A discussion of Gun Control for schrafinator

quote:

---

The government has NO RIGHTS. It only the POWER granted to it by the PEOPLE. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to ensure this POWER did not infringe upon the RIGHTS of the POEPLE.

---

Having a bunch of people running around with fireamrs infringes my rights, IMO, both of freedom of movement and the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

[qupte] If you take my guns you have made no one safer and put everyone around me in greater danger.[/quote]No, if we take your guns we will REDUCE the danger both to you and those around you. Not least becuase you also say:

quote:

---

Responsible gun owners already keep their guns locked up.

---

... while having argued vehemently earlier that truly responsible gun owners do not need to lock their guns up becuase they are so responsible.It seems to me your "responsible gun owner" is a moving target tnat by definition can do no wrong. It's just unfortunate that this Ideal applies to no actual gun owners.

Tsk. so I just say back "no, its your argument thats emotional".
Shall we just skip the t'is y'isn't and move on?Not only do I not want to have a gun, I also do not want to be surrounded by people with power to blow me away at any moment should the whim take them. They pose a threat to my life and freedom, and infringe that freedom.

quote:

---

Actually, no, I have a piece of paper in the National Archives that proves I can own a gun.

---

YOUR national archives, not mine. I have a piece of paper in MY national archives that says I can be protected from people with guns.

quote:

---

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like you feel comfortable letting others protect you and your family.

---

That question is wholly irrelevant. Your posession of a gun poses a risk to you and your family. I will not own a firearm BECUASE I wish to protect myself and my family.

quote:

---

Either way the chances that my mom/wife/sister would not be violated greatly increase.

---

This is an excellent example of the argument to paranoia. Most women are more likely to be raped by someone known to them than by a stranger; thus this is unlikely to prove a great safety measure. Its much more likely that such a family weapon will be used by a member of your family to kill one of the women in your family.

quote:

---

It really disgusts me to see an American burn a U.S. flag.

---

Well that just rendered a lot of your argument less important to me. If you are going to apply "my country right or wrong" logic, then the issue of weapon safety is less important tyo you then your perception of the ideological nature of your state.As Albert Einstein remarked, the patriot does not need a brain, only a spine.

quote:

---

reducing the number of people who would commit a criminal act or who do not understand what being a responsible adult is.

---

Then why support a universal right of gun owenrship even by irresponsible adults?

quote:

---

If you put a gun in the hands of a person with a solid sense of ethics, not only will they not use that weapon for criminal intent, they will realize the RESPONSIBILITY that comes with their right to have that firearm and will treat it with the respect it deserves.

---

You are arguing your conclusion. There is no reason to believe that at all apart from ideological claims. As with Jar, your "responsible gun owner" is a moving target, and Ideal represnetation of Perfection that does not exist in the real world. We have to deal with REAL guns owend by REAL people.

quote:

---

If you could read you would see that I said it was a sad comment that we have reached a society where it was necessary to lock the guns up.

---

Indeed... becuase in your day, they used to leave their guns lying by the door, they being such responsible owners. That was what you said, and I pointed out that in an environment that experienced gguns as weapons rather than toys, than would be seen as grossly irresponsible.

quote:

---

How, pray tell, will that have made anything safer?

---

By reducing the probability that he and his family will die from a gun-related accident to nearely nil. By reducing the capacity for domestic violence to result in a fatality. Even by making attempted suicides more probably survivable; people have second thoughts.

quote:

---

What the????
In one thread you are arguing with me that people should be helping in open revolution struggles and allowed to arm for them... including against the US.

---

Yes

quote:

---

And I find you in this thread arguing for tighter gun laws and saying how you'd NEVER have one in your house!

---

Yes.I don't understand why you find these contradictory. I am not at war; were I at war, I would no doubt be armed. While I am living as a private citizen going about my peaceful day, I have no need or interest in being armed, and the presence of arms around me constrains my freedom.Gun Ownerships is not some ontologically meaningful entity. It's a living arrangement, and we should deal with it practically, not based on Essentialist idealisms of weapons and their uses.This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-06-2004 05:21 AMThis message has been edited by contracycle, 08-06-2004 05:30 AM

quote:

---

Riiiiight. If you're going to deny the existance of the Constitution I don't think we'll get very far.

