Shooting At US Uni

[Aaron]

I want to ask the pro-gun people...what is the benefit of owning a gun anyway?

It is fun to shoot but when your fun impacts on societies health than it's time for your hobby to end.

[Jadeite]

I want to ask the pro-gun people...what is the benefit of owning a gun anyway?

In my case, target shooting and personal sentiment. I'm not worried about personal protection because I live in a surburban area. In regards to personal sentiment, one item in my collection is a M1911 handgun that was produced in 1917 and is in excellent condition. It was given to my late grandfather as a birthday gift, and I sure as hell would not turn it in to any confiscation program.

It is fun to shoot but when your fun impacts on societies health than it's time for your hobby to end.

I do not consider my hobby to have a societal cost, since I have yet to commit a single crime that wasn't victimless. I don't even have a speeding ticket to my name. I do not consider depriving a law-abiding majority of the population of a personal freedom and consumer choice due to the actions of a small segment of the population, to be a moral choice. And, as I've stated previously, I believe gun laws to be inherently anti-equality to due being targetted at the working and middle class.

[Jadeite]

Ghetto edit: I should clarify that my idea of victimless and the government's idea are different things, like inviting underage people to parties for instance.

[Aaron]

I do not consider my hobby to have a societal cost, since I have yet to commit a single crime that wasn't victimless. I don't even have a speeding ticket to my name. I do not consider depriving a law-abiding majority of the population of a personal freedom and consumer choice due to the actions of a small segment of the population, to be a moral choice. And, as I've stated previously, I believe gun laws to be inherently anti-equality to due being targetted at the working and middle class.

If theres a problem with US gun control laws having this effect than it's time to consider the jackasses who draft them. Canada has gun control laws as well and as far as I'm aware they don't unfairly target anyone.

[gtg947h]

Ok. Let's take this from the beginning.

The second amendment can be better interpereted as the right to form REGULATED MILITIAS, which is a lot different than a shotgun over every mantle.

I have no idea where the hell you're pulling this from. Let's look at this from the perspective of the guys that wrote the Constitution in the first place.

As any US history book will tell you, there were two factions at odds with each other while the Constitution was being written. One group, the Federalists, supported a strong centralized (Federal) government and were the strong driving force behind the Constitution in the first place. The opposition ("anti-Federalists" obviously) were understandably wary of a strong central government, and sought to limit its influence as much as possible--the structure of the US government is the resulting compromise, as a matter of fact.

Anyways, as the Constitution was originally written*, the Federal government was limited to only the powers specifically listed. The anti-Federalists, men filled to varying degrees with fear, mistrust, and loathing of the new federal government, insisted on a bill of rights as additional shackles imposed on that new government. They knew that, without one, the government would expand its reach everywhere, to everything that wasn't specifically prohibited. Ergo, our Bill of Rights.

Within these ten amendments are protections for the most sacred rights: the right to speak one's mind, hold one's own opinion, and criticize the government without fear of prosecution. The right to practice the religion of one's choice. The right to be secure in one's papers and effects, and be free from searches without just cause. The right to a trial by a jury of one's peers, and to not be compelled to incriminate oneself. The right to be secure in one's home from searches and occupation by troops. And so on. All protections for the individual against intrusion or usurpation by the government. And right there, in between the provisions protecting the individual right to freedom of speech, religion, and the press; and those ensuring security in one's home and personal effects, is secured "the right to bear arms". To believe that these men, who so loathed and (rightly) distrusted the government that they needed to specifically list protections for their most sacred rights in the fundamental framework for that government, would list among all of those protections a provision surrendering one of those rights to the government, is completely absurd. Remember, even as the Constitution was originally written, the government had no authority to take away that right. These men felt that wasn't good enough; they wanted more protections for the individual--so why[/i]would they then give up one of those very same rights right in the middle of the provisions that protect the others?

Remember, these men had just fought a long, hard war against a tyrannical government. Many of them used their own muskets, rifles, and pistols to fight. Many Americans still lived "on the frontier", so to speak, and faced dangers from wild animals, Indians, and other foreigners. And even back then, there were still robberies, home invasions, etc.; travelers routinely carried arms to defend themselves from those threats. Owning a gun was (and still is) the most effective way to protect oneself. Remember, they felt strong enough about their rights that they wanted Constitutional protection against them--but those provisions only protect against infringement by the government; they did nothing to stop said other threats. Why would they institute governmental protections for their rights, but then give up the means to secure them from other attacks?

