The Diogenes Club

We aim to turn everyone into tang by the end of the decade.
 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 
 

 Gun Control

Go down 
AuthorMessage
WanderingOisin

WanderingOisin

Posts : 19
Join date : 2008-06-30
Age : 30

PostSubject: Gun Control   Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:07 am

Due to the recent Supreme Court ruling, I thought it might be something worth talking about.

Do you agree with "Gun Control" laws, or not? If so, why? If not, why?

Personally, coming from a libertarian/anarchist/Constitutionalist perspective, I think it is a Right, something beneficial to society as a whole, and important to preserve our freedom.

I've heard the safety arguments, the "Collective Right" argument, and the argument that the Right to Revolt, which is likely the entire purpose of the 2nd, is outdated, as we could never compete with the government's military. I think there are appropriate refutations to all of those, but what do you all think?


Last edited by WanderingOisin on Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ishabaal

ishabaal

Posts : 59
Join date : 2008-07-01
Location : At my dwelling

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:17 am

Well being from Canada I'm in full support of gun control. I think that most violence can be lethal violence can be prevented by outlawing the weapons that cause them. Simply looking at statistics will show that with strict no-gun laws murders and crime-related deaths decrease dramatically. Although on the flip side in Canada non-lethal assault crimes do happen more frequently. I think however that is an acceptable thing to anyone, since you would rather be injured than dead.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.podsafeaudio.com/jamroom/bands/913/
DeridingPolyphemus
Admin
DeridingPolyphemus

Posts : 85
Join date : 2008-06-30
Location : NC, US

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:19 am

In an urban environment, it is ideal to have some gun control, only for the higher calibur, automatic, etc, However, I believe that regardless of what gun control laws remain in effect, there will be crime, and weapons on the street, therefore it is ideal to have the chance to physically protect yourself.

I personally believe that the 2nd amendment referred to collective security, but did not exclude personal ownership of weaponry.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
WanderingOisin

WanderingOisin

Posts : 19
Join date : 2008-06-30
Age : 30

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:25 am

As for the crime-reducing effects of gun-control, I have a hard time buying it. Criminals are, well, criminals. They don't obey the laws in the first place. Why should they register a gun when they can get it off the black market? The only thing gun control does in this country is disarm the law abiding people. There is a kind of irrational fear I see of firearms in many people. As though they think the gun just jumps off a table and shoots someone. Even Freud, fruitloops though he was, said an irrational fear of weapons is a sign of emotional insecurity.

And even if loose firearms laws did mean more crime, I'd take it. There are more important things to me than being safe, especially when that "safety" is the responsibility of Big Brother, who has all the guns. It's a fundamental thing-- I don't trust authority. If it's hard enough for men to govern themselves, how is it we can let them govern other men completely?

The difference between an armed man and an unarmed man is that one is a citizen and the other is a subject.

ETA: We see that Washington, D.C., which has(had) the most restrictive firearms laws in the country, is also the murder capital of the country.


Last edited by WanderingOisin on Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ishabaal

ishabaal

Posts : 59
Join date : 2008-07-01
Location : At my dwelling

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:33 am

Well the reason gun control works so well is that the guns are still available you just can't get them as easily. There are extensive background checks and certain regulations for storage(safety and un-loaded) so that criminals have a hard time getting the guns. Also since the guns have been controlled for so long there isn't that much of a black market for them. Most of the unregistered guns Canadian criminals have are from America, so you know shame on you guys. Also another reason why gun-control is supported by me is that almost every other country even places like Mexico and South Africa, have strict gun laws which help limit the kinds of people who can get guns in the first place. So you can still have a gun in your home as long as you don't have a history of violence, alcohol abuse and other such offenses.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.podsafeaudio.com/jamroom/bands/913/
DeridingPolyphemus
Admin
DeridingPolyphemus

Posts : 85
Join date : 2008-06-30
Location : NC, US

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:10 pm

I am sure to some extent harsher gun-control laws will keep a percentage of guns off the street, but I think it is best to have a chance to defend yourself if you are a strait-edge law abiding citizen.

_________________
'Stupidity has a knack of getting its' way' - Albert Camus

"Don’t die for anything less than the best of, everyone settles for the rest not the best of, I will die for no less than the best of life." - BOTAR
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ishabaal

ishabaal

Posts : 59
Join date : 2008-07-01
Location : At my dwelling

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   Sun Jul 06, 2008 10:02 pm

Therein lies the problem, how do you know who is a law abiding citizen, and who is the next Son of Sam? So if you let people have a gun with the minimal checks that take place in the U.S. it could end up in the hands of anyone. Where as the checks before and after buying in other countries help keep guns out of the hands of killers. I mean I don't think it's a coincidence that the list of serial killers for the U.S. is twice as big as the U.K. and almost three times as large as Canada's. So yes, guns can never be removed completely and there will always be a black market but you can decrease those numbers and make it harder to obtain guns, so that everyone is safer.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.podsafeaudio.com/jamroom/bands/913/
WanderingOisin

WanderingOisin

Posts : 19
Join date : 2008-06-30
Age : 30

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:25 pm

ishabaal wrote:
Therein lies the problem, how do you know who is a law abiding citizen, and who is the next Son of Sam? So if you let people have a gun with the minimal checks that take place in the U.S. it could end up in the hands of anyone. Where as the checks before and after buying in other countries help keep guns out of the hands of killers. I mean I don't think it's a coincidence that the list of serial killers for the U.S. is twice as big as the U.K. and almost three times as large as Canada's. So yes, guns can never be removed completely and there will always be a black market but you can decrease those numbers and make it harder to obtain guns, so that everyone is safer.

Gun control has been tried before. It actually worked quite well:

Quote :
”This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead.” (Chancelor’s Speech, 1935 by Adolf Hilter)

I'm sure the absurdity of the comparison will be brought up. This isn't Nazi Germany, you say. It could never happen here.
I pray you are right on that point, but I'm not convinced.
And as for me and mine, I have a duty and a right to protect myself and my family, and this I will do, irrespective of the government's laws.

I am not very optimistic about the future of this country. I fear we will implode due to the cognitive dissonance emergent from how far our government has strayed from that envisioned in our founding years. We were birthed in war, and I fear we will fall in war. However, there will come a time, when Big Brother can no longer protect us all, and when people realize that the socialist Utopian Cult of the State will invariably lead to tyranny and subjugation, that reasonable men will be forced to do unreasonable things.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ishabaal

ishabaal

Posts : 59
Join date : 2008-07-01
Location : At my dwelling

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:39 am

I mean, wow, did you really just compare gun control to Nazism? You do know that much like the metric system the United States is one of the only countries in the world without strict(not full though which I don't think anyone has, except maybe North Korea) gun control. So are the majority of the countries suddenly going to become fascist dictatorships because the government wants to protect it's people from the criminals that threaten them. I respect your right to own a gun but strict gun control does not limit your ability to own a gun if you wanted to buy a gun you can. As long as you are not a felon and you can stand to wait a month or so while they make sure you are who you say you are and not some crazed psycho murderer. So, if gun control was implemented the only thing that would change is that background checks would be more thorough, or there would be a background at all. Also there would be checks to make sure the owner isn't keeping guns loaded and in the easy reach of children, who tend to injure themselves with them. That way if the government does try to crush your personal freedoms you can fight back just as easily.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.podsafeaudio.com/jamroom/bands/913/
Admin
Admin


Posts : 6
Join date : 2008-06-30

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:30 am

ishabaal wrote:
I mean, wow, did you really just compare gun control to Nazism? You do know that much like the metric system the United States is one of the only countries in the world without strict(not full though which I don't think anyone has, except maybe North Korea) gun control. So are the majority of the countries suddenly going to become fascist dictatorships because the government wants to protect it's people from the criminals that threaten them. I respect your right to own a gun but strict gun control does not limit your ability to own a gun if you wanted to buy a gun you can. As long as you are not a felon and you can stand to wait a month or so while they make sure you are who you say you are and not some crazed psycho murderer. So, if gun control was implemented the only thing that would change is that background checks would be more thorough, or there would be a background at all. Also there would be checks to make sure the owner isn't keeping guns loaded and in the easy reach of children, who tend to injure themselves with them. That way if the government does try to crush your personal freedoms you can fight back just as easily.

It's not that complicated. Gun Control, Prohibition, Drug War, War on Poverty, welfare, farm subsidies, Social security, it all stems from the same misguided do-gooder mentality that people aren't smart enough or responsible enough to take care of themselves. At the state and local level, perhaps it is feasible and in some cases justified. Because the local government is the closest to me, it is also the most conscious of my needs and concerns. However, I honestly couldn't care less what the rest of the world does. It doesn't work here, it never has. And the same government that robs me through a system of legalized extortion, lies to me in order to manipulate me, starts undeclared wars, pollutes the environment more than anyone else, takes liberties and violates the Constitution is the last body on the face of the earth I am going to trust with my only means as an individual to protect myself.

Every government in the history of mankind has been corrupt, because unfortunately every man has been corrupt, and while I'm sure the rest of the world is absolutely content laying down and cowering in wait for the Nanny-State to save them, most people in this country would prefer to protect themselves. I don't remember equating background checks with dictatorship. Such is no big deal. Every time I buy a gun, it takes 5 minutes at most to do a NICS background check. They can verify that I am not a felon, have not been involved in a domestic disturbance, and am not a known drug user.
And what of straw purchases? What of zip guns? What of point-to-point sales? What of stolen weapons? Why, as long as there are any guns out there, there will be gun violence. Flintlocks, those can be dangerous, they can kill people, we had better regulate those tightly, too. And flare guns, and firecrackers, and kitchen knives, and scissors.

There will come a point, as with all things, when you realize that you cannot solve society's ills by more government red tape. Guns were much less regulated during the 1950's. Tell me, how many Seung-Hui Cho's were there back then? It is not gun laws that have caused violence. Firearms are inanimate chunks of steel and plastic. And you cannot fix an open wound with a band-aid. The overwhelming majority of gun control laws are feel-good legislation that does little, if anything, to control guns. The so-called Assault Weapons ban didn't ban anything except certain pointless cosmetic features. We saw how the blood ran in the streets when that sunset came.

You still haven't addressed the issue of why the cities, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C. are also the most violent crime-ridden places on the continent.


Last edited by Admin on Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:33 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://thediogenesclub.forumakers.com
i is what i is

i is what i is

Posts : 10
Join date : 2008-06-30
Location : IL, US

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:32 am

hmm gun control.. background checks etc etc all good, i dont' see any real reason we need automatic weapons so i'm fine with that. most crimes that are gang related come from unregistered/stolen/etc., weapons, most crimes of passion would happen regardless of whether we had guns or not, it's just a question of how easy it is to act upon the 'passion'.

