Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
JustAnotherCommenter
Posts: 62
Joined: April 11th, 2013, 5:28 pm

Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by JustAnotherCommenter » April 25th, 2013, 10:25 pm

So to get that argument out of the way right to start with: yeah the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of an American to own a gun. This is a constitutional right, but the constitution also used to allow slavery, we changed that, used to allow alcohol, we changed that it was pretty awful and so then we changed it back. It used to be that women couldn't vote and a black man was 2/3 of a person for census purposes and no one(well I suppose almost no one) thinks that either of those things is ok anymore. So yes, the constitution says you can own a gun but that's only an argument for your right in the courts. The constitution can be changed. So this thread is about whether people should be allowed to own guns and if the answer is no saying "but the constitution says so" isn't a counter argument.

Some background. I was born in small town redneck USA and when I get riled up sometimes my inner hick comes through. I moved to the New England area though and went to school at what would probably be called a "liberal" university. I lean left politically but don't think "democrat" is a term that can define my political views. I used to own guns myself and I still go skeet shooting with a friend of mine sometimes. Now that we got that out of the way...

The most common arguments I hear for guns are something like: if you outlaw them then only the criminals will have them. The idea is that people need guns for self defense. I question if this is really a fair point. Most gun advocates argue that guns aren't as accident prone as anti-gun people say because a gun kept locked up in a gun safe and unloaded (which the majority of them say it should be) can't go off accidentally or be easily taken by say a kid and used. But, if your gun is unloaded and locked up how effective is it for self defense?

If a guy broke into my house I think it would be more effective for me to either call the cops and hide or have a baseball bat ready to hit him with than it would be to go unlock my gun case, load my gun, and then go after him. Another part of this is that if all guns were illegal to own by the public then cops could make it much harder for criminals to get them and impose much harsher penalties on those who use them in crimes. If all guns were illegal than just owning one would be a crime making it much less likely that any given criminal would have one on him and would make him guilty of more charges in any crime.

Another thing that people say is that if a lot more people had guns crime would go down. But is this really reasonable? If you thought you'd get shot breaking into a guys house maybe you would think twice about it, but people have plenty of guns now and houses get broken into. What seems more likely is that the dude breaking in might get himself a gun because he's afraid the house owner might have one. If neither the house owner or the break in guy had guns the break in might still happen, but its much less likely that it will escalate to killing. In the UK far fewer people have guns and far fewer murders are committed. Would we need the same kind of "stand your ground laws" if neither person was allowed a gun?

This is getting long so one story and I'll stop and listen to what you all have to say. I was listening to a right wing radio host (honestly don't remember who) and a dude called in to talk about the Colorado law that they were trying to pass to ban "high capacity magazines." He was arguing that people really need those high capacity magazines. Honest to God this was his argument: What if your at home asleep and 4 or 5 guys break into your house? There are two in your bedroom and you've got your gun there so you kill both of them but that takes like say 3 shots each. So now you've shot 6 shots and maybe you have 1 or 2 left but there are two more guys in your kids room and maybe a 5th guy somewhere else in the house. So if you had a high capacity magazine in that gun you'd have enough bullets left to go and kill the rest of them and protect your family but now your almost out.

When I heard that I just put my head in my hands. I thought it was just a ridiculous scenario and one of the worst arguments I'd heard in favor of having these guns in your house. Well that's my thoughts. What do you guys think?

MazerRackhem
Posts: 154
Joined: February 13th, 2013, 9:19 pm

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by MazerRackhem » April 26th, 2013, 1:15 am

This certainly is a rather contentious issue with a many faceted set of problems and solutions. I like you own guns but I don't think of them as tools for self protection. I grew up with a family where hunting was the primary source of the meat we put on our tables. I don't get to hunt as much as I used to but I still enjoy it. I was first introduced to sporting clays as an undergrad and although I rarely do it any longer I still keep a bird gun in my house for clay shooting even though I've never hunted birds.

I think your argument against allowing people to purchase and hold guns falters on the grounds of the self defense argument. Even if guns are not an effective deterrent against crime my guess is that few guns in America are held for that purpose. My grandparents, parents, and uncles/aunts all have guns and live in very rural areas of the country where crime is nearly nonexistent. My Grandma still hunts during deer season and owns guns solely for that purpose. My uncles have gone on several hunting trips out west and own guns for hunting which are completely impractical for self defense purposes.

Another area of gun usage which falls outside of your argument is the use of guns in sport. Several Olympic sports use rifles, shotguns, and handguns. A person may own guns and never have any intention of killing either humans or animals with them. Skeet, trap, the biathlon, and other sporting events involve shooting but have nothing to do with self defense. A person may be involved in shooting sports and own guns for that purpose alone. Outlawing guns outright would prevent these activities and, in my opinion, offer little practical good as a result.

