[hrothgar]

billw55, on 2013-January-24, 13:18, said:

I realize that. But if my wife and children are raped and murdered, I would not be consoled by the fact that a few people I don't know, and cannot even point to, did not die in criminal or negligent gun incidents. I do not believe that the government has the right to make that trade for me.

Here's the rub:

The odds that some random individual is going to chose to break into your house in order to kill your family is infinitesimal.

The vast majority of home invasions involve one drug dealer moving on another.
Of the remaining crimes, the over whelming majority involve domestic disputes of one kind or another. (Please note, I don't dispute the need for an abuse spouse to be able to protect themselves against domestic violence. As I said, I support the right of individuals to have long arms at home. However, I don't consider fears that random individuals are going to come and kill your family to be particularly rational)

I don't know where people got the idea that the US is some kind of post apocalyptic waste land, populated by roaming rape gangs. (It seems surprisingly well established. There's a yahoo in my condo association who keeps bringing this scenario up during condo board meetings. News flash. There aren't rape gangs wandering suburban Wellesley MA....).

[mike777]

Ya good point by posters.

I assume the roaming rape gangs in a post apocalyptic waste land is how some see a shrinking world coming closer to the front door.

We read about Asia, Africa, eastern Europe, South America, then Mexico and I guess we can include American prisons where rape is very common, and at times see a scary world outside our front door. Perhaps when you know people who have been raped or mugged it brings it home in a more personal way. Military families tend to have guns in the home, perhaps seeing death and destruction brings it closer to home.
I know my next door neighbor, a Navy Academy grad has many guns in his home as do many of my Marine and Army family members.

But still valid points made by MikeH and others when it comes to gun violence in the USA and Canada.

[dwar0123]

billw55, on 2013-January-24, 13:18, said:

I realize that. But if my wife and children are raped and murdered, I would not be consoled by the fact that a few people I don't know, and cannot even point to, did not die in criminal or negligent gun incidents. I do not believe that the government has the right to make that trade for me.

I wouldn't expect you to be consoled, but it is more likely that your wife and children will be killed by your guns than saved by them. It is also more likely that your wife and children will be killed as innocent bystanders from someone else guns, than saved by your guns. I don't expect you to be consoled then either. I do not expect anyone to be consoled by the existing laws when their wife and children die under any circumstances, that isn't the point of the laws, the point is that they don't need to be consoled to begin with.

The government does have the right to make that trade for you, it makes countless trades for you already, its the price you pay for living in a civil society.

Remember, it is, in theory, a government of the people. You may not believe that I have the right to make that trade for you just as I do not believe that you have the right to make this trade for me. But the government, as it acts through the people, has the right to make this trade for us.

[billw55]

mike777, on 2013-January-24, 13:52, said:

Perhaps when you know people who have been raped or mugged it brings it home in a more personal way.

Everyone knows someone who has been raped. Probably several. Being aware of it may make it more personal.

[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-24, 08:21, said:

I think you are overreacting and/or misreading cherdano's post and quoting unfair.

If you reread his post, you will realize that his "you" is not referring to a particular person. It is "you" in the meaning of "one": "How do you make apple pie?" could mean "How do you make apple pie?" (I follow my grandmother's recipe) and it could mean "How does one make apple pie?" (One would look in a cookbook.)

While I wouldn't use the words cherdano uses (because I don't use those words in general), I doubt that you would have written your reply if he would have explicitly written "in short, one (i.e. he who thinks we shouldn't have police because he can defend himself) is an idiotic gun zealot with a radical agenda". I won't comment on the mental capacity of anybody who thinks like that, but I think it is reasonable to classify this train of logic as "radical".

Sorry. I apologise, cherdano, if I misinterpreted.

[mike777]

As I mentioned before it is interesting that Europe which actually has seen the faces of facism and roaming rape gangs in a post apocalyptic waste land has by far the strongest gun control laws. As many posters point out some Americans have the fear of it, people alive today in Europe have lived in a reality where a million or more women, girls and boys were raped, and tens of millions died. Same can be said in China which has very strict gun control laws.


As a Brit interviewer on tv last night said I don't understand why so many Americans have this fear and how they expect to defend their home with all these guns against 5000 nukes.

[Trinidad]

billw55, on 2013-January-24, 13:18, said:

I realize that. But if my wife and children are raped and murdered, I would not be consoled by the fact that a few people I don't know, and cannot even point to, did not die in criminal or negligent gun incidents. I do not believe that the government has the right to make that trade for me.

If your wife and children would be killed in a Sandy Hook like incident would you be consoled by the fact that maybe, just maybe a few people that you don't know did not get raped and murdered?

The probability that your wife and children are getting killed by a legal gun is much higher than the probability that you will prevent them from being raped and murdered by owning a gun.

That should make the choice easy, shouldn't it?

Rik

[mike777]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-24, 14:52, said:

If your wife and children would be killed in a Sandy Hook like incident would you be consoled by the fact that maybe, just maybe a few people that you don't know did not get raped and murdered?

The probability that your wife and children are getting killed by a legal gun is much higher than the probability that you will prevent them from being raped and murdered by owning a gun.

That should make the choice easy, shouldn't it?

Rik

Maybe it should and your point is valid but we humans are not very good when it comes to acting on this sort of probability. Tell us we are much much more likely to be hurt in our car, close to home than most of this other stuff yet we still keep that car and drive it every day and buy that gun. We are more likely to be killed by a bowling ball then win the lottery yet we buy the ticket.

The choices should be easy but still they dont seem to be....

[Fluffy]

mikeh, on 2013-January-24, 10:36, said:

You should study what happens in the US. I don't doubt that what you say is correct in many countries, and maybe even in some states, but in the US, the right to defend one's property (never mind one's life) is sacrosanct in many states. Hence the 'free kill' story I related earlier.

I once encountered two young males breaking into my car. It was the second break-in in a week, and I had just had the window/dash repaired, so I was really pissed. I picked up a golf club and ran at them, which was stupid on all kinds of levels. Fortunately for all concerned, they ran away. I am really glad I didn't own a gun...I like to think that even in my anger I wouldn't have used a gun, but I am fairly sure I would have wanted/been tempted to threaten them with it, and once that sort of confrontation starts, it can escalate out of control very quickly. Imagine me doing that and the thieves pull out their own guns rather than run away?

I was agreeing with you on my last post, I still agree with you

A friend of mine had 2 people from an eastern country entering his home while all the family (father, mother, son and daughter) where there, they holded them for a couple of hours, tied 3 with ropes to chairs and collected all valuable items they could carrying the last one (my friend). They bought a gun after that and prayed to be fast enough to get it if something similar happned again. He and me were raised on the thought that 'home is safe', and that is comforting, if something goes bad, you can just return home and thing will improve. Losing that feeling is hard to explain with words.

[barmar]

cherdano, on 2013-January-23, 22:47, said:

So here is gun advocacy for dummies:

• If everybody had a gun, criminals would be deterred, we wouldn't even need our criminal justice system and could essentially do away with the police. You are imposing your own view ("I want to be able to defend myself with a gun") on anyone else, who may not want to have to own a gun in order to be protected from criminals. In short, you are an idiotic gun zealot with a radical agenda.
  
• Given my circumstances, I don't trust the police to adequately protect me from criminals. Even with the strictest gun laws possible, criminals will continue to be armed, and all I am asking for is to be able to defend my self on equal footing. If there are enough well-trained, responsible citizens with a CC permit like me, this will also help to protect anyone else from mass shootings. That's a position many non-gun owners may disagree with. But it's not idotic, and you may be taken seriously.

This is basically the "wild west" approach, where there was no established law enforcement, so justice had to be self-administered or done by vigilantes. It was a much more violent time.

To the question of why violence has declined, I recommend the book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. One of the factors he mentions is organized law enforcement -- there tends to be more violence in inner cities, where police have a harder time keeping the peace.

[blackshoe]

cherdano, on 2013-January-23, 22:47, said:

So here is gun advocacy for dummies:

• If everybody had a gun, criminals would be deterred, we wouldn't even need our criminal justice system and could essentially do away with the police. You are imposing your own view ("I want to be able to defend myself with a gun") on anyone else, who may not want to have to own a gun in order to be protected from criminals. In short, you are an idiotic gun zealot with a radical agenda.
  
• Given my circumstances, I don't trust the police to adequately protect me from criminals. Even with the strictest gun laws possible, criminals will continue to be armed, and all I am asking for is to be able to defend my self on equal footing. If there are enough well-trained, responsible citizens with a CC permit like me, this will also help to protect anyone else from mass shootings. That's a position many non-gun owners may disagree with. But it's not idotic, and you may be taken seriously.

If you're attributing those statements to me, you're wrong.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-January-24, 16:16, said:

there tends to be more violence in inner cities, where police have a harder time keeping the peace.

And why, pray tell, do they have a harder time there?

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on 2013-January-23, 18:57, said:

I also would have zero problems banning most popular calibers of ammunition.
(The half life of a bullet ain't all that long and banning the sale of 9mm rounds, etc would render a lot of those 300 million guns near worthless)

Heh. This strikes me as much likes the ACBL's old "we can't prohibit people from opening 1NT with 9 HCP, so we'll ban conventions after they do. That'll fix 'em!"

[blackshoe]

dwar0123, on 2013-January-24, 14:10, said:

The government does have the right to make that trade for you

No it doesn't. Governments don't have rights. People have rights. Also, rights are individual. Groups don't gain rights because they're a group (government or otherwise), each member retains his individual rights.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-24, 17:31, said:

And why, pray tell, do they have a harder time there?

Because of poverty and poor education, which breed crime and gang violence. People with few legitimate job prospects turn to crime as a way to make a living. This results in a feedback cycle of escalation of crime and violence. Poor people also feel marginalized, and don't generally trust authorities -- they don't go to the police for protection, they go to crime lords or join gangs.

Much of this is explained in the book I referenced. Improvements in education and increased police presence in inner cities have been helpful in this area. I doubt that increased gun availability would be.

[dwar0123]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-24, 17:39, said:

No it doesn't. Governments don't have rights. People have rights. Also, rights are individual. Groups don't gain rights because they're a group (government or otherwise), each member retains his individual rights.

Ah, that explains the lack of police and prisons in this country. If all the rights rests with the individual than there are no laws, no police and no prisons.

[mikeh]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-24, 17:39, said:

No it doesn't. Governments don't have rights. People have rights. Also, rights are individual. Groups don't gain rights because they're a group (government or otherwise), each member retains his individual rights.

This is classic libertarianism.

Individuals have bodies. They, most of them, have brains, and eyes, and feet and so on. I've never seen anything that looked like a 'right' in any anatomy book. I guess the 'rights' are tucked in with the equally intangible soul so many claim to have.

Rights are not 'real' objects. They are intangible. They have meaning only to the extent that others recognize them: they are purely social structures.

There is no 'right' that has any existence or utility in a society of one. A person cast away on a desert island has no 'rights' nor any need for such 'rights'.

What we term 'rights' are behavioural rules that serve to provide individuals with protection from or privilege over other members of society or other organs of society.

Government is also a social structure...again, imagine a society of one...it cannot have a government and has no need nor use for one.

A right exists when society agrees that it should exist, and it ceases to exist whenever society says it ceases to exist.

Japanese-Americans (and Japanese-Canadians ...edited...I mistyped the first time) had 'rights' when WWII broke out, but those rights didn't help much when the rest of society decided that it was better that they not have them anymore.

Negroes didn't have any 'right' not to be slaves in the southern US until society chose to grant them that 'right', and the resulting dispute over 'states' rights' almost destroyed the country. Btw, if only individuals have rights, how can there be such widespread conservative support for states' rights in the US?

Government is not some alien lifeform imposed on us from above. Government arises from society. It is imperfect, no matter what form it takes. Democracies can trample the rights of minorities (see above), and can end up being effectively controlled by the plutocrats...see the US and, tho its democratic credentials may be suspect, Russia). Totalitarian regimes are even worse, since they tend to be more explicitly brutal to more of their citizens than would be possible in a notional democracy, and they are more arbitrary.

