As a non-US citizen who has recently moved to the US having lived for ~40 years in countries that typically do not allow firearms I am still considering my view on firearms. The recent threads make interesting reading ("Thug robs CCW holder in Philly","CCW holder shoots robber, charged with murder") regarding the two opposing views regarding the right to defend oneself and one's property/pride/etc

 

In the UK/Australia where hand guns are (now) a rarity my perception is that the overall serious crime rates are low. I don't have any objective statistics that I trust that prove this and any stats presented can be skewed to fit a view. This view of 'low' is just a feel from living in the countries. I am sure people will raise the recent UK riots, however these are a very rare occurrence and, considering the scale of the riots, then the reported casualties were low (5 deaths, 16 others injured as a direct result of related violent acts - according to Wikipedia). Would these rates have been different if there was general access to hand guns and firearms? I assume so, although whether for the better or worse is not the point I am trying to make.

 

What I can clearly see though, from my involvement and browsing of this and other forums is that the 'right to bear arms' is clearly ingrained into the US culture (or at least those who frequent these forums). This 'American mindset' is not an easy thing for an 'outsider' to fully understand as it is part of the culture. Before I moved to the US I can honestly say I struggled to comprehend why a country would allow its people to be armed, what was the justification as the Police and LEOs should be sufficient to keep the peace. Does a teenager (or others) have the mental maturity to handle and use a firearm responsibly? Having now lived in the US for close to 2 years I can see that there are many differences between countries and cultures and what works in one country may not be readily applied to another.

 

So, yes, I have applied for a FID/P2P and my wife and I will be buying some handguns. These are for range use as a recreational activity. In time my view on the use of the firearms will continue to adjust and perhaps we'll see a need to CCW in order to defend ourselves.

 

My closing thoughts are that the 'right to bear arms' to me implies the 'right to bear arms RESPONSIBLY', the question then is how can a nation successfully define and measure 'Responsibility'.

 

I thought I'd share my perspective as someone new to firearms and the US.

 

thanks

 

TheWombat

This 'American mindset' is not an easy thing for an 'outsider' to fully understand as it is part of the culture. Before I moved to the US I can honestly say I struggled to comprehend why a country would allow its people to be armed, what was the justification as the Police and LEOs should be sufficient to keep the peace.

 

I appreciate your honesty - I hope you have your asbestos suit on as I am sure you are about to meet the business end of some flame throwers.

 

In any case, the snipped portion of your quote above touched me. I care to point out that this government consciously decided that it MUST arm its people in order that they will always have the ability to keep the government "honest". If Police and LEOs and government decide to impose their will - not the constitutional will, but THEIR PERSONAL WILL on the people, what will Joe Public be able to do to stop them??

 

-Just one reason. I applaud you for availing yourself of this right here in this country. When the time comes, I will be proud to call you a fellow American as this approach, one which recognizes different cultural ideals and attempts to at least TRY these different things, this is what this Country is about.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on gun ownership. I found them informative, interesting, well articulated and insightful.

Thank you for sharing your views. It is certainly difficult for me to consider why a resident of another country thinks the way he does, and I appreciate the insight into your opinions. Welcome again to the US, and enjoy your new hobby!

The only thing to really remember in the USA, is that each state is more like its own little country, much like the UK, but on a much broader scale. The American mindset is something that varies greatly depending on contextual factors. Many people just want to make and keep what is theirs, while a good percentage wish to take what others have. America was and has always been built upon taking from others, many people have moved past this but at the same time, some people still think this is the land of the free do as i please. The problem now is that the greedy bastards aren't fighting over land anymore, but money, be it a street "thug" or the CEO's of banks or even the government.

I struggled to comprehend why a country would allow its people to be armed

 

Just as I struggle to comprehend how the people of those countries have allowed their government to deprive them of the fundamental right to self preservation.

 

If I am owed anything by my fellow citizens, it is the right to exist. Depriving me of a vigorous defense to that right is a grave insult perpetrated by those who govern. Once you're disarmed, your ability to seek redress to the loss of rights is subject to the benevolence of those who likely don't have your best interests at heart.

