THE WISDOM OF ARMING IN SELF DEFENSE

I do not recommend going hunting. I suggest remaining where u r (or going home)
and remain peaceful until someone becomes violent with u.





David

Early USA was not a powerful country. It was surrounded by colonies of powerful countries. They wanted a cheap militia without having to buy them guns. If it wasnt federally mandated then the states might have gone their own way, banning guns.

Why does the USA have the highest ownership of guns and the highest incidence of gun crime ? Coincidence ?

The foundation for the absence of jurisdiction
to control, or even to influence, guns is in the Bill of Rights
in the Supreme Law of the Land. If that did not exist,
then the states might possibly have power (depending on their own constitutions)
to interfere with gun possession, or anything else.


I don 't accept your premise.

Thats what I said. We are in agreance. But why ? Read my opinion on why and comment please.

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


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership America has 90 guns per 100 citizens.

I ask again: Why does the USA have the highest ownership of guns and the highest incidence of gun crime ? Coincidence ?

Y WHAT? I will infer that u ask the reason that we arranged
our political system, our social/political contract, the way that we have.
(I find u to be a likeable fellow, by the way; there 's intense acrimony and bitter rudeness here
while discussing disputed political philosophy. It's refreshing to find someone jovial n polite.)

My nation was born of a libertarian revolution against constituted authority.
The Founders of the American Republic knew that human nature
was eminently untrustworthy insofar as respecting personal freedom was concerned
and thay knew that more, future revolutions might be necessary
to restore the citizens' personal liberty that fell victim to future usurpations
of political power, in the name of the common good (or political correctness).

Accordingly, the Founders desired that in such a future confrontation, the citizens woud WIN,
and thay needed the tools to make that happen (again).
To this history of philosophy we add the historical fact that
in the 1700s, when my nation began, there were NO police
neither here, nor in England -- not until the next century; self-defense was a personal matter.
Everyone was expected to attend to his own defense from
the violence of man or beast. There survives a letter from
Thomas Jefferson to his 12 year old nephew, wherein he
cautions the boy always to take his gun with him,
when he goes out for a walk, and to practice for proficiency with it.

During Colonial Times, it had been against the law to go to Church in an unarmed condition.
(Apparently, thay had been losing too many Christians on the way to Church.)
In the spirit of modern law requiring use of seatbelts while driving,
it was deemed irresponsible to go around unarmed. I still see it that way now.




OK, Ionus: I read your link.
My first comment is that your definition of "gun violence"
includes suicide (I defend any person 's ABSOLUTE right to end his Earthly life
at any time of his choice, with no apologies, like Jackie Kennedy, who used drugs.)
Your definition of "gun violence" also includes self defense
(like when I took MY gun out, without firing a shot, or even aiming it)
and it includes law enforcement, as well as hunting and TARGET SHOOTING. I can 't take that seriously, Ionus.
That is my comment.






OK, admittedly, it is a little embarrassing that ten percent
of the citizenry (apparently) are unarmed.
I can 't claim that we r absolutely PERFECT, but we r good. 90% are pretty good.






One answer is that unless everyone is exactly equal, SOMEONE has to have the highest,
however, there is something else. (Note that I hold political correctness in contempt,
and try to avoid it, in favor of the actual facts.)

When I was practicing law, as a trial attorney, every day in Court,
I beheld the same sight: a daisy chain of prisoners,
chained from wrist to wrist to wrist, on their way to arraignment.
Once in a while, there was a white one or a Chinaman, but nearly 100%
of the prisoners were of the same race, every day of the week for years on end.
The statistics of the crimes of that particular race are dragging the rest of us down, statistically,
relatively to other countries or nations. (If that be racism, let us make the most of it.)
I have long advocated permanent or very long term ISOLATION
of violently recidivistic felons who shoud be prevented
from having access to the decent people.




There is another point, worth making in my judgment:
personal possession of defensive firearms pervasively kept thru out the citizenry,
in my opinion, tends to support a feeling of independence from the collective
for personal security (like its more reliable to call .357 or .44 than 911).
It tends to give rise to an Individualistic spirit, an anti-communitarian spirit
in favor of personal hedonism and selfishness, rather than concern for the community,
which is much healthier and supportive of individual freedom.
I like that. I support that. I donate cash to that. I vote for that.

I choose to live in a polity wherein the community and its henchman: government,
look up to the INDIVIDUALS who constitute it and created it, like GODS whom society worships,
with collectivism kept heavily trodden down under foot, or put away as a pariah,
like a wet, dirty dog at a formal wedding.





David

IMO, gun ownership with poor social conditions can lead to an increase in gun violence, which can lead to more gun ownership and so on. The more guns that are owned by a society, the easier it is for loonies to get their hands on them and massacre people.

Switzerland has the same murder rate as Australia but far more murders by firearms. Switzerland and Israel are countries where reservists keep guns at home and because of this have a very high percentage of gun "ownership". Given the relative internal peace of Switzerland, I cant help but wonder if there would be less murders if there were less guns.

By the way, big bad dave, you put forward a good argument. It has gone someway to making me think hard about my stance.

What DIFFERENCE does it make how hard or easy
it is for them to acquire them? Thay WILL acquire them, if such be their choice,
the same way that thay will acquire marijuana, or heroin,
or as we got alcohol in the 1920s Prohibition. If thay wanna get
the guns then thay WILL get the guns whether it is ez or hard.
Y is it so damned wonderful if u made them do it with difficulty, given thay will succeed regardless ?


Suppose that someone offended u and yours so badly
that u decided that only homicide is a sufficient vengeance;
woud u decide to kill him ONLY if u coud get a gun??
Were there fewer murders before guns were invented ??

Have u EVER in your life, heard any criminal say that
he 'd have liked to have committed a robbery or a murder,
but he did not because it was too hard to get a gun, so he just forgot about it??
I have not.


It is very rare; (almost unheard of) that any denizen hereof
is conscientious enuf or honest enuf to admit reconsideration. KUDOS!





David

david ol pal, the fact that there is even a debate on the subject is proof enough for me were all fucked.

I know you've mentioned this before.
Could you give me a reference for it?
I'm a bit dubious and I'd like to read up on it.

Check the Virginia Colony laws of 1631.

(I am not certain that law remains in effect.
It coud be possible that u can legally get into Church now even without a gun, if u r in Virginia.)



David

Thanks.
Be hilarious if it was still in effect.

"Deacon Mathers could not be with us today, he's out of ammo."

All persons whatsoever upon the Sabaoth daye shall frequente divine service
and sermons both forenoon and afternoon, and all suche as beare armes shall
bring their pieces, swordes, poulder and shotte. And every one that shall
transgresse this lawe shall forfaicte three shillings a time to the use of the
churche, all lawful and necessary impediments excepted. But if a servante in
this case shall wilfully neglecte his Mr’s commande he shall suffer bodily
punishmente.

Tyler, Narratives of Early Virginia, 271-272, 273.

I found it. Man, they weren't fooling around. Church twice on Sunday.
By law. Guess the freedom of religion thing hadn't quite kicked in yet.

From a quick Google:

Colonial Gun Laws

The senate report continues with colonial history.
“In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were 'well armed';
in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on
Sunday and to 'bring their peeces to church.' [emphasis added by David]


In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house
and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase
a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government,
which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so.

In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that
not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and
in 1644 it imposed a stern six-shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed."