Michigan Man, I will reply to your lengthy post. Some of what you said was already addressed, particularly the car argument. I can't count how many times this argument has been made.

@MichiganMan, I agree that the militia played a part at least psychologically - most dramatically in the Lexington/Concord battle... but it hardly was war winning stuff. Generals Washington and Lafayette and their respective armies is what won the war. ...and things have only gone down-hill from there... Can a ordinary citizens resist an organized military? Sure - to some degree - but these days they'd better have IEDs, RPGs, missiles, etc. to even be half-way effective (try shooting a tank with your rifle)... and even then, they can only try and wait out the occupying army... it's not like they'll win. It is still about the will of the military - you will only win when the military decides to let you.

"I hardly think the revolution was about preventing the expansion of government power. It was about the westward landlust of the colonists.The Parliament had always been sovereign and was able to implement taxes, the colonies hadn't objected to a wide variety of tariffs prior to the rebellion..."

You have NO IDEA what you're talking about!

" He's trolling my thread that I told him to stay out of with heaps of opinions and non supported "facts" I've done my best to not respond to anything he's posted but it's irritating because he is illiterate. Not dumb, just lacks reading comprehension."

This is rich, Sayjo. I always provide data, and then you people accuse me of being a google warrior and promptly ignore my data or dismiss it based on some unsubstantiated blanket statement. But then Michigan Man googles his argument and he's praised for a great argument. Make up your minds, hypocrites.

"You have NO IDEA what you're talking about!"

Colonies consented to tariffs. This is a fact. The British had been imposing tariffs to regulate trade for a long time.
Colonies were upset by the Proclamation Act. This is a fact.
Colonists had informed the British that had no objection to external taxes, read Franklin's testimony before Parliament.

"particularly the car argument. I can't count how many times this argument has been made..."

I am NOT making the car argument as I said, cars are far more utile than guns. I am saying that your use of (erroneous) raw stats is spurious -- one has to (as I tried to do) look at the CIRCUMSTANCES behide the stats to understand what is actually happening. Banning private gun ownership, as I showed, won't likely do ANYTHING significant to curd "firearm assaults" as the vast majority of those deaths come at the hands of unlawful gun owners, not lawful ones.

"How is it a non-sequitur? One would think that if what you said was true that we'd actually see this in practice..."

Because there are other means to reversing laws and making change. Yet, as you exemplify your ignorance, you'd obtusely suggest that a gun shooting rampage is the only legitimate response to free speech infringement. Bravo!

What's the shame in Google? How else are we going to debate something like this... even for things that I learned in a history class at some point I'm still going to look it up to be sure I get it right? Besides, I always learn something and a good part of the time I actually change my opinion about something.

The Colonists were rebellion agaisnt the Stamp act which required all taxes to be paid in gold coins and the abolition of the highly effecient and prosperous "Colonial Script" in favor of the Bank of England's usery Currency

"you people accuse me of being a google warrior " um I've never done anything of the sort. Stop grouping people together you ignorant fuck. We are individuals, I'm not saying you damn anti-marijuana people are dumb I'm saying your a bitch and I can go through my entire fucking thread and show a hundred non supported statements and your only supported statements don't verify your objective.

"To be armed - but inadequately is the worst possible compromise. ...so, until we are handing out IEDs, RPGs, bazookas, and surface to air missiles to the citizenry, then you might as well go the other route and be un-armed (and appeal to the morality of the military)."

Unless I'm mistaken, there's quite a record of that kind of stuff somehow ending up in the hands of freedom fighters. As has been pointed out, tanks can't clear everything; there's a reason we have infantry at all. So the personal firearms will at the very least allow temporary survival, long enough to so acquire the weapons to fight for freedom properly.

And that's my contribution. +1 gun freedom, I prefer it that way. Have fun mudslinging! :D

"The Colonists were rebellion agaisnt the Stamp act which required all taxes to be paid in gold coins and the abolition of the highly effecient and prosperous "Colonial Script" in favor of the Bank of England's usery Currency "

Excellent, MichiganMan! I've already had this debate with Putin actually, but I'm in complete agreement. I must admit that I am from Michigan also. :)

@ Jamiet99uk

"Why do you feel so threatened by fellow members of the general public?"

Because some of those members of the general public have criminal intentions. The best way to protect yourself is to make sure no one can outgun you.

"Because apparently your happiness is being caused by a deadly weapon which could be used to kill another human being."

Anything can be a deadly weapon, and anything can be a completely benign object. I do not use my guns as deadly weapons unless I absolutely have to. Looking down the barrel of an M1911 or an M14 tends to have a very negative effect on a criminal's courage.

"I've fired an air rifle, but nothing more serious than that. Why would I want to? I don't need a gun."

I have walked around without a gun and I have walked around with a gun. The latter is much better. It might be tough because you are in the UK, but try to go to a range and rent a gun. You might be pleasantly surprised. Target shooting is very enjoyable.

When I say "happiness is a warm gun", I mean happiness is all of the little things. The stench of cordite, the fresh hole in the bulls' eye, the rattling of shell casings, and the cool metallic sounds that inevitably come from a gun when you are loading it.

To the argument that criminals will keep guns if we ban guns:
In Australia in 1996 guns were banned. And its true, the homicide rate went up as a result. This is because of the how ever many guns were licensed in Australia only 20% of guns were actually returned so most people, including criminals kept their guns.
However then in 2000 4 years later PM Howard enacted a buy back policy were the government would buy guns off citizens for higher then value price. Deaths due to firearms have gone down 74% in Australia since then. Clearly, it worked since criminals and citizens alike sold their fire arms due to a profit motive. I bet you if America enacted a buy back law, America would see a sudden decline in number of deaths to guns.


The fact is this can be enacted and can work

@Gunfighter: In Canada there are still shooting ranges, you could rent guns and still shoot, but owning guns is whats the issue here...

There are places in America that have tried the "no questions asked buyback" for illegal firearms, and while they've met with success in getting some of the firearms, it hasn't impacted the crime rate much.

Universalism doesn't work. What works in Australia or Canada won't necessarily work in the USA.

"2003 (older, I know) there were 730 deaths attributed to "Firearm discharge" and 11,920 deaths attributed to "Assault by Firearm" -- for a total of 12,650 "firearm" deaths."
This is bending the facts, my site is from 2001:
Assault by Firearm: 11,348 (an addition 572 over 2 years is not unrealistic, so I am going to assume its true.
Firearm Discharge: 802 (even though this number is larger then yours, its only 70 away from yours, so again, I am going to assume its true.
However I have a 3rd category, which you accidentally forgot about.
Suicide by Firearm: 16,869 quite a big number...

in any case the total deaths by firearms in 2001 was 29,573, so its not unrealistic for an increase from 29600 to 30,000 in 10 years...

@ Fasces349

I know. I was just recommending that anyone who thinks guns should be banned should go to a range and actually fire one before they condemn them. You guys do not even know how much fun it is to have a gun. Most of you would be pleasantly surprised and completely change your position. My father is an avid hunter, and I got to mess around with bolt-action hunting rifles and shotguns when I was younger, but I never really got into guns until we got to play with semiautomatic pistols at the police academy. After I got my badge, I bought an M1911. Because of my status as a law enforcement officer, I also managed to get my hands on a military-grade selective-fire M14. I recently bought a 100th Anniversary edition M1911, but I don't use it that often.

"There are places in America that have tried the "no questions asked buyback" for illegal firearms, and while they've met with success in getting some of the firearms, it hasn't impacted the crime rate much.

Universalism doesn't work. What works in Australia or Canada won't necessarily work in the USA."
How long was it going on for? In Australia it took 6 years for the policy to get positive results. When it comes to getting guns off the street, it is a rather long process...

The government can pry my guns from my cold, dead hands.

@Gunfighter: Well to answer your question:
1. Have I fired a gun? Yes I have
2. Did I enjoy it? Yes I did

I have fired a gun, and I agree with you, it is rather fun. However in no way did that affect my ability to want a gun.

Its just like after taking fencing I didn't feel any more inclined to get a sword, and after taking archery I didn't feel the need to buy a bow...

"The government can pry my guns from my cold, dead hands."
can I help? :P

In LA, they've done it yearly for three years. In almost every other place they've tried it (including Detroit, and Austin Texas and New York City), there's increasing reports of the money drying up in the middle of the events. They're not funded well enough to buy all the proffered guns, and really, they're not spending enough per gun to make up the initial investment, so what's generally happening is that the people turning them in are poorer people who really need the money for food or whatever.

Detroit's is interesting, because the "no questions asked" policy requires them to immediately take the guns and melt them down. If any of those guns WERE used in crimes, bye bye evidence.

I'm pretty sure the funds just aren't there to make it as lucrative as Australia did, especially since I'd imagine that, given a higher population, we have a higher number of guns. They're also pretty significant to American cultural identity.

Adding the suicides by gun is dubious at best and is really just padding you stats. Again, was the suicide undertaken with a lawfully owne gun or an unlawfully owned gun? If one has the will to commit suicide do you think a gun ban will stop them? Or, will it just make them choose another method to do the job?

Especially since suicide is more than half the deaths. Firearms are used for those because it's convenient, but MichiganMan is right, if someone is going to commit suicide they're going to commit suicide whether or not they have a gun.

@ Gunfighter, how much fun it is has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. I dont' care if you have multiple orgasms every time the gun goes off. How much fun it is, is not an argument against gun control. Now you just sound like a whiny kid who doesn't want his toys taken away.

I like how over half of fasces's stats refer to suicide by firearm -- why would someone about to kill him/herself give a fuck about a firearm ban? If a government gun ban would make people not use a firearm to kill themselves, then we could end suicide forever by outlawing suicide. We could solve all the world's manmade problems by outlawing the actions which cause them.

The simple fact is that it doesn't work that way. At best you're just making them choose another means with which to kill themselves. Sure, you cut firearm deaths by more than 50%, but you cut total deaths by... 0. And that's the stat that matters in any discussion about saving lives; not deaths by x, but deaths, period.

@mafia lmaooooooo

"I dont' care if you have multiple orgasms every time the gun goes off."

hah