A discussion of Gun Control for schrafinator

Before I get into this, let me say I'm not a big gun control advocate. I tend to want freedom as much as we can have, before it makes reasonable sense to regulate/restrict. Even with my position, I do not think this is exactly an accurate claim, and I do not believe we can extrapolate into the future from it.First of all, although I am open to evidence for this, general militias at that time did not have cannons. As far as I understand that was a government thing.Second, they may have had very different attitudes regarding weapons if they were alive, looking at the types of weapons we have today. While I understand that it is appealing to want to reach back on this issue, it really is a much different world. There is NO comparison between what they had at that time and what we have. For example, a single automatic weapon, grenade, maybe even a sniper rifle, has the capability of doing more damage than an old style cannon.And ironic given the argument being made about the 2nd amendment, if we do go back to their own words we see that free men are allowed to own arms... yet we know that they did regulate and restrict who free men were. They weren't about to hand rifles and cannons out to the mentally handicapped or insane, not to mention savages and slaves.Perhaps that (mentally handicapped and insane) points to a difference between yesterday and today. The weapons back in that time REQUIRED training, It is doubtful an untrained child or a mentally handicapped person could use one. Nowadays an animal can set off a loaded weapon (yes I know that does not mean they can arm them, but arms back in the old days could not really be left armed as they can today).The beauty is that they left it up to us and we should consider ourselves capable of reasonably addressing the issue, if we stay away from purely emotional or ideological commitments. We have to judge what is really a constraint on freedom, and what is really likely to pose an overt threat to others that ownership itself is not wise.It should be easy enough (and honest) to recognize times HAVE changed and we need a serious discussion, and not have to appeal to authority (which is what much of this style of argument is) to figure out what our course of action should be. Not only is this pretty logical it is also pretty acceptable.I think "terrorist weapon" is an interesting choice of word since no terrorists have had them yet, and indeed many that we claim are terrorists trying to seek such weapons point out that they are scared because WE are using them as weapons of terror. That may raise a question whether OUR GOVERNMENT should even be using them, but that is for another topic.Clearly NBCs fall under a strategic weapon category. They are not very useful for straightforward combat, other than to scare the other side into submission, or from acting aggressively.So maybe that is where we can start a line and work backward from that? Weapons whose principle aim, and only real function, is to frighten an enemy through threat of mass, indiscriminate casualties and requires more than an average technical knowledge to safely store or operate should not be defined as ARMS. They certainly won't help a militia (who would not have the technical capacity to safely store or operate such devices).Perhaps they can be defined as WMDs, or Strategic Level Arms. This still seems a bit extreme. Any tank? An F-16 loaded with its usual weapons arrays? As vehicles I don't think anyone would agree, but once their weapons systems are functional they are something slightly different than just ARMS.What about depleted uranium shells? What about radar jamming with a complement of bombs (smart and other)?I would also add that even routine use of such items (in their firepower capacity) do damage whether they hit people or not. I am not sure if you are aware of this but the ammunition creates environmental hazards, especially where they are exploding. You don't even need depleted uranium for that.I had a gf who specifically studied an ex tank target range that ended up being designated a superfund site just because of the contamination from regular explosive materials.And what would such things be used for, beyond pure vanity? They aren't for hunting and they aren't for the zen of target practice (Not with all the instrumentation and automated computer systems between you and hitting the target).It isn't even arguable they could be used by a militia properly. It takes a bit of command and control to work such things into an effective combat strategy. I'm not sure if I would be comfortable with a local militia doing the necessary low level flight missions (esp. over populated areas) just to train for (well what would they be training for exactly)?I think this is another case where the line can be walked down to without a real argument in its defense(other than the disarmed vehicles as vehicles... or armed with paintballs?).Perhaps these could be labelled Specialized Division Level Arms. Thus they are really only useful in large organized standing armies capable of USEFUL training and deployment of such arms.Does this sound like a reasonable point of departure? Then we can start moving the line down to get to what is necessary and useful for individuals and militias can train and deploy in a practical sense for their own defense, as well as the regulations and restrictions of humans that get to use them.I would agree in any case that the arms of our founding fathers' time period, which as I said require training to use anyway, should not require regulation or restriction.This message has been edited by holmes, 07-04-2004 08:25 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

