2nd amendment

[SheepDog]

I'm curious how other INTPs feel about the 2nd amendment, gun control, and the expiration of the "Assault Weapons Ban".

I happen to believe that my right to defend myself is inalienable, and am glad that the 2nd amendment acknowledges that (that's how I interpret it, anyway). I exercise my right to be prepared by legally carrying a handgun when I can. I follow the law, but resent the government presuming to have the right to limit my ownership. Gun USE should be limited, but not gun ownership. Gun control violates the principle that I have the right to defend myself.

Self defense is the only reason that I would ever use a gun or any other lethal force against another being (human or otherwise)*. But if my life or my family's life was threatened, I wouldn't hesitate to protect them or myself.

The AWB, in my opinion, was a joke. It sounds credible, but it was really a "scary looking guns, be very afraid" weapons ban. I'll rant more about this if necessary, but that's the basic view for now.


*Yes, I'm a vegetarian. :huh:

[libertarianjim]

Guns are cool. Ever hold an AK-47? It's a sweet feeling.

[SheepDog]

No AK, but I have shot an AR-15 a LONG time ago.

[libertarianjim]

I want a ROMAK sniper rifle sooooo badly. For groundhog hunting, of course.

[snarled]

This is just such a foreign concept to me. Don't get me wrong, the right to defend oneself is a given.

But pumping hot lead into some 16y.o punk with an A-K cause he tried to nick your D.V.D player?! As fun as that sounds. I'm not saying it's wrong. It just aint like that in these here parts.


Gun USE should be limited, but not gun ownership.

Sorta like telling junkies they can have heaps of crack...just don't use it. No?

Sure, I'd trust your judgement...but
there are weirdo's out there man...

[gypseymothlee]

I always took the 2nd ammendment to mean that people can carry weapons as part of an organized militia. Of course I've also never been in a situation where immediate defending of self or etc. was needed.

[SheepDog]

This is just such a foreign concept to me. Don't get me wrong, the right to defend oneself is a given.

But pumping hot lead into some 16y.o punk with an A-K cause he tried to nick your D.V.D player?! As fun as that sounds. I'm not saying it's wrong. It just aint like that in these here parts.

I'm not going to use lethal force to defend my property, although it IS legal here in texas (at night!). The standard I believe in for lethal force is "to prevent loss of life or serious bodily injury."




Gun USE should be limited, but not gun ownership.

Sorta like telling junkies they can have heaps of crack...just don't use it. No?

Sure, I'd trust your judgement...but
there are weirdo's out there man...
I think this cuts to the heart of the gun control issue. Some people probably WILL do hurtful things with guns. So what do we do about it? If we make guns illegal, it will probably stop some of these bad events, but certainly not all ("if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"). But then the majority of people who would use them only for self defense or hunting would lose their rights.

I personally thin that limiting gun ownership is a terrible tradeoff, but I am also of the opinion that he government should stay out of people's life, except in cases where one's behavior affects others in a harmful way. Me owning a gun doesn't harm anybody. Shooting someone, or even brandishing it, does affect others and limits make sense here.

[SheepDog]

I always took the 2nd ammendment to mean that people can carry weapons as part of an organized militia. Of course I've also never been in a situation where immediate defending of self or etc. was needed.
You are correct that the 2nd amendment is ambiguously written.

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The terms "well-regulated Militia" and "right of the people" seem to point to different groups. Based on the first term, some people have said it means the National Guard, even though there was no such thing when the 2nd amendment was written. Others discount the first term and focus on the second half, saying "the people" is every individual.

In the context in which it was written, this country had just engaged in a revolt against the controlling government, something that would not have been possible if the colonists did not have weapons. I personally think a well-armed population adds to the security of a free state by helping deter the government from trying to excessively control individual freedoms. Fascists prefer unarmed peasants.

I wish the 2nd amendment was less ambiguous. But like other parts of the Bill of Rights, the allowance of flexibility in interpretation is both a benefit and a detriment. It takes careful consideration to put ideals into practical use.

[MacGuffin]

I actually just came across this yesterday. A pretty good examination of the 2nd amendment in a conversational style:

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html

[Johnny]

I actually just came across this yesterday. A pretty good examination of the 2nd amendment in a conversational style:

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html

That's a nice article. I didn't realize the founding fathers considered guns to be so harmless. :lol:

[SheepDog]

MacGuffin, that's a good magazine. I'm intrigued that you know about it. If you know what a frugal squirrel is, then I'll be even more intrigued.

That's also a good article, if one has time to read it. The discussion of "natural rights" is what I was alluding to when I stated in my original post, "I happen to believe that my right to defend myself is inalienable, and am glad that the 2nd amendment acknowledges that". Rights don't have to be granted by the government to be rights nonetheless.

[cryptique]

Though I'm no fan of guns, I won't pretend that the right to "keep and bear" them isn't Constitutionally guaranteed. I'd like to think that right was restricted to militias (in a more modern sense), but I'm not confident of that argument.

However, I must state my absolute support for the assault weapons ban. Denying the opportunity to own fully automatic weapons does not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms; it merely keeps ridiculously dangerous weapons out of circulation. If a person is allowed to own an assault rifle and makes a Constitutional argument that his right to do so cannot be denied, then what (aside from cost) is to prevent him from owning an M1 tank? A battleship? A nuclear bomb?

One obvious point to make is that the state of "firearms" at the time the second amendment was written was considerably more primitive than it is today. We cannot speculate about what James Madison or his pals might have said about an AK-47. The article that MacGuffin links to makes the very good point that we must consider words in the Constitution and Bill of Rights by the meanings that existed at the time they were written -- therefore, "militia" is something different from what we think of today. By that same token, however, "arms" is something different, and the definition that existed in the late 18th century didn't include assault weapons. You can't use this argument to support an earlier meaning of "militia" without also agreeing to an earlier meaning of "arms."

Regardless, I believe that assault weapons have no justifiable use by an individual -- you wouldn't hunt with one (if you say you would, you've got issues) and you don't need one to stop an intruder (and most people probably wouldn't want to use one for fear that they'd cause considerable destruction to their own property). They're designed for massive amounts of killing of other human beings, nothing else. If the ability of private individuals to own them is denied, but the right to own handguns and rifles is not, how is the right to keep and bear arms infringed?

"Infringed" is an important word here. To "infringe" is "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another," as in to "infringe a patent." If a patent is infringed, it's violated, not limited. You either infringed the patent or you didn't; you didn't place restrictions on it.

No definition suggests that "infringed" could mean "limited." Therefore, the right to keep and bear arms (defined, for the sake of argument, as handguns and rifles) is not "infringed" if that right is limited to handguns and rifles and excludes assault weapons. You still have the right, but that right is not all-encompassing.

Just my two cents.

[SheepDog]

cryptique, I understand your analysis of infringement. However, the AWB did nothing to outlaw automatic weapons. They were already outlawed (without a license) and continue to be after the AWB expired.

For more about why i think the AWB is silly, please consider this:
http://www.awbansunset.com/whatis.html

One of my objections to the AWB was the 10 round limit on magazine capacity. I have a Glock 19 (9mm) that I legally carry, and it's designed capacity is 15 rounds. Where does the argument come from that I have the right to defend myself, but only if I am forced to change magazines at 10 rounds? I believe that this IS an infringement.

I'll have to come back to the rest of the infringement issue...

[MacGuffin]

MacGuffin, that's a good magazine. I'm intrigued that you know about it. If you know what a frugal squirrel is, then I'll be even more intrigued.

That's also a good article, if one has time to read it. The discussion of "natural rights" is what I was alluding to when I stated in my original post, "I happen to believe that my right to defend myself is inalienable, and am glad that the 2nd amendment acknowledges that". Rights don't have to be granted by the government to be rights nonetheless.

No, I never heard of that magazine until I found the link to that article yesterday. And if "frugal squirrel" refers to some kind of roadkill stew, I don't want to know!

I believe in an individual's right to bear arms. "Arms" can be defined in many different ways. I doubt the Framers intended cannons to be kept by private citizens, so anything bigger than a handheld gun is probably not allowed. Does that include automatic weapons and grenade launchers? That is where the debate is for me.

[SheepDog]

Consider the supposition that one of the inalienable rights is the right of the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. If you believe this, then is there any reason that the people should allow the government to limit their ability to have automatic weapons or grenade launchers?

I realize that a valid follow up question is, "well, if grenade launchers are allowed, why shouldn't individuals be allowed to own nuclear weapons?" It's a tricky problem to draw a line on what is and what is not acceptable.

[Claverhouse]

One of the things I genuinely admire about America is your freedom to own any sort of firearm, and to use it as you see fit.

I would be sorry if this is diminished in any way by sentimental restrictions on either the quantity or quality of the weapon of your choice. If allowed and had I the money I would have bought up half the Red Army's stock during the nineties. *



Claverhouse :ph34r:


* One really cool thing the Ivans did with surplus tanks ( bearing in mind that their tanks were more plentiful and sturdy than comfortable and advanced ) was to sink them in concrete on platforms dotted not unadjacent to the Chinese border. I'd love to do that around my home: if I had a nice estate and willing followers.

[SheepDog]

This may be the most civil discussion of guns (that involved differences of opinion) that has ever existed in the entire planet.

[crule81]

If there is an uncivil discussion of guns, I want to be on the pro-gun side!

[libertarianjim]

If there is an uncivil discussion of guns, I want to be on the pro-gun side!

As they say, an armed society is a polite society.

[Division56]

I want a ROMAK sniper rifle sooooo badly. For groundhog hunting, of course.


*hides his pet groundhog* :(

[gypseymothlee]

I don't think that a gun will necessarily provide more protection for someone, but if it makes them feel safer, good for them. Just don't shoot yourself in the foot.

[songbird36]

What does "legal here in Texas" mean?

That anyone can have a gun regardless of the need to demonstrate sanity?

[SheepDog]

What does "legal here in Texas" mean?

I was referring to the right to use lethal force to defend property.


SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY



§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

from http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm
emphasis added

Federal (US) law does impose limites on gun ownership that include restrictions against certain people, including convicted felons, and persons who are not mentally competent. This supercedes state law.

[booyalab]

I don't think that a gun will necessarily provide more protection for someone, but if it makes them feel safer, good for them. Just don't shoot yourself in the foot. I think it's generally a good idea for people to own guns as long as they're not criminals. If you shoot yourself in the foot with it, it serves you right for being stupid. If you shoot someone else in the foot then you're stupid and evil but at least you have less legal protection than a stupid, evil cop. My basis is that cops are just as capable of corruption as we are.

[SheepDog]

I don't think that a gun will necessarily provide more protection for someone, but if it makes them feel safer, good for them. Just don't shoot yourself in the foot.
There's a line of discussion that highlights what can be called "the gun as a talisman". It is often polarized as being all powerful and good (e.g. it will protect me in any situation), or all powerful and evil (e.g. it will only cause bad things to happen). These kinds of thoughts are common, but not accurate or fully descriptive of guns in general.

A gun provides "protection" in only a limited set of circumstances, so your statement is absolutely correct. I fear for those who think that it will make them absolutely safe, because of concerns like those raised in your comment, as well as others. There are basic things like being familiar with it's operation, knowing how to control its discharge, and basic safety guidelines (like your example, avoiding accidental or negligent discharge). Then there are less obvious, but equally important concerns like knowing when lethal force is legally justified, and also what happens to fine motor control under the kind of high-stress situations that would require its use (fine motor skill is often lost). All of these are factors that ultimately limit the usefulness of a gun as a protective device.

Which leads me to repeat that a gun is only one option (the last) of a progression of defensive options. As such, it is irresponsible (in my not so humble opinion) to carry a weapon without considering and preparing for the many, much more likely scenarios where the gun will not be either appropriate or useful. Personally, there are certain items that I ALWAYS carry when I carry my handgun. One is to make sure that I have comfortable shoes and clothing so that I can flee if necessary. I carry a cell phone so that I can solicit help from law enforcement and/or medical help. And I always carry a non-lethal self-defense device, generally OC (pepper) spray. I also commit to a higher level of situational awareness and practice verbal and non-verbal conflict resolution skills in order to hopefully prevent lethal force situations from arising.

Thanks for bringing up this important point.

[Nighthawk]

My viewpoint is probably a bit tainted from 13 years in the military, but here goes.

In my opinion, the Assault Weapons Ban was a useless law with no teeth. It excluded all pre-ban weapons, of which there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, already in the hands of merchants and other people. For example, I bought a pre-ban AK-47 assault rifle with a supply of pre-ban 30-round banana clips while the AWB was in force. I think that if Congress is going to pass a law, then pass one with some meaning. Outlaw ALL assault weapons and make it a felony to own one ... otherwise, stop wasting our time and money. This is probably not possible, so ... once again ... stop wasting our time and money enacting fairy tale laws.

Personally, I love firearms. I've shot and maintained everything from a 120mm cannon, to machine guns, to pistols. I own an (aforementioned) AK-47 and a Combat Defender pump shotgun, along with several pistols, rifles, and additional shotguns. I love the craftsmanship that goes into them and have even considered becoming a gunsmith as a hobby. However, I am not too keen on using them except for practice against paper targets. I've killed people in self defense and in combat ... something that I still have problems coming to terms with to this day. I never want to take a human life again. I won't even hunt animals anymore or kill insects (except those that sting or carry diseases). Could I kill again? Yes, but only if my life or the life of a family member was threatened. ... and I will make damn sure there are no other options available first.

I purchased my AK47 as a hedge against something that has a very low probability of occurring ... the complete breakdown of social fabric or an invasion. The AK is robust, easy to maintain, and the weapon of choice of most of our enemies (ergo, lots of ammunition available). It can also be converted to full automatic (illegal) if needed. Yes, it can take down a lot of people ... which is exactly what I want if lawless bands of thugs roam the countryside. Other than this extremely unlikely scenario, I will stick to shooting paper targets a few times per year.

I believe that there should be some type of training certification for people prior to letting them own ANY type of firearm. That should be a law that Congress passes. I've seen firearms in the hands of inexperience people maim and kill during my time in the military. Pistols seemed to be much more dangerous than rifles or assault weapons, because they have a shorter barrel and are faster coverage arc. It is easier to accidentally point a pistol at somebody (or yourself) than to accidentally do so with a rifle.

Some food for thought. The Swiss militia has its members keep automatic weapons at their homes. Almost every adult Swiss male has an assault rifle or machine gun in his closet, yet the violent crime rate there is much lower than here. Why is that? Are we, as a society, really that much different from the Swiss? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

[Birdsnest]

Get a liscense to use pepper spray it is one thing that will actually deter them. The 2nd amendment doesn't often get upheld, most people go to prison if they shoot someone, its very hard to proove self defense.

[SheepDog]

Birdsnest, I find it interesting that you mention Texas in particular, given what you are saying. Everything you said about the law enforcement attitudes is exactly opposite of the cases that I've seen here. I haven't considered it specifically as a gender bias issue, so if you could point me to any relevant cases, I'd like to be able to research them more fully.

[SheepDog]

Nighthawk, having never had to take a life, I can only imagine what it would feel like to live with that experience. I do, however, echo your sentiment that I hope to never have to, and would only consider doing so as a very, very last resort.


Some food for thought. The Swiss militia has its members keep automatic weapons at their homes. Almost every adult Swiss male has an assault rifle or machine gun in his closet, yet the violent crime rate there is much lower than here. Why is that? Are we, as a society, really that much different from the Swiss? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

This is a question that invites many theories, but is hard to prove any of those theories definitively. Michael Moore sort of addressed this in Bowling For Columbine and came up with the idea that it was the culture of fear that made gun violence such an issue, and not guns themselves (although he still had the publicity stunt to get Kmart to stop selling bullets. :rant: ) I think fear, from our "leaders" and from the media, is a factor, but that there is more to it than that.

For one, I think the US's captalistic culture emphasizes selfish thinking. It's a lot easier to take a life if you have no empathy for other people.

We are also taught to seek immediate solutions to things, rather than learning to work for things over the long term. From politicians, who are only worried about the time between elections, to the fast food that we eat, there is little emphasis on long-term thinking. A gun provides a seemingly quick solution that in the short term seems much easier than working with others to resolve conflict over the long term. (Of course, this ignores the long term effects of incarceration or capital punishment.)

I also think our criminal system is overly punitive, which teaches people to "get even" rather than trying to resolve issues. The criminal system has many theoretical functions, such as deterrence, protection of society from "dangerous" people, rehabilitation, and punishment. I think the last one is overemphasized. We send people to "pound you in the ass" prison, which shows a purely punitive attitude, IMHO. We also make sure that convicted felons have trouble reintegrating into society by making it hard for them to get jobs and forbids them from participating in govenrment through voting.

These are just some ideas. If there were a single factor, it would be much easier to do something to reduce the violence in the US. But I think the combination makes not only determining the causes, but making any difference very difficult.

[Nighthawk]

We are also taught to seek immediate solutions to things, rather than learning to work for things over the long term. From politicians, who are only worried about the time between elections, to the fast food that we eat, there is little emphasis on long-term thinking.

Sounds very much like an Artisan mentality to me. I wonder if they are the ones running the show.

[SheepDog]

Get a liscense to use pepper spray it is one thing that will actually deter them. The 2nd amendment doesn't often get upheld, most people go to prison if they shoot someone, its very hard to proove self defense.
As mentioned above, I do carry OC spray. But I must state that it's not effective against everyone, and can have the effect of increasing anger in some aggressive people. It is also very likely that the overspray can come back at you, causing you to be less able to defend yourself. It is no more of a talisman than is a gun.

As for using a gun to defend yourself, knowledge of the law and a prepared mindset go a long way toward avoiding the legal jeopardy that you mention. Not all uses of lethal force are justified, and the subtleties can make or break the outcome.

Frankly, I wish you hadn't deleted your other posts. I really was interested in what you had to say with regard to women getting the short end of the stick in self defense situations.

[SheepDog]

We are also taught to seek immediate solutions to things, rather than learning to work for things over the long term. From politicians, who are only worried about the time between elections, to the fast food that we eat, there is little emphasis on long-term thinking.

Sounds very much like an Artisan mentality to me. I wonder if they are the ones running the show.
It seems to me that Guardians and Artisans both have a tendency to think more tactically than strategically. And as you are aware, these two are driving the boat.

[Nighthawk]

We are also taught to seek immediate solutions to things, rather than learning to work for things over the long term. From politicians, who are only worried about the time between elections, to the fast food that we eat, there is little emphasis on long-term thinking.

Sounds very much like an Artisan mentality to me. I wonder if they are the ones running the show.
It seems to me that Guardians and Artisans both have a tendency to think more tactically than strategically. And as you are aware, these two are driving the boat.

All too painfully aware. I have yet to ever work in an NT or NF run organization. Anybody out there ever have that experience?

[libertarianjim]

I want a ROMAK sniper rifle sooooo badly. For groundhog hunting, of course.


*hides his pet groundhog* :(

Hey, any groundhog not tearing holes in my grandmother's yard is safe.

[gypseymothlee]

I also think our criminal system is overly punitive, which teaches people to "get even" rather than trying to resolve issues. The criminal system has many theoretical functions, such as deterrence, protection of society from "dangerous" people, rehabilitation, and punishment. I think the last one is overemphasized. We send people to "pound you in the ass" prison, which shows a purely punitive attitude, IMHO. We also make sure that convicted felons have trouble reintegrating into society by making it hard for them to get jobs and forbids them from participating in govenrment through voting.

I had the chance to meet with some people in a rehabilitation program in Sing Sing. Out of all the people there, only 20 or so were allowed in the program, and while it wasn't state outright, only people with very strong and specific religious beliefs were allowed in.
From what I've noticed, with minor exceptions, our criminal justice programs just make people into more dangerous criminals than they were to begin with.

[Claverhouse]

I had the chance to meet with some people in a rehabilitation program in Sing Sing. Out of all the people there, only 20 or so were allowed in the program, and while it wasn't state outright, only people with very strong and specific religious beliefs were allowed in.

Weird enough. Sometimes those with a strong religious belief-system may be madder than those without.

I don't know how it would translate to a modern American audience, but Evelyn Waugh's 'Decline and Fall' is his funniest book [ 1920s ]. In that, the hero arrives in jail and is put with a homicidal carpenter with religious mania. The ultra-liberal governor then allows him the tools of his trade so he can express himself...



