A discussion of Gun Control for schrafinator

quote:

---

It certainly isn't damning to replace a firing pin or a barrel on a gun.

---

Really? I'm surprised by that; some countires consider only the barrel to constitute the weapon, the rest being facilitative. Under that analysis, you can't change the barrel - any transaction involving the barrel would de facto be a transaction involving the weapon.

quote:

---

Were I ever on a jury I would never consider such things damning evidence. It is no more unusual than putting a new starter on a vehicle.

---

Again I find that quite odd; on the analysis above, an attempt to disguise the barrel would be a blatent attempt to destroy or damage evidence and would thus itself be an offence. At best it would be like concealing your vehicle license plate.So does anyone know what legally constitutes the weapon proper in American law?This message has been edited by contracycle, 07-02-2004 04:19 AM

quote:

---

The gun is not a magic death weapon. One bullet from a gun will not instantly kill you any more than one stroke of a sword, one impact by a vehicle, etc. It may kill, it will certainly injure, but so will the car, knife, sword, baseball bat, etc. Crash, by his own admission, owns a sword. I can make the same argument that a sword swung in anger can take a life. Should his right to own a sword be restricted?

---

False comparison; a sword doesn't carry for 300 meters, and it very seldom goes through walls. A sword is extraordinarily difficult to misuse accidentally, and I've never ever heard of anyone killed while cleaning a sword.Appealing to the essentialism of 'its a weapon like any other' doesn't wash I'm afraid, it's too idealistic. Materially, firearms are very different to shock weapons.

quote:

---

Range is irrelevant. I could have used a bow and arrow as an example.

---

And for that reason, many bows require licences like those of firearms.

quote:

---

So is a gun. Do you know what is involved to actually get a gun to fire? You have to load it, aim it, usually disengage some sort of safety, then fire it.

---

Sure. And if your gun is for "personal protection" - and what else is it for - it must be loaded and ready to use or it is useless to you. Thus, many personal weapons are carried in a state ready to fire. I've never known anyone who carried a pistol to carry it unloaded, and I know people who prefer revolvers to semi's because they often do not have safeties.

quote:

---

Just like a sword, you have to actually take deliberate steps to get it to cause damage or kill.

---

You're eliding a vital technical difference. All the energy in a swords blow is derived from the wielder. The energy in a rounds powder charge is not, it is only triggered. It can be triggered by anything, while direct use of human muscle power to injure requires conscious diorection. Guns are, literally, accidents waiting to happen.

quote:

---

Just like a sword can't wield itself, a gun won't go off by itself.

---

Wrong, guns can go off by themselves if dropped. There are in addition a number of humerous stories of guns triggered accidentally by animals. Or children. Or sticks.

quote:

---

Irrelevant. You should not regulate something merely because a tiny group of people might be reckless or misuse it. I've also heard plenty of stories of people accidentally setting themselves on fire cooking or smoking in bed; what should be done to prevent that, regulate charcoal and bic lighters?

---

No. A lighter is clearly not a tool intended for the purpose of homicide. It has other legitimate uses and banning it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In the case of a firearm, however, theres no denying that it filled its raison d'etre even if it killed accidentally. Seeing as we cannot legislate against misuse, it seems reasonable to legislate against tools for homicide that will, inevitably, be misused.

quote:

---

You can recklessly hurt someone with your sword. You can recklessly hurt someone with your car.

---

Oh I fully agree; on that last point, btw, I am a firm advocate of more stringent vehicle licensing based on the premise that a vehicle should be treated as a weapon. But you are appealing to the essential nature of "accident" and failing to acknowledge the specific realities that apply to firearms.This message has been edited by contracycle, 07-02-2004 06:01 AM

Lott studies? I was under the impression these had been debunked years ago?

quote:

---

Let's see. People in town are equipped to defend themselves and their homes.

---

No. They are being equipped to commit homicide. Whether or not this occurs in their home does not change the fact that it is homicide.

quote:

---

The US government has signed nonproliferation treaties with regards to nuclear weapons and there are international laws which govern them. I think that we are (or should be) bound by these laws.

---

Ha ha ha.

quote:

---

You seem to be using the word "homicide" as if it is a bad thing. Many homicides are very good for society.

---

[Python] Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system. [/Python]Yes, I think it would absolutely be a service to world if say George Bush and Rush Limbaugh were whacked tomorrow. Or better, this evening. Saying "some homicides are good for society" is the voice of the sociopath IMO.

quote:

---

A large portion of homicides are justifiable. As such, the people who do them are performing a service of great value to society.

---

Yes, just as I would be if I whacked the above.

quote:

---

It is very comparable to weeding the garden.

---

Manifest eugenics?Your responses are all good arguments for gun control.

Not only does the US flagrantly ignore international treaties - especially those on nonproliferation, which is why it struck me as amusing - and there is little to no prospect that it ever will abide by these treaties. It is in short an utterly pointless topic.

quote:

---

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to discover the source of guns used illegally eg. stolen from licensed owners, illegally imported, legally purchased.

---

I seem to recall in the UK the majority of weapons in criminal hands were legally purchased, stolen weapons.Edit: Wj remarked:

quote:

---

Perhaps your firearms would make you a more profitable target in the first place.

---

Indeed; after all, given firearms tracing, a high turnover of smallarms is required by the black market, seeing as most weapons used in a crime will then need to be disposed of. And for their purposes, most criminals appear to favour smallarms over longarms, and the main source of smallarms supply is the doemstic market. Burglaries can be and ar carried out specifically to steal private weapons.This message has been edited by contracycle, 07-21-2004 04:15 AM

quote:

---

edited to add: these days most gun owners I know do lock up their guns. I'm sorry to see that. It is a sad comment on our times.

---

No, thats a sad commentary on your firearms discipline.Jar also wrote:

quote:

---

Violence is a major challenge. And IMHO it is overly simplistic to say that the only factor is availability of firearms.

---

Nobody ever claimed that, did they Jar? What I an others have claimed is that you can't kill someone from 100 yards with a kitchen knife. Do you think thats true, or not true? I think its true. And therefore I think if "violence" is a "challenge", I would rather that "challenge" be presented by knife-wielders than firearm-wielders.This message has been edited by contracycle, 07-21-2004 04:12 AM

quote:

---

When I was growing up there were firearms most everywhere I went. There was almost always a gun rack in the living room and usually a rifle or shotgun next to the back door.

---

Exactly. You will note my initial claim: there is no such thing as respopnsible gun-ownership. All the owners you describe are grossly irresponsible and fail to respect their weapon.

quote:

---

But kids did not touch guns. Kids were taught what guns were and that they were not something you touched except with permission.
If all kids today recieved the same training I and most of my friends at the time had, there wouold be no need to lock up the guns.

---

There is every reason, becuase if it is not locked up it can easily be stolen. A firearm is a valuable which should be storted in a safe, quite apart from its propensity for blowing people away. If you are not personally carrying, it must be locked away, and you as the owner are still responsible for it even when it is.In also mentione that I am exactly talking about how kids were taught. From my perspective, you have been taught very badly.

quote:

---

Well, at 100 yards I said a kitchen knife is not an immediate threat. But inside 7 yards it is as big a threat as a gun.

---

Obviously so. I think you'll find thats the point I was making.

quote:

---

So see if you can think of a way to get guns out of the hands of the violent folk. But don't try to take mine away.

---

It seems to me you ARE the violent folk. What, is there some mystic property of "violence" like "evildoer"?Edited for an expansion on the theft issue. I'm not just saying "theft is bad"... I'm saying, you are at risk of providing a lethal weapon to someone who will use it on you. So, having a rifle by the back door is a) amongst the stupidest things I can imagine, and b) an appalling danger to you and your whole family.2nd edit: and people wonder how civil arms get stolen!!!!This message has been edited by contracycle, 07-22-2004 09:23 AM

quote:

---

But when I was growing up, for some reason those guns sitting in the open DIDN'T get stolen. People DIDN'T even lock their doors.

---

Umm, well that just demonstrates what a fantastically silly scenario this is to apply generally, quite apart from its "when I were a lad" romanticism. This only confirms my impression that for you, firearms didn't really have a serious identity as lethal instruments, and that you underestimate how dangerous they are.

quote:

---

And what is it that I do that makes you think I am violent?

---

Your apparent fascination with tools for homicide, the conditions under which you could legally practice that homicide, and the easy moralism that you use to justify this homicide and dismiss its victims.

quote:

---

Second, among the folk that I grew up among, not once did one of the guns get stolen, even those sitting in the rack in a pickup unlocked and with the windows open on a street infront of the bar in town.

---

So why then apply the general case from this apparent hippy commune to a whole state with major issues of group identity, criuminality and violence? It seems to me the NRA position is first to imagine a happy wonderland, and then construct rules for that wonderland, rather than living in the real world.Amongst the folk I grew up around, 2 had their weapons stolen from their homes, while they slept, within 2-3 years of purchase. Someone practicing the lax gun discipline you describe would have been considered a danger to the public.

quote:

---

Start teaching the kids as soon as possible what guns are, what guns can do, how dangerous they are and why. If parents did that, if they demystified guns, and educated, it would not be necessary to lock them up.

---

I suggest that people who have demystified guns ARE FULLY AWARE OF HOW DANGEROUS THEY ARE, and that is exactly why they lock them up.

quote:

---

Scraf, you need to realize that the vast majority of gun owners in the US do not kill folk. I know that personally, I have not shot anybody in weeks.

---

Neither do the vast majority of burglars.

quote:

---

Frankly, the criminals do not want to be within 7 yards of me.

---

Well *I* don't want to be within 7 yards of someone who carries around an implement for homicide on their person either!

quote:

---

Bad guys are a problem. So deal with the bad guys. ... It has to do with bad guys.

---

How dop we tell the badguys from the goodguys, Jar? Someone who commits homicide in defence of their TV is a badguy. Someone who commits homicide in defence of their car is a badguy.Resort to this Bush-like Manicheanism is, I think I can confidently conclude, an admission that your argument has no logical or factual strength and all you have left is appeal to emotionalism.This message has been edited by contracycle, 07-26-2004 04:13 AM