quote:I hate people who think we can solve violence by disarming citizens.
Synesthesia
quote:And how the heck does gun control benefit criminals?
Stone_Wolf_
quote:Okay, follow me on this one, if you make a law banning guns, only law abiding citizens will follow it.
Two actual events come to mind. In New York a crazy person decided to kill a subway train full of people, several brave people rushed him, most of them died, but eventually someone wrestled him down, while he was reloading. Something like 12 dead, 6 hurt. If a single one of them had had a gun, it would have been over.
Example two. A citizen in Texas was carrying a concealed gun illegally. He goes into a bank, and a couple of robbers enter after him. He does nothing. The robbers announce "We are going to kill everyone!" The man carrying illegally pulls out his gun and shoots the robbers dead. The local police give him a medal for bravery.
TomDavidson
quote: Ooo! I certainly hope they also fined him for illegally carrying into a bank.
Stone_Wolf_
quote:Nope!
BlackBlade
quote:Ok Stone, nobody has ever said that disarming people would be a bloodless easy way to solve violent crime.
All Ill say is the instances where a citizen carrying stopped blood shed is dwarved by situations where simply not being able to get to a gun under normal circumstances would have prevented that same blood shed.
Though there are other factors involved I invite you to find a country where the population is not allowed to carry and compare their violent crime and criminal mortality rates with ours. I'd be interested if you found anybody who was remotely close to us.
Stone_Wolf_
quote: quote:England and Wales
Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997.
Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased.
Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States.
quote:Australia
The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997. However, the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise – for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.
The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms has cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of the police services bureaucracy, including the costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997.
Source.
quote: * New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
* In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.
* In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.
Source.
Guns are tools. Tools for killing, yes. But let's face it, sometimes you just need to kill someone, and that someone is a bad guy trying to hurt you or your family.
Criminals do not get their firearms legally. If you restrict upright citizens from getting guns, you enpower criminals.
Synesthesia
quote:I'm not sure if this is the case, I think reasonable gun control isn't a bad thing, keeping guns out of the hands of ex-cons and people who are mentally unstable, not to mention limiting the kinds of guns people can have. You got to have middle ground.
Stone_Wolf_
quote:Oh yea, reasonable gun control is all good. There isn't a good reason for me to own a grenade launcher...and I'm okay with that (shut up inner child, you can not have a granade launcher). Restricting firearm ownership to those without menal illness or a criminal record is good too.
My point is make sure the good guys have guns too.
*whew* That was a pain. But now we are up to date and ready to start ripping eachother's guts out.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Just because criminals don't follow laws is not a good enough justification to not make them, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If a law won't accomplish what it is desined to accomplish, that's a pretty good justification to not make it, IMO.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I suspect that gun control is not actually designed to keep guns out of the hands of hardened criminals, Porter.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Just contributing a bit, no time to write more, but I likely will later:
quote:In an unpublished report, engineering statistician William Sturdevant found that concealed carry licensees had arrest rates far lower than the general population for every category of crime. For instance:
Licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public - 127 per 100,000 population versus 730 per 100,000.
Licensees were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than the general public - 386 per 100,000 population versus 5,212 per 100,000.
Further, the general public is 1.4 times more likely to be arrested for murder than licensees [see Figure I], and no licensee had been arrested for negligent manslaughter.
quote:In More Guns, Less Crime (1998), the University of Chicago's John Lott examined the impact of concealed carry permits. Using data from all 3,054 U.S. counties between 1977 and 1992, he found that after controlling for other factors:
Concealed handgun laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent. [See Figure II.]
Had right-to-carry prevailed throughout the country, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults. These reductions are beyond the general decline in crime rates that the U.S. has experienced during the past eight years.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I suspect that gun control is not actually designed to keep guns out of the hands of hardened criminals, Porter.
So, if gun control is not designed to keep criminals from having guns, what is it designed for?
That feeds into StoneWolf's point - if gun control is to limit the number of guns among law abiding citizens, you're consolidating all the guns in the hands of criminals.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I suspect that gun control is not actually designed to keep guns out of the hands of hardened criminals, Porter.
That's certainly one of the stated reasons.
However, I share your suspicion.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Gun laws shouldn't exist to fight professional criminals. Gun laws should exist to stop otherwise upright citizens from being in situations where they are likely to make an extremely serious mistake - for instance, using a firearm in a fit of rage, or killing someone they think is an intruder, or leaving a firearm where children can get it, etc.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I suspect that gun control is not actually designed to keep guns out of the hands of hardened criminals, Porter.
Presumably, the goal of gun control would be to reduce violence.
Perhaps this is something that we should at least try to agree on before we get into whether or not gun control is a good thing. If we can't even agree on what the point of gun control would be, I don't see how we can reasonably discuss the merits of it.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:for instance, using a firearm in a fit of rage, or killing someone they think is an intruder, or leaving a firearm where children can get it, etc.
- In a fit of rage, you can kill people with a lot more than a gun. A car, for instance, works pretty well.
- A baseball bat, crowbar or kitchen knife can kill suspected intruders, too, but we don't ban those.
- Leaving electric appliances near bathtubs, leaving toxic chemicals (drano, rat poison) in easy reach, letting infants play on balconies, etc, etc, etc... can also lead to child death. We don't ban these, we just caution parents to avoid such situations. Responsible parents keep dangerous things away from their children, and responsible gun-owning parents are no different.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Presumably, the goal of gun control would be to reduce violence.
We also need to agree on what the word "violence" means, since apparently just about everybody disagrees with me on what the word means, even though I've never been given an answer about what they word means to them.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Cars, baseball bats, crowbars, kitchen knifes, electric appliances, chemicals, etc. are all useful for other things. At best, the only other reasonable use for a gun is hunting.
We DO ban other things that have little use besides enticing people to make serious life-destroying mistakes - drugs, bombs, child pornography, etc. The list is probably fairly long.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
About accidental firearm deaths:
quote:But gun accidents in recent years have killed fewer children under 15 than bicycles. In 1997, two hundred kids were killed by bike accidents compared to a hundred and forty-two by firearms accidents. But two-thousand, nine hundred children under fifteen died in automobile accidents.
If we want to reduce accidental deaths of children, it obviously would make more sense to spend the money on measures that will reduce car accidents, not gun accidents, because car accidents kill twenty times as many children.
The article is kinda old, but the point is still valid.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
It would be nice if there were a simple way to tell the good guys from the bad guys so we would know who to give guns to.
The questions which is more likely to happen. Joe and his concealed gun are in a murderous robbery situation where by shooting the "bad guys" he saves the lives of others, or Joe and his concealed gun accidently kills an innocent bystander, or Joe gets in a fit of rage and his ready access to a gun allows him to kill and wound more people than he would have with other handy household products.
Unfortunately, most studies on this have been contaminated by either the pro or anti gun lobbies.
However, the calls of most Gun Control people is for more rational than the calls of most NRA supporters. NRA has a fanatical slippery slope argument, that by limiting in any way, any gun will eventually lead to the enslavement of the American people. This fanaticism makes me doubt most of their arguments that may be reasonable.
Take the subway incident described above. One bad man with a gun on a sub-way kills 12 people before the mob stops him. However if one of the people would have had a gun, then they would have been able to kill that bad guy and save most of those 12 lives.
However, the NRA supports fully automatic weapons being available to all people. If Joe on the subway would have had an automatic weapon, and sprayed the area of the bad-man, how many other people, in that car, in the car behind the bad man, perhaps waiting outside in the tunnel, would have been killed.
And if you see one man spraying bullets in a subway car, do you do the logical thing and shoot him in self defence? Do we get a chain of shootings each thinking they are shooting a madman, but each in turn actually shooting a shooter?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:- In a fit of rage, you can kill people with a lot more than a gun. A car, for instance, works pretty well.
- A baseball bat, crowbar or kitchen knife can kill suspected intruders, too, but we don't ban those.
- Leaving electric appliances near bathtubs, leaving toxic chemicals (drano, rat poison) in easy reach, letting infants play on balconies, etc, etc, etc... can also lead to child death. We don't ban these, we just caution parents to avoid such situations. Responsible parents keep dangerous things away from their children, and responsible gun-owning parents are no different.
Ah yes, the old "but other stuff can kill, too" slippery-slope argument. The Godwin's law of gun-control threads.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:However, the calls of most Gun Control people is for more rational than the calls of most NRA supporters. NRA has a fanatical slippery slope argument, that by limiting in any way, any gun will eventually lead to the enslavement of the American people. This fanaticism makes me doubt most of their arguments that may be reasonable.
I've heard several of the arguments given here from NRA supporters, and none of the arguments here are fanatical at all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Ah yes, the old "but other stuff can kill, too" slippery-slope argument. The Godwin's law of gun-control threads.
If one of the stated purposes of gun-control laws is to prevent unnecessary deaths, and a host of other things cause unnecessary deaths, then clearly those same people should be examining those other things seriously as well, in support of their stated purpose.
It's not really a slippery-slope argument, because it's a valid point and one which gun-control proponents don't really want to address because it means admitting, "We're willing to accept these number of violent unnecessary deaths without making a law against the items involved."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Ah yes, the old "but other stuff can kill, too" slippery-slope argument. The Godwin's law of gun-control threads.
Actually, it's an important part of the debate, even though it is often stated in doomsday-esque slippery-slope terms.
If we're getting rid of firearms because they do X, but product Y also does X, why don't we want to get rid of Y?
There are good answers and bad answers to this question, with varying levels of persuasion for members of both sides of the fence.
But claiming that the issue itself is the Godwin's law of gun-control threads is itself as condusive to disussion as invoking the real Godwin's law.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Ah yes, the old "but other stuff can kill, too" slippery-slope argument. The Godwin's law of gun-control threads.
Only prompted by the "we need to ban guns because of accidents" equally silly argument.
quote:At best, the only other reasonable use for a gun is hunting.
Actually, I've never hunted. I have shot skeet and other stationary targets. This is normally a Memorial Day and Labor Day pasttime at a friend's property in Pennsylvania, along with axe throwing and archery (neither the axes or bows have the same restrictions as the guns).
By contrast, I have absolutely no interest in baseball. A baseball bat, to me, has little use other than self defense. A gun has far more enjoyment value, and doubles as a personal safety device when not being used at a range.
(As an aside, I wouldn't use a baseball bat for home defense. We have far more stage combat and show swords, daggers and axes adorning our walls to need such sporting equipment. Just by looking in the window at the walls, I'd imagine a burglar would think twice about entering if anyone was home.)
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If we're getting rid of firearms because they do X, but product Y also does X, why don't we want to get rid of Y?
Whenever I hear that argument, it just strikes me as someone trying to change the subject. I always come back with "You're right, Y does X. But we're not talking about Y. We'll talk about Y later. Let's deal with firearms now."
(Oh, and just as a note, I don't think mph was actually making that argument, although my response seems aimed at him. )
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
FlyingCow, I just have to say cheers to someone else who has swords adorning their walls. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:But claiming that the issue itself is the Godwin's law of gun-control threads is itself as condusive to disussion as invoking the real Godwin's law.
Obviously, I disagree.
quote:Only prompted by the "we need to ban guns because of accidents" equally silly argument.
I agree that "guns can accidentally hurt people, too" is a silly argument as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:However, the calls of most Gun Control people is for more rational than the calls of most NRA supporters.
Dan, do you think that's a fair comparison, comparing the supporters of a particular organization to the entire universe of gun control supporters? Why not limit your comparison to people with the same level of participation in the issue?
The so-called "assault weapon" ban is proof enough of the irrationality of a segment of the gun control universe.
quote:Whenever I hear that argument, it just strikes me as someone trying to change the subject. I always come back with "You're right, Y does X. But we're not talking about Y. We'll talk about Y later. Let's deal with firearms now."
That would be a legitimate response if the reasoning used to support gun control didn't rely on overbroad arguments that can also be applied to other types of dangerous items.
Especially when that reasoning is used to support paternalism, which in this case, it clearly was.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:But claiming that the issue itself is the Godwin's law of gun-control threads is itself as condusive to disussion as invoking the real Godwin's law.
Obviously, I disagree.
By labeling an issue as Godwin's Law, you are trying to shut down all conversation on that issue.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Whenever I hear that argument, it just strikes me as someone trying to change the subject. I always come back with "You're right, Y does X. But we're not talking about Y. We'll talk about Y later. Let's deal with firearms now."
By refusing to discuss the issue, it often looks like the gun-control proponents have something to hide, as if they don't want to discuss it for feat that it will be shown that their real reasons for wanting to ban guns aren't the reasons they've stated at all.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:We DO ban other things that have little use besides enticing people to make serious life-destroying mistakes
Have you ever been in a situation where you needed a gun? I'll bet you haven't. There are good reasons to have a gun. Cops show up after an incident and draw white lines around dead bodies and try and figgure out who did it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Have you ever been in a situation where you needed a gun? I'll bet you haven't.
Let's try to avoid personal attacks, OK?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Here's Tres's original post on the purpose of gun control:
quote:Gun laws shouldn't exist to fight professional criminals. Gun laws should exist to stop otherwise upright citizens from being in situations where they are likely to make an extremely serious mistake - for instance, using a firearm in a fit of rage, or killing someone they think is an intruder, or leaving a firearm where children can get it, etc.
Note that there isn't even an attempt to balance the uses of guns v. the "extremely serious mistakes" that can be made by those who possess guns.
FC's post, which you labeled as a Godwin, spurred Tres to start at least acknowledging that danger is only half the equation when trying to determine if something should be banned to protect people from their own and others' mistakes.
By introducing "At best, the only other reasonable use for a gun is hunting" Tres has identified a fruitful ground for discussion - the uses of guns and whether they are worth the risk. He did so in response to FC's post, which is pretty good evidence that FC's post was a net plus for discussion.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:By contrast, I have absolutely no interest in baseball. A baseball bat, to me, has little use other than self defense. A gun has far more enjoyment value, and doubles as a personal safety device when not being used at a range.
If you don't play any baseball, and if owning a baseball bat would make you inclined to use it to kill someone with it if you were in certain possible situations, then I'd suggest you should not buy a baseball bat. However, for the average American, I think baseball bats are used far far more often for the purpose of playing baseball than they are used for the purpose of killing people. That's my guess, based on personal observation.
Furthermore, if you want to bash someone's head in, other objects work exactly the same as baseball bats. You'd have to ban all hard pieces of material that can be held in the hand. So, I don't think it would make any sense to ban baseball bats in the way you might ban guns.
There is no principle that "all dangerous things should be banned". That's not the argument. The argument is that it is a cost-benefit analysis. If the costs of having guns are much higher than the benefits they provide, then it might make sense to ban them. Some dangerous things are worth the risk that comes with them. Others are not.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:baseball bats are used far far more often for the purpose of playing baseball than they are used for the purpose of killing people.
Guns are certainly used for non-killing purposes far more often than they are used for the purpose of killing, too.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:There is no principle that "all dangerous things should be banned". That's not the argument. The argument is that it is a cost-benefit analysis. If the costs of having guns are much higher than the benefits they provide, then it might make sense to ban them. Some dangerous things are worth the risk that comes with them. Others are not.
This makes a lot of sense, and I agree.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Stone Wolf, your examples of U.K. and Australia are interesting. How do you reconcile them with the example of Canada?
Added:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:baseball bats are used far far more often for the purpose of playing baseball than they are used for the purpose of killing people.
Guns are certainly used for non-killing purposes far more often than they are used for the purpose of killing, too.
I doubt the ratios are comparable, though.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:However, the calls of most Gun Control people is for more rational than the calls of most NRA supporters. NRA has a fanatical slippery slope argument, that by limiting in any way, any gun will eventually lead to the enslavement of the American people. This fanaticism makes me doubt most of their arguments that may be reasonable.
I guess I'm fanatical, then, because I DO believe that a major reason we should have guns is to protect against a tyrranical government, whether one that springs up from within our current government or forced on us from without. I absolutely believe it is possible, and I think most Americans are too complacent because they don't think it is possible. History has taught us that it certainly IS possible. And I think it's less possible with a well-armed populace.
Do I think banning guns could cause serious trouble for our nation (or any nation) in the future? You bet I do. Governments change and democracy can be undermined or overthrown. Guns mean citizens can fight back better than they could with non-gun methods.
Sure, I also think that protecting against criminals is a good reason to allow guns, but a fundamental reason is protection against tyrranical government. Call me fanatical if you want, but I'm surprised that the only person to bring up this argument is someone dismissing it as fanatical.
Am I truly alone in feeling this way? Do you all trust your government that much?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I doubt the ratios are comparable, though.
No, but Tres has continuously on this thread misrepresented the other side of his cost-benefit analysis.
The incidents that will weigh on the gun question are far more serious with far greater effects - on both sides of the analysis. The misuse of guns creates far worse effects, taken as a whole. The use of a gun for defense - which, it should be noted, does NOT require actual physical harm to occur to the aggressor in most instances - can have a far greater effect than a baseball game.
I expect the recreational use of guns is as prevalent as the recreational use of baseball bats (not counting spectators in the equation), for that matter, although I'm guessing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Then I have no idea what the purpose could be.
edit: this was in response to post which has since been deleted.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:By labeling an issue as Godwin's Law, you are trying to shut down all conversation on that issue.
It's not the phrase "Godwin's law" that shuts down discussion, it's the actual act of bringing up Hitler (the invocation of the law). I know you can see the difference. My intent was to show that, for me, posts like FC's usually signalled the end of the discussion, not the beginning. I was being flip.
Whether or not that's a universal truth, I don't know. Not that his (FC's) was in an invalid point, just that every post since has followed the predictable path that ends with different people being unable to decide on acceptable definitions of 'harm' and different (and, imo, irreconcilable) cost/benefit ratios.
I'd rather you not dictate my motives to me.
edit -- sorry, I deleted because I was just going to drop it, but then I thought I might be able to clarify it enough to make it worth it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:every post since has followed the predictable path that ends with different people being unable to decide on acceptable definitions of 'harm' and different (and, imo, irreconcilable) cost/benefit ratios.
That's what discussion is. One could just as easily say that once someone mentions the harm caused by guns without even hinting that there are any benefits discussion shuts down.
