Debate and Discussion

Right to bear ARMS
reconjsh at 8:30AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
What confuses me is that the same people who argue that guns should be banned are the same that freak-out and are appalled when other constituional rights are edited, reviewed, or restricted.

That's a fallacy - argumentum ad hominem; and possibly red herring/straw man fallacy as well. I know already. It's not an arguement… I'm just stating it confuses me.

Even more so than the evasion of our constitutional by taking away firearm rights (or the notion of eliminating them completely), the hypocrisy within the people who support such a ban really grinds my gears. “I have the right to smoke which kills more than just myself and do drugs which have victims beyond the user and say whatever I want despite the consequences or any moral ‘right or wrong’ of the statement… but take away the guns because it kills people.” Those people really bug me. I'm sure none of you are like that. ;)

I just think if you're going to believe something, understand it well enough to know how that belief applies to all your other beliefs. I think a lot of people (not necessarily you guys though) don't understand what they're really saying.

Again, I know - ad hominem. Anyways…

Certainly I (and you too) can prove our other constitutional rights have directly caused deaths when used irresponsibly. If there are varying degrees of “directly”, I suppose I can concede that guns are “more direct” killers, but the direct link of other rights remain nonetheless. Perhaps we should restrict/ban the other rights if it's easily proven they cause people to be murdered, higher crime rates, etc.

Slippery Slope argument, yes. Fallacy? No. Some slippery slope arguements are valid if you can prove a link between the two. And I'm certain it's clear how allowing our governement to remove guns totally and thus the 2nd amendment will allow for the 1st to be more freely opened as well… especially since one side will have no phyiscal resistance should they choose to “amend” the 1st amendment by force.

As for taking away my right to bear arms in the first place… it boogles my mind to think people would actually support a complete ban; a complete disarming of the US civilian population. I don't know where to begin discussing the many reasons why this is insane. I'm so confused that I suppose I should just leave this thread while I still can, lol.

I'm FOR registration, rigid punishments for law breakers and gun control however… but don't take away my right to protect myself. Speaking from direct experience… a female family member who has shot a man is far better than a dead female family member who was brutally raped. Thank goodness for CWPs.

There's value in game hunting for food. There's value in muggers/rapists not knowing which victim will be “strapped”. There's value in burglers not knowing if the people currently home in a house have quick access to a firearm. There's value in a government knowing its country is armed and may not like a totalitarian, communist or whatever shift. The criminals - be it petty thugs or oppressive governments - are going to have firearms or better regardless of laws. There's value in the criminals knowing that the scale isn't completely in their favor.

~Jerome~

SIDE NOTE: My comic Outland Angels (once we get through establishing a lot of the basic premises of the series) delves deeply into corrupt governments and their effect. Check it out and stick around to see how some double crossed henchmen and a horde of zombies might be a thorn in the government's side. (link in my sig)
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
ozoneocean at 8:44AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,801
joined: 1-2-2006
Oh jeebus…
No one ever answers the question: If it's so wonderful and right to be able to own semi-automatic pistols and assault rifles, why not mines and other explosives too? Rocket launchers or poison gas?
They're all weapons that you can be armed with.

An artificial line is drawn for some reason isn't it? IT FRIGGING WELL IS! And you all know damn well why, so stop making up silly arguments for why there's a “right to bare arms”.
Nut jobs.

And as ALWAYS, there is NO call to ban all guns! Get that into your heads.
-less people want to ban all guns than would like to ban all tobacco products.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
subcultured at 8:51AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
when everyone has guns becuase they think the other person has guns…that's a powder keg right there.

all it takes is one lit match and you'll have deaths to hundreds as everyone will join the firefight. trying to kill rather than be killed. it'll be a chain reaction.

We take each justification of revising and edit if it outwieghts the positive. such as the free speech right…there are restrictions.

