1. Welcome to the new Styleforum!

    We hope you’re as excited as we are to hang out in the new place. There are more new features that we’ll announce in the near future, but for now we hope you’ll enjoy the new site.

    We are currently fine-tuning the forum for your browsing pleasure, so bear with any lingering dust as we work to make Styleforum even more awesome than it was.

    Oh, and don’t forget to head over to the Styleforum Journal, because we’re giving away two pairs of Carmina shoes to celebrate our move!

    Please address any questions about using the new forum to support@styleforum.net

    Cheers,

    The Styleforum Team

    Dismiss Notice

gun question - I would like to understand this

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by globetrotter, Oct 31, 2008.

  1. globetrotter

    globetrotter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,605
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Location:
    greater chicago
    ok, this is a gunuine question, I would like to try to understand this, and I promise not to argue or point out if I disagree with your position.

    some body on one of the gun threads wrote about wanting to "excersize" his second ammendment rights - sort of carrying a gun to protect the right to carry a gun, I guess. does that extend to other rights? should we all excersize our right to free speech by standing in public and saying a lot of stupid hateful things? is that equally patriotic? what about abortion? there seems to be a right to have abortion, I don't think that abortion is a good thing, but I am glad that there is a right to access of legal abortions. should I get an abortion every few years, to excersize the constitutional right?

    on AAAC, there seems to be a feeling that the very act of having a huge number of citizens carrying guns in the US makes the US safe from everything. honestly, this seems to me to be magical thinking - I can't see any rational thought behind this at all. sort of like believing that if we pray that the rains will come, as far as I can see. can anybody explain this to me (and, not by explaining how 100,000 middle aged untrained men with pearl handled 45's are going to stop a column of tanks, that is not rational reasoning, I mean the concept that the very existance of firearms makes the world a better place)


    thank you
     
  2. rach2jlc

    rach2jlc Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    14,790
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Location:
    Monaco
    I don't have an answer for you, but just to say that I often wonder the same thing.

    I never questioned gun ownership, growing up where I did, but then living in Japan... cramped, huge population, etc. where there are also NO guns and a very low crime rate, made me wonder whether or not guns are really "necessary." The opinion "well, criminals have them, so I should, too" just doesn't work for me... it seems to make a bad problem worse.
     
  3. VKK3450

    VKK3450 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,769
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Location:
    Primrose Hill, London
    I posted this a while back in another gun thread. It doesnt answer your question, but it my perspective and comes from someone who owned and carried a gun when I lived in the US.

    Well, I used to carry a Glock 22, the fullsizeed 40 Cal... I thought I needed to... Everywhere I went

    Now I can't carry anything, anywhere. I am much happier.

    Not an anti firearm hippy, but my experience is that life is much better when you don't need to and can't. From someone that thought he needed to and did

    A public service message from....

    Unarmed K


    K
     
  4. rdawson808

    rdawson808 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,226
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Location:
    The Capital
    I actually exercise my right to free speech every time the Vice President's entourage passes by. I give him the finger and yell "asshole," "torturer," "liar," or something similar.

    I think it is my patriotic duty and I revel in my right to do it. You can disagree with me and tell me I'm wrong, but you can't stop me from yelling at him. Yay.



    b




    (actually, maybe you could get me to stop swearing--no necessary protection for that.)
     
  5. BDC2823

    BDC2823 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,475
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    Location:
    Getting Dirty with XTina
    My take is this. People (criminals) are less likely to commit a crime in a society where people carry or are allowed to carry firearms than one where they are not. Obviously demographics comes into play with certain neighborhoods as less crime occurs in more affluent areas than lower income areas. But the thought process for me is as such. Criminals when committing a crime are not afraid of the police. After all, they won't get there in time. So if a criminal wants to rob a store and he knows people aren't allowed to carry a gun and he illegally has one, then he doesn't have as much to worry about. Whereas, if citizens can carry, he has to worry about everyone around him. Not because they have a gun, but because they potentially could. Therefore, it is alot less riskier for them to commit crimes in areas with full fledged gun control.

    Reminds me of a story in Texas. I think it was on the Darwin Awards. A guy goes into a gun store, pulls out a gun on the teller in an attempt to rob the place. When the investigation team arrives they find 30 some odd shell cartridges on the floor from a dozen or so guns. You know what happened to the robber.
     
  6. FLMountainMan

    FLMountainMan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,921
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Location:
    McAnally Flats
    My take - why do you care? Everytime a person starts a thread where they ask for advice on how to carry concealed, the anti-gun people immediately feel the need to jump all over him and clog the thread with impotent sermonizing.

    It's like going into the World Cup threads and asking why people can like a boring crappy sport like soccer (and I say that in jest, I like soccer).

    The likelihood of your safety being endangered by someone on here carrying is infintesimally small.

