• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A tentative gun argument

LaughAtTheWorld

Custom User Title
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
9,640
Reaction score
3,591
Location
Seoul/Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
First, I would like to notify that I have had very few experience with the gun control debate, so my knowledge in this field is very limited. Please note that I live in a society where guns are very restricted, so my experiences will vary much from those who may be reading this, whom I presume to be mostly Americans.
As I have never revealed my position before, my position is that guns should be banned except for the military and law and order personnel. That is the position my society is in, and I agree with it fullheartedly. I cannot understand the arguments about guns making a difference in somehow stalling a government. The days when a gun owner holding power is over. Those were the days when the US Independence War was won by militias. Nowadays, with tanks, aircraft, missiles, it's hardly realistic to suggest that guns may offer resistance to a big government. Also, there have been numerous cases where guns had no part in overthrowing a tyrannical government. In my own country, thousands of protestors, students and middle-class people who have braved extreme brutality enacted democratic change several times without guns, and in the end, achieved their goal. Likewise I have observed democratic movements in numerous other locations such as Latin America, Southeast Asia, and such. Even during the relatively recent Arab Spring, guns were rarely used.
I'm sure there are other statistics and arguments to refute mine, and I welcome them as I am a newbie in this area, yet I ask for politeness as a rule.
i've been researching for crime statistics between the US and SK, as well as other countries that bans or allows guns. I'm also trying to keep in mind several factors such as GDP per person, the culture, and such.
 
The days when a gun owner holding power is over.

The military and the police (the government), by your reckoning, don't hold power?

If this is true, you shouldn't make an exception for the police or the military.
 
The military and the police (the government), by your reckoning, don't hold power?

If this is true, you shouldn't make an exception for the police or the military.

I meant an individual acting against the govt or even a group against the govt. Sorry that it needed clarification
 
First, I would like to notify that I have had very few experience with the gun control debate, so my knowledge in this field is very limited. Please note that I live in a society where guns are very restricted, so my experiences will vary much from those who may be reading this, whom I presume to be mostly Americans.
As I have never revealed my position before, my position is that guns should be banned except for the military and law and order personnel. That is the position my society is in, and I agree with it fullheartedly. I cannot understand the arguments about guns making a difference in somehow stalling a government. The days when a gun owner holding power is over. Those were the days when the US Independence War was won by militias. Nowadays, with tanks, aircraft, missiles, it's hardly realistic to suggest that guns may offer resistance to a big government. Also, there have been numerous cases where guns had no part in overthrowing a tyrannical government. In my own country, thousands of protestors, students and middle-class people who have braved extreme brutality enacted democratic change several times without guns, and in the end, achieved their goal. Likewise I have observed democratic movements in numerous other locations such as Latin America, Southeast Asia, and such. Even during the relatively recent Arab Spring, guns were rarely used.
I'm sure there are other statistics and arguments to refute mine, and I welcome them as I am a newbie in this area, yet I ask for politeness as a rule.
i've been researching for crime statistics between the US and SK, as well as other countries that bans or allows guns. I'm also trying to keep in mind several factors such as GDP per person, the culture, and such.

You will never understand our culture and the freedom that owning firearms represents to us, don't try.:)
 
I meant an individual acting against the govt or even a group against the govt. Sorry that it needed clarification

I knew what you meant. My point is that you're artificially limiting your thinking.

Guns are a form of power. They always have been and always will be, no matter whose hands they are in. The government, with all the guns, has a monopoly on the ultimate form of power when they have all the guns. After all, the threat of death is what all power ultimately rests on.

Power belongs in the hands of the people, not exclusively at the authority of the government. That's the fundamental bedrock of a free society.

If you think it makes no difference and doesn't deter the government, ask the police how they feel about raiding a place they know is full of guns, versus a place they know isn't.
 
I knew what you meant. My point is that you're artificially limiting your thinking.

Guns are a form of power. They always have been and always will be, no matter whose hands they are in. The government, with all the guns, has a monopoly on the ultimate form of power when they have all the guns. After all, the threat of death is what all power ultimately rests on.

Power belongs in the hands of the people, not exclusively at the authority of the government. That's the fundamental bedrock of a free society.

If you think it makes no difference and doesn't deter the government, ask the police how they feel about raiding a place they know is full of guns, versus a place they know isn't.

Interesting point. Yet I think that in realistic terms, your example doesn't hold up. The govt could easily just demolish the place with explosives. My argument rests on the fact that the modern arsenal goats came to possess essentially makes guns meaningless
 
I was honestly trying to make a point, sorry if I offended you.

Ah, excuse my harshness.
You do have a point. Cultures do have a strong part, and our history proving that freedom is not always given in the form of guns but protest, ideals, and the will of the people certianly influences us.
Again, my apologies
 
Interesting point. Yet I think that in realistic terms, your example doesn't hold up. The govt could easily just demolish the place with explosives.

Is a government which would be inclined to do that against its own people the kind of government you want? Would you support it? Do you think people in general should?

My argument rests on the fact that the modern arsenal goats came to possess essentially makes guns meaningless

But it doesn't, not even by your own example. It drives the cost of oppression way, way up. How long does a government committing such atrocities as you describe above keep the support of a decent, freedom-loving people?
 
Ah, excuse my harshness.
You do have a point. Cultures do have a strong part, and our history proving that freedom is not always given in the form of guns but protest, ideals, and the will of the peoplecertainlyy influences us.
Again, my apologies

I am currently reading a book, Kit Carson:folk hero and man by Noel B Gerson. If you want to understand where and how our gun culture evolved this would be a good place to start.

"Thus unwittingly he became the founder of a breed of man, the westerner, a taciturn lover of justice for its own sake, a hard riding, fast shooting ,foe of evildoers".
 
Interesting point. Yet I think that in realistic terms, your example doesn't hold up. The govt could easily just demolish the place with explosives. My argument rests on the fact that the modern arsenal goats came to possess essentially makes guns meaningless

No it doesn't. You don't necessarily have to defeat a government militarily to win. Insurgencies and rebellions are not about military victory. They are about making the cost of military victory for the other side sufficiently high that a political accommodation becomes possible.
 
No it doesn't. You don't necessarily have to defeat a government militarily to win. Insurgencies and rebellions are not about military victory. They are about making the cost of military victory for the other side sufficiently high that a political accommodation becomes possible.

Yes, that's what I'm trying to tell him.
 
First, I would like to notify that I have had very few experience with the gun control debate, so my knowledge in this field is very limited. Please note that I live in a society where guns are very restricted, so my experiences will vary much from those who may be reading this, whom I presume to be mostly Americans.
As I have never revealed my position before, my position is that guns should be banned except for the military and law and order personnel. That is the position my society is in, and I agree with it fullheartedly. I cannot understand the arguments about guns making a difference in somehow stalling a government. The days when a gun owner holding power is over. Those were the days when the US Independence War was won by militias. Nowadays, with tanks, aircraft, missiles, it's hardly realistic to suggest that guns may offer resistance to a big government. Also, there have been numerous cases where guns had no part in overthrowing a tyrannical government. In my own country, thousands of protestors, students and middle-class people who have braved extreme brutality enacted democratic change several times without guns, and in the end, achieved their goal. Likewise I have observed democratic movements in numerous other locations such as Latin America, Southeast Asia, and such. Even during the relatively recent Arab Spring, guns were rarely used.
I'm sure there are other statistics and arguments to refute mine, and I welcome them as I am a newbie in this area, yet I ask for politeness as a rule.
i've been researching for crime statistics between the US and SK, as well as other countries that bans or allows guns. I'm also trying to keep in mind several factors such as GDP per person, the culture, and such.


Okay, let me try to address your interests.

First, crime statistics... my studies on international crime rates, both homicides and other violent crimes, revealed no link between gun ownership and violent crime. Many countries with a very very small rate of private gun ownership nonetheless had murder rates many times higher than the US.

As best I can tell, violent crime rates esp murder, are a factor of poverty/wealth inequity, corrupt or ineffective gov't/LE, factions/tribes/gangs, and drug trade. Where these factors are high, so is murder. Gun ownership rates appear to be irrelevant; gun control laws also appear irrelevant.

