PDA

View Full Version : 'Flexibility' thread - Ethics and Lethal Weaponry Discussion



xaduha
29th Jan 2013, 01:59
Offshoot of the 'gun-talk', hopefully it will grow into another Transhumanism related thread.


Up for moving the gun discussion to another topic, but obviously I don't have the powers to split threads, so I'll reply here until a mod does so.

It's easy, just create a new thread and reply in it, like so ;)



What a ridiculous statement. Of course outlawing guns won't stop gun crime completely, but they can reduce it massively. How many more people do you think would do drugs, or drive at 100mph on the motorway, or dodge tax (etc) if it were legal to do so? There are always going to be people who break the law, but that's no reason to forego laws entirely. It's better to have a 97.5% reduction - or any at all, really - than saying "if we can't get 100%, we shouldn't bother."

Again, you want proof that strict gun control works, just look at those at those stats I posted a few pages back...any of them. There isn't any ambiguity in this topic. The information is there, clear, concise and quantified. Stricter gun control = less guns = less gun crime.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying gun ownership should be restricted only for those "crazy psychos" Viktoria spoke of. I'm happy for it to be restricted for everybody. I don't know the current law in the US, but I'd hope it's already heavily restricted for the mentally ill! If not, the system is even more broken than I imagined...

You know, Deus Ex had a massive influence on me. And I think that every step towards Direct Democracy is a step in the right direction. And I think Victoria wants to eradicate all crime, not gun crime or knife/bottle/axe crime.
Guns aren't the root of the problem.

Enter the ethical flexibility!

People die all the time and yet 7 billion of us (http://www.7billionworld.com/) are still here.

Jerion
29th Jan 2013, 04:30
I think this particular fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy) is good to avoid in such discussions.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Jan 2013, 08:26
Originally Posted by Ashpolt
What a ridiculous statement. Of course outlawing guns won't stop gun crime completely, but they can reduce it massively.
It can't be a ridiculous statement - you agreed with me when you said "of course".
I never said it wouldn't reduce it rapidly.



I'm happy for it to be restricted for everybody. I don't know the current law in the US, but I'd hope it's already heavily restricted for the mentally ill! If not, the system is even more broken than I imagined...
I'm sure we'd all be happy if nobody has a gun. Unfortunately, this is something we cannot realistically achieve.

Personally, I believe everyone should have the right to own a gun within the confines of their own home if they believe they need one.



Offshoot of the 'gun-talk', hopefully it will grow into another Transhumanism related thread.

There should only ever be one Transhumanism thread. :p
But I love the idea of more threads dedicated to Omar, yes. :cool: :D

xaduha
29th Jan 2013, 12:01
I think this particular fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy) is good to avoid in such discussions.

Oh come on, where is fun in that?! It's not like there is a real world solution for the 'gun control' problem just a few thread pages away. It's a referendum-type of question, federal level. But on this forum we can discuss some ways of transcending the boundaries.

Yes, governments, laws and humans in general are not perfect, far from it. But how can we better ourselves?

Maybe instead of 12 Angry Men we should have 12000 Bored Men
It's not like they have something better to do, amirite?

We have the technology. Or at least the prerequisites.
Just a thought.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Jan 2013, 15:44
But how can we better ourselves?

If one cannot better themselves on their own, then Omar can help with this. :cool:

xaduha
29th Jan 2013, 16:30
I'm talking about a path to the Omar or whatever, first transhumans.
Suppose we have a group of people, a conspiracy, our plan is to commit a biggest crime against nature yet.
So, what do we do?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Jan 2013, 16:32
Why is transhumanism a crime against nature? :scratch:

68_pie
29th Jan 2013, 16:36
Personally, I believe everyone should have the right to own a gun within the confines of their own home if they believe they need one.


everyone


everyone


everyone


everyone

lolwut

xaduha
29th Jan 2013, 16:50
Why is transhumanism a crime against nature? :scratch:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/21787303/images/playgods.jpg
Dresdencodak.com (http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/)

Because it's "unnatural"
I don't think that it is, but many will call it so.

Ashpolt
29th Jan 2013, 17:20
It can't be a ridiculous statement - you agreed with me when you said "of course".

I didn't say it was false, I said it was ridiculous - which in the context of the discussion, it was. As I said before, the fact that gun control won't eradicate gun crime completely isn't any kind of reason not to do it.


Personally, I believe everyone should have the right to own a gun within the confines of their own home if they believe they need one.

1) How do you plan to enforce the law that guns are allowed "within the confines of [your] own home"? If someone's got a gun and wants to use it, they're not going to go "I'm OK with shooting someone, but breaking the home-only law is too far for me!"

2) The home is one of the worst places to have guns, as it's where the majority of assaults occur, and having a weapon about in the heat of the moment can only be a bad thing. Research shows that assaults taking place in a household with firearms are 12 times more likely to end in a fatality than in those without, and "in 38 percent of homicides involving intimate partners the perpetrator kills more than one person; other victims include children, intervenors, and bystanders." (http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr39-2/CR39-2MitchellCarbon.pdf)


You know, Deus Ex had a massive influence on me. And I think that every step towards Direct Democracy is a step in the right direction. And I think Victoria wants to eradicate all crime, not gun crime or knife/bottle/axe crime.
Guns aren't the root of the problem.

I'd like to eradicate all crime too - where have I suggested otherwise? - gun crime is just an area I care deeply about because it's an area that seems so bloody obvious to me that I can't believe so many people still think that guns are good things and worth defending. Guns aren't the root of the problem, sure - violent tendencies are the root of the problem. But until we can solve that let's restrict access to the things which turn minor violence into fatalities, at least where - as is the case with guns - they have no practical use whatsoever other than violence.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Jan 2013, 18:40
lolwut

If you don't understand, just ask me to explain rather than having a giggling fit. :D

I believe everyone should have a right to own a gun within the confines of their own home.
This provides a compromise between those people who don't wish citizens to have the right to own a gun... and those people who argue that they should have the right (as responsible citizens) to own a gun for reasons of self-protection within their home should they ever need it. Guns are taken off-the-street and their use prohibited except for the valid reason of self-protection. I think this is much more feasible than banning guns for everyone when really we know that criminals will get their guns no matter what.



Because it's "unnatural"
I don't think that it is, but many will call it so.

Its good that you don't believe its unnatural. :thumb:
Yes, I know many will call it so. That's why debate is good... let's hear them. :cool:
EDIT: xaduha, lets continue H+ discussion in appropriate thread here:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=101496



I didn't say it was false, I said it was ridiculous - which in the context of the discussion, it was. As I said before, the fact that gun control won't eradicate gun crime completely isn't any kind of reason not to do it.
There is reason not to do it if it means an innocent died because the law said they were not allowed a gun... in cases where a gun would have saved their life. See below in bold. There is also the argument that if guns are banned, then criminals will feel even more comfortable breaking into peoples' houses.




1) How do you plan to enforce the law that guns are allowed "within the confines of [your] own home"? If someone's got a gun and wants to use it, they're not going to go "I'm OK with shooting someone, but breaking the home-only law is too far for me!"
I think a home-only law is easier to enforce than an outright ban when we know criminals won't respect any such laws. They don't now... they won't then.


2) The home is one of the worst places to have guns, as it's where the majority of assaults occur, and having a weapon about in the heat of the moment can only be a bad thing. Research shows that assaults taking place in a household with firearms are 12 times more likely to end in a fatality than in those without, and "in 38 percent of homicides involving intimate partners the perpetrator kills more than one person; other victims include children, intervenors, and bystanders." (http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr39-2/CR39-2MitchellCarbon.pdf)

The statistics are very interesting... but there are equal figures for and against. We can't ignore the other percentages whereby owning a gun actually saved an innocent's life. Do statistics even reflect how many intruders avoid homes with firearms inside. You appear to argue that gun control actually saves more lives.... right? Yet New York City and Washington, D.C. are two of the most restrictive cities in the country with respect to gun control, yet they are also two of the least safest cities in the country.

You also appear to argue that guns are more likely to kill you or someone you love than an intruder... correct? According to other statistics, less than 1% of defensive gun uses results in a kill (see Gary Kleck's book "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America). According to the National Institute of Justice's report "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms", guns are used over 1.5 million times a year in self defense. With tens of thousands of gun deaths a year, that means that firearms are used 40 times more often for protection than for murder.


By far the best solution, imho, is compromise. :)

Ashpolt
29th Jan 2013, 20:05
There is reason not to do it if it means an innocent died because the law said they were not allowed a gun... in cases where a gun would have saved their life.

And how often does that happen? Do you have statistics? If so, link them. On my side of the debate, I can point you to the 16 mass shootings which occurred in the US last year alone, leaving at least 88 dead. (http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774/fifteen-us-mass-shootings-happened-2012-84-dead) Guns didn't save them. And that's not counting the vast amount of smaller scale shootings: in 2011, 32,163 people died from gun-related incidents. (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states)

And let's not forget that your notional innocent defender will have less to defend himself against if guns are illegal. Of course the hardcore organised criminals will still get guns even if they're illegal, but your average citizen won't, and it's other (relatively) average citizens who pose more threat to you: organised crime has bigger fish to fry than breaking into your house to steal a bit of cash and a couple of hundred dollars' worth of jewellery. Again, let's look at those 16 mass shootings last year: (http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774/fifteen-us-mass-shootings-happened-2012-84-dead) they're by fired employees, enraged spouses, the mentally disturbed - nothing that I can see links these shootings to organised crime. With the exception of possibly the white supremacists, these are not people who would be able to obtain firearms if they were illegal.

And again, you want proof that gun control works? Look out your window. Read a paper. You live in Wales, right? When was the last time you heard about a shooting in your country?


I think a home-only law is easier to enforce than an outright ban

Nonsense. A "home only" policy means guns can still legally be manufactured in the country and imported from others: if guns are legal in any sense, they will be relatively easy to obtain. An outright ban means they'll need to be imported from elsewhere, and detecting and stopping weapons trafficking - while not flawless - is a lot easier than policing them once they're already here. Our border patrol may not be perfect, but it's pretty damn good, especially for something as large and difficult to conceal as guns or gun parts. If customs can find less than a kilogram of plant material hidden inside a wooden chess board (http://www.blnz.com/news/2009/10/27/Customs_agents_find_hash_hidden_7838.html) it's pretty likely they'll find something relatively large, heavy and - most importantly - metal. Especially if anyone's trying to bring it in in any large quantity.


The statistics are very interesting... but there are equal figures for and against.

So link to some. Your entire argument up to this point has been based on supposition.


We can't ignore the other percentages whereby owning a gun actually saved an innocent's life. Do statistics even reflect how many intruders avoid homes with firearms inside. You appear to argue that gun control actually saves more lives.... right? Yet New York City and Washington, D.C. are two of the most restrictive cities in the country with respect to gun control, yet they are also two of the least safest cities in the country.

Because, while the laws are strict compared to other US states, they're still pretty lax overall. Again, as above: if guns are legal in any sense, they're relatively easy to obtain.


You also appear to argue that guns are more likely to kill you or someone you love than an intruder... correct? According to other statistics, less than 1% of defensive gun uses results in a kill (see Gary Kleck's book "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America). According to the National Institute of Justice's report "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms", guns are used over 1.5 million times a year in self defense. With tens of thousands of gun deaths a year, that means that firearms are used 40 times more often for protection than for murder.

While this may be true - I don't have the book so can't verify, can you provide an online source? - there are a number of factors to consider.

1) It's not a like-for-like comparison - it's comparing all defensive use vs only fatalities. How many incidents involved use of a gun in an offensive manner, but did not necessarily result in fatalities or wounding? That would be a true like-for-like comparison. The fact that your source did not give this figure suggests it would paint a different picture.

2) In how many of these incidents where a gun was used in defence were was it used to defend against someone else who was also using a gun - i.e. how many of those defensive uses of guns would most likely be unnecessary if guns were outlawed?

3) How is "defensive" being defined here? If someone's threatening you with a baseball bat and you whip out a gun, is that still "defensive"? I'd argue you're escalating the situation and becoming an aggressor yourself at that point, and turned a situation that may have ended unpleasantly but most likely not fatally into a potentially fatal one. It's easy to say "oh well the 'bad guy' had it coming" but not all crimes deserve death. I've been mugged, and it wasn't a pleasant experience, and had I had a gun to "defend" myself I probably would have done so - but would it have been worth killing someone to save the money in my wallet and a few blows to the face? No. That's not justice, nor is it simple defence.

So while that statistic looks good at first glance, it's both skewed and incomplete.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Jan 2013, 21:20
Woah... lots to read! You are clearly passionate about your side of the fence. :D

But no matter what opinion we hold... there will be a plethora of statistics readily available that will support our arguments. Both sides have their points - so we must seek compromise; otherwise we're just repeating ourselves and going around in circles.

I don't disagree with the passion behind outlawing guns; I'm a peaceful soul myself. But I still believe people should be allowed to make their own decisions, based on their environment/whatever valid and fair reasons they have.

Clearly there can be no argument that guns have and do save innocents/victims lives. Even if I were to agree with you that it may not happen "enough"... it happens. The fact that it happens means we must consider this and not brush it aside as if it is somehow irrelevant. A life saved because an innocent victim had a gun, is a life saved.

I try to keep it all in context. The majority of US citizens who own guns are law-abiding, good people.
I would rather see better legislation, better control, better education etc.

Ashpolt
29th Jan 2013, 23:41
So rather than actually provide statistics or any kind of evidence to support your argument, you're just going to say "Well, there are statistics on both sides, you say tom-ah-to, I say tom-ay-to, let's call the whole thing off?" Alright, easier for me I guess.

But if we're wrapping up briefly, let me just post this video:

gWQPZ-taYBs

You're arguing on the same side as the guy on the right. G'night.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
29th Jan 2013, 23:58
I am not arguing though, I am expressing my opinion.
No amount of statistics will convince me that it is right to deny right-minded, good citizens a gun.

I have no need to argue with, or convince, anyone. There are Americans who say the same thing as I and others who would agree with you.
Get my point? Let them decide what is best for them.... they are in a better position to do this than I or you. The majority of gun-owners are sensible, good people - why make them even more vulnerable to criminals. This makes no sense.

Like I said, a compromise is the best way to go. :)

HERESY
30th Jan 2013, 06:21
LOL@banning guns.

It's my right, as a citizen, to own a gun.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Jan 2013, 08:20
I do find it ridiculous that people think the solution is to remove guns from good citizens. :scratch:

Many people own guns... and they are fine with them. There could be 10 million carbon copies of me in the world, with a gun, and everyone would be utterly safe. I would never use that gun for the wrong reason. I'm sure I represent the ordinary good citizens of America.

Senka
30th Jan 2013, 10:59
LOL@banning guns.

It's my right, as a citizen, to own a gun.

Assuming this is serious (even if its not your own opinion, some do hold it):

I've never understood why Americans feel so strongly about their 'rights' when concerning guns, yet there's already a big ******* list of things you're not allowed to own? You care about the right to own a gun when you don't even have the right to grow a ******* plant (in the vast majority of states)? Or get married if you're gay? George Carlin had an interesting (and hilarious) take on the whole rights thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E

The relevant moment is at 4:20 (heh), but the whole video is worth the watch. He of course would have been pro-guns, not for defending his 'rights' or any bull**** like that, he was just a big fan of entropy, and people killing each other.

Saying that "Well I'm responsible so I should be able to have a gun" doesn't make much sense to me either. It's incredibly easy to pass your own test after all - I'm sure some of the many people to use guns for the wrong reasons did or once did have the same opinion of themselves. When someone snaps and goes on a killing spree, would you prefer him to be armed with guns or with knives?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Jan 2013, 15:11
I should imagine most people pass their own test. That's because most people are rational, sound-thinking people.
Sure, there are some who might snap and go nuts. But I think there are far less of them than the other.

I would prefer neither gun or knife... but if he's got a gun (illegal), then I would prefer to also have a gun (legal).

Jerion
30th Jan 2013, 18:08
I should imagine most people pass their own test. That's because most people are rational, sound-thinking people.
Sure, there are some who might snap and go nuts. But I think there are far less of them than the other.

I would prefer neither gun or knife... but if he's got a gun (illegal), then I would prefer to also have a gun (legal).

Why would you prefer to answer a lethal weapon with another lethal one? Why not subdue the attacker rather than attempt/succeed to kill him/her?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Jan 2013, 18:19
Why would you prefer to answer a lethal weapon with another lethal one? Why not subdue the attacker rather than attempt/succeed to kill him/her?

Because if he's got a gun, and I've only got a knife... then he has the advantage. REALISTICALLY.

A criminal with ill intent is a criminal with ill intent. I'm sure all the victims who have died so far tried to subdue their attacker, or reason with them, or plead for their life, or they died trying to fight them off etc etc etc.

HERESY
30th Jan 2013, 18:49
Assuming this is serious (even if its not your own opinion, some do hold it):

I've never understood why Americans feel so strongly about their 'rights' when concerning guns, yet there's already a big ******* list of things you're not allowed to own? You care about the right to own a gun when you don't even have the right to grow a ******* plant (in the vast majority of states)? Or get married if you're gay? George Carlin had an interesting (and hilarious) take on the whole rights thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E

The relevant moment is at 4:20 (heh), but the whole video is worth the watch. He of course would have been pro-guns, not for defending his 'rights' or any bull**** like that, he was just a big fan of entropy, and people killing each other.

