Guns, who should be able to own them? Options

[*NatiMarie*]

We all know that guns can cause harm, they're everywhere darnit!

Primarily, who can own them? Who shouldn't own them?

[Spirited Away]

i want one...

but i would get rid of it once i have kids.

[tkproduce]

I think the United States made a mistake in legalising it in the first place when the country was originally set up. But I guess we can't really go back in time.

[RiddleMeWonders]

Hell, I own a gun. I don't know, this subject is very hard for me to handle... I'm not going into why. Course, I live in a town called Deweyville so...... *Shrugs* We go hunting all the time. There have been some accidental deaths by guns.. but no many shootings. I don't know where we should draw the line.

[waccoon]

i say no, because then shootings would get out of control. you see the kids who think they're all gangsterr and tough, they'll want a gun so they can protect themselves.

[ComradeRed]

We all know that guns can cause harm, they're everywhere darnit!

Primarily, who can own them? Who shouldn't own them?

Anyone without a violent criminal record should be able to own them.

A well-armed citizenry is the last resort of protecting the law from the government. That's why we have the Second Amendment. As events in Fallujah prove, a militia of ordinary people can still defeat a modern military machine.


TKProduce, we legalized guns when the country was first set up because the very reason we were an free and independent country BECAUSE the average citizen on the street had guns. We weren't about to revert to another British-style tyranny.

Gun Control was a MAJOR issue during the revolutionary war:

"They tell us, sir, that we are weak, unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week? Or will it be the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed and there shall be a British guard stationed behind every door?"
--Patrick Henry, urging Virginia to declare its independence from Great Britain

[FlyingFries]

I think the United States made a mistake in legalising it in the first place when the country was originally set up. But I guess we can't really go back in time.

it wuz legalized cuz there were no police bak then to help the pple......they kinda had to protect them selves

[ComradeRed]

it wuz legalized cuz there were no police bak then to help the pple......they kinda had to protect them selves

There WERE police in the cities.

The people in the country were so spread out that there was little to no risk of crime.

It is clear, if you read what the FOunding Fathers wrote, that the Second Amendment was designed to give people the means to protect themselves from the GOVERNMENT.

The police are PART of the GOVERNMENT. If only the police have guns, what will ordinary people do when the police become the instrument of oppression?

That is precisely what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the Second Amendment, and they also created the militia to protect us from the Army.

In brief,
The government protects us from foreign countries.
The law protects us from the government.
The right to bear arms protects the law from the government.

[rivendell]

I think the United States made a mistake in legalising it in the first place when the country was originally set up. But I guess we can't really go back in time.

The guns of the revolutionary war were not the type of guns we see today! A gun was in some cases the difference between surviving and dying back then.

As for today, I look at it from the Chris Rock angle - let everyone who wants one have guns, just make bullets like $10,000 each.

[*kryogenix*]

In brief,
The government protects us from foreign countries.
The law protects us from the government.
The right to bear arms protects the law from the government.

Yes, checks and balances.

  i say no, because then shootings would get out of control. you see the kids who think they're all gangsterr and tough, they'll want a gun so they can protect themselves.

so why ruin it for the responsible people?

[tkproduce]

So how many people in America have used guns in the appropriate manner? Self defense from another person with a gun? Surely that person wouldn't have a gun in the first place if they were banned.

The police are PART of the GOVERNMENT. If only the police have guns, what will ordinary people do when the police become the instrument of oppression?

I kind of doubt that ordinary people with handguns would be able to supress the government if they did turn against their people.

I understand your argument of WHY guns are legalised in America because it's a "free" country and all that, but does the preparation for the very slight chance that the government might turn the police against their own people outweigh all the crimes that occur because of guns?

[ComradeRed]

So how many people in America have used guns in the appropriate manner?  Self defense from another person with a gun?  Surely that person wouldn't have a gun in the first place if they were banned.

Drugs are banned. Are you saying no one has drugs?

I kind of doubt that ordinary people with handguns would be able to supress the government if they did turn against their people.

It's happenign right now. Look at Fallujah.

And even if they can't stop the government, they'd at least make the government think twice about doing things.

You also NEVER, EVER want to underestimate what citizen-body is capable of doing. We have 300 million people here. If only ONE in TEN own just ordinary handguns, that is easily the most powerful fighting force in teh world.

I understand your argument of WHY guns are legalised in America because it's a "free" country and all that, but does the preparation for the very slight chance that the government might turn the police against their own people outweigh all the crimes that occur because of guns?

People killed by government in the last 100 years: 200 MILLION.
People killed by criminals, terrorists, etc., during that same time: 1.5 MILLION.

It's not a hard choice.

The chance that the government will turn against the people is NOT slight. It's happening today. We're paying taxes DOZENS of times higher than the taxes paid by the Colonials who revolted against the British. Government use of things like the US PATRIOT Act, Selective Service, etc., would not have been tolerated short of violence in an earlier age.

People are sissies now. That's why the government is so big. Back during the Civil War, when the government tried to draft people, they took to the streets in New York and Chicago and got the government to severly limit the draft. Post-Revolution, Shays' and Whiskey Rebellions, though they failed, ensured the election of a Republican government by 1800 that promoted liberty much better than their Federalist predecessors (even the Federalist tax rates were VERY modest by today's standards -- amounting to only about 6% of the average American's income, compared to 57% today).

[tkproduce]

People are sissies now.

Is that also the reason why people buy guns?

[EmeraldKnight]

Hm.. I dont realli have too much of an issue on the whole gun control thing.. i mean... if they're just handguns and have safeties on them so kids dont play with them, i dont realli see the problem.. as long as we dont sell automatic rifles or something..

[jaeman]

Hey! I own a gun. That is if you count paintball guns, and an air rifle...

[ComradeRed]

Is that also the reason why people buy guns?

Gun ownership rates in America (not guns per person, I mean number of people who own guns -- about 50%) doesn't nearly compare to what it was in the 1700s.

[onenonly101]

Anyone without a violent criminal record should be able to own them.

Those people became violent criminals because they had guns.

I mean banning guns isn't going to make people stop getting killed, maybe it will lower the number, but people will just find other ways. There will be more people selling illegal guns, as they now do with drugs. There is nothing wrong with having a gun, there is just something wrong with some of the people who have guns.

[ComradeRed]

Those people became violent criminals because they had guns.

