[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Sure – a responsibility is something you have an obligation to do, right? I don't think I'm obligated to protect my stuff (particularly with lethal force).

This is a difference of heart between you and I. The obligation to care for myself falls squarely on me. Thinking otherwise is a dangerous proposition. No one else will do it for you.

You are not obligated by the government to care for yourself, but not doing so will leave you in the gutter. And if/when you have kids, you do have an obligation to care for them including protecting them and the estate that provides for their futures.

Bingo. Did he request the bill too?

Does it take anything away from my point? I feel like we're splitting hairs here.

Not everyday and not as frequently as vehicles, and definitely not outside a job that requires them.

The point being?

Cars are used far more frequently than guns are. What's the gun equivalent of bumper to bumper rush hour traffic that happens every weekday? What's the gun equivalent of mass travel on a holiday weekend? What's the gun equivalent of driving in heavy rain or icy roads?

I'm not sure you have to find an analogue for every condition in order for the analogy to work. Its a basic philosophical equivalency that works at a sufficiently general frame of reference - like any analogy.

Yeah, that's the thing. If you're willing to subject gun rights to the same limits as car usage then you have the beginnings of an equivalent argument. I've not seen any strong 2nd amendment supporters put forth such an idea.

I think the idea is more to offer insight on how we as a society regulate and view the tools of our continued prosperity.

Perhaps the idealogical difference between you and I is this:

I don't view how to treat these two things in terms of "How can we best limit their usage" but instead "What balance do we strike between individual's rights and free will vs the potential for misuse and tragedy." I think our different starting points may be the reasoning for our different spots on the continuum, but I digress.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Not required though, and straw sales (and gifts etc) are not enforced. If you give a car as a gift, the driver still needs a valid license. But if you give a gun as a gift, the user can be completely invisible to the state/feds. That's not parity with driving.

At least in MD, you are still required to register with the state.

Except that would be moving the goal posts. You built the analogy by comparing the effects of cars on public roads to the effects of all gun ownership in general, and that is a fair analogy. The vast majority of dangers from cars come from public roads, so excluding them is a large change of the analogy. The vast majority of dangers from guns come from guns that are nominally kept on private property, so excluding them is a big change too.

Eh I built the analogy on ownership in general, not just "cars on public roads." The analogy would be "transporting or carrying guns in public" The vast majority of benefits from guns reside on private property as well - and that is a difference between guns and cars.

Irrelevant, unless you're going to argue that this overhead is not worth the safety gains from regulating motor vehicle usage?

I am just trying to point out an example of abuse to benefit the state and the detriment to society at large. One that has the citizenry squarely by the balls.

BTW, I just moved to MD from WA, and WA's dept. of licensing is way better than here. The DMV being necessarily horrible is a fallacy. I don't know what's wrong with Maryland, but it doesn't have to be this way.

Welcome. I hail from Annapolis, and travel frequently to Bethesda and Rockville (most of my clients are there and in DC - I'm a filemaker/quickbooks dev). You're right it doesn't have to be this way...but it is, and its not likely to change. You've probably seen me blasting around 495 and 270 trying to beat the horrendous traffic - our main office is in Tyson's just over the VA line.

Sure, but state by state driving requirements don't just happen to all be so similar. If Nevada decided to make vehicular homicide legal, they wouldn't get away with it. As long as it's understood that the same level of good faith would be applied by the states regarding gun control, yes.

I think the states would apply that good faith- doing so would be in their interest. Plus its a lot easier to get oppressive state laws repealed than federal - and you always have an option of moving.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

This is a difference of heart between you and I. The obligation to care for myself falls squarely on me. Thinking otherwise is a dangerous proposition. No one else will do it for you.

Again, that's not a responsibility. I haven't said anything about anyone else doing it for me.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You are not obligated by the government to care for yourself, but not doing so will leave you in the gutter.

The same way that you have a right to self-defense and can be a pacifist. Not a responsibility.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

And if/when you have kids, you do have an obligation to care for them including protecting them and the estate that provides for their futures.

Yes I do. It's in the law. There is no law that I must protect myself.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Does it take anything away from my point?

Yes. You're portraying him as selfish and out of touch. The reality is he's receiving no better treatment that any president in the past 40 years.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The point being?

You can't compare absolute numbers when there's such a large discrepancy in ownership, usage, ubiquity and regulation.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm not sure you have to find an analogue for every condition in order for the analogy to work. Its a basic philosophical equivalency that works at a sufficiently general frame of reference - like any analogy.

It fails under examination.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I don't view how to treat these two things in terms of "How can we best limit their usage" but instead "What balance do we strike between individual's rights and free will vs the potential for misuse and tragedy." I think our different starting points may be the reasoning for our different spots on the continuum, but I digress.

Illustrate my position for me. Where have I advocated we limit their usage?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

At least in MD, you are still required to register with the state.

If all states make it like that, then fine. In no state is there a way to legally drive (on public roads) without a license. Not so for owning a gun.

Eh I built the analogy on ownership in general, not just "cars on public roads." The analogy would be "transporting or carrying guns in public" The vast majority of benefits from guns reside on private property as well - and that is a difference between guns and cars.

Fine, the analogy is about general use. As you point out, the general use of guns in not in public, but for cars it is, therefore the analogy works when you take the most general use of both: public for cars and private for guns. The least-general use of each is irrelevant.

I am just trying to point out an example of abuse to benefit the state and the detriment to society at large. One that has the citizenry squarely by the balls.

