So much for Democrats courting gun owners

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

True, but I believe it misses two points, and that they are:

1. The aforementioned differences in basic philosophies (at least as I perceive them); being that we here in America hold that the concept of individual liberty is the basic reason for our country's very existence.

2. The also aforementioned fact that America already has a huge privately-owned firearms base, and trying to ban all guns tomorrow would possibly lead to a new revolution. What works for Europe wouldn't necessarily work here, basically because of the mindset I mentioned in (1).

Thanks Steve, for accepting that I might have a point, and actually answering my questions.

From what you post, it looks like its not the guns themselves that are the issue, rather the right to have them, the individual liberty of bearing arms being infringed upon by the government. I don't buy it (ie, I believe you, but i don't like believing you :p). Which are the advocates of gun ownership attached to more, the guns or their right to have them?
If guns can be shown to have a net negative effect on society, should the concept of individual liberty prevail over the well-being of the society as a whole? I believe that the liberty of gun ownership in the US unfairly violates the "individual liberties" of many of it's citizens, such as the right to life.
I still don't know why that is, I'm getting pretty sick of asking the question and being quizzed on statistics instead (including SUBMAN1 questioning my figures, then 3 lines below posting wildly inaccurate figures). The numbers I've shown are correct, can anyone help me interpret them?

ASWnut - Those graphs show a general decline in violent & property crimes since the early 70's. (See, I noticed. A bit condescending, but hey I'll give it a try)
Notice the slowdown of the decrease from 2000 on, on both graphs. Would I be correct in saying that the Bush Administrations have been looser with gun control than the Clinton years? I'm open to correction here, but I think that's the case. So crime gets worse as gun control lessens. Of course, that's a huge leap to make from such general, non-specific data, but if you're happy doing that, I'm in. Any response to my previous post

As regards the article, it details one year out of what we've seen is a 30-year decline in crime. As I've already posted, both the murder and gun murder rates are significantly higher in the US than in another comparable country with vastly reduced gun ownership. Why do you think this is?

[TarJak]

Maybe I've missed the point a little here as well. I also think that those arguing for their freedoms are also missing the point a bit too. Where I live it is possible to legally (and illegally), obtain firearms. I think one of the biggest differences is the type of firearm that is available in both markets.

The question I would like answered by the Americans who are against gun controls is, whether the right to bear arms which was initiated by a group of rebels against the government of the time, who could not have possbily envisaged the types of weapons available to us today over 200 years later, is meant to give free reign to the people to choose whatever weapon they wish?

If for example in years to come there are hand versions of weapons with 400,000 rpm rates of fire or greater, are these to be available to anyone witha penchant for shooting things? Where does it stop? 20mm Gatlings or chain guns, Greande launchers, tanks, submarines, A10 attack aircraft. All come under the heading "arms", should governments cede that the "right" proclaimed 200 years ago will be applied to these weapons?

Wwhat is the benchmark at which limits are to be set, lethality?, rate of fire?, portability?

If the roving gangs post Katrina were armed with bazookas and M60's does that give you the "right" to escalate your legal arsenal to match it? If not why not? Your government has access to these weapons, so why not ordinary citizens just in case the buggers come looking to take your guns away?

"Ma break out the Minuteman missle launch codes, the FBI wants to take it away from us before we get to fire it at anyone!"

The history of warfare (and frankly that is what you are talking about when you arm yourself against marauding mobs or your own government), exactly matches human behaviour, hit me with your fist I'll use a stick, use a stick and I'll use a rock, use a rock and I'll get a sword and so on. Where does it stop?

[August]

Wwhat is the benchmark at which limits are to be set, lethality?, rate of fire?, portability?

You want limits? Here they are:

Explosive projectile weapon rounds like RPGs are not firearms, nor are private individuals allowed to own them here in the states. That goes for HE tank rounds, grenades and other similar weapons. You can own a tank, and the gun can be operational, you can even have solid shot or paint rounds for it but explosive rounds are totally illegal.

Automatic weapons (the real "assault weapons") as well as 20mm gatlings and quad 50 cals can be owned by private individuals provided they pay a hefty tax (a couple hundred dollars) and submit to a rather extensive FBI backround check.

Other firearms, including semi-automatics, pistols and certain shotguns are restricted to varying degrees by each state.

The question I would like answered by the Americans who are against gun controls is, whether the right to bear arms which was initiated by a group of rebels against the government of the time, who could not have possbily envisaged the types of weapons available to us today over 200 years later, is meant to give free reign to the people to choose whatever weapon they wish?

Your reducto ad absurdum argument is based on a false premise. Nobody has ever advocated giving everyone any weapon they wish. However I do think our founding fathers, if they were alive today would have been just as much in favor of private ownership of firearms as they were 200 years ago. Like Steve says, it's about the concept of individual freedom and that shouldn't change just because technology improves.

Now let me ask you a question in return. Our forefathers could hardly have envisioned a worldwide instant mass media capable of having such an immediate and detrimental effect on our nation either. Should therefore that same argument be used to restrict the freedom of speech? If not, why not?

Oh and BTW the right to keep and bear arms was not codified into our constitution until well after the end of the American revolution. These were educated men, leaders of their nation, who wrote the 2nd amendment. it wasn't, as you imply, just a group of rebels trying to stick it to the man as it were.

[TarJak]

Speech rarely kills anyone.

Given that you have accepted that there are and should be limits, then why not limit access further than it is so that rapid fire assault weapons are not readily available? Why not limit to bb guns for that matter.

In Australia you can legally own guns limited by rate of fire and calibre. I still don't see why this is such a threat to your "freedoms":hmm:

[August]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Speech rarely kills anyone.

Given that you have accepted that there are and should be limits, then why not limit access further than it is so that rapid fire assault weapons are not readily available? Why not limit to bb guns for that matter.

Well heck by that reasoning why not ban the posession of knives and clubs as well? No firearm in this country is readily available unless you buy it from the black market.
Perhaps speech will rarely kill anyone but the same could be said for so called "assault weapons". The last figure i heard on their use in crimes was less than one 10th of one percent. In contrast bin Ladens speeches inspired his followers to kill 3000 innocent people in one single day. Hitlers speeches killed millions more than that. The power of the spoken word isn't as harmless as you make it out to be.

In Australia you can legally own guns limited by rate of fire and calibre. I still don't see why this is such a threat to your "freedoms":hmm:

Thats because you are not an American. There are things Australia does that I don't understand either but i'm not about to try to argue against your right to do those things.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by August

Thats because you are not an American. There are things Australia does that I don't understand either but i'm not about to try to argue against your right to do those things.

Out of curiosity, why?

[TarJak]

I'm with Tchocky why?

Also note I'm not looking to curtail your right to bear arms as this has already been pointed out as inalienable. I just can't understand the link between the right to bear arms and the desire for that to extend to military class weapons such as AK47's. You guys already have limits, so why do they have to be so lax when tightening the restrictions has been shown to reduce the number of people killed in countries where there are tighter regulations. Isn't this the point we are arguing?

I don't care if you want to comment on our politics or not I'm just curious to understand the mindset that says you are comfortable with the number of people getting killed when there are simple steps that your gonvernment could take to preven that number from being reduced.

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Out of curiosity, why?

Because it's his country not mine.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Thanks Steve, for accepting that I might have a point, and actually answering my questions.

I'm a firm believer in the words of the French philosopher Joseph Joubert: "The purpose of argument or debate should be progress, not victory".

From what you post, it looks like its not the guns themselves that are the issue, rather the right to have them, the individual liberty of bearing arms being infringed upon by the government.

To some people, that's true. To people who are anti-gun-ownership the issue is the number of deaths brought about by guns, and I'm sure that there are a lot of gun owners who see no further than the guns themselves.

I don't buy it (ie, I believe you, but i don't like believing you :p). Which are the advocates of gun ownership attached to more, the guns or their right to have them?

I currently only own one gun, a much joked-about 1903-model Springfield rifle, and its bolt has been missing for so long it may possibly never function as a weapon again. This makes it easy for me to discuss it from a detached point of view and claim to speak to the principle of rights versus actually shouting about MY rights, even though I use self-defence as an argument. Of course there are many who don't care about rights one way or another, and merely want to argue the case for them keeping their guns; just as many on the other side argue not whether the right is important, but rather that they know someone who was killed with a gun. Both of these argue from emotion rather than reason, and both are (in my opinion) not to be trusted.

If guns can be shown to have a net negative effect on society, should the concept of individual liberty prevail over the well-being of the society as a whole? I believe that the liberty of gun ownership in the US unfairly violates the "individual liberties" of many of it's citizens, such as the right to life.

An excellent question. Part of it goes back to the American founders' distrust of a standing army. They believed that a government would always be tempted to use the army against its own people, and so the "Militia" concept was very dear to their hearts. The were sure that the only protection was to have every able-bodied male armed and trained to to battle, presumably against domestic abuse as well as foreign invasion. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do know that once I'm back on my feet and have my own place I plan to get a new pistol. I just don't know what kind yet.

I still don't know why that is, I'm getting pretty sick of asking the question and being quizzed on statistics instead (including SUBMAN1 questioning my figures, then 3 lines below posting wildly inaccurate figures). The numbers I've shown are correct, can anyone help me interpret them?

I can't help much there, as I'm a firm believer in Mark Twain's adage "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics". Further, I'll push my case by quoting another trite-but-true statistic: Last year, more than two million guns in America didn't shoot anybody.

One of the things about statistics that I don't trust is this: Since they don't seem to distinguish between good and bad shootings (there's such a thing as a good shooting?) they don't tell the whole story. Burglars shot by homeowners and even (I believe) police shootings are all lumped together under the heading "Handgun Murders". They also don't speak to burglars and other criminals who were chased away but not shot; and event that to my understanding happens several thousand times every year. I'm aware of at least three here in Salt Lake City recently; aware because they all happened to people I know personally.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

An excellent question. Part of it goes back to the American founders' distrust of a standing army. They believed that a government would always be tempted to use the army against its own people, and so the "Militia" concept was very dear to their hearts. The were sure that the only protection was to have every able-bodied male armed and trained to to battle, presumably against domestic abuse as well as foreign invasion.

I've noticed a lot of gun lobbyists defending their right to protect the country from excesses of government. It sounds dated, most of the excesses of government can't be shot at. Personally, I think that if a militia is the goal, then have a militia. Well-armed & well-trained rather than just well-armed. Having one without the other is risky and dangerous (arms without training, that is).

One of the things about statistics that I don't trust is this: Since they don't seem to distinguish between good and bad shootings (there's such a thing as a good shooting?) they don't tell the whole story. Burglars shot by homeowners and even (I believe) police shootings are all lumped together under the heading "Handgun Murders". They also don't speak to burglars and other criminals who were chased away but not shot; and event that to my understanding happens several thousand times every year. I'm aware of at least three here in Salt Lake City recently; aware because they all happened to people I know personally.

I posted Murders and Gun Murders, rather than manslaughter and police deaths. I believe shooting a burglar qualifies as manslaughter, open to correction though.
As regards the deterrence/intimidation factor, it's an excellent case for widespread gun ownership, but don't believe it's worth the cost.

Originally Posted by ASW

I meant: The total population of the UK compared to the US.

So the proportion of murderers increases with population? A country with population 50 million, and .02% of the population are murderers, yet should the population rise to 300 milion, that proportion would rise to .08%? I don't see how that could happen..I'm not a sociologist, but there seems to be the same wacko-to-normal ratio in most places

[August]

Again, violent crime rates are not going to be affected by restricting just one of means.

Even assuming that you could make a gun law that restricts the criminal element as much as it does the potential victims, which you can't, all that means is those with evil on their minds will just use another tool to do what they risk the death penalty to do.

As I said to Tarjak on the preceeding page, if you want to reduce violent crime then you need to address the CAUSES of violent crime. Just taking the guns away almost exclusively from the potential victims of violent crime is just not going to do it.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by August

Again, violent crime rates are not going to be affected by restricting just one of means.

Semi-agreed. They won't vanish, but I believe taking away a powerful means (completely, not just more control legislation) will show some benefit .

Even assuming that you could make a gun law that restricts the criminal element as much as it does the potential victims, which you can't, all that means is those with evil on their minds will just use another tool to do what they risk the death penalty to do.

Of course no law will restrict criminals by definition. I think it follows that if no-one can get guns, it will be harder for criminals to acquire them. Making guns prohibitively expensive (including effort and risk, not just money) for criminals would have a great effect on the numbers of guns on the country.
I know it's just one method, and that criminals set on violence will find another way, but can you think of a more powerful or destructive means that isn't already illegalised?

As I said to Tarjak on the preceeding page, if you want to reduce violent crime then you need to address the CAUSES of violent crime. Just taking the guns away almost exclusively from the potential victims of violent crime is just not going to do it.

I agree, it's not a solution. Removing guns from society won't stop crime, but it will stop school shootings, drive-by shootings etc. not totally of course, but if harsh enforcement and vigorous pursuit of arms traffickers was brought into play, the spread of illegal guns could be fought hard.
The root causes of the social problem of violent crime must be investigated. I think the symptom of gun violence is serious enough to warrant treatment as well.

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Of course no law will restrict criminals by definition. I think it follows that if no-one can get guns, it will be harder for criminals to acquire them. Making guns prohibitively expensive (including effort and risk, not just money) for criminals
would have a great effect on the numbers of guns on the country.

Perhaps slightly more difficult, but you're talking about a country with 5 thousand miles of land borders and millions of unregistered and untraceable guns already in the country, a significant percentage of them already in criminal hands, so you're talking years if not decades for this plan to have an effect.

Meanwhile law abiding people who have a real need to keep a firearm for defensive purposes will be either unable to afford one or unable to cut through the red tape and those 2 million instances where a gun in the hands of a victim prevented a crime from happening turn out differently making the violent crime rate skyrocket.

I know it's just one method, and that criminals set on violence will find another way, but can you think of a more powerful or destructive means that isn't already illegalised?

I can think of no more effective means by which a victim can stop an attacker than a gun. Anything less makes it a test of physical strength, one that the weaker among us will almost always loose.

I agree, it's not a solution. Removing guns from society won't stop crime, but it will stop school shootings, drive-by shootings etc. not totally of course, but if harsh enforcement and vigorous pursuit of arms traffickers was brought into play, the spread of illegal guns could be fought hard.

I disagree, especially with drive-by shootings. Gang bangers already have plenty of guns and they won't be giving them up just because it means they're addding one more crime to the many they're already committing. IMO, the bolded part of your paragraph is the only thing that could work, but I think it would require a level of "harshness and vigorous pursuit" so great as to literally turn this country into a war zone, not to mention forever alienating a large percentage of it.

The root causes of the social problem of violent crime must be investigated. I think the symptom of gun violence is serious enough to warrant treatment as well.

If the 20,000 gun control laws already on the books have not been effective in dealing with the symptom of gun violence what benefit would adding gun control law number 20,001 have? Really Dude, I understand that you believe in what you are advocating however piling more restrictions on our freedoms is not the way to do it.

[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

So the proportion of murderers increases with population? A country with population 50 million, and .02% of the population are murderers, yet should the population rise to 300 milion, that proportion would rise to .08%? I don't see how that could happen..I'm not a sociologist, but there seems to be the same wacko-to-normal ratio in most places

Jesus, this was such an easy question...

[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

ASWnut - Those graphs show a general decline in violent & property crimes since the early 70's. (See, I noticed. A bit condescending, but hey I'll give it a try)
Notice the slowdown of the decrease from 2000 on, on both graphs. Would I be correct in saying that the Bush Administrations have been looser with gun control than the Clinton years? I'm open to correction here, but I think that's the case. So crime gets worse as gun control lessens. Of course, that's a huge leap to make from such general, non-specific data, but if you're happy doing that, I'm in. Any response to my previous post

Yes, it SLOWED. IT DID NOT RISE. They are clearly still going down.

As I've already posted, both the murder and gun murder rates are significantly higher in the US than in another comparable country with vastly reduced gun ownership.

And that makes it wrong? Useless? Oh, and did you even click on the link that SUBMAN1 Posted (You didn't even reply to it)? Or Dean's link?


And what is a comparable country to you? England? And as the graphs showed, the crime rate is still dropping.