*today, that's effectively meaningless; the Federal government has bloated far beyond the scope envisioned even by the Federalists themselves.

And why guns?

One of the hallmarks of civilization is the protection of the weak from the strong. The right to use lethal force in defense of life and property was considered a natural and human right as far back as ancient Greece; subsequently, Jewish, Roman, Islamic, and Catholic law all affirmed the right of men to “meet force with force” and act in defense of their homes and lives, as did even the earliest Anglo-Saxons. This right is the weak’s last line of defense against domination by the strong, the one thing remaining to them when all of society’s other defenses (laws, police, and common morality) have failed.

It has been repeatedly held that a right is of little meaning if you have no means of exercising it. Self-defense is a right, and the people therefore deserve the means by which to exercise it. The gun is that means. It is the great equalizer, allowing even the lowliest, the weakest, and the smallest to stand up to an attacker. It does not require extensive, constant training; it does not require its user to be in peak physical condition; it allows its bearer to resist from beyond arm's reach.

And finally, to some statistics. Guns in the US (of all kinds) are used for defensive purposes hundreds of thousands of times every year. In the overwhelming majority of these cases, not a single shot is fired. The mere show of force is enough to deter most would-be assailants. In many more cases, shots are fired but miss or only wound the attacker; only a tiny fraction of self-defense shootings result in a dead assailant.

In states that allow citizens to carry concealed firearms, those with concealed carry permits (requiring, among other things, a fingerprinting, FBI background check, and no history of violent or drug-related crimes) are several times less likely to commit violent crimes. Florida, for example, has issued over 1.3 million carry permits in the past 20 years. In that time, only 167 were later revoked because their bearers committed gun-related crimes. The overall violent crime rate for these permit holders is one-seventh that of the general population. Every other state posts similar statistics. And despite outcries every time concealed-carry restrictions are lifted, predicting "blood running in the streets", a "return to the wild west", "increased threat to police officers", and so on, in every single case these dire fears were unfounded.

"I lobbied against the [concelaed carry] law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert." -- Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, Dallas Morning News, 12/23/97

"Some of the public safety concerns which we imagined or anticipated a couple of years ago, to our pleasant surprise, have been unfounded or mitigated." -- Fairfax County, VA Police Major Bill Brown, Alexandria Journal, 7/9/97

"The concerns I had--with more guns on the street, folks may be more apt to square off against one another with weapons--we haven't experienced that." -- Charlotte-Mecklenburg NC Police Chief Dennis Nowicki, The News and Observer, 11/24/97

Florida State Rep. Ron Silver, who opposed the Right to Carry bill, admitted in 1994, "I am pleasantly surprised to find that I think it's working pretty well... We have found very few instances whereby (permit holders) have actually gone out and committed a crime afterwards".

And in particular, the claim that police officers will be placed in greater danger is completely unfounded. Even gun-control advocates cannot think of even a single anecdotal incident of a CC permit holder attacking a law enforcement officer. But, there is a documented case in Arizona of such a permit holder coming to the aid of a wounded officer; he shot one attacker and captured the other.

For all those who seem to be scared by the mere presence of firearms: why are you scared? Do you think that guns have some magical ability to turn an ordinary person into a raging killer merely by their presence? Do they have minds of their own, and just "go off" on their own free will? Of course they don't. Look, if I handed you a gun right now, are you suddenly going to feel an urge to go shoot people? Do you suddenly feel an urge to stab someone every time you pick up a knife? Do you feel a compulsive urge to run pedestrians over or run the guy next to you into a wall every time you get in your car? No, of course not. So why, exactly, do you think that I'm prone to something like this? Why do you think that law-abiding people otherwise well-behaved in public are suddenly going to start brandishing guns every time they get a little irritated? Even drawing a gun without good reason lands you in jail; pointing it at someone when not acting in self-defense will land you a felony conviction.

And remember, all of these recent shootings have happened in "gun-free" zones. Guns are completely banned in Washington DC, and they earn extremely high "safety" ratings from the Brady campaign--and yet that city has one of the highest murder rates in the country.

In short, my guns are not a threat. They stay locked up in my home unless I take them to the range or I'm carrying in public (in which case, the gun stays in its holster). I pray I never need to fire them at something other than paper or the odd tin can. But if I ever do need it, I really hope it's not at home or otherwise unavailable, leaving me to beg my attacker for mercy.

[Darth Wong]

<snip Founding Father wanking>

I don't give a flying fuck about your goddamned American founding fathers. If someone is going to debate gun control in principle, the arguments should not be specific to America. Believe it or not, the entire world is not America. Fuck the Founding Fathers.

One of the hallmarks of civilization is the protection of the weak from the strong.

That comes right after the tyranny of the strong against the weak, which is by far more prominent in history.

The right to use lethal force in defense of life and property was considered a natural and human right as far back as ancient Greece; subsequently, Jewish, Roman, Islamic, and Catholic law all affirmed the right of men to “meet force with force” and act in defense of their homes and lives, as did even the earliest Anglo-Saxons. This right is the weak’s last line of defense against domination by the strong, the one thing remaining to them when all of society’s other defenses (laws, police, and common morality) have failed.

Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

It has been repeatedly held that a right is of little meaning if you have no means of exercising it. Self-defense is a right, and the people therefore deserve the means by which to exercise it. The gun is that means. It is the great equalizer, allowing even the lowliest, the weakest, and the smallest to stand up to an attacker. It does not require extensive, constant training; it does not require its user to be in peak physical condition; it allows its bearer to resist from beyond arm's reach.

In other words, it makes a person far more dangerous, all other things being equal. Therefore, it would make sense to strictly regulate guns so that people have to prove they are responsible members of society before being allowed to have one.

And finally, to some statistics. Guns in the US (of all kinds) are used for defensive purposes hundreds of thousands of times every year. In the overwhelming majority of these cases, not a single shot is fired. The mere show of force is enough to deter most would-be assailants. In many more cases, shots are fired but miss or only wound the attacker; only a tiny fraction of self-defense shootings result in a dead assailant.

Guns are also used in huge numbers of crimes, and one of the reasons they are so easy to acquire is that there is such a huge legal traffic in them. If something is being sold at every Wal-Mart in vast quantity, then it stands to reason that the black market will be much easier to supply. I would think that tighter regulation over the entire supply and retail process of guns would help, but that would run against this bizarre idea that guns are a "right" instead of being just another consumer product.

In states that allow citizens to carry concealed firearms, those with concealed carry permits (requiring, among other things, a fingerprinting, FBI background check, and no history of violent or drug-related crimes) are several times less likely to commit violent crimes. Florida, for example, has issued over 1.3 million carry permits in the past 20 years. In that time, only 167 were later revoked because their bearers committed gun-related crimes. The overall violent crime rate for these permit holders is one-seventh that of the general population. Every other state posts similar statistics. And despite outcries every time concealed-carry restrictions are lifted, predicting "blood running in the streets", a "return to the wild west", "increased threat to police officers", and so on, in every single case these dire fears were unfounded.

Of course people who take the time to get proper licenses are unlikely to commit crimes. That doesn't really speak to the mainstream gun control argument at all.

For all those who seem to be scared by the mere presence of firearms: why are you scared?

For the same reason I am scared of people driving cars: a healthy and rational concern for stupid people wielding dangerous objects.

Do you think that guns have some magical ability to turn an ordinary person into a raging killer merely by their presence? Do they have minds of their own, and just "go off" on their own free will? Of course they don't. Look, if I handed you a gun right now, are you suddenly going to feel an urge to go shoot people? Do you suddenly feel an urge to stab someone every time you pick up a knife? Do you feel a compulsive urge to run pedestrians over or run the guy next to you into a wall every time you get in your car? No, of course not.

But all of those things go hand in hand with impulsive, stupid behaviour. Assholes in cars risk their lives and the lives of others over a sudden surge of righteous anger over being cut off or challenged or some other stupid ego-driven bullshit that is not worth anyone's life. Like it or not, the automobile does affect human behaviour, and the very proposition that such a powerful device has no effect whatsoever on human behaviour is utterly preposterous on its face. The question is how large this effect is, not whether this is some kind of magic device that is both powerful and impotent at the same time.

So why, exactly, do you think that I'm prone to something like this? Why do you think that law-abiding people otherwise well-behaved in public are suddenly going to start brandishing guns every time they get a little irritated? Even drawing a gun without good reason lands you in jail; pointing it at someone when not acting in self-defense will land you a felony conviction.

