Lumpy plays devil's advocate on gun control

[Lumpy]

In the AWB thread, I posted an open question to YogSosoth; I never got an answer and he hasn't participated in that thread since. Which is a pity because the more I think about it, the more it seems that in a few lines I managed to sum up the basic position of gun-control advocates:YogSosoth, if I understand your position correctly, it goes something like this:

* the government bans lots of things on the grounds that they're too dangerous to the public safety.
* Guns are dangerous, by intent.
* At least some guns then, are so dangerous that any potential good they do is outweighed by their potential harm; and therefore it is right and proper that the government ban them in the name of public safety.
* except those 2nd Amendment people keep insisting that guns have a special protection not afforded everything else that's dangerous.Certainly this is logical on it's own grounds. So logical, and so seemingly reasonable, that my own rebuttal now seems inadequate:If this is correct, then I see a broader issue to debate- the issue of what the government should legitimately have the power to proscribe in the name of public safety. I think you'll find that a lot of people on this board are (small "l") libertarians, and leery of excessive government power and intervention.

The problem is that even given that the above premises were correct, it would still not address legitimate concerns: the idea that the government and it's officers can be privileged to possess power banned to the public at large, with all that implies for democracy; the question of real-world enforcibility of any form of prohibition (witness alcohol Prohibition, or the War on Drugs) and whether such prohibition not merely useless but counter-productive; and whether the supporters of an "assault weapon" ban are honest in both their intent and their assessment of the hazards of the weapons they propose to ban.

In short, I would like to hear some compelling arguments why the position I ascribed to YogSosoth (which he has neither confirmed or denied) is refutable.

[Magiver]

* the government bans lots of things on the grounds that they're too dangerous to the public safety. That is an inaccurate statement. The government does not ban tools based on potential misuse.
* Guns are dangerous, by intent. That's an inaccurate statement. Guns are tools used for a variety of sports as well as for defense. Banning tools because they are dangerous is not the function of government.
* At least some guns then, are so dangerous that any potential good they do is outweighed by their potential harm; and therefore it is right and proper that the government ban them in the name of public safety. No gun currently under consideration for banning has a history of misuse in proportion to guns not considered for banning.
* except those 2nd Amendment people keep insisting that guns have a special protection not afforded everything else that's dangerous. The 2nd amendment SPECIFICALLY protects gun ownership. It's not open for debate.

[Captain Amazing]

I generally try to stay out of gun control debates, because I don't like the idea of making armed people upset with me, but I will point out, in regard to "the idea that the government and it's officers can be privileged to possess power banned to the public at large, with all that implies for democracy", that we already accept the idea that the government and tis officers are privileged to possess powers banned to the public at large. The government, and its agents, can take my money, tell me what I can eat and drink, how I can use my property, how I should educate my kids, what I can buy and sell, who I'm allowed to marry and who I'm allowed to have sex with. It can lock me up for the rest of my life, kill me, or send me off to war. These are all controls over our life that we don't let the average person who's not associated with the government have.

[brazil84]

In short, I would like to hear some compelling arguments why the position I ascribed to YogSosoth (which he has neither confirmed or denied) is refutable.

It seems to me the main problem with your argument is it assumes that gun control actually works. Look, if we banned semiautomatic pistols and the murder rate dropped by 90% the next day, I would be very tempted to switch sides. But that's never happened.

Instead, what happens is that some new gun control law is passed and there's no significant drop in crime. Rather than lobby to repeal the failed law, gun control advocates use the failure as an excuse to demand even tighter restrictions.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Instead, what happens is that some new gun control law is passed and there's no significant drop in crime. Rather than lobby to repeal the failed law, gun control advocates use the failure as an excuse to demand even tighter restrictions.

That is not as illogical as you make it out to be.

What gun control laws that have been passed are generally ruined by compromises to get them passed. With gaping holes in the regulations it is no surprise the regulations fail. As has been noted around here it is akin to wanting to ban automobiles but the law only bans red automobiles. Is it any wonder that injuries due to automobiles would not drop in that case?

So, naturally, gun control advocates want more restrictions such that it would actually have an effect. I am making no comment here on the second amendment issues or what laws might help. Merely noting it is not illogical for gun control advocates to press for tighter restrictions.

[Cheesesteak]

That is an inaccurate statement. The government does not ban tools based on potential misuse. War on Drugs, anyone?
That's an inaccurate statement. Guns are tools used for a variety of sports as well as for defense. Banning tools because they are dangerous is not the function of government. Actually, banning tools because they are dangerous (too dangerous, if you prefer) is a completely legitimate function of government. If the government doesn't ban (too) dangerous tools, how do we rid ourselves of them?
No gun currently under consideration for banning has a history of misuse in proportion to guns not considered for banning. Entirely irrelevant to the broad concept of gun control.
The 2nd amendment SPECIFICALLY protects gun ownership. It's not open for debate.Actually, the 2nd amendment protects the right to "keep and bear arms". It doesn't say a thing about "guns" or "rifles" or "pistols" or "sports" or "tools" or "personal defense". It says "arms", which is a general term for weapons, especially weapons of war. Since arms such as cannons, grenades, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, etc. are far too dangerous to be in the hands of the general public, we happily infringe upon a person's right to keep and bear them while pretending we haven't busted the 2nd amendment to bits in the process.

[brazil84]

That is not as illogical as you make it out to be.

What gun control laws that have been passed are generally ruined by compromises to get them passed.

When you say "generally," are you claiming that just about every gun control law passed in the United States (and the world) has been ruined by compromises?

[Whack-a-Mole]

When you say "generally," are you claiming that just about every gun control law passed in the United States (and the world) has been ruined by compromises?

I do not have a comprehensive list of all gun control laws passed in the United States or the world. I will say the AWB was fatally flawed from the get-go. Or you have what they tried in Washington D.C. (recently stopped by the SCOTUS) and anyone could drive 10 minutes outside of Washington and easily sidestepped what they hoped to achieve in Washington. And so-on and so-forth.

Gun control, if done, would need to be on a national level and comprehensive (such as banning hand guns outright).

Of course there is the second amendment and not going to happen anywhere near so broadly so, by-and-large, gun control legislation is generally fatally flawed in my view. Perhaps there is some regulation out there that is useful (such has restricting machine guns...maybe [dunno myself, just guessing]).

[glee]

It seems to me the main problem with your argument is it assumes that gun control actually works. Look, if we banned semiautomatic pistols and the murder rate dropped by 90% the next day, I would be very tempted to switch sides. But that's never happened.


If there was a 90% drop in the murder rate in one day, you'd only be 'very tempted' to switch sides? :confused:

Strewth - how much does gun ownership matter to you?

[brazil84]

I do not have a comprehensive list of all gun control laws passed in the United States or the world.

In that case, are you retracting your claim that gun control laws -- in general -- have been ruined by compromises? Because as stated, your claim would seem to apply to all gun controls in the US, and indeed in the rest of the world.

Or you have what they tried in Washington D.C. (recently stopped by the SCOTUS) and anyone could drive 10 minutes outside of Washington and easily sidestepped what they hoped to achieve in Washington. And so-on and so-forth.

Again, I am confused. Are you saying that the DC gun ban was ruined by a compromise? What exactly was the compromise? Are you saying that gun control on a state level can never reduce crime at all but gun control on a national level can?

I don't understand your position, but it sounds to me like you are playing the liberal epicycle game where excuse after excuse is manufactured for the failure of your policies. As opposed to accepting the unpleasant truth that those policies are fundamentally flawed.

[brazil84]

If there was a 90% drop in the murder rate in one day, you'd only be 'very tempted' to switch sides? :confused:

Absolutely. Mainly because I believe that there is inherent value in private ownership of firearms. (and also to a some extent because the value judgment has already been made by the framers of the Constitution).

[Sinaijon]

Merely noting it is not illogical for gun control advocates to press for tighter restrictions.

Although not the topic of this thread, the thread in which the question was raised was not about tighter restrictions. It was about renewing restrictions that had already proved ineffective.

That _is_ illogical.

[Half Man Half Wit]

That is an inaccurate statement. The government does not ban tools based on potential misuse.
That's an inaccurate statement. Guns are tools used for a variety of sports as well as for defense. Banning tools because they are dangerous is not the function of government.
[...]
The 2nd amendment SPECIFICALLY protects gun ownership. It's not open for debate.
To my mind, there's an inconsistency in this argumentation -- on the one hand, you want guns to be seen as ordinary tools, on the other, you refer to their special status as given by the 2nd amendment. That doesn't seem to go well together -- if guns really were mere tools, why would they need constitutional protection?

The fact of the matter is, a gun does increase your lethality. Carrying it effectively means that you're mere seconds away from potentially killing or grievously wounding anybody in your line of sight. Now, I certainly believe that people can handle this responsibility towards their fellow citizens, and I trust on this every time I get into my car (though to have it considered a right, rather than a responsibility only to be accepted with the greatest reluctance if it is thrusted upon you by necessity of circumstance, to my European thinking, seems somewhat strange). Everybody accepts certain caveats when wanting to command a vehicle capable of dangerously high speeds, such as having to possess a valid licence, and registering said vehicle, yet one can hardly even make similar suggestions when it comes to handguns -- which are, arguably, of an even higher danger-to-utility ratio, at least for the majority of people (besides, intentionally shooting someone doesn't open the shooter up to the same immediate danger an intentionally caused car accident would).

Also, the whole 'if you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns'-argumentation is very valid, taken as such -- certainly, that guns are illegal won't prohibit anybody that already has illegal intent on their mind from acquiring them. The same argument, however, can be made for drugs -- if drugs are illegal, only criminals will get high. It also works for murder -- if you criminalize murder, only criminals will kill people. It's thus not an argument against gun control laws at all; it's an argument against all law.

There is, of course, the issue of personal protection the above argument somewhat glosses over -- drug use doesn't generally constitute a thread to anybody who could then defend themselves with drugs in turn; and you're explicitly allowed to kill people in the face of serious danger to life or health. Personally, I see no reason to arm myself because of perceived threats, both because I'm not sure about a handgun's effectiveness towards that end, and because I don't judge the danger I'm in big enough; but I admit that one can validly feel different about this, and if I were living in a neighbourhood where I'd have to be weary of standing on the window too long for fear of catching a stray bullet, I very likely might. Similarly, I see no reason why guns shouldn't be used for sport (though I suspect there may be ways to shoot for sport in a way nearly identical to the way it's now without guns that actually could harm anybody).

Thus, flat-out outlawing guns may not be the way to go, besides being probably near impossible to implement in America; but I can't really see any arguments against restricting their availability, possibly by requiring license and registration, and even excluding certain types of weapons/ammunition from general availability (though it may well be the case that the 'assault weapons ban', as presently conceived, is ill-advised -- I've read numerous persuasive arguments towards that end on this board).

So, uh, that's kinda my take on the arguments that are actually more or less already present in the OP, take it as just illustrating the whole thing a little from my point of view, and besides I've spent too much time typing this up by now to scrap it.

[Burton]

Clearly the framers of the constitution did nor foresee what the situation is now. The word "State" indicates they were thinking individuals should be allowed guns in order that they might create military bodies as required. It's also interesting that only abut 5 years later the Government led by Alexander Hamilton took a huge army to Western PA to put down an armed insurrection. i.e.the Whiskey Rebellion. Although by the time the Army arrived the opposition melted away.

[Max Torque]

The fact of the matter is, a gun does increase your lethality. Carrying it effectively means that you're mere seconds away from potentially killing or grievously wounding anybody in your line of sight. Now, I certainly believe that people can handle this responsibility towards their fellow citizens, and I trust on this every time I get into my car (though to have it considered a right, rather than a responsibility only to be accepted with the greatest reluctance if it is thrusted upon you by necessity of circumstance, to my European thinking, seems somewhat strange). Everybody accepts certain caveats when wanting to command a vehicle capable of dangerously high speeds, such as having to possess a valid licence, and registering said vehicle, yet one can hardly even make similar suggestions when it comes to handguns -- which are, arguably, of an even higher danger-to-utility ratio, at least for the majority of people (besides, intentionally shooting someone doesn't open the shooter up to the same immediate danger an intentionally caused car accident would).

I just wanted to address this part: driving a car on public roads requires knowing a number of very complex things, including interacting with other drivers, how to read signs, signals, and pavement markings, rules of right-of-way, methods of parking and reversing, how to gauge speed and space cushions, how to drive in adverse weather conditions, and so on. That's why we have programs in place to license drivers. None of these complicated rules apply to firearms, which have a very simple "point and click" interface. "Don't shoot people" pretty much covers it. So, in my opinion, a licensing and registration scheme is unnecessary, will accomplish no safety purpose, and would be merely burdensome to ordinary law-abiding citizens.

[Burton]

I think responsible gun ownership is a little more than that.

[Magiver]

Actually, the 2nd amendment protects the right to "keep and bear arms". It doesn't say a thing about "guns" or "rifles" or "pistols" or "sports" or "tools" or "personal defense". It says "arms", which is a general term for weapons, especially weapons of war. The Supreme Court would disagree with you regarding guns and the 2nd amendment.

[Blaster Master]

Also, the whole 'if you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns'-argumentation is very valid, taken as such -- certainly, that guns are illegal won't prohibit anybody that already has illegal intent on their mind from acquiring them. The same argument, however, can be made for drugs -- if drugs are illegal, only criminals will get high. It also works for murder -- if you criminalize murder, only criminals will kill people. It's thus not an argument against gun control laws at all; it's an argument against all law.

This is a misrepresentation of the point of that argument. The concept is meant to entail someone who is currently a law abiding citizen and owns guns and, if the only change that is made is that gun ownership is banned, then these citizens, not wanting to break the law, will give up their guns; but those who are already breaking the law, like robbers, rapists, murders, etc. will have little incentive to hand over their guns, and so you've effectively disarmed the law abiding citizen at a much higher rate than the criminal.

Murder is not even a remotely fair comparison because it's not something that is legal in any civilized nation or something that anyone thinks should be legal. There's no debate about it and thus, by murdering someone you are a criminal. The fundamental difference is that gun ownership, in and of itself, does not imply criminality, but murder is, by definition, criminality. Is there any evidence at all that there is any causal relationship between gun ownership and criminality? In fact, I'd be surprised if legal gun ownership didn't actually have a negative correlation with violent crime.

Anyway, my point is that representing it as an argument against law, as some sort of argument for anarchy, is a strawman. Specifically speaking the AWB, as proposed, has already demonstrated that it will effectively reduce the ratio of legal gun ownership to criminal gun ownership without an impact on crime. You're removing rights from the general population but not providing any suitable conpensation. If the AWB could be shown to have a significant impact on crime, at least statistically significant such that it isn't just a potential anamoly, then one might be able to make an argument that the trade of rights for safety is a worthy trade; it would at least then be the old rights versus security argument.

[Cheesesteak]

The Supreme Court would disagree with you regarding guns and the 2nd amendment.If the SCOTUS wants to pretend that bearing "arms" in relation to having a "well regulated militia" that ensures the "security of a free state" has nothing whatsoever to do with military armaments, they're free to do so.


From your perspective, how is it that the government can legitimately restrict access to a fully automatic (military grade) rifle, when an otherwise identical semi-automatic version is not restricted? What could the reasoning be behind the restriction, if not the fact that the fully automatic version is more dangerous when misused?

[Whack-a-Mole]

In that case, are you retracting your claim that gun control laws -- in general -- have been ruined by compromises? Because as stated, your claim would seem to apply to all gun controls in the US, and indeed in the rest of the world.



Again, I am confused. Are you saying that the DC gun ban was ruined by a compromise? What exactly was the compromise? Are you saying that gun control on a state level can never reduce crime at all but gun control on a national level can?

I don't understand your position, but it sounds to me like you are playing the liberal epicycle game where excuse after excuse is manufactured for the failure of your policies. As opposed to accepting the unpleasant truth that those policies are fundamentally flawed.

Not retracting anything. And the Washington gun ban wasn't ruined by a compromise in its own law but was thoroughly undermined by the simple expedient of driving a few minutes out of the city and obtaining a gun there. It would be like banning marijuana on the east side of a road while it is legal on the west side. I doubt you'd be surprised to see marijuana making across the road to the east side.

The policies fail because they are bad policies. I agree the AWB, as it was written, was largely a joke. Ignoring constitutional and practical issues for a moment an effective policy would have to be sweeping and on a national level. Something along the lines of banning all hand guns. A policy banning bayonet clips is predictably absurd and useless.

[Whack-a-Mole]

The Supreme Court would disagree with you regarding guns and the 2nd amendment.

And the Supreme Court once ruled in favor of segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson). The SCOTUS is not infallible and while they tend to respect prior rulings they can and do overturn them (Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy).

We had a discussion on this a few months ago around here and while there was disagreement I think there is a very plausible and acceptable way to read the 2nd Amendment that can allow for gun control. Someday a different SCOTUS may agree.

[Richard Parker]

The government does not ban tools based on potential misuse.

You've apparently never heard of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, or the Controlled Substances Act, or...well...dozens of laws really. The government frequently prohibits or closely regulates tools based on potential misuse. Anyone for a game of lawn darts?

[Magiver]

You've apparently never heard of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, or the Controlled Substances Act, or...well...dozens of laws really. The government frequently prohibits or closely regulates tools based on potential misuse. Anyone for a game of lawn darts? Yes, I understand your argument but you're referring to a child's toy. I have a house full of tools that are far more dangerous than lawn darts. Their existance is not regulated.

[Richard Parker]

Yes, I understand your argument but you're referring to a child's toy. I have a house full of tools that are far more dangerous than lawn darts. Their existance is not regulated.

Then your argument becomes far less persuasive. Instead of arguing that "[t]he government does not ban tools based on potential misuse," you're now arguing that the government does not ban all tools based on potential misuse. The new argument is hardly persuasive.

And note that I'm not referring to toys at all except for my throwaway last line. Neither Oxycontin (Controlled Substances Act) nor Belgian waffle makers (Consumer Product Safety Commission) are toys, for example.

[brazil84]

Not retracting anything.

Then again my question:

When you say "generally," are you claiming that just about every gun control law passed in the United States (and the world) has been ruined by compromises?

And the Washington gun ban wasn't ruined by a compromise in its own law but was thoroughly undermined by the simple expedient of driving a few minutes out of the city and obtaining a gun there.

Then again my question:

Is it your position that gun control at the level of states or municipalities is completely ineffective and futile?

Something along the lines of banning all hand guns.

I doubt that would have much of an effect either. For example, the recent handgun ban in the UK doesn't seem to have had much of an effect one way or another. And when your handgun ban doesn't work, I'm sure I can count on people to say "Of course it didn't work. People can easily use long guns in crimes. Or drive into Mexico and buy guns. We need even tighter restrictions."

[E-Sabbath]

I should point out that Lawn Darts and the lot are regulated because they are _hazardous_, not dangerous. I have no doubt that were someone to start building Nambu 94 replicas, they would be put out of business quickly.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_94_8_mm_Pistol

[Richard Parker]

I should point out that Lawn Darts and the lot are regulated because they are _hazardous_, not dangerous.

Lawn darts were considered hazardous because they were not used safely. A lawn dart doesn't inherently explode or anything. They just get tossed into people's eyes if you're stupid. They are exactly analogous to guns in that respect.

But even if you don't like the lawn dart example, what about, say, codeine? Safe use of codeine is no problem. But because some people abuse it, it is highly restricted.

[Magiver]

Then your argument becomes far less persuasive. Instead of arguing that "[t]he government does not ban tools based on potential misuse," you're now arguing that the government does not ban all tools based on potential misuse. The new argument is hardly persuasive.

And note that I'm not referring to toys at all except for my throwaway last line. Neither Oxycontin (Controlled Substances Act) nor Belgian waffle makers (Consumer Product Safety Commission) are toys, for example. A gun as a classification of a product. It is not a toy, or an addictive drug or in anyway harmful to the user as a tool beyond it's intended use. You're comparing a safety regulatory agency to legislation directed at infringing individual rights. it's an apples to oranges argument.

[Todderbob]

Everybody accepts certain caveats when wanting to command a vehicle capable of dangerously high speeds, such as having to possess a valid licence, and registering said vehicle, yet one can hardly even make similar suggestions when it comes to handgunsDifference: We register cars for taxation. There is no reason to register guns. It offers no benefit.

Maryland has caught exactly zero criminals based on their registration of pistols and "Assault Weapons."

Also, the whole 'if you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns'-argumentation is very valid, taken as such -- certainly, that guns are illegal won't prohibit anybody that already has illegal intent on their mind from acquiring them. The same argument, however, can be made for drugs -- if drugs are illegal, only criminals will get high. It also works for murder -- if you criminalize murder, only criminals will kill people. It's thus not an argument against gun control laws at all; it's an argument against all law.No, it's an argument against all law that doesn't serve a direct and vital purpose.

Including that of Drugs.
though I suspect there may be ways to shoot for sport in a way nearly identical to the way it's now without guns that actually could harm anybody.If you've ever shot a firearm and it's dummy counterpart, they're nothing alike.

Thus, flat-out outlawing guns may not be the way to go, besides being probably near impossible to implement in America; but I can't really see any arguments against restricting their availability, possibly by requiring license and registration, and even excluding certain types of weapons/ammunition from general availability (though it may well be the case that the 'assault weapons ban', as presently conceived, is ill-advised -- I've read numerous persuasive arguments towards that end on this board).What are the potential benefits of registration?

Licensing, I don't have a problem with -- in theory, it makes sense -- and so long as it was conducted at a local level, without any possibility of later gun seizure, I'd be perfectly okay with it. The problem is, throughout the world, Registration has led to banning and confiscation, and licensing has the real potential for the same. In light of that, I can't see a reasonable way I could support it.

[Todderbob]

From your perspective, how is it that the government can legitimately restrict access to a fully automatic (military grade) rifle, when an otherwise identical semi-automatic version is not restricted? What could the reasoning be behind the restriction, if not the fact that the fully automatic version is more dangerous when misused?They're not. In fact, I don't believe that case has made it in front of the supreme court, although I hope it does and gets oveturned.

Civilian Legal Fully automatic weapons have been involved in 2 crimes since 1934, one of which was a Police Officer shooting his CI, and that wouldn't have been stopped by the complete ban. In light of that, from your perspective, how can a ban be justified?

[Cheesesteak]

A gun as a classification of a product. It is not a toy, or an addictive drug or in anyway harmful to the user as a tool beyond it's intended use. Neither is a fully automatic assault rifle, yet we already restrict those, pretty much without complaint. Conceptually, there's no difference between saying:

fully automatic assault rifles are too dangerous to be in the hands of regular folk
handguns are too dangerous to be in the hands of regular folk

The concept is the same, the difference is where you draw the line. The 2nd amendment doesn't actually guarantee your right to own "guns". It guarantees your right to own the subset of guns that the government deems safe enough for you to own.

Todderbob, I don't know if the ban is "justified" or not, but I do know that I'm glad that fully automatic weapons are comparatively hard to get.

[Todderbob]

Todderbob, I don't know if the ban is "justified" or not, but I do know that I'm glad that fully automatic weapons are comparatively hard to get.Illegal to get new. However, that had zero effect on crime rates.

So, my question to you is, are you okay with the banning of things which have zero criminal impact being banned?

If so, why? How do you justify the restriction of liberties with zero gain to society?

ETA: Actually: Fully Automatic weapons are relatively easy to get (see: LA Shootout), legal ones are difficult and expensive.

[Lumpy]

A gun as a classification of a product. It is not a toy, or an addictive drug or in anyway harmful to the user as a tool beyond it's intended use. You're comparing a safety regulatory agency to legislation directed at infringing individual rights. it's an apples to oranges argument.That didn't stop some gun control advocates from advocating banning handguns under consumer safety laws, or from trying to hold gun manufacturers responsible for any unlawful deaths committed with their guns,

[Richard Parker]

A gun as a classification of a product. It is not a toy, or an addictive drug or in anyway harmful to the user as a tool beyond it's intended use. You're comparing a safety regulatory agency to legislation directed at infringing individual rights. it's an apples to oranges argument.

I was rebutting your argument, which was that tools are not banned because of user misuse. The fact that your argument is wrong doesn't mean guns should be regulated. It just means this one argument against regulation is bogus. If you disagree, explain why a medical drug which is safe if not abused is different from a gun which is safe if not abused. Obviously one is metal, one is heavier, etc., but I trust you understand how those distinctions are irrelevant to whether each is a tool that is highly regulated because of user misuse.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Then again my question:

When you say "generally," are you claiming that just about every gun control law passed in the United States (and the world) has been ruined by compromises?



Then again my question:

Is it your position that gun control at the level of states or municipalities is completely ineffective and futile?


"Generally" means (to me at least) "commonly but not always". That said I certainly do not have an authoritative list of all gun control laws passed anywhere in the US much less the world as a whole. If you do and can show the laws were generally not compromised feel free to debunk my ignorance.

I do think gun control at the state and especially municipality level are indeed ineffective. The whole point of gun control is to reduce crime and someone who wants to use a gun in a crime will not be deterred. The gun gives them a huge advantage in the commission of the crime over no gun. If obtaining a gun legally can be done 10 miles away of what use is a local ban? It is trivial to get around the regulations.


I doubt that would have much of an effect either. For example, the recent handgun ban in the UK doesn't seem to have had much of an effect one way or another. And when your handgun ban doesn't work, I'm sure I can count on people to say "Of course it didn't work. People can easily use long guns in crimes. Or drive into Mexico and buy guns. We need even tighter restrictions."

Well...

In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_crime


Versus in the United States...

Number of Deaths Due to Firearms per 100,000 Population, 2002.

Weighted average: 11.5

SOURCE: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000


Rather large difference in my view.

[DrDeth]

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole;10922511



In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population.



Versus in the United States...

Number of Deaths Due to Firearms per 100,000 Population, 2002.

Weighted average: 11.5



Rather large difference in my view.[/QUOTE]

You are comparing apples and oranges. Note in the first place we have "illegal gun homicides". In the next category we have "Number of Deaths Due to Firearms" which include "illegal gun homicides", suicides, accidental deaths and legal shootings (such as by police vs a deadly assailant). Those numbers= triple the straight "homicide with gun" rate.

Switzerland has a homicide rate comparable to England's, yet in Switzerland each able-dodied citizen is required by law to keep a fully auto assualt rifle in their home or place of business.

Mexico has stringent gun control laws, but yet has much high homicide rates.


If you take a look at this chart on wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime
You'll see that the USA has a homicide rate without guns nearly 4X that of England.

[JXJohns]

I do think gun control at the state and especially municipality level are indeed ineffective. The whole point of gun control is to reduce crime and someone who wants to use a gun in a crime will not be deterred. The gun gives them a huge advantage in the commission of the crime over no gun. If obtaining a gun legally can be done 10 miles away of what use is a local ban? It is trivial to get around the regulations.
If you are speaking about the DC ban, once a resident leaves DC, they cannot legally buy a handgun in another state, without transferring it to an FFL into the district. If you are speaking of the ban in Chicago, it is illegal there to own a handgun that has not been registered. Registration ended in the 1980's. It doesn't matter where it was purchased.

