... My friend Fernando allready has three... A shotgun, a rifle and a crossbow... He is 19 years old, and participated in civil disobediance protests...
People want to be safe and live. There's not enugh courage and selflessness for an armed revolt...
With strikes and civil disobedience there's less chance of being killed... It's more peaceful, more effective, less dangerous...

(Effectiveness does not only apply to the fire rate of a gun... It also has to include how many humans lives were lost, and what the country looks like immediatly afterwards... Clean the streets of blood and human bodyparts, or restart production of the countries factories and mines...)

Btw... What do you guys think you can do about the surperior U.S military... For god's sake... Kevlar and preciseon bombs...

 

[Silver Bullet]

There's not enugh courage and selflessness for an armed revolt

Speak for yourself. We did just that 225 years ago.

 

[El Tejon]

Less chance of being killed!?!? Tell that to the Poles, the Russians, the Chinese, et al. Protests only works if the government decides to allow.

 

[jsalcedo]

What if you're overpowered?

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)

Maybe criminals in Europe have some honor and are less violent than in the US.

Our criminals prey on the weak there is no sense of fairness. I'm not willing to take a chance on the good will of a mugger.

There is always a possibility my gun being taken away and used against me. However there is also a chance of a car wreck everytime I drive somewhere but that thought doesn't keep me imprisoned at home.

Since I always have my young son with me 24/7 running away from a violent criminal is not an option anymore. I cannot take a chance that
a mugger or carjacker will not kill us if I submit and hope that he can control his violent impulses.

My gun is an insurance policy. I pray I never need to use it but it is still there in case I do.

There are also hate crimes all over the world where immigrants, gays,
racial minorities are targeted by skinhead gangs.

A potential outnumbered victim can even the odds by producing a sidearm
to dissuade the gang from taking a chance of being killed by their
victim.

 

[Moparmike]

I hate to tell you this WW, but attitudes like that are what Darwin wrote about...

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...

This quote makes my head hurt. It fills me with rage and complete confusion that not words nor even grunts and shouts can properly express. Therefore, I will not even attempt to argue against it, as it would be an effort blatantly flying in the face of futility.

I have to ask: "You dont like living very much, do you?"

[WTH, begin futility]

I really dont mean to offend, but I am restraining myself here. I just cant understand the...the...the naivety contained within that quote. If you're standing in the path of an oncoming freight train, do you put your hands up and say "I give up?" Of course not. A criminal is an oncoming freight train if you dont defend yourself. He/she will run you flat over and take what he/she wants if you dont step out of the way ("IE: run", but that isnt always an option) or derail him with a tool (guns are the best choice). Words against a criminal are as useful as they are against that train. Criminals care about their "rap sheet" as much as the penny you just put on the track in front of the oncoming train. Dont let anyone ever tell you different.

[/futility]

And just for the record: The RKBA is not something that ANYONE should be denied, with the exception of violent criminals and the mentally ill. Children should have supervision. "Aim small, miss small..."

 

[4v50 Gary]

It's certainly a far cry from 1775 when the farmers took up arms and chased the Royal Army back to Boston. An armed citizenry of today in America could not stand up in a conventional battle against our own armed forces. Heck, Saddam's couldn't and they had artillery, planes, tanks, rockets and mines. Today the armed citizenry can only constitute a guerilla force or a force in being. I'll grant you those concessions White Wing.

Does it make our possession any less legitimate though. Not at all. A house divided cannot stand and a government that wages war on its own citizenry is a government that has lost its legitimacy. I think we Americans will prefer to die than be enslaved.

 

[White Wing]

Holly; I dig shooting guns... It's a liberating experience as a matter of fact...

I like a rifle, and shooting practice... There's tons of guns in norway. Not many handguns though; rifles for the hunters; some handguns, for the minority of the handgun enthusiasts... Hearing the bang and getting the recoil is nasty-stupid-fun... Conscription in norway takes in all men over 18... 70% of us has fired military issue rifles and machine guns...

But, fireing a gun; I do it in painball, lazer games, air and gas guns... I'm not that overwhelmed myself by the recoil and bang...

 

[OF]

People want to be safe and live.

Wrong. Sheep want to be safe and live. People want to be free.