So there should be justification to only have guns on military or peace officer's hands. They know what they are doing. cops don't just open fire on anybody because they were trained to do it as last resort.

while Joe Blow there thinks it's a good idea to open fire on someone that dissed him or passed him on the road.

in today's security there are protection against attackers that don't involve handguns. back in the days when the bill of right was made, they didn't have mace, tasers, alarm systems.

guns kill, that's it's purpose.
i don't know about you, but taking a human life is a hard thing to do or even live through. If you aren't at all emotionally scarred with blowing someone's brains out, then you've lost touch with what makes you human.

Humans have grown successful because they built societies, linking each other in a chain. if a human dies the chain is weaker…that's why humans value lives to survive in the past. it's an instinct to care for each other to further surivive in the world.
that is what makes you human
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:02PM
reconjsh at 8:54AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
ozoneocean
Oh jeebus…
No one ever answers the question: If it's so wonderful and right to be able to own semi-automatic pistols and assault rifles, why not mines and other explosives too? Rocket launchers or poison gas?
They're all weapons that you can be armed with.

An artificial line is drawn for some reason isn't it? IT FRIGGING WELL IS! And you all know damn well why, so stop making up silly arguments for why there's a “right to bare arms”.
Nut jobs.

And as ALWAYS, there is NO call to ban all guns! Get that into your heads.
-less people want to ban all guns than would like to ban all tobacco products.

THE THREAD CREATER SUBCULTURED
IMO its an old antiquated right, it should be modified to only military or peace officers. YOu should not be able to buy it off any gun store. The increased gun violence is from the culture of gun loving individuals. If we stop the sell of guns to citizens and make it illegal for them to carry, the gun violence will start to decrease.

It's not the wild wild west anymore, order and justice is not solved by the tip of the gun. People shouldn't be armed. there's mace, tasers, and panic horns to fight attackers.

Today's school shooting in VA TECH is just an example of how out of control things have gotten when people are armed. 21 deaths…not including the killer. That's madness.

If you look at other countries that illegalize personal guns, you see a trend that thier crime rate is smaller.
Did you read the first post Double O? Sub made a call to ban all firearms. And thus, my response was based on that. Sorry m8, that last rant you made was a bit off considering that the first post directed the conversation towards a complete ban and arguements pro and con for such.

In a different thread, we may have a different conversation… but this one was, from its start, about a complete ban vs. the right to bear arms.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
ozoneocean at 8:58AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,801
joined: 1-2-2006
We're several posts away from the initial post, that's a minority position anyway (as all people know), we're all discussing the general topic, and my post isn't a direct reply to anyone in particular or I would have quoted something ^_^
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:26PM
reconjsh at 9:12AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
ozoneocean
We're several posts away from the initial post, that's a minority position anyway (as all people know), we're all discussing the general topic, and my post isn't a direct reply to anyway in particular or I would have quoted something ^_^
So this discussion is about “to what degree should we have gun control”?

Fine.

I first need to know a few things from you then Double O.

Do we consider the founders/writers of the constitution's intention and the technology of the time?
Do we consider 2nd amendment alterations, restrictions, and/or eliminations linked to other constituional rights or is it independent of those and we should persue the truth of this and only this right?
Apprently, it's established and agreed by the majority (except Subcultured) that there are in fact acceptable uses for firearms that should always remain constitutionally protected. What are those?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
Ronson at 9:13AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
subcultured
gun is use for killing
automobile is use for driving

i don't get your point.

My point is that if you start this argument from the aberration - that is, from the VA Tech shooting, or columbine … or whatever - then you are arguing that events like these occur too often and take too many lives.

But more lives are taken in automobile accidents and we don't bat an eye.

So your argument becomes one of controlling intent, not result.

That is, the result of shooting sprees nationally per year is a few hundred at most. The result of deaths from car accidents is several thousand. If we were trying to prevent needless deaths from all vantages, it would behoove us to increase automobile safety before instituting gun control.

Now, the idea that guns are used for killing other people is an aberration. The vast majority of guns are not used for killing other people (except in times of war by our military, which doesn't seem to bother anyone).

So you seek to limit the use of guns or ban guns because a small minority of guns are used to kill people. If you were result driven (result=early death), this would also make you want to reduce the number of automobiles on the streets for exactly the same reason.

