# Gun Control and Freedom.



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 17, 2009)

Some interesting bits posted on Facebook earlier....

====



> Christian Swann  SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
> 
> Christian Swann Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> 
> ...


----------



## KenpoTex (Oct 17, 2009)

"b-bu-but...guns are just bad"
"No one needs to own a *gasp* _assault rifle_!"
"We should ban guns to make our streets safer for the children."
"The government/police will take care of us" 
"You own a gun? Are you some sort of paranoid nut-job?"
"to protect yourself?...against what?"
"our _subjects_ are "enlightened" enough that they don't want to be armed" 
etc.

Don't cloud the issue with the facts Bob


----------



## jamz (Oct 18, 2009)

History schmistory, we are much smarter than that now.  Our government knows what's best for us and would never let us get hurt.

Now pipe down and trust them with everything!


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 18, 2009)

Here is the truth as I see it about gun ownership, and the anti gun crowd:

Find me 25 "Anti Gun" people.

Put them each, one at a time in a room, on the table set a Cell Phone and a Gun.

Then Grab a Butcher Knife and leap across the table screaming, "I'm going to kill you mother ****er!"

Record the number of people who grab the phone and dial 911. And the Number who grab the gun. 

Anyone wanna take bets on the larger number?

Guns, on the whole, are a tool which can be used for good or evil depending soley on the intent of the user.  Nothing more, nothing less.  They let a small, weak person stand up to a strong one on even footing, or they let a bully get stronger, when faced by lack of opposition.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 18, 2009)

The argument that the email makes (it was an email before someone posted it on their Facebook page) is a logical fallacy known as _Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc_, or the _Post Hoc Fallacy_. It implies that the genocides and other crimes mentioned happened because the populace was unarmed.  In other words, after the population was disarmed, they were murdered, therefore disarming them caused them to be killed.  The illogic of the Post Hoc Fallacy can be shown by saying the same thing using different words, such as _"The rooster crowed and the sun came up."_  Therefore, the sun was forced to rise by the rooster's crowing.

Populations have also been disarmed without resulting in genocide; therefore the causal link implied by the email is untrue - there is no causal link.

Furthermore, regarding the issue of gun control, most of us, even the most fervent gun rights advocates, do not want to live in a society that has no gun laws whatsoever.  Most of us are reasonably comfortable with gun laws that ban ownership of weapons of mass destruction, or ownership by the mentally ill, and so on.  We recognize that even the 2nd Amendment has limits, just as the 1st Amendment does.

With all that said, I am fervently in favor of the right to the private ownership of firearms.  I own some myself, and I continue to use them safely.  I do not intend to ever give them up, and I would oppose any such attempt by the government.


----------



## JDenver (Oct 18, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Here is the truth as I see it about gun ownership, and the anti gun crowd:
> 
> Find me 25 "Anti Gun" people.
> 
> ...



I'd like to provide an alternative scenario.

Put you and 20 people in a room.  There are 2 doors.  Behind one is a guy with a knife, hellbent on killing all of you.  Behind the other is a guy with a gun, hellbent on killing all of you. Now pick which door you want opened.  The answer is usually evident.  Now, if you wanna say that you can arm the people in the room, do the same game.  Do you want all of these strangers in the room with you to have knives or guns?  Do you think that unleashing a gun fight into the room is SAFER for you than a knife fight?

As for the initial thread, I find it reallllyyyy disengenious.  Linking complicated political instability and genocide with gun control policy is actually a little sickening to me.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Oct 18, 2009)

A people that are unable to defend themsleves are a people soon conquered


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 18, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> We recognize that even the 2nd Amendment has limits,


 
Actually... I disagree with that statement.  We tolerate certain limits applied to the second amendment, but they violate the amendment itself.

The amendment AS WRITTEN states "Shall Not Be Infringed".  No where in there does it say "With the exception of Felons" or "With the Exception of The Mentally Handicapped" or "With the exception of Hand Grenades"

I'm not gonna argue whether its a good or bad thing to impose those limitations, only that by the _letter of the amendment_ doing so IS unconstitutional.  

