Actually, that was pretty much my point: they’re both ridiculous, at least in the hands of private citizens.
I prefer to think of this as a simple cost-benefit analysis. What are the benefits of private ownership of machine guns, and what are the costs of such ownership? You can see my analysis above, of course. Needless to say, I think that the costs to society (though relatively small) far outweigh the benefits (which are virtually negligible). That it’s the lowest common denominators who are inflicting the societal costs does not diminish them, and does not justify ignoring them.
I will forthwith utilize strict cost/benefit analysis in my thinking process and have reached the following conclusions:
1. All alcohol should be banned tomorrow. After all, the cost of the victims of drunken driving far outweigh the benefit of the vast majority of safe, moderate drinkers.
2. All privately owned motor vehicles should be immediately outlawed, and replaced with a state-subsidized Mass Transit system. The immediate benefit of reduced emmissions on the environment, as well as the immediate reduction in the number of motor vehicle fatalities, far outweigh the benefits of the personal freedom of vehicle ownership, or the impact motor vehicles have on the economy through the dual benefits of manufacturing and employment, or through the petroleum industry.
3. To further reduce the cost of energy, all internet servers and providers should immediately be shut down. The savings from the cost of electricity to power millions of computers in millions of homes in America far outweigh the benefit of the free exchange of information and ideas. Think of all the people in California you could be helping right now by immediately logging off, turning off every electrical appliance in your house and going back to candles. It benefits others, thus it is good.
Ridiculous, yes? Just an illustration of tyranny of the majority. Or minority, depending upon whose opinion polls you read. IIRC, the majority of Americans do not favor more gun control, but rather tougher enforcement of existing laws. Like the (less-than-a) Million-Mom-March; it was equally “less than effective” in conveying that they actually represent a majority opinion of Americans.
Besides, it was a sappy emotional appeal to a complex issue.
Ex-Tank, you start your argument very poorly when you write this:
If you had paid closer attention to the argument instead of rolling in like a tank (ha!) you would have realized I did not write what you attribute to me!
Forgive me if I fail to be stunned by your credentials. Even if I were, I am not one to base my arguments blindly on authority, which you are certainly exerting. You back Freedom’s frequently and thoroughly disproved points, but instead of valid arguments you offer the same abundant and questionable techniques we addressed earlier in this thread.
Reasoning please. That sounds like a recipe for civil war (it could combat tyranny, but I see no guarantee at all).
Leaving aside the hand-waving and the incorrect, unsupported assertions on freedom as government, the rest is understood. There’s 5 pages of arguments on this topic so far, and I think anyone who read the whole debate should have gleaned the important points by now. I am also not implying that the majority of the supporters of your position are against all legislation and control.
Flawed logic and flagrant misrepresentation of the argument. You assign the label “infrequent” too easily here. Violence in the US, as discussed previously, is abnormally high for a developed country. If we assign a frame of reference to the situation, namely the specific example of comparing such school shootings with those in other developed countries, the US frequency of such events should be quite high. Therefore the label “infrequent” begins to lose its meaning, particularly when you look at the whole picture of gun violence and not just school shootings.
May I humbly suggest that you cut down on rhetoric devices and shorten your sentences somewhat, not to spare us unnecessary grammatical errors and a pretentious tone, but mainly to allow us to communicate effectively and sincerely. Now: Individual liberty again. There are volumes to say about this and there are precedents in this thread, but for now I am interested in hearing how you reconcile “liberty” with unavoidable lapses in responsibility that affect “liberty”. Also consider safety issues.
Although school shootings are not the focus of this debate, I should hope that such events are not the norm, or it would mean the US is at war with itself. The only argument I can see here is: “these events do not happen on a regular basis, so, although they occur in the US more frequently than in other developed countries, we can dismiss them for the purpose of gun debates”. Needless to say, I challenge this position until I see support for such assertions.
As a matter of interest, I found a link to an ABC News map of the US showing shooting incidents from 1996 up to and including 1999:
This too has been covered extensively (originally brought up by Unclebeer), and you have not added to points made and addressed previously. Your sensitivity to such events, like your position itself, is appreciated for what it is: personal. On the other hand, some of the techniques being employed in this debate are not admissible–a problem pointed out by a number of posters earlier in the thread.
Sounds like argument from emotion, which supports the points mentioned here and elsewhere that guns are a religion rather than an argument based on reason. Again, stronger support for your statements is needed here, especially if you continue with:
Beg your pardon, but you ought to identify the fallacies before making such a statement. In this thread the fallacies came from posters who, through several unadmissible techniques frequently criticized, attempted to support positions on emotional grounds rather than reason.
