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.
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.
I went to your super-creepy "GunCite.com" and found, not surprisingly, that it is much like many other gun control debate sites, both for and against gun control. These sites take the Second Amendment and interpret it as they see fit in defense of their argument. And I agree, the Second Amendment can be interpreted in several compelling ways, which is why I'm in support of legal clarification, either way. The problem with gun legislation is that there hasn't been a Second Amendment ruling in the Supreme Court for seventy years...obvioulsy circumstances have changed significantly since then, and a ruling should be made accordingly. If they decide that the Second Amendment is about militias only, fine, end of discussion, handguns for civilian use are gone. And if they decide that "to keep and bear arms" means that individuals can have their own guns, that's fine too, put it in the law books and introduce functional legislation around that protection that will monitor and control the guns.
I carry neither a rape whistle nor mace (I've been maced once, it's an incredibly unpleasant experience), though living in a city, I probably should invest in some. And yes, that will be plenty for me, thank you. I really see no need to carry a firearm (although I know the streets of Canada can be pretty rough, so I understand your need for one).
Laws for better gun contols obvioulsy won't end crime...I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that they would. 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, and I'm surprised that you don't recognize it as such. 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?
Just because a system of monitoring gun sales and regulating arms isn't "failsafe" doesn't mean it isn't beneficial. Lots of things aren't "failsafe," but I do them anyway. I lock my car doors, but my car has been broken into. I brush my teeth, but I get cavaties. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop locking my doors and brushing my teeth.
I also said that I would never own a gun because I don't like them. Then you tell me all the great things you can use a gun for. That's great! Own a gun! Use it for the many fun things on your list. I will choose not to own a gun. I don't even understand why you're arguing with me over my choice not to own a gun--are you trying to convince me to buy one? Do you work for Smith and Wesson? Leave it alone, dude.
When I said "Guns are involved in an astounding 100% of shooting deaths" it was quite obviously tongue-in-cheek, directed towards the claim that I had no facts or logic to back up my dislike of guns. And I uphold that guns being related to deaths is a large part of why I hate guns, be they legal or not.
I disagree that emotions aren't particularly useful in a debate. If you fail to relate to people's emotions you will just be transmitting information, not making connections with your audience, one of the most important elements of persuasion. I agree that emotions shouldn't be relied upon entirely, but I haven't done that. It also doesn't matter, as this isn't a debate, but a discussion forum. We aren't being graded here, and if my emotions shape my opinion, then I will express them, at little discredit to what I am saying.
As for Pearl Harbor, it was an attack launched purely for the sake of destroying the Pacific fleet, a pre-emptive strike which foresaw clearly (and catapulted forward) America's entry into the war. Japan didn't try to capture Hawaii because a) they didn't want it, and b) it was tactically impractical to even try it so far from the Japanese mainland. Drunken sailors and polynesians with rifles pointed out the windows had nothing to do with it. Why don't you pick up a book instead of making delusional and inaccurate assertions about American history, your grasp of which is painfully limited.
I think you should get your keyboard checked out..you "w", "r", "o", "n" "g" keys seem to be stuck on caps.
The Second Amendment isn't of concern to me, as it hardly pertains to Canadians, so I won't go into detail here but direct you to GunCite.com. Check the left hand column.
"I would never shoot an attacker, because I will never carry a gun! " ...I'm sure a can of seasoning or socially enlightened rape whistle will work just fine for you.
"Tougher gun control laws (bans on assault weapons for civilian use, tougher restrictions, better and more rigorous background checks) might keep some people from killing other people with guns. " Big news! Criminals don't obey the law! So, please explain to me, how will these gun control laws stop anything? Laws are not in place to stop anything, but to outline what is wrong, and worthy of punishment. They do not stop crimes, such as illegally obtaining drugs of firearms.
"Guns are involved in an astounding 100% of shooting deaths." Umm....Duh?
"a database on the whereabouts of every firearm and a critical precondition to such controls as comprehensive licensing and ballistic fingerprinting. A national registry would require that when guns are sold and resold, the seller and buyer submit paperwork to the government. Police then could trace a bullet or spent shell casing to the owner of a murder weapon. It would also enable the police to determine from whom and where an unlicensed gun owner obtained his firearm."" There are numeous ways the ballistics fingerprints of weapons can be altered. The whole concept is far from failsafe.
"I will never own a gun or have full understanding of why anyone would want to, no matter how much convincing." 1)Protection 2)Recreation 3)Resistance against a possible tyrannical government 4)Food 5)Competitive sport
Hell, thats more than you can do with a car.
"although I'm still confused as to why bringing emotion into the discussion was so bad in the first place" Emotion in place of facts or logic in a debate isn't particularly useful.
"And America has not survived because of our right to own weapons...it has survived in spite of it--once again, YOU ARE WRONG." Ever wonder why Japan didn't try to capture the Hawiian islands after the Pearl Harbour attack? The potential of rifles aimed out every window at their soldiers. I'd say guns helped the US there.
I still see no point in calling each other wrong...it does nothing. I do see a point in disagreeing and discussing those disagreements. But if calling one another wrong is how we're gonna play it, then lets play it.
Let me first talk about moral wrong, Dr. Strangelove. Mags is clearly upset about a situation that you call "irrelevent blather." Why does it matter if her opinions on gun control are based on her experience with what you refer to as a "crime of passion" (though a man going insane and killing his family hardly seems as though it would qualify as such)? People base their opinions on their experiences and if she knows of an experience such as the one she has described, how is it irrelevent? Such criticism is WRONG (though of course that is just my opinion, I'm only saying 'WRONG' because that seems to be the way this discussion is being handled).
You are also WRONG to call stabbings crimes of passion. "Crimes of Passion" refers to a fairly specific motive behind a crime usually involving jealousy or betrayal...simply snapping and killing folk is not a crime of passion in its original use (mid-19th Century Europe, when "crimes of passion" were all the rage as defense for aristocrats who were tired of their spouses or bored with their lovers). Just FYI, you are WRONG.
When I refer to paranoia, I am referring almost exclusively to Locutus who said, "to think that the ultimate goal of gun control is not prohibition is naive, and to believe that the current government situation does not exceed the tyranny that spawned the revolutionary war is an oversight." I continue to maintain that these are the paranoid rantings of a disturbed individual...therefore, your assertion that "no one here is paranoid" is WRONG in my estimation.
You can't tell me what I would or would not do in a given "attack" situation. I can tell you one thing: I would never shoot an attacker, because I will never carry a gun! Solves that one. And in warding off an attack (sans artillery), I fully realize that I might inadvertently kill the attacker by other means...as I qualified in my previous statement, I would never be able to kill a person with a gun, but obviously if my attacker were to die by other means, I would still have to live with it--live with the memory of being attacked as well as with the memory of killing someone who may or may not have wanted to kill me...but I would much rather lose my purse than kill an over-zealous thug. So we are not disagreeing here...I might kill someone in those heightened circumstances, but not with a gun, which I wouldn't have with me. So you are not WRONG just INCOMPLETE in your reading of my previous post.
And my hatred of guns (as I have made clear) is far from absolute (view my post of January 21, 10:40 AM). Once again you are WRONG. My facts and logic are as follows: people with guns kill other people. Tougher gun control laws (bans on assault weapons for civilian use, tougher restrictions, better and more rigorous background checks) might keep some people from killing other people with guns. And here's a statistic: Guns are involved in an astounding 100% of shooting deaths.
I am not, and have never claimed to be, in favor of anything resembling a gun prohibition. What I am in favor of is a clear and legally binding definition of the language in the Second Amendment. The following comes from a USA Today article on the US Government Information website:
"The Second Amendment states that "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' The NRA and millions of gun owners, focusing on the second clause, believe that the amendment guarantees adult Americans with clean records the absolute right to possess and even carry weapons. Gun-control proponents, emphasizing the first clause, argue that it guarantees the states only the right to control their militia units... [Recent court decisions would] would open the door to a national registry, a database on the whereabouts of every firearm and a critical precondition to such controls as comprehensive licensing and ballistic fingerprinting. A national registry would require that when guns are sold and resold, the seller and buyer submit paperwork to the government. Police then could trace a bullet or spent shell casing to the owner of a murder weapon. It would also enable the police to determine from whom and where an unlicensed gun owner obtained his firearm."
In a perfect world, I'd get rid of all guns everywhere, but that is impractical and impracticable. Instead, I support responsible gun ownership and stricter gun contol and monitoring. I will never own a gun or have full understanding of why anyone would want to, no matter how much convincing. I hope this is a good enough balance of logic and emotion--it is a combination of the two that makes us human (although I'm still confused as to why bringing emotion into the discussion was so bad in the first place). And America has not survived because of our right to own weapons...it has survived in spite of it--once again, YOU ARE WRONG.
quote:gee, ya know id go to his parents if i could, but it was his dad who shot him and his mom, then himself when he went temporarily insane...no gun, they probably would all still be alive. you like to make alot of righteous assumptions, dont you?
Wow, that's some great irrelevent blather there mags. Murder-sucides are crimes of passion. So are stabbings.
quote: I don't think it's a cop out for me to want to stop arguing with someone who is so clearly paranoid.
No it's not a cop out. The problem with your reasoning is that no one here is paranoid.
quote:I don't think under any circumstance I would have it in me to kill another human being with a gun. I've played over all kinds of scenarios in my head about this--getting raped, burglarized, attacked--I can't see me using a gun to kill someone else.
Brooke, there is a huge difference between the scenarios you play out in your head and the actual frantic moments when something terrible happens. Only a few people try and kill fellow humans when defending themselves. Most simply want to stop the attack, and if that involves killing the agressor, then you do it. In the end your instincts take over, and you will do anything to survive. Reason and morals mean little to all but the most diciplined. Ain't it great to be a falliable, primal human?
quote: But just because you disagree with me doesn't mean you have to call me wrong. I happen to believe in the collective good over the individual good...this is my right as well.
You can be wrong and we beleive you are wrong. It's your right to believe whatever you want, but at least defend you absolute hatred of guns and the idea of an armed society with facts and logic and not pure emotion. Because right now, i'm seeing very little of the former.
quote: Oh, I remember. To defend ourselves against our tyrannical government--I'm sure we'll all be taking to the streets any day now to defend ourselves from--George Bush? Are you kidding? I'm not saying we should put a blind trust in our government, but if you honestly think that we're going into an armed revolution against the United States government anytime soon, you have bigger issues to deal with than your belief that guns are the answer. I guess my concern is that you feel as though we may soon need weapons which would compete with a modern army.
While we could go on and on about the details of an armed rebellion in the US, I will say this: The US armed forces are composed of mainly patriotic and constitution loving individuals. They know they pledge to defend the US constituion, not the government. And with the whole American war machine based on a stable homeland, internal resistance and attacks could bring many attempt to control the land to a halt. And what can we do against the M1A1's and F-16's? There's a modern military proverb: You can bomb it, you can burn it, you can turn it into glass, but you still have to have infantry to hold the ground. And as long as the Americans have armed citizens, at the moment 80+ millions of them, no army in the world could conquor us. Not even our own. This has been a real and true reason that America survives today. There is no paranoia.
Mmmhmm. Knives can't kill people? That would be new to me. And human strength is thing of the past? A five year old can beat the crap out of his dad, overpower him? Yeah. Mmmhmm. Right.
Topics 