Saying that "Well I'm responsible so I should be able to have a gun" doesn't make much sense to me either. It's incredibly easy to pass your own test after all - I'm sure some of the many people to use guns for the wrong reasons did or once did have the same opinion of themselves. When someone snaps and goes on a killing spree, would you prefer him to be armed with guns or with knives?

Maybe you should take a crash course in American History? Bill of Rights? Constitution? First educate yourself as to why we have such rights and then you'll come to understand why people feel so strongly about them. In addition, you'll also see that your citing of not being able to own a plant or gay marriage isn't applicable to what we're discussing. It's like comparing apples to steak.

In closing, what makes "sense" to you is of no value to myself or anyone as you have basically shown that you can't make sense of this because you lack a proper understanding of history. So, before you reply, educate yourself about American history, ok?

Jerion
30th Jan 2013, 20:11
Because if he's got a gun, and I've only got a knife... then he has the advantage. REALISTICALLY.

A criminal with ill intent is a criminal with ill intent. I'm sure all the victims who have died so far tried to subdue their attacker, or reason with them, or plead for their life, or they died trying to fight them off etc etc etc.

I'm not talking about knives, I'm talking about taser guns. There are ranged non-lethal options out there, and when it comes to the less...conventional ones, you can try making things yourself. I've got a pet project to build a laser weapon. The point is, slug-throwers are not the only answer to other slug-throwers.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Jan 2013, 20:51
I thought taser guns must be pressed against the assailant and the trigger pulled? :scratch:
If so, I see no equality or advantage when it comes to the person with a gun.

Yes, I understand the slug-throwers argument. But the other argument is that the only way to stop a bad guy/maniac with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Sad... but true.

CyberP
30th Jan 2013, 21:27
Viktoria's compromise is fair i'd say. Something needs to be done, but nobody can come up with a good solution.
But i'd add that you should simply have to take a series of mental health tests for a licence, or something along those lines.

Nope, that is not a good idea either.... Either Viki's compromise, or complete ban (yet neither is ideal). But I do believe "good" people should be allowed guns, but just how many "good" people are there, really?
I see people for what they really are, and everyone is IN ON THE NEW WORLD ORDER ;)

Jerion
30th Jan 2013, 21:45
I thought taser guns must be pressed against the assailant and the trigger pulled? :scratch:
If so, I see no equality or advantage when it comes to the person with a gun.

Yes, I understand the slug-throwers argument. But the other argument is that the only way to stop a bad guy/maniac with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Sad... but true.

While they can be operated in such a close-contact manner, Taser guns operate by firing a pair of dart-like electrodes from the launcher to the target (civilian versions tend to max out around 30-something feet, or 10 meters). Once the "darts" are embedded against the target's skin, electrical discharge runs along a pair of leads from the gun to the electrodes. Like so:



There are also self-contained "taser shells" for shotguns, which deliver non/less-lethal shocks in a longer-range and self-contained delivery system. A quick google search can tell you more.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Jan 2013, 22:09
Thanks for that, I'm truly behind in the latest technology! Always thought you had to physically touch the target. :o
Certainly seems a good alternative in theory. :thumb:

How long does it disable the attacker? Long enough to call the police and wait for them to arrive?


Viktoria's compromise is fair i'd say. Something needs to be done, but nobody can come up with a good solution.
Its the human condition. A lot of us are still aggressive apes.
A solution will come one day - and it will be through technology/brain rewiring.



But i'd add that you should simply have to take a series of mental health tests for a licence, or something along those lines.
Better legislation and control would certainly help, yes.



Nope, that is not a good idea either.... Either Viki's compromise, or complete ban (yet neither is ideal).
A complete ban wouldn't work. Criminals, by their very nature, don't care about bans/laws/people/lives... etc.


But I do believe "good" people should be allowed guns, but just how many "good" people are there, really?
I see people for what they really are, and everyone is IN ON THE NEW WORLD ORDER ;)

There are surely more angels than devils in the world. I know this because I am moved every day when I meet them or hear their stories. :flowers:

Jerion
30th Jan 2013, 22:09
Thanks for that, I'm truly behind in the latest technology! Always thought you had to physically touch the target. :o
Certainly seems a good alternative in theory. :thumb:

How long does it disable the attacker? Long enough to call the police and wait for them to arrive?

I'm not clear on the shell-version, but for a standard Taser gun, the attacker is incapacitated as long as the juice is flowing. The real deterrent is in a short first shock followed by the threat of additional follow-up shocks (as the darts are not necessarily easy to remove, the target is at your mercy). Extended shocks can actually cause difficulty breathing and in some cases, lasting damage. Regardless, crumpling an attacker to the ground for even a few seconds can make a huge difference in negating the distance advantage inferred by a slug-thrower.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Jan 2013, 22:13
Having no experience in such things myself, I really can't comment further as to whether this would work but it certainly sounds like it could be a feasible alternative to a gun, yes.
Has a discussion on this been debated in the US? What do the citizens think, do you know?

Jerion
30th Jan 2013, 22:26
Having no experience in such things myself, I really can't comment further as to whether this would work but it certainly sounds like it could be a feasible alternative to a gun, yes.
Has a discussion on this been debated in the US? What do the citizens think, do you know?

To my knowledge it is used in among police and private security (and obviously personal defense) as a non/less-lethal alternative to guns, though it isn't standard equipment everywhere. The general consensus among people I know is that it's preferable to be shocked than to be shot. There is a small backlash because there have been instances where law enforcement have used them incorrectly and/or where people have died. Because a small (and AFAIK unpredictable) portion of the population reacts to this form of electrical shock in a rather not-alive-anymore kind of way, the taser isn't 100% non-lethal, but is considered instead, "less-lethal". There hasn't been any sort of substantial debate on Tasers (at least, not that compares to the one about guns), for various reasons, but I speculate that part of the reason is that they fall outside the gun culture in the US and are considered separate entities from guns.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
30th Jan 2013, 23:17
To my knowledge it is used in among police and private security (and obviously personal defense) as a non/less-lethal alternative to guns, though it isn't standard equipment everywhere. The general consensus among people I know is that it's preferable to be shocked than to be shot.
Makes sense... but see last paragraph.


There is a small backlash because there have been instances where law enforcement have used them incorrectly and/or where people have died. Because a small (and AFAIK unpredictable) portion of the population reacts to this form of electrical shock in a rather not-alive-anymore kind of way, the taser isn't 100% non-lethal, but is considered instead, "less-lethal".
I understand, yes.


There hasn't been any sort of substantial debate on Tasers (at least, not that compares to the one about guns), for various reasons, but I speculate that part of the reason is that they fall outside the gun culture in the US and are considered separate entities from guns.
I see, thanks.

I've done a bit of googling and it appears that the preference goes to the gun and shooting in a non-lethal area, eg the leg or arm, to disable - rather than using a taser and risking a heart attack or death within minutes. I think I would prefer to get shot in the leg and live.... than get zapped and risk a cardiac arrest.

Senka
1st Feb 2013, 02:03
Maybe you should take a crash course in American History? Bill of Rights? Constitution? First educate yourself as to why we have such rights and then you'll come to understand why people feel so strongly about them. In addition, you'll also see that your citing of not being able to own a plant or gay marriage isn't applicable to what we're discussing. It's like comparing apples to steak.

In closing, what makes "sense" to you is of no value to myself or anyone as you have basically shown that you can't make sense of this because you lack a proper understanding of history. So, before you reply, educate yourself about American history, ok?

I don't care about american history. And it's not comparing apples to steaks, we're talking about rights and freedoms. So you have the 'right' to own weapons currently, and you think because it was decided a long time ago it was a good idea? Even in spite of all the recent school shootings? You have already amended the Bill of 'rights' several times, so why are you talking of history as if it justifies all this ******* bull**** about rights and freedom? Do you think America should roll back to it's historical state of slave ownership and racial segregation? **** no you don't, because you're probably a decent person who understands that those things are immoral. We're seeing significant negative consequences of gun ownership, rethink your values and amend your bill of 'rights' again so your country can begin the slow process of gun control. Better mental health facilities while you're at it too perhaps.

HERESY
1st Feb 2013, 07:48
I don't care about american history.

You said, "I've never understood why Americans feel so strongly about their 'rights' when concerning guns" yet when I tell you what/where these feelings are derived from you say you "don't care." That doesn't make sense.


And it's not comparing apples to steaks, we're talking about rights and freedoms.

You are correct it isn't comparing appless and steaks. What I really wanted to type would have landed me in hot water with the mods, so you should give me a bit of credit for trying to maintain a civil environment where you can actually learn something instead of being ridiculed.

What you're doing is comparing something that is not found in the Constitution to something that is found in the Constitution. While Mary Jane and same sex marriage are coming before the courts, these things are not yet protected by our Constitution and still need to be interpreted by the courts. However, when dealing with gun owenership, it is mentioned in the 2nd Ammendment and protected by the 2nd Ammendment. So yes, what you're doing is comparing apples to steaks and introducing a red-herring fallacy to the discussion.


So you have the 'right' to own weapons currently, and you think because it was decided a long time ago it was a good idea?

They aren't going to ban guns in America. A banning of guns would be the start of another civil war.


Even in spite of all the recent school shootings?

Innocent Iraqi, Palastinian, African and Afghani children died every day since the "War on Terror" started yet how many people were calling for a stop to violence and mass murder then? A drone attack here, a drone attack there, innocent people dying here and not too many people flinch. Why? Because it wasn't in your backyard and you had no connection. You were so far removed from it, emotionally and physically, that you couldn't care less about it. However, let some kid go nuts with a gun and it's "OMGZZZZZZZZ BAN GUNZ THEY R THE WERX OH DA DEBILS. ITZEVILS!!!!!" Give me a break. In 2011, Anders Brevik killed 77 people. Were any of you calling for gun control then?


You have already amended the Bill of 'rights' several times, so why are you talking of history as if it justifies all this ******* bull**** about rights and freedom?

Did I say history justified anything?


Do you think America should roll back to it's historical state of slave ownership and racial segregation? **** no you don't, because you're probably a decent person who understands that those things are immoral.

No, I don't believe America should roll back to slave owership and racial segregation. However, you have to compare the cultural climate of both periods and see what would and wouldn't work today. Would slave ownership and segregation be oppossed by most or all people today? Yes. Would the banning of guns be oppossed by most or all of the people today?


We're seeing significant negative consequences of gun ownership

We're seeing significant negative consequences from texting while driving, high fructose corn syrup, American foreign policy and a billion other things. What is your point?


rethink your values and amend your bill of 'rights' again so your country can begin the slow process of gun control.

I don't have to rethink a damn thing nor am I for ammending anything. Control your emotions, breath a little bit and conduct yourself in a manner that we can both appreciate.

Control can be implemented several ways and BANNING guns and preventing law abiding citizens from owning them is counter productive.


Better mental health facilities while you're at it too perhaps.

Better mental health facilities for what? To control guns and weed out people that are predisposed to using firearms to commit violent crimes? How about we talk about better mental health facilities and the fact that many people in jail/prison are mentally ill and shouldn't be there in the first place? Why aren't you advocating for them?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
1st Feb 2013, 08:54
I agree with a lot that HERESY says here. :thumb:

FrankCSIS
2nd Feb 2013, 01:04
I still don't understand why the only two options apparently available to the American debate are

ASSAULT RIFLES FOR EVERYONE

and

NO GUNS FOR ANYONE

Is it so difficult to consider the multitude of gun control and restriction options already existing throughout the world, and come up with a suitable mid-term solution for the American reality?

Citing history is mighty fine, but now is as good a time as any to realise that the average American, as with other citizens of any part of the world not currently at war, does not require a weapon to spend a secure and normal life. Long-term control policies, based on baby steps, has a solid chance of positively modifying the relationship some people appear to have with their weaponry, and eradicate the fear that wrongfully justifies the need to be armed in the comfort of your home.

A healthy relationship includes the possession of licensed and registered weaponry for sports and entertainment, and excludes posing with your guns at a shotgun wedding or sleeping with them. The fact that there are probably more open-sky gun markets than there are fruit markets is also unhealthy, for a variety of reasons!

Senka
2nd Feb 2013, 05:28
You said, "I've never understood why Americans feel so strongly about their 'rights' when concerning guns" yet when I tell you what/where these feelings are derived from you say you "don't care." That doesn't make sense.
So you're saying that the only reason guns are so desirable are because they're part of the constitution?


You are correct it isn't comparing appless and steaks. What I really wanted to type would have landed me in hot water with the mods, so you should give me a bit of credit for trying to maintain a civil environment where you can actually learn something instead of being ridiculed.
Don't stand for that censorship, say it anyway. PM it if you have to.


What you're doing is comparing something that is not found in the Constitution to something that is found in the Constitution. While Mary Jane and same sex marriage are coming before the courts, these things are not yet protected by our Constitution and still need to be interpreted by the courts. However, when dealing with gun owenership, it is mentioned in the 2nd Ammendment and protected by the 2nd Ammendment. So yes, what you're doing is comparing apples to steaks and introducing a red-herring fallacy to the discussion.
I can't see the logic in this - something being constitutional is automatically more important than other matters? What's special about being protected by the bill of rights if the bill of rights can be changed? If they do change it to ban guns (or at least assault type weapons) what would you do?


Innocent Iraqi, Palastinian, African and Afghani children died every day since the "War on Terror" started yet how many people were calling for a stop to violence and mass murder then? A drone attack here, a drone attack there, innocent people dying here and not too many people flinch. Why? Because it wasn't in your backyard and you had no connection. You were so far removed from it, emotionally and physically, that you couldn't care less about it. However, let some kid go nuts with a gun and it's "OMGZZZZZZZZ BAN GUNZ THEY R THE WERX OH DA DEBILS. ITZEVILS!!!!!" Give me a break. In 2011, Anders Brevik killed 77 people. Were any of you calling for gun control then?
Probably quite a few cared - but definitely not the majority. You said something about a red herring / strawman before? What about the school stabbing in china where no students died compared to the shooting in america? While this one piece of evidence isn't enough for a strong case against gun ownership by itself, it is still an interesting comparison. When people go bad I'd rather have them armed with a knife than a modern firearm.



Did I say history justified anything?
That's the impression I got from your post, yes.


No, I don't believe America should roll back to slave owership and racial segregation. However, you have to compare the cultural climate of both periods and see what would and wouldn't work today. Would slave ownership and segregation be oppossed by most or all people today? Yes. Would the banning of guns be oppossed by most or all of the people today?
I hope it would in light of all the school shootings etc. If not the banning of guns, at least the tighter control of them so mentally unstable people can't put them in their backpack and go on a massacre.


We're seeing significant negative consequences from texting while driving, high fructose corn syrup, American foreign policy and a billion other things. What is your point?
Crashes from idiots texting while driving, eating too much **** etc are very different. Cars and phones have practical purposes and are not designed to take human life efficiently. What practical purpose does an assault rifle have in human hands other than killing? A deterrent? How often are you going to be in a situation where you need to be able to kill or seriously injure multiple people? If guns are such a deterrent to crime why isn't america a country with record low crime levels? With the invention of tazers it's hard to see why you would even need a lethal weapon at all. Especially when kids seems to have such easy access to their parents guns.



Control can be implemented several ways and BANNING guns and preventing law abiding citizens from owning them is counter productive.
So would you support a ban of certain types of weapons but not a total gun ban?


Better mental health facilities for what? To control guns and weed out people that are predisposed to using firearms to commit violent crimes? How about we talk about better mental health facilities and the fact that many people in jail/prison are mentally ill and shouldn't be there in the first place? Why aren't you advocating for them?Because until you mentioned them we weren't talking about those mentall ill in prison etc? But okay, let's talk about them. I wouldn't want the mentally ill or those with a significant criminal history to be able to buy guns. I would want the mentally ill to get proper treatment rather than being put in gaol only to re-offend once they're time is up. Why aren't I advocating for them you ask? America (along with most countries) has so much ****ed up stuff that if I were to advocate for everyone I'd die from malnutrition.

I can't see how open access to lethal weaponry could ever be a good thing considering the unpredictable nature of humans.

HERESY
2nd Feb 2013, 08:48
So you're saying that the only reason guns are so desirable are because they're part of the constitution?

No, I'm not saying the "only" reason is the constitution. If you didn't discount my suggestion to learn about American history, and why some believe in the right to bear arms, you wouldn't ask such questions.


Don't stand for that censorship, say it anyway. PM it if you have to.

I have a "history" here for being very outspoken. But I don't wish to relive those moments so I'm trying my best to keep it under wraps.


I can't see the logic in this - something being constitutional is automatically more important than other matters?

I too can't see the logic in it as it is a highly distorted interpretation of my words.

Let me make this a bit more clear:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

and

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html


What's special about being protected by the bill of rights if the bill of rights can be changed? If they do change it to ban guns (or at least assault type weapons) what would you do?

Concerning the first question, I again suggest you educate yourself about American history, our laws and how the process works. Concerning the second question, we already have a ban on certain types of assault weapons. In addition, they are legal to own if they were purchased before the ban took place. However, they are never going to ban guns so answering the questions is pointless.


Probably quite a few cared - but definitely not the majority. You said something about a red herring / strawman before? What about the school stabbing in china where no students died compared to the shooting in america?

What about it? You're comparing a knife to a gun.


While this one piece of evidence isn't enough for a strong case against gun ownership by itself, it is still an interesting comparison. When people go bad I'd rather have them armed with a knife than a modern firearm.

It isn't an interesting comparison as you're comparing and contrasting two totally different things in hopes of solidifying your premise and belief that guns, at the very least, should be highly restricted. Yes, logic dictates that all things being equal, a person would rather have someone going coo koo for Cocoa Puffs with a knife. However, if an armed intruder were to enter your home would you prefer a knife or a modern firearm?


That's the impression I got from your post, yes.

That's not my fault, man.


I hope it would in light of all the school shootings etc. If not the banning of guns, at least the tighter control of them so mentally unstable people can't put them in their backpack and go on a massacre.

It will never happen.


Crashes from idiots texting while driving, eating too much etc are very different. Cars and phones have practical purposes and are not designed to take human life efficiently.

You said, "We're seeing significant negative consequences of gun ownership" and I'm informing you that we're seeing a significant negative consequence from far less dangerous things than guns. The fact that we have things designed for practicial purposes, causing so much damage, is alarming.


What practical purpose does an assault rifle have in human hands other than killing?

Aside from training purposes, what practical purpose does any gun have in human hands other than killing? Defense? Once the threat has been stopped is when I feel safe. If not, I'm going to continue to aim for mass. That's just the way it is. I'm not aiming at your leg, I'm not aiming at your arm, I'm not going for headshots. I'm aiming for mass and to put the threat down. I don't hunt so I have no need for a gun in that regards. However, I do own a business, cars, home and have loved ones to protect so I'll do whatever I can to do that.


A deterrent? How often are you going to be in a situation where you need to be able to kill or seriously injure multiple people?

It's not about how often I'm going to be in a situation. It simply boils down to what increases my chances of survival if a situation were to occur.


If guns are such a deterrent to crime why isn't america a country with record low crime levels?

We have TYPE 1 an TYPE 2 crimes. Which, in your opinion, is cthe main ontributor to America not having "low crime levels?" In addition, have you considered recidivism rates and how flaws in the criminal justice system, not crime, have contributed to those numbers?


With the invention of tazers it's hard to see why you would even need a lethal weapon at all. Especially when kids seems to have such easy access to their parents guns.

Here is an article from amnestyusa that sheds light on 500 taser related deaths by law enforcment. You may think, 500 isn't a lot but you have to consider the length of time tasers have been actively used by law enforcement.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/amnesty-international-urges-stricter-limits-on-police-taser-use-as-us-death-toll-reaches-500


So would you support a ban of certain types of weapons but not a total gun ban?

Tighter restrictions for ammo? Yes. Gun purchases? Yes. Longer wait times? Yes. Higher prices? Yes. Psych checks? Yes. References? Yes. CHecking your guns in every year? Yes. Banning of certain types of weapons? No. Total gun ban? LOL!


Because until you mentioned them we weren't talking about those mentall ill in prison etc?

You introduced the mentally ill to this conversation, I didn't. Go back and read your previous post and you'll see it. I'm simply expounding on something you introduced.


But okay, let's talk about them. I wouldn't want the mentally ill or those with a significant criminal history to be able to buy guns. I would want the mentally ill to get proper treatment rather than being put in gaol only to re-offend once they're time is up. Why aren't I advocating for them you ask? America (along with most countries) has so much ed up stuff that if I were to advocate for everyone I'd die from malnutrition.

I feel the same way. The problem is, and this goes back to the high crime you mentioned, many people who are locked up are mentally ill and shouldn't be there in the first place.


I can't see how open access to lethal weaponry could ever be a good thing considering the unpredictable nature of humans.

There is no open access.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Feb 2013, 09:55
I still don't understand why the only two options apparently available to the American debate are

ASSAULT RIFLES FOR EVERYONE
and
NO GUNS FOR ANYONE


I've never read that the American's want assault rifles for everyone. :scratch:

__


Btw, everyone, there is nothing wrong with being "outspoken" - so long as debate doesn't crumble into personal comments/name-calling.
Remaining polite is the most simplest of rules. :)

FrankCSIS
2nd Feb 2013, 15:07
I've never read that the American's want assault rifles for everyone.


Tighter restrictions for ammo? Yes. Gun purchases? Yes. Longer wait times? Yes. Higher prices? Yes. Psych checks? Yes. References? Yes. CHecking your guns in every year? Yes. Banning of certain types of weapons? No

See. When it comes to restricting access to ridiculously effective types of weapons, it's almost always out of the question in the American debate.


However, I do own a business, cars, home and have loved ones to protect so I'll do whatever I can to do that.

What part of war-torn America do you live in, exactly? Are there vultures and goblins hunting at night? Is there something living in your attic?

What do you fear, Mr Wayne?

This guy in Alabama who kidnapped a boy in a school bus. I understand he was patrolling his property at night with a flashlight and a shotgun. Seriously guys, this is a good moment to wake up from this nightmare and realise mass hysteria might be governing your life.

Why isn't it necessary to carry excessive weaponry in Toronto, Hong Kong, London, Berlin or Paris to live a long, prosperous and safe existence, but it would be out of the question in San Diego or Dallas? With the (possible?) exception of China, the penal system is far more forgiving in any of the aforementioned countries than it is in America, and as far as I know mental illness has been desinstitutionalised and is underfunded in all of those countries as well.

On the rare moments when it actually happens, in Montreal, when someone enters a place of business with a shotgun with the intent to rob, we hand over the money, and claim to the insurance. It IS insulting and violating, but it's also safe and effective. And you know what is great? Robbers can't live long from their loot, and so they rob again. And after 3 or 4 times, they get caught. It's mathematics, really. I can't remember the last time someone was killed during a robbery in this city. It has happened, of course. But so very rarely, because things never escalate during robberies. They almost always do when an owner tries to defend himself with a weapon.

Of course it IS your country and I don't mean to be patronising about it. There is enough shi!t going on in Canada to keep me awake and frustrated at night for the next hundred years, and we do little to none about it either. I'm just suggesting, as one friendly nation to another, you might want to address the textbook anxiety issue a good part of the country seems to display. It's no way to live, really, and I know first hand.

Oh and for the record, talking on the phone or texting while driving is illegal here, and food containing high levels of fructose, sugar or any trans fat cannot be sold in schools and most government-owned or funded institutions. However, I don't see why having many problems justifies not doing anything about any of them, least of all a very deadly one.

But, once again, your house, your rules.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Feb 2013, 18:38
However, I don't see why having many problems justifies not doing anything about any of them, least of all a very deadly one.

Agree. So if we're going to consider "very deadly", then alcohol provides a much higher death rate - directly (consumption) and indirectly (drink-driving, alcohol-fuelled murders etc). Nobody is asking for this to be banned.

I believe the answer is that most people realise it’s the fault of the person, not the alcohol.

Jerion
2nd Feb 2013, 18:49
Agree. So if we're going to consider "very deadly", then alcohol provides a much higher death rate - directly (consumption) and indirectly (drink-driving, alcohol-fuelled murders etc). Nobody is asking for this to be banned.

I believe the answer is that most people realise it’s the fault of the person, not the alcohol.

We tried that in the US several decades ago, actually. It didn't work, people loved booze too much.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Feb 2013, 19:07
Indeed. :lol:

JCpies
2nd Feb 2013, 19:32
Prohibition. When I am benevolent dictator of the earth empire in 2066, alcohol will be 100% banned.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
2nd Feb 2013, 19:41
No need. With over 100,000 alcohol-related deaths each year, Omar have modified our bodies to cope with excessive consumption.
Hey, we like to party too. :p :D

ColBashar
2nd Feb 2013, 20:14
I for one have no issue in playing the history card. I've never owned a firearm, though I have fired one. Having felt its power first hand, I will admit that I am a little afraid of them. In fact, I'm kind of a lot afraid of guns. Do you want to know what I fear more, though? Concentrating that power in the hands of a very small, elite segment of society. If violent crime were the only matter on the table then I'm sure I would agree with all of the people who advocate strict gun controls, if not an outright ban. For me, though, it's a question of who has the authority to exercise force and how much force am I willing to authorize them to exercise, a question which seems actually very fitting in a Deus Ex forum.

If I were to walk the streets of Detroit and then walk the streets of Montreal, odds are that I would feel my person to be physically more secure in the latter rather than the former (SWAT officer Adam Jensen notwithstanding). But there's more at stake than just security. I also greatly value my liberty (defined here as the opportunity to do as one pleases provided it does not impede on another's same such opportunity). This is were I draw on history.

Looking in to the past, nations and societies that typically have more liberties afforded to the widest segments of the population relative to their peers have also been the nations that have had largest proliferation of arms among that population. Let's look for a moment at the place where America's beloved liberty was born: the United Kingdom. In the medieval period, English yeoman was a citizen soldier, not a serf but a free man, often a landowner, who bore arms in what constituted the nearest thing to a militia in that period. Much of the famed English/Welsh longbowmen who were so effective in the hundred years war were made up of the yeomanry. The French by contrast concentrated much of their military might into their militaristic classes of the aristocracy and knights, bolstering that by unreliable foreign mercenaries and untrained peasant levies.

Fast forward a few centuries and we have the English Civil War, where a burgher/citizen backed parliament ousted the aristocratic/elite backed king from power. While Cromwell may well be a doofus so far as I'm concerned, the civil war left such an impression that the second time parliament decided to oust the monarch, the King ran off without a shot ever being fired. This event was called the "Glorious" or "Bloodless" Revolution of 1688. France, meanwhile, continued to concentrate its government into a central authority, not just in the form of the King but also a cadre of bureaucrats and civil servants, the most famous being Cardinal Richelieu. The revolution that occurred in France was not quite as "bloodless" as its British counterpart.

The lesson that I read is that having a well armed burgher or "middle" class of citizenry tends to result in decentralized power, in turn tending to mitigate the abuses of an aristocratic or "elite" class. I see this common refrain in nations such as Switzerland, Finland (which repelled the Soviet Union... twice), the merchant republics of northern Italy, and even going back to the Roman Republic. Nations with a well armed middle class tend to more freedoms to the individual citizens than its contemporaries.

Of course, we don't live in the past and some of you will probably argue that the Right to Bear Arms is obsolete in our progressive society. Does a Canadian have fewer freedoms than an American? Not really. Is the quality of living lower? No, and some may (and do) argue that it is, in fact, superior. So in this modern age, what need have we of burgher militias?

My response to you would be: perhaps you're right. The fact is I don't know. It's true that we are living today in a new age, but by that very token we must also accept that we don't know what's going to happen fifty years down the road. The industrialized world has experienced a boon like none other in the history of mankind. We share in a degree of peace and prosperity never seen before in either real or relative terms. Nowhere is this more evident than in China.

I am not a sinophobe. I don't bear any tribalistic animosity toward China for its extraordinary ascent in the last thirty years which may, in fact, eclipse the United States. Heck, I admire the great strides they've made in liberalizing and am optimistic enough to hope that the future might bring a partnership between they and my own home nation. There's just one teensy weensy little issue that's a sticking point for me. China has been very good of late in its progress to affording its citizens freedom, but it's done very little to guarantee those same said freedoms. The difference is that freedom in the United States is (or is supposed to be) a right, while in China it is a privilege. To put it in plainer terms, the Chinese government may arbitrarily choose to withdraw those freedoms while the United States government can not exceed the bounds established by its written constitution.

As I said, we're living in a period of unprecedented peace and prosperity. But what happens when or if that period comes to a close? What happens when the chips are down and the world's going to heck in a handbasket? People are going to get restless. When that happens do you think the Chinese government is going to accede to the will of the people or do you think it's going to consolidate its power base and protect its elite? I may hope for the former but I fear the latter.

It's easy to be progressive when you're rich and you have the resources to spend with very little cost to yourself, but when resources are scarce, people are more likely to resort to force to get what they want. I don't want to be the guy left without a stick. It may seem obvious in this day and age to place responsibility of our safety in the hands of a central power; however, I'm not going to assume that the luxury that we enjoy now is going to exist as a permanent state. While I can not predict the future, I am not going to ignore the past, and I can see several circumstances by which this world reverts to tribalism and authoritarianism.

You may be familiar with the old saw that if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws have guns. I want to pose a corollary to you where if only the police carry guns, then we stand in danger of living in a police state. I am not a dissident. I don't believe that the United States is or is at imminent risk of becoming an authoritarian state, nor am I preaching that people should take up arms against the government. I have met some of those people and... well, they're a little weird. But what I'm not going to do is surrender my rights for a short-sighted sense of safety. While I do not expect to take part in any citizens rebellion, I do not intend to deprive my children of their capability to do so.

That is why the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is important to me. It's not merely a sense of nostalgia or traditionalism, it's not because I want to own a small arsenal, it's because I believe that an armed populace is a bulwark against tyranny. We may not need that bulwark in our present circumstances, but that does not mean I would do away with it altogether.

As to the violent crime figures and the horrible random shootings, I will be perfectly blunt: that is a price that I accept. I may be taking my life in my hands every time I walk out the door, but it is -my- life and no one else's. Obviously, my opinion may change if I were to become the victim, directly or indirectly, of a gun related crime. But that is why common law jurisprudence demands that an official who has an emotional attachment to a case must recuse themselves from it, to ensure the objectivity of those casting judgement.

I'm not being a cold hearted bastard. My particular beliefs simply value sacrificing a few thousand on the altar of violence every year as worthwhile against entertaining the risk of surrendering three hundred million into the hands of a dictator. The impact of what one madman can do in a position of power is multitudes worse than what many madmen can do on a localized level.

With regard to the contemporary issue of gun control, I agree on the point that on an individual basis some restrictions make sense. Children, not having fully developed reasoning or sense of consequence responsibility, are an obvious choice for exclusion. Likewise, certain forms of mental illness can also inhibit these same functions in an adult. Finally, I would be willing to place a moratorium on people convicted of a violent crime (gun related or otherwise) as they have demonstrated a propensity to use force unlawfully is more likely to do so again. That should not be a permanent moratorium as people who are otherwise in command of their mental faculties do have the capability to change their behaviour.

All of these exceptions make me wary as I am very conscious of the "slippery slope" argument. Once a law is on the book restricting the rights of special segments of the population, such as criminals or the mentally ill, or even children for that matter, it is very easy to establish laws that expand on those segments to include people who don't deserve to be there. The most graphic example of this is the pogrom in Nazi controlled Axis powers where people belonging to or associated with unwanted groups (Jews, gypsies, homosexuals etc) were criminalized, thus giving the government a legal means of quashing dissent from perfectly decent people. Nevertheless, I state these exceptions as a compromise I am willing to live with in present circumstances.

Finally, while I may not carry a firearm, one thing I do carry is pepper spray. Contrary to what you might think from playing Deus Ex, it's actually pretty potent stuff. Catching just a whiff of it will be distracting, and getting a direct spray is debilitating. It would be useless against that masked bastard who shot up the Colorado theater but if I had it against the unmasked bastard in the Connecticut school, it might have been to used to open up a window to assault and disarm him. It also is easy to carry and conceal and even comes in a discreet pen form (http://www.sabrered.com/servlet/the-110/Tapered-Pen-Self-dsh-Defense-Spray/Detail). Of course, it is only a short range deterrent but I figure most violent crimes exist in an eight foot radius anyway.

FrankCSIS
3rd Feb 2013, 01:09
Agree. So if we're going to consider "very deadly", then alcohol provides a much higher death rate - directly (consumption) and indirectly (drink-driving, alcohol-fuelled murders etc). Nobody is asking for this to be banned.

I believe the answer is that most people realise it’s the fault of the person, not the alcohol.

No, the answer is that is that most people realise there is a limit to what we can control. Alcohol is still heavily regulated though, and the policies work as much as they possibly could, all things considered. There are nearly twenty times as many cars on the road today than there were in the 60's in Quebec, and yet the death rate related to drunk driving has been at an historic low for ten years in a row. It took thirty years, a whole generation, to change the mentalities here, but the regulations and constant campaigns are working, and very well. It used to be that everyone had a close friend who died on the road. Things are MUCH different now. The general death toll on the road, alcohol-related or not, is unbelievably low, all things considered, no matter how much the newspapers try to portray a different situation.

Sweden, if I'm not mistaking, has a zero-death policy regarding car use. Germany has some of the strictest laws regarding alcohol and vehicles.

Control does work, to a good extent. Gun control, over thirty years, will work as well. Build a good system, limit the useless, deadliest weapons, and most importantly, don't lose faith in your system. It WILL take time, but it WILL make a difference. Saying otherwise is just being stubborn for the hell of it.

Senka
3rd Feb 2013, 04:54
I have a "history" here for being very outspoken. But I don't wish to relive those moments so I'm trying my best to keep it under wraps.
It seems more likely to me you just wanted to make a point without actually saying anything. "Hey, I could make a really good point here but for both our sakes I'd better not, so count yourself lucky!"


Concerning the first question, I again suggest you educate yourself about American history, our laws and how the process works. Concerning the second question, we already have a ban on certain types of assault weapons. In addition, they are legal to own if they were purchased before the ban took place. However, they are never going to ban guns so answering the questions is pointless.
You vastly overestimate how much I care. If you already have a ban on certain types of weapons, what's the problem with going further? If the right to bear arms doesn't already include all assault weapons, why is taking the ban further such a problem?


What about it? You're comparing a knife to a gun.

I'm comparing two situations where a probably mentally ill person decided to kill school children, one where the attacker had access to a firearm and the other where he didn't. Unsurprisingly those attacked with lesser firepower got of lighter. What's so hard to understand here?



