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

[bartdanr]

Hi Robtex, thanks for your continued posts.

Originally Posted by robtex

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.

I can't come up with a number of acceptable deaths--each one is a tragedy. But consider that using guns to kill an assailent is not the only way that they are used in self-defense. I would love to see the number as low as possible--perferably zero. However, I also recognize that a perfect society is not an option.

Second, I know you have stated on more than one occasion that other countries have different cultures than we do, and comparisons are fraught with difficulties. However, if we do so, then also consider that there are countires with more liberal gun ownership laws than the US, and their murder rates are lower than ours.

Third, firearm deaths per se are not the problem; the problem is unlawful or accidental deaths. Sometimes guns are the means, but sometimes not.

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?

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.

I agree that fully automatic weapons should be tightly controlled, and they have been since the 1930's.

As to the SPAS-12, it is semi-automatic, not fully automatic. Many hunting shotguns are also semi-automatic. (It is also dual-mode--you can operate it with a pump action instead of semi-automatic).[/quote]

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.

Let me make it again clear: I do not fear the government of the USA. I am a supporter of our government, indeed, I have taken an oath to support it. Frankly, I believe that the "armed resistance to an oppresive government" argument to be fairly weak, for the reasons I've stated before (such as the example of the internment of Japanese American citizens--their armed resistance would have been futile and counter-productive.) Thus, I don't use this argument.

However, I think it naive to assume that the government, motivated by popular pressure, would not turn oppressive in a short period of time to select members of society. The interment of Japanese-Americans is but one example. Our government has before taken action to severly limit the civil liberties of particular classes of people.

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.

Just a question, off-topic: what do you consider the four branches? I am familiar with only three (executive, legislative and judicial.)

Also, local governments can often act independently from other governments to cause local repression. (The typical example given is the small-town sheriff who abuses his or her power.) But as you point out, we have recourse to higher levels of government to address this.

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

True.

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

True, we are our government.

I agree that our government would not overnight turn into a repressive society similar to, say, the old Soviet Union. But I think it's clear that we can and have oppressed others with are unpopular at a given time--again, the example of the Japanese-Americans.

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.

Personally, I have not lost any--but individuals have. See this site for more information. I agree that the additional security for air transportation is good; but there are other apsects of the PATRIOT Act and other practices that are troubling. Here is another troubling development. One could say that they are not American Citizens, but being the grandson of immigrants and married to an immigrant, I have a certain concern for what happens to them.

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.

As I posted above, there have been studies made--and they indicate that firearms can and are used for defensive purposes, and are often more effective than other means of resisting.

Peace

[bartdanr]

Hi Robtex, thanks for your post.

Originally Posted by robtex

I am going to let this one drop then. I saw others use it as an arguement so I posted on it. So i posted on that issue.

Ok, fair 'nuff.

Actually it is more that guns make it really easy compared to other instruements to whose primary use is death. I posted a lot but gonna re-write cause everybody seems to overlook it. If you compare a gun to a knife or stick you will discover two things:

1) A stick or knife takes physical skills to use. Footwork, hand-eye coordination, continous attack, and hip rotation to make it effective. A gun takes pulling a trigger. This takes us from x amount of populatation that is lethal with a knife or stick (sharp or blunt insturment) to 100 % that is lethal with a gun. A gun's primary purpose again is killing.

2) Mental committment. To kill someone with a knife or stick repeated successful attacks are generally neccessary. Blood is splattering during this and the person implimenting this instruement is right next to the person being attacked. It is a very personsal and excuse the word choice, "intimate" activity. Many people do not possess the mental foritude for such an exercise. However, a gun can be used at a greater distance and the mental committment is detached to "pulling the trigger."

Agreed; although I don't necessarily see how this addresses what I wrote. I was responding to your comparing lawful gun ownership with people who think that they can drive drunk safely. Using a firearm safely and legally one thing is like drinking safely and legally; using a firearm unsafely and illegally is like drinking unsafely and illegally.

Guns are easier to use than other methods of defense. That's a two-edged sword, of course: easier to stop an attacker, and easier for an attacker to stop you. Ideally, we'd live in a world were people of good will are given the best possible means of defense and people of ill will are denied the best possible means of attack...and I support laws that have this as a goal.

Have to find some numbers. Get back to you on this.

Ok, sounds good. However, I suspect what might come about in these studies is this: studies that appear on links from anti-gun advocacy groups will tend to say guns are bad; studies that appear on links from pro-gun advocacy groups will tend to say guns are good; and there will be refutations of studies that suggest otherwise on each site. That leaves it up to us to dig through the studies themselves and try to see if the studies are valid or junk science. It also requires a commitment to see beyond our prejudices, and this is very difficult in such an emotional issue (just like the abortion debate.)

what else do they and you look at and why are both needed?

I'm not sure if I understand your question, but I understand you to be asking about what measures people will look to for self-defense other than firearms. I think you mentioned some of the common forms--tasers, pepper spray and others. I would say that multiple measures of self-defense should be available because self-defense is not a one-size fits all proposition. There are some people who won't or shouldn't chose firearms; there are some people would won't or shouldn't chose tasers.

Any way, I appreciate this debate and your contributions to it.

Peace

[Debater in Calgary]

Wow, this chat room really surprised me!! When I first started reading the comments, I was thinking to myself…wasn’t the Second Amendment ratified in 1791….why do the Americans feel they still have to arm themselves against a foreign power? Upon further reading….it really concerned me that, in fact, the American way of thinking was that their own government was going to turn on them, and they would have to arm themselves. "The founding fathers of the US made a good point. There is a natural tendency of government to grow, arrogate power, and develop into tyranny. An armed citizenry, as the Federalist papers point out, is a check against this tendancy."

After living my past 50 years all over the world, including the US, I feel that I have observed a lot of different cultures. But it continually amazes me that the US citizens live in a world driven by fear and greed. You are so rich and strong as a nation, why is there so much fear in the US? Fear inevitably turns to violence. Why so violent? Why so many guns?

It seems, upon some research, that state and local government in the US are free to devise any sort of gun law they choose. Currently there are over 20,000 existing gun laws throughout the US, many of which are unenforceable because of the sheer numbers involved! If its not the number of guns, what factors do contribute to the violent nature of society?

Back to your fear of your "own government turning on you". I guess, I can agree that the US has had an interesting history on what they have done to other countries, while telling the US public a different scenario. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, because I am not, I'm just confused:

1. 1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadegh of Iran. U.S. installs the Shah as dictator.

2. 1954: U.S. overthrows democratically elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 20,000 civilians are killed.

3. 1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.

4. 1963-1975: U.S. military kills 4 million people in Southeast Asia.

5. September 11, 1973: U.S. stages a military coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende is assassinated. Dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet is installed. 5,000 Chileans are murdered.

6. 1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 7,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns are killed.

7. 1980s: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow Muslim terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion.

8. 1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "Contras" to fight government. 30,000 Nicaraguans die.

9. 1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.

10. 1983: The White House secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis.

11. 1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as president of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega.

12. 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S.

13. 1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.

14. 1998: U.S. bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan. The factory turns out to be making aspirin.

15. 1991-making of the film: U.S. planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. The United Nations estimates that 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.

16. 2000-2001: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid."

[Popeyesays]

I see no problem with private ownership of firearms. I see no improvement in social law and order in governments that DO ban firearms. I am in possession of my father's old shotgun, but I don't have a round of ammo in the house. When I was in my younger 20's I hunted - mostly upland game birds - but have not fired a weapon in - gosh, thirty years. I enjoy contemplative shooting, but do not care to go to the expense of getting a rifle or handgun to do that.

Regards,
Scott

[Nehustan]

To quote famous copy (as this is a religious forum)...

"God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal."

http://website.lineone.net/~braithwa...peacemaker.htm

[bartdanr]

Hi Debater, thanks for your post.

Originally Posted by Debater in Calgary

Wow, this chat room really surprised me!! When I first started reading the comments, I was thinking to myself…wasn’t the Second Amendment ratified in 1791….why do the Americans feel they still have to arm themselves against a foreign power? Upon further reading….it really concerned me that, in fact, the American way of thinking was that their own government was going to turn on them, and they would have to arm themselves. "The founding fathers of the US made a good point. There is a natural tendency of government to grow, arrogate power, and develop into tyranny. An armed citizenry, as the Federalist papers point out, is a check against this tendancy."

First of all, this is only one of the reasons that the private ownership of firearms is defended by those who believe in it. It isn't necessarily the primary reason. At the time of the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the large standing armies of European states were a source of oppression, and the US wanted to avoid that. However, we are fortunate that our large standing army has never shown ambitions on controlling the government. Sadly, that is not the case in much of the world, where the government directly or indirectly controls the government.

For me, the "armed citizens vs. a growing government" argument isn't particularly a strong reason--there are other, more compelling reasons to support firearms ownership.

After living my past 50 years all over the world, including the US, I feel that I have observed a lot of different cultures. But it continually amazes me that the US citizens live in a world driven by fear and greed. You are so rich and strong as a nation, why is there so much fear in the US? Fear inevitably turns to violence. Why so violent? Why so many guns?

I don't know what nations you've lived in, so I'm not sure what your comparisons are based on. However, there are many more violent nations than the US, and many of those have stricter gun laws than the US (for example, Mexico and Brazil have far higher murder rates than the US, but far stricter gun laws.) Indeed, according to the UN, there are at least 23 nations that are more violent (in terms of murder rates) than the US. In my own (quite limited) experience in Latin America, I find a culture far more addicted to violence than the United States.

It seems, upon some research, that state and local government in the US are free to devise any sort of gun law they choose. Currently there are over 20,000 existing gun laws throughout the US, many of which are unenforceable because of the sheer numbers involved! If its not the number of guns, what factors do contribute to the violent nature of society?

That last question is the $20,000 question. Countries like Switzerland and Israel are more heavily armed per capita than the United States, but they have far lower murder rates. I don't think there is a simple answer.

Back to your fear of your "own government turning on you". I guess, I can agree that the US has had an interesting history on what they have done to other countries, while telling the US public a different scenario. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, because I am not, I'm just confused:

1. 1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadegh of Iran. U.S. installs the Shah as dictator.

2. 1954: U.S. overthrows democratically elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 20,000 civilians are killed.

3. 1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.

4. 1963-1975: U.S. military kills 4 million people in Southeast Asia.

5. September 11, 1973: U.S. stages a military coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende is assassinated. Dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet is installed. 5,000 Chileans are murdered.

6. 1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 7,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns are killed.

7. 1980s: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow Muslim terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion.

8. 1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "Contras" to fight government. 30,000 Nicaraguans die.

9. 1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.

10. 1983: The White House secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis.

11. 1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as president of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega.

12. 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S.

13. 1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.

14. 1998: U.S. bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan. The factory turns out to be making aspirin.

15. 1991-making of the film: U.S. planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. The United Nations estimates that 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.

16. 2000-2001: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid."

Ok, I think you're drifting from the OP here--though what you brought up is worthy of its own thread. I would suggest you start a new thread on it, because it should be addressed.

Peace

[MidnightBlue]

This might seem like a surprising answer, coming from a pacifist, but I believe the people have the right to arm themselves and to defend themselves -- whether against criminals, against foreign invaders, or against their own government.

Jesus teaches us not to resort to violence, and experience teaches us that violence just begets more violence. But pacifism should be freely chosen, and not enforced by a government that is itself given to excesses of violence. When the government uses force against the people, and the people have no means of self-defense, tyranny results.

[Bangbang]

Yes....I would die without my guns.

[fromthe heart]

Well I knew bangbang would say yes when I saw he was the last to answer.


I have to say yes...it's part of our rights in bearing arms. Those of us who have guns need to remember that it's also a big responsibility to teach the respect for life and the guns as well.