Gun laws

[thatbloke]

Gun's don't kill people...rappers do.

this is all.

I had been waiting for someone to say that...

 

[PsiSoldier]

I believe the point about the right to bear arms is nothing to do with the state of firearms and everything to do with the citizens' right to overthrow their government if they feel their government has become a tyranny.

Is this not what the right to vote is for? I know I'd be pissed if my citizens said "If you don't do what I want you to I will use this gun!", it's blackmail in all fairness. Besides, if a citizen of America got pissed what his leader was doing and decided to make use of his gun, he'd be jailed/eliminated surely? Look at riots and demonstrations, do they not just end up with the participants getting CS-gassed and punished?

(I'm under the influence of cough-syrup )

 

[Ronin Storm]

Is this not what the right to vote is for? I know I'd be pissed if my citizens said "If you don't do what I want you to I will use this gun!", it's blackmail in all fairness. Besides, if a citizen of America got pissed what his leader was doing and decided to make use of his gun, he'd be jailed/eliminated surely? Look at riots and demonstrations, do they not just end up with the participants getting CS-gassed and punished?

You right to vote is created by laws that are, in turn, created and enacted by your government. Your government can take that right away by enacting a law that removes that right, or simply declaring some state of emergency where general elections are indefinitely suspended. What would you do then? Your vote chooses a party and a leader, not what that party and leader do after they get into power.

If everyone has a gun then a political leader/party has to face the possibility that there can be a serious armed uprising. Policing forces are not equipped to deal with large scale uprisings of that fashion and in a state where such injustice has been created, it is entirely likely that good portions of one's military will not protect the people/party involved in creating that injustice.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

I think that quote is a pretty good verbalisation of why the Second Amendment exists.

 

[PsiSoldier]

You don't need weapons for your gov. to fear you.

 

[BiG D]

They're fairly important in armed uprisings, though...

 

[Taffy]

it is entirely likely that good portions of one's military will not protect the people/party involved in creating that injustice.

I dunno. All you need to do is pay senior officers more and give them a good life, hey presto the Army is on your side. Look at the Third Reich, Stalin, and practically ALL other dictatorships, past and present.

Army on their side = Dictatorship
Army NOT on their side = Revolution

But honestly what gives a soldier the right to bear a gun when a normal civillian is not allowed to carry one?

Err... they are trained in safe fire-arms use? And they are taught how to control their anger? And they don't carry weapons around in the streets anyway, so I don't see how you can compare armed civilians to soldiers.

 

[PsiSoldier]

And it's not a civilians duty to protect the country .

 

[Ronin Storm]

And they are taught how to control their anger?

On the contrary, military service teaches you how to kill people. People largely don't start out that way (though I admit some do). These people come out of military service with that "I can now kill people" switch flipped. Doesn't mean they're total psychos or anything like that but that's a significant line to cross.

One does not need to be angry to kill. The people we need to worry about are not those who kill in anger, for when the anger is done they tend either to top themselves or feel such incredible guilt that they turn themselves in. The people we need to fear, or at least keep on our guard about, are those who can kill cold and calm as if it weren't a whole lot different to doing their laundry or some other everyday activity.

And it's not a civilians duty to protect the country

That's a pretty arbitrary statement. Why isn't it our duty to protect our country?

If this were Switzerland, it most expressly would be our duty and we've have our assault rifle to show for it. Is the US so different to that, in allowing its citizens access to guns? Sure, more people, more likelihood that one of them is a total nutcase who goes to town with his or his father's handguns on innocents, but that becomes a problem of statistics not necessarily a failing of the "right to bear arms".

 

[PsiSoldier]

Why isn't it our duty to protect our country?

That's what the military/police/SWAT/whatever is for.

 

[Dragon]

On the contrary, military service teaches you how to kill people. People largely don't start out that way (though I admit some do). These people come out of military service with that "I can now kill people" switch flipped. Doesn't mean they're total psychos or anything like that but that's a significant line to cross.

One does not need to be angry to kill. The people we need to worry about are not those who kill in anger, for when the anger is done they tend either to top themselves or feel such incredible guilt that they turn themselves in. The people we need to fear, or at least keep on our guard about, are those who can kill cold and calm as if it weren't a whole lot different to doing their laundry or some other everyday activity.



That's a pretty arbitrary statement. Why isn't it our duty to protect our country?

If this were Switzerland, it most expressly would be our duty and we've have our assault rifle to show for it. Is the US so different to that, in allowing its citizens access to guns? Sure, more people, more likelihood that one of them is a total nutcase who goes to town with his or his father's handguns on innocents, but that becomes a problem of statistics not necessarily a failing of the "right to bear arms".

I totally agree to you! And furthermore I think there are more people being killed by soldiers than by normal people. One might say "it is their job, so STFU!" but what kind of job is it to take away the life of another person? ... And I think when talking about gun homicides (and maybe other weapons) you should also consider all the Iraqi, American(though it is their own fault), Afghanian, etc... people and soldiers who were killed in the cause of a war.

 

[Taffy]

If this were Switzerland, it most expressly would be our duty and we've have our assault rifle to show for it.

There are more assault rifles in Switzerland then there are people. Just an interesting fact.

And I disagree. In the military, you are taught how to kill people. You are also taught boundaries that many people who sign up would not have known otherwise. So in reality it actually gets violent people off of the streets, employs them, and teaches them how to control their aggresion. Anyone who is not considered suitable for wepons training )e.g. they haven't learnt the boundaries) is kicked out.

 

[Ronin Storm]

That's what the military/police/SWAT/whatever is for.

That's a choice, you realise?

We could, instead, decide that an armed population is how we're going to defend ourselves instead.

We could, instead, decide that we don't need any military force though, I feel, unilateral disarmament is unlikely to be achieved any time soon (... or ever?).

We could empower a regular militia or train reservist troops and task them with the defence of our country. In part, that is what national service is for in other countries and it wasn't so long ago that we (the UK) had compulsory peacetime conscription for 18 months, followed by four months on the reserves list.

Our government doesn't trust us with guns. The US and the Swiss government's do trust their populace with guns. It's a choice and you live with the consequences, good and bad.

 

[Dragon]

And I disagree. In the military, you are taught how to kill people. You are also taught boundaries that many people who sign up would not have known otherwise. So in reality it actually gets violent people off of the streets, employs them, and teaches them how to control their aggresion. Anyone who is not considered suitable for wepons training )e.g. they haven't learnt the boundaries) is kicked out.

You are not refering to what I posted, as still those people who do know the boundaries kill others in a war don't they? And if you have a look at videos from Iraq or whereever and you hear a sniper laughing after he blew the head of an Afghanian off his shoulders I don't think that he knows the boundaries. (I am sorry that I cannot provide you with the youtube link as I am not at the age of 18 yet, just look for "sniper afghanistan"). And what happened in Abu Ghreib has definetly shown that those people have crossed ALL boundaries.

 

[Ronin Storm]

You are also taught boundaries that many people who sign up would not have known otherwise. So in reality it actually gets violent people off of the streets, employs them, and teaches them how to control their aggresion.

I think you may be confusing two concepts, here.

The wish to be violent and the capacity to kill are not the same thing. How violent is a sniper? Will a thug actually kill you or find he has to stop short of that?

Military service isn't about aggression control or taking violent people off the streets to employ them more usefully. Military service is a ("just a") job. It has some good perks, especially as you rise in rank or if you are commissioned as an officer. The pay isn't too bad, though for a rank-and-file trooper it is low in comparison to the risks they have to take.

Many people in military service will never be required to fire a weapon with the intention to kill. A number I have known, admittedly all officers, have never been in a "live fire" situation. They are not violent people and are, by and large, calm, amiable, intelligent, and sometimes brutally straight-forward.

These are not violent people. They are not aggressive people. They do, however, carry an air of "but, if it came to it, I could kill someone".

Could you kill someone? No need to answer that; it's a question to ask yourself.

By and large, I'd not put myself in a situation where I'd have to answer that question for real though, for self-inspection's sake, I believe there are a short list of circumstances where I would kill; fortunately I have never had to find out whether my belief would carry to reality. Military service forces one to confront that question and be able to say "yes, I can kill" with a fair probability.

Why one would kill is crucially important, of course, as circumstance separates the murderer from the soldier from the victim who kills in self defence or defence of another.

But some (many? most?) people just can't, or won't, kill. And those people aren't soldiers, by and large. We train soldiers to kill people (and, of course, many other things too). We ask them to do this because the capacity to kill and the action of actually killing makes a person different in a subtle (and sometimes unsubtle) but crucial way and, for whatever reason, society at large finds that hard to deal with.

Are these people safe in society? By and large, absolutely. Some, however, aren't and these (tiny?) few who have the training to use weapons and the capacity to kill are dangerous people when coupled with weapons. Gun control prevents soldiers in the UK from carrying weapons in their civilian lives. In the US, it does not.