I was looking for a new car for Elizabeth, when I came across this for sale. It is a fully transferable M2HB mounted on a M998. It's over priced, but also awesome.

I have no doubt the girl could probably handle the recoil of one shot. The Uzi is not a featherweight piece after all, it weighs more than a lot of rifles. But she probably could not handle the climbing muzzle, characteristic of full-auto usage.

I understood the earlier stories to say that the instructor was standing behind, and, somewhat over the girl. That makes sense if you're showing someone how to shoot an unfamiliar weapon.

I wonder if they'll have counselors for kids who have to go to school with the girl who killed someone; or, if the kids will just chalk it up to her instructor.

She goes to Dick Cheney Elementary. They're prepared for these kinds of things.

Also: :headshake

My niece is 9. ffs she's just now growing tall and she's skinny as a rail. She might blow away in a strong wind. I don't care how we have to tiptoe around gun rights...there are guns that a 9 year old could reasonably be taught to shoot. This whole idea was for the bragging rights of the parents.

There I said it. It needed to be said.

I feel really badly for the kid. And the family of the instructor.

Well, they were taking a video of it. I'd say it's fairly likely they planned to post the video to FB. That's what parents do. So yeah.

Well, DanaC, the politics of guns in America springs entirely from America being organized as a Republic, never a Kingdom -- and in 1775 and 1812 there were a couple of rather intense discussions on the topic between the two. Artillery arguments, it's fair to say.

The fundamental idea of a republic is that every scrap of political power is ultimately sourced from the electorate -- and a bit from those associating with the electorate but not in it. Of late that is a vanishingly small population segment, but at one time it was half the adult population of the United States. Until the 19th Amendment finished that up.

To function as an electorate in a Republic, the electorate must be powerful, not emasculated. The power of life and death is about as direct as power can get. Power of life and death over the apparatus of the Government keeps the government as the people's servant, right where it belongs. The power to kill is a crude power, yes. But crude power converts readily into refined power, such as that of the ballot.

This was one of the first reasons guns should be kept. Citizen police powers, which is the rubric under which lawful use of force defending self and property and the life and property of others, is another of the first ones -- the invention of modern police departments was still some fifty or sixty years in the future, and the establishment of police departments does not supplant self defense by force. It is instead at bottom an aid to it -- professional, dedicated service to be an adjunct to the completely inalienable right of self defense.

Latterly, another compelling reason arose from these: that We the People have a right not to suffer genocide. Like police powers, this too is rooted in forcible self defense -- calm suasion is not how genocide gets done; it's always deadly force of course. Genocide was not something the Founding Fathers had any experience of, or they might have inserted something in the Second Amendment about it. But it's still true that armed populations do not suffer genocides, and genocides happen in places where the populations are not armed. There are a couple other precursors of genocides too, but the critical one is that the population not have arms. But a population with a lot of arms the Einsatzkommandos cannot tackle -- they are invariably outnumbered; they can only make up the difference in numbers if they are the only ones possessing killing tools.

If they are not, genocides do not happen. Genocides are very very bad things, as all agree: they're nasty enough that it's worth paying a pretty hefty price to escape. Hefty prices may be accounted in treasure or in lives. But having a genocide condemns at least the character of whole peoples. That stain is not a pretty one either.

A thoughtful answer, thankyou.

I understand, I think, the historical roots of guns in America. It's really their place in modern American culture that occasionally baffles me *smiles*. Not the owning of them - I can see lots of very good and compelling reasons why someone might own a gun. Not least the practical applications in terms of hunting and home defence. Open carry though I find difficult to get my head around. Though some in this thread have offered some good reasons for why it is apprpriate in some instances.

It's the emotional place of guns I think I have the most difficulty with.

A few minor points from your resopnse:

Genocide was not something the Founding Fathers had any experience of

I suspect the Native peoples of America might argue with that one *smiles*. And given that the Founding Fathers were drawn primarily from European cultures, they were no doubt already aware of the genocides committed by their forefathers in places like South America. There's also an argument to be made that the slave labour which they and most of their peers made use of was itself the result of a form of genocide.

But no: they had no experience of being the victims of genocide.

That, I'm afraid, is not true. The genocide in Rwanda was the result of an armed population turning on itself. The power of one group lay in its semi-organised and rallied nature, not that it was armed and its victims unarmed. Most people on both sides had similar access to the kinds of weapons used in that genocide (mainly machetes).

Genocide by the state against a subject group within that state may usually have the features you describe, but even then it is far from absolute. And genocide by one nation's forces against another may be made possible by a disparity in the kinds of weapons available to the victim population as opposed to the invaders (as was the case for the Incas).

