What sort of weapons should a populace have?

[Nitrousoxide]

What sort of weapons should a populace have? Should it have access to knives? Perhaps it should have access to guns? Is these even a good question? Should a population have access to any weapons at all? Or is the question wrong in another way? Should it not be prescriptive at all? Instead, is it no one’s business at all what weapons a population can obtain legally or not?

There seem to be 2 very large disagreements on this subject and it revolves around access not to swords, rocks, or sticks, but guns. It seems that guns are in a way peculiar to the rest of those implements of death and destruction. On one hand, some folks will say that it’s the size of the killings which are possible with guns verses those other, older, weapons. Yet, their opponents disagree, either saying that the number of killings doesn’t change noticeably with or without guns in the long run, or saying that the amount of killing which can be done is irrelevant, for one needs access to guns to protect from some great evil which might befall them, from alien invasion to an oppressive government.

What is the answer? I propose that the question is flawed in one very important respect. It isn’t anyone’s responsibility who has access to what weapons or not. Except with regards to violent offenders and mentally unsound folks, society should have no say as to what weapons of minor destruction are available to the populous.

[Marduk]

It’s not just the size of the killings but the ease, you can’t turn back once you’ve plugged someone (or yourself) with a .44 not to mention you can dodge a bat or a sword better than a bullet. And I can’t remember the last time I saw someone waving a sword around. I’d have no problem if they extended the ban on fully automatic weapons to semi automatic as well. You don’t need a military style assault rifle to hunt deer or shoot at burglars.

[Nitrousoxide]

It’s not just the size of the killings but the ease, you can’t turn back once you’ve plugged someone (or yourself) with a .44 not to mention you can dodge a bat or a sword better than a bullet. And I can’t remember the last time I saw someone waving a sword around. I’d have no problem if they extended the ban on fully automatic weapons to semi automatic as well. You don’t need a military style assault rifle to hunt deer or shoot at burglars.

The ability to avoid an attack is relevent? Should we ban archery as well? After all, it's near impossible to avoid a bolt or arrow once it's in flight.

And do you realise that most pistols these days are semiautomatic? Semi-auto simply refers to a gun which is designed such that when it is fired, either the recoil or the gas from the firing is used to recock the weapon. One still needs to press the trigger for each firing though.

[maddog]

"Populous" is an adjective. "Populace" is a noun.

#1888

[RED DAVE]

Nuclear weapons. We should all have nuclear weapons.

Remember, if the government has nuclear weapons and we don't, we're slaves.

RED DAVE

[mac_philo]

The forces we're fighting in Iraq don't have nuclear weapons. So why aren't they behaving like slaves? Is it only because we are too soft on them? Or is it because conventional weapons can neutralize a modern army?

If the former, then the war is winnable if we just got a bit tougher?

If the latter, isn't your sarcastic point false?

The US forces can obviously be resisted by conventional weaponry, if not, it would be trivial for the US to exert its will on Iraq. Or Somalia. Or Vietnam. US forces would be even less effective when turned on their own countrymen.

This is all assuming your sarcasm was directed at the idea of arms being a defense against tyranny, which seems like the right intepretation, but I can't be certain.

[TySixtus]

Nuclear weapons. We should all have nuclear weapons.

Remember, if the government has nuclear weapons and we don't, we're slaves.

RED DAVE

That didn't take long.

Ty

[New Atheist]

The forces we're fighting in Iraq don't have nuclear weapons. So why aren't they behaving like slaves? Is it only because we are too soft on them? Or is it because conventional weapons can neutralize a modern army?

If the former, then the war is winnable if we just got a bit tougher?

If the latter, isn't your sarcastic point false?

The US forces can obviously be resisted by conventional weaponry, if not, it would be trivial for the US to exert its will on Iraq. Or Somalia. Or Vietnam. US forces would be even less effective when turned on their own countrymen.

This is all assuming your sarcasm was directed at the idea of arms being a defense against tyranny, which seems like the right intepretation, but I can't be certain.

Bloody yes the war is winnable if you got a bit tougher, just not the way you want to win. You want a moral victory. Do you think the insurgents really stand a chance if the US suddenly thinks it acceptable to use nuclear weapons, and has an objective of completely obliterating resistance without any care for civilian casualties or peaceful occupation? Do you think there will be much of an insurgency, if the US pulls out drops 10 or so nukes on most major cities of Iraq, carpet bombs the rest, and then sends in the army with orders to shoot anything that moves?

In the same vain, do you think the US populace would chance a chance, even armed, if the government decided to use its nuclear arsenal against it.

And really, do you think the US populace would stand a chance if the government decided to use the entire might of the US military army without having caring about casualties or damage to civilians, or having a peaceful later occupation that limits casualties?

If you answer Yes to any of the above, I seriously think the two of us are living in a different world.

[New Atheist]

That didn't take long.

Ty

It's an obvious argument that apparently people can't answer.

[New Atheist]

The forces we're fighting in Iraq don't have nuclear weapons. So why aren't they behaving like slaves? Is it only because we are too soft on them? Or is it because conventional weapons can neutralize a modern army?

If the former, then the war is winnable if we just got a bit tougher?

If the latter, isn't your sarcastic point false?

The US forces can obviously be resisted by conventional weaponry, if not, it would be trivial for the US to exert its will on Iraq. Or Somalia. Or Vietnam. US forces would be even less effective when turned on their own countrymen.

This is all assuming your sarcasm was directed at the idea of arms being a defense against tyranny, which seems like the right intepretation, but I can't be certain.

And to further build up on that point, do you think an occupier with assault guns, occupying a large civilian population with no weapons, is not going to meet severe resistance and face huge problems, from more premitive weapons, and home-made devices? If you accept that, then it means you should also accept that you don't need firearms against a goverment army.

[mac_philo]

New atheist,

Please don't tell me what I want or what I think or how I want to win the war. That doesn't even seem to be a proper use of the term "moral victory" (i.e., a defeat), but you don't know what I want, whatever you mean. Please re-read what I wrote, then respond to what I wrote.

I articulated NO position to which you are responding. The way I attempted to draw out the conclusions of Red Dave's post is wholly consistent with ANY opinion regarding offensive use of nuclear weapons.

Considering that our arsenal could destroy every square inch of our own territory, obviously no sane human thinks such an attack could be survived, much less countered.

Don't conflate technical capacity to accomplish something with the will or strategic value or political feasibility of actually doing it. If the US nuked itself into oblivion, there'd be nothing left to tyrannize. If not oblivion, we are back to square one of the debate, whether conventional arms deter tyranny. Your final proposal, conventional warfare with "no care" for casualties, is not even technically feasible. If it was attempted here you would see a nonzero amount of confusion, sabatoge, and desertion.

[Gracchus]

The founding fathers gave us the second amendment that we might not be oppressed with impunity by a tyranny.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Still, no matter if the second is trampled in the name of "security", as Kipling noted, "The odds are on the cheaper man."*

:wave:

*http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/verse/vol1/arithmeticfrontier.html

[New Atheist]

mac_philo, your view as I understood it was that a population armed with firearms can defeat a modern army, which is to support that the right of the people to bear arms to defend themselves against a tyrannical government is justified. You used the Iraqi insurgency to prove that point, and to counter Red Dave's argument, that since the government has nukes, the only way to properly be safe from it is to have nukes as well. I pointed out your flaw, that its not a case of the populace being able to defend themselves from the modern army because they have firearms, but because that government is unwilling to actually use that army to its full extend.

The question is a theoretical one. The US government does have the ability to obliterate the US population, and the only way the US population can defend itself from that scenario is by having nuclear arms itself. Its not a practical case of the US government not wanting to use nuclear weapons because there would be nothing left to tyrannize. Practically, the US government isn't going to start a dictatorship in the US any time soon, guns or no guns, and if it wanted to, it wouldn't be vigilante US civilians that would be able to stop it.

If you are going to go with theoretical scenarios of somebody trying to occupy the US, and for that reason, the need for the population to carry arms, why not go with the theoretical scenario of a president going mad and hearing voices from God deciding to obliterate the US, and thus the need for the US populace to have nukes, or some sort of laser anti-nuke system or whatever.

Both scenarios are unlikely. I'll grand you the second one more so, but the first one is still unlikely enough to make gun ownership arguments seem ridiculous.

The whole point that you seem to miss is that, if you use unlikely theoretical scenarios to justify the ownership of guns, you can use unlikely theoretical scenarios to justify the ownership of 'anything'.

[Ghostdog]

I think general populace should definetely be able to arm themselves, but not so much that they can supplant authority. A Colt .45 is ok but not a G-36 or an Ak-47.

[Cheerful Charlie]

Nuclear weapons. We should all have nuclear weapons.

Remember, if the government has nuclear weapons and we don't, we're slaves.

