The result of gun control

[Student of Trinity]

I don't want to get into gory details here, but I think there's a certain amount of confusion over what 'assault rifles' are. The physical differences between what a semi-automatic M16 clone can in principle do, for example, and what an old-fashioned bolt-action hunting rifle can in principle do, are just not that great. To me the main differences are psychological. I was in the first generation of Canadian reservists to be issued the Canadian M16 variant, after starting my training with the old FN FAL, which was also semi-automatic, but much longer and heavier. We all agreed that the new rifle felt like a toy. It made us feel weird.

 

For a number of reasons I just think that a lot more violent kooks are going to feel they can live out their gruesome fantasy with a so-called assault rifle, than would actually go through with it if they had to use something that felt less like a magic wand. Supporting assault rifle bans on purely physical grounds can be a difficult argument to sustain. The psychological case may seem weaker at first, but I think it's the real issue at stake.

 

I'm also pretty antsy about handguns, actually. I do not like being around those things. It's much harder to hit what you're aiming at with a handgun than the movies suggest, and they're also much less reliably effective than one would wish at stopping bad guys. Against that, the chances of accidentally hurting or killing some bystander are alarmingly high. For self-defense, I think Joe Biden has the right idea. If you absolutely have to use a firearm, a shotgun is the most practical option from a number of points of view.

[Goldengirl]

However, there is no, I repeat, no reason for Joe Consumer to be able to get weapons explicitly designed for killing humans.

[...]

A pistol for self-defense? Sure.

 

Please tell me you see the contradiction here.

[Harehunter]

SoT, You bring up a valid point. While the militia made a significant impact during the revolution, the Colonies would not have succeeded in their war of independence without the aid of France.

 

Lilith, Your point is equally valid. The Confederacy lacked one key factor that the Revolutionaries had; support from another world power capable of nullifying the Union blockade.

 

That being said, it does not diminish the effect that those militia had upon either war.

 

SoT, I understand your experience with the AR15. My first ROTC experience on the rifle range was with an M14 rifle. Quite a difference between a 7.62mm and the 5.56mm of an M16, which is selectable to semi or full automatic, unlike your Canadian clone, which was most likely an AR15 that has only two positions on the selector; safe and semi-automatic.

 

BTW, there are far more gun owners that obey the laws than there are who violate the law. Will disarming those law abiding citizens get the guns out of the hands of those whose intent is to break the law in the first place? If outlawing a thing was so effective in removing it from the street, there would be no cocaine or methamphetamine being peddled.

[Student of Trinity]

BTW, there are far more gun owners that obey the laws than there are who violate the law. Will disarming those law abiding citizens get the guns out of the hands of those whose intent is to break the law in the first place? If outlawing a thing was so effective in removing it from the street, there would be no cocaine or methamphetamine being peddled.

Yeah, that's a big question. I wonder, though. Some things have successfully been banned. You don't see private citizens driving around in tanks, or mounting artillery pieces on their lawns. You can't take a pair of scissors onto a plane. There don't seem to be many pirate radio stations any more.

 

Firearms are big-ticket items. A good handgun costs several hundred dollars. You can't just cook one up in your bathtub, and you normally can't sell one a piece at a time to desperate gun-junkies. Normally you can't keep on selling them to the same people, either, so the repeat business that makes it worthwhile to establish a tricky distribution network is probably not there. The business model for selling illegal firearms may well just not be as compelling as for selling illegal drugs or alcohol.

 

It might take a long time, but I can kind of imagine a slow disarming of the American public. Violent crime levels have been steadily falling for quite some time. People may begin to lose their preoccupation with self-defense, and social attitudes to owning firearms may have a generational change. Some kind of buy-back program might slowly become more and more attractive, as people inherit Uncle Billy's collection and decide that they would really rather have the cash from Uncle Sam.

 

People who really want firearms, and know what they're doing, and have a lot of money, are always going to be able to get guns. The things are old technology. If necessary they can always be made by hand. But crimes of opportunity, where some whacko takes his parent's legally owned weapons, could perhaps be dramatically reduced.

[Mosquito---Slayer]

Please tell me you see the contradiction here.

There isn't any contradiction, it's fairly easy to aim small guns on a non-fatal part of anyone who is troubling you at the moment, that's not possible with assault thingies, Yes the pistols can kill but they certainly can't be used for the type of incidents that brought up the original gun control thread, All in all the utility value of small guns exceed their damage potential, with the assault rifles there utility to a normal person is zero with limitless scope for disaster.

[Kelandon]

I think I've said this before on these boards, but the Second Amendment is probably the part of the Constitution that is most removed from its original context and purpose because of the changes in society and technology since 1791. The purpose of the Second Amendment is plain from its text. It was to enable state militias. A state militia, at the time, just issued a call to the citizens of the state to gather up. It didn't issue guns, provide any training, or do anything like what the federal military does today. The citizens had to bring their own guns and know how to use them.

 

And yes, the state militias might have been intended to be a counterbalance to federal power and a last stand against a tyrannical takeover by a monarch or dictator or something. There was some idea that if the federal government grew too oppressive, the states could resist it through their militias, or at least there were some mumblings of that nature; I'm not clear on how widely this sentiment was shared among the Founders. You have to remember that when people actually took it into their heads to do this, Lincoln (who was himself something of an expert on the law) believed that they were acting in complete violation of the Constitution and the will of the Founders.

