Gun control

[ditchdj]

A buddy of mine posted this on another board (dont know if he wrote it himself or got it from somewhere else)...

20 reasons to ban guns..... Flawed anti-self-defense/anti-gun liberal logic

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the military has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons'', but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles'', because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

[CancelMyService]

Those are some pretty impressive strawmen. Those aren't anything anyone who's in favor of gun control would argue, they're things that the pro-gun people *think* the opposition would say. It's like when I stumble across a right wing talk radio host railing about "THE LIBERALS SAY X" where X is something I've never heard anyone of any consequence say.

Gun control is not as simple as either side wishes it is. Saying no one should own guns is just as silly as thinking the answer is to have every man, woman, and child packing heat like they were in the Matrix.

I mean, I'm by all accounts a pretty liberal guy, but my only take on the gun issue is that some measure of gun control is just common sense. It's embarrassing as someone who grew up around guns and married into a family of hunters to see the NRA get completely hysterical over any and all mention of gun control. Anything short of the Wild West is seen as an affront to the founding fathers, and they really should see how foolish they look. The NRA does a lot of good things when it comes to education on firearms, but they also do a lot of harm by supporting some legitimately crazy bastards for public office just because they back a "GUNZ 4 EVERYONE" platform.

[Seshat]

well how many people are going to defend against a machine gun without having a gun themselves?
whereas with a regular gun its very possible to defend against without any type of weapon at all

How can anyone defend against a machine gun without a kevlar (or better) bodysuit - or preferably a steel wall at least an inch thick?

A gun is not a defensive tool, it's an offensive tool. Because of that, I find the idea of people having guns 'to defend themselves' amusing at best. The only style of defence a gun is useful for is the 'kill them all and let God sort them out' defence.


However, my husband came up with a good suggestion once: have every gun manufactured with a biometric lock such that only the person keyed to the lock can fire it. This would reduce gun theft, which would help reduce gun-based crime. (I know - there are a lot of guns out there already. You have to start somewhere.) It would also make it easier for the police to identify murderers in shooting crimes, provided they can find the gun.

[rahmota]

Cancel: Actually I have heard/debate/argued against some of the things Ditch posted. The 2nd amendment does not refer to the national guard which is a federal military force but the citizens of each state. Unfortunately I have had individuals try to force me to think/say or believe otherwise.

Some of the other things on the list are true statements made by anti-firearms individuals I have encountered.


Seshat: The only way to defend against a machine gun is to have superior firepower or tactics or both. A .50cal round fired from a machince gun will penetrate almost all common kevlar vests even with trauma plate. Of course this is one reason why Tanks and armored vehciles as well as air support where developed. But the thing is no-one in america except people with class 3 permits have posses or own a machine gun which is serious military hardware. Unfortunately they are expensive, hard to get and the scrutiney when having one is beyond belief. Most of the full autos in the hands of street thugs are SMGs with a lot lower cyclic and ammo capacity. Generally in the 9mm caliber so body armor can be useful and all. So strategy and tactics can be a lot more useful.

Also a firearm can be used in a defense way. Its just matter of perspective and POV. Sometimes you dont even need to fire a airearm to deter someone from doing somthing the mere knowledge that the firearm exists and that you have the desire and the will to use it.

No we do not need to techup the firearms. Keeping them nice and simple but teaching people proper responsible firearm handling is a much much better solution than trying to create a judge dredd style biometric firearm that will probably malfunciton on the common user more often than not. That sort of blind ally would lead to fewer firearms being able to be used when needed as the technology is not reliable enough yet.

[CancelMyService]

People may have said some of the statements in that list, but it was presented as a all-inclusive list to shoot down (no pun intended) the gun control advocate. It's the same as cherry picking the most extreme examples of left or right wing politics and suggesting it's a common belief.

[Seshat]

Agreed, CancelMyService. I didn't even bother reading my way through the list - it's a list of excessively simplistic arguments which are totally not what I, or anyone else I know who actually thinks, would say. It reads like a list created by a guns-for-everyone advocate who assumes everyone who disagrees with him/her is an idiot.

Personally, I find the gun control debate very difficult. I'd like to see a simple breakdown of what's important to the 'let's have guns' side. So far, I think their argument amounts to:

1. There is an Amendment to the US Constitution which says people can have guns!
(Not relevant to people outside the USA.)

2. If everyone (or some subset of everyone) can have a gun, crime rates go down.
(The less vehement of them admit that crime is a complex issue that no single factor controls, but seem to believe gun ownership affects it.)

3. Whichever individual is speaking tends to talk anecdotally - they're a responsible gun owner, the people they know are responsible, they don't see responsible gun owners as being a problem.

4. Distrust of government/police/military, and a perceived need to protect oneself against not only criminals, but a potential abusive state.

5+ Rebuttals of arguments that they think (or maybe hear) from gun-control advocates.

Is that pretty accurate? Are there any other arguments (not rebuttals) from the guns-for-(almost-)everyone side?

(Editted to add point 4, having read this whole thread in more detail.)

[Seshat]

While we're at it, how about I rebut some stuff?

To state my position: while I'm undecided as to how much gun control there should be, I advocate some gun control.

1. "Advocates for it would have you believe that simply having a gun is dangerous." (Protege, first post in this thread)

Actually, I believe that guns in the hands of the immature and irresponsible enable the immature and irresponsible to easily do more damage than they would otherwise easily be able to do.
However, guns in the hands of mature, responsible people are safe enough to satisfy me.

2. "By that logic, shouldn't cars be subject to controls as well?" (Protege, same post)

You haven't seen my road safety rant yet. Yes, cars should be subject to controls - I think we'd all be a lot safer if only mature, responsible people were permitted to drive. I'm consistent!

3. "No matter how strict it becomes, criminals will always find a way around it." (protege, same post)

Yes - but some of the immature and irresponsible people will be unable to get hold of a gun. Some will buy them from criminals, yes, but others of those are too immature, irresponsible and stupid to get them that way either.
Also, police will have another tool to use to reduce harmful criminal behaviour. Sure, corrupt or stupid cops would have a tool to use to harass innocents, but we have systems in place to identify and stop those. (And to be slightly inconsistent: the police have plenty of things to use to harass innocents.)


4. "Removing a person's ability to defend themselves from criminals gives the criminals an edge over common people." (Rahmota, in the first page of this thread)

A valid argument. I don't have any problems with society having a pool of well-armed mature, responsible people who maintain the ability to shoot accurately under stress and the skill to make accurate assessments of defense situations.

I do have problems with guns in the hands of panicky scared people who don't know how to shoot properly, have firearms greater than their ability to handle, and don't have the skills to determine who is an aggressor and who is an innocent.

5. "As has been shown multiple times a person who is determined to do harm to another will find a way to do so. Firearms or not." (rahmota, same post)

Another valid point. But many murders occur in the heat of the moment, using items readily at hand. Keep guns from being readily at hand, and these would-be murderers are limited to such items as knives and broomsticks - which puts them on an even basis with an unprepared defender.
(And yes, there's also such possibilities as chainsaws and drain cleaner. But a person in emotional turmoil isn't usually in a position to think laterally.)

As for those who are determined - keeping them from buying a gun easily means they leave a longer trail while they acquire their weapon. If they're making a bomb or using poison, they also need to get hold of instructions (or be intelligent enough to devise their own). It's a delay, and that might save lives.

6. "A government that starts removing power from its law abiding citizens is a government that should be feared and if need be revamped or removed." (rahmota, same post)

Civil liberties .... big long issue, beyond what I'm going to talk about in this post. Maybe we can make a thread about this issue.

7. "Also firearms serve more than just the prime purpose of killing." (rahmota, same post)

Mature, responsible people can have guns if they want, in the idealised world of my imagination. Immature, irresponsible people can have disabled guns to admire.
How do we tell who's mature & responsible? Um. Dunno. Maintaining the ability to handle the non-disabled guns they have might be one useful yardstick. Not enough on its own, but it'd help.

8. "Firearms is one of the prime parts of the foundations of a free citizenry. An armed populace is a safe populace." (rahmota, same post)

Big, complex issue. I'm not armed (and given my disabilities, I don't know if I'd ever trust myself with a gun), and I feel safe. But my country has a different culture from the USA - I don't distrust my military, or my police force. In fact, I put my trust in them, and respect them.
The US has a different culture. At this level, I can't claim to understand US culture at all. I can see that you in general tend to feel very differently from me about this issue. I think it will be necessary to agree to disagree.

9. "If there is no armed opposition to a murderer then that murderer will have all the time in the world." (rahmota, much later)

Tell that to the heroes on the flight that didn't crash into a building on September 11th.
If your enemy is not armed with a ranged weapon, and you're brave enough to risk or take injury, and either strong/skilled or there are enough of you, you can take down a would-be murderer.
If your enemy is armed with a ranged weapon, but there is enough time between projectiles, you can still get close enough to take him down.
If your enemy has a fast enough ranged weapon, you're toast.



Not directly on-topic, but something rahmota said:
"convince people that in the end of things they are the only ones responsible for their own lives and their own families."

I agree completely. That may be part of the cultural difference between Down Under and the USA - I can't think, offhand, of anyone I know in flesh-life (over the age of teenage irresponsibility, anyway) who thinks anyone 'owes them a living' or that they 'deserve' some sort of luxury. Or who thinks they should be allowed to get away with misbehaviour, short of a couple who think cops give out speeding tickets as revenue-raisers. And even those people tend to be on the wrong end of an argument if they voice the opinion outside their little circle.


Another thing rahmota said:
"Though if she was really suicidal she would have done so, firearm or not. All one needs is a steak knife and an arm handy. Those who are talking about suicide are generally not going to do it those who do it do so without talkign about it generally."

Not actually true. That one is a very dangerous myth. Squall is being responsible to keep a gun out of his house.
See:
Suicide Myths at crisislink.org. Or Google 'suicide myth' to see lots of crisis-help sites repeat the refutation of that myth.
If we want to talk about suicide, however, we should switch to a different thread.


I tried to pick quotes which raised the major issues in this thread. There has been a lot of discussion of detail or examples (especially Cho), but hopefully I've covered the main points.

[rahmota]

The following is from a 1995 paper I did in college so some of the data is a bit old but still valid.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare --well under 10%.)

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalance and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

Here are a few more of the pro-firearms arguments I have in addition to the earlier ones:

1:Calling 911 means the police are still at least several minutes away and the knife wielding thug isn't going to wait that long. Plus the police have no obligation to provide timely protection.

2: Drug dealers can afford to "throw away" a $90,000 airplane smuggling $10 million in drugs, a $1,000 tax isn't much of a deterrent, except to hard working law-abiding civilians.

3:The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, isn't about the National Guard that was created by Congress 130 years later in 1917. The national guard is a federal level military force, not the militia that the orginal framers where referring to. See this quote:

"The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order." [emphasis added]
-- Thomas M. Cooley (1824-1898),
Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court and author of the leading nineteenth-century works on constitutional law.

The "militia" was provided for in Section 10 of the United States Code (often abbreviated USC). The Code is the list of all the laws that are written by the federal government. Section 10 USC 311 reads:
"All able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…and under 45 years of age who are or have made a declaration to become a citizen of the United States." Additionally, another provision allows for a "reserve militia" (as opposed to the "ready militia" described above), that includes women, children and the elderly.


4:Address all crime and not just crime with guns. To date, no gun law has been proven to reduce crime or homicides, not even the Brady Law. This is according to the National Institutes of Justice and The NIH.

5: Crime was arguabely lower when guns were easier to buy before 1968, when you could buy a gun with no paperwork and walk out with it. No Form 4473, No Brady Form, No background check, No waiting periods. Before 1968 guns were available through mail order catalogs too. This is looking at historical reports from state and local police departments as well as anecdotal evidence.

6: In 1985, the National Institute for Justice reported that:
60% of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."
57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."
74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."

Heres a couple of books folks might find interesting:
The Best Defense : True Stories of Intended Victims Who Defended Themselves With a Firearm
by Robert A. Waters
Cumberland House; ISBN: 1888952970
Paperback - 225 pages (October 1998)

Armed & Female
by Paxton Quigley
St Martins Mass Market Paper; ISBN: 0312951507
Mass Market Paperback Reissue edition (July 1994)
Highly Recommended For Women! I have read this book as have several women friends who recommend it to other women. Paxton Quigley documents her own experience as she converted from a fear of guns to a proponent of women's rights, especially the right to keep and bear arms.


Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns
by J. Neil Schulman, Gary Kleck (Afterword), J. Neil Shulman
Pulpless.Com Inc; ISBN: 1584450576
Paperback - 318 pages (July 1999)


More Guns, Less Crime : Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics)
by John R., Jr. Lott
Paperback - 321 pages 2nd edition (July 2000)
Univ of Chicago Pr (Trd); ISBN: 0226493644
Hardcover - 225 pages (May 1998)
Univ of Chicago Pr (Trd); ISBN: 0226493636
Documents Professor Lott's study and conclusions that concealed firearm carrying by law abiding citizens helps to lower crime.
Kinda dry IMO but still interesting.

There is more but I am doing some research on that. As for the suicide information. I'll take that in advisement.

Seshat you said:

Mature, responsible people can have guns if they want

Several times. Two questions please define exactly and in legally available terms what exactly a mature responsible person is and then describe to me who would be allowed to decide for me that I am a mature responsible person and how one would be able to maintain that status?

Also you said this:

I do have problems with guns in the hands of panicky scared people who don't know how to shoot properly, have firearms greater than their ability to handle, and don't have the skills to determine who is an aggressor and who is an innocent.

Well my response to that is we need mandatory firearms ownership for all citizens of adult age and training begining in public schools.

Also:

I don't distrust my military, or my police force. In fact, I put my trust in them, and respect them.

Why do you trust and respect them? I do not trust my government as they are not there for my protection or personal needs. they are there to serve society in general and not me the individual. It is up to me the individual to see to my own needs and that includes self-defense! Same thing for the police department and other law enforcement agencies. They are not there to protect me. they are not always available when i need them and in many cases they will act contrary to my best interests and needs. And this is having members of the us military in my family. I respect the individual members on an individual basis taken as a whole the government,the military and the police cannot be trusted to help you when you need them as an individual unless it is part of what "society" calls for.

and

Agreed, CancelMyService. I didn't even bother reading my way through the list - it's a list of excessively simplistic arguments which are totally not what I, or anyone else I know who actually thinks, would say. It reads like a list created by a guns-for-everyone advocate who assumes everyone who disagrees with him/her is an idiot.

Which is actually not true as I have personally encountered each and everyone of those arguments at one time or another in discussions. I'll agree that it is rare for anyone person to have all those attitudes in the same person at the same time however taken as a whole that list is a reasonable valid list of anti-firearms attitudes I have encountered as well as others in the pro-firearms lobby. And while I do not think everyone who is anti-firearms is an idiot (misguided and not quite understanding yes quite frequently they are) There are quitr a few ignorant parrots out there just repeating the propaganda.

Oh and as for the "heroes" of flight 93 they are just as dead armed or not. Being trapped in a metal tube with dedicated religious fanatics in control of it does not matter a whit if they had been armed or not. the "heroes" arguably may have saved other lives but the fanatics could just as easily have brought it down in podunksville city hall killing others. The heroes where never in control of the situation and while influencing the time and place the plane came down it was fully at the control and discretion of the terrorists. Sorry for being so sacriligious as to not see flight 93 as the glorious heroes everyone else wants to make them out to be. they where victims. They where trapped in an aluminum tube hurtling through the sky and all they did was help choose when they died. A dead hero is still a dead person. It was a sad and pointless event in the scope of humanity that was entirely preventable beore the plane left the ground. But thats a discussion for another thread.

[Seshat]

<snipped: guns-as-defence statistics>

1:Calling 911 means the police are still at least several minutes away and the knife wielding thug isn't going to wait that long. Plus the police have no obligation to provide timely protection.

This is true. This is part of why I'm undecided about the whole gun debate.

2: Drug dealers can afford to "throw away" a $90,000 airplane smuggling $10 million in drugs, a $1,000 tax isn't much of a deterrent, except to hard working law-abiding civilians.

3:The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, isn't about the National Guard that was created by Congress 130 years later in 1917. The national guard is a federal level military force, not the militia that the orginal framers where referring to. See this quote:

Both of these arguments are specific to the USA. I'm not familiar enough with this aspect of US culture to debate either way.

4:Address all crime and not just crime with guns.
<snip: a whole bunch more guns-and-crime stuff>

I don't know enough to make an informed statement about crime rates in general. I'm limiting my contribution to this aspect of the discussion to what I do know - mostly the stuff I commented on earlier about guns in 'crime-of-passion' situations.

Seshat you said: Several times. Two questions please define exactly and in legally available terms what exactly a mature responsible person is and then describe to me who would be allowed to decide for me that I am a mature responsible person and how one would be able to maintain that status?

I quote myself:
"How do we tell who's mature & responsible? Um. Dunno. Maintaining the ability to handle the non-disabled guns they have might be one useful yardstick. Not enough on its own, but it'd help."

Well my response to that [my comment about panicky scared people with firearms they can't control - Seshat] is we need mandatory firearms ownership for all citizens of adult age and training begining in public schools.

That, I'll strongly disagree with. For one thing, it's an erosion of my civil liberties - I might choose NOT to have a gun. In fact, in this particular household I would. We have two people in this house with neurochemical problems.

Now, firearms training is a different matter. Teaching our citizenry how to safely handle cars, firearms, and household chemicals is a good idea.

Why do you trust and respect them? [them = police and military - Seshat] I do not trust my government as they are not there for my protection or personal needs.

Ah. There's one of the big cultural differences between thee and me. Here, the military serves society in general, the police serve individuals. Oh, sure, the police aren't necessarily as staffed as we'd like, or as equipped as we'd like, but I've always had cordial and helpful dealings with the police.

It is up to me the individual to see to my own needs and that includes self-defense!

Yes. I accept that the fact that I cannot run, can fight only to a limited extent, and cannot trust myself with a gun limits my ability to defend myself. Quite severely, in fact.

But even within those limitations, I take responsibility for defending myself. Mostly, I work towards slowing down potential home invaders, and I'm careful where I go and what I do.

I respect the individual members on an individual basis taken as a whole the government,the military and the police cannot be trusted to help you when you need them as an individual unless it is part of what "society" calls for.

And my society is different from yours. It looks like this is one of the differences.

Which is actually not true as I have personally encountered each and everyone of those arguments at one time or another in discussions.

I quote myself:
"which are totally not what I, or anyone else I know who actually thinks, would say"

I didn't say noone would say those things. I said they're not what a subset of people - I and the thinking people I personally know - would say such things.

I believe you - I can see that some people would say stuff like that - but they're not arguments I personally would respect. Admittedly, in some cases they're exaggerations of arguments I'd respect - arguments taken from the sane to the silly.

There are quitr a few ignorant parrots out there just repeating the propaganda.

Every political argument has its extremists.

Oh and as for the "heroes" of flight 93 they are just as dead armed or not.

I brought them up because you said: "If there is no armed opposition to a murderer then that murderer will have all the time in the world."

They're just one of the examples of people who have (in their case, partially) taken control away from murderers while being themselves unarmed. Your statement is too sweeping to be accurate, I'm afraid.

Narrow it down, and you can become accurate. Maybe 'If there is no armed opposition to a murderer, then whether the murderer can be stopped is dependent on many factors, including what the murderer is armed with, and the skill and courage of the victims and bystanders.'

[rahmota]

Seshat: Alright I saw you say you didnt know how to define that but I was just pointing out that mature responsible person is rather hard to pin down in the definitive black and white litmus of legal definitions in a rather rhetorical way. Defineing mature and reasonable by governmental mandate is a very, very, dangerous thing to allow to happen. It would give governmental power over a person's life beyond any that a government deserves.

I say manadatory firearms ownership as I admire the swiss people for their firearms requirements. Every country should model its firearms attitudes on switzerland. They have the lowest crime rate and have never been bothered by invaders due to every adult citizen being armed. An armed society is a polite and safe society.

I'll give you your cultural differences. In many ways the united states is quite different as we have a military and a civilian police force seperate and with different roles. Many other countries have the two forces one in the same. Also the US is sort of a john wayne cowboy self reliant pioneer coutnry where folks had to be self sufficient in all regards and we are not as willing to place all our trust and faith in governments and authorities to look out for our personal good.

As for heroes I would have to say that a hero is a person who has the ability or capacity to run away or not become involved but chooses to do so anyway.

And how about this one then since my previous comment was deemed not accurate enough? A criminal faced with armed resistance is less likely to be able to acheive his criminal goals. Ie its hard to rape, plunder and pillage with a hole in your chest.

[CancelMyService]

If we're going to list stats, lets have both sides represented:

The deaths of more than 30 people on the campus of Virginia Tech, in what is probably the deadliest incident of its kind in American history, should renew the debate on gun ownership in the United States. The Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva estimated that there are between 238 and 276 million guns owned by civilians in the United States. Unless more strict laws are enacted regarding gun ownership, thousands of innocent lives will continue to be lost to what has become a tragic pandemic in the U.S.The issue of gun ownership in the U.S. is centered on the Second Amendment to the Constitution: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Opponents of gun control emphasize the last part of the sentence, “…the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” neglecting to give much weight to the first part of the sentence pointing to a “well regulated militia” as the holders of this constitutional entitlement.

Average citizens are not the ones entitled to claim a constitutional right under the Second Amendment, but rather those belonging to a group of civilians trained as soldiers who, in case of an emergency, must become available to supplement the regular armies. Accordingly, in a 1982 ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held: “Construing [the language of the Second Amendment] according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia…We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

Self-defense is often cited to justify the people’s right to bear arms, yet research has shown that a gun kept in a home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household or a friend than an intruder. Resorting to firearms to resist a violent assault has shown to increase the victim’s risk of injury and death.

Gun violence places a significant burden on health and rehabilitation services. In some cities in the U.S., emergency rooms (nicknamed “knife and gun clubs”) report frequent gridlock. Although non-lethal injuries caused by firearms have recently go down in number, this is most likely due to the fact that emergency room doctors and technology are now better equipped to deal with these injuries.

In a study by Dr. Arthur Kellermann published in The New England Journal of Medicine, it was found that, excluding factors such as previous history of violence, class, race, etc. a household where there is a gun is 2.7 times more likely to experience a murder than a household without one. It has been found that the number of teenagers who die from gunshot wounds in the United States is greater than for all other causes combined.

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, among 26 developed countries, 86% of gun deaths among children under 15 occurred in the U.S. In 1998 (the last year when this kind of statistic was compiled) 19 people were murdered with handguns in Japan, compared to 11,789 in the U.S.

Groups opposing gun control in the U.S. spend enormous sums of money lobbying elected and government officials. Thus, the Gun Owners of America spent $18 million between 1997 and 2003, and the National Rifle Association spent $11 million over the same period of time for those purposes.

According to the Children’s Defense Fund, since 1979, gun violence has resulted in the deaths of 101,413 children and teens in the U.S. This is more than the total number of American fatalities since the end of World War II, including the Korean, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

There is no successful strategy for dealing with youth gun violence. The complexity of the phenomenon demands integral, comprehensive approaches flexible enough to adapt to specific circumstances. Educational, judicial and prison reform measures are necessary to control gun ownership, and to assess and monitor mass media’s social responsibility.

The right to bear arms without restrictions is a step backwards to controlling violence. It contradicts experience and the belief of peaceful people everywhere that eliminating guns will lead to a safer, more humane world.

[Seshat]

Defineing mature and reasonable by governmental mandate is a very, very, dangerous thing to allow to happen. It would give governmental power over a person's life beyond any that a government deserves.

And yet we approximate it all the time. Age of consent. Age limits for alcohol or tobacco sales. Age limits for driving.

How about this compromise, for firearms: possession of firearms requires a person to pass a shooting ability test, a gun-safety knowledge test, and a danger recognition test. The tests would be created and maintained by experts, probably chosen by a committee including civilians.

The shooting ability is simply so that a skinny and physically weak person isn't responsible for some uber-powerful gun that will throw her on her butt; or that someone like me whose judgement and reactions are impaired by illness doesn't end up being responsible for - well, for any gun.

The gun-safety test I think you'd have absolutely no qualms about, presuming it was a reasonable test and was run fairly.

The danger recognition test would probably require coursework before hand, and the coursework would probably be based on such stuff as the five stages of violent crime, the Ability/Opportunity/Intent(or Jeopardy) triangle, and the legal ramifications of self-defence. I'd like to see it also include material on crime avoidance, such as recognition of fringe areas, recognition of imminent violent behaviour, and 'run TO safety, not AWAY from trouble'.
(The danger recognition course would also be very useful for people who can't run, can't fight, and can't shoot. But we can learn to use our brains!)

I want people doing the danger recognition stuff because knowing that stuff reduces paranoia (in healthy people). It reduces the chance of being shot because some idiot thinks I 'looked at him funny', and actually increases the sane non-criminal's ability to defend themselves against actual criminals.

Anyway - I'd accept provably knowing gun safety and danger recognition, and being physically capable of using one's choice of gun, as a suitable legally-achievable substitute for 'mature and responsible'.

I say manadatory firearms ownership as I admire the swiss people for their firearms requirements. Every country should model its firearms attitudes on switzerland. They have the lowest crime rate and have never been bothered by invaders due to every adult citizen being armed. An armed society is a polite and safe society.

According to wikipedia (not the most guaranteed-accurate source, I grant), once Swiss military service is over, ownership of a weapon is optional.

I'm sure there are other factors to their criminal history, and I know that their geography (as well as the Swiss pikemen) are part of the reason they've never been successfully invaded.

However, given that I can assume gun safety, weapons training and (presumably) danger recognition are part of their military service, I'll grant that the Swiss method is one I'd find acceptable.

Just be prepared for it not to work as well at crime reduction outside Switzerland, due to cultural differences.

I'll give you your cultural differences.

Thank you.

As for heroes I would have to say that a hero is a person who has the ability or capacity to run away or not become involved but chooses to do so anyway.

I'll agree with that, but I'll also extend it to people who, for whatever reason, know that their circumstances have doomed them, but who work to minimise the effects of their doomed state on others.

I enjoy disaster shows. (What can I say, I'm a bit of a ghoul!)
One of the things I see many times in disaster shows is black box evidence that the cockpit crew, and sometimes the cabin crew, of a plane know that the plane is going down and there's nothing they can do to stop it. But they spend the last minutes of their lives making sure the plane goes down in an empty field or on water. Usually while making some attempt to land softly enough that some of their passengers might survive.
To me, that's heroic too.

That's why I respect the non-terrorists aboard flight 93. It's reasonable to assume that the hijackers' plan was to crash their plane into a building as well.
If the crew had followed their training, and the passengers had followed the conventional wisdom about plane hijackings before September 11, the hijackers would have succeeded.

The hijackers didn't. The most likely variable is the passengers and crew tried. What little is known for sure about what happened about that flight matches that hypothesis. The crew and the passengers realised that this hijacking was different and the conventional wisdom was wrong, thought on their feet, got involved, and tried. We'd probably all prefer it if they'd survived as well. But they gave it a go. I respect that.

And how about this one then since my previous comment was deemed not accurate enough? A criminal faced with armed resistance is less likely to be able to acheive his criminal goals. Ie its hard to rape, plunder and pillage with a hole in your chest.

Granted.

[rahmota]

Cancel: Where did you find those numbers and that quote at? Just curious as it mentions Sarah Brady and Handgun Control inc or whatever she is xcalling that antigun zani extremist group she fronts for now. And yes in case you cant tell I think Sarah Brady is a bitter lying nazi hag who wants to destroy the constitution and the freedoms of american citzens and wouldnt know the truth if it bit her on the butt. I wouldn't trust her to tell me my hair was on fire I'd get a second opinion.

But suffice to say I would probably doubt or question most of that article as it definately shows its antifirearms bias very strongly. And continues to espose several outright LIES that the antifirearms folks like to propagate. Also Dr kellerman's study was highly biased and cherry picked. Also he skewed his numbers by only looking at highly urban areas with gang and other criminal activities already in place. Also regard the follwoing involving sarah brady and the aforementioned study by Dr kellerman:

People] want [a gun] for self protection but have no clue how to use it, how to keep it safely from kids, and in that situation, that gun is 43 times more likely to be misused than it ever is to be used effectively in protecting ones' self. That statistic comes from the New England Journal of Medicine. It has been researched over the years that a gun in the home is much more a danger to the owner.



Sarah likes to use this "43 times" statistic, even though the author of the
study admits that his study was flawed and, at best, the number should be
closer to 2.7 times. But the true story is in how the study evaluated data.

Remarkably, the author excluded all other legitimate uses, including occasions
where a gun was used a gun for protection but a shot was never fired or a
criminal simply wounded or frightened away. This is equivalent to claiming
airplanes are an public danger due to the number of yearly deaths without
accounting for the number of passengers or miles safely flown!

source:= Taking Control - Viewpoints Pro & Con in the Gun Debate

a household where there is a gun is 2.7 times more likely to experience a murder than a household without onea household where there is a gun is 2.7 times more likely to experience a murder than a household without one

Really? I'll tell that to the hundredds if not thousands of citizen households in america that go their entire lives with firearms in the home and never have a single murder in them.

Also you quoted

Accordingly, in a 1982 ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held

but

More recently, in the U.S. v. Verdugo decision of 1990, the Supreme Court (kinda trumps a mere appellate court) held that when the phrase, "the people" is used in the context of the Second Amendment, it means "individuals" --- as to mean "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"; these are the same "people" mentioned in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

Source =:^ Miguel A. Faria, Jr., MD. The Second Amendment - Reaching a Consensus as an Individual Right

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

An anti-firearm, anti-american, anti-constitutional terrorist organization which should be expelled from this country and sent to some third world nation where citizens dont have rights and freedoms to see how much better off they are here.

A copuple quotes from their founder Sarah Brady:

...I don't believe gun owners have rights."
-- Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, Incorporated,
from the Hearst Newspapers Special Report, "Handguns in America" October 1997

Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.
Sarah Brady

source=: Collected quotations of Sarah Brady from google.

The deaths of more than 30 people on the campus of Virginia Tech

Which could have been stopped earlier if there had been an armed student available to respond and end the violence with quick reactions instead of having ther students be disarmed sheep waiting to be rescued by the authorities.

Seshat:

And yet we approximate it all the time. Age of consent. Age limits for alcohol or tobacco sales. Age limits for driving.

Age of consent does not mean anything. All that means is that the person is now X amount of years old and therefore the action in question is legal for them It has no being on behavior or maturity. Also age of consent such as that is based on a biased moral system and should be abolished or at the very least set to 16 for all regards.

Anyway - I'd accept provably knowing gun safety and danger recognition, and being physically capable of using one's choice of gun, as a suitable legally-achievable substitute for 'mature and responsible'.

Well as long as there where no records kept, liscences or other registration for the classes or to own a firearm then i'd agree with that. Firarms registration and liscencing being a dangerous tool used by oppressive and evil governments everywhere.

Also those classes begining in high school or middle school would be mandatory for graduation would be an acceptable choice.

As for the choice of firearm. Eh that should be left up the individual. Most people will figure out for themselves quite quickly what sort of firearm is suitable for their needs. One of the reasons I like shopping at firearms stores with a range attached to them.

extend it to people who, for whatever reason, know that their circumstances have doomed them, but who work to minimise the effects of their doomed state on others.

Thats just dying well. Not everyone lives well but some manage to die well. An honorable and valient death in the cause of their duty is not somethign heroic. It is what is to be expected. Being doomed and managing to live through it is heroic. If flight 93 passengers had managed to regain control of the plane and land it somewhere (even in a field) and get most of the folks off that would have been heroic. Knowing you ARE going to die and choosing where or when is not heroic its just expected behavior of an honorable person. I know its a rather klingon/viking attitude but its truely what I believe. A firefighter running into a burning building is just doing his job, its what he choose to do with his life. he is not a major hero. You or me, joe citizen running into a burning building with no equipment or training and rescusing someone is being a hero as we could and probably rightly should have stayed out of it but didnt. A soldier in iraq is not a real hero. They are an honored and brave soul who does their duty and sometimes beyond but it is what they choose to do and volunteered to do. A soldier charging a machine gun nest so that his unit can take the bunker is a minor hero but he died doing his duty so he is among the honored dead.

But that is not to say that I do not respect and honor those who at least stood up and died well trying to take the plane back. I sincerely do and regard them as among the honored dead whose deeds serve as a model for others.

But anyhow we are drifting off the firearms control topic here with the introduction of heroes and all. Suffice to say that your definition and mine of a hero are probably not going to align as I have seen and lived under high standards of what is expected from a person by their duty and honor coming from a military family.

[CancelMyService]

It's not like Sarah Brady's husband was brain damaged by gunfire intended for the President, clearly SHE's the one who's an un-American Nazi.

BTW, can we please retire the un-American slur against anyone who has a viewpoint that disagrees with the stereotypical right wing? It's just so beyond played out that I just mentally discount the opinion of anyone who uses it since it's such a lazy attack on someone who differs from you.

Also, it should be pointed out that when the Constitution was written, I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who did not want the US to have a permanent standing army. He knew it was important to be able to mobilize a force for defense when attacked, but he did not want a full time army. Hence the Second Amendment, so that there would be a well trained milita to call upon when needed in times of defense. Of course now when reading the Second Amendment in the context of being a nation that *has* had a standing army for hundreds of years, it's very easy to interpret it as saying the framers wanted us all to be armed to the teeth. Unfortunately, it's just not correct.

Surely there's groups on both sides who fudge facts to further their cause, but there's just something a little creepy about the more fervent pro-gun people. I think it's the glamorization of the Old West that makes people think the solution to all problems is just a well armed populace. Can you imagine the carnage if Virginia Tech was full of terrified students with firearms? You probably could have multiplied the death toll by ten at least. Scared/angry people + firearms = carnage.

Basically, if you want to own guns, fine. Acting like anyone who wants to put reasonable limits on dangerous, lethal devices is some sort of terrorist makes you sound exactly like someone who shouldn't be around lots of guns. I'm speaking in a general sense BTW, don't want to give the impression I'm singling anyone out in this thread.

[Seshat]

BTW, can we please retire the un-American slur against anyone who has a viewpoint that disagrees with the stereotypical right wing? It's just so beyond played out that I just mentally discount the opinion of anyone who uses it since it's such a lazy attack on someone who differs from you.

Oh, I dunno. I'm proud to be un-American. Not being American at all does help with that, I suppose.

As for the term 'un-American' itself: it's very closely associated with McCarthyism, which was a very serious abuse of the exact same freedoms that rahmota's so very strong in the defence of. The House Committee on Un-American Activities is the first thing I always think of when I see the term.

An honorable and valient death in the cause of their duty is not somethign heroic. It is what is to be expected.

I'll agree to disagree with you on the topic of what is and isn't heroic. It's clear we have vastly different definitions.

I'll also agree to disagree with you on the topic of trust or lack thereof in government. Another topic on which we have vast differences.

I don't think you're ever going to convince me on gun ownership or control, nor am I ever going to convince you. But I understand your 'side' of the debate much better, and for that I thank you.

If you have any questions about my 'side', that you think I can answer, I would be happy to attempt to. I suspect, however, that either cultural or value differences will ensure that our opinions will never match.

Edit to add: this is probably a bit pedantic, but the term you're looking for in regards to Sarah Brady is 'fascist'. I think it's highly unlikely that Brady is, or has ever been, a member of the National Socialist Worker's Party.
According to Godwin's law, you've just lost this debate.