It is prolly a grand thing for a government to do. Give the people the power to say enugh is enugh

This is the fundamental disconnect here. At the end of the day, this is about the relationship between a citizen and the government. You look at this relationship as being: the gov't grants the citizens what they 'need' or what it (gov't) deems appropriate for them. We, Americans, look at gov't as the servant of the people. The gov't is only allowed those powers that we, the people, grant it as necessary.

And there are some things that no government can have authority over, no matter how many people think it's a good idea. Our Constitution limits the authority of gov't. It does not grant the gov't the power to disarm the people. Our Constitution limits the power of gov't so that the the majority cannot use the authority of gov't to persecute the minority (or the individual).

This is very important: Gov't gets it's power from the consent of the governed. Gov't governs at the leave of the people. Guns are the tools we use to keep that relationship in it's proper orientation. We are the masters, gov't is the servant. Power flows in one direction: from us to it and only as much as we allow.

It's that simple.

- Gabe

 

[OF]

It's a liberating experience as a matter of fact...

Now there's a feeling you would do well to get in better touch with. That feeling of 'liberation' is far more important than I think you realize.

- Gabe

 

[Moparmike]

Dang, Gabe beat me to it.

It's a liberating experience as a matter of fact...

Exactly. One of the primary purposes of firearms is "Liberation from oppression."


"Oppression: Serving dictatorial power-hungry despotic regimes since 10,000 B.C.E."

 

[New_comer]

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

A couple of weeks ago, Sweden's foreign minister, Anna Lindh, died when she was stabbed while shopping downtown. The BBC reports: "She lay on the floor and it looked as if a tall man, wearing a peaked cap, was hitting her," eyewitness Hanna Sundberg said. "But when he ran away, he threw away a knife."

Nothing went wrong as far as his plans were concerned. He had strength, a common tool, and opportunity to murder. Add to that the lack of alertness of the victim, then you'll have the perfect recipe for "predatory" criminals to prevail, always.

I'd rather be polite to my neighbors, but cautious as to their intentions. That's a whole different way of thinking compared to what you may be subscribing to at the moment.

Accept the fact that a utopian society is not hard to achieve, it's impossible to achieve.

If everybody is familiar with ******, 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.

Now, insert your favorite tool, gadget, or machinery. It would be as true no matter what you put in there, agree?

 

[Johnny Guest]

Hello, White Wing - - -

Another welcome to THR, and I hope you get even more from your sojourn here than you expected.

With all respect to the tongue-in-cheek references to you being a troll - - I feel a TROLL is someone who approaches a topic for the PURPOSE of causing argument and ill feeling. WW, you were right up front with your desire to discuss and debate this issue, and you certainly haven't directed any personal attacks at any other member. This makes you welcome in my book. I may not care for your particular opinions, but I'll certainly try to address the IDEAS and CONCEPTS, and not your character.

I think you touched upon the idea that the unarmed aggressive criminal still has a similar chance of success against an equally unarmed victim. Without regard to the legal aspects of degree of punishment for committing unarmed crime as opposed to armed depredation, why should the stronger criminal be allowed to prevail over the weaker members of society?

If there is no "leveling mechanism," we are into the arena of "might makes right" - - Not the "right" of correctness, but in the sense of having the right to brutalize any person of lesser stature or strength.

It is certainly "A Good Thing" for human beings to maintain a good level of physical fitness. It is also desirable to become skilled in the arts of unarmed combat. I know some individuals who are quite capable of overpowering and/or outmaneuvering any unarmed assailant in single combat. Perhaps one or two could be victorious over multiple attackers. What of those of us who do not choose to devote several hours per week to such training? What of those who are either elderly or suffer from old injuries or medical disabilities? Are we to be deprived of a means of self defense?

I go about my lawful occasions, harming none. Even at my prime, it never occurred to me to victimize the innocent. But I have passed my 60th birthday and have certain physical disabilities which prevent my being able to run more than a few strides. I was never skilled in the martial arts. I will not be victimized simply because some thug is stronger, more fit, and mere greedy than I. I carry a handgun whenever and wherever it is legal. I believe it is shameful for a free man to submit meekly to victimization. I have the right of free movement and legal activity. If I perish in the exercise of my right, so be it. I might set a good example for other free citizens, and, if God smiles, I may well take some felon to the other side with me.

In a lighter vein - - In your travels around THR, you may see references to "White wing season,' and "shooting white wings." No ill will toward you - - The white wing dove is a tasty and challenging game bird in the southwestern USA.

Very best regards - -
Johnny

 

[StLGlocker]

I would love to live in a world where weapons of defense need not exist.

We said goodbye to that world the first time one human saw fit to kill another.

Using the biblical story for a convenient point of reference, why did Cain brain Abel with a rock?

I honestly don't remember. It may have stemmed from jealousy, envy. I wonder, though, if the particular reason is at all important. What's important is that it happened, and it continues to happen, every day that people walk this earth. People do all sorts of horrible things to each other, for all kinds of reasons. You will never, ever see true peace, not while one person covets something another person has - possessions, money, love, and especially power.

We are no different from the animals in that we seek to establish hierarchies. When more than a few people come together, someone rises to the top, by force or popularity, and this leader establishes rule. When rules exist, people break them, and conflict is the inevitable result.

The weapons of conflict really are not relevant. "If every man and woman says enough, it will be over" - sorry, hasn't happened for thousands of years and isn't likely to. Humans have murdered, raped, and robbed each other for quite some time, certainly longer than gunpowder has been around. Guns aren't the problem, human nature is.

You write about the "temptation to get a gun" as if it were an evil thing. It's not. It's only an object designed to propel a projectile at high speed. In the hands of good people, it's a tool for defending life.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Today the armed citizenry can only constitute a guerilla force or a force in being.

That's a lot. If only 10 per cent of the 80 million gun owners in this country take a stand, that's a lotta snipers to deal with. And it is doubtful if the military will side with the government against the people.

 

[Kaylee]

um.... back up. You seem to be saying that everyone giving up their weapons is a good thing. Aside from the fact that the entire history of the twentieth century makes mincemeat of your argument (to say nothing of a whole lot of innocent people).... why?

What do you hope to gain by magically wishing all weapons away?

You're concentrating on a means, not an end.
Name your end, and you may well be able to reach common ground here.

Concentrate only on the means, and you'll achieve nothing.



Think
Deeper.



-K

 

[White Wing]

Don't give me the pointlessness treatment... Please...

This is not pointless... Three things so far have I seen a value in:
The people itself as a militia is a great edge in an incoming attack... This is actually very true... Norway has a militia; every man above 18... You're required to have a year of military training, in order to having the ability to fight for our country if we are attacked... The U.S might not have that much to spend on a militia... Too much money go into the science of warfare, and technology to carry it out... A civil militia is a strong defence mechanism, and there's value in that...

Another thing is that it does give power to the people in case of a tyrant government... I just do not agree to the method...

Just don't hang around the scenarios I wrote... There are many scenarios, and a specialized, detail scenario really can't be used as an argument... I only wanted to point out how little purpose the gun sometimes can have...

-Just my reply on what points have cornered me... The pointlessness treatment just isn't any fun...

 

[toro]

The United States of America is a Great Country. Why? Because as long as you believe in the Word of God, you are loyal to the kingdom of God. You represent a government withnin a government and you are a hindrance to the New World Order. Why in heavens name would we want to get rid of our guns and be like other countries? We live in the greatest country in the world. Our love of God has given us wonderful living conditions and a lovely country. If we turn our back on God we would be taken over by countries who don't believe as we do. We would turn into a third world country without God's wounderful gift of love. I believe the only thing that keeps us so properous is our belief in the one true God.

In his 1932 election bid, Adolf Hitler told the people of Germany, "If you will elect me as the Fuhrer of this nation, I will introduce a New World Order that will last a thousand years." Well, he gave them grief and death. He took their guns away and made the average man helpless. We don't want this kind of life.

Understand that 85 percent of the membership of the United Nations consists of third-world representatives who hate America. Around the world we are called "The Great Satan." The taxpayers in America pay 90 percent of the annual budget of the United Nations. The rest of the world pays 10 percent. Are we willing to see the United Nations vote to redistribute the wealth of America to third-world nations? We also don't want United Nations troops on our streets. Let us not be deceived into giving up our guns.

Mrs. Toro


_______________________________________________
Revelation 12 :7-9
And there was a war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not: neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpant, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

 

[semf]

Today the armed citizenry can only constitute a guerilla force or a force in being.

