Jump to content

Gun Control


Marc DuQuesne
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've found that freedom almost exclusively means "people I like being able to do what I like, and people I don't like not being able to do anything."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't make any sense. By its definition, "freedom" means being exempt from coercion, interference, control, etc. Any governmental law, by its very definition, restricts absolute freedom in some way, whether large or small. A speed limit restricts your freedom to drive as fast as you want. A law against murder restrict your freedom to kill. Most people are OK with that one, since very few people think someone is entitled to the freedom to kill.

 

So to say gun control laws don't restrict freedom, or are illusory, or is "symbolic," is quite frankly, nonsensical gibberish. Of course gun control laws restrict freedom, that is to say, those laws restrict the freedom of an individual to possess and use a gun.

 

Now, you may think that particular freedom isn't very important, or that the government has a strong interest in restricting that freedom, or that people are silly for caring about that freedom, or that you don't think that freedom is necessary for human happiness, or whatever. And there are arguments for all of those. But if that's what you think, then you should just say that, instead of what you said above, which is not precise, and in fact, is wrong, and mostly unintelligible.

Uhhhhh.... Your such a literal dick sometimes. "Freedom" as in that broader concept that people believe is being infringed upon by restrictions to their gun ownership. Not being able to own a gun is not gonna make your life any less "free" or "liberated" than living in a place that you can.

 

I'm not against gun ownership or anything, I just don't see the connection between it and "freedom" in the philosophical, or social sense. That's all. I know by having a law against it, you are in the literal sense, being "restricted". But what about the other restrictions being able to own guns has on your rights to live as a free human being? In the broader sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Uhhhhh.... Your such a literal dick sometimes. "Freedom" as that broader concept that people who believe is being infringed upon by restrictions to their gun ownership. Not being able to own a gun is not gonna make your life any less "free" or "liberated" than living in a place that you can.

 

She wasn't nice, but she was right. You are literally less free living somewhere where you can't own a gun than somewhere you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Uhhhhh.... Your such a literal dick sometimes. "Freedom" as that broader concept that people who believe is being infringed upon by restrictions to their gun ownership. Not being able to own a gun is not gonna make your life any less "free" or "liberated" than living in a place that you can.

 

She wasn't nice, but she was right. You are literally less free living somewhere where you can't own a gun than somewhere you can.

Well I guess.. But it seems like a pretty small slice of freedom to me. I mean, I lived in LA for a couple months, lived in Australia, New Zealand and England but I didn't see any evidence of a society in which gun ownership increased the "freedom" of the people. Life in LA didn't seem much better for all the fire arms readily available. That's the only thing I was trying to allude to...

 

What about the freedom to not feel like you NEED fire arms to protect your livelihood, family or home?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That doesn't make any sense. By its definition, "freedom" means being exempt from coercion, interference, control, etc. Any governmental law, by its very definition, restricts absolute freedom in some way, whether large or small. A speed limit restricts your freedom to drive as fast as you want. A law against murder restrict your freedom to kill. Most people are OK with that one, since very few people think someone is entitled to the freedom to kill.

 

So to say gun control laws don't restrict freedom, or are illusory, or is "symbolic," is quite frankly, nonsensical gibberish. Of course gun control laws restrict freedom, that is to say, those laws restrict the freedom of an individual to possess and use a gun.

 

Now, you may think that particular freedom isn't very important, or that the government has a strong interest in restricting that freedom, or that people are silly for caring about that freedom, or that you don't think that freedom is necessary for human happiness, or whatever. And there are arguments for all of those. But if that's what you think, then you should just say that, instead of what you said above, which is not precise, and in fact, is wrong, and mostly unintelligible.

Uhhhhh.... Your such a literal dick sometimes. "Freedom" as in that broader concept that people believe is being infringed upon by restrictions to their gun ownership. Not being able to own a gun is not gonna make your life any less "free" or "liberated" than living in a place that you can.

 

I'm not against gun ownership or anything, I just don't see the connection between it and "freedom" in the philosophical, or social sense. That's all. I know by having a law against it, you are in the literal sense, being "restricted". But what about the other restrictions being able to own guns has on your rights to live as a free human being? In the broader sense?

 

I have to agree with Amanda here-how else can this be taken? If we put more restrictions on our Rights-our freedoms-we lose some of the freedom. If I can't own a weapon that someone else doesn't see a "need" for, that's a restriction on one of my Constitutional Rights.

 

 

Well I guess.. But it seems like a pretty small slice of freedom to me. I mean, I lived in LA for a couple months, lived in Australia, New Zealand and England but I didn't see any evidence of a society in which gun ownership increased the "freedom" of the people. Life in LA didn't seem much better for all the fire arms readily available. That's the only thing I was trying to allude to...

 

What about the freedom to not feel like you NEED fire arms to protect your livelihood, family or home?

 

That's not spelled out in the Constitution, I think.

 

It may seem like a small slice to you, but we have some unique freedoms in this country and to many, they seem to be under threat. One facet of this is about the guns themselves, another is about the attack on our freedoms; real or perceived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^

I guess that's just it. You have certain specificities about your freedom.

 

Where from another perspective those specificities are not really important at all to the concept of freedom.

 

But things don't need to be written down to define an abstract concept like freedom, IMO. But from a legal, literal point of view I would agree entirely with you and Carrie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That doesn't make any sense. By its definition, "freedom" means being exempt from coercion, interference, control, etc. Any governmental law, by its very definition, restricts absolute freedom in some way, whether large or small. A speed limit restricts your freedom to drive as fast as you want. A law against murder restrict your freedom to kill. Most people are OK with that one, since very few people think someone is entitled to the freedom to kill.

 

So to say gun control laws don't restrict freedom, or are illusory, or is "symbolic," is quite frankly, nonsensical gibberish. Of course gun control laws restrict freedom, that is to say, those laws restrict the freedom of an individual to possess and use a gun.

 

Now, you may think that particular freedom isn't very important, or that the government has a strong interest in restricting that freedom, or that people are silly for caring about that freedom, or that you don't think that freedom is necessary for human happiness, or whatever. And there are arguments for all of those. But if that's what you think, then you should just say that, instead of what you said above, which is not precise, and in fact, is wrong, and mostly unintelligible.

Uhhhhh.... Your such a literal dick sometimes. "Freedom" as in that broader concept that people believe is being infringed upon by restrictions to their gun ownership. Not being able to own a gun is not gonna make your life any less "free" or "liberated" than living in a place that you can.

 

I'm not against gun ownership or anything, I just don't see the connection between it and "freedom" in the philosophical, or social sense. That's all. I know by having a law against it, you are in the literal sense, being "restricted". But what about the other restrictions being able to own guns has on your rights to live as a free human being? In the broader sense?

 

OK, well if that's what you think, you should've just said that. My point was simply that you weren't being very clear as to what you advocate. Now from reading above, it seems like you basically fall in the camp of people that think that the freedom to own a gun is either silly, or not necessary to human happiness, or what not.

 

And that's all fine, it's basically what I suspected earlier when I said this of you (and you denied it):

 

most liberals want to ban guns (though they won't admit it), just because they don't like the culture of the people that tend to own them, and so they wanna piss them off and take something away from them. It's basically the same mentality a lot of conservatives have when it comes to, say, abortion. A lot of their support against it, though they won't admit it, has to do with simply pissing off feminists and liberals, because they don't like their culture, and a little dose of slut shaming as well.

It's basically the mentality of- I don't think you need something, because it contrasts with my culture, so I'm gonna BAN it! Both conservatives and liberals are guilty of doing this.

 

Now let me be clear- I am not a gun fanatic. I own no guns. I have no interest in owning a gun. I am completely indifferent to gun rights. I've lived in places with extreme gun control and no gun control. Gun control has absolute 0 impact on my general well-being and happiness. I don't relate whatsoever to people that are big into guns or hunting, many of which tend to be either creepy survivalist types, or outright rednecks that may or may not have a full set of teeth.

 

But I do think it's generally a bad principle to run society by just banning or allowing things based on how much you like them. For me, there has to be a compelling national interest to pass a federal law on something. As I've shown on page 1, there is no real link between gun control laws and crime, since crime has to do mainly with gang activity and how violent your culture is, neither of which can really be solved by gun control laws. So, as I explained earlier, I would just pass no federal law on this and leave it up to localities to determine what they want.

 

But deciding to just restrict certain freedoms because they weren't important to you is a pretty terrible way to run a country, because its arbitrary, and arbitrary laws tend to have the side effect of creating feelings of oppression, which causes civil unrest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think most loud-mouth gun-rights activists are a little crazy, but whatever. They want guns, they have the right, I don't care. I do wonder if they really believe that they are the first or last line of defense of our independence, or whether they just use it as an argument because it sounds noble. It sounds brave and noble that they'd fight the government for our rights, guns blazing, never surrendering, etc, etc, but it's unrealistic, I think.

 

The world is becoming a less violent place in general, but that just makes isolated acts of violence more prominent in the news and scary to people who are otherwise rational about their daily lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That doesn't make any sense. By its definition, "freedom" means being exempt from coercion, interference, control, etc. Any governmental law, by its very definition, restricts absolute freedom in some way, whether large or small. A speed limit restricts your freedom to drive as fast as you want. A law against murder restrict your freedom to kill. Most people are OK with that one, since very few people think someone is entitled to the freedom to kill.

 

So to say gun control laws don't restrict freedom, or are illusory, or is "symbolic," is quite frankly, nonsensical gibberish. Of course gun control laws restrict freedom, that is to say, those laws restrict the freedom of an individual to possess and use a gun.

 

Now, you may think that particular freedom isn't very important, or that the government has a strong interest in restricting that freedom, or that people are silly for caring about that freedom, or that you don't think that freedom is necessary for human happiness, or whatever. And there are arguments for all of those. But if that's what you think, then you should just say that, instead of what you said above, which is not precise, and in fact, is wrong, and mostly unintelligible.

Uhhhhh.... Your such a literal dick sometimes. "Freedom" as in that broader concept that people believe is being infringed upon by restrictions to their gun ownership. Not being able to own a gun is not gonna make your life any less "free" or "liberated" than living in a place that you can.

 

I'm not against gun ownership or anything, I just don't see the connection between it and "freedom" in the philosophical, or social sense. That's all. I know by having a law against it, you are in the literal sense, being "restricted". But what about the other restrictions being able to own guns has on your rights to live as a free human being? In the broader sense?

OK, well if that's what you think, you should've just said that. My point was simply that you weren't being very clear as to what you advocate. Now from reading above, it seems like you basically fall in the camp of people that think that the freedom to own a gun is either silly, or not necessary to human happiness, or what not.

 

And that's all fine, it's basically what I suspected earlier when I said this of you (and you denied it):

 

most liberals want to ban guns (though they won't admit it), just because they don't like the culture of the people that tend to own them, and so they wanna piss them off and take something away from them. It's basically the same mentality a lot of conservatives have when it comes to, say, abortion. A lot of their support against it, though they won't admit it, has to do with simply pissing off feminists and liberals, because they don't like their culture, and a little dose of slut shaming as well.

It's basically the mentality of- I don't think you need something, because it contrasts with my culture, so I'm gonna BAN it! Both conservatives and liberals are guilty of doing this.

 

Now let me be clear- I am not a gun fanatic. I own no guns. I have no interest in owning a gun. I am completely indifferent to gun rights. I've lived in places with extreme gun control and no gun control. Gun control has absolute 0 impact on my general well-being and happiness. I don't relate whatsoever to people that are big into guns or hunting, many of which tend to be either creepy survivalist types, or outright rednecks that may or may not have a full set of teeth.

 

But I do think it's generally a bad principle to run society by just banning or allowing things based on how much you like them. For me, there has to be a compelling national interest to pass a federal law on something. As I've shown on page 1, there is no real link between gun control laws and crime, since crime has to do mainly with gang activity and how violent your culture is, neither of which can really be solved by gun control laws. So, as I explained earlier, I would just pass no federal law on this and leave it up to localities to determine what they want.

 

But deciding to just restrict certain freedoms because they weren't important to you is a pretty terrible way to run a country, because its arbitrary, and arbitrary laws tend to have the side effect of creating feelings of oppression, which causes civil unrest.

All fair points, and explained like this I'd have to agree with you. However it's not just that I don't like gun culture, I just think the majority of the populace is not capable or responsible enough to have free access to guns. But as you say, it's not really impacting on my life directly so why care?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I own assault rifles, handguns, shotguns, etc., but I can't help but wonder if its all worth it.

 

The objective, logical thinking is that a world without guns is safer. However, America will not and cannot just get rid of all of the guns. It is much easier to legislate an item (guns) than people (mentally unsound). While the crazies would still find ways to hurt people (bombs, knives, poison, etc.), I would think the overall violence rate would decrease. Statistically, I imagine I am more likely to get killed by a drunk driver than gun, so its kind of strange how we accept that hazard.

 

I have brandished firearms to defend myself and my property, but I am also a father and I am terrified to send my kid to a public school. The ugly truth for both sides is that guns cut both ways, they defend and hurt, and both sides have very valid arguments. We missed an opportunity to really study this and take swift, decisive action after Newtown. That was the time for both sides to meet in the middle. Instead, the extreme reactions from both sides ensured nothing happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BEST Burt post ever. I can't disagree with ANY of this and am especially fond of

 

Statistically, I imagine I am more likely to get killed by a drunk driver than gun, so its kind of strange how we accept that hazard.

This is SO true! And this is one of the reasons I resist yet MORE gun legislation. If your goal is to reduce unnecessary deaths, gun control shouldn't even be in your top 5. Many people in this country have no relationship with guns; they've never used one, they've never handled one, they don't see the 'need' and that with the way the media handles shootings leads them to believe getting rid of as many guns as possible would just be logical. This is also why I question people on the internet who have this attitude-I want to know what their goal is and what they hope to accomplish.

 

The one thing I know for certain is also something Burt posted above; there is no way to get rid of all guns, so to even attempt that would be folly.

 

I AM, however, now leaning toward some sort of ban/restriction on semi-full automatic weapons just to get a good number of those off the streets. MAYBE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To own a fully automatic weapon, you get a class 3 weapons permit. It subjects you to a rigorous background check and the law can periodically inspect/investigate you. The hassle is a big deterrent to most. I would not oppose that for assault weapons, high capacity magazines, etc., but it means more license fees for gun owners. A conceal carry license is ~$500 for a decade, which isn't cheap. The irony is that people with lower salaries (like me) need guns more because we can't live in a gated neighborhood with security.

 

I have been burgled twice, and the law was completely useless in deterring or pursuing the criminals. I am intrigued by the idea of local security/militias similar to a volunteer fire department, but I would worry about a lynch mob mentality and corruption as well. In theory, it sounds great, but then the Trayvon Martin case comes to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you know that you're 8 times more likely to be wrongfully murdered by a police officer than by a domestic terrorist? The sort of gun control that I can get behind is where we start taking the lethal force from the boys in blue, and start making them walk a beat again and actually building rapport with the community. Less guns on the street in the hands of pigs = safer world for the children of tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The objective, logical thinking is that a world without guns is safer. However, America will not and cannot just get rid of all of the guns. It is much easier to legislate an item (guns) than people (mentally unsound). While the crazies would still find ways to hurt people (bombs, knives, poison, etc.), I would think the overall violence rate would decrease. Statistically, I imagine I am more likely to get killed by a drunk driver than gun, so its kind of strange how we accept that hazard.

I want to know why we can't legislate crazy?

 

If you are mentally unsound, you shouldn't be harmed or abused, but you should not have the same rights and privileges as normal people, either -- including things like having a gun on your person, driving a car, etc...

 

Just because there have been abuses of mentally ill people in the past is no excuse not to tightly monitor and/or institutionalize people who need it today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you know that you're 8 times more likely to be wrongfully murdered by a police officer than by a domestic terrorist? The sort of gun control that I can get behind is where we start taking the lethal force from the boys in blue, and start making them walk a beat again and actually building rapport with the community. Less guns on the street in the hands of pigs = safer world for the children of tomorrow.

Cops carry guns where I'm from, and these kinds of incidents are almost unheard of here. Law enforcement just doesn't have this storm trooper mentality up here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not against gun ownership or anything, I just don't see the connection between it and "freedom" in the philosophical, or social sense. That's all.

I think most loud-mouth gun-rights activists are a little crazy, but whatever. They want guns, they have the right, I don't care. I do wonder if they really believe that they are the first or last line of defense of our independence, or whether they just use it as an argument because it sounds noble. It sounds brave and noble that they'd fight the government for our rights, guns blazing, never surrendering, etc, etc, but it's unrealistic, I think.

 

The world is becoming a less violent place in general, but that just makes isolated acts of violence more prominent in the news and scary to people who are otherwise rational about their daily lives.

Here's what I think. Hard core 2nd amendment types are living in the past. A militia of property owning, gun owning citizens actually WAS a viable form of military organization in the late 18th century, and dovetailed nicely with the republican ideals upon which the nation was founded. Compare with the support for universal adult male conscription among 19th century socialists - most conscripts would be working class, would form bonds of solidarity within military units and learning to use guns would have its advantages when you had a world to win and only your chains to lose, if you follow.

 

Guns had a kind of social leveling effect - prior the invention of rifles, military power was concentrated in the hands of that segment of society that could afford mounts and armor. An aristocracy, effectively. The French and American revolutions could not have occurred in a medieval society. Rifles were relatively inexpensive and easy to learn how to use.

 

Problem is, that all changed in WWII. Mounted armor reasserted its dominance - only now 'armor' meant panzers, not plate armor. And if blitzkrieg didn't signal the end of the rifleman's military dominance, the conflagrations above Hiroshima and Nagasaki most certainly did.

 

The well regulated gun owning citizen's militia can't be the chosen form of military organization in a world of globalized technocracies. When highly technical hardware and weapons of mass destruction are required to be competitive military powers in the world, this inevitably entails the kind of large government conservatives hate - and the kind of stratified meritocracy that progressives hate. That, I suspect, is what's really at the heart of both socialist AND libertarian anger and - underlying that anger, impotence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.