Gun Ownership is a Privilege, Not a Right

[Dcdrac]

Definitons are menaingless nit picking frankly still comes down to what is driving the desire to have guns full stop whatever the are, and it strikes me after convresations on Skype with NRA members there is a big fear of many things driving it, fear seems to be the driving force with the people I have talked with, of a potential tyannical government and other people and hte potetial threat they seem to pose, it just seems to me , again thisis purely subjective on my part an impression based on three deyas of late night skype discussions, that the US is a society gripped by fear.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Ian

To produce an ad hominem argument, Darat. I make no bones about the fact that I am a gun owner, that I favor the privilege for individuals to privately own firearms, and that I used to work in law enforcement. However, labelling you, or others, who favor "better regulations regarding the ownership of guns" as anti-gun is both unfair and cowardly.

Actually I don't favour that for the USA. One of my first great experiences on this Forum was from a "gun control" thread. I had always been of the view "guns bad" and therefore they should be done away with (as much as possible). However the evidence simply does not exist to create a causal relationship between gun numbers and the problems of guns being used inappropriately, so I changed my mind. (Beyond the simplistic but accurate numerical one i.e. that more guns in a given society will result in more accidents than if there were less guns - simply because if there are more guns and the same accident rate the number of such accidents would increase.)

If the USA wishes to consider the number of deaths and injuries from firearms being used inappropriately (mainly criminal) a problem then it will need a solution tailored to USA society. Because there are so many difference between societies the raw statistics from other countries and societies are pretty much useless in determining what would work in the USA. Albeit I think they can be used to try and understand the complexity of problems societies face when trying to deal with such matters.

To me it's akin to the apparent problem we have in the UK with alcohol, it's a societal problem not a problem with alcohol.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Darat

Why are those for better regulations regarding the ownership of guns labelled by others as "anti-gun"?

The logic is the same as labeling those who believe a woman should have an abortion choice as pro-abortion.

[Metullus]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

The logic is the same as labeling those who believe a woman should have an abortion choice as pro-abortion.

Or those who suggest limits on abortions as being anti-women.

[Robert Prey]

[quote=RandFan;8857880]Robert. The law that prohibits guns in Japan was enacted in 1958. You don't need to wallow in ignorance. You can always google. It took me less than a minute to find the law.
/QUOTE]

You just didn't go back far enough, You don't need to wallow in ignorance to google a little deeper to discover that Japan never had any cultural history of gun ownership, considering it the weapon of a coward. Thus the military could take over the government with little to fear from samurai carrying civilians. Never take a sword to a gun fight.

"But the Japanese past, while violent, laid no cultural foundation for a gun culture. Weapons always were, and remain today, the mark of the rulers, not the ruled."

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by RandFan

. B.) Demonstrate that minorities are inherently violent? C.) Show to what degree minorities contribute to the homicide rate?

You could google that yourself as well. Nonetheless:

In us by race, perentage for the year 2007

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a14.htm

per 100,000

White, non-hispanic: 2.7 per

Black 23.1 Per


Hispanic, 7.6 per

* * *

And:

"Black people represented an estimated 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2005, the latest data available, but were the victims of 49 percent of all murders and 15 percent of rapes, assaults and other nonfatal violent crimes nationwide.

Most of the black murder victims — 93 percent — were killed by other black people, the study found.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-3153497.html

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Most of the black murder victims — 93 percent — were killed by other black people, the study found.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-3153497.html

Originally Posted by Google Dictionary

in·her·ent
/inˈhi(ə)rənt
Adjective

1. Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute: "inherent dangers".

"Inherent". Do you understand what "inherent" means? Think of "intrinsic", "inherited", "genetic".

Try again.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

"But the Japanese past, while violent, laid no cultural foundation for a gun culture. Weapons always were, and remain today, the mark of the rulers, not the ruled."

Special pleading. But your entire post is wonderful. A violent nation is made peaceful by ensuring they can't have guns. Thank you.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Special pleading. But your entire post is wonderful. A violent nation is made peaceful by ensuring they can't have guns. Thank you.

Ah, but you miss the point which is, a criminal government cannot be opposed by a disarmed citizenry.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Ah, but you miss the point which is, a criminal government cannot be opposed by a disarmed citizenry.

It can be voted out of office though. How many times has a modern liberal democracy like the USA lost its democracy? I'm not talking about a fledgling society but one that has a long history of stability? The fear is irrational.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by RandFan

It can be voted out of office though. How many times has a modern liberal democracy like the USA lost its democracy? I'm not talking about a fledgling society but one that has a long history of stability? The fear is irrational.

Trouble is, the US has not lost it's democracy, but it has lost its Constitutional Republic, now degenerated into the tyranny of a de facto majority rule democracy, a creation of the low information voter and celebrated by low life political demagogues.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Demonstrate that minorities are inherently violent?

Why should he have to? Do you suppose that "inherently" is part of his argument? Subject to interpretation, it seems reasonable to me to expect that minorities, if the attention that they receive from the political system puts them at a disadvantage relative to the majority, might turn to violence. That is, the violence of the majority, since it finds expression through the political system, is not counted, making the minority look more violent than the majority.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

...low information voter...

Like birthers, JFK CTists, Modern Medicine CTists, Climate Change denialists. Yeah, low information leads to a lot of bizarre outcomes.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by RandFan

It can be voted out of office though.

If the people who manage elections do an honest job.

Originally Posted by RandFan

How many times has a modern liberal democracy like the USA lost its democracy?

Two come immediately to mind: Russia, 1917, Germany, 1933.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Like birthers, JFK CTists, Modern Medicine CTists, Climate Change denialists. Yeah, low information leads to a lot of bizarre outcomes.

Who you calling "low information"? This would start a massive derail, but the UK Met office reports no warming in 16 years. The latest IPCC report says the science most definitely is NOT settled on effects of solar variation. So, maybe a moderator could move both these comments over to the "Conspiracy theories" thread?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Trouble is, the US has not lost it's democracy, but it has lost its Constitutional Republic, now degenerated into the tyranny of a de facto majority rule democracy, a creation of the low information voter and celebrated by low life political demagogues.

Legislators pass laws not citizens (leaving aside a small fraction of referendums). Citizens elect leaders democratically. Those leaders constitute our Republic.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

If the people who manage elections do an honest job.Two come immediately to mind: Russia, 1917, Germany, 1933.

The tsar was democratically elected? How much do you know about 1917?

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

The tsar was democratically elected? How much do you know about 1917?

Queen Elizabeth II was not elected. Does this make Great Britain not a liberal democracy? The Duma was elected. I have read Neikrich and Heller, Utopia in Power, Pipes, Russia Under the Old Regime, Barmine, One Who Survived, and everything Solzhenitsyn published in English (there's a lot of non-fiction in there) prior to his return to Russia.

How 'bout you?

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

Queen Elizabeth II was not elected. Does this make Great Britain not a liberal democracy? The Duma was elected. I have read Neikrich and Heller, Utopia in Power, Pipes, Russia Under the Old Regime, Barmine, One Who Survived, and everything Solzhenitsyn published in English (there's a lot of non-fiction in there) prior to his return to Russia.

How 'bout you?

Oh, enough to know the limits of democracy in Tsarist russia were somewhat different to those in other democratic monarchies of the era. That the century before had seen as many steps backwards and compromises as step forwards. The regime was little changed from the model in place during the 1905 bloody sunday masacre.


In point of fact, isnt the uprising of 1917 the kind of thing you are meant to be keeping your guns at hand to carry out if the government chooses to turn cannons on civilians? Should it not be considered the perfect example of popular discontent and well armed militias opposing tyranny?

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat
Why are those for better regulations regarding the ownership of guns labelled by others as "anti-gun"?

The logic is the same as labeling those who believe a woman should have an abortion choice as pro-abortion.

Or labelling those who favour restrictions (or even waiting periods) on the circumstances where a woman can have an abortion as "anti-abortion"

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

The tsar was democratically elected? How much do you know about 1917?

Major irony there. Russia was a Republic when the government was overthrown by the Bolsheviks.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

Major irony there. Russia was a Republic when the government was overthrown by the Bolsheviks.

Ah so the armed insurection to overthrow the tsarist autocracy was fine and dandy, but the follow on three months later when the provisional government collapsed and failed to take was a whole different matter?

Again, does that not make the first stage (the febuary revolution was it?) the kind of violence that is being advocated as a possible valid use of private arms?

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by RandFan

It can be voted out of office though. How many times has a modern liberal democracy like the USA lost its democracy? I'm not talking about a fledgling society but one that has a long history of stability? The fear is irrational.

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

If the people who manage elections do an honest job.Two come immediately to mind: Russia, 1917, Germany, 1933.

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

Major irony there. Russia was a Republic when the government was overthrown by the Bolsheviks.

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

Ah so the armed insurection to overthrow the tsarist autocracy was fine and dandy, but the follow on three months later when the provisional government collapsed and failed to take was a whole different matter?

Again, does that not make the first stage (the febuary revolution was it?) the kind of violence that is being advocated as a possible valid use of private arms?

Time to highlight RandFan's original question.

Russia in 1917 hadn't had a long history of stability by any reasonable definition.

The Weimar republic hadn't had much of one either.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Time to highlight RandFan's original question.

Russia in 1917 hadn't had a long history of stability by any reasonable definition.

The Weimar republic hadn't had much of one either.

Thanks jimbob. I try to narrow my questions but people read what they want respond to what they want.

[Dcdrac]

http://wearecentralpa.com/fulltext-news?nxd_id=422982

4 More dead this was going on while the NRA were holding their press conference

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

http://wearecentralpa.com/fulltext-news?nxd_id=422982

4 More dead this was going on while the NRA were holding their press conference

murder suicide in Tucson that same morning

[Dcdrac]

And this was just nuts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...guards-schools

[Biscuit]

Welcome to America where guns don't kill people so just fire the **** away to solve your problems!

shots fired in mall parking lot!

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

And this was just nuts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...guards-schools

Quote:

Throwing down the gauntlet to Barack Obama, he declared: "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." That is a mantra that he has used after several previous mass shootings.

A reckless and demonstrable false claim. What a fool.

[Dcdrac]

And this is an insightful article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...t-us-gun-habit

"We watch their movies, we eat their fast food. Their culture has become global culture. So it always comes as a shock to realise how different Americans are from everyone else. The massacre in Newtown horrified even those who thought themselves inured to horror – I know many who could hardly bear to look at those smiling family photographs of the children – but for non-Americans the subsequent discussion has also been shocking to watch.

To outsiders, the point seems so blindingly obvious: more guns equal more death. In Britain, where gun laws are strict, the annual number of gun-related murders stood, at last count, at 41. In the US the equivalent figure is just short of 10,000.

Whether it's Britain, Japan or Australia, the evidence is the same: strict gun control means fewer people die. American unwillingness to face this basic arithmetic – preferring to blame the mental health system or videogames or the "feminisation" of the classroom, as one conservative pundit did, or the absence of religious prayer in schools – the explanation of former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee – rather than the most obvious culprit for all this gun violence, namely easy access to military-grade assault weapons, can drive outsiders to distraction. Witness Piers Morgan's bad-tempered hosting of a CNN debate on guns this week, haranguing his guests for failing to admit what to him was obvious – a performance that few of his American colleagues would match.
"

[mike3]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

And this is an insightful article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...t-us-gun-habit

"We watch their movies, we eat their fast food. Their culture has become global culture. So it always comes as a shock to realise how different Americans are from everyone else. The massacre in Newtown horrified even those who thought themselves inured to horror – I know many who could hardly bear to look at those smiling family photographs of the children – but for non-Americans the subsequent discussion has also been shocking to watch.

To outsiders, the point seems so blindingly obvious: more guns equal more death. In Britain, where gun laws are strict, the annual number of gun-related murders stood, at last count, at 41. In the US the equivalent figure is just short of 10,000.

Whether it's Britain, Japan or Australia, the evidence is the same: strict gun control means fewer people die. American unwillingness to face this basic arithmetic – preferring to blame the mental health system or videogames or the "feminisation" of the classroom, as one conservative pundit did, or the absence of religious prayer in schools – the explanation of former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee – rather than the most obvious culprit for all this gun violence, namely easy access to military-grade assault weapons, can drive outsiders to distraction. Witness Piers Morgan's bad-tempered hosting of a CNN debate on guns this week, haranguing his guests for failing to admit what to him was obvious – a performance that few of his American colleagues would match.
"

I'd want to point out this. While the guy advocates gun control (and suggests the ideal thing is a complete gun ban (of all guns), not just gun "control"), he also argues that the "blindingly obvious" to outsiders (and some insiders) equation "more guns = more death" is in fact too simplistic and not so "blindingly obvious" after all:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...d-gun-control/

What do you think?

