Guns

[Dominick]

Guns : I don't have any. I don't need any now and never have had any despite a, shall we say, adventurous life sometime on the margin of society. Nor am I fascinated by them with the exception of battle ships through the ages and tanks of WWII, but those are hardly the issue here.

Nevertheless, and despite the tragedies in Germany and Alabama today, I don't see any reason to ban guns from general possession. People get killed by guns, it is true. But they also get killed by knifes -London and England in general have had a real problem there in the last months- or by hammers, or by cars even.

Guns are said to have no other purpose than killing or at least hurting fellow citizens. But that's not true. There are ranges for shooting practice and the overwhelming majority of gun owners do just that and no more. I would compare it with owning a top class Lamborghini or some such. When you drive that to its full capacity on the general roads, you're as dangerous as someone brandishing a gun on a packed market. Lamborghinis are for the race track and guns for the range.

The argument for defense of oneself, one's loved ones and one's property I find less convincing. Crime is blown way out of proportion in today's hysteric media circus. The chance of ever really needing a gun for that purpose is extremely small.

I've never heard a compelling argument to ban guns, or rather restrict their use to the armed and police forces which such a ban really implies. Does anyone know of such an argument ?

[partofme]

For me it's just a matter of where the line is. I have no problem with guns for personal protection and the like but when people say that we have a absolute right to bear arms I wonder if they think it would be fine for individuals to own nuclear weapons. People in this country usually bring up the second amendment but did they really envision assault rifles? I don't think you could argue they would have meant the more powerful and effective guns of the future than other weapons our military has. When it comes down to it I can't think of many people that don't think we should have any restrictions on any kinds of weapons so it's really about where the line should be.

[Greendruid]

I have at least one cougar, several packs of coyotes and a possible black bear on my property on a regular basis. For the first time in my life I've considered owning a gun for the purposes of self-defence from non-human agents. I'm more likely to veer towards bows and crossbows as I see myself also needing to learn to hunt just for the sake of having that skill set.

I don't see the sense in banning the personal ownership of guns. I think that regulation of the sales, ownership and operation of such things is sufficient to deter those who would use guns for killing people. There will probably always be those loose canons (pun intended) in society that go on violent killing sprees as the two recent cases seem to indicate. People who are just pent up with rage for very complicated reasons and then take that rage out on others. This is one of the few things that makes us fairly normal primates. Aggression towards other primates to the extreme of killing is fairly common in our nearest relatives, especially as it relates to infanticide. A whole different topic though.

I think that having a pistol in an urban setting is probably a more difficult thing to justify than having a rifle or shotgun in an urban setting. The purposes of these two very different styles of gun are of course quite different. If you have the time and space to pull a rifle or shotgun on someone, chances are there would have been other violent options available to you even if guns were not.

Canada's laws on ownership, possession and transportation of firearms are fairly strict in comparison to our American neighbours and gun-related crimes are statistically different in the two countries. The issue of having a right to bear arms is of course at the core of the formation of the United States from its infancy. Canada inherited the UK's laws as they evolved. There is an entirely different culture surrounding guns in the two countries for those who don't own them. However, gun owners that I know in the two countries don't strike me as being markedly different from their attitudes towards firearms in general.

My entire set of in-laws own guns as ex-military and to hunt, which they do to survive in many cases. Without one or two deer every season my brother-in-law would probably have a much poorer diet than he does on his current income because he probably current afford to buy that much meat. When I first moved to Missouri it kind of freaked me out when a girl I was dating told me she had not one, not two, but three guns in the house. She lived alone and her dad gave them to her for her own safety. They were all pistols of one type or another. She was a little crazy in retrospect - that kind of shocks me even more.

The classes of guns outside of the classic farm rifle or shotgun and the small personal pistol seem to cater to the fanatics and personal ownership of oozies, AK47s, M-60s, glocks, etc., should be sharply restricted in my opinion. There is no reasonable argument to make in the name of self-defence of this kind of weapon. If it is part of your occupation because you are military, that is an entirely different position. Having it in your "collection" at home is excessive and akin to wearing the biggest and most elaborate penis sheath (http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://irvsworld.busythumbs.com/users/I/Irv/irvsworld/images/100_0070.jpg&imgrefurl=http://irvsworld.busythumbs.com/entry_id/137871/action/viewentry/&usg=__CO6UmcCTKTRkZIkLJrSc_0S5Xa4=&h=600&w=800&sz=94&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=oMdy7O0SfNtC4M:&tbnh=107&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpenis%2Bsheath%26hl%3Den%26client%3Df irefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1) you can find.

[SMadsen]

For me it's just a matter of where the line is. I have no problem with guns for personal protection and the like but when people say that we have a absolute right to bear arms I wonder if they think it would be fine for individuals to own nuclear weapons. People in this country usually bring up the second amendment but did they really envision assault rifles? I don't think you could argue they would have meant the more powerful and effective guns of the future than other weapons our military has. When it comes down to it I can't think of many people that don't think we should have any restrictions on any kinds of weapons so it's really about where the line should be.
I actually think that for the 2nd ammendment to work as intended, those who wrote it must, by definition, have meant any arms, now or in the future, necessary to fight off intruding forces. A "well regulated Militsia, being necessary to the security of a free State" isn't exactly words used to describe a right, - it's the description of a requirement.

In light of this, the 2nd ammendment is not currently in effect in the US except in terms of the government because, for a militsia to have the necessary force it takes to secure a free state, it means that if the potential intruder has, say, nuclear arms then the militsia must, in order to fight off the adversary, have nuclear arms as well. At least. So as long as any kind of weapon that is currently in possession of potential military adversaries or more powerful than any of these is banned from being possessed by the "militsia" then the 2nd ammendment is not in effect.

I think that the idea of crime control by possession, i.e. gun possession void of military implications, is mere apologetics that is being employed due to quite disparate issues.

[Michael]

I actually think that for the 2nd ammendment to work as intended, those who wrote it must, by definition, have meant any arms, now or in the future, necessary to fight off intruding forces. A "well regulated Militsia, being necessary to the security of a free State" isn't exactly words used to describe a right, - it's the description of a requirement.

In light of this, the 2nd ammendment is not currently in effect in the US except in terms of the government because, for a militsia to have the necessary force it takes to secure a free state, it means that if the potential intruder has, say, nuclear arms then the militsia must, in order to fight off the adversary, have nuclear arms as well. At least. So as long as any kind of weapon that is currently in possession of potential military adversaries or more powerful than any of these is banned from being possessed by the "militsia" then the 2nd ammendment is not in effect.
Excellent point - I think you've given the definitive reason that assault rifles are legal in the USA. The logic of the 2nd Ammendment pretty much requires it.

I think that the idea of crime control by possession, i.e. gun possession void of military implications, is mere apologetics that is being employed due to quite disparate issues.
I think the crime control angle is absurd. US crime rates aren't all that unusual. It is only US gun violence that is unusual by international standards.

Some countries have high crime rates with low amount of guns and some have high crime rates with high amounts of guns. Gun ownership rates and crime rates compared internationally don't seem to corelate all that closely.

Only 'gun violence' tracks to 'gun rates' and even that's fairly weak corelation since some countries with high gun ownership rates have comparatively low gun violence rates (Australia, Canada and Ireland are countries with high gun ownership rates). South Africa of course has very high gun ownership rates as well as sky-high crime and gun-violence rates.

In other words, the comparative international data on gun ownership rates and crime rates doesn't support any meaningful conclusion. The data points are all over the map (literally and figuratively).

[SMadsen]

Excellent point - I think you've given the definitive reason that assault rifles are legal in the USA. The logic of the 2nd Ammendment pretty much requires it.
Thank you. I'm not sure you're not being sarchastic, though, as it's not a particularly widespread logic on your continent :)

[Michael]

I have at least one cougar, several packs of coyotes and a possible black bear on my property on a regular basis.

Yeah, well have seen many 'cougars' in my neighborhood, several packs of crackheads and lot of bankers in Beemers! It would be like shooting fish in a barrel there are so many of them!

For the first time in my life I've considered owning a gun for the purposes of self-defence from non-human agents. I'm more likely to veer towards bows and crossbows as I see myself also needing to learn to hunt just for the sake of having that skill set.
I believe that crossbows are used rather than the traditional bow nowadays. The crossbow is a first class weapon, having only the drawback of a slow rate of fire. It is almost ideal for 'real' hunting.

(Btw, I don't consider hunting or fishing to be a 'sport' - slaughtering animals for entertainment strikes me as rather psychotic - hunting animals to eat them is an entirely different matter).

