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.
I'll apologize for being rude. I apologize.
And then I will point you to the post above yours and ask what you think of that kind of debating.
I don't mean to be snyde- *really I don't* it just struck me as totally strange that that gets posted in an almost Dagonee style ( but nasty, and without the usual sound Dag logic), and then your post right after.
I will say about that post, that I simply am not going to address it because its too dense, too nasty, and the debate would from here on would be "read my last post" "no you" "stupid head!" "I am NOT stupid!"
So I will try and help to quell this monster I have helped create, and retire.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dont know what more you are looking for as to a casual connection between guns and crime. But i would say that if youd like to test it yourself yuo could move to a nice city and put a sign in your front yard that says "There are no guns in this house" and then put "warning owner of firearm" in the lawn of everyone elses house on the street and see how many times your house is robbed compared to theirs.
your arguement contradicts itself though, since you are here arguing about the nature of guns being for killing people and in essence commiting crimes. You are so ready to point out that there are many factors behind crime, none of which deal with the gun but all of which deal with the people commiting them. Since you are ready to admit that it is the people and thier circumstances that cause the crime independant of the weapon they choose then you cannot hope to argue that weapons of choice are in any way adding to the crime rate. Which takes away from any arguement about how guns need to be more heavily regulated and in cases taken away from law-abiding citezens
quote: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.
Knives are made to cut vegtables? At what point in history do you see knives used for vegtables? Much later from their concieved invention. The earliest recods of man and tools shows that knives were used for killing and butchering animals and protecting from invading tribes. Agrarian cultures didnt develope till later. Following your logic then, knives were made to kill they should be outlawed/banned/witheld form the public/used only under supervision of strict government trained people.
To be honest none of us were there when the first gun was invented so you have no idea what his original purpose was for it. So the arguement "guns are made to kill people" is just as wrong as saying "Guns are made to eat".
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How would I get at the termites without my pointy stick? I think there needs to be an amendment.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ecthalion: To be honest none of us were there when the first gun was invented so you have no idea what his original purpose was for it. So the arguement "guns are made to kill people" is just as wrong as saying "Guns are made to eat".
This not being in the vein of the original argument- I will clarify my position. The guns that are made today are not the same guns that were originally made, and so they aren't made for the same reasons. In the same way that you are quite correct, there are knives made for killing people, but there are also kitchen knives. There is of course a difference between a Katana Blade and a paring knife, in the same way that there is difference between a hunting rifle and an uzi or a Magnum. Just because we weren't around when the FIRST gun was invented doesn't mean we don't know what WE make guns for.
If we make a gun designed for a police officer or a soldier and filled with armor piercing bullets, then we know what that gun is designed to do. That's pretty simple.
Edit: Yes yes, one answer is that the gun is designed to show that the officer is armed, of course that is true. But the fact that gun is also designed to kill or maim is what gives it the image and the power. The idea that the gun was designed as a show of force is fine, but a show of force, I believe, requires force to be shown. If your carrying around a rubber handgun- or if every cop in America is carrying around a dumby gun, then of course the guns have no effect. The source of the threat is the capability, and that capability is what guns are designed to have. The show of force flows from that, contingent on that ability to kill. IMHO.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ecthalion: I dont know what more you are looking for as to a casual connection between guns and crime.
your arguement contradicts itself though, since you are here arguing about the nature of guns being for killing people and in essence commiting crimes. You are so ready to point out that there are many factors behind crime, none of which deal with the gun but all of which deal with the people commiting them. Since you are ready to admit that it is the people and thier circumstances that cause the crime independant of the weapon they choose then you cannot hope to argue that weapons of choice are in any way adding to the crime rate.
One more clarification: my spelling is *atrocious* but I was attempting to write CAUSAL, not CASUAL, connection. You see the difference now I am sure.
Hmmmmm. I am willing to admit that the will to committ crime goes way beyond owning guns. Crimes happened long before we had guns, and will continue after. However, your assertion that I am ready to admit that the ownership of guns in no way adds to crime rates is too much to bear. The connection between guns and crime is decidedly complex, and I can neither assert nor deny that guns add or subtract to the overall crime rate. I think that there are many crimes, like armed robbery, which are aided by guns. Other crimes aided by guns are murder, and suicide, as OSC pointed out in the beginning of the thread. I cannot be sure if suicide rates would actually FALL if people didn't have guns, but I do know that many people kill themselves with guns, and that it is the quickest possible way to kill oneself. (Edit: And I hear the response: you can kill yourself with a car! Yes, you can, but I make clear above that it is my assertion that guns are designed for killing, and I don't think that most cars are designed with that in mind, quite the opposite.)
Now, I DO know that thousands of people are murdered with guns every year. Would these people have been murdered if there had not been guns involved? I recently had to bring in the police when one of our participants at the Teen Center got himself too deeply involved in a fued with another teen over a girl. The rival kid, from a nearby town, threatened to bring a friend with a gun to the confrontation, and this encouraged a few teens to spill the news to the staff and me, and I called the cops. What worries me is that I don't think these kids would have the guts or the ability to kill eachother with their bare hands, or even with knives, but a gun is very powerful and very final. I worried less about the fight than I did about that gun.
You may argue that the gun stopped the fight, but that's a very dodgy argument. If it had been a day when we had been closed, then I wouldn't have been there to call the cops, and the fight might have gone down, and someone might have been shot. That's anecdotal and alot of speculation on my part, and clearly these teens aren't examples of responsible gun ownership, and yet they may have had a gun anyway. Its too much freedom for me, knowing that that kid might have been 18, and had bought that gun legally. I dunno, scared the crap outa me!
All this way to say that I am nowhere near admitting that guns don't add to crime. That would be silly. Of course they at least add to every crime in which they are involved.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You'd be surprised. I've known people beaten half to death by gangs of unarmed kids, and frankly my guess is they wouldn't have hesitated to finish the job were that their goal.
It's like locks and alarms in a house. Yeah, they make your house less desirable a target, but if someone really wants in, they will get in. Unfortunately the criminal mind is a terribly resourceful thing.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
sorry, my mistake, i see the point you were trying to make about crime rates now. Funny how a word can mess up an entire paragraph.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This debate is making me crazy. I’ll start on the last page and go through: It seems like we’re talking past each other. The people who are saying that guns are for killing people are addressing the free militia argument, and are saying that we should restrict gun ownership to those guns that would be as effective as possible for overthrowing a tyrannical government while being as ineffective as possible for criminal use. Guns are, in fact, for killing people, or else we’d just arm our free militia with the aforementioned oh-so-dangerous knives instead. Guns are effective at killing people. A militia could use rifles (hunters could also use rifles!), while criminals could use handguns for concealment. Nothing in the second amendment specifies that all citizens have the right to keep and carry any kind of firearm whatsoever. As long as it doesn’t restrict the ability of citizens to form militias and overthrow tyrannical governments, we’re fine. “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.” Right. Comparing guns to cars because each can be used for recreational purposes or killing people is disingenuous; people have the right to own guns because they are useful for killing people, while they have the right to own cars because they are useful for transportation. The latter is restricted in certain ways that fit with the function of transportation, while the former is restricted in certain ways consistent with the function of killing people. If guns weren’t effective at killing people, people wouldn’t have the right to have them anyway.
quote: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.