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[flan2dave]

Weird enough. Sometimes those with a strong religious belief-system may be madder than those without.:

Well, that works out fine if those running the program are similarly religious, and thus similarly mad (I assume you meant crazy/mad).

[Claverhouse]

I did. But why should sincere believers ( some sane, some religiously-maniacally dements, some faking it ) get a better deal than those who do not believe ? Or cannot believe.

The instigators of the policy are not necessarily hypocrites, since it's entirely possibly to be extremely unpleasant and non-hypocritical, but their policy will definitely tend to increase hypocrisy.

Probably bloody old communists as well.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Darren]

This is just such a foreign concept to me. Don't get me wrong, the right to defend oneself is a given.

Sure, I'd trust your judgement...but
there are weirdo's out there man...

That's the heart of the matter. I'm probably less supportive of gun control than the average liberal. But if you allow anyone to mail order an AK.... well, I don't want to comment one way or another on the "natural rights" argument for allowing the mail order of an AK.... but that's simply not a country *I* would want to live in. Some of the people who would mail order the AK are nice sensible libertarians who only want to defend their keep against evil-doers, but some of the AK customers would *BE* evildoers...... know what I'm sayin'? How do you tell them apart? :(

And once you accept the law: "you can't mail order an AK", well, that's *gun control* man, and after that we're just arguing about *how much* gun control to have.

[Darren]

Some food for thought. The Swiss militia has its members keep automatic weapons at their homes. Almost every adult Swiss male has an assault rifle or machine gun in his closet, yet the violent crime rate there is much lower than here. Why is that? Are we, as a society, really that much different from the Swiss? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Might have something to do with Swiss social programs?

[Darren]

[quote=gypseymothlee]Personally, there are certain items that I ALWAYS carry when I carry my handgun. One is to make sure that I have comfortable shoes and clothing so that I can flee if necessary. I carry a cell phone so that I can solicit help from law enforcement and/or medical help. And I always carry a non-lethal self-defense device, generally OC (pepper) spray. I also commit to a higher level of situational awareness and practice verbal and non-verbal conflict resolution skills in order to hopefully prevent lethal force situations from arising.

:shock:

Christ, I'm glad I live in Canada. I've never remotely been in a situation calling for any such skills, nor do I know anyone who has ever been in such a situation. I worry far, far more about getting whacked in a car accident or on my bicycle than I do about getting whacked by a mugger. And I live in the city with the highest crime rate in Canada.

America, is this how you want to live?

[SheepDog]

Darren, I'm not sure which part of it you're talking about. The context of that quote was that if you do choose to carry a handgun for self defense, then you must also realize that it's the least likely tool that you would need to defend yourself. You seem to be commenting that being prepared for a variety of threats is a bad thing, because being threatened is bad. That's kind of blaming the victim, don't you think?

If you're asking if I would rather live in a world in which I didn't feel threatened any time at all in my life, then of course the answer is 'yes'. If you live in a world where nobody gets mugged, raped, carjacked, assaulted, or deliberately harmed, then I think you're very lucky. If you think I can make america safer by not being prepared for the chance that I could be threatened, then I can only say that you'll have to do a better job of making that particular point.

I have personally been threatened by strangers, and by using awareness and conflict resolution skills was able to diffuse the situations. My best friend was robbed at knifepoint, and another friend was recently robbed at gunpoint. Both of them were caught unaware, and I believe that if they had beem more prepared (in this case more aware), they would have been less likely to have been chosen by their attacker. I do believe these threats are real, and I believe that being prepared is definitely in my advantage.

[SheepDog]

This is just such a foreign concept to me. Don't get me wrong, the right to defend oneself is a given.

Sure, I'd trust your judgement...but
there are weirdo's out there man...

That's the heart of the matter. I'm probably less supportive of gun control than the average liberal. But if you allow anyone to mail order an AK.... well, I don't want to comment one way or another on the "natural rights" argument for allowing the mail order of an AK.... but that's simply not a country *I* would want to live in. Some of the people who would mail order the AK are nice sensible libertarians who only want to defend their keep against evil-doers, but some of the AK customers would *BE* evildoers...... know what I'm sayin'? How do you tell them apart? :(

And once you accept the law: "you can't mail order an AK", well, that's *gun control* man, and after that we're just arguing about *how much* gun control to have.
Do laws restricting the types of guns, how they are purchased, etc. make you safer against the wierdos?

The reason I ask is that is a core assumption about gun control in general, that if you make them illegal, we will be safer. Of course the counter-argument is that the bad people, who would do bad things with guns won't obey the laws anyway so the laws just end up restricting law abiding citizens.

[Claverhouse]

Personally, there are certain items that I ALWAYS carry when I carry my handgun. One is to make sure that I have comfortable shoes and clothing so that I can flee if necessary. I carry a cell phone so that I can solicit help from law enforcement and/or medical help. And I always carry a non-lethal self-defense device, generally OC (pepper) spray. I also commit to a higher level of situational awareness and practice verbal and non-verbal conflict resolution skills in order to hopefully prevent lethal force situations from arising.

:shock:

Christ, I'm glad I live in Canada. I've never remotely been in a situation calling for any such skills, nor do I know anyone who has ever been in such a situation. I worry far, far more about getting whacked in a car accident or on my bicycle than I do about getting whacked by a mugger. And I live in the city with the highest crime rate in Canada.

America, is this how you want to live?


Same here. I've been threatened/frightened in my time here and there, but that's always with people with whom one's arguing; however I've wandered home ( unarmed ) through quite big towns/cities at 3 to 5 am and never felt the least bit afraid. One kind soul pointed out that others may have been afraid of me, referring to the longish hair & army gear I affect; but I've never seen anyone attacked by muggers etc. ever.

That said, I would have liked to be tooled up. But not because of any danger.

:rofl:



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Darren]

You seem to be commenting that being prepared for a variety of threats is a bad thing, because being threatened is bad. That's kind of blaming the victim, don't you think?

If you're asking if I would rather live in a world in which I didn't feel threatened any time at all in my life, then of course the answer is 'yes'. If you live in a world where nobody gets mugged, raped, carjacked, assaulted, or deliberately harmed, then I think you're very lucky. If you think I can make america safer by not being prepared for the chance that I could be threatened, then I can only say that you'll have to do a better job of making that particular point.

I have personally been threatened by strangers, and by using awareness and conflict resolution skills was able to diffuse the situations. My best friend was robbed at knifepoint, and another friend was recently robbed at gunpoint. Both of them were caught unaware, and I believe that if they had beem more prepared (in this case more aware), they would have been less likely to have been chosen by their attacker. I do believe these threats are real, and I believe that being prepared is definitely in my advantage.

Fair enough. I'm not saying that being prepared for threats is bad. I'm saying that living in a society which is so full of such threats must be a real drag. I've never met anybody who was a victim of any sort of violent crime. (Property crime? Oh yes indeed, but that's another story).

And I'm also not saying "if only you had gun control like we Canadians do, all those threats would go away." I actually think you'd need all our social programs for that to happen.

All I'm saying: "gun control" should at least *try* to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.... otherwise "the right for a law abiding citizen to bear arms" essentially becomes "the *obligation* to bear arms, since every punk on the street has an Uzi, and you don't want to be outgunned."

Gun control is a toughie, but I don't agree with the gun-rights fundamentalist "anybody can buy any gun at any time" ethos that I seemed to see in this thread.

Cheers,
Darren

[MacGuffin]

Okay, SheepDog - let's revive this! I suggest everyone read that article I posted above, it is an entertaining look at the pro-gun argument.

I don't really mind some gun control. The 2nd Amendment does contain the phrase "well regulated". You could even go so far as to ban all non-hunting weapons. I think that is probably going too far, but I could live with it.

[Robespierre]

Might have something to do with Swiss social programs?

Which in particular?

[Robespierre]

Christ, I'm glad I live in Canada. I've never remotely been in a situation calling for any such skills, nor do I know anyone who has ever been in such a situation. I worry far, far more about getting whacked in a car accident or on my bicycle than I do about getting whacked by a mugger. And I live in the city with the highest crime rate in Canada.

America, is this how you want to live?

Yeah, for most of us, this is not a choice. If you live in an american city, you must deal with the results of 40 years of "great society" socialism.

[Robespierre]

I don't really mind some gun control. The 2nd Amendment does contain the phrase "well regulated". You could even go so far as to ban all non-hunting weapons. I think that is probably going too far, but I could live with it.

Even though I don't agree that the constitution grants anyone any rights, but that they naturally occur, lets look at the 2nd amendment.


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The first part is a statement of the writer's opinion, a justification for the second part. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." To paraphrase, a well armed populace is essential to security, therefor people should not be inhibited from owning guns. There is absolutely nothing in the 2nd amendment which suggests that regulating or limiting the amount type or capabilities of guns is within the power of the federal government, especially considering that the second amendment is one describing actions which the feds shall not take. It seems more than a little far fetched to discover new powers for the feds in such a place.

[coffeezombie]

I haven't heard of many cases where the right to bear arms saved someone's life. Sure, I understand the logic behind the idea, but if you're surprised by some mugger or carjacker with a gun, you're not going to get a chance to use your own weapon. He'll shoot you first.

The amendment was created with the intention of citizens being able to arm themselves against oppressive governments. I'm not sure how realistic this need is either in today's day and age. From a utilitarian point of view, I think a bigger lack of availability would keep more "wannabe criminals" and disgruntled people from commiting crimes and thus lessening the homicide rate from these weapons. Hunting rifles only.

[Robespierre]

I haven't heard of many cases where the right to bear arms saved someone's life. Sure, I understand the logic behind the idea, but if you're surprised by some mugger or carjacker with a gun, you're not going to get a chance to use your own weapon. He'll shoot you first.

The amendment was created with the intention of citizens being able to arm themselves against oppressive governments. I'm not sure how realistic this need is either in today's day and age. From a utilitarian point of view, I think a bigger lack of availability would keep more "wannabe criminals" and disgruntled people from commiting crimes and thus lessening the homicide rate from these weapons. Hunting rifles only.

It's nice that you have an opinion on how the crime rate would change if wannabe criminals were kept from "these weapons". However, you should first describe in detail, exactly which weapons you are referring to, and what qualifies a weapon as a hunting rifle.

Then, you can explain what right you have to violently impose your ideas upon others who disagree. So you don't like certain weapons? Well I don't like certain cars. BANS ALL AROUND.

Until someone actually takes an action to harm or directly threaten harm to another, no crime has been committed(and by crime, I don't mean the legal sense, but the moral sense, a wrong).

Also, in your opinion, a gun doesn't provide self defense. Well fine, don't buy a gun. I happen to disagree with you, but I won't prevent you from defending yourself as you please. No one needs to provide any justification for their actions if they have no direct aggressive impact on another.

[Shai Gar]

i love the US bill of rights, and the second amendment pleases me greatly.

i do not believe that any government has the right to tell you what you can and cannot own, and then go ahead and use what they say YOU cannot own.

kind of like my disagreement with the death penalty, you cannot kill, but they can?

[Robespierre]

I haven't heard of many cases where the right to bear arms saved someone's life.

From

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/ayoob65.html

"One of my graduates faced a rapist who had broken into her home while she was at work. She drew her licensed SIG .380 and ordered him to halt. He came toward her. She shot him in the wrist. He disobeyed her command again, and this time she shot him in the center of the chest, ending the matter decisively. He died from the wound. The grand jury refused to indict her, effectively ruling the death a justifiable homicide."


Massad Ayood is a firearms instructor, a well known one, who writes for the magazine, which I believe has already been mentioned, Backwoods Home. Either way, now you have heard of a case. Of course there are millions, but this is one.

[Robespierre]

kind of like my disagreement with the death penalty, you cannot kill, but they can?

Exactly. Do as I say, not as I do. Most of the actions the government takes, it specifically outlaws individuals from taking. Taxation is a great example of this. Theft is outlawed everywhere, yet the feds, states, counties, and municipalities all take part in massive organized theft.

[coffeezombie]

Then, you can explain what right you have to violently impose your ideas upon others who disagree. So you don't like certain weapons? Well I don't like certain cars. BANS ALL AROUND.


I don't have a strong opinion on this. I'm just asking if you are open to the possibility that from a utilitarian perspective, it might be better if most guns were illegal? Do you always have to look at everything from a "rights" perspective?

[Robespierre]

from a utilitarian perspective, it might be better if most guns were illegal?

Better for who?

[MaroonBells]

Exactly. Do as I say, not as I do. Most of the actions the government takes, it specifically outlaws individuals from taking. Taxation is a great example of this. Theft is outlawed everywhere, yet the feds, states, counties, and municipalities all take part in massive organized theft.

.... massive organized theft? ... come on! don't forget the government is made up by individuals, your leap is just as nuts as scrambling all open questions together and pointing to a "God"

[coffeezombie]

Better for who?

Everyone. The idea is that I think most people would choose to have less guns on the street and thus not be open to the possibility of a random person shooting them, once they realize that their guns will be of little use defending themselves against "career criminals." Also, fewer guns means there is less of a chance of their kids finding their guns and shooting themselves or another kid accidentally. I'm not sure most people who own guns are aware of the statistics on this.

[SheepDog]

I haven't heard of many cases where the right to bear arms saved someone's life. Sure, I understand the logic behind the idea, but if you're surprised by some mugger or carjacker with a gun, you're not going to get a chance to use your own weapon. He'll shoot you first.
I'm not sure what you're wanting here. There is no shortage of examples of where lethal force has saved people's lives. If you want to hear about them, it's not hard to find them, and I encourage you to look if that will make a difference for you. As for the second part, awareness is a pretty darn good idea whether you happen to be posessing a defensive weapon at the time or not. I presume you're not promoting being oblivious (condition white) as a form of self defense. This has nothing to do with whether or not you have a weapon to defend yourself.



The amendment was created with the intention of citizens being able to arm themselves against oppressive governments. I'm not sure how realistic this need is either in today's day and age. From a utilitarian point of view, I think a bigger lack of availability would keep more "wannabe criminals" and disgruntled people from commiting crimes and thus lessening the homicide rate from these weapons. Hunting rifles only.

You've just said that gun control reduces crimes. I counter by saying that gun control reduces gun posession by law-abiding citizens, and has very little effect on criminals' posession of guns. That doesn't make anyone safer, but the opposite.

As for hunting rifles only, where does that come from? I don't want to hunt, I want to defend myself. I refuse to accept that I will be allowed to stalk and kill animals for sport, but I will not be allowed to defend my family and myself from someone who threatens our lives. This makes no sense to me.

[coffeezombie]

I'm not sure what you're wanting here. There is no shortage of examples of where lethal force has saved people's lives.

I've also heard about the cases where kids have gotten a hold of guns and shot themselves or shot others while playing. Like I said, I don't have a strong opinion on this. I'm just curious if many of you gun rights advocates are even open to the fact that in a utilitarian sense, having more guns around may not be such a good thing. After all, in countries where the rate of gun ownership is much lower, there is less crime. Is that a correlation or merely an accident to you?

[Robespierre]

Everyone.

Why not let individuals decide for themselves if owning a gun is better than not owning a gun?


The idea is that I think most people would choose to have less guns on the street and thus not be open to the possibility of a random person shooting them, once they realize that their guns will be of little use defending themselves against "career criminals."

I don't think anyone will be "realizing" that anytime soon, as it is simply incorrect. If an individual is properly trained in handling a gun, it is the most effective method of self-defense against attackers.

Also, simply because a majorty may or may not decide that guns are bad, do they have a right to impose their opinion on the minority? The majority once decided that slavery was A-Okay and that interracial marriages should be outlawed.


Also, fewer guns means there is less of a chance of their kids finding their guns and shooting themselves or another kid accidentally.

Absolutely correct. And as I have stated, if we all drove 5 mph on the highways, there would never be another traffic fatality.


I'm not sure most people who own guns are aware of the statistics on this.

I think you're blowing smoke here. What statistics can you offer? Do they come from VPC?

[Robespierre]

.... massive organized theft? ... come on! don't forget the government is made up by individuals, your leap is just as nuts as scrambling all open questions together and pointing to a "God"

Okay, how do you define theft? And how can you exempt one person who takes something from another, without that individual's agreement?

[Robespierre]

I've also heard about the cases where kids have gotten a hold of guns and shot themselves or shot others while playing.

So you've "heard" about cases? Where are those stats you mentioned?


Like I said, I don't have a strong opinion on this. I'm just curious if many of you gun rights advocates are even open to the fact that in a utilitarian sense,

Utitlitarian arguments are the worst of all. The ends justify the means, is another way of framing them.


having more guns around may not be such a good thing. After all, in countries where the rate of gun ownership is much lower, there is less crime. Is that a correlation or merely an accident to you?

Correlation does not imply causation. Lets roll this into the racism thread, does the correlation of gun crime with inner-city blacks imply something about the black race? I say it does not, but to be self-consistent, you must.

[SheepDog]

Everyone. The idea is that I think most people would choose to have less guns on the street and thus not be open to the possibility of a random person shooting them, once they realize that their guns will be of little use defending themselves against "career criminals." I (legally) carry a gun on the street all the time and that does not increase the chances that I will shoot a random person. Maybe you feel that if you carried one, that you would be more likely to shoot a random person, and if so, then please do not carry one. I happen to disagree that having a means of defending myself will not make a difference, so I continue to choose to have the option available to me. Again, if you feel helpless, then please do not carry a gun.


Also, fewer guns means there is less of a chance of their kids finding their guns and shooting themselves or another kid accidentally. I'm not sure most people who own guns are aware of the statistics on this.
And what ARE the statisics on this? Do you know how they compare to things like drownings, poisonings, etc. Shall we ban swimming pools and household cleaners? Because the statistics on this show that either of these are much more likely to harm or kill children than any type of guns. The fact is that the rate of accidental shootings for kids is very low, and the situation is entirely preventable.

[coffeezombie]

Why not let individuals decide for themselves if owning a gun is better than not owning a gun?

Right. My stance has always been to properly educate people rather than to force decisions on them.



I don't think anyone will be "realizing" that anytime soon, as it is simply incorrect. If an individual is properly trained in handling a gun, it is the most effective method of self-defense against attackers.

Could it also be the quickest way to get shot? You get mugged by a guy with a gun, you go for your own gun, he shoots you. End of story.



Also, simply because a majorty may or may not decide that guns are bad, do they have a right to impose their opinion on the minority? The majority once decided that slavery was A-Okay and that interracial marriages should be outlawed.

I'm not arguing it that way. I'm arguing it from a utilitarian way. It just always seem that libertarians are never open to any other kind of ethical philosophy besides "ethics=rights." The existence of government, on the other hand, is to enforce what people consider utilitarian values so that we don't all just go around shooting each other when we get mad at each other for small things.



I think you're blowing smoke here. What statistics can you offer? Do they come from VPC?

None of course. I am arguing from a hypothetical position here. But if it could be shown that outlawing guns would cause less fatalities, it doesn't make logical sense why you wouldn't be for it. Are rights really that much more important to you than human lives? If you knew that even though you were carrying a gun, any random person could just aim and shoot you while you weren't looking, wouldn't you want guns to be outlawed too? Or do you really not value your own life over your desire to have your precious rights?

Personally, I feel a lot safer walking down the streets in Europe where guns are mostly outlawed than I do any American street.

[coffeezombie]

Maybe you feel that if you carried one, that you would be more likely to shoot a random person, and if so, then please do not carry one.
Ah... But you can't stop me. Too bad for you.



And what ARE the statisics on this? Do you know how they compare to things like drownings, poisonings, etc. Shall we ban swimming pools and household cleaners? Because the statistics on this show that either of these are much more likely to harm or kill children than any type of guns. The fact is that the rate of accidental shootings for kids is very low, and the situation is entirely preventable.
Much lower than the number of lives saved by the public carrying guns? I'd like to see that statistic. It seems to me from the way that I see it is that countries with gun restrictions and low gun ownership have much lower crime rates. I'm not sure why gun rights advocates always seem to ignore this fact.

[SheepDog]

If we had a law prohibiting convicted felons from having guns, would that make you feel safer? If so, then you can sleep better tonight knowing that it is already on the books. If making them illegal reduces crime, then there is no worry about "career criminals" that you mentioned above.