 

But the world has changed since 1791. State militias no longer exist. Citizens don't bring their own guns to military service anymore. The military provides training when people do enlist, so it's no longer necessary for every citizen to know how to use a gun.

 

Those who say that an armed citizenry can resist a tyrannical government typically can't cite an American example of private citizens with guns changing the course of a war more recently than the 19th century, and I think that's telling. The reality is that an armed citizenry can't do anything at all against a twenty-first century government, at least not one with the kind of weaponry that the American military has. Today, the federal government has precision missiles, drones, and other kinds of technology that pretty much render any gun that you might purchase moot. You can't resist the federal government by force. That option simply no longer exists, and it was never really supposed to be an option for some random individual; it was supposed to be the state, acting in concert, as a militia, that was supposed to do it (to the extent that anyone was supposed to do it, which, as I've said, is pretty questionable in the first place).

 

So what do we do with the Second Amendment? The explicit purpose of the Amendment (state militias) no longer applies at all. People present other reasons private citizens might have reason to own guns (hunting, self-defense), but we have to weigh that against the specter of gun violence that hangs over any conversation of guns. I did ultimately find the old studies, and as far as anyone can tell, buying a gun for self-defense is, on average, a terrible bet. It's much more likely to be used to harm someone in the household than to protect someone in the household (again, on average).

 

I've not yet made an argument as to what the law ought to be, though people who read what I write on guns tend to assume that I'm in favor of strong gun control. It's interesting that people think that, when I think that I'm just describing the factual background to the discussion.

[Sudanna]

 

Please tell me you see the contradiction here.

 

There's a difference between self-defense and killing.

[Student of Trinity]

There isn't any contradiction, it's fairly easy to aim small guns on a non-fatal part of anyone who is troubling you at the moment, that's not possible with assault thingies.

It's true that any high-powered rifle bullet is likely to be fatal almost wherever it hits a person, but have you ever fired a handgun? It's almost impossible to control exactly where you hit anything, if the target is moving, or if your adrenaline is running high. Under either of those circumstances alone, let alone both at once, it's astonishingly hard to hit a person at all, even at very close range. It's just as hard to ensure that, if you do hit, you hit a "non-fatal" part instead of something vital.

 

If you are not in mortal danger, you should not shoot even to injure. If you are in mortal danger, you cannot afford to try anything fancy. So if you shoot, you are shooting to kill. Your target might survive, but it would be no thanks to you. All firearms are extremely dangerous tools. Self-defense with firearms does mean killing.

[Dikiyoba]

I've not yet made an argument as to what the law ought to be, though people who read what I write on guns tend to assume that I'm in favor of strong gun control. It's interesting that people think that, when I think that I'm just describing the factual background to the discussion.

Probably because if one side argues that guns are useful for self-defense while the other side argues that guns are not useful for self-defense and most of the evidence points toward guns not being useful for self-defense, then logically only the second side is worth supporting.

 

Dikiyoba.

[Rowen]

You don't see private citizens driving around in tanks, or mounting artillery pieces on their lawns.

 

On NationStates you do. "Following new legislation in The Anama Empire, people can often be seen driving to work in war-surplus tanks."

[Randomizer]

In the US you can drive around in tanks that have been modified with rubber coated treads to avoid damaging road surfaces. However at the moment they can't have active weapons. I sent an article to a friend last year about a vehicle that came with a replica roof mounted machine gun.

[Student of Trinity]

I'm suddenly curious now just what the US laws are that prohibit private artillery. I presume they exist. What exactly do they say? How old are they? And if cannon and machine guns can be prohibited, why not other things? Hasn't the Second Amendment always had a built-in slippery slope to nullification?

[Alorael at Large]

There is a great deal of discussion as to the originating ideas behind the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled, and I believe rightly so, that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not reserved solely for federal or state controlled military forces. The reference to the militia in the wording of the 2nd Amendment is not meant to restrict that right, but to provide support for it.

 

But why did the framers of the Constitution want that right explicitly defined in the Law of the Land? The Federalist Papers are one of the prime historical references as to what was going on in the minds of the people, and those elected to represent them.

It's possible that the "militia" phrase is a red herring and the real purpose of the Second Amendment is to permit guns, even all guns, to all citizens. That seems unlikely, but I'm willing to entertain the possibility.

 

I'm also going to espouse a politically untenable position here but one that I hold fervently: what the Founders thought is irrelevant. The Constitution itself has no special weight beyond its status in law. The Constitution has been found wrong or lacking 27 times since it was written in ways great and small. If there is compelling reason to repeal the Second Amendment, we should do so. It has no value inherent to itself, only what it brings us in terms of freedom and protection. If we are better off without it, let it be stricken from the books and replaced with legislation specifically permitting and banning guns in a reasonable way without centuries' old dead hands tying ours.

 

If guns do more harm than good to us as a society and us as individuals, then abrogate our rights to guns in favor of our right to safety, security, and sanity.

