Homicide rates in homes, cities and regions with guns.

[zanne]

Center
Guns and Death

HOMICIDE- SUICIDE - ACCIDENTS - CHILDREN AND WOMEN

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOMICIDE
Guns and homicide (literature review).
We performed a review of the academic literature on the effects of gun availability on homicide rates.
Major Findings: A broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
Publication: Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. "Firearm Availability and Homicide: A Review of the Literature." Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

Gun availability and state homicide rates, 1988-1997
Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period.
Major findings: After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
Publication: Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. "Household Firearm Ownership Levels and Homicide Rates across U.S. Regions and States, 1988-1997." American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

LINK: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html


You really didn't think I'd let a little criticism stop me from doing this, did you?

[slackmaster]

1. Correlation does not prove causation

It may be that people who live in areas with higher crime tend to buy more guns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

2. Just a snip from the research

Guns threats against, self-defense gun use by adolescents
We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17, which asked questions about gun threats against, and self-defense gun use by these young people.
Major Findings: These young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents. Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.



So let's get this straight. People forbidden by law from possessing a firearm are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense. What is amazing to me is that Havard actually spent money to figure that out. Maybe their next study will show that drivers with night blindness are far more likely to get in motor vehicle collisions at night. That would be an equally impressive study.

David

[DonP]

95. It was a phone survey, so it must be true

The methodology involved calling 12 to 17 years olds, that must then be asked to self identify their age, and asking them how dangerous their school and neighborhoods were.

Sounds like an easy way to get a result that proves that guns are evil.

After all, everyone knows that 12 to 17 years olds would never lie to a stranger on the phone about their real or imagined exploits with guns, sex or anything else, right?

[jmg257]

3. Sounds about right - If I lived in a state with many homicides, I would buy more guns too.

But since they spent money on this study, re: suicides:

1) "the hypothesis {is} that the availability of lethal means increases the rate of completed suicide." (well - duh!)

2) "A positive and significant association exists between levels of household firearm ownership and rates of firearm and overall suicide"

Well, OK...
BUT!!!...

3) "rates of nonfirearm suicide were not associated with levels of household firearm ownership"...

4) which means just and ONLY this: rates of firearm suicide were associated with levels of household firearm ownership (well - duh! again)


So - guns are lethal, and effective in killing one's self. And, imagine this!!!...gun-related suicide is associated with gun-related households.

Go figure - guns can be lethal - in fact, their lethality is one reason I own them - they would be useless for defense otherwise, no?


And as often happens, when there are elevated levels of homicides/violence, many people seem to buy guns (for defense I imagine). Cause vs effect?

[Callisto32]

68. Not necessarily

Go figure - guns can be lethal - in fact, their lethality is one reason I own them - they would be useless for defense otherwise, no?

I would say that they would also be useful for defense if they merely had the ability to incapacitate.

[Firethorn]

109. Statistics can be fun...

"the hypothesis {is} that the availability of lethal means increases the rate of completed suicide." (well - duh!)

Yeah, This always brings to mind that Utopia of gun control - Japan. The place of 25.3* suicides per 100k, versus the USA's 10.85.

To put it into perspective, the Murder rate in the USA is ~6.32 and Japan is .58.

So a Japanese citizen is more likely to commit suicide than a US citizen is to either commit suicide or be murdered.

*Had to average male&female
http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/

[TooBigaTent]

4. The gun nuts, even those pretending to be Democrats, will ignore the facts.

They just love their own weapons of personal destruction and nobody is going to take them away from them.

They should join the militia (national guard) as the Constitution indicates. Then, their asses would be in Iraq and they could really enjoy killing.

[jmg257]

5. We ARE in the Militia already. Just nothing in the constitution about serving overseas.

When we are invaded though, I am there. Especially as long as I get the effective arms (M16, M4, M14, etc) we are supposed to have - constitutionally.

Hopefully you will do your duty too and join us. Rather brave of you not to worry about having a gun with which to do so (but also rather ineffective).

[apocalypsehow]

7. LOL! Yep. There goes one right there.

"When we are invaded though, I am there"

I believe real military men and women call that "in the rear with the gear." Far in the rear. :rofl:


"Especially as long as I get the effective arms (M16, M4, M14, etc) we are supposed to have - constitutionally."


So, now the constitution even specifies what caliber, make, & model of weapons you're "supposed" to have, huh? Who knew the Second Amendment had all these hidden clauses only "pro-gun Democrats" seem to be privy to?

[jmg257]

9. The Constitution was not so specific. The militia acts passed shortly after were, however.

Today it is not too hard to figure what common calibers, models, and level of effectiveness would meet the important points stressed by the militia purposes of the 2nd, the militia clauses, and the Miltia Acts.

M9 = 9mm, M1911 = .45, rifles in .223 & .308, AR styles, M14 styles, sniper rifles, M4 shotguns, etc. Those military weapons in common use.


Real military men & women may indeed call it that - it is usually much safer back here!

[Firethorn]

110. Miller decision

The Miller decision is the last ruling impinging on the 2nd that we have(at the moment).

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

I'll note that the defendents were aquited earler. No matter the decision, they would face no further penalties, so there was no vigorous defense presented.

Basically, some interpretations(and it's all interpretation at this point), is that the Supreme Court allowed the regulation/banning of short barreled shotguns because there was no proof that it was a military weapon, or usable as one in a militia setting.

If this went to court today odds are the NRA would be producing documentation about 'trench guns', short barreled shotguns used quite successfully during WWII, sometimes to 'bat' back incoming grenades. Of weapons carried by soldiers and marines in Iraq today, they often carry a short barreled shotgun when clearing buildings.

By a strict interpretation of the Miller decision, a AR15/M16 would be considered more protected by the 2nd than a Marlin 10/22. After all, the 10/22 isn't an effective weapon for use by a militia. A hunter's .300 WSM would be protected less than a Barrett .50BMG. After all, the Barrett is seeing daily use in combat in the desert.

[jmg257]

119. The "absence of any evidence" was due to Miller being dead.

IF he had been alive, and someone for his defense had shown that trench guns were in fact common military equpiment, they still would have had to prove that ones with barrels shorter then 18" were also common military equipment. I believe the 1897s and M12s in military use at the time had 18" and 20" barrels.

Better though - IF he was carrying a M1918 BAR, AND was alive to have someone for his defense show that it was indeed a common military arm, then apparently the full-auto part of the NFA would have been struck down (re: the eventual actual ruling), for being unconstitutional thanks to the militia purpose of the 2nd (the individual right secured being more easily subject to restrictions due to "compelling interest").

[apocalypsehow]

10. LOL! It just gets better with every passing edit!

"Hopefully you will do your duty too and join us"

Yeah, because Canada and Mexico might just launch a preemptive pincer attack against the United States and try to split the country 50-50 between themselves on the banks of the Mississippi....

:eyes:

Do April showers bring May flowers on your planet?

[zanne]

12. We must be ever vigilant against the evil Canadians. nt

[jmg257]

22. Just like in South Park! (But we have the Baldwin brothers!)

[jmg257]

14. Not sure about Canada and Mexico. But the Constitution is easy to read...

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia {of the several States} to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.



And I too doubt we would be invaded any time soon - see - it gets safer back here all the time! BUT IF we were, I would be there if called forth and properly armed!

[apocalypsehow]

18. You and the Wolverines!

"BUT IF we were, I would be there if called forth and properly armed!"



I'll tuck myself into bed tonight all snug and secure knowing so many "pro-gun Democrats" are standing by in their make-believe citizen militias just waiting to spring into action against marauding bands sallying forth over the Niagara River....

[jmg257]

21. That's cool. I myself don't worry about it. But you should take comfort where you can.

Especially if it helps you sleep at night.


Oh, in Red Dawn it was the Russians, not the Mexicans or Canadians. I wouldn't worry about them either, though. (edit: hmmm...though the Canadians DID invade in South Park - but that too is just make believe)

[apocalypsehow]

24. I'll bet that DVD gets a serious workout in the jmg257 household. n/t.

[jmg257]

25. Naaa - haven't seen it in years. Besides - I've got kids - we are more partial to Disney right now.

[gorfle]

101. Remember....

Yeah, because Canada and Mexico might just launch a preemptive pincer attack against the United States and try to split the country 50-50 between themselves on the banks of the Mississippi....

Remember, the militias were set up as a decentralized military system not only to protect against enemies from without - but also from tyranny from within.

[apocalypsehow]

6. You'll find our "pro-gun Democrats" far too timid to put their keisters where their keyboards are,

and join the Guardsmen out on the drill field training in the summer heat and winter sleet. Or in any of the armed services, where, right now anyway, they would find themselves with ample opportunity to "keep and bear arms" in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Nope - to much internet "combat" to be done right here at home, wearing out those finger pads in Gun Forums everywhere to spread the gospel of the precious, beloved gun.

