Guns

[pianistimo]

take pennsylvania, for instance.  almost everyone owns a gun here.  hardly anyone shoots more than a woodchuck.  people are genuinely nice here, but there is hardly any crime either - except the occasional stereo that goes missing in a parking lot.  the kids who do this here, though, if caught not only get in trouble but are forced to do community service and rehab - if i understand right.  i am really impressed with the schools too.  the teachers often talk about these various subjects (violence) and one class was asked to do reports on genocides and stuff.  that makes them think about the logic of violence if used for bad purposes.

what i think is nice is that we have a freedom - but misuse of it would lead to disastrous results and make our nation unrecognizable.

ps agreed about assault rifles.  if we had warfare like we used to, even the military wouldn't kill people like that.  it is inhumane if u ask me.  death isn't supposed to be so terrible even when it comes.  if someone is shot once in the heart - that will kill them.  why be shot a million times.  it's pure hatred and cannot be justified.  i realize that in the military they are not given a lot of choices.  u take whatever weapon u are given and u are forced to use it at times.  this is a very hard decision how and what place to use it.  obviously it's not very nice on pregnant women - which is always a threat (because they don't know if the pregnancy is real or not)...but the fact these women were heading to the hospital makes the crime very sad.

imo, there are crazy people and sane people.  but, how do u only sell non assault rifles to sane people and assault rifles to crazy people (otherwise there would be no sales).  who is not crazy that owns an assault rifle?  tell m e.  i'd be interested what purpose they own the gun? 

[prometheus]

Your saying that does not make it true.  In fact, if you check the statistics you will find it to be quite false.

I use this as a preamble to dip my toe into this debate. 

I don't know which statistics you refer at. Like you say, US is an exception in the western world when it comes to these numbers, both in good and bad ways. At least where I live this is true. Two third of the murderers know their victim. Now, do realise that I am not talking about gun homocides. In my country most people that are killed are males in the age range 22-30. Four in ten are killed with a gun, three in ten with a knife. 7% is beaten to death, 5% is blunted and 4% are strangled. The chance of males being killed in the weekends is 50% higher.

Two third of the woman that die are killed in their own house. This means exes, husbands, etc.

So it is clear that males are killed while 'partying', a fight gets out of hand because of guns and knifes. And females are killed by their spouse.

24% of the murders are in family and relational sphere with 19% of those being spouses killing each other, 20% are fights that turn out badly with knifes and guns, 11% are criminals killing criminals, ie organised crime. And then 7% are robbings.

Most gun murders are criminals killing criminals, 68% of the criminal murders are done with guns. Then 39% familiy and friends killing each other, excluding spouses killing spouses. For spouses killing each other 27% are done with guns. Fights are 40% guns. Unsolved murders have 54% guns.
Sexual murders(rape), and killing of parents and children have very low gun usage, 9, 7 and 11 percent.

[chriskarma]

Dear piano learner, you say the "only purpose for an assault weapon is to kill people"
yet the one time you use one you do not kill anyone!

I shoot machine guns every chance I get, I have a friend who has several!
We use them all the time for fun and never kill anyone.
BTW I am a vegetarian so hunting rifles do not appeal to me at all, and machine guns have a very usefull 2nd purpose besides fun.
If society breaks down , like a huge hurricane or something it has been proven
that the large gov't bureacracy will take weeks to restore order and large groups
of hungry thugs will kill for water and food, I believe in preparing for emergencies.
I not only have food and water reserves but I also have tuners and extra strings
So when the maddening crowds demand my food and water they will be dissappointed
but to ease their savage beastial tendencies I will play some music and soothe their wicked troubled minds....

During Katrina a friend of mine guarded his and his friends house with his Semi-auto AK47
with large magazines, he kept many looters from two houses, these people not only took food and water but raped and murdered those who could not comprehend that sometimes the gov't will let you die and will not be around to protect you.

Generation after generation of welfare has conditioned people to become unable to fend for themselves with out TV, electricty a small check each week and McDonalds.
I can do fine without all four, when these things were taken by mother nature
disorder and mayhem ruled supreme except for pockets of civilized people with will and the means to know how to live without a "nanny state" to dictate your fate.

[rimv2]

After a brief discussion on another thread that went something like this:

I decided to do just that. What are your views? I'm a Brit and guns aren't as much of an issue here, but it seems to me that outlawing them could only be a good thing. I realise that there is a problem with this, similar to one we have in the UK with knives at the moment: outlawing them is all very well but (generally) the people who hand them in are law-abiding citizens, and those who choose not to are presumably criminals, or in a place where they're too frightened not have one. The obvious outcome is that criminals are armed, non-criminals aren't.

And then there's the glamorisation of them. 50 Cent's people were made to remove the posters for his film because they showed him holding a gun. Does this actually influence people to use guns, or is it just the authorities being stuffy?

And something else I was wondering about is, why are some guns legal in certain places when others aren't? What makes one more dangerous than another?

Does anyone agree with me? Disagree with me? I'm curious about what other people think, especially people who live in places where gun crime is a real problem.

Jas

Too lazy to read this topic.


There is a simple answer to wether or not gun should be banned.




The answer is no.



Outlawing solves nothing.



Criminals who want gun will get them somehow.




People will be helpless to defend against them.




Ask any corner store owner in LA, NY, or Detroit, and they will tell you -they need guns.




Just because  a place has less crime doesnt mean the community should make itself helpless

[rimv2]

Dear piano learner, you say the "only purpose for an assault weapon is to kill people"
yet the one time you use one you do not kill anyone!

I shoot machine guns every chance I get, I have a friend who has several!
We use them all the time for fun and never kill anyone.
BTW I am a vegetarian so hunting rifles do not appeal to me at all, and machine guns have a very usefull 2nd purpose besides fun.
If society breaks down , like a huge hurricane or something it has been proven
that the large gov't bureacracy will take weeks to restore order and large groups
of hungry thugs will kill for water and food, I believe in preparing for emergencies.
I not only have food and water reserves but I also have tuners and extra strings
So when the maddening crowds demand my food and water they will be dissappointed
but to ease their savage beastial tendencies I will play some music and soothe their wicked troubled minds....

During Katrina a friend of mine guarded his and his friends house with his Semi-auto AK47
with large magazines, he kept many looters from two houses, these people not only took food and water but raped and murdered those who could not comprehend that sometimes the gov't will let you die and will not be around to protect you.

Generation after generation of welfare has conditioned people to become unable to fend for themselves with out TV, electricty a small check each week and McDonalds.
I can do fine without all four, when these things were taken by mother nature
disorder and mayhem ruled supreme except for pockets of civilized people with will and the means to know how to live without a "nanny state" to dictate your fate.

Wicked sheet

[pianolearner]

Dear piano learner, you say the "only purpose for an assault weapon is to kill people"
yet the one time you use one you do not kill anyone!

