Right to bear arms reduces freedoms?

[nigel99 577]

I have been thinking about the discussions here regarding guns and general difference between the US and UK. First some context, I think guns can be nice toys & given the opportunity I would go sport shooting/hunting, however I don't own a gun.

Generally the law
1)assumes that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
2)expects the police/public to use "reasonable force" when dealing with a situation

So my observation is that in the UK where the population does not have the right under law to carry lethal weapons, the police response to an incident (disturbance at a private home etc), does not require an armed response team, as under the presumption of innocence reasonable force ASSUMES that the people are unarmed. Granted this has the disadvantage for the police that if the person/people are criminal and do have weapons the police are seriously disadvantaged. However as most people, are not criminal and having non-armed police response results in a lower likelihood of a bystander/misunderstanding where an innocent (aka you & I) are killed through the use of deadly force.

Contrast this with the US, where civilians have the right to weapons, a measured and reasonable response from the police has got to assume from a risk assessment that the disturbance mentioned above COULD have a someone in an agitated state with a legal weapon. Therefore it is reasonable and proportionate in the US for police to be armed. Similarly if a person is deemed to be a threat then it is right to allow the police to intervene first, prior to a 3rd party being injured/killed.

So my basic argument is that your right to bear arms in the US, comes at the price of a "heavier handed" police force, that that in the UK.

Another consideration to the arms argument is the reason for owning a weapon and I can only see 4 reasons:
1) Sport (Hunting & range)
2) Collectors item
3) Self Defense
4) Criminal activity.

In the UK there is limited scope for hunting and rifle ranges etc (kids/people can't realistic use small caliber guns in the back garden due to size) and therefore for us this is not a major outlet, Granted the US has much more scope for this.

Collectors - well whatever floats your boat, but I believe (and may be wrong, that in the UK you can collect so long as they are disabled)

Self defense - see my arguments above, as well as there being substantial evidence that your average Joe Bloggs is at more danger with a weapon than without due to the will & skill to use it when required.

Criminal activity goes without saying that the law is not a deterrent, although I do believe that at least the police have a route to prosecuting someone in the UK due to illegal ownership prior to an event. Legal ownership in the US appears to make it more difficult for police to be proactive.

It is ironic that a spell check offers Uzi as an alternative to UK!!

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[namgrunt 0]

the right to have and bear arms is a big deal in the states

over here only the politicans hate that common people have the means to resist gov.

its a personal decision

important to note
the police have no swOrn duty or responsibility to PROTECT YOU

AS FOR ME..WE ARE ARMED..PRACTICE AND DEPEND ON OURSELVES ONLY

.

59 YEARS,OVERWEIGHT,BALDIND,X-GRUNT
LAST MIL. JUMP VIET-NAM(QUAN-TRI)
www.dzmemories.com

[jakee 1,566]

It's interesting then that it often seems to be the most pro-gun types that also push the message of "Obey the CIC no matter what".

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

I don't own a gun, never have. I know how to shoot. I was a sargeant in US Army Special Forces.

However, I don't see how legal ownership of guns can be a problem. The problems seems to me to stem from criminals who seldom if ever obtain their weapons legally. How would outlawing guns have any effect on the intent of the criminal mind?

steveOrino

[freethefly 6]

Quote

the right to have and bear arms is a big deal in the states

over here only the politicans hate that common people have the means to resist gov.

its a personal decision

important to note
the police have no swOrn duty or responsibility to PROTECT YOU

AS FOR ME..WE ARE ARMED..PRACTICE AND DEPEND ON OURSELVES ONLY

.

You are right. They do not have to help anyone being assualted. The 'to serve and protect" often seen on police cars only pertains to the state and not the people.
Everyone is a suspect in the eyes of the police.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[AWL71 0]

I know a few policemen and they all say that when they respond to a situation they respond as if the worst case scenario is going to happen. Can't say I blame them. They want to go home in one piece when their shift is over.

I don't think ownership of guns cause the police to be heavy handed. Ownership of guns is something that is a personal choice. I choose to have them and always will. Im an old boy scout and I choose to "Be Prepared."

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

the reason for owning a weapon and I can only see 4 reasons:
1) Sport (Hunting & range)
2) Collectors item
3) Self Defense
4) Criminal activity.

You omitted the main one, which was the major purpose of the 2nd Amendment: to serve as a check and balance against government tyranny. As long as the people have the means to rise up and overthrow a government grown tyrannical, the government serves to keep itself in check.

"One of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms - just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safe-guard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proven to be always possible."
- Senator Hubert Humphrey, 1960

Regarding collector's guns, I own a few. What good are they if they're disabled? I don't have them just to look at - I take them out and shoot them. Attached: a 300-yard target from one of my M1 Garands last weekend.

And yes, criminals mis-use guns. They mis-use lots of things. But that doesn't mean that society should outlaw every object that someone mis-uses for criminal purposes. A free nation shouldn't let criminals determine what their law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own.

Thanks for spending some time thinking rationally about the issue, and composing a thoughtful message. Too many people just go for the cheap political shots, like message #3.

[AWL71 0]

Good shooting. I enjoy shooting my M1 Garand as well. They are amazing rifles.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[kelpdiver 2]

to further the thinking - the Black Panthers armed themselves in response to the armed police. They were working under reason 5 as provided by John - to push back on the power of government.

On an individual basis, you'll find examples where the 2nd results in a loss of the 4th as the police acted aggressively to do their duties. More often I think it will be to the overall benefit as it allows self determination and the ability to guarantee the rest of the rights.

[nigel99 577]

Quote

I know a few policemen and they all say that when they respond to a situation they respond as if the worst case scenario is going to happen. Can't say I blame them. They want to go home in one piece when their shift is over.

You worded this a little more along the lines that I intended. Rather than heavy handed, I mean't I expect that police NEED to respond as if the worst case scenario is happening. Where legal gun ownership exists the stakes are immediately higher than where they do not. So whereas in the US I would expect police to attend a domestic with a weapon, in the UK I would not. My point is that everything comes at a price.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[nigel99 577]

Question for you on this. Surely by this definition you condone a terrrosist response to government policy? As I understand what you have said means that if you feel that all other means of changing your governments policy have failed you have the right to resist - if necessary with deadly force?

To be very honest the 5th reason that you have given scares me as personally I see that a very slippery road.

Regarding collecting guns - I can understand the kick out of playing with them. Out of interest I know someone (not a friend) who collected 2nd world war fighters, and he got a "visit" from bailifs for something and they found one of the planes had "active" machine guns. Not legal here and really funny as he had been flying around over key areas etc... He didn't have a clue

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[jakee 1,566]

Quote

Thanks for spending some time thinking rationally about the issue, and composing a thoughtful message. Too many people just go for the cheap political shots, like message #3.

It's not a cheap political shot. On the evidence of what I see here it 'tends' to be right leaning people who are pro-gun, and it 'tends' to be right leaning people who are more likely to take the line of "You have to support the decisions the President makes".

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Channman 2]

> On the evidence of what I see here it 'tends' to be right leaning people who are pro-gun, and it 'tends' to be right leaning people who are more likely to take the line of "You have to support the decisions the President makes".

Maybe, and I don't know this for sure that JohnRich response might be, that Left leaning people tend to be running for cover, while right leaning people who are pro-gun are covering their asses while said group is running for cover.

[jakee 1,566]

Quote

> On the evidence of what I see here it 'tends' to be right leaning people who are pro-gun, and it 'tends' to be right leaning people who are more likely to take the line of "You have to support the decisions the President makes".

Maybe, and I don't know this for sure that JohnRich response might be, that Left leaning people tend to be running for cover, while right leaning people who are pro-gun are covering their asses while said group is running for cover.

I have no idea what that sentance means.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Question for you on this. Surely by this definition you condone a terrrosist response to government policy? As I understand what you have said means that if you feel that all other means of changing your governments policy have failed you have the right to resist - if necessary with deadly force?

To be very honest the 5th reason that you have given scares me as personally I see that a very slippery road.

Correct. That's how we threw your King George the hell out of our country and gained our freedom. Fortunately, we haven't had to do it again. But the possibility is always there. Many countries around the world could benefit from such a revolution.