Now, as to the US view on citizens and guns... it is part of our culture that free persons have certain rights, among them the right to bear arms, to defend themselves against crime, and believe it or not to resist government tyranny by force as a last resort. It is also part of our gov't and legal structure that the military must not be used against the citizenry, and there are organizations within the military that take oaths to resist any such order.

As such, a simple straightforward comparison between the military and the citizenry is does not take into account many factors. In particular, the ability of the citizen to resist police and or lightly armed secret police forces is part of the equation where our Constitution sets the balance between gov't power and the power of the citizenry.

Depending on which set of stats you believe, there may be 80 million gun owners in America. There are less than five million military, police and armed gov't agents all combined, even assuming all would side with gov't in a conflict which is highly debateable.

It is part of our cultural, societal and governmental "balance of power"... we do not believe in having any branch of gov't or society being TOO powerful.

The fact that any given politician must fear angering his constituency to the point that some of them might take a shot at him from 800 yards with a scoped rifle is a point in this equation as well. We have a saying... "When the People fear the government, there is oppression... when the Government fears the People, there is Liberty."

Not all agree with this obviously, but it is part of our traditions and culture and history.


Back on the crime thing... there are over 300 million guns in America... possibly more guns than people. No gun control laws will ever rid the nation of them, or prevent criminals from getting them, so most gun control laws are relatively pointless and ineffective. Since we know we may face armed criminals, many of us feel that it is far better to be armed ourselves against that threat.


It is my hope that this will help you to understand the American viewpoint better...
 
The days when a gun owner holding power is over. Those were the days when the US Independence War was won by militias. Nowadays, with tanks, aircraft, missiles, it's hardly realistic to suggest that guns may offer resistance to a big government.

This is an excellent argument against a federal standing army.
 
I meant an individual acting against the govt or even a group against the govt. Sorry that it needed clarification

lets say a congressman proposes a law that make owning a gun a life sentence

it barely passes

lots of people have their lives ruined

what should patriots do

fight the army?

or kill those who voted for the law

problem solved
 
lets say a congressman proposes a law that make owning a gun a life sentence

it barely passes

lots of people have their lives ruined

what should patriots do

fight the army?

or kill those who voted for the law

problem solved

Turtle, have you ever read John Ross' novel, Unintended Consequences?
 
First, I would like to notify that I have had very few experience with the gun control debate, so my knowledge in this field is very limited. Please note that I live in a society where guns are very restricted, so my experiences will vary much from those who may be reading this, whom I presume to be mostly Americans.
As I have never revealed my position before, my position is that guns should be banned except for the military and law and order personnel. That is the position my society is in, and I agree with it fullheartedly. I cannot understand the arguments about guns making a difference in somehow stalling a government. The days when a gun owner holding power is over. Those were the days when the US Independence War was won by militias. Nowadays, with tanks, aircraft, missiles, it's hardly realistic to suggest that guns may offer resistance to a big government. Also, there have been numerous cases where guns had no part in overthrowing a tyrannical government. In my own country, thousands of protestors, students and middle-class people who have braved extreme brutality enacted democratic change several times without guns, and in the end, achieved their goal. Likewise I have observed democratic movements in numerous other locations such as Latin America, Southeast Asia, and such. Even during the relatively recent Arab Spring, guns were rarely used.
I'm sure there are other statistics and arguments to refute mine, and I welcome them as I am a newbie in this area, yet I ask for politeness as a rule.
i've been researching for crime statistics between the US and SK, as well as other countries that bans or allows guns. I'm also trying to keep in mind several factors such as GDP per person, the culture, and such.
First let me compliment you on your English. I was born and raised in the US and you just may have a better mastery of English then I do.

It's not about guns. This could be about anything. It could be about elective/optional abortion. It could be about who you can marry. It could be about a religion that get's a bad reputation because of a few bad radicals in it. There were many parts of the United States which banned music and dancing for the same reason many want to ban gun: the claim that it's dangerous.

Where the line is drawn:
  • A woman has the right to have an abortion even-though it harms the unborn child, until that child is developed enough to live outside it's mother.
  • People have the right to marry a person of their choice until they choose a relationship which is inherently harmful, such as marrying a child (that was legal in the US early last century).
  • You have the right to practice any religion you wish, worship any god, obey any doctrine, until you cause harm to others, such as suicide bombing or animal sacrifice.
  • You should be able to have nearly any kind of weapon you want, so long as you aren't harming others. If you like martial-arts weapons, and aren't assaulting anyone with them, then there's no reason to keep those from you (many martial-arts weapons are banned in some American States). If you like various firearms, and aren't attacking anyone with them, there's no reason to keep those from you. Where we come to a problem is with explosives, and similar, as those are hazardous even if no one ever tries to attack anyone with one. A sword will not explode if left alone for 100 years.. A rifle will not explode if left alone for 100 years, not even the ammunition. A missile will explode in less than 100 years if left allone, and that's not acceptable.
We do not 'need' the item we're focused on. The thing that we 'need' is Liberty. The personal firearm, such as the rifle and handgun, are unique in that they remove the ability of someone else to infringe upon your liberty. In America, the presence of privately owned firearms reduces our crime rate.

The gun is civilization

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.

.....
 
Last edited:
I meant an individual acting against the govt or even a group against the govt. Sorry that it needed clarification
Our militias were created with the intent that we would never have a standing Army. We're not supposed to have a standing Army today, but we do, and Armys tend to do exactly what they're trained to do, which is why America is waging war allover the globe.

The idea was that if there were an emergency, the militia would be called up, the militia would deal with the problem, and then the militia would disband and be no more until needed again. Citizens privately owning so-called "military style" firearms is meant to keep a large standing army from forming. If the government stockpiled weapons for the militia, the government would finish the job and just make a large standing army; which is exactly what ended up occurring.
 
Last edited:
If you were debating your position I'd like to ask you,

1) Since the advent of athe air planes tanks, and missiles how many conflicts have been won with them vs the "gun?" I'll give you an answer and you can try to correct it if you'd like. The answer is none.

2) While peaceful protests have changed governments and even removed some that is not the point of gun ownership in America. The point is a unarmed public is one a tyrant can kill - at will. Here
is another statistic for you - 300 million people have died since the founding of America at the hands of tyrannical governments - yet relatively few of them were Americans.

3) Your position is that guns should be banned from private ownership. You have a problem in that one since 80 million American's own guns, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say about 8 million
of them won't be peacefully giving them up.


First, I would like to notify that I have had very few experience with the gun control debate, so my knowledge in this field is very limited. Please note that I live in a society where guns are very restricted, so my experiences will vary much from those who may be reading this, whom I presume to be mostly Americans.
As I have never revealed my position before, my position is that guns should be banned except for the military and law and order personnel. That is the position my society is in, and I agree with it fullheartedly. I cannot understand the arguments about guns making a difference in somehow stalling a government. The days when a gun owner holding power is over. Those were the days when the US Independence War was won by militias. Nowadays, with tanks, aircraft, missiles, it's hardly realistic to suggest that guns may offer resistance to a big government. Also, there have been numerous cases where guns had no part in overthrowing a tyrannical government. In my own country, thousands of protestors, students and middle-class people who have braved extreme brutality enacted democratic change several times without guns, and in the end, achieved their goal. Likewise I have observed democratic movements in numerous other locations such as Latin America, Southeast Asia, and such. Even during the relatively recent Arab Spring, guns were rarely used.
I'm sure there are other statistics and arguments to refute mine, and I welcome them as I am a newbie in this area, yet I ask for politeness as a rule.
i've been researching for crime statistics between the US and SK, as well as other countries that bans or allows guns. I'm also trying to keep in mind several factors such as GDP per person, the culture, and such.
 
I meant an individual acting against the govt or even a group against the govt. Sorry that it needed clarification
To understand you have to have the appropriate context. NO ONE is advocating the overthrow of or a battle against 'the government'. We still elect our representatives, even if we as a nation do a piss poor job of being selective with who we send. The Constitution was never meant to provide a means of rebellion against an elected body. It IS meant to preserve the Constitution and freedoms we have. I ASSURE you...if we were to ever reach a point where the government and Constitution were abandoned, 120 million gun owners would make an oppressive force to contend with, even where we are talking rifles vs military might. You also have to extend the scenario out completely. IF there were a tyrannical force that attempted to seize control of the country, not only would they have to contend with the 'militia' but also with the state Guard and Reserve components. We as a people value our freedom (even where some would readily sacrifice it).

