whywontgodhealamputees.com

Dead Zone => The Bottomless Pit => Topic started by: bosey926 on October 01, 2010, 10:59:08 PM

Title: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: bosey926 on October 01, 2010, 10:59:08 PM
     Personally I completely support the second amendment to our constitution.  Although, some of the laws on guns are so vague and non-restrictive that acts such as the Virginia Tech shooting are allowed to occur. 
     In Ohio's it says that with the 12 hour course (10 educational, 2 shooting) that you only need to pass the criminal background check and be trained by an approved official of the NRA, Department of Natural Resources, or Peace Officer Training Commission.  What about mental health or physical health?  That is my main problem with the concealed carry aspect of my question.
     To the hunting.  I have been a part time hunter, but avid supporter of the sport since I was 8 or 9 years old.  Any game you can think of.  Today, though, I have a huge problem with the fact that it still called a 'sport' or 'hunting' when I see morbidly obese men out there shooting an animal with a rifle or shotgun from at least 50 feet away(and up to hundreds).  The animal(s) have no chance of survival and deprives the entire idea of hunting being hunting.  When I hunt, it is only with a bow and arrow(not crossbow) and a knife.  That is unless it is an enormous game like bear or elk.  Something that can live through one or two bows and still maim or kill you.  Then I support carrying something for protection.
     Recreational use of firearms is what I am the largest supporter of and is what I feel most gun enthusiasts protect their rights for.  The exhilaration one gets when firing a .357 or a 12 gauge slug shot down the range is well... fucking sweet.  The fact that all of these racist militias around the U.S. are on the rise and are walking around with AK-47s, M4-ARs, and MP5s only irritates me because it distorts the true feelings of most gun owners/enthusiasts.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: JesusHChrist on October 01, 2010, 11:22:51 PM
I don't hunt, but have a concealed carry permit and shoot for fun. By a gun-grabbers definition, I probably have an "arsenal".

Life NRA member; which frequently puts me at odds with some of the pro-gun candidates.

I've been an avid gun user since I was a kid.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: IAmFirst on October 01, 2010, 11:26:30 PM
I have no problem with the second amendment or with responsible gun owners. (I'm sure you're one of them, Jesus H. Christ. :) )

For me personally? I'm terrified of them. Cops make me uncomfortable just because they have them. I never plan to own one, mainly because I don't think I'd be a very good shot. If I ever needed to shoot, I'll probably miss, making life a little worse for the moment. :D

I also don't think you'll ever find me in that Starbuck's that allows guns in their store. Americans + caffeine + guns = stay away.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 01, 2010, 11:42:31 PM
I own several antique handguns, two shotguns, a scoped .30-06, a Kentucky longrifle which was hand made by my grandfather, and a compound hunting bow. I hunt occasionally and am an NRA member, although grudgingly so.

I can't stand the NRA. The only reason I became a member was because my local shooting range required it. I get sick of the constant stream of "OMG, CONGRESS-IS-ON-THE-BRINK-OF-TAKiNG-AWAY-ALL-YOUR-GUNS-AND-AMMO-SEND-US-MONEY" bullshit they send. Current gun laws aren't a problem for me and I think the scare tactics that the NRA uses are just nonsense.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: xphobe on October 01, 2010, 11:55:21 PM
Life NRA member; which frequently puts me at odds with some of the pro-gun candidates.

Did you mean "anti-gun"?


I'm an NRA member too, although I'm tired of getting more junk mail from them every year than the dues I actually pay them.  I'll tell you bitches when I want to renew, ok?  Quit wasting my money!

I completely support the 2nd amendment.  I also believe that requiring regular proficiency and safety classes and licensing of operators (not guns) is competely in line with the spirit of the "well-regulated militia" clause, which does put me at odds with some of my fellow pro-gun people.

I used to have a CHL but I let it expire.  In Texas anyone can keep a gun in their car, and if I were in a situation where my life depended on my having a gun, I'd have one, little plastic card or no.  But I try to avoid being in those situations in the first place.

I like recreational target shooting and high power rifle competition.  I appreciate the skills involved in hunting but I have no interest killing animals for sport.  If I needed them for food it would be a completely different thing.

And yeah I have a few ;)

And I try to patronize Starbucks whenever I can  ;D
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: JesusHChrist on October 02, 2010, 12:04:04 AM
Life NRA member; which frequently puts me at odds with some of the pro-gun candidates.

Did you mean "anti-gun"?

Nope pro-gun. Some of the pro-gun candidates are religious loons. Talk about a rock and a hard place.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: xphobe on October 02, 2010, 12:05:48 AM
ah, gotcha.  Yes, I feel your pain.  Seems like most of the pro-gun candidates are religious loons.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 02, 2010, 12:09:51 AM
If there's one thing I like about being an NRA member it is the sheer joy of shattering the stereotypes of the religious right. They love their package deal fallacies.

I keep my NRA card with me at all times just for that purpose.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: xphobe on October 02, 2010, 12:20:03 AM
I have my NRA sticker on the back window of my car, right next to my Darwin Fish, and my "godisimaginary.com" decal :)

Let'em figure that out.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: truehyuga on October 02, 2010, 12:40:13 AM
Never really looked into it much, but I am for the personal purchase of sidearms as protective weaponry, and do not like the idea of hunting.
I personally believe that only rubber, non-lethal slugs should be sold to the public.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Bereft_of_Faith on October 02, 2010, 12:56:08 AM
Re second amendment:  I personally disagree with the interpretation of the arms clause.  It seems to me that the 'well regulated militia' statement is directly linked to the 'right to bear arms' statement, which is linguistically dependent on it.  Apparently the SCOTUS disagrees, so, as a US citizen,  I have to accept the entirety of the Second Amendment as currently interpreted.  People have the right to have guns.

I would not own a gun.  If the situation arises that demands the use of a gun, I'd rather not have one.  Like tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes and sickness, I'm just hoping to avoid such a disaster.  If it happens... well, that's that.

Even though I'm against owning a gun for myself, and disagree with the interpretation of the Constitution, I recognize that it has been interpreted as a general right to bear arms.  This should never be an election issue.



Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Rokusho on October 02, 2010, 02:22:03 AM
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCgCceg042w&feature=related[/youtube]
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: bosey926 on October 02, 2010, 02:34:44 AM
Life NRA member; which frequently puts me at odds with some of the pro-gun candidates.

     This is why I never joined the NRA.  I frequently went and fired at my local NRA range from about when I was 15 to when I was 18.  That was when I really started paying attention to politics.  So when I realized that my money would have went to a bunch of religious chubby old rednecks, I never went back.  I have always fired at my buddies house or when I was on the USMC JROTC marksmanship team.

Really good post Rokusho.  That episode made me laugh real hard. 
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: pingnak on October 02, 2010, 04:02:08 AM
Used to have a 12 ga 'boom stick' & a .45.  Took 'em to a gun shop and let them sell them for me because I was too lazy even to keep taking them out once a year to clean them.

I'm not too worried about the zombie hordes coming, and by the time I take off the #@*$ gun locks, the murdering cultists would already have me tied to a stake and be piling up kindling.

Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Eddy Swirl on October 02, 2010, 04:51:47 AM
I have always fired at my buddies house 

Drive-by, or snipers nest?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Alzael on October 02, 2010, 08:04:48 AM
I'm not an american, so I've never understood this bizarre fascination with guns. It honestly seems fairly childish to me, like the sort of thing I grew out of when I was ten. Sure it's cool to watch gunfights in movies, but the reality of one is much different. I don't have problem with someone owning one per se, but I can't for the life of me understand why you'd want one, unless you're into something like competition shooting. But like I said, I'm not an american.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 02, 2010, 09:17:11 AM
     Personally I completely support the second amendment to our constitution.  Although, some of the laws on guns are so vague and non-restrictive that acts such as the Virginia Tech shooting are allowed to occur. 
It wasn't under-restriction, it was over-restriction. VT campus was a legally gun-free zone. Had those restrictions not been in place, someone would have taken the guy out long before it got as bad as it did.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: snkiesch on October 02, 2010, 09:20:57 AM
I am an antique gun collector. Mostly singleshot and Marlins.  The Marlin collection goes back to two Ballard's, 1878 revolver,1891 22 cal, 5 1892 22 cal, 1893 in most of the early cals, a few Stevens, Winchesters and Colts.  Somewhere between 75 and 100 at my house and another 50 or so at my daughter's.

It has been over 20 years since I have hunted, my dog got too old, Time goes by so fast it probably been 5 years since I shot clay pigeons(I have about 10 antique shotguns) and another 10 since I reloaded for the rifles to shoot paper.

I am in favor of the 2nd but quit the NRA because of the begging for money and endorsement of candidates that the only thing we agree with is the 2nd.  I had two antique S&W pistols stole from the house and they would not pay for them even if they claim you have insurance .
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: TopolX on October 02, 2010, 10:08:13 AM
I'm not American but I do respect their love of firearms. People are equal (or near enough) when armed with a gun. The UK has lower murder rates then the US but the nature and unfairness of the murders makes them in someways worse. When a thug can just kick an 94 year old man to death in his own home or a gang of 20 thugs beat someone to death outside a nightclub it makes you think how could it honestly be worse if guns were legal. Also the criminals seem to able to get their hands on guns anyway so it's not like crooks would be given more power. Also we have a problem in that it's legal for those who live in rural areas to own fire arms and as the Derrick Bird incident showed we can still get killing sprees because of this.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: xphobe on October 02, 2010, 10:14:39 AM
Also the criminals seem to able to get their hands on guns anyway so it's not like crooks would be given more power.

Isn't it funny how that happens?  We have a saying here "If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns".  But the gun-banners keep telling us we're wrong about that.  I suppose American criminals wouldn't dream of using an illegal gun.  That would be breaking a law...  &)
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 02, 2010, 11:55:37 AM
Quote from: Topolx
Also the criminals seem to able to get their hands on guns anyway so it's not like crooks would be given more power.

That argument would work if murders involving firearms in the UK weren't considerably a LOT lower than they are in the US.

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie-T/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms (http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie-T/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms)

You'll notice South Africa is also at the top, a country with gun laws similar to the US. Total gun murders - >9000 (USA) vs 14(UK). I know there's no 'per capita' given, but even if you do the maths yourself, it's still a lot lower.

So, it makes you wonder how many crooks actually have or use firearms in the UK.


Quote from: TopolX
When a thug can just kick an 94 year old man to death in his own home or a gang of 20 thugs beat someone to death outside a nightclub it makes you think how could it honestly be worse if guns were legal.

I don't think this problem is exclusive just to the UK or countries where it it's illegal to carry a firearm and I'm fairly sure they don't happen that frequently. The media often reports such cases, but then such news is often shocking enough to report and therefore gives them more money.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: wright on October 02, 2010, 12:28:30 PM
Don't have a gun, very rarely fire them recreationally (friends' or relatives' weapons), but support the right (in the USA) to own and use them responsibly.

All the pro-gun people I know are very responsible and conscientious about the maintenance and safety of their weapons. A total ban, at any community level, would be a serious mistake.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: bgb on October 02, 2010, 12:45:42 PM
I'm a hard core goose hunter.  I hate it when the righties say owning a gun is a god given right.  So is marrying who you want or reproduction choices.  Take away their guns and religion is what they fear most.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Gnu Ordure on October 02, 2010, 12:46:58 PM
Quote
All the pro-gun people I know are very responsible and conscientious about the maintenance and safety of their weapons.
Wright, may I introduce you to Ananukia, an 18-year-old from New York? I believe he's pro-gun, as he owns one; though he's not supposed to (here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=15881.msg357297#msg357297)):
Quote
I have a Thompson Contender, I'm not supposed to have.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Jim on October 02, 2010, 01:04:15 PM
All the pro-gun people I know are very responsible and conscientious about the maintenance and safety of their weapons. A total ban, at any community level, would be a serious mistake.

Hah.  So let me get this right: the gun folks you know are conscientious, so therefore any gun ban would be a mistake?  Correct?

I am not a gun owner.  I live in a state that makes it very tough to own one... and given the particular city I live in, I understand the intentions of the law.  But, with the recent SCOTUS ruling starting to percolate down to the state level, that could change the laws here.  If they do change, I will probably get a gun and learn to use it.

Over many years, my attitude toward such things has changed.  I don't need a gun, don't feel I need one.  I don't hunt.  But, several discussions here and at ATT have moved my opinion around, especially some specific discussions I've had regarding the constitutional ruling.  There is one thing gun activists have absolutely correct -- when you do not exercise a state-sanctioned right, you lose it.  This article from DailyKos sums up my view of it very nicely. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment)
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 02, 2010, 01:15:00 PM
I have my NRA sticker on the back window of my car, right next to my Darwin Fish, and my "godisimaginary.com" decal :)

Let'em figure that out.

No way the rednecks around here could handle that. Their heads would explode. Sacrilege.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Alzael on October 02, 2010, 02:28:04 PM
Also the criminals seem to able to get their hands on guns anyway so it's not like crooks would be given more power.

Isn't it funny how that happens?  We have a saying here "If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns".  But the gun-banners keep telling us we're wrong about that.  I suppose American criminals wouldn't dream of using an illegal gun.  That would be breaking a law...  &)

Which of course provides perfect justification for making it much easier for them to get guns. Seriously, criminals can get guns, so let's make it really easy for everyone to have a gun. Which of course gives criminals a much easier time getting guns, because now they have legal and illegal means of doing so at their disposal. Is this really the logic you're going with?

Speaking in regards to other countries, America has a rate of gun-related homicides that goes very high. A 2000 set of statistics from Wikipedia shows the homicide rate involving guns was 65% percent. The only countries higher than that were Cambodia and Guatamala. Slovakia was right below America at 45%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence)

The thing is that it really has really has very little to do with gun controll in and of itself. Crime rates are due much more to social factors and conditions within the society that just whether or not people have guns. Giving people more guns will only make it easier for deaths to occur, but taking away guns doesn't actually solve the problem because the guns are a sympton of the problem, not the problem itslef which is the poor social conditions that leads to the high rates of violence and crimes.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: xphobe on October 02, 2010, 03:53:38 PM
Except criminals do not have legal means to get guns.  Criminals are not legally allowed to own them.  How about we enforce more strongly the existing laws we have, before we make up new ones that punish law-abiding citizens?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 02, 2010, 04:14:36 PM
I can understand why America would need to keep guns legal - after all, with your current availability of guns and how happy criminals are to use them, the immediate banning of guns may make things worse, not better. In any other situation, the argument would be pretty weak, after all, whilst it's not impossible for a criminal to get a hold of a gun when they're illegal, but in countries where it IS illegal, like the UK you can actually see that far fewer murders involving firearms are happening and the really US suffers for gun-related murder and I imagine it's a very difficult issue to solve.

To put it into perspective, for the UK to match America's gun related murders, you'd have to multiply the current statistic by ~624 (UK - 15, USA - 9,369, as I posted above). Now, I don't have per capita, but considering the US population is only ~5 times that of the UK (Population - 61,414,062 (UK), 307,006,550 (US)), then it won't take a genius to work out that the rate in the UK per capita is a LOT lower than that of the US. We probably could compare with other countries too, but I'd argue that maybe a society where the public doesn't have easy and legal access to a personal armoury is safer, but of course, there's a number of factors that affects statistics, you can't place problems solely down to gun use and I think there's a lot any country can do to keep its crime down and there are many reasons why countries like the US and UK suffer in crime figures (UK still suffers, whilst it's not as big for violent crime) whilst the likes of Iceland almost seem crime free, so there's plenty of other things that need to be considered, such factors might help the US where the banning of guns wouldn't.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Str82Hell on October 02, 2010, 04:20:22 PM
I've never understood American gun laws. Americans claim that it is their right to protect their safety and their family's safety, but they would be much safer if nobody had a gun. I'm opposing similar gun laws in the European Union, but I understand that it is impossible to ban them in America. If the US would decide to ban guns tomorrow, most people would keep their guns in a drawer and if they're needed to kill other people, they would still be there. I even think that some Americans would use their guns to enforce their right to possess guns.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Alzael on October 02, 2010, 04:47:11 PM
Except criminals do not have legal means to get guns.  Criminals are not legally allowed to own them.  How about we enforce more strongly the existing laws we have, before we make up new ones that punish law-abiding citizens?

Unless those criminals haven't been caught or convicted of anything yet. A better idea would be to fix the countries huge social problems that lead to criminal activity. But guns are much easier.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: xphobe on October 02, 2010, 05:30:42 PM
I've noticed in discussions around here, it's rarely the Americans criticizing other countries for their gun laws.  Rather, it's typically people from other countries complaining about ours.  I'm not sure why our affairs are of so much interest to others.  I certainly wouldn't want to impose an American system on anyone who doesn't want it.  We see how well that's working out in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: xphobe on October 02, 2010, 05:40:00 PM
Unless those criminals haven't been caught or convicted of anything yet

Then they're not criminals yet, according to US law.

Quote
A better idea would be to fix the countries huge social problems that lead to criminal activity.

In project management, that's called scope creep.  It's a great idea, but poorly defined and to nail it down would require a completely separate project.  I don't think we should shelve prosecuting criminals for gun crimes until we figure out how to solve all our social problems.  That might take forever.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Jim on October 02, 2010, 06:02:12 PM
A better idea would be to fix the countries huge social problems that lead to criminal activity.
...That might take forever.

Oof, yeah. No shit.  I don't think there is a single country that can claim to be able to do that at all.

The chart link that Alzael provided is very interesting.  I was surprised that non-firearm homicide is roughly equivalent between England and the US .. and surprised that Finland is actually worse.  Even then, it is splitting hairs, as most of the countries on that chart are under 5 per 100,000.  It IS a shame that the total homicide rate in the US is *just* under 5 per 100,000.  But still, from a statistics point of view, the US is not much different in total homicides from others in the midsection of the list, where Germany, Denmark and England have impressive stats.  However, the US's score is still a FAR distance, statistically, from the countries at the hight end. 

Even those bastions of civic peace, like Denmark, seem unable to erase the effect of criminal behavior.  Guns or no guns.  And where guns are not common, knifes and clubs are.  It is clear that murder does not magically go away at all when guns go away.  Note Bulgaria, where only 19% of all murders involve a firearm, still has an overall murder rate that is comparable to the US.  Poland even has fewer gun homicides, yet a slightly higher overall murder rate.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Str82Hell on October 02, 2010, 06:36:06 PM
I think you should be careful to compare the US to countries such as Poland or Slovakia. Even though these countries have made great progress during the last few decades, they still have huge problems with poverty and many people are not as high on the social ladder.

I think you should compare the US with western European and Mediterranean countries such as Denmark, UK, Netherlands, Portugal and Italy. When these countries show the same no-guns-involved murder rate, than the difference in overall murder rate is because of guns.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Jim on October 02, 2010, 07:35:20 PM
Str8:
Most of the countries on the list are (likely) overlapping error bars, tho' Qatar is probably out of everyone's error bars.  Portugal is statistically in the running with the US murder rate.  So's the UK, frankly -- just a few smidgens' of a percent off our murder rate, UK: 0.00145% killed populace, US: 0.00455% killed populace, Portugal: 0.00331%.

That said, the US is ahead of its peers in killed people per 100k. Most of the difference appears to be guns.  However, I don't think that removal of the guns would suddenly mean a permanent, precipitous drop in murder rate to 1.5 per 100k.  I think it would rise back up to be close to the current total murder rate. 

Other interesting musings over stats:
When one looks at the CDC stats on death in the US, suicide, not homicide, is the bigger problem.  Falling, as well.  Outlaw ladders, maybe.
Or it can be seen this way: when it comes to murder, young men are the problem.  They commit most of it.
Tell me: what might explain the fact that Swiss or Finnish citizens are bigger murderers than Singaporeans or Hong Kongers?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Alzael on October 02, 2010, 11:20:28 PM
I've noticed in discussions around here, it's rarely the Americans criticizing other countries for their gun laws.  Rather, it's typically people from other countries complaining about ours.  I'm not sure why our affairs are of so much interest to others.  I certainly wouldn't want to impose an American system on anyone who doesn't want it.  We see how well that's working out in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So just to be clear, from this statement you're saying that criticizing something is tantamount to an attempt to impose one's values on others? And isn't it surprising that in a thread that was started about guns in America, people are actually talking about guns in America?

And I never said that gun crimes shouldn't be dealt with. I said that both sides in the gun control debate focus too much on guns as a cause/solution to things like crime, to the point that the real problem becomes ignored or overshadowed.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: xphobe on October 02, 2010, 11:27:08 PM
So just to be clear, from this statement you're saying that criticizing something is tantamount to an attempt to impose one's values on others?

No, I simply said I don't want to impose my values on others.  What you do is your business.

Quote
And isn't it surprising that in a thread that was started about guns in America, people are actually talking about guns in America?

The title of the thread isn't about guns in America.  But now I see that the OP does mention the First Amendment and several American institutions, so I can see how the conversation would have naturally turned the way it did.  Still, my observation on the asymmetry stands.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Alzael on October 03, 2010, 12:40:47 AM
So just to be clear, from this statement you're saying that criticizing something is tantamount to an attempt to impose one's values on others?

No, I simply said I don't want to impose my values on others.  What you do is your business.

Quote
And isn't it surprising that in a thread that was started about guns in America, people are actually talking about guns in America?

The title of the thread isn't about guns in America.  But now I see that the OP does mention the First Amendment and several American institutions, so I can see how the conversation would have naturally turned the way it did.  Still, my observation on the asymmetry stands.


I can't say about this site, but Americans complaining about other countries and guns actually comes up pretty often. For example this just came up on another forum I visit occasionally a few days ago. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.235579-How-can-you-UK-citizens-live-without-firearms#8372462 (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.235579-How-can-you-UK-citizens-live-without-firearms#8372462)

My first time in America I had more than one person bring up the gun laws in Canada. Mostly I got questions or comments along the line of, "I could never feel safe at home if I didn't have a gun. What's wrong with you people?"

Edit: Interestingly enough, here's one about gun control in Sweden. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.235797-Crimes-Guns-Sweden#8386060 (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.235797-Crimes-Guns-Sweden#8386060)
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Jim on October 03, 2010, 12:41:49 AM
The title of the thread isn't about guns in America.

Did you know that Finland and Switzerland are among the most heavily armed populaces on the planet?  Shit, if they just got rid of their guns, they'd see a ... tiny drop in their murder rate.

Still, they're murderous thugs compared to the peaceful Singaporeans!
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 03, 2010, 03:53:50 AM
Quote from: xphobe
I've noticed in discussions around here, it's rarely the Americans criticizing other countries for their gun laws.  Rather, it's typically people from other countries complaining about ours.  I'm not sure why our affairs are of so much interest to others.  I certainly wouldn't want to impose an American system on anyone who doesn't want it.  We see how well that's working out in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sometimes I come across Americans who think your gun laws would be beneficial on a universal scale, but I am glad that you said that, because it's difficult for any of us to fully understand a society we have very little experience of. Each society is different, their problems are different and therefore their solutions are different. The UK might suffer under the legalisation of firearms, whereas in the US it wouldn't be wise of them to just drop the 2nd Amendment, at least this is what I understand from previous gun law discussions. It'd be nice to be able to solve some of these social problems and we can kind of work towards it, even if it is a big job (a society in general should aim to solve social problems anyway). Maybe one day America won't need the second amendment, maybe our two societies can become as peaceful as Iceland, but even as an optimist, I'm doubtful of that.  :P
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Jim on October 03, 2010, 07:49:54 AM
Quote from: xphobe
I've noticed in discussions around here, it's rarely the Americans criticizing other countries for their gun laws.  Rather, it's typically people from other countries complaining about ours.  I'm not sure why our affairs are of so much interest to others.  I certainly wouldn't want to impose an American system on anyone who doesn't want it.  We see how well that's working out in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sometimes I come across Americans who think your gun laws would be beneficial on a universal scale, but I am glad that you said that, because it's difficult for any of us to fully understand a society we have very little experience of. Each society is different, their problems are different and therefore their solutions are different. The UK might suffer under the legalisation of firearms, whereas in the US it wouldn't be wise of them to just drop the 2nd Amendment, at least this is what I understand from previous gun law discussions. It'd be nice to be able to solve some of these social problems and we can kind of work towards it, even if it is a big job (a society in general should aim to solve social problems anyway). Maybe one day America won't need the second amendment, maybe our two societies can become as peaceful as Iceland, but even as an optimist, I'm doubtful of that.  :P

As peaceful as Iceland?  By what measure?  Surely not by homicide.  According to the same source that Azael's wiki doc draws from, Iceland has a murder rate comparable to most European nations.  And, as I mentioned, the murderous, gun loving Finns and Swiss (and let's not forget the French!) are out of control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership) -- for "peaceful", you must look to the nations of Qatar, Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan.  Compared to the aforementioned, UK citizens are just as murderous as any other European nation, but they like to do it with their hands and knives as guns are not readily available.

While we're dropping the rights of citizens, perhaps it would be wise to just drop the right to free speech, as well.  No one likes an American to speak, do they?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 03, 2010, 08:23:14 AM
You really can't make something illegal just because it might be used to commit a crime. That mentality leads to this sort of stupidity (http://koberulz.webege.com/Blog/2010/08262010_Lets_Ban_Cameras.php).
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Jim on October 03, 2010, 08:33:57 AM
Toilet paper could be used to suffocate someone.  Ban it!

Chewing gum can mar the streets with gunk.  Ban it!  <-- already an effective law in Singapore.  S$ 2000 fine for lawbreakers who chew.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 03, 2010, 09:39:34 AM
Quote from: Jim
As peaceful as Iceland?  By what measure?  Surely not by homicide.

My bad - when looking at my source - I couldn't find Iceland and assumed they were lower than the lowest, combined with their figure of '0' for firearm related murders. I checked again, I must have missed it - Iceland is higher than the UK per capita. Whoops.

Quote from: Jim
Compared to the aforementioned, UK citizens are just as murderous as any other European nation, but they like to do it with their hands and knives as guns are not readily available.

But not as murderous as gun wielding Americans or South Africans.


Quote from: koberulz
You really can't make something illegal just because it might be used to commit a crime.

And I don't see that logic being used. It's a question of getting worthwhile results, in the US, I doubt it'd have a worthwhile effect, you might even suggest it'd have a negative effect, in fact, you showed cases in the previous thread where in America it has had a negative effect - at least in terms of statistics. But that doesn't mean every nation suffers the same problems as the US to warrant gun legalisation, with out firearm related murders so low, I think it suggests that firearms aren't as much of a threat, with other violent crime states lower (other than assault, which is roughly the same as the US), it suggests to me that yes, it's a good that guns are illegal over here.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 03, 2010, 10:31:33 AM
Quote from: koberulz
You really can't make something illegal just because it might be used to commit a crime.

And I don't see that logic being used.
Really? Is there any other logic by which one can make guns illegal?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Jim on October 03, 2010, 11:02:37 AM
Quote from: Jim
Compared to the aforementioned, UK citizens are just as murderous as any other European nation, but they like to do it with their hands and knives as guns are not readily available.

But not as murderous as gun wielding Americans or South Africans.

Nigerians are much more murderous, but they have very few guns.  They like personalized murder, up close and bloody.  Knife wielding Brits are much more murderous than knife wielding Japanese.  But, overall, Brits are on par with Germans and Swedes, murder-rate wise, even though Germans and Swedes have more guns.  A statistical dead-heat.  Generally, Europeans, no matter what tool they use, murder themselves at a rate of 1.5 per 100k.  Removing guns from the populace does no good.

However, I have read some very good statistical work showing that the number one reducing agent to crime is more police, period.  That's it.  More police to catch criminals and deter would-be's.  You can have all the bans you want, all kinds of complex legislation, it doesn't add much at all.  You can have all the personal firearms for protection that you want, too, and it won't matter.  The US has many guns (both legal and illegal) in circulation.  It also has some very tough anti-gun laws on the books.  But, between two cities with tough gun laws, the one with lots of police has much lower crime rates, hands down.  (You could mirror this in Britain -- lots of knives in circulation, those large cities with better police protection will have less overall crime and fewer homicides, I'd bet.)

From this, I guess that removal of guns from the American populace would not reduce the murder rate significantly.  But putting more police in "hot spots" would.

And, suicides are a much larger problem than homicides in almost every country in Europe and North America.  From a public health perspective, it is a horror show compared to homicide even though homicide seems to be the flag that everyone raises.  Again, in this case, the tool does not matter.  If there are no guns, people with jump, slash themselves, poison, or whatever else they can do. 

An even bigger public health and safety nightmare, by orders of magnitude over even suicide, are auto accidents.  There are more people maimed and killed, more money spent on hospitalization, etc for auto accidents than for homicide.  No one would even think about banning cars, though.  Even in Europe, people laugh at the idea of banning cars and enforcing excellent public transport that would be much more cost effective by many measures, and safer.

Yet, many Europeans are completely freaked out by the "US gun culture," and banning is the first thing touted as the cure.  When the peaceful Swiss or Brits find the magic method to reducing their homicide rate to Japanese levels, I'll be impressed enough to listen to the advice they give.  And, we'd all do well to concentrate on finding ways to reduce death and injury from cars and suicides before getting distracted with the much smaller problem of homicide, or the "evil of guns."
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 03, 2010, 12:20:26 PM
Quote from: Jim
Nigerians are much more murderous, but they have very few guns.  They like personalized murder, up close and bloody.  Knife wielding Brits are much more murderous than knife wielding Japanese.  But, overall, Brits are on par with Germans and Swedes, murder-rate wise, even though Germans and Swedes have more guns.  A statistical dead-heat.  Generally, Europeans, no matter what tool they use, murder themselves at a rate of 1.5 per 100k.  Removing guns from the populace does no good.

And this is why I've argued that the problem is different per country, it's neither guns are good or guns are bad, they're good or bad dependent on the effect it has on a particular society.

Quote from: Jim
From this, I guess that removal of guns from the American populace would not reduce the murder rate significantly.  But putting more police in "hot spots" would.

This is a statement I completely agree with. I'm not trying to argue Americans should get rid of their guns, I'm arguing why Brits don't need them - spurred from previous debate with koberulz where he seems to think gun ownership is a civil liberty that keeps crime down and protects civilians, which isn't necessarily always the case.

Quote from: koberulz
Really? Is there any other logic by which one can make guns illegal?
Your logic understates the issue. If I were to say, "yes, that's the logic being used" then you'd have to take my keyboard away because I could beat you to death with it. There's a lot more to factor than that, I thought that much has already been made clear. You argued on your blog that we should ban cameras and stop them from being manufactured in an attempt to combat paedophelia, if that is an attempt to show a flaw in the non-legalisation of guns, then it's a strawman argument. Would banning cameras be worthwhile? I'd argue, not. Banning of guns in the US, same, legalisation of guns in the UK, same.

From looking at the data, it would appear that the UK wouldn't benefit from the legalisation of firearms and the US wouldn't benefit from banning them, it seems also from the data, it's more likely to do damage than good on both sides, therefore, our efforts should be drawn to other means of reducing crime, like, as Jim highlighted, policing.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: penfold on October 03, 2010, 12:35:28 PM
I live in London; and grew up with a sense of deep puzzlement at the US gun laws. However, spending time travelling through the states, what struck me most was the diversity of contexts.

Most of the time I was in the heartlands, and there guns seem fairly benign. I went on a deer hunt in PA which was amazing (though we did not see, let alone kill, any deer). Also had a very happy night outside Tulsa in a field, drinking and shooting beer bottles with a range of handguns.

I then spent a week in New York. Stayed in a lovely hostel called Jazz on the Villa in Harlem. While I was there two young men were shot not a block from where I was staying. One of them was 19 years old.

In my, admittedly inexpert, opinion; it seems as though what works for a tight-knit rural community may not work in a urban community; especially those suffering from high unemployment and attracting large narcotic trades. What I think is unhelpful is the weird, deeply polarised; manner in which the gun control issue is discussed in the States.

The OP was about 'atheists' and handguns. I'm not sure 'atheists' can play a role, however I do think a secular mindset can. If the gun debate is taken out of the black/white world view of the religious politicians then maybe real regulatory and educational progress can be made. I will still be able to visit with the generous folk of PA and fail to shoot deer, while the dispossessed souls of the inner cities can live in greater safety.

peace.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Jim on October 03, 2010, 12:39:37 PM
I'm not trying to argue Americans should get rid of their guns, I'm arguing why Brits don't need them - spurred from previous debate with koberulz where he seems to think gun ownership is a civil liberty that keeps crime down and protects civilians, which isn't necessarily always the case.

The Supreme Court of the US has ruled on this.  Articles are in wikipedia about it for you to review, if you wish.  But, suffice it to say:
- Gun ownership is a right and a civil liberty in the US.  This is not a matter of opinion, whether Koberulz', yours, or mine own.
- The major purpose of the constitutional amendment is twofold (as I understand it): to defend against outside aggression, and to defend against the tyranny of the US government itself, if needed.  Both of these reasons are thanks to the Brits, by the way.  The Brits saw the error of their ways, after the little spat with us, and banned guns from their other colonies ... the UK gun laws have nothing to do with the safety of the populace.  At least, the origin of the laws don't.
- In no way is the amendment meant to keep crime down, or even for "personal protection" in the civil sense that is common today.  It is about freedom.  Liberté!

Regarding "keeping crime down":
From a statistical perspective, guns are rarely used in self defense situations.  If one examines the FBI's crime statistics, "justifiable" discharge of a firearm is used minimally, even when adding together police and civilian incidents.  I think it is about 5% of all cases of discharged weapon.  Looking at the FBI's compiled uses of firearms, they are mostly used half and half (roughly) for suicides or resolving arguments.  The remaining uses are minimal or unclassifiable due to the nature of the circumstances.  Mind you, this is discharged weapons, not necessarily murders, and I am generalizing what I read.  The statistics are available online for you to read.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: RaymondKHessel on October 03, 2010, 12:56:07 PM
I have several guns.

As an American, I of course love them. Literally. I name them and take them to bed at night. I use nitro solvent as lube during sexual encounters. All day long I'm thinking about my guns and how powerfull they make me, and I just can't stop daydreaming about different situations in which I'd get the opportunity to blow somebody away.

I saw Die-Hard and Rambo when I was a kid, and it really opened my eyes to the way the world is you know? I mean, if Hollywood can't be trusted to accurately portray the way American Culture should be, WHO CAN!?

So now I walk the streets of my city WISHING somebody gives me an excuse to fill them full of hot teflon. Can't help it! Guns guns guns guns bullets... All day long. And at any moment, I'm just one inch away from snapping and killing everybody in the room with me. I wish I could carry my guns in holsters on my hip, like a cowboy. That'd be keen. It's common knowledge that owning guns makes you completely irrational and prone to murder, but that's just the price we have to pay I guess. I mean, how else can we satisfy our national urge to kill? With a KNIFE!? A bus!? Pffft.  :'(

It's crazy that some people think Americans actually think this way. In the 10 years or so I've had a handgun, it never even crosses my mind. Hell, I've been in fistfights when I've had a gun on me and it never occured to me to pull it. Not once. And I'm willing to bet that my lifestyle has a higher frequency of violent and/or potentially life threatening situations in it than most people's. And I know for a fact that I'm more of a violent person than many. I'm not PROUD of that, it just is what it is. That doesn't mean I don't have an understanding of the consequences of SHOOTING SOMEBODY.

I've said it once, I'll say it a thousand times more. Owning a gun is like owning a fire extinguisher. You buy it hoping you'll never have to use it, but fires DO happen. And at the same time, you don't go walking around every day fantasizing about fires or looking for infernos to put out or starting fires just so you can use your big shiney extinguisher. You don't even think about it. It's a tool, an insurance policy, and an equalizer. That's about it.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 03, 2010, 01:05:16 PM
Your logic understates the issue. If I were to say, "yes, that's the logic being used" then you'd have to take my keyboard away because I could beat you to death with it. There's a lot more to factor than that, I thought that much has already been made clear. You argued on your blog that we should ban cameras and stop them from being manufactured in an attempt to combat paedophelia, if that is an attempt to show a flaw in the non-legalisation of guns, then it's a strawman argument. Would banning cameras be worthwhile? I'd argue, not. Banning of guns in the US, same, legalisation of guns in the UK, same.
However, it remains that the sole reason for making guns illegal is their propensity for being involved in murders. And my argument about banning cameras isn't really all that far-fetched - I link in that blog to a news article that mentions it being illegal in Australia to record children's sporting events because "you might be a paedophile". So yes, once you allow 'someone might commit a crime' to be a reasonable excuse for passing a law, it will be abused.

Regarding "keeping crime down":
From a statistical perspective, guns are rarely used in self defense situations.  If one examines the FBI's crime statistics, "justifiable" discharge of a firearm is used minimally, even when adding together police and civilian incidents.  I think it is about 5% of all cases of discharged weapon.  Looking at the FBI's compiled uses of firearms, they are mostly used half and half (roughly) for suicides or resolving arguments.  The remaining uses are minimal or unclassifiable due to the nature of the circumstances.  Mind you, this is discharged weapons, not necessarily murders, and I am generalizing what I read.  The statistics are available online for you to read.
That doesn't take into account the number of times merely pulling out a gun defuses whatever situtation you happen to be in. If I feel like beating you up and you pull out a gun, I'm sure as shit not going to wait until you pull the trigger before I rethink things.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: RaymondKHessel on October 03, 2010, 01:16:53 PM
That doesn't take into account the number of times merely pulling out a gun defuses whatever situtation you happen to be in. If I feel like beating you up and you pull out a gun, I'm sure as s**t not going to wait until you pull the trigger before I rethink things.

I'm not a big fan of that line of thinking. You should never pull a gun on somebody unless you mean to shoot, and you shouldn't shoot unless you mean to kill.

If someone's just going to beat you up, let them. Or fight fair. Otherwise they'll take your gun away from you and stick it up your ass. When you introduce a gun into a situation, it's a game changer. The guy looking to kick your ass is going to go from just wanting to slap you around a little, to feeling his LIFE threatend. Which means if he DOESN'T back down, you've just escalated the situation to one in which one of you might not be getting out of it alive.

Sean Penn's character in Carlito's Way, when he pulled a .38 on some guys in the nightclub because they were assholes, is a perfect example of what NOT to do.

Someone who goes around pulling a strap willy-nilly has a very short life expectancy. Darwin usually takes care of them in pretty short order.

Edit: I should add, I've had a gun in my face 3 seperate times in my life. Once was a robbery, once was a client on Meth who didn't want to pay his bill, and the other time was a personal conflict. Each time, I backed down, even when I was armed (the personal conflct). Even so, every part of my being was screaming to KILL the person with the gun for threatening my life. It was instinctual, and that combination of rage and fear is a horrible thing to experience.  If I had had the opportunity, with emotions and adrenaline pounding, I probably would have, even if I had to shoot them in the back while they were leaving. Like I said though, twice I was unarmed, and the personal conflict resolved itself in such a way that I had time to cool down, and it wasn't an option anyways - the guy had a lot of friends with him.

What I'm saying is, unless you're planning on using it, pulling a gun is usually more dangerous for the person pulling it, because I'd say there's at least a 50/50 chance that you just made the other guy want you dead, maybe for the rest of their life. Having somebody pull a gun on you and threaten you with it is something that's hard to forget. You're completely helpless. You feel violated in a way. It sticks with you for years, and makes your blood boil every time you think about it.

I sincerely hope none of you ever have to experience such a thing.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Jim on October 03, 2010, 01:48:38 PM
Regarding "keeping crime down":
From a statistical perspective, guns are rarely used in self defense situations.  If one examines the FBI's crime statistics, "justifiable" discharge of a firearm is used minimally, even when adding together police and civilian incidents.  I think it is about 5% of all cases of discharged weapon.  Looking at the FBI's compiled uses of firearms, they are mostly used half and half (roughly) for suicides or resolving arguments.  The remaining uses are minimal or unclassifiable due to the nature of the circumstances.  Mind you, this is discharged weapons, not necessarily murders, and I am generalizing what I read.  The statistics are available online for you to read.
That doesn't take into account the number of times merely pulling out a gun defuses whatever situtation you happen to be in. If I feel like beating you up and you pull out a gun, I'm sure as shit not going to wait until you pull the trigger before I rethink things.

My stats beat your conjecture any day.  I could further conjecture -- with a good chance that I'm right -- that the number of uncounted self defense incidents is proportional to all other incidents, and it keeps its 5% max.

Also, if you look at the FBI stats, the number of police incidents far outweighs civilian justified use.  The number of these incidents is simply not that important.

Besides, what is wrong with simply stating that, more than anything else, there is constitutional grounds for having a weapon?  And a further side effect is being able to use it defensively if it comes to it?

And I agree with Ray.  Never present a gun unless you are willing to die by a faster draw.  Simple rule.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 03, 2010, 02:32:36 PM
Quote from: Jim
The Supreme Court of the US has ruled on this.  Articles are in wikipedia about it for you to review, if you wish.  But, suffice it to say:
- Gun ownership is a right and a civil liberty in the US.  This is not a matter of opinion, whether Koberulz', yours, or mine own.
- The major purpose of the constitutional amendment is twofold (as I understand it): to defend against outside aggression, and to defend against the tyranny of the US government itself, if needed.  Both of these reasons are thanks to the Brits, by the way.  The Brits saw the error of their ways, after the little spat with us, and banned guns from their other colonies ... the UK gun laws have nothing to do with the safety of the populace.  At least, the origin of the laws don't.
- In no way is the amendment meant to keep crime down, or even for "personal protection" in the civil sense that is common today.  It is about freedom.  Liberté!

Freedom and liberty comes from the strong patriotic nature that surrounds the US constitution, in reality, we don't live in free societies and true freedom is anarchy, which is not to be desired. After all, with true freedom you don't need to pay those taxes which help to protect your family, instead you have to do it yourself, if somebody wants to rape a loved one, you best hope you're strong enough to stop them, because there's no laws to tell them not to do it, no punishments to deter them and no police to catch them. You may be poverty stricken fighting amongst others to find food to support your family, but at least you'd have your liberty. This is the hypocrisy I find behind the notion of those who sing to their hearts content about their liberty. Yes we should defend democracy, yes there are civil liberties that we ought to protect, but at the end of the day a line has to be drawn.

And yes, it maybe a constitutional right in the US to own a gun, but that doesn't mean the constitution is right, after all, it was written to deal with the problems perceived at the time it was written - personally, I don't think the 2nd amendment ought to be changed because it won't solve anything concerning America's problems, but I'm not going to assume that the American constitution is a flawless doctrine to living in a society with the perfect balance for freedom.


Quote from: koberulz
That doesn't take into account the number of times merely pulling out a gun defuses whatever situtation you happen to be in. If I feel like beating you up and you pull out a gun, I'm sure as s**t not going to wait until you pull the trigger before I rethink things.

And if means more people are being murdered as a result, no biggy. As Raymond highlights, waving that gun can escalate the situation - the person beating you up doesn't deserve to die and well, what if he has a gun and decides to retaliate? You might not have been willing to pull the trigger, but it's gone from defending yourself from getting your arse kicked to fighting for your life. You don't know what a person has concealed in their pants, so I think it can happen two ways.

Quote from: koberulz
However, it remains that the sole reason for making guns illegal is their propensity for being involved in murders. And my argument about banning cameras isn't really all that far-fetched - I link in that blog to a news article that mentions it being illegal in Australia to record children's sporting events because "you might be a paedophile". So yes, once you allow 'someone might commit a crime' to be a reasonable excuse for passing a law, it will be abused.

It's also illegal in the UK and Portugal too - I remember reading not too long ago an article on a guy (from the UK) who was taking pictures of young boys on a beach in Portugal because he worked for a clothing company and when on holiday there he liked the designs he saw kids wearing and thought his company could sell something similar. Portugal's courts from what I read were still going to charge him because it's against the law, it would have been allowed if he got permission off of the parents first.

But again, you're understating it. Like I said, if the logic abides to how you're stating it, then you're welcome to petition for keyboards to be illegal - I'm fairly certain I could use mine to kill a man - the cable ought to be able to strangle man quite easily. It's a question of what works as a solution to a problem and avoiding making it worse. Is banning cameras going to work as a solution? Maybe banning them at a children's sporting event does? I don't know, I mean, I'm not sure if it has reduced threats from paedophiles or has just worked out to be an unnecessary measure. Who's to say the government was right to ban cameras at such sporting events in the first place? I see no reason to suggest that banning cameras will keep kids safe from paedophiles - out of measures to protect kids I imagine banning cameras is pretty low on the list.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 03, 2010, 03:13:08 PM
Freedom and liberty comes from the strong patriotic nature that surrounds the US constitution, in reality, we don't live in free societies and true freedom is anarchy, which is not to be desired. After all, with true freedom you don't need to pay those taxes which help to protect your family, instead you have to do it yourself, if somebody wants to rape a loved one, you best hope you're strong enough to stop them, because there's no laws to tell them not to do it, no punishments to deter them and no police to catch them. You may be poverty stricken fighting amongst others to find food to support your family, but at least you'd have your liberty. This is the hypocrisy I find behind the notion of those who sing to their hearts content about their liberty. Yes we should defend democracy, yes there are civil liberties that we ought to protect, but at the end of the day a line has to be drawn.
Hypocrisy? Really? Obviously a line has to be drawn, and that line is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist. The role of government is to protect our freedoms and nothing more.

Quote
And if means more people are being murdered as a result, no biggy. As Raymond highlights, waving that gun can escalate the situation - the person beating you up doesn't deserve to die and well, what if he has a gun and decides to retaliate? You might not have been willing to pull the trigger, but it's gone from defending yourself from getting your arse kicked to fighting for your life. You don't know what a person has concealed in their pants, so I think it can happen two ways.
The other guy was pulling a gun in my example, not me. And sorry, but if someone decides that they're going to hurt me, they deserve whatever the fuck happens to them. If that's death, so be it. You want to stay alive, you should try not assaulting people.

Quote
keyboards to be illegal - I'm fairly certain I could use mine to kill a man - the cable ought to be able to strangle man quite easily.
You have a cable on your keyboard? The 90s were over ten years ago.

Quote
Who's to say the government was right to ban cameras at such sporting events in the first place? I see no reason to suggest that banning cameras will keep kids safe from paedophiles - out of measures to protect kids I imagine banning cameras is pretty low on the list.
This is exactly my point.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Jim on October 03, 2010, 03:19:41 PM
...This is the hypocrisy I find behind the notion of those who sing to their hearts content about their liberty. Yes we should defend democracy, yes there are civil liberties that we ought to protect, but at the end of the day a line has to be drawn.

And yes, it maybe a constitutional right in the US to own a gun, but that doesn't mean the constitution is right, after all, it was written to deal with the problems perceived at the time it was written....

Consider: the UK gun laws have nothing to do with personal safety.  They were designed to prevent the populace from retaliating against the monarchy.  They were not designed with your well being in mind at all.  Sure, there are a lot of "Liberty!" chanting fools out there (and I agree with your assessment of those particular fools who stretch it to far limits, thinking that a lack of government is good.)  But, your laws are specifically designed to keep you from complaining too much, and to keep you and your fellow citizens in line.

