The Answer To Ferguson is Clearly…More Guns

Sometimes I don’t understand American culture or their love of guns. I know not all Americans love guns, but it seems like no matter how many times its citizens are shown that guns equal gun violence, they continue to say the answer is more guns.

For example, I read a blog today that said exactly that:

This is a classic case of people needing more of their second amendment rights.  There is something that happens to everyone when citizens are armed as far as attitude.  Firstly, police handle potential situations far differently.  They don’t feel empowered to just do as they will to stop a situation.  I doubt very much the officer in question would have acted as he did if he though it might be possible that both he men walking could be carrying guns.  Secondly, some of this might have never happened.  Would Brown have gone into the store he robbed and robbed it if he felt the owner, his employees and perhaps some of the shoppers were carrying guns?  Not a chance.  Thugs and bullies thrive in an environments where they can do as they please, a gun is a big NO to you can just do as you please.

So the answer to gun violence: more guns. Also, whether Brown robbed the store or not is irrelevant, since the officer that did the shooting didn’t know about it.

Of course, thinking more guns is the answer flies in the face of reality:

The United States has more guns and gun deaths than any other developed country in the world, researchers found.

A study by two New York City cardiologists found that the U.S. has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people — more than any of the other 27 developed countries they studied.

Japan, on the other hand, had only .6 guns per 100 people and .06 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, making it the country with both the fewest guns per capita and the fewest gun-related deaths.

I know, I know, why let a few statistics get in the way of owning more guns.

Look, if you’re an American and you think citizens don’t own enough guns, you’re clearly not looking at the facts – you already own plenty of guns. There’s nearly a gun per person in the U.S, yet you still struggle with gun violence.

In Ferguson you have police officers that look more like military personnel than law enforcement officers. The first sign of unrest and they’re rolling on you with armored vehicles and sniper rifles cocked and loaded. They have tear gas, automatic weapons, and all sorts of other military toys at their disposal.  Let’s just pretend every citizen in the protest crowd had a gun.

What’s that going to solve? Do you think they should start firing at police? Could you imagine the crack-down that would happen if they did?

This idea that armed Americans could take on the US military if they decided to go crazy is pure fantasy. Your small arms aren’t a match for the highly trained, technologically advanced, well financed US military. Your military spends more per year on war than the next ten countries on that list do combined. Billions and billions of your tax dollars are spent on technology and killing. Your rifle just doesn’t cut it, friend.

Most of your citizens are armed, yet the police force alone in Ferguson (with the newly arrived National Guard) is able to scatter you like leaves on the wind using tear gas alone, not to mention their Long Range Acoustic Devices.

So far we’ve seen an unarmed 18 year old get gunned down in the street; protesters get targeted by those same police, riots, journalists being arrested and tear gassed etc.

Like Jake Tapper said:

“I want you to look at what is going on in Ferguson, Missouri, in downtown America, OK? These are armed police, with semi-automatic rifles, with batons, with shields, many of them dressed for combat. Now why they’re doing this I don’t know, because there is no threat going on here, none that merits this. There is none, OK? Absolutely there have been looters, absolutely over the last nine days there’s been violence, but there is nothing going on on this street right now that merits this scene out of Bagram. Nothing! So if people wonder why the people of Ferguson, Missouri are so upset, this is part of the reason. What is this? This doesn’t make any sense!”

Of course it doesn’t make sense. It also doesn’t make sense to think more guns is the answer. Not only are police able to use military grade force against you, they’re able to violate your rights at will, such as your freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right to protest. They can make you walk around in circles while protesting to discourage your involvement:

Missouri Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson defended the new rule that protesters cannot stand and congregate in one place, saying it would protect community members from criminal elements who were trying to hide in their midst and cause trouble.

They can demand you don’t protest at night, because the time of day you’re protesting should influence your right to protest:

But remaining protesters — chanting “No justice! No curfew!” — refused to leave the area. As five armored tactical vehicles approached the crowd, officers spoke through a loudspeaker: “You are in violation of a state-imposed curfew. You must disperse immediately. Failure to comply, may result in arrest.”

