Full Version: Philosophically Speaking... Should the US Ban Guns?
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Mar 7 2007, 08:52 PM) 
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Mar 7 2007, 12:59 PM)
QUOTE(Eeyore)
But most dangerous use of guns is done by people illegally using guns and/or using illegal gun. People who follow all of the rules with guns are usually extremely responsible gun owners.
I guess the key word here is “usually”. Just yesterday in my area, a 67 year old man took his legally registered 9mm Beretta to his workplace and shot 3 of his co-workers (luckily, they all survived) before killing himself. Why? He was upset because his work hours had been cut. Yes, I realize this is just one anecdote, but it is emblematic of the problems with legal gun ownership by so-called law-abiding citizens. My question is this; if the man hadn’t owned a gun, or obtaining one would be impossible or at least difficult, would he have gone to his workplace and shot people?
Then there is this insanity:
QUOTE
The National Rifle Association has launched 50-state campaign to pass “take-your-guns-to-work” laws that would turn companies into criminals if they barred guns on their private property. The Brady Center’s new report, “Forced Entry: The National Rifle Association’s Campaign To Force Businesses To Accept Guns At Work,” blows the whistle on the NRA’s strategy and explains how it tramples property rights and the right of businesses to set the terms and conditions of work. It also conflicts with companies’ federal obligation to provide a safe workplace. Gun violence in the workplace is a serious national problem. Forcing guns into that setting can only make the problem worse. Here are some pertinent facts: Source
What the hell are these people thinking???
Edited to correct factual error - the shooter wasn't killed by police.
The Happy Land Fire killed 87 people trapped in an unlicensed social club called "Happy Land" in New York City, on March 25, 1990. Most of the victims were ethnic Hondurans celebrating Carnival.
The fire was lit by an unemployed Cuban refugee, Julio Gonzalez. That evening he had argued with his girlfriend at the club and was ejected by the bouncer. He was heard to scream drunken threats. He returned to the establishment with a plastic container of gasoline which he spread on the only staircase into the club.
The fire exits had been blocked to prevent people from entering without paying the cover charge. In the panic that ensued, a few people did in fact escape by breaking a metal gate over one door.
Now he did that with a gallon of gasoline, should we outlaw gasoline too? I am willing to bet that there has not been an incident with that many deaths from a gun.
This is specious logic. It argues against building code violations, not laws restricting gun use. The exits were blocked by the owners (to prevent access without paying) and the building had been cited for code violations.
The fact is most mass murderers use guns, not gasoline or billy clubs or unpublished manuscript lobbed at victims. They use guns. Why, because they are effective killing machines that can be used at a distance to control lots of people. The fact that Atilla the Hun used spears to kill a lot of people doesn't change that.
If you're saying that guns are no more effective than gasoline and candy canes, then all the more reason to ban them -- no harm done! Just arm yourself with a gallon of gasoline and you'll be safe. Sounds like you don't need a gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land
"The fire exits had been blocked to prevent people from entering without paying the cover charge. In the panic that ensued, a few people did in fact escape by breaking a metal gate over one door.
Before the blaze, Happy Land was ordered closed for building code violations in November of 1988. Violations included no fire exits, alarms or sprinkler system. No follow-up by the fire department was documented."
(Sound like more government regulation would have prevented this tragedy, not less)
QUOTE(Landru Guide Us @ Mar 7 2007, 05:42 PM)
This is specious logic. It argues against building code violations, not laws restricting gun use. The exits were blocked by the owners (to prevent access without paying) and the building had been cited for code violations.
The fact is most mass murderers use guns, not gasoline or billy clubs or unpublished manuscript lobbed at victims. They use guns. Why, because they are effective killing machines that can be used at a distance to control lots of people. The fact that Atilla the Hun used spears to kill a lot of people doesn't change that.
If you're saying that guns are no more effective than gasoline and candy canes, then all the more reason to ban them -- no harm done! Just arm yourself with a gallon of gasoline and you'll be safe. Sounds like you don't need a gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land
"The fire exits had been blocked to prevent people from entering without paying the cover charge. In the panic that ensued, a few people did in fact escape by breaking a metal gate over one door.
Before the blaze, Happy Land was ordered closed for building code violations in November of 1988. Violations included no fire exits, alarms or sprinkler system. No follow-up by the fire department was documented."
(Sound like more government regulation would have prevented this tragedy, not less)
You state most mass murderers use guns. Do you have anything to back that up with? Most of the mass murderers that I have read about don't use guns. The stab, strangle, and burn people.
Since you missed the entire point. Murderers use or misuse a variety of items as weapons. Guns do not kill people any more than a car does. But do you ever read that somebody was killed by a knife, or a car. No but you sure do when a gun is involved, I wonder why?
I am well trained and skilled in the use of a variety of items from a pencil to rockets in killing people. All of them are effective and just a lethal. Would I go around doing that, of course not.
Australia removed guns from their citizenry and crime double, the murder rate climbed fourfold. Whereas countries with a high gun ownership haven't seen a similar rise. Switzerland with 75% of the population having automatic weapons in their homes has a very low crime rate. Israel that has an even higher percentage of weapons has a lower rate of domestic crime than Switzerland and both countries are appalled at the crime rate in England.
The weapons are not the problem, people's attitudes are. And we need more government like we need another hole in our heads.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Mar 7 2007, 11:16 PM)
You state most mass murderers use guns. Do you have anything to back that up with? Most of the mass murderers that I have read about don't use guns. The stab, strangle, and burn people.
Like I say not only do most mass murders involve guns, they involve legal guns. That's why guns need to be banned.
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF02.htm
QUOTE
Since you missed the entire point. Murderers use or misuse a variety of items as weapons. Guns do not kill people any more than a car does. But do you ever read that somebody was killed by a knife, or a car. No but you sure do when a gun is involved, I wonder why?
No in fact most murderers don't use knives. They use guns. No comparison. Why, guns are really effective killing machines. Knives aren't. You can't control a room ful of people with a knife, and you can't stop a victim from running away. That's why surveys show most professional mass murderers recommend guns.
But if you don't believe that, if you think a knife is as useful as a gun, than you shouldn't mind if guns are banned. No harm done, right? Buy a knife or a pencil and you're covered.
QUOTE
I am well trained and skilled in the use of a variety of items from a pencil to rockets in killing people. All of them are effective and just a lethal. Would I go around doing that, of course not.
Yeah right. You can kill a room ful of Amish school girls with a pencil.
Sounds like you don't need a gun to protect yourself. You can use a pencil. So let's ban guns. No harm done, right?
QUOTE
Australia removed guns from their citizenry and crime double, the murder rate climbed fourfold. Whereas countries with a high gun ownership haven't seen a similar rise. Switzerland with 75% of the population having automatic weapons in their homes has a very low crime rate. Israel that has an even higher percentage of weapons has a lower rate of domestic crime than Switzerland and both countries are appalled at the crime rate in England.
About 30 gun homicides in England last year -- 30,000 in America. See a pattern forming.
Australia hasn't had a mass gun killing since they banned guns. America has had about two dozen.
Switzerland has the third highest rate of gun related deaths in the world.
Honestly, do some research that doesn't involve NRA propaganda cites.
QUOTE
The weapons are not the problem, people's attitudes are. And we need more government like we need another hole in our heads.
And logic is a little bird singing in a tree --- you have assumed the conclusion using a false premise based on incompetent data.
Landru:
Sorry, friend, but Mao was right about one thing, as all earthly power does indeed come from the end of the barrel of that gun. That's why the cops have guns. And so, in addition to the nation-states that you mentioned, why don't you add all of those murderous regimes who first took the guns away and then did the murdering? Why did you leave them out? Because they aren't data that supports your conclusion? And the other mass murderers, well, I believe that Loreng is trying to remind you of Ted Bundy, Jeff D., our clown friend, etc., none of whom used a gun, but still were mass murderers. Oh, and you can kill a room full of Amish schoolgirls with a pencil. Try stabbing in the temple, and then jiggle the pencil around a little bit; such ought to work fine. And the guy shooting his fellow workers, well, if not a gun, then maybe as has been known to happen, that Honda gets used as a lethal instrument and so some people get run down. People will kill with the means available. End of story. I otherwise don't see any morality in forcing them to use other means instead of the one. Besides, my favorite home window sticker of all time is that one with the front on view of that pistol with the caption reading, forget the dog, beware of owner. Oh, sorry, one more, read your data carefully. Fine, 30 dead by gun in the UK, but they still had hundreds of homicides, so as I said, where there's a will, there's a way. And what you also left out was, well, please, since you claim to have the data, what was the homicide in the UK proper before gun control? As low as it is now? So why credit the gun control? Here, let me leave you with this:
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
But don't let the facts get in the way....
I otherwise understand the concern you have, so too with DG, but you've taken a nation with substantially less population and then made an "equal" comparision between the two, that's wrong, and then did you even consider that we may account for and report our crime stats differently than they do? And you're going to chide someone else here about not having the data and not analyzing the same correctly, and also about logic being birds singing in a tree? Oh, and read the footnotes to the piece above. Homicide will otherwise end when it becomes unthinkable for us to kill. No sooner, no later. Of course, with Hollywood selling little else but sex and murder, and then there's that gangsta rap, well, don't hold your breath on that day coming any time soon...
Sorry, friend, but Mao was right about one thing, as all earthly power does indeed come from the end of the barrel of that gun. That's why the cops have guns. And so, in addition to the nation-states that you mentioned, why don't you add all of those murderous regimes who first took the guns away and then did the murdering? Why did you leave them out? Because they aren't data that supports your conclusion? And the other mass murderers, well, I believe that Loreng is trying to remind you of Ted Bundy, Jeff D., our clown friend, etc., none of whom used a gun, but still were mass murderers. Oh, and you can kill a room full of Amish schoolgirls with a pencil. Try stabbing in the temple, and then jiggle the pencil around a little bit; such ought to work fine. And the guy shooting his fellow workers, well, if not a gun, then maybe as has been known to happen, that Honda gets used as a lethal instrument and so some people get run down. People will kill with the means available. End of story. I otherwise don't see any morality in forcing them to use other means instead of the one. Besides, my favorite home window sticker of all time is that one with the front on view of that pistol with the caption reading, forget the dog, beware of owner. Oh, sorry, one more, read your data carefully. Fine, 30 dead by gun in the UK, but they still had hundreds of homicides, so as I said, where there's a will, there's a way. And what you also left out was, well, please, since you claim to have the data, what was the homicide in the UK proper before gun control? As low as it is now? So why credit the gun control? Here, let me leave you with this:
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
But don't let the facts get in the way....
I otherwise understand the concern you have, so too with DG, but you've taken a nation with substantially less population and then made an "equal" comparision between the two, that's wrong, and then did you even consider that we may account for and report our crime stats differently than they do? And you're going to chide someone else here about not having the data and not analyzing the same correctly, and also about logic being birds singing in a tree? Oh, and read the footnotes to the piece above. Homicide will otherwise end when it becomes unthinkable for us to kill. No sooner, no later. Of course, with Hollywood selling little else but sex and murder, and then there's that gangsta rap, well, don't hold your breath on that day coming any time soon...
QUOTE(KivrotHaTaavah @ Mar 8 2007, 12:15 AM)
Landru:
Sorry, friend, but Mao was right about one thing, as all earthly power does indeed come from the end of the barrel of that gun. That's why the cops have guns. And so, in addition to the nation-states that you mentioned, why don't you add all of those murderous regimes who first took the guns away and then did the murdering? Why did you leave them out? Because they aren't data that supports your conclusion? And the other mass murderers, well, I believe that Loreng is trying to remind you of Ted Bundy, Jeff D., our clown friend, etc., none of whom used a gun, but still were mass murderers. Oh, and you can kill a room full of Amish schoolgirls with a pencil. Try stabbing in the temple, and then jiggle the pencil around a little bit; such ought to work fine. And the guy shooting his fellow workers, well, if not a gun, then maybe as has been known to happen, that Honda gets used as a lethal instrument and so some people get run down. People will kill with the means available. End of story. I otherwise don't see any morality in forcing them to use other means instead of the one. Besides, my favorite home window sticker of all time is that one with the front on view of that pistol with the caption reading, forget the dog, beware of owner. Oh, sorry, one more, read your data carefully. Fine, 30 dead by gun in the UK, but they still had hundreds of homicides, so as I said, where there's a will, there's a way. And what you also left out was, well, please, since you claim to have the data, what was the homicide in the UK proper before gun control? As low as it is now? So why credit the gun control? Here, let me leave you with this:
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
But don't let the facts get in the way....
I otherwise understand the concern you have, so too with DG, but you've taken a nation with substantially less population and then made an "equal" comparision between the two, that's wrong, and then did you even consider that we may account for and report our crime stats differently than they do? And you're going to chide someone else here about not having the data and not analyzing the same correctly, and also about logic being birds singing in a tree? Oh, and read the footnotes to the piece above. Homicide will otherwise end when it becomes unthinkable for us to kill. No sooner, no later. Of course, with Hollywood selling little else but sex and murder, and then there's that gangsta rap, well, don't hold your breath on that day coming any time soon...
Human behavior for what it is pretty much rules out ever being able to end violence save for genetics or massive doping of human populations. The reality as I see it is that because of such weapons have a long history in humanity, be it a spear to a atomic bomb. The other idea is simply if there were no guns, people could not shoot each other to death with them, that’s rather simple but I think for the most part impossible. You would have to allow for humanity collectively to desire ending the existence of the gun, which is not going to happen anytime soon. Gun laws are useless, because people don’t always follow law like robots. Take drugs for example, been a war on drugs as long as I can remember, big whoop overall. The concentration of firearms would basically make regulating them impossible, and this concentration of firearms is only going to increase I would say.
The existence of guns is what allows for in reality guns to kill people. Yes people kill people, but with guns existing, you have people killing people with guns. Be it war or a disgruntled employee. You take the gun out of the equation, and then its people having to use other means to reach an end they desire. So banning guns is bad really because of why?
That’s right there really is no ability to control them overall currently, people or guns. Just look at Iraq. The military has attempted to disarm the populace and continues to attempt such. So is a armed populous good or bad? Though of course this argument will probably be disqualified by some observer for some reason I have yet to think of.
Back to the U.S. So if we ban guns, criminals will come from all around to commit crime. Well personally I just don’t buy that argument. Even if places with high gun density criminals still attack, and lets look into places like homicide capitals, wow, that really did not slow the pace down did it, nope, not until a lot of people had killed each other with guns primarily. The other argument is to protect us from the federal government. Well in that reality the general populous really needs access to attack helicopters and tanks. I am sorry a personal carry sidearm is not going to protect you from a main battle tank. Plus what do militias that are anti government pretty much do, live in the sticks and have shoot outs with government agencies I think.
Heck I just watched a true crime story where three guys entered a gun laden home with guns, killed all three people inside in execution style and then left. How about mini marts that are armed, watched plenty of those get robbed two, by criminals with knives even, and of course succeed.
Gun related homicide statistics alone make America look like an extremely violent place to live in, it actually gives us a higher rate of death then many combat zones have produced. Yet everyone clamors to the idea that its a good idea to have an armed populous, even while day to day the amount of lives claimed by such make pro choice groups look like mother Teresa.
QUOTE
gordo
Back to the U.S. So if we ban guns, criminals will come from all around to commit crime. Well personally I just don’t buy that argument. Even if places with high gun density criminals still attack, and lets look into places like homicide capitals, wow, that really did not slow the pace down did it, nope, not until a lot of people had killed each other with guns primarily.
Back to the U.S. So if we ban guns, criminals will come from all around to commit crime. Well personally I just don’t buy that argument. Even if places with high gun density criminals still attack, and lets look into places like homicide capitals, wow, that really did not slow the pace down did it, nope, not until a lot of people had killed each other with guns primarily.
You are mistaken. The reality is that the “homicide capitals” are places where there are LOTS of ILLEGAL guns in the hands of criminals and FEW legal guns in the hands of citizens. Do you know that Federal Housing – common in Homicide capitals like DC and Camden NJ do not allow residents to keep firearms! On the other hand John Lott has documented that when citizens are allowed to carry guns – crime drops.
Needless to say drug dealers and gang members will continue to kill each other as long as they are free. But if the law a biding citizen is armed maybe they won’t feel free to kill us.
http://www.johnrlott.com/
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 8 2007, 01:21 AM)
QUOTE
gordo
Back to the U.S. So if we ban guns, criminals will come from all around to commit crime. Well personally I just don’t buy that argument. Even if places with high gun density criminals still attack, and lets look into places like homicide capitals, wow, that really did not slow the pace down did it, nope, not until a lot of people had killed each other with guns primarily.
Back to the U.S. So if we ban guns, criminals will come from all around to commit crime. Well personally I just don’t buy that argument. Even if places with high gun density criminals still attack, and lets look into places like homicide capitals, wow, that really did not slow the pace down did it, nope, not until a lot of people had killed each other with guns primarily.
You are mistaken. The reality is that the “homicide capitals” are places where there are LOTS of ILLEGAL guns in the hands of criminals and FEW legal guns in the hands of citizens. Do you know that Federal Housing – common in Homicide capitals like DC and Camden NJ do not allow residents to keep firearms! On the other hand John Lott has documented that when citizens are allowed to carry guns – crime drops.
Needless to say drug dealers and gang members will continue to kill each other as long as they are free. But if the law a biding citizen is armed maybe they won’t feel free to kill us.
http://www.johnrlott.com/
Yes but the idea I am trying to put forward is gun density in the population does not equate into a drop of usage. I mean look at the statistics, these people know other people have weapons, why not the drop, would that then say the drop wont work period due to gun density, or is it just something else? Some people are putting forward that an armed populous will drive down crime, but it does not equate into truth when looking at reality, even in places with high saturations of guns, like homicide capitals, gun related homicides or crime does not decrease. What is an illegal gun BTW? Is it made of antimatter or something?
Maybe in places where gun deaths are not constant even in the preseence of guns has more to do with the human experience then gun laws?
QUOTE(KivrotHaTaavah @ Mar 8 2007, 12:15 AM)
Landru:
Sorry, friend, but Mao was right about one thing, as all earthly power does indeed come from the end of the barrel of that gun. That's why the cops have guns. And so, in addition to the nation-states that you mentioned, why don't you add all of those murderous regimes who first took the guns away and then did the murdering? Why did you leave them out? Because they aren't data that supports your conclusion? And the other mass murderers, well, I believe that Loreng is trying to remind you of Ted Bundy, Jeff D., our clown friend, etc., none of whom used a gun, but still were mass murderers. Oh, and you can kill a room full of Amish schoolgirls with a pencil. Try stabbing in the temple, and then jiggle the pencil around a little bit; such ought to work fine. And the guy shooting his fellow workers, well, if not a gun, then maybe as has been known to happen, that Honda gets used as a lethal instrument and so some people get run down. People will kill with the means available. End of story. I otherwise don't see any morality in forcing them to use other means instead of the one. Besides, my favorite home window sticker of all time is that one with the front on view of that pistol with the caption reading, forget the dog, beware of owner. Oh, sorry, one more, read your data carefully. Fine, 30 dead by gun in the UK, but they still had hundreds of homicides, so as I said, where there's a will, there's a way. And what you also left out was, well, please, since you claim to have the data, what was the homicide in the UK proper before gun control? As low as it is now? So why credit the gun control? Here, let me leave you with this:
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
But don't let the facts get in the way....
I otherwise understand the concern you have, so too with DG, but you've taken a nation with substantially less population and then made an "equal" comparision between the two, that's wrong, and then did you even consider that we may account for and report our crime stats differently than they do? And you're going to chide someone else here about not having the data and not analyzing the same correctly, and also about logic being birds singing in a tree? Oh, and read the footnotes to the piece above. Homicide will otherwise end when it becomes unthinkable for us to kill. No sooner, no later. Of course, with Hollywood selling little else but sex and murder, and then there's that gangsta rap, well, don't hold your breath on that day coming any time soon...
Gordo has answered for me.
I would just add that this is a conservative trope: we can't solve any problem completely, so let's not try. In fact, we have done a pretty good job keeping stinger missiles out of the hands of lunatics who want to shoot down commercial aircraft. So America can in fact get things done and can have effective leadership. The starting point is a commitment to make things better. I don't see that in conservatism, which constantly tells us we can't do anything about anything. That's why I'm a progressive.
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 8 2007, 01:21 AM)
QUOTE
gordo
Back to the U.S. So if we ban guns, criminals will come from all around to commit crime. Well personally I just don’t buy that argument. Even if places with high gun density criminals still attack, and lets look into places like homicide capitals, wow, that really did not slow the pace down did it, nope, not until a lot of people had killed each other with guns primarily.
Back to the U.S. So if we ban guns, criminals will come from all around to commit crime. Well personally I just don’t buy that argument. Even if places with high gun density criminals still attack, and lets look into places like homicide capitals, wow, that really did not slow the pace down did it, nope, not until a lot of people had killed each other with guns primarily.
You are mistaken. The reality is that the “homicide capitals” are places where there are LOTS of ILLEGAL guns in the hands of criminals and FEW legal guns in the hands of citizens. Do you know that Federal Housing – common in Homicide capitals like DC and Camden NJ do not allow residents to keep firearms! On the other hand John Lott has documented that when citizens are allowed to carry guns – crime drops.
Needless to say drug dealers and gang members will continue to kill each other as long as they are free. But if the law a biding citizen is armed maybe they won’t feel free to kill us.
http://www.johnrlott.com/
This is called a sampling error.
You can't ban guns city by city since it's easy for guns to circulate among cities, so alleged statistics about illegal guns predominating in high crime areas mean nothing.
But if you ban guns nationally, as global statistic tell us, gun crimes plummet.
By the way there is no evidence that most gun crimes are committed with illegal guns. On the contrary most mass gun killings involve "legal" guns, either legally owned by the killer or stolen by the killer. That's why legal guns are a pool for criminals to arm themselves and commit crimes.
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF02.htm
In the 14 deadliest mass shootings committed in wealthy nations during the past 35 years:
79% of the victims were shot with lawfully held firearms (185 of 233 victims)
86% of these mass shooting (12 of 14) were committed by lawful gun owners
QUOTE
gordo
Yes but the idea I am trying to put forward is gun density in the population does not equate into a drop of usage. I mean look at the statistics, these people know other people have weapons, why not the drop, would that then say the drop wont work period due to gun density, or is it just something else? Some people are putting forward that an armed populous will drive down crime, but it does not equate into truth when looking at reality, even in places with high saturations of guns, like homicide capitals, gun related homicides or crime does not decrease. What is an illegal gun BTW? Is it made of antimatter or something?
Maybe in places where gun deaths are not constant even in the preseence of guns has more to do with the human experience then gun laws?
Yes but the idea I am trying to put forward is gun density in the population does not equate into a drop of usage. I mean look at the statistics, these people know other people have weapons, why not the drop, would that then say the drop wont work period due to gun density, or is it just something else? Some people are putting forward that an armed populous will drive down crime, but it does not equate into truth when looking at reality, even in places with high saturations of guns, like homicide capitals, gun related homicides or crime does not decrease. What is an illegal gun BTW? Is it made of antimatter or something?
Maybe in places where gun deaths are not constant even in the preseence of guns has more to do with the human experience then gun laws?
I am not clear on what you are talking about. The “density” of guns in the hands of citizens is about 50% in most places. It is lower (for law abiding citizens) in the inner city and nearly 100% for criminals there. NOTHING we do to ban guns will disarm the criminals – who by definition, should not have them in the first place.
What Lott found was when “right to carry” laws were liberalized as they were in Florida and nearly everywhere theses days the crime against citizens drops – especially crimes against women. Obviously gang and drug dealer crime does not drop unless the criminals are jailed.
There is no relationship between the presence of guns in the hands of (non criminal) citizens and “gun crime”. It is quite clear that places where the most (legal) guns are (like the suburbs) also is where the lowest “gun crime” is.
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 7 2007, 09:02 PM)
QUOTE
gordo
Yes but the idea I am trying to put forward is gun density in the population does not equate into a drop of usage. I mean look at the statistics, these people know other people have weapons, why not the drop, would that then say the drop wont work period due to gun density, or is it just something else? Some people are putting forward that an armed populous will drive down crime, but it does not equate into truth when looking at reality, even in places with high saturations of guns, like homicide capitals, gun related homicides or crime does not decrease. What is an illegal gun BTW? Is it made of antimatter or something?
Maybe in places where gun deaths are not constant even in the preseence of guns has more to do with the human experience then gun laws?
Yes but the idea I am trying to put forward is gun density in the population does not equate into a drop of usage. I mean look at the statistics, these people know other people have weapons, why not the drop, would that then say the drop wont work period due to gun density, or is it just something else? Some people are putting forward that an armed populous will drive down crime, but it does not equate into truth when looking at reality, even in places with high saturations of guns, like homicide capitals, gun related homicides or crime does not decrease. What is an illegal gun BTW? Is it made of antimatter or something?
Maybe in places where gun deaths are not constant even in the preseence of guns has more to do with the human experience then gun laws?
I am not clear on what you are talking about. The “density” of guns in the hands of citizens is about 50% in most places. It is lower (for law abiding citizens) in the inner city and nearly 100% for criminals there. NOTHING we do to ban guns will disarm the criminals – who by definition, should not have them in the first place.
What Lott found was when “right to carry” laws were liberalized as they were in Florida and nearly everywhere theses days the crime against citizens drops – especially crimes against women. Obviously gang and drug dealer crime does not drop unless the criminals are jailed.
There is no relationship between the presence of guns in the hands of (non criminal) citizens and “gun crime”. It is quite clear that places where the most (legal) guns are (like the suburbs) also is where the lowest “gun crime” is.
Laudru
QUOTE
By the way there is no evidence that most gun crimes are committed with illegal guns. On the contrary most mass gun killings involve "legal" guns, either legally owned by the killer or stolen by the killer. That's why legal guns are a pool for criminals to arm themselves and commit crimes
NOT legal when they are stolen! And if you are implying that we all give up our legal guns because crooks steal them and are not jailed you have to be kidding. Want to stop gun crime – put people who use guns in crime in JAIL and keep them there.
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 8 2007, 02:02 AM)
QUOTE
gordo
Yes but the idea I am trying to put forward is gun density in the population does not equate into a drop of usage. I mean look at the statistics, these people know other people have weapons, why not the drop, would that then say the drop wont work period due to gun density, or is it just something else? Some people are putting forward that an armed populous will drive down crime, but it does not equate into truth when looking at reality, even in places with high saturations of guns, like homicide capitals, gun related homicides or crime does not decrease. What is an illegal gun BTW? Is it made of antimatter or something?
Maybe in places where gun deaths are not constant even in the preseence of guns has more to do with the human experience then gun laws?
Yes but the idea I am trying to put forward is gun density in the population does not equate into a drop of usage. I mean look at the statistics, these people know other people have weapons, why not the drop, would that then say the drop wont work period due to gun density, or is it just something else? Some people are putting forward that an armed populous will drive down crime, but it does not equate into truth when looking at reality, even in places with high saturations of guns, like homicide capitals, gun related homicides or crime does not decrease. What is an illegal gun BTW? Is it made of antimatter or something?
Maybe in places where gun deaths are not constant even in the preseence of guns has more to do with the human experience then gun laws?
I am not clear on what you are talking about. The “density” of guns in the hands of citizens is about 50% in most places. It is lower (for law abiding citizens) in the inner city and nearly 100% for criminals there. NOTHING we do to ban guns will disarm the criminals – who by definition, should not have them in the first place.
What Lott found was when “right to carry” laws were liberalized as they were in Florida and nearly everywhere theses days the crime against citizens drops – especially crimes against women. Obviously gang and drug dealer crime does not drop unless the criminals are jailed.
There is no relationship between the presence of guns in the hands of (non criminal) citizens and “gun crime”. It is quite clear that places where the most (legal) guns are (like the suburbs) also is where the lowest “gun crime” is.
A recent study showed that in Texas alone, a right to carry state, over 5000 crimes were commited by the licensed gun owners over several years. Essentially, the NRA armed criminals and enabled to carry concealed weapons to commit 5000 crimes against thousands of victims, which included murder and child molestation.
I for one think that's a bad policy, arming criminals.
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:9SGl8Y...;cd=1&gl=us
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 8 2007, 02:07 AM)
NOT legal when they are stolen! And if you are implying that we all give up our legal guns because crooks steal them and are not jailed you have to be kidding. Want to stop gun crime – put people who use guns in crime in JAIL and keep them there.
You're making my point. Legally purchased guns wound up being used in crimes. That's the point. Legal guns are an arsenal for criminals to arm themselves and rape, kill and steal. The way to handle that is ban guns, not focus on "illegal" guns.
QUOTE(Landru Guide Us @ Mar 7 2007, 06:36 PM)
No in fact most murderers don't use knives. They use guns. No comparison. Why, guns are really effective killing machines. Knives aren't. You can't control a room ful of people with a knife, and you can't stop a victim from running away. That's why surveys show most professional mass murderers recommend guns.
But if you don't believe that, if you think a knife is as useful as a gun, than you shouldn't mind if guns are banned. No harm done, right? Buy a knife or a pencil and you're covered.
QUOTE
I am well trained and skilled in the use of a variety of items from a pencil to rockets in killing people. All of them are effective and just a lethal. Would I go around doing that, of course not.
Yeah right. You can kill a room ful of Amish school girls with a pencil.
Sounds like you don't need a gun to protect yourself. You can use a pencil. So let's ban guns. No harm done, right?
QUOTE
Australia removed guns from their citizenry and crime double, the murder rate climbed fourfold. Whereas countries with a high gun ownership haven't seen a similar rise. Switzerland with 75% of the population having automatic weapons in their homes has a very low crime rate. Israel that has an even higher percentage of weapons has a lower rate of domestic crime than Switzerland and both countries are appalled at the crime rate in England.
About 30 gun homicides in England last year -- 30,000 in America. See a pattern forming.
Australia hasn't had a mass gun killing since they banned guns. America has had about two dozen.
Switzerland has the third highest rate of gun related deaths in the world.
Honestly, do some research that doesn't involve NRA propaganda cites.
QUOTE
The weapons are not the problem, people's attitudes are. And we need more government like we need another hole in our heads.
And logic is a little bird singing in a tree --- you have assumed the conclusion using a false premise based on incompetent data.
Talk about incomplete data. You included data for 31 years and you have 247 deaths. Hum sounds like a lot. But then we have the 2002 bombing in Bali and 202 deaths in one attack, couple with those 87 people with gasoline, then the 100 people in the The Station 2003, 165 people in the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire 1977, and we can go on and on. The fact is deaths by firearms is not even in the top 10 reason for death in the US.
Disease, traffic accidents, fire and many others account for far more than those that die that those caused by firearms.
I do not want a nanny state. I am mature enough to decide for myself and I do not and will not accept government telling me what I can and can not do. As for my weapons the state can have them as soon as I unload them. They will need to wait a very long time for that.
Anybody that advocates taking of my weapons well I can say that they will have a very long wait.
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 8 2007, 02:07 AM)
QUOTE
gordo
Yes but the idea I am trying to put forward is gun density in the population does not equate into a drop of usage. I mean look at the statistics, these people know other people have weapons, why not the drop, would that then say the drop wont work period due to gun density, or is it just something else? Some people are putting forward that an armed populous will drive down crime, but it does not equate into truth when looking at reality, even in places with high saturations of guns, like homicide capitals, gun related homicides or crime does not decrease. What is an illegal gun BTW? Is it made of antimatter or something?
Maybe in places where gun deaths are not constant even in the preseence of guns has more to do with the human experience then gun laws?
Yes but the idea I am trying to put forward is gun density in the population does not equate into a drop of usage. I mean look at the statistics, these people know other people have weapons, why not the drop, would that then say the drop wont work period due to gun density, or is it just something else? Some people are putting forward that an armed populous will drive down crime, but it does not equate into truth when looking at reality, even in places with high saturations of guns, like homicide capitals, gun related homicides or crime does not decrease. What is an illegal gun BTW? Is it made of antimatter or something?
Maybe in places where gun deaths are not constant even in the preseence of guns has more to do with the human experience then gun laws?
I am not clear on what you are talking about. The “density” of guns in the hands of citizens is about 50% in most places. It is lower (for law abiding citizens) in the inner city and nearly 100% for criminals there. NOTHING we do to ban guns will disarm the criminals – who by definition, should not have them in the first place.
What Lott found was when “right to carry” laws were liberalized as they were in Florida and nearly everywhere theses days the crime against citizens drops – especially crimes against women. Obviously gang and drug dealer crime does not drop unless the criminals are jailed.
There is no relationship between the presence of guns in the hands of (non criminal) citizens and “gun crime”. It is quite clear that places where the most (legal) guns are (like the suburbs) also is where the lowest “gun crime” is.
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 7 2007, 09:02 PM)
QUOTE
gordo
Yes but the idea I am trying to put forward is gun density in the population does not equate into a drop of usage. I mean look at the statistics, these people know other people have weapons, why not the drop, would that then say the drop wont work period due to gun density, or is it just something else? Some people are putting forward that an armed populous will drive down crime, but it does not equate into truth when looking at reality, even in places with high saturations of guns, like homicide capitals, gun related homicides or crime does not decrease. What is an illegal gun BTW? Is it made of antimatter or something?
Maybe in places where gun deaths are not constant even in the preseence of guns has more to do with the human experience then gun laws?
Yes but the idea I am trying to put forward is gun density in the population does not equate into a drop of usage. I mean look at the statistics, these people know other people have weapons, why not the drop, would that then say the drop wont work period due to gun density, or is it just something else? Some people are putting forward that an armed populous will drive down crime, but it does not equate into truth when looking at reality, even in places with high saturations of guns, like homicide capitals, gun related homicides or crime does not decrease. What is an illegal gun BTW? Is it made of antimatter or something?
Maybe in places where gun deaths are not constant even in the preseence of guns has more to do with the human experience then gun laws?
I am not clear on what you are talking about. The “density” of guns in the hands of citizens is about 50% in most places. It is lower (for law abiding citizens) in the inner city and nearly 100% for criminals there. NOTHING we do to ban guns will disarm the criminals – who by definition, should not have them in the first place.
What Lott found was when “right to carry” laws were liberalized as they were in Florida and nearly everywhere theses days the crime against citizens drops – especially crimes against women. Obviously gang and drug dealer crime does not drop unless the criminals are jailed.
There is no relationship between the presence of guns in the hands of (non criminal) citizens and “gun crime”. It is quite clear that places where the most (legal) guns are (like the suburbs) also is where the lowest “gun crime” is.
Laudru
QUOTE
By the way there is no evidence that most gun crimes are committed with illegal guns. On the contrary most mass gun killings involve "legal" guns, either legally owned by the killer or stolen by the killer. That's why legal guns are a pool for criminals to arm themselves and commit crimes
NOT legal when they are stolen! And if you are implying that we all give up our legal guns because crooks steal them and are not jailed you have to be kidding. Want to stop gun crime – put people who use guns in crime in JAIL and keep them there.
People are not born criminals, they commit acts which lead to such. Also I doubt for gun companies to produce illegal weapons. Which become illegal by humans either committing illegal acts with them, or acts that allow them not to own, or gun laws such as no automatic weapons.
The idea to me is that gun density does not equate into a drop of gun use by itself. That is all, the truth to it would be then populations with high gun saturations should always lead to a reduction in crime. It does not matter if I carry a gun unless I guess if I walk all through life with an Uzi strapped to my chest and visible possibly, other people with guns can still shoot and kill me. Many times in say a car jacking a person will just ambush and shoot and kill the other person for there vehicle/possession.
In other cases a domestic dispute could lead and has generated to one spouse shooting and killing the other. Guns are just guns yes, but people do so much with them thusly a controversy. Guns are not produced to arm criminals. I don’t think Smith & Wesson makes guns to be used in robberies, or kidnappings, or domestic fights. The reality though is that desire does not equate into situations in which the guns are not used basically to kill a person when people want to do that. A police officer will react when finding a gun on you, regardless of reason, because a police officer knows what people can do with guns.
Year /Firearm incidents /Firearm Victims /Firearm crime rate (Victims per 1,000 residents)
1993 1,054,820 1,248,250 5.9
1994 1,060,800 1,286,860 6.0
1995 902,680 1,050,900 4.9
1996 845,220 989,930 4.6
1997 680,900 795,560 3.6
1998 557,200 670,480 3.0
1999 457,150 562,870 2.5
2000 428,670 533,470 2.4
2001 467,880 524,030 2.3
2002 353,880 430,930 1.9
2003 366,840 449,150 1.9
2004 280,890 331,630 1.4
2005 419,640 477,040 2.0
I could not fit in the last statistic but here is the link.
Link
"Homicides are most often committed with guns,
especially handguns
Like the homicide rate generally, gun-involved incidents increased sharply in the late 1980's and early 1990's before falling to a low in 1999. The number of gun-involved homicides increased after that to levels experienced in the mid 1980's."
Link
This link goes by year by year with gun related homicides never falling below 8,000. It also compares to use of other weapons in homicides.
Link
All links go to the Bureau of Justice Statistics
QUOTE
You're making my point. Legally purchased guns wound up being used in crimes. That's the point. Legal guns are an arsenal for criminals to arm themselves and rape, kill and steal. The way to handle that is ban guns, not focus on "illegal" guns.
A ludicrous idea. Why on earth should we do this and if we did the world is awash in guns and the criminals have millions NOW. Are you trying to tell me that as my gun is confiscated the criminals (who by definition should not have them) are going to “turn them in”??
You are joking – nad the what we have is citizens – NO guns - criminals LOTS of guns! Ludicrous.
And gus are used for more than self defense and we have the right to have them – criminals don’t and if we JAILED them we would not have the problem.
QUOTE(gordo @ Mar 7 2007, 07:42 PM)
The other argument is to protect us from the federal government. Well in that reality the general populous really needs access to attack helicopters and tanks. I am sorry a personal carry sidearm is not going to protect you from a main battle tank.
Personal firearms while not able to protect you from a main battle tank that's not to say they can't protect us from the government. You cite Iraq as an example of "guns gone wild" but then basically retract the logic with this statement. Of course guns can't protect you from tanks but there are different tactics a population can use against a military than direct conventional warfare.
Also they can protect you from a criminal that encroaches on your personal property. Personally I don't place my protection in the hands of a 911 call that may take them a while to get there. Outlaw guns and the only people that have them are criminals and the government, both of which I don't trust to keep the big bad boogey man out of my personal space short of conventional warfare.
QUOTE(Vampiel @ Mar 8 2007, 05:32 AM)
QUOTE(gordo @ Mar 7 2007, 07:42 PM)
The other argument is to protect us from the federal government. Well in that reality the general populous really needs access to attack helicopters and tanks. I am sorry a personal carry sidearm is not going to protect you from a main battle tank.
Personal firearms while not able to protect you from a main battle tank that's not to say they can't protect us from the government. You cite Iraq as an example of "guns gone wild" but then basically retract the logic with this statement. Of course guns can't protect you from tanks but there are different tactics a population can use against a military than direct conventional warfare.