I don't see the sense in banning the personal ownership of guns. I think that regulation of the sales, ownership and operation of such things is sufficient to deter those who would use guns for killing people. There will probably always be those loose canons (pun intended) in society that go on violent killing sprees as the two recent cases seem to indicate. People who are just pent up with rage for very complicated reasons and then take that rage out on others. This is one of the few things that makes us fairly normal primates. Aggression towards other primates to the extreme of killing is fairly common in our nearest relatives, especially as it relates to infanticide. A whole different topic though.
Yes, I agree with this perspective. The problem of psychotic/murderous people exists independent of legal gun ownership. They don't seem to be connected. Heck, even Finland has had a mass-school shooting tragedy.

And the attempt to permit gun ownership by "usage" of guns is bound to fail. Guns are necessary and legal for many parts of society (police, military, security) and thus are present and available even in societies with strict gun laws.

I think that having a pistol in an urban setting is probably a more difficult thing to justify than having a rifle or shotgun in an urban setting. The purposes of these two very different styles of gun are of course quite different. If you have the time and space to pull a rifle or shotgun on someone, chances are there would have been other violent options available to you even if guns were not.

Canada's laws on ownership, possession and transportation of firearms are fairly strict in comparison to our American neighbours and gun-related crimes are statistically different in the two countries. The issue of having a right to bear arms is of course at the core of the formation of the United States from its infancy. Canada inherited the UK's laws as they evolved. There is an entirely different culture surrounding guns in the two countries for those who don't own them. However, gun owners that I know in the two countries don't strike me as being markedly different from their attitudes towards firearms in general.
Very interesting point that - never thought of it but its true. Canadians and American gun owners tend to approach the issue the same way, yet the political-legal culture of guns is radically different.

The classes of guns outside of the classic farm rifle or shotgun and the small personal pistol seem to cater to the fanatics and personal ownership of oozies, AK47s, M-60s, glocks, etc., should be sharply restricted in my opinion. There is no reasonable argument to make in the name of self-defence of this kind of weapon. If it is part of your occupation because you are military, that is an entirely different position. Having it in your "collection" at home is excessive and akin to wearing the biggest and most elaborate penis sheath (http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://irvsworld.busythumbs.com/users/I/Irv/irvsworld/images/100_0070.jpg&imgrefurl=http://irvsworld.busythumbs.com/entry_id/137871/action/viewentry/&usg=__CO6UmcCTKTRkZIkLJrSc_0S5Xa4=&h=600&w=800&sz=94&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=oMdy7O0SfNtC4M:&tbnh=107&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpenis%2Bsheath%26hl%3Den%26client%3Df irefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1) you can find.
Yes, this is so true, but I think SMadsen's post on this point is quite relevant. Its not just ego driving the legal ownership of assault rifles - it is consistent with the political purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

[Michael]

Thank you. I'm not sure you're not being sarchastic, though, as it's not a particularly widespread logic on your continent :)
Not sarcastic at all. I seriously think this is the key legal/theoretical reason that assault rifles are legal. I think the logic of the 2nd Amendment requires it.

One angle you will always hear about is the 'liberty' angle that guns are needed to defend against the possibility of tyrannical government. That's a strong cultural current that permeates all 'gun rights' discussions, certainly in the US.

[SMadsen]

Not sarcastic at all. I seriously think this is the key legal/theoretical reason that assault rifles are legal. I think the logic of the 2nd Amendment requires it.

One angle you will always hear about is the 'liberty' angle that guns are needed to defend against the possibility of tyrannical government. That's a strong cultural current that permeates all 'gun rights' discussions, certainly in the US.
Oh yeah, that's a classic.

I've often wondered how the IRS or US Department of Treasury avoids arousing the "militsia". It seems there's nothing like tax as a symbol of governmental tyranny.

[drgoodtrips]

Not sarcastic at all. I seriously think this is the key legal/theoretical reason that assault rifles are legal. I think the logic of the 2nd Amendment requires it.

One angle you will always hear about is the 'liberty' angle that guns are needed to defend against the possibility of tyrannical government. That's a strong cultural current that permeates all 'gun rights' discussions, certainly in the US.

That's always the most baffling argument to me - some of these right-wingers seem to believe, in all seriousness, that the only thing standing between the US government and some kind of authoritarian, Orwellian scenario is a bunch of Montana militia types. As if any one of (or combination of) the police, Feds, ATF, National Guard, etc couldn't dispatch them without a second thought.

The logic for gun ownership is fairly straightforward and really not in need of this kind of absurd rationalization. It's a logically consistent point of view (and entirely reasonable, IMO) to say that the government ought not to restrict the rights of citizens to own things, provided that they obey the law and do not violate the rights of others.

[Korimyr the Rat]

I believe in the principle of the armed citizen, not for overblown reasons of self-defense against criminals or delusional notions of resisting government tyranny-- I can hardly be called a lover of freedom in the first place-- but as a moral virtue in its own right. A proper gentleman carries a weapon and is prepared to use it. People who refuse to carry weapons are shirking their moral duty, and people who are not allowed to carry weapons are slaves.

I also believe in armed citizens, not as a check against the power of the State, but as an extension of it. Every citizen is a part of the State, and the State's laws are the laws of the citizens-- thus every law-abiding armed citizen upholds the security and order of the State, from threats within and without.

Guns are said to have no other purpose than killing or at least hurting fellow citizens. But that's not true.

Their intended purpose is to kill other animals. They started out as military weapons and were eventually adapted to hunting. Worth remembering that the purpose of the firing range is to practice using the gun, so that you will be more effective at using it to kill.

The argument for defense of oneself, one's loved ones and one's property I find less convincing. Crime is blown way out of proportion in today's hysteric media circus. The chance of ever really needing a gun for that purpose is extremely small.

I can certainly agree with this, but on the other hand, when a gun is useful for this purpose it is typically invaluable. I've been lucky, on the few occasions where I could have used a gun in self-defense, that I didn't really need one.

I've never heard a compelling argument to ban guns, or rather restrict their use to the armed and police forces which such a ban really implies. Does anyone know of such an argument ?

Despite my normally authoritarian leanings, it hurts my very soul to suggest this... but keeping guns out of civilian hands makes them much less capable of resisting lawful authority. It means fewer police casualties at the hands of criminals.

For the first time in my life I've considered owning a gun for the purposes of self-defence from non-human agents. I'm more likely to veer towards bows and crossbows as I see myself also needing to learn to hunt just for the sake of having that skill set.

I believe that crossbows are used rather than the traditional bow nowadays. The crossbow is a first class weapon, having only the drawback of a slow rate of fire. It is almost ideal for 'real' hunting.

(Btw, I don't consider hunting or fishing to be a 'sport' - slaughtering animals for entertainment strikes me as rather psychotic - hunting animals to eat them is an entirely different matter).

Bows and crossbows are far from ideal for defending yourself against wild animals, especially pack animals-- the rate of fire is too slow, and one of the most useful qualities of firearms against animals is that they are loud.

And if you are not hunting for sport, there is very little reason to prefer the crossbow to the rifle. The rifle does damage more of the meat, but not a considerable portion, and the rifle causes a quicker and more humane kill-- meaning not only less pain for the animal, but less chance of being unable to track the animal once it falls.

I think that having a pistol in an urban setting is probably a more difficult thing to justify than having a rifle or shotgun in an urban setting. ... If you have the time and space to pull a rifle or shotgun on someone, chances are there would have been other violent options available to you even if guns were not.

Ironically, this is the very argument I use for why handguns should be allowed in urban settings-- this is where they are most likely to be needed, and the only place where they are the logical weapon of choice.

The classes of guns outside of the classic farm rifle or shotgun and the small personal pistol seem to cater to the fanatics and personal ownership of oozies, AK47s, M-60s, glocks, etc., should be sharply restricted in my opinion. There is no reasonable argument to make in the name of self-defence of this kind of weapon.

Glock is known for their manufacture of small personal handguns. I don't believe that they even make military weaponry. And the Uzi, like all submachine guns, is an effective self-defense weapon in every way except that they are too bulky and too heavy, and are thus more likely to be left behind when they are needed.

I agree with you that assault rifles and machine guns don't serve valid personal defense weapons. On the other hand, I believe the duties of the armed citizen extend beyond his own personal defense-- and these weapons are nearly as effective in civilian hands as they are in the hands of the infantry in defending territory against enemy soldiers.

And, of course, the only practical difference between the SKS I use for hunting and the AK-47 is selective fire. Same with the AR-15 and the M-16.

[Michael]

I've often wondered how the IRS or US Department of Treasury avoids arousing the "militsia". It seems there's nothing like tax as a symbol of governmental tyranny.
Wonder no more.

The IRS is probably the core inspiration for the militia movement in the USA. UN comes second. ZOG is probably third.

(for the uninitiated, "ZOG" refers to the Zionist Occupational Government which is what some of these types refer to the US federal government - the origin is southern, as opposed to the anti-IRS types on the prairies)