Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
24 online now:
DrJones*, jar, JonF, PaulK (4 members, 20 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,353 Year: 20,389/19,786 Month: 786/2,023 Week: 294/392 Day: 25/129 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   gun control
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 72 (33976)
03-09-2003 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by nator
03-09-2003 9:10 AM


Re: Talk is cheap...
You have also ignored the fact that more people use guns to kill themselves than are used to kill others.

Schraf,

Sorry to only respond to one section of your post, but this seems silly to me. You keep blaming guns for killing, and here you blame them for suicides. Obviously a person does not decide to commit suicide just because they have access to a gun. There is problems in their lives, and they feel hopeless and lost. This is not the guns fault.

Again you are ignoring the real problem, placing the blame on guns.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nator, posted 03-09-2003 9:10 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by nator, posted 03-12-2003 8:24 AM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2236 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 62 of 72 (34032)
03-10-2003 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Minnemooseus
03-05-2003 4:55 PM


quote:

define the line between weapons of self-defense, and
weapons of mass destruction.

The difference seems to be who owns them .... the US and UK
nuclear arsenals are 'defensive deterrants' while any enemy
nation's identicle weapons are 'weapons of mass destruction'.

Similarly with side-arms ... law abiding citizens may view them
as a means of defense, while criminals view them as offensive.

A line from 'Shane' springs to mind :

'A gun is just a tool, no better or worse than the man
using it.'

It doesn't stop them being the most accessible means of inficting
fatal injuries ... it just makes the whole issue much less
than straight forward.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-05-2003 4:55 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
day5creations
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 72 (34099)
03-11-2003 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by nator
03-09-2003 9:10 AM


Re: Talk is cheap...
quote:
...IOW, requiring all gun owners to be much more responsible with their weapons, and hold them liable if they did not secure them properly.

Hears a novel thought... How about we hold the criminals responsible for theft and illegal use of the weapon rather then punish the law abiding individuals that choose to arm themselves in order to fend of the multitudes of repeat offenders that our court system releases every day?

Naw.. That would never work.

In my previous post I was referring to the "bad side of town" in those major cities. I feel perfectly safe in a patrol car most nights, but that does not make it reality now does it?

[This message has been edited by day5creations, 03-11-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nator, posted 03-09-2003 9:10 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by jdean33442, posted 03-11-2003 12:48 PM day5creations has not yet responded
 Message 65 by greyline, posted 03-12-2003 2:33 AM day5creations has not yet responded
 Message 68 by nator, posted 03-12-2003 8:34 AM day5creations has not yet responded

  
jdean33442
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 72 (34123)
03-11-2003 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by day5creations
03-11-2003 1:13 AM


Re: Talk is cheap...
quote:
Hears a novel thought... How about we hold the criminals responsible for theft and illegal use of the weapon rather then punish the law abiding individuals that choose to arm themselves in order to fend of the multitudes of repeat offenders that our court system releases every day?

Quite novel indeed. The crackpots trying to ban firearms are the same who allow criminals to reign free.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by day5creations, posted 03-11-2003 1:13 AM day5creations has not yet responded

  
greyline
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 72 (34159)
03-12-2003 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by day5creations
03-11-2003 1:13 AM


Re: Talk is cheap...
Red wrote:
I can see no reason to make it illegal for law abiding citizens to own a handgun or non-assault hunting rifle/shotgun when criminals are not bound to the same laws.

and day5creations wrote:

How about we hold the criminals responsible for theft and illegal use of the weapon rather then punish the law abiding individuals that choose to arm themselves in order to fend of the multitudes of repeat offenders that our court system releases every day?

In what way are criminals not bound to the same laws? Laws apply in the same way to every citizen. And if multitudes of repeat offenders are allegedly being released, isn't the solution to stop releasing them?

So glad I live in Oz.

------------------
o--greyline--o


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by day5creations, posted 03-11-2003 1:13 AM day5creations has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 03-12-2003 6:47 AM greyline has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 66 of 72 (34168)
03-12-2003 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by greyline
03-12-2003 2:33 AM


Re: Talk is cheap...
I like to occasionally mention ways of using UBB codes, and you can, if the style is acceptable to you, optionally include the names as part of the quote like this:

[qs=Red]I can see no reason...[/qs]

Which would end up looking ilke this:

Red writes:

I can see no reason to make it illegal for law abiding citizens to own a handgun or non-assault hunting rifle/shotgun when criminals are not bound to the same laws.