But it's not the result, it's the intent that bothers you. Because more people intend to kill others with guns vs. the amount of people intending to kill others with cars, you want to remove guns from the equation.

But will the small minority of lunatics who want to shoot people really be curbed if there were no guns available? It seems to me that if you're a lunatic, you'll find something else. A nail gun, a car, a sword, a bomb …

As a result, gun control doesn't seek to prevent violent crime or protect innocent victims from violent crime, it only seeks to prevent one outlet of violent crime. It's not a solution, it's a delaying tactic and it probably wouldn't delay things too much.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
subcultured at 9:30AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
I don't see the killing of children easy to digest.

here's an article I found about gun laws in other countries with statistics
Someone
Gun control in Japan is the most stringent in the democratic world. The weapons law begins by stating ‘No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms or a sword or swords’, and very few exceptions are allowed. Gun ownership is minuscule, and so is gun crime. As gun crime in other nations increases, many advocates of gun control urge that Japan's gun control policy be imitated

for illegal firearm or sword possession are imprisonment for a year or more, perhaps because most gun crimes are perpetrated by professional criminals. The maximum penalty is ten years in prison and a one million yen fine.

Gun crime does exist, but in very low numbers. There were only 30 crimes committed in 1989 with shotguns or air rifles. With no legal civilian handgun possession, Japan experiences in an average year less than 200 violent crimes perpetrated with a handgun,

Because gun crime still exists in tiny numbers, the police make gun licenses increasingly difficult to obtain. The test and all-day lecture are held once a month. The lecture almost always requires that the licensee take a full day off from work–not a highly regarded activity by Japanese employers. An annual gun inspection is scheduled at the convenience of the police, and also requires time off from work. Licenses must be renewed every three years, with another all-day safety lecture and examination at police headquarters.

Tokyo is the safest major city in the world. Only 59,000 licensed gun owners live in Tokyo. Per one million inhabitants, Tokyo has 40 reported muggings a year; New York has 11,000. The handgun murder rate is at least 200 times higher in America than Japan.

pproximately 5,000 children under 15 years of age are killed every year in America due to guns (not to mention the many more children who are permanently disabled).(2) Unfortunately, our gun culture and the powerful gun lobby has not permitted our government to invoke tougher gun laws.

# McDowall, D., & Wiersema, B. The Incidence of Defensive Firearm Use by U.S. Crime Victims, 1987-1990. American Journal of Public Health, Volume 84, Number 12, pages 1982-1984 (1994).

Someone
In the populous country of Japan, the number of children killed by guns hovers at around ZERO. In fact, our 5,000 children killed every year number more than all of the child gun-related deaths of all the industrial nations combined .(3) Many children are killed due to accidental discharges while playing with guns that improperly locked or stowed. Children by age 2 are strong enough to pull the trigger of a gun, and by age 9 are still unable to determine a real gun from a toy gun
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:02PM
Ronson at 10:53AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Well, sure. That's pretty much my point.

If you want to curtail freedom to create safety, it can be done.

- We can ban guns and send armed stormtroopers to kick in every door and take all guns in existence in the U.S.

- We can then ban anything else that kills similar numbers of people. That would probably be drugs, cars, motorcycles, bathtubs, knives, bicycles, poisons, tools … you name it.

- We can then create a police force that investigates people who are THINKING about committing crimes and arresting them before they get to the planning stages.

I, personally, want to live in a country with more freedom than Japan. They are restricted by tradition and government in ways that make most Americans uncomfortable.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
subcultured at 11:01AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
banning guns won't make the US a totalitarian government.
i dunno why you keep going to extremes everytime something gets banned.

Some cities banned public smoking, that doesn't mean people are bieng kidnapped by the local gov't and put into concentration camps.
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:02PM
reconjsh at 11:03AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
This all sounds like more of an arguement for why all our freedoms should be reduced. We're too irresponsible to handle any of them because people get hurt.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
Phantom Penguin at 11:05AM, April 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
ozoneocean
Only Automatic and semi-automatic dangerous guns made specifically for killing humans. With an ordinary bolt action rifle you can't do that much damage! You can basically kill just as successfully with a sword, bow and arrow, knife or crossbow. But a gun with a large magazine (and that does include pistols) is a VERY dangerous weapon, as dangerous as a landmine or a bomb, and would you support anyone to own landmines or bombs? Because they can all be used to slaughter the same amount of people.


