Goodie, Another gun debate...

[Lethal_Lynx]

I realize I’m opening a HUGE can of worms here.

I have a simple question. Why should the second amendment be in the constitution? Or for that matter, under principles and for what reasons would you defend the right to bear arms?

If you’re against guns, what principles and reasons do you have to keep guns out?

I know emotional these threads can get, so can please keep emotional rhetoric out, and stick to intellectual arguments?

[pldennison]

Why should the second amendment be in the constitution?

Because the right to defend oneself (and one’s family) is a fundamental one, and it would be immoral to deny people the means to defend themselves with the same tools that people who might pose a threat to them will likely be wielding.

[Gary_Kumquat]

As a thread started off in the Pit had turned into the same question:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=39119

In this thread, Uncle Beer had put forward the following reference and argument:

*Originally posted by UncleBeer *
**In Point Blank, Dr. Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist, notes the many flaws in equating crime and the availability of guns in the U.S. with other countries. Kleck states it is true, for instance, that Great Britain “does indeed have both stricter gun laws and less homicide than the United States,” but “Britain’s rates of knife homicide and of killings with hands and feet are also far lower than the corresponding rates in the United States,” and “no one is foolish enough to infer from these facts that the lower violence rates were caused by a lower rate of knife ownership in Britain, or to the British having fewer hands and feet than Americans.” Great Britain “had far less violence than the United States long before it had strict gun laws,” and “England’s homicide rate relative to that of the United States was the same or even slightly worse after fifty years of strict gun control.” **

So, if Klecks work is accepted, then it could be the case that Americans need guns because it is a violent country by nature.

The beer boy also goes on to say:

*Originally posted by UncleBeer *
**Internationally, there is simply no meaningful correlation between violent crime and gun control laws. In such relatively crime-free countries as Switzerland, Israel, and New Zealand, guns are even more available than here in the United States. But in Taiwan and South Africa, two nations that most severely restrict gun ownership (violators are subject to the death penalty), the apolitical murder rates are far higher than in the U.S.
**

This argument is, I believe, paraphrased from GUN CONTROL: A REALISTIC ASSESSMENT
By Don B. Kates Jr. *, but is based upon work done in 1979 so should probably be examined for aging.

I think Uncle Beer may well be right - the crime rate in the USA is always going to be high, so citizens need the right to bear arms in self defence.

[Typo_Negative]

Also, self-defense and self-preservation are not just urban concerns. In some rural areas, people need to hunt to put food on the table and fend off the occasional bear or mountain lion.

[tracer]

I’d have to be a mega-rural area where you had to hunt in order to eat well. The U.S. has one of the richest, widest-ranging food distribution networks in the world. I don’t buy the “need” argument for hunting.

But I still support the rural guy’s right to feast on venison felled from his own rifle.

[stofsky]

Tracer mentions a rifle. I think some definition is in order here: very few anti-gun groups look to ban hunting weapons. Mainly the debate is over semi-automatic rifles (I need to shoot the deer 36 times) and handguns. Perhaps if we can focus on this rather than all firearms we can get somewhere for a change.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Private ownership of guns is also a good protection against a tyrannical gevernment. This was part of the original intent of the 2nd. I invite you to noodle aroung thie site www.guncite.com

Of course, you can get this opinion and many more by simple going to one of the past gun threads.

[Alessan]

Internationally, there is simply no meaningful correlation between violent crime and gun control laws. In such relatively crime-free countries as Switzerland, Israel, and New Zealand, guns are even more available than here in the United States.

I don’t know about NZ, but both Switzerland and Israel still have a general draft, which means most adults have had at least some training with firearms. Trained soldiers treat their weapons with respect and care, as well as with a certain blase attitude - just because they have them, it doesn’t mean they have to use them. In a society where most everybody hyas experience with guns, nobody is really impressed by guns.

[UncleBeer]

I’m not sure if you are asking for reasons why the 2[sup]nd[/sup] amendment is still valid or if you’re asking why it was placed there initially. In either case, it’s easily answered.

Initially, the 2[sup]nd[/sup] amendment was intended to give the U.S. citizens a means of overthrowing their new government should they decide it too tyrannical. A valid reason considering how this country came about just a few short years earlier. The Federalist Papers describe quite completely and clearly our founding father’s thoughts on this issue.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #28

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

• bolding mine

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #29

"… but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens … who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

• bolding mine

See also: various quotes from the founding fathers.
So, why is it still valid now? PLD has hit the bullseye with his post. See also: Cecil Adams on the 2[sup]nd[/sup] amendment.

[Gary_Kumquat]

*Originally posted by Mr.Zambezi *
** Private ownership of guns is also a good protection against a tyrannical gevernment. This was part of the original intent of the 2nd. I invite you to noodle aroung thie site www.guncite.com **

Why is private gun ownership a good protection against a tyrannical government? Unless the government has the support of the army, they’re not going to get much achieved. If they do have the support of the army, then the days when citizens militias with firearms could make much difference are over.

[Mr.Zambezi]

Gary, what you are asking is if the standing army could, in any meaningful way, supress a nationwide armed citizenry. Ex military people (Ex Tank) can provide you with a more convincing argument than I. The army could control a city at a time, but can you imagine trying to suppress 100,000,000 armed citizens across the US?

I firmly believe that our military force is far to small to occupy the entire US. ANy attempt to do so would be like trying to get squirrels out of your pants with a shotgun.

[Alessan]

*Originally posted by Mr.Zambezi *
**

I firmly believe that our military force is far to small to occupy the entire US. ANy attempt to do so would be like trying to get squirrels out of your pants with a shotgun. **

Interesting simile.

Call me naive, but I think that once you reach the point when your countrymen are shooting one another, then the war has already been lost.

[UncleBeer]

Now to address a couple of specific posts in this thread:

Gary, that portion of one of my previous posts you’ve copied here is also from Gary Kleck’s work, which I believe was first published in 1992. At any rate, this debate seems to be about 2[sup]nd[/sup] amendment issues, not relative violence levels between disparate cultures and countries. In this case, I believe John Lott’s work, linked by PLD in the thread you referenced, stands on it’s own. Crime levels in foreign countries have no bearing in an argument about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Stofsky, I don’t think you can separate types of firearms that neatly for the purpose of ownership restrictions and bans. The slippery slope must be considered here. I’m sure you feel this is a fallacy, but Pete Shields, in an interview by Richard Harris of The New Yorker said this:

We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily – given the political realities – going to be very modest. . . . [W]e’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal – total control of handguns in the United States – is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

This sounds very much like the founder of the most influential gun control organization in the U.S. strongly advocates a total gun ban.

And another one for Gary who posted while I was composing this. What makes you think the U.S. military would be willing to take up arms against their country men? In nation-states where this has happened, typically soldiers are little more than slave labor conscripted and forced to accede to a corrupt government’s wishes under threat of death. I think it’s far more likely U.S. soldiers would take up arms against an immoral and abusive government than their fellow citizens.

[Gary_Kumquat]

*Originally posted by UncleBeer *
**What makes you think the U.S. military would be willing to take up arms against their country men? In nation-states where this has happened, typically soldiers are little more than slave labor conscripted and forced to accede to a corrupt government’s wishes under threat of death. I think it’s far more likely U.S. soldiers would take up arms against an immoral and abusive government than their fellow citizens. **

Beer, that was my point. If they don’t side with a tyranical government, then you have no requirement for a citizens militia.

The flip side is, if the army does side with a tyrannical government (or put itself in that position) then you’re talking about going head to head with MBT’s, gunships, and all manner of things - so is there much point in a militia then, either?

[UncleBeer]

Maybe, maybe not. I’ll address this more fully later. It’s going to take some time.

But there are other good and valid reasons to support a functional 2[sup]nd[/sup] amendment. Take a look at PLD’s post above. Can you, in good conscience, deny law-abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves using the same means a criminal aggressor is willing to use against that citizen? I know I can’t.

[Gary_Kumquat]

*Originally posted by UncleBeer *
**Can you, in good conscience, deny law-abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves using the same means a criminal aggressor is willing to use against that citizen? I know I can’t. **

But isn’t that a vicious circle - if criminals expect their victims to be armed, they will go armed themselves. Or they’ll shoot first and take your wallet off your slowly cooling body. The thing about being a criminal is usually you get the first shot.

[pldennison]

But isn’t that a vicious circle - if criminals expect their victims to be armed, they will go armed themselves. Or they’ll shoot first and take your wallet off your slowly cooling body. The thing about being a criminal is usually you get the first shot.

Not necessarily. Criminals prefer to avoid burgling houses where the owners might be home, since, in their own words, it’s a great way to get yourself shot. And the fact that someone is willing to face charges of misdemeanor assault or robbery doesn’t mean they’re willing to face murder charges.

[Alessan]

Here’s a radical proposal:
Let people have guns, although the government should be allowed to regulate trade and use (just like it regulates perscription medicines, cars and other potentially dangerous items). And then crack down hard on the illegal gun trade. Really, really hard. Make the War on Drugs look like a border skirmish.
Throw gunowners without permits into jail. Throw gun salesmen who sell to minors and unlicenced users in jail. Crack down on gun smuggeling. Audit gun manufacturers and importers every four months. make people legaly responsible for their firearms - so if you lose a gun, you pay a serious fine.
Get the guns off the streets and into the hands of legitamate owners.

[QuickSilver]

I understand and agree with Phil’s, Mr.Z’s and UncleBeer’s reasoning and explanations with regards to the second amendment. I also concur with UncleBeer’s quotations regarding violence statistics in societies which closely resemble american society.

What I am having trouble understanding is why violence statistics in the US seem to demonstrate this society’s obvious lack of respect for human life (w.r.t similar western nations). Or is it even fair to make that statement? Is it simply a matter of spin doctoring by the anti-gun groups that makes the US seem much worse than it is or is the wording of the 2nd amendment partly responsible for the percieved lack of respect for human life?

I’m tempted to take Switzerland and Israel out of the equation. Switzerland is relatively homogenous, sparsely populated and uniquely socially regimented country. It’s also fairly wealthy. Not a lot of societal strife in Switzerland. (Though I am a bit surprised that all that yodelling hasn’t lead to more shooting incidents. Perhaps they just call them montain climbing accidents :)) Israel, a country traditionally steeped in warfare and aggressive acts from its neighbours is rather distinct as well when compared to the US and UK. I would not say that the country is without internal violence but it seems to save most of its aggression for its enemies. Perhaps that’s a sufficient outlet to minimize internal violence against one another. Israel is also fairly homogenous in that a majority of its citizenry have at least a common religious and racial background. More often then not the ties that bind Israelis are not simply nationalistic but also biblical in nature. That’s got to count for something.

So I am left with the UK and the US. By all counts, the US has been and still is very much influenced by it’s strong ties to the UK. Language, laws, cuisine and traditions of the US very often harken back to dear old blighty. The rest of europe has had a great deal of influence on the US as well but not nearly as much as England.

So what is the explanation for the difference in the violence statistics (gun violence aside) between the UK and the US. Why is the UK still a more gentle society in this respect than the US? Certainly the resources are more scarce in the UK. Population as varied and more densely spaced. Inflation and taxation much higher than that of US. Why does tht UK appear to be less violent?

[Gary_Kumquat]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
**And the fact that someone is willing to face charges of misdemeanor assault or robbery doesn’t mean they’re willing to face murder charges. **

Sure, but you wanted the gun for self defence against those who had guns and were prepared to use them against you, didn’t you?