Do Guns Kill People or Do People Kill People?

Realistically though, how can they? They're disarmed in the name of "public safety" or some such excuse.

It's not that I crave firearms. But I appreciate them for what they are and what they mean for me privately and collectively: defense against the state/ I don't ever want to use them for that purpose any more than I want to use my seatbelt in the event of a car accident. But If I have to use the seat belt, I'm glad I have the option.

 

I'd like to visit both places, but I wouldn't want to live in either.

Travel is nice and I'd someday like to make it to either place. If you can make that happen, I'm envious.

 

Show me where guns keep government accountable.

E_S

 

.

 

No, really.

Half the world's privately owned firearms are contained within the USA.

Yet this has not made the US government any more accountable to it's people.

Hell, how long did it take before popular sentiment got rid of the unelected Donald Rumsfeld? Would you claim in all seriousness that guns expedited his exit from the Pentagon?

ES

 

Battle of Athens, Tennessee 2 August 1946.

The short version is the Sheriff of McCann County was corrupt and had things like vote fraud, accepting bribes, voter intimidation, all those nice things that governments, made of people, tend to do when they no longer care about the citizens they supposedly work for. The citizens tried to go to the state and to the courts and were ignored. After shooting a black voter and illegally detaining vote watcher, the citizens had enough, took weapons from a National Guard Armory, and set things right.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm

 

So a corrupt sherriff = the Federal Government?





Tell me, are sherriffs elected by the people?



Is it almost at the point where you admit that you're simply regurgitating what others told you think?


E_S

 

County government or federal government, what's the difference? Tyranny is only tyranny if it's nation spanning? You asked for proof armed citizens can hold government accountable and you got it.

And yes, sheriffs are normally elected positions.

 

That's one incident. That's not proof. No more than pointing to Cho as "proof" Americans are nuts with guns. I'd have thought such a qualified law enforcement official would be aware of this.

Let's talk about, say, Watergate.

What was instrumental in bringing down Nixon?

Iran-Contra?

Lewinsky-gate?

The Orange revolution?

The Cedar Revolution?

How much did guns play a part in that? The latter two are outside America, btw.

E_S

 

Really, you can't say that the use of guns has never done anything, and then say the example doesn't count. You were making some absolutist claims that its completely untrue that it can be used against gov't, and then when you're given an example, you dismiss it. If you want to discuss the practicality on a larger level, or argue that that won't happen much thats one thing, but with a claim of absolutes, you've been disproven.

Offhand arguement....if I said that really, no abortions are due to incest so there's no point in debating that part of the issue, the fact that its a minute percentage of abortions wouldn't be the issue, but that I made an absolute claim that has been disproven with just one example. Significance and existance are different cases.

 

Actually Lowie, he gave me one example out of a hundred.

Tell me, am I allowed to tell you off for discounting stuff when someone talks about Cho as normative of American gun owners?

E_S

 

When I claim that no one will ever use guns for ill purpose, absolutely. When I say that our screening processes keep anyone that would be a danger from buying a gun, absolutely.

Like I said, its that you made an absolute claim about using guns against gov't. If you had said that it was extremely unlikely that people would actually rise up in armed rebellion against gov't, or doubted that would ever happen, then I'd think that completely fair statement, and the statistical significance of it is totally up for discussion. However, your statements claimed that it would never happen post-American revolution. Its the absoluteness of your statement that is the issue.

I'd agree that its not going to be the typical occurance when gov't gets out of line, or anything close to typical.

 

Tell me, am I allowed to tell you off for discounting stuff when someone talks about Cho as normative of American gun owners?

Please don't.

--------------------------------------------------

Next-

While it's illustrative of something...It's important to look at the above mentioned "Battle of Athens" in context.

First off, it happened back in 1946, just after WWII, and when there was an infux of GIs returning from the war.

Secondly, using census data:

HERE

Back in 1946, McMinn County had approximately 31,000 residents in the entire county, who were spread over a largely rural area. The narrative describes 159 people who initially raised concerns, and then a small group of people who actually participated against the specific jail.

Isolation+no controls+concentration of power resulted in the incident under discussion. I'm not sure that the single Sheriff of McMinn County actually equals "the government." I suppose it might, but only under extremely limited circumstances.

 

No, Mr44, i get that.

I'm trying to get Surfer to see that in almost all cases of keeping a government accountable, it's never ever involved guns.

It's invovled the media (Watergate, for example), and organised people groups.

I haven't even started on the notion that if guns were banned and people would just get them off the black market, why wouldn't concerned revolutionaries do the same?

I have said I've no problems with guns as a part of society, and responsible ownership.

I just object to being offered a spoonful of bull**** in the form of "Armed citizens ensure freedom". It's an opinion, at best - not a fact.

E_S

 

Heh..actually, only that one sentence was in response to you. The next half of my post was for the original point.

The edit should separate my two thoughts.

 

Clearly there will be differences in what supports or erodes freedom... I mean, personally I oppose gov't health care because I don't like the implications that has for personal choice. I'd also say, having guns doesn't guarantee the gov't is kept in check. Its more that its an extra option. I think keeping them available was to make it easier on said revolutionaries though.

 

I'm glad E_S takes over when I go to sleep; however, I have the feeling he's attacking Surfer's notions with the wrong, eh, ammunition.

