S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
I don’t have any, but you should be allowed to own them with lots of restrictions.
- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
Yes.
Although…The question can legitimately be asked, how many “murders” are of “innocent” people as opposed to those who are actively involved in illegal activities, either killed “in the act” or killed because of their active associations and mindset.
The gang member, sitting quietly on his porch, who is shot by a rival gang for instance. In the eyes of the law, such a person is innocent as specifically related to the shooting. Yet his associations and mindset are outside of the law…so…is he innocent?
Maybe that is getting too off topic though…I haven’t really considered it too deeply.
Peace
James
J
jwinch2
Guest
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” Gandhi
“This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” Adolf Hitler, 1935
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?” Thomas Jefferson
“Democracy: is two Wolves and a Lamb discussing Whats for Dinner. Liberty: is a well Armed Lamb willing to Contest The Majority Decision.” Benjamin Franklin 1755
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry
“This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” Adolf Hitler, 1935
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?” Thomas Jefferson
“Democracy: is two Wolves and a Lamb discussing Whats for Dinner. Liberty: is a well Armed Lamb willing to Contest The Majority Decision.” Benjamin Franklin 1755
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” Patrick Henry
J
jwinch2
Guest
Gun control laws only affect people who are honest enough to follow them in the first place. They do nothing to deter criminals from having guns. As if someone who is willing to rob you, rape you, or kill you cares about laws restricting their right to carry a gun.
Here are some stats that were published in a Aussie news paper about 4 years ago:
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in “successfully ridding Australian society of guns.”
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Switzerland = lots of guns. Low crime
Mexico = guns are illegal. High crime
Britain = guns are restricted severely. crime has gone up steadily since this was implemented. Gun crime rose 40% in the two years following the UK gun ban, and from numbers provided by the Home Office.
Australia = guns are restricted severely. crime has gone up steadily since this was implemented
America = state by state and even city by city. Those with the strictest gun laws are the ones with the highest violent crime.
Here are some stats that were published in a Aussie news paper about 4 years ago:
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in “successfully ridding Australian society of guns.”
The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Switzerland = lots of guns. Low crime
Mexico = guns are illegal. High crime
Britain = guns are restricted severely. crime has gone up steadily since this was implemented. Gun crime rose 40% in the two years following the UK gun ban, and from numbers provided by the Home Office.
Australia = guns are restricted severely. crime has gone up steadily since this was implemented
America = state by state and even city by city. Those with the strictest gun laws are the ones with the highest violent crime.
J
jwinch2
Guest
So what happened to Chicago’s Murder and Violent Crime rates after the Supreme Court decision in June 2010 striking down Chicago’s gun laws?
In DC, the change in gunlock laws as a result of the Supreme Court decision meant that about a third of adults already had registered long guns that they were now allowed to legally load and fire for self defense. In Chicago, very few new guns have been allowed and that gun ownership is essentially restricted to relatively well to do areas (see below). Yet it is the poorest parts of the city where crime is the worst and where people need guns the most for self protection. One would thus expect a much bigger change in crime rates from the Heller than the McDonald decisions. Still, for Chicago, the change in the law has not had the bad effect that many had predicted.
Crime was a central concern among the dissenters in the Heller case.
If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self- defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence. If it is indeed the case, as the District believes, that the number of guns contributes to the number of gun- related crimes, accidents, and deaths, then, although there may be less restrictive, less effective substitutes for an outright ban, there is no less restrictive equivalent of an outright ban. . . . In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.
—Justice Stephen Breyer, dissenting in District of Columbia v. Heller, June 26, 2008
The possible harm from guns was central to his dissent, and the words “crime,” “criminal,” “criminologist,” “homicide,” “murder,” “rape,” “robbery,” “suicide,” and “victim” were used a total of 122 times in forty-four pages.
I like this justification by then Mayor Daley about his request for five round the clock armed police bodyguards for after he retires:
"The safety of my family comes first,” said Daley, who leaves office on May 16. “I’ve been mayor for 22 years, and my wife has made a commitment [to the city]. … Former mayors received security appropriately. … It’s appropriate for every former mayor. Yes, it’s always appropriate.”
A couple follow up articles on who gets handguns in Chicago The misfire | Feature | Chicago Reader">here. From Mick Dumke’s article in the Chicago Reader:
John Lott, an economist who argues that gun control laws like Chicago’s actually lead to higher crime, says the cost of meeting the gun application’s training and registration requirements essentially discriminates against low-income black communities. In Chicago, the training and permit fees cost about $250 on top of the price of the gun.
“Those who are most likely to be victims of crime benefit the most from owning guns, and unfortunately, that is one very well defined group in our country, poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas such as Chicago,” Lott wrote in an e-mail. “But these white, middle class areas can much more easily afford the fees to register their guns and to go through the training requirements.”
Roderick Sawyer, alderman of the Sixth Ward, is skeptical of that theory. “It’s like buying a car,” he says. “If you want one you’ll find a way to do it.” . . .
In DC, the change in gunlock laws as a result of the Supreme Court decision meant that about a third of adults already had registered long guns that they were now allowed to legally load and fire for self defense. In Chicago, very few new guns have been allowed and that gun ownership is essentially restricted to relatively well to do areas (see below). Yet it is the poorest parts of the city where crime is the worst and where people need guns the most for self protection. One would thus expect a much bigger change in crime rates from the Heller than the McDonald decisions. Still, for Chicago, the change in the law has not had the bad effect that many had predicted.
Crime was a central concern among the dissenters in the Heller case.
If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self- defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence. If it is indeed the case, as the District believes, that the number of guns contributes to the number of gun- related crimes, accidents, and deaths, then, although there may be less restrictive, less effective substitutes for an outright ban, there is no less restrictive equivalent of an outright ban. . . . In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.
—Justice Stephen Breyer, dissenting in District of Columbia v. Heller, June 26, 2008
The possible harm from guns was central to his dissent, and the words “crime,” “criminal,” “criminologist,” “homicide,” “murder,” “rape,” “robbery,” “suicide,” and “victim” were used a total of 122 times in forty-four pages.
I like this justification by then Mayor Daley about his request for five round the clock armed police bodyguards for after he retires:
"The safety of my family comes first,” said Daley, who leaves office on May 16. “I’ve been mayor for 22 years, and my wife has made a commitment [to the city]. … Former mayors received security appropriately. … It’s appropriate for every former mayor. Yes, it’s always appropriate.”
A couple follow up articles on who gets handguns in Chicago The misfire | Feature | Chicago Reader">here. From Mick Dumke’s article in the Chicago Reader:
John Lott, an economist who argues that gun control laws like Chicago’s actually lead to higher crime, says the cost of meeting the gun application’s training and registration requirements essentially discriminates against low-income black communities. In Chicago, the training and permit fees cost about $250 on top of the price of the gun.
“Those who are most likely to be victims of crime benefit the most from owning guns, and unfortunately, that is one very well defined group in our country, poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas such as Chicago,” Lott wrote in an e-mail. “But these white, middle class areas can much more easily afford the fees to register their guns and to go through the training requirements.”
Roderick Sawyer, alderman of the Sixth Ward, is skeptical of that theory. “It’s like buying a car,” he says. “If you want one you’ll find a way to do it.” . . .
J
jwinch2
Guest
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence
law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7212&context=expresso
the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.
Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.
Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect. In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns
law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7212&context=expresso
- Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.
- Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 28% lower.[115]
- Since the outset of the Michigan right-to-carry law, the Michigan murder rate has averaged 4% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 2% lower.[119]
the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.
Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.
Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect. In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns
J
jwinch2
Guest
By Abhijeet Singh
Colonial Roots of Gun-Control
I live in India and I am a proud firearm owner - but I am the exception not the norm, an odd situation in a country with a proud martial heritage and a long history of firearm innovation. This is not because the people of India are averse to gun ownership, but instead due to Draconian anti-gun legislation going back to colonial times.
To trace the roots of India’s anti-gun legislation we need to step back to the latter half of the 19th century. The British had recently fought off a major Indian rebellion (the mutiny of 1857) and were busy putting in place measures to ensure that the events of 1857 were never repeated. These measures included a major restructuring of administration and the colonial British Indian Army along with improvements in communications and transportation. Meanwhile the Indian masses were systematically being disarmed and the means of local firearm production destroyed, to ensure that they (the Indian masses) would never again have the means to rise in rebellion against their colonial masters. Towards this end the colonial government, under Lord Lytton as Viceroy (1874 -1880), brought into existence the Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878); an act which, exempted Europeans and ensured that no Indian could possess a weapon of any description unless the British masters considered him a “loyal” subject of the British Empire.
An example of British thinking in colonial times:
“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” --James Burgh (Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses) [London, 1774-1775]
And thoughts (on this subject) of the man who wanted to rule the world:
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.” – Adolf Hitler (H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler’s Table Talks 1941-1944)
The leaders of our freedom struggle recognised this, even Gandhi the foremost practitioner of passive resistance and non-violence had this to say about the British policy of gun-control in India:
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” – Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)
Post Independence
India became independent in 1947, but it still took 12 years before this act was finally repealed. In 1959 the British era Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878.) was finally consigned to history and a new act, the Arms Act, 1959 was enacted. This was later supplemented by the Arms Rules, 1962. Unfortunately this new legislation was also formulated based on the Indian Government’s innate distrust its own citizens. Though somewhat better than the British act, this legislation gave vast arbitrary powers to the “Licensing Authorities”, in effect ensuring that it is often difficult and sometimes impossible for an ordinary law abiding Indian citizen to procure an arms license.
“A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Colonial Roots of Gun-Control
I live in India and I am a proud firearm owner - but I am the exception not the norm, an odd situation in a country with a proud martial heritage and a long history of firearm innovation. This is not because the people of India are averse to gun ownership, but instead due to Draconian anti-gun legislation going back to colonial times.
To trace the roots of India’s anti-gun legislation we need to step back to the latter half of the 19th century. The British had recently fought off a major Indian rebellion (the mutiny of 1857) and were busy putting in place measures to ensure that the events of 1857 were never repeated. These measures included a major restructuring of administration and the colonial British Indian Army along with improvements in communications and transportation. Meanwhile the Indian masses were systematically being disarmed and the means of local firearm production destroyed, to ensure that they (the Indian masses) would never again have the means to rise in rebellion against their colonial masters. Towards this end the colonial government, under Lord Lytton as Viceroy (1874 -1880), brought into existence the Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878); an act which, exempted Europeans and ensured that no Indian could possess a weapon of any description unless the British masters considered him a “loyal” subject of the British Empire.
An example of British thinking in colonial times:
“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” --James Burgh (Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses) [London, 1774-1775]
And thoughts (on this subject) of the man who wanted to rule the world:
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.” – Adolf Hitler (H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler’s Table Talks 1941-1944)
The leaders of our freedom struggle recognised this, even Gandhi the foremost practitioner of passive resistance and non-violence had this to say about the British policy of gun-control in India:
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” – Mahatma Gandhi (An Autobiography OR The story of my experiments with truth, by M.K. Gandhi, p.238)
Post Independence
India became independent in 1947, but it still took 12 years before this act was finally repealed. In 1959 the British era Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878.) was finally consigned to history and a new act, the Arms Act, 1959 was enacted. This was later supplemented by the Arms Rules, 1962. Unfortunately this new legislation was also formulated based on the Indian Government’s innate distrust its own citizens. Though somewhat better than the British act, this legislation gave vast arbitrary powers to the “Licensing Authorities”, in effect ensuring that it is often difficult and sometimes impossible for an ordinary law abiding Indian citizen to procure an arms license.
“A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
J
jwinch2
Guest
By Abhijeet Singhn, cont.
Also the policy of throttling private arms manufacturing was continued even after independence. Limits on the quantity and type of arms that could be produced by private manufacturers were placed - ensuring that the industry could never hope to be globally competitive and was instead consigned to producing cheap shotguns, of mostly indifferent quality, in small quantities. A citizen wishing to purchase a decent firearm depended solely on imports, which were a bit more expensive but vastly superior in quality.
More Recently
This changed towards the mid to late 1980s, when the Government, citing domestic insurgency as the reason, put a complete stop to all small arms imports. The fact that there is no documented evidence of any terrorists ever having used licensed weapons to commit an act of terror on Indian soil seems to be of no consequence to our Government. The prices of (legal & licensed) imported weapons have been on an upward spiral ever since - beating the share market and gold in terms of pure return on investment. Even the shoddy domestically produced guns suddenly seem to have found a market. Also since the Government now had a near monopoly on (even half-way decent) arms & ammunition for the civilian market, they started turning the screws by pricing their crude public sector products (ammunition, rifles, shotguns & small quantities of handguns) at ridiculously high rates - products that frankly, given a choice no one would ever purchase.
“That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.” – George Orwell, the author of Animal Farm and 1984, himself a socialist
Why Citizens Need to be Armed
Curtailing gun ownership, to curb violent crime, through denying licenses or making legal arms & ammunition ridiculously expensive is based on flawed reasoning. The fact is that licensed firearms are found to be used in a statistically insignificant number of violent crimes, motorcycles & cars are far more dangerous. The certainty that a potential victim is unarmed is an encouragement to armed criminals. Less guns, more crime. Most violent crimes involving firearms are committed using untraceable illegal guns. Terrorists or the mafia are not going to be deterred by gun-control laws, they will be willing and able to procure arms of their choice and use them to commit crimes irrespective of any laws. Ironically in India it is cheaper (by several times) to buy the same gun in the black market than it is to buy it legally!
“Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You’ll pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.” – Sammy “The Bull” Gravano, Mafia hit man
“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” – Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War in 1775
Also the policy of throttling private arms manufacturing was continued even after independence. Limits on the quantity and type of arms that could be produced by private manufacturers were placed - ensuring that the industry could never hope to be globally competitive and was instead consigned to producing cheap shotguns, of mostly indifferent quality, in small quantities. A citizen wishing to purchase a decent firearm depended solely on imports, which were a bit more expensive but vastly superior in quality.
More Recently
This changed towards the mid to late 1980s, when the Government, citing domestic insurgency as the reason, put a complete stop to all small arms imports. The fact that there is no documented evidence of any terrorists ever having used licensed weapons to commit an act of terror on Indian soil seems to be of no consequence to our Government. The prices of (legal & licensed) imported weapons have been on an upward spiral ever since - beating the share market and gold in terms of pure return on investment. Even the shoddy domestically produced guns suddenly seem to have found a market. Also since the Government now had a near monopoly on (even half-way decent) arms & ammunition for the civilian market, they started turning the screws by pricing their crude public sector products (ammunition, rifles, shotguns & small quantities of handguns) at ridiculously high rates - products that frankly, given a choice no one would ever purchase.
“That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.” – George Orwell, the author of Animal Farm and 1984, himself a socialist
Why Citizens Need to be Armed
Curtailing gun ownership, to curb violent crime, through denying licenses or making legal arms & ammunition ridiculously expensive is based on flawed reasoning. The fact is that licensed firearms are found to be used in a statistically insignificant number of violent crimes, motorcycles & cars are far more dangerous. The certainty that a potential victim is unarmed is an encouragement to armed criminals. Less guns, more crime. Most violent crimes involving firearms are committed using untraceable illegal guns. Terrorists or the mafia are not going to be deterred by gun-control laws, they will be willing and able to procure arms of their choice and use them to commit crimes irrespective of any laws. Ironically in India it is cheaper (by several times) to buy the same gun in the black market than it is to buy it legally!
“Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You’ll pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.” – Sammy “The Bull” Gravano, Mafia hit man
“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” – Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War in 1775
J
jwinch2
Guest
By Abhijeet Singh, cont.
And from the world’s gentlest human being:
“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” – The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the “Educating Heart Summit” in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate
It is, of course, no coincidence that the right to have guns is one of the earlier freedoms outlined in U.S.A.'s Bill of Rights. Without guns in the hands of the people, all the other freedoms are easily negated by the State. If you disagree with that statement, ask yourself if the Nazis could have gassed millions of Jews, had the Jews been armed with rifles and pistols–there weren’t enough SS troops to do the job. Lest we forget, in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1944, a couple of hundred Jews armed with rifles and homemade explosive devices held off two fully-equipped German divisions (actually about 8,000 men) for nearly two months.
Closer home take the case of the Godhra carnage and the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. Would wanton mobs have slaughtered so many innocent people with such disregard to consequences if their potential victims had been armed and ready to defend themselves? A serious consideration should be given to an armed civilian population as a solution to religious and racial riots as well as other crimes. Since all criminals are instinctively driven by self-preservation allowing legal ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens would act as a serious deterrent. This will make sure that if the Govt. fails to do its duty to protect the life and liberty of its citizens (as it has so often done in India’s recent past), citizens will be able to protect themselves. I’ll take some potential objections and try to answer them:
And from the world’s gentlest human being:
“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” – The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the “Educating Heart Summit” in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate
It is, of course, no coincidence that the right to have guns is one of the earlier freedoms outlined in U.S.A.'s Bill of Rights. Without guns in the hands of the people, all the other freedoms are easily negated by the State. If you disagree with that statement, ask yourself if the Nazis could have gassed millions of Jews, had the Jews been armed with rifles and pistols–there weren’t enough SS troops to do the job. Lest we forget, in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1944, a couple of hundred Jews armed with rifles and homemade explosive devices held off two fully-equipped German divisions (actually about 8,000 men) for nearly two months.
Closer home take the case of the Godhra carnage and the anti-Sikh riots of 1984. Would wanton mobs have slaughtered so many innocent people with such disregard to consequences if their potential victims had been armed and ready to defend themselves? A serious consideration should be given to an armed civilian population as a solution to religious and racial riots as well as other crimes. Since all criminals are instinctively driven by self-preservation allowing legal ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens would act as a serious deterrent. This will make sure that if the Govt. fails to do its duty to protect the life and liberty of its citizens (as it has so often done in India’s recent past), citizens will be able to protect themselves. I’ll take some potential objections and try to answer them:
C
coachkfan1
Guest
The streets of America are already flooded with MILLIONS of guns. So who is volunteering to go out and round them all up for us? Until you can guarantee me that EVERY ONE of them is off the streets and out of the hands of criminals, I will continue to stay armed. This does not conflict with the Gospel in any way. After all, Jesus Himself said at one point, for him without a sword to trade his cloak for one did He not?
J
jwinch2
Guest
By Abhijeet Singh, cont.
Arguments & Counter-Arguments
Q1. Won’t legal owners of arms use the firearms to kill and murder others?
Ans. When a man holds a rifle, he becomes almost godlike: suddenly, he has the ability to deal death and injury to another over a considerable distance–to send, as it were, a thunderbolt of Zeus. For some men, unquestionably, this power is going to be abused, just as some men will always drive a fast car at reckless speeds. For the vast majority of men, however, this power produces precisely the opposite effect: they are humbled by the power they hold, and they become more responsible in its use. That is why, in a nation like the United States with well over seventy million gun owners, only a tiny fraction, less than half a tenth of one percent, use a gun to commit a crime each year. Also since the firearms would be registered with the Govt. along with the owners address, the type of the firearm, its serial number etc. Those (the criminals) who want to commit crimes will not and DO NOT bother to purchase firearms legally and register them. They can and do buy them from the black market (at a fraction of the cost of a legal firearm, I might add). Legal ownership will allow law abiding citizens to protect their and others life and property.
Q2. Won’t there be a free for all during riots?
Ans. By definition riots ARE free for all. However, very few people will participate in riots knowing that a large number of law abiding citizens own firearms in the area. This will actually prevent riots. Riots are mostly started by miscreants (unscrupulous politicians?) who want to benefit from the chaos of riots. However, the risk (loss of life or limb) for the miscreant in starting and/ or participating in such riots, when a large number of the general civilian population owns legal firearms, is significant. Therefore in most cases miscreants will not dare to start riots in the first place.
Q3.What about domestic violence and firearms?
Ans. Domestic violence has nothing to do with firearm ownership. Firearms are merely a tool – not the cause of violence, to quote a famous NRA slogan “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. Women in India face domestic violence even today with very limited legal gun ownership. If anything, legal firearms in the hands of women might help even the odds – by removing the physical weakness of women from the equation.
Q4. What about accidents?
Ans. More people in India get killed in automobile accidents than firearm accidents. In countries where gun ownership rates are high like the United States (which has a firearm to population ratio of approx 96:100, i.e., almost 1 firearm for every man woman & child), Switzerland, New Zealand etc. several times more people die in road accidents than from firearm accidents. Firearm accidents can be further minimised by making a gun-safety course mandatory before a permit is issued - so long as this is not used as another excuse to delay or deny permits.
Q5. What about firearm assisted suicides?
Ans. A suicidal person has many different available ways to end his/ her life. Firearms are just another means for him/ her. Statistically suicide rates have little correlation with firearm ownership patterns. Many countries with strict anti-gun legislation have high suicide rates and vice versa.
Q6. Are there any working systems and what are the results?
Ans. Yes, for example in U.S.A., Switzerland, New Zealand. One must note here that different states in US have different degrees of gun ownership and firearm restrictions. Interestingly the states with more restrictions on gun ownerships have a higher crime rate than those that are less restrictive.
I do not condone violence or a violent solution to problems, but there can be no justification for not letting people be prepared to defend their own and their families’ lives and property. When one is surrounded by mobs bent on setting you on fire and the like, in a country where policing is non-existent, owning firearms by people will have a great deterrent effect on mobs. Of course, if I could sue the police for not giving me complete protection, then I might feel differently (but don’t count on it). But by law the State cannot be at fault for not protecting its citizens – so if the cops take 25 minutes (or several hours) to respond to your call, and in those 25 minutes a criminal kicks open your door, shoots you and your wife, rapes your 11-year-old daughter, and beats your baby to death, that’s just tough luck. What about incidents like 1984 and Godhra, where the local administration and police wilfully neglected their duty to protect the citizens of this country?
Please also read the entertaining Parable of the Sheep for an explanation so simple that even a child can understand it.
As the Indian Law stands today a citizen of this country cannot even own a stick without inviting a penalty of 7 years in prison. We live in a country where we have still not cast off the yoke of antiquated laws made by our colonial masters to keep us oppressed and at the mercy of the government, notwithstanding the lofty vision of the first page of our constitution.
Harping on the few who unfortunately misuse firearms unfairly ignores those millions of us spread all over the world who own and use them responsibly. Dreaming romantically about a world where everything has been made perfectly safe “for the children” is just that, dreaming. I’ve tried visualising world peace until I’m about ready to have an out of body experience, but as soon as I open my eyes, they’re bombing civilians in the North East or gunning down innocents in Kashmir. Welcome to the real world.
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”-- Patrick Henry
Arguments & Counter-Arguments
Q1. Won’t legal owners of arms use the firearms to kill and murder others?
Ans. When a man holds a rifle, he becomes almost godlike: suddenly, he has the ability to deal death and injury to another over a considerable distance–to send, as it were, a thunderbolt of Zeus. For some men, unquestionably, this power is going to be abused, just as some men will always drive a fast car at reckless speeds. For the vast majority of men, however, this power produces precisely the opposite effect: they are humbled by the power they hold, and they become more responsible in its use. That is why, in a nation like the United States with well over seventy million gun owners, only a tiny fraction, less than half a tenth of one percent, use a gun to commit a crime each year. Also since the firearms would be registered with the Govt. along with the owners address, the type of the firearm, its serial number etc. Those (the criminals) who want to commit crimes will not and DO NOT bother to purchase firearms legally and register them. They can and do buy them from the black market (at a fraction of the cost of a legal firearm, I might add). Legal ownership will allow law abiding citizens to protect their and others life and property.
Q2. Won’t there be a free for all during riots?
Ans. By definition riots ARE free for all. However, very few people will participate in riots knowing that a large number of law abiding citizens own firearms in the area. This will actually prevent riots. Riots are mostly started by miscreants (unscrupulous politicians?) who want to benefit from the chaos of riots. However, the risk (loss of life or limb) for the miscreant in starting and/ or participating in such riots, when a large number of the general civilian population owns legal firearms, is significant. Therefore in most cases miscreants will not dare to start riots in the first place.
Q3.What about domestic violence and firearms?
Ans. Domestic violence has nothing to do with firearm ownership. Firearms are merely a tool – not the cause of violence, to quote a famous NRA slogan “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. Women in India face domestic violence even today with very limited legal gun ownership. If anything, legal firearms in the hands of women might help even the odds – by removing the physical weakness of women from the equation.
Q4. What about accidents?
Ans. More people in India get killed in automobile accidents than firearm accidents. In countries where gun ownership rates are high like the United States (which has a firearm to population ratio of approx 96:100, i.e., almost 1 firearm for every man woman & child), Switzerland, New Zealand etc. several times more people die in road accidents than from firearm accidents. Firearm accidents can be further minimised by making a gun-safety course mandatory before a permit is issued - so long as this is not used as another excuse to delay or deny permits.
Q5. What about firearm assisted suicides?
Ans. A suicidal person has many different available ways to end his/ her life. Firearms are just another means for him/ her. Statistically suicide rates have little correlation with firearm ownership patterns. Many countries with strict anti-gun legislation have high suicide rates and vice versa.
Q6. Are there any working systems and what are the results?
Ans. Yes, for example in U.S.A., Switzerland, New Zealand. One must note here that different states in US have different degrees of gun ownership and firearm restrictions. Interestingly the states with more restrictions on gun ownerships have a higher crime rate than those that are less restrictive.
I do not condone violence or a violent solution to problems, but there can be no justification for not letting people be prepared to defend their own and their families’ lives and property. When one is surrounded by mobs bent on setting you on fire and the like, in a country where policing is non-existent, owning firearms by people will have a great deterrent effect on mobs. Of course, if I could sue the police for not giving me complete protection, then I might feel differently (but don’t count on it). But by law the State cannot be at fault for not protecting its citizens – so if the cops take 25 minutes (or several hours) to respond to your call, and in those 25 minutes a criminal kicks open your door, shoots you and your wife, rapes your 11-year-old daughter, and beats your baby to death, that’s just tough luck. What about incidents like 1984 and Godhra, where the local administration and police wilfully neglected their duty to protect the citizens of this country?
Please also read the entertaining Parable of the Sheep for an explanation so simple that even a child can understand it.
As the Indian Law stands today a citizen of this country cannot even own a stick without inviting a penalty of 7 years in prison. We live in a country where we have still not cast off the yoke of antiquated laws made by our colonial masters to keep us oppressed and at the mercy of the government, notwithstanding the lofty vision of the first page of our constitution.
Harping on the few who unfortunately misuse firearms unfairly ignores those millions of us spread all over the world who own and use them responsibly. Dreaming romantically about a world where everything has been made perfectly safe “for the children” is just that, dreaming. I’ve tried visualising world peace until I’m about ready to have an out of body experience, but as soon as I open my eyes, they’re bombing civilians in the North East or gunning down innocents in Kashmir. Welcome to the real world.
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”-- Patrick Henry
J
jwinch2
Guest
**To the person earlier who wanted to go back to swords instead of guns. **
The thing that happened when there were no guns is that “might makes right” existed. If you were physically weak, injured, female, etc. you had almost no chance of defending yourself from attack. If more than one person was attempting to harm you, forget about it. Guns allow for someone who may be wheelchair bound, the aged, the weak, etc. to be able to defend themselves, their family, and other innocents through the equalization of force that they are able to apply.
Are we supposed to go back to swords or clubs where whoever was the strongest or had the most friends was able to do whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted? No thanks. I sleep better when I travel knowing that my wife, who is all of a 120 pounds will put two rounds center mass into anyone who attempts to harm her while I am gone.
The thing that happened when there were no guns is that “might makes right” existed. If you were physically weak, injured, female, etc. you had almost no chance of defending yourself from attack. If more than one person was attempting to harm you, forget about it. Guns allow for someone who may be wheelchair bound, the aged, the weak, etc. to be able to defend themselves, their family, and other innocents through the equalization of force that they are able to apply.
Are we supposed to go back to swords or clubs where whoever was the strongest or had the most friends was able to do whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted? No thanks. I sleep better when I travel knowing that my wife, who is all of a 120 pounds will put two rounds center mass into anyone who attempts to harm her while I am gone.
C
coachkfan1
Guest
Newflash- People were killing people thousands of years before the first gun. In Rwanda’s civil war there were alomost 5 million deaths. The overwhelming majority of these deaths were from machete blows. Do you gun control advocates feel better since they weren’t shot with a gun?
T
TimothyH
Guest
We can’t ever forget the spiritual senses of scripture. The story of Israel points us to Christ as our savior (alegorical sense), to our own life as Christians (moral sense), and to our salvation (eschatological sense).
The story of the nation of Israel battling to take possession of the promised land, while based on fact and actual history, is alegory for our personal struggle and the strugle of the Church to bring all to salvation. God didn’t put the Book of Joshua, the story of Israel taking posession of the promised land into the Bible to tell us an interesting story, but to point us to Christ, to how we are to live our lives as Christians, and to assist us in fulfilling God’s goal for us to spend eternity with him.
As Israel battled to take possession of the promised land with physical weapons, obeying God’s commands and aided by the Ark of the Covenant which went before them, I also battle to take possession of my salvation using the weapons of the sacramental system of the Church, striving to obey God’s commandments by living a life of virtue, and with Mary the Mediatrix of Grace going before me. There is deep spiritual meaning here, and it has little to do with using weapons or whether God wants us to carry guns or not.
We are not Israelites battling the Jebusites and Hivites for a piece of land in the Middle East. We are Christians, and the weapons of the Israelites in the Old Testament represent the sacramental system of the Church, the rosary, our prayers, and good works.
And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. (Matthew 10:28)
That’s the whole point of the sacrament of confirmation. Confirmation is our personal participation in Pentacost. Before Pentacost, the disciples were afraid, locked in an upper room for fear of the Jews. After Pentacost they spoke out boldly, not afriad to proclaim Jesus to the Sanhedrin, with Stephen not even afraid to die. That’s the whole point of confirmation, enabling us to speak out in the name of Jesus without even fear of death.
People can carry guns if they want, and there are plenty of legitimate reasons for doing so, even legitimate reasons for using one, but mostly I think people carry guns out of fear. For me as a Christian, confirmed and making use of the weapons provided to me by the Church, perfect love drives out fear, and as I advance in love, I find no need to carry a gun or a weapon.
The more I advance as a Christian, the less I am afraid of anything which can harm the body but not the soul.
-Tim-
S
sw85
Guest
I didn’t vote since none of the answers really describe me. I’m a gun owner – I own a Springfield XD 9mm pistol (which I am licensed to carry concealed in TX, and thus about 33 other states) and a Mossberg Mariner 500 shotgun. I’m a good shot. I have legal insurance in the event I need to make recourse to either of them in a self-defense situation, which I will do if the circumstances arise. I’ve taken these precautions because (a) Texas is a dump, (b) the part of Texas I’m in is especially dumpy, and (c) I’ve nearly been killed here before, by a cracked-out soldier fresh from deployment eager to take offense at other people’s conversations. I made the decision a long time ago that if it comes down to my safety and the safety of some belligerent, illiterate numbskull, my safety (and the safety of those with and around me) comes first. I’m not a big guy mind you – 5’10", about 155 pounds, definitely on the slender side – so it’s kind of my only option for self-defense, short of decades of martial arts training I can’t afford and which isn’t available in my area anyway.
That said, gun ownership isn’t a “right,” for lots of reasons. If the state today banned guns I would be morally obligated to obey that law and turn in my firearms, it not being unjust in principle. Gun control is a purely prudential matter. I think prudence comes down firmly on the side of widespread gun ownership, but that’s not my determination to make. I tend to see the gun control crowd as being in thrall to the modern gnostic temptation to refuse to deal with the order of being as it is and instead to try to shoehorn it into some abstract, idealized state.
Now whether or not it occurs frequently is really irrelevant. The principle is the same regardless of how frequently it’s instantiated: people have a legitimate right to defend themselves. Whether or not they can or should make recourse to guns is a prudential matter, which means it needs to be evaluated prudentially.
Now you are on to something when you say that ordinary people rarely have to defend themselves. That’s because most crime is gang-related, i.e., by gangs against gangs. Which means the easiest thing you can do to avoid getting murdered is not buying a gun but making some simple lifestyle choices like not being a drug-dealing thug. But that also means getting rid of guns probably isn’t going to address the issue. Gangs don’t vanish when drugs go away.
We also have an extremely large, impoverished, and unintegrated minority population with a subculture that fetishizes violence and 2,000 miles of border with a failed narco-state. So yes, duh, we have a higher murder rate. Gun control isn’t going to change either of these facts.
That said, gun ownership isn’t a “right,” for lots of reasons. If the state today banned guns I would be morally obligated to obey that law and turn in my firearms, it not being unjust in principle. Gun control is a purely prudential matter. I think prudence comes down firmly on the side of widespread gun ownership, but that’s not my determination to make. I tend to see the gun control crowd as being in thrall to the modern gnostic temptation to refuse to deal with the order of being as it is and instead to try to shoehorn it into some abstract, idealized state.
Well, no, it’s against His commandments to murder. Sometimes it is necessary to kill, e.g., in self-defense.
“No” average citizen? You mean “few,” since you just said “rare” and not “non-existent.” If you google it, you’ll find plenty of stories, such as the elderly man who recently chased off a pair of armed robbers out of a crowded Internet cafe with his little concealed sidearm.
Now whether or not it occurs frequently is really irrelevant. The principle is the same regardless of how frequently it’s instantiated: people have a legitimate right to defend themselves. Whether or not they can or should make recourse to guns is a prudential matter, which means it needs to be evaluated prudentially.
Now you are on to something when you say that ordinary people rarely have to defend themselves. That’s because most crime is gang-related, i.e., by gangs against gangs. Which means the easiest thing you can do to avoid getting murdered is not buying a gun but making some simple lifestyle choices like not being a drug-dealing thug. But that also means getting rid of guns probably isn’t going to address the issue. Gangs don’t vanish when drugs go away.
Now in what sense is the NRA “responsible” for murder? You are subscribing to a very warped and borderline anti-Catholic view of moral agency (which is probably why you go on to say “regardless of what’s in the CCC,” i.e., regardless of what the Church actually teaches and has always taught on this matter since time immemorial).
You’d also stand a better chance *with *a gun than you would *with *a sword.Yup
I would stand a better chance against a sword than I would a gun.
As others have noted, gunfire isn’t the only way to be murdered, so the fact that GB has less gun-related murders is not very telling.
We also have an extremely large, impoverished, and unintegrated minority population with a subculture that fetishizes violence and 2,000 miles of border with a failed narco-state. So yes, duh, we have a higher murder rate. Gun control isn’t going to change either of these facts.
Z
Zenkai
Guest
H
Hunter24
Guest
Thank you for the thoughtYou say you are no longer Catholic but yet you put a post on a Catholic Website, I think the door is not yet closed with you and the Catholic religion, as a convert I will pray that your heart will be open to coming back to your faith. Walk with God.
I’m actualy on here because we had to use this website for senior theology in high school. I enjoy the study of world religions and that’s not something my people talk about alot on our forums, so I figured I would come discuss it with the most rational and generally reaspectful group of Christians. Plus I had 13 years learning your stuff in school so I actualy understand your religion reletively well.
T
TimothyH
Guest
One could say that you have placed the valued one life, yours, above the value of another, an illeterate numbskull as you put it. Having read many of your posts, I’m sure you were just being a bit dramatic and don’t really place less value on a human because he can’t read.
I don’t think that I have the self control to be able to decide not to use the weapon until it is truly a last resort, to be able to tell when my safety is more valuable than that of a potential aggressor, when he truly is a threat, and where to draw that line to deal the lethal blow.
I wonder about being killed by someone, that if it did happen, would it not be God’s will?
-Tim-
C
coachkfan1
Guest
sw85 posted: That said, gun ownership isn’t a “right,” for lots of reasons.
It IS a right in the United States. From the 2nd Amendment: “the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.”
It IS a right in the United States. From the 2nd Amendment: “the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.”
C
codefro
Guest
So you are anti gun but pro sword?
It would be worth it to note that wars are not really fought with guns NOW for the most part.
:thumbsup:- Status