Arming America. . .

. . . is the name of a book by Michael A. Bellesiles that I have just started reading. His theme is that gun ownership in the U.S.A and the pre-U.S.A. colonies was not widespread until the mid-nineteenth century. People didn't have many guns nor use them extensively on the frontier. Arms ownership, widely assumed to have been nearly universal since the settling of the continent by the English, is a fiction.


There are now apparently, according to the FBI, approx. 250 million firearms in private hands with five million new guns purchased every year. More people are killed with guns in an average week in the U.S. than are killed in all of Western Europe in a year. There are no federal standards for American made firearms, nor any voluntary safety standards; by comparison, teddy bears are subject to four different types of safety standards. There are more than 140,000 authorized sellers of firearms in the U.S. There are far fewer bookstores and schools than gunshops.


How likely is it that a society that apparently now worships the gun will even consider suggestions like John Feeney's that we should be looking at ways of conflict resolution that don't resort to violence?

Check where the author got his statistics for gun ownership in the colonies and frontier. There was one study done that has been widely discredited and challenged. That study derived numbers for gun ownership from probate records, which was a bad way to go about it. Additionally, I remember reading that one author (I think the same one) "lost" some of the data he used in a study like the one you talked about so it couldn't be verified. I don't keep up with all the anti-gun or pro-gun studies very well, so I don't have the guy's name handy and don't know if that is the book you have or if the book you have quotes that study. But I'd be interested to know where the numbers come from in your book because I suspect that may be a weak link.


As far as the 140,000 number for "authorized gun sellers" being greater than the number of schools and bookstores, well that one is a bit misleading. What the guy is referring to is people who hold FFL's - federal firearm licenses. These licenses are necessary under the 1968 gun control act to receive guns through the mail and commerce or to run a gun store. All gun stores need an FFL, but many people with FFLs are just collectors or very occasional sellers. The requirements are somewhat onerous now and the number of FFL holders is decreasing. The ATF in the Clinton Administration made life for small gun dealers hell. You also give up certain rights, for instance, the ATF has the right to come search the address listed on the FFL. It's not so great to have your house tossed by the ATF on a bad day, you can ask some people who have been searched. An example of a typical FFL holder is a guy I know who is a cop and likes hunting and old WWII Japanese weapons. He goes to gun shows to buy and sell collectible stuff and occasionally will sell a gun to someone he knows. He is not exactly a big time seller but needs an FFL just the same. Just think if every store that sold a book or magazine had to have a federal book license. Or to order direct from Amazon you needed a book license holder to receive the shipment for you. There would be a lot more than 140,000 federal book license holders. In my opinion the Second Amendment is on equal footing to the First Amendment and protects an individual right. That being the case, I think the requirement to have an FFL is probably unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has given some hints they might rule that way, but we just don't know. Despite what people claim the Miller case from the 1930's says, the issue of the Second Amendment has not been squarely dealt with by the Supreme Court. There is a case in the 5th Circuit now that may go all the way up called Emerson, but we will just have to wait and see.


As for safety, guns are very safe now. Many companies have improved safety designs. Modern guns don't "just go off." They don't go off when they are dropped. Whacking the back of the hammer on a modern gun won't make it fire. (Safety note- DO NOT drop test or otherwise abuse a loaded gun to see what will happen at home - this is common sense!) But guns are designed to be effective. They are supposed to shoot when you pull the trigger. They need to be shot fast- you can't input nuclear launch codes when you are in a gunfight. So yes, they can kill people. So I think there are many voluntary safety standards, but not enough to please people with a political position against guns. But the people who own and carry guns want them to be safe. The reason you have a gun is to protect yourself, so you just don't want it to go off when it's stuck in your pants. Decent quality guns don't unless you pull the trigger. Once you pull the trigger, the bullet is going to go wherever the muzzle is pointed.


It sounds like the book you have is written by someone with a political position against guns. That is fine, but I would take some of the numbers and claims with a grain of salt. I would like to hear where the numbers for the colonies and frontier came from.

"How likely is it that a society that apparently now worships the gun will even consider suggestions like John Feeney's that we should be looking at ways of conflict resolution that don't resort to violence?"


Does this book also draw the conclusion that our society "worships" the gun?


I don't think the problem is guns. I think the main reasons for our gun-related problems are immature idiots, drunks, druggies, gang members, violent criminals, and some avoidable accidents.


The Swiss probably own more guns per capita than US citizens, but they don't have our gun death problems. The problem is our people, and that our average citizen is probably of a lower overall quality than the average Swiss citizen. In fact this is probably true of the US as compared to much of Western Europe as a whole. While we do have some outstanding schools, and some great people and creativity, ON AVERAGE our education is less rigorous even in high school than it is in most other major Western democracies. Our permissiveness, which is something I dearly love and believe in, has also led to a softening of our standards in many ways.


Why do we have so many gangs, drugged out morons, violent low-lifes in our culture? I'm not sure, and it is probably due to a number of factors.

Probate records were indeed one source of information used by the author. (Why would such records be a "weak link"?) He also used census figures about American militia members, records of the state of Massachusetts about private gun ownership, federal government figures about federal arms delivered to the state, newspaper accounts about nineteenth-century murder methods, and a host of other sources, including reports of foreign travelers within the United States. All sources are cited (the book is "scholarly"), which of course does not guarantee that they are accurate or relevant, just that the author's sources can be checked. It is clear to me from the Introduction, that the author is on the "anti-gun" side of the argument. This does not guarantee that the arguments advanced are either sound or unsound.


The author points up that gun ownership was carefully circumscribed in the colonies, as it had been in England. Even if it hadn't been, there was another problem: there were no gun manufactories in North America in the colonial period. Most firearms had to come from Europe.


I agree with you that the 2nd amendment has equal standing with the 1st (and all) amendments. The wording of the amendment is confusing because of the two clauses. I have not gotten to the section on the Constitution as yet, but in browsing through, it appears the author makes the point that the amendment was designed not in order that citizens should have firearms to protect themselves from the government, but rather that the government wanted to insist that citizens have firearms to protect the government from insurrection. The Consitutional Convention felts that the Congress should arm the militia. The language of the 2nd amendment would make sense in this light.

State legislatures, both before and after the Constitution, justified gun regulation as a public safety issue.


I would imagine that this Supreme Court would indeed rule FFL's to be unconstitutional. Scalia believes citizens have the right to own machine guns. And what can you expect from a Court that, on Friday, tells Florida to stop counting ballots because, even though they haven't looked at the case yet, they intend to rule a certain way on Monday? [A cheap shot, I know, and a whole other issue, but I couldn't resist. :-) I did not vote for Al Gore.]


If guns are used to protect, why are more people shot here in a week than in all of Western Europe in a year? The fact is that many guns are used not to protect, but to rob and murder.


Anyway, I suspected this post would be controversial and that the first and one of the most intelligent responses from someone on the other side of the issue (I did not say in my post what side I am on, but it should be obvious) would come from you.

So to remove all doubt, let me say that I am in favor of the repeal of the 2nd amendment, which I know will not happen in my lifetime and probably a long time beyond. I envision a society without guns. It seems improbable, I know. But at one time we had a society based on slavery. It seemed improbable we could do away with it and survive either economically or socially. Yet we did.


By the way, the book is in paperback ($16.00), published by Vintage Books.

I don't think the problem is exclusively guns. There is no question that people kill people. But they use guns to do it quite often. If you have people that are, for whatever reason, prone to violence, wouldn't it make sense to try to limit or regulate the tools used for that violence? We wouldn't worry so much, I would think, about the Swiss gaining nuclear expertise, but we would if, say, the Taliban did.


You say some pretty politically incorrect things here. I'll leave it for others to elaborate.


:-)

I'm not sure what percentage of deaths from firearms are accidental and that might have some bearing on the overall picture. If it is a high percentage then it would be interesting to know similar statistics for the Swiss (I would bet, in the dark, that they don't have very many accidental firearm deaths either).


As for limiting access to firearms because our people are overly violent or are idiots, it is a question of degree. Weren't assault rifles banned from sale to the general populace a while back? Should further steps be taken? Too bad we can't ban violence-prone idiots somehow;-)


Yes, my post is probably "politically" incorrect, but it's probably otherwise correct. Just goes to show how weak "political correctness" really is.

In Switzerland the penalties for the misuse of a gun are very high. Using a gun to rob or murder incurs a higher penalty than using another weapon. (At least, so I've been told).


Chris

So to remove all doubt, let me say that I am in favor of the repeal of the 2nd amendment, which I know will not happen in my lifetime and probably a long time beyond. I envision a society without guns. It seems improbable, I know. But at one time we had a society based on slavery. It seemed improbable we could do away with it and survive either economically or socially. Yet we did.


---------


I live in Australia. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons were completely banned after the Port Arthur tragedy in which a mentally ill man named Martin Bryant used a semi-automatic pistol to gun down 37 people at a historic holiday destination. Licenses are needed to own other sorts of firearms. Mostly they are owned by farmers who need them to kill foxes and other pests which threaten their livestock. Your average Australian citizen would see no need to own a gun and would probably not have thought even once in his/her life about buying one (I know I haven't).


The argument that a citizen needs a gun to protect himself is fatuous and could only be supported by someone who was brought up in a country like America. The protection of citizens is a social responsibility and is carried out by the police force under the rule of law. If this is not so, then why does the police force exist? Why not leave it to citizens to dispense their own protection and justice? Surely the police force represents a restriction on individual freedom of action? Or is the claim that a citizen needs a gun to protect himself from the government and its instruments the police force and the military? Again this is ludicrous. If the government wished to kill or detain you you could not prevent it doing so by owning a firearm. The point of democracy and the rule of law is that the goverment is answerable to the people while at the same time being responsible for their protection.


Our deaths per capita from firearms, both homicidal and accidental, are very very much lower then America and our general homicide rate is also much lower.


If anyone can explain to me in simple terms exactly how the Australian society is worse off than the American society as a result of our gun laws, I'd be interested. (Please spare me responses invoking the sanctity of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers).


Chris

First Andy- You say Scalia believes in the right to own machine guns -well if you believe that the militia clause in the 2d Amendment should be given much force it is clear citizens would have more of a right to own machine guns than hunting weapons. I think the Miller case from the '30's implies this as it hinted a sawed-off shotgun would be legal if it could be shown it could be used by the military. Also, there are fewer restrictions on fully automatic weapons (called Class III weapons because of the laws that govern their licensing) than you might think. Some states have rules against them, but where I live you can have as many as you want and pack them around with you. But there is a law (Unconstitutional :-))prohibiting the sale of machine guns made after 1986. But if you want a pre-1986 machine gun or a silencer or other Class III weapons, you need paperwork from the feds and have to pay a $200 transfer tax. You need various officials from your county to sign off on it and you have to tell the ATF you have it in this process. It is an unattractive process, so very few gun owners bother.


Probate records are bad because very few guns would be listed in the documents. The family rifle or musket was probably just handed to the oldest son or the kid who liked to shoot without being listed in any probate record. I don't think many estates bothered to list the guns, particularly if there were just a couple. I don't doubt that people had fewer guns, because manufactured goods of all kinds were scarcer then and relatively more expensive. I know there was a very flawed study done by using these records, but I don't have the criticisms of it laying around. I might try to research it but probably won't get the chance.


Chris VWH, I disagree that the police can somehow protect everybody or that you must delegate your right of self defense to the police. In fact, at least in America, there are court rulings that say the police do not owe a duty to protect any particular individual - only a very general duty to protect the public. This means if you are attacked you are on your own, at least until the cops show up, IF they show up. From the practical, not legal view, well, the cops just can't prevent many crimes. They can mop-up and investigate afterwards but really don't prevent many crimes. I am very familiar with police investigations and matters in criminal court, so I can say based on seeing thousands of criminal cases that the police cannot protect you. That doesn't mean they are incompetent, it means the job of protecting you ahead of time is impossible.


Also, I disagree that gun ownership is ineffective against an oppressive regime. Now, I don't think we have that in America and I'm not one of the paranoids who is a member of a crackpot militia group, but history shows that an armed populace can cause a lot of problems for an oppressive regime. What would have happened if every Jewish neighborhood in Europe fought back like in the Warsaw Ghetto when the Nazis came around? If every family met the Nazis with one little pistol the cost of the "final solution" would have been very high for the Nazi bastards. But Hitler passed very effective gun control laws. Also, if citizens fight against an oppressive regime, the citizen-soldiers will quickly tire of the fight. Who wants to kill or be killed by people who might have been your neighbor? So the right to keep and bear arms does serve a real political function and the framers of our Constituion understood this.