 

—Alorael, who has seen no compelling evidence, or even moderately reasonable evidence, that guns serve protective purposes in any real capacity. If you are storing your guns in any remotely safe way they are not available in case of home invasion. Unless you practice your quick draw they are probably not going to save lives on the street. And either way they are overwhelmingly more likely to be used to cause accidental harm to someone in your house or used in a crime of passion by you, the owner. Few other things have as explicit a use in harming others, yet many other things that risk only the self are regulated strictly.

[Randomizer]

The Wall Street Journal had a recent op-ed piece on militias and the Second Amendment that I can't link to because it's in the subscriber only section. The point of the opinion piece was that a militia is not a mob of armed citizens, but an organized group that comes together for a purpose and has rules on what it will do and how weapons are to be used. It wasn't about protecting homes or hunting that the Second Amendment referred to, but the rights of armed citizens to band together for a political purpose.

[Brocktree]

Militia are no good against a regular army. That's why America won the war in Vietnam.

[Student of Trinity]

North Vietnam had a pretty darn regular army.

[Goldengirl]

I'm also going to espouse a politically untenable position here but one that I hold fervently: what the Founders thought is irrelevant. The Constitution itself has no special weight beyond its status in law. The Constitution has been found wrong or lacking 27 times since it was written in ways great and small. If there is compelling reason to repeal the Second Amendment, we should do so. It has no value inherent to itself, only what it brings us in terms of freedom and protection. If we are better off without it, let it be stricken from the books and replaced with legislation specifically permitting and banning guns in a reasonable way without centuries' old dead hands tying ours.

 

The author is dead, and this time it's actually true.

[Jerakeen]

North Vietnam had a pretty darn regular army.

 

Plus the backing of China.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Jerakeen
added quote

[Brocktree]

North Vietnam had a pretty darn regular army.

 

Yep. And how many battles did they win versus the United States? It wasn't the regular army which caused American soldiers grief. It was the asymmetrical style warfare practiced by the guerrillas (ie. regular citizens who picked up a gun).

[Mosquito---Slayer]

All firearms are extremely dangerous tools. Self-defense with firearms does mean killing.

I don't agree, while I have never shot personally lots of my uncles/close relatives have, you can almost certainly aim on the legs and even if you miss and whoever you fired at doesn't have a gun he should be scared enough to run away, Self defense with firearms should mean killing only if otherwise it means death/heavy damage for you and I am not talking about the trigger happy folks. obviously I wasn't talking about close range, close range is something of a chance situation in any case, either way if you are fighting at close range then the guy is certainly going to kill/heavily injure you and In that case well....

So basically I'm saying that small guns have a utility in non-Mortal situation, assault thingies don't and if someone kills someone in a mortal situation that's not really a crime.

[Alorael at Large]

And you should probably believe the people who have shot guns. Accuracy is hard. If you don't think your life is at risk, why are you risking theirs? If you do, why aren't you doing everything you can to save yourself? Limbs are tricky things to hit, especially if you're not a marksmen, and there are very few pistol marksmen. Centers of mass are your sure bet. Point, shoot.

 

—Alorael, who also does not think that the kind of trauma that gunshot wounds deal is getting its fair due. People survive shots to the chest or head. People also die when you hit their femoral arteries and there isn't time for the ambulance to save them. Once bullets fly death is on the table. Not always, but you are making death a likely consequence. Trying to pretend otherwise is ridiculous.

[Mosquito---Slayer]

If you don't think your life is at risk, why are you risking theirs?

I can see a lot of situations here, hypothetically, what should I do if someone with an Iron Rod is coming towards me but has some distance to cover, do I shoot him in the center or do I go for limbs? or what If someone is running away from my home after stealing something valuable but is in the range?

If you do, why aren't you doing everything you can to save yourself?

Never said anything about the situation, if he is trying to kill you,you try to kill him. period.

Once bullets fly death is on the table. Not always, but you are making death a likely consequence. Trying to pretend otherwise is ridiculous.

Of course it is, and of course you can miss limbs, my point is that there are situations where scaring someone can work, It's always preferable to killing someone if he isn't going for the kill and you can scare someone with a small gun.

[Harehunter]

Actually, Texas has a militia independent of the National Guard and the regular army. In addition to this, there are many small informal militias that are completely dissociated from any state or federal control. I also understand that Texas is not alone in that regard.

 

Disarming the law abiding citizens may sound like a good idea. Now if we could just disarm the drug cartel gangsters south of the border. And how does this take guns out of the hands of people who have already have a complete disregard for the law in the first place?

[Dikiyoba]

or what If someone is running away from my home after stealing something valuable but is in the range?

If someone is only after your stuff, you give them your stuff. Yes, getting stuff stolen is awful, especially if the perpetrator is never caught and/or your stuff is never recovered. However, it's better to lose your stuff than to give the criminal a reason to harm you, or to end up charged with murder because you killed someone you didn't have to.

 

Of course it is, and of course you can miss limbs, my point is that there are situations where scaring someone can work, It's always preferable to killing someone if he isn't going for the kill and you can scare someone with a small gun.

Scaring someone with a gun is a good way to get yourself killed, especially if the other person also has a gun.

 

Dikiyoba.

