Pro Or Anti Gun Control ?

[Axiom]

Think before you post
Daniel Bell is waiting for you

[DanielBell]

lol..

I'm extremely against gun control. It is ultimately each man and womens responsibility to protect his life, liberty and property. The government has no right to remove this right.

Gun laws only remove guns from the law abiding citizens, criminals still have them, why don't we?

And to support Axiom in a way, maybe even more dangerous is perhaps the fact that the government is armed, the citizens are not. This is a dangerous situation IMHO.

[ElevatorEscapee]

Should this question not be a poll?

Your possible answers:
Yes: this question should not be a poll... or taking a contrary view...
No: this question should not be a poll.

[Axiom]

Should this question not be a poll?

Your possible answers:
Yes: this question should not be a poll... or taking a contrary view...
No: this question should not be a poll.

or
should this question be obfuscated by introducing the question of a poll
or no this question should not be obfuscated by introducing the question of a poll

[ElevatorEscapee]

Should this thread be hijacked by people correcting the spelling of the word "obfuscated", or should people who attempt such a pedantic spelling correction have their obfuscation rights confiscated?

(In answer to everyone else's query, I don't know what my above sentence is supposed to mean either...)

[Kevin Bonham]

It is ultimately each man and womens responsibility to protect his life, liberty and property.

Prove it.

I'm serious. I want you to show me from what empirical fact or uncontentious logical assumption the conclusion above follows, through a series of formally logically valid statements.

Alternatively, if you're simply voicing a personal advocative view, then that's fine, but why should I take any more notice of it than of that of someone who believes it is ultimately each "man and womens"[sic] responsibility to own 97 chihauhas?

Or alternatively I could agree with you, and say that my idea of protecting my life, liberty and property is to agree with the government that I shall pay them taxes if they do a reasonable job of keeping nutters who might otherwise shoot me unarmed.

Gun laws only remove guns from the law abiding citizens, criminals still have them, why don't we?

I'm surprised slogans as weak as this still surface in public debate, but I suppose they are catchy.

In removing guns from the "law abiding citizens", gun control laws remove them from those "law abiding citizens" who may at any moment, through insanity (of which there have been many examples) cease to be law abiding. I am also far from convinced that their ownership among criminals is the same in places where guns are controlled as in places where they are not.

Of course, the whole "if you outlaw guns" line is a complete furphy anyway because governments do not do so. Gun control laws typically restrict the types of guns that can be used and the experience necessary to use them. They do not mean that a person who would like to have a gun in their house will not be able to do so.

In the 1990s, slightly before gun control in this country was improved in the wake of Port Arthur, I lived with a gun owner who had serious mental problems (so serious that he was expelled from the university for threatening to kill the Vice-Chancellor). Even though he never made me feel personally threatened, I would not recommend this experience to anyone and I would like all those who are completely opposed to gun control to state whether they have lived in such circumstances, and to state how they would deal with living with an unbalanced person who owned guns if they had to do so.

And to support Axiom in a way,

Which is rarely advisable on issues of this type.

maybe even more dangerous is perhaps the fact that the government is armed, the citizens are not. This is a dangerous situation IMHO.

Only because of its potential for spawning bad Hollywood movies. The government isn't out to strip you all of your weapons and herd you into camps; it is not in their advantage whatever people writing for those silly websites Axiom reads may think otherwise.

[Axiom]

Only because of its potential for spawning bad Hollywood movies. The government isn't out to strip you all of your weapons and herd you into camps; it is not in their advantage whatever people writing for those silly websites Axiom reads may think otherwise.

This statement is born of total naivety.
why?
1.Because it completely ignores history, ie. that tyranny is the NORM NOT the exception.
2.Because it falsely assumes governments have our best interests at heart.refer to point 1. and a basic understanding of reality.
3.Because, no doubt such naivety was exhibited by 1930s germans and pre stalinist Russians.refer to point 1.
4.Because it assumes that it is not in the best interests of govts to exert such control, even tyrannical camp herding type control. refer point 1. and 3.
5.Because the so called silly websites i read emphasise the truth of point 1.
6.Because all tyrants agree gun control works !

