Are Guns the Problem?

[bobevenson]

Unfortunately, it has been unfairly drummed into the heads of people that anybody with a mental issue is dangerous and should not be allowed access to guns. Everybody should have access to guns, even people who have been convicted of gun crimes in the past. If somebody commits a crime with a bat, should he be denied playing baseball?

No, but I think it would be reasonable to insist that they don't routinely walk down the street with a bat. I think the public is entitled to ask that people with a history of gun crime are very closely monitored. It may be leftist of me, but I think a person's right not to have their head blown off trumps another person's right to carry the means to do so.

People who have criminal records not involving guns are prevented from buying guns. This is totally improper. As far as the person who used a bat in committing a crime, do you want to prevent him from buying a set of steak knives?

[uwot]

People who have criminal records not involving guns are prevented from buying guns. This is totally improper.

Why is it improper? People with criminal records have been found guilty of some behaviour that involves a lack of concern for other people; why should other people care about the convicted criminals right to carry guns?

As far as the person who used a bat in committing a crime, do you want to prevent him from buying a set of steak knives?

No. Could you explain why you think I might?

[bobevenson]

People who have criminal records not involving guns are prevented from buying guns. This is totally improper.

Why is it improper? People with criminal records have been found guilty of some behaviour that involves a lack of concern for other people; why should other people care about the convicted criminals right to carry guns?

As far as the person who used a bat in committing a crime, do you want to prevent him from buying a set of steak knives?

No. Could you explain why you think I might?

How about routinely walking down the street with them? Again, it's like Walter Williams said, inanimate objects aren't the problem.

[Ginkgo]

Unfortunately, it has been unfairly drummed into the heads of people that anybody with a mental issue is dangerous and should not be allowed access to guns. Everybody should have access to guns, even people who have been convicted of gun crimes in the past. If somebody commits a crime with a bat, should he be denied playing baseball?

No, but I think it would be reasonable to insist that they don't routinely walk down the street with a bat. I think the public is entitled to ask that people with a history of gun crime are very closely monitored. It may be leftist of me, but I think a person's right not to have their head blown off trumps another person's right to carry the means to do so.

People who have criminal records not involving guns are prevented from buying guns. This is totally improper. As far as the person who used a bat in committing a crime, do you want to prevent him from buying a set of steak knives?

That argument about banning bats, knives, hammers etc is a continuum fallacy. The fallacy assumes that all types of objects that can be used as weapons can be classed in the same category. In other words, any thing that is a weapon is equally destructive. You cannot load load thirty baseball bats into a magazine.

[Impenitent]

you can load 50 kids onto a bus and drive it off a cliff...

ban school busses now!!

-Imp

[Ginkgo]

you can load 50 kids onto a bus and drive it off a cliff...

ban school busses now!!

-Imp

Yes, you could. In a similar fashion you could burn down a hotel while everyone is asleep. So why don't we ban buses, motels, or matches? In reality there are lots of creative ways at the disposal of the imaginative individual to do maximum harm.

By creative I mean using an instrument such as a bus or matches for something they were never intended to be used for. We cannot stop people coming up with novel ideas for using instruments. So are we really arguing that we need to ban people from misusing equipment (buses,matches} for purposes contrary to the makers intention?

This is what I mean by the fallacy of lumping anything for the potential to do harm to others in the same category. They all have their own categories of uniqueness and circumstances. For example, one would need a nearby cliff for a start, or one can only burn down a building with people asleep inside if it is in the middle of the night.

Guns have their potential for harm scenarios in exactly the same way buses and matches have their scenarios. It is the potential of guns to play out their particular sequence of events that explains why buses and matches are not banned.

[Impenitent]

busses, matches, and guns (or any tool) do nothing

people use things to kill

ban people

-Imp

[uwot]

busses, matches, and guns (or any tool) do nothing

people use things to kill

True, but buses and matches and most other tools have specific functions other than causing injury or death, that is not true of some guns. With regard to steak knives and baseball bats, they have their place, but I think it is appropriate for authorities to challenge people who are walking the streets with either, the same as they would challenge someone who is driving recklessly or is setting fire to someone's property. There will always be a small number of people who for whatever reason decide to kill; giving them easy access to guns means they are more likely to be successful, partly because if people try to flee, they will not outrun a bullet. You clearly think there is some human rights issue concerning the ownership of guns that makes that risk worth taking; what is it?