Blaming the firearms exclusively is not the solution, I agree with you. But this has been discussed too, so you can pick up where Unclebeer and others left off, or please don’t bring it up without adequate support.
Can you also elaborate on how owning a gun is a “natural right”?
As to the country being founded on such principles, hasn’t the US evolved significantly from the rugged and dangerous land it used to be 150 years ago? In many countries at one point weapons were allowed to be owned and carried by the general public, with the predictable result that people didn’t get skewered on swords or shot in the head quite as much.
In response to minty green’s objections you sank down the logic ladder by providing more misrepresentations and a dose of reducto ad absurdum illustrations. The danger of such rhetoric is that it is rarely correctly applicable, and rarely contributes to the discussion.
er, the previous post contains an error. the second last paragraph ought to read:
In many countries at one point weapons were allowed to be owned and carried by the general public; after they were banned, the predictable result was that people didn’t get skewered on swords or shot in the head quite as much.
ExTank: Abe says your analogies were reducto ad absurdum, and I suppose there might be some truth to that. However, I prefer to think of them as cost-benefit analyses that fail to account adequately for all the costs and benefits.
Alcohol. YOu may remember, we tried banning alcohol back in the 1920s. Turned out there were quite a lot more costs (primarily crime and corruption) associated with prohibition than we counted on, and the benefits weren’t nearly as great.
Private vehicles. And just how much do you think a mass transit system will cost if it is to enable people in the far-flung suburbs, rural netherlands, and metropolitan areas alike to transport themselves and their possessions to where they want to go, with anything approaching the convenience and speed of a private car? I assure you, the number has not been invented that contains the necessary number of zeroes. And if your hypothetical mass transit system does not adequately substitute for private vehicles, you will also have to count as a cost all the problems that inadequacy causes.
Internet servers. Oh, please. You’re not even trying to account for the costs of shutting down the 'net so that Californians can turn on the a/c this summer. Do I really have to point out how ridiculous it is to only consider a single benefit in a cost-benefit analysis?
Now are you, like pkbites apparently did before your return, conceding that a cost-benefit analysis of machine guns leads to the conclusion they should not be owned by individuals?
Oh, goody! Fresh meat! Yum. And just when I thought this thread had died out and I would be consigned to lurking again.
ExTank:
There are a lot of points that you’ve brought up that I would like to address, so I’ll probably have to divide up my response in several posts. But let’s get started:
You may want to rethink that statement. First off, it’s an unfalsifiable hypothesis – because if such laws worked, how would you know? We had a guy here in Gothenburg who went nuts with an axe recently and killed 3 people. One wonders what the death toll might have been had he had access to a semi-automatic, but we’ll never know. It would not be unreasonable to argue, however, that the laws making it very difficult for him to acquire a gun here (in Sweden) may very well have “physically” prevented him from using such a “commodity” (as you so quaintly express it).
In addition, laws may not have to work “physically;” they may also act as a psychological deterent. What is your take on that aspect of the legal system?
Finally, making a quick hop here: if I were to apply your argument to other social problems, it would seem to imply that you support the legalization of all drugs as well, including hard, addictive substances such as heroin. Is this your postition?
Next, in reference to a point made earlier (alledgedly) by Abe, you respond:
*First off, I wasn’t aware that one need be an expert on American gun laws to participate in this debate. I’m certainly not, but then again neither is Freedom, apparently. This is also a very good forum the participants to learn things that we don’t know, IMHO.
Secondly, I’m kinda confused about this, so I’d like to ask you (or anyone else): you say that on the one hand, no one in the US is required to run a background check when they sell a weapon privately. At the same time, you say that if I were to sell a weapon privately to someone who may not lawfully possess one (a convicted felon, for example), I am guilty of a felony. That seems to imply de facto that everyone who sells a gun would in fact have to run a background check on their perspective customer anyway, or else risk breaking the law. Is that the case, or have I misunderstood something here?
At this point I’m not too concerned about the definition of an armor-piercing round, or the problems of “legislation by litigation,” so I’ll hop over that bit for the time being. Please allow me to inform you as well, at the risk of sounding impolite, that I’m not too interested in what “chills your testicles” here. I don’t really know what to make of your remarks concerning the ACLU and machine-gun ownership, but I’m under the impression they mostly deal with “freedom of speech” issues…am I mistaken?
Strange. I would use this same argument to warn against the current state of gun laws in the States. IMO, it’s those laws, and the arguments of gun-nuts such as yourself, that I feel tend to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Anyway, since you brought up “the tyranny of the majority” further down, it’s worth mentioning that DeTocqueville also argued that democracies tend to drift towards a “lowest common denominator” kind of thinking.
Additionally, if by “pk’s extrapolation” you are referring to the OP, let me point out that thus far no one in this thread has been able to point to a single historical example of an armed populace successfully overthrowing a tyrannous government. In fact, we’ve been able to do just the opposite: the case of Afghanistan is a perfect example of a totalitarian regime ruling over a very well-armed populace. On the other hand, many of the most significant revolutions against tyranny in the 20th century were accomplished by a completely unarmed populace; Gandhi’s liberation of India, and the fall of Eastern Europe and the USSR being notable examples. I think Abe already pointed this fact out, but I just want to reiterate: free gun ownership does not guarantee a society against tyranny. Freedom is a much more complicated equation than that.
Overly-liberal gun legislation may, however, lead to a society that holds its own population hostage.
ET: *“If you have the federal permit, you can’t be charged with a federal crime for violating the California ban on machine guns. That’s cold comfort as you serve your sentence in state prison.”
You wanna know what really chills my testicles? The fact that you are correct. And that the ACLU, bringers of freedom from oppression to any and all at the drop of a hat, will fight your fight up to the supreme court if you wanted to say a prayer in public, or espouse a racist platform, and will do so for free while you are sitting in that CA Prison. Note that I do not think that this is a bad thing, either.
But our poor federally licensed machine gun owner can’t even get his phone call returned from the ACLU to argue his case on 14th Amendment grounds. This I believe to be a bad thing.*
Hi ET, good to see you back, but I have to correct some faulty reasoning here. The ACLU will indeed fight to overturn a state or local law that infringes your federal constitutional rights to prayer and free speech, etc. etc. As such, it does indeed defend rights relating to gun ownership, though usually on Fourth Amendment grounds (as in this case). But it does not consider that the Second Amendment prohibits regulation and restriction of gun ownership, either by the federal government or by the states. As the ACLU’s policy statement on this issue says,
So your analogy is flawed: according to the ACLU’s (and the Supreme Court’s) interpretation of the Second Amendment, a state law that restricts gun ownership more stringently than federal law is not comparable to a state law that infringes a federally guaranteed right. That’s because unrestricted gun ownership is not a federally guaranteed right, and there’s no constitutional reason to treat the current status of federal gun regulation as some kind of guideline to exactly how much gun ownership is protected by the Second Amendment. You may not like gun ownership restrictions, and you may not feel that there’s any net benefit to society from them, but that doesn’t mean that they’re unconstitutional. So quit picking on the ACLU, at least on the grounds of consistency. You may not agree with the way they interpret the Second Amendment, but you cannot logically argue that they’re not being consistent in their commitment to defending the constitutional freedoms of individuals as they interpret them.
As for US supply of arms and ammunition to other countries: the Scientific American article I quoted said that we do supply such materiel, to the tune of nearly half a billion dollars per year, and that much of it does end up used in violent conflict and armed banditry. I didn’t claim that this is caused by private ownership of machine guns: if I understand correctly, it’s now illegal by federal law even to own a machine gun manufactured after 1986, so the domestic market for new weapons is nonexistent (which isn’t true for all the types of ammunition we were talking about, though). But if we want to restrict this trade more stringently, general bans on all civilian use may be a good idea, and that should be factored into minty’s cost-benefit analysis. It may be that it would be just as effective or more effective to reduce international small-arms proliferation by cracking down on large-volume sales while still permitting U.S. civilians to own such weapons and ammunition; I don’t know the answer to that for certain. But since nobody has provided a convincing reason to consider bans on their ownership unconstitutional, we should focus instead on the practical advantages and disadvantages of it: and I think that consideration of the dangers of the worldwide small-arms trade is relevant here. That’s all.
As an actuary who specializes in disasters, I approve of a cost-benefit analysis, but it would be very difficult, to say the least.
E.g., suppose that legalizing machine guns resulted in an additional 20 murders per year, but reduced the chance of a military junta taking over the government by 1/1000. Three questions:
Is it worth 20 lives per year to reduce the probability of being taking overf by a military dictatorship by 0.1%?
How could one estimate the average number of lives lost (or saved) by legalized automatic weapons.
How could one estimate the impact of legalized automatic weapons on the chance of a military takeover?
