Gun Control - A Superficial Solution ?

[wswolf]

So people really need assault rifles for self-defense?

That seems a tad extreme.

As I said in the first paragraph that you quoted: Technically we have are not discussing assault rifles but military-style semi-automatic rifles. I will include definition in my reply to australopithecus. We might as well use the correct terminology or we will be imitating those who argue against the ToE without knowing how to define it. Based on their particular circumstances some might need military-style semi-automatic rifles. Many experts think so.

You mention two extreme circumstances where they were actually used for self-defense, and it occurs to me that the US as a society is really too far gone and too sick in order to fix this problem.

Those were extreme instances but any situation where any sort of gun is needed for self-defense is extreme. I don't know how gauge whether a society is sick buy you might note that much, and possibly most violent crime is done by drug gangs.

Gang-related crime and violence continues to rise. NGIC [National Gang Intelligence Center] analysis indicates that gang members are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and much higher in others. Some jurisdictions in Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Texas report that gangs are responsible for at least 90 percent of crime. "¦ Street gangs are involved in a host of violent criminal activities, including assault, drug trafficking, extortion, firearms offenses, home invasion robberies, homicide, intimidation, shootings, and weapons trafficking. NDIC reporting indicates that gang control over drug distribution and disputes over drug territory has increased, which may be responsible for the increase in violence in many areas. Conflict between gangs, gang migration into rival gang territory, and the release of incarcerated gang members back into the community has also resulted in an increase in gang-related crime and violence in many jurisdictions, according to NGIC reporting. http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment#Gang-Related Violent CrimeCurrentGang

Perhaps legalizing drugs would lower drug prices enough that smuggling and battles over territory would no longer be worthwhile. But some gangs might then increase their other illegal activities to maintain income. But this is getting rather far afield.

I live in the EU, and we really don't need guns here. I suppose one could argue about the right to own a gun, but I'd rather talk about a right to live in a safe society.
But I suppose gun rights are much more individualist than (my on-the-spot-made-up) "safe society" right, which is, I suppose, typically socialist-y European.

Gun ownership and safe societies are not mutually exclusive. I don't know how one could derive the existence of a right to be safe since the universe is an inherently unsafe place, even our little speck of it.

But these shootings haven't all been done by criminals.

Anyone who commits a criminal act is a criminal.

Besides, criminals ignore restrictions in other countries, too, so availability still matters, right?

There is a huge number of guns in the U.S. and millions of what you would call assault rifles. The number of misused by criminals is so miniscule in comparison that criminals will always be able to get them. And more can be easily smuggled in since drug smuggling routes are already established.

Where I live, only some of the most hard-core criminal gangs are really able to get a hold of assault-type weapons, and if they ever use them, you usually get a man/ganghunt so massive, it will hurt whichever gang used it, so we don't really see these weapons used all that much.
The lacking availability isn't the only factor, I'm sure. The culture and the society seems to matter as well, and perhaps that's really the problem in the US.

These weapons are seldom use here either but those rare exceptions are newsworthy. I think that most violent criminals are "produced" by social and cultural factors but some are just nuts.

 

[wswolf]

No one needs a fully automatic assault rifle for home defense. No one. Not unless you're surrounded by zombies, and not unless you're in a profession where you require one. Armed forces or armed police for example. The sole purpose of an automatic weapon is to kill as many people as you can in a very short space of time. That's it. There is something very wrong with a culture that insists this is a valid domestic defense tool.

Once again: there is a difference between "military-style semi-automatics" and 'assault rifles". It is past time I explained this. Apologies if this is more detailed than you may think necessary but I think you will agree that it would be helpful to know what we are talking about.

"Assault rifle" has a strict technical definition. A United States Defense Department's Defense Intelligence Agency book Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide explains, "assault rifles" are "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." "Selective-fire" means that it can used in semi-automatic mode (one shot per one pull of the trigger) or at the flip of a switch, automatic mode (keeps firing as long as the trigger is held back,essentially a machinegun). Submachine guns fire pistol cartridges (most commonly the 9x19 also called 9mm Luger or 9mm Parabellum or 9mm NATO). Rifle cartridges, in this context, refers to the rather powerful cartridges used by most nations in World War II (.303 British, 8mm Mauser, .30-'06 Springfield, etc.). Older "intermediate in power" assault rifles fire bullets of the same diameter as "battle rifle" cartridges but the bullets are about 30% lighter and have about 30% lower velocity (7.62x39 Soviet). Newer designs use small-diameter, very light-weight bullets at about 25% higher velocity (5.56 NATO, .223 Remington, etc.). Assault rifles cost upwards of $10,000 and, in the states that have not banned them altogether, can only be bought after a lengthy background check by the FBI, getting a license from a separate Federal agency, obtaining written permission from the local police and paying a substantial tax.
An "assault weapon" is, essentially, anything that looks scary to the legislature and is usually defined as a semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun that has a number of superficial cosmetic features that make it resemble a true assault rifle. The rifle misused at Newtown is, externally, nearly identical to a military rifle but lacks the automatic (machinegun) mode of operation.

