Do you agree with a gun ban? Why/why not?

[Indorphinea]

This matter to me is complicated. I would classify myself as quite the libertarian. Yet I wake up and I fall asleep in a european country strongly regulated on all things involving guns, a country I love. 

A society with less guns in circulation has to be safer than it's counterpart. Am I right or not?

So, lets hear it.

[Louisistan]

I feel similarly (though I would call myself a liberal rather than a libertarian). Guns are tightly regulated 'round these parts and I think it's a good thing.

[Ardreas]

Aug 26, 2014 13:13:06 GMT -5 Indorphinea said:

...A society with less guns in circulation has to be safer than it's counterpart. Am I right or not?

So, lets hear it.

It's an old argument that has gone round and round many a time. But let's give it a whirl.

You are right, assuming everyone actually follows the law. In an ideal situation, no guns ought to mean no gun deaths. In fact, prior to the invention of firearms nobody got killed by them! So it's a proven fact that fewer (or no) guns leads to fewer (or no) gun deaths.

However.

As the classic counter-argument goes: if you outlaw all the guns, then only the outlaws will have guns. The premise being that people who commit crimes are already breaking the law, so they will not be concerned about breaking yet another law by buying illegal guns in order to do illegal things. And despite the best efforts of governments around the world, the black market is still alive and thriving. Just read some of the articles about the Silk Road bust that went down last year. If you want something bad enough, you can find it, even it its illegal.

Furthermore, if you somehow manage to take guns out of the picture people will just find other things to attack each other with. According to the Sydney-based Institute for Economics and Peace, the U.K. had 933 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2012... In the U.S., the figure for 2012 was 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people. So despite the UK's extensive ban on firearms, people are actually committing more violent crimes per capita there than in the US. So I would argue that taking guns out of the picture would not necessarily make the world safer.

Gun violence is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. To fix the problem of violence, you need to look beyond the particular weapon used into the heart of the one using it and find a way to fix the person. The well-known saying in America is true: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns are just one tool among many."

[Deleted]

First, history has objectively, plainly shown that whenever you outlaw a good or service, you never eliminate it, you merely drive the market for the good/service underground. This has been the case with Liquor, marijuana, steroids, prostitution, birth control, abortion, cuban cigars, sodomy, and yes, firearms. If what you want to do is drive ownership underground, congratulations: banning guns is precisely the way to do it.

Second, the idea that nations that outlaw guns are 'safer' is an error in logic called "Association as Causation." It assumes that Action A causes Action B (in this case, that banning guns made everyone stop playing with them, and gun deaths declined). In actuality, it is more often a case of Action B causing Action A, ie, in nations where people culturally dont care much for guns, they are not used in violent crimes, and THAT means that legislatures find it easier to ban them (since no one really cares.)

I oppose any ban whatsoever. As a gay man, I read EVERY day how guys get bashed and beat to pulps, even in 'gay' neighborhoods. When thugs show up, you can't ask them to hold on a second while you make a 911 call. You defend yourself - and the best defense is not a female dog-slap. It is for that reason that I started up the NH Chapter of Pink Pistols, a firearms & defense training organization for LGBT people in that state. We learned from trained police and NRA instructors, and took target practice in my back yard.

I have been handling firearms for almost 50 years... and have never had an accident or needed to use one in defense. But I insisit on my right to do so, against the US Government as well as against criminals.

[Ardreas]

That's pretty much the same thing I said. Guns are not the problem, people are. People who choose to be violent are going to use whatever weapon available to them. If it's guns, then it's guns. If it's knives or baseball bats then it's knives or baseball bats. But you never hear about people wanting to institute knife or bat bans. It's just guns that get all the bad rap.