Why do anti-gun advocates always ignore this fact?

[SheepDog]

Ah... But you can't stop me. Too bad for you.
You completely missed the point. I'm against trying to control someone's right do do as they choose.

Much lower than the number of lives saved by the public carrying guns? I'd like to see that statistic. It seems to me from the way that I see it is that countries with gun restrictions and low gun ownership have much lower crime rates. I'm not sure why gun rights advocates always seem to ignore this fact.
You are the one saying that people are ignorant of the statistics.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html
http://www.tincher.to/myths.htm
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/

[edited to add links]

[Robespierre]

Could it also be the quickest way to get shot? You get mugged by a guy with a gun, you go for your own gun, he shoots you. End of story.

Yep, it's possible. Lots of things are possible.


I'm not arguing it that way. I'm arguing it from a utilitarian way. It just always seem that libertarians are never open to any other kind of ethical philosophy besides "ethics=rights."

It's funny, this almost sounds like you're concerned with libertarians always trying to do what's "right". Do the ends EVER justify the means?


The existence of government, on the other hand, is to enforce what people consider utilitarian values so that we don't all just go around shooting each other when we get mad at each other for small things.

I couldn't have said it better. The government is used to impose the will of some group, upon another group, who has less political power, so that the larger group can get what it wants, without resistance.


None of course. I am arguing from a hypothetical position here.

Yet you keep asking if gun-rights supporters will listen to statistics. Why?


But if it could be shown that outlawing guns would cause less fatalities, it doesn't make logical sense why you wouldn't be for it.

No, not at all. Why would that make sense? If it could be shown that driving 5 mph on the highways would end traffic fatalities, would that justify having a 5 mph speed limit?


Are rights really that much more important to you than human lives?

What a hillarious false dilema you set up. There need not be a choice between one or the other. Rights are necessary for humans to survive and be happy, without them, humans are slaves.


If you knew that even though you were carrying a gun, any random person could just aim and shoot you while you weren't looking, wouldn't you want guns to be outlawed too?

I do know that, and NO. Why? Do you know that anyone could take a steak knife and cut your throat at any minute? They could just run up behind you and kill you like that. Should they be outlawed?


Or do you really not value your own life over your desire to have your precious rights?

"Your precious rights!" Hahaha.

Seriously though, you are basing your entire insulting argument on the assumption that guns somehow cause crimes, or even that possession results in an increased rate of crime, which you have yet to demonstrate to us. My argument rests on the concept of individual liberty, that each individual should be free to decide the merits and demerits of owning a gun.


Personally, I feel a lot safer walking down the streets in Europe where guns are mostly outlawed than I do any American street.

I don't. Have you been to Russia? I would feel a LOT safer if I could bring my .45 with me.

[Robespierre]

Much lower than the number of lives saved by the public carrying guns? I'd like to see that statistic. It seems to me from the way that I see it is that countries with gun restrictions and low gun ownership have much lower crime rates. I'm not sure why gun rights advocates always seem to ignore this fact.

What fact? What does your fact prove?

Blacks commit most gun crimes in the US, I don't understand why civil rights advocates seem to ignore this fact.(I do, I'm just trying to make a point)

[Robespierre]

Where did CF go? It's no fun without someone to actually defend the other side...

[ohnoaninfp]

I don't think law abiding citizens should have their weapons taken away. Criminals are just going to steal guns anyways. I am all for the 2nd amendment. I would want something to protect my self with, exspecially if iam living alone. Agirl has got to protect her self.

[Dman]

Where did CF go? It's no fun without someone to actually defend the other side...

I'll give it a shot, you're usually an excellent sport to debate with...

So, has anyone mentioned "types" of guns? Ok, so we have the right to bear arms, but does that mean we should have the right to bear armor-piercing weapons, fully automatic guns or those that inflict mass damage? What about bazookas, mortars? Should we have the right to own those? What about bombs? Where do you draw the line, or do you?

[Robespierre]

So, has anyone mentioned "types" of guns? Ok, so we have the right to bear arms, but does that mean we should have the right to bear armor-piercing weapons, fully automatic guns or those that inflict mass damage?

Yes indeed it does. The right to bear arms is not something created by the second amendment, but something the second amendment recognizes. That right is the basic right to self-ownership, which implies an absolute right of self-determination.



What about bazookas, mortars? Should we have the right to own those? What about bombs? Where do you draw the line, or do you?

I draw the line at weapons whose scale is so large, that their immediate area of effect constitutes a direct threat of violence to all within their area of effect. If I have a bomb in my house, that when detonated could destroy, or even effect my neighbor's house in any way, I am directly threatening him(unless he gives me explicit approval to do this). This is no different than pointing a gun at someone, it is a direct threat. So in the instance of area-of-effect weapons, the context defines their status, but never should there be a centralized government enforcing these guidelines.

[Dman]

Yes indeed it does. The right to bear arms is not something created by the second amendment, but something the second amendment recognizes. That right is the basic right to self-ownership, which implies an absolute right of self-determination.



I draw the line at weapons whose scale is so large, that their immediate area of effect constitutes a direct threat of violence to all within their area of effect. If I have a bomb in my house, that when detonated could destroy, or even effect my neighbor's house in any way, I am directly threatening him(unless he gives me explicit approval to do this). This is no different than pointing a gun at someone, it is a direct threat. So in the instance of area-of-effect weapons, the context defines their status, but never should there be a centralized government enforcing these guidelines.

So I should have the right to own a military tank, so long as I'm not pointing it at anyone without their permission. Or an AC-130 gunship. In fact, if I'm a wealthy guy, and have lots of property (no one lives within range should a bomb go off), I should be able to own a whole fleet of military vehicles - fighter jets, tanks, helicopters, etc. - my own personal army, so to speak. Is this accurate?

[Robespierre]

So I should have the right to own a military tank, so long as I'm not pointing it at anyone without their permission. Or an AC-130 gunship.

Yes.


In fact, if I'm a wealthy guy, and have lots of property (no one lives within range should a bomb go off), I should be able to own a whole fleet of military vehicles - fighter jets, tanks, helicopters, etc. - my own personal army, so to speak. Is this accurate?

This is entirely accurate.

[MaroonBells]

Robespierre is sticking to his guns...

Do you live in an underground bunker and keep a military journal for when Armageddon comes?

[Robespierre]

Robespierre is sticking to his guns...

Do you live in an underground bunker and keep a military journal for when Armageddon comes?

No, do you polish the swastika on your cap often? Stereotyping is fun!

[Dman]

Yes.



This is entirely accurate.

That's a cool concept - my own army.

Kinda makes you a little wary though, if some nut job with a lot of money decided to build his own army. You know, like these hate groups and cults that build their own weapons caches, only instead of "scary-looking" guns, they had military fleets. Then they decided to use them in a manner which they considered defensively (by their own definition of a "threat")

Hmm... wonder how many times that would have to happen before people decide maybe a little government intervention wouldn't be so bad after all...

[MaroonBells]

Stereotyping can definately be fun.
And no, it's tatooed on my tongue...

[SheepDog]

Limits on caliber are like saying, "you have the right to use lethal force to stop a threat, but only if you use small bullets." That never made sense to me.

[Robespierre]

That's a cool concept - my own army.

Kinda makes you a little wary though, if some nut job with a lot of money decided to build his own army. You know, like these hate groups and cults that build their own weapons caches, only instead of "scary-looking" guns, they had military fleets. Then they decided to use them in a manner which they considered defensively (by their own definition of a "threat")

Hmm... wonder how many times that would have to happen before people decide maybe a little government intervention wouldn't be so bad after all...

How many times what would have to happen? What do you suppose could happen?

[Robespierre]

That's a cool concept - my own army.

I don't think most people understand as much as they think they do about armies. Modern armies are funded by nation-states, which use the machinery of central banking and massive tax bureaucracies to fund their armies. If the army is not doing its job very well, there are no consequences, they still get their money, with maybe a stiff talkin' to. A "private army" would have to be funded solely by the individual who owned it, would have to find people willing to sell them weapons, and would then have to be able to use them, and find people willing to fight for them, without conscription.

[iponjs]

Laws are just the "J" way of trying to control other's behavior. They work so well, why don't we make some more? I mean, after all, meth isn't legal so it's really hard to find some, right?

My issue is: The Constitution doesn't mention our right to have cars anywhere. However, its a hell of a lot easier to take away someone's firearm than it is to take thier driver's license. But yet, cars kill way more people than guns do....

[MaroonBells]

I still rather trust a democratic government with a power monopoly than my neighbor with a .45

[Dman]

How many times what would have to happen? What do you suppose could happen?

Said cult could do a lot more damage with a huge arsenal such as that, than with some handguns and rifles, if they so chose. Imagine someone with a nuclear weapon, who lived in Antarctica, far from where anyone would be affected if it were detonated, but he had an ICBM to deliver the warhead anywhere in the world. He becomes delusional that people from other continents are trying to secretly kill him, so in “self-defense” he launches it.

I guess that’s ok for anyone to have that capability? Is that a good idea, because it’s “just” to allow him his own personal property, even though he has the potential to wipe out millions of people?

[Robespierre]

I guess that’s ok for anyone to have that capability? Is that a good idea, because it’s “just” to allow him his own personal property, even though he has the potential to wipe out millions of people?

You're rich-nuclear-paranoid-antarctic-recluse example is a borderline case. Does a fueled up ready to launch ICBM constitute a direct threat, as does a pointed gun? I'm not sure, but simply due the fact that you need to create such far-fetched examples to test the idea, I think it is fairly sound.

[Robespierre]

I still rather trust a democratic government with a power monopoly than my neighbor with a .45

And when that democratic government decides to define you as a non-human? Or decides to restrict your ability to live in some way that you personally value? Will you still go along with the "will of the people"?

[Dman]

The point is to illustrate where do you draw the line. Regardless of how far-fetched it is, it is still a possibility. If you say it is ok, then you are saying that is a possibility that is acceptable in that type of world. If you say it isn’t ok, then why not?

[Robespierre]

The point is to illustrate where do you draw the line. Regardless of how far-fetched it is, it is still a possibility. If you say it is ok, then you are saying that is a possibility that is acceptable in that type of world. If you say it isn’t ok, then why not?

I'd lean towards saying it is not acceptable, that it would be a similar action to pointing a gun at someone.

[Dman]

I fail to see how that is any different than a loaded gun in one’s holster, aside from the potential impact it would make. A loaded and ready to go weapon is a loaded and ready to go weapon, no?

Far-fetched nuclear guy doesn't necessarily have it pointed at anyone, until he decides someone is a "threat", just like a pistol.

[Apostasius]

This is somewhat off topic and only my own perception...


One obvious point to make is that the state of "firearms" at the time the second amendment was written was considerably more primitive than it is today. We cannot speculate about what James Madison or his pals might have said about an AK-47. The article that MacGuffin links to makes the very good point that we must consider words in the Constitution and Bill of Rights by the meanings that existed at the time they were written -- therefore, "militia" is something different from what we think of today. By that same token, however, "arms" is something different, and the definition that existed in the late 18th century didn't include assault weapons. You can't use this argument to support an earlier meaning of "militia" without also agreeing to an earlier meaning of "arms."

Okay, I read the article posted by MacGuffin and had a similar point as cryptique. Furthermore, to me, it seems odd that some people who argue vehemently in favor of gun ownership and the sanctity of the 2nd amendment also ignore the original intent of the establishment clause in the 1st amendment (a failing of many Republicans, IMO). If one is to be a consistent strict constructionist and use the argument above regarding "militia", one must agree that Jefferson meant a "wall of separation" much as he described it to the Danbury baptists. Of course, in my estimation, a strict constructionist view regarding constitutional interpretation is both quaint and insufficient.

[Robespierre]

I fail to see how that is any different than a loaded gun in one’s holster, aside from the potential impact it would make. A loaded and ready to go weapon is a loaded and ready to go weapon, no?

Yes it is, but it is not a direct threat. Pointing that gun right at someone IS a direct threat. Having a pocket knife is different that lunging at someone with it.


Far-fetched nuclear guy doesn't necessarily have it pointed at anyone, until he decides someone is a "threat", just like a pistol.

As I said, the situation is completely absurd, and not really helpful to analyze, as we will get into the minutea of how the nuclear-recluse-man stores his nuke, and how he interacts with the outside, and various other topics that won't help us clear up the issue of natural rights, and self preservation.

[Robespierre]

Furthermore, to me, it seems odd that some people who argue vehemently in favor of gun ownership and the sanctity of the 2nd amendment also ignore the original intent of the establishment clause in the 1st amendment (a failing of many Republicans, IMO).

While your criticism is certainly true of most republicans I have encountered, it doesn't do much to make a case for or against gun control.


If one is to be a consistent strict constructionist and use the argument above regarding "militia", one must agree that Jefferson meant a "wall of separation" much as he described it to the Danbury baptists. Of course, in my estimation, a strict constructionist view regarding constitutional interpretation is both quaint and insufficient.

I agree that constructionism is quaint. It represents a vague appeal to the exaggerated genius of men who lived 250 years ago. Rights are a natural result of our existence. The constitution creates no rights, it merely attempts to mention them.

[Dman]

Yes it is, but it is not a direct threat. Pointing that gun right at someone IS a direct threat. Having a pocket knife is different that lunging at someone with it.



As I said, the situation is completely absurd, and not really helpful to analyze, as we will get into the minutea of how the nuclear-recluse-man stores his nuke, and how he interacts with the outside, and various other topics that won't help us clear up the issue of natural rights, and self preservation.

Fine. How about the earlier point about tanks, fighter jets, etc. It is not far-fetched to believe that some people would accumulate the most powerful and far-reaching weapons they can afford, and they may be able to afford a lot. So someone having a weapon(s) that can potentially murder hundreds, perhaps thousands of people is perfectly fine, so long as they aren’t pointing it at anyone or in danger of accidentally hurting anyone (like the bomb case). Right? Even if the type of people who collect massive caches of weapons are often not very mentally stable?

[Robespierre]

Fine. How about the earlier point about tanks, fighter jets, etc. It is not far-fetched to believe that some people would accumulate the most powerful and far-reaching weapons they can afford, and they may be able to afford a lot. So someone having a weapon(s) that can potentially murder hundreds, perhaps thousands of people is perfectly fine, so long as they aren’t pointing it at anyone or in danger of accidentally hurting anyone (like the bomb case). Right? Even if the type of people who collect massive caches of weapons are often not very mentally stable?

I won't say whether such actions are a good or bad idea, that is up to the individual. I WILL say that it is no one else's business. How many guns is too many? What types will you allow before the government thugs are sent in to burn down the place?

[kuranes]

Any opinions on the Barrett Model 82A1? Nighthawk? They say the guys in Desert Storm liked them. True?

[MacGuffin]

Deep down, I just don't trust people enough to let them do *anything* they want.

[Robespierre]

Any opinions on the Barrett Model 82A1?

Excellent weapon. Wish I had one.

[Robespierre]

Deep down, I just don't trust people enough to let them do *anything* they want.

I don't think anyone is asking you to trust people with anything and everything. I only expect you to trust them with those actions that don't directly involve you.

[kuranes]

Where's Tyumen RF?

[Robespierre]

Where's Tyumen RF?

Siberia. RF = Russian Federation. I'm not actually there right now. I'm in the US.

[MacGuffin]

I don't think anyone is asking you to trust people with anything and everything. I only expect you to trust them with those actions that don't directly involve you.
That never works... we are all connected.

[Robespierre]

That never works... we are all connected.

Of course, but by choice, not force. I'm not saying you should avoid contact with people at all costs, just that you shouldn't use aggression on them, unless they directly threaten you.

[MacGuffin]

Of course, but by choice, not force. I'm not saying you should avoid contact with people at all costs, just that you shouldn't use aggression on them, unless they directly threaten you.
Right, but when they threaten me with a tank, and all I have is a handgun...

I don't want people to own tanks unless they are carefully regulated.

[Robespierre]

I don't want people to own tanks unless they are carefully regulated.

By other people with tanks... So really what you want, is SOME people to own tanks, but not others, and you want them to use those tanks to force those who disagree, to comply.

[MacGuffin]

By other people with tanks... So really what you want, is SOME people to own tanks, but not others, and you want them to use those tanks to force those who disagree, to comply.
Yes. If there are tanks I want them to be owned in common for the defense of all people (government) rather than a select few rich people.

[Robespierre]

Yes. If there are tanks I want them to be owned in common for the defense of all people (government) rather than a select few rich people.

How do you define our government? 'Cause I'd call them a few rich people...

Also, common ownership is a fallacy. Nothing can be owned by "everyone". Whoever has the power to operate those tanks owns them.

[MacGuffin]

How do you define our government? 'Cause I'd call them a few rich people...
Which is a good example of why political/economic theory never works the way people want it to.


Also, common ownership is a fallacy. Nothing can be owned by "everyone". Whoever has the power to operate those tanks owns them.True.

[Dman]

I won't say whether such actions are a good or bad idea, that is up to the individual. I WILL say that it is no one else's business. How many guns is too many? What types will you allow before the government thugs are sent in to burn down the place?

I would say that it is my business if anyone living in my community, including mentally unstable violent people, had the right and the ability to arm themselves with weapons that are capable of murdering massive numbers of people.

[Robespierre]

Which is a good example of why political/economic theory never works the way people want it to.

More specifically, an example of incorrect poltical/economic theories not working. The corruption seen in fedgov is a predictible and unavoidable result of centralized coercive government.

[Robespierre]

I would say that it is my business if anyone living in my community, including mentally unstable violent people, had the right and the ability to arm themselves with weapons that are capable of murdering massive numbers of people.

So now your going to add a sanity test? Who gets to be the ultimate decider of who's sane? Is it the same people who drive the tanks into people's homes to defend us from ourselves?

[Dman]

So now your going to add a sanity test? Who gets to be the ultimate decider of who's sane? Is it the same people who drive the tanks into people's homes to defend us from ourselves?

No, you simply make it illegal for people to purchase or own those types of weapons in the first place.

[Robespierre]

No, you simply make it illegal for people to purchase or own those types of weapons in the first place.

So no one would have tanks and automatic rifles, even the feds?

[Dman]

So no one would have tanks and automatic rifles, even the feds?

Yes - What a beautiful world that would be!

[Robespierre]

Yes - What a beautiful world that would be!

As you realize, tanks, machine guns, bombs, etc won't just go away. So why should we trust only governments with them? Look what they did in the last 100 years!

[Dman]

As you realize, tanks, machine guns, bombs, etc won't just go away. So why should we trust only governments with them? Look what they did in the last 100 years!

True; but to be perfectly honest I trust the fed gov with them more than my kooky neighbors

[Claverhouse]

Yes - What a beautiful world that would be!
Indeed it would. We would frolic all day in the endless sunshine, poverty and want would be banished from the land; there would be free food and a plentitude of luxuries for anyone who wanted them; happy guiltless free sex with anyone with whom the attraction is mutual; no-one would get old or ill; no person would ever tell another what to do and people will never quarrel or even disagree.

You want to teach the world to sing.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Robespierre]

True; but to be perfectly honest I trust the fed gov with them more than my kooky neighbors

Maybe so, but your neighbors could never afford to put 2 million troops in the field. Also, I'll wager your neighbors didn't kill 500,000,000 people over the last 100 years.

[Dman]

Maybe so, but your neighbors could never afford to put 2 million troops in the field. Also, I'll wager your neighbors didn't kill 500,000,000 people over the last 100 years.

There's that statistic again!

Yes, I know what your point is. I guess the perspective I'm coming from is that I don't want the fed gov AND my kooky neighbors with those weapons.

A handgun or rifle for self-defense and/or hunting, sure, why not. But I really don't see the point of the mass-killing capable weaponry. Actually I DO see the point, and I don't agree with it.

[Robespierre]

A handgun or rifle for self-defense and/or hunting, sure, why not. But I really don't see the point of the mass-killing capable weaponry. Actually I DO see the point, and I don't agree with it.

And that's why no one will force you to have any "mass killing" weapons, whatever that means.

Some people don't like the idea that others don't go to church on sunday.

[SheepDog]

A handgun or rifle for self-defense and/or hunting, sure, why not.
And you only had to go to Antarctica and back to get to this. ;)

[Dman]

And that's why no one will force you to have any "mass killing" weapons, whatever that means.