I've fired one of those monstrosities, and I do not see the appeal. Swords are cooler than guns anyway.

I have fired an M-16 and a MP5 on full auto and don't see the appeal either. The semi-auto versions have utility for self-defense.

I am relieved to see that no one has argued that there is no individual right to self-defense. The main argument against military-style semi-automatics seems to be that the law-abiding should be denied their use (as viable tool for self-defense and other legitimate uses) because the lawless might use them to commit crimes.

"Only laws that criminalize and punish behavior after the crime has been committed are in accord with the presumption of innocence, the principle that government honors the liberty of its citizens until their deeds convict them. Laws that criminalize innocent behavior effectively presume guilt.

Laws that criminalize conduct not wrong in itself to prevent crime make the behavior of criminals the measure of the rights and scope of liberty that the law will permit to the innocent. Far from fighting crime, the criminalization of innocent activities represents a society in retreat from crime... a society desperately accommodating itself to crime." Paraphrased from Jeff Snyder, Nation of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control, Accurate Press, 2001

I am quite rushed at the moment and will be traveling or otherwise engaged for the next several days but will check in again.

Regards,
Wolf

 

[australopithecus]

Once again: there is a difference between "military-style semi-automatics" and 'assault rifles". It is past time I explained this. Apologies if this is more detailed than you may think necessary but I think you will agree that it would be helpful to know what we are talking about.

I appreciate there is a difference in the distinction between the two, however I see no distinction with their inappropriateness. I find guns inappropriate in general, let alone ones designed to kill en mass with ease.

I have fired an M-16 and a MP5 on full auto and don't see the appeal either. The semi-auto versions have utility for self-defense.

I am relieved to see that no one has argued that there is no individual right to self-defense. The main argument against military-style semi-automatics seems to be that the law-abiding should be denied their use (as viable tool for self-defense and other legitimate uses) because the lawless might use them to commit crimes.

I'd agree, anyone outside of the armed forces or police should be denied the use of any automatic or semi-automatic fire arm. They are not a vital tool for self defense, not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Frenger]

Exercising rights does not endanger anyone. There is no right to put anyone at risk. People are endangered by criminal behavior.

Exercising rights does facilitate the endangerment of people when that right involves arming the general population. This right is also the reason that 65% of homicides in the U.S are gun related.Sauce as opposed to here in the UK, which is just 8%.

Criminal attacks are not generally rife with subtly. If a woman is being dragged into an alley at knife-point or her door is being kicked down in the middle of the night it glaringly obvious that a crime is being committed. If you are unsure of a situation do not intervene.

It's not always your choice whether you intervene or not, sometimes you are forced to make a tough decision. If for example your attacker is armed with a gun (very likely under your rights) and you too are armed, it's likely to turn into a shoot out. By taking guns out of the equation, death is much more unlikely, I struggle to understand why you can't see that.

As with driving in adverse conditions or administering first-aid, if you are prepared for a situation and feel confident to handle it you will be insulated against panic. This is a matter of training and mental preparation. One of the basics of firearm safety to not shoot anything you have not positively identified.

Well this all sounds great, one question though. Who's job is it to give this training?

Strawman. No one has suggested that the right to self-preservation includes the right to anything so indiscriminant and powerful as to endanger the general population. Not bombs, aircraft, mines, explosives, artillery, tanks or crew-served weapons of any sort. Only weapons that might be carried and used by one person.

Emphasis mine. Would you not say then, that an assault rifle falls under this umbrella? Was it no used to endanger the population just a few weeks ago?

My point with the helicopter was that it's about context. I understand the need to protect yourself, I really do. However, under this loose "right to bear arms" law, people can own anything, it becomes an arms race. If my neighbour has a handgun, I might get a shotgun. Following this my neighbour might buy an assault rifle, and so on. This doesn't make people safer, it makes people more dangerous. As I said early, the majority of the population are idiots, especially when panicked, so allowing them to heavily arm themselves seems rather daft.

Laws can lose their validity but basic human rights cannot.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise owning assault rifles was a basic human right. We must have our definitions mixed up.

The Second Amendment "is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . [n]either is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). If I wave it about a bit it is only to emphasize that its purpose it to protect a natural right that preceded any government.

It's purpose might have been to allow people to shit rainbows, I don't care, it was 200 years ago and the world is different. Technology is moving faster than we can keep up with and clinging on to 200 year arguments only means that you've run out of your own.

Anyone with valid identification documents who is not a drug-user

Sorry, that should be changed to be "is unknown to be a drug-user"

who has not been judged mentally incompetent

Which we have already agreed is a very difficult thing to do.

and who passes a criminal background check by the FBI.

