Guns

[(poco) Sforzando]

In my experience, that tends to be true (and I once fell within that very camp, to my great discredit). More often than not, those strongly advocating gun control or banning

* are unfamiliar with gun function, safety, variety, and nomenclature, i.e., they've never used one or even seen one in person and therefore lack a basis of knowledge and personal experience upon which to found opinions.
* have not researched the relevant laws, statistics, and history and choose, in the case of the US, to selectively read the Constitution and its philosophical basis (just as some here choose to selectively read the Bible)
* suffer an irrational fear of firearms and violence and possess a correspondingly strong to desire to get rid of guns, regardless of the practical, moral, or legal costs. Or, their pie-in-the-sky vision of a hippie utopia overshadows the realities of human evil. It's nice, perhaps, to wish for a perfectly peaceful, weaponless world, but it's not realistic. Evil does exist, as do criminals and tyrannical governments. You can't merely wish them away, and it's childish or disingenuous to want to disarm the good in the hopes the bad will somehow decide to follow suit.

And most of these points are essential ad hominem or ad personam arguments, again circling back on the premise that to oppose guns is to show a defect in one's character, while the pro-gun people are much finer folks morally and intellectually. I don't pretend to have researched the subject in depth, but what's really needed for this thread is someone who has done so and has some empathy with those who advocate gun control, rather than taking the condescending stance that gun control advocates are "childish," "irrational," and the like. Then again, you once believed ("to your great discredit," as you put it) as I still do, and as they say, there's no greater zealot than a convert.

Somehow I don't know how I've been able to survive nearly 60 years in this society without having ever touched a firearm.

[longears]

Most likely everyone has an agenda; the people we consider unbiased are those who share our own agendas. But it is interesting that you allude to only one incidental passage from that review and ignore the far more important points that I italicized.

Some people's agenda is to discover the truth.

I never read the rest of the review you printed.  Once I discovered (a) the outrageous bias of the reviewer demonstrated by his smug Archie Bunker reference (see the smarmy "insider's wink" as he preaches to the choir!) and, even more tellingly, (b) that the review was about another document altogether and not a response to the one I had linked to...I stopped reading.

I don't pretend to have researched the subject in depth, but what's really needed for this thread is someone who has done so and has some empathy with those who advocate gun control, rather than taking the condescending stance that gun control advocates are "childish," "irrational," and the like.

There's at least one--me--and Grazioso and some others sound as if they probably qualify, too.  If you can review your own responses in this thread objectively, I think you will see who is being condescending...for instance, by dismissing as "zealots" those who've done exactly as you suggest and researched the subject and changed their attitudes after learning the facts. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Some people's agenda is to discover the truth.

I never read the rest of the review you printed.  Once I discovered (a) the outrageous bias of the reviewer demonstrated by his smug Archie Bunker reference (see the smarmy "insider's wink" as he preaches to the choir!) and, even more tellingly, (b) that the review was about another document altogether and not a response to the one I had linked to...I stopped reading.
There's at least one--me--and Grazioso and some others sound as if they probably qualify, too.  If you can review your own responses in this thread objectively, I think you will see who is being condescending...for instance, by dismissing as "zealots" those who've done exactly as you suggest and researched the subject and changed their attitudes after learning the facts. 

Ah. So you never read the review complete. The book I alluded to is by the same author and presumably espouses the same point of view. If your agenda is indeed to learn the truth, why not at least investigate the studies that have called Lott's model into question?

I think there is condescension on both sides here. If I can be honest enough to say there's a touch of condescension in my attitude, can you and Grazioso be honest enough to do the same? After all, I'm not the one who has used terms like "childish" and "irrational" to describe those who disagree with me.

[BachQ]

Adjusted for population, the rate of firearms-related homicide in Australia is about 6% that of the USA. 6%!

Either we in Australia have less social problems, a less violent culture, or less access to guns. Or maybe, just maybe, all three.

I'm moving to Australia ........

[Scriptavolant]

If the educated, sane, and overall intelligent regular folks were armed, there would be no chance for a criminal to make him his victim.

Nice Far West picture, we could call that the John Wayne policy? 
You people seem to ignore completely such thing called "Police". They should do the job as they do in every civilized country.
Definition of civilized country: a place where you don't need to carry a gun while walking along the avenues or taking your daily coffee at the bar.
Someone else is labelling as "irrational" the aim to get rid of guns: we're not talking about the right to own a gun in particular conditions or in the cases when self-defense is a sensible issue, when really needed. And what is rational instead? Let's see the proposal: let's arm the entire country in order to solve the problem.

[Grazioso]

Ah. So you never read the review complete. The book I alluded to is by the same author and presumably espouses the same point of view. If your agenda is indeed to learn the truth, why not at least investigate the studies that have called Lott's model into question?

I think there is condescension on both sides here. If I can be honest enough to say there's a touch of condescension in my attitude, can you and Grazioso be honest enough to do the same? After all, I'm not the one who has used terms like "childish" and "irrational" to describe those who disagree with me.

