Do Firearms Cause Murder...

[Cruentus]

I think some common ground needs to be reached for a logical and fair debate.

First off, I don't think it is useful to debate what a "martial artist" is in the context of this discussion because that definition is not one that is perminent. It will vary from person to person, dictionary to dictionary, etc. The definition of martial is very consistant, but when combined to create the word martial artist, a whole new meaning is contrived that will vary as much as martial arts schools vary in content.

Using the words martial artist was useful for Phil to make his point in the context of his article, but here it only creates a new debate, thus distracting from the real discussion.

That said, I think that we can all agree (at least all of us taking part in the discussion) that firearms prohibition and self-defense are mutually exclusive, and that supporting disarmament of citizens is not condusive of supporting the right for people to defend themselves. That is pretty clear, I think.

So, the question is what is considered reasonable gun control? Where should the line be drawn, if at all? We must take into account that gun control laws tend to regulate the citizen who will obey them rather then the criminals who would harm us. We need to consider as well that although reasonable people out there might be in support of national registries and regulation but not disarmement, there are many unreasonable people who will only use such things as stepping stones to national disarmement if they could get into power.

These are all things to be discussed and considered. I think that it would be more productive to talk along these lines and on common ground rather then to insult each others arguements and essentially get no where...

Paul

 

[Flatlander]

There's another one of your fallacies - that all people who argue for gun control are afraid of firearms. Dude, I grew up with a gun in my hand. I was raised on a farm, and my step-father is a defensive tactics instructor - he teaches cops how to use their sidearms. I'm not afraid of guns.

What I am afraid of is the fact that people have access to guns who probably should not. When there is no proficiency standard, you end up with people who don't know how to store them properly, for example. Then, kids find them and make mistakes.

You're a strong advocate of firearm training - I am too. Education is key. It should, in fact, be a requirement.

However, you still haven't justified the position that martial artists cannot logically espouse gun control, because you're too afraid the government wants to take yours.

Historically, all attempts to regulate gun ownership invariably become attempts to register and then confiscate privately owned firearms. It has happened again and again. It happened in the UK, for example, and it is being attempted in Canada right now (as well as in parts of the United States).

You're assuming malicious intent on the part of legislators, and that's not a valid proposition. It's an assumption.

Arms in the hands of law-abiding citizens are a necessity for any free society, for reasons ranging from self-defense to resistance to tyranny. This is a fact no matter how much you plead to have it dismissed in order to strengthen your own ill-conceived argument.

No they're not Phil. Take your Canada example. There are extremely rigorous standards to meet in order to own or transport firearms. They're getting more rigorous all the time. I have no tyranny to resist. I would, however, like to have the opportunity to meet some rigorous standard which would allow me to carry. I'd also feel quite comfortable with having others in my community afforded the same opportunity.

No, it isn't -- it's wishful thinking, which is the foundation of all pleas for gun control by people who do not own guns, who are not familiar with guns, and who presume to speak of what should and should not be allowed concerning devices of which they have almost no knowledge.

Well, there's an incorrect assumption. See above.

That is nonsense. More resources are now devoted to this than ever before; more laws are in effect now than ever before; there is a reason alcohol prohibition was a dismal failure.

Is more resources the same as enough resources, Phil? And, perhaps more laws doesn't necessarily equate to substantive enforcement now, does it? Finally, comparing guns to alcohol is nonsense. Make a reasonable comparison here.

"Gun control" is a proven failure,

So, because it didn't work in previous incarnations (in completely different contexts, I might add), it can't be revised to work more effectively?

No, to prevent war, a strong ability to wage war must be maintained. Only the ability to fight frees one from the necessity to do so.

Really? Can you provide me with an example?

 

[Xue Sheng]

I think some common ground needs to be reached for a logical and fair debate.

First off, I don't think it is useful to debate what a "martial artist" is in the context of this discussion because that definition is not one that is perminent. It will vary from person to person, dictionary to dictionary, etc. The definition of martial is very consistant, but when combined to create the word martial artist, a whole new meaning is contrived that will vary as much as martial arts schools vary in content.

Using the words martial artist was useful for Phil to make his point in the context of his article, but here it only creates a new debate, thus distracting from the real discussion.

That said, I think that we can all agree (at least all of us taking part in the discussion) that firearms prohibition and self-defense are mutually exclusive, and that supporting disarmament of citizens is not condusive of supporting the right for people to defend themselves. That is pretty clear, I think.

So, the question is what is considered reasonable gun control? Where should the line be drawn, if at all? We must take into account that gun control laws tend to regulate the citizen who will obey them rather then the criminals who would harm us. We need to consider as well that although reasonable people out there might be in support of national registries and regulation but not disarmement, there are many unreasonable people who will only use such things as stepping stones to national disarmement if they could get into power.

These are all things to be discussed and considered. I think that it would be more productive to talk along these lines and on common ground rather then to insult each others arguements and essentially get no where...

