Gun Control

[Craig234]

I think your example is a lot more silly than my argument.

Anthrax is a biological weapon that has no other uses. Unless you want to try to make the argument that guns are only useful for mass murder, your analogy is wholly inadequate.

I'm seeing a pattern where you consistently ignore the point of analogies to take issue with an irrelevant issue. That's not going to make the discussion easier.

The analogy with Anthrax has nothing to do with the number of 'uses'. That's irrelevant.

The analogy with Anthrax was to make clear a/the flaw in your argument, which it did.

That flaw was in your 'only law-abiding citizens won't have it' paying attention to something unimnport and and ignoring the question of reducing supply for criminals.

That applies to both guns and anthrax and is perfectly useful as an analogy.

No, the argument is that passing the law is sufficiently useless at preventing criminals from getting guns that it is not worth the negative impact it would cause.

Well, that wasn't the argument stated, but the one you now say is the argument needs support, which it did not have.

Watch this: "passing the law is sufficiently useful at preventing criminals from getting guns that it is worth the negative impact it would cause"

Nice argument. No support, like yours.

Guns are very simple items to manufacture, and are made all around the world. They are smuggled anywhere there is a demand for them.

As just one example, Gaza is practically a police state, and is a tiny piece of land, and Israel and Egypt can't keep the guns out of there. You think you're going to accomplish that in a country the size of the US?

That's ridiculous. While guns aren't impossible to manufacture, how many guns in circulation are privately made? How many crackheads are going to make them?

The Gaza example is useless - the issues of Gaza's import of weapons - which involves things like other countries like Iran - and gun manufacturing are not the same at all.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No, it wasn't. It was because the military situation for the US - with no standing armies at all - was that state militias were the heart of defense, and the founding fathers did not want any government to pass laws that might prevent the US having a good defense. In the 20th century, especially, times change and the US developed a huge military that handles that. The 2nd amendment was made obsolete in its purpose.

Funny how history repeats itself. The second Amendment of the US Bill of Rights is directly descended and heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights which guarantees the free citizens (and specifically the protestants) the right to bear arms. At the time of the English Bill of Rights the contention was over James II claiming that since he had a standing army the protestants did not need to have the rights to bear arms. He lost that argument with the Glorious Revolution. Now here we are 323 years later arguing basically the same thing.

We can see this with Alexander Hamilton's own words:

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

But it's also highly vague about what 'arms' means. How about meaning what it meant when adopted - you can have muskets?

That is not what it meant even in 1791. Individuals could, and did, own larger weapons including infantry and navel cannons.

If the founding fathers had meant 'being necessary to protect the power of the people to overthrow a corrupt government', they could have said that. They didn't.

It is well documented that was what the debate was about at the time though. Your position is further eroded by the fact that in 1792 the very first congress passed the Militia Act of 1972 that defined the militia as every able bodied man between the ages of 18 and 45.

Colonies don't need militias - they are occupied and 'protected' by the armies of the occupying power, the British troops before the freedom of the US.

The colonies DID have militias. In fact one of the things that ignited the American Revolutionary War was the British started trying to disarm those militia's in expectation of rebellion.

The second amendment says what it says, and has a history. As much as you might think there should be a right in the constitution for citizens to defeat a corrupt government with their rifles - a pretty absurd proposition in these times, but hey - you might have a fine point, but that doesn't make the constitution say what you want.

I've had some interest to look back at the Bill of Rights' debates to see just how much discussion there was about the 'protection from tyranny' issue, but haven't checked much.

You should check more. As the Hamilton quote I gave above shows, the right to overthrow your government was the heart of the debate over the 2nd amendment at the time of it's drafting. In the end the Anti-federalist won and we got the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

 

[SMOGZINN]

If Anthrax were legal, a lot more people would have it, and a lot more bad things would likely be done with it.

Anthrax is legal to own in the United States. It only illegal to use it as a weapon.
Kind of defeats your argument.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Guns are very simple items to manufacture, and are made all around the world. They are smuggled anywhere there is a demand for them.

As just one example, Gaza is practically a police state, and is a tiny piece of land, and Israel and Egypt can't keep the guns out of there. You think you're going to accomplish that in a country the size of the US?

Could you manufacture a gun if you couldn't just go buy the parts off the internet and put them together? You think every kid in Chicago that wants a gun tucked into his waistband would just whip one up in shop class? I think numerous other western countries with strict gun laws serves as a case study that undermines your argument. Trying to use Gaza as an example is pretty laughable. That is a barely functioning semblance of a state with untold numbers of tunnels under the Egyptian border through which anything can move. You conveniently ignore Canada, the UK, France, Germany and every other western nation because the gun violence statistics there are impossible to paper over.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Anthrax is legal to own in the United States. It only illegal to use it as a weapon.
Kind of defeats your argument.

I must have missed it last time I went to Walmart.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm seeing a pattern where you consistently ignore the point of analogies to take issue with an irrelevant issue. That's not going to make the discussion easier.

The analogy with Anthrax has nothing to do with the number of 'uses'. That's irrelevant.

The analogy with Anthrax was to make clear a/the flaw in your argument, which it did.

I'm glad it did for you. It didn't for me.

If you're going to use analogies to try to make clear flaws in my arguments, then I'm going to point out flaws in your analogies where I feel such are warranted -- because a flawed analogy means it doesn't indicate a flawed argument.

My argument was: "Making things illegal, by definition, only keeps them out of the hands of the law-abiding."

Your anthrax example is not relevant to a discussion of guns because law-abiding citizens have no use for nor interest in owning anthrax, and wouldn't even if it were legal to own.

Watch this: "passing the law is sufficiently useful at preventing criminals from getting guns that it is worth the negative impact it would cause"

Nice argument. No support, like yours.

Well, yes, they are both opinions and both based on a value judgment: whether an action is "worth" a cost or not. You have your idea of that, and I have mine. There really isn't an argument to be made about "worth".

That's ridiculous. While guns aren't impossible to manufacture, how many guns in circulation are privately made? How many crackheads are going to make them?

Very few in circulation are privately made -- but why would there be many? There's no reason for anyone to make their own gun when they can just buy one. If you outlaw them -- then there would be a reason to make your own.

People don't make their own hard alcohol, because there's no need -- they can just buy it. Well, in the early 20th century, they couldn't buy it, so, guess what -- they made their own.

And it won't just be "homemade" guns either, there will be a plentiful supply from other countries, just as there is currently a plentiful supply of illegal drugs.

The Gaza example is useless - the issues of Gaza's import of weapons - which involves things like other countries like Iran - and gun manufacturing are not the same at all.

How is it "useless"? You have a place under virtual lockdown and there are still guns getting in. Are you trying to argue that the US would be easier to police? Or that there would be no demand for guns here if you banned them all? Both would be rather difficult cases to make.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Could you manufacture a gun if you couldn't just go buy the parts off the internet and put them together? You think every kid in Chicago that wants a gun tucked into his waistband would just whip one up in shop class? I think numerous other western countries with strict gun laws serves as a case study that undermines your argument.

Where do "kids in Chicago" get crack and heroin from? They aren't making it at home.

Where there's a market, someone will supply it.

Trying to use Gaza as an example is pretty laughable. That is a barely functioning semblance of a state with untold numbers of tunnels under the Egyptian border through which anything can move.

And you think there won't be similar smuggling routes into the US for guns, the way there is for drugs? Why?

You conveniently ignore Canada, the UK, France, Germany and every other western nation because the gun violence statistics there are impossible to paper over.

I ignore them because, for starters, they weren't raised. But since you raise them, I ignore them because different countries have different cultures, and guns aren't viewed the same way in those countries as they are here.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Where do "kids in Chicago" get crack and heroin from? They aren't making it at home.
Where there's a market, someone will supply it.

Are you suggesting that guns will be just as easy to obtain if the US, the largest producer of small arms in the world, stops production of these arms and outlaws the domestic sale of them? Lets try to remain in the realm of reality here. Guns are much bulkier to move, and require advanced machining techniques and engineering to manufacture, not to mention the ammunition. Drugs can be produced by a bunch of illiterate villagers in Columbia.

And you think there won't be similar smuggling routes into the US for guns, the way there is for drugs? Why?

Enough successful smuggling to allow for widespread and affordable availability on black markets? Absolutely not. You forget that the US is the largest manufacturer of firearms in the world. Guns are very risky to smuggle, and the risk of loss is much greater than smuggling drugs that cost almost nothing to produce. Any black market guns would be well beyond the price that a common street criminal could afford.

I ignore them because, for starters, they weren't raised. But since you raise them, I ignore them because different countries have different cultures, and guns aren't viewed the same way in those countries as they are here.

Ahh yes, back to culture, as if that is some intrinsic value to our national identity that cannot be changed. Slavery used to be part of the Southern culture. People whom you would assume are decent people willingly owned another human being, and thought themselves none the lesser for doing it. As I stated in my original post in this thread, that "culture" in this country needs to change. It's not a value worth cherishing, it's a cancer.

 

[Craig234]

Anthrax is legal to own in the United States. It only illegal to use it as a weapon.
Kind of defeats your argument.

Well, good catch, but a 1994 law makes it next to impossible to buy it from US labs, and it's very difficult to get the sort of Anthrax good for terrorist attacks.

Hence how you don't hear about attacks with it despit it being very effective when one person did use it.

And it appears that person was a highly trained government scientist with access.

 

[Craig234]

I'm glad it did for you. It didn't for me.

If you're going to use analogies to try to make clear flaws in my arguments, then I'm going to point out flaws in your analogies where I feel such are warranted -- because a flawed analogy means it doesn't indicate a flawed argument.

My argument was: "Making things illegal, by definition, only keeps them out of the hands of the law-abiding."

Your anthrax example is not relevant to a discussion of guns because law-abiding citizens have no use for nor interest in owning anthrax, and wouldn't even if it were legal to own.

You continue to ignore the actual relevant argument of the analogy, which was explained twice, suggesting you are not arguing in good faith here.

Once again, the issue isn't how many law-abiding people do or don't have the item, many or zero. It's how many criminals are prevented from having it by the law.

Well, yes, they are both opinions and both based on a value judgment: whether an action is "worth" a cost or not. You have your idea of that, and I have mine. There really isn't an argument to be made about "worth".

Yes, there is. First, there's supporting what you claim the two sides to weigh are; and then there's arguing your position why you weighed one more heavily.

Very few in circulation are privately made -- but why would there be many? There's no reason for anyone to make their own gun when they can just buy one. If you outlaw them -- then there would be a reason to make your own.

Something you have not provded any evidence to show would be practical and likely.

People don't make their own hard alcohol, because there's no need -- they can just buy it. Well, in the early 20th century, they couldn't buy it, so, guess what -- they made their own.

Another bad analogy, given the different difficulty of making booze and guns.

And it won't just be "homemade" guns either, there will be a plentiful supply from other countries, just as there is currently a plentiful supply of illegal drugs.

No, actually, there won't for a variety of reasons. But note that IIRC 90% of the guns seized from Mexican drug cartels came from the US. There's a reason.

How is it "useless"? You have a place under virtual lockdown and there are still guns getting in. Are you trying to argue that the US would be easier to police? Or that there would be no demand for guns here if you banned them all? Both would be rather difficult cases to make.

"Foreign Affairs Minister of Israel Tzipi Livni stated in January, 2008: “Israel got out of Gaza. It dismantled its settlements there. No Israeli soldiers were left there after the disengagement.”"

The Gaza strip has a border with Egypt. Not many Israeli soldiers patrol it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You continue to ignore the actual relevant argument of the analogy, which was explained twice, suggesting you are not arguing in good faith here.

I'm not arguing in bad faith. I simply disagree with the validity of your analogy. I believe it is inapplicable.

Once again, the issue isn't how many law-abiding people do or don't have the item, many or zero. It's how many criminals are prevented from having it by the law.

And you cannot assess that by comparing an item that people very much want (guns) to one that people do not (anthrax).

A better analogy is drugs. You don't seem to want to address that one, though.

Yes, there is. First, there's supporting what you claim the two sides to weigh are; and then there's arguing your position why you weighed one more heavily.

That still ultimately boils down to whether one believes the right to own a gun is important or not. I do; you do not. So we are not going to ever convince each other about whether or not a given measure is "worthwhile" given its impact on legal gun ownership.

Something you have not provded any evidence to show would be practical and likely.

How am I supposed to provide evidence of something that hasn't happened?

But I can look to past American history and what people do when something they want is banned -- they make it, or they smuggle it in.

Another bad analogy, given the different difficulty of making booze and guns.

What basis do you have for believing that guns are so difficult to make? Boiled down, it's a ball of metal with some gunpowder in a tube.

This article, and this one, and this one and a whole host of others, suggest you overstate the difficulty of making a firearm.

No, actually, there won't for a variety of reasons.

Such as?

But note that IIRC 90% of the guns seized from Mexican drug cartels came from the US. There's a reason.

Yes, that's where they are easiest to get. And our border is a joke.

If guns are banned in the US, then instead of a big supplier, we'll become a big customer. Just like we are for drugs.

If guns can flow one way, they can flow the other. You've kinda undercut your own argument there, I think.

The Gaza strip has a border with Egypt. Not many Israeli soldiers patrol it.

Egyptian soldiers patrol it. The guns still get through.

We can't even keep people from crossing our borders illegally.

 

[Kelvrick]

Are you suggesting that guns will be just as easy to obtain if the US, the largest producer of small arms in the world, stops production of these arms and outlaws the domestic sale of them? Lets try to remain in the realm of reality here. Guns are much bulkier to move, and require advanced machining techniques and engineering to manufacture, not to mention the ammunition. Drugs can be produced by a bunch of illiterate villagers in Columbia.

How much do you know about manufacturing guns or their parts? It is actually pretty simple. With a mill, you can create most of the large parts of an ar-15 pretty easily. The hardest part would be finding a barrel blank, which is what really, a tube of steel? The small parts are essentially little springs and pins. I would say it would be as hard to look up the plans for an ak47 or ar15 as it is to look up how to cook meth. Bulk? Our demand for drugs has the drug cartels digging underground tunnels and using submarines to bring them across the border. It would just mean they will bring both guns and drugs across the border now.

Enough successful smuggling to allow for widespread and affordable availability on black markets? Absolutely not. You forget that the US is the largest manufacturer of firearms in the world. Guns are very risky to smuggle, and the risk of loss is much greater than smuggling drugs that cost almost nothing to produce. Any black market guns would be well beyond the price that a common street criminal could afford.

I would say guns are no riskier than drugs. If you get caught with a 300 foot underground tunnel across the border, I dont' think having or not having guns or drugs in your possession is going to make a big difference.

Ahh yes, back to culture, as if that is some intrinsic value to our national identity that cannot be changed. Slavery used to be part of the Southern culture. People whom you would assume are decent people willingly owned another human being, and thought themselves none the lesser for doing it. As I stated in my original post in this thread, that "culture" in this country needs to change. It's not a value worth cherishing, it's a cancer.

Maybe you should try thinking of guns as a culture of freedom. It isn't about owning guns, it is about the freedom of owning many things that have no other value or our ability to do many things that are completely wasteful. When compared to cars, which are almost a required possession now, how large and powerful of a car do we need? Why isn't everyone inside a 2,000lb 50mpg 2 passenger car? Anything else isn't required, but the freedom to own what you want is important.

Pro-gun people like to compare guns to other things and the first response is that the items guns are compared to have other purposes. Well, the most popular products in any of those categories is completely wasteful if we're only looking at them for their bare purpose. In the end, we make sacrifices in price and efficiency for our own entertainment because we have the freedom to.

 

[waggy]

You continue to ignore the actual relevant argument of the analogy, which was explained twice, suggesting you are not arguing in good faith here.

Once again, the issue isn't how many law-abiding people do or don't have the item, many or zero. It's how many criminals are prevented from having it by the law.



Another bad analogy, given the different difficulty of making booze and guns.

when it starts to effect law aiding citizens of a constitutional right i have issues.

you are rather ignorant on the issue if you think its difficult to make a gun.

---------------------------------------
difficulty of making a gun is subjective.
Making a quality weapon is not easy.

Your comment started to slide into area that we would not go into - personal attacks.

EK

 

[Mxylplyx]

The small parts are essentially little springs and pins. I would say it would be as hard to look up the plans for an ak47 or ar15 as it is to look up how to cook meth. Bulk? Our demand for drugs has the drug cartels digging underground tunnels and using submarines to bring them across the border. It would just mean they will bring both guns and drugs across the border now.

You have now completely jumped the shark here. I am a well educated software engineer. I could read a few things and be cooking meth tomorrow if I wanted. If you presented me with plans on how to machine the parts to assemble a gun I wouldn't even know where to begin, regardless of whether I had access to the thousands of dollars worth of equipment necessary to do this. You undermine your own credibility by presenting such as silly argument.

 

[Mxylplyx]

you are rather ignorant on the issue if you think its difficult to make a gun.

This statement is simply preposterous. It most certainly is difficult to make a gun, and very few people in this country possess the skills to do so.

 

[waggy]

This statement is simply preposterous. It most certainly is difficult to make a gun, and very few people in this country possess the skills to do so.

lol no.

it is very very easy to make a gun.

 

[Mxylplyx]

lol no.

it is very very easy to make a gun.

It's very very easy to make toast, not guns.

 

[Kelvrick]

You have now completely jumped the shark here. I am a well educated software engineer. I could read a few things and be cooking meth tomorrow if I wanted. If you presented me with plans on how to machine the parts to assemble a gun I wouldn't even know where to begin, regardless of whether I had access to the thousands of dollars worth of equipment necessary to do this. You undermine your own credibility by presenting such as silly argument.

You are undermining your ability to be reasoned with if you dismiss what other people say without knowing why they are saying it. What part of making the gun do you find so complicated? In the end, it is a tube that holds a ball with some gunpowder behind it. It sounds like you are putting too much stock behind your own intelligence and what you think would be hard to do against what other people might find easy to do. Put me in your place at work and I would be lost. The same could be said of putting us in the shoes of other people.

These are all the parts for a glock. Please explain what part would be so complicated to make if you had access to a mill?
http://i.imgur.com/ZEVM8.jpg

Drug cartels will spend millions of dollars to dig an underground tunnel or fabricate a submersible to cross borders and here you are saying that people won't get together and buy themselves a a few thousand dollars in heavy equipment? I know people who own multiple firearms that they paid over four thousand dollars for. I know of 2 people off the top of my head that if it came down to it, they could create basic firearms in their garage with their existing tools.

 

[skyking]

This statement is simply preposterous. It most certainly is difficult to make a gun, and very few people in this country possess the skills to do so.

You overstate this difficulty. I have little formal mill or lathe training, and never worked as a machine operator. And yet, I could readily make anything I wanted to. I don't flatter myself in having extraordinary skills either. I simply have had enough exposure to know what is possible.
From your perspective, it seems an impossible task. I can't write software either

 

[waggy]

It's very very easy to make toast, not guns.

lol

Mods i thought trolling was frowned on in this new forum? this has to be trolling.

---------------------------------------------------
Given the context of the post and the quote within the post; this should not be considered trolling

Playing around the toaster will be considered trolling
EK

 

[dank69]

You continue to ignore the actual relevant argument of the analogy, which was explained twice, suggesting you are not arguing in good faith here.

...

I'm not arguing in bad faith. I simply disagree with the validity of your analogy. I believe it is inapplicable.

...

Couple things:

It's nice to see you posting in P&N/DC again Craig, I enjoy reading a lot of your posts. That said, I believe you are way off base here with your anthrax analogy. History has many examples showing that making items illegal to possess does more harm than good. Alcohol and drugs are just two recent examples.

...

you are rather ignorant on the issue if you think its difficult to make a gun.

Difficulty is a subjective term, and as such, a personal attack is highly unwarranted here.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Let's keep this on track and off the personal stuff, shall we? There's no need for "shark jumping" comments or accusations of trolling.

Waggy, if you think someone is trolling, use the report button. (And no, the comment was not trolling.)

Mxylplyx, I've actually linked to a few documents describing how guns can be made. The issue is actually becoming more serious due to the invention of 3D printers -- arguably, milling skills won't be necessary in the future. Even now, while a gun may be harder to make than toast, it very arguably is not harder to make than many illegal drugs that are made routinely, nor a lot of other mechanical items.

I used to work for a machine tool company. Anyone who can run a CNC mill can use it to make a gun. Revolvers were made over 150 years ago, so with no modern equipment. No, you can't make one in your basement out of paperclips, but there will be people in nearly every town who have the necessary skills and equipment. What exactly is your belief that guns are too difficult for average folks to make based upon?

 

[waggy]

Couple things:

Difficulty is a subjective term, and as such, a personal attack is highly unwarranted here.

when he says "Very few people in the US can make a gun"? give me a break. the guy is either trolling or ignorant.

Trolling is against the rules yet its being done and it's a personal attack to call it out? bwhahahaha

 

[waggy]

Let's keep this on track and off the personal stuff, shall we? There's no need for "shark jumping" comments or accusations of trolling.

Waggy, if you think someone is trolling, use the report button. (And no, the comment was not trolling.)

Mxylplyx, I've actually linked to a few documents describing how guns can be made. The issue is actually becoming more serious due to the invention of 3D printers -- arguably, milling skills won't be necessary in the future. Even now, while a gun may be harder to make than toast, it very arguably is not harder to make than many illegal drugs that are made routinely, nor a lot of other mechanical items.

I used to work for a machine tool company. Anyone who can run a CNC mill can use it to make a gun. Revolvers were made over 150 years ago, so with no modern equipment. What exactly is your belief that guns are too difficult for average folks to make based upon?

lol fine. it wasn't "trolling"

my apologies then to him then.

 

[dank69]

when he says "Very few people in the US can make a gun"? give me a break. the guy is either trolling or ignorant.

Trolling is against the rules yet its being done and it's a personal attack to call it out? bwhahahaha

It may have been an overstatement but calling it easy is just as much of an understatement. Characterizing the process of making a gun including acquiring access to the required tools as "easy" could be seen as ignorant as well.