Great, it helps. It shows how such situations are not a deal-breaker. Even with this sub-optimal condition in place, we manage to still use cars ubiquitously. The right to use cars is not being functionally infringed, and it's not even a right. If we could do the same or better for guns, it would work just fine.

Welcome. I hail from Annapolis, and travel frequently to Bethesda and Rockville (most of my clients are there and in DC - I'm a filemaker/quickbooks dev). You're right it doesn't have to be this way...but it is, and its not likely to change. You've probably seen me blasting around 495 and 270 trying to beat the horrendous traffic - our main office is in Tyson's just over the VA line.

Ah, so you're the one blasting around
So... it doesn't have to be this way, but even though it is, we still have enough access to cars. Too much access even, given the horrendous traffic.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Not everyday and not as frequently as vehicles, and definitely not outside a job that requires them.

You seem to be referring to the "usage" of guns as only when they are fired. That isn't fair. If I buy a gun for self-defense (I never have and god willing I will never feel the need to), its "use" to me will be every day I own it. It is defending me just by sitting in a drawer, even if I ultimately never fire it at a living thing. Its utility is the security I gain by having it available. Just like the security of a fire insurance policy, it serves its use every day I own it, even if I never have a fire.

Cars are not entirely dissimilar: even if you commute by bus or bike, and your car (or zipcar) is only used for pleasure or shopping, you still get utility out of the access to the car on days you don't even drive it. Because the knowledge that it is ready whenever you need it changes the way you live your life. You are more free to make plans, be spontaneous and confident because you have the access, not (only) when you actually turn the key and go somewhere. Another example is I got an EZ Pass after moving to the east coast, but haven't gone through a toll with it yet. I get use out of the thing only in that I now know that whenever I encounter my first toll, I'll be ready. That is still use, and I pay an inactivity fee every month for that use.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You seem to be referring to the "usage" of guns as only when they are fired. That isn't fair.

You infer incorrectly.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

IIts utility is the security I gain by having it available. Just like the security of a fire insurance policy, it serves its use every day I own it, even if I never have a fire.

Demonstrate this for me.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Cars are not entirely dissimilar: even if you commute by bus or bike, and your car (or zipcar) is only used for pleasure or shopping, you still get utility out of the access to the car on days you don't even drive it. Because the knowledge that it is ready whenever you need it changes the way you live your life. You are more free to make plans, be spontaneous and confident because you have the access, not (only) when you actually turn the key and go somewhere. Another example is I got an EZ Pass after moving to the east coast, but haven't gone through a toll with it yet. I get use out of the thing only in that I now know that whenever I encounter my first toll, I'll be ready. That is still use, and I pay an inactivity fee every month for that use.

Unless you have measurable circumstances we can derive some conclusions from regarding utility, this strikes me as utterly pedantic.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Again, that's not a responsibility. I haven't said anything about anyone else doing it for me.

So you don't feel obligated to care for yourself or your loved ones? I mean, someone has to care for you - otherwise what? just lay down and die? Live on welfare? What you're saying doesn't make any sense from a practical standpoint.

The same way that you have a right to self-defense and can be a pacifist. Not a responsibility.

With every right is a corresponding responsibility. You're free to give up that right (and therefore that responsibility, but nonetheless.

Yes I do. It's in the law. There is no law that I must protect myself.

Yes there is, not written to any of our laws but a law of nature is that you must protect yourself otherwise you cease to exist.

Yes. You're portraying him as selfish and out of touch. The reality is he's receiving no better treatment that any president in the past 40 years.

Again, it doesn't change the overall point I'm trying to make. Regardless of who else has gotten that "treatment" none of the others have successfully implemented the changes he's trying to make. You could argue the assault weapons ban but that didn't stick.

You can't compare absolute numbers when there's such a large discrepancy in ownership, usage, ubiquity and regulation.

From a theoretical standpoint you absolutely can draw those comparisons. Especially when considering rights. I'm not trying to equivocate the two completely, just draw an analogy.

It fails under examination.

Perhaps under a microscope, but with that level of scrutiny there would be no such thing as an analogy.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The word analogy can also refer to the relation between the source and the target themselves, which is often, though not necessarily, a similarity, as in the biological notion of analogy.

Emphasis mine.

Illustrate my position for me. Where have I advocated we limit their usage?

Ahh come on, Dakar. You're taking issue with arguments because you agree with me?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If all states make it like that, then fine. In no state is there a way to legally drive (on public roads) without a license. Not so for owning a gun.

Perhaps, but do you believe its up to the feds to change that? Shouldn't that be left for the states to decide?

Fine, the analogy is about general use. As you point out, the general use of guns in not in public, but for cars it is, therefore the analogy works when you take the most general use of both: public for cars and private for guns. The least-general use of each is irrelevant.

True, but I'd like to maintain that they are regulated much the same way in public and in private use, even if one is used generally in public and the other generally in private.

Great, it helps. It shows how such situations are not a deal-breaker. Even with this sub-optimal condition in place, we manage to still use cars ubiquitously. The right to use cars is not being functionally infringed, and it's not even a right. If we could do the same or better for guns, it would work just fine.

Perhaps, but why create "sub-optimal" conditions with little to no benefit?

Ah, so you're the one blasting around
So... it doesn't have to be this way, but even though it is, we still have enough access to cars. Too much access even, given the horrendous traffic.

I am one of many trying to avoid the inevitable gridlock from 8-11 and 2-7 on that stretch of road. I think at one point it was rated the worst in the nation though may now have fallen, but still in the top 5.

Traffic is unfortunately a necessary evil towards furthering our society's prosperity - as our standard of living rises so does access to private cars. I for one, would like to see access to cars continue to go up, as that indicates a higher standard of living for us. "Enough" is not enough, nor should it be an upper limit.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Demonstrate this for me.

Demonstrate what? That insurance benefits you even if you're lucky enough to not have to file a claim? That living with increased security or decreased risk is an improved state of living?

Unless you have measurable circumstances we can derive some conclusions from regarding utility, this strikes me as utterly pedantic.

My point is more that there are still things out there that provide utility even if the utility isn't measurable. How do you measure the utility of your door lock, or your car alarm? You get that utility every day, but how much of it exactly? Things exist that aren't measurable but are still important, and "just in case" items are a prime example.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Perhaps, but do you believe its up to the feds to change that? Shouldn't that be left for the states to decide?

I believe that the 2nd amendment has to be updated in order for either the feds or states to implement it.

True, but I'd like to maintain that they are regulated much the same way in public and in private use, even if one is used generally in public and the other generally in private.

I don't know what you're referring to. Guns and cars aren't regulated the same way, and cars aren't regulated the same way on public roads as on private property.

Perhaps, but why create "sub-optimal" conditions with little to no benefit?

1) You make the faulty assumption that the new system would be just like MD, not just like WA. Let's just make it like WA.
2) It's obviously not "little to no benefit," obviously it offers significant benefit (to cars) otherwise we wouldn't keep it (for cars), and the whole point of the analogy is because of the similarity (to guns).

Traffic is unfortunately a necessary evil towards furthering our society's prosperity - as our standard of living rises so does access to private cars. I for one, would like to see access to cars continue to go up, as that indicates a higher standard of living for us. "Enough" is not enough, nor should it be an upper limit.

Right, access to cars is limited by means, not by licensing. Licensing would not limit lawful access to guns by the same token. And also like cars, it would allow us to significantly limit UNlawful access.

[Athens]

You know I am pro gun, and pro gun ownership. I think every one of sound mind should know how to store, transport and use guns. But I will never understand this fear of government and this fear of being able to protect one self. I go about my day every day never once thinking about being in danger from ether government or personally from another person. I leave my door unlock most of the time at home only locking it before I go to bed. I couldn't be bothered to lock it when I get home. The thought of what if some one tries to rob me never even occurs to me except when I read posts about self protection. I freely walk to the local stores with no fear at all about being mugged or jacked. I've walked through the downtown east side many times through the hordes of crack heads with little to no fear of my own personal safety. These thoughts are just not there. My primary reason for owning a gun is protection from wildlife when out hiking. Secondary its a fun sport, I like them. A friend of mine in St Louis posted on his facebook wall a few weeks ago how if he had a gun in the car he might have accidently shoot a man. A homeless man had knocked on his window while stopped at a red light and it startled him, out right scared him. The first thought he had was he was about to get car jacked. When some one knocks on my window on a street corner the first thought on my mind is he wants some money and I just say I dont have any. There is no thought about being car jacked.

I Just really don't get this fear people have. Is it based on actually seeing these things occur in your own communities? Ive spent a lot of time in Seattle, Bellevue and I've only see a teen running out of North Gate Mall with security in chaise. I've seen a car pulled over on the side of the road by police a couple times. That is the extent of criminal activity I've witnessed first hand in a American city. Ans Seattle isn't even remotely close to being the lowest crime city in the US. I've witnessed very few crimes in my entire life in Vancouver and Vancouver has a way above average crime rate for Canada.

Is the fear from TV? If so this would make the most sense because the majority of bad things I see and hear about come from the news stations. I stopped watching the news daily when my Cable went snip snip.

Am I just the odd one out that I don't have these fears of house invasions, being mugged, car jacked?

I am just curious. So much talk about guns is about how its for self defense from people and government. I don't even see a gun as being useful in most situations for that.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Perhaps, but do you believe its up to the feds to change that? Shouldn't that be left for the states to decide?

Gun control should be universal and federally regulated so the same rules apply across the board. Its impossible for one state to have one kind of rule and another state to have different rules with out the first state being harmed if the rules do not line up. IE, say Washington bans handguns, but Idaho does not. Some one in Washington can just go to Idaho and purchase the handgun and bring it back to Washington defeating the purpose of Washingtons law at removing handguns.

Of course I don't believe in bands but its just a example. Besides having 50 different sets of rules and ways of doing things does not help with compliance with laws. Its a lot easier for every one to live with in the law if the law is the same everywhere you go.

[Athens]

Let me add to that the base line gun control should be federal, with states and communities being able to add additional to it. Baseline like a license and background check would be federal while states define where and what you can shoot like no lead shoot or bird shot only areas.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

And 80 million use guns. Cars kill more people than guns do. Err, let me restate. People kill more people being stupid with cars than they do being stupid with guns.

Yes, but cars also save lives, lives that aren't being ended prematurely by other cars. Cars make lives better. They save time and money and if you count larger road vehicles (as you should) they deliver critical and sometimes lifesaving goods and services. Guns don't do that. When was the last time you saw a squad of firefighters arrive on an AR-15?

In my opinion, the rules of who gets to drive could justifiably be far stricter than they are. In the UK they let any idiot drive a car and punishments for drink driving are nowhere near severe enough.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I believe the analogy is spot on.

You would because it suits your view to believe that.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

They are both tools for a purpose. They are both deadly in the wrong hands. They are both capable of murder in the wrong hands. You shouldn't operate either while drunk. You shouldn't put mentally unstable in control of either.

One of those tools is a one-trick-pony, the other is a jack of all trades. That one trick is to cause life-threatening injury and death. It doesn't have any social benefit beyond a self-perpetuating one.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Just because you are uncomfortable with one does make it a "terrible analogy." A car can absolutely be used as a weapon and a gun can be used as a tool.

Anything can be used as a weapon. I'm sure an M-16 makes a perfectly serviceable doorstop but are you seriously going to claim thats a good idea or even a relevant point? Please give a tool use for a gun that doesn't involve violence or the threat of violence.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

That is the endgame, and if you do not think this ban would do much, whats even the point? It will cost billions to enforce, lost revenues of gunsmiths for R&D and current stock. For what?

So because people who think like you do have succeeded in whittling any positive action down until its virtually pointless, there isn't any point in going through with it at all. = When people on the right make a big enough fuss they should just get their own way. I'm not ok with that. Better to waste time and money than just cave in to the unreasonable.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Yes, but cars also save lives, lives that aren't being ended prematurely by other cars. Cars make lives better. They save time and money and if you count larger road vehicles (as you should) they deliver critical and sometimes lifesaving goods and services. Guns don't do that. When was the last time you saw a squad of firefighters arrive on an AR-15?

I'd wager the vast majority of crashes are caused by people who aren't professional drivers (or at least, not on the job at the time).

See this comes down to the grand error, the same one on both sides: casting too wide a net. One side wants to ban all guns, the other side wants no regulation at all. Both are wrong. If traffic accidents are a problem, the first step isn't to start banning cars, just like when we found out thalidomide was causing birth defects, the first step isn't to ban all drugs. By the same token, if the rights of legal gun users are going to be hampered by proposed regulation, the solution isn't to block all regulations.

Of course, our first problem in the US is that part of our constitution is long in the tooth, and shields the ridiculous wide-net-casting of one side at the expense of the other.

One of those tools is a one-trick-pony, the other is a jack of all trades. That one trick is to cause life-threatening injury and death. It doesn't have any social benefit beyond a self-perpetuating one.

It's true, one is a one-trick-pony, but it's still the best pony we have for doing that trick, bar-none. Until the day comes when we don't have to do that trick, this fact is irrelevant.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Yes, but cars also save lives, lives that aren't being ended prematurely by other cars. Cars make lives better. They save time and money and if you count larger road vehicles (as you should) they deliver critical and sometimes lifesaving goods and services. Guns don't do that. When was the last time you saw a squad of firefighters arrive on an AR-15?

You don't think guns save lives? Why do our police need them?

In my opinion, the rules of who gets to drive could justifiably be far stricter than they are. In the UK they let any idiot drive a car and punishments for drink driving are nowhere near severe enough.

Fair enough.

You would because it suits your view to believe that.

Snark much?

One of those tools is a one-trick-pony, the other is a jack of all trades. That one trick is to cause life-threatening injury and death. It doesn't have any social benefit beyond a self-perpetuating one.

A car is not a "jack of all trades" moreso than a gun is. A car goes from point A to B. Thats it.

Anything can be used as a weapon. I'm sure an M-16 makes a perfectly serviceable doorstop but are you seriously going to claim thats a good idea or even a relevant point? Please give a tool use for a gun that doesn't involve violence or the threat of violence.

Please give me a use for a car that doesn't involve going from point A to point B. Its purpose is clear as day.

So because people who think like you do have succeeded in whittling any positive action down until its virtually pointless, there isn't any point in going through with it at all. = When people on the right make a big enough fuss they should just get their own way. I'm not ok with that. Better to waste time and money than just cave in to the unreasonable.

[/quote] So because I disagree with you, its "unreasonable"? This has to be about the most worthless section of a post I've ever seen. You can do better. I've seen it.

You want change? Demonstrate how that change will have a net positive effect. Don't call me unreasonable because I don't buy what you're selling. You'd be wasting my time and my money, so yeah, I'd like to know exactly what I'm buying.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You don't think guns save lives? Why do our police need them?

Aaaaaand circle again.

They only need them because the rest of you have them.


[QUOTE=Snow-i;4214971]
A car is not a "jack of all trades" moreso than a gun is. A car goes from point A to B. Thats it.

Please give me a use for a car that doesn't involve going from point A to point B. Its purpose is clear as day. [QUOTE]

Transporting people or things from A to B faster than walking. You can put advertising for your business on a vehicle so thats a purpose. They have (mostly) non-lethal sporting use on the racetrack.
Motor vehicles can dig holes in the ground or winch parts to the top of skyscrapers, put out fires, build temporary bridges, pull other cars, people and even horses out of boggy ditches or winch people up cliffs after a fall. They have all manner of optional extras which give them many more purposes. The optional extras on guns include killing stuff more efficiently (not a change in purpose) and looking slightly cooler (not a useful purpose).

Even if I generously agree to distill it down to 'going from A to B', that task alone makes them incredibly useful for thousands of things which don't involve deliberately killing or injuring people.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So because I disagree with you, its "unreasonable"? This has to be about the most worthless section of a post I've ever seen. You can do better. I've seen it.