I don't call people childish and irrational because they disagree with me, I call certain people that because they're childish and irrational  

In my experience (the same caveat I used earlier), anti-gun proponents do tend to lack personal experience with, or accurate knowledge of, firearms and suffer from an irrational fear of them. And it is indeed irrational to fear a gun in and of itself. It's no different than someone who shies away from all spiders or can't stand to be left in the dark. Those are juvenile fears based on ignorance and overcome through education and acclimation. I don't worry about cars, but rather about some absent-minded, cell-phone-using jackass running me over with one. I don't worry about guns, but rather about some nutjob or robber shooting me with one.

The latter is a genuine concern based on facts, yet not one that governs me emotionally. It's simply a modest practical concern that I factor into my daily life and political views. I have no reason to believe that my safety or the safety of others would be significantly increased if decent, peaceful, law-abiding people had their guns taken from them. Rather I believe it would be decreased since I, as a law-abiding person, would then be left unarmed among armed criminals. Even if there were some demonstrable, incontrovertible increase in safety, I still don't believe on moral or legal grounds that it would justify the banning of guns. It's potentially dangerous to allow free speech, but we do so because the benefits outweigh the risks. Further, it's not the guns that decide to shoot an innocent, but rather the person making the very bad decision to do so. Deal with the people and their moral choices, not the inanimate objects. Even if you could get the guns out of the criminals' hands, and not just the hands of ordinary folks, what's to eradicate their urge to pick up a knife or lead pipe (just as deadly) instead? I don't believe I should ask my government to remove or restrict my right and the right of my good neighbors to own something because a few bad seeds decide to misuse the same object.

Like the philosophy that animated the founding of the US, I believe in the dignity of my fellow man and the desirability of our joint liberty. I believe that the benefits of preserving or enabling certain core human rights and liberties outweighs the potential for abuse, and that one needs to look first and foremost at human responsibility and moral culpability, not a hunk of metal and plastic.

[Grazioso]

You people seem to ignore completely such thing called "Police". They should do the job as they do in every civilized country.

In the US, the police are not Constitutionally obligated or held accountable to protect individuals. Furthermore, until they develop ESP and teleporters, there's no way they can or will be available to stop most crimes. Usually they can only deter, investigate, or apprehend after the fact. It takes someone a second to stab someone. Maybe if the victim lives, they can get to a phone and call the police. After a while the cops will show up to take notes and photograph the scene.

[Scriptavolant]

I don't call people childish and irrational because they disagree with me, I call certain people that because they're childish and irrational  

In my experience (the same caveat I used earlier), anti-gun proponents do tend to lack personal experience with, or accurate knowledge of, firearms and suffer from an irrational fear of them. And it is indeed irrational to fear a gun in and of itself. It's no different than someone who shies away from all spiders or can't stand to be left in the dark. Those are juvenile fears based on ignorance and overcome through education and acclimation. I don't worry about cars, but rather about some absent-minded, cell-phone-using jackass running me over with one. I don't worry about guns, but rather about some nutjob or robber shooting me with one.

The latter is a genuine concern based on facts, yet not one that governs me emotionally. It's simply a modest practical concern that I factor into my daily life and political views. I have no reason to believe that my safety or the safety of others would be significantly increased if decent, peaceful, law-abiding people had their guns taken from them. Rather I believe it would be decreased since I, as a law-abiding person, would then be left unarmed among armed criminals. Even if there were some demonstrable, incontrovertible increase in safety, I still don't believe on moral or legal grounds that it would justify the banning of guns. It's potentially dangerous to allow free speech, but we do so because the benefits outweigh the risks. Further, it's not the guns that decide to shoot an innocent, but rather the person making the very bad decision to do so. Deal with the people and their moral choices, not the inanimate objects. Even if you could get the guns out of the criminals' hands, and not just the hands of ordinary folks, what's to eradicate their urge to pick up a knife or lead pipe (just as deadly) instead? I don't believe I should ask my government to remove or restrict my right and the right of my good neighbors to own something because a few bad seeds decide to misuse the same object.

Like the philosophy that animated the founding of the US, I believe in the dignity of my fellow man and the desirability of our joint liberty. I believe that the benefits of preserving or enabling certain core human rights and liberties outweighs the potential for abuse, and that one needs to look first and foremost at human responsibility and moral culpability, not a hunk of metal and plastic.

Let me say, once again, that this is a disturbing picture of a regressed system, which I don't see duplicated elsewhere.
I don't fear weapons "irrationaly", I simply consider guns to be worthless and dangerous, especially when you live side by side with them as if it were a perfectly normal thing. That happens because I didn't grow up in a country where you can have a gun as a price when you open up a current account in a bank. In Europe we have serious restrictions to buy guns, they didn't tell us that guns are dangerous, they simply told us they are useless for common citizens. Well, they didn't even tell us, it is self-evident.
What this got to do with utopia or ideology? If you go and check the figures, you should see that it's not a matter of ideology, but a matter of fact instead, that your "rationality" eventually costs thousands of lives per year.

[Don]

I really don't have any argument with responsible adults owning firearms.  In fact, I appreciate that I have the right to own a firearm for aesthetic and/or recreational purposes.

However, I find that the notion that folks need guns to protect themselves rather hollow.  I have many weapons in my house.  My knives can slice you up.  My chain saw can carve you up in little pieces.  My chords and ropes can strangle you in quick order.  The great thing about these weapons is that they have practical applications: the knives cut food, the chain saw cuts wood for the fireplace, etc.  What's the practical application for a gun?  Shooting the hole in a donut?

So I'll keep my weapons, and you can keep yours. 

[c#minor]

I am familiar with guns. I own a 22 rifle, 12 gauge side by side (my great grandfathers, its beautiful) and i have shot everything from and AR-15 to 357 Mag. I enjoy shooting, it's fun. I have been hunting since i was eight. I know guns, i have grown up around them and i sure don't have any irrational fear of guns. I do have a very rational fear of what they can do. Rifles and shotguns, you hunt with them. Handguns, you can hunt with, but are more of a human killing machine. I have shot them and yes, they are fun. But i cannot justify my "fun" with handguns. And i do not need one for self-defense. I am sorry to say but the picture of the world where you always need to be carrying a weapon is one that i have not seen. In Western Europe, Canada, and the U.S. (where i assume most here are from) is a relatively safe place. Even lets say you do get robbed at gunpoint, if you pull out a gun your probably going to die, if you hand over the money your probably going to live.


I will say one last thing then i am done with this topic all together.
I love my country, i respect the constitution, but we are in the 21-century. Britain is not going to invade anytime soon, even if they do we have a militia, The National Guard. The rest of the world is growing up, why can't we do the same as well. It's time to think about the repercussions of a misinterpreted Amendment to the Constitution. We can be an ignorant country stuck in the past, or we can be what our founding fathers were, progressive and looking forward.

And one last last thing,
I really doubt God would be a member of the NRA.

[ChamberNut]

What is this obsession with America (United States) and guns?  It's really mind boggling.

[Gurn Blanston]

What is this obsession with America (United States) and guns?  It's really mind boggling.

I don't know. I picked it up from my Canadian ancestors...



----------------
Listening to:
The Hanover Band / Goodman - Hob 01 001 Symphony in D 1st mvmt - Presto

[Papageno]

I don't know. I picked it up from my Canadian ancestors...



----------------
Listening to:
The Hanover Band / Goodman - Hob 01 001 Symphony in D 1st mvmt - Presto

So Gurn, being American do you have a gun?

[Gurn Blanston]

So Gurn, being American do you have a gun?

I have a bunch of them.



----------------
Listening to:
The Hanover Band / Goodman - Hob 01 001 Symphony in D 2nd mvmt - Andante

[secondwind]

I love my country, i respect the constitution, but we are in the 21-century. Britain is not going to invade anytime soon, even if they do we have a militia, The National Guard. The rest of the world is growing up, why can't we do the same as well. It's time to think about the repercussions of a misinterpreted Amendment to the Constitution. We can be an ignorant country stuck in the past, or we can be what our founding fathers were, progressive and looking forward.

Jefferson said that just as the clothes that fit the boy do not fit the man, some parts of the constitution might have to change with the times.  It seems reasonable to me that this might be one such instance.  

[Papageno]

I have a bunch of them.



----------------
Listening to:
The Hanover Band / Goodman - Hob 01 001 Symphony in D 2nd mvmt - Andante

Ah, ah... I see.  And have you ever used them?

[Gurn Blanston]

Ah, ah... I see.  And have you ever used them?

Certainly. I am a very competent long-range target shooter. In addition, I am not an urbanite like most people here. I live well out in the wild. One never knows what will be on the front porch in the morning...



----------------
Listening to:
Trio 1790 - Hob 15 34 Trio in E for Keyboard & Strings 2nd mvmt - Minuet

[ChamberNut]

Certainly. I am a very competent long-range target shooter. In addition, I am not an urbanite like most people here. I live well out in the wild. One never knows what will be on the front porch in the morning...



----------------
Listening to:
Trio 1790 - Hob 15 34 Trio in E for Keyboard & Strings 2nd mvmt - Minuet

I can understand, accept and respect that Gurn.

[ChamberNut]

Now some statistics from the World Health Organisation's World Report on Violence and Health:

Firearm-related mortality, by manner of death and country
USA homicide deaths from firearms (1998): 11 802
Australia homicide deaths from firearms (1998) 56

Adjusted for population, the rate of firearms-related homicide in Australia is about 6% that of the USA.

6%!

Either we in Australia have less social problems, a less violent culture, or less access to guns. Or maybe, just maybe, all three.

That is a glaring statistic.  It speaks volumes.

[karlhenning]

I swear I read this topic as Gurns, and I was going to protest, for there can only be one!