    Full disclosure - I have a CCW, but have only carried maybe a dozen times in my life (working a politically unpopular job late at night in the ghetto), but I am skeptical about gun ownership reducing crime.
    The only argument I can think of for it is that the segment of our society that is most restricted from owning guns (whether by previous criminal history or local regulations) - black people - are the most likely, by far, to be murdered. Aside from that, most of the evidence seems to be anecdotal.
     
  7. dah328

    dah328 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,603
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2003
    I agree that it does not really make sense to "exercise" a right arbitrarily. What is true is that the DOJ records incidences of privately-owned firearms deterring crimes into the seven figures per year. It's also kind of a natural rights thing. A US citizen can act with deadly force in his own defense without having to rely on some LE officer or other privileged individual to do so on his behalf.
     
  8. crazyquik

    crazyquik Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,082
    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Location:
    Capital of Southern Elitism
    The only argument I can think of for it is that the segment of our society that is most restricted from owning guns (whether by previous criminal history or local regulations) - black people - are the most likely, by far, to be murdered.
    Indeed, the genesis of gun control in the South was to prevent slaves, later free blacks, from being able to 'fight back.' Much easier for domestic terrorists (the KKK, or other less-organized mobs) to go around terrorizing when the victims can't own weapons. This was mainly pre-1960s of course.
     
  9. globetrotter

    globetrotter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,605
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Location:
    greater chicago
    My take - why do you care?


    good question - I think that it is sort of like religion: there seem to be millions of intellegent, educated people who are basically rational about most things, who act in a way that I find irrational about one specific thing, and I am fascinated by that and would like to understand it. I'm not really interested in the reasons behing people who claim to carry for self defense, I understand that in the same way I understand people who buy a half dozen lotto tickets, its just poor understanding of the world they are in. I am asking about the concept that is new to me - that the very existance of guns seems to fufill the desires of the founders, or protect some rights or something. I really would like to understand that.
     
  10. bachbeet

    bachbeet Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,212
    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    San Diego
    gt: I may not think the reasoning you mentioned makes a whole lot of sense. But, in a very special way, that is what makes our Constitution so great. The exercising of a right doesn't have to make sense. And, more importantly, I would much rather have the right to make no sense in exercising my rights than not to have any of those rights at all. In a way, Clarence Darrow (I think) answered this when he said that he may not agree with what a person says but he'd defend that person's right to say it.
     
  11. West24

    West24 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,960
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    My take is this. People (criminals) are less likely to commit a crime in a society where people carry or are allowed to carry firearms than one where they are not. Obviously demographics comes into play with certain neighborhoods as less crime occurs in more affluent areas than lower income areas. But the thought process for me is as such. Criminals when committing a crime are not afraid of the police. After all, they won't get there in time. So if a criminal wants to rob a store and he knows people aren't allowed to carry a gun and he illegally has one, then he doesn't have as much to worry about. Whereas, if citizens can carry, he has to worry about everyone around him. Not because they have a gun, but because they potentially could. Therefore, it is alot less riskier for them to commit crimes in areas with full fledged gun control.

    Reminds me of a story in Texas. I think it was on the Darwin Awards. A guy goes into a gun store, pulls out a gun on the teller in an attempt to rob the place. When the investigation team arrives they find 30 some odd shell cartridges on the floor from a dozen or so guns. You know what happened to the robber.


    well youve just gone and proved your theory wrong, clearly the criminals dont care.
     
  12. globetrotter

    globetrotter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,605
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Location:
    greater chicago
    well youve just gone and proved your theory wrong, clearly the criminals dont care.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. BDC2823

    BDC2823 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,475
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    Location:
    Getting Dirty with XTina
    good question - I am asking about the concept that is new to me - that the very existance of guns seems to fufill the desires of the founders, or protect some rights or something. I really would like to understand that.

    The Second Amendment was written by the founders as they understood the importance of the citizens being allowed to own and carry firearms. The main reason and most important was so the citizenry could protect themsleves from the government. I forget which founder it was that said, "When the people fear the government there is tyranny, and when the government fears the people there is liberty" (or vice-versa). They came from an oppressive government and wanted to make sure that this newly created republic would not become tyrannical. An armed citizenry is a way to maintain this. This is why they wrote that it is the duty of the people to overthrow its own government when they feel the government has become too invasive and establish a new form of governance. Also, it allowed people to protect themselves from criminals and allowed for an armed citizenry in case of a foreign invasion. The country had a militia and our founders abhorred standing armies so none was set up.
     
  14. Connemara

    Connemara Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    39,486
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    I actually exercise my right to free speech every time the Vice President's entourage passes by. I give him the finger and yell "asshole," "torturer," "liar," or something similar.
    A true American. [​IMG]
     
  15. BDC2823

    BDC2823 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,475
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    Location:
    Getting Dirty with XTina
    well youve just gone and proved your theory wrong, clearly the criminals dont care.