What might have prevented this nightmare from escalating would have been less guns and less gun use. The officer might not have shot Michael Brown if he’d been better trained in the use of force. If the police force didn’t have armored vehicles and military grade hardware, you might see less tear gassing and harassment of journalists:

Journalists found themselves targeted in Ferguson once more on Monday night. Members of the media were again arrested, detained, hit with tear gas and shoved around by officers in the Missouri town, which has erupted in the weeks following the killing of Michael Brown.

I guess those journalists should have been packing.

Arming more people clearly isn’t the answer, in my opinion. Regardless of whether or not the protesters are armed or not, using those arms will only escalate the situation. Even if you believe that every American should own 10, 20, 50 guns, how would that change anything?

Regardless of whether you believe the armed citizens of America could fight and win versus the US military, what would be the cost of doing so?

A lot more bloodshed.

What are your thoughts about the militarization of the police and do you think more guns would solve gun violence?

Advertisements

52 Comments

  1. I’ve never understood the logic behind adding more guns to the mix because it’s impossible to tell who’s a good guy and who’s a bad guy. People who want everyone to be armed claim that it would make criminals think twice before committing a crime, but these same people will turn around say that people would still find ways to kill others even if we outlawed all firearms. So which is it? Are criminals desperate to commit crimes and cause harm, or are they all cautious, acting out of self-preservation? Because these people really are simultaneously advocating both, which makes no sense.

    Personally, I believe that if you’re desperate enough to commit a violent crime in the first place, you probably don’t care about dying. If you’re willing to risk the death penalty, life in jail, or being shot by the police you probably don’t really care whether or not your victim is also packing. Desperate people are willing to throw logic completely out of the window, and adding guns to a situation driven by desperation seems foolish.

    • Hi Ryan,

      The answer to your question is not that easy but I’ll try to keep it short.

      Yes and yes. Criminals are sometimes desperate to commit crimes but also sometimes act out of self preservation and sometimes commit crimes out of self preservation (drug addicts). Remember we are talking about human dynamics, this isn’t a one way or the other concept.

      There are lot of different types of violence, in this case we are talking about criminal violence. Most criminal violence is fueled by a need for something ie drugs, power, money, etc. When a criminal is going to commit a crime, typically, victims are chosen based on a probability of success. For example, a mugger is going to mug someone only if he feels that the probability of success outweighs the probability of being caught, injured, killed, etc (replace the mugger with rapist, murderer, etc). Just like a lion will chase down the weakest gazelle. The “if everyone was armed” theory is based off of this fact. People who use this argument are basically saying “let’s even the playing field,” because let’s face it, a mugger is more likely to pick the handicapped, the elderly, the weak and the submissive over the alpha male as a victim (not that an alpha male couldn’t be a victim, just the chances are lower). This, too, can be shown in alpha vs alpha. Take for example, gang violence. When a drive by shooting is done, it isn’t typically conducted on the entire gang. It is usually carried out on isolated members or static structures.

      Let’s pretend that all firearms are illegal and completely gone. How does that man in a wheel chair defend himself against a knife wielding murderer? We can’t very well outlaw knifes. Empty hand versus knife or knife versus knife is very dangerous and likely to fail. How would he defend himself? If you believe he should wait for the police, please take into consideration police response times and Warren vs The District of Columbia and Castle Rock vs Gonzales.

      Please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying. There are other ways to be proactive in our safety other than firearms, such as, situational awareness and reduced pattern setting. I’m just trying to clarify the idea behind the conceal carry.

      • No worries. I get the basic premise, but there are still a host of other problems, in my opinion, that would come along with everyone in a population carrying a firearm, and I’m not quite sure they outweigh the benefits. There really isn’t a perfect solution to the problem. Banning weapons outright clearly doesn’t do anything. But I’d be hesitant to say that arming everyone would do much better. Gun ownership in this country is the highest it’s ever been and yet violent crime continues to happen. There’s also the mental health aspect of this issue. Someone can be perfectly stable when they buy a gun and then later on down the road develop a mental health problem that unhinges them. You can’t screen for that at present. My biggest problem with everyone owning a gun, however, would be an increase in people taking the law into their own hands. Why bother ever calling the police when you can just kill someone who you feel is threatening? We’re already beginning to see with cases like that poor woman who was shot for knocking on someone’s door to get help after a car accident that people in this country are trigger happy, and are 100% willing and able to shoot first and ask questions later.

        I think the best way to mitigate the dangers involved with people owning firearms is common sense gun laws, better access to mental health services, and as you said situational awareness.

        • Hi Ryan,

          I hope my previous comment did not come off as me advocating for everyone to be armed because that is not the case. Although I do believe in my right to defend myself, some people should never own a firearm and firearms are just aren’t for some people. And, that’s fine.

          Mental health is a huge issue and there should be more cooperation to find a solution to that issue.

          As for your comment that gun ownership is at its highest but crime still continues. Just because people own more guns does not mean that they are being carried. Numbers on gun ownership include every firearm from pistols to rifles to class 3 firearms. Here is a study by the Crime Prevention Research Center that you may find interesting: http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf. In a nut shell, the amount of violence will be decreased [overall] by the amount of conceal carry holders in the area.

          Why bother calling the police? Exactly. Police are not constitutionally bond to provide protection for any citizen per Warren vs The District of Columbia and Castle Rock vs Gonzales. Let me ask you this, why would you put the responsibility of your safety in the hands of someone else? Who has more to lose, when it comes to your safety, public servants or you? I’m not saying that we should take the law into our own hands. I’m saying that we should not be required to solely rely on someone else for our safety needs, especially someone who has no stake in the outcome. It’s also about personal responsibility.

          Yes, some people will take the law into their own hands; no matter what. People do this with lots of things, for example, road rage. When it comes to self defense, I do believe that most people are just ignorant of what is lawful. Let’s be honest, most people rely on word of mouth or information from the news, rather than doing their own research and educating themselves. It is my belief that training is needed. Most poor decisions that are made with firearms are due to an ignorance of safety practices and what is actually lawful.

          My proposal is that when a law-abiding citizen goes to purchase a firearm, they are required to attend a course on safety practices and hunting/self defense laws. I believe that is a common sense law we can agree on. I agree that mental health is a issue but addressing my thoughts on a solution here would make my response a bit long.

          • I totally didn’t take your response at all like you were trying to advocate one specific side of the issue. I tend to share your viewpoints when it comes to gun ownership.

            I could totally get behind your proposal about safety classes and self-defense laws. That seems so basic that I can’t imagine any rational person disagreeing.

            Also, thank you for providing that link. While I think that people should have the right to conceal carry, I am hesitant to ascribe a decrease in crime rates with a increase in permit acquisition. I think there’s a danger of a correlation vs causation bias here. I think there are many other factors that can influence the murder rate and violent crime. The unemployment rate and the economy affect it. Did public service, like police, expand in problem areas? Were there any public health programs that rolled out in that time? Because while I am willing to admit that it’s entirely possible that the increase in conceal carry permits may have an effect on crime rate, I have to wonder exactly how big that impact is. One thing that pops into my mind is the fact that numerous studies show when you have more guns in an environment, you get more homicides. There seems to be a disconnect between these two statistics, which leads me to believe there are factors that are more important than simple gun ownership or conceal carry permits.

            http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

            With regard to the situation with the police, I think that’s a nuanced question with a lot of different cultural and social factors that can’t be addressed here. But, suffice it to say, I think that people should predominately rely upon professionals for dealing with dangerous situations as a first line of defense. But that isn’t to say that people shouldn’t have the option or ability to defend themselves if necessary.

            I’ve been a bit long winded here. But I think that rather than arming all of our citizens, the better way to control and decrease the incidence of violence and crime in this country is to simply take better care of our citizens. If you eliminate the need to commit a crime–unemployment, lack of access to healthcare, drug addition, poverty, etc.–then you’ve essentially eliminated the root cause of most crime in this country. However, I still believe people have a right to own firearms no matter what the crime rate, etc. is.

            • Hi Ryan,

              Thank you for your detailed response. I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. My problem with most gun studies is that most do not account for justifiable homicide. To be quite frank, statistics just aren’t tracked good enough to make a good argument for either side.

              The problem with relying on professionals as the first line of defense is that professionals aren’t always around when they are needed. Therefore, it’s my belief that I am my first line of defense. With that being said, I have made it my responsibility to be trained in self defense laws/tactics and train. Something that the average Joe isn’t willing to do. Again, I leave it to personal responsibility. If the person decides to make themselves the first line of defense, they need to also make it their responsibility to be educated. Which goes back to what we can agree on, training.

              I agree to a extent with taking better care of its citizens. I also believe in personal responsibility. Someone doesn’t necessarily become a criminal because of the lack healthcare and poverty, there is a conscious decision to break the law. But, like the mental health issue, it would be too much to really discuss here…so for arguments sake I agree lol

              I think we have the same line of thinking and agree on almost all areas…just wondering why two people on the internet can debate a topic, provide facts and agree on reasonable solutions to the problem but our representatives can’t. LOL

  2. A full response to this post would require a post of my own, so I’ll try to keep it brief. Essentially the poster you read is parroting a canned 2d Amendment argument stating guns keep peace. Stuff like this generates attention, which leads to a perception that Americans are obsessed with guns and gun violence. The NRA alone is great at being a bogeyman for gun control advocates to pillory.

    I agree with your proposition that additional weapons do not mandate a conclusion that violence would be reduced. At best it’s a hypothetical exercise with no ability to prove one side or the other (even using your cited statistics, the U.S. has one gun death per 8800 guns and Japan has one gun death per 10,000 guns, making the comparisons a lot closer than initially suggested).

    However, I also think that the 2d Amendment is vital to protecting liberty.

    The force used by the police in that town has grown to the level of being beyond what a government should be allowed to bear upon its people. I say this because there are growing reports that the police are showing signs of not using appropriate force under the circumstances. If the reports are true, then they are using deadly force in response to non-violent protest. Violence is already happening. People are already being killed by authorities for no other reason then they will not obey. And if that is the case, then arming the people of Ferguson isn’t about deterring violence that is going to occur.

    It’s about giving those people some chance at survival, for it is a lot more equitable to have a gun in a gun fight than harsh language and a surly disposition.

    I’d just like to add that I never thought I’d be talking about events like this in my own country. The 2d Amendment has always been some theoretical construct; a safety blanket for the terrors of potential tyranny. I never imagined I would see a situation where U.S. citizens might be fully warranted at defending themselves with lethal force against law enforcement.

    • “(even using your cited statistics, the U.S. has one gun death per 8800 guns and Japan has one gun death per 10,000 guns, making the comparisons a lot closer than initially suggested).”

      The US had 10 per 100,000 and Japan had .6. That’s about a half a person per 100,000.

      I agree with your post though. They’re even using intimidation against the media.

      • Just to clarify what I did with your statistics, I drew the number of guns per 100 people and multiplied it by 1000 to get to guns per 100,000 people. Then I divided it by the gun deaths per 100,000 people figure. In the U.S., then, it’s 88,000 guns per 100,000 people divided by 10, leading to my result of 8,800 guns per gun related death. Japan has 600 guns per 100,000 people, divided by .06 leading to my result of 1 gun death per 10,000 guns.

        I did this to put the relationship between numbers of guns and gun deaths on a more direct footing, as the discussion did include the thought that more guns would lead to more gun deaths. The U.S., even by this metric, still has a higher rate of gun deaths per saturation of weapons in the population, though it suggests gun use might be more constant between cultures. If it is more constant, you can directly tie gun availability to gun deaths (for every 10k guns, there are enough to support one gun death). From there you can argue that fewer guns will mean fewer deaths.

        An NRA mouthpiece would try to say it is constant when factoring in cultural and legal differences. And at that point you can smirk because it is precisely the cultural and legal differences that are at issue here. Either way, from the differences in culture and law to gun saturation, the point is made.

  3. “That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.” ~ Aldous Huxley

    The Weapon Effect

    The more you fill the environment with stimuli that are associated with violence, the more likely violence is to occur. Experts in this area state that the mere presence of weapons primes more aggressive behavior and has been shown in a variety of experiment in different lab and real-world settings. Psychologist Brad Bushman states “I would expect a bigger effect if you see military weapons than if you see normal weapons.”

    This knowledge is fully understood by law enforcement authorities. They are fully aware that they are the instigators and responsible for the escalation of violence in Ferguson, and should be held accountable for all damages incurred, including deaths, injuries, property damage, psychological trauma. The tax payers should be fully reimbursed, as they are the ones footing the bill causes by these bullies.

  4. I’ve spend countless hours debating pro-gun lobbyists on the problems of arming the entire population. They seem to believe that simply by owning a gun, you somehow automatically acquire the skill, training and presence of mind to use it responsibly and without risk. I believe they are coming to this ludicrous conclusion because they are yet to explore why they get a feeling of euphoria when they wave a high powered weapon around in public and because they prefer to ignore the gross incompetance and poor weapons handling skills of many citizens.

    Somehow they think that a criminal who has meticulously planned a crime will be no match for an innocent bystander that is “packing.” This makes me think the whole gun toting population must be “on edge” in their constant state of cat like readiness for action!

    It’s just plain sad that a police force needs to equip themselves as a full military outfit, just to respond to incidents in their own community. It doesn’t have to be a war zone, but it seems that’s what citizens demand! Who can seriously blame Police for wanting to make it home to their family each night.

  5. Garry was a reporter and spent a lot of years covering the results of guns in too many hands. He’s seen more bullet-riddled corpses than most cops — and neither he, nor I, has ever owned a gun. Once, we talked about it. That was the beginning and end of it. As far as I can tell, more guns equal more violence and no one has ever presented a sensible argument to the contrary. In Europe where they control guns very strictly, they have far fewer deaths via guns. It looks like a simple correlation: more guns = more gun violence.

  6. Godless Cranium,

    I read the same post earlier this evening. There are valid points on both sides of the gun debate. I don’t believe in the militarization of the police force but there are several reasons for this occurrence. With events like the 1997 North Hollywood Shootout, police forces were found to possess inadequate training and equipment to deal with those situations. The police do need to take the necessary steps to keep the themselves and the community safe. With that being said, automatic and military grade weapons are over the top. Having a show of force does not always de-escalate the problem.

    You commented on the original post that peaceful protests work. I would like to remind you of the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, the Birmingham Civil Rights Protest in 1962 and the Soweto Uprising in 1976; to name a few. On the other hand, we can take a look at the L.A. Riots and the Korean-American response to the looting and violence in Koreantown. For the Korean-Americans, owning firearms helped protect them when police were unwilling or unable to. I don’t believe that it’s an issue of firearms but an issue of who owns the firearms and the individual’s intent.

    As for the study that you mentioned, there is no differentiation between deaths caused by gun violence and gun related deaths. Gun related deaths also include death caused by suicide and negligence. The study also doesn’t show the difference between illegal gun violence and justifiable homicide. I believe that the answer to gun violence and gun related deaths is not more guns or laws, but the enforcement of the current laws and training. Examining the perpetrators of the North Hollywood Shootout, in 1993 (4 years before the shootout) they were caught with illegal weapons and IEDs, but only served about 100 days of jail then placed on probation. Mandatory sentences for drug violations push violent criminals out of prison early (not necessarily the case for the North Hollywood Shootout perps but it is the case today). If there is a qualm, it should be with the judicial system not firearm owners. The problem is that criminals will do what they want. If they can’t legally obtain firearms, they will find a way illegally.

    You are right that the average citizen’s firearms are no match for the military technology, but you are forgetting about asymmetrical warfare. The Vietcong used it in Vietnam, Afghanis used it against the Russians in the 1980’s, and “terrorists” are using it against the United States now. In this type of warfare it is not about the amount of fire power or technology you have, it’s about whose spirit to fight breaks first. Although technological weapons will produce more deaths to the opposition, that doesn’t necessarily equate to winning. To use your example of Hamas and Israel, is Israel really winning? For every missile that kills a member of Hamas, how many civilians causalities are there? Don’t you believe that the survivors don’t refill the ranks of Hamas?

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to change your position on this matter. It is clear that you have made up your mind. And, I respect that. I’m simply trying to show another side to the debate. I believe in the right to defend myself. No one has more to lose when it comes to my safety than I do. In Warren vs The District of Columbia and Castle Rock vs Gonzales, the supreme court has ruled that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even if that person has a protective order against a violent individual. How do we protect ourselves and family from violent individuals with ill-intent, who have no regard to the law?

    All in all, the police do not need to be the military but they need adequate equipment and training. Firearm owners need to know the law, have adequate training and be responsible. I don’t believe that adding firearms to a anger fueled fight or completely disarming law-abiding citizens is going to end gun violence. It really boils down to intent and personal responsibility.

    • Hi Christopher. Thanks for your comment.

      “I would like to remind you of the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989”

      I don’t think a few hand guns and rifles in that crowd would have stopped those tanks.

      “As for the study that you mentioned, there is no differentiation between deaths caused by gun violence and gun related deaths.”

      Pretty sure the gun related homicide rate would be higher than other developed countries as well. I doubt Americans are more suicidal or accident prone than the average person in another country.

      “The problem is that criminals will do what they want. If they can’t legally obtain firearms, they will find a way illegally.”

      This I agree with. We’re not talking about criminals but protesters and the average person.

      “The Vietcong used it in Vietnam, Afghanis used it against the Russians in the 1980’s, and “terrorists” are using it against the United States now.”

      Against an invading army. Your citizenry and the US military are not invading their own country. The people using those tactics were also trained. The average citizen is not.

      “To use your example of Hamas and Israel, is Israel really winning? For every missile that kills a member of Hamas, how many civilians causalities are there? Don’t you believe that the survivors don’t refill the ranks of Hamas?”

      And the fight goes on. No one wins. The Palestinians are the ones getting the most of the casualties.

      Imagine if they didn’t fire rockets but peacefully violated check points. The world would take notice. Every rocket weakens their cause and allows Israel to exploit it. Did you notice in this latest round that they would report on how many Palestinians died and then how many rockets Palestinians had sent over?

      “How do we protect ourselves and family from violent individuals with ill-intent, who have no regard to the law?”

      I’m not necessarily against gun ownership. I’m more for adequate training and sensible gun laws.

      I think we agree on that point.

      “All in all, the police do not need to be the military but they need adequate equipment and training. Firearm owners need to know the law, have adequate training and be responsible.”

      We agree here as well. Thank you for your well thought out comment. Greatly appreciated. 🙂

      • Godless Cranium,

        You said that you are not necessarily against firearm ownership. In all honesty, your post does not come across that way but I can see in our conversation that you aren’t against responsible ownership.

        “I don’t think a few hand guns and rifles in that crowd would have stopped those tanks.”

        It would depend on the caliber of the firearm. Tanks are not impervious and actually quite easy to disable with the right firearm. For example, a few .50 cal rounds to the tracks will render the the vehicle immobile (in turn makes it a easy target for IEDs). My point being, when there is a will there is a way.

        “Pretty sure the gun related homicide rate would be higher than other developed countries as well. I doubt Americans are more suicidal or accident prone than the average person in another country.”

        You’re rebuttal is a sweeping generalization based off an assumption. Statistics on firearms and suicides aren’t tracked in way that is good enough to use for research. Although it makes sense, it doesn’t necessarily make it accurate.

        “This I agree with. We’re not talking about criminals but protesters and the average person.”

        But we are talking about criminals. Who do you think turned a protest into a riot? Criminals. The average person isn’t looking to intentionally break the law, if they were they would be criminals.

        “Against an invading army. Your citizenry and the US military are not invading their own country. The people using those tactics were also trained. The average citizen is not.”

        Could we not compare the militarization of the police to an invading army? You’re right, the average citizen is not trained. However, we can draw parallels between the Afghanis and Vietcong and Americans. Please bare with me. Yes, some were trained military defectors or trained by an outside military. Most of them were not trained, just citizens picking up arms or trained by the members who were trained. The parallel being, how many former U.S. military do you think would fight for their rights or train the untrained in a fight for rights? There are a lot of vets, who have spoken out against big government and I believe that many would pick up arms in the cause (if it ever came to that).

        “And the fight goes on. No one wins. The Palestinians are the ones getting the most of the casualties.”

        This is because of intent. Hamas has no intent to allow the Israelis to exist. In fact, they call for their destruction. I agree that if BOTH sides are willing to have peaceful talks, sure they could find a solution…but that isn’t usually the case.

        I appreciate your respectful and well thought out response. It’s nice to have a debate on controversial topics without heated exchanges and/or emotional ad hominem.