Paul

Agreed

My Apologies

 

[Phil Elmore]

Those who argue for gun control are indeed afraid and ignorant of firearms, regardless of their protestations.

 

[shesulsa]

Those who argue for gun control are indeed afraid and ignorant of firearms, regardless of their protestations.

This kind of black-and-white thinking belies the restrictions you have placed on others in the name of what can loosely be called freedom. Attempts at controlling conversation to forward one's own ideals corroborates the fact that one is afraid of thinking openly, of getting attacked, robbed, raped, or proved wrong.

These arguments remind me of those of a political pundit - those who hammer on particular items of interest in the name of defending freedom to the abandonment of other useful tactics mistakenly labeled and completely disregarded as being valid in order to further a specific agenda. I laugh at people like that.

No matter how smart you think you are (or indeed are), I am done with this conversation.

 

[Cruentus]

Those who argue for gun control are indeed afraid and ignorant of firearms, regardless of their protestations.

Although I basically agree with your stance on firearms, I can't agree with your tactic here.

From my own personal experience, I didn't always agree with your stance on gun control, and I was an advocate of "reasonable gun control" even for the law abiding citizen for awhile. Yet, I don't think I was "ignorant" or "afraid." I just believed a lot of misinformation that was out there, and made logical conclusions on misinformation. When I really looked into the issue and found data that I hadn't seen before to shed light on the subject, I changed my view.

However, if in a discussion someone called me "ignorant" or "afraid" or insulted the integrity of my agruement, then my natural human reaction would be to stand stronger in my arguement and essentially dislike the "name-caller," rather then to see things from the other perspective.

This does no good to promote a fair exchange, and it certianly does no good to educate people to our point of view.

I don't mean to jump on you on an issue that we essentially agree on, but I think that your a talented writer and that issues like these could be handled better.

With respect,

Paul

 

[Don Roley]

I'm reading that book right now as well, Don. I'd love to discuss it more with you, but, I just started!

You cited a cultural difference between Japan and the US ... Am I correct in reading your post to say that acceptance of socially guided roles and social status in the Japanses culture (as opposed to the rejection of oppression of any sort including it's inflictor) is responsible, in your eyes, for a lower crime rate?

Yes, no and maybe.

I gave one example and said there were many others. Xue Sheng gave another part of the puzzle. But there are tons of other things that are added to the mix to make the total picture. Some of them may not be needed, some of them may even be unrelated. We can't even really deal with some of the issues that you see in Japan and think about putting them in place in America, much less test them out to see if they are valid. There is just too many things that happen in a society to make a call on just one thing like gun ownership.

Just some of them off the top of my head,

In Japan, people tend to put the responsibility for people's actions on the person themselves. They don't care how they were raised, if they were part of an oppressed minority, how much money they have, etc.

The heros the kids have are more like the John Wayne types instead of the rap stars that live and sing about how they will kill a person for looking at them wrong while surrounded by riches and young females.

During their formative teenage years the kids spend the vast majority of their time in group activities under the guidence of an adult.

Japan has been called a 'shame culture' where the people feel shame for their actions and will be treated as scum if they merely step outside of the common mold. They showed the Jerry Springer show on Japanese television and could not believe that people would appear on it and that no one would tell them that they were perverted freaks.

And all of the above are just part of the picture. But I bet that those that point to Japan having less firearm deaths would blanch at trying to make sure people stay married for the kids sake and the mother stays home with the kids. Or any of the other things that make violent assaults with any type of weapon a very rare event in Japan. I would not like some of it, most of it, being put in place in America.

So it is easier for politicians to go after guns instead of dealing with issues that will probably get them tarred and feathered.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Although I basically agree with your stance on firearms, I can't agree with your tactic here.

It's not a tactic. With very few exceptions, a thorough knowledge of firearms makes it almost impossible for one to advocate their prohibition (or their "control," if you must call it that). This is because when you understand weapons, their limitations, and their applications, you understand their utility and you no longer fear them. Such a person is almost incapable of lobbying for their regulation and prohibition. They're mutually exclusive concepts.

Once in a while the left will drag out someone they claim knows firearms but still advocates "gun conrol," on the idea that this gives them more credibility. Such people are invariably either outright liars or not nearly as educated or experienced as they claim themselves to be.

 

[modarnis]

In your own words: so let's deal with reality for a minute.

You refer to this ideal of a free society - ostensibly alluding to gun regulation as undermining that free society. Here's an interesting question - is driving a motorized vehicle regulated? Face it, everything is regulated. This is reality. Guns are already regulated. I don't understand the objection to the idea of restricting gun ownership to those that meet a higher standard of ability.

The driving analogy doesn't fit well to analyze the US model, since driving is not an enumerated right in the constitutional framework. Comparing gun regulations with regulations on free speech or exceptions to 4th amendment seach and seizure seem more applicable.

