Gun Control
Hello Everyone,
I have been on this platform for nearly a year on and off, (Having to take a break from the endless essays) and have discussed matters that I find interesting. Mostly, because I am genuinely curious on how the other side thinks, but partially because I find divisive topics such as abortion, free speech and immigration entertaining as it creates hot debates with strong opinions both sides.
Today I want to talk about a subject that is likely to join the ranks of division. Gun Control.
I would like to address the mindset of people joining into this. I find that people are so entrenched in their views already that they refuse to listen to the other side. They will say anything just to get a point in the debate rather then actually listening, you are not a loser for conceding to an argument, it is ok to change your mind. (I understand that I am most likely speaking to a brick wall, I thought I would start this off in the most positive way possible). It becomes laborious, pointless and boring when people refuse to see sense and the conversation devolves into repeating the same point in different ways.
Firstly, I will reveal that I am from England so my point of view is likely to be different due to the difference in our experiences / societal norms we are all used to in our own nations. Guns are HEAVILY restricted in the UK, and this is the main reason why England and wales have been consistent averaging 28 fatalities a year which is 0.04 / 100,000 people. USA on the other hand reportedly produces 13.7 deaths per 100,000 people.
I am not simplifying the argument by saying that the only reason of the frankly disgusting increase of deaths is due to the fact that my government heavily restricts guns while America doesn't, I understand that there are many attributing factors. People can point to culture, poverty, mental health, drugs, crime and communities as to why gun crime is so high. Although these are all important subjects in their own right, I think that these factors are only multiplied by the route cause, lack of gun control.
I will start off with a couple pro's I see for less gun control.
National Security:
I think an often overlooked pro to everyone owning guns is national security. If a country were to attempt to invade America it would be almost impossible due to such a heavily armed population. Every small village would stand as bastion against the invading force, obviously in this modern landscape nukes are a bigger threat to America then a ground invasion by armed soldiers but nevertheless, it also protects the civilian population from a tyrannical government / civilian uprisings if they were to occur. It is important to note that this is more theoretical then evidenced.
Individual Security
Fairly obvious, if everyone has a gun why shouldn't you? Granted I wouldn't say this is necessarily a pro, more of a necessity due to the lack of gun control. Either way, it would be hard to impalement gun laws because of this.
There will be more pros but these two are the most important in my eyes. Self defence, individual liberty and deterrence of tyranny.
I don't think there is any reason for me to list any of the cons I see with the lack of gun control in America as I would rather hear peoples stances and then challenge them. I will clearly outline my view:
In an ideal world, I believe that guns should not be accessible to a civilian population that doesn't need them, they should be accessible to military personnel, hunters and top level security. Anyone working a normal job that doesn't explicitly require to kill or protect should not need to access them. I will also point out that just because you are protecting, doesn't mean you need a gun i.e. nightclub bouncer, supermarket security, school teachers etc.
America is WAY too far gone to save. If you ban the purchase of firearms, there are already 400+ million in the country. If you vastly improve licensing standards, there are already 400+ million firearms in the country. If you implement new technology on the guns that will restrict use.... you get the point. Unfortunately, I believe that any measures that would be put in place now would be a drop in the ocean, have no real affect on the issue and only increase tensions and fatalities.
But this is not an excuse to not try. Due to the sheer size of the issue, we would need to look at how we want the world to look like for our grandkids and further generations and start implementing regulations that would gradually pull us up to a securer world. Here is some ideas as to how I may improve the issue: (PLEASE NOTE I AM OVERSIMPLIFYING.)
1) Roll out a more extensive licencing process. Extra focus on mental health, include tests that reveal ability for critical thinking and intelligence, focus on backgrounds (if there is historical records of extensive gun violence charges in their family they must be put even more under the microscope). Set a time limit such as 3-4 years to be completed. If failed or not completed, they should not be able posses a fire arm.
2)Weapons amnesty - allow anyone to turn in their firearms and be rewarded financially. I wouldn't expect many people to do so but it would definitely remove a fair amount of guns off the streets. This will also help the people who failed the new licensing process as they at least get money back for their gun.
3)Increase the penalty for owning a gun when you are not supposed to, to deter more people.
4) Roll out fingerprint technology on newly manufactured guns so that only the registered owner can shoot the weapon, this will also help with identifying perpetrators that commit gun crimes.
I am not saying this will get the number to 0 deaths, but it will definitely decrease overtime if these are implemented. It is a marathon not a sprint.
Whether you are majorly pro guns or majorly against guns, everyone should be able to agree that something needs to change and that it has got out of hand.
I haven't even mentioned the second amendment, I am sure it will be brought up, and I am interested in what people think about this. Do I have good intentions, or do I just like being told what to do by the government?
I have been on this platform for nearly a year on and off, (Having to take a break from the endless essays) and have discussed matters that I find interesting. Mostly, because I am genuinely curious on how the other side thinks, but partially because I find divisive topics such as abortion, free speech and immigration entertaining as it creates hot debates with strong opinions both sides.
Today I want to talk about a subject that is likely to join the ranks of division. Gun Control.
I would like to address the mindset of people joining into this. I find that people are so entrenched in their views already that they refuse to listen to the other side. They will say anything just to get a point in the debate rather then actually listening, you are not a loser for conceding to an argument, it is ok to change your mind. (I understand that I am most likely speaking to a brick wall, I thought I would start this off in the most positive way possible). It becomes laborious, pointless and boring when people refuse to see sense and the conversation devolves into repeating the same point in different ways.
Firstly, I will reveal that I am from England so my point of view is likely to be different due to the difference in our experiences / societal norms we are all used to in our own nations. Guns are HEAVILY restricted in the UK, and this is the main reason why England and wales have been consistent averaging 28 fatalities a year which is 0.04 / 100,000 people. USA on the other hand reportedly produces 13.7 deaths per 100,000 people.
I am not simplifying the argument by saying that the only reason of the frankly disgusting increase of deaths is due to the fact that my government heavily restricts guns while America doesn't, I understand that there are many attributing factors. People can point to culture, poverty, mental health, drugs, crime and communities as to why gun crime is so high. Although these are all important subjects in their own right, I think that these factors are only multiplied by the route cause, lack of gun control.
I will start off with a couple pro's I see for less gun control.
National Security:
I think an often overlooked pro to everyone owning guns is national security. If a country were to attempt to invade America it would be almost impossible due to such a heavily armed population. Every small village would stand as bastion against the invading force, obviously in this modern landscape nukes are a bigger threat to America then a ground invasion by armed soldiers but nevertheless, it also protects the civilian population from a tyrannical government / civilian uprisings if they were to occur. It is important to note that this is more theoretical then evidenced.
Individual Security
Fairly obvious, if everyone has a gun why shouldn't you? Granted I wouldn't say this is necessarily a pro, more of a necessity due to the lack of gun control. Either way, it would be hard to impalement gun laws because of this.
There will be more pros but these two are the most important in my eyes. Self defence, individual liberty and deterrence of tyranny.
I don't think there is any reason for me to list any of the cons I see with the lack of gun control in America as I would rather hear peoples stances and then challenge them. I will clearly outline my view:
In an ideal world, I believe that guns should not be accessible to a civilian population that doesn't need them, they should be accessible to military personnel, hunters and top level security. Anyone working a normal job that doesn't explicitly require to kill or protect should not need to access them. I will also point out that just because you are protecting, doesn't mean you need a gun i.e. nightclub bouncer, supermarket security, school teachers etc.
America is WAY too far gone to save. If you ban the purchase of firearms, there are already 400+ million in the country. If you vastly improve licensing standards, there are already 400+ million firearms in the country. If you implement new technology on the guns that will restrict use.... you get the point. Unfortunately, I believe that any measures that would be put in place now would be a drop in the ocean, have no real affect on the issue and only increase tensions and fatalities.
But this is not an excuse to not try. Due to the sheer size of the issue, we would need to look at how we want the world to look like for our grandkids and further generations and start implementing regulations that would gradually pull us up to a securer world. Here is some ideas as to how I may improve the issue: (PLEASE NOTE I AM OVERSIMPLIFYING.)
1) Roll out a more extensive licencing process. Extra focus on mental health, include tests that reveal ability for critical thinking and intelligence, focus on backgrounds (if there is historical records of extensive gun violence charges in their family they must be put even more under the microscope). Set a time limit such as 3-4 years to be completed. If failed or not completed, they should not be able posses a fire arm.
2)Weapons amnesty - allow anyone to turn in their firearms and be rewarded financially. I wouldn't expect many people to do so but it would definitely remove a fair amount of guns off the streets. This will also help the people who failed the new licensing process as they at least get money back for their gun.
3)Increase the penalty for owning a gun when you are not supposed to, to deter more people.
4) Roll out fingerprint technology on newly manufactured guns so that only the registered owner can shoot the weapon, this will also help with identifying perpetrators that commit gun crimes.
I am not saying this will get the number to 0 deaths, but it will definitely decrease overtime if these are implemented. It is a marathon not a sprint.