---

Huh? Please don't make yout local legal problems my problems.

quote:

---

Paranoid? You're the one who thinks "everyone around you could shoot you on a whim." And you don't know my family well enough to make that last assertion. Nice scare tactic though.

---

i don't need to know your family. And the FACT that my life is in the hands of anothers is NOT paranoia. Someone who is armed in my presence is in fACT physically capable of killing me. That threat exists implicitly or explicitly.

quote:

---

Your lack of a means of protecting your family poses a risk. I know you think the cops will always be there,

---

Ha ha ha. You're still missing the point; introducing a gun into the househiold defintely introduces risks thaqt did not exist before, and only mildly reduces the risk of some criminal activity. It might even increase the risk of criminal violence if its your gun they come to steal. And EVEN THEN, I'm more likely to survive a criminal encounter by trying to make my escape than by seeking to escalate the conflict.

quote:

---

I KNOW you can't back that up. You're making huge assumptions. Do you even personally know anyone who owns a gun?

---

Many. Have you actually read my other posts? [quote] If so, exactly in what ways are they not responsible as gun owners? [quote] By bringing a device for homicide into the family domicile.

quote:

---

I know plenty of "responsible gun owners" that ACTUALLY exist. Not to mention I am one myself.

---

Where is you firearm right now?Do you have a safe?Where is your firearm stored at night?Answer these questions and I can give you a meaningful response.

quote:

---

How? How would you arm yourself for a war against your own government, when it says you cannot have arms and has eliminated ways for you to get them?

---

Because the kind or arms I would need in order to conduct an armed resistance to the state - tanks, artillery, fighter bombers, fuel-air explosives, C4, cluster bombs, landmines, laser guidance systems, radar etc are so hopelessly beyond my reach (and have never been offered to civilians anyway) that the two issues are entirely orthogonal. If I was in actual armed rebellion, I'd be shopping on the international black market like every other non-state military.You can buy an AK47 in Africa for, umm, about $20 in some places.

quote:

---

As it is, these people are discussing the US which you say people SHOULD be fighting. Thus you should at least alter your argument that "peaceful" Africa should not allow people to have guns, but the US should.

---

What a bizarre remark. Whether or not there should or should not be a war made against the US is entirely separate from whether it is a good idea to have commercial access to tools for homicide by the citizenry.If you think I should advocate gun ownership by American citizens to facilitate a rtevoilution against the American state... my answer is still no for multiple reasons, not least the above disparoity of real force, but also because I advocate a mass strike strategy, not an off-with-their-heads strategy.

quote:

---

Do these people by any chance also own kitchen knives? Or a hammer? Or a screwdriver? Or a......

---

Well IF these were AS EFFECTIVE as guns in killing people nobody would buy them... but guns are much more effective, and much more likely to kill accidentally and at a distance.This subtopic has been covered in some depth.This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-09-2004 09:59 AM

quote:

---

YOU would not need tanks, artillery, fighter bombers, etc etc... Only if you had enough people to form an ARMY would you need this. And then you would not get them on a black market, but rather from friends within the military that are taking sides in your civil war.

---

Yes.[qupote] The size struggle we have been discussing is individual size which is guns and basic explosives.[/quote]No, we have not been - if that is an assumption you have been working on, its the first time you mentioned it. you asked me why bI d8idnt support personal weapons in the name of resistance to the state - and as you accept, that is becuase I need a whole army to fight the state, or to co-opt the states army. In either case, my posession of a 9 mil peashooter makes no difference.

quote:

---

I take it these are safer in home use than US guns, sold on the white market?

---

Of course not. But, I would only have one under conditions of war, in which case I alrady face substantial risks.

quote:

---

And the tools of this will be safer in the home, how?

---

The tools of what, the mass strike? That makes no sense I'm afraid.

quote:

---

You just can't have it all ways contra. But this is what it seems, you want a strong government that protects the people from themselves by making sure they stay disarmed, yet people should be arming themselves with explosive devices to overthrow that same government.

---

Huh? I never said anything about a strong state - I regard tyhe state as the oppression of the citizenry. But I say - either I'm living the life of a citizen, or I'm up in arms. If the former, I don;lt need private violence, and if the latter, I need private violence on a much, much larger scale thatn purchasing a pistol allows.There's no contradiction in this position at all. The constradiction lies in the hubris of those who DO own guns based on the second amendment, knowing full well those guns would never, ever, allow them to resist the state any more than Randy Weaver or David Koresh could achieve.This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-09-2004 10:07 AM

UK, but previously I lived in South Africa, which also had prevalent private firearms ownership, although apparently not on the same principles that appare to operate in the US.

quote:

---

Oh, so all families have the same likelyhood of killing each other if a gun is in a house? All people are alike. Just carbon copies of each other. Nobody has different personalities. Nobody is more responsible than anyone else when it come to evil firearms. When we get a gun in our hands we all turn into homicidal maniacs. I see your point so clearly now. Nice job of dodging my question, though.

---

Your special circumstances - if all your family members hapopen to be saints - in no way make a general case. I am addressing the genereal case. And furthermore, I am simply not going to accept an argument that you advance based on the self-reporting of your own responsibility and competence. You would say that, wouldn't you.

quote:

---

No, the fact that you think everyone with a gun might blow you away on a whim is what makes you paranoid (reference my earlier post). People who aren't armed are physically capable of killing you too.

---

Duh. But, while I can have a good idea who is close enoigh to me to present a physical threat, if firearms are known to be in the region then that envelope of potential threat must be extended to at least 20m. And it will apply through walls and doors and curtains.And I note you still resort to primitive character assasination, that of "paranoia". I didnl;t say anything about proabability or intent, only power. And if a gun had not given them that power, why did they want it?

quote:

---

Why do you ASSUME a person with a gun won't try to make an escape first too?

---

I didn't ASSUME that, I said I'd be more likely to survive by running than by escalating. If I'm going to run, then why have a gun?This makes no assumption about what a notional gun owner would do, and is not dependant on assuming they are "cowboys". You are over-extending my argument and putting words in my mouth.

quote:

---

Yeah, you definately have been watching too much television. A device for homicide? Please.

---

Really? What else does it do? I mean, it must have some other function, becasue only a drama queen would describe it according to its prupose. Maybe you use yours for gardening? Soil aeration, giving those lil' earthworms a helping hand? I knew a guy who used his pistol to make crushed ice once, is it something like they do for you?

quote:

---

I can tell you are so afraid of guns that nothing that ANYONE says is going to change your mind. You obviously have a preconditioned fear response that you will probably never overcome.

---

Can you tell that? I wasn't aware you had a mind-reading machine. And if you do have a mind-reading machine, I can't see why you ewould also want a gun; after all you'd be able to tell who all the bad people are and avoid them.Even the many other people in this post who are anti-gun at least approach it with rationality and I can respect that. You have your fears and your catch phrases.

quote:

---

They are all in safes. Yes, the ones I keep my firearms in. In the safes. I await your meaningful response.

---

Thats good. Where is the ammunition stored?I note you have not specifically reported where your weapons are stored at night.This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-09-2004 10:52 AM

quote:

---

Making a low cost product in and of itself isn't bad. I shop at Wal-Mart all the time. As to people misusing the product I say it is bad. But again, let's try and fix the root of the problem. Why are people committing crimes in the first place? It's not because they have a gun. I don't need to list the social problems that are plaguing many of our cities today. Fixing these social problems would cut down on ALL types of crime, including those that are non-gun related.

---

Yes, it would. But this is in no way a defence of gun ownership - it is merely an attempt to evade the issue. The prevalence of guns means that many crimes are committed with weapons when it may be that none are needed. It's also a Utopian proposition - yes, we could wait untyil the world was perfect before we tried to solve any problems, or we could simply recognise the world is not perfect and do the best we can.

quote:

---

Let's start looking at the roots of all these problems and come up with ways to fix them that do not take away ANY of our rights.