Thats not true. Charles Whitman used a bolt action 4.mm rifle to kill 32 people before being killed by police. Most bolt action rifles use a larger round then assult weapons. A bomb can obviosly kill more people then a handgun, yesterday alone 162 people were killed by car bombs in Iraq.

But I understand what you mean. A weapon can kill, and i agree that we need to outlaw large magazines in weapons. But I know you can buy a 5 round hunting clip for a ak-47. I know 5 rounds from a Ak-47 is enough to kill MORE then 5 people if they know how to use it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
Ronson at 11:19AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
subcultured
banning guns won't make the US a totalitarian government.
i dunno why you keep going to extremes everytime something gets banned.

Some cities banned public smoking, that doesn't mean people are bieng kidnapped by the local gov't and put into concentration camps.

I respectfully disagree.

I think banning public smoking is a restriction on freedoms as well - as much as I hate the smell of cigarette smoke.

I don't want to give up ANY of our freedoms so that we can be as “safe” as Japan is. I don't see the trade off as worth it.

I think that there are steps that can be taken to protect a college, or a school or wherever. But it isn't necessary to restrict all Americans because a few are bug-nutty.

We don't restrict free speech because some people say things we disagree with (well, we shouldn't at least). We don't restrict the right to assemble because some groups are dangerous.

Banning something is punishing EVERYONE for the crimes of the few. That isn't freedom.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
kingofsnake at 11:21AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
Ronson's definately on the right track here. If someone wants to kill someone they're going to find a way to do it, regardless of what impliments they have to their disposal.

I look at this from more of a political position. The right to bear arms is one of the first ten amendmants that by the very nature of our goverment we can not reverse. It's a permanent fixture in our constitutional rights. If we were to find a way to ban firearms from the american home that would open the door for other parties to attempt to disban other amendments. It's the first step to a police state.

And you can't just say, well lets ban firearms but thats the only amendment we can mess with. Because whatever authority you're evoking to bring about that change, that same authority may be envoked to, say, remove our protection from unreasonable search and siezure. Taking away our right to bear arms is the first step in creating a police state, regardless of how many lives it theoretically could saved. It's a large freedom that the forefathers gave to us when they drafted the bill of rights. And, like it or not, it's part of America, and theres nothing we can do about it without opening the door to restricting the other rights we have that we all like so much.

The real price of freedom is an awareness that there are people that will abuse that freedom, whatever it may be.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM
subcultured at 11:28AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
so you guys are saying let people kill people just so you guys can keep living the illusion of bieng free.

because living under a government and saying that you're free, is an illusion.
True freedom is living outside society doing everything for yourself.

Restricting some freedoms to safegaurd citizens is a just cause. that's why we have laws.
not bieng able to say bomb in an airport, smoking in front of children in a public space, not waving a gun around while driving, not speaking on the cell phone while driving, not intoxicated while driving.
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:02PM
Ronson at 11:42AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
subcultured
so you guys are saying let people kill people just so you guys can keep living the illusion of bieng free.

because living under a government and saying that you're free, is an illusion.
True freedom is living outside society doing everything for yourself.

That's somewhat true. Though I would argue that the freedom you give away to be a part of society should be offset by benifits from society.

But restricting people's lives further doesn't seem to create the outcome you want - which is less innocent death. It just shifts the focus to the next thing we can't allow responsible people to have because irresponsible/insane people abuse it.

Restricting some freedoms to safegaurd citizens is a just cause. that's why we have laws. not bieng able to say bomb in an airport, smoking in front of children in a public space, not waving a gun around while driving, not speaking on the cell phone while driving, not intoxicated while driving.

Not being able to SAY bomb in an airport is restrictive and cannot justifiably prove to safeguard citizens. I can assure you that most airplane bombers probably don't bandy the word “bomb” around before setting off their device. Also, I'm not sure saying the word “bomb” is actually illegal, though it is impolite.

