Guns vs crime in Brazil

[Cyrus]

Those guys in Brazil must not have heard of the benefits of handguns in combatting crime.


CNN Report (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/07/24/brazil.guns.ap/index.html)

[MMMMMM]

Brazil would have an extremely high crime rate with or without guns. I have Brazilian friends from the 80's and they have told me much about how things are in Brazil. Corruption is rampant and crime is rampant and if you are rich you can basically get away with anything there, even murder.

Brazil has also long had more restrictive gun laws than the United States. Same with Russia. Guess those gun laws didn't do much to stop gun crime there, though, eh, Cyrus? Both Brazil and Russia have long had both more restrictive gun laws AND higher gun crime/violent crime rates than the USA.

Of course now that Lula, a Far Leftist, has been elected in Brazil, the government has begun going about confiscating guns. Typical commie-type behavior throughout history. When the guns get pretty well confiscated that's when governments generally start arresting, imprisoning and murdering dissidents. How blind does one have to be to not see this historical pattern in far left governments?

[Cptkernow]

No pattern of arresting/torturing/killing dissedents by rightist governments in South America. (Often backed by the good ol US of A).

[MMMMMM]

Obviously both Left and Right governments have done it; I said Leftist governments because: 1) Brazil has moved sharply left recently and Cyrus' post referred to Brazil, and 2) Communist governments have BY FAR the worst records in history for slaughtering people. Nothing even comes close to the USSR's and Red China's records for slaughter--nothing.

Funny, too, that you should pick up so defensively like that on something that was both relevant to Cyrus' post, and quite appropriate to mention in the larger historical picture;-)

Take a look at history and you will see clearly that Leftist governments have engaged in by far the most slaughter. It isn't even close. Red China and the USSR slaughtered between 80-100 million of their own people. That doesn't even count deaths in war, or the atrocities of other communist governments in Southeast Asia.

When will people wake up? Apparently, never. That's why Ray Zee and Zeno have more wisdom in their little fingers than all the Leftists in the world possess in their combined cerebral cortexes;-)

Leftism cannot be implemented without granting government near-totalitarian powers. It is an oxymoron to have a Leftist government without overwhelming centralized power. And that inevitably leads to eventual and overwhelming tyranny.

[Cyrus]

There are, as usual, numerous things wrong with your arguments. One of them is that they are irrelevant! This is not about right-wing versus left-wing but about the relation of handgun availability to crime, in general.

Brazil has only recently elected someone who is not from the right-wing of politics, namely Lula. He is a populist more than anything else. He will not do any of the things his opponents accuse him of or fear. Such as the much-needed land reform. Or stopping the destruction of the rainforest. Or cracking down on private death-squad armies financed by the oligarchy.

The item I posted was about guns. It had a funny side to it too! Brazil declared an amnesty for whomever handed over illegally held guns. So a Brazilian woman hands over some thousand guns!

So relax. Your rage makes you miss some funny sights...

"Leftism cannot be implemented without granting government near-totalitarian powers. It is an oxymoron to have a Leftist government without overwhelming centralized power. And that inevitably leads to eventual and overwhelming tyranny."

you must mean "communism". Leftism as a term does not exist outside the fevered paranoia of extreme rightwingers such as yourself (who are also ignorant of political philosophy and just spout off terms straight from the tabloids or WorldNetDaily).

There are a lot of things to be said about humanity's latest (i.e. last two hundred years') fad, capitalism, a lot of them good, some of them worryingly bad - but I just don't think you have the capability or the even keel to be the opposite part in such a debate.

So...

How about them [insert favorite spots team here] huh ?

[MMMMMM]

"There are, as usual, numerous things wrong with your arguments. One of them is that they are irrelevant!"

So what's wrong, or irrelevant, about pointing out that Brazil has long had more restrictive gun control laws than the USA, yet has also had higher crime?

"This is not about right-wing versus left-wing but about the relation of handgun availability to crime, in general."

So I am out of line making a more general observation? Pardon moi, then.

Brazil has only recently elected someone who is not from the right-wing of politics, namely Lula. He is a populist more than anything else."

Is he a communist or isn't he? Is he a populist communist?

" He will not do any of the things his opponents accuse him of or fear. Such as the much-needed land reform. Or stopping the destruction of the rainforest. Or cracking down on private death-squad armies financed by the oligarchy."

If you say so.

"The item I posted was about guns. It had a funny side to it too! Brazil declared an amnesty for whomever handed over illegally held guns. So a Brazilian woman hands over some thousand guns!"

I noted that too, it might have been on WorldNet Daily.

"So relax. Your rage makes you miss some funny sights..."

No rage that I can detect at this time. Maybe, though, you are not only psychic, but prescient as well...


"Leftism cannot be implemented without granting government near-totalitarian powers. It is an oxymoron to have a Leftist government without overwhelming centralized power. And that inevitably leads to eventual and overwhelming tyranny."

"you must mean "communism". Leftism as a term does not exist outside the fevered paranoia of extreme rightwingers such as yourself (who are also ignorant of political philosophy and just spout off terms straight from the tabloids or WorldNetDaily)."

Define it as you wish. I believe Leftism does exist and that Communism is the most polar extreme of it.

"There are a lot of things to be said about humanity's latest (i.e. last two hundred years') fad, capitalism, a lot of them good, some of them worryingly bad - but I just don't think you have the capability or the even keel to be the opposite part in such a debate."

Who said anything about debate? Anyone today who thinks there is anything much to debate regarding which system is clearly and vastly superior, is totally and permanently out to lunch in a rubber dinghy in the Sea of Okhostk.

"So...

How about them [insert favorite spots team here] huh ?"

I think they suck.

[Cyrus]

"Is a communist or isn't he? Is he a populist communist?"

Lula a communist? /images/graemlins/cool.gif I'm sure you are scared to look under your bed at nights.

"I believe [b]Leftism does exist."

Ah, now I see. You mean Autism! I agree, that does exist alright. We see evidence of it every time Jimbo puts up an offering. /images/graemlins/cool.gif (Hi, Jim. Mind those stretchers.)

"Anyone today who thinks there is anything much to debate regarding which system is clearly and vastly superior, is totally and permanently out to lunch in a rubber dinghy in the Sea of Okhostk."

Before you start rowing: I never disputed that capitalism has shown to be the best system tried so far by humanity. However, it comes with some deep and very worrying flaws, which must be addressed pronto. Your kind of blind, obedient thinking (the thinking of a fan, not of a thinking man) is not the appropriate one for such an endeavor.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
That's why Ray Zee and Zeno have more wisdom in their little fingers than all the Leftists in the world possess in their combined cerebral cortexes;-)


[/ QUOTE ]

I think Ray and Zeno are both pretty sharp guys, definitely bigger poker minds than myself, quite possibly more knowledgeable in other subjects as well.

But I could smoke their pinky fingers on the SATs, and I'll even spot them 5 minutes.

I would appreciate if you would define "leftist" a little better. I consider myself to be somewhere on the 'left' but probably not in any category commonly described here. You are usually much more specific than this.

I assume you probably meant communist/socialist.

I think there are a number of reasons (beyond the authoritarian, Leninist readings of Marx that pass for Marxism these days) that the worst human rights violations (in terms of sheer numbers) have so far been committed by socialist states. Some of them have to do with 'leftism' and some don't. I don't think we can attribute these brutal, inexcusable circumstances to Leftist ideologies, however; rather, those who have perpetrated them ceased to be 'socialists' or any other form of legitimate left-wing political types when they murdered their own people. Still, the vulnerability of left-wing revolutionary governments to these hacks is of great concern.

BTW, where do we put the Holocaust on this scale? In terms of sheer numbers it is not as successful as Stalinism when it comes to genocide, the motive was perhaps even more sinister.

I haven't read through this thread yet, so if anyone brought this up already, my bad.

[natedogg]

cyrus: Leftism as a term does not exist outside the fevered paranoia of extreme rightwingers such as yourself

It's funny how leftists hate to be called leftists? I always wonder why.

natedogg

[nicky g]

Happy to be called a leftist. I'll even wear a t-shirt saying so if you buy it for me (we leftists only spend other people's money).

M: To characterise Lula as an "extreme leftist" is something of an exaggeration. Most people on the left have been disappointed with just how tame Lula's actions in power have been; he's shaping up as something of a Brazilian Tony Blair in some respects (although he is pushing hard to create a third world international negotiationg bloc; but that's not really a domestic or left-right issue). The same goes twice over for the idea that he's about to engage in some kind of Stalinist purge.

[Cyrus]

"It's funny how leftists hate to be called leftists? I always wonder why."

I do not mind being called a leftist, a communist, an extra-terrestrial or a casino dealer, in any order. I have no time for others' labels because I know perfectly well what my beliefs are - although they are always susceptible to change!

What I tried to point out is that the word "Leftism" is usually not used in discussions of politics. It is more of a dismissive, all-inclusive, generic term than anything else. The word "Leftism", just like the word "communistic" (over which there was that long argument with the BruceZ!) are words that were used by the sheriffs in those midwestern town threated by Alien Communist Monsters in 50s drive-in movies.

[MMMMMM]

"I assume you probably meant communist/socialist."

Pretty much, and those who strongly lean in that direction even if they aren'ty official party members.

"I think there are a number of reasons (beyond the authoritarian, Leninist readings of Marx that pass for Marxism these days) that the worst human rights violations (in terms of sheer numbers) have so far been committed by socialist states. Some of them have to do with 'leftism' and some don't. I don't think we can attribute these brutal, inexcusable circumstances to Leftist ideologies, however; rather, those who have perpetrated them ceased to be 'socialists' or any other form of legitimate left-wing political types when they murdered their own people. Still, the vulnerability of left-wing revolutionary governments to these hacks is of great concern."

I believe we can attribute much of the brutality of communist regimes to Leftist ideology itself, in a peculiar way. Why? Because in order to implement communist ideology, overwhelming power and control must be given to centralized government. This inevitably leads to the problems mentioned.

The further to the left policies go, the greater central power is required to implement and enforce those policies. Socialism requires greater centralized power and control than USA-style capitalism, and Communism requires greater centralized power and control than Socialism.

Agreed, some of the fault for historical problems lies with certain individuals. Don't ignore the old saw, though: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. While this platitude is an oversimplification, it is easy to see that corruption is a common attribute of humans and that vesting overweening power in certain positions will lead to abuses of power. Along similar lines, granting central governenmt too much power will create corruption, and those seeking power and the power to abuse power will be attracted to leadership positions in any overwhelmingly strong central government. Since Communism cannot exist without an overwhelmingly strong central authority, I believe that implementing Communist ideology inevitably leads to the sort of abuses mentioned. This is one of the hidden ways in which the ideology itself is fatally flawed.

"BTW, where do we put the Holocaust on this scale? In terms of sheer numbers it is not as successful as Stalinism when it comes to genocide, the motive was perhaps even more sinister."

Hitler turned out to be far less successful at mass murder than either Stalin or Mao. Agreed, the motive was twisted and sinister.


Check out The Museum Of Communism, if you wish:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/musframe.htm

[Cptkernow]

going to answer in more length when I get out of the hole I am presently in.

However I would jusy like to add to the conversation by pointing out that saying everyone who is leftist is a socialist is on a par with saying everyone who is rightist is a fascist.

[MMMMMM]

Nicky,

Lula may not have done much harm yet, but he is allied with Castro and Chavez and is himself a Marxist.

[MMMMMM]

"However I would jusy like to add to the conversation by pointing out that saying everyone who is leftist is a socialist is on a par with saying everyone who is rightist is a fascist."

I am not saying they are on a par; rather it is a sliding scale.

Good luck getting out of that hole. Remember, it is all one long climb, so don't be too fixated on short-term results. Just be a good climber.

[nicky g]

He used to call himself a Marxist; he may still do ( I didn't think so but I don't know). His policies are nothing like Marxist.

[CORed]

Well, if Brazil is trying to confiscate guns from its citezens, it must be a good idea.

Gun control is based an a fundamentally absurd assumption: If guns are illegal, criminals won't have them.

Now, I think making it illegal for citezens would have some benefit. "Crime of Passion" murders and sucides would probably show some decrease. Certainly there are other means than guns to kill yourself or your spouse, but most are not as effective, so the success rate on attempts would go down.

What will almost certainly not happen with gun control is that hardened criminals will be disarmed, making guns illegal will be just about as effective in disarming criminals as making drugs illegal has been in keeping them from using and selling drugs.

I don't think the first benefit is worth the cost of reducing the ability of the law-abiding citizen to defend himself against criminals, or if it becomes necessary, the government.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
The further to the left policies go, the greater central power is required to implement and enforce those policies.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a favorite argument among small-government conservatives, but the federal government has spent more and gotten more power under Republicans in the last few decades than Democrats. Surely the GOP isn't tending towards socialism? Surely they aren't planning mass murder and genocide?

Again, when you try to place the blame for this misuse of power on leftist ideology because it supposedly needs big government to work, I think you are subscribing to a narrow view of Marxism (though a generally accurate one as it has been implemented so far) and indeed of lesser forms of socialism and even so-called 'liberal' policies here in the states. There are numerous ideological forms of socialism or syndicalism (yes, I mean anarchists) that advocate social welfare but on a much more local scale. And, again, the myth of bloated social programs coming from the so-called 'left' in America (the left is not represented in either political party IMHO) is off base as well. Welfare accounts for a tiny percentage of government spending. We dump far more money into pork-barrel giveaways and wildly impropable defense scenarios.

'Big' government is something to be concerned about, I agree. But it is not solely a product of the left. It is a product of nationalism in general; modern states that implement large-scale economic policies, be they socialist or capitalist, must be 'strong states' (meaning big and centralized) in order to function.

This is why anarchists like myself think the nation-state has been a spectacular failure in many ways. (There, the secret is out).

NT

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The further to the left policies go, the greater central power is required to implement and enforce those policies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a favorite argument among small-government conservatives, but the federal government has spent more and gotten more power under Republicans in the last few decades than Democrats. Surely the GOP isn't tending towards socialism? Surely they aren't planning mass murder and genocide?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes the federal gov't. has gotten more power in recent years under the GOP as well. That does not refute my point in the least. And yes, the GOP is indeed tending a bit towards socialism lately.

"Again, when you try to place the blame for this misuse of power on leftist ideology because it supposedly needs big government to work, I think you are subscribing to a narrow view of Marxism (though a generally accurate one as it has been implemented so far) and indeed of lesser forms of socialism and even so-called 'liberal' policies here in the states. There are numerous ideological forms of socialism or syndicalism (yes, I mean anarchists) that advocate social welfare but on a much more local scale."

The issue is whether (or to what extent) government is going to force people to contribute to social welfare issues. To do so requires investing more absolute power in government than I think is appropriate in a free society.

"And, again, the myth of bloated social programs coming from the so-called 'left' in America (the left is not represented in either political party IMHO) is off base as well. Welfare accounts for a tiny percentage of government spending. We dump far more money into pork-barrel giveaways and wildly impropable defense scenarios."

Correct, cut out ALL federal welfare programs and special interest subsidies. Both major parties are unconscionable and unaccountable in both regards.

"'Big' government is something to be concerned about, I agree. But it is not solely a product of the left. It is a product of nationalism in general; modern states that implement large-scale economic policies, be they socialist or capitalist, must be 'strong states' (meaning big and centralized) in order to function."

I don't disagree; my point is that Leftist policies inherently require big government to enforce those policies--which breeds its own slew of evils.

"This is why anarchists like myself think the nation-state has been a spectacular failure in many ways. (There, the secret is out)."

I think all that is needed is that the Federal government go back to the strictest interpretation of the U.S. Constitution . Government will then exist primarily to protect your rights to life, liberty and private property; and do little else except conduct necessary business such as doing business with foreign powers and providing for the common defense.

Would you have a big problem with such a limited government?

[MMMMMM]

Listen up, Cyrus.

[cardcounter0]

You had me, until that government part at the end.

To really use guns to protect yourself against the government, you need to also have the proper location.
A real remote area, like Idaho, a self-sufficent cabin on top of a hill, hard to surround. Kind of like the set-up Randy Weaver had. Whoops. His wife got it right between the eyes. Well ....

Too small a group. What you need is a big compound and a lot of people standing guard, sitting on a huge cache of weapons. Yeah, that's it. Kind of like what they had in Waco. What a minute, that didn't turn out too well either.

Hmmmm... Trying to think when the last time a small bunch of fanatics defeated the local government.

[nothumb]

Hi M,

I do believe that whatever government is in existence, or whatever formal organization exists for mutual aid, should not have too much power. However, I think rather than believing that we need to 'starve the beast' down to its most basic functions, we should localize government to a much greater extent. Local government can perform a much greater range of functions (if people participate constructively, which often they do not because local government is basically a feudal system in many parts of this country) efficiently and fairly.

I do not believe that the government you describe would protect me adequately. It would not protect me from capitalism. I mean this in all seriousness.

NT

[natedogg]

You are mistaken.

There is a REASON that totalitarian governments confiscate all the guns from their citizens.

Hint: It's not for their own safety.

natedogg

[MMMMMM]

"I do believe that whatever government is in existence, or whatever formal organization exists for mutual aid, should not have too much power."

OK.

" However, I think rather than believing that we need to 'starve the beast' down to its most basic functions, we should localize government to a much greater extent."

By reducing federal government to its basic functions, we would allow state and local governments to take a more active role--if the voters so desire.

" Local government can perform a much greater range of functions (if people participate constructively, which often they do not because local government is basically a feudal system in many parts of this country) efficiently and fairly."

Yes, which is why I think more power should be left to the states (and less to the federal government).

"I do not believe that the government you describe would protect me adequately. It would not protect me from capitalism. I mean this in all seriousness."

Depends on what you mean by "adequately."

It's not a safe world or a safe universe no matter what. Government cannot ever protect you from much and expecting it to do so is a great mistake (which mistake is compounded when people try to force government to provide "protection").

"Protect adequately", to me, means some degree of protection from those who would try to usurp my rights to life, liberty, and private property--and to protect against foreign invasion. Asking government for any further protection is sort of like asking the wind to protect you--except that when you give government power to attempt some of those things, you run great risk and will probably obtain nothing but sorrow for your efforts. Government rarely cedes power once obtained.

[MMMMMM]

A few exceptions do not invalidate a general principle.

An well-armed citizenry is a deterrent to a government or military coup, and a deterrent to foreign invasion as well.

Look at how much trouble we are having in Iraq, and Iraq is only the size of California. Do you think the U.S. military could ever take over and hold the USA, hypothetically speaking? The holding of ground is harder than the capturing of it, if the populace is armed. An unarmed population, however, can be very easily held, controlled, or killed at will.

Stalin, Hitler and Castro all disarmed their populations and look what happened then.

[cardcounter0]

I've seen pictures of Iraq with people walking around with RPGs, gernade launchers, automatic weapons, mortors, rockets, hand gernades.

Now if you contend the US ARMY couldn't take and hold the US with its puny non-automatic sporting type weapons, what chance do we have in Iraq? Why are we there? We can't win. We can't enforce our will or our idea of democracy on those people. They are armed. Better call Bush and let him know.

My post ended in a question which you failed to answer. If the situations I posted about where just exceptions to the general rule --- WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A SMALL GROUP OF CITIZENS DEFEATED A GOVERNMENT FORCE? Must be a lot of situations where it happened. It's a general principle. Let's see - The pologimist's in Utah. Whooops. Didn't work. Starved out and leader committed suicide. The wackos who declared their little patch of Texas independent. Nope.

I know, maybe its not small arms weapons. Some rag-tag milita made a huge bomb and blew up a Govt. Building in Oklahoma -- whooops! That didn't get them very far, did it?

Once again -- WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A SMALL GROUP OF CITIZENS DEFEATED A GOVERNMENT FORCE?

[MMMMMM]

You're right, we can't hold the ground indefinitely in Iraq--on our own, that is. We will need for the moderate Iraqis to be able to do a lot of that themselves. Hopefully, they will be both capable and willing at some point in the not-too-distant future.

I wasn't trying to argue that a small armed group could resist a government very long or very effectively. You'e right, they can't. However a large armed populace can make things very difficult, costly, and ultimately not worth it for those who might try to take over by force at some point in the future (hypothetically speaking).

[cardcounter0]

Last I checked, Iraq was a large armed populace. Where are they going to ship in those moderate Iraqis from? Are those the guys that were supposed to greet the troops with flowers? Seems they haven't made it to the scene yet.

[CORed]

One person (or 100) against the government is always going to lose. However, an organised guerilla resistance has at least a little chance of succeeding with guns (some shoulder launced missiles would be really nice, too) and no chance of success without them. I'm certainly not advocating armed resistance now. There are a lot of things I don't like about the government, but as long as we have the ability to "vote the rascals out", I don't think violent rebellion is justifiable. OTOH, if George Bush declares in October the the elections are postponed indefinitely due to the threat of terrorism and he will retain power until the "war on terror" has been won, I will be joining the armed resistance.

[Gamblor]

refers to nothing more than change.

Rightism prefers the status quo.

Nothing to do with ideologies.

[MMMMMM]

There are lots of moderate Iraqis; Iraq is actually one of the most modernized Arab countries. The Saddam-follower insurgents, the fanatical followers of that radical imam (Mehdi militia, I think it is called), and the al-Qaeda troublemakers in Iraq are all relatively small minorities.

In fact a few weeks ago, two very prominent Iraqi imams called that radical young imam with the militia (al-Mahdi?),and Zarqawi, both "infidels" and "criminals"! Guess that's one way to put the shoe on the other foot /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[MMMMMM]

"Leftism refers to nothing more than change.

Rightism prefers the status quo.

Nothing to do with ideologies."

Where did you come up with that? Not trying to be smart ass, but that definition is news to me. I've always considered Leftism to refer to a place on the sliding scale somewhere in the direction of socialism/communism.

[Gamblor]

Right-wing politics (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/right-wing%20politics)

Right is historically associated with conservatism (actually, the other way around) because conservatives are interested in conserving the status quo; meaning averse to change. For the most part, those averse to change were those that had something to lose, mainly power.

Sidebar: This is not fact, but depending on who you ask (among various fiction authors), the right has been historically associated with male, and the left has been historically associated with the female. Early on, the Church and the men who ran it realized that to hold on to political power, they would have to assume the role of the only conduit to heaven. Included in their campaign to demonize women was language; the Italian and French words for left (sinistre and gauche) are examples of this, and political thought that demanded reduced power for the Church (i.e. change) and more power for the people was "left" wing thought.

Of course, the left and right have flip flopped on the issues so many times the meaning gets lost and the labels are now considered only in relation to each other.

[Cyrus]

"I think making it illegal for citizens would have some benefit. "Crime of Passion" murders and sucides would probably show some decrease. Certainly there are other means than guns to kill yourself or your spouse, but most are not as effective, so the success rate on attempts would go down."

There is more to it : the availability of a weapon that can inflict non-correctable damage. With the same amount of rage, I'd speculate that a husband would beat his wife to pulp rather than kill/seriously injure her with a gun.

How many times have we said (and deep down, truly felt so) that we want to "just kill that guy"? Or that we would wanna end it all and kill ourselves? Guns have the ability to translate that momentary feeling to a permanent damage.

"What will almost certainly not happen with gun control is that hardened criminals will be disarmed."

Criminals will always find guns. It is also, I believe, a fact that criminals kill with guns other criminals way more often than they kill simple civilians - whether in "fun"/drive-by shootings or in the process of a crime.

So it would be a good idea to peruse the relevant data, if there is any such.

"I don't think the first benefit is worth the cost of reducing the ability of the law-abiding citizen to defend himself against criminals, or if it becomes necessary, the government."

I don't know about civilians defending themselves against criminals. How many of those incidents are they reported in the United States? I doubt the incidents are significant. (And if you were to argue that guns act as a deterrrent, the the crime stats would rebutt that argument. They are off the scale.)

As to government, I already submitted that the lone citizen is helpless against the government no matter what kind of arsenal he is stocking

[Cyrus]

"The right has been historically associated with male, and the left has been historically associated with the female."

I love to watch you two debate an issue!

Now it is "Leftism"... /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Gamblor]

You'll notice that this line was located in a "Sidebar" ( outside the main point, for you cunning linguists) which opened with "This is not fact, but", implying that it might be a valid, if not verifiable, explanation.

One too many Camparis, perhaps.

Nevertheless, did you have anything of substance to add, Sir Jejune? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[natedogg]

cyrus: As to government, I already submitted that the lone citizen is helpless against the government no matter what kind of arsenal he is stocking


This is a strawman argument. No one is claiming that it's important for individuals to own guns so that they can resist as individuals or even as small groups.

Your argument falls down as soon as you encounter the notion of large organized groups of armed citizens.

It's MUCH easier to become an organized armed resistance if you already have the arms.

It's nearly impossible for a large disorganized citizenry to turn into an organized armed resistance if they have their guns taken away from them before they decide to organize and fight.

Duh.

natedogg

[MMMMMM]

Pay attention, Cyrus! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[luv_the_game]

Once again -- WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A SMALL GROUP OF CITIZENS DEFEATED A GOVERNMENT FORCE?

I think the answer to you question may be 1783 (American Revolution.) Although you may want to count Afghanistan. Against the Soviets, that is, not the Americans.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about civilians defending themselves against criminals. How many of those incidents are they reported in the United States? I doubt the incidents are significant. (And if you were to argue that guns act as a deterrrent, the the crime stats would rebutt that argument. They are off the scale.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting argument: The crime rate is high, therefore guns don't deter crime. Perhaps you should study the scientific method. There's a little thing called a control group. I don't think you have enough evidence to demonstrate that more gun control would reduce the crime rate. You can certainly compare the crime rates of countries with and without gun control, but there are lots of other factors involved, so it's easy to support whichever side of the argument you favor by choosing a particula pair of countries (as both advocates and opponents of gun control frequently do). Switzerland (or at least some of its cantons), I believe, requires adult males to own guns and has a low crime rate. England has strict gun control and a fairly high crime rate. I haven't seen statistics of how crime rates have changed in countries that have instituted gun control.

I don't know that I would support gun control even if I knew it would reduce the homicide rate. I think the right to self defense is extremely important. As far as statistical evidence of citizens defending themselves, I think there is a lot that doesn't get reported, and indeed some that can't be reported. I don't know how many people decide not to burglarize a house because they know the occupant is armed. I don't know how many people are walking in a rough neighborhood, and show their weapon to someone who starts folowing them (who may or may not have been intent on robbing or assaulting them). Such incidents often don't get reported (particularly if the person who showed the weapon was violating concealed weapons laws.

Yes, a gun gives you the power to kill someone easily in the heat of the moment. Possessing such power requires a lot of responsibility. In a free society, I think we have to trust citizens with that responsibility.