You can have more than just the name, eg:

[qs=and day5creations]
How about we hold...[/qs]

Which ends up looking like this:

and day5creations writes:


How about we hold the criminals responsible for theft and illegal use of the weapon rather then punish the law abiding individuals that choose to arm themselves in order to fend of the multitudes of repeat offenders that our court system releases every day?

The different line spacing after the "So-and-so writes" part depends upon whether you include a carriage return after the opening [qs].

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by greyline, posted 03-12-2003 2:33 AM greyline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by greyline, posted 03-12-2003 5:13 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 482 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 67 of 72 (34182)
03-12-2003 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by funkmasterfreaky
03-09-2003 12:40 PM


Re: Talk is cheap...
quote:
Sorry to only respond to one section of your post, but this seems silly to me. You keep blaming guns for killing, and here you blame them for suicides. Obviously a person does not decide to commit suicide just because they have access to a gun. There is problems in their lives, and they feel hopeless and lost. This is not the guns fault.

Again you are ignoring the real problem, placing the blame on guns.


If your wife was severely depressed and suicidal, would you keep a loaded handgun in your house where she could get it easily?

My point is not that guns cause violence.

My point is that the ready availability of cheap handguns and military-style guns make suicides and impersonal, long-distance, very quick violence and death very, very easy to do.

If we have this problem with violence, WHY in the world do we make the things that make it easy to do violence to ourselves or each other so ridiculously easy to get?

It's like making an alcoholic sit in a room surrounded by dozens of bottles of liquor, and then saying, "Alcohol doesn't cause alcoholism, alcoholics do."

It goes against all reason and sanity.

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-12-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 03-09-2003 12:40 PM funkmasterfreaky has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Silent H, posted 03-12-2003 1:41 PM nator has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 482 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 68 of 72 (34185)
03-12-2003 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by day5creations
03-11-2003 1:13 AM


Re: Talk is cheap...
quote:
Hears a novel thought... How about we hold the criminals responsible for theft and illegal use of the weapon rather then punish the law abiding individuals that choose to arm themselves in order to fend of the multitudes of repeat offenders that our court system releases every day?

We do hold them responsible.

But a gun is not a toy. It is a highly specialized device designed to kill living things at a distance.

Please give me one good reason why there shouldn't be some pretty stringent laws in place for how they should be secured from people who might want to steal them?

Why should people who decide they want to own a extremely dangerous (yet highly portable and concealable) devide such as this bear no responsibility whasoever for keeping out of the hands of people who might misuse it?

No comment on my car analogy?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by day5creations, posted 03-11-2003 1:13 AM day5creations has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4132 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 69 of 72 (34206)
03-12-2003 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by nator
03-12-2003 8:24 AM


shraf writes:

If we have this problem with violence, WHY in the world do we make the things that make it easy to do violence to ourselves or each other so ridiculously easy to get?

It's like making an alcoholic sit in a room surrounded by dozens of bottles of liquor, and then saying, "Alcohol doesn't cause alcoholism, alcoholics do."

While I agree with tight and efficient regulations on gun manufacturing and ownership, as well as increased responsibility for gun owners, I wholly reject your analogy as a reason to support this position.

First of all WE don't have a problem with violence. Blanket statements like that are always problematic for me.

In our (that is American) society there are many who are prone to violence, more so than in other countries.

Such stats do not mean that (in the US) there are more people prone to violence than not, or that guns made anyone more prone to violence.

Given the generally peaceful daily routine in america (violence is not the norm), it should be obvious there are many more people with self control in the US than without.

Thus WE don't have a problem with violence, only a certain selection within the population does. One group casts no shadow of guilt upon the other.

And this may be the closest your alcoholism analogy comes to the violence problem. Some people have problems, while others do not. They are sufficient in number that we are concerned (regardless of whether they use guns). What then should be done?

The actual history of our solution to the "alcohol problem" indicates why we should NOT base legislation of this issue on "our problem" style reasonings.