RED DAVE

"The nation that controls magnetism controls the world".
Dick Tracy


Cheerful Charlie

[TySixtus]

It's an obvious argument that apparently people can't answer.

No it isn't, and I showed you why in that thread that you keep mentioning.

Nuclear weapons aren't neccessary. The US would never nuke its own population. If the US is fighting its own citizens, they can't nuke cities.

Effectively, nuclear weapons are so powerful, the US can't use them. It would be like setting off a bomb in your living room to kill the burglar.

And besides, mac philo has already destroyed the nuke strawman by pointing out that Iraq is currently holding its own against the US. The same reason Iraq hasn't been nuked is the same reason why the US Government wouldn't nuke its own country.

Ty

[Norseman]

It should have everything the government has.

[Norseman]

Nuclear weapons aren't neccessary. The US would never nuke its own population. If the US is fighting its own citizens, they can't nuke cities.


Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations

*Snip*

To stop potentially overwhelming conventional enemy forces.
To rapidly end a war on favorable US terms.

*/Snip*

Once a revolution gains territory, it can be deemed an enemy and fired at, should that be necessary to maintain power.

[Phineas Flapdoodle]

I’d have no problem if they extended the ban on fully automatic weapons to semi automatic as well. You don’t need a military style assault rifle to hunt deer or shoot at burglars.A ban on semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc. would take away the protection a hunter has when confronted by an unruly bear. The ability to QUICKLY take more than one shot at their thick skulls, is often the difference between life and death. The same is true when being mugged by a desperate crack addict!

[TySixtus]

Once a revolution gains territory, it can be deemed an enemy and fired at, should that be necessary to maintain power.


Can be. I reiterate, the same reason the US won't nuke Iraq is the same reason they wouldn't nuke their own population. At least. There plenty of other factors.

Ty

[Norseman]

Can be. I reiterate, the same reason the US won't nuke Iraq is the same reason they wouldn't nuke their own population. At least. There plenty of other factors.

Ty

Iraq isn't any position to execute the people in charge of the nukes. An effective revolution might be.

[Caine]

I don't really understand the position that various types of long guns like assault rifles should be banned, but handguns should be allowed. Can someone explain the logic?

Most massacres seems to be executed with pistols or machine pistols, so banning assault rifles doesn't help there. They can't be effectively concealed so everyone is aware who is armed. If you want to be part of a "well-regulated militia" they are obviously the weapons of choice. They are superior for self defense with their high ammunition capacity and better accuracy, which also reduces the risk of hitting "innocent bystanders".

Assault rifles and other automatic and semi-automatic long guns are simply far better than handguns at doing what guns are intended to do: kill things. It has always seemed to me that long barreled weapons would be the preferable thing to be armed with.

[Neo-Nietzschean]

Nuclear weapons. We should all have nuclear weapons.

Remember, if the government has nuclear weapons and we don't, we're slaves.

RED DAVE

I'm not sure if this is said in jest or in seriousness Red Dave, but I agree with this sentiment anyway.

A population should have access to those very things that the government has access to. IMO the government has NO RIGHT to have a monopoly on power and violence. This creates a wholly uneqaul power relationship in which the government assumes the position of dictator and the population, of the dictated.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I’d have no problem if they extended the ban on fully automatic weapons to semi automatic as well. You don’t need a military style assault rifle to hunt deer or shoot at burglars.

A semi-automatic simply does not need to be reloaded between shots, but is still one bullet per pull of the trigger. A simple 9mm handgun is a semi-automatic. It's not an assault rifle.

Then again, there is no such thing as an assault rifle. Firearms are categorized by capability, which is why we have categories such as fully automatic and semi-automatic and some groups that could collectively be called not automatic. The difference is simple: Fully automatics fire multiple rounds per pull of the trigger and reload automatically, semi-automatics fire one round per pull of the trigger and reload automatically, and the rest usually have to be reloaded between their one shot per pull of the trigger.

Once we are within those categories, then you can categorize by how many rounds the semis and fully autos can hold, but that can change easily and is not dependent upon the weapon itself. Or you can categorize by caliber, or by muzzle velocity. It is true that some calibers aren't useful for some hunting - you don't use a squirel gun to hunt moose, and you don't use a moose gun to hunt squirels.

[Neo-Nietzschean]

Can be. I reiterate, the same reason the US won't nuke Iraq is the same reason they wouldn't nuke their own population. At least. There plenty of other factors.

The US would never use nuclear weapons if it's not in it's interest to do so. If the US can still effectively protect its interests by conventional means it will certainly do so, but if for whatever reason it can't, it'll be BOMBS AWAY!!

To say that the US would not use nuclear weapons on its own population is hopelessly naive. If a group of Americans successfully executed a revolt and took over New York City, and the US government couldn't wrest it back from them, the government would definately use nukes. No doubt about it. Economic interests are MUCH MORE important the people.

Here's a horrifying truth; the USA is the worlds only superpower, and it will use nuclear weapons to keep it that way.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Here's a horrifying truth; the USA is the worlds only superpower, and it will use nuclear weapons to keep it that way.

The USA is not the world's only superpower, it's just the strongest of the superpowers.

[Nitrousoxide]

The US would never use nuclear weapons if it's not in it's interest to do so. If the US can still effectively protect its interests by conventional means it will certainly do so, but if for whatever reason it can't, it'll be BOMBS AWAY!!

To say that the US would not use nuclear weapons on its own population is hopelessly naive. If a group of Americans successfully executed a revolt and took over New York City, and the US government couldn't wrest it back from them, the government would definately use nukes. No doubt about it. Economic interests are MUCH MORE important the people.

Here's a horrifying truth; the USA is the worlds only superpower, and it will use nuclear weapons to keep it that way.

Doesn't it strike you as at all odd that the US military would destroy it's own infrastructure and hopelessly contaminate the land that it was built on?

If one takes New York City, you can't just launch nukes at it. At the most, you might carpet bomb it and use several MOAB's, but to use nukes is to make the land and port there completely unusable, destroying the economy beyond recovery which would be required to maintain that military force.

That is why it would never be in the military's best interest to use nuclear weapons on it's own soil.

The USA is not the world's only superpower, it's just the strongest of the superpowers.

Right now it is. There are several regional superpowers throughout the world though. Iran, China, the EU, and Russia are all of that sort. But none of them have bases throughout the world with the means to attack any nation on the Earth in mere minutes to hours.

[TySixtus]

The US would never use nuclear weapons if it's not in it's interest to do so. If the US can still effectively protect its interests by conventional means it will certainly do so, but if for whatever reason it can't, it'll be BOMBS AWAY!!

To say that the US would not use nuclear weapons on its own population is hopelessly naive. If a group of Americans successfully executed a revolt and took over New York City, and the US government couldn't wrest it back from them, the government would definately use nukes. No doubt about it. Economic interests are MUCH MORE important the people.

Here's a horrifying truth; the USA is the worlds only superpower, and it will use nuclear weapons to keep it that way.

So why haven't we nuked Iraq?

And further more, using nukes is a great way to invalidate your "economic interests". Like I said before, the US using nukes on its own cities is akin to using C-4 on the burglar in your living room. You won't have a house left.

Ty

[Norseman]

Doesn't it strike you as at all odd that the US military would destroy it's own infrastructure and hopelessly contaminate the land that it was built on?

If one takes New York City, you can't just launch nukes at it. At the most, you might carpet bomb it and use several MOAB's, but to use nukes is to make the land and port there completely unusable, destroying the economy which would be required to maintain that military force beyond recovering.

That is why it would never be in the military's best interest to use nuclear weapons on it's own soil.


That doesn't matter if you've already lost the city and the revolution is spreading such that conventional forces can no longer stop it. When you reach that point, nuking the city may be enough to turn the tide in your favor, partly because the revolutionaries will be too afraid to take over another, and partly because of the number of revolutionaries you'll have killed.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The USA is not the world's only superpower, it's just the strongest of the superpowers.

Right now it is. There are several regional superpowers throughout the world though. Iran, China, the EU, and Russia are all of that sort. But none of them have bases throughout the world with the means to attack any nation on the Earth in mere minutes to hours.

Iran is a regional power, not a Super-Power. But you are right to list China as someone to consider - they are indeed a superpower, just less powerful than the USA.

More is needed to be a superpower than "mere minute attack". For instance, while the USA can get to China, the USA could never hope to win, or achieve the sort of pseudo-victory in China that it accomplished in Iraq. The American Forces could go there, but never get in there. A Chinese-American war would be a stalemate until one side went nuclear.

We can instantly attack any weak country around the world, but given a few days China could just as easily attack any weak country around the world. The difference is days instead of hours. Many countries could not attack anywhere in the world whatever the time scale.

The EU has the makings of a superpower, but is not yet assembled to the point where it could be one.