You misquoted me: I said "These guns are designed for only one purpose and that is to quickly and efficiently kill people in large numbers."

I know someone who used the butt of his gun to hammer in a nail. 

During Katrina a friend of mine guarded his and his friends house with his Semi-auto AK47
with large magazines, he kept many looters from two houses, these people not only took food and water but raped and murdered those who could not comprehend that sometimes the gov't will let you die and will not be around to protect you.

I suppose the fact that Atomic bombs have ended more wars than they have started is a good reason to allow all countries to develop and stockpile them.

[gyzzzmo]

Is that so? I think you forget that the wars US started was about mass-destruction weapons. And Iran is about to become the next one.
that makes the score, 1(war stopped) to -3 (wars started because of mass-destruction weapons)

[cosine]

Wow. I don't check here often, and I see that jas has started a topic I asked for, and when I do check back here there is nothing more to say!

lisztisforkids, anekdote, chriskarma, timothy42b, rimv2; pretty good job! 

I don't have anything to say. Sorry 'bout that, but lisztisforkids, anekdote, chriskarma, timothy42b, and rimv2 have explained everything I would have explained.

[pianolearner]

Is that so? I think you forget that the wars US started was about mass-destruction weapons. And Iran is about to become the next one.
that makes the score, 1(war stopped) to -3 (wars started because of mass-destruction weapons)

Errrmmm... You missed my point. WHY does the US want to prevent Iraq and Iran from having those weapons? Then ask yourself, should everyone have access to AK-47's?

[timothy42b]

The first time I ever fired a real gun was when I was on a holiday in the USA. It was at a gun shop in Las Vegas. I was astonished at the array of weapons available for sale and frankly I couldn’t find how anyone could justify a real need for most of them. I chose an UZI 9mm which is an automatic mini sub-machine gun capable of firing 1200 rounds/minute. It took the shop owner only 5minutes to show me how to operate it. I emptied two 25 round magazines quite accurately in less than a blink of an eye. It was effortless with almost no noticeable recoil. When I walked out of the gun shop the thought that there may be people around me who own a weapon like that made me feel very uneasy.

I know there are many responsible, law abiding citizens who enjoy hunting and target shooting and I can also see how people can justify owning a gun for home/self defence. But there is NO WAY anyone can justify the need for owning an assault rifle/gun such as the UZI 9mm, AK47, M16 etc. These guns are designed for only one purpose and that is to quickly and efficiently kill people in large numbers.

I chose this post to respond to because it illustrates one of my points.

A few years ago I was living in Virginia.  One of my coworkers came in, enthused and gushing about a newspaper article.  Virginia had legislation that banned the so-called "streetsweeper," a large shotgun with a 12 round drum magazine instead of the usual two or three.  I explained to her that she wasn't really any safer.  None of these had any usefulness in crime, they are too big to be concealed, barely fit in a car trunk.  She said, "I  don't care, I FEEL better."  "Besides, at least we did SOMETHING!" 

You know me a little, I'm an engineer who plays trombone and piano, sings in the church choir, argues religion with pianistimmo, and doesn't even speed.  If i live next door to you, it really doesn't matter how many guns I own, or what kind.  You are not at any risk.  However, if you know I own guns, you will feel at risk, and you will think your feeling justifies taking them away from me. 

I object to that.

I object to someone asking why I need one.  I don't need one.  But if I want one, I think you need a good reason for telling me I can't have one.  And your feeling uncomfortable isn't a reason.  Crime statistics in some other part of the country isn't a reason, unless you can make a convincing case that taking the rights away from an honest person like myself will change those statistics.  If you can't, you are doing it just to make yourself feel good, and that is not sufficient reason to interfere with my rights. 

When it comes to practicality, you have to realize that there are many millions of guns in the US in the hands of honest people.  Probably hundreds of millions.  -Something like 99% are never used at all, I guess.  Somewhere in the high 99.999% range are never misused.  Taking away the first million, or hundred million, has zero impact.  You're just getting them away from honest folk who would never commit a crime.  It's the last 1%, or .1%, or .001% that might make a difference.  You can't ever get there.  But you can sure harm a lot of innocent people in the attempt.

[pianolearner]

You know me a little, I'm an engineer who plays trombone and piano, sings in the church choir, argues religion with pianistimmo, and doesn't even speed.  If i live next door to you, it really doesn't matter how many guns I own, or what kind.  You are not at any risk.  However, if you know I own guns, you will feel at risk, and you will think your feeling justifies taking them away from me. 

Tim, I have no interest in taking away your guns. I said it makes me feel uneasy knowing that some of these weapons are available to the general public. Surely it makes you feel uneasy knowing that enemies of the USA may one day develop atomic weapons? There are many people I don't know who have been murdered by assasins they never knew.

I object to someone asking why I need one.  I don't need one.  But if I want one, I think you need a good reason for telling me I can't have one.

I can give you more than one reason why some weapons should never be in the hands of civilians. Take a look at the primary weapons used in each case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoddle_Street_massacre

And your feeling uncomfortable isn't a reason. 

I object to people telling me MY reasons aren't good enough. What a double-standard!

Crime statistics in some other part of the country isn't a reason, unless you can make a convincing case that taking the rights away from an honest person like myself will change those statistics.  If you can't, you are doing it just to make yourself feel good, and that is not sufficient reason to interfere with my rights. 

Ok. Statistically, how many countries have attacked the USA with weapons of mass destruction?

When it comes to practicality, you have to realize that there are many millions of guns in the US in the hands of honest people.  Probably hundreds of millions.  -Something like 99% are never used at all, I guess.  Somewhere in the high 99.999% range are never misused.  Taking away the first million, or hundred million, has zero impact.  You're just getting them away from honest folk who would never commit a crime.  It's the last 1%, or .1%, or .001% that might make a difference.  You can't ever get there.  But you can sure harm a lot of innocent people in the attempt.

This still doesn't make a good case for owning an assault rifle.

On a final note: It always makes me laugh when Americans talk about guns and their "rights". Someone once said that people will fight harder for their interests than their rights. The fact that drugs are illegal makes no difference to you because you probably have no interest in them. I don't hear many Americans fighting for their right to snort cocaine...Do you care about all the innocent people suffering?

[Derek]

You're all insane!  If you outlaw guns, then the only people who will HAVE guns are the government, and OUT-LAWS.   Don't you want to be able to at least have a pistol in your home?   In a society where everyone could defend themselves with a pistol,  there would be less crime because burglars would fear entering ANYONE's home. Of course, perhaps MACE or some other non-violent weapon is better for defense,  but all the same I really don't want outlaws to be the only people who have guns.


Also, I think there shouldn't be any laws against drugs.  AGain that isn't a problem for me where I live, but if I lived in a city, I'd rather have ravenous crack and heroine addicts easily get their fix at a legal establishment than I would have them mug me for money to pay for the incredibly high black market price.

