Timothy Bal has put up another post regarding gun control. I don't want to clog up his comments with a short novella, so I will post my responses to his article here. As always, I welcome any commentary.
There have been many intelligent comments posted in response to my post and comments on this subject, so I will respond here to the last set of comments by Linoge, Sebastian, and R.J. I think I have an open mind on this issue. While there are times I wish I could make all the guns in civilian hands vanish instantaneously, I know that is never going to happen.
There have been many intelligent comments posted in response to my post and comments on this subject, so I will respond here to the last set of comments by Linoge, Sebastian, and R.J.
I think I have an open mind on this issue. While there are times I wish I could make all the guns in civilian hands vanish instantaneously, I know that is never going to happen.
I wish I could make world hunger, AIDS, rude people, and Rosie O'Donnel disappear into thin air. Unfortunately, especially in Rosie's case, that requires massive violation of the conservation of energy and the bending of reality itself.
Similar to my requirements post from yesterday, Timothy is confusing what he wants with how he thinks he should get it. Guns, in an of themselves, are amoral objects. The cliche "Guns don't kill people" is true - without a human interaction the gun is inanimate and has no decision on what it is supposed to do. What Timothy probably means is
I wish I could make all violence vanish instantaneously, I know that is never going to happen.
If violence could be eradicated, nothing would be a weapon any more. Not sharp sticks, knives, bats, or guns.
Guns do not cause people to become violent, they are only a tool violent people use. Without a specific tool, violent people will use other tools.
... The line between a legal gun and illegal gun will always be blurry and somewhat arbitrary, but surely all of you has seen some guns which you privately must have felt ought to be illegal. Isn't there some point where the caliber of the bullet, or its speed, or the number of firings per minute, or the penetration characteristics, or explosive characteristics, ought to be regulated? What about RPGs?
...
The line between a legal gun and illegal gun will always be blurry and somewhat arbitrary, but surely all of you has seen some guns which you privately must have felt ought to be illegal. Isn't there some point where the caliber of the bullet, or its speed, or the number of firings per minute, or the penetration characteristics, or explosive characteristics, ought to be regulated? What about RPGs?
Tim, again no caliber is any more dangerous in my hands than a feather. I am a lethal shot with a .22, one of the smallest mass produced cartridges. I could easily hit someone in the eye which would very likely be deadly. I also carry a 10mm which, while your eye is too small of a target for me to hit perfectly, your head isn't, nor is your chest. The 10mm will cause a lot more damage than the .22, and yet technically it is still a very underpowered cartridge. Even my .357 Magnum has only a fraction of the power of a rifle cartridge.
Even the infamous AK-47 shoots a medium powered cartridge. Shoot a melon with an 7.62x39 (AK) round and it will split the melon. Shoot it with a standard 30.06 hunting cartridge and the melon will vaporize.
So no, there is no caliber I'd say I can't handle. And when you start talking about cartridges like the 50BMG or 577T-Rex, well again in my hands it is harmless and most criminals simply aren't going to spend $2.50 to $7 a round and $8,000 on a rifle that they can't even shoot from the shoulder. As for terrorists "shooting down an airplane", yeah, get back to me on that when someone actually can not only hit an airplane moving at several hundred miles an hour with a 1/100th of a pound chunk of metal moving at thousands of feet per second, but also hit not only a critical system but all three backups as well.
The bullets that criminals use, primarily the 9mm and .38 special, are not very lethal rounds unless fired with extreme accuracy. Remember, 80% of gunshot victims survive. They're not the uper efficient death machines the movies play them out to be.
I favor intelligent gun control. It should at least be national. There is no point in having a state law that can easily be defeated by crossing a state boundary.
Then you do not support the concept of state rights, something that I find very disturbing since our country was built upon the principle.
I like the example of comparing registering guns with registering computers. I actually do think more controls and less privacy is warranted with computers. Again, it should never be "either/or", but rather, a matter of degree. Computer hackers can do a lot of damage, so we need better controls to be able to trace hacker attacks, thefts, and damage caused by "botnets". At a minimum, there ought to be efforts to make it easier for law enforcement to trace illegal activities on the internet. (I am not an expert on the internet, but I know enough about it that this is a problem which can never be solved, but only managed.) Without safeguards, we can lose the internet as an economic engine, and that would be a step backwards. I agree that having the government install video cameras in everyone's home is going too far. That is a great example of what I mean when I say that control is a matter of degree. The trick is to find the "sweet spot", not too much control, and not too little control. "Big Brother" is too much control.
I like the example of comparing registering guns with registering computers. I actually do think more controls and less privacy is warranted with computers. Again, it should never be "either/or", but rather, a matter of degree. Computer hackers can do a lot of damage, so we need better controls to be able to trace hacker attacks, thefts, and damage caused by "botnets". At a minimum, there ought to be efforts to make it easier for law enforcement to trace illegal activities on the internet. (I am not an expert on the internet, but I know enough about it that this is a problem which can never be solved, but only managed.) Without safeguards, we can lose the internet as an economic engine, and that would be a step backwards.
