Guns: Good or Bad? [Archive]

Lee

20 Apr 2006, 04:14 PM

What is your knowledge on this subject derived from?The percentage of male deaths as a result of homocide in primitive societies dwarf that of mordern western cities, in some cases more than 50% of all male deaths are a result of homocide, even in the more peaceful peoples, homocide is behind 5-10% of male deaths. Contrast this with mordern American cities, where only about 1% of males die at the hands of another. The interesting thing about these primitive hunter-gatherers is that they have 0% rate of gun ownership.

If you want a graphic and interesting description I suggest Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches by Marvin Harris, I think his explanation of why the violent habits of primitive people exist is flawed, but his depiction of the Yanomamo peoples of South America is of a brutal people.

Apparently, the average medievil Briton was about 20 times more likely to be the victim of murder than the average mordern Briton, despite there being absolutely no guns in medievil Briton.

Today, Switzerland, New Zealand and Finland are all examples of nations with high rates of gun ownership, but low crime rates. Even if there is a loose correlation, the assumption that more guns cause more crime is still a non-sequitor, are people buying more guns in response to higher crime rates? or are they buying guns and increasing the crime rate? why do some cultures have lower crime rates despite high gun ownership rates and can others replicate it? are gun control laws ethically acceptable? should the police have a monopoly with firearm use? these are all valid questions and problems rarely addressed.

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 04:15 PM

Neither. They are a tool, like knives, like fire, like splitting the atom. It all depends how you use it.

There are such things as good tools and bad tools, yes?
Therefore, would you consider a gun to be a bad tool, or does it just depend on the context? In other words, can a gun be used for good?
There are ways in which to use tools for purposes of "good," or purposes of, "bad," Yes? For example, screw driver turning screw...good; screwdriver in eye...bad.

(sorry mg, it just seems like you are laying low--coupled with the fact that I am bored)

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 04:16 PM

Neither. They are a tool, like knives, like fire, like splitting the atom. It all depends how you use it.What is a justified reason for the use of guns ?

kuranes

20 Apr 2006, 04:30 PM

* wishes Chicago didn't have such a strict rule about handguns * Impossible to get a "conceal and carry" permit . . . . .unless, of course, you don't care about the law.

This one wheelchair bound guy I met was frequently the target of gang bangers until he decided to ignore the "ordinance" against guns. He dared the authorities to jail him, because he knew it would be bad PR for them to put him away. A woman I met with him was a member of the "sisters of the second amendment" and had a very heavy purse. They were trying to encourage residents of Chicago to all bring guns to the summer festivals as a protest against the law.

A guy in Wilmette ( northern suburb, but still in jurisdiction ) kept getting robbed by this one burglar. One night he shot the burglar when the burglar showed up while he was at home, and threatened him. Guess who it was that got in the most legal trouble? It became such a newspaper cause celebre that they finally "pardoned" him, with a warning and maybe some small fines.

I realize that you're not likely to be able to get at your gun quickly enough if surprised by a cat burglar in the middle of the night. But not all attackers are cat burglars.

You'd be surprised how many people there are out there these days who will threaten to kick your door down in broad daylight and go after you with a baseball bat or worse. I knew a guy like that. I lived upstairs from a drug dealer who was always playing loud rap music at night. You'd think he'd want to keep a low profile or something, but his attitude instead was to try to intimidate everyone around him in the building so that they would just avoid/ignore him and say nothing. He had a pitbull that lived outside his patio door and it would lunge at anyone who who came near, including kids. People who complained about him got their cars vandalized, and 2 AM threats, which was when he was most active. He had a bunch of wanna be biker friends who were often hanging around too. I don't think they were a "real" gang. Everybody with tats up to their shoulders, who looked to spend a good portion of their spare time lifting weights.

He stopped giving me a hard time when I "accidentally" let him see the shoulder holstered .357 on my way out to the parking lot one day. Maybe he thought I was a plain clothes U.S. marshall or something.

abathur

20 Apr 2006, 04:33 PM

Dom

20 Apr 2006, 04:37 PM

Guns are NOT an equalizer, they just create a new power imbalance that requires escalation.

Bang on!

Give the police guns, crooks want bigger guns, so then you give police body armour, crooks get even bigger guns, so then you give police even bigger guns, crooks try to get even biggerer guns.... etc etc etc

If a burglar, know it is unlikly that the person owning the house they are about to burgle has a gun, then he is unlikely to feel the need for one himself, if he thinks it's highly like he is going to get a gun first, he is not going to not commit the crime.

Who brought the gun into the equation, the burgler or the fact he expects his target to have one?

Rarely do people get shot where one protagaist has a gun and the other doesnt. Often do they get shot where both do.....

Even less do people get shot if neither have.

The US proportionaly has a far higher gun crime rate, than most nations wher ethe police force isn't armed as standard.

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 04:42 PM

--Lee,
Do you accept the possibility that other factors are involved when creating a correlation between primitive and medieval societies versus that of the modern day civilization--with regards to crime, and rates of crime? Yes, of course...right? In other words, could not the evolution of laws, courts, and the increased ability to in-force laws be an important consideration. There is also the issue of access to victims, which limits the opportunity to commit a crime when discussing the ancient versus the modern.

I studied New Zealand, with regards to the gun-control issue, some years ago, and recall that numerous factors, other than per capita gun ownership, at hand when determining crime causation in New Zealand. (I could pull the work out, although I suspect it would find little interest.) However, I read a book titled, "More Guns, Less Crime," that you would enjoy, since the author is a libertarian thinker. The most interesting aspect of the book, in my opinion, was the discussion of the "hot crime" rate in Britain and the natural instinct to under-represent one crime rate for political and economic purposes, which he had discovered first hand while studying gun crime rates in Britan. This, I think, is an important fact.

Can I summarize your position (if I am reading you correctly) by stating that you believe without guns, individuals would locate, or create, other weapons to suit the interests of their malign nature?

Shimpei

20 Apr 2006, 04:48 PM

I don't feel like reading all the previous posts, so maybe I'll repeat some posters' opinion: using a weapon for self-defense is justified.
So not necessarily bad, after all.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 04:51 PM

I studied New Zealand, with regards to the gun-control issue, some years ago, and recall that numerous factors, other than per capita gun ownership, at hand when determining crime causation in New Zealand. (I could pull the work out, although I suspect it would find little interest.) However, I read a book titled, "More Guns, Less Crime," that you would enjoy, since the author is a libertarian thinker. The most interesting aspect of the book, in my opinion, was the discussion of the "hot crime" rate in Britain and the natural instinct to under-represent one crime rate for political and economic purposes, which he had discovered first hand while studying gun crime rates in Britan. This, I think, is an important fact.

The "hot crime" rate in Britain is no more than the U.S..When Britan had lots of guns after ww2 the crime rate was not any lower.

Dom

20 Apr 2006, 04:52 PM

--Lee

Actually, wading into this debate here some more, Lee? what are you reliying on for establishing the true crime rate of a dark age/medieval/early modern periods? The records are far far from complete or perfect even the azziure records form teh early modern period are damaged and incomplete, and there is little accurate way to measure or guess at the unreported crime, it is often considered that these periods were not as violent as we generally believe.

Even looking at fiction (Shakespear) we see that Elizabethan England would have no diffculty understanding people having to run away (exile, Romeo if you like) to avoid the reprocussions of their actions, which would suggest that a lot of crime was solved or resolved?

I just fear that there is insufficent evidence to compare national crime rates of any preindustrial era (considering early modern had guns thats not really a fair starting point either) with the much more accurate information that we have for today or recent history?

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 04:56 PM

Eh. A people shouldn't just be mentally prepared to overthrow their government if it isn't serving them, they should be properly armed to do so.

I can't imagine you're going to revolt with stones, are you? IMO the right to bear arms is roughly as important as the right to free speech if a populace is to maintain some semblance of control over its government.

I think you need to consider the historical context of the Amendment to which you are referring. And for the citizens of the US to overthrow the US government, it's going to take more than a few rifles and handguns...don't you think. In other words, private militias tend to be dismantled in the US, rather quickly...therefore, to truly be competitive, you need to start contacting your own tank, armor, and air craft battalions. Starts to feel absurd, yes. Especially when a privatized military organizations are considered, and labeled, terrorists.

dubbeltop

20 Apr 2006, 04:58 PM

Guns dont kill people bullets kill people word!! dont need guns people need to be free and happy and have plenty of opportunities to express themselves and be able to love and give love. Any man or woman will give up her guns for a full and rewarding life without violence and hate. So adress the cause of gun crimes and make society free of guns. Just walk away and maybe tomorrow will be a better day.

edit :off topic sry

edit in my countries its illegal to form private militias but the gun crimes are on the increase due to drug related killings. ah well

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 05:03 PM

. And for the citizens of the US to overthrow the US government, it's going to take more than a few rifles and handguns...don't you think.

If every one in the US took there guns to the White House, Bush would fall.

Dom

20 Apr 2006, 05:03 PM

So adress the cause of gun crimes and make society free of guns.

Dead right!

Lee

20 Apr 2006, 05:04 PM

I just fear that there is insufficent evidence to compare national crime rates of any preindustrial era (considering early modern had guns thats not really a fair starting point either) with the much more accurate information that we have for today or recent history?I can't remember my source on that fact, though I have been left with the impression that I trusted that source. Anyway, while I am sure any comparing of statistics is imperfect, I am also sure that you can't explain away such a large disparity by appealing to imperfect records, for such a huge difference to exist would require that the records were not only imperfect, but downright false.

Dom

20 Apr 2006, 05:04 PM

If every one in the US took there guns to the White House Bush would fall.

No alot of people would be killed..............

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 05:07 PM

The "hot crime" rate in Britain is no more than the U.S..When Britan had lots of guns after ww2 the crime rate was not any lower.

Well, I am citing 10 year old studies, but the fact remains that "hot crimes" are more prevalent in Britain then the US for obvious reasons. If you have newer data, then please share, since I obviously enjoy this topic.

(Hot Crime= one with a gun choosing a victim which s/he knows does not have a gun. With less gun-control, therefore, the expectation of a victim being armed has increased--however, it is not necessarily proportional, hence the argument.)

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 05:08 PM

No alot of people would be killed..............Yes, but if most people wanted to overthrow the US government it would happen with just guns.

mr. treat

20 Apr 2006, 05:08 PM

i don't really give a crap about the constitution, or the violence due to guns, or any other "universal morality meter declination" because of guns. they are fun to shoot, therefore i like them.

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 05:09 PM

If every one in the US took there guns to the White House, Bush would fall.

My point was that they would not get that far.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 05:09 PM

Well, I am citing 10 year old studies, but the fact remains that "hot crimes" are more prevalent in Britain then the US for obvious reasons. If you have newer data, then please share, since I obviously enjoy this topic.

What would you call "hot crimes"?

booyalab

20 Apr 2006, 05:10 PM

guns are obviously not a good thing, so I chose bad..since that was the only other option. but if we did away with them this world wouldn't exactly turn into happy sunshine rainbow land.

libertarianjim

20 Apr 2006, 05:10 PM

Good. An armed society is a polite society, as the saying goes.

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 05:13 PM

What would you call "hot crimes"?
It is in my post below what you quoted. Damn INTP, read the whole thing.

Dom

20 Apr 2006, 05:13 PM

I can't remember my source on that fact, though I have been left with the impression that I trusted that source. Anyway, while I am sure any comparing of statistics is imperfect, I am also sure that you can't explain away such a large disparity by appealing to imperfect records, for such a huge difference to exist would require that the records were not only imperfect, but downright false.

As I'm not aware of the exact figures being suggested I can readily defend my position. I do know that for someone to do this piece of work accurately for just a single era, considering the difficulties with the sources, is the work of a lifetime.

To cover the whole country is a huge task, even to small part of it would be very difficult (usign proper historical methods) I hope his estimates are not based on a small area and then multiplied up? After all we can't accurately even define the population of the nation in these time periods! ALso using a sample is terrible in this type of history as the differences between one area and another really were huge.

Could you imagine looking at the records for an innercity area and then just multiplying up for the country??

As I said if you would let mw know who your source is, I'd like to look it up. I stand by my point that most historians agree that people think the past was mroe violent than it really was and that murders etc, were incredably rare.

In a patriarchal society few people go missign without soemone noticing...

kendoiwan

20 Apr 2006, 05:14 PM

Show me a gun that shot someone, and I'll show you a car that crashed itself.

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 05:16 PM

Good. An armed society is a polite society, as the saying goes.

Tell that to the Texans in the 19th century, or anywhere that whites had guns and Native American's--or anyone else for that matter--did not.

booyalab

20 Apr 2006, 05:18 PM

Tell that to the Texans in the 19th century, or anywhere that whites had guns and Native American's--or anyone else for that matter--did not.
he means an armed society is polite to each other, of course that's assuming that small children are allowed to carry guns too.

Dom

20 Apr 2006, 05:18 PM

Yes, but if most people wanted to overthrow the US government it would happen with just guns.
still be a lot of dead people and awful lot and I still don't htink youd win, it all depends on the where the military stood.....

libertarianjim

20 Apr 2006, 05:18 PM

Tell that to the Texans in the 19th century, or anywhere that whites had guns and Native American's--or anyone else for that matter--did not.

And if they had guns, the white people would have been a bit more polite.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 05:19 PM

It is in my post below what you quoted. Damn INTP, read the whole thing.
:huh: All I wanted to know is what a hot crime is, no crime is hot. :lol:

Edmond Zedo

20 Apr 2006, 05:19 PM

It's complicated. If one had superpowers, and could eliminate guns forever, it may have merit. There is the downside even then that they're an equalizer. Mr. Burly would have trouble kidnapping Miss Skinnypants if she shot him.

But outlawing guns is just retarded.

Dom

20 Apr 2006, 05:20 PM

guns are obviously not a good thing, so I chose bad..since that was the only other option. but if we did away with them this world wouldn't exactly turn into happy sunshine rainbow land.

No ones saying it owuld, however I'm harder to kill if you can't shoot me (even if only marginally) and you have to get alot closer!

I wonder if crimes would take up archery???

Lee

20 Apr 2006, 05:20 PM

Can I summarize your position (if I am reading you correctly) by stating that you believe without guns, individuals would locate, or create, other weapons to suit the interests of their malign nature?Not really.

My position is this:

Murder rates and gun ownership are inconsistent, so we must look for other factors that can explain why this incongruity exists.
A relationship between gun ownership and murder/crime rates does not imply that increased gun ownership is the cause of increased murder/crime rates. People tend to arm themselves in situations where already high crime rates exist, so gun ownership may be a response to crime, not the cause.
It's not that I believe that "without guns, individuals would locate, or create, other weapons to suit the interests of their malign nature," we all know this for a fact, guns are not necessary for violence, if people didn't have access to guns then they will use or invent other weapons (why do you think people invented the gun in the first place!).
There are clear relationships between falling crime rates and increased gun ownership, particularly burglary rates. Even if we discoverd tomorrow that more guns caused more crime, that doesn't justify gun control laws. For example, we could subject each member of society to psychological testing, determine those who are likely to commit crime and force them to take medication to reduce violent or criminal behaviours, I am confident that'd you see a drop in crime rates, but does that justify it?

Even if the number of guns in a country directly influences crime rates, this doesn't mean that anybody should be able to take another persons right to own a gun.

Dom

20 Apr 2006, 05:21 PM

And if they had guns, the white people would have been a bit more polite.

No we werent, by the end they give have guns, before the us soem had guns armed by one nation or the other to assist in some war........

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 05:21 PM

And if they had guns, the white people would have been a bit more polite.

:rofl: Or, more hesitant.
Nice one.

MacGuffin

20 Apr 2006, 05:21 PM

What is a justified reason for the use of guns ?Killing things, or threatening to kill things.

There are such things as good tools and bad tools, yes?
No, inanimate objects are not inherently good or bad.

And...
You can overthrow the government with only guns. You don't need tanks and planes.

Dom

20 Apr 2006, 05:22 PM

Even if the number of guns in a country directly influences crime rates, this doesn't mean that anybody should be able to take another persons right to own a gun.

Who the heck said anyone had a right to own a lethal weapon????

Born with it were you?

Balls.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 05:23 PM

still be a lot of dead people and awful lot and I still don't htink youd win, it all depends on the where the military stood.....
There would be a awful lot of dead people but he would fall. Just like the The Russian Revolution overthrew the czarist government.

MacGuffin

20 Apr 2006, 05:24 PM

Who the heck said anyone had a right to own a lethal weapon????
LOL, we actually put that one in writing!

papertrail

20 Apr 2006, 05:25 PM

in world ruled by guns one is just as likely to save my life as it is to take it. even based on those tenuous odds i'll say guns are good because i would never be the first to give them up.

i’m speaking both personally and universally.

Lee

20 Apr 2006, 05:25 PM

Who the heck said anyone had a right to own a lethal weapon????

Born with it were you?

Balls.I could suffocate you with a pillow, a pillow is potentially a lethal weapon... by your "logic" we should ban pillows.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 05:28 PM

Killing things, or threatening to kill things.

How do you justified that other than being in war,I dont think you can.

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 05:29 PM

Killing things, or threatening to kill things.

No, inanimate objects are not inherently good or bad.

And...
You can overthrow the government with only guns. You don't need tanks and planes.

Ooo semantics...I think you understand my point.
And, someone else made the same comment and I addressed it below. Kisses.

MacGuffin

20 Apr 2006, 05:31 PM

How do you justified that other than being in war,I dont think you can.
Self-defense. Hunting.

MacGuffin

20 Apr 2006, 05:34 PM

Ooo semantics...I think you understand my point.
And, someone else made the same comment and I addressed it below. Kisses.
I understood your point, but we are discussing the object(s) themselves.

Othewise:

Reading a book = good.

Smashing someone in the face with same book = bad.

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 05:34 PM

There would be a awful lot of dead people but he would fall. Just like the The Russian Revolution overthrew the czarist government.

The difference is that the US has a history of making minor concessions to retain stability and maintain order. Where as Russia--and I think Claverhouse can be more help here--had a super-majority of disenfranchised and marginalized citizenry relative to that of the US. But it is a fun comparison...I will admit.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 05:34 PM

Self-defense. If there was no guns you could use Self defense without guns.

MacGuffin

20 Apr 2006, 05:36 PM

If there was no guns you could use Self defense without guns.
You ignored hunting. Guns make self-defense easier. I am far more comfortable with aiming a gun than I am in my knife-fighting skillz.

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 05:37 PM

I understood your point,

And I, yours.

MacGuffin

20 Apr 2006, 05:37 PM

And I, yours.
:banana:

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 05:38 PM

The difference is that the US has a history of making minor concessions to retain stability and maintain order. That was not my point, my point was if you want to get rid of a government you can with just guns.

Kljoki

20 Apr 2006, 05:39 PM

I agree but as this is not really black and white then does this place them on the good side? I think in comparison to other methods of warfare etc then guns are both weaker and more precise. They allow a flexible approach that many weapons do not. Therefore in the arena of what they are for, I reckon they are good. I was thinking more on the lines of investment versus return ratio. The amount of "good" invested in a gun is lower then the amount of "good" it produces. Currently. But it can change. For instance, a government with a lower then 1 "good" ratio changes. Cattle, before we tamed them, had a relatively low, but >1 "good" ratio. After we tamed them, their ratio soared through the roof. They became worshiped and stuff. The same is for other high ratio stuff.

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 05:43 PM

That was not my point, my point was if you want to get rid of a government you can with just guns.

You could...past tense. And if you are refering to some small island, which does not have resources that another nation wants to protect, then yes...you could.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 05:45 PM

You ignored hunting.

I am not a fan of hunting humans or any other animal.

I am far more comfortable with aiming a gun than I am in my knife-fighting skillz.
You are less likely to die from knives .

Lee

20 Apr 2006, 05:52 PM

Give the police guns, crooks want bigger guns, so then you give police body armour, crooks get even bigger guns, so then you give police even bigger guns, crooks try to get even biggerer guns.... etc etc etcYour reasoning is actually "bang off," there is no criminal organisation - nevermind ordinary criminal - that can match the police's power like that, the police have back up, cars, riot vans, trained assault teams, boats, helicopters, detectives, forensic scientists, access to the most hightech equipment available, you may notice that criminals do not.

Most of the escalation of weaponary does not happen between the police and criminals, generally criminals just want to remain off the police's radar, threatening or killing the police is a big problem, they also know that the police will avoid shooting at them unless absolutely necessary, if they are unarmed then they will only be put in prison instead of the morgue.

The escalation occurs between rival criminals, who can't call upon the police to protect them, so gun ownership is necessary to equalize the groups, otherwise one groups can exercise its power over the other with impunity.

If a burglar, know it is unlikly that the person owning the house they are about to burgle has a gun, then he is unlikely to feel the need for one himself, if he thinks it's highly like he is going to get a gun first, he is not going to not commit the crime.Again, your reasoning is flawed.

When a burglar enters a home where he knows the occupant is unarmed, he may feel it less necessary to arm himself with a gun, but he will always desire the upper hand, so a knife or a gun are certainly preferrable to nothing. As long as the criminal has the advantage, then the risk of the crime is less and more possible criminal acts become profitable.

When law enforcement cannot be guarunteed, the homeowner will have little choice but to deter potential burglars by equaling their weapon of choice, eventually escalating into gun ownership. Once gun ownership is mutual, the risks are huge to both the burglar and the homeowner, so many, many potential burglaries are no longer worth the risks involved, therefore reducing crime.

There have been cases where burglary rates have dropped as much as 70% in a year when gun ownership became legalised and common in homes, though you'll have to forgive me for being unable to remember the name of the city in question.

The problem is with other crimes and social circumstances, there are circumstances where criminals - particularly young men - should discount the future strongly, where huge risks become part of ordinary life, so guns do not offer a powerful enough deterrent. We can see this dynamic in those primitive societies I mentioned earlier, where life is short and uncertain, huge risks could bring huge rewards and even guns will fail to reduce crime.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 05:53 PM

You could...past tense. And if you are refering to some small island, which does not have resources that another nation wants to protect, then yes...you could.
I still don`t think so, it has nothing to do with resources.

MacGuffin

20 Apr 2006, 05:53 PM

I am not a fan of hunting humans or any other animal.Come on! It's fun!

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/icetstg.jpeg

You are less likely to die from knives .Esp. if I have a gun.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 05:59 PM

Come on! It's fun!

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/icetstg.jpeg
No it not.

Esp. if I have a gun.
:boohoo:

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 06:04 PM

Your reasoning is actually "bang off," there is no criminal organisation - nevermind ordinary criminal - that can match the police's power like that, the police have back up, cars, riot vans, trained assault teams, boats, helicopters, detectives, forensic scientists, access to the most hightech equipment available, you may notice that criminals do not.

Most of the escalation of weaponary does not happen between the police and criminals, generally criminals just want to remain off the police's radar, threatening or killing the police is a big problem, they also know that the police will avoid shooting at them unless absolutely necessary, if they are unarmed then they will only be put in prison instead of the morgue.

The escalation occurs between rival criminals, who can't call upon the police to protect them, so gun ownership is necessary to equalize the groups, otherwise one groups can exercise its power over the other with impunity.

So why do the police not want guns in the UK then.

distraction tactics

20 Apr 2006, 06:04 PM

I'm pretty much clear-cut down the middle.

Small arms can be a useful tool for asserting one's rights which might be otherwise trampled, but if everyone walked around with a gun, it would be a massive prisoner's dilemma - fine if everyone played by the rules, but likely to end up in the worst-case scenario.

I think the global arms trade is sick.

I think gun registration is inanity in the extreme.

Firearms discourage some types of crime, but it's made up in gun-related crimes. For example, gun crime is off the charts in the US, but property crimes and aggravated assaults are higher in Canada.

Most gun crimes are commited by male, urban, minority youths. Period. Until those problems are solved (never) most gun crime will come out of that sector.

I grew up in a household with about 20-25 firearms. Out of those, about 2-4 are used by my dad (.22, .22 magnum, .243, .270). Learned to handle them when I was about five, hunted, target-shot, etc. They're fun, but I don't own any.

Definitely more hype than substance surrounding the issue.

Lee

20 Apr 2006, 06:05 PM

So why do the police not want guns in the UK then.Many of them do.

There are rising rates of gun crime in the UK, because criminals have little reason to pay attention to gun control laws. Besides, the police do have access to firearms, just not directly, if a criminal is armed and threatening to use it, those armed police officers are immediately called out.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 06:06 PM

I think the global arms trade is sick.

So do I.

mr. treat

20 Apr 2006, 06:06 PM

Come on! It's fun!

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/icetstg.jpeg

dammit ice-t, you can't die here!! you're a survivor!!

cafe

20 Apr 2006, 06:11 PM

Personally, I find guns scary and distasteful.

I think the Civil War made it pretty clear that the US government no longer honored the principles behind our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Theoretically, the government could be overthrown. It would be hard to do simply because it's hard to get word out to enough people to do it without raising the attention of the powers that be. The gov is a far cry from perfect, but I think it is still representative of enough people at this point that will and numbers to overthrow it isn't there.

As to whether guns should be banned, as much as I dislike them, the bad guys can still get them easily, so it seems reasonable that law-abiding citizens should be able to get them legally and easily. That's probably self-perpetuating, though.

I'd have to be pretty hungry before I'd hunt, but in the US hunting is important. Some people still rely on it as a food source and we are still overpopulated with deer in a lot of areas. 200 people die in car/deer collisions each year and I imagine without hunting it would be higher. I guess we could reintroduce predators, but personally, I'd rather not.

Guns are a necessary evil. And I guess evil = bad. So voting bad.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 06:13 PM

Many of them do.

More don`t. I think it is what the public think they should.

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 06:18 PM

Most gun crimes are commited by male, urban, minority youths. Period.

Now there's another fun topic.
If that is true, then why is it true?

tinribz

20 Apr 2006, 06:19 PM

Guns are cool I've had a few and wish I still did.

Semi auto rifles >.22 were banned in the UK about 20 years ago after someone went on the rampage in their village with an assault rifle, AK I think, well seriously out gunning the police anyway.

All hand guns except single shot sporting were banned not long after when some tw@t shot about a dozen kids in a primary school cos no one liked him.

Since the bans there has been nothing approaching a similar level of carnage induced by an individual. There seems to be a trend towards samurai swords but the results are not as lethal and the perpetrators are usually over powered.

Obviously there are robberies and gang violence involving guns but I'd say it was pretty conclusive evidence of effective control minimizing the loss of innocent lives, ergo guns are bad. That’s not even considering the accidents with kids finding their parents guns.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 06:21 PM

Now there's another fun topic.
If that is true, then why is it true?
Discrimination.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 06:25 PM

xavierd

20 Apr 2006, 06:48 PM

Bang on!

Give the police guns, crooks want bigger guns, so then you give police body armour, crooks get even bigger guns, so then you give police even bigger guns, crooks try to get even biggerer guns.... etc etc etc

So let the cops have no guns and the crooks will politely leave their guns at home?! HAHAHAHA!!!! You're kidding right?!

If a burglar, know it is unlikly that the person owning the house they are about to burgle has a gun, then he is unlikely to feel the need for one himself, if he thinks it's highly like he is going to get a gun first, he is not going to not commit the crime.

Who brought the gun into the equation, the burgler or the fact he expects his target to have one?

I have to disagree. A burgler looks for easy targets, he is more likely to break into a house that he believes is unarmed than one that he knows is armed.

The way I look at it is I have the right to protect my property, my person, and my family with any means necessary, so if that means I need to use a gun so be it. A gun is a tool and can be used for good or bad. Gun control makes no sense to me. So you are going to put these laws in place that restrict who can have a gun...ok so you put this law in place but the only people that will abide by this law are law abiding citizens. Criminals do not follow the law! That is the definition of a criminal. So now you have taken away the populaces ability to defend itself. The populace has no guns but the criminals do...thanks a lot...I feel much safer now.

No Blunts

20 Apr 2006, 07:03 PM

Why debate on hearsay and not the actual stats? I have no respect for the UK, planing gps in cars, national id, etc.

http://guncite.com/

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 07:05 PM

I have no respect for the UK, planing gps in cars, national id, etc.

What has that got to do with guns?
If you want to start a thread on why new labour suck go on then.

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 07:06 PM

A burgler looks for easy targets, he is more likely to break into a house that he believes is unarmed than one that he knows is armed.

I think a bugler seeks the largest amount of benefits with the least amount of risk and effort that is perceived to be possible. If, for example, the victim can help facilitate this goal of the assailant, then the risk may be worth the reward, especially if one knows the victim is unarmed ("open the safe...bitch,"or "Where is the jewelry and silver,"etc.) It clearly makes the duration of the crime allot shorter.

What I think is also interesting--or trajic...depending on your vantage point--is that the evolution of credit cards, and plastic money, has forced small time burbler's to seek lower middle-class neighborhoods as targets, since they are the ones most likely to have cash on hand--a sad turn of events.

ptGatsby

20 Apr 2006, 07:08 PM

I wish I could find the study, but there was a really good paper on the effects of guns in a country.

The basic conclusion is that the types of crime change depending on the ability for the average person to have a gun.

There is no particular correlation to the amount of guns and crime; The US is generally violent, for example, and crime is high regardless of gun regulations across the country. Guns don't make the US violent specifically; there are a lot of peaceful places with a lot higher gun ownership comparably.

In Europe, you have somewhat more 'crime'; it just is less violent (swarming, fighting). All in all, a less 'polite' society where things escalate easily. The criminology explanation is that its easy to escalate for a lack of fear of retribution.

