Philosophy Discussion Forums

Radar:

Wilson, you've accused (NRA talking points), insulted (weak-minded), avoided dealing with the facts altogether, and now you are insisting that I chase after red herrings. Sorry, but I won't bite. I have better and more important things to do.

More important than dealing with any of the facts and perfectly reasonable questions that have been put to you, as a result of your posts on this thread, it would seem. A pity you appear to be running away from the debate.

Wilson wrote: And a new one, from me: "Do you think there should be background checks at gun shows, to weed out some of the criminals and mentally unstable persons?"

Radar might be getting tired of the redundancy of this debate as am I but I believe a couple of points should be emphasized. First there is no debate on the validity of the Second Amendment {very important they made it the second most important amendment to the constitution - they were serious about this right for citizens and if you study it the 'well armed militia" meant the people, not the military, and the courts, including the Supreme court have so upheld this concept}. Second, "Do you think there should be background checks at gun shows, to weed out some of the criminals and mentally unstable persons?" - you know most gun owners might have been, and still would be willing to allow such restrictions for the purpose you mention. BUT anti-gun fanatics like Diane Feinstein. who go into heat every time there is a tragedy caused by a nut with a gun polarize the pro-gun lobby further against all types of limitations because, and probably quite rightly they perceive the likes of Diane Feinstein and others like Michael Bloomberg to be fanatically anti-gun and anti the Second Amendment. When they almost got the congress to go for a background check at gun shows bill, Diane Feinstein appeared on television showing all the different type of guns {was it 200?} that she wanted to outlaw - of course no one doubts that all guns outlawed {except for the police and military } is their ultimate agenda - so no bill was passed.

Third all liberal peace and love and hate those evil gun lovers of humanity must be often reminded of this:

"A LITTLE GUN HISTORY In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends. SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!! IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET. Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us. You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people"~

So Diane Feinstein and Michael Bloomberg are the great 'humanitarians' who will defend the pulic from those evi guns. I wonder what the likes of Diane Feinstein and Michaeil Blloomberg would have done when Hitler passed the anti-gun lawsl, diaarmed the Jews and then rounded them all up and sent them to the death camps - Oh, I forgot Feinstein and Bloomberg were among the rich Jews who were able to buy their way out and come to the USA.

"Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million"

And finally, and this is my personal feeling - You can take your fascist orientated gun control and XXXXX!!!

A Poem:

A rose is a rose is a rose,

A gun is a gun is a gun, and

A fascist is a fascist is a fascist Who while you are smelling the sweet rose will stick you with its thorns and then steal your rights and then maybe your life.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

UniveralAlien: a couple of points that spring to mind immediately:

When they almost got the congress to go for a background check at gun shows bill, Diane Feinstein appeared on television showing all the different type of guns {was it 200?} that she wanted to outlaw - of course no one doubts that all guns outlawed {except for the police and military } is their ultimate agenda - so no bill was passed.

I don't know the details here, so am happy to be corrected, but I don't understand the logic of NRA thinking on this. How does a suspicion about ultimate motives prevent a piece of legislation from being passed? If you believed that there existed some people who wanted to ban all guns, why would that stop you from passing legislation to impose some much less draconian limits on their use?

By analogy: I'm sure there are still some people who would like to ban all alcohol, but it doesn't follow from that that all restrictions on alcohol sales should be resisted just in case they lead to a reinstatement of prohibition.

It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us. You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people"

I find the idea that the current US government is seriously motivated by a desire to disarm the population in order to wield despotic, dictatorial power over them far-fetched, to say the least. It looks to me like just more paranoia about everybody who isn't an anarchist zero-government advocate being a Stalinist/Communist.

Citing evidence in the form of the actions of a series of dictatorships is mistaking effect for cause. If I want to kill you, then I will first, among other things, confiscate your gun. If a dictator wants to kill you, he will first, among other things, confiscate your weapons. It doesn't follow that all people who want to limit ownership of weapons do so because they want to kill you.

One more incidental point:

SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

This claim appears to be factually incorrect, despite being made in capital letters. (I think you've made the claim before. And It appears to have been incorrect there too.) Switzerland seems to be about halfway up the chart. If you want to be free of gun violence, Japan's your man.

The facts will win and all the disingenuous rhetoric in the world will change neither the Constitution or the rights it grants:

FACT:

Harvard gun study concludes gun bans don’t reduce the murder rate

In fact, it appears, bans may actually see them increase. Here’s a summary of the study’s findings:

The Harvard study attempts to answer the question of whether or not banning firearms would reduce murders and suicides. Researchers looked at crime data from several European countries and found that countries with HIGHER gun ownership often had LOWER murder rates.

Russia, for example, enforces very strict gun control on its people, but its murder rate remains quite high. In fact, the murder rate in Russia is four times higher than in the “gun-ridden” United States, cites the study. ”Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.” In other words, the elimination of guns does not eliminate murder, and in the case of gun-controlled Russia, murder rates are quite high.

The study revealed several European countries with significant gun ownership, like Norway, Finland, Germany and France – had remarkably low murder rates. Contrast that with Luxembourg, “where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.

The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world. ”Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this.” And, as the study points out, where guns are banned, murderers still find weapons with which to do their dirty work. The difference is that the victims potential means of self-defense. With guns available, one would assume their deterrent effect if not outright effectiveness in the self-defense realm would predictably knock the murder rate down. Criminals and murderers are less likely to attack if the possibility the potential victim is armed exists. Common sense 101.

The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world. ”Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this.” And finally:

Further, the report cited, “the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism.” Meaning, it’s not guns that kill people.

People kill people. Well how about that? The study is published in Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. You can read it here. Pass it around to your anti-gun friends. Point out this isn’t some right-wing think tank that pumped out the study. Then appeal to their common sense. Of course that may be difficult to do with someone who actually believes that the simple act of banning a weapon will magically lower the murder rate because without that weapon, people just wouldn’t murder each other … or something.

~McQ

Blogging at QandO

So what may a reasonable person conclude? That anti-gun people are trying to make the world a safer place? NO, in fact, taking into consideration all the deaths caused by gun regulation, we might conclude that it is these twisters of facts and anti-constitutionalist who are the real threat to the public safety!

Fact: "More Guns, Less Crime"

The facts will win and all the disingenuous rhetoric in the world will change neither the Constitution or the rights it grants

I think playing to the gallery by referring to "disingenuous rhetoric" without saying specifically which words of other posters you object to, and therefore not giving them any chance to defend their words, is disingenuous rhetoric.

If you're referring to my post then, as I explicitly said in that post, correct me if I'm wrong.

I suggest we all just ignore Radar. I would also like to invite pro-gun folks who can offer reasoned arguments to join this thread.

For a society to function well it provides safeguards for potentially harmful items. There are rules for handling dangerous goods, there are rules for operating motorized vehicles etc.

So why is it so terrible to have reasonable rules regarding tools which are for the purpose of killing?

When a civilized nation has by far the most deaths due to guns, is it not time to have a good look at that problem?

However I do not believe the situation in the US will change until it gets over its insecurity problem.

Regards, John.

GaianDave51 wrote:I suggest we all just ignore Radar. I would also like to invite pro-gun folks who can offer reasoned arguments to join this thread.

There will always be death.

Gun is a tool, not a weapon.

It's turned into a weapon because of a real problem you refuse to understand.

Violence is in human nature. It can be controlled, but there will be times where people will become so angry and fed up with this terrible society and being cheated out of their own privileges, that there's no stopping them, just like you cannot stop a star from turning into a supernova or a black hole.

Subatomic God wrote:There will always be death.

Gun is a tool, not a weapon.

It's turned into a weapon because of a real problem you refuse to understand.

Violence is in human nature. It can be controlled, but there will be times where people will become so angry and fed up with this terrible society and being cheated out of their own privileges, that there's no stopping them, just like you cannot stop a star from turning into a supernova or a black hole.

So the people will become so angry that they will rise up with guns and take over the government? Is that what you're saying?

Do we have a gun advocate on this forum who's in touch with reality?

Wilson wrote:Do we have a gun advocate on this forum who's in touch with reality?

Yup, right here.

Subatomic, the gun is not the tool - the one with the gun is the tool and the hand that grips the tool is the fool.

The odd thing about this topic is that if you look back through the posts there actually seems to be quite a lot of potential agreement between some of those on the "pro-gun" and some on the "anti-gun" side. Even Universal Alien seems to make some quite sensible points about the types of gun control that he does support. He just mixes them in with lot of other more crazy stuff, like this:

Some of those posting on this topic here have indicated they are not from the US but are from countries such as UK or Australia where the population has already lost its rights as to guns. I believe these people while indicating their concern for American gun violence are really jealous over the fact the Americans still can legally protect themselves and what is theirs and they have mainly lost this right.

and all the "cold dead hand" style ranting about despotic dictatorships who took away people's guns in the past.

If you put aside all the paranoia and rhetoric, stop thinking that all talk about gun control is actually about complete removal of all guns, and stop thinking that there are only two possible positions to take on this issue ("pro" and "anti"), maybe you could actually find some common ground.

These are just the observations of an outsider looking in on what is very much an internal US debate rooted in uniquely american cultural values.

Gun is a tool, not a weapon.

No, a gun is a weapon, it was designed to be a weapon that kills or wounds. Next you'll be saying that an atomic bomb is a tool & not a weapon.

Rederic wrote:
No, a gun is a weapon, it was designed to be a weapon that kills or wounds. Next you'll be saying that an atomic bomb is a tool & not a weapon.

We have teeth, fists, and a lot of body mass to suffocate someone if we wanted to. Whether you accept it or not, the only reason why we are drawn to gun power, is because that same power lies naturally within us.

Subatomic God wrote:

Rederic wrote:
No, a gun is a weapon, it was designed to be a weapon that kills or wounds. Next you'll be saying that an atomic bomb is a tool & not a weapon.

We have teeth, fists, and a lot of body mass to suffocate someone if we wanted to. Whether you accept it or not, the only reason why we are drawn to gun power, is because that same power lies naturally within us.

It's true that there are many ways to kill another human, but a gun is specificly designed to kill & wound in a very efficient manner. Not everyone is drawn towards gun power, in fact people who are, are in the minority. It's like the hunting thing. I don't understand why people get enjoyment from blasting the life out of a fellow creature.