Unless your population is not just armed, but armed to the teeth with the most powerful weaponry available being armed is not a protection against genocide.

It may - may - be some protection against a state power that turns against its own people. But even then: it is more likely that state has the more powerful weapons and the more organised force. What is more likely to save a population from internal conflict in that scenario is not the presence of weapons in the general population, but the lack of appetite amongst the state's forces for use of deadly force agains their kith and kin (as in the early stages of the Russian Revolution).

An interesting rebuttal to the 'Guns prevent genocie' / 'gun control allows genocide' argument.

http://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com...-control-myth/

The state's forces don't typically turn on its entire population, it turns on one segment of the population at a time until enough of them fall that even family loyalties are corrupted when it comes to their survival.

When this happens, as it has before and as it will again, the people become the insurgency. The presence of weapons in the general population enables them to do what ISIS is doing in Iraq and Syria, what the Taliban and Al Qaeda are doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It enables the people to take back their country from the state unless the state gets external support and even then they may just stalemate. That's a much more reliable recourse than depending on the lack of appetite amongst the state's forces for use of deadly force against their kith and kin. Too many such loyalties have fallen by the wayside under a state's gun to consider that alone a rational strategy. Guerrilla warfare has come a long way baby. You're livin' in the past as is the author of the article you posted.; but, even then there were people of vision - Foco theory:

Why does the guerrilla fighter fight?
We must come to the inevitable conclusion
that the guerrilla fighter is a social reformer,
that he takes up arms responding to the angry
protest of the people against their oppressors,
and that he fights in order to change the social system
that keeps all his unarmed brothers in ignominy and misery.

— Che Guevara

The presence of heavy weaponry. Not rifles. hence my point that if your population is armed to the teeth with the best weaponry - that can act as a deterrant to genocide. It is not an argument for everybody to have their own gun. It is an argument for everyone to have their own rocket launcher.

One of the problems, for me, with the 'gun ownership prevents genocide' argument is that it gives a false sense of security against potential state violence. The reason there has been no genocide ofthe American population is not because the population is armed. Nor would the population being routinely armed prevent a genocide if the state turned against them, or if one part ofthe population turned against another part.

The only defence against genocide or tyranny is political - the USA is a democratic republic. That is its defence against genocide. You're right that an armed population can launch an insurrection in the face of tyranny - but that could only ever be a stop gap measure whilst better weaponry and external support were sought to assist that insurrection. The big question is how likely are you to ever face such a threat? the answer to that is not very likely at all. The threat of an armed populace dissolving into a brutal and bloody civil war is far more of a threat, but only where the political status quo has collapsed - the defence against that is to strenthen political systems and ties, not to make sure that everybody has a gun for when the shit hits the fan.

The reality is that if you don't have the rifles, you don't get the rocket launchers. No one wants to give them to you if you haven't already demonstrated a willingness to use weapons and you won't be able to capture them.

It can help discourage the attempt and prevent the completion of it. That's why there are still warring factions in so many countries. They haven't been able to complete it.

You're a self described political animal. That's just self serving.

It's worked before, that's how we kicked your asses.

I've never had an automobile accident and probably never will; yet, I carry car insurance. In fact, it's the law. Sensible people don't rely on the odds when it comes to what they can't afford to loose. We don't want to end up like you again. Color us fussy.

The defense is all of the above. That's why it's still in our Constitution and hasn't been repealed. You're not allowed to have them because your government considers you inferior. Can't you just be happy for us that we're doing better?

That point I agree on.


It can - but it can also enable the completion of it. Some of thw worst genocides in history wewre facilitated by a well armed populace.


That's just silly. I just mean I am interested in politics. I am not a part of the political machine beyond having access to a ballot paper.

The British were not attempting to commit genocide against the colonists. And, frankly that was a wholly different situation to the possibility of the US government attempting to impose tyranny on the modern USA, or parts of it.

Kicked our asses *rolls eyes*. In the same way as the Viet Cong kicked your asses? Of course they didn't. The American War of Independence was an extremely complex beast, as indeed was the War of 1812. One of the key deciding factors for the former was that Britain had very little appetite for that war. The Government was split almost fifty-fifty between Tories and Whigs, and was changing political hands with almost dizzying regularity. We effectively sabotaged our own war effort (quite a few whig sympathetic military commanders in America were implicated in that btw). Parliament's support for and supply of troops for America was tenuous at best and attempts to drive home advantages after some of the individual victories were prevented by a number of factors including that political ill-will.

Britain's prime concern at that time was not keeping hold of the American colonies. We were far too wrapped up in our ever lasting and ongoing conflict with France and Spain, and the newly emerging fields of the British East India company.

