Debate For All

Did you so soon forget about banning another agent of harm with low benefits on the risk/benefit analysis scale; alcohol. What about tobacco?

As to the use of Japanese and Swiss societies ; If one's hypothesis is that the availability of guns results in high rates of gun crime only one example is needed of a society where guns are readily available and the gun crime rate is low to disprove that hypothesis. The example of Japan where guns are not available and the gun crime rate is low does not address the issue in a substantive way. If anything it lends support to the hypothesis that I advanced..i.e. Socio-cultural factors are far stronger causative factors in the level of crime in a society than is the mere availablity of guns.

 

Both the US and Norway ( and other nations too, I´m sure ) have tried to ban alcohol. Didn´t work very well. Moonshining, smuggling and a number of other related and illegal activities flourished like never before, or after. Banning alcohol in a country where few use it ( if such a country exists ) would probably be feasible. Strict gun control works well in countries where guns are not a cultural phenomena and few people have them, but I must admit that I´m now asking myself what would happen if the US would introduce gun control similar to for example Japan. My own answer is unfortunately that those who have guns today would still have them, only by illegal means.

I disagree. The rate of gun attacks in Switzerland is lower than in the US, but higher than in Norway. Norway has also more guns per capita than the US, but fewer than Switzerland. How can you tell if the difference between Switzerland and Norway is caused by socio-cultural factors or by the fact that Switzerland has more guns available ?

 

Sorry it's late but this something I figured everyone should read. It makes good points but stirs up some emotions. Please read it all the way to the end. Trust me.

Ban Them Now!
by
Michael Z. Williamson
Imagine a machine designed for the military. It is heavily built, very tough, and utterly unforgiving of mistakes. It is ugly, metallic and plastic, and has no aesthetic qualities. It has evolved over the years to greater power, and has become so easy to operate that even children can do so. It makes our troops more efficient at their unpleasant task of killing our enemies.

Incredibly, this state of the art piece of military hardware is available, with thin disguising, to civilians. There's a subculture in this country that buys millions of them. There are no restrictions on ownership, no need to justify the possession of one of these high-tech killing machines.

Even worse, there aren't even reasonable laws on safe storage. No requirement to render them inoperable when not in use, nor that they be safely locked away. Children get hold of them every day, and cause hundreds of accidents and injuries, and all too often, deaths.

Technology exists to lock them in such a fashion that they can't be operated by any except the owner, but the death merchants who sell them, and the extremist users of these "toys" refuse to consider any legislation mandating such. They suffer from some Freudian inadequacy that makes the very mention an affront to their manhood.

These enemies of society are organized, too. They have dozens of organizations with millions of members that shout down any attempt at rational debate. They shout about their "rights" to utilize these weapons for "sporting" purposes, or for use in militaristic death games. They won't even accept a simple cooling-off period as a compromise.

Something happens to a person who owns one. They get lazy and stupid. They take these things everywhere, out of a paranoid fear that they might "need" them. Society is poisoned by the residue from the chemicals used for the propellant for these weapons of mass destruction. We all pay the price for the use of them.

Nowhere else in the world is there such a plague of them. Most other nations are sensible enough to make possession awkward, require special licensing, and severely punish those who commit crimes. Here, one can be drunk and stupid and utterly murderous, and walk away with a slap on the wrist.

More than 40,000 people a year are killed by these idiots with their macho, adventure-movie attitudes. 40,000. The population of an entire suburban town. Many of them helpless children who have no idea what is happening. All this, so a bunch a fanatical idiots can maintain their "right." Their right to be stupid. Their right to play action movie star. Their right to kill.

The time for debate and compromise is over. It is time to ban them now. Round them up, destroy them all. Some speak of buying them back, but the cost is prohibitive. Society has no obligation to pay these people for their destructive devices. No civilized person should own one.

Simply seize them and destroy them immediately. Save lives. End suffering. Help society.