[Kevin Bonham]

This statement is born of total naivety.
why?
1.Because it completely ignores history, ie. that tyranny is the NORM NOT the exception.

History prior to the last 50-100 years does not have advanced western democracies with global instant media coverage in it so history is irrelevant. You cannot judge modern politics by the politics of the 16th century.

2.Because it falsely assumes governments have our best interests at heart.refer to point 1. and a basic understanding of reality.

Wrong. I specifically and explicitly assumed the government had its own best interests at heart as the basis for my comments.

3.Because, no doubt such naivety was exhibited by 1930s germans and pre stalinist Russians.refer to point 1.

Both societies in severe economic and logistic hardship. Not comparable.

4.Because it assumes that it is not in the best interests of govts to exert such control, even tyrannical camp herding type control. refer point 1. and 3.

I don't assume that, I argue it. What point would it serve?

5.Because the so called silly websites i read emphasise the truth of point 1.

This only further shows that they are silly!

6.Because all tyrants agree gun control works !

Whoopy-do. All tyrants might agree that brushing teeth reduces the risk of tooth decay, would that make that statement false?

Ax, we're talking politics here. Calling me totally naive in any field related to politics is, well, totally naive; I have qualifications, what are yours? Excuse me while I have a little chuckle.

Oh, and please do answer my question about how you would deal with living with a dangerously insane gun nut.

[Axiom]

History prior to the last 50-100 years does not have advanced western democracies with global instant media coverage in it so history is irrelevant. You cannot judge modern politics by the politics of the 16th century.

How is history irrelevant when discussing the dynamics and implications of an armed or unarmed populace?
Regardless lets just look at the last 50-100yrs, the same principles apply.
Tyranny is still the norm, and history teaches us that to be unarmed in light of this is very dangerous

Wrong. I specifically and explicitly assumed the government had its own best interests at heart as the basis for my comments.

they sure do have their best interests at heart when they disarm us, and if you think its for our benefit, then sorry, that is IMO naive.

Both societies in severe economic and logistic hardship. Not comparable.

please explain why not comparable.

I don't assume that, I argue it. What point would it serve?

ask a stalin,hitler ceaucescu or pol pot. Its about quashing dissent and asserting control.

This only further shows that they are silly!

oh silly like this one http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1745761/posts with all those silly people quoted there ?

Whoopy-do. All tyrants might agree that brushing teeth reduces the risk of tooth decay, would that make that statement false?

huh?? no, all tyrants agree gun control works for THEM,as well as brushing their teeth !

Ax, we're talking politics here. Calling me totally naive in any field related to politics is, well, totally naive; I have qualifications, what are yours? Excuse me while I have a little chuckle.

i call you naive because of your position on this.
there are many naive persons with many qualifications, to thnk otherwise is naive !

Oh, and please do answer my question about how you would deal with living with a dangerously insane gun nut.

depends how insane/dangerous he is he may have brought himself to the attention of the authorities on these grounds alone.....assuming he hasn't and
i had absolutely no choice but to live with such a person, i would arm myself and learn how to shoot and tell him of such!

[DanielBell]

Prove it.

I'm serious. I want you to show me from what empirical fact or uncontentious logical assumption the conclusion above follows, through a series of formally logically valid statements.

If an armed intruder enters your home in the middle of the night with intent to harm you or your family (or both) who else but you and your family have the power to defend your lives and property (and freedom!)?

It's pretty obvious that if in a life threatening situation, you do not defend yourself, you will die.. Therefore you are responsible for your own life. The same applies to liberty and property. You cannot sue the government for compensation if they fail to protect you.

Alternatively, if you're simply voicing a personal advocative view, then that's fine, but why should I take any more notice of it than of that of someone who believes it is ultimately each "man and womens"[sic] responsibility to own 97 chihauhas?

Because believing that you are responsible for your own life makes sense. Believing you are responsible for owning 97 dogs does not.

Or alternatively I could agree with you, and say that my idea of protecting my life, liberty and property is to agree with the government that I shall pay them taxes if they do a reasonable job of keeping nutters who might otherwise shoot me unarmed.