Since we're giving a little personal story to this, I'll go ahead and share: I'm alive today because of guns. This is not a story I tell often, but many years ago (before I was born) my mother was saved from a serial rapist because my dad had a gun and was ready to use it to defend her. My parents lived out west at the time, and my dad worked at a government facility out in the middle of nowhere. Well there was this rapist that had been stalking my mom, and one night when my dad went to work, he called her and said he was coming over and was going to take her. The closest police were 40 minutes away, so she called my dad, who was closer. He told his boss what was going on, got permission to leave the facility, took his gun and drove home. He was on the front porch waiting with his firearm in hand when the man showed up. Luckily nothing more happened, because the guy saw my dad with the gun and took off running. The police found him a couple days later with a hunting knife and a set of burglary tools. He'd been wanted on charges of rape and murder of several women in the area. The police were too far away to have been able to reach my mom in time. If my dad hadn't been there with his gun, my mom might have been his next victim, and I never would have even been born.

Gun violence is a terrible thing, but taking away everyone's guns is not the answer. In a world where guns were banned, my mom and I wouldn't be alive. I know our story is not common. Mostly what you hear about in the news is only the negative stuff where people use guns to murder. But you can't overlook people like us who were protected by guns. Guns are a tool like any other and need to be treated with care and respect and training for those who carry them. But they are not the devil. Too many people don't understand that.

[Indorphinea]

You are making excellent points. How do you guys feel about tighter regulation?

[Louisistan]

Just to be clear: When I say "Guns should be regulated" I don't mean "Guns should be banned". I don't support a complete gun ban because guns are also used for hunting, sports, etc.

I do however think, that absolutely no one needs the right to bear an automatic assault rifle! There are guns which are not meant for use by private citizen. These are military grade weapons and there is no justification for anyone carrying them around.

There is a nice scene in "The West Wing" where the Deputy White House Chief of Staff yells at a Congressman: "Surely we can all get together on the GRENADE LAUNCHER?!"

[Deleted]

Aug 27, 2014 1:04:57 GMT -5 Louisistan said:

Just to be clear: When I say "Guns should be regulated" I don't mean "Guns should be banned". I don't support a complete gun ban because guns are also used for hunting, sports, etc.

I do however think, that absolutely no one needs the right to bear an automatic assault rifle! There are guns which are not meant for use by private citizen. These are military grade weapons and there is no justification for anyone carrying them around.

There is a nice scene in "The West Wing" where the Deputy White House Chief of Staff yells at a Congressman: "Surely we can all get together on the GRENADE LAUNCHER?!"

Anything that the Government uses against its own citizens should be legal for citizens to use in defense against their own government.

[Louisistan]

Aug 27, 2014 6:06:21 GMT -5 @scowcreek said:

Aug 27, 2014 1:04:57 GMT -5 Louisistan said:

Just to be clear: When I say "Guns should be regulated" I don't mean "Guns should be banned". I don't support a complete gun ban because guns are also used for hunting, sports, etc.

I do however think, that absolutely no one needs the right to bear an automatic assault rifle! There are guns which are not meant for use by private citizen. These are military grade weapons and there is no justification for anyone carrying them around.

There is a nice scene in "The West Wing" where the Deputy White House Chief of Staff yells at a Congressman: "Surely we can all get together on the GRENADE LAUNCHER?!"

Anything that the Government uses against its own citizens should be legal for citizens to use in defense against their own government.

You're government uses assault rifles against you? You need to move, dude!
Yes, Police and the Military use Assault Rifles. But the military (at least here) isn't turned against our citizens. The Police (at least in my parts of the world) use Assault Rifles usually only against... you know... armed madmen on a killing spree and actual terrorists!

I agree with the basic principle of "Anything that the Government uses against its own citizens should be legal for citizens to use in defense against their own government" but that goes for things the governemtn might use to break up a demonstration or something. I don't think "The police uses assault weapons and sniper rifles to kill a person that killed five others on a killing spree" is a valid concept.

And again: Surely we can get together on the Grenade Launcher? Because, if your government uses grenade launchers against its citizens, you need to move! Now!

[Deleted]

Aug 27, 2014 6:13:29 GMT -5 Louisistan said:

Aug 27, 2014 6:06:21 GMT -5 @scowcreek said:

Anything that the Government uses against its own citizens should be legal for citizens to use in defense against their own government.

You're government uses assault rifles against you? You need to move, dude!
Yes, Police and the Military use Assault Rifles. But the military (at least here) isn't turned against our citizens. The Police (at least in my parts of the world) use Assault Rifles usually only against... you know... armed madmen on a killing spree and actual terrorists!

I agree with the basic principle of "Anything that the Government uses against its own citizens should be legal for citizens to use in defense against their own government" but that goes for things the governemtn might use to break up a demonstration or something. I don't think "The police uses assault weapons and sniper rifles to kill a person that killed five others on a killing spree" is a valid concept.

And again: Surely we can get together on the Grenade Launcher? Because, if your government uses grenade launchers against its citizens, you need to move! Now!

Welcome to Amerika.

[Louisistan]

I'm serious, move. That's just crazy.

[Escanaba]

Aug 27, 2014 1:04:57 GMT -5 Louisistan said:

Just to be clear: When I say "Guns should be regulated" I don't mean "Guns should be banned". I don't support a complete gun ban because guns are also used for hunting, sports, etc.

I do however think, that absolutely no one needs the right to bear an automatic assault rifle! There are guns which are not meant for use by private citizen. These are military grade weapons and there is no justification for anyone carrying them around.

There is a nice scene in "The West Wing" where the Deputy White House Chief of Staff yells at a Congressman: "Surely we can all get together on the GRENADE LAUNCHER?!"

Louisistan: Do you know the difference between an automatic assault rifle and a semi-automatic rifle? Although, it is technically possible to obtain an automatic rifle in the US, the licenses to do so are tightly regulated and the costs extremely expensive. As a result, the average Joe on the street is highly unlikely to have one and in spite of what you may have heard, it is not at all common for any US citizen to have an "automatic assault rifle."

Semi-automatic rifles are much more common and operate by firing one bullet for every pull of the trigger. I own one. They are not assault rifles and they are not machine guns. There some semi-autos that have cosmetic features that make them resemble military assault rifles but they function only as semi-autos.

And by the way, I don't of anyone who owns a grenade launcher. You have to stop watching Hollywood.

[Jacobstein]

I largely disagree with Gun Control and am wholly against gun bans. The reason being is that no gun control has ever achieved lower gun crime rates. It is simply an infringement of rights in the name of security.

[Louisistan]

Escanaba, while I myself see no reason for owning a semi-automatic rifle resembling a military assault rifle, I have no problem with that, if it gives the owner a sense of security.

The grenade launcher bit was a joke

[Escanaba]

Louisistan, I knew you were making a joke. I was just giving you a little nudge.

[Ardreas]

Aug 27, 2014 14:08:03 GMT -5 Jacobstein said:

I largely disagree with Gun Control and am wholly against gun bans. The reason being is that no gun control has ever achieved lower gun crime rates. It is simply an infringement of rights in the name of security.

I am surprised. Most "communist" nations in the 20th century enforced very strict gun bans on their populations due to fear of uprising against the regime when the people eventually realized that they were being duped by authoritarian figures claiming to represent them. I realize that you believe in an idealistic form of communism that is different from what has previously been implemented, however I have never heard anyone who claims to support communistic ideals also support freedom to own firearms. You seem to be unique.

[Jacobstein]

Aug 27, 2014 18:17:43 GMT -5 Ardreas said:

Aug 27, 2014 14:08:03 GMT -5 Jacobstein said:

I largely disagree with Gun Control and am wholly against gun bans. The reason being is that no gun control has ever achieved lower gun crime rates. It is simply an infringement of rights in the name of security.

I am surprised. Most "communist" nations in the 20th century enforced very strict gun bans on their populations due to fear of uprising against the regime when the people eventually realized that they were being duped by authoritarian figures claiming to represent them. I realize that you believe in an idealistic form of communism that is different from what has previously been implemented, however I have never heard anyone who claims to support communistic ideals also support freedom to own firearms. You seem to be unique.

