The problem with the Gun Control debate

[Riverman]

I think we can all agree that you and I, responsible law-abiding citizens, probably increase our level of personal safety by some degree by training ourselves how to use a gun and then owning one, given the current environment.

Now, shift your thinking. Instead of, well all the criminals who want to intimidate me have guns so I need one too, think that if we drastically reduced gun ownership nationally I personally would have a lot less to worry about. It simply does not make sense to argue that perpetuating gun ownership makes our society safer.

Furthermore, the policies pro-gun advocates support are inconsistent with self-defense. Will someone please answer for me one time why any American sitizen needs bullets that pierce bulletproof vests or weapons that fire multiple shots per second? I dont know about anyone else, but I would imagine hunting to be a drag when you have this much af an advantage...

[brad]

'think that if we drastically reduced gun ownership nationally I personally would have a lot less to worry about. '

maybe if youre a guy. what if youre a petite woman? you realize the police have no obligation whatsoever to protect you dont you?

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, shift your thinking. Instead of, well all the criminals who want to intimidate me have guns so I need one too, think that if we drastically reduced gun ownership nationally I personally would have a lot less to worry about. It simply does not make sense to argue that perpetuating gun ownership makes our society safer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor does it make any sense to assume that people who are intent on breaking the law (robbery, rape, murder, etc) will somehow magically obey a gun control law.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, the policies pro-gun advocates support are inconsistent with self-defense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where does is say anything about self defense only?

[ QUOTE ]
Will someone please answer for me one time why any American sitizen needs bullets that pierce bulletproof vests or weapons that fire multiple shots per second? I dont know about anyone else, but I would imagine hunting to be a drag when you have this much af an advantage...

[/ QUOTE ]

Here you’ve fallen into the Gun Control (people control) lobby rhetoric arguments.

First one fact:
Any high velocity rifle bullet will pierce a soft bulletproof vest. This is a scare argument.

Second – and the is the crux of the Gun lobby argument – who are you to decide what I do or don’t need or want?

Can I tell you what kind of house to buy (restricted to 2 bedrooms or less unless Military, police or Catholic (lighten up the last one was a joke!) What kind of car to drive? On and on and on…

[MMMMMM]

"you realize the police have no obligation whatsoever to protect you dont you?"

I don't think they teleport yet, either.

[MMMMMM]

"Furthermore, the policies pro-gun advocates support are inconsistent with self-defense. Will someone please answer for me one time why any American sitizen needs bullets that pierce bulletproof vests or weapons that fire multiple shots per second? I dont know about anyone else, but I would imagine hunting to be a drag when you have this much af an advantage..."

The citizens should be able to defend themselves against the government should the government become too terrible. Remember, absolute power corrupts. If the citizenry were completely disarmed, a police state would become more of a threat. Don't trust too much in government. Look at history to see why.

[Six_of_One]

I hear this argument all the time, but for me it just doesn't hold water. Do you really think the government is at all restrained, even the tiniest little bit, from rolling tanks down the streets simply because some people sleep with a gun under their pillow?

[slamdunkpro]

The armed citizenry outnumbers the military almost 20-1. Even without atrition, any sensible military type would have healthy respect for those odds.

[Boris]

Compare the human carnage that has taken place in Europe since the end of the US Civil War and then compare that to what has happened in the US.

I'll take the good ol USA any day.

Furthermore, even if a well armed citezenry had no impact whatsoever on keeping fascism in check (which I don't believe), you should have the right to go down fighting and not end up like a lamb headed to slaughter.

[MMMMMM]

As another poster pointed out, add into the equation the fact that if the government (say after a hypothetical coup) tried stuff like that, they would have to fight the average citizens plus those in the armed services who resisted/revolted plus those in the police forces who resisted/revolted. The fact that Joe Citizen is armed would make the whole country full of guerilla-type resistance. Remove the citizens' guns and there would be much less obstacle to a government power play. Look at Nazi Germany and the USSR and other examples of where a terrible government was not resistable after the citizens were disarmed. Don't think in terms of whether citizens could necessarily stop such a power play: rather consider the difficulties such widespread resistance would present to a totalitarian regime. The greater difficulties and obstacles, the less chance of such a thing occurring or succeeding.

Trusting too much in government is incredibly foolish when you look at history. Government is composed of people and people become corrupt. If they have you defenseless first, then you are often dead meat if it becomes in their interest to kill, enslave, oppress or steal from you.

[MMMMMM]

"Furthermore, even if a well armed citezenry had no impact whatsoever on keeping fascism in check (which I don't believe), you should have the right to go down fighting and not end up like a lamb headed to slaughter."

Exactly right.

[Six_of_One]

It's not that I trust the government, and I'm certainly not arguing for banning guns. I simply don't believe that resisting tyranny is a legitimate argument in favor of unrestricted gun ownership, not because the people don't have a right to resist in that manner if they so desire, but because any such resistance could not possibly rise above the level of a minor annoyance to a government intent on totalitarian rule.

A good friend of mine argues vehemently about his right to defend himself against the government "just taking over," but I think he grossly exaggerates the impact that he could have facing down a tank with his handgun (if he had one, which he doesn't).

[Riverman]

So let me get this right. We need assault weapons to be legal because the government will be less likely to "take over"? Give me a break guys.

[Ray Zee]

sure that is one of many reasons. look at iraq now. if they werent armed it would be all over. look at what russia faced in afganistan. it would be part of russia today if the mojahadeem werent armed from us. what would have happened with the jews in europe if they had kept arms and fought the germans. maybe if they were fighting to the end many wouldnt have gone into those boxcars like lambs. how you die when things turn bad is a personal decision. i would like to be able to make my own.

[MMMMMM]

It's a cumulative sort of thing...

Also, automatic weapons and so-called assault weapons, armor piercing shells, etc. could allow the citizenry to resist more effectively. Limit them to basic firearms and such resistance would be less effective.

I don't think we are in any near-term danger of government tyranny, but don't forget that the less able you are to defend, the more inviting a potential target you present. This is true whether the party contemplating violence against you is a mugger, a foreign country, or even your own government. It is true on small scale and large. We may never have to face a tyrannical government or a foreign military attack but why should it be any easier for either of them to conquer the general population.

[Six_of_One]

I understand your points, but I just think that in order to be an effective deterrent, there would have to be virtually no limits on the firepower private citizens are permitted to wield. The costs involved in such a scenario outweigh the benefits, in my opinion.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Right now there are no limits on the firepower a criminal can have.

[Boris]

what are the costs of such a scenario?

[Six_of_One]

[ QUOTE ]
Right now there are no limits on the firepower a criminal can have.



[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, at least in the sense that the only limit on the firepower a criminal can have is what he can manage to get his hands on. What does that have to do with this discussion?

[Six_of_One]

I'm not referring to monetary costs (at least not directly), but to the costs to society involved in the proliferation of deadly weapons far beyond what currently exists. It's a balancing act; certainly guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens can increase their safety up to a point. I have no problem with widespread handgun ownership. When I referred to costs, I was talking about the dangers I see in allowing ordinary people to own weapons with a destructive power far beyond that of an ordinary handgun. At the point where that is allowed, I believe we as a society cross the line from a net gain to a net loss in cost/benefit terms.

[MMMMMM]

"When I referred to costs, I was talking about the dangers I see in allowing ordinary people to own weapons with a destructive power far beyond that of an ordinary handgun. At the point where that is allowed, I believe we as a society cross the line from a net gain to a net loss in cost/benefit terms."


Why do you think that? Events like Columbine are extremely rare, aren't they?

Also, I think everyone should probably hesitate slightly when using the term "society."

[Boris]

is that the teachers were not armed.

[Riverman]

Just like taxes, right guys. If the economy is messed up, cut them no matter what and things will be fixed. What...thats not working? Cut taxes some more.

Or how about privatization. If the government is not providing a service well, privatize it. Couldn't be that we refuse to fund it (how are those Philadepphia schools doing guys? Privatized and still miserable.

And so it is with guns. We have a problem with crime, so the solution must be to get more guns in circulation. Violent crime remains the highest of any industrialized nation, and you continue to insist that the solution is more powerful, more numerous weapons.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Just like taxes, right guys. If the economy is messed up, cut them no matter what and things will be fixed. What...thats not working? Cut taxes some more.

Or how about privatization. If the government is not providing a service well, privatize it. Couldn't be that we refuse to fund it (how are those Philadepphia schools doing guys? Privatized and still miserable.

And so it is with guns. We have a problem with crime, so the solution must be to get more guns in circulation. Violent crime remains the highest of any industrialized nation, and you continue to insist that the solution is more powerful, more numerous weapons.



[/ QUOTE ]

How on earth are those comparisons valid?

Try again!

[HDPM]

Resistance is not futile. M mentioned a prior post on this that I wrote. So I'll try to be shorter. but look how much trouble the US military is having in Iraq. These folks are people we are willing to bomb. We have all the latest toys. They have some AKs, some explosives, the occasional good toy like an RPG or rocket or whatever. And they will drive the US out eventually. Count on it. We do not have the stomach to do what it takes there. Now lets look at a worst case in the US. Mind you I am not advocating this or hoping for this. (For the Ashcroft employees monitoring this board /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

The US military, all of it, is tasked with taking over this country. That's the mission. How much ground can they hold? After deserters leave to go fight in the resistance? After the weekend warriors desert? Even if they don't steal any weapons, let's just say they have to clear cities where people have .357 revolvers and .30-.30 rifles. You don't need to take out a tank. Think about it.

I do not think that will happen, or we will get to that. But history says it could happen easily. And places like Vietnam and Iraq will tell us it is damn hard to hold ground against a lightly armed citizenry who hates you and won't stop fighting. I mean "5000 insurgents" in Iraq scare the US military. Now take California, a state with horrendous gun control and a 35 year tradition of trying to disarm the citizens. Iraq would look like a picnic.

[MMMMMM]

"Violent crime remains the highest of any industrialized nation, and you continue to insist that the solution is more powerful, more numerous weapons."

Russia has a higher violent crime rate than the USA, so your statement is wrong.

By the way, Russia also has more restrictive gun laws.

[Zeno]

Part of the solution to the violent crime problem is knowledge, discipline, and proper education. This does not come about by imposing gun-related regulatory statues that are burdensome, hard to implement, probably unconstitutional, and at best do little or nothing to stop any violence.

[ QUOTE ]
[US] Violent crime remains the highest of any industrialized nation,

[/ QUOTE ]

We rank first or close to first in many areas, this is who we are.


[ QUOTE ]
so the solution must be to get more guns in circulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said that? Not that it isn't a bad idea. If more honest citizens were knowledgeable about firearms, instead of fearful, and took the use of firearms as a civic duty and responsibility then we would have a safer society, in my opinion.

Guns are Good. Guns are useful.

-Zeno

[Six_of_One]

I don't know. Perhaps I'm underestimating the difficulty involved in subduing people with weapons such as handguns and rifles. It just seems to me that there is a real difference between that and the situation in Iraq, where they have automatic weapons, explosives, mortars, and rockets capable of shooting down helicopters. I agree that a population with weapons of that sort can cause significant difficulty for any military (and I agree that they will drive us out of Iraq).

I'm not arguing for increased gun control. I'm simply arguing that we should keep things the way they are now.

[Six_of_One]

I'm not referring specifically to events like Columbine (though events of that sort could potentially be much worse if more destructive weapons were readily available). I see it like nuclear proliferation; in that case, the more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more dangerous the world becomes. Similarly (and this is where we disagree, I'm sure), the more destructive weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens, the more dangerous our country becomes. I'm speaking in a general sense, this won't necessarily hold in the case of specific individuals.

[Boris]

There is a very strong argument to be made that nuclear proliferation actually makes the world a safer place. You take it as a given that less weapons of any sort mean that the world will be more peaceful. History has certainly not backed up your worldview. As a recent example, look at what happened in Bosnia where one group (the muslims) were unarmed and the other group had weapons. Mass slaughter. Do you think we would invade Iraq if Saddam had nukes? I don't think so.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Do you think we would invade Iraq if Saddam had nukes?

I thought that was precisely why we invaded.

[Six_of_One]

I'm not saying that less powerful weapons equals less war. It does equal less destructive war, though. I have heard the argument that nuclear proliferation makes the world a safer place, but I don't buy it. The thing is, even if it actually were to decrease the likelihood of a war taking place, it would still be a bad thing because each war that did take place could result in vastly more damage, up to and including the end of civilization.

[Boris]

So if I extend your thinking to the gun control debate, if we allow Wal-Mart to sell fully automatic weapons, our society would eventually be destroyed?

[Six_of_One]

"Destroyed" is the wrong word. But I do believe that, on balance, our country would be a worse place in which to live.

[brad]

alexander solzineacha (sp?)

to paraphrase,

'if only we had all resisted (with hammers , etc.) and laid in wait for the state agents, tried to take as many of them with us, if only they were afraid to go out and disappear people cuase they might not come home alive.'

and note they didnt even have guns.

[brad]

if im not mistaken the japanese high command ruled out a mainland invasion precisely because of an armed citizenry.

(plans assuming japan won the naval battle in pacific, etc.)