No its unreasonable because everyone on both sides of the argument can see that there are senseless deaths happening, reams of evidence as well as good old plain sense point to an obvious course of action but the people who see that and are willing to make the personal sacrifice to take that action then have to compromise with those who won't. Despite this compromise, the opponents are still complaining. Now they complain that the compromise that was made for their benefit makes the whole thing pointless so no action should be taken at all. One side is clearly being reasonable by trying to compromise, the other is saying "we won't agree to the solution and anything less than the solution is no longer a solution" which is exactly the same as "we want our way on this and will not move [i[at all[/i] no matter what". Its difficult to see how it could be any less reasonable (and hence more unreasonable).

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You want change? Demonstrate how that change will have a net positive effect. Don't call me unreasonable because I don't buy what you're selling. You'd be wasting my time and my money, so yeah, I'd like to know exactly what I'm buying.

Well if you sucked it up and sacrificed your toys like you really should, you'd be buying the lives of countless of your fellow citizens. Not countless really, it seems to be about a million a century currently. Thats not propaganda or twisting statistics to suit my POV, thats as close as you can get to a direct comparison between America and the parts of the developed world who have tighter gun controls without actually trying it yourselves. Any reasonable person would certainly consider it compelling enough evidence to at least give it a try.
You've tried keeping the same lack of gun control (aka doing nothing to solve the problem) for decades now and unsurprisingly it hasn't made any difference to your rate of gun deaths which seems to be pretty steady at around 10000 per year. How long does doing nothing have to be ineffective before its worth trying something?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Aaaaaand circle again.

They only need them because the rest of you have them.

Ok, So how do we get rid of all the existing guns? You have a magic wand or something?

Transporting people or things from A to B faster than walking. You can put advertising for your business on a vehicle so thats a purpose. They have (mostly) non-lethal sporting use on the racetrack.
Motor vehicles can dig holes in the ground or winch parts to the top of skyscrapers, put out fires, build temporary bridges, pull other cars, people and even horses out of boggy ditches or winch people up cliffs after a fall. They have all manner of optional extras which give them many more purposes. The optional extras on guns include killing stuff more efficiently (not a change in purpose) and looking slightly cooler (not a useful purpose).

Guns can be used to defend homes, control unruly crowds, subdue would be attackers, be used for sport, be used for food, act as a collectible hobby, hold historical value, start revolutions, defend the helpless.

One purpose, right?

Even if I generously agree to distill it down to 'going from A to B', that task alone makes them incredibly useful for thousands of things which don't involve deliberately killing or injuring people.

And guns are useful for many things that don't involve murdering someone.

No its unreasonable because everyone on both sides of the argument can see that there are senseless deaths happening, reams of evidence as well as good old plain sense point to an obvious course of action but the people who see that and are willing to make the personal sacrifice to take that action then have to compromise with those who won't. Despite this compromise, the opponents are still complaining. Now they complain that the compromise that was made for their benefit makes the whole thing pointless so no action should be taken at all. One side is clearly being reasonable by trying to compromise, the other is saying "we won't agree to the solution and anything less than the solution is no longer a solution" which is exactly the same as "we want our way on this and will not move [i[at all[/i] no matter what". Its difficult to see how it could be any less reasonable (and hence more unreasonable).

I get it man, I understand. But the guns aren't the ones doing the murdering. The people are. Its human nature, welcome to earth. I applaud your disgust for senseless waste of life - I share the same sick feeling in my gut. I will not, however, fail to see the importance of firearms to individuals protection and freedom. I truly hold the value that in the long run, banning guns would mean more senseless death and suffering for our society. The death and destruction in the history of civilization due to oppressive authorities (including currently, in the world today) should not be overlooked. No society has stood the test of time and each has fallen under increasingly oppressive regimes. Why should we be different?

Well if you sucked it up and sacrificed your toys like you really should, you'd be buying the lives of countless of your fellow citizens.

Utter Bullshit. They banned em in DC, and what happened?

Not countless really, it seems to be about a million a century currently. Thats not propaganda or twisting statistics to suit my POV, thats as close as you can get to a direct comparison between America and the parts of the developed world who have tighter gun controls without actually trying it yourselves. Any reasonable person would certainly consider it compelling enough evidence to at least give it a try.

"Give it a try?" With failure meaning sensless waste of life and the loss of our children's freedoms? Nuh uh, you gotta do better then "give it a try." I think you underestimate the innate greed built into all humans. There is nothing altruistic about government and the only thing that keeps it the way it is except the current system of checks and balances.

You've tried keeping the same lack of gun control (aka doing nothing to solve the problem) for decades now and unsurprisingly it hasn't made any difference to your rate of gun deaths which seems to be pretty steady at around 10000 per year. How long does doing nothing have to be ineffective before its worth trying something?

Its been falling for decades, man...

Not only that, but murder is going to happen. A large part of that death rate is gang-related, which frankly banning guns isn't going to stop. Alot of it is drug related - with an open border thats not going to stop by banning guns either. Premeditated murder is going to happen whether guns are involved or not.

How many women have avoided being raped because they had a weapon and knew how to use it? (I'll give you a hint, there's one in my immediate family). Simply pulling it out was enough to make the would-be rapist flee. Ok, so maybe it was just a burglar, we'll never know - but I'm damn glad my family never had to find out.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Ok, So how do we get rid of all the existing guns? You have a magic wand or something?

