Bring Your Sidearms To The Banks of the Potomac.

[23]

You may not do this yourself, but if you're honest, you'll admit it's common: to claim one is neither left nor right in the American context usually means one supports the ambient politics, and the ambient politics in this country is right wing.

All ambiences are personal and are affected by the people who routinely populate your personal world.

My world is liberally populated with folks who identify themselves as libertarian socialists, left libertarians, anarchists, etc..

Ergo, my personal ambience is anything but right-wing. Far from it.

It is distinctly anti-coercive authoritarianism, regardless if the overly intrusive Government leans leftward or rightward.

Your personal ambience's mileage may vary, of course.

And no doubt does.

[JackRiddler]

Hm, I started trying to find figures on gun carrying per capita and quickly ran into a mess. One source says the highest per capita gun ownership in the world is Norway, another the US.

A ranking by per capita gun ownership I found on wikipedia may give ammo to gun supporters. Iran, Nigeria and China are among the countries with the lowest per capita level.

Also at the bottom is the Western country at the cutting edge of police statism, Britain.

Yemen's among the highest, and I suppose "freedom" is much greater there than most anywhere, long as you're not female.

The chart only has 34 countries, practically none in Africa and few in South America. Also, ownership per se isn't what I was getting at, but the degree to which people go around with firearms. (I was thinking of militias terrorizing and pillaging the people in areas of Africa.) Every house in Switzerland is well armed by law, but no one on the street in Zurich is likely to be carrying.

Furthermore:

As many people possess multiple weapons and many others possess none, this number is not a representation of the percentage of people who possess guns in each nation. Nor does it recognize that there are government supplied weapons for militia such as Switzerland. Alternatively, a civilian supplied country such as the USA, can have the data significantly distorted by owners that are collectors that have huge collections of weaponry. Another obvious variable is that a country such as Yemen where the public bearing of armament[clarification needed] is so obvious that it results in an unreliably wide estimated range of 30% to 90%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... _ownership

Further search for now brings me inconclusive findings, for the same reasons. There's no way to measure the enormous cultural and regional differences in what a gun means, why it's possessed, how it's understood or used.

So this is tougher to research than I thought.

Within the US, firearm death rates are apparently higher in free gun states than in gun control states. Is this a surprise? It's my point about the big picture, my doubt that gun ownership lowers the odds of death or injury by violence.

States with the Five HIGHEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

Louisiana--Rank: 1; Household Gun Ownership: 45.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 19.58 per 100,000.

Alabama--Rank: 2; Household Gun Ownership: 57.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.99 per 100,000.

Alaska--Rank: 3 (tie); Household Gun Ownership: 60.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.38 per 100,000.

Mississippi--Rank: 3 (tie); Household Gun Ownership: 54.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.38 per 100,000.

Nevada--Rank: 5; Household Gun Ownership: 31.5 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.25 per 100,000.



States with the Five LOWEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

Hawaii--Rank: 50; Household Gun Ownership: 9.7 percent; Gun Death Rate: 2.58 per 100,000.

Massachusetts--Rank: 49; Household Gun Ownership: 12.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.28 per 100,000.

Rhode Island--Rank: 48; Household Gun Ownership: 13.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.43 per 100,000.

Connecticut--Rank: 47; Household Gun Ownership: 16.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.95 per 100,000.

New York--Rank: 46; Household Gun Ownership: 18.1 percent; Gun Death Rate: 5.20 per 100,000.

That's from http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/05/06-1

Do these great disparities in gun laws and ownership rates within one country constitute more of a controlled experiment? If so, you're going to have a tough time persuading me that people in Louisiana are more free or better equipped to fight a tyranny than people from New York.

I think higher incomes are a better form of self-defense than guns. People with more money get attacked less than people without it, though the impression one gets from the culture is sort of contrary to that. They also happen to have more choices in life, more tools.

I thinalso the American mythology of the gun as a revolutionary instrument (against "the collectivists" as Mr. 3 percent above would have it) is a symptomatic of the contempt in which solidarity is held here. A revolution could come only from the self-organization of the people, but that's "collectivist" and contrary to our myths of heroic individualism, and also would entail the exasperation of having to find concord with one's neighbors and compatriots - annoying people, all.

[operator kos]

Jack, gun statistics are irrelevant.

Self defense and being armed are basics and inherent rights of all sentient beings.

Let's say we could prove that taking away freedom of religion would have led to less violence in Ireland. Does that mean we should do it? Of course not. Essential freedoms are more important than temporary safety. That is supposed to be one of the founding principles of America, and I happen to agree with it.

[JackRiddler]

All ambiences are personal and are affected by the people who routinely populate your personal world.

We differ in our view of this.

[mulebone]

The Three Percent today are gun owners who will not disarm, will not compromise and will no longer back up at the passage of the next gun control act. Three Percenters say quite explicitly that we will not obey any further circumscription of our traditional liberties and will defend ourselves if attacked. We intend to maintain our God-given natural rights to liberty and property, and that means most especially the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, we are committed to the restoration of the Founders' Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution that we all took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign and domestic.

We are the people that the collectivists who now control the government should leave alone if they wish to continue unfettered oxygen consumption. We are the Three Percent. Attempt to further oppress us at your peril. To put it bluntly, leave us the hell alone. Or, if you feel froggy, go ahead AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.

I don't know. It sounds like a long winded, rhetoric laden way of saying, 'You'll get my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers."

As far as the whole "God given rights" deal, I think George Carlin answered that one quite nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F1Lq1uFcAE

Not that I'm against protest or favor gun control. It just seems like a case of closing the barn door after the horse escaped, the barn burned down, and developers built a few dozen condos where the barn used to be.

Anyway, I'm not sure I could ever spout shit like this:

But I tell you this: We will not go gently into that bloody collectivist good night. Indeed, we will make with our defiance such a sound as ALL history from that day forward will be forced to note, even if they despise us in the writing of it.

And when we are gone, the scattered, free survivors hiding in the ruins of our once-great republic will sing of our deeds in forbidden songs, tending the flickering flame of individual liberty until it bursts forth again, as it must, generations later. We will live forever, like the Spartans at Thermopylae, in sacred memory.

with a straight face.

Geez, looking at the picture these guys are floating at their website, I can't help thinking they're the pudgiest Spartans in the history of Spartan-dom. Maybe they could pack a few Ab Masters in with all their ammo.

[beeline]

I don't own a gun, but I am against gun control for a simple reason: there are already so many guns in the U.S. (223 million, with about 60 million owners), making them illegal would only create a new black market, leading to further gun violence over the control of that black market. It's sort of like making MP3 downloading illegal: it's impossible to stop, and the cat's out of the bag already, and it ain't getting back in. So it might as well be regulated like it is now, or better. Furthermore, there is a huge correlation between lifestyle choices and life expectancy. 93% of the murder victims in Philly from 1994 - 1996 had a criminal record, and a very large percentage of those had obtained firearms illegally, through a straw purchaser (someone with no police record, like a girlfriend, that buys a gun and re-sells it to a convicted felon). So, yeah, duh, gun ownership increases your risk of getting shot. Again, I don't own one. Live by the sword...

[JackRiddler]

Jack, gun statistics are irrelevant.

Self defense and being armed are basics and inherent rights of all sentient beings.

You are conflating self-defense with "being armed."

Do sentient beings have a right not to have people around them who might be idiots or fanatics armed with concealed guns? I ask especially on behalf of those living flesh-to-flesh with millions of others in cities.

It's because self-defense is a basic right that I don't want Mr. 3 Percent (who might consider me one of "the collectivists" he imagines he'll need to kill) armed with assault rifles and grenades. I should view my self-defense as better served by keeping the assault rifle out of his hands, rather than putting one into mine.

And this is the extreme to which I believe your concept heads: instead of restricting gun possession, you're making it into a necessity for anyone who doesn't to be the only fool without one.

Let's say we could prove that taking away freedom of religion would have led to less violence in Ireland. Does that mean we should do it? Of course not.

Not comparable, because the degree to which you have "self-defense" depends directly on the ferocity of violence that others can wield against you. So if there's a right to self-defense that you specifically wish to uphold, less violence protects that right. Violence not a conceptual opposite to religion, but it is to "self-defense."

What about my right not to have a gun? Or not to worry about some idiot accidentally blowing my leg off on the subway because he forgot to secure the safety? (Please, spare me the "smart gun owners never fuck up" lecture.) This idea of arms as a right privileges the gun-capable over all others.

What about the right not to have potential attackers who are able to kill you at a distance without your having a chance to even see them? Is that unrelated to "self-defense"?

Essential freedoms are more important than temporary safety. That is supposed to be one of the founding principles of America, and I happen to agree with it.

A stirring sentence that is easy to applaud. We happen to have different ideas of "essential freedoms." I don't think Mr. 3 Percent has an essential right to put a toxic waste dump next door to me, either.

All that being said, see above about why I wouldn't contest this as a political struggle. As a practical matter, we're stuck with the Second if we want to keep the other nine. If the gun people respect the overwhelming and justified anti-gun feeling of city residents, they can keep their precious relics - which are as likely to "defend" them as offering a sacrifice to Zeus.

[operator kos]

All that being said, see above about why I wouldn't contest this as a political struggle. As a practical matter, we're stuck with the Second if we want to keep the other nine. If the gun people respect the overwhelming and justified anti-gun feeling of city residents, they can keep their precious relics - which are as likely to "defend" them as offering a sacrifice to Zeus.

I'm glad that you agree that guns are needed as a last line of defense for freedom. And they are just that-- a last line. Likewise, I'd rather address crime by improving education and social services than by packing a gun.

That being said, your last point is BS (although I realize you were being somewhat tongue-in-cheek).

PRIVATE FIREARMS STOP CRIME 2.5 MILLION TIMES EACH YEAR

And self defense does equate to owning a gun. Guns exist, criminals are going to have guns, and therefore to have an effective deterrent, I need one too. It's not a pretty logic, but it is the way things are.

[Cordelia]

Its the provocateurs and crazies I worry about.

I agree, but fear they're everywhere, at least the crazies, which is why I

I really appreciate the political and philosophical issues being presented in this thread and can understand and agree with many of the sides, so well articulated, because I have such ambivalent feelings about firearms. I hate the fear and enormous suffering resulting from gun violence but I agree with the futility of outright gun control. I imagine most people have, or know someone who has, experienced the devastation a bullet can deliver. My children have witnessed shootings and were traumatized (both minimize the impact, but I suspect otherwise). One witnessed a non fatal shooting and later told me: "It's nothing at all like what you see in movies--it's not slow, it happens so fast." The other saw someone shoved into a car in the alley below her apartment window, followed by gunshots. She lived in a part of the city where, if you want to preserve your own life, you don't call the police to report a crime. I have a beloved relative whose husband, and father to her children, blew his brains out and, by pulling the trigger, destroyed their lives as well as his own. So, I guess I 'should' abhor guns, and, in the hands of some, they scare the shit out of me. In fact, given the number of crazies (including those programmed to kill) and easy access to guns, I'm surprised there aren't even more shootings. And gun accidents are a horrible reality everywhere. Years ago, living in a rural area, I took my children and a little girl from the city to visit a friend. While I was in another room talking to my friend, the little city girl came and whispered in my ear that there was a rifle propped up next to the door. My friend didn't have children and she told me her husband liked to have his loaded hunting rifle handy. I thought, great, another nut to worry about and a place I can't bring the kids.

But I also understand, and even respect, aspects of the gun culture, given how unique it is. I know people who hunt and people who don't, but keep weapons for protection and some who collect guns and treat them like beautifully crafted and valuable tools. They're deadly tools, and I don't minimize that, nor do I want to romanticize, but still, I understand the appreciation one can feel, after I handled and admired a beautifully made pistol someone brought to show me. And, I admire and respect the skill of marksmanship and even think that, for some, directing pent-up frustration and aggression at a firing range (along with honing a skill that can build self esteem and confidence) isn't such a bad thing (and yes, I know that others have a far more dangerous agenda and honing that skill is fatal). People I know who go to gun shows don't belong to any supremacy or fringe element groups but they enjoy and relate to a lot of people they meet, and the inevitable ones who are questionable, and I'm sure there are many, they give a wide berth. It's a culture I'm not a part of, but it's also a culture I can't outright dismiss or judge. Unless firearms also involves alcohol, which they frequently do, or malicious intent, and then it's a mix I do judge and condemn, thus my ambivalence.

[JackRiddler]

All that being said, see above about why I wouldn't contest this as a political struggle. As a practical matter, we're stuck with the Second if we want to keep the other nine. If the gun people respect the overwhelming and justified anti-gun feeling of city residents, they can keep their precious relics - which are as likely to "defend" them as offering a sacrifice to Zeus.

I'm glad that you agree that guns are needed as a last line of defense for freedom.

Please don't twist what I wrote.

I don't believe, contrary to gun culture mythology, that the Second has anything to do with defending the other nine in a modern mass society. What I mean is that if you question the Second, you open the door - further - to those who wish dismantle the rest of the Bill of Rights.

So we're stuck with the gun culture. Also, as several have pointed out, it's impossible to take their precious guns away and pointless to try. In fact, no one is trying to do that, except with machine guns (which, after all, constitute the heart of liberty).

It's quite the opposite. There is gun control in some places, like New York, where overwhelming numbers of people prefer not to live in a free-fire zone. And it's the gun fanatics who want to overturn that. I happen not to like living in a world where I have to wonder routinely if people around me are packing.

And they are just that-- a last line. Likewise, I'd rather address crime by improving education and social services than by packing a gun.