The early patriots set the stage for that conflict, but it was primarily the American army that was formed, along with the French that won the war. There were many stages of that conflict at which the victory could have gone either way - a very complex series of factors combined to give that victory to the Americans and it was a fragile one. At the end of the day, probably the biggest factor, along with French support, was the homeground advantage that allowed the the continental army to outlast and survive past the point that Britain could continue to prosecute a war thousands of miles away, with very little support for it at home. It was absolutely a victory. But it was not a comprehensive 'asskicking'. that kind of assessment just doesn't work for most conflicts. It is rarely that simple and certainly wasn't in that conflict.

And America did not 'win' the war of 1812. Nor did they lose.


The thing about insurers is they do consider the likelihood of events. You have never had an autombile accident, but the odds of you doing so at some point in your life are very high. The odds of you being swallowed up by a sinkhole whilst walking your dog are much smaller. Most people do not take out sinkhole insurance for walking their dogs.

And - I'm not sure what you mean by 'end up like us again'.

It has nothing to do with inferiority. The laws on weapon ownership were devised and voted on by parliament - a parliament made up of representatives of their constituents. Whilst that does not (clearly:p) guarantee that it will always act according to the will ofthe people, the laws on firearms were broadly popular. People in this country want guns not to be a day to day part of life. Anybody who is not mentally ill and can adhere to the rules of safe keeping can apply for a licence to keep firearms. In general, we prefer to keep firearms ownership to a minimum - held by people trained in their use. Even our police are not routinely armed.

Which may be why so few of us get killed or injured by guns .

You are doing better in many respects. And I am happy for you. But you seem to be labouring under the impression that the British state has not changed since the days of King George III and a parliament made up entirely of aristocrats, placemen and rotten boroughs imposing their will on a subject people with no input in how they should be governed. We are a parliamentary democracy - the government hasn't imposed disarmament upon us. We have elected not to be an armed populace as an acceptable price to pay for not having thousands of gun deaths per annum.

Incidentally: I'm at a loss as to why you feel the need to turn this into an America-v-Britain thing. I wasn't insulting to America or Americans in the discussion about guns. I was interested in a seemingly distinct cultural difference. One that is apparently distinct between different parts of America as much as it is distinct between our two nations.

It also baffles me how often people (and you especially) throw out insults based on something that happened two and a half centuries ago. I can see how your victory in the revolution had and has a profound impact on your sense of self as a nation. I'm not sure you understand how little impact our loss had and has on ours. The idea that we lost the American war of Independence is not something I find humiliating and references to it do not insult me. Though how that loss gets characterised (as with the 'you'd all be speaking German if we hadn't saved your asses in ww2' line) irritates me from a historical perspective. That's more about disliking overly simplistic narratives about highly complex and historically specific events.

But as your intent was clearly to insult, I'll take it as one. And again ask the question: why be insulting?

People are products of their environments and their history. Part of our history is sending over thousands of basic firearms, rifles and handguns, for Britain's Home Guard defense against potential invasion by Germany during WWII. The Home Guard was forced to drill with canes, umbrellas, spears, pikes, and clubs. When citizens could find a gun, it was generally a sporting shotgun ... ill suited for military use because of its short range and bulky ammunition. Britain had virtually disarmed itself with a series of gun control laws enacted between World War I and World War II.

I've met British and French military personnel, those who've seen how fragile social stability can be up close and personal, who were embarrassed by their civilian populations' apathy in this regard today and how they had resigned themselves to it. I felt sorry for them. That's what I think of when someone espouses political action as the only proper course; so, they themselves will never be considered responsible for countering violence with return violence, not on their own streets, not even in their own homes. That's someone else's job. Unfortunately, the divisions here are the result of too many people, well kept insulated by politicians in government, heading them in that direction too.

I find that aspect of you (collectively*) loathsome. Many in your own military find you* loathsome. Many in our military find people like you* here, loathsome. More and more civilians here now are finding people like you* loathsome; because, more of them are veterans now ... people who have seen first hand that price of freedom is not only eternal vigilance; but, that this price can't always be met by contributing to political action alone.

To hold the position that a civilian population shouldn't be armed; because, they can't win is to hold the position that they shouldn't even try after all hope is lost politically. We don't ascribe to that. That's why our culture's declaration of independence from your culture's includes within its specified inalienable rights the "pursuit" of happiness. To hold the position that the odds against all hope being lost politically is so great the civilian population shouldn't be armed is to hold the position that the government won't impose martial law on the citizenry. The government just did that in Ferguson, Missouri. As part of the front end analysis, we'll do our own threat analysis for both internal and external threats (we saw how you got caught with your pants down during WWII and we learned, thank you).

I was going to do a Jeff Foxworthy parody on You might be a redneck if , something like the one Grav posted, titled You might be loathsome if; but I didn't want to hurt your feelings. No insult intended. Your welcome.

It wasn't just because of disarmament. Britain ploughed everything it had into arming and supplying its regular army - up to and including melting down or reusing anything that could be used to make weaopns and ammunition. The Home Guard was always a 'back up' plan in case of invasion - the biggest push was the army itself. The Home Guard was armed with odds and sods of stuff. Much of it bought in or, yes, donated by the US. But had the population been better armed, those arms would have been commandeered for the regular army, so it is a moot point. We were melting down pots and pans and park railings for our bullets ffs. The army took absolute precedence in all of that. Why on earth would we have left the better weaponry in the hands of the home defence when the main action wasn't on our home ground?

The main reason for the formation of the Home Guard was political pressure and a huge upswell of people wanting to form a home defence, primarily ex-servicemen and people who couldn't qualify for full military service. The vast majority of the weapons used for that home defence were purchased not donated. The rush to arm that home defence was more a response to that internal political pressure and the morale boost it would provide than actual expected military need.


And I have met military personnel who really do not want to see our population routinely armed. Who consider it their job as trained professionals and don't want civvys sticking their noses in where they might get blown off. Many of those same soldiers are pretty disdainful of the 'toy soldiers' who 'play weekend warrior' and civilians who play with guns.

Might surprise you to know I have a few friends in the service and my wider family has a history of military and naval service. Including, funnily enough, my dad being in the Home Guard in the late 50s because he didn't pass the medical requirements to enlist.

At times of war, when the country's security is threatened even those who are nominally pacifists enlist in large numbers. In times of peace we leave it to the professionals.

And many don't. And would be deeply insulted by that statement.

Due to the extremely high probability that my further discussion of this subject with you would be construed as trolling, I find it necessary to terminate the interaction at this time. So sorry for any inconvenience it may cause. HAVE A GREAT DAY! :)

None of that is to say that I agree with the level of gun control in the Uk. I happen to think it has gone too far and become too restrictive. I wouldn't want a gun free for all. But some of the recent legislation to my mind was not well-thought out and was a knee jerk reaction to tragic gun deaths. I am similarly against the recent changes to laws on carrying knives - in particular the heavy sentences applied for those who do.

The element of the restrictions I disagree with is that 'home defence' is not considered a reasonable use and justification for gun ownership - though if you have a gun for professional sporting reasons and you then use it in home defence that is considered reasonable use.

I have a problem with the draconian sentences that are imposed for illegal gun ownership where no other crime has been committed. In particular the sentences imposed on soldiers who have brought guns home with the. It seems excessive if the gun hasn't been used to commit a crime to impose sentences that outlast the sentences for rape and some violent crimes.

Nah. I get the impression this is a subject you are serious about.

But yeah. You too :P

Oh incidentally: when I said gun control was broadly supported, and not imposed on an unwilling populace I was talking about modern gun controls enacted by a modern parliament. The gun controls between the wars were absolutely about disarming the populace for fear of socialists and strikers with their ranks filled by large numbers of disgruntled and armed former soldiers. But that was a very different political culture with more in common with the 19th century than a modern democratic system.

It looks like Great Britain is increasing the number of armed police on the streets in response to an unspecified IS attack. If 10 or 20 terrorists attack an area, I bet some folks would wish they could protect themselves. An armed populace can really be of assistance such as at Coffeville, KS.

They do that occasionally when the terror threat levels rise. We do have armed police, particularly around airports and train stations etc.

And in some places (some parts of Scotland for instance) it's not uncommon for specialist armed police to also do routine policing for some of the time and still have their guns with them.

Maybe. Or maybe it would lead to even more people getting shot :p

Seriously, would you trust someone like me with a fucking gun?




"Everybody who isn't an American put down the gun!"

I can think of waaaay more people I wouldn't want armed in that situation than I can of people I would. All fine and dandy if someone's been trained in the use of a firearm or been shooting since they were knee high to a grasshopper, out hunting deer in the wild. But there really aren't that many people in the Uk who hunt and not many places to hunt. Guns for sport is a thing - but not nearly as big of a thing as it is for you guys.

If some of those people were ex-military who know what they're doing, then awesome bring them on they'll probably not hit any bystanders. Or if they were people who had taken an interest in guns and gone to shooting ranges and learned how to use the weapon. Trouble is the people most likely to go out and get themselves a weapon and then have it with them in the event of an incident are people like my old mate Paul and frankly he'd be more dangerous than the terrorists to the people around him.

Here's an interesting story.

Armed & dangerous: 89-year-old World War II veteran shoots armed robber

Arthur M. Lewis may be elderly, but criminals are learning the North Palm Beach man is no easy mark.

The 89-year-old decorated World War II veteran foiled an armed robbery attempt Saturday afternoon at his Lake Park jewelry business that left a 44-year-old suspect with six gunshot wounds, but no loot.

Lewis was working behind the counter at The Jewelry Exchange at 900 N. Federal Highway when he was approached by a gun-wielding man around 3 p.m., according to an arrest report from the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. Lewis said he immediately grabbed the suspect’s revolver and pulled out a .38-caliber handgun from his own pocket.

The two men wrestled for several minutes and fired shots at each other. Despite battling someone half his age, Lewis got the best of it. A man identified by the sheriff’s office as Lennard Patrick Jervis, a Miramar resident, was shot six times by Lewis, including four times in the chest. Lewis’ left arm was grazed by a bullet, but he was otherwise unscathed.

No one else was in the store at the time.

“I thought he was going to kill me as soon as I saw the gun,” Lewis told The Palm Beach Post on Monday afternoon. “I thought, ‘This time, I’m dead.’ ”

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/nationa...s-shoot/ng9Dc/

Awesome story.

less awesome story:

I do genuinely mean that the old man foiling the robbery and defending himself was awesome btw. I just think that more guns in general circulation makes for more danger. He was able to protect himself - that is good.

Some interesting view points from stars about guns. Note that many live in very liberal non-gun friendly locations.

James Earl Jones is a member of the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) and once said, "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."

Miranda Lambert is packin' heat and she's not afraid to admit it: "I carry a weapon," she told Self magazine. "I got a death threat a few years ago and was really scared. But I don't want bodyguards. I am my own security."

Although he isn't currently a licensed gun-holder, Johnny Depp recalls being quite familiar with the weapon in his younger years -- a skill he's hoping to teach to his own children.

"We would just go out and line up a bunch of cans and shoot with rifles, handguns and at times, submachine guns," Depp said in 2009. "When I was a kid it was a controlled atmosphere, we weren't shooting at humans -- we were shooting at cans and bottles mostly. I will most certainly take my kids out for target practice."

Whoopi Goldberg disclosed during a taping of "The View" that she is a member of the National Rifle Association.

If we've learned anything from Angelina Jolie's acting career, it's that she looks good holding a gun.

In 2008, Jolie told the U.K.'s Daily Mail, "I bought original, real guns of the type we used in 'Tomb Raider' for security. Brad and I are not against having a gun in the house, and we do have one. And yes, I'd be able to use it if I had to ... If anybody comes into my home and tries to hurt my kids, I've no problem shooting them."

Simply showing that our royalty carry guns and it looks like your royalty do the same. Did you know Prince Philip enjoyed tiger hunting and Queen Elizabet II accompanied him? Prince Charles, Prince William and even Kate own guns and hunt.

Yeah, I know that. There are some people who hunt. Not just royals. Hunting as a sport is a legitimate reason to own guns, by which I mean it is one of the reasons which is accepted in law as a legitimate reason to apply for a licence and own a gun. Most farmers own guns.

Figures from 2010 for gun ownership in the UK

It is difficult to get a gun licence. You have to prove that you have a reasonable justification for owning a gun - sport for instance or professional reasons (farmers for instance usually own shotguns). You have to provide references who will vouch for you. You have to be assessed as fit to own a gun and you have to comply with strict safety rules regarding how those guns are kept and where.


And yeah - sometimes criminal have guns.

But look at the figures for gun deaths and gun crime:

Because criminals aren't as well or frequently armed the police don't have to be as well or frequently armed.

Between 1980 and 2012 there were 19 incidents of fatal shooting by police (not including Northern ireland - which is a very different kettle of cod).

http://www.channel4.com/news/police-...ppy-fact-check

I have some sympathy with the American police. I can see why they might get a little itchy on the trigger given the serious danger they face on a regular basis of being shot at. And I can see why someone would want to own a gun for self defence when there is a serious danger of facing criminals who are armed with guns.

But it effectively leads to an arms race. Gun homicides in the US for 2012 were 2.83 per 100,000 population.

And that's just homicides. Thousands die every year to gun accidents. And tens of thousands commit suicide with a gun - which increases overall suicide rates as they are more likely to be successful suicides than most other methods.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_...United_Kingdom

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/repo...olence-uk.html


Look - I'm not going to convince you that gun control is a good thing. Nor is that my intent. The situation in America is culturally specific. And the problem with an arms race is - being the one who disarms first puts you at risk. But - I do want to show why I don't think it wuold be a good idea for the UK to emulate America's approach to gun ownership.

