Firearms

[matthewspatrick]

Guns are weapons not tools

Logical problem with this statement: there is not an absolute distinction between "weapons" and "tools". Common household tools such as hammers, screwdrivers, and tire-irons are and can be used to facilitate acts of violence. Indeed, a "weapon" might be properly thought of as a subset of "tools".

I re-iterate, the population of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and AUstralia is roughly equivalent to that of the United States but we had 112 gun deaths in total in those countries, you had 32,000+ in the US.

I have yet to hear any argument, let alone a convincing one, as to why for a similar sized population sample you have 250 times as many gun deaths (Lord only knows what they multiplier for gun injuries is).

As for the 32,000 vs. 112 stat... I found several web pages that substantiate the 32,000 number. It fluctuates a bit year to year, but that is the right ballpark. I found nothing (in an admittedly short search) to substantiate the 112 number. If anyone can offer more credible sources than a television drama series, that would be helpful.

However, in that 32,000 number, slightly more than half were actually suicides, and then a large chuk of what was left were a result of accidental discharge. The number of deaths resulting from Person A intending to shoot at Person B, while tragically large, does not come close to approaching 32,000.

I am not arguing that, in the words of your own constituion, we should not have 'regulated militia' that are armed, none of us want to be subject to miltary takeover, but I fail to see anay conection between that and allowing the general populace to own firearms. As I have quoted many times regarding the many countries, gun control works, and as yet neither you nor anyone else has given an argument as to why it doesn't.

This statement shows a misunderstanding of American history. Please do not take offense--most US citizens would not do any better. When the 2nd Amendment mentions a "well regulated militia", the term did not refer to a "National Guard" or similar military force. The term at that time basically described all able-bodied adult men who have had at least rudimentary training in operating a firearm.

The writings of many of the "Founding Fathers" indicates that they fully intended the 2nd Amendment to confer the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms. Indeed, they saw having private citizens being able to defend themselves as one of the guarantors of liberty and the last defense against a tyrannical, overreaching government. (Recall that the framers of the Constitution tended to fear a strong central government. Recall that the wording of the Bill of Rights, Amendments 1-10, tends to say more about what the federal government cannot do than what it can do.)

But we don't have full gun registration, we have GUN CONTROL, which means you can't legally own guns except in very strict circumstances. Safer yet.

That sort of gun control is very effective at keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, but how effective is it at keeping the criminals unarmed?

I am referring to hicks with a gun. Maybe your definition of hicks differs from mine, but the thought of ill-educated, none too smart, disenfranchised people all owning guns scares the be-jeebers out of me. Even the thought of you owning one scares me, never mind the less well-balanced.

Without going into hicks/not hicks... I do not love guns. I do not like them. I have no desire to own one, and having small children, I would never knowingly allow one in my home. That said, I will not say that other private citizens should not be able to own a gun. I made my choice, but I want to be very careful before I start wishing to enforce my choice upon others.

Yes, there should be limits:

• People with criminal convictions should never own a gun
• People should be required to undergo a rigorous gun-safety class before being allowed to own a gun
• I am not happy about concealed weapons! If you want to be armed, you should advertise yourself as such. (Indeed, if the weapon is concealed, doesn't that destroy the supposed deterrent value?)
• I am all for background checks, and it would not bother me a whit if that background check took a couple of weeks. (Take that gun safety class while you wait!) If that makes sales at gun shows near to impossible, I am not the least bit troubled

I deliberately picked a provocative subject to see how you would respond. Again, you read the headlines, not the content.

The point is that just because people want to do something, that does not mean the government should allow them to do it. Some things they definitely should not allow individuals to do, paedophilia is one, owning guns is another IMO.

In our society, there is a very strong presumption that if people want to do something they should be allowed to, unless the government can present a very compelling reason why they should not. There is no reasonable person who thinks pedophilia should be allowed. There are plenty of (IMHO) reasonable people who think firearms should be allowed with some reasonable restrictions.

Yeah, but I bet [President Bush] is funded by the NRA, and is a passionate advocate of unlimited gun access.

Bush received campaign contributions from the NRA and its members, Bob, but it is absolutely not true that he has ever argued for unlimited gun access. Unlimited access means just that. It means things like "convicted criminals should be allowed to buy" and "there should be no background checks whatsoever." Bush is on record as an advocate of enforcing existing federal gun laws (which include such restrictions as limiting the ability of people with criminal convictions to get guns, and also mandating background checks).

That said, Bush is also for relaxing some limits (for example, he is a fan of "instant" background checks, which to me is just patently ridiculous).

So, let's be honest and accurate, especially when it comes to making statements about what we think other people believe.

[Zack] seem[s] to be saying to me that you should be allowed to own guns so that you can defend yourself. By that same argument, Iran should be allowed nuclear weapons because (at the least) Israel has them, and there is a high probability IMO that Israel will use them against Iran one day. So, take the argument forward, Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

Yes, there is a certain logic to Iran being allowed to have nukes, but then again it is a very flawed analogy: the rights and privileges accorded to a private citizen in a democracy are not the same as those accorded a sovereign nation. In any event, I see a close to zero percent chance that Israel would ever make an offensive nuclear strike against Iran: it is unclear that Israel would be able to strike enough targets to be effective, and the moment it tried to do so Israel would find itself embroiled in a fight for its very survival and almost certainly abandoned by all its allies. Nukes are not for using, they are for having (i.e., their value comes from being a deterrent), and I think the Israeli government fully understands that.

But to address Zack's point, there are very bad people in the world and in our societies. People who mean to do us harm. I do not choose to arm myself, but I am not willing to say that everyone else should have to adopt my choice.