One could always reasonably ask why you in the UK, as a citizen in good standing, should not be able to defend yourself against a knife attacker with a gun.  Why not?  He would be out to kill you, after all.  It's not like you live in Japan, where it is safe and you don't need a weapon.  It is a fair argument for me to pose, saying that your government has decreed that it is far better for you to die from criminal attack, than for you to own a weapon to use.

What use liberty, indeed?

My personal feeling is that democracy needs no defense.  That's sooo cold war.  Democracy needs to be exercised.  Freedoms -- any freedom -- goes away if not exercised.

Now, as I said before, homicide and gun use are such a small thing, really.  The stats show it.  The real tasks that both our countries should be focused on are stemming suicide and automobile deaths and accidents.  Those issues are far more pressing.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: nogodsforme on October 03, 2010, 04:48:12 PM
The US is one of the few countries in the world where people rationally argue that NOT having a deadly weapon makes them feel vulnerable. Like you need a gun just to feel a baseline level of safety. I think it is sadly ironic that gun ownership is a right in the US, but health care is not. Says someting about our priorities....

As Raymond says, if you have a gun, you have to be willing to pull it out, and you have to be willing and ready to make someone dead. Even a nutty 14 year old who [you think] is trying to grab your wallet, or an innocent bystander. I don't think most of us in the US are prepared for that reality.

I know a lot of crazy people. Not locked up, card-carrying crazy, so these folks are allowed in the US to legally own a deadly weapon. That makes me way more nervous than the threat of crime. It seems that people kill people they know (after a few too many drinks or an argument) way more often than they kill random bad guys who break in at night. Not to mention the kids who die playing with their relatives' guns.

It is not that I am a pollyanna. I have been sexually assaulted and a gun would not have made a bit of  difference-- the a$$hole was a wealthy, powerful person with bodyguards and a limo, not a street thug. I have lived in very dangerous areas with gang bangers standing on every street corner. I worked as a social worker in one of the most dangerous housing projects in the US.

When I had to walk from a dark bus stop after work, I carried a knife in my pocket. If someone got close enough to me and was threatening enough for me to stick them with my knife, they damn well deserved it.  But with a gun you can kill someone by accident, by mistake or because you misjudged someone's intentions when they were far away.

Life is not like TV. I don't want to teach at a campus where the students are all walking around armed in case somebody goes postal. You [think you] hear shots in the hallway and run out with your gun. You see a guy with a gun. Do you shoot him? He might be another student who ran out because he heard the shots. And he shoots you. The real shooter has discarded his gun in the bathroom or is on another floor, or it was a car backfiring. 

I have had to break up fights at my college more than once. It is common for the kids to threaten to "go home and get my gun" after they are separated.  The fight was over some stupid boy-girl thing and they are acting like they are in a Clint Eastwood movie.

I never want to have a gun. Because I have a depressive disorder and a temper. Because I have a teen daughter who may sneak out of the house someday and sneak back in after dark, scaring me into thinking it is a burglar. Because my brother is a developmetally delayed black man who does erratic things sometimes and could be [mistakenly] perceived as a threat.  Because I don't want to kill a nutty 14-year old who [I think] is trying to grab my wallet.

As an atheist, I know we only have one life-- I don't want to live it as a killer who took that life from someone else by accident or mistake. As a bleeding heart commie, I would rather pay for a program that helps keep that kid from grabbing my wallet.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 03, 2010, 05:06:27 PM
Quote from: Jim
Consider: the UK gun laws have nothing to do with personal safety.  They were designed to prevent the populace from retaliating against the monarchy.  They were not designed with your well being in mind at all.  Sure, there are a lot of "Liberty!" chanting fools out there (and I agree with your assessment of those particular fools who stretch it to far limits, thinking that a lack of government is good.)  But, your laws are specifically designed to keep you from complaining too much, and to keep you and your fellow citizens in line.

It's possible the law was conjured for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't mean they're invalid laws to keep. Right things can happen for the wrong reasons. As for keeping me and my fellow citizens in line and from complaining too much - that's far from the actual case. The government is very much under constant scrutiny, even with party supporters, the media loves government corruption stories because people don't like the government doing things they shouldn't be doing and people do stand up against the government with the power of democracy and it does work. The Labour government showed little regard for civil liberties in their bills, and they've found it difficult to pass such bills without amendments - I can probably talk all day about the 'Religious Hatred Bill' that was conjured to basically stop people from saying anything bad about Islam, which wasn't passed until Freedom of Expression was account for...basically making a law that says we can say what the hell we like about any religion just as long as we don't incite violence towards those who practice it - that amendment had occured because people bitched and moaned. This kind of thing is fairly common when the government is found to be doing something stupid. We don't need guns to keep our government in line - exercising democracy will do more to influence government than going in guns blazing or starting a civil war (even if the monarchy lost power because of a civil war). I don't see how I could use a gun to keep my government in line. I am sure it's a similar case in the US - even if the likes of Fox make up bullshit for scrutiny.

Quote from: Jim
One could always reasonably ask why you in the UK, as a citizen in good standing, should not be able to defend yourself against a knife attacker with a gun.  Why not?  He would be out to kill you, after all.  It's not like you live in Japan, where it is safe and you don't need a weapon.  It is a fair argument for me to pose, saying that your government has decreed that it is far better for you to die from criminal attack, than for you to own a weapon to use.

Because I don't want to see guns on my street? Because I'm worried that guns would cause more murders in my society than without? Because I'd have more of a chance defending myself against a knife attacker than one wielding a gun, which it seems is more likely to happen in a country where they're legal and more widely available. Personally, I already know how to defend against a knife but I wouldn't use it if I was able to run away, after all, mistakes can happen. At least I'm not trying to defend against a bullet. In the situation I wouldn't think, "I could do with a gun" - I mean, what are the chances of me drawing a gun quick enough for him to not deal the damage to get me out of the situation? If he's quick, and people wielding knives are often quick and unpredictable, the time I'm reaching for my gun may be enough time for him to jam the knife into a vital organ where I might have been able to block it. As far as I can see, in said situation, I don't think a gun would be all that beneficial, unless I can anticipate his knife attack enough in advance or I'm at a far enough distance away, which is unlikely - if I'm at that kind of distance, if I'm not trapped, I can run away, only an idiot takes on their attacker when they can get away.

Quote from: Jim
Now, as I said before, homicide and gun use are such a small thing, really.  The stats show it.  The real tasks that both our countries should be focused on are stemming suicide and automobile deaths and accidents.  Those issues are far more pressing.

This is fair and that might be worthy of a different discussion. As my town suffers quite badly for automobile deaths and accidents, there's plenty of rants on my part. ;) My username means 'suicide', so maybe I'm a part of the cause?  &)

Quote from: koberulz
The other guy was pulling a gun in my example, not me. And sorry, but if someone decides that they're going to hurt me, they deserve whatever the f**k happens to them. If that's death, so be it. You want to stay alive, you should try not assaulting people.

And you were beating him up, he pulls the gun, no doubt if you had a gun too, you'd pull yours out too (you don't want to get yourself killed). Situation escalates because somebody responded to an act of assault with a gun. The situation goes from an ass-kicking to two people trying their best to not get shot. As for assault, I completely disagree that a person deserves to die for assaulting somebody. How is one deserving of the other? Yes, if you're assaulted there's a good chance you don't deserve it, there are other ways of stopping him from getting away with it without killing the fucker.

Quote from: koberulz
You have a cable on your keyboard? The 90s were over ten years ago.

It's my secret life, I work as an IT guy who goes around people's homes to 'fix' their computers, just be wary if I decide to use my own keyboard, the media calls me "The IT Strangler", hardly original or flashy, but then I think the media has lost their touch. I was hoping for something witty and clever.

Quote from: koberulz
This is exactly my point.

And it's one I've been trying to emphasise. Whilst banning guns in the US would be low on the list, I maintain the argument that in the UK legalising them is too.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Str82Hell on October 03, 2010, 05:46:06 PM
The US is one of the few countries in the world where people rationally argue that NOT having a deadly weapon makes them feel vulnerable. Like you need a gun just to feel a baseline level of safety. I think it is sadly ironic that gun ownership is a right in the US, but health care is not. Says someting about our priorities....
It's also not necessary to feel vulnerable. When I walk the street I don't feel unsafe. Of course I'm safer because I'm less vulnerable than a woman, but even then, I don't think the chances are big that you'll get a knife put on your throat. Of course it might happen, but I also might be struck by lightning and I'm not worried about that either. I think it's something you can control as well. If you know that you should avoid certain places during certain times of the day, don't go there. I've been taught to bring women home when it's late. You have to use common sense.

I think it's ridiculous to carry guns to a bar, just because you're allowed to. Some people become aggressive when they're drunk. I'd rather have my friends break their fists on the wall then having them shoot around at random because they drank too much.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: anthony_retford on October 03, 2010, 09:47:07 PM
I just visited a friend in Southern Oregon. We went out to Walmart's and he wore his 45 pistol on his waist, with his shirt, which was not tucked in his jeans, tucked behind his gun. He deos not have a permit for a concealed weapon. I noticed that no one looked at him that would have indicated they objected to his pistol, and I looked. I did not see anyone else with an obvious weapon. I think it must be the Southern Oregon is and the people there mostly have guns.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: xphobe on October 03, 2010, 10:08:38 PM
Oregon is an open carry state.

I've always sort of wondered what it would be like walking around with a pistol in plain sight, but Texas does not allow me to carry out that experiment.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 04, 2010, 12:24:19 AM
The US is one of the few countries in the world where people rationally argue that NOT having a deadly weapon makes them feel vulnerable. Like you need a gun just to feel a baseline level of safety. I think it is sadly ironic that gun ownership is a right in the US, but health care is not. Says someting about our priorities....
See 'Is it free will?' in the society section for why health care is a bad idea.

As for keeping me and my fellow citizens in line and from complaining too much - that's far from the actual case.
It's not about complaining, it's about overthrowing the government.

Quote
Because I don't want to see guns on my street?
I don't want to see fat people on my street. Let's ban fat people!

Quote
And you were beating him up, he pulls the gun, no doubt if you had a gun too, you'd pull yours out too (you don't want to get yourself killed).
No, I'd get the fuck out of there. He's got his gun out already, I'm not stupid enough to think I can get mine out before I'm dead.

Quote
As for assault, I completely disagree that a person deserves to die for assaulting somebody. How is one deserving of the other?
If you're putting my life in danger, why do you not deserve to have yours put in danger (not all shootings are fatal, after all). And if you continue to assault me after I pull a gun, you deserve to die.

Quote
Yes, if you're assaulted there's a good chance you don't deserve it, there are other ways of stopping him from getting away with it without killing the fucker.
Such as what? I'm 6'1", but I'm a rather pathetic 160 lbs or so. People half my size have no trouble pushing me around, and anyone who wanted to beat me to death with their bare hands could do so quite easily.

Quote
And it's one I've been trying to emphasise. Whilst banning guns in the US would be low on the list, I maintain the argument that in the UK legalising them is too.
...you've missed my point again. Making laws for no other purpose than the prevention of crime allows ridiculous infringements on freedom to occur, therefore it shouldn't be a justification for anything, regardless of its effectiveness.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: hickdive on October 04, 2010, 03:15:28 AM
Consider: the UK gun laws have nothing to do with personal safety.  They were designed to prevent the populace from retaliating against the monarchy. 

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Licensing_and_legislation

Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 04, 2010, 06:12:05 AM
Quote from: koberulz
If you're putting my life in danger, why do you not deserve to have yours put in danger

There's a difference between assaulting somebody and trying to kill them, otherwise assault statistics would be a lot lower and murder a lot higher.

Quote from: koberulz
It's not about complaining, it's about overthrowing the government.

We're a long way off from needing civil war to solve our problems, if we ever need a revolution, then guns can be smuggled - taking up guns against the government is illegal, so are people going to be bothered about breaking the law to smuggle? But we're talking about a pretty big if - it's still very difficult for a member of government to gain enough power to become a corrupt fascist dictator worthy of going in guns blazing at.


Quote from: koberulz
...you've missed my point again. Making laws for no other purpose than the prevention of crime allows ridiculous infringements on freedom to occur, therefore it shouldn't be a justification for anything, regardless of its effectivene

I argue it's not an infringement on your freedom, no more than not being allowed to drive a tank to work or riding a train with personal explosives. Sometimes freedoms clash you may have to make the difficult choice - after all, if you consider carrying a gun to be a freedom, then is it worth carrying if it increases the number of people being murdered each year? I mean, what happens to their freedom? If they're dead they can hardly exercise any of their civil rights.

Quote from: koberulz
Such as what? I'm 6'1", but I'm a rather pathetic 160 lbs or so. People half my size have no trouble pushing me around, and anyone who wanted to beat me to death with their bare hands could do so quite easily.

If you feel you're under threat from assault, there are still ways you can defend yourself, even as a weakling - my advice to you would be to learn self defense. Again, said assaulters may have weapons too, especially if everybody's packing, so who's to say they're not going to retaliate you waving a gun in their face?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: truehyuga on October 04, 2010, 08:13:20 AM
This:
Quote
Quote from: koberulz
If you're putting my life in danger, why do you not deserve to have yours put in danger

There's a difference between assaulting somebody and trying to kill them, otherwise assault statistics would be a lot lower and murder a lot higher.
Again I'll say it. Rubber Bullets in firearms. Be strong enough to stun or knock out an assailant, but would not kill them (ok, maybe if you shot them in the eye at point blank once they are down, but still... if you're going to do that, the handle of the gun makes a perfectly good bludgeon).
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 04, 2010, 08:27:42 AM
There's a difference between assaulting somebody and trying to kill them, otherwise assault statistics would be a lot lower and murder a lot higher.
The difference is whether or not the victim lives, which often has nothing to do with any choice on the part of the perpetrator. There were several occasions a couple of years ago in which people were killed after a single punch.

Quote
We're a long way off from needing civil war to solve our problems, if we ever need a revolution, then guns can be smuggled - taking up guns against the government is illegal, so are people going to be bothered about breaking the law to smuggle? But we're talking about a pretty big if - it's still very difficult for a member of government to gain enough power to become a corrupt fascist dictator worthy of going in guns blazing at.
Getting guns into the country illegally isn't that easy.


Quote
I argue it's not an infringement on your freedom
How? "You cannot possess X" is always "you do not have the freedom to possess X". Always. Not letting me kill people is an infringement on my freedom. The difference, however, is that the latter directly infringes upon the freedom of others, the former does not.

Quote
then is it worth carrying if it increases the number of people being murdered each year? I mean, what happens to their freedom? If they're dead they can hardly exercise any of their civil rights.
Nobody's suggesting legalising murder.

Quote
Again, said assaulters may have weapons too, especially if everybody's packing, so who's to say they're not going to retaliate you waving a gun in their face?
The fact that I have a gun, and have my finger on the trigger? Anyone who cannot pull the trigger of a gun before their attacker unholsters, aims, and fires his shouldn't be pulling one out in the first damn place.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Jim on October 04, 2010, 08:46:25 AM
Consider: the UK gun laws have nothing to do with personal safety.  They were designed to prevent the populace from retaliating against the monarchy. 

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Licensing_and_legislation

Try looking a little further, hickdive.  Thanks for the link, as I brushed up on some of the interesting details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#History_of_gun_control_in_the_United_Kingdom
Quote
The right to keep and bear arms had originated in England during the reign of Henry II with the 1181 Assize of Arms, and developed as part of Common Law. These rights no longer exist in the UK, since the UK's doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty allows the repeal of previous laws with no enshrined exceptions such as contained within a codified constitution.

While it is mentioned in the section of the 1920's gun act that fears of crime may have played a part in the ban, working class unrest is also highlighted, as well as unrest in Ireland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#1920_Firearms_Act
Quote
The Firearms Act of 1920 was partly spurred by fears of a possible surge in crime from the large number of guns available following World War I and in part due to fears of working class unrest in this period....Shootings of police by militant groups in Ireland may also have been a factor...

If one reads the history of the UK gun laws, for only one or two rulings is it mentioned that civilian shootings were on the rise, and so the laws restricted gun ownership on the grounds of safety.  Most of the time, it was to stem the caching of arms by soldiers returning from wars, or strictly as a means for raising revenue. 

Currently, the UK gun laws are so restrictive that their own Olympic shooting team cannot even practice target shooting in the UK legally, they must train in Switzerland.

I wonder is friend Seppuku would be able to obtain a gun license with the stated reason: "in case the government becomes tyrannical."  I am sure that he'd end up under close inspection by HM Police services.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: hickdive on October 04, 2010, 11:05:06 AM
Jim

Did you find anything in there that supports the assertion " the UK gun laws have nothing to do with personal safety.  They were designed to prevent the populace from retaliating against the monarchy."

No? I didn't think so.

Most Americans are blind to the fact that, by the time of their revolution, the British monarchy was entirely a constitutional one i.e. it was entirely powerless in the face of parliament. However, you don't want to be seen to be rebelling against the very form of parliamentary structure you intend instigating in your own country - so you create they myth of 'tyrannical monarchy'.

That myth leads to ludicrous assertions that UK firearms laws were "designed to prevent the populace from retaliating against the monarchy" based on the assumption that the UK was subject to a monarchy it might need to rebel against.

You have correctly noted the 1920's legislation which was created at a time when the possibility of communist revolution was feared, along with the knowledge of the dreadful violence in Ireland. However, you failed to note that the first legislation dates from 1903.

In short, these laws, "designed to prevent the populace from retaliating against the monarchy" took over 200 years to appear after the last vestiges of absolute monarchy were swept away. They didn't even appear after two Jacobite uprisings!

Americans have the right to arm themselves and I can see no benefit in attempting to restrict their rights. Firearms are so ubiquitous in the US that, as has been pointed out, such controls only criminalise the law-abiding. However, Americans insisting that other countries, where firearms are restricted, are somehow wrong and would benefit from a similarly unrestricted right are simply victims of the "America #1" syndrome. You keep your 30,000+ firearms deaths per annum to yourselves, thank you.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 04, 2010, 11:22:21 AM
Quote from: koberulz
The difference is whether or not the victim lives, which often has nothing to do with any choice on the part of the perpetrator. There were several occasions a couple of years ago in which people were killed after a single punch.

Comparing assault and murder figures, it seems to be a big enough difference. UK and US stand similar on assault figures, but there's fewer murders in the UK. It'd appear fewer violent crimes end in death.

Quote from: koberulz
Getting guns into the country illegally isn't that easy.

Countries who end up in civil wars have managed to get an arsenal quite easily, usually from individuals keen to help their cause. The IRA didn't have much difficulty causing trouble for the British government, they had enough weapons to make their cause known, sadly, their method involved the murder of innocents to fight for their independence.

Quote from: koverulz
How? "You cannot possess X" is always "you do not have the freedom to possess X". Always. Not letting me kill people is an infringement on my freedom. The difference, however, is that the latter directly infringes upon the freedom of others, the former does not.

If possession of guns leads to more people being killed as a result, it becomes an infringement of the victims' freedom.

Quote from: koberulz
Nobody's suggesting legalising murder.

No, but what you're suggesting is very likely going to increase murders committed, it's giving more power to criminals over their victims.

Quote from: koberulz
The fact that I have a gun, and have my finger on the trigger? Anyone who cannot pull the trigger of a gun before their attacker unholsters, aims, and fires his shouldn't be pulling one out in the first damn place.

So if your attacker isn't only able to beat the crap out of you, but if he's good with a gun, then you should let him kick the crap out of you anyway? It sounds like you're better off not pulling your gun out unless you can sure it'll be effective, and what are the chances?

One thing we're taught with self defense is to NOT cause aggression or provoke the attacker, but get out of the situation as quickly as possible. If the attacker can cause damage to you, particularly if he's got a weapon, your chances are slimmed if they're provoked to use them.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Jim on October 04, 2010, 11:41:22 AM
Hickdive:

Thank you for the correction on the word "monarchy".  You are right in that the restrictive gun laws are not now in place to protect the monarchy from popular uprising, rather I should have said "government".  However, you came in late to the conversation, and do not seem to have been following the line of disscussion.  And, your implication that I think the citizens of the UK should arm themselves with firearms -- as if I am insisting that other countries do as America does -- is incorrect.

A large part of the conversation about US gun laws is usually about intent of the law.  As it has come up here, in this conversation.  It is clear from the history of weapons laws in the UK that personal protection from criminals wielding guns is a side note, or at best a supporting role in the creation of said laws in the UK.  In no small part, the UK laws are designed to stifle uprising, the opposite to the reason for the constitutional amendment in the US.  There is interesting history when comparing the two.

Additionally, in this conversation, and in some research done on the subject, it becomes apparent that the absence of guns does not equal absence of murders.  The UK's rate versus other European countries shows that quite clearly.  What cannot be accomplished with guns is accomplished with knives in Britain.  What is also clear is large number of murders in total in the US.  And, that at least one very populous and very dense country -- Japan -- makes even England look like a haven for murderous thugs.  I'd love to see a good, even handed analysis that covers the *why* of these differences.  I haven't had the time to look into it, yet.

What is also crystal clear is that homicide, as hot a topic as it is politically, is a minor issue compared to other much larger public health and safety issues.  Even in the US, everyone's least favorite gun-totin' land o' murder and mayhem.  For instance, some stats I have looked at show many countries have a suicide rate approximately double that of their own homicide rate, as a generalization.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 04, 2010, 12:27:53 PM
And of course - it's not worth removing gun law in America or legalising them in the UK. It is clear that other measures ought to be taken to keep crime low. From what's apparent Japan isn't a gun-happy nation and the UK is still pretty violent compare to other nations. They're doing something right that neither the UK or US isn't. Maybe it's their bizarre game shows? Screw Who Wants to be a Millionaire, we all need a bit of Takeshi's Castle to keep us all from going mad and killing innocent bystanders...or Hard Gay...bizarre show. ;)
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 04, 2010, 12:55:50 PM
Quote from: koberulz
Getting guns into the country illegally isn't that easy.

I'll bet it would be a lot easier if there were a ban on guns and organized crime took over the firearms import business.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 04, 2010, 01:55:59 PM
Comparing assault and murder figures, it seems to be a big enough difference. UK and US stand similar on assault figures, but there's fewer murders in the UK. It'd appear fewer violent crimes end in death.
You walk down the street, and see one guy belting another. What would you look at to determine whether you are witnessing a murder or an assault?

Quote
If possession of guns leads to more people being killed as a result, it becomes an infringement of the victims' freedom.
No. Killing people is an infringement on their freedom. Possessing a gun is not. Again, the argument you're using can be used to justify banning photography at children's sporting events, censoring the internet, and all sorts of other freedom-inhibiting bullshit.

Quote
So if your attacker isn't only able to beat the crap out of you, but if he's good with a gun, then you should let him kick the crap out of you anyway?
What?

Quote
One thing we're taught with self defense is to NOT cause aggression or provoke the attacker, but get out of the situation as quickly as possible. If the attacker can cause damage to you, particularly if he's got a weapon, your chances are slimmed if they're provoked to use them.
If my choice is between dying and pulling a gun on the guy, I'll pull the gun every damn time.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 04, 2010, 04:33:26 PM
Quote from: koberulz
You walk down the street, and see one guy belting another. What would you look at to determine whether you are witnessing a murder or an assault?

It'd be very difficult to tell. There are a lot of things you can't tell from such situations, for example, if the violence you see is a couple of guys having a falling out or if it's an example of gang-related violence. You might wish to get involved and stop them, even if you have a gun there's a level of risk involved - what if his mates are around the corner? What if the guy's a member of a gang and remembers your face? As much as I'd like to help a person in such a situation, whether there's a gun in my pocket or not, it's a risk to get involved and you don't know the situation - calling the authorities and hoping they get their in time would be my response. Heroes get killed, life isn't a movie.


