There have been many intelligent comments posted in response to my post and comments on this subject, so I will respond here to the last set of comments by Linoge, Sebastian, and R.J.
I think I have an open mind on this issue. While there are times I wish I could make all the guns in civilian hands vanish instantaneously, I know that is never going to happen.
I am particularly impressed by the points about gun demand (it is strong) and the ability of determined persons to make their own guns, or how easy it would be to manufacture firearms in one's home or a small machine shop. So, there is no practical way to ban firearms. I agree. They will always be with us.
I understand the sensitivity to registration, but I am not familiar with the reference to California confiscating assault weapons after they had been registered. Perhaps the types of weapons which were confiscated ought to have been taken due to their lethality. I think it is a matter of degree, and not a black and white issue.
The line between a legal gun and illegal gun will always be blurry and somewhat arbitrary, but surely all of you has seen some guns which you privately must have felt ought to be illegal. Isn't there some point where the caliber of the bullet, or its speed, or the number of firings per minute, or the penetration characteristics, or explosive characteristics, ought to be regulated? What about RPGs?
I favor intelligent gun control. It should at least be national. There is no point in having a state law that can easily be defeated by crossing a state boundary.
I like the example of comparing registering guns with registering computers. I actually do think more controls and less privacy is warranted with computers. Again, it should never be "either/or", but rather, a matter of degree. Computer hackers can do a lot of damage, so we need better controls to be able to trace hacker attacks, thefts, and damage caused by "botnets". At a minimum, there ought to be efforts to make it easier for law enforcement to trace illegal activities on the internet. (I am not an expert on the internet, but I know enough about it that this is a problem which can never be solved, but only managed.) Without safeguards, we can lose the internet as an economic engine, and that would be a step backwards.
I agree that having the government install video cameras in everyone's home is going too far. That is a great example of what I mean when I say that control is a matter of degree. The trick is to find the "sweet spot", not too much control, and not too little control. "Big Brother" is too much control.
Today, the government does not have enough information about peoples' incomes. This results in tax unfairness: one person has withholding from his wages, while another pays no taxes on income from a secret source. We all benefit from government, so we should all pay for it, fairly. (Everyone also has their own list of government services which they do not want to pay for. A drug dealer does not want to pay for narcotics police; a thief does not want to pay for police; a pacifist does not want to pay for the military; I suspect many gun owners do not want to pay for the ATF; and so on. So, we can't pick and choose what programs we will pay for, but we do try to voice our opinions and vote, etc.) But I agree that government has no business in certain aspects of our lives. But I don't think that sheds any light on the issue of gun control.
I don't think our founders meant for the Second Amendment to be as sweeping as it has been interpreted. I would like to see it re-written, so that it is clearer and more in keeping with our founders' intent.
I checked the link which pointed to the humorous site which compared gun control to stuff like "We need to prevent rape by castrating all men". That is funny. I get it. But like all analogies, it is not exactly the same as gun control. If you agree we need some control of weaponry, then gun control is a matter of degree. It is certainly a more difficult issue to manage than most, which probably explains why there is so much emotion attached to it.
A police state would be a bad thing. So would total anarchy fueled by no laws constraining weapons. I think if I had to choose, I would go with the police state. No way would I prefer a place like Baghdad, with car bombs going off every day. Happily, we don't have to choose between these two extremes. We can have balance. (The differences between America and either a police state or Iraq have a lot more to do with things other than gun control: for starters, we have had over 200 years of gradually improving institutions and laws. This is a point that a lot of neo-cons missed, but I digress.)
I agree that the analogy of registering cars and guns is far from perfect. But I still think there are good lessons there: cars are not being confiscated from law-abiding citizens.
It doesn't matter much what the gun laws are in DC, since it is so easy to go from there to Virginia, which has weaker laws. That is why we need national gun control, as opposed to a bunch of conflicting and self-defeating state or local gun controls.
We should not outlaw guns. We should have gun control laws which reduce the high rate of crimes and accidents committed with firearms.
I think we need better laws and enforcement in order to reduce crime. We have not experimented enough with our laws to conclude that gun control does not work.
America is the greatest country in the world. We should not rest on our laurels, but continue to improve it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
Timothy, my response is located here - http://blog.robballen.com/archive/2007/11/03/Revisitation-rights.aspx
I don't know how much more I can say that wasn't covered by Robb. Really the big issues I have with your arguments, Timothy, is the factual errors you've made.
Its not your fault, as many of these false statistics, and assumptions are propagated by gun control organizations and media outlets. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, or one of the 9-11 "Truthers" here, but do a little research on the issue yourself. This was the factor that turned me from a person with VERY similar viewpoints as yourself. I found after a friend taught me to shoot an interest in firearms, so I started gathering information on them...and I found that everything I thought I knew about guns was wrong.
A good place to start is the much vilified assault weapons ban. This is a decent site:
http://www.awbansunset.com/
The bar to the left has some very good info on what the AWB actually did, and some of the lies propagated.
I can give you more places to look for information, but maybe you'll trust your own eyes more.
In the end its the person behind the gun that causes problems or good with them. Hell Robb and I buy guns on a regular basis, and have to submit to a criminal background check. For me its once every few months. Sometimes more. Have a look at what the laws are and what we must do to actually buy a gun (in any state) and then look to see the difference between the laws that I have to obey vs. the laws that Robb does (he lives in FL I live in MA). MA certainly isn't any safer than Florida, and in New England alone, Mass is the most dangerous state, and has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
England has banned civilian guns, yet recently their violent crime rates have PASSED those of the united States. If guns cause crime, or banning guns will stop crime, why did crime go up in the UK, and why is crime so bad in Washington DC, or Massachusetts?
Also why is it that "Assault Weapons" (the same that you speculated that were confiscated in California "Perhaps the types of weapons which were confiscated ought to have been taken due to their lethality.") are rarely used in crimes? Why is it that our US forces in war are often found complaining about the terminal effects of their M-16s. They find that the 5.56X45mm NATO round simply isn't stopping the enemy, and many of them are dumping their M-16s for AK-47s. And the AK-47 is almost half the power level of the standard hunting rifle loads. And note that the M-16 is an Assault Rifle (not to be confused with an entirely different term "Assault Weapon") capable of fully automatic fire, making it in a class of the most restricted, and cost prohibitive firearms for civilian sale (Because all Full-auto firearms for civilian sale must be pre 1986, and approved for sale to each individual by the ATF and the local police + a $200 tax stamp on the transfer, we're talking for an M-16 in good condition the cost of well over $10,000. If you can drop the cost of a car on a gun, you aren't looking to rob banks, or mug little old ladies) Now the legal variant of the M-16 is the AR-15 which is only semi-auto (one shot per pull of the trigger) and it has the same round and the same dismal lethal effects. If troops with full auto variants are complaining about it being a poor weapon, why would the civilian variant be any different?
And of course in the AWB if you ground off the bayonet lug, took off the flash hider (which is a slight misnomer, it hides the flash about as well as a "silencer" makes the gun silent) and only put a 10 round magazine into the gun it became legal to make and sell. And you could put a 30 or 70 round magazine on it if it was older and made before the ban. California came up with a more restrictive ban. The rifles were again changed to again make them legal
http://www.californiarifles.com/
Bottom line, its the same gun, but because the law was written by people who knew nothing about guns, or lied, or were lied to, the ban was meaningless. Unless of course I wanted a Target AR-15 legally, as the ban drove the cost WAYYY up for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U
Carolyn McCarthy introduced the current AWB HR 1022
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022
That would bring the old ban back. Do you find it odd that she can't answer the simple question posed by the reporter? Its not a trivial "gotcha" either, as a "Barrel Shroud" according to HR 1022 is on ALL long-arms since the invention of the first musket 200+ years ago. So this one feature would ban ALL semi-automatic rifles, (even common ones used for hunting, target and sport).
She's doesn't have sinister plans IMHO, its simply a case of the blind leading the blind. And we're not blind by any other dysfunction other than simply refusing to open our eyes.
I hope that our words can "help you to see" so-to-speak.
And by no means should you take my words on face value. Do your own research. Just spread the knowledge when you find it.
Oh and as a final note, call your local PD and tell them you're thinking of buying a gun, and ask what you must do to make a legal gun buy in New Jersey.
You might be surprised what you'll be told.
Reguards.
-Weer'd Beard
I have to disagree with you on some points, which have not been covered elsewhere. To create firearms from raw metal stock is much harder than you might be lead to believe. Depending on the firearm, some of the operations required are difficult to accomplish even with good machines. This comes from the perspective of a machinist who has made his own firearms parts at home. Of particular difficulty is the rifling in the barrel. Generally, a very specialized machine is required to create this. The other machines cost in the realm of thousands of dollars.
I must agree that as a nation we must continue to improve over time. That is why I cannot comprehend your position. What improvement is found in moving from a state of liberty to a state of less liberty? How is it you propose to climb the steps of progress by taking several steps backwards?
Weer'd Beard, thanks again for your informative comments.
I am not part of any organization which has anything to do with gun control. I am as independent as a person can be in the USA.
I am now speaking somewhat generally, but that has been my position all along. I am for intelligent gun control. At the national level. Written by people who know all about guns.
I am often confronted by arguments from the "gun lovers" which I never made. Of course, this is the "straw man" tactic: claim the other side said something outlandish, then knock it down. (I do not mean you in particular.)
If New Jersey's gun laws are stupid, then they should be changed. But again, guns should be controlled at the national level. It makes no sense to have completely different laws in every state about guns, because they are so easy to conceal and transport. For example, hypothetically, if NJ is very strict about ex-murderers buying guns, but neighboring PA does not even address that concern, what good does it do NJ to have that law when word gets around (which would not take long) that the ex-murderers can easily buy their guns in PA?
Some guys think that there should be no laws at all regulating guns, since their ideology tells them that if they give just one inch on this issue, then all is lost. That ideology is obviously false, since there have been laws on the books about guns for a long time, and yet people can still buy guns, legally, almost everywhere.
What happens to all the guns owned by decent, law-abiding citizens after they pass away? Should that be regulated? I think so.
Finally, in a perfect world, both sides would be happy. But of course we live in an imperfect world. The guy who is decent and law-abiding today can become a murderer in an instant (road rage, for instance). That is another reason why we need laws controlling guns. We need to deter the good guys from becoming bad guys.
Jared, thanks for the comments. First off, the original comments about making own's own firearms came from someone who opposes gun control, and I was responding to that.
As for liberty, I never said we should move from a state of liberty to a state of less liberty. This, again, is the "straw man" argument. Once you make a false assumption, you can deduce whatever you want.
Now, progress entails change. Some laws decrease liberty, and some laws increase liberty. The trick is to always seek the most intelligent laws, in the correct domain (state vs national), which leave a small footprint, are are effective, and considering not just liberty but safety and common sense. Now, that would be progress.
An ideologue never gives an inch. (Not you, but again, in general.) He cannot conceive of passing 10 laws which, combined, are better for the country, if just one of those laws fails his own particular litmus test.
Remember, liberty is not defined by any one law. It is the sum total of all the laws, plus our Constitution, plus all the things anyone else can think of. Therefore, one law or "gun control" in general, does not by itself decrease liberty.
A person who is afraid to leave his or her house because of all the gun-toting bad guys out on the streets, has very little liberty.
I have always lived in areas where there are very few guns. Low crime. I feel I have a lot of liberty. I am also lucky to not suffer from paranoia. (I do have my vices, though.) A paranoid person (not you) might be free to buy dozens of guns, but really lives in a scary world. He may think he has liberty, but I would argue he is living in a prison of his own making. Not my idea of liberty.
A lot of other gun lovers also seem trapped in the 18th century. That is also not my idea of liberty. The world has changed a lot. We do have a new and large enemy (see "War on Terror" postings), but we need modern, lethal weapons (including thermonuclear weapons) to defend ourselves and deter the enemy. That is the business of our national government, not a bunch of guys playing soldier.
Timothy. First off, I've never said we should have "No Gun Control", there aren't many of us who do think that.
You speak generally about "intelligent gun control", by people who "know guns", and at the federal level, as if it doesn't exist. What federal controls are you interested in that aren't in place? What controls are currently in place?
Do you know?
Have a look at the Gun control act of 1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act
(this act is currently enforced by the National Instant Criminal Check system *NICS* on every dealer firearm purchase, so there is no need for a waiting period to verify the legality of the sale in a positive manner) and these regulations are also covered in private sale. Have a look at the national firearms Act of 1934
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
These acts have been around for a LONG time. Now look up crime in NJ. How many of the crimes can you find that #1 actually use a firearm, and #2 don't violate any of the above acts.
Crimes like these do happen, I won't lie. But all I can recall are "Crimes of Passion" where a legally held gun was used often against a family member. Still such crimes are just as often done with household items such as improvised clubs, kitchen knives, or hands and feet.
I'm trying to think of a "massacre" where it was the attacker's first (and last) crime. But the Columbine kids were underage, and had a straw-man buyer buy their guns for them. Seung Cho at Virginia Tech legally had his guns (though it was illegal for him to possess them on campus) also he was found in a previous court case to be mentally ill, but the judge failed to commit him (they found him to be a danger to himself and others...but let him go anyway. This is not a fault of the gun laws, as you don't want to deny the right to self defense from a person just because they may take a prescription medication, or because they may have seen a therapist in the past. If a person is a danger, they should be FORCED to get help for the public good).
I'm guessing most of the crimes you will find are gang related, with people who have a criminal record, who illegally bought the guns, and are often underage to own the gun. Not to mention the CRIME they commit with them.
If all those laws didn't stop them will one more do it? I think we know the answer.
To cite Virginia Tech again, Cho died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, and in his pack was found more ammo. He was not stopped by the police, he was not stopped by a student protecting their lives. He stopped because he simply had shot enough people.
What extraneous laws DO do, is stop people like myself from having the tools to defend myself if I or my family is attacked with a person bent on doing us harm.
Extra laws will not stop the criminal, but it WILL stop the victim. The NFA and the Gun Control act are overall good laws (I can find problems with them, but for brevity and sake of argument I 90% agree with them)
And with those two OLD acts, 99% of all crime in America with guns is illegal. the NFA and GCA don't bother me much for the good they do. But any law you add won't effect crime in any noticeable way, but it will effect our way of life as lawful people.
That's my problem with the issue.
Weer'd Beard, I think you and I agree a lot more than you may realize.
I could not agree more that crime involves a hundred things other than gun control. (Please, don't get me started! I think there are realities related to economic and social justice, culture, media, and human nature which all play roles in varying degrees. I too never said it was all about gun control.)
I also never said that there were no federal gun controls. I do know that they are ineffective, as written, based on the easy availability of guns to the bad guys, as the evidence clearly shows. (The evidence, to be clear, is that so many crimes are committed with guns.)
So, yes, there are federal gun controls. But no, they need improvement.
I am not the guy who can write better laws. I am neither an attorney nor an expert on firearms. What I am is an intelligent person who knows that there are too many guns in the wrong hands, and I have a wife and several children, and I want them all to be safe.
If someone would pay me, I would happily study the law and fix it, but I am retired, and have many interests, not just gun control.
I agree with just about everything you wrote and implied except:
1. The massacres you referred to: guns certainly played a role. Not the only role. But a role. We need a lot of changes, including but not limited to gun control, to minimize or eliminate these massacres.
2. No law ever solves any problem all by itself, including the problem of guns in the wrong hands. But we still need better laws governing guns. It is part of the solution. We also need to lock up criminals!
3. Gun ownership can do little to protect us from "a person bent on doing us harm". They will wait for a vulnerable moment, and if they have a gun, we die. The same "liberty" and laws which allow you to own guns, also result in the bad guys eventually getting their hands on guns.
4. I do not so much want "extra" laws, as "better" laws. I define "better" as resulting in fewer crimes committed with guns.
5. I never thought for a second that the old laws did not address crimes with guns. So "99% of all crime in America with guns is illegal" misses my point. We need better laws (and better economic justice, better culture, better parenting, etc, etc) to reduce crimes with guns.
6. I understand the sentiment "any law you add won't effect crime in any noticeable way, but it will effect our way of life as lawful people". I disagree. There is much that we can do via the legal system to prevent crimes with guns. The trouble is, every time anyone proposes anything along these lines, the "gun lobby" stops it before it can even be tested.
*****************
Talk to you later.
No, we agree on a LOT of things, hence why I'm still around. If I at all thought you were an unreasonable person. Still on this idea of controlling black market guns borders on Magical thinking. There are few laws that can change what is already illegal. The fact that you don't have any proposals (or can cite any that have worked in the world) support that.
In the end Guns are a red herring. Why is it that Robb and I and 99% of the gun owners in America commit no crime?
Its a Cliché, but its true, Guns don't kill people, people do. And People use Knives, hands, feet, pipes et al to kill.
We need criminal control, not gun control. Most of the people committing violent crimes are repeat offenders. Get them out of society (I'd say death penalty, but I know you're against that, so I'll leave that for another debate).
2nd Allow the lawful and responsible people to protect themselves.
3rd Allow Police to better enforce the laws and stop violence.
The last two work on my principal to stop illegal immigration. If you make violent crime a lousy career choice (ie allow people to defend themselves, allow harsh sentences for people caught doing violent crime) suddenly criminals will pick different career paths.
Maybe they'll go to B&Es or credit card fraud, but I'd rather cancel my credit cards, than plan a funeral for a loved one.
(BTW My idea on illegal immigrants is to severely punish those who pay people illegally. If they can't get jobs illegally they won't STAY here illegally, or come here in the first place)
What's neat is my solution is already showing results. Almost everywhere when laws for personal protection are granted, and pointless gun laws are lifted crime goes DOWN. Places where crime doesn't go down, it at least stays the same. Gun control is a red herring, and doing anything but repealing it only causes problems for lawful people.
Heck have a look here:
http://www.bestplaces.net/
Take any US city that has more gun control (LA, Boston, Newark, NYC, DC, Chicago) and Compare its violent crime rates to a city where only minimal gun control is in place (Miami, Austin, Houston, Seattle, Indianapolis)
You can cry all you want for "intelligent Gun control" but you'll find it to be fruitless.
Personal protection is a proven solution.
"I actually do think more controls and less privacy is warranted with computers. Again, it should never be "either/or", but rather, a matter of degree. Computer hackers can do a lot of damage, so we need better controls to be able to trace hacker attacks, thefts, and damage caused by "botnets".
by profession, i am a computer programmer, currently working in an industry focused heavily on the internet (Voice-over-IP, internet telephony). and you, sir, are borderline insane. let me explain why i think that.
you are proposing, here, a police state as a non-solution to a non-problem. we already have next to no privacy left online, even as online interactions are becoming steadily more important to how our society functions day to day. your proposal would amount to tearing up what few rights to privacy and freedom from nuisance interference by police there still are. this would have an incalculable chilling effect on all of society, because the internet is already a fundamental part of our infrastructure, and its importance is still slowly growing.
your police state, moreover, would not solve the problem. computer security can't be forced into a system from the outside, it has to be built in. imagine if we had a counterfeiting problem due to the fact that official dollar bills were drawn in crayon on copier paper; then imagine someone were to propose "solving" the problem by letting the police install surveillance cameras in the houses and nurseries of anyone who buys crayons or copier paper. that wouldn't solve the problem.
worse, the "problem" you are proposing to "solve" is not a large enough problem to be worth attacking so ferociously. as i said, internet usage is still growing, yet online crime is clearly not dismantling western society --- why not? it's a marginal problem at best; if it's growing at all, it's only because the margin it lives in is growing along with the entire "page" of computer network use.
yet you propose all this, even though you yourself admit you're speaking out of ignorance on the technical matter, blithely as if your proposal could not possibly do any harm. as if regulating, supervising, controlling a part of human society was always automatically a good thing. that impulse of yours is what really scares me, because that speaks directly to how you think, sir.
i don't know much about guns; it's been fifteen years since i fired one. but i do know about computers, and i like to think i know about human nature (being one) and human society (living in it). this impulse of yours is contrary to the nature of adult humans and deleterious to their society.
Weer'd Beard, why are you so soft on immigration? I would like us to deport the 12 million illegal aliens, and protect our borders with armed troops. I think a few killings along the border, and that would end the invasion. But of course, I agree with you that we should penalyze the American employers who benefit from illegal immigration, and then leave the costs for the rest of us.
I also sympathize with all the illegals, but that is not our problem. Yes, they are hard working and most are "otherwise" law-abiding, but again, their situation is not our problem. There are even more hurting people inAfrica and Asia, but I want them to stay in place and fix their own problems, as opposed to bringing their over-populated masses to our shores.
************
Back to guns. I do not think magic will help us. Hard work by the politicians and their staffs, who work for us. Gradual change. Magic is not needed.
"There are few laws that can change what is already illegal." I have seen this argument a few times. It goes like this: we already have laws making it a crime to sell guns to criminals, so we don't need more laws. The thing is, we need better laws. For example, since the "old laws" were established, a lot of innovations have developed in information technology, databases, chips for identifying guns, and so on. Maybe technology can be used to keep guns out of the wrong hands. The point is, there is no panacea, no magic law, just the principle that we should endeavor to improve the laws (and all the other things you advocate) while balancing all that with civil liberties, etc.
The reason I won't define a proposal, nor "can cite any that have worked in the world" is not because it cannot be done, but because that would be a lot of work, and I am not a lawyer, not a gun expert, not a sociologist, not a statistician, etc. I never said this is easy, but we waste so many trillions of dollars on farm bills and nation-building, I can't believe that we can't improve our gun control laws. ("improve" not = "increase" or "decrease")
Let me stipulate that it is true "... that Robb and I and 99% of the gun owners in America commit no crime". But there are hundreds of thousands of crimes committed with guns. No red herring. Reality. I am not saying that guns are the beginning and the end. They are simply a factor.
"Guns don't kill people, people do." Come on, that is silly. The very reason law-abiding guys like you want guns is so that you can "harm" the bad guy, if he attacks you or your family, and I would like to do the same. (I could tell you about many hypothetical situations where I would want a powerful gun and be trained in using it.) Of course guns can kill people! That is one of their purposes, and rightly so! Saying "people do" (kill people) is also true, but again, it misses the point: we need better laws, and at the national level.
"We need criminal control, not gun control. Most of the people committing violent crimes are repeat offenders. Get them out of society ....
2nd Allow the lawful and responsible people to protect themselves.
3rd Allow Police to better enforce the laws and stop violence."
I AGREE!
"Take any US city that has more gun control (LA, Boston, Newark, NYC, DC, Chicago) and Compare its violent crime rates to a city where only minimal gun control is in place (Miami, Austin, Houston, Seattle, Indianapolis)"
I think that is mostly true, but not for the reasons you think.
First, we don't have good national gun control. The gun controls in NYC et al are local, and hence, ineffective.
Second, and more importantly: correlation does not prove cause and effect. I think a place like Seattle has a higher percentage of law-abiding people. One example: several generations of awful culture and values have resulted in high crime rates among African American youths and young men. That is the main reason why the cited cities which have a high crime rate, NOT due to the local and ineffective gun laws. (See the book "Come On People".)
ttyl
Hello, Tim
The incident in California happened when Dan Lundgren was Attorney Genneral, back in the late 1990's. It's interesting that you didn't address my point here, but speculated that "more lethal" guns should have been taken. WHAT??I don't understand why you do not see the hypocrisy of going back on a promise. Does that not bother you?
When you use the words "intelligent gun control", I assume you mean that which will keep guns out of the hands of bona fide criminals, without hindering the law-biding gun owner. How do you do that? I have seen nothing that stops or impedes the criminal without getting in the way of the law abiding. In fact, most gun control laws do nothing to the criminal, and only hurt the law abiding. That isn't "intelligent", or "reasonable", or any other of the terms with which the gun grabbers try to mollify us. And the fact that the line between "illegal" and "legal" is arbitrary should bother you a lot. It does me.
Now, as to making gun control national, so as to circumvent those pesky state borders (and state's rights), we see in the news where guns are crossing the border with Mexico all the time (if current news accounts are to be believed.) And Great Britain has had a massive increase in gun crime since they banned guns outright, and they're an island!
"A well regulated militia, (that's US, not the Nat'l Guard) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE (us again) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." All these gun control laws are infringements on the 2A. That's not a debatable point. That is a fact.
To expand on "When gns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns", I distinguish three kinds of outlaws. There is the actual criminal, there are the police and military under a tyrant's rule, and there is the patriot who will not give up his guns because the tyrant says so.
R.J.
Mr. "Anonymous",
You are a jerk. You called me "borderline insane" because you are not intelligent enough to debate issues without resorting to ad hominem attacks. But when I am attacked, I respond in kind.
I was a programmer/analyst probably when you were in diapers. So don't lecture me about computers.
I never proposed a "police state". This is the "straw man" argument. Look that up.
Without proper security, the entire internet will come tumbling down. All the major software houses know this.
"computer security can't be forced into a system from the outside". I never said it should, but now that you bring it up, the "outside" does have a say. National security demands it.
I said "we need better controls". You interpreted that as "attacking so ferociously". Now, who is crazy? Look up "paranoia".
"you yourself admit you're speaking out of ignorance on the technical matter" Well, at least I can admit to some ignorance. That does not mean I know nothing about computers or networks. Far from it. (We all need some humility.)
"yet you propose all this, ... blithely as if your proposal could not possibly do any harm. as if regulating, supervising, controlling a part of human society was always automatically a good thing. that impulse of yours is what really scares me, because that speaks directly to how you think, sir." So far out - makes me wonder if you ought to be on meds.
"this impulse of yours is contrary to the nature of adult humans and deleterious to their society." OK, I get it! You've been pulling my leg! Hope I didn't offend you - not!
Once again with a little honesty:
I am not going to address your whole post. Honestly, when you got to the point of explaining just how you feel about the government acquiring even more information about us, you simultanously caused me to wonder as to your sanity levels, and be very, very afraid of people like you. Apparently either the concept of a "slippery slope" is unknown to you, or you are, as yet, unaware of how much governments crave power and control. Give them an inch, and they take a lightyear, so to speak.
However, I will address your apparent ignorance as to the desires and thoughts of our Founding Fathers, specifically when it comes to matters addressed by the Second Amendment. I invite you to take a look at this webpage: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html, in addition to this second one regarding Constitutional commentators: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcom.html.
Yeah, the links point you to a "pro-gun" website, but the quotes contained there are verifiable wherever you desire to do so.
As with many of your other points, it helps to do your homework before opening your mouth.
Hi R.J., I appreciate your intelligent comments. I also agree with some of your argument. But it is more fun to talk about the disagreements, so here goes.
"I don't understand why you do not see the hypocrisy of going back on a promise. Does that not bother you?" Yes, hypocrisy does bother me, but it does not trump everything else. I see all lawmaking like making sausage, and I do not hold most politicians in high regard, but the opposite.
Suppose I stipulate that "most gun control laws do nothing to the criminal, and only hurt the law abiding". This makes my point that we need better laws. I never said, nor do I say now, how to improve the laws. I am more philosophical; besides, no one is paying me to do that hard work, and it would take a large team of people, working together, to do it right. Unfortunately, our entire system of politics has been corrupted by money. Both the NRA and the ACLU have too much influence over politicians.
"the fact that the line between "illegal" and "legal" is arbitrary should bother you a lot. It does me." It does not bother me, because it is not possible to draw that line without being somewhat arbitrary. This is just reality. No two people would ever agree on where that line should be, and as many of "you" have already told me, once that line is drawn, somebody will tweak a gun design and make the line irrelevant. I believe we need a line; I accept that it will never be perfect.
The idea of "national" gun control is to make the laws consistent, but not a panacea.
I know this will sound like heresy, but if we need to change the 2A in order to have intelligent gun controls, so be it. Our Founding Fathers were OK with such constitutional change. The very existence of 2A attests to that!
Linoge, I am quite familiar with the notion of "slippery slope". In fact, I think you are on one yourself with comments like "wonder as to your sanity levels" and "it helps to do your homework before opening your mouth". Usually comments like the former reveal mental instability on the speaker's part, and comments like the latter reveal poor manners, so I have nothing further to say to you, except "good riddance!".
If you are, as you say, so familiar with the concept of a "slippery slope", then why are you so hell-bent set on planting yourself firmly halfway down it, and then proclaiming to the world that this is how it going to be for all eternity... all the while ignoring the Crisco squishing up between your toes?
You want the government to more closely monitor our computers, but seem to be against allowing the government to more closely monitor our homes. I ask you, what is the difference?
My credit cards, my browsing habits, my bank information, my passwords, much of my real, honest-to-God life is stored on that computer. And, I can tell you this much, I routinely visit sites that the US Government probably would not approve of. And you want to hand this information over to them, freely, and of your own volition?
Excuse me for wanting a little privacy in my life.
But, again, what is the difference? With cameras in and around everyone's home, the government could more quickly and effectively solve murders, robberies, and home break-ins. Furthermore, the cameras would serve as passive deterrence tools. And, finally, such devices would prevent terrorist organizations and individuals from working out of their homes... and if they tried to disable the cameras, well, no law-abiding citizen has anything to hide, right? In fact, if you are a law-abiding citizen, you should be ashamed of speaking out against cameras in everyone's homes! Think of the good it could do... think of little old ladies having heart attacks and not being able to reach their phones! Think of the lives and property that could be saved from home-invaders! Think of the security and safety granted to children in the home, and the warm fuzzies for the parents!
If you are going to give the government access to some of your privacy, you may as well go ahead and sign over your entire life to them - it is only a matter of time, especially if you use the mindset you seem to support of "preventing damages" and "safety". I do believe Benjamin Franklin had something pertinent to say about that situation.
And, yes, I was being snarky, and will continue to do so. You are obviously arguing from a position of ignorance, and intentional ignorance at that, as singularly demonstrated by "I don't think our founders meant for the Second Amendment to be as sweeping as it has been interpreted." If you actually bothered to do a little research (aka "homework"), you would find that the Founding Fathers more or less intended the Second Amendment to be even more "sweeping" than it has been neutered, lobotomized, and castrated into being. Unfortunately, that is only one instance of the patent ignorance that has stood side-by-side with the hyperbole (RPG's? Give me a break!), narrow-sightedness (we do not need to "experiment" with gun-control laws to know they are failing elsewhere... England, anyone?), and other such shortcomings in this and your previous post.
I am sorry that you were offended by my words, but I am not sorry for them. Calling something the way I see it will never cause me to apologize.
You are right about one thing, though... "Good riddance." You were never interested in debate - what little you have attempted here has been nothing more than you repeatedly rehashing the same tired lines over and over again. And you certainly are not concerned about "safety" - P.J. O'Rourke adequately and humorously explained just how "safe" giving power to the government is, and history soberly demonstrates the same. And you certainly are not interested in learning a blessed thing. So, yes, good riddance, and good bye.
Hello again, Tim.
Yeah, you're right about us differing where we will draw the line about "illegal" and "legal". I interpret the 2A literally, and I draw my line at crew-served weapons, and bombs. That means if I want a full-auto submachine gun, I should be able to have it. (Don't want one; can't afford to feed it!) As to changeing the 2A, yes we can. But that's through the amendment process. It's unconstitutional to ignore it, and pass laws contrary to it. Many of us would not give up our guns anyway, as we believe that the 2A guarantees an existing birthright, not that it grants us one. I paraphrase Tenche Coxe here when he said, "The sword and every terrible instrument of the soldier is the birthright of every American".
Have you heard of "Malum in se" and "Malum prohibitum"? "Malum in se" means an act has an intrinsic evil. That would be the real, rights-violating crimes, such as rape or robbery. "Malum prohibitum" means that a government has declared something illegal, whether or not said action (or object) actually violates someones rights I usually call such laws "We Say So" laws, conjuring up images of an arrogant gov't that imperiously tells us it knows how to run our lives better than we do. That's what so any of the anti-gun laws are: "Malum prohibitum", or "We Say So! Submit, slave!" How many non-criminal types have suddenly found that they became a criminal just because one of these laws was passed?
You said that you want better laws, and I see you do mean those that bar the criminal from getting guns, and that is a noble cause. But I think that you simply cannot regulate guns (or anything) without said regulations limiting the law-abiding, and proving useless against the criminal. That's not something that can be tweaked, or gotten around; it is an underlying principle that works every time gun control or outright bans are tried.
Bottom line is, I think we can trust the American people to have (keep) and carry (bear) arms. The few that are criminal might never make it to trial, if they take on an armed victim. Criminals have been asked which they fear more: the police, or an armed victim. Every one says they fear an armed victim far more than they do the cops. We're not looking for the chance to KILL the bad guy; we're looking for the chance to STOP the bad guy. And yes, that often involves lethal force. The difference is if we were looking to kill, we'd put a finishing shot to the brain once the bad guy was down.
Anyway, that's my take on things.
R.J.
Timothy, I think I've reached a limit to our argument. I'm perfectly willing to discuss facts, history, and plans, but blind and fanciful, and VERY nebulous speculation. I'll address the least ethereal point you made of:" a lot of innovations have developed in information technology, databases, chips for identifying guns, and so on. Maybe technology can be used to keep guns out of the wrong hands."
Well we have come far. John Hinkley should have never got his hand on that .22 Revolver that he shot Reagan and Brady with. He was mentally ill, and a stalker. With that case we had the Brady background check (first in paper over a week's time, now over the phone in a matter of minuets) But when you talk about chips and databases I think you're missing a huge chunk of logic. In Mass we have a database. All of my guns are registered with my name and my current address, and I must inform the police when I move around the state. If you are murdered in this state (by gun or otherwise) there is a 70% chance your killer will never be caught. We both agree that most of the state gun laws are total bullshit, and written by people who know nothing about guns. This registration is one of them. How could it be done any better though? Its not like the crooks brought their guns in to be registered. Hell you can't even link a gun to ONE criminal. The word is on the street that neighborhoods and gangs have "communal guns" stashed in places where those in the know can use them at will.
As for chips et al. I assume you mean stuff like "Smart Guns" that don't yet exist, but many talk of. So I buy a gun, I bring it home. I live with my wife, and she is trained to use a gun if I'm not around to protect her. How is she going to defend her life with my gun? How am I going to teach people who are thinking about getting into shooting (either for recreation or sport). How about used guns? I was not the first owner of any of my guns. Plus its not like guns are exactly cheap. How do you expect to know if X gun is worth spending $300-$1000 if you've never shot one? How about the safety class I took before I could legally buy my first gun?
There is really no way to make guns user-specific without crippling the lawful gun owners who commit NO crimes, and prevent many (often without shots being fired at all, and everybody going home unharmed)
Also you can put a certain technology on NEW guns (like microstamping....which can be defeated with a few passes of a metal file or simply by running a few hundred rounds through the gun) But there are 270 MILLION guns out there. Lawful people might turn in their guns for modification (though some of my valuable antique guns would be ruined in value from such stupidity) but Sammy the Crack dealer isn't going to just swing by the local PD to get his POS Lorcin, that he bought out of the back of a van, to be modified with a tracking chip.
I understand you're not an expert in these matters, hell I'm a political activist for gun rights, and despite my years of reading books, discussing issues, attending meetings, attending training course, and shooting hundreds of different guns thousands of times, I would never be so bold as to call myself an "expert".
But your calling for controls with no knowledge or bearings on the issue is frankly quite dangerous.
I suggest you take a little time out of your day to learn the issue. I would recommend the books by John Lott as a starter, but there are many other authors on both sides of the issue.
Hopefully we'll have more to talk about in the future, but sadly there is too much of a disconnect. Ideas are great, but it isn't ideas that save lives, its action.
Also note that we have Lawyers and gun experts that work to change the laws for the better. I can't seem to find any of them who advise anything other than allowing more rights to personal protection, and harsher penalties for people who violate gun laws.
But they're experts, so what do they know **snicker**
Hopefully we'll see this subject again in the future, I'd hate to see you abandon the issue. All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
I guess "Linoge" does not understand the meaning of "good riddance". His idea of a political discussion is calling those he disagrees with "ignorant". Well, his stupid comments say more about him than me.
R.J., your comments were a breath of fresh air, and very informative. I appreciate the civility, not just for the obvious reason, but because this type of communicating via the "pen" does not allow for all the signals of face-to-face debates, which I relish and miss, since I enjoy friendly but hot discussions in that mode.
Thanks for the explanation of "Malum in se" and "Malum prohibitum".
I disagree with "you simply cannot regulate guns (or anything) without said regulations limiting the law-abiding, and proving useless against the criminal. That's not something that can be tweaked, or gotten around; it is an underlying principle that works every time gun control or outright bans are tried." I think we should wipe all the contradictory or incompatible state laws re guns off the books (we have too many laws). But we should have some laws regulating firearms IMHO, at the national level.
I think the current system is broken. Too many guns end up in the wrong hands. Too many innocent folks get shot at. We should not blame the victim.
I have no quarrel with any armed victim blowing the brains out of the bad guy who attacks him or her. In fact, I cheer that. The trouble is, we cannot extrapolate any one incident into a justification for having no gun controls. With intelligent gun controls, you and other law-abiding citizens would still be able to keep and bear arms. But the process needs regulation IMHO.
ig·no·rant
–adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.
I mean no disrespect, Timothy. As a matter of fact I belive I have made a great point in stating my great respect for you and your way of thinking. But when it comes to guns, and gun control you openly admit that you:
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject Of guns and gun control
3. uninformed; unaware Of guns and gun control.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: in guns and gun control
You are a learned and intelegent man, but on this issue you are most certainly ignorant on this issue.
Insulting Linoge simply for telling the truth and sharing his views and knowlege is hardly correct.
The one good thing about ignorance is its cure is both simple, and pleasurable.
I hope to see you soon on this side of wellness from the disorder.
Weer'd Beard,
Most of what you said was blogworthy, but "blind and fanciful, and VERY nebulous speculation" was not necessary. I could say a lot of really nasty things about the nice folks who have left comments here, but I hold my tongue.
My ideas about gun control may differ from yours, but that does not make them "frankly quite dangerous".
In a departure from my usual tedious practice of trying to respond to everything I disagree with, I would like to suggest something bold. You and many of the other fellas who have a lot of useful knowledge about guns and the idiocy of our present gun control laws, are the very people who should be involved in writing a new law that would replace all the state laws and be a modification of or replacement for the present national laws. If only "you" (plural) could step back from the ideology and attempt to put into the law the safeguards you want for privacy and practicality, but also some features which would reduce the probability of guns getting into the wrong hands.
Take care.
Have you read ANYTHING we've been writing?
"You and many of the other fellas who have a lot of useful knowledge about guns and the idiocy of our present gun control laws, are the very people who should be involved in writing a new law that would replace all the state laws and be a modification of or replacement for the present national laws. If only "you" (plural) could step back from the ideology and attempt to put into the law the safeguards you want for privacy and practicality, but also some features which would reduce the probability of guns getting into the wrong hands. "
Just read what we have written. The solution is to repeal the laws that don't effect criminals, and more strongly enforce the laws that DO effect them.
Simple as that, and where it has been implemented it has WORKED.
Why would we go against our rational judgment and knowledge of the issue do do something we KNOW won't work? That's just it, and why we've been having this discussion.
I've been trying to share this information with you, and I have done all I can to expose my underbelly to show that I am no zealot with motives other than protecting the rights and lives of the lawful while making life as difficult and unpleasant for those who wish to cause the harms to society that trouble the both of us.
As for my political involvement, I'm there as well. I'm a member of the NRA, and of GOAL
http://www.goal.org/
Through my participation in these groups laws are drafted to repeal ineffective law, and to improve enforcement of the existing laws, and to allow lawful folk to carry the tools that will best protect their lives from people who have no respect for life.
Its just that simple, and its no zealotry. All you need to do is look at the facts. Simple as that.
Please don't say things that mean our time was wasted with you.
Weer'd Beard, I am sorry to see your last comment. I guess you fooled me. Shame on me.
I don't need you or any of your fellow ideologues lecturing me about "ignorance". You are the ignorant ones. Your brains are so stuffed with ideology that your eyes cannot see. Linoge lectured me that "You were never interested in debate - what little you have attempted here has been nothing more than you repeatedly rehashing the same tired lines over and over again. And you certainly are not concerned about "safety"". That is bullshit. Hardly "telling the truth".
Ideologues have their heads buried in the sand.
I choose to learn about whatever I please. I certainly don't need one-issue ideologues telling me to drink their coolaid. If you guys had a little less hubris and opened your eyes, you would see that this country has too many guns, and in the wrong hands. That is not rocket science, but common sense.
Insulting Linoge after he insulted me WAS correct.
You are the one with the disorder, not me.
In response to the last previous post from weer'd beard:
I have read every single word that you guys have written here. Your ideology does nothing to PREVENT crimes with guns; it's all after the fact. Sure, I want the criminals locked up; but I most emphatically also want to PREVENT the bastards from getting their hands on guns.
You defend the status quo; the status quo is not working.
Your tone is very patronizing.
The trouble with you guys is that your minds are already made up. There is no point in discussing gun control with you.
How ironic your statements.
If you have a way to prevent criminals from getting guns aside from the simple, and enforceable laws I have stated above, I will hear them out.
My mind is far from closed. I have read literally HUNDRENDS of proposed gun laws. From this nation, and from others, ranging from the UK ban on most firearms to Vermont's and Alaska's complete indifference to gun laws.
I have seen which ones work, and which don't. I've looked and pointed out simple loopholes that are easily exploited by people with no respect for the law.
My ideas do in fact PREVENT crime. It is estimated that guns save 2.5 MILION lives every year.
that is results. Results that is all but completely hindered by good natured public servants where you and I live.
I am not closed minded at all. But ideology does not sway my opinion when the facts simply don't support them.
We have given you countless facts, you have given us stories and statements that are untrue, and easily disproved.
I know you are not a firearms expert, and I don't expect you to be. But don't say our mind is closed simply because our facts don't line up with what you've been told all your life.
I was told it too. I used to think the same way. Its LIES. Simple as that.
Guns do NOT cause crime
Guns do NOT Cause violence
Criminals will not respect laws
Laws that are not properly enforced will have no power.
Again don't take my word for it. See for yourself.
But don't call me a liar or a Zealot again unless you come with facts to disprove me, otherwise it will simply prove that you are the one who's mind is closed.
If I thought that was true of you, I wouldn't even be typing this.
You are much smarter than this.
Laws describe criminal behavior and set a penalty for it. Law enforcement officers arrest those who are accused of breaking a law. The courts declare their innocence or guilt and prescribe a sentence for those convicted. Laws in and of themselves have never prevented any crime. Penalties may deter some, but certainly career violent criminals, particularly those with multiple convictions, give lie to the supposition that any laws can do much to prevent criminal behavior.
No, law-abiding people obey the law. Criminals, by definition, do not. I have never used my firearms, which range from .22 to .75 caliber in various configurations, to injure another person, much less kill someone. I am thankful for that, and as with these other gentlemen, I fervently hope I am never called upon to use them in such a manner. But that is not up to me but to those who, for their selfish criminal reasons, would choose to attack me or my family.
You have chosen, as is your right, to abdicate the responsibility of your safety to the government, which has absolutely no duty or obligation to protect you. I truly hope that works out for you, though an examination of their record would seem to counsel against it. However, constitutionally and morally, you have no more right to make that particular choice for me than to tell me which church to attend, what I can or cannot say, or with whom I might associate.
If you would work toward laws which will reduce “gun” crime, I suggest you spend your energies toward those ensuring lengthy mandatory sentences for repeat violent offenders and increased budgets for prison construction. Incarcerated felons have no guns and, as long as they are in jail, they are in no position to impose their criminal activity upon the general public.
I would happily join that fight by your side.
weer'd beard, pray tell, where did I call you a liar or a zealot?
You mostly seem reasonable; I just wish you would not put words in my mouth, and for you and all the others to try to understand the simple points I have made.
I never claimed that I had a proposed law in mind. I keep simply saying something reasonable: we need better laws. We also need viable nuclear fusion reactors; if I could build them, I would be filthy rich, and the "war on terror" would be over sooner. You guys keep castigating me for not spelling out what the new laws should look like. I keep saying the answer lies in gun experts getting together with law enforcement experts; I never said anything about me personally writing the damn law!
"It is estimated that guns save 2.5 MILION lives every year." Should I say "guns don't save lives, people do"?
"We have given you countless facts, you have given us stories and statements that are untrue, and easily disproved". Will I believe that if I drink the cool aid? If I said the exact same thing to you, you would be justifiably insulted. Are you calling me a liar?
"our facts don't line up with what you've been told all your life." I disagree with the premise that you have the relevant facts; all my life, I have heard both sides of this debate, and I come out for gun control. I read both the Wall Street Journal and the NY Times, and plenty of magazines on both sides of this issue.
My mind is open. And I know reasonable people can disagree on hot button issues. Believe it or not, this is not a "hot button" issue for me. I actually think America has more important stuff on our plate than "gun rights" or "gun control". For one thing, we are at war.
BTW, repetition does not work for me, as in "Guns do NOT cause crime"; "Guns do NOT Cause violence". I am the last guy in the room who can be brainwashed, and the most skeptical person I know.
You know what I think about criminals, so why write "Criminals will not respect laws". I want our government to prevent these criminals from getting guns!
I agree that "Laws that are not properly enforced will have no power". But how is that relevant to anything I have written? I said from the beginning that we must enforce the laws and lock up the bad guys.
GreatBlueWhale, thank you for your reasonable comments.
"Laws in and of themselves have never prevented any crime." I beg to differ. Surely, laws do not prevent all crimes - I agree; but some laws prevent some crimes from taking place, on the margin. For example, if rape were not against the law, there would be more incidents of rape. If dumping radioactive waste in a particular place were not against the law, it would happen more often. However, if by "in and of themselves" you mean there is no enforcement, no courts, no penalties, etc., you are right, but that is not the real-world context of gun control. By that I mean, of course the other elements are needed to work hand in hand with gun control.
I imagine good control would include regulations so that the guns owned by today's law-abiding citizens (such as yourself) do not end up in the hands of a criminal 50 years from now.
"You have chosen, as is your right, to abdicate the responsibility of your safety to the government...." This is a good example of what really perplexes me. I never said that. I am perfectly prepared to defend myself and my family in many ways. But I sure as heck want the government involved too, and would like it to do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of the criminals.
"you have no more right to make that particular choice for me than to tell me which church to attend, what I can or cannot say, or with whom I might associate." Needless to say, since I do not even say that about myself, I would never impose my views on you. As I said to someone else, I believe firmly in the principle of "minding your own business". But I do think that government should try to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys.
I totally agree with the sentiments of your last paragraph, and favor tough sentences, and tough (but safe and clean) prisons, without TVs, without exercise rooms, etc.
Timothy, perhaps I did put some words in your mouth, and I apologies for any missteps I may have done.
You said to me: "The trouble with you guys is that your minds are already made up. There is no point in discussing gun control with you." You also speak of "ideology" and "cool aid".
Those are all statements that imply closed-mindedness, zealotry, and dishonesty or being brain washed.
If my reading of those implications were wrong, I am sorry, and I'd like some clarification, because that is the only way I may interpret those statements.
I'm going to step back from the gun control argument for a second and give you an analogy using your own words. Please note that the following statements are only an analogy, and in know way do I know, or have statements for or against nuclear power.
your statement: "We also need viable nuclear fusion reactors; if I could build them, I would be filthy rich, and the "war on terror" would be over sooner."
Now say we (meaning your new readership linked here from Robb initially) were instead nuclear physics buffs, and college professors. We stated that fusion was an impossibility under current technology, and in the foreseeable future there are no scientists who have come remotely close to a viable option. If we said that because people were dying NOW on the war on terror and by dabbling in the politics of oil, and that we instead need to peruse safer more viable fission reactors as a way to reduce pollution, and to remove vested interests in know terror states. We told you our credentials, and cited real world examples and articles written on the science. Many written by people even more qualified on the subject as we.
Then you turn around and say you read all we had written, but still we only should peruse fusion, and that we need to abandon our fission "idolatry" stop "drinking the cool aid" and turn our research to fusion.
I am hardly an idealog, or somebody who has had my "brains so stuffed with ideology that my eyes cannot see." (edited slightly for tense)
My eyes are hardly blinded. I am behind all the intelligent gun control that I know DOES work. If we dump the NICS check, or allow felons to buy guns without trouble, we WILL have more crime, because we WILL have more guns in the hands of the wrong people. If police and judges don't properly apprehend and punish people for gun crimes (which in this state, and I suspect yours is true) we will have more crime, even if the thug is stripped of his gun during processing. I am in favor of the current bill in the house to improve the NICS system
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2640
I am also in favor of rolling back most state gun laws...and actually for applying certain laws to states that don't implement certain gun laws (If you'd like my idea of a near-perfect template for NATIONAL gun laws, look at how guns are regulated in my State-of-Birth, Maine). I say this not because I was brainwashed into it, but because these laws show great imperial evidence of working. Sure there are differences between population density, climate, economic condition, racial diversity, but then I turned around and shifted the variables around. It can be done with a little work to eliminate many of the variables by view a large enough data set on the issue.
I have presented parts of these data sets. You have said nothing to refute that my interpretation of the data is wrong, or given a different interpretation. I've read volumes of books, blogs, and special interest groups that are all in favor of more gun control. Their arguments are easily disproved with raw facts. Not ideology, not repetition of Clichés, FACTS. Meanwhile I have read books and journals written by people smarter than myself who also believe that laws should be rolled back, and they show data to support their argument.
Where is the idolatry in my methods? My concern is for you, as it appears that we are only having a one-sided debate. Sure you refute our arguments, and we give you credit where credit is due, but we have countered many of your statements with factual arguments. I asked you to prove our angle wrong. I understand you aren't an expert on this issue, but you say you " I read both the Wall Street Journal and the NY Times, and plenty of magazines on both sides of this issue." (I'd be curious what the others on the list might be, as I have found multiple articles in the NY times, and WSJ that present some VERY biased and factually incorrect articles on guns and gun crime) What are some of the factual arguments they have made?
Frankly in the last decade of me following this issue closely, I have found that arguments for gun control rely on, lies, emotional appeal, and/or suppression of civil rights. The implementation of these controls (aside from the ones I have repeatedly supported) have actually INCREASED crime levels.
I give you no perfect solutions, and shall only do so when presented a perfect world. I DO give you some proven solutions, and the facts and arguments to back them up.
If a future laws may be drafted that will keep the guns out of the hands of violent people, while still supplying us the tools to protect ourselves when the thugs turn to knives, or pipes or other lethal weapons, and also preserving the safe, fun, recreation we enjoy, I will be the first to be behind it.
I'll blog about it, I'll tell my friends. I'll draft dozens of letters to my senators and congressional representatives (both State and National).
But I have not seen that law. I can't think of such a law. There literally MILLIONS of people in this country who are knowledgeable of both firearms, and firearms laws, and they can't think of the start of this law.
It would be in the full benefit of the NRA and any other gun lobby, as with little or no guns in the hands of criminals, while preserving the 2nd Amendment as written by the framers. ALL gun laws that is opposed by them could be repealed overnight.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but like cold fusion, it can't be done in the foreseeable future (which in no way does this mean "forever") But as you and I both lament. People are DYING.
If I'm wrong, prove me I'm wrong. I have made all attempts to be transparent. If you request more data on a claim, I can supply it on command.
With current technology there is NO way to take the guns that the criminals are currently using out of their hands besides arrest and confiscation. And these only depend on a crime happening in the first place (incarceration, and/or the death penalty will verify that they won't kill AGAIN, and harsh prisons MAY get some potentially violent people to curb their anger, but that has nothing to do with gun control)
What STOPS crime, is police who enforce laws (as I've said before 99% of the people committing gun crimes are committing arrest able offences BEFORE they do ANY act of violence) and to allow people who are to become victims of violent crime to defend themselves before they become yet another murder or rape statistic. Also it doesn't take too many robbers who break into a home only to find a person in their night-shirt with a shotgun, or a rapist to take a bullet to the head before a portion of the criminal population will rethink their crimes?
Seattle has a similar population as Boston, similar ethnic diversity, similar financial stratification, population density. Seattle may have a slightly more hospitable climate, as it doesn't have the frigid winters Boston has, but Boston gets less rain. Overall the climates are similar. Seattle actually has MORE reported crime (according to FBI crime data reports) but Seattle has less VIOLENT crime than Boston. From this I would draw the conclusion that in Seattle, instances of victims defending themselves are common, both reported in the news, and reported on the streets by thugs who nearly got their head blown off by somebody they accosted. That's my logic, you may see it differently. But some factor in Seattle has caused the car thieves to be more likely to steal an unoccupied car, while in Boston, its more likely that the car will have a driver violently removed. Same with Home invasion vs. burglary (ie empty house vs. occupied house). You can see these trends with ease. This also can be observed in the SAME place when laws are added or repealed.
It was no NRA-re-education camp that got me to see these things. It was simply data and logic.
If you can prove me wrong with better data, and/or better logic, I welcome it.
Until then I have a solution that can be implemented NOW. It is supported by experts in law and in firearms. I have seen no other solution today that is as proven or effective.
This is where I stand. Do I seem blind to you?
Weer'd Beard, the statement about "cool aid" was me venting after I felt the discussions had deteriorated. After all, there were several ad hominem attacks.
I read with interest your analogy to nuclear power reactors. It is an excellent analogy.
I do say (as you know) that as a nation we need more R&D on fusion. I have read much about this subject over the years, and have dabbled in the science. But, as with guns, I never said I was an expert. I don't need to be an expert on the minutia of the technology to make intelligent political comments on the subject. (BTW, the Bussard reactor looks very promising to me. Whereas, I believe "cold fusion" was a hoax.)
Here is where the analogy breaks down, and why I am so glad you made the analogy.
No one has ever made ad hominem attacks on me based on my opinion that we need to move ahead on fusion. The comments of one guy were patronizing, but he was just speaking for himself.
Back to the analogy. As with fusion, I never said gun control was the only answer. Likewise, until fusion is viable, we need more fission reactors.
btw, I also never used the word "idolatry". Ideology, yes.
You said you are in favor of intelligent gun control. We agree.
"I have presented parts of these data sets. You have said nothing to refute that my interpretation of the data is wrong, or given a different interpretation." Criminal justice, with all its statistics, is not a hard science. Ditto for sociology and psychology. (See "The Black Swan" by Nassim Taleb.) The simple truth is, criminal behavior in the setting of "270 million guns" is not physics; it is much more complex. More complicated even than meteorology. The "gun lobby" could use a lot more humility and a lot less intellectual arrogance.
"Their arguments are easily disproved with raw facts." That is an example of intellectual arrogance. You can no more disprove anything on the subject of gun control than I can disprove global warming. You can, however, state your honest opinions on gun control, just as I can state mine on global warming. Reason: we are not talking about physics, where we can control all the variables in a laboratory. Life is far too complicated for that kind of testing.
"Where is the idolatry in my methods?" The ideology is in your mindset. You assume that your "facts" are the only facts. There are billions of facts about gun control; most of them are hidden from us mere humans.
"The implementation of these controls (aside from the ones I have repeatedly supported) have actually INCREASED crime levels." That is an unsupportable conclusion. We cannot "know" the causes of criminal activity, because human behavior is far more complicated than physics. But we can have opinions on this subject. Going from opinion to "knowing" is intellectual arrogance.
"I DO give you some proven solutions" With all due respect, you have not proved anything.
"But I have not seen that law." Nor have I. But it won't ever exist as long as our politics are corrupted by money, and, in this particular case, by money from the NRA. Why? Because law, not being physics, takes a lot of trial and error. Law will never be perfect; that does not mean we should just throw up our hands, and give up trying.
"If I'm wrong, prove me I'm wrong." I cannot prove you are wrong, any more than I can prove that Mohammad was the "last prophet". Once again, we are debating in the domain of a "social science", where nothing can be "proved". (If we were talking about geometry, that would be a different matter, and in my youth I was an ace at that.)
"With current technology...." I humbly disagree. Better laws (regulation) would reduce the probability that a crime can be committed with a firearm. (No, I cannot prove that, nor can you disprove it; it is opinion.)
That "person in their night-shirt with a shotgun" is more likely to kill a loved one than an intruder, IMHO.
"Seattle has a similar population as Boston...." I addressed this above: this is not amenable to scientific conclusion. Too many variables (probably millions of variables, seen and unseen) were omitted from your analysis. Also, how wouldyou even attempt, in a scientific fashion, to weight each of the millions of different variables even if you were aware of them?
"It was no NRA-re-education camp...." Perhaps this is "snarky", but when you read the same propaganda over and over again, and reinforce your opinions by talking to the same people over and over again, the result is like brainwashing.
"If you can prove me wrong...." Again, I cannot prove you wrong, and you cannot prove you are right.
"Do I seem blind to you?" Metaphorically, yes.
Weer'd Beard, I almost forgot: thanks for the nicer tone. It makes it easier for me to engage with you.
As for tone, I think we all had some steam that needed venting. I think there is little more that I can to re-state my argument at this point. As for ad hominem attacks, I can only speak for myself, and I meant none in any way. Again, I respect your viewpoint on this issue, and find your overall opinion on things very interesting.
I am slightly insulted by accusation of "intellectual arrogance" but I will give you benefit of the doubt that that was not your full intent. As for "corruption of money by the NRA" I'd love to see a finding of that, but personally I don't see any of the sort. If you could bring some information to light I'd love to see it.
The only thing I see now is simply to point out statements I see an incorrect. Of course your comment about the nature social science, my views can be held to a degree of subjectivity. So maybe its best to be seen as "another side" of the issue. The only statement in your last post I can take issue with is:
"That "person in their night-shirt with a shotgun" is more likely to kill a loved one than an intruder, IMHO."
The only study that I read that gave a similar result did not use the term "Loved one" but "known to the shooter", and it made no effort to distinguish between legally held guns and those illegally held. Also I believe it included self-inflicted wounds as well as homicides. So this data includes, stalkers (who are often seen many times by the victim before things get dangerous) Co-Workers, and estranged Significant others. Essentially anybody who a protection order is placed knows the person who is a danger to them. For illegally held guns, this includes gang violence and hit-jobs, and drug competition wars, as the victim is known to the attacker. Finally suicide is a sad thing, but claims that access to firearms is a causation of suicide is a tad foolish.
This was a concern of mine as well back in my anti-gun days. I definetly thought "Dad Shooting Junior because he tripped while going potty in the middle of the night and was mistaken for a break-in" was a real event. I haven't heard of a single story like that at all. Have you?
I hope you excuse my blindness : ]
Hi Weer'd Beard,
I did not mean any insult by "intellectual arrogance". It is a common expression that alludes to the concept of a person being certain they know more than they actually do know. Philosophers often say "we do not know about that which we do not know". As humans, our intelligence is very limited. What we do not know far outweighs what we do know.
I should add, it is something a person tends to observe in the person he is debating, as opposed to in himself.
I did a post not too long ago about how money corrupts politics. By no means limited to money from the NRA. An example will show what I mean. Let us say my Congressman accepts a fair sized contribution from the ACLU. The guy at the ACLU is more likely to get a hearing from my congressman than I will. I am a nobody. I have interests on many political issues. I write to my congressman. But if I call his office, a secretary takes my comments down, and combines them with other constituents' comments, and typically passes the results on to the guy, who probably spends half his time trying to raise money for his next campaign. See what I mean?
I appreciate your research into the accidental killings. I would not at all be shocked if my hunch was wrong.
I have read many stories about accidental shootings in the home, but I never recorded them in any way. I also wonder what happens if an elderly person gets dementia and owns guns. There are some forms of dementia which are accompanied by paranoia and denial, so I think that is also very risky.
Of course, we all have blind spots. (This is even true literally, where the optic nerve is attached to the retina.) I am no exception.
Thanks again for the discussion. Now, where did I put my eyeglasses?
I hope you don't mind my sharing my particular perspective on the issue. As a Canadian, I was horrified by the Ecole Polytechnique massacre, where 14 women were murdered by a madman who blamed his personal failings on "feminists".
As a result of the Polytechnique Massacre, our Federal Government adopted the Firearms Act (Canada), which banned outright a number of weapons, imposed gun licensing and storage requirements, with specially stringent licensing requirements, storage, transport, and use restrictions of handguns, certain (threatening-looking) long guns, and magazine capacities, created a centralized registration system for all firearms, and imposed harsh penalties for violators of the foregoing.
I thought that this was a reasonable response to the alledged problem of "gun violence", and strongly supported it. And I thought that anybody who opposed them was a pawn of the NRA, a drooling redneck, or a morally suspect Rambo wannabee.
But a few years ago I moved out to the country, and decided to take up hunting. And so I began the process of getting my gun license, and, although I didn't know it at the time, my education in the realities of firearms ownership and gun control.
Simply put, the Firearms Act has been a complete and ghastly, multi-billion-dollar failure. While it took eleven months for me (a model citizen with a clean criminal record) to be issued a license to own hunting guns, the government blithely went ahead and issued Kimveer Gill a restricted weapon license; when he shot up Dawson College, wounding nineteen and killing one, he was in full compliance with the licensing and registration rules.
Its failure to stop Columbine-emulating madmen aside, the Firearms Act has had no effect on the suicide rate. It has had no effect on so-called "gun crime", which has continued to rise since its enactment. After ten years, the registry contains less than half of the firearms known to be in the country (at a cost of two billion dollars or so). It has accomplished nothing of what it was supposed to do, at staggering cost and severe violations of the civil liberties of Canadian gun owners (who, among others, have to disclose all sexual partners over the past two years when applying for a license, ostensibly to prevent people from murdering ex-spouses).
I now believe that gun control is useless as a means of reducing violent crime. Simply put, it poses no deterrent to somebody about to commit a murder or armed robbery. "Gun crimes" are already crimes by definition, and if the sanctions for murder aren't going to stop a would-be killer, the penalties for gun control violations won't either. And this may sound odd coming from a Canadian progressive, but as a result of my experience with Canadian gun control law I honestly believe that our respective "gun lobbies" are right across the board when it comes to firearms, and our gun control movements are misguided at best, flat-out dishonest at worst, and are driven by ignorance, fear and hysteria, and prejudice.
Which brings me to the question of the anti-gun propaganda we both absorbed, and how actual gun ownership and practical experience with firearms made me realize that they're not the dreadful tools of evil the antis would have us believe they are. In fact, they're morally neutral, just like other power tools. This may be hard to grasp if your only experience of firearms has been through movies, TV, and the news media, so if you're interested, I'd be happy to expand on this in another comment.
http://fearsclave.livejournal.com/
-Fearsclave.
FYI Being Diagnosed with certain kinds of Dementia and/or mental illness will make posession of a firearm unlawful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act
Fearsclave ("anonymous"),
Thanks for the objective info, but no thanks for the "cult-speak".
You say that "our gun control movements are misguided at best, flat-out dishonest at worst, and are driven by ignorance, fear and hysteria, and prejudice." That exact same comment could be applied equally well to the gun lovers.
"In fact, they're morally neutral, just like other power tools. This may be hard to grasp if your only experience of firearms has been through movies, TV, and the news media...." That is so typically patronizing. Because I hold different views, I have a hard time "grasping" your false statement. Guns are not "just like power tools". Maybe I missed all the stories about drive by shootings using nail guns.
Nice try. Please stay in Canada, with your guns. As I am told, we already have 270,000,000 guns, so the last thing we need is more guns.
weer'd beard, thanks for the info.
Timothy,
Like Robb, I have decided to reply separately from this forum.
My reply is here.
To "The Armed Canadian",
I have to take care of some personal business, but as long as I am in masochistic mood, I intend to visit your site and respond to your comments. Regards...
Just a point that I have in question re: I wish I could make all the guns in civilian hands vanish instantaneously. When does a Criminal become a mere civilian?
Hi DirtCrashr, I would be happy to have half a wish, and just make the guns in criminal hands disappear. Better would be to add those who happen, unlikely as it may seem, to be about to become criminals if the guns do not disappear. Finally, I would call it a day if you then add those good guys who are about to cause a lethal or serious non-lethal accident with their gun. Thanks for stopping by.
Post a Comment