Some people don't like the idea that others don't go to church on sunday.

Going to church on Sunday is a far cry from allowing anyone to horde extremely dangerous weapons capable of killing hundreds of people in an instant.

The problem I have between handguns/rifles versus fully automatic assault weapons/larger powerful weapons is the matter of degree of damage and time constraint.

If some wacko decides to start killing people with a hangun or rifle, he can't get very far before someone takes him out. Conversely, with fully automatic assault weapons (which serve no practical purpose but to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time) and other similar weapons, that same wacko can kill dozens, hundreds even, before being stopped.

So on one hand, you have guns which actually serve a practical purpose (hunting, self-defense) which can potentially be very dangerous on a small, isolated scale. On the other hand you have weapons which only serve to kill lots of people quickly (what practical purpose that can have for an individual is pretty far-fetched) which can potentially be very dangerous on a large, widespread scale.

[Robespierre]

Going to church on Sunday is a far cry from allowing anyone to horde extremely dangerous weapons capable of killing hundreds of people in an instant.

What kind of weapons are those, specifically?


The problem I have between handguns/rifles versus fully automatic assault weapons/larger powerful weapons is the matter of degree of damage and time constraint.

If some wacko decides to start killing people with a hangun or rifle, he can't get very far before someone takes him out.

Who will take him out? Surely not those people who have been denied their natural right to self-defense in areas where carrying a concealed weapon has been made illegal, or governed by some lisencing scheme.


Conversely, with fully automatic assault weapons (which serve no practical purpose but to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time) and other similar weapons, that same wacko can kill dozens, hundreds even, before being stopped.

Just to be clear here, do you know which guns you are referring to when you mention "fully automatic-assault weapons" and do you know their current legal status?

Again, you don't like such weapons. Very well, don't get any. No matter what the purpose, or your opinion of the purpose, unless the action directly involves you, as in shooting at or pointing the gun at you, you have no right to be involved.


So on one hand, you have guns which actually serve a practical purpose (hunting, self-defense)

You are seriously telling me that "assualt weapons" can't serve as self-defense?


which can potentially be very dangerous on a small, isolated scale. On the other hand you have weapons which only serve to kill lots of people quickly (what practical purpose that can have for an individual is pretty far-fetched) which can potentially be very dangerous on a large, widespread scale.

Potential danger. Is that what should define individual rights? Should there be some central authority, the ministry of danger, that calculates the danger of every act, according to those in the ministry, and then writes laws to minimize those dangers? If so, driving is right out. You can forget smoking and drinking too.

I want to know what you base your entire view on. You assume that the ability to kill with speed and accuracy should be limited to certain people. By what right? And please address my questions as to the specific types or classes of weapons to which you refer, I have a feeling you may be misunderstanding a lot of the terms involved in this discussion.

[ohnoaninfp]

I want a tank! :'(

[Robespierre]

I want a tank! :'(

Well you can't have one, only the people with the most potential to abuse the tank should be allowed to own them.

[Dman]

What kind of weapons are those, specifically?



Who will take him out? Surely not those people who have been denied their natural right to self-defense in areas where carrying a concealed weapon has been made illegal, or governed by some lisencing scheme.



Just to be clear here, do you know which guns you are referring to when you mention "fully automatic-assault weapons" and do you know their current legal status?

Again, you don't like such weapons. Very well, don't get any. No matter what the purpose, or your opinion of the purpose, unless the action directly involves you, as in shooting at or pointing the gun at you, you have no right to be involved.



You are seriously telling me that "assualt weapons" can't serve as self-defense?



Potential danger. Is that what should define individual rights? Should there be some central authority, the ministry of danger, that calculates the danger of every act, according to those in the ministry, and then writes laws to minimize those dangers? If so, driving is right out. You can forget smoking and drinking too.

I want to know what you base your entire view on. You assume that the ability to kill with speed and accuracy should be limited to certain people. By what right? And please address my questions as to the specific types or classes of weapons to which you refer, I have a feeling you may be misunderstanding a lot of the terms involved in this discussion.

How about answering what purpose an Uzi or rocket launcher serves? Self defense? What would you possibly be defending yourself against with one of those, that you couldn’t accomplish with a handgun or shotgun? All those roving hordes of people coming to get you at night?

There is no valuable correlation between cars or cigarettes and an Uzi in this conversation, so I don’t feel compelled to respond to that.

I know where you want to lead the argument, it isn’t about the practicality or danger level of the weapons, it’s about property rights and individualism. Ok, let’s pretend in your world that is the way it is and I agree.

Now, back to the actual world we live in – the primary purpose for an Uzi or a rocket launcher is to murder other people. I think it’s a fair assumption to say that a large degree of people who feel a handgun, shotgun, mace, tazer, dog, or baseball bat is not sufficient for self defense, but an Uzi or rocket launcher is, are not the healthiest of mind. Other people simply find these items “fun”.

I, who live in a society with many restrictive laws under a coercive form of government, tend to agree that if we are going to live in this type of system that some restrictions need to be made on said weapons. Otherwise, why don’t we let young, grade-school kids take an Uzi to class? As long as they don’t point it at anyone, that’s ok, right? In this here and now, I disagree. Similarly, I think that those citizens that have proven by their actions that they have violent and murderous tendencies towards other members of our society should also be restricted.

So long as we live in a “restrictive” society we may as well put some of those restrictions to good use. My opinion of “good use” is to limit the accessibility of certain weapons that have virtually no practical use but to murder large numbers of people. You may be able to construct scenarios where these weapons can be used for other purposes, but in all reality there is no need for people to have them but for killing other people unprovoked. The only consequence I can see that it would have would be that less people would be murdered. What possible other consequences would there be? That people would lose their “freedom” to own an extremely dangerous weapon? Boo-hoo.

You disagree that a person should be allowed the”freedom” to own a bomb, don’t you? Why? Because they might “accidentally” kill someone? But it’s ok for a person to own an Uzi or a rocket launcher, weapons intended to purposely murder someone, for the simple fact that it is their “right”. That’s strange logic. I know, I know, individualism and property rights blah blah blah. But let’s look at reality here.

[Robespierre]

How about answering what purpose an Uzi or rocket launcher serves? Self defense?

Whatever purpose an individual uses them for, of course. That could be self-defense, collecting, assaulting the neighbors, etc.


What would you possibly be defending yourself against with one of those, that you couldn’t accomplish with a handgun or shotgun?

Possibly a group of people trying to enter my home? Again, what does your opinion of the possible uses have to do with your right to use violence to prevent people from possessing these weapons?


All those roving hordes of people coming to get you at night?

Quite possibly, yes.


There is no valuable correlation between cars or cigarettes and an Uzi in this conversation, so I don’t feel compelled to respond to that.

Of course not. You have made you decision on the value of some nebulous class of weapons you don't like, and won't accept that others have a different opinion than you do, and that those alternate opinions are just as valid.


I know where you want to lead the argument, it isn’t about the practicality or danger level of the weapons, it’s about property rights and individualism. Ok, let’s pretend in your world that is the way it is and I agree.

My world is the same as your world.


Now, back to the actual world we live in – the primary purpose for an Uzi or a rocket launcher is to murder other people.

Murder? Those weapons are designed for murder? So it's not possible for someone to use a rocket launcher in a defensive way? Or for an Uzi to be used in non-aggressive way(that is, where the user is only responding to, but not initiating violence)?


I think it’s a fair assumption to say that a large degree of people who feel a handgun, shotgun, mace, tazer, dog, or baseball bat is not sufficient for self defense, but an Uzi or rocket launcher is, are not the healthiest of mind. Other people simply find these items “fun”.

Either way, it's not your business. I've yet to hear one logical argument about why something MUST be qualified by you as useful in "self defense" before anyone but government thugs should be allowed to own them.


I, who live in a society with many restrictive laws under a coercive form of government, tend to agree that if we are going to live in this type of system that some restrictions need to be made on said weapons. Otherwise, why don’t we let young, grade-school kids take an Uzi to class?

Who is "we"? Does "we" include the parents?


As long as they don’t point it at anyone, that’s ok, right?

Only if the property owner approves, which currently in most cases is the government, and they don't approve. I have a hard time imagining any school director approving, though it is their right to do so, just as it is the parent's right to not send their child to that school.


In this here and now, I disagree.

What do you mean when you speak of "this here and now"? What else would we be talking about, but this world as it is, right now?


Similarly, I think that those citizens that have proven by their actions that they have violent and murderous tendencies towards other members of our society should also be restricted.

So long as we live in a “restrictive” society we may as well put some of those restrictions to good use.

"All the other children were doing it!"


My opinion of “good use” is to limit the accessibility of certain weapons that have virtually no practical use but to murder large numbers of people.

You do keep saying that, but you don't explain why that practical use should be limited to those who are most capable of abusing that same use, the government.


You may be able to construct scenarios where these weapons can be used for other purposes, but in all reality there is no need for people to have them but for killing other people unprovoked.

What about an automatic weapon precludes its use in a defensive situation? What about the machinery of the weapons in question regulates the nature of their use in such a way as to only allow the user to do evil with them?


The only consequence I can see that it would have would be that less people would be murdered.

This is an absurd idea. Less guns almost always leads to more crime. You failed to make the connection between the logic you use here, and the logic of my absurdity about the 5 mph freeway. The ends NEVER justify the means.


What possible other consequences would there be? That people would lose their “freedom” to own an extremely dangerous weapon? Boo-hoo.

The loss of individual liberty is forefront in my concern, yes, but there are many other possible consequences, which include but are not limited to mass genocide. Disarming a population is always the first step towards burning them, deporting them, enslaving them, etc. Boohoo indeed.



You disagree that a person should be allowed the”freedom” to own a bomb, don’t you? Why? Because they might “accidentally” kill someone?

You quote "accidentally" like it was something I said. It is not. I am perfectly self-consistent in my discussion of this topic. I have stated that physical violence, or the direct threat thereof, is a wrong. No one has the right to disregard this basic tennant of civilization, especially the government.


But it’s ok for a person to own an Uzi or a rocket launcher, weapons intended to purposely murder someone, for the simple fact that it is their “right”. That’s strange logic.

I agree, the logic as your present it, makes absolutely no sense. Go back and read what I actually said.


I know, I know, individualism and property rights blah blah blah. But let’s look at reality here.

Here's the ultimate logical reply. "blah blah blah". Quite good.

You're smarter than this. This issue seems to be an emotional one for you, or at least one which gives you trouble when trying to systematize your beliefs.

Lay out the ultimate justification you can consider for accepting the idea that "the ends justify the means" and that violent restriction of individual liberty can ever be a good thing.

[MacGuffin]

Don't argue reality with zealots.

[Robespierre]

Don't argue reality with zealots.

Is this just general advice, or are you directing it at either Dman or myself in particular?

[ohnoaninfp]

Well you can't have one, only the people with the most potential to abuse the tank should be allowed to own them.

Who says I am not going to abuse it? Oh James! Muahahahaha!

[Dman]

Of course not. You have made you decision on the value of some nebulous class of weapons you don't like, and won't accept that others have a different opinion than you do, and that those alternate opinions are just as valid.

Actually, I fully accept that others have a different opinion than I on the subject. I simply don’t view them as fully rational, but everyone has a different outlook on the world. I do not feel strongly enough to go on a crusade against “assault” weapons, but sitting here in my chair at work, I feel they are not worth whatever value people may perceive them at versus their risk. My nebulous description of which weapons are “ok” versus which ones aren’t is simply a judgment call, admittedly. I feel a line must be drawn at some point in order to limit the types of weapons available to people at one end of the extreme.

Liken it to firecrackers – they can be fun to light off on holidays. But there is a difference between lighting off small “ladyfingers”, and then up the spectrum to large bombs that are equal to several pounds of dynamite. At some point you can draw a distinction between which ones are fun and relatively harmless and at which ones are extremely dangerous. Where is that line? It’s different for everyone. But very few would argue that several sticks of dynamite should be treated the same as a ladyfinger. Furthermore, the two extremes implicitly carry different uses of practicality and entertainment. In the case of weapons, firearms specifically, my personal opinion is that someone’s freedom to carry, or their perceived practicality of an Uzi does not outweigh the potential dangers that I personally see. Therefore, if a vote is made to outlaw those types of weapons, I, based upon my personal logic and perception, vote in favor. The end.

My belief is that in a society where roving hordes of people coming to get me at night is a real threat, I may change my mind regarding Uzi’s and rocket launchers. However I don’t see that threat nor do I foresee it ever happening to me. Even if it did, I would expect that roving hordes of people coming to get me only need one handgun each in order to kill me, regardless of if I have an Uzi. Either way, I see it as Uzi = worthless. And again you may ask what right do I have to enforce my will upon others? In a case such as this, I am willing to live in that type of society. In a case that is not similar, like if people decided someone like me should be a slave, then no, I would not agree that is an appropriate society to live in. There is an obvious difference. I like to think of it as “rational human beings”. No, people do not always think rationally, but that is why change and revolution can occur. I don’t think control over who should own an Uzi and who shouldn’t is enough to warrant rational human beings to revolution or dismantling of a society.



My world is the same as your world.

I wouldn't be so sure about that...jk


Murder? Those weapons are designed for murder? So it's not possible for someone to use a rocket launcher in a defensive way? Or for an Uzi to be used in non-aggressive way(that is, where the user is only responding to, but not initiating violence)?

Hmm...yeah, maybe they're also made just to make you look cool so you can pick up chicks.

Not. Made for murder, period. Can you use them otherwise, sure. You could use it as a paperweight. But that isn't WHY they are made.



You do keep saying that, but you don't explain why that practical use should be limited to those who are most capable of abusing that same use, the government.

Well, it should, and if there were a vote that no government anywhere shall use those weapons, I would vote in favor of it. We know how realistic that is. But realistic or not, I’d rather not have everybody else have access to the same thing as the government. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The gov can have them, why not everyone else! I’d rather say let’s get as many of them out of people’s hands as we can, even if we can’t get them out of the gov’s. Gov has nukes too, should individual citizens as well?

I can’t change the world at that level, my friend, but I would like to control it at the level that I can. Which is why I also approve of a law enforcement officer taking a violent criminal offender in my community to jail by force. What right do I have to impose my opinion on that offender! Well, that’s the world I live in, and I accept that aspect of it.



This is an absurd idea. Less guns almost always leads to more crime. You failed to make the connection between the logic you use here, and the logic of my absurdity about the 5 mph freeway. The ends NEVER justify the means.

I wasn’t implying less guns, I was implying less of those types of guns. The idea that Uzi's available to more people would lead to less crime is absurd.


The loss of individual liberty is forefront in my concern, yes, but there are many other possible consequences, which include but are not limited to mass genocide. Disarming a population is always the first step towards burning them, deporting them, enslaving them, etc. Boohoo indeed.

Do you really think that if people had Uzi’s and rocket launchers and the like that they would be able to stop the government from “burning them, deporting them, enslaving them, etc.”? That’s laughable, and a common weak defense I’ve heard from paranoid gun freaks. You can gloat when the gov comes to "get me" and I don't have my Uzi handy.


You quote "accidentally" like it was something I said. It is not. I am perfectly self-consistent in my discussion of this topic. I have stated that physical violence, or the direct threat thereof, is a wrong. No one has the right to disregard this basic tennant of civilization, especially the government.

I agree, the logic as your present it, makes absolutely no sense. Go back and read what I actually said.

Ok, let’s try it this way:

You disagree that a person should be allowed the”freedom” to own a bomb, don’t you? Why? Because they might commit physical violence, or the direct threat thereof, and kill someone? But it’s ok for a person to own an Uzi or a rocket launcher, weapons intended to purposely murder someone, for the simple fact that it is their “right”. That’s strange logic.


Here's the ultimate logical reply. "blah blah blah". Quite good.

Sorry about that, I was in a hurry and getting tired of rambling. I'm better now, as you can see from my continued rambling.

(continues rambling)


You're smarter than this. This issue seems to be an emotional one for you, or at least one which gives you trouble when trying to systematize your beliefs.

Not emotional, just based upon personal observations. As I mentioned before, I am not a crusader of this topic. I’m doing it more for the intellectual exercise than anything else. I suppose in the interest of this debate I shouldn’t mention this, but I’ve shot an AK-47 before (not mine, I don’t own, nor ever have owned, a gun) and it was fun. Regardless, I don’t feel I’d be missing anything if I never had shot one. Setting off a nuclear bomb might be kinda fun too, but that doesn’t mean I feel I should have the right to. BTW, the guy who owned the gun, a friend of mine, also collected assault weapons under the premise that “if the government ever came after him”. I thought he was “smarter than that”, but delusional paranoia does strange things to people, even intelligent people.

I suppose if you are engaged in behavior that is causing the government to come after you, then maybe you ought to examine your choice of lifestyle.


Lay out the ultimate justification you can consider for accepting the idea that "the ends justify the means" and that violent restriction of individual liberty can ever be a good thing.

Here’s where we go back to the whole real-world thing again. If I lived in a society where all individual liberties were respected, I may not feel the need to agree with violent restrictions upon them. However, in a world where not all of individual liberties ARE respected, I don’t feel that it is wise to start respecting them by allowing every tom, dick, and harry to have an Uzi. Might want to choose a more practical avenue, one which carries less personal risk of death, before working your way down to this issue.

[Hypnos]

Some things I wanted to address:


2ND AMENDMENT


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The first and second clauses seems contradictory: how can you establish and regulate a militia if the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed?

Two extreme possibilities:

- "The people" refers to states, not individuals; regulation of arms should be devolved to states and localities

- A well-regulated militia might be essential, but it is not mandated in the first clause -- the significance of the 2nd clause is that individuals have guns, so that a militia might be established if deemed necessary by the people

I subscribe to the 2nd extremum because it's not tendentious. However, the caveat is that the 2nd amendment is outdated -- back in the 18th century the most devastating military weapon an individual could own was another person.


UTILITARIAN ARGUMENTS FOR GUN CONTROL

More to the point, managing externalities like:
- guns being readily available to criminals
- safety of the public given irresponsible legal gun owners
- "a culture of violence"

While it has not been shown conclusively that guns make people safer, it has been shown conclusively that gun control does not.


EFFECTIVENESS OF GUNS IN DEFENDING THE US

"A gun behind every blade of grass." The Japanese were mortified of invading mainland US. Consider the difficulties the US has had in taming Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. If the populace is willing to defend itself at a tactical level (street to street), firearms can be very effective in a war of attrition.

This last scenario is very similar to the normal self-defense scenario, by the way ...


EXTREME WEAPONS

(e.g., tanks and nuclear devices)

I don't know what to think here. Like I said, the 2nd amendment is outdated.

[Dman]

Some things I wanted to address:


2ND AMENDMENT


The first and second clauses seems contradictory: how can you establish and regulate a militia if the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed?

Two extreme possibilities:

- "The people" refers to states, not individuals; regulation of arms should be devolved to states and localities

- A well-regulated militia might be essential, but it is not mandated in the first clause -- the significance of the 2nd clause is that individuals have guns, so that a militia might be established if deemed necessary by the people

I subscribe to the 2nd extremum because it's not tendentious. However, the caveat is that the 2nd amendment is outdated -- back in the 18th century the most devastating military weapon an individual could own was another person.


UTILITARIAN ARGUMENTS FOR GUN CONTROL

More to the point, managing externalities like:
- guns being readily available to criminals
- safety of the public given irresponsible legal gun owners
- "a culture of violence"

While it has not been shown conclusively that guns make people safer, it has been shown conclusively that gun control does not.


EFFECTIVENESS OF GUNS IN DEFENDING THE US

"A gun behind every blade of grass." The Japanese were mortified of invading mainland US. Consider the difficulties the US has had in taming Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. If the populace is willing to defend itself at a tactical level (street to street), firearms can be very effective in a war of attrition.

This last scenario is very similar to the normal self-defense scenario, by the way ...


EXTREME WEAPONS

(e.g., tanks and nuclear devices)

I don't know what to think here. Like I said, the 2nd amendment is outdated.

So make a decision, which side of the fence are you on. Looks like pro-Uzi.

[Hypnos]

I'm definitely pro sub-automatic.