"Shall Not Be Infringed" is pretty specific wording, IMO... Lacking the word "Mostly" or "Except When" etc it doesnt really leave itself open to exceptions.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 18, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Actually... I disagree with that statement.  We tolerate certain limits applied to the second amendment, but they violate the amendment itself.
> 
> The amendment AS WRITTEN states "Shall Not Be Infringed".  No where in there does it say "With the exception of Felons" or "With the Exception of The Mentally Handicapped" or "With the exception of Hand Grenades"
> 
> ...



I agree that the 2nd Amendment, as written, is stated as an absolute prohibition on the federal government.  However, the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that no right is absolute.  The most commonly-used example is _'yelling fire in a crowded theater'_ as an exercise of 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech:

_'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."_

And yet we cannot legally yell _"Fire!"_ in a crowded theater.

So yes, the wording of the 2nd Amendment is absolute, but no right is absolute, according to the SCOTUS.  A popular reasoning for why rights are not absolute (and cannot be) is that one can imagine an application of those rights that infringes on the absolute right of another.  In the case of the guy yelling _"Fire!"_ in the crowded theater, his exercise of his 1st Amendment rights directly endangers the rights of others to remain alive, due to the danger of being trampled.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 18, 2009)

JDenver said:


> I'd like to provide an alternative scenario.
> 
> Put you and 20 people in a room. There are 2 doors. Behind one is a guy with a knife, hellbent on killing all of you. Behind the other is a guy with a gun, hellbent on killing all of you. Now pick which door you want opened. The answer is usually evident. Now, if you wanna say that you can arm the people in the room, do the same game. Do you want all of these strangers in the room with you to have knives or guns? Do you think that unleashing a gun fight into the room is SAFER for you than a knife fight?


 
While comparing a knife to a gun to a warhammer to a laser pistol is like comparing Figs, Apples, Bannanas and Grapes... I'll play along:

YES

A wild knife, as opposed to a Gun, as seen on more than one occasion in that video can be rather more dangerous. 

But The knife, like the gun, is a tool, and nothing more. You still need to know how to use it, and be able to use it properly.

More and more, however, I see your point, and I am all for gun control:

Feel free to beat your sword into a plowshare... cuz then I fully intend to subjugate you with MY sword.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 18, 2009)

I found this paper on gun control and why it cannot work recently.  It's a long slog, but I found it good reading (YMMV).  The conclusion, however, is straightforward and to the point:

http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf



> CONCLUSION
> Without a commitment to or capacity for eliminating the
> existing inventory of private guns, the supply-side ideal and
> regulations based on it cannot be taken seriously. It is best to
> ...



This paper is entitled _"IMAGINING GUN CONTROL IN AMERICA:
UNDERSTANDING THE REMAINDER PROBLEM,"_ by Nicholas J. Johnson.

It was published by the Wake Forest Law Review.  It's worth a read if you're interested in scholarly approaches to gun control legislation.


----------



## JDenver (Oct 18, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> More and more, however, I see your point, and I am all for gun control:
> 
> Feel free to beat your sword into a plowshare... cuz then I fully intend to subjugate you with MY sword.



You know that it has nothing to do with being a pacifist.  

Besides, what fear should I have?  That you will 'subjugate' me?  Why would you do that?  For what purpose?  Should I be perpetually afraid of being 'subjugated' by some dark, faceless enemy?  Why?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 18, 2009)

JDenver said:


> I also find it interesting that sometimes proponents of gun control speak as if they will imminently be rounded up and tortured by some faceless dark force and that, only by the grace of carrying a gun, will they be spared.



I agree that this is often the case.  I have also been confronted by gun control advocates (in my own family) who believe that a gun, by itself, will somehow manipulate one's mind into picking it up and using it on a family member.

There are always those who take arguments to extremes, but they represent real fears that have at least some legitimate basis in reality.

The gun proponent fears that an unarmed populace is less able to defend itself against a government run amok.

The gun opponent fears that a gun in a home is more likely to be used in a moment of passion than if one is not readily at hand.