[Lilith]

I'm suddenly curious now just what the US laws are that prohibit private artillery. I presume they exist. What exactly do they say? How old are they? And if cannon and machine guns can be prohibited, why not other things? Hasn't the Second Amendment always had a built-in slippery slope to nullification?

 

I believe the constitutional justification is that for the purposes of the Second Amendment, things like artillery count as "ordnance", not "arms".

 

I can see a lot of situations here, hypothetically, what should I do if someone with an Iron Rod is coming towards me but has some distance to cover, do I shoot him in the center or do I go for limbs? or what If someone is running away from my home after stealing something valuable but is in the range?

 

It's not as easy to aim a gun as you seem to think. Trained police officers shooting from 10 metres away and aiming for the chest miss about 50% of their shots. Aiming for the legs is a pretty awful idea under almost all circumstances: you'll probably miss, and they might die even if you hit.

 

Also, shooting someone who's already fleeing is incredibly illegal in most places. You're using lethal force against someone who's no longer a danger.

[Dikiyoba]

Now if we could just disarm the drug cartel gangsters south of the border.

A lone citizen with a gun doesn't stand a chance snowball's chance in hell against a drug cartel.

 

And how does this take guns out of the hands of people who have already have a complete disregard for the law in the first place?

Well, it means they can't get a gun by stealing it from a law-abiding citizen. It means they can't borrow or take a gun from a law-abiding friend or family member. It means a law-abiding citizen can't commit a crime while in a temporary non-law-abiding state (like being drunk or angry or jealous). And, who knows, maybe stricter gun control will lead to less guns available on the black market, making them harder and/or more expensive to obtain.

 

Or to put it another way, people determined to have guns will have guns whether gun control is in place or not. Using guns for self-defense is almost entirely useless whether gun control is in place or not. But gun control can keep guns out of the hands out of the less determined or impulsive lawbreakers. And that's where a multitude of lives will be saved.

 

Dikiyoba.

[Alorael at Large]

I doubt most crimes committed with guns aren't organized crime, or hardened killers with a grudge or anything like that. Most of the time someone gets angry and has a gun handy.

 

—Alorael, who thinks this is also true for inner city gangs. Yes, there are plenty of illegal guns around, but they weren't brought into circulation by the black market. Those guns started out legal until someone sold one illegally. If they weren't legal in the first place the supply becomes much more difficult. Running guns isn't a trivial operation, and making them expensive enough that the urban poor can't afford them could well cut down on inner city violence.

[Kelandon]

And how does this take guns out of the hands of people who have already have a complete disregard for the law in the first place?

This reminds me of the other argument that often bothers me. People often say something like, "It's not law-abiding citizens that you have to worry about, but these terrible murderers and criminals!" But I don't think it's actually true that most preventable gun incidents (including accidents and suicides) are committed by those who have previously committed such heinous acts that they are identifiable as "people who already have a complete disregard for the law." I don't have the statistics at hand, but I suspect that most of the harm from guns comes from those who have not previously committed serious crimes. Sure, it's only those who will in the future do serious harm with guns who need to be deterred, but those people are indistinguishable from law-abiding citizens before they commit those acts.

 

In other words, if you're going to deter gun violence, you have to deter (currently) law-abiding citizens, because they are the ones who (in the future) are going to break the laws.

 

Again, I'm not making a normative statement about what the laws ought to be, just an attempt at a positive analysis of the factual background. (And Alo sniped me while I was in the bathroom. Well, I wouldn't expect anything less.)

 

 

Also, shooting someone who's already fleeing is incredibly illegal in most places. You're using lethal force against someone who's no longer a danger.

If I'm not mis-remembering Criminal Law last spring (which I might be), in the United States, at least, this depends on the exact law (both statutory and common) of your state. There may be circumstances in which you can say something like, "I know he was fleeing, but I thought he was leaving the room to get a gun from his car and shoot me, so I still was in reasonable fear of my life."

[Rowen]

It's not as easy to aim a gun as you seem to think. Trained police officers shooting from 10 metres away and aiming for the chest miss about 50% of their shots. Aiming for the legs is a pretty awful idea under almost all circumstances: you'll probably miss, and they might die even if you hit.

but cod/mw2 teaches me that i'm amazing with handgun accuracy

[Brocktree]

To all the individuals here who want to ban the one means a citizen has to defend themselves, I have to ask. What's your alternative? You can't take away a citizen's means to defend themselves without providing them with another means of defense. Will you provide them with a 24 hour bodyguard service? Will you pay for that? Or will that be another tax-payer funded service?

[A less presumptuous name.]

If I'm not mis-remembering Criminal Law last spring (which I might be), in the United States, at least, this depends on the exact law (both statutory and common) of your state. There may be circumstances in which you can say something like, "I know he was fleeing, but I thought he was leaving the room to get a gun from his car and shoot me, so I still was in reasonable fear of my life."

According to a friend from Texas, the state law pretty much says you can shoot a person who is on your property if you feel reasonably threatened. I won't be visiting Texas anytime soon.

 

 

...ban the one means a citizen has to defend themselves...

Um... I'm just going to leave this here. If you think that gun is the absolute only way to achieve self defense, then I suggest you google "self defense." In fact, let me google that for you.