Not smoking in front of children is restrictive depending on where you are. If you're in an enclosed space, the good of the child should be considered. But in open spaces it seems a bit draconian.

The restrictions on driving are imposed because it has been agreed that as citizens, driving is a priveledge and not a right. As far as I know, no one is attempting to add driving to the bill of rights.

___________

I would be careful, however, from using the Constitutional argument. There are restrictions on arms ownership. A private citizen is not allowed to own nukes or chemical weapons for example. So that door has already been opened, and I can't really defend the private ownership of nukes.

But before we ban things, we should really understand the ramifications. If we ban all guns, there's a chance that in a few decades the amount of crime caused by guns will go down. In that time, will other crime become more prevalent? Remember, a bomb can be made with fertilizer and/or household chemicals.

I tend to think the reletively few lunatics will find another homicidal outlet for their insanity.

Now, if you want to argue about gun deaths NOT caused by lunatics, we can have that discussion. But then we're talking about accidental firings, gang violence and crimes of passion mostly. Except for gang violence, we're only talking about single victims in these incidents. Gang violence would most likely shift to bombs and such when the trickle of guns stopped.

Addressing the single victim gun deaths, we have to assess cost of restricting everyone in the country vs. the relatively few gun deaths and decide if it's a good trade off. How expensive would it be to ban guns and to somehow collect them all? How possible? Can the lid be put back on that Pandora's box?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
kingofsnake at 11:43AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
you're right sub, if that kid couldn't have bought a gun he probably wouldn't've killed anyone. Theres no way he would've constructed a bomb from everyday household items or just started running people down in his car.

I hope they do ban guns. I hope they ban guns and then Bush uses that as a stepping stone as a way to get rid of other amendments, like freedom of religion and freedom of speach. I hope it all happens just so I can say I told you so.

It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, you can't get rid of the right to bear arms and hold the rest of the constitution together.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM
reconjsh at 11:46AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
subcultured
so you guys are saying let people kill people just so you guys can keep living the illusion of bieng free.

because living under a government and saying that you're free, is an illusion.
True freedom is living outside society doing everything for yourself.

Restricting some freedoms to safegaurd citizens is a just cause. that's why we have laws.
not bieng able to say bomb in an airport, smoking in front of children in a public space, not waving a gun around while driving, not speaking on the cell phone while driving, not intoxicated while driving.
Actually most people are saying the opposite. What you just suggested is a violation of the law - “let people kill people just so you guys can keep living the illusion of bieng free”. Living and enforcing the 2nd amendment is living within the laws.

You are suggesting sacrificing the rights of most/many for the protection of the minority. On small levels, this is acceptable, as you pointed out in your analogy. On the grand level, when it comes to the big picture of the constitution like freedom of speech, this is not acceptable as I'm sure you'd agree.

Sub, at the very least your reasoning suggests you should either not support complete gun bans or you should support any constitutional rights taken away for the benefit of society. We simply can't have a total gun banning. Since you brought it up as a comparison, complete gun banning is the same as complete drug banning (to include alchohol and High Fructose Corn Syrup) - something that you have argued against in other forums.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
reconjsh at 11:47AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 663
joined: 12-18-2006
kingofsnake
you're right sub, if that kid couldn't have bought a gun he probably wouldn't've killed anyone. Theres no way he would've constructed a bomb from everyday household items or just started running people down in his car.

I hope they do ban guns. I hope they ban guns and then Bush uses that as a stepping stone as a way to get rid of other amendments, like freedom of religion and freedom of speach. I hope it all happens just so I can say I told you so.

It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, you can't get rid of the right to bear arms and hold the rest of the constitution together.
Why did your hypothetical HAVE to be Bush? lol.

j/k.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:02PM
subcultured at 11:48AM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
Someone
Though I would argue that the freedom you give away to be a part of society should be offset by benifits from society.

exactly. and if the gov't safegaurds it's citizens by decreasing gun related deaths by stopping the easy access of guns. then that's a benefit of bieng part of the society.

Someone
Not being able to SAY bomb in an airport is restrictive and cannot justifiably prove to safeguard citizens.

stops a riot and stops bieng stomped to death in said riot.

Someone
Not smoking in front of children is restrictive depending on where you are. If you're in an enclosed space, the good of the child should be considered. But in open spaces it seems a bit draconian.

the nature of smoke diffuses to the surrounding area. a child's luns is more fragile and smaller..even a small amount can affect it.

Someone
Remember, a bomb can be made with fertilizer and/or household chemicals.
i think there are special agencies that look at increase sales of fertilzers, cough syrups and items that can be used for harming others and self

it'll be expensive, but are you really putting a price on a child's life?
i mean you can keep suing people for wrongful death of your child in a daycare…but does money really make up for your loss?
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:02PM
Ronson at 12:03PM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Someone
it'll be expensive, but are you really putting a price on a child's life?

There are three essential problems with that statement:

1. Children's lives should not be elevated over the lives of the general population. The value judgement that blindly thinks a child's life is more precious than an adult always strikes me as especially ludicrous. A child is only potentially worth something to society, whereas a working adult is already contributing.

2. You are putting a price on a child's life. Banning/restricting guns will cause several hundred manufacturing jobs to be lost, many retail jobs to be lost, recreational target shooting will disappear (more jobs lost). Also, collecting existing firearms would be so prohibitively expensive I don't see how anyone can seriously consider it.

3. When it comes to our laws, we do have to use cold logic. That means that yes, we have to put a price on the lives that would be saved. If we had done that with the Iraq War, we'd realize that we've already paid several thousand dollars per Iraqi citizen with the cost of this war and might have entered into the war much more reluctantly.

i mean you can keep suing people for wrongful death of your child in a daycare…but does money really make up for your loss?

Since you value children more than adults, would you care to cite the number of gun related child deaths there are on average per year? To give your arguement the strongest impact, we will call a child anyone under 18.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
subcultured at 12:55PM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
i was making at as an example that went with the scenario.

my point is that no one should put monetary values in lives.
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:02PM
Ronson at 1:13PM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Then how should a government enumerate the cost to protect/save/destroy these lives?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
isukun at 10:53PM, April 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
- We can then ban anything else that kills similar numbers of people. That would probably be drugs, cars, motorcycles, bathtubs, knives, bicycles, poisons, tools … you name it.

Equivocating car accidents with murder always cracks me up. Cars create a hazard, but their fundamental purpose is not to kill. At the same time, we are constantly trying to find ways to make cars safer. Since the 60's, car related injury and death has gone down almost 40%. You can't make a gun safer, its purpose isn't to be safe. Another thing to consider is that gun fatalities are in the 30,000s while car fatalities are in the 40,000s. Just looking at the numbers, car fatalities are higher. That doesn't take into account that most people have cars, while only one in four adults own a gun. Another statistic I find appalling is that less people have the opportunity to defend themselves with a firearm than end up fatally killing themselves or others by accidentally discharging a firearm. Can you imagine if more people died in car accidents than actually got to where they were going?

And you can't just say, well lets ban firearms but thats the only amendment we can mess with. Because whatever authority you're evoking to bring about that change, that same authority may be envoked to, say, remove our protection from unreasonable search and siezure. Taking away our right to bear arms is the first step in creating a police state, regardless of how many lives it theoretically could saved.

I disagree. The forefathers had a very different impression of arms than we have today. They were not considering the modern weaponry the average citizen has, nor the vast separation between what the average civilian carries and what the military has access to. In their time, a gun could hold one shot and took a full minute to load. Situations like VT were not a possibility. At the same time, they were compromising on their original plan to create a government ruled by the people. When democracy didn't work, they had to think long and hard about how to create a powerful central government without taking too much power from the people. In a time without news media which scandalized corrupt politicians, abuse of power was a threat that could not be fought through modern methods. Since military weapons and those owned by the civilians were not vastly different from one another, the right to bear arms was intended to keep the government in check. If the new republic didn't work out (and many of the forefathers thought that it wouldn't), the people could rise up again as they did against the British.

This is an outdated mentality, though. The second amendment specifically states the need for a well regulated militia to safeguard our freedom and says nothing of simple home defense, hunting, or collecting. Problem is, our modern day militias are totally outclassed. A single military weapon can have thousands or even millions of times the killing capacity of any gun a civilian owns. The only way to uphold the second amendment to meet the intentions of the forefathers is to allow civilians to own weapons with the same destructive capacity as nuclear arms. Are you going to tell me that's the direction we should be heading in?

The other thing people seem to forget, is that the constitution cannot be changed without the approval of the people. If the people choose to outlaw guns, why should we assume they would also support amendments limiting free speech or other rights? A complete ban on guns would require a new amendment to the constitution, a process which has two approaches, but both require 3/4 of the nation's states to approve the change with a majority vote. This in and of itself negates any reason to believe guns will be banned. So, we really should be concerning ourselves more with gun restrictions and regulation and less with this fantasy that guns could potentially be banned.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Ronson at 7:34AM, April 19, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Equivocating car accidents with murder always cracks me up. Cars create a hazard, but their fundamental purpose is not to kill. At the same time, we are constantly trying to find ways to make cars safer. Since the 60's, car related injury and death has gone down almost 40%.

And yet they still kill more people than guns. Regardless of purpose, the results are the results.

You can't make a gun safer, its purpose isn't to be safe.

You know, I disagree here. I think more strident laws to prevent criminals and loonies from being able to legally aquire guns of any sort is a good thing to do. You won't be able to prevent it 100%, but you will be able to reduce the number of legally available firearms to dangerous people.

I am totally for complete background checks for any weapons purchases - including rifles and purchases at gun shows. This seems like a much more regulatable system than weapons bans.

I also think you should increase liability for people who were negligent in the storage of their weapons - either from robbery or accidental use. If someone steals your gun and it's obvious they did so because you didn't take sufficient precautions, you should be at least partially responsible for any crime/injury that results.

I also think the progress on fingerprint locks and serial numbers on bullets is worth looking into.

Another thing to consider is that gun fatalities are in the 30,000s while car fatalities are in the 40,000s. Just looking at the numbers, car fatalities are higher. That doesn't take into account that most people have cars, while only one in four adults own a gun. Another statistic I find appalling is that less people have the opportunity to defend themselves with a firearm than end up fatally killing themselves or others by accidentally discharging a firearm. Can you imagine if more people died in car accidents than actually got to where they were going?

This is misleading. There is no way to record accurately how many times a gun might have been used effectively as a deterrent without any shots being fired. You will get anecdotal evidence, but it's an unknown quantity almost by definition. Very few people call the cops to tell them that they scared a criminal away with their gun.

So almost all the statistical data can only include when the gun HAS been fired so the statistic is already skewed.

I still don't buy the argument, though. From a coldly rational view, we have to accept that freedom includes danger. We can't always have freedom and safety. There's a tipping point where the loss of personal freedom isn't worth the safety of society. If you calculate the odds of dying in a shootout, they are pretty low. It's the same with automobile accidents. The risks are acceptable. When something like the VA Tech thing happens, it sensationalizes the carnage for a few weeks, but these events are still statistically unlikely.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
isukun at 10:04AM, April 19, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
And yet they still kill more people than guns. Regardless of purpose, the results are the results.

Considering four times as many people have access to cars and there is only a 25% difference in the death toll, I'd have to argue that they don't. Also consider that a gun isn't a tool built for everyday use the way a car is. The situations where one can use a gun are severely limited compared to frequent use a car gets. There are far less opportunities for accidents with guns. You can't just take the totals at face value.

I think more strident laws to prevent criminals and loonies from being able to legally aquire guns of any sort is a good thing to do.

A pretty pointless move considering over 80% of guns used in crime are illegally aquired. Criminals tend to steal their weapons of choice from the law abiding citizens. Background checks and waiting periods won't stop that.

This is misleading. There is no way to record accurately how many times a gun might have been used effectively as a deterrent without any shots being fired.

That may be true, but at the same time, I'm only speaking of situations where a gun accidentally kills a person. I doubt the number of civilians who prevent criminal activity without firing a gun is higher than the number that do fire that gun. No to mention the homicide rate is three times the accident rate.

When something like the VA Tech thing happens, it sensationalizes the carnage for a few weeks, but these events are still statistically unlikely.

As you said yourself, car accidents are also statistically unlikely, yet we cotinue to research and improve safety measures in cars to prevent them and protect the people who get into them. We seem bound and determined to not give guns the same treatment, however.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
kingofsnake at 10:56AM, April 19, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
I'd like to know where everyone's getting these statistics they're using.

I've seen lots of numbers and percentages thrown out, but nothing backing up their validity
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM
isukun at 4:12PM, April 19, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention keep national statistics on causes of death and injury. The Justice Department also keeps a website with statistics on criminal activity as well as statistics on where criminals get their guns. As for car statistics, the National Traffic Safety Administration makes those available.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
subcultured at 4:15PM, April 19, 2007
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
Someone
# McDowall, D., & Wiersema, B. The Incidence of Defensive Firearm Use by U.S. Crime Victims, 1987-1990. American Journal of Public Health, Volume 84, Number 12, pages 1982-1984 (1994).

J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:02PM
kingofsnake at 8:10AM, April 20, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
I started copying down everything that included either incomplete information, supposition, prediction without data, or statistical claims without sources and I was going to repost it. But it was adding up to PAGES of text in my wordpad and was going on an hour.

Sub, you're one of the two people who posted a source. Neither source do I feel has either complete unbiased informaiton, or enough information to make an educated decision on the overall effect of a ban on firearms.

There have been claims about data, and the counter claims about the validity of that person's data, and then counter-counter claims to the validity of the data of the person who's questioning the validity of the original data. Theres be predictions about what will happen in the future by everyone as to what the result of a gun ban would be regardless of position, and without sociologiacl or criminological evidence to back it up. Theres been supposition of intent and theorizing on the occurance of events if gun control had existed which is entirely hypothetical, unpredictable and therefore moot (most of which is based on individual people's psychological evaluation of a single man who they only know from news reports after the fact.)

There have been statistics announced: There are w related gun related deaths; there is x violent crime; the is y accidental gun related deaths and this relates to accidental deaths by other means through z and this is comprable to the wxyz of this other country with more or less gun control by these other numbers.

None of this information is substatiated and therefore you can't use it to make a compelling case.

Ozone is talking about only banning semi and automatic firearms, sub is talking about banning all firearms, isukun started out only wanting to ban handguns but as the argument progressed moved on to supporting arguments for the ban of all firearms. Most peole arguing against gun control are arguing against sub and not agaist ozone.

Ozone asks where you draw the line in which weapons are legal because of the danger they pose as items of intent, and ronson asks where you draw the line in what's legal because of the danger they pose through results.

This post isn't going anywhere. It's rambling and incoherent, people are aguing different things and using questionable data to back it up.

:Edit:

How about this:

1. Do you think there should be gun control?
2. How much gun control should there be?
3a. Why do you draw the line when you do?
3b. What makes you think there should be that much gun control?
3c. What makes you think there shouldn't be more control than that?
4a. What data do you have that defends your position as the correct one?
4b. What is the source of your data?
4c. How can we verify the validity of your source?
5a. What would the expected criminological result be of the level of gun control you propose?
5b. What is the best case scenario?
5c. What is the worst case scenario?
5d. What reasons do you have to expect that your answer to 5a would be the actual results?
6a. What would the expected sociological result be of the level of gun control you propose?
6b. What is the best case scenario?
6c. What is the worst case scenario?
6d. What reasons do you have to expect that your answer to 6a would be the actual results?
7a. What would the expected political result be of the level of gun control you propose?
7b. What is the best case scenario?
7c. What is the worst case scenario?
7d. What reasons do you have to expect that your answer to 7a would be the actual results?
8a. What would the expected overall result be of the level of gun control you propose?
8b. What is the best case scenario?
8c. What is the worst case scenario?
8d. What reasons do you have to expect that your answer to 8a would be the actual results?

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved