Come one, come all: Gun Control revisited, revisited

[Joe_Cool]

Nacho4Sara really drew my attention in This thread over in MPSIMS when she said this:

*Originally posted by Nacho4Sara *
Joe_Cool, I will not reiterate all the countless arguments for gun control, because unles syou live under a bed, you’ve heard them all. But rest assured that many people do disagree with your opinion, myself included…What is so bad about not “raping” the Bill of Rights is that people are dying because of your beloved guns every day. Not just drug dealers, not just crackheads and whores, but innocent people. This reality, IMHO, far negates your right to own a gun.

The only reasonable excuse for owning a gun that I will ever accept is hunting, and guess what? You can buy meat in grocery stores now.**

Since I don’t want to get a size 12 clog print on my ass for making an “unmundane and pointful” post over there, I thought I’d start a new thread over here.

Sara, you have every right to disagree with my opinion, and I’m willing to fight and die to defend your right to continue to disagree, hate me, think I’m an idiot, think I live under a bed, etc. However, you most certainly do NOT have the right to infringe on my rights. Especially not the Natural and Unalienable rights endowed by my Creator (from some obscure document I found on the web) and protected by the Bill of Rights.

You’re right…you have no need to reiterate the arguments in favor of gun control, because they a) are not in any way corroborated by the facts, and b) have been pretty thoroughly debunked in any one of the several dozen gun control threads here in GD. The 2nd Amendment does not mention hunting. The right to bear arms is protected because an armed populace is “necessary to the security of a free state.”

Yes, people are killed accidentally by guns, but in nowhere near the numbers that HCI and Senator Feynstein would have you believe (UncleBeer has quoted the statistics on accidental gun deaths so often, I suspect he has it stored on a keyboard macro just to prevent Carpal Tunnel Syndrome). But you need to weigh the cost. It would save millions of lives and eliminate traffic fatalities if we instituted a national speed limit of 5 mph. Would it be worth the cost? I don’t think there’s a single rational person who would say yes. Gun control is the same way: In an ideal world, eliminating guns would eliminate gun deaths. Not only would the cost would be far greater than the potential gain, but keep in mind that murders were just as widespread as they are now, long before the advent of the gun. I could kill you just as dead, just as easily with a knife or a pointed stick as with a gun.

This is NOT an ideal world, and outlawing guns will not eliminate them. It only takes them out of the hands of the people who are not the problem: Law-abiding citizens. Gun control makes criminals out of honest people, and criminals (who have no regard for the law anyway) into a few wolves among sheep. Robert Heinlein correctly noted that “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life,” and while we wait for the usual rabidly anti-gun crowd to show up, I’ll leave you with a few more interesting quotes to peruse:

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”
– Mohandas Gandhi

“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.”
– Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840

Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.
– From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775

“Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!’ in a crowded theater.”
– Peter Venetoklis

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
– Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788

“To disarm the people… was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…
– Samuel Adams, in “Phila. Independent Gazetteer”, August 20, 1789

{Fixed link. --Gaudere}

[Edited by Gaudere on 11-28-2000 at 03:37 PM]

[Joe_Cool]

Crap, I knew I’d screw up the link, even though I previewed it like a dozen times.

the real link is here.

Please fix my post!!

[jmullaney]

Are there really still people who think guns should be made illegal?

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by jmullaney *
**Are there really still people who think guns should be made illegal? **

Sadly, yeah. Sara says that the only good reason to own a gun (hunting) is obsolete with the advent of grocery stores.

[Ptahlis]

Regarding “Natural and Unalienable Rights endowed by [your]Creator”: While you may believe that such things exist, and may choose whatever venue you like to defend them, not everyone subscribes to such a philosophy. In any case, I doubt that the right to buy a Smith & Wesson is one of them. As far as rights go though, every single one you possess is in some way governed by law.

With regards to gun control, I am not an advocate of same, although neither am I the type that favors a completely unrestricted marketplace. In fact, I think the give and take battle between the NRA and the liberal left gives us the best end result, one in which we have a decent median between the two.

In any case, making the argument that your right is in some way inviolate just doesn’t wash. Should the Supreme Court tomorrow decide that the 2nd Ammendment should be applied such that not a single gun control law can stand, then you will have the legal right to buy a Sherman tank, complete with ammo. Should they decide that such rights only apply to those who are members of the National Guard then your legal right to your Browning semi-automatic vanishes. All laws are an imposition on another’s activities, regardless of whether that activity is a right or not.

[Stuffy]

Are there really still people who think guns should be made illegal?

Sure are, I’m one them, or at least I think they should be more controlled than they are at present.

Why? For every study you find that says “blah, blah, blah guns are good” I can produce newpaper accounts showing the dangers of the proliferation of guns. Many by previously law abiding citizens.

And while I understand and agree with Joe Cools assesment that elimating guns won’t stop all murders. You CANNOT logically convince me that incidents like 101 California, school shoootings, postal workers gone bezerker and such are not a direct result of our liberal gun laws. Or to put it another way, it would be pretty hard to walk into an office building and kill thirteen co-corkers with a knife.

(oh, and to head off this potential ad hominem attack. I am a former Army Seagent, trained in the use of a variety of weapons, with no particular fear of guns other than being on the wrong end of the barrel)

[wevets]

I could kill you just as dead, just as easily with a knife or a pointed stick as with a gun.

I may even agree with you on some points, but this isn’t one of them. I don’t see how you can kill people as easily without a gun as with one. If so, why were guns invented in the first place?

[erislover]

Rights are not granted by the government, they are restrictions placed upon men by themselves; the government acts as an agent to ensure that these rights are moderated accordingly. In peace, a society retains most rights and subordinates the rest to the government on the agreement that the government is more objective than society itself. Thus, we have police instead of lynch mobs.
Studying the Declaration of Independance will show you clearly why the right to bear arms is very important; if the government has all the guns they are eternally in power. I am not one to promote outright violence or treason, but with a gun ban there is literally nothing that prevents a government from becoming hostile to its own citizens. Unlike any other person or party, the government only has force and punishment as its tool. Thus, to allow it to own all the guns (which is what a gun ban does) is to ask to be subordinated. Don’t tell me about democracy. Democracy works so long as the government knows that it has to abide by its populous or they will revolt. When the populous has nothing to revolt with it is a moot point. In a country as large as America, that’s a lot of guns for the government to have on its side.
I know this sounds paranoid, but that is the issue at hand: why we bear arms. The same reason cops do: to keep the bad guys away.

[Stuffy]

aynrandlover

While that argument may have been valid 200 years ago or even 100 years ago, it’s just not a valid argument TODAY. There are several well hashed out arguments as to why this is the case. So instead of the historical context as to which the law was written, I’m looking for real reasons as to why that law should remain unchanged.

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by stuffinb *
**…For every study you find that says “blah, blah, blah guns are good” I can produce newpaper accounts showing the dangers of the proliferation of guns. Many by previously law abiding citizens.

And while I understand and agree with Joe Cools assesment that elimating guns won’t stop all murders. You CANNOT logically convince me that incidents like 101 California, school shoootings, postal workers gone bezerker and such are not a direct result of our liberal gun laws.**

The newspaper accounts of school shootings, postal workers, etc, do not indicate a problem with “liberal gun laws”. They indicate a few other things:[ul]
[li]Intentionally focused and disproportionate reporting of gun-related incidents. The vast majority of the times a person is killed anywhere with a gun, you can be sure that it will be reported at least statewide, and likely nationwide. Even though everybody likes to scream “conspiracy theorist!” any time someone dares to accuse the media of being less than the guardians of liberty, quite frankly, they are biased heavily against freedom and gun ownership (I have not in my lifetime read a single newspaper editorial in support of the Bill of Rights unless they were claiming the First Amendment protected their right to print libelous articles and photos of people in embarrassing situations).[/li]
[li]Incidents of the type you describe are a new animal, one that for all practical purposes did not exist 30 or 40 years ago. This says to me that the problem is a result of weak parenting, lack of personal responsibility, and a proclivity to be dependent on the government to provide everything, from health care to raising your children for you (subsidized day care). [you collectively, not you personally][/li]
[li]We have more gun laws than at any time in history, and yet crime and disregard for the law are on the rise. So what’s the solution? More anti-gun laws? I don’t think so. A simple common-sense analysis of the facts will reveal that they are not interested in suppressing crime, but in simply disarming the law-abiding public. I am not the problem–I have never shot a person. Yet I am the target of dozens of new laws every year. Prohibition does not work, period. There are more than enough laws to put the perpetrators of wanton violence away for good, but the government is more interested in passing further controls than in prosecuting criminals. But the criminals are the excuse for more stringent controls, not the target. After all, they disregard laws against thievery, violence, and murder. Laws are for the law-abiding. Not for the criminal.[/ul][/li]

Or to put it another way, it would be pretty hard to walk into an office building and kill thirteen co-corkers with a knife.