The fact is that this issue turns upon the definition of "harm" and the cost/benefit ratios. If we're discussing this issue, then we're discussing those things. It's not clear to me what you think a discussion about gun control should be like if those two topics signal the end of discussion.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Thanks for your explination, JT. I apologize for jumping to conclusions.
As is apparent in my other posts, I do think it can be the starting point for a productive discussion.
I also think that calling "Goodwin's Law!" can be almost as effect at shutting down productive conversation as calling "Nazi!". However, I do believe you that this wasn't your intent.
Let me also point out that I never intended to dictate your motivations, only to describe them, as I perceived them. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain:
quote:However, the calls of most Gun Control people is for more rational than the calls of most NRA supporters. NRA has a fanatical slippery slope argument, that by limiting in any way, any gun will eventually lead to the enslavement of the American people. This fanaticism makes me doubt most of their arguments that may be reasonable.
I guess I'm fanatical, then, because I DO believe that a major reason we should have guns is to protect against a tyrranical government, whether one that springs up from within our current government or forced on us from without. I absolutely believe it is possible, and I think most Americans are too complacent because they don't think it is possible. History has taught us that it certainly IS possible. And I think it's less possible with a well-armed populace.
Do I think banning guns could cause serious trouble for our nation (or any nation) in the future? You bet I do. Governments change and democracy can be undermined or overthrown. Guns mean citizens can fight back better than they could with non-gun methods.
Sure, I also think that protecting against criminals is a good reason to allow guns, but a fundamental reason is protection against tyrranical government. Call me fanatical if you want, but I'm surprised that the only person to bring up this argument is someone dismissing it as fanatical.
Am I truly alone in feeling this way? Do you all trust your government that much?
I think it's possible in the same vein of thought that I think it's possible the Stargate program might actually be real, except I think the latter is more likely than the former.
We know it has happened before in countries where a tyranny already existed. Who can point to a nation FOUNDED on democracy that has fallen prey to a tyrannical government and done nothing to stop them? I think the closest comparison you could find is Rome itself, but even then comparing a 2,000 year old classical empire with a modern day nation state has too many problems to be a real point, imo.
I don't think American citizens need Uzis and grenade launchers to protect against a government being too powerful. I like the argument much better that weapons make an invasion unlikely (I mean, good luck to the Chinese trying to punch through LA), but imagine who would be the enforcement arm of the government. Should an overpowering government take over, they'd have to use the army, an all volunteer army made up of a free citizenry, to enforce their policies. I think before it ever came to a government using force against the people, the people would have rebelled against the political institutions driving us there.
I think our government fears the people as much as we fear the government. And when something clearly makes the people angry, change is effected in the government. For things to get as serious as they would need to be for an armed insurrection, democracy will have needed to fail already, and I have a hard time imagining that in the near future, and anything beyond the near future is wild speculation.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:It's not clear to me what you think a discussion about gun control should be like if those two topics signal the end of discussion.
It's not like I control the discussion. That's why I included two key words in that sentence you're paraphasing. Two important ones, too -- "for me".
I see your point, and I agree that there is value in attempting to hammer out acceptable definitions of 'harm' and CBA's. But I never said otherwise.
quote:Let me also point out that I never intended to dictate your motivations, only to describe them.
Poor word choice on my part. It's wasn't that you were describing my motives that irked me so much as the unequivocal way you described them. Because I wasn't even sure of them until you called them into question -- I had to stop and think of what I was trying to convey.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The use of a gun for defense - which, it should be noted, does NOT require actual physical harm to occur to the aggressor in most instances - can have a far greater effect than a baseball game.
Part of the disagreement is that I consider the use of a gun for defense to be a cost, NOT a benefit of guns. This is because, unless there truly was no other option but to kill the attacker, and unless the attacker was definitely going to kill someone, I think it is a bad thing if that attacker gets killed, not a good thing. To the law, at least, the life of the attacker should be worth the same as the lives of any possible victims. Hence the government should be taking precautions to prevent people from shooting others in self-defense in most cases, not working to allow them to do so.
The use of a gun as a nonviolent deterrent complicates matters, though. You can deter crime without ever firing a shot, by threatening to shoot someone. Is it okay to threaten to do something wrong in order to protect yourself, if you actually have no intention of doing it? Is it okay to have a gun in the house if you own no bullets, and thus could not actually kill anyone with it? I would say yes, to some degree. The question then becomes: Is that threat enough of a deterrent in most cases to warrant uneccessary deaths in a few cases?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think that some gun control is needed. You can't let people do whatever they want to do. A person who has a restraining order on them has no business being able to get a gun, nor does a person with a history of depression and suicide. I also think teenagers should not be allowed guns even with parents to supervise them and people who are fresh out of jail. Though pro-gun people may argue that such people could always get a gun from the back of a truck on the side of the road where as a person who just wants to protect their home or business cannot get a gun from a gun shop or they might have to wait a week and be scrutinized.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Part of the disagreement is that I consider the use of a gun for defense to be a cost, NOT a benefit of guns. This is because, unless there truly was no other option but to kill the attacker, and unless the attacker was definitely going to kill someone, I think it is a bad thing if that attacker gets killed, not a good thing.
Again, successful defense is far more common without the gun being fired. If I pick up a baseball bat, many aggressors would think they could still take me and might try. If I have a gun, most won't unless they have a gun. Guns are most effective against non-gun wielding assailants.
quote:To the law, at least, the life of the attacker should be worth the same as the lives of any possible victims.
So you oppose a self-defense exception to homicide?
quote:The use of a gun as a nonviolent deterrent complicates matters, though. You can deter crime without ever firing a shot, by threatening to shoot someone. Is it okay to threaten to do something wrong in order to protect yourself, if you actually have no intention of doing it?
I think it's morally OK, but it's dumb unless one happens to be a very rare sort of actor.
We fundamentally disagree about the shooting in self defense thing, and I'm not sure I have the time to delve into it. But I can give at least as much detail as you have and we can see where it goes from there:
I think it is immoral to tell someone facing an aggressor attmepting to do them physical harm that it is illegal to use deadly force to defend oneself if there is no other choice that avoids the physical harm to the non-aggressor. This, to me, is a clear moral premise. It gets fuzzy in determining the how all those facts are measured, but I think there are enough cases with enough surety to that a blanket ban is utterly immoral.
As to measuring the threat, I think we are entitled to take an aggressor at his word. If he says, "I'm going to kill you," and there's reason to believe him physically capable of it, then the threat exists at a sufficient level to move to the next stage of the inquiry - is the force necessary?
This is far fuzzier. Suppose the victim is backed against a dead end wall too sheer and high to climb. The victim pulls the gun and announces, "If you don't stop approaching me, I will shoot you." If the assailant continues to advance, waving his knife threateningly, then shooting is justified at some time before the assailant enters knife range.
Most cases will be less clear. That doesn't relieve the law of the moral duty to not abrogate the right to defend oneself from an aggressor.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wonder about the analogies you can draw between nuclear proliferation and gun control.
I would guess that no one here wants to have a nuclear Iran, but if we enacted the gun control position of most pro-Gun people on a world stage, Iran would have to be allowed to have it. If the argument, or at least, AN argument, for increased ownership of guns is that if everyone had one, then it'd be a lot harder for criminals to get away with gun crimes. So if everyone had a nuke, it'd be a lot harder for anyone to use one and not expect retaliation.
Away from that analogy, I'd think the numbers back up gun control people. If you look at the stats for Western nations with strict gun control laws, and even if you add them all together to equal something close to the US population, they still have only a tiny fraction of the amount of gun related deaths and crimes in their nations than we do here. How do you argue that gun control doesn't stop gun crimes when we have a pretty good example that it does, just across the ocean?
And if you look at American history, I don't think you'll see that wide availability of guns has stopped any measure of gun related crimes and deaths. The wild west was full of gunfights and was in general a lawless land for decades, and carrying a gun wasn't a ticket to safety. Cops are shot (probably every day or at least every week, I'd venture) on a regular basis, and everyone KNOWS they are armed and trained to use deadly force.
Why do we think that in the 21st century, everyone having a gun is going to make any of our problems go away?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Just as an aside, related to Tres' last point, I used to live in a not-so-great area of Buckhead in Atlanta. Several of the houses in the neighborhood had been broken into over the course of the previous couple of years before I moved in. (The only reason I moved there was because I could afford the rent, and was only staying for 5 months or so)
The owner of the house had a sign on the front and back doors that read: "I own a handgun and will use it to defend my home. Do not attempt unlawful entry."
He hadn't had a break-in his entire 15 years living there.
It was a visible deterrent, much like The Club.
quote:If you don't play any baseball, and if owning a baseball bat would make you inclined to use it to kill someone with it if you were in certain possible situations, then I'd suggest you should not buy a baseball bat.
The same can be said for guns. If you don't use them for enjoyment at a range, and owning one would make you inclined to use it to kill someone, then you shouldn't buy a gun.
However, that doesn't mean guns should be banned. Just that we should be encouraging more responsible ownership.
As so many of my opinions come back to, it is a matter of freedom vs. responsbility. I feel that people should have the freedom to own guns, but must then be responsible owners.
Those who are irresponsible should have consequences. Shooting someone is punishable by law, as is knifing someone. Leaving a gun on the kitchen table in easy reach of your child is actionable by youth and family services, as is leaving rat poison sprinkled on the floor with a toddler scurrying about.
Taking guns away won't make people more responsible on the whole. Those wishing to do harm will find a way - whether it's with a gun, a knife, or a baseball bat.
Blaming guns for crime is like blaming McDonalds for obesity. Banning one or the other won't solve either problem.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I would guess that no one here wants to have a nuclear Iran,
If I were Iran, I would definitely want a nuclear Iran.
quote:Why do we think that in the 21st century, everyone having a gun is going to make any of our problems go away?
That's unfair. Nobody has said any such thing.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Why do we think that in the 21st century, everyone having a gun is going to make any of our problems go away?
Why do we think that no one having a gun is going to make any of our problems go away?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Taking guns away won't make people more responsible on the whole. Those wishing to do harm will find a way - whether it's with a gun, a knife, or a baseball bat.
But the harm they'll be able to inflict will be much less, which is a good thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
mph -
If I were Iran, I certainly would too, I just think it's a curious argument to use for the freedom of gun sales at home, while ignoring the kind of danger that ideology poses.
quote:Okay, follow me on this one, if you make a law banning guns, only law abiding citizens will follow it.
Two actual events come to mind. In New York a crazy person decided to kill a subway train full of people, several brave people rushed him, most of them died, but eventually someone wrestled him down, while he was reloading. Something like 12 dead, 6 hurt. If a single one of them had had a gun, it would have been over.
Example two. A citizen in Texas was carrying a concealed gun illegally. He goes into a bank, and a couple of robbers enter after him. He does nothing. The robbers announce "We are going to kill everyone!" The man carrying illegally pulls out his gun and shoots the robbers dead. The local police give him a medal for bravery
I'm pretty sure that's an argument saying more guns in the hands of common people makes us safer from criminals.
FC -
I've already answered that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:Why do we think that in the 21st century, everyone having a gun is going to make any of our problems go away?
Why do we think that no one having a gun is going to make any of our problems go away?
You're appear to be trying awfully hard to make this thread devolve into the shouting of rhetoric.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Let me put my position on self-defense in this way - Imagine three situations:
Situation A: A victim's life is being threatened by an aggressor. The victim is your child.
Situation B: A victim's life is being threatened by an aggressor. The aggressor is your child.
Situation C: A victim's life is being threatened by an aggressor. Both the victim and aggressor are your children.
I think most people conceive of a self-defense situation as sort of like situation A. In that situation, I think most people would be okay with killing the aggressor to protect their child. However, in situation B, I think a significant number of people would consider it wrong of us to kill their child unless it was absolutely necessary.
The government, I think, is in situation C. It should care a lot about both the victim and the aggressor. However you'd approach that situation is how the law should try to approach self-defense.
[ November 28, 2006, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm pretty sure that's an argument saying more guns in the hands of common people makes us safer from criminals.
Which is very different from saying that any of our problems go away.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Assuming the aggressor is a child, with respect to the law of the land, takes a lot of the responsibility off the aggressor. We have a built in assumption that children shouldn't be held as responsible for their actions, the same can't be said for aggressive adults.
I'd still say to side with the defender, not the aggressor, and not to make no choice at all. The aggressor is still making a conscious decision to do something we've been trained since birth that it is wrong to do, and doing so comes with automatic consequences, and a forfeiture of safety.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I'm pretty sure that's an argument saying more guns in the hands of common people makes us safer from criminals.
Which is very different from saying that any of our problems go away.
Huh? Not being safe from criminals isn't a problem?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
First off I'd like to apologize if what I said was viewed as a personal attack. I did not mean it as one, but just a response to the idea that guns "have little use besides enticing people to make serious life-destroying mistakes".
As to ownership of guns and having to overthrow a tyrannical government, you are not alone Kat. The founding fathers knew that it might come to that, as it just had come to that. If citizens are armed then they can fight off invasion, they can throw off a government that has gone to far, defend themselves, live off the land by hunting and keep the country strong.
On the other hand Lyrhawn makes a good point. Our army is entirely voluntary and made up of our citizens.
On the other other hand, it was exactly that same army that opened fire on a protest rally under Nixon.
In response to what Tresopax said about owning a gun and no bullets and the use of deadly force in self protection as a negative I say: Dag's situation is exactly right. "Stop or I will shoot." is a gun being used as a nonlethal deterrent. If the person continues to be a threat by noncompliance, they deserve to get shot. You have made your intentions clear.
As to not having bullets, that is just irresponsible. The only person that an empty gun will kill is the person bearing it. Sure you don't have to fire for a gun to be useful, but if you point a gun at someone you had damn well better be willing to shoot them. You are presenting yourself as a threat, and some people will attack, with deadly intent.
That's the whole point, it is the attacker's choice, to be reasonable and simply stop, or to continue under risk of death. You do not control their actions or reactions. You wouldn't be pointing a gun at them in the first place if they hadn't been doing something wrong.
Which Canadian examples are you referring to twinky?
P.S. Sorry it's taking me so long to respond, I'm at work and trying to do three things at once.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I'm pretty sure that's an argument saying more guns in the hands of common people makes us safer from criminals.
Which is very different from saying that any of our problems go away.
Huh? Not being safe from criminals isn't a problem?
Criminals are a problem, but nobody said that having guns will make the problem of violent crime "go away" (your words). They just said that it would make the situation better.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
It seems like the people that are extremely pro-gun control are far more likely to live in a city or suburbs than a rural area. In rural areas, it can take extremely long periods of time for the police to reach those who need help. The isolation that comes from rural areas leaves nowhere to run to and no chance of anybody helping you but yourself. In such cases, guns are absolutely necessary. My grandparents used to live on a ranch in the middle of nowhere. I think it would have been irresponsible for them to not have a gun in the house. In the nice suburban home in which I live, I think it would be highly unnecessary for us to have guns. Just because a gun brings no benefit to one lifestyle, that does not mean it isn't vital to another.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think most people conceive of a self-defense situation as sort of like situation A. In that situation, I think most people would be okay with killing the aggressor to protect their child. However, in situation B, I think a significant number of people would consider it wrong of us to kill their child unless it was absolutely necessary.
Allowing for the fact that human beings are the ones making the call, there's a necessity element to the analysis for both A and B. I don't think either situation should be treated differently once the person deciding whether to defend is a threat.
Presumably I have more information to evaluate about whether my child is a threat or not, but that's a factual difference, not a difference in the moral calculus.
Since I would regret that victim-child had to shoot aggressor-child, but not hold victim-child morally culpable, I don't see why you think this leads to a different conclusion.
Moreover, I disagree that aggressor and victim are in the same moral position with respect to the government or their parents. Once someone decides to use or threaten deadly force against a non-aggressor, one has a lower claim against violence than someone who has not intitiated such force in such a manner. There are two parts to this change in status. The first is similar to assumption of risk - it's well known that people will attempt to defend themselves against aggression. Therefore, aggressors have assumed the risk of responsive violence. Second, and more important, by violating the social contract of non-aggression, they have also forfieted some (note I said some) of the benefits of that contract.
We have, in general, delegated most of our use of force to the government. In exchange for that is the assurance that others have done so as well. As soon as someone acts outside that contract, the victim is not bound to allow his own death because he agreed to waive some uses of violence.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I'm pretty sure that's an argument saying more guns in the hands of common people makes us safer from criminals.
Which is very different from saying that any of our problems go away.
Huh? Not being safe from criminals isn't a problem?
Criminals are a problem, but nobody said that having guns will make the problem of violent crime "go away" (your words). They just said that it would make the situation better.
At which point I think we're in a semantic argument. You said what I said is "very different" from what he said (heh, now there's a fun sentence).
How do you define a problem? or a state of having a problem?
I wouldn't say that Europe has a gun crime problem, but they do have gun crimes. Compared to Iraq right now, we don't have a civil war problem, but there is a vast divide here that can get violent. There was a case of plague earlier this year, but we don't have a problem with it, it was a one time fluke. And we don't have a bird flu problem at all, it's never been here, but we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on it just to be sure.
How is calling Iraq a civil war rather than a sectarian struggle between competing factions any different? (for example)
Alleviating, "go away," solving, lessening, "make the situation better." Are we really going to get that caught up in word choices that basically mean the same thing? Are they all "very different" from each other?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yes, I do think that the words you used to belittle your opponent's argument are significaly different in meaning from what your opponents actually said.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Alright then, I'll amend my original statement, use YOUR words, and ask the same question.
If anything, your words leave my "opponent's argument" far more open to criticism than mine did.
And I take offense at the word "belittle." I wasn't trying to "belittle" anyone. If an honest question comes across as belittling, I think it has more to do with the insecurities of the person being asked, than the person asking.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Which Canadian examples are you referring to twinky?
Well, I'm not referring to the gun registry specifically, which overspent its budget many times over and is widely regarded as a boondoggle, but rather to the relative rates of gun ownership and gun crime in Canada and the U.S. coupled with the relative strictness of our regulations. For example, there is essentially no legal way for a regular citizen to carry a concealed firearm.
In your other examples, gun crime rates rose dramatically within a few years of those nations enacting stricter gun laws. Our gun laws are already tight here, and have been for a long time, yet our gun crime rates are lower than yours. This doesn't jive with your other examples, and suggests that maybe there isn't a causal relationship between stricter gun regulation and increased gun crime.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Excuse me. I should have said NRA Spokesmen instead of NRA Supporters.
In fact, there is one argument for limiting or disallowing gun controls that I can not argue against.
Its not the argument about hunting rights.
Its not the argument about defending oneself against bad guys.
Its not even the argument that guns are safer than baseball bats.
Its the simple argument that was the main reason the founding fathers put it in the Constitution.
As Mao said, "Power comes from the barrel of a gun."
In a country where the Government owns all the guns, the government owns all the power. It is the inalienable right of all Americans to overthrow thier government in self defense if neccesary. When the government has all the guns, such rebellion dies too quickly.
No bat, knife, or stone wielding mob could stand up to soldiers with guns. While cars might be occasionally useful, they are expensive ammunition.
Much like a pre-nup is a debatable clause in a marriage contract, the right to bear arms is a debatable clause in our bill of rights--does it promote the end of the government by predicting its violent overthrow, or does it secure that government by allowing it?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:On the other hand Lyrhawn makes a good point. Our army is entirely voluntary and made up of our citizens.
On the other other hand, it was exactly that same army that opened fire on a protest rally under Nixon.
That's actually the beginnings of a good argument for a draft.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
twinky: I just read an interesting article about Canada's gun laws. Linky. And would have t say that the reason that Canadian stats don't match the trend I was describing is that guns were not banned, simply registered. Further, safety classes and background checks were put in place, something I am completely for.
Not sure who, but someone mentioned responsibility and freedom. The freedom to own firearms comes with the responsibility to get training to handle/store them safely.
As to the draft: Don't even joke, it's not funny.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not entirely convinced that's what the Second Amendment means Dan.
quote: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.
That suggests to me that the arms of the people were meant specifically to be used as a militia, for the protection of a state that had no standing army, in a nation that at the time didn't want or believe in a standing army.
Look at the discussions government was having at the time of it's foundation and you'll see them centered squarely around the subject of militias. They meant what we would today probably call the National Guard (though it's function and apperance have drastically changed), and specifically were afraid of non-governmental citizens banding together against the government. The discussion began after Shay's rebellion had taken place, I believe. I don't think they were keen on giving the people the ability to toss them all overboard.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:You're appear to be trying awfully hard to make this thread devolve into the shouting of rhetoric.
The initial question was equally rhetorical and extreme, and just as absurd as my follow-up. I'm trying to shine a mirror on the rhetoric, to show it for what it is - ridiculous.
I guess I'm failing at that.
quote:
quote:Those wishing to do harm will find a way - whether it's with a gun, a knife, or a baseball bat.
But the harm they'll be able to inflict will be much less, which is a good thing.
...or a car, or a bomb, or an arson attempt, or...
It really seems like the concept of "gun" has been given all manner of evil connotations and overtones. It's a hunk of metal. It doesn't motivate someone to kill. It doesn't cause the behaviors in society that lead to violence and crime. It's an inanimate object, and doing away with it will not do away with criminality or other socially deviant behavior.
If someone wants to go on a killing spree, they will. Whether it is a nut with shooting people in Columbine, a nut running multiple people down with his car in California, a nut bombing a building in Oklahoma City, or a nut releasing Sarin gas on a Tokyo subway.
Violence does not stop when you make a tool illegal.
To be fair, though, I'm not advocating giving guns out to every person living within the borders of the US. Responsible use is key. We license and register cars, and so it makes sense to license and register guns. People take driving tests, and it makes sense to have gun tests. Car manufacturers are held to a certin standard of safety from malfunction, and so should gun manufacturers.
However, I don't want someone telling me I can't buy a Hummer because they were used too often to run people off the road. Or that I can't buy a Ferrari because they go too fast and someone could get hurt.
[ November 28, 2006, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't know. Take everything I've said here with a grain of salt. It's quite possible that I'm seeing piss and vinegar where there is none.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ok I personally am in favor of gun control but with that aside I can't help but think about this problem.
In the US or most any country if you want to operate a motor vehicle, then you are required to in many states go to drivers ed, take a test that has written and actual driving components, and there are policeman who monitor your performance, other motorists can honk at you if you are out of line.
Why do we have all these measures? Because driving a motorized vehicle should only be done by responsible, trained individuals. It even goes so far as to say that if you reach a certain age you have to go in for an eye exam to make sure you can still see well enough to drive. You cannot drink and drive, because alcohol makes anybody a dangerous liability.
If I want to purchase a firearm all I need is a history of non violence, the money, and I have to wait a few days.
If I want a concealed weapons permit so that I can carry it on my person "just in case a bank robber decides he wants me dead." in some states its a fundamental right and the govt must grant me one, in most states it again falls to a simple background check. In SOME states you actually have to take a course to carry a concealed weapon. It ranges from state to state but it basically goes from "no issue" to, "may issue" to, "shall issue", to finally, "unrestricted."
My point is, (sorry for the long windedness) if we can't ban guns, why can't we have the sorts of measures we expect motorists to take if they want to drive?
Why can't people take a course if they want to own a gun PERIOD. Have a written exam, and an actual practice exam where the subject is put in tense situations where he has the option of using his firearm but finds other ways to resolve the situation, as well as situations where he must use his firearm and if he fails to do so in the correct manner, (i.e he hits a pedestrian needlessly) encourage them to continue training before taking on the responsibility of owning a fire arm.
I just feel like, its still far too easy to get a concealed weapons permit, to say nothing of a gun period. Does anybody oppose better education, and training before allowing ANYONE to have a gun?
Background checks are fine, but you know if the drivers ed place had only looked up my history of accidents BEFORE I got my first license, I'm not sure how they could have failed me even if they should have.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I agree completely BlackBlade. There should be a course to take, a test to pass, training with a certified instructor, and safety tests in order to gain a gun license.
I even think there should even be mandated refresher tests and courses.
I just can't get behind flat out gun bans, or the concept that guns are somehow inherently violent or evil.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's a valid point about driver's training and gun training that I've never heard (put that way) before.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Why do we have all these measures? Because driving a motorized vehicle should only be done by responsible, trained individuals.
Another important reason is that since the government is building the roads I drive on, it has a right to control things on those roads.
If you want to drive your car on your own property, the government can't even say "boo", even if you don't have a license, and that's not even a right explicitly given to us in the constitution.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Its the simple argument that was the main reason the founding fathers put it in the Constitution.
(...)
No bat, knife, or stone wielding mob could stand up to soldiers with guns. While cars might be occasionally useful, they are expensive ammunition.
I believe you are probably correct that this is the reason it's in the COnstitution. However, I think military technology has advanced to the point where, in the second paragraph, you might as well give the mob handguns. Between tanks, automatic rifles, and artillery, no bunch of civilians is going to stand up to a modern military unit as long as that unit is prepared to use deadly force. That just wasn't true back in 1789, when a particularly well-equipped regular force might have a two-pounder popgun capable of firing every two minutes or so; civilian and military equipment was very comparable - and you should note, irregular militia units still ran away on an extremely regular basis in your rebellion.
The true protection of the population is that the modern US military is officered and manned by literate, well-educated (*) volunteer citizens, who just won't open fire in support of an oppressive government. That protection is quite independent of the number of handguns in the population.
(*) That is, literate and well-educated by any reasonable, historical standard. Not alienated mercenaries or peasant conscripts, is the point I'm making here.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Even though a fully armed citizenry couldn't stand toe-to-toe against the U.S. military, having the citizens armed would make "conquering" and holding territory much more difficult. Knowing that it would be difficult would be a deterrant for such an action.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That statement makes a LOT of assumptions.
Though I think regardless of the problems inherent within, I agree with you.
But I'm not sure if having everyone walk around fully armed is better than just having an armory in every town.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, the trouble with an armory, for this kind of argument, is that it's rather easy to seize by surprise, disarming the citizenry. If you're going to have a decentralised military force to prevent government control, then it doesn't make much sense to centralise it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, we disagree there too then, as I don't believe the intent of the Bill of Rights was to distribute guns to the citizenry to fight the government.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:That suggests to me that the arms of the people were meant specifically to be used as a militia, for the protection of a state that had no standing army, in a nation that at the time didn't want or believe in a standing army.
It's important to note that the generation who wrote and ratified the 2nd ammendment had used the colonial militias to rebel against what they perceived to be a tyrannical government. They thought going to war against your government was a good and noble thing to do if it was warranted.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, but they'd also done so in concert with a regular colonial army, recognizing that they won the war in spite of using untrained militias.
Also keep in mind that this is the same nation that had just finished fighting Shay's Rebellion. They weren't particularly keen on individuals overthrowing the government at the moment. They also specifically included that the government would control all militias in the Constitution.
Edit to add:
quote:To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
From Aticle I section Eight of the Constitution.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:There should be a course to take, a test to pass, training with a certified instructor, and safety tests in order to gain a gun license.
There is, in some states. In Virginia, for example, you must complete 20 hours of training every 5 years to be issued a concealed-carry permit. You must provide proof of the training and proof that you are reasonably proficient with handguns. You must swear an oath that all of your information is correct. You don't have to do that in Georgia, but you are fingerprinted with your application. For information on each state's gun laws, go here.
I'm a member of the NRA and I have no problem with requiring firearms education and training for gun owners. I, myself, have been shooting since I was a little girl and have hundreds of hours of training and practice. Much of my training was from former or current law enforcement officers. The NRA provides a huge amount of trainings for gun owners.
BTW, Dan, the first thing you're taught in a beginner NRA course: The best way to win a gunfight is to not get into one. We're not like the rich Texan on The Simpsons - most of us are very passionate about education and safety and support reasonable gun laws. The NRA provides, free of charge to anyone, a safety program for children called Eddie Eagle. From the NRA Eddie Eagle page:
quote:Eddie Eagle is never shown touching a firearm, and he does not promote firearm ownership or use. The program prohibits the use of Eddie Eagle mascots anywhere that guns are present. The Eddie Eagle Program has no agenda other than accident prevention -- ensuring that children stay safe should they encounter a gun. The program never mentions the NRA. Nor does it encourage children to buy guns or to become NRA members. The NRA does not receive any appropriations from Congress, nor is it a trade organization. It is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition.
The reason I carry a gun is because it is the only way that I can live my life without fear. I am a 5'4'' woman - a gun is the only way that I can defend myself against an attacker. This August, an acquaintance of mine, Kate Robertson, was kidnapped by a convicted felon from a local mall parking lot at gunpoint and killed. I truly believe she'd be alive today if she had been carrying a gun of her own. I don't know if I'd ever be able to go back to that mall if I didn't have my gun.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well, we disagree there too then, as I don't believe the intent of the Bill of Rights was to distribute guns to the citizenry to fight the government.
If this was addressed to me, you are misunderstanding my position. I'm just saying if your reason for allowing guns is to enable people to overthrow the government, then it doesn't make much sense to put the guns in easily-seized armouries. (It also doesn't seem to make much sense for self-defense; if you need a gun against a criminal, you're going to need it right now, yes?) So, assuming that your previous post was a suggestion to mph on how arming the citizenry should be accomplished, it wasn't a very good suggestion. If that's not what you meant by your previous post, you'll have to clarify.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
KoM -
I was agreeing, without specifics, that the only reason I really support an armed citizenry is to repel foreign invaders. Given that, I don't see the problems with an armory.
I don't see where the confusion is.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: twinky: I just read an interesting article about Canada's gun laws. Linky. And would have t say that the reason that Canadian stats don't match the trend I was describing is that guns were not banned, simply registered.
I'm actually Canadian, and familiar with our gun laws, but thanks for the link.
It actually supports the point I was getting at: since the passage of more restrictive gun ownership laws in 1977, gun violence has declined.
quote:The 1977 firearms control legislation (Bill C-51) established the first general screening process for prospective firearm owners. This was accomplished through the introduction of a statutory requirement stipulating that anyone who wishes to acquire a firearm must first obtain a Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC). Possession of a valid FAC entitled its holder to legally purchase any non-restricted or restricted firearm. An FAC could be refused if an applicant had: a) a criminal record for any violent offence within the previous five years; b) been treated for a mental disorder involving violence; and/or c) a history of any other violent behaviour. The 1977 amendments also introduced requirements for Firearms and Ammunition Business Permits (i.e., licensing of firearms businesses), created mandatory and discretionary judicial weapons prohibition orders, introduced new definitions for prohibited and restricted weapons, provided for wider police search and seizure powers, established basic rules for gun collectors, introduced regulations for safe handling and storage for businesses, broadened the definition of a prohibited weapon, and established a range of new firearms-related criminal offences along with more severe penalties.
Bill C-51 didn't ban all firearms, but it banned a large class of them and significantly restricted ownership of the rest. Those restrictions have only tightened in the intevening decades, including the banning of more kinds of guns, and, at the same time, gun crime has declined.
Anyway, if you favour regulation and registration, we probably aren't at odds.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I agree with Katarain, Dan Raven, and Mrs. M.
I very strongly disagree with Lyrhawn's interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Everything I've read concerning the history of the second amendment disagrees with Lyrhawn's historical interpretation.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Everything I've read concerning the history of the second amendment tends to disagree with itself.
First of all, the people who originally wrote the law don't even agree with themselves, where are you getting it that there was some universal feeling at the time of its writing?
Second, it favors the Revolutionary War as the only part of the historical context, that sure, we had just fought off a government using a militia, but that ignores the fact that we had a regular army, and that the militia was still under a degree of control by the state (depending on the state). It also ignores that we had just finished fighting off a couple local rebellions using both regular and militia troops to do so, and that those rebellions themselves were made up of what you could call "militia."
The states are specifically given the power to appoint officers, and much more so than the federal government, to control the state militias. The amendment, in my opinion, directly links the arming of the people to the formation of militias, which have historically been controlled by states, and which the constitution gives that power to.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I can't help but draw the parallel that there is only 3 options before us in regards to countries that now have nuclear weapons.
Either we,
1: Make sure every single country has at least one nuclear bomb (maybe even enough to blanket the entire earth once) and that way because everyone has one nobody will dare use it.
or
2: Make sure every single one is destroyed perhaps even destroy all evidence of the technology used to create one. <--- a VERY unrealistic option IMO but still the better one TBH.
Again anecdotes where people are powerless to stop criminals because of a lack of guns to me are outnumbered by the number of instances where the criminal wouldn't have the gun in the first place if good legislation were in place.
Obviously if done half as..eerr baked a gun control program does more harm then good as only honest citizens will give up their guns while criminals will retain them.
All I can say is I grew up in a society where I knew only the police and PERHAPS high ranking Mafiosos had guns, and crime involving a gun was so rare it was front page news when it occurred.
A man just last week across the street from my school got in an argument with his wife and as she walked out the front door he grabbed his shotgun and blew her away. The police found him in his garage with the gun on the floor just talking to himself.
I don't know about you but I'd rather not have every couple the breaks up or has a falling out, do it Mr. and Mrs. Smith style.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't know about you but I'd rather not have every couple the breaks up or has a falling out, do it Mr. and Mrs. Smith style.
Even if every single person in America had a firearm on their person at all times, we would not get a shooting every time a couple breaks up or has a falling out.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Blackblade -
Not really a fair comparison. They both survived, and actually, it saved their marriage.
We'd be so lucky if everyone would do it Mr. and Mrs. Smith style, we might have more successful marriages, and the home construction industry would be booming again. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: KoM -
I was agreeing, without specifics, that the only reason I really support an armed citizenry is to repel foreign invaders. Given that, I don't see the problems with an armory.
I don't see where the confusion is.
Oh, ok, now I see what you're saying. You might want to consider the German invasion of Norway in 1940, where the armouries of the militia was the first thing the invaders went for. The US, admittedly, is a bit bigger and has non-coastal cities, and one hopes it would have a more competent government than the one Norway was saddled with in 1940; Bush would do quite nicely, actually. So would that chimpanzee the websites are always comparing him with. But I digress. Even so, for a guerrilla movement (and again, your citizenry won't be standing up to any modern military forces, I don't care how patriotic they are) there are obvious disadvantages to a centralised distribution of their weapons.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think there is little comparison between 1940 Norway and 2006 America.
First of all, Norway didn't have a large network of satelites in orbit letting us know whenever something is coming, nor do they have an utterly massive radar net and navy guarding both oceans that border us.
Anyone that comes after us has to either cross an ocea with our naval wall stopping them, or has to come through Canada or Mexico. Regardless, we're going to know they are coming, and we'll have troops at the border to stop them.
By the time anyone would get across our borders into towns, our people will have already gotten to the armories and will be ready and waiting. Centralizing also allows for uniformity and training, so weapons are interchangeable, easily maintained, fixed, loaded, and proficiency is universal. I suppose that isn't limited to centralization, but if the local government is the keeper of the guns, I'd be willing to be they'll be the ones procuring them as well.
Our citizenry would stand up to any foreign occupier at least as well as Iraqi insurgents do. We'd make anyone pay for an occupation.
I'm not convinced that an armory is the BEST way of doing it, but I haven't seen a convincing argument one way or the other to rule anything out. I think this is at best an academic argument, but it might be useful at some far future date. It would take the combined military forces of most of the world's modern armies to invade and successfully hold the United States mainland, and they would pay very, very dearly for it.
I should add:
Since I haven't specifically stated it, I'm not in favor of taking away EVERY gun from the people. I'm also not in favor of selling any gun willy nilly to anyone who wants it. I think the types of guns we sell should be limited, and that everyone who has a gun should be required to get a license, and should have weapons training before they are allowed to get a license. I think people should be allowed to keep guns in their homes, but I don't agree with carrying guns in public. I disagree that weapons were specifically protected in the Constitution so that the people would have the ability to overthrow the government whenever they felt like it was necessary. I think they were meant for individual defense of homes and for ordered protection of the state in recognized militias as regulated by the state.
And I reserve the right to add to, delete from, or change any of the above as I see evidence that may change my mind.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, the idea of someone invading the US in the first place is so far-fetched that you cannot possibly know what the conditions will be - for rpecisely the reasons you outline. Certainly, if I were a mad dictator of Eurasia, hell-bent on world conquest, I would precede any such invasion with a nice nuclear bombardment to knock out navy, satellites, and - how convenient! - armouries. The point is, if that's your only reason for handing out guns, you might as well ban them. Why bother?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Only Russia has enough bombs to knock out more than a handful of major US cities, and of the thousands of US cities and people scattered throughout the countryside, by the time they took out all the armories, there wouldn't be much left to occupy.
But who is to say what the future holds? Maybe we'll perfect point defense and we'll be able to shoot down all those ICBMs you're mad little Eurasian tyranny was lobbing at us. And maybe by then, you'll be able to as well.
That leaves us with conventional forces, where an armed militia, which I'd count as the reserve that stands behind the National Guard, may play a role.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Okay, there are a few problems with the quotes in Stone_Wolf_'s first post.
England and Wales
quote: Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States.
The crime rate in the UK did rise during the 80's and early 90s. Over the course of the next fifteen years, however, it fell about as much. Source.
quote:Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000.
I didn't bother to do a lot of research on this one, but the fact that these numbers are given per million rather per 100,000 indicate something funny is going on; I've only ever seen crime statistics given per 100,000. Even 15 homicides per million is fantastic. The US had 56 homicides per million in 2005, which doesn't jive with the other claim that violent crime in the UK is "more serious than in the United states".
Australia
quote:...the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again.
According to this source, the murder rate has fluctuated between 1.6 and 1.8 per 100,000 from 1993 till 2001. Since 2001, it has fallen to 1.4 per 100,000 as of 2005. The manslaughter rate has remained relatively stable at 0.2 per 100,000.
quote:Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise – for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.
Here's a graph from the same site showing different statistics on violent crime. I'm not sure which line represents sexual assault and which robbery, but both seem to have remained relatively stable. The level of assaults have risen quite a bit, which could explain why "the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise". That, however, doesn't necessarily indicate any increase in gun violence.
The USA
quote:In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.
In 1976 the murder rate was 26.8 per 100,000. In 2005 it was 35.4 per 100,000. While the 2005 rate was roughly 134 percent of the '76 rate, it did not rise 134 percent. It's still a pretty bad increase, but no need to oversell it.
Incredibly, the numbers for both Hawaii and New Jersey are fairly accurate. However, both statistics deal with a time period - the late sixties into the seventies - where crime nationwide was on the rise. Many states display a pattern where violent crime began to rise during the sixties, fluctuated during the seventies and eighties, then fell during the nineties. Incidentally, the Brady bill was passed in 1993. In Freakonomics, Steven Levitt theorizes that the decrease had more to do with the effects of the legalization of abortion though, so make what you will of it.
I don't live in the US, so I dont really get this, but why is it necessary to own a gun?
Do people genuinely feel so threatened?
The various times I've been in the US I haven't felt at risk or vunerable for my lack of a gun.
Do you feel it is necessary to have a gun with you for you protection?
This is a genuine query, I'm not trying to be clever. I just don't get it.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I also think the Australian stats are misleading (at best) and just plain wrong (at worst).
The 'sweeping reforms' happened after a massacre in Port Arthur in 1996.
Here's an article from a local paper from this year with some of the statistics in context – some salient quotes below.
quote: The new laws specifically addressed mass shootings, banning rapid-fire rifles and shotguns...
In the decade up to and including the Port Arthur event, Australia experienced 11 mass shootings, which are defined as taking five or more victims. One hundred people were shot dead and another 52 wounded. In the 10 years since Port Arthur and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting has occurred in Australia.
But for each Australian killed in a mass shooting in the past 17 years, 80 have died by gunshot in less high-profile events, many of them in family violence. It is here, in the day-to-day tragedy of firearms-related homicide and suicide, that Australia's new restrictions and, perhaps equally importantly, changing attitudes to guns and gun owners, can most plausibly claim to have had the most effect.
quote:Even before Port Arthur, gun-related deaths - suicides, homicides and unintentional shootings - were declining slowly. But the rate of decline accelerated markedly after the tragedy. From 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot, with an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997-2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331.
With firearm homicide - the gun deaths that attract the most attention - the downward trend has been even more dramatic. In the same two periods, the average annual number of gun homicides fell from 93 to 56. But it was the acceleration in the rate of this decline which proved most remarkable: it fell 70 times faster after the new gun laws, than before.
quote:Have murderers simply switched methods? While the annual average number of all homicides has increased since June 1996, the rate per 100,000 people has fallen marginally, but can be described as steady.
So it's clear that gun control doesn't equal a decrease in violent crime. But it does (duh!) lead to a decrease in gun-relatedviolent crime.
As guns have a high “lethality index” (as termed in the linked article) and can be used to kill a lot of people in a very short space of time, I can differentiate clearly between them and other weapons used in violent crimes.
Other publications by the Australian Institute of Criminology (for example here ) indicate that homicide rates have been staying steady or decreasing since 1989. So while violent crime (eg armed robbery) may be increasing, homicide is not.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
(And I see Juxtapose already linked to some of those sources. )
On reflection, I am sure it is an increase in armed (not necessarily with a gun!) robbery that would be driving the overall increase in violent crime figures.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I don't live in the US, so I dont really get this, but why is it necessary to own a gun?
Do people genuinely feel so threatened?
The various times I've been in the US I haven't felt at risk or vunerable for my lack of a gun.
Do you feel it is necessary to have a gun with you for you protection?
This is a genuine query, I'm not trying to be clever. I just don't get it.
I don't find it necessary to own a gun. In fact, I don't own one. I also don't feel threatened enough (at least at present) to feel the need to purchase a gun for personal protection.
However, the discussion isn't about whether you *need* a gun, but whether you're *allowed to have* a gun.
It's almost like a "You'll shoot your eye out" style of government - all guns are bad, because certain people use them inappropriately.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:In a country where the Government owns all the guns, the government owns all the power. It is the inalienable right of all Americans to overthrow thier government in self defense if neccesary. When the government has all the guns, such rebellion dies too quickly.
No bat, knife, or stone wielding mob could stand up to soldiers with guns.
Guns are not nearly enough to defeat the advanced weapons of the modern American military. If you truly believe we need the capacity to overthrow our government if necessary, then we'd need a right to Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Overview: (please let me know if you feel the stated status aren't accurate or if I didn't hit a major topic of discussion)
*Gun ownership/carrying by citizens keeps down violent crime. Status: Disputed.
*Gun ownership/carrying should require licensing/safety training/physiological evaluations/background checks. Status: Agreed.
*High explosives, automatic weapons, & weapons that could be used to wipe out a large segment of people should be restricted. Status: Mostly Agreed.
*The US constitution's second amendment is designed to give citizens the ability to overthrow its own government. Status: Moderatly Disputed
*The use of deadly force on an assailant is appropriate as they have forfeited their social contract of nonviolence. Status: Mostly Agreed.
*Firearms ownership has multiple purposes, i.e. protection, sport, hunting, collecting, etc. Status: Moderatly Disputed.
*Firearms risk of accidental death is much like other dangerous objects, minimal with proper handling and training. Status: Disputed. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I think the last two points are the most divisive in discussion over gun ownership, and the least likely points that people will change their mind about.
To the second to last point, on the uses of firearms, there is a division over what people perceive firearms were *designed for* and what people actually *use them for*. (Person A says they collect guns because they are shiny, and Person B says that doesn't matter because guns are designed to kill)
To the last point, people often ignore the accidental death statistics for mundane objects/tools/machines to focus on the accidental death from firearms, because of the perception of what firearms are *designed for*. (Person A says an unwatched bottle of drano on the floor can kill a child just as easily as an unsecured gun, and Person B says drano wasn't designed to kill so those accidents are somehow more acceptable.)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:*The use of deadly force on an assailant is appropriate as they have forfeited their social contract of nonviolence. Status: Mostly Agreed.
This is NOT mostly agreed upon.
The use of deadly force on an assailant is not appropriate except perhaps in a situation in which we know someone else is certain to die otherwise. I'm not sure such a situation is even possible in real life (because knowing the intentions of an assailant is nearly impossible), but I certainly doubt it is common. In most situations involving an assailant, it would be highly inappropriate and very unethical to kill the assailant. If someone grabs a woman's purse, it would not be appropriate to kill them. If someone is sneaking around in your backyard, it would not be appropriate to kill them. If someone is in a fight with you, it is not appropriate to shoot them.
Also importantly, there is no "social contract" of nonviolence at play here. Our obligation to not kill eachother does not stem from a mutual agreement. Rather, I think it stems from the inherent value of people's lives. You cannot forfeit that value - your life has value regardless of how you act. Killing you can thus only be ethical if there is some justification that exceeds the value of your life.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hey, Tres, since you still seem to be interested in this aspect of the topic, would you mind responding to my post on that subject?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:*The use of deadly force on an assailant is appropriate as they have forfeited their social contract of nonviolence. Status: Mostly Agreed.
This is NOT mostly agreed upon.
Perhaps not by you, but I've got to say that I think that it is mostly agreed upon.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
MPH, I think it's mostly agreed on if the words "where a reasonable threat of physical harm or death extists absent the use of repsonsive deadly force" are inserted after "assailant."
I think there's significant disagreement to the idea of shooting an assailant when there is a safe way to escape or there's no threat of physical harm.
Tres's attempts to muddy the waters by adding non-assailants as an example in his refutation notwithstanding, I think the general conclusion is correct.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Good point, Dag.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Amended:
**The use of deadly force on an assailant where a reasonable threat of physical harm or death extists absent the use of repsonsive deadly force is appropriate as they have forfeited their social contract of nonviolence. Status: Mostly Agreed. Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If you truly believe we need the capacity to overthrow our government if necessary, then we'd need a right to Weapons of Mass Destruction.
(Caveat: I have no legal knowledge) I believe the second amendment gives a right to WMDs. I feel it should be amended for that reason. I don't expect anyone else in the country to agree with me, though.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Tres: I do agree with you that life has inherent value.
Where we don't see eye to eye is that if someone chooses to disregard the value of my life that I'm obligated to still value theirs. If someone is in need of killing because of their own free choices that endanger another life, then they have put themselves into that situation and death is just a repercussion.
I hope with all my heart that when I leave this world it will be without anyone's life on my hands. But it's not entirely up to me. If someone breaks into my home and doesn't respond to clear instructions to lay down on the ground, I'll probably shoot them.
And I probably will not shoot them in an attempt to wound them (trying to minimize the damage to them), but in the safest way possible to me and my family, that is, twice in the chest and once in the head. My stated goal is to stop them from harming my loved ones, and the surest way to do that is to kill them.
I don't want this person dead, I don't want them in my living room either! This was not my choice, it was theirs. It was further their choice to not lay down on the ground with their hands in full sight.
At a certain point you have to take personal responsibility. Life is about your choices and some of those choices have repercussions.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:In a country where the Government owns all the guns, the government owns all the power. It is the inalienable right of all Americans to overthrow thier government in self defense if neccesary. When the government has all the guns, such rebellion dies too quickly.
No bat, knife, or stone wielding mob could stand up to soldiers with guns.
Guns are not nearly enough to defeat the advanced weapons of the modern American military. If you truly believe we need the capacity to overthrow our government if necessary, then we'd need a right to Weapons of Mass Destruction.
And in all likelyhood if it came down to needing to overthrow the government, do you really think the entire military would be without exception completely loyal to the govt, to the point of being willing to brutally suppress their own fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, neighbors?
Realistically, if we were standing up to our own govt, we would probably be doing it in the way the Iraqi's are so doing right now.
I think I agree with KOM in that our real protection against an oppressive government isn't our guns, its the fact the military is in the control of civilians, elected by civilians.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Lots to say since I've been here last.
Tres--actually guns won't allow you to defeat the US military, and I don't beleive we should all arm ourselves with tanks and c-4 explosives. Face it, there are more dangerous people out there than our military.
However guns are neccessary to defeat our government if it becomes neccesary. See Iraq for a blueprint on how to do it.
Stone-Wolf--great summation. I believe that the vast majority of the US population is in favor of limited gun-control that meets but does not exceed the following.
1) Licensing and testing for basic safety of all weapon owners.
2) Limiting ages where people can own guns, or use them without adult supervision.
3) Severe limitations on what can cause a person to loose their gun ownership license--crimminal violence, drug addiciton, phsychological problems that would make guns dangerous to the user or to others.
(Suicide with a gun is a lot easier than most other means.)
4) Limitations on what kind of guns can be owned. No automatic weapons, cop-killer armor peircing rounds, or grenade launchers etc. You don't use those guns for hunting, target shooting, or protection. You only use them for collectable purposes, which would be allowed under another license (probably an expensive one).
Personally, I'd like to see ballistics fingerprinting of all guns as well, so that when a gun is used in a crime we can determine where it came from.
HOwever the gun industry has mostly bought the upper powers of the NRA, and use its political force to block any attempt to cut into their sales. If the bad guys had to go on the black market to buy their guns, it would hurt sales. So instead of coming up with reasonable laws most people agree on, that neither gives free range to shoot what and where you want, or confiscates all the guns, we get useless debates, talking points, and spin.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:You don't use those guns for hunting, target shooting, or protection.
Just to be contrary, I've used automatic weapons for target shooting. They are loads of fun. It's not like I was really aiming, though - I was just watching sparks fly off the rusted out barbecue grill target we have since turned into a collinder.
I have not, however, used a grenade launcher - though I'd imagine they could also be a lot of fun if used in a secure environment with appropriate safety measures taken.
Blowing stuff up really can be fun. I mean, firecrackers aren't even legal in NJ - and what are they except an entertaining way to watch stuff blow up? (Again, with appropriate training and safety practices observed)
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Overview: (please let me know if you feel the stated status aren't accurate or if I didn't hit a major topic of discussion)
*Gun ownership/carrying by citizens keeps down violent crime. Status: Disputed.
For the moment ignoring all the other aspects and uses of guns, I will say that gun ownership and carrying increases the sense of preceived risk presented to criminals. If a substantial portion of the population is armed, then criminals will think twice about engaging in criminal behavior.
Now that may or may not have any effect on the statistics, but a completely disarmed population sends a message to criminals that anything goes and that preceived consequences are nil.
quote:*Gun ownership/carrying should require licensing/safety training/physiological evaluations/background checks. Status: Agreed.
Agree and disagree, guns are dangerous and therefore every idiot on the face of the earth should not be allowed to buy, own, and use them.
Certainly, training is critical. Too many people think that just because they have seen a few 'Rambo' or 'Die Hard' movies they know everything their is to know about guns. That is SO NOT true.
The problems is this makes gun ownership very selective. It creates a selection process that is very much open to political manipulation. In many states it is the County Sherif that has the final say on whether someone can carry a gun, but, even if there are no negative factors that could justify your permit being denied, the Sherif can do it simply because he doesn't like you, or simply because he knows you supported the candidate that opposed him in the last election.
It is conceivable in the correct, or should I say incorrect, political climate that all Democrates would be uniformly denied guns and all Republican would uniformly be granted guns.
On one hand, I don't mind that 'someone is watching', but my big question is 'who is watching the watchers?'
quote:*High explosives, automatic weapons, & weapons that could be used to wipe out a large segment of people should be restricted. Status: Mostly Agreed.
Just one problem with this, the Bill of Rights is not about hunting or sport shooting, it is about the rights of citizens to form an army, a militia, that has the power to, if nothing else, threaten the existing government. Our right to keep and bear arms is the means by which we the people maintain our place in the power structure of government. If we willingly give up the sources of our power as citizens, then we can't cry when we suddenly we are powerless to affect the will of government.
Explosives, because of the obvious danger, are indeed restricted in our society. Yet, those in the know, know that explosives can be made from common household items. Yet, very few people seek out that information, and even fewer are crazy enough to try to apply it.
There are reasonable bounds to the use and possession of these extreme weapons, but I don't think military style semi-automatic weapons should be banned.
quote:*The US constitution's second amendment is designed to give citizens the ability to overthrow its own government. Status: Moderatly Disputed
Close but not quite. The Bill of Rights does not give the people the right to overthrow the government willy-nilly. We have the right of subversion and rebellion, BUT ONLY to the extent that the government has become corrupt and has strayed substantially from the founding documents and prinicples. Further our rebellion can only be for the purpose of bringing the government BACK in line with those founding documents and principles.
We only have the right of revolution within the bounds of the founding documents and principle, and only to bring the exiting government back in line with those documents and principles.
quote:*The use of deadly force on an assailant is appropriate as they have forfeited their social contract of nonviolence. Status: Mostly Agreed.
Not quite, any response to an attack or preceived attack must be a measured response. If some redneck is intent on shoving you in a bar room dispute, that is not free and open license to shot him dead. You are only allowed to respond with sufficient force to prevent the attack on yourself. That much and no more.
Now that doesn't mean that you match force with equal force. It would be unwise to stand and trade blows with someone who is substantailly bigger and/or more experienced than you. You can use MORE force than is being directed at you because that is certainly what it will take to STOP the attack, but you can't use excessive force. Further once the attack is clearly stopped, you can not continue to use force. In that case, your actions cross the line into assault.
So, you are allowed to use whatever force is necessary to defend yourself and to stop the attack on your person, but only that much and no more.
quote:*Firearms ownership has multiple purposes, i.e. protection, sport, hunting, collecting, etc. Status: Moderatly Disputed.
I don't understand your response here at all; 'moderately disputed'??? Though I don't know for sure, it seems safe to conclude that you really don't know anything about gun use in America. Millions of rounds of ammunition are expended every year and know one is harmed, nothing is destroyed. Thousands of Boy Scouts qualify in fire arms every year, how is that not a legitimate alternate gun use? Firearms sporting competitions are held all across the country, both professional and amatuer, every year, and no harm is cause to anyone. Believe it or not, MOST hunters do not kill anything. Yes, they go hunting, and a few of them kill and USE game, but most hunters are unsuccessful.
There are many gun collectors who admire guns as an aspect of history, the application of physics and chemistry, and the craftsmanship of the gun maker. Many truly historical gun collectors will never ever fire any of their guns.
How can you moderately dispute what is so obviously true. A vast vast majority of gun ownership and use provides great enjoyment to many and no harm to anyone. How is that not clearly 'multiple purposes'?
quote:*Firearms risk of accidental death is much like other dangerous objects, minimal with proper handling and training. Status: Disputed.
Again, I'm not sure which part you dispute; 'much like other dangerous objects' or 'minimal with poper handling and training' or some other aspect that is unclear to me? Cars are dangerous and many people are injured and killed each year by them. Mostly these injuries are caused by operator error, either error in physical action or error in judgement.
The same is true of guns, they are dangerous, and when that danger is not respected and treated with extreme caution, people get hurt. But keep in mind that far far far fewer people get hurt than those many many many who handle guns for their whole lives and are never harmed and who never harm anyone.
Again this is one of those things that make me think that you have very little experience with guns and shooting. If you really were experienced with guns, you would have a far clearer sense of perspective and proportions regarding guns. Not everyone who touches a gun instantly drops over dead.
Common sense, caution, and ridged safety procedures are what insure gun safety and those are the very things that insure automobile safety, airplane safety, kitchen knife safety, high school sports safety, and every other hazard encounted by people every day of their lives.
So, again, I'm not really sure what it is you are disputing.
Just a few thoughts on the subject.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If you truly believe we need the capacity to overthrow our government if necessary, then we'd need a right to Weapons of Mass Destruction.
(Caveat: I have no legal knowledge) I believe the second amendment gives a right to WMDs. I feel it should be amended for that reason. I don't expect anyone else in the country to agree with me, though.
That's the craziest thing I've heard all day. For what reason do you think the second amendment gives that right? And how do you think it should be amended?
Blue Wizard -
quote:Close but not quite. The Bill of Rights does not give the people the right to overthrow the government willy-nilly. We have the right of subversion and rebellion, BUT ONLY to the extent that the government has become corrupt and has strayed substantially from the founding documents and prinicples. Further our rebellion can only be for the purpose of bringing the government BACK in line with those founding documents and principles.
We only have the right of revolution within the bounds of the founding documents and principle, and only to bring the exiting government back in line with those documents and principles.
Not that I necessarily disagree that we have the right to rebel, but where is this right guaranteed to us? It is NOT inherent in the second amendment. If you look at similar amendments that were passed in state constitutions, and in original drafts of the second amendment, many of them include "for the defense of the State" in there. Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights do I recall there being a provision to overthrow the government, the entire point of our new Democracy was to AVOID what they saw going on across the ocean in France. Read what Adams was writing to his friends from France at the time. Read about the half dozen uprisings and rebellions they had to put down with mercenaries and militias. They weren't big fans of mob rule.
They'd just finished fighting off a monarchal tyranny, not a democracy. I won't deny that there was a degree of safety in knowing that individuals had guns if push came to shove, but they were supposed to be organized into state run militias, not mobs of people trying to tear down the government.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Blue Wizard, the statements that you are responding to are an overview of the discussion not my personal views. If you want to know my personal views, read my posts.
And in point of fact I have worked at three different shooting ranges. I am a marksman and own a small arsonal. I've put five shots into a one and a half inch group from 45' away, free standing with a pistol.
(Edit) Sorry if this sounds harsh, that was just anger talking.
[ November 29, 2006, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Yeah, I've come into this quite late. I was keeping track of it at work though, but I won't log in there.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The use of deadly force on an assailant is not appropriate except perhaps in a situation in which we know someone else is certain to die otherwise. I'm not sure such a situation is even possible in real life (because knowing the intentions of an assailant is nearly impossible), but I certainly doubt it is common. In most situations involving an assailant, it would be highly inappropriate and very unethical to kill the assailant. If someone grabs a woman's purse, it would not be appropriate to kill them. If someone is sneaking around in your backyard, it would not be appropriate to kill them. If someone is in a fight with you, it is not appropriate to shoot them.
Ummm, yeah... There is a certain way to ascertain which level of force is used on someone. I work at the base in Groton. If someone were to come charging up no weapon in hand, I would not use a gun. Instead I would use pepper spray or a baton, depending on which I had. If they had a knife, I would use the same. Now, if they came charging up with their car...I would shoot. And they won't be driving their car anymore. If they shoot, I shoot back. An' I don't shoot to injur them. I keep watch over items of national security. It is within my orders to make sure that is not violated. Lethal force is approved for when: you or someone else is at risk of death or serious injury, escape, risk of national security, and self defense. I don't need to read their minds to know what their intentions are. Most people give that away physically.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Blue Wizard, the statements that you are responding to are an overview of the discussion not my personal views. If you want to know my personal views, read my posts.
And in point of fact I have worked at three different shooting ranges. I am a marksman and own a small arsonal. I've put five shots into a one and a half inch group from 45' away, free standing with a pistol.
(Edit) Sorry if this sounds harsh, that was just anger talking.
My apologies...heat of the moment and all that. I guess, in a sense, I understood you were summarizing the general view, and not stating your personal views. In light of that, and with 20/20 hindsight, the personal comments I made were uncalled for. So again...sorry.
But, if we both step back, and take what appears to be personal comments directed at you, and make them comments about the people who hold the general opinion, I don't think I'm that far off.
I see so many people making public statements about what guns do and don't do, and what gun owners do and don't do, and what the government should do about it all, and it is clear from their statements that they neither have knowledge of guns and gun use in our society, but they have no knowledge or have given no thought to the purpose of the Bill of Rights and how it applies to the government/citizens relationship.
I cringe everytime I see some Talking Head (news reporter) comment on the 6 o'clock news that military weapons don't have anything to do with hunting (or handguns or any other type of gun or policy they may be objecting to a the moment).
Well, that may be true, but if they actually read now and then, they would know that the Bill of Rights doesn't have anything to do with hunting. But both military style weapons and the Bill of Rights DO have something to do with forming and maintaining a 'well ordered militia'.
In my view, the Bill of Rights established a clearly needed FOURTH branch of government. A fourth branch that like the other branches was designed to create a balance of power and assure that government never gets out of control. That collective ammendment created these four branches of government, control, and balance; Executive, Judicial, Legislative, and THE PEOPLE. We, the People, have power over government, and as soon as we give up that power, that is the beginning of the end for America as we know it.
Please take my comments as directed at the general opinions expressed and not at you personally. In that light, I suspect you will actually agree with what I said.
Again, genuine apologies for any offense or anger you may have felt.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The "fourth branch" isn't a PART of the government though. The government is entirely made up of people from the that "fourth branch," and we have complete control over who serves in the other three branches.
The Bill of Rights did nothing to establish, or show the necessity of a fourth branch. The Constitution, and the basis of democracy vested the power in the people, not the Bill of Rights. It was set up to specifically guarantee the rights of the people, but wasn't meant to to limit those rights. It placed certain things off limits to the control of the government, unless the people should choose to amend those rights.
Maybe it's just your wording that is tripping me up, but you're saying EVERYONE is part of the government, in which case no one is being governed
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If you truly believe we need the capacity to overthrow our government if necessary, then we'd need a right to Weapons of Mass Destruction.
(Caveat: I have no legal knowledge) I believe the second amendment gives a right to WMDs. I feel it should be amended for that reason. I don't expect anyone else in the country to agree with me, though.
That's the craziest thing I've heard all day. For what reason do you think the second amendment gives that right? And how do you think it should be amended?
Unlike you, I don't twist the Bill of Rights until it's barely recognizable trying to make it say what I want it to say.
The second half of the second amendment says: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It doesn't say: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, unless the weapons are really, really dangerous."
As I said, I'm not a lawyer, I don't have the slightess idea what legal language would be needed to change it. I'm not even sure if, legally, my understanding holds any water at all. I'd love to see what Dagonee has to say about that.
I'd just prefer that we amended it rather than pretending we're not breaking it with every law we make. I'm funny that way.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Unlike you, I don't twist the Bill of Rights until it's barely recognizable trying to make it say what I want it to say.
Now that's amusing, as I don't think I do that at all. Where have I said that I want to outlaw all guns? The amendment just says that people get to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say what kind. I'm curious as to a further definition of the quote above.
And "arms" btw, was an 18th century definition. Madison and Adams couldn't possibly have dreamed of nuclear weapons or sarin nerve gas. Following your definition of the second amendment, it guarantees me the right to buy a tank, an aircraft carrier, a nuclear weapon, a death star, whatever.
And you think that I am twisting the language of the Second Amendment (to be specific, we aren't talking about the other 90% of the bill)? I think you're twisting it beyond reason to make it say what you want it to say.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:It doesn't say what kind.
You're right. I think, though, blacwolve is saying that, since it specifically *doesn't* say what kind, it protects *all* kinds.
By not restricting the word "arms" to mean a certain type of weapon, it therefore covers all weapons.
So, you can arm yourself with a knife, a gun, a bazooka, a tank, or a backpack nuke. To restrict that would be to "infringe" upon your right to arm yourself.
Note: Not that I agree with that totally, per se, but I can see the rationale.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm curious as to her views on freedom of religion and speech too then.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
the problem with this lack of restriction is that at the time there was very little difference between hunting/sport weaponry and military armaments.
So, if the intent of the amendment was to allow the civilian populus the capacity to militarily oppose a government's military forces, then it would seem we should have the right to buy and own tanks and cruisers etc...
However, if the intent was to do the above within the realm of what is also usable as a common tool, then we now have a discrepancy between the amendment and modern reality.
That being said, I personally think somewhere in-between is best. As mentioned, Iraq is oddly a good example. The insurgents are effectively what the amendment says we should have the capability to be. They have access to small arms and some primarily non-military explosives, and manage to do a decent enough job disrupting the government.
The thing is that most of us would agree that allowing the general populus to have unlimited access to military weaponry would not be a great idea. The world has changed a lot since the 1700s, and the exact version of reality that the founding fathers envisioned here doesn't make much sense any more. however, some middle-ground can certainly be found that fulfils at least a decent portion of the spirit of that amendment. Perhaps that middle ground allows for civilians to own M-16s and P-90s, perhaps it's more restricted to hunting rifles and semi-auto pistols.
If you think about it, even were we allowed to have tanks or fighter aircraft, we'd never have enough to really take on the government in any concievable way that would be much/at all more effective than just having a few rifles. Basically, most everything above the level of assault rifles is so prohibatively expensive that no one would be able to buy it or enough to make the military blink. So the argument that not having guns or powerful enough guns makes it impossible to overthrow the government is about as valid as the complaint that we can't overthrow the government because the civilian populus doesn't have trillions of dollars worth of cash to spend on "defense"
And I think an important distinction is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't grant us the "Right to overthrow the government" instead it grants us the "Right to have the physical ability to overthrow the government"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't disagree that being allowed to have weapons might give us that capability, but I disagree that that was the sole intent of the framers.
[ November 29, 2006, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I was thinking about this example:
quote:Two actual events come to mind. In New York a crazy person decided to kill a subway train full of people, several brave people rushed him, most of them died, but eventually someone wrestled him down, while he was reloading. Something like 12 dead, 6 hurt. If a single one of them had had a gun, it would have been over.
It's a bit of a moot example really. If there was strict gun control in the US, chances are the crazy person wouldn't have had a gun in the first place.
So the need for passengers to have a gun in response would be negated.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:If there was strict gun control in the US, chances are the crazy person wouldn't have had a gun in the first place.
This I absolutely disagree with.
There are strict anti-narcotic laws in this country, too. Yet, somehow, crazy people find ways to get them.
Making something illegal doesn't mean it goes away.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Nope, but very limited access to guns does mean less people have them.
The stats about shootings in Australia (significant decrease as gun access decreased) back them up.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Since I would regret that victim-child had to shoot aggressor-child, but not hold victim-child morally culpable, I don't see why you think this leads to a different conclusion.
I don't think it changes the moral calculus. Rather, I think people tend to emotionally undervalue the life of the aggressor and thus are too quick to say it is okay to just kill him or her. An aggressor is a human being too - someone's child - and being an aggressor in that situation does not make his or her life any less valuable, in the same way that a parent shouldn't value a behaving child more than a misbehaving child.
What I don't understand is how someone would throw away the aggressor's life, just on the chance that the aggressor might get kill someone. I use the parent example because I think most parents, honestly, would do whatever possible to try to save BOTH children. I don't think most parents would be willing to sacrifice the aggressor child just on the chance that he or she might harm the victim child. I think that if they truly love both children as much as they should, then they'd find any option other than the one that would most likely save both lives to be unacceptable. I think the law (including moral law) should respect the value of both lives in the same fashion.
quote:The first is similar to assumption of risk - it's well known that people will attempt to defend themselves against aggression. Therefore, aggressors have assumed the risk of responsive violence. Second, and more important, by violating the social contract of non-aggression, they have also forfieted some (note I said some) of the benefits of that contract.
As I said earlier, I don't think this is a matter of any social contract. The reason you don't kill people is not because of some mutual agreement that you have bound yourself to follow, in exchange for something else. Rather, the reason you don't kill is because a human life is inherently valuable. It should be entirely unilateral. No matter what you do, I don't kill you because your life has inherent value. They can't sacrifice that value. They can't get rid of it even if they wanted to. They are valuable, no matter how they act.
I think this is at the heart of the pro-life argument, by the way. We have no need to make a social contract with fetuses. They can do nothing to harm us. So why do people think we shouldn't kill them? Because, if they are people, they have inherent value. It is an entirely unilateral thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Rather, the reason you don't kill is because a human life is inherently valuable.
Historically, this is a more modern, Western point of view. Especially to the extent you're saying it goes.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen: Nope, but very limited access to guns does mean less people have them.
The stats about shootings in Australia (significant decrease as gun access decreased) back them up.
It is, however, virtually impossible to put that horse back in the barn.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:An aggressor is a human being too - someone's child - and being an aggressor in that situation does not make his or her life any less valuable, in the same way that a parent shouldn't value a behaving child more than a misbehaving child.
But it does mean that if someone is to bear the cost of violence, the one who initiated it is the preferable choice to bear it.
quote:What I don't understand is how someone would throw away the aggressor's life, just on the chance that the aggressor might get kill someone.
What I don't understand is why you keep underselling this with words like "chance". There are 16,000 murders a year in this country - it's not like it doesn't happen. We're not talking just a "chance," and to the extent you keep misrepresenting my position with continued use of the term "chance" you are being dishonest. We're talking, in many cases, stated intentions. In others, clearly implied intentions. If someone intentionally swings a baseball bat at my head, I am not making a huge leap to think they want to physically harm me. And the person doing the swinging is well aware that this action will be interpreted as life-threatening.
I also don't think there has to be a chance of death. One should be allowed to use deadly force to resist rape, serious injury, and unlawful binding/restraint.
quote:would do whatever possible to try to save BOTH children.
Maybe. Maybe not. You, of course, are assuming that both children are saveable.
You are also misusing your analogy. It's not the parents deciding who will be saved. It's the children. The parent isn't there. (In your analogy, the parent was the government. Self-defense generally occurs when the government is not present - i.e., when mommy is out shopping.)
So you are asking the child to sacrifice his own life on the chance that this other person who has launched the use of deadly force and possibly even announced his intention to kill might not mean it.
It's one thing to say it's noble for that child to sacrifice himself to avoid killing his brother. It's another thing to say we ought to use the coercive threat of punishment to attempt to force him to make that sacrifice.
quote:I think the law (including moral law) should respect the value of both lives in the same fashion.
In your scenario, the law is favoring the life of the aggressor who chose to use deadly force.
quote:The reason you don't kill people is not because of some mutual agreement that you have bound yourself to follow, in exchange for something else.
You've misinterpreted me, quite badly. The reason we don't kill people is because it is generally morally wrong to do so. The reason we don't use force in many situations in which it would be otherwise moral to use force is because of the social contract. Therefore, I may not use certain levels of force to defend property - because in this society we have decided that we will submit most property disputes to the jurisdiction of a neutral arbiter - the state.
If I were in the jungle, and someone was taking my only meal in 48 hours, I would be justified in using more force to prevent that.
We're not talking only about what is right or wrong. We're also talking about what the law should require of one.
And I don't think the law should require me to sacrifice my life to you if you choose to come at me swinging a machete.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by imogen: Nope, but very limited access to guns does mean less people have them.
The stats about shootings in Australia (significant decrease as gun access decreased) back them up.
It is, however, virtually impossible to put that horse back in the barn.
Good point.
The recalls here after the Port Arthur massacre were pretty successful, but that's on a (relatively to the US) tiny population, and a population that never had gun ownership levels (or gun-attachment levels )that the US does.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:The stats about shootings in Australia (significant decrease as gun access decreased) back them up.
I am curious, though. As shootings went down, did all violent crime go down as well? Did the number of wrongful deaths go down? Did removing guns make Australian society safer and less violent?
I really don't know, but I'd doubt it. Is there somewhere I can find those numbers?
I really think that if every gun on the planet were to miraculously disappear tomorrow, there wouldn't be too significant a drop in the number of violent crimes or wrongful deaths in the long run.
Also, no one has yet brought Switzerland into the discussion, where 1 in 3 people own a gun, yet "the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept". The gun does not cause crime - social factors cause crime. The gun is just one of the methods by which people are committing crime.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Yup, further up in this thread.
See my posts and the links therein, and Juxtapose's posts.
Homicides - either down or steady, dependant on which sources you use. Violent crime - up. (However, this is mostly non-gun related violent crime and rarely fatal.)
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Lyrhawn- I don't want it to say that. I can't imagine anyone thinking that having nukes just lying around for the taking is a good idea. That's exactly why I think it needs to be amended. I'm not quite sure why the concept that I might think the 2nd Amendment says something I disagree with is difficult for you.
It's like FlyingCow say, the amendment doesn't specify the type of arms. Since it doesn't specify, you have to assume it means all. The founders had no way of knowing that in the future, there would be arms so destructive we couldn't allow our citizens to handle them. But they knew that they couldn't predict the future, so they created an amendment process so that when unpredictable things happened, they could be provided for in the Constitution.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: [QUOTE]Also, no one has yet brought Switzerland into the discussion, where 1 in 3 people own a gun, yet "the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept". The gun does not cause crime - social factors cause crime. The gun is just one of the methods by which people are committing crime.
While this is true, it's also misleading. In the first place, those are rifles, not handguns. In the second place, ammunition for them is extremely tightly controlled, with restrictions on its purchase. In the third place, it's illegal to actually carry the rifle in public, except going to and fro a firing range. In short, as far as individual self-defense is concerned, these guns are totally useless - and likewise for committing armed robbery, to be sure.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
My boyfriend told me that right before WWII Hitler visited a Swiss Shooting Contest. That was when he decided that invading Switzerland would be a very bad idea. Does anyone know if that's true?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
blac -
Oh I see what you're saying.
I'm not worried though, for several reasons. One, the second amendment, by itself, doesn't guarantee your right to a gun, it merely stops the federal government from infringing upon that right. Second, and apparently this is disputed, it was meant to refer to militia, or what we would today call the National Guard, which DOES have tanks and fighter jets, etc. Third, the government has placed restrictions upon our freedoms for centuries, your freedom of speech isn't universal, your freedom of religion isn't universal, your "right" to a gun or weapon, isn't universal, and the militias were meant to be regulated by the states, not free floating WMDs in random houses.
I don't think an amendment is necessary.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
And I completely disagree that it was meant to refer to militia.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Actually, KoM, the article states that there are 600,000 rifles and 500,000 pistols - roughly equal between handguns and shoulder firearms, it seems.
You are right, though, that the Swiss model is misleading - just not in the way you stated. The Swiss society is entirely different from the American one, and has developed in a unique way throughout its history. *This* more than anything else is why crime is low - it's just not part of their culture.
Laws do not keep people from shooting one another. We have laws against carrying weapons in the open and shooting people in the US, and they have laws against carrying weapons in the open and shooting people in Switzerland. Our cultural difficulties prove to be more powerful than the legal deterrant far more often than theirs do.
The prevalence of guns alone does not cause crime. It stands to reason, therefore, that a lack of guns would not cause crime to cease.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: And I completely disagree that it was meant to refer to militia.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. It's right in the same amendment, in the same sentence even, it's more expressly stated in previous drafts of the amendment, it's talked about in the correspondence of the framers at the time, it's expressly written into dozens of state constitutions, and it's been discussed and reaffirmed dozens of times over by Supreme Court Justices. There's still disagreement over the issue, and my mind could be changed if there was a wealth of data presented to me that clearly overruled my view and all the scholarship that backs me up, but this is how I see it, and I'm not alone. (Well, maybe I'm alone on THIS BOARD, but not in historical scholarship and supreme court decisions on the matter). And I don't know what you've read that gave you your current tightly held belief.
As for the Swiss thing, I've never heard that story, though I'm not ruling out that it took place. I highly doubt that's why Switzerland wasn't invaded though. It had few natural resources to be exploited, and would have been extremely costly for the Germans to take. Getting armor and men through the heavily fortified mountains, especially when the Swiss had a couple years really to build bunkers and plan precisely for it, to say nothing of German inexperience with fighting in that terrain or weather, would have meant extreme cost to the German army, which really wasn't necessary at all. They had control of the airspace over Switzerland (after threatening the Swiss into submission), and they could just go around, take over everything nearby, and take out Switzerland with a bombing campaign when the time came.
It wasn't worth the manpower at the time, to say nothing of the fact that the Swiss were incredibly capable and smart fighters.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I don't have nearly enough knowledge of the law to argue with you on a legal basis about the second amendment. I'm just a citizen, I've only read the Bill of Rights, are you saying that only people who have spent years studying a subject should have opinions on it?
None of my beliefs about anything legal are tightly held. I've changed my mind about several issues over the years as I've gotten new information, or reassessed my own moral priorities. Heck, in May, if asked, I would probably say I was a moderate leaning libertarian. Now, if asked, I would say I was somewhere between a socialist, a populist, and a democrat. That's a pretty big shift right there.
Which is to say, that I'm completely open to changing my mind based on new information, if that information convinces me that I'm wrong.
I posted what I did in the hopes that someone in this thread would tell me why my interpretation was wrong. No one has. FlyingCow correctly interpreted what I meant and said he disagreed with it. You said that I was wrong because the amendment clearly referred to miltias. I said I disagreed with that. You said I shouldn't disagree with it because smart people say you're right. The end result is that I still don't understand why I'm wrong.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What, you can't just trust me on this one?
(Gimme a day or two, I'll rustle up some references to those "smart people" and at least give you a taste of what the other side's argument is)
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
That would be great.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:While this is true, it's also misleading. In the first place, those are rifles, not handguns. In the second place, ammunition for them is extremely tightly controlled, with restrictions on its purchase. In the third place, it's illegal to actually carry the rifle in public, except going to and fro a firing range. In short, as far as individual self-defense is concerned, these guns are totally useless - and likewise for committing armed robbery, to be sure.
You were correct until you started making conclusions about the facts. While the sale of ammunition is restricted, everybody with a rifle has ammunition for that rifle. Those rifles are certainly not useless for home defense, and their presence is a huge deterrent for home invasion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah, but now you've introduced the new category of home defense, which I do not think anyone so far on this thread has been saying anything about. All the examples I've seen thus far are muggeries and preventing bank robberies and suchlike, and for those I will stand by my statement. Also, that ammunition is supposed to be kept 'sealed'; I don't know how good the seals are, but if they are at all tough, it's a bit of a problem if you need it fast.
To draw any conclusions about the deterrent effect of rifles at home, we'd need much better statistics than the current assertion that Switzerland has very low rates of gun crime. We now need to know whether its rate of home burglaries is particularly low, compared to its mugging rate, with both compared to, say, nearby France (preferably urban areas compared to urban). This would actually be a very useful statistic for drawing conclusions about the deterrent effect of guns, because these rifles cannot possibly be deterring muggings, so we can separate out the cultural whatnots and get only the effect of guns.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But it does mean that if someone is to bear the cost of violence, the one who initiated it is the preferable choice to bear it.
We all are the ones bearing the cost for a killed person, assuming human life has inherent objective value to us. Certainly the friends and family of the person killed bear the cost.
quote:What I don't understand is why you keep underselling this with words like "chance". There are 16,000 murders a year in this country - it's not like it doesn't happen. We're not talking just a "chance," and to the extent you keep misrepresenting my position with continued use of the term "chance" you are being dishonest.
A situation in which chance is not involved is not a real situation. Nobody can see into the future to determine for sure what an aggressor is going to do to them. Nobody can see into the future to see if trying to kill that aggressor will make them more safe, or less safe. Instead, they make a judgement call on what is more likely. In other words, they take a chance.
Yes there are thousands of murders that happen. But how many intruders enter people's homes without killing anyone? I bet the number is far more than those that kill. How many people threaten someone but don't follow up on that threat? Once again, I bet the number is far more than those who do follow up. So in those situations, it is only reasonable to conclude that there is a chance the aggressor will kill someone - and there is a chance they will not. "Chance" is at the heart of the matter.
If you could predict the future with certainty, it might be more acceptable to kill people in order to save more lives than that one. But you cannot predict the future. Maybe there could be a situation where you know the aggressor so well that you are pretty darn sure what he or she will do, in which case you could come close to predicting the future. But in most situations, that is not going to be the case.
quote:The reason we don't kill people is because it is generally morally wrong to do so. The reason we don't use force in many situations in which it would be otherwise moral to use force is because of the social contract. Therefore, I may not use certain levels of force to defend property - because in this society we have decided that we will submit most property disputes to the jurisdiction of a neutral arbiter - the state.
I don't believe I have agreed to that social contract. Certainly nobody ever asked me about it or gave me the option of opting out. How can that qualify as a contract with me then?
In addition, even if I'm in the jungle and someone takes my only meal in 48 hours, I am still only right to kill them if not doing so will result in my own death, or the death of someone else. The difference between the jungle and here is that people here will enforce that morality - in the jungle I could get away with doing the wrong thing, except perhaps until God's judgement, if you are a Christian.
quote:It's one thing to say it's noble for that child to sacrifice himself to avoid killing his brother. It's another thing to say we ought to use the coercive threat of punishment to attempt to force him to make that sacrifice.
I said nothing about punishing anyone. I just said we shouldn't allow the children to have guns in order to allow them to kill eachother when they get into a fight.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:which I do not think anyone so far on this thread has been saying anything about.
Actually, I had talked about this.
quote:To draw any conclusions about the deterrent effect of rifles at home, we'd need much better statistics than the current assertion that Switzerland has very low rates of gun crime.
From what I've read, Switzerland's low crime and gun rates are because of the overall economic level of the country - there's not as much of a poor, underpriveliged class. Also, since all adults are trained as part of the military, there is a different attitude of responsibility among the general population.
Economics and heightened responsibility have helped lead to low rates of gun crime - not the presence or lack of guns.
I use Switzerland as a clear example that the presence of guns doesn't cause crime. It's absurd to think that they do. They are inanimate objects, and don't cause anything.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Switzerland also has a very regulated (for lack of a better word) society. Rules and order are very important, particularly publicly. This has resulted in some nasty racism, anti-semitism, and some other -isms, but presumably also contributes to the low rate of crime.
It also results in some marvelous clocks and watches.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
To BlueWizard: It's cool. I do agree that a lot of the negative views about guns are held by people who do not have a lot of experience with them. I feel that statement should be made as a general statement instead of pointing it at anyone in particular.
On the first page I made the statement "Have you ever been in a situation where you needed a gun? I'll bet you haven't." and it was viewed as a personal attack.
To Tresopax: Yes, all life has value. But not the same value. Value is not absolute. Diamonds are valuable, but part of their value is their rarity. If the diamond sellers of the world released their huge stockpile of diamonds onto the market, the price of diamonds would plummet. Value is a comparison and a judgment.
Human life is valuable. But not an absolute value. Are Ghandi's and Martin Luther King Jr.'s lives more valuable than Hitler and Stalin? Yes! Yes they are.
When you choose to use violence you are devaluing your life, because you are devaluing the lives of your victims. That's the social contract.
The social contract is, you don't kill me, I won't kill you. The social contract is, if you do not break the law, you will not be punished, and if you do, you will.
To Lyrhawn: I would be very interested to see those documents you are referring to. I agree with Blacwolve that the second amendment needs to be redefined for modern times. So seeing what the founders meant when they put it down originally would be a goodness.
To FlyingCow: I agree that the Swiss situation at very least disproves the idea that more guns = more crime (or the Old West argument).
quote:the Swiss were incredibly capable and smart fighters.
Of course they were! They could pick their teeth, open a bottle of wine, cut down a small tree, clean their nails and cut something all with the same knife!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Ah, but now you've introduced the new category of home defense, which I do not think anyone so far on this thread has been saying anything about.
To me, home defense is a sub-set of self defense. :shrug:
quote:Also, that ammunition is supposed to be kept 'sealed'; I don't know how good the seals are, but if they are at all tough, it's a bit of a problem if you need it fast.
My understanding is that the seals are there so that it's easy to tell if it's been broken, like the seal on a food container. It's not meant to be difficult.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by FlyingCow: They are inanimate objects, and don't cause anything.
Inanimate objects cause things all the time.
Seriously though, that's kind of a straw man. I don't think anyone is arguing that guns get up by themselves and shoot someone or that they mind-control people into committing crimes.
I think you may be confusing causal relationships with intent.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It's not a straw man at all, Juxtapose.
The gun is not the problem. A gun by itself isn't going to rob a bank, mug someone, burglarize someone's house, or rape anyone. The gun is going to sit there, subject to the forces of gravity, reflecting light, not moving.
The problems don't come from the gun. The gun is inanimate - it doesn't move. It is not the cause of crime.
quote:Inanimate objects cause things all the time.
They can cause passive reactions, perhaps. Like, slime on the bathroom floor might cause me to make a face. But a gun doesn't cause a murder - the murderer does. The gun is just one of the many tools at the murderer's disposal.
quote:Seriously though, that's kind of a straw man. I don't think anyone is arguing that guns get up by themselves and shoot someone or that they mind-control people into committing crimes.
No, they're saying the equivalent of: Guns are bad, mmkay?
They're not good or bad. Making them such is attributing some sort of personification to them that just isn't there.
People are arguing that eliminating guns will somehow reduce crime and death. This is just silly. It's like saying eliminating forks will reduce obesity. The fork doesn't make people fat - it's what they choose to do with it.
Obviously, in Switzerland, the choice is not to use their guns for crime. In the United States, the choice to use guns for crime is far more common.
That's not the gun's fault. The availability of the gun itself is not the problem. Eliminating guns will therefore not eliminate the problem.
quote:I think you may be confusing causal relationships with intent.
In that a gun can cause someone to react to it (positively or negatively), yes a gun can cause something. A gun does not cause someone to pick it up and shoot someone, though. Therefore, a gun, in itself, does not cause physical harm.
It becomes dangerous when someone chooses to make it dangerous. Put a gun on a table, and it's about as dangerous as a rock. I could pick up that gun and shoot someone, or I could pick up that rock and fracture someone's skull with it. A dinner knife is a dangerous weapon, if we choose to use it as such - but, in itself, it's just an object.
It really seems like a lot of people feel guns are inherently bad - that its existence is a problem, and the cause of other problems. This just isn't logical to me.
You want to be down on crime, that makes sense. You want to be down on tools, that's just weird.
Eliminating the tool doesn't stop the crime. Stopping the factors that lead to crime will stop the tool from being used for crime. So, maybe instead of people working on banning guns they should be working on fixing the social problems that lead to the guns being used.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well said!
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Now you got me scared of cutlery.
"Want some more steak, dear?" "AAAAH!!! POINT THAT FORK SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!"
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote: A gun by itself isn't going to rob a bank, mug someone, burglarize someone's house, or rape anyone. The gun is going to sit there, subject to the forces of gravity, reflecting light, not moving.
And if anyone were saying otherwise, your argument wouldn't be a straw man.
If someone uses a gun to kill someone else, the problem is stems from two sources. A) the killer. B) the gun. Denying one is as foolish as denying the other.
quote:But a gun doesn't cause a murder - the murderer does. The gun is just one of the many tools at the murderer's disposal.
As others have noted, this logic doesn't hold up when dealing with things like grenades, anthrax, and nuclear warheads. If it IS okay to ban those things, then we're really just negotiating at that point, and asserting principles as though they're self evident gets us nowhere.
quote:It's like saying eliminating forks will reduce obesity.
Actually, I've heard that using chopsticks will cause you to eat slower and lower your calorie intake. You seem to refuse to believe that the material world around us can influence the decisions people make.
quote:It really seems like a lot of people feel guns are inherently bad - that its existence is a problem, and the cause of other problems. This just isn't logical to me.
It's not all that illogical:
The primary purpose of a gun is to inflict or threaten injury up to the point of death.
Harm is, in general, bad.
Therefore, guns are, in general, bad.
quote:Stopping the factors that lead to crime will stop the tool from being used for crime.
Believe it or not, the degree of difficulty in committing a crime factors into whether a crime is committed. Since availability of tools factors into the degree of difficulty, it's not at all illogical to suspect that lowering the quantity of guns in the population could lower the crime rate.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Well Juxtapose managed to say all that I was writing out when I stopped to read his post before finishing. <doffs hat at juxtapose> well written sir.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Weapons have been around as long as mankind has. It is not those weapons that are the problem, but those among our race that use them to force their will on others. Weapons will not go away, nor should they.
Weapons are the reigns of power, and if good and peaceable men do not have them, then the reigns of power fall to lesser hands.
There are too many guns in the US and around the world to ever make the idea of removing all guns feasible (even IF it was desirable).
If you had two identical guns, and one was used by a hero to uphold justice, to fight evil and to keep the peace, while the other was used by a villain to murder for greed, to destroy for pleasure and to generally be an evil bastard and then you placed those two guns side by side, they would still be identical.
Sure, guns make it easier to kill, but we can not uninvent the gun. And if we did, we'd be killing each other with swords and bows! Guns are not evil. How people use them can be evil. But it is the responsibility of the person who pulls the trigger and not the responsibility of the gun.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
And if the good guy and the bad guy both had no gun, they would be forced to actually discuss their differences, "The pen is mightier then the sword?"
quote: Sure, guns make it easier to kill, but we can not uninvent the gun. And if we did, we'd be killing each other with swords and bows!
Ok then uninvent swords and bows, whats the problem?
Would you say then that the in the cause of natural progression we simply allow more and more convenient tools of death to propagate amongst the population?
If somebody creates a device wherewith by simply thinking of somebodies death they die, would you say, "Its not the implants fault, its the person doing the thinking."
You seem to think conflict and war are inevitabilities that cannot be stopped. You are right they cannot be stopped as long as the tools to wage them still exist.
Posted by AdmiralSenn (Member # 9919) on :
<Enter new member with no prior history on this board>
I'd just like to point something out. Yes, if all guns were controlled by the authorities, we would all be safer - no criminals (except the authorities - but that's a whole other argument) would have them.
The problem with that is that people ALREADY HAVE guns. And there are plenty of ways to get guns without having to register them. Even if all gun sales in the future are only to registered, pre-screened and approved buyers, that still leaves a massive number of illegal guns in the hands of criminals.
In this situation, I would rather regular people have access to guns (not access meaning bins on the street where anyone can just grab a gun, but a method of legally acquiring them) than not have access.
Also, I've never heard the NRA support all citizens owning automatic weapons. I've heard them argue for different calibers and de-restricting certain types of ammunition, but full auto seems a bit out there to me, even for them. Granted that I'd like a fully automatic weapon, but that's more because I'd get a kick out of shooting it at a range or something than because I think I need it.
Did any of that make sense?
</wandering reply from random interloper>
EDIT: Probably should have read the whole thread first. Please don't shoot me for not making sense.
[ November 30, 2006, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: AdmiralSenn ]
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Thanks, Blackblade.
Stone_Wolf, the thing is that I agree with most of what you've said in that post. I'm not even sure that it would be desirable to rid the world of all weapons, and I doubt anyone would argue with you that it'd be impossible. We need weapons in the hands of good people because weapons will always be in the hands of the greedy and the sadistic.
That doesn't mean, however, that we can't make attempts to keep weapons out of the hands of would-be evildoers. As others have noted before me, at this point we're engaging in cost-benefit analysis. I don't think it's particularly valid to argue that this type of discussion is absurd as a matter of principle.
Take a look at this page from the Dept. of Justice on homicides in the US by weapon type. Note the plummet in gun-related deaths in the early-to-mid '90s, the same time as the Brady Bill was passed. Now, granted, homicide of all types was decreasing at this point, but the decline in homicides with handguns as the murder weapon is much sharper. This indicates to me that at least some forms of gun control can be effective.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Welcome to Hatrack, AdmiralSenn. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:The primary purpose of a gun is to inflict or threaten injury up to the point of death.
Harm is, in general, bad.
Therefore, guns are, in general, bad.
And this takes us back to my post just after StoneWolf's agree/disagree breakdown.
Forgive me for quoting myself:
quote:To the second to last point, on the uses of firearms, there is a division over what people perceive firearms were *designed for* and what people actually *use them for*. (Person A says they collect guns because they are shiny, and Person B says that doesn't matter because guns are designed to kill)
You're obviously in the second camp. Use doesn't matter as much as purpose in your view of the world.
I'm pretty clearly in the first camp.
In my personal experience, the primary purpose of a gun is the entertainment value that comes along with target shooting. I have no interest in using the gun to "inflict or threaten injury" upon anyone.
Purpose cannot be attributed to an inanimate object with any universal truth. "A gun is for killing" is like saying "The internet is for porn". Guns I've used are not for killing, and I'm sure many people use the internet for other things than porn. (Or so I've heard... )
quote:And if anyone were saying otherwise, your argument wouldn't be a straw man.
Saying "Guns are bad" or "guns cause crime" is tantamount to attributing those actions to the gun itself, rather than to the user.
People seem to be ignoring that the user is responsible for the crime, not the gun. The gun isn't sentenced to jail, after all.
I could use a gun to drive a nail or to kill a person. I could also use a hammer to drive a nail or kill a person. It would be *my* choice that makes either item a weapon or not - not the "primary purpose" of the tool.
quote:If someone uses a gun to kill someone else, the problem is stems from two sources. A) the killer. B) the gun. Denying one is as foolish as denying the other.
But it's not foolish. The gun is a tool. That person could be using a knife, a brick, a rope, or their bare hands. None of those items are inherently bad. Neither is a gun.
Crime comes from people, not from items.
quote:As others have noted, this logic doesn't hold up when dealing with things like grenades, anthrax, and nuclear warheads.
Holds up fine to me. If people didn't decide to use them to kill one another, none of these items would be any more dangerous than all manner of other legal items.
People are the problem. Fix them, you fix crime. Tools are a means to an end - take them away, other tools will be found.
This isn't so difficult. You just have to throw away preconceived ideas that the intent of the creator of an item somehow governs all of that item's uses and identity forever and ever.
Guns were invented to be more efficient killing tools, granted. That doesn't mean they have to be that. Once a poem is written, the author loses control over how it is interpreted. Once an item is created, the inventor loses control over how it is used.
quote:Actually, I've heard that using chopsticks will cause you to eat slower and lower your calorie intake.
Are you saying that if forks were banned, people would go to chopsticks? Not, say, handheld foot like tacos or burgers? If people want to eat a lot, they'll eat a lot, regardless of the tools at hand.
quote:You seem to refuse to believe that the material world around us can influence the decisions people make.
This is why lawsuits about McDonalds causing obesity get started. McDonalds' existence isn't why someone gets fat - that person choosing to eat McDonalds food without any regard to health or moderation is why that person gets fat.
If a parent beats a child with a belt, we don't blame the belt.
Unfortunately, our society is wont to do just that, blaming video games or television for child behavior. Just because it's on, that doesn't mean you have to let your child watch it.
If you want to ban something, ban irresponsible behavior.
quote:Believe it or not, the degree of difficulty in committing a crime factors into whether a crime is committed.
Granted. Though this is actually an argument used by the other side, too. If the average citizen was likely to have a gun, mugging someone or breaking into their house would become far more difficult, therefore lowering crime rates.
quote:Since availability of tools factors into the degree of difficulty, it's not at all illogical to suspect that lowering the quantity of guns in the population could lower the crime rate.
Actually, no. You'd have to lower the availability of all tools that are potentially lethal. Knives, bats, crowbars, bricks, anything heavy or sharp enough to cause damage and easy enough to wield.
You'd need to make the whole world of nerf.
Again, I point to Switzerland, though. Accessibility to guns obviously doesn't cause gun crime there. So, it's not the accessibility that's causing the crime - it's the people looking for an accessible weapon.
If guns were not available, they would turn to the next best thing.
Also, this is all neglecting the very important fact that banning guns just means law-abiding citizens wouldn't have them - not that criminals wouldn't have them.
Edit: to fix a broken quote
[ November 30, 2006, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Let's try to look at this from a micro-economic standpoint - I've just been reading a lot of David Friedman, and it's interesting stuff. First, let us assume that killers are rational; they kill if they think the benefit (to them) of killing is larger than the cost (to them). The cost is from two sources: First, the victim will attempt to defend himself; second, we have courts and police and even executioners - which is in some sense an extension of individual self-defense; the victim can call on allies. The benefit can be either directly economic - the contents of a wallet, the removal of a witness - or taken out in satisfaction - "Die, you wife-stealin' swine!"
Now, people have different estimations of benefit. If I think that a murder will net me one dollar, and you think a murder will net you two dollars, then if the cost of the murder is 1.5 dollars, you will kill and I won't. So any time you make murder more expensive or less beneficial, you reduce the number of them. (This might have other costs - for example, you can reduce murders to zero by locking up everybody in cages they can't escape, but it would be a rather costly approach. But right now I'm not so concerned with efficiency in this sense.)
Now, what does a gun do? Essentially, it reduces the immediate self-defense ability of the target. You are at a disadvantage against a large man with an axe, certainly; but it is not impossible to win such a fight. Your disadvantage is much larger against a man with a gun. On the other hand, your protection in the form of police and courts is not much reduced - maybe slightly, because the police have to arrive faster to actually stop the fight, but not much. So, guns make it cheaper to kill; in this sense, they do increase the number of murders.
Now, as is often pointed out, guns can also work the other way, by increasing the self-defense capability of a target of crime. This increases the cost of crime, but not of killing. Economically, if everybody is armed, we should expect to see fewer crimes but more serious ones in terms of killings; we should also expect to see more domestic disputes end in killing. In this sense, then, guns do, actually, kill people, by the simple expedient of removing some barriers to doing so. If something is cheaper to do, it gets done more often; this is basic economics.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
FC, In general I agree with you in the whole argument about guns not being inherently evil/bad
we must however admit to a middle-ground between you and Juxtapose's arguments (I think) and say that while they are not inherently bad, guns are inherently more dangerous and/or more prone to be used in a dangerous manner.
This isn't a judgement call on the nature of the gun so much as a statement of fact.
While yes a criminal may look at a rock and say "I could bludgeon someone to death with this, I think I'll go rob people now" I think we'd agree that said criminal would be substantially more likely to take a violent course of action were he instead to be in posession of a firearm. Also, I think we'd agree that there's a significantly greater probability that he would be able to successfully commit more crime with a gun than a rock, since I for example would likely try fighting off or running from a criminal wielding a rock where I wouldn't were he holding a 1911.
Guns are not bad, but their convenient presence MAY be an encouraging/enabling factor to the actions of some criminals.
Does this mean that all guns should be banned? (or even any guns) not necessarily, but I think qualitatively this is true.
Now I don't think there's necessarily clear studies that prove one way or the other a causal connection (or lack-therof) between accessability of guns and violent crime, certainly the potential of this connection exists and hasn't been disproven. As said, Switzerland may help show that there isn't a universal relationship, but there are certainly other examples that seem to point the opposite direction as well (Canada/Australia/England...)
FC, the problem I see in your use of the Switzerland example is that it's been established that they have a very different base society compared to ours, so it's potentially possible that their society just reacts differently to the increased temptation that guns present in ours. Or perhaps their violent crimes are in fact drastically effected by the presence of guns, but the overall level of violent crime is so low as to make the statistics of the situation completely inconclusive. Maybe if all guns were removed from switzerland by law violent crime would drop by half, who knows.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Assuming that killers are rational was the first logical misstep, and the others topple downhill after it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Tell me, do you think there would be more, the same, or fewer, murders, in a world where it was not illegal? If you think there would be more, how do you explain it except as a rational response to a decreased deterrent?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
As a professor of mine once said: You don't not kill someone because it's illegal, you don't kill people because it's not a very social thing to do.
I really don't think the number of murders would significantly increase if it was legal. If a person is of the mindset that it's okay to take another human's life, then how do laws stop them? Is it fear of sitting in a room for twenty years that really deters people from murder, or is it something beyond the legal system?
quote:while they are not inherently bad, guns are inherently more dangerous and/or more prone to be used in a dangerous manner.
More prone to be used in a dangerous manner than what? More prone than, say, a car? Or how about a firecracker?
Something being dangerous means that people should be better educated about it, should be taught to be cautious with it, and should respect its potential dangers. Owning a rottweiler can be dangerous, or a poisonous snake or spider.
I'm against banning things because they are considered dangerous, or prone to be used in a certain way.
(Again, I'm totally for increased education, training, safety tests, etc - just not outright bans)
quote:While yes a criminal may look at a rock and say "I could bludgeon someone to death with this, I think I'll go rob people now"
You've got the thinking backwards. It's more "I want to rob people, what can I use?" or "I'm going to kill this guy, what can help me do it?"
In absence of a gun, something else would be used.
quote:I think we'd agree that said criminal would be substantially more likely to take a violent course of action were he instead to be in posession of a firearm.
I wouldn't agree. While I could be wrong, I don't see criminals seeing a gun and thinking "Wow, a gun. What could I do with this... hmm... well, I've never tried robbing a convenience store, but now that I have a gun I think I'll do just that!" Again, I could be wrong, but I would think the reasoning is more "I need money, I'm going to rob that convenience store, what can I use to scare the owner into giving me the money? I need a gun."
In absence of a gun, he might threaten to set fire to the place, or to blow it up, or he could threaten the store clerk with a knife or other weapon. The presence of the gun isn't the motivation to rob the store - there are other factors that brought the robber to that point. The gun is just the means to his end.
quote:Guns are not bad, but their convenient presence MAY be an encouraging/enabling factor to the actions of some criminals
And violent cartoons MAY be an encouraging/enabling factor to the actions of some criminals. But I truly believe that unless their minds were *already* looking toward criminal activity, the presence of a tool that would help in that endeavor is inconsequential.
quote:FC, the problem I see in your use of the Switzerland example is that it's been established that they have a very different base society compared to ours, so it's potentially possible that their society just reacts differently to the increased temptation that guns present in ours.
Very true. It's society that governs the people's actions, not the availability of certain tools.
quote:Maybe if all guns were removed from switzerland by law violent crime would drop by half, who knows.
Or maybe the opposite. Or maybe nothing would happen.
I still hold to the belief that societal differences are what govern their crime rate, not the availability of tools that make crime easier.
One person may look at a machete and think it would be pretty useful for slashing down the overgrown area in their back yard. Another may look at the same machete and think it would be pretty useful for threatening someone with violence.
The difference is in the person, not in the tool.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
FC, while I agree that many instances of murder are results of rage/passion and therefore may not be influenced by the effectiveness of a gun versus something else, I think we can't discount the number of gun-related crimes where the criminals in question were at least somewhat rational (if not wholly so).
I'm saying that it's significantly more likely that someone will consider commiting the following crimes for example if they have access to a gun rather than a rock or axe or knife...
Now perhaps someone can come up with statistics saying that crimes of passion are overwhelmingly those of concern rather than pre-medditated crimes like those listed above.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I really don't think the number of murders would significantly increase if it was legal. If a person is of the mindset that it's okay to take another human's life, then how do laws stop them? Is it fear of sitting in a room for twenty years that really deters people from murder, or is it something beyond the legal system?
You are arguing that the demand for murder is inelastic; but I think this is not completely true. Consider; if the cost of murder to me is zero - this includes the risk of retaliation in kind - then you would certainly find the attendance at churches in my neighbourhood dropping rather drastically. Also my landlord might find it convenient to drop the rent. Now this is obviously an absurd case, where the laws of sociology are bent for my personal convenience; still, it demonstrates that there exists some level of cost that will increase the murder rate.
A more realistic case can be found in the sagas of Iceland, where rich warriors could afford gear and training that made them extremely likely to win a fight against a peasant. In consequence, peasants are always getting killed with essentially zero cost to the killer, legal enforcement being limited to a declaration of the Ting that the killer might legitimately be killed by the victim's family.
Moreover, the kind of disincentive you describe is just one more form of cost: People like to think of themselves as altruistic, or at least not the kind of bastard that goes about killing people without cause. But that's a cultural thing; one could easily imagine a culture where it's heroic to kill - even if it's illegal, in fact - in defense of honour. I'm sure you can think of some. In such a case, what deterrent is left except law and self-defense? In other words, although the demand for murder is not perfectly elastic by any means, it is empirically demonstrable that it is not sufficiently inelastic that law is irrelevant.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
FC, to be honest I don't think you and I are really at odds for the most part. I just want to make sure you consider the possibility that the easy availability of guns MAY in some cases increase the likelyhood of violent crime.
I'm not disagreeing at all that the mindsets and possibilities you point out are valid, and may very-well pertain to the vast majority of cases out there. I just want you to also admit that there is at least the potential of validity to the flip side I mention (which I think you have).
I agree that increased safety tests, liscensing strictures etc are likely the best way to go on the issue, hell I own a couple guns myself (entirely for sport shooting and their novelty).
also: Note, when I say that guns are inherently more dangerous I generally mean "more dangerous than other objects which are likely to be substituted for guns in the case of violent crime." i.e. what other objects might be used to mug someone, rob a store, kill a cheating spouse etc... sure rottweilers and venemous snakes are potentially dangerous, but it's somewhat unlikely that anyone would use one to rob a store, and less likely that the robbery would go successfully.
There is certainly something of a point (in limited circumstances) with cars. They are definately more dangerous than guns for the most part, but are much less likely to be used in a directly malicious nature, and are much more restricted in their use. But yes, they can be used to kill many people and are thus quite dangerous.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Again, I could be wrong, but I would think the reasoning is more "I need money, I'm going to rob that convenience store, what can I use to scare the owner into giving me the money? I need a gun."
Ah, but this is precisely the point! Because the further train of thought, in some countries, is going to be "Where can I get a gun? Damn, I'm going to have to go to a lot of trouble. I guess I better find a different way to make money." While in other countries it'll be "Maybe Jim will lend me his gun if I give him twenty bucks."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, by the way, the word 'rational' might be a touch misleading here. I'll let comrade Friedman explain:
quote:The central assumption of economics is rationality--that people have objectives and tend to choose the correct way of achieving them. While the assumption can be modified to deal with information costs, individuals are still assumed to make the correct decision, in an uncertain environment, about how much information to buy.
The use of the term "rationality" to describe this central economic assumption is somewhat deceptive, since it suggests that people find the correct way to achieve their objectives by rational analysis--using formal logic to deduce conclusions from assumptions, analyzing evidence, and so forth. No such assumption about how people find the correct means to achieve their ends is necessary.
One can imagine a variety of other explanations for rational behavior. To take a trivial example, most of our objectives require that we eat occasionally, so as not to die of hunger (exception--if my objective is to be fertilizer). Whether or not people have deduced this fact by logical analysis, those who do not choose to eat are not around to have their behavior analyzed by economists. More generally, evolution may produce people (and other animals) who act rationally without knowing why. The same result may be produced by a process of trial and error. If you walk to work every day you may by experiment find the shortest route, even if you do not know enough geometry to calculate it. "Rationality" does not mean a particular way of thinking but a tendency to get the right answer, and it may be the result of many things other than thinking.
(My emphasis.) In other words, you don't have to assume that criminals think things through logically and based on true information.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Consider; if the cost of murder to me is zero - this includes the risk of retaliation in kind
This sounds a lot like "assume a spherical rabbit". No risk of retaliation at all? This is theoretical and of no practical use. And no concern for human life? You're describing a sociopath.
quote:Now this is obviously an absurd case, where the laws of sociology are bent for my personal convenience
Ya think?
quote:In other words, although the demand for murder is not perfectly elastic by any means, it is empirically demonstrable that it is not sufficiently inelastic that law is irrelevant.
True. And I am in no means advocating making murder legal. In fact, I'm not sure how that tangent even started.
quote:I just want to make sure you consider the possibility that the easy availability of guns MAY in some cases increase the likelyhood of violent crime.
Absolutely. And letting a bunch of teenage boys loose in a house filled with stage combat blades can also lead to a lot of people getting hurt. The easy availability of cars in some cases increases the likelihood of people driving dangerously, too.
It's just that it's the people involved that are the key, not the objects they latch onto.
quote:I just want you to also admit that there is at least the potential of validity to the flip side I mention
Absolutely, again. There are people who do not act responsibly towards others. They should be punished accordingly. The majority that do act responsibly should not be punished for the irresponsible actions of the minority.
This goes back to my earlier example, I don't want someone to tell me I can't buy a Ferrari because some people drive too fast in them.
quote:Ah, but this is precisely the point! Because the further train of thought, in some countries, is going to be "Where can I get a gun? Damn, I'm going to have to go to a lot of trouble. I guess I better find a different way to make money."
Or, maybe I'll brandish my machete, or start smashing things with a bat. The next train of thought is not "Dang, I can't find a gun - guess that means I'll just have to buckle down and get a 9 to 5..." If someone is at the level of desperation that they are looking to rob a store, lack of a gun is not going to stop them.
(However, knowing the storeowner has a shotgun behind the counter might. Just sayin'.)
quote:While in other countries it'll be "Maybe Jim will lend me his gun if I give him twenty bucks.
And again, how has this become the gun as the problem and not the person's decision to engage in criminality?
quote:"Rationality" does not mean a particular way of thinking but a tendency to get the right answer, and it may be the result of many things other than thinking.
If you're killing someone or engaging in violent crime, you're not getting the "right" answer. You've skipped past the rational solutions to your problem, and gone for more irrational ones.
Murder is not economics. And as much as I respect my fellow Rutgers alum, he isn't talking about murderers acting rationally in this passage.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:If you're killing someone or engaging in violent crime, you're not getting the "right" answer.
Pardon me, but you are. If killing someone gets me 20 bucks and costs me nothing, hand me that gun. You seem to be confusing the moral sense of 'right' with economic utility, a compeltely separate matter.
quote:This sounds a lot like "assume a spherical rabbit". No risk of retaliation at all? This is theoretical and of no practical use.
An existence proof is never useless. You'll note that in my next paragraph I point out a case that existed in actual history, which you've very conveniently ignored.
quote: And no concern for human life? You're describing a sociopath.
Quite so. Does your theory rely on the non-existence of sociopaths? If so, then I suggest that it is you who are assuming a spherical rabbit.
quote:True. And I am in no means advocating making murder legal. In fact, I'm not sure how that tangent even started.
We were discussing whether incentives had any effect on the number of murders. You asserted that they do not. I came up with a counter-example, which you have yet to argue against.
quote:Murder is not economics. And as much as I respect my fellow Rutgers alum, he isn't talking about murderers acting rationally in this passage.
In other works, though, he discusses the rationality of criminals, including murderers. I daren't post any more for fear of copyright violation, but you can read it here - and you should, it's really very interesting stuff. Start with this - which, you should note, ends up arguing against gun control.
quote:And again, how has this become the gun as the problem and not the person's decision to engage in criminality?
I agree that the person is the problem. The point is, if he can get hold of a gun, then his problem is our problem, because he will act on his evil thoughts. If he cannot, then his problem remains his problem. Therefore, the availability of guns to criminals is our problem.
Now, your point about substitutes for guns is reasonable, but not complete. All I'm saying is that there exist at least some criminals who will commit robbery if they can get hold of a gun without enormous problems, and who otherwise will give that up. Gun control doesn't have to deter every crime to be useful; otherwise we might as well abandon police on the grounds that some criminals will still rob even if there is some chance of getting caught! Now, you can reasonably ask whether gun control maybe costs more in bureaucracy and enforcement than it nets you in crimes prevented; maybe it doesn't, I don't know. The point is, this is a point on which we can get some actual data to make decisions on, instead of vague hand-waving. That's what makes the economic analysis useful, as opposed to the moral point of a right to bear arms.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
FlyingCow, Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not at all trying to excuse criminals, and perhaps I should have said so from the beginning.
I'll agree that people will always commit crimes because of, as you say, economic and social disparity. I do think the data will show that decreasing access to tools used to commit crime will result in a decrease of crime. I seem to recall studies on this topic, and I'll try and dig them up, probably sometime tomorrow. On the topic, I'd like to hear what you thought about the statistics on homicide after the Brady bill was passed that I linked earlier.
More importantly, I think you've left out one important factor to consider. For the moment, I'll grant that removing all guns from the civilian population would simply cause all gun-wielding criminals to simply use knives or blunt objects instead. So the number of crimes being committed is just as high as before. Do you think that the negative impact caused by this set of crimes is as great as in crimes committed with the aid of guns?
Even if the availability of guns does not influence criminal behavior, it surely affects the impact of that behavior on victims.
Incidentally, I've been enjoying this discussion, and I'm really gratified that everyone has been able to remain civil. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Ow. Catching up on four pages of argument can give one a headache.
A few thoughts:
quote:I believe the second amendment gives a right to WMDs.
Arguably, the very phrase "bear arms" implies, at the least, a weapon that a single person could effectively carry, wield, and fire. That leaves out most WMDs; at least, the kind that don't destroy the user in the usage.
Anyone else think of the Far Side with the caption "Aw, great! Now the Johnsons have the bomb!..."
quote:Sure, I also think that protecting against criminals is a good reason to allow guns, but a fundamental reason is protection against tyrranical government.
I'm sorry, but by the time any quasi-trained citizen is exchanging shots with members of a professional military, they've already lost. If the (occasionally cited in this discussion) example of Iraq really teaches us anything, it's that you'd have far better luck taking on a modern military with, say, a radio controlled fertilizer bomb than with small arms fire. On that line, something like the Anarchists' Cookbook and a collection of household chemicals would likely suit "fighting tyranny" better than a gun.
Excuse me, there's an NSA agent at my door.
quote:- In a fit of rage, you can kill people with a lot more than a gun. A car, for instance, works pretty well.
- A baseball bat, crowbar or kitchen knife can kill suspected intruders, too, but we don't ban those.
- Leaving electric appliances near bathtubs, leaving toxic chemicals (drano, rat poison) in easy reach, letting infants play on balconies, etc, etc, etc... can also lead to child death. We don't ban these, we just caution parents to avoid such situations. Responsible parents keep dangerous things away from their children, and responsible gun-owning parents are no different.
Unfortunately, many states have no laws mandating that gun ownership requires proof of responsibility.
Now, a six-year-old is unlikely to accidentally kill a sibling with a baseball bat. And a nearsighted senior citizen is unlikely to mistakenly stab a visitor to death with a knife. And while the rate of accidental death and injury from automobiles is regrettably high, it's actually rather difficult to intentionally kill someone with one, as a victim first needs to get in front of their assailant, in a running car, with enough room to accelerate to a fatal velocity.
Further, if a young child follows the example of what people are shown doing on television with a baseball bat or a crowbar (or even, in many cases, a knife), the result is unlikely to be fatal, or even injuring. A gun, on the other hand?...
(Whether the latter says more about guns or the media is another question.)
The reason guns disturb many people so is that they put a human death a finger-twitch away from reality, something that cannot be said of a baseball bat or a knife or a car. This is part of the reason I think reasonable gun control laws that put a few steps before that finger twitch are well worthwhile.
Aside from quotes, two points:
* A well-known study by a Dr. Kellerman claimed that a gun in the home is 43 times as likely to be used against its owner as against an attacker. Now, the study was limited, and flawed for the purpose of discounting entirely the use of a weapon against a home invader, as anyone with access to a search engine can readily determine. Still, combining what is apparently a non-trivial possibility of a weapon being used against its owner with the increased likelihood a gun owner will confront an intruder rather than doing the sane thing and barricade themselves in while phoning the police, I do have questions about the use of a gun in defense. (The corollary is drawing a weapon on an armed mugger rather than simply giving them your wallet or purse, which all my old senseis would argue is a definite no-no.)
* All sides of this discussion seem willing to ascribe a boundary between good, law-abiding citizens and criminals which may not be as high as one thinks. Crimes are committed with legally purchased weapons, especially by the enraged and the desperate. Others are committed with weapons that were legally purchased orginally, but stolen.
I was told by an employer that 10% of people will never steal, 10% will steal recklessly, and 80% will steal... If they think they have the opportunity and are certain they won't get caught. While I suspect the numbers were non-scientific and greatly exaggerated, I do believe that what stands between some people and crime is not morality or a social contract, but their perception of their own power to carry out and (perhaps) get away with a crime.
Law abiding citizens.
For the record, I do not own a gun, but I have friends who do, and they're careful, sane, responsible people. I don't feel it's necessary, even if it were possible, to remove all the guns from the United States. But I do think reasonable people should support reasonable laws to keep guns out of the hands of those most likely to accidentally or intentionally use them for violence... Laws mandating waiting periods, trigger locks, and outlawing vest-penetrating rounds, for example.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Alright, this isn’t everything, but it’s a good gist of the militia argument, with some good background docs.
I can see, by the way, how really both sides could be right. Militias were viewed at the time as the people’s way of keeping the government in check. They were against standing armies, and thought they were pathways and playthings for governments on their way to corruption and tyranny, and thought that if the power was vested in the people’s army, a militia, then the government would never be able to overcome them. So in effect, keeping the guns with the people, organized in a militia, could be considered a way for the people to ‘rebel’ if the government gets out of hand.
I reject that the sole purpose of the second amendment was solely designed to give the people the ability to overthrow the government. They never planned for the people to have the ability to lead an insurrection, indeed the militias the second amendment were designed to protect and create were specifically tasked to defeat any such insurrection. I think an all volunteer army, an all volunteer national guard (which is a modern militia) is a damned good defense against our government taking extreme action (to say nothing of natural democratic safeguards). Granted I don’t think home state loyalty is what it was in the 1860’s, there’s very few who would say their loyalty to Virginia is higher than that to the US, though I suppose it would have to depend on the circumstances. The militias themselves, that are mentioned in the multiple state constitutions and in the previous versions of the second amendment were there specifically for defense of the states (individually and together), against foreign enemies and domestic insurrections. They weren’t created as an instrument of insurrection, but as a prevention and defense mechanism.
Anyway, the history of the amendment can be traced back to England. The English Declaration of Rights gave Protestants (no dice for Catholics and Jews) the right to “have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm At the early stages of the Revolution, the British tried to take away the guns of the militias in an effort to quash the ability of the Americans to stage a real revolt, really it was an attempt to take away the option at all, since the people being deprived of guns weren’t rebelling yet. They tried to cite the above stated passage, and parts of Common Law as reason to keep their weapons, that they be allowed to have them for hunting, self defense, militia obligations, etc.
Their real fear was a standing army. Standing armies were to them the ultimate tool that a president (or king) could use to revoke the civil rights and liberties of the people. Jefferson, writing to John Adams while they were in Europe (Paris and London respectively) said of the Presidency: “He may be reelected from four years to for years for life…Once in office, and possessing the military force of the union…he would not be easily dethroned, even if the people could be induced to withdraw their votes from him.” (From The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson & Abigail & John Adams edited by Lester J. Cappon). At the start of the United States of America (post Articles of Confederation), there were less than a 1,000 men in the Federal Army (John Adams by David McCullough). They believed that militias were the best form of defense against foreign enemies and domestic insurrections, such as the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay’s Rebellion, though it’s also true that Shay’s Rebellion is a probably the best represenatation of why the looser Articles of Confederation weren’t strong enough to deal with threats to the nation.
On the subject of militias vs. a standing army, James Madison had this to say (From Federalist No. 46).
quote: Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
The ongoing French Revolution scared the hell out of a lot of people too. John Adams, while remarking on the debate around the second amendment had this to say:
quote: The State is in critical Circumstances, and have been brought into them by the Heat and Impatience of the People. If nothing will bring them to consideration, I fear they will suffer
His fear was that if the people were armed, and disastified with their government, they’d take up arms and let mob rule supplant the government, to the ruin of all. Something along the lines of the decline that followed in Russia after the Revolution killed off the Romanoffs. Given what was happening in France at the time, I don’t think anyone could really brush off his fears.
Alexander Hamilton, speaking on the subject of militias in Federalist No. 29 had this to say:
quote: The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy … This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if 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 own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
What he and the others are saying, is similar to what others on this board were saying, that an armed populace is the an ultimate defense against a tyrannical government, but that isn’t the same thing as saying the second amendment was forged for the purpose of the people retaining the right to insurrection at will. On the contrary, it was designed so that standing armies, being the most obvious threat to liberty and civil rights at the time, would be rendered unnecessary except in times of war, and that militias would always outnumber them and could always overpower them at any given time, for the defense of liberty, and of the state, against domestic insurrection and foreign invasion. The idea was that if the federal government DID become out of control, and used military force against the people, the STATES would use the power of their domestic militia to overpower the Federal Army and restore Constitutional law. I think there is an emphasis on the collective rights of people to keep and bear arms, as a militia, rather than the individual right of a person to.
If you look at earlier versions of the second amendment, the material being played with had entirely to do with military service to a militia:
quote: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. … A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. … A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. … A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The words “necessary to” were added before the final version, “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.” was submitted to the states for approval. I think it should be especially noted, that a measure was put forth in the Senate and the House to add the words “for the common defense” after “bear arms” but was defeated narrowly. Much of this had to do with compromise, but clearly the thought of the time was that the defense of the nation against all threats, foreign and domestic was best held in the hands of a regulated militia. (My link for that information apparently doesn't jive well with the site, but email me if you want it and I'll send it to you).
Forty-Four states have a right to bear arms in their state Constitutions, around 28 of those states specifically include the provision that the right to bear arms is for the common defense of the state, or similar language. http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#T11
quote: Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence … Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796) … Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Several states sent requests for a Bill of Rights, and that they include the following amendments:
quote: New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion. … Virginia: . . . Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power. … New York: . . . That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, excess in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power. … North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people, trained to arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms." … Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms," and with a "militia shall not be subject to martial law" proviso as in New York.
The North Carolina Declaration of Rights (12/18/1776) states:
quote:“The people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
Another interesting conversation to be had, as an aside from this one would be the Militia Act of 1903. It was the act that turned what had once been citizen militias into what is today the National Guard, which functions as a highly trained offshoot of the regular army. That did away with citizen militias, which theoretically I think anyway, is a violation of the spirit of the second amendmenta and the Constitution, but apparently doesn’t violate the letter of the law. I’m more a fan of something akin to the Swiss system, which is I think what the framers intended us to have, a well regulated, trained force of citizens who could be called up to defend the state with a medium amount of training, which would also serve as a bulwark against a standing army’s threat to personal liberty.
Early American common usage of “to bear arms” had a decidedly military bent to it.
quote:“The Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles declares that a meaning of "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight". This study casts doubt on the modern definition of 'bear arms' to mean 'carry firearms'. In Amyette v. The State the court stated in 1840 that bear arms "has a military sense, and no other."
There’s still a lot more to look at. But this post is already monstrous, considering I assembled it more as a term paper for a history class than a typical post (and spent more time than I’ve EVER spent crafting a post before). In closing, I submit the following site again, even though I already cited it once, http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC2 for further reading. It has a wealth of knowledge on the subject, from other state constitutions to a lot of supreme court decisions and opinions on the subject as well as Constitutional commentaries and analysis from notable scholars of different times.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Not a whole lot of time to post today, but a couple of things.
KoM, the Iceland argument is just the converse of the Switzerland one. Society is different, therefore the crime rate is different. Note that in the Icelandic Sagas, there was plenty of killing without guns. Introducing guns into that society would have led to them being used to kill innocent peasants, while introducing lots of armor and swords in modern Switzerland would have not have led to people using them to kill.
It's the people and the society, not the weapons, that led to the murders. I'm sure you can find plenty of societies where human life is not inherently valued regardless of social caste - but it's not the weapons that cause that.
Also, my argument doesn't rely on the nonexistence of sociopaths. That is the person committing the crime, not the tool. I'm not saying all people are law-abiding or even sane, just that the responsibility for crime falls on the person, not the tool they use to commit it.
(Not ignoring you Sterling, just no time now. I'll come back to it.)
I did want to clarify some of my position, however:
Against - - Outright blanket bans on guns - Outright bans on specific guns - Legislation to ban anything that is potentially dangerous or harmful in the wrong hands (sometimes called "nanny government")
For - - Increased education about guns (even so far as having gun safety be a mandatory part of health class, such as drug and driver education is) - Increased training requirements before licenses are issued - Increased testing before licenses are issued - Competence testing (use testing) before licenses are issued - Mandatory background checks to rule out felons(those who have already broken the social contract - note, I wouldn't prevent someone who shoplifted a pack of gum once from purchasing a gun, however) - Mandatory retraining/testing every so many years, and annual practice at a gun range - Increased punishments for those who use guns in commission of a crime
I don't think I've left anything out, but I may have. Gun ownership should not be a crime, as there's nothing inherently wrong with owning a gun. Gun use should not be a crime, as there's nothing inherently wrong with firing a gun (so long as proper safety procedures are followed).
Use of a gun in commission of a crime is compounding the severity of the crime, and should be punishable above and beyond the normal punishment for that crime.
My beef is with the "guns are bad... mmkay?" crowd who seem to blame the weapon, or claim that because guns were designed for one purpose, that's their only purpose.
More later - though maybe not until Sunday. Busy weekend.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
Just to throw this out there: didn't one of the leaders of the Million Mom March end up using a gun to kill a man she thought killed her child (and then was wrong, leaving an innocent guy dead?) I've heard that story, at least, and I was looking for some verification.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Bit of a let down, I was at least hoping someone would read my little term paper enough to refute it.
Another post down the Hatrack black hole...
[/melodramatic "look at me" post]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I read it. I'm thinking about it.
I was talking about this with fugu last night. I don't really join these conversations to argue or to prove a point. I join them to throw out what I believe, and see what other people believe. Or because I'm really really angry (in these cases I generally back out of the thread soon after posting).
Your post convinced me that the second amendment really needs to be reworded in modern terms (although I'm not naive enough to think it will be). Since its original meaning has very little relevance to anything in modern America (for example, the miltias they refered to at the time were drastically different from the modern National Guard). But the end result is that I'm still thinking about it. Honestly, I'm going to be thinking about it for a while. You're probably not going to get a well-thought out response from me in this thread. But because of your post, in the gun control thread next month my opinion will be slightly altered, to take into account what I've learned here.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Cool.
I guess I just wanted to know that what time I spent on that post wasn't entirely wasted, and now I know it wasn't.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Thread Necromancy!
While browsing the FBI's crime reporting, I came across this little table.
Note the jump from 2004 to 2005 in homicides committed with firearms and the corresponding jump in murders committed with firearms of an unspecified type. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in September, 2004.
What do you think, statistical coincidence or indicator of legal efficacy?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
We're only up 366 weapon related homocides since 2003, 621 since 2004. That's pretty tiny. If it was because of the lapse on the ban, it didn't have much effect on the number of crimes. We'd probably need to know the number of victims before we could say how much impact it did or didn't have, though.
I find it interesting that the numbers seem to peak in 2005/6 and in 2007 settle back to 2004 levels. I wonder if 2008 would have returned to 2003 levels if the economy hadn't had its meltdown.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Guns were invented to be more efficient killing tools, granted. That doesn't mean they have to be that.
I hear that cocaine makes a pretty good abrasive cleanser.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)