I don't want to get preachy about the Constitution, as you request, but in America that is the heart of the debate, not the statistics of gun misuse. I posted something along these lines in an earlier thread. Essentially my argument was that you cannot use statistics of misuse to deny a fundamental right of any kind. The freedom of religion is misused. The freedom of speech is misused. Can they be eliminated because of misuse? No. Perhaps regulated to some degree, but not eliminated.


BTW, as to Australia, I did read that violent gang-rape type crimes (I think in Melbourne)have gone way up since guns were banned. I don't know for sure if this is correct though. Very often violent crime goes up when guns are banned.

In America, states that have allowed people to carry concealed weapons as a matter of right (with no criminal record) have seen very nice reductions in violent crimes. Mass shootings are less likely. Home invasion crimes are also less likely where guns are prevalent. And the cops won't get to your house fast enough to protect you when someone comes in. They will do a nice job taking pictures and having an autopsy done on your body though.

"The argument that a citizen needs a gun to protect himself is fatuous and could only be supported by someone who was brought up in a country like America. The protection of citizens is a social responsibility and is carried out by the police force under the rule of law. If this is not so, then why does the police force exist? "


How are the police going to protect someone in time if their house is invaded or burgalized, say at night, when they are asleep?


I think responsible citizens should be allowed to possess firearms to defend themselves from attacks in their own homes. Unfortunately our society probably contains many more violent lunatics and violent criminals than does your society in Australia. I don't think the right of responsible people to defend themselves against violent attack in their own homes should be abridged.

I've only had a chance to skim this thread, so my apologies if the following has already been covered.


I have mixed feelings about gun ownership, but regardless of the ownership numbers at the time, isn't it highly likely that the framers of the constitution had nothing like semi-automatic handguns or even revolvers in mind when they spoke of the right to bear arms? They were familiar with rifles along the lines of muskets or muzzle loaders, and maybe those old single shot pistols of similar design, no? I would think the potential for violence and impulsive use would be hugely less with these sorts of guns.


As for the Swiss, here we're talking about every man owning a rifle for military service, aren't we? Again, the potential for impulsive violence with a rifle would seem much less than with a handgun. It can't be concealed. It's more cumbersome to shoot. The very act of putting it to shoulder and aiming would seem to counteract compulsion somewhat. Just some thoughts.


I do agree, though, that there are large social and educational differences between the U.S. and Switzerland which should relate to differences in gun deaths as well. If nothing else, it's got to be a lot easier to want to murder someone if you live in Detroit as opposed to, say, Lucerne. /images/smile.gif

I think a good argument can be made that the Framers intended that individual citizens be allowed to keep arms that were in common use of the military at any particular time. At least small arms. I don't think semi-auto pistols or even full auto "assault weapons" i.e. military M-16 or AK-47 would have been unforseeable to the Framers. However, I think certain weapons may well have been unforseeable because of their potential to do such great harm, i.e. weapons like nukes that can kill so many at once. But I cant imagine that any portable rifle or pistol would fall outside the scope of the 2d Amendment. Nukes probably don't have 2d Amendment protection. (No cases on point :-)) Where the line is no one can say for sure. There is a lot of writing on this area now, and I admit I have not kept up with it. A guy at the UCLA law school named Eugene Volokh (Sp.?) has written some good stuff. There is a Federal District Court opinion from Texas in the Emerson case that has quite a bit of 2d Amendmet history too. I have not read the full opinion out of laziness and am sort of waiting for the 5th Circuit opinion. But this topic is getting more study and increasingly the scholars are arguing that the 2d Amendment is broader than anti-gun people would hope.

"How likely is it that a society that apparently now worships the gun will even consider suggestions like John Feeney's that we should be looking at ways of conflict resolution that don't resort to violence?"


1. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are not violent people.


