Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

I would like to respond to RAZD's comment in the Peanut Gallery. The question isn't why they should have guns, but why the guns should be taken away.Should they be taken away for safety reasons? Because more people die from them than are protected by them?Try this:I have yet to see a rational reason to have alcoholic drinks presented. Alcoholic drinks kill a lot more people than guns, and they have absolutely no real value. If you want guns outlawed for this reason, will you also agree that alcohol should be outlawed?If you do not think alcohol should be outlawed... why? Because people are generally responsible with it, and that it isn't so bad when people are responsible with it?Well, people are generally responsible with guns, too, but you have already argued that that's not good enough to let them keep guns, so there's a contradiction there.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Responding also to RAZD's comment in the Peanut Gallery: I commented in the Peanut Gallery, but here is a more appropriate place.It would be best if you folks in the big cities kept your noses out of the business of those of us who live way out in the hills. You say you don't know of any reasons for owning a gun? Right there you shot yourself in the foot. Perhaps if you ventured beyond the pavement you would have a clue.Your laws for controlling inner cities are fine--there (they don't work, of course), but you have absolutely no business trying to apply those laws to those rest of us who live far from the big cities.Those advocating universal "gun control" are a bunch of busy-bodies. They (you?) should just butt out. (Or perhaps they could become missionaries, so they could really mess things up for those who just want to be left alone.)/rant

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi Coyote, thanks for your emotional response. Having done a lot of backpacking into remote mountain country with existing large predators, bears and mountain lions, and I still see little need for me personally to carry a gun.Having lived in rural america, as well as urban america, I still see little need for me personally to carry a gun. Do you need concealable handguns in the country? Machine guns? My uncle Walt changed from hunting deer with guns to hunting with bow and arrow, (1) because it was more of a challenge, and (2) because the number of people with guns made it unsafe. And curiously, I still see no reason presented for why I should carry a gun.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Bluejay, thanks. No, the question I posed was why should I carry a gun or have one in the house. Interestingly, it would harm no-one, and it would save lives, many of them young. This is why we do have laws about drunkenness and driving while drunk, to control irresponsible behavior. Ah, so the issue is responsibility now. Is it responsible to have concealed weapons and machine guns carried, where the intent is to shoot other people if they offend your sense of correctness?What do you do about the irresponsible people with guns? Or do you think that, just because people can have a gun, they are necessarily going to be responsible with them? Do you think all people are responsible with alcohol?Curiously, I find it responsible to not carry\have a gun, as there is no reason that I can see for needing one. That does seem to be what the evidence in fact shows, isn't it? Fascinatingly, it also appears to be irresponsible behavior on the part of the gun user that causes these fatalities.And I still see no reason provided for why I should carry\have a gun.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi, RAZD. This is like a creationist demanding that an evolutionist support evolution: the right to bear arms is currently the standard position, therefore the onus is on you, the one who wants to change the status quo.But, no matter.Guns can be used for hunting, and for protecting oneself from wild animals (I've spent my time in the wild, and there have been situations in which I dearly wished that I owned/carried a gun).----- It is also why we have laws about who can carry a gun and where: to control irresponsible behavior. (As a side note: I am not a big fan of concealed weapons permits, so I'm not going to push that aspect on you very hard).When it comes to alcohol, you say the proper course of action is to control irresponsible behavior.
But, when it comes to guns, this isn't good enough for you: you have to take a complete prohibition stance.Why the difference?Cognitive dissonance, indeed.----- Curiously, I find it responsible to not drink alcohol, as there is no reason that I can see for drinking it.Are we just going to spout cross-testimonies all day?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

I own guns. I own 6 guns. I am pro-gun control. I live in "the hills". (to define hills, 37 acres land, nearest town 2000 people, largest big town within 1 1/2 hours 8000 people, nearest city 2 hours away 75,000 people) I think your argument is lame. Gun control in the US is not an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of people it is just so we have some sort of "control" over them. I would have no problem registering my guns.We register cars don't we? Hell where I live we even register our dogs. There are many reasons to own a gun. But I see no reason for not requiring registration of at least some forms of guns.Playing city vs. country is just a bs argument. There is plenty of unnecessary gun violence out here in "the hills".There is no right in the US to own, without regulation, any gun you want. There has been almost no attempt in the US to make "gun control" the banning of guns.Lets argue reality, not paranoid fears of the governemnt taking away all guns.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

So would you also be cool with creationist teaching creation 'science' in the public schools out in "the hills?"Or is that "keep your noses out of our business" just pertain to you and your guns?Seems like your attitude opens the door to any wacko with an idea, who lives far enough away from a big city, to carry on as if that idea is unquestionable. So would you say that this argument also works for the teaching of intelligent design in those places that see fit, or should there be a universal standard for all of the US when it comes to science?If you feel there should be a universal standard for science, then why should guns be exempt from a universal standard simply because a few have personal feelings about it?How is your argument different from creationist?Actually, your argument helps us understand how stubborn those who think they're right are, even when presented with evidence against their position.- Oni