Also they can protect you from a criminal that encroaches on your personal property. Personally I don't place my protection in the hands of a 911 call that may take them a while to get there. Outlaw guns and the only people that have them are criminals and the government, both of which I don't trust to keep the big bad boogey man out of my personal space short of conventional warfare.
Yes, that is to say then everyone who owns a gun is safe from crime or being attacked by a person with a gun, its simply not true. I know there are moments in which owning a gun have saved people that were attacking them, and of course there are times it has little to no impact. Basically from what I understand America and guns could get along if America was like a military base and everyone did what they were told, and the populous at large lived in bunkers and were trained to be delta operators.
Sorry but that kind of America sounds like something of a wet dream for American that may have wanted to cold war to go hot but not for me. I mean they even want to arm our schools and outfit them with guns, just so that when some gun nut comes to the school people might be able to shoot him or her to death.
Its all just a little over the top, guns in relation to contemporary American cultural problems claim more lives yearly then the combined loses of U.S troops so far in Iraq. Yet, we sit and do what? I mean we have gun supporters saying guns are not used heavily in killings while the statistics point to handguns being the primarily tool in a homicide. Yes, some guy just walks up and pulls a revolve out of his pocket and ambushes someone, or some person all suicide decides to go to work someday with his model 1911 .45 and get some good old revenge on all those that did him or her wrong, and to prevent this basically you should live in a foxhole armed to the teeth trained to the level of a police officer and basically become paranoid of anything that could possibly be close to a threat, because if you don’t the reality is someone could illegally hurt you with an illegal firearm, but yet its all so dandy.
QUOTE(gordo @ Mar 8 2007, 01:08 AM)
QUOTE(Vampiel @ Mar 8 2007, 05:32 AM)
QUOTE(gordo @ Mar 7 2007, 07:42 PM)
The other argument is to protect us from the federal government. Well in that reality the general populous really needs access to attack helicopters and tanks. I am sorry a personal carry sidearm is not going to protect you from a main battle tank.
Personal firearms while not able to protect you from a main battle tank that's not to say they can't protect us from the government. You cite Iraq as an example of "guns gone wild" but then basically retract the logic with this statement. Of course guns can't protect you from tanks but there are different tactics a population can use against a military than direct conventional warfare.
Also they can protect you from a criminal that encroaches on your personal property. Personally I don't place my protection in the hands of a 911 call that may take them a while to get there. Outlaw guns and the only people that have them are criminals and the government, both of which I don't trust to keep the big bad boogey man out of my personal space short of conventional warfare.
Yes, that is to say then everyone who owns a gun is safe from crime or being attacked by a person with a gun, its simply not true. I know there are moments in which owning a gun have saved people that were attacking them, and of course there are times it has little to no impact. Basically from what I understand America and guns could get along if America was like a military base and everyone did what they were told, and the populous at large lived in bunkers and were trained to be delta operators.
Sorry but that kind of America sounds like something of a wet dream for American that may have wanted to cold war to go hot but not for me. I mean they even want to arm our schools and outfit them with guns, just so that when some gun nut comes to the school people might be able to shoot him or her to death.
Its all just a little over the top, guns in relation to contemporary American cultural problems claim more lives yearly then the combined loses of U.S.. troops so far in Iraq. Yet, we sit and do what? I mean we have gun supporters saying guns are not used heavily in killings while the statistics point to handguns being the primarily tool in a homicide. Yes, some guy just walks up and pulls a revolve out of his pocket and ambushes someone, or some person all suicide decides to go to work someday with his model 1911 .45 and get some good old revenge on all those that did him or her wrong, and to prevent this basically you should live in a foxhole armed to the teeth trained to the level of a police officer and basically become paranoid of anything that could possibly be close to a threat, because if you don’t the reality is someone could illegally hurt you with an illegal firearm, but yet its all so dandy.
Re Quote 1: Actually, a pistol level (read low tech/guerilla) force can and has beaten an M1 (read high tech) force quite well, ie Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. US stopped allowing participation of Special Forces, and kinfolk, in it's war games quite a while ago, cuz they made a shambles of the "politically correct modern tech armies". They still can!
Re Quote 2: Demonstrably, the fastest response "defense" against an aggressor/terrorist/mayhamer in ordinary civil life is you, and your immediate-in-the-area armed canceled carry citizens. (Why are citizen's unaware of these "results/facts"?)
Re Quote 3: All arguments comparing one case of risk/damage against another case of risk/damage are suspect and basically rhetoric. Proper risk management demands one make a study/comparison of ALL the relevant (not a cop out, but a difficult feature to really do right) risk/damage means together, and then rank them. See Rasmussen Report on nuclear power plant risk analysis for one semi-recent example of how this is done. I would argue that "contemporary America" is not as yet a well defined "thing" but, like beauty, something dearly held in the eye of each beholder, and not validly something that can be referenced accurately.
QUOTE(Lek @ Mar 8 2007, 07:24 PM)
QUOTE(gordo @ Mar 8 2007, 01:08 AM)
QUOTE(Vampiel @ Mar 8 2007, 05:32 AM)
QUOTE(gordo @ Mar 7 2007, 07:42 PM)
The other argument is to protect us from the federal government. Well in that reality the general populous really needs access to attack helicopters and tanks. I am sorry a personal carry sidearm is not going to protect you from a main battle tank.
Personal firearms while not able to protect you from a main battle tank that's not to say they can't protect us from the government. You cite Iraq as an example of "guns gone wild" but then basically retract the logic with this statement. Of course guns can't protect you from tanks but there are different tactics a population can use against a military than direct conventional warfare.
Also they can protect you from a criminal that encroaches on your personal property. Personally I don't place my protection in the hands of a 911 call that may take them a while to get there. Outlaw guns and the only people that have them are criminals and the government, both of which I don't trust to keep the big bad boogey man out of my personal space short of conventional warfare.
Yes, that is to say then everyone who owns a gun is safe from crime or being attacked by a person with a gun, its simply not true. I know there are moments in which owning a gun have saved people that were attacking them, and of course there are times it has little to no impact. Basically from what I understand America and guns could get along if America was like a military base and everyone did what they were told, and the populous at large lived in bunkers and were trained to be delta operators.
Sorry but that kind of America sounds like something of a wet dream for American that may have wanted to cold war to go hot but not for me. I mean they even want to arm our schools and outfit them with guns, just so that when some gun nut comes to the school people might be able to shoot him or her to death.
Its all just a little over the top, guns in relation to contemporary American cultural problems claim more lives yearly then the combined loses of U.S.. troops so far in Iraq. Yet, we sit and do what? I mean we have gun supporters saying guns are not used heavily in killings while the statistics point to handguns being the primarily tool in a homicide. Yes, some guy just walks up and pulls a revolve out of his pocket and ambushes someone, or some person all suicide decides to go to work someday with his model 1911 .45 and get some good old revenge on all those that did him or her wrong, and to prevent this basically you should live in a foxhole armed to the teeth trained to the level of a police officer and basically become paranoid of anything that could possibly be close to a threat, because if you don’t the reality is someone could illegally hurt you with an illegal firearm, but yet its all so dandy.
Re Quote 1: Actually, a pistol level (read low tech/guerilla) force can and has beaten an M1 (read high tech) force quite well, ie Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. US stopped allowing participation of Special Forces, and kinfolk, in it's war games quite a while ago, cuz they made a shambles of the "politically correct modern tech armies". They still can!
Re Quote 2: Demonstrably, the fastest response "defense" against an aggressor/terrorist/mayhamer in ordinary civil life is you, and your immediate-in-the-area armed canceled carry citizens. (Why are citizen's unaware of these "results/facts"?)
Re Quote 3: All arguments comparing one case of risk/damage against another case of risk/damage are suspect and basically rhetoric. Proper risk management demands one make a study/comparison of ALL the relevant (not a cop out, but a difficult feature to really do right) risk/damage means together, and then rank them. See Rasmussen Report on nuclear power plant risk analysis for one semi-recent example of how this is done. I would argue that "contemporary America" is not as yet a well defined "thing" but, like beauty, something dearly held in the eye of each beholder, and not validly something that can be referenced accurately.
Yes, our forces cant be a military in Iraq, I already know this.
The reality is though in America carrying a gun does not make you safe, at all. You can think you are safe but then again do you move through your daily life like its a combat zone? I would have to say no, and to that I would say then you are open to someone attacking you. The other reality is sure, guns can make America safe, it we turn our country into a military facility of sorts, and we live moment to moment like we are in Vietnam or something. I have been around a few gun supporters, absolute supports, who talk that guns will always keep you safe, I liked to pick him off with paper planes every now and then and watch him look around for who it was.
I have family, and I just wait for the horrible day one of them is wounded in action while serving in the life of duty such as going to the grocery store. Though I guess armed convoy tactics should be appropriate, along with paperwork to get past the store checkpoint.
Honestly, this debate has not been "philosophical" in the least. I winced at the suggestion that a philosophical response must come "from the gut".
If you want to be philosophical you have to, first, suggest and agree upon an understanding of "gun" (annoying, I know).
I'd like to suggest, for the sake of argument, that a gun could be understood as "a tool with which an individual gains a distinct advantage in any conflict".
With this in mind it is easy to see how people can become disturbed at the concept. I, personally, can be brought to a rage when discussing how an unhealthy, uneducated, intellectually and physically inferior person can, by simply carrying a gun, be "better" than those around them.
On the other hand, I am pleased to know of a situation in which a woman, because she was carrying a small handgun in her purse, found herself in the superior position of a conflict with the stranger who tried to rape her in the street.
The gun's ability to deliver superiority in a conflict cuts both ways for us. We want the underdogs and victims to survive horrible situations but we are chastened at the thought of some "loser" gaining an edge on society simply with a small bit of machinery.
This is the "philosophical" argument to be debated: Which is the greater good, a level playing field for the "good" masses or neutering for the minority of criminals?
This is much more interesting than gut level responses IMO.
For my two cents, I believe it is a slippery slope argument to cherry pick guns out of the myriad different tools people use to gain an advantage on others in our society. Surely there are more instances of other sorts of assault (beside shootings) in this country. Should we ban any and all methods of gaining a serious edge on a person? If I become a proficient martial artist (who says I'm not already
) in order to defend myself am I not, now, at a distinct advantage over others who are untrained?
It is a vicious circle you draw when you wish to make all people equal. (being equal under the law is one thing, but EQUAL is not) Like it or not, people will always be better than other with or without handguns. Take away the guns and then the smarter, stronger, more socially skilled or whoever will then be at the forefront....and if you think that only people with guns will use their advantages for "evil" well, then I think you are a bit naive.
If you want to be philosophical you have to, first, suggest and agree upon an understanding of "gun" (annoying, I know).
I'd like to suggest, for the sake of argument, that a gun could be understood as "a tool with which an individual gains a distinct advantage in any conflict".
With this in mind it is easy to see how people can become disturbed at the concept. I, personally, can be brought to a rage when discussing how an unhealthy, uneducated, intellectually and physically inferior person can, by simply carrying a gun, be "better" than those around them.
On the other hand, I am pleased to know of a situation in which a woman, because she was carrying a small handgun in her purse, found herself in the superior position of a conflict with the stranger who tried to rape her in the street.
The gun's ability to deliver superiority in a conflict cuts both ways for us. We want the underdogs and victims to survive horrible situations but we are chastened at the thought of some "loser" gaining an edge on society simply with a small bit of machinery.
This is the "philosophical" argument to be debated: Which is the greater good, a level playing field for the "good" masses or neutering for the minority of criminals?
This is much more interesting than gut level responses IMO.
For my two cents, I believe it is a slippery slope argument to cherry pick guns out of the myriad different tools people use to gain an advantage on others in our society. Surely there are more instances of other sorts of assault (beside shootings) in this country. Should we ban any and all methods of gaining a serious edge on a person? If I become a proficient martial artist (who says I'm not already
) in order to defend myself am I not, now, at a distinct advantage over others who are untrained?It is a vicious circle you draw when you wish to make all people equal. (being equal under the law is one thing, but EQUAL is not) Like it or not, people will always be better than other with or without handguns. Take away the guns and then the smarter, stronger, more socially skilled or whoever will then be at the forefront....and if you think that only people with guns will use their advantages for "evil" well, then I think you are a bit naive.
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge @ Mar 8 2007, 10:02 PM)
Honestly, this debate has not been "philosophical" in the least. I winced at the suggestion that a philosophical response must come "from the gut".
If you want to be philosophical you have to, first, suggest and agree upon an understanding of "gun" (annoying, I know).
I'd like to suggest, for the sake of argument, that a gun could be understood as "a tool with which an individual gains a distinct advantage in any conflict".
With this in mind it is easy to see how people can become disturbed at the concept. I, personally, can be brought to a rage when discussing how an unhealthy, uneducated, intellectually and physically inferior person can, by simply carrying a gun, be "better" than those around them.
On the other hand, I am pleased to know of a situation in which a woman, because she was carrying a small handgun in her purse, found herself in the superior position of a conflict with the stranger who tried to rape her in the street.
The gun's ability to deliver superiority in a conflict cuts both ways for us. We want the underdogs and victims to survive horrible situations but we are chastened at the thought of some "loser" gaining an edge on society simply with a small bit of machinery.
This is the "philosophical" argument to be debated: Which is the greater good, a level playing field for the "good" masses or neutering for the minority of criminals?
This is much more interesting than gut level responses IMO.
For my two cents, I believe it is a slippery slope argument to cherry pick guns out of the myriad different tools people use to gain an advantage on others in our society. Surely there are more instances of other sorts of assault (beside shootings) in this country. Should we ban any and all methods of gaining a serious edge on a person? If I become a proficient martial artist (who says I'm not already
) in order to defend myself am I not, now, at a distinct advantage over others who are untrained?It is a vicious circle you draw when you wish to make all people equal. (being equal under the law is one thing, but EQUAL is not) Like it or not, people will always be better than other with or without handguns. Take away the guns and then the smarter, stronger, more socially skilled or whoever will then be at the forefront....and if you think that only people with guns will use their advantages for "evil" well, then I think you are a bit naive.
Well, as for a gut feeling on being superior in society, that’s not what I am getting at. Handgun related homicides never fall below 8,000 lives a year. With other gun related homicides this number becomes even larger annually. SO say there is a war in Iraq, and over 4 going on 5 years its collected from our forces a lot of horrible deaths, and that is a product of armed conflict. Save in those years it has not even come close to one year of gun related homicides in the U.S in terms of one year, or yearly.
I would much rather take my chances with a person attacking with a knife, blunt object, or martial arts, rather then a .357 with hollow points. That aside I don’t take it into some realm of equality, I take it into some realm of tomorrow some gun carrying human could kill one of your family members, because such is a regular occurrence in America, its what gives us 8,000+ dead every year. That to me is a serious problem, is it a problem simply because guns exist, well that would be a pretty phony or weak stance to take, but then again we would not have so much gun related homicides without the guns now would we?
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge @ Mar 8 2007, 10:02 PM)
The gun's ability to deliver superiority in a conflict cuts both ways for us. We want the underdogs and victims to survive horrible situations but we are chastened at the thought of some "loser" gaining an edge on society simply with a small bit of machinery.
This is the "philosophical" argument to be debated: Which is the greater good, a level playing field for the "good" masses or neutering for the minority of criminals?
This is the "philosophical" argument to be debated: Which is the greater good, a level playing field for the "good" masses or neutering for the minority of criminals?
This has no basis in fact.
Unless you train constantly an handgun is useless in defense. The fact is you are more likely to be shot by your own gun if you have one, than to use it in self defense. That's because it's really hard to shoot somebody, especially if they're shooting back, and especially if its dark and you just woke up and you don't know what going on. You are more likely to shoot your wife or your foot.
Similarly, unless you want to train constantly and carry a loaded cocked pistol, ready to use it at an instance, a gun is useless on the street. A criminal will get the drop on you first since, he knows he wants to use his gun. You don't know it until somebody come up and points a gun at you. By then it's too late.
Leaving aside the danger of having armed trained trigger happy citizens on the street, it's also useless.
So no, a gun is NOT an equalizer. It is more danger to the owner than the criminal. Better to disarm everybody than get into an arms race with trigger happy criminals, an arms race normal citizens can't win unless they want to turn society into an armed camp.
QUOTE(Vampiel @ Mar 8 2007, 05:32 AM)
. Outlaw guns and the only people that have them are criminals and the government,
A slogan not an argument.
Criminals have guns now, many stolen from "legal" owners, many owned legally. The idea that there are criminals out there with guns, and decent citizens with guns is rubbish. A vast amount of gun deaths are legal gun owners deciding they want to kill their wife and kids. So by arming "good citizens" you're arming a heck of a lot of maniacs who will kill and kill again.
As to government, it's got guns and tanks and missiles. The idea that we should put up with lax gun laws, allowing criminals to rape, steal and kill, on the off chance that the government goes bad and you'll defend us from them, makes no sense.
QUOTE(Landru Guide Us @ Mar 8 2007, 06:09 PM)
So no, a gun is NOT an equalizer. It is more danger to the owner than the criminal. Better to disarm everybody than get into an arms race with trigger happy criminals, an arms race normal citizens can't win unless they want to turn society into an armed camp.
I agree with the other statements you made, Landru, regarding the facts that guns tend to be a lot more dangerous to the owner than useful in self defence, but have to point out the flaw in the statement above. Namely the 'better to disarm everybody' part. This might be a wonderful concept, but its simply not achievable. If you outlaw guns, you will indeed take a lot of guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals, but the very definition of the term, are already lawbreakers, and would be unconcerned with adding one more to the list. Many, if not most or almost all, of the guns criminals currently have in their possession were obtained through black market means, and they'd certainly have no compunction about acquiring guns in such a manner. So, criminals will still have guns whether they are outlawed or not, at least large numbers of them will. Why would a criminal care whether or not his weapon was illegal?
QUOTE(Landru Guide Us @ Mar 8 2007, 07:09 PM)
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge @ Mar 8 2007, 10:02 PM)
The gun's ability to deliver superiority in a conflict cuts both ways for us. We want the underdogs and victims to survive horrible situations but we are chastened at the thought of some "loser" gaining an edge on society simply with a small bit of machinery.
This is the "philosophical" argument to be debated: Which is the greater good, a level playing field for the "good" masses or neutering for the minority of criminals?
This is the "philosophical" argument to be debated: Which is the greater good, a level playing field for the "good" masses or neutering for the minority of criminals?
This has no basis in fact.
I was not giving "facts" I was positing a position for "philosophical argument. Is that still possible here?
The FACT is that, when someone carries a gun they have an advantage over a person (in a conflict) who is not carrying one. This works both for criminals and law-abiding citizens. I think it is important to THINK about what we are arguing for or against before we begin our soapbox spouting. If you are going to insist that guns be banned then realize exactly WHAT you are banning. Clearly it is not the simple machine people are against but the benefit its abusers gain over others. This is a simple concept and should be considered by someone who is serious about this debate.
QUOTE
Unless you train constantly an handgun is useless in defense. The fact is you are more likely to be shot by your own gun if you have one, than to use it in self defense. That's because it's really hard to shoot somebody, especially if they're shooting back, and especially if its dark and you just woke up and you don't know what going on. You are more likely to shoot your wife or your foot.
Similarly, unless you want to train constantly and carry a loaded cocked pistol, ready to use it at an instance, a gun is useless on the street. A criminal will get the drop on you first since, he knows he wants to use his gun. You don't know it until somebody come up and points a gun at you. By then it's too late.
Similarly, unless you want to train constantly and carry a loaded cocked pistol, ready to use it at an instance, a gun is useless on the street. A criminal will get the drop on you first since, he knows he wants to use his gun. You don't know it until somebody come up and points a gun at you. By then it's too late.
Very true. This truth, however, is not good support for the banning of guns. It is, on the other hand, good support for the argument that legal users of guns should be well informed and practiced with their weapons. Likewise, they should show discretion in their decisions to carry them or not.
QUOTE
So no, a gun is NOT an equalizer. It is more danger to the owner than the criminal. Better to disarm everybody than get into an arms race with trigger happy criminals, an arms race normal citizens can't win unless they want to turn society into an armed camp.
If you were willing to entertain my frivolous attempts at "philosophy"......
A gun is most certainly a tool that gives an individual an advantage in a conflict or altercation. Simply telling a aggressor that you have a gun is likely to give them pause as they entertain ideas of molesting you in some way. Likewise, should a 14 year old kid come to my driver-side window and request that I give him my car I would laugh. If he showed me a gun he would be the one laughing....
I never said a gun is "an equalizer". I was very clear (or so I thought) in explaining that it gives a decided advantage to the one who carries it, for good or for evil.
So, to reassert... The argument here can be simplified to this: Should we ban something that gives its user an unfair advantage in a life or death conflict?
This is a decent ethical question....oh wait, there I go again with that philosophy stuff.....
I think that Landru Guide us has a rather bigoted, or at least unfair, opinion of gun owners. As far as I can tell most people who are upset or angry enough to kill someone, but had no gun, managed to find other demented ways of acting out their rage. Anyway, spewing numbers about deaths and statistics is a slippery slope to defeat for your argument. I could easily find information about the numbers of deaths due to vehicular homicide/manslaughter, rape/murder, neglect/abuse that dwarf the numbers for gun deaths.
It would be easy to argue that automobiles should all, according to these arguments, have governors limiting speed and sensors limiting proximity to other cars; that rapists should all be castrated; that people with troubled childhoods should be banned from having children, etc.... If the problem was simply the amount of deaths caused by the nuisance at hand then cigarettes, trans fats, sunbathing and speeding should all be ahead of guns in the "to be banned" department.
This is why you have to decide WHAT the real problem is with guns before you start spouting declarations.
The scary answer just might be that "people are the problem with guns" ..... but then what are you going to do?
QUOTE
LHR
The gun's ability to deliver superiority in a conflict cuts both ways for us. We want the underdogs and victims to survive horrible situations but we are chastened at the thought of some "loser" gaining an edge on society simply with a small bit of machinery.
This is the "philosophical" argument to be debated: Which is the greater good, a level playing field for the "good" masses or neutering for the minority of criminals?
This is much more interesting than gut level responses IMO.
The gun's ability to deliver superiority in a conflict cuts both ways for us. We want the underdogs and victims to survive horrible situations but we are chastened at the thought of some "loser" gaining an edge on society simply with a small bit of machinery.
This is the "philosophical" argument to be debated: Which is the greater good, a level playing field for the "good" masses or neutering for the minority of criminals?
This is much more interesting than gut level responses IMO.
Good points. (I have spent many years in martial arts as well) and the idea that having an advantage or a “equalizer” is ‘bad” is ludicrous. It is estimated that guns are used (without shooting) about 2,000,000/year to prevent violent crime. And we all know that there is plenty of violent crime out there where having a gun, or in the case of concealed carry, having criminals suspect you “might” have a gun reduces crime.
Break ins at night in the US are lower than other countries because home invaders are afraid of meeting someone with a gun inside and as we know taking guns from citizens will not prevent criminals from having them and using them to THEIR advantage.
To reduce gun crime make the possession of an illegal weapon a felony that give you a nice long jail sentence. Until we are willing to do this the places where the “gun crime” is primarily, our inner cities, will not be safer.
http://www.alphecca.com/mt_alphecca_archives/000356.html
QUOTE(Landru Guide Us)
A recent study showed that in Texas alone, a right to carry state, over 5000 crimes were commited by the licensed gun owners over several years. Essentially, the NRA armed criminals and enabled to carry concealed weapons to commit 5000 crimes against thousands of victims, which included murder and child molestation.
Expect that number to rise dramatically, now that this horrid law has passed.
QUOTE
Texans will be able to use deadly force to defend themselves in their homes, cars and workplaces under a bill signed Tuesday by Gov. Rick Perry. WaPo
That workplace thing still bugs me. Why should a gun owner's "right" to have his gun at work trump the rights of all those other employees without guns to feel safe and secure at work?
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Mar 28 2007, 10:46 AM)
QUOTE(Landru Guide Us)
A recent study showed that in Texas alone, a right to carry state, over 5000 crimes were commited by the licensed gun owners over several years. Essentially, the NRA armed criminals and enabled to carry concealed weapons to commit 5000 crimes against thousands of victims, which included murder and child molestation.
Expect that number to rise dramatically, now that this horrid law has passed.
QUOTE
Texans will be able to use deadly force to defend themselves in their homes, cars and workplaces under a bill signed Tuesday by Gov. Rick Perry. WaPo
That workplace thing still bugs me. Why should a gun owner's "right" to have his gun at work trump the rights of all those other employees without guns to feel safe and secure at work?
Bug you though it may, there is nothing in this bill that permits individuals to carry guns in the workplace. Period. Insisting that it does time and time again doesn't make it so. And as per "expecting the number of crimes to rise dramatically due to this law" history is not on your side. Other states (to include Florida) have passed similar laws and seen the crime rates FALL afterwards. What would that indicate?
The actual text of the bill might be useful here.
QUOTE(Mrs Pigpen)
Bug you though it may, there is nothing in this bill that permits individuals to carry guns in the workplace. Period. Insisting that it does time and time again doesn't make it so. And as per "expecting the number of crimes to rise dramatically due to this law" history is not on your side. Other states (to include Florida) have passed similar laws and seen the crime rates FALL afterwards. What would that indicate?
QUOTE
unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(;
Whether the thing is in his car or in his desk MATTERS NOT. Like I said earlier, if someone gets T'd off, I'd like for him to actually have to at least drive home to get his gun! Maybe it would allow him to cool off and rethink things. Or maybe not. unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(
; 
This guy got into a world of hurt when he inadvertently took his gun to work:
QUOTE
Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., one day after his aide's arrest for carrying a loaded pistol into a Senate office building, called the incident "unfortunate" Tuesday and offered a ringing endorsement of the right to bear arms. SF Chronicle
Funny thing, though; from the Senator's statements, it looks like he is often armed when he goes to work ("We are required to defend ourselves, and I chose to do so"). This particular time was an "oopsie, I forgot I gave it to my aide" situation and now that poor schlub is taking the heat for his boss.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Mar 28 2007, 11:43 AM)
QUOTE(Mrs Pigpen)
Bug you though it may, there is nothing in this bill that permits individuals to carry guns in the workplace. Period. Insisting that it does time and time again doesn't make it so. And as per "expecting the number of crimes to rise dramatically due to this law" history is not on your side. Other states (to include Florida) have passed similar laws and seen the crime rates FALL afterwards. What would that indicate?
QUOTE
unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(;
Whether the thing is in his car or in his desk MATTERS NOT. Like I said earlier, if someone gets T'd off, I'd like for him to actually have to at least drive home to get his gun! Maybe it would allow him to cool off and rethink things. Or maybe not. unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(
; As far as I can see, there is nothing in the actual text of the bill that permits a person to carry a gun into the workplace. If attacked, during the course of a crime, a person can use deadly force to defend his/herself. However, nothing in this bill permits a person to carry a weapon in there in the first place. If an employer doesn't want a gun at his business, the employees cannot bring them in...ergo, they are out of luck if an armed man comes into their place (unless they have extremely advanced fighting skills). If the employer permits weapons on the property (or carries himself), he/she can use the weapons he/she lawfully carries, strickly for defensive purposes, while on that premises.
QUOTE(Landru Guide Us)
A recent study showed that in Texas alone, a right to carry state, over 5000 crimes were commited by the licensed gun owners over several years. Essentially, the NRA armed criminals and enabled to carry concealed weapons to commit 5000 crimes against thousands of victims, which included murder and child molestation.
Biased much, are we? Honestly, Landru, your points are buried in so much obvious disdain that it is difficult to take anything you post seriously, whether it might actually have merit or not. Just something to think about if you actually want to win anyone over to your point of view. Similar hyperbole could easily be directed by those on the right towards liberal policies or groups, and it similarly does nothing to add to constructive debate. Unless venting is the sole purpose here, in which case I might suggest a blog?
As for this particular insinuation, as Mrs. P has pointed out, stating this and then claiming that obviously crime will now rise is lacking in both logic and historical precedent. I haven't seen any evidence presented here that these same crimes wouldn't have been committed by unlicensed gunowners were licensing not allowed. This is the essence of the dilemma with gun control in this country, IMHO (aside from the constitutional debate)--there are so many guns out there now that there's really no reason to suspect that anyone who wants one couldn't get one, whether they were banned or not. This then leads to the argument made by many that the only way to then protect the innocent is to allow them to be armed as well--an argument which Mrs P has pointed out does seem to bear out statistically. In a nutshell, making guns illegal doesn't really do anything to make them unavailable. By definition, people that commit crimes with guns are already criminals...adding one more offense to their list is unlikely to pose much of a deterent, particularly if that offense makes the successful completion of their crime more likely, and their chance of getting caught lower. Note the fact that instituting the death penalty hasn't done much to deter those crimes...criminals in general aren't that focused on the consequences, otherwise they wouldn't commit the crime at all, would they?
QUOTE(DaffyGirl)
Whether the thing is in his car or in his desk MATTERS NOT. Like I said earlier, if someone gets T'd off, I'd like for him to actually have to at least drive home to get his gun! Maybe it would allow him to cool off and rethink things. Or maybe not.
I would tend to agree with your sentiment here, Daffy...although as Mrs P has explained this law still doesn't allow guns in the workplace to begin with. They passed a similar law in Montana when I was growing up, which I believe did allow for legally licensed guns to be carred with you anywhere as long as they weren't concealed, and even as a kid I thought "Hmmm...I'll bet the guy with the two 6 guns hanging from his hips wins most conference room debates."
Yes, I know...this does nothing to change the stereotype most people have in mind for Montanans, does it?
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Feb 23 2007, 04:02 PM)
Without getting into the Second Amendment, which is a legal wrangle
OK, I'll make the effort to comply with your request to leave it aside, but since you made this statement in your introductory post, I can't let it go completely unchallenged. There's nothing "wrangly" about the Second Amendment. It's meaning is quite clear (at least once you get around the commas which were in overuse back in those days; try reading it with only the second comma in place). Those who disagree with it have merely done their best to obfuscate it and make it more complicated than it ever needed to be. Anyway, having spoken my piece on that point which irritates me so much, onto the debate questions:
Should The United States ban all guns?
Would it be the right thing to do?
Hold on, gotta consult the ol' 8-Ball on this one...
"My sources say no."
Sorry.
Would it end crime as we know it?
It would make life a lot easier for the criminals. I suppose you could say that would be ending crime "as we [currently] know it".
Does the US have a cowboy mentality that compels it's citizenry to own a firearm?
"Mentality" - gotta love that choice of word. Anyway, the "mentality" behind an armed citizenry is quite simple, and it goes back well before there were cowboys. It's nothing more than the basic understanding that we the people - not the state - are primarily responsible for our own safety and the safety of those around us. It's the same "mentality" that prevented the hijackers of Flight 93 from killing a lot more people on 9-11-01 than they actually managed to do. If there was a little more of that "mentality" on the other ill-fated flights that same day, the Twin Towers would probably still be standing. If it was more prevalent in a certain section of New York on the night of March 13, 1964, Kitty Genovese would probably still be alive to tell the tale of what happened.
The antithesis of it is a very modern, decadent mentality that has bestowed upon us such wonders as a culture of surrender, political correctness run amok, and a general inability to cope with life's dangers.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Feb 24 2007, 01:45 AM)
(There have been some odd exceptions to this, as certain American communities have tried to pass laws making ownership of firearms mandatory.)
Link
(I have deliberately taken this information from a pro-gun website, to show that this is not anti-gun propaganda.)
Although this law has not, apparently, been actively enforced, it disturbs me to think that I would be a criminal if I lived in the city of Kennesaw.)
Link
QUOTE
. . .Kennesaw, Ga. . . . in 1982 passed a mandatory gun ownership law
(I have deliberately taken this information from a pro-gun website, to show that this is not anti-gun propaganda.)
Although this law has not, apparently, been actively enforced, it disturbs me to think that I would be a criminal if I lived in the city of Kennesaw.)
Be disturbed no longer, for the law contains explicit exemptions for those who conscientiously object to owning firearms. You would not be considered a criminal, either in theory or in practice. You would, however, be arguably much safer from criminals. Since that statute was enacted, the home burglary rate in Kennesaw plummeted.
QUOTE(GuardianAngel @ Mar 1 2007, 11:30 PM)
Maybe, but the 1938 Waffengesetzt effectively eliminated all weapons from those who were not known and "Trustworthy" members of the Nazi party and enabled the holocaust.
Correct. And what enabled the Waffengesetzt to be as effective as it was was that the earlier "moderate" Weimar laws gave the German authorities complete lists as to who owned weapons, so there was no need to conduct house-to-house searches.
QUOTE(Landru Guide Us @ Feb 27 2007, 07:27 PM)
Every civilized nation has banned guns, resulting in lower gun deaths.
Oh really? Further down in the thread, you taunted, "Honestly, do some research that doesn't involve NRA propaganda cites." Well, ask and ye shall receive:
QUOTE(BBC News)
While Britain has some of the toughest firearms laws in the world, the recent spate of gun murders in London has highlighted a disturbing growth in armed crime.
...
With both street robberies and gun crime on a sharp increase, there are fears that the two trends will overlap and young muggers will, more and more, graduate from knives to firearms.
The worrying trend is not just in London. Birmingham, Manchester and Nottingham have also witnessed increasing gun crime.
...
With both street robberies and gun crime on a sharp increase, there are fears that the two trends will overlap and young muggers will, more and more, graduate from knives to firearms.
The worrying trend is not just in London. Birmingham, Manchester and Nottingham have also witnessed increasing gun crime.
The report goes on to conclude, with classic British understatement, that "Although all privately-owned handguns in Britain are now officially illegal, the tightened rules seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld."
QUOTE(Landru Guide Us @ Feb 28 2007, 03:18 PM)
Actually, the second amendment was written by George Mason (or rather Madison cribbed it from Mason's rendition in the Virginia constitution). Mason was a slave holder who was petrified at the prospect of a slave revolt. Accordingly he didn't want the federal government interfering with armed death squads (i.e., militias) to suppress slave revolts and various other threats to landowners.
This is just too ridiculous for words. Some equivalent of the Second Amendment was inevitable, Mason or no Mason, because that was one of the rights that Americans all up and down the coast were jealous of. Protection from federal interference in the militia and from disarming of citizens was insisted upon by the ratifying conventions of New Hampshire, New York, and Rhode Island. The constitutions of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Vermont all contained provisions restricting their own state governments the same way. This fear of standing armies, and more importantly, insistence on an armed citizenry, was a major staple of American political thought at the time, which had been inherited from their mother country. As Sir William Blackstone explained in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (where slavery was illegal, btw), this represents a "natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
But if you inist on pursuing this line of argumentation - that a particular idea can be discredited by the motives of some of the people who were behind it - then you'd really have to take a hard look at the racist roots of gun control, starting with its use to keep blacks disarmed and subjugated. But unlike Professor Bogus, the author in this link doesn't focus exclusively on obscure history. For example, he tells us about the Clinton administration's warrantless searches of public housing residents for weapons:
QUOTE(Clayton Cramer)
The case might be made that the government attempted to make the tenants safe by unconstitutional means — that the intentions were good even if the methods were wrong. But even for the "special case" of housing projects, there are profound inconsistencies in the policy. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros in a press conference on February 4, 1994, attempted to justify the warrantless searches as protecting the tenants of these crime-ridden projects. Cisneros, however, admitted that "[c]rime statistics . . . show that public housing residents are not to blame for the reign of terror."(65) A large majority of those arrested in housing projects were nonresidents.(66) It is therefore all the more amazing that the residents, who would presumably have much to fear from these armed nonresident criminals, are the ones that the Clinton administration seeks to disarm.
If we examine these Clinton administration policies as a pragmatic response to crime, we must ask: why disarm the likely victims of the criminals? But if we consider these inexplicable policies as the latest symptom of racist attitudes about violence, then these policies make much more sense.
If we examine these Clinton administration policies as a pragmatic response to crime, we must ask: why disarm the likely victims of the criminals? But if we consider these inexplicable policies as the latest symptom of racist attitudes about violence, then these policies make much more sense.
Yes, there certainly is a "mentality" behind much of the gun-control movement. After all, can't be having those people walking around armed, right? I believe the term for it is: the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Ok I'm a newbie so please go easy on me... lol
I think there are numerous ways to approach this topic I think the best way is to look at it like this:
A gun is a lethal weapon, it has one purpose: to kill.
So should you put a lethal weapon in the hands of an average person? Simple answer -No! Never.
I know people say that the majority of gun crimes are committed with stolen firearms but the simple point is those guns would not be available to be stolen if they werent legally bought in the first place.
People buy guns to protect themselves, but to protect themselves from what? Other people with other guns, which probably wouldn't be there if guns were illegal in first place. Statistically speaking the chances of ever meeting anyone with a gun would be far lower if they were illegal.
Blackstone you comment that Britain has seen an increase in gun deaths. Thats true but the "disturbing growth" that the article you quote from is talking about something along the lines of 4 or 5 more deaths a year. In the US such an increase probably wouldn't even be recognised surely that shows that banning them is the right way to go. By the same token theres also been an increase in the numbers of deaths from drugs does that mean we should legalise them as well?
In a perfect world guns should be made illegal, however we do not live in a perfect world and as much as it does pain me to say this I dont think a ban on guns would actually do anything in the US
1) there are too many guns on the streets
2) gun ownership is too great a part of the culture
If guns were banned tomorrow I dont think it would create any difference. So in answer to the original questions;
Is it the right thing to do
Philosophically speaking guns should be banned
Would it change crime as we know it
Probably not but that shouldn't stop a ban Like I said previously people still do drugs that doesn't stop them being illegal and the people to partcipate in the trade being convicted and sent to prison
Does the US have a cowboy mentality
I wouldn't say a
I think there are numerous ways to approach this topic I think the best way is to look at it like this:
A gun is a lethal weapon, it has one purpose: to kill.
So should you put a lethal weapon in the hands of an average person? Simple answer -No! Never.
I know people say that the majority of gun crimes are committed with stolen firearms but the simple point is those guns would not be available to be stolen if they werent legally bought in the first place.
People buy guns to protect themselves, but to protect themselves from what? Other people with other guns, which probably wouldn't be there if guns were illegal in first place. Statistically speaking the chances of ever meeting anyone with a gun would be far lower if they were illegal.
Blackstone you comment that Britain has seen an increase in gun deaths. Thats true but the "disturbing growth" that the article you quote from is talking about something along the lines of 4 or 5 more deaths a year. In the US such an increase probably wouldn't even be recognised surely that shows that banning them is the right way to go. By the same token theres also been an increase in the numbers of deaths from drugs does that mean we should legalise them as well?
In a perfect world guns should be made illegal, however we do not live in a perfect world and as much as it does pain me to say this I dont think a ban on guns would actually do anything in the US
1) there are too many guns on the streets
2) gun ownership is too great a part of the culture
If guns were banned tomorrow I dont think it would create any difference. So in answer to the original questions;
Is it the right thing to do
Philosophically speaking guns should be banned
Would it change crime as we know it
Probably not but that shouldn't stop a ban Like I said previously people still do drugs that doesn't stop them being illegal and the people to partcipate in the trade being convicted and sent to prison
Does the US have a cowboy mentality
I wouldn't say a