Philosophy Discussion Forums

Wilson, let me reiterate:

The key to controlling gun violence in the US is not controlling the availability of guns, but their ammunition. Yes, there would be a smuggling/illegal trafficking problem to solve, but if the US can interdict the smuggling of computer chips so easily, why not ammunition?

Do you agree or disagree - I'd like to hear your opinion.

GaianDave51 wrote:Wilson, let me reiterate:

The key to controlling gun violence in the US is not controlling the availability of guns, but their ammunition. Yes, there would be a smuggling/illegal trafficking problem to solve, but if the US can interdict the smuggling of computer chips so easily, why not ammunition?

Do you agree or disagree - I'd like to hear your opinion.

Sounds good to me. Personally I'd like to restrict gun sales as well - they'd be harder to conceal than bullets. I can see that ammunition control would have the advantage of not requiring the confiscation of weapons in order to make a difference. So theoretically it's a great idea - but any gun or ammunition control has a snowball's chance in today's America.

Wilson wrote:

So theoretically it's a great idea - but any gun or ammunition control has a snowball's chance in today's America.

Maybe not. A shift to ammo control would rob the gun advocates of two of their major arguments - gov't interference with hunting and interference with home protection. Also, perhaps we could attract the Defense-Against-Tyranny gun crowd to the agenda of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). It's worth a try......

Irregardless of whether you hate guns, love guns, or don't give a damn the facts still rule. fn those places in the United States where gun control and gun laws were the strongest the gun violence and death by guns was {and still is} the highest {ie. Washington, DC, Chicago, etc.} Gun control only emboldens criminals who knowing they are dealing with an unarmed defenseless population have no fear in robbing and/or killing the innocent victim. The Supreme Court of the United States recently ruled that these locations can no longer prevent citizens from owning guns. Of course certain ant-gun politicians will pass legislation making it difficult and expensive for most people to license and own guns so the illegal gun market and criminal underworld will still prosper.

"When Guns are Outlawed - Only Outlaws will Own Guns"

UniversalAlien,

Yes, indeed, the facts do rule. Another fact is, if you are not in law enforcement or security, and you own a handgun, you are far more likely to die or be wounded by means of that handgun than by means of someone else's handgun.

The fact you cited stems from the following: in large cities, people, on average, are more prone to violence, due to city-life-stress; and are more prone to participate in black markets and thievery, due to higher concentrations of poverty. This all leads to an environment where the demand for handguns is high, and the profits to be made in gun-running are significant. The end result - more illegal guns on the streets in situations where their use is more likely.

Now let's imagine that the NRA's wildest dreams come true - anyone can purchase and carry around any type of projectile firearm they're able to lift. Do you think the overall death and injury rates from firearm violence would go up or down? Why?

Now let's imagine that the NRA's wildest dreams come true - anyone can purchase and carry around any type of projectile firearm they're able to lift. Do you think the overall death and injury rates from firearm violence would go up or down? Why?

First we know that is not going to happen but it is an interesting question. How often would a criminal or mentally unbalanced individual hell bent on destruction of human life go on one of their murderous rampages if they new they would be stopped by lethal force almost as soon as they began? - Another fact, like it or not, is that for the most part only guns can neutralize guns in a situation where someone with a gun intends to use it. A happy utopian world where no one would even think of using a gun to harm someone might be a nice ideal but attempting to take guns out of the hands of citizens will not bring this about. China which I imagine has fairly strong gun control {I don't know if they even allow the citizenry to possess firearms} recently has been in the news because someone went on a rampage with is knife, has happened in other countries with strong gun control such as Japan. Not as destructive as a gun right? Yes but we still have all sorts of terrorists making bombs and doing a lot more carnage than any gun - Point I'm trying to convey is the gun is not the basic problem - the basic problem is humans want to harm each other and removing all arms out of the hands of people then you have a situation where the biggest, strongest, and fastest rules - we could end up in a more primitive jungle than the one we are currently in.

Another one of those old cliches still stands: "God created men - But Winchester made them equal" NOTE: Even if you don't believe in god or creation and accept evolution - there is a question of 'legal evolution', should not all individuals have equal right to protect themselves from harm? Why should only the state and criminals be armed and citizens defenseless?

If the facts ruled, there would be more guns, not fewer.

If the facts ruled, there would be more guns, not fewer.

Just in the USA? Or everywhere?

I don't know if this is a realistic rationale for all the violence, but it's worth a shot (pardon the expression). I've been considering the reason of one upmanship where the perpetrator is seeking headlines for himself to see how many he can kill and hurt. When you factor in the types of victims (children and women) which has been on the rise, it seems to make sense. There can be other factors so I'll throw this open to further discussion.

PhilX

Radar wrote:If the facts ruled, there would be more guns, not fewer.

Excellent video Radar. For those interested in pursoing the subject this book has become a classic on the gun control debate:

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics)

Editorial Reviews Review “A compelling book with enough hard evidence that even politicians may have to stop and pay attention. More Guns, Less Crime is an exhaustive analysis of the effect of gun possession on crime rates. . . . Mr. Lott’s book—and the factual arsenals of other pro-gun advocates—are helping to redefine the argument over guns and gun control.”

(James Bovard Wall Street Journal)

“John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime revives the wisdom of the past by using the latest tools of social science. By constructing careful statistical models and deploying a wealth of crime data he shows that laws permitting the carrying of concealed weapons actually lead to a drop in crime in the jurisdictions that enact them. . . . By providing strong empirical evidence that yet another liberal policy is a cause of the very evil it purports to cure, he has permanently changed the terms of debate on gun control. . . . Lott’s book could hardly be more timely. . . . Lott’s work is a model of the meticulous application of economics and statistics to law and policy.”

(John O. McGinnis National Review) About the Author John R. Lott, Jr., is the author five books, including Freedomnomics and Are Predatory Commitments Credible? Who Should the Courts Believe? , the latter also published by the University of Chicago Press.

The truth should rule - It does not matter whether you personally like or dislike guns and/or 'the right to bear arms', if your safety and the safety of others is important to you, limiting gun ownership for concerned legally responsible adults is not the way.

As a side observation I would consider stricter gun control laws as pertains to minors - Irresponsible adolescents getting their hands on firearms is irresponsible and gun dealers and gun owners should do all in their power to prevent guns from getting into the hands of children and adolescents. Adam Lanza {the Sandy Hook mass murderer} might be a prime example; I would hold his mother responsible for allowing him to own guns - unfortunately no one can hold her responsible as she was his first victim.

Maia wrote:

My freedom not to get gunned down in some random shooting is a far more valuable freedom to me than and fredom to own a gun would be.

Who are you that you would have such wisdom?

The sanctity of human life does not overrule the right to own a gun in the United States, but it should. It shouldn't have to appear in the legislation. Actually, US lawmakers purposefully leave it out.

-- Updated June 15th, 2014, 5:17 pm to add the following --

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I don't know if this is a realistic rationale for all the violence, but it's worth a shot (pardon the expression). I've been considering the reason of one upmanship where the perpetrator is seeking headlines for himself to see how many he can kill and hurt.

Thrill-killing, fame-seeking. You're absolutely correct.

And if the killer succeeds in making a name for himself, the celebrity he seeks is an easy prize.

First of all, anyone who really believes that an armed citizenry is a defense against an oppressive government is crazy or stupid as hell. So what is the justification for easy access of guns? Hunting, yes, but hunting rifles and shotguns are not the problem. Self protection? That's valid, but if we had had strict gun control laws for a long time, if the NRA hadn't blocked every attempt at common sense controls, we wouldn't have a situation where every thug had one. So the anti-gun-control people cause a lot of the problem, then argue that we law-abiding citizens have to have guns without restrictions to protect ourselves against a problem they were largely responsible for.

Statistically, the number of deaths by gunshots by friends or family - accidents, suicides, and altercations - is very high in America, and the number of lives saved because a private citizen had a handgun is very small. So the likelihood of saving yourself or your family is extremely small, and the likelihood of someone in your family getting hurt or killed by your guns, while small, is much greater than saving yourself. But of course everybody thinks it won't happen to them.

Radar wrote:If the facts ruled, there would be more guns, not fewer.

You see they pay no attention to the video - don't even watch it - facts scare them. And is it the guns they are afraid of? Or is it the fear of freedom - the freedom to protect yourself - the freedom to own your own body - Isn't this what they are really afraid of? The need for the socialist nanny state and it's great advocates like the billionaire mayor of NY Bloomberg who wants to outlaw guns and large size soft drinks - no limit to the nanny state - they'll tell you what's good for you, how to live, stay healthy and die of dementia in a state controlled facility - Unless you are rich of course then the law is yours - you can get the license to own any kind of gun including fully automatic, take the risks you want and die the way you want. And for the rest the nanny state will tell them how to live. No they're not afraid of guns - they're afraid of freedom - equality, and the principles and Constitution of the United States of America - that is their biggest fear that they can not rewrite the US Constitution to suit their political agenda.

BobbyBoy: This is my answer to all those advocates of arms control and disarmament in general: It has never worked, except to work oppression and enslavement upon those devoid of arms, by those others willing to possess them. No police state can be so flawless as to avoid injustice, the very reason America's founding fathers established our country in the first place, and the basic reason for the Second Amendment in our fine Constitution.

"Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal."
-post-Civil War slogan

Sam Colt is one busy man! He's been dead 152 years, but that hasn't stopped him. In death, we are all equal. The Civil Rights Movement may have been a waste of time.

UniversalAlien wrote:
You see they pay no attention to the video - don't even watch it - facts scare them. And is it the guns they are afraid of? Or is it the fear of freedom - the freedom to protect yourself - the freedom to own your own body - Isn't this what they are really afraid of? The need for the socialist nanny state and it's great advocates like the billionaire mayor of NY Bloomberg who wants to outlaw guns and large size soft drinks - no limit to the nanny state - they'll tell you what's good for you, how to live, stay healthy and die of dementia in a state controlled facility - Unless you are rich of course then the law is yours - you can get the license to own any kind of gun including fully automatic, take the risks you want and die the way you want. And for the rest the nanny state will tell them how to live. No they're not afraid of guns - they're afraid of freedom - equality, and the principles and Constitution of the United States of America - that is their biggest fear that they can not rewrite the US Constitution to suit their political agenda.

Gun control advocates would like to say let the facts speak for themselves, but the facts are against them so they have to resort to raw emotions.

For example, Wilson said, "First of all, anyone who really believes that an armed citizenry is a defense against an oppressive government is crazy or stupid as hell." Well, I guess that makes Thomas Jefferson -- the same guy who wrote a letter the Supreme Court drew upon to impose the separation of church and state -- crazy or stupid as hell because he wrote in a letter to James Madison that reads in part:

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them.

If you think I'm taking it out of context, the complete letter is here: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer/letter.html

Wilson also writes, "Statistically, the number of deaths by gunshots by friends or family - accidents, suicides, and altercations - is very high in America, and the number of lives saved because a private citizen had a handgun is very small." But let little Johnny go over to little Billy’s house to swim and he is roughly 100 times more likely to have a fatal accident vs. letting him go over to little Timmy’s house where dad has a gun. And as far as the number of lives of private citizens being saved because they had a gun being "very small," well, clearly, Wilson didn't bother watching the video or bother looking up the facts because it's a damn lie.

In short, gun control advocates don't give a damn about the facts, history or the original intent of the Constitution.

BTW, out of all the movie theaters Aurora, Colorado within 20 minutes of the killer's apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, the one he chose was the only one where guns were banned. Convenient, huh? And there are other, similar cases. There's also Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska and the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City, Utah. In both cases, guns were banned at those particular malls, but not at other similar venues that allowed guns and were spared. The killers might have all been crazy, but they weren't stupid.