[Impenitent]

you feel it is right for the "authorities" to use these tools to disarm everyone giving them "security"...

trust your authorities...

no thanks...

the showers are this way...

-Imp

[Ginkgo]

busses, matches, and guns (or any tool) do nothing

people use things to kill

ban people

-Imp

Banning people might be a bit impractical so we usually go for placing restrictions on the most accessible "tools" that are practical in their application. The reason we don't ban buses and matches is because they exist in a different category of practicality.

Yes, people use "things" to kill, but the fallacy is to say that all of these "things" occupy the same place on a continuum of potential harm.

Yes, instruments of destruction do nothing. That is, until they are placed in the hands of an individual who are bent on doing something. The potential to do something is dependent on the availability, the destructive power and the relevant circumstances. This is why you have legislation that attempts to match the continuum I have been talking about.

[Impenitent]

people have killed each other with their bare hands...

practicality?

and an unarmed population is far easier to enslave...

slaves on a continuum of utopia.

enjoy your security

-Imp

[Ginkgo]

people have killed each other with their bare hands...

practicality?

and an unarmed population is far easier to enslave...

slaves on a continuum of utopia.

enjoy your security

-Imp

Look, I appreciate you position on this. I also appreciate your 2 Amendment. I also know that many people are fearful of Federalism. I guess that's your legacy. I am not from your country so I don't share the same concerns and that puts me at a disadvantage. All I can do is comment on the standard of the arguments.

[Ginkgo]

And by the way, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about protecting people from criminals, it's about the last line of defense against an oppressive government.

That's not the way SCOTUS reads it. I've pointed out before that SCOTUS interprets the 2nd Amendment as a justification for self defense against criminals that try to cause you harm.

[Ginkgo]

busses, matches, and guns (or any tool) do nothing

people use things to kill

True, but buses and matches and most other tools have specific functions other than causing injury or death, that is not true of some guns. With regard to steak knives and baseball bats, they have their place, but I think it is appropriate for authorities to challenge people who are walking the streets with either, the same as they would challenge someone who is driving recklessly or is setting fire to someone's property. There will always be a small number of people who for whatever reason decide to kill; giving them easy access to guns means they are more likely to be successful, partly because if people try to flee, they will not outrun a bullet. You clearly think there is some human rights issue concerning the ownership of guns that makes that risk worth taking; what is it?

That's an interesting question. Actually it is only the 1st Amendment that relates to natural rights. The 2nd Amendment is not a natural right it is actually a legal right. Important distinction that many people don't appreciate.

[uwot]

you feel it is right for the "authorities" to use these tools to disarm everyone giving them "security"...

Given that the alternative is to trust complete strangers with no accountability not to shoot myself, or worse my children, I think it is the lesser of two evils. Frankly, I would be concerned about someone who the "authorities" have to forcibly disarm being armed in the first place.

trust your authorities...

Not completely. In Europe we are acutely aware of what happens when despots come to power, as they did in Russia when a largely unarmed population overthrew the government, demonstrating that firstly, firearms are not essential for revolution and secondly, the people overthrowing the government doesn't always work out well.
During the Spanish Civil War, the superior fire power of right wing nutters, supported by the Luftwaffe gave them the edge, demonstrating that firstly, in the sort of power struggle you believe your weapons prepare you for, you cannot rely on everyone being on your side and secondly, that superior fire-power is a major tactical advantage. If revolting Americans couldn't rely on the support of their military, they would be seriously out gunned, if they could rely on the military, their private arsenal would be irrelevant.
In Germany the right-wing nutters came to power democratically and brutally crushed any opposition, demonstrating firstly that leaving democracy to other people is risky and secondly, that by the time the sort of government you fear is in place, it may be too late.
Overall, the belief that private gun ownership is some safety check on government is not supported by the evidence. You may feel safer, you might get the same sensation sucking a blanket, but history suggests otherwise.