Jump to content

Liberals with Guns


loveliberate
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Some interesting articles regarding this topic:

Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies

National Academy of Sciences, Justice Dept. reports find no benefits to restricting ownership of firearms (note: The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control.)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42167

http://www.universalway.org/guncontrol.html

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey there,

 

People who do not respect others do have guns, even when it is illegal for them to do so, and even when they dont they still find ways to hurt other people.

 

Where I live (in the netherlands) guns are illegal and pretty hard to come by. As a result the random street thugs do not carry guns. Of course every serious criminal owns one so we do have a few drug related executions evry once in a while, but if you're not involved in crime than it's very unlikely that you ever have to face someone with a gun.

 

Many of the most violent and dangerous places on the planet have the strictest victim disarmament (aka "gun control") laws....

 

Can you give me some examples? I always thought that gunownership was directly related to the number of murders.

 

But I value my own safety and freedom, as well as that of those I care about too much to deprive myself of any defensive tool or to passively submit when attacked. "Martial arts" are great and I study unarmed defense techniques - but these just dont always work.

 

Of course I feel the same way, but if you really want to own a defensive weapon why not use mace or a taser? (i assume that's legal where you live)

 

Sacco

 

 

Just for the record, I do not mean to flame you or say your opinion sucks, I just disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out.

 

Poor Will... It must be really hard for you to deal with these violent religous urges you have. Don't worry though amigo, I'm here for you any time you need to talk! Please also look into getting counseling for this problem.

 

Uh, I'm hoping you're joking around. If not I apoligize if I offended you in any way

 

You haven't offended me Will. My response to your last post was both sarcastic and serious. Your comment was out of context for this conversation, so I treated it as it stood and as if you meant it seriously.

 

It was a joke big guy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the safest places around are also amoung the most heavily armed.

 

Your claim would hold more weight if you could provide some evidence to back it up.

 

The United States leads the world in handgun ownership, with 29% of all households owning a handgun. The United States also has the highest per capita murder rate of the world's developed nations, at 5.5 per 100,000 population in 2004. 70% of these murders were committed with a firearm. 86% of murders committed with a firearm were committed with a handgun, again the highest rate of the world's developed nations.

 

Switzerland has the second highest rate of handgun ownership in the world behind the United States, with 14% of households owning a handgun. It also has the second highest rate of handgun murders among the world's developed nations behind the United States, with 1.4 handgun murders per 100,000 population.

 

The most "heavily armed" countries in the world also have the highest rates of handgun murder. The correlation between increased handgun ownership and increased handgun violence is quite clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm switzerland proves that high gun ownership does not increase murder rates.

 

Did you actually read the link that you posted? Doesn't look like it Thanks though, it underscores my point exactly.

 

There's one critical word from the website that you omitted:

 

Myth: Switzerland proves that high gun-ownership doesn't increase murder.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loveliberate - you are a man on a mission

 

Seriously though, just look at the stats. America has the highest rate of gun ownership and murders. You are more likely to shoot a family member than an attacker. Let's look at more 'civilised' societies ( ) where gun ownership is far harder to come by. Using the UK as an example there are about 1.3 murders per 100,000 people as opposed to 5.5 in the US. We have tight controls on guns, and no handguns are allowed, I think even in clubs.

 

And your terminology really grates - 'victim disarmament'?

 

Jonathan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My whole life. I have practiced shooting targets with them. I've never practiced shooting people and the last time I shot anything carbon based I was 12. When my kids got older I gave the guns to a neighbor who put them in a gun safe with his guns. I might get them someday, I might leave them.

 

Jon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read that vermont has very loose gun laws yet has a fairly low murder rate. Perhaps there are some cities in the US that skew the statistic of gun ownership to murder.

 

I know what you mean. If you live on a ranch in Montana miles away from anyone, then a gun could definitely help protect you or your family. If you're carrying a gun in NYC though that's a completely different situation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A socialist/communist revolution would stop millions and millions of premature deaths every year and unquantifiable misery while making guns illegal would save the lives of only some thousands per year. Considering that to some extent the two goals are actually at odds, all leftists (as in anyone who desires to see the end of the capitalist system) should be pro-gun. The two goals are at odds because throughout history, whenever there is any danger that leftists might have some real success, capitalist governments resort to force to stop them. With leftists being strongly pro-gun, the capitalists will at least be hampered to some degree in their ability to resort to force.

 

Most people are blissfully unaware of this history of repression so I’ll mention some of it briefly. For example back around 1920 socialism had far greater popularity in the US then it does today. This primarily because the capitalists didn’t have quite such a monopoly on information back then as they do now. Back then there was no TV and few cars. As a result people actually got out and talked to one another, went to meetings and heard speeches/debates by people who didn’t have millions of dollars behind them. Today except for the few people using the internet, virtually no one in the US has access to any pro-socialist information. And those few on the internet are scattered far apart with no organization on the local level. So way back then when things were different a very scary thing happened for the capitalists: Russia overthrew its dictatorship and became socialist. The vast majority of socialists around the world supported this while the US government refused to even recognize the Russian government as legitimate from 1917 to 1933. They furthermore refused to give aid to help it fight Germany during WWI. They hated communism so much they preferred to see Germany, whom they were in the middle of a war against, overtake Russia. And of course the US helped fund anyone who wanted to destroy them, because of course the capitalist US has always been completely hypocritical in their support of democracy and justice. This is well understood by those who have actually done the necessary reading.

 

So during this time that the capitalists were really scared that socialism might take hold in the US they did what they always do: they resorted to force. In this case they started throwing all the socialists in jail. Eugene Debs who had previously run for president numerous times and received over a million votes was thrown in jail. In just one night in 1920, 4,000 leftists were thrown in jail. Far more lost their jobs. For example Scott Nearing, a man most famous for his counterculture book in the 60’s, Living the Good Life, was out “living the good life” isolated from human society because he was blacklisted from his career as an economics professor back at this time for having written pro-socialists material, giving speeches, etc.

 

Whenever the socialists seem to be an actual threat to the status quo the capitalists have resorted to force throughout history. This is not just America, this is across the entire world. For example the US government has given billions of dollars to right wing governments, armies, etc that have tortured and killed leftists by the millions in third world countries. This, again, is well understood by those who have done the all important reading.

 

The next time the actual left gets close to causing some real change in this world will be the next time the capitalists will start busting down doors in the night. When this happens again in the US, do you want to see a bunch of leftists who are anti-gun or pro-gun? Yes, even if they all have guns it probably won’t stop the bloodthirsty capitalists, but it will at least slow them down. And perhaps it will make enough difference. It will at least give them pause, knowing that the leftists are prepared to defend themselves. Furthermore the idea behind it is important which is that if one group of people has guns while another doesn’t, then you have a potentially dangerous imbalance of power.

 

Liberals (and most “feel good” anarchists) on the other hand are anti-gun as they really don’t know much of anything about the history of repression against socialism and communism. So instead they focus on the thousands being killed by guns instead of the millions who will continue to be killed as long as the right is able to successfully resort to force against the left.

 

Bizarrely, the right, who has rarely been the subject of repressive force, seems to understand the danger of this possibility, while much of left, which has been perpetually stomped upon, continues to preach taking steps that will only help them continue to be stomped upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That all sounds very reasonable to me.

 

I am confused about the use of the word 'right' and the phrase 'human right'. What is meant by this, and how does it apply to guns? How can anything be said to have a 'right' in the first place?

 

Richard,

I assume that you do actually know and understand the definitions and common use of the words "right" and "human right" so I'll answer your main question. People have the right to defend themselves with whatever force is needed to stop an attack. Guns are tools for doing this and sometimes they are the best tool. People have the right to choose for themselves what tools are best for their defense.

 

Here's an interesting website on the topic:

 

http://www.a-human-right.com

Edited by loveliberate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting articles regarding this topic:
Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies

National Academy of Sciences, Justice Dept. reports find no benefits to restricting ownership of firearms (note: The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control.)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42167

http://www.universalway.org/guncontrol.html

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

 

Thanks for sharing these links. Statistics can be tricky and misleading but everything I've seen leads me to conclude that guns in the hands of responsible individuals help us to be safer from violence and that limits on legal guns and gunowners tends to increase violence as the thugs have less to fear from their intended victims...

 

At a minimum, guns are never the root cause of violence in a society and their misuse is a symptom of other problems such as poverty, inequality, social divisions, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sacco!

 

I appreciate you wanting to discuss this and do not feel that you have been disrespectful or rude, etc. I hope that you feel the same about me!

 

Before I respond to your specific points and questions, I want to say that

I do believe there are very serious problems with the misuse of guns. Far too many people, including some who own guns, do not respect the harm that misusing guns causes and do not use firearms responsably.

 

These problems need to be dealt with immediately - but with proper education and training, not prohibition. Anyone who is not willing or able to educate and train themselves in the safe and responsable use of firearms should not own or use them.

 

That said, the vast majority of folks who own/use guns for defensive or sporting purposes are not thugs, and do not misuse firearms. For us to be treated as criminals, to be denied legal recognition of our rights, etc is completely unacceptable.

 

I am not too familiar with your country, it's gun laws, etc. From what I've read online, some guns are still legal, if heavily restricted there. Most other European countries have less strict gun laws, and I do not hear of their "street thugs" tending to be armed with guns. For that matter, most thugs here in the US also do not carry guns.

 

The primary issue is that people who want to hurt you, me or whoever will find ways to do so and that people like me, and I hope you, who do not wish to hurt anyone need to be able to defend ourselves however we choose.

 

As for dangerous places with strict gun control laws:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1786945,00.html

 

Here's an excerpt:

"Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries

By Katrina Tweedie

 

A UNITED Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America.

England and Wales recorded the second highest number of violent assaults while Northern Ireland recorded the fewest.

 

The study, based on telephone interviews with victims of crime in 21 countries, found that more than 2,000 Scots were attacked every week, almost ten times the official police figures. They include non-sexual crimes of violence and serious assaults."

 

Countries such as Finland and Switzerland have comparitively high rates of gun ownership and much lower rates of violence and crime. It is also worth noting that many places in Europe have less restrictive gun laws than parts of the US.

 

Here in the US, we find that places with extremist gun restrictions such as Chicago or Washington, DC also tend to have the highest levels of violence of all kinds.

 

Also here in the US, we have seen more and more states liberalize their laws regarding the concealed carry of pistols for self defense over the past 20 years or so. Not only has violence not skyrocketed with the increased amount of guns being actively carried, it has almost always gone down considerably.

 

An example outside of the US and Europe to look at is Costa Rica. CR is widely recognized as a stable (esp. for the region) and peaceful country - heck, they even abolished their military! What is not as widely known is that they also have fairly liberal gun laws, including allowing concealed carry of pistols.

 

You ask: "if you really want to own a defensive weapon why not use mace or a taser?"

 

Those defensive tools can be very good options for many situations but they are not always appropriate or effective. Why not have the option to use whatever tool you wish to defend yourself?

 

Thanks again for your questions and discussion!

Edited by loveliberate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the safest places around are also amoung the most heavily armed.

 

Your claim would hold more weight if you could provide some evidence to back it up.

 

The United States leads the world in handgun ownership, with 29% of all households owning a handgun. The United States also has the highest per capita murder rate of the world's developed nations, at 5.5 per 100,000 population in 2004. 70% of these murders were committed with a firearm. 86% of murders committed with a firearm were committed with a handgun, again the highest rate of the world's developed nations.

 

Switzerland has the second highest rate of handgun ownership in the world behind the United States, with 14% of households owning a handgun. It also has the second highest rate of handgun murders among the world's developed nations behind the United States, with 1.4 handgun murders per 100,000 population.

