|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 11, 2018 8:32:12 GMT
That's right! I live in Germany with gun restrictions like Canada and I feel not being threatened, so it's ok. If I'd live in an "armed" not peaceful country I'd probably have a gun. But that shows that life without guns is possible at least.
|
|
|
Post by nerdthenord on Aug 11, 2018 15:17:17 GMT
One thing to keep in mind about America vs other armed countries is that the 2nd amendment was designed as much to allow people to protect themselves from criminals as to protect themselves from the government. Thomas Jefferson even believed that it was necessary to have a revolution every 20 years or so in order to keep the government from becoming crooked and authoritarian. So armed Americans are naturally extremely suspicious of any attempt to regulate weapons, and see it (not without cause) as an attempt to remove a threat to the crooked establishment.
Back in the late 18th century, the American people were as well armed as the military, and often times better trained. So keeping the people armed was a darn good way of keeping the government in check. Today, however, a theoretical rebellion's only hope would be if most of the military defected to them. A bunch of guys with assault rifles are no match against armor and air power.
|
|
|
Post by zabazagobo on Aug 11, 2018 17:31:19 GMT
One thing to keep in mind about America vs other armed countries is that the 2nd amendment was designed as much to allow people to protect themselves from criminals as to protect themselves from the government. Thomas Jefferson even believed that it was necessary to have a revolution every 20 years or so in order to keep the government from becoming crooked and authoritarian. So armed Americans are naturally extremely suspicious of any attempt to regulate weapons, and see it (not without cause) as an attempt to remove a threat to the crooked establishment. Back in the late 18th century, the American people were as well armed as the military, and often times better trained. So keeping the people armed was a darn good way of keeping the government in check. Today, however, a theoretical rebellion's only hope would be if most of the military defected to them. A bunch of guys with assault rifles are no match against armor and air power. Yeah, that's more or less the philosophy behind it (and the emerging limitations nowadays with digital and distance warfare). 'When push comes to shove, shoot!' haha
Haven't posted anything else on this thread since everyone seems to have captured my ideas, Croccifixio 's points on cultural determinism and social factors are the brand of my soapbox. It's a really complex topic and has a lot to do with cultural attitudes and climate, the trick becomes figuring out how to provide the right cultural safeguards to prevent people from engaging in destructive and homicidal behaviors with weapons. I dig the free philosophy behind "bolt action, semi-automatic, full automatic, shoot responsibly" just as I appreciate "wine, beer, liquor, drink responsibly"; it's up to the individual to either make a good choice or a bad choice, and I don't think censoring choice in the form of legal restrictions is the best option. However, the alternative of creating a culture which supports people rather than ostracizes them is a far more complex task.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 11, 2018 19:12:01 GMT
One thing to keep in mind about America vs other armed countries is that the 2nd amendment was designed as much to allow people to protect themselves from criminals as to protect themselves from the government. Thomas Jefferson even believed that it was necessary to have a revolution every 20 years or so in order to keep the government from becoming crooked and authoritarian. So armed Americans are naturally extremely suspicious of any attempt to regulate weapons, and see it (not without cause) as an attempt to remove a threat to the crooked establishment. Back in the late 18th century, the American people were as well armed as the military, and often times better trained. So keeping the people armed was a darn good way of keeping the government in check. Today, however, a theoretical rebellion's only hope would be if most of the military defected to them. A bunch of guys with assault rifles are no match against armor and air power. I agree with much of this but feel the need to explain the extreme potential effectiveness of Asymmetric (Guerrilla) Warfare. A military would have little choice but to defect to the citizenry in any major uprising against a potential future tyrannical govt. entity. Why? Because you don't poop where you eat/sleep, meaning your not gonna drop bombs on your own infrastructure, towns, friends, family, etc... During WW2 the Japanese understood the folly of somehow invading and occupying the US mainland by imagining (correctly) a rifle behind every blade of grass. It is hard to conceive the asymmetric power of all those hunting rifles turned into sniper tools. Every street corner would turn into a potential graveyard for troops following some perceived evil dictator and the assassinations of those believed to be attempting to carry out the orders of the perceived potential future dictator would make a pile blotting out the sun. The military would SOON join the people if they believed the potential future leader was going the way of tyrants and they were starting to destroy their own hometowns while getting sniped at from behind every corner and tree stump. Hell, look how hard it was on the troops in the sparse desert towns in Afghanistan and Iraq...Guerrila Warfare would be a thousand times worse.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 11, 2018 22:27:18 GMT
Fortunately, the bottom line being a potential future move by any tyrannical govt. entity would be futile on American shores, which are toxic due to demographics (out of many, one), geography, independent spirit, and the Constitution (the 2nd A. being its teeth and claws).
|
|
|
Post by Wes Cameron on Aug 12, 2018 2:03:43 GMT
Having my profession in the Justice Department of the Province (State in the USA) where I live, it's been my experience that most here that own guns legally do not use them to commit murder, robbery, etc. and when done my them it is usually a instance of a crime of passion. Not always the case but usually. On the other hand I have written well over a thousand Court Reports and gave testimony on young offenders who have murdered someone. They are usually gang members, murdering other gang members and sometimes non-gang members. Also innocent by standers have been killed. Guns make it easy to kill from a distance and for innocent people to be killed by accident. Our gun laws are pretty strict, but the criminals have easy access to them unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by Wes Cameron on Aug 12, 2018 14:27:59 GMT
this recent discussion reminds me how our backgrounds form our method of rationalization. in a gun restrictive but extremely violent country like mine, i would much rather the gun laws be relaxed to encourage my countrymen to arm themselves against criminals (and vigilante state agents). if i lived in a gun restrictive but peaceful country like canada, i might be quite content with some form of gun restriction because i wouldn't feel as threatened. Believe me, as a Canadian...Canada is not a peaceful country re: violence perpetuated on the streets.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Aug 12, 2018 23:50:44 GMT
Relatively, may be the word I missed. I'm sure every large metropolis has big weapon crime numbers, especially gang and drug related ones, but it's a matter of degree and scope of poverty vs population density and law enforcement presence.
I remember having a friend from South Africa (Cape town) come over and express his shock at going through malls and hotels where security was very heavily armed, and my remarks that this was pretty normal and expected here.
|
|
|
Post by solaris on Aug 13, 2018 14:39:56 GMT
How to find out if a person is stable, responsible and a mature individual? Permanent psychoanalysis for weapon owners? That's the rub. How do you do that?
More over, whose opinion of the definitions of those terms is deemed correct?
Quite the quandary.... Glad I am not a politician. I would make a great Benevolent Dictator, but I am a lousy politician.
I think almost everybody would agree that stable, responsible and mature individuals can own weapons. But getting people to agree on the definitions of stable, responsible and mature is the real challenge.
|
|
|
Post by solaris on Aug 13, 2018 14:47:31 GMT
I agree with much of this but feel the need to explain the extreme potential effectiveness of Asymmetric (Guerrilla) Warfare. A military would have little choice but to defect to the citizenry in any major uprising against a potential future tyrannical govt. entity. Why? Because you don't poop where you eat/sleep, meaning your not gonna drop bombs on your own infrastructure, towns, friends, family, etc... During WW2 the Japanese understood the folly of somehow invading and occupying the US mainland by imagining (correctly) a rifle behind every blade of grass. It is hard to conceive the asymmetric power of all those hunting rifles turned into sniper tools. Every street corner would turn into a potential graveyard for troops following some perceived evil dictator and the assassinations of those believed to be attempting to carry out the orders of the perceived potential future dictator would make a pile blotting out the sun. The military would SOON join the people if they believed the potential future leader was going the way of tyrants and they were starting to destroy their own hometowns while getting sniped at from behind every corner and tree stump. Hell, look how hard it was on the troops in the sparse desert towns in Afghanistan and Iraq...Guerrila Warfare would be a thousand times worse. I see it being a very complicated picture as to rather or not the military would defect or maintain loyalty to whoever was in power. National guard would likely defect quickly. Air Force would too. Coast guard would likely stay out of any real combat. Navy would split. Army would split. Marine corps would likely stay loyal to the government. This is based on the people I know and know of who are in the military. Air Force people are typically smarter and more educated than any other branch except for the coast guard. Navy folks are like air force, but not as smart. Army is the mediocre high school kid who did one semester of college before dropping out. He ain't smart, but he ain't dumb and certainly ain't psycho. Marine corps is full of gorillas, psychos, murderers, rapists, and general scum who just want to kill and brutalized people and get away with it. Every one of my friends and family who were or are in the military HATE the Marines. Literally the only ones they have positive things to say about are the recruitment office staff, as they are the only ones who can be allowed in public.It is lonely at the top... We Marines are often the target of jealousy....
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 13, 2018 14:49:05 GMT
The OP said more or less that the problem in Canada started with stable, responsible and mature legal gun owners, ... selling their guns illegally.
|
|
|
Post by solaris on Aug 13, 2018 15:26:38 GMT
The OP said more or less that the problem in Canada started with stable, responsible and mature legal gun owners, ... selling their guns illegally. Contradiction... People who sell their guns illegally are not stable, responsible or mature. They are criminals. They should be tried, and if convicted, imprisoned accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Aug 15, 2018 0:44:05 GMT
Yeah. If they needed cash that badly, maybe they shouldn't have bought guns to begin with.
Let me refer to some local statistics to illustrate the points I've made (not necessarily to debate with anyone, but to continue to clarify my opinion on the matter - and it will help me gather my thoughts as well).
The Context
The Philippines is a recent democracy (post World War II, when the United States of America granted us independence from being a colony/commonwealth nation on July 4, 1946 to coincide with the USA's own independence day). Previously, it was ruled by various islamic sultanates until the Spanish conquistadors eventually converted most of the sultans to christianity, and eventually took over as a colonial ruler (by consent in certain instances, and by force in others). However, the Spanish never bothered to conquer certain areas (deep south, deep north) and were content to rule the major islands and central Philippines (incidentally, we got the name of the country from Philip II of Spain when he was still crown prince). Spanish rule lasted for 333 years (1565-1898), until the Spanish-American war, when the combined might of Philippine revolutionaries and American warriors managed to overthrow the Spanish. To be fair, the USA beat Spain squarely throughout the world, and the Treaty of Paris cemented its succession as a ruling authority over us to Spain, to the dismay of the revolutionaries who fought with the Americans. This led to the Filipino-American war, which was a nationwide revolution that led to countless civilian deaths, especially the deep north and deep south where the locals felt that they had never conceded to Spain, and were not covered by the Treaty of Paris. After a long and bloody struggle, the US consolidated its power over the Philippines, and were eventually preparing to give it independence when World War II broke out in 1942, and independence was delayed. From 1942-1945 Japan had conquered most of the country until Gen. Douglas MacArthur and his merry American-Filipino army broke the Japanese Imperial Army and drove them away (and nuked them for good measure).
After the war, the plans to give Filipinos independence pushed through. So we only really became a sovereign nation (and some will argue that we never gained full sovereignty) around 70 years ago. In that 70 years, 21 were under a ruthless local dictator (Ferdinand Marcos) until he was overthrown in a peaceful 1985 revolution. Still, that dictatorship spawned a communist army that began as some small guerrilla forces during World War II, and became a full blown rebel movement during the 70s. In the meantime, the deep south was still restless, since they still did not concede to the authority of the Philippine government based in far-flung Manila. Both rebel movements continue to this very day, with the communist rebellion being coined the longest-running insurrectionist movement in asia, though honestly the southern rebellion has deeper historical roots (from the 1500s).
Gun Control
Due to the rebel movements gaining followers in the midst of a dictatorship, various gun control laws were passed to weaken the resistance (it was pretty useless since most of their guns at that time were imported from neighboring communist countries like China, or sympathetic islamic states). In 1972, our first major law was passed by dictatorial decree, and stated that:
This law was never repealed even when the dictatorship ended, primarily because the insurrection/rebellion was still ongoing, and that new threats had emerged in the form of military coup d'etat, and the entry of local warlords with small armies into the fray. These local warlords controlled provinces where police and military presence was weak or corrupted, and many continue life as local politicians or as political dynasties.
The Statistics
Hard statistics are hard (lol) to come by, but the estimates peg the numbers at 3,776,000 total civilian-held firearms for 2017, for a ratio of 3.67 firearms per 100 people. That is very very small compared to North and South American countries, and is at the low end for European countries. However, when you distinguish between legal and illegal firearms, you end up with over half of the total being illegal (2,037,000)! That's a startling statistic, but it's also somehow rational.
Homicide rates are quite indicative of the situation. At the same year of this 3.67 firearms per 100 people, you also have a rate of 10 homicides per 100 people. That doesn't include other violent crimes such as robbery, rape, assault, and various other crimes against persons wherein self-defense can be claimed (we have a mix of stand your ground and duty to retreat laws that heavily depends on context), which combined are 4 times the number of homicides. Not to mention the threats of terrorism that arose from splinter rebel groups that turned extremist. In that climate of heavy criminality, we only have less than 4 people armed in a batch of 100, and in all likelihood only one of them is legally armed.
My opinion
Here's my take on it.
First, heavy restriction amidst violence (insurgency, rampant warlordism, and violent crime) is unbearably stupid. Our police is quite underfunded, and they don't have the ability to respond all that quickly in most of the country. Police target response time in dense cities is 15 minutes on average. Given our issues with heavy traffic, bad infrastructure, and general government incompetence, a reasonable average would be 30 minutes. So if your home is broken into by armed criminals, you have no real recourse for 30 minutes other than what's available to you. And if you're part of the poor 75% of the country who cannot afford even basic daily sustenance (or anything "luxurious"), how will you defend your family legally? Our restrictions are both legal and financial - apart from going through bureaucratic hoops, you need to reach an income threshold in order to own a firearm. And guns cost so much due to taxes and fees unless they're locally made. A Glock 19 will set you back $800-$1000, and they're relatively cheap at that. You also need to pay substantial fees yearly (for some, more than they make in a month). That's why in terms of violent crime, the heaviest hit areas are the poverty stricken communities and slums, because they're all so vulnerable in the absence of police ability to respond, and basic self-defense tools.
Second, heavy restriction did not discourage gun ownership. In fact, it created an entire criminal industry of ghost guns, the scope of which has reached other countries around the world. And the statistics back that up. More than 50% of guns in civilian hands are illegal. Are they all used to commit crime? Of course not. Many of them are in the hands of people who cannot afford to go through the legal process, but have a good reason to own guns due to the prevalent crime in their area. Can you really blame them for violating the law when their neighbor's wife was gang-raped on Tuesday, and they have teenage daughters?
Third, heavy restriction did not reduce crime. For one, crime is more closely related to the poverty metrics worldwide than firearm ownership. We're also quite resourceful in terms of violence. I've told the story before of how Arnis/Kali/Filipino Martial Arts came to be. It's not descended from the secret Moro arts of the south but rather the combat arts of those subjugated by Spain and prohibited from owning weapons. There's a trend here that's pretty obvious. Prohibitions drive both legal and illegal means to commit violence into other means and do not inherently reduce the situations that call for it.
Lastly, heavy restriction affects national psyche. If you're used to having rights taken away from you, and you're used to the government authorities dictating the ability to use force, it also affects your ability to think independently and your concept of right and wrong. This is my personal take on the whole thing, but the Filipino's mentality and mantra has always been "bahala na" which translates to "whatever happens, happens." This is the complete opposite of the USA's own mentality of carpe diem, or seize the day. If you've ever dealt with a Filipino, they're generally very warm and friendly, sometimes overly so, and will accommodate and please to their own detriment. They also easily idolize Westerners/foreigners. That's because we've built what's normally called a colonial mentality, and in my view the restrictions on the use of force throughout history, or at least from 1565 onward have contributed heavily to that cultural flaw. It's not something that we can remove overnight, because we're used to being non-assertive, we're used to being victims. And while we have a rich warrior history, losing pretty much every war damages our national ego quite a bit, and we haven't recovered.
Consequently, while it may stem from good intentions, I'm of the belief that firearm restriction has its roots in colonialism and minority suppression, and develops a fundamental flaw in national character that affects generations upon generations. In the context outlined above, however, the solution would not be to to suddenly remove the restrictions, but to gradually replace them with nation-strengthening concepts such as what the NRA was meant to be, or perhaps the asian peculiarity of mandatory military service, or even something like a jury system wherein normal citizens get to participate in nation building. Suddenly lifting restrictions will not help, because we're already afraid of guns, and flooding the market with them will do nothing to help us legitimate gun owners erase that fear around guns that the normal citizen has (because he or she has historically been unable to handle one). That climate of fear is just way too strong right now.
The lesson I take away from my own country's example is: don't cripple yourself with a weak mentality about firearms. People should be able to defend their lives and their loved ones in the most efficient way. Be proud of having the ability to use deadly force in a responsible and mature way. It should never be the sole prerogative of a monolithic entity like the State, because when the State turns against you, as has happened in our country under the Duterte regime, rivers of blood will flow. And most of your fellow citizens will cower in fear, instead of standing up for what's right.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Aug 15, 2018 4:35:14 GMT
Fascinating information. I always cringe when my countrymen rant about how the fascist/communist(depending on if it’s a democrat or republican ranting) government is taking away their rights and ruining the country. The US government may be the most powerful organized crime syndicate in the world, but odds are these folks don’t have a clue about how bad life is in a real tyranny. I’ve also heard that Duterte is completely in bed with organized crime, and only pretends to go after crime to eliminate competition. It’s also very alarming what’s happening in prosperous countries with heavy gun control. Look at the Europe. For the first time in decades violent crime is way up, and only looks to be increasing. The citizens have very limited ways of defending themselves, but it’s worse than that. There is a deliberate effort in most European countries to neuter the populace and turn them into sheep who wouldn’t defend themselves even if they could. Yeah. He's in bed with every criminal syndicate and uses the coercive powers of government to eliminate competition. He went after online gambling at one point, and once the oligarch owners sold their shares to his friends, suddenly stayed quiet about it. Similar things went on in the energy and mining sectors. And of course, the drug lords get away while minor drug dealers and users get shot in the face in front of their children. But I'm trying to step back from going after him a bit, because there's an ongoing power struggle within his circle that's looking to result in him getting neutered tremendously. The price we pay are our government institutions and the rule of law. One way or another, governments will always demonstrate criminal behavior because it is the single most powerful entity in every country, and with that power will come the ability and inclination to abuse it. Laws are there, especially constitutions, to restrict that power and try to minimize governmental tyranny, but that power emanates only from how much these laws are respected. If there's a breakdown in the rule of law, then nothing stops government from imposing whatever its heads want upon a cowering populace. Armed citizenry in my view is a threat against that, although recently becoming more symbolic than anything. The technology at the disposal of the military will always make it the winner in a real battle, so it has to be convinced that siding with the law is the better deal on the table. However, armed citizenry helps the military make that decision, and helps curb dictatorships since a reluctance to overreach (because it could lead to escalating conflict) will definitely be stronger. Sorry for bringing it up again, but Duterte saw this way back in his campaign when he specifically promised police and soldiers double pay. He knew that while the police and military were subordinate to civilians, it would always be the biggest threat to his dictatorial plans, and so he won them over. Some of that support is eroding, but I'm not sure to what extent. Still, he had it right: at the end of the day, citizens being armed will allow them the courage and incentive to resist illegal actions more openly and defiantly. I like to view it this way. Imagine a population comprised of 80% law abiding citizens, 10% law enforcement and 10% criminals. If you arm them all, then the criminals would be no match for the rest of the populace. If you arm 10% of those citizens, equal to the criminals. Since you're all just citizens, you can't go after them and have to rely on state forces to successfully wipe them out, but you will make them reluctant to engage an equal force. Criminal acts are all about targeting the weaker and more vulnerable. Even those inclined to committing a crime due to desperate circumstances might think twice if it meant endangering themselves. It doesn't hurt at all. However, the 10% will not be able to defend themselves against the criminals because they're diluted by the unarmed 70%. In a similar way, the 10% police cannot be everywhere. Suffice to say that crime will still be committed, and most of the time the police will just have to be 1 step behind and try to catch the criminals after the fact of the crime. However, if you increase that number to 40%, that's a different story. The overwhelming likelihood (50-50) that a criminal will face an equally armed victim tremendously increases the likelihood that they will have second thoughts, and will also decrease the success rate of criminals everywhere. Overall, it boosts lawful armed presence to by 200%, and would certainly dent the numbers without much risk. Do you think a law abiding citizen would suddenly use his firearm for an illegal purpose after living so long under the umbrella and protection of the law? Even if 5% of those citizens turned to criminality, you still have overwhelming numbers against them. Not only that, you have effectively created an equal or greater armed force against the police and the military (counting them outside the population for now, but statistically they are at the same numbers of active membership as the police in my country). If SHTF and government manages to convince the military and police to take over the country, at the very least the citizens have the option to put up a fight and, as the saying goes, die on their feet instead of living on their knees. That kind of scenario will help prevent the military and police from ever siding with a dictatorial ruler since it is also in their own interest for self-preservation to not engage in a war against their own citizens.
|
|
|
Post by nerdthenord on Aug 16, 2018 1:16:24 GMT
Just deleted some of my posts, as they were against forum rules. I apologize for any offense I may have caused, and assure you I didn’t realize how much of a jerk I was being and it shouldn’t happen again. Peace guys and gals.
|
|