I see it as a problem that the "fourth estate* is now relegated to *entertaining* and *defending* itself.
Why? Guns are fun. And, useful for self-defense and to keep in case of need, by oppression from without or within.
You say in one sentence that most of the gun enthusiasts are * law-abiding gun owners*.
True. Consider that the rate of use of guns in the U.S. in commission of crimes was something like 30,000 last year (that number may be way high... dunno... sounded good). Consider, that those 30,000 firearms were but a part of the whole body of firearms held by people in the U.S. Consider that, for the most part, those firearms were not legally-owned, having been stolen or bought on the black market from sources outside the U.S. Consider that, even if every one of those 30,000 firearms were legal, last year, 279,970,000+ firearms held by private citizens were not used in the commission of crime.
Why would it be necessary for them to *defend* themselves as *fully-armed partisans* ? Who is the enemy ?
We don't know. It may be us. Having the opportunity to defend ourselves is a precious and valuable right.
If you abide the laws, it would mean you accept the laws as they are currently imposed on the citizens of the U.S. If you accept them, there is no need to defend yourself against them.
And if, in the future, we choose not to accept them? If the laws become too draconian? If we opt to change our government?
If you just would want to defend yourself against thugs and criminals on the street, who could attack you, it means that you expect to have at least 80 million if not more criminal citizens roaming the streets of the U.S.
This makes no sense at all. The existence of 80 million gun owners does not, in any way, lend itself to an expectation of 80 million criminals. That is, unless you maintain that those firearms owners are themselves criminals. Empirical evidence contraindicates that supposition.
This makes 80 million law abiding gun owners versus 80 million criminals, 160 million adult males. Let's say theoretically each of these 80 millions have to get into a shootout in self defense, that would result in at least 80 million deaths, whereby it is not at all clear, that the law abiding gun owner is the one who survives the shoot-out. Your conclusion that carrying concealed guns makes your environment safer is completely and provenly baloni.
Your conclusion proceeds from patently false predicates. Therefore, your theory is complete "baloni."
It means that the police can't effectively do their job anymore in securing unarmed citizens,
That is the way the system was designed. Police are an extension of government. Your typical armed citizen is a responsible, law-abiding sort. Therefore, the police have no business whatever in "securing" him. The Nazis "secured" unarmed Jews, you know.
because too many citizens are armed and are able to scare the police into actions, which they would never go into, if they could be much more certain that they, the police officers, have the power over weapons to themselves.
Your assumption here is that the government is, in all occasions, a benevolent force which would never abuse its power to the detriment of law-abiding people. History - recent history - shows otherwise.
In other countries the police doesn't anticipate any petty little mini drug dealer carrying a weapon and making use of them against the police officer.
So, the answer is to disarm everyone? How about an alternative: legalize drugs and remove the profit motive from street dealers?
I don't see any positive effect of having civilians being allowed to carry concealed weapons around.
Be that as it may, statistics, history, and common sense show irrefutably otherwise.
Guns are misused in homes by *law-abiding citizens*, who just happen to behave like lunatics in the secrecy of their private lives.
Did these "law-abiding citizens" break the law? In so doing, they became criminals and are therefore no longer law-abiding. If the 80 million or so legal firearms owners in the United States are such lunatics, why were there so few crimes, relatively, committed with firearms?
Guns are used by angry men going postal. The statistics show that these shooting sprees happen more often in the U.S. than in other countries.
The statistics also show that violent crime rates have been in steady decline for over ten years. That, conveniently, has been forgotten - media sensationalism aside. Also, there are cases of angry people going postal with machetes, etc. Do you think that people would automatically stop killing other people if all guns magically vanished from the face of the Earth one day?
Now, it is interesting that you can't actually explain in what the rising fascination in guns and shooting during the last 15 years or so is rooted.
One reason would be a growing dissatisfaction and mistrust in the government. Another would be that my generation, a far more sensible one than the last, is coming of age. We are now pursuing, independently, hobbies which we enjoy and exploring, independently, new ideas. We are discovering firearms, their intricacy, their fascination, their benefits, and their detriments. We are embracing self-responsibility like the last generation never could.
Sure, there are some of us that are dipshits. But, the vast majority are not. Why punish the vast majority for the acts of a few pinheads?
If I would just take it face value that pure sportsmanship is the reason, I ask you, why wouldn't you be an enthusiast for shooting with bow and arrow ?