Then there's the ever crumbling system of alliances that mattered during the cold war, with NATO facing off against the Warsaw Pact, superpower + allies versus Superower + allies. China is building strong relationships with Middle Eastern countries on the basis that it is not the US.

Let us not forget countries not commonly thought of as in the superpower league, specifically Japan. It's no secret that Japan has the capability to become a superpower if they wish. Unlike "12 years out" Iran, Japan could be nuclear in a couple of months. They could restructure their military to be "an army of captains" like inter-war disarmed Germany. The day they decide to shed their WWII restrictions, they will be a major power, possibly a super power.

Russia was a superpower, but is now degraded quite a bit. Russia could become extremely influential if the right arrangements were made with the EU though. Suppose the EU became the technology and the capital and Russia became the manpower of a combined military force ... now that is a frightening concept.

[Neo-Nietzschean]

Doesn't it strike you as at all odd that the US military would destroy it's own infrastructure and hopelessly contaminate the land that it was built on?

Not at all. If the US, or any government with nuclear weapons for that matter, is in a position of desperation, why not destroy it rather than let the enemy control it? Of what use is nuclear weapons if not to be used in times of desperation?

It would have to be a situation in which if US can't, take back NYC, and an inability to do that might economically imperil the country, while making the revolutionaries stronger. In such a situation why would the US not use nukes on its own population?

[unrealist42]

The US would face a revolt of its own military if it tried to use nukes on the populace. You forget that members of the military are citizens first and soldiers second.

They have sworn loyalty to the constitution and the people, not the government. This is a big deal in the military and they take this role very seriously.

Establishing order, keeping the peace, this the military can do, but warring on its own fellow citizens, it cannot. If the government ordered the military to attack NYC it is more likely that they would overthrow the president than carry out that order.

[Eric Starnes]

Small arms to nukes in 5 posts, very nice.

My answer would be that law abiding citizens should have access to small arms similar to those carried by the average soldier.

[Metaphor]

Iran is a regional power, not a Super-Power. But you are right to list China as someone to consider - they are indeed a superpower, just less powerful than the USA.

More is needed to be a superpower than "mere minute attack". For instance, while the USA can get to China, the USA could never hope to win, or achieve the sort of pseudo-victory in China that it accomplished in Iraq. The American Forces could go there, but never get in there. A Chinese-American war would be a stalemate until one side went nuclear.

We can instantly attack any weak country around the world, but given a few days China could just as easily attack any weak country around the world. The difference is days instead of hours. Many countries could not attack anywhere in the world whatever the time scale.

The EU has the makings of a superpower, but is not yet assembled to the point where it could be one.

Then there's the ever crumbling system of alliances that mattered during the cold war, with NATO facing off against the Warsaw Pact, superpower + allies versus Superower + allies. China is building strong relationships with Middle Eastern countries on the basis that it is not the US.

Let us not forget countries not commonly thought of as in the superpower league, specifically Japan. It's no secret that Japan has the capability to become a superpower if they wish. Unlike "12 years out" Iran, Japan could be nuclear in a couple of months. They could restructure their military to be "an army of captains" like inter-war disarmed Germany. The day they decide to shed their WWII restrictions, they will be a major power, possibly a super power.

Russia was a superpower, but is now degraded quite a bit. Russia could become extremely influential if the right arrangements were made with the EU though. Suppose the EU became the technology and the capital and Russia became the manpower of a combined military force ... now that is a frightening concept.

Why is that more frightening to you than the fact that the US has the military expenditure of the next 20 countries below it combined?

[Ghostdog]

Well technically if you take the average household, you have enough weaponry to arm a mob of up to 30-50 people. Knives, gardening tools, bottles, flammable materials, ammonium nitrate, IEDs, carpenter tools, cooking utensils, handmade firearms, sporting equipement, shanks, chords, and god knows what else. With a very crafty person you are already looking at an impressive arsenal.

[Pastor's Nightmare]

What sort of weapons should a populace have? Should it have access to knives? Perhaps it should have access to guns? Is these even a good question? Should a population have access to any weapons at all? Or is the question wrong in another way? Should it not be prescriptive at all? Instead, is it no one’s business at all what weapons a population can obtain legally or not?

There seem to be 2 very large disagreements on this subject and it revolves around access not to swords, rocks, or sticks, but guns. It seems that guns are in a way peculiar to the rest of those implements of death and destruction. On one hand, some folks will say that it’s the size of the killings which are possible with guns verses those other, older, weapons. Yet, their opponents disagree, either saying that the number of killings doesn’t change noticeably with or without guns in the long run, or saying that the amount of killing which can be done is irrelevant, for one needs access to guns to protect from some great evil which might befall them, from alien invasion to an oppressive government.

What is the answer? I propose that the question is flawed in one very important respect. It isn’t anyone’s responsibility who has access to what weapons or not. Except with regards to violent offenders and mentally unsound folks, society should have no say as to what weapons of minor destruction are available to the populous.

There are three important questions to ask yourself.

1.)What type of weapons would have allowed the Jews in Nazi Germany to have protected themselves from being dragged to concentration camps. If one Nazi was killed for every 2 Jews dragged to concentration camps, the Germans would have thought twice about doing it. In my opinion the general availability of guns should be correlated with the size of a countries military and police units. This prevents the police and military from being used against the population. Examples Nazi Germany, forced labor in China and Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Rwanda, etc...

2.)Should weapons be allowed for recreational purposes. Hunting... going to shooting ranges... bow and arrow practice... fencing practice... etc...

3.)The third question is what level of accidental deaths are acceptable due to weapons to make room for the first two criterion. I personally draw the line at guns... semiautomatics... anything else is offensive... not defensive... I also approve of armor piercing bullets which can go through bullet proof kevlar vests.

[Pastor's Nightmare]

Small arms to nukes in 5 posts, very nice.

My answer would be that law abiding citizens should have access to small arms similar to those carried by the average soldier.

Nice response... I agree...

[Pastor's Nightmare]

Establishing order, keeping the peace, this the military can do, but warring on its own fellow citizens, it cannot. If the government ordered the military to attack NYC it is more likely that they would overthrow the president than carry out that order.

But this is exactly the problem...

1.)Nazis acting against Jews in Nazi Germany.
2.)Mao's purges of non-communists and forced labor camps.
3.)Pol Pot's purges of 25% of the Cambodian population.
4.)The Rwanda genocide.
5.)Forced labor camps in Russia under Stalin.

The list is endless. In all of these cases, it is the military that carried out the orders. The rationale for guns in the US constitution is quite good. Maintain the ability to create militias... the only conceivable opposition in case the minds of soldiers gets hijacked... This obviously happened in Nazi Germany... the most educated country in the world at the time.

[spacejunkie]

Well we're at it we should outlaw moving vans and chemical fertilizers.

[enoch007]

With all the discussion about arms in the hands of the populace and the half-kidding about nuclear weopons the truly effective and most frightening possibility lies in between, which has also been alluded to...explosives.

For all those who think their little pop guns are going to insure your freedom against a rougue home army, why not get serious and petition for the right to buy real explosives. Right now (and rightly so) access to TNT and other explosives are regulated much tighter than access to handguns because of the real threat of explosive-driven mayhem. Imagine Virginia Tech fueled by a bomb rather than a single shooter. And even with regulation we still have bombers (Oklahoma city being a stark example).. You want to be armed like the average soldier, then think grenades, portable rocket launchers and claymore mines, as well as other admixtures featuring explosive potential. And while your at it, think of how nice it would be to vacation in Baghdad right now, or live through Beruit, circa 1977.

[Norseman]

With all the discussion about arms in the hands of the populace and the half-kidding about nuclear weopons the truly effective and most frightening possibility lies in between, which has also been alluded to...explosives.

For all those who think their little pop guns are going to insure your freedom against a rougue home army, why not get serious and petition for the right to buy real explosives. Right now (and rightly so) access to TNT and other explosives are regulated much tighter than access to handguns because of the real threat of explosive-driven mayhem. Imagine Virginia Tech fueled by a bomb rather than a single shooter. And even with regulation we still have bombers (Oklahoma city being a stark example).. You want to be armed like the average soldier, then think grenades, portable rocket launchers and claymore mines, as well as other admixtures featuring explosive potential. And while your at it, think of how nice it would be to vacation in Baghdad right now, or live through Beruit, circa 1977.

Exactly. If they make that much hell, why should soldiers be using them in cities? Or, if they're not so bad, then why can't we use them? It's one or the other. Whatever the military is allowed to use, civilians should be able to use as well. Then you just need to limit what the military can use as needed until you arrive at a point where civilians would be able to be a match for soldiers if they needed to be.

[Tom Sawyer]

Small arms to nukes in 5 posts, very nice.

My answer would be that law abiding citizens should have access to small arms similar to those carried by the average soldier.

Why?