The government does not have a responsibility to protect people from themselves.  In fact, whenever the government takes responsibility away from the people....the people become IRResponsible.  Is this really what you want in your society?

Basically---if you want a utopian society where it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to get shot, EVER---then you will be CLOSER to that, ironically, if more people have guns.

DISCLAIMER---this is only possible in a society where most people are moral and responsible to begin with.  AGAIN---if the government RETURNS responsibility TO the people, by removing all these insane laws, people will be forced to take care of themselves, shape up, and form or join voluntary organizations and establishments that will make their lives and the lives of others better.   Why do you all lack any faith in the human race that you think they must all be shepherded around by the government to behave in reasonable manners at all?

[prometheus]

Pianolearner, though I agree with your points you should realise that it is silly to apply logic or reason to international politics. I mean, it is al about power. Most arguments that are made are not valid. And even if they are they are largely irrelevant. If you want to know how international politics work you ignore the arguments and the rhetoric.

then the only people who will HAVE guns are the government, and OUT-LAWS.

Hunters can have guns, people that shoot as a hobby also can have guns. They just need to follow a controlled procedure. Also, when someone commits a murder the weapon will be registered and the murder can be solved.

Also, if you want to get guns away from criminals you need to ban guns. If you allow everyone to have guns you also allow criminals to have one. That's what we don't want. Right? It is not like you can't stop criminals from having guns.

[Derek]

Also, if you want to get guns away from criminals you need to ban guns.

It is not like you can stop criminals from having guns.

I'm sorry but aren't these two sentences a contradiction? Clearly from your second sentence you agree with me that there is no way to prevent criminals from obtaining guns, because of the very fact that they are criminals.  But do you want law abiding citizens to be defenseless at the hands of these criminals?  Outlawing guns only helps outlaws, is my point.  I agree that perhaps permits and background checks aren't a bad idea---but in a sense even this is bad because only law abiding people will actually go through this process--hence slowing the ability of law abiders to get guns and defend themselves from criminals.

[chriskarma]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoddle_Street_massacre

all occured in places where the common people are prevented from
carrying weapons.   All these places have the gun laws that the "pro minority control people" propose, they have almost exactly the same gun law that the third reich had.
You say that gun bans work and display crimes in places with gun bans!

If I was at that McDonalds, I would not have the means to shoot back because CA
"control" laws ...here in Reno if someone comes into a diner (I never eat clown food)
to shoot the place up there will be a few folks like me who will shoot back

[prometheus]

Third Reich? I guess I live in the Third Reich then after all, together with many many people.


I could make some comparisons between he Third Reich and the US, and they would be in much more significant areas. But Third Reich comparisons are often weak.

These people wouldn't have had guns if they weren't popular and legal, unless they are hunters, cops, soldiers, or people that shoot cards weekly at the shooting range.

Professional criminals have guns. But they don't go on a suicidal killing spree. Well, they could. But it doesn't own you a lot of money.
Also note that in a robbery when people get killed the robbers are often totally unexperienced. This means that they are desperate people, or scum if youy want, trying to become a criminal.

Derek, I forgot the add the 't to can't. I editted it. So you are right, they contradict each other because I meant to turn the statement into a negative one, instead of a postive one.

In the case that there is a killing spree and a normal person has a gun he can kill the crazy in the killing spree. But it is easier said that done. There will be chaos, there will be dead people and blood everywhere. A person has to stay very cool, has to be an experienced shooter, it is hard to shoot with a sidearm, and he has to do the right thing. If some 'lawful' citizen with a gun panics it can turn out even worse with some bad luck.

Also, if there are more than one 'lawful' people with guns they could become so confused in the chaos that they end up shooting each other. I mean, if there are dead people and there is someone with a gun, possibly even shooting, the logical thing is to assume he is the killer.

I agree that perhaps permits and background checks aren't a bad idea---but in a sense even this is bad because only law abiding people will actually go through this process--hence slowing the ability of law abiders to get guns and defend themselves from criminals.

The world isn't split into criminals and law abiders. I mean, I am not a criminal. But I do break regulations on a regular basis. Especially traffic laws since I am a cyclist. Also, there is a law here that forces me to wear a ID every time I go out of my home. I will refuse to do this.

So how do you know if law abiders are getting the guns? I mean, if you need to pass through a law to get a gun then you are a law abider because you followed the law. If there is no law you do not need to follow one and thus you can get a gun. You may be a law abider or not but no one knows.

Again, most murders aren't committed by professional criminals. Regular people that lose their emotional balance do.

[pianolearner]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoddle_Street_massacre

all occured in places where the common people are prevented from
carrying weapons.   All these places have the gun laws that the "pro minority control people" propose, they have almost exactly the same gun law that the third reich had.
You say that gun bans work and display crimes in places with gun bans!

If I was at that McDonalds, I would not have the means to shoot back because CA
"control" laws ...here in Reno if someone comes into a diner (I never eat clown food)
to shoot the place up there will be a few folks like me who will shoot back

I am arguing the case against assault rifles. These were examples of how much damage they can do in a short space of time. In some cases the gun bans came into effect after these horrendous events.

Do you honestly think the only difference between a democracy and dictatorship is that in a democracy civilians are armed to the teeth? That is scary....

[pianolearner]

The world isn't split into criminals and law abiders. I mean, I am not a criminal. But I do break regulations on a regular basis. Especially traffic laws since I am a cyclist. Also, there is a law here that forces me to wear a ID every time I go out of my home. I will refuse to do this.

I agree. It's absurd to say only criminals will have guns. It will be only those who are passionate about guns that will have them. If guns were made illegal tomorrow I'm certain that almost all the Americans who have guns now will still have them. Like I said before, Interests Vs Rights

[lisztisforkids]

Also, if you want to get guns away from criminals you need to ban guns. If you allow everyone to have guns you also allow criminals to have one. That's what we don't want. Right? It is not like you can't stop criminals from having guns.

  Why do you think banning guns will stop criminals from getting them?  For example: Im sure that banning drugs makes it harder for criminals to get drugs, but they still get them in mass.

 If we want to get crimanls and guns apart, there is only one solution: Lower crime.

[lisztisforkids]

Third Reich? I guess I live in the Third Reich then after all, together with many many people.


I could make some comparisons between he Third Reich and the US, and they would be in much more significant areas. But Third Reich comparisons are often weak.

 There is much more in common with the Third Riech and Europe, than the US....

[prometheus]

Why do you think banning guns will stop criminals from getting them?  For example: Im sure that banning drugs makes it harder for criminals to get drugs, but they still get them in mass.

How can you stop criminals from getting guns if they are legal?

Trying to lower crime is of course a good thing. But banning guns is not about lowering crime. And even if it was, don't we have to try any reasonable thing to lower crime?

Yes, criminals get guns because they need them to compete with other criminals. But they need drugs because they need to sell them to addicts to make money. Sure, you can also make money transporting weapons. But there is a market. If you legalise drugs no criminal will want to have it. If you legalise guns criminals will still want them.