For the same reason that people act like assholes when they're behind the wheel of a car. The proposition that human beings are totally unaffected by the capabilities you put in their hands is simply nonsensical. It doesn't instantly turn law-abiding citizens into homicidal maniacs, but if you take two assholes pushing and shoving each other in a bar fight and one of them has a gun, the mere presence of that gun can radically alter the situation. How many shootings have there been at house parties which escalated from a pushing and shoving match?

And remember, all of these recent shootings have happened in "gun-free" zones. Guns are completely banned in Washington DC, and they earn extremely high "safety" ratings from the Brady campaign--and yet that city has one of the highest murder rates in the country.

No kidding; it's also got one of the worst poverty rates in the country.

In short, my guns are not a threat. They stay locked up in my home unless I take them to the range or I'm carrying in public (in which case, the gun stays in its holster). I pray I never need to fire them at something other than paper or the odd tin can. But if I ever do need it, I really hope it's not at home or otherwise unavailable, leaving me to beg my attacker for mercy.

You know, stronger social programs would make this kind of violent behaviour less likely. And that's better than allowing the country to slide into urban combat and hoping that you will be the victor in that combat.

[Darth Wong]

I should add that I believe gun control to actually work against social equality.

They only work against the social equality of guns. If guns are considered a "right", then this argument might make sense. But if they're considered a mere consumer product, then it just sounds silly. Why should everyone have protected equal access to this particular product?

It's pretty sad that Americans think there should be universal access to guns, but not health care.

Gun laws are inevitably targetted at the working class, and tend to target the middle class by their nature. For instance, the automatic weapons ban. Despite the fact that very few murders in the US were ever committed with an automatic weapon, they were 'banned'. Of course, they weren't actually banned, just so heavily regulated that only the wealthy can afford them ($20,000 for a license, IIRC). Gun control laws remove the ability to personally protect oneself, and remove consumer choice, while still ensuring that the wealthy can protect themselves. San Francisco's sheriff's department for example, only issues about ten CCW permits a year, IIRC, and they always go to VIPs and personal friends of the sheriff.

I was under the impression that the poor are far more likely to commit violent crimes. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to make it far more difficult for poor people to acquire guns.

[Glocksman]

It's pretty sad that Americans think there should be universal access to guns, but not health care.

Some of us believe both.

Of course people who take the time to get proper licenses are unlikely to commit crimes. That doesn't really speak to the mainstream gun control argument at all.

In the context of the USA it does, as all of the major gun control groups are against the very idea of CCW permits, no matter how stringent the criteria needed to qualify.

I would think that tighter regulation over the entire supply and retail process of guns would help, but that would run against this bizarre idea that guns are a "right" instead of being just another consumer product.

The notion that its a right goes back to both the Federal and many state constitutions that say it is a right.
I'll qualify that by saying its a right in the USA.
It's obviously not one in Canada, but until both the constitutions of the USA and of my state* are changed, it is one where I live.

That's not to say that its an absolute right because it, like free speech, isn't absolute.
Lines can and should be drawn, but I suspect we disagree about just where that line should be.

I was under the impression that the poor are far more likely to commit violent crimes. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to make it far more difficult for poor people to acquire guns.

Prior to adoption of the May 1986 ban on adding machine guns to the Federal registry, there was exactly one crime committed by the owner of a legal fully automatic weapon since the adoption of the 1934 NFA 52 years previously.
That crime was committed by a police officer who doubled as a hit man for the mob in his spare time.
The reason legal full autos are so expensive isn't because of a high tax (it's $200), but because the 1986 ban on new civilian guns drove the prices of existing ones through the stratosphere.

As far as handguns go, cheap handguns are called 'Saturday Night Specials', and they're priced in the $50-$100 range.
I actually own one, not because I bought it but because it was given to me by a supervisor at work who came by it after his Dad (the original owner) died.

It's a typical zinc cast low power (.380 ACP caliber) gun that I certainly wouldn't trust my life to, but it *does* work for at least the first 10 rounds or so if you keep it clean and lubed.
After that, it starts jamming.

Personally I don't have problem with laws mandating that firearms pass a proof test before sale, but IIRC it's not a current requirement.







*Indiana's state constitutional provision is more explicit than the Federal one.

[Glocksman]

You know, stronger social programs would make this kind of violent behaviour less likely. And that's better than allowing the country to slide into urban combat and hoping that you will be the victor in that combat.

I agree totally.
But then again I'm probably in the minority of gun owners in being relatively socially liberal*, yet strongly pro RKBA.

*In a US context of course.