[Randomizer]

Depending upon local and state law, you can shoot an unarmed man off your property if you can claim that you felt threatened.

[Harehunter]

A lone citizen with a gun doesn't stand a chance snowball's chance in hell against a drug cartel.

I'm guessing you have not heard of the present day Minutemen organization. Although they have not taken to secure the border by means of force, the deliberate lack of enforcement may mean that they may have to.

 

 

Well, it means they can't get a gun by stealing it from a law-abiding citizen. It means they can't borrow or take a gun from a law-abiding friend or family member. It means a law-abiding citizen can't commit a crime while in a temporary non-law-abiding state (like being drunk or angry or jealous). And, who knows, maybe stricter gun control will lead to less guns available on the black market, making them harder and/or more expensive to obtain.

 

Or to put it another way, people determined to have guns will have guns whether gun control is in place or not. Using guns for self-defense is almost entirely useless whether gun control is in place or not. But gun control can keep guns out of the hands out of the less determined or impulsive lawbreakers. And that's where a multitude of lives will be saved.

 

Dikiyoba.

I was a juror in a murder trial where the weapon was a fire extinguisher. Do we now ban fire extinguishers? A woman murdered her philandering husband with her car, running over him repeatedly. Do we now ban cars? Baseball bats, kitchen knives... the list goes on.

 

To assume that just because a person has a firearm they are more likely to commit a crime is ludicrous. That is like saying that any person who has a few beers are 100% more likely to cause a homicide than someone who abstains completely.

 

There is a saying that goes like this,

"A locked door only keeps an honest man honest. The dishonest don't care about it either way."

 

So it is OK to punish those who have committed no crime, in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, the people who seek to do harm won't get their hands on a tool with which to cause harm. Like a hammer, an axe, a shovel...

[Goldengirl]

The difference between the weapons you're citing, Harehunter, and guns is that guns primary purpose is to injure. All too often when they injure, they kill.

[keira]

Actually, Texas has a militia independent of the National Guard and the regular army. In addition to this, there are many small informal militias that are completely dissociated from any state or federal control. I also understand that Texas is not alone in that regard.

Assuming Texas "independent militias" are like their pals in northwest montana, i'm not sure how mentioning that there are loads of white-supremacist neonazi anarchists with assault weapons in Texas helps your cause.

 

Just saying

[Lilith]

I'm guessing you have not heard of the present day Minutemen organization.

 

why are you bringing up a white supremacist paramilitary in this discussion. in what sense is that "a lone citizen with a gun". in what sense is its existence even a good thing in any way at all

[Student of Trinity]

Oh, you can aim at somebody's legs. Your chances of hitting them there are just low. If you do hit them somewhere in a leg, there are some big arteries in the legs. They may well bleed to death in a few seconds.

 

If somebody is unarmed you have no business shooting at them! If you shoot at them and kill them either on purpose or by accident, why the hell did you just kill an unarmed person? You'll be doing time, and they're dead. Try to apologize to their kids. It probably won't comfort them much to know that your actions were motivated by delusions about handgun accuracy and human anatomy.

 

I'm sorry if I seem unduly harsh, here, but this is very serious. People are killed accidentally every year by young family members or friends who had no idea how dangerous handguns are.

 

I grew up surrounded by firearms, literally. They hung on all the walls of our rec-room. As soon as I was old enough to be curious about them, my father explained to me very gravely: never point a firearm at anything you do not intend to kill — whether the weapon is loaded or not. That's the only rule. When I grew up and ran shooting exercises for infantry recruits, I was definitely pretty keen that the twenty kids with assault rifles ahead of me kept their muzzles pointing straight downrange at all times. Guns aren't scary. Muzzles are really scary. That's where bullets come out.

 

Used with the principle I learned from my dad in mind, firearms are useful tools. They can put food on the table, keep vermin from eating your crops, and if necessary defend your life. They are dangerous tools, like chainsaws, but they can be used safely — to the user. Unlike other tools, the very purpose of any firearm is to kill things. Not realizing this is the most dangerous ignorance about them.

[Alorael at Large]

We have guns, fire extinguishers, knives, and cars. All can be murder weapons. Only one is involved in the vast majority of murders.

 

If guns were banned would murderers turn to other weapons? Some would, yes. But not all of them. You can kill someone in a drive-by knifing. You can't beat a few dozen people to death in a mall or a theater. You can't run over someone who you hate while they're at school or in their house. And it takes guts and fervor to go up to someone and start stabbing. Pulling a trigger is easy.

 

—Alorael, whose biggest concern with the Minutemen with regards to Harehunter's point is not that they're white supremacists. They may well be, but at least they put a slightly different face on it. No, he's more concerned that someone can believe they are doing anything to combat cartels. They are not.

[SkeleTony]

I was inspired.

 

There is a great deal of discussion as to the originating ideas behind the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled, and I believe rightly so, that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not reserved solely for federal or state controlled military forces. The reference to the militia in the wording of the 2nd Amendment is not meant to restrict that right, but to provide support for it.

 

But why did the framers of the Constitution want that right explicitly defined in the Law of the Land? The Federalist Papers are one of the prime historical references as to what was going on in the minds of the people, and those elected to represent them. There is reference to the idea that a well armed citizenry was the last bastion against the encroachment of tyranny. It was due in no small part to the militias, volunteer groups of men with no mandate from the state, that the presumed tyranny of the King of England and Parliament was thrown off. Had there not been a well armed citizenry to start with, there would have been no militias, and no independence.

 

Is it possible for a tyrant to usurp the authority granted to the legislative body of government, and thereby become dictator over all those who had elected him to office? Witness Germany in the 1930's. Witness Cuba in the sixties. Witness the Bolshevic Revolution. Yes, it has happened, and it could happen here. I do not say that it is happening now, but there have been statements made that indicate a desire to strip our citizens of the rights guaranteed by the Law of the Land.

 

In the heated passion invoked by the recent events, there are people who would willingly give up those rights if they believed it would make them safer. "Peace at any price" led to a global war. Appeasement has failed to stanch the acts of violence against the west. And gun-free zones make better targets for deranged mass murders than someplace where they may be confronted by a law abiding citizen who has the means to put a stop to their antics.

 

I know I will somehow catch Hell for this but I will try to say it, maturely and without insulting, anyway.

 

1) The Second Ammendment not only applied to a time when we had NO MILITARY aside from the typical citizen with his musket/rifle, but also at a time when the founders could not even imagine a day when fully automatic assault rifles, Uzis, etc. existed. If they could have seen what todays guns can do to (a LOT of)people in mere seconds, they would surely ask us if we had lost our minds in not enacting severe controls on who could own and use what guns. We have a real military now. The most powerful in the world. If any other nation's military gets past ours then you and your AR 15 will not make any difference at all.

 

2) Re: " But what if our government becomes a tyranical dictatorship to which we must take up arms against to preserve our liberty?" - This is as silly a hypothetical as I can possibly imagine. It has as many holes as 9/11 conspiracy theories. Let's say for the sake of argument that Obama (or whomever) gets this bright idea to enslave America (for whatever reason...). Okay that's the first step and it's all uphill from here! Next he has to "psst. Psst. Over here...you guys. I got this idea to oppress America and turn this place into the Fourth Reich. Everyone with me? All of you Dept. of Defense guys, Justice Department folks and what not? Good...because if anyone of you go to the CIA or Pentagon or media with this then it is all ****ed up! Not only will YOU become the hero that saved America but I will be killed by firing squad. So nobody tell on me...okay?".

 

But the silliness does not end there. Next the conspirators and Generals and such have to convince American soldiers to turn their arms against their own families, killing them should they decide not to accept the new government. Hard to imagine soldiers not wanting to shoot down their own parents, wives and children to support a mad scheme destined to get us invaded by some U.N. coalition of nations once it takes effect (/sarcasm).

 

3) England probably has the strictest gun control laws in the civilized world. They have less gun-related deaths per year than we have per DAY. I don't know if they have ever had a mass shooting. Austrailia has in recent years went with very strict laws controlling gun ownership and usage. They did this in response to a rising tide of mass shootings that did imense damage in terms of lost lives and general psyche. The result? Thety may have had one mass shooting since the gun buy back and other parts of their gun control packlages were enacted (assuming the wikipedia article I read was legitimate). Gun related crimes and death have dropped by 50% (though some on the Right will claim this is not true and cite sketchy sources to support such).

 

4) The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy. it does not become non-fallacious by repeating it over and over (this is not directed at Harehunter who never advocated such. This is directed at a certain someone in this thread who does keep repeating this fallacy. It does not stand to reason that restricting guns in any way (i.e. banning assault rifles etc.) leads to absurd prohibitions regarding gun collectors, hunters, paintball players etc.. Anymore than prohibiting the construction of 'dirty bombs' leads to Warner Bros. cartoons or Michael Bay movies being illegal due to the explosions contained therein.

 

I am surrounded by gun owners in my neighborhood. If someone were to try and break into any house on my street he would be signing his death warrant. Every one of these people are balanced, sane and trustworthy to own guns. I have no objection to them doing so (most are former military or law enforcement). I would be a hypocrite if I did have such a problem. But for the love of honesty people can we have at least as much regulation as we do for driving big rigs?! In order to drive a semi truck or some such you need to earn a Commercial Drivers License (CDL) and to get that you have to be thoroughly tested. IMO if we are going to license people to be gun owners (and we should) then we should have a battery of tests for psychological stability as well as gun safety and proper use training. I don't think we will usher in the apocalypse by doing so.

[SkeleTony]

I was a juror in a murder trial where the weapon was a fire extinguisher. Do we now ban fire extinguishers? A woman murdered her philandering husband with her car, running over him repeatedly. Do we now ban cars? Baseball bats, kitchen knives... the list goes on.

 

Okay let me put it this way:

 

There is a disturbed kid sittin in his basement, refusing to take his meds for the last week. He eventually comes to the 'realization' that the only thing for him to do is to head over to the school/bus station/grocery store/daycare and kill a few dozen people. This kid is going to target the place where YOUR kids/family will happen to be. Now, which of the following places would you want to be living when this occurs:

 

1)The USA - Where you not only have to worry about the psycho-kid and the ease by which he has access to military assault weapons, but also possibly a dozen paranoid Ted Nugent types sitting around in their cars (with their guns) in the parking lot looking for 'suspicious people' and on edge over the Newtown school shootings.