Banning guns typically leads to an increase in overall crime and a lowering of specific violent crimes (murder, etc).

IOW, guns increase the severity but decrease the quantity; lack of guns decrease the severity but increase the quantity. Its one of the main reasons, IMO, this argument is never resolved. Doesn't help that its an emotional topic to begin with...

th!nkstyle

20 Apr 2006, 07:09 PM

Gun are everywhere=usa
pretty much no guns relatively speaking=canada

I have many reasons I would not want to live in us, but rather canada , guns is probably the number one reason.

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 07:16 PM

Why debate on hearsay and not the actual stats? I have no respect for the UK, planing gps in cars, national id, etc.

Because stats are not always factual. They may even be rarely factual.
However, as you have identified (I think), there is an inherent need to have outside sources gather and analyze data, since your town, city, state, or country researching itself will typically result in a "safe," or safer then the next, outcome. Therefore, outside sources hold a greater amount of legitimacy, in my opinion.

xavierd

20 Apr 2006, 07:21 PM

Gun are everywhere=usa
pretty much no guns relatively speaking=canada

I have many reasons I would not want to live in us, but rather canada , guns is probably the number one reason.
That's interesting because I would rather live where there are guns...mostly in regards to my previous post. I think a lot of people's fear of guns is due to a lack of understanding, perhaps that isn't the right word...I have grown up around guns, my father has guns and taught me at an earlier age how to handle them safely and to respect them. I think what happens is that people who are not used to guns, who have not been exposed to them, project the fear of violence onto these weapons. The weapon becomes the source of violence rather than just a tool. I don't know if I am explaining myself well enough...its kind of like the gun gets idealized and the connotation of the gun becomes more real then the actual reality of the gun.

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 07:25 PM

There is no particular correlation to the amount of guns and crime; The US is generally violent, for example, and crime is high regardless of gun regulations across the country. Guns don't make the US violent specifically; there are a lot of peaceful places with a lot higher gun ownership comparably.

IOW, guns increase the severity but decrease the quantity; lack of guns decrease the severity but increase the quantity. Its one of the main reasons, IMO, this argument is never resolved. Doesn't help that its an emotional topic to begin with...

The argument--and most arguments for that matter--will never be resolved when the statistics and facts are not obvious, or understandable, or available, for all to see. And, of course, we are all different people, with different systems for analyzing, believing, and concluding what we are viewing in the first place. Individual understanding is all we can hope for.

But, for whatever it is worth, your understanding is my understanding; that may, or may not, be comforting...I don't know.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 07:26 PM

I have grown up around guns, my father has guns and taught me at an earlier age how to handle them safely and to respect them.How did he teach you to respect them? Did he shoot you or something?

ptGatsby

20 Apr 2006, 07:29 PM

The argument--and most arguments for that matter--will never be resolved when the statistics and facts are not obvious, or understandable, or available, for all to see. And, of course, we are all different people, with different systems for analyzing, believing, and concluding what we are viewing in the first place. Individual understanding is all we can hope for.

But, for whatever it is worth, your understanding is my understanding; that may, or may not, be comforting...I don't know.

Yah, agreed. It is very hard to depend on any form of information concerning crime... never mind gun crime, where half the story is never told.

The only reason I have more trust in this particular viewpoint is because it looks at a wider range of factors than "Gun = Crime", noting that it has a lot more to do with types of crime, changes in a given area, measurement of crimes... It seems logically sound and the evidence that is even somewhat dependable seems to suggest this trend.

But then, I have no interest in guns, couldn't own one anyway, think that guns should be allowed to be carried by individuals but like living in a place where people don't.

Go figure.

last_caress

20 Apr 2006, 07:34 PM

A progressive civilized society should strive to phase out civilian ownership of weaponry, not embrace it.
The irrevocable destructive power of a gun outweighs any legitimate recreational use that they might have.

Like I said before, a common argument is that firearms serve as an equalizer, when actually they just create a new dramatic power imbalance that can only be corrected by, you guessed it, more guns.

Nemesis

20 Apr 2006, 07:35 PM

Could mean for you, could mean for mankind in general.
Why is there no in between choice?

xavierd

20 Apr 2006, 07:35 PM

How did he teach you to respect them?
By making me realize that they are not toys to be played with and handled without care. By its nature a gun is dangerous and if you fuck around it will bite! Like a car, a gun is not to be taken lightly and must be handled properly or serious accidents can happen.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 07:39 PM

Why is there no in between choice?So you think there should be stronger licensing?

xavierd

20 Apr 2006, 07:40 PM

A progressive civilized society should strive to phase out civilian ownership of weaponry, not embrace it.
The irrevocable destructive power of a gun outweighs any legitimate recreational use that they might have.

Like I said before, a common argument is that firearms serve as an equalizer, when actually they just create a new dramatic power imbalance that can only be corrected by, you guessed it, more guns.
I will have to disagree...a progressive civilized society should strive to phase out the need for weaponry. You should never restrict an individual's ability to protect themselves.

tinribz

20 Apr 2006, 07:40 PM

Where was this?

Btw Tinribz your avatar makes me want to massacre everyone who works for the BBC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_Massacre

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4075055.stm

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 07:47 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_Massacre

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4075055.stm
Ok,I was only 5 months then.

Nemesis

20 Apr 2006, 07:48 PM

So you think there should be stronger licensing?
Well, yes. I don't think guns are exactly something that people should just have for the sake of having, but they are useful, and I don't think they should be banned.

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 07:48 PM

A progressive civilized society should strive to phase out civilian ownership of weaponry, not embrace it.
The irrevocable destructive power of a gun outweighs any legitimate recreational use that they might have.

I knew there was a reason that I read all of your posts; despite the avatar's and abstract pictures that I fail to interpret correctly.
It is the hope that I will learn how to make the same points and statements with fewer words...as you have done here.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 07:52 PM

Well, yes. I don't think guns are exactly something that people should just have for the sake of having, but they are useful, and I don't think they should be banned.
Do you think people who have guns should have to pass a test,like a driving test?And have a a physical skill in shooting?

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 08:01 PM

Britain remains one of the countries with the lowest homicide rate in the world accounting for 853 homicides in the reporting period 2003/04 according to the Home Office's Crime Statistics . At a population of more than 60 million that translates into less than 1.3 homicides per 100,000 residents in the UK. By comparison, in 2000, police in the United States reported 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 population. Both New York City and London have over 7 million residents with New York suffering 952 homicides in 2000 to London's 189 in 2003.

abathur

20 Apr 2006, 08:02 PM

I think you need to consider the historical context of the Amendment to which you are referring. And for the citizens of the US to overthrow the US government, it's going to take more than a few rifles and handguns...don't you think. In other words, private militias tend to be dismantled in the US, rather quickly...therefore, to truly be competitive, you need to start contacting your own tank, armor, and air craft battalions. Starts to feel absurd, yes. Especially when a privatized military organizations are considered, and labeled, terrorists.
The government would be hard-pressed to stop a large scale insurrection in this country. Granted, the populace would be hard pressed to form a large-scale insurrection.

Sure, the military has very advanced weapon systems, but using most of them on American soil would just feed an insurrection. Come on, what do you think US tanks bulldozing US citizens on CNN would do to this country? A relatively small but well trained military force would need to counter a relatively large civilian population, nevermind a large number of our military forces come from a political background that despises big-government control.

This power, however, falls apart if the people are unarmed. Certain freedoms are worth an amount of physical risk. I mean, I could give up my freedom of speech and I'd probably never be punched in the face for something I said. There's a lot that can be done to make me safer than I am now. I'd be safer if I never drove anywhere, but I don't plan on letting anyone take away my car. I'd probably be healthier and live longer without TV, the internet and soft drinks, but I'd probably beat your ass if you tried to take any of them from me. Safe shouldn't be confused with happy or satisfied or secure.

First it's what I can do, then it's what I can think. I gather they're already creating profiles on us all based on what we buy and how we evidence our political philosophies through our various activities in the electronic world to determine whether we might pose a risk to public transportation when we're buying a ticket. How far is that information from being used to discriminate against people who color outside the lines? I'm sure we'll all be glad we're safe when we can't do anything the SJs don't want us to and introversion is filed away in our dossier as a security risk necessitating increased surveilance. ;)

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 08:03 PM

Just to put both sides, According to Home Office figures released in January 2003, gun related crime has increased since the 1997 ban. In the light of such figures, and because of continued Home Office lack of interest in any legal changes other than further restrictions, many sporting shooters have concluded that gun control advocates (including the Labour Party) have no genuine interest in public safety at all, and only use it as a convenient excuse to disguise simple "bigotry" (to quote "Target Sports" magazine editorial, June 2005) [citation needed].

Other factors have reinforced this belief, including, for example, the indiscriminate use of the phrase "gun culture" to include both law-abiding target shooters and people who own guns illegally for criminal purposes [citation needed].

Figures released by the Home Office in April 2003 show a marked decrease in overall crime including violent crime; however, the total number of law enforcement personnel in the UK has reached an all-time high.

From June 2003 to June 2004, recorded gun crime in the UK rose by 3% to 10,590 incidents. There was also a 14% rise in violent crime in the April-June period (265,800 incidents compared to 223,600 the previous year). Advocates on both sides of the gun control debate have argued how this is correctly interpreted with no consensus.

Lee

20 Apr 2006, 08:06 PM

A progressive civilized society should strive to phase out civilian ownership of weaponry, not embrace it.
The irrevocable destructive power of a gun outweighs any legitimate recreational use that they might have.So removing a persons freedom to own a gun is a sign of a progressive society? it doesn't sound like a progressive move, but rather an unjustified infringement upon an individuals freedom from government control.

Cars kill more people than guns, is it the sign of a progressive society to outlaw cars? why should a gun be any different? most people who own a gun will never shoot it at another human being, they will use it for recreational, utility or deterrence purposes.

Since there are societies who have a high rate of private gun ownership, yet also have low crime rates, it seems the sign of a progressive society to establish why this is and learn from the mistakes and successes from others. The knee jerk "more guns = more crime" response helps nobody, neither is it a justification for gun control laws.