Quote from: koberulz
No. Killing people is an infringement on their freedom. Possessing a gun is not. Again, the argument you're using can be used to justify banning photography at children's sporting events, censoring the internet, and all sorts of other freedom-inhibiting bullshit.

Not really. And I've explained exactly why that is. If having guns in a society causes an increase in murder or other violent crimes, then it's a problem, so if this is the case, they why allow them. Why can't a person drive a tank on the highway? Surely it ought to be in their right? It doesn't matter what dangers it causes, because it's our freedom.

Photography, last times I checked does not pose danger for children. Yes, paedophiles use them to take pictures of children, but changing photography laws isn't likely going to cull the problem, some argue that it does as certain events (where children are evolved), but I am unaware whether it has had an effect or not.

And yet again I'm repeating myself. Changing US or UK gun law I don't feel will improve things, but rather exacerbate things. You yanks are free to keep your guns because you need them more than we do. We're different societies, so what may work for you may not work for us. Considering the difference in gun-related murders, it strongly suggests that when you've got a society that so freely has access to guns, then it becomes more likely that a person is killed. America already has guns, so banning them won't do a thing to help and would make matters worse.

It's interesting that this discussion has turned into conjecture - are you really wanting the UK to increase its violent crime and murder because you feel gun ownership ought to be a civil right here? If that's the case, well, I'm going to petition for roads to be widened so they can fit the tank I'm going to save up for, just do it doesn't take up 2 lanes, after all, the government ought to protect my freedom to own and drive a tank.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Ananukia on October 04, 2010, 04:58:51 PM
Nothing sexier than a Damascus steel shotgun.

It's a work of art that lets me kill pheasants.

No painting can do that.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 05, 2010, 01:50:42 AM
It'd be very difficult to tell.
Exactly. The only difference between assault and murder is whether or not the victim lives. This is my point.

Quote
Not really. And I've explained exactly why that is. If having guns in a society causes an increase in murder or other violent crimes, then it's a problem, so if this is the case, they why allow them.
Why allow knives? They kill plenty of people.

Quote
Why can't a person drive a tank on the highway? Surely it ought to be in their right? It doesn't matter what dangers it causes, because it's our freedom.
There's a difference between driving a tank on the highway and owning a gun. Driving a tank on the highway is much more equivalent to firing a gun randomly into the air. If you just want to own a tank, go right the hell ahead. It's legal in the States. Just for you, some are even road-legal.

Quote
And yet again I'm repeating myself. Changing US or UK gun law I don't feel will improve things, but rather exacerbate things.
It's not about improving things, or exacerbating things. It's about rights and freedoms.

Quote
It's interesting that this discussion has turned into conjecture - are you really wanting the UK to increase its violent crime and murder because you feel gun ownership ought to be a civil right here?
No, it can keep its murder rate down if it likes, but owning a gun should be a right everywhere.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 05, 2010, 05:14:57 AM
Quote from: koberulz
Why allow knives? They kill plenty of people.

Knives are already freely available, why do you think I've argued that it's a BAD idea for the US to ban guns?

Quote from: koberulz
There's a difference between driving a tank on the highway and owning a gun. Driving a tank on the highway is much more equivalent to firing a gun randomly into the air. If you just want to own a tank, go right the hell ahead. It's legal in the States. Just for you, some are even road-legal.

Why can't I even do that? Surely I have the freedom to do those things, what? Just because I might kill somebody? Surely that doesn't matter if I'm exercising my freedom?

Quote from: koberulz
It's not about improving things, or exacerbating things. It's about rights and freedoms.

And if those rights keep getting people killed...it's okay? How can dead people exercise their rights and freedoms?

Quote from: koberulz
No, it can keep its murder rate down if it likes, but owning a gun should be a right everywhere.

It shows that maybe it keeps murder down in the US when comparing states, but then guns in the US are widely available and most people own a firearm, so it's a different situation to that of the UK where firearms aren't so widely available, hence why the UK's gun-related murders are significantly lower than that of the US or South Africa. Murder in the US is 4 times that of the UK too, whilst assaults are around the same, so I'm not convinced making gun a right everywhere is going to make a country any safer, unless of course, the population is already carrying their own private arsenals, in the case of the UK, they aren't.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 05, 2010, 09:20:19 AM
How many times do I have to say it? Owning a gun doesn't hurt anyone, firing the gun does. Until you can learn that distinction this debate is pointless.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 05, 2010, 10:45:14 AM
No, but if legalising them means more people die each year as a result then the legalisation of guns IS hurting somebody, likewise, if you can't understand that, then yes, this is utterly pointless.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 05, 2010, 11:25:05 AM
That doesn't suddenly make owning a gun an infringement on somebody's rights, though. Nor does it justify punishing people who haven't committed a crime.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Str82Hell on October 05, 2010, 11:55:43 AM
Owning a nuclear bomb does not hurt anybody, detonating does. Therefore I think we should sue people who detonate nuclear bombs, not people who possess. them.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: hickdive on October 05, 2010, 12:03:36 PM
However, you came in late to the conversation, and do not seem to have been following the line of disscussion.

Actually Jim, I had been following the debate, lack of posting does not equate to lack of reading; I found it interesting but your (now corrected) assertion that British gun laws were designed to prevent rebellion against the monarchy was patently wrong, hence I pointed that out.

 And, your implication that I think the citizens of the UK should arm themselves with firearms -- as if I am insisting that other countries do as America does -- is incorrect.

I think you'll find I referred to 'Americans' Jim, not you specifically. Of course, you might take 'Americans' to imply yourself but I cannot control what implications people take from what I didn't write.

Anyway, I shall continue to read the debate with interest.

Carry on.

Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Arakk on October 05, 2010, 12:46:07 PM
Guns exist, making them legal or not regardless of caliber, size, range, rate of fire, etc will never change that fact. Its a fact I feel far too many anti-gun activists don't seem to understand which leads to their next misconception. Banning guns makes gun violence go away (or decrease for that matter), its a failure in logic. The reason why is simple.

The people that would not buy guns if it were illegal are not the people that are cause for concern, the people murdering, raping, robbing with the aid of a firearm won't care if they have to do an additional illegal thing to commit their crimes. Difference would be, now the innocent, the ones following gun regulations, would be completely unarmed. It would be so easy to be a criminal knowing no reasonable choice in victim would be carrying a weapon that could stop you from getting what you want, gun related crime would certainly rise.

As far as our "right to bear arms," that right does exist to defend ourselves, that's true, for the reason I already stated above. I think the media focuses far too much on that part of it and not the real reason we have that right. The right to bear arms was created for one reason, so the people have the capability to dismantle the government should it become too powerful and not be a gov't of the people.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

As an American (and a U.S. Marine) it looks like our government is going that direction doesn't it? Look at the ever increasing gun control laws all across the country, even if the 2nd Amendment isn't completely abolished, we're inching closer and closer to being so minimally armed we could never take our country back if we ever needed to. Even in the states that allow you to get an assault rifle or automatic weapon, you're usually registered as having it, so if there ever was a revolution finding and eliminating the few people with enough arms to pose a legitimate threat to fascism/dictatorship could be done almost instantly. Nevermind the fact that some of the military capable weapon systems that ARE available to the public, cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars, nevermind ammunition.

This idea that "guns kill people" and less legal guns = less gun violence that the media has so often fed to the public over the years has created a nation that is now completely incapable of taking this country back if...WHEN politicians take it from the people. If tomorrow the gov't took all your rights, started executing protesters on site, jailing people with no official charges (this is already happening) etc etc.... we would be screwed.

I think the 2nd amendment is flawed however, in that it only grants the people a RIGHT to bear arms, it should be a REQUIREMENT.

For the record, I'm not a firearm owner either.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 05, 2010, 12:57:08 PM
I think the 2nd amendment is flawed however, in that it only grants the people a RIGHT to bear arms, it should be a REQUIREMENT.

For the record, I'm not a firearm owner either.
That has to be a joke.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Azdgari on October 05, 2010, 01:05:53 PM
Why does it have to be a joke?

It is the logical extension of the "deterrance" argument for gun ownership.  If the prevalence of guns is being used to deter criminals from coming into conflict with armed citizens, then a universal prevalence of guns will make the deterrance far more effective.

That is, if you stand by the argument, anyway.  I don't think it holds water, but you supposedly do.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 05, 2010, 01:09:34 PM
He thinks the second amendment should REQUIRE guns, but doesn't own one himself? How is that not a joke? Even ignoring the fact that it completely misses the point about getting the government out of our lives.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: velkyn on October 05, 2010, 01:10:07 PM
well, a armed society is a polite society, or so the saying goes..... ;)

I've lived in Pennsylvania all of my life.  We have a huge hunting population and I grew up with guns. I'm also a pretty good shot with rifles.  Can't hit a damn thing with a pistol though, it seems.  My favorite professor, had the most amazing gun collection I've ever seen and I had much lust after it.   :) I personally think that guns for hunting are okay but those expressly made for killing another human being should be tightly controlled.  They become too easy of an "answer" by stupid ignorant people and are esssentially worthless hunks of metal if you would never consider using it. Not even worth collecting.  

I currently have no guns in my home since they are not good to have around someone with bipolar, no matter how well controlled.  I would like to have at least one rifle, to keep away a theocracy.  
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Azdgari on October 05, 2010, 01:13:41 PM
He thinks the second amendment should REQUIRE guns, but doesn't own one himself? How is that not a joke? Even ignoring the fact that it completely misses the point about getting the government out of our lives.

Oh, that part.  Yeah, that's pretty nonsensical.  But his own hypocrisy doesn't bear on his argument.

And the deterrance argument for gun ownership is unrelated to the goal of "getting government out of our lives".
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Azdgari on October 05, 2010, 01:15:07 PM
... I personally think that guns for hunting are okay but those expressly made for killing another human being should be tightly controlled.  They become too easy of an "answer" by stupid ignorant people ...

You mean like people who think that pulling a gun in a confrontational situation is a good way to defuse it?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 05, 2010, 01:21:45 PM
And the deterrance argument for gun ownership is unrelated to the goal of "getting government out of our lives".
On the other hand...

The right to bear arms was created for one reason, so the people have the capability to dismantle the government should it become too powerful and not be a gov't of the people.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

As an American (and a U.S. Marine) it looks like our government is going that direction doesn't it? Look at the ever increasing gun control laws all across the country, even if the 2nd Amendment isn't completely abolished, we're inching closer and closer to being so minimally armed we could never take our country back if we ever needed to. Even in the states that allow you to get an assault rifle or automatic weapon, you're usually registered as having it, so if there ever was a revolution finding and eliminating the few people with enough arms to pose a legitimate threat to fascism/dictatorship could be done almost instantly. Nevermind the fact that some of the military capable weapon systems that ARE available to the public, cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars, nevermind ammunition.
That sort of leans in the 'too much government' direction.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Azdgari on October 05, 2010, 01:24:16 PM
More of a "rival the government" angle, imo.  And he's right.  If you want to be able to resist an actual military/police state, then you need to be heavily armed.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: velkyn on October 05, 2010, 01:35:20 PM
... I personally think that guns for hunting are okay but those expressly made for killing another human being should be tightly controlled.  They become too easy of an "answer" by stupid ignorant people ...

You mean like people who think that pulling a gun in a confrontational situation is a good way to defuse it?

that, and that killing someone will "solve" something.  In some cases yes, I think killing will indeed solve a problem but those are rare. 
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Azdgari on October 05, 2010, 01:47:07 PM
So someone who says this, isn't someone who you think should have a gun?

Regarding "keeping crime down":
From a statistical perspective, guns are rarely used in self defense situations.  If one examines the FBI's crime statistics, "justifiable" discharge of a firearm is used minimally, even when adding together police and civilian incidents.  I think it is about 5% of all cases of discharged weapon.  Looking at the FBI's compiled uses of firearms, they are mostly used half and half (roughly) for suicides or resolving arguments.  The remaining uses are minimal or unclassifiable due to the nature of the circumstances.  Mind you, this is discharged weapons, not necessarily murders, and I am generalizing what I read.  The statistics are available online for you to read.
That doesn't take into account the number of times merely pulling out a gun defuses whatever situtation you happen to be in. If I feel like beating you up and you pull out a gun, I'm sure as shit not going to wait until you pull the trigger before I rethink things.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: velkyn on October 05, 2010, 02:33:52 PM
So someone who says this, isn't someone who you think should have a gun?

I'm having trouble following who is claiming what here.  But as an answer for right now,  I am of the philosophy that if one pulls a gun, you are in effect committing to kill a person. If I draw, I am shooting. Waving one around as only a threat is ridiculous, in my opinion. 
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Azdgari on October 05, 2010, 02:37:30 PM
Koberulz is basically complaining that Jim's statistics don't take into account all the defusing effects that guns have had - all the crime-prevention they've done by defusing hostile situations.

Because pulling a gun on someone tends to make the situation safer.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: nogodsforme on October 05, 2010, 02:49:49 PM
The one time in my life that I have had someone pull a gun out and threaten me, it was a crazy relative. Luckily, the lunatic was not crazy enough to fire it. The nutcase did once spray me with mace, though.

I bet I have been in situations more dangerous than most people on this site and I have rarely even considered owning a gun. In many of the bad scenarios, I would have shot and possibly killed someone unnecessarily if I had been carrying a gun.

Either I was able to talk my way out of the danger, or someone came to help. Or the gun would have been worthless because by the time I knew I was really in danger, it was too late to pull out a weapon. Or introducing a gun into the situation would have escalated it way beyond what was going on.

The problem arises of exactly when you should apply the use of deadly force in the form of a firearm. If you wait until you are really in danger, it is probably too late. If you don't think you are in danger yet, you are probably too early. The difference between the two could be a split second, way to short a time to get a gun out and fire it.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 05, 2010, 03:04:06 PM
Because pulling a gun on someone tends to make the situation safer.
For the person holding the gun, yes.

I'm having trouble following who is claiming what here.  But as an answer for right now,  I am of the philosophy that if one pulls a gun, you are in effect committing to kill a person. If I draw, I am shooting. Waving one around as only a threat is ridiculous, in my opinion. 
There's a difference between waving it around idly, and pulling it out and having the situation immediately defuse, at which point firing it would be ridiculous.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Arakk on October 05, 2010, 03:30:27 PM
He thinks the second amendment should REQUIRE guns, but doesn't own one himself? How is that not a joke? Even ignoring the fact that it completely misses the point about getting the government out of our lives.

Oh, that part.  Yeah, that's pretty nonsensical.  But his own hypocrisy doesn't bear on his argument.

And the deterrence argument for gun ownership is unrelated to the goal of "getting government out of our lives".

I was just pointing out the irony in my statement. It's not that I don't want a gun, quite the contrary. Thing is they're expensive items, nevermind I just turned 24 so I've really only been legally able to own a handgun for 3 years. I've always wanted one, but recently have had feelings closer to a "need" of sorts after someone broke into my house at 3:30 a.m. while my wife and I were sleeping. Dog woke me up viciously barking and when I left the bedroom saw a guy climbing out the window. Suppose he was armed, I'd probably be dead, wife probably raped and then killed, or worse sold to a Mexican cartel (I live near the border).

If you can afford a weapon, I think its ignorant to not have one. Ignorant because no matter how much you focus on safety and security, if you're not armed there is always a scenario that can take advantage of that. And to be able to own one (financially & legally) and choose not to because "those things will never happen to me" is pretty ignorant.

While the deterrence argument isn't related to ability to resist a police state, both arguments are related to gun ownership and legal status, which I believe was the subject matter.

I don't think a population with a majority of gun owners would eliminate violence or even come close, but it would certainly drastically decrease it, and also decrease how bad some crimes are. Take the school shootings for example, if the gunmen would still follow through with their plan to murder people knowing most people are armed, how many people that are dead would have lived because the shooter got smoked right after he opened fire? Its not just a deterrent, in many cases it would stop crimes in progress from getting worse.

 
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: nogodsforme on October 05, 2010, 03:34:44 PM
My brother in law (a very smart and nice guy BTW) is a "gun nut", an NRA member with many firearms. He's had all the training, etc. He also admits that the need to own a lot of guns comes from feelings of insecurity, ie the need to feel safe, not the reality of his life. Much of what I know about "gun owner philosophy" if you will, I learned from conversations with him, and from reading his gun magazines.

One thing he says is that you never pull out a deadly force weapon in a real life scenario unless you are willing to fire it and kill someone. Guns are not to threaten people with, or to show someone to "defuse a dangerous situation". You are assuming the person is not crazy or immature enough to rush at you anyway, or does not have a friend with a baseball bat or knife (or another gun) sneaking up behind you. 

Whereas before you might have been in a situation where someone might get hurt, robbed or maybe just insulted, you have now definitely changed the game into life and death. When you introduce a gun into a threatening scenario, you have, by definition, escalated the situation into something far more dangerous.

Self defense and martial arts classes teach the same thing. Real life is not tv. If someone attacks you with fists, try to defend yourself and/or get away. If someone has a gun, try to take them out, because you have to assume that they mean to kill you. The bad guy is thinking the same thing.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Azdgari on October 05, 2010, 03:51:20 PM
Because pulling a gun on someone tends to make the situation safer.
For the person holding the gun, yes.

Are you basing this off of personal experience, or are you basing it off of empirical data?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: snkiesch on October 05, 2010, 04:20:00 PM
I have had guns pulled on me 3 times, two were drunken idiots and the third was the police. I was scared only by the police. I was in the army, living in an upstairs apartment.  Some friends decided to visit when they got off guard duty at 6am.They knocked on the door and when I did not answer they decided to climb in thru the window.

About half hour later there was a knock on the door I thought it was Ray another guy getting off work. When I said who is it they answered Junction City Police open the door. I said we don't want you. The next thing he said was open the door or we will kick it in. I went over to the door and started to unlock the door I told him he better start kicking. As soon as I got the chain off the door it flew open and the pistol with trigger pulled was in my face. He had his other hand on the hammer.

I hit the wall so fast.  A buddy of mine was rolling a joint and he could see the half dozen cops that stormed into the room,  The cop walked over and picked up the bag and said is this all you have. I advise you to get rid of it. They then left.  We looked out the window and the every windowe had cops with guns aimed at the house.

I do not blame them often times in the last few weeks soldiers living off post had went to work as soon as they left. there would be knock on the door.  The wife thinking the husband had forgotten something opened the door and they were raped. If I remember right there were 3 rapes in the neighborhood.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 05, 2010, 05:04:46 PM
Quote from: nogodsforme
Self defense and martial arts classes teach the same thing. Real life is not tv. If someone attacks you with fists, try to defend yourself and/or get away. If someone has a gun, try to take them out, because you have to assume that they mean to kill you. The bad guy is thinking the same thing.

I've been taught the exact same thing, it keeps you alive. The point of self-defense is to get yourself out of the situation as quickly as possible with the fewest risks and the least violence. Retaliation with any kind of force is the last thing any good self defense instructor will recommend, after all, it results in retaliation.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 05, 2010, 05:23:31 PM
Because pulling a gun on someone tends to make the situation safer.
For the person holding the gun, yes.

Are you basing this off of personal experience, or are you basing it off of empirical data?
If someone wants to beat me to death, and I don't pull a gun, I die. If I do pull a gun, I've increased my chances of living to approximately 50%. Seems safer to me.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 05, 2010, 05:59:00 PM
I push him back at the first sign of danger and run for my life. I've increased also increased my chances of living. Being practised in self defense and martial arts increases my chances, having gone to the gym and eating protein to build lean increases my chances, being fit increases my chances. You say you're weak, you don't need a gun to make yourself strong, you can do plenty to increase your chances of walking away safely from a scene of violence - at least if you're fit and well practiced in self-defense you don't need to bring a gun to a fist fight to walk away. Better than a 50/50 chance (who's able to aim and pull the trigger first), it puts your situation to chance rather than having much control over it. If you can avoid the violence then avoid it.

If there's a gang of them - 1 man with 1 gun isn't going to help you much anyway (you might kill one, but you might not kill them all and they no doubt want to kill you if you pull a gun on them anyway)

Truth is...you can never really judge a situation and what you'd do until you're in it and no doubt you'll be in a panicked state of mind, therefore you can't put too much logic to what you do - a person trained in self-defense I think stands a better chance because they're practised, even then the pressure of the situation may have an effect, but we could sit here all day and argue 'potential' situations, but in actuality, we rarely know what'll happen. Most of this is conjecture - I know what I know from what I've been taught and from fights people have tried to start with me (that I've managed to avoid), rest is talking in potentials.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: screwtape on October 05, 2010, 06:28:18 PM
As an American (and a U.S. Marine) it looks like our government is going that direction doesn't it? Look at the ever increasing gun control laws all across the country, even if the 2nd Amendment isn't completely abolished, we're inching closer and closer to being so minimally armed we could never take our country back if we ever needed to.

What newspapers have you been reading?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703964104575334701513109426.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703964104575334701513109426.html)

You could not take back the country if you wanted to anyway and neither gun registration nor the weapons allowed have anything to do with it.  Cops shoot people all the time and almost everyone assumes they were in the right to do it.  Any time a cop is ever shot, almost everyone assumes the shooter was in the wrong.  It would be impossible for a person to take arms against "the government"[1] and be perceived as legitimate by anyone but a fringe minority.  You would be seen as Tim McVeigh, David Koresh or the kooks at Ruby Ridge.  You would by definition be an insurgent.

The whole idea that the second amendment is to prevent tyrrany in this day and age is preposterous.  That ship sailed long ago and the Patriot Act sunk it.  It is a naive and childish idea.


I'd just be happy if they would have better regulations for when police are allowed to use tasers.  Right now, they use them like a cattle prod.
 1. whatever that means
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 05, 2010, 06:44:45 PM
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

As an American (and a U.S. Marine) it looks like our government is going that direction doesn't it? Look at the ever increasing gun control laws all across the country, even if the 2nd Amendment isn't completely abolished, we're inching closer and closer to being so minimally armed we could never take our country back if we ever needed to.

This is a myth. If guns were banned in the U.S. there would be entire industries collapse, wreaking the economy. Gun and ammo manufacturers would lose most of their markets. Private arms retailers would close up shop by the thousands. Hunting and firearms media would be out of business. A huge source of federal, state and local tax revenue would be lost. It would be a massive economic disaster.

In their place a thriving black market would spring up, and it would be like a re-enactment of the 1930's, except instead of alcohol it would be firearms. Prisons would be overflowing with criminals.

Politicians know this. They propagate this myth as a scare tactic to get people to send money to the NRA and vote Republican.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: RaymondKHessel on October 05, 2010, 06:49:26 PM
The whole idea that the second amendment is to prevent tyrrany in this day and age is preposterous.  That ship sailed long ago and the Patriot Act sunk it.  It is a naive and childish idea.



Completely agree. I love guns as much as anybody, and I like the idea in theory. But protecting ourselves from a corrupt government with handguns and rifles went out the window pretty much around the same time that the U.S. millitary split an atom.

Hell, it went out the window as soon as they had the technology to drop bombs from a bi-plane a few thousand feet in the air.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 05, 2010, 07:02:53 PM
All things being equal, I doubt any kind of large-scale, internal revolution could even get past the initial planning stages now.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 05, 2010, 07:45:01 PM
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

As an American (and a U.S. Marine) it looks like our government is going that direction doesn't it? Look at the ever increasing gun control laws all across the country, even if the 2nd Amendment isn't completely abolished, we're inching closer and closer to being so minimally armed we could never take our country back if we ever needed to.

This is a myth. If guns were banned in the U.S. there would be entire industries collapse, wreaking the economy. Gun and ammo manufacturers would lose most of their markets. Private arms retailers would close up shop by the thousands. Hunting and firearms media would be out of business. A huge source of federal, state and local tax revenue would be lost. It would be a massive economic disaster.

In their place a thriving black market would spring up, and it would be like a re-enactment of the 1930's, except instead of alcohol it would be firearms. Prisons would be overflowing with criminals.

Politicians know this. They propagate this myth as a scare tactic to get people to send money to the NRA and vote Republican.
If that logic occurred to them, the War on Drugs never would have happened.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Azdgari on October 05, 2010, 07:46:57 PM
^^ Yeah, and Prohibition would have ended.  Oh, wait...
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 05, 2010, 08:26:00 PM
Politicians know this. They propagate this myth as a scare tactic to get people to send money to the NRA and vote Republican.
If that logic occurred to them, the War on Drugs never would have happened.

If that logic occurred to ME I KNOW it has occurred to them. You can rest assured, the NRA lobbyists have made it abundantly clear to everyone in power that there will be devastating consequences if guns are banned.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: xphobe on October 05, 2010, 10:45:45 PM
molon labe.  If guns are banned, then I've lost mine in a ... uh, "boating accident".
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Azdgari on October 05, 2010, 10:53:59 PM
^^ Which goes to show that, no matter what political beliefs one has, one has to admit that banning possession of guns in America is simply a logistic impossibility.  It's like discussing whether the Yellowstone Supervolcano erupting is good public policy.  It's simply logistically impossible to do anything about it one way or the other, so the point is moot.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 06, 2010, 01:33:35 AM
Politicians know this. They propagate this myth as a scare tactic to get people to send money to the NRA and vote Republican.
If that logic occurred to them, the War on Drugs never would have happened.

If that logic occurred to ME I KNOW it has occurred to them. You can rest assured, the NRA lobbyists have made it abundantly clear to everyone in power that there will be devastating consequences if guns are banned.
Care to explain how they missed the exact same logic with drugs, then?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 06, 2010, 08:28:33 AM
You might have overlooked the fact that drugs aren't BANNED. They are CONTROLLED. It is an important distinction. We have gun CONTROL laws, not a gun BAN. If drugs were banned then we would have a massive collapse of the pharmaceutical industry.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 06, 2010, 09:27:52 AM
Obviously I was referring to illegal drugs. That can be inferred quite easily from context. Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, MDMA, so on, so forth.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Azdgari on October 06, 2010, 09:33:10 AM
A ban on illegal guns?  Quite a concept.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 06, 2010, 09:42:46 AM
Making them illegal would naturally ban them, banning them would naturally make them illegal, yes. I don't, however, see how you inventing this redundancy just to point it out is in any way relevant to the issue. Maybe you should stop coming into threads and nitpicking semantics to no particular purpose.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 06, 2010, 09:43:17 AM
Obviously I was referring to illegal drugs. That can be inferred quite easily from context. Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, MDMA, so on, so forth.

In order for the comparison to be valid ALL drugs would have to be banned across the board for private possession and use. That would include over-the-counter medications, prescription drugs as well as legal uses of the drugs you mentioned above. Anything the government defined as a "drug" would be included in the ban.

Then you would see a collapse of the legitimate industries that have been built up around the legal drug trade comparable to the collapse I described about the gun industry.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 06, 2010, 09:51:40 AM
On the other hand...
Quote
A huge source of federal, state and local tax revenue would be lost. It would be a massive economic disaster.

In their place a thriving black market would spring up, and it would be like a re-enactment of the 1930's, except instead of alcohol it would be firearms. Prisons would be overflowing with criminals.
Is all perfectly true of illegal drugs.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 06, 2010, 10:02:12 AM
No, it is not. We haven't had a massive economic disaster because we aren't taxing illegal drugs.

You take a portion of what I said out of context so that it looks like you still have a valid comparison. You don't.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Azdgari on October 06, 2010, 10:09:32 AM
Making them illegal would naturally ban them, banning them would naturally make them illegal, yes. I don't, however, see how you inventing this redundancy just to point it out is in any way relevant to the issue. Maybe you should stop coming into threads and nitpicking semantics to no particular purpose.

I was just reinforcing Agamemnon's very valid point that you are making an invalid comparison.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 06, 2010, 10:36:26 AM
No, it is not. We haven't had a massive economic disaster because we aren't taxing illegal drugs.

You take a portion of what I said out of context so that it looks like you still have a valid comparison. You don't.
No, but that they could be taxing it and everything about the black market and whatnot is still valid.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 06, 2010, 10:39:47 AM
Anyone that has heard the fables of "the boy who cried wolf" or "chicken little" ought to be able to recognize that same behavior in the NRA's claims that the wolf is killing the flock. The only difference here is that the townspeople never get the hint that the alarms are false. That's great for the NRA, because it keeps the cash rolling in.

Anyone who considers her or himself to be a skeptic ought to be seriously skeptical of the outrageous claims and rants that the NRA and its supporters put out.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 06, 2010, 10:42:24 AM
No, but that they could be taxing it and everything about the black market and whatnot is still valid.

They could be taxing the private sale of guided surface to air missles, too. Doesn't mean we ought to allow it.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 06, 2010, 10:50:43 AM
Your claim is that cocaine may be used to shoot down airplanes? Interesting theory.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 06, 2010, 10:52:20 AM
No, that is not my claim and you know it.

I am drawing a valid comparison between controlled substances and controlled weapons in order to show you that your point about taxation has no merit.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 06, 2010, 11:00:12 AM
There are decent reasons to control missiles. What decent reasons are there to control drugs?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 06, 2010, 11:09:47 AM
It doesn't matter what the reasons are. This discussion is about firearms laws, not drug laws. Why do you want to change the topic?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 06, 2010, 11:22:46 AM
There are decent reasons to control missiles. What decent reasons are there to control drugs?

Decent reasons to control missiles? What about your civil liberties? Isn't that enough reason to NOT control missiles? I can think of potential situations where missiles would come in handy, especially over guns or knives.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Azdgari on October 06, 2010, 11:27:23 AM
Hell, what if the government decided to go all tyrannical?  Those surface-to-air missiles would be damned useful for shooting down government aircraft.  Right?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: screwtape on October 06, 2010, 11:42:35 AM
Yeah.  However will we overthrow a tyranical government if we cannot match their firepower?  Stealth cruise missiles for everyone!  Naturally, they will carry nuclear payloads.  M.A.D. is the only thing that will keep those politicians in line.

I must also conduct intelligence gathering and wiretapping on the same scale as the NSA to make sure the gummint isn't secretly plotting my demise.

Wild how libertarian ideas taking to their logical conclusion end in paranoia, complete chaos and collapse of society, innit?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 06, 2010, 11:46:48 AM
Hey, paranoia is what keeps the NRA rolling in money, so don't knock it.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 06, 2010, 11:48:13 AM
What about invasion? You can't trust the government to do the right thing? And well, if there's a bomber heading straight for your village, you'll be fucked if you're waiting for the armed forces to come save you. Heat seeking missiles will come in handy. These things have happened before, no doubt they'll happen again. Pearl Harbour was practically defenseless against the Japanese, people in the UK had to retreat from the main cities or into bunkers during WW2 because of the Germans bombing them - think how different things would be if people could defend themselves in those situations?

The second amendment was put in place for similar reasons, the US feared invasion from the British, you couldn't rely on the military to protect everyone or cover every entry from where the British might send their forces, hence it became a right to possess your own firearm. Today's threats are very different, I mean, newly independent America didn't have aircrafts to worry about or people bombing their towns and villages, I don't think a gun would take down a Russian bomber,  or any thing the middle east, China or Korea may wish to throw at us. Having missiles is well within your right to bear arms, surely?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 06, 2010, 12:01:57 PM
None of any of this invalidates my prior point.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 06, 2010, 12:03:46 PM
What prior point? You mean the red herring you are throwing out there to distract from the fact that you have nothing to refute MY prior points?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 06, 2010, 12:06:54 PM
So we should be able to possess missiles for our own protection? Nukes too? All complete with the right to bear arms.

Well, I'd hate to live in that neighbourhood, though I doubt I would for very long.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 06, 2010, 12:35:05 PM
There are decent reasons to control missiles. What decent reasons are there to control drugs?

You all seem to be arguing against a point I've never made.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 06, 2010, 12:46:19 PM
Yeah, that's the red herring I thought you were talking about.

It isn't relevant to the topic at hand, so I have no reason to respond to it.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 06, 2010, 12:51:11 PM
How exactly is it a red herring?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 06, 2010, 12:53:26 PM
Because it is off-topic in this particular discussion and has no bearing on it. It is a distraction from the discussion about weapons laws.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 06, 2010, 12:55:53 PM
I'm not on the topic of drugs, I'm still on the topic of gun ownership, because I'm not trying to change the subject.

I'm curious as to whether you stand by these arguments for legalisation of missiles. You've used the right to bear arms as your defense because you consider it a civil liberty we should all have, you've argued that a person ought to have the right and means to defend themselves regardless of how it effects how many people die a year as a result because owning a gun doesn't kill people, firing one does - murder is illegal so they've broken the law anyway - you've conjured up several situations where you could potentially use a gun to protect yourself and consider them to be more significant than if people die as a result of the legalisation - so those lives don't matter so long as everybody has the right to bear arms. Each of these arguments, as far as I can see provide defense for the ownership of the missiles, however, now you've turned around and said, "there are decent reasons to control missiles", surely that's in conflict with your previous arguments when suggesting everybody should have the right to possess a firearm to protect themselves and their loved ones?

When you think about the circumstance surrounding the 2nd amendment, it doesn't make the scenario I provided all that absurd. Especially with militant countries posing a thread to the west.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 06, 2010, 01:29:18 PM
There are decent reasons to control guns, too. The question is whether or not they are more reasonable than the reasons not to, a point I wasn't covering.

Quote from: Agamemnon
Because it is off-topic in this particular discussion and has no bearing on it. It is a distraction from the discussion about weapons laws.
Oh. I didn't realise 'tangent' and 'red herring' were synonyms, or that it is utterly necessary for tangents to never occur on this board. I was under the impression that a red herring referred to an irrelevant point made by a poster in an effort to avoid answering questions on a particular subject. My bad.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 06, 2010, 01:45:46 PM
Quote from: Agamemnon
Because it is off-topic in this particular discussion and has no bearing on it. It is a distraction from the discussion about weapons laws.
Oh. I didn't realise 'tangent' and 'red herring' were synonyms, or that it is utterly necessary for tangents to never occur on this board. I was under the impression that a red herring referred to an irrelevant point made by a poster in an effort to avoid answering questions on a particular subject. My bad.

You are trying to make an irrelevant point, apparently in an effort to distract from the good points I made earlier and your apparent inability to refute them. If that isn't the case, then I apologize, but then I will assume that you have tacitly agreed with all of my earlier points? If not then please show me where I am wrong and we can discuss it.

If you want to talk about the problems with current drug laws then I suggest you start a new topic about it, because I'm not interested in discussing it.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 06, 2010, 02:03:19 PM
koberulz, FYI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(idiom) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(idiom))

Quote
Red herring is an idiomatic expression referring to a rhetorical tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 06, 2010, 02:09:22 PM
Quote from: koberulz
There are decent reasons to control guns, too. The question is whether or not they are more reasonable than the reasons not to, a point I wasn't covering.

So, it would appear there is a point at which you'd budge to give up your civil liberties, where would you draw the line and why? Your current reasoning defends the right to own missiles as well as guns - you don't appear to draw the line at people being killed. What would make it more reasonable to 'control' guns than not?

Also, where do you stand on the 'taking arms to the government' argument? You claimed earlier your freedom allows you to overthrow the government, today, with the government's firepower, you need more than just guns. You also claimed that it'd be too difficult to smuggle weapons (it was your response to me suggesting that if civil war ever happened, guns would be smuggled), so I don't think you can use that as an answer, unless you think you were wrong.

Should missiles be included in the right to bear arms?

When you talk about 'control' what would you consider to be control? I mean our ideas of 'control' are obviously two completely different things - 'control' to me is to allow allow the purchase of hunting rifles with a hunting permit and the possession of de-activated firearms and active firearms to be found in sporting locations supervised by licensed professionals with emergency procedures in place- therefore only in rare cases will any be used as a murder weapon and aren't likely to serve to increase the numbers of murders per year in a country. Your idea of control might be something different.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 06, 2010, 02:12:02 PM
You are trying to make an irrelevant point
Not really. You mentioned that the government clearly realises what a disaster banning guns would be. This argument involved a situation that had a lot in common with the current drug situation, which led to my point that if the government made drugs illegal (marijuana becoming illegal just two years after the end of prohibition, even), it's not inconceivable that they could similarly miss the point with regards to guns (and, as I went on to point out, there are actually reasonable...well, reasons, for banning guns, which there aren't with drugs).

That seems sufficiently relevant to me.

Quote
I will assume that you have tacitly agreed with all of my earlier points?
Other than government clearly understanding what a mess banning guns would be, I haven't seen anything I disagree with. Even that is probably true, but you do never know with politicians.

koberulz, FYI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(idiom) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(idiom))

Quote
Red herring is an idiomatic expression referring to a rhetorical tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance.
My confusion over the definition of the term was sarcasm.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 06, 2010, 02:14:09 PM
So, it would appear there is a point at which you'd budge to give up your civil liberties
Is there?

Quote
When you talk about 'control' what would you consider to be control? I mean our ideas of 'control' are obviously two completely different things - 'control' to me is to allow allow the purchase of hunting rifles with a hunting permit and the possession of de-activated firearms and active firearms to be found in sporting locations supervised by licensed professionals with emergency procedures in place- therefore only in rare cases will any be used as a murder weapon and aren't likely to serve to increase the numbers of murders per year in a country. Your idea of control might be something different.
Any limit at all on the availability of guns. I didn't have anything in mind; just about any level of control could be seen as being reasonable, up to and including a total ban. I don't see it that way, but I can see why others might without being complete morons.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: screwtape on October 06, 2010, 02:49:03 PM
None of any of this invalidates my prior point.


(http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/images/FiveStages.jpg)

I think we've seen anger already. So, three to go.
 

Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 06, 2010, 03:03:57 PM
You are trying to make an irrelevant point
Not really.

Yes, really.

You mentioned that the government clearly realises what a disaster banning guns would be. This argument involved a situation that had a lot in common with the current drug situation, which led to my point that if the government made drugs illegal (marijuana becoming illegal just two years after the end of prohibition, even), it's not inconceivable that they could similarly miss the point with regards to guns (and, as I went on to point out, there are actually reasonable...well, reasons, for banning guns, which there aren't with drugs).

And we have pointed out that your comparison of some drugs which are illegal to the banning of all firearms is an invalid comparison.

And I pointed out that the gun lobby and their supporters would make it abundantly known to legislators that banning guns is a practical impossibility. You must think our politicians are all total idiots if you believe that they wouldn't be aware of the economic fallout from an all-inclusive gun ban. I can assure you, they are not that stupid. If they were that stupid, I'm pretty sure that a nation-wide, all-inclusive firearms ban would already be the law of the land. That seems like a reasonable assumption.

You have no point to make, here. There is no reason to discuss drug laws, because all you want to do is conflate the illegalization of a subset of X with a complete ban on Y.

You are just grasping at straws to keep your "boy who cried wolf" fantasy alive for some reason.

My confusion over the definition of the term was sarcasm.

I know.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Operator_011 on October 06, 2010, 03:10:15 PM
This is definitely more interesting than the other gun thread(s).


Popcorn.. popcorn.. come and get your tasty popcorn..
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: nogodsforme on October 06, 2010, 03:13:57 PM
I want to own a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher. I want to own a stash of illegal drugs. And I want to move next door to Koberulz. Let the gummint come! Bring it on, beeyatches! :D
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Dante on October 06, 2010, 03:25:21 PM
I want to own a shoulder-mounted rocket launcher.

 :shrug I'd be ok with that.


I want to own a stash of illegal drugs.

I'm ok with that too.


And I want to move next door to Koberulz.

Are you sure?


Let the gummint come! Bring it on, beeyatches! :D

They're already here!
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 06, 2010, 04:38:18 PM
Quote from: koberulz
Is there?

You said "there's decent reasons to control guns" and "the question is whether or not they are more reasonable than not to". I'm wondering what be a more 'reasonable'? That sounds to me like, if the reasons to control them outweighs the reason not to then, you'd budge. I'm wondering what you'd consider reasonable?


Also, I get the feeling you're dodging. When you brought up parallel situations that I deemed inaccurate of my argument, I gave you answers, we've gone by a few posts and it seems you're avoiding giving us any answers or pointing out the flaws, you've claimed that there's reasons to control 'missiles' but you've neither stated what they are nor whether or not they outweigh the reasons not to. Your vagueness would lead me to assume that my assessment of your argument has been accurate.


I mean I don't want to suggest that guns are always bad and I don't want to go on a long trail of ridiculous arguments and conjecture - its proving to be a waste of your time and everybody else's. As it stands - the evidence is in neither favour. Your statistics suggests that America needs to keep hold of its guns. Frank's statistics suggest that the rest of the world might not need guns. Neither sets suggest exactly what would happen as a result of gun legalisation in other cultures or the exact causes of increase or decrease in violent crime in other cultures, you'll remember my previous argument about 'statistics', that view still stands and if the day comes and somebody drops that study right in front of me that proves that the UK will be better off with guns, then I'll gladly accept it. Most of us here are scientifically minded, so evidence is what we live by. I argue that you can't know something until you can confirm it, neither of us can confirm exactly what would happen, it'd be a fool's decision to take the US's statistics and universalise them, a good sociologist, heck any good scientist will tell you that's stupid. You might hold this libertarian ideology, and you're perfectly welcome to it, but don't allow it to blind you from the lack of evidence. You may feel guns would be the solution, but I'm sure you're man enough to accept that whilst you feel this, it's still unconfirmed?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: nogodsforme on October 06, 2010, 05:14:40 PM
Culture has a lot to do with how dangerous a society is-- what is acceptable behavior is more important than just the presence or absence of guns.

Japan is a very crowded, highly industrialized gunless country with extremely low rates of crime. The culture there is polite and controlled.

I lived in a poor Latin American country where lots of men had guns, walked around with them sticking out of their belts like cowboys. It was definitely a sign of macho manhood. But hardly anyone ever got shot, because the idea of shooting someone was just not acceptable.

This was not a non-violent place like Japan-- there were a lot of fights, especially domestic violence and even some killings. But the people fought with fists and killed with knives or machetes. Not guns.

Culturally, if a person disrespected another in a bar and they wanted to fight, they would fist-fight, and if it got bad, someone might run home to get a machete or knife--even if they had a gun! If someone wanted to protect his family from a burglar, he would probably grab his machete before even thinking of grabbing his gun.

I knew of several people cut with machetes in bar fights and one killed in such a fight. I only know one person who was killed by a gun. It was a young police officer who committed suicide by shooting himself in the head with his own service pistol.

I am not saying it is better to get chopped up by a machete than shot. But at least with a machete you are not going to kill the wrong person by accident because they are too far away to see them clearly. It is pretty hard for a child to kill a friend by picking up a machete and examining it. And, if an assailant is close enough to get cut by a machete, they probably deserve it.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: bosey926 on October 06, 2010, 10:51:16 PM
This is definitely more interesting than the other gun thread(s).


Popcorn.. popcorn.. come and get your tasty popcorn..

I know and whole primary intention was to see atheists and how we used firearms.  Although, the thread has gotten somewhat interesting, so it doesn't bother me that it was taken in so many directions.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Str82Hell on October 07, 2010, 05:23:16 AM
And we have pointed out that your comparison of some drugs which are illegal to the banning of all firearms is an invalid comparison.
I disagree. By legalising drugs an entirely new industry might (would) arise, providing labour for people and tax income for the government.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Azdgari on October 07, 2010, 07:09:46 AM
How does that disagree with what Agamemnon said?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 07, 2010, 07:35:11 AM
And we have pointed out that your comparison of some drugs which are illegal to the banning of all firearms is an invalid comparison.
I disagree. By legalising drugs an entirely new industry might (would) arise, providing labour for people and tax income for the government.

The point you're trying to make has absolutely nothing to do with my statement above. Regardless, I could make the same argument about guided surface to air missles, too.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 07, 2010, 07:41:29 AM
I'm going to email my congressman and see if I can find out if he is aware of the devastating impact an all-inclusive gun ban would have on the U.S. economy. I am an acquaintance of his, so I should stand a pretty good chance of getting a real response.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: velkyn on October 07, 2010, 08:48:15 AM
I have a question, actually one brought up last night while my husband and I were chatting.  Would it make a difference to gun owners who say that they own guns for target shooting, if gun ownership was very curtailed *but* you could go to licensed places and shoot *anything*, from a .38 to a M1A1 (yep, I mean the tank)?  Would that make a difference on how you viewed gun control? 
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: screwtape on October 07, 2010, 08:59:27 AM
Should the right to bear arms extend to swords as well? 

I'd feel more comfortable if people carried swords with blades at least 18" long rather than handguns.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: velkyn on October 07, 2010, 09:03:20 AM
Because pulling a gun on someone tends to make the situation safer.
For the person holding the gun, yes.

I'm having trouble following who is claiming what here.  But as an answer for right now,  I am of the philosophy that if one pulls a gun, you are in effect committing to kill a person. If I draw, I am shooting. Waving one around as only a threat is ridiculous, in my opinion. 
There's a difference between waving it around idly, and pulling it out and having the situation immediately defuse, at which point firing it would be ridiculous.
I find this to be delusional and not backed up by any evidence. If you can provide some, please do.  AFAIK, just having a gun makes the situation more dangerous since it is a weapon intended to kill and you cannot guarantee the effect.  You assume that drawing a gun will *always* defuse a situation and provide no evidence it does. You claim that drawing a gun makes the holder safer and show no evidence it does.  

I am not convinced that most people have the presence of mind to know when and when not to pull a weapon. It becomes a crutch and can aggravate a situation not "immediately defuse" it as you assume.  The trouble is that you *can't* know.  You think you can become a hero with a gun and that's not guaranteed.  Now, if we could guarantee that people who get carry permits are trained, not like the idiots who come to PA to hunt deer and haven't fired a gun before or only once a year, then I might be less bothered by the idea.     
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 07, 2010, 09:39:55 AM
Should the right to bear arms extend to swords as well? 

I'd feel more comfortable if people carried swords with blades at least 18" long rather than handguns.

I'm quite quick handed with a sword, I already know how to stop somebody drawing their sword - I could gain an upper hand. Would you fuck with a guy carrying a claymore? Personally I'd prefer my Bo, it's a lot harder to get in close to somebody wielding one and you can do enough damage to get out of a situation - even one with multiple attackers. A bo is big enough for anybody to realise you're carrying one and that ought be enough to deter attackers and it's hard to rob a grocery store with one. Wooden bos, sadly aren't a match for swords, especially katanas, so they ought to supply metal ones - or better yet, halberds, which can be used in a similar way (I've tried), they can cause more damage if needed for more difficult situations.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 07, 2010, 09:57:51 AM
I am not convinced that most people have the presence of mind to know when and when not to pull a weapon. It becomes a crutch and can aggravate a situation not "immediately defuse" it as you assume.

That reminds me of a story: My daughter-in-law works for a small restaurant in BFE North Carolina. One day there were a few rednecks in there eating when a homeless guy walks in. He goes to the bar but the rednecks are leery of him, so one of them draws his previously-concealed handgun under the table and cocks it, thinking that there's going to be trouble from the homeless guy. All of a sudden my DiL hears a loud bang as the redneck accidentally shoots himself in the foot.

Of course, the cops and ambulance show up, and the guy is in a panic because (a) he didn't have any kind of handgun permit and (b) he was a convicted felon, so he wasn't even allowed to have a handgun in the first place.

So I would have to agree with velkyn on the presence of mind/aggravation thing.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 07, 2010, 10:41:45 AM
And we have pointed out that your comparison of some drugs which are illegal to the banning of all firearms is an invalid comparison.
So your claim is that there is not a black market for drugs, violent crime occurring to resolve disputes in that black market, or overflowing jails? Because that is news to me.

It's exactly the same situation you mentioned with regards to banning guns. A black market springs up for the illegal item, violence and jailings ensue. The government is also losing revenue they could gain from selling these items legally, and jobs selling and creating this item disappear. What exactly is the difference between the two situations, other than scale? Banning illegal drugs is effectively banning drugs from a consumer perspective anyway, because even the ones that are legal have to be acquired illegally for recreational use, barring a massive coincidence.

Quote
And I pointed out that the gun lobby and their supporters would make it abundantly known to legislators that banning guns is a practical impossibility.
And there are people making noise about drugs. Less effective post-ban than pre-ban, perhaps, but it's still happening. Mostly with respect to marijuana (which appears to be working in some states).

Quote
You must think our politicians are all total idiots
Not all of them, but some sure are. There's certainly no lack of government stupidity in the world.

Quote
You are just grasping at straws to keep your "boy who cried wolf" fantasy alive for some reason.
Could you tell me what this fantasy is? The scenario you mentioned post-ban with respect to guns sounded similar to the situation with the War on Drugs. I pointed this out. That's all. Unless, again, you're claiming that the idea of an underground drug market and overflowing US jails is a fantasy.

That sounds to me like, if the reasons to control them outweighs the reason not to then, you'd budge. I'm wondering what you'd consider reasonable?
Not really, because 'reasonable' would involve the banning of guns not being an infringement on our freedoms, which can never be the case.


Quote
you've claimed that there's reasons to control 'missiles' but you've neither stated what they are
Same as the reasons to control guns. They're dangerous weapons. Moreso than guns, because they have very limited applications for self-defense.

Quote
Your vagueness would lead me to assume that my assessment of your argument has been accurate.
I don't really have an argument with regards to missiles. In an ideal world, they'd be legal, but we're not in an ideal world. I don't really know, it's not ever going to happen so it's not been worth thinking about until now.


Quote
Most of us here are scientifically minded, so evidence is what we live by. I argue that you can't know something until you can confirm it, neither of us can confirm exactly what would happen, it'd be a fool's decision to take the US's statistics and universalise them, a good sociologist, heck any good scientist will tell you that's stupid. You might hold this libertarian ideology, and you're perfectly welcome to it, but don't allow it to blind you from the lack of evidence. You may feel guns would be the solution, but I'm sure you're man enough to accept that whilst you feel this, it's still unconfirmed?
You can go on about evidence and whatnot all you like, but it's irrelevant when it comes to the issue of freedom. If you're of the position that what people might do with an item should affect its legal status, then you can look at your stats and propose bans on all sorts of things up to and including tea cosies (which killed three people in 2002 or so). But I'm not, so all the gun violence statistics in the world have no impact on my position.

I find this to be delusional and not backed up by any evidence. If you can provide some, please do.  AFAIK, just having a gun makes the situation more dangerous since it is a weapon intended to kill and you cannot guarantee the effect.  You assume that drawing a gun will *always* defuse a situation and provide no evidence it does. You claim that drawing a gun makes the holder safer and show no evidence it does.
Always? Of course not. Some people are just that insane. However, I know that if I were in the process of committing a crime and the victim pulled out a gun, I'd stop what I was doing and get out of there.

I also heard a guy tell of a time he was held up with a knife, pulled out his gun and the would-be robber pocketed the weapon and walked off. He also saved a neighbour from a possible assault or murder in similar fashion. On neither occasion did he fire a shot.

Naturally, it's anecdotal evidence, but I'm not sure how you could empirically prove anything either way with regards to this issue.

Quote
Now, if we could guarantee that people who get carry permits are trained, not like the idiots who come to PA to hunt deer and haven't fired a gun before or only once a year, then I might be less bothered by the idea.     
Yeah. A mandatory level of training is something I'd be okay with, for the same reason we have driver's licenses. That said, there would need to be some measure to ensure maximum training requirements, because otherwise anti-gun states could impose ridiculous amounts of training to deter gun owners.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Str82Hell on October 07, 2010, 10:55:38 AM
And we have pointed out that your comparison of some drugs which are illegal to the banning of all firearms is an invalid comparison.
I disagree. By legalising drugs an entirely new industry might (would) arise, providing labour for people and tax income for the government.

The point you're trying to make has absolutely nothing to do with my statement above. Regardless, I could make the same argument about guided surface to air missles, too.
I'm not trying to make a point, koberulz does, and he's absolutely right and it absolutely is a valid comparison.
There's a huge amount of tax money lost by banning drugs, prisons are filled with people because of possession and smuggling and the United States has caused a big crisis in Mexico by insisting they keep their drug laws in place. As koberulz said, if that logic occurred to them, the war on drugs would never have happened, because it's an utter waste of money and resources.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Azdgari on October 07, 2010, 10:57:20 AM
Str82Hell, if you are going to quote Agamemnon's posts, then it would be proper etiquette to actually address their content, instead of deliberately ignoring it as you've been doing for the past several posts.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Str82Hell on October 07, 2010, 11:09:19 AM
Str82Hell, if you are going to quote Agamemnon's posts, then it would be proper etiquette to actually address their content, instead of deliberately ignoring it as you've been doing for the past several posts.
No, because that's not my position. I've made that argument myself earlier on. I disagree with koberulz on this topic and I disagree that the US is heading towards banning all guns and besides that, I really don't care. koberulz made a valid comparison and after nagging about definitions and other petty things it was asserted that his analogy was wrong and it has never been explained why.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Azdgari on October 07, 2010, 11:11:14 AM
If koberulz made a valid comparison, and Agamemnon's argument for why it's not valid is flawed, then perhaps you should address Agamemnon's argument instead of deliberately ignoring it as you've been doing.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Str82Hell on October 07, 2010, 11:13:26 AM
He has never presented an argument so it can't be demonstrated to be flawed.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 07, 2010, 11:43:42 AM
Quote from: koberulz
Not really, because 'reasonable' would involve the banning of guns not being an infringement on our freedoms, which can never be the case.

Quote from: koberulz
Same as the reasons to control guns. They're dangerous weapons. Moreso than guns, because they have very limited applications for self-defense.

Quote from: koberulz
You can go on about evidence and whatnot all you like, but it's irrelevant when it comes to the issue of freedom. If you're of the position that what people might do with an item should affect its legal status, then you can look at your stats and propose bans on all sorts of things up to and including tea cosies (which killed three people in 2002 or so). But I'm not, so all the gun violence statistics in the world have no impact on my position.

So why is it reasonable to infringe on the rights of owning missiles but not guns? This is not what you have covered. You say missiles are more dangerous and have fewer applications for self-defense - what if guns proved to be as dangerous or more dangerous in a society than missiles? You state all the gun violence statistics in the world would have no impact on your position, so it wouldn't matter to you? So why then are you drawing the line at missiles? In an ideal world you'd say missiles ought to be legal, so what is it that's making you draw the line in this 'less' ideal world?



If quality of life and safety in a society could be worsened by a massive degree by the legalisation of guns you wouldn't give a crap because you're free to keep your gun? Even if evidence and statistics show that other rights have been infringed as a result. I challenge you to live in a warring 3rd would country, you may take your guns and see how you feel about 'gun crime statistics' then, I'd argue that if developing countries weren't armed in the first place then the situation would be a lot better - it'd also make it easier for the likes of the UN to maintain peace. We wouldn't have needed to worry about WMD's and the middle east wouldn't be killing off our soldiers.

I'm beginning to think it's your kind of mentality that has led to the arming of developing countries, offering them more firepower to kill each other and pose threats to countries including our own. We should never have armed developing countries, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan who are now using arms the West supplied against us. Several accounts of attempted genocide have been aided by the supply of guns. These kind of ideals also armed people to stop communism spreading into their countries, but in turn aided further destruction. But none of that matters so long as they're all free to carry guns? I am sure many of these people, particularly victims, would much prefer to live in a much more controlled society where they're safe and I doubt they'll complain that they don't have that sweet smell of freedom when told they can't carry guns. Plenty of people flee to safer countries, including those with strict gun laws, like the UK.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Azdgari on October 07, 2010, 11:48:45 AM
He has never presented an argument so it can't be demonstrated to be flawed.

Perhaps a read through the thread is in order, then?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 07, 2010, 11:59:44 AM
So your claim is that there is not a black market for drugs, violent crime occurring to resolve disputes in that black market, or overflowing jails? Because that is news to me.

I've never made that claim. You're creating a straw man to try to ridicule me.

It's exactly the same situation you mentioned with regards to banning guns.

No. You and Str82Hell are not understanding the concepts here and I'm getting tired of repeating them.

The consequences of an all-encompassing ban on guns would be far more significant than the ban on some drugs.

A black market springs up for the illegal item, violence and jailings ensue. The government is also losing revenue they could gain from selling these items legally, and jobs selling and creating this item disappear. What exactly is the difference between the two situations, other than scale?

BINGO! Its' all about scale. Scale is the primary difference and it is a massive difference that can't be ignored.

Making some drugs illegal and keeping others legal doesn't have near the economic impact that a full-on gun ban would have. Not even close. It is like the difference in the explosive power between a hand grenade and an atomic bomb-- you are trying to convince me they are the same, I'm saying they are not.

The economic impact of a comprehensive gun ban would be devastating. The economic impact of making cocaine or heroin illegal goes unnoticed by the vast majority.

And there are people making noise about drugs. Less effective post-ban than pre-ban, perhaps, but it's still happening. Mostly with respect to marijuana (which appears to be working in some states).

This doesn't affect my point at all.

Quote
You must think our politicians are all total idiots
Not all of them, but some sure are. There's certainly no lack of government stupidity in the world.

OK. So you admit that we have SOME politicians that are capable of grasping the enormity of the economic consequences. Do you think the rest are so stupid that they STILL CAN'T understand the enormity of the economic consequences when they are TOLD by those "smarter" politicians?? I don't buy that at all.

If the dumb ones put forward comprehensive gun ban legislation, the smart ones are going to say "Hey, wait a minute guys... We're going to kill a buttload of jobs with this and that's going to be real bad for us next election..."

I'm reasonably confident that even the dumb ones are going to reject it when the smart ones point out the dire consequences to their election prospects.

Quote
You are just grasping at straws to keep your "boy who cried wolf" fantasy alive for some reason.
Could you tell me what this fantasy is?

The fantasy that a gun ban is possible and likely to happen.

The scenario you mentioned post-ban with respect to guns sounded similar to the situation with the War on Drugs. I pointed this out.

Sure, it does bear some similarities, I've never said it doesn't. It is the differences between them that ought to be making a little light go on in your head right about now. I've pointed out the differences, but you continue to act like your lopsided comparisons have validity. They don't.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 07, 2010, 12:53:53 PM
BINGO! Its' all about scale. Scale is the primary difference and it is a massive difference that can't be ignored.
Right. So the point you're arguing against is one I'm not making. Glad we cleared that up.

I would, however, like some numbers on the jobs and tax revenue lost due to drugs being illegal.

Quote
The economic impact of making cocaine or heroin illegal goes unnoticed by the vast majority.
Prove this.

Quote
This doesn't affect my point at all.
Unless your argument is solely about scale, and not even what it's a scale of, of course it does.

Quote
OK. So you admit that we have SOME politicians that are capable of grasping the enormity of the economic consequences. Do you think the rest are so stupid that they STILL CAN'T understand the enormity of the economic consequences when they are TOLD by those "smarter" politicians?? I don't buy that at all.

If the dumb ones put forward comprehensive gun ban legislation, the smart ones are going to say "Hey, wait a minute guys... We're going to kill a buttload of jobs with this and that's going to be real bad for us next election..."

I'm reasonably confident that even the dumb ones are going to reject it when the smart ones point out the dire consequences to their election prospects.
Because the US government always considers all the effects of its actions, not just the immediate ones (http://adventuresofcitizenx.com/2008/01/13/blind-to-the-unseen.aspx).

Quote
The fantasy that a gun ban is possible and likely to happen.
Oh. So a fantasy I don't have then. You are using a straw man to ridicule me. Hey, this is fun.

Quote
Sure, it does bear some similarities, I've never said it doesn't. It is the differences between them that ought to be making a little light go on in your head right about now. I've pointed out the differences, but you continue to act like your lopsided comparisons have validity. They don't.
Of course they have validity. If the difference between two things is of scale only, and that scale is immeasurable (and probably even nonexistent with all but the economic issues), a comparison has validity.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 07, 2010, 02:00:43 PM
BINGO! Its' all about scale. Scale is the primary difference and it is a massive difference that can't be ignored.
Right. So the point you're arguing against is one I'm not making. Glad we cleared that up.

You seem confused to me. You aren't making sense, KR.

I would, however, like some numbers on the jobs and tax revenue lost due to drugs being illegal.

If that is important to you then go for it. It won't have any bearing on my posts, however.

Quote
The economic impact of making cocaine or heroin illegal goes unnoticed by the vast majority.
Prove this.

It is self-evident. The vast majority of people are mysteriously NOT clamoring for these drugs to be made legal again because they are suffering economically. Not that I've noticed, anyway. If you think they are then the burden of proof is yours.

Quote
This doesn't affect my point at all.
Unless your argument is solely about scale, and not even what it's a scale of, of course it does.

You still don't understand.

Because the US government always considers all the effects of its actions, not just the immediate ones (http://adventuresofcitizenx.com/2008/01/13/blind-to-the-unseen.aspx).

I see nothing here that refutes anything I've said.

Quote
The fantasy that a gun ban is possible and likely to happen.
Oh. So a fantasy I don't have then. You are using a straw man to ridicule me. Hey, this is fun.

You are the one that's been arguing against my OP that the gun ban is a myth, so I guess that means you buy the fantasy.

Quote
Sure, it does bear some similarities, I've never said it doesn't. It is the differences between them that ought to be making a little light go on in your head right about now. I've pointed out the differences, but you continue to act like your lopsided comparisons have validity. They don't.
Of course they have validity. If the difference between two things is of scale only, and that scale is immeasurable (and probably even nonexistent with all but the economic issues), a comparison has validity.

You can't convince me that it has validity with bullshit.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: nogodsforme on October 07, 2010, 02:34:35 PM
Again, I am intrigued by the perspective that everyone should be free to have a firearm but everyone does not need access to adequate health care.....not even people accidentally shot by those freely available firearms. Seems like some people envison a Bladerunner or Mad Max type of society, where only the strong, ruthless, devious, violent, and/or wealthy can have decent lives. There are countries like that already (Congo/Zaire, Haiti, Afghanistan, North Korea) but they aren't exactly models of nice places to live. :P
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 07, 2010, 03:15:58 PM
BINGO! Its' all about scale. Scale is the primary difference and it is a massive difference that can't be ignored.
Right. So the point you're arguing against is one I'm not making. Glad we cleared that up.

You seem confused to me. You aren't making sense, KR.
You argument is 'the scale is different.' My argument is 'other than scale, they're the same.' Isn't that the same damn thing?

Quote
I would, however, like some numbers on the jobs and tax revenue lost due to drugs being illegal.

If that is important to you then go for it. It won't have any bearing on my posts, however.
Uh huh. God forbid you provide prove of your assertions. Every point I make you answer with 'that's irrelevant' or by making up a point and calling me an idiot for inventing a strawman, somehow missing the hypocrisy. What exactly is the point?

Quote
It is self-evident. The vast majority of people are mysteriously NOT clamoring for these drugs to be made legal again because they are suffering economically. Not that I've noticed, anyway. If you think they are then the burden of proof is yours.
How exactly does one know whether or not one is better off economically with or without illegal drugs?

Quote
You still don't understand.
You're still not explaining, then. Other than scale, you've explained no difference between the two points, instead opting to belligerently deny any connection between them.

Quote
I see nothing here that refutes anything I've said.
Really? You missed the part about the government creating a policy that had significant negative effects simply because they didn't realise it would have those effects? Try reading.

Quote
You are the one that's been arguing against my OP that the gun ban is a myth, so I guess that means you buy the fantasy.
Uh...no. I'm merely pointing out that the government doesn't always concern itself with economic loss, black markets and prison populations when making laws. Nothing further.

Quote
You can't convince me that it has validity with bullshit.
How about you give me a reason it isn't valid, other than 'it isn't valid'?

Again, I am intrigued by the perspective that everyone should be free to have a firearm but everyone does not need access to adequate health care.....not even people accidentally shot by those freely available firearms. Seems like some people envison a Bladerunner or Mad Max type of society, where only the strong, ruthless, devious, violent, and/or wealthy can have decent lives. There are countries like that already (Congo/Zaire, Haiti, Afghanistan, North Korea) but they aren't exactly models of nice places to live. :P
Some people happen to think the government pointing guns at people and telling them what to do and who to spend their money on is a bad idea. Particularly if those people don't themselves have guns. Not exactly a fair fight.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 07, 2010, 04:06:45 PM
Uh huh. God forbid you provide prove of your assertions. Every point I make you answer with 'that's irrelevant' or by making up a point and calling me an idiot for inventing a strawman, somehow missing the hypocrisy. What exactly is the point?

That's my question for you. You don't have any points that alter anything about my original assessment.

How exactly does one know whether or not one is better off economically with or without illegal drugs?

Oh, now that's a good question! They probably are affected a little, but it's so hard to tell that it's practically unnoticeable... I don't notice it. I don't care about it. No one I know of is complaining. Compare that to the gun ban and the immediate dismantling of a centuries-old firearms industry, the massive loss of firearms-related jobs and you'll see why your comparison is nonsense. I expect there would be riots in the streets, the jobless rate would soar, exports would see a substantial drop... The stock market would plunge.

Quote
I see nothing here that refutes anything I've said.
Really? You missed the part about the government creating a policy that had significant negative effects simply because they didn't realise it would have those effects? Try reading.

I don't do errands. If you are too lazy to just say it then don't expect me to do the work for you.

It is obvious that the government can predict the outcomes I've described. Anyone with an 8th grade education can predict the outcome I've described. It ain't rocket science, man. It is obvious that elected officials would not vote for something that they know would cause economic havoc. It would be political suicide.

Uh...no. I'm merely pointing out that the government doesn't always concern itself with economic loss, black markets and prison populations when making laws. Nothing further.

Then your point is moot, because they can't help but concern themselves with the obvious economic realities in this particular case. It's obvious.

At any rate, I've got my email out to my congressman, so if he writes back I'll let you know if he's the kind of complete fucking idiot that would pass a law banning guns in spite of the economic realities of it that you seem to think they have in the government. He's a university professor and a decent guy, so you are probably going to be disappointed that he's not the stereotypical mindless bureaucrat that you have in mind.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 07, 2010, 04:24:34 PM
Oh, now that's a good question! They probably are affected a little, but it's so hard to tell that it's practically unnoticeable... I don't notice it. I don't care about it. No one I know of is complaining.
How big would it have to be to be noticeable, and how would those affected know the cause in order to complain.

Quote
Compare that to the gun ban and...the massive loss of firearms-related jobs
There are plenty of jobs creating and selling recreational drugs. I have no idea how many, and no idea how many jobs there currently are in firearms, but to say they're clearly not in the same league is, unless you have statistics proving otherwise, insane.

Quote
I don't do errands. If you are too lazy to just say it then don't expect me to do the work for you.
I posted a link. Clicking it really isn't all that much effort. Would you rather I just posted the text I was linking to and have you accuse me of plagiarising?

Quote
It is obvious that the government can predict the outcomes I've described. Anyone with an 8th grade education can predict the outcome I've described. It ain't rocket science, man. It is obvious that elected officials would not vote for something that they know would cause economic havoc. It would be political suicide.
But again, they voted to subsidise ethanol despite the fact that it causes environmental damage (alternative fuel sources become artificially expensive, ethanol gives less energy than it takes to make), pushes up food prices (more farmers produce corn, more corn farmers produce ethanol, less actual food, particularly food that's not corn), and several other things. Were those outcomes any harder to see coming?

Quote
hen your point is moot, because they can't help but concern themselves with the obvious economic realities in this particular case. It's obvious.
If it were so obvious, why would they ignore it in the case of drugs?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 07, 2010, 04:51:12 PM
Oh, now that's a good question! They probably are affected a little, but it's so hard to tell that it's practically unnoticeable... I don't notice it. I don't care about it. No one I know of is complaining.
How big would it have to be to be noticeable, and how would those affected know the cause in order to complain.

If it's not noticable then you have no point. We intuitively can say for sure that the firearms industry would be noticed if it were to be gone overnight. I can't imagine why you would want stats for that, since you'd pretty much have to be in deep denial to disagree with that just because you don't have numbers.

Quote
I posted a link. Clicking it really isn't all that much effort. Would you rather I just posted the text I was linking to and have you accuse me of plagiarising?

Clicking isn't a lot of work. Reading that web page is. Especially when all you had to do was say what you eventually said in the first place.

Quote
If it were so obvious, why would they ignore it in the case of drugs?

It wasn't. Drugs aren't illegal.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 07, 2010, 05:00:18 PM
If it's not noticable then you have no point. We intuitively can say for sure that the firearms industry would be noticed if it were to be gone overnight. I can't imagine why you would want stats for that, since you'd pretty much have to be in deep denial to disagree with that just because you don't have numbers.
Of course. But it's easy to see the difference between having and not having something when you have it. It takes a far larger issue to make it noticeable that you'd be better off with something you don't have.

Quote
Drugs aren't illegal.
Are you fucking serious?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Azdgari on October 07, 2010, 05:34:12 PM
Koberulz, there are these things called "drug stores".  In them, you can buy things called drugs.  This is perfectly legal.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 07, 2010, 06:34:22 PM
No shit. Recreational drugs are, though. Why does this make such a massive difference, exactly?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 07, 2010, 07:15:06 PM
Koberulz, I've called you on a couple of dodges before and you seem to be trying to work away from addressing my main basic points involving your arguments, I've not actually had any straight answers and my previous post has no response. I'm getting the feeling you're stonewalling, which is leading me to assume that I'm right about the logic you're using.

I'm sure you don't want me to start thinking this, so I'll repost:


Quote from: koberulz
Not really, because 'reasonable' would involve the banning of guns not being an infringement on our freedoms, which can never be the case.

Quote from: koberulz
Same as the reasons to control guns. They're dangerous weapons. Moreso than guns, because they have very limited applications for self-defense.

Quote from: koberulz
You can go on about evidence and whatnot all you like, but it's irrelevant when it comes to the issue of freedom. If you're of the position that what people might do with an item should affect its legal status, then you can look at your stats and propose bans on all sorts of things up to and including tea cosies (which killed three people in 2002 or so). But I'm not, so all the gun violence statistics in the world have no impact on my position.

So why is it reasonable to infringe on the rights of owning missiles but not guns? This is not what you have covered. You say missiles are more dangerous and have fewer applications for self-defense - what if guns proved to be as dangerous or more dangerous in a society than missiles? You state all the gun violence statistics in the world would have no impact on your position, so it wouldn't matter to you? So why then are you drawing the line at missiles? In an ideal world you'd say missiles ought to be legal, so what is it that's making you draw the line in this 'less' ideal world?



If quality of life and safety in a society could be worsened by a massive degree by the legalisation of guns you wouldn't give a crap because you're free to keep your gun? Even if evidence and statistics show that other rights have been infringed as a result. I challenge you to live in a warring 3rd would country, you may take your guns and see how you feel about 'gun crime statistics' then, I'd argue that if developing countries weren't armed in the first place then the situation would be a lot better - it'd also make it easier for the likes of the UN to maintain peace. We wouldn't have needed to worry about WMD's and the middle east wouldn't be killing off our soldiers.