2. gun ownership is highly restricted in Europe. I think its fair to say that Europeans don't "worship guns". People on that continent have been slaughtering each other for as long as anyone can remember. The 20th century was particulary barbarous over there. There is no connection between gun control and alternative methods of conflict resolution.

HDPM,


Correct me if I'm wrong (because I really don't know), but a cocked gun will "just go off" if dropped. No? At least, I think it explains how one a bullet was fired when a criminalistics professor dropped what he thought was an empty gun in a room of students. Luckily, no one was injured although a few students were understandably upset.


John

Depends on the gun and the particular mechanism it uses. Older guns are more likely to be fired when dropped. Some guns are more likely to go off than others. Cheaper guns are more likely to go off than more expensive ones. That is why you don't try it yourself because safety features are mechanical and can fail. But most modern guns of good quality have various passive safety systems that prevent the firing pin from striking a cartridge unless the trigger is pulled through its full cycle. But any design is still a mechanical system and can fail. It's impossible to talk about all the different mechanisms and I am not an armorer or gunsmith or anything, but I will give a couple of quick examples. The venerable Colt 1911 .45 ACP had another safety feature added sometime in the '70's I think. A new 1911 can look like an old 1911 but have a somewhat different safety design. There is a big difference between a Glock and a very cheap auto. In controlled tests, Glocks have stood up to pretty bad abuse. In some guns it is not recommended that a round be carried in the chamber. Newly minted single action revolvers are different than the old Colt Peacemaker even though they operate the same. But my disclaimer is YMMV, always follow the safety instructions, don't try this at home, treat every gun as if loaded, and all other safety rules. Learn all safety rules before handling a weapon , seek professional guidance etc... :-)


It is the height of both buffoonery and recklessness to have a gun go off in a room full of people. You have to make sure its unloaded and you have to handle it appropriately even then. I have had to handle unloaded weapons in rooms full of people where there is really no totally safe field of fire. You need to be more than sure the weapon is unloaded and you don't jack around with it even when there is no doubt about its condition. So that criminalistics professor should have been discharged, so to speak. They students had every right to be very upset.

people talk about the ones killed by guns never the people saved by having a gun. the most horrible tragedy in our history in new york would not have happened maybe had someone with a permit to carry been allowed on the planes. we can see that terrible acts can be carried out just as easily with a plastic knife as a gun. if you are scared of guns learn about them and maybe you will see another side of the story. if someone comes into your home at night to rob and kill your family, having a gun is the answer, not having a 911 call.

Chris, having been to austrailia many times for extended periods i know that the people are less violent than americans. also with your society people have less stress and problems. so maybe it works better in oz but over here i feel very confident walking down the street at night carrying a sidearm knowing that a few thugs have little chance of ruining my life for the fun of it. as ive seen in austrailia its much safer to be out at night but in the last few years i read lots of killings and violence coming from your country. maybe it is changeing as the crooks know that their prey is helpless. in monmtana only a complete fool breaks into someones home at night. and if he does you can find him there in the morning.

I thought I had read some stuff critical of the book you have Andy. Here is an article that summarizes some of the criticisms I stumbled across by accident. If the guy is in trouble at his own university there have to be some big problems with the book.

1 The US Supreme Court has ruled that the police are not


responsible for providing any protection to a specific


person, they provide protection to society at large. I'll


get the SCOTUS citation later, right now I'm so sick I can


hardly see.


2. The population of the United States very closely approaches


that of the entirety of the rest of the G-7 nations. Within


that population is a diversity of ethnic and cultural


groups not found anywhere else in the world. Where in


Australia will you find groups of thousands of Bru and


Rhade Cambodian tribesmen living literally across the


street from each other?


3. With the average response time for a police call to a


reported felony being approximately 10 minutes, what


do you suggest the victim of a violent crime do in that


time while they're waiting for the police to arive?


Assuming that they're able to report it at all.


4. Don't try to compare the social and cultural structure of


the US to other nations, it doesn't work. The United States


doesn't have anything approaching a unified cultural


identity. The US is also very large. In size, think


Australia or Canada. In population, think all of


continental Europe. In culture, think the barrios of


east Los Angeles to the Inuit of the environs of Kotzebue.


