What's the INTJ opinion on handgun liberties?

[Jason]

(I understand this isn't a new issue but I figured it might be stimulating to toss around some ideas, especially if you happen to be bored.)

I live in the state of Georgia, where our House of Representatives currently is debating passage of H.B. 615, a bill that would permit concealed weapons, including handguns, in all public places, except for jails and courtrooms (unless, of course, the weapon is evidence in a trial).

Do you support or oppose this sort of legislation?

If you support handgun liberties, what are your reasons for doing so?

If instead you support restricting gun ownership, why?



As a both a student and an American citizen, I'm in favor of extending handgun liberties. Obviously self-preservation, as well as the protection of my family, is a key motive behind my stance. But I also take the position that the U.S. Constitution, supported by the language of the founding era, fully agrees with bills like H.B. 615.

[Shemp]

I'm all for handguns as long as they're only used to fend off a tyrannical government.

[Arkeph]

On the one hand, I do think that handguns should enjoy protected status under the 2nd Amendment. On the other hand, there are practical issues related to the intent of that amendment (i.e. defense from a tyrannical government) that are puzzling.

By limiting the selection of armaments we can freely bear, are we essentially gutting the amendment? To put it another way, did the founding fathers intend cannons to be protected? Battleships?

Secondly, although an individual's right to bear arms may be protected, the existence of a militia is pre-supposed by the amendment (and seems like the obvious mode by which violent opposition to tyrannical rule would proceed). Should citizens be required to be part of militias?

On the whole, however, I view guns in a similar light as alcohol. Suppression might reduce usage, but it impedes knowledge and responsibility, which are what really protect us (in this context).

[Pachystima]

I believe that the 2nd Amendment unequivocally recognizes an individual right. But, with any right come attendant responsibilities.

My commentary here is more aimed at handguns than rifles or shotguns.

I have no problem with concealed carry or open carry of handguns by trained, competent individuals. I also feel that it is an individual responsibility to become trained and competent before venturing out in public with a handgun. Moreover, the state has a duty to ensure that this responsibility is met.

Just as a state can regulate who drives an automobile but not who can purchase one, the state should control those who carry a firearm but not those who can purchase one (Excepting minors, felons and such). States can, and do, require firearm safety training before issuing a hunting license, especially to a minor.

It is in your,and your neighbors, best interest that you know the laws regarding use of deadly force and that you can exercise it with competence if necessary. So, I feel that state governments have a public safety interest in granting carry permits only to those who are willing to acquire the necessary training. The thought of some of the people with whom I am acquainted being loose in public with a pistol chills my blood; Second Amendment or no Second Amendment.

[Jason]

Shemp: Criminals, too, right? Then again, maybe my comment here is unnecessary, inasmuch as a tyrannical government is a criminal government. (!)

Arkeph: Regarding your second point, something similar is taking place in Vermont. The American Prospect (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) discusses a state bill under consideration that would penalize Vermont residents for not possessing a firearm permit. It's an interesting argument, one that until now I hadn't considered. I don't think mandatory gun ownership would find support in most libertarian camps but it might be welcomed by a more duties-based political philosophy. I'll have to think about the issue a bit more before I figure out which side I land on.

Pachystima: I agree that rights ought to be accompanied by responsibilities, but I'm hesitant to view firearm training as the corresponding responsibility to gun ownership. That's not to say I think it's a bad idea, as far as state policies go; but as a principle I think I would be more in favor of establishing strict follow-up penalties for criminally negligent acts committed with firearms. But I'm not totally opposed to your idea. If a majority of citizens voted for it, I wouldn't consider it to be an insufferable violation of individual rights.

[ArtistTyrant]

2nd Amendment should be allowed for all non-criminal adults, if they have proven knowledge of firearms and firearm safety :)

[Shemp]

I'm all for handguns as long as they're only used to fend off a tyrannical government.

Guess this should have been <sarcasm>I'm all for handguns as long as they're only used to fend off a tyrannical government.</sarcasm>

Arming all people is a poor solution to violence in the society. That just escalates the stakes.

[Causa Mortis]

On the Federal level? Benign neglect - its really something that local or regional administrators are better positioned to decide.

Widespread concealed handgun use would have an ambiguous impact I think; you'd get an effect from crime reduction from criminals being concerned about others carrying concealed weapons, and you'd also get a temper effect wherein you'd have more deaths in road-rage type situations.

[LaoTzu]

Guns cause more problems than they solve.

[Ytterbium]

Classic subject. :cheesy:

I'm in favour of strict gun laws in American terms I would guess. I don't see handguns as a right. But I don't want to stop those who wants to practise their hobby either. I don't see why one must carry to handgun on all the time. Ok if one must transport it from the range back home and so forth. Otherwise I don't see a point with it.
Everyone should have the right to apply for ownership but everyone shouldn't be granted one. The guns should all be registered in a database. These two things not unlike cars, with licenses and ownership. After proven as a liable person, one takes a test to prove oneself worthy to own a gun. If the all criterias have been met then why not.

[themuzicman]

Guns cause more problems than they solve.

Chicago law study says otherwise. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In short, 2-3 times as many crimes are prevented by the presence of a handgun than are caused by them.

Also, if you study handgun laws, you'll find that those areas that allow citizens to carry have lower crime rates: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So, not only is your statement unsupported, it is refuted by studies.

[Zsych]

That bill sounds unnecessary, and unlikely to create any real benefit. Defending your home is one thing, some people walking around with weapons everywhere, is something else. Its just added risk, making guns available to people when they have no reason to have them.

You know, they say that if weapons are banned for regular individuals, then only criminals will have them. I think in the UK - not that many criminals end up having guns.
Somebody from the UK confirm if I'm right there.

Honestly, I'm not sure I particularly approve of policemen carrying guns.

As for rebellion against tyrannical government - I'm sorry but citizens have zero chance of opposing a tyrannical government so if they're keeping weapons for that reason they may as well give it up. In a country like the US (or most countries really), starting a serious revolution would be incredibly hard, and stopping it would be pretty easy.

Now, if you're going to rebel, you need the power of money. Super-Godlike amounts of it. That and control of the media somehow.
(Ultimately, you need to apply a type of force that suits the problem)

[mormeguil]

Chicago law study says otherwise. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In short, 2-3 times as many crimes are prevented by the presence of a handgun than are caused by them.

Also, if you study handgun laws, you'll find that those areas that allow citizens to carry have lower crime rates: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So, not only is your statement unsupported, it is refuted by studies.

I have tried to look these things up for a debate and there are just as mani studies on one side then the other. This whole field is a mess of political siding that affect studies.

Personally, let people have hunting rifle, anything else is un-necessery.

[reverendryan]

As for rebellion against tyrannical government - I'm sorry but citizens have zero chance of opposing a tyrannical government so if they're keeping weapons for that reason they may as well give it up. In a country like the US (or most countries really), starting a serious revolution would be incredibly hard, and stopping it would be pretty easy.

We did it once. It's why this country is here.

At the time, our citizens had the same arms as the soldiers of the British Empire they were fighting. If one of the fundamental purposes of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the Militia (being defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as every able-bodied man between 17 and 45) is on par with a formal army[1] then ANY regulation about which arms a citizen can keep and bear is unconstitutional.

Many of the founding fathers were afraid of a standing army, I have to imagine that if they had been able to see the future disparity between the arms carried by our armed services and the arms available to the citizen Militia they would have worded the second amendment to make it clearer[2].


Arkeph: Regarding your second point, something similar is taking place in Vermont.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
discusses a state bill under consideration that would penalize Vermont residents for not possessing a firearm permit. It's an interesting argument, one that until now I hadn't considered. I don't think mandatory gun ownership would find support in most libertarian camps but it might be welcomed by a more duties-based political philosophy. I'll have to think about the issue a bit more before I figure out which side I land on.

As a libertarian (little-el) I do have trouble forcing people to own a firearm if they don't want to. However, to go along with my argument above, they're certainly not being very well prepared members of the Militia, just as someone who doesn't have any supplies to get through a storm or earthquake is not well prepared.

As a side point, Vermont does not issue CW permits. They allow anyone above the age of 16 who is not a felon to carry, including non-residents ("Vermont Carry"). Alaska is similar, but they offer a CW permit that is reciprocal with several states, allowing Alaska citizens to carry more places than home.

--

[1] and it seems to be, since the Second Amendment is the only one in the Bill of Rights that has an explanatory clause: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

[2] what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don't you understand?

[LaoTzu]

In research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which almost 2,000 felons were interviewed, 34% of felons said they had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim" and 40% of these criminals admitted that they had been deterred from committing a crime out of fear that the potential victim was armed.

So, 6 in 10 criminals have NOT been deterred... and 75% have NOT been run off... and this makes your point for you? What am I missing here?

I wonder if they studied how many times the gun owner was stripped of his weapon and shot with it....

[Grimstad]

Sorry to intrude on a private conversation but I wanted to point something out. You can not WIN a revolution with handguns. Long arms, assault rifles, explosives, etc. But not handguns. Kinda defeats the purpose of the 2nd amendment

[LaoTzu]

That's not an intrusion, that's a good point.
But I'd go further and say that even with assault rifles and explosives; you're not going to be bringing down the US military any time soon with those.

When can we own Bradley's?. Sign me up for that! :D

[Zsych]

Where the idea of the people being able to revolt if necessary is an interesting idea. It no longer has meaning and thus no longer needs to be considered when making laws.

If revolutionaries weren't crushed like ants, it would be just plain shocking. That wouldn't really change even if they had somewhat better weapons.
It wouldn't change if they had good weapons and military training.

Managing a revolution in this day and age, and one that actually had an expectation of a positive effect, would require a strategist of nearly godlike ability, shit-tons of bloody charisma, and the wisdom to realize that an approach that is not planned in terms of decades, is most likely not going to work.

Seriously, at the moment, just about the only thing any revolutionary could do would be to make things worse. (Which is said as if I seriously expect someone to try :P )

[Angel1]

(I understand this isn't a new issue but I figured it might be stimulating to toss around some ideas, especially if you happen to be bored.)

I live in the state of Georgia, where our House of Representatives currently is debating passage of H.B. 615, a bill that would permit concealed weapons, including handguns, in all public places, except for jails and courtrooms (unless, of course, the weapon is evidence in a trial).

Do you support or oppose this sort of legislation?

If you support handgun liberties, what are your reasons for doing so?

If instead you support restricting gun ownership, why?

Jason, here's a dramatization of a situation that happened in Ohio.

Ohio (legislature): I have a brilliant idea! Let's ban people from carrying concealed handguns, with or without a permit.

People: You mean ban people from carrying handguns?

Ohio: No, just ban them from concealing the handguns.

Gun Enthusiasts: Oh really? So we can continue to carry our handguns if we have a permit and don't conceal them?

Ohio: Yes!

*Gun Enthusiasts talk amongst themselves*: Okay then.

*Gun Enthusiasts walk through community that has children outside playing with their guns strapped in plain view to their sides*

*Concerned parents order children back inside and call police*: There's a group of men walking through our town with guns strapped to their sides!

Police: Well ladies, there's nothing that we can do about it. They are perfectly within their rights to carry handguns strapped to their sides through a community of playing children so long as the guns are in plain view.

People: Legislature! Fix this!

Ohio: Okay, maybe we were a bit hasty.
*Ohio quickly fixes law to allow people with permits to carry their handguns concealed*

Gun Enthusiasts: Thank you.


That anecdote just points out that unless Georgia has a ban on carrying handguns (period) and they are going to introduce this law to allow people to carry handguns (so long as they are concealed), then the bill in question is a perfectly reasonable law. The above anecdote, though perhaps a bit unrealistic is truthful in action.

I support handgun liberties because their are just some places in this country that good people have to go do work at that are not safe if you cannot defend yourself. Guns level the playing field between people and criminals. A 6ft, 200lb burglar is going to think twice before taking on a frail old lady pointing a handgun at him. Could he possibly take the gun away from her and use it on her? Yes, but only if she is not prepared to shoot him dead if he takes a step forward to threaten her. That's one of the critical issues with carry a handgun; if you are carrying a handgun, you must be prepared to use it. Otherwise, you shouldn't carry the gun because that's just one more weapon that a criminal could possibly get their hands on.

On the count of preparedness to use a gun to defend yourself, it would seem to me that gun crimes would not decrease if a government allows their citizens to carry the guns, but penalize them for the use of the weapons. States that are more gun friendly, must be prepared for their citizens to defend themselves by shooting and potentially killing criminals.

The government must be prepared for even a circumstance like this one: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Jason]

reverendryan: To clarify, I support a robust interpretation of the Second Amendment. I say that because it's not clear to me if your last two points, including the question, were directed at me. If they were, you won't be hearing much objecting from me. I stand with Thomas Jefferson and his advice that a gun ought to be one's "constant companion."

I also agree with your position about the usefulness of guns in protecting one's right to revolution. In doing so, of course, I respectfully disagree with those who are skeptical that handguns are sufficient for staging a successful overthrow of the government. Or, rather, I should say that I disagree with the suggestion that handguns would be insufficient for challenging the American regime, as it stands now. I think violent citizen unrest -- citizens armed with handguns, shotguns, and rifles -- would have a very measurable effect on the U.S. Congress and the executive.

However, I do think that those who ask about the limits of types of weapons present a worthwhile question. My default response is that it shouldn't include anything too "extreme" (let's say, e.g., rocket-propelled grenades), but obviously that only forces us to consider what is or isn't truly extreme.

[Arminius]

As long as the person does not have a record of committing violent crimes, I think (s)he should be able to own and carry a gun. I also think that if someone is trying to break into your home, you should be able to shoot them.

As far as having a militia goes, I think if we are serious about the "well regulated" part of a well regulated militia, we should copy the Swiss system. Have a small professional army, draft everyone, train them to properly and safely operate and maintain their weapons. Send them home with an assault rifle and pistol, and require they keep them in good working order. As it stands now, the only groups we have that could effectively function as a militia are rednecks and gun-nuts. The bulk of the population is ill suited for anything else. At least with the Swiss way, there would be a semblance of organization, training, and preparation on a large scale. Admittedly, as a superpower with a massive standing military and more nukes and other gizmos than anyone else, we don't really have to worry about someone attacking us. On the other hand, having the bulk of our army consist of conscripts might curb foreign adventurism and make people pay more attention to what is going on in Washington.

[hubcap]

In my opinion as long as someone is legally entitled to own a handgun and have not been ruled "mentally incompetent" (which probably precludes legal ownership - tho I'm not certain) they should be able to carry a handgun wherever they choose.

[themuzicman]

I have tried to look these things up for a debate and there are just as mani studies on one side then the other. This whole field is a mess of political siding that affect studies.

Personally, let people have hunting rifle, anything else is un-necessery.

A hunting rifle is poor for protection both in car and home.

[Warrior]

(I understand this isn't a new issue but I figured it might be stimulating to toss around some ideas, especially if you happen to be bored.)

I live in the state of Georgia, where our House of Representatives currently is debating passage of H.B. 615, a bill that would permit concealed weapons, including handguns, in all public places, except for jails and courtrooms (unless, of course, the weapon is evidence in a trial).

Do you support or oppose this sort of legislation?


I live in an area that already has a law that is (apparently) similar to the one proposed in your area. There are a few restrictions - you have to be able to legally carry a gun (obviously) and businesses can not allow concealed weapons in there establishments by posting a sign on the door (this would not apply to those connected to law enforcement).

I support it. As far as I can tell, not a lot has changed since the law was implemented. There is the occassional story of someone that fends off an attacker, but I haven't heard enough of those to really say it is a trend. I'm sure the local paper would be all over any story of an accident and really blow it out of proportion. Since I haven't heard about any such incidents, I'd venture to say there aren't a lot of those either.



Personally, let people have hunting rifle, anything else is un-necessery.

Why not a hunting shotgun? People also hunt with handguns. Rifles don't always make the best weapons for personal self defense.

[Yhor]

To the point of handguns being useless against our government, and/or military, I disagree.

Military men and women have friends and families in the general population and if a true onset of government oppression and instability do provoke just cause for militia action, I'd be more apt to think those in the military would honour their obligation to the constitution before they honour a tyrannical government. I say this as a former enlisted sailor and having family in all branches off service, including Coast Guard (DOT). I'm sure there would be a split in opinion among many military personnel, but to think they'd all go against the oath they took is a huge stretch.

As to the OP question.

I think all citizens have the right to own firearms (no limitations regarding type, heavy explosives not included). Anything other than handguns should not be carried, unless with justifiable purpose. Any light to medium explosives should be held by a responsible member of the community, with no ties to the political arena, in a community cache.

Who should not be allowed to follow the 2nd amendment? A person deemed unqualified, by a jury of his peers, proceedings to be overseen by a judge. At time of convictions of disqualifying crimes, weapons should be held until due process is complete and their ID should state the person has been disqualified.

[elsdfr]

If I lived in a society where the thought of the Government controlling the military to quell or oppress the people was real.. then yes, I would want a gun.

If I lived in a community where crime rates were high and guns were common place then yes, I would also want a gun.

[mormeguil]

A hunting rifle is poor for protection both in car and home.

Why not a hunting shotgun? People also hunt with handguns. Rifles don't always make the best weapons for personal self defense.

Hunting rifle should be a good deterent for any person in your house. It's also sure that you will not be cary a gund around and it's a lot harder to use a hunting rifle agaisnt your spouse in a moment of anger

[Angel1]

Hunting rifle should be a good deterent for any person in your house. It's also sure that you will not be cary a gund around and it's a lot harder to use a hunting rifle agaisnt your spouse in a moment of anger

The whole point of a handgun is to carry it around with you. Maybe not all the time. Some people that own handguns and handgun carry permits may not even carry them most of the time. Why are you buying a handgun? If my only reason to want one is security at a dangerous work site that I go to once a week, then I'm probably going to lock my handgun in a safe at home the rest of the time.

A hunting rifle does people no good if they are defending themselves from potentially dangerous environments when they're busy doing work. In these circumstances a weapon needs to be readily available...strapped to the side of the handgun carrier.

[Aronnax]

Hunting rifle should be a good deterent for any person in your house. It's also sure that you will not be cary a gund around and it's a lot harder to use a hunting rifle agaisnt your spouse in a moment of anger

A hunting rifle is a terrible home protection weapon because a high velocity bullet can easily pass through multiple walls. If you're trying to avoid injuring other occupants in the house, or your neighbors, you wouldn't use a hunting rifle as a defensive weapon. A home defense weapon is something like a shotgun since the energy is spread throughout the pellets or a handgun which fires a significantly slower bullet.

[DavidHasselhoff]

Guns with drugs should be a bigger penalty. Other than that leave it alone.

[mormeguil]

Its the job of the state to protect people. So far they have been successfull enought. If you really are that scared ask the police station to do something and don<t try to take justice or protection in your hand. Let proffesional handle it.

As for hunting rifle, alright if its a bad defensive weapon I admit I do not know much about gun. Still does not change my position that having people carying guns around is a bad idea.

[GrnEyz]

From Gun Laws, Culture, Justice & Crime In Foreign Countries (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

A recent report for Congress notes, "All countries have some form of firearms regulation, ranging from the very strictly regulated countries like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Sweden to the less stringently controlled uses in the jurisdictions of Mexico and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms continues as a part of the national heritage up to the present time." However, "From available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. . . . (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany, gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation." (Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998.")

Many foreign countries have less restrictive firearms laws, and lower crime rates, than parts of the U.S. that have more restrictions. And many have low crime rates, despite having very different firearms laws. Switzerland and Japan "stand out as intriguing models. . . . (T)hey have crime rates that are among the lowest in the industrialized world, and yet they have diametrically opposite gun policies." (Nicholas D. Kristof, "One Nation Bars, The Other Requires," New York Times, 3/10/96.) Swiss citizens are issued fully-automatic rifles to keep at home for national defense purposes, yet "abuse of military weapons is rare." The Swiss own two million firearms, including handguns and semi-automatic rifles, they shoot about 60 million rounds of ammunition per year, and "the rate of violent gun abuse is low." (Stephen P. Halbrook, Target Switzerland; Library of Congress, pp. 183-184.) In Japan, rifles and handguns are prohibited; shotguns are very strictly regulated. Japan`s Olympic shooters have had to practice out of the country because of their country`s gun laws. Yet, crime has been rising for about the last 15 years and the number of shooting crimes more than doubled between 1997-1998. Organized crime is on the rise and 12 people were killed and 5,500 injured in a nerve gas attack in a Japanese subway system in 1995. (Kristof, "Family and Peer Pressure Help Keep Crime Levels down in Japan," New York Times, 5/14/95.) Mostly without firearms, Japan`s suicide rate is at a record high, about 90 per day. (Stephanie Strom, "In Japan, Mired in Recession, Suicides Soar," New York Times, p. 1, 7/15/99.)


My personal opinion... thugs that use weapons (guns, knives, clubs, etc) would think twice about robbing, raping, or otherwise aggravating anyone they knew was carrying a handgun. I think the world would be a much safer place if it was mandatory that all persons carry a handgun at all times.

[reverendryan]

reverendryan: To clarify, I support a robust interpretation of the Second Amendment. I say that because it's not clear to me if your last two points, including the question, were directed at me. If they were, you won't be hearing much objecting from me. I stand with Thomas Jefferson and his advice that a gun ought to be one's "constant companion."

Sorry for the confusion, those were footnotes to my reply to Zsych. I've separated them a bit from my reply to you, hopefully that makes it clearer.

I also agree with your position about the usefulness of guns in protecting one's right to revolution. In doing so, of course, I respectfully disagree with those who are skeptical that handguns are sufficient for staging a successful overthrow of the government. Or, rather, I should say that I disagree with the suggestion that handguns would be insufficient for challenging the American regime, as it stands now. I think violent citizen unrest -- citizens armed with handguns, shotguns, and rifles -- would have a very measurable effect on the U.S. Congress and the executive.

Indeed. Many of the people who think that way seem to be under the impression that should large-scale citizen unrest occur, American citizens would experience the full force of the US military. I don't see this as possible for several reasons:


The US hasn't used the full force of our military in a conflict since WWII. Since then, we've been concerned with civilian casualties. Even if a large portion of the population took up arms, it would be an insurgency just like we are presently faced with in Afghanistan. Unless the military was willing to cause massive casualties they couldn't simply bomb a city, they'd have to go in with ground forces to sort out the insurgents from the unarmed civilians. So far we've been doing that for 9 years in Afghanistan and have barely made a dent.

Members of the military have dedicated their lives to preserving freedom and defending the people of this country. Many of them would not be able to turn their weapons on fellow countrymen even if they were so ordered. Granted, there have been times when the armed services have turned their weapons on unarmed citizens, but those seem to be isolated incidents. None of the members of the military that I know would be willing to do such a thing.

The last time this happened (civil war) whole states succeeded and took up arms against the others. Along with them went military commanders, arms, etc. It would play out exactly this way again. Just look at the recent posturing by Montana, Texas, etc over the recent DC v. Keller Supreme Court case.


However, I do think that those who ask about the limits of types of weapons present a worthwhile question. My default response is that it shouldn't include anything too "extreme" (let's say, e.g., rocket-propelled grenades), but obviously that only forces us to consider what is or isn't truly extreme.

I can certainly understand that position, however if something like an RPG is considered "arms" (and I see no reason why it wouldn't be) then a strict reading of the Constitution requires the citizens of the US to have access to such weapons.

If the citizens' access to arms is to be limited, it needs to be by Amendment to the Constitution, and not simply by (unconstitutional) laws passed by Congress or the States.

I should add that I don't feel a need to possess an RPG for any reason, nor do I even feel a need for automatic weapons (aside from some fun at the range). I do, however, feel a need for my government to follow it's highest laws. I would be much more open to a debate about regulating gun ownership if it were in the context of an amendment and not just law or statute.

Every time Congress or a State passes a law designed to undermine one of our rights, it undermines the Constitution as a whole, and diminishes the moral authority of the government. I'm not an anarchist, I do believe we need government, but it needs to be a government that works to support the liberty of the people, not undermine he founding principles of this country.

[AaronSheffield]

Everyone should have the right to apply for ownership but everyone shouldn't be granted one. The guns should all be registered in a database. These two things not unlike cars, with licenses and ownership. After proven as a liable person, one takes a test to prove oneself worthy to own a gun. If the all criterias have been met then why not.

The "car analogy" falls short for one big reason.

- You are not required to license or register a car. Registration is only required for use on public roads. You can own, transport (on a trailer) and use (on private property) a vehicle without ever registering or licensing it. You do not even need a driver's license to own or buy a car.

In actual point of fact, firearms are already regulated in a substantially similar method to automobiles. No registration of the firearm or owner is required for possession or use on private property, nor for transport to and from private property. Licensing of the owner (along with a full federal background check) is required to legally carry a firearm concealed publicly, just as it is with automobiles.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 08:38 AM ----------

I wonder if they studied how many times the gun owner was stripped of his weapon and shot with it....

About as often as a police officer is stripped of his weapon and shot with it. Which is to say so incredibly rare as to be considered functionally a non-occurrence.

[Ytterbium]

The "car analogy" falls short for one big reason.

- You are not required to license or register a car. Registration is only required for use on public roads. You can own, transport (on a trailer) and use (on private property) a vehicle without ever registering or licensing it. You do not even need a driver's license to own or buy a car.

In actual point of fact, firearms are already regulated in a substantially similar method to automobiles. No registration of the firearm or owner is required for possession or use on private property, nor for transport to and from private property. Licensing of the owner (along with a full federal background check) is required to legally carry a firearm concealed publicly, just as it is with automobiles.
But you did get my point? If I'm going to be a bit anal myself I can counter attack. With the fact that in some jurisdictions cars must be registred, even though not used on public roads. The only thing they don't pay then is road tax and insurance.

[Wicked Gleam]

(I understand this isn't a new issue but I figured it might be stimulating to toss around some ideas, especially if you happen to be bored.)

I live in the state of Georgia, where our House of Representatives currently is debating passage of H.B. 615, a bill that would permit concealed weapons, including handguns, in all public places, except for jails and courtrooms (unless, of course, the weapon is evidence in a trial).

Do you support or oppose this sort of legislation?

Support it.

If you support handgun liberties, what are your reasons for doing so?

Ill intending individuals will go to lengths to enforce their will upon those who are defenseless, thus those who have illegal weapons have them already. By allowing all to possess and conceal weapons, they would, perhaps, think twice about exploiting the innocent and this would apply to all who one may argue the bill would give a higher probability for crimes being committed.

[Pachystima]

Its the job of the state to protect people. So far they have been successfull enought. If you really are that scared ask the police station to do something and don<t try to take justice or protection in your hand. Let proffesional handle it.


I'm sure you have heard the statement that "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away".

[hubcap]

Its the job of the state to protect people. So far they have been successfull enought. If you really are that scared ask the police station to do something and don<t try to take justice or protection in your hand. Let proffesional handle it.
This is actually a bit of a non-starter. In the United States the "state" is under no obligation to protect any individual citizen, only the population at large.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Considering the fact that in 2005 there were 1,390,695 reported violent crimes and 16,692 homicides I would assert that your statement regarding the "states" success in protecting individuals is false, therefore your conclusion is based on a false premise.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

According to a report from the Center for Disease Control regarding people who use a firearm in self-defense while being faced with a violent crime:

A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.

So, I believe your arguments to be unsupported by the facts.

[Rainlead]

The countries founder's clearly intended for citizens to be as well-armed as they would like to be. So long as you arm yourself with the intention of protecting yourself and your personal freedom, that right should not be infringed.

[Cooper]

I think that handguns should be treated along the lines of having a drivers liecense. A permit would be required to go to a liecensed shooting range for a formal trainning. After successfully passing said class, you take a state test. If you pass you get a liecense. You can then buy a handgun, but you must also buy insurance to cover whoever you blow a hole in.

[hubcap]

I think that handguns should be treated along the lines of having a drivers liecense. A permit would be required to go to a liecensed shooting range for a formal trainning. After successfully passing said class, you take a state test. If you pass you get a liecense. You can then buy a handgun, but you must also buy insurance to cover whoever you blow a hole in.
Do you think you should get formal training, state approval and a permit to exercise the rest of your rights?

[plotthickens]

Mass shootings occur where guns are prohibited.

Where guns are not prohibited (police stations, gun shows, gun stores, ranges), there are never mass shootings.

I prefer not to be a fish in a barrel, nor let others make me and mine so kthxbye.

[GrnEyz]

Do you think you should get formal training, state approval and a permit to exercise the rest of your rights?

Yes. It should be mandatory for all citizens to be trained and carry a pistol at all times. Crime would come to a screeching halt.

[INTJRyan]

Do you think you should get formal training, state approval and a permit to exercise the rest of your rights?

Exercising free speech, press, et al. do not often end with someone missing a head so surely there is some distinction between the 2nd and other rights. That being said, guns are a big "meh" to me. I'm not into them, but don't care if others are, and I'm not sure that regulation really works or is useful in this instance.

[freeeekyyy]

I have the right to carry a gun. That is an appropriate right. An armed person is a safe person. Anyway, when it comes to your bill in georgia, hope that it passes. If criminals were worried that people are carrying guns, they would be less likely to cause trouble. Remember that the criminals will always have guns, whether legal or not. Making handgun ownership illegal only hurts law-abiding citizens.

[hubcap]

Exercising free speech, press, et al. do not often end with someone missing a head so surely there is some distinction between the 2nd and other rights. That being said, guns are a big "meh" to me. I'm not into them, but don't care if others are, and I'm not sure that regulation really works or is useful in this instance.
Abuse of other rights can result in harm coming to others. Go into a crowded theatre and start yelling "FIRE" and see how many people get trampled.

The abuse of a right by some people does not in any way justify denying that right to others who do not abuse it.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. - Thomas Jefferson

[INTJRyan]

Abuse of other rights can result in harm coming to others. Go into a crowded theatre and start yelling "FIRE" and see how many people get trampled.

The abuse of a right by some people does not in any way justify denying that right to others who do not abuse it.

That's exactly why yelling fire in a theater is not protected speech; it's not actually "denying" a right to someone. The same logic, of course, applies to the 2nd. Also probably why the gov would have a problem with everyone carrying around our own personal suitcase nukes. Is that not an infringement on the 2nd? What about truck mounted machine guns? RPGs? Should we all drive around with those? Unless you are a complete whackadoo, and I don't think you are, you accept SOME limitation, infringement even, on your constitutional right to bear arms. The question is: how much?

[hubcap]

The question is: how much?
The fact that you are equipped to yell "FIRE" doesn't mean you will choose to do so, any more than a person who is armed will choose to rob the nearest 7-11 at gunpoint.

Philosophically I see no harm in anyone carrying a gun as long as they don't go around shooting folks or robbing 7-11. However, I agree that a person should meet some criteria such as not being a convicted felon, nor having been ruled mentally incompetent. I don't agree that an individual should have to be "licensed" by the state in order to have a gun. Some states such as Vermont have no licensing requirement and they don't seem to have an extraordinary amount of crime.

[KHBaker]

(A)lthough an individual's right to bear arms may be protected, the existence of a militia is pre-supposed by the amendment (and seems like the obvious mode by which violent opposition to tyrannical rule would proceed). Should citizens be required to be part of militias?

They are. Few people are aware of it, though:

U.S. Code, Title 10, § 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.




I would think that, given the rise of equal-opportunity laws, women who are not members of the National Guard and men who are over the age of 45 would now not be exempt, but that's not what the current law says.

You know, they say that if weapons are banned for regular individuals, then only criminals will have them. I think in the UK - not that many criminals end up having guns.
Somebody from the UK confirm if I'm right there.
I'm not from the UK, but I can address this question. The UK banned handguns in 1996. Not "You can keep what you've got, but you can't have any more," this was a Brady Campaign wet-dream of "Mr. and Mrs. Briton, hand them all in." The UK has universal registration. They knew everyone who owned a handgun. At least the legal owners. The criminals didn't turn theirs in.

Handgun crime there has since more than doubled. All other violent crime has grown as well. England and Wales (considered a single polity) is now the most violent member of the European Union. Scotland is, I believe, #2. True, the UK homicide rates are low, but they've historically been very low, even before 1920 when there were no gun laws on the books there. While the US homicide rate has been trending down for well over a decade, the UK's homicide rate has been slowly, constantly creeping up. Now the UK and the US don't collect data exactly the same way, but I did a comparison once using Department of Justice data for the US, Home Office data for the UK, and a Parliamentary report for Scotland and found the following:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

This does not indicate that the UK is getting safer, does it? About when do you think those plots are going to cross 1:1 - homicide rate parity? The fact of the matter is that since "carrying an offensive weapon" was made illegal in the mid 1950's, the UK has been steadily getting more violent. They didn't used to kill each other much, but they've been learning.

On the other hand, Americans purchase between 2 and 4 million personal firearms a year (closer to five or six the last year - Obama has been Salesman of the Year for every gun shop in the country), and over the last decade or so between a third and a half of those guns have been handguns - especially the ones that the Violence Policy Center calls "pocket rockets," small, concealable, high-capacity semi-automatic handguns in calibers from .380 to .45ACP that are supposedly especially deadly. If the UN Survey on Small Arms is to be believed, there are now about as many firearms in private hands in this country as there are people - one for every man, woman, and child in the country. (I have enough to arm everyone for several houses around me.)

Yet homicide rates and accidental gunshot rates have continued to decline here. The Supreme Court overturned Washington D.C.'s draconian gun ban two years ago. We were told (as we always are) that there would be more blood in the streets! You see, we were supposed to believe that the D.C. gun ban was responsible for limiting homicides in the city - even though Alexandria, Virginia, which abuts D.C. had a homicide rate about 1/10th that of DC, and allows not only possession in the home, but concealed carry. A report came out just recently that the homicide rate in D.C. has declined dramatically since the ban was lifted - far faster than other cities its size. It is now down to a level not seen since 1967 - BEFORE the handgun ban. (Yes, like the UK, the violent crime and homicide statistics INCREASED in D.C. after handguns were banned.)

I'll close this by quoting (former) Chief Inspector Colin Greenwood of the West Yorkshire Constabulary, an acknowledged authority on gun control in the UK, from his report Evaluating Britain's Handgun Ban (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. n.org.uk%2Freports%2FGreenwoodarticle.pdf&ei=n_DoSeOdFJC6tAOHubjlAQ&usg=AFQjCNFoC_DPCrnwMlGc_PnHfuc4mfKYMw):At first glance, it may seem odd or even perverse to suggest that statutory controls on the private ownership of firearms are irrelevant to the problem of armed crime; yet that is precisely what the evidence shows. Armed crime and violent crime generally are products of ethnic and social factors unrelated to the availability of a particular type of weapon.

The number of firearms required to satisfy the crime market is small, and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted. Controls have had serious effects on legitimate users of firearms, but there is no case, either in the history of this country or in the experience of other countries in which controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals, or in any way reduced crime.

While the number of legal firearms owners in Britain has been declining due to a hostile gun control bureaucracy, crimes involving firearms increased 196% between 1981-1992.

If you can't keep handguns out of the hands of violent criminals on an ISLAND, then you sure won't keep them out of the hands of violent criminals in a city. All you can do is disarm the victim pool. When that happens, predators do what predators do.

[dogwoodlover]

Military-grade weapons for everyone.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." -- Ol' TJ

[Crazyblue]

I'm in favor of permits for everything except automatics. I just don't see the need in the private sector for fully automatic weapons. People need to make explosives to take down tanks and military vehicles, automatic weapons won't do too much good. If there was any real possibility of the US being invaded, then I'd be in favor of automatics, but they don't really make that much of a difference vs. an actual military force.

[hubcap]

I'm in favor of permits for everything except automatics. I just don't see the need in the private sector for fully automatic weapons. People need to make explosives to take down tanks and military vehicles, automatic weapons won't do too much good. If there was any real possibility of the US being invaded, then I'd be in favor of automatics, but they don't really make that much of a difference vs. an actual military force.
What does "need" have to do with whether the government should prevent a citizen from owning something? Why should a person be denied from owning an object as long as they aren't using the object for some malicious purpose?

[KHBaker]

I'm in favor of permits for everything except automatics. I just don't see the need in the private sector for fully automatic weapons. People need to make explosives to take down tanks and military vehicles, automatic weapons won't do too much good. If there was any real possibility of the US being invaded, then I'd be in favor of automatics, but they don't really make that much of a difference vs. an actual military force.

Are you in favor of permits for every home printing and copying device except high-speed copiers? After all, people need volume if they're going to spread handbills across their neighborhoods, villages and towns, and those 3-in-1 scanner/printer/copiers just won't do much good, so those should be OK - with a permit.

What other enumerated rights of the individual are you in favor of requiring permits for? Just asking.

[INTJRyan]

Why should a person be denied from owning an object as long as they aren't using the object for some malicious purpose?

You should ask that question to the 700,000 Americans arrested every year for "possessing" cannabis.

[Crazyblue]

I would prefer not getting shot at by automatics. I understand that having permits will not stop one from obtaining a weapon illegally, but I would prefer that there be less of them in circulation. Realistically, I don't see too much of a difference in terms of self defense with a semi-automatic and an automatic. Automatic weapon-fire is not precise and would seem to cause more collateral damage than other types of weapons.

Right to bear arms is outdated, you need to make IEDs to really stop a military if that's what you're worried about. Automatics don't seem to solve anything by themselves. The reason for having a permit is so that it's legally registered so that we can account for weapons in circulation. Don't need to get so paranoid about it.

KHB- Copiers are nothing like firearms. I don't really interpret the 'right to bear arms' as being able to own any weapon I can build/get my hands on. You do apparently and I don't really care to argue with you over the interpretation.

[freeeekyyy]

You should ask that question to the 700,000 Americans arrested every year for "possessing" cannabis.

I think a person can hold the view that both cannabis and automatic firearms should be legal for purchase. Creating a straw man by shifting the argument isn't the way to go.

[KHBaker]

I would prefer not getting shot at by automatics. I understand that having permits will not stop one from obtaining a weapon illegally, but I would prefer that there be less of them in circulation. Realistically, I don't see too much of a difference in terms of self defense with a semi-automatic and an automatic. Automatic weapon-fire is not precise and would seem to cause more collateral damage than other types of weapons.
I would prefer not getting shot at by anything. Now, as to fully-automatic weapons, how many do you think there are "in circulation"? This is not a rhetorical question - I'm really asking.

Right to bear arms is outdated, you need to make IEDs to really stop a military if that's what you're worried about. Automatics don't seem to solve anything by themselves. The reason for having a permit is so that it's legally registered so that we can account for weapons in circulation. Don't need to get so paranoid about it.
If you truly believe this, then there is the amendment process as described under Article 5. Have at it. Unless and until then, the right to arms (which I acknowledge is ill-defined) remains a protected, enumerated right in this country.

KHB- Copiers are nothing like firearms. I don't really interpret the 'right to bear arms' as being able to own any weapon I can build/get my hands on. You do apparently and I don't really care to argue with you over the interpretation.
That wasn't the subject. (And, for the record, you'd be wrong in your assumption.) The subject was what other rights are you willing to require permits to exercise? I used freedom of speech or the press as my example.

Let me put it another way, quoting Alan Dershowitz (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):
Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.
Or let me quote 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judge Andrew Kleinfeld from his eloquent dissent in Silveira v. Lockyer where an en banc re-hearing of the case was denied based on the 9th Circuit's precedent-setting 1996 Hickman v. Block decision that the right to arms was collective and not individual in nature:
About twenty percent of the American population, those who live in the Ninth Circuit, have lost one of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. And, the methodology used to take away the right threatens the rest of the Constitution. The most extraordinary step taken by the panel opinion is to read the frequently used Constitutional phrase, "the people," as conferring rights only upon collectives, not individuals. There is no logical boundary to this misreading, so it threatens all the rights the Constitution guarantees to "the people," including those having nothing to do with guns. I cannot imagine the judges on the panel similarly repealing the Fourth Amendment's protection of the right of "the people" to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, or the right of "the people" to freedom of assembly, but times and personnel change, so that this right and all the other rights of "the people" are jeopardized by planting this weed in our Constitutional garden.
(BTW, the 9th Circuit did indeed recently "repeal the Fourth Amendment's protection of the right of 'the people' to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures" with their decision of U.S. v. Lemus (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), but they didn't do so on the - now overturned - basis that the right is a collective one only. They found a DIFFERENT way to accomplish it.)

[astrolite]

My handgun went missing last night and it came home with blood all over itself. You gotta keep an eye on those things! They are dangerous and you never know when they will get blood hungry and disobey the owner!

The issue is NOT gun ownership, the issue is people - in most cases it comes down to three things:

1. Bad relationships boiling over
2. Socioeconomic (poverty, not having access to a good education)
3. Mental illness

I mean... what sets apart all of the responsible gun owners from people who use them to commit crime? If you can fix that issue, then gun ownership wouldn't be an issue - heck, people might not even want to carry the heavy things around with them. Of course, in typical fashion, people try the band-aid fix instead of actually tackling the real issue.

[INTJRyan]

I think a person can hold the view that both cannabis and automatic firearms should be legal for purchase. Creating a straw man by shifting the argument isn't the way to go.

Uhm...thanks. I actually hold that viewpoint myself. You should re-read the post I quoted.

[Pachystima]

The issue is NOT gun ownership, the issue is people - in most cases it comes down to three things:

1. Bad relationships boiling over
2. Socioeconomic (poverty, not having access to a good education)
3. Mental illness


Actually, I think that the statistics would show that alcohol figures more consistently in shootings than any of the above. Of course alcohol exacerbates the three issues you listed but I suspect that in the absence of alcohol, there would be far fewer shootings than there are at present. In other words: "Guns don't kill people; booze kills people (via guns)."

[KHBaker]

Actually, I think that the statistics would show that alcohol figures more consistently in shootings than any of the above. Of course alcohol exacerbates the three issues you listed but I suspect that in the absence of alcohol, there would be far fewer shootings than there are at present. In other words: "Guns don't kill people; booze kills people (via guns)."
Would you be surprised to learn that the majority of deaths by firearm are suicides?

[shanex97]

A culture promoting violence is the real cause of violent crime,however controlling the media is also a violation of the constitution.This presents a real problem to lawmakers who probably realize gun control is not the best way to go,but feel it is the only practical way to make it look like they are doing something about the problem (appearances are all most politicians really care about anyway).

[Crazyblue]

I would prefer not getting shot at by anything. Now, as to fully-automatic weapons, how many do you think there are "in circulation"? This is not a rhetorical question - I'm really asking.

That number cannot be determined since modifications can be made to semi-automatics in order to make them fully automatic. I don't really care to fabricate a number.


If you truly believe this, then there is the amendment process as described under Article 5. Have at it. Unless and until then, the right to arms (which I acknowledge is ill-defined) remains a protected, enumerated right in this country.

Given the technology was not around at the time, I don't find it surprising that the constitution is lacking in this regard. I'm fine with them going through the process of amending it to be more specific. I interpreted the original intent of the right to bear arms is so that the public can form a militia, which back in that time frame could still be effective vs a military. I'm not the kind of person who says 'ain't no rule' and does something, I try to follow the intent of it. While they shouldn't persecute someone because of the specific lapse, actions should be taken to correct it to avoid loopholes.

That wasn't the subject. (And, for the record, you'd be wrong in your assumption.) The subject was what other rights are you willing to require permits to exercise? I used freedom of speech or the press as my example.

Alright, I misinterpreted the point from your bold text. You're right, we don't have permits on other rights, we do have licenses for privileges, but not on those rights. However, when freedom of speech is a danger to the public along with assembly, deadly force is authorized to bring a riot to a halt. Carrying a weapon around carries a similar danger for harm to other individuals and I find it prudent to be more selective in people we allow to carry weapons around. None of the other rights carry the same amount of deadly force as a weapon does, and it should be more selective.

[hubcap]

Carrying a weapon around carries a similar danger for harm to other individuals and I find it prudent to be more selective in people we allow to carry weapons around. None of the other rights carry the same amount of deadly force as a weapon does, and it should be more selective.
Rights are RIGHTS...........not privileges. I'm not sure you have a proper appreciation for the difference.

[Crazyblue]

You can be shot for inciting a crowd to riot if it is judged to be a threat to public safety and order. Carrying a weapon has similar if different dangers. This is just a safeguard for when someone chooses to take their weapons into a public area. I don't find it unreasonable (and I explained why). Please explain why it is unreasonable.

Rights may not be the same as privileges, but that doesn't mean that it's a carte blanche. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not covered under freedom of speech.

[hubcap]

You can be shot for inciting a crowd to riot if it is judged to be a threat to public safety and order. Carrying a weapon has similar if different dangers. This is just a safeguard for when someone chooses to take their weapons into a public area. I don't find it unreasonable (and I explained why). Please explain why it is unreasonable.

Rights may not be the same as privileges, but that doesn't mean that it's a carte blanche. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not covered under freedom of speech.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not permitted, but we don't insist on putting gags on people before they enter the theater, nor do we prohibit some people from entering the theater because we think they might yell fire.

No person should have their right denied or limited until they abuse it.

[zibber]

Just for the record: the stance that gun possession is every individual's right is a liberal stance.

I don't know what exactly took place in the US for that term to become interpreted as "leftist", but I see it used in this way here and there (ie "damn these liberals restricting individual liberties"), but it is surely a semantic distortion.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not permitted, but we don't insist on putting gags on people before they enter the theater, nor do we prohibit some people from entering the theater because we think they might yell fire.

No person should have their right denied or limited until they abuse it.

Let's call a carrot a carrot: why exactly are you arguing for freedom of arms so adamantly? Concretely: why do you feel the need to own arms?

[Onigumo13]

Handguns should be allowed , only for protection and defense against , people which try to hurt you . Or for protection of your home and family members .

But we must not forget the first ,and the main rule of the handgun .

" Guns don't kill people , people kill people " :)

[Crazyblue]

I don't know what's not clear from my post hub, but I think I explained why I think it's a reasonable precaution. Speech is not intrinsically dangerous in general, but carrying a weapon enters deadly force into any situation you are in. Making sure someone is responsible before they enter a public area with one is something that strikes me as prudent.

You have yet to explain WHY people should have unrestricted access to weapons and carrying them around.

Edit: I just re-read my last three posts. I'm saying the same thing, and it couldn't be more simple. I'm going to refrain from posting the same statement over and over again, but I'll just quote them if I keep getting asked why there should be caveats to gun ownership. The point still stands until I can get some sort of explanation for why people need to carry around automatic weapons and why it is such a burden to have a permit to carry around firearms in public.

[Zsych]

It occurs to me, that if you wanted to be able to have a defense against the government, you'd need to be able to have advanced weapons, bombs, armor-piercing weaponry, preferably some gas based weapons, an information and communication network, secret stashes, etc... all for having a semi-legitimate chance at personal defense against an evil government :P

... Of course, that still wouldn't be worth much.

[hubcap]

Just for the record: the stance that gun possession is every individual's right is a liberal stance.
I don't know what exactly took place in the US for that term to become interpreted as "leftist", but I see it used in this way here and there (ie "damn these liberals restricting individual liberties"), but it is surely a semantic distortion.
As the idea of personal liberty was developing and maturing during the period of the "Enlightenment" and later men such as Hobbes and Locke were referred to as "liberal" and their views were referred to as "liberalism". However, their views are now referred to as "classic liberalism". Now the term "liberal" actually refers to "neo-liberal". Neo-liberals do not typically support gun ownership.
Let's call a carrot a carrot: why exactly are you arguing for freedom of arms so adamantly? Concretely: why do you feel the need to own arms?
I am arguing for freedom. The freedom to own arms is simply one facet of freedom as a whole. However, when any freedom is restricted or taken, all other freedoms are ultimately in peril. It doesn't matter to me whether it is guns, peanut butter, or gay marriage. If someone wants to carry a gun, a jar of peanut butter or get married to someone of the same sex; why should I care as long as they aren't bothering me?

---------- Post added 03-06-2010 at 12:58 PM ----------

I don't know what's not clear from my post hub, but I think I explained why I think it's a reasonable precaution. Speech is not intrinsically dangerous in general, but carrying a weapon enters deadly force into any situation you are in. Making sure someone is responsible before they enter a public area with one is something that strikes me as prudent.

You have yet to explain WHY people should have unrestricted access to weapons and carrying them around.
People should have no restrictions on their liberty until they demonstrate they cannot be trusted to respect the rights of others. Your position implies you do not trust individuals with their liberty. There are tens of millions of gun owners in the United States yet there are less than 13,000 murders per year committed with guns. You are suggesting that we limit the freedom of those tens of millions of people because of the actions of the tiniest minority. That approach is the same as forbidding everyone to chew gum simply because some moron stuck gum to the bottom of his desk.
Edit: I just re-read my last three posts. I'm saying the same thing, and it couldn't be more simple. I'm going to refrain from posting the same statement over and over again, but I'll just quote them if I keep getting asked why there should be caveats to gun ownership. The point still stands until I can get some sort of explanation for why people need to carry around automatic weapons and why it is such a burden to have a permit to carry around firearms in public.
I have been attempting to point out the fallacy in your argument. You want to restrict or limit liberty simply because someone "may" do something wrong. It is no different than putting a chastity belt on every woman because a few of them "may" choose to become hookers.

[KHBaker]

Just for the record: the stance that gun possession is every individual's right is a liberal stance.

I don't know what exactly took place in the US for that term to become interpreted as "leftist", but I see it used in this way here and there (ie "damn these liberals restricting individual liberties"), but it is surely a semantic distortion.
Well, you're going to have to once again indulge my predilection to quote other people who make my point more eloquently than I can, but I'll address this question.

First, from F.A. Hayek in the preface to the 1956 edition of The Road to Serfdom:
The fact that this book was originally written with only the British public in mind does not appear to have seriously affected its intelligibility for the American reader. But there is one point of phraseology which I ought to explain here to forestall any misunderstanding. I use throughout the term "liberal" in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that "liberal" has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable term, but should have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium. This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservatives.
Next up, Milton Friedman, from his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom:
It is extremely convenient to have a label for the political and economic viewpoint elaborated in this book. The rightful and proper label is liberalism. Unfortunately, "As a surprise, if unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label" (Joseph Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis New York: Oxford University Press, 1954, p. 394), so that liberalism has, in the United States, come to have a very different meaning than it did in the nineteenth century, or does today over much of Continental Europe.

As it developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the intellectual movement that went under the name of liberalism emphasized freedom as the ultimate goal and the individual as the ultimate entity in the society. It supported laissez faire at home as a means of reducing the role of the state in economic affairs and thereby enlarging the role of the individual; it supported free trade abroad as a means of linking the nations of the world together peacefully and democratically. In political matters, it supported the development of representative government and of parliamentary institutions, reduction in the arbitrary power of the state, and protection of the civil freedoms of individuals.

Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after 1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be associated with a very different emphasis, particularly in economic policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom. The nineteenth-century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth-century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisites of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of welfare and equality, the twentieth-century liberal has come to favor a revival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism against which the classical liberal fought. In the very act of turning the clock back to seventeenth-century mercantilism, he is fond of castigating true liberals as reactionary!

The change in the meaning attached to the term liberalism is more striking in economic matters than in political. The twentieth-century liberal, like the nineteenth-century liberal, favors parliamentary institutions, representative government, civil rights, and so on. Yet even in political matters, there is a notable difference. Jealous of liberty, and hence fearful of centralized power, whether in governmental or private hands, the nineteenth-century liberal favored political decentralization. Committed to action and confident of the beneficence of power so long as it is in the hands of a government ostensibly controlled by the electorate, the twentieth-century liberal favors centralized government. He will resolve any doubt about where power should be located in favor of the state instead of the city, of the federal government instead of the state, and of a world organization instead of a national government.

Because of the corruption of the term liberalism, the views that formerly went under that name are often labeled conservatism. But this is not a satisfactory alternative. The nineteenth-century liberal was a radical, both in the etymological sense of going to the root of the matter, and in the political sense of favoring major changes in social institutions. So too must be his modern heir. We do not wish to conserve the state interventions that have interfered so greatly with our freedom, though, of course, we do wish to conserve those that have promoted it. Moreover, in practice, the term conservatism has come to cover so wide a range of views, and views so incompatible with one another, that we shall no doubt see the growth of hyphenated designations, such as libertarian-conservative and aristocratic-conservative.
The term "liberal" here has now devolved to mean, essentially "socialist." So now they're trying to switch to "Progressive."

[Aronnax]

The term "liberal" here has now devolved to mean, essentially "socialist." So now they're trying to switch to "Progressive."

"Progressive" is related to the cultural backlash due to the behavior of privately held entities in collusion with government during the gilded age. The outlook is not a new phenomenon and the typing of it, associated with what you're calling "liberal" is not a simple re-branding.

[KHBaker]

"Progressive" is related to the cultural backlash due to the behavior of privately held entities in collusion with government during the gilded age. The outlook is not a new phenomenon and the typing of it, associated with what you're calling "liberal" is not a simple re-branding.
The "Progressives" of the gilded age already had much in common with the socialists of that time. The co-opting of the term "liberal" springs from those who had already corrupted the term "Progressive" and needed a different cover. Now they're just moving back.

Which is completely off the topic of this thread.

[Aronnax]

The "Progressives" of the gilded age already had much in common with the socialists of that time. The co-opting of the term "liberal" springs from those who had already corrupted the term "Progressive" and needed a different cover. Now they're just moving back.

Which is completely off the topic of this thread.

Saying progressives have much in common with socialists is like saying anarchists have much in common with laissez-faire capitalists; similarities don't make agendas identical. There's no conspiracy to "hide" agendas under different names.

On topic:

We live at population densities and levels of individual power much greater than people from the 18th century could have foreseen. These changes create additional considerations because it's much easier for one person exercising their freedom to affect another's well being. Their ability to "bother" you is much higher with a gun than a contract or a jar of peanut butter so it deserves additional considerations. Establishing a permit system that allows citizens to carry a weapon in public in an urban area is not an onerous burden. It allows law abiding citizens to carry a weapon while giving police officers the ability to arrest people who shouldn't be armed before (instead of after) using a weapon in a malicious manner.

TL; DR: We're not 18th century farmers, laws and social norms change with time and technology.

[KHBaker]

We live at population densities and levels of individual power much greater than people from the 18th century could have foreseen. These changes create additional considerations because it's much easier for one person exercising their freedom to affect another's well being. Their ability to "bother" you is much higher with a gun than a contract or a jar of peanut butter so it deserves additional considerations. Establishing a permit system that allows citizens to carry a weapon in public in an urban area is not an onerous burden. It allows law abiding citizens to carry a weapon while giving police officers the ability to arrest people who shouldn't be armed before (instead of after) using a weapon in a malicious manner.

TL; DR: We're not 18th century farmers, laws and social norms change with time and technology.Would you be surprised to learn that as far back as the period immediately following the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that carrying a weapon - concealed - was in many places not considered a right? (OPEN, yes. CONCEALED, no.)

I don't really have that much of a problem with a concealed-carry permit system so long as that system is "shall-issue," as most of the states today are. There is sufficient legal precedent that I think it is justifiable. I object, however, to firearm bans.

While "laws and social norms change with time and technology" the purpose of a written constitution is to set limits on what government can and cannot do, regardless of those changes. If you want to change those limits, there is (again) an amendment process - made intentionally difficult - for implementing those changes.

[Aronnax]

Clearly we need to hold a constitutional convention to decide that rocket launchers, antitank mines and thermonuclear weapons aren't included in the second amendment. :rolleyes:

There are reasonable exceptions we can make without going through the amendment process. There's a supreme court to contest these things in if you feel a law is an unacceptable breech of the constitution. Quite frankly we're a lot better off with congress making laws that edge around constitutional rights rather than making constant amendments. You can contest a law that pushes up against constitutional protections, it's a lot messier to contest an actual amendment. Furthermore the last thing you want to do is normalize the amendment process.

[KHBaker]

There are reasonable exceptions we can make without going through the amendment process. There's a supreme court to contest these things in if you feel a law is an unacceptable breech of the constitution. Quite frankly we're a lot better off with congress making laws that edge around constitutional rights rather than making constant amendments. You can contest a law that pushes up against constitutional protections, it's a lot messier to contest an actual amendment. Furthermore the last thing you want to do is normalize the amendment process.
Absolutely. The problem is, congress seems to have no problem making laws that go right over the edge, and the Appeals Courts and Supreme Court seem to have little interest in overturning them. To wit, Alan Gura's smackdown of Justice Sotomayor in last week's McDonald v. Chicago oral arguments:Sotomayor: What -- in which ways has ordered liberty been badly affected?

Gura: Justice Sotomayor, States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional.

Can you review the Kelo v. New London decision and honestly tell me that what New London, Connecticut did was Constitutional under the Fifth Amendment's "Takings" clause? Five Justices said it was. Clarence Thomas understood that it was not:
If such “economic development” takings are for a “public use,” any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O’Connor powerfully argues in dissent. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court’s error runs deeper than this. Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In my view, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government’s eminent domain power.
Justice O'Connor wrote the majority opinion in the precedent-setting case that made the Kelo decision possible, and even SHE argued against the majority in Kelo.

We WOULD be better off, if human beings weren't human beings and we could trust them only to go so far and no farther. But then if we could do that, we wouldn't need governments at all.

Or guns.

[hubcap]

We live at population densities and levels of individual power much greater than people from the 18th century could have foreseen. These changes create additional considerations because it's much easier for one person exercising their freedom to affect another's well being. Their ability to "bother" you is much higher with a gun than a contract or a jar of peanut butter so it deserves additional considerations. Establishing a permit system that allows citizens to carry a weapon in public in an urban area is not an onerous burden. It allows law abiding citizens to carry a weapon while giving police officers the ability to arrest people who shouldn't be armed before (instead of after) using a weapon in a malicious manner.
In practice I have no problem with "shall-issue" concealed carry permits. Here is where I begin to have a huge problem with the entire issue:

Let's call a carrot a carrot: why exactly are you arguing for freedom of arms so adamantly? Concretely: why do you feel the need to own arms?

The point still stands until I can get some sort of explanation for why people need to carry around automatic weapons and why it is such a burden to have a permit to carry around firearms in public.
People forming their opinions on a matter based on what they think other people "need". I've done nicely without these folks deciding what rights I need or don't need. As long as I don't bother anyone why should they care whether I carry a bazooka or a jar of peanut butter? Because I "might" do something? Their fears drive them to want to restrict my rights. Don't be surprised if I resist when others want to trample on my rights.

[Crazyblue]

That doesn't explain anything. You said that my argument had a fallacy, but I'm considering the issue on it's individual merits. Let's look at being able to drive, since it's similar to the weapon situation since there is killing potential of other individuals. The state screens individuals for knowledge and driving abilities and then gives out licenses so that we know that they are qualified to handle the vehicles in a safe manner. Where's the demand for being able to drive without a license? (I'm aware that driving is a privilege, but it's the closest thing I can think of at the moment that compares to carrying a weapon in public. Given that a vehicle's intent is transportation, it doesn't transfer perfectly, but the concept close enough.)

You're asking for something to be granted without consideration that will place more weapons in the public that are less accurate and cause more damage. Normally, you would provide a justification for how it would benefit society. Please provide a situation in your day to day life where having an automatic weapon would aid you, over a handgun? Tell me why you think you NEED one. This isn't a trampling of rights, it's just that some weapons are excessive when there are weapons that provide the same benefits with less damage and are available to carry with a permit.

If the day ever comes where people take up arms against the government, I don't think that they'll be caring much about permits at that point. But until society breaks down, I don't think that there's a high demand to walk around with automatics down the street.

[hubcap]

That doesn't explain anything. You said that my argument had a fallacy, but I'm considering the issue on it's individual merits. Let's look at being able to drive, since it's similar to the weapon situation since there is killing potential of other individuals. The state screens individuals for knowledge and driving abilities and then gives out licenses so that we know that they are qualified to handle the vehicles in a safe manner. Where's the demand for being able to drive without a license? (I'm aware that driving is a privilege, but it's the closest thing I can think of at the moment that compares to carrying a weapon in public. Given that a vehicle's intent is transportation, it doesn't transfer perfectly, but the concept close enough.)

You're asking for something to be granted without consideration that will place more weapons in the public that are less accurate and cause more damage. Normally, you would provide a justification for how it would benefit society. Please provide a situation in your day to day life where having an automatic weapon would aid you, over a handgun? Tell me why you think you NEED one. This isn't a trampling of rights, it's just that some weapons are excessive when there are weapons that provide the same benefits with less damage and are available to carry with a permit.

If the day ever comes where people take up arms against the government, I don't think that they'll be caring much about permits at that point. But until society breaks down, I don't think that there's a high demand to walk around with automatics down the street.
The primary fallacy is in assuming that because you make something illegal that it will stop people from doing it. If I wanted an automatic weapon I could convert a semi-auto to full-auto in a couple of minutes for less than $5. Another fallacy is that you're assuming that violence is being reduced by the regulation. You cannot demonstrate that you're correct. In fact all the statistics show that the areas with the most strict regulations actually have a higher incidence of crime than areas with more lenient regulations.

In the U.S. full-auto (FA) weapons are already regulated to the point that for all practical purposes it would be impossible for the average person to buy one. The problem lies in the fact that no more fully automatic weapons can be made available to civilians. This creates a fixed supply that cannot be increased, hence the price of FA weapons is typically over $10,000.

The Oklahoma City bombing occurred on April 19, 1995 when American militia movement sympathizer Timothy McVeigh, with the assistance of Terry Nichols, destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City. It was the most significant act of terrorism on American soil until the September 11 attacks in 2001, claiming the lives of 168 victims and injuring more than 680. The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen–block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings. The bomb was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of damage.
McVeigh did this with a truckload of fertilizer............and you're worried about somebody getting a FA weapon?


FA weapons are no more deadly than semi-auto weapons, so why the excessive and onerus regulations?

[astrolite]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Before that was was signed we had around 1.2:100,000 homocide rate. This increased year after year since.

So when every "able bodied" man was supposed to own a gun, the homocide rate was the lowest in over a century.

Just something to think about...

[Zsych]

Well having guns would increase accidents, and probably increase crimes of passion resulting in the use of a gun. On the other side, it might work as a deterrence to people who want to hurt you and aren't as ruled by emotions (like robbers). Assuming that a situation of conflict arises though (like someone being in your house with a gun) - the availability of weapons on both sides probably increases the chance that they will be used and someone will be hurt or killed... although a high occurrence of such things with the attacker getting hurt or killed would probably also work as deterrence once such information is in the news.

[KHBaker]

The primary fallacy is in assuming that because you make something illegal that it will stop people from doing it. If I wanted an automatic weapon I could convert a semi-auto to full-auto in a couple of minutes for less than $5.
Unless you're speaking of the BATFE "Full-auto shoelace" (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. versed_itself/) I'd like to see that. Conversion to full-auto - without turning your semi-auto into a time-bomb - is actually much more difficult than most people think. Of course, a malfunctioning semi-auto can be legally defined as a machine-gun (ask David Olofson who is sitting in prison right now), but I wouldn't trust my life to one.

Another fallacy is that you're assuming that violence is being reduced by the regulation. You cannot demonstrate that you're correct. In fact all the statistics show that the areas with the most strict regulations actually have a higher incidence of crime than areas with more lenient regulations.
THIS is absolutely correct. To date, there have been two meta-studies of gun control in this country and one in the UK that have not been able to show that ANY gun control measures have had ANY positive effect in reducing gun crime or any violent crime. The last one done here by the National Academies of Science determined that the only statistically significant effect they could find was that the Brady Background Check might have altered the way older men commit suicide. It didn't change the rate, only the method.

In the U.S. full-auto (FA) weapons are already regulated to the point that for all practical purposes it would be impossible for the average person to buy one. The problem lies in the fact that no more fully automatic weapons can be made available to civilians. This creates a fixed supply that cannot be increased, hence the price of FA weapons is typically over $10,000.
Actually, I happen to know some fairly ordinary people who own one or two, but yes, FA weapons are ridiculously expensive. And they're equally expensive to FEED.

McVeigh did this with a truckload of fertilizer............and you're worried about somebody getting a FA weapon?xkcd had a great cartoon up a few days ago about this kind of thinking:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

FA weapons are no more deadly than semi-auto weapons, so why the excessive and onerus regulations?Arguably, they're LESS deadly. Take, for example, the North Hollywood bank robbery of 1997. (Which for some reason MSNBC likes to replay about twice a month. Still.) Two guys wearing body armor and carrying (illegal) fully-automatic weapons fought it out with the LAPD for 44 minutes, firing upwards of 1,100 rounds. Reports vary, but the worst one I've seen says that seven civilians and nine police officers were hit. Only two of the wounded were considered "serious," and none were "life threatening." Five were "treated and released."

In an earlier post "crazyblue" said "I would prefer not getting shot at by automatics." I relplied that I'd rather not be shot at with anything, but if I had to, I'd prefer it be some nimrod with a full-auto M16 shooting armor-piercing ammo than a guy with a hunting rifle, soft-point ammunition, and the skill to use them, like Charles Whitman (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

---------- Post added 03-07-2010 at 08:07 AM ----------

Well having guns would increase accidents, and probably increase crimes of passion resulting in the use of a gun.
You'd think that, wouldn't you? But no. For as long as we've been keeping records, both the absolute number and the rate per 100,000 population of accidental gunshot has been trending down, even as the total number of firearms in private hands goes UP. It's counter-intuitive, but those are the facts. Check the CDC's WISQARS pages (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) if you don't believe me.

As to "increasing crimes of passion" with increased gun ownership, again the data does not support that. Check these Bureau of Justice Statistics pages: Non-fatal firearm related violent victimization (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and Homicide Rate, 1900-2006 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Bear in mind that each year over 4,000,000 new guns enter circulation, and since Florida passed "shall-issue" concealed carry in 1987, the number of states with such laws has increased from 8 to 37. There are a LOT of new gun owners out there, yet both accidental death and gunshot and deliberate death and gunshot have declined since 1993. There is no statistical correlation between "the number of guns" and firearm-involved violent crime.

[Aronnax]

Arguably, they're LESS deadly. Take, for example, the North Hollywood bank robbery of 1997. (Which for some reason MSNBC likes to replay about twice a month. Still.) Two guys wearing body armor and carrying (illegal) fully-automatic weapons fought it out with the LAPD for 44 minutes, firing upwards of 1,100 rounds. Reports vary, but the worst one I've seen says that seven civilians and nine police officers were hit. Only two of the wounded were considered "serious," and none were "life threatening." Five were "treated and released."

In an earlier post "crazyblue" said "I would prefer not getting shot at by automatics." I relplied that I'd rather not be shot at with anything, but if I had to, I'd prefer it be some nimrod with a full-auto M16 shooting armor-piercing ammo than a guy with a hunting rifle, soft-point ammunition, and the skill to use them, like Charles Whitman (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

.

A guy armed with high powered rifles in a perfect birds nest is a very different situation than a short range firefight on surface streets. Without the benefit of high volume suppressive fire the north Hollywood bank robbery would have ended much faster.

Automatic weapons are more deadly than semiautomatic weapons. Nothing other than a lack of fire discipline prevents the operator from firing aimed bursts rather than spraying and praying. The full auto advantage is its ability to generate supressive fire at a volume a semiauto cannot match if and when the operator desires it. There's also an increased public threat which is directly related to the inaccuracy of weapons fired in full auto. AK-47s and Mac-10s are "better" at generating casualties in innocent bystanders than semiauto, pump or bolt action weapons. Someone unable to to stay on target doesn't mean overall public risk is reduced, only the risk posed to their target.

Stick to the liberty based arguments, it's far more reasonable than anything based on safety.

[KHBaker]

Without the benefit of high volume suppressive fire the north Hollywood bank robbery would have ended much faster.

--

Stick to the liberty based arguments, it's far more reasonable than anything based on safety.

The North Hollywood bank robbers could have laid down equally effective suppressive fire with semi-automatic weapons.

You have personal experience in firing full-auto weapons?

[Aronnax]

The North Hollywood bank robbers could have laid down equally effective suppressive fire with semi-automatic weapons.

You should write the Pentagon, apparently we should replace squad automatic weapons with squad semiautomatic weapons because semiauto can generate equally effective suppressive fire.


You have personal experience in firing full-auto weapons?

I do but I don't see how that's relevant to the conversation.

[KHBaker]

You should write the Pentagon, apparently we should replace squad automatic weapons with squad semiautomatic weapons because semiauto can generate equally effective suppressive fire.
Ah! Humor! :)

Were either of the North Hollywood robbers toting a crew-served belt-fed?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
M249 Squad Automatic Weapon

I do but I don't see how that's relevant to the conversation.
Can YOU keep a burst on target at more than very short range with an AK, M16 or similar shoulder-fired weapon? (Heavy crew-served belt-feds are a different kettle of fish.) That's why it's relevant.

When the M-14 rifle came out, it was a select-fire weapon. It became quickly apparent that it was useless in full-auto. The M16 and M16A1 were also select fire. Now the M4 Carbine fires - at most - a three-round burst - and that's with the poodle-shooter 5.56NATO round.

You're right - full auto works wonders as an area suppression weapon, from a heavy, bipod or tripod-mounted belt-fed weapon that can soak up the recoil. But it doesn't work too well (except at very close ranges) for modern combat.

Had the North Hollywood robbers intended to murder everyone in the bank, then their machine-guns would have been devastating. Out on the street, fired pretty much from the hip, they managed an astonishing <2% hit rate. True, they kept the cops' heads down, but unaimed semi-auto fire would have, too.

The firefight took so long because 9mm, .38 Special, and 00 buckshot could not penetrate their body armor.

And - again - this strays WAY off the original topic.

[Lucid]

And - again - this strays WAY off the original topic.

Discussion of guns in a thread about gun rights/liberties is not off topic.

[hubcap]

Unless you're speaking of the BATFE "Full-auto shoelace" (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. versed_itself/) I'd like to see that. Conversion to full-auto - without turning your semi-auto into a time-bomb - is actually much more difficult than most people think. Of course, a malfunctioning semi-auto can be legally defined as a machine-gun (ask David Olofson who is sitting in prison right now), but I wouldn't trust my life to one.
I was referring to a lightening link or a drop-in autosear. They can be installed in a matter of minutes into an AR-15. Of course they're entirely illegal to own unless you have one that is registered. Last time I looked an unlicensed one would get you 10 years in Club Fed.

[AnnoyingPony]

I'm in favor of increased gun liberties. Second Amendment. 'Nuff said.

[KHBaker]

I was referring to a lightening link or a drop-in autosear. They can be installed in a matter of minutes into an AR-15. Of course they're entirely illegal to own unless you have one that is registered. Last time I looked an unlicensed one would get you 10 years in Club Fed.
As I understand it, discussing the conversion of a semi-auto rifle to full-auto without the proper paperwork is supposedly against the law (so much for free speech rights) but installing said device into an AR-15 with anything other than a very specific Colt-manufactured bolt carrier is an invitation to an out-of-battery condition - otherwise known as a "kaboom."

This condition leaves your AR-15 looking something like*:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'll leave it to you to imagine what the shooter's face looked like.

(*This particular kaboom was not due to a Lightning Link, but the effects are similar.)

Thank you, but no.

Converting semi-auto weapons to full auto is really not that easy. The manufacturers are constrained to make it so.

[hubcap]

As I understand it, discussing the conversion of a semi-auto rifle to full-auto without the proper paperwork is supposedly against the law (so much for free speech rights) but installing said device into an AR-15 with anything other than a very specific Colt-manufactured bolt carrier is an invitation to an out-of-battery condition - otherwise known as a "kaboom."

This condition leaves your AR-15 looking something like*:
Only if you use the incorrect carrier.

Converting semi-auto weapons to full auto is really not that easy. The manufacturers are constrained to make it so.
Actually it is that easy. IF you know what you're doing. If you don't know what you're doing then you shouldn't be doing it.

I am not advocating that anyone convert their semi-auto into full-auto. I am simply pointing out that it isn't difficult.

[Zombicide]

Everyone should be allowed to carry firearms wherever they can and want. The state is the least qualified to be telling people who's not allowed to protect their families or whatever the fuck it is people want to do with guns. Oh that's right, I forgot, people with guns may pose a threat, they may even use the guns they're permitted (as if it's stops criminals who aren't permitted since they're criminals) in order to steal from / tax people so as to fund evil such as unjustified wars or so as to force the populace to obey arbitrary rules and micromanage their lives at the threat of violence. Hmm, I wonder if there's an entity that already has a monopoly on using guns to do that ... naw.

So yea, I'm absolutely pro gun liberty.

[KHBaker]

Only if you use the incorrect carrier.
Only NOT unless you use the very specific and relatively rare CORRECT carrier.

Actually it is that easy. IF you know what you're doing. If you don't know what you're doing then you shouldn't be doing it.

I am not advocating that anyone convert their semi-auto into full-auto. I am simply pointing out that it isn't difficult.
Um, you just made a blanket statement about an entire class of firearms based on ONE VERY SPECIFIC firearm. Actually, one tiny subset of one, very specific firearm model.

Are you willing to make the same claim about FN-FAL rifles? M1As? Ruger Mini-14s? The various and sundry AK series rifles? Etc., etc., etc.?

I disagree. It is "that easy" if you have a Lightning Link and an AR-15 with the proper bolt carrier. That's one. It is NOT "that easy" for other semi-auto firearms, else the BATFE would not allow their sale.

[sMoKeY]

In my opinion if a country has a large idiot population, guns should not be allowed.

[Crazyblue]

The primary fallacy is in assuming that because you make something illegal that it will stop people from doing it. If I wanted an automatic weapon I could convert a semi-auto to full-auto in a couple of minutes for less than $5. Another fallacy is that you're assuming that violence is being reduced by the regulation. You cannot demonstrate that you're correct. In fact all the statistics show that the areas with the most strict regulations actually have a higher incidence of crime than areas with more lenient regulations.

I'm done with you hubcap, you don't have any retention for what you read. Anyone else, please read my previous posts and you will have a rational explanation for my point of view. I have yet to read anything remotely close to convincing from the pro- public automatics side.

[KHBaker]

I have yet to read anything remotely close to convincing from the pro- public automatics side.
How do you feel about semi-automatics?

[hubcap]

I'm done with you hubcap, you don't have any retention for what you read. Anyone else, please read my previous posts and you will have a rational explanation for my point of view. I have yet to read anything remotely close to convincing from the pro- public automatics side.
Here is a simple question -

How many documented crimes have been committed with FA weapons in the last 25 years?
How many documented crimes have been committed with non-FA weapons in the last 25 years?

I retain what I read, but you haven't offered any facts to support your assertion that FA weapons shouldn't be allowed. Just offer some evidence to support your position.

When Florida first passed the law which enabled its citizens to carry concealed handguns, the media was ranting about how the streets were going to be like the shootout at the OK Corral. Of course it didn't happen. The only thing that happened was a 21% reduction in the homicide rate.

---------- Post added 03-11-2010 at 01:02 PM ----------

Um, you just made a blanket statement about an entire class of firearms based on ONE VERY SPECIFIC firearm. Actually, one tiny subset of one, very specific firearm model.

Are you willing to make the same claim about FN-FAL rifles? M1As? Ruger Mini-14s? The various and sundry AK series rifles? Etc., etc., etc.?
Have you ever heard of the shoestring method? That can be used on just about any semi-auto and it only takes a few minutes.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Of course if you do that you have committed a federal crime and will get 10 yrs in the slammer.

---------- Post added 03-11-2010 at 01:08 PM ----------

You're asking for something to be granted without consideration that will place more weapons in the public that are less accurate and cause more damage. Normally, you would provide a justification for how it would benefit society. Please provide a situation in your day to day life where having an automatic weapon would aid you, over a handgun? Tell me why you think you NEED one. This isn't a trampling of rights, it's just that some weapons are excessive when there are weapons that provide the same benefits with less damage and are available to carry with a permit.
Removing the constraints placed on individual liberty is a benefit to society. I shouldn't have to justify the government leaving individuals alone to choose what kind of gun they want.

Need has nothing to do with it.

Do you even know what liberty is?

[KHBaker]

Have you ever heard of the shoestring method? That can be used on just about any semi-auto and it only takes a few minutes.
Yes. I referred to it in post #84 above (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), with a link.

The BATFE has since reversed its ruling that a shoestring is a full-auto weapon. The "10 years in Club Fed" question remains that - a question. One I'd rather not spend a lot of time and money on trying to determine an answer to.

[mormeguil]

Removing the constraints placed on individual liberty is a benefit to society. I shouldn't have to justify the government leaving individuals alone to choose what kind of gun they want.

Actually you would have to proove that removing constraint placed on individual liberty is a benefit to society. A lot of country are more to the left then USA and they some consider that reducing individual liberty is actually a good thing

[hubcap]

Actually you would have to proove that removing constraint placed on individual liberty is a benefit to society. A lot of country are more to the left then USA and they some consider that reducing individual liberty is actually a good thing
The USA is not a lot of countries, it is the USA, and one of the founding principles of the government was to secure liberty for individuals:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to diminish liberty, not those who wish to increase liberty.

[KHBaker]

The USA is not a lot of countries, it is the USA, and one of the founding principles of the government was to secure liberty for individuals:



I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to diminish liberty, not those who wish to increase liberty.
Abso-freaking-lutely. And the function of the Bill of Rights was to tell the government what liberties it could not touch.

Not that that idea has worked out so well in the long run . . .

[Lucid]

The USA is not a lot of countries, it is the USA, and one of the founding principles of the government was to secure liberty for individuals:



I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to diminish liberty, not those who wish to increase liberty.

Not exactly.

So the individual liberty of an individual to beat his wife or child should not be infringed?

Or how about a slightly less inflammatory one (the above was just the first thing that occurred to me): Should my individual liberty to steal your car be infringed?

[Aronnax]

Not exactly.

So the individual liberty of an individual to beat his wife or child should not be infringed?

Or how about a slightly less inflammatory one (the above was just the first thing that occurred to me): Should my individual liberty to steal your car be infringed?

What about my liberty to hang out with 15 of friends and ask for "protection" money. I mean, we're just asking, no harm done, right?

[Lucid]

What about my liberty to hang out with 15 of friends and ask for "protection" money. I mean, we're just asking, no harm done, right?

Yes, I think there are many things which are illegal which don't necessarily infringe on the rights of others and which even the most staunch libertarian would agree should be illegal.

Insider trading, for one example.

Guns have incredible potential to infringe upon the rights of others. Or, if you don't like that phrasing, guns make it incredibly easy for any individual to purposely or accidentally infringe upon the rights of others. The constitutionally guaranteed rights of others, at that.

