posted
TommySama's useful question made me do some research. I went to NRA to see what data they have. http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/blackman.htm One study found 2.5 million protective uses of guns per year - 3 - 5 times more than criminals use guns. If 10% of those were in life-threatening situations, then a quarter million people a year are alive.
The article points out that handgun control advocates suppress stories about protective gun use. Well, of course that is true. A couple of years ago there was a gunman on an eastern campus - I think in Virginia - who was stopped by two students. What was never reported in the MSM is that the two students had handguns in their cars, ran and got them, and stopped the shooting immediately. This would be an example of the NRA's argument of 2.5 million protective uses per year.
Your argument about the unstable kid is interesting but theoretical. If we talk actual facts, there is no evidence at all, none, that any kind of handgun control actually reduces crime. So the pro-gun control arguments must necessarily rest on theory.
Suicidal intent varies and manner selected appears to vary with seriousness of intent. Other fairly deadly suicide methods include hanging oneself, jumping, CO poisoning, and a self-caused MVA. The argument seems to say if it weren't for guns, the suicidal person would choose a less lethal means. There's no evidence for that, and some authorities (esp. Nick Cummings) argue the opposite, that intent guides means.
OSC bemoans people being impervious to evidence and data. This could be a particular instance.
posted
I'm reading through the Fables article right now in order to find the study (the better to check its methodology), and I wanted to share a couple of thoughts: Fable 1 starts off with the claim that firearms are three to five times more often to stop crimes as to commit them. Unless they really did limit their statistics to non-LEOs (in which case it'd have been better rhetoric to state that), it's rather irrelevant to the discussion of ordinary citizens owning firearms, isn't it? If gun ownership by private citizens is more likely to stop a crime than commit one, that's one thing, but if not, inflating the numbers by just relying on "crimes stopped" vs. "crimes committed" with guns is dishonest.
It's interesting that throughout Fable 2, the writers never pretend like the original intent was to give individuals the ability to stop criminals; they're very sure about the limitation to fighting foreign governments and overthrowing a tyrannical United States government when it supports their side. So rifles (best used for the latter two) might be guaranteed to the masses, but nothing says that handguns (best used for the former) has to be.
Fable 3, blah blah blah, overblown rhetoric...Fable 4, correlation does not equal causation, Fables 5 and 6, contradicting their earlier point...all right, I'm done, and I still don't know where that number came from.
The Blackman page is filled with explanations of the problems affecting the study that came up with the number you cited, if I read it right. So how accurate is it?
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Blackman page is like the Lott studies - lots of back and forth argument and not enough followup studies. I don't know, but it is some data, which is better than none at all.
The Fables document seems to summarize NRA's arguments. Gwen, you called 3 "blah blah blah overblown rhetoric." That seems like a remarkably weak and disrespectful argument. It isn't applicable to this discussion, but your answer seemed to contradict what you say elsewhere in calling for respect for liberals.
4: correlation doesn't equal causation, but it can give you a strong hint. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is NOT always wrong. I can cite lots of examples. Now if strong antigun laws are followed by increases in murder, it makes one wonder, does it not? This argument is weak because you sidestep the key point: gun control has not been shown - after many efforts - to influence crime. Like the apologists for communism always crying it was never given a fair chance, antigun apologists have their explanations, but they fall flat.
Antigun forces use the same post hoc reasoning claiming that "shall issue" concealed carry laws will result in a blood bath. When it never does, do we hear apologies for wildly misstating facts? No, we hear silence.
Finally, 2nd amendment intent is not germane. Reductions in crime are a side effect. The key is that the people have rights that are innate, and that government's role is to safeguard those rights. Government doesn't confir rights. This is one of the key areas where conservatives and liberals have different worldviews. Incompatable, I would think.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wasn't intended as an argument; it was intended as a running commentary until I got to the footnotes scanning for the statistic you cited. And if the use of "pretending" and "masquerading as serious researchers" whenever discussing people in favor of gun control--without discussing the flaws in the studies they put down, for the most part--isn't overblown rhetoric, well, I don't know what is. I was just getting irritated at the fact that that so-called article wasn't even pretending to be an objective survey of the facts, which would have convinced me a lot more than attacks on anyone who disagrees with them.
During Fable 4, they keep linking gun control to increase in murder, or violent crime, or handgun use in violent crime (they keep switching back and forth on what they're comparing), without even considering factors such as poverty or already high crime rates in the places where gun control laws were passed. It's possible that the reason for the increases--if there were in fact steady, consistent increases, and not just increases wherever they chose to cite them--was also the reason for the various gun control laws, instead of the laws being the reason for the increases.
They in fact prove that point by citing decreases all throughout Fables 5 and 6, and putting any increases down to other factors which are in fact more likely (like different law enforcement tactics, increases in poverty, et cetera).
I would still have to actually see the studies they cite in order for me to come to any sort of conclusion. I've seen MADD studies, to pick one partisan group funding resources, going on about all the lives saved because of the higher drinking age, that don't eliminate the factors of increased car safety (mandatory seat belt laws, better highways, and so on) also going on at the time the drinking age was raised and don't consider the increase in drinking-related automobile fatalities and injuries in the 22-25 year-old set (which just so happens to undo the decreases in drinking-related automobile fatalities and injuries in the 18-21 year-old set)...and the list of problems there goes on. The huge disparity in estimates made by the NRA studies and other studies makes me want to look at the root studies before making any conclusions. But the list of things wrong with the NRA studies found on the NRA site (kudos to them for the honesty, at least) is extensive enough for me to want a better study.
I don't understand the last paragraph of your post. The article is the thing that brought intent into the argument. If we go by the wording alone of the Second Amendment, banning private handgun ownership while allowing private rifle ownership doesn't seem to be unconstitutional. If we go by intent, the "but it stops criminals!" argument doesn't make sense. So why bring it up?
posted
I am not an NRA member, but I suppose they bring it up because they want to buttress their argument that having a broad and fairly literal interpretation of Article II has unintended positive consequences, not foreseen by the founding fathers.
I wonder what data might convince anti-gun people? If guns are statistically quite safe, if their availability doesn't increase crime and arguably decreases it, and it our constitution guarantees the right, what would it take for anti-gun people to change their position? If the 250,000 crimes per year prevented by citizen guns turns out to be true, would that do it? I guess it is a question of what in science is called falsifiability. How would you know if you were wrong?
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the harm to the control outweighs the benefits...or if the harm to the lack of control outweighs the benefits...whichever one is right, I suppose. And I'd guess, if I had to, you'd say the same.
I'm not really sure either way, actually, and I was just taking the side with the more difficult arguments. ;^) First thing is registration, licensing, better education for new gun owners and for kids, obviously.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This was an education for me. I had no real knowledge but it made me do the research. Wikipedia has an excellent article on gun control: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control which is entitled gun politics. It appears that we cannot show much benefit from taking guns away from people, a counter-intuitive finding.
There are some nice links to Lott and to Kleck. The Lott article is particularly complete. There is a fairly comprehensive discussion of Kellerman.
Perhaps the best model is Switzerland: every male 18-42 (females optional???) must be in the militia, and are issued a selective fire rifle and a military pistol, and one is requried to keep 500 rounds of ammo for each in one's home.