It isn't an interesting comparison as you're comparing and contrasting two totally different things in hopes of solidifying your premise and belief that guns, at the very least, should be highly restricted. Yes, logic dictates that all things being equal, a person would rather have someone going coo koo for Cocoa Puffs with a knife. However, if an armed intruder were to enter your home would you prefer a knife or a modern firearm?
I'd prefer a tazer. Preferably a home security system, cameras and a decent police force. I'd also prefer a lower chance that the intruder had access to modern firearms. Gun control of course wouldn't be 100% effective but I'm willing to bet that gun control lowers the use of guns in crime, and makes it significantly more difficult for criminals to access firearms, especially assault type weapons.


It will never happen.
Assuming this is true (I wouldn't be so sure, a lot can change in a few years) what else could change to stop all these school shootings? If gun control isn't the answer, what else do you suggest?


You said, "We're seeing significant negative consequences of gun ownership" and I'm informing you that we're seeing a significant negative consequence from far less dangerous things than guns. The fact that we have things designed for practicial purposes, causing so much damage, is alarming.
So you're informing me of something I already know and not disagreeing with my point that there is a difference between weapons and cars/mobiles/food? Good. You also make it sound like guns are excluded from being made for a "practical purpose", which is interesting.


Aside from training purposes, what practical purpose does any gun have in human hands other than killing? Defense? Once the threat has been stopped is when I feel safe. If not, I'm going to continue to aim for mass. That's just the way it is. I'm not aiming at your leg, I'm not aiming at your arm, I'm not going for headshots. I'm aiming for mass and to put the threat down. I don't hunt so I have no need for a gun in that regards. However, I do own a business, cars, home and have loved ones to protect so I'll do whatever I can to do that.
The missing and probably assumed pre-condition there is that you'll do anything within reason. Not all people are as reasonable as you, some people might want to kill someone that's been harassing them at school. Guns make revenge incredibly easy. And after all, if you're going to prison anyway you might as well kill everyone else that's ever pissed you off while you're there, right? How easy it is with modern technology. If school massacres won't make you rethink gun laws what will it take? You don't need assault rifles for home defense, you don't need military grade weapons for recreational activities, and you definitely don't need these weapons in the hands of those with sociopathic tendencies and/or other mental illnesses.


It's not about how often I'm going to be in a situation. It simply boils down to what increases my chances of survival if a situation were to occur. By that logic you should have access to all the firepower you can afford out of the fear of attack. Being able to defend yourself against anything is a nice idea, but an unrealistic one, and one that doesn't make sense when you consider while you have access to these weapons, so does everyone else. I can spot the flaw in that right away.


We have TYPE 1 an TYPE 2 crimes. Which, in your opinion, is cthe main ontributor to America not having "low crime levels?" In addition, have you considered recidivism rates and how flaws in the criminal justice system, not crime, have contributed to those numbers?
Theoretically isn't the idea that guns have the potential to stop crime regardless of its nature? And I wouldn't want to make assumptions on how those other factors contribute, that would be bad logic.



Here is an article from amnestyusa that sheds light on 500 taser related deaths by law enforcment. You may think, 500 isn't a lot but you have to consider the length of time tasers have been actively used by law enforcement.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/amnesty-international-urges-stricter-limits-on-police-taser-use-as-us-death-toll-reaches-500
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/66-cherry-picking
If you're going to suggest tazers are more lethal than guns I invite you to pick one to be shot by.



Tighter restrictions for ammo? Yes. Gun purchases? Yes. Longer wait times? Yes. Higher prices? Yes. Psych checks? Yes. References? Yes. CHecking your guns in every year? Yes. Banning of certain types of weapons? No. Total gun ban? LOL!
I still cannot understand why you would not support the banning of certain types of weapons. You can defend your home with a low caliber pistol or even a tazer, you do not need m16's and military grade (or even sporting grade) automatic weapons with large clip capacities or sniper rifles.




You introduced the mentally ill to this conversation, I didn't. Go back and read your previous post and you'll see it. I'm simply expounding on something you introduced.
Correct, my mistake.


There is no open access. What do you mean by that term? Can you not purchase weapons currently without much, if any extra requirements to meet? What about ammunition? Where I live you need to apply for a special weapon license for paintball guns or crossbows. Part of the requirements include having proper storage for these items, and at least for crossbows a legitimate reason for owning one and iirc a property larger than a set size, so small suburban residential home owners can't be applying for rifles.

HERESY
3rd Feb 2013, 05:07
See. When it comes to restricting access to ridiculously effective types of weapons, it's almost always out of the question in the American debate.

It's your opinion that such weapons are "ridiculous."


What part of war-torn America do you live in, exactly?

That information is provided in my profile.


Are there vultures and goblins hunting at night? Is there something living in your attic?

This is idiocy.


What do you fear, Mr Wayne?

I don't know who the **** "Mr Wayne" is but you need to refer to me as HERESY or LORD. Either will suffice but that MR WAYNE **** ain't gonna cut it. Concerning fear, HERESY doesn't fear anything so stop grasping for straws.


This guy in Alabama who kidnapped a boy in a school bus. I understand he was patrolling his property at night with a flashlight and a shotgun. Seriously guys, this is a good moment to wake up from this nightmare and realise mass hysteria might be governing your life.

How does one nut with a shotgun and fallout shelter prove mass hysteria is governing anyones life?


Why isn't it necessary to carry excessive weaponry in Toronto, Hong Kong, London, Berlin or Paris to live a long, prosperous and safe existence, but it would be out of the question in San Diego or Dallas?

Before we even begin to answer that we must first address your claim of excessive weaponry and necessity. Who are you to say what is excessive or what is necessary? How do you even begin to define such terms and quantify them?


With the (possible?) exception of China, the penal system is far more forgiving in any of the aforementioned countries than it is in America, and as far as I know mental illness has been desinstitutionalised and is underfunded in all of those countries as well.

Refer to my comments to Senka.


On the rare moments when it actually happens, in Montreal, when someone enters a place of business with a shotgun with the intent to rob, we hand over the money, and claim to the insurance. It IS insulting and violating, but it's also safe and effective. And you know what is great? Robbers can't live long from their loot, and so they rob again. And after 3 or 4 times, they get caught. It's mathematics, really.

And where exactly are you getting the stats that after 3 or 4 times a robber gets caught? If I worked in a bank, yes, I would just fork over the money, but I can't just fork over anything at my business. It doesn't work like that with me. I have too much data to fork over.


I can't remember the last time someone was killed during a robbery in this city.

I can remember when it happened in my city. Late December and the owner wasn't the one who died.


It has happened, of course. But so very rarely, because things never escalate during robberies. They almost always do when an owner tries to defend himself with a weapon.

The owner SHOULD defend himself with a weapon.


Of course it IS your country and I don't mean to be patronising about it. There is enough shi!t going on in Canada to keep me awake and frustrated at night for the next hundred years, and we do little to none about it either. I'm just suggesting, as one friendly nation to another, you might want to address the textbook anxiety issue a good part of the country seems to display. It's no way to live, really, and I know first hand.

This is hogwash. You don't strike me as a person even remotely familiar with the DSM-IV, so your armchair psychoanalysis is a waste of time and bandwidth.


Oh and for the record, talking on the phone or texting while driving is illegal here, and food containing high levels of fructose, sugar or any trans fat cannot be sold in schools and most government-owned or funded institutions. However, I don't see why having many problems justifies not doing anything about any of them, least of all a very deadly one.

I don't see why having many problems justifies not doing anything about any of them either. I never stated it or implied that and if that's what you walked away with it isn't my problem.


But, once again, your house, your rules.

Exactly.

Senka
3rd Feb 2013, 06:09
And look what popped up in the news today:

http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/Famed-Navy-SEAL-Chris-Kyle-shot-killed-in-N-Texas-189539281.html

Mental issues + guns do not mix. Perhaps if guns weren't so readily accepted things like this wouldn't happen.

HERESY
3rd Feb 2013, 06:33
It seems more likely to me you just wanted to make a point without actually saying anything. "Hey, I could make a really good point here but for both our sakes I'd better not, so count yourself lucky!"

No. That wasn't the case. I was going to point out the fact that you lack the ability to read and properly process the information you've read. When I do this it isn't pretty and I usually end up with infractions and warnings. However, I did go on to make the point and explained how you were comparing and contrasting two different things so what's your point? Start R-E-A-D-I-N-G what you're replying to, ok?


You vastly overestimate how much I care.

No I don't. You don't care and you're a victim of confirmation bias. People who care tend to research and read information before they say comical incoherencies such as, "I don't understand why" or "I fail to see the logic in this" while later disregarding pertinent information. Of course you would fail to see the logic because you aren't operating in the realm of inductive or deductive reason, don't care and exhibit confirmation bias.


If you already have a ban on certain types of weapons, what's the problem with going further? If the right to bear arms doesn't already include all assault weapons, why is taking the ban further such a problem?

The problem with going further was laid out by ColBashar.


I'm comparing two situations where a probably mentally ill person decided to kill school children, one where the attacker had access to a firearm and the other where he didn't. Unsurprisingly those attacked with lesser firepower got of lighter. What's so hard to understand here?

Again, you're comparing a knife to a gun. Who is to say that he didn't want to use a gun but decided on using a knife because he had some weird fetish with blades? Do you know why he didn't use a gun? Can you truly attribute it to China's position on guns?



I'd prefer a tazer. Preferably a home security system, cameras and a decent police force. I'd also prefer a lower chance that the intruder had access to modern firearms. Gun control of course wouldn't be 100% effective but I'm willing to bet that gun control lowers the use of guns in crime, and makes it significantly more difficult for criminals to access firearms, especially assault type weapons.

I didn't ask if you preferred a taser. I asked a closed ended question where the answer is either a knife or a gun. Nothing more. So again, if an armed intruder were to enter your home would you prefer a knife or a modern firearm?


Assuming this is true (I wouldn't be so sure, a lot can change in a few years) what else could change to stop all these school shootings? If gun control isn't the answer, what else do you suggest?

You ban guns you fire the first shot in a new civil war. The people are not going to stand for it. Read ColBashar's post. I have not said that gun control shouldn't be considered. What I'm against is banning guns altogether or banning certain types of guns.


So you're informing me of something I already know and not disagreeing with my point that there is a difference between weapons and cars/mobiles/food? Good. You also make it sound like guns are excluded from being made for a "practical purpose", which is interesting.

I don't make it sound like guns are excluded for practical purposes. YOU are the one who introduced the phrase to the topic so if clarification is required you should start by reading what I was replying to.


The missing and probably assumed pre-condition there is that you'll do anything within reason. Not all people are as reasonable as you, some people might want to kill someone that's been harassing them at school. Guns make revenge incredibly easy. And after all, if you're going to prison anyway you might as well kill everyone else that's ever pissed you off while you're there, right?

So address the issues that are plaguing those people. Address mental stability, bullying, delinquency and predisposition. Don't just single out guns as the root of the problem because guns aren't the root of the problem.


How easy it is with modern technology. If school massacres won't make you rethink gun laws what will it take?

Start reading please. Chicago had over 400 homicides last year and many of them were gun related so why would a school shooting make me rethink gun laws? Do we need tighter laws? Yes! I've said that and every pro gun advocate on this site has said this. However, we aren't for banning guns out right. Some may feel certain types of guns should be limited but NONE of us are for a total ban on guns. I've stated some of the things I believe should be reconsidered, what else do you want me to do?


You don't need assault rifles for home defense,

Who are you to tell me what I do and don't need for my home? Do I tell you how many games you need for enjoyment? Do I tell you how many cylinders you need in your vehicle to get to point A to B? Do I tell you how much food you need? How many pair of shoes?


you don't need military grade weapons for recreational activities,

I don't hunt. However, if a hunter says he needs one I'm in no position to say what he does and doesn’t need.


and you definitely don't need these weapons in the hands of those with sociopathic tendencies and/or other mental illnesses.

So address those with sociopathic tendencies and other mental illnesses, not law abiding gun owners.


By that logic you should have access to all the firepower you can afford out of the fear of attack.

No, I should have access to all the firepower I deem necessary to increase my chances of survival. It has nothing to do with "fear" but what will increase my chances of survival if something were to occur. If it's an AK-47 so be it. If it's a handgun with 17 rounds so be it. It should be MY decision and what I feel comfortable with as protection and you nor the government should infringe.


Being able to defend yourself against anything is a nice idea, but an unrealistic one

And you know this how? You've done tons of research about gun defense and the ideology behind it? Your peers reviewed the material and agreed that such things are realistic?


and one that doesn't make sense when you consider while you have access to these weapons, so does everyone else. I can spot the flaw in that right away.

There is no flaw. What we have is your inability to critically read. Assuming we're talking about law abiding citizens, they only have "access" in the sense that they would be able to legally obtain them. However, they may have a different preference than I or may not be able to even afford what I am able to afford, so there goes your argument.


Theoretically isn't the idea that guns have the potential to stop crime regardless of its nature?

Please revise for clarity.


And I wouldn't want to make assumptions on how those other factors contribute, that would be bad logic.

Did I ask you to make assumptions? You said, "If guns are such a deterrent to crime why isn't america a country with record low crime levels?" so I'm asking you to address what you introduced to the topic. In the future, if you don't want to address something you should refrain from even mentioning it. You want to talk bad logic? That’s bad logic.


http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/66-cherry-pickingIf you're going to suggest tazers are more lethal than guns I invite you to pick one to be shot by.

The link is not applicable to HERESY. There is no cherry picking as I did not attempt to persuade anyone nor am I providing the link as evidence against a position that tasers are a viable alternative to guns. How did you form the assessment that I'm implying that tasers are more lethal than guns? I'll tell you how. You lack the ability to critically read and, instead of presenting cogent arguments, rely on fallacies, absurdities and misconstrued statements. For like the 78th time, CRITICAL READING is your friend.

The link was provided because YOU made reference to tasers being what? NON LETHAL. Technically, they are "non lethal", but the fact is they still cause deaths, are still problematic and are not the end all as you're implying. With that being said it was never stated or suggested/implied that tasers were more lethal than guns.


I still cannot understand why you would not support the banning of certain types of weapons.

Your lack of understanding is not my problem. There may be a typo or two here, some mess up there, but if you can't comprehend the spirit of my posts and my premise, even though I've clearly explained them, that isn't my problem.


You can defend your home with a low caliber pistol or even a tazer, you do not need m16's and military grade (or even sporting grade) automatic weapons with large clip capacities or sniper rifles.

Who are you to tell me what I do and don't need?


Correct, my mistake.

Start reading, man.


What do you mean by that term?

I mean the correct usage of the term. Open access would mean something that is openly/readily available and can be accessed free of restrictions. (BTW, the lack of money is not one of the restrictions I'm referring to.)


Can you not purchase weapons currently without much, if any extra requirements to meet?

See above. You've killed your own argument. Those with certain criminal records (prior weapons offenses or DV for example) can't get guns. Moreover, you have to pass a firearm test in order to complete the deal (assuming you're buying from a store.)


What about ammunition?

Certain types of ammo are banned and prior to recent madness many shops/dealers were already limiting ammo.


Where I live you need to apply for a special weapon license for paintball guns or crossbows. Part of the requirements include having proper storage for these items, and at least for crossbows a legitimate reason for owning one and iirc a property larger than a set size, so small suburban residential home owners can't be applying for rifles.

Gun owners have to properly store their weapons, can't keep ammo in the chamber (not counting those with special permits) and I already mentioned other restrictions. Paintball and crossbow owners should have to face restrictions? Are they as dangerous as a gun? No, but they aren't without problems and can be used to kill or harm another individual.

HERESY
3rd Feb 2013, 06:39
And look what popped up in the news today:

http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/Famed-Navy-SEAL-Chris-Kyle-shot-killed-in-N-Texas-189539281.html

Mental issues + guns do not mix. Perhaps if guns weren't so readily accepted things like this wouldn't happen.

Of course mental issues + guns don't mix. Guns being available isn't the problem.

Causation and correlation. Do you know what these terms mean? If so, why don't you explain them in your own words? if not, google is your friend.

FrankCSIS
3rd Feb 2013, 07:49
I don't know who the "Mr Wayne" is but you need to refer to me as HERESY or LORD. Either will suffice but that MR WAYNE ain't gonna cut it.

Ok then.


For me, though, it's a question of who has the authority to exercise force and how much force am I willing to authorize them to exercise

In theory, I fully understand how repulsive it is to allow a monopoly of violence to a certain group of people. The trouble is, though, that this is already institutionalised. Society has already laid the ground rules, and acknowledged the necessity of a specific group to protect the notion of private property. Owning a weapon does not put you in a position to authorise anything, or question any of the authorities in place, because those policies and authorities were not established by force in the first place. Your ability to rebel is not remotely part of the equation in a society dominated by institutions.

If a consensus ever arises where assault rifles are banned, for instance, violently rebelling against it will only put you on the wrong side of the consensus. You will simply be outcast by the majority, and your weapons would not solidify your position. It's true for any reform or changes you may oppose. That's the dangerous and scary side of democracy.