Do you pack one? Has it helped?

PRIVATE FIREARMS STOP CRIME 2.5 MILLION TIMES EACH YEAR

Oh please!

From the link: "The new survey, conducted by random telephone sampling of 4,978 households in all the states except Alaska and Hawaii, yield results indicating that American civilians use their firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year defending against a confrontation with a criminal, and that handguns alone account for up to 1.9 million defenses per year."

Self-reporting! What's a "criminal"? (In Louisiana, it could be some Asian kid who steps up to your front door.)

All that shows is that when people pull a gun on someone, they'll say it was a criminal. It's a safe guess that some of these "as often as" 2.5 million pulled guns on each other, and both would later identify the other as a criminal. "I pulled a gun on that guy and he ran away! Of course he's a criminal."

And self defense does equate to owning a gun. Guns exist, criminals are going to have guns, and therefore to have an effective deterrent, I need one too. It's not a pretty logic, but it is the way things are.

We're back at the beginning, so maybe we should stop. But once again: the illusion that the good guys load and shoot faster than the bad guys.

[operator kos]

Please don't twist what I wrote.

Sorry, I simply misunderstood your intent.

Do you pack one? Has it helped?

It is illegal to carry a gun where I live. So only criminals carry guns.

PRIVATE FIREARMS STOP CRIME 2.5 MILLION TIMES EACH YEAR

Oh please!

From the link: "The new survey, conducted by random telephone sampling of 4,978 households in all the states except Alaska and Hawaii, yield results indicating that American civilians use their firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year defending against a confrontation with a criminal, and that handguns alone account for up to 1.9 million defenses per year."

Self-reporting! What's a "criminal"? (In Louisiana, it could be some Asian kid who steps up to your front door.)

All that shows is that when people pull a gun on someone, they'll say it was a criminal. It's a safe guess that some of these "as often as" 2.5 million pulled guns on each other, and both would later identify the other as a criminal. "I pulled a gun on that guy and he ran away! Of course he's a criminal."

You don't have to agree with the exact numbers, but the fact remains that people regularly defend themselves with guns.

We're back at the beginning, so maybe we should stop. But once again: the illusion that the good guys load and shoot faster than the bad guys.

If someone breaks into my house, I will most assuredly see them before they see me, and I will have shotgun in hand. I also personally feel like I'd be less likely to be attacked while openly carrying a pistol. Not everyone may agree with that, but don't try to take away my rights because you have a different opinion.

[Nordic]

Notwithstanding the fact that this is not a left-versus-right issue to me as well.

Nor should it be to you.

Well that's a bit of selective perception going on it seems.

These people were all screaming while Clinton was President, shut the hell up while Bush was President, and now that Obama is President they're screaming again, coming out of the woodwork and doing all this "da govmint's gonna take away mah guns!" nonsense.

It IS right-wing, whether you like it or not. It's extremely right-wing. It's Timothy McVeigh right wing. The people like yourself would find yourselves to be in quite a minority at these events.

These people are rabid, they are fundies, they are extremists. For the most part.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for gun ownership. I used to be a member of the NRA believe it or not, was on a rifle team, and hunted.

[barracuda]

I've gotta agree with you on this, Nordic. Remember what they make clear in their mission statement:

"Mission: The mission of the “Restore the Constitution” rally is that it be held at a firearms carry-legal location as close to DC as possible and that it attracts as many participants as possible in order to underscore the seriousness and urgency of a simple message..."

This is a collective brandishing - it is a threat, and a dare, and in this way it is exactly the opposite of any notion of responsible gun ownership in our society.

[justdrew]

I've gotta agree with you on this, Nordic. Remember what they make clear in their mission statement:

"Mission: The mission of the “Restore the Constitution” rally is that it be held at a firearms carry-legal location as close to DC as possible and that it attracts as many participants as possible in order to underscore the seriousness and urgency of a simple message..."

This is a collective brandishing - it is a threat, and a dare, and in this way it is exactly the opposite of any notion of responsible gun ownership in our society.

it's wildly irresponsible, all it's going to take is one sniper to unleash hell on earth

[operator kos]

Meanwhile, a police force which increasingly answers to the federal government (and its corporate masters) rather than my local community drives around armed with M4s, the same assault rifles which troops are using in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

If I don't agree with funding those wars and refuse to pay my taxes in protest, armed thugs from the IRS will soon be arriving at my house.

The CIA recently declared that it is more than happy to assassinate American civilians, and pretty much every year the federal government passes another law affirming it's right to kidnap anyone and torture them to death in secret.

But yes, by all means, let's make sure the government is the only one with guns.