Firearms

[matthewspatrick]

Bob,

Before getting into my response, I want to say that while I find myself disagreeing with much of your rhetoric, I am very grateful that we are able to have this debate in a civil manner. That is something that I fear is vanishing from our society, and I thank and applaud you for maintaining your civility.

I am not arguing that guns creates more intentional shootings (although I belive that it does), but that it creates more deaths period. A suicide, or an accidental discharge is as much a waste of a life as being shot by somebody holding up the local liquor store.

It is creating more gun deaths, but it is not at all clear to me that it is creating more deaths overall. Looking at the paper that johnske referred us to, it appears that if anything it is deadlier to be in the UK, Australia, or Canada now, as all three countries are shown as having higher homocide rates and higher violent crime rates than the US (measured as crimes per 100k in population). Perhaps the net result of taking the guns away from law-abiding citizens has made our British, Canadian, and Australian cousins was to make them more vulnerable to the criminal element.

Absolutely no offense taken, the argument is more important. I accept it was a very different militia, but it was still REGULATED. Nobody could call gun ownership in modern day USA regulated in any form whatsoever.

Again, trying to apply 21st century notions to an 18th century document can be dangerous. When the 2nd Amendment refers to a "well regulated militia", the regulated part does not mean that the government is stipulating to a large degree what the private citizen can and cannot have in the way of firearms. Have you seen statutes from the time, Bob? They are absolutely silent as to prohibited firearms or ammunition; indeed, some states required able bodied men who owned property to also own a weapon.

[On Bush and unfettered access to guns...] Four things here:
- I wasn't referrring to Bush, but that guy who lambasted Hugo Chavez (for criticising Bush). I suggested (but do not know) that jingoists like him were in the pay of the NRA, the point I was making (and XLGibbs made better) was that such law-making is in the purview of large organisations that run the funding of politicians
- Bush's wanting to relax limits (because it works so well doesn't it) is not the action of someone who believes in gun controls
- demonstrate to me, with references, that he has never always argued against anyone who advocated unlimited gun control, and vetoed it if necessary
- do you honestly believe that in the USA the law that excludes criminals from buying guns has any effect whatsoever?

Sorry if I misunderstood you, Bob.

Would Bush like to see some of the gun regs relaxed? I know of at least one area where he is on the record for that: he wants to see "instant background checks" in place of the current waiting period. I happen to think that is ludicrous--I take the background check very seriously, an I want it to be thorough. I am also 100% in favor of increasing the hurdle for the first-time gun buyer with such items as mandated, serious gun safety instruction before being allowed to buy. It would not shock me if there are other areas where Bush would like to relax the limits.

And no, I do not believe for a second that US gun laws exclude criminals from getting weapons. What I do believe is that if you make it so that ordinary, law-abiding citizens find it virtually impossible to own guns, then the situation will only get worse, as now the criminals will still have their guns and the ordinary citizen will have no defense.

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.

I am sorry, but I find that argument laughable in it's lack of rigour and naievety. If nuclear weapons are for having not for using, their value is nil. Israel believes (and I do) that in the event of a strike against her the USA would support her all the way.

As for '... the rights and privileges accorded to a private citizen in a democracy are not the same as those accorded a sovereign nation ..', that is totally immaterial, we are talking about governments, and global interests. If you believe that the USA would not deploy exactly the same sort of measures that Iran would to protect what they see as their interests, I think you are deluding yourself. In that case, why are you in Iraq, but not in Somalia; why do you support a totalitarian Saudi Arabia, and so many more.

I did not do a good job of explaining myself in that paragraph.

• When I said that I believed Israel would be abandoned by its allies if it made an offensive nuclear strike, what I meant is that if Israel launched a "first strike" nuclear attack. If another nation struck Israel first, I believe as you do that the US government would support her unconditionally if she chose to retaliate.
• As for the "having, not for using" comment... What I meant to convey was that nukes are for deterrence and are a doomsday weapon. Nukes are the ultimate ace in the hole, but the trouble is that they have zero value as a tactical weapon: the moment you use them as such, you become the whole world's public enemy #1. The only time it makes sense to use them is in the greatest strategic extremity, where your country faces a substantial risk of annihilation unless you resort to the nukes. That is what I meant, and I am positive that the leadership of Israel understands that. The Israeli leadership might be contemplating a conventional strike against Bushehr, but they realize that a nuclear strike there to try and wipe out the Iranian atomic program would be a strategic disaster for Israel even if it were a tactical success.
• Yes, I agree that the US looks out for its own interests first and foremost. That makes us like, well, every other country in human history. And we are not the only country that supports horrendous regimes. The French were too busy making money off of their illegal "oil for food" deals to even want to hear about more sanctions against Iraq. Until recently, many of our European allies were too reluctant to press Iran about much of anything, lest that make things complicated for some of their business dealings. Why does the rest of the world not send their own force into Darfur, rather than just sit back and complain that the US is not doing it?

OK, I got a bit ranty at the end there. Anyway, envigorating debate, Bob. I do not expect to win you over, but I do hope that you can see that people like Zack and I are not raving lunatics just because we think it is OK if people own guns.

And I do have to ask... The US has had in the ballpark of 30k gun fatalities a year lately. The same figure for car-related deaths is 150% of that--about 45k a year, give or take. Why do you not vent your spleen against the carnage on the roads?