I read a quote on Casey Bisson’s blog of a quote from Andy Skelton’s blog. It went like this: “Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.”
A more proper analog would be that gun control is like trying to make it harder for drunk people to drive cars. Or even better, gun control is like trying to make sure people can drive safely before giving them a driver’s license. Of course that doesn’t sound so crazy so it is a lot harder to make gun control seem like a bad thing.
Personally, I think that gun ownership is stupid. Guns don’t stop crime and all it takes is looking at other countries with strict gun laws to see what the result is. It isn’t defenseless families killed by maniacs, but a safer country to live in with less violent crime. If people insist on owning guns then that is their choice, but as a country everyone in the US should take a stand and say certain people should never be allowed to buy guns: over the internet, if they have any history (ever) of mental sickness, or if they have ever been arrested. These three rules alone would likely decrease violent crime. What I find most interesting about the analogy is that it hits on something I believe people should consider, and that is that gun ownership should be a privilege just like a driver’s license is.
If you check statistics, you would find that most (not all) firearms used in violent crimes are not bought and paid for, but rather gotten from a friend or family member or stolen. You would also find that more crimes are deterred in the United States because law abiding citizens are armed.
I believe we can also see that there are more violent crimes in countries without strict gun control laws. For example look at the EU vs the US from 1999 to 2001. In the US we had 5.56 homicides per 100,000 people while the EU had 1.59. This is according to this study. Japan, also a strict gun control country, had 1.05 homicides per 100,000 incidentally.
The fact is that if there are less guns total then there are less guns to be stole or given to a family members. And less guns to be shot with.
Also, I noticed that you cite statistics, but neglected to point to any. Where are you getting this information from?
Want to guess which countries did we beat by the way? South Africa, Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. So we can posit one of two things, either Americans are by nature more murderous than most other people or our gun control laws are not working to protect us.
What you are seeing is a difference in how you view your gun control activity and how gun owners view the same activity.
Simple fact: Crime is already illegal. Thus, any further laws you pass by necessity will apply to those who already obey the law.
If murder is illegal, why are you trying to make objects illegal? Why not prosecute those who commit crimes?
You have in mind a peaceful society, in which people NEVER hurt each other, or have the tools to injure or kill.
It cannot happen.
Jon,
Correlation does not equal causation.
1) Statistics are not necessairly comparable as some countries have differing criteria on what constitutes a crime.
2) Those same EU nations with strict gun control also have proportionally lower rates of other types or murder too. Therefore, gun control cannot account for the difference.
3) Japan is a monoculture and an island nation, the US is the opposite of one. Not to mention the war on some drugs.
If you really want to cut the US Homicide rate by twothirds, end the war on some drugs as about 2/3rds of US homicides are drug related.
Britain banned all firearms years ago…as a result, only the military, certain police officers and criminals have guns…crime is rampant there.
Look at California, New York, Chicago and Washington DC…rediculous crime rates in those cities…what do they have in common? They banned firearms…
To add:
Gun control is like fixing a leaky boat by draining the entire lake.
Is is an inefficient attack of a sympton instead of the underlying root cause. A misallocation of resources and a misdirected effort I.E. a red herring.
That is the point of analogies, they break things down in simple terms so simple people can grasp complex concepts that put things in their proper perspcetive.
An inanimate object caused crime ? wow, one way to let people off the hook, guess no violent crimes in jail (GUN FREE ZONE). Common Sense some have it Others Vote Dem.
very very wrong. Countries with stronger gun control such as England and Luxembourg have a SERIOUS problem with not only violent crime but with gun crimes in general. The majority of firearms were banned and required to be turned in for destruction in England in 1997. When this was done, over the next five years, according to New Scotland Yard, their violent crime rose over 300%. Luxembourg also has this problem. Places like Slovakia, Switzerland and Finland, where it is perfectly normal to own things from handguns to fully automatic military weapons have very LOW crime rates. You can also compare states such as New York and California to places like Arizona(where you can LEGALLY walk around with a gun on your hip with no permit what-so-ever) and Texas and you can see the difference. Texas is about to enact similar law to AZ’s in that it will be lawful to carry an exposed handgun wherever you go.
In the end, it’s also very very important to understand that laws do NOT stop criminals from doing things. They simply impose penalties if they are caught. Gun laws will NOT stop determined people from obtaining firearms. England is SOLID proof of this. Furthermore keep in mind, if development and production were banned, it’d simply lead to underground illegal manufacturing. Japan has this problem as does the Philippines. In Israel during the 1950s, one of the more popular illegal activities was the manufacturing of ammunition. There was a group of individuals who actually did this by hiding the factory underneath a laundromat. It would not be hard at all to substitute the manufacturing of ammunition with the manufacturing of firearms. In fact, firearms are EASIER to make than ammunition is.
While lawful, this is an example of how easy it is to make them. http://www.cncguns.com/ Blueprints for weaponry are readily available and floating around.
I definitely understand peoples’ frustration with gun violence. I myself have been shot so I can say firsthand that it’s not a pleasant thing to experience and is emotionally detrimental. However, in order to solve the problem of violence, this issue needs to be dealt with intellectually, not emotionally. Furthermore this is such a politically hot topic that information and motivation concerning it has been severely corrupted. People are more than willing to support gun bans simply because it’s the “liberal” thing to do or they’ll support gun ownership simply because it’s the “conservative” thing to do and they will not consider why. As long as it hurts the other political “team” it’s perfectly fine with them despite the fact that it does nothing and destroys the constitutional integrity of America and the REAL source for individual protection.
And to answer the obvious question, NO, you are not guaranteed individual protection and safety by Law Enforcement. They are NOT there to protect you. They never were.
See:
Bowers v DeVito
Warren v D.C.
I’ll wrap up with saying this: No Law is ever going to protect you. EVER! Law is simply a provision for penalty. Nothing more. Do not buy into political hype. Go research information for yourself from non-biased organizations such as the Center for Disease Control, the Uniform Crime Report or the National Crime Victimization survey. Quit looking at the NRA or the Violence Policy Center. They are politically motivated and are corrupt sources of information. Furthermore try to develop an understanding of Human nature and also understand that our society is not as simple, organized, closed in and uniform as we like to think it is. It’s VERY easy to get away with things in this society. Unlike television or movies, the bad guys can and do get away with things quite REGULARLY. if guns were outlawed today, and I was a criminal, it would not be difficult for me to get a couple of power generators together, go out into a wilderness area away from down and set up a small shop designed to manufacture firearms. It’s much the same issue as we have no with underground(literally) meth labs.
An armed society really is a safe society. Police and criminals will ALWAYS be armed, why not you?
The nations of Western Europe are upheld as paragons of what gun control can do to increase public safety but Western Europe had very low violent crime rates before enacting their gun laws. For example, the UK had very low rates of violent crime a century ago before they tightened their gun regulations over the course of the 20th century. A century ago in the UK guns were readily available and legal and keeping and bearing them was a common practice.
In places like Mexico or Russia the gun laws are much tougher than in the USA. They have very high crime rates and aren’t very safe places to live though.
There is so much here to respond to (and all very suddenly). Too much really. Some of these comments are just plain silly beyond response (ex. inanimate objects, war on drugs, etc). But let me make a couple quick points.