The last time we did this (blaming crime and intoxication on alcohol) we got prohibition which didn't solve anything.

In this day and age, due to the lessens we learned during prohibition, we do not keep everyone separate from alcohol until they prove they CAN handle it.

Instead, we separate particular individuals from alcohol when they prove they CANNOT handle it. If their problem is sufficiently great, we may remove these individuals from society until their problem is addressed.

The emphasis is on an individual's responsibility and not on the alcohol, no matter how seductive and delicious that nectar may seem to some, or to the culture as a whole.

Much to the contrary of your conclusion, alcoholics (or perhaps their genes)DO cause alcoholism and not the other way around. The onus is rightly placed on the individual to control their own problem.

Your reference to suicides falls apart along these same lines. The use of guns by suicide victims is interesting as a statistic on method of choice, but does not mean that people are seduced into suicide by the "ease" of gun use, or wouldn't have accomplished their goal otherwise.

In fact, if we use the latter statement's logic, are we going to say sleeping pills are "better" than guns because they are one of the least effective methods?

Personally if I knew a friend was suicidal I wouldn't want them close to shoestrings, neckties, knives (even butter knives), razor blades, alcohol and a zillion other things just as much as a gun.

Realistically, if a person truly wishes to kill themselves they will do so, guns or no guns. Firearms do not make that choice any "easier" or "attractive", only faster in execution. To think otherwise is to shift responsibility from a thinking individual to an inanimate object.

Arguments for firearm regulation must not be based on appeals to the weakest members of society, or condemnations of cultural trends, or passing the buck from human users to the existence of inanimate objects.

Arguments must be based on realistic and practical assessments of the inherent safety issues regarding the storage and use of a particular device.

Simply put...

Ball and powder weapons, by their very nature, required a measure of responsibility in the user that modern firearms do not. They were also limited in their capacity for accidental discharge, and amount of damage done.

The second amendment was written in the era of ball and musket and its broad acceptance of weapons ownership made sense because of the nature of weapons at that time.

It is the changing nature of weapons themselves, which has come to necessitate proper training and greater responsibility for users of our modern, ADVANCED WEAPONS.

Just as cars and planes differ so vastly from human legs and horses that they require more responsibility and education to use, modern weapons require much more than ball and powder muskets.

This is the only argument which needs to be made. It is sufficient.

The rest are neither sufficient nor accurate, and unfortunately act as an unneeded distraction in the overall discussion of necessary change.

holmes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by nator, posted 03-12-2003 8:24 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by nator, posted 03-13-2003 9:11 AM Silent H has responded

  
greyline
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 72 (34222)
03-12-2003 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
03-12-2003 6:47 AM


Re: Talk is cheap...
Percipient writes:

I like to occasionally mention ways of using UBB codes, and you can, if the style is acceptable to you, optionally include the names as part of the quote like this...

Thanks, Percy. I can usually only learn one new thing per day, but as you see I have made an exception.

------------------
o--greyline--o


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 03-12-2003 6:47 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 482 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 71 of 72 (34269)
03-13-2003 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Silent H
03-12-2003 1:41 PM


quote:
First of all WE don't have a problem with violence. Blanket statements like that are always problematic for me.

In our (that is American) society there are many who are prone to violence, more so than in other countries.

Such stats do not mean that (in the US) there are more people prone to violence than not, or that guns made anyone more prone to violence.


I never said that. I said that having lots of guns around makes the kind of violence done to each other more likely to be gun violence than if so many guns weren't around.

quote:
Given the generally peaceful daily routine in america (violence is not the norm), it should be obvious there are many more people with self control in the US than without.

Do you really know if this is true? How many americans use corporal punishment with their children compared to other countries? How do we compare with other cultures in verbally abusing one another? How many people drive aggressively or are dangerous on the roads? How many people support the death penalty when they wouldn't ever lift a hand to anyone personally?

quote:
Thus WE don't have a problem with violence, only a certain selection within the population does. One group casts no shadow of guilt upon the other.

But we are all part of the culture, and those who aren't prone to violence still live in the culture with those who are. Who is to say how many people are more prone to violence because they live here than they might have been if they lived in Japan, let's say?

I don't think, IOW, that the groups are that easily separated.

quote:
And this may be the closest your alcoholism analogy comes to the violence problem. Some people have problems, while others do not. They are sufficient in number that we are concerned (regardless of whether they use guns). What then should be done?

The actual history of our solution to the "alcohol problem" indicates why we should NOT base legislation of this issue on "our problem" style reasonings.

The last time we did this (blaming crime and intoxication on alcohol) we got prohibition which didn't solve anything.


No kidding.

You are taking what I said out of context.

I have never advocated banning all guns.

quote:
In this day and age, due to the lessens we learned during prohibition, we do not keep everyone separate from alcohol until they prove they CAN handle it.

Instead, we separate particular individuals from alcohol when they prove they CANNOT handle it. If their problem is sufficiently great, we may remove these individuals from society until their problem is addressed.

The emphasis is on an individual's responsibility and not on the alcohol, no matter how seductive and delicious that nectar may seem to some, or to the culture as a whole.


Except we don't regulate gun manufacture and ownership at anywhere near the level that we regulate alcohol manufacturing and consumption.

Also, there is a lot more at stake with gun ownership than with alcoholism.

quote:
Much to the contrary of your conclusion, alcoholics (or perhaps their genes)DO cause alcoholism and not the other way around. The onus is rightly placed on the individual to control their own problem.

You are taking my analogy too literally. The important part about it was the illustration of the alcoholic being surrounded by bottles (we surround violent people with easily-gotten guns) and then the play on the NRA bumber sticker.

My point is that we currently have a system of nearly non-regulation of guns which makes it very easy for the most vulnerable to doing gun violence to get the firearms.

quote:
Your reference to suicides falls apart along these same lines. The use of guns by suicide victims is interesting as a statistic on method of choice, but does not mean that people are seduced into suicide by the "ease" of gun use, or wouldn't have accomplished their goal otherwise.

I disagree. It is clear that having guns in the house increases by many times the liklihood that people will commit suicide at all. This is the data.

quote:
In fact, if we use the latter statement's logic, are we going to say sleeping pills are "better" than guns because they are one of the least effective methods?

I am not sure what you mean.

quote:
Realistically, if a person truly wishes to kill themselves they will do so, guns or no guns.

So, why then do you reject the evidence of the fivefold risk of suicide in homes with guns compared to those without guns?

quote:
Firearms do not make that choice any "easier" or "attractive", only faster in execution. To think otherwise is to shift responsibility from a thinking individual to an inanimate object.

I disagree. I very much do think that guns make the choice easier, just as the choice to shoot someone rather than stab or strangle them is made because it is safer and easier to kill from a distance if you can, rather than in a one on one struggle.

quote:
It is the changing nature of weapons themselves, which has come to necessitate proper training and greater responsibility for users of our modern, ADVANCED WEAPONS.

Just as cars and planes differ so vastly from human legs and horses that they require more responsibility and education to use, modern weapons require much more than ball and powder muskets.


Agreed, basically.

quote:
This is the only argument which needs to be made. It is sufficient.

The irony in this statement is amazing.

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-13-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Silent H, posted 03-12-2003 1:41 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Silent H, posted 03-13-2003 2:22 PM nator has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4132 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 72 of 72 (34300)
03-13-2003 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by nator
03-13-2003 9:11 AM


The point I was trying to make is that the best arguments for regulating the manufacture and ownership of firearms are NOT the ones that involve fearmongering, and blaming weapons for their improper use.

Your arguments involving guns in the hands of a violent culture and suicides do this very thing. Not only do such arguments antagonize gunowners and manufacturers (making them hesitant to accept anything else you have to say), but are inaccurate and so refutable (giving anti-guncontrol advocates "ammo" against your position).

You made it clear that you were talking about regulations rather than prohibition and I totally agree with you on this. My hope was to strengthen your argument for your (our) position on this by constructively criticizing your line of argument.

On violence and guns. I understood your point that violent people with ready access to guns are more likely to use guns than something else. But your argument for guncontrol based on this real point contains other (hidden and explicit) premises which are not real or readily acceptable.

The first and most antagonizing premise is that everyone is violent, or must take on the guilt of the violent, because as a culture we have relatively more violent crimes than other cultures.

schraf writes:

If we have this problem with violence,

That is a blanket statement that WE have a problem with violence. Or at the very least the "if" part of your statement is debatable and rejectable as I argued.

schraf writes:

Do you really know if this is true? How many americans use corporal punishment with their children compared to other countries? How do we compare with other cultures in verbally abusing one another? How many people drive aggressively or are dangerous on the roads? How many people support the death penalty when they wouldn't ever lift a hand to anyone personally?

Absolutely none of these points deflect my argument. When I said violence was not the norm I meant violent criminal behavior was not the norm. This is the only kind of behevior that would involve guns.

That said, how many people do any of the above? I don't know, but it's certainly not "the norm." I can go for weeks without seeing any of this activity. One might note that gun use has no connection to any of this (with the exception of road rage), and your last point only reinforces the fact that violence is not the norm in this country (most people wouldn't raise a hand against others and are only eager to against those that have).

scraf writes:

But we are all part of the culture, and those who aren't prone to violence still live in the culture with those who are.

This only means an individual must react to others within their culture that are violent, and not that they somehow have a violence problem themselves.

I guess what I'm getting at is that you seem to equivocate on the word "problem." A culture may have a problem with rising rates of violent crimes, this does not mean all individuals within the culture have a violence problem (read as violent tendencies).

The latter statement comes off as insulting, and worse still, when used as the basis for solving "problems" puts the onus on everyone in the culture rather than the problem individuals.

That is why it lends itself to prohibition arguments rather than regulation. If WE as a whole have a problem then the solution must be more universal. WE must act as if WE are violence prone and take the guns out of OUR hands.

I wasn't saying that you were advocating prohibition, just that your argument (if used as the basis for legislation) certainly does.

If I can pick up on that vibe, anti-guncontrol advocates will too.

schraf writes:

Also, there is a lot more at stake with gun ownership than with alcoholism.

This is true, in fact the danger of gun misuse is of a completely different nature. That's another reason why your analogy does not work well.

On suicides and guns.

I want to see references proving that guns lead to suicide. There may be greater use of guns in suicides (personally I'd prefer that to poison), and those who own guns may have a greater tendency to choose suicide (clearly such people accept violent action as a solution to problems), but I have not found anything that indicates by buying a gun your likelihood to commit suicide goes up.

Case in point, statistically a woman with breast implants is three times more likely to commit suicide. Are you seriously going to contend that the implants helped them choose suicide because it made the choice easier?

There is a world of difference between causation and correlation. This sounds to me like correlation.

schraf writes:

I very much do think that guns make the choice easier, just as the choice to shoot someone rather than stab or strangle them is made because it is safer and easier to kill from a distance if you can, rather than in a one on one struggle.

This only says that people who are already going to do something are more likely to choose a gun because it is easier (and they are cowardly). I agree.

It does not mean the choice itself is easier to make. At least not to any real extent. Murders and suicides were around before guns and in some cultures with great abandon.

I might note the horrific suicide rates that once existed among young Japanese students. Guns being illegal they tended to jump from buildings.

Hmmmmmmm... This is getting rather personal but it is pertinent. I knew a person that commited suicide. They and their family owned many many guns (avid hunters and skeet shooters)and the guns were readily available in the house. That person chose to hang himself.

I am interested in your position on Euthanasia, or doctor-assisted suicide. If legalized, methods of suicide would advance so that they would be quite painless and quick. Undoubtedly suicide rates would shift to these techniques. Would these techniques be responsible for the suicidal person's choice?

holmes, that's me writes:


This is the only argument which needs to be made. It is sufficient.

in response schraf writes:

The irony in this statement is amazing.

My post essentially said the best arguments for gun control are based on real issues of safety, with analogies to how cars and planes have necessitated greater regulation due to their increased complexity and potential for causing damage.

My end statement meant you should stick to those kinds of arguments, rather than introducing problematic analogies to alcoholics and references to suicides, because the former are sufficient and the extras are counterproductive.

How is that end statement in any way shape or form ironic (especially to an amazing degree)?

Did you mean redundant?

------------------
holmes

[This message has been edited by holmes, 03-13-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by nator, posted 03-13-2003 9:11 AM nator has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019