Both fears have at least some basis in reality.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Oct 18, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Populations have also been disarmed without resulting in genocide; therefore the causal link implied by the email is untrue - there is no causal link.



Agreed. By the reasoning suggested in the e-mail, Canadians can expect to be lined up by their government and exterminated at any moment. What is going unnoticed, or at least un-remarked upon in the article, is that in each society listed a specific ethnic group is being targeted, possibly with the knowledge, if not consent, of other groups whose ethnicity is reflected in the ruling authority.

Typically when I hear individuals defend their gun rights, they speak of protecting themselves, their families, and their property. Reasonable self interest. 

So when I'm rounded up in Toronto, can I expect the denizens of Jimmy Mack's Anchor Bar in Buffalo to put down a chicken wing and pick up a rifle to come protect me?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 18, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> So when I'm rounded up in Toronto, can I expect the denizens of Jimmy Mack's Anchor Bar in Buffalo to put down a chicken wing and pick up a rifle to come protect me?



If there is poutine and good Canadian beer in it for me, I'm there!


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 18, 2009)

JDenver said:


> You know that it has nothing to do with being a pacifist.
> 
> Besides, what fear should I have? That you will 'subjugate' me?


 
No, its more of a statement of "If you would try and force your beliefs on me and see me disarmed, once I was sure you were disarmed, nothing would stop me from doing the same to you."  There is always someone to fear, be it a "Latin King" or a "Hell's Angel" or just some lunatic having a bad day... they dont NEED a REASON to Subjugate you... if you are weaker, and it suits their purpose, so be it.



Bill... I know that comment wasnt directed at me per se, but to clarify MY position, I don't personally think I need my weapons because of the government, so much as I think the government is trying to put me in a position of being a victim.  When I am unarmed, even a small group of unarmed "citizens" who band together have enough might to take what is mine... be it money, property or life.  If it's NOT as the Supreme Court says, the Duty of the police to protect me, and its not might right to protect myself, who's is it, I ask?


----------



## grydth (Oct 18, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The argument that the email makes (it was an email before someone posted it on their Facebook page) is a logical fallacy known as _Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc_, or the _Post Hoc Fallacy_. It implies that the genocides and other crimes mentioned happened because the populace was unarmed.  In other words, after the population was disarmed, they were murdered, therefore disarming them caused them to be killed.  The illogic of the Post Hoc Fallacy can be shown by saying the same thing using different words, such as _"The rooster crowed and the sun came up."_  Therefore, the sun was forced to rise by the rooster's crowing.
> 
> Populations have also been disarmed without resulting in genocide; therefore the causal link implied by the email is untrue - there is no causal link.
> 
> ...



Respectfully, Bill, I believe the error you make is applying logic to the history and actions of the human species. 

Many of the actions taken by humans, whether as individuals or as nations, bear little relationship to any rational or logical thought process. This is especially true with regards to violent actions.

The perceived status of a victim ( be it an individual in a house or the minority population of a country) as being defenseless plays a large role in the killer deciding whether to attack and murder them.

Whether it be group genocide or individual homicide, I believe the crime is much more likely to be consummated when the victim has been deprived of effective means of self defense.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 18, 2009)

grydth said:


> The perceived status of a victim ( be it an individual in a house or the minority population of a country) as being defenseless plays a large role in the killer deciding whether to attack and murder them.
> 
> Whether it be group genocide or individual homicide, I believe the crime is much more likely to be consummated when the victim has been deprived of effective means of self defense.


 
Thats what I was was trying to convey, thanks!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 18, 2009)

grydth said:


> Respectfully, Bill, I believe the error you make is applying logic to the history and actions of the human species.



Actually, I'm not applying logic to history, I'm applying logic to the argument, which is a different thing.  I am not saying, for example, that the statements are untrue.  I am saying the argument is invalid.  That has nothing to do with mankind's tendencies.

The rooster example I used shows this.  Roosters crow, and they are known for crowing at dawn.  But we know that dawn comes whether there is a rooster to crow before it or not.  Therefore, it would be a logical fallacy to claim that roosters crow at dawn, therefore the sun comes up.

This is the basis of the _Post Hoc Fallacy_.

