First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
76 Reasons To Have a Gun
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 9/15/09 , edited 9/15/09
I'm not sure letting everyone in the country own guns for "self-defense" is worth the problems that come with that. For example, in Bowling for Columbine, the really stupid story that bothered me was the little boy taking a gun to kindergarten and accidentally killing a little girl. And of course Columbine, apparently it's not too difficult for two teenage boys to get their hands on some machine guns so they can easily go on a killing spree.

Let's consider Japan's view on the issue:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html


In October 1992, in Louisiana, a Japanese exchange student named Yoshihiro Hattori went into the wrong house on the way to a Halloween party. The homeowner's wife screamed for help and the homeowner drew his .44 pistol and yelled for the student to 'freeze!' Not understanding the American idiom that 'freeze!' means 'Don't move or I'll shoot', the student continued advancing towards the homeowner. The homeowner pulled the trigger and shot him dead.[1] While the incident initially attracted only brief attention in the national American press, the shooting horrified Japan; hundreds of thousands of Japanese have signed petitions calling for the United States to implement gun prohibition, and Hattori's parents have announced plans to begin working with the American lobby, Handgun Control Inc.[2]

Tokyo is the safest major city in the world. Only 59,000 licensed gun owners live in Tokyo.[25] Per one million inhabitants, Tokyo has 40 reported muggings a year; New York has 11,000.[26] The handgun murder rate is at least 200 times higher in America than Japan.[27] The official homicide rate in Japan in 1988 was 1.2 homicide cases per 100,000 population, while in America it was 8.4 homocide cases per 100,000.[28]

Robbery is almost as rare as murder. Indeed, armed robbery and murder are both so rare that they usually make the national news, regardless of where they occur.[29] Japan's robbery rate is 1.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. The reported American rate is 220.9.[30] People walk anywhere in Japan at night, and carry large sums of cash.[31]


There's no comparison between Japan and the US when it comes to muggings, murder and armed robbery, so Japan must be doing something better than the US.
Posted 9/15/09

Yei wrote:I'm not sure letting everyone in the country own guns for "self-defense" is worth the problems that come with making guns so available for everyone. In Bowling for Columbine, the really stupid story that bothered me was the little boy taking a gun to kindergarten and accidentally killing a little girl. And of course Columbine, apparently it's not too difficult for two teenage boys to get their hands on some machine guns so they can easily go on a killing spree.

Let's consider Japan:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html


In October 1992, in Louisiana, a Japanese exchange student named Yoshihiro Hattori went into the wrong house on the way to a Halloween party. The homeowner's wife screamed for help and the homeowner drew his .44 pistol and yelled for the student to 'freeze!' Not understanding the American idiom that 'freeze!' means 'Don't move or I'll shoot', the student continued advancing towards the homeowner. The homeowner pulled the trigger and shot him dead.[1] While the incident initially attracted only brief attention in the national American press, the shooting horrified Japan; hundreds of thousands of Japanese have signed petitions calling for the United States to implement gun prohibition, and Hattori's parents have announced plans to begin working with the American lobby, Handgun Control Inc.[2]

Tokyo is the safest major city in the world. Only 59,000 licensed gun owners live in Tokyo.[25] Per one million inhabitants, Tokyo has 40 reported muggings a year; New York has 11,000.[26] The handgun murder rate is at least 200 times higher in America than Japan.[27] The official homicide rate in Japan in 1988 was 1.2 homicide cases per 100,000 population, while in America it was 8.4 homocide cases per 100,000.[28]

Robbery is almost as rare as murder. Indeed, armed robbery and murder are both so rare that they usually make the national news, regardless of where they occur.[29] Japan's robbery rate is 1.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. The reported American rate is 220.9.[30] People walk anywhere in Japan at night, and carry large sums of cash.[31]


There's no comparison between Japan and the US when it comes to muggings, murder and armed robbery, so Japan must be doing something better than the US.
This story also tells me that it'll take a lot of time and effort for the rest of the world to get accustomed with an America that's armed to every citizens, each with a firearm. All because Americans feel unsafe due to their armed crime rate. When their citizens can react correctly due to fear, yet still make poor judgment with their guns in the name of "self-defense".
5782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / In Limbo in Silen...
Offline
Posted 9/15/09

Yei wrote:

I'm not sure letting everyone in the country own guns for "self-defense" is worth the problems that come with that. For example, in Bowling for Columbine, the really stupid story that bothered me was the little boy taking a gun to kindergarten and accidentally killing a little girl. And of course Columbine, apparently it's not too difficult for two teenage boys to get their hands on some machine guns so they can easily go on a killing spree.