1) It is interesting to me that even though I made a point to spell out that I am for gun _control_, not banning all guns, that the arguments against this (old) post all create a fictitious position. I believe strongly this is because it is much easy to knock down the “ban all guns” scarecrow than to knock down the “let’s create smarter stricter gun laws” argument.
2) People here seem to be repeating the same talking point, that there is violence in Europe. However, no one here has cited an actual statistic or linked to a reputable site where something like that could be found. That seems suspicious to me.
3) To the folks arguing that people will always kill (and make guns???), I can only say, “yes.” You are right. Removing guns won’t create a utopia. However, making it more difficult to get guns and ammunition will decrease gun violence. Making it impossible to legally get things like automatic rifles and handguns would help too. And making gun ownership for people with, for example, a history of mental illness or violent crime an impossibility is also a pretty good idea.
I don’t want to pry weapons from your cold dead hands folks. I have friends who own guns and I don’t yell at them or even judge them. I just don’t want to put powerful weapons into the living hands of dangerous people.
ps Mark P I removed your link to that insanely one sided website using statistic from the 90’s. If you’d like to post a link to someplace that is up to date and can at least feign some low level of impartiality your welcome to post to, but I won’t point folks towards a website filled with half-truths and lies.
Oh, one question. Dsparil, you seem to point two cases, but the only info I’ve found on one. The other seems to only have info from pro-gun websites. Do you have any unbiased sources… like the actual judgment? I’m beginning to doubt it is even real.
Bowers v. DeVito is a case whose ruling written to one specific situation. It says that in this one particular case that the parole officers weren’t liable for Bower’s death. I quote, “The Court did ‘not decide that a parole officer could never be deemed to ‘deprive’ someone of life by action taken in connection with the release of a prisoner on parole,’ but did ‘hold that at least under the particular circumstances of this parole decision, appellants’ decedent’s death is too remote a consequence of the parole officers’ action to hold them responsible under the federal civil rights law.'”
It is already illegal for felons to possess a gun. It is already illegal for someone who was involuntarily committed to a mental institution to own a gun.
Your work here is done.
Almost forgot.
What’s your argument against handguns and automatic weapons, which makes you want to make them impossible to obtain?
“ps Mark P I removed your link to that insanely one sided website using statistic from the 90’s. If you’d like to post a link to someplace that is up to date and can at least feign some low level of impartiality your welcome to post to, but I won’t point folks towards a website filled with half-truths and lies.”
And what, pray tell, did you find wrong with the information provided at guncite? Instead of trating your readers as children not intelligent enogh to make up their own minds, why don’t you at least make some minimal effort to deconstruct them?
You sure seem to casually dismiss any counterarguments you find inconvient.
As far as the 90’s go, some data really is not much newer than that.
Dear Jim,
mentally ill people can get guns.
To answer your second part I should first clarify that I mean automatic handguns. And in response, I can’t see a legitimate need for automatic weapons. A semi-automatic weapon seems like more than enough for self defense. Having shot automatic and semi-automatic weapons I can say that automatic weapons are much more dangerous. My view on self-defense is that the goal should always be to disarm but leave the person living.
Gun control does not work and it’s morally wrong. Here we have once again the worn out comparison to gun ownership and driving. I’ll break out that pesky constitution and show you YET AGAIN the 2nd amendment. EVERY SINGLE regulation of guns of any kind affects ME! Not the gang banger, ME! Not the lifelong criminal, ME! Not the parolled felon, ME! If you don’t like guns don’t buy one. You are a fool to believe gun control = crime control. Just one more dangerous fool who continues to display a gross misunderstanding of our rights as free americans. You promote gun control against ME and I will NEVER give in or compromise. You sir are an idiot…George
If mentally ill people can get guns in violation of the law, why is your solution another law?
This is quickly getting silly. George, unless you are a criminal or mentally ill a lot of gun control doesn’t effect you. Gun control does not equal crime control, it equals a few less dangerous weapons in a few less dangerous people hands. Hopefully. No promises though. And if you think it is your right as an American to own an automatic weapon then you are delusional. You have the right to own a gun, but it doesn’t say what kind. But a man who can’t compromise is a man who can’t think. A man who dismisses someone who disagrees with him as an “idiot” can’t be talked to, so I’ll stop here.
Jim, if you read about the Virginia Tech shootings you’ll see that a mentally ill many legally purchased man guns.
Did I just see you confess that gun control is based on HOPE? Did I just see the disclaimer of “no promises though”?
If gun control does not equal crime control, wouldn’t you think that in itself is enough to make you reevaluate the entire concept?
How can gun control have nothing to do with crime, and yet not impact the law abiding in any significant way?
Cho is another subject entirely, but his example mainly indicts the lack of care he should have recieved.
Gun control relies on hope in the same way that owning a gun relies on hope. Jim, you hope that more people owning a gun makes you more safe, I hope that the opposite is true. Even if we removed all guns or gave everyone a gun neither of us could say definitively which is true as guns aren’t the sole problem when considering violence, they are just one facet. Violence as a cultural solution needs to be addressed, but that is such a huge concept that it is easier to break it off into smaller segments. Punishment and personal weapons haven’t brought about any significant progress and they’ve been around since the start. The truth is that violence would likely exist with or without guns. The question then is what good do the guns do? And do they do more harm or more good? Clearly this isn’t an easy question to answer either. But it gets a little easier when we consider certain guns likely cause more harm than good. That’s where I think the arguments should focus.
To address violence to the satisfaction of the average joe just going about his business, you have to FIRST address criminal activity which victimizes him.
What makes gun control such a political grenade is exactly that: it does not differentiate between the law abiding and the criminal.
Assault weapons? Saturday Night Specials? Sniper rifles? countless other examples.
All of those should be perfectly okay to own with no objection if the owner is a law abiding citizen. Gun control says: No.
Legally, I am innocent until proven guilty. Gun control as I see it presupposes that I am a murderer and I need to be denied ownership of certain classes of weapons you see as “exceptionally dangerous”.
I do not require other people around me to own a gun. I rely on myself and the tools I own.
I “hope” that other people owning a gun and knowing what to do with it and when, makes them safer.
So what solution are we dancing around here? What we’re really talking about is trying to predict future actions, and prevent harmful ones, by taking away someone’s personal freedom or an object.
Impossible at this time, AND a violation of the philosophical approach that I am responsible for my own actions. We go back to innocent until proven guilty.
Are we going to reject the pro freedom approach that people can do what they want until they hurt other people?
GC calls th
I’m about to hit the hay, but I want to ask what country you live in? In America we are certainly not free to do what we want until others are hurt. Laws are one part punitive one part preventative. Try buying grenades or landmines. You can’t. Why? Is that a loss of freedom? My point is that nothing is so black and white as pro-freedom vs. anti-freedom. Let me ask you this, are you comfortable with Iran and N. Korean having nuclear weapons? Are they innocent until proven guilty? Can I bring a knife on a plane? Am I innocent until proven guilty? We you be happy sitting next to me if I could? Innocent until proven guilty is a beautiful way to look at the world, but it is just a naive as the notion that destroying all guns will end violence. The solution (if there is one) is far more nuanced than that.
The solution, if there is one.
Interesting choice of phrase.
Gun control has been proven in this country to have no effect on crime, just as gun ownership has been shown to have no effect.
So you’re left with mounting philosophical arguments in favor of it.
If you want to reduce violence, gun control is not the method you want.