Quote :
I mean I don't think it's a coincidence that the list of serial killers for the U.S. is twice as big as the U.K. and almost three times as large as Canada's.
ok yeah the U.S. is pretty screwed up with our murder rates, serial killers, and mass murderers, but when it comes to serial killers guns dont' really figure into the equation, you can almost count on one hand the ones that actually use guns (the most famous {that come to mind right now} being son of sam, zodiac, and the washington dc sniper i spose..) most serial killers kill via strangulation with the next most common method being a knife. now if we're talking about mass murderers ( columbine, charles whitman, basically people going 'postal') than yes gun control would have stopped or dramatically reduced the effectiveness of these types of killers. but back to serial killers, most crimes of passion, etc., what do we do? ban peoples hands? knifes? *shrug*
"guns don't kill people, people kill people." "gun control means using both hands" Laughing
personally i like guns having been interested in joining the military as a sniper, doing rifle team in high school, wanting to join law enforcement(all of these pre-music and photography Wink), and being semi interested in hunting at some point(despite being a vegetarian heh), i suppose my main problem is with handguns, if you take all of them away at once you'd have a lot of unarmed citizens and a lot of still armed criminals(going back to the fact most of those weapons are stolen/unregistered/etc.) so the only real plausible way would be to phase them out: make people unable to buy them anymore but let the people that have them now keep them, than really work hard at getting them out of the criminals hands so that the next generation will be a lot safer (hopefully).
ok and if this forces gangsters(basically the only real criminal i'm referring to here) to use shotguns and rifles, all the better! rifles are more accurate so we'd have less kids, random innocents, etc getting killed by retarded thugs who try to aim by turning the guns sideways because it 'looks cool'. and shotguns they'd be forced to either get close and actually hit the target, or not be effective in killing their target or anybody else, either would be better than handguns in my opinion.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ishabaal

ishabaal

Posts : 59
Join date : 2008-07-01
Location : At my dwelling

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:07 am

Again though, gun control isn't about getting rid of guns. It just limits the ways and people who can get them. So your average law abiding citizen who wants to buy a gun to defend himself can still get one, no country disallows its citizens weaponry, it just makes it harder for criminals to get them. Thats all.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.podsafeaudio.com/jamroom/bands/913/
K.

K.

Posts : 31
Join date : 2008-07-04
Location : NC

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:47 am

Gun control will lessen crime. Not every murder, not every act of wrath is done by a hardened criminal with easy access to illegal guns. Depriving those who do not fall into that category an easy method of attaining firearms will limit their ability to commit the quite possible crime. We can take that as a given.

Why do certain people dislike gun control, then? Because it lessens crimes, not criminals. Gangsters and the like will still have access to the weapons and in a gun-control environment will have the upper hand. People prefer the safety of their own liberty to the safety of chance. Take the fear of flying, for instance: the chance of an accident is massively less than that in a car, yet many prefer the latter regardless. With a car, one's life is in one's own hands (or at least this seems to be the case), whereas one is almost completely helpless in the event of a plane accident. The question of gun control thus comes down to this: safety or liberty?

I can't answer the question right now, but it may very well be the wrong question to ask. The imbalance of power between criminals and bystanders gives birth to the concern, not the blatantly neurotic fear of totalitarianism. I think the question is: how can we lessen crimes while sustaining an equilibrium of power? This is a much more fruitful concern, I think, and will lead one through the problems of the capitalism-borne divisions in our society to the effectiveness of punishment. It goes without saying that I have absolutely no clue Smile .
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ishabaal

ishabaal

Posts : 59
Join date : 2008-07-01
Location : At my dwelling

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:22 pm

Not surprisingly very well put, I agree. Although I'm still in favor of gun control in general I can see what you mean about proper ways to handle criminals. Which I think is going to lead us into a whole new territory of discussion, since I'm all for the island method.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.podsafeaudio.com/jamroom/bands/913/
WanderingOisin

WanderingOisin

Posts : 19
Join date : 2008-06-30
Age : 30

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:01 pm

Again, it is a logical fallacy to presume that Gun Control leads to less crime. Throughout the 1990's and early 2000's, violent crime in the United States continued to decline, while at the same time Gun Control laws in the majority of states became more lenient. In 1986, there were only 6 or 7 states in the U.S. which had what are called "Shall-Issue" concealed weapon permit laws. This requires that provided one is of legal age, not a felon or a drug user, the State is required to issue a CCW to that individual. Today, only 10 States in the union do not have Shall-issue laws. Aside from Illinois and Wisconsin, 6 are a more capricious "May-Issue", which means that the State has discretion, and may issue a license whenever it feels like it, 2 are Unrestricted(Alaska and Vermont), which means that an individual who is not a felon may carry a concealed weapon in the state without a permit or license. Illinois and Wisconsin are No-Issue states, which is fairly self-explanatory. I state all this to show an overall trend toward less gun control, which just happened to coincide with dropping crime statistics.

Washington D.C. has an average murder rate of 69 per 100,000, despite having the strictest laws in the country. Indianapolis, conversely, has an average of 9 per 100,000, despite having fairly loose gun laws in comparison. Is it the availability of firearms? I that were so, Indiana, and indeed most states in the union would be riddled with crime compared with the other states. Is it rural vs. urban? Rural areas have less crime on average anyway, due to there being fewer people. However, why the discrepancy between two large cities' crime statistics? My point is, strict or loose gun control laws have nothing whatsoever to do with crime statistics. Again, why were the 1950's one of the most domestically peaceful times in history, despite there being virtually no gun control laws? The answer may be our culture is changing over time. It may be some enigmatic factor no one has ever thought of. It may be a statistical anomaly. As for your comment that the list of serial murderers is considerably larger than the U.K. or Canada, depending on what criterion you use, it is just possible that it is due to the fact that we have 10 times the population of Canada, and almost 5 times that of the United Kingdom. Being the third most populous nation in the world, in the same amount of space, is going to mean more crime.