Let's consider Japan's view on the issue:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html


In October 1992, in Louisiana, a Japanese exchange student named Yoshihiro Hattori went into the wrong house on the way to a Halloween party. The homeowner's wife screamed for help and the homeowner drew his .44 pistol and yelled for the student to 'freeze!' Not understanding the American idiom that 'freeze!' means 'Don't move or I'll shoot', the student continued advancing towards the homeowner. The homeowner pulled the trigger and shot him dead.[1] While the incident initially attracted only brief attention in the national American press, the shooting horrified Japan; hundreds of thousands of Japanese have signed petitions calling for the United States to implement gun prohibition, and Hattori's parents have announced plans to begin working with the American lobby, Handgun Control Inc.[2]

Tokyo is the safest major city in the world. Only 59,000 licensed gun owners live in Tokyo.[25] Per one million inhabitants, Tokyo has 40 reported muggings a year; New York has 11,000.[26] The handgun murder rate is at least 200 times higher in America than Japan.[27] The official homicide rate in Japan in 1988 was 1.2 homicide cases per 100,000 population, while in America it was 8.4 homocide cases per 100,000.[28]

Robbery is almost as rare as murder. Indeed, armed robbery and murder are both so rare that they usually make the national news, regardless of where they occur.[29] Japan's robbery rate is 1.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. The reported American rate is 220.9.[30] People walk anywhere in Japan at night, and carry large sums of cash.[31]


There's no comparison between Japan and the US when it comes to muggings, murder and armed robbery, so Japan must be doing something better than the US.


Funny, I seem to have this same page linked in my favs list.
Further down on this page it also says...

Japan's gun control does play an important role in the low Japanese crime rate, but not because of some simple relation between gun density and crime. Japan's gun control is one inseparable part of a vast mosaic of social control. Gun control underscores the pervasive cultural theme that the individual is subordinate to society and to the Government. The same theme is reflected in the absence of protection against Government searches and prosecutions. The police are the most powerful on earth, partly because of the lack of legal constraints and particularly because of their social authority.
Powerful social authorities, beginning with the father and reaching up to the state, create a strict climate for obeying both the criminal laws and the gun control laws. The voluntary disarmament of the Japanese Government reinforces this climate. Ethnic homogeneity and economic equality remove some of the causes of criminality.
Simply put, the Japanese are among the most law-abiding people on earth, and far more law-abiding than Americans. America's non-gun robbery rate is over 70 times Japan's, an indication that something more significant than gun policy is involved in the differing crime rates between the two nations. Neither Japanese nor American prisoners have guns, but homicide by prisoners and attacks on guards occur frequently in American prisons, and almost never in Japanese prisons. Another indication that social standards matter more than gun laws is that Japanese-Americans, who have access to firearms, have a lower violent crime rate than do Japanese in Japan.
As a general matter, gun control does not take a great deal of police time to enforce because the Japanese voluntarily comply. The Japanese have acceded that gun control protects them effectively. There was and is little need for individual self-defense guns.
Even if gun control were resisted, it would be relatively easy to enforce in Japan. Police freedom to search and seize would help, and so would Japan's status as an island, which makes control of illegal imports such as drugs or guns easier than in the United States. The civilian stock of gun ownership was always small. Hence, civil disarmament was easy to enforce. In Japan, the police set records in a year when they confiscate 1,767 handguns from gangsters. It is not uncommon for that many illegal handguns to be seized by the police in a single American city in one year. Some of the Japanese tour groups in Hawaii take their customers to local gun clubs to do something that the customers have never done before: see, hold, and shoot a real gun.
In short, while many persons may admire Japan's near prohibition of gun ownership, it is not necessarily true that other nations, such as the United States, could easily replicate the Japanese model. Japan's gun laws grow out of a culture premised on voluntary submission to authority, a cultural norm that is not necessarily replicated in Western democracies.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 9/15/09 , edited 9/15/09

Weapon-01 wrote:


Yei wrote:

I'm not sure letting everyone in the country own guns for "self-defense" is worth the problems that come with that. For example, in Bowling for Columbine, the really stupid story that bothered me was the little boy taking a gun to kindergarten and accidentally killing a little girl. And of course Columbine, apparently it's not too difficult for two teenage boys to get their hands on some machine guns so they can easily go on a killing spree.

Let's consider Japan's view on the issue:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html


In October 1992, in Louisiana, a Japanese exchange student named Yoshihiro Hattori went into the wrong house on the way to a Halloween party. The homeowner's wife screamed for help and the homeowner drew his .44 pistol and yelled for the student to 'freeze!' Not understanding the American idiom that 'freeze!' means 'Don't move or I'll shoot', the student continued advancing towards the homeowner. The homeowner pulled the trigger and shot him dead.[1] While the incident initially attracted only brief attention in the national American press, the shooting horrified Japan; hundreds of thousands of Japanese have signed petitions calling for the United States to implement gun prohibition, and Hattori's parents have announced plans to begin working with the American lobby, Handgun Control Inc.[2]

Tokyo is the safest major city in the world. Only 59,000 licensed gun owners live in Tokyo.[25] Per one million inhabitants, Tokyo has 40 reported muggings a year; New York has 11,000.[26] The handgun murder rate is at least 200 times higher in America than Japan.[27] The official homicide rate in Japan in 1988 was 1.2 homicide cases per 100,000 population, while in America it was 8.4 homocide cases per 100,000.[28]

Robbery is almost as rare as murder. Indeed, armed robbery and murder are both so rare that they usually make the national news, regardless of where they occur.[29] Japan's robbery rate is 1.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. The reported American rate is 220.9.[30] People walk anywhere in Japan at night, and carry large sums of cash.[31]


There's no comparison between Japan and the US when it comes to muggings, murder and armed robbery, so Japan must be doing something better than the US.


Funny, I seem to have this same page linked in my favs list.
Further down on this page it also says...

Japan's gun control does play an important role in the low Japanese crime rate, but not because of some simple relation between gun density and crime. Japan's gun control is one inseparable part of a vast mosaic of social control. Gun control underscores the pervasive cultural theme that the individual is subordinate to society and to the Government. The same theme is reflected in the absence of protection against Government searches and prosecutions. The police are the most powerful on earth, partly because of the lack of legal constraints and particularly because of their social authority.
Powerful social authorities, beginning with the father and reaching up to the state, create a strict climate for obeying both the criminal laws and the gun control laws. The voluntary disarmament of the Japanese Government reinforces this climate. Ethnic homogeneity and economic equality remove some of the causes of criminality.
Simply put, the Japanese are among the most law-abiding people on earth, and far more law-abiding than Americans. America's non-gun robbery rate is over 70 times Japan's, an indication that something more significant than gun policy is involved in the differing crime rates between the two nations. Neither Japanese nor American prisoners have guns, but homicide by prisoners and attacks on guards occur frequently in American prisons, and almost never in Japanese prisons. Another indication that social standards matter more than gun laws is that Japanese-Americans, who have access to firearms, have a lower violent crime rate than do Japanese in Japan.
As a general matter, gun control does not take a great deal of police time to enforce because the Japanese voluntarily comply. The Japanese have acceded that gun control protects them effectively. There was and is little need for individual self-defense guns.
Even if gun control were resisted, it would be relatively easy to enforce in Japan. Police freedom to search and seize would help, and so would Japan's status as an island, which makes control of illegal imports such as drugs or guns easier than in the United States. The civilian stock of gun ownership was always small. Hence, civil disarmament was easy to enforce. In Japan, the police set records in a year when they confiscate 1,767 handguns from gangsters. It is not uncommon for that many illegal handguns to be seized by the police in a single American city in one year. Some of the Japanese tour groups in Hawaii take their customers to local gun clubs to do something that the customers have never done before: see, hold, and shoot a real gun.
In short, while many persons may admire Japan's near prohibition of gun ownership, it is not necessarily true that other nations, such as the United States, could easily replicate the Japanese model. Japan's gun laws grow out of a culture premised on voluntary submission to authority, a cultural norm that is not necessarily replicated in Western democracies.


So basically, Japanese people are more law-abiding than people in the US, and that's the real reason crime is so low, not just the gun control? I think it's pretty obvious Japan's system won't work in the US, but I don't think it's just because society in the US is worse. Japan does have a very different society, but they're not all perfect and law-abiding people, there's obviously still gun crimes going on. The way Japan deals with these gun problems overall is better and still a key part of why gun crimes are so low, IMO.

So does the ideology for gun control depend on the society, more people in the US are criminals so letting everyone have a gun is a good idea? But this isn't ideal for other, more peaceful societies?
5782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / In Limbo in Silen...
Offline
Posted 9/15/09

Yei wrote:


Weapon-01 wrote:


Yei wrote:

I'm not sure letting everyone in the country own guns for "self-defense" is worth the problems that come with that. For example, in Bowling for Columbine, the really stupid story that bothered me was the little boy taking a gun to kindergarten and accidentally killing a little girl. And of course Columbine, apparently it's not too difficult for two teenage boys to get their hands on some machine guns so they can easily go on a killing spree.

Let's consider Japan's view on the issue:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html


In October 1992, in Louisiana, a Japanese exchange student named Yoshihiro Hattori went into the wrong house on the way to a Halloween party. The homeowner's wife screamed for help and the homeowner drew his .44 pistol and yelled for the student to 'freeze!' Not understanding the American idiom that 'freeze!' means 'Don't move or I'll shoot', the student continued advancing towards the homeowner. The homeowner pulled the trigger and shot him dead.[1] While the incident initially attracted only brief attention in the national American press, the shooting horrified Japan; hundreds of thousands of Japanese have signed petitions calling for the United States to implement gun prohibition, and Hattori's parents have announced plans to begin working with the American lobby, Handgun Control Inc.[2]

Tokyo is the safest major city in the world. Only 59,000 licensed gun owners live in Tokyo.[25] Per one million inhabitants, Tokyo has 40 reported muggings a year; New York has 11,000.[26] The handgun murder rate is at least 200 times higher in America than Japan.[27] The official homicide rate in Japan in 1988 was 1.2 homicide cases per 100,000 population, while in America it was 8.4 homocide cases per 100,000.[28]

Robbery is almost as rare as murder. Indeed, armed robbery and murder are both so rare that they usually make the national news, regardless of where they occur.[29] Japan's robbery rate is 1.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. The reported American rate is 220.9.[30] People walk anywhere in Japan at night, and carry large sums of cash.[31]


There's no comparison between Japan and the US when it comes to muggings, murder and armed robbery, so Japan must be doing something better than the US.


