Gun Control is ridiculous

[Garrette]

Unless you can guarantee that you or anyone else will not go nuts, no.

You have to prove to me that you are not dangerous with a gun.

Thank you. So your position is that no one, anywhere, at any time, can be trusted with a gun.

It's equivalent to the US National Guard.

It doesn't change your point, but as a nitpick, there is no "US" National Guard. There is a US Army/Navy/Air Force/Marine Reserve, but the National Guards are individual to each state. They can, of course, be federalized at times, but they are state organizations.

No, no. "Any threat" means "any threat imaginable", as you correctly note. But if "any threat" doesn't mean "all threats", then it should be "some threats".

This semantic issue was quite clear to me and, I suspect, others from the get-go. I also suspect it was clear to you, and that you knew the argument was simply word play.

 

[Tailgater]

Really? You think drug addicts don't "value their own life"?

No, they don't.

You really don't know very much about drug addiction do you? Or poverty in general for that matter.

Yes, I do. Several friends dead to drugs, either by OD or suicide or health related problems. None of them valued life even with opportunites and help presented to them.

You'd have the death penalty for property crimes then, I take it? Even white collar fraud? Or is your bloodthirsty contempt for criminals just limited to junkies?

What's the price where shooting someone dead ceases to be acceptable? You'd kill someone for stealing a dollar? Hundred dollars? When does it stop being OK to kill someone for being greedier or hungrier or more desperate than you are?

That is silly. I just won't cry over them when they end up dead trying to steal.

Oh really. How about homeless? Why are you so contemptuous of those less fortunate than yourself?

That is also silly. I've been near the gutter twice in my life. If I had to steal from someone to get a fix, I'd rather take my own life because I would know I've gone too far. I also have tried to help several people get back on track. Some valued it, some didn't.

Well, the war on drugs is a whole other thread. Drug addicts generally? Probably there's no huge difference. With illegal drugs? Definitely less safe.

Why would legal drugs be safer if your whole point is they are too poor to afford them. I doubt legal drugs would be free, and does the drug being legal make them less of a threat when wielding a gun?

You'd kill all drug addicts then? Alcoholics? Smokers?

You're insane.

Of course not.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No, no. "Any threat" means "any threat imaginable", as you correctly note. But if "any threat" doesn't mean "all threats", then it should be "some threats".

Well then, let's ask Quad.

Quad, did you mean "all threats" or "some threats" when you used the phrase "any threat"?

How can you separate production from supply??

Because I was providing an example of how supply sources for the black market can change and have no negative effect on the market itself. Now, if you want to argue that production of firearms outside the US would be unable to meet the demand for illegal firearms in the US, then by all means, start another tangent of discussion. However, I think it would be of greater value to discuss the crux of my analogy, that being, the geographic differences the US has are conducive to smuggling and that you need to support your, apparent, claim that reducing the production of firearms inside the US will reduce their availability on the black market.

 

[Garrette]

I agree with your premise, and most of your points, but in this instance I think you're missing something. Confronted with someone in my house, and not knowing what he's there for or what his intentions are, I would expect the worst. It's not worth the risk. What sets me apart from the gun fanatics is that I wouldn't find it desirable or necessary to blow the guy's head off.

Unlike the fanatics such as I who would revel in the chance to spray blood and brains around my living space. I would probably laugh about it later in the bar with my friends while they gutted their latest 15 point bucks.

It's worth noting that if many of these people spent their thousands of dollars on home security instead of filling their houses with guns, they'd be a good deal safer (that's if they don't choke on their good ol' macho pride first).

Thousands of dollars? What guns do you buy? A serviceable sidearm sufficient for home defense is easily obtainable for at least no more than a couple of hundred. A new top of the line that's a bit fancier would still be less than a thousand. Anything more is simply for show, like buying a Maserati.

And the bit about home security is not really an argument. I'd like to see statistics that it makes you safer, but even when they work perfectly the quickest on scene time by the police will be at least three minutes and probably significantly longer.

 

[volatile]

Do you?

Are you unaware of how an addict can be simply incapable of thinking about anything except the next hit or the money for the next hit or the obstacle between him and the money for the next hit?

