Guns

[Gurn Blanston]

That's a little too absolute of a statement. You neglect the fact that different societies have had vastly divergent levels of violence at different points in time. So it is indeed possible to reduce violence to very much tolerable levels. There is also a qualitative difference between firearms and 'sticks and stones'. The latter are much harder to use effectively for murder. If that were not so, we wouldn't be having a debate about firearms.

I'm not entirely sure that there can be a 'tolerable level' of violence. In any case, I doubt that there ever has or will be a society that was violence free. You can probably dig one up, never say never, but to extrapolate that out into the implication that we can go back to that (if it ever existed) is too hard to choke down. Nice thought though.

As for sticks and stones, they served well for many thousands of years for our hunting ancestors. When you see statistics that say that a firearm-regulated society has far fewer gun-related deaths than the USA, for example, that doesn't mean that deaths by homicide have ceased to be. So those stats are bogus. And I would point out that killing people is only one of many uses for guns, some of which I enjoy myself, so the side issue of homicide is only a part of the picture.



----------------
Listening to:
Christine Schornsheim - Hob 16 46 Sonata #31  in Ab for Keyboard 2nd mvmt - Adagio

[MishaK]

I'm not entirely sure that there can be a 'tolerable level' of violence. In any case, I doubt that there ever has or will be a society that was violence free. You can probably dig one up, never say never, but to extrapolate that out into the implication that we can go back to that (if it ever existed) is too hard to choke down. Nice thought though.

Did I say violence free? No. What I mean is that there are and have been societies where deadly violence is so exceptionally rare that one can not really speak of human violence as a 'normal' aspect of life. Your prior post seemed to suggest a sort of homo homini lupus est state of nature as the norm. It need not be.   

As for sticks and stones, they served well for many thousands of years for our hunting ancestors. When you see statistics that say that a firearm-regulated society has far fewer gun-related deaths than the USA, for example, that doesn't mean that deaths by homicide have ceased to be. So those stats are bogus. And I would point out that killing people is only one of many uses for guns, some of which I enjoy myself, so the side issue of homicide is only a part of the picture.

Except that  the highlighted bit is not an argument anyone ever made. You simply can't get around the reality that opportunity creates both murders and suicides - and gun control does limit opportunity. The determined, conniving murderer who plots his deed meticulously in advance is the exception. The most common case is the guy who blows his lid or looses his cool and happens to have a gun nearby. Gun control can virtually eliminate the latter.

As to your second point re: the multiple uses of firearms: that depends on what guns we're talking about. Hunting rifles are obviously for hunting. Military small arms are for military use. Handguns have no other purpose than to kill humans. Sorry, but that is what they are designed for. And if you're going to tell me that target shooting is a legitimate alternative use, I'd have to say that target practice is nothing other than simulated homicide.

[WI Dan]

I think you are merely making an emotional response rather than a reasoned one. The question itself hasn't been answered because there is no answer. As such, the pressing of it is rather in the same vein as those posed by Robert Newman over and over in the Mozart Fraud thread. Florestan, as a modestly logical person, should know better than to repeatedly demand an answer to an unanswerable question. You, Dan, probably know that your answer is merely bogus rhetoric brought on by your frustration with his POV.

Admittedly, my response was a tad longer than necessary (just having a little fun, Gurn), but it was reasoned and accurate.  The fact that you don't agree doesn't particularly surprise me, nor does it bother me, and you are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

The violence in people will never be eliminated by the banning of firearms.  <snip>  As long as there are sticks and stones, people will kill each other.

Not if we ban sticks and stones.  (bogus rhetoric)   

[WI Dan]

Handguns have no other purpose than to kill humans.

"There is no use for fire, other than to commit arson!"


(Can you begin to see how silly both arguments are?) 
A handgun is just a tool, and can be used for good, or for evil.

Handguns (obviously) are used everyday, to safeguard human life from violent attack, in situations where no other tool is nearly as practical to use.  If that requires putting a bullet into a human attacker, a feral dog, a mountain lion, or whatever, ... so be it.  Innocent human life deserves protecting.