The email specifies times in history when guns have been outlawed, and then notes a later time when a genocide happened in that country.  This denotes a causal connection (the dawn broke *because* the rooster crowed).  Yet clearly, not every gun ban has led to genocide.  Therefore, there is no causal connection - or at least, the cause has not been shown in the email's argument.  The argument is illogical - of the 'questionable cause' sort.

If one intends to argue that gun bans lead to genocide, then one must show the causal link.  It is not enough to show first one, then the other, and claim a link.  Roosters crow, the sun comes up.  If I want to prove that roosters cause the sun to rise, it will take more than noting these two facts without any other form of support.  It is not only not a proof, it's not even a logical argument.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 18, 2009)

grydth said:


> The perceived status of a victim ( be it an individual in a house or the minority population of a country) as being defenseless plays a large role in the killer deciding whether to attack and murder them.



I tend to agree with that statement.  However, that is not the argument the email offered.  It was the logical fallacy that I addressed.

As to your statement itself, be aware that asserting this requires evidence in support of your allegation.  Does it?  I am aware of one or two studies which tend to support that; and others which contradict it.  At best, I would say that there is some logical support for that argument, hardly proof.



> Whether it be group genocide or individual homicide, I believe the crime is much more likely to be consummated when the victim has been deprived of effective means of self defense.


Again, I tend to agree with you, but again, I believe that there is evidence which points both ways.

I suppose that is why I tend to simply focus on the 2nd Amendment, rather than arguments about the _public and private benefit_ concerning why there should or should not be gun control/confiscation/etc.  I do not think there is conclusive evidence in favor of or against private gun ownership as regards crime; certainly none as it regards genocide (in the US, which is what I'm concerned with).  And if I accepted that such proof could be produced, I would be committing myself to accepting the results if the proof demonstrated that gun control or confiscation was a good thing - and I won't do that.  So I find it best not to tread that path - for me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 18, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Bill... I know that comment wasnt directed at me per se, but to clarify MY position, I don't personally think I need my weapons because of the government, so much as I think the government is trying to put me in a position of being a victim.



I actually do not think _'the government'_ has any intent at all when it comes to guns, pro or con.  I believe that some individuals wish to control private possession of guns, and they tend to be (not all are) liberals.  Some of them are elected officials, some are members of groups that bring pressure to bear on elected officials, and some are simply private citizens with an opinion and the right to vote the way they believe.

Of those liberals who want to limit or eliminate private ownership of guns, I do not believe any of them _'want me to become a victim'_. That would be extraordinarily evil, and without benefit to them.  It may be that some small number are clever enough to figure out that the Democrat Party is, in essence, the Party of the Victims (people needing, for various reasons, to be protected by the government) and that a disarmed populace is more in danger of being victimized by armed criminals.  I would be willing to agree that such people exist, but they are most likely a very small number.

On a side-note, I have often argued that the Democrat Party has no vested interest in ever actually doing anything about poverty and/or racism.  They attract people to their banner by being 'for' the downtrodden, but if they ever actually succeed in ending the problem, they also end the reason that those people would still support them.  Therefore, it is in their best interest as a party to promise and never deliver.  It is more advantageous to stall and blame the opposition for failure.  Isn't it interesting that this is what generally happens? (my own Post Hoc Fallacy, by the way).



> When I am unarmed, even a small group of unarmed "citizens" who band together have enough might to take what is mine... be it money, property or life.  If it's NOT as the Supreme Court says, the Duty of the police to protect me, and its not might right to protect myself, who's is it, I ask?



The precise reason I try not to engage in that type of argument with gun-grabbers.  Establishing validity requires proof, and neither side will ever accept the evidence given by the other.  It's endless. I stick with 2nd Amendment arguments instead.


----------



## JDenver (Oct 18, 2009)

If someone is going to break into my house, chances are very likely they do it when I'm not there.  

If I am there, chances are very likely that they see me and run away.  

If they have a weapon and are, almost inexplicably, bent on breaking in while I'm home and taking my TV, then they can have it (it's replacable).  

If they have a weapon and, without any reason at all, wanna break into my house and kill me, then I guess I'll be killed.  Now, if that is what's on my mind, if that's where I am in life, then I'm living a life full of fear of what is, in my country, almost an impossibility.  It doesn't happen.  I can't really live my life with the notion that I need to protect myself from something that is so remote.  It would be like suggesting that I need to have 1" rubber soles on all of my shoes in case I'm struck by lightning.


----------



## grydth (Oct 18, 2009)

You have every right to adopt this philosophy......

However, I have 2 children ages 11 and 14 living with me. Naturally, I hope no malign force shows up on my doorstep - not ever.

Where we part ways is, if my children are endangered, I guess its the would be child killers who die..... not me, not my girls.


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 18, 2009)

JDenver said:


> Now, if that is what's on my mind, if that's where I am in life, then I'm living a life full of fear of what is, in my country, almost an impossibility. It doesn't happen. I can't really live my life with the notion that I need to protect myself from something that is so remote. It would be like suggesting that I need to have 1" rubber soles on all of my shoes in case I'm struck by lightning.


 
Maybe in your country it's so remote as to not happen, and that's ok, but here, I would say its more like the notion you should wear a seatbelt in case you are in an accident, or pay for health insurance in case you get sick, or get your dog a rabies shot in case it bites someone.

All things that arent "likely" to happen, but CAN happen, and IMO being prepared for the possibility of any of those things isn't paranoia. Especially when you look here at the growing rates of Crime, Gang Recruitment, Race Issues and so called "Hate Crimes", Home Invasions, etc that plague certain areas thru the U.S., it's no more paranoid than any of those other things I mentioned.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 1, 2009)

Found an expansion on my original post



> CONSIDER THIS... This is just part of the known tally ...
> 
> In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> 
> ...





> *Be aware that the present U.S Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA '68) and subsequent amendments and local ordinances are sourced from the Nazi Weapons Law (March 18, 1938).  - check it out and then decide for yourself if you want to join them. http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm*



I'm looking for confirmation of this claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Weapons_Law#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act


> *The 1938 German Weapons Act*
> 
> The 1938 _German Weapons Act_, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law:
> 
> ...



US Gun Crime Statistics (USDOJ)


> *Weapon            use*
> In 2005, 24% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon            was present.
> 
> Offenders had or used a weapon in 48% of all robberies, compared with            22% of all aggravated assaults and 7% of all rapes/sexual assaults in            2005.
> ...





> In 2008, offenders used firearms in 66.9 percent of the Nation&#8217;s murders, 43.5 percent of robberies, and 21.4 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapon data are not collected for forcible rape offenses.)


Source: FBI


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 1, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Found an expansion on my original post



I don't see it as an 'expansion' of your original post.  The original post was a chain email that has been making the rounds for some time now, and it uses an invalid argument - the Post Hoc fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Nothing new you have posted changes that.  It's still Post Hoc, and it is still invalid.



> I'm looking for confirmation of this claim.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Weapons_Law#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act


What claim?  That US law was 'patterned after' the 1938 German law?  I don't know what 'patterned after' means.  Do you mean the authors of the bill read the 1938 German law, decided they liked it, and used the same wording in an effort to achieve the same effect as the Germans?

If so, where is the oppression of certain groups, like the Jews?  I don't see that in the GCA '68, do you?

In fact, if you read the information in both the links you presented above, the only similarity I see between them is that both required manufacturers to keep records.  The Germans restricted ownership from Jews.  The US restricted ownership from convicts, mental defectives, and drug abusers.  Sound the same to you?  The Germans allowed exemptions based on Party membership, the US does not.  The Germans created a national carry permitting system, the US has no federal carry permits for civilians.

In what way are they the same at all?  I'm not seeing it.



> US Gun Crime Statistics (USDOJ)
> Source: FBI



Good information, but in what way does it make your previous statements valid?  I'm not getting your point here.  That criminals prefer to use guns?  Yes, I'm sure they do.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 1, 2009)

Bill, no point other than adding some additional information for discussion/verification/debunking.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 1, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Bill, no point other than adding some additional information for discussion/verification/debunking.



