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

[Cumber]

Newbie to the gun control debates checking in here…

I’m responding to the (apparant) general consensus of those against restrictive gun control in this thread (not gonna go back and look for quotes 'cause I can’t be stuffed) that:

i. everyone has a natural right to carry a gun
ii. to take away this right is inherently bad, even before we get to the question of whether or not it has any benefits, because it is restrictive

Now I’m guessing I’m going to be told I’m an arrogant idiot for saying you guys believe that, but if it’s the potential benefits of gun control that matter then why even bring up the matter of it being a right (and it being bad to take away that right)?

I’m not even going to go into the first bit. But the second seems to me to be clearly wrong. Society and laws are based purely on restriction. They have to be: no law can give you the ability to do something you’re physically incapable of doing, only declare that something is illegal. With anarchy, everything is legal. With society, some things are declared illegal, and it is only through this restriction that we gain what you so lovingly call freedom. In reality there are two types of freedom; freedom to and freedom from. The freedom to do as you wish, and the freedom from others doing things you don’t wish. Anarchy provides the closest you can get to complete freedom to. Complete control of the citizens by the government (with the huge proviso that the government is ‘benevolent’, but we all like to think in the western world that we’ve found a way of making our governments look out for our best interests) provides the closest you can get to freedom from. The difficulty in any issue of deciding what should be restricted is balancing the two freedoms. You can’t say that restricting access to guns is a bad thing purely because it’s restrictive; the whole basis of society is restriction (though of course much of that restriction ultimately acts to enable). Tell me why your freedom to carry a hand gun is of a higher priority than my freedom to live in a society that has very few guns floating around.

And that’s ultimately an impossible demand. We’ll each have different opinions on that (I have no desire to own a gun, nor do I feel the need for one to ensure my safety, so I trust it’s no surprise what my opinion is). If you agree with the theory of democracy (which I personally believe to be both complete rubbish and yet to be actually implemented properly anyway, but it works far better than anything else anyone’s come up with so yay democracy), the people should decide which freedom is a greater priority to them. But it’s complete bollocks to say that taking away the freedom to own a gun is a bad thing in itself. (It’s likewise complete bollocks to say taking away the freedom to live in a society without guns is a bad thing in itself).

Actually, as an aside, I find it slightly amusing that people can espouse both the ideals of democracy and those of “we hold these truths to be self-evident” at once. God-given rights and the people governing themselves are fundamentally opposed concepts. (Bah, I shouldn’t’ve said that, everyone’s going to jump on it…)

[SPOOFE]

i. everyone has a natural right to carry a gun

Well, close. A better way of saying it is that people have a natural right to defend themselves.

There are two basic ways of defense… surround yourself with layers upon layers of armor, security measures, booby traps, defense systems, etc., or give yourself a strong enough weapon so that you would be able to disable (or, if necessary, even kill) an assailant. The former would be incredibly restrictive on your daily life… the latter is clean, simple, and effective.

And, as the football coaches say… the best defense is a good offense… (or something like that. I’m a gun nut, not a footbal nut :D)

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Now, now Freedom, let’s not get our panties in a wad.

Actually, the statement I reacted to in your post was this one:

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

It is interesting to note that you conveniently left out that part of your argument when you basically reposted the entire thing in response to my rant.

Of course, one doesn’t have to be a rocket-scientist to conclude from a comparison like the one above that you think gun control = USSR = totalitarianism. That might not have been your intention, and admittedly you don’t state it outright, but your argument certainly implies it. And true to form, you then continue to follow your reasoning to its logical end point, wondering aloud if Abe can draw the line between gun control and other rights, like the right to raise one’s own kids, select one’s own job, and even vote. (Yeesh, talk about reading too much into someone else’s post…)

But I think you can see that your argument here is untenable, and Cumber picks up on that directly. Because what you actually seem to be arguing for is an anarchy. Of course, “people [should] take care of themselves, make their own decisions and…recognize their independence.” But you know as well as I do, and as Abe does, that there are always going to be a few bad apples in the barrel. That’s why all societies have laws.

C’mon, Freedom, if we were arguing about the speed limit here would you take the same position?

Abe: I think we need speed limits, because some people drive too fast and endanger others. They don’t slow down in front of schools, for example, and might run over a child.

Freedom: No we don’t! I believe in the individual’s right to drive as he will! Speed limits? What next, Abe? How do you draw the line between that and the right to vote?

You see what I mean, I’m sure. So pardon me if you hear the joints in my knees popping as soon as someone mentions the words gun control and USSR in the same breath – its just an old habit of mine, and as you know, old habits are the hardest to break.

Then, I just want to state for the record that my contention that Sweden, England, and Japan are totalitarian states, while Afghanistan is a “bastion of personal freedom,” above, was an exercise in the art of sarcasm. As was discussed earlier in this thread (ahem. Perhaps you should go back for a review?..) Afghanistan is an example of a totalitarian regime which has very liberal gun laws, while Sweden, etc, is an example of democratic society with very strict gun laws.

And finally, since no one else has brought it up yet…

Abe writes:

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.

---

And Freedom responds:

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!!! **

Well, prepare to have your noodle baked, Freedom, because believe it or not, over here in Sweden (and I think this is pretty common throughout the rest of Europe as well), the use of excess force in defense of one’s person is a punishable offense. Wild, huh?

Let me give you an example: if you’re walking down the street one day, minding your own business, and some guy hops out of the bushes talkin all kinda trash wants to slap ya upside the head, you can give him the smack-down but that’s it. Legally, you’re only allowed to use enough force to protect yourself – that’s all. So if you bop him in the nose, fine and dandy. But if you knock him down, jump up and down on his spine, kick in a few of his ribs, drive his head into a telephone pole and then throw him off the bridge, you can be punished for excessive use of force. You can even get jail time.

So you see, Abe’s position isn’t as outlandish as it appears at first glance.

(For what it’s worth, if someone attacks you with deadly force, you are entitled to defend yourself with deadly force, so in the case of defending yourself from a knifeman with a gun I’d guess you could get away with that over here. Just as long as you didn’t shoot him once in the leg, and then stand over him and pump the rest of clip into his head…)

[RubberEntropy]

It seems to me that the question of a Constitutional right to bear arms is already a very blurred area.

I believe there are already restrictions placed on firearm ownership in the USA, even in the most liberal States, e.g.

• No fully automatic weapons,

• No Incendiary rounds

• No Armor-piercing rounds

• No Explosive ammunition

• No Rifle grenades or other rifle-launched ordinance

These things are not legal because the people through their representatives, have decided that the civilian owner has no LEGITIMATE NEED for them. Government is already saying that there is a line between what is reasonable for civilians to keep and what is not.

Surely then, the Constitutional right to bear arms is already reduced to a qualified privilege, and from there it is simply a matter of to what degree such privilege is granted.

[Abe]

Svinlesha, like a ray of sunshine in a debate darkened by bias and hostility, has helped illuminate the position of the observer for anyone who didn’t previously understand it, and for that I am very grateful. I won’t go into the highly subjective and thoroughly flawed arguments Freedom uses as a basis to attack my intelligence, because they are mostly worthless and some have been addressed by Svin. As Svin said, Freedom, you are posting reducto ab absurdum, particularly when you do so to put words in my mouth.

Svin has also explained the argument of excessive force, which is exactly what I was referring to, and which was obviously news to some here. Is there no legal concept of excessive force in the US? I am quite curious about that, because it would obviously have a strong impact on the debate.

RubberEntropy made, IMO, an excellent point: that the right to bear arms is already privilege for which one must be qualified (although it appears that the qualification process may have some distance to go). This is not far off from the argument I posted earlier, which stipulated that a gun-owner must be a responsible citizen.

[RubberEntropy]

I clearly remember a well publicised case a few years ago when some guy shot and killed an alleged mugger on a New York subway train. He was accused of having used excessive force, and public opinion was deeply divided as to him being ‘hero’ or vigilante.

I cannot remember if he was found guilty or innocent, but either way, the very fact that he was charged and tried means that US, (or at the very least NY), law DOES recognise that the use of excessive force can be a felony.

Here in Australia it is a well established principle in law. I does not mean that ‘if I am attacked with a knife I cannot use a gun’, it simply means that the force must be proportional to the threat.

Scenario 1. I am attacked by someone with a knife who is high on PCP and is not put off by my producing a gun and threatening to shoot. His attack reaches a point at which I genuinely believe that my life is in danger, I shoot and kill him. This IS defensible in law, police officers have proven this in court over and over again.

Scenario 2. My business has been broken into several times in the last month. I decide enough is enough and hide out in the warehouse with a shotgun. Around midnight a see something move in the shadows and shoot. I have just killed the guy who has been breaking into my business. This is NOT defensible in law as I was not in actual and immediate danger - I used EXCESSIVE FORCE and have committed a felony.

[Crusoe]

The UK and Australia also have a concept of excessive force, Freedom:

Join our world

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/pdo.nsf/pages/SelfDefence
http://www.bsdgb.co.uk/
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/martin

If the Court finds that the accused has used excessive force then his defence of self defence will fail and he will be guilty of the offence charged. If he has killed the other person, supposedly in “self defence”, and has been charged with murder and the Court finds that he has used excessive force, his conviction will not be reduced to manslaughter and he will be guilty of murder, provided the Court is satisfied that he intended to kill or cause serious bodily harm from which the death resulted.

This was seen in the recent case of Clegg where the accused, a soldier on duty in Northern Ireland fired four shots at a car (later known to be stolen) which failed to stop at a checkpoint. The Court accepted that the first three shots were fired either in self defence or in defence of the accused’s colleagues, but the fourth, which killed a joyrider in the car, was not so fired on the ground that the car had by then passed the checkpoint by some 50 feet. The House of Lords upheld the accused’s conviction for murder. It made no difference that the force had been used in the prevention of crime or arresting an offender or that the accused was a soldier or police officer acting in the course of his duty.

[Fenris]

*Originally posted by Czarcasm *
**As I have mentioned many times before, here in Oregon there is a loophole a mile wide concerning background checks. As long as someone declares himself to be a private seller and not a dealer, he can set up a table at a gun show and not do a single background check. **

And that person can do the same thing ANYWHERE else in the state too.

There is no such thing as a “gun show loophole”. This is one of the more persistant and irritating bits of hysteria of the anti-gun crowd.

In most states (I don’t know about Oregon, but they were repeating the same lie in Colorado) private citizens DO NOT NEED to run a background check to sell guns. Look at your local newspaper: there are probably lots of ‘guns for sale’ ads.

If you do not need a background check to sell a gun as a private citizen ANYWHERE else in the state, why should you magically need one at a gun-show? If the anti-Second Ammendment types were being honest, they’d admit that the thing they object to isn’t the gun show, it’s the private sale, but there’s much more resistance to prohibiting private sales.

The “gun-show loophole” was “closed” in Colorado with the stunning result that private dealers set up tables at gun shows, take names and phone numbers of prospective buyers and do the sale the next day, or later that afternoon, outside the gun-show. And, of course, I believe the next step’ll be to (try to) ban private sales altogether.

Fenris

[december]

*Originally posted by RubberEntropy *
**Surely then, the Constitutional right to bear arms is already reduced to a qualified privilege, and from there it is simply a matter of to what degree such privilege is granted. **

RE has described one real-world process of amending the Constitution. The Supreme Court rule treats past SC decisions as if they were a part of the written Constitution. As a result, various provisions can change over time, without the inconvenience of a democratically conducted Amendment process.

E.g., the Tenth Amendment has been considerably weakened by a gradual line of decisions.

[Cumber]

*Originally posted by Fenris *
**There is no such thing as a “gun show loophole”. This is one of the more persistant and irritating bits of hysteria of the anti-gun crowd.

In most states (I don’t know about Oregon, but they were repeating the same lie in Colorado) private citizens DO NOT NEED to run a background check to sell guns. Look at your local newspaper: there are probably lots of ‘guns for sale’ ads.**

To my mind that’s not an argument to say that the “gun-show loophole” doesn’t exist, it’s one to say that the loophole is much bigger than the name “gun-show loophole” implies. I have no idea what the rules regarding private sale of firearms are here (Australia) so maybe we have that one too anyway. But what’s the logic in saying that a background check is required if you walk into a store but not if you pick up a newspaper? I mean, even if someone that would fail a background check can’t find a second-hand gun they can just get their next door neighbour to go buy a gun for them and it’s completely legal! You don’t even NEED a black market to distribute guns to those you don’t want to have them if you use those rules.

Quoting laws isn’t valid argument in this sort of debate. The other side will just say “That’s my whole point you idiot, the law needs to change!”

[Freedom]

**Svinlesha **

Try this correction:

Abe: I think we need to ban cars from the public, because some people drive too fast and endanger others. They don’t slow down in front of schools, for example, and might run over a child.

Freedom: No we don’t! I believe in the individual’s right to have freedom of movement! No cars?? What next, Abe? How do you draw the line between that and the right to vote?

Then you continue to miss the point over here:

You see what I mean, I’m sure. So pardon me if you hear the joints in my knees popping as soon as someone mentions the words gun control and USSR in the same breath – its just an old habit of mine, and as you know, old habits are the hardest to break.

It is pretty clear from my original post, that I am not discussing the USSR and gun control. If it wasn’ clear in the original post, then you should have caught on the second time when I explained the post to you. I’ll give you one last chance.

Abe said:

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.

Abe’s position in summary:

[1] The majority of all people are irresponsible.
[2] If we can’t guaruntee that 100% of the people are:
[3] Responsible 100% of the time then:
[4] We can remove any right we want to in the name of public safety.
I then stopped talking about gun control, and took the discussion to a much broader place where I suggested that Abe and me have fundamental differences in how we see people. As long as Abe and I disagree about basing your rights on the actions of others, then discussing the finer points of gun control is pointless for us.

Well, prepare to have your noodle baked, Freedom, because believe it or not

insert lines and lines of crap here*

conclude by agreeing with Freedom’s original premise here**

In addition, I just love how you phrase things:

so in the case of defending yourself from a knifeman with a gun I’d guess you could get away with that over here.

So, some guy tries to kill you with a knife, you happen to save you own life by shooting him, and you see the survivor as getting away with something? I see the guy as a hero. I see him exercising a natural right.

You see him barely acting within accepted norms.

Abe

I won’t go into the highly subjective and thoroughly flawed arguments Freedom uses as a basis to attack my intelligence

Cite please? I can’t find or remember ever attacking your intelligence, unless you consider the mere act of daring to disagree with you an insult.

If you will note, I was not pulling my hair out over the notion of excessive force. I was frustrated by your assertion that shooting someobody with a knife was excessive force.

It is exactly because of your highly subjective definitions that I support a decentralized decision making process.

RubberEntropy

If I’m not mistaken, that was Bernard Goetz. As far as I know he was charged because in the Republic of NYC it is illegal to defend yourself. He had the gall to carry a revolver without the city’s permission. The only thing he was charged with was posseion of the illegal gun. Had he not been attacked by 3 men with the intent to mug him, nobody would have known. Further, had he not been attacked 3 times in the recent past, he probably wouldn’t have been carrying a revolver.

Some criminal. Society was really served by locking him up for 6 months.

**mattk
**

Driving away in a car does not equal getting attacked by someone with a knife.

[Tornado_Siren]

What amazes me, is that an assumption is being made that the liberals want to ban all gun ownership by private citizens. Much in the same way that the conservatives in the chat rooms I go to keep saying “the liberals want to pay 70% taxes”. Why must people (both liberals and conservatives) always mention the extremes when discussing each other. Most liberals do not want to ban gun ownership altogether. They merely want a moderate amount of control.

[Freedom]

Abe Said:

. 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. **

[Fenris]

*Originally posted by Tornado Siren *
**Most liberals do not want to ban gun ownership altogether. They merely want a moderate amount of control. **

Then why are they NEVER satisfied. When the Brady Law passed, not one single anti-Second Ammendment group that I know of said “Well, we’ve got what we wanted, time to close up shop and find a new cause.”

Let’s face it. Since they can’t “sell” a complete gun-ban, most anti-Second Ammendment organizations will just continue to whittle away at one of the basic American freedoms.

Fenris

[Crusoe]

Freedom, did you actually read any of the links or just pick the quoted example? I was merely making a point that the concept of excessive force is commonplace in many countries.

[kabbes]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE *
**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…) **

Done and thanks. (He, BTW).

At the end of the day, if we all learn something from this then it’s worthwhile. Seems that’s the case.

Cheers, pal

pan

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by Freedom *
If I’m not mistaken, that was Bernard Goetz. As far as I know he was charged because in the Republic of NYC it is illegal to defend yourself. He had the gall to carry a revolver without the city’s permission. The only thing he was charged with was posseion of the illegal gun. Had he not been attacked by 3 men with the intent to mug him, nobody would have known. Further, had he not been attacked 3 times in the recent past, he probably wouldn’t have been carrying a revolver.

Wouldn’t it have been helpful to do a search on “Bernard Goetz” before posting, Freedom? That way, you might have gotten your facts straight. Goetz was charged with both attempted murder and assault, in addition to the firearms charge. The jury acquitted him of the more serious charges. You also seem to have forgotten the entire point of that controversy, which was that the four black kids he shot never attacked or directly threatened Goetz at all. They claimed that they were merely panhandling, although, after the shooting, they were found to have screwdrivers in their pockets.

Here’s one story from a NY news channel, http://www.channel4000.com/news/stories/news-960424-202812.html

You probably remember the Goetz story: It played on the darkest fears Americans harbor about crime and race. Goetz, a thin, middle-aged-aged white man, walked onto a Manhattan subway train on a December afternoon in 1984 and blasted four black teens with a handgun. He said he felt threatened by them, though he told a police interrogator his fear stemmed more from his victims’ “body language” than their words.

In fact, when he was arrested, the only words he recalled any of the teens saying to him prior to the shooting were, “How are you?”

In that same interrogation, Goetz admitted uttering what has become one of the most famous quotes in the English language, words he spoke just before firing a second round into victim Darrell Cobey: “You seem to be all right – here’s another.”

Note that this story says a grand jury refused to indict Goetz on attempted murder, although all the other stories I found said a jury found him not guilty, and that’s also my memory of the story.

[december]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**You also seem to have forgotten the entire point of that controversy, which was that the four black kids he shot never attacked or directly threatened Goetz at all. They claimed that they were merely panhandling, although, after the shooting, they were found to have screwdrivers in their pockets. **

In addition to the point described by MG, IIRC there were other points, including:

– Vigilanteism, pro or con
– Concern that an unstable person like BG was walking around with a loaded gun.
– Were they merely panhandling, or was BG faced with an implcit threat of bodily harm?
– As discussed earlier on this thread, BG couldn’t have defended himself against 4 thugs armed with screwdrivers. What option did he have, other than use a gun or allow himself to be robbed?
– If these 4 young men were carrying on a public mugging, and if that was comon occurrence on the NYC subway, how should society deal with the problem?
– Was BG a hero for dealing with a societal problem that was being ignored?

Incidentally at least one of the black kids sued BG and IIRC won a big judgment.

[minty_green]

Yep, a $43 million judgment. But Goetz is judgment-proof, i.e. broke. Darrel Cobey will never see a penny.

Of course, december is correct that the Goetz story played on a lot of issues related to crime. It was widely believed at the time that the reason the jury acquitted Goetz of attempted murder was because the jurors were themselves sick of NYC’s ridiculous 1980s crime rate.

But holding Goetz out as a shining example of the defensive use of a concealed handgun is flat-out wrong. Goetz never knew the kids were armed, with screwdrivers or anything else. By his own admission, they never said anything remotely threatening to him, and they certainly didn’t touch him. Then, after he had shot all four of them and ended any possibility that they were going to rob or otehrwise harm him, Goetz walked over and shot Darrel Cobey in the spine as he lay bleeding on the floor.

Under any civilzed system of criminal justice I can imagine, you don’t get to shoot people for looking at you the wrong way.

[system]

Regarding the OP,
Methinks computer hacking skills will be more useful than shooting guns skills.

For instance because of the todo in Florida in the last US election many US states are considering using electronic voting machines instead of paper ballots. Paper ballots can be recounted, electronic data can be changed with hacking skills and it cannot be recounted. With the proper hack presto changeo: Cult of the Dead Cow has a majority in the Senate.

And speaking of Cult of the Dead Cow, they are developing software which allows the people of China to access all sites on The Internet without Chinese Government intervention. Imagine that, billions of people with instant access to information that their government forbids and not a shot fired.