Do we NEED guns? (evolution, America, pagan, Zen)

[Darkdale]

Originally Posted by robtex

D.D. Some lucky libertarian or techincal writer for the NRA is going to stumble across your last post one day. Kidding aside, irregardless of if you believe in indivdualism or not you and I live in a society. Due to this we interact as a community and should have concensus on various issues to live comfortably with one another. As a society we pay taxes, support business within our community and work towards a synergistic goal of living.

First, while I disagree, excellent post. (It's easier to debate with someone who understand their own position clearly)

Second, I think the point of disagreement is in where we draw the lines between individualism and a synergistic goal of living. Many sacrifices are made in order to maintain liberties and at the heart of our country's on going social debate, seems to be, "When does an individuals' liberty need to be sacrificed for the greater good"?

Social Liberals and Economic Conservatives, from their respective positions, tend to side with individual liberty at the expense of the "greater good" being the opinion of the majority. Economic Conservatives are willing to sacrifice economic equality for economic liberty. Social Liberals are willing to sacrifice moral stability and prevailing public opinion regarding "alternative lifestyles" for personal liberties, freedom of speech and freedom to congregate.

Where do guns fall into this picture? I would say that a majority of social liberals are for strict gun control, because they view the possession of a firearm as a potential infringement upon the individual; our Constitution guarantees us a right to live free of force or fraud, and someone sticking a gun in our face or shooting you, certainly fits the bill of force. Yet, from the Southern Conservative point of view, guns ensure the personal liberty of self-defense. That the first responder to the scene of the crime is the individual and his weapon (be it a gun, knife, pepper spray or what have you).

The Liberal Retort appears to be, but why a gun? Guns don't do anything but kill people. This isn't actually the case. Guns are the best defense against guns and they are also the most effective tool for hunting (which, while I abhor it personally, is a right we should all have). The naive belief that gun control prevents the use of guns by criminals is the flaw in your average liberals thinking. Pot/Weed is illegal, it's banned; we have drug control, yet lots of people still smoke pot. Likewise, criminals will still have guns. This requires us to entrust our safety to the Police (executive branch of government), which most of us (the sane ones) are not at all inclined to do. Guns in America are not that much different from Pot; criminals will get what they want by breaking the law and criminals want guns.

Many liberals say that gun control is a matter of "national security"; and I agree. Taking away the guns of the people vastly damages our security. Now, you may imagine that we'd never be attacked and that we'd never really need an armed citizenry, but that is as naive as the people in New Orleans who thought Katrina would never hit them head on.

I am willing to sacrifice social security (in the literal meaning) for the right to bare arms, as I feel that the good that comes from such a right far outweighs the harm. On this we disagree and I suppose there is no way to argue the point. We have the same facts and stats and we draw different conclusions from it. So what do we do? The Gun-Control issue is at a stalemate and will continue to be, until the government sends the Marines into every city to de-arm the people.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by lilithu

I brought up porn, pot, and obesity to show that in general we liberals advocate allowing people to make their own choices about their lives. In general, we believe that it is not up to the government to legislate how we live, except when our choices unnecessarily hurt others.

I agree with you that the primary purpose of a gun is for killing humans. But that's not the issue. I feel that this is the argument that's the red herring. Killing humans is not considered by this society to be inherently immoral. Killing humans can be done for murder, which is considered immoral and is illegal; and killing humans can be done in self-defense in order to avoid getting murdered. In our society, killing someone in self-defense is considered justified. It is not illegal.

You've agreed that the majority of people who own guns do not murder other people. Would you also agree that the majority of people who own guns do not do so with the intention to murder? I would argue that the majority of people who own guns do so with the intent of self-defense. (We're talking about regular people here; not hardened criminals who would own guns regardless of whether they are illegal.) Why would you take away the means of self-defense for a majority of people just because a minority of people use their guns for murder?

Again, it is already illegal to murder. We already have laws against killing people without provocation. Those who intend to murder, will do so despite the fact that it's illegal. Making guns illegal will not stop them.


Canada is great for many reasons. I had wanted to move there before the election. But Canada is not the U.S. We have similar but not identical cultures. For starters, Canada is not founded upon our bill of rights. There is no proof that our more liberal (ie - permissive) gun laws are the cause of greater violence in the U.S., only correlation.

Robtex, did you actually read the webpage that you linked? One of the first things that it says is that Canada's gun ban is not working out the way they intended.

Regarding the 2nd amendment, I don't know whether we actually need a civilian militia or not. But I do know that it is a constitutionally protected right. And I also know that if we go after the second amendment, there is no reason why the Right cannot go after the 1st amendment, or the 5th. The only thing that keeps all of our rights "guaranteed" in the bill of rights is that we all respect all of them.

I realize that self-defense is the big arguement by the anti-gun control camp. I am saying that using stats in the USA on the number of deaths, injured and money from firearm conflicts makes legislating them feasbile. The primary purpose of a gun IS the issue. If there was no purpose to owning a gun there would be no gun debate. But there is and that primary pupose is murder. Now a percentage of it will be

1) self-defense
2) homocide
3) suicide
4) accidental.

I am saying that the gain for having assult rifles and pistols does not outweight the loss from the other three. I look at it from a numbers standpoint.

The majority of gunowners do not committ murder but I wouldn't draw the line at 51 % in saying when it becomes a problem. I am drawing the line based on the number of firearm deaths, injuries and cost associated with both in relation to other stable countries. We are killing way more than most other nations and I see that as a problem. Gun control on automatic rifles and pistols is a solution in my eye. I suppose if you don't see the numbers as signifigant or problematic we won't have much to argue over this point but for me they are currenly unacceptable.

A lot of murders with firearms are opportunistic with the firearm make the opportuity feasible. When you factor in demostic violence and situation violence I see more lost to people killing who may have not under a firearmless senerio than number of "harden felons" thwarted by an armed citizen.

I did read the canada link and saw that but I am not tayloring the links to jade my arguement. The link was strong in numbers and I felt an asset to the debate. I am suggesting Canada as a model because of the similaries of the two cultures. If I was living in south afraica or in various other countries I would not be making the same arguement. I don't think we should model after cananda with our goverment but I do see them as an asset when looking at how they adminster some things in contrast to us because we are neigbors and more similar than european middle eastern or cultures.

"Making guns illegal will not stop them" is an all-or-nothing statement. Making some types of guns illegal marginalizes the instances where murders will take place due to

1) decreased accessablity to guns that are out of circulation
2) increased difficulty in killing when a firearm is not present
3) increased emotinal commitement in the use of other instruments besides guns

When I was in college a crimminologist from Japan spoke at my college. He talked about the differences in the american and Japan crimminal systems. If you are not aware Japan regulates firearms. The crimminologists said that ( i forgot the name) children in Japan kill their parents at a higher rate than other countries. He said that since they do not have easy access to guns they use baseball bats alot.

If Japan had lifted its gun laws I think kids killing their parents would likely go up over there. The reason is that it is much harder to kill a parent, or anyone emotionally and physically with a bat than with a firearm. Obviously not a testable theory but the point being that I think Japan not having guns is marginalyzing the death rate of parents in Japan. The basebat option makes it less opportunistic.

I stared a militia thread people are posting on it already.

footnote on cnn
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/21/sho....ap/index.html

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by TheJedi

this reminds me of the family guy episode...

I love the Family Guy!!

Originally Posted by TheJedi

We do need guns, to protect ourselves from those around us, and, perhaps, from the government. better to be safe than sorry.

I do not share your suspicion of "those around us." I do not own any guns myself and probably never will. All my life I've walked where I wanted to when I wanted to and have never had a problem despite horrified warnings that I'm going to get raped and/or murdered. Certain friends have actually said "Just you wait" as if they actually hope that it will happen to prove to me that I am wrong. I'm not naive. I know that rape and murder happen, and that I'm probably increasing my chances of it happening to me by walking alone after dark instead of being holed up in my home with the deadbolt locked. But I also know, rationally know, that most of the time, it does not happen. Most of the time people do not murder, do not rape, do not otherwise actively cause great harm to their fellow humans. Most humans most of the time want to be good and try to be.

I don't believe we actually need guns. But if you want one, if it would make you feel better to have one, I would no more stand in your way of owning one than I would a can of mace, or a deadbolt, or an electronic security system.

[Fluffy]

I agree totally with Seyorni and Melody on this one. Banning guns shifts the balance of power too much in favour of the military. A coup is not on the cards at the moment by any means but why make such a thing even possible?

The people give the government control. But to do so and give up all of your bargaining chips is just plain silly, in my opinion.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by Darkdale

Second, I think the point of disagreement is in where we draw the lines between individualism and a synergistic goal of living. Many sacrifices are made in order to maintain liberties and at the heart of our country's on going social debate, seems to be, "When does an individuals' liberty need to be sacrificed for the greater good"?

Where do guns fall into this picture? I would say that a majority of social liberals are for strict gun control, because they view the possession of a firearm as a potential infringement upon the individual; our Constitution guarantees us a right to live free of force or fraud, and someone sticking a gun in our face or shooting you, certainly fits the bill of force. Yet, from the Southern Conservative point of view, guns ensure the personal liberty of self-defense. That the first responder to the scene of the crime is the individual and his weapon (be it a gun, knife, pepper spray or what have you).

This isn't actually the case. Guns are the best defense against guns and they are also the most effective tool for hunting (which, while I abhor it personally, is a right we should all have). The naive belief that gun control prevents the use of guns by criminals is the flaw in your average liberals thinking. Pot/Weed is illegal, it's banned; we have drug control, yet lots of people still smoke pot. Likewise, criminals will still have guns.

Thanks for the compliment and for the civil debate you are preforming . I think your posts are well thougth out too.

In regards to the second point, I see the issue when it comes specifically to firearms as less reasonable because of the permancy of death and frequency of death upon use of a firearm. It creates opportunity for crime that would not be present otherwise in instances such as friendly feuds and domistic violence.

I am looking at in terms of margin. Less guns in circulation will marginalize the ill effects of them. I am thinking the arguement you are making is the common notion of :

"if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns."

The problem with that analogy to me, is that it again is an all-or-nothing stance. Taking some guns (hand guns and assult rifles) out of circulation will marginalize incidents involving firearms do to restricted access to them

Secondly, many people who committ murder with a firearm do so out opportunity without having prior crimminal records. This is espcially true in domestic violence.

In regards to your pot analogy. I contend that because pot is illegal less people use it than those that do not. Furthermore, just because you cannot stop it is not a great reason to say it is ok. That is condoning it.

I am not in favor of outlawing hunting guns, which would include shotguns with a full length barrell and deer rifles.

To your remark "guns are the best defense against guns" I would say that decreasing the avaliablity of handguns and assult rifles would be a long term goal of decrease the need to defend against guns. I can further tell you that if someone pulls a gun on you even if you have a gun yourself chances you will be dead before you unholster it. The reason being you are unholstering while he is shooting.

The new orleans incident was a natural disaster. Our goverment predicted it years ago but chose not to act on the information. Could be a differnet thread but there was at one point money being put aside in case the city flooed but Bush killed the program as a tax-cut. By the same token we know that increased cirulation of firearms, espically concealble hanguns and assult rifles will increase the number killed by them. The question becomes does the benefit outweigh the sacrifice in terms of lives lost by gun circulation versus benefit form having those types of guns.

My stance after reading the numbers is no yall's is obviously yes.

I am saying no specifically because

1) I don't think armed revolution against the USA is probable or even feasible if the situation presented itself

2) I think more people die from guns than are saved by having them

3) I see handguns and assult rifles as "collectables" to be a non-reason

4) I think the long-term gain by marginalized handguns and assult rifles will produce a lower causuality rate over time even if outlaws still are getting them illegally.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I agree totally with Seyorni and Melody on this one. Banning guns shifts the balance of power too much in favour of the military. A coup is not on the cards at the moment by any means but why make such a thing even possible?

Quick question. Who is that comprises the ranks of the military? Answer the people of the nation that hosts the armed forces (unless you are from france ).

[Fluffy]

Quick question. Who is that comprises the ranks of the military? Answer the people of the nation that hosts the armed forces (unless you are from france ).

Yes I agree. And if a coup were to happen, these people would have to believe in it. Does that mean that democrats, having had their right to political input taken away, should just lie down and accepte it? The only way of opposing such a thing is through rebellion surely?