[WI Dan]

Homicide and Suicide in America, 1900-1998

David C. Stolinsky, MD

EXCERPT Source

Do gun laws reduce violence?  Homicide was lowest in the early 1900s, when few such laws existed.  Most states and some cities passed laws regulating purchase and carrying of handguns in the 1910s and 1920s, but homicide and suicide tended to rise despite this.  It seems that it was not only fear of crime that led to passage of these laws, but fear of immigrants, union organizers, and "reds."  Revealingly, earlier laws in the South forbade blacks to own guns.  Machine guns and sawed-off shotguns were banned in 1934; these weapons were rarely used, so little effect would be expected.  The Gun Control Act of 1968 required records of the buyer's identity and banned sales by mail or to felons or mental patients.  Homicide and suicide rose after its passage.

A waiting period for handgun purchases (the Brady law) and restriction of "assault" weapons went into effect in 1994.  However, most criminals (about 84 percent) obtain guns from illegal sources that are unaffected by waiting periods, and "assault" weapons are used in fewer than three percent of homicides.  Two studies of the Brady law showed no effect.  It is unlikely that these laws played a part in the recent fall in homicide, which had begun two years earlier in 1992.  On the contrary, 31 states now license law-abiding citizens to carry guns.  A careful study by Dr. John Lott shows that these states enjoyed a greater fall in violent crime than states with stricter laws.  Even if one questions Lott's conclusions, the argument now centers on the extent of the fall in violent crime in states that license law-abiding citizens to carry guns.  Violent crime clearly did not rise in these states, as proponents of strict gun laws would have predicted.  The test of any hypothesis is its ability to make accurate predictions.  If the gun-control hypothesis yields inaccurate predictions, it must be rejected.

Suicides in the young rose; gun-control advocates blamed guns.  But suicides in older persons fell.  Homicides in young black males rose; guns were blamed.  But homicides in older black males fell.  Homicides rose after a virtual gun ban in Washington, D.C.; the advocates blamed guns brought in from nearby areas with lenient laws.  But these areas have lower homicide rates.  Suicides for ages 15-24 were more frequent in Seattle than Vancouver; an article in a leading journal blamed lax gun laws in Seattle.  But overall suicide rates were identical for both cities, because suicides for ages 35-44 were more frequent in Vancouver.  The Brady law reduced neither homicide nor suicide.  But its backers remain fervent.  Homicide rose in Britain and Australia following virtual gun bans.  But the bans remain in force.  Meanwhile, the U.S. homicide rate fell markedly, the suicide rate fell slightly, and the death rate from gun accidents is near its lowest level since records began.  But a leading medical organization declared, "The growing incidence of firearm violence has reached epidemic proportions."  If you torture the data long enough, it will tell you anything you want to hear.

Advocates of gun laws point to any fall in homicide or suicide as evidence that the laws are working, and to any rise as evidence that more laws are needed.  Whether homicide or suicide rates rise or fall, and whatever age, gender, ethnic, or regional group is affected, the advocates insist that more gun laws are needed.  An idea that cannot be disproved by any obtainable evidence is an irrational belief, not a logical conclusion.  For some persons, the idea that gun laws reduce violence may fall into this category.

Proponents of gun-control laws claim that gun "availability" causes violence, but what does the term mean?  Clearly, if guns were totally unavailable, none would be used.  This situation existed in the Middle Ages, prior to the invention of guns, but the period was very violent.  There were sword deaths, dagger deaths, arrow deaths, and axe deaths. But there were no "gun deaths", so presumably gun-control advocates would have been happy living at the time of the film Braveheart.  However, if "availability" means lack of legal restrictions, then 1900 should have been the heyday of homicide.  Guns of all types could be bought by mail or at the local hardware store or pawnshop, anonymously and without records.  Yet most boys and men of that era expressed anger with their voices or fists.  Guns were "available" in the sense of being readily accessible with few legal restrictions, but not in the sense of being an acceptable response to annoyance.

