My uncle and cousin both owned rifles and hand guns..my uncle even made his own bullets..he had to hand over £1000's of pounds worth of guns..think he had about 10 hand guns or so..all locked away and safe..yet the Government came along and took them, so not everyone felt like the Government was acting on their behalf. They had the main hobby and enjoyment in life taken away from them because people who weren't interested in shooting decided they where all bad and the Government should ban them.
ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
The statement "people would no longer be permitted" should send chills up the spine of anyone who lives in a free country. When you accept a governments right to take away any natural right, you've started down a dangerous path indeed. History has shown time and again almost any government that had such power over its people eventually leads to horrific tragedy.
Restricting freedom may seem fine when the people in power seem trustworthy, but once the governments right to restrict freedoms is part of the power structure someone always comes along to abuse it, it's simply a matter of time.
The difference, though, is that it was done WITH public support, not without. The citizens wanted the government to go down this path. In other words, we exercised our our freedom to restrict gun ownership, it was not a case of having it imposed upon us, we the people wanted this.
As a result, IMHO, there was no loss of freedom here, rather, the people exercised freedom. Just because we voted for stricter laws, does not mean we gave up our freedom or restricted our freedom but rather the opposite. To me, guns do not equal freedom and merely being allowed to carry a gun does not increase my freedom in any way at all (this to me, from my perspective, I'm not saying this is the same for everyone).
A good example would be the laws passed by the Weimer Republic that were intended to disarm the Nazis and Communists were later used by the Nazis against their enemies when they were taking full power in Germany. Free people should always weigh what they will or can lose when a freedom is taken away, even if it seems like a good reason to take it at the time.
I don't think this is a good example. There is a massive difference between a government imposing a law upon a population without the majority of the population wanting it.
I've been to Australia twice and made many friends in the law enforcement community down there (I'm retired police). All I can say from my talks with them is there is simply no comparison to the type and level of crime in the two countries. We have gangs here that require their prospective members to go out and kill some random innocent person just to get in the gang. The gangs in Oakland would make a game of it by going out and driving crazy on the freeway. The first person to flash their lights at them would be followed home and shot. I personally worked three different cases like that. Your only chance in an encounter like that is if you're personally armed, otherwise you're dead.
Oh, I absolutely agree with this and if it wasn't clear in my original post that I made this distinction, then my apologies. It goes back to my original point that this is not simply an issue of gun control, it's also cultural
You completely missed the point if that's what you think. Prohibition was tried and failed miserably. Alcohol still kills far more innocent people daily than gun violence ever will, but it is far better to leave it a lawful commodity then to outlaw it again.
Again, if my post was ambiguous, I do apologise, but my point is this. If I were to say lets ban fast food burgers because they are bad for you and you say, yeah, but what about fizzy drinks, they're just as bad and I say, well what about candy, that's not good either and so on and so on, you never get to the end.
So, let's take guns, if I said lets ban guns and you say, well knives are just as bad and I say, well, what about about alcohol that kills people as well and you say, well, cigarettes are just as bad and I say well, don't forget cars, they kill people and you say.....
You can see that we will get nowhere fast because for every additional example I can bring up, an equal and just as bad example can also be found. So my point is, not to advocate prohibition, that's absolutely not what I'm saying, but to say problems of this magnitude have to be dealt with one at a time. You can't solve every issue at the same time, you need to concentrate on what the issue is.
The position of freedom? Nothing wrong with that. 99.9% of law abiding gun owners never use a gun in a criminal act, it's the law breakers who use them in crimes right now, so outlawing them simply disarms the law abiding citizens and leaves them vulnerable to the criminals.
No no no, I really cannot understand how on earth you came to that conclusion. I mean I feel sorry for the law abiding citizens that they have to put up with such violent crime, wouldn't you rather live in a society where you didn't have to put up with violent crime (all things remaining equal, i.e. no loss of freedom)? Just because I feel sorry, does not have anything to do with your freedom, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.
I don't have any crime statistics, but I would be interested to know if there is any proof that allowing citizens to carry a gun protects them from crime compared to those societies where citizens are not armed. Actually, this is something that would be really interesting to know, I think I might do some googling to see if any studies have been done and what the results are (for my own interest).
This does lead to an interesting thought, if studies support the notion that guns equals freedom and protection, then it would be a powerful piece of information supporting not introducing gun control. However, I wonder what would happen if studies proved otherwise. Here's a question, as a thought experiment, because I'm sure such a thing would not exist, if a study existed that proved beyond any reasonable doubt that gun control would reduce violent crime and as a result, increase public safety, would pro-gun people still argue against gun control?
I also want to be clear, I am not a US citizen, therefore I do not advocate for or against gun control in the US, because I don't live there and as a result, I do not feel I have a right to voice that opinion. I am merely trying to understand the problem because I feel just as horrified as the next person when I see news reports of innocent people being killed (again, this is not meant to be a dig at firearms). It's just so senseless and I wish a satisfactory solution could be found for all concerned, those pro-gun and those against.
< Message edited by wodin -- 1/10/2013 3:03:53 AM >