An end to gun control - people vs the state (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

I'm going to put forward an idea that I've looked into for the past few days, you guys have probably heard it before but i'll repeat it anyway:

People need guns to protect them from the government to even up the balance of power, because might is right - if we have no power then we can't really hold onto any rights.

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

Thoughts? I have a feeling Waf will be quite supportive.

 

[erawamai]

I'm going to put forward an idea that I've looked into for the past few days, you guys have probably heard it before but i'll repeat it anyway:

People need guns to protect them from the government to even up the balance of power, because might is right - if we have no power then we can't really hold onto any rights.

Thoughts? I have a feeling Waf will be quite supportive.

The major fault in pure libertarian thinking is that a great majority of the population is too stupid to exercise the freedom that is given to them without causing harm to society itself.

In relation to gun laws, even if 99% of the population uses guns safely you only need a very small minority of those people invested with the freedom to abuse that freedom and needlessly end life. I'm thinking of every school killing or for that matter any mass killing that have only have been so lartge in number due to the use of a gun. I'm sure the Columbine killings would not have been as severe if the killers only had access to less efficient devices such as knives or maybe their fists.

Government and policy makers rationalise that the average suburbanite is better off without a 9mm semi automatic glock in his glovebox mainly because he doesnt't need it to settle a fender bender and it isnt in the interests of society that he use it to settle the issue with a person in a crash.

While fists and knifes are the are the greatest killers they are a part of everyday soceity. In case of firearms it seems that suburban society can survive without them just nicely. Society doesn't need access to more efficient ways to kill other people (I think guns are a more efficient way to ensure death. Just ask Martyn Byrant)...

 

[Generator]

To me, it's rather primitive and not a useful notion within a developed liberal democratic society (one that is open to change, of course). We are capable of being resistant without having to resort to actual or threatened physical violence. That said, though the capability may be there, that isn't to say that the will to resist necessarily exists within today's Australia.

 

[withoutaface]

I think that overall in a libertarian world it is better to have the government's hands tied by legislature, and have an international force which can act to remove any government which acts to the detrement of liberty. Note also that such a scenario just encourages the government to waste more than is necessary on the country's military because it not only has to deal with threats from without, but from within, and it'd get to the point where the civilian population, armed with guns but minimal training, could never match it with the government's forces, no matter how large the uprising was.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

While fists and knifes are the are the greatest killers they are a part of everyday soceity. In case of firearms it seems that suburban society can survive without them just nicely. Society doesn't need access to more efficient ways to kill other people (I think guns are a more efficient way to ensure death. Just ask Martyn Byrant)...

If there had been people with guns there on the day Martyn Bryant went on his massacre, would it have stopped much sooner?

I'm sure the Columbine killings would not have been as severe if the killers only had access to less efficient devices such as knives or maybe their fists.

Well perhaps so, but if the teachers had guns on that day would that not have perhaps stopped them sooner whether they had guns or not? There are students whom are members of gangs, these gangs can steal guns and break laws no matter what - so students can still get access to guns if they really want them... and if they didn't have guns perhaps they would of just made larger bombs than the ones they made? who knows?

We are capable of being resistant without having to resort to actual or threatened physical violence.

I disagree, the only way to ensure you have rights is to have the might to back them up... now of course during peaceful times disputes can be handled diplomatically, but there can always come the time when diplomacy fails.

 

[erawamai]

If there had been people with guns there on the day Martyn Bryant went on his massacre, would it have stopped much sooner?

If Martyn Bryant didn't have access to assault rifles in the first place there would been no loss of life, unless of course he went on a knife rampage. He would still be at home fucking pigs and 30 odd people would still be alive and japanese tourists and retirees would not have to worry about having guns with them on their trip to boring Hobart in order to defend themselves against nutcases who are exercising their very useful freedom of owning guns in areas of little to no crime.

Well perhaps so, but if the teachers had guns on that day would that not have perhaps stopped them sooner whether they had guns or not? There are students whom are members of gangs, these gangs can steal guns and break laws no matter what - so students can still get access to guns if they really want them... and if they didn't have guns perhaps they would of just made larger bombs than the ones they made? who knows?

You aint sounding very coherent there.

Same as the above. Society does not need guns. Guns serve no purpose in suburban society. Why give people access to more efficient means of killing people?

Liberty to do things is only useful if liberty is given for someone to do something useful. Access to more efficient dervices made for the killing of other human beings is not useful.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If Martyn Bryant didn't have access to assault rifles in the first place there would been no loss of life, unless of course he went on a knife rampage. He would still be at home fucking pigs and 30 odd people would still be alive and japanese tourists and retirees would not have to worry about having guns with them on their trip to boring Hobart in order to defend themselves against nutcases who are exercising their very useful freedom of owning guns in areas of little to no crime.

