Revolvers for Everyone!

[gamewell45]

It proves he knew that it would an act of futility b/c so many citizens were armed and would use them in the face of the invasion. There were so many firearms in this country that the government wouldn’t even have to arm the people.

I can’t wait to read your ten million reasons it wouldn’t succeed. Please make sure to number each one.

You do not seem to grasp the idea that by having a well armed populace that no one is dumb enough to even try anything b/c they will not succeed.

You could arm the entire populace, but its just window dressing unless they know what they are doing. An untrained person with a pistol, revolver or rifle is a hazard to himself and anyone around him. If the Chinese or Russians invaded our country they’d most likely die from laughing at the feeble attempts of most of our citizens trying to use a firearm without killing themselves, not from the amazing firepower of our citizens.

Half the people in this country can’t use a can opener properly and you expect them to challenge a professionally trained army with our mighty handguns or shotguns?? Stop kidding yourself.

 

[Sir_Knight]

It was incredibly obvious that this was hyperbole, but here are the major reasons:

1. Numbers. How is a country the size of Japan going to conquer a country the size of the United States? Can’t be done, even if everyone if every rear area that the Japanese conquered was not only unarmed but totally docile.

So they started a war with a country that they thought they had no chance of obtaining victory against? I highly doubt that. Nobody goes to war against somebody they think that have no chance of defeating.

 

[gamewell45]

As I said above, the gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 120-pound policewoman on equal footing with a 300-pound criminal, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger. Without a gun to level the playing field, force and the fear of force does enter the equation and there is nothing separating us from uncivilized animals where the young and the strong dominate the weak and the old. Is that the kind of society that you want to live in where somebody younger / bigger / stronger can FORCE you to do their bidding?

I don’t agree with you on this; I’ve seen women police officers take down the above described perp’s using judo. No guns used. Any citizen properly trained can, in many instances, take down a 300-pound criminal using various martial arts (judo, Karate, etc).

If the perp has a gun, it gonna come down to who’s quicker, aims better and fires off a round; you or him. And since he’s likely to be more prepared then you would be, he’d win hands down. Bigger/Stronger cannot force anyone to do their bidding if the opponent is determined not to.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I don’t agree with you on this; I’ve seen women police officers take down the above described perp’s using judo. No guns used. Any citizen properly trained can, in many instances, take down a 300-pound criminal using various martial arts (judo, Karate, etc).

That is the exception and not the rule. The average 120-pound woman is no match for a 200-pound rapist. A 70-year old man in a wheel chair is no match for a young gangbanger. If both sides have a gun, it places both sides on equal footing.

Why do you think the violent crime rate dropped in Florida when the concealed gun law was enacted? Because criminals knew that their intended victims would be on equal footing with them. Ditto for Texas when they passed their concealed gun law.

Explain why, without exception, every state that has passed a concealed gun law into place has seen their violent crime rate drop? Because the victim is on equal footing with the attacker!

If the perp has a gun, it gonna come down to who’s quicker, aims better and fires off a round; you or him. And since he’s likely to be more prepared then you would be, he’d win hands down.

Reality doesn’t support your opinion.

Bigger/Stronger cannot force anyone to do their bidding if the opponent is determined not to.

Go walking through an inner city late at night especially where gang activity is high and you’ll have a different opinion when you return – IF you return.

 

[gamewell45]

That is the exception and not the rule. The average 120-pound woman is no match for a 200-pound rapist. A 70-year old man in a wheel chair is no match for a young gangbanger. If both sides have a gun, it places both sides on equal footing.

Go walking through an inner city late at night especially where gang activity is high and you’ll have a different opinion when you return – IF you return.

I work in a city where their is high crime activity and i’ve never had an issue with it. My opinion remains the same. Btw if you know anything about martial arts, its not weight that matters, rather the defensive and offensive skills learned by the person. I’ve seen it first hand so i’m speaking from experience.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I work in a city where their is high crime activity and i’ve never had an issue with it.

Then you’ve been lucky so far. If faced with a bigger/stronger adversary, you WILL do their bidding or find your broken body in a hospital or worse.

My opinion remains the same. Btw if you know anything about martial arts, its not weight that matters, rather the defensive and offensive skills learned by the person. I’ve seen it first hand so i’m speaking from experience.

I’ve also studied the martial arts and given the same belt levels, the bigger/stronger individual usually comes out on top most of the time.

The point is that a majority of people are not studying self defense and when faced with a younger / stronger / bigger adversary, the old and the weak will be forced to do the bidding of their adversary unless something places them on equal footing. The gun does that. It does that for a 70 year old man in a wheel chair and for a 120 pound police woman going against someone more than double her size.

 

[gamewell45]

The point is that a majority of people are not studying self defense and when faced with a younger / stronger / bigger adversary, the old and the weak will be forced to do the bidding of their adversary unless something places them on equal footing. The gun does that. It does that for a 70 year old man in a wheel chair and for a 120 pound police woman going against someone more than double her size.

Whats to say that someone armed with a revolver/pistol know’s what they are doing? Its one thing to get a permit to carry; its another to know what your doing. To arm everyone in this country and then expect them to study the proper use, go to the practice range, maintenance and laws regarding use of the weapon is not feasible.

Where I come from given the scenario you painted, a 70 year old man in a wheel chair armed with a weapon wouldn’t stand a chance against a person who was out to rob him. the perp would simply walk up behind the 70 year old and shoot him from behind before he knew what was going on. That’s the way it is in real life. They aren’t gunslingers meeting at high noon in the middle of town. The 120 pound police women would simply take out her service revolver and shoot the perp double her size.

I just don’t think your being realistic; rather your so afraid they’ll take your pistol from you you’ll paint any scenario that’ll prove your point whether ridiculous or not.

 

[Sir_Knight]

It isn’t a “ridiculous scenario” but a FACT. There are ONLY two ways that we can interact with each other – reason and force or fear of force. Those with evil intentions will use force or fear of force to get what they want. Force or fear of force is taken out of the equation if the playing fields are equal. A firearm does that.

I ask you again, why did violent crime drop sharply in Florida when citizens were allowed to carry firearms? Why did violent crime drop in Texas when a similar law was enacted? Why does violent crime drop in EVERY community that such a law in enacted?

I challenge you to show me just one exception – where violent crime rose when citizens were allowed to own/carry guns to protect themselves.

 

[Saint_Sebastian]

I completely disagree. Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force or fear of force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

As I said above, the gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 120-pound policewoman on equal footing with a 300-pound criminal, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger. Without a gun to level the playing field, force and the fear of force does enter the equation and there is nothing separating us from uncivilized animals where the young and the strong dominate the weak and the old. Is that the kind of society that you want to live in where somebody younger / bigger / stronger can FORCE you to do their bidding?

Sir Knight, I want to live in a society where a frail 98 pound grandma can pull out a tazar and shock the liver out of a 350 pound galoot with foul breath and have him contained in a cell until he learns how to become a gentleman. Or splatter him with a glue ball of super glue that makes him stick to the floor until he is cuffed. Or a pins him with a tranquillizer that anaesthetizes the Honky Tonk man until he wakes up in a jail cell and realizes that grandma put him there. Neither die, neither suffer guilt and both gain materially and spiritually from the new science of protection and rehabilitation.

 

[AnotherVoice]

Where I come from given the scenario you painted, a 70 year old man in a wheel chair armed with a weapon wouldn’t stand a chance against a person who was out to rob him. the perp would simply walk up behind the 70 year old and shoot him from behind before he knew what was going on. That’s the way it is in real life. They aren’t gunslingers meeting at high noon in the middle of town. The 120 pound police women would simply take out her service revolver and shoot the perp double her size.

The examples you offer are confusing - the 70 year old is shot from behind by a perp. However the 120 pound police woman “simply takes out her service weapon and shoots the perp”. Does this perp have rules that one must be of a certain age before he will shoot you from behind?

 

[Lycorth]

Does this perp have rules that one must be of a certain age before he will shoot you from behind?

There are no rules that criminals follow, and I believe that is the point. Criminals do not follow rules and will use the most effective means within their ability to subdue anyone when they are in the act of committing a crime, therefore the law-abiding have a necessity to arm themselves in order to level the playing field.

 

[AnotherVoice]

While I own a number of guns I do not carry one on my person, I certainly wish that my state would allow me to obtain a permit to do so. Crime rates do go down in areas that have allowed people to carry a weapon. I do not believe that every citizen should be automatically granted a permit, there needs to be fairly rigorous training and testing. The NRA and some pistol associations have suitable safety courses; at least for starters. Both the International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) and the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) have organizational structures and membership that already support safety training and practice in every state.

Going hand in hand with issuing permits to carry guns there needs to be the creation of some very strict gun laws. Commission of a crime with a gun should merit an automatic 20 years, on top of whatever sentence the crime carries. Sentences should also be imposed upon those who do not safely store their weapon. Too many children are injured or die each year because of carelessness. If a weapon accidentally discharges, the owner of that weapon should face the same charges as if he had fired the weapon. Part of obtaining a license should include a written agreement to this.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[gamewell45]

Going hand in hand with issuing permits to carry guns there needs to be the creation of some very strict gun laws. Commission of a crime with a gun should merit an automatic 20 years, on top of whatever sentence the crime carries. Sentences should also be imposed upon those who do not safely store their weapon. Too many children are injured or die each year because of carelessness. If a weapon accidentally discharges, the owner of that weapon should face the same charges as if he had fired the weapon. Part of obtaining a license should include a written agreement to this.

Just a few thoughts.

I think you really need to take into account all of the varibles associated with your thoughts on gun laws. First off, Do you have any idea of what it costs to incarcerate a prisioner? Secondly, where’s this money supposed to come from anyhow? Thirdly, as an example based on what you propose, someone who’s 18 and commits a first time crime, say theatening someone with a gun in the heat of the moment, would depending on the jurisdiction, likely get 10-15 years in most courts, plus your so-called 20 year penalty? Worst case scenario he’d be looking at 35 years in jail. Thats 35 years of taxpayers footing the cost of incarcerating him, plus he’ll be 53 upon release with no viable means of employment. I don’t think its feasible; your proposals are way too broad, failing to take into account of mitigating circumstances.

Under your scenario, we’d be building an awful of prisons and hiring tens of thousands of support staff to mind the prisoners. That’s a lot of taxpayer dollars.

 

[Lujack]

So they started a war with a country that they thought they had no chance of obtaining victory against? I highly doubt that. Nobody goes to war against somebody they think that have no chance of defeating.

They started a war against a country they knew they had no chance of conquering. That’s different from defeating. The Japanese hoped that they could beat the Americans early and often, take what they wanted in the Pacific, and dig in. The thought was that the US would simply accept that they couldn’t retake the Pacific. Yammamoto realized this wasn’t true, because the United States would never give up to Japan like that, especially after Pearl Harbor. That was the point of the White House Lawn quote; they won’t give up, we’ll have to dictate terms to them by absolute conquest if they ever want to end this war.

 

[AnotherVoice]

I think you really need to take into account all of the varibles associated with your thoughts on gun laws. First off, Do you have any idea of what it costs to incarcerate a prisioner? Secondly, where’s this money supposed to come from anyhow? Thirdly, as an example based on what you propose, someone who’s 18 and commits a first time crime, say theatening someone with a gun in the heat of the moment, would depending on the jurisdiction, likely get 10-15 years in most courts, plus your so-called 20 year penalty? Worst case scenario he’d be looking at 35 years in jail. Thats 35 years of taxpayers footing the cost of incarcerating him, plus he’ll be 53 upon release with no viable means of employment. I don’t think its feasible; your proposals are way too broad, failing to take into account of mitigating circumstances.

Under your scenario, we’d be building an awful of prisons and hiring tens of thousands of support staff to mind the prisoners. That’s a lot of taxpayer dollars.

According to the Department of Justice web site we are experiencing over 13,000 homicides involving guns annually. Would you care to venture a guess as to how many of these were the result of threatening someone in the heat of the moment. That is the cost I think we need to focus on.

BTW, you offer an example of “someone who is 18 and commits a first time crime, say threatening someone with a gun in the heat of the moment, would depending on the jurisdiction, likely get 10-15 years in most courts”; this example is not close to reality. Sentences like that just don’t happen, especially if the gun is not fired.

 

[wabrams]

It was incredibly obvious that this was hyperbole, but here are the major reasons:

1. Numbers. How is a country the size of Japan going to conquer a country the size of the United States? Can’t be done, even if everyone if every rear area that the Japanese conquered was not only unarmed but totally docile.

They did a pretty good job of conquering large parts of China and SE Asia.

 

[royal_archer]

Half the people in this country can’t use a can opener properly and you expect them to challenge a professionally trained army with our mighty handguns or shotguns?? Stop kidding yourself.

You are right, let’s start handing out the stingers and claymores.

 

[royal_archer]

I don’t agree with you on this; I’ve seen women police officers take down the above described perp’s using judo. No guns used. Any citizen properly trained can, in many instances, take down a 300-pound criminal using various martial arts (judo, Karate, etc).

If the perp has a gun, it gonna come down to who’s quicker, aims better and fires off a round; you or him. And since he’s likely to be more prepared then you would be, he’d win hands down. Bigger/Stronger cannot force anyone to do their bidding if the opponent is determined not to.

Really? then why are there so many more women who are victims of asault from men than the other way around?

 

[royal_archer]

I work in a city where their is high crime activity and i’ve never had an issue with it. My opinion remains the same. Btw if you know anything about martial arts, its not weight that matters, rather the defensive and offensive skills learned by the person. I’ve seen it first hand so i’m speaking from experience.

Martial arts are a controlled environment, you score hits, you do not fight to the death. On the street it is a different story. And yes a small woman who is a black belt may be able to beat up an unskilled man who is slightly larger. However not everyone has the time or skills to become a third degree black belt. even at that, it is no use against an armed assailant.

 

[Lujack]

They did a pretty good job of conquering large parts of China and SE Asia.

Did they conquer China? No, they lost. Not only that, China absorbed large parts of their army that they never got back. And this was a country in the midst of a civil war!

By the way, why did you ask for me list every point I could come up with if you intended to ignore all of them but one?