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

[LuckyR]

Has anyone thought of the fact that the more politicians try to control guns, the more murder rates also increases? Just like the war on drugs didn't decrease the use of the drugs, it just made it harder to discover who uses them unless the addict overdoses. This is just an observational thought. When Biden proclaimed outlawing assault weapons, that began the rolling ball of school and public shootings increasing.

You're jumping from "control" to "outlawing" indiscriminately. What's the downside to vigorous registration, background checking and high capacity magazine bans? They're more akin to stopping the war on drugs (marijuana) that you referred to than what we're doing now (unregulated, without background checks in certain sales).

[Pattern-chaser]

I am a 5'3 125lb female. If a man who is 6'0 200lbs wants to hurt me, could I possibly overpower him unarmed? Not in your life- and I have military training. I am going to use an equalizer. There is a saying "It was him or me." I am always going to pick me.

Gun control will not solve anything. It just allows criminals superior power. They know they won't get shot in house robbery. If the knowledge that they will get shot by a home owner, they are less likely to attempt the robbery. The police response time to a 911 call for a robbery in progress is anywhere from 10 minutes or longer- if you get to call them. It took 35 minutes for the police to arrive for me with the gun shots occurring during the 911 call. Had I not been able to get out of the house to the neighbor, I probably would have died. If I had a gun at the time, I know I could have incapacitated the man.

Hunting- the stupid statement from Biden (deer don't wear kevlar) is ignorant. Bears, mountain lions, wild hogs, and such don't wear kevlar but they can be found hunting deer as well. No gun? What are you going to do then? I hunt dear for food. I have used an AR-15. Keep in mind AR doesn't mean Assault Rifle. It is a brand name.

This is why gun control can't happen. Americans feel that they need protection from each other, so they arm themselves for lethal combat, not realising that this precaution is the very reason they're at risk from their fellows in the first place. Only one conclusion seems reasonable: Americans like to kill each other.

[Robert66]

80+ pages so far. In summary:

Gun control will never work in the US. So let's not even bother trying.

Besides ... 'Only about 1% of firearms owned by Americans are ever used in crimes'. That is less than 4 million.

[Sy Borg]

Has anyone thought of the fact that the more politicians try to control guns, the more murder rates also increases? Just like the war on drugs didn't decrease the use of the drugs, it just made it harder to discover who uses them unless the addict overdoses. This is just an observational thought. When Biden proclaimed outlawing assault weapons, that began the rolling ball of school and public shootings increasing.

You're jumping from "control" to "outlawing" indiscriminately. What's the downside to vigorous registration, background checking and high capacity magazine bans? They're more akin to stopping the war on drugs (marajuana) that you referred to than what we're doing now (unregulated, without background checks in certain sales).

There's the middle ground.

Many Americans really do believe that people in other western countries can't own guns. Yeah, and kangaroos hop down the main streets of Sydney too.

Australia - often cited by US Americans as one of the most strict countries for gun control - still has 3.5 million registered firearms.

It's naive of Americans to think that other westerners can't own guns. Just that other countries try not to sell guns to criminals, the disturbed and people too young to legally drink.

[Count Lucanor]

I haven't seen statistics, buy I'd bet anything that it's far safer not to have personal protection firearms in your house than to have them. Guns lead to accidents, suicides, and murders committed by family members. Everyone thinks, "That would never happen with me." But it does happen.

In addition, an armed home invader is far more likely to shoot someone who is threatening him with a gun. Even in the case of armed home invasions, owning a gun increases the home owner's danger. (see Brianna Taylor)

I suppose some people might need personal protection firearms: mafia soldiers, abused women whose exes are threatening to kill them, and few others. The vast majority are simply increasing their own risks by owning guns. In fact, I think it's cowardly to own a personal protection firearm, because acting irrationally out of fear is cowardly. And thinking a gun will protect you is irrational.

Also, eggs came before chickens. The first foul that we might call a "chicken" was hatched out of an egg (its parents were slightly different birds). That''s how evolution works.

Weapons increase exponentially the ability to kill. The more powerful and sophisticated the guns, they're more effective in killing. The obvious result: the bigger the chances that human conflicts will escalate to a level of violence where people get killed. The recent case of the shooter in Nashville perfectly illustrates this: anywhere else, the internal conflicts of a disturbed person like this would have produced some conflict, fights, even some level of violence, but not a combat zone. Allow an average angry Joe or Mary to have easy access to seven semi-automatic assault weapons, and you get cases like that very often.

[Sy Borg]

The question then becomes, what is the reasoning for outlawing private ownership of hand grenades and bombs? After all, without them, you are at a disadvantage against the government, should US democracy fail. More relevantly, you are at a disadvantage against criminals with bombs.

[Mounce574]

Define the difference between gun control and outlawing?
Do you trust the government to tell you how you use your gun, how many bullets you can have in your gun, and what type you may own?
Because as far as I can see it, the government is doing a very crappy job of protecting the United States citizens- homelessness has increased, illegal Border crossing have increased (If you have a child 6 years or younger, Biden's law say you cannot be deported. 250,000 illegal immigrants per month), violent riots increased(not protests, otherwise people wouldn't die, get their property destroyed), and general lawlessness has occurred. Did you see what happened over the past weekend in Chicago? Why did it happen? No reason.
Now, if you live in an area where this is happening, are you safe? The police have lost funding.

The government is crippling us. Again, do you trust them to know what is best for you, as an individual? I don't. When they stop having armed guards, gated communities, and secret service agents; that is when I think gun control bills will go out the window completely.

[LuckyR]

Define the difference between gun control and outlawing?
Do you trust the government to tell you how you use your gun, how many bullets you can have in your gun, and what type you may own?
Because as far as I can see it, the government is doing a very crappy job of protecting the United States citizens- homelessness has increased, illegal Border crossing have increased (If you have a child 6 years or younger, Biden's law say you cannot be deported. 250,000 illegal immigrants per month), violent riots increased(not protests, otherwise people wouldn't die, get their property destroyed), and general lawlessness has occurred. Did you see what happened over the past weekend in Chicago? Why did it happen? No reason.
Now, if you live in an area where this is happening, are you safe? The police have lost funding.

The government is crippling us. Again, do you trust them to know what is best for you, as an individual? I don't. When they stop having armed guards, gated communities, and secret service agents; that is when I think gun control bills will go out the window completely.

Regulation vs outlawing? Are you familiar with motor vehicles? They're regulated, not outlawed.

I suppose I trust the gubmint more than I trust for profit corporations. How about you?

[Robert66]

homelessness has increased, illegal Border crossing have increased, ... violent riots increased, ... and general lawlessness has occurred. ...
if you live in an area where this is happening, are you safe? The police have lost funding. ... The government is crippling us ...

Raised on a diet of Roger Ramjet and Clint Eastwood, taught to uphold the rights of the individual above all other rights, and in many cases living in places where a gun is little more than just another item to throw in the shopping cart, is it any surprise that the US is in the predicament Mounce574 describes?

Throw in the persuasive anti-gun control messaging of the NRA and their associates, with catchy, repeatable slogans ("guns don't kill ...", "when you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns" etc), and an ingrained distrust even hatred of government, bureaucracy, any kind of regulation (all dismissed as an attack on the individual's freedom), and it is hard to see any cause for hope that the situation could change.

When the individual's thinking on this very serious issue of gun control only stretches as far as either:

"I am a law-abiding and responsible gun owner, and I cannot see how curtailing my freedom with more regulation is going to help",

or:

"I will stick with the Marlon Brando philosophy - 'Do it to him before he does it you'!"

... then we can all be justifiably pessimistic.

[Pattern-chaser]

Raised on a diet of Roger Ramjet and Clint Eastwood, taught to uphold the rights of the individual above all other rights, and in many cases living in places where a gun is little more than just another item to throw in the shopping cart, is it any surprise that the US is in the predicament Mounce574 describes?

Yes, this has always made me wonder. Priorities...

[Mounce574]

I again ask this question:
Why do we blame the gun for a crime but if anything else is used there is no call for a ban on the item (knife, motor vehicle)? If a person used a gun, the gun control posse starts their campaign.
If a person stabs several other people, we blame the person. I don't see any regulations on possessing a knife.
The guy that ran over 7 people in a parade- they blamed him not the car.

[Pattern-chaser]

Why do we blame the gun for a crime but if anything else is used there is no call for a ban on the item (knife, motor vehicle)?
If a person used a gun, the gun control posse starts their campaign.
If a person stabs several other people, we blame the person. I don't see any regulations on possessing a knife.
The guy that ran over 7 people in a parade- they blamed him not the car.

One possible reason for this is that there are quite a few items that could serve as a weapon, but which also have other, useful (and therefore, valuable) purposes. To ban such things would make their non-killing usage difficult, if not impossible. In the case of knives, cooking might be possible, but it would be a great deal more difficult. We could ban cars too, but transport would also become a great deal more difficult. These things have constructive uses too, and it is often the case that these uses would be hard to replace with some other, less dangerous, tool.

Guns, on the other hand, only have use as weapons; killing-tools. There are those who claim that target-shooting for sport, or hunting, are acceptable uses for guns, but these are poor excuses, fabricated only to retain the possession and use of killing-tools in the general population. 'Sport' shooting is merely training to use a killing-tool; hunting has not been necessary for centuries.

[UniversalAlien]

Why do we blame the gun for a crime but if anything else is used there is no call for a ban on the item (knife, motor vehicle)?
If a person used a gun, the gun control posse starts their campaign.
If a person stabs several other people, we blame the person. I don't see any regulations on possessing a knife.
The guy that ran over 7 people in a parade- they blamed him not the car.

One possible reason for this is that there are quite a few items that could serve as a weapon, but which also have other, useful (and therefore, valuable) purposes. To ban such things would make their non-killing usage difficult, if not impossible. In the case of knives, cooking might be possible, but it would be a great deal more difficult. We could ban cars too, but transport would also become a great deal more difficult. These things have constructive uses too, and it is often the case that these uses would be hard to replace with some other, less dangerous, tool.

Guns, on the other hand, only have use as weapons; killing-tools. There are those who claim that target-shooting for sport, or hunting, are acceptable uses for guns, but these are poor excuses, fabricated only to retain the possession and use of killing-tools in the general population. 'Sport' shooting is merely training to use a killing-tool; hunting has not been necessary for centuries.

Curious the number of people from other countries, such as England that has, by other countries standards, very draconian gun laws feel obligated to
comment and even pity those poor unfortunate Americans who are still protected by the Second Amendment and are still willing to accept the
sometimes negative consequences.
- England does not have a 'right to bear arms' and gun ownership is greatly restricted. Some years ago, on this same post and while debating someone else from the UK, I suddenly felt a sense of pity, pity for a nation who maybe only 80 years previously had come very close to being invaded by Hitler's gangs of Nazis who most assuredly, after marching all the Jews off to concentration camps, would have not only given you the gun control laws you now have and seem to be happy with {???] - But most assuredly would have led Britain into another example Vichy France.

And you would be happy with this? - Say today if the newly resurrected Soviet Union under Putin, after having wasted your military resources elsewhere, decided to enter Britain - YOUR NATION AND ALL THE CITIZENS OF YOUR NATION WOULD BE DEFENSELESS - Your civilian population
would not and could not resist and you become slaves of the new Soviet empire!

That is the sorrow and the pity - Not that the Sun finally set on the British Empire, rather it is the dark cloud of totalitarian rule
that stands ready to engulf the people of England who do not insist on a basic right of self-defense against foreign and even domestic enemies.

But of course American and British history began to diverge with the American Revolution.....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,.........

And the Second Amendment {the right to bear arms}??????

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759


And finally to my sometimes misguided English friends;

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803


And finally:

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788



But maybe if we can see how wrong draconian gun laws in England are - Do that and I will grant that America has a gun problem, with too many
lunatics who own guns and should not and too many high powered assault style rifles that go unrestricted in the general population !

[Pattern-chaser]

Curious the number of people from other countries, such as England that has, by other countries standards, very draconian gun laws feel obligated to
comment and even pity those poor unfortunate Americans who are still protected by the Second Amendment and are still willing to accept the
sometimes negative consequences.

In some civilised countries, people are willing to accept gun restrictions instead of gun deaths. It seems to work; our people remain alive. And free of government skulduggery, too.

[Mounce574]

Curious the number of people from other countries, such as England that has, by other countries standards, very draconian gun laws feel obligated to
comment and even pity those poor unfortunate Americans who are still protected by the Second Amendment and are still willing to accept the
sometimes negative consequences.

In some civilised countries, people are willing to accept gun restrictions instead of gun deaths. It seems to work; our people remain alive. And free of government skulduggery, too.

The Nazi Regime had gun control laws.
The right to keep and bear arms against a tyrannical government - I would say that the Nazi Regime was tyrannical.
Russia has gun control laws- need I say anything on that matter currently? I think we traded a drug addict basketball player for a mass black market gun supplier.

Currently, in my state- you must provide 2 forms of legal identification with one current photo identification, must be at least 18 years old, provide proof of your address just to be able to possibly buy a gun- doesn't matter what kind - high power bb gun and up. They run a background check before you can buy one. If you are a concealed carrier you have to have a license, take a test, and pay $200 for the license. As an open carry state- not everyone has to buy a license but if you use your weapon in self-defense without it and the person dies, you can go to jail for possession of a firearm without a license while in the commission of committing a felony. They will also seize all firearms you may own. Even if you beat that case, you won't get your firearms back. And you still face the possibility of a civil prosecution from the person's family- for wrongful death- which I think is straight ignorant. Never mind that "Bob" was trying to burglarize your home and had a gun.

If they outlaw guns - I guess I will be one of those people who will be committing a felony because I refuse to relinquish what I own.