[musik_man]

How can you stop criminals from getting guns if they are legal?

Trying to lower crime is of course a good thing. But banning guns is not about lowering crime. And even if it was, don't we have to try any reasonable thing to lower crime?

Yes, criminals get guns because they need them to compete with other criminals. But they need drugs because they need to sell them to addicts to make money. Sure, you can also make money transporting weapons. But there is a market. If you legalise drugs no criminal will want to have it. If you legalise guns criminals will still want them.

Why ban guns if not to lower crime?  Because you don't like them?

[timothy42b]

I am arguing the case against assault rifles. These were examples of how much damage they can do in a short space of time. In some cases the gun bans came into effect after these horrendous events.

Now I will argue the case FOR the assault rifle.  It has 3 parts.

1.  Less than 0.01% of gun crimes involve them.  Therefore banning them has negligible impact.
2.  There is no engineering mechanical difference between "assault" rifles and regular rifles.  We are banning something SOLELY because it looks scarey.  (Part of the definition in some states is having an attachment for a bayonet.  Please.  If I already have a rifle, am I that much more threatening if I have a knife too?)  Let's make decisions based on logic and cost/benefit, not what scares us most. 
3.  I don't need one.

Reason 3 needs more amplification.  I really don't need privacy on my phone calls, because I never discuss anything illegal, so I shouldn't care if anybody is listening.  I really don't need protection from unreasonable search and seizure, because I never keep anything illegal in my house, so I shouldn't care if anybody wants to search it.  I really don't need an assault rifle, because........ well come to think of it I would like one, because all the long range military rifle competitions are shot with one, but I guess I don't really have to compete, it's not like I earn a living that way. 

But even though strictly speaking I don't need any of those three rights, I still feel fairly strongly about having them.  It is a basic principle that those who choose to be criminals loose their rights, and those who choose to be honest keep them, and most would agree that holds for reason 1 and 2, short of a demonstrated compelling risk caused by it.  I don't cause any risk via any of the three, so you should not be insisting on taking any of the 3. 

Most US states have some kind of legislation working to ban rifles chambered for the .50 BMG, a large powerful rifle that has NEVER been used in a crime, costs $8.00 a round to shoot (and about $4,000 per rifle to buy), and is only owned by a few enthusiasts who like to shoot across canyons out west.  These are people who are ZERO risk to anybody else.  Frankly I think they're nuts to own anything that costs that much, but hey, they aren't hurting me, so why should I want to restrict them? 

Because it scares me.  Right? 

[lisztisforkids]

How can you stop criminals from getting guns if they are legal?

 It is Illegal in many states for a convicted criminal to carry a gun, so in essence, guns are banned for seriouse criminals.

Trying to lower crime is of course a good thing. But banning guns is not about lowering crime. And even if it was, don't we have to try any reasonable thing to lower crime?

 
  If banning guns is not about lowering crime, than what is the point? 

Yes, criminals get guns because they need them to compete with other criminals. But they need drugs because they need to sell them to addicts to make money. Sure, you can also make money transporting weapons. But there is a market. If you legalise drugs no criminal will want to have it. If you legalise guns criminals will still want them.

 Criminals get guns to commit crimes.  Drug runners sell drugs because there is a market for them. If drugs were legalised, ofcourse crimanals would use drugs, they just wouldent get the drugs from drug runners.  One of the largest underground markets in the world is the gun market.....

[prometheus]

 It is Illegal in many states for a convicted criminal to carry a gun, so in essence, guns are banned for seriouse criminals.

Then there are laws restricting guns after all.

 

If banning guns is not about lowering crime, than what is the point? 

To decrease the level of violence of crime. Plus, guns can only be used to shoot at things, ie to kill.

Criminals get guns to commit crimes.  Drug runners sell drugs because there is a market for them.

Criminals don't commit crime to commit crime. They do it because they can make money, gain power, etc.

If drugs were legalised, ofcourse crimanals would use drugs,

Criminals don't use drugs. They smuggle them.

...they just wouldent get the drugs from drug runners.

Drug runners aren't criminals? I am talking about drug runners. So this is what you are saying: "If drugs were legalised, of course drug runners would use drugs. They just wouldn't get the drugs from drug runners." Makes no sense at all.

There are the people that have guns; to kill off other drug runners.

One of the largest underground markets in the world is the gun market.....

Yes, but you can't decriminalise the gun market. You can decriminalise the drug market.

[pianolearner]

Now I will argue the case FOR the assault rifle.  It has 3 parts.

1.  Less than 0.01% of gun crimes involve them.  Therefore banning them has negligible impact.

Do you honestly believe that laws designed to protect innocent civilians should only come into force retrospectively? Not enough people have been killed yet so there is no need to worry aye?

2.  There is no engineering mechanical difference between "assault" rifles and regular rifles.

No, but they operate differently don't they? I know there is a subtle difference detween Assault and Automatic and I am actually referring to both.

I really don't need an assault rifle, because........ well come to think of it I would like one, because all the long range military rifle competitions are shot with one, but I guess I don't really have to compete, it's not like I earn a living that way.  

Ahhh, this is the real crux of the gun "rights" argument....  It has nothing to do with rights, home defence or protecting yourself against an oppressive regime. You WANT one, that's all!

It is a basic principle that those who choose to be criminals loose their rights, and those who choose to be honest keep them, and most would agree that holds for reason 1 and 2, short of a demonstrated compelling risk caused by it.  I don't cause any risk via any of the three, so you should not be insisting on taking any of the 3.  

This argument shouldn't be confined to law abiders and criminals. I have given examples of people who have committed atrocities with these weapons and they are not classed as criminals. They decided to waive any rights they had and kill as many people as possible in the process....

Most US states have some kind of legislation working to ban rifles chambered for the .50 BMG, a large powerful rifle that has NEVER been used in a crime, costs $8.00 a round to shoot (and about $4,000 per rifle to buy), and is only owned by a few enthusiasts who like to shoot across canyons out west.  These are people who are ZERO risk to anybody else.  Frankly I think they're nuts to own anything that costs that much, but hey, they aren't hurting me, so why should I want to restrict them?  

Because it scares me.  Right?  

How can you categorically state what risk they pose?

[musik_man]

To decrease the level of violence of crime. Plus, guns can only be used to shoot at things, ie to kill.

Do you have any evidence that banning guns leads to a drop in violent crime?  A gun can be used for self-defense, hunting or just marksmanship.

Do you honestly believe that laws designed to protect innocent civilians should only come into force retrospectively? Not enough people have been killed yet so there is no need to worry aye?

If we dropped the speed limits on highways to 35 miles an hour, way more lives would be saved.  Are you in favor of that? 
 

No, but they operate differently don't they? I know there is a subtle difference detween Assault and Automatic and I am actually referring to both.

An 'Assault rifle' is a nebulous term.   Under the Brady Bill(which I believe is now dead) it had to have a certain number of items on a list.  Items like Bayonet mounts and pistol grips.