---

And this seems to be a very significant concession on your part - for without the historical accident that is the US constitution, ity would NOT be your right to own a firearm.. Obviously, it applies in no other state - so if the only argument you can advance for gun owneship is so localised, you have conceded the general case.This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-09-2004 10:42 AM

quote:

---

But in those same studies of recovered firearms, there are also major difference based on age. Not surprisingly, the younger criminals choose cheaper guns by far. Since those in the under 25 category make up a very large percentage of the total crime population, it is also not surprising that cheaper guns are more common.

---

All of which firmly reinforces Schraf's point: irresponsibile manufacturers are churning ourt cheap guns which appeal to a criminal market and are frequently recovered from crime scenes. This is an excellent demonstration of the total futility of "self-regulation".I thought you were supposed to be arguing the other side of the case?This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-09-2004 10:45 AM

Holmes, you must stop this reflex exaggeration of the argument of everyone you disagree with.

quote:

---

This coming from the guy who says in another thread that one should be engaged in violent struggles even if there is no hope for military success beyond getting a "warhead" in the direction of the enemy.

---

NO. I said I understand, and do not condemn, them in their situation. IF you in turn were reduced to fighting the state with your privately owne popgun, I wpould understand your circumstances as well.But there is no realistic prospect that owenrship of smallarms by private citizens is going to defeat a formal army. And the maintenance of a "right to bear arms" on that notional basis is essentially an exercise in self-delusion.

quote:

---

Thus you go back and forth. Pick a side of the fence my friend.

---

It only appears to go back and forth becuase you keep extending my argument to an abstract, a priori Principle, when in fact that is not workable. ALL my arguments are dependant on the actual material conditions. In the actual circumstance of the private citizen in a western state, there is no need to have private arms. Where there is a desire to do so out of romanticism, perhaps, but no need. And where there is a need for arms, they need REAL arms, not just civil smallarms.[qupte] Your reference to Weaver and Koresh is even forced. Both were caught before being able to employ their weapons in any fighting situation. Starting a war tightly surrounded is essentially suicide. And in the case of Weaver, those killed were in some cases not even fighting at all.[/quote]I'm well aware of this, but this demonstrates exactly the futility of private arms. IF you were to rise up against your state, as you yourself pointed out, you would be looking at equipping an army. Your civil arms will not suffice for that purpose; you need much more. All private arms get you is the ability to individually resist the state when it kicks in your door - and that is not usually a winnable battle. I mean think about it: in both these cases, the only thing stopping the state from going in with Apaches right from the outset was the need to appear not to be intent to kill their own citizens. The state did NOT deploy its full force, and didn't need to.Back in the day when the dominant battlefield weapon was the musket, private muskets and a militia who could assmeble and thereby constitute a state-of-the-art fighting force made sense. In the modern context, where the dominant weapons are fighter bombers and main battle tanks, a citizens militia out can assemble into an even competent army is nonsensical. Its a joke.

quote:

---

And this is where the contradiction comes in. You were not only not condemning, but actively promoting open conflict in the US. I think I even remember you were for use of "guns", and giving "guns" to Palestinians, as part of this.

---

What? Thats absurd, I'm afraid. What I said was that from the perspective of many peiople in the middle east, the US is an aggressor and enemy which needs to be deterred; the only mechanism to do so is to inflict serious harm on the US mainland.I seperately argued that if we want the Palestinians to be able to confront the IDF in open battle, rather than they are operating as they are today, then we need to equipe them so that they can. And seeing as I know that this suggestion would be rejected, it demonstrates that the argument about civilians is actually about resistance AT ALL.

quote:

---

Clearly anyone starting an open conflict in the US today would be reduced to fighting with privately owned weapons.

---

Thats quite true. It would be an extraordinarily bad idea. I mean, even the Iraqi army, experienced and on its own ground, with lots of hardware, would not confront the US in open battle.

quote:

---

But a rifle and handgun are effective in hitting targets and taking them down.

---

Only people, and possibly unarmoured people. Not against tanks, APC's, and fighter bombers.

quote:

---

Appropriate guerrila tactics can make them useful for protracted engagements. Of course I wouldn't suggest starting a war against the US unless you know a LOT of people are on your side.

---

You can pursue a strategy of area denial IF you have very strong support from the local populace. But if you had that deghree of support, you can probably concentrate enough resources to buy heavier weaponry on the market.

quote:

---

Except when addressing the Palestinian issue, as well as the Koresh and Weaver examples. We'll get to the latter two in a sec, but I have been waiting quite a while for you to show ANY real assessment of the material conditions of the Palestinians.

---

Arguing your conclusion, Homes. I have been waiting for you to show a real assesement of the Palestinian situation.

quote:

---

I agree that there is little need. There are people who do need them in remote areas for protection (I have relatives whose lives have been saved by firearms against snake and bear attacks... yeah attacks). They can also arguably help a person fend off human attacks in rural and urban areas, but this is not an everyday affair.

---

Sure; it was actually touched on earlier in the thread. I fully accept the possible need for firearms if confronted by dangerous wildlife.

quote:

---

Urban warfare and dense wilderness environments remove all practical value of those REAL arms you are talking about. Observation of our own activities within such regions show our troops routinely go back to those "civil small arms" you denigrate.

---

Only as long as the military has some reason not to simply bomb the urban area flat. The military will quite happily reduce a whole building to rubble to kill one sniper.Incidentally, you previously argued in the Palestine thread that a military strategy that absorbed 2:12 losses was should be abandoned. What kind of losses would you expect to sustain confronting an armoured brigade with artillery and air cover with small arms?

quote:

---

Thus both had lost the "war", which neither started, well before it began. The situation would have been vastly different if they had begun a war and acted as if they were in war conditions, before they had already lost.

---

Surely "acting ass if they were under war coinditions" would include stockpiling heavy weaponry, forging international alliances and putting a foot in the black weapons market. Nevertheless, this demonstrates again the futility of the citizens militia concept - ANY such rising must necessarily occur in the middle of what instantly becomes enemy held territory.

quote:

---

I'm still interested how you went on and on about the effectiveness of S American resistance fighters, and then talk here about apaches just going in and blowing everyone away. It doesn't work down there does it? Neither does it work in urban centers.

---

Might that be because of the presence of jungle? In point of fact, what these moevements have managed to achieve is a small chunk of autonomy - they have not overthrown the state. And furthermore, those movements DO have access to heaveir weaponry such as RPG's, squad support machine guns and mortars. It is NOT a few dudes in hunting jackets wielding Browning HiPowers.

quote:

---

In open battle, like a battlefield, it would be suicide. It would be a joke. Tell me what good fighter bombers and tanks are in a city, if a good population of that city stands against them with small arms?

---

quote:

---

European bombing gradually got closer and closer to home, until the German military on behalf of Franco tested new kinds of bombs by dropping them on cities in Spain. Japan bombed civilian cities in China. Then in the 1940s, bombing of even the capital cities of combatant nations - Berlin, London, Tokyo - became a normal instrument of warfare, finally leading to the annihilation of the undefended cities of Hamburg and Dresden by British saturation firebombing, and of Hiroshima and much of Nagasaki by the U.S. atomic bomb.

​

By that time, terror was not the only result of bombing. Fifty thousand civilians were killed in a single night in Hamburg, most of them women, children and elderly. Twice that number died in Dresden. Two atom bombs did fill Japan with shock and awe, and killed several hundred thousand civilians in the process.

---

Bombing Baghdad into 'shock and awe'Thats what.

quote:

---

Unless the goal is total annihilation of the city, the citizens would win... though a seige situation might be able to bring it to its knees over time.

---

As I said - the only limitation is the political strategy that may require the city not be annihiliated. These rebels are therefore dependant on a decision made by their enemies.

quote:

---

I think your assessments are bizarre when you try to pass handguns and rifles off as useless. Sure it would be great to have better arms, but that does not make them a joke.

---

... and there you are over-extending my argument again. I have never said small-arms were useless: in fact I have repeatedly claimed they are very very dangerous. What I said was that smallarms do not empower you to defeat a formal army, UNLIKE the period in which the constitutional amendment was drafted. It remains the case that even widespread small-arms ownership by the population cannot resist the armed might of the state. The only mechanism by which guerillas do approach the violence of the state is by upgrading beyond civil small arms to military equipment.{Fixed 2 quote boxes - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-10-2004 05:13 AM