We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Adopt a sniper I hear the term “Anglosphere” as meaning that there is some community of the English-speaking nations on either side of the Atlantic Ocean. But when I come across this site, I feel like I am living in a foreign country to Americans.
Trying to list all the reasons why Adopt a Sniper is definitely not an English website would take hours. And that is a shame.
[via Instapundit]
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
It isn’t as strange as it appears at first. In the “About” section, they make it clear that they are a support group within a profession, nothing less, nothing more.
I think what originally hits you is that the term sniper is loaded with all sorts of extra connotations, and you don’t immediately think of them in the same way as you’d think of, say, schoolteachers. But reread the site and replace sniper with schoolteacher and it won’t be such a big deal.
I’m afraid I can’t see what it is that troubles you.
Are you unaware of the long (and honourable) tradition of sniping in the British Army?
Or is it the ‘adopt a solider’ principle that troubles you?
And yes, I am English. We’re actually quite a cold-blooded lot when pushed. Which is just as well, really. And I’m very glad our cousins in the Anglosphere are made of the same stuff.
Perhaps you could expand on your distaste?
Yes, exactly: what is it that you dislike about this concept, please?
Antoine
I couldn’t disagree with you more. GCooper states it well.
From what I understand, the Canadian Armed Forces (did you know they had such an organization?) supplied a contingent of snipers for action in Afghanistan and were recognized by the U.S. for their contribution. Unfortunately, their fellow Canadians thought otherwise and viewed them in a not-so-favorable light.
Snipers are probably viewed in contempt the same way that non-standard units in all branches of the military often are.
Snipers in the U.K, U.S., Australia, Canada, and others should be looked upon for the amount of life they save and not the amount they take.
From what I understand, the Canadian Armed Forces (did you know they had such an organization?) supplied a contingent of snipers for action in Afghanistan and were recognized by the U.S. for their contribution. Unfortunately, their fellow Canadians thought otherwise and viewed them in a not-so-favorable light.
Snipers are probably viewed in contempt the same way that non-standard units in all branches of the military often are.
Snipers in the U.K, U.S., Australia, Canada, and others should be looked upon for the amount of life they save and not the amount they take.
From what I understand, the Canadian Armed Forces (did you know they had such an organization?) supplied a contingent of snipers for action in Afghanistan and were recognized by the U.S. for their contribution. Unfortunately, their fellow Canadians thought otherwise and viewed them in a not-so-favorable light.
Snipers are probably viewed in contempt the same way that non-standard units in all branches of the military often are.
Snipers in the U.K, U.S., Australia, Canada, and others should be looked upon for the amount of life they save and not the amount they take.
My apologies for the multiple posts.
Canada held the sniper award until Afghanistan.
US now has it back at about 1-1/2 miles.
Or Canada has the #1 position because of Afghanistan, I can’t remember.
You are living in a foreign country from us, Antoine:
Just before the first time I traveled to England, a guy I worked with told me, “It’s a fossil country. It barely works.”
On my own experience, I had to agree with him.
I must say, however, that I found Warr’s Harley-Davidson in King’s Road quite charming.
Ps. — I could be dead wrong, but I’m pretty sure that people wondering about your “distate” have misunderstood what you had in mind just about as completely as it’s possible to do so.
Billy’s right, everyone misread.
A Canadian sniper team in Afganistan got 2 record kills in 2002, at a distance of about 2.4 km. Using an American weapon, naturally.
Of course the jealousy and anti-Americanism kicks in and you get stories like this.
Yes, I cannot find where Antoine expressed ‘distaste’ anywhere in his short article!
Personally I think it is a splendid idea but as Antoine points out, it is hard to imagine the idea being thought up on this side of the Atlantic.
Yeah, for some reason the Euros as a whole don’t have quite the same love affair with guns.
Perry de Havilland writes:
“Yes, I cannot find where Antoine expressed ‘distaste’ anywhere in his short article!”
If you are correct, then I apologise. The article is a little ambiguously worded and I suppose one grows tiresomely used to anti-war/anti-American views – even, at times, in these hallowed halls.
Perhaps Mr Clarke would like to clarify?
Actually I’ve found that the Swiss and the Norwegians and almost as big ‘gun nuts’ as the Americans.
In fact one of the biggest national sporting events
every year is the “Tir National” . The national shooting contest.
Probably because more people in Europe have been effectively infantalised than they have in the USA, other than in places such as Switzerland of course.
Or the Europeans have just grown to enjoy the feeling of chains on their skin, Perry.
Guns + civilian ownership thereof = freedom.
“Guns +civilian ownership thereof = freedom.”
Bullshit.
This would mean, for instance, that Afgans under the Taliban, or Iraqis under Saddam were more free than people in the UK or France. I’m sure you believe there’s not much freedom in either of those countries, but I’d like to see you argue that they’re less free than the forementioned tyrannies.
& I have to say, for all the guns they have Switzerland actually feels quite repressive in many ways. They have rules about what times you can hang your duvet out the window for chrissakes.
On the Swiss & their freedom, this may also interest you…
The Swiss attitude to firearms is not the same as that which appears to prevail in the US.
It’s nice to see folks getting organized about this … although here in the US it is hardly needed.
Our family didn’t need any prompting to send gear to our relatives in service. We passed the hat and sent my nephew a .50 BMG bolt action m16 upper ( with a good Leopold scope ) the day we heard he was posted out there.
It just made sense to us … we would rather he was killing the enemy at 800+ yards rather than at under 100.
[quote]
The Swiss attitude to firearms is not the same as that which appears to prevail in the US.
[/quote]
Too bad. A few decades ago, you wouldn’t need a permit to walk to the range with a slung rifle.
It looks like the Swiss are in a hurry to infantalize themselves with the rest of the european populace.
Kristopher, range shooting is still extremely popular there, so I presume going to & from the range is ok, else I have trouble seeing how anyone would do it. It’s more keeping the gun with you for personal protection whilst out & about which is off limits.
Looking further into the wording of the law, there appear to be serious restrictions on the ownership of semiautomatic weapons etc. too.
Thanks to all of you for your comments.
Switzerland is no libertarian utopia, but it has certain points in its favour.
On the subject of guns, national service used to make it mandatory for adult males under the age of 55 to have a rifle and ammunition at home, but these were only for use in training and in the event of a mobilisation. This helps keep the Swiss free from invasion and to a certain degree from home-made tyranny, but it is not the same as the right to bear arms.
Both Switzerland and Japan have low crime rates since 1945 with very different approaches to firearms ownership. I support the repeal of gun control, but that doesn’t make me blind to evidence that there are other ways of keeping crime low.
Hey, A_t, if we’re going to make comparisons between disparate peoples, why not compare unarmed European Jewry circa 1943 with armed Albanian Kosovars circa 1999?
Or maybe you’d prefer that the peoples be contemporaneous. Compare the latter Kosovars, then, with the (largely-unarmed) Bosnian Muslims.
There are no death camps in Kosovo, unlike those in Bosnia — or, for that matter, in 1943 Europe.
You can call the chains “daisies”, if you want, but history has shown that the unarmed populace fares worse than the armed one.
If you were living in modern-day Afghanistan, for instance, would you feel better off if you were unarmed?
Anyway, I apologize for sending the topic off on a tangent.
At my website, we also support a cadre of snipers in a Stryker division which was just recently deployed in Iraq.
The kids had lousy, worn-out scopes, bulky old rangefinders, and crappy armor vests. I set up a fund drive to get replacements for all that stuff (it’s the Walter-Adam Fund, for those interested).
Three new NightForce scopes: $4,300 — raised in about 48 hours;
Three new Leica rangefinders: $1,700 — raised in about 8 hours;
Six new vests and accessories: $1,500 — raised in about 11 hours.
I have generous Readers at my site… and our boys are better-equipped to kill Islamofascist bastards.
Baby Vulcan is smiling.
Kim du Toit writes:
“I have generous Readers at my site… and our boys are better-equipped to kill Islamofascist bastards.”
Well done!
It’s disconcerting for a Brit to read of US forces feeling under-equipped. Usually, it’s our poor bloody troops who get nicknamed “the borrowers”. I think most of us tend to imagine your chaps going into battle with the latest and greatest of everything.
Meanwhile, I still feel none the wiser about the initial point Antoine Clarke was trying to make, or Perry de Havilland’s later comment on it. Does anyone else?
Sorry if my point was not clear.
America is becoming more distant from the rest of the English-speaking world (sadly). This is because the culture of freedom has almost completely disappeared from the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. If ‘Adopt a sniper’ were a British website, those responsible would be pursued by the authorities. Those police officers and army personnel involved would be prosecuted, and any civilian donor who was traceable would be lucky to keep his firearms’ licence.
Contrast this with the United Kingdom of 1900, where the local militia drilled less than a mile from where I live, where the only restriction on firearms ownership was a tax paid at the post office, where the government did not set opening hours for selling alcohol, where hard drugs (opium, cocaine) were not considered criminal, and where the crime rate was lower than it is today.
America is not utopia, any more than Switzerland is. But the attitudes of the people that vote against a John Kerry or a Michael Dukakis (whether libertarian or conservative) are almost incomprehensible to most people I know in the UK.
I suspect that any distaste that anyone might have towards snipers comes from another example of words losing meaning–namely, that “sniper” has lately been used to mean “anyone who aims before pulling the trigger,” rather than an actual sniper.
Personally I think supporting snipers is a rather good idea, even though I’m completely opposed to the war, because snipers are the soldiers most likely to be killing actual enemy soldiers and not random citizens who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
That said, I have a strong suspicion that the website’s (and the commentors here) support for snipers as a profession would abruptly vanish if someone wanted to adopt one of these snipers.
I’m reminded of World War II, when the British government was asking Americans to donate their guns for the British to use against a German invasion. There’s a type of involvement in a foreign war I can actually support!
Although anyone trying to answer such a call today would undoubtedly end up in a Federal prison…
Antoine Clarke writes:
“Sorry if my point was not clear.”
It is now and I’m happy to say how much I agree with you.
The fact that one or two other contributors adopted positions identical to the one I mistakenly attributed to you, proves your point.
We are a sadly diminished nation – constitutionally impoverished by a generation of indoctrinated half-wits who have never had to face anything more menacing than a school teacher’s sarcasm.
Antoine
I found that was the case too. Then I moved away from London. I’ve long realised that London is a cess-pit of liberal, minority crap but its only since I’ve been away from it that I’ve realised just how its cultural dominates pervades (against what I believe to be the better sense of much of the British people). I’ve no idea where in the UK you are but if you’re in London then try a different way. You may be pleasantly surprised.
What about fredom FROM guns? I kneel down and thank Satan and his merry abortionists every day that I live in a country where the thought of gun ownership is abhorrent to most people. This shit about being ‘infantalised’ by not having gun ownership (a couple of comments above) is the dumbest thing I heard in my life; friends, I put down the guns in my life precisely at the point when I ceased to be an infant. Is it not the infantile need for power and attention that is so exploited by gun imagery in the media- especially by good old Holywood- and the true gratification of the gun-lovers’ of this world (as opposed to a love of fredom)?
I put down the guns in my life precisely at the point when I ceased to be an infant.
Goodness me. It must have been nerve-wracking to change your nappies.
Maybe so, but the value of widespread gun ownership lies in empowering citizens to resist the “infantile need for power and attention” of politicians, surely. Not that I’d wish to echo the spurious arguments about social utility being expressed by some here: I mean, bugger social utility, it’s a God-given right to arm yourself. As for snipers, why not support those on our side?
Else,
Your assumptions about the reasoning and motivations of gun owners are both typical and entirely wrong. I am sure there are some gun owners who wish to posses guns to get attention or to feel powerful. Most, however, at least most of the rational adults that support gun ownership, have absolutely no need to boost their egos. In fact, if your only reason for wanting to have a gun is to feel powerful or get attention, then I would say you need further training.
Similar misconceptions are held against athletes, martial artists, debaters, wealthy people, etc. There are of course reasons for some stereotypes, but understand that most true athletes are not out to prove anything, even those who compete. There is always a little bit of desire to show off a skill, but my ego is not tied to my athletic performance, or my clothing, or what I drive, and certainly not what weaponry I have. To assume that all people in support of a certain lifestyle which you do not pursue must necessarily mean they have poor motivation shows a great deal of bigotry and ignorance.
It may behoove you to take the time to understand the philosophies of the people whom you are accusing, lest you look like a fool. I have had people tell me I am only pursuing a given goal to make up for some inadequacy. I tell such people: 1) You have no knowlege of my motivations. 2) You have no knowledge of that which I pursue, therefore no real understanding of the goal. 3) You have your own goals to pursue, how is it you pursue those goals for good reasons yet assume my reasons are bad? 4) If you have no goals you have ceased to grow, and that is the greatest inadequacy of all.
Oh come on, don’t be so precious!
Ian R
people in Europe have been effectively infantalised
could it not be said that describing guns as “inter-species communications devices” is a tad erm…infantile?
Else — Uhm… no.
When it comes to “the infantile need for power and attention” and all that “gratification” nonsense, I reach for one of my electric guitars.
Happy to help clear that up.
Hmmm…. Classic projection syndrome … the assumption that other people will act as poorly as you would.