        • “It would depend on the caliber of the firearm. Tanks are not impervious and actually quite easy to disable with the right firearm.”

          I still don’t think Square would have turned out any differently if the crowd had been armed with small arms.

          “You’re rebuttal is a sweeping generalization based off an assumption. ”

          True. But I’d bet it’s true nevertheless. Gun violence in the US is much worse than other developed countries. Excuses don’t change that.

          “Who do you think turned a protest into a riot? Criminals.”

          And the police who were using too much force and arresting African Americans twice as much as whites and of course, the police officer who gunned down an unarmed person in the street. The violence didn’t occur in a vacuum.

          “Yes, some were trained military defectors or trained by an outside military. Most of them were not trained, just citizens picking up arms or trained by the members who were trained.”

          I doubt this is happening anytime soon. It wouldn’t have changed the scene on the ground now. The protesters would still be squashed like bugs if they opened fire on the police.

          “This is because of intent. Hamas has no intent to allow the Israelis to exist. ”

          And Israel has no intention of stopping the illegal settlements either. Both are to blame. The Palestinians are not served well by further violence. It only makes them look bad.

          Your comment illustrates this point.

          “I agree that if BOTH sides are willing to have peaceful talks, sure they could find a solution…but that isn’t usually the case.”

          Of course not. Both are ruled by right wing parties who profit from more war.

          “I appreciate your respectful and well thought out response. It’s nice to have a debate on controversial topics without heated exchanges and/or emotional ad hominem.”

          Right back at you. 🙂

          I also liked your blog. You gained a new follower.

          Cheers! And have a great night.

  7. Pingback: Gun Control: Rights to Bear Arms | Amusing Nonsense

  8. Impressive article. I’m glad to hear another vocal opinion against guns and the further militarization of the United States police force. Of course the easy, but also idiotic answer to this would be: guns don’t cause the violence, people do. I completely agree with you that with every episode of gun-violence that occurs it becomes more unbelievable that the likes of the NRA are able to defend the rights of a freely gun-toting America. Perhaps no amount of gun-related crime will be enough to prove that people can live without guns as long as money can be made within this segment of the arms industry. If we think about and really go back to the US Constitution then the 2nd Amendment was designed to create well-armed militias, in case of subsequent invasion of the British. Guns were also not what they used to be; not nearly as good at killing people. The Amendment is devastatingly out of date and begs the question as to why more people haven’t come to the conclusion that more guns (instruments able to cause death/injury) would not bring more violence?

    As to the arming of the police force it depends on whether you believe it is justified considering the amount of guns the citizens now collectively possess. The police need to be able to enforce law and order, and this may be the only way of doing it. Further militarization is another matter altogether, and is perhaps a relatively imprudent step considering that the police also have to have the trust of citizens and not just instill fear.

    A possible solution could be a gradual disarmament of both police and gun owners. That would surely lower the potential for violence that could turn fatal. Unfortunately with so many conflicts of interest, the solution is unlikely to be simple.

  9. I grew up in England in the seventies – which was pretty much a gunless period in the UK.
    The only time I ever recall seeing a cop with a firearm was while watching Starsky and Hutch or Chips.or Dirty Harry. American, see? Get the picture?

    I have lived in South Africa since 1980 and gun deaths ( murder) have, until recently, being the highest/2nd highest in the world. The US of Eh? always seems to be ‘up there’ with us – 1st or 2nd.

    When carjacking was, until recently, practically the national chuffing sport, one very often shat oneself when driving at night and many a time I would shoot robots rather than stop if there were any suspicious looking characters nearby. And it was often nerve wracking coming home after dark. You were ( still are) ever vigilant for someone hiding behind a hedge or low wall.
    A friends wife was carjacked at gunpoint right outside their high-security town house complex. ha ha.
    Two pieces of shit held up the guards with AK47s and a third stepped in front of the BMW and levelled a pistol at her through the windscreen. Her baby was in the car seat.
    She was fortunate they let her and her child go.
    Almost everyone over here is aware of someone or knows someone who knows someone who has been the victim of a gun related crime.

