Tell me gun control advocates: how can a dictator be stopped without arms?

Great Debates
141

Thank you, Minty Green for a rational response to Spoofe’s poorly flavoured attacks. Spoofe, where to start. I don’t care about your position on guns, I don’t care about the NRA, and frankly I don’t care if you choose to call yourself “Doc” and keep two revolvers stuck in your gun belt at all times. I am of course free to 1) attempt to understand and discuss the situation as an outsider, and 2) hold less than flattering opinions about gun-toting behaviour based on the flaws of the gun-toting position. I will thank you to start trying to respond to arguments by curbing your irritation towards points of view with which you do not agree. If the benefits of such a course are not clear to you, then at the very least you will spare yourself embarrassment.

Yet another monumentally unnecessary irrelevancy. The comment in question was indeed irrelevant, and just made you look foolish a few words later. The same could be said of this reply, if we can call it a reply at all. Stick to the point.

You engage in both stupidity and arrogance (of which you accuse me so readily) by presuming to know what is in my mind, or even what the perceptions of other individuals from the rest of the developed world are in regard to this controversial issue. I already made a point about the word “ridiculous” in a previous post.

Developed nations according to the World Health organization include: northern America, Europe (including portions of eastern Europe), Australia, New Zealand, Japan. The former USSR and newly independent states of the former USSR are sometimes considered developed to a limited extent, but this is by no means a rule (rather, it may have to do with its proximity to Western Europe and the fact that the USSR was a superpower for several years).

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) the list is very similar. I have not seen Russia and Brazil included unconditionally in such lists, regardless of how developed they may appear to you. Brazil is classified as a developing country, and the former USSR is in a rather more complicated position. Russia and Brazil are both huge in land area and rich in natural resources, but that does not necessarily make them developed nations. Anyway, I didn’t make up the data that I came across on the Internet, and that I posted earlier; those data make a claim that you are certainly free to challenge, but with more substance than you have heretofore provided, please.

See minty green’s objection. I’d like to see a cite please, and you will need to define your radius–are we talking about the US or other countries? Also, I presume we are referring to violent or armed crime here? I will also add that if there seems to be a disproportionate incident of death and injury by Element A (whatever that is, it can be guns or food poisoning) it is natural to be suspicious of Element A regardless of other circumstances.

Pathetic technique of deriding my arguments without at any time addressing them properly. You still have not proved that I am wrong. If you can prove that the statistics I posted and others like them are false, I will retract my statements concerning those statistics. Until then your attempts to cast aspersions on me are futile–and an embarrassment to your intellect.

Convenient, Spoofe. You have just given the impression that you proved a point. You didn’t. If the rates are going down, I think that’s great. An improvement is never to be scorned, rather it has to be evaluated. However that does not in any way address the original issue, and you will note that this heat arose when I dared to call the incidence of US firearm violence ridiculous compared to other developed nations. I have never implied that the situation is improving or otherwise, because I don’t have that knowledge.

You see what I mean about embarrassing yourself?

Cite please, because it seems to me that gunshot wounds must be far rather more difficult and therefore expensive to treat than many other injuries, what with the high kinetic energy of bullets, local trauma, hydrostatic shock, shrapnel, etc. At any rate, knives are utensils that have many purposes other than explicitly causing injury to humans. The same goes with cars, which actually perform a most useful function. Automobiles started off and remained extremely unsafe until regulations such as safety tests, seatbelts, safer engineering, airbags, and so forth were introduced. There are very precise laws in the US governing the uses of cars and the status of drivers. If you want to compare automobiles and firearms, it might be interesting to see how many loopholes are present in each sector. Some posters have mentioned loopholes in this thread concerning gun ownership, for example, but as far as I know there is no way you can be behind the wheel of a car if you don’t have a licence, if you are drunk, etc. An interesting comparison.

Make up your mind and try not to dither about everything in such a futile manner if you feel you have nothing else to argue. Is it acceptable or is it unacceptable?

This is so absurd that I am actually going to address it. You started by questioning–for no visible legitimate purpose–whether a sentence I posted was a sentence. You went on to correct me on the spelling of a word, except that your correction was incorrect. Then you insisted that questioning my sentence had relevance, although you neglected to demonstrate any. After that you tell me your spelling correction was joke. Please explain the principle behind your obscure humour, and why this is supposed to be a joke. The morale of the story is: make up your mind and focus on the argument, not on trying to debase the person making the argument.

