Posted on 10/02/2008 4:22:42 AM PDT by marktwain
Theres no need to sneer. That’s not what I was saying and I find it very hard to believe that you thought otherwise.
There is a proportion of the population (and I dont know whether its exactly half, or 40% or whatever..it varies from place to place no doubt) who you wouldnt want to have a gun, or wouldnt want one themselves. Anyone in prison for a start off. Anyone who was insane. Children, babes in arms, people with no hands, whatever.
All I was saying is that you are not going to get 100% gun ownership in any country, no more than you are going to get 100% TV ownership or 100% spade ownerwhip or 100% computer ownership.
Russians. Blown their arms off in the winter war :)
When you live that close to Russia, as the Finns do, It should be an Anti-Tank weapon.
Don’t get tetchy!
The exact definition, where you draw the line, is obviously a matter for the citizens of each individual country, but there are surely some common sense reasons for disarming certain people. You would not give someone in prison a gun for the very simple reason that he or she would probably use it to get out of prison! You would not allow someone who declared that they were actually “the man in the moon” to have a gun, or indeed any sharp object. I have a friend whose hands shake so much with palsy that they would be physically incapable of aiming a gun. They would be a menace to anyone near them. Then there is the matter of children. Some would say minors should be x years old before they have a gun, some would say y years old.
The point is that there is a proportion of the population in any society who will be forbidden (perhaps temporarily) from owning firearms. Its unrealistic to think 100% of any population will have guns. Actually it unrealistic to think 100% of any population will do anything in common. For goodness sake, not 100% of the population agree the world is round.
The author of this article seems to be a well-meaning, but a terribly uninformed person.
The NRA should send John Lott to Finland for a semester as a visiting professor!
just because 100% isnt possible, doesnt mean it isnt desirable to all who want a means of defense/freedom...
I also get annoyed with the whole 'insane' and 'felons' arguments, cause IF they are too dangerous to have access to arms then they are too dangerous to have access to gasoline, matches, pointy sticks etc...and Need to be removed from the streets that my wife & kids travel...thus hey wouldnt count in the 'base 100%' in gilbos' ledger anyhow...
hope that clears up my opinion...
First of all, with an attitude like that, you are no real American's "friend"...
~~~~~~~~~
Every serious citizen should have at hand:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Friend", if you choose to be a non-owner, don't come whining to the rest of us for protection when the need arises...
TXnMA, you need to check your own tagline. You are telling lies about me.
Lets start from the top. “Friend, one for every two is more than enough.”, is met with the response “First of all, with an attitude like that, you are no real American’s “friend””
Why is that? What attitude? I am arguing numbers, not rights, or constitutional matters. The point of my argument, which is quite clear, is that if there is one gun for every second person, that means most people are going to be armed, because approx half the population will not be able to have or use guns, for the reasons outlined. Why is that so hard to understand? It’s not illogical.
Then what is it with this list of armaments? Do you expect me to be cowed into thinking that I have neglected my duties as a citizen if I cannot put a tick on everything there? And by the way, you missed off Bazooka, claymore mine, armoured personel carrier and small tactical nuclear device.
“After that, they should be free to begin “collecting” firearms — just because they enjoy owning them — and because the Second Amendment says that our right to do so “shall not be infringed”.”
Why do you feel the need to bolster your argument with this passage? I haven’t said anything denying any of this. In fact I support all of it. Do you think that by stating it, while I havent, that it will invalidate anything else I say, by some process of pseudo-conservative blame osmosis?
“”Friend”, if you choose to be a non-owner, don’t come whining to the rest of us for protection when the need arises...”
And again. Have I told you I am a non-owner? Is there anything in my statement that says I am?
You know what, the suspicion arises that you have been so sensitised by the anti-gun lobby and their arguments that anything, anything at all, that even remotely sounds like it, no matter how distant, is immediately pounced upon.
I tell you the truth, “friend”. With hair-trigger reactions like this I’m not sure I’d let YOU near a gun.
Actually, I believe violent crime in the UK is currently declining. Of course, there could be a number of reasons for that (like no-one has enough money to be worth mugging)
No, it wouldn't. Criminals will get guns if they want them.
Just like how making gun free zones in schools has protected students everywhere.
* At least two hunting rifles -- one for small game, and one for deer-sized game
Nitpick: Not all serious citizens hunt. In fact, the vast majority of gunowners in the Unites States are not hunters. Other than that, I would agree with your list.
1. How many weapons per capita is enough.
2. Whether a person should be restricted from owning a firearm by the government or not.
I believe 1:1 is a good ratio as a minimum and allows for non-functioning arms and users. I would agree to disagree on this.
I don't trust you or the government to make that decision for me. I don't trust me to make that decision for others, unless they are in front of me doing something blatantly stupid. No person should be barred from gun ownership for any reason because that is such a slippery slope that is so easy to abuse. There is some danger from erratic individuals that way, but not nearly the danger that a government taking people's weapons poses.
Anyone with a bottle of gasoline with a wick has an antitank weapon. The Finns coined the name for that contraption in the Winter War.
Au contraire. You were arguing limiting numbers.
That is precisely how the anti-gunners operate: limit ownership -- then eliminate the limited number.
You enumerated; I enumerated. My numbers reflect reality for the region in which I live.
"You know what, the suspicion arises that you have been so sensitised by the anti-gun lobby and their arguments that anything, anything at all, that even remotely sounds like it, no matter how distant, is immediately pounced upon."
That statement is, essentially, correct. And I have our Constitution versus a long history of attempted infringements to validate my sensitivity.
You obviously sought a reaction with your "more than enough" edict. Clearly, you got more than one. What is it about "shall not be infringed" that causes you to believe that positing an infringement (limitation ) is acceptable? Incremental infringement is still infringement.
Squirm around all you like; your original statement speaks for itself. No amount of "but I didn't say" crawfishing erases what you did say...
fin.
I’m not so sure we are in disagreement about your point one. My argument is simply that it is not possible for 100% of the population to be armed, and I mean not physically or mentally or practically possible, so a 1 in 2 ratio means that just about everyone who could be carrying firearms probably is doing. The rights of whether they do or not are another matter, and depend totally on the laws of the land in question - I’m not sure what the exact situation is in Finland.
As far as how many is enough - I would think that depends to a certain extent on the perceived level of threat. If people feel insecure they tend to buy guns. If they feel safe then they don’t buy as many. This is not unusual - nations do the same thing. In times of war they increase their military, in times of peace they demobilise.
I see where you are coming from in point two, but consider. The government is of the people, by the people for the people (apologies if I’ve gotten that the wrong way round!) Your government IS you, or at least its supposed to be. Therefore, in the USA, the State places the burden for making these kinds of moral decisions in YOUR hands, whether you like it or not. And lets face it, that’s better than letting someone else do it.
It therefore follows that you DO have to make that decision as to whether someone should be restricted from owning a firearm. Now I understand the logic of the slippery slope, but I don’t think that neccesarily applies. After all, you have a right to freedom of movement, but if you break the law the State can limit that, by putting you in Gaol. The State can also disenfranchise you, because you lose the vote when you are in prison. If you drive a vehicle recklessly, they can fine you, or confiscate your licence. Yet no one ever argues that those things are the first stage on a “slippery slope” (probably because they have widespread if grudging support!)
A lot is made about the “right” to own guns, but gun ownership is also a responsibility (the two concepts of rights and responsibility usually do go together, something that liberals never quite seem to be able to grasp). I personally have no problems with someone who handles weapons in an irresponsible way being punished for doing so, up to and including losing the right to own or use one (at least temporarily). I understand people will differ on what qualifies as “responsible”, but I’m talking general principles here.
And on a purely tactical level, consider this. The biggest problem gun-owners have in the US, or anywhere else for that matter, is that they all get tarred with the same brush whenever some idiot goes on a mad shooting spree. The anti-gun lobby uses every such instance to pressure for more controls. But, if laws are in place to punish individuals who misuse weapons in any way, there is automatically a “disconnect” between them and the vast majority, who are only interested in hunting, or defending their homes and families and livelihoods. In other words, the emphasis is placed upon the individual, rather than the concept of owning and using firearms itself.
“Au contraire. You were arguing limiting numbers.”
I wasn’t actually. I was just commenting that 1 gun for every second person probably means that just about everyone who could use a gun has one.
“That statement is, essentially, correct. And I have our Constitution versus a long history of attempted infringements to validate my sensitivity. “
Paranoia beckons.
“You obviously sought a reaction with your “more than enough” edict.”
It wasn’t an edict and no I did not.
“Squirm around all you like; your original statement speaks for itself. No amount of “but I didn’t say” crawfishing erases what you did say...”
I’m not squirming. I stand EXACTLY by my original statmement (and that is the actual original statement, not the truncated one you used to jump onto your hobby horse, and then cudgel me into the ground with. Remember you ignored the caveat that explained it). Congratulations on stifling all debate. The framers of the constitution that you quote would be so proud.
As I said in #35, "My numbers reflect reality for the [very rural] region in which I live."
The beauty of our constitutional system is that each of us is free to decide to what extent we will choose to exercise our rights. I respect your choice -- whatever that is.
OTOH, I have zero tolerance for any other citizen's (or the government's) effort to impose their own limitation on my rights (or yours, for that matter).
FWIW, I stopped hunting in the mid-1970s -- for reasons that seem right to me.
OTOH, given the present instability of our economy, I have elected to greatly enlarge the size of our vegetable garden. And I have retained my hunting equipment (and have maintained my skills) so that, should the need arise, we will not be limited to a vegetarian diet... (BTW, during the rationing in WWII, my family lived quite well on our "Victory Garden", home-canned food, and the chickens and rabbits we raised -- supplemented by the game and fish we harvested.)
Again, those choices are ours -- and no one else's...
Or, if you do, be prepared to make payment in silver or gold. :)
I think the rate at which felonious behavior is resulting in the perps endind up dead is also a factor. “More guns, less crime.” translates into “Less criminals, less crime.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.