Gun Control and Freedom.

[Bill Mattocks]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide;
Homicides are up 3.2%,
Assaults are up 8%,
and Armed robberies are up 44%.
In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.

Over the previous 25 years, statistics had shown a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns."

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:

• Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]
• The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]
• The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]
• The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]
• Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing of firearms and ammunition.[6]

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

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.

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2005, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 11% with other weapons.

In 2008, offenders used firearms in 66.9 percent of the Nation’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]

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]

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

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

+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]

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

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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.