Nice point, december. It’s usually difficult to affix solid numbers to cost-benefit analyses on sweeping policy matters, especially when you try to factor in something as essentially unknowable as the efficacy of guns as a means to prevent despotism. But I’d ascibe a number way, way smaller than 1/1000 to the chance of private ownership of automatic weapons preventing depostism, for all the reasons discussed in the first couple pages of this thread. Not to mention the Afghanistan example that someone else raised above.
Firstly, as Abe pointed out, he didn’t say that. 'Twas I. Now, in response to your response to something that wasn’t Abe’s response:
I, as a hypothetical private citizen in possession of a legal gun decide I don’t want it anymore and put an ad in the paper for it. A complete stranger answers and buys the gun off me. Turns out he/she bought the gun from an ad in the newspaper rather than a dealer because he/she knew (s)he’d fail the background check. I of course have no way of knowing this. Are you telling me I’ve just committed a Federal Felony?
Also, I didn’t ask a question about what the law is in the United States, I asked what the logic in not requiring background checks for the private sale of firearms was, in response to someone else’s assertion that they weren’t required and so shouldn’t be required for private sales at a gun show either. I have not made any assertions about the current laws in the US or any other country, because I don’t know and I freely admit that.
IIRC, that statement was provoked by the assertion that the 2nd Ammendment was about the right to carry ‘millitia weapons’, defined by anything that was regularly issued to soldiers in the army. The poster of the above agrees with you, it was a direct extrapolation of pk’s logic.
I accept that the concept of natural rights is a valid enough philosophy (I personally think it’s bullshit, but what you believe is up to you). And indeed it’s impossible to disprove the existence of ‘natural’ rights. However, no one has any way to tell what these ‘natural’ rights are. This includes you, I’m sorry to say. So you saying that something is a ‘natural’ right just means that you think you should have that right (I’m assuming you don’t really believe you should have any ‘un-natural’ rights). That’s what my argument was really based on (it’s clearer if you look at the whole rather than your selective quote) but I apologise for letting the complete scorn with which I personally hold the concept of ‘natural’ rights get into my argument. It would’ve been better for me if I hadn’t. However, my argument does still stand. Consider it thus: WHY is the right a ‘natural’ right?! “Cause I said so” is not an acceptable answer, and neither is “cause the people who wrote the American Constitution said so”; as has already been pointed out somewhere in the mire of this thread you (not personal you) consider them to have got it wrong on many other issues, so they obviously had exactly as much clue about ‘natural’ rights as you. “Cause most people think so” is kinda an acceptable argument, but that’s not actually using the principle of ‘natural’ rights at all, it’s going back to my view that there’s no such thing.
Quite frankly, I don’t give a flying fuck about the precepts of American existance (well okay I do, 'cause I’ll probably go there at some point, and also in the same way I care about people suffering in totalitarian regimes [disclaimer: that was not implying that I think Americans are suffering because of gun laws or anything else. I just know someone would be dumb enough to have a go at me about that if I didn’t put this in]). I’m not actually arguing anything about American laws, or those of any other country, but rather taking a more abstract view. Partly because of that ridiculous stance about “the onus being upon (me) to prove that it is necessary”. Fair enough if I was proposing a new law in the US, but I’m not, I’m arguing a point (and I don’t know that I’ve actually said anything on gun control yet anyway, all I’ve done is call people out for using “it’s the law” as a reason for why it should be the law… oh no wait, the thing you thought was Abe could technically be considered in). If the best you can do in counter-arguments is “my view is currently endorsed by US law while yours isn’t”, then I would consider that pretty far along the track to proving that it’s necessary anyway. You shouldn’t even have to mention that unless you’re getting desperate. I don’t think there are ultimately convincing arguments on either side of this debate, so you shouldn’t be getting desperate, come up with some of that rational argument you were accusing me of lacking.
Why stop now? Let’s continue pointing out the bullshit until it pours out of the SDMB and finally makes an impact on society, if that’s even remotely possible.
ExTank extrapolates, further:
Right. Okay, gun control advocates are right-wing totalitarian nut baskets. Gun nuts such as yourself are radical left-wing individualists. And your argument is complete and total idiocy, as has been pointed out again and again in this thread.
Right again. After which you pull the following:
So excuse me. Bullshit. I spit on this argument – this kind of crapola bullshit arguing wherein it’s okay for your side to stretch a point as far as you like, while we who argue against you are forced to follow the strict rules of logic.