OK, then.  Uh, debunked, I guess.

Seriously, I am against 'gun control' as you well know, and I'm a gun owner, but I don't want convicted felons and drug abusers owning guns either.  So the GCA '68 doesn't give me a lot of heartburn.  Attempts to bring the dealer record-keeping system into a centralized government computer DOES give me heartburn.  So I guess I see it as a continuum rather than a strictly black-and-white issue.  Do I think Obama wants to ban private ownership of guns?  Yes, I do.  Do I think he can?  No, probably not.  However, we must be vigilant to make sure small attempts in that direction are stymied.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 1, 2009)

OP was a fragment.  I found a more complete version.
I found additional claims (the US law being based on the Nazi one), found some info, looked for more to confirm/debunk.


Also found some crime stats.

Here's what I took away from those stats:
"Criminals will use weapons, including guns obtained illegally, to perform crimes".

Yes, that's an obvious "No ****!" realization.
As is the comment "The only thing complex weapon control laws do, is make it harder for law abiding citizens to own weapons.", a fact regularly overlooked by Pelosi and co.

I'm for strict penalty for criminal behavior with a weapon, but against protecting criminals by disarming their potential victims.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 1, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm for strict penalty for criminal behavior with a weapon, but against protecting criminals by disarming their potential victims.



I agree with that statement.  I think that falsely claiming a correlation between the GCA '68 and Nazi gun laws is counter-productive.  It makes gun owners look like wackjobs.  If it isn't true, leave it out.  The 2nd Amendment is reason enough on its own.  No further explanation necessary.


----------



## geezer (Nov 1, 2009)

grydth said:


> You have every right to adopt this philosophy......
> 
> However, I have 2 children ages 11 and 14 living with me. Naturally, I hope no malign force shows up on my doorstep - not ever.
> 
> Where we part ways is, if my children are endangered, I guess its the would be child killers who die..... not me, not my girls.


 
Well, if I were you, I'd make sure you did what my dad did for me. Teach your kids good gun safety, how to shoot, handle and care for a gun properly. I've read some "damned statistics" that point to the risk of someone you know dying from a shooting accident or suicide is far greater than someone saving their life using a gun for self defense. My own non-statistical experience is that , discounting buddies in wars or police work, this is about right. 

Sooo, I guess you could say go by the example of my older brother. He's a liberal and favors gun control big time. In fact he devotes most of his money and time to developing gun control... always spending time and money on new guns or on the range pracicing. His _control_ is so good that he's a top ranked competitive marksman at 1,000 yards and a damned good hunter too.

Incidentally, he says he owes a lot to President Obama too. He's plastered Obama/Biden stickers all over his gun cases. He says that when he pulls those out at a meet, he can just sit back and watch as everyone else's blood pressure goes through the roof. He credits this _"Obama effect"_ for helping him win a couple of matches. I just hope his sense of humor doesn't get him shot!


----------



## David43515 (Nov 1, 2009)

Years ago as part of a history course I read a book comparing five or six genocides all over the world. They also compared several politcally oppressed areas and eras that never had a genocide take place. They compared all the common factors and found that for genocide to take place three factors always had to be present. I can`t for the life of me recall all three. (Didn`t bring the book to Japan with me, it`s gathering dust in Ohio) But the first two were cultural causes, and the last was restricting firearms ownership to either the govt or the govt and certain preffered classes of people.

          As an aside, I just think it`s interesting that so many of the people who push the hardest for gun control don`t think it applies to them. I know for a fact Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit, said she needed it for protection. And Rosie O`Donnel doesn`t own a gun, but she sponsored the concealed carry permit that her bodyguard applied for when she moved into NYC.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 1, 2009)

David43515 said:


> Years ago as part of a history course I read a book comparing five or six genocides all over the world. They also compared several politcally oppressed areas and eras that never had a genocide take place. They compared all the common factors and found that for genocide to take place three factors always had to be present. I can`t for the life of me recall all three. (Didn`t bring the book to Japan with me, it`s gathering dust in Ohio) But the first two were cultural causes, and the last was restricting firearms ownership to either the govt or the govt and certain preffered classes of people.