The dangers of possible invasion though possible are highly theoretical - not saying it couldnt happen - of course it could. But It is difficult to feel that as a real danger when we haven't been successfully invaded in many centuries. We've had invasion scares - but it's not materialised. There was an attempt in 1797 and that was actually the most recent attempt at an invasion - but the last successful invasion was 1000 years ago.

In terms of warfare there hasn't been a need for an actual battle on the mainland since (I think) the mid 18th century. Not counting the Battle of Britain of course which was fought in the air.

And the last time government forces fired on protesting civilians was, I think the 19th century (though I could be wrong on that). Riots and demonstrations haven't been met with deadly force for a very, very long time (again, except for in Northern Ireland).

So the threat of a tyrannical government imposing itself by force of arms similarly doesn't feel like a real threat. Again, that these things haven't happened for a long time doesn't mean they could never happen - but they just aren't as a big a part of our national psyche as they are for yours.

Terrorism as a threat is real, yes. But - actual incidents since the end of the Troubles have been few and far between (and for most of the time during the Troubles the threats were all to do with placed bombs) Horrific when they do occur - unlikely in most instances to have been less deadly had civilians been carrying weapons.


What does feel like a real threat is the idea of a lot more people having guns. And then a lot more police having guns. And a lot more criminals having guns. And a lot more people ....and repeat.

This chart shows a correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates.

Hmm. It looks like Great Britain in 2010 had a 776 per 100,000 violent crime rate. During the same time, the US had a 403 per 100,000 violent crime rate. I guess our violent crime rate is less because criminals know we fight back.

The "arms race" argument is badly enough flawed that it's no longer a serious item of the discussion in the United States.

An arms race requires the resources of a nation behind it to, ah, fuel the racecar. If there is an arms race in civilian armament, the racers are shuffling along on walkers and invalids' slippers.

What really does seem to spread a particular weapon technology around is familiarity with the works. Percussion arms, a certain generation in the 19th -- widespread with military use of this with the rifle musket. Revolvers, another. Next big shift-over was the bolt-action rifle, mainstay of the medium- and big-game hunter for a lot of decades -- and began its career with military use brought very much home in the Great War. Now in the United States, we've had semiauto pistols serving this Republic's Army since 1911, still got semiauto pistols, and now more and more of the rifles have automatic transmissions and ergonomic handles sticking out of them, and this generation of rifle shooters is going to look upon the 5-round bolt-action rifle like it was a blackpowder musket -- and nostalgia-shooters will go out shooting them. The way I go out and shoot my .58 Hawken. Acre of white smoke after the BAM!

Mmm. You'd probably have to have been born into, and raised in, a republic to come to that place easily. But not liking genocide is easier.

The tools to do genocide effectively and deliberately did not then exist, and what really did the execution on the Indians (political correctness is altogether incorrect here, those most intimately involved with the question can tell you, and I refuse to use clumsinesses), while of European origin, was also not under European control to any effectual degree: disease. Nor was it all one way; it looks a lot like there was an exchange of poxes: the great pox for the smallpox.

You'll want an information dictatorship to conceal the genocidal actions and obfuscate the matter in any way possible, to anyone. This wasn't around before the twentieth century on the necessary scale -- and in the twentieth century, the communications technology gave the overwhelming advantage to national-scale entities and operations. The balance has now shifted to private entities, down to a microcosm scale, which works to make classic information dictatorships very much harder to achieve in the last century's manner. It will be harder to conceal genocides in the twenty-first -- and without exception, every genocide in the twentieth was kept secret as long as practicable.

As for slavery being genocide, that argument too is defective as the objective was hardly one of mass slaughter: it was of monetary gain all round, at every link of the chain. Casualties were plenty heavy, and enough to give the whole thing a bad name just by themselves -- but unlike genocides, the fatalities were not the point of the slave trade. They were overhead, the cost of doing that business.


"On itself" only in a nation-state sense, and Africa's also about the biggest region where the whole-nation-state mentality is the weakest. Tutsi and Hutu were peoples not about to cut each other slack on the grounds both were Rwandan. Fair amount of rifles got used as well. Big, wet rocks were in even more abundant supply than machetes and would have been every bit as fatal to use.

