"Just a Piece of Paper"

[Don Corleone]

In fact, Don, you know what, you're right. Lets let everyone who doesn't defend themself with force whenever they were under attack just be enslaved to their attackers. I mean, what the hell was Martin Luther King thinking? Non-violence? Not like that worked at all. And same with Ghandi! These guys just don't get it, obviously. And you know what, lets just let the Burmese govermnent have their way with those monks who wouldn't defend themselves against the police. /end sarcastic rant/

The reason their non-violent protests worked was because of the political ramifications of continuing to use violence against a non-violent protest. Do you think the average home-invader cares how his public image will suffer when this hits the press?

You do know that a lone policeman typically won't respond to a home invasion where the perp knows the house is occupied, and most police manuals advise against it, to wait for backup (which in a small town might be 1/2 an hour). Do you know why? Because the police, who study these things, know that people that invade homes they know to be occupied do it SPECIFICALLY to use violence, violence is not the means to an end for them. Begging them for your life, complying with their wishes... these things work with robbers and muggers. But a guy who breaks into a house he knows to be occupied? Even cops are afraid of those psychos and won't take them on one-on-one. Yet for some reason, we're supposed to try to reason with them?

[seireikhaan]

Don, the whole point of the rant was to be careful with the word 'enslave'. I do realize quite fully the scenarios I'm bring up and the ones we've been talking about aren't the same. I just have huge issues with slavery.

Anyways,

For confrontational burglarly, attacking with a gun had the second lowest loss rate of sixteen self-protection measures, bested only by another mode of armed self-protection, threatening the offender with a nongun weapon."

You were saying, CR? I believe your evidence in fact points to using other devices as actually being more effective than using a gun in CONFRONTATIONAL robbery, the kind you and Don seem to like bring up. So clearly, guns aren't necessarily the best for house defense.

Do you also think states should be able to have their way with the right to free speech?

Do we really even have 'free' speech anyways? How 'bout that Patriot Act? Hell, people don't even have the right to dress as they please, look at what happens to American Muslims, they get treated like their freakin' convicted felons just for dressing like a Muslim. Contrary to what Fox may have told you, CR, not all Muslims are terrorists. Most are pretty regular people, who get sick and tired of people demanding they apologize for what crazed middle eastern Muslims, who interpret the Koran totally differently, did. But to answer your question, no, free speech should be a national law. The effectiveness of gun laws will vary from region to region, unlike free speech.

Then why do you seem to be against the most effective form of self defense?

See above.

You were the one just spouting the hyperbole about how apparently educating children is akin to starting a battle royale in the lunchroom.

You do realize I was not being serious with that, right? If not, then you truly are a diehard Republican. My point is this: You're claiming that people cannot rely on the police to help them. However, teachers basically double as police officers in school, in terms of enforcing discipline. By your logic, we should therefore be sending our kids to school with at the least a concealed handgun so they can 'defend' themselves from any potential bullies, since obviously teachers won't do anything. Now, I don't know about you, but I just don't quite trust the judgement of a seven year old enough to entrust sending them to school with firearms.

[English assassin]

The 2nd was written to create a last resort safeguard against tyranny.

That is not impossible today

CR, you SERIOUSLY need to upgrade your ideas of what a modern tyranny would look like.

These threads are so damn pointless. For crying out loud CR stop bringing the subject up!

I don't agree. Over the years I have changed my mind on this issue. (where's the drummer smilie gone?) The argument that if the government is going to deny you a means of self defence, they are under a duty actually to defend you seems to be a strong one. Given that the UK police do not in fact defend you, by what right are they saying that self defence is not an acceptable "good reason" foir a firearms licence? I can't see any good argument, anymore, for why (eg) a handgun should not be available on licence, subject to the existing UK FAC checks, to be held ONLY within your own house, or to and from a home office registered range for practice.

This is of course not what the Rabbit wants, but it would be very different to the existing UK situation too.

I still don't think I'd want one myself, but I think I should be allowed to choose.

[Slyspy]

CR, you SERIOUSLY need to upgrade your ideas of what a modern tyranny would look like.



I don't agree. Over the years I have changed my mind on this issue. (where's the drummer smilie gone?) The argument that if the government is going to deny you a means of self defence, they are under a duty actually to defend you seems to be a strong one. Given that the UK police do not in fact defend you, by what right are they saying that self defence is not an acceptable "good reason" foir a firearms licence? I can't see any good argument, anymore, for why (eg) a handgun should not be available on licence, subject to the existing UK FAC checks, to be held ONLY within your own house, or to and from a home office registered range for practice.

This is of course not what the Rabbit wants, but it would be very different to the existing UK situation too.

I still don't think I'd want one myself, but I think I should be allowed to choose.

Yes but you are in the minority by changing your mind (and frankly I doubt whether these threads are what actually changed you mind). I'm in a minority by simply not caring about American gun control. I don't care for the ignorant Euros who are unable to see how deeply the gun is a part of American culture and I don't care for the gun lovers who fetishize the weapons or equate guns with freedom.

If they we legal here I would probably own and fire, for fun, a historical weapon or two. But they are not (with a few exceptions) and I don't really care.

It simply annoys me to see so many of these threads cluttering up the forum and causing bad blood for no real gain. I remember when gun threads were routinely closed. Now thats tyranny for you!

Now get off my lawn!

[Husar]

Well slyspy, why don't you use your freedom of choice and just don't look at gunthreads anymore?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yes but you are in the minority by changing your mind (and frankly I doubt whether these threads are what actually changed you mind).

I can't say I have had my mind changed to any significant degree but I have certainly learned a lot about US ideas on the 2nd Amendment and the role of guns in the American view of things. CR and Don in particular have made good points that deserve reflection on several occasions.

It simply annoys me to see so many of these threads cluttering up the forum and causing bad blood for no real gain. I remember when gun threads were routinely closed. Now thats tyranny for you!

Ah but now all the moderators are fluffy bunny leftists* who wouldn't dream of curtailing the free speech of the liberal revolutionary anti-government erm, conservative gun lobbyists. BTW "Causing Bad Blood for No Real Gain" is the motto of the Backroom - T-shirts are available for very reasonable rates.

(Anyway, without gun threads we'd just have Evolution and Squid. )

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

*DevDave told me this so it must be true. And of course, the generalisation doesn't include Kukri, who has recently been revealed in the Politics thread to be Chinggis Khan's angrier cousin.