Violence exists, regardless of what dangerous instrument is available to a perpetrator. Severely punishing violence is a better angle than restricting access to inanimate objects. Far more violent crimes are committed with household objects that based on their manner of use become dangerous instruments than guns.

 

[7starmantis]

It's not a tactic. With very few exceptions, a thorough knowledge of firearms makes it almost impossible for one to advocate their prohibition (or their "control," if you must call it that). This is because when you understand weapons, their limitations, and their applications, you understand their utility and you no longer fear them. Such a person is almost incapable of lobbying for their regulation and prohibition. They're mutually exclusive concepts.

Once in a while the left will drag out someone they claim knows firearms but still advocates "gun conrol," on the idea that this gives them more credibility. Such people are invariably either outright liars or not nearly as educated or experienced as they claim themselves to be.

It seems your focusing your idea of "control" (or prohibition if you must) on fear of the firearms, or lack of education. That is simply not the idea behind the control of guns. Take the regulation or control of alcohol. I completely understand the utility of alcohol and yet still support its regulation. The utility of an object doesn't affect its regulation. It seems you are only looking at this issue from one standpoint. If someone is in support of regulation or control of firearms they must simply be uneducated and misunderstanding of "weapons, their limitations, and their applications"? Thats going to be pretty hard to prove here. What exactly would be the utility of unregulated dispersal of firearms?

7sm

 

[7starmantis]

Far more violent crimes are committed with household objects that based on their manner of use become dangerous instruments than guns.

And yet no one has ever been killed as an inocent bystander from being hit by a stray eggbeater.

7sm

 

[Phil Elmore]

No one has ever protected herself from attempted rape with an eggbeater, either. The benefits outweigh the liabilities.

 

[Xue Sheng]

It seems your focusing your idea of "control" (or prohibition if you must) on fear of the firearms, or lack of education. That is simply not the idea behind the control of guns. Take the regulation or control of alcohol. I completely understand the utility of alcohol and yet still support its regulation. The utility of an object doesn't affect its regulation. It seems you are only looking at this issue from one standpoint. If someone is in support of regulation or control of firearms they must simply be uneducated and misunderstanding of "weapons, their limitations, and their applications"? Thats going to be pretty hard to prove here. What exactly would be the utility of unregulated dispersal of firearms?

7sm

Just as an addition

There are people in the world that are trained in firearms and tactics that are for gun control and there are those that are not.

There are police officers and military people on both sides of the argument, I personally know a few.

And as previously stated, in reference to alcohol I have a very good friend that is highly trained in the use of firearms, which said he is not that concerned about the average person with a gun, he is VERY concerned about a drunk with a gun.

How do you regulate that?

Also to have a gun does not necessarily mean that you will or are capable of using it. There have been cases where a civilian having a gun has saved their life. There have also been cases where a civilian having a gun has given him/her an over abundant sense of confidence and it has got them killed. There is also a big difference between shooting a target and shooting a person, even if that person is coming at you with violent intent.

A wounded or missed bad guy with a knife can still kill you while you hold your gun. A bad guy with a gun can kill you as well. If they got the gun illegal they do not care about regulations or gun laws.

How do you keep guns out of the hands of those that would use them for the wrong things? This is another question that should be answered.

 

[Phil Elmore]

There are people in the world that are trained in firearms and tactics that are for gun control and there are those that are not.

They may believe themselves to be (those that are for "gun control," I mean), but they're not nearly as educated or trained as they claim. A thorough understanding of weapons and the advocacy of civilian disarmament are mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

Murder was around for thousands of years before some ape decided to see what happened when he poured gunpowder in a pipe and dropped in some marbles. It'll still be there when the marbles are long gone and the projectile is super heated plasma. Murder is caused by mental issues, be it extreme emotion, anger or hatred. It is preventable, but at the true source, humanity. Take away the gun, and those intent on doing harm will find some other tool to achieve their goal. You can't take them all away, no matter how ****ed up the government gets.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Good heavens.

Edmund, we've finally agreed on something.

 

[Xue Sheng]

They may believe themselves to be (those that are for "gun control," I mean), but they're not nearly as educated or trained as they claim. A thorough understanding of weapons and the advocacy of civilian disarmament are mutually exclusive concepts.

A retired Swat member, a PD snipers and a marine are not trained!?!?!?

okie dokie

 

[Mr.Rooster]

I can tell you that if a SWAT team member, PD Sniper and former marine told you that, it was definitely because he/she didn't trust you. You did not get the truth out of him/her.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I can tell you that if a SWAT team member, PD Sniper and former marine told you that, it was definitely because he/she didn't trust you. You did not get the truth out of him/her.

Whatever you wish to believe in order to justify your argument is fine with me.

"I can tell you that if a SWAT team member, PD Sniper and former marine told you that" - Told me what?

I do not ever remember saying I was for or against anything, nor do I remember ever saying exactly what they said other than there are trained people on both sides of the argument.

 

[shesulsa]

Let's return to the original topic, shall we?