Out of all the liberal views on this website, gun control is the least debated.
Well, before such a discussion starts, it'd be nice to note that gun control always worked when the governments of foreign nations took over their people (Castro, Hitler, uh, China).
It doesn't work when trying to combat crime.
Real homeland security doesn't involve a massive federal agency.
It involves the Second Amendment right of every individual in this country; many of you NOISEmakers aren't for the individual, so no doubt you'll disagree with me calling for everyone to keep and bear arms.
I'm sorry but in our nation there really is no need to have a gun.
Most people are law-abiding citizens that's why guns would decrease. The penalties for having a gun would be much greater, therefore keeping people who want them off our streets and in prison.
The real way to decrease crime is two things: Decriminalize or legalize marijuana and ban guns.
I live a perfectly happy life with no problems and I have no gun. I do keep a pair of scissors in my car though. And I have a bat in my room. There. That is enough to ward away most people.
making guns illegal would decrease the guns owned, BUT ONLY IN LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.
Only in the short term. If you let gun manufacture drop, and manage to run quite an efficient clean up campaign to deal with the guns already out there, then there is no reason to believe that the number of guns would decrease across the board in the long term.
quote:
People who need guns to commit crimes will still find them just as easy and then people breaking into people's homes wouldn't need to worry about alerting the family, so long as they posses a gun themselves.
There's a bit of a flaw written into this example, because you think that thieves require guns to break into someone house. And at the moment that might be true, because the danger to the thief is that the people living in the house will have guns. If law abiding people don't have guns, there isn't any need to keep committing theft with the aid of a gun - so thieves stop using them. Why waste money on guns when you don't need them? And if you make the law sufficiently sharp for those caught in possession of a firearm, the incentive to commit crimes with firearms that you could commit without is going to drop drastically. It's only common sense.
quote:
guns (which is a right written into the constitution)
Yes. And there was a reason that it was written into the constitution, a historical reason with good justifications, like defence from native Americans and wild animals and what not. The point is, is that there is no justification to have them any more. Not only does your government wield the most power and inappropriately named military ('Militia' always conjures up images of people with pitchforks in my mind) in the world, so you really don't your own private gun to defend you. Presumably you can let the state do that now, since they're not calling for you to come and defend the fort against hordes of bow wielding savages or against a legion of tax-imposing British colonialists.
'I consider that there is nothing better or more enjoyable than life itself. It is not therefore to be wondered at if I am willing to purchase my life with my material possessions.' Geoffrey of Monmouth
Ok, so I'm pretty sure you missed what I said... making guns illegal would decrease the guns owned, BUT ONLY IN LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. I didn't say that the total number of guns in the states would stay the same. I'm guessing when I said "how would it be any different" (comparing marijuana and guns) confused you.
Point is outlawing guns (which is a right written into the constitution) wouldn't have any positive effects. People who need guns to commit crimes will still find them just as easy and then people breaking into people's homes wouldn't need to worry about alerting the family, so long as they posses a gun themselves.
Vice is a monster of so frightful face, as to be hated needs but to be seen; but seen too often, familiar with her face, we first endure, then tolerate, then embrace. - Alexander Pope
okay. I never understood this whole arguement if it was illegal it would still be the same.
Yes marijuana is in our country but if it was legalized IT WOULD BE EVERYWHERE.
It truly is absurd to say that the amount of gun owners wouldn't go down if they were illegal. Most people are law-abiding citizens who just do whatever the law says.
So basically you would say that if crack was legalized the use wouldn't go up at all. You're basically saying that legality has no affect on anything.
Cannabis is illegal, yet it still finds its way into our country.
If we ban guns, how would it be any different? Make guns illegal and only the illegal will have guns.