My closing thoughts are that the 'right to bear arms' to me implies the 'right to bear arms RESPONSIBLY', the question then is how can a nation successfully define and measure 'Responsibility'.

 

By ending all firearms laws and sending most non-citizens who think the way you do back to where they came from. Not including you, of course. You are at least still open minded after being brainwashed for so long. I appreciate you reaching out to learn the culture of the Nation you reside in.

 

About 80% of my employees over the last 15 years have come to the US prior to being citizens, and many are still not citizens. Many were on Visas. Fortunately, none of them were from UK or Australia. Whether they be from the Caucuses, Korea, Malaysia, Western Africa, Russia proper, or China, all of them wanted to be in the US for freedom, not for financial advantage. And none of them were critical about the Second Amendment, to say the least.

Just as I struggle to comprehend how the people of those countries have allowed their government to deprive them of the fundamental right to self preservation.

 

Ask his Grandpa. In secluded privacy, of course, where there are no horrible consequences for stating your opinion.

 

This **** happened fast. It's amazing how the Commonwealth countries just shut everybody TFU and everybody grew to completely understand that guns are evil. Over the past 15 to 20 years. Same thing can happen here.

Rabbi Dovid Bendory, of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

 

 

 

 

 

Before I moved to the US I can honestly say I struggled to comprehend why a country would allow its people to be armed, what was the justification as the Police and LEOs should be sufficient to keep the peace. Does a teenager (or others) have the mental maturity to handle and use a firearm responsibly? Having now lived in the US for close to 2 years I can see that there are many differences between countries and cultures and what works in one country may not be readily applied to another.

Simple answer, there are < 100,000,00 LEO's in the US..that number includes ALL LE Federal, State, County, Local, and Corrections Maybe HALF of the total number is actually on the Street, and THAT number is broken up due to scheduling and Shifts. Even then 1 Million LEO to Police 3 HUNDRED MILLION Citizens. It's not just a Cliche when (Especially when I say) When Seconds Count The Police are Minutes Away. Every Responsible, Armed Citizen is one less I have to worry about.

 

My closing thoughts are that the 'right to bear arms' to me implies the 'right to bear arms RESPONSIBLY', the question then is how can a nation successfully define and measure 'Responsibility'. Laws and Regulation.."Responsibility' is defined through the law...Sadly NJ's are muddled enough that that Line between "Responsible" and "Reasonable" are Ridiculously Limited..which is sad for a State who's Constitution was ratified on 2 July 1776..and is Mirrored in the US Constitution, SAVE for the RKBA

 

I thought I'd share my perspective as someone new to firearms and the US. Firstly, Welcome...to both the US and the Forum

 

thanks

 

TheWombat

-snip-

In any case, the snipped portion of your quote above touched me. I care to point out that this government consciously decided that it MUST arm its people in order that they will always have the ability to keep the government "honest". If Police and LEOs and government decide to impose their will - not the constitutional will, but THEIR PERSONAL WILL on the people, what will Joe Public be able to do to stop them??

-snip-

 

I remember seeing a viewpoint in a book a while back that the 'king/queen/president was there to serve the people' rather than the 'people being there to serve the king/queen/president'. I'd also apply this to government, LEO, police. I know the reality is that there will be people in positions of responsibility who do not share the same viewpoint on their role and responsibilities, I do however like the viewpoint. Even without weapons it is possible for a population to topple a government, history has shown this :-)

 

I do accept that the government made a conscious decision to arm its people and that every government (and the people they represent) have the right to determine the laws in their own country. There are many customs and laws in different countries that seem odd, alien, strange, reprehensible and it is only through really living in a country and understanding the mindset and history of its people that someone can begin to understand this. I had presumed I was more than averagely travelled having visited many many countries and lived/worked in a fair number as well. However I continue to see how different cultures are, even when they have much of the same basic root/language etc. e.g. Australia, UK, US.

 

TheWombat

"OUR" second amendment is one of the reasons this country is different from all the world. Our rights and freedoms are what make us great. (Even though we're in the most socialist state in the U.S.)

 

You have applied for your FID/and pistol permits and your not a citizen, isn't that proof enough of how great this country is?

 

BTW

Thanks for the interesting perspective

Just as I struggle to comprehend how the people of those countries have allowed their government to deprive them of the fundamental right to self preservation.

 

If I am owed anything by my fellow citizens, it is the right to exist. Depriving me of a vigorous defense to that right is a grave insult perpetrated by those who govern. Once you're disarmed, your ability to seek redress to the loss of rights is subject to the benevolence of those who likely don't have your best interests at heart.

 

Humans original had fists to settle their differences, then clubs, then swords, then guns, who knows what is next for a 'vigorous defense' :-)

 

I expect the standard response from those who are anti-gun would be along the lines of does this imply that there is a lack of belief/trust in the justice and political system?

 

I'm not say this is good or bad, just that humans continue to adapt and invent.

 

TheWombat

Humans original had fists to settle their differences, then clubs, then swords, then guns, who knows what is next for a 'vigorous defense' :-)

 

I expect the standard response from those who are anti-gun would be along the lines of does this imply that there is a lack of belief/trust in the justice and political system?

 

I'm not say this is good or bad, just that humans continue to adapt and invent.

 

TheWombat

Battles are won using tools, Wars are won using intellect. Both equally adapt over time.

Just wanted to say thanks for the constructive responses. The fact that we can have these discussions is an important part of the US society.

 

 

 

TheWombat

My closing thoughts are that the 'right to bear arms' to me implies the 'right to bear arms RESPONSIBLY', the question then is how can a nation successfully define and measure 'Responsibility'.

 

Gun laws are indeed needed in order to deter the misuse of guns (enforce responsibility)...Those that pertain to misusing guns in an unlawful manner to cause harm and duress, or those that acted in such a way in the past that they have lost their right to own a gun (VIOLENT un-expunged past felonies for example). Unlawfully murder, harm, threaten, assault , etc with a gun and the book should be thrown at that person. Just like any other individual right... misuse it for illegal purposes, and it will be punished and taken away from you.

 

Anti's love to use the yelling "fire" in a theater as an example that rights (1st amendment) need restrictions. I agree with them... with my above points on using guns to commit crimes. Both are examples of using individual rights for unlawful purposes, in this case yelling "fire" to cause a panic and thus harm those in the theater.

Humans original had fists to settle their differences, then clubs, then swords, then guns, who knows what is next for a 'vigorous defense' :-)

 

I expect the standard response from those who are anti-gun would be along the lines of does this imply that there is a lack of belief/trust in the justice and political system?

 

I'm not say this is good or bad, just that humans continue to adapt and invent.

 

TheWombat

 

Rather than implying a lack of trust, I believe it shows a strong bond in trust and sense between the people and the government. In a case where the government has allowed the people to carry firearms for the protection of their lives and the lives of others, it shows that the government has the common sense to know that a law abiding citizen who has never committed a crime is not any more likely to commit a crime if he or she were carrying a gun for the purpose of self defense, and it also shows that the government is trusting enough to not disallow the people from protecting themselves, even when they have all the power and the means to do so.

 

I also must comment on your first post in which you said you "felt" that the UK had less crime due to your perception. Perception is in fact god in this regard. What a person perceives and what is the actual truth are very different, and although a person's perception may be vastly altered or warped by any number of factors, they will always believe it to be true until shown otherwise. For example: A person may believe that the city of Paterson in our fair New Jersey is quite a lovely town with little or no crime by visiting only the nicer parts of town, but a trip to one of the shadier neighborhoods and more crime ridden areas will instantly shatter that perception. In fact, most people who are anti-gun have never been assaulted or put into a situation where their lives were in danger, and I can say that almost certainly. I've known many people who believed that guns were evil and that they had no legitimate defensive or sporting uses. One mugging is all it takes to shatter the reality that person has made for themselves.

 

Anyway, it's nice to be able to discuss things like this with others with differing viewpoints. Allow me to also say, welcome to the US.

Rather than implying a lack of trust, I believe it shows a strong bond in trust and sense between the people and the government. In a case where the government has allowed the people to carry firearms for the protection of their lives and the lives of others, it shows that the government has the common sense to know that a law abiding citizen who has never committed a crime is not any more likely to commit a crime if he or she were carrying a gun for the purpose of self defense, and it also shows that the government is trusting enough to not disallow the people from protecting themselves, even when they have all the power and the means to do so.

 

I also must comment on your first post in which you said you "felt" that the UK had less crime due to your perception. Perception is in fact god in this regard. What a person perceives and what is the actual truth are very different, and although a person's perception may be vastly altered or warped by any number of factors, they will always believe it to be true until shown otherwise. For example: A person may believe that the city of Paterson in our fair New Jersey is quite a lovely town with little or no crime by visiting only the nicer parts of town, but a trip to one of the shadier neighborhoods and more crime ridden areas will instantly shatter that perception. In fact, most people who are anti-gun have never been assaulted or put into a situation where their lives were in danger, and I can say that almost certainly. I've known many people who believed that guns were evil and that they had no legitimate defensive or sporting uses. One mugging is all it takes to shatter the reality that person has made for themselves.

 

Anyway, it's nice to be able to discuss things like this with others with differing viewpoints. Allow me to also say, welcome to the US.

 

Thank you and good response!

 

TheWombat

Gun Control does not work period, it has been proved time and time again through out history, people who do not learn from the past are bound to repeat it..

 

 

 

Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history. Something to think about...

 

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

 

------------------------------

 

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

 

------------------------------

 

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

 

------------------------------

 

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

 

------------------------------

 

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

 

------------------------------

 

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

 

------------------------------

 

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

 

-----------------------------

 

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

 

------------------------------ So it might be said that guns don't kill people, gun control does!

 

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

 

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent. Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

 

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns! While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

 

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

 

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information.

 

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

 

Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

 

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'. We here in America have the second amendment (thank God) "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" Gun control, for our safety and the safety of the children, is the cry of those that would forfeit our God given right to self defense! (remember the 56 million who died for lack of guns to defend themselves) I am posting this again. When I posted it before it was a little late on a previous thread.

I would also let you all know that I am not the author.

A man named Larkin Rose wrote this. I thought it was thought provoking.

 

(P.S. Remember, this book is talking to aspiring tyrants.)

- ——————————————————

The Sin of Self Defense

 

Transforming independent individuals into slaves requires extensive

indoctrination. The way they view life, the world, and themselves

must be molded into an outlook that is compatible with tyranny.

They must be trained to be scared of the world, and always to be

seeking some “authority” to protect and take care of them.

Whenever a problem arises, they should look to their rulers for the

solution rather than taking it upon themselves to fix it.

 

One of the main problems that the peasants must be trained not to

deal with themselves is violent conflict. It is imperative that

they view you (and your enforcers) as the only protection against

robbery, assault, and murder. In short, they must be indoctrinated

in such a way that they do not even want to be able to defend

themselves. The reason is simple: if the peasants feel capable and

entitled to “enforce justice” themselves, they might just decide to

enforce a little justice against you. And that obviously won’t do.

 

They must be trained to give up their belief in their right to

defend themselves, which is not an easy thing to do. You must

attack “peasant justice” in any ways you can think of, such as: 1)

“Vigilante justice can never be as just or fair as our system”; 2)

“You can’t possibly protect yourselves; let us do it”; 3) “If you

have a gun, you’ll only hurt yourself”; 4) “If the peasants were

allowed to use force, there would be chaos”; 5) “Private protection

agencies would just deteriorate into competing gangs of thugs”; and

so on. Often privately-enforced justice is referred to as the

people “taking the law into their own hands,” which reinforces the

idea that only enforcers of “the law” should ever use force, and of

course the lowly peasants can’t be allowed to do that.

 

The point requires a lot of indoctrination because it is so

contrary to the instinct every creature has to defend itself and

its pack. A few samples of past attitudes show how far the U.S.

empire has come in training its citizens to loathe the idea of

having to defend themselves.

 

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on

the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader

and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as

property.” [Thomas Paine]

 

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who

are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. ... Such laws

make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants;

they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an

unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed

man.” [Thomas Jefferson]

 

Even when it came to defending against foreign invasion, the

founders of the United States of America abhorred the idea of a

“standing army,” and preferred instead an armed (and trained)

citizen “militia.”

 

“A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms,

is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” [James

Madison]

 

“[T]o preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the

people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when

young, how to use them.” [Richard Henry Lee]

 

Even worse, a mere couple of centuries ago, even well-educated,

respected individuals spoke openly about the possibility of the

common folk using violence against their own rulers.

 

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as

they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in

America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole

body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to

any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in

the United States.” [Noah Webster]

 

“f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to

form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to

the liberties of the people while there is a large body of

citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the

use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of

their fellow citizens.” [Alexander Hamilton]

 

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone

who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it

but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are

ruined.” [Patrick Henry]

 

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear

arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in

government.” [Thomas Jefferson]

 

Needless to say, that is an idea that you must rip out of the minds

of your subjects at all costs. The common folk should not view

themselves as justified even in fending off a common crook by

force, much less fending off a foreign invader, or fending off you

and your thugs. The revolutionary concept of a “militia,”

consisting of the people in general, which stands ready to forcibly

resist tyranny even from their own “government,” must be removed by

any means necessary from the realm of possibilities in the minds of

the peasants.

 

<BR clear=all>

Snopes.com article regarding Australia Gun Ban

 

WND article

 

As I said in my original post, stats can be skewed and argued over by both sides. Also there are other changes occurring in society over the last 10+ years that could very well influence the crime rate numbers more/less than gun bans.

 

The reality is we just don't have a real view as to what other factors influence the numbers, and even if we did they would still be argued over

 

TheWombat

we are citizens, not subjects, guns are a symbol of our freedom. our founding fathers had the foresight to make it a RIGHT of ours to keep and bear arms to insure that we remain a free people.

The Second Amendment, The Original Homeland Security !!

 

Harry

Mexico has thoroughly disarmed her citizens and we know how well that is working out. The phony "river of guns" or "90% of the guns come from the US" is an attempt to disarm citizens of the United States. The bulk of the guns used in crimes in Mexico can be traced to central America or the Mexican government itself. Who would risk buying a semi-automatic AK-47 in the USA for $300-$600 when a full automatic version can be purchased from a Guatemalan gun smuggler for $79.

Mexico has thoroughly disarmed her citizens and we know how well that is working out. The phony "river of guns" or "90% of the guns come from the US" is an attempt to disarm citizens of the United States. The bulk of the guns used in crimes in Mexico can be traced to central America or the Mexican government itself. Who would risk buying a semi-automatic AK-47 in the USA for $300-$600 when a full automatic version can be purchased from a Guatemalan gun smuggler for $79.

 

In a way they are SORT of right.... 90% of Mexican and other South American Govts get their firearms and equipment from the US either directly or through subsidy.. So when the cartels get THEIR guns from the respecrtive Govt's they are getting guns that originated in the US. The PROBLEM is that the Media persists in the implication that those guns are coming from the US Civilian Market.

....Who would risk buying a semi-automatic AK-47 in the USA for $300-$600 when a full automatic version can be purchased from a Guatemalan gun smuggler for $79.

 

Oh how I would love a deal like that.

Oh how I would love a deal like that.

 

Move to Pakistan, they're even cheaper there.

Move to Pakistan, they're even cheaper there.

 

I don't want to live there, I just want the great deal. :-)

I don't want to live there, I just want the great deal. :-)

 

That's sorta my point. The negatives of living in a society where you can buy an AK-47 on the cheap far out weigh the few hundred extra bucks you'd have to pay to buy one here. Of course, I realize you can't really get an auto here but even then, I still wouldn't want to live in one of those holes just to have it.

Move to Pakistan, they're even cheaper there.

you can practically barter a few pieces of fruit for one there.

That's sorta my point. The negatives of living in a society where you can buy an AK-47 on the cheap far out weigh the few hundred extra bucks you'd have to pay to buy one here. Of course, I realize you can't really get an auto here but even then, I still wouldn't want to live in one of those holes just to have it.

 

Exactly. I'd like to live here (The US) and simply have lower prices. ;-)