Design intent is very relevant to the practical application. Most people thinking to kill someone think of guns pretty high on the list, as opposed to harpoon launchers. Most people with the “just you wait ‘til some criminal tries to break into my house at night” creepiness go and buy a gun to protect themselves, not chainsaws. Plus, people don’t try all the stupid stuff with harpoon launchers and chainsaws (I have no pity for people who voluntarily play Russian roulette, but I’ve never heard of kids getting ahold of a saw and deciding to pretend like they could kill each other with it in such a way that they accidentally succeed).
quote:Someone mentioned something about this earlier and it just seems that it’s very staggering. Countries with no firearms rank highest in the world in crime. The place in the US that you are not allowed to have guns (D.C.) has the highest crime in the U.S. And yet in Switzerland where people carry fully automatics and ammo under their bed you have some of the lowest crime in the world.
Correlation does not equal causation. Switzerland also has one of the most homogenous populations in the world and one of the lowest poverty rates in the world. (I think also low unemployment, much better child care and benefits for parents, et cetera.) I bet if they had our ethnic, religious, class, and ideological makeup and poverty and unemployment rates, we’d see those automatics getting used much more as United States people would. Accident rates would still be very low, though, which is why I advocate good gun education.
quote: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.
Well I’d argue that it’s a lot easier for a gun to go off than a knife to embed itself in someone or a bat to hit someone on the head (Dog Shoots Owner stories seem more common than Dog Stabs Owner stories).
quote: 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.
Yes, and the second amendment doesn’t have anything to say about the right of people to shoot at tin cans.
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.
Exactly.
quote: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.
Knives are meant to cut things. They’re not meant to kill. Guns are intended to kill things. Living things, which dead animals and bread and baseballs and dead wood aren’t. Guns are protected because they can kill people, specifically the soldiers in a tyrannical government. Getting cut by accident is usually less severe than getting shot by accident. Try defending yourself from a criminal using a lawn mower, or concealing a baseball bat in order to rob a bank, or accidentally kill yourself with a knife, and you’ll see why the analogy just doesn’t work.
quote: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)
If you don’t need a gun for protection, then the second amendment argument is what, again? I don’t recall a protection of the right of the people to bear and keep arms because a healthy shooting and hunting sporting community is essential to the protection of freedom.
quote:There are substantial social benefits from honoring what I think of as an innate right, that of defending myself.
Didn’t you just say...? No, I must have imagined it. You need a gun for protection. Got it. Either I’m hallucinating, or you have multiple personalities… Will this be on the final?
quote: I don’t know what more you are looking for as to a causal connection between guns and crime. But i would say that if you’d like to test it yourself you could move to a nice city and put a sign in your front yard that says "There are no guns in this house" and then put "warning owner of firearm" in the lawn of everyone else’s house on the street and see how many times your house is robbed compared to theirs.
Well, there’s a problem with that experiment, isn’t there? People don’t put signs in their yards telling potential burglars about the existence or lack thereof of a gun in the house. In fact, that’s what the NRA argues is what makes a neighborhood with guns more safe than one without—because (if criminals know that there are guns in the neighborhood) criminals won’t know which house has it, so they’ll just conclude that the risk isn’t worth the payoff. (Plus you have to worry about what the neighbors’ll do if they see a nearby house being burgled…)
quote: You'd be surprised. I've known people beaten half to death by gangs of unarmed kids, and frankly my guess is they wouldn't have hesitated to finish the job were that their goal.
True. But we’re concentrating on the crimes we can actually make any progress to preventing.
So, in conclusion: rifles for everyone, handguns for none. Or whatever works to lower the ability of criminals to commit crimes, while raising the ability of citizens to revolt against their government. Because that's covered by the second amendment. I don't care if you hunt with or shoot or display your guns. Those guns aren't what we're talking about. We're talking about "but I need it so I can kill evil people!" vs. "oops, I accidentally killed someone."
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gwen I appreciate the effort But I think that this thread is effectively shot. (pun intended)
I do want to add that I was thinking the very same thing about Switzerland, how it is one of the richest countries on Earth, homogonized citizenry, good education, strongly nationalistic politics and a healthy tolerance for foreigners. All that helps their crime rates tremendously, as does their compulsory military service (iirc?) and their strong police forces. Guns in the home are related to this, but they have an entirely different situation from the racial diverse, economically diverse, educationally challenged United States.
It is a tough call to say that guns are the reason there is little crime there. Maybe the high consumption of chocolate, or the accurate knowledge of the time is the true cause. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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)
If you don’t need a gun for protection, then the second amendment argument is what, again? I don’t recall a protection of the right of the people to bear and keep arms because a healthy shooting and hunting sporting community is essential to the protection of freedom.
quote:There are substantial social benefits from honoring what I think of as an innate right, that of defending myself.
Didn’t you just say...? No, I must have imagined it. You need a gun for protection. Got it. Either I’m hallucinating, or you have multiple personalities…
You're not hallucinating, merely having trouble understanding what he's saying.
First, he said that he doesn't need a gun for protection, in the present tense, with a description of the factors present in his life that make him safe without a gun. That very same paragraph introduced the possibility that he might need a gun, listed a possible scenario in which this might occur, and described how he would store the gun if he did.
Your response to that paragraph made zero sense. You quoted the part where he described when he might need a gun.
Then he said that his right to defend himself should be honored, presumably by not prohibiting his ownership of a gun if he came to need one for protection.
Your response to that paragraph was equally nonsensical. He didn't say he needs a gun now. He said he has a right to a gun if he needs it to defend himself. Your summation ("You need a gun for protection") is simply inaccurate. He has outright stated there are situations in which he might need a gun and he has stated that his present situation is not one of them. Your use of present tense to attempt to ridicule him is inaccurate.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gwen: This debate is making me crazy. I’ll start on the last page and go through: It seems like we’re talking past each other. The people who are saying that guns are for killing people are addressing the free militia argument, and are saying that we should restrict gun ownership to those guns that would be as effective as possible for overthrowing a tyrannical government while being as ineffective as possible for criminal use. Guns are, in fact, for killing people, or else we’d just arm our free militia with the aforementioned oh-so-dangerous knives instead. Guns are effective at killing people. A militia could use rifles (hunters could also use rifles!), while criminals could use handguns for concealment. Nothing in the second amendment specifies that all citizens have the right to keep and carry any kind of firearm whatsoever. As long as it doesn’t restrict the ability of citizens to form militias and overthrow tyrannical governments, we’re fine.
Yet, the restriction of handguns does, in fact, restrict the ability of the citizenry to form an effective militia. A citizen-formed militia does not have the ability to train it's members like the US Military. As such, banning weapons that are easy to use restricts the effective formation.
quote:Design intent is very relevant to the practical application.
quote:Knives are meant to cut things. They’re not meant to kill.