Vice is a monster of so frightful face, as to be hated needs but to be seen; but seen too often, familiar with her face, we first endure, then tolerate, then embrace. - Alexander Pope
oh no but someone might break into my house and i need to protect myself.
there is something called a security system you can have installed in your house to protect you from these things and look at that it can't kill someone. wow.
seriously do we live in the colonial america anymore?
americans and their guns. trying to compensate for something. lol
Originally posted by locutus126: But if guns are better regulated, better monitored, and there is more of a process to attaining one, illegal weapons become more difficult/expensive/dangerous to attain. That's just simple economics
\quote/ No. There already are huge numbers of firearms in existance, firearms are easily built by anyone with acess to a mchine shop or even a decent set of tools (example; sten parts kits). In Britain, firearms of all sorts are illegal, yet criminals easily purchase them on the street and have them smuggled in. Criminals break the law and they are GOOD at it. You only affect people who follow laws, again.
thats right when i was 12 i built a muzzleloading shotgun with a file, branch(for stock) ,fire ,pipe, steel straping, two rocks, some flint, and a knife in under three hours and hunted quail with it for years
quote: And when I mention collective good, I mean simply that I think monitoring and legislating guns is a more effective means of preventing crime
The problem with that reasoning is that more legally owned guns does not equal more crime. Try and argue that, the vast majority of evidence point to the fact that more legally owned guns actually equals less crime .
quote: 2.5 million people defending themselves against threats that may or may not have been fatal in the first place hardly sounds like a collective good so much as it sounds like 2.5 million individuals taking justice into their own hands
The 2.5 million number come from the FBI's estimate of annual crimes stopped. It is not vigilantism. Privately owned guns are an intracate part of American society, it should then follow that they are an intracate part of protecting the good of society. If you suddenly have 2 million more crimes a year, things aren't going to get any better for the common good are they? Clearly not, so why restrict guns further?
quote: As established, I won't be that one in three who is armed, but once again, I'm not trying to deprive you of that option.
You don't seem to see the logic here. The one person out of the three that owns a gun will be indirectly protecting the other two. The less privately owned guns and gun owners/carriers you have, the less effective this becomes. The guns is rarely ever fired or even drawn. It stops crime because the criminal doesn't know what you have, making it much much less likely that they will attack you. Thus, this uncertainty stops crime.
It has been proven time and time again. Even in 20's when .45 calibre sub machineguns could be bought at a local pawn shop, crime was very very low. You would have the spectacular criminals like Capone and Bonnie and Clyde, but day to day violent crime was rare.
quote: And also, just because legislation is as effective as we might like doesn't mean we shouldn't legislate.
Absolutely it does. If the legislation does not have the desired effect, it is an unneccecary restriction on liberty.
quote: Personal liberty, self preservation, protection of private property: these are all fundamentally emotional issues, deeply ingrained in the American psyche...I think that's why you react so harshly, using what you think is logic (but what I think is paranoia) to address this issue. What is more emotional than the right to protect oneself and ones property? It is a basic human psychological need, which seems pretty emotional to me.
There is a difference between morality, philosophy, emption, and psycology. Morality and philosophy are rules based on logic and beliefs used to restrict or direct emotions or emotional reactions. Psycology, for the purposes of this discussion, is the science behind understanding how the emotional and logical parts of the human mind interact. Emotion is the largely illogical and often chemical reaction created by the human mind. Emotion has no place in this argument. Morality and philosphoy do, but both of those should be (and are) governed almost exclusively by logic.
As established, I won't be that one in three who is armed, but once again, I'm not trying to deprive you of that option.
And when I mention collective good, I mean simply that I think monitoring and legislating guns is a more effective means of preventing crime; 2.5 million people defending themselves against threats that may or may not have been fatal in the first place hardly sounds like a collective good so much as it sounds like 2.5 million individuals taking justice into their own hands. Collective good implies a benefit to the majority of people; your "2.5 million" statistic comes no where near to qualifying as collective good as it is typically defined.
quote:And once again, I think that collective good on this matter is more important than individual want.
Yes, I agree. And as 2.5 million people defend themselves anually with firearms and MUCH smaller numbers are killed by firearms, the collective good is served by firearm possession. Furthermore, the more people that are armed, the less likely anyone, armed or not, is likely to be attacked; a criminal attempting to rob/rape/beat you will be reluctant if he knows that one in three people are armed, and YOU might be that one.
It occurred to me the other day why it had been bothering me so much that you're unable to look at any emotional aspect to this conversation. Personal liberty, self preservation, protection of private property: these are all fundamentally emotional issues, deeply ingrained in the American psyche...I think that's why you react so harshly, using what you think is logic (but what I think is paranoia) to address this issue. What is more emotional than the right to protect oneself and ones property? It is a basic human psychological need, which seems pretty emotional to me. The logic we choose to use in debate we choose based on our emotional assesment of the arguments.
And once again, I think that collective good on this matter is more important than individual want. We just have different political philosophies here--I don't want to be your friend, you don't want to be mine, so why are we getting so defensive about not seeing eye to eye?
Also once again, I've never said that legislation would prevent all crime. Why argue this more? I happen to be of the opinion that the benefits of what you yourself admit to be a hindrance to obtaining illegal guns outweighs the "bad" of legislation. That's just me and I'm not trying to convince anyone otherwise. Your libretarian views are completely legitimate beliefs, I merely happen not to subscribe to them.
And also, just because legislation is as effective as we might like doesn't mean we shouldn't legislate. Need I refer you again to my cavaties?
Basically, we are arguing political philosophies here (also an emotional issue considering how much people identify themselves with their politics). I won't call either one of them right or wrong, but will continue to maintain that our opinions are simply different.
"But if guns are better regulated, better monitored, and there is more of a process to attaining one, illegal weapons become more difficult/expensive/dangerous to attain." England has incredibly strict gun laws, and it's estimated that one in three criminals on the street are armed with one. Control did a fat lot of good over there.
"Yes, criminals will break the law...that's what makes them criminals; but why not make it more difficult and inconvenient for them to carry out their crimes with legislation that impedes the accessibility of weapons?" These laws may slightly hinder the ability to obtain weapons, but will not prevent it. It simply takes marginally more time.
"Do you work for Smith and Wesson? " Naw. S&W are bunch of pansies who bow to government pressure.
On the subject of Pearl Harbour, there is a quote by one of the Japanese military commanders of the time, telling us that the reason they didn't invade the islands and mainland America was the prospect of facing an armed populace. Don't get you panties in a twist if I can't find it right away, either.
Emotions are useless. They are not factual, logical, or anything that can be used to argue, and have no place in debate.
"why make it easy and cost effective for them to exist in great numbers when we can just as easily limit the number of gun-toting criminals through legislation?" Because, by bringing in more legislations, it is being very nice indeed to the criminals. It's very simple logic. If they are less guns to be obtained through any legal means, criminals will turn to the black market. Smugglers will be able to get more weapons, and bring in more. More will be sold. And since these weapons are shipped in from countries with little or no restrictions, odds are they're gonna be a helluvu lot srtonger than what they could get legally.
"if the "law abiding" citizens are truly law abiding, why should it matter if they are monitored?" If I look out the window, do you suppose I can see my privacy rights go whooshing by?
"Did someone say that the United States was un-conquerable because 80,000+ citizens have firearms? I'm sorry, but I don't believe that. If the other countries out there have biological weapons and nuclear bombs, it doesn't matter HOW many guns the citizens have." Actually, the number is closer to 83,000,000 gun owners. And, the last time I checked, most soldiers still carryed rifles, believe it or not. Wow, you learn something every day, eh?
"The majority of people owning guns seem to want them for "protection." Against what?? If someone attacks you on the street and holds a knife to your back (or, uh, a gun to your head) you are NOT going to have time to pull out your handy dandy revolver and protect yourself. Truthfully, there isn't much you can do. Which is SCARY, I know! But it's something we have to accept." There are 1.5-3.5 million defensive gun uses per year-clearly, they are extremely useful for self defense.
Did someone say that the United States was un-conquerable because 80,000+ citizens have firearms? I'm sorry, but I don't believe that. If the other countries out there have biological weapons and nuclear bombs, it doesn't matter HOW many guns the citizens have.
But I don't believe owning a gun truly makes a difference, anyway. Did you know that the crime rate for America is at an all-time low? And yet the fear of crime is at an all time high? I could spend a lot of time talking about the media and the creation of fear by spotlighting the scary things happening in the community, but I think the more important thing is that the number people walking around randomly looking for someone to rape/kill is really exaggerated.
My big problem with gun ownership is that it seems no one wants to have a gun for HUNTING. The majority of people owning guns seem to want them for "protection." Against what?? If someone attacks you on the street and holds a knife to your back (or, uh, a gun to your head) you are NOT going to have time to pull out your handy dandy revolver and protect yourself. Truthfully, there isn't much you can do. Which is SCARY, I know! But it's something we have to accept.
Keeping a loaded firearm around the house for peace of mind, even if it won't really make a difference because there are incredibly few people who just break into random houses looking for people to kill, is just asking for trouble. I'm sorry, but I really don't believe that tens of thousands of people doing this can be a good thing.
The people defending our country should be defending the country and government NOW, not the government hundreds of years ago. Do you really think that Thomas Jefferson and the "founding fathers" who edited the Constitution (all white supremacist cheauvenists, mind you) really saw into the future so much to make everything they said absolute?
And as for the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights, the government has crossed out considerable amounts of the Bill of Rights, and changed voting several times. What if the B.O.R. said that every white man had the right to own slaves? Would we stand behind that too? What's so different about THIS amendment?
Joey, I agree with the second ammendemnt to the fullest. but the second ammenment doesn't keep foriegn missles from attacking our ports. The second ammenment does not shot down enemy planes. The second ammendment does stop bio-warfare.
"Real homeland security doesn't involve a massive federal agency. It involves the Second Amendment right of every individual in this country"
This seems to be in contradicting to your views about citizens reporting terrorists. Funny how your views change to fit your arguements, which means you don't have any real arguements.
In the immediate aftermath of regulation, probably nothing drastic would happen. But in the long run, very basic economic principles tell us that regulation and monitoring of an item will make that item more of a commodity and by extension raise the cost, limit the number of people willing to take the risk to deal, and decrease accessability. Just because there are many in existence right now, doesn't mean we shouldn't adopt a system that inevitbaly will make them more difficult to attain in the future. That's like saying we shouldn't worry about the environment now because global warming is a long-drawn out process, or that we shouldn't educate young children because they aren't in power right now...laws need to take the future into account. That's just common sense. And once again, I agree that criminals do (and will continue to) be the ones breaking the laws...why make it easy and cost effective for them to exist in great numbers when we can just as easily limit the number of gun-toting criminals through legislation? How does this effect the law abiding citizens? It's illegal weapons I'm talking about here...if the "law abiding" citizens are truly law abiding, why should it matter if they are monitored?
And I agree that the current method of regulation sucks--I'm not arguing that point, if you would bother reading my posts rather than scanning for choice excerpts to quote me on. Regulation as I'm conceiving it (which would require a high court Second Amendment decision in the near future) would make even illegal gun trade more expensive and more easily punishable thereby limiting the number of people willing to trade in illegal guns and limiting the number of criminals who could afford to attain them. I'm not saying gun crime will end, but I am saying that the econmic barriers to illegal gun dealing might signifcantly reduce gun related crime.
And once again, Pearl Harbor was a very specific mission aimed at destroying the Pacific Fleet and preventing the US Navy from engaging successfully in the Pacific theater. It had no relation whatsoever to this discussion as there is absolutely no historical evidence (and not even any historical discussion that I'm aware of) to suggest that the Japanese had any intent to launch a land offensive, whether they could have or not. If you'll look at a map, you'll see that it is GEOGRAPHY which precludes a land attack of the US, not gun ownership.
Gun control does not lead inevitably to anything. If you believe in inevitability (especially in politics), you're either insanely paranoid or a fatalist, possibly both.
quote: But if guns are better regulated, better monitored, and there is more of a process to attaining one, illegal weapons become more difficult/expensive/dangerous to attain. That's just simple economics
No. There already are huge numbers of firearms in existance, firearms are easily built by anyone with acess to a mchine shop or even a decent set of tools (example; sten parts kits). In Britain, firearms of all sorts are illegal, yet criminals easily purchase them on the street and have them smuggled in. Criminals break the law and they are GOOD at it. You only affect people who follow laws, again.
quote:Just because a system of monitoring gun sales and regulating arms isn't "failsafe" doesn't mean it isn't beneficial.
Actually, the current method of registration and control does nothing to prevent criminals from buying guns. Gangster types do NOT purchase their weapons at firearm stores where there are rules, but from individuals who sell them illegally; no felon wants to have a background check run on them.
And regarding your Pearl Harbor schpiel, massive firearms ownership precludes a land attack and has done so in all reccent US conflicts, forcing enemies (such as the ones involved in pearl harbor, to resort to weaker, less effective attacks.
Topics 