I agree that having the government install video cameras in everyone's home is going too far. That is a great example of what I mean when I say that control is a matter of degree. The trick is to find the "sweet spot", not too much control, and not too little control. "Big Brother" is too much control.
This is why Timothy and I are never going to agree. Timothy believes that the government can be trusted with invasion of our privacy especially when it can benefit the greater good. Sorry, but that is tyranny pure and simple. The government isn't elected as much as it is full of life-long bureaucrats who do not answer to the will of you or me and therefor cannot be trusted to keep our rights intact.
The day they go to far, our guns keep us on the same level as them.
Today, the government does not have enough information about peoples' incomes. This results in tax unfairness: one person has withholding from his wages, while another pays no taxes on income from a secret source. We all benefit from government, so we should all pay for it, fairly. (Everyone also has their own list of government services which they do not want to pay for. A drug dealer does not want to pay for narcotics police; a thief does not want to pay for police; a pacifist does not want to pay for the military; I suspect many gun owners do not want to pay for the ATF; and so on. So, we can't pick and choose what programs we will pay for, but we do try to voice our opinions and vote, etc.) But I agree that government has no business in certain aspects of our lives. But I don't think that sheds any light on the issue of gun control.
No, the government has too much information on my income. I do not live to support you, Timothy, I live to support my own life. I will charitably give when I feel like it, not when you think I should. That you believe this is scary, but not expected from someone who is radically progressive.
What is fair? You think it's fair that I run my own business, and hold a job at the same time that requires me to constantly train myself to stay competitive and because of my hard work I should be forced at gunpoint to give nearly a third of my money to someone else? How is that fair?
And no, it doesn't shed any light on gun control because by the time you're left to trying to ban or restrict the tools, you have already failed in any sort of meaningful solution.
I don't think our founders meant for the Second Amendment to be as sweeping as it has been interpreted. I would like to see it re-written, so that it is clearer and more in keeping with our founders' intent.
Then you haven't actually read the founder's writings on the matter. They specifically wanted the populace to remain armed so that at any time they could revolt and overthrow a government that was becoming tyrannical. They believed that we are free men and women and didn't see us having to bow to our masters in the government to ask them for permission to live our lives. To give the government such power is suicide.
As far as rewriting it, go right ahead. It's not impossible. You'll find that you're in a rather small minority who think the same way.
I checked the link which pointed to the humorous site which compared gun control to stuff like "We need to prevent rape by castrating all men". That is funny. I get it. But like all analogies, it is not exactly the same as gun control. If you agree we need some control of weaponry, then gun control is a matter of degree. It is certainly a more difficult issue to manage than most, which probably explains why there is so much emotion attached to it.
But we don't agree that all weaponry needs to be controlled. You think that supply can be managed, we've proven it cannot. Just like drugs. Except, you having a dime bag of marijuana is of no consequence to me when you're trying to rob me. You having a cheaply made gun when I cannot have anything, is.
The emotion is because you have no right to tell me what I can do. We hear it all the time that abortion is a woman's right to choose, why isn't it my right to do what I want? I can own a gun and it will never cause the loss of another life. Can't say the same about abortion.
A police state would be a bad thing. So would total anarchy fueled by no laws constraining weapons. I think if I had to choose, I would go with the police state.
270,000,000 firearms, Timothy. Two hundred and seventy million of them. That's 9 weapons for every 10 people. And yet, there is no anarchy.
That you would choose a police state scares me. Human beings are social animals. With a complete breakdown of society into anarchy, eventually from the ashes a new civilization has not only a chance to arise, but a high degree of probability of being greater than the one that preceded it. A police state stays a police state forever.
... We should not outlaw guns. We should have gun control laws which reduce the high rate of crimes and accidents committed with firearms.
We should not outlaw guns. We should have gun control laws which reduce the high rate of crimes and accidents committed with firearms.
Guns do not cause crime. Repeat it. Learn it. Understand it. GUNS DO NOT CAUSE CRIME. Reducing the number of guns does nothing to curb crime. If it did, we'd see millions of violent crimes a year rather than having only .000375% of guns cause problems.
I think we need better laws and enforcement in order to reduce crime. We have not experimented enough with our laws to conclude that gun control does not work.
Yes, we have. Look at the war on drugs and where it has gotten us. The police now are equipped like the military. They serve "no knock" warrants that end up killing criminals, officers, and even innocents. Your car can be taken from you and sold to the highest bidder on mere suspicion. You cannot even buy Pseudofed or cold medicines any more without asking a pharmacist (and many times, being required to show ID). And would you say the war on drugs has (a) increased our liberty and (b) reduced the amount of drug usage?
No.
The only people affected by laws are those who obey them. Make enough laws, and no man or woman will be able to live life and not be a criminal. That's the only thing gun control laws do is make criminals out of people who would never do you harm. Those who will do you harm don't give a shit about how illegal it is to own a firearm.
You want to lower violence? Fine, then try something that would actually make people less violent. Unless you honestly believe that a small chunk of metal, wood, and plastic has mind controlling abilities, guns don't cause crimes any more than hammers and nails cause houses to build themselves.
this is not really one of my big issues
People with guns cause crime.