[mike3]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

Why should he have to? Do you suppose that "inherently" is part of his argument? Subject to interpretation, it seems reasonable to me to expect that minorities, if the attention that they receive from the political system puts them at a disadvantage relative to the majority, might turn to violence. That is, the violence of the majority, since it finds expression through the political system, is not counted, making the minority look more violent than the majority.

Well, the asker may have been using an assumption that many (most?) who argue that stuff have a hidden racist bias/belief in "inherent" "badness". And, as you may notice, he didn't object when asked to "demonstrate their inherent violence".

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

And this is an insightful article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...t-us-gun-habit

"We watch their movies, we eat their fast food. Their culture has become global culture. So it always comes as a shock to realise how different Americans are from everyone else. The massacre in Newtown horrified even those who thought themselves inured to horror – I know many who could hardly bear to look at those smiling family photographs of the children – but for non-Americans the subsequent discussion has also been shocking to watch.

To outsiders, the point seems so blindingly obvious: more guns equal more death. In Britain, where gun laws are strict, the annual number of gun-related murders stood, at last count, at 41. In the US the equivalent figure is just short of 10,000.

Whether it's Britain, Japan or Australia, the evidence is the same: strict gun control means fewer people die. American unwillingness to face this basic arithmetic – preferring to blame the mental health system or videogames or the "feminisation" of the classroom, as one conservative pundit did, or the absence of religious prayer in schools – the explanation of former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee – rather than the most obvious culprit for all this gun violence, namely easy access to military-grade assault weapons, can drive outsiders to distraction. Witness Piers Morgan's bad-tempered hosting of a CNN debate on guns this week, haranguing his guests for failing to admit what to him was obvious – a performance that few of his American colleagues would match.
"

In the US, "More Guns equals Less Crime" empirically outlined in the book by John Lott -- "More Guns, Less Crime."

Put Am. Cities like Detroit, Chicago, DC and LA in England, or
Australia or Japan, and murder rates would skyrocket and people would demand guns -- their only defense from the barbarians.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

Originally Posted by RandFan

How many times has a modern liberal democracy like the USA lost its democracy?

Two come immediately to mind: Russia, 1917, Germany, 1933.

The tsar was democratically elected? How much do you know about 1917?

Major irony there. Russia was a Republic when the government was overthrown by the Bolsheviks.

Ah so the armed insurection to overthrow the tsarist autocracy was fine and dandy, but the follow on three months later when the provisional government collapsed and failed to take was a whole different matter?

No. I'll presume to paraphrase. If you're going to wash other people's dirty laundry while naked, don't stand too close to the wringer.

[Hans]

deleted

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by mike3

I'd want to point out this. While the guy advocates gun control (and suggests the ideal thing is a complete gun ban (of all guns), not just gun "control"), he also argues that the "blindingly obvious" to outsiders (and some insiders) equation "more guns = more death" is in fact too simplistic and not so "blindingly obvious" after all:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...d-gun-control/

What do you think?

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. - H. L. Mencken

[Chuck Guiteau]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

In the US, "More Guns equals Less Crime" empirically outlined in the book by John Lott -- "More Guns, Less Crime."

Put Am. Cities like Detroit, Chicago, DC and LA in England, or
Australia or Japan, and murder rates would skyrocket and people would demand guns -- their only defense from the barbarians.

Although the anti-gun crowd has tried many times to do so, not one empirical study has ever linked gun ownership to gun crime. The last to try was the Wintimute study, and to accomplish this he had to consider everyone under the age of 26 "A child" and to include suicides by firearm.
It's said been said before but it's worth mentioning again, Switzerland has lots and lots of guns. Firearms are an integral part of their heritage, and yet they have the lowest murder rate in the world.
Taking the suicide rate out of the equation in analysis of gun violence in the US and the assumptions change dramatically.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Chuck Guiteau

Taking the suicide rate out of the equation in analysis of gun violence in the US and the assumptions change dramatically.

Sure, take the suicides out. Take gangs out as well (because they're not American, apparently). Take out gun violence by minorities while you're at it. Soon enough, you have a right peaceful, gun-toting paradise.

I read posts like this and see denial on a massive scale. Something's badly broken in the US. The first thing to do is admit it.

[Sam.I.Am]

Sure. because taking someone elses life against their will is the exact same thing as taking your own.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

Sure. because taking someone elses life against their will is the exact same thing as taking your own.

Who said that? Because I didn't.