While I agree with your point that freaks is a little harsh to paint all gun control advocates, ya gotta admit not everyone for gun control is exactly staying calm about the issue.If NRA supporters can be demonized as gun fanatics, and gun owners/manufacturers as being part of a problem, then its not so amazing that gun advocates start lashing back.Everyone needs to chill on this. Okay, really, guns were NOT the cause. In a gun death someone somewhere is responsible for any particular incident.The question of why untrained, unstable, or criminal types have guns and how to get around this is valid.So is the nature of arms which should be allowed to be owned by an average citizen.But the argument of whether guns CAUSE deaths seems a bit silly, and in any case tangential to what you have to explore anyway. I thought this was shown pretty well in Moore's Bowling.Schraf: "In the U.S. for 1998, there were 30,708 deaths from firearms"Archie Bunker: "Would'ya perfer they was pushed from winders?"There are issues of violent people using guns, and there are issues of accidental deaths from firearms. These are two separate issues which make stats like the above meaningless for discussion... unless it is to simply label guns bad, which is simplistic."Gun Control" is treated as a panacea in this light. I think its better to look at the two different issues and offer concrete solutions.Human nature is that people will do bad things, and they will do stupid things. I am unsure if removing guns completely would stop this. All you would do is make sure (at best) guns will not be INVOLVED. What difference does that really make?Also, I am slightly unimpressed by stats which are just amounts. Especially when making comparisons, percentages are better. It would also help to at least correlate this with gun manufacturing, sales, and ownership stats.In the case of what you just posted, are there similar breakdowns on damage caused by other weapons in crimes, as well as objects in accidents (a good example being cars).I'm not trying to suggest that there is nothing like this, nor that guns will come out looking good. All I'm saying is using those other types of studies will be more meaningful and suggestive of where to focus efforts.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Not to say this isn't true in most respects, but the Civil War was a pretty big counterexample, as well as several "small" revolutions that had to be put down by force of arms.Of course Jefferson said this SHOULD happen from time to time so there ya go. I agree and am for an armed populace. The point is to ask what is reasonable for this end.A person who owns an F-16 isn't going to do jack when it comes time to defend himself against the government (if it decides to take him on). Even a small militia armed with F-16s and tanks aren't going to do jack.If a small group, or even a large group, of citizens found itself confronting the US government in some tyrannical hypothetical future, they would be better off doing exactly what our FF's did. Citizens used commando tactics (or as we call them today, terrorist tactics) to disrupt large troop movements , as well as using existing military units that were on their side for large battles.This is also what happened in the US Civil War, and just about every other Civil War I can think of.A small OVERarmed militia is worthless and I would argue move to their demise faster than if they started at a relative disadvantage in largescale firepower.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This has got to be one of the scariest things I have ever read in defense of arming the public. Do you really believe the situation above is even possible, much less plausible?How would an average citizen know when a plane was hijacked or in any way about to crash into a building (or lets say a populated area) in time to arm himself with a surf-air missile and bring it down safely?For all anyone could possibly know, a plane might be in trouble and bringing it in on coordinates it had been instructed to go to (just having to be over a city) and thus in an unusual area and at an unusual angle. In the WTC case people would have had no way of knowing for sure right up till the moment of impact.And IF a situation had occured where a person on local scene could do such a thing, it would have to be in coordination and with proper situational knowledge. For example army reserve or local police (notified about the impended situation).My nightmare would be a plane in distress (or in bad weather conditions) given proper orders to alter course and some "hero", or worse yet a number of "heroes" on the ground trying to shoot it down.I think people on the ground should not be worrying about trying to read into what plane's are doing, beyond being concerned enough to make a call to police.Honestly, can you tell me how things would have been better if a NewYorker with a SAM had managed to hit one of those planes forcing it down into the streets, rather than the WTC? And if someone had done so with the second plane the whole disaster would clearly have been much much worse (given that most people had managed to evacuate the towers onto the streets below).

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No no no, jar. That is a dodge (intentional or not).My question was very specific to your specific example why anyone should think letting civilians have SAMs might be good.You chose the WTC crashes, or something like them. I asked you in that situation how anyone possibly could have made it better by using a SAM.The answer is no one could have. It only had the potential to make things worse.But let's get to your general defense of "situational awareness". Can you tell me how anyone would have enough practical situational awareness to make a choice to shoot down a plane? No one can possibly know what it is actually doing and where it will end up if you hit it (all the pieces and jet fuel still come down).SAMs are meant for combat when you have known enemy planes and helicopters in sight. The only people on the ground who would possibly be able to identify a plane off course as (in actuality) a plane which is being used by an enemy is a military or police officer with advance knowledge from some command/control structure.Ordinary citizens certainly should not own SAMs. There are simply no realistic positive arguments for this, and a whole host of bad things to argue against it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I agree that many people who have guns and those skilled in martial arts have this (I am of the latter camp).But I think you may have leapt to the wrong cause. I do not think it is simply carrying a gun, or knowing you can beat someone senseless that drives the attitudes you (and I) have observed.I think for the most part the training which comes with real knowledge of guns or MAs, gives one a realistic assessment of the damage that can result from their use. Thus such people have a healthy respect for the dangers involved and so will tend to avoid using it unless absolutely necessary.There are plenty of people that live in fantasy land and cannot comprehend the actual damage which can result, and so do not avoid conflict.Unfortunately this can be true even of the people you described. Just like its sometimes the best swimmers that drown, sometimes well trained (and in some cases well armed) people get a bit cocky and are willing to test their abilities rather than hold them in reserve.I do agree though that for the MOST PART, training and knowledge of weapons or MAs results in an attitude of avoiding conflict until it is most necessary.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm sorry but I should have pointed to my reply to verzem, in case you would bring up this reason for citizens to be armed with SAMs.In my reply I explained that such munitions would become part of a rebellious army (patriotic or not) in the course of its rebellion.For example if you are just a tiny militia then you are going to get squashed no matter what. I'll let you have as many SAMs you want... and F-16s for that matter. It is unrealistic to believe weapons like that will turn the tide of anything.For a revolution to exist, it will require backing of some within the military ranks themselves (whole units and divisions). That is the only way full scale revolutions have succeeded throughout history.That is when and where higher level military hardware would be gained, and to realistic effect.It is also true that for any small militia wanting to try its hand, even if just for self defense they could try and steal or fight their way in to get such weaponry when they find they have a need for such things.I actually could go on for why a splinter militia would NOT WANT to have SAMs until after a war began, end maybe not even then, but I think my point is made.Certainly the only thing a real rebellion needs is personal weapons, because those will be usable in commando operations (which tend to be the bulk of combat until large forces come into play), as well as the large scale combat later on.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yeah, but your emphasis seemed to be that the philosophy was borne of the confidence and safety one felt because one could handle onesself.My emphasis was that the philosophy was borne from now having a greater understanding of violence and the RESULTS of violence and knowing that it generally won't help situations.It's a subtle distinction.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

We've been through this topic before so I am aware you are not a gun control "freak". I think I am more liberal than you are on the topic (where liberal means people should have guns), but you don't seem that far out.I was not, and am not, trying to undercut your overall argument, but rather trying to improve it.I don't believe trying to create an idea that guns CAUSE violence, or gun owners a part of the violence we see, is accurate or helpful.Violence (with a subset being gun violence) is an issue that requires one set of solutions. Accidents (with a subset being gun accidents) require another.I think stats which pinpoint where we are having problems, and what solutions might be are the most useful and will help your case. Again, not dismissing you, just trying to help you tighten your argument. I think this is a valid point and goes much further to creating a way to assess which guns should be available to the public, and if their should be required training or licensing before gun purchase.This is an assessment of capabilities, rather than causalities, and is more useful. But it does need to be broken down per weapon or groups of weapons.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Your scenario is exactly why it was impossible. There was no concrete military communications that anyone could have overheard, much less in time to do anything.One could say it would be "possible" in some future 911 type event someone might enter the circumstances you are talking about. But that is such a remote possibility that it is not worth trading for the much greater possibility of some asshole shooting down a jet for no reason in particular (playing hero or rebel).It also assumes a LOT to say someone could bring down a plane and for sure it will land in an empty field.It's all a pipe dream.