A valid objection, albeit a naive one. To illustrate this we have to consider films (and TV shows too, actually) that feature firearms, the responses of viewers to those films, and various attributes of the viewers themselves (such as susceptibility, group acceptance, maturity, firearm education, etc.). This could be a new thread entirely, but for the purposes of this discussion consider the following:

  1. the high frequency of gun battles and duels (especially when they are unreasonably extended) in popular films
  2. the several filmic devices used to glorify guns, such as the “coolness” factor of those with guns (twirling the gun and such games, associating a gun with a character, romanticizing the gun, etc.)
  3. the excessive emphasis placed on guns, such as their “power” (who in the cinema didn’t laugh at the gun sequences in Men In Black or Desperado? Were you laughing because they were just funny, or were there elements of “wow, that is seriously good firepower” in your amusement?)
  4. the gun as the ultimate solution

And so forth. You might also think about how many films portray the horror of gunshot realistically, and not as a plot device to 1) eliminate bad guys conveniently, or 2) inspire audience sympathy for a wounded leading character.

Once again, a completely inappropriate reply. I distinctly remember stating that “gun worship” is something that other foreigners and I perceive in the US. You see, my statement clearly defines a frame of reference (from the outside looking in) and does not accuse (perception is not accusation) Americans of anything–rather, it was a great opportunity for you to explain the misconceptions, if any, others and I may have. Your replies are mere knee-jerk reactions, and are more harmful to your cause than anything yet to be said on this board.

This is a hypothesis you submitted with no evidence in support of it: it is a groundless assumption. Your argument is therefore based on a hypothetical premise.

“Always” (an absolute term) later qualified by the addition of “foreseeable future” (meaningless term) in the same sentence is a blatant contradiction. You are still hypothesizing that guns will not be restricted in, e.g., ten years’ time. Hypothetical arguments are not usually convincing arguments for the simple reason that they are built on unstable foundations: unverified premises.

I agree on this point, although it is a circular argument because you reject attempts to eliminate guns, yet you feel you have to be armed precisely because others too are armed. The way I see it, you could even the field by 1) giving everyone guns and accepting ensuing disasters, or 2) removing guns altogether from the public (which also happens to be similar to the subject of the rather dubious OP). Of course, the third option is implementing strict and effective gun control that will prevent any abuse on the part of gun-owners, but gun control so far does not appear to be quite up to the job. You did mention certain programs such as the Exile program, but that was immediately denounced by another poster. I don’t know very much about specific gun control attempts, so if anyone could run through the important ones, it may help the argument (and illuminate me).

RubberEntropy posted a question (asking for evidence on the topic of self-defence and guns) that may shed some light on this controversial issue. It will be interesting to see what material can be turned up.

142

Thanks for the cite, Unclebeer, although I was not particularly interested in it and asked for one merely on principle. I was willing to believe your interpretation of the numbers! But I don’t see that they make a difference to my argument.

Does this strike you as a good debating technique? “Many of you pro-control folks”?? What are you doing wrong in that quote?

I don’t otherwise have a problem with your numbers–only with your inappropriate reaction to my first post and with your unwillingness to retract your objections in the light of statistics showing a clearly higher rate of US firearm related death/injury than in comparably advanced countries.

Oh, and of course with this:

The objections to this argument are still where you left them, in my previous post addressed to you, and I don’t see that you have added anything to what you said earlier. You did include the example of cars (which Freedom also brought up), and I did mention it briefly in my reply to Spoofe. Cars and kitchen knives are different examples because 1) they are indeed regulated (you can’t walk around brandishing a kitchen knife, can you?), and 2) they are not primarily and solely weapons.

A gun is an incredibly deadly weapon, and that is all it is meant to be–it’s not a weapon as a result of incorrect application the way a car or a kitchen knife is. Point and shoot once, and you can eliminate a life forever. If you can prove to me that guns are owned by responsible people only, I will agree with your argument that free will is all that counts. Until then, or until you provide more of an argument, your objection has no support behind it.

143

There you go again, SPOOFE. “Natural freedoms”, inborn rights, god-given rights. Why is it a “natural freedom”? Are we each born with a gun in our hand? By talking in this manner you imply that those of us in countries whose populations have chosen that they don’t want guns to be freely available are somehow less “free”, restricted, less whole. Poppycock. You’re confusing your values with absolute truth.

I say it again: as a populace you have decided that you like guns enough to want to live with them as an everyday reality. Other populations have chosen differently. Do not patronise them by assuming that your way is the only way.

pan

144

Actually we should be looking at

rates of gun murders vs. all other murders.

In looking at statistics, it’s vital to separate out the suicides. John Lott’s research showed that eliminating guns does little to reduce suicides. The reason is obvious.

145

Oh boy, more fun!

Minty…

My apologies. I’ve always considered the #2 Superpower for fifty years to be “developed”.

I don’t know if you read my whole post or not (I forgive you if you’re just not up to the task of reading more than a few paragraphs), but I think I made it clear elsewhere in my post that I was referring to other murders in general (your pal Abe picked up on it, just in case you were wonderin’.)

However, this is an interesting point… is it worth the trade-off to halve the number of murders if, conversely, the number of assaults, rapes, and/or burglaries are increased tenfold? A whole 'nother debate in and of itself.

Abe (AKA Chuckles)…

Yes. My “attacks”. Another method of demonizing the opposition. I can’t wait 'til you compare me to Timothy McVeigh or, better yet, Hitler. :rolleyes:

The irony is lost on you, Chuckles (in fact, it is due to this lost irony that I dubbed you “Chuckles” in the first place). I won’t get into a whole lesson on witticisms and ironic twists, but I will just say that I found it ironic for someone to be making a completely irrelevant statement about something being irrelevant. In other words, “Physician, heal thyself.”

Further, I find it amusing when you insist to “stick to the point” after your long-winded diatribe about how you don’t care for my stance on guns, you don’t care for the NRA, etc. Bordering on hypocritical, but I’m sure you noticed that by now, hmm?

I don’t need to presume what is in your mind. I can read your posts, Chuckles, and I can deduce meaning from that.

Or are you claiming that it’s okay to make blanket statements without knowing the evidence to back up those statements?

I would like a link to those classifications, if you don’t mind… because I spent the better part of an hour scouring the World Health Organization’s website and it’s managed to elude me.

In either case, it’s clear that the definition of “Developed Country” is not concise dividing line. To claim that one country is “sometimes” a developing nation does nothing to assist the argument. However, that particular blade cuts both ways… neither can I claim that they ARE developed nations when it suits my own arguments. So with that, I’ll drop that particular line of debate.

Hmm… I’m curious: What, exactly, is so magical about an “officially-classified Developed Nation” that would make them shining examples of the world community? Why does the example of Brazil’s higher crime rate disintegrate just because it’s not classified as “developed”?

I think you’re attempting to place unreasonable restrictions on the argument, pal (and I’m in very little mood to continue that at the moment, as it is currently 4:00 AM where I’m at, and I just spent an hour and a half wandering through WHO trying to find their classifications for developed nations… I’m not even going to try with OECD… again, a hyperlink would be greatly appreciated).

I’m talking Australia with this one (remember who started this whole “my country’s better than yours” thing… yup, Aussies). Their crime’s been steadily going up the past few years. If you really want a cite on that, I’ll get it for ya, but again, it’s late, I need my sleep, and I spent too much time already trying to find where you got your info from.

Crime in general. Nonviolent crime is not completely isolated from violent crime.

I agree. But to claim success by having fewer gun-related deaths simply by removing the guns is like curing the symptoms, not the disease. Higher crime in other areas are simply more symptoms.

The basis of your argument was “Unclebeer was offended at what I said”. How else am I to address that “genius-level” argument? Again, I suggest that you take your own advice before you dispense it to others.

What is there to prove, pray tell? That you didn’t know the number of deaths in the US before you labeled the number as “ridiculous”? You already admitted to that. That Unclebeer wasn’t “offended” at such an argument? Only he would know that.

And you chided me to “stick to the subject”… sheesh.

Are you denying that crime rates are going down?

The fact that they’re lowering means that something’s being done right. And, hey, we still have our guns. Amazing, huh?

And what, pray tell, is the original issue? That gun-control doesn’t solve everything, of course.

The heat was there FAR before you arrived on the scene, Chuckles. I don’t know how much experience you’ve had with these Gun Control debates, but I suggest you run a search on 'em and see how many dozen pop up.

Maybe that’ll explain to you why people are so impatient with these things… all your arguments have been made - and refuted - many times before.

I embarass myself when I dip my elbows in the gravy. I embarass myself when I forget to zip up my fly. I DON’T embarass myself when I make a point that’s pooh-poohed away by some shmoe who can’t admit that his argument’s not as water-tight as he’d like to believe.

Again, “stick to the point” :rolleyes:

Sorry, not gonna find a cite 'til tomorrow. But remember that the kinetic energy of a bullet is greatly offset by it’s relatively small size. Energy = Mass X Velocity, remember?

Furthermore, please note that I said “overall”. Since there are fewer shootings than car accidents (and since cars are bigger and will cause more damage, but I digress), I wouldn’t be surprised if the total costs in health treatment even out. Also keep in mind that big parts of health treatment is the long stay in the hospital… there’s no “added cost” depending on the TYPE of injury.

Irrelevant to the argument of health cost.

If you want to talk about “use”, however, keep in mind that guns are “used” as the backbone of every single country’s military and/or policing organizations. Sounds like a hell of an important use to me.

You’re asking me to apply blanket terms to something that is not homogenous. I think any death caused by irresponsibility is unacceptable. I think any death caused by responsible and appropriate use is perfectly acceptable.

::sigh:: “Stick to the point” indeed.

I questioned your sentence structure because it was horribly awkward.

(Note: Other windbaggery ignored. Maybe it’s just me, but I haven’t the patience for self-importance at 4:20 AM.)

Really.

Your contention was that Hollywood “glamorizes” guns. All you need to do is establish that. My contention is that Hollywood’s portrayal of guns is simply as another plot device, extensions of the individual characters.

For example, it can be contended that guns were glamorized in “Pulp Fiction”, in which the “bad-ass” people went around shooting people without dealing with “realistic” consequences. However, this “glamour” was not caused by the guns - nor did it even directly involve the guns - but was simply part of the characters in the movie. Much like how Samual L. Jacksons saying “motherfucker” over and over doesn’t glamorize foul language.

Additionally, one can look at movies like Saving Private Ryan, which depicted guns in a (relatively) realistic light. The good guys used guns all the time, killing dozens and hundreds of enemy soldiers. Was this a “glamorization” of guns? Or was it simply a presentation of the harsh realities of war?

::sigh:: I wrote far more on that subject than I wanted to… I guess that’s the price I pay to deal with stubborn people.

And I distinctly remember stating that your perception is wrong. I point you to the example of people like Rosie O’Donnell and the Million Mom March. I believe it’s safe for me to say that I, as an American, have more experience with the country in which I live than someone who DOESN’T live here.

To put this into perspective… I wouldn’t make blanket and stereotypical statements about Australia without some semblance of data to back up my statements with.

My premise is twofold: 1. Guns exist, and 2. Guns always exist. The former is unassailable, and the latter I back up with the simple notion that mankind does not abandon technologies that it finds to be extremely useful. I point you to the examples of the wheel, the printing press, and the cotton gin.

I did make the concession, however, that guns may not ALWAYS exist, with the modifier that I cannot see very far into the future. However, I cannot see how you can deny that guns will continue existing in the immediate future.

I like how you make up your own little rules in a debate. First explain to me how “foreseeable future” is a meaningless term (especially since I applied meaning to it). Next explain to me how the statement “guns will always exist in the next 500 years” is self-contradictory.

Please explain to me how ANY form of restriction will magically cause all guns to vanish. Keep in mind the difficulty of applying a world-wide banning (not all guns are made in the same place, you know) and the difficulty of rounding up all guns and destroying them.

'Tain’t circular. They’re two different points (well, okay, one is a sub-point of the main point). I don’t know what you mean be “I reject attempts to eliminate guns”. Are you saying that I reject several forms of gun control, or are you saying that I accept the fact that military/police organizations find guns to be too valuable a tool to be done away with altogether?

Secondly, I “feel I have to be armed” simply because I know that there’s a lot of people out there who would have no qualms of doing harm to other people. It makes no difference if they have a gun or not. If someone’s coming at me with a knife, I’m not going to give a rat’s ass about “keeping the fight fair”… I’m going to make sure I have the best form of defense available.

And I contend that #2 is a near-impossibility, given that A: government forces will still want to have some form of personal armament for their units, and B: it’s very improbable that all guns can be removed from the black market.

I can sum that up with two names: Lott and Kleck. Unclebeer already mentioned them. If you’re still curious (and if I’m more conscious), I can delve into them later… I’m hesitant to, because, as I’ve already mentioned, this is old-hat arguments that’s been dealt with several times before (and the fact that it’s now 4:41 AM).

Kabbes…

The natural freedom to defend oneself. There’s a legitimate threat of other people who may have the ability to overpower you… it’s immoral to allow that legitimate threat to exist AND to prevent people access to a counter to that threat.

What a silly question.

So you traded your freedoms for security. Go you. You have the right to do that, of course… just because you’ve chosen to give up that right, it doesn’t mean the right no longer exists.

No, I’m countering other people’s values with my own. The same accusation of confusing values with absolute truth can be applied to Abe, Minty Green, and, yes, even yourself.

But they’re free to patronize us because we “worship guns”. ::snort:: Off your high horse, pal.

146

High horse? Excuse me. I don’t think you’ll find me anywhere suggesting that the US should pursue any action but the desire of its people as regards gun laws. You won’t find me telling you what to do with your own legislation. More importantly, you won’t find me telling you that you are wrong for choosing to pursue that path. A people must make its own moral decisions as regards the laws that they wish to enshrine. FWIW, I think that Abe is on the wrong track and, yes, in the wrong to accuse Americans of “gun worship”.

There is nothing wrong, however, with observing that a foreign culture seems to place higher value on something than yours does. You have gone further with your statements - you are in essence claiming that because we do’t place as high a value on it as you do, we are somehow lesser humans. Now I’ve taken some liberty with paraphrasing there, but it is important that you appreciate the way in which you come across.

As for your assertion - I disagree that there is a “natural freedom to defend oneself” simply because I wholeheartedly reject the concept of “natural freedom”. You are talking, as I said, about inborn rights. But rights mean nothing without the context of an authority to guarantee them. That authority comes, in a modern context, from the society’s wishes expressed via government. And society’s wishes are derived from its values. Hence:

I ask you: what do you mean by this statement. What “right” am I claiming no longer exists? Don’t approach me from the DOI context of “these truths we hold self-evident”. I do not hold them self-evident.

See, from my perspective as someone grown up under a very different set of circumstances, it is YOU who appears to be less free. That is because I value the right to live in a society that is, essentially, free of guns. Difference in cultural values, see? I’m not right, you’re not right. We just perceive the world in different ways.

M’kay?

Oh - and don’t call me “pal” unless you mean it. Friend.

pan

147

The best possible form of gun control? Take away all guns belonging to jerks. SPOOFE, your Pit thread awaits.

148

kabbes wrote:

To which SPOOFE responded:

And now I’m wondering about the implications of that last statement. Are you actually admitting, SPOOFE, that a lack of gun control legislation leads to a less-secure society? That a society with tighter gun-controls is more secure? Because if that’s what you’re arguing here, then Uncle Beer has gobs and gobs of statistics that show it just ain’t so. Why, SPOOFE, shame on you – don’t you know that all them guns is what makes America such a safe place to live?

Or are you saying, rather, that your natu-born, God-given right to own a semi-automatic is so inalieable and important that it’s worth the loss of a classroom or two of kids every now and then? That it’s better to live in a less secure society just so you can get your rocks off at the shooting range every Saturday?

Or maybe you think that Europeans are so out of contact with concepts like “freedom” and “human rights” that they just gave up their “right” to own a .45 and didn’t get shit in return, except a less secure society. Silly Europeans (and Australians, New Zealanders, Japanese, etc, etc) – when will they learn?

Anyway, I should be kicking myself. On my way out to work this morning I realized that I’d forgotten to lock my front door before going to bed last night. “Damn,” I thought, “That’s the second time this week!” Living on the ground floor in a low rent neighborhood, no less. Can you imagine that?

Luckily for me, I live in Sweden, where the crime rate is so low, so low…and ain’t nobody got guns. So I can stroll home half-drunk through the park at 2 in the morning in complete safety. I’m from Tennessee, born and raised, but I’ve see both sides – I’ve lived in both societies – and I tell you that American gun laws are nuts.

Oh, and for what it’s worth – Russia is classified as 2nd world, along with the rest of the socialist sphere. But if you’re arguing that the USSR is or has ever been as economically developed as North America or Europe, then your arguements are weaker than I ever imagined. Yeesh, SPOOFE, you know better than that.

149

I know this isn’t how you meant it, but I couldn’t agree more. American gun laws are nuts. Nearly all of the 22,000 conflicting, poorly-written, often counter-productive and inefficient gun-control laws are nuts. The insane process that creates these absurd dichotomies is nuts. It’s nuts that we have this many laws on the books and they apparently do nothing to reduce gun crime. Nuts, I tell ya.

150

Dag, UncleBeer, ya beat me to it…

151

Uncle Beer: You actually agreed with me. And here I thought you were going to rip me a new one.

No, actually, I did mean it the way you took it.

Although I also meant that I support more restrictive gun policies. I think people who want to own guns should have every right in the world to own them, but should be willing to be subjected to some strict controls as well, because they’re such dangerous weapons. And speaking from personal experience, I think a society with fewer guns is safer. It sure feels that way, anyway.

People who argue for more liberal gun legislation don’t seem to understand that they are at the same time arguing to take away my right to live in safe, secure society. Either that, or they’re trying to convince me that society is more secure when there’s greater access to guns, which just goes directly against everything I’ve ever experienced. It also doesn’t make sense to me – it seems obvious that if there are more guns available, there’s going to be more gun-related violence.

152

I’ll ignore the “dangerous weapon” label for the time being since I’ve argued against that already in this thread, but just what “strict controls,” would you consider acceptable? How would you ensure that these controls are enforceable against those who would use guns irresponsibly and not solely against honest citizens? The standard argument against this is, those with evil intent will merely ignore restrictions, thus the restrictions are ultimately applied only to responsible law-abiding gun owners. Since we do have around 22,000 state and federal gun laws on the books, and a whole bunch of gun crime, this would seem to be an obvious and extremely legitimate conclusion.

As I’ve tried to make clear in previous posts, the intent of the user is the driving force behind crime, gun-related, or not. People don’t just commit crimes simply becuase they have a gun; the presence of guns does not necessarily predicate more gun crime. In fact, as gun, and especially handgun, ownership has increased dramatically over the past 25 years, both in raw numbers and in percentage of households with guns, crime rates have remained flat or declined (with the exception of small spike around 1992). Some other things to consider:
[ul]
[li] The vast majority of the violent crime in the U.S. (90% according to a 1998 BATF report) occurs without the use of a gun of any kind[/li][li] Less that 1% of all firearms (although this, in my opinion, is still far too many) in the U.S. are ever used in the commission of any crime, much less a violent crime (FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994)[/li][li] Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals (Ibid)[/li][/ul]

So there ya have a quick summary of my opinion, and some of the relevant facts that bear it out. Guns simply do not cause crime. Criminals do. Therefore the correct answer is effectively removing the criminal element from society, not guns. In fact, law-abiding citizens need guns to protect themselves from those with evil intent.

153

Uncle Beer asks:

Good question. I don’t know. I must admit that I don’t understand fully the torturous methods that States go about passing gun legislation; so many contradictory interests are involved at so many different levels of the process that the whole project seems almost impossible.

But look, we need to start at a different level. First off, we need to reach a consensus on where we want to go. Do you think that a society with fewer guns in circulation is potentially safer, or more dangerous, than a society with more guns in circulation? A loaded question, perhaps; you’ll answer that it depends on who has the guns, lawful citizens or criminals. But let’s deal with that issue later; first, which is better: lots of guns, or not so many guns? Because so many of the statistics you quote seem to indicate that actually, contrary to popular opinion, a society with lots of guns is safer than a society with fewer guns. That was the gist of your comparison of Washington D.C. and Arlington, was it not, and your citations concerning the rising crime rate in Australia?

I think you probably know where I’m headed. If you agree that a society with fewer guns is more secure than a society with lots of guns, then we’ve found common ground and need to start trying to figure out how to get there (i.e., to a society with fewer guns). If you don’t agree, if, for example, you think that gun regulation is a matter of trading “freedom” for “security,” (a trade you aren’t willing to make) then we’ll probably just have to agree to disagree. From many of the statistics you quote, you actually seem to feel that a society with fewer guns is less secure than a society with more guns, but I’ll return to that point in a minute.

Uncle Beer sez:

I couldn’t agree with you more. Being the real left-winger that I am, I think that the real major cause of crime is poverty. And I don’t think getting rid of guns is in any sense a solution for crime. I just think that it leads in the long run to a safer and more humane society.

See, there I go. Hard to even talk about this without getting stuck into one box or another. I don’t mean getting rid of guns; I just mean regulating them, hopefully in such a way as to keep them out of the hands of criminals ( to the extent that that’s possible), and in the hands of good citizens. I just don’t think you can do accomplish that without some kind of regulation. Like here in Sweden. I know fuck all about the gun laws here, but I do know that I can’t walk down to the local Walmart and pick one up. In fact, I wouldn’t even know where to find a gun here (hell, I wouldn’t even know where to find a Walmart here, thank God). But they’ve got’em here (guns, I mean, not Walmarts); there’s a shooting range not far from my apartment, and I can hear ‘em practicin’ on the weekends. Not to mention the popularity of hunting the Majestic Moose up here in the Great White North – but I digress.

You see, you even contradict yourself in your own arguments. First you say that despite massive regulation, the US still suffers from “a whole bunch of gun crime,” and then as you go along, you state that gun crime is declining, and that “* Less than 1% of all firearms in the U.S. are ever used in the commission of any crime, much less a violent crime, *” and now from your post I can’t tell if you think there’s a lot of gun crime in the US, or just a little. Which is it? If there’s relatively little, wouldn’t that be an argument for the efficacy of gun-control regulation? If there’s a lot, wouldn’t that mean that lots of guns lead to a less secure society?

Or, to return to your use of statistics; if you really feel that guns are in no way related to crime rates, how do you explain the difference between Arlington and Washington DC, or the increase in crime in Australia? Suddenly, it seems, you do think there’s a correlation between guns and crime; only, it’s a negative one. Or rather, is it positive? Lots of inefficient regulation, lots of guns in circulation, and, in your own words, “a whole bunch of gun crime.” I honestly can’t make sense of your figures.

Uncle Beer writes:

Okay, I’ll grant that you know undoubtedly much more about this issue than I do. I’ve seen you quote an amazing array of statistics, whereas my position is based mostly on personal experience; growing up as I said in Tennessee, and then living the last ten years abroad here. Not to mention my crazy gun-nut uncle (no insult to advocates of liberal gun regulation intended here; this guy is really twisted). But still, I can go to bed tonight with such a sense of security that I might even forget to lock my front door again, and the most dangerous item I have in my apartment is a bread knife.

Can you say the same?

154

I think you’ve read a lot into my post, Svin. But nevertheless…

I think the first thing I need to point out is that all gun control is not the same. Prohibiting felons from purchasing a gun is “Good”. Requiring registration is “Bad” (according to my “delusional” American thinking).

Second, I was using the popular (relatively popular, I guess) phrase which many use to explain the desire for more gun control… the belief that more gun control brings more security (which isn’t always the case).

But, ultimately, yes, I believe that if there was no gun control, then that would be a huge risk to the security of the people.

Conversely, I believe that too much gun control is also a huge risk to the people.

The trick is trying to find a balance. I believe - based on the crime evidence as presented by Mr. Beet - that Australia (one example) goes too far on one extreme of the balance, and it also seems indicative to me that some gun control advocates in America also want to go to that extreme. Conversely, some private groups in America want to go too far with the opposite extreme and want to erase ALL gun control, which I think is an equally rash move.

Oh, and one more thing…

I really want to apologize to Kabbes for my last response to him (her? It? Whatever…). I was far more terse, hostile, and agitated in my response to you than I should have been, and I hope that you’ll forgive me. I’ll simply say that I am an American, and I’m responding to many of the arguments in this thread with an American point of view and an American idea of what natural rights are. I hope that you’ll keep that in mind… additionally, I’ll do my best to keep in mind that my interpretation of what natural rights are may not be universally held, and I’ll try to include this notion in my future posts.

(Note that when I say “American ideas”, I don’t mean that ALL Americans have the same notions bouncing through their heads…)

155

Oh, and I’d also like to apologize to Abe for being a jerk with him. An attempt at a cheap giggle on my part came off a bit more obnoxious and rude than it should’ve… from now on, I’ll make sure I use rational and cogent arguments to do my speaking for me.

156

Thank you for that admission, SPoofe. I posted what I thought of your behaviour in the Pit, and that has little place here.

I don’t think my most important points were addressed properly in the previous spat. I will let my previous e-mails stand rather than continuing a point-by-point refutation if it keeps collecting personal attacks and arguments that appear to be influenced by a strong bias. When I make it back to work, I will try to search for the cites I found on the Web.

The guns in Holliwood thread was not an organized argument on my part, but rather an item to consider in the greater picture. I do not insist that the gun culture in American film is responsible for anything. Not all American films feature guns, and not all that do promote them; there are, however, several films in which guns are clearly promoted, and I do not think that this particular point can be relevant to this discussion. I submitted this item for consideration and possible discussion as one of a number of possible factors that may contribute to the problem, not as the ultimate reason.

I also wish to make the point to Unclebeer, leaving aside the issue of the statistics (I am not sure if you are challenging them or not), that I understand the “intent” argument. At the same time, I reject this argument because, as I stated earlier, the average person is not by any means a responsible citizen. Were it otherwise, the police would hardly be needed to contain crime.

Guns empower their users, and provide the ability to cause grievious harm very easily. Unfortunately, it is impossible to accept that every legitimate and approved gun owner is a responsible citizen, at least in the present situation, and that is one of the most serious considerations that should be taken in such a debate.

People frequently do things that they later regret. A gun in the hands of a scared or angry person–and these are conditions that afflict virtually everyone–is an extreme danger, because fear and rage impair responsibility, judgment, and many of the cognitive abilities that make us human rather than animal (thought versus impulsive reaction, for example). At this point a gun is also a dangerous liability to its owner: defence might in fact be a misunderstanding that results of the death of an innocent, with legal and moral repercussions.

The problem here is that the majority of people, including gun owners, must be classified as potentially irresponsible. As I said earlier, if there is a way to make certain that every gun owner is a responsible person at all times and will never risk using a gun irresponsibly, then I don’t imagine there would be much objection to your argument.

A gun also provides the absolute judgment: death. It seems to me that an absolute judgment ought to be passed by a person (or court for that matter) with absolute certitude of the verdict. Is it possible to do so? Only in rare situations. Self-defence is a valid argument, although misunderstandings are a clear danger here.

Excessive force is another problem. Someone posted the example of being attacked with a knife and shooting the attacker in defence. This could be considered exercising over another human being a force disproportionate to the attack. I don’t know exactly what US law has to say about this, but in aq broader context it would seem to be a point against guns in the hands of the public.

157

I trust people to take care of themselves, make their own decisions and I recognize their independence.

You see people as imperfect and irresponsible. They are obviously in need of a greater mind to control their environment and make important decisions for them.

Notice that the great centralized USSR collapsed while the decentralized “risky” America has flourished.

We can quote statisics all day long, but at the end of the day, they mean nothing. You are omnicient and consider .00something% of guns used in a crime to be evidence that the majority of people are irresponsible. Forget the fact that more kids drown each year than get shot. Forget the fact that out of 80 million gun owners, the crime numbers are measured in thousands.

You don’t belong in a gun debate, you belong in a debate about what decisions should be left to the masses. Can they be trusted to pick the right job? Eat the right foods? Raise their own children? Vote?

Where would you draw the line, and what reasoning would you use to justify it?

158

Are you serious?

pulls hair out in frustration
This is the dumbest thing I have ever read or seen in any gun debate, any gun thread, at anytime or place.

Are you really flat out saying that if someone comes at you with a knife then you should be limited to responding with a knife?

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
How would you apply this?

To women being attacked by men?
To smaller men being attacked by a larger man?
Depending on the training of the attacker?
Depending on the training of the defender?
If you are alone except for the attacker?
If there are multiple attackers?

Would you print up a chart and pass it out so that we could all consult it for the appropriate response if we get attacked? Maybe you could pass a law that all thieves have to carry the chart so that it would be available when needed.

Look man…

It is very easy not to worry about excessive force.

Don’t attack anyone. Don’t come at them with a knife. Don’t mug them. Stay out of their house unless you are invited in, especially in the middle of the night.

159

Freedom:

Good grief.

Stricter gun control legislation = totalitarianism. Right.

All us “gun control” freaks are Godless commie pinko faggots.

It’s thanks to the freer gun laws in America that we managed to outlast the Soviets.

England, Sweden, France, and Jagan (etc, etc) are totalitarian regimes. Afghanistan is a shining bastion of the values of personal freedom and individual liberty.

And your argument, Freedom, is inane; the worst sort of reducto ad absurdum rubbish imaginable.

SPOOFE:

Ah, well. I don’t want to mark words…I just thought I saw an unexpected admission from your side about what you really think regarding the availability of guns in the States.

Now, now SPOOFE, no one accused your thinking of being “American.” Just “delusional.” :wink:

Well there you go then. We do live on the same side of street after all. Maybe we ain’t exactly next-door neighbors, but it’s not like you have the same sort of arguments as Freedom there.

Finally, regarding:

[hijack]Good on ya. For what it’s worth, I sympathize with your sense of being stepped on, SPOOFE. Ever since Bush got elected, the reputation of the US has really gone down the toilet over here, at least among your typical Swede-on-the-street. I’m alla time getting shit for being American, and it’s turning me downright patriotic!

That said, I don’t think Abe was being intentionally rude when he made that “gun worship” comment. I don’t think it was an accusation from his side, more of description. It’s certainly the case from my experience that most Europeans are puzzled over what appears to be, from their perspective, the average American’s fixation on gun ownership. They find it generally inexplicable, especially in the wake of so many school shootings, and it’s not uncommon to hear folks refer to it as “gun worship,” “gun fetish,” and the like.

I’m assuming, of course, that that was the phrase that got on your tits so much. If not, well, then – nevermind.[/hijack].

160

Svinlesha

To borrow from Spoofe:

Do you actually try to read what a person writes, or do you just go ahead and assume people posted whatever is easiest for you to rebut? If it would make a difference, I would be happy to type s-l-o-w-e-r so that you could follow along.

Let me make this simple and clear for you, one point at a time:

[1]

That very well may be the case, but I never said or implied it. I do a good enough job of getting myself in positions I have to defend, please refrain from inventing new positions for me.

[2]

Once again, this is not my implied or asserted position.

[3]

I guess I can see your point about France, Sweden and England, but I don’t think you can even make a case about Jagan and Afganistan.

Once again, those are your positions, not mine. Even though I can sympathize with where you are coming from, I wouldn’t want to defend those statements.

[4]

After reading your post, I’m guessing you couldn’t tell my arguement from a hole in the ground.

Let me help you a little bit here. When reading my posts, you need to look for clues about my true intentions. I suggest by starting with the actual words in my post.

After you figure that out, I suggest you see how I framed my post. It starts with:

Did you see anything about gun control in there? New laws? England, France and Sweden?

This was an attempt to recognize that Abe and I are not really discussing gun control. Rather we are discussing different views on what sort of decisions each individual should be allowed to make. Gun control is only a subset of this debate.

If you found that a little far fetched and hard to follow, you would be further helped by actually finishing the post. At the end, you will find:

Do us a favor…

Click back to page one and start reading the posts in order. When you catch back up, and have some sort of grasp on different people’s positions, you will be able to contribute without sounding confused.