A general question for anti-gun people

[solinvictus]

I've seen many anti-gun people on this message forum and I guess your mindset is so alien to me that I can't even empathize enough to understand it. Correct me if I'm mistaken in my assumptions; but it seems that you believe:
1) firearms are intrinsically bad for a civil society
2) firearms are the core blame for violent crime
3) there are no legitimate sporting purposes for most firearms
4) that human beings do not have an unalienable right to self-defense
5) that we, as a society, should depend upon our police and military for self-defense at all levels
6) that the possession alone of firearms makes our society less safe
7) that human beings have no right to defend their home or property with force of arms
8) that we as American citizens will never have cause to oppose an oppressive government with force of arms.

Again, I'm not setting anything up for flamebait, I'm just trying to understand the mindset. Can one of you logically and objectively explain your position?

[Jed Dilligan]

1. I'm gun neutral but let me suggest a wording change

7) that the possession of firearms in and of itself makes our society less safe

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Well, I'm not one of those whom you're addressing--

I'm a hunter and gun owner, having grown up in a rural culture, but I would say that anyone who thinks you can meaningfully oppose any major government with sporting arms and the like is fairly delusional.

[solinvictus]

4. Three words...

..Irish Republican Army. The I.R.A. pinned down the British from the 1950's well into the 1990's with fewer arms and active members than there are gun owners in a major city.

[Mojorabbit]

5. Iraq is not doing

to badly against the biggest military machine in the world...

[Jackpine Radical]

22. They're not exactly taking out MRAPS with deer rifles.

The whole Middle East is armed with military-grade weapons: AKs, various kinds of missiles & explosives, etc.

[Mojorabbit]

23. The types of weapons

make some difference I will agree. The point is that it can be done if necessary. If the population is armed.

[SteveM]

24. If a "major government" threatens, I won't be using "sporting arms."

Only about 20% of firearms owners are hunters. As to target shooters, I can't say. But there are over 10 and as much as 15 million citizens who own AK, AR, SKS, and other "platforms." Though semi-auto, they would constitute a formidable, though inferior, weapon when confronting full-auto.

I think you and I both would agree that if some kind of invasion or "take-over" occurs, that most folks would park their deer rifles and Ruger .22s and seek out full-auto weapons, constructed on the sly or smuggled in.

Think Iraq.

[virginia mountainman]

28. Your not thinking deeply enough guerrilla tactics

Your thinking a head on confrontation with a tanks and APCs, "one on one" if the USA gave way to tyranny, and enough people, with basic marksmanship skills and super common hunting rifles could make the aggressors life a living hell.

First off, their is not enough tanks, armored humvees and APCs to be everywhere at once, certainly not in every town, nor more than a couple in every county in the US.

And what about the fuel tankers, parts trucks, even the men that maintain them...They are ALL, unarmored. Yes, when they assault, an area, the "freedom fighters" would be wise to take to the woods. But your forgetting the sheer size of the logistics involved, in instituting nationwide marshall law, and even then, a significant portion, if not MOST of the military would probably defect, with their equipment to outside.

A dozen men, with "normal" levels of marksmanship in a mountainous region, with common high powered hunting rifles, and a chainsaw, could close a rural road for a very long time, they could even stop ARMORED TRAFFIC, for a good while

Your forgetting the first premise of guerrilla warfare, you don't attack, your enemy, where he is strong (his armored vehicles, and bases) you attack him where he is weak (when he is out giving speeches to the masses, cutting wires, shooting electrical transformers, attacking unarmored support vehicles, killing sympathizer and maintenance men where they sleep and live, shooting holes in fuel trucks, and sniping truck drivers, derailing trains in the middle of nowhere, etc etc...the list of potential "soft" targets goes on and on, without fuel, spare parts, and Ammo, those tanks and APC's are USELESS.

Yes, we would suffer loses, but the aggressors life would be a living hell, and in the long run, we would win.

EDIT, Somthing to think about...

"JUDEN HABEN WAFFEN!"

"I, myself, remained on the balcony and fired at the confused and embarrassed Germans with my Mauser. From my balcony, I could see them in all their helplessness and their loss of control. The air was full of wails and shouts. Many of them tried to run to the walls of the houses for cover but everything was barred and beyond that, death was pursuing them. In the noise, the fluster, and the cries of the wounded, we heard the astonished outcry of one of the Germans: 'Juden haben waffen! Juden haben waffen!' ('The Jews have arms!') . . . The battle lasted for about a half an hour. The Germans withdrew and there were many corpses and wounded in the street." -- Recollection of the opening engagement on 19 April 1943 of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising by Haim Frymer, Jewish Fighting Organization, quoted in Resistance by Israel Gutman, New York, 1994, pp. 206-207.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

[Jackpine Radical]

33. Actually, I "been there, done that."

I had a very close and personal look at the guerilla campaign the Vietnamese waged against against us 40 years ago. They shot down some of our helicopters, but not with deer rifles and target pistols.