 

The most "heavily armed" countries in the world also have the highest rates of handgun murder. The correlation between increased handgun ownership and increased handgun violence is quite clear.

 

Hello & thanks for joining the discussion!

 

My last couple of posts covered a lot of the issues that you bring up and I will respond to others now. By the way, what is the source of the statistics you used above? I am highly skeptical of their accuracy. Based on my personal experience, there are more than 29% of US households with handguns in them.

 

Whatever the exact numbers, almost all *reported* shootings are either police, gang and drug related shootings, suicides or due to improper gun handling. It is worth noting that most defensive gun use is unlikely to be reported and often does not involve the actual firing of a firearm.

 

You fixate on "handgun violence". This is an issue but violent people use many tools to commit their violent acts. Consider the recent knife attack in Berlin for example...

 

The simple fact is that the vast majority of handgun owners, in the US or elsewhere, have not and never will murder anyone or otherwise misuse our guns. We have the right to own guns for our defense and for sport and criminalizing us will not solve the problems of violence in our societies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loveliberate - you are a man on a mission

 

Seriously though, just look at the stats. America has the highest rate of gun ownership and murders. You are more likely to shoot a family member than an attacker. Let's look at more 'civilised' societies ( ) where gun ownership is far harder to come by. Using the UK as an example there are about 1.3 murders per 100,000 people as opposed to 5.5 in the US. We have tight controls on guns, and no handguns are allowed, I think even in clubs.

 

And your terminology really grates - 'victim disarmament'?

 

Jonathan

 

Hiya Jonathan!

 

If you consider standing up for our rights as being "on a mission", then yes I am!

 

Stats? Last I checked, gun-banning Scotland and England actually had the highest (and still rising) rates of violence & murders in the "developed world" and the US rates keep going down... Norway apparently has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe - and also the lowest murder rate.

 

If the stat's "prove" anything, it's that guns in private hands make us safer!

 

"You are more likely to shoot a family member than an attacker." I believe that this is completely false. And rather offensive as well...

 

Legal guns, esp. handguns, are rare in the UK but the number of illegal ones and their violent use continues to rise... UK gun laws are truly criminal...

 

Regarding my terminology, i.e. Victim Disarmament - I'm sorry if you find the truth upsetting. "Gun control" benefits aggressors, whether they be governments or street thugs, not the rest of us who they seek to victimize.

Edited by loveliberate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read that vermont has very loose gun laws yet has a fairly low murder rate. Perhaps there are some cities in the US that skew the statistic of gun ownership to murder.

 

I know what you mean. If you live on a ranch in Montana miles away from anyone, then a gun could definitely help protect you or your family. If you're carrying a gun in NYC though that's a completely different situation

 

Please explain what you mean Will. Personally, I've always felt safer when in Montana, then while in NYC... Interestingly, Montana has comparitively few restrictions on guns and NYC has practically banned them - at least for us peasants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read that vermont has very loose gun laws yet has a fairly low murder rate. Perhaps there are some cities in the US that skew the statistic of gun ownership to murder.

 

I know what you mean. If you live on a ranch in Montana miles away from anyone, then a gun could definitely help protect you or your family. If you're carrying a gun in NYC though that's a completely different situation

 

Please explain what you mean Will. Personally, I've always felt safer when in Montana, then while in NYC... Interestingly, Montana has comparitively few restrictions on guns and NYC has practically banned them - at least for us peasants.

 

I mean ranch land in Montana has a low population density, while NYC has a high population density. So things are a lot different in the two places

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean ranch land in Montana has a low population density, while NYC has a high population density. So things are a lot different in the two places

 

Will!

 

Thanks for the reply and for explaining what you meant. I'm not sure that I understand what this has to do with what you previously wrote -

"If you live on a ranch in Montana miles away from anyone, then a gun could definitely help protect you or your family. If you're carrying a gun in NYC though that's a completely different situation"

 

While I'm VERY happy to see that you recognize that a gun can be helpful for protecting self or family, I'm not sure if you mean that it will somehow be less helpful in an urban situation? Please explain - thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...