But what's to stop another nutcase getting a gun now? Buying one illegally? Importing one in?

Society does not need guns. Guns serve no purpose in suburban society. Why give people access to more efficient means of killing people?

Because people are already killing people, just there's no possibility of self defense. If you gave every woman a gun and trained them to use them, how many of them do you believe would get raped? If all women in australia were issued a gun and were trained in its use... even if only 50% of them decide to use them, how many men do you think will dare to rape them with a 50% chance that she's going to be packing heat and blow his head off? We have (i believe) the 2nd highest or highest rate of rape in the civilised world.

By the way I'm not sure if the statistics actually support your claim that gun related murders have actually gone down since howards gun laws were introduced - I'll look into it and see if I can pull up some stats, checking out ABS atm.

First stats I found don't support you;
http://www.oesr.qld.gov.au/publications/bulletins/crime/bull_crime09_htm.shtml#Weapon Usage

 

[volition]

Thought this was interesting and relevant, have a listen to "Weapons as self defence": http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/notes/s1568696.htm

In that, the martial arts expert talks about how carrying a weapon around can mean that you're more likely to just pull it out, even if you wouldn't have had to. This could be likened to people vs the state.

 

[erawamai]

But what's to stop another nutcase getting a gun now? Buying one illegally? Importing one in?

You make them illiegal and try to enforce that law so that another person can't get a hold of them.

If you gave every woman a gun and trained them to use them, how many of them do you believe would get raped?

Whats worse? A dead person shot wrongfully or a women raped?Whats worse 10 raped women or one dead man wrongfully shot?
What if the women uses her gun for a different purpose than she was trained for? Should new mothers be allowed to carry a gun due to post birth depression?

Regardless you then have difficult legal questions concerning reasonable force.

By the way I'm not sure if the statistics actually support your claim that gun related murders have actually gone down since howards gun laws were introduced - I'll look into it and see if I can pull up some stats, checking out ABS atm.

I never made such a claim

 

[withoutaface]

Whats worse? A dead person shot wrongfully or a women raped?Whats worse 10 raped women or one dead man wrongfully shot?
What if the women uses her gun for a different purpose than she was trained for? Should new mothers be allowed to carry a gun due to post birth depression?

Regardless you then have difficult legal questions concerning reasonable force.

Rape is one of the most heinous acts that can be committed imo, and if someone initiates force with the obvious intent to rape, then a woman has every right to use every method at her disposal to stop them, including killing the assailant if necessary.

 

[iamsickofyear12]

I think the situation now where criminals have guns because they get them illegally and everyone else doesn't makes no sense at all. If the problem people in society already have guns then giving them to everyone else for protection sounds reasonable to me.

The problem is there are also criminals without guns and there is no way of telling how many. So in in giving people guns to protect themselves from the criminals who already have them criminals who didn't have guns before now have them.

With the prevention of rape theory they would actually have to carry their gun around with them all the time. As far as I am aware even in America you can't carry a gun around for self protection. That is just taking it too far in my opinion. But then again you can't really say.. well you can protect yourself at home or in your car with a gun but when you are just walking around you can't.

I think making guns legal would cause too many problems. I certainly wouldn't want any more lebs with guns, bats are bad enough. Imagine what would have happened if all those lebs on the nights after Cronulla had guns. And if the people who lived in the areas they were attacking had guns.
People already start to take things into their own hands without guns, imagine how bad it would be if they had them. It would be vigilante justice all over the place because even police in Australia are almost never allowed to shoot anyone.

 

[erawamai]

Rape is one of the most heinous acts that can be committed imo, and if someone initiates force with the obvious intent to rape, then a woman has every right to use every method at her disposal to stop them, including killing the assailant if necessary.

Whats worse? A dead person shot wrongfully or a women raped?Whats worse 10 raped women or one dead man wrongfully killed?

You also seem to forget that stranger danger is a myth...most rapes dont occur in a situation where a women would have a gun.

I think most of the libertarian nutcases seem to be advocating vigilante justice and self help. Not a good thing.

 

[erawamai]

I think making guns legal would cause too many problems. I certainly wouldn't want any more lebs with guns, bats are bad enough. Imagine what would have happened if all those lebs on the nights after Cronulla had guns. And if the people who lived in the areas they were attacking had guns.
People already start to take things into their own hands without guns, imagine how bad it would be if they had them. It would be vigilante justice all over the place because even police in Australia are almost never allowed to shoot anyone.

Imagine if the white pride groups had got out with guns as well as the lebs. But everyone should have the right to bare arms and exercise their freedom to exercise vigilante justice and self help! Revenge justice served with guns! Yeah!