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You mean compared to the healthcare costs and loss of productivity due to such drug use PLUS the costs resulting from the violence and bureaucratic entities which are NECESSARY for a drug war?I'm sorry but we already had prohibition and the answer is in, it just isn't worth it. WARS cost more than PEACE.And before you say alcohol isn't as bad as the drugs you listed, you should be reminded that the current drugs would also not be as bad except that they are illegal. This leads to people taking alternative drugs (sometimes harder than choice) when their supplies run out, and manufacturing with no quality control (which means they are much more poisonous).I do not believe in the slippery slope that if it is legal there will be a mass rush to use it. Do you feel you would use any of them if they became legal? If not, then why would anyone else?I have never been threatened by anyone using drugs, but have been threatened on numerous occasions by the resulting violence of the drug war. I'll take my chances with the drug rehabilitation movement any day of the week. This is a disengenuous statement. You have already cited how gun violence differs from other kinds of violence. Please apply the same standards here. Name one drug that can kill another person at a distance, much less many people in a short space of time.Unlike guns, drugs hurt those that use them and no one else. One can argue it "hurts" their friends and families, but that is life and there are many other choices which effect friends and families just the same.Self-destruction is not the singular domain of drug users, and keeping them illegal will not stop it from happening. It simply makes regular life more dangerous for everyone else.This message has been edited by holmes, 07-09-2004 06:21 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, you suggested that certain drugs should remain illegal, that would be a de facto maintenance of the drug war. This is disengenuous (yet again). Making something ILLEGAL is pretty much by definition taking a PUNITIVE attitude toward something.If you are talking about keeping them REGULATED, that is a whole other ball game. Thus there are treatment programs available, perhaps mandatory for extremely hard addictive cases.As long as drugs are ILLEGAL then users (including nonaddicts) are lumped in to an entire class which are unlikely to get help when they need it, and preyed upon by the black market suppliers they are forced to go to.Once again I ask you the question and I would like you to answer it. How does ADDING costs to the costs we would face through legalization make illegality less expensive and option?You suggested that there would be a high cost resulting from healthcare and loss of productivity from users/addicts of those drugs.The fact of the matter is making those drugs illegal has not stopped their use and so we have the same healthcare costs and loss of productivity (multiplied because of the factors I mentioned above) PLUS the costs of having to haul people in (even small time users and dealers), sometimes killing innocent people in the process (there is no question that violence is escalated in prohibition scenarios), and put them through trials and incarcerate them.The idea of illegality as a viable solution to medical/behavioral issues is a pipe dream. The costs are greater under prohibition, and the only way it could be thought cost-benefit worthwhile is if it will eventually "win" and no one will suffer after that (thus net positive over the long haul). Change human behavior through prohibition? Pipedream. I didn't and I'm getting pretty sick of seeing this charge thrown at me so easily every time you are on the hot seat. I can understand mistaking my position, but this wasn't even a case of that. Alcohol is freely available except to those who are incarcerated or underage. I am glad you made the connection between alcohol an PCP for me. We can see what happened during prohibition. The alcohol was worse quality and led to more deaths and illnesses than people suffered before or after (during its legality). It also shifted many to other sources of chemical amusement.PCP is dangerous. Too bad people get swept into using it more than they are likely to by getting sucked into the black market to seek their drug of choice, sometimes finding that is the best product available (due to crackdowns), or get it pushed onto them by the black market profiteers illegality creates.It also increases antagonism between civilians and law enforcement officers, as well as adding corrupting forces to law enforcement.You cannot extrapolate from the effects of PCP to say that if it and other drugs are made available violence as a whole will suddenly jump higher. You will have to explain how its legality will suddenly make more people try it and/or that the people will suffer worse effects. None of these are borne out from knowledge regarding the legality of drugs. Alcohol is legal, are you arguing for a return to prohibition?I will not claim that no one will do something bad under the influence of drugs. However there is no reason to believe there will be a sudden jump to greater levels than we see now, especially if they are regulated while being legalized.You were also disengenuous and avoided the second half of my statement. Are you claiming that you have not seen violence associated with the illegality of narcotics? I cannot imagine that you have seen more reports of people on PCP rampages than people caught in gangland feuds or police roundups gone wrong on the news.I do not know where you live but you have suggested it is a poor area? I have lived in very very poor areas of chicago. The amount of violence and death I have seen caused by cops and drug gangs far outweighs daily violence by people on drugs.This is exactly what happened during prohibition. Go figure. Is there a reason we are supposed to expect ending prohibition on other drugs will have different effects? Your disengenuosity is quite shocking today. Alcohol does not kill anyone at a distance and in great numbers. The statement above suggests nothing to the contrary.If you want to talk about operation of equipment (cars or other devices) under the influence of any substance (including some perfectly legal drugs which alter perception) that is another argument entirely.I am totally for making sure motorists are not under the influence. That does not require making alcohol illegal, only driving under the influence (and once again, under many different influences).If the next highest cause of fatalities were talking on cell phones or putting on lipstick, would you seriously argue that such things are like guns?I think you are doing both your argument for gun control and drug control a disservice with this kind of equivocation. I do not understand this question at all. Why should I NOT allow anyone to use it, beyond banning its use while operating equipment or in situations sensory/judgement impairment could be an issue?That does not make alchol illegal, it is about penalizing wreckless use of hazardous equipment. It will be increased. Now explain why more people with this proneness to