So anyone who is unknown to the FBI

Sure, just anyone at all.

Yep, seems it.

Prospective buyers must also pass the informal but very real "suspicious gun shop owner" test.

I didn't realise gun-shop owners were equipped with the power of on the spot psychoanalysis. With those spidey senses, they should really be climbing walls and fighting green goblins

I have personally seen a shop owner refuse to sell a gun to someone whom he thought was a bit off.

A bit off? I have no idea what you even mean by that.

Two other gun shop workers told me they have done the same.

Woop! High five them!

Restrictions only affect the law-abiding, not the criminals. Or do you imagine that people law-abiding enough to pass the background checks are seething cauldrons of rage that might boil over at any instant?

That's simply not true. Unless you can find me statistics that show guns used in crime were illegal. Other than that, it's just pointless speculation.

It is disingenuous of you to equate violent crimes with mistakes.

Well shooting someone to death is hardly noble is it?

My point here, which you so deftly tried to twist into a pretzel, is that there is no demographic, excluding children, with a lower incidence of crime.

And my point is that a gun in any hand is dangerous. Telling me people with badges are just as likely to kill someone as someone without, means less than nothing to me. As I said earlier, the majority of the population are idiots, and ensuring they are armed idiots is a bad idea.

The unthinkable to you is not unthinkable to everyone. Some think that helplessly watching child-killers is unthinkable.

Which would be less likely with less guns in the population.

Israel armed its teachers in 1974 and have not has a successful terrorist attack on a school since. Peru has armed teachers. The Philippines has issued teachers M-14 battle rifles that can fire as machineguns.

And what do these places have in common? Is it that they are involved in war, civil unrest, violence? Who'd a thunk it eh?

Also you have no idea what a vigilante is but I don't want to get sidetracked on to that subject.

A vigilante (pron.: /ËŒvɪdʒɪˈlà¦nti/, /ËŒvɪdʒɪˈlà¦nteɪ/; Spanish: [bixiˈlante]; Portuguese: [viÊ’iˈlɐ̃t(ɨ)], [viÊ’iˈlɐ̃tʃi]) is an individual or group who undertakes law enforcement without legal authority

I fail to see how this doesn't apply to what I said.

Why do you think it is possible to disarm criminals? Where have even the most draconian laws been successful?

I actually said earlier (but not to you) that disarming a nation is impossible, but that doesn't mean restrictions from now on would be a bad idea. Just because you can't rid the world of guns, it doesn't mean it's not worth at least restricting them.

The mildest thing I can say is that this is sheer bigotry.

I agree, and I apologise for being flippant.

You have an active imagination but it only seems to work at seeing gun owners as maniacs who also panic at any danger (projection?) and scenes where having a gun might not be immediately useful.

Again, you're probably right. That was probably projection. I live in a village where the main crimes are littering and sneezing on a Sunday. However, I was basing my point on the writings of Jarad Diamond which I outlined earlier in the thread. Itr was to do with technology like guns being to fast for our biology to use properly. IN the days of knives and sticks, you really had to get in someone's face, with guns, you need only pull a trigger, and you can do this before you have assessed a situation appropriately.

There goes that imagination again. Luck is always welcome but skill and fortitude are better.

[/quote]

Skill and luck are of course preferable, but who is going to ensure everyone who owns a gun is trained? As far as statistics show, America is one of the most obese countries in the world sauce which means that between 30 and 40% of the population are not inclined to go to the gym, go for a run, or eat slightly less, is this same population going to train themselves in terror management?

Merry New Year

edited to add vigilante definition.

 

[PAB]

My point with the helicopter was that it's about context. I understand the need to protect yourself, I really do. However, under this loose "right to bear arms" law, people can own anything, it becomes an arms race. If my neighbour has a handgun, I might get a shotgun. Following this my neighbour might buy an assault rifle, and so on. This doesn't make people safer, it makes people more dangerous. As I said early, the majority of the population are idiots, especially when panicked, so allowing them to heavily arm themselves seems rather daft.

 

[Moky]

I only did a quick glance through everything because I don't have the attention span to read every single word that everyone wrote at the moment, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that NONE of you understand why the 2nd amendment was put in place in the first place, thus you are not able to fully understand why people are so hung up about this.

The point of the law is that each state would have a non government controlled militia in the case of outside attack or government attack. It was meant to protect people from our own government and any government that would do us undue harm. Part of that law meant that the people had rights to the same weapons that the military has in case our government goes full retard and attacks the people. That was a very real worry in the past, it is in the fabric of our nation to distrust any unchecked power or power that is far stronger than us. It seems absurd now, but I'm sure no one anticipated WWII happening either. In the past, the two oceans are what kept us safe, but that isn't going to be a factor anymore. The whole point of the amendment was to prevent tyranny and to prevent a foreign power from taking us over, the logic is that an armed people would fight against both and give something for invaders and government to fear pissing off. America is remarkable in that since its inception, there was always been a peaceful hand off of power. I can't think of another nation that could say the same. This is what protects us. It's also why you can't compare us to a place like Britain, we have different mentalities because our laws are different and our foundings were in different circumstances, we don't have that implicit trust in government. The founders weren't fucking idiots, they wanted the people to protect themselves from them and so that standing armies wouldn't rock them.

