Guns, guns, guns

[JohnnyEgo]

Hello to Welsh!

I've been playing Fallout again on my new netbook, and decided to pop back up here for a few minutes. I am a gun owner. I have seen both sides of this argument hundreds of times, and I have never seen it convert one person from a solid position on one side to a solid position on the other. In the words of the Bare Naked Ladies (truly the prophets of our times), "It's all been done before".

What I say next applies solely to America:

There are roughly 200 million guns in circulation for a population of 300 million people.

Somewhere between 25 and 30% of the American population ownes a firearm. This includes nearly half of all American households.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the US Supreme Court affirmed the interpretation of the second amendment of the US Constitution that firearm ownership is an individual right regardless of membership in a militia. Still to be determined is whether said right can be applied to all individual states. Several court cases are pending.

Regardless of how one feels about the issue, firearms are here, they are part of the culture, and prevailing opinion and weight of law, at least for the moment, means they are not going anywhere.

Given the volume of firearms in circulation and the number of people who own them, there is too large a population to have one homogenized opinion. Granted, ownership of a thing, regardless of what that thing is, is generally likely to predispose the owner to be in favor of allowing continued ownership. Otherwise, there is a wide diversity of both opinion and culture amongst gun owners.

As I stated at the beginning, I am a gun owner. I carry a handgun daily, as does my wife. I own a .50 caliber rifle, along with several others that would be considered 'assault rifles'. I am well educated and not pre-disposed to violence or possessive of a hostile temperament. I enjoy shooting greatly, and do so as often as I can. I sincerely hope to never use a firearm against another human being for the remainder of my days. I am not certain how any of this makes me a 'crazy right-wing nut', as I and my peers were so categorized in the original post.

Reasonable people can differ in opinion on a subject, and where such differences cannot be reconciled, can still be respectful to the other party. I hold Welsh in high regard, although we will likely never agree on the issue of firearms. I appreciate the arguments of the opposition, as they help me to refine and reconcile my own beliefs. In the end, however, we come back to the beginning: It's all been done before.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Hello to Welsh!

I've been playing Fallout again on my new netbook, and decided to pop back up here for a few minutes. I am a gun owner. I have seen both sides of this argument hundreds of times, and I have never seen it convert one person from a solid position on one side to a solid position on the other. In the words of the Bare Naked Ladies (truly the prophets of our times), "It's all been done before".

You might ask those that loost a family member/friend in accident by weapons and guns.

By the way I do love guns, their look and feel (yes I had the oportunity to shoot once) and I would even consider to own some if it would be allowed. But I understand the reason why there are so many restrictions (here in Germany) regarding many weapons like assault rifles and similar systems and why its extremly hard to get the licence for a weapon.

 

[JohnnyEgo]

Hello to Welsh!

I've been playing Fallout again on my new netbook, and decided to pop back up here for a few minutes. I am a gun owner. I have seen both sides of this argument hundreds of times, and I have never seen it convert one person from a solid position on one side to a solid position on the other. In the words of the Bare Naked Ladies (truly the prophets of our times), "It's all been done before".

You might ask those that lost a family member/friend in accident by weapons and guns.

By the way I do love guns, their look and feel (yes I had the opportunity to shoot once) and I would even consider to own some if it would be allowed. But I understand the reason why there are so many restrictions (here in Germany) regarding many weapons like assault rifles and similar systems and why its extremely hard to get the license for a weapon.

If you will re-read the statement that you quoted above, you will see that I have stated I have never seen argument, ie reasoned, logical discussion, alone, make one solid convert. I've seen it have mild sway on the undecided, though usually they lean in one direction or the other already.

I have the misfortune of knowing several people who have lost loved ones due to firearms, both in my former military employment and in my civilian life. There, too, there is a surprisingly wide range of opinion on the subject. I am certain that losing a loved one to a firearm incident could cause a person to re-evaluate even deeply held convictions on the subject. Similarly, I imagine losing a loved one to a drunk driver could cause a person to re-evaluate deeply held convictions regarding consumption of alcohol.

Incidentally, I have spent a fair amount of time in Germany and the rest of continental Europe. I own several fine German handguns and rifles, and know several excellent German citizens who are very active in the shooting sports. Much as in the US regarding heavily regulated NFA weapons, ownership is merely a function of time and patience, and a knack for bureaucracy.

 

[Guest]

Hi,

I'm planing to stop by the local shooting club where I live tomorrow. They are opening up again since they have been on summer break for a few weeks. Maybe I'll get to do some shooting again in the near future, despite them anal german gun laws. Anybody here already active in a german shooting club? Any thoughts or advice?

 

[DammitBoy]

Hello to Welsh!

I've been playing Fallout again on my new netbook, and decided to pop back up here for a few minutes. I am a gun owner. I have seen both sides of this argument hundreds of times, and I have never seen it convert one person from a solid position on one side to a solid position on the other. In the words of the Bare Naked Ladies (truly the prophets of our times), "It's all been done before".

What I say next applies solely to America:

There are roughly 200 million guns in circulation for a population of 300 million people.

Somewhere between 25 and 30% of the American population ownes a firearm. This includes nearly half of all American households.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the US Supreme Court affirmed the interpretation of the second amendment of the US Constitution that firearm ownership is an individual right regardless of membership in a militia. Still to be determined is whether said right can be applied to all individual states. Several court cases are pending.

Regardless of how one feels about the issue, firearms are here, they are part of the culture, and prevailing opinion and weight of law, at least for the moment, means they are not going anywhere.

Given the volume of firearms in circulation and the number of people who own them, there is too large a population to have one homogenized opinion. Granted, ownership of a thing, regardless of what that thing is, is generally likely to predispose the owner to be in favor of allowing continued ownership. Otherwise, there is a wide diversity of both opinion and culture amongst gun owners.

As I stated at the beginning, I am a gun owner. I carry a handgun daily, as does my wife. I own a .50 caliber rifle, along with several others that would be considered 'assault rifles'. I am well educated and not pre-disposed to violence or possessive of a hostile temperament. I enjoy shooting greatly, and do so as often as I can. I sincerely hope to never use a firearm against another human being for the remainder of my days. I am not certain how any of this makes me a 'crazy right-wing nut', as I and my peers were so categorized in the original post.

Reasonable people can differ in opinion on a subject, and where such differences cannot be reconciled, can still be respectful to the other party. I hold Welsh in high regard, although we will likely never agree on the issue of firearms. I appreciate the arguments of the opposition, as they help me to refine and reconcile my own beliefs. In the end, however, we come back to the beginning: It's all been done before.

As usual johnnyego - well stated.

Edit: And I'll add just this;

No gun control law ever passed in the U.S. has ever affected the rate of violent crime with firearms.

Merely observing the nature of crimes with firearms in the US bears out this conclusion.

Repeat after me: "Gun control laws only affect those for whom the laws are not necessary."

The only thing that seems to affect the rate of violent crime is demographics; the rise and fall of the numbers of young males in the 16-24 age group. That is the ONLY data set which exactly parallels the rise and fall in the rate of violent crimes.

 

[welsh]

Hey Johnny- nice to see you back.

I tend to agree, those with hardline opinions are not likely to change their opinions nor even listen to well reasoned arguments. Rather, they are likely to keep repeating the same old, same old.

I also tend to believe that the idea that any politician would try to take away all the guns currently in circulation in the US is insane. There are just too many people who have guns and too many guns in circulation, and besides, most of them won't be used to hurt another person but are probably kept for target practice, hunting or collection.

That said, I don't see why it would be a bad thing to keep armored piercing or Telflon coated bullets out of circulation. I don't see a problem with limiting the number of guns that get bought by Mexican drug dealers who will use them to wage war across our border. I don't see a problem with keeping guns out of the hands of drug gangs in the US or making it harder for them to get guns. I don't see why the government shouldn't be able to ban a gun that is "fingerprint free" and has such bad accuracy that the only real use is to fire it into a room of people and hope someone gets killed.
Then again, I don't think most gun owners have a problem with that either.

I'd like to think that the argument is about reasonable control of guns. In that sense, and you can read above, my position has not been a ban on all guns, but rather reasonable gun controls that can reduce some of the harm that guns cause, reduce the number of fatalities caused by guns, and perhaps take guns away from some criminals.

The question is- what is reasonable?

As noted pages ago, gun controls do work. The fact that gangs have to take added steps to buy guns outside of more heavily restricted rules need to pay higher prices for guns illustrates that point. Other gun controls- from making sure that gun manufacturers don't distribute defective guns, or rules that keep guns safe and secured and out of the hands of children might reduce theft of guns or negligent use of guns.

The evidence to support these controls is out there. Some of it has been cited on past pages of this thread.

One of the counter arguments is that "crimes still happen" thus controls don't work. That guns that are used in crimes often come from regions where there are few controls would suggest the opposite conclusion. More importantly, its unclear how many more gun crime or gun deaths would occur without the controls currently in force. Does the act of registering a license to own a hand gun actually protect lawful gun owners? Would not having that rule make guns more widely available to those who would do harm with them?

Some controls that might be reasonable- no fingerprint proof guns, Locks, rules against straw purchasers, registration, rules about dealing guns only through licensed dealers, training people to safely use guns (perhaps as part of a licensing system), rules governing gun fairs, etc.

On the other hand, there are the extreme positions- No guns allowed (a position I don't support) or No gun control (a position that Dammit Boy has argued) suggest no middle ground.

The rest is mostly in response to Dammit Boy-

Your argument, (remarkably devoid of facts of support), basically argues that we should have guns to protect us from young, predominantly male, predominantly urban, predominantly minority populations because those are the populations that do most of the gun violence in this country.

Furthermore, you argue that social programs have generally failed to stop this population from being gun violent, so the only solution is "self help" - ie, get a gun.

The problem with that argument is that-

(1) generally speaking, that population doesn't victimize the rest of society. Rather, most of the rest of society is more at risk at acquaintance homicide than gang or criminal related crime. Does it happen? Yes. Frequently, no.

While guns in cities may be used in connection to some criminal enterprise, most guns in the rest of the country will not be used in crime, and if they are used in a crime, it will be among people you know, often with the victim being female and the perpetrator being male.

Looking at the statistics, there are two different types of gun violence. That which is fundamentally involved in criminal activities, which is generally urban, poor and minority centered, and the rest of us.

I think something practical can be done to reduce the number of gun related deaths in urban areas. To that effect, I am not against some reasonable gun controls as part of a response.

As for the rest of us, I think we have to weigh the pros and cons of having a gun in the house. Do you hunt? Do you collect? Do you enjoy target shooting? I don't think reasonable controls ask much of society if it reduces the harmful use of weapons. Rules to keep guns safe in the house, to ensure that guns are free of defects, to reduce the risk of theft?

As for the basic middle class family- the question is whether the benefits of having a gun for self-defense outweigh the costs or risks of having a gun in the house. I'm honestly not sure. Most of us are reasonable people most of the time, but many, if not most, of the homicides that affect the middle class occur when someone is pissed off with someone else, and I think most of us get pissed off sometimes. I think a fair number of homicides happen when someone is angry enough to kill someone.

Your conclusion is to impose liability. Once you murdered a person, than the criminal goes to jail and is punished. But that denies the fact that laws often are preventative and not punitive. Law can prevent crimes from happening or reduce the likelihood of crimes.

(2) Your position that social programs haven't worked is frankly wrong- in fact they have reduced the size of the poor in the US considerably. That the rise of crime and gun related deaths corresponded, at first with a spike in heroin usage (a consequence of the Vietnam War) and then in the 1980s with the crack epidemic (a cheap form of cocaine), followed by continuing declines in homicides until W began to cut social spending programs around 2005.

Despite the shocks of two periods in which drug use expanded, in fact the number of urban poor and the number of homicides generally fell over the last four decades.

(3) Your argument is simply that poor blacks and hispanics are environmentally and genetically predisposed to violence, laziness and drug dealing is basically racist and nonsense. It is a return to the nature vs nurture question. Its also an argument one might find from the KKK, White Supremists or the Nazi Party.

That hispanics do a lot of the hard work that Americans don't want to do and that blacks have been rapidly leaving poverty for the middle class and above, illustrates that its not ethnicity or genetics that breeds crime, rather an environment in which the state helps structure opportunities.

Your prescription thus is to end all gun control laws to promote wider use of guns and to normalize gun ownership in society. In the end, that would likely make it easier for criminals to get guns (for reasons stated earlier in this thread) and promote gun use in urban areas- increasing the high rate of fatalities even higher than it is. Your desire to find security is to create the circumstances in which more people die. That these people are generally poor minorities is fine for you because, as you argued, they are genetically predisposed to drug dealing and violence. Your dogma condemns these people to higher chance of early death.

The current rules on gun ownership currently encourage trade in guns for drugs in neighborhoods with loose gun laws and thus spreads drugs and gang activity in those neighborhoods. But your suggestion would only empower criminal gangs to spread outside their regions and challenge police forces in rural and sub-urban areas even as it makes crime more likely and more lethal.

In otherwords- not only is your position foolish and racist, but its also self-destructive.

Your argument is basically to arm everyone and promote an environment where everyone should carry a gun. Deterrence against crime is the only defense. You want the right to have a gun (or any other weapons) you want regardless of the type of weapon or the social costs. But your argument rests on dogma and perhaps a strong Libertarian ideology.

Alternatively, I argue that the goal should be about keeping people from getting killed (both with or without guns) and promote a more humane and prosperous society, an ideally, one in which a person doesn't need to keep a gun to feel safe.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Welsh, I respect your opinion and I think you make a lot of damn fine posts.

But, where did DB directly stated a racistic view ? I am just curious. Ive read all pages since the begining of this discussion but I at the moment at least cant remember any specific post from DB with racistic content. But I am also not that well with reading between the lines and might have loose as well sight of something in here.

 

[Ah-Teen]

Hey Johnny- nice to see you back.

I tend to agree, those with hardline opinions are not likely to change their opinions nor even listen to well reasoned arguments. Rather, they are likely to keep repeating the same old, same old.

I also tend to believe that the idea that any politician would try to take away all the guns currently in circulation in the US is insane. There are just too many people who have guns and too many guns in circulation, and besides, most of them won't be used to hurt another person but are probably kept for target practice, hunting or collection.

That said, I don't see why it would be a bad thing to keep armored piercing or Telflon coated bullets out of circulation. I don't see a problem with limiting the number of guns that get bought by Mexican drug dealers who will use them to wage war across our border. I don't see a problem with keeping guns out of the hands of drug gangs in the US or making it harder for them to get guns. I don't see why the government shouldn't be able to ban a gun that is "fingerprint free" and has such bad accuracy that the only real use is to fire it into a room of people and hope someone gets killed.
Then again, I don't think most gun owners have a problem with that either.

I'd like to think that the argument is about reasonable control of guns. In that sense, and you can read above, my position has not been a ban on all guns, but rather reasonable gun controls that can reduce some of the harm that guns cause, reduce the number of fatalities caused by guns, and perhaps take guns away from some criminals.

The question is- what is reasonable?

As noted pages ago, gun controls do work. The fact that gangs have to take added steps to buy guns outside of more heavily restricted rules need to pay higher prices for guns illustrates that point. Other gun controls- from making sure that gun manufacturers don't distribute defective guns, or rules that keep guns safe and secured and out of the hands of children might reduce theft of guns or negligent use of guns.

The evidence to support these controls is out there. Some of it has been cited on past pages of this thread.

One of the counter arguments is that "crimes still happen" thus controls don't work. That guns that are used in crimes often come from regions where there are few controls would suggest the opposite conclusion. More importantly, its unclear how many more gun crime or gun deaths would occur without the controls currently in force. Does the act of registering a license to own a hand gun actually protect lawful gun owners? Would not having that rule make guns more widely available to those who would do harm with them?

Some controls that might be reasonable- no fingerprint proof guns, Locks, rules against straw purchasers, registration, rules about dealing guns only through licensed dealers, training people to safely use guns (perhaps as part of a licensing system), rules governing gun fairs, etc.

On the other hand, there are the extreme positions- No guns allowed (a position I don't support) or No gun control (a position that Dammit Boy has argued) suggest no middle ground.

The rest is mostly in response to Dammit Boy- ....

skimmed over after that last sentence... I don't remember DB ever saying it had anything about genetics and ethnicity.

First off, the accuracy of your argument is in question.
1. Telflon coated bullets - were not designed to be AP nor are they. They were designed to aid mechanical function of the firearm though lubrication on the bullet to ease it's passage though the barrel.

2. Finger-printless guns? Really? Leaving fingerprints is not a function of a firearm. You can leave a retrievable fingerprint on any smooth surface. Typically they take fingerprints from the brass that is ejected and left at the crime scene.

3."I don't see a problem with limiting the number of guns that get bought by Mexican drug dealers who will use them to wage war across our border."
Nothing wrong with that... but I don't believe the guns are coming from us. I love flipping though images of Mexican authorities holding up Chinese type 56 assault rifles, that are illegal to import or sell in the US. And them trying to blame us. Also, I point to Canada. Their officials say most weapons on the streets are stolen from private owners in canada. Now that may have something to do with our extremely tough northern border security.
http://www.gunfacts.info/
It's in there. I've posted the quote before and I don't have time to find it again. Really, if our southern boarder is porous, what is our northern?

Lots of typing isn't necessary nor does it make you right. Do I agree with a middle ground. Hell yes.

We should have a license to own arms. CCW holders are shown to be far less likely to be involved in criminal activity vs those who don't. Again, check out that gun facts website for exact details, its in there. I don't have time to go though it and pluck it out.

Absurd laws like banning a weapon because of the way it looks, because it's whats used more often in crimes vs another weapon(or ammunition) of the same function (Semi-AK-47 vs Saiga, 7.62x39 vs 5.56mm), are retarded.

"One of the counter arguments is that "crimes still happen" thus controls don't work. That guns that are used in crimes often come from regions where there are few controls would suggest the opposite conclusion."

I know your smarter than that. The highest crime areas in the united states are where the gun control laws are the heaviest. On average. International comparison can also be completely eliminated by comparing countries such as Japan and Mexico. Gunfacts.

Thats all I have time for children! GOOD NIGHT!

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

But, where did DB directly stated a racistic view ? I am just curious. Ive read all pages since the begining of this discussion but I at the moment at least cant remember any specific post from DB with racistic content. But I am also not that well with reading between the lines and might have loose as well sight of something in here.

Seconded, I can't believe I going to stick up for DB, but I think he's being unfairly railroaded here. DB may be an abrasive prick, but I think there's some filling of the blanks here that really shouldn't be attributed to him. I don't see DB making claims based solely on skin color or that gun ownership should be outright deregulated and normalized.

I also came across a Mark Twain quote on censorship that I want to throw out that reminded me of this debate:
"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it." I think it's pretty self explanatory.

 

[Crni Vuk]

just that with the quote from Twain is something I see as "ironic statement" which has a truth (obviously) but also includes some generalisation.

I think one of the points is to have working regulations regarding "self made weapons" for example or a general safety rule regarding firearms in use for al states which should make sure that all weapons meet certain standarts (which seem not to be true for all places) and thus makes it illegal to sell firearms that do not meet those standarts and can be seen as extremly dangerous for everyone who wants to use it. I dont think such kind of laws or regulations would cut all to much the "rights" of people that want to buy and own guns particularly when it is to prevent that people use weapons which have a high risk to malfunktion and hurt the shooter.

You have a lot of standarts regarding machines and other objects that are less complicated manufactured then weapons and still some think it cuts their rights to have general standarts for firearms to make sure they meet a certain level of quality before one should get access to them.

 

[welsh]

With regard to DammitBOy-

This conversation was raised over the last two pages and comes up again.

Minorities in inner city communities take the easy fast way out and deal drugs, get involved in gangs that deal in drugs, and commit gun violence in drug war related crimes.

You can talk socio-economic bullshit all you want, you can't help those who will not help themselves. We've been fighting a 'war on poverty' for decades with zero results.

This position by Dammit Boy is basically being used to justify his prescription that the way for everyone else to be safe to be armed.

You'll note- that he squarely places the blame for crime in "people who will not help themselves" and denies evidence that social programs have, over the past decades, shown remarkable achievement in allow poor minorities to escape poverty and enter the middle class. Once in the middle class, the level of violence goes down. This trend helps account for the decrease in homicides over the last few decades, despite spike due to increased drug consumption.

I am not arguing that poor, minority communities don't have a crime problem. What I am arguing is that his answer (to make weapons more available by ending gun control laws) will only increase violence by making guns easier to get. In other words, his desire to secure himself and his position that would normalize weapons in society would also lead to the deaths of more people. Since these people are predominantly poor minorities (people who he claims "won't help themselves") the position is racist.

The answer is to fix the problem (a solution he disbelieves is possible) not to make it easier for people to kill each other.

You are responsible to the foreseeable consequences of your actions and can be judged for those consequences. Dammit Boy doesn't need to come out and say "I hate blacks" to be a racists. Advocating a policy that would lead to more minority deaths is quite enough.

Also- with regard to gun controls- DB has previously stated he is against all forms of gun controls, essentially saying he should have the right to own any kind of weapon he wants and furthermore. He has argued that laws are sufficient if they punish people for wrongful use, which denies the possibility of preventing someone from doing something harmful in the first place.

With regard to fingerproof guns- Intratec
Tec-9 was marketed as "excellent resistance to fingerprints." Arguably this might suggest either resistance to the oils of a human hand, or it would keep fingerprints from being lifted. Is the company marketing to criminals or to people worried about hand oil? Is it a surprise it was popular weapon among criminals- cheap, intimidating, but generally of poor quality.
More here.

As for the relationship between regions with high gun control laws and guns being imported- you are arguing correlations. But governments regulate because there exists a problem that needs to be addressed. If there were no problem, then why regulate.

In dense urban areas where you have poverty you are likely to find high rates of crime. Its unfortunate but crime is more likely suffered by the poor than the rich. Areas with large urban areas, especially cities that have deindustrialized since the 1980s, are especially prone to violence.

Consequently gun controls were passed to regulate those environments, much as towns in the later 19th century American West would regulate whether people could bring guns into towns. The idea was to reduce gun violence.

As for guns-for-drugs trade- that's not unique to the US or Mexico. See also
Afganistan
Jamaica and Haiti. Its also in West Virginia, Virginia and in other states.

Statistics compiled by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms indicate 90 percent of the guns seized in New York City last year came from other states, with 26 percent of them from Virginia. The statistics are based on tracing of 844 guns out of the total of 17,635 guns confiscated in the city last year, said John O'Brien, a spokesman for the bureau.

from here

So these guns going to Mexico are all coming from Canada? True a lot of guns have been stolen from Canada. But they certainly don't account for all the guns being used illegally in the US. Canada had lost about 17,000 guns over 5 years, the same number that were conviscated in New York alone.

I appreciate you guys looking for gun facts. The problem is that those you cite (http://www.gunfacts.info/) is explicitly pro-gun and a lot of the "myths" they are trying to debunk are not even being raised by proponents of reasonable gun control. You can do better than that. You know that not everything you read on the internet is true.

Part of the problem of the debate in gun control are the extreme positions that distort the evidence. That's the problem. Between the voices on the extreme, reasonable analysis is often lost.

You guys are pro-gun, fine. But I think we can all agree that we can reduce crime and the lethal violence caused by guns. The question is how.

Do you take an extreme position and arm everyone by ending all gun control laws?

Seriously, the one reasonable control rule that you guys are willing to discuss has to do with defective weapons and generally is consumer protection. Its a tort law to protect the buyer from a gun exploding in his face- fine. There should be consumer protection. What about keeping guns out of the hands of kids? Or drug dealers? Or even reducing violent crime? Don't the consumers or people that are victims also count?

Your evidence is often coming from the same folks that want to sell you guns so they can make money. If RJ Reynolds told you that smoking wasn't bad for your health, would you believe them? That's what they did for decades and how many people died of heart attack and lung cancer as a result. You can still be pro-gun and be critical of an extreme position.

Imagine- you are pro-gun, you like to hunt and target shoot. Some guy in your neighhorhood buys a couple of dozen pistols and sells them to a dealer for heroin or crack and then distributes those drugs to kids in your neighborhood. Meanwhile the buyer of the guns sells them at inflated prices on the black market in New York to people who shouldn't have the right to own a gun. Perhaps a few of those guns will be used in a killing, and there's a chance that someone unconnected, a lawful citizen, gets killed because of a stray bullet or because they witnessed a crime. I would think that should piss you off.

You can deny it, you can buy a gun and hope it won't affect you, or you can do something about it. I don't mind a person buying a gun because they want to target shoot or hunt or even keep it in their homes. That's their choice and I support that. But it pisses me off that someone can take advantage of regulations in one state to engage in a business in which violence is used to exploit, coerce or kill others. Maybe that's what I find upsetting about the extreme gun rights groups- they really don't give a shit about anyone else but themselves.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

I love it how people seem to assume that all of these homicides and violence with weapons involving young people or "Heated household disputes" is a new thing and has to be because of the amount of firearms in society.

Society has always been violent. We are actually on average the least violent we have every been in history. Oh, and before guns, people carried these around in public.

And before that, pointy wooden sticks and sharp pieces of bone and granite.

Honestly, as a martial arts enthusiast, I support the ban on all firearms except bolt action rifles, and want to bring back the use and carry of swords. Then, only people who have real intention, and have the gaul and skill required will attempt murder in the open.

As for drug cartel violence, I support the legalization of all drugs, but even though they are not, It is immoral and criminal to form an organization dedicated to profit by distribution of narcotics. The drug cartels and gangs should be declared dead by the United States, and I support the raiding of the compounds in South America. But, this would simply be avoided if there wasn't a demand, and since we can't stop the demand, we can only offer citizens a better alternative. Legal distribution of drugs governed by law.

 

[Sander]

I love it how people seem to assume that all of these homicides and violence with weapons involving young people or "Heated household disputes" is a new thing and has to be because of the amount of firearms in society.

Society has always been violent. We are actually on average the least violent we have every been in history. Oh, and before guns, people carried these around in public.

No, cities often did not allow weapons to be carried in public in the past either.

Also, it isn't 'There's now guns, poof there's deaths.' The question is whether or not guns make a significant impact on either violence or deaths, that has very little to do with whether or not society itself is now less violent than it used to be.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

The Victorian era in England put a ban on Swords yes, but there was still a market. There were still murders. Eastern Europe, Italy, and Germany allowed sword carry at all times around this period (1500-1750). The law wasn't noticed for long since the hand held firearm paradigm was coming into effect and the ideas of social class and order were changing towards a more industrialized society.

And yes guns make a significant impact on violence and death. Multiply the amount of people I can kill at the mall with my hands to the power of 7......thousand.

Basically, the amount of violence today is lower, but the amount of people killed during confrontation is higher due to the technology of mechanized killing.

 

[Sander]

The Victorian era in England put a ban on Swords yes, but there was still a market.
There were still murders. France, Italy, and other parts of Europe allowed sword carry.

I was actually talking about laws regarding sword carry in medieval Europe, where it was often limited.

Also, of course there was a market and there were murders. As there are now. So the situation isn't really fundamentally different.

And yes guns make a significant impact on violence and death. Multiply the amount of people I can kill at the mall with my hands to the power of 7......thousand.

You have to be the 8th guy in this thread to just barge in and fail to read what the argument is actually about. No, dear Dopemine Cleric, a greater capacity to kill does not automagically lead to signicantly more deaths.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

I was actually talking about laws regarding sword carry in medieval Europe, where it was often limited.

Also, of course there was a market and there were murders. As there are now. So the situation isn't really fundamentally different.

The laws regarding sword carry in Medieval Europe were class driven, and didn't allow the carry of swords by peasants as the sword was a symbol of authority and purity towards god/the church/the state. Also, swords were expensive compared to other weapons such as warhammers and polearms, and the idea of a peasant carrying a sword was reflected as a social taboo. The Renaissance era actually allowed the carry of swords by more social classes, and more crime resulted as such due to the social norms of gentlemanly honor and enterprise "Which could translate towards today". But, there was also less tyranny and oppression in this time.

You have to be the 8th guy in this thread to just barge in and fail to read what the argument is actually about. No, dear Dopemine Cleric, a greater capacity to kill does not automagically lead to signicantly more deaths.

Ha, okay, bite and have sarcasm within your jaws. You seem to fail at seeing the parallels between society and the killing capacity of weapons and their availability have everything to do with the topic of this discussion. Also you seem to be unable to discern between personal opinion and factualized statements of relevance.

 

[Sander]

The laws regarding sword carry in Medieval Europe were class driven, and didn't allow the carry of swords by peasants as the sword was a symbol of authority and purity towards god/the church/the state. Also, swords were expensive compared to other weapons such as warhammers and polearms, and the idea of a peasant carrying a sword was reflected as a social taboo.

That class distinction was effectively just an authoritarian distinction. Not that different from allowing police officers and the military to carry weapons, as the classes that were allowed the use of weapons weren't going to be using them for petty crime, generally.

That said, I was commenting more on the idea that before the advent of firearms there were no weapon laws and everyone just ran around brandishing weapons.

The Renaissance era actually allowed the carry of swords by more social classes, and more crime resulted as such due to the social norms of gentlemanly honor and enterprise "Which could translate towards today". But, there was also less tyranny and oppression in this time.

I can't find any literature on this change, so I'll just take your word for it, or hope you can provide some sources.

Ha, okay, bite and have sarcasm within your jaws. You seem to fail at seeing the parallels between society and the killing capacity of weapons and their availability have everything to do with the topic of this discussion. Also you seem to be unable to discern between personal opinion and factualized statements of relevance.

You seem to fail at seeing the difference between me commenting on your societal comments, and your offhand comment about guns => more violence.

Also, when you state something as fact ("And yes guns make a significant impact on violence and death."), don't be surprised when people take it as such.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Nah, you can source it yourself. I'm tired of "Dueling" and bending over backwards for you so you can get your jollies. Funny, you keep feinting on ill-relevance and using bait-and-switch arguments rather than finding legitimate topics for discussion.

Here's some links. You can google the rest or wait to be spoonfed like a 4 year old.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac88

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Z7E&sa=N&um=1

 

[Sander]

Here's some links. You can google the rest or wait to be spoonfed like a 4 year old.

Quick googles and looks through the network of university libraries revealed almost solely pieces on practical weapons development and very few on the use of weapons in normal society, or laws regarding said things. My 2 huge tomes on European history gave no information either.

But thanks for sourcing (a piece on the rapier with aside remarks on societal changes, and a piece on art history) anyway, and being a whiny little bitch about it.
Since when the fuck is asking that people back up their statements when you can't find any sources yourself a bad thing, by the way?
It's not like firing off random, unsourceable and unfactual statements isn't a common internet pastime.

Late Edit: Also, what the fuck, I said I'd take your word for it and would appreciate any sources. I didn't even remotely come close to going 'Source your arguments or you're wrong!' Or whatever else you're accusing me of doing.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Bah, you caught me.

I was trying to make an argument, I don't know what of.


Neh Neh Neh Neh! Look at my sword bitches! Neh Neh Neh Neh

I'm better than you, Neh Neh Neh Neh!



No not really. It's not usually bad to ask people for backup sources, but you particularly Sander, have a bad habit of arguing and bitching for no reason because it's fun or something.