Gun Control

[waggy]

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.

not at all. I can go to any of my buddies farms and they will have nearly every thing i need to make a gun. IF i wanted a better gun i can easily go to any farming repair stores in my area and get parts i really wanted made with no questions asked. IF i wanted a rifled barrel made to fit a .22 perfectly it would be easy and cheap to do. That is if i didn't want to take the trouble to do it here.

guns have been made for hundreds (thousands if you count some of them) of years yet they didn't have high tech machines.

It amazes that people seem to think you need high end equipment to make a basic gun.

 

[Mxylplyx]

not at all. I can go to any of my buddies farms and they will have nearly every thing i need to make a gun. IF i wanted a better gun i can easily go to any farming repair stores in my area and get parts i really wanted made with no questions asked. IF i wanted a rifled barrel made to fit a .22 perfectly it would be easy and cheap to do. That is if i didn't want to take the trouble to do it here.

guns have been made for hundreds (thousands if you count some of them) of years yet they didn't have high tech machines.

It amazes that people seem to think you need high end equipment to make a basic gun.

This whole argument on whether it is easy to manufacture a gun distracts from the main point of this debate. While it would obviously be nice to eliminated gun violence completely, the goal is to significantly reduce it. Eliminating the manufacture and sale of non-hunting purposed firearms would eventually significantly reduce the quantity of those firearms in this country, and thus the rate of violence committed with them would go down. There are too many examples of other countries rolling back gun ownership and achieving precisely those results to deny that. The only difference in this country is the sheer numbers of firearms that are already currently in private hands.

 

[dank69]

This whole argument on whether it is easy to manufacture a gun distracts from the main point of this debate. While it would obviously be nice to eliminated gun violence completely, the goal is to significantly reduce it. Eliminating the manufacture and sale of non-hunting purposed firearms would eventually significantly reduce the quantity of those firearms in this country, and thus the rate of violence committed with them would go down. There are too many examples of other countries rolling back gun ownership and achieving precisely those results to deny that. The only difference in this country is the sheer numbers of firearms that are already currently in private hands.

I do not believe that goal (reduced gun violence) warrants a reduction in personal freedom. Why do you?

 

[Mxylplyx]

I do not believe that goal (reduced gun violence) warrants a reduction in personal freedom. Why do you?

Because I believe the idea that personal freedom = the right to own a handgun/assault weapon is flawed.

Do you feel that your personal freedom is infringed since you cant legally own a howitzer, rocket launcher, hand grenade, or a tank loaded with 120mm shells? If not, then you obviously agree that limits are permissible. Some wish to keep that line just past assault rifles. I wish to roll that line back to just past hunting rifles and shotguns.

 

[waggy]

Eliminating the manufacture and sale of non-hunting purposed firearms would eventually significantly reduce the quantity of those firearms in this country, and thus the rate of violence committed with them would go down. There are too many examples of other countries rolling back gun ownership and achieving precisely those results to deny that. The only difference in this country is the sheer numbers of firearms that are already currently in private hands.

this is not possible due to many reasons. besides the fact that people have already pointed out if had to many would just make a gun. Even if you beleive that "only a few in the us" can.

Also the flow of arms comeing in from Mexico would be high. there already is a high flow of illegal drugs it wouldn't be much more to bring in guns.

how would you go about getting all the guns off the street now? the police have been trying to get guns from gang members for decades and have failed.

they would have to go door to door and search. very silly and stupid idea.


i also don't think it would have as high a impact on crime as people tend to think. they would just move to other forms to do the damage. from knives to bombs.

 

[dank69]

Because I believe the idea that personal freedom = the right to own a handgun/assault weapon is flawed.

Do you feel that your personal freedom is infringed since you cant legally own a howitzer, rocket launcher, hand grenade, or a tank loaded with 120mm shells? If not, then you obviously agree that limits are permissible. Some wish to keep that line just past assault rifles. I wish to roll that line back to just past hunting rifles and shotguns.

Actually, yes I do. Freedom isn't the ability to do what you want, it is the ability to do something whether you want to do it or not. The only limits I believe should be put on freedom are limits on the freedom to negatively affect someone else. That does not include the potential to negatively affect someone else, only the actual act of negatively affecting someone else.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Because I believe the idea that personal freedom = the right to own a handgun/assault weapon is flawed.

Do you feel that your personal freedom is infringed since you cant legally own a howitzer, rocket launcher, hand grenade, or a tank loaded with 120mm shells? If not, then you obviously agree that limits are permissible. Some wish to keep that line just past assault rifles. I wish to roll that line back to just past hunting rifles and shotguns.

Yet it was advanced/quality hunting rifles that supported the Second Amendment. "Mass manufactured" single shot weapons existed also along with heavier shot weapons.

No distinction was made in terms of weapons capability; yet they existed back then.

While the intent MAY have been related to a standing militia; the fact that weapons at that time were needed to defend oneself on the frontier and beyond as well as the local towns/cities where "civilization" existed.

The Second could have been more precise in terms of drawing such a distinction - but it does not on purpose. Intent is to let the people themselves decide what is needed; not the government on what and when.

As to what the legal justification is to restrict

Do you feel that your personal freedom is infringed since you cant legally own a howitzer, rocket launcher, hand grenade, or a tank loaded with 120mm shells?

I can not say; I do not like such limits even though I understand that there is no direct need outside of the "militia" to have them. Yet one can argue that the militia may be under control of the government and one needs to be able to prevent the militia from infringing on ones rights. Access to equal firepower is a right.

 

[Mxylplyx]

this is not possible due to many reasons. besides the fact that people have already pointed out if had to many would just make a gun. Even if you beleive that "only a few in the us" can.

Also the flow of arms comeing in from Mexico would be high. there already is a high flow of illegal drugs it wouldn't be much more to bring in guns.

how would you go about getting all the guns off the street now? the police have been trying to get guns from gang members for decades and have failed.

they would have to go door to door and search. very silly and stupid idea.


i also don't think it would have as high a impact on crime as people tend to think. they would just move to other forms to do the damage. from knives to bombs.

As stated by someone in thread thread earlier, 90% of the guns in Mexico come from the US, which is a major contributor to the drug violence there. We manufacture over 5M guns a year in the US, and export many of them. How do you figure that the arms flow would simply reverse? Where would the supply come from?

A gun buyback would be a long running process, with a long amnesty period. There would be no door to door searches. After the amnesty period is up, you would assume the legal risk of still possessing the firearm. You would probably lock it up pretty tight and show it to very few people, which would go a long way in achieving the goal of curtailing access to criminals.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Actually, yes I do. Freedom isn't the ability to do what you want, it is the ability to do something whether you want to do it or not. The only limits I believe should be put on freedom are limits on the freedom to negatively affect someone else. That does not include the potential to negatively affect someone else, only the actual act of negatively affecting someone else.

OK, so lets take that a step further. I wish to have the freedom to purchase a nuclear bomb. I am a responsible citizen, why cant I? Just because some nut job got fired from his job and his wife left him and he decided to blow up 8M people in NYC shouldnt exclude me from owning my bomb. It makes a fine conversation piece, and I like it.

Your response?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That does not include the potential to negatively affect someone else, only the actual act of negatively affecting someone else.

Here I would disagree with you in the case where the object is so dangerous that by the time someone uses it to "negatively affect someone else", the damage is done, and so severe, that any punishment after the fact is meaningless.

So, nukes, weaponized anthrax and so forth would fall into this category. Possibly some others.

I really do believe there is a dividing line, and I think most people do. The problem is that they can't agree on where it should be.

 

[dank69]

OK, so lets take that a step further. I wish to have the freedom to purchase a nuclear bomb. I am a responsible citizen, why cant I? Just because some nut job got fired from his job and his wife left him and he decided to blow up 8M people in NYC shouldnt exclude me from owning my bomb. It makes a fine conversation piece, and I like it.

Your response?

My response is that it is a restriction of freedom. You need to justify any restriction of freedom. You must argue the restriction from that standpoint. What that means is the debate should ALWAYS be you justifying why you need to restrict my freedom and NEVER be turned around to make me justify why I need that freedom if there is even one single valid use for the freedom.

There are many factors to consider when justifying such a restriction, including, but not limited to what purpose(s) does the item serve? and how dangerous is the item?

 

[dank69]

Here I would disagree with you in the case where the object is so dangerous that by the time someone uses it to "negatively affect someone else", the damage is done, and so severe, that any punishment after the fact is meaningless.

So, nukes, weaponized anthrax and so forth would fall into this category. Possibly some others.

I really do believe there is a dividing line, and I think most people do. The problem is that they can't agree on where it should be.

Of course there is a dividing line, I am not arguing against that. Potential for danger is not a valid reason alone if there are valid and safe uses for said object. I could make a valid case for owning a nuke in a research setting studying the effects and looking for ways to counteract them. Our governments test nukes all the time, but there is valid justification for severe restrictions on possession in this case.

 

[Mxylplyx]

I really do believe there is a dividing line, and I think most people do. The problem is that they can't agree on where it should be.

Precisely.

People accept certain restrictions of freedoms for the betterment and protection of society. While I respect peoples desire to own certain types of weapons that are purposely designed to kill other people, I believe the price of such ownership for society has become too great. I don't subscribe to hypothetical debates on whether a certain thing makes me free or unfree, or some relic of an idea from the distant past that I need to be constantly ready to join my country militia to overthrow the new tyrannical regime in Washington. I look at inner cities that have become war zones, classrooms full of murdered children, movie theaters full of people murdered in cold blood, and kids each day that are maimed and killed in accidental shootings by improperly secured firearms. That is the cost of open access, real blood and brains being splattered on the floor every day, and weighed against the benefit of people enjoying target shooting at the range, the desire for self defense, and "feeling" free because of them, I dont feel it's worth it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Of course there is a dividing line, I am not arguing against that. Potential for danger is not a valid reason alone if there are valid and safe uses for said object. I could make a valid case for owning a nuke in a research setting studying the effects and looking for ways to counteract them.

This is also true. Same with dangerous biological agents, etc.

Gun control always boils down to differences in principles: one side feels the right to own a gun is more important than taking all possible actions to cut down on gun violence, and the other side doesn't. This is then complicated by the lack of clarity regarding whether draconian gun control laws actually would significantly reduce gun violence.

I'd rather see the War on Certain Drugs ended first. That would solve a number of problems, including a lot of the violence.

 

[dank69]

Precisely.

People accept certain restrictions of freedoms for the betterment and protection of society. While I respect peoples desire to own certain types of weapons that are purposely designed to kill other people, I believe the price of such ownership for society has become too great. I don't subscribe to hypothetical debates on whether a certain thing makes me free or unfree, or some relic of an idea from the distant past that I need to be constantly ready to join my country militia to overthrow the new tyrannical regime in Washington. I look at inner cities that have become war zones, classrooms full of murdered children, movie theaters full of people murdered in cold blood, and kids each day that are maimed and killed in accidental shootings by improperly secured firearms. That is the cost of open access, real blood and brains being splattered on the floor every day, and weighed against the benefit of people enjoying target shooting at the range, the desire for self defense, and "feeling" free because of them, I dont feel it's worth it.

I believe that education, especially during early development, would go miles farther to reducing gun violence, and even all types of violence, than additional bans on guns.

 

[waggy]

I believe that education, especially during early development, would go miles farther to reducing gun violence, and even all types of violence, than additional bans on guns.

I grew up around guns, my children have been around them. hell my 10 yr old daughter has gone hunting with her Grandpa.

both kids (10 and 6) know NOT to ever touch a gun. They understand basic safety (the 6 yr old is learning).

while education would reduce some gun accidents. i am not sure it would reduce gun violence.

 

[waggy]

I'd rather see the War on Certain Drugs ended first. That would solve a number of problems, including a lot of the violence.

personally if they legalized pot i think much of the violence would go down. i don't think we should legalize things like crack, herione or meth. but i see no reason why pot is still against the law.

 

[dank69]

I grew up around guns, my children have been around them. hell my 10 yr old daughter has gone hunting with her Grandpa.

both kids (10 and 6) know NOT to ever touch a gun. They understand basic safety (the 6 yr old is learning).

while education would reduce some gun accidents. i am not sure it would reduce gun violence.

I am not referring to gun education, though that would be good, too. I am referring to regular education.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

personally if they legalized pot i think much of the violence would go down. i don't think we should legalize things like crack, herione or meth. but i see no reason why pot is still against the law.

Okay, here's a question.

Why should you be allowed to own a gun, but I not be allowed to smoke crack if I want to?

 

[Craig234]

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.

Thanks, Dank.

On the anthrax analogy, let's be clear what the point is. It's simply that in this 'if x is outlawed only outlaws will have x' is a fallacy.

It completely ignores the relevant question - how many fewer outlaws will have x than if it's not outlawed?

Now, you have to look at each case. In the case of alcohol - which there were reasons to ban - it turned out not to work at all - drinking actually went up.

But each thing has its own answer to the question. I suspect a lot fewer people who might use a dangerous strain of anthrax have it because of the restrictions.

And with guns, the question is, with various bans, how many fewer criminals would have them?

A large percentage of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal gun owners - so reducing the number of those legal owners actually would reduce the supply for criminals.

My point was about the popular parroted phrase above being a fallacy.

Are there valid points to discuss if someone wants to argue it won't help much? Probably. That phrase isn't one.

 

[Craig234]

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

Make the question, how many gun-using criminals can and would make guns? Hint: look at the gun crime rates in countries with effective bans. How many make them?

 

[waggy]

Okay, here's a question.

Why should you be allowed to own a gun, but I not be allowed to smoke crack if I want to?

drugs are a sticky situation. you doing drugs in your room still effects me (ie taxpayers).

IF you could work, pay your bills, smoke crack, not abuse or neglect your children (most comon thing with drug addicts) or commit crimes to get the drugs then fine. snort err..smoke your brains out.

problem is many drugs cause people to do things that effect others.

Me owning a gun effects NOBODY except those idiots that try to hurt me and my family.

me shooting targets (btw i pay for that too) does not effect you.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Okay, here's a question.

Why should you be allowed to own a gun, but I not be allowed to smoke crack if I want to?

One is called out specifically as a constitutional right; the other is not.

 

[skyking]

Make the question, how many gun-using criminals can and would make guns? Hint: look at the gun crime rates in countries with effective bans. How many make them?

I'll not take your guided hint, if you want to post that information feel free to do so.
zip guns have been made by criminals for many years, in places with little access to legal guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm

 

[Charles Kozierok]

One is called out specifically as a constitutional right; the other is not.

Yes, I meant in terms of consistency, there is obviously a legal difference.

problem is many drugs cause people to do things that effect others.

But don't you see here that the exact same thing can be said about guns? You may not affect anyone with your guns -- just as I might not affect anyone with my drug use (this is an example, I'm too boring to do drugs). But you say other people could use drugs improperly. So can (and do) some gun owners.

Thanks, Dank.
On the anthrax analogy, let's be clear what the point is. It's simply that in this 'if x is outlawed only outlaws will have x' is a fallacy.

Not only is it not a fallacy, it's practically a tautology. If you make something illegal, then by definition, those who still own it are law-breakers.

Rather, what you are really trying to address is this:

It completely ignores the relevant question - how many fewer outlaws will have x than if it's not outlawed?

Right, and that's a difficult question to answer.

Now, you have to look at each case. In the case of alcohol - which there were reasons to ban - it turned out not to work at all - drinking actually went up.

But that was my whole point -- you have to look at each case. And banning guns would be a lot more comparable to banning alcohol than banning anthrax.

A large percentage of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal gun owners - so reducing the number of those legal owners actually would reduce the supply for criminals.

To some extent. But some of those who formerly stole from legal gun owners would get them in other ways instead.

At any rate, we can agree to disagree on how many guns would still get into the country if they were banned. But given past history -- alcohol, marijuana, and so forth -- I see no reason to believe that banning guns will mean nobody has them any more. It will just mean nobody who respects the law has them.