Whether you are majorly pro guns or majorly against guns, everyone should be able to agree that something needs to change and that it has got out of hand.
I haven't even mentioned the second amendment, I am sure it will be brought up, and I am interested in what people think about this. Do I have good intentions, or do I just like being told what to do by the government?
Comments (163)
I don't see any rationale behind making weapons with which you can kill humans.
Because you have everything you need thanks to those who did it for you. Are you going to give up your home, knowledge, and basically everything you have that isn't found in a moist, damp and rotting cave? No, you're not. So you live as a result of weapons that were made to kill. Surely you can understand this?
We like to discard that which we no longer find use or favor toward, provided we keep all it created for us. This is the definition of hypocrisy. In addition, I envy your lack of intimacy and experience with human depravity. More proof of that which weapons have accomplished.
--
EDIT: Generally speaking, as far the OP. Sure, firearms take less effort and thought to take a life (or several, including one's own) than a knife, or rock, or sharpened stick. So the "easiness" factor is a big thing that does result in increased violence that wouldn't be found in a world with only traditional and primitive weapons, that is a highly relevant factor to consider. Someone who is clearly exhibiting homicidal tendencies, even suicidal (wanting to "end it all", which is fairly tied to anger and hatred of the world and people around them, not always but often enough to mention the connection), etc. should probably not be able to casually go into market and pick up a weapon that can kill 50 people in under 30 seconds with the same ease as buying a cart of groceries. That much is fairly agreeable and logical. But since when has logic really ever mattered for very long in the face of existential desire?
You can kill multiple innocent people with a vehicle, with a common knife or even pairing knife, even your own hands if you're large enough. Which again creates a size discrepancy as far as who is equal and who isn't. (See the pro-gun quote: "God made men, Samuel Colt made them equal. It does have a point.)
Moreover the argument that resonates with even people who don't "like" or even own firearms is that due to chaotic nature of human nature and tendency for war as welll as possibility for social instability or even collapse, it's a necessity and major deterrent for those who seek to harm, be it simply an individual seeking violence for violence sake or perhaps resource, or a larger group doing so for political and territorial means (an invading army, for example).
You can't outlaw immorality, or rather, free will. At least, not for very long. If a man wants to kill another man or woman, they will find a way. They always do.
What you get from weapons with which you can kill humans results in human corpses, which we then cry over, and the destruction of what we built, which means burning wealth. To me, it is absurd to use the wealth to burn the wealth! Or do you see any logic behind this that I am not aware of?
A human being never killed another human being before there were firearms? Remember this is about firearms, not weapons. A rock is a weapon, if used as such. So is a branch. Even a piece of cloth or rope. This is not about weapons nor are we having a "is a knife a culinary tool or a weapon" debate. Anything can be a weapon. Including your body. This is about firearms and the government's role in restricting their open and easy access, if there is one and nothing more.
But yes, as an aside. Everything you have is because of what was taken with weapons. Including your knowledge and as a result your fundamental identity. It all goes back to those before you who did what they did that resulted in the actions and circumstances that allowed you to not just only be born, but born in the favorable circumstances you enjoy now, circumstances that I would not be surprised are taken for granted. You can't just casually without any hypocrisy say "oh this is bad because I don't like it, but I'll continue to live and take from everything it provided." It's just not a sound argument. Sure, you have an opinion and that's great. But it doesn't really follow as far as logic is concerned.
EDIT: Sure, there is the classic saying that was first attributed to swords, that saying being "This is a tool whose only purpose is to take life". Now that could be justified to hunting game or of course self-defense in one's home. Do you not believe that persons, perhaps smaller or handicapped have an equal right to defend themselves in one's home? Gotcha. :wink:
Long past is gone! Are you saying that we cannot get rid of this habit, you are my enemy at all?
I would agree with this, except that there is no such thing as an achievable perfect world. Technology is one thing we cannot take back after it is created.
I do agree with almost everything on this thread though.
However my view is slightly different.
It was already mentioned that guns are a weapon against tyranny and that is one of the most important reasons for pro guns.
However another big thing is the equalizer. A person without a gun can almost never stand up to a person with one. However even a more skilled person with a gun can still be taken down by an amateur with one. It brings most humans to around the same level.
Of course the amount of gun related deaths in america is frightening, but a lot are also committed by people who get guns illegally. If we get rid of all guns in civilian hands it would only be in the government and criminals'.
You might rebuke that we could also crack down tightly on illegal guns, but that is not foolproof. (Which right now sounds like a lame argument to me)
But in an imaginary scenario which assailant would be taken down first. The one with no police officer or one with.
The answer is easily the later, why?, because they have a gun. But what if more people than police officers had that power?
(Just realized I probably explained a lot i didn't need to)
But fun fact, america has tried some amnesty's for guns as well as just straight confiscation, I don't have any real evidence to work on, but I don't think it worked.
Hunting and defence.
To further add to your point, dynamite is really good at killing humans, but no one wants to outlaw that.
He did specifically refer to weapons and not just deadly tools is general, which would cover most things as were quite squishy.
I could kill you with a pencil.
I live in a country with next-to-no gun violence. It works because it's small, generally close-knit, and sparsely populated. But the gangs who do run with guns are such a ridiculous threat to others that It seems clear keeping guns from those who must protect themselves from violent criminals may not be the best move. Luckily, we're early enough in our journey to this type of violence that we can still curtail the illegal gun use currently, so I don't see that manifesting, just noting it works here because its small.
Somewhere like the US, it is incumbent on a family with children or anyone vulnerable counted among, to protect their own. Education, responsible use and decent training are needed in pretty much a social overhaul that, as OP says, is probably a pipe-dream. The gun violence among urban populations is astounding, and not something legislation is going to deal with. Obviously.
Quoting MrLiminal
Bingo.
Some thoughts.
It annoys me you feel the need to step into this. As you note, it's a problem in the US, but not in most of Europe. Why do you feel the need to tell us how we should act. I don't get it.
I grew up with guns, mostly shotguns for hunting and a bit of target shooting with BB guns and rifles. I'm comfortable around them and people who use them. I have no particular problem with gun control within limits and I know conservative gun owners who feel the same way. The obsession of some liberals with gun control has forced many gun ownership supporters to more strident resistance to any gun control.
You put off discussion of the Second Amendment so I'll take it up. The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution were added to the text before it was originally approved by the states. They are known as the Bill of Rights. The one that matters the most to me is the First -
For some people, the Second is the most fundamental.
Part of their reason is that without access to firearms, none of the other rights can be guaranteed. I have some sympathy with that understanding. There have been all sorts of arguments about what that means, but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it applies to individual US citizens. Like it or not, that's the way it is.
Here's my main reason for my lukewarm support for gun control. The Democratic Party, of which I am a member, and liberals in general have put gun control hear the top of their political priority list. That has cost them dearly with the more conservative, Southern, rural, and male population. It has also drawn energy away from what I consider more important issues - things that will make for better lives for people in general and working class and poor people in particular. Examples include health care, taxation, education, jobs, and economic fairness. It has hurt the party badly, has very few positive results, and is unlikely to have positive results any time soon. Right now, support for strong gun control is just a feel-good, symbolic, self-destructive fantasy. Time to move it way down the list.
I will reply to the latter tomorrow morning. I would just like to quickly pick this weird comment up. This is a forum for discussion in many arenas, I pay a lot of attention to US politics, even more than my country. When I am at work I am always listening to a debate which is 80% of the time based on US politics.
This is the topic I would like to talk about, if you dont like that, you can move on with your day rather than engaging with it. This just seems like an attempt to instantly discredit anything anyone has to say on the matter simply because we do not have bodies piled up from an issue most in Europe seem to have a grip on, maybe you should pay attention.
You are welcome to talk about it. I wasn't suggesting your thread not be allowed. It would just make more sense if you would discuss troubles in your own country or in the world in general rather than pontificating about subjects where you have no credibility and where your opinion doesn't matter, no matter how self-satisfied it makes you feel.
Quoting Samlw
Your numbers are for firearm deaths. A country where guns are allowed is bound to have a higher firearm death rate than a country where they are not allowed. This doesn't mean guns cause more deaths.
The murder rate in the US is about 6 times than in our green and pleasant land of the United Kingdom
(~6.3 per 100k versus ~0.99 per 100k). The United States has manifestly got a lot of problems, making the case for prohibiting firearms stronger.
Yes it has gotten out of hand and something needs to change, but what and how are the million dollar questions.
https://ysph.yale.edu/news-article/report-examines-impact-of-alcohol-drug-and-firearm-deaths-on-life-expectancy-in-the-us/
Tighter laws against drugs and millions of dollars spent does not seem to be working very well, will stricter laws against guns function any better?
And even though the situation is not as bad in other parts of the world, other problems do exist. Machete fights in London being one of them.
Wow. Dude, what the fuck side of hte bed did you wake up on.
Now I have to say something mean to you too. How about this
Fucking Kiwis
Oops! Sorry. How about this instead? Flight of the Conchords is not funny.