Full automatic (e.g., Uzi) and above ... I don't know. They don't have a compelling self-defense use, unless your attacker has one, of course; the risk of collateral damage is very high in either case.

[Claverhouse]

Some things I wanted to address:


2ND AMENDMENT


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The first and second clauses seems contradictory: how can you establish and regulate a militia if the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed?
Geez, you're not big on the 18th century mind... It simply means: that because a properly constituted militia --- the levies called out from the people to defend against invasion or civil unrest by government, as distinct from paid armed forces of the government --- is necessary for the defence of freedom, and a free society, therefore the people should be allowed to freely keep and bear arms at home, in order to be able to use them when called up into the militia.

So US citizens have an unalienable right to use their weapons both privately and when called up for civil defence in governmentally declared emergencies.

The overt sparking-point for the English Civil War in the previous century had been over who had control of the militias, King or parliament. Militias were important in an age of few regular troops.

Not that they were ever that useful in battle.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Hypnos]

Geez, you're not big on the 18th century mind... It simply means: that because a properly constituted militia --- the levies called out from the people to defend against invasion or civil unrest by government, as distinct from paid armed forces of the government --- is necessary for the defence of freedom, and a free society, therefore the people should be allowed to freely keep and bear arms at home, in order to be able to use them when called up into the militia.
Yeah, if you read the remainder of my post, that's what I said.

I went into more detail because not all Constitutional jurisprudence is Constructionist.

[SheepDog]

So make a decision, which side of the fence are you on. Looks like pro-Uzi.
You're making a false dilemma here. It's possible to support the right to have guns without supporting having uzi's in the hands of schoolchildren.

You and Robespierre can enjoy your discussion about principles of property, etc. You've taken it to absurd extremes, far beyond the scope of US Constitution (Crazy Rich Person with Nukes in Antarctica?!?) to make certain points. I'm not objecting, you can talk about it, and I'm in no way trying to censor you. But when Hypnos tried to bring it back to the 2nd Amendment, you made it about Uzi's, which have never been legal in the US without a license (specifically, a Class 3 Federal Firearms License).

Maybe we should discuss the 1934 National Firearms Act (http://keepandbeararms.com/laws/nfa34.htm) , in the context of the 2nd Amendment, since that's when machine guns were banned. We can also talk about how ironic it is that a prohibition on guns was put in place to try to control the outcome of the prohibition on alcohol. Or how is it that it falls under the Internal Revenue Code, which is in itself of questionable constitutionality (http://www.lightparty.com/Economic/IRS2.html)

[MacGuffin]

I don't think Dman was saying that you have to decide between no guns and Uzis.


I wasn’t implying less guns, I was implying less of those types of guns.

He was trying to establish a limit to the word "arms".

[SheepDog]

When you say, "which side of the fence are you on...?" you might be saying, "are you for or against a limit on types of guns", or you might be saying, "where do you think the limit on types of guns should be". I read your comment, MacGuffin, to be saying that the question was whether or not there should be a limit. I took the question to be asking where uzi's fall with regard to the limit. This conversation may have started with a discusion of whether there should be a limit, but I read that comment to have move past that, and to take that for a given.

Maybe I read it wrong, and this will help remove the ambiguity.

And maybe I'm reading too much into it as well, but the word 'Uzi' is a bit inflammatory. "sounds like you're pro-Uzi" is a lot different than saying, "it sounds like you don't think that there should be a limit on types of weapons", or even "it sounds like you don't think the limit extends to fully automatic weapons". The word Uzi has a history in this context, and it is emotionally charged, just like the meaningless therm "assault weapons".

[edit: spellering]

[Dman]

When you say, "which side of the fence are you on...?" you might be saying, "are you for or against a limit on types of guns", or you might be saying, "where do you think the limit on types of guns should be". I read your comment, MacGuffin, to be saying that the question was whether or not there should be a limit. I took the question to be asking where uzi's fall with regard to the limit. This conversation may have started with a discusion of whether there should be a limit, but I read that comment to have move past that, and to take that for a given.

Maybe I read it wrong, and this will help remove the ambiguity.

And maybe I'm reading too much into it as well, but the word 'Uzi' is a bit inflammatory. "sounds like you're pro-Uzi" is a lot different than saying, "it sounds like you don't think that there should be a limit on types of weapons", or even "it sounds like you don't think the limit extends to fully automatic weapons". The word Uzi has a history in this context, and it is emotionally charged, just like the meaningless therm "assault weapons".

[edit: spellering]

I figured this would come up eventually. I’m using the term Uzi because it is short (3 letters) therefore easier to type over and over, and assume most people understand the context. The context being a distinction between sub-automatic handguns, rifles and shotguns which are primarily functional for hunting and self-defense, versus “assault” type weapons such as the relatively small, fully-automatic Uzi which is made for the explicit use of murder. The 2nd amendment may not mention Uzi’s and they may be illegal, but the point I was arguing, if you were paying attention was that some people feel virtually any weapon should be freely available to anyone (interpretation of “the right to bear arms”).

I was being a bit cheeky with Hypnos, I didn’t mean it literally. I just saw a bunch of observations he made & wondered how he felt about the recent discussion. It was my way of asking his position on the debate, which he answered, so I’m assuming that at least he understood where I was coming from. I didn’t mean to ask a literal are you in favor of “Uzis” or not, but rather where (or if) he drew the line regarding guns/weapons.

And I can’t be responsible for how inflammatory someone else may “feel” about the word “Uzi”. I didn’t think it was even a very common term anymore. I hear “AK” and “assault weapons” more often. Or would it be more helpful if I spell out and explain every exact intention and literal meaning, and repeatedly write “there should be a limit on certain types of weapons, particularly those that are fully automatic guns or are capable of causing indiscriminate collateral damage in the form of shrapnel”. I prefer to say “Uzi” and “rocket launcher”.

So, I’m assuming you must be pro-Uzi based upon your response…is that why you don’t like that phrase? Does it sound too inflammatory to you, too negative, even if it’s true? Why not tell it like it is. You either believe the 2nd amendment gives people the right to own them or you don’t. If you believe your convictions are right, and that people have a right to own fully automatic weapons such as an Uzi, then why would that term bother you.


I’m shocked that you didn’t find my crazy rich nuclear-armed dude living in antarctica scenario amusing! ;) Plus all the value it added to the conversation.

Sometimes I feel it necessary to use extreme examples to illustrate a point so that we don’t have to spend 3 pages arguing specific details and exceptions. Particularly when I’m trying to find out where or if there is a line separating acceptable and unacceptable. Start at the extremes and work your way down… Sometimes it works; sometimes, meh…

but you have to admit it would make a pretty cool movie

[Robespierre]

Do you know the difference, Dman, between semi-automatic and fully automatic?

[SheepDog]

The 2nd amendment doesn't give anybody any rights. It acknowldedges a right, and explicitly prohibits the government from infringing upon those rights. That's the starting point of this discussion, as I see it.

The right does not come with limits on ownership, (although I do agree in limits on use, where others are harmed, but that is a general limit, and has nothing to do with guns specifically.) If we are to introduce such limits on ownership, then the person/group attempting to impose such limits must make the case convincingly that ownership or posession causes harm to others. The criteria must be clearly related to the ways in which ownership or posession causes that harm. I hold that to a very high standard, and put the burden there. I do not put the burden on the individual to prove any particular usefulness of a type of weapon for any reason. So saying that a weapon has no defensive/hunting/whatever use is not relevant, in my opinion.

Since the right is presumed, there is also no need for an individual to assert any likelihood that they will need to use the weapon for any use that is not harmul to others. The odds that I might need a handgun in my lifetime are probably very, very low. So what? That has no effect on my right to have one. The odds that I might need an automatic weapon to defend my homestead against an attacking group of armed thugs is certainly much, much lower, but equally irrelevant.

I'm turning the burden of proof around on you. That's my intent, anyway, as that's the way I see the 2nd Amendment and the whole issue anyway.

[Dman]

Do you know the difference, Dman, between semi-automatic and fully automatic?

Yes. That is where the line becomes fuzzy, as it is in this case. The argument against fully automatic can pretty easily start sliding into semi-automatic as well, not to mention clip size. Alas, a line must be drawn somewhere if one is to make a distinction.

I would question the nature of a semi-automatic rifle with a gigantic clip, but it seems unreasonable to “ban” all semi-automatic weapons without banning all guns (which I am not in favor of). However it seems pretty easy to ban fully-automatics, which are clearly manufactured for murderous purposes.


The 2nd amendment doesn't give anybody any rights. It acknowldedges a right, and explicitly prohibits the government from infringing upon those rights. That's the starting point of this discussion, as I see it.

I admit I’m clearly not a constitutional scholar. Just trying to provide the everyday person’s pov. I will take the above into account. My humble opinion is that a large part of the constitution is written vaguely and open to interpretation intentionally, which is what I’m doing – interpreting it as I see it. You know, the whole “spirit” of the thing and all that. Just as you have done below, interpreting that limits on use is implied.


The right does not come with limits on ownership, (although I do agree in limits on use, where others are harmed, but that is a general limit, and has nothing to do with guns specifically.) If we are to introduce such limits on ownership, then the person/group attempting to impose such limits must make the case convincingly that ownership or posession causes harm to others. The criteria must be clearly related to the ways in which ownership or posession causes that harm. I hold that to a very high standard, and put the burden there. I do not put the burden on the individual to prove any particular usefulness of a type of weapon for any reason. So saying that a weapon has no defensive/hunting/whatever use is not relevant, in my opinion.

So in your opinion, you agree that it is not relevant why an individual may have large quantities of anthrax, or sarin gas, or material for constructing a nuclear weapon, etc.?

A radical Islamic cleric who recently immigrated to the US to study should not have to prove why he would want to acquire such materials? How about the violent criminal ex-con who wants an Uzi and a rocket launcher?


Since the right is presumed, there is also no need for an individual to assert any likelihood that they will need to use the weapon for any use that is not harmul to others. The odds that I might need a handgun in my lifetime are probably very, very low. So what? That has no effect on my right to have one. The odds that I might need an automatic weapon to defend my homestead against an attacking group of armed thugs is certainly much, much lower, but equally irrelevant.

I'm turning the burden of proof around on you. That's my intent, anyway, as that's the way I see the 2nd Amendment and the whole issue anyway.

So, to bring up an earlier example, anyone should have the right to purchase an army tank, in the very unlikely case that a foreign army invades us?

My point is that most reasonable people will agree that there is a line somewhere. The question is where and what qualifies it. You mention criteria - so what criteria are necessary to ban highly fatal chemical toxins or heavy military equipment – or do you propose none? Should people have the right to own such things? If yes, I hope I never live near you. If no, why? What criteria do you impose that has nothing to do with the use of the weapons?

[SheepDog]

You tell me what you propose for criteria. I mentioned that there should be clear criteria to articulate that exceptions to the basic right can exist, but should be held to a high standard. I also articulated a basic premise that for the exception to exist a case must be made that it caused harm to others.

What criteria did you use for your hypotheticals? You mentioned people of certain religions, but I hope that isn't one of your criteria. ;) You also mention violent ex-cons. There may be a case there, and some reasonable criteria, namely a proven history of violating the basic premise of not harming others. Of course, this will lead us to a discussion about rehabilitation, but perhaps there is something there to work with.


And FWIW, a tank is an armored vehicle, and I don't see a case for outlawing an armored vehicle. If you want to talk about the munitions, then please do that instead. I see armor as defensive, and not murderous, to use your word.

And on the subject of the word 'murder': Depending on your definition, murder means generally 'unlawfully killing someone'. For something to only have the ability to be used for murder, then that implies that there is not nor never can be a lawful use for that thing. That makes the word pretty useless in this discussion, because a lawful use can be demonstrated.

[SheepDog]

As a slight digression, I wonder how this relates to the 2nd Amendment:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/29/schwarzenegger.immigration.ap/index.html

"The Minuteman Project involves hundreds of volunteers, some armed, who have been patrolling the Mexico-Arizona border since April 1 to document and report illegal crossings."

Would this constitute a militia?

[edit to add this link]
http://www.minutemanproject.com/

[Robespierre]

However it seems pretty easy to ban fully-automatics, which are clearly manufactured for murderous purposes.

Your use of this argument has gone on too long without any support. I've questioned you as to how a weapon might be constructed so that when the user is attempting to shoot those who are already shooting him, the weapon does not function. You either can't or won't explain how your characterization of certain guns as for "muderous purposes" works.

Why fully auto? Why not include smokeless powder and cartridges? Aren't guns that use anything but musket balls designed to kill?

[MacGuffin]

Certain weapons have only one function - to kill other human beings. They are not designed for hunting.

[SheepDog]

Certain weapons have only one function - to kill other human beings. They are not designed for hunting.
I already asked this, but does hunting have to do with this?

[Robespierre]

Certain weapons have only one function - to kill other human beings. They are not designed for hunting.

Exactly, like handguns, muskets, rifles of many calibers, etc. Some weapons are designed especially to kill people, whether they were designed 10 years ago or 100 years ago. However, Dman seems unwilling to accept that killing doesn't always equate with murder. Is it your stance as well that weapons designed to kill people should be violently banned by governments?

[Dman]

I already asked this, but does hunting have to do with this?

Has to do with the primary reason people believe non-hunting guns, guns manufactured to kill people specifically, should be banned. There are many weapons in the world that are capable of killing people, but very few (available to citizens) that are made explicitly to kill people. The fewer weapons that are available to people that are made specifically to kill others, the better. That’s the philosophy at least.

What rational reasons would someone want a weapon to specifically kill other people with? I see two reasons – malicious intent, or defending oneself against someone else’s malicious intent towards you. In a citizen’s ordinary course of life, there are plenty of available options to use in the defense of yourself which are fully capable of doing the job. Therefore, it stands to reason that the primary purpose of a gun manufactured specifically for killing people is to maliciously kill people. Does that mean that is everyone’s intent? Of course not, but why do people “need” a people-killing specific weapon otherwise?

Generally, IMO, if it isn’t for malicious intent, it is because they are paranoid and somehow think those weapons will protect them more than anything else would. The risk, however, does not outweigh the perceived benefits. How often are citizen’s lives saved thanks to those weapons (which could only have been done with that weapon) versus how often they are used to murder. That is not the reason they should be banned, but rather it illustrates what the true use of such weapons are. Similarly, mustard gas is primarily manufactured to kill people, and it is banned. Same line of thinking. I don’t think people should have the right to have canisters of mustard gas in their possession. Someone may believe it is their best chance of self defense against the black helicopters, thus insist it is their right, but I disagree based upon rational, reasonable thought which leads me to the fallacy of that thinking complemented by the inherent dangers of such a weapon.


Your use of this argument has gone on too long without any support.

that’s because I’m making it up as I go along


I've questioned you as to how a weapon might be constructed so that when the user is attempting to shoot those who are already shooting him, the weapon does not function. You either can't or won't explain how your characterization of certain guns as for "muderous purposes" works.

I guess I missed that question; and even now I’m not sure what you’re asking. If I understand correctly, you are arguing that any gun used for self-defense only is not murderous. My contention is that a fully automatic gun is not made for self defense, it is made for killing people like MacGuffin said. Either offensively or defensively. Perhaps I should have used those terms rather than the word “murder”. Murder was more, uh, inflammatory though. :) How about a weapon made specifically to “intentionally kill a human being”


Why fully auto? Why not include smokeless powder and cartridges? Aren't guns that use anything but musket balls designed to kill?

I thought I explained the line between fully-auto and semi-auto.

I’m not aware of cases where smokeless powder has been used to intentionally kill people. Besides, I didn’t say guns that kill, I said those made to specifically “intentionally kill a human being”. I think cartridges are handy for hunting animals.


You tell me what you propose for criteria.

It wasn’t my proposal.

Besides, my “criteria” was for any weapon made specifically to intentionally kill another human being to be banned.

And yeah, the tank example sucks. I’ll drop it for now.

[Hypnos]

Dman,

Semi-automatic pistols and revolvers are the best tools for self-defense on the street, yet they are explicitly designed to kill people -- in fact, that's what you want in a self-defense application.

Would you ban these weapons?

[Robespierre]

How about a weapon made specifically to “intentionally kill a human being”

This includes ALL guns designed for killing deer. Every round capable of dropping a deer is equally if not more capable of killing a person. Does it matter if the designer of a gun is imagining his gun shooting animals or people when he designs it? My point in asking this, is to demonstrate the absurdity of your position. The issue of indended use has no place in this discussion.

http://www.springfield-armory.com/images/rifles/2001-products-rifles-standard.jpg


How about a Springfield Armory M1A? This is a .308 winchester, semi-auto, with detachable clip, capable of holding however many rounds your clip can hold, 5, 10, 20, 30, whatever. Does this gun, which was designed specifically to kill people, have to banned?

Fully automatic weapons are the best defensive weapons ever devised. They provide the ability to lay down a field of fire over a wide area, which can surpress the advance of groups, or unseen individuals. While it might not be practical for someone living on the 10th story of an apartment building in downtown chicago, it may be exactly what you need to defend youself on the farm. The point is, the technology itself, the gun, is not an issue, the use is. If someone uses a weapon in an aggressive way, whether the weapon was designed for killing people or hunting hummingbirds, a crime has been committed, but not before.

[Robespierre]

What rational reasons would someone want a weapon to specifically kill other people with?

What exactly do you think "self-defense firearms" are used for? Are you imagining someone waving them around, trying to frighten the attacker? The purpose in a self-defense gun, is to KILL. And not only to kill, but to kill quickly, with as few shots as possible, and without over-penetration and endangering those around you. This is why hollowpoint bullets are used, as they transfer more of the kinetic energy of the bullet to the target, and don't go right through the target, endangering others.

Also, how about bayonets? Will they be banned as well?

[SheepDog]

Besides, my “criteria” was for any weapon made specifically to intentionally kill another human being to be banned.
This isn't a valid criteria, since we have the right to use lethal force to defend ourselves.


You keep talking about this being a "rational" discussion, but I cannot help but think that this is really an emotional one. The use of inflammatory rhetoric seems like calls to emotion to me, which is why I brought this up in the first place. Instead of being rational, this seems to be about fear. Specifically, fear that if people have the means, they will do bad things to us. Maybe you disagree, but letting that fear override basic human rights does not seem rational to me.

Now I'm not saying that I have no fear. Nerve gas, for example, is scary stuff. But I was trying to lead the discussion to a way of mitigating the risk in a reasonable way that doesn't force us to throw away our rights. I do believe there is a way to reasonably articulate limits, based on the underlying principles of liberty and right of self defense (which should NOT be unnecessarily made to be mutually exclusive).

[Dman]

Ok, ok, I got in over my head. You all make valid arguments. I'll need some help from someone more knowledgeable in the pro-gun control crowd. I tried. I should have stuck with the rich dude in antarctica with the nuke.

Yes, it is about fear. You say nerve gas is "scary stuff", but it is only scary if people who have it will do bad things to us, right? So are we overriding a basic human right by not allowing anyone who wants that stuff to have it? What is the difference?

Let me propose something hypothetical – if 99.5% of intentional, malicious killings of people in this country were committed by one specific weapon, say an Uzi, would that make any difference? Would it be correct to do nothing (legally) about it for fear of trampling someone’s rights, even though there was a direct correlation of murders? Please try to be honest.

I just don’t see a lot of value in the “right” to own such weapons. As I implied earlier, there are a lot of “rights” that we do not have in this country (or others for that matter). I don’t see why this one is such an important one (at the Uzi level) to people when it is so much more potentially damaging to society than beneficial. Is our society, our way of life, really in danger if we can’t own fully automatic guns? Compare that to is our society in MORE danger if we ARE allowed fully automatic guns. I am listening if someone has a good rationale for that because I truly don’t see it.

It seems evident that some of you have put much more thought into this issue than I have, which is why I want to understand it better (particularly if I'm inclined to vote in favor of gun-control). Although I may not be able to clearly draw the line between imposing limits and sacrificing rights, I still believe there must be one or else why shouldn't people run around with nerve gas, bombs, etc.? Any thoughts? I think I understand Robespierre's thoughts on the subject but I'm not sure the rest of you agree, although you disagree with what I've stated.

