Everyone Should Have a Gun
77
The Theory
"Everyone should be well armed and well trained in all manners of self defense including gun control." is what a good friend of mine tells me. He has a theory about guns that would make most people raise their brow with a look of you're an idiot.
He believes that everyone in this country should be armed with a gun at all times. He thinks that everyone would be safer, crime rates would decrease, and less blood would be spilled.
I know, I know...you disagree. I did too, but after throwing every argument I had at him, he convinced me that he was right.
It goes something like this:
Ideally, eliminating guns altogether would be the way to go. If we could somehow manage to take every single gun in the world and destroy them, we would be all set and I wouldn't have this Hub topic.
BUT, since that is absolutely impossible, we must then implement the next best option. which is arming every single person. No, we don't just have everyone line up and give out guns all willy-nilly. It will require an extremely in depth and complex training regiment, and it should be mandatory for all people.
People will be trained in all areas of gun use, safety, control. They will be trained in self defense, which will include scenario training. Each person will know what to do in the event that something goes awry. The training would be ongoing. (monthly, yearly...whatever is decided when instilling this theory) It seems like an extremely daunting undertaking, but it would be necessary to get everyone in society to where they need to be for this.
After the training is done for everyone, and we see this implemented, gun use, control and safety would become part of the education system. Children would be taught and trained starting at the time they enter school all of the necessary skills related to guns. It would be no different than learning math, science and history. The early and ongoing exposure would eliminate the fear of guns that children are generally taught now.
The gun safety and usage is the easy part of this. The scenario training is what will really make this theory successful. As long as this part of the training is on point, then giving every person a gun should indeed work.
The Arguments
Like I said, I debated the issue with him for a long time. The arguments I had were repeated by several people whom he talked with after me.
No guns is a much better way to go.
You are right, no guns would be better, but that isn't possible. There is already a black market for guns, and we obviously can't control it. We have regulations and laws already in place to control the guns; but because of that black market, anyone can get pretty much any kind of gun they want on the streets.
If everyone has a gun, more people will commit crimes.
Not true at all. Because everyone knows that everyone else is armed, people will be less likely to commit a crime. They have a much smaller chance of getting away with it when everyone around them is armed and trained. This is where the scenario training comes into play. Let's say a guy walks into a bank to rob it. As soon as he pulls out his gun or makes any kind of threat, the 5 employees, and 2-10 customers will have their weapons drawn and aimed right at him. He could try to shoot his way out, but he is outnumbered and will inevitably be shot.
People would just start shooting at anyone with their gun drawn. It would be chaotic, and the bad guy would not be the only guy that gets hurt.
People would be trained to assess every situation. They would be so well trained that they would know what is happening, and where to aim. If they do not, then they would not have their gun aimed at anyone. It all boils down to the training.
What happens if a person is attacked when they are by themselves?
The people who are going to attack a person who is by themself is going to do it no matter what. They won't do it just because they have a gun. At least now, the victim has a better chance of protecting themself because they have a gun and know how to use it.
Think about all the drunken bar fights...things would escalate and people would get shot instead of just beat up.
A person that is too drunk to realize that if they shoot someone, they will also be shot is definitely too drunk to use a gun. And if this is not the case, well we have one victim, which we would have had anyway, and a dead shooter who was useless to society anyway.
Say someone gets fired, becomes enraged, and brings a gun into the building and shoots the person that fired them.
This would happen anyway! If someone really wanted to shoot someone for firing them, there is nothing stopping them from getting a gun, legally or illegally. The fact that they know everyone in the office including the person who fired them is armed, will make them think twice before acting. They will be less likely to take this action knowing that they will be shot immediately.
What Do You Think?
Should everyone be armed?
See results without votingFinal Thought
There are several more arguments, but they always seem to come back to the same answer..."scenario training".
Examples of road rage and other whimsical moments in which people become angry causing things to escalate will be offset by training as well. As part of training, people will learn how to appropriately deal with stressful events.
Think of the benefits that we would all reap if everyone was armed. To name one...
Events such as Columbine and Virginia Tech would never happen. Sure, the shooter might get a couple shots off and might take a few victims, but if everyone in the room has a gun, the death count would drop dramatically in those types of situations. Imagine if just one person was armed during the Virginia Tech shooting spree...It could have been stopped long before it ended.
This is not my theory, however I do agree with it for the most part. I am sure that I have not done my friend justice in what he actually says about this, but lucky for us he will most likely read this, comment and answer comments that anyone might have.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
What is a fair degree? Is it fair that a group of mobsters or a gang can manage to keep their guns hidden from the cops?
If the police could mop up the black market, they would have done so by now.
You and your freind are both right in a way that there should be some moderation in using arms like country defense, but not to declare war! I think Napoleon said: prepare for war to prevent war. Nice argumentative Hub.
The Theory
C.-That was interesting and had some logic to it. But isn't it sad that in the USA we would feel safer if everyone had a gun. A heart breaking reality.
Yes Tricia, it is...but it is the reality, so we should address it somehow!
Umm, you can call me idiot - but I do agree to your friend, with one small correction. "Should" sounds pretty condescending, I don't force you to get one if you don't want. Yet everybody who wants the gun, should be able to get it without any licensing from the state. Search the hubs, there are a few that explain why this is important :)
Two major points - armed population is polite population;
and - both USSR and Nazi Germany had outlawed guns to enable for state tyranny.
Thanks for the comment Misha...the point of the Hub is that everyone or no one armed. It won't work if only some people have guns. Thats what we have now.
Not sure why do you think it should be all-or-nothing. Life is never black-and-white :)
Knowing that victim can be armed and likely to be armed is more than enough to stop crimes you mentioned, and many others :)
No, life is not black and white, but you cannot compare this theory to life. The main premise of the theory is that it would be ideal to get rid of all guns, but since we can't, we should all be armed and trained to decrease crime and gun violence.
Guns are bad news and I would have thought that in the US with so much gun violence people would realise that. Guns should be in the hands only of authorised people like soldiers and police. Citizens don't need guns - they only get stolen, used against them, cause death by accident.
The argument for democracy is a load of tosh. The UK has had democracy for centuries without an armed citizenry.
In fact I would tend to argue the opposite - that guns are not democratic because they will always escalate violence.
The statistic that would interest me is the proportion of guns that has succesfully been used in self-defence as against the proportion of guns that has been stolen, used against the owners and caused unnecessary fatal accidcents. If that proportion were in favour of guns then I might be tempted to agree, but the facts seem to me to be the opposite.
Guns kill and that's the bottom line. We should all strive for less violence in society and guns actually promote violence - they are after all designed to kill or maim.
Love and peace
Tony
Sorry CF, I edited my comment above, and you were replying to unedited version.
Yet I am not sure what exactly your point is? We seem to be in agreement that guns are needed, and I am missing why we cannot compare this theory to life ? We should, if we want to assess its validity :)
Tony, could you please provide the statistics that supports your point? :)
Misha-
"Knowing that victim can be armed and likely to be armed is more than enough to stop crimes you mentioned, and many others :)"
That is exactly the point. If everyone is armed then any criminal will know the victim is armed and will therefore not commit their crime! It seems like we are in agreement now.
Misha - could you provide statistics that prove your point
Hello, I am the friend Craig was talking about. This is a very tough debate to have with people, because it takes some firm grounding in reality. The truth is that guns are designed for only one thing, to kill, and they do just that thousands of times a year. As Craig said, we would all be much better off if I could blink my eyes and erase a thousand years of gun developement and distribution. The problem is that in reality there will never be a way to get rid of all guns.
Now someone commented that only soldiers and police should be armed and someone argued that the general populace should not have guns because the guns will be stolen and used against them. This got me thinking, so I simply googled "gun stolen from police". Try it, it will scare you. Then there is the fact that here in the US we simply do not trust our elected officials 100%. We are taught to keep a wary eye on them because if we let our guard down they might try to force things on us we do not care to let happen. The worst thing would be a well armed army and police force, with a completely unarmed and helpless citizenry. Then what happens if a general or even a political leader with a strong following decides he is going to be king now? He could walk on in and nothing the people could do about it. It is very important that there be NO record of who ownes a gun and who does not, so that were a tyrant to arise and demand all citizens turn in their guns, he would not be able to have a list to follow, or god forbid simply kill.
Now someone commented that gun possession shouldn't be mandatory. I completely agree. In fact it would be better to keep it a guessing game who is armed and who is not. However, the training should not be optional. All Americans should be well trained from the time they start taking classes. Does that mean you give a preschooler a hand gun and say "okay Timmy aim real well at the bad guys," no of course not. There should be years and years of gun safety drills, and unarmed self defense classes, and emergency situation training before a child is taught armed self defense. In California children are taught how to react if there is an earthquake, but if a crazed gunman walks into the classroom they are left helpless.
So when should kids get guns? I would say when they are adults. Up until that time they should be learning in a very safe and structured way, so that when they finally do enter society they are an asset and not a threat. Now, alot of this is scary because we all know that some schools suck, and the kids who would be getting taught these things at these schools would be getting taught poorly, and lets face it, those were the kids who were at risk of gang violence and such anyway, so now we have just taught a bunch of poor kids how to be efficient killers and lost all the safety and respect parts. The poor schools issue is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed long before we start teaching these things.
Just for the sake of argument lets assume that we have fixed the problem of inadequate schools, and all US citizens are getting the same indepth and consistant training from a very young age. Now these children turn 18 and are considered adults, but these are adults who would know how to react in most emergency situations, who can fight with or without a weapon, who wont just whip out a gun and open fire, but will instead draw their weapon in an emergency and demand that an assailant drop his weapon or be fired upon, they will be able to assess whether deadly force is necessary and will react without hesitation if it is. Hopefully most of these people will not go on to need to use any of this training, but if the situation arises they will be ready. While this could eliminate the need to even have police I would suggest keeping a small police force to take the "bad guys" in to custody and keep them there.
At the age of 18 these new well trained adults would be given the option to buy a gun (as they are now WITHOUT ANY training!) However, I would like to see every town and neighborhood have its own militia. This would be a citizen run organization, not connected to the government. In order to cary or be in posession of a gun a citizen would have to register with the community militia. This would not mean they MUST have a gun, just that they have the option. This way if a person is found with a gun, but is not registered to cary firearms, they would be taken into custody. People who would not be allowed to register would be the same as now, violent offenders and crazies. However, if the government decides to round up all guns and/or gunowners they could not use the list to simply find everyone because anyone could just say they were registered but had no guns.
Why would someone register but not own a gun? Well imagine that you have a family with young kids, so you don't want guns in your house, car, etc. But you have a neighbor who's children are all older and moved out, so he keeps your guns or atleast some extras of his own. Now imagine that you hear outside a group of gang members trying to mug a couple who were out for a stroll, so you quickly run to the neighbor and the two of you call the police and town militia (which sends out an urgent message to all members) and go out with your shotguns. You are well trained, but so are they (assuming they didn't drop out of school which they probably did, but you are well trained so you DO assume they are as well), so you are cautious and follow all protocol. You get the drop on them and you are armed with more powerful weapons so they drop theirs and wait for the cops to show up. Now you were able to do something to keep scum out of your neighborhood, and when the police check they see that you are allowed to be in possession of a gun, they don't even need to ask whether it is your gun or not.
But Dan what if you didn't have better weapons, or what if they had opened fire, then you've just made a simple mugging into a fire fight? That is possible, but the idea is that while you were getting into a safe position so were the other members of the militia, so you are covered by a large net of law abiding citizens, and until you do have the advantage you simply monitor the situation and be prepared to fire if it is necessary.
Now what about schools themselves needing protection? It is a sad reality that the very fabric of our society has broken down to a point where young people feel the need to kill those around them (I work with these types of children so I could go on for hours about what is going wrong, but I'll leave that for another day), and yes if there were no guns then these young people probably would not be able to kill so many people. The sad truth is that until we as a society can get back on track these things will continue to happen, and we cant just sit around feeling bad about it, we need to protect our children as well. So out of these well trained new adults, some will become teachers and principles of schools. These adults should be armed (again we get to the idea that some of these teachers suck just as bad as the schools, and yes that is true, and yes would need to be addressed, but lets assume we have good teachers). Each classroom should have a safe that only the teacher can access. If a situation like columbine were to arise the kids would know what to do (probably duck and cover) while the teacher would become armed and would be well trained how to protect her kids. Meanwhile all of the other adults in the building would also get armed and would be well trained to stop the assailants. College classrooms would be full of well trained adults, who would almost all just draw their weapons, so an incident like Virginia Tech would not happen again.
I think the point is that both sides of the gun issue have it wrong. Yo
Sorry it cut me off:
I think the point is that both sides of the gun issue have it wrong. You have the "gun nuts" who say its my right to have a gun because our country was founded on it, and by god anyone gets a gun no matter how ill prepared they are to use it. Then you have those who are completely against anyone having guns, but they simply aren't facing the fact that the bad guys DO have guns and will always have guns. By making guns illegal or hard to get, only the law abiding citizens stop having guns. The criminals don't care, they are criminals! Now you have an armed criminal society and a guaranteed unarmed citizenry. Yes maybe you will be lucky enough to have a cop wander by when one of these armed criminals is robbing you or shooting at your kids, but chances are they will not and it will be up to you and those around you to take care of yourselves. The answer I see is the best of both worlds, everyone armed if they want to be, but also well trained so no one ever gets out of hand, or if they do there are always others there to stop them.
I can't Tony, I never seen reliable statistics on the matter - and hope you might know the reliable source if you come up with such a firm stand.
To the best of my knowledge all America mass shootings were performed with the use of illegally obtained guns. No form of gun control can prevent that...
Tony,
Thanks for the comments. I think we all can agree that everyone realizes that guns are bad news in general. But since they are part of our society, we can't just ignore them.
To say that citizen's guns only get stolen and used against them is absolutely false. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes."-directly quoted from this website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns
ernest, Also from this website: ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes.
This means that 92% of the guns used in crimes are acquired through the black market or other illegal means.
I'm gonna take the "pro-gun" side. For women some gun pros think it's better to keep something like a shot gun.. easier to to aim (wider spray of lead) so accuracy isn't so important.. but lessons are a MUST. I've got a concealed permit to carry, but whether I do or not is my business and I don't ever discuss it (outside of here). Part of the issue is also, and for women, you've been trained, you're licensed, but if the situation arose, do you have what it takes to use it? If you're gonna pull it out, you better danged well use it, or it'll get taken from ya and the outcome is certain. If it's me or them, it's gonna be them, by golly. I'll pay for my therapy later, because the thought of taking a life makes me ill. I speak of this coming from a background of violence against me (with a gun) so I know what I'm talking about. Thanks for letting me share.
Thanks for the comment Candie. Being able to pull the trigger is key. I have zero experience with guns, but I do know that if I was trained and it came down to it, it would definitely be them and not me. I too hate the thought of such an aweful thing, but I would rather live than die!
Well,
I've read all the comments to this so far and I am impressed with the statements made by all the respondents. I wish to offer some of my views to the discussion.
1) Anyone can make a gun. You can ban guns but since it is so simple to make one, eliminating guns will never work.
2) There are books by noted scholars on the advantages of having liberal (meaning free of government interference) ownership of firearms. The most notible author is John Lott. Google him for the facts.
3) Schools..what to do about schools? In Israel, after schools were attacked by several groups, the parents designed a plan in league with their employers to have a squad of parents armed with lethal firepower to protect the school. Since this plan was put in place attacks on children at schools have become unheard of. If the Israelis can do this so can the people of the united States.
4) I take exception with the philosophy that only adults can own firearms. I do agree that education regarding weapons need to be done at an early age. However, seeing how the current government run indoctrination centers fail at enabling people to read, I do not trust this education or training to them. That training should be done either by an independent firm with no government subsidy or requirement. If a parent wants to have their child trained in firearms then they should be able to do it or have a competent professional do it for them. This should be done at the parent's expense. After the training is done, the child should be able to own a firearm. A child should never be able to bear or carry unless under supervision of a qualified adult.
5) In the united States, the Second Amendment only applies realistically to the Federal goverment. It states plainly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by Congress, the Courts or the Executive branches of the government of the united States. This means the states can do as they wish regulating firearms, but the states that have the least restrictive regulations would get the most firearm friendly people. While the other states that ban weapons will lose population due to high crime rates. Again reference John Lott.
In closing, I would also like to state, if guns had never been invented we'd probably be typing about banning bows and arrows. Men will always find ways to kill other men. Yes, that is sad, I know. But until men can love one another and live in peace, it will never change. After all a fist is a weapon.
I also wish to state that a gun is no more bad news than any other tool. It can be used for good or ill just as any other tool. Recently much ado has been made in the film ledger main about chain saws used to kill people, machetes, swords, spears and other tools. Guns are no worse than them. It is the person that decides to use them for killing other people that are the real problem.
Candie,
As a veteran of Viet Nam, I can tell you it is god awful to have to pull a trigger to kill another human being. I can tell you another thing, it doesn't get easier the next time it happens. But I agree with you, I'd rather have you around than some low life scum.
That's my 2 cents.
Patrick, Thanks for serving.. My heart is grateful, whatever the battlefield was..
Patrick, thank you for your input. I would agree with just about every point you made. I especially appreciate the Israel example. It goes to show what can be done here with minimal effort even!
You are probably right that we would be talking about getting rid of bow and arrows, but I have to disagree that guns are not worse than your list of alternative weapons. Guns are for more dangerous due to their reach and sheer power. I will take a gun over any one of those weapons in any single fight against any single person. Actually give me a gun against a whole bunch of people with those weapons and see who comes out on top...
Wow Craig I cannot believe I 100% agree with you. There are stats and facts to prove that guns do not kill people. The cities that have the highest crime rates also have the toughest gun laws and restrictions. Most of the crimes committed to are with an illegal unregristered handgun. This is not a coinceidence. If guns were outlawed, then people will find another way to kill. The first ever murder was committed by a rock when kane killed abel. The most important point that cannot be argued is the 2nd Amendment allows every law biding citizen to protect themself with a firearm.
C.Ferreira,
There is much to be said about your reference of guns against people armed with bows and arrows. However, since that did happen guess what happened in the end? The Little Big Horn. I know guns will prevail when you have uneducated people waging war against educated people.
However, when you have trained people, using bows and arrows against people, even educated gun people, silent weapons will prevail.
It is all in the training.
Oh, and I've been trained in the use of silent weapons.
:)
It's not just the standard bows, it's the accessability of Cross Bows, which are a scary combination of both and available everywhere, in every sports catalogue. Bow hunters, by and large are worse shots than rifle hunters, do more damage to wildlife in general, nevermind the firepower the crossbows have.. and kids use them!!
candie,
you have stats for this?
I use to be a bow hunter and i can say for sure that as a bow hunter i never wasted a shot. Unlike a rifle hunter, it cost me more than a few bucks to fire an arrow.
If and only I was lucky enough to hit a deer, i could retreive a head. most times the arrow was destroyed. A good bowist can kill the prey immediately. Most of us aren't. We have to track the prey. Good hunters will do this and report it and clean it.
Don't know where I'd look for stats other than the hunting grounds around my area.. Good hunters will do just what you do. Bow hunting requires more proficiency, for sure. My ex was a good bow hunter, but prefered his rifle. My son has a compound, too, but never touches it. I live in a rural area not far from Seattle, and rifles and handguns are the common sounds on New Years even and 4th of July. It gets a little scary.
Seems to me that if everybody had a hand gun, the hardened criminals would just move up to assault rifles, mortars, etc to stay ahead of the game.
The Second Amendment clause about gun ownership is short but I think pretty clear:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
When people talk about gun control, the usually go straight to crime and gun accidents and so forth, and totally skip over the fact that the Second Amendment clearly gives Americans the right to "keep and bear arms," so unless this amendment is repealed, gun control can't be on the table. Even in the states, if it goes far enough to seriously abridge this right, it can be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it has been--in fact, didn't D.C. just do this recently? I don't follow it all that closely but I think a big decision just came down on the side of the Second Amendment for a D.C. issue.
Anyway, all I really wanted to say here is, it's not really about crime, it's about the "...being necessary to the security of a FREE state..." part that the authors were stressing. I mean, these were guys who just threw off government they didn't like, and they didn't want anyone telling private citizens they had no right to do that again if it became necessary. The amendment gives us the right to protect ourselves from government, not criminals.
Most people don't know this.
Gun control won't stop crime, but I don't think everyone being armed will stop crime either. Some people will just always gravitate to crime, and we don't give them much of anything else to do here, so crime totally pays. It's dangerous and illegal, yeah, but lucrative while you're at it. So long as that remains true, you won't stop it.
Interesting hub! Thanks. :)
One of the best things about the UK is that guns are reviled by the vast majority of the population. There is no false romanticism. No fetishisation. And certainly anyone saying but 'I can carry a gun I'm a good guy' would be met with hoots of derision. None of us are good guys and none of us are to be trusted with lethal weapons. We are all human and prone to homocide. The red mist is never far away- a parking dispute, a cheating partner, a disrespectful glance, an overcrowded train, a foul mothed drunk etc etc etc can be cause enough for murder if you're having a bad day.
Patrick, I guess I should have been more specific. I certainly don't want to run into an ambush of people with silent weapons, but if I were in a dual with a person branding a bow and arrow...I'll take the gun.
And on that note...i'll think I'll stop arguing with you...wouldn't want you sneaking up on me with your silent weapons training! haha
Thanks again for commenting.
Paraglider...you may be right, but at least people would have some sort of defense rather than nothing!
pgrund...thanks for the input! I do agree that the 2nd ammendment is there to protect us against government, however i don't think it shouldn't also be about protecting ourselves from people. Yes, we will always have criminals, but there has got to be a way to reduce the amount of gun violence!
There really is no great solution to this, but there has to be a best solution. Who really knows what that is though?
Will...I hear where you are coming from, but if people are going to murder someone or just shoot them for that matter, over something as trivial as parking or an overcrowded train, they better be prepared to be shot as well. (according to this theory)
And if this is the case, then society is probably better off without these types of people!
"Children would be taught and trained starting at the time they enter school all of the necessary skills related to guns. It would be no different than learning math, science and history."
There is huge flaw in the 'train everyone' notion that makes this all possible. It is also just as impossible as ridding the entire world of guns, to train everyone appropriately for gun use.
You wrote: "They would be so well trained that they would know what is happening, and where to aim. If they do not, then they would not have their gun aimed at anyone. It all boils down to the training."
This notion assumes that everyone wants to have a gun, that everyone gives two flying bats about learning how to shoot a gun, and that everyone in training is paying attention. You can require a training course, but what will you do when your students don't learn and show proficiency? Shoot them? If we could train people well, we would have educated them not to use guns and resort to violence in the first place. We don't have the capacity to train the world to read, so what makes anyone think we could train the world to shoot? And just because we can't train the world to read doesn't mean they won't try. Likewise with unskilled gun owners; they will still try.
I understand the ideas behind this but it is all equally as impossible as ridding the word of guns so it is really a moot point in the end.
That's why I say hey man nice shot.
J - good point. Our education system is terrible and needs a hub to be written about it! Of course not everyone will want a gun, but I'm going to leave it up to Dan to respond to your arguments.
acarpoc...thanks for the comment, but what is your point?
guns provide great entertainment when you are a bored teenager, what would we do in LA, without them?
thanks for the read goldentoad....i get the sense that you don't have a serious bone in your body!
Only one, but you ain't a chick.
Guns? Sure. But they should all be pink.
haha yeah, you can keep that to yourself there toad.
Pink guns...interesting. would anyone take them seriously? thanks for the read!
em. . . that was the point.
yes i know....it was a fairly rhetorical question!
phew, thank Gawd for that! this was good read. I can't ever see me owning a gun, and I think they should be pink so kids wouldn't want to carry. But this was well written and thoughtful.
Thanks Teresa...I like how you spelled it Gawd!
Pink guns may be a good deterrent for kids, but they would probably just whip out their can of spraypaint and paint over them!
ppfff.....hoodlums.
Your best friend's argument will definitely not persuade me to purchase a gun. I really hate those things, and when people start talking about their gun collections I just want to get away from them and the situation.
Thanks for checking out my Hub sweetiepie...The point is not to persuade anyone to purchase a gun, but to share a theory. I am with you, I don't really like guns, but this makes sense to me and I would jump on board if something like this were put into place.
His argument does not make sense to me because there are groups in the USA, and majorities in many other countries, that do not believe in owning assault weapons of any kind. Thus, for this argument to makes sense we have to dig deeper. You would have to strip away everyone's individual belief system and make them automatons that buy into in owning guns for the collective good. Only then, and that is so impossible, would this argument make sense. I got the point of his argument, but I am just not agreeing with any of this.
The argument can make sense, but not plausible, which I think is the case here. I don't see how it could ever really come to fruition, but what if it could?
As a NYer I have never felt the need to have a gun - odd isn't it when you hear how supposedly violent our city is - but proportionately speaking, when you think of the millions of folks crammed in this small city - it is no more violent than any other place in the US.
However, as I plan to retire to a small town in the South (maybe) there is no way on earth I would live there without a gun, as an older woman (knowing that we are often prey) - I would never allow myself to be a victim of a brutal crime. I do not do the 'victim' thing - never did.
But nothing will change until we address the reason we have guns - historically speaking - why it is in our constitution - until we are honest about it and have dialogue about the bloody taking of land from people who have been here for more than 12,000 years - and the need to outright slaughter them (with guns) if they didn't go peacefully - we will never address gun violence - it would be an admission of guilt.
We are so afraid of our own history - it is just easier to keep arguing the gun issue and not the issue of a history based on heroic myths - heroes with guns for no reason but to kill innocent people, and it was legal. Could we admit we were wrong? That would be the starting point for this gun issue.
Still makes no sense in my mind because I like to look at all the variables. I shall not concede, but that is all I have to say on this one. Once I make up my mind strongly I am locked in.
I have to say that I fully agree with Mr Kumm. He is right that if we are not even able to teach kids basics like reading, writing, and speaking propper english then we have no hope of effectively teaching them how to propperly prepare for an emergency. I think that in the end for something like this to be implemented and work it would take a personal commitment from the people. We would have to all stand up together and say we're done relying on the police to protect us, and we will take responsibility for ourselves and our families
The police protect us? that's a myth in my neighborhood. If you don't get your gun now while there is still peace, the cost will be too much later on when everyone just gives up on our system and starts going bonkers. I'm sure they are on sale right now at Wal-Mart.
Thanks BK...we were definitely wrong about that. but I don't see how addressing out history has anything to do with how to move forward from here. Maybe I'm just missing your point.
Thanks for the comment though!
toad...police are idiots, and thats all I have to say about that.
SweetiePie you are completely correct that many people do not believe in gun use or violence at all. In the society I am talking about those people still exist. No one is saying they have to get a gun. The really important thing for the schools isn't so much the learning how to propperly shoot a gun. Heck we could even leave that out of the schools and let parents take their kids to private lessons. The important stuff for schools are things like CPR and First Aid training, emergency situation training (like what do you do if there is a gunman in the building and you are not armed? but also things like what do I do if there is a fight? or if there is a tornado/earthquake?) There is a lot of non violent training that our kids do not recieve in school. These things are very important for everyone to be able to do. I agree with you about people talking about their gun collections... who cares? I'd rather hear about your training that allows you to safely immobilize an assailant without the use of deadly force.
In the end I will say this Miss SweetiePie: You must know a young person... a child of your own perhaps, or a young niece or nephew... what if, God forbid, one morning you are walking this young person to school and just after you say your goodbyes and you are wandering off you hear gunshots from inside the shool... you know that your loved one is helpless inside with that gunman... wouldn't you feel aweful knowing that you did nothing to save the children? I know I would. In my society you (as an intelligent and concerned adult) would have drawn your weapon and gathered quickly with the other adults in the area and gone in to do what you could. I guess my point is that I would feel ashamed to be a burden in a time of crisis, I would always want to be able to be an asset. At the risk of sounding sexist, perhaps it is because I am a man, and the thought of being helpless when my family is in danger is utterly abhorant to me.
People are so worried about other people. What if we all just took responsibility for ourselves and our families? Make sure that in a crisis situation you can atleast take care of yourself and your family. Not having any ability to do so seems very selfish and naive.
BkCreative: I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure the majority of Native Americans were wiped out by european diseases and not the guns. In fact, based only on what I've read in history books, I believe that the Native's quickly learned to use the guns and horses. Had their numbers not been so depleted by disease things might have gone very differently.
I'm sure there is a whole other hub in this debate, but I will say that it is very sad that when one nation conqueres another many people die horribly. I think we as a country do need to simply come to grips with how our nation was formed, just as the Germans did, and the Egyptians, and the Chinese, and almost every other major nation on earth. Almost all nations had to destroy other nations in order to become what they are today. I believe that this guilt we seem to always have hanging over our heads needs to be dealt with. Our ancestors beat the natives. It happened a million other times in history. I'm afraid the only thing I'm sorry about is that we continue the farce that they are still independent nations at the unnecessary expense of thousands of children subjected to poverty, abuse, and alchoholism. You are correct we do need to accept our history so that we can get over the misplaced guilt.
I agree with toad... guns are interesting, I doubt it would be too hard to get kids to pay attention in shooting class... and cops are idiots.
Personally I think that if you have to feel safe by holding a gun, you are insecure and a coward. True the crime rates are bad but they would increase if more people were equipped with weaponry. Fate and death themselves, everyone has their time regardless so why live in fear? Why carry a gun because something COULD happen...I agree that all people should be able to defend themselves but if you have to use a weapon, you've only became like everyone else.
"no offense"
-h
I'm not in favor of gun control but you're assuming that the training would be 100% successful for every person (about a 30% success rate is more likely), and you're not thinking about people who have disabilities, both mental and physical. You're also saying that guns would naturally be allowed in every public place but that's unacceptable... imagine a hundred thousand guns taking rides in disneyland... what about churches? unless you want the pastor to wave a gun while he's preaching instead of a bible.
I don't favor gun control but I don't think this theory works in practice. Taking guns away isn't the way either because then people would just use knives and homemade bombs.
I will take one natural disaster, one terrorist act, or a deepening collapse of the economy before people realize life is not secure. One more disaster and that's all she wrote for the economy. People will kill for food and water. People will kill because they want to. People will kill because they are pissed and tired of the shit. I don't want violence but I can taste it in my mouth. Its not against anyone, but its against a system that has manipulated us. I tend to reason for peace, but when people begin to starve, they will pick up their guns rather than go hungry, I mean, rather than let their children go hungry. I don't know what world anyone else lives in, but I see the fine thread of society ready to be snapped. I'd rather have a job and go about my business. I'd like to sit down with everyone and have some soda pop, but I'm not going to think the world is safe. History speaks for itself, shit on the people enough, they will fight back, and I would rather not just have a butter knife when that day comes.
Amen to that Toad!!! I couldn't have said it better myself!
I disagree if everyone should have gun I don't know in USA. I like warm and peace in living. having a gun is forbidden in my country. Just only police and army should have a gun.But thanks for information, it's open my eyes.
Everyone carries a gun in the terminator movie. thats the real future.
Hannah...I don't get offended by people's comment on my hubs. If I did, I wouldn't allow them, nor would I delete them if I did for some reason take offense...with that said...Are you saying you would rather be mugged at knife point without any form of protection, than carry some kind of weapon? It does not make you a coward to carry a weapon...it makes you smart and able to defend yourself. Its logical.
I agree that everyone has a time to die, but it should be natural. If someone wants to kick my ass until I die...that is not fate. That is bad luck, and I would most certainly do everything and anything I could to keep myself alive. If that means arming myself, then so be it, but I'll be damned if I let anyone take my life away from me.
Thanks for the comment.
PJH, thanks for the read...you are absolutely right. The training success rate would definitely not be 100%.
But lets say, for the sake of argument that we had a 75% success rate. Why would it be unacceptable to have guns in some of these public places. If everyone knows what they are doing, then I fail to see where the issue would be.
Plus, Disney is a place of happiness...who the hell would shoot up Disney! (I say this of course, with a very fine grain of salt, because eventually it is bound to happen.)
Toad, I fully agree that there is and will be a tipping point, but I don't know how close we are to that. I think you may be a bit overzealous in thinking one more would do it.
Maybe one more event would bring about a positive change in people? Who really knows.
Its called the Shock Doctrine Now. At a time when there is complete chaos, someone will take control without a protest. Our government on behalf of industrial corporations did it twice in ten years. Moved the poor out of New Orleans and Invaded Iraq. No one has done a thing. If there is another shock, people may decide, they will not let the government dictate for them any longer.
Well lets hope that the people do something...I just hope its not the direction in which you are thinking.
I think we are still very close to the edge with our current economic status, but who's to say, if something happens to Obama, there will be mass violence. People hate him as much as they love him, but it only takes one nutjob to set the wheels in motion. I think if the mythical "Big One" hits LA, it will be minutes before the shootings, the lootings begin, everyone will be for themselves. If there is a true life threatening virus out there, it will shut our economy down because its already so weak. More jobs lost, more hungry mouths, terror in your neighborhood. Sad to say, as much as I am against everyone having a gun, the reality is, our way of ignorant bliss is more fragile than we think.
Hannah... if you look up some statistics you will find that the areas in the US that have the highest gun violence rates are those that have the most strict rules. You will also find that in areas which adopt more liberal gun laws (easier to get legally) and have a larger percentage of their population armed violent crime rates drop.
People take precautions every day against "what if" scenarios. For example, I wear my seat belt when I'm in the car. Does that make me a coward? What if fate wanted me to die in a car wreck, but I used my seatbelt so I lived? If we do all have our time to die then it doesn't matter if you carry a gun or not, it is not up to you anyway, it is up to fate. So why not wear your seat belt (I mean carry a gun)?
Excellent article and I can not defend the reasons for an armed citizenry better than this woman's testimony before congress.She watched both of her parents get gunned down while they were out for a bite in Texas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT6YRCS0oqE
I just want to point something out. Kennesaw, Ga, a suburb of Atlanta, has an ordinance requiring ownership of firearms.
Here are some articles regarding Kennesaw:
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI
So everyone having a gun isn't a bad thing and no people will not live out their wild west fantasies. An armed populace is a polite populace as evidenced by the residents of Kennesaw.
Ferrierra- I'm just trying to imagine what it would be like to take the kids to a waterpark or pool-- "my turn to guard the guns" haha-- or "trade your gun for a towel"-
It's also very easy to for people to snap in high stress places with long lines and uninterested govt. officials (like the DMV, DOL, Social security offices, etc.) a gun at the side would be too easy of a remedy for a high strung dude that feels slighted for some reason.
it's a funny concept but it doesn't convince me that the US would be a safer place. I think we're coming out of that stage of history and I doubt we would return easily. I think just having guns in your house (locked up if you have children) is enough personal protection.
I have to say I agree with the idea...to a degree. This is still the land of the Free (supposedly), and the idea of a mandate that everyone be armed at all times is a bit too dictatorial for my tastes. But back to the point, would you really be willing to take the risk of say, robbing someone if there's a certainty that your victim will be able to shoot back? Probably not...unless you pop them in the back of the head...and even then, you better do that in private, otherwise, every other bystander would just shoot you full of lead.
However, I don't agree that getting rid of all guns would solve anything...for the moment, lets assume that the premise is plausible. Thousands of years ago, mankind didn't have all this fancy technology that we have today...but we still managed to kill each other just fine; and in huge numbers! If you're going to take away everyone's guns, then you better take away everyone's knives, clubs, cars, brass knuckles, household chemicals, etc etc etc....anything that can be used as a weapon...which is pretty much everything...chop off people's hands and feet while you're at it. In fact, might as well just lock all people around the world in 9x9 cells.
Opponents to the "everyone should be armed idea" usually say something like "oh! it will be like the wild west all over again! it will be the OK Corral! it will be a blood-bath from coast to coast!"
This is total bullshit...fear mongering resulting from their own insecurities and lack of knowledge about firearms and firearms safety and responsible firearm use.
To debunk this, let's say you're at a gun show...a place where EVERYONE has a gun. If you start shooting up the place with YOUR gun, how long do you think it's going to take for armed citizens to put you down?
Case and point: A man tried something like this once. He attempted to rob the owner of a gun store at gun point...the instant that he pulled his weapon and announced that it was a robbery, half a dozen patrons in the store (including an off-duty officer), and the store owner himself, pulled their weapons and shot the guy dead.[sic]
The risk of instant death by fellow civilians is a much better deterrent to crime than 10 years in prison, where the state (via taxpayers) pays to house, feed, and clothe your criminal ass. Great solution...someone commits a crime, and then they practically get spoon fed by MY money.
MindlessBrute and Patrick...Thank you both for the examples...several arguments have been made similar to these, but these examples show the proof!
Thanks
"It's also very easy to for people to snap in high stress places with long lines and uninterested govt. officials"
Whenever I see comments like these I just wonder: Would you snap? Is that what you are telling us? If YOU had a gun YOU would snap and kill people? I doubt it. Stop worrying about other people and start being responsible for yourself. In any of those situations someone might have a gun NOW. So what would you do if someone snapped in one of those places today? For most people they would bend over and kiss it. But, if everyone else had a gun too, then the guy might try a little harder to keep a cool head, and if not well he wont get more than a shot off. the point is that in our reality, anyone, at anytime, might have a gun and might go nuts with it, and that reality does not change no matter how many gun laws there are. take some personal responsibility. If you are a person who tends to freak out, then dont have a gun, but if you think you can handle it, then get one so that other people don't have to protect your ass.
I just want to address Dan's comment about how not having a gun to protect others is selfish and naive because it is not so. You can say it all you like, but violence begets violence. More people having guns will not solve the problems of the world, and you would still have issues.
Dan you are wrong about Native Americans not being killed by European and American guns. Yes the majority died of disease, but just read about the Battle of Sand Creek and Wounded Knee. I was a history major and I can tell you what American soldiers did at San Creek was sick. They killed women and children with guns, and even and cut of their genitals. Guns were often used on Native Americans.
As a person that has lived in violent communities I will tell you many people do survive without guns. There is always a more peaceful and better way, and eschewing all violence possible is the intelligent and smart way in my book. I am so not naive, but once again I see the person with this theory is a little stuck on their own opinions, so try and make others look weak you have to throw out these words. That is fine I do not mind looking weak because I have nothing to prove.
Europeans really are getting smart about gun control, and Americans really need to wise up on this. More guns will not solve your problems. If you are American you do not have to live in an overly violent city, and you can always move to a town where this is less violence. This is why many people moved to the Southern California mountains to get their kids away from the gang violence. Better alternative to guns.
My friend's grandparents learned her dad had a gun in the house and flipped, so then they arranged for them to move up to the mountains. It happens more than people know. Many refuse to put up with the violent conditions of where they live and move to a less chaotic place. Violence can happen anywhere, but owning a gun will not necessarily save your life. Some will never let their moral opposition to guns and taking life let them buy into this theory.
Ok SweetiePie, I will say again. If a person has a moral or religious or whatever issue with having a gun, that is fine. Violence might beget more violence, but I don't believe more guns= more violence. I believe it equals less violence. The data back up my conclusion, but it is really ok if you don't want to believe it.
If you read my post carefully you will see that I said everyone should have a gun to protect themselves, NOT others. It IS selfish to rely on those around you to protect you in a crisis while you offer nothing.
In fact we do all offer something. We offer money to some of our citizens so that they will be there with guns to protect us in a crisis (they are called the police). Unfortunately in my experience these citizens are far less qualified (intelligence wise) than I am to be protecting anyone in a crisis. Plus they are unreliable, innadequate, and expensive. Would you argue that even cops shouldn't have guns? Why must we pay other people to do for us what we should be able to do for ourselves? If most people were armed then the only people who would commit crimes would be those who wanted to die, and those people will commit crimes anyway. Maybe next time we can stop the massacre before it begins.
Yes the native americans were killed with guns as well as disease. That wasn't the point. The point is that every nation on earth today has a long history of brutally exploiting and murdering other nations so that they could gain the power they have today. It is very sad and I hope that we have evolved since then, but I can no more apologize for what my ancestors did to the indians, than i can apologize for any monkeys my cavemen ancestors might have killed. The point is that it is time to move on, accept what happened to get us where we are today, learn from it, and evolve.
Hannah, I have to disagree with your comment that folks who need to carry guns to feel safe are cowards. I don't think wanting to protect yourself and your loved ones makes you a coward in any sense of the word. I think it makes you smart and maybe, someday, alive rather than dead.
Also, I think that people who are going to shoot up a place out of cold blood, are going to do that regardless of how strict or lenient the laws. So, in other words, whether it is illegal to own a gun or not, that crazy person is going to find a way to be crazy. It's sort of like the drug laws; countries with lax drugs laws actually have lower abuse rates. The drug heads are still going to be the drug heads if regardless of legality.
I think Dan and C. Ferreria are on the right track with an training system and a new conversation on the importance of bearing arms and blessing we have as free citizens with the right to bear arms. I also think they are overly optimistic.
Dan, have you read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond? It sounds as though you have a solid understanding of the premises and ideas he explored in that book.
I've heard good arguments both ways. But I must say that if we applied this same logic to nuclear arms for instance, the world would definitely be a much more dangerous place.
thanks for joining the convo mulberry...
obviously we would not be applying the same logic to nuclear arms. one use of a nuclear weapon would do far more damage than a gun....this theory can't really be applied to something like that.
But, yes if we were to apply the same logic, then the world would definitely be more dangerous. you are correct in saying that.
The threat of mutual destruction is what kept nations from using nuclear arms and it kept the world safe,we're still here.The same logic would apply albeit on a much smaller scale,with an armed citizenry.That and the mindless brute likes the thought of the attention our elected representatives would give to the voices of the masses,if they were all glocked and loaded.
On a serious note Sweetie Pie--We all wish the world was a better place but the truth can be brutal.I have recieved extensive firearms training in the military and I will pass this on to my children especially my daughter.When I am no longer around to protect her,I will feel comfortable knowing she's able to defend herself,her dignity and her property.Living near violence and living through it are two very different perceptions,living through violence can change your perspective instantly.The woman in this 9-11 call lived through violence because a friend was kind enough to loan her a gun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkS8mdbml0A
um... giving everyone guns is just plain insane. Almost all of your logic is horribly flawed.
and getting rid of guns is a bad idea too. as the UK has perfectly demonstrated, people will just use knives and blunt weapons instead.
we should just leave things as they are.
@SweetiePie
I would like to point out that moving to a place that is isolated will not deter criminals. Back in 1959 an entire family was terrorized and brutally murdered in Kansas. You may have heard of this, it was completely documented in the book, "In Cold Blood" by Truman Capote. The family lived owned and lived on a farm outside of Holcomb. I can't help but think if the father had a weapon he could have saved his wife and 2 children from being slaughtered by the two thugs who committed this atrocious act.
So even if I move to a place more isolated, I will refuse to fool myself into thinking I'm safe. The facts state differently!
LG...thanks for reading and for commenting, but why is the logic horribly flawed? Do you have any facts or opinions to back that up?
@LGR878
I guess you didn't read any of the articles I provided on Kennesaw, Ga.
Here is something that i think everyone should know. Morton Grove, Illinois enacted a complete ban of all firearms within the city limits just before Kennesaw passed their ordinance. Here is what happened in Morton Grove:
"By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000"
A note Kennesaw's population is currently 31k plus.
@PatrickHenry
Actually the statistics also show you greatly lower the chances of being killed by acts of violence by moving to an isolated community. SoCal is a great model of these statistics, but people that want to make others feel they are wrong always will say so.
@Dan
This is a very NRA American biased point of view, and as some Europeans and Australians have noted their nations are doing much better with gun control. Not sure why Americans have an obsession with guns and gun ownership, but basically there will not be a wide range of opinions on a hub written and inspired by Americans that think gun ownership is the answer. Sorry that people feel it is.
People playing with guns really makes no sense to me. Let us look at it this way:
Everyone should stop driving because we would all save lots of gasoline, and people would be less prone to diabetic conditions.
Every parent should get a license before they can have kids because this would ensure they knew what to do.
Everyone should eat the same healthful diet because then would would have fewer medical complications.
All of these scenarios are unrealistic just like this gun thing. I am not going to bother you any further, but I feel like I am one of the few divergent opinions on this hub that does not really seem to understand that people outside of the US do not have this gun obsessed culture.
You should watch Bowling For Columbine and see what I am talking about. The US has one of the highest crime rates in the industrial world because of the gun culture and gun ownership.
SweetiePie...do you have any facts to support your claims? SoCal may be a good may indeed be a good model of those statistics, but without proof they are just your claims!
I do not think that gun ownership is the answer, and I am the author of this hub. I have zero obsessions with guns or gun ownership. In fact the very first paragraph of this Hub tells you that this isn't even MY idea or MY theory. I simply want to get this out there for people to talk about, which worked quite well.
But if you want to claim something and dispute other peple's evidence, you will have to show some proof of your own, otherwise nobody will take you seriously!
Thanks for checking back. I almost emailed you to let you know how many people responded to you!
I have facts to support my claims, but once again you are sort of trying to make me look weak. The other posters have given no facts to support their theories actually, but Bowling For Columbine is jammed pack full of facts to illustrate what I am saying. I am a very intelligent lady and many people take me seriously, but since no one here has no real solid facts you should not be hypocrites. I refuse to argue with people that just want to say I have no facts, whereas this entire theory is not based on any solid facts either. I withdraw from here.
That is fine for you to withdraw, but in case you come back....
Nobody is questioning your intelligence, and nobody is saying that you don't have any facts. I am simply saying that you have not provided any yet, and I am asking you to do so! Nobody is arguing with you either....this is a good debate topic, which is what everyone is doing.
Patrick Henry has given several links to support his claims.
The main thing here is that you are claiming something without supporting it. If you were simply expressing an opinion, then that would be fine, and no one would even have responded to your comments.
Either way, I thank you again for taking part in the discussion.
@C
One thing about this issue is that you will always find people that are polarized.
Some to such an extreme they think they are being attacked for their views and choose to leave.
I see that SweetiePie also left society opting to move where she thinks she is safe. I tried to point out the illusion of safety she has.
Alas, until she is immediately confronted with someone that wishes to take her or her family's life she will never change. My regret is that when that day occurs she will become another gun ban advocate's statistic.
Also, I don't currently own a firearm of any type. However, under the current political situation, I have given serious thought of obtaining a 1911 colt commander. A weapon I'm quite familiar with.
I agree with you Patrick, and it will be a sad day if and when that happens. Sometimes people just cannot see the other side of a debate.
I commented earlier, but haven't read all the comments since. I don't support gun culture at all, but I can see some sense in allowing people to keep a licensed gun in their home. But the prospect of every driver carrying a gun is ghastly. I'd expect there to be hundreds of road-rage shootings every week, with the resulting pile-ups killing many innocents. One thing is certain - I would not be in a hurry to visit the US again if mass gun ownership became the norm.
I believe I already have a hedge of protection over me so why place insecurity within myself by carrying a gun just like those who participate in gang violence. The element of surprise is essential to whatever surprises come your way. If someone were to walk behind me and cover my mouth and hold a knife at my back and say "Come with me", deep inside their heart is POUNDING, they are nervous scared like I would be at that time...people like that need to feel control so they control others with fear so what should I do? KILL him with my 'gun' and let it haunt me the rest of my life or be loud and draw a passerby's attention and scramble away? I'd rather scare him and then get away without blood being spilt.
I did delete your comment because I was like 'he doesn't get me'. You know you have a GREAT taste in music but we clash.
-h
All I will say is I did not leave "society" and I recommend people who live in LA move to a suburb. Someone earlier on the thread said they live in a crime infested area, and the reality is many people in Southern California choose to live in lower crime areas. I still live in "society," but I have chosen to live in a town with a lower crime rate. I think some views here are extreme on your end, so on the other end you deem my so. My views are not extreme, whereas yours are not to your way of thinking, but I did you notice several of you are sticking together. There have been no hard core statistics presented on your end either, which is why I withdraw. I cannot debate with people who think they are posting statistics and that I am "silly".
You provide some interesting arguments there. The training may help but it shouldn't be the only solution to arming all adults.
Let's look at it this way. How many had driver's education before they got their license? How many people who have, speed or park illegally? People won't be totally responsible even after gun training.
Your bank example above is interesting. Someone comes attempts a robbery and begins to shoot his way out. At this time, many of the bank patrons pull out their gun and begin shooting. How many other innocents do you think will be kit and possibly killed from the numerous shots fired but many guns as opposed to just one gun? With adrenalin flowing, many of the patrons may not be thinking clearly before they begin shooting.
Many democratic countries have gun control, and don't have rampant gun problems. The best thing for a country is not to arm everyone, but to educate everyone and provide a good way of life for all.
Thank you for your comment Paul..I think you are dead on.
naw.. there not about to give everyone a gun for the purpose of stopping the uneccessary shootings... they want ppl killing eachother.. haven't you heard of the New World Order? they want the global population dow nto 500 million... They are moving forward and fast with the New World, and Marshall Law will soon be in place
Quite a theory Jaycen...don't think you're right though!
I appreciate you stopping by.
I know what you're saying here but I just dislike guns so much that I can't change my opinion, nor the eternal (yet probably foolish) hope that someday, no one will feel the need to use guns.
Like I said, just my personal distainment of them.
My opinion of the subject matter aside, you wrote a great hub.
Thanks Herald! You are not alone in your opinion.
The second we give up our guns, we give up our freedom. The reason the second amendment exists is so our government could not become what our fore fathers were fighting against. Sadly, it happened any way.
mahasson, thanks for stopping by...not a big deal not to have an opinon about it1 perhaps this will help you form one!
Brent, thanks for the comment...you are definitely right.
From my own experience, without links, is that there was some major violence here growing up and everyone had a gun, illegally. There was the occassional drive by at my junior high and high school. At every party, a drive by. At every event, a drive by. Yes, everyone had a gun, but it did nothing for peace. After the Riots, people agreed to quit fighting each other, but there are also other factors that played into it, namely the crack epidemic here. Crack was good business. A little bloody, but good to fund the fight against communism in central america. Once the government choked off the cocaine, peace was attainable, because there was no drug territories to set. So without going into that tangent, I would say guns to everyone did not mean peace, other factors were involved. However without having certainty of our future, I don't see how we cannot arm ourselves.
I think this theory has been recreated and its absolutely effective and I do of with this idea of being armed. Actually in india there is a religion called Sikhism, in which they do keep armed themselves by a dirk in the sheath, and they dont keep fighting and almost never use them, unless there is a fight, but they use it as self defense. And per this theory that no one will startup fight as he will be knowing the oponent also has the weapon. What the logic is that everybody loves himself and would not like to be hurt or killed. If on a day today there is no fight going on and there is peace because everybody knows that each country is fully-weaponized. So 10/10 for the idea of everybody being warmed. Even in a military or defence, everybody is arm but they use it for solving their mutual conflicts, they only use for enemy.
Wow. this is one of those "Why didn't I think of this" type Hubs. Thanks for posting. Very thoughtful!
Unfortunately, the argument about eliminating all the guns making a better world doesn't hold water.
As long as people want to kill each other, they will find a way. Just ask Abel. If he'd had even a little .38 Derringer, the story would have had a much different ending. ;)
Thanks for joining in Apepperson. I appreciate the comment!
Im glad I clicked your hub and what an interesting discussion its turned out to be!
I agree with the proper training but I assume the right bodies( law enforcement already have this in place)...one point though you mention with the right expert proper training ,doesnt that also mean my potential attacker also has those same skills?
I understand we dont live in an ideal world but I fail to see how education will deter or change the current statistics ( sadly) I believe its a culture , a gun culture that is the problem.
Pgrundy Thanks for 2nd ammendment Info. I didnt know the full aspect of that law.
Thanks for the comment Eagle...yes, training would mean that we have trained attackers, but those people would already be training themselves to attack. Training everyone else just gives the attackees the chance to defend themselves!
The definite key here is education. Without it, we are just a bunch of fish in a barrel.
New Zealand (where Im from) do not arm their Police, and although they do have similar crime of course much smaller numbers than the United States. The NZ Police do have a separate unit called the 'Armed Offenders Squad' and they are highly trained specifically for the task.
Gun permits are not easy to get and have to renewed annually. Fire-arms are not sold without being registered to the buyer ,but of course humans being humans will always find a loop-hole somewhere. Interesting note to my first paragraph NZ Police have now purchased Tazers....no doubt recieving training from 'experts', damn!
I think that police should use non lethal weapons more often. If they can, (and they can!) get the job done, then why not use non lethal force?
The biggest thing that alarms me is where will be in 50 yrs time?
Better at using a gun, no doubt but factor in the heart of man and its very scary indeed.
I dont think we can be trusted ( my opinion)
Humans like money ,I do ,so what about the Government offering to buy back guns...whoa watch them come outta the woodwork then lol
Sadly to say...people who use guns to rob banks are probably making more than the government is willing to pay for them!
It is either going to be a very scary time in our future, or we will somehow snap out of this and move towards harmony...I doubt the latter will happen however.
I have the best gun control policy ever devised, it's called "You control your gun, and I'll control mine."
If everyone had a gun the world would be much safer. In reply to "earnestshub" the australian, first comment of thread. Have you looked into violent (armed) crime date before and after Australia instituted the gun "buy back"? Numbers do not lie. Crime shot through the roof when the criminals knew their victims wouldn't be armed. Level the playing field and things become equal. Look at the animal kingdom. Birds of prey hunt smaller lesser birds and rabbits etc. They don't hunt other (equally sized) birds of prey, that would be pointless. With a gun everyone is the same size. Does this mean that there will be no crime, of course not, but there will be less, and it will be a stronger deterrent.
I was robbed at gunpoint. I was not armed. If I had a gun it would be a different story. Do you need to be robbed at gunpoint to realize that guns are not the danger, but rather people are the danger?
If you are ever robbed at gunpoint and survive, then you will agree that everyone should be armed. Imagine if your wife or child was the one being robbed at gunpoint and nobody is there to help. Then what are you gonna do- wait for the police to take their dead body!?!?
Criminals do not care about laws. Criminals will rob you no matter what the law says by any means necessay. Why do innocent people have to be the victims of laws designed to "keep guns away from society"?
I'm with Martin Luther King, Ghandi and Jesus. You guys can shoot me if you want. But my words will live on.
No problem with the second amendment, and yes it's to keep the people from being conquered, however, your gun does not make you secure. More secure? Maybe. I guess you're saying it's the other ass__ that deserves to die for being an armed robber. Personally I wouldn't put myself above someone else. If I felt I had to kill I would, but I know I have more power to protect people and prevent violence and crime by being an example of the power of non-violence. I have no problem with people owning or even carrying guns, but I still say that the mindset is introverted and not in touch with the greater community. Polite as you may be, you are leaning on a weapon for security and indirectly threatening to use it, in other words hostile and insecure psychologically.
Toad is right. We are on the verge of society collapsing, probably within two years. I expect that I will be working on preparing and helping others to prepare for it by building a flourishing local economy. If roving armed robbers come to wherever I am, someone will have a gun for self defense, but I would definitely advocate giving the rabid dogs some meat and sending them on their way. If they try to hurt or otherwise enslave people that's when they will become targets. I have faith, not security. Faith and peace of mind are much safer and more promising than training, by someone who teaches kill or be killed.
Take a hit. turn the other cheek and whenever possible refuse to fight back. You win more wars that way and save more lives. If the American people embraced a nonviolent mindset, Bush could never have goaded us into bombing religious fanatics and "terrorists" along with all of their children and admirers. We would have seen his provocation for what it was and demanded a real investigation. When the facts started to surface, people would have gathered in masses outside of the white house and the capitol building calling for Bush and Cheney to be impeached and put on trial for conspiracy to commit mass murder of innocent American civilians. We would have had a nationwide rethinking of our political system and the Republican party (my party) would have begun to shake off the neo-con terrorists and their elitest baggage.
The way to stand up to violence is by being stronger and more compassionate. If you have more integrity and courage you will take down the meat heads that try to intimidate you with threats of violence. Your better judgement will give you the necessary edge, not your training in how to kill. The fear of death is your problem, not crime. You will lose what you fear to lose when you least expect it, because you refuse to let your fellow man or woman threaten to take something from you. So, you would rather view your opponent as your enemy rather than a sick person who needs help. Have a heart. Our lives belong to each other. None of this is yours alone.
http://nz.messages.yahoo.com/nz-travel/nz-travel-g
check out how the guy on the street feels about usa gun laws , and leave a link to your hub there ( be fast before they shoot ya down) lol j/k.....most of the threads on those forums are national stuff but that one, I just thought you might wanna cruise by .
ROBBED...thank you for your comment. Your situation hits the head on the nail here. If you had been armed, the situation you found yourself in may have gone very differently.
As Dan as mention several times, we should make sure that we can protect ourselves and our families above anything else.
Dunn...I appreciate you stopping by and leaving a comment.
First, I would like to reiterate that this is just a theory. I do not carry, I do not own, and I have never shot a gun. With that said, I disagree that words or your example of the power of nonviolence are more powerful than a gun. Like ROBBED just said, criminals are criminals and they don't care about the law. These people are out there and they will not go away, so what this theory suggests is that it would be wise for everyone to be trained and armed so that these criminals think twice before they act.
The training is not a "how to kill" training, it is a self defense, situational, gun safety training.
You say that I am leaning on a weapon for security and indirectly threatening to use it, meaning that I am hostile and psychologically insecure. This is not the case at all. I would hope that I would never ever have to use my weapon, but if it came down to it, and someone was attacking me or my family, you better believe that I would be prepared to do what was necessary to protect them. That does not make me hostile, it makes me responsible. The police sure as hell aren't going to be there right away to do something, so where does that leave me? With a bullet wound, or worse a dead family member? So your statement that I'm hostile and psychologically insecure is entertaining, but not true at all.
You also said you wouldn't put anyone else above you. Well generally, I agree with you, but if someone acts upon me or my family in a violent manner because they need some money...I put myself above them immediately. They are scum, and I understand that they may have problems, but that does NOT give them the right to act this way. We all have problems. I need money, but I'm not out mugging people on the street! If you were to feed the rabid dogs and send them on their way, they will continue to do this because there are no repercussions! What kind of lesson is that?
I would like to see some statistics to back up your claim that turning the other cheek will win you more wars. If someone stabs you in your back while you are waling down the street, do you say, "ouch, thank you sir, I did not like that, but if you do it again, that's okay. I won't retaliate."????? NO! Doing that means you LOSE, and will most likely die. At least if you fought back, you have a chance to remove this a-hole from society.
What's wrong with being afraid to die? I love life, and want to experience a ton of things before I pass away. I don't think a fear of death causes any problems in life. I don't live my life in fear, I just don't want to die prematurely!
One more thing...
Bush ran as the compassionate candidate. He is from the republican party (your party). He is the one who launched us into this war that you seem to be against. The people had no say in his decision. Out say was to elect him to be our president...and WOW how the hell did we mess up that bad twice in a row! So this compassion and turning the other cheek business that you think will give us an edge is bogus.
Thanks again for the comment.
A very interesting hub that certainly got people talking! :)
Personally, I would never want to live in the society that you describe. Get them before they get you - *sigh*. I would hope that humanity would be trying to move beyond this type of thinking, rather than embracing it.
I suppose I would be one of the first ones to get shot in such a society because I would not have a gun - not even the pink ones. Ah well - natural selection at work. Guess in the end we will be left with the people with the biggest and fastest guns; or no people at all.
If I remember right everyone in Switzerland is armed and is also in the armed forces. Occasionally as it happened a few years back, someone goes berzerk with their gun, but the Swiss are a pretty boring and docile group of people unless you mean to invade their nation, in which they revert to their ancient warrior roots and start defending themselves pretty effectively.
In Spain few people have guns in their homes, except in the rural areas where hunting rifles and escopetas are still common. Few people here die of gunshot wounds, unless they are self-inflicted. I have a rifle I keep in a safe place and I use it on our farmland my wife inhereted. Not for threatening other peole, but for fun and to chase off the occasional wild boar that roots up our crops. I never hit the darned thing, but the noise scares it off!
Everyone has the right to have a gun now. They could be armed if they choose to be, but I am not in favor of forcing someone to own a gun if they don't want to.
good to see ya checked that site in new zealand ,that should give them somethin to nibble on ,lol
I suppose it's how you're brought up - I mean in what kind of enviroment. The guy who posted from England said people there dispise guns & the peopple who use them - so that's that. Also, remember Moore's film 'Bowling in? Columbine, whichever, but in Canada where many own guns - & often leave their doors unlocked - they have very few killings by firearms. Again, it's how you're rasied - kids their are trained in school in how to resolve differences. As one young person in the film described, "You folks in the US would rather shoot each other, here w'ed rather talk it over". Compared stats: Violent homicides in Windsor, CAN in one year - 1, sister city across the boarder: Detroit, MI, US - 143.
It may be too late for the USA to have a different culture & mindset. Some RAP music doesn't help either, as in "I'll put a cap in ya".
I would just like to say, I agree with Goldentoad (above) - if the sheeeit really hits the fan - I hope y'all can defend you & yours.
Peaceout.
This hub isn't about getting someone before they get you. It is about taking responsibility to educate friends and family and being prepared to maintain a stable community in an undesireable event. Education is a problem in this country on all subjects.
@ Dunn Eggink
Quote " The way to stand up to violence is by being stronger and more compassionate. If you have more integrity and courage you will take down the meat heads that try to intimidate you with threats of violence. Your better judgement will give you the necessary edge, not your training in how to kill. The fear of death is your problem, not crime. You will lose what you fear to lose when you least expect it, because you refuse to let your fellow man or woman threaten to take something from you. So, you would rather view your opponent as your enemy rather than a sick person who needs help. Have a heart. Our lives belong to each other. None of this is yours alone."
Training to defend yourself and your family and friends, not training to kill. Being stronger and more compassionate, turning the other cheek is a noble idea if you are facing death, but being educated in how to avoid death for yourself and others has nothing to do with compassion and being a stronger person. Dont stand under suspended loads, look both ways before you cross the street, don't stick your head in pinch points, (common sense goes along way) Ignorance is bliss.
Why does sombody stealing from you, causing harm to you and your family make you think they are sick and need help? Maybe it is what they believe.
Do you believe the pilots that flew the planes into the world trade center believed in what they were doing? You bet I do.
I enjoy working and learning. This lifestyle that I have been born to is one that I want to maintain. I am not afraid of my death only the death of the freedoms I have been blessed with that others may not be able to experience.
Dirk
Thanks for the comment Dirk...well said.
Good article... Somewhat convincing but not entirely. Sorry to say but we do have lunatics that will shoot at anything and everything. Even with training and attending classes and trying to assess situations, it wouldn't be enough for someone to pull out a gun in a heated argument. I mean look at it, obviously gangs and cops have guns, they are still able to kill each other like the recent incident in Oakland Ca where one man killed 4 police officers who all had guns and even backups.
The idea of giving everyone guns is not good.
Thanks for the comment ash! Cops are dumb, and gang members are dumber. But what if an onlooker pulled out a gun and shot the man that was shooting at the cops?
The man knew that his only adversaries were the cops with guns and since he is probably much smarter than the cops, he did what he wanted to do. If a citizen was carrying a gun and witnessed this happening, there is a good chance the shooter would have no clue and the onlooker would be able to take him down!
Just a theory. Thanks again for the read. I appreciate it!
I just think of Virginia Tech. If just one student in that classroom would have had a gun (let alone all of them) then more than 30 lives might have been saved. As it was, the clearly disturbed young man walked in and opened fire on a completely defenseless class. All they could do was run, but if they could have fought back... just imagine, I would guess the families will imagine that forever. The best answer is to try and get the guns away from the disturbed kid, but since that would be nearly impossible if he was really determined to get guns, the next best thing is to arm those students so that they could have protected themselves. Many people say that they would have just started shooting each other, that might be true, but I have faith in these kids that they could have handled it better than that, especially if they had been raised in a "gun culture" family, or had experience and training with gun safety.
Thinking of Virginia Tech, what if the criminal had no gun? It was apparent at the time that that shooter never should have been able to purchase a weapon.
Hey Ivan...that is the point. Just because guns may be illegal to buy or obtain does not mean that the "bad guys" won't be able to get a gun.
People like this will get a gun no matter what!
But in this case the bad guy bought his gun legally even though he had serious mental problems and should have been excluded from being able to buy one. He wasn't because of the erosion of gun buying limits over the past 8 years. People may get guns no matter what but an overly armed society is prone to shooting first and answering questions later.
That is where the training comes in. I understand that you can't just give everyone guns and expect it to work itself out. That is basically what we have now.
Ferreira,
I think it is good for people to be allowed to own guns and carry pistols. I also think that the best part about the armed society theory is the training. I believe every high school student should be given that training unless they refuse. That would deffinitely raise the awareness and respect of guns and probably decrease a lot of the fascination and excitement that leads to gang violence.
Pointing guns at people should be open for investigation as to the justification. Just as you can be charged with assault even when you are fighting back, you should be able to get charged with threatening someone's life when you point a gun. This would give people a greater sense of responsibility and caution when considering pulling it out.
I was just reacting to the idea that you would be safer. Personally I don't think it would make the world safer, but protecting people's rights to own guns does encourage people to remember that they are sovereign citizens and voting members of society. People need to stand up for their rights with their mouths and making a presence at political rallies. That's what the American public didn't do when Bush said "We know who the bad guys are."
Dunn....thanks for your input. You are right, it will not make the world safer, but it may make you or me as an individual safer because we would be able to protect ourselves.
It is strange the solution to the gun problem is more guns I'm sure if there is a god he must be laughing at this folly. but you know what if the government wanted to subjugate its people all it would have to do is have threaten its people with the nuclear stock pile. And the argument that people are able to protect themselves because of guns is ludacris people were killing eachother withot guns and thus you think they were protecting as well.
I think you ruined your argument with "He could try to shoot his way out, but he is outnumbered and will inevitably be shot.". This is why the hub appears to be lunacy. If everyone else doesn't have a gun, the man robs the bank and walks away. No one dies. This is a good thing. The police investigate and catch the man, he is brought to justice.
I also refute the idea that society cannot strive for a gun free world. There are many places where gun ownership is very low, this is because the idea of owning a gun is abhorrent - we were educated from an early age not to want to use one.
So the "ideal" of a gun free world is possible - why not make it happen, remove this hub and start the ball rolling with something more appropriate :)
A lot of sheeple posting on here. For those sheeple who have never tried firing a gun, go give it a try then post back.
guns is cool and when i get my gun every one will die
guns is cool and when i get my gun every one will die
I agree that all citizens should own a gun for protecting self and family. If the Obama White House has its way we will lose that freedom! Good hub! And by the way "money ever were" you need a doctor!
earnestshub says:
7 months ago
Get rid of the guns. The public and police will mop up the black market to a fair degree, and buy back schemes like the ones we have in Australia work pretty well to get guns out of the hands of the general public.