Police are allowed to shoot if they are in danger. Maybe the cops should have opened fire on the lebs and the rioting white trash?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I never made such a claim

Well if gun-related murders haven't gone down then why was it a good idea to get rid of them? Why deny people a liberty at the benefit of no-one?

 

[davin]

on not-that-bright's comment about what if other people had guns when someone goes on a shooting spree...thats actually what's ended several incidents in the u.s., including at least two school shootings. one at a college where other people got their guns from their cars and were able to get the guy to give up his gun, and anotehr where a teacher at a high school ran to his car, got his gun, came back, and shot the student.

shootings are by people that are breaking the law anyway, imo...they won't care if its illegal to have the gun or not.

 

[Serius]

I think making guns legal would cause too many problems. I certainly wouldn't want any more lebs with guns, bats are bad enough. Imagine what would have happened if all those lebs on the nights after Cronulla had guns. And if the people who lived in the areas they were attacking had guns.
People already start to take things into their own hands without guns, imagine how bad it would be if they had them. It would be vigilante justice all over the place because even police in Australia are almost never allowed to shoot anyone.

Some of the lebs did have guns. Now do you think they would go to riot in Cronulla if they knew they would get their fucking head blown in? if every1 packs heat, people are nicer to each other, like the cold war, neither attacked each other because they knew the other one had similiar weopons.


that said, iam really really unsure about this, i feel safer in australia cause of the gun laws but there is how to put it....gun disparity, people mainly criminals but police and farmers aswell with access to guns where as the rest of us are left undefended. I would much prefer a gun in my hand if someone was attacking me with a knife

so iam really conflicted about these issues, i guess i will watch this thread pan out and see if it helps me make up my mind

 

[erawamai]

Some of you are essentially arguing for the co option of law and order by giving these responsibilities to the individual.

By giving the responsbility for crime prevention and the administration of justice to individuals the individual, without consultation, or by recourse to an organised set of rules and laws becomes a vigilante who self helps his or her way to justice in the name of provention of crime.

 

[davin]

erawamai, would you also propose a law that, say, women can't struggle when being raped? cuz then they're trying to enforce laws that rape is illegal by preventing it? really the only one that does anything about it should be the gov't, right? should people not be allowed to lock doors because they're taking the responsibility for preventing crime away from the gov't?


gun control isn't giving people the right to carry out vigilante justice, its giving them better means to protect themselves, their family, and their property, rather than have to wait for police to arrive, often after the fact.

 

[erawamai]

erawamai, would you also propose a law that, say, women can't struggle when being raped?

The act of struggling is not dangerous to the community and cannot really be used in an attacking or offensive way as a gun can. If the act of struggling can only be seen in the context of self defence whereas a gun can be used in other less meritorious contexts. Struggling is no where near as an efficient killer as a firing a gun. I see no reason why struggling should be made illegal. The act of struggling is in no way analogous to the brandishing or firing of a gun as you propose.

In general there is no problem if everyone exercised their guns rights for the purpose of self defence. The problem is that it is very hard to enforce the specified use upon a device that has many other uses. How exactly do you force or control the use of guns for the purpose of self defence?

As for all the people here that keep talking about rape. You seem to be overemphasing stranger danger. While some sexual assaults are perpatrated by a stranger most the rape is carried out by someone known to the victim who isn't overly threatening to the victim.

cuz then they're trying to enforce laws that rape is illegal by preventing it? really the only one that does anything about it should be the gov't, right? should people not be allowed to lock doors because they're taking the responsibility for preventing crime away from the gov't?

Same as above. Locking doors is not dangerous to the community and cannot really be used in an attacking or offensive way as a gun can. The act of locking doors can only be seen in the context of self defence and is no where near as an efficient killer as a gun.

You are trying to draw an anology between locking ones doors and brandishing or keeping a gun in order to prevent crime. One prevents crime by keeping people out a an area. Other prevents crime by threatening to kill the person. One can be used to efficiently kill many people the other can't (well it can but the logistics of killing alot of people with a locked door is not as easy as the logistics of pointing and pulling the trigger).

When people get heated up and loose control I'd prefer them to have access to a locked door and the right to struggle than a gun.

gun control isn't giving people the right to carry out vigilante justice, its giving them better means to protect themselves, their family, and their property, rather than have to wait for police to arrive, often after the fact.

If everyone has a gun it gives people the power to become judge and executioner for any person in society. That is self help and that is vigilante justice.

Whether the use of this leathal force, if used, was valid or not is too late for a person who happens to meet someone who abuses their right to keep a gun.

 

[fleepbasding]

If civilians all had guns, then criminals would shoot them before robbing them to prevent the risk of getting shot by their victim. Result: more deaths. This is one of my primary concerns.