I mean banning guns isn't going to make people stop getting killed, maybe it will lower the number, but people will just find other ways. There will be more people selling illegal guns, as they now do with drugs. There is nothing wrong with having a gun, there is just something wrong with some of the people who have guns.

In America, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. We don't punish people for something they MIGHT do down the line.

[WildGriffin]

In America, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. We don't punish people for something they MIGHT do down the line.

Gotta love the patriot act
...wait, whoops.

[tkproduce]

Actually, why are we just talking about America? Shouldn't we be debating whether gun ownership should be permitted in every country?

[ComradeRed]

Actually, why are we just talking about America? Shouldn't we be debating whether gun ownership should be permitted in every country?

My arguments aren't really America-spefici, though they center on America.

Guns are needed to keep a check on oppressive government. This is especailly true in third world countries where the governments are oppressive and teh technology is simple.

[initial-seven]

of course.......hehehehe

[*kryogenix*]

My arguments aren't really America-spefici, though they center on America.

Guns are needed to keep a check on oppressive government. This is especailly true in third world countries where the governments are oppressive and teh technology is simple.

i believe tkproduce was talking about WildGriffin's reference to the Patriot Act

i agree with the second part. think Haiti

[EmeraldKnight]

I dont think anybody should own them, save law enforcement and the military.. i mean.. they sell guns for self defense, but more often then not, they're not used for self defense and they get abused

I mean banning guns isn't going to make people stop getting killed, maybe it will lower the number, but people will just find other ways. There will be more people selling illegal guns, as they now do with drugs. There is nothing wrong with having a gun, there is just something wrong with some of the people who have guns.

Maybe it will lower the number, isnt less ppl killed better than more ppl killed?

And you're right, there is nothing wrong with having a gun, but like i stated above and you stated before, "there is just something wrong with some of the ppl who have guns" guns are a extremely potent weapon and a hazard to all that carry them, and I'm willing to bet that out of the ppl that bought guns for self defense (why else would you need a gun?), more of their guns get used for other purposes rather than for self defense

[RiddleMeWonders]

Okay, this thought has been pending inside me and finally I'm just going to utter it.
It may have been suggested already though. I don't know.

To me, the problem isn't people owning guns.
I think that if you are going to own any weapon, you should take an "awareness class"
Become trained, and have your motives and personality anylzed.
It doesnt matter if you've never had a criminal record. If you're sanity is questionable, if you are an unstable person you shouldnt be allowed to own a gun.

[EmeraldKnight]

But the thing is.. what if you check out alright, but other members of your household abuse the usage or something? I dont know.. its risky either way.. a weapon poses a risk to all

[strice]

dude, screw guns. guns are only fun in video games or as airsoft guns. the only time i would need a gun is for a zombie outbreak.

[EmeraldKnight]

dude, screw guns. guns are only fun in video games or as airsoft guns. the only time i would need a gun is for a zombie outbreak. 

hahaha, i actually agree with that

[strice]

anyways i'd be too chickenshit to shoot a guy in the face for "self defense"

[tkproduce]

A lot of people seem to support the illegalisation of guns in countries such as the United States, but how come I've never heard of people supporting the legalisation of guns in countries where gun possession is illegal, such as Western Europe?

[EmeraldKnight]

A lot of people seem to support the illegalisation of guns in countries such as the United States, but how come I've never heard of people supporting the legalisation of guns in countries where gun possession is illegal, such as Western Europe?

because guns are bad and they kill, the less guns in this world, the better

[tkproduce]

because guns are bad and they kill, the less guns in this world, the better

sorry, I wasn't posing the question to anti-gun people.

[Jiggapin0]

Guns should only be held by law enforcement and military. Yes, I know that getting rid of guns would not get rid of violence all together, but it would lessen the amount of violence.

[immersion31]

Guns should only be held by law enforcement and military. Yes, I know that getting rid of guns would not get rid of violence all together, but it would lessen the amount of violence.

i say that would help lessen violance

[ComradeRed]

Okay, this thought has been pending inside me and finally I'm just going to utter it.
It may have been suggested already though. I don't know.

To me, the problem isn't people owning guns.
I think that if you are going to own any weapon, you should take an "awareness class"
Become trained, and have your motives and personality anylzed.
It doesnt matter if you've never had a criminal record. If you're sanity is questionable, if you are an unstable person you shouldnt be allowed to own a gun.

And who decides the criteria? The government.

The point of the right to bear arms is totally destroyed when you have the government using arbitrary criteria to determine who can and who can't.

[RiddleMeWonders]

Those people are only there because "we" put them there.
If we don't like it, We'll change it.
There is alot of rebellion amoung our youth.
Something will happen. Things might change.
Because in the future, who is the government?
Who?

Us.

[ComradeRed]

Those people are only there because "we" put them there.
If we don't like it, We'll change it.
There is alot of rebellion amoung our youth.
Something will happen. Things might change.
Because in the future, who is the government?
Who?

Us.

I highly doubt any of us will have much political clout in the future.

People have to beware of collective nouns like "us". The only real individual power lies in the individual, not in "us".

[*krnxswat*]

I have guns.
One on my right arm, and the other on my left arm.

[*kryogenix*]

I have guns.
One on my right arm, and the other on my left arm.

guns as in pea shooters?

nah, just kidding

[RiddleMeWonders]

People have to beware of collective nouns like "us". The only real individual power lies in the individual, not in "us".

Okay, I agree with that part, and yeah. Sometimes I get dramatic.
But let me rephrase.
There is no one else.
The people born from 1984-2004 are our nation's future at the moment.
I wouldn't put a damn thing past those numbers.

Besides.
It's your choice who the "individual" is.
Us, Kids, Have the Power.

[EmeraldKnight]

Besides.
It's your choice who the "individual" is.
Us, Kids, Have the Power.

I see what you're saying, that we have the power to choose the ppl in the government.. but people are easily swayed by false claims as well.. and taking this topic back to guns..

The point of the right to bear arms is totally destroyed when you have the government using arbitrary criteria to determine who can and who can't.

Minda, what do you mean by arbitrary criteria?

[*Kathleen*]

Okay, let's think about this scenario: say we have this continuing war with some country, and eventually, they unexpectedly attack our civilians. Us civilians have nothing to do; nothing to protect ourselves from their guns. Would you want a gun then? Or just simply when someone breaks into your house, wanting to kill your wife/child/husband...you don't know how to fight; they have a gun...would you want one then? Granted, you're not planning to kill the other person, but just...self defend. Why should the government be involved in this? They set down the amendment, saying we have the right to bear arms. Nothing more to it.

A lot of people seem to support the illegalisation of guns in countries such as the United States, but how come I've never heard of people supporting the legalisation of guns in countries where gun possession is illegal, such as Western Europe?

How do you know that? Also, they're not in great danger as we are at the moment, seeing as we're in a war. Furthermore, because no one's allowed to have guns, criminals break in using other weapons. We, on the other hand, have people that break in with guns. You need to fight gun with gun, right? Opposed to Western Europe's knife/knife or fist/fist. Haha that sounded really stupid, but oh well. Anywho, you like bringing up Western Europe, don't you?

[EmeraldKnight]

Okay, let's think about this scenario: say we have this continuing war with some country, and eventually, they unexpectedly attack our civilians. Us civilians have nothing to do; nothing to protect ourselves from their guns. Would you want a gun then? Or just simply when someone breaks into your house, wanting to kill your wife/child/husband...you don't know how to fight; they have a gun...would you want one then? Granted, you're not planning to kill the other person, but just...self defend. Why should the government be involved in this? They set down the amendment, saying we have the right to bear arms. Nothing more to it.

Ok, I'd agree with you in that scenario, but its simply not realistic.. i mean.. what are the chances of some country invading our territory and attacking our citizens, we have the strongest military in the world, not very likely.. since you mentioned the amendment, i assume you're focusing on the US, and so I did the same.. i mean.. sure, in that scenario you'd want guns, but its simply not realistic.. civilians owning guns in the US presents so many other problems and opportunities for abuse.. and those outweigh the hypothetical threat outlined in your scenario

[ComradeRed]

I see what you're saying, that we have the power to choose the ppl in the government.. but people are easily swayed by false claims as well.. and taking this topic back to guns..

Minda, what do you mean by arbitrary criteria?

Arbitrary Criteria = Criteria that a group of beaucrats decide on without due process of law, for example "competency" to use guns.

Fact: Civilian gun ownership is the BEST proven deterrent to foreign invasion, and also to oppressive government.

The Nazis overran every country in Northern Mainland Europe during WWII, except Switzerland. Why? Because of guns. (also because of Swiss foreign policy, but mainly guns) Every Swiss household had guns. Swiss youths were taught to shoot at 300 yards, while Germans were taught to shoot at 100 yards. Hitler learned from the fact that the Red Army suffered massive casulaties trying to inavde tiny little Finland, and Switzerland was spared Nazi invasion.

Guns should only be held by law enforcement and military. Yes, I know that getting rid of guns would not get rid of violence all together, but it would lessen the amount of violence.

John Locke said: "Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away or destroy the property of the people, and reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, it puts itself at a STATE OF WAR with the people, who are henceforth release from any further obligation to obedience and left to the common refuge that God has provided for all men against force and fraud (revolution)."

For those of you who don't know John Locke, he is the person who inspired the democratic Enlightenment. Our own Declaration of Independence and to some extent our Constitution reflect his ideas.

Clearly, our Congress takes away our property all the time, and you could argue that measures such as the draft reduce the people to slavery under governemnt power. The Social Contract sees that the Government, whenever possible, will ALWAYS try to break the law, i.e. the Constitution.

Long story short, in a Republic, we ARE the law enforcement. We, the citizen body, must do our best to ENFORCE THE LAWS UPON THE GOVERNMENT, and defend the Constitution. To do so, sometimes, the ballot box isn't enough. We need guns.

[EmeraldKnight]

Arbitrary Criteria = Criteria that a group of beaucrats decide on without due process of law, for example "competency" to use guns.

well.. why cant they decide on the "competency" with due process of law?

Fact: Civilian gun ownership is the BEST proven deterrent to foreign invasion, and also to oppressive government.

The Nazis overran every country in Northern Mainland Europe during WWII, except Switzerland. Why? Because of guns. (also because of Swiss foreign policy, but mainly guns) Every Swiss household had guns. Swiss youths were taught to shoot at 300 yards, while Germans were taught to shoot at 100 yards. Hitler learned from the fact that the Red Army suffered massive casulaties trying to inavde tiny little Finland, and Switzerland was spared Nazi invasion.

Yes, but consider the chances that a foreign army will invade our soil, its not very likely.. so you're saying that if we ban gun ownership, our government will start to oppress us and foreign armies will invade?


Erm.. i didnt realli follow most of it (not much into politics) but:

Long story short, in a Republic, we ARE the law enforcement. We, the citizen body, must do our best to ENFORCE THE LAWS UPON THE GOVERNMENT, and defend the Constitution. To do so, sometimes, the ballot box isn't enough. We need guns.

We need guns? what exactly do our guns do for us?

[*Kathleen*]

Ok, I'd agree with you in that scenario, but its simply not realistic.. i mean.. what are the chances of some country invading our territory and attacking our citizens, we have the strongest military in the world, not very likely.. since you mentioned the amendment, i assume you're focusing on the US, and so I did the same.. i mean.. sure, in that scenario you'd want guns, but its simply not realistic.. civilians owning guns in the US presents so many other problems and opportunities for abuse.. and those outweigh the hypothetical threat outlined in your scenario

No matter what, the chances are still there.

So, Minda, what exactly are you trying to say?

[EmeraldKnight]

No matter what, the chances are still there.

So? there's the chance of anything happening at any given time.. I dont see how this is a plausible argument..

[ComradeRed]

well.. why cant they decide on the "competency" with due process of law?

In the context of the USA, due process implies one of two things: An Objective Standard, or a Jury Trial. Neither exist in this situation.

Yes, but consider the chances that a foreign army will invade our soil, its not very likely.. so you're saying that if we ban gun ownership, our government will start to oppress us and foreign armies will invade?

No I'm saying our government is ALREADY starting to oppress us, and people should have guns if it comes down to that. No foreign armies will invade the USA. Historically, the biggest threat to any country, and definitely to ours, is their own government.

Erm.. i didnt realli follow most of it (not much into politics) but:

We need guns? what exactly do our guns do for us?

Guns protect us. Guns enforce the laws. America was FOUNDED by gun nuts. In the Colonial Period, every male over 12 was socially expected to own a rifle AND a pistol. This is how we were able to overthrow the British when they became oppressive and when they began to abandon the Rule of Law.

It is generally accepted that Law Enforcement should have guns. Law Enforcement means the police officers, not just the Courts. The Courts can hand down as many rulings as they want, but it's up to the police to enforce them, right? The police enforce the laws upon the PEOPLE.

But then, who is left to enforce the laws upon the GOVERNMENT? We have the Supreme Court... but what if the government decides not to obey the Supreme Court? Then we need a police force to keep the government in check. This police force is the Population of the United States.

If you want only law enforcement to have guns, then every American should have guns. When it comes down to the worst case, we are the ones who are left to enforce the Constitution, which is, after all, the HIGHEST law of the land.


This isn't about chances, Emerald. There's a 100% Chance the govenrment will break the law (Constitution): THEY ALREADY HAVE. MANY, MANY TIMES.

We can be sure that criminals will break teh law, so we need police to have guns. And we can be sure that the govenrment will, so we need the people to have guns.

[*Kathleen*]

Ack, but the thing is...you have to consider the future...if you ban them forever, that obviously means that the future wars between us and other countries will leave us civilians without guns. You shouldn't be so confident that we'll always have the best military in the world. You can't be certain that we won't need it.

[EmeraldKnight]

Ack, but the thing is...you have to consider the future...if you ban them forever, that obviously means that the future wars between us and other countries will leave us civilians without guns. You shouldn't be so confident that we'll always have the best military in the world. You can't be certain that we won't need it

Well when we do need it, we can lift the ban

In the context of the USA, due process implies one of two things: An Objective Standard, or a Jury Trial. Neither exist in this situation.

I'm still not sure what you mean..

No I'm saying our government is ALREADY starting to oppress us, and people should have guns if it comes down to that. No foreign armies will invade the USA. Historically, the biggest threat to any country, and definitely to ours, is their own government.

How are they starting to oppress us? So what you're basically stating is that its important for us to have guns so that we can revolt against the government if it comes down to it?

This isn't about chances, Emerald. There's a 100% Chance the govenrment will break the law (Constitution): THEY ALREADY HAVE. MANY, MANY TIMES

Where are you getting this?

[ComradeRed]

Well when we do need it, we can lift the ban

I'm still not sure what you mean..

How are they starting to oppress us? So what you're basically stating is that its important for us to have guns so that we can revolt against the government if it comes down to it?

Where are you getting this?

Well if the government because oppressive enough, what makes you think they WILL lift the ban?

Where am I getting this??

Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these rights [life, liberty, pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men. That whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to set aside new guards for their future security."

What do you think abolishing the government means?

Declaration of Independence continues: "But when a long train of absues and usurpatins, pursuing invaraibly the same object, evinces a design to reduce the people under absolute despotism, it is their RIGHT, it is their DUTY, to throw off such government..."

Our country was founded on the Premise that people have an inalienable right to overthrow their government. That's exactly what we did.

The Constitution: "A well-regulated militia being vital to the security of a free state, the right of hte people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..."

Back when the Constitution was written, the militia meant ALL adult males in the population, and the purpose of the militia was to FIGHT THE ARMY. The militia was NOT designed to protect against foreign invaders, it was designed to protect against the ARMY and the GOVERNMENT. That's why militias were NEVER given to federal control, but rather were controlled locally.

Further, James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, explains the Second Amendment and its purpose in the Federalist Papers: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state ... The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

The Right to Bear Arms was designed to prevent oppressive government and to ensure that people had the means to overthrow their government if it came down to that.


My ideas come from the ideas that founded America. Fairly credible.

[EmeraldKnight]

Dang...do you memorize this stuff?

Alright well... first of all... it is still highly unlikely that the government will get oppressive enough that merits an armed revolt..

Second of all... what happened to all the progress we've made in civil rights and nonviolent protest? we're a role model countries all over the world.. if we revolt by means of force, it'll cause a chain reaction

Thirdly, if you will, please cite examples in the past where our government has oppressed us

[ComradeRed]

Dang...do you memorize this stuff? 

Alright well... first of all... it is still highly unlikely that the government will get oppressive enough that merits an armed revolt..

Second of all... what happened to all the progress we've made in civil rights and nonviolent protest? we're a role model countries all over the world.. if we revolt by means of force, it'll cause a chain reaction

Thirdly, if you will, please cite examples in the past where our government has oppressed us

1) I memorized the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence. The other quotes are copy-pasted.

2) You said law enforcement. When the government breaks the law, as it already has, it technically justifies armed enforcement of the Constitutin, just as if someone steals a pen, even though it doesn't do any real harm, we still prosecute.

Of course, there are practical problems to overthrowing the government every other day, but the fact remains that SOONER OR LATER, government will progress to the stage when armed rebellion is the only solution... This is what has happened with EVERY SINGLE REPUBLIC in history, including our own. That's why in the Declaration there's a clause that says some times you ahve to tolerate a LITTLE oppressive government, but when it gets so bad that there's no longer any way to stop it using legal means, then armed force is an acceptable means to do so.

Every Republic in history has gone through four stages:
Civic Republic
Imperial Republic
Welfare-State
Desptoism

It is customary to compare America to Rome. The Civic Republic is the Rule of Law and the devotion of the citizen-body to civic duty and the law, usually created by post-Revolutionary fervor. For the US, this is the period from the Revolution to the Civil War, while for Rome it was the period from 509 BC to the Punic Wars.

After the Republic becomes powerful, it looks outside its borders. After a great period of crisis (The Civil War or the Punic War), it expands into the Imperial Republic. This is the Republic dominated by expansionist or sometimes financial interests. This type of country has a small but corrupt government, endlessly pandering to a rich elite. For the US, this would be from the Civil War to the 1920s, and for Rome this would be from the Punic Wars to Julius Caesar (44 BC).

Usually, a major crisis ends the power of the old aristocracy and turns the power to liberals. This is the beginning of the Welfare-State. In America, this began with Roosevelt in the Great Depression. Power goes from "snobs to mobs". The rule of law, weakening in the previous stage, is almost totally disregarded in the name of hte common good. While this stage temporarily revitalizes a country, ultimately it leads to downfall. In Rome, this was "bread and circuses" -- free gladiator tickets. In teh US, I will say this stage started with the Great Depression and is ending.

Finally, a Republic goes into Despotism, when neither rule of law nor the common good is upheld. The government grows rapidly, quikcly becoming the single biggest entity in the country. People are oppressed by heavy taxes and arbitrary rule, and ultimately, they have no recourse but to overthrow their government. In the United States, this stage probably can said to have begun in 2001, whereas in Rome this meant from 300 AD onwards.

Power goes from THE LAW [Rule of Law/Republicanism] --> BUSINESS [Corrupted Rule of Law/Plutocracy] --> "THE PEOPLE" [Ignored Rule of Law/Socialism] --> THE GOVERNMENT [No Rule of Law/Oppression] --> (revolution) --> THE LAW

I'm not making this up; historically speaking this is what happens.

[EmeraldKnight]

You said law enforcement. When the government breaks the law, as it already has, it technically justifies armed enforcement of the Constitutin, just as if someone steals a pen, even though it doesn't do any real harm, we still prosecute

I wasnt the one to mention law enforcement..someone else brought that up, but anyways.. how has the government broken the law? you havent stated specifically yet..

Alright and 1. I love your Rome analogy, its very well written but 2. it shoudnt apply here

Of course, there are practical problems to overthrowing the government every other day, but the fact remains that SOONER OR LATER, government will progress to the stage when armed rebellion is the only solution... This is what has happened with EVERY SINGLE REPUBLIC in history, including our own. That's why in the Declaration there's a clause that says some times you ahve to tolerate a LITTLE oppressive government, but when it gets so bad that there's no longer any nway to stop it using legal means, then armed force is an acceptable means to do so.

I still dont see how you can be so sure that our government will reach that point.. i mean.. simply because it happened in the past doesnt mean that it'll happen again..

We cant prepare for everything that might possibly happen, its just not practical

[ComradeRed]

I wasnt the one to mention law enforcement..someone else brought that up, but anyways.. how has the government broken the law? you havent stated specifically yet..

Alright and 1. I love your Rome analogy, its very well written but 2. it shoudnt apply here


I still dont see how you can be so sure that our government will reach that point.. i mean.. simply because it happened in the past doesnt mean that it'll happen again..

We cant prepare for everything that might possibly happen, its just not practical

The Constitution is the HIGHEST law of the land. The government breaks it every day.

In the War on Drugs, they routinely raid people's homes and businesses without warrant, thus breaking the Fourth Amendment, and the law.

They pass laws against hate speech, pornography, etc., thus violating the First Amendment, and breaking the law.

They forcibly tax us, then use the money to pay for things that are not authorized by Article I, Section 8 such as welfare, thus breaking the Ninth AND Tenth Amendments, and breaking the law.

They delegate legislative powers to the United Nations, thus violating Section I of the Constitution, and breaking the law.

They put American citizens in G-Bay without access to trial, thus breaking the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, and the law.

They pass gun laws, thus breaking the Second Amendment, and the law.

Need I go further? Numbers-wise the government is easily the biggest criminal in the country.

Moreover, I'm not saying we should prepare for everything that might possibly happen, but it's VERY CLEAR that the United States is heading down the road to despotism. The government -- ONE SINGLE AGENCY -- already uses almost 60% of our Nation's GDP. Get that? The government controls THREE out of every FIVE dollars in the country. This is a sure-fire response for dictatorship, when a single agency becomes that powerful.

My Rome analogy is perfectly relevant, I've already shown how it applied if you read more closely. And it's not just Rome. This is what happened to the French as well, only on a much quicker scale (Civic Republic: 1789, Imperial Republic: 1793, Welfare-State: 1804, Despotism: 1815, Revolution again: 1848). And in England in the 1600s and 1700s, only the Revolutions did not reach the Mother Country itself excpet for the 1688 "Glorious Revolution", instead occuring in the Colonies.

[EmeraldKnight]

Ok... you're starting to scare me.. how much you know and all the specifics , lol whereas I'm just kinda saying stuff off the top of my head.. anyways..

Moreover, I'm not saying we should prepare for everything that might possibly happen, but it's VERY CLEAR that the United States is heading down the road to despotism. The government -- ONE SINGLE AGENCY -- already uses almost 60% of our Nation's GDP. Get that? The government controls THREE out of every FIVE dollars in the country. This is a sure-fire response for dictatorship, when a single agency becomes that powerful.

My Rome analogy is perfectly relevant, I've already shown how it applied if you read more closely. And it's not just Rome. This is what happened to the French as well, only on a much quicker scale (Civic Republic: 1789, Imperial Republic: 1793, Welfare-State: 1804, Despotism: 1815, Revolution again: 1848). And in England in the 1600s and 1700s, only the Revolutions did not reach the Mother Country itself excpet for the 1688 "Glorious Revolution", instead occuring in the Colonies.

Alright if you realli believe that, then why dont you instead advocate mandating a gun in every household then?

[ComradeRed]

Ok... you're starting to scare me.. how much you know and all the specifics , lol whereas I'm just kinda saying stuff off the top of my head.. anyways..

Alright if you realli believe that, then why dont you instead advocate mandating a gun in every household then?

I'm against mandating a gun in every household, because in the end it's individual choice. Even if everyone has a gun, and government becomes oppressive, those who were forced to have guns probably aren't going to use them anyway. They just become dead-weight costs.

During the American Revolution, it was as little as a third of hte population resisting the British, and perhaps only half of those actively doing so, and yet it was enough. The popular image of the Revolution as a people's war is untrue.

The cycle, in the end might be unavoidable, not to sound overly grim. But when civic virtue dies in the hearts of the people, no Courts, no Constitution, and no law can save it. Sometimes the only way to revive the Rule of Law is to show people what life is like with no rule of law -- just what America is coming to.

[EmeraldKnight]

During the American Revolution, it was as little as a third of hte population resisting the British, and perhaps only half of those actively doing so, and yet it was enough. The popular image of the Revolution as a people's war is untrue.

But that was then.. when guns fought guns.. now they have tanks and missiles.. what good will guns do if the government starts shooting from underground bases or something?

The cycle, in the end might be unavoidable, not to sound overly grim. But when civic virtue dies in the hearts of the people, no Courts, no Constitution, and no law can save it. Sometimes the only way to revive the Rule of Law is to show people what life is like with no rule of law -- just what America is coming to.

Wait.. are you saying that we need guns in case there be need to revolt, or that having guns prevents the chances of revolt?

[ComradeRed]

But that was then.. when guns fought guns.. now they have tanks and missiles.. what good will guns do if the government starts shooting from underground bases or something?


Wait.. are you saying that we need guns in case there be need to revolt, or that having guns prevents the chances of revolt?