    South Africa, like the US, is NOT Switzerland or a similarly responsible type country.
    The police have guns so the criminals get bigger guns.
    The police get pump action shot guns. The criminals get automatic weapons.

    And this is even before we begin to count domestic firearm deaths
    –Think Oscar Pistorious –.
    Oh, yes, there are a 1001 reasons to ”justify” owning a firearm.

    Like we all need the latest 15 shot fully automatic pistol with dumb-dumb shells,minimum recoil, laser sights, ”….able to kill an unarmed coon y’all – oops… I mean stop a unarmedracoon of course – ha, ha, at 100 paces. Hell, even your wife can use it.
    ”And with ev’ry purchase y’all get 25% discount on this brand new Magnum. Every household should have one. ”

    You don’t sue for peace from behind the barrel of a gun.

    I fucking despise arsesole gun advocates.
    Violence begets violence. Period.

  10. The sad truth is that Americans just aren’t going to get it.

    I mean, Sandy Hook. SANDY FRIGGIN HOOK. A bunch of kids get shot and STILL idiots cling to their weapons claiming “it ain’t the guns!”

    And even some of the responses on here, the ones making “reasonable” arguments for people keeping guns.
    Listen, you can use whatever rationale you want, the fact remains that statistics have already PROVEN less guns equals less violence.

    It the citizens of Ferguson were to pick up a weapon and fire back- that’s it, that’s the kiss of death. Ferguson would be locked down in a military state. No matter how bad things get, the people there need to prove fighting fire with fire doesn’t work.

    As you said, the government and police are far better equipped than the people. The only real weapon the people have is public favor. As long as they do nothing to stain their hands then the whole nation will continue to be on their side and the police will be vilified until finally this whole thing gets sorted out.

    If some idiot in Ferguson decides its time to shoot a cop, some backwoods redneck is going to hear about it and say “Yeah! Now it’s time to show the government who’s boss!” and this thing will spread and get worse and worse.

  11. The position for some sort of gun control is not a very stable or logical one in my opinion. It is asking our government; the same entity who is the largest seller of weapons to genocidal dictators around the world- to put some sort of gun control implementation on American weapon purchasing. I would feel better asking Jack the Ripper to remove one of my kidneys. Alaskans gun crime rate is extremely low and almost every person in Alaska has a gun. Maybe it’s too damn cold there to take a glove off to pull the trigger I don’t know but nonetheless there are many cases where statistics show that more guns equals less crime. Criminals will get guns no matter what restrictions are in place and the 2nd amendment is only there because we need protection against tyranny. Like a government who is more than willing- and has in the past armed the Saudis, N/S Africa and (Al-Qaida) for billions in profit.

      • Lol I wasn’t the original creator of that saying but it did fit in with my statements. 😄 it is a difficult issue for sure. I’m more bothered by the medias portrayal of the supposed “gentle giant”. They race bated this death when so far- it looks like the shooting was very much legal and justified. It’s sad that the black community keeps allowing the media to create an emotion driven outrage on manipulated information. Stay warm my friend. Lol

  12. Excellent piece …… coming from the Uk I would hope one day the US can be like us in respect of gun laws but sadly I feel this could never happen realistically. However, maybe moving forward the same rules as in Switzerland would work ?…..

  13. Americans won’t give up their guns out of fear of being on the side of the underpowered. Gun ownership has gotten so out of control with ever more powerful weapons that those who buy guns to defend themselves always feel that they need to have more firepower than the (unknown) enemy.

    Remember War Games with Matthew Broderick? Gun ownership is at that point now.

  14. Ferguson doesn’t seem like a good example of better second amendment exercise… We need to make sure we don’t hire racist police officers and we need to make sure that if one chooses to own a gun, that they are properly trained in how to use it. I am not a lover of guns, but my younger brother, and current member of the NRA, is an enthusiast. He and I disagree in a lot of places. However, it is plain to see that he would, once of age, be given the right to bare arms in order to protect his family in case another attempts to hurt them. We have a bigger issue here. Untrained Americans buying guns just because they want to feel safer. You are actually in more danger if you are in possession of a firearm without proper knowledge on how to utilize its abilities to effectively prevent unnecessary harm to any bystander in a high-stress scenario such as a robbery, or violent rape.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s