If you believe that your taxes are protecting those things then that is fine. However, even though I pay taxes, yet I have still had property stolen. I have been harassed and have been defenseless.. The government didn't do a single thing. Police take time to turn up, in certain situations you need to be able to defend yourself immediately.. Yes, 'arms' can mean many things, but often a gun would be the most efficient. Most people I talk to in the states who have needed to use their gun only needed to make it visible to deter a criminal who otherwise would have (at least attempted) robbed them.

I'm surprised slogans as weak as this still surface in public debate, but I suppose they are catchy.

In removing guns from the "law abiding citizens", gun control laws remove them from those "law abiding citizens" who may at any moment, through insanity (of which there have been many examples) cease to be law abiding. I am also far from convinced that their ownership among criminals is the same in places where guns are controlled as in places where they are not.

Of course, the whole "if you outlaw guns" line is a complete furphy anyway because governments do not do so. Gun control laws typically restrict the types of guns that can be used and the experience necessary to use them. They do not mean that a person who would like to have a gun in their house will not be able to do so.

In the 1990s, slightly before gun control in this country was improved in the wake of Port Arthur, I lived with a gun owner who had serious mental problems (so serious that he was expelled from the university for threatening to kill the Vice-Chancellor). Even though he never made me feel personally threatened, I would not recommend this experience to anyone and I would like all those who are completely opposed to gun control to state whether they have lived in such circumstances, and to state how they would deal with living with an unbalanced person who owned guns if they had to do so.

I understand guns are not outlawed, but you cannot own a gun for your personal protection. Guns need to be stored in a way which would make it hard to use it for defense.

I wouldn't live with someone who I thought would be irresponsible with their weapon. The problem here however is the person not their choice of weapon.

[Rincewind]

If an armed intruder enters your home in the middle of the night with intent to harm you or your family (or both) who else but you and your family have the power to defend your lives and property (and freedom!)?

It's pretty obvious that if in a life threatening situation, you do not defend yourself, you will die.. Therefore you are responsible for your own life. The same applies to liberty and property. You cannot sue the government for compensation if they fail to protect you.

Very few people are ever in that situation. People who break into houses are generally there to remove property, not take lives. Saying that the citizens should self arm is fallacious as guns in the hand of the so-called law abiding citizens present a greater danger to themselves and the general public than do armed burglars.

I don't believe a citizen has the right to endanger the life of someone who is threatening to steal their property. Guns for self protection against others wanting to take your life is not a realistic scenario, therefore there is no need for the general public to own firearms.

I have no problem with people using firearms for "peaceful" purposes such as sport shooting. But those trying to justify firearm ownership by self-defense are dangerously deluded and present a greater danger to public safety then the criminal straw-bogeyman they are putting forward.

[Kevin Bonham]

How is history irrelevant when discussing the dynamics and implications of an armed or unarmed populace?

Because those implications continually change with developments in technology. Both the technology of attack and defence and also the technology of broadcasting events to the outside world. Also because citizen expectations now are very different to in the not-so-demockratic era.

Regardless lets just look at the last 50-100yrs, the same principles apply.
Tyranny is still the norm, and history teaches us that to be unarmed in light of this is very dangerous

Tyranny is not the norm in the developed western world in that time period.

they sure do have their best interests at heart when they disarm us,

Why?

and if you think its for our benefit, then sorry, that is IMO naive.

This is the second time you have falsely suggested I am arguing that politicians are acting for our benefit. Do it again and I shall award you a Goosemaster Norm.

please explain why not comparable.

Because in economically desperate societies it is easier for totalitarian regimes to flourish. People become inclined to accept anything, however abhorent and aberrant, that they think might lead their society out of poverty.

ask a stalin,hitler ceaucescu or pol pot.

These are not models of modern western government.

Its about quashing dissent and asserting control.

Brutal overt widespread repression within advanced societies does not quash dissent or assert control but rather fuels the former and surrenders the latter.

oh silly like this one http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1745761/posts with all those silly people quoted there ?

Same old same old. Confusion of corellation and causation and irrelevant quote mining of the thoughts of famousoids and philosophers. I lost interest halfway through.

huh?? no, all tyrants agree gun control works for THEM,as well as brushing their teeth !

So what? Whether it works for tyrants has no bearing on whether it works in non-tyrannical societies. You are using a guilt by association fallacy and also a version of the ad Hitlerum fallacy.

i call you naive because of your position on this.

In other words, if I disagree with you on one of your pet-political-paranoia issues I must, by virtue of that alone, be sooooo naive. How terribly obvious, how did I possibly fail to notice it before?

depends how insane/dangerous he is he may have brought himself to the attention of the authorities on these grounds alone.....

Naaah, he brought himself to the attention of the authorities by allegedly sexually harrassing much of the female membership of a particular student society.

assuming he hasn't and
i had absolutely no choice but to live with such a person, i would arm myself and learn how to shoot and tell him of such!

Yes, well this is just ridiculous. Being able to shoot back is fine if you're in a situation where each person wants to live and knows the other person may be about to shoot them. In that case it's a deterrent. But in the hypothetical nutter-wants-to-shoot-you situation it is no deterrent at all, because you're not going to go around your whole life with a gun ready to be whipped out at any moment. Especially not when you're asleep. If someone wants to kill you and you don't want to kill them, chances are they will kill you any moment they have the advantage of surprise. And thus, even if you have a gun, and even if they know you are a crack shot, and even if they know you have a gun, they will still be easily able to kill you.

The second reason being armed is not much of a defence against a nutter is that the nutter often doesn't care if they live or die, or in some cases actually wants to be shot. I do agree that if everyone had guns the average death toll per nutter rampage would be a lot lower since the nutter would typically shoot a few people then get taken out. However, if everyone had easy access to guns there would be a lot more nutter rampages.

(Again, this guy was actually no threat to me whatsoever so far as I could gather - never even threatened me, unlike another flatmate who thankfully didn't have a gun. But if he had had a complete mental breakdown and gone into Port Arthur mode, who knows? Indeed when Port Arthur happened my first suspicion is that it was him.)

[Kevin Bonham]

If an armed intruder enters your home in the middle of the night with intent to harm you or your family (or both) who else but you and your family have the power to defend your lives and property (and freedom!)?

Obviously, anyone who you wish to assist in that defence has the power to do so. So paying taxes to support a government that restricts gun use hence reducing the risk of the armed intruder getting in in the first place is one way. Not having such government control but having a gun under your bed is another. Neither is necessarily superior.

It's pretty obvious that if in a life threatening situation, you do not defend yourself, you will die.. Therefore you are responsible for your own life.

If that is the case and state control of guns turns out to be the best way to reduce the risks of such life-threatening situations claiming your life, then your argument becomes an argument for state control of guns.

In a trivial sense what you say about "responsibility" is true - there are many ways you can act to further your own protection and if you take none of them then there are risks involved that you may not be able to stop. But this doesn't mean there is a moral obligation to protect yourself to the max and to be armed at all times. Life would be very tedious if minimising risk in that manner was the paramount goal of all activities.

The same applies to liberty and property. You cannot sue the government for compensation if they fail to protect you.

Are you saying that as a statement about the law or as a statement about morals? Because if it's a statement about the law, you're incorrect, at least in my state where there is compensation available for victims of violent crime.

Because believing that you are responsible for your own life makes sense. Believing you are responsible for owning 97 dogs does not.

Given the choice between owning 97 dogs and having to permanently carry a gun and live in fear of being shot by nutters or obsessives in a nation with no gun control, I would find owning 97 dogs far more sensible, even if they were all chihauhas. And I don't even like dogs much, my avatar notwithstanding!

I should add that I once had an obsessive pet stalker who would physically attack me (never doing any real harm) every time he saw me, unless there were witnesses who weren't his mates. This individual had drug problems that meant he could not control his propensity to attack me, except where he knew he would get caught. If he had had ready access to guns there is a substantial chance I would be dead by now. That my having a gun as well would have created a high chance that he would be dead instead isn't really much consolation.

If you believe that your taxes are protecting those things then that is fine. However, even though I pay taxes, yet I have still had property stolen. I have been harassed and have been defenseless.. The government didn't do a single thing. Police take time to turn up, in certain situations you need to be able to defend yourself immediately..

All this is true but in none of these situations were you shot dead. I too have been harassed and been defenseless (as described above) but rather than wishing I had had a gun to ward off the attacker, I am instead glad he did not have a gun with which to kill me.

Yes, 'arms' can mean many things, but often a gun would be the most efficient. Most people I talk to in the states who have needed to use their gun only needed to make it visible to deter a criminal who otherwise would have (at least attempted) robbed them.

That may be true, yet home invasion situations where the defender holds a gun may be more likely to end in the death of the defender, simply because most home invaders actually don't want to kill, but will do so to prevent the defender from killing them.

I understand guns are not outlawed, but you cannot own a gun for your personal protection. Guns need to be stored in a way which would make it hard to use it for defense.

My flatmate was required to keep his guns in a secure locked container, but so what? Secured locked containers can be unlocked if needed. I believe this is still the legal situation - if you keep a firearm in secure locked storage you can have it in the home. Who is going to check if it is in that storage all the time or not?

I wouldn't live with someone who I thought would be irresponsible with their weapon. The problem here however is the person not their choice of weapon.

I had very little choice in the matter for financial reasons. I was living in a student shared housing scheme which the individual moved into. I could not afford to move out. Of course, I could have decided to get work and quit university so that I could move out (assuming I could find any) but no-one should have to go to such lengths to get away from a potential nutter.

[CameronD]

The whole problem is that the intruder needs a better weapon than what the home owner has

1. No weapon - Use knife
2. Has Knife - Use gun
3. Has gun - Use better gun
etc.

They found that when stores started defending themselves with bats, robbers started using guns to overcome this, instead of knives. Your just asking to be attacked by a more deadly weapon by defending yourself with a weapon.

Having guns in the populace will mean that people will break in with a gun instead of a knife;/bat, making the situation way worse.

[Capablanca-Fan]

Think before you post
Daniel Bell is waiting for you

Thomas Jefferson was onto something when he said that when the law prohibits guns, then only the law-breakers will have guns. The Swiss understand this too, since they have a high rate of gun ownership and low gun crime.

Yeah, making Virginia Tech a gun-free zone really made them safe! Conversely, you can be sure that no matter how deranged Cho was, he wasn't going to try to shoot up the NRA.
Larry Elder documents some cases where an armed citizen has prevented massacres in Do "Gun-Free" Zones Encourage School Shootings?

In America, it is a huge deterrent to home invaders if the house even might have home-owners who are armed. Florida's Castle Laws have been sorely lamented by burglars and leftists who excuse their crimes. John Lott has also documented that many crimes have been stopped by guns (and here, often the threat is stronger than its execution too), but the Leftmedia usually ignore this. Sowell summarizes:

The fact is that communities which have allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms have experienced a reduction in shootings — not an increase. Conversely, state laws forcing law-abiding citizens to store their weapons unloaded, or with various other restrictions, have been followed by increases in violent crime — not decreases, as predicted. Even when the national crime rate has been going down, states imposing such restrictions on guns have seen violent crime increase.

Conversely, in Britain, law-abiding citizens have been deprived of this execellent deterrent to scumbags. And of course, the scumbags just love the fact that they don't face any resistance (thanx to attitudes like Cameron's which amount to "let the scumbags walk all over you and don't fight back even if your wife was being raped or children being molested, because it will just make things worse"), so no wonder scumbaggery has gone up. NB, most criminals are rational to the point of weighing up likely costs and benefits, and the likelihood of being shot makes them reconsider whether the benefit of the crime is worth it.

Even worse, the Left have such control that a home-owner is just as likely to find himself arrested as a home-invader if the former uses "excessive force" to defend his home. We've seen it here when home-owners have been prosecuted for defending their homes from scumbags.