If you look at what's happening in Fallujah, you can see clearly that the best-high tech army in the world CAN be defeated by a ragtag militia, if the militia is smart enough to pick its fights. And you have to understand the most fundamental military adage: Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics. If the government does start shooting from underground bases, it risks alienating moderates tremendously. Eventually, parts of the army itself defects, resistance grows, and the government itself collapses, regardless of how strong it is.

Moreover, with guns, you can seize heavy weapons when it comes down to that. During the Revolution, one of the first battles was when Ethan Allen and a small team of riflemen stormed Fort Ticonderoga and took the cannons from the British. The Colonials eventually took more heavy weapons by seizing British arsenals using common weapons.

For the forseeable future, guns are still going to be the ultimate hinge of war.

[EmeraldKnight]

If you look at what's happening in Fallujah, you can see clearly that the best-high tech army in the world CAN be defeated by a ragtag militia, if the militia is smart enough to pick its fights. And you have to understand the most fundamental military adage: Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics. If the government does start shooting from underground bases, it risks alienating moderates tremendously.

But the thing is.. in Fallujah, we're fighting on their soil, unfamiliar territory to us, with natural defenses for them.. while in the US, if it does come to a revolt, they'd still have a lot more high tech weaponry.. i mean.. the vast majority of gun owners own handguns, not automatic weaponry, so an armed revolt would be basically suicide

Eventually, parts of the army itself defects, resistance grows, and the government itself collapses, regardless of how strong it is.

Part of the army defects? are you saying that our troops in Iraq defect?

Moreover, with guns, you can seize heavy weapons when it comes down to that. During the Revolution, one of the first battles was when Ethan Allen and a small team of riflemen stormed Fort Ticonderoga and took the cannons from the British. The Colonials eventually took more heavy weapons by seizing British arsenals using common weapons.

You're still stuck with historical references, I seriously doubt that we can go into some base and hijack tanks and aircraft or something.. plus civlians wouldnt know how to utilize the weaponry even IF they managed to steal them.. the Continental army was at least familiar with the weapons they stole

[ComradeRed]

But the thing is.. in Fallujah, we're fighting on their soil, unfamiliar territory to us, with natural defenses for them.. while in the US, if it does come to a revolt, they'd still have a lot more high tech weaponry.. i mean.. the vast majority of gun owners own handguns, not automatic weaponry, so an armed revolt would be basically suicide


Part of the army defects? are you saying that our troops in Iraq defect?


You're still stuck with historical references, I seriously doubt that we can go into some base and hijack tanks and aircraft or something.. plus civlians wouldnt know how to utilize the weaponry even IF they managed to steal them.. the Continental army was at least familiar with the weapons they stole

In the US, the people would still know their local community better than the government. ENOUGH people, armed with only handguns, would be able to overthrow their governemnt, especially when the government lacked support.

YOu have to remember that in a revolution, actual fighting is only a small part of it. In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Bloc, alot of governments were brought down with only a little fighting. Why? Because after the soldiers were ordered to fire on their own countrymen, alot simply laid down their arms and joined the rebels looting the country.

You have to remmeber that when I say a revolution, I don't mean one now obviously. One could only happen when the government is so decrepit, that it already lost the support of MOST of the country, and that morale in the army itself is low.

No I'm not saying our troops in Iraq defect. They're being ordered to shoot Iraqis. When soldiers are ordered to shoot their own friends and neighbors for a cause that they might not percieve to be just, historically speaking, they have a tendency to defect: Eastern Europe 1990s, Russia 1918, etc. This is especially true of conscripted troops. If we resume the draft, then a sucessful revolution would be fairly probably within 50 years. But we probably won't.

There's lots of retired army vets. They tend to be the most traditionally conservative of all. The American Revolution was started largely by people with military experience, or at least civilians who could figure out.

[EmeraldKnight]

In the US, the people would still know their local community better than the government. ENOUGH people, armed with only handguns, would be able to overthrow their governemnt, especially when the government lacked support.

And you're sayng that currently, a significant enough portion of the population possesses handguns to do so?

YOu have to remember that in a revolution, actual fighting is only a small part of it. In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Bloc, alot of governments were brought down with only a little fighting. Why? Because after the soldiers were ordered to fire on their own countrymen, alot simply laid down their arms and joined the rebels looting the country.

You have to remmeber that when I say a revolution, I don't mean one now obviously. One could only happen when the government is so decrepit, that it already lost the support of MOST of the country, and that morale in the army itself is low.

No I'm not saying our troops in Iraq defect. They're being ordered to shoot Iraqis. When soldiers are ordered to shoot their own friends and neighbors for a cause that they might not percieve to be just, historically speaking, they have a tendency to defect: Eastern Europe 1990s, Russia 1918, etc. This is especially true of conscripted troops. If we resume the draft, then a sucessful revolution would be fairly probably within 50 years. But we probably won't.

Couldnt the same results be achieved by peaceful protest? if the army loses its morale and defects, why must civilians fight? I think you're going against yourself here..

There's lots of retired army vets. They tend to be the most traditionally conservative of all. The American Revolution was started largely by people with military experience, or at least civilians who could figure out.

Well... are you saying that retired army vets and civilians would know enough about modern military technology to be able to utilize captured weaponry?

haha, i find it kinda funny that we're debating what would happen if there was another revolution and still managing to tie it back to the topic

[ComradeRed]

And you're sayng that currently, a significant enough portion of the population possesses handguns to do so?



Couldnt the same results be achieved by peaceful protest? if the army loses its morale and defects, why must civilians fight? I think you're going against yourself here..


Well... are you saying that retired army vets and civilians would know enough about modern military technology to be able to utilize captured weaponry?

haha, i find it kinda funny that we're debating what would happen if there was another revolution and still managing to tie it back to the topic

There are almost 200 million registered handguns in the United States, and probably 50 million unique owners, yes, I think enough Americans have handguns.

The same results could be achieved with peaceful protest, sure, that's what has happened, but sometimes, a little force--even a little--is necessary. Modern revolutions have been mostly peaceful, but there have been violent outbursts, and the people have to be able to defend thesmelves in cases like that.

Even if part of the army defects, it is very likely that a brief period of fighting would have to occur for other parts of it to lose their morale and defect. Being ordered to shoot is one part of defecting, being shot at is another.

[EmeraldKnight]

The same results could be achieved with peaceful protest, sure, that's what has happened, but sometimes, a little force--even a little--is necessary. Modern revolutions have been mostly peaceful, but there have been violent outbursts, and the people have to be able to defend thesmelves in cases like that.