Tank continues:
Typical, again. This isn’t a joke. At all. The fact that you give it kudos only further reinforces my feeling that guns in America are desensitizing Americans to the actual meaning of violence. You can’t tell the difference between a real life and a video game anymore. As if somebody’s VCR is worth a human life. Disgusting.
Oh, wow. Here, let me lend you my step-ladder, so you can get off that horse. Yeesh, gotta give you this much at least: I usually get nose bleeds at that altitude.
First off, as has been pointed out again and again in this thread, “a free, armed people,” are clearly not “the surest guarantee against tyranny.” Secondly, as far as a I know, Liberty™ isn’t a form of government. As far as those on this board who “espouse lawful, safe, firearem ownership,” I’d say that about covers all of us. The problem, in case you haven’t grasped it yet, is that a lot of people out there are neither lawful nor safe, and own guns. Thanks for your imput, though. One wonders why I waste my time with this shit.
In essence, what this means is: I give fuck all if a few kids die now and then. I want my guns, and I want them without restriction. Excuse me while I go retch in the toilet after reading this trash.
Holy shit. Yeah, thanks for nothing. Your sympathy and a buck fifty will get a cup of coffee at Starbucks for someone who lost a family member at Columbine.
Good thing you have your fucking rights. Too bad so many innocent people have to die for them.
I’ve conceded nothing. I’ve been busy out on the range with my legally possesed fully automatic rifle. You know,Minty, you should come on out and join me. You’d love this thing, it’s fun to shoot. Yeah, it’s almost 25 years old, but it’s been properly maintained. Luckily we won’t have to reload too often because high capacity are still easily available even though they were “banned” 7 years ago.
I own my rifle legally! I have the paperwork to prove it!
If you’re talking about the “banned” magazines, what I mean is, even though they were banned, there are so many “pre-ban” magazines out there, and are so easy and cheap to buy (100% legal) that the 1994 ban is pointless, and cannot be given credit for any drop in crime that has happened since then. My grinning smiling:D face was only to rub that into Mint Green, the enemy of liberty and freedom, if you ask me. Respond please.
pk:If you’re talking about the “banned” magazines, what I mean is, even though they were banned, there are so many “pre-ban” magazines out there, and are so easy and cheap to buy (100% legal) that the 1994 ban is pointless
Whew! Thanks for clearing that up. Yes, I already knew that your pre-1986 machine gun was legal.
Svinlesha: FWIW, ExTank is one of the most open-minded and rational gun advocates you’re likely to find on these boards or anywhere else. Having discussed these issues with him before, I believe that he is more than worthy of a more measured response than the one you posted above.
pkbites: If a measure were on the ballot to eliminate your “right” to play with automatic peni . . . , er, firearms, I would vote for that measure in a heartbeat. To that extent, and to that extent alone, I am the enemy of your “freedom” and “liberty.” And if you try to label me as an enemy of freedom and liberty in any other way, I will politely ask you to return to your paranoid fantasyland.
BTW, still refusing to admit you were wrong about the legality of machine guns, pk? That’s nice because holding your hands over your ears and chanting “Cold dead hands! Cold dead hands!” is always such a great way to score points in a debate. :rolleyes:
I find it interesting how liberals love the Feds to set all the laws, unless it’s something they disagree with, then they magically believe in states rights. The information I have in my Federally licensed gun shop says there are ways to have a legal machine gun in all 50 states. Laws get passed and repealed or over-ridden all the time, so if my info is old, hey, It’s just a matter of time.
The facts remain:
*Federal law says machine guns are legal in all 50 states.
*Most state allow machine guns
*The states that don’t at least allow one with a class 3 license.
*The states that don’t allow automatics even with a class 3 will eventually lose in court over it.
*while I **Intensly[/b} disagree with what Mint Green has to say, I will defend to the DEATH his right to say it! From my lips to Gods ears I mean that! To the death! Good thing I have a leagally possesed (by both federal and my states’ law) automatic rifle(as well as other legally possesed firearms) to defend his rights if this country totally goes to shit.
Minty needs to understand the difference between peaceful, law & order abiding type folk who own guns, (even machine guns), and the scum who are shooting each other in the streets. Until he does, he is no different than than people who are racist, anti-semetic, etc. He lumps all similar type people (in this case gun owners) as the same, i.e. if you own a gun, you are a potential murderer.
pkbites, that is a load of crap. Very few people would say that everyone individual who owns a gun is a menace. Just the same as very few people on your side of the debate would claim that every individual who wants a gun should be allowed to have one. We’re arguing that there is more benefit than cost, overall, in not having guns readily available.