I'm beginning to think it's your kind of mentality that has led to the arming of developing countries, offering them more firepower to kill each other and pose threats to countries including our own. We should never have armed developing countries, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan who are now using arms the West supplied against us. Several accounts of attempted genocide have been aided by the supply of guns. These kind of ideals also armed people to stop communism spreading into their countries, but in turn aided further destruction. But none of that matters so long as they're all free to carry guns? I am sure many of these people, particularly victims, would much prefer to live in a much more controlled society where they're safe and I doubt they'll complain that they don't have that sweet smell of freedom when told they can't carry guns. Plenty of people flee to safer countries, including those with strict gun laws, like the UK.


To summarise for ease:
IF rights to ownership of firearms (as part of the right to bare arms) ought to be in play regardless of how many people die or suffer as a result, then why would you place control on missiles? Which falls under the same umbrella of 'bearing arms'.
Note: You claimed because they're more dangerous, but it seems that doesn't matter if guns could kill 800 people per 1000 (by your claim, any number doesn't matter, so I've made that one up to be hypothetical) as a result of gun legalisation, so by proxy, the danger of missiles ought not factor into your stance.
If statistics showed other rights to be infringed and it demonstrates a terribly fucked up society as a result of the legalisation of guns, would you still defend ownership? If so, why is gun ownership more important than other civil liberties?
Note: You claimed no statistics in the world would shift your view. In other words, if any number of people dies as a result, you'd still happy rub the barrel of your favourite gun.
Do you agree that arming the world is a good idea? Especially where we've seen many people die as a result.
Note: Theoretically you believe that it's good that developing countries possess firearms regardless of what damage they have aided. Whilst a lot of people are dying, including our soldiers, then it doesn't matter because these people in these developing countries have the means to protect themselves from the situations you've described and hold more 'freedom' than they had before when firearms were unavailable to them.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 07, 2010, 07:40:36 PM
If it's not noticable then you have no point. We intuitively can say for sure that the firearms industry would be noticed if it were to be gone overnight. I can't imagine why you would want stats for that, since you'd pretty much have to be in deep denial to disagree with that just because you don't have numbers.
Of course. But it's easy to see the difference between having and not having something when you have it. It takes a far larger issue to make it noticeable that you'd be better off with something you don't have.

Quote
Drugs aren't illegal.
Are you fucking serious?

Some drugs are illegal, some are not. Some guns are illegal, some are not.

Saying that our politicians can't anticipate the negative consequences of making all guns illegal is as ludicrous as saying that they can't anticipate the negative consequences of making all drugs illegal.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 07, 2010, 08:13:49 PM
IF rights to ownership of firearms (as part of the right to bare arms) ought to be in play regardless of how many people die or suffer as a result, then why would you place control on missiles? Which falls under the same umbrella of 'bearing arms'.
Note: You claimed because they're more dangerous, but it seems that doesn't matter if guns could kill 800 people per 1000 (by your claim, any number doesn't matter, so I've made that one up to be hypothetical) as a result of gun legalisation, so by proxy, the danger of missiles ought not factor into your stance.
The single firing of a missile is inherently more dangerous than doing the same with a gun. Collateral damage is pretty much guaranteed, depending on what the hell you're doing firing a missile in the first place.

However, I've never said I'd place controls on missiles. I've really never thought about it enough to have an opinion on the matter.

Quote
If statistics showed other rights to be infringed and it demonstrates a terribly fucked up society as a result of the legalisation of guns, would you still defend ownership? If so, why is gun ownership more important than other civil liberties?
Note: You claimed no statistics in the world would shift your view. In other words, if any number of people dies as a result, you'd still happy rub the barrel of your favourite gun.
Guns being legal doesn't infringe anyone's civil liberties, so your argument is irrelevant. You cannot ban a tool because it has uses that may infringe upon civil liberties. As has been mentioned in another thread, rich people can pay off juries. Does that mean it's a good idea to ban money? No.

Quote
Do you agree that arming the world is a good idea? Especially where we've seen many people die as a result.
Note: Theoretically you believe that it's good that developing countries possess firearms regardless of what damage they have aided. Whilst a lot of people are dying, including our soldiers, then it doesn't matter because these people in these developing countries have the means to protect themselves from the situations you've described and hold more 'freedom' than they had before when firearms were unavailable to them.
Who's arming 'the world'? I assume the US, because they seem to do a lot of that. With respect to that, I'd say the US needs to worry about its own damn self and keep its nose out of everyone else's business. Same goes for any other country that may feel the need to pick up the slack.

Some drugs are illegal, some are not.
And those drugs being illegal has caused the exact consequences you mentioned. Yet somehow, it's apparently not relevant.

Recreational drugs and medical drugs are pretty much two entirely different categories of product, anyway. They don't exactly appeal to the same market.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Gimpy on October 07, 2010, 08:35:34 PM
Recreational drugs and medical drugs are pretty much two entirely different categories of product, anyway. They don't exactly appeal to the same market.

Not true. A vast number of medical drugs are also recreational drugs.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 07, 2010, 08:49:04 PM
Some drugs are illegal, some are not.
And those drugs being illegal has caused the exact consequences you mentioned. Yet somehow, it's apparently not relevant.

It isn't because the claim that the consequences would be the same is false.

There is as much likelyhood that the government will ban all drugs as there is for them banning all guns. This is why your point fails to convince me. If they had banned all drugs I would be worried that they might ban all guns. They have not.

They tried that sort of thing in the 1930s and it was a disaster. They aren't stupid enough to try it again.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 07, 2010, 08:56:02 PM
I'm not arguing that they might. I'm just pointing out that the consequences are the same, something you refuse to acknowledge.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 07, 2010, 09:08:56 PM
You haven't established that the consequences would be the same. Why should I be convinced?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 07, 2010, 09:12:40 PM
Two seconds of research will prove the existence of a black market for drugs and a lot of people in jail for drug-related crime. Two seconds of logic will lead to the conclusion that were these drugs legal, jobs would be created and taxes could be placed on them.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 07, 2010, 09:18:03 PM
That's not same.

What I find acceptible and realistic is that the consequences of banning all drugs is the same as or similar to the consequences of banning all guns.

Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 07, 2010, 09:20:20 PM
Two seconds of research will prove the existence of a black market for drugs and a lot of people in jail for drug-related crime. Two seconds of logic will lead to the conclusion that were these drugs legal, jobs would be created and taxes could be placed on them.

This would be similar to a ban on fully automatic weapons only or a ban on military grade weaponry.

You are making a category mistake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_error)
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Str82Hell on October 08, 2010, 03:31:20 AM
I think you're making a petty argument Agamemnon. You know that there's a black market for drugs, hard drugs and soft drugs, and that users of those drugs are put in jail like they were criminals. These drugs are not regulated, they are illegal. You know that the argument is about that and you keep saying: "but you can get marihuana on prescription if you're in pain". We all know that, but it's not about the few people who get it on prescriptions because they're in pain.

Hell, in most languages this discussion wouldn't even exist, because one category would be called medicins and the other, including marihuana et al, would be called drugs. If I would be having this discussion with you in Dutch I would say "we're not talking about medicins, we're talking about drugs", and you would keep repeating you whole argument ad nauseam and in the end I would just walk away. You would accuse me of stonewalling, but you're the one who is stonewalling.

While they may be in the same category, recreational and pharmaceutical drugs are two different categories and when koberulz mentions 'drugs' I have not seen one instance so far where it was impossible to deduce from context whether he means pharmaceutical or recreational drugs. And cut the "some recreational drugs might be used as pharmaceutical drugs" crap, because that's completely besides the point as long as Americans can't get their daily amount of marihuana at the pharmacist, prescription free, while there's still a flourishing underground market.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 08, 2010, 07:46:48 AM
Nope. You are making the exact same category error. You are conflating the banning of a subset of an industry with the banning of an entire industry. There are important differences that change the political dynamic and those differences guarantee that the entire industry is politically safe.

Neither of you have any kind of argument that comes close to showing that the industry is under any kind of political threat. I don't find it convincing, anyway.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Operator_011 on October 08, 2010, 07:59:37 AM
This thread is slowly drifting onto the topic of drugs, and could do with pulling back to its original focus (Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage) before it's fully derailed.


Eleven.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 08, 2010, 08:51:17 AM
Quote from: koberulz
The single firing of a missile is inherently more dangerous than doing the same with a gun. Collateral damage is pretty much guaranteed, depending on what the hell you're doing firing a missile in the first place.

However, I've never said I'd place controls on missiles. I've really never thought about it enough to have an opinion on the matter.

Surely you don't need to give much thought about it, assuming I've got your gun legalisation defense correct. It's not about the results it's about liberty.


Quote from: koberulz
Guns being legal doesn't infringe anyone's civil liberties, so your argument is irrelevant. You cannot ban a tool because it has uses that may infringe upon civil liberties. As has been mentioned in another thread, rich people can pay off juries. Does that mean it's a good idea to ban money? No.

This doesn't really answer the point. You said all the statistics in world would make you budge on the issue - so what IF those statistics show that ownership of guns DOES (and not 'may') lead to infringement of other civil liberties, would you budge then? If it could be shown that society would really benefit from a lack of guns, then does the libertarian point of view really stand? You insist it's a civil liberty that we ought to be entitled and it appears it's of your view that consequences don't matter, which to me is a foolish standpoint because consequences always matter - though your lack of opinion surrounding missiles suggests that maybe consequences do factor somewhat, I'm just confused as to why you're so sternly pro-guns irregardless of consequence, when it appears that the standard may or may not apply for other arms.

Quote from: koberulz
Who's arming 'the world'? I assume the US, because they seem to do a lot of that. With respect to that, I'd say the US needs to worry about its own damn self and keep its nose out of everyone else's business. Same goes for any other country that may feel the need to pick up the slack.

Yes, the US is a part of it. But, if surely you'd think that having the rest of the world ought to be armed (even if you disagree with other countries interfering with their affairs)? I mean you're arguing that the UK ought to arm its citizens backed by your argument that it's a basic freedom, as you feel they're useful to protect yourself and your family. I draw the line at where guns have a negative effect in society, would you at least accept that? I mean, we can see negative effects where we've(US, UK and other countries) armed other countries and we can see they're not better off. I think we've been responsible for making situations in other countries worse, not better. I think this all factors into my, "not all countries are the same" argument. Not every kind of 'freedom' is beneficial or relevant to every kind of society. Despite cultural similarities, the US and the UK are still very different countries, hence why I'd want to studies to see if gun legalisation in the UK would be a better rather than blindly nod my head because the US benefit or because it's a civil liberty over there. To me, that's not at all unreasonable (think of it parallel to you needing more thought on missiles before having an opinion, except with research and not 'thought').
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 08, 2010, 09:22:51 AM
Nope. You are making the exact same category error. You are conflating the banning of a subset of an industry with the banning of an entire industry. There are important differences that change the political dynamic and those differences guarantee that the entire industry is politically safe.

Neither of you have any kind of argument that comes close to showing that the industry is under any kind of political threat. I don't find it convincing, anyway.
And I would make the same point as Str82Hell. The recreational drug industry and the medicinal drug industry are two entirely separate things. That they both deal in things that are, in the English language, referred to as 'drugs' isn't relevant. Effectively, you could ban all guns by your logic since cars are still produced, and given that they both use metal, they're obviously the same.

what IF those statistics show that ownership of guns DOES (and not 'may') lead to infringement of other civil liberties, would you budge then?
Lead to? No. Cause? Yes. As mentioned in my "Let's Ban Cameras" blog, there is a statistically proven link between cameras and child sexual abuse imagery. By your logic, there is a point at which the proliferation of child pornography would be so great you would allow the banning of cameras.

Quote
If it could be shown that society would really benefit from a lack of guns, then does the libertarian point of view really stand?
Of course. Society could benefit from a lot of things. Compulsory exercise programs. Fingerprint ID everywhere. Strip searches for all those who enter a public building. The banning of cars, alcohol, cigarettes, and conceivably even such things as guns, knives, spray paint, hammers, saws, and LeBron James. This doesn't make it okay to bring in such laws.

If you could prove that there are a statistically significant number of accidental/collateral damage deaths caused by legal gun owners (not intentional and illegal murders), I'd look at what training is mandatory for the ownership of a gun. I wouldn't ban them though.

 You insist it's a civil liberty that we ought to be entitled and it appears it's of your view that consequences don't matter, which to me is a foolish standpoint because consequences always matter - though your lack of opinion surrounding missiles suggests that maybe consequences do factor somewhat, I'm just confused as to why you're so sternly pro-guns irregardless of consequence, when it appears that the standard may or may not apply for other arms.

Also, do not use the word irregardless, because it isn't one, even if Firefox's spell checker is convinced otherwise. The word you're looking for is 'irrespective' or 'regardless', not a combination of the two..

Quote
Not every kind of 'freedom' is beneficial or relevant to every kind of society.
Hey, if you want to live in a Police State go right ahead.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Azdgari on October 08, 2010, 09:23:47 AM
Are all recreational drugs banned?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 08, 2010, 10:05:12 AM
And I would make the same point as Str82Hell. The recreational drug industry and the medicinal drug industry are two entirely separate things. That they both deal in things that are, in the English language, referred to as 'drugs' isn't relevant.

Recreational drugs are a subset of the drug industry as a whole. Handguns are a subset of the firearms industry as a whole.

Banning SOME drugs would be like banning SOME guns.

Banning SOME drugs would be UNLIKE banning ALL guns.
 
Banning SOME guns would be UNLIKE banning ALL drugs.

Your error is that you are saying that banning SOME drugs is like banning ALL guns. That is patently false and the error is significant.

I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you.

Effectively, you could ban all guns by your logic since cars are still produced, and given that they both use metal, they're obviously the same.

I don't see how.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 08, 2010, 10:14:01 AM
They have the same stuff in them. The only similarities between the two drug industries are that they both involve drugs, but only to the degree that the firearms and auto industries both involve metal.

This also has nothing to do with the existence of a black market and overpopulation of jails, which exists as much as you might like to claim otherwise.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 08, 2010, 10:19:56 AM
None of that changes anything I've said.

Also, I have never claimed that black markets don't exist or that jails aren't overpopulated. That is a lie.

The closest example we have of something like a gun ban is Prohibition, which was repealed almost a century ago because of the havoc it caused. Politicians have the benefit of hindsight to see what a fiasco that was. We won't be having a repeat of it with guns.

Edit: changed "are" overpopulated to "aren't" overpopulated.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Str82Hell on October 08, 2010, 10:56:36 AM
Banning SOME drugs would be like banning SOME guns.

Banning SOME drugs would be UNLIKE banning ALL guns.
 
Banning SOME guns would be UNLIKE banning ALL drugs.
Banning CERTAIN drugs is LIKE banning CERTAIN weapons.

Certain drugs are recreational drugs, certain weapons are firearms.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 08, 2010, 11:05:32 AM
Banning CERTAIN drugs is LIKE banning CERTAIN weapons.

Certain drugs are recreational drugs, certain weapons are firearms.

Not from a political and economic perspective.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 08, 2010, 11:17:39 AM
There is absolutely no reason to think that the threat of a gun ban is anything more than a myth.

Give me a plausible reason to think otherwise and I'll consider it, but this shit you've been coming up with here is as pointless and unconvincing as chicken little yelling that the sky is falling.

No politician is stupid enough to go for a repeat of prohibition. Anyone that doesn't consider prohibition a complete failure is in a tiny minority. This looks like reality to me. If it doesn't look like reality to you, then I'd say you are just being paranoid.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 08, 2010, 11:21:19 AM
Quote from: koberulz
Lead to? No. Cause? Yes. As mentioned in my "Let's Ban Cameras" blog, there is a statistically proven link between cameras and child sexual abuse imagery. By your logic, there is a point at which the proliferation of child pornography would be so great you would allow the banning of cameras.

Nice dodge. I already explained that one and that doesn't answer my question.


Quote from: koberulz
Of course. Society could benefit from a lot of things. Compulsory exercise programs. Fingerprint ID everywhere. Strip searches for all those who enter a public building. The banning of cars, alcohol, cigarettes, and conceivably even such things as guns, knives, spray paint, hammers, saws, and LeBron James. This doesn't make it okay to bring in such laws.

Maybe because the benefits don't make it worthwhile? And again - I've not said, lets go out and ban, I said, lets not legalise, banning something that's widely used has a lot of logistical issues and causes many other problems. Guns in the UK aren't in wide use and problems weren't caused when they became illegal (as far as I am aware), it seems that the society doesn't see the need to protect itself with the use of guns, therefore we don't necessarily need to change our current gun laws, particularly if legalisation makes the situation worse...I thought I've already said this like a hundred times?

Quote from: koberulz
Also, do not use the word irregardless, because it isn't one, even if Firefox's spell checker is convinced otherwise. The word you're looking for is 'irrespective' or 'regardless', not a combination of the two..

It would appear that's a point to try and make me look stupid and to dodge the points in question. I am perfectly aware my posts may contain grammatical errors, because every individual in the world is capable of making mistakes and I don't need to be corrected unless you're unable to comprehend what I've written, but in general I dislike grammar Nazis. However, if you insist on being one: 'irregardless' is recognised as a word by the Oxford Dictionary, which is probably why Firefox isn't correcting it:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0422200#m_en_gb0422200 (http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0422200#m_en_gb0422200)

It's defined as an informal version of 'regardless', dating from the mid 19th Century. From the sounds of it you need a few lessons on 'Language Change'. Language evolves, it's why English is very different today than it was 1,000 years ago and I bet you'll have a hard time understanding Old English properly (Ð? ?r?s mæni? goldhladen ðe?n, ?yrde hine his swurde) and it's why there's a difference between 'American English' and 'British English'. 'Irregardless' is a compound of 'irrespective' and 'regardless' and it is considered a valid term.


Quote from: koberulz
Hey, if you want to live in a Police State go right ahead.

There needs to be a level of regulation in a society, yes and I still stand by freedom - I covered my views on civil liberties waaaaaay back. You can't have a functioning society without being somewhere in the middle, too much freedom causes problems, but then so does too little freedom. There's definitely civil liberties we need to be able to exercise and we need civil liberties to keep us from living under a fascist dictatorship, but that doesn't mean every kind of potential civil liberty ought to be allowed - hence I said, "not every kind of freedom is beneficial" as opposed to, "freedom is not beneficial", one means living in a society that exercises its freedoms but maintains a level of regulation to keep it fair, safe and secure, the other means exactly what you said, becoming a police state or something else where you severely lack 'freedom'.


I like how you still dodge the main points, even with the questions were written so plainly.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 08, 2010, 12:21:08 PM
The closest example we have of something like a gun ban is Prohibition, which was repealed almost a century ago because of the havoc it caused. Politicians have the benefit of hindsight to see what a fiasco that was. We won't be having a repeat of it with guns.
But marijuana was legal during prohibition! Marijuana and alcohol are both drugs! Your comparison is invalid!

Nice dodge. I already explained that one and that doesn't answer my question.
If the word "no" isn't good enough for you, what the hell is?


[quoteMaybe because the benefits don't make it worthwhile?[/quote]
Who gets to decide whether or not the benefits make it worthwhile, and what data is used to draw this conclusion?

Quote
And again - I've not said, lets go out and ban, I said, lets not legalise
But they shouldn't have been banned in the first place.

Quote
It would appear that's a point to try and make me look stupid and to dodge the points in question.
Which would be the case if it were the only thing I responded to, but it isn't.

Quote
'irregardless' is recognised as a word by the Oxford Dictionary, which is probably why Firefox isn't correcting it:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0422200#m_en_gb0422200 (http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0422200#m_en_gb0422200)

It's defined as an informal version of 'regardless', dating from the mid 19th Century.
On the other hand, etymologically it means 'worth regard,' which is exactly the opposite of its use. The word 'cromulent' is in the dictionary for no other reason than that the Simpsons made it up.

Quote
hence I said, "not every kind of freedom is beneficial" as opposed to, "freedom is not beneficial",
But as mentioned in another thread, you're either free or you're not.

Quote
I like how you still dodge the main points, even with the questions were written so plainly.
What exactly am I dodging here?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 08, 2010, 12:26:36 PM
I think I've about got the logic down, now.

1) The gubmint has made mistakes in legislation in the past
2) Some politicians aren't as smart as others
3) Sometimes the gubmint bans things
4) Therefore, we should fear a gun ban any day now. GAAAAAAH! Go out and buy all the guns-n-ammo you can before its too late!!!!!

Is there anything I've left out?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 08, 2010, 12:28:41 PM
The closest example we have of something like a gun ban is Prohibition, which was repealed almost a century ago because of the havoc it caused. Politicians have the benefit of hindsight to see what a fiasco that was. We won't be having a repeat of it with guns.
But marijuana was legal during prohibition! Marijuana and alcohol are both drugs! Your comparison is invalid!

I agree. I said it was closest example. I think a gun ban today would be much worse than prohibition.

Edit to add: I don't think it is the closest example because they are both drugs.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 08, 2010, 01:02:12 PM
4) Therefore, we should fear a gun ban any day now. GAAAAAAH! Go out and buy all the guns-n-ammo you can before its too late!!!!!
Do I need to mention, again, that this is not what I'm saying AT ALL?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 08, 2010, 01:12:16 PM
You are saying #1-#3, right? If you aren't at least implying #4 then why are you even in this discussion?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Str82Hell on October 08, 2010, 01:14:38 PM
4) Therefore, we should fear a gun ban any day now. GAAAAAAH! Go out and buy all the guns-n-ammo you can before its too late!!!!!
Do I need to mention, again, that this is not what I'm saying AT ALL?
Actually, that's what you said. That's where the whole argument since page 4 has been about.
Care to explain how they missed the exact same logic with drugs, then?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 08, 2010, 01:15:58 PM
What conclusion should we draw, other than #4, from your points in this thread in response to my points about the gun ban being a myth, koberulz?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 08, 2010, 01:46:41 PM
Actually, that's what you said. That's where the whole argument since page 4 has been about.
Care to explain how they missed the exact same logic with drugs, then?
That just says they missed the exact same logic with drugs, meaning it can't be the most obvious thing in the world (at least to the point of being reason enough not to institute a ban) as Ag is claiming. It has nothing to do with the likelihood of a gun ban at all. Opposition to any gun ban is going to come from the second amendment and the number of guns already in circulation in the states.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 08, 2010, 02:40:54 PM
Quote from: koberulz
On the other hand, etymologically it means 'worth regard,' which is exactly the opposite of its use. The word 'cromulent' is in the dictionary for no other reason than that the Simpsons made it up.

Language is defined by its usage. If people are using a word enough, it'll be considered as part of the language, the word 'meh' was not so long a go included in the dictionary and it is considered to denote 'indifference'.

Yes, you can trace the etymology behind a word, but a semantic shift can still occur in language change - so the previous meaning doesn't affect the current meaning (hence it has shifted), the word 'gay' is a perfect example of a semantic shift. From 'happy' to 'homosexual'. With the compounding of the two words 'irregardless' came to be an informal version of the word 'regardless'. What the two words compounded actually mean is irrelevant. 'Irregardless' is an acceptable term to use in the English language, however, I know that there are people who cringe at the sight of the word, so I'll respect that and use 'regardless' instead.

Also, TV can influence language change too - you'll probably find 'doh' in the dictionary as well (just checked and it is).
 'Standardised English' is based on common usage and not a prescribed authoritarian order of language. Even then, it's not considered inappropriate to speak anything that isn't "Standardised English", I am a big fan of colloquialisms myself and use them a lot of the time, though less frequently when typing.


Quote from: koberulz
Who gets to decide whether or not the benefits make it worthwhile, and what data is used to draw this conclusion?

Who gets to decide? How's a bill passed? Through government. Does this mean the government decide - not necessarily, whenever a bill is proposed, in our democratic society you as a collective have the ability to get the right amendments made or stop the bill being passed altogether. Democracy isn't necessarily going to result in decisions that best benefit society, but there's no such thing as a flawless system of government. But at least the system places the responsibility on the people who are affected.

