The path to world peace

[chrismb]

Bill Mahr got his ass kicked off ABC stating that you would have to respect the enemy for the fact that they take the fight personally with box knives and crashing planes into buildings rather than launch a few cruise missiles from 4000 miles away.

I have to concur that I find this kind of reaction is odd.

Maybe someone can explain to me why I hear suicide bombers often referred to in the media as 'cowards'. Seems an odd use of the word.

[Tom Ligon]

I've seen the US cited as having invented insurgent warfare.

Here's the deal ... the US Constitution stipulates that the government may not prohibit citizens from bearing arms.

Curiously, the Constitution does not make murder a federal crime ... that is left to the states, all of which consider murder a heinous crime. US Law is another matter ... presently it is a federal crime to murder select minorities, at least if they can prove you did it out of hate. Anyway, regardless of your right to bear arms in this country, it is absolutely against the law to use them to commit murder, or other crimes. So don't confuse owning guns with advocating their use for crime. This is a vital distinction.

Ultimately, murder rates are a cultural issue. Does your culture teach that killing for greed, hatred, revenge, etc is acceptable? Or does it deplore these and enforce punishment of the perpetrators? Does it cower from well-armed lawless thieves, or does it teach that honest people have the right to resist them. Does it insist that goverment and police do their duty in providing protection, but does it also back that with individual responsibility and duty to uphold just laws?

After that is settled, the question becomes if the culture is prepared to trust non-criminals with instruments that are potentially lethal, so long as they use them responsibly? The US has frontier roots, and the answer is that our founders insisted on it.

[Skipjack]

Some people carry concealed handguns, small ones, that can kill people, but not necessarily elephants, or cars and military equipment.
Why?
Well, MSimon said it right. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Without small arms that be surprised on an attacker, you would be dead before you could pull your long rifle or shotgun off the mantle.

This is a very weak argument, I think. AFAIK, you are required to keep your gun in a save place while at home anyway, no?
Some offices will not let you enter while you are wearing a concealed handgun (even if you are legally allowed to wear one) and IMHO that is their good right.. Since you are not allowed (again AFAIK) to leave the gun in the car either, you are in a bad situation. So wearing a rifle openly would get you arround this issue, no? I mean, since it is not concealed...

Especially if the criminal made a makeshift handgun/zip gun. Or presents a long distance threat over the phone with a 1000 yard capable long gun for under $200 which can snipe easily. Even, the K98 Mauser for $50 with a $50 scope could do the job from a typical sporting goods store.

I dont understand. How would a handgun be effective against a criminal that is sniping at you with a rifle from 1000 meters away?

[MSimon]

Msimon, please explain to me again what purpose a hand gun does fullfill for a righteous person that a rifle can not?

Personal protection when out and about.

[MSimon]

I dont understand. How would a handgun be effective against a criminal that is sniping at you with a rifle from 1000 meters away?

Or how about a criminal that secretly planted a bomb in your house or poisoned your food. Since a hand gun can't protect you in every situation (the solution is not perfect) there is no need for it.

And since doctors can't cure every disease in every person having doctors is a waste.

But I'm with you at least in part. Austrians are not to be trusted with handguns.

[Skipjack]

Or how about a criminal that secretly planted a bomb in your house or poisoned your food. Since a hand gun can't protect you in every situation (the solution is not perfect) there is no need for it.

Uhm, in case you missed it, it was not me who brought up the sniper example, it was DavidWillard. I just asked for clarification, about how a handgun (!) would be effective against a sniper shooting from 1000 meters away. This is what David claimed.

But I'm with you at least in part. Austrians are not to be trusted with handguns.

Are you discriminating me because of me being an Austrian?
Being a little racist, are we?

[MSimon]

But I'm with you at least in part. Austrians are not to be trusted with handguns.

Are you discriminating me because of me being an Austrian?
Being a little racist, are we?

Here I am agreeing with you and you accuse me of racism? Hmmmmmmmmm.

If you think Austrians have no use for handguns who am I to disagree?

[Tom Ligon]

Skipjack asked, "I just asked for clarification, about how a handgun (!) would be effective against a sniper shooting from 1000 meters away. This is what David claimed."

You obviously have not seen very many American Western movies! All the cowboy heros can do it, usually shooting up to a ridge a hundred meters high and a thousand meters away!

Bad guys have rifles, and never can hit squat.

Of course a pistol is useless at a thousand meters. However, I have personally witnessed a modern revolver hitting a target 10 cm high and 2 cm wide at a distance of about 80 meters, a feat I would have a hard time duplicating with a rifle with open sights. The shooter supposedly could do this nearly every time. And at that range it probably had a 300 meter/sec or higher velocity on a .38 caliber bullet (about 9 mm). That would make a modern revolver clearly superior in firepower to a Brown Bess musket.

And, if your situation calls for personal protection (thankfully rare for me, but for a store owner who has been the victim of armed robbery, or someone in a neighborhood prone to violent home invasion robberies it is easily justified) a pistol is soooo much easier to carry. Personal defense does not usually mean killing people a kilometer away, it means a nearby threat.

[Skipjack]

Personal defense does not usually mean killing people a kilometer away, it means a nearby threat.

I am sure you can kill a nearby person just as effectively with a rifle as you can with a handgun.
The only thing that handguns do is that they are easier to carry and to conceal. That is IMHO not necessarily a good thing.
Your store owner my just as well use a shotgun (which is even more effective at short range). He can keep it behind the counter, as most shop owners in the US do with their guns (I dont think many are carrying them under their coat).
Unless you are a person that really is in danger every day (policemen, bank employees, or store employees that carry large sums to the night deposit, maybe also taxi drivers), a handgun is not needed to defend yourself (you would have to be really unlucky to get into such a situation). This is why in Austria, only these people get to carry handguns legally. They also have to go through a mental evaluation and they must not have a criminal record. In addition to this, there is a waiting time of a few weeks before you can actually pick up the gun at the store, after you bought it (cool down time to avoid amock runners getting guns).
To me this makes perfect sense.

However, I have personally witnessed a modern revolver hitting a target 10 cm high and 2 cm wide at a distance of about 80 meters

The members of our anti terror unit do that with the glock handgun, on one hundred meters. They routinely practice shooting handguns at the same range meant for our soldiers to train with assoult rifles at...

[Tom Ligon]

A pharmacist I used to work for routinely had a short-barreled revolver under his lab coat tucked in to the back of his belt.

Carrying a shotgun or rifle conspicuously would not only be terribly awkward, it would cause considerable mental distress to all the people out there who fear guns. Most rifles are grossly overpowered for personal defense. Shotguns are not, but are imprecise and may hit other than the intended target.

Just yesterday, Virginia put into effect a law that permits people with concealed-carry permits (for which a specific background check is required) to wear them concealed in bars or restaurants. They are still prohibited from consuming alcohol while wearing them.

All US handgun sales require a criminal background check. Many states require a cooling-off period (Virginia has instant background checks via computer). You may only purchase them in the state in which you are a legal resident. Contrary to what you may have heard, we don't have them in vending machines.

[TallDave]

Your best bet, statistically, is to live somewhere safe and not own a gun. That said, any competent adult non-felon who wants a gun should be allowed to own one. I like being a free rider myself, rational actor that I am.

Guns are actually surprisingly ineffective at close quarters (e.g. most home defense situations) unless you catch someone unawares. If you are going to keep something in the nightstand, your best bet is probably a snub .38 as it's hard to grab the barrel. Personally, I vastly prefer keeping pepper spray in every room (if you don't think it works, you've never sampled it) due to its nonlethality, the way it generally incapacitates a victim even with a glancing hit, and the ability to fire a stream rather than a projectile (this makes you much more likely to hit your target).

I've also been meaning to pick up one of those laser-sighted tasers for a while now.

[Skipjack]

Contrary to what you may have heard, we don't have them in vending machines.

I did hear that somewhere, yeah

Carrying a shotgun or rifle conspicuously would not only be terribly awkwardquote]

Yeah and that is good so.
It does not allow thugs to carry guns arround just like that.

Most rifles are grossly overpowered for personal defense.

To quote Msimon " I like disproportionate response".

Just yesterday, Virginia put into effect a law that permits people with concealed-carry permits (for which a specific background check is required) to wear them concealed in bars or restaurants.

I can see why. Spotting someone carrying a gun on the table next to you, can severely ruin your appetite.

All US handgun sales require a criminal background check.

That is not enough. They should also require a mental check (for the license to carry) and probably an intelligence test. A drug test should also be mandatory.