@ Draugnar: I am sure you're right - we do probably agree on a lot of issues. Your points are certainly a lot more reasonable, and better thought-through, than Acosmist's.

A few more responses to your responses to my responses:

"With regards to a ban on assault weapons and the like. This doesn't violate my rights as the constitution guarntees me the right to bear arms, but does not specify that no firearm may be prohibited. I can own a firearm, just not any firearm I like."

This is a valid observation. Just to play devil's advocate, would you agree, on the basis of this, that if the government restricted your "right to bear arms" to allow you to own and have in your home ONE traditional .44 (or smaller) single-action revolver, you would consider this reasonable and not a breach of your rights?


"Also, with gun ownership at an all time high, violent crime is at a 30 year low. How do you explain that?"

Most burglaries, the crime to which I was referring, do not involve violence. In terms of overall gun crime (ie crimes involving guns including those where no shots are fired), you yourself have alleged that America is teeming with black-market illegal firearms (which is why responsible people like yourself need a gun a home) - and therefore I would suggest that perhaps the reason for the statistics is that the police are failing to detect a lot of gun crime, particlarly the ownership, carrying, smuggling and even manufacture of illegal guns.

I look forward to your response on the issue of the militia / overthrowing repressive government.


Now, other people...

@ orathaic: On landmines, I think that's a good question. Draugnar may say that 'no one pulls the trigger' so they are indiscriminate, but surely someone who thinks it is ok to shoot someone who breaks into your house could also argue that trespassers deserve to be killed by landmines, because they shouldn't be on your land, no? (Sorry Draugnar I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, I'm just positing a possible pro-weapon-owning counter argument)

@ Parrallelopiped: "The Swiss swear that it was the combination of stinking great mountains with a well armed peasantry (my word, they call themselves citizens) that kept out the Germans in the early 40s."

The reason the Nazis did not invade Switzerland was that a) Switzerland posed no threat to them, so was not an imporant initial target - if they had conquered the whole of Europe they might have eventually turned to Switzerland... and b) a lot of senior Nazis were squirrelling money away in Swiss bank accounts.

"Some of them think they should try the same tactic nowadays."

Eh? I was not aware that Switzerland was current under imminent threat of invasion by the German army. What do you mean by this comment?

@Babak - I didn't cite just crime, I cited "violent cirme" which means armed robbery and murder. Now better economic times could mean a reduction in armed robbery, but merder isn't usually an economic thing. Most murders, whether planned in advanced or spur of the moment, are emotion fueled. Anger makes people commit such a heinous act as murder.

Re: Shooting someone who breaks into your house. It si completely legal in the state of Texas to shoot someone who is breaking into your neighbors house. Lethal force is authorized in that state to protect property as well as life and limb.

I would be fine if the restriction were to a single handgun (9mm, snub nose 44, whatever) although I think a restriction to a particular model (effectively what you are doing with the 44 revolver specification) would be struck down as being preferential to a particular manufacturer(s), but a one handgun per person rule is very sensible to me. Of course, there'd need to be an allowance for hunting rifles and shotgun which could clearly be demonstrated as for that purpose, but the days of someone firing at strangers on their property with shotguns are all but gone. You have to be in a VERY rural area for that attitude to still be found.

And no, I don't think landmines are OK anymore than a 007-like car alarm that blows the car up should someone try to break in or rigging a shotgun to your front door should anyone try to break into your house. I would also be against an automated defense system that didn't require a human (or humans) to push the button for each and every missile.

I do accept that the weapons that are legal now woul dnot be able to stop the US Government should it try to impose martial law on the whole of the US, but our division of government and our separation into states that have their own autonomy (and their own militias) would make it one bloody fucking battle. However, that aspect of the Constitution is antiquated and useless. I will accept that my "need" to have a hunting rifle (shot gun actually) (I actually don't own a hand gun, although I've been looking at a Walther P9 or classic PPK to go in my 007 collection) is cultural and not considered a right the world over. But until the Constitution changes, I will keep my shotgun and hunt wild turkey when it is in season. Speaking of hunting Turkey, isn't this a diplomacy site?

<grin>

@ Draugnar:

"that aspect of the Constitution is antiquated and useless."

I'm glad you acknowledge that.

We still disagree on the fundamental point that you think that it's ok for private individuals to be allowed to own a gun and keep one at home, whereas I don't. On the other hand, you have made some good, well-argued points in support of your view (which is all I was ever asking Acosmist to do, so you are obviously a better man than him). I have enjoyed debating the issue with you, and much of our remaining disagreement may arise from the fact that we live in two different countries in which our two societies have very different attitudes towards guns.

So I'm happy to leave things here and politely agree to disagree.

As am I, Jamiet.

but... if you leave it there... who will WIN this pointless internet deabte?

i will win by virtue of shotgun rules :p
shotgun

Mine's a double-barreled, locked, and loaded, so I win trim. :-)