Howard Dean in Seattle

[Jason McCullough]

Hey Seattle people, Dean's going to be in town (http://www.wa4dean.com/) this Sunday, 6:30, Westlake Center.

[bmulligan]

I can't wait for the anaylsis of his speech by his mezmorized fanbase here at QT3...........

[Jason McCullough]

Went to this with a friend of mine. Impressions:

He can really do a stemwinder of a speech. And you should have heard the crowd when he talked about "Saddam trying to get uranium from Iraq"; hoo boy. A few mentions of Ken Lay, who apparently isn't quite forgotten yet. Segued back and forth between health care, Iraq, "big money", etc. A surprisingly large amount of "movement" style lines - "you have the power," "I can't fix everything for you," and so on. I'd say he spends a bit too much time wacking the Democratic party for going along with the President, but then I remember it's 4 months until the first primary; it sure doesn't feel like it.

It was pretty much your average crowd; the nuts were far between. Though the fucking LaRouche people managed to get some dipshit with a sign up front.

I don't think any of the other Democrats have a chance, really; well maybe Wesley Clark, if he gets in and starts throwing some red meat out there, but that's hard to imagine. Kerry's too boring, Gephardt's a relic, and Edwards has no constituency. An insurgent who's both the front runner in the polls and leading in cash, all months and months before the first primary.....

[Brandon Clements]

There are LaRouche people? :wink:

There was a somewhat big rally here in Little Rock over the weekend for Clark. Couple of hundred people came out, some "Draft Clark" speaches, some Bush-bashing. I think people look more to the idea of Clark running, and being a guy that can actually win, than him actually running. Hell, even die-hard Republican friends of mine here say that, in a Clark-Bush race, they'd really have to think about who they'd vote for.

[XPav]

Clark entering can do nothing but good for the race. It has the "a general running as a democrat.... whah?" wake up factor as well as (hopefully) moving democrats into the "Bush fucked up on foreign policy, and here's how we fix it" camp. I think everyone agrees that the Democrats need to address defense/foreign policy coherently if they want to win.

But yeah, Kerry? Gephardt? Edwards? Yawn.

[Woolen Horde]

The general suspision is that Clark is a moderate when it comes to social and fiscal policy. Which is a good thing, cause I guarantee someone labeled "Tax and Spend Democrat who wants to raise your taxes to send it all to welfare moms as well as let all the terrorists win" (which you know is the way Karl Rove is gonna attack the candidate) is going to get blasted in a general election.

[Andrew Mayer]

The general suspision is that Clark is a moderate when it comes to social and fiscal policy. Which is a good thing, cause I guarantee someone labeled "Tax and Spend Democrat who wants to raise your taxes to send it all to welfare moms as well as let all the terrorists win" (which you know is the way Karl Rove is gonna attack the candidate) is going to get blasted in a general election.

No offense, but simply hurling cliches at a candidate isn't going to matter this time around. Just as "everything has changed" since 9/11, so has the conventional wisdom.

How about: The "Tax-Cut & Spend" Republicans who are are sending all the debt to the states, as well as letting the terrorists escape?

Any Dem with some cojones and a backbone made of something besides wheatina is going have plenty of material, and a damn good shot at the White House. Admittedly that may be hard to find, but it's pretty obvious after the statements Dean made over the weekend that he and Clark are hatching something, and they seem to have spine.

I wonder if the Repubs are still excited by the fact they chose to place their convention in NYC as close to the 9/11 anniversary as possible?

[Lizard_King]

Wesley Clark is a nonentity, and a piss-poor military analyst since his retirement. At least Dean seems to have some character and a little backbone. And moderate on guns, if nothing else...I would love for some prodding in that direction to come at the president from that end of the court for a change.

[Doug Erickson]

Why the fuck are guns such a deal breaker for folks? Gun control/freedom is the LAST issue I care about on my list.

[Machfive]

Why the fuck are guns such a deal breaker for folks? Gun control/freedom is the LAST issue I care about on my list.

When I hear someone say, "Gun control/freedom is the last issue on my list," I actually hear that as, "Freedom is the last thing on my list."

I don't necessarily put guns above all else. What I treasure are my personal freedoms - Many of which have been stripped away over the years for various misguided reasons. I group them all under a category called "civil liberties," and when a candidate doesn't support several of those, then he's right out.

[JeffL]

So - there's a group here in Michigan starting up a local chapter of what is apparently a national organization: Gays for Guns. Gays who are pro-gun, anti-gun control, etc.

I imagine it will be hard to label these folks as Republicans or Democrats, from what I've read (which really pleases me to no end.)

[Jason McCullough]

Why the fuck are guns such a deal breaker for folks? Gun control/freedom is the LAST issue I care about on my list.

When I hear someone say, "Gun control/freedom is the last issue on my list," I actually hear that as, "Freedom is the last thing on my list."

I don't necessarily put guns above all else. What I treasure are my personal freedoms - Many of which have been stripped away over the years for various misguided reasons. I group them all under a category called "civil liberties," and when a candidate doesn't support several of those, then he's right out.

If you say guns are equivalent to freedom and the preservation thereof, you're saying some pretty wierd things about democracy and political theory. Not to hijack this thread, but there's a really wierd undertone to this stuff.

[Kalle]

When I hear someone say, "Gun control/freedom is the last issue on my list," I actually hear that as, "Freedom is the last thing on my list."

I don't necessarily put guns above all else. What I treasure are my personal freedoms - Many of which have been stripped away over the years for various misguided reasons. I group them all under a category called "civil liberties," and when a candidate doesn't support several of those, then he's right out.

"All power comes from the barrel of a gun" - Mao Zedong :roll:

[Machfive]

So - there's a group here in Michigan starting up a local chapter of what is apparently a national organization: Gays for Guns. Gays who are pro-gun, anti-gun control, etc.

I imagine it will be hard to label these folks as Republicans or Democrats, from what I've read (which really pleases me to no end.)

Can I join, even though I'm not gay? This sounds like a whole lot of fun.

Maybe they qualify as Log Cabin republicans, though.

[Jason McCullough]

Dean's a few bucks away from raising a million dollars in the last 4 or 5 days, which I think it some sort of record for a Democratic candidate. Even Clinton couldn't pull in that much.

[Machfive]

Dean's a few bucks away from raising a million dollars in the last 4 or 5 days, which I think it some sort of record for a Democratic candidate. Even Clinton couldn't pull in that much.

How much of that came from the Republican party? ;)

[Jason McCullough]

Heh. If so, they're donating in $46 increments.....

[Machfive]

Would you put it past them? :P

[bmulligan]

If you say guns are equivalent to freedom and the preservation thereof, you're saying some pretty wierd things about democracy and political theory.

Like what, we don't need to protect ourselves because our democratic neighbors will alturistically keep watch over our fortunes and sacred honor?

That's a good one McCullough, I'm sure you believe that only the police, millitary, and other "authorized personel" should be allowed to own firearms.

[Jason McCullough]

No, I think everything short of "military hardware" (automatic weapons, mortars, what have you) should be legal for private ownership, subject to the standard felon/insane/whatever checks.

I just think the implicit reasoning most gun lovers use - namely, that the only thing stopping the jackboot fascists is the threat of assassination / difficulty suppressing an armed insurrection if they get too uppity - is fundamentally at odds with the concept of having a government at all, much less a democracy.

[Brandon Clements]

I'm not a crazy, left wing pinko Communist like Jason here*, but I also don't see a real need for private individuals to own a fully automatic AK-47, or any other assault weapon for that matter. I've got no problems with rifles and handguns, as I can see sporting uses for those.

*I love ya Jason :lol:

[XPav]

First they came for the guys with nuclear weapons and I was silent.
They they came for the guys with anti-tank rounds and I was silent.
Then they came for the guys with AK-47s and I was silent.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me.

Many gun interest groups (and hell, most interest groups) have a quick reflexsive dislike to any sort of regulation that might take away the things they like. Its always a slippery slope, in their way of thinking.

First you ban X..... <mumble mumble>....... soon, no Y for everyone!

X = Fully Automatic Weapons, Y = guns of any sort
X ="partial birth" abortion, Y = women's right to choose.
X = Grand Theft Auto 3, Y = video games other than Pokemon (and watch out Pikachu!)

Then of course, without Y, society crumbles and is overrun by Canadians or something. Its not the fact that they're worried about X being banned that is the problem, its the quick progessions to Y that is the rather silly part.

[Lizard_King]

Many gun interest groups (and hell, most interest groups) have a quick reflexsive dislike to any sort of regulation that might take away the things they like. Its always a slippery slope, in their way of thinking.

Slippery slopes are only a part of the story, albeit an all-too-present one in progun arguments, especially when dealing with the likes of the NRA. However, before one condemns them, it is important to think of the stated agendas of those on the opposite side; while the Violence Policy Center and Sara Brady may not have a chance of making all their dreams come true, there is no question that it is their goal to make sure no law abiding citizen can be armed in any way. And that includes the lawmakers like Miss I-Have-a-Concealed-Carry-Permit-and-fail-to-see-the-irony-in-opposing-them-for-the-plebe Diane Feinstein, or celebrity advocates like Rosie O'Donnel, whose bodyguards also carry guns but she doesn't, so I guess that makes her position "principled" by her standards.

Moreover, it comes down to what fundamental view of government one has. If you believe rights are privileges granted us by the government, and the constitution exists to limit citizens not federal power, then there is not much to talk about. If you think rights are just that, and exist as the default position, and that whatever (within reason) that is not explicitly delineated as a right of citizen or power of government in the constitution should by default go to the former until a compelling, material case for the latter can be made, then assault weapons and the like ARE an important issue.

I have not seen one shred of evidence that removing assault weapons from law-abiding citizens will do any bit of good. In fact, removing them from criminals would still be of questionable value, since it is such a negligible percentage of crimes that are committed with assault weapons, and it is open to debate what functionality the "assault" adds to a gun that they could not find in other weapons.

Why? Well, let's talk about what assault classification means, in those few states that bother to define it at all. Does it mean automatic-fire? No, and besides automatic weapons are already only available by special permit to law abiding citizens. Does it mean the gun has a high capacity magazine? No, it's got nothing to do with it, and besides, Clinton already set the limit at 10 (which, again, has had no discernible effect on crime, and as far as I can tell has mainly had impacts like forcing my girlfriend to trade up to a higher caliber since she can no longer rely on more bullets to compensate for stopping power). Does it have anything to do with the particular lethality or effectivity of the weapon? Hell, no. In fact, true assault weapons (what most people think of, like the M16 or the AK47) are designed with wounding rather than killing in mind, on the principle that a casualty that has to be carried off the battlefield and treated is more of a burden on the enemy than a corpse.

No, in fact, all assault weapon means is that it has a visible magazine, and is thus "military style". So unless your legal principles decide which things should be banned based on how scary things look, that is not a category which is crying for elimination, especially when you factor in how rarely they are used in crimes (when you think about it, it makes sense, since concealability and effectivity are far more easily available in other types).

So, the only reason other than ignorance (which I doubt) that the Bradys and VPC's of the world can advocate it, unless they are wholly insane, is that it is precisely that slippery slope they are going for...

Now, that is just one example of many, but there you go. While common sense would seem to support your blanket criticism of gun advocates, it is only because you overestimate their opponents.

/rant off, insert fruity smiley here

[Lizard_King]

the silence is deafening.

[Machfive]

That's the sound of people unable to come up with a counter to your excellent argument.

[Andrew Mayer]

That's the sound of people unable to come up with a counter to your excellent argument.

Followed by the sound of you guys patting each other on the back.
I post a fair amount in this forum, but I'm also under very few delusions about what it means to post here.

Lizard_King, you're a fine poster. You're eloquent, and usually respond to people's arguments in a considered manner in a manner that allows people to think about their own reaction to what you say.

But that in no way means I agree. There's plenty of huge assumptions and gaping holes in what was posted above. There's plenty of valid reasons to consider gun control in society, and there are plenty of ways to implement it that don't end up being pegged at one extreme or the other. Just because you set up straw men at both ends of the field doesn't mean that they aren't just that.

[bmulligan]

Give me a break Mayer, how about decribing some of the holes in the above swiss cheese? Just saying you're a straw man doesn't make it so.




I just think the implicit reasoning most gun lovers use - namely, that the only thing stopping the jackboot fascists is the threat of assassination / difficulty suppressing an armed insurrection if they get too uppity - is fundamentally at odds with the concept of having a government at all, much less a democracy

That's hillarious! Do you know how our country came into being at all? Do you understand the reason for the second amendment? Don't you realize our founders regarded government as a necessary evil that had the capacity to tyrranize and oppress, jack boots or no jack boots?

Simply being a free individual is at odds with government. That's the reason for the document known as the Constitution -- to help protect us from government.

Please tell me you were being facetious so I can start sleeping at night again.

[Andrew Mayer]

Give me a break Mayer, how about decribing some of the holes in the above swiss cheese? Just saying you're a straw man doesn't make it so.
Um. Whatever.
What I'm saying is that there's a reality that exists between no gun control, and no guns for anyone. Accusing your adversaries of a secret ultimate agenda creates a straw man that allows you to discount any sensible set of background checks and limitations that might keep guns out of the hands of maniacs, or limit the type of firepower that you put into the hands of the citizens.

I'm not against cizitzens having guns. But I believe that history has proven that there are working systems that lie outside of "all or none".


That's hillarious! Do you know how our country came into being at all? Do you understand the reason for the second amendment? Don't you realize our founders regarded government as a necessary evil that had the capacity to tyrranize and oppress, jack boots or no jack boots?

But having accepted that evil, they decided to try and create something better. That's not just saying "screw it", which is what I believe to be your solution to everything.


Simply being a free individual is at odds with government. That's the reason for the document known as the Constitution -- to help protect us from government.

Actually, if you read the thing, it's gives a different reason:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
But feel free to twist that around any way you want to match your extremist viewpoint.


Please tell me you were being facetious so I can start sleeping at night again.

Have I mentioned that you're far too sensitive to other people's differing points of view?

[Ben Sones]

There's plenty of huge assumptions and gaping holes in what was posted above.

Could you elaborate? I thought it was a well-reasoned post.


There's plenty of valid reasons to consider gun control in society, and there are plenty of ways to implement it that don't end up being pegged at one extreme or the other.

I agree. And I think Lizard_King probably does as well; He makes some legitimate points regarding assault weapons and the validity of restricting them. I didn't catch the part of his post where he advocates unregulated gun ownership, so I'm not sure what you mean when you imply that he's is arguing "the other extreme."

I see gun ownership in the same way that I see car ownership, in a sense. There is value in government licensing and regulation because the operation of a car is potentially hazardous, and it is in the interest of public safety to ensure that all the people driving are competent to do so. So I agree with your sentiments re: gun control. But I also agree with Lizard_King that many of the proponents of gun control do not want gun control, per se, so much as they want gun prohibition. That's a different argument entirely, and one that is very much concerned with freedom (despite what Jason says), in that it involves the removal of a Constitutionally guaranteed individual liberty.

[Jason McCullough]

Give me a break Mayer, how about decribing some of the holes in the above swiss cheese? Just saying you're a straw man doesn't make it so.


I just think the implicit reasoning most gun lovers use - namely, that the only thing stopping the jackboot fascists is the threat of assassination / difficulty suppressing an armed insurrection if they get too uppity - is fundamentally at odds with the concept of having a government at all, much less a democracy

That's hillarious! Do you know how our country came into being at all? Do you understand the reason for the second amendment? Don't you realize our founders regarded government as a necessary evil that had the capacity to tyrranize and oppress, jack boots or no jack boots?

Simply being a free individual is at odds with government. That's the reason for the document known as the Constitution -- to help protect us from government.

Please tell me you were being facetious so I can start sleeping at night again.

The only relevant claim you made in here - that we won our freedom from Britain through private gun ownership - needs a lot more supporting documentation.

[Andrew Mayer]

Like I said, I'm not against gun ownership per se. But Lizard_King makes the argument that we need to look at gun ownership from the perspective that we have the "right" to own any weapon, and that at each step of the way that we must deliniate any and all changes to that right.

That sounds good from the "I'm a patriot" angle, but it has the practical effect of turning every discussion of the place of weapons in a civil society into a screaming match. In this case it becomes a lecture why it's okay for us to have unfettered access to "assault" weapons.

Of course we have some stupid law when it comes to guns. That's because it was created with the NRA doing everything in its power to make sure that it was exactly that. They wanted to gut it and make sure that it had no teeth, so it was forced into a smaller and smaller box until it became the bastard child that Lizard_King can kick around. But that's what happens when you have to make law in an atmosphere of extremism rather then reason.

Obviously there are some people who believe that guns need to be regulated. We register our cars, and even my dog has a license, but the NRA fought gun checks tooth and nail every step of the way.

The truth is that there is a slippery slope. What the gun advocates seem to be unable to grasp is that it might be a short one, and it might lead to a place where everyone is content.

I don't believe that video games cause violent attacks, I also don't think that guns do. But the extremist culture of the NRA, and attitudes like "you'll get my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead, hands" may have to shoulder some of the blame.

[Kyle Wilson]

But Lizard_King makes the argument that we need to look at gun ownership from the perspective that we have the "right" to own any weapon, and that at each step of the way that we must deliniate any and all changes to that right.

I'm always nervous when people start putting words like "rights" in quotation marks. (Whoops, there I did it again...)


The truth is that there is a slippery slope. What the gun advocates seem to be unable to grasp is that it might be a short one, and it might lead to a place where everyone is content.

This seems unlikely, since many of the most vocal and active gun-control advocates favor relatively extreme measures such as banning all handguns, all semi-automatic firearms, etc. Such measures would turn most gun owners in America into felons overnight, a status with which they are unlikely to be "content".

Gun control is one of those issues like abortion where, in fact, there aren't really any convenient compromises that are going to make everybody happy. Each side feels that it's in the right, the other side is downright evil, and any means are justifiable to achieve its own ends. If you think that's only true of the NRA, I suggest you read some fundraising literature from the other side. Or merely look at their history in pressing for bans of "plastic guns", "cop-killer bullets", or anything with a flash suppressor and a pistol grip.

[Brad Grenz]

The only relevant claim you made in here - that we won our freedom from Britain through private gun ownership - needs a lot more supporting documentation.

Where and why was the first battle of the Revolutionary War fought? What were the British attempting to do?

[Andrew Mayer]

Gun control is one of those issues like abortion where, in fact, there aren't really any convenient compromises that are going to make everybody happy.

That's nonsense.
The argument in abortion is at what point does it become "murder". At the point you believe that aborting the fetus is killing an innocent life it becomes impossible to compromise without changing your beliefs.

Guns aren't an either/or thing. You can have some guns without having them all. There's a name for people who think they can have everything and sacrifice nothing: Teenagers.


Each side feels that it's in the right, the other side is downright evil, and any means are justifiable to achieve its own ends. If you think that's only true of the NRA, I suggest you read some fundraising literature from the other side.

Ah, so the means justify the ends...
Interesting, but I don't accept it.

Have your own opinion. Find your own way to frame the argument. Being motivated by fear makes you a slave of it.


Or merely look at their history in pressing for bans of "plastic guns", "cop-killer bullets", or anything with a flash suppressor and a pistol grip.

I believe it's fair to look at new technology and evaluate it's impact on a society. Should it be legal to own a weapon that cannot be detected by airport security? Depends on your reasons why you think citizens need to be armed. Avoiding those sticky points so that you can have a blanket agenda doesn't wash with me.

[bmulligan]

Quote:
Simply being a free individual is at odds with government. That's the reason for the document known as the Constitution -- to help protect us from government.


Actually, if you read the thing, it's gives a different reason:
The Constitution wrote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

But feel free to twist that around any way you want to match your extremist viewpoint.

Yeah, individual rights is an extremist viewpoint, to a liberal such as yourself. I suggest you read some of the Federalist Papers (http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fedpapers.html) or perhaps the Declaration of Independence, or the many works by Jefferson, Madison, Jay, or Franklin before you go spewing off at the mouth about the constitution which obvoiusly you haven't read past the preamble which you memorized in elementary school.




Ah, so the means justify the ends...
Interesting, but I don't accept it.

Have your own opinion. Find your own way to frame the argument. Being motivated by fear makes you a slave of it.


again, fear by those who oppose gun ownership justifies their means of disarming ordinary, law-abiding citizens. It's the gun-control zealots that are slaves.


Depends on your reasons why you think citizens need to be armed

more proof that you have never really read the Constitution, much less the second amendment.

[Jason McCullough]

The only relevant claim you made in here - that we won our freedom from Britain through private gun ownership - needs a lot more supporting documentation.

Where and why was the first battle of the Revolutionary War fought? What were the British attempting to do?

Choke American business to death with misguided mercantalist ideas about tariffs. Why do you think we threw tea in the harbor?

[bmulligan]

Almost, it wasn't mercantile but imperialist extortion. And something about taxation without representation, warrantless searches, and a brittish shipping monopoly decreed by the divine right.

[Andrew Mayer]

Yeah, individual rights is an extremist viewpoint, to a liberal such as yourself.

I never said that. I do believe that "being a free individual is at odds with government" is an extremist viewopoint if it colors every decision you make. If you keep arguing with your own prejudices instead of me, you're going to continue to spout knee-jerk cliches.



again, fear by those who oppose gun ownership justifies their means of disarming ordinary, law-abiding citizens. It's the gun-control zealots that are slaves.


"I'm not you are" was an effective gambit in kindergarten. For me it lost its usefulness as a debating tool soon after that.

Projecting your fear of what "might" happen isn't the same as dealing with what is happening. It also limits the possibility of of compromise, on either side.

Compromise is how kids on the playground share their toys without screaming and name-calling, and it is also how grown-ups get things done.

[bmulligan]

Compromise is how grown-ups loose their freedom. When the child whines and cries for candy before dinner, do you compromise to get him to stop crying? No, you tell him no candy until after dinner. Principles cannot be compromised without consequences.




I do believe that "being a free individual is at odds with government" is an extremist viewopoint if it colors every decision you make.

But it is a principle that governed the creation of the Constitution. It cannot be denied, rationalized away, or compromised upon. It should always be considered and color every decision one makes when allowing the government to usurp any amount of your natural rights. If you find this extremist, then I'm sorry you do not value the concepts of freedom and liberty to be paramount as I do. If everyone felt as moderate as you, then it would make it much easier for the government to seize even more power from all of us.

[XPav]

Compromise is how grown-ups loose their freedom.

Are you married?

[Jason McCullough]

Almost, it wasn't mercantile but imperialist extortion. And something about taxation without representation, warrantless searches, and a brittish shipping monopoly decreed by the divine right.

Right, and I don't see anything about guns in there.

[Kyle Wilson]

That's nonsense.
The argument in abortion is at what point does it become "murder". At the point you believe that aborting the fetus is killing an innocent life it becomes impossible to compromise without changing your beliefs.

And there are a lot of people in the gun rights crowd who think that guns are the only effective means of self defense, and that those who favor disarmament are merely enabling murder and genocide.

This is, I want to be clear, not an argument that I'm making, or one that I agree with. My point is just that there are people who feel very strongly about the issue on both sides, and who are not going to be happy unless they're able to impose their vision of what the law should be on everyone.


Guns aren't an either/or thing. You can have some guns without having them all. There's a name for people who think they can have everything and sacrifice nothing: Teenagers.

Agreed. I was responding to a post that said there was a middle ground with which everyone would be happy, though. There's no such thing.


Have your own opinion. Find your own way to frame the argument. Being motivated by fear makes you a slave of it.

I don't think either side is any more motivated by fear than the other.



Or merely look at their history in pressing for bans of "plastic guns", "cop-killer bullets", or anything with a flash suppressor and a pistol grip.

I believe it's fair to look at new technology and evaluate it's impact on a society. Should it be legal to own a weapon that cannot be detected by airport security? Depends on your reasons why you think citizens need to be armed. Avoiding those sticky points so that you can have a blanket agenda doesn't wash with me.

The "plastic gun" pushed for by the gun control lobby would have banned most modern polymer pistols, though they contain pounds of steel. The originally proposed "cop-killer bullets" law would have banned anything that could shoot through body armor, including pretty much every rifle in existence. The "assault weapon" ban hasn't banned any technology invented in the last fifty years. And the NRA was pilloried for "watering down" all these laws.

My point is not that all gun laws are bad. (I think that background checks are a good thing. I think they should probably be extended to cover private sales.) My point is that I think it's perfectly understandable that the gun rights lobby doubts the good intentions of the gun control lobby.

[Doug Erickson]

Man, I totally forgot I posted in this thread.

What the hell is freedom? Near as I can tell from some of the responses, it's abdication from any sense of social responsibility whatsoever; the license to covet and indulge in paranoid fantasy.

From where I stand, freedom is only defined by the boundaries set on it, and those should be negotiated by societies, not by individuals who largely want all they can take for themselves. People need limits, not excuses.

That said, if pushed on the issue of gun control, I don't see a problem with hunting rifles or even handguns -- if sating the fantasies of a few absurd shifty-eyed headcases means we can finally start to destratify the socioeconomic conditions in this country, then by all mean LET THEM EAT CAKE, and by EATING CAKE I mean SWEATING NERVOUSLY ATOP A PILE OF ARMOR-PIERCING ASSAULT ROUNDS.

Conversely, if the good word comes down that only all the outlaws will have guns yadda yadda, I won't weep into my Cafe Roma latte while hordes of armed anarchists besiege my beret-sporting ass, Mad Max style.

However, I don't think it's a very good idea to wage ideological war on macho fantasy and gun culture, given the zeal of its more dedicated hobbyists, so I'm all for Dean's appeasement approach. After all, *I'm* not gonna trespass on their precious property.

I'll give the anti-government crusaders this, though: if anything is going to turn me into a member of their fearful cabal, it'll be the Bush Administration.

[bmulligan]

When a gang of hooligans breaks down your door and gang rapes your wife 'clockwork orange' style, you'll be wishing you had that assault weapon instead of waiting for the police to show up. We don't all live in highly populated urban areas where police protection is 5 minutes away. And even then, 5 minutes is 4 minutes and 50 seconds too late.