Do yourself a favor and at least read the Wikipedia description of a Post Hoc argument fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

I promise you that if you can dig up those old studies, I can show you several other common factors that will have NOTHING to do with the eventual genocides, but since they're common factors in the societies with genocides and not those without, you'll have to agree that they're causal.

Except of course they won't be, because it will be a Post Hoc fallacy.

I am not saying that restrictive gun laws don't play a part in societies that have experienced genocides. I am saying Post Hoc arguments are not valid.  One might be tempted to think you can draw a rational conclusion from them, but you can't.



> As an aside, I just think it`s interesting that so many of the people who push the hardest for gun control don`t think it applies to them. I know for a fact Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit, said she needed it for protection. And Rosie O`Donnel doesn`t own a gun, but she sponsored the concealed carry permit that her bodyguard applied for when she moved into NYC.



The most ironic was the late columnist Carl Rowan, who was a noted anti-gun person and shot a late-night intruder in his backyard (the man was apparently intent on skinny-dipping in Rowan's pool with his girlfriend) with his illegal and unregistered (in Chevy Case, MD) handgun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rowan#Controversy



> Rowan gained public notoriety on June 14, 1988, when he shot a teenage trespasser, Neil Smith, who was using Rowan's swimming pool in Washington, D.C.. Rowan used an unregistered .22 LR pistol. Critics charged hypocrisy, since Rowan was a strict gun control advocate. In a 1981 column, he advocated "a law that says anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jailperiod." In 1985, he called for "A complete and universal federal ban on the sale, manufacture, importation and possession of handguns (except for authorized police and military personnel)." [2] [3]
> 
> Immediately after the shooting, Rowan offered several conflicting accounts about where he got the handgun. He first said that he had purchased the gun himself in response to threats on his life (which he later claimed had been made by the Ku Klux Klan). He also initially claimed that the gun had been properly registered. However, when District of Columbia police disclosed that the gun had not been registered, Rowan changed his story, claiming that the gun belonged to his son, who "was an FBI agent and did not have to register it [because it was] properly registered federally." Police officials pointed out that under D.C. law, all guns must be registered locally; failure to do so was punishable by up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine.
> 
> Rowan was tried but the jury was deadlocked, the judge declared a mistrial and he was never retried. In his autobiography, Rowan said he still favors gun control, but admits being vulnerable to a charge of hypocrisy.[4]


----------



## David43515 (Nov 2, 2009)

No I understand what you mean Bill, I`m not saying there`s any cause and effect relationship here. I`m saying certain conditions have to exist in order for genocide to take place. They don`t cause one to happen, I`m sure there have been times and places where all three factors existed but a genocide didn`t take place. But if if one of the factors isn`t there genocide has never taken place.

It`s like the fire triangle. In order to have a fire you must have three things. HEAT, OXYGEN, and FUEL. The presance of all three at once doesn`t gurantee there`s going to be a fire. There`s not a clear cause and effect relation. However, if even one of the three is missing, you can`t have a fire.


----------



## Carol (Nov 2, 2009)

geezer said:


> Well, if I were you, I'd make sure you did what my dad did for me. Teach your kids good gun safety, how to shoot, handle and care for a gun properly. I've read some "damned statistics" that point to the risk of someone you know dying from a shooting accident or suicide is far greater than someone saving their life using a gun for self defense. My own non-statistical experience is that , discounting buddies in wars or police work, this is about right.
> 
> Sooo, I guess you could say go by the example of my older brother. He's a liberal and favors gun control big time. In fact he devotes most of his money and time to developing gun control... always spending time and money on new guns or on the range pracicing. His _control_ is so good that he's a top ranked competitive marksman at 1,000 yards and a damned good hunter too.
> 
> Incidentally, he says he owes a lot to President Obama too. He's plastered Obama/Biden stickers all over his gun cases. He says that when he pulls those out at a meet, he can just sit back and watch as everyone else's blood pressure goes through the roof. He credits this _"Obama effect"_ for helping him win a couple of matches. I just hope his sense of humor doesn't get him shot!