Realistically, no one is going to take the country by force. It's not just impractical, it's pointless. In a colonial situation, it made sense for the empire to empty your resources, tax your trades and sell you transformed products you couldn't possibly build by yourself. Along with prestige, the whole idea of colonialism was to outfit your empire. There is nothing to gain, however, for your own government to take over by force. The US is not a tiny republic, nor does it rely on one or two resources. The real money comes from the workforce, and you simply cannot rule a workforce by violence for an infinite amount of time. If the US were suddenly a tyranny, its economy would crumble beyond any possible repair. The minute the american labour stops believing their work is worth it, they will just stop working. Which, by the way, would be the most effective way to rid yourselves of a tyranny. Much, much more effective than attempting an all-out war against a military machine like the US, assuming, in your scenario, that the army would be backing the tyrannic regime.

The same analogy applies to China, in a way. The Chinese are an admirable, tireless working force. The regime really only appears to be in a strict position of power, in the sense that the central government is backed by its working force. There is a greater good to be attained in China, and its population agrees to work in that direction. It works, because the middle class situation is improving, thus justifying their tireless efforts. What do you suppose will happen the day China reaches its goal, or when the population stops seeing any improvement in their living standards? I wonder how secure the central government will be in its position, then. No amount of propaganda can convince a population that is no longer willing to believe, or sees no gain from their work.

Returning to America, if (or when) a catastrophic scenario arises, the sheer access to bullets would prove greatly problematic. How do you suppose you will supply two or three hundred million guns, for a long period of time, when you don't have access to basic necessities. If resources are scarce, or if by some strange and armageddonist twist of event the country is taken by force, don't you suppose the industrial complex will be the first target to control?

Once again though, tyranny will not come to your door by force. If it were to ever happen, it is a lot more likely to be an institutional dictatorship (which it already is, in a way, in the sense that individual human beings have little impact on the output of existing institutions), and it would therefor have to be sanctioned by a majority. If it is sanctioned and accepted by general consensus, weapons would do you little good. At best it would make a civil war possible, but you would be on the "wrong" side of it.

We're not going to relive the kind of revolutions we saw in England or France. We're not going to relive anything, for that matter. We never do. Whatever conflict or civil unrest might occur, it would be something else entirely, because we're not the world of the seventeenth century, just like they were not the society of the thirteenth. The elite is purely economical today, for one thing. No one in America owes true wealth to violence anymore, or the threat of violence. No one secures their position in the elite through violence or fear, either. No one owes their wealth to a title or to land, in the serf sense of the word. Symbolism and elitist entities do not generate or guarantee wealth or dominance over other classes. You will simply never see such a context again. Things could go very wrong in fifty or two hundred years, but they will not go this kind of wrong. Playing the historical card makes for interesting theoretical debate, and I welcome it over the oddness of other posts appearing in this thread, but aside from a few lessons to learn from the past, it is an impractical way of approaching an entirely hypothetical situation. The past will hardly prepare us for what's to come, beyond generic advice and universal truths.

Senka
3rd Feb 2013, 08:11
No I don't. You don't care and you're a victim of confirmation bias. People who care tend to research and read information before they say comical incoherencies such as, "I don't understand why" or "I fail to see the logic in this" while later disregarding pertinent information. Of course you would fail to see the logic because you aren't operating in the realm of inductive or deductive reason, don't care and exhibit confirmation bias. You are not the authority on what is pertinent information to an argument, especially when you bring in nonsensical conclusions like not being able to compare knives to guns.


The problem with going further was laid out by ColBashar.
In which post? Care to quote it?


Again, you're comparing a knife to a gun. Who is to say that he didn't want to use a gun but decided on using a knife because he had some weird fetish with blades? Do you know why he didn't use a gun? Can you truly attribute it to China's position on guns?
Reduction to the absurd.


I didn't ask if you preferred a taser. I asked a closed ended question where the answer is either a knife or a gun. Nothing more. So again, if an armed intruder were to enter your home would you prefer a knife or a modern firearm?
If gun with rubber bullets were an option I'd take that. While my own personal safety is important, I still don't want lethal weapons in wide circulation where the mentally ill or malevolent can (and do) get them. I could throw you a hypothetical situation; a mentally ill and violent person goes to your childs school with the intent of murder suicide. Would you prefer him to be armed with an assault rifle and a bag of ammo or a knife?



You ban guns you fire the first shot in a new civil war. The people are not going to stand for it. Read ColBashar's post. I have not said that gun control shouldn't be considered. What I'm against is banning guns altogether or banning certain types of guns.
How peaceful. Good to know the long tradition of killing people who tell you to care for one another is alive and kicking. While a total ban does seem impractical I am still unconvinced that bans of certain types is a bad idea. After all you said yourself certain types of weapons are already banned. Where do you draw the line? Who decides? The right to bear arms sure doesn't sound like it excludes certain types of weapons but you're already okay with the current restrictions?


I don't make it sound like guns are excluded for practical purposes.
Perhaps you need to be more careful/concise in what you write?


So address the issues that are plaguing those people. Address mental stability, bullying, delinquency and predisposition. Don't just single out guns as the root of the problem because guns aren't the root of the problem. When did I say they were? Strawman again. Guns are a significant part of the issue, as is the mentality that personal rights should allow you access to such weapons.



However, we aren't for banning guns out right. Some may feel certain types of guns should be limited but NONE of us are for a total ban on guns. I've stated some of the things I believe should be reconsidered, what else do you want me to do?
Answer why you need assault weapons?


Who are you to tell me what I do and don't need for my home? Do I tell you how many games you need for enjoyment? Do I tell you how many cylinders you need in your vehicle to get to point A to B? Do I tell you how much food you need? How many pair of shoes?
If any of those things were designed specifically for killing then yes, you should be able to cast your vote on whether or not I am allowed to own them.


I don't hunt. However, if a hunter says he needs one I'm in no position to say what he does and doesn’t need.
If a hunter told me he required a military grade assault rifle I'd have to ask what exactly it is he hunts.


So address those with sociopathic tendencies and other mental illnesses, not law abiding gun owners. Those are not mutually exclusive. They're law abiding gun owners right up until they go and kill a bunch of kids.


No, I should have access to all the firepower I deem necessary to increase my chances of survival. It has nothing to do with "fear" but what will increase my chances of survival if something were to occur. If it's an AK-47 so be it. If it's a handgun with 17 rounds so be it. It should be MY decision and what I feel comfortable with as protection and you nor the government should infringe.
I suspect this is where we will continue to disagree. If you're allowing yourself access to these types of weapons you're also giving them to the mentally ill, the criminals and other undesirables.



And you know this how? You've done tons of research about gun defense and the ideology behind it? Your peers reviewed the material and agreed that such things are realistic?
Sure, I forgot to mention at the start of this I've got a pHd and masters in psychology and anthropology :rolleyes:


There is no flaw. What we have is your inability to critically read. Assuming we're talking about law abiding citizens, they only have "access" in the sense that they would be able to legally obtain them. However, they may have a different preference than I or may not be able to even afford what I am able to afford, so there goes your argument. Your assumption that only law-abiding citizens (and mentally healthy ones, from the time of purchase to the future) will be purchasing these guns. Clearly this isn't working and should be revised.


Please revise for clarity.
My point was that it shouldn't matter what type of crime it is if guns are supposedly able to prevent it.



Did I ask you to make assumptions? You said, "If guns are such a deterrent to crime why isn't america a country with record low crime levels?" so I'm asking you to address what you introduced to the topic. In the future, if you don't want to address something you should refrain from even mentioning it. You want to talk bad logic? That’s bad logic. I like how you think I answer to you and only do what you ask? My original question was that if allowing wide access to guns prevented crime, why aren't there low levels of crime? Regardless of the type.


The link is not applicable to HERESY. There is no cherry picking as I did not attempt to persuade anyone nor am I providing the link as evidence against a position that tasers are a viable alternative to guns. How did you form the assessment that I'm implying that tasers are more lethal than guns? I'll tell you how. You lack the ability to critically read and, instead of presenting cogent arguments, rely on fallacies, absurdities and misconstrued statements. For like the 78th time, CRITICAL READING is your friend.
:rolleyes:Don't be facetious, you linked that directly in reply to me stating that "it's hard to see why you would need a gun" now that we would have tazers, and you then talked about the NUMBER OF DEATHS from tazers. You cherry-picked a report about the lethality of tazers, concluding with the anecdotal phrase that "you have to consider the length of time tasers have been actively used by law enforcement." So you now want me to believe that was a totally passive and non 'persuasive' statement? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.



The link was provided because YOU made reference to tasers being what? NON LETHAL. Technically, they are "non lethal", but the fact is they still cause deaths, are still problematic and are not the end all as you're implying. With that being said it was never stated or suggested/implied that tasers were more lethal than guns.
Dat contradiction. Tazers may not be the be-all end-all but I'd rather have them in circulation than firearms.


Your lack of understanding is not my problem. There may be a typo or two here, some mess up there, but if you can't comprehend the spirit of my posts and my premise, even though I've clearly explained them, that isn't my problem.
Well, it is your problem if you can't form an argument that can be followed by anyone unfortunate enough to read it.



Who are you to tell me what I do and don't need?
Since I'm not american I don't get a vote on the issue. Since this was obvious beforehand, it doesn't matter in the context of our debate, I can still have my opinion, as can you. If I were to make a vote however, I believe I would have the right to tell others what they can or cannot own when the consequences of such ownership can significantly and negatively effect others. Harmless things like personal drug use and who you have sex with? None of my business. Whether or not you have the ability to kill a large number of people any time you decide to, from a distance? Definitely my business. Again, your law abiding status and current mental state are irrelevant and mutable. Which is a significant part of the problem. If you wouldn't trust a stranger with your money why would you trust them to have the power of life and death?


Start reading, man.
I'm already halfway through a good book, thanks for the suggestion though.


I mean the correct usage of the term. Open access would mean something that is openly/readily available and can be accessed free of restrictions. (BTW, the lack of money is not one of the restrictions I'm referring to.)
Thanks for clarifying, even in a pretentious way.


See above. You've killed your own argument. Those with certain criminal records (prior weapons offenses or DV for example) can't get guns. Moreover, you have to pass a firearm test in order to complete the deal (assuming you're buying from a store.)
This clearly isn't strict enough. Obviously you can still buy guns before being convicted. What if you're not buying from a store, or are importing or manufacturing parts?


Certain types of ammo are banned and prior to recent madness many shops/dealers were already limiting ammo.
How specific. I imagine you can still buy the type that kills people though, right? What is banned? Dragons Breath? Not unless the laws have changed since a few FPS russia videos ago (or differ by state).


Gun owners have to properly store their weapons, can't keep ammo in the chamber (not counting those with special permits) and I already mentioned other restrictions. Paintball and crossbow owners should have to face restrictions? Are they as dangerous as a gun? No, but they aren't without problems and can be used to kill or harm another individual.
Do paintball guns require a license or anything in the US?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
3rd Feb 2013, 10:57
If only people were this passionate about alcohol-related deaths... many people would live longer, healthier lives.
The mind boggles. :nut:

Hey. Its obvious that the US Government will not ban guns outright.
We need to focus on the problem. The problem is not the gun... its the HUMAN.
Cue the Omar. :cool:

HERESY
3rd Feb 2013, 11:53
You are not the authority on what is pertinent information to an argument, especially when you bring in nonsensical conclusions like not being able to compare knives to guns.

Actually, I am an authority when it comes to what is pertinent information in an argument. Why? How? I'm relying on critical analysis and other forms of logic to form my assessment and I'm providing you with information that will increase your knowledge because, according to you, you didn't understand. You, on the other hand, can't even remember something as simple as what you've typed and introduced to the thread, so we know you're far from being an authority.
Then you describe my conclusions as "nonsensical" but by doing this you've shown that you really do lack the ability to critically read. Did I ever say you shouldn't compare knives to guns? No, I showed you that comparing and contrasting the two has little to no value when we’re talking about gun control.


In which post? Care to quote it?

R-E-A-D his post in this thread. It's a couple of posts back.


Reduction to the absurd.

Reduction to the absurd? So not only are you forgetting your train of thought but you continue to list fallacies that aren't applicable to HERESY? Great! You're making my job easier. Concerning the attack in China, your position is. "He didn't use a gun therefor guns are bad and knives are better." My position is you don't know why he didn't use a gun and the propensity to commit a violent act regardless of which weapon he used, is still there. Do you know why he didn't use a gun? No. Yet you somehow attribute it to China's stance on gun control and compare and contrasted what happened in China's school to what happened in America.

Reductio ad absurdum = down the drain.


If gun with rubber bullets were an option I'd take that.

That's not an option. In this thread, when people mention guns, they're talking about the real deal so stop side steppping.


While my own personal safety is important, I still don't want lethal weapons in wide circulation where the mentally ill or malevolent can (and do) get them.

So we need to prevent the mentally ill and malevolent from getting them. However, banning them so the sane and benevolent can't have them is not something I advocate.


I could throw you a hypothetical situation; a mentally ill and violent person goes to your childs school with the intent of murder suicide. Would you prefer him to be armed with an assault rifle and a bag of ammo or a knife?

I've already answered this question. As I've previously stated, and which you've obviously failed to read or you wouldn't have asked it, "Yes, logic dictates that all things being equal, a person would rather have someone going coo koo for Cocoa Puffs with a knife." Yes, I would prefer someone with a knife. Unlike you, I don't need to avoid the question or say something like, "I would prefer they enter the school with a butter knife or plastic picnic knife.”


How peaceful. Good to know the long tradition of killing people who tell you to care for one another is alive and kicking.

It's been going on since the dawn of man.


While a total ban does seem impractical I am still unconvinced that bans of certain types is a bad idea. After all you said yourself certain types of weapons are already banned. Where do you draw the line?

You being unconvinced means nothing to HERESY as HERESY is not trying to persuade you one bit. If you don't want to own a gun, FINE! Just don't tell HERESY that he shouldn't own a gun. HERESY is not telling YOU that YOU should have one. Heresy is telling you HERESY should have one...or several.


Who decides? The right to bear arms sure doesn't sound like it excludes certain types of weapons but you're already okay with the current restrictions?

Is "who decides" a rhetorical question or do you really need me to answer that? I've explained what I'm ok and not ok with. Please, stop being redundent.


Perhaps you need to be more careful/concise in what you write?

Perhaps you need to remember what you write? I'm being concise yet I keep showing that you (and others on this board) have an uncanny ability to reply without actually reading and comprehending what you're replying to. This isn't something that I should be blamed for. Go look in the mirror but don't point your finger at me.


When did I say they were? Strawman again. Guns are a significant part of the issue, as is the mentality that personal rights should allow you access to such weapons.

Read your posts. It's there for any reasonable person to see. You claim guns are a significant part of the issue but if one were to read your posts, the majority of them call for guns to be banned or heavily restricted. In fact, the mentally ill are just an afterthought to you and this is supported by your lacksey daisy reply of "Better mental health facilities while you're at it too perhaps." However, later on in your recent post you talk about how you would vote, the consequence of ownership and state “Again, your law abiding status and current mental state are irrelevant and mutable.” so you’re all over the place.


Answer why you need assault weapons?

This has already been addressed. It simply boils down to what increases my chances of survival if a situation were to occur. It comes down to what I feel safe or comfortable with. It comes down to what I feel responsible for owning so the word "need" shouldn't be used here.


If any of those things were designed specifically for killing then yes, you should be able to cast your vote on whether or not I am allowed to own them.

That's not how things work here and I'm glad. :)


If a hunter told me he required a military grade assault rifle I'd have to ask what exactly it is he hunts.

Again, I'm not interested in hunting nor am I interested in prohibiting him from owning weapons so that is a conversation I won't ever have.


Those are not mutually exclusive. They're law abiding gun owners right up until they go and kill a bunch of kids.

You've just lost your entire argument for the second or third time in a row. So now everyone who goes out and kills kids were previously law abiding gun owners? None of them stole guns or purchased guns illegally?


I suspect this is where we will continue to disagree. If you're allowing yourself access to these types of weapons you're also giving them to the mentally ill, the criminals and other undesirables.

So stop giving them to the mentally ill, criminals and other undesirables. The sane, law-abiding citizen should be able to have what he/she feels they should have.


Sure, I forgot to mention at the start of this I've got a pHd and masters in psychology and anthropology :rolleyes:

So how do we verify your Appeal of Authority? Moreover, how is your PhD and masters in psychology and anthropology relevant to what I asked? Post up the research you've said you've done and let's see if your peers actually reviewed it and came to the same consensus as you. Personally, I find it hard to believe that a person remotely familiar with psychology would exhibit such confirmation bias.


Your assumption that only law-abiding citizens (and mentally healthy ones, from the time of purchase to the future) will be purchasing these guns. Clearly this isn't working and should be revised.

Again you aren't reading. There is no assumption that only law abiding citizens will be purchasing these guns. I've already said psych checks and references should be implemented so that right there should tell you some nuts are going to attempt a purchase. I've already said mental health issues need to be addressed in the proper fashion. Stop the mentally ill and people showing violent predisposition from purchasing guns and things will be better.


My point was that it shouldn't matter what type of crime it is if guns are supposedly able to prevent it.

You don't even understand the differences in crime in America so your point is null and void.


I like how you think I answer to you and only do what you ask? My original question was that if allowing wide access to guns prevented crime, why aren't there low levels of crime? Regardless of the type.

And my answer to that is, "We have TYPE 1 an TYPE 2 crimes. Which, in your opinion, is the main contributor to America not having "low crime levels?" In addition, have you considered recidivism rates and how flaws in the criminal justice system, not crime, have contributed to those numbers?" Your point, if we can even call it that, is wide access to guns don't prevent crime because the numbers don't reflect that. My position is you don't know a thing about crime in the united states, any stats or how those numbers are even interpreted.


:rolleyes:

Are you a guy? Where I'm from, guys rolling their eyes is a big no no.


Don't be facetious, you linked that directly in reply to me stating that "it's hard to see why you would need a gun" now that we would have tazers, and you then talked about the NUMBER OF DEATHS from tazers.

Yes, I talked about the number of deaths because your exact words were, "With the invention of tazers it's hard to see why you would even need a lethal weapon at all. Especially when kids seems to have such easy access to their parents guns.


You cherry-picked a report about the lethality of tazers, concluding with the anecdotal phrase that "you have to consider the length of time tasers have been actively used by law enforcement.

The report was not cherry picked. The report was provided to address your claim that the invention and implentation of a device that is supposed to be non-lethal negates the use of something that is lethal.

Let's look at your link again but this time throw your argument in one of the examples provided. Look at [B]example 2 in your link. Take out God, Christian etc and plug in taser and non lethal and this is what we get:

You should use a taser not a gun, because tasers are non-lethal and being non-lethal is a great thing.

Now let's look at the explanation in your link. Take out God, the bible verses, etc and replace them with what I provided and this is what you get:

But tasers, according to amnestynow, are also lethal. Since the implementation of tasers, there have been 500 taser related deaths and experts say this number, for the time tasers have been in use, is high. In addition, these deaths are linked to those who are supposedly properly trained in the use of tasers.

Selling a half-truth as a way to make tasers more “presentable” is fallacious.

Tell it ALL or don't tell it at all.I didn't supress anything. I simply provided the other side to the coin. However, you did attempt to suppress information and, according to your link, you’re cherry picking. :)


So you now want me to believe that was a totally passive and non 'persuasive' statement? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

I just addressed it and proved you wrong. What you need to address is how you magically assumed the posting of the link implied that tasers were more lethal than guns when I never compared and contrasted the two in a way that would imply such a thing.


Dat contradiction. Tazers may not be the be-all end-all but I'd rather have them in circulation than firearms.

So you mentioned them because it's your preference when it comes to circulation? Go back to your link about cherry picking because you basically just admitted doing it, ROFL!


Well, it is your problem if you can't form an argument that can be followed by anyone unfortunate enough to read it.

This is coming from the guy who can't even remember what he typed, who has misconstrued basic text and meaning, who has asked the same questions multiple times even though they've been answered, has exhibited confirmation bias, has discounted information without looking into the subject matter yet claims to be an expert and has shown he doesn't understand the logical arguments and fallacies he's posting and linking. BWAAAAAAAAAH AHA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!


Since I'm not american I don't get a vote on the issue. Since this was obvious beforehand, it doesn't matter in the context of our debate, I can still have my opinion, as can you.

Even if you were American citizen you wouldn't vote on the issue. Yes, you can have your opinion but my opinion actually impacts me because I live here, you don't.


If I were to make a vote however, I believe I would have the right to tell others what they can or cannot own when the consequences of such ownership can significantly and negatively effect others. …If you wouldn't trust a stranger with your money why would you trust them to have the power of life and death

That's exactly why your ass is in Canada.


I'm already halfway through a good book, thanks for the suggestion though.

You've shown you can't even read here so I think the book may be too much of a task.


Thanks for clarifying, even in a pretentious way.

Keep your pleasantries, I don't need them. You were the one who introduced it to the thread so why did I need to clarify? It's because you weren't using it in the correct way and, yeah, I proved it.


This clearly isn't strict enough. Obviously you can still buy guns before being convicted. What if you're not buying from a store, or are importing or manufacturing parts?

Which is why reform to address such matters is not out of the question. We need tighter control on internet purchases, private purchases, imports, etc.


How specific. I imagine you can still buy the type that kills people though, right?

Is this a serious question?


What is banned? Dragons Breath? Not unless the laws have changed since a few FPS russia videos ago (or differ by state).

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-coated_bullet#United_States


Do paintball guns require a license or anything in the US?

This is pretty much a state by state thing but most stores won't sell a paintball gun to anyone under 18.

ColBashar
3rd Feb 2013, 20:16
You can call me Mr. Wayne, Frank. I take it a compliment. <w>

You speak of institutions but I am not certain I completely take your meaning. For example, feudalism is an institution but I'm not sure it applies in the context you're using it. Clarification on that would be appreciated.

Regardless, all institutions are inherently backed by force, regardless of whether or not they overtly exert it. In the case of a democracy, the force or power behind this institution is the people. Therefore you are absolutely correct in asserting that in a democracy the individual must surrender to the will of the majority. But bear in mind that the majority is still exercising -force-. The dissenter may choose to honour the consensus or not, but he is responding to force imposed upon him by it.

So let's look at the the example you've posed. Let's say a law is passed that forces me to surrender my hypothetical assault rifle. As potent as my firearm is, it's no match for the club being wielded by the majority. My options are either to comply or to resist, with resistance bearing the consequence of either a fine (loss of property), imprisonment (loss of liberty), or death (loss of life). Looking at the options, I'm probably going to go with the former.

But let's look a step beyond. We've established that a democracy has the right and justification to disarm itself; however, an institution is only as strong as the capacity of its power base to exert force. By disarming the populace, you're diminishing the power of the democracy to defend itself, making it vulnerable to other institutions, be they foreign or domestic, that do still have a club to wield.

In the case of China, it doesn't really matter that you have a nice car, a good job, a comfortable apartment, and some money in the bank if you have a bullet in your head. Moreover, all of those nice things you used to own can be appropriated to the policeman who shot you. As I said before, I sincerely -hope- that China will transition into a truly liberal society but I am not going to depend upon it. The Party's power base is the police force and as long as it can maintain control over enough of the population to sustain that police then all of those workers who are now enjoying their newfound freedom don't matter.

Wealth alone can't protect you, it can only be spent on means of protection. Look at the 10th century Islamic world. It was the pinnacle of education and prosperity in the western world, surpassing even the Roman Empire. Yet it had its head handed to it for nearly a century by comparatively backward and dirt poor European crusaders. Why? Because the Europeans were able to exert more force, and weren't ejected until the Islamic world managed to catch up.

In the case of America, you're absolutely right in that an armed populace is no guarantee of the people's ability to resist force. But a people with access to guns is going to be better able to defend itself than one disarmed. The potential tyrant will have to take into consideration the additional resources required to pacify an armed populace before attempting to seize control.

This is where firearms serve in their second, and perhaps more important function. They're just not a tool for exerting force, they're also a tool by with to issue the threat of force. In this way they act as a deterrent.

I said before that I do not own a firearm. My grandmother, though, did. I seriously doubt that she ever fired it. In fact, I don't think it was ever even loaded while in her possession. But a potential burglar didn't know that. If somebody ever broke into her home and threatened her, it is very unlikely that they would be intimidated by an old woman. Seeing an old woman with a -gun- though, might cause them to reevaluate their current course of action.

That is an example of how the threat of force, rather than force itself, can be used for good, as a defensive measure. Now let's look at how that same threat can be used for evil, as a means of coercion. One man with a gun can terrorize twenty, more even, without ever actually firing his weapon. Create an institution of men with guns, such as the military or police or an insurgency, and you have the means by which to to terrorize millions for so long as you can sustain that institution.

This is why an armed populace serves as a deterrent against a would-be tyrant, be they in the form of a foreign invader, a generalissimo, a police commissioner, a mafia don, a militant cleric, or what have you. It is a democracy's last line of defense. That's not to say that democracies without an armed populace will automatically topple over, I'm merely stating that without the ability to exercise force in its defence, they become vulnerable institutions that can bear force over it. You might cite the police, military, and intelligence services as the club that a democracy wields for its protection; however, these are individual institutions in their own right which can be subverted.

With regard to citizen revolutions, I agree with you fully that we're not going to see a repeat of the past, but that in of itself isn't telling. The American Revolution was not like the French Revolution, which in turn was not like the 1688 Revolution, which in turn was not like the Swiss Revolution of 1653, and so on and so forth. Yet the lesson in all of them remains the same: an armed class of burghers serves as a defense against tyranny and authoritarianism. I believe that the future of warfare will largely be won and lost in cyberspace, which is why I am likewise opposed to government regulation of the internet, but at the end of the day it's the ability to kill that serves as the deciding factor while cyberspace serves merely to magnify that ability.

What I object to is the notion that somehow armed civil dissidence is somehow obsolete. I look at your sixty years of peace in the West against two millennia of tumultuous human history. Prior to WWI, many believed that open warfare among industrialized nations had become a thing of the past because the unprecedented degree of international trade of the 1890s had made Europe so interconnected that to sever trade in favour or conflict would be so costly that it was unthinkable. Subsequent to WWI, some argued that the war had been so horrific that it was unconscionable that humanity could sustain another such conflagration. Clearly both groups were wrong and yet their sentiment echoes through history. Even now I hear its refrain.

Maybe your optimism is correct, but I'm not going to stake my life and liberty on it.


If only people were this passionate about alcohol-related deaths... many people would live longer, healthier lives.

I don't drink alcohol as a rule. For one I don't enjoy the taste of it and secondly I see no point in consuming something that dulls my mental faculties. In times past I understand the purpose of alcohol as it was actually cleaner than water in unsanitary environments.

What it really comes down to is culture. Social alcohol consumption is fine; consumption as self-medication is not. As has been pointed out, the United States' experiment with prohibition didn't work out very well. But in the period since that time I believe that we've seen an overall reduction in alcoholism, what with the increased awareness and availability of therapy and treatment. The problem hasn't gone away, but I believe we're progressing in terms of combating alcoholism as an individual problem.

I'm more concerned with the broader issue of mental health, not merely disabilities but the increase of mental stresses that afflict the general population. I believe we see more crazy people these days because the nature of society is actually making people crazier. Unless we look at that situation and take measure to deal with it, it will continue to plague is far worse than guns, alcohol, or drugs do in their own right. With a better appreciation of the mental health problem, I seriously doubt that the shootings that spark these debates on gun control would be as prevalent as they seem to have become.

neoWilks
3rd Feb 2013, 20:44
Does anyone else find it weird that gun control is simultaneously criticized because, "If we outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns," and also that it would render insurrection against a totalitarian regime impossible? If criminals are still able to arm themselves in the event of gun control legislation, why would an organized, national rebel force suddenly be unable to procure weapons?

Moreover, how does this hypothetical rebel group intend to overcome a well-trained, well-equipped military and police force? Are assault rifles even relevant in a drone war? Or when the enemy has tanks and planes and helicopter gunships? Has any modern rebellion been successful without real military backing? Look at all the stuff that went down in during the Arab Spring. Military support, high ranking defections, international assistance in terms of troops and weapons and intelligence. These weren't successful because of a right to own a gun.

This is assuming that a totalitarian state would even be possible in modern America. Does anyone, other than conspiracy nuts, see an oppressive regime realistically coming into power in the United States? There would have to be so fundamental a change in terms of power allocation, public opinion, governmental oversight, etc that whether guns are allowed or not would be a minuscule in comparison.

Senka
4th Feb 2013, 03:51
Actually, I am an authority when it comes to what is pertinent information in an argument. Christ you're pretentious.


Reduction to the absurd? So not only are you forgetting your train of thought but you continue to list fallacies that aren't applicable to HERESY? Great! You're making my job easier. Concerning the attack in China, your position is. "He didn't use a gun therefor guns are bad and knives are better." My position is you don't know why he didn't use a gun and the propensity to commit a violent act regardless of which weapon he used, is still there. Do you know why he didn't use a gun? No. Yet you somehow attribute it to China's stance on gun control and compare and contrasted what happened in China's school to what happened in America.
From this wild tangent I can only presume you do not understand what a reduction to the absurd is. Also my argument was not that "He didn't use a gun therefor guns are bad" (The mind boggles at how you came to that childish conclusion), rather that in two similar attacks, the one carried out with a knife had NO deaths, unlike the one where a gun was used.


That's not an option. In this thread, when people mention guns, they're talking about the real deal so stop side steppping.
Not in your narrow black or white hypothetical question. In the real world however, non-lethal options ARE an option.


So we need to prevent the mentally ill and malevolent from getting them. However, banning them so the sane and benevolent can't have them is not something I advocate.
I certainly do when you can't currently determine who is sane and benevolent accurately.


I've already answered this question. As I've previously stated, and which you've obviously failed to read or you wouldn't have asked it, "Yes, logic dictates that all things being equal, a person would rather have someone going coo koo for Cocoa Puffs with a knife."
So essentially you're putting your own safety over the safety of others.


It's been going on since the dawn of man.
And will continue until we cultivate a more peaceful and rational species.


You being unconvinced means nothing to HERESY as HERESY is not trying to persuade you one bit. If you don't want to own a gun, FINE! Just don't tell HERESY that he shouldn't own a gun. HERESY is not telling YOU that YOU should have one. Heresy is telling you HERESY should have one...or several.
What's with referring to yourself in third person? You accused me of sidestepping above, now I have to call you out on the same thing.

AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED (maybe you should try this critical reading thing you keep insisting on) I explained EXACTLY why you should be able to tell me what I can or cannot own when it has the very specific capacity to take human life in an efficient form. Falling back to your "Well you can't tell me what I can or cannot own..." argument here is doing you no good. You're already restricted in what you can own. It's a shame you're unwilling to be a little more limited in your purchases of leathal weaponry.


Is "who decides" a rhetorical question or do you really need me to answer that?
Take a guess.


Read your posts. It's there for any reasonable person to see. You claim guns are a significant part of the issue but if one were to read your posts, the majority of them call for guns to be banned or heavily restricted. In fact, the mentally ill are just an afterthought to you and this is supported by your lacksey daisy reply of "Better mental health facilities while you're at it too perhaps." However, later on in your recent post you talk about how you would vote, the consequence of ownership and state “Again, your law abiding status and current mental state are irrelevant and mutable.” so you’re all over the place.
Not sure how you misunderstand my point that when you buy a gun you might be mentally healthy and a law abiding citizen, but that doesn't guarantee you will continue to be/do so?



This has already been addressed. It simply boils down to what increases my chances of survival if a situation were to occur. It comes down to what I feel safe or comfortable with. It comes down to what I feel responsible for owning so the word "need" shouldn't be used here.
Again I'm only getting the impression that you're putting your own safety over the safety of others.


That's not how things work here and I'm glad. :)
As long as you're fine with the consequences how could you be anything but glad?



Again, I'm not interested in hunting nor am I interested in prohibiting him from owning weapons so that is a conversation I won't ever have.
Dat sidestep



You've just lost your entire argument for the second or third time in a row. So now everyone who goes out and kills kids were previously law abiding gun owners? None of them stole guns or purchased guns illegally?
Of course not, you're being facetious again. If even one of them were law abiding gun owners your argument dies, and we both know it's been a lot more than one.



So stop giving them to the mentally ill, criminals and other undesirables. The sane, law-abiding citizen should be able to have what he/she feels they should have.[/quote[]
You already know why I disagree with the second part of this.

[QUOTE=HERESY;1855273]So how do we verify your Appeal of Authority? Moreover, how is your PhD and masters in psychology and anthropology relevant to what I asked? Post up the research you've said you've done and let's see if your peers actually reviewed it and came to the same consensus as you. Personally, I find it hard to believe that a person remotely familiar with psychology would exhibit such confirmation bias.
I assume you didn't or fail to understand the meaning of the roll-eyes emoticon.


Again you aren't reading. There is no assumption that only law abiding citizens will be purchasing these guns. I've already said psych checks and references should be implemented so that right there should tell you some nuts are going to attempt a purchase. I've already said mental health issues need to be addressed in the proper fashion. Stop the mentally ill and people showing violent predisposition from purchasing guns and things will be better.
When the checks can be 100% effective then maybe we'll have this discussion.



Are you a guy? Where I'm from, guys rolling their eyes is a big no no.
Thanks for the tip, I wouldn't want to get shot.


Yes, I talked about the number of deaths because your exact words were, "With the invention of tazers it's hard to see why you would even need a lethal weapon at all. Especially when kids seems to have such easy access to their parents guns.
Would it make you happier if I had said a weapon designed to be lethal? You knew what I meant, you're clutching at straws here.


Selling a half-truth as a way to make tasers more “presentable” is fallacious. Implying that tazers are as bad as gun is the problem here. You seem caught up on my usage of 'non-lethal', which they are. Non-lethal things can cause death. They're just a lot less likely too than lethal weapons.


What you need to address is how you magically assumed the posting of the link implied that tasers were more lethal than guns when I never compared and contrasted the two in a way that would imply such a thing. I took your link as a direct reply (which it was) to me calling tazers a non-lethal device, and your conclusion that 500 is a small number 'until you consider how long tazers have been in use compared to firearms' (paraphrase)




So you mentioned them because it's your preference when it comes to circulation?
Tazers are my preference in every situation? What's so hard to understand here?


This is coming from the guy who can't even remember what he typed
In huge posts yes I have mixed up points, as have you.

who has misconstrued basic text and meaning According to you

who has asked the same questions multiple times even though they've been answeredI'll keep asking the same question until you've actually answered it yes, as have you.

has exhibited confirmation biasagain according to you, who are amazingly unbiased in this whole regard?
has discounted information without looking into the subject matterI don't have the time to perform a statistical analysis on data for a petty internet debate. If you do, by all means start comparing crime and death rates between countries with varying degrees of gun control.



Even if you were American citizen you wouldn't vote on the issue. Yes, you can have your opinion but my opinion actually impacts me because I live here, you don't. Um, what? If I were an american citizen I would have a vote like any other?