When the criminals have guns no matter how many 'control' laws are passed, why should we have to walk naked through the garden of evil?

[Doug Erickson]

When a gang of hooligans breaks down your door and gang rapes your wife 'clockwork orange' style, you'll be wishing you had that assault weapon instead of waiting for the police to show up.

Does that turn you on to think about?

[bmulligan]

what, the raping, or holding my assault weapon?

[Doug Erickson]

The entire fantasy.

[bmulligan]

uuuuuuuuggg.......another waste of facetiousness on the peanut gallery!

[Brad Grenz]

The only relevant claim you made in here - that we won our freedom from Britain through private gun ownership - needs a lot more supporting documentation.

Where and why was the first battle of the Revolutionary War fought? What were the British attempting to do?

Choke American business to death with misguided mercantalist ideas about tariffs. Why do you think we threw tea in the harbor?

Since you're clearly an idiot and failed to grasp the pertinent part of my question about the very first battle, you know Lexington and Concord, minute men, etc, I'll give you a quick lesson. The British troops were marching towards a militia depot where the colonists had stored arms and munitions. The British wanted to take their guns away so they could not mount an armed resistence.

[Jason McCullough]

There you go - supporting evidence. Though I'm not quite sure "publically owned arms stored in a central place" is a perfect stand-in for privately owned guns.

[bmulligan]

millitias don't necessarily have to be publicly funded or state sponsored. They can be 'community' organizations.

[Lizard_King]

What the hell is freedom? Near as I can tell from some of the responses, it's abdication from any sense of social responsibility whatsoever; the license to covet and indulge in paranoid fantasy.
I don't know if you are referring to me there, but I really have difficulty seeing what you are getting at there, beyond splattering generic labels all around. My support for gun rights, apart from the ideological reasons noted above, is premised on the overwhelming statistical and logical evidence that supports it, and the absolute dearth of any semblance of reason on the other side. Your post is a case in point.

The progun side has its own nuts. But they are not the ones that are setting the agenda. The NRA is flamingly moderate; I suspect you are simply unable to get past the media's tar-n-feathering job.


From where I stand, freedom is only defined by the boundaries set on it, and those should be negotiated by societies, not by individuals who largely want all they can take for themselves. People need limits, not excuses.
Because societies exist independent of individuals, right? Must you be such a steretoypical leftist?
First off, no shit. The difference is whether you see the burden of proof lying on the citizen (why he needs a right) or whether the government needs a justification to take it away. There are NO rational justifications for most of the antigun agenda. The worst part is that they know it, and thus brazenly rely entirely on comically craven ad populum arguments, such as the one I described above re assault weapons.


That said, if pushed on the issue of gun control, I don't see a problem with hunting rifles or even handguns -- if sating the fantasies of a few absurd shifty-eyed headcases means we can finally start to destratify the socioeconomic conditions in this country, then by all mean LET THEM EAT CAKE, and by EATING CAKE I mean SWEATING NERVOUSLY ATOP A PILE OF ARMOR-PIERCING ASSAULT ROUNDS.
I'm not even going to go near your little neomarxist aside in this thread. All I will say is that to characterize favouring private ownership of firearms as an emotional and irrational cause when the bulk of credible research on the topic, well summarized in works like More Guns Less Crime, clearly supports obvious societal benefit as a result is...sad.
For future reference, ignorance of a topic is as good a reason as any not to argue about it. It's an even better reason to become informed and then and only then address it.

Conversely, if the good word comes down that only all the outlaws will have guns yadda yadda, I won't weep into my Cafe Roma latte while hordes of armed anarchists besiege my beret-sporting ass, Mad Max style.

However, I don't think it's a very good idea to wage ideological war on macho fantasy and gun culture, given the zeal of its more dedicated hobbyists, so I'm all for Dean's appeasement approach. After all, *I'm* not gonna trespass on their precious property.
Extra points for nauseating mischaracterization of Dean, and your "I shoulda been a women's studies major" grasp of American culture.


I'll give the anti-government crusaders this, though: if anything is going to turn me into a member of their fearful cabal, it'll be the Bush Administration.

That insertion of the Comintern-mandated at least 1 Bush dig per post puts you at a 100% of the recommended daily worthless leftist drivel serving.

TANK U SO MUCH. DRIVE THRU.

[Anders Hallin]

Extra points for nauseating mischaracterization of Dean, and your "I shoulda been a women's studies major" grasp of American culture.
Hey man, according to the Most Respected Thinker On This Board, By Far, that's my part (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=125918&highlight=weenie#125918).
And to reinforce this point, (the genre formerly known as)riot grrl lyrics!
What the fuck if we all got guns
To off the fucking pigs and all the other motherfuckers
Raping the children they paint like dolls
Jon Benet didn't scream cuz she never fucking was
Come on now the police aren't gonna save you
They're part of the problem that society gave you
Locking up Black men for whistling in the wind
You see a mirage when you call the cop your friend
I wanna know what love is
The killers and the cops give us special advice
Like cross your legs and act fucking nice
While they kill us off old and fucking young
For breathing, relieving, and having fun
They'll keep you scared so you have to have a boyfriend
And take your kids away if your a la la lesbian
Arrest you for whoring then rape you in the car
It's time we point the finger at who the real criminals are

[Lizard_King]

That's nonsense.
The argument in abortion is at what point does it become "murder". At the point you believe that aborting the fetus is killing an innocent life it becomes impossible to compromise without changing your beliefs.

Guns aren't an either/or thing. You can have some guns without having them all. There's a name for people who think they can have everything and sacrifice nothing: Teenagers.
There's a name for people that reflexively characterize their opponents arguments as juvenile without dealing with the substance of their arguments. But I'm sure you know that...:)
Of course, there are many nuances and degrees to the gun argument. But my point is that the ones that are continually suggested by the antigun lobby are not based off of any sort of rational, statistical evidence, and that it is logical to assume there are ulterior, long term motives when there is no material gain from all of their mini crusades.



Ah, so the means justify the ends...
Interesting, but I don't accept it.

Have your own opinion. Find your own way to frame the argument. Being motivated by fear makes you a slave of it.
That's very inspiring. Nonetheless, at least have a gander at the http://www.vpc.org/ and tell me what you think. Surely someone as fond as you appear to be of rational discourse must find their slogan based propaganda nonsensical.



I believe it's fair to look at new technology and evaluate it's impact on a society.
It's also fair to demand that you base your criticisms of new technology on factual issues, and constrain your support for response measures to those issues.

Should it be legal to own a weapon that cannot be detected by airport security?
Um, no. And I'll give you points if you can name any such gun on the market (hint: they don't exist), unless you are just making a funny about the incompetence of airport security.

It is precisely this sort of thing I am talking about: opposition to the pro-gun agenda on the part of otherwise reasonable and decent people is based on bullshit myths, in this case one begun by Time magazine and its typical slipshod reporting and Die Hard, and unsubtly encouraged by the antigun folks since.


Depends on your reasons why you think citizens need to be armed. Avoiding those sticky points so that you can have a blanket agenda doesn't wash with me.

I think I've been pretty up front. I think guns are a legitimate and useful means of self defense in terms of crime. I think the case has been convincingly made for private ownership and concealed carry, based on simple observation of the results of permitting and forbidding those things. While there are some obvious categorical distinctions that can be usefully made (such as automatic weapons, although I would be interested to see what factual data drove that ban, since even the burliest spree shooter would have to be pretty ignorant to consider that his weapon of choice), it seems to me that I have yet to hear an argument on that end that is not based around hysteria.

Give me some of these reasonable limitations you think are supported by evidence, and I will be happy to look at them. Also, I am interested to see whether you think my assertion that the burden of proof for removing a right has to be with the government, and not the private citizen. I think that would go a long way towards clarifying this.

So, let's see them sticky points.

[quatoria]

There's a name for people that reflexively characterize their opponents arguments as juvenile without dealing with the substance of their arguments. But I'm sure you know that...

Ann Couter?

[Lizard_King]

Hey man, according to the Most Respected Thinker On This Board, By Far, that's my part (http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=125918&highlight=weenie#125918).
And to reinforce this point, (the genre formerly known as)riot grrl lyrics!

My apologies. I assure you I did not seek to undercut your position. But you should be aware you have some stiff competition. :)

[Lizard_King]

There's a name for people that reflexively characterize their opponents arguments as juvenile without dealing with the substance of their arguments. But I'm sure you know that...

Ann Couter?

Well, that's one example. But somehow I think it is more appropriate to her genre of writing (entertainment) than to most forms of political debate.

[Doug Erickson]

Collecting all the ad hominem accusations of Marxism, Neo-Marxism (whatever THAT is), Leftism, Communism, and every other tangentially-related (and sometimes completely contradictory) "ism" out of that gibberish segue into Internet intellectual insecurity, and then casting them aside to parse for content, I get two points:

1. Apparently, there's a bunch of statistics that show private assault weapon ownership is good for society. Where is this? I'll take a couple links to credible and (reasonably) impartial sources, please.

2. The NRA is "flamingly" moderate (as opposed to flamingly libertarian or conservative). What magical, self-contradictory "libertarians-as-status-quo" argument did you dredge this notion up from? I'd also like some corroborating studies showing that the average NRA Billy Bob leans towards occasional taxation and government-sponsored social programs. Or at the very least, supportive remarks from a few Berkeley hand-wringing types to counterbalance those of the paranoid archconservatives that display their NRA bumper stickers so proudly on their rusting pickup trucks.

Also, riddle me this, since you apparently feel pretty damn priapic on the issue: do you REALLY, HONESTLY expect your "rights" to be taken away by the government in such a fashion that you need heavy firepower to survive? Or, in the case of Mulligan's histrionic fantasy, that your wife and kids are going to be raped and murdered by anarchists in such a way that assault weaon ownership will make all the difference in virtually every scenario of this sick variety?

Lastly, and this point bears making again, since you so grossly overreacted to it in your Young Republican fit of pique: you have no freedom and rights but those society chooses to grant you. Society is not just you - it's you and, in this case, several hundred million other folks of varying opinions. It's the intersection of common values and beliefs, and the freedoms you have are those that said intersection of values permits. And if what you want to do or own contradicts the pervasive sentiment of the majority, well, all the guns in the world aren't going to improve your lot one iota, although I'm sure you'll get a nice head rush from taking the ignorant masses on, Rambo-style.

Now, you can get all up in the Ayn Rand of it and squeal that the set of human actions is bounded only by physics or some simple-minded Objectivist nonsense, but the truth is this: freedom is not a fucking absolute, and it doesn't exist in a vacuum. So dispense with this notion that you're entitled to act as you please and possess things as you please and realize that your precious private property is nothing more than a social illusion that so far everyone else has found agreeable enough to perpetuate (and before you predictably gasp Marxist! in your shrill neocon whine, do note that I have no problem with the idea of private property, but that I'm aware it only exists at society's behest). Your "rights" don't get taken away; they simply cease to exist because nobody else will acknowledge them.

If that pisses you off, take it up with fucking history. Learn to adapt already.

[Lizard_King]

1. Apparently, here's a bunch of statistics that show private assault weapon ownership is good for society. Where is this? I'll take a couple links to credible and (reasonably) impartial sources, please.
Nice try. I said there are reams of evidence that the opposition has been unable to overturn, such as More Guns Less Crime, that private ownership of firearms is beneficial to society. I realize you probably equate "disagrees with my preconceived notions about guns" with "biased" but if you have a good grasp of statistics I think you should be more than capable of judging the data he presents for yourself. I am sorry I don't have on hand an equivalent online, free version, but I am sure your local library could help you out if you are categorically opposed to paying for things.

I said, with respect to the thread, that banning assault weapons, given the vagueness of the category and the absence of any data indicating their material negative impact on society, should be a non issue to anyone that is opposed to guns because they of crime rather than an emotional dislike of them.
Conflating those two statements is pretty silly.


2. The NRA is "flamingly" moderate (as opposed to flamingly libertarian or conservative). What magical, self-contradictory "libertarians-as-status-quo" argument did you dredge this notion up from? I'd also like some corroborating studies showing that the average NRA Billy Bob leans towards occasional taxation and government-sponsored social programs.
Because I meant it in the literal definition of moderate, in that most any reasonable person that looks at what they have supported and opposed during the years would be hard pressed to consider them extreme, not in a let's-have-a-debate-about-political-semantics way.
But by all means, it is much more fun to just screech about what a bunch of interbred rednecks they are.


Also, riddle me this, since you apparently feel pretty damn priapic on the issue: do you REALLY, HONESTLY expect your "rights" to be taken away by the government in such a fashion that you need heavy firepower to survive?
For the millionth time. I do not subscribe to the delusion that in the unlikely event the american government became a threat to me, I would stand a snowflakes chance in hell no matter how much firepower I stock. If anything, the advent of a modern military and police have made such arguments ones purely of principle rather than with any basis in realistic scenarios.

My support for guns is based almost entirely on an understanding of how private gun ownership affects crimes, and on the right of self-defense from criminals. Having lived in a variety of high crime areas for long periods of time, I can assure you that it has mattered to me at a personal level as well.


Or, in the case of Mulligan's histrionic fantasy, that your wife and kids are going to be raped and murdered by anarchists in such a way that assault weaon ownership will make all the difference in virtually every scenario of this sick variety?
No, and in the case of mulligan's post I believe (and, mind you, I could be wrong) he is just baiting you at that point, since it is such a grossly stereotypical "defense" of the 2nd amendment.


Lastly, and this point bears making again, since you so grossly overreacted to it in your Young Republican fit of pique: you have no freedom and rights but those society chooses to grant you. Society is not just you - it's you and, in this case, several hundred million other folks of varying opinions. It's the intersection of common values and beliefs, and the freedoms you have are those that said intersection of values permits.

Yay. I'm now a Republican, since apparently that will mean I can keep whomever you support out of office. Thanks for helping me out with that dilemma.

You make the mistake of perceiving rights as something defined by society at anything other than the literal level. This, combined with your continued attempts to divorce the sum of individuals from the individuals, and ascribe to that sum not only independent action but rights beyond those of its components, makes it apparent you have confused sociological explanation for the raison de etre of the matter.


Now, you can get all up the Ayn Rand of it and squeal that the set of human actions is bounded only by physics or some simple-minded Objectivist nonsense, but the truth is this: freedom is not a fucking absolute, and it doesn't exist in a vacuum. So dispense with this notion that you're entitled to act as you please and possess things as you please and realize that your precious private property is nothing more than a social illusion that so far everyone else has found agreeable enough to perpetuate (and before you predictably gasp Marxist! in your shrill neocon whine, do note that I have no problem with the idea of private property, but that I'm aware it only exists at society's behest).

You mistake the social interaction that makes private property a more visual concept for what creates property and value. People owned things before civilization. All that change did at the philosophical level was define common terms in which to describe it, and a framework with which to delineate it.

Mind you, these are only mistakes if you wish to learn something from this history which you praise, by looking at what has worked in the long run. Private property does not exist by some whimsical desire of a group of people; it exists because it is functional and efficient, especially compared to the alternatives. Thus, it is also compatible with morality.


If that pisses you off, take it up with fucking history. Learn to adapt already.
I did. And your side lost.

[Anders Hallin]

Nice try. I said there are reams of evidence that the opposition has been unable to overturn, such as More Guns Less Crime, that private ownership of firearms is beneficial to society. I realize you probably equate "disagrees with my preconceived notions about guns" with "biased" but if you have a good grasp of statistics I think you should be more than capable of judging the data he presents for yourself.
There are ~100 murders per year in Sweden. That works out as about 11 murders/million citizens (I should point out that I have no idea what the ratio is in the US, I've heard it's quite a bit higher). I think that's what people think lesser handguns might help with. Though with the current situation in the US, I very much doubt any progress would be made with gun control in the short term (ie, 20 years), and I think there are other social factors that are a lot more significant.

[Doug Erickson]

Sweet Mother of God, a cogent - and civil! - response this time, with actual arguments instead of "isms"! Much as I enjoy a good flamewar, I'm glad you took the opportunity and brought this out of ad hominem country, since I don't think this is a frivolous issue. I'm now inclined to take you seriously, which is nice.

When I get off work, I'll debate this further.

[Lizard_King]

Sweet Mother of God, a cogent - and civil! - response this time. Much as I enjoy a good flamewar, I'm glad you took the cue and brought this out of ad hominem country, since I don't think this is a frivolous issue. I'm now inclined to take you seriously, which is nice.

When I get off work, I'll debate this further.

I was mostly just fucking around with you the first time, much as I imagined (hoped?) you were with some of what you said. I figure one can't just spout substance all the time...

[bmulligan]

Lastly, and this point bears making again, since you so grossly overreacted to it in your Young Republican fit of pique: you have no freedom and rights but those society chooses to grant you. Society is not just you - it's you and, in this case, several hundred million other folks of varying opinions.

Jesus, have you ever read the Constitution, works by any of those old men who refused to 'adapt' to the divine right of kings or have any concept of liberty, Natural Rights or individual autonomy?

Rights are not granted. Society doesn't have to give you permission to live, work, spend, fuck, shit, eat. You do those things and more by right, simply becuase of the fact that you are alive. Of course we don't live in a vacuum, that what laws are for. To arbitrate between violations of rights between individuals. Of course Freedom doesn't mean you can get away with doing anything you want. You can't violate anyone else's rights.

People like you who insist you or society have a 'claim' on my life or anyone elses, whose arguments always incorrectly degenerate into rights not being 'absolute'. Fail to understand the nature, purpose, concept and intention of the founding fathers, their ideas, their morals, and everything the sacrificed in order to create the first, last, and only nation of freedom on Earth.

You don't make me angry, you make me sick. Sick because your view on the nature of man as a puppet, without morals who needs to be herded into submission, are incapable of self governence. I suppose [i]you[i/] should be one of the annointed arbiters of power over 'society', for 'society' does not act as an entity needing individuals to lead and direct them as individuals.

You don't believe in the Since you don't believe in private property either, I'm coming over next week to confiscate your PC and television.

[Doug Erickson]

Lizard_King: No, I wasn't particularly serious, but I my initial post targeted the wacko above me (Mulligan), not you - I just read your initial argument on the first page a few minutes ago. Interesting stuff.

Mulligan: You can certainly try to "confiscate" my PC and TV, but I'm also currently socially authorized to call the cops on your thievin' ass. In case your countless cycles through "Atlus Shrugged" have limited your reading comprehension skills to terse noun-verb constructs, here's the EXACT quote from myself regarding my personal stance of private property:

I wrote:
I have no problem with the idea of private property

Holy Howard Roark! The text - it illuminates all!

And society DOES have a HUGE claim on your ass. The moment it completely rejects you (or you completely reject it), you'll lose every privilege not attached to your body that enables you to survive. Humans didn't survive because they were lone wolves; no, they survived because they were social animals and made compromises to better act as a coordinated body. (And this is why you feel sad and/or angry when liberals make fun of you - you're wired to respond to perceived changes in the local social structure.) The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and all that.

The good news is this: you don't have to like it, for whatever little insecure Libertarian reasons you have, like it failing to recognize your individual genius or whatever the vogue excuse is today.

[Ben Sones]

And society DOES have a HUGE claim on your ass.

He is correct when he says that this belief is wholly inconsistent with the Constitution, actually. You can believe what you want about the philosophical nature of liberty, but the founding fathers were pretty clear that your rights under US law are not a grant by the goverment or by society, but a fact of natural law. The Declaration of Independence goes so far as to say that any society that fails to uphold those rights is unlawful, and individuals in that society can rightly rebel. That was the pretext under which the US declared independence from Britain.

[Doug Erickson]

On the other hand, I'm not arguing using the Constitution - an artificial entity not based on observable and historical sociological behavior but rather delineating a perspective from that time period in the context of a developing nation-state - as the rationale for my statements.

Note that I'm not in any way, shape, or form condemning the Constitution - it's worked pretty damn well for my tastes so far - but it's a document produced under a specific society in a different time. It is by no means a scientific sociological argument, and its phrasing is couched very heavily in the prevailing political sentiment of the time and place.

THe concept of human society and what the Founding Fathers deemed late-1700's American society to constitute in legal phrasework are two very, very different (and equally debatable) things. The Constitution is the product of a society and defines a currently valid contract in this country, but it is by no means an absolute.

[Ben Sones]

On the other hand, I'm not arguing using the Constitution...

bmulligan was, and you were replying to his post. I was merely pointing out that he is correct when he says that your beliefs, as you explained them in your post above, are at odds with the core values of the Constitution. Which is fine, but it makes me wonder why you say...


Note that I'm not in any way, shape, or form condemning the Constitution - it's worked pretty damn well for my tastes so far - but it's a document produced under a specific society in a different time. It is by no means a scientific sociological argument, and its phrasing is couched very heavily in the prevailing political sentiment of the time and place.

I doubt you'd find many political scholars that would agree on the "is by no means a scientific sociological argument" part. And if you truly believe that individual liberties are a grant by society, then you are condemning the Constitution, since the core concept of "self-evident rights" is the foundation on which it bases all of its limitations on government.


The Constitution is the product of a society and defines a currently valid contract in this country, but it is by no means an absolute.

Well, the Constitution disagrees with you on that count, as would the founding fathers, in matters concering fundamental human rights. Like I said, you can debate it if you want, but the "social contract" that you currently live under says that you are wrong.

[Doug Erickson]

I doubt you'd find many political scholars that would agree on the "is by no means a scientific sociological argument" part.

Just as you'd find most sociologists agree with me. If they didn't, we wouldn't be having this debate. That said, I'd like to see the scientific argument for "all men have these inalienable rights", just for humor's sake. Many societies that expressly did NOT value the lives, property, and happiness of every man have existed, and for longer times than our mere 200+ years. America is just another society, from a broad historical perspective.


Well, the Constitution disagrees with you on that count, as would the founding fathers, in matters concering fundamental human rights. Like I said, you can debate it if you want, but the "social contract" that you currently live under says that you are wrong.

I can certainly debate it, since I can easily observe that contracts dissimilar and contradictory to the Constitution exist in other countries and in other times. I don't see what makes the Constitution so particularly special -- I'm not dogmatic that way. I just happen to like it because while I disgree with the phrasing, it's a pretty tolerant framework in general, and I'll sure as hell defend it from those societies who conflict with it because it's given a lot to me as a white, middle-class male (and I'd love to share those benefits with everyone else, regardless of race, gender, or economic stratum, rather than covet them). However, in my evil liberal world, my current preference for it above other options doesn't mean I accept its premises wholesale, nor do I believe it's the absolute authority and answer as a social contract, and I'll sure as hell take public issue with it while I'm still allowed to in the hopes of swinging it towards my wacky idealistic notion of equality, tolerance, and support for everyone.

Sorry, dude, "because the Founding Fathers said so" doesn't end a debate any more than "because God said so" or "because your mom said so". At least the Founding Fathers were smart enough to recognize THAT.

[bmulligan]

On the other hand, I'm not arguing using the Constitution - an artificial entity not based on observable and historical sociological behavior but rather delineating a perspective from that time period in the context of a developing nation-state - as the rationale for my statements.



Most socialogists agree with you. That tells me that sociologists don't contribute a nickles worth of shit to society or the world in general. America is just another society, right! How dare we judge whether one may be better than another. Your moral relativism and your worship of the social contract, being the rationale for your altruistic belief system, is now being played out in real-time. Destruction of the individual is your goal; undermining the ideas and principles that this country was founded upon is your means.


Sorry, dude, "because the Founding Fathers said so" doesn't end a debate any more than "because God said so" or "because your mom said so". At least the Founding Fathers were smart enough to recognize THAT

Sorry, dude, some ideas are RIGHT, whether you and your socialologist bar buddies vote it to be or not. Truth is not what the majority believes, and wishing it won't make it so.

You disagree with the phrasing of the Constitution? WTF does that mean? You don't even understand the principles behind it, how could you agree with it 'in-principle', when you have no principles? You have to be pulling a McCullough, because I can't believe someone could actually believe the bullshit you're spouting.

[Doug Erickson]

Are you honestly incapable of reading, or does your Internet knee just flex convulsively whenever you see certain buzzwords?

In my post directly above, I ALREADY JUDGED THIS SOCETY A GOOD ONE. Not the best, of course, because I can envision ones that don't have such obvious issues as severe socioeconomic stratification or disadvantagement. Or is that too "moral" for you? At least I can acknowledge that quite a few other folks don't share the same values I do.

And when you quote someone, such as your the "in principle" above, the quoted person probably should have actually SAID that line, even if it keeps you from making a silly bumper sticker ad hominem attack. It's just good form among the purportedly literate, as my evil librul masters instruct me to believe.

And yes, I'm a observational relativist for 90% of the beliefs that get tossed about like scripture. Even "thou shalt not kill" has been amended in other societies to such forms as "thou shalt not kill except when the person isn't really a person, like that damned Saddam". In extremis, even your most bestest absolutenest morals get suspended, amended, and later excused, like in the case of, say, WAR.

Occam's Razor suggests that if it takes several legal volumes to circumscribe a society's moral map, maybe, just maybe, it's not as simple and as black and white as some folks would like to think it is.

[Ben Sones]

Sorry, dude, "because the Founding Fathers said so" doesn't end a debate any more than "because God said so" or "because your mom said so". At least the Founding Fathers were smart enough to recognize THAT.

I wasn't trying to debate you. For what it's worth, I've heard the arguments for moral relativism before, and while I don't agree with them, I do recognize the futility of trying to argue with someone that does. I was merely pointing out that the "social contract" that you live by in this country, which you claim to be okay with, seems to be diametrically opposed to your professed ideology. Which seems odd to me, but whatever.

Carry on.

[Doug Erickson]

A social contract isn't a scalar value, or a bit to be flipped in my brain. I can like parts of it, dislike parts of it, agree with the sentiment but disapprove of the language, and still come out generally positive towards it. Hell, I like a lot of Libertarian values, all the while virulently disagreeing with the epistemology on which they're based.

On the other hand, such an attitude keeps me from handing out 1- or 5-star scores in gaming reviews. :)

[EviLore]

I'll just grab some popcorn while Doug holds down the fort.

[Chris Nahr]

FWIW, Doug is right and the rest of you are wrong. KTHXBYE.

And what he says has nothing to do with moral relativism. He's only reporting the actual variability of the morals enforced by different historical societies, thereby (correctly) deducing that any claim about "inalienable human rights" is merely the statement of a moral goal or belief, as opposed to a statement of fact. Now whether you share that belief or not (the question of moral relativism) is another issue entirely.

[Ben Sones]

And what he says has nothing to do with moral relativism. He's only reporting the actual variability of the morals enforced by different historical societies, thereby (correctly) deducing that any claim about "inalienable human rights" is merely the statement of a moral goal or belief, as opposed to a statement of fact. Now whether you share that belief or not (the question of moral relativism) is another issue entirely.

All right, I promised myself that I wasn't going to continue this, but...

The fact that a right is inalienable does not mean that it cannot be violated. "Inalienable" means that they may not be alienated from the person who possesses them--they may not be given or taken away, and they cannot be morally infringed upon. A person could violate your right to your property by robbing you, but your right to that property has not been alienated. You are in the right and the robber is in the wrong.

Doug is saying that you have no rights beyond those that society chooses to grant you. There is a big leap between the empirical observation that different cultures have different moral standards and the conclusion that the moral standards of each culture define what is actually right, as a matter of objective truth, for the members of that culture. That is moral relativism.

[Chris Nahr]

All right, I promised myself that I wasn't going to continue this, but...

Yeah, but that never works anyway. :wink:


The fact that a right is inalienable does not mean that it cannot be violated.

Of course, but in the historical examples "inalienable rights" were not even recognised as rights, perhaps not even by those whose rights were supposedly violated; and these rights were not occasionally but routinely violated, and such violation was protected by contemporary law.

This means that for all intents and purposes, these rights have been alienated from the people living in such times. Proclaiming a "right" that has no actual effect whatsoever is sheer mysticism, like talking about invisible demons.

That doesn't mean that one cannot believe in inalienable universal rights; it just means that such beliefs are akin to religious beliefs, i.e. they are not objective truth. You can very well believe that society should grant everybody the right to life and possession and whatnot -- that is, oppose moral relativism -- without simultaneously believing that everyone already has these rights, in some mysterious and unprovable way.

Yes, this discussion is about semantics. Just in case you were wondering. :)

[Ben Sones]

That doesn't mean that one cannot believe in inalienable universal rights; it just means that such beliefs are akin to religious beliefs, i.e. they are not objective truth. You can very well believe that society should grant everybody the right to life and possession and whatnot -- that is, oppose moral relativism -- without simultaneously believing that everyone already has these rights, in some mysterious and unprovable way.

Again, I think we differ in our definition of the term "right." You see a right as a state--something that one person might have while another doesn't--that can be altered or taken away. I see rights as the conditions that must exist in order for individuals (and, collectively, society) to survive. The concept of natural law is not a mystical construct--it's a simple "given-if-then" argument. Given certain facts; if you want to achieve certain ends, then you must act in certain ways. In natural-law ethics, principles are of the form "Given certain facts that we can identify about human nature; if you want to survive, then you should act in certain ways." Individuals (and, collectively, societies) can choose to adhere to principles that are at odds with natural law, but they can't alter the facts of reality. A "social contract" that fails to recognize basic human rights is flawed, and will ultimately fail. Certain conditions of human existence are universal, and societies can no more wish them away than they can alter the laws of gravity.

There is plenty of room to argue about what those conditions might be, but I reject the moral relativist argument that there are no universal conditions at all.

[Rywill]

Yes, this discussion is about semantics. Just in case you were wondering. :)
It does seem to be mostly about semantics. I guess I'd put it this way: let's say that there was a time and place in the American south where a plantation owner kept five other people as slaves. He thought it was fine because it was the law; the slaves were miserable, but figured "that's life" and didn't really think of their predicament as being "wrong" or "unjust," per se. Was the slave-owner just and right in his actions?

It sounds like you, and maybe Doug, would say "Yes he was," because judged by the lights of his time and everyone who was then involved, what he was doing was just and right. Someone like me or Ben would say "No, the slave-owner was wrong," because we believe that there are certain inalienable rights that everyone has, whether they know it or not, and certain actions that are unjust even if nobody involved realizes it at the time.

You might think that such rights are mystical because there was no remedy; in other words, even if the slaves had the right to be free, there was no way for them to exercise that right within the confines of the law (they could theoretically escape, but that would be criminal). I don't agree. I think there is some value to recognizing that people have certain rights even when they don't realize it. For example, let's say some Northern soldier came upon the slave-owner's plantation and tried to arrest the slave-owner. By your theory, he couldn't do so, because the slave-owner had done nothing wrong; it's almost like a Prime Directive imposed on everyone, so that they can't interefere in any other society's legal system.

On a completely separate note, I have to agree with Ben that Doug's position on the Constitution makes no sense to me. How can you say "I'm a moral relativist who thinks that rights are whatever society deems them to be" but simultaneously say "I believe in the Constitution"? Because the Constitution says exactly the opposite of what you say. Are you just saying "If I were King, I would have made the same rights the Constitution did, so I think it came to the right result but by the wrong reasoning"? Because that's not what people normally mean when they say they "agree with" or "support" something.

[bmulligan]

The Constitution is the product of a society and defines a currently valid contract in this country, but it is by no means an absolute.

No, the constitution is NOT a product of society. It is a product of the minds of select individuals who recognized that a human being is an island onto himself and is responsible for his own life, liberty and happiness. And that governments are instututed among men to protect such rights and transgressions against them by other individuals or institutions. This is not just nouveau-chic felling of the day, it is a major enlightenment or rennaisance of the mind of man. That he is a free spirit and not beholden to any other man, king, or god unless he chooses to be.


A social contract isn't a scalar value, or a bit to be flipped in my brain
well, apparantly, it is a bit to be flipped in your brain, determined by the 'philosophy of the day' deemed valid by your society and those who speak for it. You have already laid claim to 'moral reletivism' which means that you have no principles, that they can change based on the situation at hand renders any you may hold now meaningless tomorrow. This is probably youridea of freedom: not being held to any absolute or philisophical foundation. To be able to change your principles based on the majority opinion of society as a whole whenever it decides to change it's mind. So when you say:


ALREADY JUDGED THIS SOCETY A GOOD ONE. Not the best, of course, because I can envision ones that don't have such obvious issues as severe socioeconomic stratification or disadvantagement. Or is that too "moral" for you?

It holds no meaning because what you determine is good is based on what others say and the opinions they hold as a conglomeration of individuals i.e., 'society'. You cannot even tell me what "good" means because you have no idea. You would probably say 'good' is what is good for society, or for a majority. Where as I would say: Good is what protects my life, and right to exist, and all other goods are defined from there. Your definition of good could change if others in your society determined they should. You would have to capitulate and remove yourself if your society deemed you 'not-good' for whatever reason because your philosophy dictates it.

Rywill gave a teriffic argument about slavery. Were you to be living in the 1700's in the south, your moral reletivism would dictate that idea of slavery would be just and moral. You could not believe otherwise until enough people began to believe that slavery was wrong (and how would that happen?). If you were a Mayan, you would believe that giving up your first born son to be thrown into a lake to drown would be just and moral. If you were a white Southafrican, you would believe that Aparthied was the proper way to handle blacks.


Occam's Razor suggests that if it takes several legal volumes to circumscribe a society's moral map, maybe, just maybe, it's not as simple and as black and white as some folks would like to think it is.

That may be so, but the principles that form a society can probably be written in a few paragraphs, and fit on one page.

[Doug Erickson]

Bad, bad, assumptions.

Anyone is free to disagree with society, but society will dictate and control the effect that person has based on its current configuration.

It takes a significant movement within society to effect a change, which may or may not be catalyzed by individuals - the level of success any individual has is based entirely on the permissiveness of the society itself, and the relative passivity or willingness of its component individuals to migrate towards a new morality. Societies, like people, try to evolve into more successful configurations.

Like I said, I enjoy the "freedoms" of this society and I enjoy the leeway given to the individual to express him or herself. But if the majority up and decides that private property is not valid, then the "right" to private property no longer exists, because you aren't going to be able to exercise it no matter how hard you try. War is a great example of how purportedly "common" morality can be so conveniently suspended and amended. Read "HHitler's Willing Executioners" for a reasonably modern account of how quickly the morality of a society can shift in extremis.

There is NOTHING fundamental about private property ownership, or even the "right" to exist/survive. If society deems that all folks with the internet handle "bmulligan" are bad for it, you WILL be removed from it (or you'll change your handle, in which case you've submitted to the new social contract). You can try to survive, but your right to do so within that society is completely and utterly non-existent. And if they decide that its in the best interest to revoke private property rights, there isn't a whole lot you can do other than either die resisting it or find something other than the exclusive possession of goods to make you happy. You adapt or die.

This is a fact of human existence. If it bothers you that your destiny is controlled by the idiots around you, you do your best to educate them, assist them, and make them into more amicable, cooperative folk who value you and your influence. Or you band together and try to form your own society, usurping them, and enforcing the credo of your group as the common morality.

If the Constitution had not been validated by the society at large, and if it didn't have the ability to be amended, it wouldn't exist. Just because a few individuals were granted the privilege of deciding a common contract for one society among countless others does NOT make it an absolute assessment of human moral character. It's an invention, an artifice that codifies an acceptable social sentiment in the language of a certain group of 1700's intellectuals. It's a good one, too, and one whose flexibility has allowed to survive despite changing social mores and values.

BUT if you're going to argue that Founding Fathers were infalliable in some divine way, and that their beliefs and political ideals were beyond reproach, then you're straying into the area of faith and (Randroid) religion and I really can't argue against that.

Just to make myself clear: *I* don't change my principles when society changes its principles collectively. Hence, it's frustrating when society doesn't ally with my morals. The only thing that changes is my ability to EXERCISE my principles safely - my "rights". And from the utilitarian perspective (which is a political and philosophical opinion I do often side with), the difference between what you think and what you can actually do is purely academic when it comes to societies.

I'm a moral relativist only in this most literal fashion: I recognize that my morals do not perfectly overlap with those of anyone else (and that my moral priorities vary from others as well), and that a society's morals are the common intersection of the majority's, starting from the local majority and diffusing outward from the community. Although the more primal moral values that emphasize the very basic needs for human cooperation in order to survive don't change much, other morals can and do change and vary within and without a society over time, and even these most basic of morals get suspended in crises. It's how we survive. Human individuals don't survive in spite of society; they survive BECAUSE of it.

[Rywill]

I think we're equivocating on the word "right" here. One concept is that a "right" is only something with a legal remedy: thus, an 1800's slave has no "right" to freedom, but I have a "right" to Social Security when I hit the correct age. That seems to be Doug's concept of right.

Another concept is that a "right," in this context, means "something that all people have by nature of being humans." In that sense, an 1800's slave has a "right" to freedom, but I have no "right" to Social Security. That's my and Ben's and bmulligan's concept of right (at least, as the word is used here. Obviously I recognize that the same word can be used to describle legal rights--Doug's definition--when appropriate).

The crux of our disagreement seems to be that although we all agree that people have Doug-style rights (i.e., powers or licenses granted to them by the law), some of us also think people have Ryan-style rights. But Doug doesn't think so. As Ben said many posts ago, there's no point in discussing it. It's a first premise, and either you agree with it in principle or you don't.

[Kyle Wilson]

Lastly, and this point bears making again, since you so grossly overreacted to it in your Young Republican fit of pique: you have no freedom and rights but those society chooses to grant you.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

[Doug Erickson]

Well no shit, Sherlock.


Doug Erickson also wrote:

[The Constitution is] an invention, an artifice that codifies an acceptable social sentiment in the language of a certain group of 1700's intellectuals.

Or do all of you libertarians and neocons also agree that your "inalienable rights" were bestowed by a "Creator"?

[Jason McCullough]

The Constitution isn't a product of society? Is that why you can't make any amendments to it?

The Constitution is the long-run consensus of the US population, more or less.

[Machfive]

Or do all of you libertarians and neocons also agree that your "inalienable rights" were bestowed by a "Creator"?

Yes, if you can call evolution a "creator." I wouldn't, I'd call it a nifty little product of the universe, but hey, I guess one could argue evolution created us.

[Lizard_King]

The crux of our disagreement seems to be that although we all agree that people have Doug-style rights (i.e., powers or licenses granted to them by the law), some of us also think people have Ryan-style rights. But Doug doesn't think so. As Ben said many posts ago, there's no point in discussing it. It's a first premise, and either you agree with it in principle or you don't.
I think you are absolutely correct. Also, I would add that given what sent the conversation down this path, I am rather disappointed that we have strayed into semantic arguments. I really thought we could get somewhere on the 2nd amendment issue.

[Doug Erickson]

Yeah, we really strayed. I went for the easy target because, after reading your (Lizard_King's) original post on the first page, I didn't find much I avidly disagreed with, or at least I couldn't find anything I could dispute knowledgably.

Like I said, gun control isn't really an issue for me, and it sounds like you have the facts on the government's vacillating definitions of "assault weapons" -- what would I argue? My definition of "assault weapons" when I know very little about any firearm that isn't a .22 caliber or 30-06 hunting rifle?

My beef isn't with guns themselves, or even with folks owning guns. Rather, my complaint lies with the reasoning SOME folks have for owning guns -- especially those whose reasons for ownership have gone beyond very basic self-defense, hunting, or deterrence into paranoia about governmental threats to perceived "liberties" and gross fantasies of criminal or racial invasion. In the former case, my point is simply this: if society decides to take your so-called "rights" away (either by supplanting, perverting, ignoring, or suspending the Constitution, in the case of our immediate society), gun ownership isn't gonna save you, or if it does, you are going to be far worse off than you were before.

[Lizard_King]

Yeah, we really strayed. I went for the easy target because, after reading your (Lizard_King's) original post on the first page, I didn't find much I avidly disagreed with, or at least I couldn't find anything I could dispute knowledgably.

Like I said, gun control isn't really an issue for me, and it sounds like you have the facts on the government's vacillating definitions of "assault weapons" -- what would I argue? My definition of "assault weapons" when I know very little about any firearm that isn't a .22 caliber or 30-06 hunting rifle?

Well, I'm glad at least that was helpful. Perhaps it might at least give you pause next time another antigun crusader uses that sort of baiting.


My beef isn't with guns themselves, or even with folks owning guns. Rather, my complaint lies with the reasoning SOME folks have for owning guns -- especially those whose reasons for ownership have gone beyond very basic self-defense, hunting, or deterrence into paranoia about governmental threats to perceived "liberties" and gross fantasies of criminal or racial invasion. In the former case, my point is simply this: if society decides to take your so-called "rights" away (either by supplanting, perverting, ignoring, or suspending the Constitution, in the case of our immediate society), gun ownership isn't gonna save you, or if it does, you probably are going to be far worse off than you were before.

And I could say that my problem is with educated individuals who choose to overintellectualize simple, useful concepts that it should be common sense to defend. Especially when I get the feeling they would so gladly accept such treatment simply to be "proven" semantically correct. But I won't. :)

But like was said above, I am pretty certain that is one of those foundational premises that is pretty hopeless to argue about.

[bmulligan]

especially those whose reasons for ownership have gone beyond very basic self-defense, hunting, or deterrence into paranoia about governmental threats to perceived "liberties" and gross fantasies of criminal or racial invasion.....

You're really hung up on my 'gross' fantasy of criminal invasion. Being a nice corn fed middle class white boy, you've probably lead a sheltered enough life never to have been a victim of a violent crime, much less live near or tiptoe into the downtrodden misfortunate neighborhoods of urban warfare. They all have guns and don't give a shit about your assault weapon and backround check laws. What happens if they decide to riot and come to your front door? Don't tell me, let me guess, the police will protect you. HA!



if society decides to take your so-called "rights" away (either by supplanting, perverting, ignoring, or suspending the Constitution, in the case of our immediate society), gun ownership isn't gonna save you,

It saved an entire nation from the tyrrany of King George and his armies. [/quote]

[Jason McCullough]

What was the evidence that private gun ownership was a necessary prerequisite for defeating the King again?

[Rywill]

Are you being serious Jason? You think it didn't matter that the American revolutionaries had guns?

Every time I start to gain some respect for you you post some batshit insane liberal thing like that.

[Lizard_King]

What was the evidence that private gun ownership was a necessary prerequisite for defeating the King again?

I thought you said you "threw away" Bellesiles' book, not "memorized and plan to regurgitate". :)

[Doug Erickson]

It saved an entire nation from the tyrrany (sic) of King George and his armies.

No, King George's stupidity saved America from British tyranny. And back then, very few folks owned guns as personal property -- they were distributed to the militia from caches by the local rebel leadership.

[Jason McCullough]

Are you being serious Jason? You think it didn't matter that the American revolutionaries had guns?

I didn't say that. No evidence has been offered that private gun ownership was what the NRA says it is - the only thing stopping tyranny (or a necessary, not sufficient, condition for rebellion).

[Rywill]

I'm genuinely trying to understand. Let's pretend that King George had outlawed ownership of weapons--something the English had done from time to time with troublesome subject cultures--and the Americans decided to rebel. I am assuming, although I guess there's no way to be absolutely certain, that the incredibly idiotic and practically defenseless rebels would have been crushed. Granted, this is mostly based on my experience with using musketeer and cannon units against swordsmen in Civilization III, but I still think it's a reasonable assumption. Other than the Ewoks, I can't for the life of me recall a time that a weaponless population overthrew oppressors armed with guns.

I don't even know why I'm debating this with you, to be honest.

[Brad Grenz]

There's a pretty well established track record of gunless people in the Americas be erradicated by gun toting Europeans. Let's find some common ground.

Jason, was not the fate of the Native American peoples in both South and North America an obscene holocaust? Did not the Europeans have an advantage so great with their guns as to make the Native resistence completely futile?

Oh, and Doug, can you not see that many, including the men who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, believe that guns are the method by which the social contract can be made void should those under it ever decide it no longer serves them? It's the last line of resistence, there are many ways to reshape scoiety to meet your needs, but there have been, and perhaps will again be times when acts of organized violence become neccissary to effecting that change. The threat and act of violence is a powerful influnce to the way society functions.

[Jason McCullough]

Let me rephrase: you can successfully run an armed rebellion without widespread private firearms ownership.

Obviously if no one in the country owns a single gun that'll make things a fuck load harder (you'll have to import them, all to fight the rebellion, but it *has* been done; wasn't one of the myriad South American rebellions this way?), but I don't see how "a preexisting state of strong private firearms ownership" is the absolute must to overthrow or ward off oppressors everyone thinks it is. Did the ANC end apartheid with their secret military caches? Did Jim Crow end in the US through armed revolution? Slavery itself did, but the oppression following that in the 1960s sure wasn't brought to an end by politician's fears of armed black uprisings; black families have always had low rates of gun ownership.

Hasn't there been successful insurrections in countries without much in the way of private firearms, too? I don't know too much about Angola or all those South American ones.

Widespread firearm ownership in Iraq (every household in Iraq apparently really did have an AK-47) didn't help much there apparently, either. The evidence seems to point towards "nice to have when war breaks out, but neither necessary or sufficient for warding off tyranny or getting rid of it once it's in place."

Brad, my understanding from various history books is that the 50-90% drop in the American Indian population was from smallpox and other crowd disease fatalities, not western firearms. It's not as if them having guns would have stopped the microbes.

[Brad Grenz]

I understand the microbe situation, but certain the problem was worsened by enslavement, forced relocation and coexistence that may not have happened if the natives could have defended their land.

But let me get this strait, are you saying that we should outlaw the private ownership of guns but maybe with an exception so neighborhoods can keep a shed full of guns and ammo on every block like they did back in the day? That hardly seems like a prudent solution.

I'm not sure I understand your premise? Who owns the arms in this armed insurrection if not the people mounting the rebellion. Did they rent them? Did they steal them? Were they smuggled in? If they were then I think we might as well say the revolutionaries own them. And if they have to have guns smuggled in then it sounds like things are already way out of hand. Perhaps the government would not have gone so far if they weren't worried about all the armed private citizens rising up. That's part of the theory, it's psychological, that the government never believes it's control is so absolute it can't be overthrown by the people below.

[bmulligan]

No, King George's stupidity saved America from British tyranny. And back then, very few folks owned guns as personal property -- they were distributed to the militia from caches by the local rebel leadership.

Source? Or did personally interview colonialists for this opinion? Simply put, once they received their firearms from the local cache, it was theirs. Many people didn't have guns who lived in the cities mainly because they were expensive and couldn't afford them. But like today, many people don't live in highly populated urban areas. Everyone who had a farm, for instance, had a firearm of some sort. Why is that?

[JeffL]

Ya know, just from a practical point of view, if I thought we could completely eliminate hand guns from the hands of criminals, gangs, etc. I'd be willing to go along with a law to ban handguns. Even if it was unconstitutional - hell, our Supreme Court works more on emotion than pure Constitution these days anyway (side argument for another thread.) But, for whatever reason, the constitution does clearly give private citizens the right to own firearms, and, while I don't know how to say it without being cliche', the only thing we'd do by banning handguns today is take them away from the average citizen while the people who really harm society with them would never feel the effect. So what would we really accomplish? Strict gun laws have had absolutely no positive effect, though well intentioned. So on a purely practical level (sorry to diverge from the theoretical discussion) I don't see anything we're going to do to take guns out of criminal's hands.

[Rywill]

Jason--

I guess if what you are saying is that it's theoretically possible to overthrow the government without private gun ownership, I'll concede that it's theoretically possible. I am assuming, however, that you will concede that it's much easier to overthrow the government if private citizens own guns. My impression has always been that the Second Amendment serves mostly as a "credible threat" amendment--let the people own guns so the government always knows that they can rebel if the government goes too far, because that will discourage the government from going too far. That works less well in today's society where the government is so much better armed than even a gun-owning citizen as makes no difference, but it's still probably worth something.

[Lizard_King]

Ya know, just from a practical point of view, if I thought we could completely eliminate hand guns from the hands of criminals, gangs, etc.

I suppose that (among other things) is what makes me a right wing nutbag around here. Even if guns could be eliminated from both law abiding citizens and criminals, I think it would be a mistake. I don't just mean this from a statistical standpoint, because for one thing all the comparisons, no matter how positively they show law abiding gun ownership, are by necessity not in comparison with a totally gun free environment, since that is impossible to find.

My reasoning goes like this. Guns, like modern medicine, have a positive, democratizing effect on the state of nature. They provide the relatively weak with an easy to learn, inexpensive means of self defense. I can't think of anything more appropriate for a truly civilized society to embrace.

What's more, the sort of reasoning that drives the "if only guns could all magically disappear" argument is one founded on the idea that a passive citizenry is the ideal. I think it is preferable to fight modernist trends and seek a responsible, mature citizenry capable of being more than the government's sheep.

[Rywill]

Yeah, I'd say you just crossed over the "nutty" line. :wink: I mean, A) no matter how many personal handguns you own, the government could still take you out without breaking a sweat; and B) our democracy is pretty functional and stable at this point, and if people don't like the government they can just vote it out of office. This is not a situation where we're likely to face a tyrant; if Bush loses in '04, I assume he will quietly leave the White House just like every other administration has. So there's no real need for guns to hold back the government, and they wouldn't be effective even if there was such a need.

OTOH, guns in the hands of private citizens facilitate untold numbers of crimes and accidents every year. I hear what you're saying about "Without guns, the physically strongest could commit crimes against the weak," but I think that's just a red herring. My guess is that a criminal is way more likely to be armed than a potential crime victim; therefore, eliminating guns would work in the victims' favor. In other words, let's say that 80% of criminals have guns but only 20% of regular people have a gun availalbe at the time of the attack (e.g., could be a street mugging). The ratio, if I'm doing the math right, would be: 4% neither criminal nor victim is armed, 16% only victim is armed, 64% only criminal is armed, 16% both criminal and victim are armed. By removing all guns, you move everyone into the first category--eliminating 32% of cases where a gun would allow the victim to win (or at least be on even footing), but 64% of cases where the gun allows the criminal to win. The numbers are just pulled from the air, but you see the point. On top of that, you eliminate handgun accidents.

Of course, the flip side is that you eliminate sport shooting, and that's a bad thing. But limiting yourself to the issue of "Would it make us safer from crime?", my assumption is that magically eliminating all guns would make us safer from crime.

[Jason McCullough]

My impression has always been that the Second Amendment serves mostly as a "credible threat" amendment--let the people own guns so the government always knows that they can rebel if the government goes too far, because that will discourage the government from going too far.

I agree that's probably what the intention was, but as I argued above, I don't see much evidence for it being true. Knock yourself out blasting away, but there's not much evidence that everyone having a gun is what kept an American Stalin from arising. To complete the thread: private gun ownership didn't stop HITLER, did it? :D

Yes, I know he started confiscating once in power, but Germany's gunowners apparently just sat there and watched him take over.

[Doug Erickson]

Is private gun ownership really a deterrent to criminal invasion, outside of the concept making a few weaker and smarter criminals (two attributes that are pretty uncommon among thugs) say "fuck, that dude might have a gun, not worth it"?

Having been robbed twice in a house with guns available (a .20 gauge shotgun, whoop-de-do, and a 30-06), with almost every member trained to use them, the crooks STILL got all the expensive crap in our garage and got away from the scene. The crooks who REALLY want to get you WILL; the idiotic tripping fruits who decide to casually rob places or assault folks are just as easily deterred by having your home secured (doors locked, good lighting, alarm system advertised) or you in a pre-emptive defensive posture. Despite being a bleeding-heart liberal pansy wacko, I *do* believe in being prepared -- I carry a (licensed) SWAT knife any time I think I might be going into an area that isn't so friendly to bleeding-heart liberal pansy wackos.

I still -believe- that the concept of private gun ownership is more to provide a sense of security for the owner than a practical tool for warding off crime. If you have a couple good, unbiased sources that prove me wrong, though: hit me with 'em!

On the other hand, the book "The Gift of Fear" argues a far more practical set of tools for self-defense - situational awareness, trust in your basic fight-or-flight instincts, utilitarian fear, and most important of all: pre-emptive strategies for staying out of trouble altogether. Guns are about as good as the mental preparation and self-defense strategies of their owners; and if the owners aren't ready, then all the armor-piercing rounds in the world aren't going to stop a good criminal from working you over. I think even the NRA folks around here can agree to education before guns in creating a safe and secure society.

[Xaroc]

I heard at one time that there were more people or their family members killed or hurt by their own guns than criminals. Meaning if you own a gun you are more likely to have it used against you than to use it on a theif. I don't recall where I heard it so it may be complete BS.

-- Xaroc

[Rywill]

I've heard the same statistic, FWIW.

[hermyhermit]

I still -believe- that the concept of private gun ownership is more to provide a sense of security for the owner than a practical tool for warding off crime. If you have a couple good, unbiased sources that prove me wrong, though: hit me with 'em!

Being in law enforcement I have a somewhat unique perspective on this situation.

Statistically from most of what I've read this is actually valid. Home invasion and related armed entry into an occupied home are a sliver of the crimes reported to NCIC each year. So your "sense of security" argument is certainly valid especially in states that don't issue CC to individuals.

And even if the state issues CC that actually can sometimes escalate a public situation into a shooting situation whereas there may or may not have been one without a citizen who is CC.

Now, all that being said, you probably think I'm agreeing with you about the disarmament of citizens and you would be wrong.

I work in DC which has arguably one of, if not the harshest, set of gun control laws on the books. Handguns have been outlawed here a very very long time, yet strangely, I pull them off the street by the truckload and so does the rest of MPD and our shooting incident rate has been the highest in the country many times in the last decade.

In the meantime, I hear citizens complaining that they are toothless and unarmed while the criminals seem to have no problem being armed. So something is fundamentally broken here. Would arming these citizens really help the situation? Probably not, but at the same time the current laws certainly are not working to *disarm* the criminals.

So if the laws are NOT working anyways, I don't see the issue with letting law-abiders be armed, even if it is indeed a security blanket of sorts. Not all of my fellow officers feel this way, but like I said we have a very unique perspective because we are sometimes on the receiving end of the weapon. You will find very mixed opinions about this issue in the LEO community.

Lastly, from a historical perspective, I also feel that an armed *law-abiding* citizenry keeps the government in line. Someone posted earlier "do you really think a handgun will slow down the government if there was a revolt?". Answer: Absolutely.

You would think that small arms have no place in a war but you need look no further than Iraq to see the withering effect that sustained small arms fire can have on a unit or army and these are isolated attacks by small groups. Imagine if all Iraqis suddenly turned pistols and AK-47s against the troops, believe me, you'd see results in a big way. The pistol and rifle when handed to millions of people can indeed turn the tide of battle, do not think otherwise for a second. Yes, we don't have tanks or aircraft as citizens but only a fool would use a pistol against such hardware. There are other ways to break an army besides a head on engagement at the front lines.

Small arms (pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.) can make all the difference in the world if for some reason the US government decided to turn upside down and become an oppresive military regime.

[Doug Erickson]

I've NEVER asserted that Americans should be disarmed or that gun ownership should be outlawed. I've seen compelling arguments on both sides, and since I don't have an articulate stance one way or the other, I've decided to make gun control/ownership a non-issue when voting until I *do* find an overriding argument.

However, I HAVE said I find the fantasies used to fuel SOME folks rabid advocacy of guns incredibly ridiculous and pointless: namely those constantly presupposing a hostile authoritarian takeover in lieu of more credible, realistic arguments. Sure, arming everyone *might* make a difference, but there are other factors that would contribute FAR more to the prevention of such a situation, such as the education of your local community about authoritarian nutjobs seeking power and pre-emptive social strategies to keep them from emerging and gaining power. Best of all, we have many of those in place.

Besides, wthout proper militias, and the organization and training that comes with it, what good is the effective distribution of firearms among citizens? Acting alone and as individuals, they're probably far more detrimental to their cause than as an effective and trained militaristic watchdog organization. Good luck convincing every American that a militia is the way to go, though, when the average Joe evidently feels that the current approaches to tackling the system -- voting, lobbying, and non-violent public opinion and demonstration -- are working just as well.

More to the point, and tying back into my original arguments, I think this issue of gun ownership relates more to a pervasive feeling of separation from society's common (or at least heavily advertised) values on behalf of some individuals. If you don't feel that the group is for you, then for some folks, it's safe to assume that it's against you and will eventually fall upon you and remove your rights to those things you covet, such as your property, your life, your ability to dress up as a cartoon animal and have sex, or your ability to declare yourself "the forum's most respected thinker, by far". In that case, the gun is almost a metaphor - it's your private stinger to jab the hand of society when it tries to enforce its new law. It still won't stop you from being crushed, though.

[JeffL]

A couple of comments-

My comment was relating to handguns - if I thought you could somehow take away all the handguns from criminals, I'd vote for a law banning handguns. However, that obviously isn't possible. As pointed out, places with the strongest gun laws see no correlation with a drop in armed crimes.

Secondly - c'mon. If a group of Americans wanted to overturn the government forcefully, all our guns wouldn't be worth a spitball shooter. How much resistance was Sadaam able to put up with tanks and artillery and a trained army? We're taking potshots to our soldiers because they're trying to act like police and be careful not to hurt anyone accidentally - if they went back into full war mode I doubt there would be much left to shoot back. Of course, innocents would be hurt and we don't want to do that, but let's not fool ourselves that we could overthrow the American Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy with our S&W 38 police specials. There are other arguments in favor of private ownership that I think are far more compelling. IMO.

[Kyle Wilson]

I heard at one time that there were more people or their family members killed or hurt by their own guns than criminals. Meaning if you own a gun you are more likely to have it used against you than to use it on a theif. I don't recall where I heard it so it may be complete BS.

This is, in fact, complete BS. There was a study to this effect a while back, but it just studied the correlation between gun ownership and deaths by gun violence. No surprise, people with guns are more likely to die from them than kill intruding criminals. We have quite a high suicide rate in this country, higher than our murder rate, and guns are a preferred form of comitting suicide. If you're suicidal, don't own a gun. Furthermore, most firearm self-defense incidents don't result in a dead criminal. In most cases the weapon isn't fired at all. So comparing the stacks of dead bodies is really relevant to pretty much nothing at all.

The study found no cases of criminals using people's own guns against them, but neither did it make any effort to. That's the implication a lot of people get from the results, unfortunately. In reality, the FBI's national crime victimization studies have found that using a firearm to resist a criminal is the most effective response to criminal attack. (Opponents argue that that question is inherently biased toward its result, since if you have time to draw and display or fire a gun, then the crime wasn't a sudden assault and you might have had time to flee anyway.)

In general there's no shortage of vague statistics to support your position no matter what side of the debate you decide you want to be on.

[Dave Markell]

I've been ignoring this thread for days, thinking it was still about Howard Dean :). At any rate, I'm surprised that a board that boasts postings from many foreign nationals hasn't considered the international angle.

Switzerland, for example, has compulsory military service. After discharge, every male is required to keep an assault rifle and ammo in his residence in case of national emergency. In other words, almost every household boasts some serious, military-grade firepower.

Does this mean Switzerland is the murder capital of the world? Nope. The US rate is vastly higher, despite the fact that per-capita gun ownership in Switzerland dwarfs the US. Gun ownership alone is insufficient to explain violence. Cultural influences play a pre-eminent role.

Note that Switzerland also has some pretty strict regulations on firearms. It regulates both weapons and ammo to a degree that the NRA would never accept.

[Jason McCullough]

Herm, I don't think DC being an island of illegal handguns in a sea of gun ownership, in the same country, says too much about the feasible disarmament in general.

Not that I favor getting rid of them.

[Lizard_King]

Yeah, I'd say you just crossed over the "nutty" line. :wink: I mean, A) no matter how many personal handguns you own, the government could still take you out without breaking a sweat; and B) our democracy is pretty functional and stable at this point, and if people don't like the government they can just vote it out of office. This is not a situation where we're likely to face a tyrant; if Bush loses in '04, I assume he will quietly leave the White House just like every other administration has. So there's no real need for guns to hold back the government, and they wouldn't be effective even if there was such a need.
I don't know how often I need to reiterate that overthrowing the government has absolutely nothing to do with my support of guns, beyond at a purely philosophical level. I am talking about crime, mmkay?

However, if you do wish to go barking up that tree, I highly recommend this article (http://www.doingfreedom.com/gen/0600/nca.gunstore.html), which I found thought-provoking. And I'll even throw in a quote from my favourite Democrat:

By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."

You wouldn't argue with a bona fide victim of gun violence, would you?


OTOH, guns in the hands of private citizens facilitate untold numbers of crimes and accidents every year. I hear what you're saying about "Without guns, the physically strongest could commit crimes against the weak," but I think that's just a red herring. My guess is that a criminal is way more likely to be armed than a potential crime victim; therefore, eliminating guns would work in the victims' favor. In other words, let's say that 80% of criminals have guns but only 20% of regular people have a gun availalbe at the time of the attack (e.g., could be a street mugging). The ratio, if I'm doing the math right, would be: 4% neither criminal nor victim is armed, 16% only victim is armed, 64% only criminal is armed, 16% both criminal and victim are armed. By removing all guns, you move everyone into the first category--eliminating 32% of cases where a gun would allow the victim to win (or at least be on even footing), but 64% of cases where the gun allows the criminal to win. The numbers are just pulled from the air, but you see the point. On top of that, you eliminate handgun accidents.

Of course, the flip side is that you eliminate sport shooting, and that's a bad thing. But limiting yourself to the issue of "Would it make us safer from crime?", my assumption is that magically eliminating all guns would make us safer from crime.

Look, if any of your statistical manipulation above had any basis in truth, there might be something to what you are saying. But since the data on the magical-guns-not-existing option is never going to be available, we have to work with what we do know. The numbers clearly fall in favour of supporting law-abiding citizens owning guns, and become even more clear cut when you factor in the benefits concealed carry permits create. These have been examined extensively in both of John Lott's books, and have yet to be refuted. The nice thing is that with all the difference between neighboring states and their laws, it is very possible to study relative crime rates with different gun control laws.

What is most striking about it, is that the only gun law that has a discernible, consistent impact on crime in any direction (in this case positive) is a concealed carry permit law; not one of the others has had an impact that can be convincingly isolated from other causes.

You want to take guns away from criminals? Then show me how it can be done effectively beyond what is already being done without compromising law abiding ownership further, because the impact of the sort of blanket gun control legislation that is put forth is either virtually nonexistent (like those million dollar gun registries) or actually increases crime in the long run (See MD, CA (http://www.nssf.org/PDF/CA_study.pdf), England (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/SlipperySlope.htm#A) over the course of the last century, etc).



This is, in fact, complete BS. There was a study to this effect a while back, but it just studied the correlation between gun ownership and deaths by gun violence. No surprise, people with guns are more likely to die from them than kill intruding criminals. We have quite a high suicide rate in this country, higher than our murder rate, and guns are a preferred form of comitting suicide. If you're suicidal, don't own a gun. Furthermore, most firearm self-defense incidents don't result in a dead criminal. In most cases the weapon isn't fired at all. So comparing the stacks of dead bodies is really relevant to pretty much nothing at all.
You are correct. A number of those studies that are often used to prop up GUNS ARE BAD news creation articles completely based on the readers ignorance of basic stat: the difference between correlation and causation, for instance. A lot of those guns in the home "cause" deaths fail to take into account WHY that person owned a gun in the first place (for a negative example, he resides in a high crime area, is a drug dealer, whatever) and what the actual cause of death was.

It's a lot like those numbers on how many "children" are killed by guns every year: when the media busts them out they completely fail to define that the vast majority of those deaths are 16-18 year old and gang related. No less tragic, but a far cry from little Tommy gunning Susie down while playing with Daddy's .44. And when you actually narrow it down to accidental deaths like that, it suddenly becomes obvious that far more children would be saved by, say, the banning of large plastic buckets, swimming pools, or any number of normal household items. Given that America is a country with an estimated 200m guns, designed specifically for killing, I would say it is far from the epidemic that the Violence Policy Center and their buddies would have you believe, and one of the many scare tactics based on minimal use of facts.

[Rywill]

Dude, take a breath over there. Whether you think overthrowing the government has anything to do with it or not, that's what the Second Amendment was about, so it's at least somewhat relevant. Although the numbers I used in my example are made up, the point of it--like I said when I posted it--was that keeping all guns around is only beneficial to law-abiding citizens if there are more law-abiding citizens who have guns when attacked than there are criminals who use guns during their crimes. Apparently, you think there are. I would respectfully disagree. As for "How would you take guns away only from criminals?", I have no clue, and it doesn't matter--someone asked whether, if you COULD do that, it would be a good idea, and you said "No." I was disagreeing with you. Coming back and saying, "Well, it could never happen anyway" is pretty weak.

As it happens, I'm against most gun control measures. But mostly that's because I believe in people's individual civil rights, not because I think it helps them in their resistance to crime. In my experience--and I've talked to lots of people who are crime victims as part of my job--it's extremely rare for someone to effectively resist a crime with a gun. Of course, I don't hear from all the people who scared someone off with a gun and the perpetrator was never caught. But somehow I doubt that there are all those untold stories out there.

[Dave Markell]

I still say everyone needs to look overseas for the answers:

England: very, very difficult for civilians to own firearms. Even the police rarely use guns. Low violent crime rate.

Switzerland: Every single male in the nation owns an assault rifle and knows how to use it. Low violent crime rate.

What does this prove? Simple. Gun ownership is not the problem. The problem is our culture, not our guns. Nations where everyone is armed and nations where no one is armed both have fewer armed robberies/murders/accidental firearms deaths per capita than we do. Any approach to gun ownership can work, but only if the society in question has different values than our own.

[quatoria]

There might also be a connection to the fact that we jail more of our population than any other nation in the fucking world.

[Jason McCullough]

John Lott's books

Jesus christ LK, in the last couple of days you've soft-pedaled Charles Murray and cited John Lott as a reliable source (http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott98update.html). WTF?

[XPav]

There might also be a connection to the fact that we jail more of our population than any other nation in the fucking world.
Many of them for petty drug possesion. Then, when they get out jail, they're hardened criminals! Hooray!

Oh, and white seem to escape these drug charges at a greater rate, and that couldn't be due to economic issues and the ability to hire a competent lawyer so that Johnny Middle-Class doesn't go to jail.

[Lizard_King]

Dude, take a breath over there. Whether you think overthrowing the government has anything to do with it or not, that's what the Second Amendment was about, so it's at least somewhat relevant. Although the numbers I used in my example are made up, the point of it--like I said when I posted it--was that keeping all guns around is only beneficial to law-abiding citizens if there are more law-abiding citizens who have guns when attacked than there are criminals who use guns during their crimes. Apparently, you think there are. I would respectfully disagree. As for "How would you take guns away only from criminals?", I have no clue, and it doesn't matter--someone asked whether, if you COULD do that, it would be a good idea, and you said "No." I was disagreeing with you. Coming back and saying, "Well, it could never happen anyway" is pretty weak.
First off, no, I didn't say that at all. I'll get to that in a moment.

I don't think when it comes down to fundamental ideological questions there is much profit in continuing to rehash my point. You didn't refute it, and I was just following it up.

In any case, the theoretical question was about removing guns from both criminals and law abiding citizens in one fell swoop, not just from the former. In that scenario, and not the one you tried to suggest in its place, I would find the benefits of questionable value for the reasons I stated above.


As it happens, I'm against most gun control measures. But mostly that's because I believe in people's individual civil rights, not because I think it helps them in their resistance to crime. In my experience--and I've talked to lots of people who are crime victims as part of my job--it's extremely rare for someone to effectively resist a crime with a gun. Of course, I don't hear from all the people who scared someone off with a gun and the perpetrator was never caught. But somehow I doubt that there are all those untold stories out there.
Yes, and in my experience living in a high crime area for several years, it is not rare. Talk about weakness of argument...reminds of the celebrity who couldn't understand how Richard Nixon got elected when none of her friends voted for him.
And let's not pretend that the popular conception of firearms isn't shaped by the media; irrespective of all questions of bias, it is a simple fact that bad news sells better than good news, and there is little incentive to report successful, nonfatal defensive gun use.

Again, look at the numbers relating to concealed carry permits in the United States. While it is not exactly equivalent to saying defensive gun use is an important factor in reducing crime, it is the ONLY sort of gun law that has had a measurable, positive, consistent impact on crime in the long run.

[Lizard_King]

Jesus christ LK, in the last couple of days you've soft-pedaled Charles Murray
Which I admitted I may well be wrong about. And, in fact, the more I read about it, the less I like it. Not so much for its implications, which I still find to be far short of the Aryan Nations manifesto its critics make it out to be, but for how radically unimportant and uninteresting their research ought to be. But your innuendo based critiques had little to do with that change.


and cited John Lott as a reliable source (http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott98update.html). WTF?
WTF? WTF? Oh, please. Suddenly, papers without your fabled peer refereeing (like Ayles and Donohoe's "refutation" of one part of Lott's argument) are worthy sources when they agree with you. Suddenly, you expect me to be swayed by a link that is chock-full of masterful dissections of straw man arguments. Fortunately, it conveniently provides a link to Lott's own website, where he dispatches their criticism handily (although Lambert does a good job of excerpting selectively to make it seem otherwise).

[Jason McCullough]

LK, Lott's research on concealed carry doesn't demonstrate that, even if you assume his survey actually exists.

[Rywill]

First off, no, I didn't say that at all. I'll get to that in a moment.
Sure you did. Jeff Lackey said "If you could remove all guns, that'd be great." You said "No it wouldn't, because guns help people resist crimes." I said, "That's nutty. No they don't." You said "Well, you couldn't magically remove all guns anyway." I guess you're making a big deal out of the fact that in my last post I said something about "removing guns from criminals," but of course that's only because I was responding to you saying there's no way to remove the criminals' guns. Which, not to bring this full-circle three times, was totally irrelevant since your original assertion was that even if you COULD remove all the guns (criminals' and others'), that would be bad. I mean, unless you want to take that back.



I don't think when it comes down to fundamental ideological questions there is much profit in continuing to rehash my point. You didn't refute it, and I was just following it up.
Wow, touche. I guess you win this round, King. I'll get you next time.


In any case, the theoretical question was about removing guns from both criminals and law abiding citizens in one fell swoop, not just from the former. In that scenario, and not the one you tried to suggest in its place, I would find the benefits of questionable value for the reasons I stated above.
Um, this sounds like you're saying "Removing all guns from everyone would be bad, but removing them just from criminals would be even worse." How do you figure?

[Lizard_King]

Um, this sounds like you're saying "Removing all guns from everyone would be bad, but removing them just from criminals would be even worse." How do you figure?

The way I figure is that I was addressing a magical removal of guns from everyone, and saying that would be a bad thing in my opinion, and why. I had not expressed an opinion on removing guns magically just from criminals, since that (I thought) would pretty obviously be a good thing. If I was unclear, I am sorry. Does that clear things up at all?

[bmulligan]

I've seen compelling arguments on both sides, and since I don't have an articulate stance one way or the other, I've decided to make gun control/ownership a non-issue when voting until I *do* find an overriding argument.



Not believing in any principles sounds like a waste of time to me. Waiting around to hear everyone else arguments so can you can choose one absolves you from the responsibility of making a decision on anything. That way if you're wrong, you can blame someone else and choose another.


However, I HAVE said I find the fantasies used to fuel SOME folks rabid advocacy of guns incredibly ridiculous and pointless: namely those constantly presupposing a hostile authoritarian takeover in lieu of more credible, realistic arguments.

It's easy to make fun of others' views when you have none to call your own. Christ Ericson, why wait to *find* a viewpoint, why don't you *make* one ?


...this issue of gun ownership relates more to a pervasive feeling of separation from society's common (or at least heavily advertised) values on behalf of some individuals. If you don't feel that the group is for you, then for some folks, it's safe to assume that it's against you and will eventually fall upon you and remove your rights to those things you covet, such as your property, your life, your ability to dress up as a cartoon animal and have sex...

You keep personifying society as if it has a mind of it's own, it doesn't. Society is abstract not a physical entity to be interacted with. We interact with individuals within our society, not society itself.

[Lizard_King]

LK, Lott's research on concealed carry doesn't demonstrate that, even if you assume his survey actually exists.

What do you mean by "that"? If it is any of the assertions I made above, I think it does. And none of the things I looked at on that site you linked to made much of a case against it. Perhaps you could tell me which specific ones you were referring to, so that I don't have to guess what you are talking about.

As to the latter part of your comment, if it is the missing survey you are referring to (the 99% of defensive gun use ends nonviolently or whatever it was), it is at most tangential to the point. I don't know of any conclusive refutations of his ccw data.

[Jason McCullough]

Seriously, Lott's pretty much damaged goods at this point. Lott made up a sock puppet to defend himself, can't produce his surveys, the studies/conclusions he does produce result in entirely different results when run by other statisticians, etc., etc. He's just as full of it as Bellesiles.

[Brad Grenz]

Besides, wthout proper militias, and the organization and training that comes with it, what good is the effective distribution of firearms among citizens? Acting alone and as individuals, they're probably far more detrimental to their cause than as an effective and trained militaristic watchdog organization. Good luck convincing every American that a militia is the way to go, though, when the average Joe evidently feels that the current approaches to tackling the system -- voting, lobbying, and non-violent public opinion and demonstration -- are working just as well.

We don't need militias right now. But if the situation got so bad they would become neccissary, I'm sure quite a few would have popped up. You'd never have to, nor expect to convince every American to join an organized armed resistence movement. For many, circumstances would speak for themselves.

Also, as for the civilians are powerless against the US military machine arguement, why are we assuming the military would uniformly (pretend that's not a pun) be on the government's side? No units would rebel against this theoretical regime? I imagine there would be a great rift, if not a military coup in a number of scenarios. Our military is disciplined, but I think it is also largely principled and I have to believe there wouldn't be 100% support for whatever crazy-ass policies the Big Giant Head is enacting.

But as I've said before, the whole idea is to never let things get that far.

[Machfive]

Precisely. While an armed populace may not be a complete deterrent to a meglomaniacal tyrant who somehow manages to get elected and assume all powers necessary to further his insane agenda...

That doesn't mean it wouldn't also be a deterrent to the very American soldiers who would be ordered to engage in armed conflict with their fellow countrymen.

It is a highly unlikely scenario, but nonetheless one of several good arguments for private firearm ownership. Self-defense and sport are the other two.

[Kyle Wilson]

Although the numbers I used in my example are made up, the point of it--like I said when I posted it--was that keeping all guns around is only beneficial to law-abiding citizens if there are more law-abiding citizens who have guns when attacked than there are criminals who use guns during their crimes.

It's not quite that black and white. You really should read Gary Kleck (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0202305694/qid=1062863063/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-2121258-2000127?v=glance&s=books) if you interested in the subject. He makes the points that a lot of criminal violence is intramural (drug dealers robbing one another, fighting over territory, etc.), and presents prison population surveys showing that most criminals carry guns not to help them commit crimes but for self-defense. So yes, a lot of "victims" are armed when they're attacked, which does a lot to deter attacks. If they had to sort it out with crowbars, there would be more violence but it would be, on average, less lethal. Kleck seems to think there would end up being more deaths overall, but really there's no telling.

[Lizard_King]

Seriously, Lott's pretty much damaged goods at this point. Lott made up a sock puppet to defend himself,
Amusing, yes. Odd, yes. And it does make him damaged goods if I was interested in him as a human being. Oddly, I don't need to find statisticians personally appealing to appreciate their work.


can't produce his surveys,
In two books with literally hundreds of surveys involved, he can't produce one (1). Importabnt, yes, but not the fiasco you make it out to be.



the studies/conclusions he does produce result in entirely different results when run by other statisticians, etc., etc.
Indeed they do. Because the other statisticians vary the statistical methodology to adapt for their prejudices. Lies, damned lies, and statistics, and all that. I'll admit I've paid a lot more attention to Lott's methodology than to theirs, and more valuable than his own findings (to me) were his deconstruction of the findings of others (much like Lomborg), and I don't see how his analyses are deceitful. Moreover, I am spectacularly unimpressed with what I have read in the form of LOTT DESTROYED! tracts, which end up being much ado about nothing.

That was what led me astray, initially, with Murray (although, again, I think I am going to have to read this book myself before I consign it to the dustbin): not so much the strength of his points but the weakness of those of his detractors, and the sort of people that were rallying against him.

EDIT: hit post before done.

He's just as full of it as Bellesiles.
Now that's a comparison that is completely devoid of a sense of proportion.

[Jason McCullough]

Mmm hmm. John Lott, prophet in the wilderness.

[Andrew Mayer]

""The Constitution just sets minimums. Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires."
-Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Watch out for them Liberals!

[XPav]

Because a good flame just won't stay down...

John Lott is a dishonest SOB. (http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002136.html)

[quatoria]

Because a good flame just won't stay down...

John Lott is a dishonest SOB. (http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002136.html)

Gee, and he works for the American Enterprise Institute. Who, if I'm not mistaken, are the ones who sponsored the Iraq poll we were discussing in that other thread....

[Jason McCullough]

As does Charles Murray, who wrote the Bell Curve.

[quatoria]

Hiring a dishonest individual is no proof of the dishonesty of an entire institution, but it's certainly suggestive - and certainly damaging to overall credibility.

[XPav]

So, as the major ultra liberal commies on this forum, do we agree that "AEI is the root of all evil" should be including into our talking points?

[quatoria]

So, as the major ultra liberal commies on this forum, do we agree that "AEI is the root of all evil" should be including into our talking points?

I can't be seen talking to you in public, Alex, you're a known thread derailer.

[Midnight Son]

You fools! The root of all evil is SATAN! (And Soylent green is made of people! It's people!!")