In regards to your argument that violent crime is lower in Europe where guns are less prevalent, this is certainly true. However, it has been shown that if all crimes involving a gun are removed from both data sets the American crime rates are higher than the corresponding European ones in precisely the same proportions of crimes not involving a gun as those involving guns. Thus the crime statistics are an artifact of the American culture and social forces, not of the prevalence of guns. In other words, Americans commit more crimes involving guns than do citizens of the UK, but they also commit more violent crimes with knives and without weapons than do UK citizens.

This seems to indicate that placing greater restrictions on firearms in America would likely lower only the rate of crimes involving firearms and not the rate of violent crime overall. Additionally the rate of violent crime has fallen steadily in both America and Europe over the last hundred years even as guns have become more powerful and more inexpensive to purchase.

We certainly must draw the line somewhere. I don't think there is any reason why an average private citizen should own a 50 caliber sniper rifle, a vehicle mounted machine gun, or an RPG. However, outlawing guns all together would put an end to shooting sports, hunting (which in the absence of large predators is the currently the only way in many areas to keep the whitetail population at sustainable levels), and other positive aspects of gun ownership without any significant reduction in violence or increased safety for private individuals.

User avatar
wanabe
Posts: 3388
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by wanabe » April 26th, 2013, 4:01 am

JustAnotherCommenter,

Sorry I'm just gonna be lazy and free-form this....

People should be allowed to own guns any carry them, yes like cowboy movies.

The problem is the certification process, if there were standards like there were for cars then things would be better. The reason this didn't happen is because of the gun lobbies assertion of the 2nd amendment fought to stop restrictions on gun ownership because of constitutional tradition alone, and they certainly went wrong there. The laws you mention in your opening about the constitution gave people more freedom. The laws now take freedom away that's a key distinction you did not make. I assert that with great freedom comes great responsibly.

On a moral level guns are only meant for killing, and killing is wrong, but the only thing worse than killing is not stopping someone who is killing or will eminently. An effective way to stop someone from killing is with a gun. Cops are not that effective at preventing crime, there simply isn't enough of them, there never could be.

If every teacher at a school had a gun or close to it, these crazies who go shooting kids wouldn't be able to kill anybody because the whole school would form against them. The guns could be kept in a safe in each class room, if the idea of having armed teachers scares people. Sure we could have cops in every class room that carry guns but that's extremely taxing. Trained and armed teachers could be just as effective without the oppressive ambiance and high cost of a constant police presence. Teachers would be much more mindful of collateral damage from gun fire because they intimately know the people they are around.

Guns have been invented, they are not something people will give up. It does not matter if guns are legal to own or not, people who want them will get them. There will just be more bombings if guns are made illegal. Yes crimes involving guns will go down, but we could have the same effect with proper licensing while maintaining the same relative level of freedom. Why go for a total reversal?

Comparing the UK or some other euro country to USA is folly. The US has so much more space to govern. Saying the UK has fewer murders is like looking at statistics for a single state. If were going that route let's look at a state that has great levels of gun ownership and see how many gun related crimes they have. New Mexico or Arizona might be good places to look into.

I don't trust the American government enough to allow them to take away guns. America is the most oppressive force in the world and would be free to turn on it's own people if they did not own guns. They have eroded freedom of speech and assembly to practically nothing. We can be detained without reason, indefinitely, so long as the government calls the person a "terrorist." Government corruption and malpractice is so common place we barely shrug at it any more. Effectively we are only allowed to shop and pay taxes, those are our only rights. The Democrats and Republicans work as a tag team slowly eroding citizen rights under the guise of safety, they do this by scaring us into submission. From terrorists, to school shootings. The patriot act which allows illegal search, seizure and indefinite detention. Mandated medical insurance that does not grantee actual medical treatment. Food laws that protect company profits over the health of citizens. We have all these problems because of the government, and people are so willing to give up their gun rights because the gov hypes up school shootings. People are just feed up with the system, and some just don't know how to vent properly.

Making guns illegal is just a stupid as criminalizing alcohol and marijuana consumption or immigration. America likes to declare "wars" on peoples freedom. If they spent the money they spent on the "war effort" providing social programs we would be much better off.

At the end of the day it's about maintaining freedom, yes sometimes that costs lives. I don't think people should give up freedom when they are afraid, because doing so only makes them increasingly powerless thus a greater potential for fear in the future.