Gun control doesn’t affect me? EVERY SINGLE gun control law affects me. EVERY SINGLE ONE! “Hopefully.” and “No promises though.” Are you f-ing kidding me? You want me to surrender my rights and my guns on a maybe? And who said anything about machine guns or automatic weapons? While we’re on the subject… I don’t care if a law abiding taxpaying citizen of the U.S. owns a God dam BAZOOKA! He isn’t the problem is he? In spite of my unwillingness to compromise, I can think quite well thanks. I think I will NEVER trade away my liberty. It was bought and paid for so dearly in blood by those who came before me. I happen to know if need be YOU will not be there to defend me or my family. I also know, neither will the cops. “Hope” will not save you either. YOU can cower in fear, and “hope” all you want. I’ll be reaching for my trusty felon repellant. By all means keep posting. The more you do, the more your misunderstanding of your rights as an american show.
Geroge, you don’t get it do you? You can’t be talked to because you’ve made up your mind. I know that anything I say to you, no matter what I say to you, will only serve to confirm your own convictions. But if you are so certain of your absolute truths why are you posting here? Why are you reading this? What about me expressing my opinion (exercising my freedom of speech) bothers you so much?
Gun ownership to me is not an intrinsic freedom like speech is. The very fact that I can function daily in a free manner (living, expressing my opinions, pursuing happiness) without having ever owned a gun goes to show how little it effects me and the millions just like me.
Finally, I want to say that if every single gun law truly effects you, including the laws taking away the rights of criminals to own guns, then I am very glad for that effect.
At some point in every debate about freedom one must discuss where the line is drawn between one person’s freedom inhibiting another’s. We have never lived in a world with absolute freedom and that is because we, as a society, agree that some “freedoms” cause harm. This is true of every freedom. I am, for example, free to speak my opinions, but I am not free to slander people. The line was drawn. So, George, I am curious where you draw the line. Do you even imagine there is one? Do you imagine there are lines for other freedoms? If so why can you draw a line for one freedom and not another? How are they different?
I am hoping that you take a moment and think. That you don’t just respond angrily with hyperboles. I am honestly curious about what you think, but so far your responses have been a little shallow.
Yes, I can be talked to. You haven’t exactly impressed me either. You state gun ownership as not being as intrinsic a freedom as speech is to you. I guessed you stopped reading the bill of rights when you were done with the 1st amendment. It’s the 2nd amendment that protects the rest. As far as…. “Finally, I want to say that if every single gun law truly effects you, including the laws taking away the rights of criminals to own guns, then I am very glad for that effect.” What? Now I’m a criminal? You completely miss the point. I’ll spell it out slowly for you. Gun… Laws… Only…. Affect… the… Law… Abiding… Thus, they affect me. It is you who does not get it. No sensible gun owner thinks it’s ok for criminals, or the insane to have lawfull access to guns. You just want to expand the no guns rule to all of us. I am a husband, father, veteran, and a 9/11 fireman. I have seen the ugly world up close. I know that disarming us so we’re all equally helpless and defensless is a very very BAD idea. Want to fight crime? Knock yourself out. Find and lock up the bad guys. Want my guns? No way.
George, you’ve only proven my point. I don’t see how you can tell anyone that you can be talked to if you insist on telling me what I want. I don’t want your guns.
Not only that you completely disregarded every question I asked.
You also don’t have any idea what the word intrinsic means. It means natural or essential. In other words, an intrinsic freedom is not a freedom that is granted, but one that is so important its absence would negate the idea of freedom altogether. An intrinsic freedom has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.
But I am sure you won’t respond to any of this with thought and so I’ve decided to let you go off on your own. Say what you like. If you respond to any questions I asked I’ll be happy to talk to you again, but I’m tired to just responding to your reactionary comments.
I know what intrinsic means professor. You don’t get more natural than self defense. Every animal on earth will fight or flight to preserve it’s life. I did ansewer your questions you just didn’t like the ansewers I gave. I also notice how you won’t argue any points with me. Just how I make them. I have guns. You don’t. Fine by me. When you want to excercise your free speech that’s fine by me too. I simply totally disagree with what you say. When it comes to lawfull private gun ownership in america. I THINK YOU ARE WRONG. Thanks for letting me go on my way though I’m going to pick up some ammo and head to the range…
George, your conflating the concept of natural instincts with natural freedoms.
I’d like you to look at this paragraph I wrote “At some point in every debate about freedom one must discuss where the line is drawn between one person’s freedom inhibiting another’s. We have never lived in a world with absolute freedom and that is because we, as a society, agree that some “freedoms” cause harm. This is true of every freedom. I am, for example, free to speak my opinions, but I am not free to slander people. The line was drawn. So, George, I am curious where you draw the line. Do you even imagine there is one [regarding your right to bear arms]? Do you imagine there are lines for other freedoms? If so why can you draw a line for one freedom and not another? How are they different?”
Which of these questions did you answer and where? Maybe I missed it. These are just a few of the questions I don’t think you’ve answered. I am very sincerely interested in your answer.
Which of your questions did I skip over? I reread all you comments and it looks to me like every question you wrote is rhetorical. The only one that kind of isn’t rhetorical was answered several times— I don’t want your guns.
Have fun at the range, though in today’s economy it sounds like a big waste of money to me. You owning a gun doesn’t bother me in the least, nor does you using it at a shooting range. Like I said, I have friends who own guns. I’ve shot a few myself. I don’t find that contradictory to sensible gun control laws in any way.
One last thing. This is off topic but, I’d like to add that one of my best friends is a police officer. I think he would be offended by your constant insistence that cops won’t defend your family. And part of the reason I’d like gun control is so that he is safer while trying to keep people safe. If you really are a firefighter and a veteran you should understand that soldiers, police officers, and your fellow firefighters have died to save other people’s families.
Ok, here goes. From your post. “At some point in every debate about freedom one must discuss where the line is drawn between one person’s freedom inhibiting another’s. We have never lived in a world with absolute freedom and that is because we, as a society, agree that some “freedoms” cause harm.” I’ll start with a question. Wich “freedoms” cause harm exactly? Next, where do I draw the line? I draw it at criminality. Or insanity. Felon? Nope, no guns for you. Commited to a mental institution? It’s a bit of a generality but no guns for “crazy” people. You say you don’t want my guns but if you are for gun control, you are. Gun control affects me not the people you don’t want to have guns. They are already barred by law from having them it’s as simple as that. As for cops. Short story. I had to run down the street to save my neighbor who was being beaten in the street. My sister in law runs in and tells me as she’s dialing 911. I put a stop to it in less than 60 seconds by my appearance. (no, did not bring gun) Cops got there FORTY MINUTES LATER. I have plenty of friends who are cops but they’ll tell you themselvs. They are a majority of the time an AFTER THE FACT ARRIVAL to the problem. In 40 minutes they could have beat her to death 5 times over. So no, the cops WILL NOT defend my family. Untill they arrive, me or my wife must do so.
Separate post to add to the discussion. Since you are here excercising your freedom of speech. Who’s permission did you get today to do so? It’s commonly held that you can not fradulently yell FIRE in a crowded theater. However, you are still fully capable of doing so. Either you have the right to keep and bear arms or you do not. The US Supreme Court has very recently said that in fact, YOU DO. So just as you need no permission from anyone to excercise your free speech. No one should need permission from anyone to excercise their right to LAWFULLY bear arms. Gun control is like forcing you to wear a ball gag secured with duct tape to the theater.