Wasn't it a guerilla force that changed the political course of Cuba, The Afghan guerillas did OK against the Russians. In countless coutries guerillas have fought effectivly against their goverments to achieve their desired lifestyle, some for good some for bad.

 

[White Wing]

Did you guys see Chris Rock's show from 1999? He talked about something else...
"We don't need guncontrol! What we need is bullet control! I think that every bullet should cost five thousand dollars... If they cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders!"
he pauses...
"Because if every bullet cost five thousand dollars, you wouldn't waste it on anyone! 'They put 50 000 dollars up his ***!! He has got to have done something!!"

He's joking on the subject of course, but there's something to gain from it...

"Don't mess with me, man!! I'm gonna get me some money! I'm gonna get me another job, and I'm gonna blow you away! You better hope I can't get them on leasing!!"

You have more or less convinced me that ridding the U.S of weapons is damned impossible... I am norwegian, and so I might be naive on the subject...

But what do you suppose can be done? What Rock points out is that the only means of getting the murder rates down, is by making it harder to kill... You say by keeping guns; I say by casting them aside...

What is the third choice then? Bulletcontrol, or spomething else?

 

[Mark Tyson]

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'm sorry, but no. Guns do not whisper to their owners to commit crimes. It does not follow that because you keep a gun in your home you are tempted to go out and shoot or threaten someone with one.

 

[Moparmike]

No offense intended WW, just enlightenment...

Mrs.Toro, I respect your beliefs, but a belief in God does not a great country make. I am an Agnostic, and I am pretty prosperous for a college student at the moment. It might be best if we address the topic of "unecessary gun ownership" and left religion out of it. JMHO.

However, your opining about the UN is right on the mark. The UN is the "Great Satan", not us. Sad to say we are funding "GS", but that is life. (sigh)

**********************************************************************************

Another thing is that it does give power to the people in case of a tyrant government... I just do not agree to the method...

Ok, what method would you approve of that can resist oppression by the Government-Mandated Jack Booted Thugs? Making a campfire, joining hands, chanting protest slogans, and singing "Kumbya" and "We are the world" certainly wont do anything against those JBT's.

What is the third choice then? Bulletcontrol, or spomething else?

[In my best David Letterman]Choice Number Three: Ensuring that everyone who volunteers for knowledge of firearms will have it. Ensuring that firearms and ammunition is easily available.[/letterman]

An armed society is a polite society. (Armed thugs do not a polite society make.)

 

[Kaylee]

Don't give me the pointlessness treatment... Please...

No offense intended, but what, specifically, are you referring to as "the pointlessness treatment?"

That it is pointless to debate the topic?
Or that removing firearms from society is pointless?
Or something else?

I only wanted to point out how little purpose the gun sometimes can have...

Well that's true. There are a very few cases where having a weapon is a liability (say, being suicidal or something), there are a very few cases where having a weapon is an absolute necessity (Mr. BadGuy is hanging out over your bed at 2AM with a butcher knife from your kitchen), and there are many many many cases where the presence of a weapon is absolutely moot (taking out the trash, walking the dog, picking up the pieces from a car wreck, whatever).

The fact that a gun is not useful in all circumstances -- or even in all conflicts -- does not make a valid argument for its proscription.

But again... what are your trying to accomplish? Work from there.
Here's a start --

"I wish to help create a society free from violence, free from fear, and free from random brutality."

about right?

-K


edit to add -- "bullet control" is a silly semantic back door into the same proposition. You're making the same proposal, but in slightly different language. Disarming a people is disarming a people -- it makes no difference whether you're talking assault rifles, ammunition, or broadswords. To pretend otherwise is childish.

Again, you are looking at means, not ends.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Bullet control won't work. We can swage or cast our own. My brother has even recycled primers to see if he could do it and he has.

Oh, on guerilla forces & Castro. OK, Fidel did it. But could he have against carpet bombing, defoilation and chemical/biological warfare? Could he have if Batista did as the British did in the Boer War - round up all combatants and herd them into concentration camps; thereby denying them the support of sympathetic civilians? We overran Iraq but we've got the guerillas to contend with. They can't beat us, but they can try our patience.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Even if we couldn't do it, a lot of Americans would prefer to go down fighting than to meekly submit to an oppressor.

The Europeans can afford to submit: the U.S. is there to bail them out.

Who's going to bail us out ?