There will need to be a transition. It won't necessarily be pretty either but its going to need doing sooner or later.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Guns can be used to defend homes, control unruly crowds, subdue would be attackers, be used for sport, be used for food, act as a collectible hobby, hold historical value, start revolutions, defend the helpless.

They do all those things by killing or maiming people or animals. Except maybe sport. They don't need to actually be dangerous to be collectible or hold historical value. The rest of us have historical and ornamental guns you know but they have to be deactivated.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

One purpose, right?
And guns are useful for many things that don't involve murdering someone.

By which I mean their sole intended purpose is violent.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I get it man, I understand. But the guns aren't the ones doing the murdering. The people are. Its human nature, welcome to earth. I applaud your disgust for senseless waste of life - I share the same sick feeling in my gut.

Thank you for that, I understand the 'guns don't kill people' position too but the evidence clearly demonstrates that simply by having them so easily accessible, people die where they otherwise would not. Someone depressed picks one up and shoots themself dead where they might otherwise eat some ice cream. Someone angry raids Mom's cabinet and goes nuts in a school. Someone broke and desperate decides to rob a liquor store or burgle a house or perform a hit for a guy he met in a bar.

Don't get me wrong, if I was allowed and had the money, I might well own some guns just to take to the range. But I have sufficient stability and self control and respect for life and deadly weapons that I would trust myself to do that and only that. While there are plenty of other people who I would also trust, there are an awful lot I wouldn't and rightly so.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I will not, however, fail to see the importance of firearms to individuals protection and freedom. I truly hold the value that in the long run, banning guns would mean more senseless death and suffering for our society. The death and destruction in the history of civilization due to oppressive authorities (including currently, in the world today) should not be overlooked. No society has stood the test of time and each has fallen under increasingly oppressive regimes. Why should we be different?

I'd like to think we should be different. Democracy is designed so that the people can vote an oppressive government out. Democratic governments often bend to public opinion (even when they shouldn't) and I think its a little disrespectful to assume that your military would go along with whatever tyranny might occur. They are citizens too remember. You never say never of course, but it seems a bit like those doomsday preppers waiting for an asteroid to hit. The difference is that they waste a few bucks digging bunkers and buying canned goods, keeping all those guns in an unrestricted fashion is costing lives.

I honestly think that if you did take them away for a generation or two and were able to get as many as possible out of circulation among criminals that there would be a cultural attitude shift towards guns in the populace. The gung-ho approach that so many appear to have is a big part of the problem IMO. The gun enthusiasts you want are the ones who get excited because they find a rare version with a stock thats 5mm shorter than most of the rest (a bit like a trainspotter), not the guys talking about stopping power with big grins on their faces and semis in their pants.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Utter Bullshit. They banned em in DC, and what happened?

How far exactly do you have to drive from DC to be able to buy one of those banned guns?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

"Give it a try?" With failure meaning sensless waste of life and the loss of our children's freedoms? Nuh uh, you gotta do better then "give it a try." I think you underestimate the innate greed built into all humans. There is nothing altruistic about government and the only thing that keeps it the way it is except the current system of checks and balances.

A gun owning populace is not a part of a system of checks and balances. Its an emergency OS reinstall that will lose valuable data.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Its been falling for decades, man...

Murder yes, overall including accident and suicide, apparently not.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Not only that, but murder is going to happen. A large part of that death rate is gang-related, which frankly banning guns isn't going to stop. Alot of it is drug related - with an open border thats not going to stop by banning guns either. Premeditated murder is going to happen whether guns are involved or not.

It does happen yes, but it can be reduced. When you have a large population from a culture where shooting each other is an integral part, giving them free access to weapons is not a great idea is it? Better they run around with pocket knives like they do in our cities.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

How many women have avoided being raped because they had a weapon and knew how to use it? (I'll give you a hint, there's one in my immediate family). Simply pulling it out was enough to make the would-be rapist flee. Ok, so maybe it was just a burglar, we'll never know - but I'm damn glad my family never had to find out.

This is the one reason that ever gives me cause to wonder about my opinion. Rape seems to be a lot more common on your side of the pond. Another cultural shift is required. Some of your guys need to learn how to be proper gentlemen I think.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

A gun owning populace is not a part of a system of checks and balances. Its an emergency OS reinstall that will lose valuable data.

And why would we want that to be impossible?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So you don't feel obligated to care for yourself or your loved ones? I mean, someone has to care for you - otherwise what? just lay down and die? Live on welfare? What you're saying doesn't make any sense from a practical standpoint.

We're not arguing practicality, though. You're trying to frame self-preservation as a requirement and I'm showing you it's actually not.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

With every right is a corresponding responsibility. You're free to give up that right (and therefore that responsibility, but nonetheless.

BS. I have the right to vote and may personally feel a responsibility to do so, but it isn't required. I have no legal responsibility to vote.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Yes there is, not written to any of our laws but a law of nature is that you must protect yourself otherwise you cease to exist.

Hahaha. This is some amazing stretching going on. How about we stick to the law as that's what this is about?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Again, it doesn't change the overall point I'm trying to make. Regardless of who else has gotten that "treatment" none of the others have successfully implemented the changes he's trying to make.

What does successfully implementing changes have to do with qualifications for suggesting them?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

From a theoretical standpoint you absolutely can draw those comparisons. Especially when considering rights. I'm not trying to equivocate the two completely, just draw an analogy.

And I'm illustrating why it's a terrible analogy and fails on multiple levels.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Emphasis mi
ne.

It still sucks. It makes about as much sense as comparing absolute gun deaths per country.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Ahh come on, Dakar. You're taking issue with arguments because you agree with me?

Otherwise you're just making strawmen.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And why would we want that to be impossible?

Its not impossible just because there aren't 80 million guns hidden under people's beds.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Demonstrate what? That insurance benefits you even if you're lucky enough to not have to file a claim? That living with increased security or decreased risk is an improved state of living?

Substitute gun for flood insurance, but yes.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

My point is more that there are still things out there that provide utility even if the utility isn't measurable. How do you measure the utility of your door lock, or your car alarm? You get that utility every day, but how much of it exactly? Things exist that aren't measurable but are still important, and "just in case" items are a prime example.

How do you know they provide utility if they aren't measurable? How is this different than God and religion?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Its not impossible just because there aren't 80 million guns hidden under people's beds.

Correct. They're in closets, cabinets, and basements. I have ~130 now.

[Athens]

I just love how people say look at Washington DC they banned guns and violence went up. Has it ever occurred to any one that violence was on its way up that lead to the ban (which did nothing to slow the violence) and the violence continued to go up anyways. It was not because the guns where banned, just like banning the guns was not going to slow the violence.

I'll repeat. Banning guns did not cause more violence. Banning guns was never going to reduce the violence either.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Its not impossible just because there aren't 80 million guns hidden under people's beds.

I don't get it, what are you suggesting?

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Substitute gun for flood insurance, but yes.

Prepared people are relaxed, unprepared people are anxious. Do I need to describe the negative effects of chronic anxiety? Or do I need to explain why someone might be anxious about the need for self defense?

How do you know they provide utility if they aren't measurable?

That's why I gave you three examples, which you accused of being pedantic.
Another way to know, which I'm sure you won't believe, is the test of whether people pay money for it. If it had no utility, why would people pay for it? Why do they pay for insurance against risks that are very rare? It's so they can sleep at night instead of being anxious about being the unlucky few.

How is this different than God and religion?

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but so what if it is? Religion has utility too, it provides loads of psychological benefits.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't get it, what are you suggesting?

That countries without gun ownership can stage rebellions too.

[ghporter]

...and how successful are they in those rebellions? In '89 the Chinese government quashed a protest by obviously unarmed students using tanks...

Further, the Framers of the Constitution had experience with "the government" (the Crown) confiscating firearms from the populace... It was felt that ensuring the citizens could not legally be disarmed en masse would act as a check on the government. Unpopular decisions might come and go, but if it is too unpopular (read up on the Whiskey Rebellion) then citizens have the right to take up arms.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

That countries without gun ownership can stage rebellions too.

And I think you'll either find these to be a lot bloodier than they have to be and/or a populace entirely handicapped from taking the option of staging their rebellion altogether. Otherwise, if you have some examples handy, I'd be open to viewing them.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I just love how people say look at Washington DC they banned guns and violence went up. Has it ever occurred to any one that violence was on its way up that lead to the ban (which did nothing to slow the violence) and the violence continued to go up anyways. It was not because the guns where banned, just like banning the guns was not going to slow the violence.

I'll repeat. Banning guns did not cause more violence. Banning guns was never going to reduce the violence either.

You are incorrect in your statement about causes. D.C. was used as a "model" for "sensible" gun laws at a time when there was only a very small level of crime in most of the city (more in the very poor sections - imagine that!). An effective ban on citizens having firearms DID lead to an incredible increase in the crime rate (all types), which can be correlated to the criminals knowing that the citizens were unarmed. This was substantiated by a number of studies, at least one focused on D.C. itself, where convicted criminals agreed that knowing their intended victims had to be defenseless was a strong motivator for them to victimize more people.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

That countries without gun ownership can stage rebellions too.

There are easier ways to kill oneself.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

That countries without gun ownership can stage rebellions too.

That sounds spurious to me. I'd like to see some examples.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

(read up on the Whiskey Rebellion) then citizens have the right to take up arms.

I would say it's more the ability to take up arms. I would disagree that citizens have the right to take up arms against the government (the Whiskey Rebellion being a prime example, as it was put down), but at the same time it's valuable to ensure the people retain the ability to do the things that aren't allowed, because then they will only do those things if the need is truly extreme (greater than the risk of death, which they would surely face if they did it).

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That sounds spurious to me. I'd like to see some examples.

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but we keep hearing about how the Nazis took away all the guns but they aren't around any more are they?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but we keep hearing about how the Nazis took away all the guns but they aren't around any more are they?

Because an even bigger fish ate them. Who's the bigger fish we can rely on to save us from Uncle Sam if need be?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Because an even bigger fish ate them. Who's the bigger fish we can rely on to save us from Uncle Sam if need be?

Maybe the same force that protects us from a space alien invasion? The two are about as likely.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Maybe the same force that protects us from a space alien invasion? The two are about as likely.

That doesn't answer the question

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

That countries without gun ownership can stage rebellions too.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That sounds spurious to me. I'd like to see some examples.

Ghandi in India? It did get rather bloody though. Lots of club and machete deaths. They did have the world press on their side, plus he was dealing with the UK.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but we keep hearing about how the Nazis took away all the guns but they aren't around any more are they?

They did manage to kill several million people without firing a shot.