Of course. But that doesn't mean they want to die. Indeed, they want to stay alive. Their life (driven though it might be by addiction) is still their primary goal. Addiction's like hunger - just that hungry people will go to desperate ends for food, addicts will go to desperate lengths for their hit. Satisfying that addiction becomes imperative to survival.

I think you're overstating Quad's position, but I also think you're looking at this in a pristine manner, i.e., desperate but harmless burglar invades home of person who can afford to lose a few things.

Certainly. But IMHO that's more often the case than the alternative Quad and others seem so sure of - that a psychopathic, single-minded killer, armed to the teeth, will hunt random homeowners down for sport. I think we're playing reductio ad absurdum here.

Tell me, volatile, where do you draw the line for the burglar? If it appears I am well off because I have a home and my children are clothed, but I'm really mortgaged well beyond my ability with medical bills piling up and I'm working three jobs already and my kids have enough to eat but never any to spare and the money is getting tighter and tighter and the only way out is my fledgling career as a writer and the only copy of my unpublished novel is on the laptop that the junkie is trying to take away, are you telling me I should be happy with my insurance?

What if I can't even afford insurance?

Should I simply burgle my neighbor because we know he won't try to stop me?

Please don't think I'm justifying burglary. I'm really not. Not at all. I just so happen to place killing above property theft in my heirachy of wrongdoing. We need social policy to address all those issues - of drug addiction, of medical care, of affordable housing, or safety and law and order and of all these things.

We don't solve the issue by dispensing vigilante justice to those who make bad decisions.

 

[CFLarsen]

Thank you. So your position is that no one, anywhere, at any time, can be trusted with a gun.

Not citizens in general, no.

I don't see any reason why they should. Can you explain why?

It doesn't change your point, but as a nitpick, there is no "US" National Guard. There is a US Army/Navy/Air Force/Marine Reserve, but the National Guards are individual to each state. They can, of course, be federalized at times, but they are state organizations.

This semantic issue was quite clear to me and, I suspect, others from the get-go. I also suspect it was clear to you, and that you knew the argument was simply word play.

Not at all. That's how I understood it.

Well then, let's ask Quad.

Quad, did you mean "all threats" or "some threats" when you used the phrase "any threat"?

Not so clear, huh?

Because I was providing an example of how supply sources for the black market can change and have no negative effect on the market itself. Now, if you want to argue that production of firearms outside the US would be unable to meet the demand for illegal firearms in the US, then by all means, start another tangent of discussion. However, I think it would be of greater value to discuss the crux of my analogy, that being, the geographic differences the US has are conducive to smuggling and that you need to support your, apparent, claim that reducing the production of firearms inside the US will reduce their availability on the black market.

Whoa, wait a moment. Who said anything about production of firearms outside the US? I didn't.

 

[baron]

Unlike the fanatics such as I who would revel in the chance to spray blood and brains around my living space.

If you shot someone then you would indeed have blood and brains in your living space, regardless of the liklihood of ensuing revelment.

Thousands of dollars? What guns do you buy? A serviceable sidearm sufficient for home defense is easily obtainable for at least no more than a couple of hundred. A new top of the line that's a bit fancier would still be less than a thousand. Anything more is simply for show, like buying a Maserati.

That's why I said "many" and not "all". Are you saying every family keeps only a single gun? I don't think so.

And the bit about home security is not really an argument. I'd like to see statistics that it makes you safer, but even when they work perfectly the quickest on scene time by the police will be at least three minutes and probably significantly longer.

You're talking about alarms. An alarm on your property will deter burglars. However, I was talking more about prevention measures. What's wrong with spending money on secure windows and doors, reinforced locks? Combine that with an audiable alarm and that would do far more to protect you and your family than a gun. Guns weren't made to be deterents, they were made for killing, plain and simple.

 

[Garrette]

Of course. But that doesn't mean they want to die. Indeed, they want to stay alive. Their life (driven though it might be by addiction) is still their primary goal. Addiction's like hunger - just that hungry people will go to desperate ends for food, addicts will go to desperate lengths for their hit. Satisfying that addiction becomes imperative to survival.

This is incomplete. The thought process behind acquiring the next hit is not rational. That's what you keep leaving out.

Certainly. But IMHO that's more often the case than the alternative Quad and others seem so sure of - that a psychopathic, single-minded killer, armed to the teeth, will hunt random homeowners down for sport. I think we're playing reductio ad absurdum here.

On both sides.

Please don't think I'm justifying burglary.

I don't. I simply don't think you've thought it through except superficially.

Don't think that I believe that I have thought it through completely or that I believe I have the right answer. But when either side of the argument relies on arguments more suited to ivory towers (the gun control side) or the apocalypse (the free guns for everyone side), I take issue. You'll note I've made negative comments about some of the pro-argument posts here.

I just so happen to place killing above property theft in my heirachy of wrongdoing.

As do I, but not as an absolute.

We don't solve the issue by dispensing vigilante justice to those who make bad decisions.

Not if that is our sole or primary means. But we also do not solve issues by engaging in fanciful thinking about the reality of individual encounters and the varying circumstances surrounding them.

 

[Tailgater]

Of course. But that doesn't mean they want to die. Indeed, they want to stay alive. Their life (driven though it might be by addiction) is still their primary goal. Addiction's like hunger - just that hungry people will go to desperate ends for food, addicts will go to desperate lengths for their hit. Satisfying that addiction becomes imperative to survival.

I don't want to derail any further with this, but I would like to point out there is a large difference between wanting to stay alive and having value for life. My dog wants to stay alive.

 

[Garrette]

If you shot someone then you would indeed have blood and brains in your living space, regardless of the liklihood of ensuing revelment.

Yes. My point being that I took issue with your implication that those not on the side of gun control take delight in the possibility of killing someone.

That's why I said "many" and not "all". Are you saying every family keeps only a single gun? I don't think so.

No. And I don't know the numbers. But I will retract.

You're talking about alarms. An alarm on your property will deter burglars. However, I was talking more about prevention measures. What's wrong with spending money on secure windows and doors, reinforced locks? Combine that with an audiable alarm and that would do far more to protect you and your family than a gun. Guns weren't made to be deterents, they were made for killing, plain and simple.

Ah. Gotcha.

But I'll pick at this a bit, too, since it shows a bit of what I have been criticizing volatile for. What about those who are not in the financial circumstances to do even this much but who have inherited dad's old revolver?

The pro-gun side is not entirely comprised of white middle class families with two cars, a relatively new house, and a discretionary budget that allows the easy choice between guns and better windows.

 

[Ranb]

Touché. Could it be your definition of "stupid" is just "disagrees vehemently with me"?

How do you know he's a killer unless he's killed you? You make the assumption of violent intent first - indeed, you have to for your gung-ho plan to work at all.

So, if someone was burgling your house, you wouldn't shoot them? Then what ever are we arguing about?

But not in a non-violent burglary, clearly, seeing as you wouldn't use your gun against a burglar. So what do you need a gun for? You realise how few psycho serial killers than kill for the fun of it there are, right?

I said I would try to stop a thief, you suggested that I would kill a thief to protect property. I said I value my own life more than a thief’s, you suggested that I valued my property more than the life of a thief. Because I have little sympathy for people who purposely ruin their own lives by taking dangerous drugs, you suggest that I promote executing them. Did you really think I would not notice that you were lying about what I said?

I think I would have a rather good idea that a thief is a killer if he is trying to kill me. I am allowed to make that decision before I am actually dead. It would be rather foolish to let the Coroner decide that I was killed by a killer than to make that decision myself.

There are other options besides killing a thief. I never said I had to kill a thief. I said I would try and stop one. There are several ways to do this. I can yell for help, run away, brandish a firearm, shoot the firearm, shoot and wound the criminal, kill the criminal, or do something else. If you were not stupid, then you would already know this.

I have a gun collection because I enjoy it. A couple of them are useful for self-defense. They night come in handy someday.

I'd still like to know why you have such a low opinion of pistols and shotguns for hunting. Since it does not come from actual experience while hunting with suitable pistols and shotguns, it must have come from some stupid source like Hollywood, or something you made up to support your own agenda.

Ranb

 

[Loss Leader]

A serviceable sidearm sufficient for home defense is easily obtainable for at least no more than a couple of hundred.

A sidearm is insufficient for home defense.

A person on the offense and a person on defense are in two different positions and have two different goals.

The basic condition of defense is one of imperfect knowledge, confusion and surprise. The attacker knows the time, place and method of attack. He knows his goals and how much risk he is willing to tolerate. The defender has none of this knowledge. The defender does not know when or even if the attack is coming. He may not even be certain when the attack commences, thinking it might be a false alarm or a misunderstanding. He does not know what the attacker's goals are or even if the attacker's goals are really inconsistent with his defensive goals. (After all, how hard will I fight to defend my roommate's stuff from his ex-girlfriend?) He has no idea what type of force the attacker has at his disposal or even how many attackers there are. And is it really an attacker or just your teenage son sneeking back in after a night of drinking?

In a defensive situation, one must discount the force one would use to protect oneself or property by the chance that no such protection is necessary and the chance that one has simply misunderstood the situation. A defensive weapon should be one that slows the attacker, scares him off, or disables him until more information can be gathered. It should also be low intensity and widespread. The widespread nature allows for the fact that one does not know exactly where the attacker is. The low intensity allows for the fact that the defender might just be wrong.

A good defensive weapon might be an alarm system or even a dog. The lock on a door is a defensive weapon. So is a floodlight.

A gun is a very poor choice for a defensive weapon. It is not designed to slow an attack while the defender analyzes the situation. It is not designed to call for help. And it is not designed to minimize harm in case the defender has made a mistake. It is designed to kill a single person whose position and intent are known to the user.

Being unsuited for defense, it cannot be sufficient at any price.

 

[CFLarsen]

An alarm on your property will deter burglars.

Merely having a sign that says you have an alarm will deter burglars. They don't want to find out if you really have one or not.

Think about it: Who are the people who want to reduce burglaries the most? You, me, the police, politicians? No: The insurance companies.

Yes, they are greedy vultures, no argument from me. But they are so because they want to reduce cost any way they possibly can.

One quick and sure way of getting a cheaper insurance is to have an alarm installed. The better protected your house is, the cheaper for you. But, most importantly, the cheaper for the insurance companies.

Because they know that alarms keep the burglars away.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
Not so clear, huh?

It's been perfectly clear to me, but since you disagree I am asking Quad to rephrase it so it is clear to you.

Whoa, wait a moment. Who said anything about production of firearms outside the US? I didn't.

Indirectly you certainly did.

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade
It very much matters how it was obtained. Your entire argument here appears to be making the assumption that the supply of illegal firearms is supplied, in the majority, internal to the US and that the supply will dry up if they are not available within the US.
Take a look at crystal meth. In the US it is a major problem. A number of years ago law enforcement agencies made a major push to shut down meth labs in the US, the majority of which were "mom and pop" type operations. They succeeded in doing so. However, in doing so, the Mexican drug cartels saw a supply vacuum and began producing it. Now, in the US, we have higher grade crystal meth on the streets, as or more prevelant than before, and it's being distributed along preexisting drug running supply lines.

Producing a lot of crystal meth is far easier than producing a lot of guns.

My analogy dealt with how the source of the supply went from inside the US, to outside the US. Now, your comment is either saying that you don't think that the production of firearms outside of the US would be sufficient to supply the black market if the production inside the US were to be halted; or your comment is completely irrelevant.

 

[CFLarsen]

Indirectly you certainly did.

My analogy dealt with how the source of the supply went from inside the US, to outside the US. Now, your comment is either saying that you don't think that the production of firearms outside of the US would be sufficient to supply the black market if the production inside the US were to be halted; or your comment is completely irrelevant.

Ehh...neither. I am saying that producing a lot of crystal meth is far easier than producing a lot of guns, period.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ehh...neither. I am saying that producing a lot of crystal meth is far easier than producing a lot of guns, period.

And how is that relevant to the part of my post to which you were replying?

 

[Ranb]

A sidearm is insufficient for home defense.

The attacker knows the time, place and method of attack. He knows his goals and how much risk he is willing to tolerate. The defender has none of this knowledge. The defender does not know when or even if the attack is coming. He may not even be certain when the attack commences, thinking it might be a false alarm or a misunderstanding. He does not know what the attacker's goals are or even if the attacker's goals are really inconsistent with his defensive goals.

A good defensive weapon might be an alarm system or even a dog. The lock on a door is a defensive weapon. So is a floodlight.

A gun is a very poor choice for a defensive weapon. It is not designed to slow an attack while the defender analyzes the situation. It is not designed to call for help. And it is not designed to minimize harm in case the defender has made a mistake. It is designed to kill a single person whose position and intent are known to the user.

Being unsuited for defense, it cannot be sufficient at any price.

You speak too much in absolutes. It is possible that a home defender can be aware of an aggressor outside of his home. Just ask anyone who has lived through a riot outside of their house/apartment.

I do agree that locks, lights and dogs are good to have.

A wounded aggressor will quite possibly slow down after a confrontation. Less lethal loads are also available. Tazers, shot shell pistol loads and beanbag rounds for shotguns are good examples.

Ranb

 

[volatile]

This is incomplete. The thought process behind acquiring the next hit is not rational. That's what you keep leaving out.

It's not rational in that great risks are often undertaken in pursuit of money to fund the habit, of course, but in general the number of those willing to kill is minuscule compared to the number of those who aren't.

On both sides.

Precisely what I meant. That said, my reduction is (and I'm speculating again) closer to the truth. I'm almost certain there are more down-at-heel junkies burgling those with insurance than there are gun-toting maniacs breaking into homes in the dead of night to wilfully murder the occupants.

I don't. I simply don't think you've thought it through except superficially.

As I said, I'm using reductio as a rhetorical device precisely because those who I'm arguing with here (your good self excepted) seem so entrenched in the paranoid mindset that bad guys lurk behind every turn that it's difficult not to point out the problems in their logic, nor the (often horrific) conclusions.

Of course reality is much more complicated than my thought experiments encapsulate, but I think the fundamentals of my argument - that more guns means a more dangerous society and that the correct direction for legislation is thus to be restrictive and not de-restrictive - are sound. You can push that reasoning to extreme events, but the events are so rare that the cost benefit ratio of a society with or without legal citizen gun ownership seems always, for me, to fall on the side of no guns.

In an ideal world, no-one at all would have guns. Let's work towards, rather than away from, that ideal.

Don't think that I believe that I have thought it through completely or that I believe I have the right answer. But when either side of the argument relies on arguments more suited to ivory towers (the gun control side) or the apocalypse (the free guns for everyone side), I take issue. You'll note I've made negative comments about some of the pro-argument posts here.

Indeed. And I thank you for it. My argument are idealised and optimistic, but this does not undermine their validity. I enjoy living in a country where the police don't routinely carry guns, where the drunken idiots I see fighting in the streets aren't allowed to own guns, and where burglars generally won't come with a gun if they do happen to rob my house.

As do I, but not as an absolute.

As I said, there are numerous examples of hypothetical utilitarian arguments which challenge that absolute. But in the real world, and as rule of thumb, absolute works just fine for me. The alternative, y'see, is where people do seem to be suggesting in places on this thread that death is the only punishment befitting of thieves, and that, frankly, terrifies me. Would a society in which that kind of moral outlook was routinely tolerated and acted upon be a nice one to live in? I suggest not.

To quote one of the secular humanist tenets, I "believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences."

Not if that is our sole or primary means. But we also do not solve issues by engaging in fanciful thinking about the reality of individual encounters and the varying circumstances surrounding them.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[baron]

Yes. My point being that I took issue with your implication that those not on the side of gun control take delight in the possibility of killing someone.

It wasn't my intention to suggest that, which is why I mentioned "necessity" in my quoted post, and I certainly don't believe you personally would take any pleasure in using a gun, based on your input here. However, now you mention it, I would suggest that a not insignificant number of US gun owners, in their heart of hearts, yearn for the day when they can legally whop out their weapon and start a-blastin' away at a human target. I have no proof, it's just the feeling I get.

But I'll pick at this a bit, too, since it shows a bit of what I have been criticizing volatile for. What about those who are not in the financial circumstances to do even this much but who have inherited dad's old revolver?

There are always exceptions to the rule (although I don't think this is a particularly convincing one). I'm certain there are cases where carrying a gun has saved someone's life but, in the grand scheme of things, they are outweighed by the perils of gun ownership.

 

[CFLarsen]

And how is that relevant to the part of my post to which you were replying?

It's relevant because you can produce crystal meth just about anywhere. You don't have to build a huge factory, you can use a garage or a basement somewhere.

It is quite different with guns. You have to have a factory of some size before you can possibly produce even a smidgen of the guns sold each year in the US.

You may be able to build such a factory outside the US, but inside? Arh......