A friend of mine from high school went to high school in Arizona and said that gun safety was a required class at the time.  Is that still the case?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Nov 2, 2009)

JDenver said:


> If someone is going to break into my house, chances are very likely they do it when I'm not there.
> 
> If I am there, chances are very likely that they see me and run away.
> 
> ...



I'll remember to tell that to the three people who were just shot around the corner from me when someone tried to break into their home on Friday.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 2, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Of those liberals who want to limit or eliminate private ownership of guns, I do not believe any of them _'want me to become a victim'_. That would be extraordinarily evil, and without benefit to them.  It may be that some small number are clever enough to figure out that the Democrat Party is, in essence, the Party of the Victims (people needing, for various reasons, to be protected by the government) and that a disarmed populace is more in danger of being victimized by armed criminals.  I would be willing to agree that such people exist, but they are most likely a very small number.



+1. I don't mind people having guns and I am all in favor of being able to defend oneself, but I DO think gun control is a good idea.

A friend of mine has a number of guns, and we've debated this when our gun control laws were changed. We basically agreed that in this issue there are 3 types of gun owner:

- the upstanding and responsible gun owner, who follows the applicable laws and regulations, and best practises. this person will do nothing different because of the gun laws.
- the criminal. this person will not be impacted much by gun laws either
- the moron who thinks having a gun is great, but never practises, doesn't know the first thing about gun safety, and has no clue what the applicable laws mean.

Group number 3 is the group targeted by gun control laws. Both my friend and I agree that while we would trust each other with guns, there is a large group of people who should never lay their hands on one. Under the new gun control law, people had to get licenses for hunting rifles and shotguns (handguns were already under control). Sometime later the numbers were published, and there were a large number of people who failed to pass the basic theoretical and practical exams. Failure reasons included climbing a platform with a loaded shotgun, pointing down towards the bystanders, putting loaded weapons back in a travel case, and other braindead things.

It is all very well to discuss rights, but there are responsibilities too. If you don't know how to shoot, handle a weapon, or explain the laws regarding self defense, then imo you should not get access to fire arms, following the same line of reasoning as is used for e.g. drivers licenses.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 2, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> +1. I don't mind people having guns and I am all in favor of being able to defend oneself, but I DO think gun control is a good idea.



I think we disagree on what the appropriate level of gun control happens to be.  I'm in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of the insane, convicted felons, drug addicts, etc.



> Group number 3 is the group targeted by gun control laws.



No, it's not; at least not in the USA.



> It is all very well to discuss rights, but there are responsibilities too.



Not for civil liberties.  We don't have a 1st Amendment that says _"You have freedom of speech, but you have to speak responsibly."_  We allow stupid speech, ignorant speech, even hate speech.  All protected.  Liberties are only contravened when they create a direct threat to the civil liberties of others.



> If you don't know how to shoot, handle a weapon, or explain the laws regarding self defense, then imo you should not get access to fire arms, following the same line of reasoning as is used for e.g. drivers licenses.



There is no right to drive.  There is a right (in the USA) to own firearms.

A person can lose their driver's license administratively - like from not paying their parking tickets or owing back child support.  How about we take away a person's right to own guns administratively as well?  And if we're going to do that to one civil liberty, might as well administratively take away people's right to speak freely, publish, even worship as they choose - all civil liberties that can be 'licensed' and the license taken away.  If you can do it to the 2nd Amendment, you can do it to the others.

I don't want idiots owning guns either, but the state is powerless to stop law-abiding idiots from owning guns.  The dangers of living in a free society.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 2, 2009)

Actually, I think NY does that.  Owe support, lose your gun rights. I could be wrong.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 2, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Actually, I think NY does that.  Owe support, lose your gun rights. I could be wrong.



I'm not aware of that one, but I do know that several states will refuse to grant a carry permit if you're significantly behind on child support payments.

If it was true that NY restricts ownership based on child support payments, I suspect it would be one of the laws struck down if the SCOTUS rules that the 2nd Amendment also applies to the states.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 2, 2009)

I doubt NY would care as it regularly violates it's own laws when convenient.


----------