Remember Tiananmen Square? Once the press was expelled, it was crushed without mercy. This guy was reportedly executed, along with the leaders of the Tiananmen uprising. BTW, had the press not been there, the tanks would have rolled right over him.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Ghandi in India? It did get rather bloody though. Lots of club and machete deaths. They did have the world press on their side, plus he was dealing with the UK.



They did manage to kill several million people without firing a shot.

Remember Tiananmen Square? Once the press was expelled, it was crushed without mercy. This guy was reportedly executed, along with the leaders of the Tiananmen uprising. BTW, had the press not been there, the tanks would have rolled right over him.

You think no-one would die if they had guns?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I would say it's more the ability to take up arms. I would disagree that citizens have the right to take up arms against the government (the Whiskey Rebellion being a prime example, as it was put down), but at the same time it's valuable to ensure the people retain the ability to do the things that aren't allowed, because then they will only do those things if the need is truly extreme (greater than the risk of death, which they would surely face if they did it).

Bingo! ^

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I would say it's more the ability to take up arms. I would disagree that citizens have the right to take up arms against the government (the Whiskey Rebellion being a prime example, as it was put down), but at the same time it's valuable to ensure the people retain the ability to do the things that aren't allowed, because then they will only do those things if the need is truly extreme (greater than the risk of death, which they would surely face if they did it).

I agree with all but the bold section. Deposing a corrupt and tyrannical government, with force if needs be, isn't just a right it's an obligation.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

And I think you'll either find these to be a lot bloodier than they have to be and/or a populace entirely handicapped from taking the option of staging their rebellion altogether. Otherwise, if you have some examples handy, I'd be open to viewing them.

Bloodier at the time of rebellion yes, but your way is bloodier the rest of the time. Hence 10,000 gun deaths a year, most of which are unnecessary.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Because an even bigger fish ate them. Who's the bigger fish we can rely on to save us from Uncle Sam if need be?

Given that most of your gun enthusiasts appear to have similar political leaning to most of your military servicemen, I really don't see the problem. Why would you think all the soldiers are going to follow the orders of a tyrannical government when they've been brought up just like you have to dislike that kind of thing?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Because an even bigger fish ate them. Who's the bigger fish we can rely on to save us from Uncle Sam if need be?

I'm certain that Europe, Russia, Japan etc would help you out if the need arose. I know you'd like to think that in a fight that was America Vs. everyone else that America would win, but thats not the case.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I agree with all but the bold section. Deposing a corrupt and tyrannical government, with force if needs be, isn't just a right it's an obligation.

When voting no longer works?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Bloodier at the time of rebellion yes, but your way is bloodier the rest of the time. Hence 10,000 gun deaths a year, most of which are unnecessary.

And most of which occur in States and cities with the tightest gun control. You'd say; but they're just getting the guns from somewhere else and of course, this is true in part. After all, we get 30-50% of our weed from Canada and Mexico and it's not law-abiding citizens trafficking it. Criminals will have guns just as they have any number of other things they're not supposed to. Look, 10,000 gun deaths a year is horrific to be sure, but there are more than 313 million people in this country and mathematically, many more pockets of the kind of highly congested, poor socioeconomic conditions that comprise the lion's share of the body counts. This also does not account for the amount of crime thwarted by guns used legitimately by people who, by no fault of their own, are poor and have to live where it's cheaper. I think some perspective is in order. The US homicide rate is enjoying its lowest point in more than 50 years while gun ownership only continues to grow.

[Waragainstsleep]

But while the homicide rate has fallen, gun deaths haven't so legal ownership is causing more and more deaths by suicide, accident and I assume those figures include criminals who are shot dead too. Its easy to dismiss those criminals, but they are still people getting killed. You'd expect those numbers to grow with ownership of course, but that doesn't make it ok.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Given that most of your gun enthusiasts appear to have similar political leaning to most of your military servicemen, I really don't see the problem. Why would you think all the soldiers are going to follow the orders of a tyrannical government when they've been brought up just like you have to dislike that kind of thing?

Sure, there is a significant overlap, currently (though old man mac will be in shortly to tell you how many don't conform). Relying on that to stay true indefinitely as your safeguard for democracy would be stupid.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm certain that Europe, Russia, Japan etc would help you out if the need arose. I know you'd like to think that in a fight that was America Vs. everyone else that America would win, but thats not the case.

Yeah, sure, currently. But relying on those countries to stay free, prosperous, available, and unconflicted themselves, would be a crappy safeguard too.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I agree with all but the bold section. Deposing a corrupt and tyrannical government, with force if needs be, isn't just a right it's an obligation.

Government allowing the citizens to remain armed is like an acrobat performing without a net. All it does is create conditions in which the government is not allowed to stray from its stated mission of representing the people. It doesn't really give the citizens any right or obligation to act, not any more than the ground has the right to jump up and strike at the acrobat. The only time it should come into play is if the citizens are given no other choice because the government has decided to jump off the trapeze.

That doesn't mean it has no effect when it's not "coming into play." The absence of a net has a big effect on the acrobat's performance, and the right to bear arms has the same big effect on the government's performance. It keeps them from doing something stupid.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yeah, sure, currently. But relying on those countries to stay free, prosperous, available, and unconflicted themselves, would be a crappy safeguard too.

Not really. We are talking about an unlikely eventuality. Also the US plays a big part in helping other nations stay free, why shouldn't you rely on your allies to reciprocate if needed? Thats what friends are for.