at80eighty: abdul: Our population is many times larger.

I originate from a country of a billion.
gun free society.
lower crime.
Which is why I dont buy the arguments

No matter which country of a billion it is, Buddhism has existed there for at least a thousand years, and in my opinion, that's your answer. :)

Based only on the pictures in your profile, I would guess you are from India rather than China. In the case of China, I wouldn't exactly say they've been without their gun-related problems, occasionally to the tune of millions of deaths.

lukelightning: gshepnyc:
I agree with Ditty. If you are old enough to pick something up and explore it you are old enough to learn how to use it properly and safely.

Which supports the idea of restricting purchase of certain things based on age. Let the child's parents decide when the kid is old enough to use something responsibly. If you think your 13 year old is mature enough to have a machete, buy one for him.

But it's for the parents to decide, family by family and kid by kid. So, not really the same thing as having an age restriction. I'm from the boonies but I live in NYC. I wouldn't trust the average 15 year old in NYC with a rifle because they are raised with a constant barrage of anti-gun messages and an overall fear of the things. An average 15 year old where I grew up has been out hunting and knows how to treat guns with the proper care and respect.

Gen. Apathy: i also made a few errors in my transcription.

good read regardless - thanks :)

frankencj: Crap.

/Has carried a pocket knife from age 5 on (Benchmade at the moment).
//Machete at 9
///evil I guess

Well, yes. Yes you are. You should turn yourself in for re-education at once.

/Got my first pocketknife from my grandpa after seeing someone else cut themselves accidentally. Was time to learn how to use one so I didn't grow up with a needless fear of them.

abdul: No matter which country of a billion it is, Buddhism has existed there for at least a thousand years, and in my opinion, that's your answer. :)

I laughed :D

An armed society is a polite society.

In the UK (population c. 60.5m) there were 765 reported incidents of murder for 2005-6 (Home Office, undated) - a rate of about 1.1 per 100,000.

In the US (population c. 298.5m) there were an estimated 16,137 homicides in 2004 (FBI, 2006a) - a rate of about 5.4 per 100,000

This data seems to say that India is not exactly a saint in the homicide rate category either, though. It doesn't even show China, or even Brazil, which I find interesting and/or dubious.

gshepnyc: dittybopper: Farkwaddle:
Seriously though, I have no issue with having age restriction laws when it comes to large, sharp, potentially stabby objects.


Why?



/Son trying out one of his birthday presents this year. He's five.

I agree with Ditty. If you are old enough to pick something up and explore it you are old enough to learn how to use it properly and safely. Drawing arbitrary lines and pretending there are magical ages of compentency only engenders unhealthy attitudes, even fear, of useful tools.

Let me clarify:
I have no problems with having age restrictions regarding the purchase of said potentially stabby objects. I have absolutely no issue with the parents buying them for their kids and teaching them how to safely use one. I mean, if you're going camping (say for instance Boy Scouts), you're going to need a knife. But that doesn't mean little Timmy should go out and buy the biggest baddest machete and start slinging it around like a kung fu actor he sees on tv. There should be some kind of parental responsibility involved through the whole process and IMO the knife should be suitable for its intended purpose. You don't need a Crocodile Dundee knife for over-night or weekend camping trips.

The Institute is supported by Ann Oakes-Odger, founder of KnifeCrimes.org, whose son Westley, 27, died in 2005 when he was stabbed in the neck in an unprovoked attack at a cash machine.

"As a mother who knows the pain of losing a child, if one life was saved by a ban on the internet sale of knives, it would be worthwhile," she said. This is the most stupid farking crap I have ever read.

Am sorry, but really? What about painkillers? or cars? or airplanes? or pens and pencils? Heck, the kid that got impaled on the fence a few months back? What about we remove fences now, too?

People die in freak accidents, supposed freak accidents, general accidents, and all kinds of crap. We shouldn't all suffer for one person.

/reminded of "Final Destination".
// not trying to troll either, but the article pissed me off.

gshepnyc:
But it's for the parents to decide, family by family and kid by kid.

Exactly. So if you restrict purchases to age 18 or whatever, a kid can have a machete or claymore or bowie knife or sword-chuks, but (in theory) only with permission of his parents. It's not a perfect solution (kids will find a way to get knives regardless), but it's better than "nobody under 18 can even touch a knife" or whatever. Of course, in my magical unicorn gumdrop land, parents all take responsibility for their kids' actions and are actually involved in their lives...