Originally posted by wevets:
**I may even agree with you on some points, but this isn’t one of them. I don’t see how you can kill people as easily without a gun as with one. If so, why were guns invented in the first place?
**

Guns make killing more efficient and less personal, not easier. I could kill somebody within reach even MORE quickly with a knife or a bat than I could with a gun (it’s not like in the movies. there are very few one-shot kills and many more missed shots in a combat situation. As a sergeant, I’m certain you know that).

However, I’d like to point out that in New Jersey you can go to jail for possessing a pocket knife or baseball bat, just as well as a gun. The anti-gun people aim to disarm the public ENTIRELY, not just in terms of guns.

Stuffinb:
anyrandlover’s argument is every bit as valid today as it was 200 years ago. Look around you. The evidence is everywhere. Germany, China, Rwanda, Russia, everywhere you look. The only difference is that our national charter (Constitution) recognized the threat and took measures against its ever happening here.

You asked for reasons why it should remain unchanged? Here you go: Article V of the Constitution says you need the approval of 2/3 of BOTH houses of congress to even propose an amendment. After that, you need ratification by 3/4 of the states. With such a large proportion of voters who own guns, it won’t happen.

If you want to get rid of guns without letting that pesky Constitution stand in the way, maybe you can start an armed revolt.
Wait, you don’t believe in arms? Tough luck.

[justwannano]

Aynrandlover
I like your comment
why we bear arms. The same reason cops do: to keep the bad guys away.
Not enough people think about" What if the bad guys know I can’t defend myself."

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by Joe_Cool *
Guns make killing more efficient and less personal, not easier. I could kill somebody within reach even MORE quickly with a knife or a bat than I could with a gun

Well, I’ll retract this rather ridiculous statement. Guns do make killing easier. But that’s really not the point. If guns were bad, why would the army and police want them? The point is that Mao was right: Power flows from the barrel of a gun. And power is what the government wants out of our hands and exclusively in their own.

[erislover]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by stuffinb *

I’m looking for real reasons as to why that law should remain unchanged.

I just gave it to you. Governments’ only means of control is force. Without equivalent weapons in the hands of its citizens there is nothing to stop it from becoming tyrannical. This is not an outdated concept.
Need I point out every dictatorship around the world? Consider the built in system of checks and balances within the government. This is internal, to prevent any one government body from becoming too powerful. But what is to prevent an oligopoly of power from within all three branches? Nothing but those who are being governed. In our economic climate many (not myself) find commerce-based oligopolies dangerous and counterproductive to the “rights” of the consumers…why should physical power, then, be any different and be handed over to the government en todo?
In a time of stability it may seem unnecessary to allow everyone access to lethal weapons. Yet if the situation would arise that you needed a gun to stop a fascist mob (police state) from forming, you might begin to wonder why you gave your right to rebel away.
To quote the movie “True Romance,”
“I’ve found it’s better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.”
With a Hitler and a Stalin not even 60 years dead it makes me wonder what exactly you mean by outdated…and if the people who got walked on by those regimes felt the same.

[Max_Torque]

*Originally posted by stuffinb *
And while I understand and agree with Joe Cools assesment that elimating guns won’t stop all murders. You CANNOT logically convince me that incidents like 101 California, school shoootings, postal workers gone bezerker and such are not a direct result of our liberal gun laws. Or to put it another way, it would be pretty hard to walk into an office building and kill thirteen co-corkers with a knife.

The number of Americans (adults and children) killed by gunfire in school each year (40 in 1997-98) is around half the number of Americans killed by lightning strikes every year (88 in 1997). By contrast, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services conservatively estimates that 2,000 children die as a result of parental abuse each year. Given that, I fail to understand why you’d expend energy arguing against firearms, unless you care about stamping out guns more than saving children’s lives.

Handguns are (tell me if I’m wrong, Coldfire) completely outlawed in the Netherlands, yet that didn’t prevent a school shooting last December. What new law do you propose?

**(oh, and to head off this potential ad hominem attack. I am a former Army Seagent, trained in the use of a variety of weapons, with no particular fear of guns other than being on the wrong end of the barrel) **

Well, excuse us for daring to question you, “Seagent”. Funny, that sounds more like a naval rank…

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by justwannano *
Not enough people think about" What if the bad guys know I can’t defend myself."

YES! I put a challenge to all you gun-haters out there:

Put your money where your mouth is. Put up a sign on your front door that says “I support gun control. There are no firearms in this household. Be warned: in case of break-in, owner will dial 911”

See how much safer your house is over the next year. Report your results here on the SDMB.

