Philosophy Discussion Forums

Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot to add:

UniversalAlien, you do know that it is possible to read for yourself the relevant statistics, don't you? I mean you don't have to take Howard Nemerov's twisted version as truth.

And SpiralOut, have you ever considered pulling your head out of your **** and realising that just because you think its okay to have an assault rifle, since you are so responsible, not everyone agrees that this is reasonable? Who knows, but maybe even Americans, if properly consulted, would say No! it is not reasonable for anyone, even one so wise as our moderate friend, to own an FN P90.

Robert66,

None of that matters as long as I'm not hurting anyone. It doesn't matter that people think it's not reasonable. If it comes down to the tired old argument that "it's a weapon designed to kill people" then I've already countered that argument with proper logic and reasoning earlier.

I personally think it's unreasonable and irresponsible (and many other people think so too) for people to own Cadillac Escalades and Humvees that are far larger than necessary and use more gasoline than necessary, think it's unreasonable and irresponsible that people have more than 3 children and also think it's unreasonable and irresponsible for people to insert themselves into other people's lives without due cause.

Yet people do these things all the time.

I can harm far more people with a Hummer H1 than with any assault rifle. I can use my H1 to mow down hundreds of people during a parade or some other public event and then use that same weapon as an armored getaway vehicle with 4WD, diesel power, run-flat tires and all. Yet nobody thinks twice about the fact that these vehicles are readily available to anyone who can afford it. (much like assault rifles, since with the proper licensing one can own a fully-auto PDW such as the FN P90)

Robert66 wrote:it is not reasonable for anyone, even one so wise as our moderate friend, to own an FN P90.

You certainly have the right to your own opinion but you must give proper justification for your statement above. Simply saying that it's not reasonable means absolutely nothing. If the whole premise of your argument is simply that it's not necessary to own one or that I just don't need it then let's also include all of the other unnecessary things people own to that list, as well as anything you yourself might own that is unnecessary or that you simply don't need.

The bottom line is that if in owning my FN P90 I'm not harming anyone and have given no previous cause to assume I ever would harm anyone then your unfounded and irrational fears have no precedence over my rights and responsibilities.

There is just no logical argument against responsible people owning an assault rifle. And please don't come at me with the silly "so you think it's ok to own a nuclear missile" nonsense. We've been through that ******** already.

The 'bottom line', the 'whole premise' of my argument, the part that has been ignored, lies beyond all that we agree on (which is nearly everything). But it is simple:

If heard, the people, or their representatives, could decide that it is unreasonable for certain weapons to be kept privately. USA is still a democracy, right? So at least in theory, it is possible that all those derided as 'emotionally skittish' or plagued by 'irrational fears' could outnumber, or their representation could be stronger, than those who uphold their (assumed, yet so far not properly challenged) 'right' to keep in their possession assault rifles.

Who knows, but most of the people of the USA may agree with their President, who believes it is worth studying the success of Australian gun control, a success measured in thousands of lives.

What do readers think? Are American citizens content with the status quo when it comes to gun control? Prepared to accept mass murder as part of life? Are there any people reading this who consider themselves fearful, but rational, when it comes to the level of gun ownership in USA?

R66,

One of the major flaws in your argument is the assertion that banning certain weapons will decrease violence. This has been proven false. It will only cause a shift in the methods used to commit the violence as evidenced by the increase in other non-firearm-related violent crimes in England and Australia such as knife attacks and home invasions.

In regards to "mass murder", someone determined to committing such an act will achieve it in any manner available to them.

And why do you think ISIS terrorists are targeting Australian cities for beheadings? Because you're all a bunch of defenseless ninnies too busy patting yourselves on the back about your "successful" (and how is this "success" measured?) gun control program to realize the imminent threat to your citizens. That's the difference between 'rational fears' and 'irrational fears'.

I'll be sure to keep an eye out for the coming news reports about terrorist attacks around Australia.

Besides, if you're living in Australia then why would you try to involve yourself in the politics of a country on the other side of the planet? Just be happy in your unarmed and defenseless society.

And armed society is a society safe from violent criminals.

This is a philosophy forum is it not? Does philosophy include facts? Then why do some here keep pretending that their opinion should deny reality? So again someone sites how great gun control has worked in Australia. FALSE

I QUOTE:

The failure of gun control in Australia

Ethel C. Fenig, January 22, 2013

Recently Edward Paltzik discussed the draconian gun control laws Australia passed after a disturbed individual slaughtered 35 people in a manner similar to the horror at the school in Newtown, Connecticut, the theater in Aurora, Colorado or other mass shootings. So how has Australia fared since the passage of these laws? Is it safer? Have there been fewer gun deaths? According to a Steve Chapman column: You would think such dramatic new restrictions were bound to help. But the striking thing is how little effect they had on gun deaths.

It's true the homicide rate fell after the law took effect -- but it had also been falling long before that. A study published by the liberal Brookings Institution noted that the decline didn't accelerate after 1996. Same for lethal accidents. Suicide didn't budge. At most, they conclude "there may" -- may -- "have been a modest effect on homicide rates."

Researchers at the University of Melbourne, however, found no such improvement as a result of the new system. "There is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides or suicides," they wrote. (snip)

We learned from the 1994 assault weapons ban that modest gun control measures don't work. What Australia suggests is that even if radical ones could be passed, they wouldn't work either.

Sacrificing a degree of freedom for vastly improved safety if gun restrictions had proven benefits would be worth it. Sacrificing degrees of freedom for gun restrictions so some liberals can act out their contempt for clinging gun owners while smugly feeling superior about themselves and their morals is dangerous

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/ ... z3FdfSdojT

===================================================================

These statistics sound even worse:

Australia Gun Control - Big Failure

Because of the changes made to the gun control laws in 1997, gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. And now the results are in. After 12 months of banning firearms: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent; Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent;

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent).

Hot Burglaries are up 300% (where the intruders come in while you are home and knows that you are home).

In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent.

Figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms (but increased drastically in the past 12 months). There has been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been served after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns." Their response has been to "wait longer".

Their suggestion to citizens has been to build a fortified room in their house, so that when a burglar enters their home, the homeowners may lock themselves in that room while the burglar takes what he wants from their house.

At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said, "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm."

It's time to state it plainly: Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens. Preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense does not end violent crime - it just makes victims more vulnerable! Society benefits from ordinary people who accept the responsibilities of firearm ownership - not from gun-control laws

Source: http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/australia.html

"When Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Guns"

Spiral Out wrote:

And armed society is a society safe from violent criminals.

Said without even a hint of irony.

I thought you kept a gun to protect your family from violent criminals? If so ,then you're not safe because they have guns also. The whole American psyche is based on the glorification of violence.

The premise of your argument is that guns require violence and that violence is only committed using guns. Therefore, all of your other comments, especially those pertaining to the "American psyche", are invalid.

And armed society is a society safe from violent criminals.

This is clearly untrue, or at least a massive oversimplification. If it were true then gun owners would never be victims of criminal violence & this just isn't the case is it?

My comment about the American psyche glorifying violence is true. Consider your film & entertainment industry. I would estimate that 70% of its output is highly violent. The hawks in your government are renowned for shooting first & asking questions later. Like our government yours makes a big thing about hostage beheadings but ignores the innocent victims of drone attacks because after all "they're only foreigners".

From this side of the pond, American males seem to see themselves as pioneers & real men. From here they come across as slightly pathetic.

It is interesting how much deliberate falsification is being generated in the US with regard to Australian gun control. Your sources seem to have about the same relationship with reality as you, UniversalAlien, though I suppose I should never have been surprised at your capability - your tag, and your lunatic website, are sufficient warning.

It is boring to have to repeat myself, however just in case anyone reads this thread, and has trouble distinguishing fact from fiction, I say again: Don't take my word for it (and certainly don't believe any propaganda posted by UniversalAlien), but have a look for yourself. Very good information is available, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and Institute of Criminology are good places to start.

Thanks for asking, Spiral Out, why I would try and involve myself in your country's politics. I don't, really. Its just that I believe dangerous lies should be identified, and countered with truth. Of course it is never easy to persuade the dogmatic, and the intelligent dogmatist may never be persuaded. But of all the readers of a forum such as this, some may be foolish enough to accept the utter garbage being promoted by UniversalAlien.

As for the insults, Spiral Out, amusing as they are, they do reveal more than a hint of frailty in your argument. If you choose to continue believing that violence levels bear no relation to gun control measures, or lack thereof, then you will also need to continue ignoring the evidence. Obviously that is your right, but this is meant to be a debate, on a philosophy forum, no less, about Gun Control and Mass Murder. So perhaps you could tell me where, do you think, there can be found a Mass Murder problem?

I take the other view. I am a veteran and have seen first hand what happens when a government goes amuck. The common counter for this argument is that a citizen with a deer rifle is no match for an army. However in Viet-Nam the corrupt South Vietnamese government and the not much better U.S. government were defeated by an army that mostly relied on bicycles and small arms.

It is a simple truism that you cannot hold ground without an infantry. You can destroy cities, corrupt currency, kill the governors with air power, but the ground and people are not safe for occupation and pacification until the infantry can travel over it.The infantry is fair game for an armed populace with the home court advantage.

Frankly I am afraid for the U.S.'s current range of lawlessness and immorality. It is coming from the top down. I have trouble imagining Pres. Eisenhower getting a blow job in the Oval Office, or Truman hosting a photo-op with his feet on the desk. JFK was perfectly able to lie with a straight face, Johnson could also with the Tonkin Gulf resolution and his financing peccadilloes. Reagan and the Bush's were and Obama is perfectly willing to disregard the Constitution of the United States when it becomes inconvenient. Lawlessness at the top has trickled down to the street. Where will it end

I hope that I will never have to shoot an American soldier or policeman but I reserve the right to do so if it ever becomes necessary. From here it doesn't look so good

Robert66 wrote: But of all the readers of a forum such as this, some may be foolish enough to accept the utter garbage being promoted by UniversalAlien.

The only 'garbage' being posted here is by you - desperate you resort to character assassination to make your invalid and unsubstantiated points. Stating facts and statistics from reputable sources bothers hypocritical reality distortionists whose true agenda is the destruction of individual rights and the establishment of totalitarian government rule. But you do make some case for gun control as I won't trust someone such as yourself with a steak knife let alone a gun. People like yourself who distort reality and facts are dangerous enough as it is. So why do people need guns? One reason is for protection from people like you who threaten the ideals of people still capable of having them. Steal one right protected by our Constitution {USA} and all the rest go next - But don't worry about it you live in Australia, be happy, don't worry your safe!?!?

"When Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws will have Guns"

What a laugh! Do you really believe any of the nonsense you write? Let me guess, your answer is Yes! Now I am laughing even more.

Robert66 wrote:What a laugh! Do you really believe any of the nonsense you write? Let me guess, your answer is Yes! Now I am laughing even more.

Yes keep laughing it may help you; But on the other hand maybe you should seek psychiatric help. It is better that people like you show no interest in guns - but dangerous minds will sooner or later figure out a way to carry out their problems and gun control won't help. So OK maybe it is better that you get it out of yous system on an online forum so we will keep humoring you and pretend that your dream world of happy disarmed people is safe - so stay safe and keep posting.

-- Updated October 9th, 2014, 9:27 pm to add the following --

Also Robert66 this forum gives the user the option to maintain a 'foe' list which effectively blocks posts by users who have nothing to say of value and/or appear to be trolls. In the years and hundreds of posts i have read and contributed to you are only the 4th poster I have put on this list - so post your meaningless comments as you wish - I will not see them or respond to them.

How many actual documented cases are there of private gun owners defending something with their weapons, compared to the number of deaths from accidental discharges? Further does anyone have actual statistics of the changes in murder rates for countries that have imposed stiff gun control compared to the rates prior to that legislation in that same country? Both of these statistics seem to be far more relevant than endless speculation about what would happen when gun control is imposed, seeing as it has actually happened in some places and those statistics should be available.

Grotto19 wrote:How many actual documented cases are there of private gun owners defending something with their weapons, compared to the number of deaths from accidental discharges? Further does anyone have actual statistics of the changes in murder rates for countries that have imposed stiff gun control compared to the rates prior to that legislation in that same country? Both of these statistics seem to be far more relevant than endless speculation about what would happen when gun control is imposed, seeing as it has actually happened in some places and those statistics should be available.

Yes, Grotto19 I agree and if you research this thread from the beginning you will see many links {many posted by me} with statistical data showing that in fact gun control has not helped stop crime and often has contributed to it - especially shocking are the cases of genocide throughout the 20th Century which followed the institution of strict gun control policies. A few posts back on this page I just posted, probably for the second time, data on gun control in Australia and how it has failed to stop crime.

For many years the NRA has shown many cases where time and time again crime has been stopped just by a gun being used to deter criminals from following through with their intentions and most often the gun never had to be fired - You will rarely see this in the news or read about in newspapers as only when guns are used for criminal activity does mainstream news publish or show it on air.

Here is an interesting article that you may find interesting published by GOA {Gun Owners of America an organization similar to the NRA}:

Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives

A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials." ..........

See whole article here: http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm