263 replies to this topic

[imarobot]

yes, you can start by ending prohibition and decriminalizing all substances. Most crime is driven by black markets generated by the government.

Do you think the government willfully creates the black markets? Or do you think that, for the government, black markets are an unintended side-effect of the prohibition? My suspicion is that for the large scale actions the government is simply incompetent rather than willfully malicious.

Edited by imarobot, 03 April 2009 - 01:59 AM.

[eternaltraveler]

yes, you can start by ending prohibition and decriminalizing all substances. Most crime is driven by black markets generated by the government.

Do you think the government willfully creates the black markets? Or do you think that, for the government, black markets are an unintended side-effect of the prohibition? My suspicion is that for the large scale actions the government is simply incompetent rather than willfully malicious.

of course the government doesn't willfully create black markets. What it does is appease various voting blocks that want things banned. It's not exactly incompetent as it gets them reelected.

[DJS]

Guns aren't the best protection from criminals. Neither are the police. The best protection from criminals is turning criminals and potential criminals into good citizens.

again I'll say.

the purpose of the second amendment is not for protection from criminals. It is for protection from the police. The founders of the US knew that governments kill far more people than all criminals. Having armed citizenry is a last line of defense after all other checks and balances fail.

The problem today is that technology has eclipsed the hand held firearm. Not much use against an F-22.

I agree with you regarding the original motivation for the second amendment, but am I the only one who finds the thought of possessing a firearm to protect myself from the federal government as completely absurd? Even back in the 1790's (when the total US population was less than 3 mil) the whiskey rebellion didn't end too well, did it?

One of the paradoxes of violent revolution is that, in order to overthrow a power structure, a new competing structure is required which can overwhelm and eventually replace it. Disorganized, isolated cases of violent disobedience are quickly dealt with by the government and quickly forgotten by the populace.

Most real social change happening in the modern world is of a slower, more subtle variety. Take for example China's grass-mud horse.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. If the original motivation for the second amendment is no longer relevant, then on what grounds can the right to bear arms be defended?

[DJS]

Some additional thoughts...

You can count on the fact that most criminals will act in their rational self interest. Let's be honest, with most homocides in the US, the person "had it coming to them", IOW, they suffered the consequences of being a competitor in a black market where it makes sense to knock off your rivals. However, for your average robbery the potential cost/benefit usually makes using lethal force an unappealing option. Ironically, trying to protect yourself with a firearm may actually increase your level of risk more than if you had just cooperated.

Personally, I am in favor of gun control. In particular, I am strongly in favor of outlawing the possession of automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

I believe that allowing easy access to such weapons produces an unnecessary level of existential risk, not from rational criminals, but from irrational psychopaths.

How do you defend against this?

[sUper GeNius]

However, for your average robbery the potential cost/benefit usually makes using lethal force an unappealing option. Ironically, trying to protect yourself with a firearm may actually increase your level of risk more than if you had just cooperated.

Average robbery? Do you mean armed robbery? It's always a judgement call. I remember a story of a 70 yr od man in a donut shop. He carries. In come the robbers, two armed youths. The armed gent goes along with it, UNTIL the robbers attempt to bring the employees and patrons into a back room. He believed his life to be in danger, pulled his gun, shot both, dead. He took a calculated risk. Tough call, but he was legally justified. That was never in question.

Another story. Off duty cop is accosted near his car. Robber demands his wallet. Cop obliges. Then the cop is told to get face down on his car seat. Cop decides this is it, he's going to be shot, immediately pulls his gun. Ended in a chase, bad guy was captured.


p.s.

I can load a revolver almost as fast as I can load an automatic. In CA semi's are limited to 10 round magazines. I can carry an eight round 357 and reload in just a few seconds using moon clips. A revolver also doesn't spit out evidence...

[sUper GeNius]

Guns aren't the best protection from criminals. Neither are the police. The best protection from criminals is turning criminals and potential criminals into good citizens.

again I'll say.

the purpose of the second amendment is not for protection from criminals. It is for protection from the police. The founders of the US knew that governments kill far more people than all criminals. Having armed citizenry is a last line of defense after all other checks and balances fail.

The problem today is that technology has eclipsed the hand held firearm. Not much use against an F-22.

I agree with you regarding the original motivation for the second amendment, but am I the only one who finds the thought of possessing a firearm to protect myself from the federal government as completely absurd? Even back in the 1790's (when the total US population was less than 3 mil) the whiskey rebellion didn't end too well, did it?

One of the paradoxes of violent revolution is that, in order to overthrow a power structure, a new competing structure is required which can overwhelm and eventually replace it. Disorganized, isolated cases of violent disobedience are quickly dealt with by the government and quickly forgotten by the populace.

Most real social change happening in the modern world is of a slower, more subtle variety. Take for example China's grass-mud horse.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. If the original motivation for the second amendment is no longer relevant, then on what grounds can the right to bear arms be defended?

One's natural right to self-defense. That's the spirit behind many state laws.

[eternaltraveler]

How do you defend against this?

Why would I defend against that?

As I stated in the same post as you quoted me the hand held firearm is pretty much useless against government force today. I personally own firearms as a defense against the possible breakdown of local society in a new orleansesqe fashion (apparently you cut supply lines for just 1 day and all hell breaks loose). It's very statistically unlikely that outside of such a scenario firearms would be of much use(This would change entirely if I was female; women should carry guns).

That said, gun control is also pretty much useless and a waste of your energy if you do more than simply state your opinion on it. You live in NYC, one of the strictest gun districts in the country. As long as there is freedom of travel between NYC and other less strict regions there is no effect whatever on the amount of guns in criminal hands. There are 200 million guns in circulation in america as a lower bound estimate. Gun control is barely at the point where the political will exists to even outlaw the sale of new particularly mean looking guns (so called "assault weapons", which are defined from non-assault weapons based on cosmetic characteristics). It will be at least a few decades before there is enough political will to even think of going after the giant pool of guns already in circulation (overturning an amendment is hard), well beyond the point where guns will be a major concern in the face of the technologies present at that point (though it may well continue to be perceived as a major concern though even today it is of the utmost minor of concerns).

Edited by eternaltraveler, 03 April 2009 - 12:26 PM.

[DJS]

That said, gun control is also pretty much useless and a waste of your energy if you do more than simply state your opinion on it.

Yep

[johnf]

Guns aren't the best protection from criminals. Neither are the police. The best protection from criminals is turning criminals and potential criminals into good citizens.

Granted, always. But there's a lot to be said for the idea that a few hundred thousand people a year defending themselves against crime with their own weapons is worth the risk that the few hardened criminals will get weapons -especially since banning them from the law-abiding doesn't stop the criminals anyway. Ban guns from civilians, and the criminals will still get theirs, and you'll still have the violent crime and illegal guns on the streets, and lots more victims instead of citizens able to defend themselves.
Let's make for changes to stop people from going nuts, but let's not disarm everyone just because they might suddenly snap, or in the mistaken belief that disarming the law-abiding is somehow better for a peace-loving society.

eternaltraveler:
the purpose of the second amendment is not for protection from criminals. It is for protection from the police. The founders of the US knew that governments kill far more people than all criminals. Having armed citizenry is a last line of defense after all other checks and balances fail.

The problem today is that technology has eclipsed the hand held firearm. Not much use against an F-22.

DJS:
I agree with you regarding the original motivation for the second amendment, but am I the only one who finds the thought of possessing a firearm to protect myself from the federal government as completely absurd? Even back in the 1790's (when the total US population was less than 3 mil) the whiskey rebellion didn't end too well, did it?
...
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. If the original motivation for the second amendment is no longer relevant, then on what grounds can the right to bear arms be defended?

I reject the line of logic that's been used to say its irrelevant.
Handguns aren't useful against an F-22? How about when the crew has to get out of the plane for a while? How about the immense infrastructure network and all the people needed to ready that plane for a sorty? How about the politicians who'd order those planes against their own people? Judges and newspaper editors who write only government-friendly opinions.
There's always the tale of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto. Sure they lost and all died, but I think history is better off for them having stood for weeks against the SS with a few hand weapons and makeshifts.
We went astray during/after the whiskey rebellion, but does that mean we just roll over and allow more secret prisons and police, and extra-judicial courts and door-to-door sweeps? I agree that civil action and legislation is what's needed, but they say the 2A is there for when they decide to ignore all the others.

Try genocide against a population that retains personal arms. Hint: it's never been tried. It's always been perfectly legal and in the best interests of the society to remove all the guns that the laws will remove. That trend of tyrants tells us that personal weapons are still relevant. More civilians died in the 20th C from their own governments than from crime or each other. That doesn't even count soldiers -surely a victim of govermnent force as well.
Do we trust government to have a monopoly on force? Kopel said that if every home had a good rifle and some ammo, genocide itself would be on the road to extinction. Maybe they couldn't stop the government, but for every family rounded up, a few secret police won't make it back.

Average street crime was indeed a major part of the 2A. Every person, ready to defend against anyone who tries to deprive them or another of their rights. Isn't that what defending against violent crime is? "To provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty", one deterred crime or one saved innocent at a time.
Given the facts today (far more legitimate gun defenses than all the wrongful gun deaths, civilians with their own guns being safe and reliable), and the fact that none of the bans will stop the crime or mayhem, and the view of each other and our position if we're all assumed to be untrustworthy and unreliable, I think the self-defense view is even more important and entirely sufficient.

DJS, 3-Apr:
...
However, for your average robbery the potential cost/benefit usually makes using lethal force an unappealing option. Ironically, trying to protect yourself with a firearm may actually increase your level of risk more than if you had just cooperated.

Prove it. This flies in the face of established numbers that disprove the old "let them have what they want, and maybe you'll get away" line. Fighting back almost always lets the potential victim get away safer, and fighting back with a gun even more so.
Some will honestly urge everyone who's confronted with violent crime to just lie back and spread their legs and think of god & country and, thank them for disarming us for our own good? How monstrous!

Personally, I am in favor of gun control. In particular, I am strongly in favor of outlawing the possession of automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

Great. You do realize that fully auto weapons are already illegal? To own one of those, you need a federal license, which involves strict tracking of every item in your collection. At least once a year or whenever they want, you have to let federal agents into your home to see your mandatory vault and alarm system, and all your collection and paperwork.
As for semi-auto weapons: my question is the same for just about any kind or level of "gun control" what's the use? Criminals will get theirs, and the law-abiding ones are not the problem and are part of the solution. Gun laws do not stop gun crime, and increase crime in general.

I believe that allowing easy access to such weapons produces an unnecessary level of existential risk, not from rational criminals, but from irrational psychopaths.

Here we get down to it. Some don't trust everyone around us to be sane, safe, reliable, and to have good value judgements. Your own family, friends, neighbors and co-workers are all suspect and might go off the rails at any time.
And they say that gun owners live in perpetual fear of everyone around them... Those like me who argue for liberal gun laws aren't just doing it for ourselves and our irrational lust for things that go "boom!", we're arguing for you and everyone else who's trusted to be good citizens, and who's better off free and able to help themselves and each other, rather than just to be more sheep, waiting for the police who have no legal mandate to come to your aid even if they can.

We have a quote from the UK Home Office in 2005, after it was shown that their gun ban didn't affect the criminals, that their crime is higher. He said quite plainly that the gun bans weren't ever intended to stop crime -only the legally held guns, as a reponse to the mass shooting at Dunblane. I guess because the average person can't be trusted with a "dangerous item".
Add up all the mass shooting victims, and they're a small blip in the curve of violent crime, and that's a small amount compared to the good which civilians with their own weapons do every year. And that is a small amount compared to thenumber of civilians with arms who don't harm anyone ever.

How do you defend against this? (picture of an insane gunman, armed, willing to die, eager to cause suffering).

I'm not impressed with the psycho shooters we've seen. They've all been lousy planners and worse marksmen. Cowardly wimps whining that they can't get a girl. Every time they've run into countervailing force -every time- they suicide or surrender, no matter how tough they talked to a video about being ready to go out in a blaze of combat and take as many with them as they can.

Quite simply: let it be known that a few of the average citizens in any target area they might pick, is armed and trained. The madmen don't go to rodeos, biker bars, or police stations usually.
Ever hear of the Appalachian school shooting in Mississippi? 2 or 3 dead and a lot of wounded, while the assistant principle ran down the street to get his gun in his parked car, safely outside the "defenseless victim zone" of the school. He broke federal law by bringing his gun back and holding the shooter until police showed up. The shooter had a lot more ammo, and a list of targets all over town.
In Colorado Springs at a big church, a nut came in with guns and a grudge. After he'd started, a woman who goes to the church and had a concealed carry permit stopped him. She was a past police officer, and the media liked to say she was a "security guard". No, she had an agreement with her church to carry. No license, no insurance or bonding or badge.
In Israel, a terrorist with a (for-real fully-auto assault rifle) shot up a pre-school, then moved down the street looking for targets. A neighboring store keeper got out his own personal (fully-auto) Galil assault rifle and engaged & wounded him. The shooter hid in a nearby building, and the shopkeeper hunted him down and killed him -all before the police could even get to the vicinity.
In Israel, they had decades of mass public shootings. The police asked for every person who's able to get a concealed carry permit, and for every permit holder to carry all the time. After a few gangs of suicidal terrorists got mown down by civilians before the police could be mustered or before they could do much harm, such shootings dropped off drastically. Of course I know that's hardly an exampe of a land of peace, but they don't have insane gunmen rampaging around.

[johnf]

prophets:What I don't get is this innate them or us mentality. Why is the answer to the problem more guns? If the bad guys have guns, we need guns. We should all have guns to defend ourselves and kill the bad people who also have guns. Why allow guns then in the first place? (stupid answer: cuz it's my right and it's in the constitution).

You're missing a lot of facts.
Guns are used in at most only ~14% of violent crimes. Look up numbers of lawful defensive gun uses by civilians. Many more instances than all the wrongful gun deaths. (~90% of them without a shot fired).
If we stop "allowing" guns, how does this translate to stopping the wrong people from getting them? Please show us anywhere in history that prohibition has actually succeeded in stopping the thing? Completely wrong to think that if we keep the law-abiding majority from having them, then the tiny minority who are responsible for crime will somehow be stopped.

prophets:
the second amendment was a very important statue written hundreds of years ago at a time and place of necessity. today it is an archaic throwback and often used excuse for hobbyists or delusional people who think they need guns to protect themselves and their rights. a gun owner isn't hurting anyone, it is about personal freedom and personal rights?
...

the problem in that logic is that it puts the freedoms of one over the welfare of the entire nation. the statistics are pretty cut and dry, the US has a higher homicide rate by guns than most other industrialized nations. a lot of our health care costs and the average living rate of an American vs. other industrialized countries gets effected by the violence and death rate due from guns.

i'm not saying that a stun gun or mace is the perfect answer to defending a person's home, but i think there are a lot of advances afoot that make the practicalities of guns in the US pretty moot. we are getting to a point where the trade-offs are just too minor and the justification for legalized guns is just absurd.

you may think you are protecting your home and your individual rights as a gun owner, but you are also paying for the failures of the rest of society in the form of higher taxes for the law enforcement costs, the medical care costs (hospitals are always on the verge of bankruptcy due to ER overburdened) and other areas just to cover that individual right. at the end of the day, it financially drains society as a whole.

And taking guns away from the decent citizens doesn't affect that. Anywhere it's been tried.
The US has a high violent crime rate? How about Vermont, with no state-level restrictions on guns, and 1/13th the per-capita violent crime of the UK post-ban. One place, with wildly different demographics, but the mere fact shoots holes in the theory that guns will somehow be conducive to crime and mayhem.
How about the defensive gun uses, which far outnumber the wrongful gun deaths? Every one of them would be another crime statistic, another failure of gun control.

[tunt01]

You're missing a lot of facts.
Guns are used in at most only ~14% of violent crimes. Look up numbers of lawful defensive gun uses by civilians. Many more instances than all the wrongful gun deaths. (~90% of them without a shot fired).

1. I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion of guns and murdering people. Just because 14% (I've no idea if this is in fact true) of violent crimes involve guns, doesn't make it alright. 100% of violent crime is wrong.

2. Just because 90%+ of people use guns lawfully doesn't make it alright. That's not how laws work in this country. If that were the fact, then driving drunk would be legal, because 95%+ of the people who use cars even while drunk, use them lawfully. The other 1-2% who get drunk and end up killing someone in a car wreck is just part of the small minority. Therefore, drinking + driving is ok and should be legal based on your analysis.

it's not how the laws work in this country... just because a lot of people are having success with guns, does not make it necessarily alright.

If we stop "allowing" guns, how does this translate to stopping the wrong people from getting them? Please show us anywhere in history that prohibition has actually succeeded in stopping the thing? Completely wrong to think that if we keep the law-abiding majority from having them, then the tiny minority who are responsible for crime will somehow be stopped.

i think it would be extremely difficult and hard to do, but over time it would lead to a better country. anyone caught with a gun would have to be given an automatic jail sentence and they would have to be treated like controlled substances... tho obviously easier to find in some instances.

And taking guns away from the decent citizens doesn't affect that. Anywhere it's been tried.
The US has a high violent crime rate? How about Vermont, with no state-level restrictions on guns, and 1/13th the per-capita violent crime of the UK post-ban. One place, with wildly different demographics, but the mere fact shoots holes in the theory that guns will somehow be conducive to crime and mayhem.
How about the defensive gun uses, which far outnumber the wrongful gun deaths? Every one of them would be another crime statistic, another failure of gun control.

- Vermont is one of the wealthiest states in the country with the 2nd lowest crime rate overall. You are picking your data out by choice. It skews the facts for the entire country. Constantly people in the gun lobby will point to some random ass town where there is a high percentage ownership of guns and then claim that is the reason why the town is so safe, but then they ignore things like the town being a wealthy place w/ high income levels and no one has the need to commit a crime in the first place.

There is no way anyone w/ a rational mind can look to Vermont as an example for the rest of the nation.

- Defensive gun uses vs. wrongful deaths doesn't matter on an absolute # vs. # basis. Again, it gets back to the drunk driving example. I could also say it's OK that we had only 4,278 troop deaths in Iraq, so it was clearly a total success. Because 4,278 dead US soldiers is a small number compared to the very large number of people living in the US and Iraq. Same with Vietnam or any other war... it's just simply not the right way to look at things.

A higher # of defensive gun uses vs. a lower # of murders/wrongful uses only means that most of this country is sane when it comes to guns, not that they are appropriate in society at large. You have to think more deeply about the issue and what the trade off is in lost lives, cost of $ for health care (which the US taxpayer probably ends up picking up the tab for), etc. Do you think it's a good use of taxpayer dollars in your state to have the ER rooms of hospitals state-wide have to deal with shootings and instead spending the $ on poor people who need state-funded cancer treatment? Instead they will go die w/ no help while resources and your taxypayer dollars are diverted to deal with gun violence. It's absurd.

I'm not so foolish that I think guns will ever be outlawed in the US in the near future. But I think it would be a good thing, personally.

Edited by prophets, 26 April 2009 - 02:32 AM.

[johnf]

8-Apr '09 I wrote:
You're missing a lot of facts.
Guns are used in at most only ~14% of violent crimes. Look up numbers of lawful defensive gun uses by civilians. Many more instances than all the wrongful gun deaths. (~90% of them without a shot fired).

prophets 25-Apr 09
1. I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion of guns and murdering people. Just because 14% (I've no idea if this is in fact true) of violent crimes involve guns, doesn't make it alright. 100% of violent crime is wrong.

I never thought or said otherwise. But it's demonstrably true that normal law-abiding people with guns aren't the problem. I think it's your burden to show some overwhelming proof that disarming them is to the better good.

2. Just because 90%+ of people use guns lawfully doesn't make it alright. That's not how laws work in this country. If that were the fact, then driving drunk would be legal, because 95%+ of the people who use cars even while drunk, use them lawfully. The other 1-2% who get drunk and end up killing someone in a car wreck is just part of the small minority. Therefore, drinking + driving is ok and should be legal based on your analysis.-

This is an old & tired false argument, and I'm pretty carerful to not steer towards falling into such a silly trap from the start.
All I was saying is that since by far most gun users and uses are sane and legal and for the better of the country and society at large, then outlawing them would be a wrong thing for everyone overall, and thinking or toying with the idea of outlawing them is a useless pointless exercise.
By the simplistic prohibitionist's view, since a few drivers get drunk and kill innocents and drive up medical & insurance costs with their pointless mayhem, then all driving or drinking should be illegal -again never minding the societal good they do or the vastly overwhelming situations where they do no harm.

it's not how the laws work in this country... just because a lot of people are having success with guns, does not make it necessarily alright.

It's demonstrable factually, and backed up by an ethical viewpoint, that because a very few peope cause or have problems with guns, it's wrong to outlaw them from the vast majority who don't.
That's not how the laws in this country work.

And taking guns away from the decent citizens doesn't affect that. Anywhere it's been tried.
The US has a high violent crime rate? How about Vermont, with no state-level restrictions on guns, and 1/13th the per-capita violent crime of the UK post-ban. One place, with wildly different demographics, but the mere fact shoots holes in the theory that guns will somehow be conducive to crime and mayhem.
How about the defensive gun uses, which far outnumber the wrongful gun deaths? Every one of them would be another crime statistic, another failure of gun control.

prophets:
Vermont is one of the wealthiest states in the country with the 2nd lowest crime rate overall. You are picking your data out by choice...
There is no way anyone w/ a rational mind can look to Vermont as an example for the rest of the nation.

There is no way anyone with a rational mind could interpret what I wrote to think I said any such thing. I specified so.
And there are very many lawful gun owners in very many other demogropahics and situations who do no harm. Your burden to show why they should be disarmed by force of law.

- Defensive gun uses vs. wrongful deaths doesn't matter on an absolute # vs. # basis...

Sure it does: It demonstrates that most gun users are not wrong, so outlawing their guns is wrong. Since the law-abiding users are by far the highest number, the greatest wrong is done by prohibiting them (especially given that it doesn't hasn't and cannot work at reducing crime or any other wrongful actions with the item in question.

And you've already taken the position that anything is worth preventing the few wrongful acts with guns, as well as contrasting overall numbers vis-a-vis crime rate, hospitalization costs, etc..

A higher # of defensive gun uses vs. a lower # of murders/wrongful uses only means that most of this country is sane when it comes to guns, not that they are appropriate in society at large. You have to think more deeply about the issue and what the trade off is in lost lives, cost of $ for health care (which the US taxpayer probably ends up picking up the tab for), etc. Do you think it's a good use of taxpayer dollars in your state to have the ER rooms of hospitals state-wide have to deal with shootings and instead spending the $ on poor people who need state-funded cancer treatment? Instead they will go die w/ no help while resources and your taxypayer dollars are diverted to deal with gun violence. It's absurd.

The "example" above was absurd. And a useless straw-man; Arguing against such an absurd situation, as if that's what I was saying should happen. And incorrect: If you outlaw guns from the decent law-abiding, then your overall societal costs due to violence are going to go up. Experienced everywhere it's been tried. (as well as the inevitable stigma on the citizens who've been forcibly disarmed despite never harming anyone. Show us how that says anything good about the state's relationship to the people or the people's level of mutual trust across the board?)
The prohibitionist stance says that they must all submit to being considered untrustworthy and unreliable, or that it's better if they're disarmed for their own good despite the fact that prohibition never affects the ones who do the wrong.

I'm debating against the simplistic absolutist statement that we'd all be better off if guns were outlawed from the people who'd obey such laws. That's all.
Kennesaw Georgia mandated a gun in every household in the '80s. ~25+ years later, and not a single murder since then.
Another single example, not at all representative of anywhere else, but a signifier in a very simple way, that the absolutist "guns=bad" ideology is wrong and incorrect. "You have to think more deeply about the issue and what the trade off is... "
I've mentioned concealed carry permits as a successful experiment taken in many large areas around the country. That's another big example to say prohibitionist's stance is wrong and incorrect. Simple facts anyone who's truly interested in the facts of a problem -instead of their own uninformed opinions- could look up.

I'm not so foolish that I think guns will ever be outlawed in the US in the near future. But I think it would be a good thing, personally.

As I said, short-sighted, simplistic. The factual numbers I've cited here are from such places as the CDC, the US DOJ, and various states' online and stored archives. By the simple facts the knee-jerk idealistic simple-minded solution is shown to be disastrous in practise, as well as incorrect and unethical in theory.

[drus]

guns aren't the problem, idiots with guns are the problem! keeping guns out of the hands of morons is what is needed lol. outlawing guns won't solve anything. the problem of gun violence is secondary to what it is that causes the violence/crime in the first place. the real problem that needs to be addressed is society at large, people, and the overall system. to outlaw guns and think that'll solve the problem is analogous to trying to patch up a ruptured artery with a band-aid, or to think you can solve the problem of crime by having more police. the system is sick, gun violence is only one symptom....the system itself must be repaired. remove the conditions that cause people to resort to crime and violence, and then people won't need guns at all.

[sUper GeNius]

With over 6,000 views, I think this topic deserves sticky status.

[sUper GeNius]

http://www.examiner....et-a-gun-permit

Why liberals should get a gun permit.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 12 May 2009 - 10:04 PM.

[theimoguy]

The reinstitution of the so-called assault rifle ban is the most likely bill to come up for a vote.

It amazes me that you are actually allowed to own an assault rifle. Those things are designed for battlefield scenarios. What on earth would a civilian need such a weapon for? Unless they are afraid a civil war or something is coming. Paranoid people with assault weapons. Not a good combo IMO.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Assault_rifle

Not a gun owner myself, but AFAIK, assault rifles in the US aren't the same as their battlefield equivolents either. They usually use smaller rounds and don't have all the bells and whistles such as 'automatic' or 'burst' firing which would make them true assault rifles. IMO people want them because they are like Ertl tractors ("just like the real thing, only smaller").

[sUper GeNius]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/200088


The reflexive liberal reaction is to deplore any compromise on guns, but Bredesen's musings on the issue bear consideration. "There seems to often be a presumption that the rational norm is a European-like careful regulation of guns, and that people who feel differently are a cultural phenomenon that needs explaining," the governor wrote me in an e-mail. "I would suggest that it is cultural on both sides: that strong anti-gun advocates can be just as culturally biased and irrational as the most avid gun-toters. I enjoy pointing out to my more liberal friends that when they want to (e.g. choice v. right to life issues) they can happily find justification for their (and my) position in rights emanating from implied privacy rights lurking in the penumbra of our Constitution, but where they disagree (e.g. on guns) they are perfectly happy to wave off or reinterpret the clear language in the Bill of Rights."

[sUper GeNius]

Another defeat for proponents of the "Nanny State."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31122117/

[jhowardall]

As a Canadian I get so sick of hearing politicans constantly scapegoat hunters and target shooters as the real root of crime, and not the criminals themselves.

I strongly believe that individual citizens should have the right to own firearms for sport, hunting, and personal defence. However, unlike way too many strongly pro-gun advocates, I think that it is equally a responsibility. I reject the arguments of people who say things like "well cars kill as many people" etc. A firearm is a device which can end a life so easily through a moment of carelessness. However, it takes only a firm commitment to a few rules so simple a 7 year old can understand them to ensure safety - never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire, never point the barrel at anything you aren't willing to harm, always treat a firearm as if it is loaded, never leave a firearm accessible when children are around etc. etc.

Licensing makes sense so as to ensure that anyone buying a firearm legally is well aware of the safety principles necessary to use a firearm. Registration is useless, here it cost $2 billion dollars, has not been shown a single time to have been the key to solving a crime, and it is absolutely certain that information contained in it has been provided as a shopping list to criminals from people with access to the database.

I think that crime in the United States has absolutely nothing to do with availability of firearms and everything to do with high levels of income inequality and the legacy of an ultra-hard line on drug prohibition.

At the end of the day, if you believe that the government should have guns but citizens shouldn't then you are automatically declaring that individual freedom is just a priviledge granted to you by whoever happens to be in charge today and is not a fundamental societal principle.

I don't think it is just a coincidence that pretty much every single solitary authoritarian state of the modern era has completely prohibited the private ownership of firearms by it's citizens - and like I said, under such circumstances it means that there is no such thing as a right, only a temporary priviledge.

I'm no anarcho-libertarian kind of person, I acknowledge that certain things which could be construed as an infringement on personal freedom are necessary evils due to our nature, but "stealing" a percentage of your salary to build roads and power lines is different from some police man with a gun saying that he gets one because he's part of the government but you can't have one because the government doesn't trust you to be sensible. If we based what is allowed and what isn't on the worst possible application of things, not much would be allowed. Lots of people don't pay attention and take dangerous amounts of supplements or dangerous combinations, but that isn't an argument for making everyone seek permission to make their own choice.

[Saber]

I lost all my firearms and ammo in a fishing accident last year and would like nothing more than for guns to be banned outright.
Handguns, shotguns, bolt action, break action, muzzle loader, semi-automatic, etc., everything banned, including knives, pepper spray, stun gun, crowbar, all weapons. All sale and manufacturing of weapons permanently outlawed.

If pushed into an argument, I will take the liberal side and convince people to not purchase a firearm, gun kills people, immoral, unethical, crime rates, you're more likely to hurt yourself with a firearm in home, school shooting, think of the children, etc. etc.
I don't want everyone owning guns. I want to be the only guy on the block with a semiautomatic rifle. I want to be the only guy walking around with a pistol.
If you own a gun, do yourself a favor and destroy it. Only a psychopath would feel the need to own an instrument of death, an instrument designed to kill and maimed in the most painful way.
The second amendment should be repealed.

[rwac]

I lost all my firearms and ammo in a fishing accident last year and would like nothing more than for guns to be banned outright.
...
I want to be the only guy on the block with a semiautomatic rifle. I want to be the only guy walking around with a pistol.

I suggest sticking to one approach. Mixing those two approaches will not work well.

[sUper GeNius]

Wow, this thread has had over 7,000 views! It's gained sticky-status IMO.

[johnf]

The reinstitution of the so-called assault rifle ban is the most likely bill to come up for a vote.

It amazes me that you are actually allowed to own an assault rifle. Those things are designed for battlefield scenarios. What on earth would a civilian need such a weapon for? Unless they are afraid a civil war or something is coming. Paranoid people with assault weapons. Not a good combo IMO.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Assault_rifle

Not a gun owner myself, but AFAIK, assault rifles in the US aren't the same as their battlefield equivolents either. They usually use smaller rounds and don't have all the bells and whistles such as 'automatic' or 'burst' firing which would make them true assault rifles. IMO people want them because they are like Ertl tractors ("just like the real thing, only smaller").

Interesting that the bans specify these types of weapons because they're supposed to be more lethal... When they're the only historic type of weapon that's been specifically adopted by militaries because they're less lethal on the battlefield! Smaller rounds, less straight-up lethality, more wounded to tie up more of the enemy's resources.
Not correct to say that they're smaller than the battle rifles they're styled after. The same ammo, same characteristics, except the mechanism is not designed for fully auto, can't be easily modified to do so. The AR-15 is identical in every way with the similarly styled M-16, except the trigger mechanism. The AKS is identical to the various versions of the AK-47, except for being semi-auto.

Also, look at that wiki on assault weapons, and one thing that stands out is that they're all capable of fully auto or burst fire. the civilian versions people buy and which are the targets of these bans are specifically not assault rifles, because they'd be useless compared to real assault rifles. The AW bans specifically didn't apply to assault rifles because they're fully-auto, and such things are heavily regulated already, the bans only applied to the semi-auto only civilian versions.
The bans as written and as the past ban was enacted, are meaningless. Remove a few bells, toss in a couple of other sorts of whistles, and the same accessories and ammo and magazines fit either one. Pure paper-chasing futility, except that one brand of politicians can point to it and try to convince voters that they're trying to make a difference.

AFAIC, let people buy these things: They always cost more than a similarly capable single-shot or semi-only rifle that doesn't have the military styling, so there are fewer of the same capability of rifles out there...

In any case, there's this

"... to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and the law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless... By criminalizing an act that is not wrong in itself -the purchase and sale of a firearm- the ban violates the presumption of innocence, the principle that ensures that government honors the liberty of its citizens until their deeds convict them." --Attourney Jeff Snyder "Who's Under Assault in the Assault Weapons Ban?" Washington Times, August 25, 1994 "Guns. Who Should Have Them" by David B. Kopel

[AdamSummerfield]

I think countries that already have public gun ownership (USA, Czeck Republic, Finland, Swiss Confederation) should keep their laws and at least my own countries not to have that law. This is because trying to take guns away or giving them to people not accustomed to it would both be disasters. I also believe no automatic firearm ownership for civilians.