Great Amerian Gun Myth no 3 Guns will ensure my freedom!!

If you are so safe and secure in your little slice of heaven, why leave that and come out to pick a fight you can't win?

 

And my response - which was also referenced showed that the "battle of athens" was a local event which was actually more likely settled with dynamite than guns. The most amazing part of the whole story is the lack of State or Federal intervention - I countered with the Eureka Stockade which did NOT "ensure freedoms. As for the American Civil war - So??? Do you want me to cite how many times armed insurrections did NOT "ensure freedoms"

Well, since you are moving goal posts let me move some too. In what way did guns "ensure the freedoms" of people like the Aboriginal Australians (they had access - just not as much access as the Europeans) in fact one could argue that the situation in Australia proved that guns caused LOSS of freedom. New Zealand - their's was even less bloody than Australians and has been fought in court more than in battlefields

I did cite several instances of civil uprising that was effected and effective without guns and in fact this is more common than armed uprising (since we are into goal post shifting) because EVERY election in EVERY democracy can be seen as an unarmed uprising

And now we have out and out fantasy

Where will the tanks come from? Who will be driving them? And do you honestly think your little gun is going to stop a Panzer division?

 

Instances please not generalities based on misguided misinformation

Philippines 1986 was a peaceful overthrow - where was the rape and pillage there?

Gandhi - he actually stopped the fighting between Muslim and Hindu and did it WITHOUT guns

Northern Ireland tried guns and bombs for years and got nowhere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_resistance

The wiki article goes on to quote research that proves "non-violent methods are more likely to be more successful" - a section that I have previously quoted and you ignored to rabbet on about "collapse of civilisations" - something which you have yet to provide one scholarly article about

 

Philippines? Peaceful? That is a funny set of glasses you look at the world. I trained with a guy with a hole in his rib cage from a bullet he took.

Yup Ghandhi was not harmed, only the thousands of children who got thier brains smashed by clubs and any other weapon the opposing religion could get thier hands on. Yup only thousands of women rapped, but Gandhi was unharmed. Great success.

 

You forgot Northern Ireland. Would you, for instance, support the Real IRA?

 

LOL. Sure fooled me. I don't believe you , based on your comments in this forum.

 

This is just schoolyard prattle on your behalf. I'm more than happy for you to refer to any aspect of the peer reviewed empirical analysis on this subject. What paper would you choose?

 

Why are people in Britain and Australia (among others) so against Americans owning guns.

It is not like i could hit anyone in Britain or Australia with even the best gun made.

 

This isn't a cunning comment. Folk just know rationality and non-rationality. Do you think that is American specific? I'd suggest that most Americans haven't even entertained the question. But that isn't nationalistic in tone, that's just bleedin obviousness

 

What he means is that no civilization lasts forever. Different powers, governments and people's rise and fall. Of course, since more and more countries are becoming democratic and democracies tend not to get into conflicts with each other and tend to have internal transitions of power more seamlessly, the way in which societies come and go might become more peaceful and violence might eventually be phased out altogether, but that's highly unlikely.

 

http://www.informaworld.com/openurl...c=repec&7C&7C8674ECAB8BB840C6AD35DC6213A474B5

oops, you got caught making up studies again.

 

insults...that is your typical way of trying to appear smart. Failed with a super AD HOM. So you are reduced to arguing family lineage? what a joke. What in the hell does that have to do with the fact that you don't know what you are talking about?
I own because I can. What's the issue? .............. hmmm doesn't appear inconsistent to me
Why is it that the people who tend to want guns abolished are often the most rude........maybe they want no repercussions for the half-stoopid comments made off the cuff...............insults and name calling are rude. Rude poeple think they can say anything to anyone about anything, anytime without conseqence. That's so civilized..........Right to be Rude..........
It is my Right to own. Just because you don't have the right and refuse the right for it, doesn't mean you have the right to tell me to lay my guns down.
A well armed society is a polite society.

 

What on earth are you going on about? The fellow asked me to present evidence that I'm not his father. It was, mind you, a rather silly request. Perhaps it confused you?

You've spammed my posts several times. That certainly is rudeness run amok. You also are deliberately fibbing about my position. I have referred to rational gun control. I have not referred to gun bans.

I can own guns if I wish. Indeed, I come from a gun owner background. However, personal preferences are irrelevant to the thread. Of more importance is whether guns ensure freedom. We know they create coercion through higher crime rates, but can they control government abuse?

I'll ask you a simple question: do you think the Real IRA can use guns to control perceived abuses by the British government?

 

Maybe you should have Google Scholar on rapid access like I do
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504850701675508

 

this where you get all of your info?
try something more literary like ebsco, Gale Resource, or military docs. but you have to be a paying member to acess real scholarly works.....

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/secission-petitions-filed-20-states-190210006.html

20 states try to leave the union. Time to stock up on guns and ammo.

 

So who are you going to shoot??

 

why should you care, this isn't your country, and you are still trying to disarm us.........................
trespassers, thieves, politicians...the list could be expanded, I am, sure to include all of America's enemies

 

Nothing better than a bit of internet warrioring! Just make sure you have air cover. A tank buster might me needed if an aussie is in their ute

 

It like 200,000 people in quite a few states.

I don't believe there is a reason to take it seriously.

 

I actually don't know of anyone who claims that firearms will ensure their freedoms. Is this "myth" a straw man?

 

Read this board or like AR15.com or something.

It isn't a strawman.

 

Well then such an idea clearly is a myth. Nothing is guaranteed. A gun can give one a fighting chance, but it can't ensure one's freedom. Nothing can with 100% certainty.

 

And it still comes down to "who are you going to shoot/threaten with that gun"

Is it not better to take other routes to ensure "freedom"?

 

Confronted with multiple assailants, as I have been, I would threaten or shoot them, as the need might be.

Freedom from what they did or others might do is a significant sort of freedom.

Now, there are lots of other routes that I would rather take, to "freedom' in such a case. I'd like to be able to fly, disappear, become a tiger, summon a football team to help me, and not a one of those is going to work.

There are times when only a gun is going to help. Its easy for those who have enjoyed luxury to talk about what to do when things get rough. I should know about that too; I've led a ridiculously sheltered life, with one big exception.

There are times when a gun is, however regrettably so, a necessity.

Are you capable of conceding that there are such situations?