That addresses Gwen's thoughts about education for kids and so on. Owning and using regularly an assault rifle and a handgun would do wonders for people's respect for weapons.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're statistically more likely to shoot a family member than anyone else. Think about THAT when you buy your next gun folks.
A random person is more likely to do so. You have no idea what I am likely to do.
Exactly, I have no idea. And how many gun owners feel that they are also "safe" gun owners? Probably a good number of those who end up shooting family members are in the ranks of people who consider themselves to be "responsible." Of course there are those who are actually safe and aren't complete idiots with their guns, but think of all the people who aren't. Isn't that why so many things are prohibited in this country? I am not going to go out and smoke a pound of pot tomorrow if it is legalized. I probably wouldn't smoke any more than I already do, so why make it illegal? Because there might BE a million Americans who would start smoking a pound a day if it were legalized, or at least that is the fear.
Ironically we demonize and prohibit a drug which is responsible for a fraction of a percentage point of the deaths caused by guns every year. I might be a "responsible" pot smoker (If that exists), but the government still doesn't recognize the right, and the people still vote it down in some places, even for very legitimate uses, (again, there are few of these, but they do exist).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, your argument is based on misinformation. Check out the NRA info posted above that demonstrates that gun accidents are declining rapidly and have been for many years. Guns at home are quite safe, and your fears about that are, bluntly, irrational.
Kellerman did studies that foster fears about guns, but his studies have been pretty thoroughly discredited, since he only studied the most high-risk families. NRA has studies on its site that contradict Kellerman and are based on a better sample.
Gun deaths in Australia (check the Wikipedia article - gun politics - link to Australian gun politics) were declining before they passed draconian seizure laws. The best study says that no benefit can be attributed to the new gun laws.
The pot argument is not very sound, either. I wondered why you mentioned it. Most people don't use drugs when they are freely available, see Amsterdam and Jamaica. But we don't know how many people pot kills. It impairs depth perception and judgement. How many car wrecks are caused by those side effects? We just don't know.
I believe freedom should be maximized. A freedom-oriented philosophy would allow you to smoke pot (and run the risk of hitting my car) and allows me to have a gun - I suppose, so I can take some shots at you as you drive away <laughs>. Lynn
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just out of curiosity, should you also be allowed to own the heavy weapons (tanks, artillery, real machine guns) that would allow a revolution to really threaten an oppressive government?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
King of dudes: Freedom should be maximized. I suppose that means what you say. I was in the Army 6 years and I am not sure why I would want to own "real machine guns" by which I would think, M-60 or the .50 cal. Ammo is expensive, and you can go through a boatload of it in just a few minutes. Plus, you have to have an incredible range set up for shooting the things. And artillery? Why bother? Chuck Yeager never owned his own airplane.
Look at things from a empirical perspective. Gun deaths are declining. They aren't as dangerous as antigun folks want you to think. Concealed carry laws don't affect gun violence and may (or may not!) lower crime. The Virginia Exile program showed that you control gun use by punishing what one does with the gun, not for having the gun.
This means that a "what if" scenario is silly ("What if people could own battleships?"). We can all make up images of "what might happen" but the fact is that people are basically decent and good. Most people use good judgement. A few are really bad - psychopaths. They should be punished for what they do, not for what they own. The good people use guns responsibly.
So why should I care if someone owns a tank? People own jet fighters (albeit without guns).
Now I was Special Forces, and I can tell you that guerilla warfare must have an external source of support. Somebody must be supplying. The idea that we can throw out a corrupt government by an indigenous rebellion is highly unlikely; the government has lots of tanks for every tank a guerilla would have. Who would supply an american revolution? No matter how many rounds of .223 ammo you have in your cache, it will run out. When we studied successful rebellions, there is generally someone behind the curtain supplying the arms and so on. If our government goes bad on us, it's going to be very hard to change them back.
But the marginal cost of imposing a dictatorship in a highly armed society is high. Even though the rebels wouldn't prevail in the long run, the short term costs would be very high. It is a restraining force. Like the Exile laws in Virginia, it makes one think a second time.
So I am not romantic about having guns to keep the government off our backs. But I am not bothered by people who want to own full-auto M-16s.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So why should I care if someone owns a tank?
Oh boy, just what we need.
Attn Soccer Moms! Outgrowing that Hummer? Getting skilled enough driving where you only take up two parking spaces at the grocery store instead of three? Getting ready to move onto bigger things than just taking out bicyclists and the occassional subcompact? 10 mpg just a bit too frugal for your taste? Look no further than the M1A2 Abrams tank! Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you are all missing the point on gun control. When you look at the core facts such details as handguns vs long guns become irrelevant.
The one and most important and most citical fact that is being overlooked is that we as the free citizens of the USA have power. More importantly, we have power over our government.
'V for Vendetta' "People should not fear their government, their government should fear the people."
The Bill of Rights is the master list of things governments use to oppress their people. To prevent our government from gradually gaining the power to oppress us, our Rights are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.
If a government want to oppress its people, as can be clearly seen by looking at any oppressed country in the world, the first thing they do it take over the media. Then the prevent the free assembly and free speech of the people. Then you are denied the right to your own property. It is searched, ceased, and confiscated without due and reasonable process of law.
Next, you control religious. Those you convert to your own preferred religion are putty in your hands. Those who have their own preferred religion suppressed or oppressed become dispondent and marginalized.
Once you have the people sufficiently oppressed, you start sham trials where people are convicted simply because the government wants them convicted. Or thrown in prison without trial simply because the government desires it.
And of course, you disarm the citizens completely. How can they fight oppression without weaspons?
We don't need a study to prove this. All we have to do is look at the ancient and modern history of the world, and we see the list of steps to oppress the citizens, and the corrupting corroding results of that oppression.
Let's actually look at the relevant Ammendment-
Amendment II
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.
You can't imagine how incensed I am when I hear one more ignorant news reader say that the Second Ammendment is about hunting. It is not even remotely about hunting guns.
It is about the right of the people to maintain a citizens army to insure the 'security of a free state'. The National Guard, contrary to popular belief is not a citizen's malitia. It is controlled by the government; by the state governor in peacetime and by the federal government in time of crisis. At true malitia answers only to the people, and exists to enforce and defend the Constitution, and other founding documents and principles upon which our country was founded.
In short, we have the inalienable Right to control our government, rather than have our government control us without restraint. Our right to keep and bare arms is one of the many proven ways in which we assure that a 'government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not parish from this earth'. (Abraham Lincoln - Gettysburg Address)
Our country works because people have the ultimate power. When government has the absolute power, then you have absolute corruption.
To those who so freely and willingly give up their power, let these great orators remind you of what is important.
Ben Franklin- "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Abraham Lincoln- "At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
Thomas Jefferson- "To secure these [inalienable] rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
According to Lincoln, echoed by Franklin, our greatest enemy is ourselves, and our willingness to trade genuine power in the form of liberty for a false sense of security.
In my opinion, the road to distruction is paved with compromises to what should be inalienable and unalterable rights.
posted
Found another Jefferson Quote... can't resist posting it.
Thomas Jefferson- "When the people fear the government you have tyranny...when the government fears the people you have liberty."
Found another interesting quote, rather than post again, I will add it here.