Like I said before, a common argument is that firearms serve as an equalizer, when actually they just create a new dramatic power imbalance that can only be corrected by, you guessed it, more guns.But if you eliminate guns, that power imbalance still exists, it is that power imbalance that criminals seek to exploit when choosing victims, they might be bigger, stronger, larger blade, collect in gangs etc.

Even if there were strict gun control laws, criminals are criminals precisely because they break the law, they have little incentive to obey gun control laws, so the gun control laws only hurt those law abiding types who become more appealing victims because the state forbids them from owning a weapon.

Guns represent an upper practical limit to the escalation, they come with very high risks, which means that many potential criminal acts become too risky, because even a small woman can kill a large man relatively easily with gun. The escalation does have an upper limit because both parties wish to avoid death, you can't get much more efficient than a gun for killing people, any further advancements would only add tiny incremental advantages, IOW, the difference in power between a handgun an knife is large, but the difference between a handgun and a better handgun isn't much.

The consequence is that when people do call each others bluff, people tend to die, but many many more offences are averted.

Now, people call each others bluff more frequently when they are risk takers, what we need to identify the social circumstances that produce risk taking behaviour and try to eradicate them. One of those factors is polygyny, which promotes risk taking behaviour amongst males, inequalities in status and wealth also contribute.

Part of the problem in many American cities is the myth of mass discrimination against young blacks, no doubt discrimination does and certain has occured, but they have grown up with a media who are always trying to fight a spectre of racism, young people in these communities are taught to think that society has no place for them and they will be discriminated against, so unsurprisingly they opt out of society and turn to crime and a very uncertain and risky future.

In turn this lifestyle produces risk-taking behaviour, life is short, the rewards are big and others will screw you over, you have to take big risks to succeed. By opting out of the society and turning to crime we now are left with a huge group of inner city people fully engaged in this kind of behaviour, analogous to the dynamics visible in the most voilent of hunter-gathering bands.

abathur

20 Apr 2006, 08:07 PM

A progressive civilized society should strive to phase out civilian ownership of weaponry, not embrace it.
The irrevocable destructive power of a gun outweighs any legitimate recreational use that they might have.

As much as I love idealism, thats an idealistic argument I could liken to communism. It's great to think that way, but the world isn't a warm fuzzy place. A progressive society can have great fun doing all this and then lose the final say in what their government is up to. Gun ownership is the "check and balance" of the civilian.

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 08:09 PM

I gather they're already creating profiles on us all based on what we buy and how we evidence our political philosophies through our various activities in the electronic world to determine whether we might pose a risk to public transportation when we're buying a ticket.

Yes. And that is precisely why I will refrain from explaining other more affective and plausible way's to overthrow the government, then that which you have presented.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 08:13 PM

Yes. And that is precisely why I will refrain from explaining other more affective and plausible way's to overthrow the government, then that which you have presented.
He never said you did want to take part in it, did He ?

abathur

20 Apr 2006, 08:13 PM

Likewise. ;)

Nemesis

20 Apr 2006, 08:15 PM

Do you think people who have guns should have to pass a test,like a driving test?And have a a physical skill in shooting?
To be quite honest, I think that guns should not exist, anywhere.

xavierd

20 Apr 2006, 08:39 PM

To be quite honest, I think that guns should not exist, anywhere.
That's all nice and good but you haven't removed the real issue which is humans commiting violence against other humans! Its like try to kill a weed by nipping the tip off! If there are no guns people will still kill each other and that is the issue that needs attention.

No Blunts

20 Apr 2006, 08:43 PM

What has that got to do with guns?
If you want to start a thread on why new labour suck go on then.

It has very much to do with guns. You are a nation of cowards. You would chose to sell out your civil liberties for the "common good". Guns like it or not are a liberty that ensures the governmen't doesn't take all of the others.

As for other "effective" ways to overthrow the government, there are none. You can protest all you want but if the government has armed men who use violence to quash your protest where do you go from there? Under your bed to cry?

Nemesis

20 Apr 2006, 08:43 PM

That's all nice and good but you haven't removed the real issue which is humans commiting violence against other humans! Its like try to kill a weed by nipping the tip off! If there are no guns people will still kill each other and that is the issue that needs attention.
Why does it need attention?

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 08:52 PM

It has very much to do with guns. You are a nation of cowards. You would chose to sell out your civil liberties for the "common good". Guns like it or not are a liberty that ensures the governmen't doesn't take all of the others.

You are a coward if you need weapons, you idiot.

Lee

20 Apr 2006, 08:56 PM

You are a coward if you need weapons, you idiot.No, he's smart, only a fool would think it brave to go up against an armed opponent without a firearm of their own.

ptGatsby

20 Apr 2006, 08:58 PM

Come on, what do you think US tanks bulldozing US citizens on CNN would do to this country?

Well, depending on your view on Wacco, bomb a federal building or so.

You are a coward if you need weapons, you idiot.

By definition, you are a coward if you are unwilling to stand up to those threatening you. Guns and weapons are more often held in the hands of criminals; I'd be a coward for not standing up to them? Well if being a coward is going to keep me alive from an illegal gun wielder, I'll be a coward. I'd also shoot him if I had/knew how to use a gun, making me less of a coward with a gun? *shrug*

(One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.)

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 08:58 PM

As for other "effective" ways to overthrow the government, there are none. You can protest all you want but if the government has armed men who use violence to quash your protest where do you go from there? Under your bed to cry?

I know a couple of Peace Studies professors that could argue you under the table on that one, however, consider this idea--and allow it to play out in your head:
What if a significant amount of a nations citizens, decided they would not pay their taxes.

Maybe we could play this out in a separate thread tomorrow, rather than derailing this thread, since we have moved into the arena of revolutionary tactics, which is beyond the purposes of the OP.

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 09:00 PM

No, he's smart, only a fool would think it brave to go up against an armed opponent without a firearm of their own.

...a suicidal fool.

Kljoki

20 Apr 2006, 09:02 PM

I know a couple of Peace Studies professors that could argue you under the table on that one, however, consider this idea--and allow it to play out in your head:
What if a significant amount of a nations citizens, decided they would not pay their taxes.They'd be dead tomorrow. You've, obviously, never lived under totalitarian rule :).

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 09:03 PM

No, he's smart, only a fool would think it brave to go up against an armed opponent without a firearm of their own.Being smart and being a coward are different things.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 09:07 PM

By definition, you are a coward if you are unwilling to stand up to those threatening you. Guns and weapons are more often held in the hands of criminals; I'd be a coward for not standing up to them? Well if being a coward is going to keep me alive from an illegal gun wielder I`ll be a coward.

I never said I was unwilling to stand up to those threatening me.
What is a illegal gun wielder?

Dr. Haight

20 Apr 2006, 09:10 PM

They'd be dead tomorrow. You've, obviously, never lived under totalitarian rule :).

I don't know if it's obvious...but it's definitely true.
We could certainly state that the some methods would be more or less effective depending on which type of government one lives under...that does, in fact, seem obvious. But as far as gun-control policy has been discussed in this thread, I assume that a non-democratic nation would require a completely different argument (and much shorter one, as well).

By the way, who would be dead tomorrow, the professors or the citizens?

No Blunts

20 Apr 2006, 09:18 PM

I dont *NEED* weapons. I also don't *NEED* a car, I don't *NEED* a computer. Hell I don't *NEED* free speech or civil liberties either, a bunch of people in the former soviet union worked just fine without those. You only really *NEED* food and shelter. I also don't need people telling me what I can and cannot own and what hobbies I can and cannot have. Out of like 80m+ guns in the USA 99% aren't used for crime. Also, why does the anti-gun movement always use lies and propaganda to get its point accross? Why does the government want to disarm us when the statistics go against what they are saying?

If one could make guns magically disappear then yes, it would be a good idea, nobody would be shot. However in the real world, the only thing banning guns does is take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens and enthusiasts and place them in the hands of bandits and the government. You are in essense placing all your trust in the government and relegating the right to self defense to them. I think that is being cowardly by not taking responsibility for your own defense.

I think the anti-gun movement is all about misguided people who are projecting their fear of owning guns themselves on everyone and who think only the government is smart enough to protect them from themselves. The justice system likes this. Its a system out for your money. If you've ever dealt with it in the US then I'm sure you know (I doubt the UK is better, if anything its worse). They want you to be dependent on them so you don't question them. Its all about power. They don't want you to know they are just normal people with nice uniforms who are no better or worse than anybody else. Their power to control you comes from... drumroll please... YOU.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 09:23 PM

You only really *NEED* food and shelter.
You forgot something, good health.

No Blunts

20 Apr 2006, 09:24 PM

you don't *NEED* good health. You just need enough to be alive.

ptGatsby

20 Apr 2006, 09:24 PM

I never said I was unwilling to stand up to those threatening me.

My comment wasn't personal.

You said;

You are a coward if you need weapons, you idiot.

I responded with a brief comment on how stupid you'd be to stand up to someone who has a significant advantage over you and that carrying a weapon can lower that advantage or even give the defender the advantage.

Weapon carriers are not likely to be cowardly at all; they are defending themselves. Cowards are the ones who won't and are unwilling to take on the responsibility to defend themselves, expecting others to do it.

What is a illegal gun wielder?

One who is wielding (actively using) a gun in an area where guns are illegal (implication: non-criminals would have no guns, therefore you'd be at an overwhelming disadvantage to those that do).

nomir_dva

20 Apr 2006, 09:25 PM

The government would be hard-pressed to stop a large scale insurrection in this country. Granted, the populace would be hard pressed to form a large-scale insurrection.

Sure, the military has very advanced weapon systems, but using most of them on American soil would just feed an insurrection. Come on, what do you think US tanks bulldozing US citizens on CNN would do to this country? A relatively small but well trained military force would need to counter a relatively large civilian population, nevermind a large number of our military forces come from a political background that despises big-government control.

I imagine that an insurrection would at least begin with a relatively small number of people, and the government would have little difficulty eliminating them, regardless of how many guns they had. Historically, the superiority of the army to untrained rebels has increased enormously. One soldier is probably equivalent to scores of civillian insurgents. It didn't work very well back in the time of Shay's Rebellion. I doubt it would be better today. Whether the majority of the military would support the government or not probably has a great deal to do with the nature of the insurrection.

That's all nice and good but you haven't removed the real issue which is humans commiting violence against other humans! Its like try to kill a weed by nipping the tip off! If there are no guns people will still kill each other and that is the issue that needs attention.

People would still kill each other without guns, but it would be much more difficult. It doesn't take much skill to shoot five people with a handgun (and I assume that the attacker would miss most of the time), thereby inflicting serious injury on all of them. How much effort would it take to do that with a sword or an axe?

It has very much to do with guns. You are a nation of cowards. You would chose to sell out your civil liberties for the "common good". Guns like it or not are a liberty that ensures the governmen't doesn't take all of the others.

As for other "effective" ways to overthrow the government, there are none. You can protest all you want but if the government has armed men who use violence to quash your protest where do you go from there? Under your bed to cry?

I fail to see how owning any number of guns will make me safer from the government. It would take a hell of a lot to effectively oppose the military.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 09:26 PM

I think the anti-gun movement is all about misguided people who are projecting their fear of owning guns themselves on everyone and who think only the government is smart enough to protect them from themselves.

The government is smart,not.

Kljoki

20 Apr 2006, 09:27 PM

By the way, who would be dead tomorrow, the professors or the citizens?HA! you (If your friends don't like you ;)) You wouldn't worry about those things. You'd be to bussy doing what you've been told.

No Blunts

20 Apr 2006, 09:29 PM

I fail to see how owning any number of guns will make me safer from the government. It would take a hell of a lot to effectively oppose the military.

Yea, you and your friends. The military is not your primary representative of government, the police and local authorities are. They need to be afraid of overstepping their bounds unjustly just like a burglar would be afraid to go steal from you knowing that he will get shot/arrested.

Kljoki

20 Apr 2006, 09:30 PM

I fail to see how owning any number of guns will make me safer from the government. It would take a hell of a lot to effectively oppose the military. No it wouldn't. Anything that can kill effectively is useful.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 09:30 PM

you don't *NEED* good health. You just need enough to be alive.Therefore you need good health.

Kljoki

20 Apr 2006, 09:32 PM

Yea, you and your friends. The military is not your primary representative of government, the police and local authorities are. They need to be afraid of overstepping their bounds unjustly just like a burglar would be afraid to go steal from you knowing that he will get shot/arrested.This is so true http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/9750/thumbs4cv.gif.

No Blunts

20 Apr 2006, 09:35 PM

The people who hate guns the most and think only cops should have them have not had much experience with the justice system at all.

nomir_dva

20 Apr 2006, 09:37 PM

No it wouldn't. Anything that can kill effectively is useful.

It wouldn't be very useful when I'd be dead. I wonder what the life expectancy of an Iraqi insurgent is?

Yea, you and your friends. The military is not your primary representative of government, the police and local authorities are. They need to be afraid of overstepping their bounds unjustly just like a burglar would be afraid to go steal from you knowing that he will get shot/arrested.

If you're talking about the overthrow of the government, the army would probably be involved. If I start a gun battle with the police, I'm still as good as dead. I still don't see how having a gun would help me if the government decided to forcibly take away my rights.

No Blunts

20 Apr 2006, 09:42 PM

You and 10 of your friends start a gun fight with the police. Or come to people's aid when the police are robbing or hauling someone off for REAL bs. At the least you just don't go quietly into the night.

ptGatsby

20 Apr 2006, 09:43 PM

I fail to see how owning any number of guns will make me safer from the government. It would take a hell of a lot to effectively oppose the military.

You, personally, wouldn't be safe; but a city of a million people with a million guns makes it a dangerous place to be hostile.

Same with the one soldier = x civilians. Its not a direct correlation. One soldier and ten civilians, soldier has the infrastructure he needs. Ten million civilians and one million soldiers means civil war, eroding infrastructure and a fourth generation war.

People would still kill each other without guns, but it would be much more difficult. It doesn't take much skill to shoot five people with a handgun (and I assume that the attacker would miss most of the time), thereby inflicting serious injury on all of them. How much effort would it take to do that with a sword or an axe?

The advantage to the gun is that it can deal with multiple people from a distance. Try defending yourself with a knife/sword/axe. Anyone with any expierence with those kinds of weapons knows that they are a horribly weak deterrent, as is any form of 'bat'. The correct way of dealing with any of these is to grapple; the defender is always at a disadvantage because they cannot prevent it. This is especially true where the defender is physically weaker than the attacker.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 09:44 PM

The people who hate guns the most and think only cops should have them have not had much experience with the justice system at all.I hate guns but don think the cops should have them.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 09:47 PM

The advantage to the gun is that it can deal with multiple people from a distance. Try defending yourself with a knife/sword/axe. Anyone with any expierence with those kinds of weapons knows that they are a horribly weak deterrent, as is any form of 'bat'.

:wtf: you use knifes as a bat.j/k

ptGatsby

20 Apr 2006, 09:48 PM

It wouldn't be very useful when I'd be dead. I wonder what the life expectancy of an Iraqi insurgent is?

Someone else could use it, in theory.

Are you, however, saying that you shouldn't defend yourself at all because you could die? Or that it is better to be helpless to those that would harm you if they felt like it?

When law breaks down, force is what remains. Those death squads in Iraq killing you for your religion? I'd be happy to have a weapon then, even if I did end up shot... or maybe I should of changed my religion?

you use knifes as a bat.j/k

heh, I've only been in a fight with someone with a bat... Bad sentance on my part. Point taken though, you could know how to throw knives!

No Blunts

20 Apr 2006, 09:49 PM

So what do you about armed criminals if the cops have no guns? Its not like your fellow citizens will get into the fray when they have no arms and no CCW. Call the army?

Kljoki

20 Apr 2006, 09:51 PM

The thing is, you shouldn't arm yourself unless it's necessary.

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 09:54 PM

So what do you about armed criminals if the cops have no guns? Its not like your fellow citizens will get into the fray when they have no arms and no CCW. Call the army?
Normal cops in the UK don`t have guns

Nemesis

20 Apr 2006, 09:57 PM

Imagine what the world would be like with no weapons. *Hopeless Idealist*

Nemesis

20 Apr 2006, 09:59 PM

The people who hate guns the most and think only cops should have them have not had much experience with the justice system at all.
How is a lack of experience with the justice system a bad thing? Wouldn't that suggest a law abiding person?

No Blunts

20 Apr 2006, 10:01 PM

Its a good thing and a bad thing. It means you are law abiding but it also means you are sheltered. They call it the game for a reason.

Nemesis

20 Apr 2006, 10:02 PM

Its a good thing and a bad thing. It means you are law abiding but it also means you are sheltered. They call it the game for a reason.
Explain it to me, I'm sheltered:)

cafe

20 Apr 2006, 10:07 PM

Explain it to me, I'm sheltered:)
He who can afford the best lawyer wins. Eventually.

Kljoki

20 Apr 2006, 10:10 PM

He who can afford the best lawyer wins. Eventually.
He who can afford wins. Period.

No Blunts

20 Apr 2006, 10:11 PM

The justice system is out for your money. They use arresting people, tickets and fines as a way to have job security and show you just how much you need them. This is why open air drug spots are allowed to operate on the west side of chicago but the police will arrest you for smoking a joint on your front lawn. Its also why a cop doesn't sit at a red light without going through it but will give you a fat fine for going 10 over.

The police pine for things like gun control, drug control and other nonsense laws like the DMCA because it gives them more criminals to arrest. The .gov gives them more funding when they look like they are doing something. Its all a system designed to keep you trapped within it. Why else cancel FAFSA funding for those arrested for petty drug offenses? Lets get you thrown out of college so you are stuck dealing drugs. They want you to commit more crimes before they finally lock you up. The more people they lock up, the more money has to be spent on jails, the more LE jobs are created, etc. Please poke holes in my theory cuz I hope its not like that everywhere, seems like it tho.

Nemesis

20 Apr 2006, 10:18 PM

zhang_bob

20 Apr 2006, 10:20 PM

Imagine what the world would be like with no weapons. *Hopeless Idealist*
I do all the time, then I wake up.

Ka.avik

20 Apr 2006, 10:43 PM

Wow! Lots of good discussion and the expected useless circling, all since I got up this morning. Interesting way to start a topic, MG -- it started out looking like a headphonez-lookalike but of course, everyone here has a firm opinion.

I personally believe every law abiding citizen should demand their rights, and own a fully-automatic submachine gun of their choice, and about a thousand rounds for it.

But not two, that'd be silly.

I believe, as someone else said early on, that I would much rather die, armed, to an armed criminal (the laws aren't very good at keeping guns out of the hands of those who don't respect the law) then be oppressed and unarmed, subject to an armed & dangerous government -- and for this, I'll include the cops, though they're not exactly the same as "the government"

Here's how you deal with gun-toting citizens...make them fill out as much paperwork as the cops do, for every shot fired. They can kill their neighbor because they think he was a terrorist (not terribly different than what the shrub orders against his own, actually) but they need to be ready to account for the veracity of their story and support it's claims.

Can't convince a jury? To quote Kai, "DIE"!!. It needs to be a public execution, so everyone understands and remembers, that with great priviledge (handgun owning) comes great responsibilty (don't just kill people, stupid!)

Guns are a tool, but overall I think it both inevitable and probably a good thing, that we have guns.

last_caress

21 Apr 2006, 12:15 AM

In todays world, corporate mass media collusion with a .gov with a decidedly police state agenda is a far more powerful threat than an armed populace.
Prime time character assassination.
The average human automatically defers to authority, and is easily manipulated with appeals to emotion.
It is apparent that our leaders realize the power of framing to trump rationality.