I’ve given up arguing with these sociopaths about victim disarmament. I’ll simply post my stock reply:
“If you come for our firearms, we will kill you.”
Go ahead and argue with that, if you wish.
“Hmmm…. Classic projection syndrome … the assumption that other people will act as poorly as you would.”
What kind of bullshit neo-psychology is that?
By all means make the case for private ownership of firearms, but don’t talk a load of crap & give it a fancy-ass name. There’s absolutely no reason to believe that because someone is scared of others owning firearms, they themselves would be likely to murder if they had a gun.
I fear the consequences of stupid drivers, both while I’m walking around town & when I’m driving, but personally I do my best to drive safely & carefully with due consideration for others. One can be perfectly honourable but also know that others will not be.
In reverse order,
The Serbs didn’t need deathcamps in Kosovo – they used terrorism, in its purest form, to run the Kosovans of Albanian extraction out of the country. That was why NATO went into Kosovo.
“(largely-unarmed) Bosnian Muslims.” umm, no they weren’t . The Bosnian muslims later on had some very, very expensive weaponry, provided through a whipround by concerned Saudi and Kuwaiti citizens, in much the same way as your later comment Kim.
If you are going to make comparisons between “disparate peoples” perhaps there might be a somewhat better example you could use. I am still trying to work out what inspired you to make a very odd comparison between European jews in 1943 (not that there were many left by then, I daresay) and Kosovan Albanians. Perhaps you might englighten us.
Limberwulf,
Okay, so I deliberately exaggerated a point to get my message across- I don’t seriously believe that every gun owner shoots his shit for those reasons alone. But then again, if it’s not a little bit of power you feel with that gun in your hands then what is it? Excitement? Responsibility? Fun? Is this ‘infantile need’ maybe not the ‘true’ gratification , but at least one of the major ones? Since you freely admit that this motivation exists can you enlighten me as to the others? What is it that you ‘pursue’ through gun use? What is this goal?
For the record, I did not ‘assume all people in support of a certain lifestyle…that you do not pursue…necccessarily must have poor motivation’. I was talking strictly about gun users (who don’t all see it as a lifestyle) and specifically about ‘gun-lovers” and their motivation. Plus I did’nt say the motivation was ‘poor’ ( I take it that by this you mean misguided/immature/ignorant), only that it was there. I’m just as much a big baby when it comes to losing at pool or not getting the attention I deserve on these damm blogs! I now admit that it’s not always that singular motivation- but we all know the people I’m talking about, don’t we? There are plenty of social pursuits and ‘freedoms’ I do not take part in and yet am happy to abide with. None of these are INEXPLICABLY LINKED to the widespread prolifferation of and easy access to guns (even for kids) that characterises bloodbath USA.
Tony H,
Did god come to you on a cloud and whisper in your ear that guns are cool? How do you know he gave you that right?
The idea of ‘supporting’ the MOST cowardly murderers just gives me the creeps big-time. For an anti-statist blog there are a lot of people talking about ‘the enemy’. Err, is that the other country? And it’s state? As opposed to your country? It’s state? Your cherished right-upheld by the state?Or the terrorists? Ok. Then what about all those thousands of civillian corpses? Collateral damage? That makes you the most hardcore utilitarian slaughter-apologist with a 500:1 ratio of corpses to even out in, say, 100 years. Then we’ll know we did the right thing. Can’t murder be called murder and revenge be called revenge?
Kristopher Barret,
And then you will ascend to heaven, I asssume?
Else,
On motivations:
1) Self-defense. The desire to have the ability to defend oneself if the situation were to arise. To effectively do this, a familiarity with the weapon of choice (be it a gun, a knife, a martial art, a kitchen frying pan, etc.) is required. The more practice is involved, the more ability there is, and the more confidence in that ability is gained, often making the person far less aggressive as they are not running on pure paranoia.
2) Fun. Shooting is like any other sport, its fun.
3) Collecting/hobbie. Some people like having stuff that they find intruiging or beautiful. For some it is coins, some its baseball cards, comics, guns, movies, first edition books, etc. For me it happens to be knives. I like well crafted knives, I can tell what a properly designed and balanced knife is and what good metals are, etc. Its a hobby, nothing more. And I do not wish to have my hobby taken becuase you think too many people might do bad stuff.
4) Hunting. Some of us like to maintain basic survival skills. I take this to an extreme and take week-long trips with nothing but a knife for equipment. Its challenging. Some people like to hunt with a gun for a similar reason. Some do it for fun, or sport, see hobbies above.