Really though weapons are Americas number one export, that and war, it's what the USA makes the most money on. You think the government going to make it illegal if they are making so much money at it?
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.

Keithprosser3
Posts: 364
Joined: April 15th, 2013, 7:22 am

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by Keithprosser3 » April 26th, 2013, 6:53 am

If guns are for home defence, why do we have laws and insurance? I am quite attached to my few possessions, but I won't kill anyone to keep them. I rather think that some of these guys are rather hoping someone will break in so they can blast away at the bad guys....

JustAnotherCommenter
Posts: 62
Joined: April 11th, 2013, 5:28 pm

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by JustAnotherCommenter » April 26th, 2013, 2:27 pm

Well I said I used to own guns, not that I do own guns anymore. There is a gun at my parents place that I think is "technically" mine but I haven't used it in years.
MazerRackhem wrote:. Thus the crime statistics are an artifact of the American culture and social forces, not of the prevalence of guns.
Can't you argue that the guns themselves are part of the culture? Does just subtracting out the crimes that involve guns really remove the influence of guns on the crime statistics?
MazerRackhem wrote: Another area of gun usage which falls outside of your argument is the use of guns in sport.
What if private ownership at home was outlawed but people could own guns that they kept at a gun range for shooting sports?
wanabe wrote: If every teacher at a school had a gun or close to it, these crazies who go shooting kids wouldn't be able to kill anybody because the whole school would form against them.
What if it's the teacher who goes crazy? Wouldn't it be better to just not have anybody with guns in the school? If kids couldn't get guns to take to school we wouldn't need teachers to shoot them down.
wanabe wrote: There will just be more bombings if guns are made illegal.
I'm not so sure that's true, why should bombings go up?
wanabe wrote: Comparing the UK or some other euro country to USA is folly. The US has so much more space to govern.
Yes we have more space and more people but the statistics are per captia so that really doesn't matter.
wanabe wrote: America is the most oppressive force in the world and would be free to turn on it's own people if they did not own guns.
Tell that to the citizens of North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.
wanabe wrote: Government corruption and malpractice is so common place we barely shrug at it any more.
Do we have problems with this? Sure we do. Are our problems on par with say India? Not even close, not even by a little bit. All governments have to deal with corruption but the US has one of the most open and least corrupt systems worldwide, we're 22 of 178 internationally according to transparency groups. (New Zealand is almost always #1)If you look at a map of global transparency and corruption scales we look incredibly good compared to almost anyone else. Here's a link to the map from one group (Transparency International) from 2010 (the first year I found searching Google) http://www.transparency.org/cpi2010/results
wanabe wrote: they do this by scaring us into submission. From terrorists, to school shootings.
The number of violent deaths in America from any source has been steadily declining for over 100 years with the exception of a brief up tick in the 60s and early 70s. Overall violence today is much much less than it was 100 years ago. You hear more about it in the news because its so less common and so more newsworthy, not because violence is actually going up.
wanabe wrote: Really though weapons are Americas number one export, that and war, it's what the USA makes the most money on. You think the government going to make it illegal if they are making so much money at it?
Actually our number 1 export is technology and technologies services. The government spends a lot of money on guns and wars, it doesn't acutely make any money of off them. Also the thread isn't about what the government will do but what is the right thing to do, regardless of whether the government will do it.

You seem to think that people having guns stops the government from oppressing them. This may have been a factor 200 years ago but is not a reasonable position today. 200 years ago private citizens had the same weapons as the military. Today, even if it were legal no private citizens could afford drones, smart bombs, tanks, heavy artillery, satellite surveillance, etc. No militia group of citizens could possibly fight of the US Army if it came to that, not even for a week if the Army really wanted them gone.

But the Army isn't made of robots who do what the government says without question. In order for "the government" (really kind of a misnomer anyway since "the government" is just people like you and me that we vote into office and can vote back out again) to oppress the people (not pass laws some people find offensive but to actualy oppress people) they have to have the backing of the military. So we have to assume that the military is just as corrupt as the government. But if we assume that the battle's already over, I don't care what kind of gun you keep in your house, when the US marines roll up outside, the insurrection is over and you've already lost.

