Inevitable gun control argument thread....

[Whomp]

I'm sure it's been addressed but what's wrong with a tiered system for certain types of weapons?

Maybe it's because I live in a urban center but the "Busta Rhymes don't snitch" mentality exasperates the gun problem in urban centers.

We have the "safe school initative" that the CIA helped develop after Columbine. It seems like a small step to help profile the buying process. Most attackers engaged in some behavior prior to the incident that caused concern or indicated a need for help.

 

[skadistic]

I'm sure it's been addressed but what's wrong with a tiered system for certain types of weapons?

.

Most of these things are done with standard everday fire arms like a 9mm hand gun or a rifle. The DC sniper used a very comon single fire AR-15/M16 clone that looked scary but was nothing more then a fancy rifle.Columbine had some supmachine guns. I believe those were illegal to begin with. As it is now we have a tierd system. Average joe can't buy a full auto m60 heavy machine gun. But you can if you fill out the right papers and get cleared by an extencive background check.

 

[mdwh]

Knives aren't allowed on planes... the hijackers used box cutters that weren't detected.

This actually supports the argument for guns even more, as ID is saying, that removal of guns isn't an effective solution.

So therefore, why not allow knives, but not guns? The passengers can kill any hijackers, but there isn't the same risk of a madman with a gun doing lots of damage or taking the plane down.

 

[mdwh]

As a hard working person I work for my benifit not to prop up others to stupid or lazy to do for them selves. I'll take the risk of beeing mugged along with option to defend myself.

If you were mugged - so someone has a gun pointing at you - would you actually try to whip your gun out and shoot, even though the mugger has the upper hand?

If you wanted not to give him your money, I'd imagine your chances are better just to run.

And in England, where it's much more likely they won't have a gun, your chances are even better.

Don't get me wrong, I see some arguments for guns - fighting against the Government, and sport. But this whole "I can protect myself" seems unlikely to me. Just look at the number of deaths through guns, and you can see that the protection isn't working very well.

 

[mdwh]

"Arms" in the late 1787 specifically meant guns or "small" arms. Arms originally meant individual man portable weapons. Hence the term "arm."

Grenades? Portable rocket launcher? Suitcase nuke?

 

[IglooDame]

I don't know if should, but we certainly do. And I don't see that changing any time soon. Do you?

No, but that it is an inconsistency that could do with some modification means that the inconsistency can be attacked from either direction equally well.

Granted, but this seems to me a weak argument. "Yeah, well, cars and joints weren't around when the founders wrote up the Constitution, but something they called arms that was orders of magnitude less dangerous than the stuff we call arms today was, so there!"

Not exactly compelling, at least from where I stand.

Sure, but webservers weren't around when the founders wrote up the Constitution, yet they're still covered by the First Amendment. Cars weren't around, but horses were, and I daresay they had some fairly decent drugs around back then, too. With pretty much all the other constitutional rights, courts extend and interpret the BoR to account for new technology, I really don't see why the right to keep and bear arms should be any different.

 

[IglooDame]

Yes but only 40% of Americans own guns whilst practically everyone drives a car. That would mean that if gun ownership was up to 100% the death toll would be approximately the same for motor vehicles and firearms.

"Sure, but death by accidentally-inflicted bodily harm by firearm is way down the list, below swimming pools."

So you concur with: "The problem with the notion of owning a gun for "self defense" is that it is based on selfish irrational feelings where people who want a gun imagine themselves in the worst possible scenario, one that is statistically very improbable."

Well that is what i wanted to hear. I just do not understand how you still can preach that guns are needed for "protection".


Why do you insist on discussing petty details instead of addressing the main issue I try to convey, that less guns causes less people to die from gunshots?

You have steadfastly ignored the fact that people do use a gun in legitimate self-defense circumstances, somewhere in the neighborhood of a half-million times per year in the US.

And comparing traffic deaths to gun homicides is just goofy. One is composed of accidents, the other is composed of willful crimes. If one assumes (as I do) that any criminal can obtain a firearm with little effort at this point, then doubling the number of guns or gun-owners is not likely to raise the murder rate much at all (though it might double the number of accidents, which still is below the number of accidental drownings). On the flip side, the half-million defensive uses of a gun per year might go up significantly - DC, NYC, and Chicago alone where legal concealed carry is virtually or actually impossible might raise that number quite a bit.