And of the U.K. Their gun laws didn't seem to help them much, compared to the time before they banned outright handguns. Gun crimes actually saw a net increase following the ban, despite there being several million fewer handguns on the streets and in the homes.

Do you imagine the 1890's to be the most crime-ridden era in history? No indeed, it was called the "Gay 90's", and oh yeah, had literally no federal gun laws whatsoever.

Kind of a tangent here, but automatic weapons are not banned in the U.S. It annoys me that people keep assuming they are. In fact, very few things are banned, at least gun-wise. One has to go through an enormous amount of red tape to acquire one, pay a $200 tax, and carry a form for it wherever one takes it, but it is indeed perfectly legal. The same with tanks, mortars, cannons, and other artillery weapons. They are called "Destructive Devices" and are perfectly legal, once one goes through all the beaurocracy. There are approaching 200,000 privately-owned automatic firearms in the United States, and there has been a whopping total of... one gun crime connected with these.

Gun Control is another feel-good mechanism for an ineffectual government to make believe they are doing something to make the country safer, despite achieving nothing other than disarming law-abiding citizens, or at least making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to arm themselves. The states with the strict laws you mention- waiting periods, storage laws, registration- see no identifiable difference in violent crime in this country. If people in Washington, D.C. like their violent crime rate, higher than any other city on the continent, that is their prerogative (actually, no it is not, as their laws were struck down by the SCOTUS for being unconstitutional), however, people in my county, and in my state, which is by far not exactly a gun-friendly state, prefer more liberty. That is my prerogative. We live in a federal republic, not a democracy, and like all non-homogeneous countries, what works for some will not work for everyone. What works for Canada, or Russia, or Chile, or Burkina Faso, or Tajikistan, will not work for everyone.

The question is indeed between safety and liberty. I would count our Founding Fathers as pretty damn smart people.
What is that oft-repeated Benjamin Franklin quote?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.'
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ishabaal

ishabaal

Posts : 59
Join date : 2008-07-01
Location : At my dwelling

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:38 pm

WanderingOisin wrote:
Washington D.C. has an average murder rate of 69 per 100,000, despite having the strictest laws in the country. Indianapolis, conversely, has an average of 9 per 100,000, despite having fairly loose gun laws in comparison. Is it the availability of firearms? I that were so, Indiana, and indeed most states in the union would be riddled with crime compared with the other states. Is it rural vs. urban? Rural areas have less crime on average anyway, due to there being fewer people. However, why the discrepancy between two large cities' crime statistics? My point is, strict or loose gun control laws have nothing whatsoever to do with crime statistics. Again, why were the 1950's one of the most domestically peaceful times in history, despite there being virtually no gun control laws? The answer may be our culture is changing over time. It may be some enigmatic factor no one has ever thought of. It may be a statistical anomaly. As for your comment that the list of serial murderers is considerably larger than the U.K. or Canada, depending on what criterion you use, it is just possible that it is due to the fact that we have 10 times the population of Canada, and almost 5 times that of the United Kingdom. Being the third most populous nation in the world, in the same amount of space, is going to mean more crime.

And of the U.K. Their gun laws didn't seem to help them much, compared to the time before they banned outright handguns. Gun crimes actually saw a net increase following the ban, despite there being several million fewer handguns on the streets and in the homes.

Do you imagine the 1890's to be the most crime-ridden era in history? No indeed, it was called the "Gay 90's", and oh yeah, had literally no federal gun laws whatsoever.

Yes but then again, Indianapolis has about 2,014,267 people in the metro area whereas D.C. which is about four times smaller has 5.3 million people. So the amount of people having to be near each other is more. So then the amount of crime is much higher simply because of the higher metro population density. Also the population density of Canada and the U.K. is on average much higher and also these places are much more international than most of the U.S. thus more clashing of cultures. The 1950's were after WWII and there was a growing of jobs in all industry allowing for less unemployment and at the same time the war culture was influenced by returning soldiers who had been taught discipline, gave that lesson to their children thus a reduction of crime. Also the gay 90's had a large amount of crime, however it was either done as a hate crime and not reported or happened in the west where there were hundreds of cattle related crimes that happened because of bad conditions. Records from that time are not the most reliable things and one of the reasons crime rates are so much higher today, is simply we do a better jobs of finding and reporting crimes.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.podsafeaudio.com/jamroom/bands/913/
K.

K.

Posts : 31
Join date : 2008-07-04
Location : NC

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:53 pm

WanderingOisin wrote:
Again, it is a logical fallacy to presume that Gun Control leads to less crime.
Factual fallacy, if anything. And yes, it would be de facto fallacious to say that crimes will lessen absolutely given the emergence of gun control. Equally fallacious would be to cite statistics as a case for the ineffectiveness of said control; statistics neither say nor take heed of the subtleties inherent in such a question. As I said previously, wrath is not the property of criminals, but all mankind. The former have their guns and laws will not provide their relinquishment, but the latter are at the whim of availability. Crimes committed by those unaccustomed to criminality and done with guns will go down--I don't need a statistic to make this clear, and one for the contrary is absent.


Quote :
Throughout the 1990's and early 2000's, violent crime in the United States continued to decline, while at the same time Gun Control laws in the majority of states became more lenient. In 1986, there were only 6 or 7 states in the U.S. which had what are called "Shall-Issue" concealed weapon permit laws. This requires that provided one is of legal age, not a felon or a drug user, the State is required to issue a CCW to that individual. Today, only 10 States in the union do not have Shall-issue laws. Aside from Illinois and Wisconsin, 6 are a more capricious "May-Issue", which means that the State has discretion, and may issue a license whenever it feels like it, 2 are Unrestricted(Alaska and Vermont), which means that an individual who is not a felon may carry a concealed weapon in the state without a permit or license. Illinois and Wisconsin are No-Issue states, which is fairly self-explanatory. I state all this to show an overall trend toward less gun control, which just happened to coincide with dropping crime statistics.

The statistics you've presented are the essence of meaningless generality. "Crimes" could mean shoplifting or carjacking, not necessarily gun murder (I was wrong in my first post to use the word in general, as well). Nevertheless, these correlations do not dispute my point. If there were an absolute lack of gun control and crimes virtually disappeared, my point would stand: gun control will lessen gun-murder crimes insofar as they exist. Say that there is no control, and everyone is quiet and has no motivation to buy and use a gun. For some reason on the next day, a man decides to buy one and start using it against others. Now say that there is gun control, and everyone is quiet. The next day, a man decides to buy one and start using against others, except this time he can't due to unavailability. That is my point.

Quote :
Washington D.C. has an average murder rate of 69 per 100,000, despite having the strictest laws in the country. Indianapolis, conversely, has an average of 9 per 100,000, despite having fairly loose gun laws in comparison. Is it the availability of firearms? I that were so, Indiana, and indeed most states in the union would be riddled with crime compared with the other states. Is it rural vs. urban? Rural areas have less crime on average anyway, due to there being fewer people. However, why the discrepancy between two large cities' crime statistics? My point is, strict or loose gun control laws have nothing whatsoever to do with crime statistics. Again, why were the 1950's one of the most domestically peaceful times in history, despite there being virtually no gun control laws? The answer may be our culture is changing over time. It may be some enigmatic factor no one has ever thought of. It may be a statistical anomaly. As for your comment that the list of serial murderers is considerably larger than the U.K. or Canada, depending on what criterion you use, it is just possible that it is due to the fact that we have 10 times the population of Canada, and almost 5 times that of the United Kingdom. Being the third most populous nation in the world, in the same amount of space, is going to mean more crime.

This phenomenon is easily explicable. Typical criminals will not be able to get a gun easily in, say, Washington, but being experienced they can get one through illegal channels. The others who do not know these channels but still feel the need to murder someone will have no problem getting a gun, lacking a significant criminal record. Yet if the actual availability of guns disappears, the latter murderers will be unable to act out their whimsical or temporary urges.

Quote :

And of the U.K. Their gun laws didn't seem to help them much, compared to the time before they banned outright handguns. Gun crimes actually saw a net increase following the ban, despite there being several million fewer handguns on the streets and in the homes.

I need to see something on this. Just handguns? Regardless, this could (and almost would have to be) parallel with an increase in actual criminals.

Quote :

Gun Control is another feel-good mechanism for an ineffectual government to make believe they are doing something to make the country safer, despite achieving nothing other than disarming law-abiding citizens, or at least making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to arm themselves.

On the contrary, the desire to "have one's life in one's own hands" feels quite better than relying on the hope for statistical decrease.


Quote :
The question is indeed between safety and liberty. I would count our Founding Fathers as pretty damn smart people.

This is a logical fallacy (appeal to authority). If you do not agree with what I originally said, the question is in fact not between safety and liberty, but sense and non-sense.
Quote :
What is that oft-repeated Benjamin Franklin quote?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.'

Having guns is not an essential liberty. It is an entirely pragmatic issue, even in the way you deal with it.


All that said, I never said I support gun control. What I did say was "I have no clue."
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ishabaal

ishabaal

Posts : 59
Join date : 2008-07-01
Location : At my dwelling

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:56 pm

Very well put as always.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.podsafeaudio.com/jamroom/bands/913/
WanderingOisin

WanderingOisin

Posts : 19
Join date : 2008-06-30
Age : 30

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:27 am

Quote :
Factual fallacy, if anything. And yes, it would be de facto fallacious to say that crimes will lessen absolutely given the emergence of gun control. Equally fallacious would be to cite statistics as a case for the ineffectiveness of said control; statistics neither say nor take heed of the subtleties inherent in such a question. As I said previously, wrath is not the property of criminals, but all mankind. The former have their guns and laws will not provide their relinquishment, but the latter are at the whim of availability. Crimes committed by those unaccustomed to criminality and done with guns will go down--I don't need a statistic to make this clear, and one for the contrary is absent.

It would seem that the essence of what you are saying, is that the truly dangerous ones are law-abiding citizens. Because, my God, they could go berserk and start killing people. Is the argument, then, that you do not trust the average man to handle the responsibility of a firearm? Making a gun harder to get will not prevent those that already have them from doing what you suggest.


Quote :
The statistics you've presented are the essence of meaningless generality. "Crimes" could mean shoplifting or carjacking, not necessarily gun murder (I was wrong in my first post to use the word in general, as well). Nevertheless, these correlations do not dispute my point. If there were an absolute lack of gun control and crimes virtually disappeared, my point would stand: gun control will lessen gun-murder crimes insofar as they exist. Say that there is no control, and everyone is quiet and has no motivation to buy and use a gun. For some reason on the next day, a man decides to buy one and start using it against others. Now say that there is gun control, and everyone is quiet. The next day, a man decides to buy one and start using against others, except this time he can't due to unavailability. That is my point.

