When debating guns, it seems impossible to not hear the saying, "Guns don't kill people." If you toss out a statistic about gun deaths, you will hear this retort.
I'm a gun owner. I own them simply because I come from a law enforcement family. I don't have any interest in them at all. Grew up around them. You point, they go bang. But that's not all that guns do, now is it?
Guns give people a sense of power. A command over many. They make men make rash decisions. They embolden people to do things out of arrogance and self-righteousness. If you were walking by a group of three young men whom were clearly out looking for a fight in a downtown area, you might decide to cross the street if you were unarmed. If you were armed, you might say,"Fuck it, I have a right to be here." and take on that path of resistance. A notable example of this being caught on video is the DC detective taking on a crowd for throwing snowballs. He drew his service weapon rather than walking or driving away. Link
There are other things that give people a sense of power and cause them to act as if human life doesn't matter. Cars. How many cases of road rage could we find? Cars are another thing that emboldens people to do stupid things. I had a guy attempt to run me down once while on a motorcycle. I waved him into a parking lot, got off the bike and he disappeared. As soon as I went to get back onto the road, he came at me. Being on a sport bike he had no chance and I was gone. But without a weapon, he wanted nothing to do with me. (Sremmed from him wanting me to pull out into the intersection that was blocked. Bad idea in the US, especially on a bike.) but you know what is rare... Murder in the first and second degree in cars. Killing someone in another car with the first car is difficult. We don't have enough interaction with pedestrians to get that provoked. Guns, however, allow that personal interaction along with the quick and easy solution that will give you that sense of power we have grown to love.
You can say that guns don't kill people because they are inanimate objects and be factually correct. What you ignore is that in a culture like ours where violence is regarded as being manly. Where winning a fight will get you patted on the back for years. Where people crave power over others from sports as a kid to watching movies and fantasizing yourself in the shoes of the successful violent character (Batman, Rambo, Kick Ass). Guns provide that sense of ability to easily win the fight and deliver justice when we feel wronged rather than letting the emotion settle. Gun ownership is the leading cause of homocide, 2 to 1. Nothing else compares.
We have a right to guns in the US. I don't deny that. But denying the reality that without guns we would not have nearly the same number of murders is denying reality. Without guns, people would take that extra second to think rather than simply react. There are anecdotal cases where the right gun owner wins and yeah, let's write that down. But don't forget that each year, there are 10,000 other cases where the outcome didn't have to be what it is. Guns cause people to act in ways that they wouldn't normally act. This is why I reject the claim that "Guns Don't Kill People".
Oh , and no concentration camps ever rebelled and took over the armed guards ... and no Prison facility in the world has ever had an outbreak of prisoners who disarmed the guards. How do you think they did that? They took guns off some of the officers through force.
Do you think if a concentration camp or a prison allowed the prisoners to carry firearms , punishments and inhumane actions could be taken upon prisoners MORE or LESS easily ?
Why should this work no differently than an entire government or state?
Do you think if a concentration camp or a prison allowed the prisoners to carry firearms , punishments and inhumane actions could be taken upon prisoners MORE or LESS easily
If I had to guess, I'd say more. This would just increase the justification for prison keepers to use greater force more readily to surpass and suppress an increased threat from the prisoner population.
You have to remember the prisoner to prison guard ratio is still extremely unbalanced. How would you guess what you did if let's say 10 guards to every prisoner? If EVERY prisoner had a fire arm?
The guards would not even be able to step foot near any of them or else they would get shot or killed
Now you could argue bullet proof glass , electrical shocks from within the cells to incapacitate the prisoner first ... but that isn't what any prison or concentration is like.
The fact is , the prisoners would have a severe advantage and you know it.
Your scenario was if the camp or prison 'allowed' the prisoners to carry firearms. This would never be allowed unless the prison administration was certain they could still muster more force than their prisoners.
It's not so different in our societies at large, either. Military forces substantially outstrip civilians in the type of equipment they have available. It sort of compensates for the difference in numbers.
Even if that wasn't true, it's still a double edged sword. If I commit a crime, and the police come after me, I can't defend myself against them unarmed. If I am armed, I, theoretically, have a better chance of defending myself. Here's the problem though: in which scenario are the police more likely to employ lethal force against me:
a) They believe me to be unarmed, or
b) They know that I am armed?
It's going to be scenario b. Perhaps, if I could gather sufficient force to deal with the police/ military, it would be worth the gamble, but realistically speaking, I can't in most cases. If someone is ever planning to use armed resistance against authority, they have to take into account the actual balance of power.
lol , when did I say the prison guards were 'allowing' the prisoners to carry the firearms in the scenario?
***Edited to add*
Oh , oops. I am an idiot hehehe , I did say 'allowed' but wasn't really thinking ... I wanted a scenario where the guns are put into the hands of the prisoners without the given authority from the guards.
If a small police force entered a densely populated demographic that held guns in their houses , and the police were randomly rounding up all the children and taking them to a 'special place for testing' ... which the adults knew was a code name for something much worse , you think the gun owners would just sit there and allow the children to be taken away?
Your scenario about the police against you is the opposite of MY scenario. One civilian against multiple police. Try multiple civilians against one police officer.
You said it right here:
Do you think if a concentration camp or a prison allowed the prisoners to carry firearms...
... which the adults knew was a code name for something much worse , you think the gun owners would just sit there and allow the children to be taken away?
This is an unrealistic scenario for a number of reasons, but it still doesn't address my point. It has nothing to do with numbers. This isn't the nineteenth century where having more guys means you win. The issue is escalating force. When one side sees that their opposition has more force, they in turn will seek out more force. If they tip the balance, then the other side will follow suit. This will continue until one side runs out of resources or motivation, or it escalates to the point of mutually assured destruction. If you're talking about citizens versus governments, in may cases governments place much stronger limitations on citizens than they do on their own militaries. American citizens will not win an arms race against their government.
The government is not particularly afraid of hand guns.
An Estonian friend actually owned a T-34 tank growing up. Now *there* is a weapon which may give the government a pause. If you really want to effectively threaten the government, get a thermonuclear device or some other means of WMD. Waiving a Glock at Obama will just get you killed.
"If a small police force entered a densely populated demographic that held guns in their houses , and the police were randomly rounding up all the children and taking them to a 'special place for testing' ... which the adults knew was a code name for something much worse , you think the gun owners would just sit there and allow the children to be taken away?"
You mean like how the Jewish peoples around Europe, many of them gun owners and with military experience, violently and successfully opposed the Nazis when they were rounded up and shipped off to concentration camps? The same goes for China under Mao, Soviets under Stalin, Cambodia under Khmer Rouge, or even Rwanda.
Didn't seem as if those with guns fought back against government or rebel forces committing atrocities, and I seriously doubt Americans would dare start shooting at armed police or military.
Isn't the amendment supposed to protect mostly against foreign oppressive forces and not the official government?
We have a right to own guns, but there is a responisbility by State and Federal to monitor and control what is available. No civilian should have cop piercing bullets or Machine Guns etc etc. AND, the rules and licenses need to be strictly enforced.
There are rules against automatic weapons, cop piercing bullets on the other hand are the same bullets that can pierce anyone.
I read all the anti-gun rants and there is nothing new being offered.
If we are to remain realistic then we must accept the fact that guns and their illegal and legal ownership is
here to stay. I live in a rural environment so incidents with guns occur much less frequently. In cities, with the gang and drug element, CRIMINAL gun usage is MUCH higher.
If I awaken in the middle of the night to the sounds of someone in my living room I have two options:
grab the .357 out of the headboard or reach over and chamber the 12 gauge. If someone hears that unmistakable sound they will immediately realize they have seriously phucked up. I do all this with no self-righteousness or arrogance. I do this as a matter of self preservation and protection of my home and family.
If you bleeding hearts want to cower in the corner and hope that this crazy hopped up SOB will have mercy on your soul, go for it. I'll take my chances with Colt or Remington.
I am into no power trips about a firearm. I use them to put food on the table and peace of mind while asleep.
We had some hoodlums try to steal one of our trucks years ago. My wife was home alone. She heard the truck starter turning over. She is properly trained on firearms. She grabbed her Ladies model Smith & Wesson .38 and headed to the truck. When the perp saw her coming with gun in hand he immediately fled into the woods. Now if she had walked up there with a hammer it might of had a different ending.
Folks, guns have their rightful place in our society. Proper education and training ensures their safe operation.
To penalize and jeopardize 99% of the population because 1% decides to use a firearm illegally makes absolutely no sense. Accidents are going to happen but that is where education can make a difference. Programs like the mandatory training here in our state, and most others, to get a deer hunting license have saved many lives already. Education is much more effective than attempts at prohibition and restriction.
Weapons do not kill individuals. Mentally unbalanced or just plain evil people commit murder and mayhem. The
weapon of choice is irrelevant. The victim is just as dead.
honestly Ed, you skipped right over the point and went right into a pro-gun argument. The point of the discussion isn't to talk people out of gun ownership. It's to point out why I find the argument, gun