That’s completely misunderstanding the reality of combat by 1775, or so. Logistics, navies, artillery and cavalry were quite sophisticated and the average musket bearing infantry soldier was at as much of a disadvantage then as an assault rifle equipped infantryman today would be against a tank.

This is to completely misunderstand a maxim of warfare:

There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.

Any soldier that forgets that maxim tends to become a casualty.

So, here’s the interesting question. How is it, with so many examples throughout our own history (the American Revolution, the US Civil War, Little Big Horn, the Filipino insurgency, Vietnam, Iraq, to name a few), that we have forgotten that it is the dangerous man, equipped with the firearm, that equalizes things, not the government with it’s tanks, planes and nukes?

1. You believe that banning guns will reduce violent crime. I think that if you were to study social patterns of crime, you will find much more crime committed in societies where the general populace is not able to defend themselves on equal footing with those who would oppress them, whether they be criminals or the government (often both).

2. It is necessary to ban guns in order for a government to be able to implement a more utopian society. The real reason that the left advocates gun control. Aside from commenting that both the fascist and communist variety of socialists make ending private gun ownership one of their first priorities, I think I need not say more.

I’m in the same boat. I studied Hapkido for 7 years (up to 2nd degree black belt), and did some cursory training in judo. In addition to my training, I’m 6’5″ and 250 lbs. To put it simply, if I chose to act in a menacing manner, I would be at an extreme advantage in an unarmed combat situation against probably 98%+ of the population. If I were still actively training, that percentage would probably be even higher.

Put firearms into the equation, and I become nothing more than a big target.

I spent more than 15 years of my life training in a variety of martial arts, including Shao-Lin Kung Fu, HapKiDo karate and Thai kickboxing. I hold a black belt, or equivalent, in each. From personal experience I can say that my confidence in my physical abilities, coupled with my training, is such an edge when dealing with someone else that I could easily cow them as rapidly without a gun as you could cow them with a gun. It is a rare person that is prepared to deal out violence. If you take away guns, then those with guns could cow the entire population.

To suggest, as Che does, that a completely unarmed population could effectively deal with an oppressive government is ludicrous, wishful thinking. On the other hand, if a significant portion of the population is armed, and opposed to the activity of the government, the government’s tanks and planes will only be of minor value to them.

Clearly the insurgents in Iraq do not have tanks and planes. They have rifles, RPG’s, mortars, IED’s. That is, they have only those things that an armed citizen could reasonably acquire. And yet, somehow, they manage to keep fighting against the Iraqi and American armies that are, indeed, equipped with everything possible, including nukes.

How is that Che? Enlighten me, please.

It would be an interesting to see an analysis of crime rates in some society as a function of weapons technology. For example, in the ancient Roman empire, crime was pretty high, even setting aside the enslavement of entire populations by armies armed with shortswords, lances, and some pretty weak artillery.

Handguns made their appearance about the time of the violent wars between protestants and Catholics in France. It seems to me (and this is an impression and not based on systematic research) that the advent of the musket and the hand-gun marked the high-water mark of routine state violence. Since then, the violent massacres then seem to be visited by well-armed groups of people upon poorly armed victims.

To me, the theoretical explanation for such a reduction is clear. It only takes a little training to allow someone to defend themselves credibly with a gun or rifle, it takes much more training to use a sword or spear effectively.

I studied Kung Fu for many years, and it was only with daily practice with a sword or knife that I had any chance of using them effectively.

One can practice once a month with a gun, and maintain a high degree of proficiency.

This difference means that in a primitively armed society, the violent criminals have a much greater advantage in a fight over their victims than in a well-armed society. When I was in good form, put me with a group of 10 novices in a gymnasium (with room to maneuver), and there was a good chance that I could have killed them all with a sword, even if we were equally armed.

Arm everyone with firearms, and the advantage would be with the novices.

It seems to me that a firearm is a boon to society in that, in contrast to the weapons that preceeded it, it could be mastered by a person who had to work for a living. It allowed a tradesman to defend himself against a professional soldier or aristocrat.

Personally, I am happier with the thought of living amongst armed neighbors; I maintain good relations with them, and who knows, if I am caught by surprise one of them could possibly defend me. If I was on bad terms with my neighbors, having them disarmed would not be a comfort; a homicidal neighbor could simply burn my house down – no gun required.

Obviously, it’s not just enough to just ban guns. After all, just passing a law and banning something doesn’t make it disappear. You have to actually BAN guns.

Notice the bold face and all-caps. With bold-face and all-caps, the ban will work.

How might a person hold up a bank with a knife?

How might a few men go about seizing an airliner with box cutters? You, obviously, discount the fact that the majority of people are not prepared to deal with violence. When they are confronted with a violent person, they tend to be cowed by the threat of violence. It’s not, generally, the weapon. Rather, it is the person wielding the weapon that creates the threat and the violence.

Now, on to your bigger point. You have written a lot of wonderful words about how you can’t just make guns illegal, you have to really get rid of them. So, how do you propose doing that? Let’s point out that the government of the USA has tried to ban alcohol and some drugs for nearly a century now, with little success. And I, a person not addicted to any drugs, can easily obtain any illegal narcotic I desire within an hour, at the most. And this is true even in countries like Singapore that have truly tough drug laws.

So, what do you propose?

You haven’t yet addressed the issue that guns are the great equalizer that allows individuals to protect life, liberty and property nor the idea that an armed populace cannot be oppressed by an authoritarian government. You have made an airy wave of your hands and ignored completely that the first thing the worst authoritarian governments of the 20th century did was implement gun control (i.e. the Bolsheviks and Nazis). Now, why do you suppose they did that if governments have nothing to fear from an armed populace?

How about some actual depth to your answers?

Brad,

‘Drugs are illegal in the US. Yet I could make a few calls and find drugs in a very short time if I really wanted to. Handguns are illegal in Britain, but any criminal that really wants to get a hold of a handgun can do so.’

Drugs are an entirely different issue, as they create a physical and psychologic dependance. A normally non-criminal type personality can turn to robbing homes & businesses and mugging just to support the habit. I understand that certain states ban owning certain types of guns. How many of your law-abiding gun owning friends would start sticking up liquor stores so that they could buy one of these guns on the black market? I would guess zero.

As I’ve said (and I suspect will have to keep saying)… Britian is clearly not doing it right. Just saying ‘handguns are illegal’ is not effective.

‘The point is that you’ll never disarm the criminal. It’s impossible. Wishing that the government could actually disarm the criminals won’t make it so. Britain is proving that. Why do you think anything our government would do would make that different?’

I’m not convinced it’s impossible. Money is the biggest deterrent to keeping people away from anything, for example. Rolexs are highly desired by a large majority of men, but only very few own them, and that’s because they’re scarce and expensive. It’s true that it becomes impossible to keep cheap and desirable items out of the public’s hands by making it illegal, but I’m still not advocating just having a guns-are-illegal law and calling it a day.

‘Further, if a mugger doesn’t have a gun (and knows I don’t have one), what’s to stop him from coming at me with a baseball bat, a knife, etc? Will you then try to ban knives and swords (which, BTW, is exactly the road Britain is going down).’

The power to point and kill at a distance instantly is a vastly different power than being able to swing a stick, no matter how thick the stick is. If they were anywhere near equivilant, we’d expect to see at least a signifigant portion of robberies being done with bats and knives. It doesn’t appear to me to be equivilant in your mind, and it certaintly isn’t in mine.

‘As long as we’re living in a fantasy world, why don’t we just make crime and aggression illegal? That’s about as sensible as believing the government can disarm criminals.’

Please read my posts.

Nick,

‘The British have taken away guns. To the point where criminals are using blades. Lots of death can be caused with a blade. Taking away guns, does nothing to curb violence. I’m not trying to be facetious with this, but a Simpsons’ Tree House of Horror epeisode explains it quite nicely. Someone will always be able to put a nail through a board and use it as a weapon. When people want what you have, they will find a way to take it, whether it means harming or killing you.’

How might a person hold up a bank with a knife? the ability for one person to threaten 40 or 50 people at a single time is exclusively a ‘quality’ of a gun. As I discussed with Brad above, a gun is head and shoulders above the abilities of any other weapons. I don’t know about you, but I’d much rather have a world in which an aggressor is armed only with a knife than with a gun. You might be able to outrun a knife, or grab an arm as it strikes, but you have little chance of outrunning a pisol, or grabbing a bullet. I don’t imagine taking away guns would somehow create a Utopian society by any means, but if most criminals choose a gun as there #1 facilitator of crime, doesn’t it make sense to take that away?

‘As for insecurity, do you carry a spare tire in your car? Do you have any first aid supplies at home or in your car? Why? Doesn’t this make you insecure? I call it being prepared for emergencies. It’s the same reason, I have and carry a gun, to be prepared for an emergency. Same reason I have first aid training and will be getting EMT training. You never know what’s going to happen on any given day, so you need to be as prepared as possible.’

In the situation with the spare tire and first aid, I am not keeping those around to hurt another person. For some reason, in all my life, I have not had a single friend or relative get into a situation where a gun would have saved their life, or saved them from serious injury. Many of them have had cause for a first aid kit and spare tire, however. For some much more bizarre reason, anytime I discuss this topic with gun owers, they -ALWAYS- do have incidents that have happened. This seems to be a fact: Gun owners seems to get in situations where they need their gun.

As for the case when you genuinely might need your gun for an emergency, that is almost certaintly neccessitated by an aggressor having guns. I’d like to prevent that situation as a possibilty, rather than hand guns out to everyone.

‘Your paragraph on the military was a good one. I agree that the military has some weapons that make my guns look like water guns. However, those weapons are in the hands of Americans. We have conscientious objectors to foreign wars, what makes you think they wouldn’t go further than that if the government turned those weapons on the U.S. population?’

Indeed! But that doesn’t change the power imbalance between military weapons, and civilian weapons. The seceding military folk would have the power of the gov’t military folk, and the civilian weapons still won’t matter much comparitively.

Jason,

Please don’t be insulting again if you want to discuss anything with me.

‘Governments are inherently inefficient. It’s their nature.’

We agree :)

‘Government cannot keep drugs off the streets, nor can it stop terrorism. What makes you think it can get rid of guns? That is a very naive notion and dangerous proposition.’

Have you tried to buy LSD lately? It’s basically impossible now, and has been for about 10 or 15 years. That’s because the gov’ts were able to cut off the supply by shutting down the producers who accounted for about 95% of the production.

In truth, I’m not 100% sure that they COULD get rid of guns. But I think, given the possible benefit, it would be an excellent possibility to explore.

‘Individuals have a natural right to protect themselves from threats to their person or property where you like it or not. This is not some pacifist/communist utopia.’

Indeed, which is a seperate issues from the right to bear arms :) Do you think I am defenseless simply because I don’t have an arsenal of firearms? Taken a step further, should someone who owns a rocket launcher consider you defenseless? Does your right to defend yourself mean that because that person has a rocket launcher, you have the ‘right’ to one as well? If I’m not defenseless, than neither are you without a gun, and so your right to defend yourself doesn’t include owning the gun.

tarran,

‘You hoplophobes are so cute! ;)’

I got to
‘How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought?’ before being completly sure that your article was complete trash. You may want to never refer people to that again if you want them to look at you with any respect.

Government cannot keep drugs off the streets, nor can it stop terrorism. What makes you think it can get rid of guns? That is a very naive notion and dangerous proposition.

Individuals have a natural right to protect themselves from threats to their person or property where you like it or not. This is not some pacifist/communist utopia.

FYI…Che is dead and hopefully burning in hell.

The British have taken away guns. To the point where criminals are using blades. Lots of death can be caused with a blade. Taking away guns, does nothing to curb violence. I’m not trying to be facetious with this, but a Simpsons’ Tree House of Horror epeisode explains it quite nicely. Someone will always be able to put a nail through a board and use it as a weapon. When people want what you have, they will find a way to take it, whether it means harming or killing you.

As for insecurity, do you carry a spare tire in your car? Do you have any first aid supplies at home or in your car? Why? Doesn’t this make you insecure? I call it being prepared for emergencies. It’s the same reason, I have and carry a gun, to be prepared for an emergency. Same reason I have first aid training and will be getting EMT training. You never know what’s going to happen on any given day, so you need to be as prepared as possible.

Your paragraph on the military was a good one. I agree that the military has some weapons that make my guns look like water guns. However, those weapons are in the hands of Americans. We have conscientious objectors to foreign wars, what makes you think they wouldn’t go further than that if the government turned those weapons on the U.S. population?

Nick