[Robespierre]

Let me propose something hypothetical – if 99.5% of intentional, malicious killings of people in this country were committed by one specific weapon, say an Uzi, would that make any difference? Would it be correct to do nothing (legally) about it for fear of trampling someone’s rights, even though there was a direct correlation of murders? Please try to be honest.

Under no circumstances can the ends justify the means.

[SheepDog]

My time for the evening is going to be brief, but I think this is worth pursuing. Although I have both tactically and strategically resisted making too many definitive statements, I do want to contribute and not just critique.

I think it's safe to say that we Intuitively think of nukes and nerve gas as being different than handguns. Instead of just drawing a line, let's instead think about how the nature of these particular weapons affects the principles involved. I must be brief, but I think the indiscriminate nature of harm caused by nukes and nerve gas mitigate their defensive use in a significant way. I'm not yet sure how to word it, but I think that there is a critera there that can be used to limit them but with minimal infringement on basic liberties. I'm keen on the wording, because if not careful, it could be extrapolated to ways that do infringe on them (the old slippery slope).

I'll pick this up later. Thanks for your genuine interest in the discussion, btw.

[Ka.avik]

Ok, ok, I got in over my head. You all make valid arguments. I'll need some help from someone more knowledgeable in the pro-gun control crowd.
Not going to be too many in the non-conformist INTP crowd. Wait, you're also pro-SUV, arent you?http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif


Let me propose something hypothetical – if 99.5% of intentional, malicious killings of people in this country were committed by one specific weapon, say an Uzi, would that make any difference? Would it be correct to do nothing (legally) about it for fear of trampling someone’s rights, even though there was a direct correlation of murders? Please try to be honest.
I have no difficulty being honest here. It would make no difference. It would be right to do nothing about the lawless uzis.

My stance, in the end, on the issue go back to these two cliches:

gun control means using both hands
guns don't kill people; people kill people.

[Dman]

My time for the evening is going to be brief, but I think this is worth pursuing. Although I have both tactically and strategically resisted making too many definitive statements, I do want to contribute and not just critique.

I think it's safe to say that we Intuitively think of nukes and nerve gas as being different than handguns. Instead of just drawing a line, let's instead think about how the nature of these particular weapons affects the principles involved. I must be brief, but I think the indiscriminate nature of harm caused by nukes and nerve gas mitigate their defensive use in a significant way. I'm not yet sure how to word it, but I think that there is a critera there that can be used to limit them but with minimal infringement on basic liberties. I'm keen on the wording, because if not careful, it could be extrapolated to ways that do infringe on them (the old slippery slope).

I'll pick this up later. Thanks for your genuine interest in the discussion, btw.



Yes, it is a slippery slope, which is why I’m trying to do the same thing (determine where the line is). Some people obviously think where I have drawn the line is wrong, which may be the case, but I haven’t seen a better example of where the line should be – with exception to those who think there should be no line at all. Some people feel there is no line, and that is the only way to avoid erosion of rights. Is it really that simple? Are there no examples of when that could ever not be the case? I’m just not so sure it is always as black and white as that. I would take it more on a case by case basis, particularly in a world where nothing is black and white and so simple as that.


I have no difficulty being honest here. It would make no difference. It would be right to do nothing about the lawless uzis.

My stance, in the end, on the issue go back to these two cliches:
1. gun control means using both hands
2. guns don't kill people; people kill people.

I agree with the second cliché. Perhaps that is a good place to start with “drawing a line” - the method used for the weapon to result in killing a person.

For example nerve gas can kill people without human intervention, i.e. leaking out of a canister. A gun cannot kill someone without purposeful human interaction (unless your cat knocks it off the table and it goes off, but we’ll call that human stupidity for leaving a loaded gun on the edge of the table). Then you have, say, a grenade. It will not kill until a person intentionally pulls the ring and releases the handle. So this would be legal. Unless you say high risk of collateral, unintended damage. This would then imply that we would need some type of measurement regarding risk of collateral damage. Which eventually gets you back to where I am, where do you draw that line.

I’m curious to hear from people who disagree with where I drew the line and where their interpretation of it is, similar to what SheepDog is trying to accomplish. Again, I’m not convinced that everyone believes there should be NO line against what type of weapons anyone has a “right” to. I will change my stance on the issue if I can get a clearly stated, rational response that mitigates the dangers of having weapons like nerve gas or bombs (including grenades) available to people but yet does not erode rights.

[Robespierre]

Context is an important factor you are trying to smooth out of the picture, probably the only important factor IN this picture. If you cannot use a weapon in a libertarian way, that is, non-aggressively, then it should not be used. If I cannot shoot a 30mm vulcan cannon in my nieghborhood without harming innocents, it is wrong, and I have no right to shoot it. If I cannot release nerve gas without harming innocents, again, no good. But this applies to everything, without exception, including air pollution, noise pollution, etc.

[Ka.avik]

Context is an important factor you are trying to smooth out of the picture, probably the only important factor IN this picture.
[...]
But this applies to everything, without exception, including air pollution, noise pollution, etc. INTPs are known for abstracting into the ridiculous. http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/huh.gif However I agree -- city limits should have restrictions on the discharge of firearms. I would say that hand grenades have no practical purpose; but that shoudn't exclude people from buying them.

BTW: what I meant by my first cliche 'gun ctrl is...' is to remind you that you are responsible for your actions. And once you let a bullet fly, you can't take it back. Insurance only gives somebody money for your poor judgement. Best to excersize good judgement -- after all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!

As to your second point: sure, that's why lamborghinis et al. have a ~$50/yr gas guzzling tax applied to licensing them. But, how does a free market impose no-pollution laws in event of no government (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=4107)? all the company really needs to do is sell somewhere where no one knows how bad they pollute, right?

[SheepDog]

Context is an important factor you are trying to smooth out of the picture, probably the only important factor IN this picture. If you cannot use a weapon in a libertarian way, that is, non-aggressively, then it should not be used. If I cannot shoot a 30mm vulcan cannon in my nieghborhood without harming innocents, it is wrong, and I have no right to shoot it. If I cannot release nerve gas without harming innocents, again, no good. But this applies to everything, without exception, including air pollution, noise pollution, etc.
Thank you. This is what I was trying to get to. We can declare things like nerve gas as wrong and still maintain principles of individual liberties and right to self defense. Because things like nerve gas can be shown to be a violation of individual liberties, the are opposed to the principles.

I see this as different than the previous "line" that was attempted to be drawn. Applying things like intent, relative likelihoods, etc, create a continuum that has compromise of principles built into it. It acknowledges the right to defend yourself, but only up to a point, and then that right is taken away. It introduces compromises where I do not think they are necessary. That is why I call it a false paradox.

This distinction may be seen as purely rhetorical, but I think it is fundamentally important. It is important because we can avoid setting precedents of compromising on things like fundamental rights, which sets us up for further dilution. Once the dilution begins, then the principles get shoved aside in favor of "practical" solutions (a misnomer, in almost every case, including gun control). And it's not just MY belief in the principles that get violated. I think everyone loses when we lose track of these principles.

[Dman]

Context is an important factor you are trying to smooth out of the picture, probably the only important factor IN this picture. If you cannot use a weapon in a libertarian way, that is, non-aggressively, then it should not be used. If I cannot shoot a 30mm vulcan cannon in my nieghborhood without harming innocents, it is wrong, and I have no right to shoot it. If I cannot release nerve gas without harming innocents, again, no good. But this applies to everything, without exception, including air pollution, noise pollution, etc.

Yes, but how do you determine (draw the line) between what will harm innocents and what won’t? You use the example of a 30 mm Vulcan cannon being shot and hurting innocents, but virtually ANY gun is capable of hurting an innocent person/unintended target when being fired. You could say an Uzi is less likely of doing so than a 30 mm cannon, but then a handgun is less likely than an Uzi, etc.

Who/what determines what the likelihood is? Is it different in a crowded urban area versus out in the country? If I understand correctly, it is the individual firing the weapon that must draw that distinction. But that leads to everyone’s own perception of what is potentially harmful and what isn’t. It still doesn’t solve anything.

It will still “create a continuum that has compromise of principles built into it”.

[Robespierre]

Yes, but how do you determine (draw the line) between what will harm innocents and what won’t?

You're reading more into my statement than is intended. There's no need to determine what "might" harm innocents. I do not propose any sort of ban or limitation by central authority. The only consideration is whether or not an aggression has occured. So if you misuse your pistol and kill the neighbor, you are just as wrong as if you were using a howitzer and killed your neighbor.


You use the example of a 30 mm Vulcan cannon being shot and hurting innocents, but virtually ANY gun is capable of hurting an innocent person/unintended target when being fired.

Exactly. This is why actions, not potential actions, should be considered crimes.


You could say an Uzi is less likely of doing so than a 30 mm cannon, but then a handgun is less likely than an Uzi, etc.

You could say anything you wanted to, it doesn't much matter what is more or less likely, only when you actually hurt someone is there a wrong.


Who/what determines what the likelihood is?

The individual who is deciding upon whether and what kind of gun to own.


Is it different in a crowded urban area versus out in the country?

Of course. As always, context is important. I can HAVE the 30mm cannon in my house in the suburbs, but it is highly likely that I will kill my neighbors or do damage to their property if I ever use it.


If I understand correctly, it is the individual firing the weapon that must draw that distinction.

Exactly. If you don't know that you can fire your weapon, for any reason, and not hurt an innocent, you probably shouldn't.


But that leads to everyone’s own perception of what is potentially harmful and what isn’t. It still doesn’t solve anything.

Of course it does, what doesn't it solve?


It will still “create a continuum that has compromise of principles built into it”.

I don't understand your quote here; what does it mean?

[s]

[s slaps a bumper sticker onto Robespierre's car, which reads: "My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car."]

[s runs like hell]

[Dman]

Exactly. This is why actions, not potential actions, should be considered crimes.

So, in the interest of SheepDog’s search for criteria, that one is out (unless one believes that IS the only criteria (as Rob obviously does)– my impression was that SheepDog did not). Otherwise, again, a rocket launcher, bomb, or nerve gas is still ok to own so long as the actions of the owner do not cause a criminal activity.

I know where Robespierre is coming from, and it all sounds reasonable, just wondering if everyone else here agrees. That there should be no laws upon any type of weapons ownership.



Of course it does, what doesn't it solve?



I don't understand your quote here; what does it mean?

It doesn't solve the question SheepDog asked, and I was quoting him.


Thank you. This is what I was trying to get to. We can declare things like nerve gas as wrong and still maintain principles of individual liberties and right to self defense. Because things like nerve gas can be shown to be a violation of individual liberties, the are opposed to the principles.

I see this as different than the previous "line" that was attempted to be drawn. Applying things like intent, relative likelihoods, etc, create a continuum that has compromise of principles built into it. It acknowledges the right to defend yourself, but only up to a point, and then that right is taken away. It introduces compromises where I do not think they are necessary. That is why I call it a false paradox.

This distinction may be seen as purely rhetorical, but I think it is fundamentally important. It is important because we can avoid setting precedents of compromising on things like fundamental rights, which sets us up for further dilution. Once the dilution begins, then the principles get shoved aside in favor of "practical" solutions (a misnomer, in almost every case, including gun control). And it's not just MY belief in the principles that get violated. I think everyone loses when we lose track of these principles.

Under Robespierre’s contentions, we can only claim “nerve gas as wrong” if someone uses it in a criminal way. In other words anyone can own it as long as they don’t use it criminally. Agreed? People should be able to own such things?

[Robespierre]

Under Robespierre’s contentions, we can only claim “nerve gas as wrong” if someone uses it in a criminal way. In other words anyone can own it as long as they don’t use it criminally. Agreed? People should be able to own such things?

People should not be violently banned from possessing anything, so long as they use it in a libertarian way. If you threaten me with a knife, I will violently take it from you.

[MacGuffin]

People should not be violently banned from possessing anything, so long as they use it in a libertarian way. If you threaten me with a knife, I will violently take it from you.
utopian crap

[Robespierre]

utopian crap

Care to elaborate? Or should we just trust you?

[MacGuffin]

Care to elaborate? Or should we just trust you?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Sounds so easy, doesn't it?

Yet, we all know where it leads...

It is the same thing.

[Robespierre]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Sounds so easy, doesn't it?

Yet, we all know where it leads...

It is the same thing.

Actually, it's quite different. I am simply stating that it is wrong to aggress against others, and that any aggressive action is wrong, and that no non-aggressive action is wrong. Explain how my opinion is utopian.

[MacGuffin]

Actually, it's quite different. I am simply stating that it is wrong to aggress against others, and that any aggressive action is wrong, and that no non-aggressive action is wrong. Explain how my opinion is utopian.
Who determines what is a "libertarian way"? How long does it take to decide that? What if you are wrong? Who punishes you?

I am nearly a libertarian myself, but I am a realist. Libertarians are just the other side of the coin of Marxism. Both have beautiful ways of solving mankind's problems.

Except human nature keeps getting in the way.

Utopia is a dream.

[Ka.avik]

Who determines what is a "libertarian way"? How long does it take to decide that? What if you are wrong? Who punishes you? I think you're outnumbered, Robespierre :P

[Robespierre]

I think you're outnumbered, Robespierre :P

Not a lot of time today, so I'll make some quick responses.


Of course I'm outnumbered. I'm challenging the view of the masses, and the accepted premises of our society. Fortunately, logic is not democratic.

[coffeezombie]

I think libertarianism would work if people's natural tendencies were not to acquire wealth, even at the expense of the natural environment, and to use that wealth to gain power over others. If the world were full of Robespierres, I could see it working.

[Robespierre]

Who determines what is a "libertarian way"? How long does it take to decide that? What if you are wrong? Who punishes you?

I am nearly a libertarian myself, but I am a realist. Libertarians are just the other side of the coin of Marxism. Both have beautiful ways of solving mankind's problems.

Except human nature keeps getting in the way.

Utopia is a dream.

When I used the term "libertarian way", I use it interchangably with "non-aggressive". That is a fairly clear cut ideal.

And yet, no one has been able to point out what part of human nature gets in the way of libertarianism.

[Robespierre]

I think libertarianism would work if people's natural tendencies were not to acquire wealth, even at the expense of the natural environment, and to use that wealth to gain power over others. If the world were full of Robespierres, I could see it working.

I understand your point here. I guess it comes down to an assessment of the possible risks, and willingness to endorse certain means to achieving the end.

I view the above statement as a condemnation of governments, in which we ultimately place power into the hands of a few executives(president, cabinet members), to wield this power. I just don't think that any form of coercive government can exist for any amount of time without becoming corrupt.

[Hypnos]

Robespierre,

Do you have any response to the practical problem of externalities (somewhat rephrasing CZ)? There are limits to the rate of information propagation in markets. For things like clean air versus an individual's right to run his 70s muscle car, the scaling is ~N^2.

[Robespierre]

Do you have any response to the practical problem of externalities (somewhat rephrasing CZ)?

Yes, I have already responded to her.


There are limits to the rate of information propagation in markets. For things like clean air versus an individual's right to run his 70s muscle car, the scaling is ~N^2.

Thinking in terms of the roads, cars, and noise/air pollution standards as they are will only muddle the issue. Many highways were built with the use of eminent domain, which is a gross abuse of government power and a flaunting of property rights. This is relevant, because some areas where highways and busy roads might be built(by individuals or companies, not governments), might be unpopulated stretches of the country inbetween cities. Where this is the case, no consideration for the nieghbors must be made, as they are no neighbors. However, if people were to begin to move into the area around the highway, they would have no right to demand that the noise/air pollution stop, as the highway owners had made use of the area first.

In populated areas, those who wish to use loud polluting 70's cars must do so in such a way as to not tresspass any other property owners with their noise/pollution. This does not mean such cars could not exist, only that they could not be used in areas where the locals didn't allow the minimal pollution caused by cars.

The market is an emergent system. It results from the actions of many self-interested individuals. If one person likes to drive his 70's car around, it is likely that there are others, and that an area where such activities can take place will spring up. It is impossible for me to tell you exactly what might happen and how a nation-stateless society might handle the situation, just as it is impossible for me to say exactly how a group of people will appreciate a new product. You can make guesses about likely outcomes, but no one can say for certain.

I've rambled on a bit here. If you want to clarify, I can try to address your points more specifically.

[Hypnos]

In populated areas, those who wish to use loud polluting 70's cars must do so in such a way as to not tresspass any other property owners with their noise/pollution. This does not mean such cars could not exist, only that they could not be used in areas where the locals didn't allow the minimal pollution caused by cars.
Aren't the thresholds of acceptability a matter of convention? The Coase Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem) is an attempt to describe a market process that could set these standards. However, as the article states, the efficiency of this process is limited by transaction costs, such as the necessity of polling numerous affected parties.


The market is an emergent system. It results from the actions of many self-interested individuals. If one person likes to drive his 70's car around, it is likely that there are others, and that an area where such activities can take place will spring up. It is impossible for me to tell you exactly what might happen and how a nation-stateless society might handle the situation, just as it is impossible for me to say exactly how a group of people will appreciate a new product. You can make guesses about likely outcomes, but no one can say for certain.
As a physicist, I can tell you that the breadth of an emergent behavior in a system is limited by the speed of communication and available energy. In the case of real world economics, an individual can gain benefit with costs to others faster than secure agreements can be reached in a number of instances.

Examples such as highways, nuclear power stations, etc. need not "muddle" -- one can do a "gedanken" experiment and not worry about the past history of eminent domain.

In an anarchic society, how would you build a nuclear power station while still achieving Pareto efficiency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency)?

[Robespierre]

Aren't the thresholds of acceptability a matter of convention? The Coase Theorem is an attempt to describe a market process that could set these standards. However, as the article states, the efficiency of this process is limited by transaction costs, such as the necessity of polling numerous affected parties.

Coase doesn't take property rights to be absolute. He thinks that there can exist some magic number for the entire system. This is evident in his concept of efficiency.

Only the individual property owner can set the acceptible level of pollution for his property. He can choose to leave the management of his air-space, noise-space, etc to some group, but ultimately, the property owner is the only one capable of deciding.


As a physicist, I can tell you that the breadth of an emergent behavior in a system is limited by the speed of communication and available energy.

I would suggest that in modern economies, like the United States, both are at an extremely high level. The internet allows instant feedback on nation-wide issues, and the amount of disposable capital is still quite high.


In the case of real world economics, an individual can gain benefit with costs to others faster than secure agreements can be reached in a number of instances.

This is always true, and these situations can never be fully eliminated, only minimized. The actions you describe are crimes. An individual can walk into a store, pocket something, and leave, very fast, before the owner can discover the theft. The same is true of tresspassing. An individual could walk over the neighbor's yard and dump his trash over the fence very quickly.


Examples such as highways, nuclear power stations, etc. need not be "muddled" -- one can do a "gedanken" experiment and not worry about the past history of eminent domain.

I agree. Most often though, too many assumptions based upon previous history remain in the gedankenexperiment.

[Hypnos]

Coase doesn't take property rights to be absolute. He thinks that there can exist some magic number for the entire system. This is evident in his concept of efficiency.
Well, yeah, he's an economist -- the absoluteness of property rights is a moral statement.

Frankly, it's not even possible to implement. Even communication, the necessary precursor for a market transaction, can be considered trespass (e.g., spam).

The laissez-faire retort is that "crimes" can be addressed by tort. However, it's inefficient (a tort is moot if you already have terminal cancer), and it relies on community standards for judgment as above.

[Robespierre]

The laissez-faire retort is that "crimes" can be addressed by tort. However, it's inefficient (a tort is moot if you already have terminal cancer), and it relies on community standards for judgment as above.

Is this any different than how the current system operates, at least with respect to seeing into the future? Governments don't see problems before individuals, they can only react when the problem has been discovered, and usually when it's too late.

[Robespierre]

Frankly, it's not even possible to implement. Even communication, the necessary precursor for a market transaction, can be considered trespass (e.g., spam).

Elaborate on that. I know what you're trying to say, and it is true that people could cut themselves off from all outside communication, but what about human nature tells you that even a small minority of the population would actually do so? Is the government your sole reason for communicating with the outside world?

[Hypnos]

Is this any different than how the current system operates, at least with respect to seeing into the future? Governments don't see problems before individuals, they can only react when the problem has been discovered, and usually when it's too late.
Not all problems are novel -- regulations can prevent injury when costs are external to the beneficiary (e.g, a polluter).