We cannot say exactly what it is that inhibits human beings from killing one another, but we can say some things about it.  First, whatever it is, there is less of it now than there was in 1900 or even 1960.  Second, the evidence suggests that it has little to do with guns, poverty, racism, war, "macho" leaders, social programs, education, immigration, or most things within the grasp of government.  But if we have the courage to admit that we may have been looking in the wrong places, we will be freed to look elsewhere.  For example, we could look more closely at intact family structure, reverence for human life, awareness that rights come with responsibilities, hope based on the anticipation that hard work will be rewarded, and an expectation that crimes will be promptly punished.  At the very least, if we recognize that these factors could be important, we may stop eroding them still further.

[Florestan]

In case someone misunderstood me: I am not concerned with the issue of allowing or banning private gun-ownership in US, but only with the argument that it is necessary for a free society, which I find very unconvincing.

Yes.  Of course it does.  Yessiree.  No question about it.

To exasperate Gurn again, I ask you: in what way does the Italian government threaten the life and liberty of its citizens, or hinder their pursue of happiness, by not allowing them to own guns? (This time I expect more of you than "Yessiree". )

[WI Dan]

Florestan - You phrase your questions differently every time you post, while pretending that I haven't addressed your questions properly!  It has become obvious to me that you are not interested in an honest exchange of ideas, so I can see no point in conversing with you further.  Sorry, pal.

[Florestan]

Florestan - You phrase your questions differently every time you post, while pretending that I haven't addressed your questions properly!  It has become obvious to me that you are not interested in an honest exchange of ideas, so I can see no point in conversing with you further.  Sorry, pal.

Thanks for admitting the obvious fact of not having the slightest argument for your claim. And that being said, I'm out of here.

[MishaK]

"There is no use for fire, other than to commit arson!"


(Can you begin to see how silly both arguments are?) 
A handgun is just a tool, and can be used for good, or for evil.

Handguns (obviously) are used everyday, to safeguard human life from violent attack, in situations where no other tool is nearly as practical to use.  If that requires putting a bullet into a human attacker, a feral dog, a mountain lion, or whatever, ... so be it.  Innocent human life deserves protecting.

Your equating of my statement on handguns and the above on fire shows that you fundamentally fail to understand the issue. Read this carefully: even what you consider the "good" uses for a handgun involve the killing of a human being. (For dogs, mountain lions etc. you'd better use a hunting rifle, or better yet a tranquilizer gun - that should be left to professionals - not a handgun.) Unlike fire, guns have no other purpose other than to kill. The question of what you consider 'good' and 'bad' killing turns on the justification for the killing - a much more complicated issue and one which can rarely be decided cut-and-dry in the heat of the moment when you're facing the decision to pull the trigger. But it still is killing. There are no two ways about that. Unlike with fire, you can't cook food or heat your house in winter with a handgun.

[MishaK]

Do gun laws reduce violence?  Homicide was lowest in the early 1900s, when few such laws existed.

And when no modern handguns or assault rifles with any precision and ease of use existed. So moot point.

However, most criminals (about 84 percent) obtain guns from illegal sources that are unaffected by waiting periods, and "assault" weapons are used in fewer than three percent of homicides. 

This is one of the most idiotic arguments put forward by the gun lobby. They never bother to ask the obvious follow up question: what are the "illegal sources"? Because the answer to that is - drumroll - legal sources. I.e. a legal buyer advances a weapon to an illegal buyer. But you can't root out the illegal market if you cannot restrict supply and if you cannot adequately trace the history of every weapon such that you could find out how the weapon got into the wrong hands to begin with.

We cannot say exactly what it is that inhibits human beings from killing one another, but we can say some things about it.  First, whatever it is, there is less of it now than there was in 1900 or even 1960.  Second, the evidence suggests that it has little to do with guns, poverty, racism, war, "macho" leaders, social programs, education, immigration, or most things within the grasp of government.  But if we have the courage to admit that we may have been looking in the wrong places, we will be freed to look elsewhere.  For example, we could look more closely at intact family structure, reverence for human life, awareness that rights come with responsibilities, hope based on the anticipation that hard work will be rewarded, and an expectation that crimes will be promptly punished.  At the very least, if we recognize that these factors could be important, we may stop eroding them still further.