MazerRackhem
Posts: 154
Joined: February 13th, 2013, 9:19 pm

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by MazerRackhem » April 26th, 2013, 3:49 pm

JustAnotherCommenter wrote: Well I said I used to own guns, not that I do own guns anymore.
My mistake.
JustAnotherCommenter wrote: Can't you argue that the guns themselves are part of the culture? Does just subtracting out the crimes that involve guns really remove the influence of guns on the crime statistics?
It seems a rather tendentious position to argue that the number of crimes which have no guns involved is higher than it would be if guns were outlawed. Why should the presence of guns in a society incite its populace to commit a higher number of crimes unrelated to gun violence?
JustAnotherCommenter wrote: What if private ownership at home was outlawed but people could own guns that they kept at a gun range for shooting sports?
This would still preclude the use of firearms in hunting and, as I said before, I do not believe that disallowing the private ownership of firearms would actually reduce violence. If violence is not reduced what would be the purpose of outlawing private ownership? I'm a little surprised that someone who used to own guns and still engages in skeet shooting from time to time is an anti-gun advocate. Your argument seems to remain contingent on the use of firearms for the purposes of defense. While I agree they are only marginally useful in deterring violent threat they have many other valid uses. Knives can be used to kill as well, though no one is seriously considering outlawing the use of knives except in supervised restaurants.

I don't agree with a lot of what wannabe wrote but I do think he has a point in regards to the bombings. If we removed one weapon from people it seems unlikely that the total number of violent acts would drop appreciably. What seems more likely is that violent persons would simply move on to the use of new weapons.

User avatar
wanabe
Posts: 3388
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by wanabe » April 26th, 2013, 10:14 pm

JustAnotherCommenter wrote:What if it's the teacher who goes crazy? Wouldn't it be better to just not have anybody with guns in the school? If kids couldn't get guns to take to school we wouldn't need teachers to shoot them down.
The "______ goes crazy and uses a gun" is always an option regardless of legality. It would be best if no one had guns, but that's not possible.

I'm not so sure that's true, why should bombings go up?
People who want to violently kill who can't use guns because they don't know how to talk to the right people will make pipe bombs from stuff at their hardware store.

Statistics are one thing real facts are another. Like MazerRackhem said
in regards to your argument that violent crime is lower in Europe where guns are less prevalent, this is certainly true. However, it has been shown that if all crimes involving a gun are removed from both data sets the American crime rates are higher than the corresponding European ones in precisely the same proportions of crimes not involving a gun as those involving guns. Thus the crime statistics are an artifact of the American culture and social forces, not of the prevalence of guns. In other words, Americans commit more crimes involving guns than do citizens of the UK, but they also commit more violent crimes with knives and without weapons than do UK citizens.

I think we should put the stats aside for now because there are no shortages of stats for either side. Let's talk ideas not numbers, just a suggestion.
Tell that to the citizens of North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.
Yes, those countries would all agree USA oppresses them in many ways mostly economic.
Do we have problems with this? Sure we do. Are our problems on par with say India? Not even close, not even by a little bit. All governments have to deal with corruption but the US has one of the most open and least corrupt systems worldwide, we're 22 of 178 internationally according to transparency groups. (New Zealand is almost always #1)If you look at a map of global transparency and corruption scales we look incredibly good compared to almost anyone else. Here's a link to the map from one group (Transparency International) from 2010 (the first year I found searching Google) http://www.transparency.org/cpi2010/results
"22" is not a number to be proud of. There is so much these groups can't see to begin with, their analysis is anecdotal at best.

Maybe violence is actually going down. Regardless, the fact that it's shown adds to my point that the government uses the media to scare people into submission.

"Technology and technology services," yes code for missiles and their guidance systems and training. Sorry I was using guns metaphorically. Whatever the gov spends the money on they get back in taxes or as the spoils of war. To think that the people who wanted the war in the first place are not benefiting from it being the longest war in US history is just naive.
You seem to think that people having guns stops the government from oppressing them. This may have been a factor 200 years ago but is not a reasonable position today. 200 years ago private citizens had the same weapons as the military. Today, even if it were legal no private citizens could afford drones, smart bombs, tanks, heavy artillery, satellite surveillance, etc. No militia group of citizens could possibly fight of the US Army if it came to that, not even for a week if the Army really wanted them gone.
I'm a veteran, I know what military people are like. No they are not robots, they are much worse, they are brainwashed demons. The military is far more corrupt than the government. The only reason they haven't lashed out on their own citizens is because it hasn't become economically viable to do so, and no one has told them to.

Why is it so hard to fight "terrorists" in the middle east using weapons from the 70's? Guns don't stop oppression, but they give the ability to fight it.

Part of the government is the citizens, it's not a misnomer to identify the difference between government and citizens in the US which is a representative democracy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bottom line people should have licensees to own, carry and use guns, just like we do with cars. The NRA can be made in charge of the licensing and financially everyone wins. I'm fine with logical restrictions on guns, they are intended to be dangerous after all. An all out ban will start a civil war via domestic terrorism. That's my conclusion.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.