Whether this is even accurate is questionable in the first place, but surely you don't believe that in a nation where there are 90 firearms for every 100 people, the most heavily-armed nation on earth, that guns will ever become unavailable. Illegal, perhaps. But if someone is planning on using a firearm to harm others, legality likely is not their supreme concern.

But further, more availability of firearms does decrease the likelihood of crime, if only because a burglar, hijacker, or rapist is considerably less likely to attack, if s/he has good reason to believe that the intended victim may be armed.


Quote :
This phenomenon is easily explicable. Typical criminals will not be able to get a gun easily in, say, Washington, but being experienced they can get one through illegal channels. The others who do not know these channels but still feel the need to murder someone will have no problem getting a gun, lacking a significant criminal record. Yet if the actual availability of guns disappears, the latter murderers will be unable to act out their whimsical or temporary urges.

Whether or not that is actually feasible, as I stated before, it is a pipe dream to believe that the availability of guns could ever be reduced to that point. And again, you seem to come to the conclusion that it is indeed the normal citizen, who may use it for plinking, hunting, competitive target shooting, self-defense, or simply because they're pretty, who is the most dangerous and heinous potential criminal. That at any moment, I may decide to go murder my sister, and that not being able to find a gun will stop me from achieving that objective. Why do you, then, trust people with steak knives? They may murder their neighbor with one at any time. How about bows and arrows? They can be deadly, efficient, cheap and untraceable. There must come a point where we must admit that the world is a dangerous place, and that you cannot protect people from every eventuality. Ordinary people may and do perform horrific acts of violence and cruelty every day. And they have for 10,000 years of human existence. To assume that banning guns will make that disappear is unrealistic, at best.

Quote :
On the contrary, the desire to "have one's life in one's own hands" feels quite better than relying on the hope for statistical decrease.

As well it should. I come from a clearly Lockean perspective as regards individual rights, and I see the right to attempt survival, and by extension, the right to self-defense, as something fundamental and inviolable. If you pull a lion's teeth out, that is more than depriving it of the ability to defend itself from predators, it is the the ability to feed itself. In many parts of the world, and in this country until maybe 60 years ago, the two are the one and the same.

Quote :
This is a logical fallacy (appeal to authority). If you do not agree with what I originally said, the question is in fact not between safety and liberty, but sense and non-sense.

Nonsensical is a failure to learn from history. Despite what you might think, there is nothing new under the sun, and everything, every idea, every political schema we could ever contrive has been thought of and tried before. Now, I do not say that gun control leads to tyranny, but every modern tyrannical government has begun by depriving the Individual of the means of defending themselves. The British deprived the Scots of the right to own a sword in the 15th and 16th centuries. And perhaps this truly is the crux of the issue, and the supreme purpose for the 2nd amendment in the first place (or more accurately, the philosophy which motivated it). It is not about protecting hunters, or self-defense, or hobbyists. It is about preserving liberty.

I believe it is morally wrong to rule another man. I cannot condone the forcible dis-arming of anyone, any more than I can legal extortion(taxes), moral crusaders(drug and other prohibitions) or excessive regulation of every aspect of a person's life, which is precisely what our government does. Truth be told, I don't really give a damn about safety. This is the real world, not a civics class. People will die everyday. It is tragic. It is reprehensible. But it is unavoidable. And getting rid of guns, which is ridiculous and impossible to begin with, will only mean people will find another way to harm one another.

Quote :
Having guns is not an essential liberty. It is an entirely pragmatic issue, even in the way you deal with it.




What would you define as an essential liberty? Voting? Free speech? Freedom of Religion? I can go through the whole list. Why do you think we still have these liberties-- is it at the almighty sufferance of our wholly benevolent government? And when governments violate these essential liberties, what recourse do you then have?


As an aside, I rather enjoy this, as it is difficult to have a real debate these days. I suppose it is for precisely this end that the Club was created in the first place. afro
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ishabaal

ishabaal

Posts : 59
Join date : 2008-07-01
Location : At my dwelling

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:35 am

Quote :
It would seem that the essence of what you are saying, is that the truly dangerous ones are law-abiding citizens. Because, my God, they could go berserk and start killing people. Is the argument, then, that you do not trust the average man to handle the responsibility of a firearm? Making a gun harder to get will not prevent those that already have them from doing what you suggest.

Well, there are things called crimes of passion, and people who rob on a whim rob and kill because of outside circumstances even though they we're once law abiding citizens. In fact one could argue that most crimes are committed in the heat of the moment by people who are not hardened criminals who know how to work the black market for guns. Also going postal applies here.

Quote :
Whether this is even accurate is questionable in the first place, but surely you don't believe that in a nation where there are 90 firearms for every 100 people, the most heavily-armed nation on earth, that guns will ever become unavailable. Illegal, perhaps. But if someone is planning on using a firearm to harm others, legality likely is not their supreme concern.

But further, more availability of firearms does decrease the likelihood of crime, if only because a burglar, hijacker, or rapist is considerably less likely to attack, if s/he has good reason to believe that the intended victim may be armed.

Well, then maybe the U.S. should take steps to become less heavily armed, by restricting gun access. Some people are not aware that they are about to commit a crime since not all criminals plan offenses ahead of time. So crimes of passion are helped along by the easy access to guns. Also the availability of firearms also increases the chances some random mugger is going to shot you in the face for your wallet instead of just trying to stab or beat you. I know which situation I would rather be in. Especially since most people don't take their pistol with them for a nice walk with the dog, or to go shopping.