 

This argument shouldn't be confined to law abiders and criminals. I have given examples of people who have committed atrocities with these weapons and they are not classed as criminals. They decided to waive any rights they had and kill as many people as possible in the process....

These sort of killings are incredibly rare.  I doubt you could find a year where even 100 people(in a nation of 300 million) died from a rampage like those.  You'd save more lives banning swimming pools, so little kids wouldn't drown.

How can you categorically state what risk they pose?

I believe the technical term for this sort of guessing is 'common sense.'  You'd have to be crazy to commit a crime with a .50 cal.   Have you ever seen one of those things?

[prometheus]

Do you have any evidence that banning guns leads to a drop in violent crime?  A gun can be used for self-defense, hunting or just marksmanship.

I said that guns make crime worse, not increase in amount. It may do that but even if you have hard statistics it will be very hard or impossible to find out why this is.

Using guns for self defence is also bad. Hunting and marksmanship can be done without but are done with firearms even in countries with gun restricting laws. I mean, even I have fired a .44 mm rifle. But I don't own it. For marksmanship you do not even have to own a firearm. It can be at the shooting range. In that case the usage is more controlled. Just as cops aren't allowed to keep their guns at home.

If we dropped the speed limits on highways to 35 miles an hour, way more lives would be saved.  Are you in favor of that?

You didn't ask me but I think this would be a good idea. It is also better for the enviroment. Research has shown that the ideal speed is 70 km/h.
 

[pianolearner]

These sort of killings are incredibly rare.  I doubt you could find a year where even 100 people(in a nation of 300 million) died from a rampage like those.  You'd save more lives banning swimming pools, so little kids wouldn't drown.

I suppose you are right. Outlaw swimming pools and cars and legalise murder.

I believe the technical term for this sort of guessing is 'common sense.'  You'd have to be crazy to commit a crime with a .50 cal.   Have you ever seen one of those things?

Haven't you been paying attention??? Are you saying a person who walks into a cafe and shoots dead 20+ strangers is normal? 

[jas]

I suppose you are right. Outlaw swimming pools and cars and legalise murder.

That's missing the point, though. The purpose of a car is to get from A to B. The purpose of a pool is to swim in it. The purpose of a gun is to kill or injure. Swimming pool or car accidents are unfortunately not uncommon, but are often the result of carelessness and aren't intended. Pulling a trigger on someone isn't.

That said, I'm still in two minds. I hate the thought of everyone walking around armed - to me, that would make the world some kind of mad dystopia - but where I live, guns aren't really an issue, as I said in my first post, so maybe I'm in no position to judge.

I haven't read all of the recent posts yet, anyway. I'll do it tomorrow when I'm more awake.

EDIT: Sorry pianolearner, just re-read that quote and spotted the sarcasm. What was that I was saying about waiting until I'm more awake?

[anekdote]

How can you stop criminals from getting guns if they are legal?

Trying to lower crime is of course a good thing. But banning guns is not about lowering crime. And even if it was, don't we have to try any reasonable thing to lower crime?

Yes, criminals get guns because they need them to compete with other criminals. But they need drugs because they need to sell them to addicts to make money. Sure, you can also make money transporting weapons. But there is a market. If you legalise drugs no criminal will want to have it. If you legalise guns criminals will still want them.

This is prometheus's entire argument. He says banning guns will not lower crime (which is true). He also says mistakenly that if guns are banned, criminals will not have them (which is false). This is absurd. As he even states himself, "If you legalise guns criminals will still want them." So when guns are illegal, criminals will want them. And if they are legal, criminals will want them. And criminals will get them through the black market in either situation. I completely support gun restrictions. Guns should not be legally given to people with criminal records. These laws are already in effect here in the US. That means that the guns criminals do use now are already illegal anyway.

The only people affected by gun ban laws are law abiding citizens! The hint here is "laws" and "law abiding" citizens. Criminals do not care for "laws."

So essentially, prometheus's argument is that banning guns will cause less blood and guts to be spilled. 'Cause these things are nasty, bad, and scary, um 'kay?

-----

I would be a libertarian socialist.

You mean the government should provide a lot of welfare and education, and the people should be given as many civil liberties as possible (In other words, the state must provide for the people and not vice versa. The people are the state's pets/children.)?

I didn't say crime will go down. I said that with guns harmless incidents will turn into homocides. I just think that allowing people to have guns equals them allowing to use them and thus allowing them to kill people. So, if you have a state then I think the people should favor their state banning/restricting guns for them.

I would contend with your presumption that guns turn harmless incidents into homicides. Just because someone carries a gun, does not necessarily mean they have a short fuse and are quick to use their weapon in trivial situations.

I am only against the outright banning of guns. I do favor gun restrictions. There should be gun registry, and guns should only be legally given to citizens with clean records. A gun tax would be stretching things a lot, but I wouldn't mind too much if it put the issue to rest.

Do you really want to look at the states with the most and the least guns per head of population?

Sure.

(Gun-related murder statistics: https://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms)

Switzerland. Estimated between 1 and 3 million weapons in private households (7,489,370 population). Some 700,000 of those are military (assault rifles and military-issued pistols). Switzerland has about 40 gun-related murders a year. This means about .002% of guns are used to kill. 0.00534117 per 1000 people are murdered with a gun per annum.

United States. Estimated 200,000,000 guns in circulation (excess of 300,000,000 population). The United States has about 8,500 gun-related murders a year (According to nationmaster. Other sources say as many 11,500). This means about .00425%-.00575% of guns are used to kill. 0.0279271 per 1000 people are murdered with a gun per annum.

Because I have an opinion you disagree with I enslave the people? It seems you are really sugar coating everyone you say, but weren't you that racist guy?

You misunderstood me. Sorry. I was using hyperbole to emphasize my point that "taming the beast" is not necessarily a conscious process on the part of the politician. I realize that your intentions are good, I was just pointing to what they may lead to down the road.

And how am I "that racist guy"? In a past thread I merely argued that race existed as a valid biological construct and that differences were real. How is that racism? Racism is prejudice. If I was too discrimate against someone just because of their race, then I would be racist. Conceding what is blatantly evident to most people is not racist.

-----

To clarify my position on guns:

   Outlawing guns does only a disservice to law-abiding citizens. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

   The right to bear arms is in the American constitution. I see no reason for this to be changed. Changes to the constitution usually are not beneficial.

   When guns are outlawed, crime rates will not necessarily go down. Crime rates are tied to many additional factors. A country such as South Africa may have many guns in circulation and the highest gun crime rates in the world per capita, but it also has the highest per capita rapes and assaults. This means that guns do not cause the crime, but they are only a tool of it. Crime is something widespread throughout that country and unrelated to laws on gun possession. If you were to place a ban on guns, only citizens would turn them in (doing themselves a disservice) and criminals would keep them. Crime rates would not change.

[anekdote]

I said that guns make crime worse, not increase in amount. It may do that but even if you have hard statistics it will be very hard or impossible to find out why this is.

Using guns for self defence is also bad. Hunting and marksmanship can be done without but are done with firearms even in countries with gun restricting laws. I mean, even I have fired a .44 mm rifle. But I don't own it. For marksmanship you do not even have to own a firearm. It can be at the shooting range. In that case the usage is more controlled. Just as cops aren't allowed to keep their guns at home.

"Using guns for self-defense is also bad."

WOW...

So you only want guns banned because they make people bleed? Yes, that's it.

You didn't ask me but I think this would be a good idea. It is also better for the enviroment. Research has shown that the ideal speed is 70 km/h.

As I said earlier, you constantly rail against evil politicians who use fear to "tame the beast." Yet, you have been "propagandized" into being very fearful! You are fearful of global warming, of cars, of guns... So you favor restrictions which would lessen your fears. You are unconsciously carrying through with the "evil wishes" of those politicians you hate so much. You are aiding the creation of an oppressive society, whether intentionally or not.

[prometheus]

Politicians are against guns, global warming and cars? Haha...

Well, they are probably against guns. But surely they ignore global warming and pollution. Even in Europe. I mean, in the US they still manage to deceive the public that global warming is pure speculation. Well, actually a majority of the Bush voters expected that Bush was pro-Kyoto. I mean, everyone knows that Kyoto is a good thing for the world. Americans thing that Bush is a nice guy, great to hang out with. So of course Bush is also pro-Kyoto.

The fact that I am critical about car use and concerned about global warming cannot be because of politicians because they are on the other side. So it is actually the other way around. You could say I am brainwashed by scientists concerning global warming. I mean, it could be true or it cannot be true. That is unclear. But in the case of me supporting politicians on these two issues; it is clearly impossible and can be ruled out.

I am not fearful at all. If I am killed tomorrow by a car or a gun. So be it. I don't care if I die. Of course many people will be sad and that would really sadden me if I were still able to be sad when being dead. So it will be a bad thing. But it will not harm me since when I am dead I will no longer exist. Now, being terribly disabled by a car or gun. I guess that would be very bad. Guns are not an issue here since they are restricted. And about cars. I rarely drive in one. When I do my father is an ok driver and he has a car of reasonable size. My brother hasn't and is less experienced. I would never be a passenger in somone who drives reckless, which happens a lot here. Most people of my age die in car crashes. Especially in the area where I live. So I avoid this. Not because I am afraid but because I don't want to put my life at state for no reason at all. On my cycle I am usually very careful.
Of course something can always happen. But there is no need to fear this. Fear should force one to make reasonable decisions. Fear should not paralyse one that is already living reasonable because she or he cannot exclude every possibility. But if someone happens to me and I do not die I can trust in the people around me to take care of me.

As for global warming. Does this really concern me personally? I mean, if the enviroment is sacrificed for short term economical gain then this is in my interest. I will be dead before it will really start to hurt. No, I have the opinion I have because I am brave. I am brave enough to put my own interests back and to put those of the earth and mankind, plus all living things, in first place.

He also says mistakenly that if guns are banned, criminals will not have them. This is absurd.

I said that when you put restrictions of guns you can also fight against criminals having guns. If guns are legal for everyone you cannot.

The only people affected by gun ban laws are law abiding citizens!

Of course not. First of, the law abiding citizen does not exist. Everyone is a potentional murderer. Second, you can use anti-gun laws against criminals of guns. Really, do I need to find a record of a criminal convicted for illegal gun possession? I mean, do you dispute that this has ever happened?

The hint here is "laws" and "law abiding" citizens.

It's not a hint. It is a black and white view of the world.

Criminals do not care for "laws."

Of course they care. They need to break them. So they need to know the laws to do their jobs.

I completely support gun restrictions.

That's what these 'oppressive' progressive western countries have. In the US everyone is allowed to have a gun, unless something. In other countries people are not allowed to have guns unless you are allowed to.

You mean the government should provide a lot of welfare and education, and the people should be given as many civil liberties as possible?

No, that's not what Libertarian Socialism is. It is the natural way humans live in. So the way humans organise their socities themselves without being forced to live a particular way by a state. It means a society that is democratic and aimed towards the common good while keeping concentrations of power to the absolute minimum. This may be an oxymoron to some people, like Music_Man. It may even be contradictory if you interpret it in a particular way. But it can exist and has existed.

Maybe you, and other people, do not understand something. I am not someone who wants to be a dictator of the world. When I say I think guns are bad or that people should use less cars and less energy then that does not mean I want to be able to force everyone to live their lives the way how I see it.
I want to make my point, give my opinion and maybe even try to convince some people. Having an opinion does not make one undemocratic. Actually, there cannot be a democracy without one.

WOW...

So you only want guns banned because they make people bleed? Yes, that's it.

Is that so strange? Not much good comes from guns. There is no logical reason to have a gun. One is better off without one anyway.

I would contend with your presumption that guns turn harmless incidents into homicides. Just because someone carries a gun, does not necessarily mean they have a short fuse and are quick to use their weapon in trivial situations.

The ordinary person isn't calm and rational enough to prevent homocide. Most people that commit homocide are ordinary people. Guns make the path to homocide even easier. You don't need a short fuse. You just need to pull the trigger. Doesn't require much energy at all. I mean, if you end aiming at someone and you are angry or afraid for one moment then it can all be over. If you have a knife you need to actually push it into someones body. That is a whole other thing to do. Beating someone to pulp with your bare hands is much much harder. Now you may argue that when someone wants to kill someone else it does not matter what weapon is used since if you want to can kill someone with almost anything. Yes, but when you have a gun you don't have much chance to reconsider what you are doing. If you need to find a blunt object because you just broke your hand while hitting someone unconscious then you have a moment to rethink and just run away. If you strangle someone it will take a while and the murderer will see the live flow out of their victim.

Murderers that commited homocide with guns much more often regret what happened than murderers using your bare hands or a rope.

As for knifes, cars, pool accidents, etc. There are laws in place to prevent those deaths as well. Owning a sword is put under the same restrictions as owning a gun. When a knife gets too big then it is also put under these restrictions.
Not all cars are allowed on the road and there are traffic regulations. These are all passively checked.
Any public place will have a lot of regulations to be followed, even maybe too much. You aren't allowed to open a pool and make money unless it has been veryfied that the risk of accidents has been lowered.

I mean, with these regulations in place it would be very strange to say that gun ownership is open to anyone.

Let's just face it. The only reason the US has the gun laws it has is because of historical reasons. The US is an exception in the western world. It's not that they are allowed because of some intellectual discussion or argument. Plus of course there are also the economical interests that play a huge role in US politics. I mean, there is a reason why no one knew Bush didn't support Kyoto. There is a reason Kerry didn't dare to even touch health care reforms. Some things you just aren't allowed to talk about in politics. If it were up to the people the US would have signed Kyoto. Apperently business interests play a bigger role in the considerations of the political elite. And it isn't just the US, of course.

[musik_man]

I suppose you are right. Outlaw swimming pools and cars and legalise murder.

Well there's not much I can say in reply to this kind of sarcasm, since it tells me nothing other than you disagree with me.  But I fail to see why banning swimming pools makes less sense than assault rifles.  Both cause a minute number of deaths.  Both are used solely for pleasure.

Haven't you been paying attention??? Are you saying a person who walks into a cafe and shoots dead 20+ strangers is normal? 

No one is gonna walk into a cafe with a .50 cal rifle, and if they did, it would make it a hell of a lot harder to kill 20 people.  .You would not only have to be crazy to walk into a store with a .50cal; you'd have to be stupid.  That's not what a .50 cal is designed to do.

Prometheus, you have some silly notions of America.  First most Americans don't support Kyoto.  Before Clinton signed it, the senate passed a bill 95-0 that it would not ratify the treaty.  And what is that about Kerry not pressing health care as an issue.  Did you follow the 2004 election at all?  That was his main issue.  It's also nice to note that no one can rationally disagree with you.  Any country who doesn't hold your ideal as their ideal is merely controlled by the corporations.  Is it that hard to believe that America doesn't have gun control because a majority of the population share the beliefs of myself, anekdote, lisztforkids and timothy42?

'The law abiding citizen does not exist' 

 
So obviously any worries about unlawful searching and surveillance are bunk too.  After all none of us can be trusted.  We need a helpful and benevolent government to bring us to happiness.  All that freedom stuff is a mere smokescreen.

[timothy42b]

Every time somebody talks about why I might need a gun, or need a particular style of gun that you find offensive, it pushes my buttons.

To me it's not about need.

Do you want to live in a society where the only things the State permits you to do are those things you can prove you need?

Or do you want to live in a society where the only things the State can prohibit are the things it can prove it needs to?

Because that's what this is about, really.

I know your answer, I think.  It is this:  "I'm scared.  I don't want to be scared anymore.  I am willing to give up as many of my personal freedoms as it takes to not be scared anymore.  Oh, and by the way, I'm willing to give up as many of YOUR personal freedoms as it takes for me to not feel scared anymore." 

I would like to live in society B, the free society.  We're not there yet, but that would be my goal.  The people who are pro-gun control are firmly in the society A camp, and that's why I oppose them. 

A person with an irrational fear of chainsaws caused by watching the wrong movies doesn't buy one. They aren't really all that happy that I have one in my garage, but they don't arrogantly assert they have the right to ban mine.  Not true for people with irrational fears of guns, sadly. 

[timothy42b]

Prometheus writes, in a post that rivals pianistimmo's for length, "The ordinary person isn't calm and rational enough to prevent homocide. Most people that commit homocide are ordinary people. Guns make the path to homocide even easier. You don't need a short fuse. You just need to pull the trigger."

Where do you get this stuff?  Do you really believe that the only thing preventing you from being a murderer is that you don't have a gun handy?  There are 200 *million* guns in the US, why aren't there 200 million murderers?

The fact is that the research shows normal people DON'T commit murder.  In fact, there is some evidence it is difficult to teach soldiers to kill, despite the fact they have plenty of guns, and it is their job to do so. 

The research shows that the difference between murderers and nonmurderers is the will to kill.  Provided that is present, the weapon is optional.  True, a firearm makes success somewhat more likely.  But it doesn't provide the motivation or the personality to kill. 

Come on, nobody tries to argue this anymore.  The closest they come is to say that if enough normal people have guns, sooner or later one will get in the hands of a person who DOES have the will to kill, therefore we need to make sure normal people don't get guns. 

Do you think those nutty kids at Columbine were normal, somehow found a gun, and were therefore, I dunno, possessed by the Evil Spirit of the Gun?  No, they were always weird kids, and when they got hold of guns (illegally, so laws didn't make a difference) they were able to kill more classmates than they could have with swords, and less classmates than they could have with bombs or poison. 

Name ONE person who was normal beforehand and committed murder because a gun was handy.  It just doesn't happen.  (I have known quite a few killers, including at least two serial killers.  I am not just guessing here.) 

[prometheus]

If someone rapes and murders your daughter then most people are able to kill this person. All people are able to kill in self defence.

Apperently my posts still aren't long enough. I didn't say every person is a killer. I said that every person is a potentional killer under the right circumstances. Most murders are people killing their spouses, killing the new partner of the ex or killing a friend or assosiate.

This is done in emotion, not in rationality.



You are right that it is hard to teach a soldier to kill. Soldiers need to be pychopaths of one of the two types to kill naturally. But then we have normal people that go nuts and kill woman and children in revenge.

No, guns don't give a motivation to kill. It takes the need of one away. All these people that pull the trigger on someone didn't all have the motivation to kill. You don't need one to pull a trigger. You do need one to smash someones skull. That is the point. Normal people in emotional outbursts turn into murderers because of guns where otherwise they would just beat up their victim.

Do you think those nutty kids at Columbine were normal, somehow found a gun, and were therefore, I dunno, possessed by the Evil Spirit of the Gun?

They were bullied by the other children. They were apperently emotional broken by this.

and when they got hold of guns (illegally, so laws didn't make a difference)

Didn't they get the guns from their parents? Weren't they kept at home instead of at the shooting range? Here, if you have a gun you need to lock it away in a certified safe. It would have been very hard for children to get these weapons even if they were in their parents hands.

Name ONE person who was normal beforehand and committed murder because a gun was handy.

You have found no one who regretted what they have done?  Most people that are not 'normal' have not commited any murders and never will. I am not talking about this. I am talking about the fact if the events would have turned out different without a gun.

[pianolearner]

Well there's not much I can say in reply to this kind of sarcasm, since it tells me nothing other than you disagree with me.  But I fail to see why banning swimming pools makes less sense than assault rifles.  Both cause a minute number of deaths.  Both are used solely for pleasure.

You fail to see the difference? Which is more effective on a battlefield- A swimming pool or assault rifle? A gun is designed to kill living things (although you don't need to use it for that purpose) and a swimming pool is designed to hold water so that people can swim in it.

As for cars, yes, reducing the national speed limit will reduce the number of deaths but at least a sensible compromise is sought between safety and convenience. Also, car manufactures spend millions (Billions?) on safety improvements such as air bags and anti-lock brakes etc. These are designed to make driving safer and reduce the number of road deaths. Gun manufactures spend millions researching ways to make weapons more deadly.

No one is gonna walk into a cafe with a .50 cal rifle, and if they did, it would make it a hell of a lot harder to kill 20 people.  .You would not only have to be crazy to walk into a store with a .50cal; you'd have to be stupid.  That's not what a .50 cal is designed to do.

My argument has never been about the calibre of a weapon.

[cfortunato]

My problem with outlawing guns is that it goes against the presumption of innocence.  I don't have one, and I don't want one, but they are pretty common and lots of people have them for self defense.  Whether I or you or anybody else thinks that's a good idea is irrelevant.  That judgment is for the person who owns the gun to make.

As long as someone has no record and is a law-abiding citizen, I think it's wrong for the law to assume that they MIGHT do something criminal with it.  And that's what outlawin guns does.  "Some people do bad things with guns, therefore we will assume that YOU will."  The Government should not be assuming such things, in my opinion.

I think training should be required before a gun owners first purchase, though, and it isn't.

[pianolearner]

Every time somebody talks about why I might need a gun, or need a particular style of gun that you find offensive, it pushes my buttons.

To me it's not about need.

Do you want to live in a society where the only things the State permits you to do are those things you can prove you need?

Or do you want to live in a society where the only things the State can prohibit are the things it can prove it needs to?

Because that's what this is about, really.

I don't have an irrational fear of guns. There isn't much difference between the two societies you describe. They both hinge on satisfactory proof and whatever society you lived in there are bound to be differening opinions about what is satisfactory.

[timothy42b]

A gun is designed to kill living things (although you don't need to use it for that purpose) and a swimming pool is designed to hold water so that people can swim in it.

Design?  You seem to feel you have made some point here.  Of what possible relevance is the design criteria for a product? 

You have not laid any logical link between what you think is the original intent for something and what you think should be permitted.

You may think it is selfevident, but it is not.  You have a set of implicit logic steps behind the handwaving, and I would think if you spell them out you will realize they are not relevant. 

[prometheus]

Maybe the missing step is that they are well designed?

An atomic bomb is wrong because its design only allows for destruction to come from it. The same goes for guns.

[musik_man]

Fortunately in the US we don't have to worry too much about gun control thanks to our 2nd amendment.

And for those who think a gun's sole purpose is killing, I'd introduce the Jim Crow South.  Black chapters of the NRA were started there with the object of defending their communities from the KKK.  Condeleeza Rice's father was in a group like this(which is the reason she gives for believing in the 2nd amendment.)  It should also be noted that racism was the initial reason for anti-gun laws.  They were specifically taylored to keep guns from blacks.

[pianolearner]

Design?  You seem to feel you have made some point here.  Of what possible relevance is the design criteria for a product? 

You have not laid any logical link between what you think is the original intent for something and what you think should be permitted.

You may think it is selfevident, but it is not.  You have a set of implicit logic steps behind the handwaving, and I would think if you spell them out you will realize they are not relevant. 

Design: Purpose or planning that exists behind an action or object.

Would it be fair to say that the purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile toward a target at very high velocities along an imaginary line set by the gun sight? Would it also be fair to say that the main purpose of the projectile fired is to kill or seriously injure the target?

[musik_man]

Design: Purpose or planning that exists behind an action or object.

Would it be fair to say that the purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile toward a target at very high velocities along an imaginary line set by the gun sight? Would it also be fair to say that the main purpose of the projectile fired is to kill or seriously injure the target?

Why is the design of the object relevant?  Would you go up to a parent whose child drowned in a pool and reassure them that at least the pool wasn't designed to kill their kid?  Tell them they'd be much worse if their child had been shot?

As I said earlier, this issue boils down to whether people are responsible enough to be entrusted with this sort of power or whether they need to meekly bow to the government. 

[pianolearner]

Why is the design of the object relevant?  Would you go up to a parent whose child drowned in a pool and reassure them that at least the pool wasn't designed to kill their kid?  Tell them they'd be much worse if their child had been shot?

As I said earlier, this issue boils down to whether people are responsible enough to be entrusted with this sort of power or whether they need to meekly bow to the government. 

You don't think the design is relevant? A child that has drowned in a swimming pool is usually the result of negligence rather than malice. Can you say the same thing about people who have been killed by a bullet?

[musik_man]

You don't think the design is relevant? A child that has drowned in a swimming pool is usually the result of negligence rather than malice. Can you say the same thing about people who have been killed by a bullet?

If a child is killed by malice, then throw the book at whoever wielded that malice.  And let me assure you that if any deliberate murder of a child occurs, the murderer hardly needs a gun. 

And no, I don't believe that whether a death is an accident or a result of malice will make all that much difference to a grieving parent.  They've lost their child either way.

[timothy42b]

You don't think the design is relevant? A child that has drowned in a swimming pool is usually the result of negligence rather than malice. Can you say the same thing about people who have been killed by a bullet?

I am having a great deal of trouble understanding your thought process.

You are the one who insists design is relevant, I am hoping to figure what you mean.

To take your extreme cases:  A child dies because a parent left a pool unattended.  A child dies because a parent left a firearm unsecured.  Both are tragic accidents involving parental negligence.  But - how does design have anything to do with it?  How is one worse than the other?

Another case.  A child is murdered with a bowling ball.  A child is murdered with a firearm.  (both have actually occurred)  Now these both involve malice instead of negligence.  But - how does design have anything to do with it?  How is one worse than the other? 

It does not sound like you think design is important to the absolute hazardousness of the object.  It sounds like you are arguing from a moral perspective, some kind of inherent evilness of an inanimate object.  But like I said, I am not really able to follow you. 

[prometheus]

In the case of the gun the gun does exactly what it is supposed to do. In the case of the pool it does not. In the case that a gun kills someone by accident it does exactly what it is supposed to do; everything has to go right. In the case of a pool accident everything that goes wrong goes wrong.

And let's not forget that there are restrictions on pools helping the lower the amount of deaths and accidents. Those who oppose gun regulations do not want this on guns. Please explain this difference.


Actually one can doubt if you can even call such an incident where a child accidentally kills itself or someone else an accident. Depending on what actually happens it can be an unwanted but proper use of a gun. But I think that most cases of use of guns are unwanted.

[pianolearner]

I am having a great deal of trouble understanding your thought process.

You are the one who insists design is relevant, I am hoping to figure what you mean.

To take your extreme cases:  A child dies because a parent left a pool unattended.  A child dies because a parent left a firearm unsecured.  Both are tragic accidents involving parental negligence.  But - how does design have anything to do with it?  How is one worse than the other?

Another case.  A child is murdered with a bowling ball.  A child is murdered with a firearm.  (both have actually occurred)  Now these both involve malice instead of negligence.  But - how does design have anything to do with it?  How is one worse than the other? 

It does not sound like you think design is important to the absolute hazardousness of the object.  It sounds like you are arguing from a moral perspective, some kind of inherent evilness of an inanimate object.  But like I said, I am not really able to follow you. 

Prometheus summed it up well. If a bowling ball is used the way it was meant to be used the result is that bowling pins get knocked over. If a swimming pool is used the way it was meant to be used the result is a refreshing swim. If an assault rifle is used the way it is meant to be used the result is that many people die.