Ok, OK. I did too.
Thats what normative ethics is? Should we not criticise the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the criminalisation of homosexual relationships in Brunei?
Else, if by "gun control" someone wants to limit the kind of firearms, then the issue is a bit more complicated.
There is a counterfactual question that is different. It is, "If I could push a button that erased all guns from existence, should I?" Or else it is the question of the people who invented guns, "Should we invent guns or not?" Those are interesting questions, but they are also completely moot given that we cannot turn back the clock on the invention of guns (and, similarly, nuclear weapons). It is equivocation to pretend that this question is the same as the question of restricting guns to a certain set of people.
Quoting Samlw
Ergo: you favor a monopoly of coercion (tyranny). You want to place the power of guns into the hands of one set of people, and exclude all other people. Specifically, you want the government to possess the coercive and lethal force of guns and no one else.
It may be effective to ban weaponry, but is it unjust? I believe so. It's a brute fact that not every gun owner is a potential murderer, and not everyone is going to shoot someone if they happen to legally own a gun. Yet, the innocent are prohibited from owning guns.
But here is an argument.
I agree with the premises and conclusion. Though it may be effective to prohibit guns, it's a rights violation, and those that prohibit guns are violators of rights. This is dangerous. I mean, the UK police will knock on your door for social media posts. There is no way to reverse course on that road to serfdom, as the tyrants posses all the guns.
The government has a lot more than guns at their disposable, so this seems to be a moot point unless you think every Tom, Dick, and Harry should be allowed cruise missiles and Challenger II tanks.
If theres nothing you can do about it and youre not affected or responsible, shooting your mouth off is just a way to make you feel good about yourself.
Noted.
The USA should introduce stricter gun control. I suspect that it will save many lives. The benefits outweigh the cost.
Substitute guns with "nuclear weapons". Are you really trying to say that people who favor nuclear weapon control favor tyranny?
Currently in the United States there is no legislation that supports or contributes directly to the issues surrounding gun ownership.
I will attempt to address some of your points:
No one deserves access other than military personnel etc
Gun ownership empowers self reliance, particularly amongst vulnerable populations. I would counter that point by stating self reliance is for everyone. Also, military and LEO firearm qualifications are mediocre at best. To say civilized populations should have limited access is to neglect the atrocities people face. In my opinion, this is an extremely privileged point of view. Although, there is a beauty in being naive about the realities of the world; this is not truth. Also, what is civilized? I prefer not viewing my own body and mind as secondary. Why depend on someone else when I have a brain in my head, breath in my lungs, and a heart that beats that allows me to be my own first responder?
The fingerprint on firearms (sorry I am not continually scrolling up to see the exact wording, Im new here :)):
Serial codes can and are manipulated, so can fingerprint technology. My concern would be relying on it in an imminent situation and it not being as affective during withdrawal to use. I have considered this point in the past and was made aware of how finicky the system would be. This is enough for me to say its unreliable.
Buyback programs:
We have attempted these but the reward was gross. Also they considered every firearm and handed out $50 gift cards in return. A person turned in, what I would call, a Boomstick 1776. In order for this to be enticing the reward has to meet the cost of the firearm or more. The interest isnt there and it makes sense why.
Mental health with firearms:
Just because someone is mentally ill doesnt necessarily negate their right to self defense. I agree it is multi faceted. Who determines the mental fitness of a buyer and what would that process entail in a shop? Currently, the NICS4473 is set to ensure the buyer is justified in doing so. How can we measure the change of someones psyche after purchasing? Red flag laws are at the jurisdiction of the FBI, despite numerous calls, their action isnt swift. What does this process look like as a whole?
Im a certified self defense instructor and advocate for womens rights, particularly. I have concealed carried for 7 years now. I also teach the laws of self defense in my state. I am a member of GOA and Women For Gun Rights Movements. I have limited time currently to keep expanding (and the format on my phone isnt ideal) on this topic but if youd like to engage further Id be open and willing to that! Thank you for the post and allowing me to engage.
I once saw a man kill 3 men in a bar with a pencil
It would be a database. The US is woefully inadequate when it comes to record keeping, particularly cross-state and cross-department, it seems. I don't know the inner workings, but not having gun owners who had mental health issues on a register is insane. Gun dealers should be licensed and given access to a database through which any potential buyer must be screened for several things,mental health being one (or at least, reported mental health issues). It wont be perfect, and wont catch "after the fact" mental health issues, but nothing would. So there's that...
Though, this brings up a pretty nuance point I am not sure where I fall on: Veterans with guns. I am unsure that's a safe proposition for some of them. But surely, more htan most, veterans are capable of handling guns in the absence of mental illness. Tough one.
How so? Present your argument.
---
Everything I said also applies to nuclear weapons. I even mentioned nuclear weapons in my post.
I think this is a thoughtful and good post. As an american that would rather die than give up the 2nd amendment, let me offer you some brief points you can address (if you would like):
1.The people well-regulated in arms is necessary to mitigate the tyrannical nature of the government: a militia is necessary to keep checks and balances on a military. This is a key concept in American politics that you did not address.
2. Guns are the great equalizer. Although you mentioned individual security, you omitted the key fact that guns are the best and safest way to defend oneself from aggressorswhich has no bearing on this idea that well, everyone already has a gun, so I should too!. E.g., a woman cannot truly defend herself properly with pepper spray or a knife or her fists; a man cannot properly defend himself against three men; etc. Likewise, it is the safest way to de-escalate or at least deal with a lethal threat. Anyone who engages in melee fighting, unless they are heavily trained, should expect to end up in the hospital best case scenario. A knife fight, a fist fight, a bat fight, etc. is a lose-lose situation. If someone is lethally threatening me or a loved one, usually I could just pull out my firearm in compressed ready position and they will walk away: most criminals want to go after the sheepthe easy target. Most people think guns only escalate situations, but the vast majority of the time they de-escalate them.
3. You cant just look at homicide or violent crime rates. You also have to look at how often guns are used in self-defense. In America, they are used anywhere from 500,000 to 3 million times per year to legitimately save someone.
4. Removing the peoples ability to carry weaponry in a responsible manner ONLY makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Most people in any nation are generally law-abiding and so most people will not carry anything if it is illegal; but this is something a criminal will not follow. For example, I was shocked to find out that even pepper spray is illegal in Britain to conceal or open carry: a criminal that wants to do damage will carry a weapon (e.g., a knife, bat, etc.) and the fact that their victim, who most likely will be a law-abiding citizen, will not just helps them!
5. Any kind of technology that allows the government to well-regulate firearms or any weapons defeats the purpose of the 2nd amendment: it is meant to allow the people to be a well-regulated militia to defend against the government itself.
CC: @Samlw
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical" -- (Jefferson's Letter to Madison)
This is the USA we are talking about? So having guns is preventing the downfall of your democracy, unlike those other western nations were there are gun controls...
Hows' that working out?
I don't think Europe is a great place to live; and I do think that our guns would help prevent an authoratative regime shift.
So just to be clear, your argument is that you want the government (currently run by Trump) to be the only people allowed to have guns? And you see no problems with this alternative future?
The argument that owning guns keeps the government in check rings very hollow.
Indeed, this whole argument, this discussion of gun control as a democratic principle, is a Furphy, a distraction. The US failed to provide an adequate mechanism for social support, allowing a gross disparity in the distribution of wealth. The result is, unsurprisingly, an oligarchy.
The issue is equitable distribution of power, not of guns.
SO which...
Quoting Bob Ross
or
Quoting Bob Ross
You want your cake and to eat it.
That looks exactly like one of those false dilemmas that you go around accusing everyone else of. :roll:
ANY weapons?
The President is Commander-in-Chief of the military and has historically broad applications for deploying the national guard, was more my point. And no, I don't see it as a distraction. I see a lot of attempts at gun control as a very deliberate attempt to make the populace easier to control. Proper gun training, safety and respect for the power of the tool does more good than banning them does. To be clear though, I am not fully against some level of gun regulation.
To your broader point, I don't see giving up individual power as an equivalent exchange for what you get in return. Countries that have banned guns also have wealth inequality and violent criminals. What sense does it make to ask that someone give up their personal protection for an imperfect promise of external protection?
That explains a lot.
Quoting MrLiminal
:rofl: Such logic!
Remember this?
Don't get me wrong, the demise of US democracy is a tragedy.
*shrug* Not sure what else to say to that. Giving up personal freedom for an imperfect promise of safety does not seem rational to me.
Or, the root of the root of the issue is how to deal with the inevitable monstrosity and absolute horror show that is human nature, unrestricted. I've long said, and have proven on paper, actually, the only difference between the average man and the worst dictator or tyrant who ever lived are but two transient and equally inevitable things: Opportunity. And time. All written history attests to this theory as not just theorem but pure fact in the most concrete sense of the word. Time and time again. No matter what is introduced or deprived, the assertion remains constant.
Absolutely. And that's the problem. These things don't "scale" as one inexperienced with such areas of social workings might imagine. The average person generally goes through life without causing himself or those in his immediate care or even occasional guardianship death or injury. Because he basically has the pressures or stress of a stray cat. Existential "existence" basically is taken care of by the government. Sure he has to work, provide, avoid and occasionally fend off danger. But that's on a one on one personal level. There's 7 billion people doing the same. All he has to do is worry about his isolated (detached) social bubble and idea of reality, and he lives and dies a happy life. Simple. Now, to become a leader, responsible for the thousands if not millions of things people never think about, and many frankly could not even fathom ,that creates this artificial product we call peaceful society, all day, everyday? Good luck!
Moreover, my point was, temptation generally defeats morality for morality's sake when no counter-incentive is implied. Human nature is opportunistic. The majority of people here wouldn't be here if this were not so. It's biology. Science. Not my opinion. Just fact that can be proven on paper. And so requires control. Discipline. Lest we end up in a swirling torrent of perpetual degeneracy destroying everything we worked hard for and hold dear, until all that is left is an abyssal wasteland of decay and trepidation. To be incarcerated, without realizing, waking up one day, in a near alien world of immorality and trepidation, a society we try to escape from yet know deep down we never can. That, is all what the average man made ruler can provide, or at least will inevitably result in.
Simply put, if you can kill two birds in one stone, why wouldn't you? Eventually, these birds become entire peoples and stones become armies under one's command. All one needs to do is open a history book to confirm that this is not mere postulation but observation in the most absolute sense of the word.
So does this mean, because human nature is horrible, then youre under threat, hence the need to arm yourself? Is that what youre saying?
No, it means exactly what I said. Simplified, bearing in mind the context of your assumption, which I'm sure is quite reasonable: Power corrupts. Do you disagree with that? If so please explain why, preferably with examples that can be proven on paper. I have plenty. How many do you have? Not many, I'd imagine.
Id like to revisit the question: Do citizens need the right to own firearms? and break down the common arguments for and against gun ownership.
Arguments in favor of gun ownership:
National Security. Some argue that an armed populace could deter foreign invasions. In reality, any aggressor would account for this and likely avoid ground invasions, especially in an era of advanced technology and nuclear threats. The idea that civilians would unite and effectively resist a professional army is more romantic than realistic. History, like Middle Eastern conflicts, shows that armed rebels often cause chaos among civilians rather than successfully oppose organized forces.
Self-Defense. Owning a gun for self-defense sounds reasonable, but its practical effectiveness is questionable. Using a firearm effectively requires training and composure under pressureskills most civilians lack. For non-professionals (unlike police or security), the risks of losing the weapon, escalating conflicts, or failing to use it in time outweigh the benefits.
Personal Freedom. Claiming that guns ensure personal freedom often boils down to dont mess with me, Im armed. This isnt freedomits a threat that can provoke rather than protect. True freedom means living without fear, not brandishing a weapon.
Deterring Tyranny. The notion that armed citizens could resist a tyrannical government is appealing but unrealistic. State security forces are designed to uphold authority, and any resistance would likely be swiftly crushed. In a civil war scenario, widespread gun ownership would fuel chaos, not prevent it.
Arguments against gun ownership:
Weapons in the Wrong Hands. No licensing or mental health screening can fully eliminate human error. A lost, stolen, or misused gun can lead to tragedyimagine a forgotten pistol ending up with someone unstable.
Increased Mortality. Firearms amplify the consequences of conflicts. An angry or unstable person with a gun can cause catastrophic harm. U.S. statistics (13.7 deaths per 100,000 people) show a clear correlation between gun availability and higher violence rates.
My stance: Ideally, firearms should be limited to those who need them for their profession (military, hunters, high-level security). For most citizens, guns pose more risks than benefits. With over 400 million firearms in the U.S., drastic measures wont solve the issue overnight, but thats no excuse for inaction. Gradual stepsstricter licensing, gun amnesties, biometric trigger locks, and harsher penalties for illegal possessioncould reduce violence over time. Its a marathon, not a sprint.
Sure, we're extending the debate into larger enveloping (yet fundamentally relevant) concepts that aren't ordinarily part and parcel of such. Does that really warrant a refusal to answer such concepts in the rude manner you've just displayed by suggesting I may somehow be "out of line" for forcing you to answer a root and fundamental question you are seemingly unable to?
In a sentence, a man can use his body or anything his body can wield to do great and amazing things, whether these things are destructive (killing an innocent person) or constructive (building something or perhaps defending an innocent would-be victim preventing said person's death), depends on the underlying morality or education of the individual. This is common sense, and this is not your first rodeo. Why act as such? Don't try to paint me into a corner, please. You might find your equipment is not as loyal to you as you first expected.
Yep.
That's true for a lot of people, but I suspect there's a lot of people who think like me: I know someone breaking into my house is pretty unlikely, but I keep a gun around because I really don't want to be empty-handed if it does happen. And guns are fun to collect and target shoot with. And in a SHTF scenario, it's good to have a gun around. I don't look at guns as an extension of muh rights.
A gun is an item. Is that correct? It fires a projectile that can be used for hunting, gathering of food, and of course, defense if needed. Food is required for life. Not dying (self defense) is also. Do you believe any of the aforementioned statements to be false or misleading? If so, why. Sigh. These games are getting tiresome.
You are kidding yourself, and putting your family in danger.
Sad, but that's it.
ETA: I think I used the wrong "then" but I'm not entirely sure.
:rofl:
Freedom means freedom to do what one desires, provided it does not trespass on a need of another person. In a perfect world, one does not "need" weapons. But, guess what? Everything is a weapon. You are a weapon, if you get hungry enough from lack of nutrition. Would you not take from another, if you can easily do so, if your body requires it? You would. Perhaps not you, personally, but most if not many would. So the two are equated, if you consider "guns" simply "innovation that prolongs the human experience", yes.
In short, they are comparable. I don't claim to do so, but those around you, a great many, do, yes. Do you wish to ignore human opinion? That's fine if so. And you'll need guns if you wish to prolong such for very long, I'm afraid.
Assad was an average man, we was an ophthalmologist in London before he became a genocidal maniac.
Therefore, I believe I, and any sane adult with a clean record, should be allowed to carry a handgun for protection. Though I do believe it should be heavily regulated and monitored.
Safety is something that is either carried society-wide, or it exists only as an illusion, by virtue of not having the misfortune of running into the deranged people who are basically allowed to run amok as long as they don't do anything particularly stupid infront of a camera.
If the law no longer properly functions, it should be put back into the hands of the people.
"When every second counts, the police are only minutes away!"
Agreed. My mom almost got kidnapped when she was pregnant with me. Without her gun threatening the guy off, it's very possible she, my younger siblings and I might not be here. It's honestly wild to me that some people are so excited by the idea of making sure the most vulnerable among us have no personal protection in exchange for some nebulous idea of safety.
Originally, historically, that was the case; but there are some weapons we have now that had no analogous weapon back then (such as nukes). I am fine with a debate about whether or not we should have those kinds of weapons, but firearms are clearly protected under the 2nd ammendment and so are morters, grenades, etc.
The main point of the 2nd ammendment is to have that balance of power; which doesn't necessarily require that the people have things like tanks: they need to proper weaponry to fight gorilla warfare in civilian areas. The government is not going to nuke their own country: that hurts them too significantly.
Guns are literally why Americans have civil liberty in the first place.
I don't really understand your request. It's a simple statement of fact: given that governments already have a "monopoly of coercion" even without stricter gun control e.g. cruise missiles, tanks, attack helicopters, fully automatic weapons, etc. arguing against stricter gun control on the grounds that it will give governments a monopoly of coercion is moot.
And in general I think that actual innocent people being killed by civilians with guns is a bigger concern than some alarmist argument that a government could potentially turn tyrannical.
That wasn't my argument at all. Why don't you try to state the argument I gave so that I understand what you are attempting to argue against.
Quoting Michael
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that one government allows civilians firearms whereas a second government does not, and yet both governments have tanks, prohibit civilians from possessing tanks, and actually direct government tanks against civilians. Apparently your claim is that both governments possess an equal monopoly of coercion. But that's not true at all, and therefore your "statement of fact" is not factual. The claim is also misleading given that there is generally a distinction between nation-state-directed arms and civilian-directed arms - which is to say that tanks and cruise missiles function among the set of nation states, and if one nation state demanded a monopoly on all such arms it would also be tyrannical vis-a-vis the other nation states.
The second reason it is misleading is due to the fact that the government/civilian dichotomy is false, given that government and association exist at various levels of locality. Intermediating associations betwixt civilian and federal governmentincluding non-federal governmental bodiesprovide similar anti-tyrannical functions, even despite the fact that modern nation states are inherently bent towards tyranny due to their relatively monolithic nature. The age of nation states correlates to an absence of intermediating institutions possessing coercive force.
It isn't.
Quoting Leontiskos
That was an aside, not directed specifically at you but at any attempt to defend the right to own guns on the need to prevent a tyrannical government.
And do you see that your claim of mootness fails once it is recognized that a system can be more or less monopolistic?
It doesn't.
So you can't see it. That doesn't surprise me.
I just don't see this as plausible. If America becomes tyrannical, it will only be because the military and police forces support whatever tyrant there is. And if the military and police are involved, they're not going to be intimidated by American small arms in the hands of non-professionals. There will be very few gun owners willing to risk a drone strike on themselves or their families to take a potshot at a soldier or cop.
We have people that would literally do that right now in this country with very little excuse. You cannot comprehend how much some Americans like guns and hate authority.
If that were true, there would be a lot more than the 100 or so LEO deaths in 2024. There's almost a million cops in the country. Getting gunned down on the job is like getting hit by lightning.
There will be some, sure. Soldiers and cops of the tyrannical regime will occasionally be killed. But it will not be enough to end the tyranny. It's not like Americans with guns who hate authority are going to do any damage to a unit like the 101st Airborne.
With all due respect, you might benefit if you would stop thinking that people are by and large rational, or otherwise like yourself. Patrick Henry, much? Not to sully the good name but the story of America is basically literally doing exactly that. Basically word for word. Am I wrong? :lol:
Furthermore, the idea of a military bombardment of its own civilians would result in Constitutional crisis and basically declaration of martial law. Essentially turning a world power into a "warring nation" or "politically unstable territory" ie. a "No Man's Land". Sure, they'd probably cover it up before anything that affects the average person would occur. But it would definitely shake things up on the international level with consequences that would affect each and every citizen due to trade, increased military presence by other due to global social justifications, and so on. So while a drone strike is unlikely, I get your point, say something that actually does happen often I.E. a heavily armed law enforcement response (SWAT, etc.).
And they probably would have already stopped the sale of guns and ammunition anyway.
Sure, that's a fair point. When you're outgunned, you're outgunned. You either live to fight another day, or you take the Hannibal approach. Not unlike the Sampson option. (Assuming your going to be enslaved or abused, women and children especially, very popular option historically).
Quoting RogueAI
It's mostly the "better than nothing" theory where, let's say people hostile to anyone here significantly cripple the military (even in small isolated areas), at least they have something to fight back with if it comes to ground troops. Which, of course, can be argued as significantly less likely in an age of nuclear warfare and other "goodies". But it's still possible. And so still has merit.
Vietnam and Afghanistan proved an entrenched and armed populace can defeat a technologically superior foe. America was even founded by doing so.
In Vietnam, the NVA, a military organization, was more instrumental than its civilian component, the VC. Afghanistan, you have a point, except those two wars were foreign wars where nothing was really at stake. America eventually quit the field and no harm came to them. I don't think that's going to be true of an American tyranny that sees any threats to its existence as existential threats.
"America was even founded by doing so."
America had a professional army that fought the British in the field in the European manner numerous times. And French help. They didn't win that war with only militia.
Fair. Still, another slightly different yet fundamentally crucial question remains. If there's two houses to rob, and you have to rob one. Do you rob the guy who you know can blow your head off with a single trigger pull in a fraction of a second, or the guy who has to stab or physically overpower you or otherwise lure you into a trap?
Which of the two do you think would be most likely to be victimized, and how do you think, each individual in said house knowing this, would develop mentally and what related mental conditions or ailments or phobias would most likely develop between the two, respectively? :chin:
There are tests with animals that parallel this topic, mind you.
Most other democratic countries managed it without.
Quoting Leontiskos
Quoting RogueAI
First, I am curious where you live?
Second, I am not seeing the plausibility of your argument for the conclusion, "An armed populace is not an impediment to tyranny." I think the key problem with your argument is the premise, "If America becomes tyrannical, it will only be because the military and police forces support whatever tyrant there is."
If I am right andas has been claimed since at least Aristotletyranny and monopolies of coercion go hand in hand (and are perhaps even identical), then such a premise is not true. Therefore I would say that if America becomes tyrannical, it will in part be because the government has a monopoly of coercion, and that the more that monopoly is mitigated the less the probability that this will occur.
Note that when you distinguish "military and police" from the tyranny you are appealing to a distribution of coercive force, i.e. a distribution of arms. You are effectively saying, "If there is a population which possesses arms to oppose the tyranny, then the tyranny will be less likely to occur." That is precisely the point, and it is worth noting that a military or police officer who refuses orders from his superior is technically acting as a civilian. You are presupposing the point that I am at pains to make. Further, if the government is not monolithic then its distributed nature also militates against tyranny:
Quoting Leontiskos
Civil liberty, or the minimization of gun-related homicides? You are equivocating given that the two are not at all the same thing. If a government wants to minimize gun-related homicides then obviously it should just confiscate all the guns. It's not at all clear why that amounts to greater civil liberty.
Sure. The military is not the only possible monopoly of coercion, is it?
Has there ever been a tyranny which does not possess a monopoly of coercion?
I write from Australia. As is well-known, Australia has much greater controls on gun ownership, in part due to the reaction to an horrific mass shooting in Tasmania in 1996 (often held up as an example in debates on the issue.) Not to say there is no gun crime, but it is much less frequent than in the US. I've never felt the need to arm myself, although there are parts of the world where I surely would, were I to live there.
Something I notice in the posts of the advocates for gun ownership is an appeal to fear, and a sense of being menaced or threatened, which justifies it. It seems a very sad state of affairs, but I'll leave the discussion to those who wish to pursue it.
Not-being-killed is part of civil liberty, but when that part is absolutized while other competing civil liberties are ignored then it becomes clear that conflating not-being-killed with civil liberty itself is a mistake.
For example, the right to self-defense is also part of natural law, as is the right to defend oneself in one's home. What follows is that one has a greater right to (relatively) heavy arms within one's home than outside one's home. The absolutizing of the societal value of minimizing homicide will tend to undermine the right to self-defense, especially within one's home.
More simply, if there is only one value, and that value is the minimization of homicide, then lethal weapons should be prohibited. The problem is that there is more than one value.
We need to be practical. Realistic.
There are guns.
Why would anyone want only one group to have them?
The only gun control that makes sense is to destroy every gun on the earth and never make them again.
Id talk about that. Id say that would be great. Also, that is impractical and will never happen.
So were back to, there are guns.
Quoting RogueAI
Quoting Leontiskos
Thinking about nuclear weapons is helpful because it takes some of the emotion out of the word "tyranny."
A nuclear threat is a coercive instrument par excellence, and the whole disincentive to nuclear disarmament is the absence of nuclear deterrence. A country which yields up its nuclear arsenal forfeits its seat at the international table of coercion. Ukraine is a great example of a country which yielded up its nuclear arsenal and now inevitably regrets it. Furthermore, it is easy enough to see how a nation state which seeks a monopoly on nuclear weapons is at the same time seeking tyranny.
Nice chart. But, the question to answer to determine if it is misleading or not is quite simple: How's freedom of the press, though?
Without citizen's rights to defend themself and their voice, all there is is what is reported by the State.
Who knows, maybe some other place you don't live in will report a resurgence of unicorns in the area. How pleasant. But that doesn't make it so.
Plainly, they want their guns and will not be swayed.
Now psychosis is "a mental state where a person loses touch with reality, experiencing symptoms like hallucinations and delusions."
Madness.
Originally, I was skeptical because I thought "mass shootings" wasn't a real problem: i.e. I thought "Do people really just want to go out and shoot people they don't know, or was that 1-off?" and I grew up with weapons.
Well, it's not a one-off. People really do want to do that.
So some kind of gun control is warranted if we care about life enough to curtail our freedom to firearms.
That mass shootings continue to occur is a good reason, IMO, to abolish the 2nd amendment. Not that that'll happen in my lifetime, but if gun control advocates want to be serious about controlling guns that's a good target, even though it's immensely difficult to amend an amendment.
Of course homicides aren't the same as mass shootings... there's sense in which if guns are available of course homicides using the better weapon will increase relative to places where that's not the case.
But, really, if we can prevent mass shootings with such a simple fix I don't really care about any other argument for firearms.
On the canard of an argument that an armed populace keeps a government in check: If you're a revolutionary and can't even smuggle firearms, but rely upon Bass Pro Shop to do your munition logistics, that might not work out when you decide to fight. (also, since fascists have taken over, it seems like that whole line of defense is beyond over -- we didn't "rise up" just cuz we could buy weapons)
In all those countries in that chart, I would think freedom of the press can generally be assumed, can't it? Got any counter-examples?
Quoting Banno
It's what I said - there is a strong belief that guns=freedom.
Quoting Moliere
The Second Amendment was framed in the context of the War of Independence in terms of 'well-armed militias'. Switzerland has a similar provision, but are much stricter on the regulation of firearms, which have to be kept in stipulated conditions i.e. locked cabinets etc. There are regular stories out of the US of infants shooting other children or themselves or adults with guns left lying around the home.
There was a Supreme Court ruling that definitively established the "well-regulated militia" term in the Second Amendment applied much more broadly than to actual regulated militias, and instead protected an individual right to bear arms for self-defense, namely, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home, unconnected with service in a militia. The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, analyzed the two clauses of the Second Amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.") and concluded that the "prefatory clause" (regarding the militia) announces a purpose but does not limit the "operative clause" (the right of the people to keep and bear arms).
But the obvious principle still applies: the main reason people want guns, is the high likelihood that the guy next to them has one. If you knew that hardly anyone had a gun, then you wouldn't feel the need, or so you'd think. Furthermore many sources from psychological and media studies report that by the end of elementary school (around age 10-12), the average American child has witnessed thousands of violent acts, including murders, on television. It's modelled for them. Now there are also shoot-em-up video games, which allow users to simulate the process of mass shooting. All up, the recipe for the violent gun culture we see in today's America.
Quoting Fire Ologist
A project supervisor holds an Armalite rifle during the 1996 Australian gun buyback.
Thats right, and guns are great equalizers of power. A small woman can drop a very large man. Unfortunately, leaving everyone defenceless is a by-product of prohibitionism.
There are three types of people who wish to keep guns away from citizens and to limit the right to self-defense: criminals, tyrants, and gun prohibitionists.
Considering only two people replied to the post in question, one of which being me, I assume that as a invitation to reply.
Wanting to at least thoroughly cross-examine in the attempt to better understand a point, argument, claim, phenomenon, collection of data, or whatever it may be, will never be a negative, deflective, or avoidant thing. Despite your attempt to demonize basic philosophical and logical inquiry, it will never happen. But it does paint you as an odd one out, a strange outlier with a highly suspicious and blatant agenda. We all have agendas. From one to another, you should learn to be more subtle if you hope for yours to ever get off the ground, grasshopper.
Quoting Wayfarer
No I like that, that's fair. But. Remember. There are close to 200 countries in the world today. Yet the chart pairs 11 (ot of 200) against 1. Does that seem standard or fair to you? I'm sure if you sample any random group of 20 people 1 of them will be awful people who should not exist. Is that really supposed to mean anything though? :chin:
Although it's hard to see the water you swim in, the freedom of the press in Australia is not great. For example, that Kim Williams, the chair of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, would publicly go after Joe Rogan and Rogan's speech speaks volumes, and would be unconscionable in a society which strongly values freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The Overton window in Australia is generally quite small, and there's a reason for that.
Australia's success in buying back firearms is a large part of what convinced me that it's possible to do within a liberal democracy.
I could be wrong, but while "Abolish the 2nd Amendment" would not sound popular it's basically what would need to happen. The fancy arguments about "A well regulated militia" don't mean anything when we've decided the private ownership of firearms is what's up, especially in a conservative supreme court.
Roe v. Wade was overturned thru a sway in the court because it was a court decision, but an amendment takes something else and is almost impossible. (almost like the document was written to force people to not be able to accomplish things collectively)
Quoting Outlander
It's true that (from memory) Guatemala and some of the Central American republics have a higher murder rate than the US. Hardly something to skite about. The point was comparisons of liberal democracies in the developed world where the US 'death by firearm' rate is clearly anomalous.
:up:
It's the simple fact that the head of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is doing stuff like that. Obviously Rogan has nothing to fear. "...provided the criticism is fact-based," is a rather large caveat, and another good example.
To take another example, one can easily assess a country's commitment to civil rights when stress is placed on the country, and the Covid-19 outbreak was the most recent precedent. Australia was rather notorious on that score.
Quoting Wayfarer
Actually, it's much harder to tell someone what to do when they have a gun. That's simple logic, and I'm afraid the prejudice lies with the one who denies such a straightforward fact, not the one who accepts it. Like it or not, arms really do help secure the freedoms of the bearer. They also increase homicides. Two things can be true at the same time.
Venezuela banned the private ownership of guns and ammunition in 2012. They stopped issuing firearm licences and confiscated thousands of guns. Ten years later its still pushing 43.65 violent gun deaths per 100000k people, the second highest in the world.
Is that a good thing?
Quoting Wayfarer
As do I. The misrepresentation of the policies notwithstanding.
But do you understand your own arguments here? Again and again you are saying, "The coercion is justified." You are free to make such arguments, but the whole topic here is whether there is a correlation between coercion and guns. Saying, "The coercion is justified on the basis of homicides," or, "The coercion was justified with Covid-19," is missing the whole point that what is at stake is coercion and freedom. One cannot dismiss questions of freedom while simultaneously justifying coercive measures, and it is no coincidence that the most coercive environments are those with the most potent monopolies of coercion.
Part of the difficulty in this thread is that people read "tyrant" as "bad guy," and they assume that they are always the good guy. But a tyrant is fundamentally just someone who forces others to do what they want them to do. It makes no difference whether they think the coercion is a good idea (and obviously they do!). That's really the whole crux: modern people think modern nation stateswhich are by definition tyrannicalare good because the coercion is justified. Upon considering moving away from the modern nation state, the modern person would basically say, "But how would we coerce everyone to do the good things we want them to do?" "Without a strong state we would not have national laws against gun ownership, and that would be bad; therefore we need a strong state to coerce citizens vis-a-vis gun ownership."
I'm afraid that's all you my friend and your own solo show. Two people replied to the post, one of which being myself, and you used the term "folk", which implies more than one person, of which I would logically have to be one of said two. Again, you're your own frontman in this case. Not for an audience or agenda you plan, but go on. Floor is all yours.
Based upon these stats, per one million people per year:
~40.4 gun owners are murdered
~9.6 non-gun owners are murdered
Other Causes Deaths per 1,000,000/year
Gun homicide (base rate) 50
Motor vehicle crashes 129
Sharp object (knife) homicide ~12
Choking (suffocation) ~17
Lightning strikes (fatal) ~1
So, yes, all deaths are significant, but your chances of being murdered by a gun if you decide not to own a gun in the US is not something you really need to spend your time worrying about, but for some reason it gets a lot of press. Non-gun owners are more likely to be murdered by a knife than a gun. This means that solid protection against gun violence is not to own a gun.
I'm in favor of those who choose to own guns just like I'm in favor of those who choose to hang glide. Chances are that if you crash you'll just kill yourself and not land on me.
In a given society, populace, or set of circumstances, that is correct. I don't think a family member would care very much whether their loved one were shot or stabbed to death, other than the fact they are deceased. Perhaps those who are inclined to acts or patterns of behavior or life choices that result in death, are also, coincidentally, or at best tangentially, are attracted to firearms. That's an aside, not a base of origin or some sort of defining quality. Like saying people who like fast cars end up in fatal car accidents more often that those who are not. Sure, there's an observable parallel. But it's an underlying human nature or choice of existence or "living life" that is ultimately response. The fast cars, or bad choices, or inclination to own firearms, is merely a catalyst for something attributable that would result in death or injury absent of any of the machinations mentioned, that something being "just how the person is" (or was raised?).
The argument is, once again, reckless people are attracted to reckless things. Power attracts those who least deserve it. That seems to be all that can be ascertained from your unusually dull and dense analysis of the topic at hand.
Just because you can't accept anything but applause at attacks on gun ownership doesn't make the analysis dull or or dense. It just makes the point that there is not a meaningful risk of loss of life to being shot by a gun in the US if you take the simple precaution of not choosing to have a gun nearby. The math doesn't support widespread efforts at gun control to reduce the negligible risk guns pose to those who, like me, have never owned, nor will ever own a gun. It's someone else's bad decision, and focusing on it is meant to and does in fact polarize and group identify.
Yay guns! is as boring and dense a battle cry as Boo guns! In a liberal open society where guns and all sorts of bad decisions surround you, you get to be stupid. I wish it weren't so, but the right to be stupid is a right you do have.
Yes, but this is a very individualistic assessment. It's a bit like saying, "The class which is most likely to die in gun-related incidents is police officers, and therefore solid protection against gun violence is not to become a police officer." But that leads to a world with no police officers, and a world with no police officers is ironically a world where guns are indispensable.
So I think that if one wants to minimize gun deaths then @Wayfarer's approach is better. In fact I am guessing that, at least on this score, you would rather live in Australia, where you give all the guns to the government and hope that the government never turns them on you.
I would say that in our modern-day world the idea that a first-world government would simply turn its guns on citizens is not overly plausible, but the rub is the manner in which that monopoly of coercion functions in the background, at the foundational level. @Outlander was right to mention the freedom of the press, which is a check on government overreach but which is also shaped by the powers of the government, including those latent powers that are not immediately focused on.
Quoting Moliere
Mass shootings aren't a real problem. Well, not compared to all the other shootings. If you wave a magic wand and end all mass shootings in the US once and for all, you will hardly make a dent in the gun death statistics.
Quoting Banno
Psychosis? Madness? Pathology? I would appreciate it if the mods would consider the way that Banno consistently responds with unapologetic bigotry and trolling ad hominem. @Hanover? @Jamal?
From the site guidelines:
Quoting Baden
Sure.
But the "magic wand" I'm pointing to is abolishing the 2nd amendment, which would take care of those other things if it were done in accord with the Australian model.
"Mass shootings" are what persuaded me, however -- not that just because people could, but would continue to perpetrate such madness is what persuaded me that it's worth giving up a right to weapons like firearms, at least as we do it in the states.
That is a discord that is worth following up on.
See, this gets down to the root of the issue, perhaps unintentionally. It's an "attack". Point blank. Not a debate, not an attempt to better humanity by considering all things to be considered, simply, as you stated, an attack. Attacks are hostile. And hostility is not only non-productive, but has no place in creating a better future for humanity. Agree or disagree.
Quoting Hanover
Well of course that's like saying if all criminals vanished into thin air right now, no one would be attacked, harmed, or robbed by criminals. That's not the debate. It's the human nature to use something, whether it was made for such or not, as a weapon. A car, a rock, a knife, a motolov cocktail, your own bare hands, it doesn't matter what it is. Not really when it's all said and done and a person who was alive is now no longer. Does it?
Obviously control of anything dangerous is not the issue. Everyone agrees on that. Kids shouldn't be able to drive 2-ton SUVs because they want to hang out with their friends, nor should teenagers be able to buy a bottle of vodka because they want to do the same. Control is fine, but total elimination, per your hypothetical, is not just unrealistic, but dismissive of the true causes and reasons why we have such guidelines, limitations, and restrictions in the first place.
Quoting Hanover
Well maybe you should. You make alot of money, I'm sure. Put a lot of people (I'm sure most who deserved it) away into places they don't want to be. That means you have enemies, whether you know it or not. If a criminal right now, were to God forbid, attempt to trespass onto your home with violent intentions, one larger than you, what would you do? Call the police? That takes time. What about your goats? Or whatever. It's good to have faith. And I hope it leads you to everything you desire. But for some of us, we need concrete solutions when it comes to protection of life and property. Do you really think that is not a permanent part of human existence in the modern (or any) age that won't go away regardless of what laws are passed or not?
The likelihood that I be able to produce a gun and use it effectively is lower than that gun being used otherwise to cause me harm. That's my point. You're not safer owning a gun all things considered. The gun in your nightstand drawer is a false sense of security and a greater danger than if it weren't there.
Life is about reducing risks. I'm not immune from gun death, but it's a risk remote enough to navigate without having to eliminate it by force of law or to change much in my day to day life.
And whose fault is that? Rather, why is that? Because of your own inability to accept that these things exist, bad people have them, will use them. and if you are not able to do the same, you of all people, you willingly leave you and those you care about vulnerable. It's like technology or germ warfare in the modern age: "if you don't do it, somebody else less virtuous will just do it anyway." Are you a gatekeeper or the one being kept? It's a fine opinion you hold, just one a bit out of touch in the modern age if rubber were to ever meet the road. In short, the bad guys are armed. So why aren't you? Of all people!
I'm trying to intimately and personally imagine this world you wish to (or seem to think we) live in. Are knives allowed? Or do we just break apart meats and fruits with our fingers instead? Do we shave? Or do we just go to government centers with highly trained and certified professionals to shave for us? Should we even drive? Or do we just take self-driving cars and public transport whenever we need to be somewhere? I'm curious. Please. Enlighten me.
At least in our very contingent historical moment. But when an argument is based in a very contingent historical moment, it tends to lack depth. After all, if everyone took your advice then we would have a whole society of people who are at the whim of gun-wielders, the allure of guns would increase due to their burgeoning coercive force, and then more people would buy guns to defend themselves (or else hire people with guns to protect them, either in a private capacity or else with taxes in a public capacity). Australia has merely outsourced their gun-protection to the government. When things go south the Australian calls the people with guns: same as anyone else. It just so happens that the people with guns in Australia are most often the military.
So the advice to not own a gun has a lot in common with the advice to sell this or that stock. It is highly time-dependent advice. The advice will become outdated once a few contingencies change.
Quoting Hanover
Is it, though? Or is this another part/whole conflation?
To me gun ownership makes sense if you're at very low risk of suicide and you get something positive out of the gun. Say hunting, target shooting, collecting, skeet etc.
The one liberal democracy that is under real threat from its own government is the US, and no amount of gun ownership is going to change that.
That is down to practice. If you live in a safe area then there indeed seems little reason to invest time in familiarizing yourself with a firearm. But not everyone is so fortunate.
I think anyone who has had practical experience with violent criminals will understand the human need to have a means of protecting oneself (and the mental cost of not having one), and that law enforcement is not going to suffice.
But this is consistent with what I've said. Mine isn't an ideological position. It's a practical one, The data shows a gun currently provides 4 times more danger than protection. I therefore should have a buy order in with my broker to buy when that number shows it will offer me safety. Because I seriously doubt it ever will, I don't expect the purchase will happen.
The data shows as gun ownership increases, so does your risk of death. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178924000776?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Do you have data that shows that trend spikes and dips like the S&P so that I should be watching and waiting to buy?
Quoting LuckyR
That'd I agree with. That's not for protection fantasy, but for other use. Quoting Tzeentch
I could find no data suggesting that gun ownership increased one"s safety in more dangerous areas. What i found was the opposite, although I could not find anything that didn't require significant interpretation. Typically as socioeconomic conditions drop, things get worse in every regard, including accidental shootings or failed attempts to thwart attackers.
So on top of being poor, I'm more likely to accidentally shoot myself. :confused:
It is common sense. When I am unarmed and someone is coming for my life, I have virtually zero chance of survival. With a firearm it will be significantly higher.
I don't need data or statistics to tell me that, since it is self-evident.
Whether it works out that way for every gun owner is another story, but also none of my concern.
Common sense also tells you that you're not going to have someone coming at you with a gun, and that if you do that you will have the gun handy when the coming at you occurs, and that if you do produce the gun timely that you'll beat him to to the trigger.
What the data shows is that your gun will more likely cause you more damage than had you not had it.
Again, I don't care if you buy a gun. I'm just telling you you have no reason to feel safer because of it. You can feel like you're protecting yourself and family with a gun, but you're just endangering them. Why can't you let the stats speak for themselves and just say you're comfortable with the increased risks but you want the gun?
But there's going to be a set of people for whom that's not true. If I'm a single male in a high-crime area, I don't see how keeping a gun in the apartment will put me in more danger. In the aggregate, my chance of suicide goes up, but what if I'm not suicidal and never will be? There's a chance I'll shoot myself cleaning it, but what if I'm not a moron when it comes to guns? The only one that would give me pause is I might brandish it if the police are executing a no-knock warrant at my place and I get killed by them, but the number of people who die that way is very very small, so it's not a real concern.
Yep. There's no positives to being poor. People are even more likely to steal your stuff, even though you've got less to steal.
[hide="Reveal"][i]Final answer: How many defensive gun uses each year?
Survey-based "high-end" estimates go as high as ~2.5 million, but those are widely criticized as likely inflated.
Government data (NCVS) shows around 60,00070,000, probably undercounting but arguably more reliable.
Most credible range: ~60,000 to 300,000 incidents per year in the U.S., depending on how broadly you count brandishments and property defense.
If anyone insists on the 2.5 million number without acknowledging its flawsthat's bullshit.[/i][/hide]
But anyway, the probability of a gun making you safer is going to depend on how often gun owners use guns to save themselves. If you think there are 50,000 DGU's a year, you'll get one result. If you plug in 500,000 DGU's a year, you'll get a much different result.
I agree that stats cannot account for every variable, but the data doesn't generally support the proposition that gun ownership offers greater safety than not owning a gun. You can drive accidental shootings down with taking greater precaution and getting better training, but it's just not being intellectually honest to insist you're safer with a gun than without when the numbers point that you're much less safe.
The anecdotes unfortunately dictate the debate, where someone will describe averting disaster by brandishing a gun and heroically protecting their family, but that's not the typical result.
Fortunately, owning a gun as a single predictor of being the victim of gun violence is low enough that it'd be wrong to suggest it's irresponsible to own a gun, so I have no irrational belief no one should own guns, but I do think you fool yourself if you think that gun is making you safer
Statistics without context do not "speak for themselves", nor are the words of someone who has (I assume) never had a run-in with violent criminals particularly valuable.
I have, and there's not a doubt in my mind that a firearm would have made me safer.
And quite honestly, I can understand your attitude. It's easy to make comments about other people's safety when you're sitting high and dry. This is what intellectuals and politcians love to do. These things are "uncommon" until they're happening to you, and you're at the complete mercy of some deranged idiots because your government is too incompetent to protect you, and doesn't allow you to protect yourself.
Oh please, save me the nonsense about how you've seen pain I can't understand. Quoting Tzeentch
Of course if you'd have had a gun when you were accosted, the outcome would have been different. I don't know if you owned a gun at the time, but having it at the ready isn't all that common. The data (again the confounded data) shows that gun won't make you safer. You act like I'm opposed to guns ideologically. If owning a gun would make me safer, why wouldn't I go buy one?. You already determined I'm a rich white guy. Why wouldn't I just go buy me an arsenal, get cool sights, laser beams, the whole works?
I mean, you clearly have no idea. You might tell yourself you have any idea what it's like based on "data" and "statistics", but you'd just be fooling yourself.
Quoting Hanover
You're talking about people trying to steal your wallet. I'm talking about people trying to ruin your life over trivial nonsense - death threats, harassment, vandalism etc., and the implicit suggestion that they're willing and low IQ enough to do extreme things.
Quoting Hanover
Presumably because there's no reason for you to do so. Good for you. If I had no need for a gun, I wouldn't want one either.
Spoken like someone who is adamantly opposed to argument. I.e., like Banno.
I think you are placing too much faith in contextless statistics and relying on implausible premises such as this:
Quoting Hanover
On an individualistic and historically contingent assessment, owning a gun may well increase your risk of death. It doesn't follow from this that it is societally beneficial to place all of the guns into the hands of one set of people. Looking only at what affects you in the short term is a form of selfishness, is it not?
---
Speaking now more generally, I think the anti-gun crowd in this thread has been consistently myopic. They consistently mention one thing, or cite one stat, hope that ends the whole debate, and then ice the cake with unsupported, apodictic statements (and one of them even provides psychiatric diagnoses for anyone who dares to disagree with him). Hanover is doing that a fair bit less than the others, but he still wants to limit the scope of the discussion and draw conclusions from that limited scope.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does have a "give me liberty or give me death" ring to it. Folks who are deeply afraid of death and value their own life far above all else obviously fear a right to arms. Their motto is, "Do whatever you want to me, so long as you don't kill me." I think that's actually where the disagreement lies. Security vs. freedom.
Rather, the average person in a western country lives such a safe and sheltered life that they cannot even fathom the need to protect themselves, or understand what it is like to have one's life threatened, and what it does to a person.
I think any anti-gun person would make a 180 if they were ever to experience how thinly protected they actually are. How easily criminals are able to circumvent the law, and how malicious and petty some people are. When your life is in danger and the police can only shrug their shoulders - that's a reality check.
There's a decent chance the average American woman will have experienced some kind of violence or attempted violence in her lifetime (often sexual). And if she hasn't she will certainly have close friends who have, so I don't know where you're getting this.
So although they may not be viscerally afraid of death, their own arguments are based on an intellectual or statistical fear of death.
In Alaska (which is an American territory), some sparely populated villages do not have traditional roads that can be navigated by vehicles during certain times of the year or certain levels of severe weather. Villagers traveling to and from certain villages often for miles at a time can face life and death risk if accosted by grizzly bears or other wild animals that are common and known to frequent said areas of wilderness. Do you suggest they simply get eaten? :chin:
Long guns are a different conversation from handguns, but you might be overstating the danger of getting eaten by a bear in Alaska. There is an average of 11 bear attacks per year in all of North America (so that'd be continental US, Canada and Alaska), half involving dogs because apparently, they attack the bears. Your chances of a bear attack (and not necessarily dying from it) are 1 in 2.1 million. I have hiked some trails where I carried pepper spray, which I'm told is a better deterrent than squaring up and shooting the bear. https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/bear-attacks-statistics/
But I get it, the poster said all guns were bad, so you just had to come with a single counterexample to disprove the "all." But sure, let the inuit keep their guns. I suspect it'd be pretty hard to maintain their lifestyle with arrows and spears.
It's a state, not a territory.
sparsely*
Quoting Hanover
Generally so, yes. Of course, it ultimately depends on whom you ask. Some people are reasonable, some aren't. You know that.
Quoting Hanover
Perhaps. But a danger is a danger and a man has a right to at least be aware of such, even if the chances of such are nominal.
Also, those sort of statistics are based on documentation of events, not the events themselves. Surely you don't believe every time a man dies the government is there to report and archive it. That's silly. Missing persons, for example (those that actually make the list, as isolated or otherwise rural villages in such a place may simply never go reported at all), could perhaps be the result of many non-witnessed animal deaths. Not to imply your statistics are starkly inaccurate, only that perhaps there's plenty they're not showing. Even one, unreported death is a tragedy. The smaller the community, the more impactful it "actually" is to said society. So all life being valuable, it becomes important.
Quoting Hanover
In the interest of preserving the integrity of the larger debate, I observed my good friend @DifferentiatingEgg mistakenly introducing a less-than-useful blanket statement into said debate, of which my response was to offer a friendly and lighthearted correction.Which was immediately performed with admirable precision.
One valid counter-argument is all you need to qualify a statement or principle as false, or at the very least in need of significant and fundamental revision in order to better reflect the truth and accuracy of the world or situation it purports to describe. If that's important. If not, well, that's your sentiment and worldview, and you have a right to have it.
As an aside, I have many more counterexamples, some of which are found on this thread from multiple posters. But I shall save them for the future.
Quoting frank
Lower case "territory"; meaning anything including uppercase States, Provinces, and yes, legal Territories. Basically just meaning, "part of the United States", and so relevant to the debate, which seems to nearly-obsessively (perhaps to be expected) revolve around such a place.
The reasons why a person requires superiority vary widely... some times that feeling is "I need a firearm because I am truly an impotent worm who needs to feel superior to others...." like Kyle Rittenhouse, a pale criminal who thirsted for blood.
:lol:
What if you like to target shoot? You never played a game like horseshoes or Whack-a-Mole? Asteroids? It's the same concept, really. Skeet shooting, etc. If you're not from a land that embraces such, I'm sure you'd know little of it. But that's of little consequence.
One could instead rephrase your argument as "when you wish to minimize risk of injury in dealing with something undesirable." Why don't you just get on your hands and knees and pluck each blade of overgrown grass or weed, one by one. You know, "be a man." Because it's a waste of time. It's rubbish, something undesirable (the overgrown foliage), for example. Good people have a right to use the cumulative innovation and progress to ease your life from that which is a threat to it. How could any sane person disagree?
If you're 5'2" and a criminal who clearly expresses his desire to kill or injure you who is 6'2" is chasing you, perhaps with an exposed weapon, either sharp or blunt, on top of it all. Without a gun, unless you're some sort of Superman, you will surely perish. Do you not understand that? It's not very difficult. :confused:
Hmm. Having read several of the more substantial responses, I think I am further pushed into my position: Guns are necessary to level the field, whether between or intra-species. This seems enough.
Control, though, is tricky for one reason only: The enforcement of gun control requires gun use. I'm unsure I need to explain why that's tricky.
That's the whole point of a firearm to give advantage. It's pretty manly to accept you're in a position where you require superiority through firepower because you're inferior...
Objective moralist do "when you wish to minimize risk of injury in dealing with something undesirable."
I think that hones in on the political sophistry or equivocation involved, which I pointed to in my . It is this: when one talks about "gun control," what they think they are talking about is controlling the availability of guns. By "gun control" they think they mean, "making guns scarce." But if you ask how guns are to be made scarce, it quickly becomes apparent that scarcity is achieved by giving all the guns to one set of people and having those people use the guns to coercively prevent others from obtaining guns. The parallel of nuclear disarmament is not even theoretically possible in the case of guns.
So by, "Making guns scarce," one actually means, "Making guns scarce for one group while making them readily available for another group."
If we ignore this political sophistry then the arguments look pretty good. Indeed, even if we confront the sophistry one might still think that it is preferable to give all the guns to one group of people (along with everything that entails). But once one spots the political sophistry the arguments in favor of "gun control" are no longer as strong or as easy to make.
The deeper point here is that this is a complex issue that does not have a simple, bumper sticker answer. We can't just cite a stat and foreclose the whole debate. For example, the prevalence of mental illness within a society is going to have a measurable effect on opinions about gun control. Feminist arguments are going to play a role. Disenfranchisement (vis-a-vis arms) is going to play a role. Gross homicide statistics are going to play a role. Trust or distrust towards the government and also one's fellow citizens is going to play a role. Still, I think the biggest blind spot in modern liberal democracies is the political sophistry noted above.
(NB: Aristotle held that in a truly democratic order, everyone would not only have a right to arms, but would also own arms and be trained in the use of arms. For the poor this would have to be provided, given their limited resources. Indeed, Aristotle held that an arrangement where the lower classes (i.e. the majority) either did not have access to arms or were not trained in the use of arms was not a democracy in any true sense. Even if the lower classes were able to vote they would still ultimately be powerless to maintain the democratic order if they did not possess the means of coercion that the upper classes possessed.)
I don't think too many people would shy away from this. It's the underlying justification and detail that makes people squirm.
Who holds the guns? You can name several classes that, prima facie, seem up for the job (as OP did, i think).
IN reality, they are all humans. Back to square 1. I'm unsure this is the biggest problem with modern political sophistry, but it is probably hte one popular discourse trips up on hte most (and why most discourse turns into yelling matches).