Quote :
Whether or not that is actually feasible, as I stated before, it is a pipe dream to believe that the availability of guns could ever be reduced to that point. And again, you seem to come to the conclusion that it is indeed the normal citizen, who may use it for plinking, hunting, competitive target shooting, self-defense, or simply because they're pretty, who is the most dangerous and heinous potential criminal. That at any moment, I may decide to go murder my sister, and that not being able to find a gun will stop me from achieving that objective. Why do you, then, trust people with steak knives? They may murder their neighbor with one at any time. How about bows and arrows? They can be deadly, efficient, cheap and untraceable. There must come a point where we must admit that the world is a dangerous place, and that you cannot protect people from every eventuality. Ordinary people may and do perform horrific acts of violence and cruelty every day. And they have for 10,000 years of human existence. To assume that banning guns will make that disappear is unrealistic, at best.

Yes, they can be and have in many places. The normal citizen is indeed the most dangerous crimes of passion are unpredictable and account for a large amount of crime. If you don't have a gun, sure maybe you'll go for the steak knife but a knife can be defended against if only by running away. I mean on in the neighbourhood where I live, maybe one street over a kid of about 17 years decided to randomly try and kill his father. Only he had a bat not a gun as his weapon so instead of shooting his father he beat him. The end of this touching story you ask, the son left after thinking his father dead, but because of his weapon the father survived and managed to crawl to the phone and get and ambulance. Bows and arrows also require a large amount of physical strength and training much more so than with a gun which is a fast weapon with, pardon the pun, deadly accuracy. The world is a dangerous place so why make it more so by giving people easy access to a weapon that anyone can use to kill someone else.

Quote :
As well it should. I come from a clearly Lockean perspective as regards individual rights, and I see the right to attempt survival, and by extension, the right to self-defense, as something fundamental and inviolable. If you pull a lion's teeth out, that is more than depriving it of the ability to defend itself from predators, it is the the ability to feed itself. In many parts of the world, and in this country until maybe 60 years ago, the two are the one and the same.

Yeah, but that was 60 years ago. I mean if you go by that logic the U.S., which has always been slow in conforming to laws and practices that have been accepted else where, should still be lynching and denying women the right to vote. So guns really aren't needed in the public except to do violence they have no real purpose. I have never needed a gun to go shopping or to take a walk and I never will.

Quote :
Nonsensical is a failure to learn from history. Despite what you might think, there is nothing new under the sun, and everything, every idea, every political schema we could ever contrive has been thought of and tried before. Now, I do not say that gun control leads to tyranny, but every modern tyrannical government has begun by depriving the Individual of the means of defending themselves. The British deprived the Scots of the right to own a sword in the 15th and 16th centuries. And perhaps this truly is the crux of the issue, and the supreme purpose for the 2nd amendment in the first place (or more accurately, the philosophy which motivated it). It is not about protecting hunters, or self-defense, or hobbyists. It is about preserving liberty.

I believe it is morally wrong to rule another man. I cannot condone the forcible dis-arming of anyone, any more than I can legal extortion(taxes), moral crusaders(drug and other prohibitions) or excessive regulation of every aspect of a person's life, which is precisely what our government does. Truth be told, I don't really give a damn about safety. This is the real world, not a civics class. People will die everyday. It is tragic. It is reprehensible. But it is unavoidable. And getting rid of guns, which is ridiculous and impossible to begin with, will only mean people will find another way to harm one another.

Then I say two things to you. I daresay that you do care about safety or else I challenge you to leave all your doors unlocked and a sign on your door and spotlights on your lawn inviting criminals and murderers but warning police to stay away. The police, a.k.a the government, of course being the people you rely on to protect you, whether or not you have a gun. Also having a gun doesn't suddenly mean that you will be able to stand against a fully trained and supposedly corrupt army with tanks and planes and more ways to find and kill you than you can dream of. Sure in the olden days it was man against man, but now if the government wanted to take over and somehow was able to keep the army under its power, even though the people in it are mostly like you in that they like non-despot lead governments, you couldn't do a thing to stop them. No matter how many automatic weapons you had. Also the whole corrupt dictatorship thing would also have to deal with the U.S.'s allies like the U.K. and Canada, and their reactions and most likely military refusal of Americas little government change.

Quote :
What would you define as an essential liberty? Voting? Free speech? Freedom of Religion? I can go through the whole list. Why do you think we still have these liberties-- is it at the almighty sufferance of our wholly benevolent government? And when governments violate these essential liberties, what recourse do you then have?

Your constitution is rather vague on whether individual persons can own firearms. And again the court system you have seems to do a good job. If that fails the rebellion of most soldiers and allies coming to the topple the dictatorship. But the average citizen who maybe has a pistol or a rifle at hand... not much.

I'm too lazy to proof read this post at 1:34 AM so deal with any mistakes I made, I'm not fixing them.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.podsafeaudio.com/jamroom/bands/913/
K.

K.

Posts : 31
Join date : 2008-07-04
Location : NC

PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   Wed Jul 09, 2008 2:43 am

WanderingOisin wrote:

It would seem that the essence of what you are saying, is that the truly dangerous ones are law-abiding citizens. Because, my God, they could go berserk and start killing people. Is the argument, then, that you do not trust the average man to handle the responsibility of a firearm? Making a gun harder to get will not prevent those that already have them from doing what you suggest.

