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

[Ardent Listener]

Wepons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.

Peace is the highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?

His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.

Tao Te Ching

[Faminedynasty]

I support the second ammendment for the same reason that I support the legalization of drugs. Quite simply, when something is as prevalent as drugs or guns are in the United States, prohibition does not work. Legalization and regulation is a far superior policy. And as the illegality of drugs unquestionably leads to increased violent crime, a huge black market and more lawlessness, (just as the prohibition of alcohol did) so would the prohibition of guns in the United States. And just as it is easier for minors to get illegal drugs than it is for them to get hard alcohol (the difference being that between a prohibition based policy and one based on legalization and regulation) the prohibition of guns would make it easier for criminals to get guns, and obviously, inherently impossible for law abiding citizens to do so. I think that there is a notion that in the United States someone can simply pay cash and take a handgun home. While there are some examples of lack of regulations, this is not generally the case. I live in California where we have some of the strictest regulations. To purchase a 357 magnum revolver I was required to:
1)Pass a written test
2)Provide my driver's license
3)Wait for ten days while the Department of Justice ran a criminal background check
4)Provide proof of residence (ie vehicle registration, bank statements)
4)complete a handling safety test
6)get fingerprinted (which goes right in the DOJ database)
7)fill out countless forms
Now perhaps there should be more to this process, but it is at least clearly regulated. And regulation is generally superior to prohibition. I'm not questioning whether guns are used to kill countless people, that is the terrible truth. But doesn't alcohol do the same? It most certainly does. The question is not whether guns, alcohol, or combinations therof are deadly, the question is what is the best policy to control them? Prohibition is not it. And it is a fundamental basic liberty that we can posess things which may not be good for us, and it is our right to have them so long as we do not abuse them to endanger others. Not all of us need guns. But those of us who do should be permitted to have them.

[robtex]

I came home yesterday and spent about an hour looking for a regression analysis on guns on the net and came up empty.

The highway department in most states run regression analysis to determine things like which farm roads and rural highways need repair first, which speeds are "reasonably" safe when driven at what speeds.

How it works conceputally speaking is that a forumula is constructed with variables inserted for speed driven on average x amount of car crashes will occur annually yielding y amount of injuries z amount of deaths and a w (x1-x2) range of finicial costs associated with it.

I was hoping there would be one out there for firearms but if there is one too well hidden for me to find it.

Although, I don't see the tolerance for assult rifles and handguns as cleary as many of yall do for a few reasons:

1) those two types of guns have no hunting purpose. Assult rifles are illegal to hunt with and for good reason and pistols are harder to hunt with and are not commontly used.

2) handguns are concealable with makes them opportunistic for malicious intent. Worse still in most states it is legal to conceal them

3) assult rifles are for combat only. A person could literally walk into a mall with one and kill or injure everyone within 0-500 yards in a matter of seconds with many of todays modern assult rifles

4) Both are primarly designed for opitmal preformance in regards to killing people as opposed to recreational uses

I keep hammering over and over the ideas that killing easier and more opportunistic by

1) requiring a lower skill set in use. Pull a metal lever less than an inch while pointing the firearm

2) less emotional committment. To kill someone with a blunt or sharp insturment takes repeat motions and high emotional conviction to preform compared to killing with a gun which can be used with high emotional conviction or one approaching a stotic nature as the gun itself does most of the work.

If you buy into these two ideas, understand that marginally speaking x amount of deaths will happen with firearms compared to y amount from blunt instruments and z amount from sharp instruements.

By curtailing firearm usage I think the opportunity to kill, which is a greater instance than the self-defense usage by a large percentage if you crunch the numbers on links I put out there or look at gov stats, will be dimished due to the lack of ease of operation and the extra emotional committment neccessary. I only have a theory and obvioulsy one that hasn't been explored with any statistical data on the net that I can find.

The reason I want the ban on assult rifles and handguns is that in the scope (like my pun!) of firearms the use of those two are reduced to violent human intereaction.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by Faminedynasty

To purchase a 357 magnum revolver I was required to:

Fydynasty what was your motive for purchasing the revolver?

Do you plan to carry it on your person? Do you plan to carry it in your auto? What kind of bullets do you put in it (for instance hollow points, 38 rounds what?) What were your reasons for guying a 357?

[Faminedynasty]

Originally Posted by robtex

Fydynasty what was your motive for purchasing the revolver?

Do you plan to carry it on your person? Do you plan to carry it in your auto? What kind of bullets do you put in it (for instance hollow points, 38 rounds what?) What were your reasons for guying a 357?

I chose the 357 revolver I did because it was reasonably priced, strongly built, and as you point out is very versatile in regards to the rounds it can shoot. I've shot 38's, 38+P's and full magnum loads through it and I don't think I'll limit myself to one. It depends on the situation. If I'm putting 200 rounds through it on the range I'll shoot 38's, simply because they're cheap and have low recoil. If I'm cooking steaks in man-eating bear country, I'll load it with heavy grain magnum rounds. If it's my preference you're inquiring into, or which I'll use the most, let me get back to you on that after a few more trips to the range to find out what I am most comfortable and proficient with.

One reason, probably the main reason I bought it is because it's a fun gun to shoot on the range. It's loud and it kicks, and it's still surprisingly accurate. In regards to everyday life in the city, no I do not intend to carry it on my person, and when it is transported in my vehicle (only to and from the firing range) it has been and will continue to be unloaded and in a locked box, in compliance with all state and federal laws.

That said, there may in the future be instances where I will carry it on my person. For one, I do a lot of camping and backpacking in extremely remote parts of the Sierra Nevada. You're right that such a gun is not ideal for hunting (It has only a 3-1/16th'' barell) but it is light and handy and powerful enough to persuade a cougar not to eat you. So it certainly is a good backpacking gun. If I ever carry it in public, I will do so only if it is required of me due to my occupation which sometimes involves transporting valuable state property by myself through bad neighborhoods (which has made my coworkers the victims of violent crimes and myself a target of them). If I must do so, I will apply for a concealed carry permit and go through all of the training and safety programs required, but it probably won't come to this. I didn't buy it as a home defense weapon, that was not my motive, but if someone did break into my home meaning me harm I'd be glad it was there.

I certainly didn't buy it to kill anyone. Obviously that's not something I ever want to do, and I know for a fact that I would never use it to hurt someone who wasn't putting me in a situation where I had to. And I know for a fact that I am responsible enough that no one will be able to get hurt with my gun by accident. I guess I just believe that a gun isn't inherently bad until it's in the hands of somone evil, mean, stupid, irresponsible, incapable or some combination thereof, and that isn't me.

Oh, and also, I'm in a gang and it is a requirement under the death oath that...well, nevermind

[robtex]

fdynasty I fruballed u and hit enter before i signed it...sorry about that.

That is a responsible answer. I want to point out though that many people who have guns have the good intentions like you do but than they are drinking or, they are fighting with an ex-gf who has just told him she has a new bf or some similar emotional incident and as good as ones intentions are the pistol is used lethally.

I have had this debate quite a few times on other sites and on yahoo messenger. I have a ton of stats and found something that pushed me in the direction that i argue today. I found that many of the homocides by firearms are not be felons, drug addicts (just drunks alot) or sociopaths but by normal people like you and I who are in distressful situations. Looking at the sheer numbers at the links at the bottom of this post and the other links on the net there are more deaths annually than violent felons out on the street. Regular people commit many of them. I think it is for two reasons:

1) ease of execution--pulling a trigger
2) lack of emotional conviction to carry the act through.

I know that my # 2 may seem in contrast with my above paragraph but the reason I feel it is not is because killing someone with a blunt or sharp instruement ususally requires follow-through. Multiple stabs, or strikes with a constant emotional intensity to achieve death. Not always, but certainly frequently. A firearm does not...one finger moves and the incident is over.


http://www.medicinenet.com/script/ma...rticlekey=6166
http://www.tf.org/tf/alcohol/ariv/vfsum5.html#1

As a post footnote to my post 113
http://www.joycefdn.org/articles/gun...s/ar99gun.html

[Faminedynasty]

Originally Posted by robtex

I think it is for two reasons:

1) ease of execution--pulling a trigger
2) lack of emotional conviction to carry the act through.

...one finger moves and the incident is over.

I agree entirely. Most of the teenage gangbangers who don't hesitate to shoot it out with glocks on the street would never be willing to commit to a fight to the death with katana swords. Where the concept that many people have of shooting someone or getting shot is perhaps not massively terrifying (Though it should be), the concept of having one's arm cut off perhaps inherently is. It's a smaller scale version of the sepperation from violence that comes with long range bombing. The bombadier simply pushes a button and the bombs are away. He doesn't have to see napalmed or maimed children, see the blood or hear the screams, and in the same respect, I do agree that many people who carry or use guns do not fully understand the consequence of their actions. It is abstract, they feel detached from it somehow.

I also agree that a lot of ordinary people end up misusing guns in stressful situations. The suicide and murder rates certainly demonstrate it. I do believe that a lot of people shouldn't have guns. It takes a certain dedication to responsibility, some moral character, a confidence in onself and (What you point out is so lacking) a real understanding of its capability to do catastrophic harm. Not to mention the empathy to udnerstand that this is not something to be taken lightly.

[Darkdale]

Originally Posted by Faminedynasty

I also agree that a lot of ordinary people end up misusing guns in stressful situations. The suicide and murder rates certainly demonstrate it. I do believe that a lot of people shouldn't have guns. It takes a certain dedication to responsibility, some moral character, a confidence in onself and (What you point out is so lacking) a real understanding of its capability to do catastrophic harm. Not to mention the empathy to udnerstand that this is not something to be taken lightly.

I agree. I think the government should seriously up the conditions for being able to purchase a gun, pretty much almost any gun or weapon. A gun requires responsibility and I think we'd all be better served if, in order to get a gun, you were required to take classes on gun safety and maintainance, on the laws concerning various permits and regulations (such as no guns near schools etc. etc.).

Banning guns themselves is wrong, but requiring education in order to possess those guns seems perfectly constitutional. Requiring a six week course in order to get licened and then additional weeks for other various licences would be productive. I also believe we need a better gun registering system, so that the government can track weapons and weapon sales with ease. However, I don't want to see this until gun control itself is relaxed.