[brazil84]

"Generally" means (to me at least) "commonly but not always". That said I certainly do not have an authoritative list of all gun control laws passed anywhere in the US much less the world as a whole. If you do and can show the laws were generally not compromised feel free to debunk my ignorance.

Does that mean "yes" or "no"? Anyway, if you are ignorant, then you should probably refrain from generalizing.

I do think gun control at the state and especially municipality level are indeed ineffective.

Ok, fine.

Versus in the United States...

It seems to me that you are being completely silly here. The reasonable thing to do would be to compare the UK both before and after its gun ban.

The fact is that the US and the UK are very different demographically.

Don't you think that the reasonable way to assess the efficacy of the UK gun ban is to look at crime rates both before and after?

[Whack-a-Mole]

You are comparing apples and oranges. Note in the first place we have "illegal gun homicides". In the next category we have "Number of Deaths Due to Firearms" which include "illegal gun homicides", suicides, accidental deaths and legal shootings (such as by police vs a deadly assailant). Those numbers= triple the straight "homicide with gun" rate.

Switzerland has a homicide rate comparable to England's, yet in Switzerland each able-dodied citizen is required by law to keep a fully auto assualt rifle in their home or place of business.

Mexico has stringent gun control laws, but yet has much high homicide rates.


If you take a look at this chart on wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime
You'll see that the USA has a homicide rate without guns nearly 4X that of England.

Yeah...the US has a higher homicide rate. And guess what? Far and away the weapon most used in homicides are guns in the US. Indeed for 2005 ALL other weapons (besides guns) used in a homicide combined together were less than guns. (cite (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm))

Certainly absent the ability to use a gun some of those gun homicides would move to some other weapon. But then a gun is far and away a better tool for killing someone than those other weapons. I think it is more than reasonable to assume if there were no guns those homicide rates would drop dramatically.

And Mexico? Seriously...that country is a disaster and teetering on collapse. Corruption is rampant, drug lords are running the show and last I heard the Mexican military sees over 14,000 (IIRC...I can look it up) desertions a year and those guys often walk off with military weapons to sell to drug lords.

Mexico is really more akin to a third world country and all that entails. For comparison I think the UK is far more similar to the US. But if you want to use Mexico then I want to use Japan. :p

[Whack-a-Mole]

Does that mean "yes" or "no"? Anyway, if you are ignorant, then you should probably refrain from generalizing.

I do not know why you insist on pushing for a black & white answer here. Not all questions can be answered that way. From what I have seen of various US laws aimed at gun control they are almost always lacking and I would not expect them to be useful in reducing crime in any notable way. Is it possible there was a good gun law made sometime, somewhere? Sure but since I do not keep the legal codes of all 50 states for the last 200 years locked in my head I cannot say definitively.

So I use common sense and the experience I do have from what I have seen and read about. If you want to keep dancing around with unreasonable demands for authoritative listings on ALL the world's gun laws and their consequences have fun but you're not getting it as it doesn't exist.

Try your smoke and mirrors game somewhere else. I'm done with responding to your posts here till you have something of substance to say.

[Max Torque]

For comparison I think the UK is far more similar to the US.

Why? Because we both speak English? That's about where the similarities end. The US shares an actual border with Mexico, you know, and I'll wager we have more people in the US with close family or cultural ties to Mexico than we have with the UK.

Demographically and culturally, the US and UK are quite different. First, there's the population thing; England has nine population centers with over half a million people, while the US has thirty-three. Big cities breed crime, don't ya know. Plus, the US has a greater mix of languages and ethnicities, what with that whole "melting pot" thing, and people who are different from one another often find a reason to dislike one another. Now, immigration has been up for England in the past 15-20 years or so, and crime has risen accordingly, so they may yet catch up. And of course there's history to consider: because of Britain's past liberal use of the death penalty, the criminal society has morphed into one that tends to favor property crime over personal violence.

If I were you, I'd drop the UK and go with Canada instead.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Why? Because we both speak English? That's about where the similarities end. The US shares an actual border with Mexico, you know, and I'll wager we have more people in the US with close family or cultural ties to Mexico than we have with the UK.

Well...sharing a common language is big since we can easily share cultural things like movies and books and so on. Not to mention much of our notion of things like law stem directly from British Common Law so our very foundation as a country is in no small part evolved from the British. As for sharing a border with Mexico so what? Mexico I think would be deemed far more foreign to most Americans than England would. Sure the US has a very large Mexican immigrant population but the melting pot factor takes generations to process through.


Demographically and culturally, the US and UK are quite different. First, there's the population thing; England has nine population centers with over half a million people, while the US has thirty-three. Big cities breed crime, don't ya know. Plus, the US has a greater mix of languages and ethnicities, what with that whole "melting pot" thing, and people who are different from one another often find a reason to dislike one another. Now, immigration has been up for England in the past 15-20 years or so, and crime has risen accordingly, so they may yet catch up. And of course there's history to consider: because of Britain's past liberal use of the death penalty, the criminal society has morphed into one that tends to favor property crime over personal violence.

If I were you, I'd drop the UK and go with Canada instead.

To be sure making comparisons with other countries is dicey as there are many factors that can bear on crime rates and an apple-to-apple comparison is not really possible. That said I do not think the lessons other countries learn should be totally ignored as a result. When doing the comparison it is appropriate to look for factors that affect what we see but the comparison can still be made as long as we keep the caveats in mind.

Not sure Canada is a closer model than the UK for comparison's sake but no reason Canada shouldn't be looked at too so we can see what we might learn.

[brazil84]

I do not know why you insist on pushing for a black & white answer here.

Because I don't understand your position. You seem to be claiming that virtually all gun control laws have been ruined by compromises, and you simultaneously seem to be claiming that you are ignorant of most gun control laws.

That's a contradiction, and I would like to know whether still claiming that most gun control laws have been ruined by compromises or now you are claiming that you do not know one way or another.

If you want to keep dancing around with unreasonable demands for authoritative listings on ALL the world's gun laws

I'm not making such a demand. Please don't strawman me.

Anyway, you never answered my question:

Don't you think that the reasonable way to assess the efficacy of the UK gun ban is to look at crime rates both before and after?

[brazil84]

Demographically and culturally, the US and UK are quite different.

That's absolutely true. But what's annoying to me is that your typical gun control advocate can easily recognize why places like Oregon or New Hampshire are different from places like California or New Jersey. And yet they are essentially blind to the differences between the US and the UK. Or the US and Canada.

[glee]

And of course there's history to consider: because of Britain's past liberal use of the death penalty, the criminal society has morphed into one that tends to favor property crime over personal violence.


Um, the last execution in Britain was in 1964. 45 years later, why would criminals here still be affected by that?

[glee]

Don't you think that the reasonable way to assess the efficacy of the UK gun ban is to look at crime rates both before and after?

Perfectly reasonable.
However you may be surprised to hear that gun restrictions started here in 1903 (http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/may2007/ukgun_politics.html#History).
There were further laws on registration and banning in 1920 and 1937, before the 1967 law covering shotguns, the 1988 Act on rifles and finally the 1997 Act banning almost all handguns.
it is interesting that the handgun ban affected only an estimated 57,000 people - 0.1%of the population (http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/may2007/ukgun_politics.html#History), as the vast majority of Brits have never owned a gun.

OK, this covers just the timeframe from the latest Act:

Since 1998 number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 4,001 in 2005/06. "Injury" in this context means by being fired, used a blunt instrument, or as a threat. In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 46 and 97 for the past decade, standing at 50 in 2005/06 (a fall from 75 the previous year). Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales. Over the same period there were 107 non-fatal shootings of police officers - an average of just 9.7 per year.

Given that no beat police here are armed, the UK population is happy with the almost total ban on guns.

[Dante]

If you want to keep dancing around with unreasonable demands for authoritative listings on ALL the world's gun laws
I'm not making such a demand. Please don't strawman me.Are you saying you won't ask for a list of gun laws?

[brazil84]

Are you saying you won't ask for a list of gun laws?

No. I'm not asking for a list at the moment, though. Will I ask at some point in the future? I don't know.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Are you saying you won't ask for a list of gun laws?

Well let's see...

WaM: "What gun control laws that have been passed are generally ruined by compromises to get them passed." (post #5)

brazil84: "When you say "generally," are you claiming that just about every gun control law passed in the United States (and the world) has been ruined by compromises? " (post #7)

WaM: "I do not have a comprehensive list of all gun control laws passed in the United States or the world." (post #8)

brazil84: "In that case, are you retracting your claim that gun control laws -- in general -- have been ruined by compromises? Because as stated, your claim would seem to apply to all gun controls in the US, and indeed in the rest of the world." (post #10)

WaM: "Not retracting anything." (post #20)

brazil84: "Then again my question:

When you say "generally," are you claiming that just about every gun control law passed in the United States (and the world) has been ruined by compromises?" (post #25)

WaM: ""Generally" means (to me at least) "commonly but not always". That said I certainly do not have an authoritative list of all gun control laws passed anywhere in the US much less the world as a whole." (post #35)

brazil84: "Does that mean "yes" or "no"?" (post #38)

WaM: "From what I have seen of various US laws aimed at gun control they are almost always lacking and I would not expect them to be useful in reducing crime in any notable way. Is it possible there was a good gun law made sometime, somewhere? Sure but since I do not keep the legal codes of all 50 states for the last 200 years locked in my head I cannot say definitively." (post #40)

brazil84: "You seem to be claiming that virtually all gun control laws have been ruined by compromises, and you simultaneously seem to be claiming that you are ignorant of most gun control laws.

That's a contradiction, and I would like to know whether still claiming that most gun control laws have been ruined by compromises or now you are claiming that you do not know one way or another." (post #43)



After that I gave up with him. Maybe I am misreading something but I feel I answered his questions and he persisted in re-asking the same thing over and over for some strange reason I cannot fathom.

[brazil84]

Perfectly reasonable.

Thank you.

However you may be surprised to hear that gun restrictions started here in 1903 (http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/may2007/ukgun_politics.html#History).

No it's not a surprise.

Since 1998 number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 4,001 in 2005/06. "Injury" in this context means by being fired, used a blunt instrument, or as a threat. In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 46 and 97 for the past decade, standing at 50 in 2005/06 (a fall from 75 the previous year). Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales. Over the same period there were 107 non-fatal shootings of police officers - an average of just 9.7 per year.

Given that no beat police here are armed, the UK population is happy with the almost total ban on guns.

I'm not sure what your point is. You don't seem to dispute that the UK handgun ban did not have much of an effect on crime. Are you claiming that some earlier gun law had a big effect? Or were those earlier laws "ruined by compromise"?

[Dante]

No. I'm not asking for a list at the moment, though. Will I ask at some point in the future? I don't know.Well, maybe Whack-A-Mole just had a hunch or something.

[glee]

Thank you.


You're welcome.


I'm not sure what your point is. You don't seem to dispute that the UK handgun ban did not have much of an effect on crime. Are you claiming that some earlier gun law had a big effect? Or were those earlier laws "ruined by compromise"?

I just posted the facts. :cool:

The first point is that the UK handgun ban was a tiny thing, affecting only 0.1% of the population. We don't use guns for home protection, and haven't for decades.

Next we have much lower levels of gun crime (especially homicides and particularly school shootings) than the US.
From my previous source (bolding mine):

In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings), a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms, one being with an air weapon.

By comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which 70% involved the use of firearms (75% of which were illegally obtained).

[Magiver]

I was rebutting your argument, which was that tools are not banned because of user misuse. The fact that your argument is wrong doesn't mean guns should be regulated. It just means this one argument against regulation is bogus. If you disagree, explain why a medical drug which is safe if not abused is different from a gun which is safe if not abused. Obviously one is metal, one is heavier, etc., but I trust you understand how those distinctions are irrelevant to whether each is a tool that is highly regulated because of user misuse. You'll have to be more specific in your argument because I don't understand it.

[Todderbob]

By comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which 70% involved the use of firearms (75% of which were illegally obtained).In which case, making firearms illegal wouldn't have stopped those crimes.

The weapons were already illegal.

[Whack-a-Mole]

In which case, making firearms illegal wouldn't have stopped those crimes.

The weapons were already illegal.

Sure. But work backwards up the pipe. I doubt these criminals are robbing gun factories. In order to get a weapon someone almost certainly obtained it legally first. Then their gun was either stolen or they were content to sell to a criminal (either knowingly or not caring who the person was buying the gun from them).

Because guns are so easily available in the US it is no surprise it is a relatively simple matter for criminals to get their hands on one.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Looks like gun theft is a relatively (although still significant) source of illegal weapons used by criminals.

According to the 1991 Survey of
State Prison Inmates, among those
inmates who possessed a handgun,
9% had acquired it through theft, and
28% had acquired it through an illegal
market such as a drug dealer or fence.
Of all inmates, 10% had stolen at least
one gun, and 11% had sold or traded
stolen guns.

SOURCE: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf (PDF, page 3)

[Max Torque]

Um, the last execution in Britain was in 1964. 45 years later, why would criminals here still be affected by that?

There's a joke that goes something like, "What's the difference between the US and England? In the US, 100 years is a long time, and in England, 100 miles is a long way."

It's tradition, man. Little criminals grow up doing the criminal stuff that their criminal parents did before them. It's not hard to check, just look at England's rates of crimes like burglary and motor vehicle theft and compare them to the US. Clearly, property crime is preferred in the UK. I'm just guessing at the reason, but I suspect I'm on to something.

[YogSosoth]

Sorry, been really busy at work. Will get back to it.

[Richard Parker]

You'll have to be more specific in your argument because I don't understand it.

Your argument was that the government doesn't regulate tools because of potential abuse. But the government does do exactly that. Potential abuse is exactly why codeine, for example, is tightly regulated.

[brazil84]

The first point is that the UK handgun ban was a tiny thing, affecting only 0.1% of the population.

Again, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that some earlier gun control law in the UK resulted in a decrease in crime? If so, which one?

And if not, why should we expect things to be different in the United States?

Next we have much lower levels of gun crime (especially homicides and particularly school shootings) than the US.

Again I am confused. Is it your position that gun control has been a failure in the UK?

[Magiver]

Your argument was that the government doesn't regulate tools because of potential abuse. But the government does do exactly that. Potential abuse is exactly why codeine, for example, is tightly regulated. The argument is that government doesn't regulate the existence of tools because of potential abuse. Circular saws aren't banned but they have mandated blade guards. Chain saws have kickback brakes and hand guards. Hand guns have safety switches on them.

You're comparing regulation with an outright ban.

[Cheesesteak]

You're comparing regulation with an outright ban.Why don't we then compare a ban with a ban. How about a ban of guns with the ban of other guns? Like I brought up before, we highly regulate fully automatic rifles, but don't have similar regs for otherwise identical semi-automatic rifles.

The only difference between the two is the relative dangerousness, which is clearly not an issue if they aren't misused.

[Todderbob]

Why don't we then compare a ban with a ban. How about a ban of guns with the ban of other guns? Like I brought up before, we highly regulate fully automatic rifles, but don't have similar regs for otherwise identical semi-automatic rifles.

The only difference between the two is the relative dangerousness, which is clearly not an issue if they aren't misused.No, we ban fully automatic rifles, there just happen to be a few which were grandfathered in, and since the government can't make post de facto laws, those are regulated.

Your statement of relative dangerousness, however, I'm going to request a cite for.

[Cheesesteak]

Your statement of relative dangerousness, however, I'm going to request a cite for.Every army in the world that uses automatic weapons is my cite. If they weren't more dangerous than the semi-auto versions of the weapons, they'd go semi-auto and save the ammunition.

[Todderbob]

Every army in the world that uses automatic weapons is my cite. If they weren't more dangerous than the semi-auto versions of the weapons, they'd go semi-auto and save the ammunition.That doesn't really count as a cite.

Only certain members of a group use fully automatic weapons, typically suppression fire. The others typically use Single Shot or Three Shot Burst, and the army actively discourages ( and in fact, new M16's, -- post 80's? -- I believe, make it impossible to do) fully automatic fire from anyone not specifically designated to do so. And then it's typically from a belt fed M240/M249, as suppression fire, to prevent return fire, rather than to hit specific targets.

Snipers / Designated marksmen, who are arguably some of the most lethal members of any infantry, typically use Bolt Action or Semi-Automatic weapons.


I've heard various stories as to the reason behind 3-shot burst from (both current and ex)military personnel. Suffice it to say that while it has upsides, many of them have issues with the fact that it depletes ammunition at an absolutely ridiculous rate, and is relatively difficult to aim/control. Good marksman can fire one shot, or a few shots which are better placed in an almost equal amount of time (factor recoil recovery for 3 shots is going to be more than one), saving ammunition and leading to the semi-automatic firearm being quite a bit more deadly.

ETA -- If there are any current/former military browsing the thread, your input on Selective Fire would be helpful... Thanks.

[JXJohns]

The military has a different job than average Joe which is to lay down massive amounts of lead at a target. A squad full of soldiers equipped with 3-round burst capable rifles can lay down a lot of fire in short order.

One guy, by himself, can shoot three rounds at a time marginally faster that semi auto at a target when equipped similarly. 30 aimed, semi auto shots are far more accurate and therefore, dangerous, deadly, whatever, than 10 3-round bursts.

Your average US soldier does not tote around a full auto gun anymore.

[Cheesesteak]

Snipers / Designated marksmen, who are arguably some of the most lethal members of any infantry, typically use Bolt Action or Semi-Automatic weapons.I see, so if we were going to ban only the most lethal weapons, we should ban bolt action rifles instead of fully automatic rifles? That's an interesting concept.

[JXJohns]

I see, so if we were going to ban only the most lethal weapons, we should ban bolt action rifles instead of fully automatic rifles? That's an interesting concept.

Give it a try. It might finally get the fudds off of their asses and realize that their guns really are at risk. While you are at it, try to ban pump shotguns too. They can throw out more 30 cal pellets faster than any full auto gun.

It would nice to see the anti gun crowd be genuine for once.

[Todderbob]

I see, so if we were going to ban only the most lethal weapons, we should ban bolt action rifles instead of fully automatic rifles? That's an interesting concept.Frankly, yes.

Fully automatic weapons go through ammunition at a ridiculous rate, and are terribly inaccurate.

The record number of kills with a bolt action rifle is 700 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4), possibly more. His confirmed kills were only 500 (I use the term loosely...).

[YogSosoth]

Hello, sorry about the delay. Audit issues :eek:

Before I start, I'd like to compliment you on restating my general position in such a non-confrontational way. :D


If this is correct, then I see a broader issue to debate- the issue of what the government should legitimately have the power to proscribe in the name of public safety. I think you'll find that a lot of people on this board are (small "l") libertarians, and leery of excessive government power and intervention.

The problem is that even given that the above premises were correct, it would still not address legitimate concerns: the idea that the government and it's officers can be privileged to possess power banned to the public at large, with all that implies for democracy; the question of real-world enforcibility of any form of prohibition (witness alcohol Prohibition, or the War on Drugs) and whether such prohibition not merely useless but counter-productive; and whether the supporters of an "assault weapon" ban are honest in both their intent and their assessment of the hazards of the weapons they propose to ban.


Your broader issue comes from a libertarian perspective, and while I do not subscribe to it, I can understand it. I've gone over several reasons on how to make my point clear, and I hope it will be sufficient with the following analogy:

Most libertarians would consider the military as something proper and necessary, even if they may not like it, to be run by the government. If that is your position as well, then we can totally work with that.

If an armed force dedicated solely to blowing up threats exist, then isn't ever other regulation, restriction, and law simply an extension of that?

If I were libertarian, I would say "We need a military because otherwise, we would be vulnerable, and it exists due to the fact that I cannot personally, nor can my local populace, round up the necessary manpower and resources needed to offer such protection with the same effectiveness as the government."

Taking that type of collective defense spirit of the argument, then I see all other regulations as merely an extension. In effect, if you want to say that the government shouldn't restrict guns and that it's too big or too powerful, then the same argument can be applied to national defense or anything you want. Its anarchy

Once you agree to the fairly reasonable logic that the government has the right and duty to defend it's people, then I think you lose your case to say: "the government can't". Because it can, and you've allowed it. The only argument from then on is how far it can go

And quite simply, you draw the line at different points than I do, and that's why I'm for gun control and you're not

[Todderbob]

Most libertarians would consider the military as something proper and necessary, even if they may not like it, to be run by the government. If that is your position as well, then we can totally work with that.Most libertarians is a disingenuous statement, but no. I do not think the Military in its current form needs to stay.

If an armed force dedicated solely to blowing up threats exist, then isn't ever other regulation, restriction, and law simply an extension of that? No. Not even remotely. Armies are used against foreign powers.

Bill Adama said it best on BSG: "There's a reason you separate the military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."

If I were libertarian, I would say "We need a military because otherwise, we would be vulnerable, and it exists due to the fact that I cannot personally, nor can my local populace, round up the necessary manpower and resources needed to offer such protection with the same effectiveness as the government."No. That is not what most of us say, most of us say, "We need a small military, and an armed population to deter invasion."

Taking that type of collective defense spirit of the argument, then I see all other regulations as merely an extension. The problem with your argument is that the premise itself is flawed.

In effect, if you want to say that the government shouldn't restrict guns and that it's too big or too powerful, then the same argument can be applied to national defense or anything you want. Its anarchyNo, no it's not. You just think it is because you want to prove your point.

Once you agree to the fairly reasonable logic that the government has the right and duty to defend it's people, then I think you lose your case to say: "the government can't". Because it can, and you've allowed it. The only argument from then on is how far it can go

And quite simply, you draw the line at different points than I do, and that's why I'm for gun control and you're notNo, the difference is libertarians want effective, minimalistic laws that serve a purpose, you want feel good legislation that makes you happy in the pants and feel warm and fuzzy.

[jakesteele]

I'll weigh in with my philosophical stance. There are three groups that have guns in America:
1. The Government - they have the biggest, baddest and the mostest as they should to protect the people of this nation from internal and external threat.

2. Criminals - while having less armament than the people or the govt. they have access to more powerful weapons, but more importantly, they have bad intentions for using them.

3. The Citizens - We have a lot, but they are used mostly for sport and hunting and are designed by intent for recreational purposes.

I believe that if you outlaw guns it means that only Citizens will be disarmed, not the criminals. All outlawing guns will do is make the price of an illegal weapon cost more for the criminal and could increase the crime rate due to the fact that they will need to committ more crime to pay for the 'cost of doing business'.

[JXJohns]

I'll weigh in with my philosophical stance. There are three groups that have guns in America:
1. The Government - they have the biggest, baddest and the mostest as they should to protect the people of this nation from internal and external threat.

2. Criminals - while having less armament than the people or the govt. they have access to more powerful weapons, but more importantly, they have bad intentions for using them.

3. The Citizens - We have a lot, but they are used mostly for sport and hunting and are designed by intent for recreational purposes.

I believe that if you outlaw guns it means that only Citizens will be disarmed, not the criminals. All outlawing guns will do is make the price of an illegal weapon cost more for the criminal and could increase the crime rate due to the fact that they will need to committ more crime to pay for the 'cost of doing business'.

Your #2's have no greater access to firearms than your #3's except where they break the law to get them. Please define "more powerful" as in the case of #2.

[Whack-a-Mole]

No. That is not what most of us say, most of us say, "We need a small military, and an armed population to deter invasion."


Huh? They (libertarians) really say that? And they really think that an armed populace would deter an invasion? That a small military + armed citizens would be sufficient to protect the United States?

I find it hard to believe libertarians, by-and-large, are so short-sighted. If you think an armed populace could remotely deter an invasion you have not been paying attention to the current state of affairs in the world.

Hell, a likely invader need not even actually "invade" and face all those armed Americans. They'd just sweep aside the token military the US has, issue an ultimatum, nuke a city if it was not agreed to, issue ultimatum again, nuke another city, issue ultimatum again. I bet after a few rounds of that we'd give up.

So much for your guns.

[Todderbob]

Huh? They (libertarians) really say that? Yes.

And they really think that an armed populace would deter an invasion? Yes. An armed, fractured and disorganized, population in Iraq seems to be doing a rather good job of throwing wrenches in the most advanced military in the world.

That a small military + armed citizens would be sufficient to protect the United States?Yes.

I find it hard to believe libertarians, by-and-large, are so short-sighted. No, what you find hard to believe is that people might disagree with you, and be right.

If you think an armed populace could remotely deter an invasion you have not been paying attention to the current state of affairs in the world.I beg to differ, I think that it is you who has not been paying attention to the current state of affairs in the world.

Hell, a likely invader need not even actually "invade" and face all those armed Americans. They'd just sweep aside the token military the US has, issue an ultimatum, nuke a city if it was not agreed to, issue ultimatum again, nuke another city, issue ultimatum again. I bet after a few rounds of that we'd give up.I missed the part where our small standing military wouldn't have nuclear weapons, advanced warplanes, tanks, etc. And keep people trained in using them.

Unless you're suggesting that those things are useless in modern society, in which case your argument is rather confusing.

So much for your guns.So much for your logic.



The point that's being made is that there is no need for a large standing army. If you take a moment to think about cost-benefit analysis, rather than blithely implying that anyone who disagrees with you is short sited, you might change your mind.


A famous WW2 Quote:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

[Whack-a-Mole]

Yes. An armed, fractured and disorganized, population in Iraq seems to be doing a rather good job of throwing wrenches in the most advanced military in the world.

To my knowledge our military is still there and in no way in danger of being routed out of the country by insurgents.

Are the insurgents a thorn in the side of the military? Sure. As a practical matter do they achieve much of significance? No.


I missed the part where our small standing military wouldn't have nuclear weapons, advanced warplanes, tanks, etc. And keep people trained in using them.

"Quantity has a quality all its own." - Josef Stalin

Time and again it has been shown that numbers can trump a better armed force if the attacker is willing to expend the lives. The Chinese have shown it. The Soviets showed it in the face of a vastly better armed and trained army. Sure there are the Alamo-type examples in history but for the overall war...numbers can mean a helluva lot.


A famous WW2 Quote:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
[/quote]

Germany was armed to the teeth. Every person who could possibly fight was thrown in to the final defense of Germany and then Berlin. While not an easy fight the Soviets rolled over them.

And again, things change in the nuclear age. Japan was prepared to do a last-man defense, nukes changed that. And a handful of nukes in our "small" army will not dissuade the likes of a China or Soviet Union. There is a reason we both built such big stockpiles.

And of course all this totally ignores that a small military capable of barely protecting US borders alone leaves the rest of the world up for grabs. Like it or not the US as a world police force in the form of its military has protected our interests and likely kept aggressive regimes from becoming too aggressive.

If there were no US to balk the Soviets I think there is more than a fair chance they (the Soviet Union) would have gone after Western Europe at some point.

[Todderbob]

To my knowledge our military is still there and in no way in danger of being routed out of the country by insurgents.

Are the insurgents a thorn in the side of the military? Sure. As a practical matter do they achieve much of significance? No.My point is that an armed population makes invasion and occupation significantly more difficult.

"Quantity has a quality all its own." - Josef StalinAnd 200,000,000 armed civilians (many of which with training) is a quantity indeed.

Time and again it has been shown that numbers can trump a better armed force if the attacker is willing to expend the lives. The Chinese have shown it. The Soviets showed it in the face of a vastly better armed and trained army. Sure there are the Alamo-type examples in history but for the overall war...numbers can mean a helluva lot.I'm not sure what point you're arguing, at this point it seems like you're arguing for my side. I doubt any military in the world could muster even 10,000,000 troops.

And again, things change in the nuclear age. Japan was prepared to do a last-man defense, nukes changed that. And a handful of nukes in our "small" army will not dissuade the likes of a China or Soviet Union. There is a reason we both built such big stockpiles.You've mischaracterized both the Japanese people, and my argument. No where did I say the number of nukes would be small. Nor, I doubt, do you have an extensive understanding of what would or would not dissuade China or the (former) USSR.

And of course all this totally ignores that a small military capable of barely protecting US borders alone leaves the rest of the world up for grabs. Like it or not the US as a world police force in the form of its military has protected our interests and likely kept aggressive regimes from becoming too aggressive.Let the rest of the world reach their own balance. It's not our place to protect or defend those who cannot do it themselves.

If there were no US to balk the Soviets I think there is more than a fair chance they (the Soviet Union) would have gone after Western Europe at some point.And, unless I'm mistaken, that's the past. Unless you're suggesting that the Russian Federation is planning on invading Europe, now?



You're mischaractarizing my argument, and I suspect you know it, you're intentionally using scenarios which no longer exist (different times call for different measures) and your argument is falling apart.

[Whack-a-Mole]

And 200,000,000 armed civilians (many of which with training) is a quantity indeed.

200 million spread across the country and not in one place. 200 million not working together in a coherent and planned fashion. Divide and conquer and all that jazz.


I'm not sure what point you're arguing, at this point it seems like you're arguing for my side. I doubt any military in the world could muster even 10,000,000 troops.

Maybe or maybe not. Depends on how committed the country is to the war. The Soviets tossed 2.5 million soldiers at Berlin in WWII. That was not their whole army in one place.


You've mischaracterized both the Japanese people, and my argument. No where did I say the number of nukes would be small. Nor, I doubt, do you have an extensive understanding of what would or would not dissuade China or the (former) USSR.

Ahh...so small military but big nuke force yes? Then add in big bomber force and big naval force to deliver those nukes? Add in bases around the world so all the nukes are not in one place? Looks like your "small" military just grew by leaps so you can keep your deterrent nuke force.

And while we can only guess at what would or would not dissuade China or Russia they have shown time and again in previous wars to use human wave tactics and have relatively little regard for absorbing massive casualties in pursuit of their goals. Perhaps they have a newfound passion to protect the lives of their troops but there is no evidence of that and evidence of the opposite.


Let the rest of the world reach their own balance. It's not our place to protect or defend those who cannot do it themselves.

Sure...if you ignore that we live in a global economy and the US has interests that extend beyond its borders. What if, due to a small US military that cannot engage beyond its borders, Russia decides to take over the Middle East? Hey...not our problem right? Now Russia decides to cut-off oil shipments from the Middle East to the US. Still not our problem right? Not in our borders...no issue for us to be concerned with. :rolleyes:


And, unless I'm mistaken, that's the past. Unless you're suggesting that the Russian Federation is planning on invading Europe, now?

The past is a guide for the future. If an opportunity exists to grab an easy prize because it is undefended do you want to suppose all will be well because people are just nicer these days? That countries would not engage in military adventurism, if they thought they could succeed, because that is soooo last century and not nice? Naive barely covers it if you think that.


You're mischaractarizing my argument, and I suspect you know it, you're intentionally using scenarios which no longer exist (different times call for different measures) and your argument is falling apart.

Of course we can only speculate. History has shown us that time and again countries come into conflict. That when given a chance many regimes WILL go to war for some perceived gain and no amount of "that's not nice" stops them. Why would you suppose things have changed so much since then? Because a large and powerful US military has made World Wars a thing of the past?

[Todderbob]

I'm sorry, clarify for me what part of that is an argument for restricting the personal freedoms of individuals?

[YogSosoth]

Most libertarians is a disingenuous statement, but no. I do not think the Military in its current form needs to stay.

Forgive me if I attributed something about the general population of libertarians. I should instead say that most libertarians I've encountered make it known to me that they grudgingly accept the existence of the military.

You say that you are for a small military and an armed populace, but like you accuse me of, "small" is a disingenuous statement. What's small to you is big to others, and vice versa. The fact that you still accept any kind of military validates my point, that being everyone has a line to be drawn, and you, and Lumpy, and others, simply draw it a little bit different than I do. That goes for gun control as well, since I'm assuming from what I remember from that other thread you are against letting private citizens own suitcase nukes or bombs.

Maybe you think that's a "proper" limit to set, but I see it as merely an extension of firearms. You want to say I'm objectively wrong about gun control? Well you're just the same as me, except you feel how I do about larger armaments


No. Not even remotely. Armies are used against foreign powers.

Bill Adama said it best on BSG: "There's a reason you separate the military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."


You're attempting to equate my pro-gun control stance to usage of the military? You don't see that the military is simply the same as you and your armed population, except wearing fancy uniforms and told to fight another country? If we can have that, we can certainly say everyone without fancy uniforms should have restrictions on guns


The problem with your argument is that the premise itself is flawed.


You do not represent libertarians any more than Lumpy. I was merely responding to his reply to me. To claim that my premise is flawed is to take what I am saying to him, and apply it to you, without acknowledging that his view point differs from yours. Or at least until such time as he makes his views clear on the military


No, the difference is libertarians want effective, minimalistic laws that serve a purpose, you want feel good legislation that makes you happy in the pants and feel warm and fuzzy.

Who doesn't want to be happy in the pants??? ;)

No, the real difference is that you disagree with the purpose I want the laws to reach. Don't pretend that gun control is an inherent evil. There's nothing wrong with my beliefs, they are simply different

[Whack-a-Mole]

I'm sorry, clarify for me what part of that is an argument for restricting the personal freedoms of individuals?

It got off track but I reject the notion that an armed populace is a significant deterrent to an invader. That using, "OMG....we'll get invaded if we DON'T let citizens have guns!" is a bogus argument. The US is a big place. Even if there was not a single gun in private hands an invasion of the US would be a massive undertaking. If a would-be invader mustered sufficient force to have a real go at the US then such a force is not likely to be deterred by a "small" military or an armed populace. Sure it would make life somewhat more difficult for them but not stop them.

[Todderbob]

It got off track but I reject the notion that an armed populace is a significant deterrent to an invader. That using, "OMG....we'll get invaded if we DON'T let citizens have guns!" is a bogus argument. The US is a big place. Even if there was not a single gun in private hands an invasion of the US would be a massive undertaking. If a would-be invader mustered sufficient force to have a real go at the US then such a force is not likely to be deterred by a "small" military or an armed populace. Sure it would make life somewhat more difficult for them but not stop them.Significantly more difficult, imo. But that's not the point.

The point is that, that is only one of the potential benefits to having an armed population.

The fact that you still accept any kind of military validates my point,No, it doesn't.

Your point is, "Militaries exist to protect people from foreign powers. An extension of that are laws which are meant to protect people."

That is not a valid point, at all.

That goes for gun control as well, since I'm assuming from what I remember from that other thread you are against letting private citizens own suitcase nukes or bombs. Apples and Oranges.

Maybe you think that's a "proper" limit to set, but I see it as merely an extension of firearms. Firearms have a specific definition, Nukes do not meet that definition.

You want to say I'm objectively wrong about gun control? Well you're just the same as me, except you feel how I do about larger armamentsBecause you are objectively wrong about gun control. It doesn't lower crime, and therefore serves no purpose but to

You're attempting to equate my pro-gun control stance to usage of the military? Actually, it was you who did that.
If an armed force dedicated solely to blowing up threats exist, then isn't ever other regulation, restriction, and law simply an extension of that?See? You, not me.
You don't see that the military is simply the same as you and your armed population, except wearing fancy uniforms and told to fight another country? If we can have that, we can certainly say everyone without fancy uniforms should have restrictions on gunsWe can have that restriction, however we can also have a restriction that anyone without a [symbol] on his arm is also not allowed to practice free speech.

That doesn't mean we should have that restriction.

You do not represent libertarians any more than Lumpy. I was merely responding to his reply to me. To claim that my premise is flawed is to take what I am saying to him, and apply it to you, without acknowledging that his view point differs from yours. Or at least until such time as he makes his views clear on the militaryI was stating that your premise (as follows) is flawed.
If an armed force dedicated solely to blowing up threats exist, then isn't ever other regulation, restriction, and law simply an extension of that?
Because the premise is flawed. Laws are not an extension of the military, I don't care what Lumpy thinks about the issue (although I suspect he agrees with me).


No, the real difference is that you disagree with the purpose I want the laws to reach. Don't pretend that gun control is an inherent evil. There's nothing wrong with my beliefs, they are simply differentThere is something very wrong with your beliefs; they want to restrict my freedoms, limit what I can and cannot do without hurting anyone else, and without giving me a thing in return.

Your opinion, no matter how dearly you hold it, is wrong, because it seeks to impose your beliefs onto me.

[Whack-a-Mole]

The point is that, that is only one of the potential benefits to having an armed population.


Where we disagree is what those benefits are. We have done the arguments elsewhere before. I find these supposed benefits highly dubious and pretty much unproven on any level.

On the other hand I do find the ills that having guns easily available in our society causes as proven and far and away trumping any of these "benefits".

I have no doubt the best we can hope for here is to agree to disagree.

[Lumpy]

Most libertarians would consider the military as something proper and necessary, even if they may not like it, to be run by the government. If that is your position as well, then we can totally work with that.

If an armed force dedicated solely to blowing up threats exist, then isn't ever<y> other regulation, restriction, and law simply an extension of that?

If I were libertarian, I would say "We need a military because otherwise, we would be vulnerable, and it exists due to the fact that I cannot personally, nor can my local populace, round up the necessary manpower and resources needed to offer such protection with the same effectiveness as the government."

Taking that type of collective defense spirit of the argument, then I see all other regulations as merely an extension. In effect, if you want to say that the government shouldn't restrict guns and that it's too big or too powerful, then the same argument can be applied to national defense or anything you want. Its anarchy

Once you agree to the fairly reasonable logic that the government has the right and duty to defend it's people, then I think you lose your case to say: "the government can't". Because it can, and you've allowed it. The only argument from then on is how far it can goYes, governments have to have authority and the means to enforce it. Even the Constitution that replaced the older Articles of Confederation acknowledged the necessity of a strong government and a national Army and Navy. But the the whole Second Amendment debate stems from the premise that "the line" of legitimate authority WAS drawn at the Constitutional level, to say "any government that would ban the private possession of guns is a tyranny". You can't just say "the government by definition automatically has the authority to do whatever's needful". If a government can do anything whatsoever in the name of order and safety, then we've devolved to the philosophical position of Thomas Hobbes, who saw the iron fist of authoritarian government as the sole alternative to the savagery of anarchy. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that the entire political philosophy of the Framers was a rejection of Hobbes.

Now it's a perfectly legitimate stance to ask "given modern realities, shouldn't the wisdom and necessity of the Second Amendment be reevaluated?" Absolutely. But only at the Constitutional level- NOT by trying to ignore a fundamental provision of the Constitution out of existence by (supposedly) common consent. The whole foundation of our philosophy of government is that the government should only have such authority as is explicity granted to it. And if some new or unexpected need arises, established procedures exist to amend what powers the government should have, in a way that ensures that such a grant of power is truly the abiding will of the majority.

[YogSosoth]

No, it doesn't.

Your point is, "Militaries exist to protect people from foreign powers. An extension of that are laws which are meant to protect people."

That is not a valid point, at all.

I was stating that your premise (as follows) is flawed.

Because the premise is flawed. Laws are not an extension of the military, I don't care what Lumpy thinks about the issue (although I suspect he agrees with me).

Actually, it was you who did that.

See? You, not me.


No, that's not my stance. I have said nothing about the military being exclusively foreign. My point is broader than you claim it to be, one that sees the existence of one law or military arm merely part of the overall system of governance. You want to stick with narrowly defined principles that favor your opinion, fine, but my premise is merely another version of the social contract that people allow government into their lives in exchange for certain collective benefits that they cannot achieve on their own


Apples and Oranges.

Firearms have a specific definition, Nukes do not meet that definition.


You know, just saying "apples and oranges" doesn't make it so. You seem to have a semantic block in your argument that you refuse to acknowledge. I will happily and readily admit that there are a world of differences between a handgun and the Tsar Bomba, but I do not see that difference as anything more than severity. You are very eager to say that guns are "firearms" by definition, but less eager to admit that "arms" itself comprises of anything we deem it so. We're not talking about the sun and the moon here, we can define firearms to be anything we want; from a gun, to a slingshot, to a pebble. You want to claim that's wrong but humans made the definition and humans are able to change it. Nothing prevents any one of us from assigning nukes to be in the same category as arms. That's where your reasoning is flawed: you want a certain kind of "arms" to be legal but not another kind of "arms". It is a contraction in your argument, then, when you claim to be of freedom and civil rights when you clearly do not support it in one way. At least I'm consistent, I want to regulate them all


Because you are objectively wrong about gun control. It doesn't lower crime, and therefore serves no purpose but to


I'm pretty sure that if there are no guns, there would be at least a slight decrease in gun crimes


We can have that restriction, however we can also have a restriction that anyone without a [symbol] on his arm is also not allowed to practice free speech.

That doesn't mean we should have that restriction.


Thank you, finally you acknowledge that we at least can have that restriction. Do not make the mistake of saying that just because we can, we will. With the above, it seems like you're arguing 2 different things with me. One, you just admitted we can have such restrictions, and the other you keep implying that it is inherently unable to be regulated because of some semantic difference. I think you just invalidated your whole top half of your post


There is something very wrong with your beliefs; they want to restrict my freedoms, limit what I can and cannot do without hurting anyone else, and without giving me a thing in return.

Your opinion, no matter how dearly you hold it, is wrong, because it seeks to impose your beliefs onto me.

This is something I've responded to again and again. People having guns violate my freedom to not be easily killed. Just as saying "My yelling fire in a crowded theater doesn't violate YOUR rights if YOU are not in that theater", you are claiming proximity as your defense. That is simply myopic. If the general availability of an object makes everyone less safe in general, then that object needs to be regulated. Its like libel, slander, FDA regulations on food and drugs, traffic laws, and every other regulation we have. Just because it restricts freedoms a little doesn't make it bad inherently, and I think this inherent evil of gun control is what you cling to so feverishly. It is not inherently bad to restrict your freedoms for the betterment of society and it is most certainly not some master plan designed to limit freedoms to a facist degree. Its simply good regulation for a bad problem

[Todderbob]

No, that's not my stance. I have said nothing about the military being exclusively foreign. My point is broader than you claim it to be, one that sees the existence of one law or military arm merely part of the overall system of governance. You want to stick with narrowly defined principles that favor your opinion, fine, but my premise is merely another version of the social contract that people allow government into their lives in exchange for certain collective benefits that they cannot achieve on their ownAh, now we're getting to the heart of the issue. You think there's a collective benefit to be had, when historically there has never been a benefit to society shown by restricting firearm access (in the USA, or other Western Countries AFAIK).

You know, just saying "apples and oranges" doesn't make it so. You seem to have a semantic block in your argument that you refuse to acknowledge. I will happily and readily admit that there are a world of differences between a handgun and the Tsar Bomba, but I do not see that difference as anything more than severity. You are very eager to say that guns are "firearms" by definition, but less eager to admit that "arms" itself comprises of anything we deem it so. We're not talking about the sun and the moon here, we can define firearms to be anything we want; from a gun, to a slingshot, to a pebble. You want to claim that's wrong but humans made the definition and humans are able to change it. Nothing prevents any one of us from assigning nukes to be in the same category as arms. That's where your reasoning is flawed: you want a certain kind of "arms" to be legal but not another kind of "arms". It is a contraction in your argument, then, when you claim to be of freedom and civil rights when you clearly do not support it in one way. At least I'm consistent, I want to regulate them allNow you're arguing that we can/should change the definition of firearms to make your argument make sense, and conflating Firearms and Arms, all the while being extremely self contraDICTORY.
I'm pretty sure that if there are no guns, there would be at least a slight decrease in gun crimesBanning guns does not prevent firearms from getting into the hands of criminals.

It only stops law abiding citizens from obtaining them. The UK, which has a complete ban on pistols (so much so that their Olympic team practices in a different country) has seen a rise in pistol related crimes since the ban.

Thank you, finally you acknowledge that we at least can have that restriction. I was being sarcastic.

We can also murder all the jews, blacks, arabs, hindu, pegan, etc and commit mass genocide.

Do not make the mistake of saying that just because we can, we will. With the above, it seems like you're arguing 2 different things with me. No, I'm really not.

One, you just admitted we can have such restrictions, and the other you keep implying that it is inherently unable to be regulated because of some semantic difference. What Semantic difference?

I think you just invalidated your whole top half of your post I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

This is something I've responded to again and again. People having guns violate my freedom to not be easily killed. You don't have the right not to easily be killed. You have the right to not be killed, period. How difficult it is, is of absolutely no effect.

Just as saying "My yelling fire in a crowded theater doesn't violate YOUR rights if YOU are not in that theater", you are claiming proximity as your defense. That is simply myopic. No, no one is arguing that. What we are arguing, however, is that the word Fire shouldn't be banned because you can't yell it in a theatre.

If the general availability of an object makes everyone less safe in general, then that object needs to be regulated. Its like libel, slander, FDA regulations on food and drugs, traffic laws, and every other regulation we have. Just because it restricts freedoms a little doesn't make it bad inherently, and I think this inherent evil of gun control is what you cling to so feverishly. It is not inherently bad to restrict your freedoms for the betterment of society and it is most certainly not some master plan designed to limit freedoms to a facist degree. Its simply good regulation for a bad problemLets assume, for the sake of argument, that one does give up freedom for safety.


Prove to me that restricting these firearms increases your safety. You cannot, because it does not. You freely admitted in the other thread that these guns are so rarely used in crimes it's a non-factor, your entire justification for banning them was that they 'can kill a rhino,' which is an obvious fallacy and lie.