Sweden is now Oceania

Life must be pretty tame in Norway.

Anyway, my opinion is that it is the responsibility of the individual American to arm themselves. If they neglect to do so, and become the victim of a violent crime, it's not my problem. They have the same freedom that I do, they just choose to rely on others to protect them. Personally, I have more faith in my own ability to protect myself than in law enforcement.

 

No, what I'm describing is a society where everyone does their part to uphold the law and discourage crime. I didn't say there shouldn't be law enforcement, but if you expect the police to show up and stop every crime in progress, you're going to be disappointed.

 

I agree with you that the government doesn't work like we'd hope it would. The state won't always be there to protect people.

However, don't you think that firearms in the hands of everyone (or even among all non-felon, non-incapacitated, responsible and stable individuals) increases the chance of violent crimes in at least some cases? Everyone makes mistakes and does stupid things, but if there are guns absolutely everywhere, there's a lot higher chance that what might be verbal abuse or even assault could turn into murder or manslaughter.

Obviously, there is less chance of anything happening among quite reasonable people. I am also all for ownership of firearms and hunting (provided that animal populations are monitored, which they are). I am not against guns, and I enjoy shooting, even though I haven't stepped foot in a firing range in awhile.

However, I don't know if everyone taking the law into their hands is a good idea, even if they all full well intend when they buy firearms to use them only for defense. After all, that's the ostensible reason why all wars are started.

 

Guns don't change how people act, for the most part. If a person has the unstoppable urge to kill, they'll kill. But, for a rational mind, a gun means a last resort, and a bit of a safety net;
"I'm fine. I've got this gun on me if things get too rough."
If you have a gun, and you know that just about everyone else has a gun, you'll weigh the priorities of getting into a confrontation that much more. You don't know how everyone will respond, but you know that everyone can respond in a terminal fashion.
Think of how badly a bank robbery would go if everyone waiting for the next teller also had a license to carry?
"Everybody, get down!! This is a robbery!"
*multiple cocking noises*
"Sir, wait your turn."

 

Well, there's a certain difference between a fucktard trying to stab a bunch of people, and trying to shoot a bunch of people.

 

Not if one or two of those people also have a gun. That's why I think gun-free zones are just an invitation for whackos to go on shooting sprees. They know nobody else has a gun.

 

This is assuming that people act rationally when confronted when another person points a gun at them. This is a problem even if you assume that the criminals - or whoever wants to use a gun to commit a crime - are just as rational as the normal people who just want to defend themselves. They're not, but let's assume it for the sake of the argument. In scenarios that exist today, there are plenty of normal, lawful people who panic or act irrationally when confronted with a gun. If you really consider the mechanics of the situation you described, do you really think that a bank robber or murderer is going to put his or her gun away just because he's being threatened? That would be the rational thing to do, but this person is probably already nervous or on edge.

With the most rational robber, the worst case scenario is that the bank gets robbed, considering the gun situation we have today. With everyone in the bank armed, there's at least some chance of people dying (and not just the robber), even though there is a lot smaller chance of the bank getting robbed.

Also, what about the difference between firearms? It's not like we're talking about just pistols or .22's here. If laws are passed to encourage people to all carry firearms, you can be damn sure that they won't settle for anything less than permitting assault weapons and even machine guns. And considering how capitalist we are here, you can expect that the best armed people will be the criminals, because of the competition. And you can't expect most people to afford powerful firearms anyway. Add this to the fact that the majority of non-criminals would be untrained or only somewhat proficient with firearms, and probably wouldn't know enough about firearms to be able to tell if the weapon they have is a match for someone trying to mug them, while criminals would be both experienced and knowledgeable about such things.

 

Life is not a video game, and having a better firearm than the next guy doesn't mean you could take him in a fight. Also, one of the most powerful self-defense options is one of the cheapest: a revolver. And with the bank scenario, the idea is to keep the guy from pulling a gun in the first place. Peace through strength.

 

It'sn't a matter of who's gun is a match for whose, it's a matter of who's better at the quickdraw. More seriously, usually, if you've a couple of bank robbers, and someone levels a gun at them, unless they really think that they'll truly get away with it, they generally won't truly shoot. The philosophy is that the threat of violence will halt violence. Besides, if you stand up, and level a gun at someone in a bank, the security guard(s) will gain his balls, and draw his gun. Therefore, you're most likely looking at two armed people, and a group of hostages who're suddenly less-willing to be subdued. A .357 magnum Smith'n'Wesson (snub nosed), costs a mere $623 (MSRP). Even I can afford that (I'm justn't old enough to buy a hand gun). Shooting someone with a .357 mag is pretty damn-near one hit/one kill.

 

Gun makes killing easier.

And I believe that peace thorugh peace is the best way to go.

 

True, but it's also a strong deterrent to killing.

That may very well be. However, people are not naturally peaceful. Look at our world history, and you'll see what I'm saying. No matter what time you study, there will always be a war going on somewhere, or a certain crime that's incredibly gruesome. We can't just look at all of that and say we'll stop. People aren't getting less violent as a group over time because there are so many of us on this planet. True, there are some people who find violence and weapons completely abhorrent, but they've got a "trigger" themselves.

 

Yea, but at the same time, you can't achieve peace through violence.

If you point a gun at someones head and tell him to stop using violence and start living in peace, you are using violence yourself, and achieve nothing.

But if you change someone with violence in his heart, so that he instead has peace in his heart, you have achieved everything.
Then there will be two with peace.

That said, I doesn't want everyone to turn into Ghandi or Dalai Lama. But there teachings is not bad ones, and they have achieved plenty.

Espiaclly Dalai Lama, since we live in a world with a relative high amount of peace compared to other parts of the history.

 

Do you think the United States would be left in peace if we disbanded our military and disposed of all our weapons? Keep dreaming. Like I said, peace through strength.

 

Yeah, but that's the government. If African rebel militias and death squads disbanded, would there be peace? Well, many governments are pretty corrupt over there, but there'd be more peace. That's for sure. I'd also like to point out that, although I'm for national defense (hell, someone's got to be the world police), we don't exactly have to defend our country from anyone, not over here anyway. We mostly have to defend other places (Yes, America is good for some things!)

Someone has to say it: fuck trying to free Tibet. That was 400 years ago, but people are just now noticing? Give it up. I say that if the Tibetan figure who's the only well-known Tibetan figure that anyone in almost the entire world can name doesn't really care to actually do much about it, it's not that big a deal. Anyway, for Buddhists, it's probably a metaphor of... something.

 

I have never said anything about disbanding anything.
It doesn't work that way.

But keeping the military is not a reason for resorting to strenght everytime.

Likes it's said, if everyone were to go by the qoute "an eye for an eye", we would just end up with a bunch of blind toothless people.

 

I think you're missing the point. The idea is that the threat of violence is usually enough to prevent violence from happening at all. Sure, it would be great if everybody could just put down their guns and stop killing each other, but the sad truth is that there are lawless and evil people in this world. Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens only makes those in the hands of the lawless more potent.

A kind word and a gun will get you further than just a kind word.