Bryan Hyde hosts a talk radio show each weekday morning on 590 AM KSUB. "Here is the lesson in "V for Vendetta" that translates perfectly into real life: When, in the grip of fear, we allow the state to exercise unchecked authority in dealing with its enemies - that authority will eventually be used against us as well."
posted
Perhaps you misunderstood my post; I don't necessarily have an opinion on whether people should own tanks, I was just wanting to know what yours was.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's also important to consider the context of the law, when considering restricting its application. The United Statese, when we were formed as a country, was not nearly the organized, relatively well definied nation we currently enjoy. A greater part of the nation was "frontier land," largely lawless, and in many areas the law had a very loose connection with national interest, being largely in place to protect local, often personal interests. In such a situation assertion of personal and social freedoms is much more important, and more often necessary.
Because we are no longer in such a situation, largely, the right to bear arms doesn't carry the same logical and personal resonance that it once did, and arguments for gun control are much harder to realistically counter. People simply do not identify, personally, with the original rationale without the historical perspective in which the law was drafted.
Personally, ideologically, this appears to me to be a mistake. I don't personally own a firearm, nor am eager to obtain one, but considering the looting and general lawlessness that followed Katrina, were I merely 20 miles to the North I would consider a firearm a very useful thing to have. As it was even where I am people were stealing running generators from homes in the middle of that night, amongst other more traditional vandalism.
Certain areas of the country, particularly, are not that far from a civil regression, given the proper power vacuum, and certain areas, such as, say, in Louisiana but also elsewhere have a fairly shaky grasp on civil authority—which, incidentally, many communities exacerbate by attempting to "legislate" authority rather than through assumption of responsibility.
My contention is that we need to take personal responsibility in this and other related matters to preserve our freedoms. I agree with Mr. Card in that many if not most families do not have a need to actually own a firearm, nor is the potential risk worth the perceived benefit in most places in our Country. I would also argue, however, that the onus of the decision should rely on the individual, and not the State, so that if a situation arises where governmental authority fails, it's not just the criminals that are able to arm themselves.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: Orincoro, your argument is based on misinformation. Check out the NRA info posted above that demonstrates that gun accidents are declining rapidly and have been for many years. Guns at home are quite safe, and your fears about that are, bluntly, irrational.
What the crap are you talking about? A gun in a home is a weapon of terrible destructive power, in a home. This is the same device that cops use to stop the bad guys, this is the device you give a soldier in war. This is a weapon that is designed to hurt people.
"Guns at home are quite safe." Because the number of gun fatalities at home have decreased? Why have they decreased? Have guns become less able to shoot the owner's children or spouses in the middle of the night, or in a drunken fight or a fit of rage? Have guns become less useful for capricious suicide? Demonstrate in what way they are safe, and yet still designed to be at the ready for killing people, please.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: Orincoro, your argument is based on misinformation. Check out the NRA info posted above that demonstrates that gun accidents are declining rapidly and have been for many years. Guns at home are quite safe, and your fears about that are, bluntly, irrational.
Kellerman did studies that foster fears about guns, but his studies have been pretty thoroughly discredited, since he only studied the most high-risk families. NRA has studies on its site that contradict Kellerman and are based on a better sample.
The pot argument is not very sound, either. I wondered why you mentioned it. Most people don't use drugs when they are freely available, see Amsterdam and Jamaica. But we don't know how many people pot kills. It impairs depth perception and judgement. How many car wrecks are caused by those side effects? We just don't know.
More one this: First of all I am deeply shocked that the National Rifle Association would post a study which presents evidence in FAVOR of gun ownership. Let's please have some impartiality here, and rely on information not provided by the zealots or even interested parties, on both sides.
As to the pot argument, I said that pot prohibition is BASED on the idea that millions of Americans will start smoking if it is legalized. I don't believe that would happen, and I have also read the statistics about drug use in drug friendly countries- that it is surprisingly low.
I pointed this out to draw attention to the fact that we are willing to have a prohibition based on a belief that Americans can't control themselves when it comes to a relatively harmless drug (let's face it, it is practically impossible to overdoes on THC, and that makes it, in a way, safer than most over the counter and prescription drugs for pain and appetite used for cancer and aids patients), and that we AREN'T willing to prohibit ownership and use of a device which is involved in tens of thousands of deaths every year. Demonstrably, guns are involved in countless deaths, and I would like to know how many of those dead were innocent of any wrong doing. How do these two policies make sense together?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
BlueWizard- your whole diatribe is based on the idea that gun control is the action of the government. What if the people get together and decide, democratically and with their own voices in government, that they don't want guns to be allowed any more.
Was the abolition of slavery an oppression of the people by the government in Washingtion? Un fact some did believed that it was... and how much of an expression of the will of the people was it at the time? How much of the population is in favor of it now? You'll find that thinking people today recognize that the government may not have had the overwhelming support of the people, and certainly it had a rebellion to deal with in the South, but today our moral attitudes have largely adjusted, and slave owning is not a right many people in America are going to defend. The idea that a slave was of less value than a white man was written into the constitution, and yet we have changed the law, and the law has has its due effect on us, and it continues to. I would argue then, that the law has a certain responsibility to respond to and ALSO to guide the growth of our values in the future, to be progressive and also responsive to our needs. If the world fills up with guns, we will NEED a way to limit their proliferation, we will need the law to do that.
This is all failing the very real possibility that as awareness grows, people may generally decide that they don't want guns to be common in our culture. If that happens, will you fall back on the bill of rights, written in a time when no-one could have predicted the capabilities of a modern weapon, or a time in which an active militia has become an obsolete idea, absent the tremendous technical wizardry needed to be effective in combat today?
This right is not based on your complete freedom as an American. We do not have complete freedom. At one time it was acceptable to shoot each other in duels, and that has gone from our culture, because people recognized that fighting with the ever increasing power of the gun was madness and suicide, and yet the guns have remained.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: "Guns at home are quite safe." Because the number of gun fatalities at home have decreased? Why have they decreased? Have guns become less able to shoot the owner's children or spouses in the middle of the night, or in a drunken fight or a fit of rage? Have guns become less useful for capricious suicide? Demonstrate in what way they are safe, and yet still designed to be at the ready for killing people, please.
Ironically you can substitute the automobile for the gun in this argument and it would be equally valid. With the possible exception of "designed to kill people." Really, though, design intent is fairly irrelevant compared to practical application—when one can just as easily blow someone's head off with say a harpoon launcher, or use a chain-saw to similar effect as a shotgun.
And, ironically, in the period where dueling went out of vogue one could argue that while it required more skill a bow and arrow was a much more effective killing implement than contemporary firearms.
quote: This is all failing the very real possibility that as awareness grows, people may generally decide that they don't want guns to be common in our culture. If that happens, will you fall back on the bill of rights, written in a time when no-one could have predicted the capabilities of a modern weapon, or a time in which an active militia has become an obsolete idea, absent the tremendous technical wizardry needed to be effective in combat today?
This basically comes down to whether or not you subscribe to the belief that our founding fathers were justified in believing the needed to set up a government that was not based on a "Mandate from heaven" style absolute power; a situation they were trying to escape as subjects of English Monarchy.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if the people get together and decide, democratically and with their own voices in government, that they don't want guns to be allowed any more.
posted
Someone mentioned something about this earlier and it just seems that its very staggering. Countries with no firearms rank highest in the world in crime. The place in the US thet you are not allowed to have guns (D.C.) has the highes crime in the U.S. And yet in switzerland where people carry fully sutomatics and ammo under their bed you have some of the lowest crime in the world.
As for the NRA and their statistics. Have you ever bothered reading any of the magazines. Almost every issue has information, statistics, articles given from government agencies that come from independant researchers and outside information. the list includes professors, lawyers and poloticians. You can say they stack thei information for the pro-gun and why wouldnt a gun magazine have articles on why they want to keep their guns. The point is much of their information doesnt come from fanciful stories they made up.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
The UCR Program collects weapon data for murder, robbery, and aggravated assault offenses. An examination of these data indicated that most violent crime (30.7 percent) involved the use of personal weapons, such as hands, fists, feet, etc. Firearms were used in 26.4 percent and knives or cutting instruments were used in 15.5 percent of violent crime. Other dangerous weapons were used in 27.3 percent of violent offenses. (Based on Tables 2.9 and 19.)
Apparently, you are more likely to be the target of a 'personal' weapon than a firearm if you are the victim of a violent crime. Guess those who want arms reduction need to call for hands and feet reduction as well. Posts: 12 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:one could argue that while it required more skill a bow and arrow was a much more effective killing implement than contemporary firearms.
I don't see how you could do that.
More accurate and greater range. Greater force of impact at range. Faster rate of fire in skilled hands.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Contemporary firearms are more accurate, have a greater range, and a faster rate of fire than a bow and arrow.
I haven't crunched the numbers, but I would be extremely surprised if an arrow delivers more kenetic enery into the target.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, I spot the bit of confusion. I was referring to weapons contemporary to the practice of european style pistol duels between "gentlemen." More specifically, pre-rifled barrels and shot and charge ammunition.
Obviously present day weaponry is considerably more powerful and faster than a longbow.
My fault there, I paired down the quote a bit too far.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting trivia : As late as 1825 the British were considering making crossbows their standard infantry armament. I'm not sure what decided them otherwise.
I don't recall his name, but the guy who argues that most soldiers in battle deliberately aim high, or indeed do not fire their guns at all, points out that many animals fight among themselves by trying to make the most noise. If you accept his theory (and I'm not sure I do) then men with longbows would be completely overmatched by men with muskets, whatever the actual merits of the weapons as killing implements; the sheer noise would overwhelm the longbow-armed side and make them run away.
The range of a longbow is pretty irrelevant in a duel, as is its overall rate of fire; a pistol's first shot can be fired much faster than the longbow's, which should give a good chance at settling the matter. And whoever heard of fighting a duel at a range where you can't see your enemy's face?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro: What the crap are you talking about? A gun in a home is a weapon of terrible destructive power, in a home.
Demonstrate in what way they are safe, and yet still designed to be at the ready for killing people, please.
BlueWizard:
Exactly what do you think most guns are used for? Do you really think all gun owners are sitting in their front window shooting down passers by. An unloaded gun is just a hunk of steel; it is no more dangerous, and probably less dangerous than a baseball bat or a kitchen knife.
Those who shoot family members accidently are violating the most standard and basic rules of gun safety. They are also violating the legal standards for use of deadly force. These people aren't injured because they were shot by a gun, they are injured because of the irresponsible and universally unsafe actions of the gun owner.
That 'gun owner' could just as easily have hit his son on the head with a baseball bat (or lamp or vase), or stabbed him with a kitchen knife. And having done so, that home owner would have been equally irrisponsible and in equal violation of standard rules for use of force.
Now, let us deal with guns in general. I once suggested this to the NRA, but they didn't take to the idea. I suggested they compare the amount of ammunition that is used in crime, against all the ammunition used. I think if you analyse that you will find that, to a massive degree, most ammunition is used to 'kill' little pieces of paper, tin cans, and tree stumps. Only an extremely extremely small portion of the ammunition sold and/or used is used in a crime.
In case you haven't noticed, shooting is a sport, a sport practiced and enjoyed SAFELY by young people all over the world. Keep in mind I am talking about SHOOTING, not hunting. For every round fired in actual hunting, many many more rounds are fired in practicing hunting; in other words, target shooting.
You rant and rave about how unsafe guns are, while at that same time you ignore the massively large number of people who use guns safely and responsibly year after year.
Yes, guns can be dangerous, as can many other aspects of life. People are killed by cars all the time, and sometimes willfully so, CARS ARE ABSOLUTELY DANGEROUS. Yet, you do not call for the abolition of cars. Gasoline is dangerous and is frequently used in crimes, yet your do not call for a restiction on petroleum products. Children are killed every year playing high school sports, yet you do not call for the termination of all high school sports.
Why? Because a vast vast majority of people are able to use (or engage in) these things in a safe, reasonable, and responsible way. Just as a VAST majority of gun owners are able to use their guns in safe, sane, legal, and reasonable ways.
You hold your position because you see the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg and you declare that to be the whole iceberg. Millions of guns of all kinds including military guns ,and millions and millions of rounds of ammunition are fired every year without injure or incident.
So do you blame the car for the carelessness of the car driver? Then why do you do the same with guns? A majority of guns are designed and [safely used for sport and recreation. The magnitude of their use is massive compared to the use you hear about on the six o'clock news.
If you only look at an isolated fact with out putting it in prespective with the whole, you can never have a clear and true perspective on a subject.
Just passing it along.
Steve/bboyminn who fired his first gun when the gun was taller than he was.
Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro: BlueWizard- your whole diatribe is based on the idea that gun control is the action of the government. What if the people get together and decide, democratically and with their own voices in government, that they don't want guns to be allowed any more.
BlueWizard:
What if the people decide that they want the government to have complete control of all media? I'm sure the government could make a good argument for it. I'm sure we could get some slick talking televangilist to back them up, and to sway people's opinion. "God has told me that the goverment should control all media. If you don't go along with it, then you are against God's will'. Sound familiar?
What if the people decide that crime has risen to a level that we don't want to be hampered by warrants and trials? That the 'evil doers' should be sent right to prison and kept there?
You can always justify resticting the freedom and liberty of others in the name of security, but when the loss of that freedom and liberty is turned back on you, you not only have lost the power to stop it, but you have lost freedom and liberty.
That's why the are inaliable rights. Right that can't and shouldn't be modified or repealed. When you gladly give up your power as a citizen, then you become a powerless citizen.
Paraphrasing Lincoln, we are our greatest enemy. We will either struggle with all out might to live free, or we will die by our own hand. We will die because we were the architects of our own death.
Hysterical nay-saying may make for good politics and it may make for good press, but it is seldom good for preserving Liberty and Freedom.
The person who thought that Freedom was safe and secure, is a fool. Freedom is very demanding and it is very perilous. If you live in the wilderness, you are completely free, but your life is constantly in peril. If you live in a solitary prison, you are safe, but you are not free, you have lost the reason for living.
In a federation or republic, as our and most free countries are, we make a compromise with regard to freedom. We give up some power to those who run the government and to some extent trust their judgement. But as Jefferson said, they rule by the consent of the people. When they finally rule by their own consent, and are accountable to no one, then we are prisoners in our own land. We are the oppressed of a tyrantical government.
Our right to keep and bear arms must be preserved even if a vast majority of people decide not to have guns. It is not the presents of a gun in the home that insures our freedom, but the preservation of the RIGHT to have that gun if we chose.