While I am in favor of the 2nd amendment I think that reasonable regulations need to be employed. Just as libel and slander laws regulate our freedom of speech to prevent it from doing unreasonable harm to innocent individuals, gun laws should do the same.

[freeeekyyy]

Yes, I think there are many things which are illegal which don't necessarily infringe on the rights of others and which even the most staunch libertarian would agree should be illegal.

Insider trading, for one example.

Guns have incredible potential to infringe upon the rights of others. Or, if you don't like that phrasing, guns make it incredibly easy for any individual to purposely or accidentally infringe upon the rights of others. The constitutionally guaranteed rights of others, at that.

While I am in favor of the 2nd amendment I think that reasonable regulations need to be employed. Just as libel and slander laws regulate our freedom of speech to prevent it from doing unreasonable harm to innocent individuals, gun laws should do the same.

There's a difference in possessing an automatic weapon and using an automatic weapon to murder people. Murder is already illegal. Why is it worse when done with an automatic weapon?

[Aronnax]

There's a difference in possessing an automatic weapon and using an automatic weapon to murder people. Murder is already illegal. Why is it worse when done with an automatic weapon?

A significantly higher chance of "collateral" damage, particularly in urban settings.

[KHBaker]

A significantly higher chance of "collateral" damage, particularly in urban settings.
North Hollywood bank robbery? That kind of "collateral" damage?

[Aronnax]

North Hollywood bank robbery? That kind of "collateral" damage?

I was thinking of the far more common drive by shootings.

[hubcap]

Not exactly.

So the individual liberty of an individual to beat his wife or child should not be infringed?
"Beating" another person, whether it be a man woman or child is infringing on their liberty...........hence unacceptable.
Or how about a slightly less inflammatory one (the above was just the first thing that occurred to me): Should my individual liberty to steal your car be infringed?
Stealing my car is infringing on my liberty by illegitimately depriving me of my private property.

On the other hand, if I carry an automatic weapon down mainstreet I am in no way infringing upon anyone's liberty.

---------- Post added 03-11-2010 at 09:21 PM ----------

Yes, I think there are many things which are illegal which don't necessarily infringe on the rights of others and which even the most staunch libertarian would agree should be illegal.

Insider trading, for one example.
Insider trading defrauds people, which violates their liberty.
Guns have incredible potential to infringe upon the rights of others. Or, if you don't like that phrasing, guns make it incredibly easy for any individual to purposely or accidentally infringe upon the rights of others. The constitutionally guaranteed rights of others, at that.
Automobiles have the incredible potential to infringe upon the rights of others........or if you prefer, automobiles make it incredibly easy for any individual to purposely or accidentally infringe upon the rights of others............etc etc.....Yet, people drive cars down mainstreet every day.

---------- Post added 03-11-2010 at 09:24 PM ----------

Yes. I referred to it in post #84 above (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), with a link.
Sorry, I guess I blew by that.
The BATFE has since reversed its ruling that a shoestring is a full-auto weapon. The "10 years in Club Fed" question remains that - a question. One I'd rather not spend a lot of time and money on trying to determine an answer to.
Agreed.

[KHBaker]

I was thinking of the far more common drive by shootings.
OK, what's the difference between a semi-auto magazine dump and a full-auto magazine dump? A few seconds? And this makes a difference in a drive-by . . . how?

The North Hollywood shooters fired upwards of 1,100 rounds over the course of 44 minutes, deliberately targeting police and civilians. They hit what, twenty people in total? Of those only two were considered "seriously wounded." And these weren't sub-machineguns, these were AK-47, H&K 91 and M16 rifles.

My point is that you're illustrating a (quite typical) overreaction that I see all the time in people who don't really understand firearms. "OMG IT'S A MACHINEGUN!" The Violence Policy Center took full advantage of this in the run-up to the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" that wasn't, even admitting - in print - what they were doing in their 1988 white-paper (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):Assault weapons-just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms - are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.
(My emphasis in bold.) So the anti-gun forces out there are more than happy to capitalize on "the public's confusion" and their fear and prejudice. Yet as a result of the 1994 AWB (that wasn't) the AR-15 platform is currently the single most popular long-arm sold in the US today, being manufactured by probably a dozen different makers.

As I illustrated on page two (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)of this thread, all of us are, by law, members of the "unorganized militia." I think of my AR-15 M4gery (clone of the current military issue M4 select-fire carbine without the three-round burst capability) as my "militia rifle." I know that the anti-gun forces have used the public's ignorance and fear once in a nearly successful attempt to deny me that firearm because it looks scary. I was not amused then, nor am I now.

So I'm all for rolling back as many restrictions as I can.

[Vegaman]

Let Georgia go first - we can then study it.

[mormeguil]

The USA is not a lot of countries, it is the USA, and one of the founding principles of the government was to secure liberty for individuals:

Sorry I did not know this thread was reserved for US citizen and only applied to US country.

There is also the need to reconize the opposition that excist between equality and liberty. If a governement want to give more equality to people he will need to reduce liberties and vice versa.

Now, if everyone just want to talk about handguns liberty in the US and forget the rest of the world I guess I can't comment because I don't know enought US history for that and can't comment too much on the real factual basis of liberty over equality.

I would also point out that having handguns everywhere mean that violences is a correct answer to problems wich lead to an overall more violent society.

[Aronnax]

OK, what's the difference between a semi-auto magazine dump and a full-auto magazine dump? A few seconds? And this makes a difference in a drive-by . . . how?

Magazine dumps in a drive by are unusual unless it's a full auto weapon. The "tactics" used are different, an semiauto weapon will be (roughly) aimed while a full auto weapon is used to spray down the sidewalk. Typically the only time someone dumps a semiauto weapon is if they stop the vehicle to fire.



The North Hollywood shooters fired upwards of 1,100 rounds over the course of 44 minutes, deliberately targeting police and civilians. They hit what, twenty people in total? Of those only two were considered "seriously wounded." And these weren't sub-machineguns, these were AK-47, H&K 91 and M16 rifles.

You keep coming back to this example for the sole reason that it's an extremely unusual event and has several unique characteristics that reduced fatalities and increased the volume of fire. The police response, the long duration of the encounter and the level of protection, both in terms of cover and body armor, for both sides of the firefight.

There are dozens of stories where assault weapons were used to cause a significant number of fatalities/injuries, with a single magazine dump in a drive by. Frequently the injuries weren't the actual target: other pedestrians or occupants in a nearby home. The fact that they missed their target because spray and pray is ineffective doesn't make the peripheral injuries and fatalities any less relevant.



My point is that you're illustrating a (quite typical) overreaction that I see all the time in people who don't really understand firearms. "OMG IT'S A MACHINEGUN!" The Violence Policy Center took full advantage of this in the run-up to the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" that wasn't, even admitting - in print - what they were doing in their 1988 white-paper:
(My emphasis in bold.) So the anti-gun forces out there are more than happy to capitalize on "the public's confusion" and their fear and prejudice. Yet as a result of the 1994 AWB (that wasn't) the AR-15 platform is currently the single most popular long-arm sold in the US today, being manufactured by probably a dozen different makers.

As I illustrated on page two of this thread, all of us are, by law, members of the "unorganized militia." I think of my AR-15 M4gery (clone of the current military issue M4 select-fire carbine without the three-round burst capability) as my "militia rifle." I know that the anti-gun forces have used the public's ignorance and fear once in a nearly successful attempt to deny me that firearm because it looks scary. I was not amused then, nor am I now.

So I'm all for rolling back as many restrictions as I can.


It's not an overreaction, it's calm analysis: by heavily restricting assault weapons (semi or full auto w/external magazine) you diminish the available supply and market forces drive the price up. When the price for a weapon is higher it's less likely to be used in a crime; we both know why garbage .25 pistols are so common.

Personally I'd prefer a Pigovian tax on all "assault weapons" since outright bans are typically ineffective and have high enforcement costs. You can achieve the same results, increased scarcity resulting in higher prices, while leaving channels available for law abiding citizens and generate additional law enforcement revenue.

[Angel1]

Sorry I did not know this thread was reserved for US citizen and only applied to US country.

There is also the need to reconize the opposition that excist between equality and liberty. If a governement want to give more equality to people he will need to reduce liberties and vice versa.

Now, if everyone just want to talk about handguns liberty in the US and forget the rest of the world I guess I can't comment because I don't know enought US history for that and can't comment too much on the real factual basis of liberty over equality.

I would also point out that having handguns everywhere mean that violences is a correct answer to problems wich lead to an overall more violent society.
This thread isn't reserved for US Citizens/the US. However, that does seem to be constant theme throughout the thread.

As so handguns everywhere means violence is a correct answer and thus would cause more violence: that just hasn't proven to be true. More gun restrictions have generally been correlated with increased crime. If owning guns is criminal, then only criminals will own guns.

A criminal is less likely to rob a bank if he knows that half the people in the bank are most likely trained and armed. Criminals are not stupid, they will usually pick the easy target. They will choose to rob the home of the elderly couple living on their own, but life would quickly become very difficult if the elderly couple pulled guns and were fully prepared to kill the robber.

Why did the USSR and US never go to war directly against one another? Both countries knew the consequences of a direct conflict between them and neither were willing to suffer those consequences, so neither country decided to start the fight. We came close several times, but each time both countries flinched and bounced off one another.

[hubcap]

The USA is not a lot of countries, it is the USA, and one of the founding principles of the government was to secure liberty for individuals:

Sorry I did not know this thread was reserved for US citizen and only applied to US country.
My apologies as my comments were framed around the USA.
There is also the need to reconize the opposition that excist between equality and liberty. If a governement want to give more equality to people he will need to reduce liberties and vice versa.
This is only true if you accept the idea of "positive liberty" which I do not. As long as everyone has equal freedom of interference in making personal choices, equality exists.
I would also point out that having handguns everywhere mean that violences is a correct answer to problems wich lead to an overall more violent society.
Actually this is not true. A great abundance of research and statistics have demonstrated that the actual correlation between violence and guns is inverse. Simply put: more guns = less crime.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[mormeguil]

Actually this is not true. A great abundance of research and statistics have demonstrated that the actual correlation between violence and guns is inverse. Simply put: more guns = less crime.

Actually just as many studies have shown the reverse. This is the real problem for any gun control questions all the studies seems to contradict each other entirely...unless you tsart looking at studies made outside north america (not ones that don't take care about north america but made by teams outside of north america) wich all seems to point that guns make more violence overall while it does reduce some types of crimes like robberies.

[blueback]

Actually just as many studies have shown the reverse.
That would have been a really good place to cite some sources.

[KHBaker]

Magazine dumps in a drive by are unusual unless it's a full auto weapon. The "tactics" used are different, an semiauto weapon will be (roughly) aimed while a full auto weapon is used to spray down the sidewalk. Typically the only time someone dumps a semiauto weapon is if they stop the vehicle to fire.




You keep coming back to this example for the sole reason that it's an extremely unusual event and has several unique characteristics that reduced fatalities and increased the volume of fire. The police response, the long duration of the encounter and the level of protection, both in terms of cover and body armor, for both sides of the firefight.

There are dozens of stories where assault weapons were used to cause a significant number of fatalities/injuries, with a single magazine dump in a drive by. Frequently the injuries weren't the actual target: other pedestrians or occupants in a nearby home. The fact that they missed their target because spray and pray is ineffective doesn't make the peripheral injuries and fatalities any less relevant.Um, let's be clear about our terms here. You say "there are dozens of stories where assault weapons were used to cause a significant number of fatalities/injuries, with a single magazine dump in a drive by," yet you also state immediately above that, "Magazine dumps in a drive by are unusual unless it's a full auto weapon."

From this I am forced to assume that "assault weapon" as the term is used in the media is, to you, a "full auto weapon." Is this the case, or am I misunderstanding you? The rest of my response hinges on your answer.

Now, regarding the militia question brought up earlier, news came out recently that the Department of Education (!) has put out a request for bid for 27 Remington shotguns with 14" barrels (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). These shotguns are specified because they are "designated as the only shotguns authorized for ED based on compatibility with ED existing shotgun inventory, certified armor and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts." In other words, the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION has an EXISTING INVENTORY of shotguns of this type.

Completely apart from the question of why the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION needs shotguns, I'm reminded of the U.S. v. Miller (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) decision of 1939 that did not overturn the 1934 National Firearms Act (the one that regulates full-auto weapons, short-barreled rifles and shotguns and certain other weapons and destructive devices) on Constitutional grounds with these words:In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.Apparently the 14" barreled Remington 870 shotgun is "part of the ordinary equipment" of our DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

[astrolite]

According to the city of Chicago, a handgun ban will start to work... after 25 years.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Chicago passed its ban on handguns in 1982, one of the most restrictive in the U.S. It is that law that is being challenged in the Supreme Court.

A study last year by economist Carl Moody of William & Mary College found that after the ban was imposed, city crime rates rose significantly, almost immediately. The city is more dangerous now than it was before the ban, the study concluded, relative to the 24 largest American cities.

Officials here point to a 10 percent reduction in the murder rate in the past two years as proof that the handgun ban is beginning to work. Figures show that 81 percent of the murders in the city were gun-related; nearly 60 percent were gang-related.

[KHBaker]

According to the city of Chicago, a handgun ban will start to work... after 25 years.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Chicago passed its ban on handguns in 1982, one of the most restrictive in the U.S. It is that law that is being challenged in the Supreme Court.

A study last year by economist Carl Moody of William & Mary College found that after the ban was imposed, city crime rates rose significantly, almost immediately. The city is more dangerous now than it was before the ban, the study concluded, relative to the 24 largest American cities.

Officials here point to a 10 percent reduction in the murder rate in the past two years as proof that the handgun ban is beginning to work. Figures show that 81 percent of the murders in the city were gun-related; nearly 60 percent were gang-related.Wait, wait . . . .

So the fact that after the ban went into effect the homicide rate in Chicago (and for that matter, D.C.) skyrocketed, this was NOT due to the ban (correlation not being causation and all that), but now that decades have passed the fact that homicides in Chicago have just recently declined IS due to the ban (correlation being causation - twenty-five years after the fact)? This is not due to some other factor affecting other large municipalities as well?

How do they explain DC's plummeting homicide rate (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) the year immediately following the Heller decision that overturned DC's ban? We were told that the gun ban there was the only thing keeping the lid on, and that there would be (more) blood in the streets if the law-abiding were allowed to keep handguns and functional long guns, loaded, in their homes! According to the linked story:The District is on track to have fewer killings than in any year since 1964, when the population was about 760,000 and Vietnam War protests were just beginning.

In the years since, the city has struggled at times with civil unrest, the arrival of crack cocaine and the rise of street gangs. In 1991, the District was known as the murder capital of the United States, recording 479 that year. This year (as of July, 2009), there have been 79.Truly, the "logic" of the gun control movement is a wonderous thing!

[phej]

Yes, I think there are many things which are illegal which don't necessarily infringe on the rights of others and which even the most staunch libertarian would agree should be illegal.

Insider trading, for one example.

Out of curiosity this google search (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) found this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) from an economics professor at Harvard and member of the Cato Institute:
More importantly, insider trading means that information about a company's prospects become incorporated in its stock price sooner rather than later; this is a good thing.

Insider trading can act as a check on malfeasance within a company; insiders who know the books are being cooked, for example, can start dumping their stock, alerting the market that something is up.

The wikipedia entry on Insider trading includes this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._for_legalizing_insider_t rading) quote from Milton Friedman:
You want more insider trading, not less. You want to give the people most likely to have knowledge about deficiencies of the company an incentive to make the public aware of that.

So there's the potential for some good in insider trading. Now, what people don't think is fair is front running (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[mormeguil]

That would have been a really good place to cite some sources.

It would have been, but I don't remember them. All I remember was a debate about gun control that ended up with me and the opposing team contradicting each other because we all had research that prooved the opposite. I checked the references used later and noticed the trend I was talking about.

Now, this was about 4 years ago so I really don't have them anymore and I don't feel like looking for them. I would never be able to maim or kill a human being and as such will never own a gun. I'm also getting a bit fed up by all these talk about second amendment or wich ever one it is. That paper should really have been written by lawer, would have saved so much trouble.

[hubcap]

Now, this was about 4 years ago so I really don't have them anymore and I don't feel like looking for them. I would never be able to maim or kill a human being and as such will never own a gun. I'm also getting a bit fed up by all these talk about second amendment or wich ever one it is. That paper should really have been written by lawer, would have saved so much trouble.
You could Google up some statistics to support your position. I'll wait.

You can get fed up all you want, but it will not change the fact that the Constitution of the United States contains the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment was written by James Madison, who was a lawyer, and also the 4th president of the United States. He is one of the most influential of the Founders of the United States.

[etrepoursoi]

My (superficial) understanding is that there are, even after District of Columbia v. Heller, controversies remain over how the Second Amendment should be interpreted. Against the majority in that case, some scholars and lawyers argue (and I agree) that the Second Amendment only confers a right to possess guns for service in a militia, when rising up against an oppressive government. Plus, there's disagreement over what a "well-regulated" militia means.

Living in a country (and region) where owning or possessing guns for civilian purposes is strictly banned, I confess I have a hard time empathizing with pro-gun supporters. Guns ending up in kids' hands is a recipe for disaster, and IMO an intolerable risk; simply harping on gun owners' "responsibility" and on "education" isn't nearly enough to justify the resulting injuries or loss of life. Plus, I would feel terribly unsafe knowing that people walking down the street are permitted carrying guns; that sense of unease would not be alleviated if I too carried a gun -- were we at ease when 'Mutually Assured Destruction' kept the peace during the Cold War?

I suppose, though, that the justifications for guns rights in the U.S. are (1) a relative distrust for one's local law enforcement authorities, as compared to self-defence; and (2) the fact that guns are already so prevalent across the U.S., that it'd be foolish for the law to suddenly pretend they have been taken off the streets, when they've only been forced underground.

[Angel1]

My (superficial) understanding is that there are, even after District of Columbia v. Heller, controversies remain over how the Second Amendment should be interpreted. Against the majority in that case, some scholars and lawyers argue (and I agree) that the Second Amendment only confers a right to possess guns for service in a militia, when rising up against an oppressive government. Plus, there's disagreement over what a "well-regulated" militia means.

Living in a country (and region) where owning or possessing guns for civilian purposes is strictly banned, I confess I have a hard time empathizing with pro-gun supporters. Guns ending up in kids' hands is a recipe for disaster, and IMO an intolerable risk; simply harping on gun owners' "responsibility" and on "education" isn't nearly enough to justify the resulting injuries or loss of life. Plus, I would feel terribly unsafe knowing that people walking down the street are permitted carrying guns; that sense of unease would not be alleviated if I too carried a gun -- were we at ease when 'Mutually Assured Destruction' kept the peace during the Cold War?

I suppose, though, that the justifications for guns rights in the U.S. are (1) a relative distrust for one's local law enforcement authorities, as compared to self-defence; and (2) the fact that guns are already so prevalent across the U.S., that it'd be foolish for the law to suddenly pretend they have been taken off the streets, when they've only been forced underground.
There's a dispute over punctuation (seemingly stupid, I know) in the Second Amendment. However, one version's punctuation leaves the amendment making absolutely no sense in English and can thus be dismissed. The other version makes it clear that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," is merely an explanation for the right that follows. The explanation itself does not limit the right; all the explanation of the right does is explain why it exists. Thus the important part of the second amendment is, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It cannot be said any clearer; the US cannot ban its citizens from owning guns.

Frankly, you may not like the argument, but those who choose to own guns have a duty to secure their guns appropriately. Put a trigger lock on the gun, lock the gun in a safe (when you are not there). Separate the ammunition from the gun and keep both locked up (when not there). Personal responsibility people, take some of it on.

With regard to carrying guns around, there are some areas in the US that I would not feel safe without prior gun safety and target training, so that I could carry a concealed gun. Ohio once tried to ban concealed carrying...that lasted about as long as the first group of gun enthusiasts to walk through a town (children playing outside) with guns strapped (clear as day) to their sides.

Even with a ban, guns won't go away. Furthermore, I think the quickest way to start an armed rebellion in the US would be to attempt to ban guns outright. The second amendment exists as the default amendment. Should our government default on everything else, then the fight is on. Yes, there is a health dose of distrust for the government with many pro-gun rights advocates. Then again, our government was built on distrust (what do you think the checks and balances are?). When it comes to local governments, I think the distrust usually takes a slightly different turn from not trusting their intentions to not trusting that the emergency responders can respond quickly enough. Some parts of the US, you almost have to have a gun to be able to shoot the bear (or other local wildlife) dead if you have to. Parts of Russia are the same way...I would not go without someone who had a rifle and good aiming skills.

There are numerous reasons for owning guns and different guns for different reasons.

[KHBaker]

My (superficial) understanding is that there are, even after District of Columbia v. Heller, controversies remain over how the Second Amendment should be interpreted. Against the majority in that case, some scholars and lawyers argue (and I agree) that the Second Amendment only confers a right to possess guns for service in a militia, when rising up against an oppressive government. Plus, there's disagreement over what a "well-regulated" militia means.Query: If it's legal for local governments to BAN firearms entirely, how then would the people possess firearms in order to rise up against an oppressive government? It's obvious that you haven't actually read the Heller decision (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). It addresses your "militia only" position directly, and it is not a difficult read.Living in a country (and region) where owning or possessing guns for civilian purposes is strictly banned, I confess I have a hard time empathizing with pro-gun supporters.Yes, and that's - not accidentally - due to the complete unfamiliarity you and your fellows generally have when it comes to firearms. Even for those who have active military service, only a tiny minority get anything more than a brief exposure to firearms. All you "know" of them is what you see in the media. One of my favorite quotes is this one: "Basically, I figure guns are like gays: They seem a lot more sinister and threatening until you get to know a few; and once you have one in the house, you can get downright defensive about them." - Teresa Nielson Hayden. People fear what they do not understand. If you're not allowed to understand, why should you feel anything but fear, and why wouldn't your government take advantage of that fear? Guns ending up in kids' hands is a recipe for disaster, and IMO an intolerable risk; simply harping on gun owners' "responsibility" and on "education" isn't nearly enough to justify the resulting injuries or loss of life. Plus, I would feel terribly unsafe knowing that people walking down the street are permitted carrying guns; that sense of unease would not be alleviated if I too carried a gun -- were we at ease when 'Mutually Assured Destruction' kept the peace during the Cold War?This is the question of TRUST. Why do you trust people who collect a government payroll check to walk down the street carrying guns, but not your fellow citizens? And owning (and carrying) a gun is a choice - one that only a small part of the citizenry here actually makes. Approximately one-quarter of adults in this country (no one knows for sure, since the majority of states do not have registration requirements) own firearms. Only about 2-3% of those eligible to get concealed carry permits actually do. Based on the rate at which those permits are revoked for criminal convictions, it would appear that the self-selected population that chooses to get concealed-carry permits are more law-abiding than the self-selecting population that chooses to work in law-enforcement.

Yet you would be uncomfortable in their presence, but not in the presence of an armed police officer?I suppose, though, that the justifications for guns rights in the U.S. are (1) a relative distrust for one's local law enforcement authorities, as compared to self-defence; and (2) the fact that guns are already so prevalent across the U.S., that it'd be foolish for the law to suddenly pretend they have been taken off the streets, when they've only been forced underground.In response to your first point, it isn't "relative distrust" - we trust (largely) our local law enforcement. We just trust them to show up after the fact, and take a report. We know that the odds of them arriving in time to stop a crime in progress is essentially nil. The motto those of us on the gun-rights side use for this is "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

We understand that the government is not responsible for our protection (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) - it can't be. We then make a (perfectly reasonable) choice - one we still have and other societies don't. We consider whether it's worth the time, aggravation, effort and expense to be armed in the defense of ourselves, our loved ones, and possibly unknown strangers against (admittedly low) risk or not. Most people (even gun owners) choose "not." Unfortunately, most people never even consider the question. It never crosses their minds. The worst are those who - like you - don't "feel safe" thinking that law-abiding citizens around them might be carrying, never considering that criminals around them already are, permits be damned. Why do you worry about the law-abiding, but not about the criminals?

With respect to your second point, the UK had everything that the gun-control groups here want: Universal "needs-based" licensing and registration, "safe storage" laws, an "assault weapon" ban, restrictions on ammunition possession, everything. Essentially, the UK government made legal ownership of firearms so onerous that only a tiny fraction of their population went to the trouble. Then in 1997 they banned all handguns. These guns were "taken off the street" to "make people safe" they were told.

Firearm-related crime there has gone up dramatically. Handgun crime has more than DOUBLED. Since when has any government cared about "looking foolish" when it comes to taking power from its citizens?

With respect to your "intolerable risk" comment, I recommend in the strongest terms that you read Bill Whittle's essay Freedom (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) as it bears on this topic directly, and he is far more eloquent than I.

And in closing, I will quote an Appeals Court judge (one step below the Supreme Court in our system) on the topic of the Second Amendment. Granted, this was from a dissent (the decision went against his opinion in the case) but he says what I believe concerning the meaning of the Second Amendment:The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.

[hubcap]

Living in a country (and region) where owning or possessing guns for civilian purposes is strictly banned, I confess I have a hard time empathizing with pro-gun supporters. Guns ending up in kids' hands is a recipe for disaster, and IMO an intolerable risk; simply harping on gun owners' "responsibility" and on "education" isn't nearly enough to justify the resulting injuries or loss of life.
Annually, there are over 70 times more deaths from automobile accidents than from gun accidents. Why isn't everyone terrified to get in their automobile and drive to the mall, yet everyone is terrified of being accidentally shot?

Plus, I would feel terribly unsafe knowing that people walking down the street are permitted carrying guns; that sense of unease would not be alleviated if I too carried a gun -- were we at ease when 'Mutually Assured Destruction' kept the peace during the Cold War?
It is not possible for me to understand why you would feel unsafe knowing that people walking down the street are carrying guns. It does not seem logical, nor is it supported by the facts. Here are some interesting facts regarding the statistics of legalizing concealed carry of handguns:

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms.

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense.

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Your fears are not supported by the facts, in fact your fears are not based on facts, they are based on emotion.

[etrepoursoi]

KHBaker, thanks for your lengthy, cogent response. I don't think I have the stamina or the intellectual ammunition to respond to all of that, since I (as I confessed earlier) haven't thought in-depth about the issue and you clearly have.

Regarding Heller, I have read it (albeit sometime ago). My recollection is that the minority's argument is that the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from preventing state militias from keeping and bearing arms; i.e. it's a collective right held by the People organized in militias in opposition to a federal standing army, but not an individual right held by each civilian. This means that the state government may permissibly ban firearms for civilian purposes, while allowing them for use by its militia. This is not an entirely incoherent argument, even if you may disagree with its merit. (Incidentally, the extract of Appeals Court judgment you cite seems to support only a collective right of a People, acting through their state's militia, to bear and keep arms; not an individual right.)

And to tackle briefly the other arguments which you put forward. A ban on gun ownership would be self-defeating in a society which already had a fair share of gun owners to begin with. This I agree with, and it's (as I indicated) one of two main reasons why I might support limited gun rights. I accept, also, that local conditions in many parts of America (rural communities, the inner-city areas, etc.) mean that owning a gun is the best form of self-protection.

But here's where I fundamentally disagree with you: the government is primarily responsible for ensuring the safety of its citizens, whether by deterring crime, combating poverty and unemployment, or by deploying law enforcement. The social compact of a civilized society involves each of us giving up the freedom to inflict violence (actual or threatened) on others, except under highly exceptional circumstances; ordinarily, the State holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

The right to carry guns is thus a weak one; and when you assess the benefits (gun ownership is one way of possibly protecting oneself against crime) against the costs (gun ownership will lead to a sizeable number of deaths), the overall calculus isn't nearly enough to support that right. The only argument left, I think, is that my (and my loved ones') freedom from crime is more important than preventing the next Columbine High. But that's individualism at its worst. Why shouldn't I be prepared to suffer a mugging or a burglary for the sake of averting the overall ills of irresponsible gun-ownership? The argument, "I shouldn't be responsible for the idiocy of others" carries very little weight when the consequences of that idiocy is often serious injury or death.

So, if anything, the right to bear and keep arms is very far from giving cause for celebration (as Bill Whittle exults). Rather, to put it bluntly, it is an admission of failure: an admission that government will never adequately live up to its responsibility of preventing crime, and an admission that my (and my family's) safety and peace of mind counts for more than the lives which will be lost from legalizing gun ownership.

[KHBaker]

KHBaker, thanks for your lengthy, cogent response. I don't think I have the stamina or the intellectual ammunition to respond to all of that, since I (as I confessed earlier) haven't thought in-depth about the issue and you clearly have.Thank you. Yes, this is my particular hobby-horse and has been for about the last fifteen years. You haven't thought "in-depth" about the subject, yet you are willing to enter this forum and engage in depth? Thank you! I don't expect to change your mind, but I do hope to make you THINK more deeply.Regarding Heller, I have read it (albeit sometime ago). My recollection is that the minority's argument is that the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from preventing state militias from keeping and bearing arms; i.e. it's a collective right held by the People organized in militias in opposition to a federal standing army, but not an individual right held by each civilian. This means that the state government may permissibly ban firearms for civilian purposes, while allowing them for use by its militia. This is not an entirely incoherent argument, even if you may disagree with its merit. (Incidentally, the extract of Appeals Court judgment you cite seems to support only a collective right of a People, acting through their state's militia, to bear and keep arms; not an individual right.)Yes, that was the minority's argument in Heller, but it was based on a (deliberate, in my opinion, but disturbingly erroneous at any rate) misinterpretation of fact and history. The dissent itself is full of factual and technical legal errors! This is the best they can do? These are the kinds of mental gymnastics we're used to seeing in our opponents who have to fold, spindle, and mutilate the FACTS to get the RESULTS they want.

And they STILL don't get the results they want, they get the unintended consequences of their actions instead.

With respect to the Judge Kozinski's quotation, no mention of a militia is made. He is speaking strictly of the Second Amendment's prohibition against disarming the people.And to tackle briefly the other arguments which you put forward. A ban on gun ownership would be self-defeating in a society which already had a fair share of gun owners to begin with. This I agree with, and it's (as I indicated) one of two main reasons why I might support limited gun rights.To some extent I too support "limited" gun rights, but I suspect that my limits go a lot farther than yours. The question then becomes "When is it no longer a 'right' but a 'privilege'? We've watched the death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy used in the UK and commonwealth nations. We won't allow that here.I accept, also, that local conditions in many parts of America (rural communities, the inner-city areas, etc.) mean that owning a gun is the best form of self-protection.

But here's where I fundamentally disagree with you: the government is primarily responsible for ensuring the safety of its citizens, whether by deterring crime, combating poverty and unemployment, or by deploying law enforcement.The government is primarily responsible for ensuring the safety of SOCIETY AS A WHOLE, but not THE INDIVIDUALS IN IT. This has been the conclusion of court case after court case in this country and in others. The State cannot be held responsible if it does not protect some individual.

Therefore, the PRIMARY responsibility of ensuring ones safety RESTS ON THE INDIVIDUAL. And almost uniformly around the world, the State denies the individual the best tool available for that individual defense, the firearm, without taking on the responsibility for ensuring individual safety.

As Bill Whittle put it, it's all about TRUST.This, to my mind, is the fundamental difference between the Europeans and the U.S.: We trust the people. We fought wars and lost untold husbands and brothers and sons because of this single most basic belief: Trust the people. Trust them with freedom. Trust them to spend their own money. Trust them to do the right thing. Trust them to defend themselves. To the degree that government can help, great – but TRUST THE PEOPLE.As I illustrated in my previous post, you don't trust your fellow citizens.

Unless they draw a government paycheck.The social compact of a civilized society involves each of us giving up the freedom to inflict violence (actual or threatened) on others, except under highly exceptional circumstances; ordinarily, the State holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.And that is where the US and the rest of the world differs. "L'estat c'est moi" said Louis XIV (I am the State), and he most certainly held the monopoly on the legal use of force in France. But not long after the people of France picked up arms and told Louis XVI that the King was no longer the State. The Americans did it a few years before the French.

No, we do NOT "give up freedom to inflict violence on others." That "freedom" does not exist. It is a false argument. What we do is cede some of our authority to defend ourselves and our property to another - to government. But what government has done, as governments always do, is take that power from us over time, convincing us that we're not qualified to exercise that power.

Take, for example, Sir Robert Peel's "Nine Principles of Modern Policing" that he published when he set up London's first official police force in 1829:The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.Note in particular Principle #7: "Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

Read up some time on the "Tottenham Outrage" - a crime committed in England in 1909 in which two Anarchists attempted to steal a payroll. The police borrowed firearms from the public, who joined in the pursuit of the criminals. Now the police in England prevent the public from trying to save a baby (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) from a burning building.

You have to ask yourself how they got there.

As I noted previously in this thread, there are almost enough guns in private hands in this country for every man, woman, and child to possess one. This places the balance of power a little differently, wouldn't you admit? Because when the State holds a monopoly on the "legitimate use of force," it is often tempted to use that monopoly illegitimately.The right to carry guns is thus a weak one; and when you assess the benefits (gun ownership is one way of possibly protecting oneself against crime) against the costs (gun ownership will lead to a sizeable number of deaths), the overall calculus isn't nearly enough to support that right.IN YOUR OPINION. But not in the opinions of the men who wrote the founding documents of this nation. And with damned good reason, I argue.The only argument left, I think, is that my (and my loved ones') freedom from crime is more important than preventing the next Columbine High. But that's individualism at its worst. Why shouldn't I be prepared to suffer a mugging or a burglary for the sake of averting the overall ills of irresponsible gun-ownership? The argument, "I shouldn't be responsible for the idiocy of others" carries very little weight when the consequences of that idiocy is often serious injury or death.Again, you make (common) false arguments. Carrying a gun does not mean "freedom from crime." Banning guns does not mean "preventing the next Columbine High." But the telling portion of your question is this: "Why shouldn't I be prepared to suffer a mugging or a burglary for the sake of averting the overall ills of irresponsible gun-ownership?"

What if the mugger or burglar is willing to kill you? Or, worse, your spouse or child? Does it matter if he uses a knife or a crowbar? What about rape? Is the rapist carrying a deadly disease? HIV or Hepatitis-C? And what if he doesn't intend on leaving a witness?

You just stated that you're willing to submit to crime just so there won't be "irresponsible gun-ownership." The UK took that path. England, Wales and Scotland are now the most violent nations in the EU. They don't murder each other much, but muggings and burglary? Far higher than they are here in the US. Then again, they never have murdered each other much, but if you'll check page 2 of this thread you'll see that they're learning.

If you'd like to read further on this topic, I suggest Jeffery Snyder's A Nation of Cowards (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). It might make you think, but given what you've written so far, somehow I doubt it.So, if anything, the right to bear and keep arms is very far from giving cause for celebration (as Bill Whittle exults). Rather, to put it bluntly, it is an admission of failure: an admission that government will never adequately live up to its responsibility of preventing crime, and an admission that my (and my family's) safety and peace of mind counts for more than the lives which will be lost from legalizing gun ownership.And, again, you've made a false argument. You assert that governments CAN DO these things, and history has proven that they CANNOT. It's not an "admission of failure" to grasp reality firmly. And if your family's safety is not the most important topic in your life, then I suggest your priorities are not conducive to the survival of your species.

[Lucid]

There's a difference in possessing an automatic weapon and using an automatic weapon to murder people. Murder is already illegal. Why is it worse when done with an automatic weapon?

It's not. I'm not actually taking a stance against automatic weapons.

"Beating" another person, whether it be a man woman or child is infringing on their liberty...........hence unacceptable.

Stealing my car is infringing on my liberty by illegitimately depriving me of my private property.

On the other hand, if I carry an automatic weapon down mainstreet I am in no way infringing upon anyone's liberty.

What purpose would you have, in carrying an automatic weapon down main street, other than to infringe upon the liberty of others?



Insider trading defrauds people, which violates their liberty.

Insider trading is just a matter of information and how it's used. Violating someone's liberty with a gun is no different than from doing it with information.

Automobiles have the incredible potential to infringe upon the rights of others........or if you prefer, automobiles make it incredibly easy for any individual to purposely or accidentally infringe upon the rights of others............etc etc.....Yet, people drive cars down mainstreet every day.

But there are lots of uses for cars other than to infringe upon the liberties of others.

Out of curiosity this google search (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) found this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) from an economics professor at Harvard and member of the Cato Institute:
More importantly, insider trading means that information about a company's prospects become incorporated in its stock price sooner rather than later; this is a good thing.

Insider trading can act as a check on malfeasance within a company; insiders who know the books are being cooked, for example, can start dumping their stock, alerting the market that something is up.

The wikipedia entry on Insider trading includes this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._for_legalizing_insider_t rading) quote from Milton Friedman:
You want more insider trading, not less. You want to give the people most likely to have knowledge about deficiencies of the company an incentive to make the public aware of that.

So there's the potential for some good in insider trading. Now, what people don't think is fair is front running (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

While fascinating, I wonder what this has to do with guns.

[Yhor]

It's not. I'm not actually taking a stance against automatic weapons.



What purpose would you have, in carrying an automatic weapon down main street, other than to infringe upon the liberty of others?





Insider trading is just a matter of information and how it's used. Violating someone's liberty with a gun is no different than from doing it with information.



But there are lots of uses for cars other than to infringe upon the liberties of others.



While fascinating, I wonder what this has to do with guns.

So, turning the phrase makes your arguments more valid? Simply owning, carrying, and USING a firearm to defend one's self is not infringing on other's liberties, BUT to refuse one the right to defend their self (and others) DOES infringe on their liberty. I fail to see your point, unless your point is simply to contradict for the sake of contradiction.

[hubcap]

What purpose would you have, in carrying an automatic weapon down main street, other than to infringe upon the liberty of others?
What difference does it make if I carry a FA weapon or a pumpkin, as long as I don't infringe on the liberty of others. I carried a handgun with me everywhere I went today and I didn't infringe on anyone's liberty in any way.
Insider trading is just a matter of information and how it's used. Violating someone's liberty with a gun is no different than from doing it with information.
What makes you think I am going to violate any person's liberty with a gun?
But there are lots of uses for cars other than to infringe upon the liberties of others.
There are lots of uses for guns other than to infringe upon the liberties of others. So what is the point? What difference does it make if something is useful? If I choose to carry around the burned out muffler off my vehicle it shouldn't bother you in any way. It doesn't infringe on your liberty................but it could hardly be viewed as "useful".

I can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but nobody is trying to stop me from driving to the ball game. So why does everyone get their panties in a wad when someone suggests that it should be ok to carry a gun?

[KHBaker]

So why does everyone get their panties in a wad when someone suggests that it should be ok to carry a gun?Because guns have been made into talismans of power, evil if they're in the hands of anyone not 'authorized' to possess them, a sanction limited expressly to agents of governments.

It's taken decades to achieve, but it's almost universal in Western civilization.

[Lucid]

unless your point is simply to contradict for the sake of contradiction.

Mostly.

I've discussed my opinions on gun liberties and the second amendment at length in many other threads, so I may have assumed that everyone who was reading knew where I stood.

Just to get us all on the same page though, I don't have strong feelings one way or another about guns. I think there should be regulations, but I have no problem with them. I do like to argue one side or another though, and I've argued both on this forum. I think that most of the "it's to fight against an oppressive government" and "I should be able to walk down the street with an automatic weapon" arguments to be fraught with bullshit, but there are other valid reasons to allow guns.

So settle down. No one is trying to pry them out of your cold dead hands just yet.

[Yhor]

So settle down. No one is trying to pry them out of your cold dead hands just yet.

Hehe. Okay then, I've done my share of playing devil's advocate too, so I can relate.

But... there have been sources cited stating otherwise about takin' me guns away. It's a subject that people are passionate about, due to how history tends to keep repeating it's self.

[etrepoursoi]

My starting assumption is this: guns are designed for the singular purpose of inflicting (lethal) force, in a way that automobiles, knives, crowbars or the human body are not. Whether the fatality/injury rates from guns is higher or lower than those of traffic accidents is quite beside the point. And whether used to commit crime or for self-defence, guns are used for the sole purpose of inflicting violence (actual or threatened). The issue then is whether the State has a duty and a right (acting on behalf of society) to place restrictions on the ability of individuals to maim or kill one another, or to threaten to do so. Clearly, it does; there is no abstract 'liberty' to carry guns or to assemble a suitcase nuke or to drive an armoured vehicle or to litter one's backyard with anti-personnel landmines.

The government is primarily responsible for ensuring the safety of SOCIETY AS A WHOLE, but not THE INDIVIDUALS IN IT. This has been the conclusion of court case after court case in this country and in others. The State cannot be held responsible if it does not protect some individual.

Therefore, the PRIMARY responsibility of ensuring ones safety RESTS ON THE INDIVIDUAL. And almost uniformly around the world, the State denies the individual the best tool available for that individual defense, the firearm, without taking on the responsibility for ensuring individual safety.

First, leaving aside the question of legal liability, the State is morally/politically responsible for the security of society-at-large, and every individual within it (there is no distinction which can be made here). Even if it permits its citizens to bear firearms for self-defence, it sets the parameters of that interaction, by banning the use of bazookas, flamethrowers, rifle grenades, etc. The basic point is that the State's hand here is omnipresent, whether we like it or not. If it weren't, we'd be living in a Hobbesian state of nature where one's safety depends on one's own ability to use brute force on others. This is far from trust in one's fellow citizens, as much as it is trust in the logic of 'Mutually Assured Destruction'.

Second, the individual's right of self-defence against other individuals is always limited by requirements of proportionality and the public interest. One cannot lawfully stab a person because he has punched you in the nose. These limits on the exercise of self-defence apply equally to the carrying (not to say the use) of weapons; the State is in principle entitled to draw lines as regards which weapons are allowed or disallowed. Allowing knives or crowbars is clearly justified by the social utility derived from their non-violent uses; but allowing guns (which exist only to inflict actual or threatened violence) is a far more controversial proposition. Whether it would be prudent or effective to restrict gun ownership is, as I said, one consideration which the State takes into account.

But the key point is that there is no individual right of citizens (as distinct from the State's agents, i.e. police officers) to own devices of destruction; it is a privilege granted on a case-by-case basis. And here's where I disagree with your reference to Peel's Principles of Modern Policing -- which were articulated well before the evolution of today's modern, professional police forces. The police, and they alone, are entitled to use potentially lethal force to enforce the laws -- everything else is mob vigilantism. As for self-defence (and the defence of a limited number of other people, presumably one's family), there is no one-to-one correlation between that right and the ownership of any class of weapons. Their utility and costs must be weighed up. And, bearing in mind that guns have no function besides violence (whether in crime or in self-defence), I'd say that the utility of permitting gun ownership isn't nearly enough to justify its dangers.

As I noted previously in this thread, there are almost enough guns in private hands in this country for every man, woman, and child to possess one. This places the balance of power a little differently, wouldn't you admit? Because when the State holds a monopoly on the "legitimate use of force," it is often tempted to use that monopoly illegitimately.

Here, three arguments seem to be conflated. First, that gun ownership is already prevalent and impossible to ban -- this I would accept, but it hardly goes towards establishing any robust 'right' to own guns. Second, that guns may be used by citizens in defiance of the government (as opposed to self-defence against other citizens) -- this is the true meaning of the Second Amendment. But this rationale is moot, really; in an era where the (federal) government commands a standing, professional, well-trained army, would the insurrection or levée en masse of the 18th century (a spontaneous taking up of arms by the citizenry) ever succeed? Third, you might distrust the State's ability to make the proper distinctions (the 'slippery slope' argument which pervades U.S. constitutional politics). But, as I said, the State does make these distinctions anyway, by banning or restricting certain classes of weapons, thus ensuring that handguns remain a credible deterrent in a more-or-less level playing field.

But the telling portion of your question is this: "Why shouldn't I be prepared to suffer a mugging or a burglary for the sake of averting the overall ills of irresponsible gun-ownership?"

What if the mugger or burglar is willing to kill you? Or, worse, your spouse or child? Does it matter if he uses a knife or a crowbar? What about rape? Is the rapist carrying a deadly disease? HIV or Hepatitis-C? And what if he doesn't intend on leaving a witness?

You just stated that you're willing to submit to crime just so there won't be "irresponsible gun-ownership."

To be clear, the State, with its vast array of laws/policies (and its regulatory and enforcement agencies), already prevents most potential crimes. The remaining question is whether it is desirable on balance to further prevent crime by placing weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens, given the inevitable idiocy of some gun-owners. The 'my family comes first' mantra cuts no ice from the standpoint of law-making, which is founded solely on the larger community's interests. There are countless things one might do to protect one's family (say, installing an electric fence around one's house) which would rightly be prohibited.

This brings me to the question of trust in fellow citizens, which is affirmed almost as an article of faith in the U.S. It strikes me as deeply hypocritical (this is not an ad hominem, mind you; this includes Whittle, and the whole guns-rights culture) to insist on trusting others to hold guns, but then to shrug indifferently when loss of life does ensue from gun-ownership. Either you trust your fellow citizens, or you don't (but think that they should bear the consequences of their irresponsibility). You can't have it both ways: you can't "trust the people", but then claim that the risks of irresponsible gun-ownership are to be tolerated for the sake of your own personal protection. It seems to me that gun-supporters don't trust "the people", but think that their freedom and security shouldn't be restricted because of another person's folly. That, I submit, is just one-sided individualism, and has nothing to commend itself in a society of genuine trust and compassion.

Nothing I've said excludes the possibility that individual gun-ownership in the U.S. may be justified given the practical realities. But this is very far from an abstract right to be free from government intervention in one's ownership and possession of guns. Neither does gun-ownership make America a beacon of liberty or a shining city on the hill. That, IMO, grossly trivializes the real liberties which the U.S. embodies to the rest of the world.

[astrolite]

etrepoursoi,

Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment goes against the Heller case (and history, too) so I would assert that this is your opinion.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The current argument, in the SCOTUS, is how far this right to own a weapon extends. The Heller decision opened the proverbial floodgate on any state/local regulations on firearms, as it affirmed the individual right to own a firearm.

[hubcap]

My starting assumption is this: guns are designed for the singular purpose of inflicting (lethal) force, in a way that automobiles, knives, crowbars or the human body are not. Whether the fatality/injury rates from guns is higher or lower than those of traffic accidents is quite beside the point. And whether used to commit crime or for self-defence, guns are used for the sole purpose of inflicting violence (actual or threatened). The issue then is whether the State has a duty and a right (acting on behalf of society) to place restrictions on the ability of individuals to maim or kill one another, or to threaten to do so. Clearly, it does; there is no abstract 'liberty' to carry guns or to assemble a suitcase nuke or to drive an armoured vehicle or to litter one's backyard with anti-personnel landmines.
Your starting assumption is incorrect which means your entire argument is predicated on a false premise.

Guns are not designed for the singular purpose of inflicting lethal force. There are other fallacies in your argument but they are irrelevant seeing that your argument is based on a false premise.

You are suggesting that an individual has no right to defend themselves. Your argument suggests that defending oneself is a privilege rather than a right. There is a huge difference.

[Lucid]

What difference does it make if I carry a FA weapon or a pumpkin, as long as I don't infringe on the liberty of others. I carried a handgun with me everywhere I went today and I didn't infringe on anyone's liberty in any way.

What makes you think I am going to violate any person's liberty with a gun?

There are lots of uses for guns other than to infringe upon the liberties of others. So what is the point? What difference does it make if something is useful? If I choose to carry around the burned out muffler off my vehicle it shouldn't bother you in any way. It doesn't infringe on your liberty................but it could hardly be viewed as "useful".

I can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but nobody is trying to stop me from driving to the ball game. So why does everyone get their panties in a wad when someone suggests that it should be ok to carry a gun?

A gun is not a baseball bat. Would you take your gun to a field to hit baseballs with? No. A gun is designed specifically to kill things and it's very efficient at doing so. More so than baseball bats, in fact. And the framers knew it. Otherwise there would be an amendment protecting our right to own and carry blunt weapons such as bats.
And you'd have a much harder time killing someone quickly and irreversibly with a muffler than with a gun.

Hehe. Okay then, I've done my share of playing devil's advocate too, so I can relate.

But... there have been sources cited stating otherwise about takin' me guns away. It's a subject that people are passionate about, due to how history tends to keep repeating it's self.

Actually, there's far more talk about taking away abortion or federally funded sex education or programs that provide condoms or about censoring video games, banning some kinds of free speech, etc. than there is about taking your guns away. The "They'll take your guns!!!!!" argument is, by and large, a big scary mask that they like to wave in the faces of the militia types to get them all riled up. Are there some people who advocate for stricter gun laws or for the banning of them altogether? Sure. But nobody is talking seriously about passing any such legislation, at least at the federal level, and not at the state level either in most states.

There are other, more important liberties that they're trying to take away than the second amendment. Really, today, that's one of the least useful liberties we have. Habeas corpus, for example, is a much more useful right. Freedom of speech and religion is another.

You really think that a bunch of guns n' ammo enthusiasts can make a stand against the US army? Of course not. Unless the army turns and stands with the people against the government... and the army would have guns regardless of whether civilians are allowed them or not.

Given all that, why would the government give two shits if you have some guns, provided that you did not possess guns in such a way as to be a threat to the safety of your fellow citizen?

[KHBaker]

My starting assumption is this: guns are designed for the singular purpose of inflicting (lethal) force, in a way that automobiles, knives, crowbars or the human body are not. Whether the fatality/injury rates from guns is higher or lower than those of traffic accidents is quite beside the point. And whether used to commit crime or for self-defence, guns are used for the sole purpose of inflicting violence (actual or threatened). The issue then is whether the State has a duty and a right (acting on behalf of society) to place restrictions on the ability of individuals to maim or kill one another, or to threaten to do so. Clearly, it does; there is no abstract 'liberty' to carry guns or to assemble a suitcase nuke or to drive an armoured vehicle or to litter one's backyard with anti-personnel landmines.First, I'd like to thank you for continuing to engage on these topics. I've been doing this literally for years, and this is a rarity in my experience.

Yes, firearms are solely designed to "inflict violence." Further, they're designed to do it at beyond contact range. Here we agree. "The issue then is whether the State has a duty and a right (acting on behalf of society) to place restrictions on the ability of individuals to maim or kill one another, or to threaten to do so. Clearly, it does . . ." Here we do not. And it's a matter of philosophy that divides us. The State has a duty and the POWER to place restrictions on the ACTIONS of individuals, but it has no power or "right" to restrict their actual ability preemptively. In this discussion, terms are important. With humans, the weapon is the MIND, the implement is just a tool. Yes, firearms are very good tools for threatening and inflicting violence - it is, as you note, their fundamental design function, but your philosophy ignores the capacity of humans to be violent and instead makes fetishes of inanimate objects.

And that philosophy fails everywhere it's tried.First, leaving aside the question of legal liability, the State is morally/politically responsible for the security of society-at-large, and every individual within it (there is no distinction which can be made here).No? Courts make that distinction all the time. Warren v. District of Columbia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), Riss v. New York (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), Gonzales v. Castle Rock (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) all come immediately to mind. Even if it permits its citizens to bear firearms for self-defence, it sets the parameters of that interaction, by banning the use of bazookas, flamethrowers, rifle grenades, etc.And here we agree again. There are reasonable limits to the right to arms. Where we differ is the boundaries of those limits, and those differences are based in philosophy. The basic point is that the State's hand here is omnipresent, whether we like it or not. If it weren't, we'd be living in a Hobbesian state of nature where one's safety depends on one's own ability to use brute force on others.See? This is illustrative of that difference in philosophy. In yours, the State is responsible for your safety, in mine, I am responsible for mine. In yours, you are willing to be burgled or mugged (but one assumes not raped or murdered) so that others may benefit from a societal lack of idiots with guns, but in mine I am not willing to accept be burgled or mugged or raped or murdered just because the State tells me that I'm not qualified to possess the best implement available for defense of myself and my property. Instead, in my philosophy the best way to defend Society is to take up the responsibility of being an active defender of that society, and - personally - resist criminal predation rather than submit to it. My philosophy tells me that doing so will help deter crime, and - should I actually stop a criminal either by killing one or by holding him until he can be arrested, I will help prevent a known criminal from preying on other members of the society in which I live. Like, perhaps, YOU. This is far from trust in one's fellow citizens, as much as it is trust in the logic of 'Mutually Assured Destruction'.I think I just disproved this statement.Second, the individual's right of self-defence against other individuals is always limited by requirements of proportionality and the public interest. One cannot lawfully stab a person because he has punched you in the nose. These limits on the exercise of self-defence apply equally to the carrying (not to say the use) of weapons; the State is in principle entitled to draw lines as regards which weapons are allowed or disallowed. Allowing knives or crowbars is clearly justified by the social utility derived from their non-violent uses; but allowing guns (which exist only to inflict actual or threatened violence) is a far more controversial proposition. Whether it would be prudent or effective to restrict gun ownership is, as I said, one consideration which the State takes into account.And, again, the difference in our philosophies is starkly illustrated. If, for example, I am being mugged by a criminal armed with, say, a knife, you tell me that my response must be "proportional." You have put me in a position where I am required to essentially ask the questions "Do you intend to use that weapon, and if so will you be intending to kill, or merely wound?" Same if he's threatening me with a brick. Or a crowbar. Or threatening my wife or child.