violence will necessarily come into using such things if they were legalized. We have seen from alcohol prohibition that this slippery slope was fallacious.Those that are violent (whether on drugs or not) can be picked up (arrested) for their violence and treated for their substance use. Hopefully such treatments will make them realize that there is a negative connection with that drug (ie that it results in greater violence from them).PCP is illegal right now, and people still take it. The effects are worse because of poor quality demanded by black market production. To complicate matters, people with such problems cannot reach out as easily to get the help they need because their habit is illegal (which has many implications for job and family, even if they try to go clean).I am still for regulation and careful use of rehabilitation programs for harder drugs, in conjunction with their legalization. That is wholly separate from keeping drugs illegal... which is maintenance of a drug war. Let me get this straight, a bunch of irresponsible college students, get pissed off over something and riot, perhaps all of them being drunk at the time, and you seriously ask me how this jibes with drug use hurts nobody claim?So many things wrong... don't know where to start.First you have built a strawman of my position. I never said drug use hurts no one. I said drug use only hurts the person involved, that is a big difference.Second it seems rather odd to be saying that alchohol had any "blame" for the situation you described. Step back and take a look at it. Doesn't it suggest to you that maybe something else other than alcohol was at play here?Yeah the drunks were less prone to having some self control, but it takes quite a bit of unchecked animosity beyond mere alcohol use, to provoke a riot when bars close early.If I had anecdotes of people (students or other) rioting with no help from alcohol at all, would that prove anything to you? People get angry and violent for all sorts of reasons, alcohol sure is a great excuse though ain't it?Personally I would feel silly as a student or a person injured (financially or other) in that incident if alcohol got the blame for what happened. What the hell are we now, lemmings? People should be held responsible for their actions, even when under the influence of mood/sensory impairing chemicals. Perhaps then, they will make sure to use them more wisely.The beer bottle made me do it? Even helped me do it? Oh brother.This message has been edited by holmes, 07-10-2004 01:19 PMThis message has been edited by holmes, 07-10-2004 01:29 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yeah, I'd agree they should have been fired.Now suppose they had been arrested instead, and sent to jail for a nice long term at crime college, at all of our expense, and then thrown back out. It would have put a mark on their record which could have prevented them from getting jobs again, as well as introducing them to harder criminal elements (lifestyles), perhaps even harder drugs as their world view would be lessened not strengthened.Regulation of hard drugs with emphasis on rehabilitation, coupled with across the board legalization would have the effect you described... not the effects of illegality (which just puts people behind bars).I should point out that the effects of huffing paint and sniffing glue aren't any better and they are completely legal. Can you tell me why it makes sense to make one legal and one illegal?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I agree this would go a long ways towards reducing violence in america (not to mention the rest of the world). According to whose definitions? Yours? I can understand trying to end FANATACISM or EXTREMISM, but misogyny and racism? That's just opening pandora's box for legislating morality.If you are interested in prosecuting people's morals I'm curious why you didn't mention homophobia or prudism. Those are also judgemental positions that result in violence and oppression of others.Furthermore, I am with Jar in not being terrified by the bogeyman of having weapons and drugs available. This does not translate to a slippery slope end of everyone "armed to the teeth" and on mind-altering substances.Making drugs illegal has had the already well known result of INCREASING violence, including the use of those weapons you are disliking (and they are generally not obtained legally so making guns illegal will not stop this). This increase in violence is worldwide and stuffs the pockets of criminal organizations.The worst we can expect from a legalized and regulated drug policy, is that there may be more openly talked about personal human tragedies. Certainly some will remain addicted and die from overdoses.If we have the other points you mention in place, it may even act to decrease general drug use, and in any case they can work better with people having drug problems. Currently such people will be excluded except to the extent they get three meals and healthcare in prison.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I suppose if everyone is ARMED TO THE TEETH, then I would be worried anyway. In a society at peace some will be armed and some will not, and a small percentage will be armed to the teeth.But I'm going to assume you mean that generally people have weapons, and there is a carte blanche on drugs. I have to admit a bit of nervousness that some bad things may happen, though not an outright fear that violence will suddenly escalate beyond control.The violence we see today is due in large part to the poverty and great division of wealth PLUS the fact that drugs are illegal. We simply cannot stick our heads in the sand on this one. It is their illegality which breeds the gangs and larger organized crime groups, and makes violence a tool of NECESSITY.So even if people are armed, in a drug-legalized society, there would be less reasons to use them.But I want to make sure it is understood that there is a difference between making drugs legal and having a carte blanche system which is the system you described.Rollercoasters are fun and legal. Only we know that they have the chance to maim and kill and so there are regulations regarding who is allowed to be on them and what security measures the amusement parks provide.Especially with drugs such as PCP, I would expect some restrictions on how and where it can be served (just as liquor has). There certainly should be more precautions involved so that if someone starts having a bad reaction, they can get adequate attention quickly.Perhaps not allowing weapons in such establishments would be a good idea.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)