Michael New. Skar?

[Archon]

Which is why people are making a stand now, because if the government DOES take away guns, many citizens will either A) start a revolution while they can, or B) stash the guns illegally, and wait for when the time is right.

The reason we can't trust our leaders is (this is my own personal theory) that there hasnt been a reversal of power in so long. The Democrats and Republicans have held all of the political power for so long that they know that people don't have a different choice. They have been too long in power, and power corrupts. I believe that we should elect a Libertarian president so that we could start to cut the government back down to size, but I doubt it will happen any time soon.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

sure, that's a great approach. but it's not an either/or proposition. While we're wroking out a way to always trust our leaders, we need to do be able to do soemthign in the mean time. Surely you recognize that being able to trust our leaders always is a long term project. In the mean time, we have to be able to counter the symptoms.

Also, as a realist, I don't think we'll ever be able to always legitimately trust our leaders that way. It's just counter to human nature. If we CAN always trust our representitives, then we're probably REALLY close to always trusting each other. So gun control becomes moot.

In short, I agree we should work on getting honest representitives. But if it even CAN happen, it's not going to happen tomorrow. So symptoms must be dealt with.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

as for the government taking them now. That's why we have to fight to keep them now. So we'll have them when they try to take them.

[Master Xaio]

I haven't had access to internet, so my replies are a bit late.

Outcast - excuse me if I take the word of people who are trained for combat over the word of 15 year old Australians.

Of course you're excused Entropy    You ignore what I'm saying, and we'll both ignore that I've been training in hand to hand fighting for the last five years, under some of the best martial artists in the world.  Plus I had a chat with some ex-army and other martial artists about it -- they agree with me.

yes, a  gun is a weapon with no other purpose. So are bows and arrows, spears, crossbows, nunchucks, and bolas. Banning all those too?

That doesn't really hold up SE.  Mainly because those weapons are from a different period, and are largely obsolete in the contemporary armed forces (Well, that I know of.  I can't say I've seen any marines or SAS running around with spears or bow and arrows, but hey).  Not to mention the fact that half of them are also used as hunting weapons -- and I think you'll find that they were originally designed as hunting weapons - not the nunchucks certainly, and I don't know about the bolas, but the others....

why do I bring it all up? There are people in the world, people in our own governments, people that were chosen by the populace of nations in fair and equitable ways that we CANNOT trust because they can do HORRIBLE things in those positions. If the people of my nation elected a man who began to infringe my freedom to peacefully worship, or speak, or congregate, I sure as heck want revolution to be a realistic option. These are things that can be done, realistically, in THIS day and age. just because the people make a choice doesn't mean they've made a wise choice.

See, I don't know about you, but I'd be wanting to be trying to resolve it any other way before even thinking about revolution and likely war.  And I'd rather think towards resolving it peacefully, instead of preparing for violence.  Thats the kind of thinking that starts wars, and makes you need guns.

My argument is that BECAUSE a gun is a weapon it should be legal.

Excuse me?  So... if you follow that through, you are saying that everyone should be armed.  And if you also agree in equality, then ideally everyone in the world should be armed.  Doesn't that seem to you to lessen the chance of peace, and increase the chance of war? And a much more devestating war?

Are you really so naive as to think that the governmental structures that exist now are permanent? that they can only get better? in a world where people can crash airplanes into skyscrapers, can you really believe that? History is not linear my friend. Sitting back and thinking all is well will eventually get you stuck with no freedoms. The people who framed all these democratic governments you love were positive of that. Thomas Jefferson (know him? The guy who WROTE the American Declaration of Independence) even went so far as to say that each generation should have its own revolution. He did a pretty good job establishing freedoms, I'd think. Yet even he thought that just in the course of a single generation, things could change enough to require a new revolution to put things right.

See, as I said earlier, I would rather go a peaceful path than a warlike path.  I can fight if nessercary - I choose not to.  And if there has to be a revolution, I'd rather it be a peaceful one.  As an example, remember all the vietnam war protests? I don't know what they were like in the US, but I do know what they were like here, as my dad was the leader of them in brisbane.  They were completely peaceful, yet undeniably effective.  We ended up pulling out of vietnam.  I don't want to spark a discussion/arguement of the vietnam war, I just want to demonstrate the effectiveness of the people without guns.

(Continued next post)

[Master Xaio]

and what about the fact that none of you Australians are willing to speak to. The one I've asked about at least twice. Gun violence dropped, yet homocide rose in that same year. This single fact pretty much invalidates everything you've said about guns making things less safe.

My apologies if I haven't answered this before - it hasn't been deliberate.  I can honestly say I don't know about this.  I'd have to look at the statistics, and their context etc.  I'd also want to look at it over a period of several years, because the trend of just one year isn't enough to convince me.

However, whatever it says, I still stand by what I believe.  I agree with gun control, and I'd much rather a peaceful solution, than automatically preparing for war and being in a mindframe which advocates war, and you could even argue led to the atrocities in Iraq.

Speaking of questions, you still haven't answered mine about guns.  Thinking of all the people out in the world, all the idiots, would you really like to what is in many ways putting your life into their hands, by giving them guns?  By putting guns into the hands of people like, say, the washington sniper?

Guns don't force anyone to commit inappropriate violence anymore than alcoholic beverages force people to be alcoholics.

Yes, well, this is a whole other debate.  What you are saying here isn't proven at all.  There is both proof for and against so... I must just leave that.  However, I will say that I disagree with you on this count.

I believe that we should elect a Libertarian president so that we could start to cut the government back down to size

Exactly.  But last I heard, you don't need guns to elect someone.  

[Entsuropi]

Of course you're excused Entropy    You ignore what I'm saying, and we'll both ignore that I've been training in hand to hand fighting for the last five years, under some of the best martial artists in the world.  Plus I had a chat with some ex-army and other martial artists about it -- they agree with me.

How do you support your ego? Concrete supports? Superdense alloys?

and I think you'll find that they were originally designed as hunting weapons - not the nunchucks certainly, and I don't know about the bolas, but the others....

And they were, for thousands of years, used as instruments of war. And I am certain that in the far future when wars are fought with lasers or psychic powers, chemical propellant weapons will be the same level as spears. And nunchucks are mildly illegal here as well, incidentally. The police got tired of people braining people to death with them.

Excuse me?  So... if you follow that through, you are saying that everyone should be armed.  And if you also agree in equality, then ideally everyone in the world should be armed.  Doesn't that seem to you to lessen the chance of peace, and increase the chance of war? And a much more devestating war?

Mutally Assured Destruction. Know this term. Love this term.

See, as I said earlier, I would rather go a peaceful path than a warlike path.  I can fight if nessercary - I choose not to.  And if there has to be a revolution, I'd rather it be a peaceful one.

If wishes were horses...

[Archon]

You twisted that around, or you misunderstood. I do not want a revolution. A change in government through the current system is what I want. A Libertarian president would be a good step toward this. A revolution is a last resort, a drastic step. Since the government isnt bad enough to warrant drastic measures like this, I dont see revolution as a logical step right now. Being more Libertarian with government is the step I would currently take. In short, the two are completely separate.

Speaking of questions, you still haven't answered mine about guns.  Thinking of all the people out in the world, all the idiots, would you really like to what is in many ways putting your life into their hands, by giving them guns?  By putting guns into the hands of people like, say, the washington sniper?

They don't make I.Q. tests mandatory to have any of the other rights in the Bill of Rights. You dont have to be a genius to get a driver's license. (Not saying that people in the military aren't smart) You dont have to be brilliant to be a grunt in the military either. The military supplies soldiers with more dangerous weapons than civilians have. Yes it is scary to think that there are dangerous people with guns, but I dont think that it is possible to get around that, gun control or not. I also take comfort in the fact that I am a better shot than some, perhaps even many, and I will be allowed to own a gun someday.

[Master Xaio]

How do you support your ego? Concrete supports? Superdense alloys?  

Hell yes! Bring them both on.

If wishes were horses...

Truth.  But if we don't have some idealism, then we're not going to improve anything are we?

Yes it is scary to think that there are dangerous people with guns, but I dont think that it is possible to get around that, gun control or not.

Maybe I'm missing something big here - but surely you can get around dangerous people with guns by taking away guns? Cause then, they're y'know, not dangerous people with guns?

as for the government taking them now. That's why we have to fight to keep them now. So we'll have them when they try to take them.

No offense, but who's doing the 'conspiracy' thing now?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

you continue to be exceedingly good at either not seeing the point or willifully ginoring it. I challenge you to quote me where I said that everyone should be armed. I never put it in those terms, yet you say that I did. Where was that? You've given an incredibly false sillogism with your armed public + equality = everyone on the planet with a gun. I believe there are people who have given up their rights by violating lawful measures. You commit crimes, you lose the right to vote, and you lose the right to bear arms. We also don't give driver's lisences or voting priveleges to the mentally incompetant, so why would that mean I'm obligated to give them guns? This means not every crazy on the street has a weapon.

As Entropy said, M.A.D. Despite all the fear about them, only two atomic/nuclear weapons have been used offensively. Ever. The presence of such weapons does not mean that everyone is willing to go using them on a whim. In JP's view, I apparently have a dim view of humanity. I have to counter by saying that your view that simply owning a gun will inspire someone to shoot another person belies an even greater lack of faith in human nature.

It's nice that you want peace. It doesn't always work that way. It takes war sometimes to assure freedoms. Freedom is more important that peace. It has more value. I would rather have to fight to defend my family than live under oppression.

I fail to see how the archaic nature of certain weapons bears any relevance. Nor what they were used for. Guns can be used for hunting, much more effectively certainly than spears or arrows. Your point?

Yeah, those peaceful protests have been extremely effective in oppressive governments. No one was run over with a tank in Tianamen. No one was shot in order to install the Soviet Government. No one was killed or tortured for resisting the Third Reich. An anti-war protest in a government hardly compares to trying to make changes in a governmnet that is actively gutting your rights.

Oh, and here's my favorite from you:

However, whatever it says, I still stand by what I believe.  I agree with gun control, and I'd much rather a peaceful solution, than automatically preparing for war and being in a mindframe which advocates war, and you could even argue led to the atrocities in Iraq.

Permit me a paraphrase: "No matter what the facts are I'll never change my stance." I think this discussion has become pointless than.

But two more:

Yes, well, this is a whole other debate.  What you are saying here isn't proven at all.  There is both proof for and against so... I must just leave that.  However, I will say that I disagree with you on this count.

There is no evidence, especially not conclusive evidence, that guns lead to more violence. You can point out numbers all day that the US has more gun-related deaths than Australia. However, that in absolutely no way indicates that there is more VIOLENCE in the US because of guns.

Maybe I'm missing something big here - but surely you can get around dangerous people with guns by taking away guns? Cause then, they're y'know, not dangerous people with guns?

That's besides the point. Yes, as I said before, you get away from dangerous people with guns, but there's no evidence that it truly removes the actual DANGER. There's still dangerous people out there. THey're just going to hit you with knives, clubs, fists, or whatnot (or illegal guns, which we already know are out there).

[Entsuropi]

AFAIK, the US has higher murder rates right across the board than most western countries, but lower robberies, corruption rates, and rapings rates.

Maybe I'm missing something big here - but surely you can get around dangerous people with guns by taking away guns? Cause then, they're y'know, not dangerous people with guns?

These people being the gangers you are so stressed about?

[Skar]

It's nice that you want peace. It doesn't always work that way. It takes war sometimes to assure freedoms. Freedom is more important than peace. It has more value. I would rather have to fight to defend my family than live under oppression.

Actually, freedom always takes war to achieve.  The default state of the world is most people being oppressed/controlled by few people.  That state is at the bottom of the political gravity well if you will.  Even in the United States, the most free country in the world bar none, some politicians are always trying to move in this direction ergo bigger and bigger government.  

The populace having guns helps keep "the guvmint" under the thumb of the people.  Power to the people.

[Archon]

Maybe I'm missing something big here - but surely you can get around dangerous people with guns by taking away guns? Cause then, they're y'know, not dangerous people with guns?

Yes, you are missing something big. Like the fact that, gun control or no, the really bad people who want guns, can get guns. If someone that you should be afraid of wants a gun, they can get it. Some of these people can make guns. Not many, but those that can't can find illegal places to get guns. Look at how under control drugs are. The government can't eliminate those either. People will find ways to get what they want.

[Lieutenant Kije]

Everyone else please ignore this post.  Archon: I need your Diplomacy orders!

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

he wants to cede all his territory to Austria

[Master Xaio]

Yes, you are missing something big. Like the fact that, gun control or no, the really bad people who want guns, can get guns.

Okay, to use the washington sniper example.  I'd say dangerous person/people, yes?  But... from what I understand, they were civilians.  Who most likely wouldn't have been able to get guns.

These people being the gangers you are so stressed about?

Meesa no comprende your meaning senor.

Permit me a paraphrase: "No matter what the facts are I'll never change my stance." I think this discussion has become pointless than.

I wasn't really that clear with what I meant here.  Whether or not Australia or the US is the more dangerous/safe, I still am for gun - control.  Perhaps I am cynical, but I don't trust my life into the hands of people like the columbine shooters, and the washington snipers, and all the people on the street in the US with guns.

There is no evidence, especially not conclusive evidence, that guns lead to more violence.

Thats actually not true.  I think you'll find there has been a fair few studies done about it.  But as I said, its a whole other issue.

This means not every crazy on the street has a weapon.  

No, but without gun control, there sure is plenty of them with guns.  You can't deny that.

I fail to see how the archaic nature of certain weapons bears any relevance. Nor what they were used for. Guns can be used for hunting, much more effectively certainly than spears or arrows. Your point?

Because they are a lot more rare these days, a lot less used and available, yes?

It's nice that you want peace. It doesn't always work that way. It takes war sometimes to assure freedoms. Freedom is more important that peace. It has more value. I would rather have to fight to defend my family than live under oppression.

I fully agree with you.   I was never saying that I would want to live under oppression - I think you misunderstood.  I'm just saying that I would rather not have everyone in the country armed, and that much closer to war because of it.  Sorry, but thats just the way I feel.

Even in the United States, the most free country in the world bar none, some politicians are always trying to move in this direction ergo bigger and bigger government.  

Is it really? If you feel you need guns to defend against your 'free' government?  Sure, I don't like our government.  And I don't like a lot of its decisions.   But I don't feel that I need a gun to defend myself against it.

Yeah, those peaceful protests have been extremely effective in oppressive governments. No one was run over with a tank in Tianamen. No one was shot in order to install the Soviet Government. No one was killed or tortured for resisting the Third Reich. An anti-war protest in a government hardly compares to trying to make changes in a governmnet that is actively gutting your rights.

Is the US government oppressive or not? Cause I'm getting conflicting opinions it seems from people on the same side.

I don't have a lot of time, so I'll leave it at that, and I'm sorry if I didn't answer some of the points.  SE, I don't want to stop this discussion, I find it very interesting and I'm also very much enjoying, don't get me wrong.