"The Value of Armed Citizenry" by some American chappie

#1
#2
An interesting article for sure mate. I can see both sides of the argument and the saying "an armed society is a polite society" sometimes rings true. But, from a personal standpoint, i'm pretty much on the fence with this.

I can see the good but can't help but think of some of the tit's that would rush out and arm themselves and probably shoot their pissed up relatives when they come home from the pub at night, or some overzealous loony shooting some bloke he suspected was breaking into a car, though my biggest fear is pissed up blokes on a saturday night but armed with pistols instead of kebab compasses.
 
#3
He makes a convincing argument, but I can't help but feel that the anti-gun lobby could come up with just as many cases where an armed passerby was not able to stop the gunman, or even made the situation worse- his evidence seems somewhat cherry-picked.
 
#4
I can see the good but can't help but think of some of the tit's that would rush out and arm themselves and probably shoot their pissed up relatives when they come home from the pub at night, or some overzealous loony shooting some bloke he suspected was breaking into a car, though my biggest fear is pissed up blokes on a saturday night but armed with pistols instead of kebab compasses.
So you can be trusted but you cannot trust others with weapons? Is that what you're saying? There will always be loonies, guns or no guns.
 
#5
In his autobiography Donald Rumsfeld quotes something along the lines of "a problem that has no solution is not a problem, but a fact to be dealt with" (excellent book by the way). Such, it appears to me, is the nature of firearms and the USA. A couple of points worth remembering are that firearms existed before the establishment of the country and Westwards pioneering - the genie was well and truly out of the bottle and will not be put back in. Also, they gained their independence through the barrel of a gun and that lies at the heart of the American psyche. Further, the reality of the vastness of the country means that, for many, local law and order agencies don't really exist; and I happen to quite like their attitude. towards defence of property. That said, I see absolutely no reason for an average Joe to possess an automatic assault weapon. When all is said and done I don't see the Second Amendment changing anytime soon.
 
#6
That said, I see absolutely no reason for an average Joe to possess an automatic assault weapon. When all is said and done I don't see the Second Amendment changing anytime soon.
It ought to be noted that despite all the hoo-ha about 'assault rifles' and 'automatic weapons', the gats involved in incidents like Columbine, Batman etc are invariably just a semi-auto rifle with black plastic furniture. They're not 'automatic' or 'assault rifles' (having no selective fire option), they just look like them.

Personally, if I wanted to brass-up a cinema I'd go for a couple of semi-auto shotguns with big tube mags and SG cartridges.
 
#7
Personally, if I wanted to brass-up a cinema I'd go for a couple of semi-auto shotguns with big tube mags and SG cartridges.
An 'interesting' POV offered to me this morning was that it was a good job he used guns, imagine what he could have done if he'd used some of the IEDs he had in his apartment.
 
#9
I understand where Seagull is coming from. Trouble is, I also support the general principle that anyone without a criminal record should be able to purchase, and keep at home, a weapon for the specific purpose of self-defence. Carry permits should also be available on the basis of attending and passing a "CCW course" of some kind. The trouble with Seagull's POV (and no disrespect to him, as he has to face the possibility on pretty much a daily basis) is that I don't think it is a valid moral argument that "I can be trusted, but I don't think you can be trusted, so I want a Gat, but you can't have one".

The biggest pro-gun issue that all the anti-gun crowd miss, is that you don't need everyone to be armed. Just the possibility of a potential victim being armed will reduce street crime. Burglary is almost unheard of in states where gun ownership is very high.

There will be tragedies, but the statistics are very unsound in the USA in this regard. A copper I have total respect for in New Hampshire, who is probably one of the finest trainers in the use of weapons "on the street", once carried out a poll of the shootings in a bad inner-city area. It wasn't very scientific, but the results were interesting. Instead of calling all deaths by firearm to be a bad thing, he asked the local police to make a record on a piece of paper. Each reported death by knife or gun was listed in one of two columns; "tragedies" and "good riddance". The former had three entries after three months, the latter nearly a hundred. It was the bad guys thinning each other out.

You might hesitate before drawing the conclusion that on that statistical basis, we should arm the bad guys more; but it is difficult to escape the conclusion that an armed society tends, simply by the law of averages/Darwinism, to dispose of the dross far more than good people.
 
#10
An 'interesting' POV offered to me this morning was that it was a good job he used guns, imagine what he could have done if he'd used some of the IEDs he had in his apartment.
I believe one of the biggest mass killings in American history was done by someone thrown out of a nightclub. He returned with a gallon of petrol and threw it into the club. Add match, move out. Far worse result than any firearms incident.
 
#11
I can see both sides of the argument .... But, from a personal standpoint, i'm pretty much on the fence with this.
Bloody Liberal Democrats.
 
#12
It ought to be noted that despite all the hoo-ha about 'assault rifles' and 'automatic weapons', the gats involved in incidents like Columbine, Batman etc are invariably just a semi-auto rifle with black plastic furniture. They're not 'automatic' or 'assault rifles' (having no selective fire option), they just look like them.

Personally, if I wanted to brass-up a cinema I'd go for a couple of semi-auto shotguns with big tube mags and SG cartridges.
This is pedantic quibbling, the correct US legal term is assault weapon and it's an entirely fair designation, these pieces of equipment where designed for high firepower combat, the mass slaughter of men.

These aren't Walted up civilian weapons as you suggest, they are full dress military weapons, some of which with a a very minor bit of home gun smithing can have auto mode restored, many are actually issued to police forces.

Some are as tactically able as the SLR was and a lot on here woud contend that semi-auto battle rifle was a superior weapon for a profesional to the full auto SA80 that replaced it or any of the AK family. Lacking a spray and pray option isn't even much of a disadvantage, especially when it comes to mowing down panicking innocent punters as a certain Norwegian demonstrated, using the same weapon the RUC often carried as an answer to the assault rifles of PIRA. A design with similarities to the old M14 but in 5.56mm, not a great rifle but it was regarded as rather more comforting than a full auto Sterling SMG as I recall.

A tactical shotgun is also highly lethal, but at least buckshot lacks the casualty multiplying penetration of 5.56mm. They are used by police and folk defending their homes with some sense of their neighbors safety for precisely this reason. Most are, slow to reload, heat up quickly, have a fair bit of recoil and the ammunition is much heavier.

When you absolutely positively gotta kill every motherfucker in the room
, frag grenades excepted best choose a millitary rifle with a large capacity detachable magazine and calmly pick your double taps.

What sort of asshole uses a hundred round drum though defeats me.
[video=youtube;eNAohtjG14c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNAohtjG14c&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
RT doing a 2 piece on this at the moment featuring the pro and against 2nd amendment debates. the lobby's claim that you cant legislate what is a constitutional right.

the NRA claims that an armed student could have stopped the 2003 fella from shooting half his college was disproved in scenarios where the armed student generally made a fudge of it and got shot asap. in most scenarios unless the armed civvy is a psychopath who can switch his conscience off or an ex serviceman who has seen the elephant they have little chance of pulling it off.

the swiss model was very good with a machine gun in every home which kept crime down for decades and liberal gun ownership laws with a range in every town or village, recently though they are reviewing it due to the high number of suicides with official weapons..

the best story on RT was a guy who was having trouble making a hole in his wall for a plug and screw so used his .22 which went through the wall an into his wifes chest. Darwinism at its best.
 
#14
Eh, if there were no guns, no armed citizenry, then there would be none of these shootings.

This is a terrible argument.
because Criminals are such well known obeyers of the Law.....
 
#15
Perhaps fewer Americans would be killed by guns if they presented smaller targets? Just a thought.

[video=youtube;Psq4iQX0uXs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psq4iQX0uXs&feature=player_embedded[/video]
 
#16
Perhaps fewer Americans would be killed by guns if they presented smaller targets? Just a thought.

[video=youtube;Psq4iQX0uXs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psq4iQX0uXs&feature=player_embedded[/video]
There was a self-defence shooting in the USA where the armed citizen shot a great fat whelker like the one in the picture; the Expert Witness had a very hard time (he succeeded in the end) in getting the armed civvy off the murder charge. Said whelker had a knife and the armed civvy had to shoot the whelker three times with buckshot rounds, because the fat stopped the buckshot so effectively. (I defy anyone to watch that YouTube video without a grin on their face).
 
#17
So you can be trusted but you cannot trust others with weapons? Is that what you're saying? There will always be loonies, guns or no guns.
That's not what I was saying at all mate. The difference between me and ordinary member of the public is that I've been trained, extensively, in the use of my firearm and with many different scenarios thrown in. I also wear a uniform, have a working knowledge of the law, particularly with regards to use of force, and have other means at my disposal to deal with a situation.

If you read my post you'll see that I'm undecided on this one. Perhaps I dwell too much on the negatives?

Edited to add.

I've got no issue with law abiding members of the public (even back in Blighty) owning firearms for hunting, sport, and home defense. But I don't really think carrying firearms is a good option. I wouldn't carry my service pistol on my days off, so why do people (here in Canada anaway) feel the need?


Sent from my iPhone using ARRSE
 
#19
This is pedantic quibbling, the correct US legal term is assault weapon and it's an entirely fair designation, these pieces of equipment where designed for high firepower combat, the mass slaughter of men.
**** me try as I might i cant find the mass slaughter of men as part of Eugene Stoners patent application or of a DoD directive, or request. nor have I ever heard the term high firepower quantified in the military.

These aren't Walted up civilian weapons as you suggest, they are full dress military weapons, some of which with a a very minor bit of home gun smithing can have auto mode restored, many are actually issued to police forces.
And you know this How?
to convert an AR-15 to full auto would require a Full Auto Bolt as the Semi Auto bolt is cut away- no bottom rear to trip the auto sear disconnector during forward movement. You would require a dissconnector sear and spring, pin, Full auto trigger, full auto sear, full auto hammer, full auto selector- All NFA restricted parts. Thats not to mention having to drill a hole through the lower reciever at a precise point. Oh and thats with a Lower that is the same dimensions as the M16. Many have thicker inner walls which will not accept M16 Parts and or use different diameter selector and pins which do not allow for the Automatic parts to be fitted.
Some are as tactically able as the SLR was and a lot on here woud contend that semi-auto battle rifle was a superior weapon for a profesional to the full auto SA80 that replaced it or any of the AK family.
Quantify that? how is the SLR anything other than any other rifle. it is no deathray, or finger of god.




When you absolutely positively gotta kill every motherfucker in the room
, frag grenades excepted best choose a millitary rifle with a large capacity detachable magazine and calmly pick your double taps.
or block the exits and use Gasoline like in Gotheburg Sweden to kill 63 burn 200, or the Bronx in the happy land club to kill 87, no guns involved. Upstairs lounge in new Orleans 32 dead....

More efficient, cheaper, unregulated, better casualty producing method

What sort of asshole uses a hundred round drum though defeats me.
The C-Mag is notorious for jamming, ergo why the US Mil dropped it
 
#20
...and have other means at my disposal to deal with a situation.
I was rather hoping you wouldn't point that out. This, actually, is probably the biggest problem with civilians being armed. Any civvy who carries weapons on the street on a regular basis, should be acutely aware that it is all-or-nothing. Anything less than general war means you have to back off. One has to protect the weapon from loss, and with no backup, you have to act like Uriah Heep if someone starts insulting you. Trouble is, some civvies don't; insults fly, then fists, and as the armed party realises he's about to get kicked unconscious, opens fire.

Whereas Seagull can lump the rude fellow with an iron bar (ASP) and take him for a scrape back to the nick.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Flyingrockdj RAC 0
J The Intelligence Cell 27
S REME 23

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top