Per Simkin, Zelman, and Rice, there's really no such thing as private-sector genocide, and they can't find genuine occurrences in their research. Their theory of genocide has a lot to recommend it: Genocide needs three precursors. It needs hatred of one party by another. It needs governmental power, either to lend sinews to the genocidal effort motivated by hatreds or to shield the activities of those carrying the genocide out. It needs the targets disarmed -- or you run out of Einsatzkommandos quickly and fatally on the one hand, or have to fight a full-on civil war on the other. Those contests become considerably more chancy than matters were in Auschwitz, Dachau or Sobibor. As Warsaw Ghetto demonstrated. That was an expensive pogrom for those who initiated it, not so?


I cited Warsaw Ghetto already, and really: had every Jew in Europe had a Mauser rifle and 200 rounds ready ammunition, Nazi Germany couldn't have afforded Kristallnacht, let alone all that followed, having satisfactorily disarmed not only the Jews but everyone else under the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938. If you were not, under this law's provisions, military, Party, or officially Party authorized, you went unarmed and keeping anything more potent than a pellet rifle was disallowed. Even the most onerous, draconian "gun control" -- never control, always denial -- gets written in reasonable-sounding language, never in an Andrew Cuomo tone.

Further, I'll cite Israel and all those privately carried arms. That Israeli daily arms carriers have the enthusiastic support of their state is secondary. But somebody around there does want all the Jews dead or, er, trying to swim to Cyprus... Amazing how mad some people get when somebody moves in and makes a big success of a place.

Much of this is right -- I'll add some protection beats no protection, simply by clogging planning of oppressions with both delays and imponderables. There are entirely too many governments around which are essentially based on the ruling autocrat being the only individual in the whole country with any rights. This is hardly, may I say, a good or right social order.

Some of it simply betrays an igorance of unconventional warfare, one truism of which is that the guerrilla can use a lesser weapon to gain control of a greater, and turn that greater weapon to his own ends. Organization any outfit can do. The baseline cleverness to manage organization is easily achieved. Success at organization is more variable after that, owing to factors which can be internal, or can be external factors striving to defeat the organization before it becomes dangerous.

I think that might be to do with how we record violent crime:



How the UK defines violent crime for the purposes of crime figures:
How the US defines violent crime for the purposes of crime figures:

There are also other factors to do with rates of reporting. This page breaks it down very well.

http://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/


Having gone through the figures with a fine tooth comb, taking into account different reporting methods they conclude:

I take your point about the Warsaw Ghetto. And the definition of genocide as it applies to the situation in North America during the 18th and 19th centuries.

But there have been genocides where the population was not disarmed. And there are many places where the population is not armed in which there are no risks of genocide. As you say: certain things need to be in place.



Read this: On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians); Harcourt, Bernard E.

It's interesting. It takes a different perspective.

To suggest that someone who supports gun control in a liberal democracy 'likes genocide' is ridiculous. It is a matter of risk assessment.

We have had genocide in Britain: during the 17th Century the British engaged in ethnic cleansing in Ireland (not strictly genocide, but certainly a crime against humanity). Prior to that there was what amounted to a genocide in the late 11th century (the Harrying of the North).

The components necessary for genocide do not exist in modern Britain. To be armed as a defence against a highly theoretical and I would argue vanishingly small risk of a total cultural and political volte face does not make sense when the risks that armament would bring are very real and measurable. It would make as much sense as everybody wearing radiation suits 24/7 to guard against a potential nuclear powerplant accident.

@ Sarge:

Just to clarify: I don't think those figures mean that Americans are more violent than Brits. I just think that where violence does occur it is more likely to escalate to serious injury or death when people are carrying weapons.

If anything I suspect that at an interpersonal level we may be more violent: I have no evidence to base this on, just a gut feeling, but I suspect that you are more likely to get into a fist fight in the UK than you are in the US. But most such fights are probably unrecorded. I think the probable lack of weapons in any given situation combined with a heavy drinking culture mean that people are more likely to throw a punch in anger here than in the US. Street fights have been a part of British culture for a long time. In the 18th century the British were known for their propensity to settle arguments with a fist fight and everybody just stood around and watched, cheering them on :p I'm not sure we have changed all that much lol. Go into any city centre on a Friday night and you're likely to see a brawl.

You're also, as those figures show, marginally more likely to get knifed or glassed in the UK. Brits like their blades. They are much more a part of our culture than guns.

I also think that, weapons aside, there are other factors at play: it is almost certainly easier to police a smaller nation. Other than London, even our cities are pretty small. Most are comparable to towns in the US. When we talk about a 'no go area' in an inner city we are talking about a tiny area of a few blocks. We're also pretty tightly packed here. We live in very small houses for the most part and don't have much space between us.

But that size differential adds to my reasons for not wanting a proliferation of guns here. It really wouldn't take much for guns to become a major problem with such a small and tightly packed population. Add in the aforementioned drinking culture and I really don't think more guns would be a good thing :P

Dana - You have made some good points and I have truthfully run out of ways to refute them. Guns have and will remain a part of US society, but it does have it's downside.

A couple points as you guys go back and forth.
At times the Plains Indians were better armed than the the American soldiers. It was really a game of numbers not armaments. Emigration doomed the native culture. I'd agree that it was genocide as it was intentional policy. As a descendant of the poorly armed Irish, I'd also call that genocide. That was a case where arms could have made a difference since they had numbers. As far as political about face goes, it would be well to remember that educated populations have lost their collective mind before. The scapegoating of your Muslim population could lead to similar outcomes. It is an interesting question whether that oppression would come from a government or the armed rabble...

According to that chart the homicide rate is near zero in Iraq and Syria.

It seems the huge numbers of guns in those countries have created a perfectly safe, crime-free, non-totalitarian zone of sorts or something

In terms of deadly violence I suspect if it were to be anything it would be the latter. In terms of oppressive legislation and heavyhanded policing that's a different matter. Some wuold argue that there is already a degree of official oppression of muslim minorities in Britain through the application of anti-terror laws - up and including 'trials' of terror suspects in which the suspect and their lawyer are not given access to the evidence against them, and can be subjected to 'control orders' which amount to various forms of house arrest on the basis of those trials.

True. And as I said, the fact that such things haven't happened here for a very long time is no guarantee they will never happen again. There is, has always been, and likely always will be a strand of British society which leans towards white supremacy/anglo-saxon purity. It is of course possible that at some point that could expand out into a larger movement - it has done so before. But for it to turn into a genocide or anything more than an increase in racial tension and sporadic racial violence would require several things to happen. Not least of which would be to move further away from memories of WW2 and nazism.

Personally, I think the chances of racial tension bubbling up into outright pogroms and deadly violence would be increased by the presence of people's militias not lessened.

Awesomesauce. Let's move to Iraq for safety :p

I notice as well that despite the headline and the blurb, Britain is shown in the lowest gun ownership category and also the lowest murder category.

Thanks:) And there have been a lot of good points raised against gun control here. Certainly made me think and reconsider my own stance.

I think it does pretty much boil down to two very distinct cultures. neither one is better than the other, but what is appropriate to one is not necessarily appropriate to the other.

I do believe, that America cuold make itself a safer country and decrease the amount of gun deaths by imposing some controls. But I doubt it is either feasible or desirable for America to take the absolute stance against guns that works in the UK. There are too many factors at play - gun ownership has a huge part in your history and your sense of self as a nation, but also in modern culture. Whilst some people dohunt in the UK it is a much more prominent part of US culture - probably plays a big a role in the US as football does in the UK. By which I mean it is, for some communities, a much valued part of growing up and inter generational relationships. Learning to hunt and going hunting with Dad seems to me to have similar elements to the way many British youth take on their dad's football team.

We don't have large tracts of wilderness full of game. There are places where hunting takes place but they are far more the preserve of the landowning elite - a throw back to a much older culture. Alongside that runs a working class culture of hunting which primarily focuses on small game (rabbits) and illegal poaching of landowners game - both of which have largely fallen by the wayside with the advent of mass farming and cheap meat, and with the urbanisation of much of the country.

Ah no wait the chart says there are no guns in Syria, as opposed to Iraq where there is one for every two people

No guns in Syria. People there must be dying from malaria or something

Spontaneous human combustion?

"I think I could turn and live with the Syrians, they are so placid and self-contain'd"

--Walt Whitless

The lowered rate of gun homicides in the US is partly due to hospitals getting much better at preventing people from dying from them due to the amount of practice they get.

true story

I just realised I made an error on one of those posts. The last time Britain was successfully invaded wasn't 1000 years ago it was 948 years ago.

That is really interesting. Many medical advancements are made in warzones - wonder if there's a hidden 'benefit' to the gun injuries in the US in terms of pushing medical responses to them.

Also, forgot to mention this before:

I was going off tfe definition of it I found on a wiki about genocide. They drew a distinction between genocide and ethnic cleansing in that case. I'd always understood it as a genocide before though.

Pizza, probably killing more people than guns, but here to stay until they pry my cold dead fingers from the crust. ;)

I think Israel pretty much leads the world in treatment of traumatic injury, don't they?

Yes/No/Maybe?

There has been some very interesting advancements in TBI in the last decade. Many have been surprisingly in the US. Israel has been doing some really innovative things with vitamins and organics though. Japan also has been active.