Gun Control. Knife Control. Tomorrow, pointy sticks?

[Cerek]

Aragarn - Please show me the Constitutional Amendment that grants us the right to own another human being.

The Right to Bear Arms (provided by the 2nd Amendment) is designed to make sure the general populace can be armed to resist our OWN government IF it should ever become as oppressive as our Founding Fathers felt the British gov't was at that time. It is NOT designed solely for protection against outside invasion. It was another measure used to put prevent our government turning into a tyranny (though many here would probably argue it is already dangerously close to that outcome after the last election ).

[Jorath Calar]

Well, it wasn't Aragorn who wrote what you were answering but me... [img]smile.gif[/img]
Anyway, the reason I wrote that it allowed people to own another human being is because, I thought the original constitution allowed people to keep slaves but was changed with the 13th amandment later...

But I was wrong... and I admit it, it doesn't say so explicitly and I apologise. I heard this some time ago and of course just believed it.
Then, now when reading your reply I actually read the constitution (well skimmed over it [img]smile.gif[/img] ) and couldn't find it saying so explicitly, guess they meant that by not addressing slavery in the original 10 amandments slavery was seen as being accepted.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Stratos: As some others have expressed before, no one will be able to convinced me that guns aren't designed to kill. That's their entire purpose, to harm or kill living organism. Saying otherwise is, IMHO, just obscuring an uncomfortable fact. What we then use the gun for is a differerent matter, but the arms industry ain't spending millions of dollars on R&D and production of guns for us to shot empty beer cans with.

Well I personally agree with VulcanRiders definition - that a gun is designed to put a metal projectile through a chosen target. And it is up to the individual to determine what that target should be. Millions of dollars is spent on R&D simply because we Americans DO love our guns in a variety of shapes, sizes and powers.

But even if you and others want to insist that the intended purpose of guns is to harm or kill other people, I and others have shown that it CAN be used for other purposes. And the fact is that the VAST majority of guns owners in America do NOT use their guns for this so called "intended purpose".

Guns DO have other purposes BESIDES inflicting injury on another person. So banning guns based on the presumption that inflicting injury is the primary purpose is nothing more than reactionary legislation that seeks to blame the object rather than the PERSON for the actions the owner takes. And it also fully supports VulcanRiders original point - that many objects CAN be used to inflict injury even if this is not their "intended purpose". IF we are going to ban guns because they are designed to harm other people, then we would have no choice but to ban all these other tools with designs that can harm other people.

ORRRRRRRRRR we could actually try placing the blame solely on the PERSON who inflicts the harm instead of blaming the object he/she used.

[Stratos]

Originally posted by Cerek: quote: Originally posted by Stratos: As some others have expressed before, no one will be able to convinced me that guns aren't designed to kill. That's their entire purpose, to harm or kill living organism. Saying otherwise is, IMHO, just obscuring an uncomfortable fact. What we then use the gun for is a differerent matter, but the arms industry ain't spending millions of dollars on R&D and production of guns for us to shot empty beer cans with.

Well I personally agree with VulcanRiders definition - that a gun is designed to put a metal projectile through a chosen target. And it is up to the individual to determine what that target should be. Millions of dollars is spent on R&D simply because we Americans DO love our guns in a variety of shapes, sizes and powers.

But even if you and others want to insist that the intended purpose of guns is to harm or kill other people, I and others have shown that it CAN be used for other purposes. And the fact is that the VAST majority of guns owners in America do NOT use their guns for this so called "intended purpose".

Guns DO have other purposes BESIDES inflicting injury on another person. So banning guns based on the presumption that inflicting injury is the primary purpose is nothing more than reactionary legislation that seeks to blame the object rather than the PERSON for the actions the owner takes. And it also fully supports VulcanRiders original point - that many objects CAN be used to inflict injury even if this is not their "intended purpose". IF we are going to ban guns because they are designed to harm other people, then we would have no choice but to ban all these other tools with designs that can harm other people.

ORRRRRRRRRR we could actually try placing the blame solely on the PERSON who inflicts the harm instead of blaming the object he/she used. [/QUOTE]It's not about who is to blame, anyone who kills another with intend is to be blamed, and neither is it about banning guns because their made to inflict harm, something I haven't proposed. I just reject the notion that the purpose of a gun isn't about causing harm and death. I doubt that the millions of dollars spent on R&D are just to entertain civilian Americans, regardless of how much you like guns. It's more likely that new weapon technology is developed to aid the US military as they and their contractors are the main researchers in this field, and where new technology goes first and foremost.