I am a Marxist. "The Proletariat should be armed with muskets and Cannons."- Karl Marx, the Communist Manifesto (Rough quote). 

Of course, he is referring to age old technology but as much as the 2cnd amendment didn't just refer to those weapons, Marx supported the ideas of a well armed proletariat. I support the idea of communities being armed with everything necessary to defend their livelihoods. That is just another reason the "communist" nations of the USSR, NK, China, and Cuba are not communist or even socialist. Marx heavily supported the idea of a heavily armed proletariat to start the revolution and to use it to defend the new Socialist nation against foreign invasion.

[Jacobstein]

Ardreas,

Also, placing restrictions on guns requires a large, police centered government, which i am also against. Though I am a Council Communist who believes in Marxist Socialism as a transition phase, The flag in my background is the flag of the Anarcho-Communists who hold a high and noble standard: Good Ideas Do Not Require Force. Thus, I believe in directly democratic committees that make non compulsory decisions and only affect those who follow them, which allows the minority dissenters to go about their regular operations so long as they aren't hurting anyone else.

[Jacobstein]

Aug 27, 2014 6:13:29 GMT -5 Louisistan said:

Aug 27, 2014 6:06:21 GMT -5 @scowcreek said:

Anything that the Government uses against its own citizens should be legal for citizens to use in defense against their own government.

You're government uses assault rifles against you? You need to move, dude!
Yes, Police and the Military use Assault Rifles. But the military (at least here) isn't turned against our citizens. The Police (at least in my parts of the world) use Assault Rifles usually only against... you know... armed madmen on a killing spree and actual terrorists!

I agree with the basic principle of "Anything that the Government uses against its own citizens should be legal for citizens to use in defense against their own government" but that goes for things the governemtn might use to break up a demonstration or something. I don't think "The police uses assault weapons and sniper rifles to kill a person that killed five others on a killing spree" is a valid concept.

And again: Surely we can get together on the Grenade Launcher? Because, if your government uses grenade launchers against its citizens, you need to move! Now!

Our Government is a large police state, or fast becoming one. They use grenade launchers for tear gas, mount machine guns on armored cars, and use assault rifles and shotguns filled with rubber bullets against protesters. They shoot first and never ask questions. Some police departments hide murders of civilians, like one case in Jasper, Texas. They call the national guard out to take control of the situations when police misconduct leads to riots, even based off of unjustifiable instances like Micheal Brown. 

Also, to suggest you leave your homeland because your government is a totalitarian that uses force against citizens instead of staying to fix the problem by force if necessary is wrong. America is where I was born and where I will raise my kids. I will not run because the government is an ass. 

[Ardreas]

Jacobstein, damn man, I find myself agreeing with you a lot more than I expected I would. You're definitely the most coherent supporter of communism I've ever talked with. Most of them just kind of rail against the system without any clearly defined values or goals other than "making money is evil!"

[Jacobstein]

Ardreas,

Thanks! And lol I know. I've talked to a lot of young communists. Most are just ranting against the system, but a lot of communists write excellent essays and are well read. I enjoy talking to them.

Btw, if you are a libertarian, then you and I will agree on most things besides economics.

[Indorphinea]

Aug 27, 2014 18:56:11 GMT -5 Jacobstein said:

Aug 27, 2014 18:17:43 GMT -5 Ardreas said:

I am surprised. Most "communist" nations in the 20th century enforced very strict gun bans on their populations due to fear of uprising against the regime when the people eventually realized that they were being duped by authoritarian figures claiming to represent them. I realize that you believe in an idealistic form of communism that is different from what has previously been implemented, however I have never heard anyone who claims to support communistic ideals also support freedom to own firearms. You seem to be unique.

I am a Marxist. "The Proletariat should be armed with muskets and Cannons."- Karl Marx, the Communist Manifesto (Rough quote). 

Of course, he is referring to age old technology but as much as the 2cnd amendment didn't just refer to those weapons, Marx supported the ideas of a well armed proletariat. I support the idea of communities being armed with everything necessary to defend their livelihoods. That is just another reason the "communist" nations of the USSR, NK, China, and Cuba are not communist or even socialist. Marx heavily supported the idea of a heavily armed proletariat to start the revolution and to use it to defend the new Socialist nation against foreign invasion.

"That is just another reason the "communist" nations of the USSR, NK, China, and Cuba are not communist or even socialist."

I find this very sentence immensely interesting. What are the other reasons? Could you elaborate?

[Ardreas]

If we want to discuss the merits of communism vs capitalism we should probably do it in another thread, since this one is about gun rights vs limitations. Perhaps the RMB Things thread, since we were already discussing economics there.

[Jacobstein]

Ardreas,
I agree. I'll type up my response to Indorphinea in that thread.

[The Candy Lane]

the U.K. had 933 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2012... In the U.S., the figure for 2012 was 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people. So despite the UK's extensive ban on firearms, people are actually committing more violent crimes per capita there than in the US. So I would argue that taking guns out of the picture would not necessarily make the world safer.

You know what they say about statistics... I bet if you did a bit of digging you would find that the number of deaths from violent crime was much higher in the US. Guns tend to be more effective than knives.

Wikipedia:
Homicide rate in the UK: 1.0/100,000
Homicide rate in the US: 4.7/100,000

[Deleted]

There would be fewer injuries and deaths from police-protester clashes if protesting was simply outlawed. That doesnt mean that we should outlaw protests.

Many of the Restrict-Guns arguments are based on the "end result," ie, supposedly a safer society.

I, for one, am willing to live in a less-refined, less orderly society because I value Liberty more than Order. I dont wear my seltbelt, I smoke, I dont wear my motorcycle helmet, swim when no lifeguard is present, use fireworks where they are illegal, and I have unprotected sex. (I run with scissors, too...) I neither want nor need The State to Order my Life for me to make it Safer...

[Ardreas]

Where the hell are fireworks illegal?

[Deleted]

Aug 29, 2014 17:40:15 GMT -5 Ardreas said:

Where the hell are fireworks illegal?

Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York...unless handled by a "Licensed Professional at a Permitted Show."

[Ardreas]

That's retarded. But I guess typical of East Coast nonsense. Man I love the Midwest.

[The Candy Lane]

Aug 29, 2014 7:21:54 GMT -5 @scowcreek said:

There would be fewer injuries and deaths from police-protester clashes if protesting was simply outlawed. That doesnt mean that we should outlaw protests.

Many of the Restrict-Guns arguments are based on the "end result," ie, supposedly a safer society.

I, for one, am willing to live in a less-refined, less orderly society because I value Liberty more than Order. I dont wear my seltbelt, I smoke, I dont wear my motorcycle helmet, swim when no lifeguard is present, use fireworks where they are illegal, and I have unprotected sex. (I run with scissors, too...) I neither want nor need The State to Order my Life for me to make it Safer...

So the question then is, why are Americans allowed to have guns but not nuclear weapons? Many of the Restrict WMD arguments are based on the 'end result' as well. Doesn't the state have a duty of preventing, at minimum, the clinically insane from harming the rest of society?

The West Wing has summed up my fascination of the American gun debate, "Josh: You know, I realize that as an adult not everyone shares my view of the world, and with an issue as hot as gun control I'm prepared to accept a lot of different points of view as being perfectly valid, but we can all get together on the grenade launcher, right?"


I think this topic is a bit above my head. There are so many issues that come up - from constitutional interpretations, to the military industrial complex, and corporate funded politicians. So as someone who neither lives nor wants to live in the US, it would take a fair bit of research to figure out the intricacies of the debate. But to be clear, I am writing all of this as a Canadian who is planning on getting his license in the next few months.