The 2nd amendment was very clear as to its intent. Citizens should have the ability to own MILITARY weapons for the defense of the nation. The 'understood' component is personal ownership of firearms for self defense and hunting. The 2nd Amendment wasn't a pro hunting amendment. I cant fathom the framers of this country EVER subjecting themselves and their families to the protective whims of others. Criminals have weapons and commit crimes. People have a right to defend themselves against those criminals.

If you are really interested in understanding us, look at the total picture. It took 10 minutes for police to respond in Connecticut. As per recent news articles we see the average police response time to emergency calls in Denver Colorado is 17 minutes. Citizens must not be sentenced to a lifetime of 'victim' status.
 
First, I would like to notify that I have had very few experience with the gun control debate, so my knowledge in this field is very limited. Please note that I live in a society where guns are very restricted, so my experiences will vary much from those who may be reading this, whom I presume to be mostly Americans.
As I have never revealed my position before, my position is that guns should be banned except for the military and law and order personnel. That is the position my society is in, and I agree with it fullheartedly. I cannot understand the arguments about guns making a difference in somehow stalling a government. The days when a gun owner holding power is over. Those were the days when the US Independence War was won by militias. Nowadays, with tanks, aircraft, missiles, it's hardly realistic to suggest that guns may offer resistance to a big government. Also, there have been numerous cases where guns had no part in overthrowing a tyrannical government. In my own country, thousands of protestors, students and middle-class people who have braved extreme brutality enacted democratic change several times without guns, and in the end, achieved their goal. Likewise I have observed democratic movements in numerous other locations such as Latin America, Southeast Asia, and such. Even during the relatively recent Arab Spring, guns were rarely used.
I'm sure there are other statistics and arguments to refute mine, and I welcome them as I am a newbie in this area, yet I ask for politeness as a rule.
i've been researching for crime statistics between the US and SK, as well as other countries that bans or allows guns. I'm also trying to keep in mind several factors such as GDP per person, the culture, and such.
I would think that you as a citizen living in a country next to one that is still technically at war with yours, you would want to be armed. Because one of these days the DPRK isn't just going to be throwing a tantrum and actually resume the war.Or the US and ROK is going to get sick of the DPRK's **** and resume the war.
 
First, I would like to notify that I have had very few experience with the gun control debate, so my knowledge in this field is very limited. Please note that I live in a society where guns are very restricted, so my experiences will vary much from those who may be reading this, whom I presume to be mostly Americans.
As I have never revealed my position before, my position is that guns should be banned except for the military and law and order personnel. That is the position my society is in, and I agree with it fullheartedly. I cannot understand the arguments about guns making a difference in somehow stalling a government. The days when a gun owner holding power is over. Those were the days when the US Independence War was won by militias. Nowadays, with tanks, aircraft, missiles, it's hardly realistic to suggest that guns may offer resistance to a big government. Also, there have been numerous cases where guns had no part in overthrowing a tyrannical government. In my own country, thousands of protestors, students and middle-class people who have braved extreme brutality enacted democratic change several times without guns, and in the end, achieved their goal. Likewise I have observed democratic movements in numerous other locations such as Latin America, Southeast Asia, and such. Even during the relatively recent Arab Spring, guns were rarely used.

The gun owners are The People. I don't ever want to live a in country where the people no longer hold the power. That's tyranny. If you want to live a nation where your civil rights can be limited that easily, by the government, then that's your choice, good for you.

Most Americans still believe in the words that are contained in The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. That's our idea of freeddom and the brand of freedom and liberty that we want to live under.


I'm sure there are other statistics and arguments to refute mine, and I welcome them as I am a newbie in this area, yet I ask for politeness as a rule.
i've been researching for crime statistics between the US and SK, as well as other countries that bans or allows guns. I'm also trying to keep in mind several factors such as GDP per person, the culture, and such.

There are several superior arguments that refute your's. One is that these rights are, "unalienable" and they shall not be, "infringed". That goes for ALL of our civil rights, not just the 2nd Amendment. Ultimately, if the government has the power to legislatively infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights, they also have the power to infringe upon ALL of our civil rights and that can't be allowed.
 
Back
Top Bottom