[Chewbacca]

I figured this thread deserves the text of the second amendment so we can discuss it in context rather than bits and parts.

"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." Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

If you ask me, who is not a lawyer nor profess to be some expert, the 2nd amendment give both the right to bear arms AND the directive to "well-regulate" them.

In other words gun control is not only constitutional, a lack of gun control is unconstitutional and at the same time blanket bans are not allowed unless for the purposes of well-regulation. I interpret "well" in this instance to mean laws that make common sense, are fair and are effective.

Banning handguns here in the U.S. would be inneffective, would make no sense, and would not be fair to honest people wanting self-defense for long, long time- not to mention political suicide.

There are simply too many handguns available, with millions upon millions manufactured every year. It would take generations for handgun supply to dry up and the sustained crime caused by the gap during disarmamnet would drive up demand from both criminals and ordinary folk looking for protection.

Indeed prohibition would breed an artifical blackkmarket just like the drug war. Street prices might increase, but not alot considering just how many freaking guns are available in the U.S.A.


Before all this could happen, we would probably have a swift change in government and a repeal on any law put forth and signed that outright bans guns. Guns would be legal and cheap once again and all would be well...unless you happen to get shot.

[ 05-29-2005, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Jorath Calar: ~snip~ But I was wrong... and I admit it, it doesn't say so explicitly and I apologise. I heard this some time ago and of course just believed it. Then, now when reading your reply I actually read the constitution (well skimmed over it [img]smile.gif[/img] ) and couldn't find it saying so explicitly, guess they meant that by not addressing slavery in the original 10 amandments slavery was seen as being accepted.

Actually several of the framers of the Constitution lobbied for abolition, and putting the banning of slavery into the main document, however a compromise was made in order to get the states that ran primarily on slavery to sign on, IIRC a time limit was set on how long slaves could be imported, and after that time they could no longer be imported from Africa.

[Aragorn1]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: "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." Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

If you ask me, who is not a lawyer nor profess to be some expert, the 2nd amendment give both the right to bear arms AND the directive to "well-regulate" them. [/QUOTE]What this would seem to imply, although i can't claim to be a statutory interpretation expert, is that the militia should be well-regulated, not the guns.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Cerek: That's an interesting response, Grojlach. I especially like the sentence I highlighted, because it is RARELY the Americans who compare themselves to Europe in gun debates. It was shamrock that drew the comparison in this thread, NOT VulcanRider.

No, it was the article I was responding to, not VulcanRider or Shamrock in particular. Make sure you read it in its entirety, I don't think you really saw what I was getting at. It's like you just read the line you quoted, forgot about the rest and wrote your entire argument based on only those few words and VR and Shamrock's earlier debate, unfortunately.

Originally posted by Cerek: Although I DO see another interesting trend in your response and the subsequent article you posted. Europeans criticise the American attitude towards gun ownership and point at their own societies as proof that guns aren't needed and gun laws are effective at preventing crime. Then someone points out that crime is actually going UP, despite the gun laws and the European response is "Well Yes, but that has NOTHING to do with gun ownership. There are MANY other factors that should be considered."

You keep missing the point. Sure, guns aren't needed, but no one here in Western Europe would even contest that - we've been gun free for as long as I can remember. What I was saying however is that rising crime figures in Europe have very little to do with gun restriction laws, precisely because of the fact that we don't have a gun culture over here and that any formal restriction laws hardly affected anyone, because on the whole no one really cared about gun ownership in the first place. The author of that article is however trying to use completely unrelated statistics to further her own agenda. We've got a lot of social unrest and dito problems over here, but trying to put on your NRA-minded glasses as this person does and insinuating this has anything to do with a lack of guns, is simply showing a complete disregard for any social or cultural developments in Europe for the past 15 years or so. I could probably write an essay about how the cancellation of 'Twin Peaks' led to an increase in crime and use the very same statistics, but that still wouldn't make a very strong case.
I'd even go as far as rephrasing this bit

"Well Yes, but that has NOTHING to do with gun ownership. There are MANY other factors that should be considered."

to "Well Yes, but that has NOTHING to do with gun ownership. There are MANY factors that should be considered, but gun restriction legislation isn't one of them."

As for this part:

Europeans criticise the American attitude towards gun ownership and point at their own societies as proof that guns aren't needed and gun laws are effective at preventing crime.

There's still very little wrong with that reasoning in itself, especially if you'd say it in response to Americans claiming that guns are needed for 'protection' and to create a 'safe society'. But I reckon you intended it to be more of an example of Europeans meddling with American affairs and forcing their own ways on you, which I agree could be seen as an attitude of hypocrisy regarding the rest of your argument.
But to be honest, only if crime figures in the US were incredibly low and those in Europe ridiculously high you'd really have a point. Misleading articles and bold statements aside, that's simply not the case.

Anyway, just for the record - I may disagree with gun ownership entirely. I may have praised my own gun-free society and voiced my concerns on how a gun-ridden society like the US would make anyone feel safer (which was pretty much what I thought Michael Moore for example was trying to convey), but I don't care about anti-gun lobbyist groups or fierce gun restriction law proposals because it doesn't concern me. I may think the application of the second amendment is somewhat disappointing, but I'm not contesting its validity - I realize that in the end it's a personal decision, permitted by your laws; and I respect that.
Criminal behaviour can't be rooted out, period. You can only work towards establishing a culture that uses less lethal means to 'defend' itself and in a way lowering the fear level of said culture, but you can't establish that by banning something from one day to another that people rely on too heavily for their sense of safety. If a nation isn't ready for that, then don't do it.

Originally posted by Cerek: Very well. Then take your own advice and consider that there may also be "several other factors" that lead to the number of murders in the US. Guns ARE responsible for the majority of them, simply because guns are more readily available and easy to use. However, if guns were outlawed, then people would just find a different weapon to use - such as knives. Outlaw knives, then the killers might use a club or ball bat. Outlaw those and the killers could use a screwdriver or hammer. Outlaw those and.....well, I think you can see a pattern here...and this was the point VulcanRider was making in his opening post. Outlawing long sharp knives just is nothing more than reactionary legislation. So what if the top chefs of the world don't use them, what about Jane Average Housewife? How many of us really use the same utensils and cooking styles of top chefs anyway? If legislation is passed forcing citizens to prove they have a legitimate reason to own a long sharp knife, then it is a very easy step to expand that legislation to force those same citizens to prove they have a reason to own a hammer or screwdriver. BOTH of these tools could also be used in a "crime of passion", so that nullifies shamrocks argument.

I will disregard this as it has very little to do with my own post. I'm sorry if it was confusing you, but it was basically an off topic response regarding the article that paid little heed to Shamrock and VulcanRider's ongoing debate.

Originally posted by Cerek: Still, it was nice of you to acknowledge that there IS a basic difference in the American and European psyche regarding gun ownership, so any comparisons between the two really aren't valid.

I don't think I've ever contested that in the first place. While you could still compare the two, I don't think applying the system of one onto the other would be really fair. While I think some gun restrictions are in order for the sake of common sense (assault weapons), the US is a gun culture - I may have little respect for gun ownership overall and I may applaud anyone giving up on them entirely out of their own free will, but I'm not forcing anyone to get rid of them.
It's nice of you to say that it's nice of me to acknowledge that , but honestly - it really is somewhat of a disappointment if this is attitude is truly surprising to you. I might get the feeling you're generalizing a wee bit too much now, giving me very little credit in the process.

[ 05-30-2005, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by VulcanRider: The question is, do you feel more comfortable with just the criminals armed, or with criminals and honest citizens armed?

There's a glaring cultural difference there. To rephrase it somewhat, do I feel more comfortable with a society that on the whole rejects guns, even if some criminals manage get a hold of it? My answer would be yes. Not counting incidents, I actually feel a lot safer here in Europe than I would be if I moved to the US. The knowledge that every person and his toothless grandmother could be carrying a gun is hardly comforting in my opinion, and would only push me more into the direction of purchasing one myself just to keep up - destroying the sense of safety I used to have and only raising the level of fear and paranoia.

I suppose your own feelings on the subject are closer to the opposite, though.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Azred: No, I think a sufficiently long period of time has elapsed to accurately measure the effect of bans or restrictions on guns. The net effect: bans/restrictions don't work, just like Prohibition didn't work and the War on Drugs didn't work.

That's a very bold statement that I would love to see you support with some evidence. While I agree with the Prohibition/War on Drugs example, and while I'm pretty sure a ban on guns in the US wouldn't work in a million years, I don't think you can hold that claim for other, less gun-fixated nations. In a similar fashion to taking cultural and social developments into account as I applied in my previous posts in this topic, I'm not going to claim that statistics are automatically conclusive; but if you look at for instance homicide rates, those are still significantly higher in the US than in Western Europe. I'm not going to make bold claims as to the effectiveness of gun restriction laws based on that figure, but I can't imagine you stating that it has no effect whatsoever in the face of this knowledge.

Also see
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502.pdf

[ 05-30-2005, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]