That's exactly why your ass is in Canada.
What? I have several questions here. Firstly, I can assure you my ass is not, unfortunately, in canada. Quite a strange statement coming from someone who keeps banging on about the ability of others to critically read? Assumptions assumptions...

Anyway, I like how you used that rather poor attempt at flippancy to dodge the point made, I will make it again:
"I believe I would have the right to tell others what they can or cannot own when the consequences of such ownership can significantly and negatively effect others. …If you wouldn't trust a stranger with your money why would you trust them to have the power of life and death"



You've shown you can't even read here so I think the book may be too much of a task.
Humpty Dumpty was a tough one, but I think I'll be able to muddle along with Three Little Pigs.


Keep your pleasantries, I don't need them. You were the one who introduced it to the thread so why did I need to clarify? It's because you weren't using it in the correct way and, yeah, I proved it. Why not just clarify?



Which is why reform to address such matters is not out of the question. We need tighter control on internet purchases, private purchases, imports, etc. Agreed.



Is this a serious question?
If you think reallllly hard about it for awhile you might figure it out.




http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-coated_bullet#United_States
So you're fine with these being banned but not assault weapons or other high capacity firearms?


This is pretty much a state by state thing but most stores won't sell a paintball gun to anyone under 18.
Interesting.


If only people were this passionate about alcohol-related deaths... many people would live longer, healthier lives.

When we start seeing significant numbers of people making others drink themselves to death then people will start tackling this issue.

FrankCSIS
4th Feb 2013, 04:23
Feudalism was an institution, yes, but more in the sense of a tradition than an actual entity. It was a structure, to a degree, but the title itself was not an organism. This is a bit difficult for me to define in English, but I mean institution in the sense that the function trumps the individual who is occupying it. In feudalism, the lord was the lord, and did as he saw fit. In an institution, a man occupies a seat for a certain amount of time, and the seat has a function and an existence of its own. Our way of life, today, is determined by the bulk of all of those institutions, and not necessarily the people seated in the chair.

What I argue is that you respect the law and its institutions today because society expects you to, and you submit to it willingly. For the vast majority of us out there, we don't live by the rules because we fear the law. We "obey" to be a part of society, no matter what society decides for you. The more individualism you surrender, the more important it is for the individual to find his place and fit in. And THIS is what is fundamentally different from four or five hundred years ago. In many ways, we're not the same people. Not exactly.

Airport security is the simplest demonstration of how we function today. If you look at it objectively, they are a miniature version of what a security or control checkpoint would be like in a totalitarian state. We all line up there, surrender our possessions, submit ourselves to full body scans, answer personal questions, and every now and then tolerate the abuse of idiotic agents who make a show of the tiny parcel of authority they were granted with. Why do we do it? Not because we fear the forces that be. Because there is a consensus, in this society, that security checkpoints are annoying but necessary in air transportation. There is no logic or specific force behind this. A set of events has just pushed us to think like this, and institutions laid down the rules.

All I'm arguing is that the dynamic is not the same, and so the threats are not the same, and our options to rebel are not the same. Even civil disobedience, which was big in the last century, is less of an option today. People now argue that we should not go down in the streets and cause perturbations, but rather we should petition our representatives and take the government to court. Institutions such as courts are replacing street actions.

Now, if a totalitarian government is crazy enough to generate a situation where the majority of the population reaches a consensus and says "no more", in the long run it will crumble, with or without shotguns at home. It simply is not a viable situation. Your workforce will stop functioning, you will witness dissidence within the oppressive armed forces, and you will see soldiers and police who will prefer to side with their family than with their sergeants.

Again, I argue the same point with China. If the police forces decide to take away all the gains obtained by the middle class, the workforce will stop functioning. They make sacrifices today because it pays, or at least promises to pay. They will stop doing those sacrifices the day it stops paying. China's rise will rapidly turn to a horrible downfall. How do you control two billion people by force? The Soviet Union is perhaps the best example of this. The regime became absolutely unsustainable the moment the tireless workforce realised they got the raw deal. Institutions, police forces and soviet bureaucracy failed because a consensus was reached by many to stop playing by the crappy rules. The Wall did not fall by force.

I also realise wealth cannot protect you. The reason I brought up wealth is to clarify that the elite is not established by force in this world we live in, contrary to feudalism or barbarian states. Nobody fears Warren Buffet. We accept his status because it is the "civilised" thing to do. Because the consensus, in this country, is that it's the trade-off to live in an organised and functioning society. Our mindset is different.

As far as foreign enemies are concerned, you can be assured that your government would willingly arm and draft his citizens to defend the land, even if you had previously surrendered your guns. You will have ample time to see an incoming land attack, and a shotgun at home would be of little use against a missile strike or air raid. One hundred million armed civilians is hardly a deterrent in the context of modern warfare, if all you wish to do is mass damage, or if your enemy has greater numbers, as is the case with China. Your military and your strategic allies are your real deterrent here.

One way or the other, I just don't think argumentum baculinum holds as much value in our context. Unless, of course, we revert to a world of stick and stones, with no industrial means and a sudden lost of technology, accompanied by an absolute crumble of society and its main institutions. If such was the case though, we will have a hell of a lot to worry about, including the most basic of needs and commodities. And once again, I say if such was the case, you would be hard-pressed to find bullets to load your guns with, with resources so scarce and the industry being controlled by the tyrannic government.

In theory, your argument is completely sound. More so than mine, really. I think your position is more philosophical than factual, though, and I don't think the theoretical armed society is as fearful a force as you credit it to be, in our context. Wilks is right. Look at how Libya, Tunisia and Egypt conducted their "revolutions", and then notice how things are stagnating in Syria without foreign interventions, despite the access to home and foreign weaponry.

HERESY
4th Feb 2013, 07:23
Christ you're pretentious.

Someone’s projecting.


From this wild tangent I can only presume you do not understand what a reduction to the absurd is. Also my argument was not that "He didn't use a gun therefor guns are bad" (The mind boggles at how you came to that childish conclusion), rather that in two similar attacks, the one carried out with a knife had NO deaths, unlike the one where a gun was used.

I clearly understand what it means and what boggles the mind is why you introduced it when it should not have even been mentioned. In addition, you misquoted me. Read the statement again and you'll see this to be true. My position is you don't know why he didn't use a gun and the propensity to commit a violent act regardless of which weapon he used, is still there. Do you know why he didn't use a gun? No. Yet you somehow attribute it to China's stance on gun control and compare and contrasted what happened in China's school to what happened in America. No reduction to the absurd on my end but I don't know if we can say the same for you.


Not in your narrow black or white hypothetical question. In the real world however, non-lethal options ARE an option.

And in the real world lethal weapons are an option so what is your point? You have none and your inability to answer the previous question simply sheds light on your bias.


I certainly do when you can't currently determine who is sane and benevolent accurately.

So measures should be taken to determine who is sane and benevolent. Again, I'm addressing the REAL issue which is guns being in the hands of the mentally/criminally insane. If you take guns off the streets is that going to stop them from pushing people in front of passing subways? Is it going to stop them from going into a school with a knife and slashing 27 children? Again, I asked you if you knew the difference between correlation and causation but it's now obvious you don't.


So essentially you're putting your own safety over the safety of others.

Please elaborate. I said a reasonable person would prefer a knife over a gun if they're being attacked. Have you misread again?


And will continue until we cultivate a more peaceful and rational species.

Good luck with that.


What's with referring to yourself in third person? You accused me of sidestepping above, now I have to call you out on the same thing.

HERESY WILL REFER TO HERESY IN WHATEVER PERSON HERESY WISHES.


AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED ... It's a shame you're unwilling to be a little more limited in your purchases of leathal weaponry.

Filler and more fallacies. You are in NO PLACE to tell me what I can and cannot own. You have no legal standing to do so. You are in no place to make the determination of what I feel I require. BTW, you didn't explain anything and you should really keep up with the flow of the conversation. You asked where do I draw the line and I'm telling you I DRAW THE LINE FOR ME. YOU NEED TO DRAW THE LINE FOR YOURSELF. Again, GO BACK AND READ WHAT YOU QUOTED AND READ WHAT I WAS REPLYING TO.


Take a guess.

I'm not going to guess. And I already addressed it so I'm moving on.


Not sure how you misunderstand my point that when you buy a gun you might be mentally healthy and a law abiding citizen, but that doesn't guarantee you will continue to be/do so?

There is no misunderstanding you're contradicting yourself and can't even keep up. First you talk about the mentally ill and better mental health then you say, "Again, your law abiding status and current mental state are irrelevant and mutable." So if that’s the case why even address mental health?


Again I'm only getting the impression that you're putting your own safety over the safety of others.

Disregarding the nuts, and just looking at the average law abiding citizen, I am in no position to make a safety call for ANYONE outside of my home. If you feel you need a gun go and get a gun. If you feel you're more protected by holding a bible and praying have at it. If you feel pepper spray will suit you fine knock yourself out. I don't know what makes you feel threatened or what makes you feel secure so it's something each individual has to answer for their own self. I can only give an account for ME and what I feel I require for those inside of my home.


As long as you're fine with the consequences how could you be anything but glad?

This is proof that stupid questions exist.


Dat sidestep

No side step. I have plainly stated that I have NO INTEREST in hunting. I know nothing about hunting for sport. Knowing this to be true, I can't make the determination of what a hunter does and doesn't need. I don't care about what a hunter does or doesn't need. Remember, I HAVE NO INTEREST IN HUNTING, so saying I wouldn't even have the conversation isn't side stepping. I don't know about it and don't want to know about it.


Of course not, you're being facetious again. If even one of them were law abiding gun owners your argument dies, and we both know it's been a lot more than one.

They are people who have a predisposition for violence which is why I've said psych checks and references should be enforced. No one is being facetious, you simply fail to read.


You already know why I disagree with the second part of this.

You got that right.


I assume you didn't or fail to understand the meaning of the roll-eyes emoticon.

Like I said, where I come from, a guy rolling his eyes is really frowned on. You made a claim and you provided no evidence to support it. Time to move on.


When the checks can be 100% effective then maybe we'll have this discussion.

Idiocy. Will an outright ban on guns prevent them from being used? No. Will a ban on certain types of guns prevent them from being used? No. But here it is you speak of checks needing to be 100% effective to have this discussion? Wow!


Thanks for the tip, I wouldn't want to get shot.

I wouldn't care if you did or didn't.


Would it make you happier if I had said a weapon designed to be lethal? You knew what I meant, you're clutching at straws here.

Actually, what would make me happy is if you stopped typing but seeing as you have the need to save face, that ain't gonna happen. You typed what you typed. I'm reading in a critical fashion. Take a page from my book, say what you mean and mean what you say. You posted a link about cherry picking and I clearly showed you how the link CLEARLY describes what you're doing, lol. No clutching for straws here.


Implying that tazers are as bad as gun is the problem here.

It was never implied. What was disputed was that tasers were non lethal. R-E-A-D.


You seem caught up on my usage of 'non-lethal', which they are. Non-lethal things can cause death. They're just a lot less likely too than lethal weapons.

They’re practical/intended usage may be non-lethal but make no mistake about it, they are lethal.


I took your link as a direct reply (which it was) to me calling tazers a non-lethal device,

You just got through finished saying that I implied tasers are as bad as guns so which is it? LMAO! You can't stop contradicting yourself.


and your conclusion that 500 is a small number 'until you consider how long tazers have been in use compared to firearms' (paraphrase)

WTF? Even the paraphrase is off. I said:


Here is an article from amnestyusa that sheds light on 500 taser related deaths by law enforcment. You may think, 500 isn't a lot but you have to consider the length of time tasers have been actively used by law enforcement.

There was no comparing tasers to firearms, genius and I mean "genius" in the most vile and insulting way. I keep telling you I was never comparing tasers to fire arms but disputing the non lethal claim of tasers and showing that even in the hands of those who are qualified, taser deaths occur and are on the rise.

I just PROVED TO YOU that I was NEVER comparing tasers to firearms.


Tazers are my preference in every situation? What's so hard to understand here?

And guns are mine. The thing is, I don’t give a damn if you use a taser or not.


In huge posts yes I have mixed up points, as have you.

I haven't mixed up a damn thing. I just showed that YOU did, so if I were you I'd stop partaking in huge posts as you’re not capable of keeping up. Seriously, you can't even tell the difference between "law enforcement" and "firearm" so you should just bow out now.


According to you

According to facts. Look at what you said here:


'until you consider how long tazers have been in use compared to firearms'(paraphrase)

now look at what was actually stated:


but you have to consider the length of time tasers have been actively used by law enforcement

LMAO! That's not paraphrasing. That’s a PRIME example of you misconstruing basic text and meaning just like I said. This will help you learn how to paraphrase:

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples/examples-of-paraphrasing.html


I'll keep asking the same question until you've actually answered it yes, as have you.

Everything you've asked I've answered multiple times. I'm not the one avoiding any questions.


again according to you, who are amazingly unbiased in this whole regard?I don't have the time to perform a statistical analysis on data for a petty internet debate. If you do, by all means start comparing crime and death rates between countries with varying degrees of gun control.

According to me? I keep proving everything I say about people such as yourself. Either I say you're going to behave in a certain fashion and you do it or I say you did something and prove it beyond dispute. You can't keep up with the thread, you misconstrue basic text and meaning like I said, you can't even remember your own points. It's all there in black and white for the internet to see. So if you don't like being put in a position of supporting your position don't engage people like HERESY. Now it's a petty debate? I bet if you weren't put in that position you wouldn't describe it as such, lol.


Um, what? If I were an american citizen I would have a vote like any other?

Like I told you pages ago, read up on our legislation and how certain laws/statutes are put in place.


What? I have several questions here. Firstly, I can assure you my ass is not, unfortunately, in canada. Quite a strange statement coming from someone who keeps banging on about the ability of others to critically read? Assumptions assumptions...

That was actually a dig at you and the other guy...like I really give a **** about where you are?


Anyway, I like how you used that rather poor attempt at flippancy to dodge the point made, I will make it again:"I believe I would have the right to tell others what they can or cannot own when the consequences of such ownership can significantly and negatively effect others. …If you wouldn't trust a stranger with your money why would you trust them to have the power of life and death"

You made no point. You asked, "If you wouldn't trust a stranger with your money why would you trust them to have the power of life and death." and I'm telling you that the legislatures who are saying what we can and cannot own are, in fact, strangers. They have no true ties to the common man, the average citizen, as they are concerned with lobbyists and those of prestige and status. So I don't trust them to make decisions for me just like I wouldn't trust an uninformed soul such as you.


Humpty Dumpty was a tough one, but I think I'll be able to muddle along with Three Little Pigs.

Priceless.


Why not just clarify?

Why would I need to clarify when YOU introduced it to the thread and I didn't use it in a way that would contradict the original meaning? LMAO!


If you think reallllly hard about it for awhile you might figure it out.

You've typed enough idiocy so I'll pass on trying to decipher your drivel.


So you're fine with these being banned but not assault weapons or other high capacity firearms?

I've already answered what I'm fine with and what I'm not fine with.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
4th Feb 2013, 08:30
When we start seeing significant numbers of people making others drink themselves to death then people will start tackling this issue.

Sure. Alcohol isn't forced down your throat... but it is still responsible for a lot more deaths than guns.
Why no concern about this?

More people are killed every year in the United States by drunk drivers than guns!
So are you now ready to tackle this issue yet?
If not, and you wish to take the stance that alcohol is safe in the right hands..... then you ought to feel the same for gun-ownership.
Responsibility all comes down to the human.

neoWilks
4th Feb 2013, 09:20
There were approximately 31,000 firearm related deaths in 2010, compared to 10,000 drunk driving related deaths (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html). If current trends continue, firearm deaths are on track to exceed all road fatalities in the next couple years.

Prevention methods such as sobriety checkpoints, interlock ignition systems, license suspension, jail time, etc are in place. Bars can be held liable for continuing to serve a drunk customer. There are national ad campaigns to raise awareness. Groups advocate further lowering the legal limit from .08 to .05. I'd personally be more than okay with suspending an individual's right to purchase alcohol should they show themselves unable to consume it responsibly. Where did you get the idea that no one is concerned about drunk driving?

EDIT:

Besides:

http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/images/AIDF.gif

Those regulations are working. We've seen a steady decrease in drunk driving fatalities since we started recording them. Since drunk drivers with prior impaired driving convictions are about 4 times as likely to be involved in a fatal accident, more immediate penalties---like the aforementioned license suspensions and ignition interlock systems---should be effective in further curtailing the number of drunk driving deaths.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
4th Feb 2013, 09:41
Statistics from the WHO state that more than 2.5 million people worldwide die each year from alcohol-related causes. That is a LOT more than guns.



There have been lots of talk and activity lately in the U.S. over gun bans and stricter gun control laws since recent mass shootings including one at an elementary school in Connecticut. In the United States, there are around 10,000 gun murders each year, more than 30,000 traffic-related fatalities each year and an even more disturbing 100,000 alcohol related deaths each year. According to the World Health Organization, more than 2.5 million people worldwide die each year from alcohol related causes.

Alcohol is a factor in 60 types of injuries and diseases including cirrhosis of the liver and several types of cancer. 30% of all deaths from accidents caused by fires, 30% of all accidental drownings and 30% of all suicides are attributed to alcohol. 45% of all deaths in traffic accidents and 60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol.

Yet, little is said about all these deaths and daily tragedies in our country caused by alcohol use. Alcohol control policies are a low priority despite the toll it has taken on our society due to road accidents, violence, child neglect and work absenteeism.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=1735


Where did you get the idea that no one is concerned about drunk driving?
I'm not talking JUST about drink-driving, I'm concerned that some conveniently choose to ignore the fact that alcohol kills more people than guns do.

I wonder why this is (ie. lack of concern, no call to ban like guns). Can you shed any light here?

EricaLeeV
4th Feb 2013, 14:45
What do you fear, Mr Wayne?


Ha! I get it.

neoWilks
4th Feb 2013, 18:48
I wonder why this is (ie. lack of concern, no call to ban like guns). Can you shed any light here?

Because we did ban alcohol and it didn't work. Booze was still for sale and the law succeeded mostly in empowering organized criminal organizations. Conversely, countries in which guns have been banned---or those that implement various ownership restrictions---do tend to see less gun crime.

Does this mean an outright ban is the best answer for the United States? Not necessarily. Mandatory trigger locks, a more stringent licensing process, limitations on clip size, restrictions on the type of weapon an individual may own, gun safes, etc would all be welcome chnages. I'd be more than fine with earmarking licensing fees and gun taxes to subsidize gun safes and provide every owner with affordable, secure weapon storage. These also need to be enforced. At least annual visits from the local police to ensure a gun owner is properly storing and maintaining their firearms.

I'd probably even be okay with assault rifles were it required they remain at the firing range. If someone wants to use a particular weapon for sport, I've no real problem with that. But they don't need to be bringing every single weapon home with them. They can rent a safe at the range, locking their gun back up whenever they are finished.

But with the nature of the gun debate in the US, it's wholly unsurprising to me that you have a vocal group of people who'd rather outright ban guns. Whenever any argument for sensible gun restrictions is made, you immediately have major gun lobbies calling it tyranny---or blaming media or whatever. There's no honest discourse because these groups aren't interested in anything other than the status quo. They aren't offering realistic alternatives, they aren't approaching the argument in good faith.

There's also the fact that you can't spend political capital indiscriminately. We're talking about guns now because of several recent high-profile shootings. We aren't talking about booze because it wouldn't make sense. Gun laws are what can realistically be changed right now. Wait a year---or even a few months---and that might not be possible anymore. The American public has a notoriously poor memory. You get things done when you have the opportunity. You don't distract the conversation by bringing up every single ailment society is currently facing.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
4th Feb 2013, 22:39
Personally, I feel much more concerned about the high number of alcohol and tobacco-related deaths, than I do guns.

ColBashar
4th Feb 2013, 23:37
Only Outlaws Have Guns:

I'd like to address this point first because I think I can clarity it pretty easily. In doing so, let me post this hypothetical situation as illustration. Let's assume that we have a society, completely armed, consisting of twenty law abiding citizens and ten outlaws. This society decides to ban guns. We've established that prohibition can not be 100% effective, that is to say that there will always be a black market for illicit goods. As a result, all of the law abiding citizens surrender their firearms. Outlaws, being as by nature they are ambivalent to laws, choose not to surrender their firearms. Nevertheless, the ban closes most of the means by which these ne'er'do'wells can procure guns and munitions. As a result, we now have twenty disarmed law abiding citizens, five disarmed outlaws, and five armed outlaws.

As you can see by this example, the ban was very effective in reducing the number of arms in society, even among outlaws. Nevertheless, those outlaws who who still managed to procure these weapons illicitly now have proportionately greater means of exerting force than the law abiding citizens. This is the underlying meaning of the phrase, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns." The ban makes it much more difficult for an outlaw to procure a firearm, yes; however, once one is procured, that outlaw knows for a fact that he can exert a substantially greater degree of force than any law abiding citizen.

This example is a little incomplete, though, as it does not take into account the police force. So let's assume we have our original society of 20 LACs and 10 Outlaws, fully armed, but add an additional 10 police officers. Now we apply the ban and have 20 unarmed LACs, 5 unarmed Outlaws, 5 armed Outlaws, and 10 armed policemen. All good and fine, right? While the Outlaws have more guns than the LACs, they're outmatched by the overall firepower of the police. This works, provided that the police are working in the interest of the LACs.

Here I believe marks the major point of disagreement between Frank and I. If I am reading his posts correctly, he seems to assert that in a progressive society, the security apparatus is inherently dependent on the good will of the populace, so to the point that subversion is therefore either impossible or improbable beyond consideration. Furthermore I believe he asserts that were the security apparatus to fail, the degree of force exerted to cause that failure would be so great that the armament of the populace would be irrelevant. I disagree on both counts.

What I'm trying to understand is what crystal ball you're using, Frank, to see into the future. You seem to be claiming (and by all means correct me if I'm wrong) that your society is immune to failure, that it has reached a level of sophistication that it becomes self-perpetuating. All of the individual components come together to create a fully functioning whole. How are you so convinced that your way is uniquely impervious to time? I don't doubt that your perspective, your positions, are the right ones to meet immediate needs. But what about twenty years from now? Or fifty? Or a hundred? The winds of change blow constantly, bringing with it new challenges. I am not going to deny my children the right to defend themselves that my predecessors paid in blood to grant to me for the sake of a little immediate comfort; especially on the basis of a few decades of recent history which, in terms of the human experience, is just a drop in the bucket.

Shotgun versus Drone

I think there's a very fine point I need to clear up before I discuss this subject deeper. There is a difference between exerting force to destroy versus exerting force to coerce. If we're talking about raw firepower then, absolutely, a modern, mechanized military force can certainly obliterate a civilian militia. If outright obliteration isn't the objective, then, those shotguns become much more effective.

Look at Afghanistan. We have two sides: the United States Armed Forces and its NATO allies versus the Taliban insurgency. In terms of raw firepower, the US alone could carpet bomb the country into oblivion. Maybe wipe Iran and Syria off the map for good measure. The US doesn't do this, though, because, setting diplomatic fallout aside, it wants to keep the country's infrastructure (such as it is) and non-combatant population intact. Thus we have the most powerful military force in the history of mankind bogged down in the longest war in its history, fighting against an enemy that is by comparison severely deficient in both arms and means. That's not to say that the US isn't inflicting massive casualties against the Taliban, yet for all its military might it still hasn't "won" the war. How many years, how many lives, how many billions of dollars will it take to achieve victory?

Now let's look at Frank's hypothetical invasion of an armed society by a foreign military.

Point 1: Yes, the foreign invader will certainly make an effort to either eliminate or take control of the weapons manufacturing industry. But because this is an armed society, there thus being a private market for firearms, this industry is going to be more robust than in a disarmed society. There fore there will be more manufacturers spread out over more of the country, forcing the invader to spend more resources in dealing with them.

Point 2: Dovetailing on the above assertion that there is a private market for firearms, this also means that weapons and munitions will be stockpiled throughout the country. At the local level, citizens will have small amounts in their homes, larger stockpiles will be at gun stores, and larger still at distribution warehouses. At the onset of an invasion, the populace will have a window to secure these resources before an invader has the opportunity to do so. By contrast, in a disarmed society, weapons and munitions will be centrally located at military armouries, thus an easy to target and capture. Police armouries will be more distributed but, given the fact that the police do not on a day to day basis face armed resistance, they'll have likely reduced their own stockpiles.

Point 3: Again owing to the robust private industry, the armed society will have a greater share of skilled gunsmiths. When the existing stockpiles run out, the civil insurgency will be in a better position to establish impromptu and covert munitions factories. I am not trying to trivialize the manufacture of weapons but the technology is over a hundred years old and it is a lot easier than constructing drones. A disarmed society would have fewer people with that knowledge, and would either be dependent on outside support or have to learn to build such from scratch. I'm not saying that it can't be done, necessity is the mother of invention after all, but it would be harder without the experience.

Point 4: And that brings us to my final and most important point. Guns may be easy to use but they require practice and training to become proficient with. Firing a gun accurately is not as easy as it appears on television. If you don't believe me, I welcome you to go to a shooting range once a week for a month; then compare your first target with your last and you'll see the difference. In an armed society, civilians will be substantially more skilled marksmen than their counterparts in a disarmed society. Their experience also gives them knowledge of firearm maintenance and safety. It may not make them all guerrilla fighters, but it will increase their firing effectiveness and, thus, survivability.

So with these points in mind, I'm going to ask you two corollary questions. First, which do you think is better capable of forming a resistance on day one: an armed society or a disarmed society? And second, if you were a would-be tyrant intending to take over society, would you prefer that society to be armed or disarmed?

Now, is an armed society a guarantee of a liberal nation's survivability? Absolutely not! I have never, nor will I stipulate that the right to bear arms constitutes any such assurance. It merely delivers into the hands of the constituency the means by which to defend themselves. Whether or not they are capable of doing so remains to be seen, and depends on the circumstances of the situation. Armaments are not a be-all, end-all answer. This is historically exemplified by the fall of the Roman Republic to the autocratic designs of its generals (owing to dilution of the burgher class' prominence in the military through the Marian reforms), to the fall of the Florentine Republic to the Medici (an overwhelming, external military force).

The US Constitution

It's interesting that my arguments should be described as philosophical. Actually, it makes sense in that the US Constitution, the most important document in US jurisprudence, was actually build on philosophy: most prominently that of property rights and liberalism (that is, minimal interference of officialdom in the lives of individuals). The Constitution was designed as a means of protecting individuals specifically from government intervention. The framers didn't trust democracy to its own ends. In fact, democracy took a back seat to liberalism, and bore the derogatory moniker of "mob rule".

So the Constitution was drafted to define the mechanism of a federalist government and the Bill of Rights added to protect the citizens "inalienable rights". It was designed as a safety mechanism to protect the country from the government, even a government ruled by consensus or, as Frank put it, the "scarey" side of democracy. In order to safeguard the integrity of the constitution, it is is made very difficult to apply amendments.

Let me demonstrate. In order for the federal government to pass a law, it needs the approval of a majority of the House of Representatives (218 of 435), a majority of the Senate (51 of 100), presidential approval (1 of 1), and the ratification of the Supreme Court (5 of 9). By contrast, in order to apply an amendment to the Constitution, a 2/3 super-majority is needed in the House (290) and Senate (67) as well as ratification of three-fourths of the States. That poses the question to each of (at present) fifty state legislatures, thirty-eight of which need to approve the amendment. To frame this in an extreme manner, the dissent of legislators representing as little as 2% of the nations population, spread evenly over the thirteen least populous states, is required to block an amendment.

This is why it is improbable that the American Right to Bear Arms is going to disappear any time in the near future. But what I think a lot of non-Americans (and probably a lot of Americans too) fail to appreciate is that the United States operates under a federalist system. Each state is sovereign in of itself. Each has the power to pass and enforce its own laws. While the Constitution protects an individuals' right to own a gun, many states have issues their own regulations and restrictions. California, for instance, has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation while South Carolina has some of the most lax. What I am trying to say is that this is not an issue that is being debated solely in Washington DC, but individually in state capitols all across the nation. Each state has and will continue to make its own decisions.

That is the beauty of federalism, in that it enables different states to experiment with different systems and find the ones that work best for its local circumstances. While the authority of the federal government supersedes the states, the restrictions placed upon it by the Constitution prevent it from becoming a hegemony and ensure that individual rights are maintained even in the face of popular dissent.

For example, in a wave of patriotic fervor in the mid 20th century, many municipalities required schoolchildren to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, a kind of loyalty oath to the values of liberty and justice. Those who refused, be it on religious or liberal principle, were ejected from school. While the nation overwhelmingly supported enforced recitation of the Pledge, the Supreme Court ruled that such laws were objectionable under the Constitution and struck them down.

This is why the Constitution is such an important part of American culture. It is the ultimate guaranteer of our freedoms. While it may be slow to adopt change, it is enduring and firmly maintains our core values amidst the shifting tides of popular opinion. The reason why America resists gun control is because the Constitution is giving us the opportunity to look for an ideal solution before making a knee-jerk commitment to the one that may seem immediately obvious.

FrankCSIS
5th Feb 2013, 01:27
Tyranny from the inside

Oh I don't mean it has reached a degree of sophistication that makes it immune to the tides of time. In a way, though, it has reached a certain degree of complexity that makes it impractical for the government to turn to tyranny. I don't think I'm being quite clear on this point though.

I'm sure we can agree that a branch of government, in the US, could not turn against its people on a whim. There are too many institutions in the way to simply wake up one morning and decide to take over. You can't really hope to gain any serious control without changing the constitution, gaining the support of the supreme court and fundamentally change the function of the armed forces to assure a homeland occupation. One way or another, you will need a super-majority in both houses, which in and by itself is almost impossible. Even assuming that your party holds a near-complete control of both houses, you would still have to be sure all party members are on your side, or at least enough to pass your amazing tyrannic reforms.

My point, and this is where I'm not being understood, is that in the very unlikely event that this scenario would occur, it would mean that an overwhelming majority of citizens would be voting for and fully backing those reforms. It's the only way to hold a super-majority in the first place. Which means that the few guys with guns who oppose those changes would be cast out by their fellow citizens, rendering their chances of a revolution to an insignificant level. At best, you would end up with a civil war, with the odds incredibly stacked against you.

In other words, tyranny, from the inside, could not occur without a majority of the working and voting force backing it, and if they are backing it, then the armed insurrection is just plainly screwed, at least in the long run.

I don't have a crystal ball, but you cannot seriously suggest that if a president or a general went batshi!t insane, and did so without the support of a majority of people, that he wouldn't be restrained or constrained by the rest of the country and its institutions. Hell, didn't they try to impeach Clinton when he lied about Lewinsky, because a lie is essentially an unforgiving offense?

Outside invasion

We don't fundamentally disagree on this point. Technically, the more armed and trained people you have in a country, the more frightening it makes it for an enemy to invade and occupy. In today's context, however, I'm quite sure that if any other country has ever thought about invading the US, they were deterred by your armed forces and allies, and did not bother giving a thought to the armed population. While strategically very important, an armed population is not remotely a factor, when compared to the supremacy of the rest of your army. You don't even have to think about armed citizens, because your overall force is unimaginably frightening.

But, you are right to say we never know what CAN happen. In the infinite amount of possible future, there is room for one reality where the size of the American army is reduced to the point where it becomes strategically interesting for a foreign power to attempt an occupation. In this possible future, an armed, and trained (this aspect is currently lacking in the US) population is desirable. If an army decides to invade, however, it won't happen by surprise one morning. You should have a few good months ahead of you to draft your able citizens, arm them and train them. Yes it is an additional step, but it has been done before. Most of your soldiers during past drafts had zero experience with weapons, and they were turned into effective killing machines rather rapidly.

Realistically, however, Canada, especially the North, makes for a much more sound target. The size of the army, the much smaller population, the sheer size of the land and the gigantic amount of untapped resources make it extremely desirable to a foreign invader. Without a crystal ball, I'm sure we can agree if anyone decides to invade and occupy a well-developed land, it will be for its resources. You don't invade a country the size of Canada or the US for its work force, because its work force would not cooperate enough to make it an interesting target. If anything, I should be a lot more frightened than you about a foreign invasion.

The Federation

Now, there's one problem with this thread, and it is that it does not include the entire discussion we've been having in the last weeks. I'm not advocating for a complete ban. Canada has, roughly, as many legal guns per capita than the US. They are largely composed of hunting rifles, and a smaller percentage of handguns, because both weapons require a different type of license and training. With the exception of private and public security forces, which I'm a part of, no one is allowed a license to conceal and carry. Everything else falls under prohibited weapons, and only armed forces (and police forces on Indian reserves) have a license to hold those.

I still for the life of me can't imagine Canadians defending themselves actively against an overwhelming invasion, but I'm sure we could be a pain in the arse of whoever decides to take over and attempt to occupy, at least until we're wiped out, or cowed into complete submission. I see your point here, but then it suggests that no one in the foreign world would lift a finger to help the invaded US or Canada. Again, that is a rather unlikely scenario. I'm sure there is room for it in one of the infinite alternate futures, but it's a bit of a far-fetched one.

I'm quite familiar with the federation, because we are one as well. While our constitution is less complex, every attempt to reopen it in the past forty years has utterly failed, mainly because it requires both the federal government and a majority of provincial governments to agree to a modification. No small feat, even in a smaller government such as ours. It would be impossible, for instance, to grant emergency powers to a leader without all levels of the federation backing it, and the provinces would never risk to back it without knowing their population is backing it. Which brings us back to my initial point!

I realise how difficult it would be to eradicate the second amendment. But we know by now that I'm not suggesting to remove to the right to bear arms in the country. We've already demonstrated here that there is such a thing as effective regulations, and an intelligent ban on super-deadly weapons such as assault rifles. I think we have an interesting compromise, which ensures no one just goes out and buys a gun for the heck of it. The license application is not complicated, but the process itself, while relatively simple, is effective enough to turn off anyone who does not seriously want a weapon, which, it turns out, is a lot of people, especially in urban and dense areas, where weapons and poverty or crime make for an explosive cocktail. Our system is nor perfect, but I think it is worth a look, along with many other regulations you could come up, which would be more suited to your reality. Hence why my first post in this thread called for an adult debate in the US, one where intelligent legislations are considered, instead of the outrageous arguments and positions we seem to hear from your side of the world every time a tragedy occurs.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
5th Feb 2013, 08:16
Woah, lots of writing! :eek: