Are Guns the Problem?

[henry quirk]

Are Guns the Problem?

Of course not.

A gun is a tool.

Blame the tool user.

#

"the belief that private gun ownership is some safety check on government is not supported by the evidence"

Irrelevant (to me).

I *own my coach gun for huntin' and for self-defense (against the unwise schmuck who comes into my home to take what is not his, or, harm those I love).

Frankly: the U.S. government can't even moderate itself...I got few worries it'll come lookin' to suppress me.

#

"a legal right"

Which is to say: a privilege.

Wouldn't rely too heavily on those, if I were you.

What's given (as privilege) can be taken away.









*kinda irrelevant 'why' I own...I 'do' and have no interest in giving it up

[bobevenson]

Are Guns the Problem? Of course not.

This is what Walter Williams is saying in his article. Unfortunately, the leftist agenda in this country wants to make the purchasing and ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens the issue.

[henry quirk]

"leftist"

And certain folks on the 'right' as well.

[bobevenson]

Well, it's mainly liberal Democrats that are leading the assault against guns. Republicans in Congress prevented the latest assault legislation from being passed.

[uwot]

Are Guns the Problem?

Of course not.

A gun is a tool.

Blame the tool user.

I think most people are sophisticated enough to understand that guns by themselves are not the problem. As you, Impenitent, Bob and Walter Williams say; guns are tools. What they do is make killing things, including humans, easier; that's not the fault of the gun. The problem is where do you draw the line with regard to controlling the access would be users of such tools have? Given that gun related deaths in the US are twenty times the average in the rest of the developed world, anyone who cares about such statistics would conclude there is scope for improvement.

Well, it's mainly liberal Democrats that are leading the assault against guns. Republicans in Congress prevented the latest assault legislation from being passed.

I suspect some liberal Democrats would argue that their aim is to save lives.

[bobevenson]

I suspect some liberal Democrats would argue that their aim is to save lives.

Unfortunately, their aim is to also avoid the very cause of the problem, the leftist agenda of destruction of customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, the very things that have led to immorality, the lack of self-discipline and the absence of character.

[henry quirk]

"where do you draw the line with regard to controlling the access would be users of such tools have?"

Too late for that to have any meaningful effect, I think.

There's sumthin' like 300 million folks livin' in the U.S.

Interspersed among that 300 million is sumthin' like 200 million firearms (and the accompanying ammo).

Any regulation of future sales won't affect what's out now and it's damned unlikely most of the *current holders of all those weapons (and ammo) will just give 'em up 'cause 'good guys' say they should.

No, there'll have to bans and confiscations.

I'm not holdin' my breath on that (to be enacted, or -- should such things happen -- for most folks to submit peaceably).

I'm afraid the situation is what it is and it's not likely to change any time soon.









*as I say up-thread, I own a coach gun and have no interest in givin' it up...can't see a reason why I should...the 'sins' of others are not my burden…Ned Nutjob shoots up a school and I have give my shit up? Not friggin’ likely...

[uwot]

Unfortunately, their aim is to also avoid the very cause of the problem, the leftist agenda of destruction of customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, the very things that have led to immorality, the lack of self-discipline and the absence of character.

One of the most significant changes in America in recent history was Nixon ending the Gold Standard. Forbes again:

"President Richard Nixon’s colossal error: severing the final link between the dollar and gold. No other single action by Nixon has had a more profound and deleterious effect on the American people. In the end, breaking the solemn promise that a dollar was worth 1/35th of an ounce of gold doomed his Presidency, and marked the beginning of the worst 40 years in American economic history."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadl ... ars-later/

The result has been higher unemployment, longer and deeper recessions, slower growth, greater disparity between rich and poor, all exacerbated by the trickle down economics of Ronald Reagan which hasn't trickled down.
This all started just a few years after the admittedly Democrat president, Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act that did away with the quaint rule of etiquette that legally kept blacks and whites segregated.
The former, in my view is unquestionably a bad thing, the latter, equally clearly a good thing. Some people may disagree, but I think it is demonstrably untrue that Democrats have done more damage to the US than Republicans.

I'm afraid the situation is what it is and it's not likely to change any time soon.

I agree, but some people are less sanguine than you and feel they have to justify their deeds with specious arguments.

[bobevenson]

As it has been said before, "You can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands."

[uwot]

As it has been said before, "You can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands."

It's none of my business whether you have a gun or not, I'm just surprised you feel the need to justify them on a philosophy forum.

[bobevenson]

As it has been said before, "You can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands."

It's none of my business whether you have a gun or not, I'm just surprised you feel the need to justify them on a philosophy forum.

What part of "Political Philosophy" don't you understand?

[uwot]

What part of "Political Philosophy" don't you understand?

This bit:

"You can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands."

[Impenitent]

what is the % of Swiss citizens with guns? the Israelis are right up there as well...

-Imp

[bobevenson]

What part of "Political Philosophy" don't you understand?

This bit:

"You can take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands."

Well, my friend, if that's not a political statement, I don't know what is!

[uwot]

Well, my friend, if that's not a political statement, I don't know what is!

I think you are being very liberal with your understanding of 'political statement'. The point I am making is that arguments typically put by conservatives in support of unregulated gun ownership are at best based on ignorance, or more likely, wilful disregard for the evidence. That, I think, is a more overtly political point.
Walter Williams point, that it is the collapse of morality that is responsible for the rates of gun crime rates, isn't supported by evidence from the rest of the western world, which has undergone much the same social and economic changes. Key to these were the availability of effective contraception from the 60's onwards, allowing women control of their bodies, a good thing, and the liberalisation of economic regulation in the 80's, allowing the USA to run up debts which if there were any prospect of them being repaid would take several generations of Americans to do so. Probably not a good thing. Again, Walter Williams is either ignorant or a liar. What's your excuse?