Funny, I seem to have this same page linked in my favs list.
Further down on this page it also says...

Japan's gun control does play an important role in the low Japanese crime rate, but not because of some simple relation between gun density and crime. Japan's gun control is one inseparable part of a vast mosaic of social control. Gun control underscores the pervasive cultural theme that the individual is subordinate to society and to the Government. The same theme is reflected in the absence of protection against Government searches and prosecutions. The police are the most powerful on earth, partly because of the lack of legal constraints and particularly because of their social authority.
Powerful social authorities, beginning with the father and reaching up to the state, create a strict climate for obeying both the criminal laws and the gun control laws. The voluntary disarmament of the Japanese Government reinforces this climate. Ethnic homogeneity and economic equality remove some of the causes of criminality.
Simply put, the Japanese are among the most law-abiding people on earth, and far more law-abiding than Americans. America's non-gun robbery rate is over 70 times Japan's, an indication that something more significant than gun policy is involved in the differing crime rates between the two nations. Neither Japanese nor American prisoners have guns, but homicide by prisoners and attacks on guards occur frequently in American prisons, and almost never in Japanese prisons. Another indication that social standards matter more than gun laws is that Japanese-Americans, who have access to firearms, have a lower violent crime rate than do Japanese in Japan.
As a general matter, gun control does not take a great deal of police time to enforce because the Japanese voluntarily comply. The Japanese have acceded that gun control protects them effectively. There was and is little need for individual self-defense guns.
Even if gun control were resisted, it would be relatively easy to enforce in Japan. Police freedom to search and seize would help, and so would Japan's status as an island, which makes control of illegal imports such as drugs or guns easier than in the United States. The civilian stock of gun ownership was always small. Hence, civil disarmament was easy to enforce. In Japan, the police set records in a year when they confiscate 1,767 handguns from gangsters. It is not uncommon for that many illegal handguns to be seized by the police in a single American city in one year. Some of the Japanese tour groups in Hawaii take their customers to local gun clubs to do something that the customers have never done before: see, hold, and shoot a real gun.
In short, while many persons may admire Japan's near prohibition of gun ownership, it is not necessarily true that other nations, such as the United States, could easily replicate the Japanese model. Japan's gun laws grow out of a culture premised on voluntary submission to authority, a cultural norm that is not necessarily replicated in Western democracies.


So basically, Japanese people are more law-abiding than people in the US, and that's the real reason crime is so low, not just the gun control? I think it's pretty obvious Japan's system won't work in the US, but I don't think it's just because society in the US is worse. Japan does have a very different society, but they're not all perfect and law-abiding people, there's obviously still gun crimes going on. The way Japan deals with these gun problems overall is better and still a key part of why gun crimes are so low, IMO.

So does the ideology for gun control depend on the society, more people in the US are criminals so letting everyone have a gun is a good idea? But this isn't ideal for other, more peaceful societies?


All you have to look at, is the Japan & Swiss models. (BTW, I've already had this written down on another text file & copy/pasted here.)
In Switzerland, every male, starting at about age twenty and continuing for the next thirty-five years of his life, has to serve several weeks a year in the militia. The nation of Switzerland has always been defended by a militia composed of ordinary citizens, rather than by a professional, full-time standing army; and citizens are required to spend several weeks every year in militia training. As part of the militia training, Swiss men are given assault rifles. These rifles are not the kind we have in the United States (which are guns that look, but do not function, like machine guns because they only shoot one bullet at a time when you squeeze the trigger). Members of the Swiss militia receive genuine article SIG brand assault rifles; they are military machine guns--the same as an M-16 rifle that a U.S. soldier carries. Militia members are required to keep their guns at home, to keep the ammunition, to periodically practice shooting, and to certify their marksmanship skills

In many other ways, the Swiss government strongly encourages its citizens to be armed. There is a very lenient licensing system for handguns. In most cantons, which are the equivalent of states, there are relatively few controls on long guns. In fact, you can obtain anti-aircraft missiles, howitzers, bazookas, and low-grade artillery in Switzerland with much less trouble than it would take to obtain a building permit in New York City. The Swiss licensing system is wide open and aims to encourage the people of the nation to be as well-armed and as well-versed in as many kinds of arms as possible--it's not an optional thing. If you are a male, you have to be in the militia and you have to become a good shooter with your assault rifle. And yet, Switzerland has very little gun crime. The homicide rate is essentially the same as Japan's, and Switzerland has the same kind of safe streets that are characteristic of Japan.

What the gun laws do in Switzerland, in a way, is the same kind of thing that they do in Japan, which is to reinforce the existing social order. The laws help integrate people into the larger world of the community. That is one of the most important functions of the militia, and why the Swiss are resistant to abolishing the militia, even though, with the end of the cold war, there is no realistic threat to national security. The Swiss want to keep the militia as a very important socializing institution in the nation.

What I think Switzerland and Japan collectively suggest is that the issue is, not how many guns are there in the society but, how guns are viewed in the society and how they fit into the overall system of socializing individuals in the society.
Posted 9/15/09

Weapon-01 wrote:All you have to look at, is the Japan & Swiss models. (BTW, I've already had this written down on another text file & copy/pasted here.)
In Switzerland, every male, starting at about age twenty and continuing for the next thirty-five years of his life, has to serve several weeks a year in the militia. The nation of Switzerland has always been defended by a militia composed of ordinary citizens, rather than by a professional, full-time standing army; and citizens are required to spend several weeks every year in militia training. As part of the militia training, Swiss men are given assault rifles. These rifles are not the kind we have in the United States (which are guns that look, but do not function, like machine guns because they only shoot one bullet at a time when you squeeze the trigger). Members of the Swiss militia receive genuine article SIG brand assault rifles; they are military machine guns--the same as an M-16 rifle that a U.S. soldier carries. Militia members are required to keep their guns at home, to keep the ammunition, to periodically practice shooting, and to certify their marksmanship skills

In many other ways, the Swiss government strongly encourages its citizens to be armed. There is a very lenient licensing system for handguns. In most cantons, which are the equivalent of states, there are relatively few controls on long guns. In fact, you can obtain anti-aircraft missiles, howitzers, bazookas, and low-grade artillery in Switzerland with much less trouble than it would take to obtain a building permit in New York City. The Swiss licensing system is wide open and aims to encourage the people of the nation to be as well-armed and as well-versed in as many kinds of arms as possible--it's not an optional thing. If you are a male, you have to be in the militia and you have to become a good shooter with your assault rifle. And yet, Switzerland has very little gun crime. The homicide rate is essentially the same as Japan's, and Switzerland has the same kind of safe streets that are characteristic of Japan.

What the gun laws do in Switzerland, in a way, is the same kind of thing that they do in Japan, which is to reinforce the existing social order. The laws help integrate people into the larger world of the community. That is one of the most important functions of the militia, and why the Swiss are resistant to abolishing the militia, even though, with the end of the cold war, there is no realistic threat to national security. The Swiss want to keep the militia as a very important socializing institution in the nation.

What I think Switzerland and Japan collectively suggest is that the issue is, not how many guns are there in the society but, how guns are viewed in the society and how they fit into the overall system of socializing individuals in the society.
However, don't you think that it's actually the militia doctrine that is allowing the Swiss to better cope with stress, while the firearm training is only a teaching tool in order to drill that rigid toughness into their men?

In order for you to be tough, you have to get tough both physically and mentally. Not simply having you to look tough by you holding a gun.
5782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / In Limbo in Silen...
Offline
Posted 9/15/09

DomFortress wrote:


Weapon-01 wrote:All you have to look at, is the Japan & Swiss models. (BTW, I've already had this written down on another text file & copy/pasted here.)
In Switzerland, every male, starting at about age twenty and continuing for the next thirty-five years of his life, has to serve several weeks a year in the militia. The nation of Switzerland has always been defended by a militia composed of ordinary citizens, rather than by a professional, full-time standing army; and citizens are required to spend several weeks every year in militia training. As part of the militia training, Swiss men are given assault rifles. These rifles are not the kind we have in the United States (which are guns that look, but do not function, like machine guns because they only shoot one bullet at a time when you squeeze the trigger). Members of the Swiss militia receive genuine article SIG brand assault rifles; they are military machine guns--the same as an M-16 rifle that a U.S. soldier carries. Militia members are required to keep their guns at home, to keep the ammunition, to periodically practice shooting, and to certify their marksmanship skills

In many other ways, the Swiss government strongly encourages its citizens to be armed. There is a very lenient licensing system for handguns. In most cantons, which are the equivalent of states, there are relatively few controls on long guns. In fact, you can obtain anti-aircraft missiles, howitzers, bazookas, and low-grade artillery in Switzerland with much less trouble than it would take to obtain a building permit in New York City. The Swiss licensing system is wide open and aims to encourage the people of the nation to be as well-armed and as well-versed in as many kinds of arms as possible--it's not an optional thing. If you are a male, you have to be in the militia and you have to become a good shooter with your assault rifle. And yet, Switzerland has very little gun crime. The homicide rate is essentially the same as Japan's, and Switzerland has the same kind of safe streets that are characteristic of Japan.

What the gun laws do in Switzerland, in a way, is the same kind of thing that they do in Japan, which is to reinforce the existing social order. The laws help integrate people into the larger world of the community. That is one of the most important functions of the militia, and why the Swiss are resistant to abolishing the militia, even though, with the end of the cold war, there is no realistic threat to national security. The Swiss want to keep the militia as a very important socializing institution in the nation.

What I think Switzerland and Japan collectively suggest is that the issue is, not how many guns are there in the society but, how guns are viewed in the society and how they fit into the overall system of socializing individuals in the society.
However, don't you think that it's actually the militia doctrine that is allowing the Swiss to better cope with stress, while the firearm training is only a teaching tool in order to drill that rigid toughness into their men?

In order for you to be tough, you have to get tough both physically and mentally. Not simply having you to look tough by you holding a gun.


"Looking tough" has nothing to do with this. A former girlfriend of mine (why we broke up is nobody's business) was pretty as a bell, and light as a feather, but handled a 308 FAL with discipline, and accuracy (at least up to 70-100 yards). She had no "tough" characteristics and even had a hard time scaring kids on Halloween. So you can throw that argument out the window.

A Militia is defined as...
The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

Mr Coxe declares that the Militia and every weapon of war are not & must not be separated.
Posted 9/16/09

Weapon-01 wrote:"Looking tough" has nothing to do with this. A former girlfriend of mine (why we broke up is nobody's business) was pretty as a bell, and light as a feather, but handled a 308 FAL with discipline, and accuracy (at least up to 70-100 yards). She had no "tough" characteristics and even had a hard time scaring kids on Halloween. So you can throw that argument out the window.

A Militia is defined as...
The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

Mr Coxe declares that the Militia and every weapon of war are not & must not be separated.
I don't mean looking tough as in scary looking, for I'm more interested in character strength building with both mental and physical discipline. I was using it in a figurative sense.

However, and you can't deny it because you also felt for it "figuratively" speaking, the fact that there are those who would get themselves armed with firearms because they lack that "inner strength". Is what causes most, if not all, firearm related crimes and accidents in the first place.

Therefore, don't you think is more important to teach everyone to handle themselves properly, before you let them handle a firearm?

I'm not in favor of absolute gun ban, since I do know there are decent folks out there who can handle their firearms properly without fail. However it is those that lack the "inner strength" to conduct themselves properly that I'm worry about. And as long as they're out there, we've got problem with our gun control.
5782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / In Limbo in Silen...
Offline
Posted 9/16/09

DomFortress wrote:


Weapon-01 wrote:"Looking tough" has nothing to do with this. A former girlfriend of mine (why we broke up is nobody's business) was pretty as a bell, and light as a feather, but handled a 308 FAL with discipline, and accuracy (at least up to 70-100 yards). She had no "tough" characteristics and even had a hard time scaring kids on Halloween. So you can throw that argument out the window.

A Militia is defined as...
The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

Mr Coxe declares that the Militia and every weapon of war are not & must not be separated.
I don't mean looking tough as in scary looking, for I'm more interested in character strength building with both mental and physical discipline. I was using it in a figurative sense.

However, and you can't deny it because you also felt for it "figuratively" speaking, the fact that there are those who would get themselves armed with firearms because they lack that "inner strength". Is what causes most, if not all, firearm related crimes and accidents in the first place.

Therefore, don't you think is more important to teach everyone to handle themselves properly, before you let them handle a firearm?

I'm not in favor of absolute gun ban, since I do know there are decent folks out there who can handle their firearms properly without fail. However it is those that lack the "inner strength" to conduct themselves properly that I'm worry about. And as long as they're out there, we've got problem with our gun control.


I can't imagine a more better way to teach discipline to a person then for a man to provide a rifle for himself.
You can't teach a person to swim, without eventually tossing him in the water. ya know?

So in your explanation, your saying that women who desire to protect themselves from bigger, stronger, drunk abusive men are buying guns because they lack inner strength?
I would think it's because they wouldn't want to be beaten towards in inch of their life.
Much the same way, the purpose of owning guns/arms is so that Government never has an upper hand against people and willfully commits cruel war against them. Think of all the government initiated genocide in the 20th century alone.

10 million murdered in Nationalist China after enacting a Government permit system then a Ban on private ownership
Up to 30 million in Nazi Germany while imposing Registration & Licensing, Stricter handgun laws, and Ban on possession
Another 20 million people killed in the Soviet Union while imposing Licensing of owners, Ban on possession, and Severe penalties
In Red China, up to 35 million murdered from 1949-1976. This one is as if about 2% of all Americans were to die at the hands of government (excluding criminals) within 30 years

Think about this before you want to answer back...
Would you rather live in a free society where their is a risk of being killed but you are free. OR...
Would you prefer to live in the mentioned countries above, where you'd be just another statistic?
Posted 9/16/09

Weapon-01 wrote:I can't imagine a more better way to teach discipline to a person then for a man to provide a rifle for himself.
You can't teach a person to swim, without eventually tossing him in the water. ya know?


So in your explanation, your saying that women who desire to protect themselves from bigger, stronger, drunk abusive men are buying guns because they lack inner strength?
I would think it's because they wouldn't want to be beaten towards in inch of their life.
Much the same way, the purpose of owning guns/arms is so that Government never has an upper hand against people and willfully commits cruel war against them. Think of all the government initiated genocide in the 20th century alone.

10 million murdered in Nationalist China after enacting a Government permit system then a Ban on private ownership
Up to 30 million in Nazi Germany while imposing Registration & Licensing, Stricter handgun laws, and Ban on possession
Another 20 million people killed in the Soviet Union while imposing Licensing of owners, Ban on possession, and Severe penalties
In Red China, up to 35 million murdered from 1949-1976. This one is as if about 2% of all Americans were to die at the hands of government (excluding criminals) within 30 years

Think about this before you want to answer back...
Would you rather live in a free society where their is a risk of being killed but you are free. OR...
Would you prefer to live in the mentioned countries above, where you'd be just another statistic?
I don't need to handle a firearm in order to discipline myself, when I'm already disciplining my mind and body with my fitness and wellness training.

And how could the women be the one that didn't have "inner strength", when it's in fact the "bigger, stronger men", who lost their "inner strength" of controlling themselves in the first place, when they became "abusive " when "drunk"? Not to mention is the fact that men are the weaker sex since birth(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331112729.htm):
"But in general, boys are more vulnerable in their life in utero, and this vulnerability continues to exist throughout their lives," says Prof. Glezerman, an expert in gender-based medicine. "Men are known to have a shorter lifespan, are more susceptible to infections, and have less chance of withstanding disease than women. In short, men are the weaker sex."

So are you telling me that men need to arm themselves now, in order for them to defend themselves from the stronger sex? When it's very possible that men are the ones that lack the "inner strength" of controlling themselves since birth, and had to arm themselves by them pretending to be tough.

"Leveling the playing field" took on a whole new meaning, don't you think?
5782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / In Limbo in Silen...
Offline
Posted 9/16/09

DomFortress wrote:


Weapon-01 wrote:I can't imagine a more better way to teach discipline to a person then for a man to provide a rifle for himself.
You can't teach a person to swim, without eventually tossing him in the water. ya know?


So in your explanation, your saying that women who desire to protect themselves from bigger, stronger, drunk abusive men are buying guns because they lack inner strength?
I would think it's because they wouldn't want to be beaten towards in inch of their life.
Much the same way, the purpose of owning guns/arms is so that Government never has an upper hand against people and willfully commits cruel war against them. Think of all the government initiated genocide in the 20th century alone.

10 million murdered in Nationalist China after enacting a Government permit system then a Ban on private ownership
Up to 30 million in Nazi Germany while imposing Registration & Licensing, Stricter handgun laws, and Ban on possession
Another 20 million people killed in the Soviet Union while imposing Licensing of owners, Ban on possession, and Severe penalties
In Red China, up to 35 million murdered from 1949-1976. This one is as if about 2% of all Americans were to die at the hands of government (excluding criminals) within 30 years

Think about this before you want to answer back...
Would you rather live in a free society where their is a risk of being killed but you are free. OR...
Would you prefer to live in the mentioned countries above, where you'd be just another statistic?
I don't need to handle a firearm in order to discipline myself, when I'm already disciplining my mind and body with my fitness and wellness training.

And how could the women be the one that didn't have "inner strength", when it's in fact the "bigger, stronger men", who lost their "inner strength" of controlling themselves in the first place, when they became "abusive " when "drunk"? Not to mention is the fact that men are the weaker sex since birth(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331112729.htm):
"But in general, boys are more vulnerable in their life in utero, and this vulnerability continues to exist throughout their lives," says Prof. Glezerman, an expert in gender-based medicine. "Men are known to have a shorter lifespan, are more susceptible to infections, and have less chance of withstanding disease than women. In short, men are the weaker sex."

So are you telling me that men need to arm themselves now, in order for them to defend themselves from the stronger sex? When it's very possible that men are the ones that lack the "inner strength" of controlling themselves since birth, and had to arm themselves by them pretending to be tough.

"Leveling the playing field" took on a whole new meaning, don't you think?


Okay... now you're just going space-age-hippie on this.
I'm happy you're happy that you don't need a gun for self-discipline

Place a bet... a 125lb woman vs a 230lb man in an average boxing match. My money is on the man... or me, whichever.
It is also not a matter of men being armed against a weaker/stronger sex, it's a matter of people being armed in defense for themselves against governments

Answer me this....
When the ATF, FEMA, (hell pick your fave ABC bureaucracy) comes to your door step willfully outside of their constitutional restraints, with a Tank and starts killing your friends and family while shouting "don't resist" What will you be doing with your "Inner Strength?" Sit and meditate chanting "OHMMMM" or put a few government-bodies in black bags?
Posted 9/16/09 , edited 9/16/09

Weapon-01 wrote:Okay... now you're just going space-age-hippie on this.
I'm happy you're happy that you don't need a gun for self-discipline

Place a bet... a 125lb woman vs a 230lb man in an average boxing match. My money is on the man... or me, whichever.
It is also not a matter of men being armed against a weaker/stronger sex, it's a matter of people being armed in defense for themselves against governments

Answer me this....
When the ATF, FEMA, (hell pick your fave ABC bureaucracy) comes to your door step willfully outside of their constitutional restraints, with a Tank and starts killing your friends and family while shouting "don't resist" What will you be doing with your "Inner Strength?" Sit and meditate chanting "OHMMMM" or put a few government-bodies in black bags?
My answer; social psychology based on feminism for better communication skill(http://feminism.eserver.org/gender/cyberspace/). Thereby a 125lb woman can defend herself from you by her being friendly with me, and in return I'll defend her interest because I happen to like her more than you do. When I am your equal standing at 6' and weighting in 230lbs, while I've been training at amateur boxing for 11 years.

Also, since you labeled my scientific facts as "space-age-hippie", what's not to say that you're just supporting your argument with "paranoia" and "prejudice"? Or are you just gonna silence my first amendment with your second amendment, since you rely on guns to be your only option of defusing conflicts? When I'm only being reasonable.
5782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / In Limbo in Silen...
Offline
Posted 9/16/09

DomFortress wrote:


Weapon-01 wrote:Okay... now you're just going space-age-hippie on this.
I'm happy you're happy that you don't need a gun for self-discipline

Place a bet... a 125lb woman vs a 230lb man in an average boxing match. My money is on the man... or me, whichever.
It is also not a matter of men being armed against a weaker/stronger sex, it's a matter of people being armed in defense for themselves against governments

Answer me this....
When the ATF, FEMA, (hell pick your fave ABC bureaucracy) while shouting "don't resist" What will you be doing with your "Inner Strength?" Sit and meditate chanting "OHMMMM" or put a few government-bodies in black bags?
My answer; social psychology based on feminism for better communication skill(http://feminism.eserver.org/gender/cyberspace/). Thereby a 125lb woman can defend herself from you by her being friendly with me, and in return I'll defend her interest because I happen to like her more than you do. When I am your equal standing at 6' and weighting in 230lbs, while I've been training at amateur boxing for 11 years.

Also, since you labeled my scientific facts as "space-age-hippie", what's not to say that you're just supporting your argument with "paranoia" and "prejudice"? Or are you just gonna silence my first amendment with your second amendment, since you rely on guns to be your only option of defusing conflicts? When I'm only being reasonable.


So answer my question... When Government comes to your door step willfully outside of their constitutional restraints, with a Tank and starts killing your friends and family, What Will You Do?

Paranoia? Are you fisting me? Think.... 1993 Waco Texas. Is that a figment of my imagination? Does 75 dead people on live television sound delusional? I don't think so.

As for you 1st Amendment, I can't silence it from you, because I didn't give it to you. Much the same way Government didn't give it to you.
Same this with the 2nd Amendment. They didn't give it to me, so it's not theirs to take either.
Posted 9/16/09 , edited 9/16/09

Weapon-01 wrote:So answer my question... When Government comes to your door step willfully outside of their constitutional restraints, with a Tank and starts killing your friends and family, What Will You Do?

Paranoia? Are you fisting me? Think.... 1993 Waco Texas. Is that a figment of my imagination? Does 75 dead people on live television sound delusional? I don't think so.

As for you 1st Amendment, I can't silence it from you, because I didn't give it to you. Much the same way Government didn't give it to you.
Same this with the 2nd Amendment. They didn't give it to me, so it's not theirs to take either.
I'll do this:

June 5, 1989. As many times as I can, for as long as I'm willing and able. While you OTOH can hold onto your guns, your tanks, and your bombs, until your blood runs cold with fear and decided to kill me in cold blood.

What's a militia system good for, when a nation of people is afraid of every system in existence? What can a gun do for us, when there are those who would simply act out of fear? Where is the strength and courage, when you don't even trust a fellow man due to your fear?
5782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / In Limbo in Silen...
Offline
Posted 9/16/09

DomFortress wrote:


Weapon-01 wrote:So answer my question... When Government comes to your door step willfully outside of their constitutional restraints, with a Tank and starts killing your friends and family, What Will You Do?

Paranoia? Are you fisting me? Think.... 1993 Waco Texas. Is that a figment of my imagination? Does 75 dead people on live television sound delusional? I don't think so.

As for you 1st Amendment, I can't silence it from you, because I didn't give it to you. Much the same way Government didn't give it to you.
Same this with the 2nd Amendment. They didn't give it to me, so it's not theirs to take either.
I'll do this:

June 5, 1989. As many times as I can, for as long as I'm willing and able. While you OTOH can hold onto your guns, your tanks, and your bombs, until your blood runs cold with fear and decided to kill me in cold blood.

What's a militia system good for, when a nation of people is afraid of every system in existence? What can a gun do for us, when there are those who would simply act out of fear? Where is the strength and courage, when you don't even trust a fellow man due to your fear?


Yeah, you do that.

A Militia is good for providing tax free assistance to the local Sheriff in a constitutional manner, To assist in emergencies such as down in NOLA after Hurricane Katrina, to be the defense in times of invasion.
And as for why people are afraid of it, is I believe people have over the years conditioned to believe that Militia's are those belligerent, near psychotic people that overthrow governments at the drop of a hat.
Contrary to belief, they who are in the Militia are bound by an oath, a verbal contract, to protect the constitution by example, persuasion, and force of arms if necessary.

What fear? It's estimated in my town their are 1-5 guns per house (and a few of us know how to blow $^!+ up), yet day to day every man and woman continues on their daily business, we go shopping, buy gas, liquor, eat at Carl's Jr.
Where's the panic? Where's the rioting and general chaos? None here.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.