Eonblue
Posts: 38
Joined: April 20th, 2013, 3:41 pm

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by Eonblue » April 27th, 2013, 2:26 am

JustAnotherCommenter wrote: This is a constitutional right, but the constitution also used to allow slavery
Nowhere in the constitution does it allow slavery. It doesn't ban it but that's a different subject entirely.
JustAnotherCommenter wrote:used to allow alcoho
The Constitution didn't allow alcohol. The 18th amendment allowed a prohibition but using this amendment to compromise the integrity of the Constitution would not be accurate. The 18th amendment was drafted in 1920 nearly 150 years after the Bill of Rights and the 2nd amendment. Although they were both part of the Constitution the 2nd amendment is part of ideological foundation far more important the prohibition.
JustAnotherCommenter wrote:It used to be that women couldn't vote
The Constitution in all cases of gender and race have person or people. There's never a specified gender or race. Womens suffrages was enforced on a state level.
JustAnotherCommenter wrote: a black man was 2/3 of a person
The Constitution in all cases of gender and race have person or people. There's never a specified gender or race.

Your attempt to compromise the integrity of the Constitution and muddle the intentions of the people lacks concrete evidence. I would gladly welcome any specific incidence where the Constitution directly enforces any of the above injustices. One of the great things about the Constitution has been are ability to expand on it. The 13th amendment abolished slavery. The 15th amendment guarantees voting rights and prohibits state and federal government discrimination based on race, color, and creed.The 19th prohibits voting right discrimination based on sex.

The Constitution has not exercised discrimination and in fact it has strengthened democracy in this country. It protects citizens in so many way. You can say that the Constitutions granted right to own a gun is not a counter argument but the 2nd amendment is just as vital for maintaining this democracy as the amendments I listed above. The only argument a person needs is the 2nd amendment. Yes, the Constitution can be changed but finding a Supreme Court majority that would essentially rewrite one the original rights isn't happening this century. It's not in the modus operandi of a Justice to rewrite any law much less the Bill of Right.

That would signify an evolution in American thought that we are very far from.
JustAnotherCommenter wrote:Some background. I was born in small town redneck USA and when I get riled up sometimes my inner hick comes through. I moved to the New England area though and went to school at what would probably be called a "liberal" university. I lean left politically but don't think "democrat" is a term that can define my political views. I used to own guns myself and I still go skeet shooting with a friend of mine sometimes. Now that we got that out of the way...
I wonder what small redneck town your from because it's probably not near as hick as Arkansas. I know exactly where your coming from. I'm a fish out of water in this part of the country. My political ideology fell very far from the tree because to be honest I agree with you.I don't see ANY reason why someone needs a semi-automatic rifles. I don't see ANY reason why someone needs large magazines. You've listed common arguments and provided reasonable retorts but I would like to sharpen a few things.
JustAnotherCommenter wrote:But, if your gun is unloaded and locked up how effective is it for self defense?
Some people don't keep there gun in a safe and therefore completely out of use for self-defense. Also many people carry a gun in their vehicle and persons while in public for self defense. Your attempt to make it seem like a gun is completely ineffective means of protection isn't applicable in these cases and these situations are more likely than your safe scenario.
MazerRackhem wrote:If all guns were illegal than just owning one would be a crime making it much less likely that any given criminal would have one on him and would make him guilty of more charges in any crime.
Your assuming that a criminal is going to follow the laws which is a contradiction.
JustAnotherCommenter wrote:If neither the house owner or the break in guy had guns the break in might still happen, but its much less likely that it will escalate to killing. In the UK far fewer people have guns and far fewer murders are committed
How is much less likely? One your assuming because there are law preventing law abiding citizens from owning firearms that the criminal has followed them. Your putting the house owner in a position where he will have to physically defend himself. What if it's female? Or an old woman? Think about how easily she could be raped. Is the thought of knowing that if a criminal chose to follow the law he wouldn't have gun supposed to make a person feel any safer?

The 2nd amendment allows you to protect yourself from enemies both foreign and domestic. Although you would scoff at the idea of the federal or state government as being that enemy it would be a critical mistake considering the history of the world to think this idea farfetched or ridiculous.

This brings me to my stance on gun control. It needs to be decided on a state level. I don't think the federal government should be deciding what works best for everyone. In many state guns are a part of the culture and although I don't share that culture I don't want to take it away from someone. More over I don't want the federal government taking that cultural foundation from someone. This is issue not nearly as unambiguous as slavery was. Gun control is a politically charged and highly divisive issue that needs to be dealt with carefully. Although I believe semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines should be banned it's going to have to happen slowly and on a state level. The question is never going to be should people be allowed to own guns because most American feel it is. It's in the Constitution and the federally government doesn't get to interpret the amendments at their will.