5) Equalizing. This is related to point 1, but the fact is some people have good reason to be afraid of physical confrontation. They feel a gun is an equalizer.
6) Distrust. This is two-fold. One is distrust of the state’s ability to protect you, or a knowledge that if the state could, it would be way too into your business in the process. The other is a distrust of the state in general. Who says they will be responsible with the weaponry they have, and as such why should they be the only ones with it?
7) Protection of others. Again related to point one, but recognise that many people who wish to have the ability to defend are not thinking of self-defense, but of defense of family and friends.
There do exist those with the poor motivations that you have already mentioned, but there are people with poor motivations studying to be doctors too, so what?
As for freedom from guns, that is almost as large a pipe-dream as freedom from violence. Technology is here to stay, in all of its forms. Human nature will always be with us. You can have my guns when all the people who would desire to use force against others are dead, and you can prove it. Untill then, the desire of people to have means of defense against tyrants, both public and private, should be respected.
Many gun owners DO see it as a lifestyle, and even more so the gun lovers. In fact, a large majority of gun lovers I know are the hobbyists. They have chosen an area of expertise, and they enjoy it. They go to the shooting range where I go read a book or play chess. They go to gun shows the way I go to a knife store. They develop their skill the same way any of us develop skill in the area that we have chosen and enjoy. Sure some of them are a little nutty. So what, there are nutty sports fans, cooks, diet freaks, jocks, debaters, political activists, business owners, philosophers, book readers, book writers, you name it. And dont go saying that guns are different because they are weapons. Everything is a weapon if weilded as one. Computers are by far the most dangerous weapons on the planet right now, but I dont hear anyone crying out for computer control and background checks and waiting periods. Perhaps that is because people who are afraid of the power of computers dont use them, much less go on blogs. People that are afraid of the power of guns also tend not to use them, much less spend time learning about them or developing the skill of properly handling one.
As for “bloodbath USA”, it appears you are again exaggerating to make a point. I will do the same. Compare the gun deaths to automobile deaths and tell me what the more dangerous thing is in the US. Get some perspective on things and realize that your so-called bloodbath is anything but. Also realize that your so-called “easy-access to guns even by children” exists only in Michael Moore movies. There are plenty of restrictions out there. There are violations of those restrictions on occasion, but this is very rare. That vast majority of access to guns that end up being used for violence is done by illegal means. Guns can be had by nearly anyone, that is true, but so can heroin, cocaine, child porn, and any other illegal thing you can name. Statist restriction has bright promises and dismal performance. You cant fix things by restriction. Areas of tighter gun control do not have significant drops in the occasions of violence, so what is the point? Why restrict something if there is no positive effect of that restriction? For every example of positive effect you name, I am sure I have one of negative effect of gun control. Besides, the gun-lovers wouldnt be making so much fuss if you werent trying to take their toys from them. If I were threatening to take your hobby away, whatever that may be, you would make a lot of fuss, and possibly even start sounding a little crazy and irrational. Thats the way it is. Live and let live, I think you will find the scary gun-lovers a lot more normal.
Else, don’t be silly. I don’t even believe in God. But you know as well as I do that it was a lot quicker than writing an essay to the effect that I believe it to be my inalienable right to defend myself, my family, friends, etc, using whatever weapons I consider either necessary or simply desirable – without reference to the State, its politicians and other servants, or to arguments grounded in social utility. Because, of course, the idea of defense without being armed is clearly absurd. To me and a very great many others – dare I suggest most of humanity – this is nothing more than common sense, barely worth arguing with. Your implied suggestion that self defense is not automatically a right seems perverse.
Hello.
Brian K. Sain here from the US and the adopt a sniper program.
Lively discussion here.
Just wanted to take a moment and say thanks for the positive comments. God bless UK troops. Their snipers are among the best in the world.
Cheers
Brian K. Sain
http://www.adoptasniper.org
Your assumption that my actions will result in my death is unfounded. The US marines in Iraq are attempting to disarm the Iraqis, and are meeting with little success.
Attempting the same in the US will make Iraq look like a walk in the park.
Except for victim disarmament hellholes like New York, Chicago, and LA, over half of the households in the US are armed.
Look at a picture of a US residential street, and imagine every other house having enough weapons to make a brit MP wet his pants.
No, else, my statement was not vainglorious posturing … if the US government gets serious about trying to seize arms from Americans, they will get shot to pieces in short order. If 1% of all firarms owners in the US put up a fight, they will outnumber to entire armed federal apparatus over 20 to 1.
And after we are forced to fight a revolution to keep our rights, you can bet we will find a lampost to hang each and every leftist moonbat who’s infantile ideology started that fight.
Looks like a direct hit to me … judging by your reaction.
You are making the same assumptions, but just being more subtle about it … that too many other folks besides yourself cannot be trusted with potentially dangerous tools.
This is a case of projection on your part, like it or not.
Kristopher Barrett wrote:
“Except for victim disarmament hellholes like New York, Chicago, and LA, over half of the households in the US are armed.”
Actually LA doesn’t have the laws against gun ownershop that New York and Chicago do. There are plenty of us living in LA who are quite well armed.
Not is the politicians in SoCal have their way. I applaud armed Californians’ response to attempts at forcing the registration of semi-auto liberty insuring tools.
Complete and utter non-compliance with the law.
If the British and Australians had done the same, they would still be armed.
Aah, Kris… the classic schoolboy “any person loudly protesting they’re not gay is probably gay” ploy. Nice.
Projection my ass. Try experience.
Suffice to say, I have never in my adult life started any violence. I have however been started on a number of times, often randomly. Hence my distrust of others. It has nothing to do with ‘projection’ of some hidden inner demons & everything to do with the fact there are some bad or just plain stupid people out there in the real world, who can’t exert the same level of self-control that I would expect from any reasonable person. I’m not convinced that if everyone was armed, the good guys with guns would outweigh the aggressive idiots, partly because the aggressor will usually start things & with a gun, the start could be the end too.
So personally, I’m happy there was little chance that those I encountered were armed, but having said that, I’m quite happy to discuss the idea of gun ownership, and have not decided that my opinions will remain static for life. I also do not believe you’re fond of guns due to penile inadequacy or any other dumb & insulting motivation. I would ask that you extend similar respect to my position without casting aspertions upon my character. I trust myself, but have good cause not to trust others. Disagree with the conclusions I draw from this, by all means, but try to discuss the actual issues at hand rather than resorting to ad hominem acccusations.
A_T,
I appreciate your position, and your respect for the other side of the position. Having spent a fair amount of time with guns, I know that the possesion of a gun does not always mean victory. In a street situation, the first shot is more likely to be the winning shot, and its easy to be ambushed. In my own home, however, I have the home-court advantage, and am far more likely to know my own home in the dark than an intruder. Possessing a weapon for home defence puts the homeowner at a notable advantage, even against an armed intruder.
As for whether the good guys would outweight the bad, I suppose my assumption (based on my own personal experience) is that most aggressors are bullies. Yes, there are some psychos, but the real psychos out there are the ones who will possess a weapon despite any regulation or restriction. Most of the time an aggressor is looking for an easy target, and would not be so inclined to assume that someone was an easy target if the average person was likely to be armed.
I agree that there are situations I could forsee where wider availablity of weapons would put me at a disadvantage, but again I would point out that most of the guns used in criminal activity were aquired fron outside of normal channels. And I suppose I am enough of an optomist at heart to think that if the good guys were given freedom, they would totally overpower the bad guys. The free market is the same way. The bad guys in the free market do a little self-cancelling, and the good guys squash whats left of them, and the market finds balance. Poor business activities try to upset the market, and may temporarily do so, but the market always finds balance, despite all the forces thrown at it, as long as it is free to operate. If people were given their freedom where it relates to weapons, the same balance would be found. There would be costs, but the balance would be reached and in the long-run it would be a far better balance than any regulation could acheive. The same arguments that are used to support gun control, are used for anti-smoking, speed laws, drug laws, welfare, social security, homeland security, you name it. Its all about trying to make the world safer and saving people from themselves and the monsters among us. And its all a bunch of statist crap. If it all follows the same pattern, that should be an enormous red flag.
I still see projection here.
You use your fears as an excuse to limit the liberty of others .. people who have done nothing to you, and simply wish to exercize their basic human right of self-defence.
And you see nothing wrong with using state violence in an attempt to make your life safer by harming the rights of others.
Well, bud … it doesn’t work. Victim Disarmament make all victims even less safe, and encourages violent crime.
I really should have known better than to attempt reason with you … your fears override your ability to think.
Hopefully, rational men will be able to undo the damage nanny-state supporters have wrought in the UK. As for the US, it won’t get that far … registration schemes in urban centers are being universally ignored, and the cops are ( rightfully ) afraid to attempt house to house searches in jurisdictions that are attempting bans.
If the victim disarmament crowd makes the attempt to disarm us here in the US, we will kill them. Period.