But the point is that rights are the product of society and government is the product of society. The former become meaningless without the protection afforded by the latter.

It seems to me that the rights of which libertarians speak are idealized creations of the mind, sort of like platonic ideals. However, unlike platonic ideals, the 'rights' of which they speak somehow all seem to end up affording the libertarian a privileged position in the real world, while allowing them to ignore or minimize the concept of a social obligation.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-January-24, 18:05, said:

Because of poverty and poor education, which breed crime and gang violence. People with few legitimate job prospects turn to crime as a way to make a living. This results in a feedback cycle of escalation of crime and violence. Poor people also feel marginalized, and don't generally trust authorities -- they don't go to the police for protection, they go to crime lords or join gangs.

Much of this is explained in the book I referenced. Improvements in education and increased police presence in inner cities have been helpful in this area. I doubt that increased gun availability would be.

Fair enough. Do you think decreased legal gun availability would be helpful? If so, why and how?

[kenberg]

Yes, I really think decreased availability of guns would help, and help a lot. Another story from my young years:
This kid came up to me a little before the end of the school day to explain to me how lucky I was. The leader of one of the tougher groups, older and tougher (not difficult) than I was, had decided to intercept me as I left school and beat the crap out of me. The good luck was that he was already on probation for stealing cars and his friends convinced him that his plans for me might lead to trouble with the probation officer.
What about guns? I didn't have one and he didn't have one. I don't advocate stealing cars or beating people up, but in fact these are things that, with time, we can get past. Once we pick up a gun, things seldom end well. There is an old saying for the theater that if a gun is shown in the first act it has to be used in the last act.
I did in fact own a shotgun. But I think that there is a point there also.It never occurred to me, and would have been bizarre, for me to go hiking into school, or anywhere other than hunting, carrying a shotgun. Anyone can stick a small revolver somewhere unseen. Surprise, look what I've got.

Now for something of a metaphor. I moved from Minnesota to Maryland in 1967, and several years later I was on my own in Philadelphia for the first time. It's a fine city, criticism of Philadelphia will not be my intent. But I was out walking in the evening and as time went on I became aware that everyone else who was out was accompanied by a large dog. I felt as if I were the only cowboy in town without his six-shooter. It was all fine, but I figured maybe if I were to live in that neighborhood I would have to get a dog.

So it is with guns, I think. We need a gun, we think, because we think that the other guy has a gun. Pretty soon far too many people, including hotheads and the unstable, are packing. It's not good.

I also want to say a little about lack of education and opportunity leading to crime. No doubt there is some truth to this, but I think it is far from the whole story. Some people are very angry, some people make incredibly bad decisions. And most young people are not thinking far ahead. I remember when I would apply for a job when I was eighteen or so and there would be a question on the form such as "What do you envision doing ten years from now?". Ten years? I'm trying to decide if I am goiong swimming this afternoon, and wondering if Suzy will go out with me this weekend.
I'm in favor of more education, of course. But don't expect miracles from it. If a guy is inclined to hold up convenience stores, teaching him the quadratic formula probably won't change that.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-24, 17:37, said:

Heh. This strikes me as much likes the ACBL's old "we can't prohibit people from opening 1NT with 9 HCP, so we'll ban conventions after they do. That'll fix 'em!"

I would argue that there is a crucial difference between the two examples.

The ACBL banned conventional responses to certain types of 1NT openings because it lacked the legal authority to regulate natural bidding. The decision to regulate conventional responses was used to circumvent this restriction. Note that this has now been changed and regulatory bodies now have the explicit authority to regulate natural bids)

I believe that the United States government has the legal authority to regulate fire arms. Many people argue that this is an irrelevant consideration. There are (approximately) 300 million firearms circulating in the United States, many of which are in the hands of criminals and/or paranoid whackjobs. It is impractical to try to confiscate these weapons. Therefore, any kind of gun control is off the table.

I don't believe that this is a valid line of argument. Guns are widespread, however, guns require ammunition and ammunition has a half life. Relatively few people have the equipment necessary to reload cartridges.