Some thoughts on guns in the USA ...

[tango]

Obviously doing MORE of the same will not solve the problem that doing some of it causes. Having more guns in the hands of the populous will not solve the problem of some of the populous shooting others. More guns is much more likely to mean more people will use their guns to shoot others. The math is easy.

... except it's not always as simple as it looks.

If more guns meant more safety then South Africa should be a utopia. If more guns meant less safety then Switzerland should be anarchic.

Maybe we'd be better of looking at what drives people to kill other people, than fussing over the specific tool they select to do the killing. If you take the guns away the shootings will just be replaced with attacks with knives, baseball bats etc.

 

[tango]

I don't see any reason to accept that GOD gave all people some DIVINE RIGHT to own a gun. I just don't see that anywhere in Scripture. There MIGHT be some implied right to defend oneself, but it's absurd to argue this includes by any means available.

I don't see any notion that God gave us any specific rights to own guns, nor any prohibition against owning guns.

It just seems intensely stupid to me to assume that Someone Else will protect me, when that Someone Else isn't necessarily going to be anywhere near me when I need them. I see it as my prerogative and my obligation to be the first line in defending myself and my family. The only real issue is what tools I have available to achieve that goal.

I think that often this discussion is not philosphical but simply a matter of where to draw the very subjective line. FEW people believe that ALL guns should be in the hands of ALL people (as a divine OR civil "right"). I think that Cuba may the the only country where ALL guns are illegal to ALL people. But should a mentally insane, criminally violent 12 year old have an assult rifle? MOST would probably say that's not an excellent idea (or something God mandates).

This is the sort of question where it's easy to find examples that are clearly one or other side of a line but very hard to define where the line goes. First off the term "assault rifle" is obviously very much in the news but unless we can clearly define how an "assault rifle" differs from a "rifle" it's little more than rabble rousing (and the numerous people who don't seem to know that an AR-15 isn't an automatic weapon yet still have an opinion on why they should be banned is concerning). The other issue is that if the Constitution does confer a right on "the people" then it confers a right on "the people" and not "the people to whom the government of the day are willing to concede that right".

 

[JPPT1974]

I just do not like guns at all. I am a pacifist. As really think that it is about getting the guns out of monsters like that of the Orlando tragedy.

 

[tango]

I just do not like guns at all. I am a pacifist. As really think that it is about getting the guns out of monsters like that of the Orlando tragedy.

The eternal question is how to actually achieve it though. If you outlaw guns and require people who currently own them to surrender them, the chances are the kind of people who would perpetrate something like the Orlando incident wouldn't be standing in line at the police station to hand them in. And if you take the guns away you still don't take away the desire to harm others, so the people who burn with that level of hatred would simply use a different tool to achieve the same ends.

Some years ago in London there was a spate of attacks, mostly against gay bars, that were essentially nail bombs packed with dirt. I don't remember how many they killed but they also caused some really nasty injuries and, being packed with dirt as well as nails, there was an immediate threat of the nasty wounds being infected.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Obviously doing MORE of the same will not solve the problem that doing some of it causes. Having more guns in the hands of the populous will not solve the problem of some of the populous shooting others. More guns is much more likely to mean more people will use their guns to shoot others. The math is easy.

... except it's not always as simple as it looks.

If more guns meant more safety then South Africa should be a utopia. If more guns meant less safety then Switzerland should be anarchic.

Maybe we'd be better of looking at what drives people to kill other people, than fussing over the specific tool they select to do the killing. If you take the guns away the shootings will just be replaced with attacks with knives, baseball bats etc.

In each culture the culture is the context for the remark I made and it seems to me that it is as true for South Africa as it is for Switzerland. It is also true for the USA. Doing more of the same does not cure the problem that doing some of it causes.

 

[tango]

In each culture the culture is the context for the remark I made and it seems to me that it is as true for South Africa as it is for Switzerland. It is also true for the USA. Doing more of the same does not cure the problem that doing some of it causes.

Ultimately it still comes back to the idea that the underlying problem is the hatred in someone's heart, not the tool they use to act on their hatred.

In this case the attacker used firearms, and what has followed is a predictable call to ban or restrict firearms. But what if he'd just taken a heavy truck and run over a bunch of revellers as they left the nightclub? They'd still be just as dead, the attacker would still have caused his trail of carnage, but would we be seeing people calling for further restrictions on the freedom to drive?

As with everything else it's very easy to focus on the outliers, on the extremists, and not consider how a knee-jerk reaction will affect the law abiding majority.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ultimately it still comes back to the idea that the underlying problem is the hatred in someone's heart, not the tool they use to act on their hatred.

In this case the attacker used firearms, and what has followed is a predictable call to ban or restrict firearms. But what if he'd just taken a heavy truck and run over a bunch of revellers as they left the nightclub? They'd still be just as dead, the attacker would still have caused his trail of carnage, but would we be seeing people calling for further restrictions on the freedom to drive?

As with everything else it's very easy to focus on the outliers, on the extremists, and not consider how a knee-jerk reaction will affect the law abiding majority.

There's no earthly cure for a wicked heart - there is however a heavenly one but that is covered in many other threads - so the tools are the issue that earthly legislators can address. If gun killings (shootings) are the shameful problem then having less guns (no guns ideally) can decrease it.

 

[tango]

There's no earthly cure for a wicked heart - there is however a heavenly one but that is covered in many other threads - so the tools are the issue that earthly legislators can address. If gun killings (shootings) are the shameful problem then having less guns (no guns ideally) can decrease it.

Perhaps up to a point, but we have to consider whether removing something from the equation causes more problems than it solves.

If we ban cars we reduce the number of deaths on our roads but nobody is suggesting it as a serious proposition. Relative to deaths and injuries on the roads the number of people harmed by shootings like Orlando is small. And if we go too far down the weapons control route we end up with a silly situation like the one in the UK where just about any form of self-protection is unlawful. Which is really helpful, if you're hiking in an area where the wildlife may be dangerous. Even an aggressive dog pretty much has a free rein to do what it wants to people because they aren't allowed to carry anything nasty enough to protect themselves (I used to wear steel toed shoes in the UK because I got sick of other peoples' dogs although thankfully never had to use them in anger, although on more than one occasion I thumped a dog for jumping up at me and prepared to put my steel toes into its chest). When hiking in areas that may have one or more of bears, coyotes, mountain lions etc it's lunacy to not carry something powerful enough to protect you in the event of meeting aggressive wildlife.

Or, as a hiking buddy put it, "if you come across an angry bear you're not going to fend it off with a stick".

 

[MoreCoffee]

Perhaps up to a point, but we have to consider whether removing something from the equation causes more problems than it solves.

If we ban cars we reduce the number of deaths on our roads but nobody is suggesting it as a serious proposition. Relative to deaths and injuries on the roads the number of people harmed by shootings like Orlando is small. And if we go too far down the weapons control route we end up with a silly situation like the one in the UK where just about any form of self-protection is unlawful. Which is really helpful, if you're hiking in an area where the wildlife may be dangerous. Even an aggressive dog pretty much has a free rein to do what it wants to people because they aren't allowed to carry anything nasty enough to protect themselves (I used to wear steel toed shoes in the UK because I got sick of other peoples' dogs although thankfully never had to use them in anger, although on more than one occasion I thumped a dog for jumping up at me and prepared to put my steel toes into its chest). When hiking in areas that may have one or more of bears, coyotes, mountain lions etc it's lunacy to not carry something powerful enough to protect you in the event of meeting aggressive wildlife.

Or, as a hiking buddy put it, "if you come across an angry bear you're not going to fend it off with a stick".

What new problems are created by having no guns in towns, cities, schools, air ports, trains, busses, etcetera? Farms, hunting lodges, gun clubs, police stations are another matter.

 

[psalms 91]

The question then becomes will the lawless obtain guns anyway and use them? The answer is yes, taking guns makes no sense

 

[tango]

What new problems are created by having no guns in towns, cities, schools, air ports, trains, busses, etcetera? Farms, hunting lodges, gun clubs, police stations are another matter.

New problems created by having no guns in towns? How about the physically weak having no viable form of self-defense against aggression/predation by the physically strong? And since criminals, pretty much by definition, don't obey laws it doesn't hurt to have at least some means of defending ourselves against them wherever we find them.

You've also got part of the problem right there in your question. If you try and introduce a ban on weapons (as the UK has done) then a ban is a ban is a ban. There's some merit in the argument that maybe you don't need a gun to go the cinema but as soon as we justify a ban with nothing more than "you don't need that" where does it stop? Most people don't need a 300bhp SUV, most people don't need an air conditioner, most people don't need two spare bedrooms or half an acre of back yard, and so on. We need something far more rational than "you don't need that" to ban it. And if we ban guns from urban areas while allowing them in rural areas, where do we draw the line and what happens if someone is going to the hunting lodge the other side of town and stops to do some shopping on the way?

 

[psalms 91]

The truth is that banning guns doesnt make sense

 

[MoreCoffee]

New problems created by having no guns in towns? How about the physically weak having no viable form of self-defense against aggression/predation by the physically strong? And since criminals, pretty much by definition, don't obey laws it doesn't hurt to have at least some means of defending ourselves against them wherever we find them.

You've also got part of the problem right there in your question. If you try and introduce a ban on weapons (as the UK has done) then a ban is a ban is a ban. There's some merit in the argument that maybe you don't need a gun to go the cinema but as soon as we justify a ban with nothing more than "you don't need that" where does it stop? Most people don't need a 300bhp SUV, most people don't need an air conditioner, most people don't need two spare bedrooms or half an acre of back yard, and so on. We need something far more rational than "you don't need that" to ban it. And if we ban guns from urban areas while allowing them in rural areas, where do we draw the line and what happens if someone is going to the hunting lodge the other side of town and stops to do some shopping on the way?

You think these are new problems caused by not having guns in towns and cities? Are you serious?

 

[psalms 91]

I think the only good reason for gun control for the government is to control the citizens

 

[tango]

You think these are new problems caused by not having guns in towns and cities? Are you serious?

If you take away guns from towns you take away the right for people of lesser strength to protect themselves against aggression.

I'm about 6'4 and 260 pounds. Chances are if I decide I want to take advantage of a woman who is 5'4 and 140 pounds there's not going to be a lot she can do about it, except maybe pray it doesn't hurt too much. Giving her the right to own a weapon puts her on an equal footing.

If you start from the premise that it is a personal right and responsibility to be the first line in your own self-protection it makes sense to have whatever means to defend yourself you feel comfortable using. For some people that will be a gun, for others a knife, for others a sense of self and situational awareness, for others perhaps a faith that their god will protect them (small g intentional because it's not confined to the Christian God). If you take that right away you're essentially saying that people aren't allowed to defend themselves.

There's no dispute that some people abuse the ownership of firearms to do some pretty nasty stuff, but banning guns because some people abuse them makes no more sense than banning private motor transport because some people drink and drive.

 

[tango]

In recent news the British MP Jo Cox was shot dead in a street attack. This is the same Britain where handguns are illegal. Clearly whatever the solution is (even assuming a solution exists) it has to be about more than just controlling guns more tightly.

 

[psalms 91]

Just proves that criminals will get and use guns while the law abiding citizenry cant protect themselves

 

[tango]

Here's another question about gun control.

If I drive from Pennsylvania to visit my friend in North Carolina, my PA carry permit is recognised by PA, Virginia and NC. Federal law allows me to carry a firearm from a state where my permit is valid (e.g. PA) to a state where my permit is valid (NC). But because the most obvious route crosses Maryland and MD does not recognise a PA carry permit, I would have to stop before entering MD, unload my firearm and place both it and the ammunition out of reach of the driver and passengers, and then when I entered VA about 15 miles later I could reload it and have it accessible.

Who exactly is protected by this rather curious sequence of events? As one who obeys the laws I would dutifully unload my firearm and reload it later, but then I'm not the guy who is going to shoot someone because they looked at me a bit funny or failed to pay for a drug deal or some such. The person planning a drive-by shooting or bank robbery would probably be a little less worried about abiding by the rules.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If you take away guns from towns you take away the right for people of lesser strength to protect themselves against aggression.

There have always been differences in physical strength between humans beings. Long before guns existed these differences existed. Guns do not remove them.

I'm about 6'4 and 260 pounds. Chances are if I decide I want to take advantage of a woman who is 5'4 and 140 pounds there's not going to be a lot she can do about it, except maybe pray it doesn't hurt too much. Giving her the right to own a weapon puts her on an equal footing.

Giving a "right to own a gun" does not protect anybody a gun must be in possession and in the hands of the weaker person to achieve the kind of protection you've mentioned. Owning a gun costs money, so if the aim is to protect and guns are the means of protecting then only those who own a gun benefit. They need to buy one, be given one, or obtain one in some other (possibly illegal) way.

If you start from the premise that it is a personal right and responsibility to be the first line in your own self-protection it makes sense to have whatever means to defend yourself you feel comfortable using.

How well does gun ownership work in practise as a means of self protection. Florida in the USA has laws that make it easy to obtain a gun but the shooter in the night club managed to kill 49 and wound over 50 more despite the ease with which one may get a gun for self protection. The argument that guns work as effective self protection in the places where obtaining them is easy does not appear to be true.

For some people that will be a gun, for others a knife, for others a sense of self and situational awareness, for others perhaps a faith that their god will protect them (small g intentional because it's not confined to the Christian God). If you take that right away you're essentially saying that people aren't allowed to defend themselves.

The truth is that against a gun in the hands of one who wants to do you harm there are very few defences that work.

There's no dispute that some people abuse the ownership of firearms to do some pretty nasty stuff, but banning guns because some people abuse them makes no more sense than banning private motor transport because some people drink and drive.

It is true that only some people who own guns make use of them for wicked purposes and even then they probably only use them for wicked purposes occasionally. Yet societies that with high gun ownership will have higher gun crime incidents than those same societies would if there were fewer guns or no guns in them. The math is simple.

 

[psalms 91]

There have always been differences in physical strength between humans beings. Long before guns existed these differences existed. Guns do not remove them.



Giving a "right to own a gun" does not protect anybody a gun must be in possession and in the hands of the weaker person to achieve the kind of protection you've mentioned. Owning a gun costs money, so if the aim is to protect and guns are the means of protecting then only those who own a gun benefit. They need to buy one, be given one, or obtain one in some other (possibly illegal) way.



How well does gun ownership work in practise as a means of self protection. Florida in the USA has laws that make it easy to obtain a gun but the shooter in the night club managed to kill 49 and wound over 50 more despite the ease with which one may get a gun for self protection. The argument that guns work as effective self protection in the places where obtaining them is easy does not appear to be true.



The truth is that against a gun in the hands of one who wants to do you harm there are very few defences that work.



It is true that only some people who own guns make use of them for wicked purposes and even then they probably only use them for wicked purposes occasionally. Yet societies that with high gun ownership will have higher gun crime incidents than those same societies would if there were fewer guns or no guns in them. The math is simple.

Perhaps we should ban cars since in the wrong hands they cause death and damage, what say you? Same reasoning for banning guns