Most criminals are not “combat trained, very quick, incredibly cool headed, and still very lucky”. So why do I have to be all these things to defend myself? Are you saying that you think people couldn’t really defend themsleves, so they shouldn’t even try?
[/quote}
Becaue, by their very nayure, firearms give a huge advantage to the side that shoots first (which is why the preferred modern military tactic is the ambush). Any untrained idiot can rush in, blasting away indiscriminately, especially in situations when he has a ready gun and you don’t. To defend yourself, you have to be able to:
Avoid getting shot.
Draw and ready your weapon.
Shoot accurately and efficiently, while avoiding innocent bystanders.
Do all that very, very quickly.
THAT takes training, speed, cool-headedness and luck.
BTW - I don’t necesserally disagree with what you’re trying to prove, I’m just correcting this point.
Sure thing, Gary. We can bat statistics back and forth all day long. So, riddle me this. Regardless of the number of defensive gun uses, do you, or do you not, think that it’s moral to deprive potential victims of the ability to defend themselves by the same means with which they may be threatened? It’s a simple question, it’s a valid question, it’s a question that was raised very early in this debate, and it’s a question you have been admirably dodging. The answer also requires none of those evil statistics you abhor.
First, let me say that if anyone believes the governments of the United States (federal, state and local) are already irretrievably corrupt, we have nothing to talk about. I do not concur. Even if I did concur, I would argue for nonviolent resistance. I have no reason to believe you are superior to them. And asking for legal permission from a government you do not acknowlege, or a citizenry which is ineffective to effect change in its government is pointless.
Second, if the citizens and lawful government of the United States were to repeal the Second Amendment and ban all gun ownership, and you would violently resist law, then again we have nothing to talk about. You will do as you will regardless of my opinion, and the opinion of your fellow citizens. Persuasion is pointless.
ExTank:
Whether armed resistance is or is not preferable to nonviolent resistance is a separate argument. The fact is that nonviolent resistance can effectively resist or overthrow tyranny. Thus, although an armed population might be sufficient to resist or overthrow tyranny, is not necessary.
What a specious load of crap. The shape of the Earth is not a matter of value, it is a matter of scientific fact. Opinion is obviously irrelevant in establishing fact. But for social value, we have only the preferences of existing people to serve as fact itself, from which we reason.
Please scientifically and empirically prove that freedom is superior to tyranny without reference to the obvious fact that people prefer freedom to tyranny.
What are the barriers to enforcement? I have heard this argument, but I have never seen it adequately explained. In the only substantive response, it was stated that prosecutors would rather convict someone on murder one than on carrying a weapon. First, If you convict someone on one charge, the other charges are not particularly relevant. It also seems false. I don’t see any reason why a prosecutor wouldn’t just charge someone with murder one and illegal possesion. The facts are the same, you add a few more sentences to your closing to show the inference, and you’re done. Unlike football, “piling it on” is not considered unethical in criminal law.
I’m not asking for Supreme Court-level legal documentation here. I’m asking what are the laws, why are they not enforced and/or why are they ineffective. And, stipulating that they are ineffective, how should we change law or policy to make them more effective? This is not that difficult a question.
Also, please stop trying to argue both sides of the same issue. If we do not have a gun crime problem, then use of guns for self-defense is a weak argument. If you need guns for self-defense, then there is obviously a problem (armed criminals) you need to defend yourself against.
And lastly, the very strict felon/gun/crime penalties are having an effect against armed criminals. Huzzah! Why do they work? How can we replicate their success?
SPOOFE Bo Diddley
I hope you have more intelligence than to merely offer the most obvious of straw-man arguments, but perhaps such hope is in vain. Non-violent resistance to tyranny is a complicated and difficult, just as military tactics are complicated and difficult. It is an established fact that non-violent resistance can overthrow tyranny, and in enough different circumstances to rule out flukes.
If you do not have unity, then you are merely changing the brand of tyranny, by definition. You do not have any more moral right to impose your vision of “freedom” on a population that does not wish it than does a dictator have to remove it from a population that does.
First of all, I am objecting to the President’s ability to take command of the National Guard, which has largely supplanted state militias.
Secondly, reasonable restrictions are not generally held to infringe upon a right. It does not, for instance, infringe my right to free speech that I am restricted from speaking my message with a loudspeaker in front of your house at 2:00 AM.
Tell you what, I’ll go to the next gun show at my locality and report back. Sales at gun shows are not restricted at all in my state. I merely need to show proof of age; my name and address are not recorded, nor is my record checked.
They are and it does. Evidence for the effectiveness of legislation. Let’s replicate or adapt working legislation effective in this and other venues.
How many school and workplace shootings in the last year? How many tens of thousands of people die or are seriously injured by guns? I’m not saying that we should abolish guns, but I think it’s pretty obvious that there’s a problem here, which intelligent rational people should be able to discuss and reach compromises to find solutions, not treat people with different views as complete idiots who are slaves of the media.
Freedom2:
None, really. This approach seems to be working for criminals. I think we still have a problem with kooks and children, though.
Very special circumstances. Had the Tories shown the same dedication, commitment and unity to preserving the crown as had the Revolutionaries in resisting it, the Revolutionaries would have been demolished. And, had the Confederacy pursued non-violent resistance, they might not have been conquered.
Let me say this again. The effectiveness of non-violent resistance in overthrowing tyranny is a proven fact.
So I’m just a mindless tool of communist propaganda? That’s the way to persuade me to vote for a compromise rather than an outright ban.
No shit, Sherlock. You display a masterful grasp of the obvious. Of course I have little experience with guns. I don’t like guns. I think they are dangerous toys that do more harm than good. I have never seen a reason to own one or learn how to use one. I would not be unhappy if the damn things were completely banned.
However, I am a citizen of a democracy, and I (apparently alone) believe that the preferences and opinions of my fellow citizens have real factual bearing on determining questions of legality and social value. I (again, apparently alone) am absolutely willing to take seriously those who disagree with me and treat their views with respect.
Here’a a question to the gun owners: Do you want my vote? I’m very happy, for a reasonable compromise respecting both of our values, to vote against gun abolition and for a such compromise. If you don’t want my vote, shut the hell up. I really don’t care that you think I’m an idiot; I give little credence to the opinion of assholes. If you do want my vote, treat me with the respect that I’m showing you (and if you’ve seen a statement of mine that’s unecessarily disrespectful, point it out and I will apologize).
Gary Kumquat:
Not only Gandhi in India, but those that resisted Communist tyranny in Poland, Czechoslovakia and even the Soviet Union itself, Fascist tyranny in Chile, and outright corruption in the Phillipines. Non-violent resistance is difficult and complicated, and can be done effectively or ineffectively. The same is true of armed resistance.
This is a specious argument. We’re not really talking about the relative effectiveness of armed self-defense, but about its value. Values differ, and need not be reconciled. What does need to be reconciled is the freedom of one side to live by its values and the concern of the other to protect themselves from its consequences.
I have no problem if you choose to use a gun to defend your property and person. I really have no problem if you want to organize a well-regulated militia, and keep and bear arms pursuant to it. What pisses me off is that gun owners seem absolutely unwilling to compromise. Semi-automatic weapons are being sold with no background check at gun shows. No regulation is acceptable; they seem to resist any effort at regulation, and then when its watered down disingeneously protest that it’s ineffective.
The United States is a democracy. Like it or not, social policy is made by people’s opinions. We do not have a Platonic Philosopher-King who will consider every issue cold light of reason. Even reasonable people such as myself that are amenable to compromise are moving towards the position that gun owners are uncompromising zealots that have no respect for the deomcratic process and treat those that disagree with them as moronic mindless tools of communist propaganda. Such people have little chance of persuading me that their values are legitimate and deserve the support of my vote.