[virginia mountainman]

34. mkay...

But what about FUEL, spare parts, and men to operate them???

Just how many choppers DO THEY have??? How BIG, is the nation???

It would be just like speeding on the interstate....you can drive as fast as you want, and not see a cop for miles and miles, and when you do see him, odds are you will have a good chance to slow down, before he spots you...

The interstate speeder's credo....They can't catch us all!

Vietnam is a poor example to back up your argument, they won.

[Jackpine Radical]

35. They won with a variety of sporting arms such as

122 rockets, 82mm mortars, RPGs, AK-47s, and a whole shitload of things like M-79s and cases of C-4 that got misappropriated right off the docks at Cam Ranh. Da Nang & elsewhere.

[virginia mountainman]

36. Yea, your forgetting..

Large numbers of contractors have large numbers of high explosives, not to mention mine, and quarry operators, my father-in-law, was a licensed contractor in WVA, his outbuilding, right next to the workbench, is a box of dynamite, and next to the other wall, is blasting caps, and this is just ONE example.

Your forgetting improvised explosives like Diesel fuel and fertilizer, a damn effective explosive, and widely available. Not to mention gasoline.

And you can bet your ass, that their will be widespread military munitions from sympathisers, and troops that defect to our side. Not to mention supplies "liberated" from trucks on the road, that get "captured"

Your still not thinking deep enough, about guerrilla operations.

Their is a big difference in the population of Vietnam, than the population of the USA...In Vietnam the population is extremely rural, and extremely "rudimentary", much of America's population is used to working with explosives, and heavy machinery (I have a bulldozer and a track loader, at my disposal right now, and I have the skills to use them) Much of Vietnam's population may not have ever even seen a bulldozer.

Right now, I (like most of us probably can) can go to my outbuilding, procure a few gallons of gasoline (from the lawnmower can) take a few glass wine bottles, rip up an old shirt, and get my grill lighter.

WAMMO! an Instant, excellent, anti-vehicle weapon, and in many cases an excellent anti-armor weapon..

When many Vietnamese go to their sheds, they come out with...a hoe....And they STILL won.

The basic premise of my original statement stands...

[Sherman A1]

3. I don't own a gun

and don't care to have one. That is my part of being anti-gun. If you have one or a zillion fine. I think the 2nd Amendment does have that part about a "well REGULATED militia" ,but what that means is up to the courts.

[AlinPA]

6. Am I anti-gun if I think we should practice gun control for felons and criminally insane?

[Irreverend IX]

9. It's already illegal for felons and the criminally insane to own firearms.

The background checks run on every firearm purchaser will screen them out.

[AlinPA]

10. Does that make me anti-gun though, to support that sort of check?

[Tejas]

17. in this day

and age, not necessarily.

I would however mention in reference to your original question, that reinstatement/restoration of certain civil rights to certain felons should be allowed. This would include possessing firearms and voting etc.

The fact that political redtape prevents it irks me to no end.

[AlinPA]

21. It could make good sense to re-instate rights for some felons, including voting,

but the criminally insane or severely depressed people identified as being dangerous to others? They can call me anti-gun but that does not make any sense at all. I know the 2nd amendment says any citizen can own a gun, but no thank you, there should be some laws and "gun-control".

[SteveM]

25. No.

[iverglas]

7. now where are those wascally

anti-gun people ...






Correct me if I'm mistaken in my assumptions; but it seems that you believe:

Call 'em assumptions if you like.
I prefer to call 'em flagrantly false representations, knowingly made.
Since that's what they obviously are.

A good 62.5% of 'em, straight off, anyhow.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. Care to give examples.

Since you've been asking people to show their work.

David

[iverglas]

12. I do like to think

that some things are obvious to a garden slug ...

it seems that you believe:

1) firearms are intrinsically bad for a civil society
2) firearms are the core blame for violent crime
3) there are no legitimate sporting purposes for most firearms
4) that human beings do not have an unalienable right to self-defense
5) that we, as a society, should depend upon our police and military for self-defense at all levels
6) that the possession alone of firearms makes our society less safe
7) that human beings have no right to defend their home or property with force of arms
8) that we as American citizens will never have cause to oppose an oppressive government with force of arms.

(1) some sort of bizarre characterization of something kinda related that some people might think, and could provide facts and argument to support

(2) the sort of thing a complete moron might be expected to say, but again, a twisted and less than candid representation of something kinda related that some people might think, and could provide facts and argument to support

(3) who knows, who cares? whether there are, whether there aren't, what anybody thinks on the point ...

(4) jibber jabber designed to corner someone else into adopting a jargon that is not suited to the expression of their own beliefs and then either "disagreeing" when the question should be rejected as loaded or being compelled by the force of brilliant rkba-head logic into agreeing with, if they're kinda naive

(5) the biggest stupidest straw thing to dribble out of AreKayBeeEh?-head mouths, although that could be hyperbole

(6) some sort of bizarre characterization of something kinda related that some people might think, and could provide facts and argument to support

(7) one more oversimplified misrepresentation of what some people might think, fashioned for no reason other than to make an adversary look unpleasant and rule him/her out of the discourse

(8) who knows, who cares; does someone have a crystal ball, so that it would matter what s/he "believes" about the future?



It's just a shame to think about somebody wasting his/her time cobbling all that crap together, is what it is.


html fixed

[gorfle]

15. Typical.

I jumped to your post in the hopes of gaining some insight on your position concerning these bullet points.

True to form, rather than speak candidly to them, you tapdance around them.

1) firearms are intrinsically bad for a civil society

(1) some sort of bizarre characterization of something kinda related that some people might think, and could provide facts and argument to support

So...what does that mean? Do you think firearms are intrinsically bad for a civil society or not? How would you characterize it in a less bizarre way and how would you clarify it so that it was more clearly related to what some people think?

2) firearms are the core blame for violent crime

(2) the sort of thing a complete moron might be expected to say, but again, a twisted and less than candid representation of something kinda related that some people might think, and could provide facts and argument to support

So...do you agree or disagree that firearms are the core blame for violent crime? If it is only "kinda related that some people might think", how would you clarify your position so that it accurately reflected what you think?

3) there are no legitimate sporting purposes for most firearms

(3) who knows, who cares? whether there are, whether there aren't, what anybody thinks on the point ...

Obviously the original poster cares whether they are or aren't, and specifically cares what anti-guns think on the point. Specifically, I wonder what you think on the point.

4) that human beings do not have an unalienable right to self-defense

(4) jibber jabber designed to corner someone else into adopting a jargon that is not suited to the expression of their own beliefs and then either "disagreeing" when the question should be rejected as loaded or being compelled by the force of brilliant rkba-head logic into agreeing with, if they're kinda naive

And I'd call that "jibber jabber" designed to allow one to dodge a pretty straight-forward question. And while you have dodged the question here, you've made it pretty clear to me in the recent past that you believe people should at least not have the means to self-defense, which basically amounts to not having the right, as far as I'm concerned.

5) that we, as a society, should depend upon our police and military for self-defense at all levels

(5) the biggest stupidest straw thing to dribble out of AreKayBeeEh?-head mouths, although that could be hyperbole

So do you believe that we, as a society, should depend upon our police and military for self-defense at all levels?

6) that the possession alone of firearms makes our society less safe

(6) some sort of bizarre characterization of something kinda related that some people might think, and could provide facts and argument to support

How would you characterize it to be less bizarre, and how would you clarify the statement to be more closely related to what some people might think?

7) that human beings have no right to defend their home or property with force of arms

(7) one more oversimplified misrepresentation of what some people might think, fashioned for no reason other than to make an adversary look unpleasant and rule him/her out of the discourse

In actuality, it is the fact that when pinned down on the subject people offer answers like this that rule them out of the discourse. Most people in this sort of debate adopt a stance on one side of the issue or the other. You, on the other hand, steadfastly refuse to take a definite, clear stance on most issues in this debate. I strongly suspect it is because you know that once you place a stake in the ground you will find that you cannot defend it. In the months I have been debating you on this issue I have only gotten you to clearly and unequivocally stake your position twice, and both times you were unable to defend it.

Think about that, Iverglas. Over weeks and months of conversation you steadfastly refuse to clearly and unequivocally take stances, instead opting for innuendo, sarcasm, patronization, vulgarity, obfuscation, half-answers and dodges. And I'm not the only one to call you on it ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=166774 ). One has to wonder. If your position was as strong as you obviously think it is one would think you would be able to articulate a clear, concise argument to support it. And yet you steadfastly refuse to do so. Why is that? Why is is next to impossible to get simple, straight-forward answers from you?