Indeed, in every freedom discussion, we must balance one person’s freedom against another’s.
But isn’t the line where one person starts to harm another?
A good 95% of gun control fails to actually protect the people it purports to. Who was protected by the “Assault Weapons Ban”? Any gun registration or overall bans? Did the criminals comply?
Realize that the criminals already were prohibited from owning guns.
I reread this debate, and I realize again that the pro-control side MUST turn to a philosophical foundation for their arguments. Reality doesn’t provide support.
You mean a philosiphical “high ground.” The passengers of the good ship lollypop look down their nose at us barbarians. Whatever you do don’t confuse them with the facts.
While this has been interesting it is clearly silly. Those in favor of gun control can’t use facts anymore than those against it.
Show me one indisputable fact. Please!
It is also easy to paint a picture of folks like me as intellectual snobs looking down on you. The reality is I’m not. I’ve never even made a vague reference to any of you people here against gun control as being crude or barbarians. Not once. I’ve been trying to have a discussion with the folks here but have constantly been looked down on by folks like George for having a different opinion. Instead of objecting to the questions I bring up, I find that the responses tend to be melodramatic and generalized to the point where it is impossible to continue talking. Yes, I’ve been philosophical at times, but that was because freedom is a philosophical question. On the other hand, like I said, I haven’t been seeing any facts real facts from the other side.
I read things from George like, “You sir are an idiot.” And wonder how sincerely he takes any discussion on this issue.
Even the more measured but still kind of out there, “A good 95% of gun control fails to actually protect the people it purports to. Who was protected by the ‘Assault Weapons Ban’? Any gun registration or overall bans? Did the criminals comply?” leaves me wondering. Where do these statements come from? It’s news to me. I just want to know where things that are being presented as facts are coming from. Or are they facts? The 95% figure sure sounds good to have in an debate, but it also sounds quite made up. It’s true that criminals steal guns and that sort of thing. But it is also true that they buy guns sometimes— gun shows for example are places that are notorious loop holes in the background check system. I want that kind of loop hole closed.
But this is endless.
I’m gonna leave this discussion with this question. Should we let Iran have a nuclear power plant? Should we let them have nuclear weapons? How are these issues different? How is their freedom as a country different from your freedom as a person? I’m sure they are different in many ways, but I also have a feeling the two are close in others.
Gun show loophole? Did you realize that the “loophole” is there because our legislators wrote it into legislation that you must have an FFL to use it? If I wanted to sell a gun to a friend, it would be illegal to call up NICS and get the buyer checked.
The Gun show loophole is artificially created, by “professional” lawmakers.
Indisputable fact: The AWB was a tightly written law, banning both specific models, and features.
Soon after the ban, manufacturers started releasing new rifles for sale, which lacked the banned features. Despite complying with the law, the Brady camp painted the gun industry as “making a mockery” of the law, and “skirting the law”. However, I have not been able to find any reports of a manufacturer being prosecuted for violating the law.
What I consider arguably good gun control is registration of full auto, and the national instant criminal check system. Those two items DO something. In reality, NICS isn’t gun control. It is criminal control which everyone who buys from/through an FFL has to go through.
The rest? We endlessly debate the definition of assault weapon, saturday night special, cop killer bullets, etc ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
The gun control side – the ones wanting the CHANGE – demand reasons why it shouldn’t be changed.
My standard? Demonstrate theoretically or practically that criminals will see maximum impact and the law abiding will see minimum impact. I just reread the several AWB webpages, and saw that criminal behavior was used to argue that NOBODY should have an “assault weapon”. Any request for data regarding impact on criminals is immediately turned around into a demand for the gun owner to prove need for an assault weapon. Is it THAT hard to prove the case for one of the most cherished control laws after TEN YEARS?
I keep seeing the comparison between Iran and the individual person drawn. I want to find out what you really think.
Are you coming to this issue with the idea that the average person cannot be trusted with a gun, because he is looking for innocent people to kill?
Your perception of Iran is that they are looking for a reason and a place to use their nuclear weapons against the nonmuslim world.
How close am I?
Saturday night specials are an issue because they show up disproportionately in police traces, however the real weapon of choice for homicides is a well made, large caliber, easily concealed revolver.
Jim, while I can’t agree with everything you’ve said, you have given me a lot to think about. In particular the idea of who has the burden of proof. Off the top of my head it seems there is a good case for that burden being on the ones who’d like to limit freedoms.
So I guess the it comes down to whether or not the folks in favor of gun control have a compelling argument. I don’t feel like my points are quite compelling enough, though I can’t rule out that some one smarter than me has a compelling case. I guess the only thing I’d mention is that compelling isn’t proof positive. Our entire world from the second we are born is absent of certain absolutes. The problem is that people often take refuge in this fact when their argument collapses. So the last thing I wonder about is how strong of a point does one have to have before convincing even the most marginally anti-gun control person? You talk about maximum and minimum impacts, but that doesn’t really offer me a clear idea of what we are talking about. I also wonder (and this is a total dream hypothetical) if a law was written and enforced that was 90% effective against criminals, but had a large impact on everyone would it be okay? If not, what would be the argument against the law?
Sniper rifles is one issue that is particularly puzzling. The objection to them is that they are made for the express purpose of killing people, but the control side has no problem with hunting rifles.
However, sniper rifles are usually modifications of hunting rifles. Study them and the model numbers, action, etc are substantially the same.
How do you ban sniper rifles and leave hunting rifles legal? It can’t be done, as far as I’ve seen.
The compelling argument for gun control arises when you stop making a distinction between the law abiding and the criminal, and start looking at society as one homogenized unit, in which everybody has the same express and implied agenda, and everybody abides by the rules set up.
No, you are not an idiot, any more than I want to watch babies die. Yes, I was told that when I wondered what the purpose of a total gun ban would be, when criminals don’t obey the law.
That was in the spring of 1999.
re: Iran
Let me be clear, I’m not trying to draw a comparison between the Iranian government and a person owning guns in the US. That would be silly.
My curiosity lies in what a person against gun control thinks about the issue. It seems to me that Iran could use some of the same arguments I hear against gun control. The arguments against Iran having even just nuclear power are preventative in nature, just like gun control. And Iran seems to be taking the pressures against them like some gun owners. Again, it isn’t a 1 to 1 equation, but it is tricky ground to negotiate mentally without contradiction. Maybe. I don’t know… that’s why I am asking.
Personally, my gut feeling is I don’t trust Iran. Just like I wouldn’t trust certain people with a gun either. However, I know that isn’t a very good system to decide anything on. I’m leaving that judgment to our world leaders in the hope that they are more informed in a better position to figure things out than me.
Wait, you don’t want to watch babies die? (Just kidding)
I think it is safe to say that both the pro and anti-gun control sides have their fair share of people doing more harm than good in terms of keeping a sincere dialog going. I think people are just tired of violence and want to stop it any way possible. It’s that desperation that can lead people to say stupid things. I can sympathize with how they feel, but I can’t condone their actions.
If we let Iran build the bomb it could mean trouble. They have been at war with us since 1979. They openly declare their intention to wipe Israel off the map. They are up to their eyeballs in terrorisim. We have caught Iran’s agents operating in Iraq engaged against our troops. If the potential of a nuclear Iraq was enough justification for toppling the Iraq govt. We already have way more than that to do something to Iran. We owe them a huge kick in the teeth for many reasons. Furthermore, there is no ambiguity about their intentions. I don’t care that they say it’s for peacefull purposes. I guarentee you as soon as they can they’ll be popping out nukes like PEZ. The price tag for AL-Quida to get one or two will be a free-0. Who do you think they want to try their new toy on? The Jihadist’s want to hit at LEAST 6 large American cities all on the same day. All they need is their asshole buddies in Iran to cook up the nukes. For the gun discussion. Jon. Find and read A NATION OF COWARDS by Jeff Snyder. Tell me what you think.
You intelligence is not an issue here, as there is NOTHING in the violence problem which is out of your ability to cognitively comprehend.
However, the discussion is far too often based on emotion, which is used to make a philosophical argument.
If you can understand that the law should target for punishment those who harm other people, then you can philosophically identify with those who don’t like gun control, and control arguments.
I also generally leave comparison between domestic policy and foreign policy out of it, as two different concepts of laws apply. Like you said, it is not easy at all to run down the discussion to its logical end and still find the arguments intact.
I have difficulty with hypothetical future scenarios, as I like concrete facts.
Here’s a link that proves my point about US and Russian crime rates:
http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/41
Now, if gun control was the same as crime control the shoe would be on the other foot.
Another link showing the homicide rates of many nations:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
The US is no. 24. There’s no reason to think that the nations ahead of the US have lax gun laws either.
You liken gun control to automotive licensing, but that would garner almost 100% support from gun rights advocates, and strong opposition from most of the gun control freaks.
Let’s have gun laws IDENTICAL to the laws regarding automobiles. It makes sense, since vehicles kill more people per year, even though there are only half as many of them as guns:
Anyone can own ANY car, with no licensing of car or owner at all, as long as they ONLY keep it on private property.
Anyone can OPERATE any car, all they want, with no licensing of car or operator, as long as it’s only on their own/private property.
EVERYONE is allowed to own ANY kind of vehicle they can afford, license it.
EVERYONE can be licensed to OPERATE any vehicle, as long as they take a relatively simple, short test that can be learned in a matter of hours. Worst-case, you might need to take a short class for a semi tractor-trailer license, but you CAN get one.
ALL vehicular licensing laws are STATE imposed, none Federal.
There is no limit to the number of vehicles anyone may own.
There is no limit to the speed of buying any vehicles…no monthly limit, no annual limit, et cetera.
Yes, I’d say you’d get nearly unanimous pro-choice-on-guns support for such licensing.
Kaz, a lot of what you said isn’t true. And as you point out yourself it changes state to state. Also, you may have heard that there is something now called the Real ID Act. Love it or hate it, it’s there.
Also, you are using twisting stats (if they are even true… sources?). Saying that more people are killed by car than gun is the same as when people tell you more people are bite by dogs than sharks. It isn’t because dogs are more dangerous, it is because more people are exposed to dogs in daily life. Same goes for guns and cars.
So does that mean you support the parts that you admit ARE true?
Be more specific about which ones you’re denying, too.
In many, or most, states you can own any vehicle, as long as it’s on private property, and not even register it. You certainly don’t have to qualify, to own ANY kind of vehicle, other than licensing it.
Likewise, I doubt there’s a single state that regulates the driving of vehicles on private property in any way. You can let your kid drive your SUV around the field you own behind your house to practice driving, for example. No age limit, no requirement of a license.
And Real ID is about identification, not actual driver’s licensing.
Also, are you suggesting we should concentrate more on regulating sharks than pit bulls? What is most harmful is what should get the attention, whether it’s actually more dangerous per-contact or not.
Ultimately, though, my point stands: The article glibly cites automotive licensing as proof of how gosh-darned foolish pro-choicers are, yet in fact the author would probably be the first to oppose it, because in fact gun licensing/registration is already FAR worse than automotive licensing/regulation.
And that’s all aside from the fallacious interpretation of the quotation…”Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars” refers to the fact that only non-criminals are going to be concerned with obeying such gun laws, disarming potential victims and making violent crime safer to commit.
I agree with some of the principles people argue here, but then I read these sorts of stories, which are becoming more common in this terrible time for our country, and I just want it not to happen.
While I am too tired to continue this endless debate I’ll say this to KAZ, going on about fallacious arguments seems to me slightly hypocritical when you reply with something like “Also, are you suggesting we should concentrate more on regulating sharks than pit bulls?” Since it is a gross characterization of my point.
Also read the Real ID act. Title II: “Improved Security for Driver’s License’ and Personal Identification Cards”
I’m not going to get into the rest because you don’t seem to be taking even two minutes to fact check your claims. Why should I waste my time showing you stuff you probably won’t even believe.
Jon, how would your ideas have prevented that premeditated murder?
I share your horror at the crime, but if you want to prevent future crimes, you must examine very carefully whether your efforts will be effective.
I don’t mean to suggest I have the answer. I just don’t want it to keep happening.
You are right where most gun control supporters REFUSE to let themselves go: the awareness that we don’t really know how to prevent sudden (to everybody but the perpetrator) violence.
Gun control is never going to be realistic while America’s criminal class can obtain weapons as easy as buying a used pda or other ubiquitous item. Guns in the hands of responsible citizens do stop criminals. I also believe gun control to be fundamentally opposed to the freedoms our country holds sacrosanct. How would colonists have ever defeated the English without equivalent arms. And while it seems far-fetched, the idea that, “it [again] becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them,” must be held on to by the citizenry. If not, and the more rights we relinquish, the more we are enslaved by our ever-growing federal government; Enslaved in essence, if not in reality. I for one do not trust the federal government to do the right thing more than two or three times in ten. Witness the recent and ill-conceived/devised actions on behalf of Wall Street. That smooth move certainly didn’t restore the 15% loss my family’s savings incurred these last 2-3 WEEKS! Aside from national security, don’t offer me federal government answers to problems. Ever!
I encourage any who doubt these assertions to at least read a little history of what happens when the US Govt. “lends a helping hand.”
http://www.reformed.org/christian_education/index.html
The article dates from February 25, 1926. It covers a lot more than our govt’s establishment of the Department of Education. Read it, you’ll at least expand your bank of knowledge.
here is the specific link:
http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/christian_education/Machen_before_congress.html
Yeah, without our guns the King of England will come and take us over.
Helping hand… from the government. Well, lets see. Last time when the economy hit the toilet there was something called the New Deal. It was the government that got us through the problems created by private citizens.
The whole problem we have now is because the government did *not* get in there and regulate. The government screwed up by staying out of things. Get the facts straight.
Can we keep the page for gun control/gun rights, and not everything else under the sun?
good point
Do you have any other ideas besides gun control, to curb violent crime?
When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
When the only idea you have about crime is gun control, everything is subject to a ban.
There are of course lots of ways to try and curb violence. More economic equity helps, having the most dangerous weapons less easily available doesn’t hurt, more social programs, a prison system that focus on reform rather than punishment. Off the top of my head these are the four things I believe would cut down on violent crime. Not end it, but cut it down. There is no magic bullet, if that is what you are looking for. It takes work and it would be frustrating and difficult at times, but dedication to non-violence would yield results. At the same time it’s important to acknowledge that the world will never be perfect.