 

[IglooDame]

By allowing weapons in classrooms you are multiplying the risk of gunfights.

By allowing lawful concealed carry in classrooms you're multiplying the risk of gunfights just as much as when you allowed lawful concealed carry in... 48 states, now. Truly, we've got enough statistics in the US state-by-state on what happens when concealed carry is allowed to see that it doesn't turn into "blood running in the streets" bedlam.

 

[IglooDame]

The last Supreme Court case on the 2nd Amendmnet held that it was a collective right, not an individual right. Of course that was 70 years ago, so the Supreme Court really doesn't seem interested in the 2nd Amendment either way.

I think the Miller case has been mostly incorrectly interpreted. Essentially, SCOTUS said "Miller's weapon (a sawed-off shotgun) isn't a militia weapon."

It is probably worth noting that neither Miller nor his lawyers actually showed up in DC for the case.

 

[Pokurcz]

Ther was this thread on this site about a man who on returning home found his wife with some dude in a van outside their house. The wife screamed rape (which it was not), the husband shot the dude whilst he tried to leave in his van, leaving the wife.

The thing about the situation was that the husband went free whilst the wife gut charged with manslaughter(I believe).

Now how can a person not be charged with any crime after having killed an unarmed man who didn't posed any threat to anyone?

But that is beside my point, my point is that the dude in the van died unnecessarily and would have been alive now if it where not for the presence of the gun.

So yes there are numerous instances when guns save people, but there are also numerous instances when people get killed or harmed unnecessarily.

 

[SewerStarFish]

Ther was this thread on this site about a man who on returning home found his wife with some dude in a van outside their house. The wife screamed rape (which it was not), the husband shot the dude whilst he tried to leave in his van, leaving the wife.

The thing about the situation was that the husband went free whilst the wife gut charged with manslaughter(I believe).

Now how can a person not be charged with any crime after having killed an unarmed man who didn't posed any threat to anyone?

But that is beside my point, my point is that the dude in the van died unnecessarily and would have been alive now if it where not for the presence of the gun.

So yes there are numerous instances when guns save people, but there are also numerous instances when people get killed or harmed unnecessarily.

Two points:
1) As you state there are numerous instances on both sides -- I guess the US chooses to err on the side of saving people(or there liberty -- even simple liberty from crime). It's not like we don't understand the European approach it's just not what's legal here.
2) The man was probably exonerated by the justifibly arguable legal theory of a "crime of passion", a sort of temporary insanity defense -- he would have a civil liability. The woman's deliberate and false accusations that led to the incident probably led to her being charged -- I wonder if she was convicted though.

 

[Atlas14]

So therefore, why not allow knives, but not guns? The passengers can kill any hijackers, but there isn't the same risk of a madman with a gun doing lots of damage or taking the plane down.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying, but I'll do my best.

The hijacked plane situation is (at least in my mind) not really comparable to the rest of America. It is relatively easy to check for weapons going into and out of airports. However, America is so large that checking for guns presents a huge problem, and thus you will always have people carrying them illegally.

This is also how America differs greatly from the UK, in that Britain has a small area that is largely urban, and thus easy to station police that can check for weapons or monitor illegal arms activity. This is nearly impossible to control in America.

 

[Pokurcz]

SewerStarFish

"1) As you state there are numerous instances on both sides -- I guess the US chooses to err on the side of saving people(or there liberty -- even simple liberty from crime)."

From a European POV the US errs on the side of letting a lot of innocent people get killed in accidents and fits of passion that would have been a lot les "severe" had there been no guns involved, whilst the criminals would get caught later by the cops and the victims survived the crime through inaction.

 

[Pokurcz]

skadistic

I just happened to think about something you wrote earlier:

“I've used it twice to stop from being mugged or worse. A criminals emotions go from smug arrogance to utter fear when you show that you will not be a victim and can infact stop them.”

“No they didn't have a gun One had a knife the other time it was a group. I live in a safe 'hood. Both times this happened it was in a major city.”

So these muggers learned a lesson and probably purchased guns of their own for the next person they where going to mug.

Furthermore if you would have been living in that “bad” hood you would have probably have suffered some retaliation as said muggers (especially the group) would have been driven to avenge their hurt egos and somebody would have gotten killed.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

So these muggers learned a lesson and probably purchased guns of their own for the next person they where going to mug.

Or perhaps they learned there lesson and decided to stop mugging at all. If they had successfully mugged skadistic, the muggers would definitely have a positive incentive to continue what they were doing.

Furthermore if you would have been living in that “bad” hood you would have probably have suffered some retaliation as said muggers (especially the group) would have been driven to avenge their hurt egos and somebody would have gotten killed.

Oh noes. The mugger's self esteem!

 

[Pokurcz]

"Or perhaps they learned there lesson and decided to stop mugging at all. If they had successfully mugged skadistic, the muggers would definitely have a positive incentive to continue what they were doing."

In the best of worlds, as according to Doctor Pangloss i Candid, perhaps...

" Oh noes. The mugger's self esteem!"

Hey muggers have egos, especially when they're in a group, you can bet your ass that as soon as skadistic disappeared behind the corner they started scheming how to get a gun!

 

[IglooDame]

"Or perhaps they learned there lesson and decided to stop mugging at all. If they had successfully mugged skadistic, the muggers would definitely have a positive incentive to continue what they were doing."

In the best of worlds, as according to Doctor Pangloss i Candid, perhaps...

" Oh noes. The mugger's self esteem!"

Hey muggers have egos, especially when they're in a group, you can bet your ass that as soon as skadistic disappeared behind the corner they started scheming how to get a gun!

Please give this a read:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html

Among other things, it notes a couple studies where incarcerated violent felons are actually asked about their reactions to gun-armed would-be victims - I figured you might be interested in actually hearing from them, rather than just imagining how they'd respond.

 

[Speedo]

Ther was this thread on this site about a man who on returning home found his wife with some dude in a van outside their house. The wife screamed rape (which it was not), the husband shot the dude whilst he tried to leave in his van, leaving the wife.

The thing about the situation was that the husband went free whilst the wife gut charged with manslaughter(I believe).

Now how can a person not be charged with any crime after having killed an unarmed man who didn't posed any threat to anyone?

But that is beside my point, my point is that the dude in the van died unnecessarily and would have been alive now if it where not for the presence of the gun.

So yes there are numerous instances when guns save people, but there are also numerous instances when people get killed or harmed unnecessarily.

Because that incident took place in Texas, and Texas' laws are very, very liberal about what constitutes legal use of a gun in self defense. Most states have some type of 'duty to retreat' restriction on using guns in self defense, but not Texas.

See, for example: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2721289620070327

 

[SewerStarFish]

SewerStarFish

"1) As you state there are numerous instances on both sides -- I guess the US chooses to err on the side of saving people(or there liberty -- even simple liberty from crime)."

From a European POV the US errs on the side of letting a lot of innocent people get killed in accidents and fits of passion that would have been a lot les "severe" had there been no guns involved, whilst the criminals would get caught later by the cops and the victims survived the crime through inaction.

Um, give me liberty or give me death.
For example:Miss America 1944 has a talent that likely has never appeared on a beauty pageant stage: She fired a handgun to shoot out a vehicle's tires and stop an intruder. Venus Ramey, 82, confronted a man on her farm in south-central Kentucky last week after she saw her dog run into a storage building where thieves had previously made off with old farm equipment.
Ramey said the man told her he would leave. "I said, 'Oh, no you won't,' and I shot their tires so they couldn't leave," Ramey said.

She had to balance on her walker as she pulled out a snub-nosed .38-caliber handgun.

"I didn't even think twice. I just went and did it," she said. "If they'd even dared come close to me, they'd be 6 feet under by now."

Ramey then flagged down a passing motorist, who called 911.

Curtis Parrish of Ohio was charged with misdemeanor trespassing, Deputy Dan Gilliam said. The man's hometown wasn't immediately available. Three other people were questioned but were not arrested.


No really. If European history is any guide, and it is, leaving arms only in the hands of the elite yields years, decades, and even centuries of oppression, really fun survivable crimes where the strong really do have power over the weak and just plain suffering. Oh it's nice and cyclical and you may indeed be in the most recent golden age but I'll trade your peaks and Dark Ages in exchange for my posterity's future stability; I'm more than certain that "the wheel will turn".

 

[bhsup]

"That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this hall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

Go ahead, twist that to mean a collective right for militias. Booyah, score one for State sovereignty and State Constitutions!