[justwannano]

Joe Cool said
You asked for reasons why it should remain unchanged? Here you go: Article V of the Constitution says you need the approval of 2/3 of BOTH houses of congress to even propose an amendment. After that, you need ratification by 3/4 of the states. With such a large proportion of voters who own guns, it won’t happen.
Maybe so but I still worry about it and so should you.

[Wrath]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by stuffinb *
**

I’m looking for real reasons as to why that law should remain unchanged. **

Because, like it or not, the primary person responsible for your safety is you. Not the cops, you. That’s perhaps a bit too much for some people to handle, but that’s the price of freedom.

Since the police cannot be everywhere always (nor should they be, IMHO), one must be given every reasonable means to defend oneself against the bad guy. When comes down to me and the bad guy, the bad guy loses, period. I do not wish to take the chance that he does not have a gun.

And if the bad guy has only a knife, I will not take the chance that I am better at knife fighting than he is. He loses.

[erislover]

Incidents of the type you describe are a new animal, one that for all practical purposes did not exist 30 or 40 years ago. This says to me that the problem is a result of weak parenting, lack of personal responsibility…

Well said! Guns have been around for, oh, hundreds of years?

Lets not forget what the Master has said on the matter.

Though I am accused of jumping to many conclusions, I cannot see that personal welfare is the goal of gun legislators but instead a strong centrist government, which, as with anything to a Randlover, leads only to statism.

[Stuffy]

Joe Cool I’m not interested in you interpretation of Media Bias, the fact remains if they didn’t have the acts of violence to report, they wouldn’t be showing the stories. What do you recommend, NOT, publishing or reporting crimes? Oh, and you may not have noticed this, but many, many shootings don’t in fact make the News, especially if they happen in lower income communities.

As far as school shoootings go, I seem to remember an episode as early as the 50’s at a university in Texas. You can place the blame with bad parenting if you like, it didn’t change the fact they students blew other students away with guns, right? Or that those students were able to get the guns in the first place, does it? Now who’s playing the blame game?

The laws effecting crimnals using guns are reactive. Get my drift, it does absolutely nothing to curtail crime from happening in the first place. Sure I’m glad that someone using an assualt rifle to kill several people will face stiffened penalties. But, I also saddened that someone capable of such an action had access to an assault rifle in the first place.

Im not sure where you were going with the arguement about a gun making killing more efficient and less personal. I agree whole heartedly with that statement.

As far as the Hostile Government goes:

I dismissed that argument for the simple reason that it’s a red herring. Because of the way our military is made up, the likelyhood of the armed forces obeying orders to kill Americans is ludicrous. However, in the event it should happen, our armed forces are more heavily armed, better trained and better equiped making any such citizen uprising a lesson in futility.

aynrandlover See above.

Max Torque I’m taliking about the number of Americans killed in sensless shootings period! If you want to break it down to the micro level fine, but the argument is no less true.

As far as your coment regarding your questioning me. I put that in thie so I didn’t get the typical snotty assed remark about being afraid of guns. Not that it seems to be stopping anyone.

Wrath That is perhaps the only reasonble argument that I really accept for gun ownership. And why I said I’d like more control of guns, as I see an outright ban as undoable. However, I find it lacking for several reasons.

1. Crime is not that endemic.

2. Most guns used by criminals (I’m talking recividants) are acquired by stealing them from homeowners who of course had them for self defense.

3. Many of those previous law-abiding citizens I mentioned earlier acquired their guns for that purpose, and went on to use them in those lovely events that make the evening news.

[Necros]

stuffinb said:

However, in the event it should happen, our armed forces are more heavily armed, better trained and better equiped making any such citizen uprising a lesson in futility.

I keep hearing this, and I keep not getting it. Make up an issue that would rile up the military enough to take action against the citizenry. I don’t care what it is. Say, people are demonstrating on a large scale about a corrupt politician, supported by the amry, taking control of the government. That seems to happen fairly often through the world.

You say that were were a member of the armed forces. Say that your unit is tasked with taking possession of a standard city block in Chicago. In this block, which has maybe 50 homes, 32 of those home contain standard handguns and “assualt-style” weapons. In 2 of those 32 homes are surplus military gear capable of high-volume or devastating large-caliber fire. In 3 of those homes lives an ex-member of the military. None of the residents of this block are willing to give up their homes to military occupation, but simply shelling the block full of civillians is not a feasible solution due to public relations issues and international reaction.

How would you estimate the chances of your unit attempting to quell this block? You’re heavily armed, better trained and better equipped. But you know what? I still wouldn’t put my money on you.