I’m not looking for a magic bullet, but I get the impression a lot of gun control supporters are. It seems disturbing that I’m seeing primarily government solutions. We have a problem with individuals loosing control. The solution lies within the individual.
What about teaching people actual problem solving skills, so that people use their intelligence to government themselves?
Guns to control violence might be one of the most magical bullets. I’m not sure a person far to either side of the argument has a good grasp on reality.
Government solutions are the only option. Even you solution is a government one. Who teaches people to use problem solving skills? I don’t think of it so much as big brother, but social programs (little brother?).
Ultimately I think the idea of self-reliance is antiquated though. That died with the wild west and it is time that all Americans accepted it. The government helps you, the people you grow up with help you, family helps you. We are social creatures and it is society that impacts our lives the greatest. A person born into poverty is more likely to commit a crime. Can we teach a person not to be born into poverty? Likewise, can we teach a person to be born into a neighborhood with good schools, good teachers, and a healthy environment? The answer, of course, is no. Until we do something about that we can only swing a bat a mosquitoes. Our society acts through the government, creating greater equity between the classes —raising those born into desperate situations— would beyond any doubt decrease crime. I would even go as far to say that it would decrease violent crime dramatically.
I haven’t given up the ghost of sensible gun laws, though it is obviously very complicated ethically speaking. But let me turn the tables, please. Setting aside gun control, can anyone come up with a realistic plan to curb violence?
How can you teach people how to properly percieve, created, and use resources to the best of their abilities, when your basic premise is that they NEED government?
I submit that your premise is fatally flawed and self sabotaging.
The fatal flaw is that you believe people can be entirely self-sufficient. When you remove that idea from the equation the idea is very sound.
The key here is that people need support from society. As I already said society acts through the government. People’s best ability is limited. We aren’t gods or single beams of light that never cross each other.
If the goal is complete self-sufficiency you are doomed. The idea is impossible. If the goal is learn to work with each other cooperatively and harmoniously in society the outcome is quite different.
If you still believe self-sufficiency is a actuality then I ask you this: how does one learn it? If the answer is anything but from yourself then you’ve already given up the idea. The minute we enter this world we are dependent and learning from others.
I didn’t say any of that.
Let’s go back to the original problem: We’re put in the position of trusting people who are so lost that they cannot even ask for help, and they end up turning to violence.
Notice that I didn’t rule out one person helping another, and in fact this is a critical resource.
I can teach people how they can use and create resources. People teach me. Almost every day I learn another method to do something.
I have been busy but I’m glad to see you guys are still at it. It’s amusing. Jon where are you from? What college do you teach at? Or, from what one did you graduate? You don’t have to ansewer if you don’t want to. I’m just curious. You seem to have great faith in our .gov and not very much in the individual. Did you read A NATION OF COWARDS by Jeff Snyder? Everyone now, google it and enjoy. I’ll check back for the discussion…G
Jim, well I am glad you are learning and that you are teaching. But who are you teaching? Are you teaching folks in impoverished neighborhoods? People alone tend to teach and help their neighbors, friends, and family. The problem is that if those people aren’t teaching good things it just perpetuates a problem. The other problem is that you can’t teach an economical and social support system, which is what the upper-class and middle-class have (though lately the middle-class seems to a much weaker economic support system as of late).
George, I have great faith in the individual. I feel that our society has not lived up its potential in giving individuals adequate opportunity to reach their greatest level.
I just looked and I can’t get Nation of Cowards where I right now. However, reading the synopsis and the reviews on Amazon I’m not sure I’d find it helpful. I’ll try to reserve judgement until I read it though. The title alone is ridiculous. Non-violence isn’t cowardice. Martin Luther King, Ghandi and the millions of people like them prove that adequately. I also think that any argument about straying from the intention of our forefathers is doubly weak— for one each of our forefathers had different opinions on different issues. They came together and made compromises to create a good system for their place and time. Trying to guess what they would do now or what they were thinking is a joke. The world has changed so much that we can no longer rely on mind-readers to guess at what people who died hundreds of years ago would do. And besides looking at our history, you’ll see that this argument is endless. Our forefathers even argued about what they meant.
I believe there are much stronger ethical arguments to make against gun control. One could argue that gun control is the same as a preemptive attack. Then, ethically speaking we have to decide when (if ever) a ethically sound.
I wonder. Were the majority of people against gun control also against attacking Iraq? In what ways is that preemptive attack the same and in what ways is it different?
What good is opportunity, if the people do not know what to do with it?
I’ve seen this theme over and over. Workplace shootings occur, DESPITE the presence of job sponsored helplines. People turn to crime, DESPITE the presence of meaningful jobs.
There are thousands of government programs to help people, and thousands of private sector programs, yet the poverty problem persists. Why?
One of the most fascinating interviews I ever saw was of a homeless man, during the time of Austin’s tech boom. The homeless man claimed there were no jobs to be had.
You can lead a horse to water, but until he figures out how to drink, your effort is wasted.
Another entry on the “Lack of awareness does no constitute nonexistence” list: I’ve watched presidential candidates promise to pass gun laws which already existed.
specifically: Prohibition on juveniles buying guns.
It was applauded by common sense people everywhere, who didn’t know we already had it!
“One could argue that gun control is the same as a preemptive attack. ”
I did that, though not quite in the military terms. Reread this discussion.
I live in Switzerland, and here you can buy preaty much any type of weapon you want. Officialy if you buy from an armorer you need to have a clean criminal record. If you want automatic weapons you need to get a license from the police, which is quite simple if you have a clean criminal record. Sale of arms between individuals is allowed, and required no reregistration, a simple contract is signed between two persons that contract is keept in case of questions from authorities. Due diligance for checking criminal records is up to the seller. Oh, and hunting (bolt operated, non semi) arms can be purchased without a permit by any Perminent Resident or Swiss Citizen. The problems you run into in Switzerland is that there are actualy not that many places you can shoot with what ever you want. Most ranges are Federal, so you are only permited to use sports arms, and swiss ordanance weapons. You are only alowed to use full auto on military ranges, so unless you are part of a military course or exerise you are not allowed to shoot in full. The largest issue with guns in Switzerland is not crime, but suicide. Most crimes involving firearms are commited using illegally aquired arms. Dont forget that a lot of Swiss house holds have a fully automatic SIG 550 rifle at home while they are in the mandatory military, and they are allowed to keep it after as well in Semi.
It’s a good read. Despite it’s title. Give it a shot.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/01/halloween.slaying.ap/index.html
Missing among the charges is owning an illegal weapon, presumably because this ex-con legally owned his AK-47. I’ve shot an AK-47, no one needs to own one.
Why do you think nobody needs to own an AK?
“Patrick has been charged with murder, three counts of assault and battery with intent to kill, and one count of assault with intent to kill.”
This is why I can’t really figure out gun controllers. There’s an ex con out of prison, he murders somebody on Halloween night using very faulty concepts of “self defense”, there’s obviously a lot more to the story, the suspect and another man are being held without bond and you think “nobody needs an AK”.
where does this stuff come from?
An AK goes far beyond anyone’s need for domestic self defense. We don’t live in a war zone. I find it hard to believe that as much good domestically owned fully automatic weapons have been done as has been bad. A lot of it is accidents.
But let’s leave the notion of more good or bad results on the sidelines. An AK-47 is an imprecise and vicious weapon. As the classification Assault Rifle implies, the AK-47 was never intended for domestic self-defense.
Why do you think anyone *needs* an AK?
You are right: a long gun is a poor choice for up close self defense.
But here’s the question: What makes the AK so much worse than another rifle in a similar caliber, such as the M1 Carbine?
Jon it’s FREEDOM plain and simple. NEED has nothing to do with it. The AK isn’t THAT imprecise. For defense of home or self it will do. It will definitly be better than nothing. It is exactly the kind of weapon one would want during times of civil unrest. If you lived in LA during the riots I bet you could have made a pretty good case for NEED though. I’ll say it again. WE’re free here. For now at least. That freedom comes with a cost. There will always be crime. There will always be crime with guns. Gun control is wrong, immoral, and does not work. If one were ever to achieve imposing of a total civilian gun ban you would still have the crime and gun crime. Only, we would no longer be free. No thanks. Read A NATION OF COWARDS YET?
We argue freedom, you say “You’re right”, then give us the same tired needs-based argument again. What’s it going to take before you THINK more than you FEEL?
Need is where the argument is. You say you need the freedom to own an assault rifle. I say you probably don’t.
I’ve pointed out before that every freedom is limited. Freedom itself is not an absolute idea. I’m not free to steal, I’m not free to vandalize, I’m not free to write damaging untrue things about people, I’m not free to own a lion, gay people aren’t free to marry, I’m not free to ignore taxes, I’m not even free to play music really loud at night. Why is it that when it comes to weapons freedom of ownership is absolute?
Every right is limited. Maybe we should try this: you want a gun— you have to join a “well regulated [state] militia.” That’s what the guns are for in the bill of rights. Not for eight year olds, or ex-cons (etc).
George, Using an AK-47 during a riot is not only dumb, it is criminal. Precision is needed. Anyone who’d spray a group is just insane. How can anyone say that every single person is hostile much less endangering your life to a point where deadly force is required. It is comments like that which make me realize what a problem irresponsible gun owners are in this country.
The limit of rights is the point where they become destructive to other people. IOW – actions.
Show me how mere ownership of any firearm is a harmful action.
RE: LA Riots.
Korean shopkeepers holding rifles stood on the roof of their businesses.
The rioting mob did not touch their shops. Everything else got damaged or destroyed.
Recall that the riot was so big the police did not enter the area.
for DAYS.
I don’t think your morals include letting a mob kill you or destroy everything you’ve worked for.
Is this really what you want to hold up as an example?
link
Do you have an alternative?
It WOULD be “Call the police”, but the police abandoned the people.
I hold up reality as an example. You need to look up information on how riots behave in order to give effective solutions.
Would you also tell me how requiring people to show need to exercise freedom, is compatible with freedom?
If you don’t, we flat out reject your rights model.
Why do you think gun control in America is such a limp corpse?
Anyone with a decent shred of humanity would chose getting robbed over firing indiscriminately into a crowd. Material possessions can be replaced, life can not.
A gang of trigger-happy vigilantes is just propping up a broken system with another even more broken system. It overlooks the obvious solution of fixing the first system. Heck, we can even look to the less obvious (slightly crazy) solution, a well regulated state militia, certainly even that is better than a bunch of lunatics firing willy-nilly.
As I’ve already mentioned, freedom (in the terms you are describing) is a myth. We’ve shown we need freedom of speech because otherwise truth and progress are suppressed. It was a clearly demonstrated need. In other words a freedom that when taken away clearly left us worse off than if we had it. Assault weapons don’t seem to pass that test. And yes it is a test. Just like the courts tested whether certain types of speech should be free. When we were told that we couldn’t cuss on TV it didn’t destroy America.
I tell you what, find me a freedom that hasn’t be limited in any way shape or form.
This is really beside the point, let’s get down to it. Gun ownership is a right, not a freedom. These are two separate words. That’s why it is called The Bill of Rights and why in that bill “freedom of speech” is written instead of “right of speech.” Show me where the bill of rights says freedom for individuals to own any gun. (bill of rights)
More and more it seems to me that people who defend gun ownership to the absolute use fear. It seems that fear is also being used on them. Some, not all, but some, gun owners seem to be arming themselves to keep away “what if’s.” What if a riot breaks out in your neighborhood? What if Russia invades Alaska?
What about the other “what if’s?” What if your 8 year old son kills himself at a gun show, what if your 8 year old son kills you and your friend? What if your neighbor freaks out during a riot and unloads his assault riffle into a crowd + your house?
It’s tit-for-tat. An endless and pointless cycle of hypothetical dangers and salvations. Some come true others don’t. Neither really moves the argument along.
Ultimately we all have to realize that the world is dangerous, and things happen where guns can’t save you. People are afraid, and while arming yourself to the teeth won’t make you much safer, it will make you more dangerous.
I don’t think there is an answer to this question of whether people should be allowed to own guns and if it’ll make things better or worse, so I’m willing to accept that people can have them. But I am unwilling to be indoctrinated by the cloud of fear that seems to surround the arguments for gun ownership. Nor am I willing to accept that it is truly an inalienable right.
Roger that. No more regulations. sounds good to me.
Ok, You say… “Need is where the argument is. You say you need the freedom to own an assault rifle. I say you probably don’t.” WRONG. Need has nothing to do with it. If you have the right,then you do not have to justify need to anyone. Only gun banners focus on “need.” They frame the discussion with this flawed mentality and totally miss the point. Next. You point out again how rights aren’t unlimited. Then you list a host of activities that are criminal or unlawful. DUH! Gun control = FAIL precicely because it only affects LAW ABIDING people. You simply refuse to get it. Or you say you do then cling to your flawed logic again and again. Gun ownership in america is both a right and a freedom. No one is saying they have a right to mayham and murder. Furthermore no one is saying that when they’re being robbed the ansewer is to spray indiscriminately into a crowd. Generally I feel it better to shoot the individual/s who are robbing me. Lastly… “I don’t think there is an answer to this question of whether people should be allowed to own guns and if it’ll make things better or worse, so I’m willing to accept that people can have them. But I am unwilling to be indoctrinated by the cloud of fear that seems to surround the arguments for gun ownership. Nor am I willing to accept that it is truly an inalienable right.” How generous of you to accept that people can have guns. Thank you your higness. Gun owners are NOT trying to indoctrinate you. We’re trying to get misinformed people like you to leave us the fuck alone. Stop blaming us for the acts of violent criminals. Stop trying to strip us of our rights and freedoms. Stop advocating laws that affect us and not the criminal. Stop blaming the gun but not the felon. Show me a responsible lawfull gun owner. I’ll show you some liberal jerkoff who want’s his guns taken away. You may not be that liberal jerkoff. If that liberal jerkoff is in a poisition of .govt then you are one of his “usefull idiots.” Still didn’t bother to read A NATION OF COWARDS did you?
gun ownership = right
gun ownership ≠ freedom
The eight year old who shot himself at a gun show was not a violent criminal. Everything was square. It was legal, but stupid. No one would let an eight year old drive a car down the highway, why let him shoot an automatic weapon (an uzi)?
Gun control laws aren’t about taking your guns away. They are about keeping people without common sense from f_cking things up.
As for the petty “your highness” crack, well, this has always been about my opinion. I’m not making laws, just giving my opinion. Just like you are giving your opinion. Don’t make it out like I think I am the one controlling you. And if that is how you take it, then you have some serious questions to ask yourself.
No, I didn’t read Nation of Cowards. It is unavailable where I am right now. As I’ve already explained.
You didn’t bother to read the bill of rights, did you? Misinformed? Really? It’s one sentence. It isn’t a freedom. You have the right to own a gun, not the freedom to own a gun. Freedom isn’t real except as a concept. Rights are created by law. Read the dang sentence before you get all worked up.
It is easy to classify people, “liberal jerkoff,” or “useful idiot,” but I think it is less easy to understand those people. I haven’t ever tried, or wanted to, apply titles to you. I know people who would, but clearly those folks are engaging in a similarly useless practice. It doesn’t help anything.
Using labels is an easy way to stay ignorant.
Every time I respond I am trying to do two things.
1) to better understand the person who wrote.
2) to better understand myself
I’m not sure you are trying to do either of these things. Isn’t it more helpful to try to find understanding than to try forcing your medicine down someone else’s throat?
George, I’m not sure there’s any point, because he’s rejected EVERYTHING we’ve said.
No no, I haven’t rejected everything. This has been very useful in that I use to feel more strongly that I was correct about the absolute right to control guns.
I feel much more moderated in that opinion now. However, I don’t think it is possible to win me over to the argument that people have the freedom to own “bazookas” argument that George is selling.
George didn’t mention bazookas.
The RKBA applies to arms. Bazookas are ordinance.
Pretty much everything you don’t want people to own are considered ordinance and not arms.
You should focus more on labels, instead of less, because they describe what we already understand and categorize. That’s a LOT.
You do not have to reinvent the wheel just because you feel like an individual.
I’m not inventing anything, I’m trying to understand things that are already here. I’m trying to understand your opinions and I am trying to use those opinion to examine my own and see how they change. If you don’t understand yourself you can’t understand anything.
Labels are easy. They can be helpful to categorize simple things. Nails, bazooka, screw driver, book, bird— these are simple objects and simple labels. But people are not simple. Labels are most often used as an easy way to write off an opinion without thinking. That isn’t so good.
ps. George most certainly did mention bazookas. You don’t have to take my word for it, read the above.
I looked for bazooka ref. Failed to spot it. Oh well.
Why do you keep rejecting philosophical profreedom arguments? Why do you keep coming up with stories involving what you believe are objectionable guns?
You’ve received both factual and philosophical information.
What’s the sticking point?
The sticking point is that I don’t believe in absolute freedom. The logical conclusion of absolute freedom is lawlessness. The closest we ever got in the U.S. was the old wild west and that is dead, thank god. And if we are going to grant absolute freedom to one thing, then I think there are more important things in line first.
George said, “I don’t care if a law abiding taxpaying citizen of the U.S. owns a God dam BAZOOKA!” That is an argument I can’t buy into. Paying taxes and following laws up to the present moment does not make a person a saint— that is just what we are supposed to do, it’s the bare minimum. There are two things to consider along with this— 1) law abiding, by legal standards, means not being convicted of a crime (which is very different from being an actual law abiding person); 2) A person can place nice today and be a monster tomorrow.
At any rate, I think we can both agree a bazooka is not a gun. I would also argue that there is no legitimate use for it other than mass murder, but I suspect you might not be willing to follow me that far. Just like there are test for what counts as speech there are, and should be, tests for what weapons have only monstrous purposes.
I guess I need to read up on federal gun laws before I say more. I keep hearing that ex-cons (etc) can’t have guns, but then I read something about an ex-con doing something terrible with a gun he legally owned, or an 8 year old shooting himself with an uzi. Let me say this, if there are in fact laws that say ex-cons can’t own guns, and that people who have been committed can’t own guns, and that children can not shoot semi-automatic/automatic weapons I’d ease up considerably. However, the new stories I read seem to suggest that is not the case.
I don’t want someone to own an assault rifle, because I don’t think anything but tragedy will come of it, but I have to balance that against the wants of others. In other words, I know it isn’t fair to force my views on others.
The news stories are the most basic information to give the uninformed reader something of an idea what is taking place. They cannot be used as an authority. In the specific case, they fail to cite the law, and provide an excerpt. I don’t know what you’re studying in school, but most articles about gun control wouldn’t be accepted in an English class. They’re that pathetic.
You also make a fundamental error about the government: lawlessness IS the default position. Men existed in freedom, then they agreed upon limitations on behavior. Because government cannot be everywhere at once, I believe it is wise to approach the situation asking “What’s the minimum of government action which will correct the problem? Is there a better approach than government involvement?”
Government can work long term only if it gains and keeps the consent of the governed. This means that any given law must be the logical solution to the problem, and full disclosure of the facts will support the need for the law. The law needs to have the support of the majority, or it will fail, simply because people will refuse to obey. They refuse because the law was argued from emotion, instead of facts.
You get into this territory, because you let the term “assault weapon” lead your opinion to the predetermined conclusion: That the guns are so bad that they need to be banned.
But in order to convince the reasonable person, you must argue from reason.
Define “assault weapon” in such a way that the problem gets solved, what you want banned gets banned, nobody’s rights are trampled, and such a ban is the perfectly logical solution.
After the ’94 AWB, gun manufacturers removed the ban features IAW the requirement of the law, and released the “new” firearms for sale.
The gun control camp accused the manufacturers of violating the spirit of the law.
How’s this possible? I mean physically and legally possible. How’s it possible to follow the letter of the law and violate the spirit of the law? How’s it possible to conform to the requirements of a law, and “circumvent” it at the same time?
The entire concept of gun control is emotionally based, and cannot be logically encapsulated. Making a law requires logical thought in order to make it work. Gun control fails.
In order to write a gun control law that makes sense, emotion must be removed from consideration. Why?
The law applied to all citizens equally, and it must convey the same message to everybody, regardless of education level, preconceived notions or any emotion about anything.
If you must feel a certain way about guns in order to comprehend gun control, gun control is fundamentally flawed.
Just got back from hunting. Had my 1st bear encounter. It was cool as hell! Now, where’s my dam bazooka?
The bear has a right to keep and…bear…your bazooka?
Well I think we can stop beating up jon. Since…. “I don’t want someone to own an assault rifle, because I don’t think anything but tragedy will come of it, but I have to balance that against the wants of others. In other words, I know it isn’t fair to force my views on others.” <—- He finally gets it !!! Don’t worry so much about those so called “assault rifles.” There are plenty of people who own them for a lifetime who are never visited by tragedy, accident, or violence. Now, who wants to hear my bear story?
Since this page is for guns, control and related issues, your bear story has to involve a gun somehow.
It’s the rules.
I was sitting in my ladder stand monday holding my GUN. Out of the brush walking right at me came a Bear. When I first spotted him there was a couple of seconds of “oh shit.” Then I remembered I was 16ft in the air holding a 44magnum. So I just held my best statue impression and decided to see just what a bear actually does in the woods. He walked rigt up to me. It was all very, very cool. He scented on me or the quad or who knows what, changed direction and ambled off up the hill next to me. He never saw me. I hunt in NY zone 7S. Bear season in that zone is closed or I would have a very interesting rug for the living room. He gave me several great shots. All in all it was a great experience. This bear was in the 300 -400 lb range and it stood up between 5 1/2 to 6 feet. Next time I’ll have a camera as well as the gun…George