U.S. Moving Toward Totalitarianism?

I quite agree, Tlossy.  My post was tongue-in-cheek.

But guns I feel are a different matter... but then the same ideas can be applied to them too.  A gun's owner is obviously the danger (not every gun owner, obviously) than the gun itself.  It needs someone to operate that gun in the first place.  Knives are just as dangerous as well.

The problem is, there is no way of solving it.

But I ask this: what real use is there for a civilian to have a gun?

I'm even not sure about the Police having guns... in England, the police who patrol the street, normally have just a truncheon and handcuffs.  The bigger cities, as well as the more troubled areas, I think the police do patrol with a gun.

However, when it comes to a possible terrorist situation, they bring out the police with the guns.

Do all police in America carry guns?

And to follow on from your point... the only need for a civilian to maybe have a gun, is for self-defence and that's only if someone threatens them with a gun.  But if guns were banned, it'd alleviate this problem and thus, civilians wouldn't need a gun.

Some would argue about shooting game bird and suchlike, though Vince.

In case you're just tuning in, the question was: "Is the US moving towards totalitarianism?" and so far, the consensus answer seems to be "Yes, thankfully, so that we can make people give up their guns."

Big Brother thanks you for doing his work so well.

Geck0 wrote: Erm, why ban alcohol and cars?  Surely banning just alcohol would be sufficient? Actually, you make a valid point there, maybe there should be a ban on alcohol... I jest, or do I?

AtLossForWords wrote: Geck0 wrote: I quite agree, Tlossy.  My post was tongue-in-cheek. But guns I feel are a different matter... but then the same ideas can be applied to them too.  A gun's owner is obviously the danger (not every gun owner, obviously) than the gun itself.  It needs someone to operate that gun in the first place.  Knives are just as dangerous as well. The problem is, there is no way of solving it. But I ask this: what real use is there for a civilian to have a gun?   I was about to bring up this same point, but I felt I would give you the chance.    Guns unlike alcohol have only a purpose to kill.  Mankind didn't invent guns so that he can shoot beer bottles of his fence when he was drunk.  Guns are used to kill something more than anything else.  Other than police military, and specialists whose job requires a firearm guns should be banned.  Like you asked, what purpose does a civillian have for a gun?  To shoot beer bottles off their fence when they are drunk, can't they just through a baseball or something?

You came close to mentioning another use of guns in that post. One can use them for sport. I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to shoot targets if that's their thing.


Edited by Forgotten Son - June 03 2006 at 16:13

Clearly, there is an obvious 2-way split: Are guns the answer ? Or are guns the problem ? It's very simple (No ah, yes, but, well, maybe,if.......)

But I value most of all my right not to be shot.......the chances of which shrink to infinitessimal if no-one has a gun........

Forgotten Son wrote: AtLossForWords wrote: Can't they just use the retro and impractical bow and arrow to shoot at targets?  Archery develops more dexterity anyways. Can't Grand Prix racers use Go Karts instead? That would be much safer, too. Don't get me wrong, I don't support the right for everyone to be allowed a firearm. They should be heavily restricted, though, not banned completely.

thellama73 wrote: crimson thing wrote: Trouble is, no-one has satisfactorily explained to me how your having a gun makes me safer (and, believe you me, vice versa). I, for one, would gladly give up a little safety in order to preserve my freedoms. The ultimate in safety would be for the government to keep everyone locked in little rooms with padded walls at all times, but I don't think anyone wants that. Of course this is an extreme example, but the principle remains the same.

The irreducible power in human affairs is force. Don't kid yourself otherwise. The authors of the Constitution knew this well when they developed that document. When the police and armed forces of a nation can carry weapons that the citizens are denied, it is a clear indication that power resides in the state, not the people. You may be willing to perpetuate that inequality; I am not.

As for guns being desgned mainly to cause harm, nobody is really arguing that point. However, design is not the only factor; the Cold War is a pretty obvious example of how weapons can be effective as symbols when they are not even used. And you must admit that cars do a much better job of harming innocent people, statistically speaking- whatever their original use may be.


Edited by James Lee - June 04 2006 at 15:18