This is a straw man argument. I never compared the dangers of different types of citizens. Also, not every "law-abiding citizen" is an average man.


Quote :

Whether this is even accurate is questionable in the first place, but surely you don't believe that in a nation where there are 90 firearms for every 100 people, the most heavily-armed nation on earth, that guns will ever become unavailable. Illegal, perhaps. But if someone is planning on using a firearm to harm others, legality likely is not their supreme concern.

Not everyone knows the proper channels for getting illegal guns. Legality may not be their concern, but availability is.

Quote :
But further, more availability of firearms does decrease the likelihood of crime, if only because a burglar, hijacker, or rapist is considerably less likely to attack, if s/he has good reason to believe that the intended victim may be armed.

I very much agree. Decreasing the availability of guns skews the equilibrium of power between criminal and citizen, and therefore the criminal will be emboldened. This is why I can't say I advocate gun control.


Quote :

Whether or not that is actually feasible, as I stated before, it is a pipe dream to believe that the availability of guns could ever be reduced to that point. And again, you seem to come to the conclusion that it is indeed the normal citizen, who may use it for plinking, hunting, competitive target shooting, self-defense, or simply because they're pretty, who is the most dangerous and heinous potential criminal. That at any moment, I may decide to go murder my sister, and that not being able to find a gun will stop me from achieving that objective. Why do you, then, trust people with steak knives? They may murder their neighbor with one at any time. How about bows and arrows? They can be deadly, efficient, cheap and untraceable. There must come a point where we must admit that the world is a dangerous place, and that you cannot protect people from every eventuality. Ordinary people may and do perform horrific acts of violence and cruelty every day. And they have for 10,000 years of human existence. To assume that banning guns will make that disappear is unrealistic, at best.

You persist with your blatant straw man attack that I think "normal" people are the most heinous criminals, so I won't answer that. Whether or not such a thing is a pipe dream is a different question, but I don't see why this would be so, especially as the bush administration fades into distant memory. You are right that when faced with the unavailability of guns the "normal" person will be forced to sublimate his weapon of choice into something else, and will do so. The main thing is that the "something else" will be much more limited in destructive power; it's going to be quite more difficult to murder someone with a steak knife than with a handgun.

Quote :

As well it should. I come from a clearly Lockean perspective as regards individual rights, and I see the right to attempt survival, and by extension, the right to self-defense, as something fundamental and inviolable. If you pull a lion's teeth out, that is more than depriving it of the ability to defend itself from predators, it is the the ability to feed itself. In many parts of the world, and in this country until maybe 60 years ago, the two are the one and the same.

The problem is the dissonance between pragmatic government and Lockean principle. Though I agree with Locke's ideas about what should be unalienable rights, the government can and often does override them. I agree that insofar as an equilibrium of safety is established guns are necessary in the unfortunately very violable right to protect oneself. Yet if we can focus our attention to the question I originally put forth in this thread, the answer would sustain the right by eliminating the necessity of guns as protection.

Quote :

Nonsensical is a failure to learn from history. Despite what you might think, there is nothing new under the sun, and everything, every idea, every political schema we could ever contrive has been thought of and tried before.
I would love to see you prove this.

Quote :
Now, I do not say that gun control leads to tyranny, but every modern tyrannical government has begun by depriving the Individual of the means of defending themselves. The British deprived the Scots of the right to own a sword in the 15th and 16th centuries. And perhaps this truly is the crux of the issue, and the supreme purpose for the 2nd amendment in the first place (or more accurately, the philosophy which motivated it). It is not about protecting hunters, or self-defense, or hobbyists. It is about preserving liberty.

If you think the unavailability of guns is a pipe dream, try American tyranny. Quite simply not going to happen unless the people want it so. The 2nd amendment was indeed intended for liberty, but the less destructive the implication of arms, the better. The interpretation of that word has increased in deadliness with the destructiveness of technology, and that establishes a trend towards worse crimes.

Quote :
I believe it is morally wrong to rule another man. I cannot condone the forcible dis-arming of anyone, any more than I can legal extortion(taxes), moral crusaders(drug and other prohibitions) or excessive regulation of every aspect of a person's life, which is precisely what our government does. Truth be told, I don't really give a damn about safety.

Apathetic anarchism? I don't get it.

Quote :
This is the real world, not a civics class. People will die everyday. It is tragic. It is reprehensible. But it is unavoidable. And getting rid of guns, which is ridiculous and impossible to begin with, will only mean people will find another way to harm one another.
This mentality doesn't take in account the varying destructive power of different types of arms. People could run around with steak knives or nuclear warheads, and there is a difference.

Quote :

What would you define as an essential liberty? Voting? Free speech? Freedom of Religion? I can go through the whole list. Why do you think we still have these liberties-- is it at the almighty sufferance of our wholly benevolent government? And when governments violate these essential liberties, what recourse do you then have?

To take a perspective from Mill, essential liberties are all those actions that do not infringe another man's liberty. Guns are a situational liberty because they are only necessary when they are widely distributed. Right now, they are a necessary liberty--but not essential.

Quote :

As an aside, I rather enjoy this, as it is difficult to have a real debate these days. I suppose it is for precisely this end that the Club was created in the first place. afro

As long as you don't shoot me. Very Happy
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Gun Control   

Back to top Go down
 
Gun Control
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Moderator Control Panel
» How to add the avatar in the User's Control Panel ?
» Wanting to take control of a forum. Owner has been gone more than a year.
» User Permissions Control Problem
» Flood Control

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
The Diogenes Club :: General Discussion :: Politics-
Jump to: