Gun confiscation

[andr97]

I'm not sure any can solve the criminal problem in a country where people are free to have guns.I think it would be easier to destroy all of them, that's childish point of vew, but still it's logical

[Natural Elements]

Originally Posted by andr97

I'm not sure any can solve the criminal problem in a country where people are free to have guns.I think it would be easier to destroy all of them, that's childish point of vew, but still it's logical

Thinking about Alice in wonderland

[01kriss]

We buy guns for our protection against criminals and wild animals especially if we lived on remote areas and it isn't because we would like to kill someone..Just be responsible owners of gun..Guns who don't have permit or illegally owned should be the one confiscated

[Allen Farlow]

Disarming the populace is an attempt to prevent us from protesting the further takeover of our lives. Without weapons, we will be easier to control and manipulate.

But will it be as easy as they think to disarm us? Remains to be seen. There is a considerable 'hardcore' population in this country who won't just rollover and turn in their weapons just because the person demanding them happens to wear a badge and a dark uniform. We'll 'unload' them first...

[Hades]

You seem to forget that in many countries around the world the population is unarmed and they don't live in slavery, in fact they actually have a higher happiness index than in the US and their life quality is higher.

I'd rather prefer to have a more effective police force and a more educated society than to be able to have a gun at home.

Originally Posted by South

Armed citizens and freedom are synonymous.

If you think being allowed to have a gun is a step towards freedom I'd say you are mistaken, in the XXI century if you need a gun to make your voice be heard, your society is stuck in the past.

You don't need a gun to make others respect your freedom rights, instead you need:

• Freedom of religion
• Freedom of speech
• Freedom of the press
• Freedom of assembly
• The right to petition the government

And those freedoms are guaranteed by the 1st amendment to all Americans as far as I know.

[John Scott]

You've got guns.
He's got nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, tanks, planes, warships, personnel and a whole lot more guns.
It's kind of silly when you think about it... the notion that a man who commands all that firepower needs to worry about getting guns away from gun owners.

All that firepower meant diddly squat when we were in Vietnam. I think freedom fighters could learn alot from the insurgents in Iraq, too.

[Zap]

The reason people have these freedoms is because their respective governments allow them to have them.
If the government decides to change it's collective mind and repeal these freedoms, then force by the populace is necessary to restore them.

Freedom has to be won by fighting for it. People with power don't tend to give it away.
If you enjoy certain freedoms now, Hades, I'm willing to bet that someone in your past has fought hard for them.

[Hades]

Originally Posted by Zap

Freedom has to be won by fighting for it. People with power don't tend to give it away.

Absolutely. It was won 200 or 300 years ago depending on which country we're talking about.

Originally Posted by Zap

If you enjoy certain freedoms now, Hades, I'm willing to bet that someone in your past has fought hard for them.

I know that very well, and that is why I value so much democracy and I feel so sad when people here despise their right to vote, and that is why I prefer to have our people educated and thinking in reasonable terms rather than allowing them to have guns.

I just think that an armed populace was necessary during the XVIII and XIX centuries, when those freedoms were not granted to the people yet, but now we have democracy which is a better tool to fight for our rights, because:
-nobody dies by voting,
-not only the people who has more weapons gets heard, everyone can be heard,
-it is more civilized.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Hades

I know that very well, and that is why I value so much democracy

You seem to think that democracy - the principle that would allow 1000 people to vote 999 to be executed - is a good thing. In a most confused manner, you speak of freedom and democracy as if the one had anything to do with the other.


“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” – Thomas Jefferson

They don't. America was a constitutional republic. Rule by letter of the constitution, not majority vote.

The constitution has been ignored, and democracy was allowed. That gave us slavery, oppressive taxation, internment of Japanese Americans, abortion and nanny state laws. America is not a free country.

Some more insights:

It is a strange fact that freedom and equality, the two basic ideas of democracy, are to some extent contradictory. Logically considered, freedom and equality are mutually exclusive, just as society and the individual are mutually exclusive. -Thomas Mann

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Democracy is indispensable to socialism.
Vladimir Lenin

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
Ron Paul

“Democracy is, by the nature of it, a self-canceling business; and it gives in the long run a net result of zero.” – Thomas Carlyle

In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority.
Edmund Burke

“Men are more easily governed through their vices than through their virtues.” – Napoleon Bonaparte

“If pigs could vote, the man with the slop bucket would be elected swineherd every time, no matter how much slaughtering he did on the side.” – Orson Scott Card

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.” – H. L. Mencken

“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.” – H.L. Mencken

“Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule – and both commonly succeed, and are right.” – H. L. Mencken

[Allen Farlow]

Ever hear the saying 'Walk softly and carry a big stick'?

Having the freedoms we do in the United States is still no guarantee another will not attack you for whatever reason.

As a human, we have the right to protect ourselves and fight back against the oppressor with whatever force we deem necessary at the time.

How long do you think the United States would have stood if it did not have the arms and willingness to fight back against those who would choose to attack us?

How long do you think you would live if you were unable to fight back against those intent on taking your life?

Carrying a gun and letting everyone know I am armed and willing to use it means most will leave me alone out of fear of what could happen if they bother me. Arms are not only for fighting. They are also for the continuation of peace through the threat of violence.

[Hades]

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

How long do you think the United States would have stood if it did not have the arms and willingness to fight back against those who would choose to attack us?

Are you talking about military weapons or weapons for the population?
I cannot answer to the military because it is not what we are discussing here, as for the population, you might have needed weapons 2 centuries ago when there was still slavery in your country and no political mechanism to resolve the problems. But certainly not now, like I said in the previous post there are many countries in the world where guns are not allowed and their population does not live in slavery, and in fact they have a higher life quality and a happiness index.

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

How long do you think you would live if you were unable to fight back against those intent on taking your life?

Carrying a gun and letting everyone know I am armed and willing to use it means most will leave me alone out of fear of what could happen if they bother me. Arms are not only for fighting. They are also for the continuation of peace through the threat of violence.

If my neighbor had weapons and I did not have them, he could threaten me and I would in fact have less freedom than in the case of the police being the only institution in which people can carry guns.

I see more reasons for not being allowed to have guns than for being allowed to have them. Having guns (whether to protect yourself or to solve your problems with others) makes your society more violent and unsafe.

[Natural Elements]

Originally Posted by Hades

Having guns (whether to protect yourself or to solve your problems with others) makes your society more violent and unsafe.

Do you have any proofs or official statistics to backup what you said? Or are you just make it up?

[nishant.soni]

MASSIVE DISCUSSION:

But guns aren't allowed in India anyway!

[Hades]

Originally Posted by John Scott

the principle that would allow 1000 people to vote 999 to be executed.

That one and all the quotes you put below have the same common flaw, they take the most primitive definition of greek democracy where all the citizens voted directly for the actions to be taken. That form of democracy had the flaw that you mention where a mob can rule the rest, but in the modern forms it is very different.

Democracy has evolved now into citizens voting for representatives who will make the decisions for them, and granting those citizens the right to vote again after a certain period. I don't need to tell you the pros and cons of democracy, you are older than me and should know them better. The system may not be perfect but it is the best that I (and the 120 countries that adopted it) found during history.

Originally Posted by John Scott

In a most confused manner, you speak of freedom and democracy as if the one had anything to do with the other.

Yes, "democracy and education" is my definition of freedom.
Democracy is what grants you the right to choose, and Education is what grants you being able to choose the right people for the job.

[Allen Farlow]

Weapons for the military or for the population? I was referring to both. When the Revolutionary War began, a lot of the fighting against the British was by normal everyday-type farmers who came out with their rifles and pistols, or in other words, militia members. They didn't break out their government-issued weapons because they were not issued weapons by the fledgling American government.

The United States is a gun culture. We have grown up with guns. This country has never known a time when people were not allowed to have firearms, so many of us would be hard-pressed to imagine a life in a firearms-free society.

I don't think the society in which I live is more violent than any other. Only difference is we sometimes solve our problems using firearms instead of knives, bats, bottles, rocks, etc.

Originally Posted by Hades

If my neighbor had weapons and I did not have them, he could threaten me and I would in fact have less freedom than in the case of the police being the only institution in which people can carry guns.

Perhaps, but you are basing that assumption on the police not being corrupt.

As for our society being more violent and unsafe...dead men don't attack anyone. Don't want to end up dead, don't mess with people. Nothing difficult to understand about that.

Don't get in an uproar just because this is about guns. What if I stabbed you with a pencil? Suddenly a society with pencils is violent and unsafe? What if I ran down a bunch of people in my car?

See? Too often people go nuts just because the choice of weapon happens to be a tool that punches holes and makes a loud noise.

What starts all of this hysteria is people who have never been around guns. They know nothing about guns except what they've heard from friends, read in the media, have never even held a firearm in their hands. If they knew anything about firearms, they would know it is not the weapon, but the person holding it and their intentions that makes the difference.

I've lived in Arizona, where it is legal for just about any adult to carry a handgun in a holster on their hip, right out there in public, in the grocery store, the car dealer, the laundromat, doesn't matter.

Again, it is not the weapon, but the intentions of the person holding it.

Confiscating all of the firearms will only place the populace at greater risk. The law-abiding may turn in their weapons but the criminals will be armed, you can bet on that. After all, if you were a robber, who would you rather attack, someone who can hurt you or someone who can't?

[Natural Elements]

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

What starts all of this hysteria is people who have never been around guns. They know nothing about guns except what they've heard from friends, read in the media, have never even held a firearm in their hands.

That's very true Allen.

Hades, why do you feel more comfortable with a kitchen knife in your home instead of a firearm? Both are tools, both can kill if used in the wrong hands.

[Natural Elements]

Here another example how criminals can go nuts against unarmed people:
He killed a woman and nearly killed her two children.
http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=7537618

Do you really think you have the sweet time to call the police to save your life or your family life?

[John Scott]

That one and all the quotes you put below have the same common flaw, they take the most primitive definition of greek democracy where all the citizens voted directly for the actions to be taken. That form of democracy had the flaw that you mention where a mob can rule the rest, but in the modern forms it is very different.

So much is wrong with this statement that it's hard to know where to start. Democracy is rule by the majority, whether that is republican democracy or direct democracy.

For the example given, in a direct democracy the 1000 can vote directly to execute the 999. In a republican democracy they can elect representatives to then vote on a bill to execute the 999. Two methods, but the same results.

The system may not be perfect but it is the best that I (and the 120 countries that adopted it) found during history.

Constitutional republicanism proved better at safeguarding liberty when it was being used. Democracy has murdered more people than all criminals combined.

Yes, "democracy and education" is my definition of freedom.

Not really a meaningful definition, is it? Education isn't freedom. People in totalitarian regimes can be educated. In fact, totalitarian regimes usually achieve higher levels of education that freedom-oriented regimes.

And democracy is antithetical to most definitions of freedom. Freedom of the individual presupposes the right of the individual to act as he wishes as long as his actions do not impinge upon the freedom of others. Democracy presupposes the absence of that right. It's either/or. Either democracy, or freedom. You can't have both.

[Hades]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Constitutional republicanism proved better at safeguarding liberty when it was being used. Democracy has murdered more people than all criminals combined.

You do realize that constitutional republicanism is a form of democracy, don't you? In that system people appoint their representatives. I already told you in the previous post, modern democracy is not people making decisions, it's people appointing other people to make decisions.

The primitive direct democracy that you mentioned (and that you seem to believe that is still active) died with the ancient Greek society. After the french revolution republics were born, including yours, and democracy is much more complex than just mobs deciding against other people's will.

Originally Posted by John Scott

Not really a meaningful definition, is it? Education isn't freedom. People in totalitarian regimes can be educated. In fact, totalitarian regimes usually achieve higher levels of education that freedom-oriented regimes.

But education alone won't grant you freedom, democracy alone won't grant it either. It is the combination of both that will grant you all the other freedoms (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to petition,...).

If you lack the ability to be educated and lack the ability to choose your representatives, you are likely to lose the other freedoms and ultimately be a slave of the people in charge.

Maybe it is another kind of freedom that you seek for? One that cannot be granted to you by education and democracy? Can you develop more your concept of freedom?

Originally Posted by John Scott

And democracy is antithetical to most definitions of freedom. Freedom of the individual presupposes the right of the individual to act as he wishes as long as his actions do not impinge upon the freedom of others. Democracy presupposes the absence of that right. It's either/or. Either democracy, or freedom. You can't have both.

And where do you find the balance? please show me a non democratic country that achieved a good life quality (and not just economically, I'm talking about high life expectancy, low infant death rates, high quality employment, education, health, etc).

[Allen Farlow]

That's a good point that many people forget to mention, NE (myself included.)

In a law-abiding society, the law-abiding place way too much emphasis on the law-enforcement coming to their rescue.

That may have worked to a degree a hundred years ago, but it doesn't cut it today.

If I were of the mind to do so, I know I could walk into a crowded restaurant with a handgun and kill five people before one person can dial 911, guaranteed. And I'm willing to bet not one person will have the inner fortitude to get up and tackle me to the ground. Everyone wants to run the other way when a gun is involved and that only allows a killer to continue.

My concern, if I were to do something like that (don't worry, no chance of that ever happening) would not be the police but another armed civilian who is on the scene already. In most cases I could shoot someone and sit down and have a cup of coffee before the first cop car shows up. But I could be taken out almost immediately by another armed individual.

That's why I was and still am in favor of allowing public school staff the option of getting training and carrying concealed weapons when at work. If the Columbine teachers were allowed to do that, you wouldn't know the name Columbine. Those two misguided idiots would have been taken out before they could have entered the building.

As it happened, when law-enforcement finally showed up, they sat back on their heels, not knowing how many assailants they were dealing with.

That amount of time allowed Klebold and Harris to kill even more students.