But.. wouldnt less bloodshed still be better than more?

Even if part of the army defects, it is very likely that a brief period of fighting would have to occur for other parts of it to lose their morale and defect. Being ordered to shoot is one part of defecting, being shot at is another.

I think this situation we're talking about is far too hypothetical... all your references are to the past, hundreds of years ago.. how can you assume the results will be the same now?

[ComradeRed]

But.. wouldnt less bloodshed still be better than more?


I think this situation we're talking about is far too hypothetical... all your references are to the past, hundreds of years ago.. how can you assume the results will be the same now?

No past ... Ten years ago ... Romania. Government overthrown by popular movement. A few people with guns tried to raid the government headquarters. Ceasescu ordered his soldiers to fire. His soldiers defected and arrested him instead. He was executed the next day.

[EmeraldKnight]

No past ... Ten years ago ... Romania. Government overthrown by popular movement. A few people with guns tried to raid the government headquarters. Ceasescu ordered his soldiers to fire. His soldiers defected and arrested him instead. He was executed the next day.

Couldnt they have done that with peaceful protest? AND.. thats just a few ppl, like you said.. so if a few ppl, say the law enforcement did that or something..

[strice]

as proven in Bowling For Columbine, it isn't the presence of guns or a bloody history, but just they way people are brought up. Go watch it.

[EmeraldKnight]

as proven in Bowling For Columbine, it isn't the presence of guns or a bloody history, but just they way people are brought up. Go watch it.

Yes, but couldnt we have avoided that whole Columbine incident simply by banning or greatly restricting guns? I mean.. seriously.. they didnt just take their father's handguns or anything, they had automatic assault weapons.. do we as civilians seriously need those to protect ourselves?

[angel-roh]

teenagers under 21 of age shud be illegal for gun using...hehe... well it's good to be keep it...but if u dont wana kill someone they dont keep it haha. my friend almost killed her neighbor with her gun. well she is 20 and live by herself in this old house she lived in since wen she was 2 years old. and her neighbor who is around 67 years old went over to my friend's house to bring some brownies that old lady made. my friend and her neighbor and good friends. and that old lady came to my friend's house like 1 am in the morning... i was over at her house for sleepover...my other friends were there too.. someone crashed her door.. her door has glass window...and my friend got her gun out and she shot that person cus she was sooo scared... well the reason that old lady crashed the glass cus she was blind and my friend didnt knoe that... cus my friend havent talk to that old lady for 3 weeks so yeah... but good thing the old lady was saved... my friend didnt go to jail..whew!

[EmeraldKnight]

teenagers under 21 of age shud be illegal for gun using...hehe... well it's good to be keep it...but if u dont wana kill someone they dont keep it haha. my friend almost killed her neighbor with her gun. well she is 20 and live by herself in this old house she lived in since wen she was 2 years old. and her neighbor who is around 67 years old went over to my friend's house to bring some brownies that old lady made. my friend and her neighbor and good friends. and that old lady came to my friend's house like 1 am in the morning... i was over at her house for sleepover...my other friends were there too.. someone crashed her door.. her door has glass window...and my friend got her gun out and she shot that person cus she was sooo scared... well the reason that old lady crashed the glass cus she was blind and my friend didnt knoe that... cus my friend havent talk to that old lady for 3 weeks so yeah... but good thing the old lady was saved... my friend didnt go to jail..whew!

But then how do we keep ppl under 21 years of age from obtaining a gun from their household (as in a parent bought it for protection), and abusing it?

[ComradeRed]

Yes, but couldnt we have avoided that whole Columbine incident simply by banning or greatly restricting guns? I mean.. seriously.. they didnt just take their father's handguns or anything, they had automatic assault weapons.. do we as civilians seriously need those to protect ourselves?

We should have every SIDEARM available to the military, as well as government secret-police agencies like the BATF and the DEA, which are MUCH bigger threats than the military is to us.

When we made the Second Amendment, ALL guns were assault weapons.

I'll admit, back when we passed the second amendment, guns could fire three rounds a minute. Today, they can fire three hundred rounds a minute. To say that this is a reason to abolish them is comparable to saying: "Back when we passed the first amendment, a printing press could print three pages a minute. Today, the New York Times can print three hundred thousand pages a minute (an even bigger gap). Therefore, we should abolish the New York Times."

"The Press is more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns, why should we let them have press?"
--Lenin

Communist thinking is always backwards. Reverse that last statement: "The Press is more dangerous than guns. We let our people have the Press, why should we not let them have guns?"

[Spirited Away]

I thought that the Columbine kids had made some of their own weapons in their garage. .

[EmeraldKnight]

We should have every SIDEARM available to the military, as well as government secret-police agencies like the BATF and the DEA, which are MUCH bigger threats than the military is to us.

I dont see how this is relevant to civilians..

When we made the Second Amendment, ALL guns were assault weapons.
I'll admit, back when we passed the second amendment, guns could fire three rounds a minute. Today, they can fire three hundred rounds a minute. To say that this is a reason to abolish them is comparable to saying: "Back when we passed the first amendment, a printing press could print three pages a minute. Today, the New York Times can print three hundred thousand pages a minute (an even bigger gap). Therefore, we should abolish the New York Times."

So you're in favor of civilians owning assault weapons?

Communist thinking is always backwards. Reverse that last statement: "The Press is more dangerous than guns. We let our people have the Press, why should we not let them have guns?"

because guns are more often abused than the press

[ComradeRed]

I dont see how this is relevant to civilians..

So you're in favor of civilians owning assault weapons?


because guns are more often abused than the press

1) It's very releveant. The BATF barbecued 100 American civilians at Waco. The DEA has ONE MILLION Americans in arrest -- mostly because of non-violent offenses that wouldn't have been considered criminal in 1920.

2) I am in favor of civilians owning assault weapons. Law enforcement does. And we are what enforces the law upon the government.

3) Guns are NOT more often abused than the press. Ask the government if they would rather control the media or the guns, I guarantee you they will say the media. The media controls minds. Guns can't. Ask any deposed dictator. Sure, in their last moments, they might have been shot by a civilian with a gun, but their downfall was begun in the media.

[Spirited Away]

2) I am in favor of civilians owning assault weapons. Law enforcement does. And we are what enforces the law upon the government.

I agree with that.

Civilians should be able to own guns, but to a regulated degree.

[EmeraldKnight]

1) It's very releveant. The BATF barbecued 100 American civilians at Waco. The DEA has ONE MILLION Americans in arrest -- mostly because of non-violent offenses that wouldn't have been considered criminal in 1920.

what are those organizations? Remember that you're speaking to inferiors here

2) I am in favor of civilians owning assault weapons. Law enforcement does. And we are what enforces the law upon the government.

And you dont worry at all about the misuse of assault weapons? If civilians could own assault weapons, wouldnt that make gang wars or robberies a lot more violent and harder for police to manage?

3) Guns are NOT more often abused than the press. Ask the government if they would rather control the media or the guns, I guarantee you they will say the media. The media controls minds. Guns can't. Ask any deposed dictator. Sure, in their last moments, they might have been shot by a civilian with a gun, but their downfall was begun in the media.

I acknowledge that.. but the media is controlled by less ppl, whereas guns would be available to all who desire them

[flc]

It's hard to tell who should and shouldn't own guns..because you never know who is or isn't responsible until an accident happens.

[sheridan_whitesi...]

Consider the following situation when thinking whether or not concealed carry laws and universal gun ownership are a good idea:
Setting: A gravel parking lot, night-time
Redneck A: Were you talking to my girl back there?
Yuppie A: You mean the bartender?
Redneck A: So you WERE talking to her! Hey Travis!
Redneck B: yeah?
Redneck A: Not you, little Travis
Redneck C: [child's voice] yeah?
Redneck A: Get me an ol' D&R Beer!
Li'l Travis gets a beer and throws it to Redneck A
Redneck A chugs the beer
Redneck A: IT'S ONNN!!!
Redneck A pulls out a gun. Yuppie and his entourage follow the example. There is a widespread shootout and four people are dead.

In a situation where these people were not permitted by law to carry a concealed firearm, the yuppie would have his nose flattened, that's about it. Due to the "crime-fighting" measure of concealed carry laws, we now have a multiple homicide.

[*mipadi*]

Do you really have any evidence to back that up? As Steven D. Levitt notes in Freakonomics, "John R. Lott, Jr. […] argues that violent crime has decreased in areas were law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons" (133). Furthermore, in Switzerland, every adult male has a firearm—and Switzerland is one of the safest nations in the world (131).

[sheridan_whitesi...]

Warning, Michael. You're gonna get severely spanked right now.

Now, you use an example from Freakonomics, which I am familair with, and especially familiar with the passage that you cite. If you would have actually read the text, instead of the choice context-removing bit on the internet somewhere, you would read on to see on page 134 that Lott actually invented some of the survey data used to come to this concluson. From the text: "Regardless of whether or not the data were faked, Lott's admittedly intriguing hypothesis doesn't seem to be true. When other scholars have tried to replicate his results, they found that right-to-carry laws simply don't bring down crime." (Levitt 134)

addendum
The previous post was admittedly a theoretical exercise, not a statement of any solid findings, it was meant only to illustrate that "morons + guns" is not a good idea no matter who you are. This ties in to your example about the Helvetic States where the government issues every citzen an assault rifle. (ibid.) Crime is not a function of the number of guns a society owns per capita. Switzerland has a much different culture than the U.S., and, frankly, I wouldn't trust 80% of our nation with a deadly weapon, whether they are criminals or not. Of course this is subjective and if you would like every meathead you see on the street packing heat that's up to you.

[AngelinaTaylor]

NO, by all means we should NOT be able to just "have" guns, I mean look at where we are now.. about 12,000 people in the U.S.A. die from a bullet probably almost each year; I considered Toronto the safest place in the world, but just in the last year the shootings have become absolutely ridiculous. Why would someone have a gun? To "protect" himself/herself? There's the police for that. What the hell is wrong with people? GUNS KILL PEOPLE.

Taylor``

[*mipadi*]

Now, you use an example from Freakonomics, which I am familair with, and especially familiar with the passage that you cite. If you would have actually read the text, instead of the choice context-removing bit on the internet somewhere, you would read on to see on page 134 that Lott actually invented some of the survey data used to come to this concluson. From the text: "Regardless of whether or not the data were faked, Lott's admittedly intriguing hypothesis doesn't seem to be true. When other scholars have tried to replicate his results, they found that right-to-carry laws simply don't bring down crime." (Levitt 134)

I stand corrected on the quote, although it doesn't completely nullify my point—his research hasn't been completely discredited, although it may be inaccurate. Of course, given that you used a completely constructed and unsupported anecdote to support your point, I don't know if it's prudent to point fingers at others' data, but… Well, I'll move on to your next point and leave it at that.

addendum
The previous post was admittedly a theoretical exercise, not a statement of any solid findings, it was meant only to illustrate that "morons + guns" is not a good idea no matter who you are. This ties in to your example about the Helvetic States where the government issues every citzen an assault rifle. (ibid.) Crime is not a function of the number of guns a society owns per capita. Switzerland has a much different culture than the U.S., and, frankly, I wouldn't trust 80% of our nation with a deadly weapon, whether they are criminals or not. Of course this is subjective and if you would like every meathead you see on the street packing heat that's up to you.

Your point seems to support my statement, not yours, in that it is the fault of the culture, not the guns, that causes the problem, and the presence of weapons does not necessarily mean that gun crime will increase—which is exactly my point. Guns don't cause crime—criminals do.

[sheridan_whitesi...]

One, citing a tertiary source doesn't exactly turn this thread into scientific discourse. This is a message board predominantly patronized by middle schoolers. You haven't conducted any research, you've cited a mainstream publication without paying attention to the following paragraph.

My point was not "Guns = Crime." It was "Guns + Morons = Crime." Remeber "Americans = Morons", therefore "Americans + Guns = Very high gun homcide rate." In other words, American culture is not the one that should have the concealed carry laws. My anecdote hopefully was very plausible, and when you place guns into the situation, the outcome will be significantly different.

[*mipadi*]

One, citing a tertiary source doesn't exactly turn this thread into scientific discourse. This is a message board predominantly patronized by middle schoolers. You haven't conducted any research, you've cited a mainstream publication without paying attention to the following paragraph.

What's your point—one can't have an opinion without conducting one's own research? I think not. At least my point is supported by some sort of evidence besides a few stereotypical remarks and an outlandish piece of fiction that lacks any supportive evidence whatsoever.