And that brings up my "boxes" speech:

The government can be changed by using any of four "boxes": the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

The soap box is what we're doing right here, discussing things in public, and possibly affecting people's opinions on issues. This leads to the ballot box, where people vote for issues and representatives which reflect their views. If bad laws are passed by those representatives, we have the jury box to overturn the bad laws through the legal system. And as a last resort, if all else fails, the citizenry can resort to the cartridge box to overthrow a government grown tyrannical.

The cartridge box is a last desperate step, when all else has failed. But nevertheless, the option should be preserved. That's why the Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment.

[nigel99 577]

Ok thanks for the response. Completely hijacking the thread now and dooming into the Iraq circle of discussion...

With a view like that - you must surely understand & be able to accept the stance taken by the "insurgents" in Iraq? I am being specific here about armed actions against the Coalition forces/Iraq government. I am certainly not trying to trick you/con you into being accussed of being a sympathiser to suicide bombers.

Also back to my original argument - would your accept that as police in the US are more likely to encounter an armed person on a callout - it is reasonable to accept that the police have greater freedom to use deadly force as a direct result?

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[pop 0]

Quote

I don't own a gun, never have. I know how to shoot. I was a sargeant in US Army Special Forces.

However, I don't see how legal ownership of guns can be a problem. The problems seems to me to stem from criminals who seldom if ever obtain their weapons legally. How would outlawing guns have any effect on the intent of the criminal mind?

Halting gun production will limit guns in circulation. That;s how you get the guns away from people

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[AWL71 0]

Halting the production of alcohol will stop drunk driving. You for that as well? Halting the production of automobiles will stop fatalities on the road, etc...

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[pop 0]

Quote

Halting the production of alcohol will stop drunk driving. You for that as well? Halting the production of automobiles will stop fatalities on the road, etc...

Alcohol can be easily made at home. So banning it wont work. We cant hault producing autos becuase we need them to go to work, school, etc. We dont really need guns. It's that American wild west mentality that attempts to justify the need for guns...but we dont need them.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

We dont really need guns. It's that American wild west mentality that attempts to justify the need for guns...but we dont need them.

I've decided, for you, that we don't REALLY need parachutes. It's that wacky American wild recreation mentality you are suffering from (it's only American too, that cliche never gets old).

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

We dont really need guns. It's that American wild west mentality that attempts to justify the need for guns...but we dont need them.

I've decided, for you, that we don't REALLY need parachutes. It's that wacky American wild recreation mentality you are suffering from (it's only American too, that cliche never gets old).

yea...ok. apples and oranges brother......apples and oranges.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

It's interesting then that it often seems to be the most pro-gun types that also push the message of "Obey the CIC no matter what".

I support the ENTIRE bill of rights, including the 1st and 2nd amendments. I believe that every decision made by the government should be thoroughly questioned by the people.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

...

important to note
the police have no swOrn duty or responsibility to PROTECT YOU

AS FOR ME..WE ARE ARMED..PRACTICE AND DEPEND ON OURSELVES ONLY

.

You are right. They do not have to help anyone being assualted. The 'to serve and protect" often seen on police cars only pertains to the state and not the people.
Everyone is a suspect in the eyes of the police.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Halting the production of alcohol will stop drunk driving. You for that as well? Halting the production of automobiles will stop fatalities on the road, etc...

Alcohol can be easily made at home. So banning it wont work. We cant hault producing autos becuase we need them to go to work, school, etc. We dont really need guns. It's that American wild west mentality that attempts to justify the need for guns...but we dont need them.

Guns aren't that hard to make either, though as America manufacturers less and less there may be fewer metalworkers who can do it.

There's 300M guns in the country. Even if you stop production, that's quite a supply. (something on order of 100 for every criminal)

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

...

important to note
the police have no swOrn duty or responsibility to PROTECT YOU

AS FOR ME..WE ARE ARMED..PRACTICE AND DEPEND ON OURSELVES ONLY

.

You are right. They do not have to help anyone being assualted. The 'to serve and protect" often seen on police cars only pertains to the state and not the people.
Everyone is a suspect in the eyes of the police.

Actually, the police owe a duty to "the people" of their jurisdiction as a whole, but not to the individual (I think mainly so you can't sue them if they don't get to you fast enough).