So we're going to ignore design intent, now? We can't ignore design intent on guns, because you say, but we can on knives, because you say?
Blades weren't designed as a utility - they were designed as a weapon, and the utility use was found later.
Design intent doesn't matter one single bit. If you really cared about loss of life and injury, then why do you completely dismiss the much higher loss of life and injury from automobiles?
In effect, you're saying that only the lives lost from firearms violence or negligence matter, because, in your opinion, firearms are only for killing, but vehicles have other uses.
(I'd like to point out that you don't have ANY right to a vehicle, by the way. Your right to bear arms is Constitutionally protected. Your PRIVILEGE to drive a vehicle, or own a vehicle, is a PRIVILEGE, granted to you on a state by state basis. You're attacking a right, not a privelege, and saying that a privilege has more weight than a Constitutionally protected right. That's fabulous.)
quote:Then he said that his right to defend himself should be honored, presumably by not prohibiting his ownership of a gun if he came to need one for protection.
That makes a bit more sense. I thought that he was saying that his gun use was a good example of good gun ownership precisely because he doesn't own guns for the purpose of protection or defense, even as a secondary purpose. I interpreted his post this way because I thought that he was replying to the argument about the use of certain types of guns for (so-called) self-defense, and it was the only interpretation that made it relevant. Or made any sense when considered with something else he said:
quote: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.
And that argument has already been addressed by Orincoro fairly thoroughly. Kythri has a gun that he keeps in a condition that it is available for ready use in the event of a break-in or a personal assault, whether or not he also uses it for hunting. It's not the hunting part that is protected by the second amendment, it's the killing-people part.
quote:Yet, the restriction of handguns does, in fact, restrict the ability of the citizenry to form an effective militia. A citizen-formed militia does not have the ability to train it's members like the US Military. As such, banning weapons that are easy to use restricts the effective formation.
I'll rephrase that. How about "significantly and easily avoidably" restricts the formation of a militia. Restricting the ownership of automatics and requiring gun registration can also be interpreted to be restrictions on the formation of a militia.
quote:Blades weren't designed as a utility - they were designed as a weapon, and the utility use was found later.
Design intent doesn't matter one single bit. If you really cared about loss of life and injury, then why do you completely dismiss the much higher loss of life and injury from automobiles?
Wasn't this point already addressed? I really, really, really would hate for this thread to be a "let's see how many times we can repeat ourselves before we get sick and tired of the discussion" thread like a certain other one in this forum right now. To clarify: the person I was replying to stated that knives are meant to cut things, and that because people can use knives to cut other people, knives should be considered exactly the same for the purposes of the discussion as guns are. My point was, well, you can read it below where I've quoted it, but to summarize, guns are specifically created--not The First Gun, but guns now--to kill things. Guns which are created solely for recreational purposes and would be difficult to kill people with are known as "paintball guns" because they shoot paintballs at what they're aimed at as opposed to, you know, bullets. Criminals don't rob banks with paint guns. Children rarely if ever (and I haven't looked it up, so I'm just guessing based on the lack of media coverage of something the media would certainly be all over--Stereotypical Youth Activity Turns Out To Be Deadly is the basic headline for that sort of thing, and we all remember how the studies and so on are made) kill themselves accidentally while playing with "loaded" paintguns. That's why no one that I know of wants severe restrictions on them; that's also why they're not protected by the second amendment.
quote:Knives are meant to cut things. They’re not meant to kill. Guns are intended to kill things. Living things, which dead animals and bread and baseballs and dead wood aren’t. Guns are protected because they can kill people, specifically the soldiers in a tyrannical government. Getting cut by accident is usually less severe than getting shot by accident. Try defending yourself from a criminal using a lawn mower, or concealing a baseball bat in order to rob a bank, or accidentally kill yourself with a knife, and you’ll see why the analogy just doesn’t work.
So yes, design intent does matter, as does the intent of the people purchasing guns and the intent of the people defending gun use and the intent of the people writing the Constitution and mentioning guns. There is a difference, as I believe Orincoro said, between katana and paring knives.
quote:In effect, you're saying that only the lives lost from firearms violence or negligence matter, because, in your opinion, firearms are only for killing, but vehicles have other uses.
No, although I can see where you'd misread my point, since it is a somewhat subtle distinction. I'm saying that since firearms are protected specifically because they are effective at killing people, even more specifically because they would be useful in a revolution, firearms that are not so effective in a revolution but are more effective for less desirable uses like "ordinary" people-killing as done by murderers and bank robbers and the like, or for domestic disputes, or for accidentally killing someone else, should be restricted, or at least we should be willing to consider it instead of claiming that the uses of those types of guns for sport automatically protects them. Automobiles are significantly different in that they are not a protected constiutional right--any of them--for any use--and that people use them for criminal activity much, much less frequently than they use certain types of guns.
In fact, what you pointed out is something of a background point of mine. If there was another amendment, Amendment 2.5, protecting the right of the people to keep and drive vehicles because swift and easy transportation is necessary for good non-governmental communication or some such, only those vehicles which served the purposes of swift and easy transportation would be explicitly protected. Recreational vehicles--not RVs, by the way, I mean quads and the like--could reasonably be restricted or even prohibited without violating that particular amendment's precepts. I'm only debating for the sake of debating, by the way, and safety and the like aside, I think I'd be on the other side--just like Orincoro with his "I'm fine with people keeping guns for sport but they oughtn't to pretend that they have the right to own them because of the second amendment". Not because of the second amendment, either. I'm thinking of rather different amendments, but then I'm that crazy person who questions every law Congress passes that has no connection to interstate commerce...
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:and that people use them for criminal activity much, much less frequently than they use certain types of guns.
I doubt this is true. Automobiles are very commonly used for criminal activity, often by criminals specifically choosing not to have a gun for various reasons such as mandatory minimums.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thank everyone who has been contributing. I started with a strong opinion (leave my guns alone) but few facts. With the aid of this new invention called the InterWeb or something, I learned a lot about how safe guns are - paradoxically.
I learned that apparently lots of people use them to stay safe, saying "mine is bigger than yours."
I learned that taking guns away from people doesn't seem to reduce crime. Liberal carry laws don't increase crime or violence one whit. And I learned that facts don't make a difference if the opinion is laden with emotion.
I learned that the topic starter, Kythri, would be a good guy to know if Everything Goes To Hell.
I learned that Gwen was much more reasonable than I initially misunderstood her to be.
I learned that one enthusiastic anti-gun dude can stir the pot and keep it boiling. What's that I smell? Burning hay?
Now I think we should migrate over to the thread announcing the new Ender novel. The thing is like 25 pages long.
That's where the real action is!
In the mean time, you anti-gun folks, please go shoot with some responsible gun owner. Spend an hour shooting skeet, for example, or shoot a target with a big-bore hunting rifle. Shoot some water filled milk jugs with a handgun, especially a big one. Know this hobby for the vile, evil, disgusting business that it is. Get to know some shooters, so you can hear our fantasies involving blood, destruction and death. (Now don't quote that as if I meant it. It is sarcasm, a low form of humor, but the best I am capable of.)