    Well played sir! The theory implies the concept collectively, idiots still run amuck.
     
  16. globetrotter

    globetrotter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,605
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Location:
    greater chicago
    The Second Amendment was written by the founders as they understood the importance of the citizens being allowed to own and carry firearms. The main reason and most important was so the citizenry could protect themsleves from the government. I forget which founder it was that said, "When the people fear the government there is tyranny, and when the government fears the people there is liberty" (or vice-versa). They came from an oppressive government and wanted to make sure that this newly created republic would not become tyrannical. An armed citizenry is a way to maintain this. This is why they wrote that it is the duty of the people to overthrow its own government when they feel the government has become too invasive and establish a new form of governance. Also, it allowed people to protect themselves from criminals and allowed for an armed citizenry in case of a foreign invasion. The country had a militia and our founders abhorred standing armies so none was set up.

    thank you, understood. but obviously a bunch of untrained middle age men with fancy pistols can't keep the government from doing what it wants to - or, lets put it this way, a few guys with BA's in organic chemestry, a pickup truck and a credit card can do more damage to a column of tanks than 5,000 bankers with handguns.

    the founders wanted a military run by and manned by the civillian population, they wanted people to take part in the protection of the people and country. that is clear. but how having some guns in one's closet is supposed to contribute to that I am unclear on. and, for what ever reason, those people who are most likely to want a lot of guns, to protect the contitutional rights, are the ones least likely to participate in the protection of the country and people.


    it seems to be more than that - some type of belief that just having the guns in people's closets does some good.... I don't know, maybe I have misunderstood. but I would like to understand this.
     
  17. BDC2823

    BDC2823 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,475
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    Location:
    Getting Dirty with XTina
    thank you, understood. but obviously a bunch of untrained middle age men with fancy pistols can't keep the government from doing what it wants to - or, lets put it this way, a few guys with BA's in organic chemestry, a pickup truck and a credit card can do more damage to a column of tanks than 5,000 bankers with handguns.

    the founders wanted a military run by and manned by the civillian population, they wanted people to take part in the protection of the people and country. that is clear. but how having some guns in one's closet is supposed to contribute to that I am unclear on. and, for what ever reason, those people who are most likely to want a lot of guns, to protect the contitutional rights, are the ones least likely to participate in the protection of the country and people.


    it seems to be more than that - some type of belief that just having the guns in people's closets does some good.... I don't know, maybe I have misunderstood. but I would like to understand this.


    Agreed. When written, tanks, our now known knowledge of organic chemistry, pickup trucks, easy access to credit, etc... didn't exist. Wars were fought by people lined up opposite of each other firing guns at each other, and besides cannons, that was really it. Also, at the founding, our country was comprised of people who had stood up and fought against their government, participated in a revolution, and formed their own government. So being that they had already done so, it's not like they wouldn't fight for themselves again. It was a whole different attitude back then and the encroachment on liberties was not tolerated as it is today.

    I believe just having guns in peoples closets does some good for the purpose in which the amendment was written. Whether or not the people would do anything with them is another story. But the threat itself does remain. Without the guns, the threat doesn't exist.
     
  18. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    29,119
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Location:
    Texas
    it seems to be more than that - some type of belief that just having the guns in people's closets does some good.... I don't know, maybe I have misunderstood. but I would like to understand this.

    We have guns, and all of our relatives have guns. Why do we have them? Well, it's situational.

    In the house - it gives us a more immediate alternative to 911. Our understanding is that criminals don't look for the biggest gain but instead focus on the least hassle. Some folks go the dog-alarm system-gun route in hopes that would-be thieves will go elsewhere. However, the laws are sketchy as to actually shooting someone - some say the gun should stop aggression and end with that, while others simply say that you shoot to kill on the first shot, or defend yourself against a civil lawsuit from the guy you wounded.

    Concealed carry - This falls more under paranoia IMHO than anything else. Even those I know who have concealed carry permits don't carry. Why - I don't know. Few in my family spend time cleaning their guns or visiting the range, so it's almost a sort of compulsory check-box thing to install a false sense of safety.
     
  19. globetrotter

    globetrotter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,605
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Location:
    greater chicago
    I believe just having guns in peoples closets does some good for the purpose in which the amendment was written. Whether or not the people would do anything with them is another story. But the threat itself does remain. Without the guns, the threat doesn't exist.

    thanks - perfect, can you please eleborate? I don't mean to be argumentative, I simply can't see the logic in this position, and I would love to uderstand it.
     
  20. West24

    West24 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,960
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    I believe just having conne in peoples closets does some good for the purpose in which the amendment was written. Whether or not the people would do anything with them is another story. But the threat itself does remain. Without the guns, the threat doesn't exist.

    fixed
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by