Ban automobiles now.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2000 by Michael Z. Williamson
Anyone is free to copy this article in its entirety, including this notice, for non-profit purposes.

 

Only one problem - cars were not designed for the military...

(I was expecting knives...!)

 

:lol:

Great fun!
And it has a good point if you take every word of it to be true...

However, all the arguments mentioned apply to gun ownership whereas much fewer also apply to automobiles. Makes you think, doesn't it? Especially since the social use of automobiles is much more obvious and universal than that of guns.

 

ah the gun debate...i own guns ,all my male freinds own guns as do all my relatives...it is indeed a culturale thing to us yanks.all american men were armed when we were still subjects of the crown.[injuns ,frenchmen an bears]the founders wisely decided that a musket over the cabin hearth was also a good way to keep the new govt from getting too cute....none of my freinds or family as ever shot anyone or had an accidental shooting ,when i was 7 my dad taught me firearm saftey with my first gun,a daisey.my kids started with bb,s then pellet guns then .22s all my guns were bought cheap ,second hand from private parties there isnt a shred of documentation on any of then ,nor will there ever be...what ever new facsiest new gun laws are passed in california...i have guns in my cars,boats an campers..i even had a .22 duct taped to the tubeing of my airplane,i later had to sell the plane ...kept the gun tho i have killed animals[always with a little remorse]i dont insult or mistreat ppl,i dont rob ,rape or steal..i dont do these things to others nor will i tolerate such behavior from them.i am not big strong or fast,yet though i sometimes walk in the valley of the shadow...i fear no evil,for my good friends ,smith,wesson and browning are never far from my side

 

Have you ever been attacked or threatened with weapons or robbed? If not, why do you have all those guns? If so, were your guns of any help?

Gun laws are never fascist as far as I know, since the purest form of fascism was brought to power by civilians with guns. Why would you call it a fascist law anyway?

 

Here we go again!

nowadays (cor, I sound like an old codger! ) people seem to use the term 'fascist' as a loose term meaning anything remotely restrictive.

All pedants are truely saddened.

 

Yes, many fascists got power through elections (with a little help from violence when necessary). Propaganda is their better tool.

Of course, there must be a reason why totalitarian governments are the most restrictive ones in guns issues.

 

Said Fascist state would doubtless say that it helped prevent crime, and compare their well-masaged crime figures to a suitably out-of-context comparison.

Or am I getting cynical?


As a serious point - guns in civilian hands don't tend to stop totalitarian governments from coming to power. However, totalitarian governments do like to prevent citizens from owning guns, which is presumably to stop them from getting daft ideas like rebelling at some point in the future when they suddenly realise how totally up the creek they are.

People see guns as a symbol of power, as a means of fighting back. Remove them, remove the hope from any potential rebellion.

I do doubt that any 'popular uprising' would actually work in a totalitarian regime unless it had the backing of at least parts of the military. See Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968. However, uprisings are still unfortunate, unpleasant, and they tend to mess up the smooth running of your despotic regime. :bang:

 

I was talking, of course, about Mussolini, who came to power basically by pointing a gun to the head of everyone who stood in his way - his final feat being to put a gun against the head of Rome in 1922. His Carabinieri weren't exactly professional soldiers either.

Macchiavelli already noted that there's nothing that will stir up rebellious tendencies in a population like taking away their guns. It gives them the impression (quite rightfully in the case of a totalitarian regime) that the government doesn't trust them.

 

ricky ,i think the rebellions of 56 and 68 prolly would have succeeded if not for soviet tanks arriveing on scene.i f mussolini came to power by sticking a gun to someones head,then i think something was very broken with the itatlian government.could a thug with a gun take over the govt of holland,the u.k.,france? roel ,to answer ur question ,no i have never had to threaten any one with a gun.i did see a freind stop an assault on a happless female once merely by pulling his jacket open enough for the would be assailents to see just the butt of a small revolver...the thugs decided they had somewhere they needed to go...i live in a rural area but just a few months ago,a local family was home invaded by three young hip hoppers apparently intent of finding a cache of medicinal pot .they were beating the mother and teen son with a baseball bat[he is in a coma still ,i belive]the dad was out in workshop and snuck in back door ,then down the hall to find his 12 gauge . he then proceeded to open large viewing ports thru the torsos of said house guests sending them to that great baseball diamond in the sky.these kinds of things are rare ,roel but then so are house fires,yet still i pay good money every year to an insurance company ,just in case...

 

But that is the point - citizens with guns cannot hope to defeat modern standing armies.

Actually, the '56 and '68 are probably bad examples, as they were not exactly 'armed citizens'. How about the Warsaw uprising?

 

a band of citizens with rifles can only hope to 'hold the fort,till the cavalry comes to the rescue'"....in 56 ,68 ..i kinda think they were hopein for the nato cavalry to come a ridein[not without reason ,ie radio free europe]with the poor poles at warsaw,the soviets pretty much assured them that they were 'on their way'"bugels in the distance...when tanks and artillery arrive its over for the riflemen at the alamo...

 

I will have to disagree that "citizens cannot hope to defeat modern standing armies".

Of course, we are talking "guerilla" tactics when citizens take on any standing army. What matters most is that the guerillas have the support of the people. Without that, they cannot hope to succeed.

This is the primary reason Che succeeded in Cuba, and failed so miserably in Bolivia.

- Greg

:smok:

 

To defeat a regualr army, guerillas need popular support, or at least need to be feared more than the army, and an outside source of resupply, see Iraq, 2003-2007.

 

I have to agree with majorwoody on this one. I would also say, however, that I also believe that proper firearms training is absolutely necessary if one is to own a gun or guns.

 

Owning guns is fine and dandy, but I've noticed that alot of people feel uneasy when they know that there is a gun in the house... As a wee kiddie, I wasn't allowed to stay the night at the houses of gun-owning friends, and rightly so... I wouln't want my 8yr old near guns even in the hands of the most responsible owner... Especially not at night time

Plus woody, on the other end of the spectrum to those hip-hoppers, you've got the problem of husbands who wave the gun around in an argumnt with the wife... Or the child who finds daddy's gun in the safe...

Owning guns has as many problems as it has virtues... I wouldn't want to keep a gun in my house, not because I don't trust myself to use it responsibly, but because I cannot reasonably expect others to trust me to use it responsibly (if that makes sense)

 

Can you find an example of when a modern army (I'll take anything back to 1940 as 'modern') was defeated by a civilian uprising? I can't. These are all the possible cases I can think of:

Warsaw uprising, WW2 (Polish Free Army try to oust the Germans) - revolt crushed by German army.

Greece, 1945/6 (Communists try to sieze power) - revolt crushed by first British, then US military.

Malaysia, late 1940s (Comunists try to take over) - revolt crushed by British military

Vietnam, 1950s-1970s (Communists try to take over) - actually does not fit - it was North Vietnamise trying to conquer South Vietnam.

Hungary & Czechoslovakia (attempting to overthrow Communist rule) - revolts crushed by Soviet army

Iraq, currently (trying to oust coalition forces) - again, does not really count as it seems to be a mixture of Iranian insurgents and Iraqi ex-military.


I can't think of any more.

 

How about French Indochina, the French Army was basically defeated by the guerilla forces of the Vietminh. In the later stages the Vietminh became really organised enough to attempt open warfare with their French opponents, first unsuccessfully a Na San and more notably later and successfully at Dien Bien Phu. Even then though the regiments fielded were all unpaid and certainly by the standards of the Europeans and Colonials were basically untrained (The Vietminh soldiers were unpaid) and could not compare as professional soldiers, more like massed formations of Guerillas.

The end result was the defeat of the French by the Vietminh, although not completely to the satisfaction of the Vietnamese since the negotiations postwar led to the partition of Vietnam into North and South and the direct involvement of the US.