If Mr. OSC ever reads this thread, I invite him to exactly that activity. If he seriously wants to migrate into action thrillers, he ought to experience the horror of emptying a magazine of 7.62 ammo into some targets.
de oppreso liber lynn
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kythri: Blades weren't designed as a utility - they were designed as a weapon, and the utility use was found later.
That is neither accurate nor relevant. It is not relevant because the historical uses of knives is not at issue. A kitchen knife is designed for use, in a kitchen. Like many things, it can kill, but it is made with a kitchen in mind. This has also been presented in the thread several times, and has been answered, I feel, very clearly. In this argument we, or at least I, have attemped to consider not what guns were designed to do in the grand historical setting, not when they were first invented, but what they are designed for and used for today. As I have also pointed out, a blade can be many things, like a gun. It can be a katana, an axe for cutting wood, a paring knife or a sewers hook. These all have their intended uses, and I am against those made for killing and maiming people.
A gun today is made with a use in mind, perhaps that is protection of the family and the ability to kill. You can't begin to argue that guns are not designed with killing in mind- aren't they awarded a certain merit for their "stopping power?" (Not an expert so the term may be wrong). There ARE guns, probably many, which do not kill. Bean-bag shotguns, rubber bullet guns, target competition guns, hunting rifles, etc. These may not be designed for killing people. I will clarify my position this last time, to try and be clear about what I have said, and then if I feel responding any more would only indulge those who would have this discussion fly around in circles, I will sign off, as I should have done before.
The history of the gun as related to its design or original use is not my issue. The modern use of the gun is my issue. The intent of the gun owner is something I worry about. The ability to kill, provided or made easier by a tool which continues to become more effective and obtainable in this country is something which I do not like. I believe, further, that the ownership of a gun for defense, is also an admission that one intends, when necessary, to kill. In my estimation, the act has been considered, and in part it has been decided before the situation in which the gun is used ever arises. This preparation to kill bothers me because it is part of human nature, and yet it is, I think, not conducive to our continued evolution in a growing and changing society. Not all human nature, in my opinion, is good human nature.
It is obviously a part of some human natures to own slaves, as it was a common practice for millenia. It has also been human nature to opress women, and minorities, and to beat and isolate children. These are parts of human nature which are not analogous to gun ownership, but which I believe to be negative, like gun ownership. The evil in them is greater, and that makes it recognizable to a modern thinking person. Gun ownership is a lot different. It is ambiguous, and like all common human behaviors, it has its root in survival and the extension of one's family ties and one's own life- it stems from a need for self preservation.
But many things stem from self-preservation. Alcoholism, for instance, is tied very clearly to insincts and genes which help with human survival. The fight or flight part of the brain is the same part excited by drugs and alcohol in the addicted brain. To the drug addict, the alcoholic, drinking and getting high are part of human nature, they are natural and predictable responses to stress or excitement. This doesn't make getting high good for you, even if your body tells you so.
Do we want to get into the intentions of the men who wrote the 2nd ammendment? I really don't and partly the reason is because my argument against guns is the same as my argument against an historical defense or attack of gun ownership. This is a very different time from then, and we are not the same people. Guns are not the same guns they were. You can't deny that. If a gun were invented tomorrow which bore no relationship in design, or appearance to the modern idea of the gun, a spherical ball, say, which spits fire from the hands of the possessor at his enemies or attackers, then I wonder how it would be treated according to gun laws. It would have all the same uses, and yet it would be largely outside the imaginations of the lawmakers of the past, or even of today.
This is all to say that I understand, or think I understand, why people own guns. I am also fairly sure that as long as enough people want these types of weapons, the law is simply going to reflect, or be interpreted as reflecting, that they should be allowed. I want people to realize, (and I want it to be true!) that the world is a better place, that we are a more evolved people, the day that barrier in our society goes down, and we see no use for the handgun. Do I see a use for it now? Yes. Do I think that use, cosmically speaking, outweighs the price we pay in evolution? No. To me, looking out for my own is the same as doing what is right for everyone. What is right and good and better for everyone is better and right and good for me. That is sacrifice in as simple a form as I can grasp; I want us to be a society in which we don't need these weapons, and I know that that wall of practicality and continued justifications for firearms is going to continue as long as I and people like me let it. I have likened this (or rather alluded to Sagan's liking of it) to the cold war arms race, in which each side was aware that it held enough firepower to effectively put an end to its own prosperous civilization and the modern way of life. The madness of the arms race continued, and still continues because for some reason, it is human nature to be comfortable, or at least willing, to deal in power which is great enough to kill one'self and one's loved ones. We do this for the sake of protection, so we say, and yet there are enough nuclear weapons on earth to drop the equivelant megatonage of a WWII for every person on Earth, and destroy our atmosphere and our oceans to boot. To me, in many ways, the handgun is the little nuetron bomb. Too far already. Too much already, and we shouldn't pretend to ourselves that we are masters of these forces.
My 8 cents, the way I figure it. You can disagree, but don't tell me I am not being honest or trying to be fair. I am. I don't agree with you perhaps, but as I have learned in this thread, we can all honestly disagree with each other for very good and smart, and sometimes very stupid reasons.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nothing in the second amendment specifies that all citizens have the right to keep and carry any kind of firearm whatsoever
Actually that is exactly what the 2nd Amendment says. The people who wrote it were not counting out cannons or other things either. The people had a right to defend themselves from tyrannical government, they lived through that and saw the need for that.
Privateering was a real thing back then, that was mostly private warships. Thats why, when I sell my first blockbuster movie, I am going to buy a mothballed warship and go privateer.
I'll be out there waiting for Congress to pass the Letters of Marquis and Reprisal... waiting ever so long.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you mean by the use of those scare quotes, Tom? Is learning which does not make us change our minds not real learning?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nasty business, this interweb. I can only be assumed to have learned something if it is Politically Correct. I explained why that was for me a learning experience. Sounds like you need to learn to read accurately.
Tom, can you demonstrate that guns are not safe? Can you prove that the studies quoted by the NRA are false, and that lots of people are being killed by the foolish use of guns?
I'll even give you a lead. The Harvard Health Letter published a review - a bunch of studies- suggesting the opposite of my position. You could get those and we can hammer out why I think those studies are not representative and why other studies are more robust. I am sure I will learn from that!
Now, Orincoro: You said, "The intent of the gun owner is something I worry about."
Then you recap your imaginary dangers. Do you have any DATA which would show there is a real danger? If not, then perhaps you have a phobia, an irrational fear of something that doesn't harm you. Like a fear of spiders (most are harmless), snakes (ditto), flying, and public speaking. If you accept my challenge, spend time at a range, you overcome your fear.
I do agree that killing people is something that a gun is able to do, depending on the intent of the person. I don't see a problem with that. If someone were trying to kill me, am I not supposed to resist?
You claim that by giving up our self-defense instincts, we can evolve as a species. What would cause us to evolve? I don't think you understand Darwinian evolution. We have to stand against the minority of our species who are evil and harmful. There aren't many, but they are out there. Only our willingness to stop them keeps them in check.
That's why nuclear weapons were such a fabulous success. We defeated a consumately evil system without an all-out war. Sagan was a foolish man not to see it.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
PS: Tal Ben Shahar gave a Positive Psychology class at Harvard this spring. I virtually attended it, via this internet thingy.
In one lecture he talked about a life-changing experience he had reading Thomas Sowell who demonstrated two ways of thinking: Either people are perfectable, or people are inherently flawed and are not perfectable.
The perfectable camp ends up pursuing more and more government control in a vain effort to perfect humans. This leads to misery.
The "people are inherently flawed" camp simply accepts that life is a messy business, untidy and full of pain. This leads to a life of peace.
When he said that, I thought of the Pew survey last spring saying that conservatives tend to be happier people than liberals.
Now since conservatives produce more children than liberals, then in the long run, things look very bleak for the liberal (read, government control & programs) point of view.
That's why gun control will never succeed in repeal of the 2nd ammendment. Progressives/liberals are evolving themselves out of existence. de oppreso liber lj
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom, can you demonstrate that guns are not safe? Can you prove that the studies quoted by the NRA are false, and that lots of people are being killed by the foolish use of guns?
I don't particularly feel the need, mainly since I agree with you on the issue; playing Devil's Advocate would be silly.
I'm just pointing out that you started this conversation with your mind closed on the topic, and the only things you took away from it were things that merely filled in blanks that you were already willing to acknowledge.
That's not learning. That's gloating. And IMO, it's unseemly.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, tom, tom Pretending to know my thoughts - mind reading - is what is unseemly. Badly done, Tom, badly done.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lynn-you've posted links to summaries of studies, and essays discussing studies, and so on. If I'm to take the evidence seriously, I have to see the evidence--read the studies, all the way through. It's an educational experience to read studies that prove some point or another, to see how they set up the studies. Ever read a video game study? Five people, no control group, and a propensity for blasting static does not a violence-and-video-games link make. Ideally, a study should stack the variables against the authors' preferred result. I understand if you don't actually want to go through the work of hunting these studies down and posting them on here just to convince me (better things to do, I'm sure)--but don't be surprised if the other people on this thread aren't convinced.
quote:Actually that is exactly what the 2nd Amendment says. The people who wrote it were not counting out cannons or other things either. The people had a right to defend themselves from tyrannical government, they lived through that and saw the need for that.
Exactly. We're interpreting it exactly the same way: firearms which can help people defend themselves from tyrannical governments people have the right to keep and bear. Doesn't say anything about hunting and recreation.
quote:In the mean time, you anti-gun folks, please go shoot with some responsible gun owner. Spend an hour shooting skeet, for example, or shoot a target with a big-bore hunting rifle. Shoot some water filled milk jugs with a handgun, especially a big one. Know this hobby for the vile, evil, disgusting business that it is. Get to know some shooters, so you can hear our fantasies involving blood, destruction and death. (Now don't quote that as if I meant it. It is sarcasm, a low form of humor, but the best I am capable of.)
Sarcasm is my favorite brand of humor!
I have gone shooting, though, on a more serious note. That's why I understand how important a good gun education is as the common ground between all groups. Every-gun-is-a-loaded-gun, don't-point-the-gun-at-anything-you-don't-intend-to-kill, drilled into my siblings and I before we were even allowed in the presence of a gun. Having a mother who grew up shooting and was in the army can help with that sort of thing, too.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Gwen, now you understand the tactics people need to employ to maintain a position when someone brings a perfectly reasonable question to the table. You don't answer to that, you answer a charge that hasn't been brought, and you MAKE the challenge unreasonable, since it isn't already.
Given that neither of us has been particularly interested in talking about sport shooting, and in fact we've both said we don't really mind it within reason, of course an opposing argument is going to use sport shooting as a defense of guns. What I've been doing, especially later in the thread, is pointing out what I feel guns should not be used to do. Sport shooting isn't on my list.
Edit: And really, think about it, if sport shooting was the only thing people used guns for, then why would we be having this argument?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I guess my reading comprehension must suck, because I'm pretty sure that all questions you asked got answered, but since you're making accusations, do us a favor, and please repost your question or questions that you claim didn't get answered.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"That's why nuclear weapons were such a fabulous success."
Add that to the inherent flaws of human nature you spoke about. The jury may still be out on the issue of fabulous success.
Those nukes allowed us to fight (and win) a cold war, and no doubt saved a lot of bloodshed last century, but I wouldn't be surprised if this century doesn't give us (humanity, I guess)the opportunity to use them to play catch up with the blood-letting (blood-evaporating?).
Posts: 22 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Kythri- sorry but I am not going to play the repeat yourself game- read my longish post on this page if you want to hear what I have to say- otherwise we really are finished with this thread.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, fine, I just did a search for "?", and I'll address all of your unanswered questions here.
I'll ignore the "(iirc?)" and the questions you ask of yourself, then answer.
quote:Now, I DO know that thousands of people are murdered with guns every year. Would these people have been murdered if there had not been guns involved?
There's no way to be certain of that. The only thing we do know are that bad people do bad things, and disobey laws that are obeyed by good people. The tool used shouldn't enter into any rational debate on how to make bad people stop doing bad things - which is why you're advocating gun control.
quote:You can't begin to argue that guns are not designed with killing in mind- aren't they awarded a certain merit for their "stopping power?"
Guns? No. Calibers? Yes, but only by those who have no education in firearms. So-called "stopping power" is a fallacy and a myth. Some claim that the large size of a .45ACP cartridge has more "stopping power", yet the .45ACP is a barely sonic round. When figuring the mass and speed of a 9mm Parabellum round, they come out with about the same energy dispersal, if I remember correctly. Nevertheless, as I said, not only is "stopping power" a fallacy and myth, that's an argument for cartridges, not the firearms that use them.
quote:Do we want to get into the intentions of the men who wrote the 2nd ammendment?
There's no need - it's there, plain as day: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
It doesn't say "shall not be infringed so they can form militias." It recognizes that militias are neccessary, and as such, it prohibits the restriction of free ownership and use of firearms by THE PEOPLE.
quote:And really, think about it, if sport shooting was the only thing people used guns for, then why would we be having this argument?
If nobody ever used a firearm for any nefarious deed, then, no, of course we wouldn't be having this argument here.
I do find it amusing, though, that the analogy of automobiles and their abuse was completely dismissed, though. You'll argue for restrictions on firearms because of their misuse, but you won't consider restrictions on vehicles due to their misuse. Once again, I say, design intent doesn't matter - actual use matters.
So - are we happy that your unanswered questions were answered?
How about you employ some other tactics, now?
Posts: 14 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:it prohibits the restriction of free ownership and use of firearms by THE PEOPLE.
No, it doesn't. It prohibits infringements on the right of the people (or should I say THE PEOPLE? what was that about?) to keep and bear arms. There is a historically recognized legal difference between an infringement of a right and a restriction to the right.
quote:If nobody ever used a firearm for any nefarious deed, then, no, of course we wouldn't be having this argument here.
I don't think that that was what Orincoro was saying, although I might be misreading his question. At least what I would have meant if I asked a similar question is, if guns weren't capable of killing people, would we be having this argument? Because we all agree that there is no specific constitutional amendment to the right to keep and bear spoons, for example, and for the same reason (spoons are not used or intended to be used to kill) no one's arguing for restrictions on spoon ownership and use.
quote:I do find it amusing, though, that the analogy of automobiles and their abuse was completely dismissed, though. You'll argue for restrictions on firearms because of their misuse, but you won't consider restrictions on vehicles due to their misuse. Once again, I say, design intent doesn't matter - actual use matters.
Hahahaha! Can you believe it? *Wipes tears from eyes* People actually find a qualitative difference between automobiles and firearms, despite the fact that both have destructive power! Hahaha! They're crazy! I know that the differences between them were already discussed in several arguments that haven't been addressed, but boy is it amusing that they still insist on holding onto their unrefuted views about the differences between cars and guns! Hahaha!
...I don't get it.
And to repeat:
quote:
quote:Blades weren't designed as a utility - they were designed as a weapon, and the utility use was found later.
Design intent doesn't matter one single bit. If you really cared about loss of life and injury, then why do you completely dismiss the much higher loss of life and injury from automobiles?
Wasn't this point already addressed? I really, really, really would hate for this thread to be a "let's see how many times we can repeat ourselves before we get sick and tired of the discussion" thread like a certain other one in this forum right now.
...Guns which are created solely for recreational purposes and would be difficult to kill people with are known as "paintball guns" because they shoot paintballs at what they're aimed at as opposed to, you know, bullets. Criminals don't rob banks with paint guns. Children rarely if ever (and I haven't looked it up, so I'm just guessing based on the lack of media coverage of something the media would certainly be all over--Stereotypical Youth Activity Turns Out To Be Deadly is the basic headline for that sort of thing, and we all remember how the studies and so on are made) kill themselves accidentally while playing with "loaded" paintguns. That's why no one that I know of wants severe restrictions on them; that's also why they're not protected by the second amendment.
and
quote:In fact, what you pointed out is something of a background point of mine. If there was another amendment, Amendment 2.5, protecting the right of the people to keep and drive vehicles because swift and easy transportation is necessary for good non-governmental communication or some such, only those vehicles which served the purposes of swift and easy transportation would be explicitly protected. Recreational vehicles--not RVs, by the way, I mean quads and the like--could reasonably be restricted or even prohibited without violating that particular amendment's precepts.
and, earlier
quote:Comparing guns to cars because each can be used for recreational purposes or killing people is disingenuous; people have the right to own guns because they are useful for killing people, while they have the right to own cars because they are useful for transportation. The latter is restricted in certain ways that fit with the function of transportation, while the former is restricted in certain ways consistent with the function of killing people. If guns weren’t effective at killing people, people wouldn’t have the right to have them anyway.
(Well, they might, but for different reasons, as outlined in the amendment I referred to earlier. You might want to check it out; it's a much better argument at least nationwide.)
Please, please, please either address my arguments for the differences between automobiles and guns before you go on about how amusing it is that no one on the gun-control side wants to outlaw cars. It's a bad analogy. Or, who knows, maybe you'll convince me that I'm wrong and it's a great analogy and maybe I'll *really* find it amusing. And maybe I don't have to keep repeating myself like a bad music download. (Translation: broken record.) And maybe we can move forward in the discussion, or at least not move backward into insulting each other based on things that the others have not done that they actually have, or based on things that the others have done that they actually haven't. Onward and upward and all that.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
why in the world is this debate even still going? Everyone is ignoring the posts of oppostie opinions anyway.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kythri: I do find it amusing, though, that the analogy of automobiles and their abuse was completely dismissed, though. You'll argue for restrictions on firearms because of their misuse, but you won't consider restrictions on vehicles due to their misuse. Once again, I say, design intent doesn't matter - actual use matters.
How about you employ some other tactics, now?
I in fact do favor restrictions on the use of vehicles, and so does the law. Many states require that you be 18, all that you be tested and re-tested, that you be physically fit to drive, that you do not have a history of drunk driving, that you do not use illegal drugs. In some states the use of illegal drugs means the loss of a drivers liscense, even if you are not driving. Nearly all of these restrictions I support wholeheartedly, and I think we could use a few more on the list- though not so many that driving becomes impossible.
The analogy wasn't dismissed wantonly, but because it is stupid, and tired, and was answered thoughtfully several times already.
Regarding your condinued abuse and rude remarks about my "tactics." I have said, several times, that I do not want to continue in this conversation if I must be forced to repeat my argument to you in a continual niggling wittling down of one point, only so that you can bring up some big part of the argument I didn't even adress in my last reiteration, and bicker about that. Its obvious to me that you are just abusing the people on this thread and driving your agenda, and that frankly sucks. Rather than kindly responding to the current mode of the conversation, here you dredge up questions and points which have been driven into the ground. Then you drive your stake into the ground and ask me to respond to it as if it is an invitation to debate? No Thanks. That's all you get. Go look for your tactics somewhere else. I am now completely finished with this thread. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:it prohibits the restriction of free ownership and use of firearms by THE PEOPLE.
No, it doesn't. It prohibits infringements on the right of the people (or should I say THE PEOPLE? what was that about?) to keep and bear arms. There is a historically recognized legal difference between an infringement of a right and a restriction to the right.
A legal precedent does not a fact make. A restriction on a constitutionally-protected right is is an infringement.
quote:
quote:I do find it amusing, though, that the analogy of automobiles and their abuse was completely dismissed, though. You'll argue for restrictions on firearms because of their misuse, but you won't consider restrictions on vehicles due to their misuse. Once again, I say, design intent doesn't matter - actual use matters.
Hahahaha! Can you believe it? *Wipes tears from eyes* People actually find a qualitative difference between automobiles and firearms, despite the fact that both have destructive power! Hahaha! They're crazy! I know that the differences between them were already discussed in several arguments that haven't been addressed, but boy is it amusing that they still insist on holding onto their unrefuted views about the differences between cars and guns! Hahaha!
...I don't get it.
I'm not arguing that vehicles or licensing should be further restricted (though, in some respects, I believe they should be). I'm saying - it doesn't matter what the inanimate object is. You seem to think that the deaths from firearms, either accidental or intentional, are somehow more important than the loss of lives from other inanimate objects. Banning and restricting the object is NOT any kind of solution to the problem of those deaths.
quote:...Guns which are created solely for recreational purposes and would be difficult to kill people with are known as "paintball guns" because they shoot paintballs at what they're aimed at as opposed to, you know, bullets.
Paintball guns aren't arms.
quote:Criminals don't rob banks with paint guns.
That we know of.
quote:Children rarely if ever (and I haven't looked it up, so I'm just guessing based on the lack of media coverage of something the media would certainly be all over--Stereotypical Youth Activity Turns Out To Be Deadly is the basic headline for that sort of thing, and we all remember how the studies and so on are made) kill themselves accidentally while playing with "loaded" paintguns. That's why no one that I know of wants severe restrictions on them; that's also why they're not protected by the second amendment.
They're not arms. They're not weapons. They're toys. That's why they're not protected by the 2nd Amendment. Depending on the locality, however, there ARE people that want severe restrictions on them.
quote:Please, please, please either address my arguments for the differences between automobiles and guns before you go on about how amusing it is that no one on the gun-control side wants to outlaw cars.
I don't believe it's neccessary. Premature death is bad. We agree. What we don't agree on are the ways to curb that issue. I believe that it's irrational to promote the restriction of items that cause X amount of death, as those items are protected by our Constitution, yet not to promote the restriction of unprotected items that cause X*Y amount of deaths with the same zeal.
quote:It's a bad analogy.
I disagree.
quote:Or, who knows, maybe you'll convince me that I'm wrong and it's a great analogy and maybe I'll *really* find it amusing. And maybe I don't have to keep repeating myself like a bad music download. (Translation: broken record.) And maybe we can move forward in the discussion, or at least not move backward into insulting each other based on things that the others have not done that they actually have, or based on things that the others have done that they actually haven't. Onward and upward and all that.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I in fact do favor restrictions on the use of vehicles, and so does the law. Many states require that you be 18, all that you be tested and re-tested, that you be physically fit to drive, that you do not have a history of drunk driving, that you do not use illegal drugs. In some states the use of illegal drugs means the loss of a drivers liscense, even if you are not driving. Nearly all of these restrictions I support wholeheartedly, and I think we could use a few more on the list- though not so many that driving becomes impossible.
Something we might actually agree about. Amazing.
quote:The analogy wasn't dismissed wantonly, but because it is stupid, and tired, and was answered thoughtfully several times already.
It's not, and it wasn't. But we're moving on.
quote:Regarding your condinued abuse and rude remarks about my "tactics."
Wow, *MY* continued abust and rude remarks? Pot, please, meet my good friend, Kettle.
quote:I have said, several times, that I do not want to continue in this conversation if I must be forced to repeat my argument to you in a continual niggling wittling down of one point, only so that you can bring up some big part of the argument I didn't even adress in my last reiteration, and bicker about that. Its obvious to me that you are just abusing the people on this thread and driving your agenda, and that frankly sucks. Rather than kindly responding to the current mode of the conversation, here you dredge up questions and points which have been driven into the ground. Then you drive your stake into the ground and ask me to respond to it as if it is an invitation to debate? No Thanks. That's all you get. Go look for your tactics somewhere else. I am now completely finished with this thread.
And yet you keep coming back (after multiple claims of being done with the thread), and giving me the same behavior and attitude that you accuse me of.
If you're going to call me on something, don't be guilty of it yourself.
posted
I changed my mind once on Hatrack. Just saying is all.
My attitude about guns, that less is more, is based on an idea I have about how I wish the world was, more than how I might know it is. It's a luxury I enjoy from living in a relatively stable and wealthy (in terms of the world in general) area. I have no idea whether my neighbors have guns, which is probably dangerous. I'm not the type of person who feels strongly enough against guns to have that be the first question I ask anyone who invites my kids over. I tend to rely on their concern for their own kids in keeping guns secure. I'd be much more worried, as far as that helps anything, to know my kids were hanging out with kids who had their own computer or TV in their bedroom. But worrying doesn't help.
My shift from a liberal view on abortion to conservative proceeded similarly (this was before hatrack). I decided my opinions should be shaped not solely on ugly reality, but on what things would be like ideally. It is also why I decided not to become a doctor (besides the prereqs being really tough). I have an inherent aversion to basing my existence on things that no one wants to happen. I prefer to make waffles.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect you'd have to try awfully hard, though, being fairly familiar with paintball guns. Then again, it's possibly to mortally injure yourself with a coffee cup.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
This right dates back to 872AD, and at one time was a substantial aspect of English Common Law. Charles II saw armed citizens as a threat to the Divine Right of Kings and the active intent to disarm the citizens and maintain professional armies carried through to James II, until the Glorious Revolution of 1668. James II successor could not be sworn into office until he swore as an absolute right, the right of the citizens to be armed.
I have tried to present the TRUE foundation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, though Noah Webster also said it very nicely when he said -
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. "
To preserve the power of the people, to assure that their power always exceeds the power of the Federal government, the citizens must be armed. It tried, and thought I did so very clearly, to point that out.
The Bill of Rights does not constitute a list of privilages granted by the Constitution. It constituted the absolute and inalienable right of the citizens, and again doesn't not acknowledge or grant the right, but acknowledges the government limitations in interfering with that absolute right.
In one of my previous long posts I made two central points in response to some misguide ideas that we being professed here. First was the intent and purpose of the Bill of Right and the Second Ammendment. I put it into a fair and reasonable historical and social perspective. Put simply those who would trade away our rights for the illusion of security, will in the end have neither Liberty or security. Think what you will, but history has proven that fact over and over again.
When you give up your right to keep arms, you give up your power as a citizen, you give up the right to control and shape your own destiny as a freeman (free person). Whatever illusions or delusions you may have, past, present, and future history will bear out the folly of your choices.
My next point, was in response to hysterical and uninformed ranting and raving about the horrors of guns in the modern world. I put firearms in perspective in modern society. Though sadly, the responder choose to totally warp the context of my statement by pointlessly trying to relate that back to the Second Ammendment issue. Though I confess such non sequitur is the typical redirection, misdirection, diversion tactics used to avoid addressing the specific issue head-on.
You say guns are solely for the purpose of killing (human or animal), yet I respond by pointing out that on a routine basis millions and millions of rounds of amunition are expended every year without crime and without injury, unless you count all the holes punched in pieces of paper, tin cans, and tree stumps as 'injury'. It was an attempt to put routine gun use in a proper, fair, and reasonably perspective which you choose to completely ignore. The ability to ignore is bliss, dangerous bliss, but bliss none the less.
Just to make sure you understand what our founding fathers and their descendants meant by the Second Ammendment, I give you a few more quotes from the link shown above.
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals. ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." - Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, Oct. 7, 1789
The will of the majority CAN NOT vote way Rights that are unalienable. Under no circumstances can a citizen be separated from that right.
"The right [to keep and bear arms] is General--it may be supposed by the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the military, but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent ... The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is that the people from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of the law for the purpose." -Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas McIntyre Cooley; General Principles of Constitutional Law (1898)
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
The use of the term 'swords' here is symbolic of any and all weapons.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason
As to the nature of /allowed/ arms.
"The militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. . . . these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." -United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. (1939)
In 1939, I believe the Thompson Sub-Machine Gun was in common use by the citizens.
Think what you will, do what you will, but if you weaking the power of the people for some desperate illusion of security, or some hopelessly naive belief that the 'government knows best', then you deserve every misery of tyranny and oppression that you bring upon yourself and onto others.
Let's try to stick to the historical and social facts.
Steve/BlueWizard.
By the way, I don't currently own any guns, but will defend to the death the right to do so.
Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: By the way, I don't currently own any guns, but will defend to the death the right to do so.
Whose death did you have in mind, given that you don't own any guns?
He said "currently", which implies, at least to me, the intent to purchase in the future.
Until then, he can come over and borrow one of mine.
To Tom, I hope you meant that comment to be light hearted because is made me laugh. And for the record, that 'life' would be my own.
To Kythri, I have owned gun in the past and was on our (Army) company rifle and piston team. I've always liked shooting, but never really cared for hunting. I've alway pictured myseld standing in the middle of the woods with a dead deer asking myself 'What am I going to do with a dead deer?". I have no answer. No, I'm not going to eat it. I'm not going to mount it as a trophy. So, for me it is a waste, so I don't do it. Though in my lifetime, I have hunted pheasants (never got one), rabbits (very few), and squirrels (more than I care to admit to, mostly wasted). Paper targets and tin cans? Lots and lost of those.
I support hunting because it is hunters who pay the money necessary to assure that wildlife will always be there. Most people think hunters consume wildlife, but that would be wrong, they are the greatest activists for preserving it.
Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is neither accurate nor relevant. It is not relevant because the historical uses of knives is not at issue. A kitchen knife is designed for use, in a kitchen. Like many things, it can kill, but it is made with a kitchen in mind.
Kitchen knives aren't the only kind of knives made, you know. He was talking blades in general, to my understanding; you then took that and moved to kitchen knives. Yes, kitchen knives are made to be used in the kitchen. But what are hunting knives made for? Switchblades?
I wonder whether you're implying that most homocides involving knives are thus kitchen knives? Can you clear this up for me? If you addressed it later then my apologies, I've just been skimming it quickly and this caught my eye. And I'm very tired, so excuse me if my question makes no sense. x.x
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
AAIIIIEEEE!!!! Ok, I skipped to the end and I am replying. knives were designed to KILL. guns were designed to KILL. If I had a time machine, would you go running into a neanderthal camp waving your arms without fear because they didnt have guns and their flint knives were designed for chopping vegetables??!?!?! (hint: flint pierces well, and slices well, but cant handle any sort of pressure, like chopping) What about a hundred objects lying around the house that could be used to kill inadvertently? prescription drug related deaths are one of the leading non-"natural" causes of death in the U.S., so should we ban prescription drugs? And looking at the area around my town... we have had three teen suicides in the past six years, and knives were used for all of them. But they are designed for chopping vegetables, not killing. Please...
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me make one small point regarding Automobiles, Knives, Baseball Bats, Neanderthal Flints, and other causes of death as they are used as analogies in this dicussion.
The point is, that with these various potentially deadly devices, when they are used to kill, you blame the operator and not the device. So, why should your attitude be any different with regard to guns?
A gun is merely a hunk of steel, until someone picks it up with intent; whether intentional intent or accidental intent. The result comes from the choices of the operator, just as it does from all these other devices.
And let us not forget, that weapons that can be used to form an armed resistance, are one of the major stones in the foundation of our freedom. Take out one stone and that leads to another, and that leads to the eventual collapse of our freedom and liberty.
Lincoln was right, we the people and our willingness to compromise our power as a free people is the greatest threat to our liberty.
quote:That is neither accurate nor relevant. It is not relevant because the historical uses of knives is not at issue. A kitchen knife is designed for use, in a kitchen. Like many things, it can kill, but it is made with a kitchen in mind.
Kitchen knives aren't the only kind of knives made, you know. He was talking blades in general, to my understanding; you then took that and moved to kitchen knives. Yes, kitchen knives are made to be used in the kitchen. But what are hunting knives made for? Switchblades?
I wonder whether you're implying that most homocides involving knives are thus kitchen knives? Can you clear this up for me? If you addressed it later then my apologies, I've just been skimming it quickly and this caught my eye. And I'm very tired, so excuse me if my question makes no sense. x.x
:looks around to see that the trolls are indeed gone:
It was thorougly adressed in several of my posts; and I pointed out early on that a katana blade is one thing and a kitchen knife is something else, I am against the katana unless you are using it for chopping wood or something. All of these continued rationalizations of "a gun is a hunk of steel" are disengenuous, because we all know what the 9mm was built to do. You can use anything to kill, and it will still be you killing, but buying something designed for death-dealing is alot different from buying a car or a kitchen knife (unless you intend to go a-killing with either of those things, which is why there ARE restrictions on them too; they're dangerous). No plea for "people kill people" is going to make me forget that guns are meant to help the process along, and that a gun for home defense is a tool for killing. A tool for defense yes, defense through the ability to kill, and as we all know, the threat would be nothing if no-one ever got shot. People do though. <OSC style grin>
:Dashes off gleefully to escape the trolls lurking in the thread:
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope no one would chop wood with a katana… Though I think that's possibly a bad example as most who own authentic Japanese swords likely own them for the craftsmanship they represent more than anything else.
As far as guns primary design being for killing; it depends on the weapon. It is worth noting, however, that there are still many wilderness areas in the US where a handgun is advisable for personal protection from various predators (and areas where something larger is more appropriate).
The long and short is there are legitimate reasons to own many fire arms, even if you do not agree with a sportsman's reasons or someone that chooses to own for self defense.
And realistically, a solid grasp of High School chemistry gives one a much more effect means to kill large numbers of people than a firearm, for someone with intent. I think the folks that oppose firearms from an accidental death standpoint have a much more solid footing than those that argue against the legitimacy of the desire itself.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lancelot has got a point, one that I was backing up, because there are a hundred and one ways to create a lethal weapon, and it is not that a weapon is lethal that makes it dangerous, it is the fact that someone does not properly care for it and/or uses it in a certain manner that makes it dangerous.
Accidental firearm injuries are not uncommon, but in the gross majority, they are caused by doing something stupid, like getting drunk and going hunting, or riding in a car and resting the rifle on your foot while looking for the quarry.
The cases in which children get a hold of firearms and injure themselves or others are the fault of whoever left the gun in an available place without teaching the children about the danger of the item.
NEVER leave a firearm in an area accessible to a child or person who is not trained in firearm safety.
And my own philosophy concerning the ownership of weapons for self defense is, hope for the best, prepare for the worst, just do it carefully.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm saying that since firearms are protected specifically because they are effective at killing people, even more specifically because they would be useful in a revolution, firearms that are not so effective in a revolution but are more effective for less desirable uses like "ordinary" people-killing as done by murderers and bank robbers and the like, or for domestic disputes, or for accidentally killing someone else, should be restricted, or at least we should be willing to consider it instead of claiming that the uses of those types of guns for sport automatically protects them. ![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
