Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GE Morton]

I think the real thing to think about is "why are we manufacturing so many weapons of mass destruction"?

That one is easy. Because there is a demand for them. That is, if you're speaking of common firearms, which are not "weapons of mass destruction."

[UniversalAlien]

I still have no determinate position on gun control. On one hand, the right to bare arms is a reality. To hunt, to protect one's self against wild-life let alone other humans... you could even argue that armed civilians protect the populace from government abuses.

But it's a sad day when irresponsible and unstable individuals get their hands on automatic weaponry and commit mass murder. Then what do we do? We lock them up for life or execute them. But really, perhaps it was just the fact they had access to a weapon that can cause so much harm from such a personal distance. Probably playing too many video games.

I think the real thing to think about is "why are we manufacturing so many weapons of mass destruction"? WWI rolled around and the tanks started rolling down the city streets of Europe. A war directly caused by industrial revolution. Reasonable anarchists of the era started calling for the universal unification of the proletariat to prevent mass warfare.

Then Stalin decided to pass around ak-47's to any hackneyed backwater militia group that proclaimed the cause of communism.

Point is, we shouldn't be manufacturing these weapons in the first place. The only reason we are is because one nation is against another and we have to manufacture them lest the other nation has all the power.

Certainly this dynamic will end in a world-wide realization of some sort.

I am Australian, so you can't lie about us to me to shore up your apparent ideological belief that weapons of war belong in local communities.

Off topic but I would like to mention that I am an American with a Canadian father that spent 3 years in Perth, Australia as a toddler. Meat pies are still my favorite food.

I lost faith in the USA being able to do anything about this legally. Morally, there is no reason to resort to lethal self defense with so many nonlethal methods available, ecept for people who are handicapped severely. My new response to people with bloodlust for guns is to call them wimps for exactly that reason. I tried for years to argue with them, and it makes no difference. Once people have fixated on a belief, they ignore anything against it and repeat anything they think supports it. That applies for many other things besides guns. On religious beliefs, I respect others if they respect me, but on guns, I dont know any excuse for adulation of the power to kill other people. If people really had a sense of morality who do so, they'd be sad about having to resort to it, instead of waving them like flags.

AND I'M {the OP who started this post years ago} and I'm losing faith in trying to make otherwise reasonable people, including people who don't own and in fact dislike guns, understand why in spite of the many tragedies caused by lunatics and terrorists getting their hands on guns,
we still must maintain The Second Ammendment {the right to bear arms}.

Again I call on only one important witness - HISTORY and the histories of genocides following so called gun control.

Of Genocide and Disarmament
NCJ Number 162699
Journal Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 86 Issue: 1 Dated: (Fall 1995) Pages: 247-256
Author(s)
D B Kates Jr;
D D Polsby
Date Published 1995
Length 10 pages
Annotation
This article reviews the book Lethal Laws by Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, and Alan Rice, who argue that, as a practical matter, governments cannot commit genocide except on an effectively disarmed population.
Abstract
The volume contributes to our knowledge of foreign firearms regulation by gathering English translations of historical firearms laws from Germany, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the People's Republic of China, Ottoman Turkey, Guatemala, Uganda, and Cambodia. In each of these countries, genocide was committed by agents of the government during the last 100 years. This volume is the second book from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership to argue that the inclination of sovereign governments to abuse power, including the infliction of geno-politicide upon racial, ethnic, and other minorities, represents a sound basis for sanctioning an armed population capable of at least rudimentary self-defense. However, this volume will probably not be the means for carrying on this conversation due to the authors' inexcusable bad manners and bombastic comparisons of President Clinton to Hitler. The relevant policy question is whether the benefits of civilian firearms possession, including their effect in discouraging government excess, are great enough in comparison with the costs to justify allowing the civilian population to be armed. The authors of this book, despite their reputation for shrillness, have placed much new and thought-provoking material at the disposal of a public in distinct need of reflecting on it. Footnotes

Quote source:
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-libra ... isarmament

Disarming regular people can lead to genocide
Stephen P. Halbrook
Hundreds of news stories have been written during the past month reporting on the 100-year anniversary of one of the darkest events in world history, a two-year killing spree that claimed the lives of an estimated 800,000 to 1.5 million Armenians.

Virtually none of these news stories, however, bothered to mention why the Armenians were defenseless against their rulers in the then-Ottoman Empire: because the Ottomans had disarmed them — the same tool that would enable the Nazis, two decades later, to enslave and then slaughter European Jewry.

While the remnant of the Ottoman Empire, today's Turkey, disputes many of the details having to do with the Armenian genocide, most historians agree on certain basic facts. First, that the Christian Armenians had long been denied basic rights under the Ottomans' Muslim law. Second, they were excluded from participation in the government. And third, Ottoman law made it a crime to possess a firearm without government permission. The Armenians, as British traveler H.F.B. Lynch wrote in 1901, were "rigorously prohibited from possessing firearms."

Quote source:
https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story ... /27250187/

So, yes the United States does have a serious problem with inadequate gun laws
But until reasonable solutions are found, the alternatives of being a disarmed and vulnerable population
where you must assume the government will always protect you {Putin in Russia and Trump in America show us this is a very dangerous
acceptance}, and the alternative still remains:

"WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS"

[d3r31nz1g3]

I think the real thing to think about is "why are we manufacturing so many weapons of mass destruction"?

That one is easy. Because there is a demand for them. That is, if you're speaking of common firearms, which are not "weapons of mass destruction."

I'm under the impression that the reason we manufacture so many automatic weapons is because of the industrial revolution and WW1. One nation started advancing their armaments, so in fear of that nation all the other nations manufactured them as well. Then this inevitably caused WW1.

Then WWII came along and the cold war followed where the Russians started arming militaries with ak-47's to spread communism--they had to in order to compete on the world stage with the west who became extraordinarily wealthy following colonialism.

And now we all continuously manufacture these "weapons of mass destruction" (I know that automatic weapons don't fit the typical definition, but an automatic rifle can kill dozens or even hundreds of people before the individual is stopped) because of this dynamic.

Although I guess simple demand is at the root of it all. I think the above is the real reason, though. Not because there is demand, but because every nation has to lest they be vulnerable to other nations.

[ernestm]

I still have no determinate position on gun control. On one hand, the right to bare arms is a reality. To hunt, to protect one's self against wild-life let alone other humans... you could even argue that armed civilians protect the populace from government abuses.

But it's a sad day when irresponsible and unstable individuals get their hands on automatic weaponry and commit mass murder. Then what do we do? We lock them up for life or execute them. But really, perhaps it was just the fact they had access to a weapon that can cause so much harm from such a personal distance. Probably playing too many video games.

I think the real thing to think about is "why are we manufacturing so many weapons of mass destruction"? WWI rolled around and the tanks started rolling down the city streets of Europe. A war directly caused by industrial revolution. Reasonable anarchists of the era started calling for the universal unification of the proletariat to prevent mass warfare.

Then Stalin decided to pass around ak-47's to any hackneyed backwater militia group that proclaimed the cause of communism.

Point is, we shouldn't be manufacturing these weapons in the first place. The only reason we are is because one nation is against another and we have to manufacture them lest the other nation has all the power.

Certainly this dynamic will end in a world-wide realization of some sort.

I am Australian, so you can't lie about us to me to shore up your apparent ideological belief that weapons of war belong in local communities.

Off topic but I would like to mention that I am an American with a Canadian father that spent 3 years in Perth, Australia as a toddler. Meat pies are still my favorite food.

I lost faith in the USA being able to do anything about this legally. Morally, there is no reason to resort to lethal self defense with so many nonlethal methods available, ecept for people who are handicapped severely. My new response to people with bloodlust for guns is to call them wimps for exactly that reason. I tried for years to argue with them, and it makes no difference. Once people have fixated on a belief, they ignore anything against it and repeat anything they think supports it. That applies for many other things besides guns. On religious beliefs, I respect others if they respect me, but on guns, I dont know any excuse for adulation of the power to kill other people. If people really had a sense of morality who do so, they'd be sad about having to resort to it, instead of waving them like flags.

AND I'M {the OP who started this post years ago} and I'm losing faith in trying to make otherwise reasonable people, including people who don't own and in fact dislike guns, understand why in spite of the many tragedies caused by lunatics and terrorists getting their hands on guns,
we still must maintain The Second Ammendment {the right to bear arms}.

Again I call on only one important witness - HISTORY and the histories of genocides following so called gun control.

Of Genocide and Disarmament
NCJ Number 162699
Journal Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 86 Issue: 1 Dated: (Fall 1995) Pages: 247-256
Author(s)
D B Kates Jr;
D D Polsby
Date Published 1995
Length 10 pages
Annotation
This article reviews the book Lethal Laws by Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, and Alan Rice, who argue that, as a practical matter, governments cannot commit genocide except on an effectively disarmed population.
Abstract
The volume contributes to our knowledge of foreign firearms regulation by gathering English translations of historical firearms laws from Germany, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the People's Republic of China, Ottoman Turkey, Guatemala, Uganda, and Cambodia. In each of these countries, genocide was committed by agents of the government during the last 100 years. This volume is the second book from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership to argue that the inclination of sovereign governments to abuse power, including the infliction of geno-politicide upon racial, ethnic, and other minorities, represents a sound basis for sanctioning an armed population capable of at least rudimentary self-defense. However, this volume will probably not be the means for carrying on this conversation due to the authors' inexcusable bad manners and bombastic comparisons of President Clinton to Hitler. The relevant policy question is whether the benefits of civilian firearms possession, including their effect in discouraging government excess, are great enough in comparison with the costs to justify allowing the civilian population to be armed. The authors of this book, despite their reputation for shrillness, have placed much new and thought-provoking material at the disposal of a public in distinct need of reflecting on it. Footnotes

Quote source:
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-libra ... isarmament

Disarming regular people can lead to genocide
Stephen P. Halbrook
Hundreds of news stories have been written during the past month reporting on the 100-year anniversary of one of the darkest events in world history, a two-year killing spree that claimed the lives of an estimated 800,000 to 1.5 million Armenians.

Virtually none of these news stories, however, bothered to mention why the Armenians were defenseless against their rulers in the then-Ottoman Empire: because the Ottomans had disarmed them — the same tool that would enable the Nazis, two decades later, to enslave and then slaughter European Jewry.

While the remnant of the Ottoman Empire, today's Turkey, disputes many of the details having to do with the Armenian genocide, most historians agree on certain basic facts. First, that the Christian Armenians had long been denied basic rights under the Ottomans' Muslim law. Second, they were excluded from participation in the government. And third, Ottoman law made it a crime to possess a firearm without government permission. The Armenians, as British traveler H.F.B. Lynch wrote in 1901, were "rigorously prohibited from possessing firearms."

Quote source:
https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story ... /27250187/

So, yes the United States does have a serious problem with inadequate gun laws
But until reasonable solutions are found, the alternatives of being a disarmed and vulnerable population
where you must assume the government will always protect you {Putin in Russia and Trump in America show us this is a very dangerous
acceptance}, and the alternative still remains:

"WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS"

So what? The law has nothing to do with what we SHOULD do. What';s actually so desirable about a right to kill to you? Wouldnt you prefer to use non-lethal defense? Are you in a wheelchair, or a wimp? Whats the problem?

[UniversalAlien]

ernestm wrote:

So what? The law has nothing to do with what we SHOULD do. What';s actually so desirable about a right to kill to you? Wouldnt you prefer to use non-lethal defense? Are you in a wheelchair, or a wimp? Whats the problem?

Matter of fact I do prefer to use non-lethal weapons - And recommend them to people all the time - And almost never recommend guns,
accepting when circumstances dictate.

Still you are noT paying attention to what I wrote, many time here and elsewhere - DISARMED CIVILIAN POPULATIONS ARE SUBJECT
TO GENOCIDE - And this has happened often - Many, many millions have been killed by genocide just in the 20th Century {Armenians,
and Jews for example}. Could you imagine the joyful picnic Vladimir Putin would have committing genocide, which he is now doing with
much resistance, if the Ukrainians were unarmed - Ukraine and the Ukrainian people would already be non-existent


But I can see some solutions to the gun problem in the US while still maintaining the Second Amendment.
1. On the street, and in public, allow only non lethal self defense weapons {ie. pepper gas, tasers, etc.} and possibly even guns designed
to shoot non lethal projectiles. Violation of this law, carrying a deadly weapon in public would be a serious felony.

2. Ownership of standard guns like revolvers, limited capacity automatics, and rifles would still be legal as long as the gun is kept secure when not in use {ie huniing or target shooting}.

3. The more exotic and dangerous guns {like AR-15} favored by terrorists and lunatics that we keep seeing in the news, would still be
allowed but only after a much more carful background check and possibly even require a psychiatric interview before you could buy
one [They already have a stringent vettting process to buy a fully automatic macine gun and you notice you rarely ever here of one of
these guns being misused?}

Federal law prohibits the possession of newly manufactured machine guns, but permits the transfer of machine guns lawfully owned prior to May 19, 1986, if the transfer is approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives. As a result, a substantial number of machine guns are still in circulation.

So you see there are solutions. None are perfect and all guns are dangerous and can be misused if in the wrong hands.

But as long as the Republican Party and the NRA keep facing an anti-gun and defacto anti Second Amendment Democratic Party
- There will be no solutions

Again coming form me who agrees with you on the preference of 'non-lethal' self defense weapons,
the fact remains:

"WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS"

[GE Morton]

3. The more exotic and dangerous guns {like AR-15} favored by terrorists and lunatics that we keep seeing in the news, would still be
allowed but only after a much more carful background check and possibly even require a psychiatric interview before you could buy
one.

AR-15s are no more dangerous than any other semi-auto weapon. About half of all rifles, and virtually all handguns, sold in the US in the last 20 years have been semi-auto.

Yikes. A "psychiatric interview"? You might as well require require approval from a witch doctor.

[Mounce574]

www.abs.gov.au for Austraia
www.bjs.ojp.gov for the United States
www.crimerate.co.uk for the United Kingdom

[UniversalAlien]

ernestm wrote:

So what? The law has nothing to do with what we SHOULD do. What';s actually so desirable about a right to kill to you? Wouldnt you prefer to use non-lethal defense? Are you in a wheelchair, or a wimp? Whats the problem?

And another part of the problem besides "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns',
is the people advocating for gun control - Some are disingenuous, and may have ulterior motives that are not benign.

I once had a discussion with an ex-felon who could no longer legally own any guns
- Of course, as you might imagine, he was for gun control - He told me I would rather no one could own guns legally
because he could not.

Ever wonder how many of the anti-gun posters on internet forums, such as this one, are of the same mind set for similar reasons

Of course this has nothing to do with you, right?

So you are just anti-gun because you're worried about public safety - Again that argument has preceeded historical genocides
where many millions have died, and died defenseless and gunless.

So remember my favorite quote often attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

“You can fool some of the people all of the time,
and all of the people some of the time,
but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
― Abraham Lincoln

[Belindi]

Against state controlled Gestapo , and Stasi, there is not much armed private citizens can do. True, private citizens can organise undercover armed resistance.

Undercover resistance can be set up after the event of a takeover by an oppressive regime. Before that event such as is the situation in present day USA political solutions and public education are much more effective than private weapons or private armies.

[Robert66]

Australia and the United Kingdom prohibit the possession of firearms- why do they still have deaths caused by guns? Why do they have more crime per capita thsn the United States.

That last claim is patently false.

Both claims are false.

[GE Morton]

Australia and the United Kingdom prohibit the possession of firearms- why do they still have deaths caused by guns? Why do they have more crime per capita thsn the United States.

That last claim is patently false.

Both claims are false.

You're right. Australia and the UK restrict firearms pretty tightly, don't don't entirely prohibit them.

[UniversalAlien]

HOW ABOUT GUN OWNER LIABILITY INSURANCE

In my state, maybe in every state, you need to carry a certain minimum liability insurance to drive an auto.

WHY DON'T WE TRY THIS WITH GUNS

- Require, by law, a certain minimum liability coverage to own or sell a firearm

You say it would be too expensive and insurance companies would not be willing to gamble on this
- I say percentage wise, in spite of what you see in the news, only a very small percentage of gun owners ever use a gun in an illegal or life threatening manner

Once we require insurance to own guns and insurance companies cover the insurance policies, forget about background checks that often fail, this will work

Insurance companies will not issue policies for at risk type nut cases who are somehow rather easily getting their hands on some
pretty powerful weapons. Small risk and the company may only insure you for a basic revolver or non-automatic hunting rifle.
Really good background and the company would probably insure you for any type of weapon including AR-15s, etc.

So when you go in to buy a gun legally - You must show your insurance ID. Any dealer or even private individual who sells you
a gun and does not have a record of your liability coverage before selling it to you could and would be held liable for damages
if the gun is misused.

What do you think

[Robert66]

Australia and the United Kingdom prohibit the possession of firearms- why do they still have deaths caused by guns? Why do they have more crime per capita thsn the United States.

That last claim is patently false.

Both claims are false.

You're right. Australia and the UK restrict firearms pretty tightly, don't don't entirely prohibit them.

I live in NSW. The link below provides detail re obtaining a firearm licence. Tight restrictions? Maybe - depends what you are comparing with. I could get a licence if I wanted to without much trouble.

One point of difference between the (federated) states of Australia, and those of the US, is the existence of a national firearms registry. It is very helpful in law enforcement. Another difference may be that personal protection is not considered a genuine reason to obtain a licence. Is that the case in any state in the US?

https://www.service.nsw.gov.au/transact ... individual

[Robert66]

in spite of what you see in the news, only a very small percentage of gun owners ever use a gun in an illegal or life threatening manner

And, in spite of your never-ending strawman posts, an even smaller percentage of gun control advocates argue for the complete outlawing of guns.

Insurance companies will not issue policies for at risk type nut cases who are somehow rather easily getting their hands on some
pretty powerful weapons.

Somehow?!?!?! IF you think about it, perhaps the lack of gun control (eg the sensible measures advocated repeatedly, seemingly to no avail, by myself and others here) could have something to do with it.

[UniversalAlien]

in spite of what you see in the news, only a very small percentage of gun owners ever use a gun in an illegal or life threatening manner

And, in spite of your never-ending strawman posts, an even smaller percentage of gun control advocates argue for the complete outlawing of guns.

Insurance companies will not issue policies for at risk type nut cases who are somehow rather easily getting their hands on some
pretty powerful weapons.

Somehow?!?!?! IF you think about it, perhaps the lack of gun control (eg the sensible measures advocated repeatedly, seemingly to no avail, by myself and others here) could have something to do with it.

You are on my ignore list as, right from the beginnings of your trolling this post it was both non-productive and useless
- as so intended, true?

I am from and live in the USA - You say you are from elsewhere. And now want to change American gun laws because you pity us

Why don't you worry about the Ukraine instead I'm sure Putin, Stalin, Hitler and every other maniacal and blood thirsty tyrant
can and does feed off your "people need to be controlled and made safe by civilian disarmament" type ideology.

I see through you - You don't give a dam about gun safety or gun control - You want people control by the state
don't you ?

I started this post 10 years ago as I thought there might be some reasnoble solutions if peope realized the whole issue
of gun control and why we have a Second Amendment - At least partially caused because the British tried to disarm the American Colonists.
- And in spite of people like you it is still going
- And spite of people like you who are not even from here trying to colonize American ideology
- YOU FAIL