There are those who will claim that in our modern world, these old antiquated Rights have little meaning. That our founding fathers couldn't have possibly preceived a world as modern and complex as ours.
Yet, the Patriot Act, unwarranted domestic surveillance, the power of the President to make War without the consent of Congress, all tell me that more than ever we must struggle to preserve the Rights and power of the people to guard themselves against an out of control government.
If given free rein, Bush and the like, could very easily push us into a police state in the name of fighting terrorism. The infinitely sad thing is, that there are many citizen who would be right there egging them on... that is, until the oppression was turned back on them.
By then, they would have lost the right and the power to defend themselves. Fortunately, term limits means Bush will be out of office soon, which in turn means that Bush's henchmen Cheney and Rumsfled will be gone with him. See, even when the system doesn't work...it does work, but only if we struggle tooth and nail to keep it working.
Trading freedom for security is always a losing proposition, because as Franklin, Lincoln, and Jefferson said, in the end, you will have neither.
quote:What if the people get together and decide, democratically and with their own voices in government, that they don't want guns to be allowed any more.
quote:Originally posted by Ecthalion: Someone mentioned something about this earlier and it just seems that its very staggering. Countries with no firearms rank highest in the world in crime. The place in the US thet you are not allowed to have guns (D.C.) has the highes crime in the U.S. And yet in switzerland where people carry fully sutomatics and ammo under their bed you have some of the lowest crime in the world.
As for the NRA and their statistics. Have you ever bothered reading any of the magazines. Almost every issue has information, statistics, articles given from government agencies that come from independant researchers and outside information. the list includes professors, lawyers and poloticians. You can say they stack thei information for the pro-gun and why wouldnt a gun magazine have articles on why they want to keep their guns. The point is much of their information doesnt come from fanciful stories they made up.
I will tell you a story. Researchers have found that one's reading ability is related to shoe size. Turns out that he larger your shoes, the larger your reading ability. Why could this be so?? Its simple, look at a child's feet sometime, they are tiny, and you can read much more easily than they can!
DC has high crime rates for many reasons. This does not a compelling argument make.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Orincoro: What the crap are you talking about? A gun in a home is a weapon of terrible destructive power, in a home.
Demonstrate in what way they are safe, and yet still designed to be at the ready for killing people, please.
BlueWizard:
Exactly what do you think most guns are used for? Do you really think all gun owners are sitting in their front window shooting down passers by. An unloaded gun is just a hunk of steel; it is no more dangerous, and probably less dangerous than a baseball bat or a kitchen knife.
Those who shoot family members accidently are violating the most standard and basic rules of gun safety. They are also violating the legal standards for use of deadly force. These people aren't injured because they were shot by a gun, they are injured because of the irresponsible and universally unsafe actions of the gun owner.
THis is what I just love about the pro-gun argument: we need it for our defense, its the most effective way to defend oneself! I believe someone in this thread said "the only way." Then when you point out that a gun can shoot ANYONE, you turn around and say that a gun is just a peice of metal, and not all that dangerous. Its still a gun. Its still designed to put holes in PEOPLE, and kill them. That is the end all, that is the purpose of guns. Like nuclear weapons for national defense, they are too powerful for any practical use in the home.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:DC has high crime rates for many reasons. This does not a compelling argument make.
yes it is, the debate is over presence of guns causing high crime. So case in point, states/districts/countries/cities that have a high population of law-abiding citezens who own guns have lower crime rate than places that have little to no guns.
All other reasons/statistics are dealing with the human perspective of the crime, not the weapon perspective. If you follow those it leads you dangerously close to profiling.
quote:THis is what I just love about the pro-gun argument: we need it for our defense, its the most effective way to defend oneself! I believe someone in this thread said "the only way." Then when you point out that a gun can shoot ANYONE, you turn around and say that a gun is just a peice of metal, and not all that dangerous. Its still a gun. Its still designed to put holes in PEOPLE, and kill them. That is the end all, that is the purpose of guns. Like nuclear weapons for national defense, they are too powerful for any practical use in the home.
this is funny.... all knives are made to cut things, it can cut anything and anyone, lets ban knives because the practicality of getting cut on accident or if somone is messing around doesnt outweigh the benifits of cutting things. Baseball bats are ment to smash little white balls far away, it can hit and smash just about anything, especially people's skulls. This risk of irresponsible basball-bat weilders and poorly aimed rocks, balls, pieces of wood completely outweights the sport, lets bann them too. wood chippers are made to shred things, which means it can potentially shredd anything and anyone that doesnt damage the blades, lawnmowers driven by idiots can kill kids, a glass bottle wielded by a drunk can hurt and kill.
your arguement of what a thing was designed to do (Which is actually to shoot a projectile, not really "Kill people") is very fallacious because in the wrong hands even a sponge can be dangerous. people are the problem.
posted
You know, I've stayed out of this debate for a while, because it wasn't my intent to start a debate - I simply wanted clarification on a couple of OSC quotes.
But, now I'll respond.
I'm not going to quote anybody elses research but my own.
I'm 29 years old.
Since I was 18, I've owned rifles and shotguns.
Since I was 21, I've owned handguns.
Since about 30 days after my 21st birthday, I've been licensed to carry a concealed handgun.
Since I received my license (from Oregon, a "shall-issue" state, which means I passed an FBI background check (including fingerprints) and attended a firearms safety class mandated by the state), I've carried a handgun on my person about 80% of the time.
I haven't shot anyone. I haven't hurt anyone. I haven't menaced anyone. I haven't even come close to an accident.
I consider myself an enthusiast collector - this means I collect a number of varieties of guns, but I'm also an avid shooter. None of my collection is a "safe queen" - something bought to simply look pretty. Everything gets shot.
Nothing that I currently own is select-fire (i.e. full-auto/burst) - it's all semi-automatic.
I own a variety of handguns in a variety of calibers.
One of them that I own is a 9mm Glock 17. I've purchased several 33rd magazines originally designed for the Glock 18 (a select-fire 9mm Glock handgun).
That's a "lot" of ammo. But, I haven't shot anyone. I haven't hurt anyone. I haven't menaced anyone. I haven't even come close to an accident.
I own a wide variety of rifles.
I own AR-15 style rifles. I own AK-style rifles. I own FAL style rifles. I own an MP5 clone. I own a Russian Dragunov sniper rifle. I own a Remington M-24 sniper rifle (the exact same thing some of our boys are using in Iraq). I own plenty more stuff.
I haven't shot anyone. I haven't hurt anyone. I haven't menaced anyone. I haven't even come close to an accident.
All big bad evil black rifles. All with evil high-capacity magazines.
Never has a single firearm of mine been used to harm anyone, let alone been pointed at a person.
That's not to say that if I felt my life was in danger, that I wouldn't grab a firearm to defend myself, but it hasn't happened.
If I'm lucky, it probably won't ever happen.
I have MANY friends just like me, many of which have collections that put mine to shame.
They haven't shot anyone. They haven't hurt anyone. They haven't menaced anyone. They haven't even come close to an accident.
Kellerman is bunk. My 8 years of ownership is nothing, compared to the 20, 30, even 50 years of ownership by some of my friends.
Perhaps our firearms are defective, I don't know - I do know that we all have an extremely healthy respect for them, and we follow the four basic rules of firearms:
1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.
4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.
And you want to know something? We're AVERAGE gun owners.