Nations are nations. Individuals transcribe to that nations' laws. Surfer, like the rest of us, has to wait in front of a red light. People are not nations. People don't fight nations, save in the court room. This is the only way forward. Because:

1. Armed citizenry can overthrow a legitimate government, ever thought about that? That the armed citizenry overthrowing the government might not be YOU, but, I don't know, environmentalists? And that they'd overthrow a government you support? Please realize that this option is just as likely as your preferred one.

2. If your government decided to transform into a terror regime, there's always still UN and NATO. Fact that you haven't even mentioned them once sort of shows how much faith you have in them. Why not shape up those institutions, instead of arming citizens?

3. How can you be sure that your country will form one front when your government becomes The Usurper? Isn't it much more likely you'll get something like this...

4. How can you be sure that, by the time your government takes the reigns, you still have a law that says you can carry guns? Seems a bit naieve.

5. Your army would have to be supportive of your government. Far from a certainty, considering how proud the USA are of its name as the 'leader of the free world'. Highly unlikely, actually.

6. All this would have to be preceded by a drastic change in foreign politics. Only an isolationist government could pull this off. Which more or less automatically means it's not going to be the Republicans. Can you see Democrats doing this, really? Or if it be a third party - when are they ever going to come into power? A lot of things would have to change.

 

1. A legitimate gov't is one that is answerable to the people.... theres no need to overthrow a gov't that responds to you already

2. I think the issue there is the dependence that requires, for one... and two... for the U.S. at least, those organisations wouldn't actually help against the U.S. gov't just due to the structure of said organisations. I mean, the U.S. has veto power in the U.N. for example.

3. Do you mean that it would lead to fighting between groups, or that the U.S. itself would fragment? The latter, while I don't advocate it, isn't automatically and intrinsically bad.

4. The nature of your claim seems a bit weak there, as its basically saying "how do you know you're not going to set up a gov't that takes away your rights right off the bat that led to that new gov't". I don't think that one is a logical assumption that a new govt started by taking over the country would, as a premise, get rid of what allowed it to form that quickly.

5. What is it you're saying is unlikely? That the army would not support the gov't before, or the gov't after? And then how does that tie in to the free world part?

6. What do you mean only an isolationist gov't could pull this off? Also, the scale of this would have to transcend party lines, I'd suspect.

 

Lowie

1) Is entirely subject, when you get down to it. Consider; to the Tamil Tigers have a legitimate point? Did the IRA?

2) I agree that the UN/NATO would be powerless to stop any transformation of the US government. I will point out that a) Americans are incredibly dependent on their government in practise, and b) It's so unlikely the US govt. will become a tyrranical regime that I'll facetiously declare that Superman will save you from the government if the need arose.

3) It's also worth noting how quickly revolutionary groups turn conservative and no better than the regimes they replace, at this point.

4) If a group of armed citizen loonies took control of the US Govt, Watto, they'd destroy any gun law restrictions before they banned guns.

5) He has a point, that the army would need to be complacent and supportive of the regime. Though if the army fragmented, they would be devastatingly effective. There's nothing US troops are better at shooting at than other English speaking troops, so...

6) Eh, it's hard to gauge what international reaction to such fantasy would be.

E_S

 

On top of that:

1. You can imagine all types of scenarios here. I'm talking a mammoth David Koresh-type gang leading a coup or something. Scientology. I don't know, some future organization. Or how about if the divide between the Democrats and the Republicans becomes really big, and the Democrat citizenry seizes power? It's highly unlikely that one homogenous group would emerge that would share YOUR views completely.

2. I admit that they wouldn't be worth much. However, if you treated them well - that is, not as lapdogs - they would be a very good alternative to armed citizenry for keeping vicious regimes in check. Really... Wasn't that what they were set up to do? They would first need to be drastically reformed, though. Invest energy in your overseas connections, is what I'm saying, as opposed to looking inward for protection.

3. What E_S said. Also: the latter wouldn't necessarily be bad, no, but the stakes for that wouldn't exactly be good. I mean, in such a scenario, giving the people guns would not be advisable.

4. I'm afraid I used a wrong phrase there, clouding my use of the term 'your government'. What I meant was: if any government thinks of seizing control, first thing they'll do is take away your guns. They'll do that before they seize total control, so before any citizenry is able to form any decent armed opposition.

5. It's a cliche. America as the leader of the free world. That's the sole reason your army has been allowed to grow so humongous, the only selling proposition for it for the past fifty years. To spread democracy. Sure the leaders of that army ain't gonna serve an undemocratic government.

6. Imperial overstretch.

 

I'd like to come back and cover the rest, as well as Ender's... but you pretty much exactly summed up why many of the people opposing gun control do, that its the first step in stopping armed opposition from the people.

 

Not if it's instigated by the people.

 

Except Lowie, where's the argument about blackmarkets and criminals getting access fit into that?

E_S

 

and opposed by the other half of the people?

Two wolves and sheep can vote on what to eat for lunch.

That's Democracy.

The sheep can have an armed defense.

That's liberty.

 

Oh, I do so love imperial arrogance tinged with the inexperience of the wide eyed youth who has yet to see the world.

We're not armed; ergo we don't have liberty. Woe art us. Proud, art thee.

Pride comes before the _ _ _ _?



At least the argument in favour of guns for defence hasn't actually gotten any more believable. It's consistently a fantasy, which is somehow reassuring.

E_S