Guns and freedom

[GePap]

The South and west have higher rates of violent crime than the midwest and the Northeast, with the Northeast having the lowest general crime rate. The Northeast also has the most stringent laws about guns, while the west and South hav the most lenient. All these 'no guns equal more crime' theories are usually easilly disproven with facts. If states could violate interstate trade and put checkpoints to enforce gun laws, then gun crimes would be lower still, but states can't, as Strangelove makes clear.

I also wonder what this strange notion that the government woul take everyones guns away is.... they have no need of that. people act on what they know. Control of the press is far more vital to a dictatorship than having an unarmed populace. I also find the whole 'citizens vs. government' view idiotic. Most americans hardly see themselves as citizens anymore. Haf don't vote, an most would commit a crime themselves to get out of Jury duty. They are consumers now, and that side of the equation, business, is always left out of these insane militia stories people cook up. What large business in the US woul ever support an insurrection? chaos means a collapse of market confidence, a collapse of the currency. most business would gladly prefer a 'benevolent' dictator to the rule of the mob, with 'benevolent' defined as their stance on business. Most Americans would never have the time to become guerrilas: too many credit payments: have to keep the house, and last time i heard, guerrilla work, unless self-financed by looting, pays very, very little.

[korn469]

Dr. Strangelove

I live in Virginia, but it takes about 20 minutes to drive to tennessee from here or about 30 minutes to drive to north carolina, sorry about the confusion

GePap

They are consumers now, and that side of the equation, business, is always left out of these insane militia stories people cook up. What large business in the US woul ever support an insurrection? chaos means a collapse of market confidence, a collapse of the currency. most business would gladly prefer a 'benevolent' dictator to the rule of the mob, with 'benevolent' defined as their stance on

you are completely on target here...it is my belief that while the united states isn't a police state that it is no longer a nation for the people by the people, i think it is a nation for the people brought to you by our corporate sponsers

businesses wouldn't want a change in the current government because they influence both democrats and republicans to equal degrees, and i think the government works well for them. on the same hand, corporations are good at meeting consumer needs, and like you say we are a nation of consumers, who have no reason to rebel because things are working out well for most people

however, if things ever did goto hell in a handbasket, which i think is within the realm of possibilities, i for one would much rather have my guns (we have three in my house) to be able to defend myself from any possible threats

[Guardian]

Just a thought on a point that was brought up earlier on...

I think it was Lincoln who said something along the lines that gun control was an expression of a government's lack of trust in its people, which - in his opinion - is absurd if the people are really the government.

It follows then, as sure as night follows day, that for people to think they need guns to keep the government from screwing with them is also a severe lack of trust, which is at least as absurd if the people are really the government.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Last I heard the total number of privately owned guns in the US exceeded 100 million. The US Army has less than 500,000 combat troops. In fact, I think it has fewer than 200,000.

so you're saying that 1 out of 3 americans is armed?

[MarkG]

hmmm you seem to be wrong
it's double that amount

According to a 1996 Police Foundation study, in 1994, 44 million Americans owned 192 million firearms, 65 million of which were handguns.

http://www.regulateguns.org/fact_sheets/gun_industry.asp

so 1 out of 7 americans(you could say 1 out of 2-3 families) has an average of 4.3 guns

you're right. this is a logical defence against the posibility of a turannical goverment

[notyoueither]

Yeah. It is as a matter of fact. You wanna mess with the NRA?

[MarkG]

you're right. they are armed and i'm not. better not to disagree with them

[David Floyd]

Well, that's the same argument the government uses, Mark...

[MarkG]

i thought the goverment WAS armed

[Imran Siddiqui]

The South and west have higher rates of violent crime than the midwest and the Northeast, with the Northeast having the lowest general crime rate.

What does 'violent crime' have to do with the number of guns? You can use a knife for violent crime.

Facts do prove that states with more restrictions on gun ownership have higher gun crime.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap
The South and west have higher rates of violent crime than the midwest and the Northeast, with the Northeast having the lowest general crime rate. The Northeast also has the most stringent laws about guns, while the west and South hav the most lenient. All these 'no guns equal more crime' theories are usually easilly disproven with facts.

Another liberal deception, when the stats are analysed impartially the lowest violent crime levels are in places that have gun ownership.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

If states could violate interstate trade and put checkpoints to enforce gun laws, then gun crimes would be lower still, but states can't, as Strangelove makes clear.

Yeah lets put up checkpoints on the highways. Where did this idea come from Mao's little RED book?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What does 'violent crime' have to do with the number of guns? You can use a knife for violent crime.

Jeez imran I've never seen someone knifed at 100 yards, or through a closed window or screen door. Is there such a things as a drive-by stabbing?

God you can be a dumb bastard sometimes

[Rogan Josh]

I must admit, I am confused by one of the arguments I often hear from the pro-gun lobby - that the consitution enshrines the right 'to bear arms'.

If this is a good enough reason to allow anyone to own a gun, why should they not be allowed to have a tank or fighter aircraft or even a nuclear warhead - they are arms too aren't they?

Perhaps Saddam should simply point to the 2nd ammendment....

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Another liberal deception, when the stats are analysed impartially the lowest violent crime levels are in places that have gun ownership.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

The author states that the Jonesboro crime was commited in a place where gun possession was already illegal. This is a patently absurd statement. It is not illegal to own guns in Arkansas! Is this a sample of the quality of the author's work?

[David Floyd]

MarkG,

i thought the goverment WAS armed

That's the point. The government says, "We have bigger guns than you (or in some countries, we have guns and you don't), so you better do what we say." It's an intimidation thing.

Rogan Josh,

If this is a good enough reason to allow anyone to own a gun, why should they not be allowed to have a tank or fighter aircraft or even a nuclear warhead - they are arms too aren't they?

No, the 2nd Amendment makes the distinction of arms, rather than ordnance. However, ownership of ordnance is protected by general property rights.

Your specific is wrong, but the overall point is correct - I believe we should be able to own tanks if we want to and can afford to.

Further, to answer in a more "mainstream" way, the fact that the Constitution protects the right to bear arms is a good enough reason for being able to because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and there is a mechanism for changing the Constitution if enough people want to.