If the point of being able to carry weapons is home defense and hunting and the like, then machine guns and rocket launchers are significant overkill.

If the point of being able to carry weapons is to give citizens the ability to resist the government, then the weapons carried by the average soldier would be worse than useless.

What's the point of the "average soldier" cutoff?

[enoch007]

Exactly. If they make that much hell, why should soldiers be using them in cities? Or, if they're not so bad, then why can't we use them? It's one or the other. Whatever the military is allowed to use, civilians should be able to use as well. Then you just need to limit what the military can use as needed until you arrive at a point where civilians would be able to be a match for soldiers if they needed to be.

So then you should by a Hummer, up armor it, mount a .50 cal machine gun on the roof once you have cut out a turret in it, pack your own grenades and maybe some c-4 for July 4th and rock like that? And since you can do it, well hell, everyone else who can afford it should too. And so...when idiot 1 cuts off idiot 2 on the highway they can Road warrior till the next turn-ff.

I like laws and an army I can reasonably trust because too much freedom is chaos. If our government turns truly toxic look to Army defectors and foreign support for solace, it is generally those two elements that decide the fate of insurgencies.

[spacejunkie]

Making nitroglycerin (the key component in Dynamite), rocket launchers, napalm, etc. is ridiculously easy for those who are so inclined. That inclination, not the chosen "weapon(s)" should be the focus of any serious violence prevention effort.

[Norseman]

So then you should by a Hummer, up armor it, mount a .50 cal machine gun on the roof once you have cut out a turret in it, pack your own grenades and maybe some c-4 for July 4th and rock like that?


Hummer with armor, sure, I believe that's already legal. In some countries, that might actually be worth the money too. Grenades, no. It's guaranteed to cause collateral damage, either in Iraq, or here. About 2% of the military is composed of gang members. Do you want them bringing grenades home from Iraq? It's not good anywhere except out in the trenches, and we don't have those anymore. C4, yes, provided I'm licensed to own it, trained to use it safely, have a safe place to store it where it can't be stolen, and possibly some other conditions. The mining industry is already able to do this, and practically anyone can cook up explosives in their home, so a law can't affect that very much either way. It's not like that stopped the Oklahoma city bombing, or impeded the Unabomber. As for the .50 cal, if it's good enough for gang members and criminals, it's good enough for law abiding citizens.


And since you can do it, well hell, everyone else who can afford it should too. And so...when idiot 1 cuts off idiot 2 on the highway they can Road warrior till the next turn-ff.


Provided they're ok with losing their rights to anything more dangerous than a plastic spork, sure.


I like laws and an army I can reasonably trust because too much freedom is chaos. If our government turns truly toxic look to Army defectors and foreign support for solace, it is generally those two elements that decide the fate of insurgencies.

Look at Iraq. You think our army is making things non-chaotic?

[enoch007]

Look at Iraq. You think our army is making things non-chaotic?

no, I don't...that's why I wouldn't advocate the Iraqization of the US

[Norseman]

no, I don't...that's why I wouldn't advocate the Iraqization of the US

Then what's the good of an army decked out with weapons that cause all kinds of collateral damage and havoc?

[enoch007]

Then what's the good of an army decked out with weapons that cause all kinds of collateral damage and havoc?

Well, when our policies change to something more reasonably resembling the Powell Doctrine of the late 20 Century, national defense and killing actual terrorists in lieu of wasteful occupations may come in handy.

[Eric Starnes]

Why?

If the point of being able to carry weapons is home defense and hunting and the like, then machine guns and rocket launchers are significant overkill.

That is one point of being able to keep and bear arms, but i would not suggest that anyone use machine guns or rocket launchers for hunting or home defense.

If the point of being able to carry weapons is to give citizens the ability to resist the government, then the weapons carried by the average soldier would be worse than useless.

Small arms and guerilla tactics are more then sufficient.

What's the point of the "average soldier" cutoff?

To arm citizens without distributing weapons of mass destruction. If you can trust the average soldier with a weapon you can trust the average law abiding citizen with it.

[Bonniedundee]

Nuclear weapons. We should all have nuclear weapons.

Remember, if the government has nuclear weapons and we don't, we're slaves.I don't see why the state having them is any better than an individual, the state, when the myth is removed is just a group of individuals or a gang to put it better.

[Eric Starnes]

I don't see why the state having them is any better than an individual, the state, when the myth is removed is just a group of individuals or a gang to put it better.

Well i am no fan of powerful states, but they generally put lots of security and safeguards around the weapons so that a single insane individual can not blow up a major city. An individual with sole control over a nuke is a really bad idea. I doubt even the president could get away with "hey hand me the football i wanna blow something up."

[Bonniedundee]

Well i am no fan of powerful states, but they generally put lots of security and safeguards around the weapons so that a single insane individual can not blow up a major city. An individual with sole control over a nuke is a really bad idea. I doubt even the president could get away with "hey hand me the football i wanna blow something up."
Any group of individuals could do this, there is nothing to make a state any different, in fact a state uses legitimised coercion so it could do more than the average individual, like having the wealth to build nukes in the first place.

When you think of it there is nothing special about the state except the way it is viewed by the people, particularly states like ours that are not democratic and have involuntary taxation. Of course I doubt a state that didn't fit these conditions would really be a state at all.

[Eric Starnes]

Any group of individuals could do this, there is nothing to make a state any different, in fact a state uses legitimised coercion so it could do more than the average individual, like having the wealth to build nukes in the first place.

When you think of it there is nothing special about the state except the way it is viewed by the people, particularly states like ours that are not democratic and have involuntary taxation. Of course I doubt a state that didn't fit these conditions would really be a state at all.

Limiting nukes to states has worked so far. I cant think of any private organization that would want a nuke that wouldnt do bad things with it.

I guess if an anarcho-syndicalism actually existed and wanted to have nukes they could sort out how to control them amongst themselves. However if there is a state then the state should have the nukes in my opinion.

[B.S. Lewis]

There seem to be 2 very large disagreements on this subject and it revolves around access not to swords, rocks, or sticks, but guns. It seems that guns are in a way peculiar to the rest of those implements of death and destruction. On one hand, some folks will say that it’s the size of the killings which are possible with guns verses those other, older, weapons. Yet, their opponents disagree, either saying that the number of killings doesn’t change noticeably with or without guns in the long run, or saying that the amount of killing which can be done is irrelevant, for one needs access to guns to protect from some great evil which might befall them, from alien invasion to an oppressive government.

Following the VA-Tech massacre, someone wrote a letter to the editor of either Time or Newsweek (I can't remember which) that made an excellent point. When the constitution was written, the "arms" which it gave Americans the right to bear were muzzle-loading muskets that were 2/3 as tall as a man and could be fired once every 45 seconds *if* you were sufficiently skilled. The guns that Cho used, small enough to be concealed in a pants pocket, were capable of firing 5 times per second and could be (were) fitted with a 33-round aftermarket clip.

Clearly, the things we nowadays call "guns" are not the same as what America's founders intended to protect. And they *never* said anything about our right to carry the things around town.

[Eric Starnes]

Clearly, the things we nowadays call "guns" are not the same as what America's founders intended to protect.

The fact that current firearms are improved from the time the amendment wa written does not mean that citizens should be stuck with obsolete equipment. Does the freedom of the press only apply to manual presses? To quote the majority opinion from the recent DC gun ban case:

"Nevertheless, it has been suggested by some that only
colonial-era firearms (e.g., single-shot pistols) are covered by
the Second Amendment. But just as the First Amendment free
speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown
to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the
Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a
“search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the
modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol."

And they *never* said anything about our right to carry the things around town.

We can debate what "bear" means if you like. I prefer the current "shall issue" concealed carry licences process that most states have adopted myself.

[Bonniedundee]

Limiting nukes to states has worked so far. I cant think of any private organization that would want a nuke that wouldnt do bad things with it. I can't think of a private organisation that would build them, the capital accumulation alone would prevent this in a free society.
And states have used them on people and alot more besides, look at the 20th century deaths due to states.

[B.S. Lewis]

The fact that current firearms are improved from the time the amendment wa written does not mean that citizens should be stuck with obsolete equipment.

No, I was thinking more along the lines of banning handguns. Rifles and shotguns are all that a citizen needs, either to hunt or to protect himself against the excesses of overzealous government. I don't see why anyone but the police need small, concealable handguns. America is the major market for handguns in the world; make them illegal here, and gun manufacturers will pretty much stop making them except for direct sale to police/security forces. Then you just give it thirty years for all existing handguns--which will be circulated on the black market in the meantime, no doubt--to become unusable.

[Eric Starnes]

No, I was thinking more along the lines of banning handguns. Rifles and shotguns are all that a citizen needs, either to hunt or to protect himself against the excesses of overzealous government.

Hand guns also have their place in defense from criminals. Some 70% of crimes occur away from the home. A smaller lighter weapon is needed for carrying in every day life. Besides, they did have one shot pistols at the time the constitution was written. There is no reason to make the distinction between hand guns and long guns when speaking of the 2nd amendment.

I don't see why anyone but the police need small, concealable handguns.

We need them for the exact same reasons the police do! To defend ourselves from criminals. The police generally do not stop crimes in progress. They show up after the fact and clean up the mess and look for a suspect. A person can not rely on the police to defend himself.

America is the major market for handguns in the world; make them illegal here, and gun manufacturers will pretty much stop making them except for direct sale to police/security forces. Then you just give it thirty years for all existing handguns--which will be circulated on the black market in the meantime, no doubt--to become unusable.

Many 1911 style hand guns are still working today and modern guns could last longer then that. Besides, there are plenty of corrupt 3rd world nations to pick up the slack on the black market.

Why do you trust police with weapons but not law abiding citizens?

[enoch007]

Why do you trust police with weapons but not law abiding citizens?

Because the police represent a quasi-military heirarchy which determines the rules of engagement according to law and policy.

"Law abiding" citizens are such until they aren't.

[Eric Starnes]

Because the police represent a quasi-military heirarchy which determines the rules of engagement according to law and policy.

I do not see how this is significantly different from citizens with licences to carry concealed weapons. The lack of a "quasi-military heirarchy" does not change the fact that their use of force is held to stricter standards by the law.

"Law abiding" citizens are such until they aren't.

When they arnt we take away the right to carry the weapon. Just like we do when police break the law.

[B.S. Lewis]

We need them for the exact same reasons the police do! To defend ourselves from criminals.

The police don't have guns to protect just themselves, they have guns to protect all of us.

Why do you trust police with weapons but not law abiding citizens?

Well, of course I don't trust police more than I trust "law-abiding citizens," because "law-abiding" citizens are--by definition--not a threat. But I'd rather not beg the question, so lets just deal with plain old "citizens."

Even in the case of plain old "citizens," that answer is that I don't particularly trust the police more than I trust them. The police have been known to misuse their weapons frequently. However, I acknowledge that someone needs to have handguns, and those people should have gun training, institutional oversight, etc.

On the other hand, maybe the police do deserve at least a *little* more of my trust than citizens do. Have you ever heard of a cop getting so pissed off in traffic that he kills another driver?

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why is that more frightening to you than the fact that the US has the military expenditure of the next 20 countries below it combined?

Who says it is more frightening?

[TySixtus]

The police don't have guns to protect just themselves, they have guns to protect all of us.


It is commonly understood that the police have no requirement to protect anyone. If a policeman fails to "protect" you he cannot be held accountable for it, within the law.

Ty

[Loren Pechtel]

Limiting nukes to states has worked so far. I cant think of any private organization that would want a nuke that wouldnt do bad things with it.

Acme Asteroid Mining.

Just because they don't exist *YET* doesn't mean they never will.

[Eric Starnes]

The police don't have guns to protect just themselves, they have guns to protect all of us.

Like TySixtus said, at least in the states police have no obligation to defend you. My experience leads me to believe that most people who have concealed hand gun licences would come to your aid if they believed that they could help without escalating the situation.

Well, of course I don't trust police more than I trust "law-abiding citizens," because "law-abiding" citizens are--by definition--not a threat. But I'd rather not beg the question, so lets just deal with plain old "citizens."

We dont let plain old citizens carry weapons. The state requirements to be issued a licence to carry a concealed weapon can be generalized as follows:

· is at least 21 years of age;

· is a resident of the state;

· provides fingerprints and submits to a criminal and mental health background check;

· has not been convicted of a felony or any crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;

· is not a fugitive from justice;

· is not an illegal alien;

· is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

· has not been adjudicated mentally incompetent or been committed to a mental institution;

· has not been dishonorably discharged from the armed services;

· is not subject to a restraining or protection order;

· has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence;

· is not awaiting trial for, and does not have any charges pending for, a crime punishable by more than one year imprisonment;

· has completed a firearms safety or training course; and

· pays a licensing fee.

From a CATO (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html) article on concealed carry licences.

Even in the case of plain old "citizens," that answer is that I don't particularly trust the police more than I trust them. The police have been known to misuse their weapons frequently. However, I acknowledge that someone needs to have handguns, and those people should have gun training, institutional oversight, etc.

Well the required training for the licence is underwhelming in most states but again, in my experiece, people who go to the trouble of obtaining a licence take the responsability seriously and take it upon themselves to master their weapon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa50-plo48&mode=related&search=) and the laws governing the use of force.

On the other hand, maybe the police do deserve at least a *little* more of my trust than citizens do. Have you ever heard of a cop getting so pissed off in traffic that he kills another driver?

Well it wouldnt suprise me (http://tallahassee.com/legacy/special/blogs/2007/01/cop-charged-in-road-rage.html). I am only aware of a single road rage incident involving a licence holder and no one was injured and the licence was revoked.

[B.S. Lewis]

It is commonly understood that the police have no requirement to protect anyone. If a policeman fails to "protect" you he cannot be held accountable for it, within the law.

Ty

I'm not talking about what the police can be sued for. Their mission is to serve and protect.

[B.S. Lewis]

I am only aware of a single road rage incident involving a licence holder and no one was injured and the licence was revoked.

Wow. Using anecdote to prove a universal negative. Are we playing "standard of evidence limbo"? Because if so, you win--I cannot possibly go that low.

:huh:

[Eric Starnes]

Wow. Using anecdote to prove a universal negative. Are we playing "standard of evidence limbo"? Because if so, you win--I cannot possibly go that low.

:huh:

Considering that was in response to:

Have you ever heard of a cop getting so pissed off in traffic that he kills another driver?

I was not trying to prove anything, you asked what i have heard so i told you what i have heard. Feel free to provide stastical evidence if you have it. I dont believe data on that subject exists.

[Loren Pechtel]

We dont let plain old citizens carry weapons. The state requirements to be issued a licence to carry a concealed weapon can be generalized as follows:

· is at least 21 years of age;

While I don't like age-based laws, until we have a better measure of maturity we have no choice. Thus ok.

· is a resident of the state;

I dislike this one as the laws currently stand. Residency should not be required. What about a non-resident that spends substantial time there? If there were full reciprocal licensing (like for driver's licenses) this wouldn't be an issue.

· provides fingerprints and submits to a criminal and mental health background check;

· has not been convicted of a felony or any crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;

· is not a fugitive from justice;

· is not an illegal alien;

Fine.

· is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

Disagree. You can be addicted to a controlled substance without being a criminal. There are times when addiction is a lesser evil than not treating whatever the condition is and I see no reason such people should be denied CCW permits unless the drugs impair their mental abilities.

· has not been adjudicated mentally incompetent or been committed to a mental institution;

I think this is a little broad. This should be a refutable presumption, not an absolute.

· has not been dishonorably discharged from the armed services;

· is not subject to a restraining or protection order;

· has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence;

· is not awaiting trial for, and does not have any charges pending for, a crime punishable by more than one year imprisonment;

· has completed a firearms safety or training course; and

· pays a licensing fee.

Fine.

I would add to the list a demonstration of reasonable proficiency.

[cape_royds]

In my opinion, political violence is the only proper justification for weapons in the hands of the public.

I've never really bought into the personal security thing, and for almost all of us, hunting is a recreation rather than a livelihood.

However, an armed populace is the only long-term check on the powerful and unscrupulous. Put it this way: either people have some way to defy coercion, or they don't. If they don't, then if they're misgoverned or oppressed they have much less recourse.

On the other hand, there's no doubt about it: a country with widespread gun ownership is a more dangerous place in everyday life. People have more power to act on any murderous inclination.

The question is whether the added degree of everyday danger is a price worth paying for a public which has the weapons with which to potentially defy their government. The price of such liberty may be measured partly in the cumulative toll of petty murders and stupid accidents over the years.

I used to think it wasn't, and thus used to support strict gun control. As I have gotten older, and especially since 2001, I have changed my mind, and I have decided that it's worth a slightly greater chance of being bumped off in some gun incident, in order to have some weapons with which to more easily murder the agents of the government, if need be.

Now whether an armed public is an effective check on the ambitious and unscrupulous, I'm not sure. Take Iraq under Saddam for example. Arms were widely held--almost every household had a rifle long before the 2003 war. Nevertheless, Saddam could not be unseated.

Thus either Saddam's rule was more tolerable to Iraqis than outsiders generally suppose, or rifles in the hands of the people don't do all that much good against a tyrant. The third possibility, that the Iraqis are simply too meek and docile to fight, is untenable, given the events of recent years.

Second Amendment enthusiasts, in my opinion, are too naive and too optimistic on the nature of armed popular resistance. In practice, popular risings aren't usually all that popular (collaborators always and everywhere outnumber resistors), they usually fail, and even when successful, they are often affairs protracted, equivocal, and bloody.

Libertarians favouring an armed public perhaps should reconsider, since their precious property rights, the only laws they love, could end up dead in a ditch without the Organs of the central power to protect them.

Nevertheless, even given the added danger and fear in everyday life, and despite the historically poor odds of an armed public's success against oppression, I support arming the people nonetheless. Little hope is better than no hope.

And besides, even if you lose, you can always take a few enemies down with you. After all, you might prevent a worse oppression in the future, or in the case of foreign conquest, save others from attack by delaying the invader for a little while longer. Why should the oppressor or occupier get off unscathed? Bloody them up a bit, cut their profit margin, rattle their self-confidence, and perhaps they'll think twice the next time. Murder a few of their collaborators and informants, too--those men and women always need culling. Make a list, and if civil strife comes, cross off some names.

I turn to think of Rwanda in '94. That was a massacre largely carried out by lightly armed groups. If every household in Rwanda had possessed an automatic rifle, there would no doubt have been a lengthy, indecisive civil war in which thousands would have perished, but at least there would not have been the one-sided butchery of hundreds of thousands in a matter of weeks, a butchery as horrible for its speed as for its scale.

And even in Yugoslavia, it wasn't the blue helmets who saved anybody. The Croats saved their independence by their own force of arms, and the Bosnians fared best where they fought on their own behalf, with weapons they had to smuggle past the UN embargo! In fact, the worst massacres in Bosnia happened under the very noses of international observers, who were often more effective at disarming the weak than they were at protecting them.

The lesson of Yugoslavia and Rwanda is that one cannot rely on other people to save you. Even if they do show up, it will probably be too late. Worse, you might eventually need to fight the intervenors, since they have politics and purposes of their own, and may see opportunity in your misfortunes. A good example of this latter is the history of the ECOWAS force in Liberia.

Overall, there's nothing good about it, but an armed public can at least repay some evil for evil. The alternative is to just hope for perpetual peace and easy times.

[TySixtus]

I'm not talking about what the police can be sued for. Their mission is to serve and protect.

But surely you understand that there is no ramification if they choose not to serve and protect?

Really, you know there is a world of difference.

Ty

ETA: Cape Royds,

Good 'effin post.:thumbs:

[B.S. Lewis]

But surely you understand that there is no ramification if they choose not to serve and protect?

Really, you know there is a world of difference.

No, I don't "surely understand" that, it's not exactly something that can be intuited. Is there a *law* you want to cite that says so?

Edit: Ty, after reading cape_royds post and seeing that you liked it, I have to ask whether you realize that the only thing I've ever suggested is that we get rid of handguns for citizens--not that we get rid of rifles, or shotguns, or rocket launchers, even.

[totally_committed]

Weapons should not be advanced. If we live in a world with peace then there will be no need for weapons.


______________________
April
Download Canon service manuals (http://www.manualshark.org/b/canon-3/)

[premjan]

single-shot, preferably high-precision weapons. but not automatic weapons.

[Eric Starnes]

single-shot, preferably high-precision weapons. but not automatic weapons.

What would be the purpose in your mind for allowing the general population to have single shot "high precision" weapons?

[premjan]

Automatic weapons are significantly easier to commit a massacre with. A single shot high precision weapon is adequate for hunting purposes. If we additionally make handguns illegal, it becomes hard to conceal a weapon on your person. This could be beneficial against criminals - assuming of course that all handguns are found and destroyed or only permitted for police use.

[Eric Starnes]

Automatic weapons are significantly easier to commit a massacre with.

You could also commit a massacre with a fire bomb, should we ban flammable liquids?

A single shot high precision weapon is adequate for hunting purposes.

Arming the general public has little to do with hunting.

If we additionally make handguns illegal, it becomes hard to conceal a weapon on your person.

No, if you make them illegal it becomes harder to obtain a hand gun to conceal on your person. Once you have one its just as easy to conceal as it was before.

This could be beneficial against criminals - assuming of course that all handguns are found and destroyed or only permitted for police use.

There will be a black market for banned goods for the foreseeable future.

Why is it you would allow police to carry hand guns and not law abiding citizens? Are you familiar with licences to carry concealed weapons and how they generally work in the states? I gave some details earlier in the thread.

[premjan]

Sorry I just went back and read your earlier posts - I agree with licensing of guns though apparently many Americans think it should not be necessary. Do you think machine guns should be possessable by nonmilitary?

[orpheus last chant]

I believe the general populace should have access to non-lethal weapons. Guns can still be used in self-deffence without being lethal. Rubber bullets? Slow speed? Guns without bullets but with tazel-like latch-on type projectiles?

An exception would be licenced hunters (which would benefit from a rigorous control - perhaps even an obligation to keep the guns at the association and a limitation on the number of guns/hunter), and blade tools (because you need them for I dunno, cutting veggies and chopping wood etc.). I also excepting gun collectors if they impair the gun so it's useless for shooting.

I'd like to hear what's wrong with my idea. I loathe how all discussions become a battle between gun frenzy vs. total banning of guns. Like the only options are having as many semi automated weapons as you like or banning even nail clippers. How bout some moderation?

[psikeyhackr]

Actually it would be nice if they had brains.

"Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We wouldn't let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?" --Joseph Stalin

psik

[Loren Pechtel]

Automatic weapons are significantly easier to commit a massacre with. A single shot high precision weapon is adequate for hunting purposes. If we additionally make handguns illegal, it becomes hard to conceal a weapon on your person. This could be beneficial against criminals - assuming of course that all handguns are found and destroyed or only permitted for police use.

Actually, no. Full auto weapons are actually harder to commit a massacre with unless you're at point blank range. The problem is that there is a considerable tendency for the weapon to end up pointed at the sky when used in full-auto mode. You only put a few rounds on target and waste the rest. An untrained person (and it's unlikely someone committing a massacre has taken the time and money to train adequately--and even then it isn't all that good) is probably going to get no more than 2 targets per burst, more likely one. Full auto means they likely burned up an entire clip to accomplish this. Not only did they use up a lot of ammo but they have to reload.

Note that this is enough of an issue that these days most soldier's weapons have a 3-round burst mode but no full auto.

[Eric Starnes]

Sorry I just went back and read your earlier posts - I agree with licensing of guns though apparently many Americans think it should not be necessary. Do you think machine guns should be possessable by nonmilitary?

I believe in licensing for carrying not ownership. General licensing serves no purpose other then preparation for confiscation in my opinion.


I believe the general populace should have access to non-lethal weapons. Guns can still be used in self-deffence without being lethal. Rubber bullets? Slow speed?

This could not be further from the truth. Rubber bullets are useless when fired from anything smaller then a 12 guage shotgun, and barely useful then. It might cause an attacker to stop because he believes he has actually been shot, but it could also simply piss him off. In a life threatening situation you need a way to incapacitate at attacker immediately.


Guns without bullets but with tazel-like latch-on type projectiles?

Do you mean tazer? I do not believe anything like that currently exists. I would be interested in more information if they do.

[Nice Squirrel]

Automatic weapons are significantly easier to commit a massacre with.

You could also commit a massacre with a fire bomb, should we ban flammable liquids?

Flammable liquids need to be processed in order to use. This requires more thought and planning as well as delivery and detonation methods. You also need a large number of people in a concentrated area since the bomb would be localized. Some bombers such as November 17th choose targets to draw attention and minimize injury. (4 am deserted building).

Automatic weapons once aquired can be used multiple times and do not need further processing other than reloading to produce mass leathal results in a matter of minutes.

[Nitrousoxide]

Eh? Just fill a bottle with gasoline and stick in a wick. Instant fire bomb.

Go find a bar or club somewhere and lob them at the exits or into a large crowd and you've got an instant massacre.

[Nice Squirrel]

Eh? Just fill a bottle with gasoline and stick in a wick. Instant fire bomb.
ANd this can kill how many people? How big a bottle?

Go find a bar or club somewhere and lob them at the exits or into a large crowd and you've got an instant massacre.
Except: Stop drop and roll. and fire extinguishers. Plus some one can pull it out of your hand or sack in the time it takes to light and throw.

[enoch007]

[QUOTE=Nitrousoxide;4494325]Except: Stop drop and roll. and fire extinguishers.

Yeah, let's see how good you can stop, drop etc while being stampeded by a paniced crowd.

[Nitrousoxide]

ANd this can kill how many people? How big a bottle?

If you use it on all of the exits of a building, you could kill everyone inside.

I haven't tried killing people with fire bombs before, but I'd imagine that you could set 4 or 5 nearby people ablaze with a single bottle.


Except: Stop drop and roll. and fire extinguishers.

I'm not sure stop drop and roll would even work on a person covered in flaming gasoline, assuming he even had the presence of mind to think of it. But if you lit up say 10 people with 2 firebombs, my intuition tells me to expect maybe 3 deaths with most of the rest being severely injured.

Not too bad for something that takes all of 2 minutes to make.

[Nice Squirrel]

Yeah right! You'd have to make sure the crowd panics, there are no fire extinguishers, sprinklers, blocked fire exits, enough gasoline in the bottle, a good throwing arm, enought time to light the bomb and not be noticed, etc., etc., etc.

Better to use an auto or semiautomatic weapon.

[Nice Squirrel]

ANd this can kill how many people? How big a bottle?

If you use it on all of the exits of a building, you could kill everyone inside.
There are a whole hell of a lot of what ifs.
Can you simultaniously throw bombs at all exits and not be noticed?

I haven't tried killing people with fire bombs before, but I'd imagine that you could set 4 or 5 nearby people ablaze with a single bottle.
You also need to kill them and not just burn them.


Except: Stop drop and roll. and fire extinguishers.

I'm not sure stop drop and roll would even work on a person covered in flaming gasoline, assuming he even had the presence of mind to think of it. Assuming a bottle actually got more than a drop or two on them. Are you going to be carrying gallon jugs over your shoulder? and pouring it onver people?

But if you lit up say 10 people with 2 firebombs, my intuition tells me to expect maybe 3 deaths with most of the rest being severely injured.And this opinion is based on what information? I mean how much gasoline are we talking?

[Nitrousoxide]

There are a whole hell of a lot of what ifs.
Can you simultaniously throw bombs at all exits and not be noticed?

You also need to kill them and not just burn them.


I'd imagine that such a person would start with any back entrences first and leave the main enterence until last.


Assuming a bottle actually got more than a drop or two on them. Are you going to be carrying gallon jugs over your shoulder? and pouring it onver people?

There's an element of chance involved, sure. Some folks in the area will get hit more than others.


And this opinion is based on what information? I mean how much gasoline are we talking?

I said it was based on intuition. I don't have any experience killing people, let alone killing them with fire bombs, and I doubt anyone here does.

[Nice Squirrel]

[quote=Nice Squirrel;4494402]
There are a whole hell of a lot of what ifs.
Can you simultaniously throw bombs at all exits and not be noticed?

You also need to kill them and not just burn them.


I'd imagine that such a person would start with any back entrences first and leave the main enterence until last.Since my point was there is a great deal more planning to be effective (Not to say that most gunman do not start out with some plan -- such as the Amish school shooting etc.) but that some higher degree of logistics is needed. Also, the bombing scenario needs a crowd to be most effective, where a person with an auto or semiatomatic weapon can snipe and change location.


Assuming a bottle actually got more than a drop or two on them. Are you going to be carrying gallon jugs over your shoulder? and pouring it onver people?

There's an element of chance involved, sure. Some folks in the area will get hit more than others.Which will need to be accounted for in the logistical planning.


And this opinion is based on what information? I mean how much gasoline are we talking?

I said it was based on intuition. I don't have any experience killing people, let alone killing them with fire bombs, and I doubt anyone here does.Good. Hopefully all memeber of this board have no experience stalking or killing people or squirrels.

[JuliaLink]

Once upon a time I was passively anti gun. Now I'm actively pro...

Gun suicides outnumber gun homicides. In 1999, there were 16,599 gun suicides compared to 10,828 firearm homicides.

http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=471

Seems the most likely victims of gun violence are:
1) their owners
2) their owners families
3) some malefactor
4) random innocent
5) Me and mine

I feel pretty safe at #5.

Julia

[Loren Pechtel]

I believe in licensing for carrying not ownership. General licensing serves no purpose other then preparation for confiscation in my opinion.

How about my proposal: License possession. I agree that ownership shouldn't be licensed, the track record on this is bad.

Thus I think we should look at guns more like we do at driving. A firearms license is needed to have a gun in your possession, period, unless it in a sealed box and you're in the package transport business.

This means there will be a decent number of people with licenses but no guns. (Example: The clerk at the gun counter of a sporting goods store.)

Since there is no information on how many guns one owns there's nothing for the confiscators to work from.

[Marc Higbie]

Once upon a time I was passively anti gun. Now I'm actively pro...

Gun suicides outnumber gun homicides. In 1999, there were 16,599 gun suicides compared to 10,828 firearm homicides.

http://www.researchmatters.harvard.edu/story.php?article_id=471

Seems the most likely victims of gun violence are:
1) their owners
2) their owners families
3) some malefactor
4) random innocent
5) Me and mine

I feel pretty safe at #5.

Julia

Its interesting to see that gun ownership is a negative survival trait....perhaps all the pro survival types need to take note.

Marc

P.S. Neutral on the issue, but always interested in the discussion.

P.P.S. Mecha, we should all get Giant Robots! Then I'd feel safe.

[Eric Starnes]

How about my proposal: License possession.

Seems reasonable to me.

Yeah right! You'd have to make sure the crowd panics, there are no fire extinguishers, sprinklers, blocked fire exits, enough gasoline in the bottle, a good throwing arm, enought time to light the bomb and not be noticed, etc., etc., etc.

Better to use an auto or semiautomatic weapon.



My point in bringing up fire bombs is not that they are more convienent then guns for killing people(though they could (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/21/deadly.nightclub.fire/) be), but that a homicidal maniac without a gun is still dangerous. It is not worth depriving an entire population of their right to defend themselves to inconvience the homicidal maniacs of the world.


Its interesting to see that gun ownership is a negative survival trait....perhaps all the pro survival types need to take note.

Suppose that it was discovered that protestors were more likely to get skin cancer due to all that marching out in the sun. Would this be a justification for attacking freedom of speech and expression in your opinion?

[Loren Pechtel]

Its interesting to see that gun ownership is a negative survival trait....perhaps all the pro survival types need to take note.


The data doesn't support that position.

People will be more likely to get guns when they feel more threatened.

In general you will find the highest density of <anti-X>'s wherever there is the most <X>. This should not be used to "prove" that <anti-X> causes <X>, although I have seen many arguments to this effect.

[Marc Higbie]

The data doesn't support that position.

People will be more likely to get guns when they feel more threatened.

In general you will find the highest density of <anti-X>'s wherever there is the most <X>. This should not be used to "prove" that <anti-X> causes <X>, although I have seen many arguments to this effect.

I thought gun ownership was higher in rural places, where crime rates are lower? That seems to be a negative correlation, excepting of course defense from wild animals and the like.

There does seem to me to be a clear correlation between gun ownership and being the victim of gun violence.

I'm not opposed to gun ownership, but it seems to me that gun proponenets frequently gloss over that.

Marc

[Loren Pechtel]

The data doesn't support that position.

People will be more likely to get guns when they feel more threatened.

In general you will find the highest density of <anti-X>'s wherever there is the most <X>. This should not be used to "prove" that <anti-X> causes <X>, although I have seen many arguments to this effect.

I thought gun ownership was higher in rural places, where crime rates are lower? That seems to be a negative correlation, excepting of course defense from wild animals and the like.

Yeah, legal gun ownership is certainly higher in the rural areas.

In this case, however, the <anti-X> I'm referring to is self-defense guns and <X> is violent criminals.

We react to gun violence by passing laws that limit legal guns but do next to nothing about illegal ones.

There does seem to me to be a clear correlation between gun ownership and being the victim of gun violence.

I'm not opposed to gun ownership, but it seems to me that gun proponenets frequently gloss over that.

Of course! Other than sporting use people have guns because they fear violence. Thus you would expect to see a relationship between guns and being the victim of gun violence.

[premjan]

There are tazer guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroshock_weapon

[RationalMaterialist]

Regarding the original post...

Seems the thread has gone way beyond the original post, but I don't feel it would be fair to address other comments without first addressing the OPs question. So, here goes...

What sort of weapons should a populace have? Should it have access to knives? Perhaps it should have access to guns? Is these even a good question?
The question solicits an ideal with the word 'should'. I feel that the question is poor in that it asserts that the weapons are a necessity whilst soliciting that ideal.

It seems to me that ideally a population should not have access to 'weapons'. Simply because ideally we would not need to harm others nor feel the need to defend ourselves. Indeed, in such a society the items mentioned would cease to qualify as weapons.

So, no, we SHOULDN'T have weapons... Simply because we SHOULDN'T NEED weapons.

There seem to be 2 very large disagreements on this subject and it revolves around access not to swords, rocks, or sticks, but guns.
Then it would appear you are either asking the wrong question - or the wrong people. The question you have asked here, taken pragmatically, has a simple logical and inescapable truth. A population SHOULD NOT have (or need) weapons.

"for one needs access to guns to protect from some great evil which might befall them, from alien invasion to an oppressive government."
One may need them... but that is different to asking should we need them. Again, my response is that governments should not be oppressive and people should not need weapons. Ideally, the population would not have access to 'weapons' - nor would the term apply in describing such objects.

I propose that the question is flawed in one very important respect
Yes, yes it is.

Please don't take me as a pacifist either. These days one OFTEN needs to defend oneself and ones family. But the question was, if someone asks what weapons a population should need... the only possible answer is "we shouldn't need any"

If this wasn't the answer the OP was soliciting - then perhaps the OP asked the wrong question.


The right to keep (and arm) bears...

The American voices here are particularly disturbing. For a country boasting its unparalleled freedoms and enviable way of life... well.. you all seem really damned scared TBQH. Even in your own homes.

Contrast yourselves to the swiss (where it was LAW that every household kept a rifle and ammunition in order to protect against possible invasion) Yet they had easily one of the lowest violent crime and murder rates in the world. Indeed, the rates are SO low that they don't bother tracking statistics.
Even today home gun ownership in Switzerland is almost at 30% and that is NOT including well over half a million remaining militia rifles still being kept for domestic national defence - and they are fully automatic and capable of functioning as a grenade launcher. Ok, if you leave the militia you are obliged to downgrade the rifle from fully-auto to semi-auto, but the reversal is easy.

Oh, and they don't even bother with registration for long hunting rifles and rifles with smaller bores. Thats right! Gun shops don't even bother registering the sale! THAT is how low their gun crime rate is. You see people carrying them in public... Every weekend you can hear gunshots going off... its their national sport too y'see : )

See? Their gun ownership levels ain't different, their social problems ain't that different either. It is their perception of themselves that is different... Their traditions and culture, their quiet self image.


So, gun-nut or not - wake up!... It ain't the guns. Have them, don't have them, it makes no difference. It all comes down to society and culture. Modern american *ME* culture is pretty sick and getting sicker. Its a society of restless consumerism where discontent is nurtured and harnessed to drive sales. Forget Iraq, America is the most propagandised and manipulated country in the world.

Yet, try to tell you guys... and, well, the responses you get back speak for themselves. I've yet to make such a statement without getting fired upon. Usually by people who have very little grasp of their own history let alone their governments well documented cynical use of thinktanks involving top psychologists to effect social and cultural change and stifle free expression. (Not conspiracy theory - documented facts for which I can easily produce citations)

America just needs to admit it has a problem, take a vallium, relax and reassess itself. Then you can maybe have your guns back. But until then you're a danger to yourself and others. But it ain't the guns.


On civil disobedience...

As for nukes and military action... it seems those posters know very little about the mechanics of revolution. And why would they? Their last one was in 1861 and was more a war than organised civil upheaval. Typically, in a civil uprising, the military are *NOT* the threat (Unless they are regularly used as an internal policing force). The military fold up very early on, refusing to turn weapons upon their own people - it is armed police forces that are most active and effective against civil resistance... indeed, often finding themselves taking up stances against breakaway military units.

The military is most effective in maintaining perimiter than in directly employing force. Too many governments have lent paramilitary organisation and strength to an otherwise civil revolt by abusing the role and ignoring the psychological makeup of its military forces. Its policing forces, however, adapt very well to the role. This concept is very well understood the world over.


Want mushrooms with that?

As for nuking your own cities... well, those guys have read too many action novels. Far easier (and indeed cheaper) to militarily blockade NY and her ports for a year than to take that kind of cleanup. It makes no sense in financial terms (let alone logistical or tactical) as such an action would result in immediate and irrevocable loss of control.



Phew, what a first post. I'm sure thats made me pretty darned unpopular with more than 50% of the posters, but hey... You came here for debate didn't ya? I'm just shooting from the hip (no pun intended) and saying it as I see it. If I didn't I'd be patronising you guys, and I believe you all deserve more than that.

You're always free to disagree : )


-Gary

[Eric Starnes]

The American voices here are particularly disturbing. For a country boasting its unparalleled freedoms and enviable way of life... well.. you all seem really damned scared TBQH. Even in your own homes.

I cant disagree much with most of your post, except to say that the idea that we "shouldnt need" weapons is a bit utopian. However i do disagree with the quoted section. I have not seen any evidence of fear among the American posters.

[RationalMaterialist]

The American voices here are particularly disturbing. For a country boasting its unparalleled freedoms and enviable way of life... well.. you all seem really damned scared TBQH. Even in your own homes.
I cant disagree much with most of your post, except to say that the idea that we "shouldnt need" weapons is a bit utopian.
Hi Eric,

I acknowledge this in the post. I state that the question appears to solicit an ideal... and that ideally... XYZ...

However, the fact that you might find such a view particularly utopian is perhaps in itself a tell. In most other countries people do not feel a need for weaponry in their homes [observational, no citation]. Lacking guns the greatest majority of people it seems do not sleep with knives under their pillows or by their doors... Utopian? Maybe... I simply find it normal.

However i do disagree with the quoted section. I have not seen any evidence of fear among the American posters.
Perhaps simply the argument that weapons are needed to defend oneself even within ones own home. This may seem like a truism to some, mainly americans I would venture. To me it is very much an alien concept and quite an indictment of american society.

Fear is not unlike stress. It is something that one simply becomes acustomed to over time. I refer to an atmosphere more than a distinctive emotion... perhaps gentle paranoia is a more accessible term. I'm not sure... but I know it when I smell it : )

I've been lucky to have lived a rich and varied life. Born in the UK, through my work I've lived (and felt very safe) in Canada, Belgium, Slovenia, Norway, Germany, Spain and Japan. I also worked for some years in the United States and during this time, although never coming under threat, I found it difficult to relax because of a kind of mild paranoia in some of those around me.

In my perception most of the world, for the most part, feels quite safe in their own homes. My principal worry, when the doorbell rings, is not that I have no Gun.... but that it may be Jehovas Witnesses.

I regret to report that I have since succumbed to this fear and installed a peephole. My safety thus assured I can relax.


-Gary

[untermensche]

The founders included the Second Amendment so the people could fight off tyrannical governments.

It has become moot.

But it is still there without update.

[Eric Starnes]

However, the fact that you might find such a view particularly utopian is perhaps in itself a tell. In most other countries people do not feel a need for weaponry in their homes [observational, no citation]. Lacking guns the greatest majority of people it seems do not sleep with knives under their pillows or by their doors... Utopian? Maybe... I simply find it normal.

If the crime rate is low in their area and they want to take the chance then that is their buisness. However where i live the crime rate is not negligible and the police response time is measured in hours. Relying on someone else for your personal security is at best unwise and irresponsible in my opinion if you have a family.

Perhaps simply the argument that weapons are needed to defend oneself even within ones own home. This may seem like a truism to some, mainly americans I would venture. To me it is very much an alien concept and quite an indictment of american society.

It is a truism. To do X you need the means to do X. Ever since the first hominid sharpened a stick it has been true that to defend yourself you need a weapon. If you are looking for a reason for the differences between the US and other countries on this issue i would point you in the general direction of the war on drugs.

Fear is not unlike stress. It is something that one simply becomes acustomed to over time. I refer to an atmosphere more than a distinctive emotion... perhaps gentle paranoia is a more accessible term. I'm not sure... but I know it when I smell it : )

What you call paranoia and fear i call awareness and preparedness. There is no downside to having the means to defend yourself and never having to use it. The "mild paranioa" you describe sounds a lot like simply being alert and aware (http://www.teddytactical.com/SharpenBladeArticle/4_States%20of%20Awareness.htm) of your surroundings.I would call that prudent when one is in public.

In my perception most of the world, for the most part, feels quite safe in their own homes. My principal worry, when the doorbell rings, is not that I have no Gun.... but that it may be Jehovas Witnesses.

I regret to report that I have since succumbed to this fear and installed a peephole. My safety thus assured I can relax.


-Gary

No home invasions recently in your area where they kicked in the door or a window or simply pushed in behind someone as they entered? A peephole and a deadlock will deture only the least motivated criminals. No place is ever truely safe, but it is prudent to take further precautions. Such as having a security system, a dog and a firearm.

I feel very strongly that my rights to be secure in my person and property are important enough that it is my responsability to be aware of my surroundings and have the means to defend them should i need to. Even if the probability of my needing to do so is small. I put on my seat belt before i put my car in drive; I strap on the weapon that i am licenced to carry before i walk out my door. I will continue to do so until these numbers (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/prelim06/t4ok_wi.htm) are zero.

The founders included the Second Amendment so the people could fight off tyrannical governments.

It has become moot.

But it is still there without update.

...and for hunting and for self defense. Assuming that it is only meant for fighting tyrannical governments why exactly is it that you believe it is moot?
Because there are no longer tyrannical governments or because fighting guerillas with small arms and improvised explosives is cake to a modern military? If any update is needed it is the removal of the prefatory
clause.