This is a heaping pile of steaming excrement. It looks at the US as if it were a completely isolated universe (and still ignores all the inconvenient evidence within the US). If any of the logic of the author had any merit at all, then other countries would have experienced the same increase in violence over the 1900-1998 period, the same ineffectiveness of gun control, etc. Yet the reverse is true. The gun lobby simply cannot explain away the fact that every other Western country has far more extensive gun control laws than the US, far less draconian criminal justice systems and yet has much, much lower per capita violent crime rates than the US. A theory that doesn't explain that discrepancy is not worth anybody's time.

[MishaK]

NOTHING. 

You are at their mercy, just as the disarmed Jews were, in Nazi Germany.  That didn't work out well, even though Hitler came to power legally.  You might want to think about that.  I'm on your side, friend.  Really.

Sorry, stumbled upon this just now. Have to correct it because it is massively ignorant.

Can't speak about Norway, France or the Netherlands in detail, because I am not that well versed in their constitutions, but what prevents Germany from repeating the rise of the Nazis are three things:

1. A much more modern constitution, that does away with the emergency powers under which Hitler was appointed in the Weimar Republic, eliminates a completely independent executive branch in favor of a parliamentary executive directly accountable to parliament, and a minimum percentage for parties to enter parliament so as to eliminate the possibility of self destructive bickering among twenty-plus parties that allowed Hitler to destroy Weimar democracy.

2. Gun control! The reason Hitler came into power was because he was able to build up a paramilitary force in the form of the SA, which provoked battles with the Communists, which then had the bourgeoisie and the industrialists freaked out who then threw their support behind Hitler. Anytime you undermine the state's monopoly on violence, the state will be unable to defend itself or its citizens against violence and against undemocratic usurpation of power. This is one of the main reasons modern European governments have draconian gun control laws. They don't want little SAs running around freely.

3. A constitution-protection agency (Bundesverfassungsschutz). The German system allows this government agency to monitor and, if necessary, censor and outlaw any organization whose aim is to undermine or overthrow the democratic system of the country.

The US constitution was designed for dealing with a feudal late 18th century world. It is not at all adapted to the realities of the present.

[drogulus]

The violence in people will never be eliminated by the banning of firearms. It is not a question of freedom or even culture. It is the essential nature of humans, and it will not be bred out of us or prohibited out of us. And debates such as this one are not going to matter a damn in the outcome, whatever that may be. As long as there are sticks and stones, people will kill each other.



----------------
Listening to:
Christine Schornsheim -  Hob 16 45 Sonata #29  in Eb for Keyboard 3rd mvmt - Finale: Allegro di molto

     Some societies are less violent than others. Breeding, in the culture sense, must have something to do with it. Homogeneous societies probably have an advantage here. I think you're right that the violence problem in America is not caused by guns. Nevertheless guns contribute greatly to the efficacy of violence here as elsewhere. Killing is far easier with a gun than a knife. A gun is a point-and-shoot murder enabler, which means that a great number of people who never intended to actually kill someone succeed in doing so. Guns don't kill people, people who are drunk or stoned kill people with guns.

     In a society like ours where guns are tools for cops and criminals the role they play in self defense is pretty slim. The problem is that urban people don't want to protect themselves, and they shouldn't be forced to. Law enforcement works in the neighborhoods where decision-makers live, and more guns in violence-plagued neighborhoods isn't something the law-abiding residents want, nor do the cops who have to work there.

     So if we have to accept the atavistic fondness for guns of the gun folks, we ought to find some accommodation for the city folk as well. And it would be a really good idea to stop portraying this as an attempt to confiscate guns. We need to regulate them in a sensible manner.

[Gurn Blanston]

     Some societies are less violent than others. Breeding, in the culture sense, must have something to do with it. Homogeneous societies probably have an advantage here. I think you're right that the violence problem in America is not caused by guns. Nevertheless guns contribute greatly to the efficacy of violence here as elsewhere. Killing is far easier with a gun than a knife. A gun is a point-and-shoot murder enabler, which means that a great number of people who never intended to actually kill someone succeed in doing so. Guns don't kill people, people who are drunk or stoned kill people with guns.