It's effectiveness can be demonstrated by the surprising number of american people that continue to believe that Saddam was behind 9/11 despite decisive public admission by our fearless leaders to the contrary.

Dr. Haight

21 Apr 2006, 01:49 AM

This is what I learned from this thread earlier today:

How can intelligent people (for the most part) view the world so differently? Because a gun raises a complex set of issues that change according to one single factor: whose hand happens to be holding the gun.

zhang_bob

21 Apr 2006, 01:56 AM

Because a gun raises a complex set of issues that change according to one single factor: whose hand happens to be holding the gun.
I don`t think it does.

distraction tactics

21 Apr 2006, 01:59 AM

Dr. Haight

21 Apr 2006, 02:03 AM

Whose hand is holding the gun; the reason(s) for holding it in the first place. The 'gun' is a symbol for every very real relationship of power that exists. Some people want to banish it, in effect, appealing for a world where power does not exist. Some want that power transferred personally to themselves for self-determination. Others want a more moderate, if responsible, common weal-based power.

I understand that as well. Although, I didn't learn that from this thread. Truth is, I really didn't learn anything from this thread other than how some members argue and what belief systems they hold, yet I just thought of that sentence and decided to write it down.

MacGuffin

21 Apr 2006, 02:09 AM

Also let it be known that despite my arguments in the thread, I do not own a gun, nor have I fired one in years.

My wife hates them, as a friend of hers committed suicide in high school with a hunting rifle.

zhang_bob

21 Apr 2006, 02:12 AM

I understand that as well. Although, I didn't learn that from this thread. Truth is, I really didn't learn anything from this thread other than how some members argue and what belief systems they hold, yet I just thought of that sentence and decided to write it down.
I other words you learnt Zhang Bob is a stubborn bastard, who goes on INTPc all day too have arguments on your threads.Good night.

Ka.avik

21 Apr 2006, 02:20 AM

My wife hates them, as a friend of hers committed suicide in high school with a hunting rifle.
And we all know that suicide would just not be physically possible if smokeless powder were never invented.

//not to dis the pain your wife felt, Mac -- you just hafta know, that such an argument is very limited, and carries no weight with me.

MacGuffin

21 Apr 2006, 02:29 AM

And we all know that suicide would just not be physically possible if smokeless powder were never invented.

//not to dis the pain your wife felt, Mac -- you just hafta know, that such an argument is very limited, and carries no weight with me.
I wasn't arguing it. Just saying why I don't own a gun when I think you should be free to do so.

CoHo

21 Apr 2006, 02:32 AM

To be perfectly honest I'd much rather be shot then stabbed... so yeah, more guns please

*stab*
*stab*
*stab*

Ka.avik

21 Apr 2006, 02:41 AM

I wasn't arguing it. Just saying why I don't own a gun when I think you should be free to do so.
sure, and I understand that; my grandmother hates guns because her grandmother accidentally shot herself cleaning the husband's shotgun. But at least she's come to terms with the idea that guns don't always kill their handler, though it's obviously taken her a few decades (she's almost certainly an ESFJ, btw).

But some of what's been said here, has about as much common sense behind it, and I just wanted to pipe up and say something about pipe dreams about pipe bombs or something like that....

No Blunts

21 Apr 2006, 04:08 AM

I wonder if there is a correlation between F types and not liking guns. And a full auto submachine gun? I'll take 3. If only I could afford them.

INThoughtPolice

21 Apr 2006, 04:29 AM

It's about time that all these bad guns see some jail time. They're murderers. Of course they have the right to a fair trial heard by a jury of their peers and all ensuing punishments must be neither cruel or unusual.

Oh, and knives too, eh, all utensils for that matter.

kuranes

21 Apr 2006, 04:30 AM

I wonder if there is a correlation between F types and not liking guns. And a full auto submachine gun? I'll take 3. If only I could afford them.

You in the burbs or in the city ? I'm out towards O'Hare.

Serotonin

21 Apr 2006, 04:53 AM

I voted on a personal perspective. But people can own guns if they feel they need to. Libertarianism and all that.

Though with the zealotry that the gun lobby promotes its cause, I wouldn't be surprised if they took the opportunity to ridicule and insult people who choose not to own guns.

"And you can't do anything about it bitch, because look what I've got in my hand...."

^
I imagine that sentiment is invoked much more than "the populace needs to be armed to protect itself from the government". For every noble reason that a person owns a gun, I suspect there is more than one ignoble one.

ShadyShady

21 Apr 2006, 05:03 AM

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/guncont.jpg

Nemesis

21 Apr 2006, 05:15 AM

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/guncont.jpg
I don't live in Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia, or the China of Mao Zedong.

last_caress

21 Apr 2006, 05:21 AM

I don't live in Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia, or the China of Mao Zedong.

No, but you live in a country in which anecdotally, gun supporters primarily support the party most likely to shred the rest of our liberties.
Sort of a self-fulfulling prophecy.

abathur

21 Apr 2006, 05:29 AM

No, but you live in a country in which anecdotally, gun supporters primarily support the party most likely to shred the rest of our liberties.
Sort of a self-fulfulling prophecy.
I don't get that myself. I don't see how the republicans are letting all this big brother shit go on as a matter of principle. Of course, the real issue at hand is that people aren't voting politically, but socially and morally (well, not "people" but the "religious right" is) which creates a scenario in which just about anyone could get elected even if they said, "I'm going to have someone beat the shit out of you when I get elected but I'll ban boobies and swearwords on TV and send the police out with surveilance equipment to keep those evil homosexuals from putting it in each other's pooper!"

PsiKik

21 Apr 2006, 08:15 AM

Eh. A people shouldn't just be mentally prepared to overthrow their government if it isn't serving them, they should be properly armed to do so.

I think this is a dangerous falacy - the idea that the citizenry should be armed in order to be able to overthrow an oppresive government.
The government will allways be better armed!

As per the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' - guns make it a hell of a lot easier for people to kill people.

ShadyShady

21 Apr 2006, 08:32 AM

The government will allways be better armed!

that doesnt mean they will win, look at iraq.

PsiKik

21 Apr 2006, 08:40 AM

that doesnt mean they will win, look at iraq.

I was thinking of the US situation.

xavierd

21 Apr 2006, 04:21 PM

I just don't understand how guns make it any easier to kill people. I could kill off my whole office nice and quiet like by poisoning their water...or bring in some cookies laced with poison. So I guess we should ban all poisons or any chemical that could be fatal. I could drive my car down a sidewalk and run a whole group of people down that way. Better ban all vehicles. I can set a house on fire while everyone is sleeping or place a bomb under the bleachers at a high school football game. So there goes gasoline and any materials you can use to make a bomb...which is about anything.

Lee

21 Apr 2006, 04:27 PM

nomir_dva

21 Apr 2006, 04:33 PM

A better way of putting it is this:

Can you think of any useful object that cannot be used as a weapon?

In what way is a gun useful aside from being a weapon?

Lee

21 Apr 2006, 04:39 PM

In what way is a gun useful aside from being a weapon?Use your imagination, it's really not difficult to think of some.

zhang_bob

21 Apr 2006, 04:45 PM

A better way of putting it is this:

Can you think of any useful object that cannot be used as a weapon?
Air.

zhang_bob

21 Apr 2006, 04:46 PM

In what way is a gun useful aside from being a weapon?
So you can kill people like lee.j/k

Lee

21 Apr 2006, 04:49 PM

Air.What about wind? a tornado? hurricane? "air" can contain any number of harmful materials, too much or too little can be deadly.

Ka.avik

21 Apr 2006, 05:02 PM

In what way is a gun useful aside from being a weapon?
you can hunt with it.

zhang_bob

21 Apr 2006, 05:02 PM

What about wind? a tornado? hurricane? That is two things. Speed and velocity are two things, you ask for one.

"air" can contain any number of harmful materials, too much or too little can be deadly.

Sticking a pipe down someones neck would not be a very good defense.

No Blunts

21 Apr 2006, 06:53 PM

Guns are useful for things besides killing. You can target shoot as a hobby and you can collect them like stamps. And I would never ridicule someone for chosing not to own a gun themeselves. As soon as you try to place your will on me then all bets are off. But yes, you can pretty much kill people with any object, poison, cars and bombs are a lot easier to use than guns and take out a lot more people with less effort and in most cases a lowered chance of capture.

Right now I'm in the SW burbs, probably not going to be here too long tho.

mgb

21 Apr 2006, 07:01 PM

This thread is funny.

I originally started it because I was watching City of God (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317248/) and there was this part where this 8 year-old(?) shoots this other 8 year-old because some old kids wanted him to. Anyways, I got to wondering whose fault it was. Was it the 8 year-olds fault? Well, yes, he shot him. But at 8, does someone really know what that means? Was it the older kids fault? Well, they did put the gun in the kid's hand and tell him to shoot, but they didn't make him do it.

I think MacGuffin, and all the people who said it, are right, guns are a tool. But, are they a tool like a screwdriver is a tool? Not really. They are a tool with one purpose, to kill things. More specifically, guns or most often associated with killing people. Most of the advancements (I could be wrong) in firearms have come with military purposes in mind. I think that they can be used for hunting is more of a secondary purpose (like using a screwdriver to pry things).

But does that make guns good or bad? Obviously not. It's how a person uses the gun. They might use it for offense or defense. Now, the only reason someone is going to use a gun for defense is against the possibility of another gun, or as others have mentioned, for the power of deterence.

One argument that keeps coming up here is the idea of guns being used to protect liberty. I think this is a little ridiculous. Liberty isn't something tangible, it's an idea. An idea doesn't come from the barrel of a gun. It's basically a self defense argument packaged in some sort of flag. People had liberty before guns, they have them with guns, and they'll have them after guns. You could in fact argue that a gun, and using it properly, would violate the liberty of someone else, so they contrary to the actual values of liberty.

So, are guns good or bad? The question is deliberately polarizing because it's so subjective. They can be good for a lot of reasons and bad for just as many, just depends on your take.

No Blunts

21 Apr 2006, 07:56 PM

But at 8, does someone really know what that means?

Yea, I did. They made him shoot the kid, if he didn't then he would probably be shot himself. Its not really a choice. Especially not there.

People had liberty before guns, they have them with guns, and they'll have them after guns.

Uhm... because that is the trend in the world today, right. UK bans firearms and suddenly they have cameras on the street corners and national ID a few years later. They are definately more free. I'd like to see a country that banned firearms and actually made the other laws better.

You could in fact argue that a gun, and using it properly, would violate the liberty of someone else, so they contrary to the actual values of liberty.

No, there is no violating a robbers rights when he comes into YOUR home at 2am. You can argue it, but you would be wrong.

ptGatsby

21 Apr 2006, 08:04 PM

One argument that keeps coming up here is the idea of guns being used to protect liberty. I think this is a little ridiculous. Liberty isn't something tangible, it's an idea. An idea doesn't come from the barrel of a gun. It's basically a self defense argument packaged in some sort of flag. People had liberty before guns, they have them with guns, and they'll have them after guns. You could in fact argue that a gun, and using it properly, would violate the liberty of someone else, so they contrary to the actual values of liberty.

This doesn't make sense to me; A gun is a tool to inflict force from a distance. It is a tool for offense and defense. It takes away the need for you to be strong and fit, you are able to defend yourself against multiple people...

Liberty is about The condition of being free from restriction or control. A gun provides the needed deterrent and defense against someone who is willing to use force on you.

You can escalate it to a country; why should any country have a military, a single weapon, anything? If they want to remain 'free' and not 'occupied', its something that is worth having. Deterrent is critical in the micro and macro levels of conflict.

It doesn't need to be wrapped up in a flag or ideology. Force will always be present. If the common man cannot have the deterrent required by the times, then he will be at a disadvantage to prevent and defend against another's force.

mgb

22 Apr 2006, 12:15 AM

Yea, I did. They made him shoot the kid, if he didn't then he would probably be shot himself. Its not really a choice. Especially not there.

Uhm... because that is the trend in the world today, right. UK bans firearms and suddenly they have cameras on the street corners and national ID a few years later. They are definately more free. I'd like to see a country that banned firearms and actually made the other laws better.

No, there is no violating a robbers rights when he comes into YOUR home at 2am. You can argue it, but you would be wrong.

That's a pretty big "probably". In the movie they were shooting the kids because they mugging people and shops. The shooter most likely wouldn't have sky-rocketed through the ranks of the criminal organization. I know that can seem like life or death, but it probably isn't.

I didn't say ban guns, that's kind of an assumption you are using to bend the argument in your favor and then creating a scare tactic to reinforce the idea that guns are neccessary. Also, it's difficult to argue that the cameras and National ID were a direct result of the banning of firearms. And if I start listing off countries, I'll be arguing on your terms and you can see the obvious disadvantage in that.

And it seems more like the UK "ban" was actually just a restriction requiring someone to obtain a license, not a complete disallowance of firearms.

I was speaking in more general terms that guns probably won't outlive mankind.

Again, isn't using the example of a 2AM break in kind of an extreme example used to over-exclaim your point? What about if someone were to use a gun to shoot the president because they felt he was degrading their liberties? Is it still a defensive act? Are they truly protecting liberty?

mgb

22 Apr 2006, 12:36 AM

Liberty is about The condition of being free from restriction or control. A gun provides the needed deterrent and defense against someone who is willing to use force on you.

A gun just as easily can be used to use force against someone. Liberty is an idea about freedom. Defense of liberty is another beast entirely. And if a gun is a sure-fire (bad pun, sorry) way of protecting liberty, we'd all have them and all be completely free.

You can escalate it to a country; why should any country have a military, a single weapon, anything? If they want to remain 'free' and not 'occupied', its something that is worth having. Deterrent is critical in the micro and macro levels of conflict.

Again, I don't think the deterrence is the most valid defense for something. If deterrence was a valuable argument, we wouldn't need prisons because no one would commit crimes out of fear of the punishment. Even when a crime could lead to the death penalty, people still commit them. Same goes for nations. Threats and examples don't seem to be quite enough for people or nations, there are still invasions the same way there are still murders. People, from the lowest common denominator, right up to heads of state, seem more likely to make decisions with little thought to deterrence.

And why should a country have a single weapon? I'm not sure. You tell me.

ptGatsby

22 Apr 2006, 12:55 AM

A gun just as easily can be used to use force against someone. Liberty is an idea about freedom. Defense of liberty is another beast entirely. And if a gun is a sure-fire (bad pun, sorry) way of protecting liberty, we'd all have them and all be completely free.

This is an asymetrical issue.

Force can be applied against someone by someone at any time. All it takes is the will and the means. This force will always favor the agressor; he can pick time, location, means and target.

A gun causes a shift in this balance. Guns have nothing to do with liberty; the ability to defend yourself and to have deterrent does have a lot to do with liberty.

If someone has a gun, their advantage is magnified; when the defender has one, their advantage is reduced. This is true even if both have a weapon, including a gun.

Again, I don't think the deterrence is the most valid defense for something. If deterrence was a valuable argument, we wouldn't need prisons because no one would commit crimes out of fear of the punishment.

Deterrence is punishment. The two are different in structure, not in nature.

My question, then, is what would you recommend using to eliminate crime. Guns, prisons, etc don't work, apparently. What would?

Even when a crime could lead to the death penalty, people still commit them. Same goes for nations.

Criminology states that the two main factors in rational crimes (ie: not going beserk, being drunk, emotional, legislated) are;

1) The level of punishment (the anti-reward)
2) The chance of being caught.

The basic equation is (Reward) - (punishment)*(chance of being caught). when >0, it is rational to commit a crime, when <0, it is irrational to commit crime.

How many people were executed in the states last year? (59). There were about 1.38 million crimes commited in 2003. Deterrent is weak with those kinds of numbers.

And why should a country have a single weapon? I'm not sure. You tell me.

No weapons = at the mercy of anyone with the intent to use force against them. Therefore, a country should have enough weapons to make the use of force against them non-profitable.

mgb

22 Apr 2006, 06:12 PM

This is an asymetrical issue.

Force can be applied against someone by someone at any time. All it takes is the will and the means. This force will always favor the agressor; he can pick time, location, means and target.

A gun causes a shift in this balance. Guns have nothing to do with liberty; the ability to defend yourself and to have deterrent does have a lot to do with liberty.

If someone has a gun, their advantage is magnified; when the defender has one, their advantage is reduced. This is true even if both have a weapon, including a gun.

Force is an action and a gun is a tool to make force easier. Force doesn't always favor the aggressor. People can easily defend against an attack often times, even without guns. For example, most rapists will favor attacking a woman who is unaware of what's going on around her. She might be talking on the phone or fumbling with keys. However, a more petite girl who isn't neccessarily possessing any deterrence qualities compared with the other girl, might walk on by the rapist because she's got her head up and isn't walking as close to the cars or something. The point is, without a gun, without anymore ability to defend herself, she's given herself a great deal more liberty.

Now, say that same rapist also has a gun. Both women are better off running away. It's unlikely he'll shoot them until after he's done with them so they are better off getting away before. Obviously the attacker has an initial advantage, but it's primarily a psychological one. Now, if the women have a gun, you end up with a gunfight. As soon as the attacker feels like he might get shot, he'll fire back in what he perceives to be in defense.

I suppose the assumption you are making in your attacker scenario is that people want to kill people. Instead, I think people carry guns, even during an attack, to deter people from further violence, in a sense to gain power over them temporarily so the gun won't be used against people being attacked. Does having a gun reduce the likelyhood of being attacked? No. Despite the chances of someone having a gun in Canada and the US, there are still quite a few break-ins. What they will do is increase the chances that a gunfight will ensue and someone will be killed. The net liberty in that situation is much lower. And in the end, having a gun still favors the attacker much more than the defender since they still have the element of surprise.

Deterrence is punishment. The two are different in structure, not in nature.

My question, then, is what would you recommend using to eliminate crime. Guns, prisons, etc don't work, apparently. What would?

Deterrence is the threat of punishment.

I'm not exactly sure what would eliminate crime. Well, nothing will ever eliminate crime, let's face facts, it's older than man. Crimes were probably being committed when we were still the missing link. I think it's more likely that there will be a shift in morality creating a shift in what the definition of crime is.

Criminology states that the two main factors in rational crimes (ie: not going beserk, being drunk, emotional, legislated) are;

1) The level of punishment (the anti-reward)
2) The chance of being caught.

The basic equation is (Reward) - (punishment)*(chance of being caught). when >0, it is rational to commit a crime, when <0, it is irrational to commit crime.

How many people were executed in the states last year? (59). There were about 1.38 million crimes commited in 2003. Deterrent is weak with those kinds of numbers.

I'd argue that those are perceived to be the two main deterrents in rational crime, not the two main factors. And punishment is probably less of a deterrent in most cases than being caught.

Your stats aren't really on the mark. As far as crime and deterrence goes. Should every crime result in the death penalty? Were those 1.38 million crimes all 1st degree murders? If 1.38 million people were caught committing a crime, how many weren't caught? And despite the fact that the death penalty was on the table for many of those crimes, why are there still people committing murders? There is a huge cost to doing it if you are caught, but it still happens.

And if the deterrence is death and someone has been caught committing a crime, why wouldn't that person just kill as many people as possible in an irrational act, since they are going to die anyways?

No weapons = at the mercy of anyone with the intent to use force against them. Therefore, a country should have enough weapons to make the use of force against them non-profitable.

That reminds me of Braveheart. "Not the archers. My scouts tell me their archers are miles away and no threat to us. Arrows cost money. Use up the Irish. Their dead cost nothing. " - Longshanks.

If a country wants to overtake another country, the cost in dead will always be surpassed by the reward from the spoils. If you are the leader of the country, the only deterrence is losing the fight and having your people turn on you. If you win, you have a country to plunder. Having some guns isn't going to a protect a country. "Rebuilding" a country obviously presents some new problems.