I admit this may look like Godwin’s Law in action, but in this case the reference is relevant to the discussion due to the distinction between the poster’s country and the country to which he is referring. If the Jews and other targets of the Nazi’s had been as well armed as those “rednecks”, as they are intolerantly referred to here, they would have had a much better chance. Notice Israel is still on the map, despite the fact that they reside in arguably an even more threatening environment than early 20th century Europe.

The first thing an oppressor does is disarm those they wish to dominate. This has been true from Ancient Egypt to the Norman conquest to American (or any) slavery to modern Iraq.

Discussing the American right to bear arms in the context of hunting is a non-threatening way of defending gun rights, but it misses the actual reason the right exists.

If the concept of an armed US populace rising up to fight an oppressive American government seems alien to you that’s because the US government has formed and developed over 200 years under an armed citizenry.

If you think the concept of an armed civilian citizenry successfully defending itself against a modern government force is outdated I would reference, among others, Afghanistan under Soviet oppression and the barely controlled situation in Iraq.

OMG. All these stupid old NRA arguments.

Guns won’t help you when the government comes with tanks, jets, bombs, other high tech gear or AN ARMY etc.
Cars kill people, knifes can kill people BUT they were not designed to kill people.

Fact remains countries with less guns have a much much lower rate of people getting killed by guns. It really is that simple, but simple things are hard to understand for some people.

Ban guns and less people die.

So allow hunting rifles that aren’t able to fire multiple shots and ban everything else.

In Iraq IEDs do the “defending”, not guns.
In Israel american jets, atomic bombs, tanks etc do the defending, not just guns.
Guns wouldn’t have helped an german jewish family with kid when an SS squad or the police came to get them.
A lot of jewish Germans fought for Germany in WWI and had guns. Guess what, they didn’t use them.

All your arguments are lame.

Ah yes, we disagree, therefore my arguments are “stupid” and I have difficulty with “simple things.”

Very compelling.

However your simple fact is incorrect.

From The Cato Institute

6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.

False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel “have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.” A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

IED are weapons, same as guns, and are expressly outlawed. The concept of weapons being outlawed by a occupying force stands.

The concept demonstrated by citing Israel’s continued existence is that only when the aforementioned Jewish people armed themselves, including with guns and bombs and tanks etc. were they able to defend themselves from governments that (still) wish to exterminate them. Also please note my above point that private Israeli citizens have a right to bear arms.

Would guns have helped an individual family against an SS squad? No, that’s a straw man argument. Would the Jewish population of Germany fared better if they had been armed (you’re incorrect, they weren’t) and resisted. I argue that its plausible that they would. Certainly resistance forces throughout history have fared better when armed than disarmed.

Jews were legislatively disarmed in Nazi Germany: Wikipedia 1938 German Weapons Act: Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.

Quote:

While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons — and have begun locking up more criminals.

Source: http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/International/BritvsUSA.htm

Ya.. we should ban guns. that will help… NOT

Quote:

A review of the areas in the U.S. with the most restrictive firearm laws, including such areas as Washington, D.C., Chicago, IL, New York, NY, and the state of California, shows that these areas have some of the highest crime (especially violent) crime rates in the U.S. The crime rates in all of these areas exceeds the national average and they all have enacted in-depth restrictions on firearm ownership that includes licensing and registration schemes, various taxes, testing, and even bans on firearms. In essence, these areas have become a gun control supporters Utopia.

Source: http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/blanks/081400.htm

Man.. gun control really helps! Oh.. the crime is higher in places with higher gun control.. uh… umm… what do we do?

Taking guns out of citizens hands who LEGALLY own guns is not going to help anything. The guns need to be taken out of the criminals hands… And it looks like the best way to do that is to put guns in the hands of law abiding citizens.. The police can’t be everywhere to protect everyone all the time.. A criminal isn’t going to get rid of his gun just because the law says to… So why restrict people who aren’t disobeying the law? Why take away their right and ability to protect themselves.. If you were at school and someone came in and started shooting at everyone in the classroom, you would rather die than have a law abiding citizen there with a gun shoot and HOPEFULLY KILL the MURDERER?

I am apalled that you think it is OK to deny someone the right to own a device based purely on what it *can* be used for. A penis *can* be used for raping. Do you think that we men ought to amputate our penises, just in case?

I’m sorry if you had a traumatic experience involving guns or something, but don’t let that experience rob you of your sanity!

If, on the other hand, you are merely trolling, consider yourself a success in that regard.

So if guns play no role in murder or suicide, what good comes from restricting them again?

It is not the guns it is the people with the guns, I live in Jamaica with strict gun control and the murder rate by the gun is one of the highest in the world, when there was no gun control in the early sixties, the murder rate was very low, among the lowest in the world, That said some of these law abiding gun owners poses a problem when their kids get hold of their guns and take them to school, once again it shows that it is the people not the ownership of the guns something must be done to properly screen people to ascertain that they can own guns and to levy serious charges against reckless parents who own guns and allow them to fall into their children’s hands. Your argument should instead be against anyone or any system that promotes or lauds wanton violence be it using a gun or a baseball bat.

I think it is kinda funny that people think that banning guns will cause a reduction in gun crime. Columbine was perpetrated by people who did not legally own the guns they killed with. VT was perpetrated by someone who should not have legally owned a gun. Banning guns would not reduce the amount of crime, but it would reduce the amount of people who can defend them selves. I don’t think most people own guns to fight the government, but to protect themselves from home invaders, etc. Also, your wanting to ban “assault weapons”, why? A civilian in the US can not legally own a full auto gun, and so there is not real difference between an “assault rifle”, and a “hunting rifle”, except that scary looking pistol grip. Plus, a lot of people go hunting with “assault rifles”, and then they are just plain fun to shoot. You don’t need to get jetskis, but you do. Why? Because they are fun. You can kill others and your self with them, but they are fun. If you don’t want to shoot, cool. Don’t. But don’t expect me to help you when you get mugged and I’m walking by.

If you really want to be an extraordinary better human being, don’t touch any weapon, not even when you try to socialize.

I’m with you, but don’t stop there. We had some one drive into a building where I work to run down an ex-love. If you want to be a better person, don’t drive a motor vehicle. My brother walked in on a college room-mate who tried to do himself in with a pair of scissors. We shouldn’t have scissors either. I don’t have any personal references, but I’ve heard of people doing bad things with hammers too. Oh and knives. I good human being would never use a knife, not even to chop up vegetables! We can make this a better world yet!

“Guns won’t help you when the government comes with tanks, jets, bombs, other high tech gear or AN ARMY etc.
Cars kill people, knifes can kill people BUT they were not designed to kill people.”

See: The Taliban

It’s called insurgency and it works.

oh, my my…

how many pro-weapons bullshit am i reading on this blog’s comments?

You have guns for self-defense? Seriously? WTF??

If you have a gun to defend yourself eg. against burglars, maybe there are some deeper problems in your area. Like, how many burglaries do you actually have? And in how many cases do you catch the burglar and can use the gun? If you regularly have burglaries, maybe invest in better locks. Or help preventing people from getting criminal.

In my life I have never encountered a situation, nor heard from a relative or friend about a situation, where a gun would have helped for self-defense.

Can a penis only be used for raping? No, it can’t, it has other functions. Can an automatic riffle, designed to be as deadly as possible, be used for something else than shooting deadly projectiles? Probably only after customisation or when owned by very creative people.

oh, my my…

how many pro-weapons bullshit am i reading on this blog’s comments?

Hmm, you think people’s positions defending gun rights are “bullshit” and you need someone else to count for you.

That’s a telling correlation.

I am confused… What exactly is the link between firearm and sexism?

Yeah, actually, I do. SURPRISE! I can’t go out and arrest criminals, and the police won’t come in time if I get attacked anyways, so yeah, I got a gun. If I could know where there is no crime, and could go there, then no, I wouldn’t have a gun. but I am not a physic, so I don’t know where that magical place with zero crime is. So, since I have no idea when crime will occur, I have a gun. If you know that magical safe place, let me know, I would love to go there. Oh, and you want a self-defense situation when I gun would have helped? How about Virginia Tech? If just one professor or student had had a gun, they could have taken that shooter who illegally owned guns, down. Then maybe instead of over 30 getting killed, it would have been 5 and a dead shooter. Still tragic, but better. Less lives would have been lost. Another? Luby’s massacre in 1991. 24 dead. If one person had had a gun, and popped the shooter, maybe only a few people would be dead. Laws then forbid the carrying of Firearms, but that didn’t stop the criminal. Campus rules at VT prohibits armed students on campus, but that didn’t stop the killer. Criminals thrive where victims have no means of defense. Whether that is martial arts, knives, guns, taser, etc. Guns are an easy weapon, and with the proper safty, is just as safe as a knife. In face, I would rather be shot that knifed. Knifed, you will most likely bleed to death. If you get shot, there is a chance you will survive, because you don’t bleed as heavily usually.

Try this:

“You have fire extinguishers to protect yourself? Seriously? WTF??

If you have a fire extinguishers to protect yourself eg. against fires, maybe there are some deeper problems in your area. Like, how many fires do you actually have? And in how many cases do you put out the fire and can use the fire extinguisher? If you regularly have fires, maybe invest in fire resistant materials. Or help preventing fires from starting.

In my life I have never encountered a situation, nor heard from a relative or friend about a situation, where a fire extinguisher would have helped for putting out a fire.”

First, if you’ve never been a victim of a burglary, good. I’m happy for you. There are some who would consider you very sheltered. Even those of us who have not been burglarized (or not much in my case), there is still value in being prepared. Just as you (should) keep a fire extinguisher on hand and have a plan for getting the family out of the house in the case of emergency, there are times when you might be foolish not to have a fire arm on hand for protection.

I have a sister-in-law who had to live in a bad part of Columbus when she went to College. Fortunately, she never needed to fire it outside of training, but she had some scares. In recent years, in my current town, I’ve met several people who hunt. Deer is really good if prepared right. And folks in town actually buy the skins and use them. I also know some ranchers who use guns to (try) to keep the foxes, wolves and other wild life from killing all their live stock. One guy lost 30 chicken in one month. One time the fox ran right in front of him to snatch one.

Frankly I don’t really like cell phones. They annoy me. People who talk on them in the store, in traffic, in the hall way at work when they should be doing something annoy me. But cell phones aren’t evil and neither are those people. I’m glad you have no use for a gun. Don’t buy one.

But quit vilifying those have have a use for them. I particularly dislike that. People who get so irrationally frightened by guns. It reminds me of the bunch of geo-hashers transcended on some ranchers farm. When the Rancher, who happens to have a gun rack mounted in the rear window of his pickup, (as is the way with Ranchers) drives up to see what’s happening on his land, the geo-hashers freak out and act like he’s going to kill them … just from the sight of a rifle mounted in a truck. (http://entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/15/1529235)

Sometimes when the world looks all wrong to you, it might just be that the world’s not the one who’s wrong. Look closer and quit daemonizing my neighbors, friends and co-workers.

Thanks,
Edd

It would appear that shermann considers people who are sexist and people who own guns are both equally evil. They’re all as bad as killers. And copyright violators I suppose.

I’m just curious why this showed up on a blog roll for Ubuntu?

Edd

Make sure to sign up for going to the gun range tonight! https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UDS-L/FiringRangeNight

Oh, and you want a self-defense situation when I gun would have helped? How about Virginia Tech? .
Well, I think that’s not a great pro-gun example… Don’t you (in the general sense) always claim that stricter gun laws won’t keep anyone from buying guns and that the bad ones are the illegal weapons?
Washington Post: Guns were easy to come by

Sexism can only be a negative thing. Weapons however, can be used for self-defense. Or would you not take up arms to protect your loved ones? Because I’m sure that’d make you a better person…right.

That’s a pretty narrow minded view about firearms.

I use to have the same sort of view back when I lived on the East Coast crushed in a sea of humanity of urban and suburban environments. But now that I’m in Alaska where there are vast expanses of people-less wilderness and hunting for food (as compared to trophies) is a dominate cultural element for the civilian population… my opinion is a bit more nuanced. I didn’t even bat an eyelash when my wife told me that their lab went to the shooting range to celebrate a graduate student’s thesis defence as a social activity.

But I do smirk a bit to think that a group of people brought together by the phrase “humanity towards others” would collectively choose to go to a firing range as a social event. It’s ironic.. in a rain on your wedding day sort of way.

-jef

Heh. Good point there. Hopefully will keep down all those people screaming about every single tidbit.

it’s less rude if you don’t personalize this issue (i’m referring to the point of defending the loved ones)

besides that, overall self-defense lethal weapons ever did more harm than good

let alone crazy devices like shotguns, automatic rifles or whatever…

however, actually i don’t find that strange to socialize through guns in a controlled and safe environment (like a proper shooting range), at least not in texas… i guess that could be like eating sausages/drinking huge glasses of beer in germany :D

I can kill someone with my laptop if I wanted to.. No more computers! How retarded are we going to get?

You can use a car for “murdering children, women or men”. Guess we have to get rid of those.
You can use a knife for “murdering children, women or men”. That will make it tough to cut my next steak.

The list goes on. Believe it or not, the vast majority of guns that are discharged in the States are for hunting game.

From what i gather this was a social event and people are free to do what they like in their free time.

Sexism, however, is a disadvantageous and discriminatory to whatever sex is being is being prejudiced, some people choosing to go to a firing range isn’t. It’s no different to them choosing to go sky-diving, laster quest, paint balling, etc- none of those activities are of any detriment to the community. People excluding others or making them feel uncomfortable based on their gender is.

Hunting rifles that have to be loaded one bullet a time are OK for qualified hunters. But a lot of US redneck that can’t think out of their “right to own arms” tiny world defend having M16s and 12 round nines etc.

Bright people/nations get it, dumb don’t. That is just the way it is.

M16s are fully automatic assault weapons that are virtually impossible to own by civilians in the US. Check your facts. And what does firepower capacity have to do with deadliness? I am pretty sure many wars were fought with single shot muzzle loaders….

Law abiding gun owners/carriers have an enormously better chance of ending a murderous rampage by someone who has no regard for the law. Guns in the hands of good people save lives. “Gun free zones” ensure that only people who don’t mind breaking the law will carry guns there, and that no one will be able to mount an effective defense. Police and military are great, but when people are dying by the second, do you really have minutes to wait? Just think if even one adult at Columbine (and I live in Colorado and through Columbine) had a weapon, how many lives could he have saved! Further, in order to be competent with such dangerous things, people need practice. Practice is a fun and bonding experience too. So why not make a social event out of something so vital for the lives of our fellow citizens?

We are now at the 1 year anniversary of the Mumbai terror attacks. Mumbai has very strict gun laws and no one in the whole huge city could mount an effective defense for many hours. Again, law abiding people with guns save lives.

Please, open your mind to who carries guns legally and who carries them illegally. Gun laws only affect those who want to use them legally.