[Lex1775]

8. Really? What about all of us Pro-gun Democrats who already did our combat tours?

[bossy22]

13. the quotations

in "pro-gun Democrats" makes me believe that you think there is no such animal and that real democrats are for gun control.

if that is true i am sorry to question your wisdom oh omnipotent one

[apocalypsehow]

15. Not a bit of it.

bossy22 said: "the quotations in 'pro-gun Democrats' makes me believe that you think there is no such animal and that real democrats are for gun control"

What I believe is that genuine "pro-gun Democrats" would scarcely waste their time flooding a progressive discussion board with non-stop rubbish regarding an issue most progressives are on the other side of. I believe genuine "pro-gun Democrats" would just be pro-gun Democrats, and if they wanted to talk about guns would create and/or join any number of web sites that talk primarily about firearms.

Do I believe a tiny sub-forum on a progressive discussion board is flooded with said persons? No, I do not. I do believe they are flooded, however.

[DonP]

16. Oh good, another person helping all us poor ignorant folks ...

... by clearly defining what is and isn't a Democrat or Progressive based on their own "unique" beliefs.

Have you shared this insight with Dr. Dean yet? I'm sure he'd appreciate your direction. Thank god the party has you to guide us.

Are there any other commandments from the mountaintop you'd like to share with the ignorant masses out here that own guns and enjoy shooting sports and happen to "accidentally" vote Democrat in the elections and primaries?

What else must we do to measure up to your standards? Please share your other clearly official "D" litmus tests at your earliest convenience.

[DrCory]

26. He honestly does...

Seem to believe that if you post here frequently in support of a more liberal interpretation of the 2nd than his own you are most likely not a "genuine Democrat". It's truly offensive, and he revels in it.

[SteveM]

17. You should read your own stuff, if you can stand it....

"I believe genuine 'pro-gun Democrats' would just be pro-gun Democrats, and if they wanted to talk about guns would create and/or join any number of web sites that talk primarily about firearms."

Uh, excuse me, but you are on a "web site that talks primarily about firearms." It's called Democratic Underground Forums: Guns.

[DrCory]

19. If you haven't noticed...

The vast majority of firearm-related websites are not particularily palatable to left-leaning gun owners. That's one reason I hang around here. Speaking for myself, I believe the RKBA is among the most "progressive" concepts to exist. That's why I'm passionate about this subject.

[iverglas]

29. An Orwell fan!

I believe the RKBA is among the most "progressive" concepts to exist.

And no, I'm actually not talking about shotguns on the walls of cottages in villages by the moors. They weren't there for "self-defence" against teenaged burglars.

And you're not talking about repelling Nazis or expelling tyrants, so don't even try to shit me.

I'm talking about war is peace and freedom is slavery and what I suspect is your personal favourite: ignorance is strength. Ya get enough people believing that one, and ya just might get somewhere with the shit you're actually selling.

[DrCory]

34. You're wrong...

about me, plain and simple. Citizen soldier, national defense, and all that. Perhaps I have an overly "romantic" view of the citizen militia, even more so than envisioned by the Founders, but save the venom for someone of a simpler intellect.

Also, you are not the arbiter of all things "progressive", and not everyone who espouses a ideological concept which differs from yours is ignorant or ________ (insert inference here). Believing so is narcissism.

It is in my view a "progressive" concept that all able-bodied citizens should be active participants in the DEFENSE of their homeland and permitted by law to retain the basic tools which facilitate such defense (small arms, single-person portable, no crew served or explosive ordinance) in their possession. The citizen body, when trusted equally with a small, professional standing armed force, to provide for security becomes a genuinely equal and self-reliant partner with the state. If the state governs with the concent of the people, it should have nothing to fear. A massive, armed, and basically trained citizen militia would serve as a formidable deterrent therefore allowing for a dramatic decrease in the size, cost, and monopoly of power currently retained by the professional, standing force. Combined with economic reforms which promote prosperity and social peace, we might finally be a bit closer to realizing the dream.

[zanne]

36. Yup. I'm sure you'd put down your remote control and pick up your musket...

And run to the defense of your country. Imagine gun nuts all over the countryside, commandeering Wendy's and Starbucks and protecting the rest of the citizenry from nukes with their little guns.

[DrCory]

38. So....

You would rather rely on nuclear weapons? The ghastliest, most indiscriminate weapon ever to be invented by humanity? What kind of person are you then? Perhaps if we had the courage to lead by example and dismantle our nuclear arsenal ENTIRELY, and I mean every single warhead, and instead rely primarily on an armed, trained, and spirited citizen army for deterrence the world may take notice and follow suit. If not, then may those nations who refuse face the scorn and sanctions of the international community.

[zanne]

42. Can't reply to the issue, huh?

you know very well what I was saying, yet you chose to reply with an evasive answer. No, I'm not for nukes, but in real life outside of Handgun Town, that's what would happen to a popular uprising. Do you really for one minute think that your little guns would protect us from a government takeover?

That's the weakest excuse I've heard from you guys yet. And hey, while we're dismantling our nuclear arsenal, maybe we could rid our society of the #1 method of homicide, too--shooting deaths.

[DrCory]

48. Can't reply to a false dichotomy...

It's not really about "my little guns" anyway, my stated view concerns a larger social movement. One "little gun" combined with many millions of others united in the citizen militia certainly has, can, and will.

[zanne]

50. "Has, can AND WILL"?

Uh-oh. Take off your tinfoil hat, buddy. This discussion is over.

[DrCory]

52. Judging by historical precedent , yes.

Sometime, somewhere, in the world it will. Just as certain as death and taxes.

See ya around! :hi:

[zanne]

54. You weren't talking about "elsewhere" in the world.

You sound like a dangerous individual to me. I guess it's better that you're here on DU so we can keep an eye on you.
Now, I have to go out into the wild, wild East and go to work--without a GUN!

[DrCory]

56. It's a general concept...

Applicable anywhere in the world, in any democratic society which empowers it's citizens.

[zanne]

63. This is what you said, verbatim...

." One "little gun" combined with many millions of others united in the citizen militia certainly has, can, and will."

"Citizen Militia" certainly comes from the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

[DrCory]

72. Yes...

But not a condition for the private ownership or posession of small arms. A justification clause is not a requirement. At least, that's my reading of it, Heller will clarify.

[zanne]

77. I love how you try to deny your own words, Dr.Cory.

There are some things you cannot wriggle out of.

[DrCory]

81. What, Pray Tell...

Do you perceive I am attempting to "wriggle out of"?

[DrCory]

58. I think you misinterpret...

My position. I'm talking about creating a citizen army for the purpose of deterring outside aggression against our homeland as well as achieving a desirable balance of power with the state. An evolution in our social, political, and economic environment is presumed to already have occurred.

[zanne]

64. Are you part of a militia? nt

[DrCory]

69. Yes...

Title 10 § 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[zanne]

73. That's not the kind of militia I meant.

Like I've never heard that one before. I meant the kind of militia that sets up camp in the wilderness somewhere and trains for war with the government.

[DrCory]

75. No. N/T

[zanne]

78. Hmmmmm

I have to question that.

[DrCory]

80. Those militias...

you refer to are generally cesspools of right-wing nuttery. I want NO part of that. The type I advocate includes all American citizens regardless of ethnic origin, race, religion, or gender, united in spirit for a common DEFENSE of the United States.

[zanne]

85. Hmmmm. You like the "defense" argument.

But you're never quite clear about why we need defending or who we'd be defending against. Would you care to expand on that thought?

[jmg257]

86. Not sure about Dr. Cory. But I would definitely like a good defense against

a government willing to drop nukes on it's own citizens, because of a popular uprising.

Since you feel guns wouldn't help, do you have any other ideas?

[zanne]

90. Cat got your tongue, Dr.Cory? nt

[DrCory]

96. Does not...

The word speak for itself? Defense ranging from personal to national.

[DrCory]

88. Who is calling who a liar?? N/T

[DrCory]

53. Perhaps...

The #1 cause of homicide is poverty, hopelessness, and social isolation. Perhaps it's time to start looking beyond the implement. If we're talking about ridding society of devices that cause death, than others take priority I think. Unless you believe that homicide is somehow more important than any other artificial cause.

[DrCory]

55. On the subject of defeat...

Resistance has a value in of itself regardless of whether or not victory has been immediately achieved. Again, history proves this to be true.

[iverglas]

62. go resist something, will ya?

This yammering about other people's lives and deaths is getting nauseating.

[DrCory]

70. Sorry, but I may post my thoughts here...

just as freely as you in this forum, despite your self-appointed status of "progressive" values guardian.

[jmg257]

82. Do you really think our government would drop nukes on it's own citizens?

Because of a "popular uprising"??? If that is the case, doesn't it seem to you that trusting such a terrible group with control of all the guns isn't that bright? IF our govt was willing to drop nukes on a popular uprising, don't you think it would be nice for others to have SOME way to try to fight back and hopefully prevent further attacks? Or do you think maybe by surrendering control of all the guns to the govt., you hope to give in and avoid a reason for a nuclear attack on us, if there was an uprising?

Popular uprisings not handled by the states are to be dealt with by the National Guard, aren't they? Maybe with the "real" military thrown in (thanks to Bush and the Warner Act)? But dropping nukes? That is REALLY scary. Could ANY one defend against such evil - little guns or not? I admit - not likely. So let's hope it never happens. (I don't think it will)

[gorfle]

102. Ask the Iraqis.

Do you really for one minute think that your little guns would protect us from a government takeover?

We've been over this before in this forum, zanne.

History is full of examples of technologically inferior forces successfully resisting technologically superior forces - even in the post-nuclear age.

Vietnam vs. the USA. Afghanistan vs. the Soviets. Mogadishu vs. the USA. And hopefully soon, Iraq vs. the USA.

Ah the old "nukes" chestnut. I think there is a law like Godwin's Law for the first person to bring up nuclear weapons in a firearm discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

The use of nuclear weapons by a government against the very thing it is seeking to take over seems highly unlikely, and has never been seen since the invention of the weapon despite uprisings against nuclear-capable powers (see above).

[iverglas]

43. "So..."

The last resort, and usually first attack, of the person who will then do nothing but misrepresent what has been said to him/her in an attempt to discredit the interlocutor by falsely putting words in his/her mouth that s/he did say and ideas in his/her head that s/he did not think.

I keep thinking that this must be huge fun, and that there's just something I'm not getting, or I'd be joining in and having a smasing time too. But I keep not being able to convince myself that there'd be anything remotely enjoyable about such a dirty little game.

[DrCory]

51. Absurd...

As the poster presents a false dichotomy: "Since your small arms can't protect against nukes, you shouldn't have them". So, what then? Maintain an enormous standing army spread throughout the world covered by a nuclear umbrella? Or, withdraw the armies, demobilize most of them, eliminate nukes, and create a citizen army as an effective deterrence.

[zanne]

65. These little word games are just a facade

For someone who is losing an argument. If you can't beat em', outword em'!

[DrCory]

83. Please explain...

How I am "losing" this argument? I could use some comic relief right now!

[zanne]

84. Please point out where I said "You shouldn't have them".

You are absolutely wrong. I never said that. Don't lie about what I said.

[DrCory]

87. OMG!!

Yet more comic relief! I've viewed this board long enough to know what you stand for.

[zanne]

89. Again; Show me where I said guns should be banned altogether.

You claim to be knowledgeable and thorough. Now either follow through or admit you're wrong.

[DrCory]

91. You really are a gas!!

My god, have I stumbled upon a comedy improv?

Edited for spelling

[zanne]

92. Speaking of a comedy improv, I did a little research on you.

I haven't seen one post that resembles a progressive attitude from you. You don't seem to think Gitmo is that bad, you don't believe in reparations, you think Rev. Wright is both "stupid" and "racist", etc. Gee; you're just a liberal pontificator, aren't you?

I've also noticed that you don't really get along with anybody else on DU. You just like to argue in your own arrogant way. You must be the life of the party at the neighbor's BBQ. Now I don't have to wonder any more. I don't like having my time wasted. You're going on my ignore list. I won't try to have a discussion with a fraud.

BUH-BYE.

[DrCory]

94. Yet ANOTHER arbiter...

of what is and is not progressive!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

106. Zannes ultimate response when losing an argument IGNORE!!!

She can't here you now her fingers are in her ears. That's comedy.

David

[DrCory]

93. Spare me your false indignation...

and show me where I said I was a member of the type of "militia" you alluded to:

I have to question that.

Two can play this game, eh? It's my belief you are a "banner", plain and simple. Don't deny it and debase yourself.

[DrCory]

71. Is that bubbling I hear....

From the pot's bowels, or perhaps words...

"The last resort, and usually first attack, of the person who will then do nothing but misrepresent what has been said to him/her in an attempt to discredit the interlocutor by falsely putting words in his/her mouth that s/he did say and ideas in his/her head that s/he did not think.

I keep thinking that this must be huge fun, and that there's just something I'm not getting, or I'd be joining in and having a smasing time too. But I keep not being able to convince myself that there'd be anything remotely enjoyable about such a dirty little game."

Yes, my vitreous floaters notwithstanding, laughably hypocritical words in light of the following:

"I believe the RKBA is among the most "progressive" concepts to exist"(author is quoting my own statement in post 19).

"And no, I'm actually not talking about shotguns on the walls of cottages in villages by the moors. They weren't there for "self-defence" against teenaged burglars.

And you're not talking about repelling Nazis or expelling tyrants, so don't even try to shit me.

I'm talking about war is peace and freedom is slavery and what I suspect is your personal favourite: ignorance is strength. Ya get enough people believing that one, and ya just might get somewhere with the shit you're actually selling."

Edited for clarity

[zanne]

74. I though gun nuts were not "elitist".

You sound like you have the biggest ego in DU.

[DrCory]

79. Did you just call me a "nut"??? N/T

[iverglas]

37. jeez, talk about res ipsa loquitur

It is in my view a "progressive" concept that all able-bodied citizens should be active participants in the DEFENSE of their homeland and permitted by law to retain the basic tools which facilitate such defense (small arms, single-person portable, no crew served or explosive ordinance) in their possession. The citizen body, when trusted equally with a small, professional standing armed force, to provide for security becomes a genuinely equal and self-reliant partner with the state. If the state governs with the concent of the people, it should have nothing to fear. A massive, armed, and basically trained citizen militia would serve as a formidable deterrent therefore allowing for a dramatic decrease in the size, cost, and monopoly of power currently retained by the professional, standing force.

You channel old Eric on stage maybe, do you?

Yup, that crapola is "progressive". In 1984, in Oceania.

[DrCory]

39. WOW!!!

Thanks for the substantial, intellectual response. :eyes: Care to compose a thoughtful counter argument, or is such not possible from you?

[iverglas]

41. care not to pretend that the world sprang full blown from your forehead last night?

I don't actually need to be spoken to this way by someone who didn't exist until 5 minutes ago.

Do I care to be told what I must do by such?

Nope.

Check the profile, check the post count. You might imagine that if you spent another 5 minutes to find one tenth of one percent of what I have posted at this site -- which might take you three seconds at google -- you just might find something that met your demands.

I guess I'd doubt that, though. Since I can't imagine what "a thoughtful counter-argument" to something that is the purest crapola to start with could possibly be. To make a counter-argument, one has just gotta have an argument to work with. And I'm sorry to say I don't see anything that begins to meet that description.

Maybe you could tell me. What exactly is your "argument"?

[DrCory]

46. Stop It, You're Killing Me!

"I don't actually need to be spoken to this way by someone who didn't exist until 5 minutes ago."

Now that is pure comedy!


Maybe you could tell me. What exactly is your "argument"?

Nice try, but you're smarter than that.

[zanne]

76. Nobody is more intellectual and elitist than you, Dr.Cory!

:puffpiece:

[Hoosier lawyer]

149. explain your home state

It has lax gun laws and is safe,whats the problem?

[DrCory]

60. Care to clarify?

The following statement:

"And you're not talking about repelling Nazis or expelling tyrants, so don't even try to shit me."

Than what, oh venerable sage, am I talking about, as I don't entirely comprehend your inference.

And, while you're at it, how about this? What am I "selling"?


I'm talking about war is peace and freedom is slavery and what I suspect is your personal favourite: ignorance is strength. Ya get enough people believing that one, and ya just might get somewhere with the shit you're actually selling.

[SteveM]

142. Me too!

'That rifle hanging on the wall
of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage
is the symbol of democracy.
It is our job to see that it stays there.'
~ George Orwell as member of Home Guard

[iverglas]

143. was there actually something you failed to grasp?

I'll reproduce it for you, and you can always copy and paste whatever it is you're not getting:


I'm actually not talking about shotguns on the walls of cottages in villages by the moors.
They weren't there for "self-defence" against teenaged burglars.



I wasn't talking about Orwell on guns at all, you see. I was talking about newspeak. But I just knew somebody'd be bringing up the rifles (forgive me, I said shotguns, infinitely more common in English cottages than rifles) on the cottage walls. Sooooo predictable, y'know?

So I wasn't talking about guns on cottage walls. I was talking about Ignorance is Strength.

But knowing that someone would want to be talking about guns on cottage walls, I pointed out that Orwell was talking about collective defence in the context of the rise and spread of Nazism. Not about vile little racist farmers shooting unarmed fleeing teenagers in the back, or anything at all that comes under the Are Kay Bee Eh? as it is preached/practised in the You Ess of Eh?.


If something is still unclear, or if there was something that was supposed to be enlightening in your copy and paste job there, do let me know.

[zanne]

35. RKBA a "progressive" concept?

Talk about putting lipstick on a pig!

[DrCory]

40. A Progressive Viewpoint...

Is concerned with empowerment and equality, not handing the state a monopoly of power. To claim progressiveness yet rely entirely on institutions (police and armed forces) that historically have betrayed the interests and will of the people for security and safety is, well, that very same prettified pig.

BTW, I am not suggesting dismantling those institutions at all, but would like to see a balance of power achieved.

[zanne]

44. The police and military betray the interests of the people?

I'll have to hang in there for awhile and read a few more of your posts, but I have a strong feeling that we're living on separate planets.

[iverglas]

45. it's actually separate centuries

You mean, you can't see the redcoats coming over the hill?

Not that the century in question ever actually existed outside the wilfully blinkered field of vision of a few rich white guys anyway ...

[DrCory]

59. Gee...

I wasn't aware that the history of the 20th century doesn't exist or isn't valid outside North America.

[iverglas]

61. oh, you mean

the history those kids are living. Actually, they're probably dead.

The history of the 20th century blah blah has precisely nothing to do with any of your coded silliness, so why you'd be dragging it in now, I wouldn't know.

[DrCory]

66. Straw Man...

And it would appear he recent history of Nepal, Afganistan (Soviet invasion), and our current situation in Iraq are lost upon you.

There are many other legtimate examples that I may list, shall I?

BTW, just what do mean by "coded silliness"?

[iverglas]

97. yet another question I've asked before

Voice in crying in the wilderness, I am.


And it would appear he recent history of Nepal, Afganistan (Soviet invasion), and our current situation in Iraq are lost upon you.
There are many other legtimate examples that I may list, shall I?

Do, please.

But please start from the beginning. Let's pretend you didn't pretend to have started already.

Afghanistan is an example of a place in which very unpleasant men with firearms succeeded in installing a vicious vile oppressive words fail me really horrible ... well, government would be putting too fine a point on it ... thing that spent the next decade abusing the population?

Okay. I'm with you so far. Not a good thing. The ones they got rid of really weren't all that bad. I mean, they didn't kill girls for going to school. They actually built them schools and sent girls to them.

Nepal? Can you narrow that down a bit? Are you thinking of when the Crown prince got a gun, or some guns, and shot just about his entire family dead? Or however that happened.


Shall I list? Let's see. Places where weapons have been used to overthrow bad governments.

Côte d'Ivoire is going well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war_in_C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivoire

Liberia is obviously a terrific example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia

And Somalia. We wouldn't want to omit Somalia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia

Since I'm not too sure what your point is, I'm not sure which examples will serve best.

Salvador? Guatemala? Chile? The Shah's Iran? South Africa? Those will be where the very bad men with guns took over, and were eventually, after many, many people died, got rid of by people who, oddly enough, had to rely on negotiations, international pressure, ballots ...

Do you actually have one 20th century example of a government being overthrown by force, i.e. by firearm, in a place where there is now a functioning democratic state?

Frankly, I'd be hard pressed to think of one not in the 20th century. Yours very definitely doesn't count. There was no vicious oppression going on at the time, other than the vicious oppression of the African-American population, which didn't break stride. And there was no flowering of human rights and freedoms, and equality, and dignity, and dmocracy, when it was over.

So what exactly is your model? When you lie there with your eyes closed dreaming of the battle to come, what past battles are your inspiration?

Hell, the good guys in the Spanish Civil War may have had guns, and as Tom said, they had all the good songs, and they still lost. Now what was it that got rid of Franco, all those years later? Oh yeah; he died.

As for that current situation in Iraq ... uh huh. Kinda messy, eh? Has any side there installed a functioning democratic state? Is some side likely to?

[DrCory]

98. Oh my...

A Soviet apologist! This is all I need to know:

The ones they got rid of really weren't all that bad. I mean, they didn't kill girls for going to school. They actually built them schools and sent girls to them.

Your refutation is nothing but bales of straw fashioned to resemble a human form, but I suspect you know this. My cites are examples of strategic success, the goal was achieved, In this sense, the object is irrelevant, as the point is proven.

Oh, and are you really so ignorant as to why democracy is beginning to florish in Nepal?

[DrCory]

99. Several others...

that you may wish to consider:

Peru - during the height of the insurgency, the government finally wised up a started to provide arms to the inhabitant of the affected areas. The plan worked rather well, as the Sendero thugs were far more reluctant to storm into villages when faced with armed resistance.

Zimbabwe - However were they able to establish independence, harsh language? Mugabe of course was never interested in genuine democracy, but it is finally overwhelming him.

Mozambique - FRELIMO did a pretty good job on expelling the Portuguese and is still doing so in that nation's journey to representitive government.

As for the Spanish Civil War, are you suggesting the effort was not worth it because of the outcome?
Yes, Franco won, but so what? Should the good guys have never tried in the first place?

How about the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? The partisan resistance throughout German occupied Europe?

It seems you labor under the belief that resistance should not be attempted unless victory is assured.

Remember, arms are neutral and do not serve only "nasty men".

Edited for punctuation/spelling/content

[gorfle]

105. Well said!

It seems you labor under the belief that resistance should not be attempted unless victory is assured.

Very well put.

[iverglas]

114. how sad for you

that you choose to associate yourself with such vile untruths.

[iverglas]

113. somebody else to whom strange things seeeeeeem

It seems you labor under the belief that resistance should not be attempted unless victory is assured.

It seems you can't make points of your own without attempting to assassinate the character of your interlocutor. And I even have actual evidence for how I say it seems, unlike you.


A Soviet apologist! This is all I need to know:

Interesting. I politely avoid pointing out the obvious conclusion from the fact that that YOU have just used the fucking TALIBAN as an example of the good things wrought by men with guns, but you have no compunction about attempting to assassinate my character by stating a conclusion not supported by what I said.


Peru - during the height of the insurgency, the government finally wised up a started to provide arms to the inhabitant of the affected areas. The plan worked rather well, as the Sendero thugs were far more reluctant to storm into villages when faced with armed resistance.

You're fucking KIDDING me, right? "The government" that you're talking about would be the one referred to here? --

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/americas/peru-hr-bck-0320.htm

Human Rights Watch Backgrounder, March 2002
Since the collapse of the corrupt Fujimori government in November 2000 the human rights situation in Peru has improved significantly. During Fujimori's last term in office (1995-2000), Vladimiro Montesinos, the de facto head of the National Intelligence Service (SIN) and a close Fujimori advisor, used a combination of bribes and extortion to control state institutions such as the armed forces, the police, the tax office, the electoral authorities, and the judiciary. Human rights abuses, including extrajudicial executions, torture, and intimidation occurred frequently and were systematically covered up.

... Special prosecutors attached to the Ministry of Justice are now investigating a wide universe of crimes committed under the Fujimori government, including corruption, drug-trafficking, and human rights abuses. The latter include both abuses committed in the context of Peru's counter-insurgency war and those that have been attributed directly to Fujimori, Montesinos, and their political and military cronies. Montesinos is currently in detention in the naval base of Callao, and at least fifteen generals are in jail or under house arrest, including a former army commander-in-chief, Gen. Nicolás de Bari Hermoza Ríos, who is charged in connection with the 1991 Barrios Altos massacre. They are among forty-three military officers who currently face criminal prosecution. Also charged are nineteen members of the "Colina Group," a death squad set up by Montesinos in the early 1990s to secretly eliminate key terrorist suspects, which also harassed and intimidated independent journalists and opposition politicians. Ten former alleged Colina Group members are in detention or under house arrest.

The arrest and prosecution of these former officials is consistent with a ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that found that the sweeping amnesty law passed by the Fujimori-controlled Congress in 1995 violated the American Convention on Human Rights. The military justice authorities have already barred the application of the amnesty to two massacres in which the Colina Group was involved, the 1991 Barrios Altos case and the 1992 La Cantuta case.

The criminal prosecution of former President Fujimori is also proceeding apace. The Peruvian Congress stripped Fujimori of his immunity as former head of state last year and, in September 2001, the attorney general filed charges against him in two massacres (the Barrios Altos and La Cantuta cases). Fujimori, now resident in Japan, also faces prosecution for giving Montesinos a severance payment of $15 million for "services to the nation." Arrest warrants have been forwarded to Interpol in both cases, and Peru is expected soon to formally request Japan to extradite Fujimori.

(Sorry, old news, but a rather succinct description of the government in question.)

You're seriously suggesting that the arms distributed by that government were an aid to the institution of a democracy??

Yeah, now don't waste a minute; I need to be called a supporter of insane self-appointed revolutionary leaders because I point out that the government they were fighting was a corrupt, vicious, murdering bunch of thugs, busy massacring the same peasants they armed when it seemed to be in their interests.

I guess because I supported the anti-Shah movement in Iran I need to be taken to task for the atrocities committed by the thugs who got power when that movement succeeded.


As for the Spanish Civil War, are you suggesting the effort was not worth it because of the outcome?
Yes, Franco won, but so what? Should the good guys have never tried in the first place?

Am I a complete moron? Do I have no morals? Am I a yellow coward who recommends that everyone else be a yellow coward too?

That's really what you're "asking", isn't it? Take the mealies out of your mouth and ask, and I'll answer.


How about the Warsaw Ghetto uprising? The partisan resistance throughout German occupied Europe?

How about them? Did they succeed and did democracy flourish once they had won? Was that what my question was? I thought it was. What's all this diversionary grooming?


Hey, you kind of got me on Zimbabwe and Mozambique. And of course I was neglecting Cuba. Three instances of unpleasant governments being removed by force and replaced with governments that operated in the interests of the people of the country.

So if those are your models, well good on ya, I guess, eh? Overthrow the vicious right-wing gummint of the US, whenever it is finally vicious and right-wing enough for you, and get the Cubans to send you some doctors (as they did to Mozambique) to fill the immediate gap until you get yourselves organized to do things like provide the population with healthcare.


Remember, arms are neutral and do not serve only "nasty men".

No, arms are not neutral. Arms in themselves determine the conditions under which many people in this world live. Their presence alone is the determining factor. And that factor virtually never operates in the interests of ordinary people, your odd exception notwithstanding.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

117. You may be on to something.

You wrote, "No, arms are not neutral. Arms in themselves determine the conditions under which many people in this world live. Their presence alone is the determining factor. And that factor virtually never operates in the interests of ordinary people, your odd exception notwithstanding."

I guess the odd exception would be the United States. You are correct arms in the hands of men willing to use them determined the conditions (freedom) under which Americans live. Thanks for pointing that out.

David

[DrCory]

126. Sorry to dissapoint...

"Interesting. I politely avoid pointing out the obvious conclusion from the fact that that YOU have just used the fucking TALIBAN as an example of the good things wrought by men with guns"

But, I never offered an opinion on the political goals of the Mujihadeen, never said the Taliban were good guys, only mentioned the success of their armed resistance against the Soviet occupation. This is a valid MILITARY example of my point. If you have interpreted otherwise, perhaps your comprehension is as defective as your powers of divination.

You however, did suggest the Soviets were really not all the bad after all:

"but you have no compunction about attempting to assassinate my character by stating a conclusion not supported by what I said."

You said it, apparently ignoring the fact that they really weren't there to build schools in the first place. Imperialist expansion is closer to the mark, which renders whatever "good" they may have done while illegally occupying that nation irrelevant.

As for the Peruvian reference, that was a categorization error on my part as it was never intended to serve as a political example, rather another of the military nature. I am well aware of the character of Fujimori's government. But, the arming program was successful in providing the peasants and village folk some measure of resistance against the "Shining Path". Oh, and I don't perceive any measure of support by you for the Sendero from what you have written. I'll leave the the magical realm of inferring hidden agendas in your able hands.

As for the Spanish Civil War, are you suggesting the effort was not worth it because of the outcome? Yes, Franco won, but so what? Should the good guys have never tried in the first place?

Am I a complete moron? Do I have no morals? Am I a yellow coward who recommends that everyone else be a yellow coward too?

That's really what you're "asking", isn't it? Take the mealies out of your mouth and ask, and I'll answer.

I dunno, what are you? I'm rather confused as to why you would mention the SCW knowing my position on resistance. Yes, I know the good guys lost. Yes, I know Franco died a natural death. What else am I to gather from your cryptic passage?

No, arms are not neutral. Arms in themselves determine the conditions under which many people in this world live. Their presence alone is the determining factor. And that factor virtually never operates in the interests of ordinary people, your odd exception notwithstanding.

Arms have always existed, and shall always be present. Yes, they are neutral, and don't emit mind-warping energies that automatically compel humans to behave as devils. You give the arm as an object far too much spiritual power. When I PM my small collection, I don't suddenly have urges to wreak havoc among innocents. Quite the opposite, they provide some comfort as a measure of defense against those who do have such compulsions. I simply acknowledge that without them, REAL political power is illusionary. Determining factors are social, political, and economic before any inanimate object. It is my belief that there aren't ENOUGH arms in the hands of the good guys. If studying history has taught me one thing, it is that many "bad guys" have an annoying habit of popping into existence in times and places where one might not expect. Sometimes, you see them coming, but I'd rather err on the side of caution and be prepared for when they aren't anticipated.

[DrCory]

137. It's rather unseemly...

To nip first, and then whine when nipped in return.

"It seems you can't make points of your own without attempting to assassinate the character of your interlocutor. And I even have actual evidence for how I say it seems, unlike you."

Uh-huh, rather comic considering your quotes below:

"I'm talking about war is peace and freedom is slavery and what I suspect is your personal favourite: ignorance is strength. Ya get enough people believing that one, and ya just might get somewhere with the shit you're actually selling."

This was your initial response to my statement:

The vast majority of firearm-related websites are not particularily palatable to left-leaning gun owners. That's one reason I hang around here. Speaking for myself, I believe the RKBA is among the most "progressive" concepts to exist. That's why I'm passionate about this subject.

Hmmmm, seems to me you escalated immediately into a personal attack. Characterizing my belief as "Orwellian" which, to someone who is familiar with the work in question, is rather offensive.

So, please spare me the "wounded good-heart" act. It just doesn't work in your case.

[DrCory]

103. What is...

Your opinion of the current political environment of Cuba? There is quite a vocal contingent right here on DU which often proclaims Cuban democracy is superior to our own currently. If you agree, than that certainly will suffice to counter your statement below:

"Do you actually have one 20th century example of a government being overthrown by force, i.e. by firearm, in a place where there is now a functioning democratic state?"

Oh, and however was Mengistu compelled to flee Ethiopia? Incessant teasing about his ill-fitting hat? No, that's not the answer. Being that current day Ethiopia is a functioning parliamentary republic, that should suffice as well.

Edited for grammar

[iverglas]

115. oops

Your opinion of the current political environment of Cuba?

Answered that question before I read it.

Now, I know I have nothing to say worth hearing about regulating firearms because I haven't spent half my life on a shooting range, but I've spent a fair bit of time in Cuba, so I guess my opinion rules in this case.

Yup. The fingers-on-one-hand exceptions proved my rule and found it wanting. I'll just have to be content with the odds being really really bad.

[DrCory]

127. In all honesty...

I would like to know your opinion of the Cuban political system. I have always been quite curious about that interesting island and hope to visit there someday myself.

[iverglas]

132. in all honesty

I don't intend to waste my time.

But hey -- I may go there, and you may not. I'd be rising up against the tyrants denying me my liberty, if I were you.

[DrCory]

138. On second thought...

Considering how you conduct yourself here, perhaps I should thank you for not wasting my time.

[gorfle]

104. The ability....

Do you actually have one 20th century example of a government being overthrown by force, i.e. by firearm, in a place where there is now a functioning democratic state?

The ability to throw off tyranny does not guarantee that one will be able to set up a better form of government afterwards. If one set of petty tyrants overthrows another set of petty tyrants then nothing will change.

This does not mean that people should not be able to overthrow tyrants by force of arms, nor have the means to do so.

Quite frankly, in my unsubstantiated opinion I believe one of the biggest reasons we no rarely see successful uprisings by the people in favor of the people in this modern age is because by and large most of the people around the world are, sadly, disarmed. Instead, what amounts to essentially rival gangs of thugs and religious nuts battle it out to see which gang of murdering, thieving bandits and zealots can wrest control from the other, while millions of the people are brutalized and chased from their burned-out homes to refugee camp to refugee camp.

I've long thought that the solution to many of the areas of strife around the world is not to send shipments of rice but shipments of arms - and put them right into the hands of the people. The conflicts of the 20th century and today displace millions of people - people who have no option but to run. Would they too make a mess of it if they had the means to fight back? Maybe so. But at least they'd have a fucking chance.

[iverglas]

116. sorry, but this makes me fucking sick

I've long thought that the solution to many of the areas of strife around the world is not to send shipments of rice but shipments of arms - and put them right into the hands of the people.

I have to restrain myself from puking every time I see this vicious shit at this place.

Vicious, filthy, anti-human shit.

If you spend 10 minutes educating yourself about the consequences of littering the landscape with AK-47s on a large proportion of the surface of this globe, and will want to talk crap like that, well, I won't be reading it.



http://www.amacad.org/news/scourge.aspx

With a few hundred machine guns and mortars, a small army can take over an entire country, killing and wounding hundreds of thousands

Most media accounts of the 1994 Rwandan genocide emphasized the use of traditional weapons—clubs, knives, machetes—by murderous gangs of extremist Hutu. ...

... Before the killing began, the Hutu-dominated government had distributed automatic rifles and hand grenades to official militias and paramilitary gangs. It was this firepower that made the genocide possible. Militia members terrorized their victims with guns and grenades as they rounded them up for systematic slaughter with machetes and knives. The murderous use of farm tools may have seemed a medieval aberration, but the weapons and paramilitary gangs that facilitated the genocide were all too modern.

The situation there was far from unique. Since the end of the cold war, from the Balkans to East Timor and throughout Africa, the world has witnessed an outbreak of ethnic, religious and sectarian conflict characterized by routine massacre of civilians. More than 100 conflicts have erupted since 1990, about twice the number for previous decades. These wars have killed more than five million people, devastated entire geographic regions, and left tens of millions of refugees and orphans. Little of the destruction was inflicted by the tanks, artillery or aircraft usually associated with modern warfare; rather most was carried out with pistols, machine guns and grenades. However beneficial the end of the cold war has been in other respects, it has let loose a global deluge of surplus weapons into a setting in which the risk of local conflict appears to have grown markedly.

... Nowhere has the relation between the accessibility of light weapons and the outbreak and severity of conflict been more dramatically evident than in West Africa. Liberia was the first to suffer. ...

... Sierra Leon was next. ...

... Much the same cycle of violence engulfed Rwanda—but on an even more horrific scale. The majority Hutu government and the minority Tutsi opposition both had been amply supplied with small arms and light weapons. ...

Similar acts of brutality routinely characterize today's ethnic and sectarian violence. Once competing groups have been armed with automatic weapons, any minor dispute can escalate quickly into a major bloodbath.

The root causes of ethnic, religious and sectarian conflicts around the world are of course complex and varied, typically involving historical grievances, economic deprivation, demagogic leadership and an absence of democratic process. Although small arms and light weapons are not themselves a cause of conflict, their ready accessibility and low cost can prolong combat, encourage a violent rather than a peaceful resolution of differences, and generate greater insecurity throughout society—which in turn leads to a spiraling demand for, and use of, such weapons.

... <which means: lots more, not expecting anyone to read or acknowledge it>

The callousness of statements like yours is a true reflection of what has long been US foreign policy in relation to trafficking in small arms; simply put, to tell the rest of the world: our guns are more important than your lives.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

118. Do you honestly believe

the outcome would have been as bad, had those victimized in some of the Genocides posted above, been armed? What is an unarmed man supposed to do when faced with a group of men with weapons whose collective purpose is to murder him? By all means let's find peaceful resolutions to the conflict's that can be resolved peacefully. Sometimes that though is not an option. Personally if I must die a violent death, then let me die trying to save the life of an innocent person or let me die fighting for my freedom.

David

[gorfle]

121. Precisely.

Many times over the years when I have heard of such mass fleeings of people caused by roaming gangs of thugs roaming the country side with few AK-47s and a beat-up pick-up truck I have wondered how such a ragged gang of thugs could produce such a humanitarian crisis. I have wondered, "Why don't these people resist!" Probably because they have no means of resistance.

I've also wondered what would happen in the United States under similar circumstances. Would we have the courage to stand up and defend our families and neighborhoods? I think so. I remember the Koreans back in the LA riots standing on top of their stores with rifles defending theirs.

I don't think such genocide could flourish nearly as easily here as there precisely because we have the means to stop it right now by ourselves. We don't have to wait years for men in blue helmets to show up.

[gorfle]

120. Yeah.

Vicious, filthy, anti-human shit.

Yeah, how vicious, filthy, and anti-human of me to want the oppressed to have the means to defend themselves.

Although small arms and light weapons are not themselves a cause of conflict, their ready accessibility and low cost can prolong combat, encourage a violent rather than a peaceful resolution of differences, and generate greater insecurity throughout society—which in turn leads to a spiraling demand for, and use of, such weapons.

You know what else small arms and light weapons can do?

They can let you fight back..

You know what happens to the masses when they are disarmed?

They flee to refugee camps as gangs of armed thugs burn them from their homes.

I have to restrain myself from puking every time I see this vicious shit at this place.

And likewise it makes me want to puke every time I see people like you who refuse to acknowledge that sometimes the best way to stand up to oppression is by fighting back.

Much of the rest of the world is a vicious place, and these people are right in the middle of it. They are right in the middle of the armed rebellion that in your lilly-white dream world could never happen here. And just like us, you have absolute contempt for those people having the ability to actually stand up and do something to save themselves from such oppression.

If there is anyone spouting vicious, anti-human shit, it is you.

You who would abandon such oppressed people and leave them at the mercy of the thugs with guns. At least until someone else with guns finally shows up to put a stop to it.

[iverglas]

123. and then comes more filthy shit

And likewise it makes me want to puke every time I see people like you who refuse to acknowledge that sometimes the best way to stand up to oppression is by fighting back.

People like me -- that would be people with brown eyes? People with flat feet?

Surely not people who refuse to acknowledge that sometimes the best way to stand up to oppression is by fighting back -- because to say that I was a person like that would be an out and out false statement. If you know it to be false and said it anyway, it would get bumped down a step on the scale of acceptable conduct in civilized society.

So I guess you're talking about people with brown eyes and flat feet who say things that I don't say, and that you know perfectly well that I don't say.



You who would abandon such oppressed people and leave them at the mercy of the thugs with guns.

Oh look, there's another one. A statement so false I don't know whether I can keep the gag reflex suppressed.

Yeah, me who spent 15 years of my life advocating for victims of thugs with guns who were in power around the world, and organizing solidarity and lobbying on behalf of said victims. If all the volunteer hours I put in at that kind of work had been paid at the average industrial wage, I could have retired by now.

Yeah, me who pays lots of taxes so that Canadian troops can flit around the world on peacekeeping missions. Not enough, especially these days (depending on whether we really want to count Afghanistan), but at least some. More than pretty much anyone, in fact.

I'm sure you've heard of Gen. Roméo Dallaire, since you're apparently so knowledgeable about things like the Rwandan genocide.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/worldspeacekeeper.html

Over the years, more than 125,000 Canadian military personnel have served on peacekeeping missions for the United Nations – more than any other country.

Though the term “peacekeeping” didn’t become widely used until 1956, the UN began deploying peacekeepers almost 10 years earlier. And Canadians have been a part of it since the beginning.

... In total, more than 750,000 military troops and police – more than 125,000 of whom are Canadian – and thousands of civilians from around the world have served as peacekeepers.

Considering the volatile conditions peacekeepers are thrown into, only 1,450 have been killed while performing their duties. This includes 107 Canadians.

One out of six UN peacekeepers (I believe that is counting only from 1965, so not counting our actions in Suez, Korea, and other places before that time) has been Canadian. Canada accounts for 1/6 of peacekeepers and just about exactly 1/200 of the world population. (And that's not counting our cops, who are in considerable demand for peacebuilding work.) Somebody has to pay for that. You don't; I do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeping

Returning its attention to the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors, the United Nations responded to Suez Crisis of 1956, a war between the alliance of the United Kingdom, France, and Israel, and Egypt, which was supported by other Arab nations. When a ceasefire was declared in 1957, Canadian diplomat (and future Prime Minister) Lester Bowles Pearson suggested that the United Nations station a peacekeeping force in the Suez in order to ensure that the ceasefire was honored by both sides. Pearson had initially suggested that the force consist of mainly Canadian soldiers, but the Egyptians were suspicious of having a Commonwealth nation defend them against the United Kingdom and her allies. In the end, a wide variety of national forces were drawn upon to ensure national diversity. Pearson would win the Nobel Peace Prize for this work, and he is today considered a father of modern peacekeeping.

In 1988 the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the United Nations peacekeeping forces. The press release stated that the forces "represent the manifest will of the community of nations" and have "made a decisive contribution" to the resolution of conflict around the world.

There are criticisms of peacekeeping activities, ranging from the inadequacy of the response to wrongoings committed in the course of missions. The concept and most of the activities in no way merit the kind of stupid and vicious commentary you have chosen to spew.


At least until someone else with guns finally shows up to put a stop to it.

What are you talking about here?

The US bombing a psychiatric hospital in Grenada? The US murdering Vietnamese and Iraqis in their millions? The US overthrowing democratically elected governments around the globe over the course of a century and installing murdering thugs in their place? The US refusing to put a stop to the Rwandan genocide by jamming the airwaves, and refusing to vote to send the peacekeeping troops that were needed when the genocide was beginning? What the fuck are you talking about here?




html fixed

[gorfle]

125. How noble of you.

People like me -- that would be people with brown eyes? People with flat feet?

Surely not people who refuse to acknowledge that sometimes the best way to stand up to oppression is by fighting back -- because to say that I was a person like that would be an out and out false statement. If you know it to be false and said it anyway, it would get bumped down a step on the scale of acceptable conduct in civilized society.

So I guess you're talking about people with brown eyes and flat feet who say things that I don't say, and that you know perfectly well that I don't say.

You do a miserable job of playing dumb, Iverglas. Because everything about you I've ever read screams, "Let the people suffer with no means to defend themselves". You can wiggle and squirm and play stupid and pretend that I'm talking about people with brown eyes and flat feet all you want. You and I and everyone else here knows what you are really all about, and it ain't flat feet or brown eyes.

Yeah, me who spent 15 years of my life advocating for victims of thugs with guns who were in power around the world, and organizing solidarity and lobbying on behalf of said victims. If all the volunteer hours I put in at that kind of work had been paid at the average industrial wage, I could have retired by now.

That's all well and good, Iverglas. And as long as you fight to keep people like this at the mercy of people like you, you'll never have a shortage of work to keep yourself occupied. Heaven forbid these people actually have the means to defend themselves.

Yeah, me who pays lots of taxes so that Canadian troops can flit around the world on peacekeeping missions.

Yeah, that's all well and good that you can help send in other people with guns. Too bad the people who need the help have to wait on other people's charity to be able to resist oppression. Heaven forbid these people actually have the means to defend themselves. No no, so sorry, you must wait for the peacekeepers to arrive. And so 9.2 million people flee their homes while they wait for the world to give enough of a shit to help them.

You know what they say: Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Similarly, Give a man a peacekeeper and he stays safe for a day. Give him the means to defend himself and he stays safe forever.

At least until someone else with guns finally shows up to put a stop to it.

What are you talking about here?

I'm talking about peacekeeping troops from other nations who finally show up (with guns) after enough people decide to give a shit to stop the murdering going on in their part of the world. Usually the guys with the blue helmets.

It is sickeningly vile how you advocate keeping other people reliant on your charity for their security and safety and then congratulate yourself for the great work you are doing helping them out. It's like some twisted kind of Munchausen by proxy or something.

[iverglas]

128. filth

sheer dishonest filth.

[gorfle]

130. It's filth alright.

It's filth all right. The more I thought about you on the way home from work the more disgusted I got.

We can sit back in our comfy chairs and talk on this forum about the right to self defense and the ability to resist tyranny back here at home in the peaceful Western World. It's all a rather academic conversation in the end - I've never been the victim of violent crime and I've never had to confront tyranny. It's theoretical. Abstract. Detached.

But here we come to talking about people right now suffering in exactly the kind of situation that our forefathers were concerned about - real people suffering under the oppression of murderous thugs, bandits, and zealots, and sometimes their own governments, and unable to do a damn thing about it because they are defenseless. And people like you would prefer them to stay that way!!! Here we have real people caught up in real armed rebellion and dying and fleeing because they are powerless to do anything else and you have the gall to chide people like me with, "Tut tut, armed rebellion could never happen here!"

You're right. It's filth, and it's vile, and it's disgusting, and it runs counter to everything this country was founded on.

Be ashamed!

[iverglas]

131. and the REASON THEY ARE SUFFERING

is because of PEOPLE LIKE YOU and the profiteers who take advantage of the fact that there is no effective regulation of the traffic in these arms because PEOPLE LIKE YOU obstruct such regulation at every turn.

That is why they are suffering. They are suffering because of the multi-gazillion AK47s that their countries are awash in, that don't care who carries them and who gets killed with them, and that simply get passed from hand to hand and continue killing.

If you knew a single fucking thing about the reality of the world you live in, you would know this.

You would know that before the Hutu massacred the Tutsi, the Tutsi massacred the Hutu. The AK47s that are being used by one group being used as proxies for the diamond and oil interests will be used by someone else before their useful life comes to an end. They have an immortality their victims don't have, and lives longer than many of them. They are not weapons of freedom and democracy -- THEY ARE JUST WEAPONS.


http://www.controlarms.org/latest_news/ak47report-pr260606.htm

Even the weapon's inventor, Lieutenant-General Mikhail Kalashnikov, is calling for tougher controls and, in a statement released to the Control Arms campaign today, said:

"Because of the lack of international control over arms sales, small arms easily find their way to anywhere in the world to be used not only for national defence, but by aggressors, terrorists and all kinds of criminals … When I watch TV and see small arms of the AK family in the hands of bandits, I keep asking myself: how did those people get hold of them?"

... "Out of control and unregulated, AK-47s have been used to murder and maim, fuelling conflict and poverty in the world's poorest countries. One million people from around the world have signed the petition calling for tougher arms control. At this UN world conference, governments must agree global rules for small arms sales and help put an end to this suffering," said Jeremy Hobbs, Director, Oxfam International.

I give money to Oxfam -- one of the organizations I have worked with on international solidarity and domestic consciousness-raising -- because it does the REAL WORK needed to put an end to the deaths and de-development caused by people with AK47s in their hands.

Why is it that I am the one agreeing with organizations like Oxfam and Amnesty International and Doctors Without Borders and every other organization that KNOWS WHAT IT IS TALKING ABOUT and is doing something about it -- and you're over there with MARK FUCKING THATCHER and every scummy arms dealer and brutal fighting force in the world? Oh, and your government, of course, given how it likes to hand out AK47s to things like the Afghan Mujadedeen in its battle for "freedom".

Why do you think you are so much fucking smarter than all those people? And what evidence is there that you give THE LEAST SHIT about any of the people whose lives you want to play with, when you haven't the decency to even know what you are talking about?

There are people and organizations working their asses off in Africa to try to rescue the children who have been victimized by the people with those guns you love so much. Ask them how much freedom and prosperity the guns brought those children, or the dead families of those children.

The only way that a Rwandan genocide could have been prevented by supplying arms would have been if every household ALREADY HAD an AK47 before it began. I know this is your idea of a perfect world. It actually is NOT how the people whose lives you want to play with want to live.

Watch you don't get puke on your shoes. I was already feeling queasy when I woke up today, and I may not be able to hold off much longer.

[gorfle]

134. Bye.

You disgust me. You work to insure that millions who suffer under oppression have no means to resist, and you revel in it. You would do the same to me and all Americans.

Why do you think you are so much fucking smarter than all those people?

Funny, I've been wondering the same thing about you. Why do you think you are so much fucking smarter than the founders of the greatest nation on this planet?

You aren't.

And you are completely undeserving of any further discussion. You are a sheep. Welcome to my ignore list.

[iverglas]

135. thank the gods and little fishies

Welcome to my ignore list.


I don't have one, because I'm not a big baby and I like to watch what certain elements get up to.

But if it means I won't have to read one more drivelling piece of contemptuous and contemptible shit written about people you'd like to use in the service of your vile agenda, at the expense of their lives, dribble out in reply to one of my posts, I'm thrilled.

[DrCory]

136. Have your pail handy...

Obstructionist checking in, and happy to be so against the forces of personal disarmament. I think I understand now, you're absolutely fixated. You've condensed all the world's misery into a single object. Makes sense I suppose, with so much suffering going on about us, objectifying it at least gives one something tangible to work with. Am I smarter? Maybe so, maybe not, but it's not really a question of intellect, rather recognizing a basic human right. Do we have a "right" not be be the playthings of thugs both single and in mass? Well, in some places such protections are codified into law, but the strength of those laws rests entirely on entities willing or able to enforce them. All too often, as history has shown, such protections are tenuous as best. And, I don't really think it fair that folk living in places where the rule of reasonable law either doesn't exist or cannot be enforced should be denied the right of some kind of equatable defense. After all, in the end, who relinquishes their weapons first? Where in that chronology do you think the Janjanweed fall? The blue-helmets come, and the blue-helmets go, but the problems remain, and the weapons have a nasty habit of reappearing quickly in the wrong hands. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that weapons don't fall into the wrong hands, they always have, and likely always will. Keeping that in mind, what are we to do?

[iverglas]

133. by the way

it runs counter to everything this country was founded on.
Be ashamed!

"This" country, i.e. yours, was founded on greed; naked, pig-ignorant, violent, abusive, exploitive ugly greed.

And I won't be ashamed of saying anything that might run counter to that, you can be very sure.

[pipoman]

139. What a great description of European (British to be exact) colonialism N/T

[iverglas]

144. Iraq, anyone?

Philippines? Those colonies in the Caribbean? Hawaii? Vietnam? All those Amerindian territories? War of 1812?

I think so.

Without even mentioning that bit of bourgeois bother in 17-whenever it was.

[pipoman]

145. I was referring to the largest colonialist nation in the history of the world

thinking specifically of the British often forceful colonization of the Americas, Australia, South Africa (and the countless other African colonies), New Guinea, The Bahamas...you know.

[iverglas]

146. so was I

The one that came along a little later and perfected the art of using puppets/proxies to do its dirty work.

Same effect; theft/control of resources. Very arguably more successful as practised by the johnny come lately.

Very arguably also more vicious and murderous.

[pipoman]

147. "Very arguably" indeed N/T

[friendly_iconoclast]

129. Should people just wait to die until the UN gets its act together?

I'll be blunt. If one of the permanent members of the Security Council doesn't want
the peacekeepers to go, they don't go. I would think anyone who read Romeo Dallaire's
book on Rwanda would be well aware of this.

And when and if the peacekeepers *do* get there, what's to say they will be effective?
Or not corrupt? I'm not pointing a finger at the Canadians, they mean well.

A lot of places where the UN peacekeepers are, the locals want to be seen being cooperative. Sometimes the local parties figure the UN troops are an irritation
and ignore them, usually at the cost of a very strongly worded public statement
from the Secretary General.

[DrCory]

108. A tough night...

In the wee hours, I was visited by an apparition strongly resembling Anastasio Somoza Debayle. He seemed more baleful than threatening, bemoaning the effectiveness of arms in the hands of the Sandinistas. Attempting a bit of humor to relieve the gravity of the moment, I joked "I'm surprised they functioned for the Sandinistas, I've been led to believe they work only for bad guys". An error of judgment considering his reply. "So was I!" he cried, and vanished with pop.

Edited for grammar

[DrCory]

67. Besides...

Arms alone, and the availability thereof are NOT the primary causes of the conflicts you reference. Poverty, tribalism, and predatory capitalism are. Arms are neutral, and their use can be just or unjust. What I am advocating is in no way addressed or countered by your graphic.

[DrCory]

47. How many historical references would you like?

I mean, really now, just how naive are you?

[zanne]

49. For your sake, I'll leave that one alone.

I don't talk to delusional people this early in the morning.

[bossy22]

122. to answer

The police and military betray the interests of the people?

sometimes- i don't think it was in the interest of the people to shoot sean bell 40 times on his wedding night outside a crowded nightclub or shoot amidu dialo 50 times in an apartment building......ooo was it also in the interest of the people to beat rodney king

[jmg257]

124. Asks the person who says the govt(military) will drop nukes on the people in the event

of a popular uprising. Now I am not a nuclear weapons expert - but I can not see how THAT supports the interest of the people.

[apocalypsehow]

23. And another thing I've noted about observations such as this, is that the closer one is to the mark

the angrier and more indignant the squealing gets.

And right on cue....

[Name removed]

28. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[apocalypsehow]

30. Gosh n' darn it, what'd I miss in the deleted sub-thread pointing at my humble post here?

Had to log off to attend to other business, and missed out again.

x(

[Longtooth]

31. I know the feeling.

[bossy22]

27. this is not a progressive discussion board

it is a discussion board for progressives and democrats....i happen to consider myself under the democrat group since i am a member of the democratic party and vote democrat in all elections- plus i believe in many of the ideals they hold.

"I believe genuine "pro-gun Democrats" would just be pro-gun Democrats, and if they wanted to talk about guns would create and/or join any number of web sites that talk primarily about firearms."
umm...what is this that we are talking in- its a subforum for gun related topics- you don't see us "Flooding" the environment subforum with gun related issues

"stop rubbish regarding an issue most progressives are on the other side of."
and i care how progressives feel..why??? As i have stated before i am not a progressive (though i may support progressive ideals)- i am a liberal and a member of the democratic party...which encompasses progressives and many others.

[pipoman]

57. How Progressive

What I believe is that genuine "pro-gun Democrats" would scarcely waste their time flooding a progressive discussion board with non-stop rubbish regarding an issue most progressives are on the other side of.

That is the way of the true Democrat? To keep your f'ing mouth shut about party positions with which one disagrees? To shut the f up about party positions which one believes has contributed heavily to the party's electoral losses? To stand by and allow a few outspoken party members alienate vast numbers of traditional Democratic voters resulting in party losses?

I believe that the true pug intruders are those who try to push the party toward issues which repeatedly cost the party wins. Tell ya what, you advocate what you want and I'll promote the positions I feel strongly about...k?

[DrCory]

20. In my youth, four years...

In the Marine Corps (active duty) and would have likely have done more if not for a knee injury.

[krispos42]

32. Actually, that's something of a liberal position

I listen to Thom Hartmann a lot and one of the things he advocates for is mandatory national service when you turn 18, either in the military or in something like the National Forest Service or the Veterans' Administration. It is his opinion that if the military had significant numbers of "draftees", by having everybody in the nation involved in a military action instead of the all-volunteer force we have now (and that Dick Cheney uses as an excuse to not care about them) the nation would be a lot more pro-active against unnecessary war.

He says that many European nations have that kind of mandatory national service and he thinks it partially explains why the French and the Germans were reluctant to help Bush out in Iraq.

:shrug:

[spin]

112. Being in the military teaches a lot of valuable lessons...

You learn discipline, responsibility, teamwork and self reliance among many other valuable attributes. The military takes you out of your home environment and exposes you to many different locations and different cultures. A tour of duty in the military is an experience that will stay with you for the rest of your life. The friendships that you form in the military will more than likely be the closest you will ever know.

Having said that, I need to add that military service can have major drawbacks. If your country has political leaders who send the military off to fight unnecessary wars you may die or suffer serious physical or mental injuries for no good reason. A country like ours may not truly appreciate your service. If you do suffer injury it may prove challenging to obtain proper medical care.

That's why we need to elect good leaders with the intelligence to send the military off to fight only when truly necessary. War should be a last resort to a serious problem that threatens our nation.

[bossy22]

11. national guard

is not a state militia

[gorfle]

100. The militia is not the National Guard.

They should join the militia (national guard) as the Constitution indicates. Then, their asses would be in Iraq and they could really enjoy killing.

You should note that the National Guard of today bears no resemblance in form nor function to the State Militias as envisioned by our founding fathers. The militias were intended to replace or counter federal military power, so as to prevent the federal government from having the means to enforce a tyranny through force of arms. With the Dick Act of 1903 the state militias were federalized, turning them into reserve federal troops, and thus enhancing, not balancing, federal military power.

Further, the Dick Act of 1903 created both the Organized Militia (National Guard) and the Unorganized Militia - all able bodied men aged 17-45 not in the Organized Militia.

[Turbo Teg]

107. Sorry,

the constituiton is not referring to the National gaurd as it was created over 100 years later. Sorry, try again.

[Longtooth]

141. Oops, I guess I should have scrolled down a lot more

before posting that. Sorry Mr. Teg.

[Longtooth]

140. Sorry, the National Guard has nothing to do with the militia

as it was created some 100 years AFTER the constitution was ratified.

[krispos42]

33. Hmmmm....

Conservative states with conservative economic policies and conservative politicians are more likely to be pro-gun. Check.

Conservative states with conservative economic policies and conservative politicians are more likely to have low taxes, resulting in lower education, inferior medical care, fewer workers' rights, and an inferior infrastructure. Check

States that have lower education and inferior medical care are more likely to have crime problems. Check.

States that have lower education and an inferior infrastructure are less likely to have lots of good paying jobs, resulting in more poverty and thus more crime. Check

States that have more poverty are more likely to have both parents working, causing less parental oversight of children, leading to criminal activity. Check

States that have more poverty and inferior health care (especially mental-health care) are more likely to have more suicides. Check



Well, that proves it... conservatism sucks.

[Firethorn]

111. Conservation sucks for other reasons.

low taxes

As the current administration shows, not necessarily. We're simply trading higher taxes for more inflation/debt. Ends up being the same thing. Worse, in some ways.

lower education

Multiple studies have shown that there's almost no correlation between spending and educational effectiveness. Look at DC's public schools, for example.

fewer workers' rights

Can actually lead to more employment as businesses move there due to business friendly policies.

Conservatism does suck, but I don't think that low taxes and such are the real reason. How about their supression of science, wanting to ban reproductive rights and effective education. The whole creationalism thing. Their war on drugs, etc...

Both sides could do with a sane spending policy, with a draconian eye towards efficiency. Corruption and waste are so huge that we could probably keep taxes low and STILL pay for infrastructure if we could eliminate just half of the fraud, waste, and abuse.

[benEzra]

148. Ah, not so much.

The data show no pattern at all, but you can create the illusion of a pattern by cherry-picking your states--or, as they do, by lumping all states into "regions" and stirring the state data together within each "region", and by lumping suicide and homicide together, all of which serves to blur undesired information. But if you just look at the raw homicide rate data by individual state, there is no correlation; the ratios are all over the map, following the other sociological factors that drive differences in the murder rate.

The data for all 50 states and the district of Columbia by individual state, thanks to jlbraun of the High Road:







Data from here, I believe:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/reportcards/2004/details.pdf
http://www.statemaster.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html

Of course, much of the HICRC's work criticizing gun ownership is ultimately funded by the gun-control lobby (the same guy behind a desk at the Joyce Foundation that funds the VPC, gunguys.com, 50 Caliber Terror/FSA, etc.), so it is not particularly surprising that they would group the data in order to achieve the desired outcome, IMO.