 

2) England - where just getting a single gun can be difficult and for the kid to get an assault rifle is next to impossible. Not even the cops have guns.

 

3) Austrailia - Where, again the disturbed kid MAY be able to get ahold of a non-automatic rifle or shotgun.

 

?

 

People always claim that more armed citizens leads to people being better protected from such tragedies but this is simply FALSE. What it leads to is more bar fights ending in death and severe injury. More spousal disputes ending in death and injury. More kids shot by their parents because they were mistkaen for a criminal. More "Well ****! How was I supposed to know he was an undercover cop?! He looked suspicious and when he reached for his gun I thought he was going to shoot up the 7-11!" deaths. Etc. etc.

 

To assume that just because a person has a firearm they are more likely to commit a crime is ludicrous. That is like saying that any person who has a few beers are 100% more likely to cause a homicide than someone who abstains completely.

 

First of all, false analogy. Second of all: straw man. No one is arguing that anyone who has a gun is "more liklely to commit a crime". What some of us are arguing is that uncontrolled preponderance of guns = much greater propensity of homicide in the form of mass shootings, armed robberies, assassinations, drive bys etc. If gangsters have to get out of their cars, chase me down and stab me to death then killing me becomes a much more difficult task (especially trying to do so without getting arrested) than if they can just drive by spraying bullets all over.

 

Drinking alcohol does not necessarily lead to getting drunk (but you are already much further along than the guy who does not drink) and getting drunk does not necessarily mean you will be a violent a$$hole. But we do heavily control drinking/doing drugs in the forms of minimum ages, times in which alcohol can be purchased and what you are allowed to do if you have been drinking/drug using. You cannot drive for example while impaired.

 

THAT is what gun control advocates are asking for.

 

There is a saying that goes like this,

"A locked door only keeps an honest man honest. The dishonest don't care about it either way."

 

So it is OK to punish those who have committed no crime, in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, the people who seek to do harm won't get their hands on a tool with which to cause harm. Like a hammer, an axe, a shovel...

 

You have a funny definition of "punish". Are we punishing people by not allowing them to enrich uranium in their warehouses? Are we punishing people by not allowing them to drive a Boeing 787 down the freeway? Are we punishing parents who force their children to die of easily treatable diseases becuase they don't want to believe in medicine in their religion by insisting they take their children to doctors when they get the measels, flu, pneumonia ? What about the guy who wants to place land mines on his property then order a pizza delivered or have an ambulance come pick up his wife when she becomes ill?

[Lilith]

SkeleTony, please try to keep all your replies in one post so that your posts don't dominate a page of the thread quite so much. There's a multiquote feature now: you can click the Quote button underneath each post you want to quote in order to add them to a single post. Also, don't evade the swearing filter -- it's against the rules.

[SkeleTony]

SkeleTony, please try to keep all your replies in one post so that your posts don't dominate a page of the thread quite so much. There's a multiquote feature now: you can click the Quote button underneath each post you want to quote in order to add them to a single post. Also, don't evade the swearing filter -- it's against the rules.

 

Sorry about that. I actually wondered aloud if typing that word that way was going to be a problem. I should adopt the rule that if I have to wonder about it I probably should not do it.

 

Also, sorry for the multi-post thing. I got spoiled by forums that automatically combine such posts.

[Harehunter]

I apologize for the sarcasm in my last post, but I used it only to indicate that with respect to gun control, it is a very emotional issue. The arguments I have presented supporting the right to keep arms will never be accepted by those who believe that stricter laws will actually make them safer. On the other hand, the arguments for repealing, or severely limiting, the 2nd Amendment make just as little sense to me.

 

Not everyone is as rational as the members of this forum are. There are people in the world that respect only strength, and who see discussions like this as a sign of weakness, a weakness that can be exploited for their own gain. While the vast majority of people are moral and law abiding, there are those who do not hold to that standard. Guns are out there, and there are already networks in place that will continue to supply them to immoral people bent on committing crime.

 

The genie is out of the bottle. I see no way to effectively stuff it back in.

[Brocktree]

<p>

If somebody is unarmed you have no business shooting at them!

Why not? Why is one not permitted to defend themselves from life-threatening harm simply because the assailant is going to beat them to death with their fists, instead of stab them with a knife or shoot them with a gun?As for their kids... stuff em. If my personal safety is on the life, I couldn't care less about some stranger's little bastards.

[Kelandon]

Not everyone is as rational as the members of this forum are. There are people in the world that respect only strength, and who see discussions like this as a sign of weakness, a weakness that can be exploited for their own gain. While the vast majority of people are moral and law abiding, there are those who do not hold to that standard. Guns are out there, and there are already networks in place that will continue to supply them to immoral people bent on committing crime.

Harehunter, you often cite the most determined and unrepentant criminals as if they are the only ones who do harm with guns. This is untrue. Most gun violence consists of crimes of opportunity. Most gun violence is not premeditated. It is not committed by people who have links to organized crime or gun trafficking. It is committed because a relatively ordinary person was in the wrong place at the wrong time with a gun. That's not an opinion; that's a statistic. And thus far, you've engaged in this conversation without ever coming to grips with that fact.