The obvious and immediately persuasive argument against gun abolition is, “I think that owning a gun is an effective and legitimate method of defending my person, my family and my property. You do not have to agree; no one is arguing that you should be forced to own a gun. I am willing to take reasonable and effective precautions to reduce the risk to others from my exercise of this somewhat dangerous freedom. I am willing to hold myself accountable to my community and lawful government regarding my exercise of this freedom.” To make this argument work, you absolutely cannot bullshit about the precautions and accountability.
Can reason and compromise defeat zealotry (on both sides of this issue)? I hope so. If not, we might as well abandon democracy itself; they tyranny of the stupid many is no better than the tyranny of the evil few.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the circumstances. Your attacker doesn’t have to have a gun for you to defend yourself.
True.
Umm, you don’t have to shoot someone to defend yourself with a gun. That should be the last thing you would do. Hopefully you aren’t defending yourself against a suicidal attacker. If you are, then your point stands.
Again, it depends on the circumstances. If you pull out a gun instead of the expected wallet/purse/whatever, you have a bit more time.
An addition to the “perception” issue: the media is unquestionably biased in favor of gun control. A recent evaluation of all gun-related reports emanating from major media outlets (NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN) over a two-year period showed that, of 653 total stories, 357 were slanted in favor of gun control, compared to 36 advocating less gun control; the rest were neutral. In other words, anti-gun news reports outnumber pro-gun reports ten to one.
For a concrete example of skewed reporting: Pearl High School in Mississippi was targeted by student gunman Luke Woodham on October 1, 1996. After killing two students and wounding seven more, the rampage came to an end. Although all major media sources reported on the shooting, only one mentioned how the shooting came to an end: assistant principal Joel Myrick had accidently left a .45 semiautomatic pistol in his car after his vacation, a gun he was not supposed to have on school property. Myrick, hearing shots, ran to his car, got the gun, and stopped Woodham as he tried to drive away. Woodham had more rounds in the hunting rifle he’d used in the shooting; there’s no telling how long his shooting spree might have continued had Myrick not held him at gunpoint until the police arrived.
NBC mentioned Myrick’s heroism twice. CBS, ABC, and CNN didn’t mention him at all. Lives almost certainly saved by a firearm, and without a shot fired by the conscientious private gun owner. Yet the news decided not to mention that it took a gun to stop the shooting.
There are other similar examples, such as the following:
OK, I think we have gotten way off the OP, which asked why we need a 2nd Amendment.
I’m going to post this disclaimer yet again, like I do in all these threads, because people make assumptions which are, more often than not, incorrect. I do so so that everyone knows exactly where my opinions come from.
I am not a gun owner. I have never owned a gun, except maybe the BB gun I owned in the 7th grade. I see no reason, presently, for me to own a gun. I have fired exactly 3 guns in my life: a .22 rifle, a .30-.30 shotgun, and a .406 shotgun. None were fired at living things. However, I, like many people (and I suspect Joe Malik is one of them) can recognize that a right exists and that people should be free to exercise it even if I myself choose not to.
The OP asked why we should have a 2nd Amendment, and I’ll reiterate my response: It would be immoral to deny citizens the right to protect themselves and their families using the same tools that criminals are likely to wield against them.
Here’s the kicker, folks–it’s true even if there are no guns. If we lived in a world in which gunpowder and firearms had never been invented, or if we could snap our fingers tomorrow and make guns disappear, we would still need that amendment. We would still need the chance to meet violent criminal offenders with equal and appropriate force. If it meant knives, it would be knives. If it meant boards with nails in them, it would mean boards with nails in them.
Joe asks how many tens of thousands of deaths there were from guns in 1999, how many work and school shootings? The answers are probably surprising:
There were three incidents of school shootings in 1999 that I could dig up. Three. I bet most people think there were a lot more. Columbine resulted in 5 injuries and 15 deaths; Deming, N.M. resulted in one death; and Fort Gibson, Okla. resulted in 4 injuries. A total of 16 deaths and 10 injuries in 12 months. All of them no doubt tragic–no sane person could argue against that. But to listen to gun control organizations, or the Million Moms, one gets the impression that children cannot walk into a school without facing the
danger of armed combat. Incidentally, for 1998, there were 12 deaths and 14 injuries in 8 school-shooting incidents (one death was a suicide). In 1997, there were 12 deaths and 13 injuries in 4 incidents. Again, all tragic, but hardly an epidemic. (All of these figures are from ABCNews.com, by the way, and may not be complete.)
Workplace shootings? In 1999, there appear to have been at least 21 injuries and 26 deaths in 7 incidents.
According to the CDC, in 1994 (I don’t know if more recent figures are available) there were 38,505 firearm related deaths. More than 17,800 were homicides, more than 18,700 were suicides, and more than 1,300 were accidental. (It also notes that there are more than 3 nonfatal injuries for every firearm fatality.) What bugs me about the CDC is that they throw out statistics in a vacuum, such as:
“In each year since 1988, more than 80% of homicide victims 15 to 19 years of age were killed with a firearm. In 1994, nearly 90% of homicide victims 15 to 19 years of age were killed with a firearm,” making it seem as if there is an epidemic of tragic teenage shooting deaths. What they don’t tell you is that some of those adolescent homicides involve gang members shooting other gang members. You know, criminals?
“In 1994, there were 787 unintended firearm deaths among persons aged 10 to 29, accounting for 58% of all unintentional firearm deaths in the nation that year.” 10 to 29?? What kind of demographic category is that? How useful can it possibly be?
This topic creates fury on both sides. It’s helpful to be in possession of the facts. I suggest everybody do so.
I’ve never seen a debate about a part of a controversial subject that did not go off topic.
You are mostly correct. I do hold that gun owners have a legitimate interest. Interests are inherent, rights are legalistic.
Thanks for the stats. I consider 38,505 deaths, of which 16 were children in school and 26 people at work, a problem. Given the ease of access (at least in my state) to semi-automatic weapons, I’m surprised it’s not higher.
I also consider a problem the tens of thousands of deaths from automobile accidents. I do not support a ban on automobiles. I do, however, support licensing of operators, registration of vehicles, civil and criminal penalties for negligent operation, maintainance and storage, mandatory safety devices, and adherence to standards for correct and safe operation. None of which, I might add, have infringed upon my freedom to travel.
Max Torque:
Story counts do not prove bias. For instance there were 1,286 (completely made-up number) stories against pedophilia, and zero in favor of it. Obviously, the media are biased against this activity! Note that I am not comparing gun ownership to pedophilia; I am applying reductio ad absurdem to this particular argument.
This is more persuasive and to the point. I wish only to note that television news has been shown to be serously deficient on a number of occasions and for a variety of reasons.
Lastly I wish to point out that the cite you give is obviously and explicitly biased in favor of gun ownership. Using a biased source to object to bias seems disingeneous if not ludicrously self-contradictory.
Regardless, so-called “media bias” is not a particularly persuasive argument for anything. There is no monolithic “media”, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals and hundreds or thousands of decision-making executives. Many (if not most) of these executives are Republicans.
You are free to create your own media outlet; indeed the internet has proven an effective outlet for gun ownership proponents.
The person principally responsible for your personal protection is: you. It would be nice to let the trained police be our personal protection, but that is impossible.
If it comes down to the bad guy and me, the bad guy LOSES. I reserve (via the 2nd amendment) my personal right to protect me, my family and my home. Since I don’t know what weaponry the bad guy has, I won’t waste any time trying to find out. I will grab my .45 and order him out. If it comes down to me vs. him, he loses.
NO ONE will tell me I don’t have that right.
Now, if there was some absolutely sure, 100% positive way for anyone to guarantee me that no criminal breaking into my home will ever have a gun, then fine. I will use a baseball bat. But no amount of gun control will ever be able to make that guarantee, even a complete ban.
I don’t think, when making this comparison, that it would be disingenuous to point out that there is an expressed right to firearms ownership at some level in the Constitution. The same is not true of car ownership or operation. The key, I think you would agree and have agreed, is to discover at what point regulation becomes legitimate infringement. There are some who would argue that any regulation constitutes infringement. I don’t know how I feel about that. I, for one, have absolutely no problem with instant background checks at gun shows or shops. I also think that prosecutors should be more aggressive in pursuing charges against felons who do obtain to buy guns.
BTW, I suspect the reason that prosecutors deal away the gun charges is to obtain guilty pleas on the murder charges and avoid costly trials. To do the reverse, dealing away murder charges to get pleas on gun charges, would obviously be professional suicide. I would like to see the number of gun charges that make it to the trial stage.
I firmly support the right to individual ownership of firearms, but…
…holy crap. No other issue seems to incite otherwise intelligent people into so many unsupported statements, knee-jerk reactions, and generally lame assertions like “gun control” does.
No wonder Single Dad threw in the towel over the gun issue.
Now that I’ve insulted everybody, I guess I’ll open myself up for abuse by giving my opinions on the main areas of dispute. (Fair enough?) Self Defense
Not suprisingly, the very first response to the question posed in the OP was the best response. Lethal Lynx asked under what principles and for what reasons we’d defend the right to bear arms. pldennison said “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.” This is the most basic justification that can be given for the right to bear arms, and it’s the strongest. Whatever the intentions of the FF’s were regarding a “well regulated Militia”, they are largely irrelevant two centuries later. Phil’s ethic will be as valid two hundred years from now as it was in 1791. Crime Deterrence
This is a really fuzzy issue, due to the lack of any clearly drawn links between gun ownership and the prevention of crime. The FBI collects alot of information about violent crime, and about the use of weapons during the commission of crimes. But unless someone invents a magic mirror, we can only guess at the number of crimes which never occur because they were deterred by the fear of armed resistance. I’m getting really tired of seeing supposition about the efficacy of concealed carry permits presented as fact. (And BTW, is it too much to ask that we quit citing Kleck’s friggin’ phone survey in this regard? Shouldn’t our standards be just a little bit higher than that?)
The bottom line here is that, apocryphal stories notwithstanding, defensive gun use can’t be shown definitively to have deterred crime. Neither can it be shown that widespread private ownership of guns causes any “wild West” phenomena. We can say for sure that when met with an armed response lone criminals will typically give up and run. We can also say, based on FBI statistics, that almost a quarter of all violent crimes are “family violence” (yes, that’s right; about 23%!) but that only about 0.3 % of family violence incidents involved use of a firearm (compared to 1.6 % of violent crimes overall).
Also according to FBI statistics, the violent crime rate per capita has been dropping in the US since 1995. However, this being a rather complicated and interdependent society, to assign that decrease to any one thing, particularly to any type of legislation, seems a bit Pollyannish of CCP advocates (although a good case could be made that it’s linked to the economy). Defense against Tyranny
This is the issue about which more baseless assertions seem to be made than any other. [overly long rant/history lesson snipped here] Because Joe Malik said it better than I could, I’ll refer you to his post above. Restriction = Abridgement of Right to Bear Arms
Absolute tripe. Again, Joe Malik stated it correctly: “…reasonable restrictions are not generally held to infringe upon a right. It does not, for instance, infringe my right to free speech that I am restricted from speaking my message with a loudspeaker in front of your house at 2:00 AM.”
Just because we believe that our rights should be infringed as little as possible should not make us automatically antithetical to the idea of some controls. A democracy cannot operate without some sense of social responsibility among its citizens.
Since a number of people have posted between the time I started this post and now (aint posting from work a bitch?), I’ll shut up now, and look forward to all the calm, rational and well reasoned posts which will follow this one.
As I too am at work, I’ll just respond to this part.
Sure, I support some controls of gun use. Try this: “…reasonable restrictions are not generally held to infringe upon a right. It does not, for instance, infringe my right to keep and bear arms that I am restricted from firing my gun in front of your house at 2:00 AM.”
I’ll agree with that.
The type of infringements that gun owners are exposed to are more like interpreting the 1st Amendment to only protect speech. How would you like that? To be able to say anything you want, but not be able to write it, type it, or visually express it in any way. Or maybe legislation is passed that reduces your right to free speech so that it can only be used indoors. Or that you can only talk at a certain decibel level while exercising free speech.
It stops being free speech somewhere in there, doesn’t it?
Can you please show which proposed gun control laws abridge your right to bear arms to the degree your strawman examples would restrict the right to free speech? Hey, I might even agree with your opposition to specific legislation if you’d take the trouble to cite actual examples. However, if you’re going to equate background checks or a ban on fully automatic weapons to a prohibition on the written word, I don’t think we’re gonna find much common ground.
But I disagree with you on one point. I don’t think fully automatic weapons should be banned (well, I do, but I would rather make an easier sell). Rather, I support restricting their use to reasonable and appropriate contexts, such as a state militia under the democratic civilian control of the governor. Likewise I think that really serious weaponry (e.g. fighter planes, battleships, atomic weapons) should be restricted to the use of the US Military.
I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m sure you know that there are more restrictions on guns than background checks or requiring a license for a fully automatic weapon.
How about California’s banning of certain types of guns for cosmetic reasons? You know, like a thumbhole or pistol grip on a rifle? Or a flash suppressor? Maybe the federal limiting of shotguns to a minimum of an 18" barrel?
These are things that are pretty god damn ridiculous, but are endemic to what gun owners are experiencing. I can come up with more examples if you wish, but I don’t see that it would prove my point any better. I’m not debating specific legislation; I’m saying that the 2nd Amendment is being abridged, limited, and infringed. Like pldennison said, “…at what point regulation becomes legitimate infringement.” I think that we reached that point a while back.
Gee, you almost made a valid point, and then you missed it completely. Your analogy is flawed in that the activity you chose to use as a counter-example is illegal. Private gun ownership is not illegal. I’d hardly find it significant that the news failed to promote an illegal activity.
Incidentally, you misspelled “reductio ad absurdum”. If you’re going to use Latin to try to appear intelligent, go the extra mile and spell it correctly. As stated above, since your analogy is crap and fails to show a flawed conclusion, the argument stands. In the generic, suppose that the media generates 10 anti-widget stories for every one pro-widget story. Such a disparity would, I believe, demonstrate a definite anti-widget bias by the media. Do you disagree?
With that, I can agree.
Are you smoking crack or something? You’re saying that I cannot use pro-gun news reports to make a pro-gun point? Precisely what sources, pray tell, should I use?
How condescending. First, I’m well aware that “the media” is not one monolithic organization; it’s one of the first things you learn in mass media law class. Second, you’re merely attacking a term that I used (quite obviously, I felt) as shorthand for an industry, much like referring to “supermarkets” in the collective. It’s a poor debater who distracts from the main issue by quibbling about terminology. And third, I don’t want to transform this thread into a Democrat v. Republican debate, in part because neither party truly represents my views. If you want to start such a debate, start another thread.
And, gee, here I am, posting my views on the internet. Who’da thunk it!
The common-sense test is that infringement occurs when a restriction unreasonably prevents the intended protected purpose of the exercise of the the freedom. For instance, assuming personal self-defense from crime a valid purpose, a requirement that a weapon be unloaded and locked would qualify as an infringement, because it prevents that purpose. However licensing (using reasonable objective criteria) and registration do not reasonably prevent the underlying purpose, and thus could not be construed as infringement in the common-sense meaning.
I doubt that anyone would argue that the Second Amendment was ever intended to allow the individuals and small groups to arm themselves sufficiently well to prevent the enforcement of reasonable laws by legitimate democratic government. Regulations that would restrict such a purpose would again not constitute infringement in any common-sense interpretation.
Since the text of the amendment includes the phrase “well-regulated militia”, I think the argument that the Second Amendment protects citizens from any regulation is per se invalid.
(Yes, I read your disclaimer, hence the passive voice)
Demise:
Excuse me for my ignorance (I truly know very little about gun technology) but in what way do those restrictions prevent you (and not merely inconvenience you) from using a gun to defend yourself?