Again, you say this as if its meaningful. Its a personal value judgement…to YOU perhaps ‘recreation’ for a tool means it has a higher value than ‘weapon’. Its often surprising to people that their value judgements are different than other peoples.
Maybe to you ‘shooting things/animals/people’ is unimportant or valueless…and maybe guns serve more of a purpose than just those, or perhaps their purpose is more than simply shooting stuff.
At a guess, based on this statement alone, you are making a value judgement about a subject you actually have little real world experience with. Which is typical IMHO. I’ve found (purely anecdotal) that people who usually talk down to a subject (like folks who talk about gun control, or the evils of drug use, etc) generally actually have little personal experience with the actual subject…i.e. they never actually owned a gun (nor learned the proper care or handling of a gun), never actually used drugs, etc.
Thanks xtisme, I couldn’t have said it better. And I don’t really consider target shooting to be equated to violence. And while hunting animals is violence, it isn’t generally a threat to the human population (save accidents, which happen in many recreational activities that involve the outdoors.)
Because I feel that owning a gun is a natural right, I have a right to self-defense, I have a right to possess a firearm for other reasons too–like defense from wild life as well as for sport.
I’d give you the answers, but I’ve never made the argument you’re arguing against, sorry. I just said I view them as an essential element of liberty, not that I view them as such because they enable me to defend myself from the government.
Well, there you go…I’m warped. Why? Well, because you say so of course.
Does the word ‘strawman’ mean anything to you? Look it up sometime, ehe?
Well, I would…except I really don’t have any redneck buddies. But nice attempt there.
Its not just a hobby…nor was I making light of South Korea’s political struggles of the past (can I assume its your country of origin)? This is one of those ‘he who lives in glass houses’ moments though…with a side dish of irony. Made more so by the fact that you obviously don’t get it.
So you do believe a gun’s practical value is comparable to a car?
So tell me, what isn’t subjective then, ehe?
Nor I any “euro-buddies”.
You weren’t? So you genuinely believe rioting is any country’s “national past time”? Maybe I don’t get it, so explain it to me. What virtues does gun ownership have that it’s worth all the gun fatalities?
Yes, I believe that, objectively, they are both tools. The value, usefulness and necessity are based on the job to be done. If I’m hunting an animal, holding a revolution, or fending off a threat, then the gun will objectively be more of value to me than a car. If I need to go to the mall, drive to work, or otherwise need personal transportation, then the car is objectively the better tool for me to use.
Well, I could make a joke based on what you quoted from me and its tone…but I’ll try and answer while biting my tongue.
Values are subjective. What is of value to YOU is going to be different than what is of value to ME…and vice versa. This value judgement is going to be formed by our own cultures, mores, and life experiences. The history and culture especially of where and how we grew up is going to be a factor. You are making a judgement based on the fact that you obviously dislike and have no use for a gun. Fine. I’m not busting on you for that…its how you feel, its probably how you were raised. My objection is simply that you are attempting to shift your purely subjective valuation to some kind of yardstick objective projection of said value…as if your values are universal. They aren’t. They are subjective. As are my own btw. But I acknowledge that.
Oh…good one! Fair enough. You have no European friends and I have no red-neck friends.
Appologies. For the humor impaired (who also know a bit about Korea, especially South Korea in the 70’s and 80’s), this was a ‘joke’…it wasn’t meant to belittle South Korea in any way.
What virtue does gun ownership have? Besides the practical value as a weapon (that can be used for defense, to hunt, etc), a gun has a heavy symbolic value to American’s. Sort of like folks from Mozambique who put the AK-47 on their flag, our very existance as a country is heavily intertwined with personal gun ownership (in the case of Mozambique it was the near ubiquitous nature of AK-47’s in their country ). Much of our early history is wrapped up with personal gun ownership…and independence.
We have a tradition of gun personal firearms ownership that goes back longer than many modern countries have even existed for. This is hard for people from other countries to grasp…mostly because in general such personal firearms ownership was NEVER a tradition. It was always controlled, to a greater or lesser extent (when it wasn’t completely proscribed all together from the get go). In addition, I can’t think of many countries who link their very existance as a nation so intimately to the personal ownership of their firearms as America and American’s do.
So…you have tradition. You have the symbology. You have it ingrained into our culture. You have the practical aspects of the tool itself. And then you have a realitively minor death rate…comparable to the other evils of a modern, technological society. And this assumes that, if there were no guns, there would be no violence…no murders. :dubious: You see, there is another aspect of America thats being overlooked here in the focus on the evil gun as the root of murder in the US (and why we are so violent).
The gun is simply a tool…the violence I believe comes from the very thing that makes us strong. That is, we are a melting pot nation of mixed cultures often at odds with our own ethnic group…and other ethnic groups. Many other nations, compared to the US, are basically homogonous wrt culture and ‘race’. Oh, thats a broad brush, no doubt…but compared to the US its basically true. Its CHANGING in Europe (in parts of Europe)…and my guess is that the violence in those countries its most changing in will probably go up, guns or no guns (just a WAG on my part…nothing to back it up wrt cites atm).
You might be interested in this cite. It does a rough ranking of countries murders on a per capita basis. I bring this cite up just to illustrate that though the US is full of gun happy nutcases (according to some), though we stubornly insist on the rights originally granted us when our country was founded (the nerve! ), our per capita murder rate is only 0.042802 per 1,000 people (we are ranked 24th in the world)…and as shown by earlier cites our murder rate is actually going down (well, as of 2001…I assume the trend has continued though). And this for a country full of a VERY wide range of ethnic types and cultures, many times at odds with each other.
I’m not sure where you are going with this. I think most people have a fairly accurate perception of what might kill them, at least I do. For my age/sex/race group (Male, White, Age 18-25) statistically I think I am most likely to die from:
(1) Automotive Accident
(2) Suicide
(3) Homicide (most likely being shot)
(4) “Natural” causes (most likely heart related)
(5) “Freak” Accidents that depend more on me as an individual. In other words, since I haven’t been on a boat in 5 years, and likely won’t be on one in the future, I am unlikely to die from a boating accident.
I think I have sufficient concern for my well-being to be in favor of both reducing my chance of dying in car accident and being murdered.
I think a far compromise would be to ban hand guns. This preserves the ability of people to defend themselves in their home, while dramatically reducing the chances of me being murdered.
I believe you are in error…I DON’T think most people have a clear grasp of probability, and what is or is not most threatening to them. I could be wrong of course…but I doubt it.
And yet, as per earlier cites, your list here is off from a probability perspective. Assuming you are an American, and that you generally live (and eat) as most American’s do, your number 4 (though parsed) should be your number on (through probably 4), with even the auto accident being off the list (most likely). You are highly UNLIKELY, even if you are a white boy living in the inner city (unless you are also a drug dealer or in some other high risk, er, occupation) to be murdered (by a gun or otherwise). Nor is a freak accident likely…unless you are into extreme sports or something else dangerous (do you deep sea dive for instance?). Suicide also is unlikely…unless you have a history of that of course.
So…maybe you aren’t so unusual after all.
Here are the leading causes of death for American’s FWIW:
Suicide? (nearly made the top 10 btw)
We saw earlier what the number of deaths was for Automobile Accidents per year (42,518 in 2004) and murder (29,573 all types, 2001).
I don’t think this would be a fair compromise at all…in fact, I don’t think it would be a fair anything. But you are venturing into deep waters here and away from the OP.
And yet, the odds of you being murdered by a hand gun, or any other type of gun, are statistically less than for many other things. In fact, almost assuredly you WILL be killed (or die) by something other than a gun…with our without your proposed ban. At 29,573 (for all types of murder, per 2001), the odds of you being murdered at all are fairly remote…considering all the other things you are much more likely to die from of course.
So how many times have you used your gun to defend yourself (rather than shoot inanimate objects or defenseless animals) or participated in a revolution versus the number of times you’ve driven, or rode in a car?
Please don’t. Your zinger about those wacky rioting Korean was a real gas.
I think the desire to prevent needless death is universal. But you are saying the deaths are not needless, because it lets you keep your guns which your upbringing has taught you is more important. Am I getting this right?
Yeah, what’s funnier than people getting beaten to death? I’m obviously humor impaired because I didn’t find that funny.
So guns are needed to honor and remember a time when guns actually were practical. I see.
What practical use? Again, did you ever defend yourself with your gun? If so, wasn’t it because the other person had a gun?
No one said having no guns would end all violence (maybe you can set your strawman next to mine).
So are you saying you need your gun(s) to defend yourself from other ethnicities? Or at the very least you are saying that diversity inevitably leads to violence.
Your cite seems to indicate the United States has the most murders per capita out of all developed nations. Unless you count Poland as developed, I guess.
You aren’t looking at my age group. According to the CDC (Waring PDF), the causes of death for my age group are:
Unintentional injuries 44.3% (Assuming that this is mostly car accidents)
Homicide 19.7%
Suicide 14.8%
After that it’s nearly all natural medical causes or disease.
Well no kidding. I’m pretty sure that I am going to die regardless of the handgun situation. The most likely scenario is that I will grow old and eventually die of a heart related ailment. There is nothing I can do to stop that from eventually happening. On the other hand, if I die tomorrow the most likely statisitcal reason is that I was in an accident, and the 2nd is that I was murdered. When you divide deaths up into “natural” and “unnatural” causes, homicide becomes pretty significant. Most of those homicides are committed with firearms, and most of the firearms used are handguns.
Never. I’ve never used the air bags in my car either, nor needed to use the oxygen mask in a plane, nor (thus far) needed my life insurance policy. While I always put on my seat belt, I haven’t yet had the need to have it save me either.
Whats your point exactly? A gun will only be useful to defend myself if I actually used it to defend myself? But…you don’t want me to have a gun, so if I DID need it, I’d be fucked…right?
Perhaps I’m not following the thead of your logic here…
Humor is also subjective…obviously.
And yet we all (as humans) do things that are risky…all the time. What exactly IS ‘needless death’? Defined by whom? How? I could define someone getting killed while driving their car drunk (or under some other intoxicant) as ‘needless’…and I’d be right. Especially if the fool killed someone ELSE needlessly. Do we all do things to prevent this? Do we all desire this? If so, why do we continue with such risky behavior?
Perhaps its in the subjective nature of how we all perceive risk…and what is ‘needless’ to each of us.
Of COURSE you aren’t getting it right. You are attempting to straw man me, and you are emotional and snarky. Not a good combination.
:rolleyes: Well, one man’s humor is another mans, er, not humor. Or something. My apologies for your impairment. BTW, its not like I’m the first to use that joke…I actually cribbed it from somewhere else. Ironically, I THINK it was a Korean that first described the event in such a way…its called ‘black humor’ or ‘gallows humor’. You should really look into it. Maybe they have a 12 step program or something…
Quite obviously you don’t. I’m wasting my time with you I’ve realized.
No sense in responding to this again. I already gave you both practical and symbolic uses for private ownership of a gun. If you can’t wrap your mind around them then I can’t help you. Perhaps when you are looking for that 12 step humor impairment help course you could look for another one as well…
Well, I think my strawman has a bit less straw and more beef on its bones…but point conceded.
Partially so. I never said anything about needing guns to defend myself from other ethnicities…thats YOUR strawman. I did say, however, that having multiple intermingled ethnic groups on the scale of the US does lead to violence…with or without guns being in the equation. Do you disagree? If so, on what historical basis? (I’d make another joke at this point about Korea, China and Japan and historical examples, but I fear again you would fly off the handle…my jokes, while I find them humorous, often have an edge after all).
What can I say…obviously the point flew right past your head. I DID try…
I realize this wasn’t a question for me, but I’ve personally drawn my handgun twice. Once was when a man, high on something (meth I presume) opened my car door and threatened me with a knife. The second was in a parking lot adjacent to a bar. Since I carry, I don’t go into bars, or drink, but the place shared a parking lot with my jobsite. At any rate, a couple of drunks were apparently upset that my vehicle was parked nose to nose with theirs, and came over to whip my ass. After repeated warnings, they entered the personal space I’ve established as my comfort zone. Fortunately, in both cases the idiots, though intoxicated, had sense enough to turn and run.
I don’t like telling the stories, because I was scared shitless, but nonetheless, it does happen, and not always against someone with a gun.
And I realize that there are some people out there who would be passive and risk being hurt or killed in those circumstances. I, personally, will not.
At any rate, I am still around to be able to drive, and I’m thankful for that.
That’s the problem. The desire to prevent needless death is not universal. The reason we’re focused on guns is because of an agenda. Whatever the numbers are, we could prevent just as much needless death, if not more, by getting rid of cars, swimming pools, alcohol, tobacco, and McDonald’s. And, furthermore, the constitution does not protect any of those privlidges.
Again - breaking news - 63,999,9X0 guns didn’t kill anybody today. 81 people were murdered (by any means) and 295 law abiding citizens used a gun in self defense against a criminal, whether they pulled the trigger or not. 125 people died in car accidents.
All threats, foreign and domestic. The railroad killer passed 100 yards from my back door, before killing an elderly lady in Hughes Springs, TX. US Highway 59, extending from Houston to Canada, runs through my front yard; it’s a pretty bad drug route. Two years ago, when my elderly mother was home alone, someone tried to force their way into her front door. I made it there before the police, but whoever it was ran off. That’s just anecdotal stuff, from a pretty low-crime, rural area.
While I don’t foresee the US government needing an overthrow in the near future, I did listen to the police/military scanners out of New Orleans during Katrina. Listening to a few nights of that prompted me to go out and buy an M4 and C-mag. Natural disaster, dirty nuke, power outages, activation of terrorist cells, whatever, I’d like to be prepared. I have some firearms for defense, some specialized for hunting (I don’t care to hunt, but if push came to shove…) and one $2,500 piece that is pretty much just good for blasting clay birdies.
The ultimate point is, myself and the 65-or-so million other law abiding gun owners would rather not be lumped in with the relatively few nuts who run around and kill people. I don’t begrudge the fertilizer companies for the death toll at the Murrah Federal building, or Boeing for 9-11, so let’s not begrudge the tool for the acts of the person.
So r4nd0mNumb3rs the argument is, if it’s lacking in practical use, and causes death it needs to be banned.
Since you’ve accepted you get to define what has a practical use and what doesn’t, I’ll do the same, I’ve listed below common items I feel have no practical use, and through their regular use can cause death (and do):
-Alcohol
-Tobacco
-Sports cars
–In addendum, any and all cars used in professional racing of any kind, in addition, professional auto racing is likewise banned as it can cause deaths, and has
-Kayaks and any type of river raft which are used in recreational rafting activities (life boats and the like on ocean going vessels are of course okay.) This one may seem a bit harsh, but, just like guns, one doesn’t have any legitimate need for a river-going raft or kayak these days, the need just is not there as there are many better ways to traverse rivers and these things can in fact cause fatal accidents.
-Cruise ships - Totally unnecessary form of transportation and there have been prominent cases where they have lead to fatalities
-Motorcycles - You just can’t justify these to me, they are dangerous and there’s absolutely nothing that you can argue you HAVE to have a motorcycle to do, sorry.
I may add to this relatively small list later, after people have had time to start throwing out these items. I’d watch out if you own a jet-ski, speed boat, sail boat or the like, because I’m looking in to those now and am having trouble finding a practical use for any of those. And lets not forget ATVs.
Oh man, we’re all having a field day with strawmen aren’t we? You asserted that the practical value of a car and a gun was comparable. That was my reply.
Insurance from what anyway? Other gun owners?
So to you (subjectively) it’s not needless because of your hobbies and your perceived potential dangers, presumably other gun owners.
I’m the snarky one? Do you even read what you type? You have been insufferably arrogant and condescending throughout this whole discussion.
OK fine, you’re absolutely hilarious. Oh yeah I heard this joke about ‘niggers’ on TV by Chris Rock so I’ll go around telling that joke.
There’s nothing you’ve said that I can’t wrap my head around, so enough with the condescending bullshit.
So warring nations are equivalent to internal ethnic tension? Why do I need a historical basis to question your baseless statement anyway?
Yes it did, so please reiterate your point. Right now, all I’m getting is “gun ownership and the consequent violence is justified by tradition and the slim chance I’ll be attack.”
And Martin Hyde, none of those things are made for the sole purpose of violence (and symbolic value, if you wish).
Obviously as things stand in the US you do possess the “right” to own a gun but I get a sense when you say this that your “right” to own a gun, in your mind, extends beyond what is codified in our Constitution. Is that a fair assessment? If so and you lived in a country where this right did not legally exist you would still feel a gun was a fundamental right?
Not sure quite what you are on about here. I’m not sure my opinions matter for what I asked you as it is your opinions I am seeking. I believe you when you say that you personally view guns as an essential element of liberty but I do not know what that means or why you feel that way. If you’d care to elaborate I am genuinely interested.
Nothing you cite is used to do violence to others. You and others here keep harping on this haggard point.
That people CHOOSE to do things that are dangerous is not at question here. At question is when other people decide to take it upon themselves to do you harm.
The #1 tool for intentionally causing harm to others in the US are guns (handguns primarily). ALL other weapon attacks combined do not equal guns.
Drunk drivers are not seeking to go out and hurt someone. Criminally reckless sure but very few, if any, people get loaded then get in a car and think, “I’m going to go run some people over.”
People who smoke do it to themselves (and don’t start with second hand smoke…the science behind that is dubious at best…we can start another thread for that one). Even if you want to hang your hat on second hand smoke that has been legislated out of almost all public spaces and more are dropping off the list all the time.
I am fully aware that MOST people who handle a gun are likewise law abiding and have no intent to cause harm but for those who are intent on causing harm a gun is a primary choice. Not a car. Not a swimming pool. Not a cigarette. Not a motor boat.
To keep dancing around this point is disingenuous. Call a gun a tool but it is not like any other tool. Its primary purpose is to be lethal to others (be they human, animal, paper or beer cans).
I’ve already covered it, I don’t view it as the point. A death is a death is a death. Intent doesn’t matter. A drunk driver almost certainly doesn’t intend to kill someone, it was a stupid mistake. Doesn’t make their victims any less dead than a bank teller killed by a bank robber.
Intent matters if you’re trying to assign “moral value” to an act, or trying to determine criminal culpability, but from a “big picture” societal safety viewpoint, it doesn’t really matter that the intent of a drunk driver is not necessarily malicious while the intent of a gunman usually is–dead is dead. And alcohol, tobacco, and cars are all more dangerous than guns, and aside from cars you can’t give me one valid reason for people being allowed to smoke and drink that wouldn’t apply also to guns (because the only real reason is “people want to do it”–well sorry, but some people want to own guns.)
I’ll restate it for emphasis—so? And beer cans are inanimate and thus nothing can be lethal to them. I’ll agree, a guy that murders someone with a gun is probably a worse person than someone who kills someone else while drunk driving. But I’m not here to debate the relative morality of acts but to talk about their societal impact, and drunk driving and tobacco are much more lethal than guns. And second hand smoke is attributable in 38,000 deaths as claimed by the CDC, who I’ll support in this instance despite the frequent arguments smokers make trying to say that second hand smoke is safe, it isn’t. And the people who usually suffer the most for it are spouses and children.
I’m not saying this means anything, but in light of recent developments, it’s awfully interesting:
“Woo Bum-kon was a Korean police officer who carried out the worst incident of spree killing in known history, killing 58 (including himself), and wounding 35 in Gyeongsangnam-do, South Korea.”
Whack-a-Mole, I think your points are valid. However, by the same token, the #1 tool for defending one’s self against harm is the gun. If my figures are correct (and, to be honest, I have very little faith in statistics, but all the ones we’ve seen are from government sources and not right or left wing websites, so they’ll do for comparison) then it seems like guns are used to prevent crime more often than they’re used to commit it.
I mean, why do all these mass shootings happen in gun free zones? Courthouses and schools and, in some cases, churches. Why, if the ease of obtaining guns, or the “gun culture” is responsible for these killings, aren’t there mass shootings at the NRA conventions, or gun shows? My contention is that criminals, who I despise as much as you do, want easy targets. You know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a school is an easier target than, say, my house, because the people who live and work at that school have been disarmed.
My points about swimming pools and the like is merely to illustrate the bias against guns. To claim that the whole debate is about preventing unneccesary deaths, when it really isn’t, as those swimming pool deaths are unneccesary, is also disingenuous. Your point about swimming pools not being designed for violence is 100% right, it’s just that people aren’t outraged about those senseless deaths. Some people view guns as scary or evil, and so gun deaths are infinitely worse than other deaths.
The last thing I’ll say about it is this: we can’t put the genie back in the bottle. If I had my way, nuclear weapons would never have been invented. But they have, and so I want the US to have the most nukes. Likewise, guns would never have been invented (history would be interesting, I suppose). But, they’re here, and I’d just as soon the good guys have more of them than the bad guys. As much as I respect the police, they simply cannot protect us all the time. And, there may come a time when I need to hunt for my supper, so I like the knowledge that I could grow a garden, shoot a deer, and drink from a stream.
You asked the question about why we feel the way we do about our “right” to have a gun. Obviously, as you said, the Bill of Rights is an easy citation, but I’ll try to elaborate a little.
Fundamentally, I believe in a set of God-given rights, in much the same way the framers did. These are not vested by a nation, they supercede nationalities and races and all our artificial arrangements. The phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” means a lot to me, as I see those as fundamental. I should have the right to exist, and be free. I also believe in the fundamental right to defend myself. Sometimes I sit outside and watch the little critters. One squirril attacks another, and the attackee defends himself, rightly. Can’t blame him for that. Although there are nations that impede that right to one degree or another, I do hold that it’s a right of all people, regardless of nationality or ennumeration in a document. I think a person in England has just as much right to defend himself as a person in America, or China, or Pakistan, or the moon.
Giving up my guns, when there will still be guns out there that could be used against me, is tantamount to my giving up my right to defend myself. Sure, I could use a bat or knife, but I’d be an idiot to bring a knife to a gunfight. So, since the genie can’t go back in the bottle, I feel very strongly about keeping my firearms.
I’ve really enjoyed this whole thread. Although our opinions may be polar opposites, it’s fascinating to hear your point of view, and others. Even if none of this changes any minds, I hope it leads away from the pure black and white thinking.
Intent matters because what is the tool you are most likely to use to carry out your intent? In the case of an intent to do violence to others a gun is the #1 choice. I doubt many people have been attacked and forced to swallow a gallon of vodka or smoke a carton of cigarettes.
Guns are a tool to impose your will upon me (“your” in a general, could be anyone sense). Alcohol, cigarettes, cars, pools, cruise ships…none of those are a tool for that. Not only is it an imposition towards me but about as final an imposition as you can get by trying to deprive me of my life or at the least threaten me with the loss of my life to get me to do whatever it is you want.
Arguing that other things are far more likely to kill me does not help because I find the notion of someone coming at me with a gun repugnant. Nothing good will come of it
The beer can thing was just meant to lighten the tone. I can only hope you believe I understand that beer cans are not sentient…at least not till you have emptied a case or more into yourself (kidding).
Again it is not about the morality of the acts. Nor is it about their societal impact. A gun is an implicit threat in a way few things are. You have one, I don’t, should we meet that threat exists even if you don’t wave your gun at me. If I get a gun to even things up I am not sure the situation is much improved. I am in no way threatened by your car.
And as for smoking for the sake of this argument I’ll concede your point on second hand smoke. The government has been passing anti smoking legislation left and right and applied staggering sin taxes to them as well. So if you agree that this is a good thing to be done to a clearly dangerous item then it seems reasonable that you should agree something similar should be done to guns which are also a dangerous item.
Again, you say this as if its meaningful. Its a personal value judgement…to YOU perhaps ‘recreation’ for a tool means it has a higher value than ‘weapon’. Its often surprising to people that their value judgements are different than other peoples.
). Much of our early history is wrapped up with personal gun ownership…and independence.