You know what I think? I think it's because you are afraid.

It would almost be sad - a person so passionate about their beliefs yet afraid to state them clearly and concisely enough for them to stand scrutiny. Except in your case I don't think that's the case - I also think you enjoy drawing out the debate and drama by never committing to specific, concrete principles, and by so doing you can continue spitting vitriol forever and ever.

8) that we as American citizens will never have cause to oppose an oppressive government with force of arms.

(8) who knows, who cares; does someone have a crystal ball, so that it would matter what s/he "believes" about the future?

You've already committed to this one. You have specifically stated that the time of armed rebellion will never be upon us. This is one of the two rare occasions you staked yourself to the ground.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x167331#168016

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. It's just a shame to think about somebody wasting his/her time cobbling all that crap together.

I agree you and the other gun grabbers cobble it together here every day.

David

[SteveM]

26. It's called "logic," though Aristotle would fart in his grave.

[Beregond2]

11. Your questions

pre-suppose that gun-control means the banishment of all firearms and the loss of the right to bear arms. It does not. That is the impression that the NRA has been falsely pushing for years. The NRA cares about nothing but the profits of firearms manufacturers.

I have never owned a gun, no one in my family has ever owned one, none of my friends have ever owned one; so the mind-set of gun owners is as alien to me as mine is to you. I have lived all over the country, including some supposedly dangerous areas, and have never felt threatened, or been remotely tempted to buy a gun. Statistics have shown many times that gun owners are far more likely to get shot than non-gun-owners. So the arguement that they provide protection is bogus.

But, if people want to own them, I have no problem with that. Provided they are not assault weapons, and the owners are sane, law-abiding people who are registered and well-educated in their use, and keep them out of the hands of others. That is all gun control is. Why is that so threatening to gun owners? Do they see it as the first step to losing their weapons altogether? That is the old "slippery-slope" fallacy. There are thousands of laws that have not lead inevitably to stricter ones. Why should gun control laws be any different?

It seems to me that gun owners ought to be the very people who are advocating for sensible, effective gun control legislation. What better way to protect the right to bear arms than to see to it that guns are kept out of the hands of criminals and irresponsible people? If your gun is stolen, don't you want to know that it is registered, so the thieves might get caught? What if it gets used in a crime? Don't you want to be able to prove it was not in your possesion?

As far as hunting goes, I recognize the need for a certain number of hunters to keep animal populations in check. Why anyone would enjoy it is beyond me, but hey, different strokes. But there too, I want laws that ensure hunters are well-trained so the animals are killed efficiently and don't die long, slow deaths in agony. I want to be sure that they know what areas they are allowed in. I want to know they aren't alcoholics who are as likely to shoot at me as at a doe.

Isn't all this just common sense?

As for the arguement that a country that restricts gun use inevitably becomes a police state: look at the countries of Europe. Hasn't happened, won't happen. End of story.

So, that's my perspective on this issue. Hope this helps.

[pipoman]

13. While some of this all may seem sensible

without any knowledge of the subject, most of the sensible items mentioned are already in place.

1) While I am not a member of NRA and differ with some of their politics to characterize them as concerned about the profits of firearms manufacturers is simply wrong. They are wholly supported by individual donations of gun owners. Gun manufacturers have their own lobbying group. Some of the interests of gun owners are in common with firearms manufacturers but the NRA doesn't carry water for the manufacturers.

2. The stats you speak of are thrown around regularly around here, there are many stats which show the opposite and or discredit the study you are siting. In fact there have been some 13 studies by groups such as Gallup and the LA Times which indicate between 764k and 3.6 million defensive uses of firearms annually in the US and "The study states: “Nevertheless, in a ten state sample of incarcerated felons interviewed in 1982, 34% reported having been ‘scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim.".

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

3. The term "assault weapons" is a bogus term made up to make a certain style of civilian weapons sound scary. The truth of the so called assault weapons is that the basic function and action of them are identical to common hunting arms available for the last 100 years +. The banning of assault weapons is exactly the same as banning chrome wheels and tail fins on cars because they look fast. By law people who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent, are felons, have committed domestic crimes or are restrained by a domestic order may not buy firearms legally. Gun control laws are different because, 1. we are speaking of a Constitutionally protected right (which has not a single thing to do with hunting). 2. Most (if not all)of the so called gun control lobbying groups will not stop pushing "reasonable gun control" until guns are completely outlawed.

4. How would registration insure or even help catch a thief? Registration isn't needed to report the theft of a firearm, I am not sure the point you are trying to make here.

So no, it is not all simple common sense though I am quite sure it seems so to you. If this topic actually interests you I would encourage you to visit a gun range in your area. Talk to the range master. Take a basic firearms class. Then draw more informed conclusions. I cannot write electrical or plumbing code because I have no knowledge of electrical or plumbing.

Again, I believe you are sincere and I am not trying to be smarmy in my response.

[solinvictus]

14. The "slippery-slope" argument..

..is actually better termed the salami slice method ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_tactics ) which is actually a means of achieving the end via gradualism. Using such jingoisms as "sensible gun laws" led to bans and confiscation in the U.K. and to a lesser degree Australia. We already have registration through completing a NFA "yellow sheet" at the point of sale when purchasing a gun from a firearms dealer.

Also, please define your meaning when you refer to an assault rifle. What is your technical or cosmetic definition?

[Tejas]

18. whoa, hang on just a second

Posted by Beregond2
"Your questions pre-suppose that gun-control means the banishment of all firearms and the loss of the right to bear arms. It does not."

<snip>


There's garden-variety gun control, and then there's Fascist disarmament of law-abiding citizens.



The VPC and the Brady Campaign would be tickled to death if handguns disappeared tomorrow.

Barack Obama has stated that a complete ban on semi-automatic firearms would just tickle him pink.

Hillary Clinton has endorsed the idea of a new AWB.


Doesn't smell very good from here.

[spin]

20. Nazi Germany and gun control...

Your comment:

As for the arguement that a country that restricts gun use inevitably becomes a police state: look at the countries of Europe. Hasn't happened, won't happen. End of story.

Interesting... Somehow I think you forgot about Nazi Germany. I would describe it as a police state!

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.<9>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Politics_in_Germany

You might find this interview with a Holocaust survivor interesting. A quick excerpt:

There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people were not "brainwashed" about gun ownership and had been well armed. Hitler’s thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by a gun. Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half-starved group of Jews took up 10 handguns and made as**s out of the Nazis.
http://www.zianet.com/web/dachau.htm


The time for extracting a lesson from history is ever at hand for those who are wise.
Desmosthenes

[gorfle]

27. Replies.

The NRA cares about nothing but the profits of firearms manufacturers.

This is a meme that continues to amaze me. The NRA has some 4.3 million members. I think annual membership is $35. That is $150,500,000 annually in dues, not accounting for people who buy two year memberships, lifetime memberships, etc. Now it's quite possible that the firearm industry contributes more money than this annually to the NRA - I have no idea. But $150 million sure doesn't sound like chump change to ignore to me.

They work to get legislation friendly to my interests and the interests of the rest of the 4.3 million dues-paying members. If in the reality they are helping the firearm manufactures - so be it. Our interests are intertwined.

But, if people want to own them, I have no problem with that. Provided they are not assault weapons, and the owners are sane, law-abiding people who are registered and well-educated in their use, and keep them out of the hands of others. That is all gun control is. Why is that so threatening to gun owners? Do they see it as the first step to losing their weapons altogether? That is the old "slippery-slope" fallacy. There are thousands of laws that have not lead inevitably to stricter ones. Why should gun control laws be any different?

First, why pick out assault weapons? The account for so little crime. all rifles account for fewer homicides than hands and feet. Further, the purpose of the second amendment was to allow The People to replace or counter federal military power. If you accept this, then this means that The People should be similarly armed as federal military power. Civilian semi-automatic assault rifles meet this requirement adequately in my view.

I agree with you that only sane, law-abiding people should be allowed to own firearms. I'm all for the government keeping records of criminals and insane people and preventing them from owning firearms.

I am against firearm registration. Registration is a necessary precursor to confiscation. It is not so much a slippery slope that might lead to more restrictive laws, but rather it negates the ability of The People to serve as a counter to federal military power as our founding fathers intended. With such a registration list, the government could move at any time to arrest all registered firearm owners and confiscate their weapons. This is dangerous, dangerous ground to be on.

It seems to me that gun owners ought to be the very people who are advocating for sensible, effective gun control legislation. What better way to protect the right to bear arms than to see to it that guns are kept out of the hands of criminals and irresponsible people? If your gun is stolen, don't you want to know that it is registered, so the thieves might get caught? What if it gets used in a crime? Don't you want to be able to prove it was not in your possesion?

Gun owners do tend to be for legislation - that impacts criminals. We don't want legislation that impacts law abiding citizens - especially when the legislation is most likely to affect only the law-abiding citizens.

I fail to see how registering my firearms would help thieves who steal my guns get caught. Thieves are not going to register firearms, especially not stolen ones. The only way they are likely to get caught is if they commit a crime with my stolen firearm, in which case they would get caught, if they were going to get caught, anyway. If I've reported my firearm stolen, then law enforcement will have the serial number I provided, and can identify my stolen property.

Likewise I don't see how registration will prove whether or not a firearm was in my possession. If it was stolen, and I know about it and report it stolen, then there will be a record of when it left my possession, whether or not it was registered before the theft.

As far as hunting goes, I recognize the need for a certain number of hunters to keep animal populations in check. Why anyone would enjoy it is beyond me, but hey, different strokes. But there too, I want laws that ensure hunters are well-trained so the animals are killed efficiently and don't die long, slow deaths in agony. I want to be sure that they know what areas they are allowed in. I want to know they aren't alcoholics who are as likely to shoot at me as at a doe.

Many states require hunter safety courses before the issuance of a hunting license. I don't have a problem with this because licenses and safety courses are not in general required for firearm ownership - people can still choose to anonymously own firearms, which preserves the 2nd amendment intent.

As for the arguement that a country that restricts gun use inevitably becomes a police state: look at the countries of Europe. Hasn't happened, won't happen. End of story.

What makes you so certain that it won't happen? Our founding fathers were not so certain.

[SteveM]

29. I won't clutter up this post with re-iteration, but you may be interested in this...

From Charles Krauthammer, "Disarm the Citizenry," Washington Post, 4-5-96:

"ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry... The assault weapon ban is a purely symbolic move real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

Last I heard, Krauthammer is, politically, pretty far to the right.

[benEzra]

30. The gun issue isn't about "all guns" any more than restricting free speech is about "all speech."

Your questions pre-suppose that gun-control means the banishment of all firearms and the loss of the right to bear arms. It does not. That is the impression that the NRA has been falsely pushing for years. The NRA cares about nothing but the profits of firearms manufacturers.

It is primarily about nonhunting guns, particularly handguns and small-caliber civilian rifles with modern styling. I don't particularly care if you'd "allow" me to own a skeet shotgun or a deer rifle if you want to ban my SAR-1 and my Smith & Wesson. Like most gun owners, I don't hunt and don't shoot skeet; I want to keep my handguns and small-caliber carbines, thanks.

I would point out that Operation Rescue doesn't want to outlaw all abortions either, just elective ones, and the Moral Majority never wanted to ban all books, just the ones with content they found distasteful.

I have never owned a gun, no one in my family has ever owned one, none of my friends have ever owned one; so the mind-set of gun owners is as alien to me as mine is to you. I have lived all over the country, including some supposedly dangerous areas, and have never felt threatened, or been remotely tempted to buy a gun.

If you are interested in understanding gun ownership from this gun owner's perspective, you may find
this post interesting. Shooting is Zen, not Rambo.

Statistics have shown many times that gun owners are far more likely to get shot than non-gun-owners. So the arguement that they provide protection is bogus.

No, they haven't. In fact, that claim is false on its face, since the majority of murder victims in the United States occur in areas and among demographic subsets where the rate of lawful gun ownership is lowest. I am not arguing causation there, merely pointing out the fallacy.

I think you may be thinking of common media popularizations of Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home," New Engl J Med 314: 1557-60 (1986), which has been widely debunked on methodological grounds. If you are not at risk of suicide and are not involved in criminal activity, one can actually argue that there is a net safety benefit.

But however you feel about the benefit/risk ratio, it is a personal choice, and it is my right to choose, as a mentally competent adult with a clean record, whether or not to own and train with a gun for personal protection. My wife and I have both independently chosen to do so. You choose differently; I am fine with that. All I ask is that you do not try to coerce me into living by your choice on that issue.

But, if people want to own them, I have no problem with that. Provided they are not assault weapons, and the owners are sane, law-abiding people who are registered and well-educated in their use, and keep them out of the hands of others. That is all gun control is. Why is that so threatening to gun owners? Do they see it as the first step to losing their weapons altogether? That is the old "slippery-slope" fallacy. There are thousands of laws that have not lead inevitably to stricter ones. Why should gun control laws be any different?

The problem is that you misunderstand the issue. I do not oppose banning "assault weapons" because I think that would be a small step down a slippery slope. I oppose banning "assault weapons" because outlawing the most popular civilian rifles in America is itself completely unacceptable, particularly since rifles are the LEAST misused of all firearms.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2006
Table 20, Murder, by State and Type of Weapon (column totals)
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html

Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

Taking H.R.1022 as the operative definition, considerably more Americans lawfully and responsibly own "assault weapons" than hunt. In light of the above statistics, tell me again why banning the most popular rifles in America is so damn important?

FWIW, this is an "assault weapon." They don't even all have black plastic stocks or handgrips that stick out.

It seems to me that gun owners ought to be the very people who are advocating for sensible, effective gun control legislation. What better way to protect the right to bear arms than to see to it that guns are kept out of the hands of criminals and irresponsible people? If your gun is stolen, don't you want to know that it is registered, so the thieves might get caught? What if it gets used in a crime? Don't you want to be able to prove it was not in your possesion?

If the gun-control lobby were truly interested in sensible, effective gun control legislation, they wouldn't be fighting to outlaw rifle stocks with handgrips that stick out, would they?

The U.S. gun-control lobby has lost sight of its goals. The current goal seems to be to harass legitimate gun owners and place restrictions for restrictions' sake on legitimate gun owners, e.g. outlawing rifles with modern styling, petty restrictions on licensed CHL holders, etc.

The gun owners of the UK and Australia followed your advice. It cost them practically everything.

As far as hunting goes, I recognize the need for a certain number of hunters to keep animal populations in check. Why anyone would enjoy it is beyond me, but hey, different strokes. But there too, I want laws that ensure hunters are well-trained so the animals are killed efficiently and don't die long, slow deaths in agony. I want to be sure that they know what areas they are allowed in. I want to know they aren't alcoholics who are as likely to shoot at me as at a doe.

No argument there.

So, that's my perspective on this issue. Hope this helps.

Thank you for sharing. I think civil discussion between people, even those on opposite sides of contentious issues, shows that there is indeed hope for this country...

[gorfle]

32. Excellent post as usual, BenEzra! n/t.

.

[radioburning]

31. Beregond2, you make some good points-but there's a couple things that need to be pointed out

"I have never owned a gun, no one in my family has ever owned one, none of my friends have ever owned one; so the mind-set of gun owners is as alien to me as mine is to you." I can relate with you on this one. I used to feel the exact same way-until I went to a shooting range. I had a lot of fun and decided to buy a gun. I noticed how how I instantly felt stigmatized by my friends and how people treated me like a gun nut, even though I'm still pretty liberal to this day. I really noticed how politicians worked on the fears of people who aren't into guns and demonized guns and gun owners. I'm not putting you down when I say this, but you probably don't know very much about guns besides what you see on tv or read in the newspaper. From reading your post I don't come to the conclusion that anyone in your family or close friends have been gunned down. I also think that's true for, not all, but most anti-gunners. How would you feel if the people who have never driven a car decided all of the laws that affected your daily commute to work? How about if only grandmothers over the age of 70 decided the speed limit? You would probably get a little indignant too if you kept hearing "why would you ever need to go over 35 miles an hour? It's just unsafe, and we'll never have anymore fatal car accidents". I'll expand on this point when I get to the part about "assault weapons".
"Statistics have shown many times that gun owners are far more likely to get shot than non-gun-owners. So the arguement that they provide protection is bogus."
This statement is not correct. People that don't own cars are statistically less likely to get in car accidents, but that doesn't mean cars aren't good for getting you from point A to point B. Guns do protect lives every year, and it's statistically proven that legal gun ownership deters crime.
"But, if people want to own them, I have no problem with that. Provided they are not assault weapons". Assault weapons account for less than 5% of all gun crime. According to the F.B.I., alot more people get killed each year with what they describe as "hands and feet". A lot more people get killed each year with baseball bats, according to the F.B.I., so why would oppose assault weapons? The vast majority of gun crime is committed with cheap, concealable handguns. Criminals are, generally, enamored with .38 specials and .25 autos, not M-16's. According to the F.B.I. in 2006 about 600 people were killed with assault weapons. In 2006 475,000 died from smoking cigarettes. I, personally, think an M-16 is a well built, fun shooting, aesthetically pleasing, historical icon of gun design in 20th century-not the gateway drug to rampant bloodlust and the cause of everyday bloodbaths across America the anti's always make them out to be.
"It seems to me that gun owners ought to be the very people who are advocating for sensible, effective gun control legislation." For me, personally, and as a gun owner, I don't disagree with this statement at all! But the problem is that we already have sensible gun control(and also a lot of un-sensible gun control!). You already have to submit to a background check as far as criminal, and mental background. Non-gun owners always bring this up like that's all you want and why are the gun owners being irrational about this. The problem is that's not enough for a lot of politicians who want to appear "tough on crime". They come up with all kinds of new laws every year which end up having one effect-making it harder, less legal, and more expensive for legal, law abiding citizens to own guns. Period. Gun owners don't want criminals and people with severe mental problems owning guns. That's the last thing that we want. But what we don't want is to be bound up with red tape and overly restrictive laws like: expensive annual permits to buy ammunition, bans on all non-hunting type guns in certain counties, bans on guns that are based on cosmetic "evil looking" features, and a whole lotta other b.s. that comes up regularly.
"As for the arguement that a country that restricts gun use inevitably becomes a police state: look at the countries of Europe. Hasn't happened, won't happen. End of story." Actually, it did happen. One of the first things Adolf Hitler did when he came into power was ban guns. Mussolini, and Stalin as well. Also, England banned guns in 1997 to cut down on crime. Did it work? Nope, their crime rate has risen, and their murder rate is higher, per capita, than America. Do you think China would be as flagrant in it's human rights abuses if everyone was armed?
We're not as irrational as you think. Most of the time we're just having sane responses to insane situations...

[gorfle]

19. Answers as I see them.

I'm very pro-gun, but here is my impression of anti-gun folks on the points you bring up:

1) firearms are intrinsically bad for a civil society

I don't think most anti-gun folks believe this. Most anti-gun folks are quite happy for their police and armed forces to have firearms - they just don't believe the civilian population should have them. So they believe that firearms in private hands are intrinsically bad for a civil society.

2) firearms are the core blame for violent crime

Most anti-gun folks I've heard believe that though there would continue to be violent crime if all firearms disappeared, there would be less fatalities and less mass-assaults. It would be hard to have a mass-school-stabbing, for example.

Most folks, pro and anti alike, would probably agree that firearms are simply a force multiplier that make the carnage greater when someone decides indulge in it. This is not to say that there are not other ways to spread mass carnage (Timothy McVeigh, Aum Shinrikyo) if sufficiently motivated.

So while they generally don't consider firearms as the "core blame" for violent crime, they see firearms as the root cause of the extent of the carnage that results from violent crime. And in fact, I believe they are right.

3) there are no legitimate sporting purposes for most firearms

Most anti-gun folks I have heard tend to at least tolerate the idea of hunting and hunting firearms. What trips them up, however, is when they figure out that there is very little difference between hunting firearms and any other type of firearm, other than hunting firearms tend to be more accurate and more powerful than the weapons they would otherwise like to get rid of.

4) that human beings do not have an unalienable right to self-defense

Most anti-gun folks I have heard seem to either believe that human beings do not in fact, have an unalienable right to self-defense, or at best believe that you should not be able to use firearms while exercising that right. Most anti-gun folks I have heard seem to favor calling the police when confronted in a self-defense situation, or running away, or resisting only by physical means.

5) that we, as a society, should depend upon our police and military for self-defense at all levels

This seems to be a predominate theme among anti-gun folks. Basically, only trained professionals like the police and military should be trusted with firearms, and, consequently, we must rely on them for defense.

6) that the possession alone of firearms makes our society less safe

Anti-gun folks are always quick to point out that possession of a firearm opens one up to the risk of having it used against you, you or a family member having an accident with it, or you or a family member committing suicide with it.

All of this is true. What they almost never accept, however, is that firearms also enable people to protect themselves.

7) that human beings have no right to defend their home or property with force of arms

This is another recurring theme among anti-gun folks. Most anti-gun folks I have heard find the idea of killing someone - anyone - over property to be wrong. The old adage is, "No one's life is worth your VCR."

8) that we as American citizens will never have cause to oppose an oppressive government with force of arms.

Usually when this question is put to anti-gun folks they just clam up and the crickets chirp. This is because anyone with a basic understanding of history understands that this country was founded by just such an opposition to an oppressive government. Occasionally you will find the anti-gun person who actually says that we will never have cause to oppose an oppressive government with force of arms. They evidently believe that we have reached the pinnacle of civilization and that our representative governments will forever remain beholden to the will of the governed.