No.

The criminal is offering a trade: "Give me what I want, and I won't hurt you or yours. Maybe." The proper response to that is not "proportional." It should be overwhelming. As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put it, "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife," and "detached reflection" is what "proportional response" requires.But the key point is that there is no individual right of citizens (as distinct from the State's agents, i.e. police officers) to own devices of destruction; it is a privilege granted on a case-by-case basis.Define "devices of destruction." And here's where I disagree with your reference to Peel's Principles of Modern Policing -- which were articulated well before the evolution of today's modern, professional police forces. The police, and they alone, are entitled to use potentially lethal force to enforce the laws -- everything else is mob vigilantism. Again, our philosophy differs. What we as members of a society yield to the society is not our right to defend ourselves, our families, our property and our society from immediate harm, it is our power to punish criminal transgressors for their transgressions. The police do not ENFORCE the laws. The COURTS do that. The police apprehend criminals, the courts punish them. The police have the legal authority to kill, but only in defense of themselves or others. They do not have the power of summary execution. What you appear to be doing here is conflating personal defense with summary execution. No. The public should have the same powers that the police do (re Peel's Nine Principles) - and they used to, but no longer. This was not a change for the better.

What you are advocating is the reduction of individual responsibility for the defense of society. You're telling the public, "You're not QUALIFIED!"As for self-defence (and the defence of a limited number of other people, presumably one's family), there is no one-to-one correlation between that right and the ownership of any class of weapons. Their utility and costs must be weighed up. And, bearing in mind that guns have no function besides violence (whether in crime or in self-defence), I'd say that the utility of permitting gun ownership isn't nearly enough to justify its dangers.You've made that apparent. But what I'm trying to illustrate is that your philosophy is in error. It is based on false assumptions and erroneous arguments and therefore reaches conclusions that do not match reality.Here, three arguments seem to be conflated. First, that gun ownership is already prevalent and impossible to ban -- this I would accept, but it hardly goes towards establishing any robust 'right' to own guns.This is the "chicken or egg" argument. The right existed first. Reading the writings of the Founders, they believed that the right existed, regardless of the political powers of the time. Our Second Amendment merely legally codifies that the government may not infringe on this pre-existing right. Second, that guns may be used by citizens in defiance of the government (as opposed to self-defence against other citizens) -- this is the true meaning of the Second Amendment.True. But if you acknowledge that the basis of the right to arms, as St. George Tucker did in 1803, is the right of self-defense - against individuals OR governments - then your point becomes moot. Here's what Tucker said:A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep,(sic) and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4.

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.No, the right is general. It is the right to defend yourself from a criminal, or from a criminal government.But this rationale is moot, really; in an era where the (federal) government commands a standing, professional, well-trained army, would the insurrection or levée en masse of the 18th century (a spontaneous taking up of arms by the citizenry) ever succeed?Here you miss something crucial. In the 18th Century, a professional military was defeated by an armed citizenry. Twice. Once here in America, once in France. One other thing - the U.S. military is not made up of foreign mercenary troops. It's made up of U.S. citizens who, in the overwhelming majority, believe the things I believe. Can a government command a standing, professional, well-trained army if that government is intent on violating the Constitution, the document that every member of the military swears an oath to uphold and defend?Third, you might distrust the State's ability to make the proper distinctions (the 'slippery slope' argument which pervades U.S. constitutional politics). But, as I said, the State does make these distinctions anyway, by banning or restricting certain classes of weapons, thus ensuring that handguns remain a credible deterrent in a more-or-less level playing field.I think you misunderstand the capabilities of handguns here. A handgun is what you carry if you don't think you will need a firearm. Handguns are small and easily portable, and much less inconvenient to carry than long guns. This is why police officers don't tote their riot guns with them when they get out of their cruisers to write traffic tickets. In modern warfare, handguns are backup weapons. In guerrilla warfare, handguns are used to GET long guns and other weapons. But for personal self-defense, handguns will always be "credible deterrents." No one volunteers to catch even a .25ACP round.To be clear, the State, with its vast array of laws/policies (and its regulatory and enforcement agencies), already prevents most potential crimes.Really? I guess that the UK doesn't really need all those CCTV cameras then? I mean they've got all those laws and policies already . . . The remaining question is whether it is desirable on balance to further prevent crime by placing weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens, given the inevitable idiocy of some gun-owners.Here's another of those places where terminology is important. The government does not "place" weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens, the law-abiding citizens CHOOSE whether or not to be armed. The State merely restrains itself from PREVENTING that choice. The 'my family comes first' mantra cuts no ice from the standpoint of law-making, which is founded solely on the larger community's interests. There are countless things one might do to protect one's family (say, installing an electric fence around one's house) which would rightly be prohibited.Really? Doesn't that depend on how much swing you've got with the government? Why should government officials be not only allowed but provided machine-gun armed security, but John and Jane Doe prohibited from possessing a loaded shotgun in their home for their own defense as they were until just recently in Washington, D.C? Because, just maybe they might be idiots? You've just told every member of society that there are two classes - the government, and everybody else. Thank you, no.This brings me to the question of trust in fellow citizens, which is affirmed almost as an article of faith in the U.S. It strikes me as deeply hypocritical (this is not an ad hominem, mind you; this includes Whittle, and the whole guns-rights culture) to insist on trusting others to hold guns, but then to shrug indifferently when loss of life does ensue from gun-ownership. Either you trust your fellow citizens, or you don't (but think that they should bear the consequences of their irresponsibility). You can't have it both ways: you can't "trust the people", but then claim that the risks of irresponsible gun-ownership are to be tolerated for the sake of your own personal protection. It seems to me that gun-supporters don't trust "the people", but think that their freedom and security shouldn't be restricted because of another person's folly. That, I submit, is just one-sided individualism, and has nothing to commend itself in a society of genuine trust and compassion.And again we have a false argument. Your entire position is based on distrust of "the people" and trust in "the government." You have established that there are, indeed, two classes - the rulers (for which there are one set of rules) and the ruled (for which there is an entirely different set.) This is not surprising - it is the model under which Europe has operated since before the beginning of recorded history. It is the model that America rejected - in favor of individualism. You do not have "a society of genuine trust and compassion" yourself, as illustrated here by your own words.

You see as "hypocritical" the American belief in the motto "Trust the People" because you do not understand it. Possibly cannot understand it, given the philosophy you live under. Thomas Sowell notes that the primary difference between the two dominate Western philosophies is the question of whether Man is perfectible or not. From that fundamental question comes entirely different conclusions on the proper role of government and of the people in and under it. The significant difference here is between whether governments can provide solutions, or only trade-offs. You obviously believe that "the State, with its vast array of laws/policies" provides solutions - the prevention of "most crimes" for example. I, on the other hand, see the State's "vast array of laws/policies" providing only trade-offs. I see as hypocritical the dismissal of those trade-offs as merely unintended consequences of the improper implementation of those laws/policies.

From my perspective, the trade-offs of the policies you support are far worse than the "solutions" they were supposed to provide. I base that perspective on evidence. For example, the spread in the U.S. of "shall-issue" concealed-carry laws in the U.S., where individuals could choose to get a permit to carry a handgun and the State had to issue that permit if the applicant met certain minimal requirements. Opponents of these laws objected that there would be increased death and mayhem because of irresponsible gun owners if these laws passed. They did not "trust the people." Between 1986 and 2006 the number of states with such "shall issue" laws increased from eight (8) to thirty-seven (37). The number of states prohibiting concealed-carry of any kind declined from seventeen (17) to two (2). The number of states allowing concealed-carry without any permit increased from one to two.

Homicide, aggravated assault, and accidental gunshot woundings and deaths declined everywhere.

Yes, we believe in "trusting the people" and we tolerate the consequences of the irresponsible because to not do so would punish all for the actions of a tiny minority. It's a trade-off, not a solution, because we accept the fact that there are no solutions no matter how hard we wish there were.
Nothing I've said excludes the possibility that individual gun-ownership in the U.S. may be justified given the practical realities. But this is very far from an abstract right to be free from government intervention in one's ownership and possession of guns. Neither does gun-ownership make America a beacon of liberty or a shining city on the hill. That, IMO, grossly trivializes the real liberties which the U.S. embodies to the rest of the world.And here we agree once again. Gun ownership, however, is the "canary in the coal mine" for those other liberties. Our Declaration of Independence states the philosophy on which this country was founded. That philosophy is a very slightly modified form of John Locke's "life, liberty, property" - it is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - a particular bit of genius on the part of Thomas Jefferson et al. In addition, in his genius Jefferson was the first man in Western history to state that the purpose of government was to secure the rights of the individual, and as St. George Tucker and his contemporaries understood the primary right of the individual is the right of self-defense - the right that our Founders claimed as the basis for their rebellion against King George.

Yes, our other liberties are admired by the rest of the world, but they rest on our right to self-defense, and the tools with which we exercise that right.

[hubcap]

A gun is not a baseball bat. Would you take your gun to a field to hit baseballs with? No. A gun is designed specifically to kill things and it's very efficient at doing so. More so than baseball bats, in fact. And the framers knew it. Otherwise there would be an amendment protecting our right to own and carry blunt weapons such as bats.
And you'd have a much harder time killing someone quickly and irreversibly with a muffler than with a gun.
You are painting with a brush that is entirely too broad.

Some guns are intended to kill things, others are not. Some guns are designed and intended for defense and others are designed and intended to be used for offense. Handguns for instance are designed entirely for defensive purposes. If I knew I was going to be involved in a situation that required a gun, a handgun would be the last firearm I would choose to take.

Some guns are designed specifically for various sporting purposes, either hunting or recreational shooting. Others are designed specifically for the competitive shooting sports. Most of these guns are entirely unsuited for self-defense or robbing the corner convenience store.

Many of the Founders felt the Bill of Rights wasn't necessary because in their view the Constitution placed such well defined restrictions on the federal government that individual rights would never be threatened. The Supreme Court has from time to time been plagued with justices that have helped significantly enlarge the scope of the federal government far beyond the intentions of the Founders. This demonstrates the wisdom of those Founders who insisted on a Bill of Rights before they would agree to ratify the Constitution.

Individuals have many many rights which aren't specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. The fact that the 2nd Amendment was specifically included again shows the wisdom of the Founders. Were it not there, I suspect this nation would already be disarmed.

[Lucid]

You are painting with a brush that is entirely too broad.

No, I think you're splitting hairs.

Some guns are intended to kill things, others are not. Some guns are designed and intended for defense and others are designed and intended to be used for offense. Handguns for instance are designed entirely for defensive purposes. If I knew I was going to be involved in a situation that required a gun, a handgun would be the last firearm I would choose to take.

So, people don't rob others with hand guns? People don't commit murders with handguns?

Some guns are designed specifically for various sporting purposes, either hunting or recreational shooting. Others are designed specifically for the competitive shooting sports. Most of these guns are entirely unsuited for self-defense or robbing the corner convenience store.

Really? Really?

[KHBaker]

Really? Really?
Well, I doubt anyone would use this pistol to stick up the corner Stop-n-Rob:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But in general, I am in agreement with you Lucid.

[hubcap]

So, people don't rob others with hand guns? People don't commit murders with handguns?
Many items are used for things which they weren't intended for. Are you suggesting that handguns are designed to be useful for robbing people and committing murder?
Really? Really?
Hey, you're the one that said guns were designed specifically to kill things.;)

[Lucid]

Many items are used for things which they weren't intended for. Are you suggesting that handguns are designed to be useful for robbing people and committing murder?

Hey, you're the one that said guns were designed specifically to kill things.;)

All you've shown is that they are designed specifically to kill things in varying circumstances. Not that they were not designed specifically to kill things.

Well, I doubt anyone would use this pistol to stick up the corner Stop-n-Rob:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well, people have robbed convenience stores with things much weirder than that and I wouldn't put it past them to do so actually, though I can think of guns which would be better suited to the purpose.

But in general, I am in agreement with you Lucid.

:thumbsup:

[hubcap]

All you've shown is that they are designed specifically to kill things in varying circumstances. Not that they were not designed specifically to kill things.
Check this out:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That's a Pardini. Cost $2000 +

It is designed specifically for target shooting. It isn't designed to kill anything.

[KHBaker]

Check this out:

(Obvious highly lethal .50 caliber semi-automatic belt-fed service revolver complete with bayonet lug and shoulder thing that goes up, loaded with teflon-coated armor-piercing cop-killer hollow-point explosive bullets.)

That's a Pardini. Cost $2000 +

It is designed specifically for target shooting. It isn't designed to kill anything.
No, but it is designed to "inflict violence" as etrepoursoi notes. And it is capable of killing. After all, a well-placed shot with even a .22 short can be lethal, and that gun is designed to place shots VERY well.

I see no point in arguing over the lethality of firearms. Yes, an H&K MP-5 submachine gun has a higher potential lethality than your example of a Pardini. Yes, you can punch a one-hole group at 25 meters with the Pardini that you couldn't hope to match with the MP-5 (assuming a skilled hand with each), but the fact remains that fundamental purpose of firearms is the projection of force - violence - at a distance. Whether the target is paper, aluminum cans or flesh makes no real difference to the design.

So why argue about the design? If they want to take your "assault weapons," they're not going to want to leave you your "high-powered sniper rifle" or your $2,000 concealable "Saturday Night Special" or your $10,000 Perazzi over-under "street sweeper."

[Yhor]

A good friend of mine's father killed a young man in a bar by using his belt.
It was a freak accident that the belt was dropped and when he picked it up he had to block a punch from the guy's buddy, he hit the guy in the temple with the buckle. The young man was pinching and slapping the waitress/barhelp on the ass and the police refused to come out to remove the guy (no security at the bar).

The belt killing him was an accident. There are many other instances where similar items (ball bats, crowbars, mop handles, etc..) are used to kill and maim people., intentionally. If it's two on one (or worse), there isn't much chance for the average person to defend their self with no weapons at all involved, sometimes leading to death if no one interferes or if the attackers know how to kill quickly and aim to do so. You could shove a pencil or pen into someone's brain easily through the nasal cavity. There are many ways to kill someone if the desire and motivation are there, guns aren't necessary to do so. When you remove the ability for law abiding citizens to carry a weapon to defend their selves, you only make it easier for criminals to attack, with little fear of the immediate consequences.

And I am off to sleep.. I'll depart with the words of Ben Franklin..
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[blueback]

A gun is not a baseball bat...And the framers knew it. Otherwise there would be an amendment protecting our right to own and carry blunt weapons such as bats.

Technically, a bat could be considered "arms." It simply meant a weapon that could be carried, as contrasted against "ordinance" which meant things like cannons.

The "They'll take your guns!!!!!" argument is, by and large, a big scary mask that they like to wave in the faces of the militia types to get them all riled up. Are there some people who advocate for stricter gun laws or for the banning of them altogether? Sure. But nobody is talking seriously about passing any such legislation, at least at the federal level, and not at the state level either in most states.

Is that because no branch of government would ever even consider reducing or eliminating the allowance in the law for citizens to bear arms, or is it because there is a strong and consistently vocal group of citizens applying pressure against the possibility? It seems to me the answer is obvious, since stricter gun control laws are talked about and attempted all the time. Perhaps what's confusing you is that no one is currently seriously considering doing away with the entire right. Do you consider laws that don't technically counteract the 2nd amendment, but do render it practically moot, to be "taking away our guns?" For example, what if no one took away the guns, but they did take away the ammo?

There are other, more important liberties that they're trying to take away than the second amendment. Really, today, that's one of the least useful liberties we have. Habeas corpus, for example, is a much more useful right. Freedom of speech and religion is another.

That's like saying the foundation of a house isn't as useful as the roof simply because the roof is leaking. Sure, let the foundation crumble, and then see how much you care about that roof. Don't forget what's important just because what's urgent is distracting.

You really think that a bunch of guns n' ammo enthusiasts can make a stand against the US army? Of course not. Unless the army turns and stands with the people against the government... and the army would have guns regardless of whether civilians are allowed them or not.

I think that if it comes to that the republic would already have long since been destroyed. So many basic elements of the foundation of our government would have had to have been undermined for a situation like that to form that everything would be moot; we'd be back to not much more than anarchy. The military can't be used for police functions; military members swear to uphold the constitution; the constitution specifically allows the citizens to keep and bear arms; etc.

Also, I think the American military's current endeavors abroad are sufficient illustration of the impossibility of any standing military pacifying a rebellious population. Hell, it's a perfect example how difficult an occupying military's job becomes when the population is allowed to keep and bear arms.

Given all that, why would the government give two shits if you have some guns, provided that you did not possess guns in such a way as to be a threat to the safety of your fellow citizen?

Well that's the million dollar question, isn't it? That last sentence there is just ripe for debate. Define "threat." Define "such a way." Define "safety." Hell, define "fellow citizen."

Every new capability in some way threatens the safety of some fellow citizens. That's just in the nature of capabilities. By way of an example, try to think of an item that could never, in any conceivable way, be used to kill someone.

[etrepoursoi]

(KHBaker, just to let you know I've read your post, and I'll try to reply when I've more time.... although I too sense the deep philosophical gulf between our positions.)

A good friend of mine's father killed a young man in a bar by using his belt.

...

The belt killing him was an accident. There are many other instances where similar items (ball bats, crowbars, mop handles, etc..) are used to kill and maim people., intentionally. ...

You miss my point. I said guns are designed for the singular purpose of inflicting serious violence (lethal or non-lethal).

1. "designed": This is one criterion which singles out one class of weapons, i.e. those designed and put on the market to fulfill a specific consumer need, from other 'weapons of convenience'. It's this function or purpose which the State can claim a legitimate interest over when deciding whether or not to regulate. Regardless what other things are actually used to cause violence, the State may still wish to prohibit/restrict items which are specifically designed and marketed as weapons. Hence, 'design/manufacture' and 'actual use' are two distinct entry-points for State regulation; even if it could not prevent baseball bats and belts from being used as weapons, it could try to prohibit/restrict those weapons which are designed as such. The failure of one type of regulations gives no reason to abandon the other type.

2. "singular purpose": This closely relates to the first point. Guns are really only good for threatening or inflicting violence; i.e. they at least put the victim of crime or the criminal in fear of his life. They don't do other things particularly well. Sure, you could use them to ignite a fire, or shoot a lock off, or punch holes through 4x4 wood boards... but they're terrible at these other tasks. The same applies for nunchucks, samurai swords, etc., although those may have a separate aesthetic purpose as collectors' items (which isn't what guns are to the majority of gun-owners), and of course, guns are far more effective at inflicting violence. Why is this important? Because, if the State decides that (facilitating) the infliction of violence is a bad idea, there isn't any other redeeming purpose we could point to, unlike knives and crowbars and baseball bats and belts. The argument would be, not that guns can and will be used for 'non-violent purposes' (as pointed out, there aren't any), but that owners will exercise judgment before using them for their violent purpose. Whereas both arguments are available for knives, crowbars, etc.

3. "violence": It should be clear by now that my use of the term "violence" is broad and neutral. It encompasses actual and threatened forms of violence (putting someone in fear of his life is a form of assault, after all), and encompasses both criminal and 'law-abiding' forms of violence.

[Lucid]

Check this out:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That's a Pardini. Cost $2000 +

It is designed specifically for target shooting. It isn't designed to kill anything.

Can it kill things as quickly and easily as a gun can? If yes, then regulations should apply. If no, then I'm not worried about it.

[Yhor]

(KHBaker, just to let you know I've read your post, and I'll try to reply when I've more time.... although I too sense the deep philosophical gulf between our positions.)



You miss my point. I said guns are designed for the singular purpose of inflicting serious violence (lethal or non-lethal).

1. "designed": This is one criterion which singles out one class of weapons, i.e. those designed and put on the market to fulfill a specific consumer need, from other 'weapons of convenience'. It's this function or purpose which the State can claim a legitimate interest over when deciding whether or not to regulate. Regardless what other things are actually used to cause violence, the State may still wish to prohibit/restrict items which are specifically designed and marketed as weapons. Hence, 'design/manufacture' and 'actual use' are two distinct entry-points for State regulation; even if it could not prevent baseball bats and belts from being used as weapons, it could try to prohibit/restrict those weapons which are designed as such. The failure of one type of regulations gives no reason to abandon the other type.

2. "singular purpose": This closely relates to the first point. Guns are really only good for threatening or inflicting violence; i.e. they at least put the victim of crime or the criminal in fear of his life. They don't do other things particularly well. Sure, you could use them to ignite a fire, or shoot a lock off, or punch holes through 4x4 wood boards... but they're terrible at these other tasks. The same applies for nunchucks, samurai swords, etc., although those may have a separate aesthetic purpose as collectors' items (which isn't what guns are to the majority of gun-owners), and of course, guns are far more effective at inflicting violence. Why is this important? Because, if the State decides that (facilitating) the infliction of violence is a bad idea, there isn't any other redeeming purpose we could point to, unlike knives and crowbars and baseball bats and belts. The argument would be, not that guns can and will be used for 'non-violent purposes' (as pointed out, there aren't any), but that owners will exercise judgment before using them for their violent purpose. Whereas both arguments are available for knives, crowbars, etc.

3. "violence": It should be clear by now that my use of the term "violence" is broad and neutral. It encompasses actual and threatened forms of violence (putting someone in fear of his life is a form of assault, after all), and encompasses both criminal and 'law-abiding' forms of violence.

Do you consider hunting for food to be an act of violence? I don't. And in this gloomy economy, I'd be concerned about not being self sufficient if my firearms were removed. I'd also be worried about looters taking my stores, and would resort to setting traps about my property that could cause more unintentional 'violence' to people that really had no ill intent (whereas guns are rarely misused in true defense). Desperation and motivation to survive fit into this discussion, but I wont go there, it never ends well (people who feel all warm and fuzzy tend to think of such discussion as nut case material).

[hubcap]

No, but it is designed to "inflict violence" as etrepoursoi notes. And it is capable of killing. After all, a well-placed shot with even a .22 short can be lethal, and that gun is designed to place shots VERY well.

I see no point in arguing over the lethality of firearms. Yes, an H&K MP-5 submachine gun has a higher potential lethality than your example of a Pardini. Yes, you can punch a one-hole group at 25 meters with the Pardini that you couldn't hope to match with the MP-5 (assuming a skilled hand with each), but the fact remains that fundamental purpose of firearms is the projection of force - violence - at a distance. Whether the target is paper, aluminum cans or flesh makes no real difference to the design.

So why argue about the design? If they want to take your "assault weapons," they're not going to want to leave you your "high-powered sniper rifle" or your $2,000 concealable "Saturday Night Special" or your $10,000 Perazzi over-under "street sweeper."
That particular gun is not designed to inflict violence. It is designed to send a projectile out the barrel and through a paper target with extreme accuracy...........period.

The issue is not about firearms, it is about human behavior. When you assign an inanimate object with some nefarious characteristic you have incorrectly re-framed the issue. Take your MP-5 fully loaded with the safety off and lay it on the kitchen table. You can leave it there for 100 years and it won't kill anyone. It is an inanimate object. It is not evil, it doesn't have a mind of its own.

It doesn't matter what kind of a weapon I own as long as I don't infringe on any other individual's liberty. Limiting the types of guns I can own based on what I might do is non-sensical. When you accept the debate within that framework you automatically yield to the government regulating many other things I might do. I might have too much fat in my diet, I might drive too fast, etc etc

The entire concept of liberty is based on an individual's right to do as they please as long as they do not infringe on other's liberty to do the same.

It is already against the law to murder someone........and we know that the law doesn't prevent murder...............so what makes anyone think that gun control limits guns? The law doesn't prevent anything, it only provides a means of punishment after the fact.

[etrepoursoi]

Like I said, "violence" as I use it is, as far as possible, morally neutral (I don't think it can be completely neutral, and that's my point): it encompasses violence to commit crime, violence in self-defence, violence in hunting, and so on. Violence is the wounding or killing of a living thing, or (against a human being) the threat to do so. (If you prefer, we could substitute the term "force", but that is imprecise; it implies that a crane or jackhammer have the same function as a gun.)

If and when it decides to regulate, the State has to balance the costs/utility of these different types of violence a gun is designed to inflict. (I, for one, think that the latter two types of violence aren't that socially beneficial, given the existence of professional police forces and of modern food production/distribution networks.)

The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" mantra just can't be extended as far as you would like it to be. Sure, there's got to be an intervening choice, but the fact is that when a gun is actually used, it's overwhelmingly used to inflict violence -- that's its design. Just because I might drive my car just once a year and use it as a storage-room the other 364 days doesn't change the fact that (1) it's designed for transportation; and (2) when I do drive it, I'm using it for its intended purpose. Likewise, I may shoot aluminum cans in my backyard, but that's presumably target practice so that I can (when the situation calls for it) competently use my gun in the way it was designed.

It's that design which the State may reasonably target, quite apart from the actual use. Consider why the manufacture/sale to the public of suitcase nukes is (presumably) banned, even though they too don't kill people without some human agent involved. That's because they're designed solely to inflict mass violence, and this time (unlike guns), clearly in a bad way.

[KHBaker]

The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" mantra just can't be extended as far as you would like it to be. Sure, there's got to be an intervening choice, but the fact is that when a gun is actually used, it's overwhelmingly used to inflict violence -- that's its design. Just because I might drive my car just once a year and use it as a storage-room the other 364 days doesn't change the fact that (1) it's designed for transportation; and (2) when I do drive it, I'm using it for its intended purpose. Likewise, I may shoot aluminum cans in my backyard, but that's presumably target practice so that I can (when the situation calls for it) competently use my gun in the way it was designed.I'm at work, so this has to be quick, and I have a LOT more to say, but this has to be addressed.