Did he say he wasn't? Perhaps he appreciates both weapons! I surely do. Though I have not shot a bow in a long time, I would love to acquire and practice with one. I love them, too. :) The same can be said of a firearm. Sadly, I haven't the ready cash to purchase either.
It's an Olympic discipline and the same level of difficulty of sharp shooting, beautiful design of the weaponry is involved.
Indeed. But, maybe it just doesn't "trip his trigger." :-)
I think there are *lots* of reasons for the rise of passionately defended private gun ownership, but they are neither rooted in pure and innocent sportsmanship's love for shooting, nor in the need for self-defense.
You're right, and on this we agree. The reasons are manifold, but the result is the same. Call the reasons into question, if you must, but be ready to argue them rationally.
This logic seems only be convincing to a certain segment of U.S. males, but not logic at all to other male species elsewhere in the world.
And this automatically makes the U.S. males wrong? Could it be that, all over the world, men are prevented by their governments from owning firearms, and thus prevented from exploring this passion? Could it be that a "certain segment of U.S. males" (this discounts the many, many female shooters in the U.S.) see this trend advancing in the U.S., and they want to stem this tide and protect their rights?
I wouldn't mind if people who really love shooting just apply their enthusiasm within the military or the police force.
What you mind or do not mind is tangential. The fact is, there are over 280 million privately held firearms in the United States. There are over 80 million well-informed and wary firearms owners in the United States. These people are not likely to sit back and have their private firearms confiscated, and woe be to a government that tries. That's the practical reality.
The ethical reality is: why punish the many for the criminality of the few?
That's where these skills are needed and passions for the perfect shot are counterbalanced and restricted with some ethical and moral standards imposed on the shooters by other powers than their own.
As is hunting, and skeet, and self-defense, and ...
Are you suggesting that 80 million firearms owners in the United States are simply frothing at the mouth for a chance to kill someone? Do you mean to suggest that we are such a lawless and immoral society that we cannot be trusted with the ability to make life and death decisions?
Do you drive?
Considering the gravity of the outcome of abusive usage of guns, I think this kind of restriction is much more important than any arguments you brought forward.
Again, your desires and whatnot are not relevant. Nor is your pontificating on a matter about which you have no first-hand experience even relatively enlightening.
For what it's worth, there hasn't been any "revolutionary" movement of citizens against an abusive government ever been prevented, just because the laws didn't allow the citizens to arm themselves.
Six million European Jews, twenty million Russians, and about one-hundred million Chinese would disagree with you, if they had not been slaughtered by their governments for lack of means to defend themselves.
When situations really get so bad, it's either the military itself, who revolts, or people just organize themselves in guerilla movements to overthrow a government.
And if the military chooses not to revolt? And how, precisely, are people armed with rakes and pointy sticks supposed to oppose a military armed with automatic weapons?
Are you aware that law-abiding firearms owners in the United States voluntarily heeded a call by the government of the United Kingdom to donate their firearms so that the subjects of the crown could defend themselves against invasion? Millions of firearms were exported to Great Britain by the United States that it might be able to do so.
That is, if there are real reasons for civil unrest. Most of the time, both, military and guerillas are abusing their weapon's power on the cost of unarmed citizens.
And the citizens' lot is improved in this case by not being armed? I fail to see how.
If you would draw from that the conclusion it would be best to arm EVERY citizen, then again you would have complete anarchy, because noone could effectively enforce laws.
Was there anarchy in the United States prior to, say, 1934? That is, anarchy which was not directly traceable to some other prevailing social issue (like Prohibition). Was there anarchy in the United States before 1968, when citizens were made incapable of purchasing any sort of firearm (save machine guns - an illogical restriction, in my opinion) via mail-order? Was there anarchy in the United States when any child large enough to see over the counter of any run-of-the-mill hardware store could purchase a rifle or handgun, and the ammunition to feed it, without restriction? You see, in our less-anarchic days, firearms were vastly MORE available to John Q. Public.
I agree with you that the logical thing to do would be to arm (and educate) every citizen.
Even today, though, would you say that anarchy reins supreme in the United States? There are 280 million (legal) guns, and 80 million (legal) gun owners here. Are there millions slaughtered each year here? Can you say the same for Europe?
So, somewhere, there is a hole in your logic, if there is any at all.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
i don't see any nanorobots or jet engines or laser holography or orbiting death satellites.
i just see some orangutan throwing code-feces at a computer screen.
[ Parent ]