[Alorael at Large]

I apologize for the sarcasm in my last post, but I used it only to indicate that with respect to gun control, it is a very emotional issue. The arguments I have presented supporting the right to keep arms will never be accepted by those who believe that stricter laws will actually make them safer. On the other hand, the arguments for repealing, or severely limiting, the 2nd Amendment make just as little sense to me.

Disagreeing I can accept. Saying they make no sense means you're either very unintelligent or not trying very hard. I've got ample evidence of an agile mind at work, so I'm going to say that what you really mean is that the arguments are unacceptable to you. That's a semantic difference, but an important one.

 

The genie is out of the bottle. I see no way to effectively stuff it back in.

This is the weakest argument for gun freedom. We cannot fix the problem, so we throw up our hands? That is not the American way! If a problem is identified, we find a solution! Even if it's hard, we try. And frankly getting an admission that gun control would be good in theory but is impossible in practice would be a huge step forward.

 

—Alorael, who does see eye to eye with Brocktree on one thing. If his personal safety is on the line, he couldn't care less about you or your rights. You have no right to bear arms and endanger him.

[Student of Trinity]

Why is one not permitted to defend themselves from life-threatening harm simply because the assailant is going to beat them to death with their fists, instead of stab them with a knife or shoot them with a gun?

 

If we are talking about a situation in which someone is in serious danger of being killed by somebody's bare hands, then fine, in principle I'll accept this as justification for shooting to kill. In practice, though, the principle will lead far more often than not to people who are just drunk or scared killing people, for no good reason whatever, except that they could easily get their hands on a gun.

 

As for their kids... stuff em. If my personal safety is on the life, I couldn't care less about some stranger's little bastards.

 

I almost hate to take advantage of a tone-deafness that hints alarmingly at sociopathy. You really might want to get that looked at. As a strictly academic discussion point, though, I have to point the argument out. What you've demonstrated is that if some people get frightened, they will kill if they can, and not give a damn about any innocent bystanders, either. That's a strong case for strict gun control, put in a nutshell. Good job.

[Sudanna]

<p>Why not? Why is one not permitted to defend themselves from life-threatening harm simply because the assailant is going to beat them to death with their fists, instead of stab them with a knife or shoot them with a gun?As for their kids... stuff em. If my personal safety is on the life, I couldn't care less about some stranger's little bastards.

 

Very good reasons that we shouldn't let you have guns.

[Randomizer]

Why not? Why is one not permitted to defend themselves from life-threatening harm simply because the assailant is going to beat them to death with their fists, instead of stab them with a knife or shoot them with a gun?As for their kids... stuff em. If my personal safety is on the life, I couldn't care less about some stranger's little bastards.

Look at the case in Florida of T. Martin. Was a neighborhood watch justified in stalking a legal resident of his neighborhood that he didn't recognize after the police told him not to continue? Phone calls showed that MArtin was scared that he was been followed and would have been justified to attack a stranger that might have been following with criminal intent. This case still hasn't gone to trial, but there still hasn't been any mention by the neighbor watcher on what steps he really took to identify himself and his concerns other than claiming he was attacked.

[Brocktree]

If we are talking about a situation in which someone is in serious danger of being killed by somebody's bare hands, then fine, in principle I'll accept this as justification for shooting to kill. In practice, though, the principle will lead far more often than not to people who are just drunk or scared killing people, for no good reason whatever, except that they could easily get their hands on a gun.

 

So you're against people defending themselves with a gun because some people who claim they used a gun to act in self defense might not have actually been under threat? Seem like specious argument to me. You're essentially disarming thei population (against their will... typical) because the right to bear arms might be abused by a few.

 

 

What you've demonstrated is that if some people get frightened, they will kill if they can, and not give a damn about any innocent bystanders, either. That's a strong case for strict gun control, put in a nutshell. Good job.

 

If my life is put in mortal peril, I feel morally justified in taking any means to defend it. Just because there are people in society who are happy to be mown down like sheep does not mean I'm obliged to feel the same way.

 

If you're so worried about kids and gun crime, here's a thought. Sell your PC and house and donate that money to a child who has lost their parents due to gun crime. Or become a doctor and treat young gunshot victims. Or work in one of those social programs where they reform gang members. Otherwise, I'm going to call BS. You don't care about the kids. If you genuinely cared, you'd actually make some sort of self sacrifice, instead of expecting *others* to give up their guns. Gee, how easy it is to expect *others* to reduce their quality of life for your cause, huh!

 

Very good reasons that we shouldn't let you have guns.

 

Why not? If you don't stalk, harass, or threaten people, then what do you have to fear? It actually reminds me of the public outrage when a McDonald's worker suggested she might spit in a rude customer's hamburger. Why would you be worried, unless you're a rude customer? Act with a little civility and avoid conflict, and people won't have a reason to feel threatened. The expection to the rule is the occasional person with a mental illness, or a violent career criminal.

 

Yeah yeah, I know, even normal people who have a bad day and are pushed can (rarely) resort to violence. But if you don't get in their faces, that won't be a problem, will it now?