Hi, Theodoric. Since everybody around here feels the urge to spout their qualifications...I am a city body.
I have never owned a gun.
Aside from a few merit badges in Boy Scouts, and a couple skeet-shoots with my uncle and father, I have never had any interest in having, carrying or using a gun.
I am not pro-gun control.Who cares?----- Did you read RAZD's comment at the Peanut Gallery?That comment was specifically about whether or not people should have guns.Coyote's comment was a response to that, not to gun-registration laws. If your issue is really about people arguing reality, why weren't your comments directed at the first person who started talking about non-reality, rather than to the first person you disagree with?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Onifre. A universal approach to law-making is a logical, efficient way to govern. However, the problem with that is that that the danger of an object or situation is highly dependent on context.Drinking alcohol is not necessarily a dangerous thing. But, drinking alcohol and driving is a dangerous thing.Likewise, owning a gun in one place may not be as dangerous as owning a gun in another place. If Wikipedia and its sources are to be believed, Coyote is correct that guns are not as dangerous in rural areas as in urban areas:

quote:

---

In the United States, cities tend to have higher gun crime rates but lower rates of gun ownership, compared with rural areas which tend to have lower gun crime rates but higher rates of gun ownership.[26] Some areas have widespread gun ownership with low rates of homicide. In 2005, Wyoming had the highest number of homes with loaded and unlocked guns in the United States, at 33% of all homes in the state,[27] and had a homicide rate of 1.7 of every 100,000.[28]

---

If this is true, don't context-specific laws like Coyote wants make sense?Edited by Bluejay, : Added reference.Edited by Bluejay, : You only us "an" when the next word starts with a vowel.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Why should someone have to give you a reason for you to own a gun?If you don't want one then don't get one.I bought one for recreational use and for home defense.I have a right to own one and I want one.Why shouldn't I have one?

Hi Bluejay, Right, but even in the case of drinking while driving, one could make the argument that it's safer to do so in a rural area rather than in a city. So, should the drinking and driving laws be dependent on that as well, simply because an area isn't yet as populated as another area?I think you'll agree that a universal drinking/driving law works best, right? In my opinion, the wiki article is showing the difference in population -vs- the crime rate, and not so much crime rates -vs- gun owner ship. It's not hard to imagine that an area that is more populated than another area, which is mixed racially and economically, is going to have a higher degree of crime. Simply put, population increase comes with crime increase, whether people own guns or not. I think in the case of gun control, note I'm not saying "gun removal," a universal law is the best plan and overall, will be effective when or if the area in question becomes as populated as the others.But I don't think the approach of "keep your noses out of our business" helps in any way.- Oni

Yes.You could take the legal limit down to 0.06 in the city limits and let it go up to 0.1 (or higher) in the country. Works best? For who? ...not The People.I'm not a fan of universal laws.Here in Illinois, we have a FOID card. It comes from Chicago area uban-mentallity ruling and it totally sucks for the rural folks in the southern end of the state. Its not helping us down here at all. Effective at what though?

Are you really arguing that legality conveys morality, that everything that is legal is okay?Let's replace a few words:"Why should someone have to give you a reason for you to own a slave?If you don't want one then don't get one.I bought one for recreational use and for labor.I have a right to own one and I want one.Why shouldn't I have one? "A few hundred years ago, you would have had the right to own a slave. Why shouldn't you have one?Ethics are independent of laws, though good laws tend to take ethics into account. A legal action, however, can still be highly unethical.To be more specific: if the legal ownership of guns has been objectively observed to result in more deaths than societies where guns are outlawed without significantly increasing the overall crime rate (meaning at worst taking guns away just means fewer deaths without increasing or decreasing the crimes guns supposedly deter), it would be objectively true that guns increase net harm to society.If this is the case (and the statistics shown in this thread seem to suggest it is), then ethically the best thing to do is to tighten gun control laws and reduce the net harm to society - possibly including banning personal gun ownership entirely (possibly with exceptions for hunting rifles, since those are difficult to use for home invasions, muggings, and other crimes). That would be why you shouldn't own one.

Right, but those are now conditions within the universal law of drinking and driving, which is the same as the conditions that would be placed on the universal law of gun control.You're not saying that because you live in a rural area you should be allowed to drink and drive, you're saying that special cases can be made about the legal limit, but overall you still agree that drinking while driving, no matter what your legal limit may be, is still universally illegal, right?Or are you saying that you should be allowed to drink and drive? How exactlly is it not helping? What kind of difficulties is it placing on you?From your link:

quote:

---

The FOID card is issued by the Illinois State Police, who first perform a check of the applicant on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), an electronic database maintained by the FBI.

---

How is that a bad thing? Controlling the distribution of guns and who owns them.- Oni

No. Are you saying that its morally wrong to own a gun? Indeed. To me, they don't seem to suggest that. And shit all over people's individual rights? I suppose we should ban abortion too, if it caused net harm to society? Lame reason, imho.I want one and I enjoy shooting it. I don't think that me not having one is going to reduce the net harm to society.