Gun control

[pmdezso]

Everyone I know who keeps a gun 'concieled' in the car has it in the glove box.

It can't be reached if someone already has a gun pointed at you, but you can easily prepare it if you feel like you are nearing a dangerous place/time.

my dad puts them in a safe, he has a few pistols, a rifle, and a wicked crossbow pistol!

 

[thesneakster]

I guess that i may have a different perspective of this because of where i live. I mean, we get burgalaries, but only burgalaries, not any of these ones where they come in, steal your stuff and then decide they'll kill you (i mean, i guess that everyone must think like that over in America, the Jails must be five star or something ). However, there are cases of people getting hurt. How? by confronting the flippin burgulars.

This is my advice: instead of getting a gun, get a good home and contence insurance policy, and let them take it, call the police ect., but for gods sake, don't try and challange them. It is extremely likely to go badly.

And ask yourself this, espically Narcissus:

Do you really wan't to kill someone?

 

[Edwards]

• gg

 

[Thingy Master]

Ive always wanted to collect guns just because I'm facinated with them. They are designed for upmost effeciancy, not to sell like everything else in this world.

We have a gun safe 12x4x4 feet, very nice one all we have is a gun my great grandma used to own, a knockoff luger (looks like a real one though, I find it funny that my great grandma had a luger in her purse).

 

[Cirdan]

This is my advice: instead of getting a gun, get a good home and contence insurance policy, and let them take it, call the police ect., but for gods sake, don't try and challange them. It is extremely likely to go badly.

Seconded. My grandmother was killed by a thief. Why? she wanted to shoot him. He asked for the car keys, and instead she reached for a gun in her bed-side drawer. Needless to say, she was dead before she could have pointed it at him. Just having a gun gives you no assurance you will be able to protect yourself with it; it does make the thieves more likely to shoot you.

 

[Merentha]

As far as anecdotal evidence goes, Cirdan's is more compelling than others I've seen in this thread.

As for dealing drugs, that's profits, and does not in and of itself involve any act of violence. Furthermore it's GOOD profits. Just like corporate crime it is usually motivated by greed.

Actually, the profit margins for most drug dealers are fairly low, last time I had heard.  The average dealer in Washington DC makes about the equivalent of minimum wage, all things considered.

 

[Kissaki]

As for dealing drugs, that's profits, and does not in and of itself involve any act of violence. Furthermore it's GOOD profits. Just like corporate crime it is usually motivated by greed.

Actually, the profit margins for most drug dealers are fairly low, last time I had heard.  The average dealer in Washington DC makes about the equivalent of minimum wage, all things considered.

Considering that drug dealing does not amount to a full time job, those are good profits.

 

[Javelin]

I want to tackle a few issues Archonsod and Crazed Rabbit have been debating. Mainly because it's good practice for me as student of English who has to work on debating skills, and secondly because gun control in the U.S. is a matter I, as an European, find hard to understand.

Oh, and the students have "attacker" and "defender" in big glowing letters above their heads? Or do we assume all students are psychic and can spot the mass murderer in a room full of identical armed men?
Also, there's a difference between "I can carry a gun without shooting myself" and "I can neutralise a hostile threat". I very much doubt the licence covers much of the latter.

  It's easy when: you hear gunshots coming towards you in a building; one of your classmates takes out his gun and points it at the door; the attacker walks in, weapons in hand, and gets shot at.

You do realise that you are describing a "best-case scenario" do you? Is it not possible that the person walking in to the room is not the attacker, but someone else: perhaps a "good" little vigilante chasing the original attacker? There would be numerous incidents of kids in schools "playing tag" with guns. (The only difference would be in the order of who is "it".)

Permit holders aren't going to wave their weapons around, and they certainly aren't going to disobey police orders.

Because good guys never mis-hear anything and always recognise the police from the bad peopletm

  It [owning and carrrying a gun] makes you safer and decreases crime.

You arrive at this conclusion from two "facts":
1 -America is getting more armed with every year.
2- And our violent crime rate is going down.
Great, you've managed to establish that these two things are happening at the same time. I guess that's all the proof we need. I'm sure there are no other significant factors contributing to declining crime rates, than that owning more guns makes you more safe.

Doesn't actually answer the point Since automobile accidents will occur anyway, I guess we might as well remove the brakes too, huh?

It answers the point, which seemed to imply that banning guns would make these violent incidents go away.

True, banning guns would not make violent incidents go away.
I bet there would less of them, and that they would be less serious, though.

You do know that millions of people use their guns to defend themselves each year?  That taking away guns would increase violence because all those who used them defensively would now be a victim? 

Good grief, are you saying violence to rob someone is morally equivalent to using force to defend yourself?  Geez, wouldn't you rather all 'violence' was due to people successfully defending themselves from criminals, and not criminals attacking and killing people?

No, it's you saying that you really don't care how many people die as a result of the (ab)use of guns. It's all hunky-dorey as long as it's the bad peopletm getting killed. Gee, am I glad we have morally righteous people like you to decide whose life is worth something. It's also you turning the conversation away from the amount of violence (which you first claimed would be affected) to the value of lives lost, when you're losing the argument. Archonsod was only anwsering your question, which is not evidently clear in your reply. Get your **** together, gun-boy.

Crazed Rabbit, you're dodging the issue, throwing everything at it (including the kitchen sink) and for what? You have a right to bear arms, and you have the right to an opinion, but as a literary fellow once put it: "only an idiot cannot change his opinion". If you won't abmit that U.S. gun legistlation sucks, at least give Archonsod credit for the good points he makes.

On a slightly different note:

If someone was breaking into your house and you had a gun that you were, by law, allowed to use in protection wouldn't you use it? Being put in jail for that is like taking our constitution and pissing all over it.

Which doesn't seem like a bad idea. Don't take me wrong, there are good things about your constitution. The fact that it cannot be changed is just not one of them.

Finally, it is my opinion that all people who feel that they NEED a gun, should not be allowed to have one. (Leave stun guns for the boys in blue; Hunters go back to using traps; and the armed forces, well , hopefully some day... )

Peace, Out.

 

[gordian12]

For those concerned about the 'rights' of criminals, read a little Hobbes, Locke, Wendell-Holmes, or Blackstone, the foundations of Anglo-American Common Law.  In acting against the Life, Liberty, or Property of another citizen, the criminal actor loses his same rights to all three.  The basis of civil society is the reciprocal acceptance of your fellow citizen's rights.  Those who fail to abide by that agreement have undermined the most basic and fundemental premise of civil society, and therefore are outside of civil society.

The talk about criminals being poor, misunderstood people is total drivel.  Look at New Orleans, after the Storm.  The people here went crazy with killing and rape after the storm, and even with the billions of federal dollars pouring in, the doubling of the local wage rates, and the multiplicity of jobs, our per-capita murder rate is almost double that of the city's nearest rival (Detroit) for the title of biggest craphole Murder Capital of the USA.  Construction is booming and contractors are desperate for work.  I have 3/4 of a degree, no job skill besides typing, and my income increased fourfold in the employment boom after Katrina.  Even Burger King, of all places, is offering $500 starting bonus plus $12/hour when $5.50 was average pre-storm.  Baton Rouge, nearby, went from averaging $6/hour to $10/hour advertised often everywhere from grocery stores to pharmacies.  Unskilled labor is in desperate demand.  Criminal behavior is not caused by poverty, there are poor people all over who don't kill each other.  Every one of us either was, is, or knew somebody who lived on minimum wage, paid bills paycheck to paycheck, and got by without robbing or killing anyone.  Criminal behavior is caused by evil, or in a Platonic sense, a malformed soul.  New Orleans seems to be very good at helping people malform their souls; what do you expect from one of the most crooked cities in the country, where bribery and cronyism is reelected with a wink and a nod.

Javelin - as for the Constitution being unchangable, all it takes is approximately 2/3 to 3/4 of people to agree.  I don't know the exact number, but it's not too difficult if it's a common sense provision that needs to be done, like changing the voting age to 18.  However, it keeps controversal and/or fad issues from being made law of the land.

 

[Merentha]

Gordian, for you to believe that violence is caused by evil, first you must acknowledge the existence of evil as understood by the common Judeo-christian societal norms.  Since saying "he did it because he was evil" is hardly conducive to determining the root causes, and thus averting further such events, other causes, including societal and economic pressures and other outside influences, must be looked at.

 

[gordian12]

Criminal behavior is caused by evil, or in a Platonic sense, a malformed soul. 

Actually, my quote is in a secular Hellenic sense, not Judeo-Christian.  Miseducation or deviancy might be a good may to compare it to something.

 

[Merentha]

Criminal behavior is caused by evil, or in a Platonic sense, a malformed soul. 

Actually, my quote is in a secular Hellenic sense, not Judeo-Christian.

Evil as a causative source of behavior is largely seen as Judeo-Christian, but I concede the point.  However, by your rationale, the proportion of poor, minority individuals with malformed souls would be higher than that of a white, middle class businessman in a comfortable, crime-free suburb.  The correlation between income, race, and murder is hardly ignorable, unless you subscribe to racist or social Darwinist ideals.

 

[gordian12]

Well, society as a whole disregards white-collar crime comparable to violent crime, so I would argue that criminality is across the spectrum, but Western society's focus on violent crime distorts the way it's reported.  The way I define crime is by failing to mutually uphold the respect for Life, Liberty, and Property.

edit: "among fellow citizens." should be appended to the last sentance.

 

[Cirdan]

Well, society as a whole disregards white-collar crime comparable to violent crime, so I would argue that criminality is across the spectrum, but Western society's focus on violent crime distorts the way it's reported.  The way I define crime is by failing to mutually uphold the respect for Life, Liberty, and Property.

edit: "among fellow citizens." should be appended to the last sentance.

As obviously, those dirty forreigners and anyone of terrorist descent should be raped, murdered and robbed.

 

[Hack McSlash]

Criminal behavior is caused by evil, or in a Platonic sense, a malformed soul. 

Actually, my quote is in a secular Hellenic sense, not Judeo-Christian.  Miseducation or deviancy might be a good may to compare it to something.

Welcome to the "Fundamental Attribution Error". People attribute a persons actions based on some inherit "Character", rather than attribute things to a persons environmental response. Look up psychological studies from Milgram or Lavey, and you'll notice that either (A) Evil is more prominent than good, (B) Criminal behavior is largely due to environmental/situational response.

 

[Javelin]

Basically anyone who lives in a city knows where the shady parts are.  A few discrete inquiries will probably get whatever illegal thing you desire.  And criminals are -SURPRISE! - not allowed to legally buy guns, so they have the know how already.

You don't think that it takes a bit more resilience to go asking after an illegal gun in the shady part of town, than to walk into a shop where they are legally sold? Banning guns would not STOP criminals from getting guns completely, but I'd prefer 2 bad-ass criminals with guns to 200 small-time muggers with guns on my block.

For all those thinking banning guns will suddenly make them all go away and criminals stop using them, read this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml

Mr. Kopel seems to spew out pretty much the same bull as you do. You don't think it's funny that as a model of a country of strict gun laws, he picks Jamaica. With a corrupt and inefficient police force it doesn't really matter what the laws are. You don't think that the police are as inefficient in the U.S., do you? Also, you don't think that the Independence institute kinda has to keep on churning out this particular brand of BS, since they are committed to the defence of the constitution (and are blind to its weaknesses).

Ah, loads of assumptions to back up gun control arguments.  Can't say I'm surprised.

This coming from you Gimme a break!

Around 15,000 people are killed by others per year using guns.  On the threat scale, it's rather low.

...So let's not even try?

Gun ownership is the last defense against a tyrannical government.  Governments killed tens of millions last century, so it's foolish to give the government complete control over your life.

So far, this is only argument from you that comes close to making sense, in my opinion.
Then again, is this really a threat in the U.S.? If we were talking about some African or Asian country I might not oppose this.
Also, the said governments that killed tens of millions include the democratically elected leadership of Nazi-Germany. And in the Soviet Union a gun wouldn't have done you much good, if they had decided that you were going to be put down, you were as good as gone. Guns are effective in overthrowing a government only if there IS a movement for it in existence. This, in context, is pure speculation, which you have indicated not to like. I can't wait to hear more self-contradictory spin from you.

 

[gordian12]

Look up psychological studies from Milgram or Lavey, and you'll notice that either (A) Evil is more prominent than good, (B) Criminal behavior is largely due to environmental/situational response.

Milgram’s experiment shows the human urge to conform to authority, and has nothing to do with criminality, a rejection of authority.  Furthermore, it showed no correlation to environment versus compliance to a sadistic order from authorities, other than a vast preponderance of men (and in later experiments, an even higher preponderance of women) to obey orders unquestioningly.  I’d even question whether “evil” could be applied to the experiment, rather that it was a test of human acceptance of a more generic authoritarianism, which seems to be considerable according to Milgram.

A purely environmental cause for criminality is impossible, because it would be replicable and documentable.  Sure, there are some environmental causes, such as living in a place where crime is glorified, working for a company where pressure is put on employees to violate laws, or where criminal actions are ignored or punishment is lax.  However, if we accept a purely environmental cause, than we abandon the idea that the “right” thing to do is self-evident and that humans are rational, autonomous actors.

“We find these things self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them being Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  If we believe that these things are truly self-evident, then you’d have to believe that either criminals purposely ignore a fact they know to be true, or else they’ve been completely brainwashed, a concept whose efficacy is highly controversial.

Back to the topic, it must be assumed, if one adheres to the basic premises of Anglo-American law and Western culture, that criminal actors consciously commit their vices without coercion, because they are deviants.  Their psyche (I’ll use that term instead of Plato’s soul, since soul has religious overtones) is warped.  They chose a path different from the self-evident truths of mutual respect for their fellow people, because human beings are autonomous actors, not puppets to outside forces.  Unfortunately, unlike metal, people are not infinitely malleable, and past a certain point, there is no recovery.  Our prison system in the USA shows that many can never be reformed.  By the time they’re breaking into occupied homes or mugging people, they’ve crossed a line, and the victim has every right at that person to protect themselves with lethal force.

Edit: I recognized Milgram, but the only things I could find on Lavey were links to some satanist LaVey and a town in Australia.

 

[Kissaki]

Milgram’s experiment shows the human urge to conform to authority, and has nothing to do with criminality, a rejection of authority.  Furthermore, it showed no correlation to environment versus compliance to a sadistic order from authorities, other than a vast preponderance of men (and in later experiments, an even higher preponderance of women) to obey orders unquestioningly.  I’d even question whether “evil” could be applied to the experiment, rather that it was a test of human acceptance of a more generic authoritarianism, which seems to be considerable according to Milgram.

Does rejection of authority also apply to organized crime, and gangs? People adhere first of all to their immediate authorities, which is not the government.

A purely environmental cause for criminality is impossible, because it would be replicable and documentable.  Sure, there are some environmental causes, such as living in a place where crime is glorified, working for a company where pressure is put on employees to violate laws, or where criminal actions are ignored or punishment is lax.  However, if we accept a purely environmental cause, than we abandon the idea that the “right” thing to do is self-evident and that humans are rational, autonomous actors.

“We find these things self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them being Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  If we believe that these things are truly self-evident, then you’d have to believe that either criminals purposely ignore a fact they know to be true, or else they’ve been completely brainwashed, a concept whose efficacy is highly controversial.

You're on a ramble, here. Who we are is a result of genes coupled with environment. The implications do not concern the declaration if independence, which is about the individual's worth as a human being, and has nothing to do whatsoever with the concepts of free will and determinism. In any case, the declaration of independence is not a psychological treatise. Subsequently, it does not hold free will to be self-evident, and even if it did (and even if free will WAS an established fact), your conclusion would be incomplete. Could they not ignore their victims' rights on a subconscious level, rather than a conscious one?

 

[Javelin]

I for one admit to being of the determinist view, Kissaki too?

 

[Kissaki]

Kissaki too.