Gun Control Discussion sans constitutional issues...

[Arborealus]

I'd like to have a relatively FF discussion on Gun Control, Yeah I know it's VV but...

So anyway I have been pondering the issue a bit of late. It is a given that Gun Control, and by gun control I mean legislated prohibition of guns and or classes of guns, is a reduction of freedom.

The most frequent arguement I have seen pro control is that guns only purpose is to kill. I think most reasonable people would call BS on that arguement. Certainly guns have, to some people, recreational value.
I, for one, enjoy turning big pieces of clay into small pieces of clay.

It seems to me that to restrict freedom to own guns because of what "might" be done with them is inherently wrong, basically limiting freedom because of a possibility that someone might be harmed by a thing.

Yes gun violence in America is a huge problem. But the issue at it's root isn't guns. There are certainly countries with higher gun ownership per capita with far lower gun related deaths and crimes. And far more people die as a result of cars abuse annually yet there is no car control movement.

It occurs to me that the pro gun control arguement is analogous to prohibition, thus I cannot see how prohibition of guns would work effectively. Granted guns are not addictive but the endgame arguement is the same largely.

It seems to me that the problem here really, is mostly cultural violence not the actual guns. How we as a nation address the culture of violence is actually beyond the scope of the discussion at hand to my mind though obviously is food for thought and would make another excellent discussion.

Also at issue would seem to be the protection of businesses from realistic punitive damages, perhaps substantive punitive damages would be a better choice. It seems to me that if substantive punitive damages were allowed in litigation against the manufacturers of guns which are designed to be easily concealed the manufacturers would rather quickly stop producing such guns without any need for legislation. I also see as an issue the abrogation of personal liability vis a vis proxying to corporations as contributory here (yet another can of worms i won't open here).

Anyway constitutionality issues aside wrap your thoughts around this and lets see where we get...the crux seems to be how do we maintain maximum freedom while protecting each other from violent death?

[miir]

The most frequent arguement I have seen pro control is that guns only purpose is to kill. I think most reasonable people would call BS on that arguement. Certainly guns have, to some people, recreational value.
I, for one, enjoy turning big pieces of clay into small pieces of clay.

That is the one of only 2-3 uses for a gun that does not involve making something dead. Myself and my family own guns... rifles and shotguns. But their only use is for hunting. They are securely stored (multiple locks) and never loaded except when being used.

The fact is that the original purpose for a gun was to kill things. It's a weapon, that's what weapons do... they kill things. Finding a use for a weapon that does not involve killing does not change the fact that it was created for the sole purpose of killing.

It seems to me that to restrict freedom to own guns because of what "might" be done with them is inherently wrong, basically limiting freedom because of a possibility that someone might be harmed by a thing.

Let's try this from a different angle.
Let's say that you found a use for a chemical weapon that does not involve death. Would your freedom be limited if your government restricted ownership of them?

I'm really sick of pro-gun idiots trying to deny the fact that GUNS ARE WEAPONS. You can't deny the fact they are weapons by making up some other use for them that doesn't involve killing or by taking *RANDOM OBJECT* and describing how that random object can be used to kill someone.

A pillow can kill someone but a pillow is not a weapon.
A shoe can kill someone but a shoe is not a weapon.

Making up a use for a gun that doesn't involve killing to justify calling it a 'tool, doesn't make it a tool.... in the exact same way making up a use for a sippy-cup to kill someone does not make a sippy-cup a weapon.

You can't use an argument one way and ignore the sheer idocy of it when it's used another way.

There are certainly countries with higher gun ownership per capita with far lower gun related deaths and crimes.

Prove it.

And far more people die as a result of cars abuse annually yet there is no car control movement.

Because a car is not a weapon.

It seems to me that the problem here really, is mostly cultural violence not the actual guns.

Let's take Canada as an example.
Canadian culture is very similar (if not virtually identical) to American culture.

We have rather strict gun control laws.
We also have a gun-related crime rate that is astronomically lower than the US.
You can live in the densest urban areas of Canada and have less risk of being a victim of a violent gun-related crime than you would in a small (75-100k) city in the US.


These are facts... no bullshit rhetoric like blaming gun violence on 'culture' or trying to deny that guns are not weapons.

It occurs to me that the pro gun control arguement is analogous to prohibition, thus I cannot see how prohibition of guns would work effectively. Granted guns are not addictive but the endgame arguement is the same largely

I don't think the 'pro gun control' people are asking to outlaw all guns outright. That would be idiotic... supremely ridiculous. People like myself simply see no viable reason for the average citizen to own a handgun or assault rifle.
Do people hunt with handguns?
Do you need an assault rifle to skeet shoot?

[Atokal]

Arb, the gun control concept I subscribe to is the complete elimination of hand guns, automatic weapons, and machine pistols.

Guns used for hunting, clay pigeons etc are in the rifle or long barrel category which inherently make them difficult to conceal.

The exceptions for the above weapons would be military (While enlisted) and police officers (while on the job and during retirement).

Rifles are tools, for sport and hunting. Handguns and automatic weapons are for killing PEOPLE.

[Pherr the Dorf]

The reason for guns in the constitution was to keep the government honest

[Arborealus]

Errrrmmm I'm confused Miir...You asked me to prove that there were higher gun ownership per capita countries with less gun violence then you proved it with Canada......Canada has higher gun ownership per capita and next to no gun violence...

Ok lets go with the bow and arrow...it is a weapon it was designed to kill things yet there is no bow control movement...I think the question is not the intent of the concept but the degree of murderous efficiency/concealability etc...

The only rationale I can see for a concealable weapon is killing someone who is unaware you had that weapon...I am for the record not against making pistols less concealable and that could be done I believe short of banning pistols...

An assault rifle is to my mind no more dangerous than any semi-automatic rifle for the most part...clip capacity is an issue there though....but that's the only difference I can see as far as murderous efficiency...Erp check that...Some Assault weapons are fairly rewadily convertible to automatic using existing or easily modifiable parts...though again that can be altered mechanically...

And by the way most chemical weapons are organophosphates orginally developed as insecticides and yup they are readily available in home care stores...they are in fact legal just rendered less efficient at killing humans by reduction of the concentration...

Some people do hunt with handguns yes...a friend of mine with MD cannot wield a rifle and hunts with a pistol...

Do I need an assault rifle to shoot skeet...nope...But I do like to shoot paper with them and I do like their look, feel, durability and ease of maintenance...

I don't for the record, think you are entirely justifiable in saying the that the cultural impact is negligible. Canada strikes me as very different culturally in its approach to guns. Perhaps relating to the origins of our respective countries independence. We actually have an enumerated right to bear arms built in to our foundation of government. I'm not saying that it is sensible or even desirable to have it there but it certainly speaks to a different cultural perspective on guns and gun ownership.

I have no agenda here really just pondering the freedom versus safety issues. I don't know what the best fit is, where Occam's Razor falls if you will. I'm just thinking about all the angles. Guns can certainly be required to be modified by law or we can tax/sue manufacturers to the extent that their products have negative impact on our society a la tobacco. I think either of these methods would have the same result ultimately, those that mfg weapons whose primary utility is to be concealable and or kill en masse efficiently would quickly be sued/taxed into designing weapons less concealable and of less utility to criminals. Though the same folks who want no gun control tend to want to limit punitive damages.

[Arborealus]

The reason for guns in the constitution was to keep the government honest

Yeah and we all see how well that has worked ...

But yeah I do believe that was in part the intent of the second amendment to prevent tyranny of the government established in the constitution...National defense was also at issue to some extent...

People tend to forget that our founding fathers hated the hell out of government interfering in people's lives...They would shit themselves if they saw it as it stands now...

[miir]

You asked me to prove that there were higher gun ownership per capita countries with less gun violence then you proved it with Canada......Canada has higher gun ownership per capita and next to no gun violence...

The fact is that gun ownership per capita is nearly 4 times higher in the US than it is in Canada.

Canada is around .2, the US is over .8

Ok lets go with the bow and arrow...it is a weapon it was designed to kill things yet there is no bow control movement...

A manual weapon requires a large amount of skill and strength to be able to inflict a fatal wound. A gun does not.
There is a very good reason that there is no significant statistics on bow related violence. It's an outdated and inefficient weapon.

And by the way most chemical weapons are organophosphates orginally developed as insecticides and yup they are readily available in home care stores...they are in fact legal just rendered less efficient at killing humans by reduction of the concentration...

That's as ridiculous as saying that most guns are made of metal originally developed to make tools and yup metal is readily available pretty much anywhere.

Insecticides != chemical weapons

[Lynks]

Doesn't change the fact that insecticides were created to kill and should be banned.

Lame excuse huh?

[Apostate]

It seems to me that to restrict freedom to own guns because of what "might" be done with them is inherently wrong, basically limiting freedom because of a possibility that someone might be harmed by a thing.

Yes gun violence in America is a huge problem. But the issue at it's root isn't guns. There are certainly countries with higher gun ownership per capita with far lower gun related deaths and crimes. And far more people die as a result of cars abuse annually yet there is no car control movement.

Some limitations of freedoms are necessary to the functioning of a healthy society, ie "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." To me, I think that total abolition of all traffic laws on the grounds that it impeaches on personal freedom is equally as valid as protection of weapons on the grounds of recreation, and of course we have seen statistically lower speed limits do reduce the number of deaths. But as for lack of gun control being a root cause rather than a strong contributer, that I don't really agree with.

In terms of being a cultural problem, I think that's not quite right. I'd say it's more an intense problem of urban poverty, a costly and failed drug war, a flawed penal system, and easy access to concealable weapons on top of that, rather than pointing to guns as a root cause. A 'culture of violence' only addresses a tiny minority of deaths that aren't driven by poverty spawned crime, which is why they are rare and sensationalistic, and not really a significant problem compared to the other 11k+ gun deaths a year.

And since those gun deaths are nearly all crime related, its easily accessible and (most of all) concealable guns which are problematic there. Assault weapons aren't a significant problem, rifles certainly aren't, but handguns are. Concealability afterall is a large reason why sawed off shotguns are restricted/illegal to possess.

[Marbus]

Pherr is correct but as pointed out, how well is that workin' for us?

Like it or not Americans are going to have to adopt some more strengent gun control laws but like it or not I believe strongly that people in America should always be able to own guns unless we re-write the constitution...

I don't have the answers right now but I'm thinking about it. I do know that we should have continued the assult weapon ban. Even "sport" can't cover assault weapons. I guess defense against a tyranical government would but...

Marb

[Arborealus]

It seems to me that to restrict freedom to own guns because of what "might" be done with them is inherently wrong, basically limiting freedom because of a possibility that someone might be harmed by a thing.

Yes gun violence in America is a huge problem. But the issue at it's root isn't guns. There are certainly countries with higher gun ownership per capita with far lower gun related deaths and crimes. And far more people die as a result of cars abuse annually yet there is no car control movement.

Some limitations of freedoms are necessary to the functioning of a healthy society, ie "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." To me, I think that total abolition of all traffic laws on the grounds that it impeaches on personal freedom is equally as valid as protection of weapons on the grounds of recreation, and of course we have seen statistically lower speed limits do reduce the number of deaths. But as for lack of gun control being a root cause rather than a strong contributer, that I don't really agree with.

In terms of being a cultural problem, I think that's not quite right. I'd say it's more an intense problem of urban poverty, a costly and failed drug war, a flawed penal system, and easy access to concealable weapons on top of that, rather than pointing to guns as a root cause. A 'culture of violence' only addresses a tiny minority of deaths that aren't driven by poverty spawned crime, which is why they are rare and sensationalistic, and not really a significant problem compared to the other 11k+ gun deaths a year.

And since those gun deaths are nearly all crime related, its easily accessible and (most of all) concealable guns which are problematic there. Assault weapons aren't a significant problem, rifles certainly aren't, but handguns are. Concealability afterall is a large reason why sawed off shotguns are restricted/illegal to possess.

Oh yeah I agree absolute freedom is an unrealistic goal...We all must ascribe to the social contract and surrender some freedom in order to live together.

I would certainly consider abject poverty to be a part of the culture that drives violence. The "war on drugs" has done nothing but create a violence problem in addition to the drug problem. It wasn't my intent to posit the romanticism of violence as the sole cultural influence. I was intending to refer to all cutural factors influencing the problem.

Certainly reduction in the availability of the weapons which cause the bulk of the problems (handguns) is a reasonable approach. But which method would be in the long run more efficacious and least intrusive on freedom? Outright ban or driving the price up via direct tax or indirect penalization (punitive damages etc) to the point where demand drops and availability declines, basically making it not profitable to manufacture such weapons (of course this would take a long while given the current surplus).

[Arborealus]

You asked me to prove that there were higher gun ownership per capita countries with less gun violence then you proved it with Canada......Canada has higher gun ownership per capita and next to no gun violence...

The fact is that gun ownership per capita is nearly 4 times higher in the US than it is in Canada.

Canada is around .2, the US is over .8

Ok lets go with the bow and arrow...it is a weapon it was designed to kill things yet there is no bow control movement...

A manual weapon requires a large amount of skill and strength to be able to inflict a fatal wound. A gun does not.
There is a very good reason that there is no significant statistics on bow related violence. It's an outdated and inefficient weapon.

And by the way most chemical weapons are organophosphates orginally developed as insecticides and yup they are readily available in home care stores...they are in fact legal just rendered less efficient at killing humans by reduction of the concentration...

That's as ridiculous as saying that most guns are made of metal originally developed to make tools and yup metal is readily available pretty much anywhere.

Insecticides != chemical weapons

Ermmm are you certain thats gun owners per capita and not guns per capita? big difference in those numbers...Nevertheless Switzerland has a higher guns per capita and gun owners per capita and almost no gun violence....

You are reiterating my arguement re the bow and arrow its not so much intent of the thing as efficiency in terms of use in committing violent crime.

And yanno feel free to research the relationship between chemical weapons and insecticides. One has frequently been used as the other. Availability of Organophosphates makes me cringe. SLUD symptoms are a hell of a way to die.

[Arborealus]

FFS I can't find any numbers I rely on to be uncooked on gun owners per capita or guns per capita...the only people who generate these numbers seem to have agendas...

Actually I feel fairly confident Israel has higher gun ownership per capita but how do they account for gun violence vs terrorism vs "defense"...

[Winnow]

Ermmm are you certain thats gun owners per capita and not guns per capita? big difference in those numbers...Nevertheless Switzerland has a higher guns per capita and gun owners per capita and almost no gun violence....

You're almost required to own a gun in Switzerland as a military term of service is mandatory afterwhich you take your weapon home and remain in reserve status for a period of time.

I don't know how this applies to the debate but it explains why there are so many guns per capita in Switzerland.

[Funkmasterr]

I think the argument that is being presented in this thread against people owning pistols is relatively weak.

I say this only because I would venture to guess, without looking up any figures, that the majority of deaths caused by guns are not legal registered guns being fired. The black market if you will for guns is how most of these people acquire their firearms, and the government can't stop those from coming into the country and being sold illegally any more than they can prevent drugs from coming into the country and being sold.

Now am I saying that licensed gun holders don't ever abuse their right to bear arms? No, Im not saying that at all, I am sure there is a fair deal there too, but no where near the majority.

[Arborealus]

I think the argument that is being presented in this thread against people owning pistols is relatively weak.

I say this only because I would venture to guess, without looking up any figures, that the majority of deaths caused by guns are not legal registered guns being fired. The black market if you will for guns is how most of these people acquire their firearms, and the government can't stop those from coming into the country and being sold illegally any more than they can prevent drugs from coming into the country and being sold.

Now am I saying that licensed gun holders don't ever abuse their right to bear arms? No, Im not saying that at all, I am sure there is a fair deal there too, but no where near the majority.

Ermmmm so your contention is that the bulk of weapons used in crime are smuggled into the country? Why would someone smuggle something into the country when they could just ship it in and recieve a higher profit margin? I would wager that the huge majority are stolen within the country and find their way into the black market...

[kyoukan]

I'm pretty sure Canada has a higher percentage of gun owners per capita than the US. Micheal Moore said so and he's from Flint.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

I think the argument that is being presented in this thread against people owning pistols is relatively weak.

I say this only because I would venture to guess, without looking up any figures, that the majority of deaths caused by guns are not legal registered guns being fired. The black market if you will for guns is how most of these people acquire their firearms, and the government can't stop those from coming into the country and being sold illegally any more than they can prevent drugs from coming into the country and being sold.

Now am I saying that licensed gun holders don't ever abuse their right to bear arms? No, Im not saying that at all, I am sure there is a fair deal there too, but no where near the majority...

...

He is saying that most of the crimes are with unregistered guns......which if you eliminated all of the handguns today you would still be able to obtain from guns being smuggled in.
Ermmmm so your contention is that the bulk of weapons used in crime are smuggled into the country? Why would someone smuggle something into the country when they could just ship it in and recieve a higher profit margin? I would wager that the huge majority are stolen within the country and find their way into the black market

[Sumdaor]

You could never have a outright ban on guns. The american public would never go for that. I agree about handguns, we could ban hangun's, or make it a extremely lengthy process to obtain for recreational purposes(Yes some jackass's do hunt with hanguns).

My roommate owns a hangun for personal protection and I can tell you its completely unneccessary. The average american has no reason to own a gun unless he hunts or gets his jolliess from blowing up clay pigeons.

[Arborealus]

I think the argument that is being presented in this thread against people owning pistols is relatively weak.

I say this only because I would venture to guess, without looking up any figures, that the majority of deaths caused by guns are not legal registered guns being fired. The black market if you will for guns is how most of these people acquire their firearms, and the government can't stop those from coming into the country and being sold illegally any more than they can prevent drugs from coming into the country and being sold.

Now am I saying that licensed gun holders don't ever abuse their right to bear arms? No, Im not saying that at all, I am sure there is a fair deal there too, but no where near the majority...

...

He is saying that most of the crimes are with unregistered guns......which if you eliminated all of the handguns today you would still be able to obtain from guns being smuggled in.
Ermmmm so your contention is that the bulk of weapons used in crime are smuggled into the country? Why would someone smuggle something into the country when they could just ship it in and recieve a higher profit margin? I would wager that the huge majority are stolen within the country and find their way into the black market

and the government can't stop those from coming into the country and being sold illegally

?

O_o

[Wulfran]

I think some of the difference in our perspective is cultural. In Canada we view firearm ownership as a privilege not as a right, in the same way most of us view a drivers license. We also have not had a powerful lobby group like the NRA extolling the virtues of the weapons that the government (on the advice of various law enforcement agencies) has chosen to clamp down on or ban outright.

And with any right OR privilege come responsibilities and conditions to ensure it is not misused or abused to the detriment of your society.

[Hesten]

The reason for guns in the constitution was to keep the government honest

Well, that appearantly didnt work

[Nick]

As usual, Wulfran hits the nail on the head.

You smart bastard

[Pherr the Dorf]

The reason for guns in the constitution was to keep the government honest

Well, that appearantly didnt work

Couldn't DISAGREE more, perhaps I trust in my government less then even you, but I have no doubt the fact that the concept of totally pissing off a very very well armed society is stupid has kept the government from doing some of the things it wishes it could.

[Niffoni]

Honestly, it's the attitude people on both sides of this issue take that make guns even more dangerous than they have to be.

The unwillingness of gun control activists to abandon their pet-project tunnel vision, combined with the hyper-entitlement attitude of NRA pricks to make the issue one of principle rather than abandon egos to embrace responsibility, combined with the already lethal nature of guns makes for a deadly equation.

[Drolgin Steingrinder]

A shoe can kill someone but a shoe is not a weapon.

Hah! Someone never saw Austin Powers, or forgot about Random Task, Korean henchman extraordinnaire!