If Everybody Had a Gun.....

reply to post by 8ILlBILl8


That's just plain false. Church killings/school killing of the sort at Columbine have occurred in Western society since the Middle Ages. The earliest, that I can recall, occurred in Scotland several hundred years before "MKUltra"...

Look it up. It's somewhere on the Inter-webs...

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

I think it would put an absolute end to some crimes such as home invasion’s, muggings and assault which would of course be a good thing.

Why would you assume this? When nobody had guns, there was still crime. While all nations are armed, there are still wars. Rival drug gangs fight. Guns do equalize the field a bit, but they certainly will not stop all crime.

On the other hand humans being humans would probably start committing crimes in packs, armed gangs would roam the streets at night looking, I think that It would inevitably lead to a more violent society

That is the status quo. It doesn't require arming the whole populace to have crimes commited in packs and gangs roaming the streets. Even in the UK, you currently have armed gangs with weapons other than guns, and some with guns.

what do you all think life would be like if it was the norm for everybody on the planet to own a gun form early childhood and be prepared to use it. how do you think this would change the world as we know it today good, bad or both.

There would be a lot less accidents. If everyone were taught to use and respect a gun, less people would be hurt unintentionally. It would also be a more polite society. Guns are the ultimate equalizer. They take power away from the stronger, younger, bolder, and they make power equal with the smaller, older, weaker, and less assertive.

This guy says it better than me, and the sentiment is 100% correct. Read below:

why the gun is civilization.
by Marko Kloos

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and 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.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by 8ILlBILl8

 

That's just plain false. Church killings/school killing of the sort at Columbine have occurred in Western society since the Middle Ages. The earliest, that I can recall, occurred in Scotland several hundred years before "MKUltra"...

Look it up. It's somewhere on the Inter-webs...

Personally I think that children are a direct result of their parenting, all of those school shootings are not because of guns. They happened because crappy parents couldn't bother to be involved enough in their children's lives to realize they were having issues or to help them with their problems. Horrible irresponsible parents killed those people not guns.

reply to post by billy197300


There is much to that. But societal pressures play a roll as well. Times of great change, lack of parental/guardian, or person significant in their life, all bring an enormous amount of pressure down on people. Some, obviously, handle it less well than others...

reply to post by hangedman13


Yeah, but you can legally own a firearm to hunt animals in the UK, too.

While I personally disagree with hunting, there's clearly a logical and sensible reason for a hunter to possess a firearm so as he can kill his prey as cleanly and swiftly as possible. I don't think that there's a country in the world where you can't potentially acquire a firearm to legally hunt.

I think you're being intentionally disingenuous. The discussion surrounding gun rights is largely centred upon whether someone should be allowed to possess a firearm on a day-to-day basis, without due reason.

The pro-gun crowd is usually predominated by fearful, paranoid hoplophiles, who are in a constant state of priapism every time the subject of guns is brought up.

The pro-gun crowd is usually predominated by fearful, paranoid hoplophiles, who are in a constant state of priapism every time the subject of guns is brought up.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Wow.........nice generalization there........

Congratulations, in trying to elevate yourself, and demean people who are pro gun, you have effectively dismantled any argument you might have had due to your own preconceived, petty bias

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Wow.........nice generalization there........

It's a generalisation based on observations of the gun culture which permeates throughout the USA.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Congratulations, in trying to elevate yourself, and demean people who are pro gun, you have effectively dismantled any argument you might have had due to your own preconceived, petty bias

How exactly have I ''dismantled any argument I might have had'' ? Because you don't agree with the way I put my points across ?

Well, that's just tough. Pro-gun Americans, in general, are fearful cowards who have a quasi-fetish about guns. Notice how these types are almost always men ? There's absolutely nothing Freudian about their desire to own and possess a potent ''weapon'' (!) No, siree !

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I think it would put an absolute end to some crimes such as home invasion’s, muggings and assault which would of course be a good thing.

I fail to see how it would stop these crimes. People aren't going to be wandering around with a loaded gun in their hand, so any criminal with the intention of burgling, mugging or assaulting someone is always going to steal the march on an armed, law-abiding citizen, by virtue of his nefarious intent.

If you're carrying a gun, then what exactly is your response to going to be when the first time you're aware that you're being mugged is a gun pressing against your head and a gang of people demanding your money ?

I'd like to answer this as a current and active CCW permit holder. The training the class gives touches on it. The training that every CCW carrier SHOULD invest in beyond that rather flimsy class will train it to the point where further individual practice is all it takes to master it and be automatic about it. 'It' is the natural movement toward one's back pocket while crossing the concealed weapon and smoothly drawing it, turning it 90 degrees at hip level and placing the first shot at center mass. (actually...about 3 inches above center..but hey, adrenaline is a real thing and perfection in reality is Hollywood fantasy).

With proper defense training (not a classroom...live fire training) it's so smooth, casual and fast as to happen too fast for most block headed criminals to even register what is going on before being hit the first time. ...and hey, your movement to initiate that is only following their orders to hand over your wallet. Yes Sir...here it comes, my hand is just making a quick detour on the way there.

....of course we all hope a real world incident goes as countless hours of training and practice would suggest, but the alternative is hoping the criminal is a merciful creature and doesn't mind leaving a pesky witness to a felony robbery. Naturally, they are compassionate right? Better not to have a weapon.....isn't it.

Originally posted by Starwise
My 8 yr old daughter, whose birthday is coming up, is getting her first rifle, yeah its a little single shot 22, bolt action but hey gotta start somewhere.

That's great!

Perfect age perfect rifle for this young lady. My grandfather in the 20's had his own 22 rifle from the age of 7. I just ook my 7 and 10 year old nephews to the range to introduce them the the 22.

Originally posted by Starwise
My point is, if we all carried and packed, I think many many crimes would be diverted. Lets say a mutual respect would be acknowledged!

An armed society is a polite society.

I agree if more good people carried we could stop crime the second it happens. The police need to get a call and dispatch a unit from somewhere in the city. Armed citizens could already be on the scene.

BELOW: Someone I respect...he's a part time police officer and colonel in the us air force.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Wow.........nice generalization there........

It's a generalisation based on observations of the gun culture which permeates throughout the USA.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Congratulations, in trying to elevate yourself, and demean people who are pro gun, you have effectively dismantled any argument you might have had due to your own preconceived, petty bias

How exactly have I ''dismantled any argument I might have had'' ? Because you don't agree with the way I put my points across ?

Well, that's just tough. Pro-gun Americans, in general, are fearful cowards who have a quasi-fetish about guns. Notice how these types are almost always men ? There's absolutely nothing Freudian about their desire to own and possess a potent ''weapon'' (!) No, siree !

edit on 18-10-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)

LOL no its an opinion you have that has absolutely no basis in fact.........

Apparently you are so ANTI gun that youll use your own bias to label a group as a whole......

You should be ashamed

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Everyone having a gun and weapons training from a young age is different than just giving everyone a gun now.

Back when schools still had rifle teams and firearms education was part of the regular curriculum there were no Columbines. It wasnt until firearms became demonized in popular culture and displayed as tools of power and prestige that idiots started shooting each other left and right.

Though just giving every thug idiot a gun as they are now without a complete change of character would be messy. At least in the short term. In the long run as firearms once again become the norm ignorance would fade.

Prohibition never works. Not for alcohol, drugs, prostitution, guns or whatever. It never works. Never has and never will. The very concept of prohibition flies in the face of human nature.

Back when I was in high school we had what was called hunter education. We had a show and tell day once and there was more fire power in that school class room than some police departments have. As yes there was ammo there as well. I remember back in high school there being gun racks in the trucks in the parking lot with guns in the racks in plane view. Almost everyone carried a knife of some kind. I have seen a lot of kinds pull out a knife to sharpen pencils and such. There was no gun fights at school or knife fights. Fights were bare knocks fights and they did get bloodly some times but no one ever pulled knife. I am 44 years old so that tells you how long it has been since high school for me. To see this change so much in so little time is beyond me to understand.

I have a few friends from the UK. And from the way i understand it, they use fist fights more than we use guns. The problem is that in a fist fight, the biggest toughest guy usually wins. A gun is the great equalizer, a gun allows an anorexic woman to protect herself from a 300 pound linebacker who wants to take her money and rape her.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Being from the uk myself where the gun laws are extremely strict,i find it stupid that they havent been legalised.A few weeks ago some 250 yards from my home there was a man at 3am running around with a handgun! most likely on a cocktail of drugs the road was shut and no one was allowed in or out the area until he was captured,this was in a busy residential area and the local homeowners had to jus hide and wait whilst this man ran around aiming for people who were helpless to defend,i think owing to the amount of gun crime in britain i think its time the potential victims should be on a level playing field.I mean when normal police on the beat in this country have nothing more than a baton,pepper spray and a tazer if they are lucky how the hell can they stand up to criminals on the street who are armed without radio-ing(if that is the correct term for that:lol for an armed response unit that could potentially rrive too late?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


That may work all very well in a training session, where you don't have any real-world life-or-death pressure surrounding the situation, but - again - if everyone was armed, then gangs of armed muggers would select their targets carefully and you wouldn't know you were being mugged until you had a gun pointed against your head.

Just to give a likely scenario: you are walking alone on a street, and a couple of guys come up to you and ask you for the time. Before you can say ''10 past 11'' then you feel a gun pointing against the back of your head and voices shouting ''put your hands in the air'', while the two men who originally approached you point guns towards you at point-blank range.

Do you pull your little gun practice session manoeuvre ? Er... no.

Originally posted by Deafseeingeyedog
a gun allows an anorexic woman to protect herself from a 300 pound linebacker who wants to take her money and rape her.

Not if he's intelligent enough to pull a gun on her before she's even seen him.

Seriously, none of you hoplophiles can even see the flaws and stupidity in your arguments.

Originally posted by ScottishBiker420
i think owing to the amount of gun crime in britain

Britain has one of the lowest gun-crime rates in the world.

US gun homicides for 2007 = 12,632 ( just homicides, not including accidental or suicides) thats from wiki
UK gun homicides for 2007 = 51 (source - The Independant)

Wow just look at those figures.

I totally agree with gun control and those figures prove it. Thats only for the UK though were getting a gun is a difficult thing to do. In the US the situation is totally different, the cat is well and truly out of the bag, guns are easily available and much more a part of the culture there.

All said and done i prefer a gunless society, maybe we're just more polite here in the UK.



This post will no doubt be ignored by those into the whole gun thing.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Deafseeingeyedog
a gun allows an anorexic woman to protect herself from a 300 pound linebacker who wants to take her money and rape her.

Not if he's intelligent enough to pull a gun on her before she's even seen him.

Seriously, none of you hoplophiles can even see the flaws and stupidity in your arguments.

You're just upset that we used them to win our independence and now you cant have them.

The point is that the criminal is not going to go after someone if they think they can defend themselves. They will go for the weak and helpless. with concealed carry permits, granny could be packin heat and you wouldnt know.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Deafseeingeyedog
a gun allows an anorexic woman to protect herself from a 300 pound linebacker who wants to take her money and rape her.

Not if he's intelligent enough to pull a gun on her before she's even seen him.

Seriously, none of you hoplophiles can even see the flaws and stupidity in your arguments.

Are you trying to say hoplophobe or refer to people as hoplophobes? Or is the word hoplophiles a brand new word I don't know about. If so, I am the stupid one, but yeah, don't use a word you just made up to make fun of people then call them stupid......it just shows who really IS stupid. Get a dictionary dude.

reply to post by billy197300


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hoplophobia from the Greek hoplon, meaning weapon or armor, is defined as the "fear of firearms"[1][2][3] and as the "fear of armed citizens".[4]


Sounds like sherlock is the hoplophobe. as i happen to love firearms, and armed citizens.