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

[robtex]

Bartdanr I am going to be gone most the day. You debate though. Just real quick I listed those 6 arugments because those are the ones I saw the most. If there is another one you would like to entertain that I skipped throw it in.

Give us your definition of an assult rifle. To me it means rifle designed for modern military warefare as its primary purpose. Within the context of that statement it would need to be automatically fed, shortened barrell and/or stock for close quater combat, semi-automatic and fully automatic capablity with multiple rounds fired per trigger pull, or able to be converted to such by nature of its design. Arms outfitted with lasers and infra-rednightscopes.

I would consider at 30.06 to be a deer rifle today. It was designed for combat but now with its single shot bolt action operation is closer to modern hunting rifles than an assult weapon.

I will reply to your other posts later.

[bartdanr]

Hi again, Robtex--thanks for your continued posts.

Originally Posted by robtex

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

I know of only a few strong libertarians who take this point of view. Even strong pro-gun rights groups (such as the NRA) support things like not allowing convicted felons to own guns, restricting access to Class III weapons (machine guns, silencers, and other such devices), instant background checks, etc. This might be somewhat of a strawman, just as saying that you support the total banning of all firearms (from your other posts it's clear that you do not.)

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.

I don't find the cases parallel at all. My ownership of a gun does not endanger other people; but if I got into the car drunk, it clearly endangers others. Certainly, criminal ownership of firearms endangers others. "Someone" owning a gun doesn't lead to murder; someone irresponsible and/or criminal owning a gun leads to murder.

Your analogy suggests that someone getting stinking drunk at home endangers others because "someone" is driving drunk.

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.

I agree.

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.

But the immediate effect would be the disarming of the peaceful populace and the continued presence of an armed criminal element. If you dismiss the defensive use of firearms by civilians, then perhaps your argument would be valid.

Regardless if a particular person defends themselves with a firearm or not is not really the issue. If criminals know for a fact that the victim they are attacking has a high probability of being disarmed, they are emboldened to act. Short term it would not simply eliminate the actual defensive use of firearms, but also the fear that criminals have concerning being defended against.

However, your point about long-term is valid, if illegal arms trading would be controled. Looking at the current state of the "war" on drugs, I am a bit skeptical that it would be close to effective.

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.

Actually, the only people who really wouldn't care would be those who have no intent of following the law. It's those who care about being law-abiding citizens who care.

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.

But it's not just guns per se that most pro-self-defense people look at. It doesn't really matter if a criminal is attacking you with a knife, a bare fist, a club or a gun--people who support the right to self-defense want to have adequate means of self-defense. (I know you mentioned non-leathal means of self-defense, and I'd like to see some more information about that.) Since criminals will always be with us (though I believe we could take many measures to reduce the criminal element in society, but that's for another thread), potential victims want the means by which they can defend themselves.

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

Ok, I look forward to the continuing dialogue.

Peace

[bartdanr]

Hi Robtex, thanks again for your post.

Originally Posted by robtex

Has been one of the most informative debates I have been in. For instance I thought there was a much higher percentage of first time shooters than presented by stats on here. At this point I have to confess I am tired of looking at this thread. I may make more posts tomarrow but right now I am not feeling gun control at all.

I can understand getting weary over this debate. I myself grow tired of it periodically. This horse has been beaten to death so many times that it's dust.

But it is really gray. Hard to qualify many parts of it and much of theories for gun control, not having been tested are speculatory at best. The commonality may be more than people wanting order. I am thinking both sides want safetly and the bigger question may be what level of gun control from 0 -100% would afford the most freedom to the highest number of people.

I agree; I think it's important for those involved in the debate the recognize that those who don't agree with them are nearly all acting in good faith and really hope for a better society.

Many of these posts on both sides revolve around this issue of safety and maybe in the lobbying game in Washington that would be a professional angle to take and an accurate reflection of societies wants and needs on gun control issues.

Although it's hard to get past the rhetoric of politicans and their hangers-on to really see, after all the facts are presented, what people would really want. But I recognize that even politicians and lobbiests are often acting on sincere belief.

Peace

[bartdanr]

Hi again, Robtex--thanks for your post.

Originally Posted by robtex

Bartdanr I am going to be gone most the day. You debate though. Just real quick I listed those 6 arugments because those are the ones I saw the most. If there is another one you would like to entertain that I skipped throw it in.

Just one: self-defense is a basic human right. Certain firearms (in particular, handguns) are one of the best means to exercise that right. It's related to some of the other arguments that you presented. The debate really is (or should be) does the right to have access to handguns outweigh the potential for criminal misuse of handguns (assuming that a handgun ban would significantly eliminate both)?

Give us your definition of an assult rifle. To me it means rifle designed for modern military warefare as its primary purpose. Within the context of that statement it would need to be automatically fed, shortened barrell and/or stock for close quater combat, semi-automatic and fully automatic capablity with multiple rounds fired per trigger pull, or able to be converted to such by nature of its design. Arms outfitted with lasers and infra-rednightscopes.

I did in my first post on this thread, but I'll add it again here. A true assault rifle is a rifle capable of selective fire, usually firing a shortened round for close range combat (200 meters or less).

The so-called "assault rifles" of the 1994 ban refer not to selective fire weapons, but semi-automatic (i.e., self loading) only. Automatic weapons have been tightly regulated since the 1930's.

The definition you have above seems a bit too specific. For example, the M-16 does not have a shortened barrel (though the M-4 does), nor does it have a shortened or collapsable stock (again, the M-4 does). Lasers and infra-red nightscopes are nice touches for either indoor combat or night combat, but are useless during the daytime outdoors.

A key understanding that I can't emphasize enough is the difference between "automatic" and "semi-automatic." "Automatic" firearms are those that can shoot more than one round at the pull of a trigger--i.e., a machine gun. "Semi-automatic" are self-loading, and cannot shoot more than one round for each pull of the trigger.

Barrel lengths under 16" and fully automatic firearms have been controlled about seventy years. The so-called "assault rifles" that were addressed in the 1994 law and are railed against by many people are semi-automatic versions of these rifles.

Before the 1994 ban, the ATF tightly regulated guns that they felt were easily convertable to fully automatic fire. If a weapon could be easily converted into fully automatic fire, it was banned. (Keep in mind that even a hunk or raw steel can eventually be converted into a fully automatic weapon, so there is some level of convertability in any firearm--or a hunk or raw steel.)

I would consider at 30.06 to be a deer rifle today. It was designed for combat but now with its single shot bolt action operation is closer to modern hunting rifles than an assult weapon.

One clarification: most bolt-action 30-06 rifles have a multiple round magazine (4-5 rounds) and are not single-shot. "Single-shot" usually refers to a weapon with a magazine limited to one round.

I will reply to your other posts later.

Ok, I look forward to our continuing discussion.

Peace

[bartdanr]

While I was out running, I realized that I didn't consider something in regard to what Robtex said about comparing gun-related crime to automobile accidents and drunk driving.

Auto accidents are rarely truly "accidents". They are generally caused by irresponsible or criminal behavior. Driving drunk (or on both perscription or non-perscription drugs), driving while too tired, speeding, driving at a speed too high for the driving conditions (rain, snow, etc), following too closely--all of these things (and many more) are irresponsible (and criminal) behaviors. Actual mechanical failure being the cause for accidents is pretty darn rare. So in many ways, comparing misuse of firearms to misuse of automobiles is fair. Calling "automobile accidents" as "victimless crimes" only applies if only the irresponsible driver is involved in the accident--even though before the accident the driver was endangering all other drivers on the road with him or her.

In addition, the "drunk driving" comparison: if one would advocate abolition (of all alcohol) as the solution to drunk driving, then one can comapre the abolition of firearms as the solution to gun-related crime. The same concept is behind both proposals: the benefits of having alcohol (or guns) legal is outweighed by the dangers of having them legal.

Peace

[michel]

That's a very good point, bartdarn; one I had never thought of. personally, when I was drinking alcohol, I always made it a rule not to drive within 12 hours of have had a drink; the alcohol content in the blood ruling, is, I believe absurd; there should be no trace whatsoever.


Even if my son (as I must admit I used to think, in the sixties) believes that he is a better driver after a drink or two, because he is less tense.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by bartdanr

Hi again, Robtex--thanks for your post.
Just one: self-defense is a basic human right. Certain firearms (in particular, handguns) are one of the best means to exercise that right. It's related to some of the other arguments that you presented. The debate really is (or should be) does the right to have access to handguns outweigh the potential for criminal misuse of handguns (assuming that a handgun ban would significantly eliminate both)?

I am going to go backwards though your post if that is ok. If rifles cannot be converted to multi-shot weapons and do not hold 20 plus round clips I wouldn't be for banning them. I am, for me just worried about multishot high bullet capcity rifles. My understanding though, is that currently a civilian can own an m16 or m 14 and those are convertable.

On the self-defense issue. I think that has become the key issue in this thread and I would like to make some points on it too. First I am not advocating taking away anyones right to self-defense. However, I am also not saying firearms are the only or main way of self-defense. I think alot of the anti-gun control arguements have centered around the notion that firearms are either (a) the only (b) the primary means of self-defense.

I would say to you that there are tasers, pepperspray, metal whips called "sippos" or other slang names. I would be much more pleased to see a trend of taser concealers instead of 38 and 9mm concealers because upon successful impliminatation the results are the same--successful self-defense but the end result for tasers and p spray is non-lethal by a much greater margin.

I also want to explain here the two complications with handgun self-defense .

1) If you are outside your home and you are in a situation where you need to protect yourself understand that you likley will have "jumped" or in a situation where the proximity of you to other assailiants makes drawing it and aiming it before you are in grappling range impossible. The idea you will pull your gun and save your neck isn't likely. The places where many fights happen outside of the home are bars and sporting events neither of which allows you to have your concealed firearm. However with pepper spray or a hollow steel whip like a sippo you will fair much better with drawing and implimenting the instruement in a close proximity stressful encounter. In addition understand that when you take your gun out and shoot paper on the weekend this has little overlay in application of using it close quater combat which is what you are advocating when you say self-defense. Under stress I am going to guess that many people will fire way off target (trying to avoid being grabbed), have possiblty of shooting themselves and/or a non-involved party. From a practicality standpoint tasers, pepperspray and sippos (if physically able) make sense not only because they are non-lethal but they are more applicable to common assult senerios that involved rapid movement in close proximity.

I think that because profit margin involved in firearm sales and due to current consumer drive with a current product over newer prospects manufacters and retailers are less apt to present the above arguement and because tasers pepper spray and steel whips to private citizens are not frequent it is hard to qualify this on paper at this time.

2) In domestic situaitons the current state gusn in the home are 22 times more likely to kill a loved one than an intruder. Why?

a) shot at loved one when thought it was an intruder
b) misfired in wrong direction
c) criminal found firearm
d) domestic violence and gun was opportunistic.
http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

Again in the home tasers and pepper spray probably in pro/cons outweigh a firearm for the following reasons:

1) if the assilant is armed and in your home and you get "first shot" p spray and taser will be as affecting in stopping him as a firearm

2) If you make a mistake and shoot a loved one with p spray or a taser death is less likey a result

3) p spray and taser will if more common shrink spousal deaths by non-lethality of them.

If the anti-gun control camp can for me, explain why a handgun is the ONLY or main option over the others I would appreciate that.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by bartdanr

True...but numbers vs. percent as significant is I guess a personal judgment. Certainly no one wants to be a casualty, even if "statistically insignificant." The numbers are what the numbers are, but two people can look at the same statistics and say "7%--that's low" or "7%--that's high!". It's a matter of personal judgment.

Give me a number. What is a reasonable amount of deaths given the options and constraints of firearm deaths that are not self-defense deaths. I just see other countries with hundreds of firearms deaths annually and us with 10k plus annual and think how nice it would be to trade stats with some of them. This leads me to think how and than gun control comes to mind.

Originally Posted by bartdanr

True. Although (1) so-called "assault rifles" are used in very little crime and (2) there are few incidents of 30 round magazines used to kill 30 people at a time. (Yes, those incidents are tragic--but they are a tiny percent of the total. Again, it could be that "percent-vs.-numbers" disagreement.)

We seem to have not reached an agreement on what is an assult rifle, so if I may let me say rifles that have multi-bullet discharge capcity per trigger pull or are convertable for such and rifles with high round capcity. For instance mac 10's ak 47's m16's type guns. My arguement isn't about the percent of crime or numbers by those types of rifles, but the lack of neccissity they have in society. They are dangerous, designed for killing humans, and have no recreational pupose that is legal other than shooting paper targets on the weekend. So why have them?

Originally Posted by bartdanr

First, we really need to define "military type rifle." Remember, the Springfield .45-70 single-shot black powder cardridge rifle is "military type"; the Springfield .30-06 bolt-action rifle is "military type", etc. The linage of a rifle does not determine its eventual use.

Throw out your definition. I am only worried about rifles that can discharge mutiple bullets on one trigger squeeze like m16's ak 47's uzis and guns with high round capacities and auto feeds like a spas 12 shotgun

Originally Posted by bartdanr

It's quite evident that if the government decides to use all means at its disposal to eradicate an insurrection, it probably could do so. It could also then alienate the populace and rule over a barren nuclear wasteland.

Unless a government is completely ruthless it will not necesarily be able to eradicate insurrection. Consider Iraq and Vietnam, for example. Sadaam was able to control Iraq through means that the US government is unwilling to use. It is not evident that we can control it with our current means.

Now, not all dictatorships are alike. Certain dictatorships are (or at least begin) with a lot of popular support, and they are more authoritarian than totalitarian. If the government, even a popular one, starts using ruthless means against an insurrection, it may actually pour fuel on the fire.

My main point is this: we've entered the era of 4th generation warfare, and a military with aircraft carriers, M-1A1 tanks and Apache gunships is not equipped to fight it. It's equipped to fight 2nd or 3rd generation warfare very effectively, but a 4th generational war is something beyond its scope.

Can you please stat why you fear the goverment of the USA. have nothing to debate other than you have a fear but not why.

Originally Posted by bartdanr

Although I agree that we are currently not in danger of being enslaved by our government, it does not necessarily take years to turn a republic into a dictatorship. 9/11 influenced many Americans to gladly hand over some of their civil liberties. Another 9/11 (God forbid) might bring out the cry to eliminate more of them.

Consider what Pearl Harbor did to the civil liberties of Japanese-Americans. It has happened here, and it can happen again.


I also believe that through non-violent means we Americans have been very effective at checking the growth of government control--even during 9/11.

Finally, it should be clear that not every country that uses strong gun control automatically leads to oppressive government. Much of Europe has strong gun control, and yet these same governments have strong respect for civil liberties (in many cases.)

Same question as above. I'd like to see how well each method practically is used for self-defense. Otherwise, it's just speculation.

to be continued...[/quote] I would say that is would be a very encumbersome project to convert the democratic republic of the usa into an oppressive govement for the following reasons:

1) We have 4 branches of federal goverment multi-level state goverments and tens of thousands working in a plurasitic goverment. Most of them would have to collaborate to get the desired result of an oppressive goverment.

2) The officials are elected to most positions by the people who can evaulate and make judgemental distinctions in who they are electing

3) Our goverment, mostly hires people born and raised in the USA meaning we are our goverment.

Also, what liberities did you see lost by 911? Other than airport liberties which I, personally see as a good thing, I didn't see many changes.

Originally Posted by bartdanr

I would like to see some statistics to show in real life how (a) those who resist crime with a gun fare, (b) how those who resist without a gun fare and (c) those who don't resist with anything fare. I have heard stats in the past, but I don't know where they were from. Talk about dart guns and PVC pipe is fun, but real-life data is, well, real.

I don't think we will be able to find any either way because not many studied seem to have been done ( i can't find any either) and the results are not easy to quality. Dart guns and pvp pipes are alot closer to reality than any stat that may or may not exist. The reality is that the data isnt' easy to measure on close quater fighting with a firearm but simulations with similar conditions are. The point of putting up the pvc and dart gun drill was/is two-fold:

a) Shows that most people who daydream of "saving the day" with their concealed pistol don' t have even a vague idea of what that would be like because they have never explored it.

b) Because of lack of data a safe controlled experiement becomes a viable option by default.