As for data. I went through that one: research, studies, scientific method (like social sciences) etc. Yes, it's difficult, but a fool's decision is based on rhetoric. A fool would also universalise the stats for the US, I am sure a good scientist will tell you this. If you're going to based 'knowledge' on rhetoric and misused statistics, then you're no different to a creation scientist, whose expertise is selling unscientific bollocks to back a claim. If judges in court based their decisions on misused statistics and rhetoric, they'd could be putting innocent men in jail, this could be argued of the West Memphis Three, whose prosecutors were spouted rhetoric over evidence or proof and they were sentenced on death row.


Quote from: koberulz
But they shouldn't have been banned in the first place.

It depends, would violent crime be worse or better today if they hadn't?


Quote from: koberulz
But as mentioned in another thread, you're either free or you're not.

Then you, like I, are not free. Somalian pirates on the other hand, well, you might even then suggest on some accounts that even they aren't 'free'...There's levels of freedom, you can say a person is more free than another, but yes, I'd agree that technically speaking they're not free. I believe this was one of my previous points.

Quote from: Koberulz
If the word "no" isn't good enough for you, what the hell is?

I need more info. You won't budge if guns lead to major problems, but will if they're the cause of major problems. I could at least do with knowing why you've made this distinction, particularly as it appears to be a contradiction to, "no stats in the world would make me budge". Also, if my analysis of your arguments are wrong, I'd like to know why, if I don't, then I don't have much to go on.

Quote from: koberulz
What exactly am I dodging here?

You've not stated why you don't offer the same logic for guns as you do with missiles. You say you'd need more thought, I asked why? I've seen no reason in your arguments that requires you to thing more on the situation surrounding missiles because your arguments support guns by proxy supports missiles. Each time I keep making these kind of challenges you won't actually tell me they're wrong or exactly why they're wrong. I have one thing saying to me: this guy wants civil liberties surrounding arms regardless of consequence. Then: this guys is undecided about missiles because of the consequences. Then: this guy isn't bothered if legalisation leads to a problem but claims if it's the cause, then he'll budge - I think the difference is semantics when you consider than changes would be as a result of gun legalisation; after all, we're not talking about correlation, but where the legalisation of guns becomes responsible.

But, if I'm going to trust your previous statement - you'd budge at cause, then does that mean if the legalisation of guns in the UK were to cause the increase of murders and other violent crime in the UK then would you say, "the UK didn't need them", despite it being in contradiction with a previous statement?

Which makes these 3 statements seem contradictory and I keep raising them because I am looking to be told exactly how they don't contradict one another and how you're able to be undecided about missiles but be so stern when it comes to guns.

But also, when I make comparisons or suggestions about your mentality - for example, where I suggest that it's your kind of mentality that's caused so many problems in the world involving guns, you've barely addressed the issue.  When talking about the West arming other nations, you argue that they ought not to interfere, but you pass no judgment the result of the interference, which is what I was trying to get at, essentially, are these countries better off because they're armed?

It's these kind of things that I feel are being avoided and now it's making it increasingly difficult to assess exactly what it is you're arguing, after all, statements you make seem to contradict the logic you're using and the arguments you have been making.


Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 08, 2010, 03:02:58 PM
It has nothing to do with the likelihood of a gun ban at all.

If that was true, then there was no reason to mention it in response to my post regarding the likelyhood of a gun ban.

Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 08, 2010, 04:31:54 PM
Who gets to decide? How's a bill passed? Through government. Does this mean the government decide - not necessarily, whenever a bill is proposed, in our democratic society you as a collective have the ability to get the right amendments made or stop the bill being passed altogether.
Really?

Quote
As for data. I went through that one: research, studies, scientific method (like social sciences) etc.
These are not data. These are types of data. What numbers would indicate that legalising guns is a good idea? What numbers would indicate that banning guns is a good idea?

Quote
I need more info. You won't budge if guns lead to major problems, but will if they're the cause of major problems. I could at least do with knowing why you've made this distinction, particularly as it appears to be a contradiction to, "no stats in the world would make me budge".
If you could prove that the act of purchasing or owning a gun directly violates the rights of another, then guns should be banned. If legalising them leads to people using them to kill each other, guns should not be banned. Also, if my analysis of your arguments are wrong, I'd like to know why, if I don't, then I don't have much to go on.

Quote
You've not stated why you don't offer the same logic for guns as you do with missiles. You say you'd need more thought, I asked why?
The complete lack of realistic legal use, and the increased ability to kill dozens of people all at once. It's quite different from something that has legitimate uses and kills one person at a time.

Quote
But, if I'm going to trust your previous statement - you'd budge at cause, then does that mean if the legalisation of guns in the UK were to cause the increase of murders and other violent crime in the UK then would you say, "the UK didn't need them", despite it being in contradiction with a previous statement?
I see no way the laws of physics allows the mere act of owning a gun to kill people, so it's not a question that needs answering.

Quote
where I suggest that it's your kind of mentality that's caused so many problems in the world involving guns, you've barely addressed the issue.
Does it need addressing? I wouldn't suggest there's any way you could prove what mentalities are and are not contributory to gun violence.

Quote
When talking about the West arming other nations, you argue that they ought not to interfere, but you pass no judgment the result of the interference, which is what I was trying to get at, essentially, are these countries better off because they're armed?
Depends what aspect of life you're talking about. I'm also not familiar with the countries you're talking about, and I don't believe you've even named them, so it's a bit hard to comment.

It has nothing to do with the likelihood of a gun ban at all.

If that was true, then there was no reason to mention it in response to my post regarding the likelyhood of a gun ban.


Which is why I didn't. I mentioned it in response to your first post regarding the blatant obviousness, to the government, of the economic consequences of a gun ban, and the associated black market and jail population increase. They just happened to be the same post.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Jim on October 08, 2010, 04:36:34 PM
The whole idea that the second amendment is to prevent tyrrany in this day and age is preposterous.  That ship sailed long ago and the Patriot Act sunk it.  It is a naive and childish idea.

Completely agree. I love guns as much as anybody, and I like the idea in theory. But protecting ourselves from a corrupt government with handguns and rifles went out the window pretty much around the same time that the U.S. millitary split an atom.

Hell, it went out the window as soon as they had the technology to drop bombs from a bi-plane a few thousand feet in the air.

Yeah.  Ok.  True, to a point.  Let me edit it for you, and tell me what you think of tossing out rights because they are outmoded by more recent events.

Quote
Quote
The whole idea that the first amendment is to protect free speech and exercise of belief in this day and age is preposterous.  That ship sailed long ago and the Patriot Act sunk it.  It is a naive and childish idea.

Completely agree. I love free speech as much as anybody, and I like the idea in theory. But speaking our minds without retribution and being atheists went out the window pretty much around the same time that government allowed wiretaps and investigations into groups it deemed offensive, and the moment George Bush made his infamous statement about atheists.

Hell, it went out the window as soon as the Air Force started imposing religious dogma and doctrine onto their troops.

Or, maybe you could stand to lose the 13th amendment?  Or the twenty-first?  Old, barbaric things that they are.  To let go of one major amendment can loosen your grip on others.  Care for an outlaw of atheist groups, anyone?  How impossible do you think that is, how unthinkable? 

How much do you trust dogmatic whackos in power?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 08, 2010, 05:46:21 PM
It has nothing to do with the likelihood of a gun ban at all.

If that was true, then there was no reason to mention it in response to my post regarding the likelyhood of a gun ban.

Which is why I didn't. I mentioned it in response to your first post regarding the blatant obviousness, to the government, of the economic consequences of a gun ban, and the associated black market and jail population increase. They just happened to be the same post.

If that was true, then there was no reason to mention it in response to my post regarding the likelyhood of a gun ban (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=16020.msg359841#msg359841).
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 08, 2010, 06:00:46 PM
Quote from: koberulz
Really?

Yes, really. Racial and Religious Hatred Bill 2005 caused a ruckus over the issue of 'Freedom of Expression', it couldn't be passed until it didn't hurt people's freedom of expression. Read 29J of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, it's entitled 'Freedom of Expression' and considers heavily enough people's freedom of expression. Labour Party - 0, Democracy - 1.

Quote from: koberulz
These are not data. These are types of data. What numbers would indicate that legalising guns is a good idea? What numbers would indicate that banning guns is a good idea?

I wouldn't just need numbers, why? I've already said my piece about statistics more than once. I don't have numbers to give and I've not claimed that I know what numbers would indicate that keeping guns illegal is a bad idea. I've argued the reasons to not be hasty and why legalisation of guns could be a bad idea and that we have lack of data on both sides of the argument to draw a conclusion. For figures, I'd want the number to improve enough to show that it's not a statistical anomaly and of course, it'd therefore have to be consistent. In the UK if have guns cuts violent crime and other crime by 3%, then it's an improvement, so long as we so no risks short term or long term, then despite being small, it's an improvement. But as I've maintain, statistics isn't enough.

Quote from: koberulz
I see no way the laws of physics allows the mere act of owning a gun to kill people, so it's not a question that needs answering.

We're talking about a law causing the increase of murder. The act of owning a gun doesn't kill people. The legalisation may result in the increase of murder - if you've got that possibility, surely this ought to be researched? It'd look pretty shitty if a country passed gun law to find that 40% of their cases of assault suddenly turned into murder and manslaughter cases:

“And the National Rifle Association says that, "Guns don't kill people, people do,” but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that…” - Eddie Izzard

The reason I posted that joke is because it holds a valid point. Yes, it's people doing the killing, but at the end of the day, a gun can really help.

Think of guns as a catalyst to a problem. It doesn't cause the problem, it makes it worse. Or at least, that would be argument if you were to find murders increased as a result of gun legalisation. Hence why I would rather study to be put into this. If you want to make a situation better, you don't thrown in a catalyst that makes it worse. If there was a way to give guns to honest people and not to people who misuse them, then that'd be great, but I'm sure you realise that's not possible.

Quote from: koberulz
The complete lack of realistic legal use, and the increased ability to kill dozens of people all at once. It's quite different from something that has legitimate uses and kills one person at a time.

But the act of owning a missile doesn't kill people. As far situations: what if there's civil war? What if the government is corrupt and you need to overthrow them? What if one of the countries that hates us decides they have the firepower to take us one? Surely in those situations you ought to be able to have a missile? Enemy planes? If you've got heat-seeking missiles, they don't have to bomb your street. Your forefathers feared invasion, hence the second amendment. What if civilians in Pearl Harbor had the ability to take down Japanese planes?

Quote from: koberulz
Depends what aspect of life you're talking about. I'm also not familiar with the countries you're talking about, and I don't believe you've even named them, so it's a bit hard to comment.

Iraq
Afghanistan
Rwanda
Liberia
Sierra Leone
Somalia

So was it a good idea for those developing countries to have been armed with the weapons of the West?

I am fairly sure those countries have been armed by us, but if corrected wrong, then I accept that - though at the end of the day, they're still armed.



HOWEVER, this thread is 8 pages long, it's going around in circles. I've repeated many points several times - so chances are, if I reply, it'll be to something new, if it isn't, then you ought to already know my response. If you feel you've added something new and I've missed it, then you're welcome to point it out to me.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Operator_011 on October 09, 2010, 02:29:05 AM
HOWEVER, this thread is 8 pages long, it's going around in circles.
I agree.

To the Pit it goes. If you guys wish to keep jumping on the merry-go-round with koberulz, knock yourselves out.


Eleven.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 09, 2010, 09:59:30 AM
Yes, really. Racial and Religious Hatred Bill 2005 caused a ruckus over the issue of 'Freedom of Expression', it couldn't be passed until it didn't hurt people's freedom of expression. Read 29J of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, it's entitled 'Freedom of Expression' and considers heavily enough people's freedom of expression. Labour Party - 0, Democracy - 1.
Did the public have any legal standing to do anything, or was it just government reaction to public outcry/opposition parties voting the bill down? Here in Australia, the Labor party is intent on censoring the internet, despite the wishes of the public, and the Libs and Greens opposing the policy is our only hope. Of course, since three people practically nobody voted for decided the result of the election, the idea that we live in any sort of democracy is asinine.

Quote
I wouldn't just need numbers, why? I've already said my piece about statistics more than once. I don't have numbers to give and I've not claimed that I know what numbers would indicate that keeping guns illegal is a bad idea. I've argued the reasons to not be hasty and why legalisation of guns could be a bad idea and that we have lack of data on both sides of the argument to draw a conclusion. For figures, I'd want the number to improve enough to show that it's not a statistical anomaly and of course, it'd therefore have to be consistent. In the UK if have guns cuts violent crime and other crime by 3%, then it's an improvement, so long as we so no risks short term or long term, then despite being small, it's an improvement. But as I've maintain, statistics isn't enough.
You can't get these numbers without legalising guns, though, on a trial basis at least. Then you've either got the widespread distribution of guns that the US has, making a re-ban impractical, or such a low distribution of guns that the numbers are useless. This is why I asked how you'd prove that guns would be beneficial in the UK.

Quote
The act of owning a gun doesn't kill people.
Exactly.

Quote
The legalisation may result in the increase of murder - if you've got that possibility, surely this ought to be researched? It'd look pretty shitty if a country passed gun law to find that 40% of their cases of assault suddenly turned into murder and manslaughter cases
Except that again, you're at this point banning something because of its potential use in a crime, which you can't do. I don't see how that's different to cameras, keyboards or anything else.

Quote
As far situations: what if there's civil war? What if the government is corrupt and you need to overthrow them? What if one of the countries that hates us decides they have the firepower to take us one? Surely in those situations you ought to be able to have a missile? Enemy planes? If you've got heat-seeking missiles, they don't have to bomb your street. Your forefathers feared invasion, hence the second amendment. What if civilians in Pearl Harbor had the ability to take down Japanese planes?
Thus preceding that with the word 'realistic'.

Quote
Iraq
Afghanistan
Rwanda
Liberia
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Shall look into it.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 09, 2010, 10:31:27 AM
Quote from: koberulz
Did the public have any legal standing to do anything, or was it just government reaction to public outcry/opposition parties voting the bill down?

In that specific case, I believe it was parts of the government reacting to the outcry - in the end it was the House of Lords that rejected it. The people trying to pass it failed - for it to be allowed it had to have the amendments made to consider 'Freedom of Expression'. The Digital Economy Bill was represented by petitions, but I've not followed that one up because I was writing my dissertation at the time. I asked conservative MP, but from what I understood (when asking questions to conservative MP Baroness Warsi) was that the original issues that the petition brought to attention were no longer an issue with the bill.

I don't think we live in a perfect democracy, there's a lot of actions that are completely undemocratic, I don't put a huge amount of trust into the system, so if the coalition suddenly decided to pass a "Gun Ownership Bill" there's a chance my voice won't be represented and it's possible parliament will turn around and do something completely undemocratic. The labour party did - nobody voted for Gordon Brown, he just took the seat of power when Blair stepped down, nobody had the balls to call a re-election. Nobody voted for a coalition government, I voted Lib Dem, I didn't vote for them to join the conservatives. But you asked "who makes the decision" and it's the kind of thing that's in the hands of our government.

Quote from: koberulz
You can't get these numbers without legalising guns, though, on a trial basis at least. Then you've either got the widespread distribution of guns that the US has, making a re-ban impractical, or such a low distribution of guns that the numbers are useless. This is why I asked how you'd prove that guns would be beneficial in the UK.

I a council were able to trial guns in their county and keep it controlled, there's still a level of risk, but you could base a decision on the results and gradually expand gun availability in the UK. The problem is, it'd still be exploitable. The trial sounds like a good idea, so if that could be pulled off, then I'd support it, if not, then I'm just going to state, "I don't know".

Quote from: koberulz
Except that again, you're at this point banning something because of its potential use in a crime, which you can't do. I don't see how that's different to cameras, keyboards or anything else.

I'll try one last time to make it clear, if not, then it'll be difficult for either one of us to argue on this point. It's a question of positives outweighing the negatives where alternative methods are incapable. Getting rid of cameras creates a great number of problems, many businesses, industries and individuals use cameras and its benefits are widely exploited and if we could prove that removing cameras will reduce pedophilia and succeed where other methods fail, then it'd still be difficult because of the logistics of actually removing them from society. In the UK, guns aren't widely used or widely available, people don't rely on them for any particular purpose, so there's less of a reason to have them legal than a camera.

Quote from: koberulz
Thus preceding that with the word 'realistic'.

It's not all that unrealistic. They're all possibilities, they're things that have happened before and things people are still capable of today and the motives still exist. Sure, they're not likely to happen, but if the situation arises, wouldn't you like to be able to protect yourself?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 09, 2010, 11:24:46 AM
Quote from: koberulz
Did the public have any legal standing to do anything, or was it just government reaction to public outcry/opposition parties voting the bill down?

In that specific case, I believe it was parts of the government reacting to the outcry - in the end it was the House of Lords that rejected it. The people trying to pass it failed - for it to be allowed it had to have the amendments made to consider 'Freedom of Expression'. The Digital Economy Bill was represented by petitions, but I've not followed that one up because I was writing my dissertation at the time. I asked conservative MP, but from what I understood (when asking questions to conservative MP Baroness Warsi) was that the original issues that the petition brought to attention were no longer an issue with the bill.
Which is more government working than democracy working, really.

Quote
do something completely undemocratic. The labour party did - nobody voted for Gordon Brown, he just took the seat of power when Blair stepped down, nobody had the balls to call a re-election.
Sounds familiar. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_rudd#Leadership_challenge_and_resignation)

Quote
Nobody voted for a coalition government, I voted Lib Dem, I didn't vote for them to join the conservatives.
And again. (http://koberulz.webege.com/Blog/2010/09072010Our_Great_Democracy.php)

Quote
I a council were able to trial guns in their county and keep it controlled, there's still a level of risk, but you could base a decision on the results and gradually expand gun availability in the UK. The problem is, it'd still be exploitable. The trial sounds like a good idea, so if that could be pulled off, then I'd support it, if not, then I'm just going to state, "I don't know".
There's no way doing that would ever work. Therefore, your pro/con argument is pretty useless, because you don't know what the answers to that question are.

Quote
I'll try one last time to make it clear, if not, then it'll be difficult for either one of us to argue on this point. It's a question of positives outweighing the negatives where alternative methods are incapable. Getting rid of cameras creates a great number of problems, many businesses, industries and individuals use cameras and its benefits are widely exploited and if we could prove that removing cameras will reduce pedophilia and succeed where other methods fail, then it'd still be difficult because of the logistics of actually removing them from society. In the UK, guns aren't widely used or widely available, people don't rely on them for any particular purpose, so there's less of a reason to have them legal than a camera.
See above.

Quote
Quote from: koberulz
Thus preceding that with the word 'realistic'.
It's not all that unrealistic. They're all possibilities, they're things that have happened before and things people are still capable of today and the motives still exist. Sure, they're not likely to happen, but if the situation arises, wouldn't you like to be able to protect yourself?
The notion of an organised civil war is incredibly unrealistic.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 09, 2010, 01:00:34 PM
Quote from: koberulz
There's no way doing that would ever work. Therefore, your pro/con argument is pretty useless, because you don't know what the answers to that question are.

Considering my argument is: before we can make such a decision is that we need evidence that it'd work and that not all data can be universalized, therefore the argument that other countries should replicate US gun law is invalid, except in cases where we can be sure it's an effective method. We don't know the effects. Then I don't need to know the answers, rather, I am asking for them. I've posed to you why we shouldn't just accept that guns are good for a society without being able to confirm whether the statement is true or not. I don't know what figures are beneficial and I don't know the best method of testing for said figures or conducting a study. I just know that hasty decisions based off of misuse of statistics or rhetoric is not a good basis of passing a bill or claiming something to be true. My other argument, which I haven't emphasised for quite a number of posts, is that whilst we're unable to confirm things like: "America will be better off without guns" and "the UK will be better off with them" then our focus ought to be on other methods of preventing crime, things we know to work and methods we know to be more effective. I think changing current gun law ought to be pretty low on the priority list.

So...I don't see how 'not knowing the answers' makes my argument useless because my argument hasn't claimed that I do or is it dependent on the answers.

Quote from: koberulz
Which is more government working than democracy working, really.

It's a faulty system of democracy because the government finds ways to get away with being undemocratic and I think, yes, we need a true democracy, but I don't think we're going to get one, so we have to work with what we've got and keep the government on their toes every time they abuse the system.

Quote from: koberulz
The notion of an organised civil war is incredibly unrealistic.

I was talking about war in general. If it comes to your doorstep, whether it's a civil war or a war with another country, surely you ought to be able to protect yourself. We know from history that it happens and it can happen again, the government isn't capable of protecting everybody. Again, wasn't this the basis behind the second amendment?
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 09, 2010, 02:07:49 PM
I don't see how 'not knowing the answers' makes my argument useless because my argument hasn't claimed that I do or is it dependent on the answers.
No, but it does depend on being able to know the answers, which I'd posit is not something that can be done.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 09, 2010, 02:26:29 PM
So instead you'd base a decision on rhetoric and misused statistics? If we're to maintain you can't know the answer (I don't know if studies could or couldn't be conducted to find the answer, but I'll assume for the sake of argument, they can't), then that point still stands.

Without enough evidence on either side of the fence and the inability to test the effects of legalisation or banning guns, then surely other methods of reducing crime ought to be explored and for gun laws to NOT be changed (unless such evidence is found)? America keeps their guns, the UK isn't given them and both countries go out and seek ways of reducing their crime.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Agamemnon on October 09, 2010, 03:54:27 PM
HOWEVER, this thread is 8 pages long, it's going around in circles.
I agree.

To the Pit it goes. If you guys wish to keep jumping on the merry-go-round with koberulz, knock yourselves out.

It's obvious to me that he's more interested in protecting his paranoia than in having an honest discussion.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: koberulz on October 09, 2010, 11:18:53 PM
Without enough evidence on either side of the fence and the inability to test the effects of legalisation or banning guns, then surely other methods of reducing crime ought to be explored
You seem to think that legalising guns is being touted as a crime reduction measure, and that even if it were such a measure it must only be used on its own. This is not the case.

Quote
and for gun laws to NOT be changed (unless such evidence is found)? America keeps their guns, the UK isn't given them and both countries go out and seek ways of reducing their crime.
In the absence of statistics, however, the freedom argument is really the only one left standing.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: Seppuku on October 10, 2010, 04:46:42 AM
Quote from: koberulz
In the absence of statistics, however, the freedom argument is really the only one left standing.

With countries that really suffer for gun crime, there is enough to suggest that making the decisions because of the freedom argument, then there's still risk factors involved. In making the decision you are playing with people's lives. I a country, like the US can quadruple for murder, almost equal for assault and have more 600 times the amount of murders in total being committed with the use of firearms, it brings into question whether introducing firearms is a good idea. And whilst the question remains you can't have a hasty decision because it'd be a stupid one.
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: generousgeorge on October 10, 2010, 09:34:25 AM
Some of the most adamant Christians I know sleep with guns under their beds. For example, this fellow I spent 4 hours with the other day told me he did.  http://www.buzzardhut.net/index/htm/floyd.htm   
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: xphobe on October 10, 2010, 10:30:41 AM
Some of the most adamant Christians I know sleep with guns under their beds.

They better hope that Jesus doesn't come "like a thief in the night".

"Homeowner reports fatal shooting of prowler.  The deceased is a long-haired middle-eastern male in his early 30s, wearing only a white robe and sandals."
Title: Re: Atheists and Gun Ownership/Usage
Post by: generousgeorge on October 11, 2010, 05:17:38 AM
and whispering.... "Mary, Mary..... I'm baaacccckkkk!  :P