     In a society like ours where guns are tools for cops and criminals the role they play in self defense is pretty slim. The problem is that urban people don't want to protect themselves, and they shouldn't be forced to. Law enforcement works in the neighborhoods where decision-makers live, and more guns in violence-plagued neighborhoods isn't something the law-abiding residents want, nor do the cops who have to work there.

     So if we have to accept the atavistic fondness for guns of the gun folks, we ought to find some accommodation for the city folk as well. And it would be a really good idea to stop portraying this as an attempt to confiscate guns. We need to regulate them in a sensible manner.

Well, as I said several posts ago to Chambernut, I am totally not against the regulation of guns. I do realize that the current situation, which is, de facto, no regulation at all is a ludicrous situation. What I haven't seen yet is a plan that will solve the issues in the cities and yet leave we country dwellers the tools we need to cope with our issues. Once that plan becomes crystallized, I will back it completely. As I told our relentless Mensch, I don't think that this will be a cure-all for murder by violence, but it would indeed be a positive step in that direction.



----------------
Listening to:
Christine Schornsheim - Hob 16 Eb3 Sonata #18 in Eb for Keyboard 2nd mvmt - Menuetto

[Redbeard]

And when no modern handguns or assault rifles with any precision and ease of use existed. So moot point.

Modern autoloader handguns have been around since at least the 1890s.  The iconic modern handgun was adopted by the US Military in 1911.  With only very minor cosmetic and ergonomic changes, you will see this pistol in practically any movie or TV show where guns are used.  All modern autoloader handguns are largely based on this original design by John Browning, and the 1911 is still considered one of the most functional combat handguns available.  The modern revolver is older yet, and by the 1890s there really isn't anything which has been functionally improved (at least from the perspective of a potential criminal).  While the term Assault Rifle only dates back to WW II (to my knowledge), I'm guessing John Brownings Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) would have had your gun control juices pumping full bore. 

But the terms you use are at least somewhat subjective (modern, ease of use, precision, etc), so perhaps you can best answer this question yourself.  Which of the following would you exempt from gun control:

Colt .45 Automatic, Adopted by US Military in 1911:


Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) Machine Gun (1918).  Favorite of Clyde Barrow of "Bonnie and Clyde" fame:


Winchester Model 1894 Lever Action.  Winchester still sells these.  I bought one of the 100th anniversary special editions in 1994:


Mauser model 1898.  I'm not aware of any bolt action hunting rifles which aren't largely copies of Mauser's original design:

[Redbeard]

(For dogs, mountain lions etc. you'd better use a hunting rifle, or better yet a tranquilizer gun - that should be left to professionals - not a handgun.)

You state this with such earnestness it makes me wonder who told you such a thing?  Most handgun calibers are more than powerful enough to kill a dog or a mountain lion.  Both are smaller than people, so pretty much any "defensive caliber" would generally be effective.  Gun owners argue amongst themselves on how much is enough for defense against people, so I'm sure you could find a similar discussion regarding dogs and mountain lions.  The bigger caliber revolvers (.44 mag, etc) are favored by those concerned with larger predators like black bears.  Rifles would generally be more effective (except in very close contact), but not everyone wants to tote a long gun around whenever in bear country. 

Here is just one example of a 78 year old man who used his handgun to defend himself from two pit bulls.

[Gurn Blanston]

You state this with such earnestness it makes me wonder who told you such a thing?  Most handgun calibers are more than powerful enough to kill a dog or a mountain lion.  Both are smaller than people, so pretty much any "defensive caliber" would generally be effective.  Gun owners argue amongst themselves on how much is enough for defense against people, so I'm sure you could find a similar discussion regarding dogs and mountain lions.  The bigger caliber revolvers (.44 mag, etc) are favored by those concerned with larger predators like black bears.  Rifles would generally be more effective (except in very close contact), but not everyone wants to tote a long gun around whenever in bear country. 

Here is just one example of a 78 year old man who used his handgun to defend himself from two pit bulls.

I've taken 2 deer and 5 or 6 feral hogs with my .357 mag using 158 gr. semi-jacketed hollow points. I was wondering where that bit of wisdom came from too, but I'm not going to argue...



----------------
Listening to: Anthony Halstead, Hanover Band - J Haydn Symphony 31 in D Hornsignal II

[WI Dan]

Read this carefully: even what you consider the "good" uses for a handgun involve the killing of a human being. (For dogs, mountain lions etc. you'd better use a hunting rifle, or better yet a tranquilizer gun - that should be left to professionals - not a handgun.) Unlike fire, guns have no other purpose other than to kill. The question of what you consider 'good' and 'bad' killing turns on the justification for the killing - a much more complicated issue and one which can rarely be decided cut-and-dry in the heat of the moment when you're facing the decision to pull the trigger. But it still is killing. There are no two ways about that.

Sorry, but I don't understand how a grown man can think this way.  I really don't.  This is simply about personal responsibility, self-reliance, and knowing right from wrong.

A man owes it to himself, and to those who depend on him, to learn to evaluate a situation, make a decision, and act on it to the best of his ability.  It is often not wise to look to others to solve our problems for us, especially when lives hang in the balance, and seconds count.  We should not expect perfection of ourselves, because we're not perfect beings, but what we can do for ourselves, we should do for ourselves. 

By the way, your assertion that "guns have no other purpose other than to kill" is pure hogwash.  There are thousands of documented cases where violent crimes were averted because the intended victim simply made it known to the perpetrators that he had a gun in his possession, and was willing to use it.  No shots fired.  Nobody killed.  Armed citizens frequently serve as a deterrent to crime.

And when no modern handguns or assault rifles with any precision and ease of use existed. So moot point.

Dude, you are wildly mistaken.  Don't you have access to "Google"?

A couple of my own favorite defensive arms were available in 1892 and 1911, respectively.  Either of those would work quite effectively as offensive arms, too, in case you were wondering.

However, most criminals (about 84 percent) obtain guns from illegal sources that are unaffected by waiting periods, and "assault" weapons are used in fewer than three percent of homicides.

This is one of the most idiotic arguments put forward by the gun lobby. They never bother to ask the obvious follow up question: what are the "illegal sources"? Because the answer to that is - drumroll - legal sources. I.e. a legal buyer advances a weapon to an illegal buyer.

That sort of transfer is known as a "Straw Purchase".  We already have laws against it.  In fact, it is a felony offense for both the original purchaser and the ultimate possessor of the firearm.  The original purchaser can also be charged with lying on the Federal Form 4473, which he would have to do in order to make such a purchase.

But you can't root out the illegal market if you cannot restrict supply and if you cannot adequately trace the history of every weapon such that you could find out how the weapon got into the wrong hands to begin with.

That may be considered acceptable procedure in Germany, I don't know.  Here in the U.S., however, there are a whole lot of people who generally will not tolerate having the government's nose quite that far up our collective a$$es.  Americans prefer to punish the guilty, ... and leave the innocent citizens alone.

We cannot say exactly what it is that inhibits human beings from killing one another, but we can say some things about it.  First, whatever it is, there is less of it now than there was in 1900 or even 1960.  Second, the evidence suggests that it has little to do with guns, poverty, racism, war, "macho" leaders, social programs, education, immigration, or most things within the grasp of government.  But if we have the courage to admit that we may have been looking in the wrong places, we will be freed to look elsewhere.  For example, we could look more closely at intact family structure, reverence for human life, awareness that rights come with responsibilities, hope based on the anticipation that hard work will be rewarded, and an expectation that crimes will be promptly punished.   At the very least, if we recognize that these factors could be important, we may stop eroding them still further.

This is a heaping pile of steaming excrement.

No, it is the unvarnished TRUTH of the matter.  Socialists and other lovers of the Big Government Nanny State (BGNS) just hate to be confronted with those inconvenient facts, but there they are.

The Really, Really Important Factors:


1.) intact family structure

2.) reverence for human life

3.) awareness that rights come with responsibilities

4.) hope - based on the anticipation that hard work will be rewarded

5.) an expectation that crimes will be promptly punished

Can't speak about Norway, France or the Netherlands in detail, because I am not that well versed in their constitutions, but what prevents Germany from repeating the rise of the Nazis are three things:

1. A much more modern constitution, that does away with the emergency powers under which Hitler was appointed in the Weimar Republic, eliminates a completely independent executive branch in favor of a parliamentary executive directly accountable to parliament, and a minimum percentage for parties to enter parliament so as to eliminate the possibility of self destructive bickering among twenty-plus parties that allowed Hitler to destroy Weimar democracy.

2. Gun control! The reason Hitler came into power was because he was able to build up a paramilitary force in the form of the SA, which provoked battles with the Communists, which then had the bourgeoisie and the industrialists freaked out who then threw their support behind Hitler. Anytime you undermine the state's monopoly on violence, the state will be unable to defend itself or its citizens against violence and against undemocratic usurpation of power. This is one of the main reasons modern European governments have draconian gun control laws. They don't want little SAs running around freely.

3. A constitution-protection agency (Bundesverfassungsschutz). The German system allows this government agency to monitor and, if necessary, censor and outlaw any organization whose aim is to undermine or overthrow the democratic system of the country.

Okay, you've made your wish. 
Now, ... blow out the candles. 

Just in case that plan doesn't work out (lots of government plans don't work out, you know), you'd best be sure to keep your wiffle bat handy, since you don't have a gun.

The US constitution was designed for dealing with a feudal late 18th century world. It is not at all adapted to the realities of the present.

Translation:
The U.S. Constitution (and especially the Bill of Rights, and most especially the 2nd Amendment) is one humongous stumbling block in the way of our Grand Socialist Agenda, most commonly referred to as the "New World Order", AKA "One World Government".

(guffaw)

[Redbeard]

After my initial post on firearms available in the early 1900s, I noticed another gun in Wiki which I was entirely unaware of.  3 of the 4 guns in my previous post were designed by John Browning.  In addition to the still ubiquitous .45 automatic, he also developed a smaller autoloader handgun which is quite famous.  The FN model 1910 was used in the famous assassination of the Archduke which is often cited as a trigger for WW I.  One could be forgiven for mistaking this pocket sized pistol for the one James Bond prefers, and in fact they fire the same round (.380 ACP).  According to the Wiki page, this model was produced from 1910 until 1983! 



Similarly, John Browning invented the first semiautomatic shotgun, the Browning Auto-5, a gun which was in production from 1902 to 1998! 



The word genius is at times thrown around rather casually.  But I would say in Browning's case the reputation is well deserved.  Historically speaking he is fascinating as well, because not only did he invent much of the small arms the US used in WW I and WWII, he also invented the gun which was used in the assassination which some argue caused WWI.  A modern gun store closely resembles what would be found in a museum of this man's creations even though he passed away in 1926!

[WI Dan]

The word genius is at times thrown around rather casually.  But I would say in Browning's case the reputation is well deserved.  Historically speaking he is fascinating as well

Redbeard - My father gave me this book about twenty years ago.  It is very well written, highly informative and entertaining.  I'm sure you would enjoy it.  Unfortunately, it is out of print, for now, but well worth hunting for.  Until then, here's a good article that I found just recently, about the genius: John M. Browning



A special version of my favorite Browning-designed scattergun.   





Another very popular, and unique "pocket model" semi-auto from a hundred years ago, ..... the Savage Model 1907.  Among other unusual features, it offered a 10-round staggered-column magazine and a special breech system that allowed the use of a very lightweight slide, resulting in an overall (unloaded) weight of just 19 ounces.  In addition, there is not a single screw used in this design, so it can be quickly disassembled without any tools.  Originally chambered for the .32 ACP, a .380 ACP version was offered in 1913.

[Redbeard]

Great article Dan.  Thanks!