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

[michel]

Originally Posted by Darkdale

No. Owning a gun doesn't encourage anything, except the desire to hit the shooting range every once in a while. Bullets are more and more expensive, so...

O.K, just a thought; I was born to parents who had just been through the second World War; they Hated guns. Even when we were living in Africa (just before the independence - a time of danger), my Mother refused to have a gun in the house...I guess that rubbed off onto me.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by bartdanr

Hi All,
Some have posted here about the "Rambo mentality" and how this is an argument for gun control.
I'd like to see some statistical data on how frequent "rambos" end up killing innocent people. Is this a common occurance? Or is it statistically insignificant? (Of course, to a victim, "statistically insignificant" is little solace. However, if there are very few deaths or incidents attributable to this in relation to the millions of legal non-Rambo gun owners, then it is probably a red herring.)
Again, neutral data sources are always preferred.
Peace

Bartdanr, first sorry I misread your source. Great source. Great source.

Two points about this post. The percents are low but the numbersm are not. The reason is called the law of large #'s. The current population of the usa is 297 million.
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

Within the population even the 7 % of violent crimes yields big numbers (your site as source)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

The question becomes what is the gained benefit of private citizens having asasult rifles and 9 mm pistols with 30 round clips when compared to the damage caused.

The arguements I have heard for ownership of automatic weapons and concealable pistols thus far have been

1) protect against the gov for the USA
2) Self defense
3) 2nd ammendment
4) any gun control is an infringement on ones civil liberties
5) comparision small when compared to victimless crimes such as driving deaths, drug use and others.
6) impractical of removing them from society or "if we ban guns only outlaws will have them"

The arguement for each point is essentially the gain of society having miltary type rifles and concealbe pistols outweighs the arguement for banning them. I am saying it is not and definetly is not if these 5 points are the reasons. (if there is one i am overlooking let me know) I am going to do 1-3 here and 4-6 on the next post. I will talk about the rambo thing after that.

on # 1) protect against the usa. Two points
a) johnny with his m16 and 44, 454 or 9 mm with a 30 round clip with the other locals ain't gonna stop the usa goverment hand held guns and homemade bombs.

b) furthermore the fact that that idea is a forereason for gun ownership of said weapons makes a stronger arguement for gun control than against. Even if the next tim mcveigh is only 1/10 of one percent in a population of 297 million we are going to have continual problems.

c) we live in a democratic republic. You can vote here. The current structure of our goverment is such that a turn to a dictatorship or oppressive goverment would take years not days. We are in no danger of being enslaved by our goverment

2) selfidefense

a) If you are pulling your gun likely it is after you have been attacked. your concealed handgun is worthless to you at that time. Tell you what. Get a pvc pipe (they are made of plastic.) . Than buy a plastic rubber dart gun. Put the inside your pocket or conceal it under a coat in a holster. Have the guy with the pvc pipe attack you and practice pulling out your dart gun and killing him.

b) less lethal meathods are just as affected provided the net desired affect is non-lethal in nature. Pepper spray, stun guns, and others are as easy or easier to deploy and are non-lethal thus offering and win/win situation for the self-defense vs death impact when disscussing this.

3) 2nd ammendment
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment02/
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...lofrights.html
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

a) if you are not a minute man you are not entitled to have a gun by the constitution. Minute men were the pre-runners of the reserves we have today. The reserves having replaced minute men make this ammendment not applicable by today's standards. If we ever do drop the reserves and go back to minute men than hey, its time for us to all go out and buy assult rifles. The amendment as read says, ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.." is not applicable today.

b) The ammendment doesn't not say anything about private citizens having the right to bear arms outside of a militia existance. The arguement therefore is an invalid reason for citizen armorment.

c) Using the 2nd ammendment while circumventing our culture as it is today (one that doesn't need private citizens to have m 16's uzis and 38 specials) is taking out one of the strongest reasons for gun control. We as a country will kill thousands each year with a gun while most of our neigbors and other civilized countries will kill in the hundreds.

http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/ma...rticlekey=6166

[robtex]

4) any gun control is an infringement on ones civil liberties:

a) Not allowing someone to drive drunk by the same token is an infringement on the drunk's civil liberties. After all it is his liver or is it? It is not just his liver at risk but the other drivers on the road. By the same token it isn't just the gunower's risk that should be measured by socieities at large who will my margin have a number of people killed because someone had a gun.

5) comparision small when compared to victimless crimes such as driving deaths, drug use and others

a) the comparisions made thus far are for victimless crimes such as highway accidents drug use and high risk activies. This makes the comparision weak when considering that as a society there is a community impact by the level of gun control we inact or do not in act. A homocide with a gun is not a victimless crime but a victim crime and only comparisions of vicitm based crimes are valid parallels.

6) impractical of removing them from society or "if we ban guns only outlaws will have them"

a) This is a very negative way of looking at this. It only looks at short term gain and immediate gratification. It is a true statement that we will never get rid of all guns but we could over time get rid of most assult rifles and concealed pistols. I am thinking long-term when I argue against this statement and would further state that because a plan won't work immediatly or in the short term, say like in a year, is a really poor reason to scrape the whole plan.

b) when this arguement is made it is a "sour grapes" approach. What I mean is that the real reason anti-gun control advocates make this arguement, isn't because they think gun removal will never work it is instead because they are against gun removal. If most or many of them thought is would not work they wouldn't worry about hard it is to do nearly as much as they do. As such I would consider this arguement a red herring to the issue.

c) The arguement when used, confirms that anti-gun control people see an issue with gun ownership being hazardess to our society. The arguement in essense is guns are dangerous to society, so we need one too. If you are in fact acknowleging the danger of it why advocate propogating more of that danger in society instead of a long-term goal of making society safter by its removal.

next post will be the rambo post and a question of anti gun control.

[michel]

Great post, robtex

[Darkdale]

This has been a great thread and I think arguments for both sides have been excellent. I think it comes down to whether or not you think weapons themselves serve a positive or negative purpose in society. One thing us pro-gun people refuse to admit is that as societies become more and more ordered and more and more secure, guns won't have a place. In the future, everything will be controlled. Everything will be monitored. There won't be much violent crime and there won't be any disorder. People want security. People want order.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Darkdale

This has been a great thread and I think arguments for both sides have been excellent. I think it comes down to whether or not you think weapons themselves serve a positive or negative purpose in society. One thing us pro-gun people refuse to admit is that as societies become more and more ordered and more and more secure, guns won't have a place. In the future, everything will be controlled. Everything will be monitored. There won't be much violent crime and there won't be any disorder. People want security. People want order.

In the future, everything will be controlled. Everything will be monitored. There won't be much violent crime and there won't be any disorder. People want security. People want order

I very much doubt that; however much you controll, you create a climate for those who hate controll, and who will rebel just for the sake of it. I would also disagree that people want security; it is an established fact that (at least here in England) Security is the last thing thatpeople have on their minds. The present population is doing very little to provide for their security in old age............

I believe you will never rid the world of violent crime and disorder; people will always have needs above their ability to achieve them; that drives them towards crime and disorder - which in turn leads to violence.

How old is the practice of mugging elderly folk in the daylight, in publlic, for just a few small notes ?

[Darkdale]

Originally Posted by michel

I very much doubt that; however much you controll, you create a climate for those who hate controll, and who will rebel just for the sake of it. I would also disagree that people want security; it is an established fact that (at least here in England) Security is the last thing thatpeople have on their minds. The present population is doing very little to provide for their security in old age............

I believe you will never rid the world of violent crime and disorder; people will always have needs above their ability to achieve them; that drives them towards crime and disorder - which in turn leads to violence.

How old is the practice of mugging elderly folk in the daylight, in publlic, for just a few small notes ?

Well, if that's the case, free folk will need guns.

[lonevoice]

Originally Posted by Scott1

Well... the US is "notoriously bad at combating it"... due to various political, moral, etc. reasons....but the US military could turn both places into parking lots inside of a day.... just to clarify.

Yup. 100% correct.



JMHO