Americans purchase on average about SEVEN BILLION rounds of loaded, commercially manufactured ammunition ANNUALLY. This does not include ammunition COMPONENTS for those of us (like me) who load our own ammunition. (I buy very little commercially loaded ammo, but I shoot quite a bit of my own handloads.)

If your comparison were correct, then there wouldn't be a living soul in the U.S.

Guns are used to commit "violence" against other human beings in this country incredibly rarely versus their use recreationally.

I consistently use my guns the way they were designed. I have never shot a human being. Are mine defective?

The purpose of firearm design is to hurl a hard metallic projectile or projectiles at significant velocity along a deliberately aimed path to impact a target of the shooter's choosing. If that target is paper or metal or clay or bowling pins or whatever makes no difference. The impact of the projectile or projectiles will transfer significant destructive energy to the target. This is "violence." Like you, I prefer to not bother with euphemisms like "force." (This is a topic I will probably bring up later.) But do not think that the primary fundamental purpose to which firearms are actually USED is the infliction of injury and death on PEOPLE. It is not.

Not (to use a firearm cliché) by a long shot.

[Angel1]

Like I said, "violence" as I use it is, as far as possible, morally neutral (I don't think it can be completely neutral, and that's my point): it encompasses violence to commit crime, violence in self-defence, violence in hunting, and so on. Violence is the wounding or killing of a living thing, or (against a human being) the threat to do so. (If you prefer, we could substitute the term "force", but that is imprecise; it implies that a crane or jackhammer have the same function as a gun.)

If and when it decides to regulate, the State has to balance the costs/utility of these different types of violence a gun is designed to inflict. (I, for one, think that the latter two types of violence aren't that socially beneficial, given the existence of professional police forces and of modern food production/distribution networks.)

The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" mantra just can't be extended as far as you would like it to be. Sure, there's got to be an intervening choice, but the fact is that when a gun is actually used, it's overwhelmingly used to inflict violence -- that's its design. Just because I might drive my car just once a year and use it as a storage-room the other 364 days doesn't change the fact that (1) it's designed for transportation; and (2) when I do drive it, I'm using it for its intended purpose. Likewise, I may shoot aluminum cans in my backyard, but that's presumably target practice so that I can (when the situation calls for it) competently use my gun in the way it was designed.

It's that design which the State may reasonably target, quite apart from the actual use. Consider why the manufacture/sale to the public of suitcase nukes is (presumably) banned, even though they too don't kill people without some human agent involved. That's because they're designed solely to inflict mass violence, and this time (unlike guns), clearly in a bad way.
Violence in and of itself is not wrong. Yes, I might have to be violent to defend myself, but that is my right. People have a right to defend themselves; to deny them the tools of defense makes little sense. Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens level the playing field or turn it to favor innocent people.

Why The Gun In Civilization? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone.The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

I stand corrected on the author's identity.

[KHBaker]

NO, NO, NO! "Maj. Caudill" is NOT the author of that piece. It was written by a 1st generation German immigrant, Marko Kloos - "The Munchkin Wrangler" (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

UPDATE: Thanks for the correction. Ever since Marko wrote that it's made its way around the blogosphere and then the rest of the internet. It's been published (under his name) in Dillon's Blue Press (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and under "Maj. Caudill" in Ted Nugent's last book. (Marko got a check from Nugent's publisher and the next edition will carry the correct attribution.) I just want to see credit where it's due.

[Lucid]

Technically, a bat could be considered "arms." It simply meant a weapon that could be carried, as contrasted against "ordinance" which meant things like cannons.

I think you're splitting hairs unnecessarily. The same argument could be taken to mean that guns aren't necessarily constitutionally protected.

Is that because no branch of government would ever even consider reducing or eliminating the allowance in the law for citizens to bear arms, or is it because there is a strong and consistently vocal group of citizens applying pressure against the possibility? It seems to me the answer is obvious, since stricter gun control laws are talked about and attempted all the time. Perhaps what's confusing you is that no one is currently seriously considering doing away with the entire right. Do you consider laws that don't technically counteract the 2nd amendment, but do render it practically moot, to be "taking away our guns?" For example, what if no one took away the guns, but they did take away the ammo?

I'm not sure it matters why they're not trying to. You seem to be mistaking me for someone who has strong feelings about gun laws one way or another. Perhaps you haven't been actually reading the thread.

That's like saying the foundation of a house isn't as useful as the roof simply because the roof is leaking. Sure, let the foundation crumble, and then see how much you care about that roof. Don't forget what's important just because what's urgent is distracting.

You're not actually understanding what I'm saying. There's nothing wrong with the 2nd amendment. It's not that it isn't useful or that I think we can do without it. I'm responding to those (and there's plenty on this board) who think that the 2nd amendment is the most important and lose sight of some of the others. Like the 4th.

I think that if it comes to that the republic would already have long since been destroyed. So many basic elements of the foundation of our government would have had to have been undermined for a situation like that to form that everything would be moot; we'd be back to not much more than anarchy. The military can't be used for police functions; military members swear to uphold the constitution; the constitution specifically allows the citizens to keep and bear arms; etc.

I think you're reading way too much into what I was saying.

Also, I think the American military's current endeavors abroad are sufficient illustration of the impossibility of any standing military pacifying a rebellious population. Hell, it's a perfect example how difficult an occupying military's job becomes when the population is allowed to keep and bear arms.

My understanding is that insurgence has a lot more reliance on bombs and other, hard to control, DIY weapons.

Well that's the million dollar question, isn't it? That last sentence there is just ripe for debate. Define "threat." Define "such a way." Define "safety." Hell, define "fellow citizen."

Every new capability in some way threatens the safety of some fellow citizens. That's just in the nature of capabilities. By way of an example, try to think of an item that could never, in any conceivable way, be used to kill someone.

Again, I think you're stretching my point a bit far. Perhaps you are under the impression that I'm against guns or think they should be outlawed?

[etrepoursoi]

Americans purchase on average about SEVEN BILLION rounds of loaded, commercially manufactured ammunition ANNUALLY. This does not include ammunition COMPONENTS for those of us (like me) who load our own ammunition. (I buy very little commercially loaded ammo, but I shoot quite a bit of my own handloads.)

If your comparison were correct, then there wouldn't be a living soul in the U.S.

Guns are used to commit "violence" against other human beings in this country incredibly rarely versus their use recreationally.

I'd suggest that the pattern of actual use still relates to "violence", viz., guns fired in practice sessions are a way of building one's competency for the real thing (i.e. handling and firing a gun in order to threaten/ward off, or to injure someone or some animal). Similarly, a car driven round the block by a learner driver isn't truly used for its function (transportation, or getting from point A to point B), but it's a form of practice where the user is familiarizing himself with the car so that he can properly use its transportation function.

Practice and recreation may go hand-in-hand. But purely recreational use of guns is rare, I would think. Guns are not like golf clubs or archery bows; their recreational use has a clear practical application relating to the projection of violence. Of course, I may go through life never once actually using my gun for violence (just as I may learn how to drive but never actually use the car to go from place to place). Still doesn't change what the gun's value and purpose is to me.

[Angel1]

I'd suggest that the pattern of actual use still relates to "violence", viz., guns fired in practice sessions are a way of building one's competency for the real thing (i.e. handling and firing a gun in order to threaten/ward off, or to injure someone or some animal). Similarly, a car driven round the block by a learner driver isn't truly used for its function (transportation, or getting from point A to point B), but it's a form of practice where the user is familiarizing himself with the car so that he can properly use its transportation function.

Practice and recreation may go hand-in-hand. But purely recreational use of guns is rare, I would think. Guns are not like golf clubs or archery bows; their recreational use has a clear practical application relating to the projection of violence. Of course, I may go through life never once actually using my gun for violence (just as I may learn how to drive but never actually use the car to go from place to place). Still doesn't change what the gun's value and purpose is to me.
Actually, bows are more dangerous than guns when they are turned and used on humans. Bows are designed to fire a projectile (the arrow) through a target. The arrow projectile is designed to go through targets, not lodge inside the target. Two holes blead more than one hole. Between the use of a gun or a bow (assuming all else is equal), the gun has the better chance of simple incapacitating a target. Sure, there are parts of the body that you have nearly no chance of surviving a gun shot wound to, but surviving a bow shot to those same areas wouldn't be any easier.

The weapon with the greater lethality of design is the bow. Tell me, will gun controll advocates now be seeking bans on bows too?

The gun levels the playing field with criminals. Instead of criminals having the advantage, now they get to face people who could potentially kill them. Frankly, if a criminal didn't run when his/her intended victim pulled a gun then they deserve a nice swift death. In the US, everyone has the right to reasonable self-defense (the definition of reasonable defined mostly by the states). Say, if I see a guy trying to break into my house, but he runs when I pull my gun (hypothetically speaking), then I don't have a right to shoot him. Mind you if he runs with his arm behind his back pointing his already illegal gun at me, then I have a right to shoot him in most states. My right to shoot him becomes even higher if he fires said gun back at me. At that point, I could probably kill him in most states. Now, let me make this very clear, this was just a hypothetical situation.

Criminals do not take hours to commit crimes, they strike in seconds and minutes. You have said that it is the governments job to protect us, but the government can't arrive in seconds and minutes. The only way an officer gets there that quickly is if they are already there and most criminals won't commit crimes when the police are looking at them. In seconds, an armed citizen on the scene can turn the tables on the criminals. In seconds, an armed citizen can buy the police (the government) the time they need to respond to the crime. Yes, the government sends police to protect the public and yes they can preemptively place more police in areas when they know violence will be more likely, but most of the time they are simply first responders. Responders, that means they respond to crime; they don't prevent people from committing crimes, they respond to crimes that have been committed. After the crime has already been committed is too late to protect citizens. Even placing officers in areas ahead of times just means that their response times are decreased, they are still responding. It's very rare that the government can prevent crime in a case specific sense of prevention. The government offers the people reactive protection against criminals by prosecuting and incarcerating them; a gun offers its owner proactive protection against criminals by leveling the playing field with criminals.

[hubcap]

Practice and recreation may go hand-in-hand. But purely recreational use of guns is rare, I would think. Guns are not like golf clubs or archery bows; their recreational use has a clear practical application relating to the projection of violence. Of course, I may go through life never once actually using my gun for violence (just as I may learn how to drive but never actually use the car to go from place to place). Still doesn't change what the gun's value and purpose is to me.
Over 80 million rounds a year are shot by trapshooters alone. Trapshooting has absolutely ZERO application of projecting violence against humans. It is a recreation.

The 80 million rounds doesn't count skeet shooters or sporting clays shooters.

The fact that I shoot recreationally every week doesn't mean I want to prepare for projecting violence any more than my driving to work every day means I want to prepare for driving in the Daytona 500.

[KHBaker]

I'd suggest that the pattern of actual use still relates to "violence", viz., guns fired in practice sessions are a way of building one's competency for the real thing (i.e. handling and firing a gun in order to threaten/ward off, or to injure someone or some animal). Similarly, a car driven round the block by a learner driver isn't truly used for its function (transportation, or getting from point A to point B), but it's a form of practice where the user is familiarizing himself with the car so that he can properly use its transportation function.

Practice and recreation may go hand-in-hand. But purely recreational use of guns is rare, I would think. Guns are not like golf clubs or archery bows; their recreational use has a clear practical application relating to the projection of violence. Of course, I may go through life never once actually using my gun for violence (just as I may learn how to drive but never actually use the car to go from place to place). Still doesn't change what the gun's value and purpose is to me.
And here you're wrong again. The majority of firearms in private hands here are PRIMARILY recreational, if not purely. Of all the firearms I own, only a couple are primarily defensive, and none of them are purely that.

Guns very much are like archery bows - which, by the way, have a clear practical application relating to the projection of violence. Bows were the "assault weapons" of their day. And, I would argue, many guns (like that Pardini target pistol) are very much like golf clubs to their owners.

Let me list for you just a few of the organized, sanctioned shooting sports:

Cowboy Action Shooting (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (perhaps the most popular sport currently)
Skeet (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Trap (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Sporting Clays (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Benchrest (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Bullseye (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Sportsman's Team Challenge (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
High Power Rifle (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Palma (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
International Handgun Metallic Silhouette (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (there's a rifle version, too, another one for .22 rimfire rifles and a third for blackpowder cartridge rifles)
There are olympic shooting sports, among which are some already mentioned, but in addition:
300 meter rifle (three distinct competitions)
50 meter rifle (two distinct competitions)
50 meter pistol
25 meter pistol (four distinct competitions)
10 and 50 meter running target (four distinct competitions)
Biathlon (six distinct competitions)

Sports like you are probably thinking of include IPSC (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), Steel Challenge (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) which is a subset of USPSA (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and IDPA (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

There are a lot more than just these, and a bunch more with rules but no sanctioning bodies like bowling pin shooting (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), falling plate, three-gun matches (rifle, pistol, shotgun), and (one of my personal favorites) Boomershoot (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

The guns for most of these sports aren't really suitable for personal defense, but the people who are serious about them shoot thousands of rounds a year in practice and competition.

And these people are the "unorganized militia."

[blueback]

It is already against the law to murder someone........and we know that the law doesn't prevent murder...............so what makes anyone think that gun control limits guns? The law doesn't prevent anything, it only provides a means of punishment after the fact.

Laws do limit things. They limit things done by people who obey laws. So, laws against murder and guns do limit murders and gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.

I think you're splitting hairs unnecessarily. The same argument could be taken to mean that guns aren't necessarily constitutionally protected.

Guns are a hand-carried weapon, just like a bat, so they're both arms. Maybe because you can carry them with just your arms? I dunno where it came from.

You seem to be mistaking me for someone who has strong feelings about gun laws one way or another.

Okay, whatev's. You advanced an argument and I rebutted it. If you don't really care enough to advance a strong argument it's not my fault for failing to read your mind.

I'm responding to those (and there's plenty on this board) who think that the 2nd amendment is the most important and lose sight of some of the others. Like the 4th.

The 2nd is the one that enforces the continued existence of all the others.
America is relatively peaceful, and has had relatively little violent political turnover. However, America is still quite young and has the benefit of a fantastic geographical position. Stretching one's field of view so that it encompasses more than the last few hundred years on the North American continent changes one's perception of how important the right of citizens to bear arms is.

As has been pointed out before, when someone has a gun you can't force them to do things any more; you have to persuade them. Like it or not the mind, the thing that makes humans human, depends on a body for its existence. If the body has a gun, it's a whole lot harder to control the mind. Guns protect the mind. The same cannot be said about the other amendments, because ultimately they all depend on guns.

I think you're reading way too much into what I was saying.

It's hard to believe you don't care when you defend your argument.

My understanding is that insurgence has a lot more reliance on bombs and other, hard to control, DIY weapons.

Then your understanding is wrong.
High explosives have merely increased the efficiency of individual insurgents.

Again, I think you're stretching my point a bit far. Perhaps you are under the impression that I'm against guns or think they should be outlawed?

I don't care, because you didn't mention it. I merely responded to the arguments you made. IMHO I did a good job of explaining why they are flawed. If you really don't care, then it won't matter to you. But, it might matter to someone who reads through the discussion later.

The guns for most of these sports aren't really suitable for personal defense, but the people who are serious about them shoot thousands of rounds a year in practice and competition.

And these people are the "unorganized militia."

I don't think you can simultaneously argue that sport shooting isn't training to kill people AND that the people who engage in it are an "unorganized militia." It's sort of either/or.

That being said, I think the philosophical differences come down to the fact that guns equalize everyone who has one in terms of ability to project force. In America the gun control side says that guns kill children because they find them and accidentally set them off. In Africa guns kill children because other children intentionally shoot them. Can you imagine another point in history in which children could possibly be useful infantry?

I think the primary difference is one of empathy.

Those on the gun control side empathize more strongly with victims. When they think about guns they think about the people who are shot by them and they feel pain. Those on the gun ownership side empathize more strongly with anti-victims. When they think about guns they think about the people who used one to defend themselves or someone else worthy and they feel pride. The former thinks about getting shot, as regrettable as it may be and the latter thinks about doing the shooting, as regrettable as it may be.

I think this must be the primary disconnect because logically there isn't an argument. People who obey the law (vast majority) don't suddenly become dangerous just because they have a gun. Most people wouldn't even chose to own a gun if they were given away free. The kind of person who doesn't want anything to do with guns is exactly the kind of person who wouldn't want anyone else to own one either.

If person A is totally anti-gun, and person B is totally pro-gun, person B might pity person A, but person A will definitely fear person B. A person who voluntarily disarms is pretty much guaranteed to be the victim in any possible contest of wills. The only hope they have is the police. On the other hand, a person who voluntarily arms, stands a very good chance of at least holding their own in a contest of wills, which means they are sure to dominate the person who disarmed. It's not that an anti-gun person doesn't want safety, it's that they aren't willing to protect themselves; they are relying on someone else to protect them. The further they disarm, the greater their dependence. What does a dependent person have to work with except guilt?

The argument(s) on the anti-gun side are primarily guilt-based. Kids find guns and shoot themselves or their friends. Bullets fly through walls and kill people two houses over. Special guns slaughter unprotected officers of the law (this one's actually not true). Regular people suddenly become violent psychos and do things they'd never do otherwise. Guns are violent, and violence is bad. Etc. Whether or not these arguments are accurate isn't important; what's important is that none of these arguments have ever been a legitimate reason to avoid anything. Kids find detergent and drink it. Doctors kill patients due to entirely preventable errors. People drive every day (technically the most dangerous thing we do).

We do things that are known to be fantastically dangerous all the time. The only thing that varies is the amount of certification and coordination necessary. Well, look at the stats, gun safety training works. The only reason it's unique is that it makes those who would voluntarily disarm feel particularly vulnerable.

[etrepoursoi]

Actually, bows are more dangerous than guns when they are turned and used on humans. Bows are designed to fire a projectile (the arrow) through a target. The arrow projectile is designed to go through targets, not lodge inside the target. Two holes blead more than one hole. Between the use of a gun or a bow (assuming all else is equal), the gun has the better chance of simple incapacitating a target. Sure, there are parts of the body that you have nearly no chance of surviving a gun shot wound to, but surviving a bow shot to those same areas wouldn't be any easier.

The weapon with the greater lethality of design is the bow. Tell me, will gun controll advocates now be seeking bans on bows too?

I think this particular argument is a losing battle. Let's leave aside the rate of fire/reloading, and the portability/ease of handling for a moment. Even your bow shot vs. gun shot comparison fails. As I understand it, the most common types of bullets (the .9mm calibre round) is designed not to penetrate or exit the human body, thus reducing collateral damage. It does this, however, by expanding or dispersing its force within the human body upon impact. This means, however, greater internal damage to the surrounding tissues. (And this leaves aside bullets which are designed to fragment, which are even more lethal.) Whereas an arrow merely pierces, and thus is relatively less injurious.

The other arguments in your post have been covered in this thread, and are important; but we seem stuck on the threshold definitional issue of what guns are and what they do, so I won't go there for now.

[boldbidder]

Even your bow shot vs. gun shot comparison fails. As I understand it, the most common types of bullets (the .9mm calibre round) is designed not to penetrate or exit the human body, thus reducing collateral damage. It does this, however, by expanding or dispersing its force within the human body upon impact. This means, however, greater internal damage to the surrounding tissues. (And this leaves aside bullets which are designed to fragment, which are even more lethal.) Whereas an arrow merely pierces, and thus is relatively less injurious.


Uh...wrong, the most popular type of 9mm round is the FMJ (full metal jacket) which is known quite well for over-penetrating targets. No caliber is designed to 'expand', bullet expansion is dictated by the design of the bullet, not the caliber of the round. Sure there are 9mm rounds with hollow points or are made of frangible material that are designed to stop 'soft' targets, but the same can be said of an caliber of bullet.

Also, you don't give the bow enough credit, you say it simply pierces you as if that's the end of the story. You realize that half of a bow's effectiveness isn't realized until the poor sap goes to try to pull the bow out of themselves and that flayed/barbed arrow tip must tear through flesh again on its way out thereby imparting a great deal of additional trauma?

[mormeguil]

I will have to say that the two things that makes the bow less of a weapon is that you need a lot of training and quite a bite of strenght to fire it properly. It's hard to conceal and people will probably have time to see you start to shoot.

Honestly, bows are extremely lethal weapons.

[etrepoursoi]

Okay, this post is a reply to several posts (Angel1, hubcap, KHBaker, boldbidder, mormeguil):

First, the skill/proficiency one acquires while using a gun for its recreational use easily translates to a real-world application, i.e. using it as a weapon to inflict violence. Compare that with the golf club; practising on your swing on the course hardly makes you a better killing-machine wielding a 9-iron. Archery bows lie in the middle; practising target archery and field archery gives you proficiency at shooting a static target from certain fixed distances, but it doesn't fully translate, because there are variables with moving targets, targets at different distances etc. With guns (since bullets move so fast), these variables are all but eliminated; in fact, skeet shooting and trap shooting explicitly train you to deal with fast-moving targets.

Second, I have no statistics on usage patterns, but I seriously wonder what percentage of gun-owners own and are trained in guns which only have a recreational purpose, and are useless to kill or injure (do such guns even exist? perhaps air-rifles, which aren't firearms). I suspect it's close to nil. This suggests that the gun's basic value for most (if not all) gun-owners is still the infliction of violence, and recreation is an optional aspect. Shooting sports invariably serve as practice for the real deal, as well as for recreation. Compare this with martial arts, some or all types which are learnt almost solely for recreation (capoeira comes to mind), and which will hardly help you defeat an attacker.

Third, in any case, what's the point of emphasizing the recreational aspect of guns? Is that the rationale for the Second Amendment? That's like saying that First Amendment protection of speech is chiefly concerned with pornography, fighting words and commercial advertising. These present hard cases precisely because they lie at the periphery of constitutional protection. The fact is that the recreational use of guns is parasitic on their use for self-defence (which is effected through actual or threatened violence). But this means that shooting sports and hunting are 'low-value' uses of firearms (compare political speech with commercial advertising), and may conceivably be less protected from State regulation. The only risposte from pro-gun advocates would be the old 'slippery slope' argument (the State cannot be trusted to decide between 'recreational' and 'self-defence' uses), but since you've been so keen to demonstrate how there are guns used for exclusively recreational purposes, it suggests that the State can draw defensible lines.

Fourth, on the comparative lethality of guns vs. bows, thanks boldbidder for the clarification. But I'm assuming proper medical/surgical attention here; just as the victim shouldn't go digging into a gunshot wound to remove bullet fragments, he obviously shouldn't try pulling out the arrow himself (!). Anyway, as I said, there are other indices of 'lethality' in which the gun clearly defeats the bow (even the crossbow). So it's clearly far more lethal overall.

Fifth, if bows were sufficiently lethal (and some are), obviously there'd be little reason why the State should not restrict or prohibit them. Unless, of course, the interpretation of "arms" in the Second Amendment were broadened accordingly.

[Yhor]

Bows are silent, mostly. I'm a fan of bows, and enjoy the unique challenges they present. I've shot skeet/clay targets with bows and crossbows and don't find it much more difficult than with a 410. To say a bow is less effective than a gun is naive, imo. You have a very quiet means of shooting a target over and over, with little chance of someone calling it in, unlike gun shots ringing out. And unless the target remains calm and is very aware of surroundings, they aren't likely to find the source of where the arrows/bolts are being shot from until it's too late.

A video of an ~9 yr old shooting moving targets with a bow.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's really not as hard as it's made out to be in this thread.

[hubcap]

First, the skill/proficiency one acquires while using a gun for its recreational use easily translates to a real-world application, i.e. using it as a weapon to inflict violence.
That almost sounds like a reason to regulate the amount of recreational shooting a person should be permitted to indulge in.
Second, I have no statistics on usage patterns, but I seriously wonder what percentage of gun-owners own and are trained in guns which only have a recreational purpose, and are useless to kill or injure (do such guns even exist? perhaps air-rifles, which aren't firearms). I suspect it's close to nil. This suggests that the gun's basic value for most (if not all) gun-owners is still the infliction of violence, and recreation is an optional aspect. Shooting sports invariably serve as practice for the real deal, as well as for recreation.
I believe you are greatly mistaken in your views. A tiny minority of active shooters even concern themselves with getting a permit to carry a gun. In my experience the vast majority of people who get a permit to carry a gun are not recreational shooters.
Third, in any case, what's the point of emphasizing the recreational aspect of guns? Is that the rationale for the Second Amendment? That's like saying that First Amendment protection of speech is chiefly concerned with pornography, fighting words and commercial advertising. These present hard cases precisely because they lie at the periphery of constitutional protection. The fact is that the recreational use of guns is parasitic on their use for self-defence (which is effected through actual or threatened violence). But this means that shooting sports and hunting are 'low-value' uses of firearms (compare political speech with commercial advertising), and may conceivably be less protected from State regulation. The only risposte from pro-gun advocates would be the old 'slippery slope' argument (the State cannot be trusted to decide between 'recreational' and 'self-defence' uses), but since you've been so keen to demonstrate how there are guns used for exclusively recreational purposes, it suggests that the State can draw defensible lines.
The point is that most people who shoot recreationally aren't interested in shooting anyone, yet you want to limit their access to firearms based on what they "might" do.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with recreational shooting. It doesn't distinguish between types of shooting or arms. It simply states that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[KHBaker]

Okay, this post is a reply to several posts (Angel1, hubcap, KHBaker, boldbidder, mormeguil):

First, the skill/proficiency one acquires while using a gun for its recreational use easily translates to a real-world application, i.e. using it as a weapon to inflict violence. Compare that with the golf club; practising on your swing on the course hardly makes you a better killing-machine wielding a 9-iron. Archery bows lie in the middle; practising target archery and field archery gives you proficiency at shooting a static target from certain fixed distances, but it doesn't fully translate, because there are variables with moving targets, targets at different distances etc. With guns (since bullets move so fast), these variables are all but eliminated; in fact, skeet shooting and trap shooting explicitly train you to deal with fast-moving targets.Ah, here we get to something I find fascinating about people opposed to "unregulated" firearm possession - one I've pointed to before in this thread, in fact: fear and mistrust of fellow citizens.

You say that the use of the word "violence" is neutral, but then you equate shooting skeet and trap with training to be a "better killing-machine." You might insist that this is an entirely neutral point, but "killing-machine" doesn't connote bird hunters in the field, it tends to make people think of something like this:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The usage is probably unconscious, but it is revealing.Second, I have no statistics on usage patterns, but I seriously wonder what percentage of gun-owners own and are trained in guns which only have a recreational purpose, and are useless to kill or injure (do such guns even exist? perhaps air-rifles, which aren't firearms). I suspect it's close to nil. This suggests that the gun's basic value for most (if not all) gun-owners is still the infliction of violence, and recreation is an optional aspect. Shooting sports invariably serve as practice for the real deal, as well as for recreation. Compare this with martial arts, some or all types which are learnt almost solely for recreation (capoeira comes to mind), and which will hardly help you defeat an attacker.Err, no. Sport shooting is the firearm equivalent of sport racing, wherein participants compete to do something fairly specific very well, and they tend to use very specialized equipment to do it. I wouldn't, for example, want to drive a Top Fuel dragster to the grocery store. Or a Sportsman class door-slammer, either.

Your martial arts comparison fails, dramatically. "Empty hand" martial arts, properly instructed, still prepare people for the deliberate use of violence against other human beings - what you refer to as "the real deal." I have, on more than one occasion, called recreational shooting "Bang-fu: the martial art of the speeding lead projectile." There is, in fact, a real Zen component to shooting well. Calmness, breathing, concentration, and trigger control. People new to shooting are often surprised by the similarities between shooting and the other martial arts.Third, in any case, what's the point of emphasizing the recreational aspect of guns? Is that the rationale for the Second Amendment? That's like saying that First Amendment protection of speech is chiefly concerned with pornography, fighting words and commercial advertising. These present hard cases precisely because they lie at the periphery of constitutional protection. The fact is that the recreational use of guns is parasitic on their use for self-defence (which is effected through actual or threatened violence). But this means that shooting sports and hunting are 'low-value' uses of firearms (compare political speech with commercial advertising), and may conceivably be less protected from State regulation. The only risposte from pro-gun advocates would be the old 'slippery slope' argument (the State cannot be trusted to decide between 'recreational' and 'self-defence' uses), but since you've been so keen to demonstrate how there are guns used for exclusively recreational purposes, it suggests that the State can draw defensible lines.No, you've inverted your argument. Recreational use, as you state, prepares the users for "the real deal." As I noted, recreational shooters are, by law, part of the "unorganized militia." The emphasis on recreational shooting is to illustrate the normalization of gun ownership in our society - something that gun control groups decry, and we encourage. (Reference that Teresa Neilson Hayden quote I left a few posts ago.) Recreational shooting is militia training. A small part, but a vital one.Fourth, on the comparative lethality of guns vs. bows, thanks boldbidder for the clarification. But I'm assuming proper medical/surgical attention here; just as the victim shouldn't go digging into a gunshot wound to remove bullet fragments, he obviously shouldn't try pulling out the arrow himself (!). Anyway, as I said, there are other indices of 'lethality' in which the gun clearly defeats the bow (even the crossbow). So it's clearly far more lethal overall.

Fifth, if bows were sufficiently lethal (and some are), obviously there'd be little reason why the State should not restrict or prohibit them. Unless, of course, the interpretation of "arms" in the Second Amendment were broadened accordingly.In the UK they're considering (if they have not done so already) heavily regulating the possession of swords. Banning guns, it seems, wasn't enough.

I've covered these arguments before, in detail. If you'll forgive me, I'll just link to a couple of pieces.

On the topic of the bow, and how it relates to the establishment of representative government, Those Without Swords Can Still Die Upon Them (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)- essentially the same argument that Marko Kloos makes in his "Why the Gun is Civilization," but I take a lot more words to get there. (I do that a lot.)

On the topic of militias, well, Militias (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

On the topic of why America tolerates gun violence, Birchwood, Wisconsin is not Hungerford, England (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

And there's a lot more where those came from.

[Thinktress]

I support our right to bear arms.

Moreover, the 2nd amendment supports our right to bear arms.

[Lucid]

Guns are a hand-carried weapon, just like a bat, so they're both arms. Maybe because you can carry them with just your arms? I dunno where it came from.

Actually, the term "arms" applies to all weapons, whether hand carried or not. Nuclear arms are not, generally, hand carried. The term comes from arma which means tools or implements of war. It's the base for words like army, armada, armed (of course), armory, etc. Your guess made me curious so I checked it out. Here's the etymology if you're interested:

arm (2)
"weapon," c.1300, from O.Fr. armes (pl.), 11c., from L. arma "weapons," lit. "tools, implements (of war)," from PIE base *ar- "fit, join." The notion seems to be "that which is fitted together." Meaning "heraldic insignia" (in coat of arms, etc.) is early 14c.; originally they were borne on shields of fully armed knights or barons. The verb meaning "to furnish with weapons" is from c.1200.

Okay, whatev's. You advanced an argument and I rebutted it. If you don't really care enough to advance a strong argument it's not my fault for failing to read your mind.

My mind is surprisingly easy to read (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). I'm not really advancing an argument. I'm kind of commenting on what others say with my own opinions. That may be a fine distinction, but you seem to be trying to rebut the argument that guns should be illegal, and I'm not making this argument. I think the subject of the 2nd amendment is interesting, but I don't feel very strongly about it.

The 2nd is the one that enforces the continued existence of all the others.

I disagree. See below.

America is relatively peaceful, and has had relatively little violent political turnover. However, America is still quite young and has the benefit of a fantastic geographical position. Stretching one's field of view so that it encompasses more than the last few hundred years on the North American continent changes one's perception of how important the right of citizens to bear arms is.

So Denmark and Germany would be a fascist dictatorships with no individual liberties or rights if they did away with their right to possess guns?

As has been pointed out before, when someone has a gun you can't force them to do things any more; you have to persuade them.

Ok, I don't have a gun. Force me to do something.

Like it or not the mind, the thing that makes humans human, depends on a body for its existence. If the body has a gun, it's a whole lot harder to control the mind. Guns protect the mind. The same cannot be said about the other amendments, because ultimately they all depend on guns.

I don't think they do depend on guns. I see your reasoning, but I think you're drawing a very nebulous connection between owning guns and being forced to do things. I don't think there's any real causation to your argument. Also, I think that your premise is flawed. It appears that you're saying, "People without guns can be forced to do things and people with guns cannot." And I don't think either of those premises is true. I think it's easier for people with guns to force people without guns to do things, but guns are not required to do so. Additionally, I think it's much harder to force even unarmed people to do things than you seem to account for.

It's hard to believe you don't care when you defend your argument.

It's not that I don't care, it's really that I don't feel strongly about it. I would be against any legislation that sought to repeal or to de-fang the 2nd amendment. I'm also against citizens having hydrogen bombs and fully automatic weapons. What I do care about is having my position, even though it's not a strong one, understood.

Then your understanding is wrong.
High explosives have merely increased the efficiency of individual insurgents.

I'm not saying that guns aren't used. I just think they're not the most important element in an insurgency. But I'll take your word for it. I think it probably depends on the insurgency.

I don't care, because you didn't mention it. I merely responded to the arguments you made. IMHO I did a good job of explaining why they are flawed. If you really don't care, then it won't matter to you. But, it might matter to someone who reads through the discussion later.

I did actually, just not in the only post of mine it seems you read.

[blueback]

Actually, the term "arms" applies to all weapons, whether hand carried or not. Nuclear arms are not, generally, hand carried. The term comes from arma which means tools or implements of war. It's the base for words like army, armada, armed (of course), armory, etc. Your guess made me curious so I checked it out. Here's the etymology if you're interested:

That does sound right. I suppose I was going more specifically by what I had read regarding the way the founders used the term in their writing. There certainly isn't a problem with interpreting the word more broadly, but I think in the context of the 2nd amendment it meant something less than space-based lasers.

I'm not really advancing an argument. I'm kind of commenting on what others say with my own opinions. That may be a fine distinction, but you seem to be trying to rebut the argument that guns should be illegal, and I'm not making this argument.

I suggest you don't try to read more significance or motive into what I'm writing than I have specifically expressed. Your statements, mere opinion or not, seemed to me to be in error. I responded to them as they stood. That is all.

I think the subject of the 2nd amendment is interesting, but I don't feel very strongly about it.

How you feel means very, very little (to me) and I can say with absolute certainty that it had nothing to do with my response.

So Denmark and Germany would be a fascist dictatorships with no individual liberties or rights if they did away with their right to possess guns?

I think you're confusing the idea that something probably will happen eventually with the idea that it will definitely happen overnight. That's disappointing. Also, you seem to be confusing the idea that something will disappear with the idea that something specific will appear. Again, I tend to expect better from you.

Ok, I don't have a gun. Force me to do something.

Again, the point is a generic philosophical one. Are you honestly trying to argue that if someone broke into your house right now they wouldn't have a harder time making you do something if you had a gun? In fact, are you honestly trying to suggest that simply having a gun in your hand wouldn't have a very good chance of scaring them off all on its own?

I think it's easier for people with guns to force people without guns to do things, but guns are not required to do so. Additionally, I think it's much harder to force even unarmed people to do things than you seem to account for.

I didn't actually go into the difficulty of forcing unarmed people to do things, so I don't see how you could have interpreted my accounting for it. Did you interpret not mentioning it as stating it was child's play?

What I was doing was expressing a philosophical principle as free from limitation by specific circumstances as possible. Which person would you rather attack: one with a gun or one without a gun? Which society would you rather attack: one with guns or one without guns? Guns don't change the rules, they just slide things further along a continuum. Far enough to be significant.

I would be against any legislation that sought to repeal or to de-fang the 2nd amendment. I'm also against citizens having hydrogen bombs and fully automatic weapons. What I do care about is having my position, even though it's not a strong one, understood.

Fair enough. But it would be better if you just explained it fully, instead of pretending the misunderstanding was my fault.

I'm not saying that guns aren't used. I just think they're not the most important element in an insurgency. But I'll take your word for it. I think it probably depends on the insurgency.

Well, people argue all day about what the "most important" element is in a lot of things. I think the important point is that guns are necessary for a successful insurgency, even if they are not sufficient.

I did actually, just not in the only post of mine it seems you read.

This started with a rebuttal of specific sentences, not your entire world view.

[boldbidder]

For handgun libertys i would say they are good but not perfect.We need to make it so only people with IDs and a clean record could buy a weapons.If a gangster walks out of jail he can still buy a gun.That is just wrong!

Please tell me in what state can the scenario you describe happen?

In case you didn't know it requires a state identification as well as a FOID (Firearms Owner Identification) card to purchase a firearm. There's a background check performed in order to get your FOID card and there is one performed again each time you go to make a new firearms purchase. That 'gangster' didn't get his firearm from Buds.

[hubcap]

For handgun libertys i would say they are good but not perfect.We need to make it so only people with IDs and a clean record could buy a weapons.If a gangster walks out of jail he can still buy a gun.That is just wrong!
It is against the law for a convicted felon to own a gun and they cannot legally purchase one. The instant background check that everyone must go through to purchase a gun from a dealer will prevent the purchase from happening.

If they go down on the corner and buy a gun from some individual they are breaking the law. Do you think the law will prevent them from making the purchase?

[Crazyblue]

I'd like to see something a little different since we are just running in circles. Those of you who argue against forms of gun control:

Are there any limits that should be placed on gun control, or arms available to individuals?

Please post your opinions.

[boldbidder]

I'd like to see something a little different since we are just running in circles. Those of you who argue against forms of gun control:

Are there any limits that should be placed on gun control, or arms available to individuals?

Please post your opinions.

I personally wouldn't mind a formal licensing program that would require training for the type of arm purchased. For example, handling a rifle is way different from handling a shotgun versus handling a revolver or semi-auto, muzzleloader, etc.... Also, private citizens shouldn't be able to by any explosives or incendiary ammunition. Other than that, there shouldn't be restriction, especially alot of the arbitrary restrictions that currently exist regarding rifle barrel length, suppressors, etc...

The problem is that even with a by law license/training program coming up with meaningful content would be extremely tricky. Besides, lawful citizens purchasing guns for recreation, home defense, zombie apocalypse, etc... aren't the ones committing crimes so additional laws would just be making it harder on them.

[hubcap]

I'd like to see something a little different since we are just running in circles. Those of you who argue against forms of gun control:

Are there any limits that should be placed on gun control, or arms available to individuals?

Please post your opinions.
Philosophically I'm not opposed to law-abiding citizens owning any type of firearms. I would draw the line at WMD's which encompasses nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Realistically there are few citizens who are actually interested in bombs, rockets, tanks, tactical or strategic bombers, etc etc..........Not to mention that most weapons of that type are entirely unaffordable to all but a few individuals.

There should be no restrictions on short-barrelled rifles, fully-automatic rifles or pistols, or short-barrelled shotguns........to law abiding citizens. Again, most citizens aren't interested in these types of guns anyway.

[phej]

Philosophically I'm not opposed to law-abiding citizens owning any type of firearms.

What about encryption technologies? Shouldn't they count as an arm?

[reb]

i would not have a problem getting on a public conveyance where ALL of the lawful citizenry is armed, unless they have long arms which extend into my seat and do not fit in the overhead compartment. no, i see no reason that citizens with a clean (no class b or higher misdemeanors) record have to put up with some bureaucrat telling them what they may have. the ownership by a witless or careless person of something that may injure or harm will be their downfall in some fashion, without any intervention needed by those who feel a need to control others.

[hubcap]

What about encryption technologies? Shouldn't they count as an arm?
Make your case as to why you think they should be considered "arms".

[boldbidder]

What about encryption technologies? Shouldn't they count as an arm?

You mean someone having the means to create their own encryption algorithm or do you mean someone being able to by some product/software expressly designed to defeat existing encryption algorithms?

[Thinktress]

For handgun libertys i would say they are good but not perfect.We need to make it so only people with IDs and a clean record could buy a weapons.If a gangster walks out of jail he can still buy a gun.That is just wrong!

Yeah well, he can walk out of jail and buy crack too, right? Why don't we just enforce the laws we have instead of making up new laws that only serve to punish those of us who are NOT breaking the existing laws, hmmmm?

[phej]

Make your case as to why you think they should be considered "arms".

My case is twofold (1) an appeal to authority: the government considers it to be a munition (2)
it is a form of protection against government intrusion (although one could argue that privacy covers some of this.)

You mean someone having the means to create their own encryption algorithm or do you mean someone being able to by some product/software expressly designed to defeat existing encryption algorithms?

Both, what is the relevance of the distinction?

[hubcap]

My case is twofold (1) an appeal to authority: the government considers it to be a munition (2)
it is a form of protection against government intrusion (although one could argue that privacy covers some of this.)
I don't see how it could be considered a munition except in some figurative sense. I would have to say it shouldn't be considered an arm.

However, I do agree that the citizenry should not be prevented from having encryption technologies.

[boldbidder]

My case is twofold (1) an appeal to authority: the government considers it to be a munition (2)
it is a form of protection against government intrusion (although one could argue that privacy covers some of this.)



Both, what is the relevance of the distinction?

Well the former only requires a penchant for math and lil programming know how. The latter I could see the logic behind making such products illegal. It would tantamount to purchasing a device that is designed to defeat home or automobile security systems. Such a device's only purpose is for nefarious pursuits. Going back to the former case, obviously there's nothing preventing a bright person from creating their own encryption schemes or defeating existing ones. Someone being able to walk into Best Buy and buy "Hack-A-ATM 6.5" is probably a bit much.

[reb]

phej, that is an interesting thought pattern. if we were to tally up any item of 'hardware' or 'software' that could be used to 'physically harm an individual', and look at the so called 'safeguards', i wonder how long the list might be. it would include forks, booze, spoons, bb guns, vehicles, hammers, perhaps cell phones (both for the user-if allegations are true) and others who are injured in car wrecks while driving..this could get interesting quickly. this is a slippery slope of logic when we begin to talk about abriging other's rights to an item or behaviour...people don't usually want to look at the 'person'; they want to loo at 'the thing' in the case of firearms. their minds are closed to the implications they espouse. the 'marketing culture' is the reason for that, and short sightedness, i think.

this brings back memories of the culture war on demon dialers some time ago...they were not used to harm anyone. they simply harmed 'the phone company'.

[Crazyblue]

Philosophically I'm not opposed to law-abiding citizens owning any type of firearms. I would draw the line at WMD's which encompasses nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Realistically there are few citizens who are actually interested in bombs, rockets, tanks, tactical or strategic bombers, etc etc..........Not to mention that most weapons of that type are entirely unaffordable to all but a few individuals.

There should be no restrictions on short-barrelled rifles, fully-automatic rifles or pistols, or short-barrelled shotguns........to law abiding citizens. Again, most citizens aren't interested in these types of guns anyway.

Now how would you determine if citizens are 'law abiding citizens'? What is the difference between nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and say, an MK19 (automatic grenade launcher)?

[reb]

nbc is general in scope; a grenade launcher is way more surgical (unless one happens to be at the point of impact, then surgical takes on another meaning). the main difference is one of degree and apparency. i can hear impacts from a 40mm-i would probably see some fool firing one, given the effective range of sight and trajectory; the nuke is the only other one i might hear, unless the delivery system for the chem/bio is artillery. nuke impacts a larger area than most of the others, as well, depending on atmospheric conditions.

the 'law abiding' part is easy. either we trust the leos to have records that reflect reality, or we don't.

[phej]

Well the former only requires a penchant for math and lil programming know how. The latter I could see the logic behind making such products illegal. It would tantamount to purchasing a device that is designed to defeat home or automobile security systems. Such a device's only purpose is for nefarious pursuits. Going back to the former case, obviously there's nothing preventing a bright person from creating their own encryption schemes or defeating existing ones. Someone being able to walk into Best Buy and buy "Hack-A-ATM 6.5" is probably a bit much.

You asked about defeating encryption algorithms:

You mean someone having the means to create their own encryption algorithm or do you mean someone being able to by some product/software expressly designed to defeat existing encryption algorithms?

(emphasis mine)

These devices for nefarious purposes are the equivalent of social engineering or finding holes in the implementation. Key size and algorithmic weaknesses are how you defeat existing encryption algorithms. Social engineering usually offers better access to the data than actually breaking the encryption algorithm.

phej, that is an interesting thought pattern. if we were to tally up any item of 'hardware' or 'software' that could be used to 'physically harm an individual', and look at the so called 'safeguards', i wonder how long the list might be [..] this is a slippery slope of logic when we begin to talk about abriging other's rights to an item or behaviour...people don't usually want to look at the 'person'; they want to look at 'the thing' in the case of firearms. their minds are closed to the implications they espouse. [..]

Of course there's a slippery slope. Most of the arguments about gun control revolve around "the gun is a tool" or "guns kill people." It's hard to convince someone on the other side the viewpoint.

[KHBaker]

I'd like to see something a little different since we are just running in circles. Those of you who argue against forms of gun control:

Are there any limits that should be placed on gun control, or arms available to individuals?

Please post your opinions.I'll take a shot at it.

The right to arms, if you accept St. George Tucker's position, is the "true palladium of liberty" because it enables the fundamental right of self-defense, whether that defense is directed against an individual or an organization. As Tench Coxe put it, The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people. No right is truly unlimited. While private ownership of artillery was known (not particularly common, but known) in Colonial and post-Colonial America, the argument could be made that what is protected by the Second Amendment are man-portable weapons suitable for individual defense. It is the right to these weapons which may not be infringed. Weapons not suitable to individual defense, through extreme destructiveness (hand grenades, artillery), lack of selectivity (biological, chemical, nuclear, along with set-and-forget weapons like landmines), etc. could fall under the "reasonable restriction" umbrella. What should not, however, are those weapons suitable for defense that are carried by ordinary soldiers, and this includes handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Fully automatic weapons become a gray area here. Belt-feds? Restricted, but not banned. Submachine guns? The same.

Today there are something on the order of 200,000 fully automatic weapons in private hands ranging from the Glock 18 machine pistol (featured in the second Matrix movie and known in the UK as "The Most Terrifying Gun in the World!" (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)) to a triple-mount G.E. M134 mini-gun setup (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) capable of firing 9,000 7.62NATO rounds a minute. Assuming you had 9,000 rounds to feed it with. Private citizens also own functional artillery, from 20mm all the way up to a 105mm howitzer (that I'm aware of). A member of another forum I belong to is rebuilding a US M18A1 57mm Recoilless Rifle - legally. Very few people really grasp what Americans can - and do - own. I'll provide some links, if you don't believe me.

I believe that if you've been found guilty of a violent felony by a jury of your peers, it's acceptable to revoke your right to possess arms, along with other rights and privileges of citizens. Due process of law has been provided. If you're caught in possession of a firearm after having your right to arms legally stripped, you ought to go back inside. If, however, you've been out and legally clean for some reasonable period of time, there should be a mechanism by which you can petition to have your rights restored. That mechanism exists today, but the Congress refuses to fund it, and the Supreme Court has refused do anything about it (see U.S. v. Bean (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) involving a U.S. citizen found guilty of a felony in a Mexican court.)

I believe that citizens who have not had their rights revoked through due process of law should have the right to keep and carry arms pretty much wherever they go. I think the government's power to decide what is and what isn't an "acceptable" weapon should be much more constrained than it is currently. For example, why is this:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

a "short-barreled shotgun" per the National Firearms Act of 1934 requiring a $200 tax stamp to possess, but this:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

is an "Any Other Weapon" under that same law, requiring only a $5 tax stamp? The upper example holds two rounds of 12 gauge ammunition, the lower one holds three.

This makes sense?

Or this:

It's perfectly legal to put a vertical grip on a rifle or a shotgun, like on this AR15

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

but if you do it to a handgun

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

it becomes an NFA-restricted "Any Other Weapon" requiring a full FBI background check, permission from your local head of law-enforcement, and that $5 tax stamp?

Why are suppressors available for $50 over the counter in gun-phobic Great Britain, but NFA-restricted including a $200 tax here in the States?

Why is a .22 caliber Marlin Model 60 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) tube-magazine rifle that holds 14 rounds an "assault rifle" in New Jersey, but an otherwise identical model that has the smaller 11-round magazine is not? (See State v. Pelleteri)

Yes, there are some reasonable limits on the right to arms, but damned few that have been enacted fall into that definition.

I will also say this: I will not license, and I will not register. Not for simple possession of arms. I'm not happy about licensing to carry concealed, but that particular argument goes back all the way to the Founders, so I defer. Licensing to possess? NFW. Registration of arms that are not restricted? NFW. Not now, not ever.

Does that help?

[whitey]

Now how would you determine if citizens are 'law abiding citizens'? What is the difference between nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and say, an MK19 (automatic grenade launcher)?



If people would read the legal definition's from Black's law for: Citizen, State, contract, authority, and some other terms, then there wouldn't be so many discussions on such topics. But, those doing business in the corporation AKA the United States made damn sure to brain wash several generations worth of humans so that their perception of reality is anchored in fantasy.

Hmm, perhaps people will notice the little "R" next to the legal phrase "United States", on their census envelopes and decide to investigate. But probably not...*sigh*

[hubcap]

Now how would you determine if citizens are 'law abiding citizens'? What is the difference between nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and say, an MK19 (automatic grenade launcher)?
Pretty much the same way it is already determined. Those citizens who have not been convicted of a felony, although there are some felonies that in my opinion should not disqualify a person from owning a gun.

Here is a list of the 20 most common felonies committed in the United States. There are several on the list that in my opinion shouldn't disqualify someone from owning a gun. There are a number of others that didn't make the top 20 list that I also think are benign as far as gun ownership goes.

(1) Drug abuse violations 1,841,182
(2) Driving while Intoxicated 1,427,494 (aka Felony DUI)
(3) Property crime 1,610,088 (includes burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.)
(4) Larceny-theft 1,172,762
(5) Assault 1,305,693
(6) Disorderly conduct 709,105
(7) Liquor laws 633,654
(8) Violent crime 597,447 (including murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault.
(9) Drunkenness 589,402
(10) Aggravated assault 433,945
(11) Burglary 303,853
(12) Vandalism 291,575
(13) Fraud 252,873
(14) Weapons violations (carrying or possession) 188,891
(15) Curfew and loitering 143,002
(16) Robbery 126,715
(17) Offenses against family and children 122,812
(18) Stolen property (buying, receiving, possession) 122,061
(19) Motor vehicle theft 118,231
(20) Forgery and counterfeiting 103,448

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[reb]

Of course there's a slippery slope. Most of the arguments about gun control revolve around "the gun is a tool" or "guns kill people." It's hard to convince someone on the other side the viewpoint.

this is the precise problem i have with most of the debate. the viewpoint of 'either/or' is so limited as to be misconstrued en toto. KHBaker's discussion reviews the larger perspective. this is the deciding matter to me....it's a broad perspective issue, not a narrow perspective one of definitions or 'what an item can do'. if one views the broader perspective of human life, the narrow issues fall away. convincing a narrow issue perspective to broaden is a personality matter or perhaps a lack of experience or capability situation. i will never be able to make a wren into an elephant, nor will anyone else.

[KHBaker]

Pretty much the same way it is already determined. Those citizens who have not been convicted of a felony, although there are some felonies that in my opinion should not disqualify a person from owning a gun.

It's worse than that. Here's the pertinent part of the law, 18 USC Section 922(g)(1) (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):It shall be unlawful for any person -

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) who is a fugitive from justice;

(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien -(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or

(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) who is subject to a court order that - (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;

(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and

(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or

(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
The key part is that first line: convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. Not the sentence you received, the sentence you COULD HAVE received.

Colorado, for example, now has Class I misdemeanor sentencing guidelines that include 18 month sentences.

"Slippery slope" indeed.

[blueback]

Exactly. No one has to repeal a law directly when they can simply render it irrelevant. By the time enough people notice the reality there will be so many overlapping restrictions, with so much precedent, that getting the original law back will be nearly impossible.

[KHBaker]

(KHBaker, just to let you know I've read your post, and I'll try to reply when I've more time.... although I too sense the deep philosophical gulf between our positions.)Some time back, another blogger wrote something that I have kept:There can be no useful debate between two people with different first principles, except on those principles themselves.I think this discussion illuminates that rule. I'm more than willing to debate those first principles, though.

[hubcap]

This picture illustrates the reason so many are opposed to gun control:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.