5. Most states in the US are larger than most Countries in


the rest of the world. Italy has approximately the same


area as the state of Oregon. If I leave my home now and


drive for 2500 kilometers in any direction, I will either


hit the ocean and drown or I will never enter an area


where English is not the primary language. There are


places in the US where the distance is much greater than


2500km.


6. At Port Arthur, why did nobody just take the time to


shoot Martin Bryant and stop the whole problem right


there and then?


Jeff James

If you are interested here is a link that talks about some pro-gun scholarship. If you check out Volokh's name you will get links to some law review articles. I have not read them yet but guess they are well done based on other stuff I have read of his.

"Essentially my argument was that you cannot use statistics of misuse to deny a fundamental right of any kind. The freedom of religion is misused. The freedom of speech is misused. Can they be eliminated because of misuse? No. Perhaps regulated to some degree, but not eliminated."


Which is why I want the "fundamental right" to own a gun abolished. But as I said in my prior post, I am sure the 2nd amendment will never be repealed. Short of that, I would be in favor of imprisoning for life, without possibility of parole, anyone who murders or takes someone's life using a gun in the commission of a crime; 20 years without possiblity of parole for anyone who shoots a gun in the commission of a crime; and 10 years without parole for anyone who brandishes a gun in the commission of a crime. Take all the drug users out of the jails and fill them up with gun users. Maybe this is a way to take guns out of the equation for criminals, while leaving them in the hands of those who would not abuse the right, like the HDPM.

Thank you. Keep me posted, if you don't mind, if you hear any follow up from or about Bellesiles.

What difference does it make what the framers' intent was? That was 1787. The framers intended for African Americans to live in slavery and specifically said that they were worth 60% as much a white Americans. Besides, the framers specifically provided for changes in the Constitution by allowing it to be amended. What made sense in the 18th century may not make sense in the 21st.

No one ever dreamed of such an unbelievable act of terrorism happening. Before the metal detectors were install, most hijackings were done by people with guns. There were no armed people on planes because no need was felt for it. Meanwhile, it is undeniable that over 15,000 people a year are murdered by guns in the U.S.


So again, I propose this: if Ray Zee and the HDPM want to protect their families by having a gun in their house, let them. Let's get tough on people who use guns in the commission of a crime. Lock 'em up and throw away the key.

BTW, as to Australia, I did read that violent gang-rape type crimes (I think in Melbourne)have gone way up since guns were banned. I don't know for sure if this is correct though. Very often violent crime goes up when guns are banned.

In America, states that have allowed people to carry concealed weapons as a matter of right (with no criminal record) have seen very nice reductions in violent crimes. Mass shootings are less likely. Home invasion crimes are also less likely where guns are prevalent. And the cops won't get to your house fast enough to protect you when someone comes in. They will do a nice job taking pictures and having an autopsy done on your body though.


----


I guess you're referring to the recent spate of racially motivated gang rapes in Sydney. Violent crime in Australia as a whole has decreased over the last decade, as far as I know.


I don't know where you get the idea that the prevalence of guns leads to less mass shootings. America as a whole has far more mass shootings than Australia, per capita. I have heard the idea advanced by right-wing gun advocates in this country that the Port Arthur tragedy could have been avoided had someone else on the site had a gun and had shot Bryant. This is a nice idea in theory but the prevalence of guns in America has not managed to stop any mass shootings that I can remember (maybe the ones that get stopped just don't get reported here). What would have stopped the Port Arthur tragedy is if Martin Bryant, who was a mentally unstable man, was checked out more thoroughly before being given access to a firearm, or if (and this is what motivated the total ban on semi-automatics) he was not able to unload 40 shots in quick succession.


It's true that home invasions are more prevalent here and more of a source of concern. Special laws were recently passed to make home invasion a much more serious crime than, say, robbing someone on the street. People still have the right of self defence and can use any weapon they have available to defend themselves. Note - people can still own firearms here! If you want to have a gun to defend yourself against intruders, then provided you are of sound mind and have no criminal record, you can own a gun license. I don't really see the argument in favour of widespread gun ownership, though. You may not have a gun to defend yourself with, but then, the person breaking into your house is also unlikely to have one (given that most of these crimes are spur-of-the-moment drug related. Thieves who have their heads together rob service stations etc, not people's homes). And if you both do have guns, what's to stop someone breaking into your house anyway and shooting you before you have time to react?


I have much more to say, but typing it all is getting tiring. Maybe I'll be inspired to write more in reply to someone else's response.


Chris

"You may not have a gun to defend yourself with, but then, the person breaking into your house is also unlikely to have one (given that most of these crimes are spur-of-the-moment drug related."


I don't think I would want to bet my life that the person breaking into the house doesn't have a gun. If they do have one, it's mighty small comfort to reflect that the chances of that were low.


TRUE STORY: When I was 16 years old, someone broke into our house in the late evening when I was all alone. We lived in an upper-middle-class suburb in a very professional community. I had no gun, but I did have a spear...a real full-sized spear, with a long sharp metal head. There was no time to call anyone, let alone the police. The intruder had already opened the window and was in the house. I retreated to my room in the dark and stood poised with the spear, ready to throw it at close range if necessary, while waiting to see what would develop.


It turned out to be a friend of mine who had gotten drunk while parking with a girl down by the river. He had gotten his parents' car stuck down there in the mud and needed to use the phone, and in his flustered and confused state had broken in for that purpose. Fine, nobody got hurt. But if it had been a lunatic or a burglar, at least I wouldn't have gotten hurt. That spear probably would have taken down a water buffalo.


Although it was a prosperous professional suburb, with an excellent school system, there had been some violent crimes recently, and some burglaries. I was glad it was just my friend, but I was also glad I had the spear.

Your point, "The very act of putting it to shoulder and aiming would seem to counteract compulsion somewhat." is a very interesting one. If you happen to be holding a handgun and you get enraged and your fists clench it's a good chance someone is going to get hurt. If the same thing happens while holding a rifle, you won't drop the rifle.

Zee,


You walk around with a gun? How lame is that. I've been down many a dark alley and rough neiborhoods and in 54 years I've never needed a gun. Just keep your eyes open and avoid being stupid and you'll be just as safe.


SPM,...we need beter gun laws in the USA...

Most crimes prevented by guns in America are not reported in the media in America, let alone Australia. There have been school shootings prevented or ended by citizens with guns. These don't get very much coverage.

So you have needed a gun, but just have not had to use it yet.

:-)


Seriously, you are right that you will probably be OK in most places without a gun. Ironically, you are more likely to need a gun in the places that ban them. I have been in lousy areas in big cities and have never had a problem. Illinois and particularly the Chicago area cities have unbelievably strict gun control. And it seems that there is still a big problem there. (My father cannot go to the neighborhood he grew up in in Chicago unless he's really feeling lucky.)


The issue really is a question of probability in a way. The other day in my podunk nowhere safe community we had a 60 year old man attacked by a hammer-wielding criminal in a neighborhood Chicagoans would consider pristine. He got away from the attacker, but really needed a gun when the guy had the hammer poised to strike him. He didn't have one and is lucky to be ok. You see, not having a gun when you really, really need one is like making the mistake that costs you a whole pot. It is a disaster. In all probability you will be OK without a gun. But that one time you are not can be a very bad time.

that is the answer we have been looking for. thanks.

Right. I just think a rifle (or shotgun) is less likely to be used impulsively.


btw, rather than "counteract compulsion" I should have said "counteract acting on impulse."


It should also be pointed out that despite James Bond's best efforts with the Walther PPK, a rifle is cooler than a handgun. My proof? Two words, one name:

It's fascinating to me how many future stars, big name directors, producers and writers got their start on that and other western shows of the 50's. The reruns are a who's who of hollywood.

No one ever dreamed of such an unbelievable act of terrorism happening.


Tom Clancy, in his book Debt of Honor dreamed about it over two years ago.

Just being the devil's advocate because I have nothing against the right to bear arms. But consider that it's also possible that this guy is still alive precisely because he did NOT have a gun! A person (particularily an older person) who is not competent in using firearms is likely to accomplish only having the gun used against him.


A while back we had an armed hold up at one of our local home games. Having guns on the premises did no good. They weren't accessible when they were needed. That may have been a good thing. As it was, no one got hurt. Had someone tried to be a hero it could've turned into a disaster and I might have lost some friends. Just making the point that having a gun isn't always enough and in fact, could put you more at risk.

First, the SPM will sleep in a jeep to walk through the VoP, so he has the mindset of a warrior and would not be overcome! :-)


As far as particular "tactical" situations, there are too many variables to have easy answers. A lot of feeble old people are alive today because they had a gun around. Often, the presense of a gun turns a feeble person into an adversary a criminal doesn't want to face. But there are situations where you won't be able to use a gun. If a criminal has a gun in your face, it's too late. Yeah, there are disarm techniques and all, but if you have to try one or have to try to "outdraw" someone you have a problem. In your robbery perhaps guns would not have helped. But there are times when you could face a situation where you have no choice but to fight back hard and fast. What if the robbers in your situation decided to kill the witnesses to get rid of evidence or because they like killing? Like any poker problem, it depends.


But what is a common denominator is the mindset I joked about above. To defend yourself adequately with any kind of weapon, you have to remember your mind is the real weapon and everything else is ancillary. So if you use your mind you will avoid situations others get trapped in. Sometimes you will have a problem anyway, but you have to have the proper mindset to win. If you roll over and die mentally, you can expect the same physical result. Do I have that mindset? Can't say for sure. I know about people who have a lot of training collapse under the pressure of an armed confrontation. Others keep their wits about them and make good decisions (either shoot or don't shoot) under pressure. But in a life or death confrontation you will have to act quickly and decisively. And that comes from the mind. Just look at the citizens on the hijacked plane that prevented another attack. They had no guns but their mindset allowed them to win an armed confrontation. Their weapons were their minds.

the supreme court of the united states has ruled that police exist to arrest criminals, not protect the people. this came out of a case in alabama where an intruder killed somebody 30 min or so after the police were called. I might could dredge up the articles and get you the actual case name, but this was a couple of years ago so it might be hard to find

this is in the constution proper and is not an amendment if that means anything to you.


atricle 2 section 8 paragraph 11 gives congress the power to

"declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water"


what this means is that with congresses approval citizens could outfit and arm private warships for the purposes of raiding the commerce of the enemies of the united states


now if we assume that an 18 gun broadside is MUCH more devastating then anything you could do with an ak-47 then the entire arguement that the founding fathers didnt consider modern weapons falls appart because they specifically considered the idea of private citizens owning something with much more firepower.

I just finished clive cusslers new book valahala rising. It was published sometime this summer and in it the bad guys henchmen try to ram a boat load of liquified natural gas into manhattan so that it will detonate the world trade center area.

Before I respond -- From you're comment, "if that means anything to you," I gather you're angry. Why??

Why weren't they available? How much effort does it take to reach into your jacket and pull the gun from the holster? A firearm that's not in a condition for immediate use is in the same condition as one that's not available at all. They're like any other tool. If you have a plug-in power drill and want to make a hole, you have to have it plugged in, a bit installed, the drill in hand and applied to the work. Otherwise it's just a whiney electric noisemaker.


The same applies to a firearm. Just as the drill isn't carried in hand all the time but is kept in a tool box or on the bench next to where you're working so it's easily accessible when needed, so too must the firearm be kept easily accessible. Leaving it lay on the table would potentially be quicker than a holster but there's the potential conflict that arises because it's large enough to cover a card. Therefore we return to the holster. From a seated position, a competent shooter can grab the gun, pull it from the holster, present it at the target and fire the first effective shot in somewhere between 3/4 of a second and 1 1/2 seconds. A truly skilled shooter can get the first effective shot off, from the holster, in under 1/2 a second.


These times are all well within the statistical, physiological norms for a human being's reaction/response reflex cycle. As is said in many things, action is always faster than reaction.


Jeff

There's another case in Washington DC where two women were raped and beaten after calling for the police. The eventual Supreme Court ruling upheld the federal court ruling that said the police weren't responsible for the protection of the individual women but only for the overall society in which the women lived. Not much help for the two rape victims.


I think the case was Haynes v. Washington D.C. but I'll have to dig it out... I'm in the middle of a massive file maintenance binge and I've managed to lose a bunch of files... sigh... sometimes a larg harddrive isn't such a good thing.


Jeff