Don't take anything I've said personally. I'm very tired. I've debated this topic so many times it's become second nature. Most of the time I was on your end of the debate but I'm starting to feel "our" line of the argument is doing more harm than good.

JustAnotherCommenter
Posts: 62
Joined: April 11th, 2013, 5:28 pm

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by JustAnotherCommenter » April 27th, 2013, 1:18 pm

wanabe wrote: Yes, those countries would all agree USA oppresses them in many ways mostly economic.

"22" is not a number to be proud of.
Pretty sure you're misinterpreting me on purpose here. Was fairly obvious that I was pointing out the US is way way less oppressive than a dozen governments I can name of the top of my head.

Also I disagree, I think 22 is a pretty good number, also I looked up the 2012 data and we've moved to 19. The countries ahead of us are the very picture of openness and a place that we are moving toward. The only reason we're not higher up is because of all the secrecy surrounding the "national security" stuff, which I understand is important.
wanabe wrote:Regardless, the fact that it's shown adds to my point that the government uses the media to scare people into submission.
There's this idea out there that the government uses the media, I really don't know where that came from. The government hates the media. The media thrive on exposing secretes not keeping them. The media jumps on every misquote, every gaffe, every stumble of the politicians. The government doesn't use the media to do anything to us, on the contrary if they want to deceive us they have to get around the media somehow.
wanabe wrote:"Technology and technology services," yes code for missiles and their guidance systems and training. Sorry I was using guns metaphorically. Whatever the gov spends the money on they get back in taxes or as the spoils of war. To think that the people who wanted the war in the first place are not benefiting from it being the longest war in US history is just naive.
So lets name them. Who is benefiting from the "spoils of war?" Lay them out for me. We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan, how much "spoils" have we brought back? Where is this great inflood of wealth? Maybe we've made a trillion dollars by selling them missiles? Nope. Maybe we've got a bunch of cheap oil? Nope. We actually bombed a bunch of the oil fields. Are a few companies making money off of the US government by selling them stuff? Yup. Is the government making even a dime off of these wars? Nope.

Point out to me anywhere the government has managed to make back more money from these wars than it spent. Taxes on the American people obviously isn't making money off the war, they could have just taxed us without it, also no new taxes under Obama amount to more than the cost of the war so even that argument fails. War is a destructive thing not a creative one. In the modern world it is almost always cheaper to get what you want by trading for it than it is to go to war and take it. We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars and are not getting any returns on that we couldn't have got for a few tens of billions by trade.
Eonblue wrote:Nowhere in the constitution does it allow slavery. It doesn't ban it but that's a different subject entirely.
Not banning something is the same thing as allowing it lol.
Eonblue wrote:The Constitution didn't allow alcohol. The 18th amendment allowed a prohibition but using this amendment to compromise the integrity of the Constitution would not be accurate. The 18th amendment was drafted in 1920 nearly 150 years after the Bill of Rights and the 2nd amendment. Although they were both part of the Constitution the 2nd amendment is part of ideological foundation far more important the prohibition.
You have a very funny definition of "allow." You don't "allow" prohibition, that's just silly. Alcohol was allowed, then banned, then allowed again. And I never said anything about "compromise the integrity of the constitution" lol. I think you missed the whole point of that paragraph, I was pointing out that we've changed our constitution plenty of times in the past so you can't just say "the constitution says so" on guns, the constitution is the highest law in the land but it's just a law, and it can be changed.
Eonblue wrote:The Constitution in all cases of gender and race have person or people. There's never a specified gender or race.
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution wrote:Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Guess Indians aren't a race... Also guess that "bound in Service for a Term of Years" doesn't reallymean slavery or single out the blacks. Just because it isn't said outright doesn't mean it wasn't meant. You say I muddle up people's intentions but I think its pretty clear what the intentions of this paragraph are, especially if you read the history behind it and the papers the founding fathers wrote about it.
Eonblue wrote:Your attempt to compromise the integrity of the Constitution and muddle the intentions of the people lacks concrete evidence.
You are so caught up in one paragraph that isn't even a part of the argument...Nowhere did I "muddle the intentions" of anything. I only pointed out, quite correctly I might add, that the constitution changes and can't be used to dismiss arguments against guns.
Eonblue wrote:One of the great things about the Constitution has been are ability to expand on it.
Funny, I was arguing the same thing...must have hit a hot button with you on something though...
Eonblue wrote:Yes, the Constitution can be changed but finding a Supreme Court majority that would essentially rewrite one the original rights isn't happening this century. It's not in the modus operandi of a Justice to rewrite any law much less the Bill of Right.
Seems kind of silly for you to try and give me a dressing down on the constitution when you don't even know where amendments come from.... (Hint, the justices have nothing at all to do with it.) ;)