Knowing the above, that's part of why people are so damn resistant. It's sort of subconscious, they know it was for a very important reason that this amendment was made, but they rarely know exactly why. It's usually, 'For us to defend ourselves'. They never know from what they were meant to protect themselves FROM, but it was to defend themselves, it's a half correct answer. So to say it's silly hicks being hicks about guns is ignorant in itself, it's ignorant of our government and our mentality and to judge us based on that ignorance is in itself worthy of being criticized. Basically, y'all motherfuckers don't know what you're talking about and acting as if you are. Cut that shit out.

And I know, someone is going to argue this point, 'The founding times were in the 1700s, that can't be relevant now'; you would be surprised how long things stay relevant. I made a convincing case that the Archaic Greek society, something that was 4000 - 5000 years ago, is still affecting our society today. 300 years ain't shit based on time and relevance, the only thing that happened is that our interpretation of the law changed a bit to suit our modern society, but the original reason is still there.

 

[PAB]

[............................]
And I know, someone is going to argue this point, 'The founding times were in the 1700s, that can't be relevant now'; you would be surprised how long things stay relevant.

I think your focus on history is correct. Your comment reminds me of an interview with Jesse Ventura , which i thought made a good point (and some bad ones). Especially highlighting the point that the 2nd amendment is there, not because of hunting or fishing, but to give the people the ability to defend themselves against oppression.



I've seen an argument made against this point separately by Jeremy Paxman, a British journalist and presenter, who stressed the point america has a health democracy. But dictatorship and Bonaparte's are not necessarily a thing of the past or an exception for any country. But this guy - Jesse Ventura- is wrong to push to one side the issue of the countless gun deaths of innocents in a way that implies that the potential need for defense against the state trumps the massacres and deaths occurring now.

Gun control - which is not disarmament- does not prevent the country from protecting itself in this manner. In fact it is arguable that gun ownership by the public is not fundamental in order to overthrow oppressive regimes, the recent overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt was not due to private gun ownership by the public, and where arms played a role it was in the ability for the people to win over sections of the police and the army.

Im very sympathetic to the ideas in the second amendment - in giving the people the ability to defend themselves against oppression- probably due to my socialist beliefs. But when the interpretation of these rights and there execution means the mess that america is in, there should be a change.

What would be so bad with a public arsenal and public shooting facility, and strict permits for guns for need only e.g hunting and farms. Gun related deaths will decrease. The people can still have access to arms and be trained in them. But Americans may lose the security of shooting home intruders, being mostly burglars...good.

 

[Moky]

Having walked in on someone burgling my house, I wish I would've taken violent action against him. He indirectly almost ruined my life, and that's not being dramatic.

I like your idea though, I would participate and it would let people who don't want to train to just avoid them.

 

[Frenger]

I only did a quick glance through everything because I don't have the attention span to read every single word that everyone wrote at the moment, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that NONE of you understand why the 2nd amendment was put in place in the first place, thus you are not able to fully understand why people are so hung up about this.

Consider yourself corrected, I do understand why the 2nd amendment was written and what its point was. That doesn't mean I fully understand why people are so "hung up" on it, it's a mystery to me, that's kind of the point of this thread now.....even though that probably wasn't the intention when it was started.

The point of the law is that each state would have a non government controlled militia in the case of outside attack or government attack. It was meant to protect people from our own government and any government that would do us undue harm. Part of that law meant that the people had rights to the same weapons that the military has in case our government goes full retard and attacks the people. That was a very real worry in the past, it is in the fabric of our nation to distrust any unchecked power or power that is far stronger than us. It seems absurd now, but I'm sure no one anticipated WWII happening either.

It depends when you mean, I'm sure WW2 was probably anticipated to a point (TheYoungHistorian can help me here) but that's not your point.

When you say part of the law is that people had the same rights to the military, I have to ask, do you agree that's a good idea? I am going to come to this later, but when the amendment was written most guns were single loaded and could only be delivered as far as a horse could carry the holder. Nowadays, the military has drones, nuclear weapons, attack helicopters, assault rifles, grenades and all sorts. Do you think civilians have a right to that kind of fire power? And if so, how? How can you think that's a good idea?

In the past, the two oceans are what kept us safe, but that isn't going to be a factor anymore. The whole point of the amendment was to prevent tyranny and to prevent a foreign power from taking us over, the logic is that an armed people would fight against both and give something for invaders and government to fear pissing off.

You might argue the biggest military power in the world would suffice?

America is remarkable in that since its inception, there was always been a peaceful hand off of power. I can't think of another nation that could say the same. This is what protects us. It's also why you can't compare us to a place like Britain, we have different mentalities because our laws are different and our foundings were in different circumstances, we don't have that implicit trust in government. The founders weren't fucking idiots, they wanted the people to protect themselves from them and so that standing armies wouldn't rock them.

Again, this isn't about disarmament, this is about restrictions. While you may not trust your government completely, there are international laws now that do protect you. It seems less important in this world we live now to shoot each other just to prove you won't take shit from your government. You can throw "what ifs" in to the equation if you like, but that does nothing to make this situation less than ideal.

Knowing the above, that's part of why people are so damn resistant. It's sort of subconscious, they know it was for a very important reason that this amendment was made, but they rarely know exactly why. It's usually, 'For us to defend ourselves'. They never know from what they were meant to protect themselves FROM, but it was to defend themselves, it's a half correct answer.

Unfortunately this is a big problem. "For us to defend ourselves against something" leaves you looking everywhere for what it is you are supposed to be defending yourself against. "For us to defend ourselves against invasion or our own government should they ever choose to go batshit" leaves you with a very direct understanding of why you need a weapon. I hope this makes sense. Basically if you give someone a gun or allow them to have a gun, their first thought (well, after "cool") would be "why do I need a gun"? If it isn't completely transparent as to why they do, they are going to make their own reasoning. People are unfortunately, on the whole, quite stupid. It is dangerous to give them powerful weapons and say "choose your own enemy". The majority of the time, it is any arbitrary group on the radar, anyone they may have a slight problem with. Be it atheists, abortionists, homosexuals, people with red hair, muslims, christians whatever. Do you see why this is dangerous?

So to say it's silly hicks being hicks about guns is ignorant in itself, it's ignorant of our government and our mentality and to judge us based on that ignorance is in itself worthy of being criticized.

I don't think I have ever said that.

Basically, y'all motherfuckers

Me and my Mother have a perfectly platonic relationship.

don't know what you're talking about and acting as if you are. Cut that shit out.

You haven't shown that to be true yet.

And I know, someone is going to argue this point, 'The founding times were in the 1700s, that can't be relevant now'; you would be surprised how long things stay relevant.

I said that waving a piece of paper around is a bad argument because that doesn't show anything, it just means it was relevant 300 years ago.

I made a convincing case that the Archaic Greek society, something that was 4000 - 5000 years ago, is still affecting our society today. 300 years ain't shit based on time and relevance, the only thing that happened is that our interpretation of the law changed a bit to suit our modern society, but the original reason is still there.

You could have made a convincing case that rainbows are the farts of unicorns, it means precisely shit here. 300 years IS a lot of time when you look at the population density, the availability of weapons and ammunition and their power. These are big differences and saying that 300 years isn't along time doesn't do anything to change these factors. The truth of the matter is, 65% of all homicides in America are gun related, which is massive compared to any other country which doesn't sell rifles in supermarkets. This is a problem, and a very real solution is to restrict access to these kind of weapons. Like I have said before, disarmament isn't an option, but restrictions are. What was good enough for your founding fathers is not necessarily good enough for the society you live in now.

 

[australopithecus]

Basically, y'all motherfuckers don't know what you're talking about and acting as if you are. Cut that shit out.

Whilst I'm sure that was meant in jest; just don't.

 

[PAB]

It is dangerous to give them powerful weapons and say "choose your own enemy". The majority of the time, it is any arbitrary group on the radar, anyone they may have a slight problem with. Be it atheists, abortionists, homosexuals, people with red hair, muslims, christians whatever. Do you see why this is dangerous?

What hasn't been the subject of attention is the role and position of militias in the USA. Personally i would like to see the 2nd amendment executed in a way which puts more emphasis on public state militias rather than private gun ownership. But this could cause trouble too.

The Ludlow Massacre is an example of this, described by one commentator as the "deadliest strike in the history of the United States", a militia was used which lead to violent conflict and deaths of striking miners.

The nightmare is a politically motivated right wing militia who has as its targets non-christians, homosexuals, labour leaders and unions and any one they describe as a socialist or a progressive.

 

[Moky]

Consider yourself corrected, I do understand why the 2nd amendment was written and what its point was. That doesn't mean I fully understand why people are so "hung up" on it, it's a mystery to me, that's kind of the point of this thread now.....even though that probably wasn't the intention when it was started.

Hence my whole explanation, I was not arguing for or against, I was giving context that some people will lack if they don't understand the meanings behind the law or if they are not from this country. I can explain things without taking a side. The fact that you don't understand the hung up is evidence to me that you are arguing from a position that could be made stronger if you had the context behind WHY they are hung up along with making my point. You're trying to find an argument that isn't there, but I'll indulge you.

How can you think that's a good idea?

It's a perfect idea. Clearly.

While you may not trust your government completely, there are international laws now that do protect you.

International laws have not been very helpful recently in quelling of genocide and conflict.

People are unfortunately, on the whole, quite stupid.

I'd argue that this mentality is damaging in itself. The problem I have is pretty much what you outlined. People could get firearms without any extra training or understanding of why we are allowed to use them. Unfortunately, that also swings the other way and means that they don't understand why it's rational to give up firearms or to have more restrictions. It's a complicated situation for me because while I don't think the majority of people are not qualified to own firearms, I want to have a firearm due to past experience, and then I have this paradox and along with said paradox I need to figure out why I think I am qualified to have a firearm but no one else is, but I think I have the mentality that I just said was damaging thus creating this ugly circle.

I don't think I have ever said that.

Good for you. I hope you aren't thinking that whole post was meant just for you. It was meant to explain.

300 years IS a lot of time when you look at the population density, the availability of weapons and ammunition and their power.

Once again, that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about societal influences, in which 300 years is NOT a long time at all. My whole post was an explanation of the societal factors that would lead for people to get extremely defensive about guns. We're approaching two different ways and in two different methods. You clearly think everything here that does not outright agree with you is an attack which is slightly confusing because I made sure not to take sides in the post.

I didn't think anyone would find a argument for or against in that post.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Just wanted to post a link to an interesting article on the topic.

Gun control: The right to commit treason

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Frenger]

Greetings,

Just wanted to post a link to an interesting article on the topic.

Gun control: The right to commit treason

Kindest regards,

James

That was very interesting.

Thank you Dragan Glas.

 

[Frenger]

Hence my whole explanation, I was not arguing for or against, I was giving context that some people will lack if they don't understand the meanings behind the law or if they are not from this country. I can explain things without taking a side.

My apologies. I think the tone suggested you were arguing a particular point there, which I must have misread. Also, I suppose I found it slightly odd that someone was giving a fairly obvious history lesson.

 

[Moky]

You'd be surprised how many people don't understand what I explained and then said that America is full of stupid hicks because they don't understand the context. Most American's don't even understand the context.

 

[wswolf]

The belief that you are living in a western as the fastest and meanest gunslinger in the west, but they wouldn't be able to play cowboys if the gobermint toook thyer gawnS!

My wife had a good laugh over your description of her.

While your arguments on other subjects in these forums have been rational, your responses on this topic have been completely emotional.

You have dismissed the work of respected criminologists because their conclusions do not agree with your preconceptions. Your denial that they have any data makes it obvious that you have not as much as glanced through any of their books or even any reviews of their books. After I pointed out that Lott's website has links to his data you continued to deny that any data exists. And then you compare criminologists to creationists. If you had a reputation for credibility and honesty you have badly tarnished it with these sorts of statements.

You have conjured imaginary scenes to support your fixed idea that only people with guns commit crimes, and that killing them is the only way to stop their assaults. Apparently your knowledge of this subject comes only from cinematic fiction, video games and sensational news reports.

You ask for sources but when I cite them you respond not with criticism of their work but lines like this. "Unfortunately, what the "Historian" Joyce Lee Malcom says means nothing what so ever to me. It is nothing but an appeal to authority." Then you attempt to give lessons in English grammar that are completely wrong. In a compound sentence: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." the meaning is carried by the complete sentence, not the preceding sentence fragment. "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is a complete sentence and caries meaning. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is not a complete sentence and has no meaning on its own. Its meaning comes only in relation to the complete sentence.

And I say it again "guns can only be used to kill each other", and bringing examples where people have not been killed doesn't change the fact that guns have no other usage.

This sentence alone shows that you have abandoned logic and reason and argue from emotion alone.

You said that a madman obtained guns legally by killing his mother and inheriting them. You said that when someone bought guns and then illegally transferred them; the Columbine lunatics had obtained them legally. Then you called ME disingenuous.

Bull shit! How much easy can it be than to purchase a gun in a store like buying a TV?

Whether this nonsense was deliberate of the result of ignorance it is another strawman.

And it is an egregious false analogy to compare guns with drugs. However there is some truth to the fact that they cannot be absolutely stopped.

I did not compare drugs with guns. The analogy was about smuggling and meant to point out that smuggling guns is no more difficult smuggling drugs.

You are not looking at the big picture, that it will overall reduce murder.

Do you have a source or is this just another baseless assertion.

By advocating a gun-banning policy "with some minor consequences" that you admit will increase crime and human suffering in the short term so that in "the long run more people would be robber, extorted, assaulted, raped and killed than what would have happened otherwise" you are advocating human sacrifice. You are willing to have some of your fellow humans suffer terribly and unnecessarily for a hypothetical future benefit. Please be so kind as to keep your culture of human sacrifice to yourself. Or perhaps only "Americans as stereotypically short sighted baboons" reject the callous sacrifice of the innocent as unspeakably indecent.

Regards,
Wolf

 

[wswolf]

I appreciate there is a difference in the distinction between the two, however I see no distinction with their inappropriateness. I find guns inappropriate in general, let alone ones designed to kill en mass with ease.

Lacking time to compose my own, I lifted some of the following language from Jeff Snyder, Nation of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control, Accurate Press, St. Louis, Missouri, 2001.

I must respectfully disagree that owning a gun is not a basic human right. The derivation of the right to keep and bear arms is simply stated.
1. Each individual owns his/her life, or has a right to his/her life.
2. The right to life necessarily implies that the individual has a right to protect or defend that life.
3. The right to defend one's life is meaningless unless that right includes the means necessary to maintain it.
4. Since the right to life implies a right to the means to protect that life, the individual's right to his/her own life necessarily implies a right to keep and bear arms suitable for self-defense.
5. A government of a free people is instituted, as it says in the American Declaration of Independence, only with the consent of the governed, in order to secure each person's right to life. Such a government must, therefore, recognize the right of the people to keep and bear their private arms for defense.

I don't want to get sidetracked onto health care but anyone with the means to discourage rape or other violent assaults may not require as much health care.

I appreciate there is a difference in the distinction between the two, however I see no distinction with their inappropriateness. I find guns inappropriate in general, let alone ones designed to kill en mass with ease.

I discussed the utility of military-style semi-automatics in an earlier post. Once again we see the cultural gap between someone with a liberal European background and a hick from rural Montana where in many areas guns remain everyday tools for protecting people and livestock, for putting meat on the table; where children are taught gun safety rules at a very young age. I find unfathomable the idea that it is inappropriate for law-abiding people to have the means to save themselves from murder, rape, assault, etc.

I'd agree, anyone outside of the armed forces or police should be denied the use of any automatic or semi-automatic fire arm.

Law enforcement officers, like law-abiding citizens, may only use lethal force in defense of themselves or others or be in violation of criminal law. This demonstrates that you understand the weapons' legitimate utility for defense of home, community and nation. It also shows that you understand that the responsible use of firearms depends on the purpose and character of the person who wields the weapon.

They are not a vital tool for self defense, not by any stretch of the imagination.

They are not vital in all circumstances but could provide a defender an advantage over any alternatives in some circumstances. Even if the advantage is slight the law-abiding should not be denied the best possible emergency-survival equipment.

Regards,
Wolf

 

[australopithecus]

I must respectfully disagree that owning a gun is not a basic human right. The derivation of the right to keep and bear arms is simply stated.
1. Each individual owns his/her life, or has a right to his/her life.
2. The right to life necessarily implies that the individual has a right to protect or defend that life.
3. The right to defend one's life is meaningless unless that right includes the means necessary to maintain it.
4. Since the right to life implies a right to the means to protect that life, the individual's right to his/her own life necessarily implies a right to keep and bear arms suitable for self-defense.
5. A government of a free people is instituted, as it says in the American Declaration of Independence, only with the consent of the governed, in order to secure each person's right to life. Such a government must, therefore, recognize the right of the people to keep and bear their private arms for defense.

Non of the above necessitates gun ownership, nor dot hey justify gun ownership as a right.

I don't want to get sidetracked onto health care but anyone with the means to discourage rape or other violent assaults may not require as much health care.

Utter nonsense.

I discussed the utility of military-style semi-automatics in an earlier post. Once again we see the cultural gap between someone with a liberal European background and a hick from rural Montana where in many areas guns remain everyday tools for protecting people and livestock, for putting meat on the table; where children are taught gun safety rules at a very young age. I find unfathomable the idea that it is inappropriate for law-abiding people to have the means to save themselves from murder, rape, assault, etc.

I find it unfathomable that people want to own something that has only one purpose; to kill. Besides, there are other "means" to save ones self from those things, other than guns.

Law enforcement officers, like law-abiding citizens, may only use lethal force in defense of themselves or others or be in violation of criminal law. This demonstrates that you understand the weapons' legitimate utility for defense of home, community and nation. It also shows that you understand that the responsible use of firearms depends on the purpose and character of the person who wields the weapon.

How many law abiding citizens have broken the law by shooting someone? Being law abiding doesn't mean a thing, every criminal was law abiding to a point. It's not a badge of any merit.

They are not vital in all circumstances but could provide a defender an advantage over any alternatives in some circumstances. Even if the advantage is slight the law-abiding should not be denied the best possible emergency-survival equipment.

Why stop at semi-autos then? Surely a grenade launcher would provide a bigger advantage. Maybe weaponised sarin gas.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Let me make you a simple diagram of the issue.
Here is what a correct statistic would look like.
Let us say that the total amount of people in US is "Pt"
Those can be put into 3 categories.
No users, Gn:
Responsible gun users, Gr:
Irresponsible gun users (includes criminals), Gi:
And it will be responsible to affect the following relations:
Gn with no relation to Gi, Gn who get killed by Gi, Gn who are not killed by Gi
Gr whit no relation to Gi, Gr who get killed by Gi, Gr who are not killed by Gi even if it was Gn, Gr who are not killed by Gi because they are Gr.
(note Gn+Gr+Gi=Pt)
The following can happen:
1. Gr+Gn no event- Nn
2. Criminals, no matter dead or living- Cr
3. Unjustifiably killed (Gr or Gn) - Ku
4. Owns a gun and stopped a crime but nothing would have happened irrespective - Sn
5. Owns a gun, stopped a crime and lived because of it, Ss
6. Does not own a gun and it is a victim of crime without grave consequences - Qn

Let's say that for the sake of argument that the weapon distribution in US with a open acess to guns is as follows:
Gn: A
Gr: B
Gi: C
Let's say that Gi always meets Gn or Gr, and that this happens randomly.
Therefore statistically
Gi->Gn=C*A/(A+B)
Gi->Gr=C*B/(A+B)
Let's say that statistically Gi will want to kill with a ration "k", and that Gr is able be successful to defend themselves with a ratio "s".
So:
Nn1=A+B-C
Cr1=C
Ku1=k*C*A/(A+B)+k*(1-s)*C*B/(A+B)=k*C*[1-s*B/(A+B)]
Sn1=(1-k)*s*C*B/(B+A)
Ss1=k*s*C*B/(B+A)
Sn1+Ss1=s*C*B/(B+A)
Qn1=(1-k)*C*A/(A+B)

Let us observe the consequences of gun restrictions, let's say that it is 100% effective at eliminating guns from responsible users but only "u" effective at removing them from irresponsible users. Let us also assume that this also provokes an enticement of a factor "v" in crime.
Gn: A+B+(1-u)*C
Gr: 0
Gi: u*C
So:
Nn2=A+B+u*C-(1-u)*C*v= A+B+C*[u+uv-v]
Cr2=C*(1-u)
Ku2=v*k*C*(1-u)
Sn2=0
Ss2=0
Qn2=(1-k)*C*(1-u)*v
Ku1-Ku2= k*C*[1-s*B/(A+B)]-v*k*C*(1-u)=k*C*[1+u*v-v-s*B/(A+B)]
While you are arguing that Sn1+Ss1>Sn2+Ss2, what I am arguing is Ku2<Ku1 which happens if 1+u*v>v+s*B/(A+B) i.e. 1+(u-1)*v>s*B/(A+B)
While you argue that the way to go is A over B, it is important to note that the maximum contribution it can give is "s", while what I argue for is that "u" plays a much more significant role. "B/(A+B)" and "u" are not independent, the bigger the "B/(A+B)" the bigger the "u".
There is a third element at paly here, that is the "v" portion of it.
Let us put some figures.
Let us say that you have 50% of successfully defending yourself with a gun (s=0.5)
Even though it is a bad estimate, let's assume that the ration of gun ownership is 88% (it is not, it is actually closer to 40%; B/(A+B)=0.88).
Let us say that the effectiveness of gun removal is about 50% (u=0.5)
With this rate, you need an incitement to crime v>1,2 in order for your argument of more guns =less murders to work. If gun removal is 80% effective, then v>3 (i.e. criminals would need to be 3 times more likely to commit crimes).
For comparison let see what happens when B/(A+B)=1, =0.4 and =0
v>2,5 , v>4 and v>5 respectively.

So how would this apply to crimes and mass shootings?
Well, for me to prove my point all I have to do is to demonstrate that:
1. "u" >>50%
2. "v" is small (i.e. closer to 1).
So let's see "u". FBI statistics
There were a total of 8,583 firearm deaths, 3,586 of which have an unknown reason and 925 have an unspecified reason. Of the remaining only 1,313 are associated to felony, let's add an extra 620 for non-felony but gang related (i.e.1933). There are 2,139 deaths related to brawls, romantic triangles and arguments in general.
Even if gun laws were 0% effective in removing guns from the hands of hard criminals, "u" would still be at least 53%, if it is 20% effective "u" is about 62%, effectiveness of 50% means "u"=76%, efectiv. 75% "u"=88%, effect. 90% "u"=95%
So point 1 is proven.
For point 2 it is harder to prove because there are no statistics. But I argue that it should by default be close 1 given the following points:
1. For otherwise you would have to argue that the only reason people don't commit crimes is because other people might have guns
2. For otherwise you would have to demonstrate that people owning a gun goes through the taught process of the criminal, serving more often than not as a deterrent (25% for v=1,33; 50% for v=2; 75% for v=4).
3. Taking as example school shootings like Virginia tech, Newtown, Columbine. They all have in common that the perpetrators committed suicide, i.e. they already expected to be dead by the end of it and thus the threat of dead by an armed "good guy" did not play a factor in committing those crimes (i.e. v=1 even if they were able to have access to guns through the black market).

Your move.