Cynical Nation

I really dont get it how reasonable people want to have guns. Guns are dangerous and they should be off the streets. Look at Cheney.

I guess I--Mr. Gun Control for decades--get the hypocrite of the year award (which hopefully comes with a steak and a ...thingee...) for buying my kid a BB gun this week. I warned him, no re-creating the Kennedy assassination or anything like that.

I really don't understand how reasonable people could deny law-abiding citizens the right to defend their lives, homes and families with deadly force.

Again, Blue, you have it completely and woefully wrong.

Guns are tools...nothing more.

Gun control is NOT violence control, NOR should we ever seek "violence control."

I trust that "violence control" is NOT your ultimate aim here.

Sure, unwarranted or random physical violence is often both injurious and humiliating for the victim, but it also serves many useful purposes; (1) it is a direct means of wealth redistribution, (2) it gives much needed "self-esteem" to the predator, who usually grew up with very little of that, and (3) in many, many cases (something like 600,000 per year) violent self-defense keeps people FROM being victimized by predators!

Besides GUN LAWS don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals at all.

I for one, am glad of that. Yeah, I really mean that...and for a lot of reasons, one is that it's very good for the American criminal justice system/industry and by extension the American entertainment industry - two very big parts of our current economy.

Besides, a guy willing to risk killing some store clerk for whatever's in the register, has already shown that our laws against murder won't deter him, so he certainly isn't going to worry about an extra year being tacked onto his crime for possessing an "illegal" (no such a thing) gun.

That's proof that gun laws don't deter crimninals at all.

Guns don't KILL people, just as cars, hammers and pens, by themselves, don't kill people, VIOLENCE-PRONE PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

Thankfully, one doesn't NEED guns to produce violence, which is good news for all those violence-prone people out there.

For instance, I could and would happily tell ANYONE how to make explosives at home (mixing alcohol and chlorine, or vaseline and potassium Chloride are two effective, but highly unstable ones) or a homemade mustard gas - ammonia and chlorine, when breathed in, the moisture in your lungs forms hydrochloric acid when in contact with this.

Moreover, virtually ANY tool can and has been used as a weapon, everything from a ball point pen to a salad fork. Violence is itself a creative pursuit for some advocates. Consider this Blue, "Predators are people too."

If you just have a phobia about guns, or have seen a lot of gunshot wounds, I can understand your penchant over gun violence, but therapy would seem the best solution to that.

If you're really serious about opposing violence, well then I'm appalled at your short-sightedness, as violence is a basic component of both our culture and economy at this point.

Now, I must add that I fully respect folks like John Lott, that Yale Research Fellow, who sought to prove out the efficacy of gun control and found that the data showed the reverse (See his first book, "More Guns, Less Crime") http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226493644/qid=1142529172/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1719954-5268104?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

But folks like Mr Lott, at least have the good sense to separate "positive" and "negative" violence.

Violent self-defense - the protection of your home, car, or other property from a predator seeking to rob or attack you is GOOD or "positive violence," while random, street violence (muggings, rapes, armed robberies, etc) are all BAD or "negative violence."

The primary problem with most of the nitwits who advocate gun control laws, is that they fail to differentiate or even accept the differentiation between "positive" & "negative" violence and THAT is the key to understanding this entire issue.

Will they be offering discounts on Buy a Gun Day? That'd be cool.

And Barry, you can always drive down to Virginia for the day, get your weapon, then come back up and deal with all the paperwork.

Also, Cheney is a bad example for getting gun control support. He almost killed a lawyer. You think I'm gonna oppose something like that?

I advocate gun control to an extent. I think you should never shoot anything you don't intend to and that you should hit what you're aiming at.

That's right. I support ALL the amendments. Wanna make something of that, MR JMK Know-It-All-Always-Looking-To-Pick-A-Fight-With-Me?

Anyone who supports ALL the Amendments (OK probably not so much the 16th) should have no fight with me, DBK.

I'm wondering why you'd think you would.

The folly of gun control laws is that gun control is NOT violence control and besides, those who fail to distinguish between "positive" & "negative" violence - all those that see righteous and justifiable self-defense, being as vile as random, thuggish violence are largely the ones behind the "gun control, but not violence control" movement that's taken hold in most major urban areas today.

FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2004, Violent Crime - Murder Statistics:

Weapons
Of those incidents in which the murder weapon was specified, 70.3 percent of the homicides that occurred in 2004 were committed with firearms. Of those, 77.9 percent involved handguns, 5.4 percent involved shotguns, and 4.2 percent involved rifles. Approximately 12.4 of the murders were committed with other types or unspecified types of firearms. Knives or cutting instruments were used in 14.1 percent of the murders; personal weapons, such as hands, fists, and feet, were used in 7.0 percent of murders, and blunt objects (i.e., clubs, hammers, etc.) were used in 5.0 percent of the homicides. Other weapons, such as poison, explosives, narcotics, etc., were used in 3.6 percent of the murders. (Based on Table 2.9.)


Outlaw hands and feet now!

> (OK probably not so much the 16th)

"Worst. Amendment. Ever."

...well okay, maybe except for the 18th, but that doesn't count since it was repealed.

That's why I usually play it safe and stick to supporting the Bill of Rights. ;-)

Good one Barry, I'd overlooked Prohibition too, since it was repealed.

It was still a real bad idea...blaming an inanimate object (booze) for people's pathologies.

You're right the Bill of Rights is the way to go.

Those are the ones that define what Individual Rights are and make clear that they are not bestowedby government.

The Fisrt Ten Amendments are an awesome document because the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to LIMIT government action.

Ok all,
I can see that this is obviously a pro-gun crowd and I have no chance to convince anyone.

Being a liberal, I think that two major issues that are anti-civilization are:
1. Guns
2. The death penalty.

Civilized societies should rely on police and law enforcement to fight crime and not on the ability of individuals to use guns. We are in the 2000s and not in the 1700s.

Two points that are worth mentioning:

1. The requests for much better gun control come primarily from police officers. As it is now, any criminal can go in a store and buy their weapon of choice. Especially in some states.

2. There are thousand of accidents every years in households of law abiding citizens that have guns. People are getting killed or paralyzed by such accidents.

There is no question in my mind that the sales of guns should be severely restricted if not completely outlawed altogether. Even if that takes a new ammedment to the constitution.

> Being a liberal, I think that two major issues that are anti-civilization are:
1. Guns
2. The death penalty.

One doesn't imply the other. I know plenty of liberals who support gun rights (and sometimes the death penalty too, for that matter.) Don't be afraid to think yourself, and not let your "label" do the thinking for you.

Civilized societies should rely on police and law enforcement to fight crime and not on the ability of individuals to use guns. See, this kind of naivete is precisely the reason many Americans still don't trust liberals on matters of security and defense. Unfortunately, there are many situations in which people face imminent direct threats, cases in which it is simply not feasible to find a phone, call the cops and wait God-knows-how-long for them to show up.

Even if that takes a new ammedment to the constitution. Well thanks for throwing that in, at least. Many gun-grabbers don't even bother.

Hey Barry,
You did not comment on my 2 major arguments. I will repeat them here:

1. The requests for much better gun control come primarily from police officers. As it is now, any criminal can go in a store and buy their weapon of choice. Especially in some states.

2. There are thousands of accidents every years in households of law abiding citizens that have guns. People are getting killed or paralyzed by such accidents.

Thousands of people who died in gun accidents would be alive today if gun sales were outlawed.

Regarding your argument about people in rural areas, maybe thats a place that guns should be allowed. But it should be after extensive backround checking.

Being a liberal, I think that two major issues that are anti-civilization are:
1. Guns
2. The death penalty.

Boy have you got that wrong! The two major "anti-civilization" issues today are:
1. Automobiles
2. Teachers Unions

Automobiles kill more Americans, by far, than guns.

The teachers unions have turned the U.S. public school system into a quagmire of disinformation and intellectual enfeeblement.

Guns are warm and cuddly by comparison.

I happen to be pro-life on the death-penalty, but "anti-civilization?" OK, how about an international boycott of China, far and away the world's greatest capital punisher.

"Thousands of people who died in gun accidents would be alive today if gun sales were outlawed."

Think of all the lives we would save if we outlawed automobiles...and knives, and hands and feet.

As is often pointed out by "pro-gun" conservatives, there are already over 22,000 laws in the U.S. restricting and controlling the ownership and use of guns. How come none of those laws has had the desired effect?

Blue, your arguments are weak.

First of all, I don't care *who* is asking for tougher gun laws, whether it's the cops, the president or the Pope. Cops want to make their jobs easier, and that's understandable, but as you well know, granting cops their every wish is not always the most effective way to safeguard our civil liberties.

Second, your description of buying a gun is simply butt-wrong and uninformed. I lived many years in South Carolina, which had some of the most lenient gun laws in the nation. Even then, I had to submit to criminal background checks before I could purchase a weapon.

And yes, mishandled guns do result in accidental deaths. Responsible use of guns, however, often results in lives being saved as well. As JMK has repeatedly pointed out, guns are merely tools. Like many other tools, they are dangerous, and they can be used for good or ill. Punish those who misuse them or use them negligently, but leave the rest alone.

And finally, thanks for admitting that guns should be allowed in rural areas. Even in urban areas, however, it's still very possible to face an immediate threat, in which there is no time to call the police, much less wait for them to respond.

Look, at least you made an argument this time, Blue.

Not a very logical or convincing one, in my view, but an argument none-the-less...and I commend you for it.

You stated your case clearly.

You say, “Civilized societies should rely on police and law enforcement to fight crime and not on the ability of individuals to use guns,” well, if that were so, crime victims would be allowed to sue the government for “failure to provide adequate protection.”

Crime victims are NOT allowed to do that and RIGHTLY SO, because of what is termed governmental immunity. That is, neither the government nor its police cannot be expected to anticipate every criminal act and thus cannot be held liable when they fail to stop crimes in advance.

The government is NOT responsible for protecting my house, or my rental properties, nor for that matter, my car, my other possessions or even myself from criminal attack.

I AM responsible for protecting what I myself OWN - both my property and my life.

I OWN MYSELF and therefore I claim dominion over all that I rightfully own as property. If the government actually sought to both protect my possessions and eliminate my right to protect what I own, it would be in effect, claiming ownership or dominion over me. An ownership/dominion IT DOES NOT have, nor can either IT, nor any “American political office-holder" CLAIM, since all of them are required to uphold the Constitution which enumerates “Individual Rights,” such as the Rights to "Life, Liberty (self-ownership) and Happiness/PROPERTY" as “God-given" and "inalienable Rights” ("Endowed by our Creator") and not coming from, or being afforded us by government.

Now, if you could make the argument that ALL of us are “owned by,” or “property of” the government, or even that that “government is the source of ANY and ALL of our so-called “Rights,” then that would certainly change things a bit.

But, of course, that argument CANNOT be made in the context of America’s Constitution and the framework its provided.

Violent self-defense is a sacred, God-given Right and every property owner has the innate or inborn right to protect what he/she owns with violence when necessary and “against ALL enemies.”

Oh, and here’s my pro-Arabic statement of the day; "One of the best examples of man’s justice carried out, that I've ever seen, was seeing the coverage of an Iranian pedophile being “brought to justice Iranian style.”

He was scourged, while tied to a cement pillar until his back was ripped apart, while he was revived numerous times through that ordeal. Then, the mothers of the children he abused were allowed to come up and punch, kick and spit upon his ravaged body and then he was hung from the end of a crane by a slip knot, so he’d die slower than if hung with a neck-breaking noose.”

I have the pictures of that in my basement and though I often find the Muslim brand of morality both excessive in its inhumanity and intolerance and lacking in morality, in this instance, I could only bow my head in awe.

They got the “justice” required of that act (pedophilia), almost perfect, in my view. In that case, at least, “Allah Uh Akbhar” INDEED!

As to “gun accidents,” your figure of “thousands each year,” must come from the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence’s statement: "One child under 14 is accidentally shot to death every day in the USA," or Handgun Control Incorporated’s statement that "14 children are killed by
handgun abuse every day in the USA".

The truth is, that if the year in question is 1979, when there were 364 such deaths, but in 1990, the most recent year for which data are available, the number was 236, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

The number of fatal gun accidents among children has fallen by 56% since 1970, even as the gun supply has grown significantly.

14 children/day times 364 days/year means about 5100 children killed by handguns every year in the USA.

This figure is utterly and demonstrably false, as shown above.

The total firearms deaths for children (up to age 14) was 587 in 1988. In 1990 the number children killed by firearms related accidents was 236. The total number of children killed by abuse of firearms (handguns, shotguns, and rifles) in the USA is between 600 and 800 a year.

(See; http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Data/Deaths/Lies%20and%20Facts)

OK, so not only are both the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence and Handgun Control Incorporated wrong in their inane estimations, but the most recent figures (236 such accidents each year) pales by comparison to the 600,000 people each year saved from becoming victims of violence by using guns for self-defense.

A CORRECTION:

"You say, “Civilized societies should rely on police and law enforcement to fight crime and not on the ability of individuals to use guns,” well, if that were so, crime victims would be allowed to sue the government for “failure to provide adequate protection.”

"Crime victims are NOT allowed to do that and RIGHTLY SO, because of what is termed "Governmental Immunity." That is, neither the government nor its police cannot be expected to anticipate every criminal act and thus cannot be held liable when they fail to stop crimes in advance."

Should Read, "...neither the government nor its Police CAN be expected to anticipate..."

I can see and respect all your pro-gun arguments. However, I stick to my original conclusion that progress and civilization are incompatible with citizens carrying guns and shooting at each other. The days of the cowboys are long gone. Sorry, cowboys were kind of cool but they are outdated now.

How did we get from gun ownership rights to: "citizens carrying guns and shooting at each other[?]"

Owning a gun does not automatically imply targeting your neighbor or random passers-by.

> However, I stick to my original conclusion that progress and civilization are incompatible with citizens carrying guns and shooting at each other.

I'll make a deal with you. When your enlightened "civilization" has evolved to the point that there are no longer any criminal elements who mean me harm, then I will surrender my guns. Until that happens, however, we aren't quite as "civilized" as you think we are. It's merely wishful thinking on your part.

It's NOT an "outdated" precept to OWN YOURSELF and to be primarily responsible for the protection of yourSELF and your property.

I agree with Barry and will only add this one caveat, when a crime victim is allowed to sue the government any time a crime is committed, would what he suggests be safe.

Of course, at that point, then the very government that just claimed "ownership" over its soverign citizens becomes all our enemy and it would be incumbent on all of us to throw off the shackles of that "State sponsored chattle slavery" and reclaim our LIBERTY.

I wish I could buy a BAR, but I'd gladly settle for a Garand.

The M-1 Garand?

Like these?

http://www.users.fast.net/~eclancy/

http://www.memorableplaces.com/m1garand/

Son of a *****! Am I really going to have to join JMK and argue against Blue Wind.

Blue Wind, the second amendment was not intended to protect us against random street crime, but rather to defend us in times of war and to also defend us against the federal government. I agree with the Founding Fathers that the greatest threat to liberty has always been one's own government, which usually threatens our freedoms in the name of "defense" and "safety" ("those who would sacrifice their liberty in favor of a little security", or however that goes). I like my gun rights.

By the way, I have to get a little laugh at this thread as well. One of the interesting things one sees when one participates in public protests and other such political events are the fringe groups that attach themselves to any public discussion of politics. When I was protesting the Iraq war in DC last September, there were a bunch of communists and socialist groups attached to that protest. Being neither communist nor socialist (I'm a liberal, sure, but I am also a capitalist and would probably be very tempted by the Rockefeller Republicans if they existed anymore, but I digress), I wasn't thrilled to be associated with them by my presence at the event, but they were a fringe with respect to the reason the mass of people turned out that day.

Here, in this thread, we have someone up there who claims all kinds of evil for the teachers unions, for crying all night. Okay, so maybe you don't like teachers unions. I get that. I think it's kind of a side issue to the things that are really bad, but to name them as one of the two greatest threats to civilization is definitely a lunatic fringe approach to issues.

I love it when the real crazies pop up.

Lol, you're right, DBK. These people attach themselves to such causes like barnacles. Another friend of mine went to an anti-war rally and was talking about the Palestinian militants who showed up. Whatever.

Also, I'm glad to hear you make the case that guns are more than just for "sportsmanship." I, like you, believe that the framers intended an armed populace to be the last, final bulwark against tyranny.

DBK: When you've conducted as many job interviews as I have, you may have a very differant perspective on public school teachers.

>The M-1 Garand?

That's the one. A little high-powered rifle target shooting would be a blast!

"Son of a *****! Am I really going to have to join JMK and argue against Blue Wind.

Blue Wind, the second amendment was not intended to protect us against random street crime, but rather to defend us in times of war and to also defend us against the federal government. I agree with the Founding Fathers that the greatest threat to liberty has always been one's own government, which usually threatens our freedoms in the name of "defense" and "safety" ("those who would sacrifice their liberty in favor of a little security", or however that goes). I like my gun rights." (DBK)

Well said!

The problem is not "guns" or even "gun use," per se, but "irresponsible gun use."

Same way "irresponsible car use" and "rresponsible power tool use" are problems, as well.

The way to deal with irresponsible gun use is NOT to make laws restricting responsible gun ownership, but instead making the strictures against violent crimes and the violent misuse of tool from guns to cars more draconian.

We should track felons better and make sure those with felony convictions and histories of mental illness don't have legitimate access to firearms.

That still won't stop diehard thugs from getting guns on the black market, but more draconian sentences for violent felonies would certainly keep them off the streets and reduce the number of opportunities such folks have to commit mayhem.

"One of the interesting things one sees when one participates in public protests and other such political events are the fringe groups that attach themselves to any public discussion of politics. When I was protesting the Iraq war in DC last September, there were a bunch of communists and socialist groups attached to that protest. Being neither communist nor socialist (I'm a liberal, sure, but I am also a capitalist and would probably be very tempted by the Rockefeller Republicans if they existed anymore, but I digress), I wasn't thrilled to be associated with them by my presence at the event, but they were a fringe with respect to the reason the mass of people turned out that day. (DBK)

Actually some of the groups that have organized such protests are indeed "Communist" and "Socialist" (mainly hardcore anti-Americans at this point), groups like A.N.S.W.E.R. and Code Pink.

In fact George Soros is a self-proclaimed "Socialist" and is certainly anti-American in every way.

In many of those protests, those citizens who weren't radical anti-Americans and who actually opposed the invasion of Iraq on principle were "the fringe" of those protests.

"Here, in this thread, we have someone up there who claims all kinds of evil for the teachers unions, for crying all night." (DBK)

I think WF was referring to that fact that the various Teacher's Unions have been one of the biggest obstacles to improving education in America.

For anyone who considers the gross mis-education ("educational malfeasance") to be a "major threat to civilization," as we know it, his statement is not all that extreme.

"One of the interesting things one sees when one participates in public protests and other such political events are the fringe groups that attach themselves to any public discussion of politics. When I was protesting the Iraq war in DC last September, there were a bunch of communists and socialist groups attached to that protest. Being neither communist nor socialist (I'm a liberal, sure, but I am also a capitalist and would probably be very tempted by the Rockefeller Republicans if they existed anymore, but I digress), I wasn't thrilled to be associated with them by my presence at the event, but they were a fringe with respect to the reason the mass of people turned out that day. (DBK)

Here's a pictorial example of one recent ANSWER event that tends to support the view that the "fringe" is actually comprised of those with principled opposition to the invasion of iraq and not motivated by extreme anti-American views.

http://www.zombietime.com/global_day_of_action_march_18_2006/