Then after fighting with me over one small paragraph that doesn't even matter you go one to agree with me, haha. Talk about majoring in the minors :) That's why this site is so fun, at least it keeps you on your toes.
Eonblue wrote:Your assuming that a criminal is going to follow the laws which is a contradiction.
No, I'm not assuming that at all. If guns were illegal for private citizens to own then it would be much harder for a criminal to get a gun. Right now its very easy, their all over, but if only police, military, shooting ranges, etc. Could have guns they could be much more tightly controlled. I'm sure Al Capone would have got some guns for his body guards but the drugged up gang bangers who do most of the violent crime would have to resort to knives. You can't stop every single criminal from getting a gun but you can make it hard enough that low totem pole hot heads most likely to go off and use it on some stupid break in can't get one.
Eonblue wrote:How is much less likely? One your assuming because there are law preventing law abiding citizens from owning firearms that the criminal has followed them. Your putting the house owner in a position where he will have to physically defend himself. What if it's female? Or an old woman? Think about how easily she could be raped. Is the thought of knowing that if a criminal chose to follow the law he wouldn't have gun supposed to make a person feel any safer?
Like I said, no one is assuming that criminals would follow the law, but if you got the 300k guns out there off the market and they couldn't just get a gun from anybody who can pass a background check. People tend to assume that if guns were outlawed the same number of criminals would have them, but that doesn't seem very likely.
Eonblue wrote:The 2nd amendment allows you to protect yourself from enemies both foreign and domestic. Although you would scoff at the idea of the federal or state government as being that enemy it would be a critical mistake considering the history of the world to think this idea farfetched or ridiculous.
In a representative democracy we'd first have to let it get so bad that we couldn't vote out the people oppressing us, which we are decades of decline away from. Then there is still the problem that I talked about earlier. If the military is for the oppressors its game over, you can't fight a Blackhawk with a 12 gauge and no private citizen should ever be allowed to own an RPG, I think we can all pretty much agree on that.

Around the world people in democracies are fighting less and less. Democracies are becoming more open, not less. Democracies are oppressing their people less and less, not more (think of Women, Blacks, Gays, etc.) Also there is less and less threat of a major war among civilized countries. Did you know that no two countries containing a McDonalds have ever gone to war or attacked each other? (since the McDonalds was put in of course) As the world becomes more interconnected and more open there is less threat of violence and less call for private ownership of guns to protect ourselves with. I'm not saying we confiscate every gun in American tomorrow, but I think a lot of people dismiss gun regulation automatically out of fear. If we looked at the facts though I think more people would realize that stashing an AK-47 in their house makes them less safe, not more.
Eonblue wrote:Don't take anything I've said personally. I'm very tired. I've debated this topic so many times it's become second nature. Most of the time I was on your end of the debate but I'm starting to feel "our" line of the argument is doing more harm than good.
I'm there with you buddy :) I don't get offended that easy. Besides I'm pretty sure I've already met the craziest people on this forum and they ain't you lol.

User avatar
wanabe
Posts: 3388
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by wanabe » April 27th, 2013, 4:58 pm

JustAnotherCommenter,

22nd place in a competition is not something to be proud of. You would brag to you're friends you came in 22nd place in some race or something. Really 19 isn't much better, if its not top 3 who cares.

The government uses the media. Yes gov hates media because they sometimes make gov look bad but the media is easily swayed by the gov.

The people benefiting from the war are weapons manufacturers, and oil companies. The weapons manufacturers sales are up and oil can control prices easier than ever keeping profits high regardless of supply. The people who wanted the war in the first place are these above companies. Not talking about the government specifically, but in the long run the gov gets to tax the profits of these companies. The government as a whole doesn't have to make money, just certain people that are part of it in key power positions.

It seems like you're just arguing about random stuff now. The discussion was about guns and the points of contention you seem to have are not about guns. I don't care if you agree about this other stuff, it's just axillary support, my reasoning for why guns should be legal provided proper licensing.

Do you agree with my conclusion regarding gun licensing or not?
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.

JustAnotherCommenter
Posts: 62
Joined: April 11th, 2013, 5:28 pm

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by JustAnotherCommenter » April 27th, 2013, 6:53 pm

wanabe wrote:It seems like you're just arguing about random stuff now. The discussion was about guns and the points of contention you seem to have are not about guns.
Funny that you should mention that. I was just thinking the same about your post before I came to that line lol.

Sure licensing would help things along but so far the only thing that's made sense as far as arguing for people having guns at all is the argument for gun sports and hunting. Sports could be done by having guns at a range which just leaves hunting, which would mean there's no point in people having any kind of assault weapons. All this stuff about fighting off the government doesn't seem at all reasonable to me. There is no reason to expect that you would ever need to fight off the military or police unless you intend to break the law, and even then you have no chance at winning. What if the law is unjust? Well we live in a democracy where we can change the laws without needing to shoot people to do it. And yes out of 196 countries, 19 is pretty good. That means were in the 91st percentile. That's pretty damn good if you ask me. If you ran a race and beat 91 out of every 100 runners would you not be happy? Back in my running days I would have been ecstatic with a 22nd place finish in a 5k! Sure there's room to improve but the US does not even approximate a truly oppressive government, and things are even getting better not worse.

User avatar
Quotidian
Posts: 2681
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 7:47 am
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by Quotidian » April 27th, 2013, 8:34 pm

There is a very simple fact about gun ownership.

More Guns = More Gun Deaths

Not all those deaths are murders or mass shootings, in fact a very large number are suicides and accidents. But the fact remains. The NRA simply appeals to fear. I personally think Wayne LaPierre and his ilk are a thread to civil society and should be prosecuted for sedition. Not that it will ever happen.
'For there are many here among us who think that life is but a joke' ~ Dylan

User avatar
wanabe
Posts: 3388
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by wanabe » April 28th, 2013, 1:06 am

JustAnotherCommenter,

Now we can address the other side issues as we agree that a proper licensing system is needed, not a all out ban on guns.

Fighting off the US government is certainly possible with guns, and small explosives. "Terrorists" use 70's Russian assault rifles and have successfully held off total domination by the US military in siege warfare throughout the middle east. Yes the US has a strong presence but the government is looking for a way out that doesn't look like it's retreating. I think ultimately our disagreement rests on what you and I would do in this hypothetical situation where the government/military of the US has turned on its people. I would fight, you would surrender.

We (US citizens) do not live in a democracy, we live in a representative republic that is slowly transitioning into a plutocracy, with corporations as the ruling class of legal "people." We can change laws but only if we pay the right lobbyist groups.

I guess you are just content with mediocrity with regards to government transparency, I am not. Anything less than top 3 is unacceptable. At lest being in the bottom 3 has comedic value.

The US is not an overtly oppressive government I agree. The US does most of their oppression externally, and calls resistance to such terrorism. Domestically the US oppresses its citizens economically via taxes, but more accurately tax loopholes which would only be available to the millionaire. More simply the US tax policy favors those who do not do work, but delegate work to others. In a country with so much available to its citizens, to hold it above them until they reach a certain economic tier is tantamount to oppression. I would agree that things are getting better for those delegates, not those who do the work.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.

Seriosity
Posts: 13
Joined: April 21st, 2013, 8:22 pm

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by Seriosity » April 28th, 2013, 8:16 pm

I agree with wanabe in every respect. I want my arms in order to defend myself, my property from any government which acts in a willfully unlawful manner. Funny that the government protects its treasury by any means possible. But is perfectly willing to leave its most vulnerable citizens to any unlawful intrusion on their treasures like children and their own lives.

The government recognizes the possibility that its treasures need protection. From what. Fort Knox is protected with a division of men, armored vehicles and air support. There are stinger crews on the roof of the presidents childrens school.

Thirty five people of color were gunned down in one night in Obama's hometown. No outrage, no national crises and debate.

I wonder where the registration is for the guns used by the Islamist terrorist in Boston.

The scenario described in the post is a possibility. Do you know what caliber round an AR15 fires or the significance. Most people arguing this topic have no education in fire arms, and that includes members of the legislature.

I am outraged! Please, someone tell me what country the US oppresses? Do you have any idea what oppression is? Have you heard of North Korea, Iran? Do you know of the plight of women throughout the muslim world, with few exceptions? Common wanabe, the Armenian Holocaust!

JustAnotherCommenter
Posts: 62
Joined: April 11th, 2013, 5:28 pm

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by JustAnotherCommenter » April 28th, 2013, 10:39 pm

Seriosity wrote:I am outraged! Please, someone tell me what country the US oppresses? Do you have any idea what oppression is? Have you heard of North Korea, Iran? Do you know of the plight of women throughout the muslim world, with few exceptions? Common wanabe, the Armenian Holocaust!
Funny. I though you agreed with wanabe in every respect. That's his main argument lol.

Post Reply