The problem comes when this process is corrupted, which is rather easy. I am a libertarian not because I think the free market is magically efficient, but rather because gov't intervention is too often stultifying by comparison.


Elaborate on that. I know what you're trying to say, and it is true that people could cut themselves off from all outside communication, but what about human nature tells you that even a small minority of the population would actually do so? Is the government your sole reason for communicating with the outside world?
Mmm, my point is precisely that people must contact one another, via email, hard mail or even walking up to a door and knocking -- even with progressing technology, this cannot be avoided. However, communication requires a protocol, i.e. some convention of behavior, such that you can approach/be approached without getting shot or sued. This is one example of how property rights cannot be absolute.

[Robespierre]

This is one example of how property rights cannot be absolute.

I don't see it. Simply because people have the ability to exclude others from their property does not mean that they will. What motviation would there be to shoot the fedex guy simply for delivering some mail?

[Ka.avik]

I don't see it. Simply because people have the ability to exclude others from their property does not mean that they will. What motviation would there be to shoot the fedex guy simply for delivering some mail? You get to keep all the other stuff he was in the process of delivering. All you'd have to do is hide the vehicle, and his body.

edit: OK, that is a little out of context here, but could still apply. No FedEx will start W/O proper bodyguards, and you're still, in my mind, going to end up with a few -- perhaps the traders & carriers -- getting all the world's money, thus all the power. Money attracts corruption, but can be mitigated with proper oversight by the public. But, with no agreed-upon government, you'd have a bunch of lawless thugs with no one to answer to.

//not unlike today's government, I suppose; but still..

[Hypnos]

I don't see it. Simply because people have the ability to exclude others from their property does not mean that they will. What motviation would there be to shoot the fedex guy simply for delivering some mail?
Isn't the point of rights that you don't have to have a reason?

The original question remains: must there not be a convention for communication and interaction so you won't get sued (or worse)? Consequently, there cannot be absolute property rights -- any convention would proscribe the purview you have over your own property.

[Robespierre]

Isn't the point of rights that you don't have to have a reason?

In a sense.


The original question remains: must there not be a convention for communication and interaction so you won't get sued (or worse)?

Of course there must be some convention. I just don't think a convention imposed at the point of a gun(read as: by government) is appropriate. The english language is one such convention. Our time system is another good example. The time zones in the US were originally created by railroad companies. The best and most useful communication conventions are created and used because they are useful, not because someone imposes them from above.


Consequently, there cannot be absolute property rights -- any convention would proscribe the purview you have over your own property.

Why? What about the english language diminishes the individual's absolute right to self-ownership? Unless the convention is enforced at the point of a gun upon all people, there is nothing at all wrong with it.

[Robespierre]

You get to keep all the other stuff he was in the process of delivering. All you'd have to do is hide the vehicle, and his body.

I think you missed the point. Who out there, doesn't want the fedex guy to deliver a package? Especially when you were probably the one to order something? There may well be some odd individuals who don't want him coming onto their property, and they certainly have a right to decide. It is more than likely that anyone who didn't want such persons to enter their property would not order packages, and would probably not have too many reasons to receive a package.

You guys overlook the basic components of human life, and this is understandable. Government has washed away many of the basic social conventions that have previously governed our lives, voluntarily of course, only to replace them with government created conventions. You seem to imagine that all people will act like screaming two year olds if allowed to rule their own property. It is absolutely certain that some small amount will act this way, but then they must be the ones to pay the consequences. Who outside of their property will allow them to pass through? Or sell them food? or Gasoline? You can remove yourself from society if you like, but you must be prepared for society rejecting you as well. Most people will not choose to act this way.

[Robespierre]

Since the idea of "market failure" has come up, I think this article might help clear up some points I have been trying to make.

http://www.mises.org/story/1806


What Are You Calling Failure?

by Gil Guillory

[Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005]

A common rejoinder to the program of laissez-faire is that market failures require government intervention. Just what does market failure mean, and how can such claims for or against it be evaluated?

A well-accepted definition of market failure is “a case in which a market fails to efficiently provide or allocate goods and services” in comparison to some ideal standard, such as the perfect competition model. This definition is applied and “market failure” has been demonstrated by many economists in the particular cases of external economies, network effects, asymmetrical information, principal-agent relations, etc. What is objected to here is not that the free market has flaws, but that the term “market failure” is a persuasive definition (see How to Think Straight, para 5.47), seeming to say more than it really does by improperly applying the emotive word failure.

Many erroneously believe that if a case of market failure, as defined above, has been proven, then the case for government intervention is a fait accompli. The problem does not lie with correct descriptions of an imperfect world. The problem, in part, lies with the term market failure, as it is commonly used. Let us subject this term market failure to some critical inquiry, suggest an alternative definition, and see what is necessary to demonstrate a case of true market failure.

Failure, generally speaking, occurs when actions do not result in their intended consequence. A pole vaulter fails when he does not clear the bar. An engineer fails when his design is not sound. But, what of an institution? What does it mean for a government or business or market, to fail?

Governments are organizations that have stated goals, such as establishing justice and insuring domestic tranquility. When, despite their actions, these organizations do not establish justice, or insure domestic tranquility, then they have failed. Governments both succeed and fail in their endeavors, as we would expect of an institution composed of men. A business, considered as an economic institution, is that type of entity, whose primary goal is to turn a profit. When a business, despite its efforts, does not turn a profit, it fails.

Failure of an institution can be either intermittent or chronic. When a business fails chronically, its owners typically dissolve it or it is forced into bankruptcy. This dissolution is properly called “business failure”, even though it implies a whole string of failures. When a government chronically fails to meets stated goals, such a condition is properly termed “government failure”.

A market, though a social institution, is not a consolidated phenomenon. The market has no written constitution, no membership list. It is, in Adam Smith’s memorable phrase, the simple system of natural liberty. What actors seek on a market varies from person to person. That a price seems high to a buyer, or seems low to a seller, is a subjective preference. A market, not being a monolithic institution, does not have a single set of goals against which one can compare its performance. We must dig deeper.

The most puzzling use of the term market failure is in comparison to an impossible theoretical world, as noted above. Market failure has been used to describe outcomes resulting from the fact that transmission of information is costly and imperfect (transactions costs); the fact that consumers do not always know whether or not a particular good or service will satisfy their desires (imperfect information, information asymmetry); the fact that present decisions will affect future decisions (path dependence); the fact that there are external economies (externalities and the theory of public goods); the fact that there is fraud, default, and reneging among both buyers and sellers (again, imperfect information and information asymmetry), and various other descriptive states of affairs.

The subjective nature of goods and the entrepreneurial nature of human action must inform our understanding of the term market failure. It will not do to claim that cars are generally not safe enough, or that electricity rates are too high, or that the stock of influenza vaccines is too low. The appropriate level of safety for a car, the “right” price for electricity, and the proper stock of vaccines, are subjective matters. Even if when we agree, for instance, that the stock of vaccines is too low, questions can arise whether such is a case of intermittent or chronic failure, the latter being the most important for economic analysis.

Market failure, if the term is to mean anything useful, must mean that there are fundamental defects in the nature of human ability to achieve certain goods through voluntary, as opposed to coercive, institutions. With this definition, the case for market failure is synonymous with the case for government intervention. This definition allows us to shift the focus of our inquiry to where it should be: institutional analysis.

A gap exists in many treatments. If a deficiency in the free market against some standard is noted, then there exists the possibility that government intervention could improve things. But, there are three major difficulties that one must confront in moving from market imperfections to market failure.

The Hurdles

Firstly, governments are monopolies and (generally speaking) businesses are not. So, if the government chronically fails to reduce the number of people suffering in poverty or some other good, this is properly called government failure. However, if a particular business fails, this is not market failure. Even if a whole segment of businesses employing a particular business model fail, this is not market failure. In both cases, only the business model has been shown to fail.

Just because a particular business model has been demonstrated not to be profitable in supplying a particular good, does not mean that there is no business model which could profitably do so. If a single business model is proposed which has not been tried in the real world, especially if it can reasonably be shown to be sound, then the question of market failure remains open in a very real sense.

There are two related logical misdemeanors committed by claimants for market failure. One is to blithely assume that any successful business model, were it to exist, would have or has been tried. The other is to assume that government action in the past was the best possible response to the problem at hand. Both of these errors are ironic, since they both impute error-free action to entrepreneurs in the wide sense – a charge that is inaccurately leveled at the advocates of laissez-faire. It is well-known that entrepreneurs have come onto the scene time and again using hitherto untried business models.

Secondly, and more importantly, one must fully come to grips with the doctrine of subjective value. There is no general case to be made for preferring a certain quantity of one good over another. For the stock of vaccines to be higher, some other good must be sacrificed. Every government program imposes costs on some and benefits on others. One must, in the end, make a moral argument that supports the rectitude of imposing such costs on some for the benefit of the others.

For the very rare case where it is claimed that there is a net benefit to all which can only be obtained through a coercive institution, we must be explicit about the consequentialist or utilitarian ethics being applied, but also tread carefully, since subjective value informs us that all manner of costs often escape notice.

Thirdly, one must examine reality and the long run. One must demonstrate that the internal institutional structures of voluntary versus coercive systems will self-regulate and evolve over time to maintain the advantage for the latter. Once the public case is made for intervention, what regulatory body will be put in place and how does it differ from the ideal intervention?

Will the regulatory body actually act in the public interest, or in its own interest, a la Public Choice theory, or in the interests of the regulated, a la capture theory ? If there exists a solid case for government intervention today, will the objective factors upon which it rests change? They almost certainly will. When the case for intervention is no longer strong, or has a completely different structure, will the regulatory apparatus adapt appropriately, or go quietly into the night, or will it instead fight tooth and nail for the status quo and its legitimacy? The costs of a such a future unjustified regulatory apparatus must be captured in the calculus.

In summary, if one is to make the case for market failure, one must show how incentive structures and constraints result in plainly worse outcomes in voluntary institutions of every conceivable stripe when compared to a highly specific coercive institution. Further, one must show that this highly specific coercive institution would be adopted by the government, and that the reasonable evolution of the institutions will result in no chronic government failure.

[Hypnos]

You guys overlook the basic components of human life, and this is understandable. Government has washed away many of the basic social conventions that have previously governed our lives, voluntarily of course, only to replace them with government created conventions. You seem to imagine that all people will act like screaming two year olds if allowed to rule their own property. It is absolutely certain that some small amount will act this way, but then they must be the ones to pay the consequences. Who outside of their property will allow them to pass through? Or sell them food? or Gasoline? You can remove yourself from society if you like, but you must be prepared for society rejecting you as well. Most people will not choose to act this way.
Ah yes, the "shunning" theory of anarchic order. Two problems:

* Doesn't this weaken your position of natural rights? I mean, fluid community conventions need not recognize any natural theory. You can't argue for both social "ties that bind" _and_ absolute rights.

* Again, this greatly increases transaction costs -- you have to wait for the community to mobilize before addressing any dispute. For small disputes (e.g, trespass, spam, noise, odor, etc.) or exteranlities (e.g., pollution, risk from WMDs, etc.) it's far more efficient to have rules in place.

[Robespierre]

Ah yes, the "shunning" theory of anarchic order. Two problems:

* Doesn't this weaken your position of natural rights? I mean, fluid community conventions need not recognize any natural theory. You can't argue for both social "ties that bind" _and_ absolute rights.

Not at all. The social relations that people choose to value are not rights. You don't have a right to be friends with your neighbors, that is something that must arise mutually by agreement. A right is something that you can unilaterally exercise.


* Again, this greatly increases transaction costs -- you have to wait for the community to mobilize before addressing any dispute. For small disputes (e.g, trespass, spam, noise, odor, etc.) or exteranlities (e.g., pollution, risk from WMDs, etc.) it's far more efficient to have rules in place.

That's an opinion, as efficiency implies there is an objectively measurabl end that is being achieved faster, or through less use of resources. I don't think either can be shown to be true for having top-down laws.

[Ka.avik]

I think you missed the point. Who out there, doesn't want the fedex guy to deliver a package?
The point is that deliveries would quickly become prohibitevely expensive due to the need to have bodyguards who ensure that the _next_ package gets delivered, too.


You seem to imagine that all people will act like screaming two year olds that, my friend, is human nature. It's why there have always been governments, and only the most civilized countries such as the US, and Canada, can achieve this governance with so little application of brute force.

The 'wild west' lasted only for, what, 50 years per area as a totally lawless arena for self reliant anarchists? Why? Because at some fundamental level, most people want to trade a portion of their liberty for that much safety.

[Robespierre]

The point is that deliveries would quickly become prohibitevely expensive due to the need to have bodyguards who ensure that the _next_ package gets delivered, too.

What prevents this expense now?


The 'wild west' lasted only for, what, 50 years per area as a totally lawless arena for self reliant anarchists? Why? Because at some fundamental level, most people want to trade a portion of their liberty for that much safety.

Do you have an reason to believe that the "wild" west was more chaotic than any other portion of american society at the time? Certainly it was mostly "lawless", in the sense that the distances and travel times involved made most federal and even state laws mostly meaningless. "Lawlessness" doesn't always imply chaos though.

[Ka.avik]

What prevents this expense now?



Do you have an reason to believe that the "wild" west was more chaotic than any other portion of american society at the time? Certainly it was mostly "lawless", in the sense that the distances and travel times involved made most federal and even state laws mostly meaningless. "Lawlessness" doesn't always imply chaos though. Hmm....OK:
point A: we pay it, in 911 taxes, levies for police / ambulance.
Also, all the sheeple who follow rules before, even at the expense of, excercizing good judgement now have their rules. Gun control, self-defense definitions, that sort of thing.

point B: That is exactly the form of lawlessness I thought you were striving for; certainly it is the type of society I would have preferred to have been born in. I think. Actually as it turns out I'm really poor at manual labor for quasi-health reasons. Maybe I could find a way around that if I were there, maybe it would involve moving to the city :p

But, my point really was that you're mostly all alone in wishing for personal responsibility at the expense of a formal government; no one else has that kind of thing been allowed to stand. The peons want the protection of the landlord, and the knights prefer to specialize in extracting taxes rather then find some way to make an honest living.

I'm not saying logic should be democratic, just that's why I've long since given up complaining about the government: I might as well try to teach the brick wall about wooden fences.

[Robespierre]

point B: That is exactly the form of lawlessness I thought you were striving for

It is. Lawlessness in the sense that there are no real top-down violently enforced laws.

[Hypnos]

Not at all. The social relations that people choose to value are not rights. You don't have a right to be friends with your neighbors, that is something that must arise mutually by agreement. A right is something that you can unilaterally exercise.
Sure -- but rights are granted by the potential for force. You are relying on the community to shun an offending party, but not abrogate his rights?

This is possible, if the community adopts a convention -- some objective standard of behavior that proscribes action and grants rights therein. Which is what I was arguing for in the first place.


That's an opinion, as efficiency implies there is an objectively measurabl end that is being achieved faster, or through less use of resources. I don't think either can be shown to be true for having top-down laws.
Sure you can. Values might be subjective, but valuation can be objective -- i.e., pricing. This is precisely how one does economic comparisons between say, quasi-capitalist economies and quasi-collectivist ones.

[Robespierre]

Sure -- but rights are granted by the potential for force.

I don't see that at all. Rights, in my opinion, devolve from the self-evident fact of self-ownership. Might does not make right.


You are relying on the community to shun an offending party, but not abrogate his rights?

Yes. The ends never justifies the means, and if the community ignores the rights of the "offender", the community is no better, morally, than the government.


This is possible, if the community adopts a convention -- some objective standard of behavior that proscribes action and grants rights therein. Which is what I was arguing for in the first place.

Rights cannot be granted by convention. Rights exist as a natural property of our being.


Sure you can. Values might be subjective, but valuation can be objective -- i.e., pricing. This is precisely how one does economic comparisons between say, quasi-capitalist economies and quasi-collectivist ones.

Such comparisons are pointless. Quasi-capitalists might use them on utilitarian grounds to argue their points, but utilitarian arguments have never struck me as either convincing or strong.

All of the typical measurements used to calulate "efficiency" in economics are entirely subjective. The whole of modern economics depends upon accepting the premise that there is a goal, towards which, all economies are striving, and that they can be objectively measured as being closer or further from this goal.

[Hypnos]

Rights cannot be granted by convention. Rights exist as a natural property of our being.
That's a nice sentiment. However, to exercise these rights, you require one of the following:

* An absence of people who would initiate violence against you, i.e. no bad people

* Ability to repulse all the bad people yourself

* An understanding of common defense among your peers who share you moral sentiments or simply want to spread their risk.

"understanding" == convention


[...] The whole of modern economics depends upon accepting the premise that there is a goal, towards which, all economies are striving, and that they can be objectively measured as being closer or further from this goal.
Economics does not choose the goal; given a value system, economics is the study of how scarce resources might be allocated to optimally achieve those values.

The worth of economics in a debate such as ours is not in making utilitarian arguments, but in pondering how a proposed value system might fail given the realities of resources and communication.

[Mountain_Recluse]

In the discussion What is going on in Australia?? (http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8025&page=2) Heather eloquently and strongly makes a case for the right to keep and bear arms. The troubles faced by Australians documented in that discussion raises a question of why none of the Australian contributors to that discussion raised the usual comments against gun-culture in America, etc. Either the sort that populates this forum of INTP's and that particular discussion thread are compatriots or they realize that letting people like Heather carry a gun is, in hindsight and in light of their own troubles, a good practice. Perhaps the silence from the Australians and others is very telling that at least some of them support our human individual right to keep and bear arms.

There is a certain amount of truth to this! In fact, I am one of those people who may potentially have a loaded handgun on my person. I have a concealed weapon permit and I don't hesitate to take advantage of that fact if I am going somewhere that I consider potentially troublesome. In my case, it is usually remote rural areas where I carry a weapon; additionally, if I am planning to be walking around in downtown Salt Lake City after dark, I will often have a gun on me. My permit is also recognized by more than 30 other states (Utah's is one of the best to have). If I feel my life is in danger, I will not hesitate to start shooting.

Maybe people are conscious of this, but I'm sure it wouldn't stop all potential incidents. When a mob mentality takes hold, people don't think, "Hey! Maybe somebody I am attacking will have a gun!"

I'm afraid that problems like this will become more commonplace in the future in many countries. The fear of terrorism will continue to stoke suspicion, and the great difficulty with which conservative, traditional Muslim immigrants integrate into western societies will only add to these problems. This could get a lot worse, and if it gets going big-time in the U.S., there will be a lot of gunfire involved. The whole situation is scary.

Heather Harrison

[attila_the_hunny]

Frankly, I would love to exercise my right to bear arms.

[Zephyrus055]

Rights are basically components that make up a social contract. They have no inherent value.

They do, however, proceed from our selfish interest.

[psychic hygiene]

In the discussion What is going on in Australia?? (http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8025&page=2) Heather eloquently and strongly makes a case for the right to keep and bear arms. The troubles faced by Australians documented in that discussion raises a question of why none of the Australian contributors to that discussion raised the usual comments against gun-culture in America, etc. Either the sort that populates this forum of INTP's and that particular discussion thread are compatriots or they realize that letting people like Heather carry a gun is, in hindsight and in light of their own troubles, a good practice. Perhaps the silence from the Australians and others is very telling that at least some of them support our human individual right to keep and bear arms.Carrying a gun over here to use on another human? Our society is not struggling with survival of the fittest mentality, yet. Never done it, and never will. To own a gun doesn't even enter my mind. I acknowledge the US society is different to Australian society and that is the reason the gun issue passed over me, never even crossed my mind in that thread. The personal need to arm myself with a gun is not at all necessary where I currently live nor in other parts of Australia I have resided. Guns have never been nor are part of my "personal safety" mindset.

[nobarcode]

Regardless of guns, laws, etc.; They -guns- are as useless as the 2nd amendment (in Amerika) is.

[Marble Wry]

I'm read all the other posts because there are so many, if someone has meade this point already then sorry, but I will say that if someone breaks into your home, and you have a family, wouldn't you want to have a gun to protect your family from the robber. Robbers aren't always nice people and if they threaten your family, you don't want to have to rely on pepper spray against a robber who has a handgun. Think about it.

[psychic hygiene]

I'm read all the other posts because there are so many, if someone has meade this point already then sorry, but I will say that if someone breaks into your home, and you have a family, wouldn't you want to have a gun to protect your family from the robber. Robbers aren't always nice people and if they threaten your family, you don't want to have to rely on pepper spray against a robber who has a handgun. Think about it.Ok, I just thought about it and my answer is still no.
There is no need to be alarmist and live in fear of "what if". Requiring a fire arm over here for that purpose, would be remote - take a look at the situational stats.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/66/02_summary.html

[Braggi]

if the government is allowed weaponry, i want weaponry.

i do not trust the government.

[Darkness]

if the government is allowed weaponry, i want weaponry.

i do not trust the government.


Same here, I want control over my own decisions. If my life is threatened than by all means I will fire back in self defense. These lunatics will always figure out a way to get weaponry no matter how much legal jargon you throw towards their way. I want to feel safe among these lunatics and don't mind carrying arms. I think that #1, #2 and #5 are very important rights and I don't want to give it up for any reason. :dieemo:

[Helios]

This was the train of thought in my head about Guns, while I read the opening post.


Guns

Gun Control

NRA

Charlton Heston

The Ten Commandments

Me thinking Anne Baxter was HOT in that blue outfit laying there trying to seduce Moses.

Me thinking "Damn dude you were HOW old thinking that shit? Oh yeah you always were a perv, even as a child! LAMO"


http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/tencommandments2.jpg


Closing thought, annoyance that I couldn't find a pic anyplace of the image in my head. But hey it was that blue thing anyway

[mtene]

I carry a Glock 17 with me everywhere I go. The only places in Idaho I can't carry a gun are in Public schools for kids and goverment owned building like court houses, or post offices, places of that nature. If I'm not carrying the Glock I'm carrying my Kimber.

[psychic hygiene]

In the discussion What is going on in Australia?? (http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8025&page=2) Heather eloquently and strongly makes a case for the right to keep and bear arms. The troubles faced by Australians documented in that discussion raises a question of why none of the Australian contributors to that discussion raised the usual comments against gun-culture in America, etc. Either the sort that populates this forum of INTP's and that particular discussion thread are compatriots or they realize that letting people like Heather carry a gun is, in hindsight and in light of their own troubles, a good practice. Perhaps the silence from the Australians and others is very telling that at least some of them support our human individual right to keep and bear arms.Mountain Recluse,
My thoughts and query is questioning your intent with this post.
Did it ever cross your mind - that when the aussies remained silent in that thread, that they may have seen the issue of guns to be a non-issue here, rather than jumping to the rather arrogant conclusion and assuming that their silence indicated their support of the USA 2nd amendment?
It is clear to me, that due to your rather narrow conclusion that you simply used the "aussie" thread as an excuse to have the opportunity to resurrect this "2nd amendment" thread (of which is obviously near and dear to you) - please correct me if I am wrong.

I put to you this question:
With hindsight now, and in light of your internal troubles - which I see as nearing implosion - would you have voted for gun control or continued with the 2nd amendment?

EDIT: Other peoples from different countries of the world can learn not just from the USA achievements but more importantly from their mistakes.

[Marble Wry]

Ok, I just thought about it and my answer is still no.
There is no need to be alarmist and live in fear of "what if". Requiring a fire arm over here for that purpose, would be remote - take a look at the situational stats.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/66/02_summary.html

If you live by stats, I feel sorry for you.

[psychic hygiene]

If you live by stats, I feel sorry for you.I don't live by stats Marble Wry, I simply have no necessity to live in constant fear for the safety of my life either inside my home or outside in the wider community - it's interesting to see that the stats add a little support to my chosen way of living.

[Marble Wry]

This has nothing to do with fear, but instead, common-sense prepraration.

[psychic hygiene]

This has nothing to do with fear, but instead, common-sense prepraration.It has everything to do with fear, when talking of the use of personal guns especially in preparation!

You use common sense to prepare for "what ifs"? I suppose you also are prepared with your self contained bunker in case of a nuclear war?
Marble Wry, the USA and Australia are different in their lifestyles and my use of "common sense" pertains to the use of this in different situations. The common sense I utilize for my personal safety here in Australia tells me that there is no need to equip myself with a gun. Naturally, this "common sense" (which is common to here) would not get me far in the USA - it is obvious you have a different "common sense". Common sense is never static, and my "common sense" informs me to never live in the USA, I enjoy not having to live in fear of my life.

[Marble Wry]

A man should want to protect his family. Nuclear war, huh? That is not even close to buying a measly gun. Supplies and nuclear bunkers are not practicle unless you are rich, but a gun is cheap, and is an easy preparation. The state is there to protect you from nuclear war. It is a gun, how hard is it to buy one and protect yourself and your family in many situations. It doesn't matter where you live, there are bad people. No country is safe. I'm giving you great advice, it is cheap. It is easy.

[Marble Wry]

You won't be living in constant fear when you have that gun.

[psychic hygiene]

You won't be living in constant fear when you have that gun.lol, with this statement you acknowledged that acquiring a gun is first based upon fear! I don't have that basal fear component here at all (living in Australia), thus no need for a gun. Marble Wry, re-read my postings to Mountain Recluse, as my "common sense" already acknowledged the USA lifestyle.

[psychic hygiene]

A man should want to protect his family. Nuclear war, huh? That is not even close to buying a measly gun. Supplies and nuclear bunkers are not practicle unless you are rich, but a gun is cheap, and is an easy preparation. The state is there to protect you from nuclear war. It is a gun, how hard is it to buy one and protect yourself and your family in many situations. It doesn't matter where you live, there are bad people. No country is safe. I'm giving you great advice, it is cheap. It is easy.I don't need it here, nor do I want one for a "what if" situation! I have more of a chance in winning the lottery here than ever being subjected to one of your "what if" type situations. Best to put my money into purchasing a lottery ticket. ;)

EDIT: BTW, carrying a gun has got nothing with actually addressing the heart of the issue that gave rise to the need for one in the first instance!

[psychic hygiene]

Just thinking.. did perhaps your civil war give rise to this total mistrust in your neighbours and this fear continued? Australia hasn't had a civil war (outside the State of Origin footy matches), maybe your Civil War has remained within the USA citizen's collective consciousness and thus the reason you see it necessary to be armed against your fellow bad citizens?

[Ka.avik]

Just thinking.. did perhaps your civil war give rise to this total mistrust in your neighbours and this fear continued? Australia hasn't had a civil war (outside the State of Origin footy matches), maybe your Civil War has remained within the USA citizen's collective consciousness and thus the reason you see it necessary to be armed against your fellow bad citizens?
you've heard it before, and I'll say it too: farther back than that. We fought for our existance, our freedom. Only violence had the capacity to ensure our autonomy.

I would also like to add, that "bad citizen" is very nearly redudant. Some are worse, yes ...but to quote Jesus, "none are good...save one."

//no, I don't trust you. dont take it personally.

[psychic hygiene]

Regardless of guns, laws, etc.; They -guns- are as useless as the 2nd amendment (in Amerika) is.Fancy missing this one.
True.
I suppose if maintaining the people's focus on arming themselves with a gun as their high priority for personal safety, using this as a decoy maintains the needed control of the populace from actually seeing what else..

[Mountain_Recluse]

Mountain Recluse,
My thoughts and query is questioning your intent with this post.
Did it ever cross your mind - that when the aussies remained silent in that thread, that they may have seen the issue of guns to be a non-issue here, I referred the thread to a compatriot gun owner here and he too took note of the silence. Often we've seen Aussies and British and Canadians respond to even one post such as Heather's with arguments that guns are not needed in their countries and that America is a backward land of violent insecure gun culture. We are so used to others from other nations beating up on us on that topic that the absence of such a response made it conspicuous -- at least to us.
rather than jumping to the rather arrogant conclusion and assuming that their silence indicated their support of the USA 2nd amendment? At the very least the silence seemed to at least not be against our Second Amendment individual right. Okay, so maybe I was reading at least some agreement for that right from the lack of argument against it. Then again, such silence may have been also due to trying to stay on topic in that thread and not respond to Heather's post there.

It is clear to me, that due to your rather narrow conclusion that you simply used the "aussie" thread as an excuse to have the opportunity to resurrect this "2nd amendment" thread (of which is obviously near and dear to you) - please correct me if I am wrong.I am rather "J" about trying to stay on topic within a thread. Thus, for instance, instead of responding to Heather's post there I responded to it here.

I put to you this question:
With hindsight now, and in light of your internal troubles - which I see as nearing implosion - would you have voted for gun control or continued with the 2nd amendment?I would have continued with a 2nd amendment without that troublesome preamble. We have the individual right to any means of self defense that we can acquire. Obviously that is not limited to hunting rifles or target handguns. It at least includes every weapon that is available to the best equipped individual infantry soldier such as those in special forces. It also includes for a community or defensive group anything available to a small military unit.

EDIT: Other peoples from different countries of the world can learn not just from the USA achievements but more importantly from their mistakes. Do learn from our mistakes. We too have learned from the mistakes of others over time and geography some ways to prevent such implosions AND to defend ourselves and our allies BUT to not sell out our liberties for security -- which is also a dire mistake.

[psychic hygiene]

I referred the thread to a compatriot gun owner here and he too took note of the silence. Often we've seen Aussies and British and Canadians respond to even one post such as Heather's with arguments that guns are not needed in their countries and that America is a backward land of violent insecure gun culture. We are so used to others from other nations beating up on us on that topic that the absence of such a response made it conspicuous -- at least to us. At the very least the silence seemed to at least not be against our Second Amendment individual right. Okay, so maybe I was reading at least some agreement for that right from the lack of argument against it. Then again, such silence may have been also due to trying to stay on topic in that thread and not respond to Heather's post there.I am rather "J" about trying to stay on topic within a thread. Thus, for instance, instead of responding to Heather's post there I responded to it here.I would have continued with a 2nd amendment without that troublesome preamble. We have the individual right to any means of self defense that we can acquire. Obviously that is not limited to hunting rifles or target handguns. It at least includes every weapon that is available to the best equipped individual infantry soldier such as those in special forces. It also includes for a community or defensive group anything available to a small military unit. Do learn from our mistakes. We too have learned from the mistakes of others over time and geography some ways to prevent such implosions AND to defend ourselves and our allies BUT to not sell out our liberties for security -- which is also a dire mistake.Yes, the pithy little hand gun quickly becomes obsolete against the more advanced weaponry of your next door neighbour/fellow citizen who may have the latest gadget. Having the right to open slather and access to the up to the minute military weaponry to use for your "personal safety" against your own citizens, sounds charming.
If this is your idea of the the 2nd Amendment Utopia, then I'm more than happy not to accept the invitation to join with this experience. Sharing my living space with others is more than enough, without the added burden of finding space for my very own personal armory just in case of "what if".

Is the basic issue within your country that out of control and so impossible to address that it is heading towards this as a resolution? ..Mad Max is becoming American reality?

[Braggi]

i want a turn in the thunderdome.

[Ka.avik]

i want a turn in the thunderdome.

Two men enter, one man leaves. For the rest of us, it could be a boon either way...

[Braggi]

dude, two men enter, one corpse leave. because i am NOT leaving, that place looks righteous

[Star Cannon]

But the PURPOSE of the 2nd amendment!
btw, the Revolution was Britain's fault for __mismanaging__ and America's fault for SEVERELY over-reacting. And thus we seperated from Britain. :-)
Let see, everyone has guns, U.S. troops and police think twice about abusing citizen rights. Everyone has guns, gov'ment thinks twice about passing stupid laws. Everyone has guns, pres'dent thinks twice about declaring martial law.

But now that assualt weapons have been unbanned, I think I'll get meself an AK-47 with some ammo and some training, and let the buglar who dares target my house BEWARE of GUNS! LOL!!!!

[Nemesis]

I'm curious how other INTPs feel about the 2nd amendment, gun control, and the expiration of the "Assault Weapons Ban".

I happen to believe that my right to defend myself is inalienable, and am glad that the 2nd amendment acknowledges that (that's how I interpret it, anyway). I exercise my right to be prepared by legally carrying a handgun when I can. I follow the law, but resent the government presuming to have the right to limit my ownership. Gun USE should be limited, but not gun ownership. Gun control violates the principle that I have the right to defend myself.The problem is that's the view you have, not everyone else.

The AWB, in my opinion, was a joke. It sounds credible, but it was really a "scary looking guns, be very afraid" weapons ban. I'll rant more about this if necessary, but that's the basic view for now.Do you need an AK-47 to defend yourself against a burglar, or anything at all for that matter?

[Edmond Zedo]

The problem is that's the view you have, not everyone else.
Do you need an AK-47 to defend yourself against a burglar, or anything at all for that matter?
What kind of AK do you think the "assault weapons ban" actually banned? It was a total fuckin' misnomer. Machine guns have been unavailable to the public since 1986. That law was feel-good politics as well, as only one murder was committed with a legally-owned machine gun from 1934-1986. By a cop.

[Xander]

I don't know if this was covered in this thread (I tried to read it all but got side tracked and then couldn't be bothered to read everything) and I didn't wish to start a new thread only to be referenced to this one.

Why do some see the right to bear firearms as a basic human right?
I recognise the whole thing about being able to resist the government but firearms won't accomplish this. Neither does it work for crime control as I believe those contries with lower control on the ownership of firearms tend to have alot more problems with gun crime than those that do not.

I believe that the debate about arming the british police is still going on and is opposed by the argument that if the police bear arms then the criminals will to and therefore escalate the situation.

Don't get me wrong I am a long time gun nut but I see little point in owning a gun past "I wanted one so I bought one but I don't take it out of the security box unless to clean/ marvel at it or to take it to an appropriate place to practice shooting it".

Perhaps some kind soul can explain why lethal force is considered so necessary in the US and other places?

[Mountain_Recluse]

Why do some see the right to bear firearms as a basic human right? Because the right to self defense is a natural basic human right.

You quote Lazarus Long in your signature. He explains it well. But if you want a more historical and authoritative source. Below is an excerpt from an essay from someone who knows the history.
Where I come from, our homes are still our castles (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/10/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/31/ixop.html)
Self defence, wrote William Blackstone, the 18th-century jurist, is a "natural right that no government can deprive people of, since no government can protect the individual in his moment of need".
-- Joyce Lee Malcolm is Professor of History at Bentley College, Massachusetts, and Senior Advisor, MIT Security Studies Program. Her book, Guns and Violence - the English Experience, is published by Harvard University Press.

[Psy-goat]

Why do some see the right to bear firearms as a basic human right?
I recognise the whole thing about being able to resist the government but firearms won't accomplish this. Neither does it work for crime control as I believe those contries with lower control on the ownership of firearms tend to have alot more problems with gun crime than those that do not.


The US is a far more diverse country than even Britain and Canada, with a culture that is more challenging to authority, less respectful of customs, people here are much more afraid of their fellow humans and their true intent.

Maybe, as Michael Moore pointed out in Columbine, part of the hysteria is fed by the local newscasts, when you live in an area such as the northeast, surrounded by millions of people, you always hear of murder and violence.
As well, there is the influence of organized crime, criminals who usually took advantage of their own kind ( Italian on Italian or Russian on Russian) the police were either not seen as being helpful or were on somebody elses payroll.

Added to all this the rich are moving into gated secure communities and are no longer relying on their good character to keep them safe.

[Xander]

Because the right to self defense is a natural basic human right.
That is not being argued. The case is why go from nothing to lethal force? What would be the problem with restricting private ownership to tasers or only allow safety rounds?

It does seem incredulous to me that (as far as I am aware) you can purchase hollow point rounds for your gun when the military are banned from using them! Is it not also possible to buy from army surplus boxes of .50 Cal machinegun ammunition? Despite the actual weapon that fires the round being illegal, isn't this just supporting the ability of a criminal to have a working machinegun?

Anyway as I said, I am not arguing with a persons right to defend themselves but rather why allow firearms in that defence? Admitedly it would be difficult to go back now but that is hardly relevant to such a theoretical question.

You quote Lazarus Long in your signature. He explains it well.
I am unfortunately only quoting from a limited source of the material and as such am unfamiliar with the piece you are referencing.

[Xander]

Psy-goat,

Would I be right in thinking that what your basically saying is that the American populace is paranoid?

[Wotton]

I guess we'd be better prepared to overthrow an unjust government with pitchforks, Xander? (If we cared, I mean.) I realise that you can't buy a steak dinner for $5, but you're even less likely to get one if you only have fifty cents.

[Xander]

I guess we'd be better prepared to overthrow an unjust government with pitchforks, Xander? (If we cared, I mean.) I realise that you can't buy a steak dinner for $5, but you're even less likely to get one if you only have fifty cents.
It is more the idea that should you ever wield a firearm against the government then you have handed them perfect reason to take you down hard!

[Wotton]

It is more the idea that should you ever wield a firearm against the government then you have handed them perfect reason to take you down hard!
Given the nature of most people (myself included), I'd imagine that the government would already have taken us as far down as we could be taken before we started trying to wield firearms against them.

[Dom]

Because the right to self defense is a natural basic human right.

You quote Lazarus Long in your signature. He explains it well. But if you want a more historical and authoritative source. Below is an excerpt from an essay from someone who knows the history.
Where I come from, our homes are still our castles (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/10/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/31/ixop.html)


So it isn't just a right to defend yourself but also a right to defend yourself using the most sophiscated killing technology you can get your hands on.

A confrontation between two unarmed people, no matter how heated is unlikely to result in death. a confrontation between two people carrying guns is much more likely to result in serious injury or death.... someone will pull that gun, even if they are losing but DONT feel their life is in danger....

A weapon escalates any confrontation.

[Xander]

Given the nature of most people (myself included), I'd imagine that the government would already have taken us as far down as we could be taken before we started trying to wield firearms against them.
What I meant was that you are allowed guns and they have tanks!!
No matter what load you put in it your still gonna get creamed!

No government will give the common man means to depose them. It's not in their best interest to do so.

[Zephyrus055]

Sorry, but there are no natural rights.

Try to empirically verify that you have them. I dare you.

Graph your results on INTPC.

[Dom]

What I meant was that you are allowed guns and they have tanks!!
No matter what load you put in it your still gonna get creamed!

No government will give the common man means to depose them. It's not in their best interest to do so.

yet here they do every 4 years.......

Go tell the insurgents in iraq that gun vs tanks don't work??

[Xander]

Sorry, but there are no natural rights.

Try to empirically verify that you have them. I dare you.

Graph your results on INTPC.
Rights are granted and rescinded by humans. Some are assumed and others negotiated. That's the point isn't it?

[Wotton]

What I meant was that you are allowed guns and they have tanks!!
No matter what load you put in it your still gonna get creamed!

No government will give the common man means to depose them. It's not in their best interest to do so.
Well, I do agree. But it'd give you something of a chance, at least. It's seemed to work tolerably well elsewhere, at least on the "bring them down with you" front.

[Xander]

yet here they do every 4 years.......
Or do they?

Go tell the insurgents in iraq that gun vs tanks don't work??
Hardly the point. Well actually very much the point. How many insurgents are "spent" to take out a tank? Oh and RPGs are definately not under the 2nd ammendment ;) Well unless your a Texan I suppose....

[Xander]

Well, I do agree. But it'd give you something of a chance, at least. It's seemed to work tolerably well elsewhere, at least on the "bring them down with you" front.
True. Unfortunately the same theories apply to the criminals vs the police force.

[Dom]

Or do they?

Hardly the point. Well actually very much the point. How many insurgents are "spent" to take out a tank? Oh and RPGs are definately not under the 2nd ammendment ;) Well unless your a Texan I suppose....

Oh aren't RPG's allowed??? thats different then, so no one would try to storm a armaments cache???

hehehe Viva le revolution!

Best not to end up in a situation where you need to raise arms against your governement, and that means voting or even worse going out campaigning!

[Xander]

Oh aren't RPG's allowed??? thats different then, so no one would try to storm a armaments cache???

hehehe Viva le revolution!

Best not to end up in a situation where you need to raise arms against your governement, and that means voting or even worse going out campaigning!
Oh hush.

Besides raiding an arms cache with guns would not go well I fear unless you achieve surprise/ stealth. They have pretty formidable defences too you know, military bases.