And if you're curious about my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (it shouldn't be too hard to guess), "the people" means just that - the people.
If "the people" don't have an individual right to bear arms, then they don't have an individual right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech or freedom of the press.
If "the people" don't have an individual right to bear arms, they don't have an individual right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure.
Arms? Do I think "the people" should be able to have machine guns? Of course. I know many who already do. I know a guy with a fully-automatic M-60, and I know a guy with a fully-automatic M-2 (the .50 cal Ma Deuce). The only crime in this country committed with a legally obtained machine gun was done by a law enforcement officer - someone, who by nature of his employment, gun control laws did not apply to.
Someone mentioned artillery. Remembering my education on the founding of this nation, and the Revolutionary War, I seem to remember that it was quite common for the private citizen to own field pieces.
Well, if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for us. Many people own cannons and newer, more modern field pieces today. Many of those people regularly use them. Zero issues.
Tanks? Private citizens already own them. They might not own an Abrams, but they're out there.
What is a tank, really, but a big backhoe/front end loader with an armored cab on it?
In the end, if you want to solve the problem of "gun violence" - or any violence, for that matter, the solution isn't more laws for criminals to add to their roster of laws they've broken. It isn't to add more laws that punish law abiding citizens.
It's to get tough on crime.
As long as we have a mentality among a large group of people that "Tookie served his time, and he's real sorry, we shouldn't punish him in accordance with established law!" we're going to have an issue.
That doesn't mean that I think we should just give everyone the chair. The death penalty (and all of the numerous other penalties we have for breaking the law) weren't enacted or established for some kind of blood lust or sadistic purpose.
They were established as a deterrent - if you commit crime X, you will receive penalty Y.
Only, in our justice system, we don't do that. We threaten penalty Y, but we consistently knock the penalty down to a slap on the wrist. It's an empty threat, and the criminals know that.
If we executed every single murderer, rapist and child molestor in this country (all crimes that should be punishable by death) upon conviction, there'd be a LOT less murderers, rapists and child molestors committing their heinous atrocities.
But no. We let a multiple-murderer live out his life in confinement. We sentence a rapist to 5 years. We send a child molestor to "treatment" and tell them that they're not allowed to be around children, or anywhere children congregate.
THE CRIMINALS KNOW THIS. They know that the penalties for committing atrocities are weak, so they go ahead and commit them.
It's disgusting.
Why don't you folks attack THAT problem first, before you start screwing with law-abiding citizens, huh?
Posts: 14 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:DC has high crime rates for many reasons. This does not a compelling argument make.
yes it is, the debate is over presence of guns causing high crime. So case in point, states/districts/countries/cities that have a high population of law-abiding citezens who own guns have lower crime rate than places that have little to no guns.
All other reasons/statistics are dealing with the human perspective of the crime, not the weapon perspective. If you follow those it leads you dangerously close to profiling.
But again, you fail to establish a CASAUL connection between prsence of guns and low crime rates. I do not assert that there is a casaul connection between guns and high crime, because I recognize that no such study would be simple, or easy to interpret. The fact is that DC is a complex place, where historical, economic, educational, racial, and class issues combine to create a place where the crime rates are high. Is there a connection in there with gun ownership- Yes. In the same way that there is a connection with car ownership, or with home ownership, or yacht ownership, or anything else. These factors are important, but they are not the whole of the issue, and one CANNOT suggest and would be dishonest in asserting that the connection between gun ownership and crime rates is direct and casaul.
This same person wouldn't ever suggest that simply giving every person a gun would be a solution to the problem. One may fairly point out, and I will listen to arguments which address it, the idea that gun ownership (like that in Switzerland) can be connected to a sense of responsibility and clear-headedness in a culture which doesn't tolerate weakness. It is perfectly reasonable to point out that certain factors which are connected to lower crime, like a personal sense of responsibility for one's defense which is common among a group of people, may also encourage people to own weapons for the same reasons.
Mainly, what I am trying to suggest is that there is a greater cause to every problem, and a greater effect in every solution. Maybe mandatory gun ownership WOULD bring down crime, but that doesn't tell me that we can't encourage people to be responsible and upstanding citizens without placing deadly weapons in their homes. Just as there are greater solutions, there is the law of unintended consequences, and I fear that a gun toteing culture will eventually stunt its own social development.
AS to the argument about knives- that's just silly and you know it. Knives are for cutting meat and vegetables. What are you going to do with a gun in your house other than shoot another human being? I agree when you say people kill people, but guns help... ALOT.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kythri's comments illustrate the gulf between gun people and anti-gun people. I don't own the arsenal he (she?) does, and I'm not that interested, but I do own several guns, including a .357 handgun that is fun to shoot, and several big-bore rifles and shotguns. We are very careful with them. Most gun owners are very careful and responsible people. If you don't disprove that, your case fails.
I have given my children experiences with the guns, shooting skeet, targets, and so on. They see how powerful guns are and are careful.
Orinco challenged me to demonstrate how they can be both safe and protective. As I said before (and this will be on the final!), I don't need a gun for protection. I live in a very safe neighborhood, in a safe state. If I needed a gun for instant protection (based on living in a dangerous neighborhood) I would simply put a fully loaded 9mm into a lockbox with a quick combo lock. You keep it set to open on two of the three wheels, and the third wheel is three clicks off. In the dark, you feel the preset wheel, click it three times, and your gun is accessible. It is quiet and safe. If Bigfoots are invading your neighborhood, switch to the .45 for additional stopping power. (its a joke, folks)
I think that answers your emotion laden question. And I did it without gratituous insults!
But, Orincoro, you still missed my point. Your danger is IMAGINARY. Lots of people have guns, very few accidents. Driving is more dangerous. Swimming pools are (not that Leavitt is alwasy right!). Just because you can get yourself emotionally out of sorts (i.e., "what the _crap_ are you talking about" - emphasis on emotionally loaded word added) when we talk about guns means nothing at all. We have to deal in the real world, not in an imaginary world, some kind of post-apocalyptic hollywood fantasy. Sorry to be blunt, but just because you imagine a danger doesn't mean anything. YOu have to prove it is a worthy danger.
Is there some danger? No doubt. I tried to offer links suggesting that the danger is moderate.
On the other hand, gun skills teach caution, thoughtfulness, self-efficacy, and may reduce criminal acts (they clearly have stopped thousands of crimes each year), clearly do NOT increase criminal behavior. Those are the facts from the best evidence we have. There are substantial social benefits from honoring what I think of as an innate right, that of defending myself.
Orincoro, one more thing: check the Wikipedia article and read the links. There is lots of pro and con material there, evenly distributed. Some studies do make a case for some danger from guns, and some don't. Read them yourself. Also do go to NRA and read their articles. If nothing else, it would stretch the brain cells into more flexibility, just like when I read liberal position papers. But the bottom line is that we believe we have a God-given right to maximize our freedom, even if we increase our risks. Perhaps you believe we must minimize freedoms and increase 'security' as you define it.
IF you disagree, try to get the 2nd amendment repealed. Good luck on that one! Take a look as Surowicki's The Wisdom of Crowds. It is often the fact that the majority is right and provides excellent aggregated wisdom.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: What are you going to do with a gun in your house other than shoot another human being?
Can you PLEASE lay off this idiocy?
You continue to insinuate that the only reason a person would buy a gun is to shoot someone, when it's already been established that people shoot for sport.
What am I going to do with a gun in MY house? I'm going to lock most of them in my safe, awaiting the next time I take them out for enjoyment of the shooting sports. I'm going to keep one of them near my bedside in the event of home invasion - and yes, my home has been broken into before, and fortunately for the would-be burglar, and for my pocketbook (legal fees ain't cheap), he ran off when he discovered someone was in the home.
Guess what? My gun didn't shoot another human being.
You're smarter than this, aren't you?
Posts: 14 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
PS: Orincoro, you just posted another question. What are guns for except for shooting people?
Guns are for self-mastery.
They are primarily for teaching self-control and skill over a powerful tool.
They are also for getting food.
They are also very often used to intimidate evil-doers. As I mentioned before, the NRA site (stop scoffing and actually read the study, please) shows some fairly good data suggesting the vast majority of self-protection with guns is NOT from shooting, but from showing.
An aikido master is walking down the street (true story!). Two men approach him. It is dark, the street is empty. The have a predatory approach (if you don't know what that is, you have lived a sheltered life).
He goes into his aikido stance and says, "What do you want?" They stop, stare, and one of them says, "Nothing, we got the wrong man."
Guns are one way to protect yourself. Self-defense skills include broom handles, knives, clubs, knives, flails, your bare hands and feet . . . and guns.
There are many legitimate uses of guns. It is silly to say otherwise. yr humb srvt lj
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: What are you going to do with a gun in your house other than shoot another human being?
Can you PLEASE lay off this idiocy?
You continue to insinuate that the only reason a person would buy a gun is to shoot someone, when it's already been established that people shoot for sport.
What am I going to do with a gun in MY house? I'm going to lock most of them in my safe, awaiting the next time I take them out for enjoyment of the shooting sports. I'm going to keep one of them near my bedside in the event of home invasion - and yes, my home has been broken into before, and fortunately for the would-be burglar, and for my pocketbook (legal fees ain't cheap), he ran off when he discovered someone was in the home.
Guess what? My gun didn't shoot another human being.
You're smarter than this, aren't you?
Indeed I am. Although your insinuating that the question is idiocy is not much of an invitation to response, I am going to ignore how rude you've been and answer anyway. It is not idiocy, and clearly since you believe that leaving it unanswered is unnacceptable, it is also effective in some way, even if you completely misconstrue the meaning, as you did.
That is why I said, IN YOUR HOUSE. I was thinking about this today, arguing with myself about the uses of guns. Personally, I am not against a type of gun one might use for, say, target competitions. I find hunting distasteful, but I am not against people doing it, as long as they don't make me listen to stories about it or watch it on television, its alright. I eat meat after all, I know where that comes from. The same goes for owning a gun even as a collectable, or for competitive purposes, as a hobby. Those are at least defensible reasons for me. I will even concede that a responsible person might be alright owning weapon for defense of the home if he or she really feels it necessary.
Here is my issue: people turning those casual rights, those common sense uses of a gun into a glorified patriotic right and duty. Frankly I think most people who make a big stink about the right to bear arms simply get off on the power of the gun. That is why there are gun collectors. They are not collecting examples of their duty to their country, they are collecting symbols and devices that represent power. That is understandable, but what is unnaceeptable to me is the denial of this motivation in every breath from every member of the NRA. This is a group of people chock full of those who get off on guns. The justifications for having guns are a little hard to bear with good humor when you're talking about assault rifles and hand-cannons in people's houses.
Guns have become a cartoon idea in many ways. I remember growing up, seeing guns as these kind of magical devices that just spit power fire out one end. The people using guns are made to look oh so cool, and oh so intelligent and sexy in film and television. I remember a line from "American Beauty," in which one character talks almost with almost religious reverence about firing a gun to feel powerful. That view resonated with me in many ways, I recognize why people see them as power.
Now, IN THE HOME, what use does a gun have? It is layed up in the anticipation of the moment in which it may be used to shoot someone. If you simply keeping a hunting rifle or a competition gun at home, that is not having a gun in the home for defense, that is not planning to use it. This seems to me in certain ways similar to the arms race of the second half of the 20th century.
As Carl Sagan aptly put it in COSMOS, to paraphrase: "every major world power has a widely publicized set of reasons for stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, however, no world power invisions a scenario in which their armament should be used." Sagan wrote that to employ the nuclear arsenal is madness, and yet to keep it is a warning that madness may just overtake the powerful nation if it is crossed. He also wrote that simply because large scale nuclear war has not happened, this by no means proves that it never will.
What I worry about is that people have this blind spot, or this kind of duality in their thinking. First, I have never killed anyone in my home, and therefore my gun has never caused harm. And two, if I one day should have to kill someone, then I could and would do it. In this case, I assert only that the intent DOES already exist, when you purchase the gun and keep it for defense, to use it to kill someone. When you buy a knife, you buy it to cut vegetables or gut fish. When you buy a spounge, you buy it to clean your bathroom or the countertops, but when you buy a handgun, for defense, you buy it to have the ability to kill people if you need it. The responsibility for that power doesn't come AFTER you use it, it is there all the time. If you end up shooting someone, then you have a responsibility to explain to yourself, to others, to society, why you made that choice. In this I am NOT EVEN saying that if I felt I really needed to, I wouldn't do the same thing, but I think I WOULD understand what I get myself into, I would consider my intent ahead of time. That is something that I really don't think people like to consider.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
They are also very often used to intimidate evil-doers. As I mentioned before, the NRA site (stop scoffing and actually read the study, please) shows some fairly good data suggesting the vast majority of self-protection with guns is NOT from shooting, but from showing. lj
This I knew, and I do acknowledge that it makes sense. However, as I explain above, there is an implied intent to kill that is inherent in having the gun. Even if you don't shoot someone, that is what the gun is for, that is the source of the power you master, or don't master.
This is why I stopped karate lessons at the age of 9, as soon as i could escape them. Every explanation the instructor gave, about having power so that you don't have to use it, seemed so strange to me. It still does. I didn't want to learn how to hurt people, and I couldn't convince myself that I was learning anything more than that. I see how and why others are convinced by that philosophy, but perhaps this is one thing you leave to genetics, I am less like that. Not more evolved maybe, but differently minded.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
But, Orincoro, you still missed my point. Your danger is IMAGINARY. Lots of people have guns, very few accidents. Driving is more dangerous. Swimming pools are (not that Leavitt is alwasy right!). Just because you can get yourself emotionally out of sorts (i.e., "what the _crap_ are you talking about" - emphasis on emotionally loaded word added) when we talk about guns means nothing at all. We have to deal in the real world, not in an imaginary world, some kind of post-apocalyptic hollywood fantasy. Sorry to be blunt, but just because you imagine a danger doesn't mean anything. YOu have to prove it is a worthy danger. lynnjohnson
Since you're new on the forum I understand why you and probably others took this in the spirit not intended.
"What the crap are you talking about" is a tradition here on Hatrack meant to point out when you think someone is trolling their agenda rather than actually trying to listen and engage in the debate. You're free to use it against me, but it is a convention of Hatrack. I'll try to find the link.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oincoro, bottom line, philosophically I subscribe to education over restriction. I think all people should be educated in the respect and handling of a firearm, rather than restricted from ownership. I think people should be educated to drive a car (we don't in this country) rather than restricted from using it in adverse situations or worse made to learn "on the job."
Guns are part of society. That box has been opened, there's no closing it at this point. I'd prefer to live in a society that understands and respects the power of a firearm rather than one that restricts its use to criminals.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want to live in a society where that "box," and I can only chuckle that you would use a turn of phrase which relates to Pandora's box full of the evils of world, is open so we just turn our backs on it and live with our guns forever. If we are to continue to evolve, I believe guns will become a thing of the past, and not sustainable as a part of our continued cultural growth. This happens only when we stop seeing other people, other states other nations as others, and we all see eachother as people. That doesn't happen this century, but it will NEVER happen if we love our guns too much to let them go one day.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The people that are against gun control are not the stalwart hold outs in a gun free society, I can certainly assure you of that. You are trying to disarm the wrong side first.
And, human nature being what it is, my suspicion is that guns will only fully go away when there is a much more consistent/readily available killing/incapacitating tool.
Not that I wouldn't love world peace, but we're headed in the wrong cardinal direction for that.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Indeed I am. Although your insinuating that the question is idiocy is not much of an invitation to response, I am going to ignore how rude you've been and answer anyway. It is not idiocy, and clearly since you believe that leaving it unanswered is unnacceptable, it is also effective in some way, even if you completely misconstrue the meaning, as you did.
I answered it. Guns in my house are stored, until ready for use. Guns in my house are available, if neccessary, in the unlikely event that I need one for self-defense, or defense of my home and property - both of which are legal in my state and country.
quote:That is why I said, IN YOUR HOUSE.
And that's why I answered ABOUT MY HOUSE.
For what it's worth, where I live is on a bit of acreage, so I can shoot out back of my house. Technically, not inside, but it's my home.
quote:I was thinking about this today, arguing with myself about the uses of guns. Personally, I am not against a type of gun one might use for, say, target competitions. I find hunting distasteful, but I am not against people doing it, as long as they don't make me listen to stories about it or watch it on television, its alright. I eat meat after all, I know where that comes from. The same goes for owning a gun even as a collectable, or for competitive purposes, as a hobby. Those are at least defensible reasons for me. I will even concede that a responsible person might be alright owning weapon for defense of the home if he or she really feels it necessary.
Mmmkay?
quote:Here is my issue: people turning those casual rights, those common sense uses of a gun into a glorified patriotic right and duty. Frankly I think most people who make a big stink about the right to bear arms simply get off on the power of the gun. That is why there are gun collectors. They are not collecting examples of their duty to their country, they are collecting symbols and devices that represent power. That is understandable, but what is unnaceeptable to me is the denial of this motivation in every breath from every member of the NRA. This is a group of people chock full of those who get off on guns. The justifications for having guns are a little hard to bear with good humor when you're talking about assault rifles and hand-cannons in people's houses.
This is some of the most insulting tripe I've ever read. You're stereotyping an entire group of people based on your misguided opinion.
That's bigotry.
quote:Guns have become a cartoon idea in many ways.
Only to those uneducated and irresponsible in their use.
quote:I remember growing up, seeing guns as these kind of magical devices that just spit power fire out one end. The people using guns are made to look oh so cool, and oh so intelligent and sexy in film and television. I remember a line from "American Beauty," in which one character talks almost with almost religious reverence about firing a gun to feel powerful. That view resonated with me in many ways, I recognize why people see them as power.
So because a fictional movie character, who was obviously portrayed as a moron, "got off" on firing a gun, we're going to look at real people in distaste? That makes lots of sense.
quote:Now, IN THE HOME, what use does a gun have? It is layed up in the anticipation of the moment in which it may be used to shoot someone. If you simply keeping a hunting rifle or a competition gun at home, that is not having a gun in the home for defense, that is not planning to use it. This seems to me in certain ways similar to the arms race of the second half of the 20th century.
An unloaded firearm is useless. I'm quite sure that the home invader is going to wait for you to get your firearm out of it's safe location, load it, and ready yourself. Yes, I keep a handgun near my bedside, loaded and ready to fire. That same handgun is what I carry on my person - loaded and ready for use. We've already been over this. I conceded that it's unlikely that I'll ever need it, but I'm a Boy Scout. Our motto? Be prepared. In the unlikely event I ever need it, it'd be pretty stupid not to have it, or not to have it ready.
quote:As Carl Sagan aptly put it in COSMOS, to paraphrase: "every major world power has a widely publicized set of reasons for stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, however, no world power invisions a scenario in which their armament should be used." Sagan wrote that to employ the nuclear arsenal is madness, and yet to keep it is a warning that madness may just overtake the powerful nation if it is crossed. He also wrote that simply because large scale nuclear war has not happened, this by no means proves that it never will.
Gosh, those weapons of mass destruction sure didn't help at the end of World War II, did they? Those pesky Japanese just kept fighting and fighting. It sure sucks that we're still at war with them.
quote:What I worry about is that people have this blind spot, or this kind of duality in their thinking. First, I have never killed anyone in my home, and therefore my gun has never caused harm. And two, if I one day should have to kill someone, then I could and would do it. In this case, I assert only that the intent DOES already exist, when you purchase the gun and keep it for defense, to use it to kill someone.
Well, your assertion isn't 100% accurate. I've never purchased a single firearm with the sole intent to use it for defense, to kill someone or something. Every single firearm I've purchased was primarily for sport shooting. The defense use is secondary.
quote:When you buy a knife, you buy it to cut vegetables or gut fish.
Eh, I've purchased a knife with other considerations, but that's another topic.
quote:When you buy a spounge, you buy it to clean your bathroom or the countertops, but when you buy a handgun, for defense, you buy it to have the ability to kill people if you need it.
Again, you're wrong. And when you purchase a car, the ability (and the fact that many MANY more people die at the hands of irresponsible or unskilled drivers) to kill people with your vehicle rarely enters into the purchase decision making process.
quote:The responsibility for that power doesn't come AFTER you use it, it is there all the time. If you end up shooting someone, then you have a responsibility to explain to yourself, to others, to society, why you made that choice. In this I am NOT EVEN saying that if I felt I really needed to, I wouldn't do the same thing, but I think I WOULD understand what I get myself into, I would consider my intent ahead of time. That is something that I really don't think people like to consider.
And, again, you'd be wrong - I feel that's something that most firearms owners consider every single time they come within 20 feet of their firearms. I can't claim knowledge of that for all of them, but I can for hundreds.
quote:"What the crap are you talking about" is a tradition here on Hatrack meant to point out when you think someone is trolling their agenda rather than actually trying to listen and engage in the debate. You're free to use it against me, but it is a convention of Hatrack. I'll try to find the link.
You ought to reread the link. The manner in which you used it in this thread is not the manner which it was originally intended to be used.
Even the way it was originally intended to be used is very rude and by no means universally accepted here. But using it as you have in this thread - to dismiss a presentation of a relevant fact that could be supported or contradicted by evidence - is far ruder.
For that matter, so is rolling your eyes because someone presents the NRA as a source. Sure, they're interested. Doesn't make them wrong (or right). Noting their bias is one thing. Rolling your eyes - and not even bothering to present evidence to counter - is simply lazy debating.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Let's please have some impartiality here, and rely on information not provided by the zealots or even interested parties, on both sides.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
