Gun Rights vs. Gun Control

[palerider]

There are no ivory towers here. This is a tiny little art school in the middle of nowhere which affords them little money and little prestige. All of them have been published or displayed in galleries elsewhere. One of the requirements for becoming a teacher here is to have had experience in the field which one is applying to teach: in other words, the writers have all been published in book form or in magazines, the graphic designers have all worked in personal or organized advertising firms, the fine arts teachers have all had their work displayed in galleries all across America, etc. Many of them still do those things, although not nearly on the level they could if they didn't have to spend so much time here in New Hampshire.

Ivory tower is an expression. Any school beyond high school is an ivory tower.

I have been published in both book form and magazines and I have had my watercolors displayed in a gallery. Does that mean that I am qualified as well? Having oneself published is no difficult task.

Do not insult my teachers. While I don't always agree with everything they say I have a great deal of respect for them as artists and as thinkers. Perhaps your educational experiences were poor ones but do not attack mine.

My education was in the maths and sciences. Most of my professors were consultants for various engineering, and bio tech firms and taught for no better reason than to have access to the research facilities.

My opinion of teachers in general weren't formed until I had a larger context in which to view them. If you are still in school, you have little context on which to draw in order to form an opinion.

 

[vyo476]

Having oneself published is not a difficult task. Living off of publication is. They've all done that and many have recognized with national and international awards as a result of their artistic endeavors.

There is no tenure here. There are no teaching assistants to deal with the actual classes while professors do their own thing. The extent of our "research facilities" is a library which is around a quarter the size of an average small-town library. The food could be better, the weather couldn't be much worse...tell me, if you'd already lived for five years off of your artistic abilities, making around 50k per year in an advertising firm, would you choose to leave the salary behind to live (and teach) here?

You're treading dangerously close to inciting my ire. I know that there are plenty of inept teachers out there but you should not dismiss the fact that it is not an easy lifestyle. The teachers that I have known and who have helped shape me into the man I am today (and am still becoming) have been dedicated professionals who view the shaping of young minds to be as important to the future of our country as anything else.

There are good teachers and there are bad teachers, this is true. If you continue to lump together the bad and the good with generalizations about "seemingly limitless incompetence in public school systems" or how "those who go into teaching are typically the ones who couldn't make in the actual field," then you are only going to succeed in alienating the good ones that do exist. These people have some of the most stressful jobs in the country today. They don't need your patronizing.

As you can see I feel very strongly on this subject. I apologize if the strength of my rebuttal does not match the strength of the original message conveyed.

 

[palerider]

As you can see I feel very strongly on this subject. I apologize if the strength of my rebuttal does not match the strength of the original message conveyed.

Rebutt as strongly as you like, I encourage it. I am glad to see that you haven't decended to name calling in lieu of actual argument as some on this board do.

At this point, I suppose we really don't have much to discuss. When you are a decade out of school and earning a living, and have had the change to be exposed to people who are actually talented enough to call themselves professionals in whatever field you go into, then you will have a context with which to compare your college professors.

Looking back, I can honestly say that with the exception of my math, and hard science (chemistry, physics, biology, etc.) professors, I would call very few that I encountered competent and I graduated from two very respectable universities.

 

[vyo476]

I can accept that as fair.

 

[Fonz]

James Madison was President of this country from 1809 to 1817. In those days you had to worry about regiments of foreign troops who had horses, muskets, sidearms, sabres, and cannons, as well as fighting frigates and other wooden warships. A militia with enough weapons was a great defense against that because in the end it's people with guns vs. people with guns.

Today, that isn't the case. Weaponry has evolved to the point where it's people with advanced tech vs. people with advanced tech. This isn't always the case but any foreign force capable of invading this country would have to have some pretty impressive technology, or a truly killer strategy.

Bottom line, in a world where ballistic missiles, tanks, and advanced warplanes are the norm for combat, citizens with machine guns wouldn't do a whole hell of a lot of good. In the case of a successful foreign invasion of America it would be nice to be able to fight back; I just don't think that letting those types of weapons sit in peoples' homes is a good idea because the contingency scenario of which they are a part is just as unlikely to become reality as a nuclear war - perhaps even less so.

I'm all for allowing citizens to own and carry for personal defense, but you don't need semiautomatics and automatics for "personal defense." If someone is trying to rob your house having an AK-47 is what you might call overkill. If someone is trying to invade your country chances are that they will be using new-age war tech that an AK-47 wouldn't do a whole lot of good against, and you'd just be getting yourself killed with no potential for gain.

yah thats why were just kicking ass in Iraq right now huh?

Low Tech will always beat High Tech in a guerilla war.

 

[Fonz]

Here are some statistics that are hard to refute:

* In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)

(two-thirds with firearms - one third without. Obviously, guns aren't the sole issue...)

* In the United States during 1997, there were approximately 7,927,000 violent crimes. Of these, 691,000 were committed with firearms. (12)

(Now with overall violent crimes, we see that guns are a much smaller percentage - less than 10%)

* As of 1992, for every 14 violent crimes (murder, rape, etc…) committed in the United States, one person is sentenced to prison. (62)

(So, golly gee, Wally, you think not punishing people for committing violent crimes might be more of an incentive for them to commit them in the future????)

* As of 1992, average length of imprisonment for:

Murder 10.0 years
Rape 7.6 years
Aggravated Assault 3.4 years
(63)

(And so we see that the ones that do get sentenced aren't serving long sentences...)

* In the early/mid 1990's, criminals on parole or early release from prison committed about 5,000 murders, 17,000 rapes, and 200,000 robberies a year. (3)

(Proving the above assertion - the criminals being released early or unpunished are committing more violent crimes - well isn't that just shocking...)

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

(So that's 764,000 people gun banners would rather see murdered or raped by criminals if they had their way. Yes, let's just all be defenseless victims and wait for the "justice system" who we've already seen isn't locking criminals up, protect us. ROTFL.)

* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)

(So an armed populace is indeed a deterrance to crime)

* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)

(Gee, that gun ban didn't work so good, now did it?)

Here are some more stats from the same source:

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida United States
homicide rate -36% -0.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
handgun homicide rate -41% +24%
(3)

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)


These are from a source that admits they're politically conservative, however, the statistics are accurate. If anyone wants to prove them wrong, you'll have to demonstrate that their information is flawed, not that it came from a conservative source.

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

there are laws against Rape, Murder and kidnapping..and yet there are still rapes, murders and kidnaps!

I guess the only solution is to eliminate those laws entirely!!

 

[vyo476]

yah thats why were just kicking ass in Iraq right now huh?

Low Tech will always beat High Tech in a guerilla war.

My point was that in case of an invasion things like AK-47s wouldn't do a whole lot of good (and if you'd like to continue the Iraq comparison I'd like to reference you to the actual invasion of Iraq). Someone else (I think in a separate thread) made the point that no country on Earth has a hope of occupying America because we're too damn big and there are too many people.

Yes, low tech, to a certain degree, can beat high tech in guerrilla war. However, as things stand now, we won't wind up in a situation like that - therefore I think its foolhardy to allow large arms, like assault weapons, in people's homes for a contingency scenario which is highly unlikely at best.

 

[Fonz]

My point was that in case of an invasion things like AK-47s wouldn't do a whole lot of good (and if you'd like to continue the Iraq comparison I'd like to reference you to the actual invasion of Iraq). Someone else (I think in a separate thread) made the point that no country on Earth has a hope of occupying America because we're too damn big and there are too many people.

Yes, low tech, to a certain degree, can beat high tech in guerrilla war. However, as things stand now, we won't wind up in a situation like that - therefore I think its foolhardy to allow large arms, like assault weapons, in people's homes for a contingency scenario which is highly unlikely at best.

You think I'm worried about another country invading the US?

Sorry dude, i'm worried about my own government. And you should be too.

 

[vyo476]

You think I'm worried about another country invading the US?

Sorry dude, i'm worried about my own government. And you should be too.

Whether or not you are afraid of other countries invading the US is irrelevant; you responded to a statement I made in regards to another person's beliefs about the role of militia in defending America against invasion. I was responding in kind to clarify my position in that statement which you derisively compared to Iraq.

That said, if you're that worried about the government of the US, than there's someone on this forum you should talk to. Her name is Truth-Bringer and I think she'll agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

[Fonz]

Whether or not you are afraid of other countries invading the US is irrelevant; you responded to a statement I made in regards to another person's beliefs about the role of militia in defending America against invasion. I was responding in kind to clarify my position in that statement which you derisively compared to Iraq.

i really have no idea what your trying to say here.

 

[vyo476]

i really have no idea what your trying to say here.

Look back through the thread. I initially made a comment that you responded to; the comment I made wasn't about our own government, it was about the defense of America from foreign invasion and the role of personal gun ownership in case of such an event. Therefore, whether or not you are concerned with foreign invasion has no bearing on the comment I made.

 

[Fonz]

Look back through the thread. I initially made a comment that you responded to; the comment I made wasn't about our own government, it was about the defense of America from foreign invasion and the role of personal gun ownership in case of such an event. Therefore, whether or not you are concerned with foreign invasion has no bearing on the comment I made.

Yes and then you said, "no country on Earth has a hope of occupying America because we're too damn big and there are too many people."

Which I don't necessarily agree with, (What if they just want California for example), but my point was that, even if that was the case, owning automatic weapons isn't just to fend off foreign invaders. Its also to fend off our own government, if it comes to that.

Your argument that small weapons such as AK's etc, wouldnt be much use against modern technology is a bad argument. Because as we've seen many times in the past, (Vietnam, the Russian/Afghanistan war, the current Afghanistan war, Currently in Iraq...etc), modern technology may win you a few battles, but it wont win you the occupation.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

(What if they just want California for example

They can have it.

 

[vyo476]

Yes and then you said, "no country on Earth has a hope of occupying America because we're too damn big and there are too many people."

Which I don't necessarily agree with, (What if they just want California for example), but my point was that, even if that was the case, owning automatic weapons isn't just to fend off foreign invaders. Its also to fend off our own government, if it comes to that.

Your argument that small weapons such as AK's etc, wouldnt be much use against modern technology is a bad argument. Because as we've seen many times in the past, (Vietnam, the Russian/Afghanistan war, the current Afghanistan war, Currently in Iraq...etc), modern technology may win you a few battles, but it wont win you the occupation.

Any attempt to occupy just a small part of our country would also end in failure. While they're busy sitting on California, what's the rest of the country doing? Sitting around twiddling its collective fingers? No, its rebuilding and rearming and you better believe its sights are on every last grain of American soil being occupied by foreign forces. Without an occupation they wouldn't be able to prevent the rest of America from rebuilding its armed forces in semi-secret.

All the wars you've mentioned are guerrilla-style wars and you've yet to convince me that guerrilla warfare in America is a possibility. Until you do I hold with my previous statement.

 

[Fonz]

Any attempt to occupy just a small part of our country would also end in failure. While they're busy sitting on California, what's the rest of the country doing? Sitting around twiddling its collective fingers? No, its rebuilding and rearming and you better believe its sights are on every last grain of American soil being occupied by foreign forces. Without an occupation they wouldn't be able to prevent the rest of America from rebuilding its armed forces in semi-secret.

All the wars you've mentioned are guerrilla-style wars and you've yet to convince me that guerrilla warfare in America is a possibility. Until you do I hold with my previous statement.

You are completely missing the point.

If our military is defeated in a conventional war, then the citizenry will be left to fend for itself.

whats so hard to grasp about that concept?