DancingJester: dittybopper: You don't have to be able to actually *WIN*, you just have to make it so expensive that they won't try it in the first place.

I was trying to talk about this with you, probably a couple of months back. I was mulling it over when I saw the Honduras thing kick off. I don't know if it is just an outside perspective but the military seemed to seize power pretty much over night, and the people of Honduras are pretty well armed.

It looks like the military had received tacit support from the judiciary.

Anyway does that change the dynamic of too expensive to try? If the military have seized the apparatus of government wouldn't the people need to win to seize it back? Or do the people just start burning the place to the ground? What is your take on it all?

We are talking apples and oranges here: The Honduras coup is a change in the government, which may or may not portend more evil things to come. I haven't actually formed an opinion on it, because unlike an outright military takeover, this one seems to be a bit more, well, morally ambiguous.

I think the problem in Honduras has more to do with the fact that there wasn't a clear impeachment process. Had a sitting American president attempted to do what Zelaya did, Congress would have impeached and removed him faster than you can recite the Twenty Second Amendment of the United States.

Zelaya was *CLEARLY* trying to usurp power that wasn't his, and was acting against the Honduran Constitution, as ruled by the Honduran Supreme Court, the Honduran Attorney General, and the National Congress of Honduras.

Having said that, the Honduran legislature should have removed him, not the military. So like I said, I'm ambivalent about it.

Police and/or military clashes against rioters really aren't comparable to real oppression.

Oh, and Hondurans really aren't as armed as you might think: Estimates are that there are 500,000 guns in a population of around 7 million, or one gun for every 14 people. If the 80/20 rule holds true (80% of guns are owned by 20% of gun owners), that works out to more like one out of every 70 people in Honduras own at least 1 gun. That's not a lot.

In the United States, there are roughly 225 to 250 million guns among a population of 300 million people. That's almost a 1 to 1 parity, and it's actually more if you just consider adults (225 million in the US age 18 and older). Throwing in the 80/20 rule, we get 50 million gun owners, or about 1 in every 6 people in the US, or about 1 in every 4.5 adults.

Farkwaddle: gshepnyc: dittybopper: Farkwaddle:
Seriously though, I have no issue with having age restriction laws when it comes to large, sharp, potentially stabby objects.


Why?



/Son trying out one of his birthday presents this year. He's five.

I agree with Ditty. If you are old enough to pick something up and explore it you are old enough to learn how to use it properly and safely. Drawing arbitrary lines and pretending there are magical ages of compentency only engenders unhealthy attitudes, even fear, of useful tools.

Let me clarify:
I have no problems with having age restrictions regarding the purchase of said potentially stabby objects. I have absolutely no issue with the parents buying them for their kids and teaching them how to safely use one. I mean, if you're going camping (say for instance Boy Scouts), you're going to need a knife. But that doesn't mean little Timmy should go out and buy the biggest baddest machete and start slinging it around like a kung fu actor he sees on tv. There should be some kind of parental responsibility involved through the whole process and IMO the knife should be suitable for its intended purpose. You don't need a Crocodile Dundee knife for over-night or weekend camping trips.

You are talking sense. The problem is that you say "you don't need a Crocodile Dundee knife for...camping..." True, maybe. But if we have a system where you get to decide that for me then why can't the guy who thinks I shouldn't have a knife at all get a say in what I do, too?

It's better to agree that living in a Democracy doesn't mean we get a say in everything our fellow citizens do, even when it makes us uncomfortable.

lukelightning: gshepnyc:
But it's for the parents to decide, family by family and kid by kid.

Exactly. So if you restrict purchases to age 18 or whatever, a kid can have a machete or claymore or bowie knife or sword-chuks, but (in theory) only with permission of his parents. It's not a perfect solution (kids will find a way to get knives regardless), but it's better than "nobody under 18 can even touch a knife" or whatever. Of course, in my magical unicorn gumdrop land, parents all take responsibility for their kids' actions and are actually involved in their lives...

It's not a perfect world and legislating won't get us there. While the conservatives have nothing to offer me and stand in opposition to many things that I hold dear, it seems a liberal mindset that we are always just one more law away from Utopia.

cmoreland:
I'm no gun expert, but that right there looks verra nice! Great condition too :)

It *SHOULD* be in good condition, it's only about 10 years old or so.

Yes, people still make guns like that. If you go to Track of The Wolf, you can buy the parts you need to make a similar gun, although mine has a 36" 15/16ths across the flats .54" caliber barrel.

abdul: This data seems to say that India is not exactly a saint in the homicide rate category either

not saying it is - but at 3x the population , those stats make for some compelling thought

AliasUndercover: I stepped on a nail as a child. It went right through my foot. I want houses to be only glued together from now on.

I want houses to be built out of scaled up LEGO blocks, 'cause man, that would be *AWESOME*.

/No, seriously.

snuff3r: adamgreeney: I fail to see how this is a fail.

It's a coping mechanism deployed by some article submitters who can't wrap their heads around the idea that an entire country doesn't want rampant gunsharp object ownership.

Just smile and nod.

FTFY

When Kang and Kodos land with a board with a nail through it, I know what nation will be the first to be conquered.

binnster: dr-shotgun: I live in Oregon and have a concealed pistol license. I carry a Glock 26 or 19 on me every time I walk out the front door. I know a few dozen people who do the same thing.


I'll be visiting the US later this year. I find it kind of concerning that so many people over there are scared enough to feel it necessary to be armed at all times. I have no such fears over here. Is it really such a dangerous place?

I live in the US. I carry a knife. I am not really worried about being attacked. I don't regularly use the knife in my current proffesion. (It occasionally comes in handy due to periphrial duties). I have used a knife for self defense 3 times in my life only one of which was actually serious (walking around in oakland at night because I was to cheap to actually park on the island in the bay. Bart is cheap). As a tourist you should probably stay away from the various slums and bad 'hoods found near any major city, just as you would in the UK. Also unless prepared to arm yourself stay out of wilderness area's especially in the west. While unlikely I'd just hate to see what a headline of Welsh tourist gets eaten by bear in glaceir national park would do to tourism.

I carry a knife because its handy and a 2.5 lbs knife isn't a burden. It helps with opening packages cutting strings stripping wires and lighting things when I need to. I've never actually used the fish hook or line in the handle because if I'm going out in the woods I normally bring other gear. It has also proven useful for a conversation peice on a couple of instances now.

at80eighty: abdul: This data seems to say that India is not exactly a saint in the homicide rate category either

not saying it is - but at 3x the population , those stats make for some compelling thought

The graph shows rates per 100,000 population, so with 3x the population, that roughly (visually) amounts to at least 2-3 times as many people being killed. The lack of guns only means that more people are using other weapons to make a lot more murders in considerably less land area, and in areas with considerably denser population, which means any given murder is probably witnessed by many more people.

dittybopper:

We are talking apples and oranges here: The Honduras coup is a change in the government, which may or may not portend more evil things to come. I haven't actually formed an opinion on it, because unlike an outright military takeover, this one seems to be a bit more, well, morally ambiguous.

I think the problem in Honduras has more to do with the fact that there wasn't a clear impeachment process. Had a sitting American president attempted to do what Zelaya did, Congress would have impeached and removed him faster than you can recite the Twenty Second Amendment of the United States.

Zelaya was *CLEARLY* trying to usurp power that wasn't his, and was acting against the Honduran Constitution, as ruled by the Honduran Supreme Court, the Honduran Attorney General, and the National Congress of Honduras.

Having said that, the Honduran legislature should have removed him, not the military. So like I said, I'm ambivalent about it.

Police and/or military clashes against rioters really aren't comparable to real oppression.

Oh, and Hondurans really aren't as armed as you might think: Estimates are that there are 500,000 guns in a population of around 7 million, or one gun for every 14 people. If the 80/20 rule holds true (80% of guns are owned by 20% of gun owners), that works out to more like one out of every 70 people in Honduras own at least 1 gun. That's not a lot.

In the United States, there are roughly 225 to 250 million guns among a population of 300 million people. That's almost a 1 to 1 parity, and it's actually more if you just consider adults (225 million in the US age 18 and older). Throwing in the 80/20 rule, we get 50 million gun owners, or about 1 in every 6 people in the US, or about 1 in every 4.5 adults.

You are right I had overestimated the armedness of Hondurans. Do you have a source for your estimate? Does it include an estimate for the black market guns as well?

I'm probably being stupid but I don't see how it is apples and oranges here, the government was changed by force and the military are preventing the citizens that are objecting to this from changing it. Zelaya was clearly up to shenanigans yes but there is always going to be a justification by whoever attempts to seize power, and they are always going to call the citizens that object rioters.

In fact actually I reject your assertion that military clashes against rioters aren't comparable to oppression. That is semantics , the people you are terming rioters would say they were fighting to ensure their country remains a democracy.

They key parts to my mind, irrespective of the political background, where the speed with which the regime changed and the people actually doing the change.

Zelaya would have needed to pass an amendment to extend his stay he could have been defeated democratically, instead the military decided to act without the authority of the people.

Doesn't the very real possibility that the first the well armed populace would know of regime change would be Washington DC surrounded by tanks change the ability of a well armed population to prevent this sort of thing?

Anyway thanks for a fascinating response.

abdul: so with 3x the population, that roughly (visually) amounts to at least 2-3 times as many people being killed.

dude have you seen the number of people we have? we are our best natural population control!

A lot of gun owners in the US own than 1 gun (I have 9 in my house), so those "statistics" are massively skewed anyway.

Purple_Gromit: An armed society is a polite society.

In the UK (population c. 60.5m) there were 765 reported incidents of murder for 2005-6 (Home Office, undated) - a rate of about 1.1 per 100,000.

In the US (population c. 298.5m) there were an estimated 16,137 homicides in 2004 (FBI, 2006a) - a rate of about 5.4 per 100,000

OK, now for extra credit, describe any demographic differences between the two countries that might account for a large part of that difference?

Oh, and by the way, you aren't using the numbers for the UK, you are using the numbers for England and Wales, and labeling them "UK", which also includes Scotland and Northern Ireland (both of which have higher homicide rates, and pretty much identical gun laws, to England and Wales).

Oh, and the last number for England and Wales that I've seen is higher, at 1.23 per 100,000.

Plus, your homicide rate for the US is wrong. According to the CDC WISQARS page, it was 6.22 per 100,000 in 2006.


Here's a hint for your extra credit: Fool around with different populations in that WISQARS page and see what results you get.

Forgot the link:

CDC WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports

gshepnyc: Farkwaddle: gshepnyc: dittybopper: Farkwaddle:
Seriously though, I have no issue with having age restriction laws when it comes to large, sharp, potentially stabby objects.


Why?



/Son trying out one of his birthday presents this year. He's five.

I agree with Ditty. If you are old enough to pick something up and explore it you are old enough to learn how to use it properly and safely. Drawing arbitrary lines and pretending there are magical ages of compentency only engenders unhealthy attitudes, even fear, of useful tools.

Let me clarify:
I have no problems with having age restrictions regarding the purchase of said potentially stabby objects. I have absolutely no issue with the parents buying them for their kids and teaching them how to safely use one. I mean, if you're going camping (say for instance Boy Scouts), you're going to need a knife. But that doesn't mean little Timmy should go out and buy the biggest baddest machete and start slinging it around like a kung fu actor he sees on tv. There should be some kind of parental responsibility involved through the whole process and IMO the knife should be suitable for its intended purpose. You don't need a Crocodile Dundee knife for over-night or weekend camping trips.

You are talking sense. The problem is that you say "you don't need a Crocodile Dundee knife for...camping..." True, maybe. But if we have a system where you get to decide that for me then why can't the guy who thinks I shouldn't have a knife at all get a say in what I do, too?

It's better to agree that living in a Democracy doesn't mean we get a say in everything our fellow citizens do, even when it makes us uncomfortable.

I'm speaking specifically to parental responsibility. If you, as an adult, want to buy and carry a huge knife for whatever reason then go for it. I'm not suggesting that laws should dictate what you can or cannot buy. Hell, if a parent wants to buy a machete for their kid, go for it. What I'm saying is that the parent should be held accountable for teaching their kid how to use it properly and responsibly.

at80eighty: abdul: so with 3x the population, that roughly (visually) amounts to at least 2-3 times as many people being killed.

dude have you seen the number of people we have? we are our best natural population control!

That's not far from being the case in the big US cities, either. :( Detroit and Baltimore are examples, with a murder almost every day in either city.

You know, regardless of what "Shawn of the Dead" would have you believe, when the inevitable Zombie Apocalypse happens, England's farked.

Pseudowolf: You know, regardless of what "Shawn of the Dead" would have you believe, when the inevitable Zombie Apocalypse happens, England's farked.

THIS

Epsilon: When I was a kid we didn't have the Internet, but I could take a short walk uptown to Whitehead's Cutlery shop where you could buy any knife you wanted.

They had not only machetes, but replica Rambo knives (those were popular then), switch blades, even Samurai swords. Almost any kind of knife you wanted. They even had Chinese throwing stars. I bought lots of those.


So you were one of those weird kids that was into knives? Got laid alot, did ya?

Eurowussies. It would be refreshing to see one of those eurotrash nations grow a pair.

oshkosh: What sport do you need a machete for?

Juggling

FTFA: "As a mother who knows the pain of losing a child, if one life was saved by a ban on the internet sale of knives, it would be worthwhile," she said.

This is a major problem. This bullshiat sentiment gets turned into "As a mother who knows the pain of losing a child, if one life was saved by a ban on the internet sale of knives INSERT WHATEVER YOU DON'T LIKE, it would be worthwhile," and is used to place more and more restrictions on law-abiding folks.

/Tink ob da chidrens!

The Envoy: The staggering twattishness of the ill-educated is never more apparent than in UK threads! Bless you all!

You will NOT get 10 years for carrying a pocket knife unless you use it maliciously! I got stopped in Victoria station with a tool kit containing a stanley and spare blades and my Swiss Army knife in my pocket. The coppers went through everything and didn't even bat an eyelid because I was on my way to work.

Maximum sentence is NOT the same as a mandatory sentence. It's like you lot think Judge Dredd-style sentencing is in use here!

WHy did you get stopped? For carrying a toolbox?

dittybopper: CDC WISQARS

16.71 per 100,000 versus 2.2 per 100,000.

Interesting.

abdul:
This is awesome. Thanks for posting it.

It really is a great book. Scary thing is that if you read the chapter called The Interrogation, it has a description of the interrogation/torture methods used by the NKVD/SMERSH/KGB that looks like it came from GITMO. Pretty sad that so many Americans that supposedly "love freedom" can't understand when there gov't is acting like a bunch of thugs.

Pseudowolf: You know, regardless of what "Shawn of the Dead" would have you believe, when the inevitable Zombie Apocalypse happens, England's farked.

Is there an age restriction on cricket bats?

There is no problem that can't be solved by more government power.

loki see loki do: The Envoy: The staggering twattishness of the ill-educated is never more apparent than in UK threads! Bless you all!

You will NOT get 10 years for carrying a pocket knife unless you use it maliciously! I got stopped in Victoria station with a tool kit containing a stanley and spare blades and my Swiss Army knife in my pocket. The coppers went through everything and didn't even bat an eyelid because I was on my way to work.

Maximum sentence is NOT the same as a mandatory sentence. It's like you lot think Judge Dredd-style sentencing is in use here!

WHy did you get stopped? For carrying a toolbox?

Let's just say that the copper's dog did seem to like me.

dittybopper: abdul:
This is awesome. Thanks for posting it.

Read the whole book.

It is a great one and should be on everyone's shelves. You can learn a lot about the price citizens pay for unchecked power in the hands of a few. A lot of modern day correlations in there.

DancingJester:
You are right I had overestimated the armedness of Hondurans. Do you have a source for your estimate? Does it include an estimate for the black market guns as well?

A UN-TV report estimates 500,000 guns "flood the illegal weapons markets" in Honduras, but then goes on to explain that there is an effort to register at least some of them (in 2004). The JPFO at that time was reporting 400,000 registered gun owners in Honduras, so there has to be a major overlap, especially given the antipathy of the UN towards private gun ownership in any form.

Of course, even if you double that estimate, though, it's still no where near as many guns per capita as in the US.


I'm probably being stupid but I don't see how it is apples and oranges here, the government was changed by force and the military are preventing the citizens that are objecting to this from changing it. Zelaya was clearly up to shenanigans yes but there is always going to be a justification by whoever attempts to seize power, and they are always going to call the citizens that object rioters.

In fact actually I reject your assertion that military clashes against rioters aren't comparable to oppression. That is semantics , the people you are terming rioters would say they were fighting to ensure their country remains a democracy.

They key parts to my mind, irrespective of the political background, where the speed with which the regime changed and the people actually doing the change.

Zelaya would have needed to pass an amendment to extend his stay he could have been defeated democratically, instead the military decided to act without the authority of the people.

Doesn't the very real possibility that the first the well armed populace would know of regime change would be Washington DC surrounded by tanks change the ability of a well armed population to prevent this sort of thing?

Anyway thanks for a fascinating response.

You bring up good points, and of course there really is no good answer as far as Honduras is concerned, which is why I stated from the outset that I was ambivalent about it.

As for your last scenario, I doubt it. The United States has at most 3 million people under arms, if you include those in the reserves and in the National Guard.

One giant, but unofficial and under-reported check on the use of the military against the government or the people themselves is the fact that those of us in the "gun culture" of the United States tend to be drawn to the military at some point in our lives. After all, that's where they pay you to play with the *REALLY* cool toys. We take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. By definition, anyone attempting a military coup in Washington, D.C. is an enemy of the Constitution, and is going to have to deal with a significant fraction of the military either sitting on the sidelines (and thus creating gaps for civilians to act), or actively working against them.

It's even worse than I make it to be, because the most gung-ho Second Amendment guys tend to drift towards the combat arms specialties. It's the rural white guys (most likely to be supporters of the Second Amendment) who end up on the pointy tip of the spear, while minorities (less likely to support the Second Amendment) more often end up in non-combat specialties*.

Then you have all of us who have military experience, but are no longer in the military in any form. We know the culture of the military, and we still take our oath seriously. And of course, you have those of us who don't have military experience, but yet still are part of the culture that reveres the Constitution and it's limitations on government action.

*One of the reasons for this is that for minorities, as near as I can figure, the military is often the best way to earn a marketable skill.

dittybopper: those of us in the "gun culture" of the United States tend to be drawn to the military at some point in our lives. After all, that's where they pay you to play with the *REALLY* cool toys. We take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic

And of course that has nothing to do with why we should be disarmed. My guns here in Missouri should be taken away from me to protect people in Washington DC. It's all about the children, it has nothing to do with preventing me from owning something that would allow me to resist.

Hongcouver: oshkosh: What sport do you need a machete for?

Juggling

that and keeping the kitchen garden in shape. If you don't think gardening is a sport, you probably don't have the nads for gardening clubs. I've seen discharged Marines reduced to piles of tears by the "cute little grandmothers" in the gardening club.

Lulz aside, how does the UK government have their restrictions on possessing bladed implements with religious freedoms? Sikhs and Asatruar are two groups I know off the top of my head that are required by the articles of their faith to be armed at all times. Sikhs traditionally wear a dagger in the folds of their turbans, not the biggest and most threatening of blades, but better than nothing. Asatruar express more variance, but Hamaval verse 38 is rather clear on the need of all Asatru persons to maintain some armament at all time. For refrence:

38
Vápnum sínum
skala maðr velli á
feti ganga framar
því at
óvist er at vita
nær verðr á vegum úti
geirs um þörf guma

[2] A man in the open country must not
[3] go more than one step
[1] from his weapons;
because one can't be sure
when, outside on the roads,
a spear will be needed by a warrior.

The lines are rearranged by the translator to conform to English grammar, and marked for reference purposes.

give me doughnuts: dittybopper: CDC WISQARS

16.71 per 100,000 versus 2.2 per 100,000.

Interesting.

18.62 versus 1.43 if you pick "Non-Hispanic", although I would leave the method at "all injury" instead of checking just firearms.

Doing that would give you rates of 23.61 vs. 2.70, and counting Hispanics separately with a rate of 8.0 per 100,000.

paygun: There is no problem that can't be solved by more government power.



Most human problems can be solved by the appropriate charge of high explosives.

dittybopper: You bring up good points, and of course there really is no good answer as far as Honduras is concerned, which is why I stated from the outset that I was ambivalent about it.

As for your last scenario, I doubt it. The United States has at most 3 million people under arms, if you include those in the reserves and in the National Guard.

One giant, but unofficial and under-reported check on the use of the military against the government or the people themselves is the fact that those of us in the "gun culture" of the United States tend to be drawn to the military at some point in our lives. After all, that's where they pay you to play with the *REALLY* cool toys. We take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. By definition, anyone attempting a military coup in Washington, D.C. is an enemy of the Constitution, and is going to have to deal with a significant fraction of the military either sitting on the sidelines (and thus creating gaps for civilians to act), or actively working against them.

It's even worse than I make it to be, because the most gung-ho Second Amendment guys tend to drift towards the combat arms specialties. It's the rural white guys (most likely to be supporters of the Second Amendment) who end up on the pointy tip of the spear, while minorities (less likely to support the Second Amendment) more often end up in non-combat specialties*.

Then you have all of us who have military experience, but are no longer in the military in any form. We know the culture of the military, and we still take our oath seriously. And of course, you have those of us who don't have military experience, but yet still are part of the culture that reveres the Constitution and it's limitations on government action.

*One of the reasons for this is that for minorities, as near as I can figure, the military is often the best way to earn a marketable skill.

Ta for the link, interesting stuff and as you say it would be hard to imagine those numbers are out by that significant a factor.

I think a large part of my thought process is the belief that the military in Honduras believe, sincerely, that they are defending the constitution, and that the people objecting are rioters. It makes it hard for me to reconcile the scenario you have just put forward. If you believed deposing the president was defending the constitution then the protesters would be domestic enemies and your oath would be .. problematic .. for them.

Anyway to my mind we've ended up with such an absurdly unlikely theoretical scenario that to go further would be madness. For what it is worth were I still living in the US I'd be on your side of the gun debate. Gun control is madness in the US. I'd possibly eve n want the 'really cool toys' opened up to the public as well. Makes it consistent. Guns (aside form hunting rifles and shotties) just don't seem to work for the UK, as evidenced by the dearth of people trying to get the legislation changed. As you can probably tell my only problem is this whole 'preventing a coup' thing. Is it worth foisting guns on a population that by all accounts doesn't want them, would it even work?

Anyway thanks again for an interesting chat.

paygun: And of course that has nothing to do with why we should be disarmed. My guns here in Missouri should be taken away from me to protect people in Washington DC. It's all about the children, it has nothing to do with preventing me from owning something that would allow me to resist.

Sorry paygun I don't quite get what you are trying to say? I don't mean to be rude but is this just spleen venting against people trying to limit your fire power?

The fact that areas like Mogadishu (sp?) can have high concentrations of guns and lawlessness has more to do with lawlessness and corruption then guns. However, you will also find that guns STILL do not reach the hands of good and honest people. You will also find these area are places where even something like an RG revolver or a Clerke 1st revolver would be prohibitively expensive... and yet we are led to believe that guns in these areas flow like water, and given to all. It is not: It's eletism at it's best!

Oh just before I bugger off this seems as good a place as any.

Screw you Fark for not greening this (new window) story about the effective end of ID cards in the UK. It would be nice, just once, to have a story about the people beating the government into submission not the other way round. If people still felt the need to get all uk sux about it, well we did waste £1 billion on this foible.

/Hoping this doesn't count as harassing Fark ....
//Also hoping I haven't just missed this story being on Fark because boy wouldn't I look dumb(er).

DancingJester: Guns (aside form hunting rifles and shotties) just don't seem to work for the UK, as evidenced by the dearth of people trying to get the legislation changed.

I think part of the reason for that is that the sport shooting organizations in the UK were and are very fractured. There is no one organization that defends *ALL* of the shooting sports like the NRA in the United States.

Then, of course, you have the gradual weening of firearms from the populace through the periodic introduction of seemingly 'reasonable' restrictions.

Rip apart a disposable razor, put razor blade in bic pen and add heat. Simple recipe for a simple easy to hide weapon.

A machete means don't fark with me, not I'm going to go kill you. A hammer is just as much as a weapon as a machete, bet BBC wouldn't freak about a kid buying a hammer.

Jeng: Rip apart a disposable razor, put razor blade in bic pen and add heat. Simple recipe for a simple easy to hide weapon.

A machete means don't fark with me, not I'm going to go kill you. A hammer is just as much as a weapon as a machete, bet BBC wouldn't freak about a kid buying a hammer.

I wouldn't give them that much credit.