Firearms and child pornography: are they really equivalent?

[Euromutt]

This a topic that's come up in various threads, most recently here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x283844 (starting at post #5). I thought it'd be good to thrash the issue out in a dedicated thread (hopefully once and for all, but who am I kidding?), rather than piecemeal in other threads.

The argument, as posited by sharesunited, comes down to this:

Child pornography causes psychological harm to children, which is why it is prohibited, First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press notwithstanding.

Firearms cause physical harm to children, which is why we should restrict their possession, Second Amendment guarantees of the right of the people to keep and bear arms notwithstanding.

(Feel free to correct my paraphrasing if you feel I'm misrepresenting it, shares.)

The problem with the analogy is that shares is basically incoherent as to whence the harm derives that child pornography inflicts on children. Essentially, child pornography is banned because its manufacture involves the sexual exploitation and abuse of a minor who is legally unable to consent. Its distribution and possession does not cause harm directly, but the fear is that it will stimulate demand for more to be manufactured, which will directly cause harm. So the criminalization of distributing and possessing pornography is intended to aid in the prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse of minors, the latter being the harm caused.

So here's the thing. In this post (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=283844&mesg_id=283876), sharesunited asserts:

A consensus exists to protect that boy from sexual abuse and exploitation, but not from the gun which physically wounded him.

That's where we find the false equivalence: what is analogous to the sexual abuse and exploitation is not the gun, but (in this particular case) the act of aggravated assault perpetrated on the victim. Aggravated assault is, of course, illegal; in Washington state, it's a Class A felony, the most severe classification of crime. So the consensus to protect the boy from being physically injured with a firearm already exists.

What is analogous to the gun used to commit the assault is the tool used to record the child pornography, i.e. the camera. Does anyone think it's reasonable to ban the manufacture, and possibly private ownership, of cameras in order to prevent child pornography from being produced?

[depakid]

1. Not a false equivalent at all

not in the slightest.

Both are dealing with absolutist (or extreme) interpretations of a provision in the bill of rights- an interpretation that ends up causing harm (directly and indirectly) to others.

Moreover, in terms of direct textual references- the 1st Amendment case may well be the more compelling from a logical perspective.

[GreenStormCloud]

4. So you want to ban cameras? N/T

[eqfan592]

5. As usual, depakid misses the point entirely

I have to wonder if he even bothered reading the entire post before he posted his reply.

[rd_kent]

22. No, he INTENTIONALLY IGNORES it.

[depakid]

84. Unlike some who are pathologically fearful and obsessed- I see the larger picture

and can abstract the concepts and discuss the overriding principles quite independently of the specific, underlying cases.

You on the other hand resist any such efforts- and are doomed to repeat the same stupid things over and over without ever inquiring as to why- nor having any curiosity about how the dynamics work on higher levels.

Sad, really- seeing as how so many have such opportunity to learn.

[rd_kent]

94. Why yes, you are pathologically fearful and obsessed, as evidenced by your posts

and willful ignorance of the facts.

[rrneck]

98. What solution do you offer

those who would need to defend themselves from an assailant wielding a knife, club, fists or feet?

[Euromutt]

123. You have no idea

The absolutist interpretation of the Second Amendment is that "shall not be infringed" means precisely that, no exceptions. By comparison, the current state of U.S. legislation is positively restrained.

[paulsby]

2. it's of course an absurd equivalency

firearms are morally neutral. they can help children, in the right hands, and harm them , in the wrong hands.

is there ANY juvenile in the US who benefited from child porn?

i guess one could argue traci lords, in a stretch.

child porn is not morally neutral. it's perverse, evil, and disgusting.

guns can empower the physically weak, the vulnerable, the stalked.

child porn cannot.

[sharesunited]

3. I would accept an analogy of the camera to a knife or a pickaxe or an automobile

or any of the multitude of other things people love to suggest are designed for a purpose OTHER than killing but which can wrongfully be used to kill in order to illustrate how innocent their gun is.

My analogy is of the pornographic images of children to the gun. One is banned outright as inherently harmful and undeserving of Constitutional protection. The other deadlier thing, intended solely to be so, is lauded as a sacred instrument of national heritage and embodiment of freedom.

That inconsistency is odd and unsupportable as a matter of public policy.

Or it WOULD and OUGHT TO BE unsupportable if it were not for the great affection for guns and ammo. Gun love is the only justification required.

[rd_kent]

8. Shares, for the love of whatever god you worship, GUNS ARE NOT FOR KILLING!

Guns are for moving a projectile down the barrel at high velocity. What the user of the gun CHOOSES as the target is UP TO THE USER!


Guns have MANY other uses than killing, so please, stop saying this. It just makes you a willfully ignorant liar.


you are also being willfully ignorant when you refuse to accept the analogy of gun/camera.


Finally, your continued use of "gun love" shows just how disingenuous you really are on this subject. You show that you choose to be willfully ignorant of the FACTS and that NONE OF US SHOULD HAVE ANYTHING MORE TO DO WITH YOU OR YOU ASININE POSTS, because it is just an exercises in futility.

[rrneck]

15. I disagree.

A firearm is designed to propel a projectile, but the intent of its design is to kill. All of the other activities surrounding firearms such as target shooting are really training in the use of firearms for self defense or hunting. It would be difficult to argue that a firearm is solely intended to punch holes in paper targets and then use the same firearm to punch holes in targets at a IDPA competition.

Arguing that a firearm is only designed to propel a projectile is like arguing that a katana is only designed to split organic matter, but someone who engages in the sport of martial arts trains with a katana assuming the ultimate objective of killing someone with it, whether that objective is attempted or not. I wouldn't fuck with this guy if I thought he would use that sword on me.

I don't have a problem admitting the purpose of a firearm is to kill. The vast majority of people who see a firearm make that association, and culturally speaking that is certainly its intent. To argue that the purpose of a firearm is only to propel a projectile is to make a distinction without a difference, and to my mind takes away from the reality of people's everyday experience. If I ever have to shoot somebody, and thankfully the chances of my having to do that are somewhere between slim and none, I plan to stand in front of a judge and say, "That's right yer honor, I shot the fucker. Twice. And killed him dead."

If we, as liberals, present our case in terms that seem to sanitize the reality of self defense we run the risk of making the same mistake that anti gun advocates make all the time. Parsing the issue merely to make a rhetorical point starts to sound like sophistry, and that damages our credibility.

[rd_kent]

17. I understand, but disagree.

When dealing with the irrational, emotional and unfactual, anti-second amendment types, the ONLY approach to arguing with them is a literal one. I use this literal definition in order to keep them from injecting their own ignorance and unsubstantiated emotional rhetoric into the debate.


Otherwise, I agree with you.

[rrneck]

27. ...irrational, emotional and unfactual...

I applaud your patience. I generally don't even bother with them.

[eqfan592]

21. Actually, I have to disagree still.

I would say it would be more accurate to say that the intent of its design is to incapacitate, not necessarily to kill. It is true that death does result from the act of incapacitation, but it's far from 100% of the time.

[rrneck]

24. You're right but,

let me roll this around a little more and see what you think.

I doubt that the vast majority of people, when they find themselves on the wrong end of a gun, think, "Oh fuck! I'm about to be incapacitated!" And if someone has to defend themselves in the middle of that terrifying moment I doubt they are thinking, "Incapacitate motherfucker!" In fact, the threat of serious incapacitation is justification for the use of deadly force.

There is no doubt about the technical accuracy of the issues you raise. And I'm only furthering the discussion in light of the thread in which they appear rather than an attempt to discredit your accurate description. Shares constantly asserts that all we have to do is stop manufacturing firearms and ammunition and that will solve the problems of "guns as a solution to guns". It's a distinction without a difference since banning manufacture is the same as banning firearms. It's just time release confiscation. It's not an issue of technical accuracy, but of cultural utility.

It has been my experience that those who oppose firearms don't know too much about them (or choose not to know). But they do know that tremendous suffering has resulted from the use of firearms throughout history and firearms are an important symbol of man's inhumanity to man. I don't advocate embracing the idea of homicide by firearm, but I don't advocate obscuring that reality either. Homicide by firearm, just as defense against homicide by any other means, is the issue at hand.

That being said, people can learn a helluva lot from gun owners here if they care to. I know I've learned a lot. All I'm suggesting, perhaps less than artfully, is that we not confuse the value of technical accuracy with the need for compassion in the face of people's legitimate fear of something they don't fully understand. To most of the world, guns are for killing. It seems to me that we should accept that and get on with the business of educating people regarding the why and the how. As for the ones that don't want to know - fuck 'em.

This post is pretty long but what the hell, I'll throw in a couple of movie quotes:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369339/
Max: Hey.
(stuttering)
Max: He, he, he fell on the cab. He fell, he fell from up there on the motherfucking cab. Shit. I think he's dead.
Vincent: Good guess.
Max: You killed him?
Vincent: No, I shot him. Bullets and the fall killed him.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105695/

Little Bill Daggett: I guess you think I'm kicking you, Bob. But it ain't so. What I'm doing is talking, you hear? I'm talking to all those villains down there in Kansas. I'm talking to all those villains in Missouri. And all those villains down there in Cheyenne. And what I'm saying is there ain't no whore's gold. And if there was, how they wouldn't want to come looking for it anyhow.

[eqfan592]

26. Thanks for the post. I understand more where you're coming from on this issue.

And I tend to agree with you :)

[cognoscere]

16. I would add to the definition

that they propel the projectile safely and accurately. The dictionaries I have looked at make no mention whatsoever about guns being designed to kill, but apparently the anti-gunners would rather make up their own definitions and meanings for words instead of using what society has agreed upon. And for those antis out there who keep parroting the "guns are made to kill" BS, here are a few things that ARE specifically and intentionally designed to kill. The electric chair; gas chamber; guillotine; hangman's noose; and the plumbing used for lethal injections. It's tempting to add the antis intentional intransigence to the list, but that only makes me want to puke.

[rrneck]

19. A good point

that shines an important light on the role of intent.

All of the other methods of homicide you mentioned are other methods of delivering what might otherwise be innocuous substances (electricity etc.) in such a manner as to be lethal much like the lead in a bullet. And those who operate that equipment are no doubt trained in its use and expected to maintain that training.

The difference is that none of them are useful for self defense. Personally speaking I don't think they're much good for societal defense either, but that's another subject.

[rrneck]

11. Do you have any more of a failsafe

method for the state to intercede in the defense of children from exploitation than you have for the state to intercede before the assault of one adult on another?

A solution you have yet to provide after having been asked a number of times?

[petronius]

12. Perhaps your analogy should be child porn murder

As it is, you're mixing up tools and crimes...

[sharesunited]

28. Banned for its inherent non-lethal harm. VS. Not banned despite its inherent lethal harm.

I am talking about the disparate treatment given to these two categories of material things.

[eqfan592]

30. Again, you ignore the inherent possitives of firearms ownership as well.

Such as the inherent evening of the odds for a potential victim facing any sort of armed or unarmed assailant. You also ignore the fact that you can own a gun and never harm anyone, but you can't make child porn without harm coming to a child at some point.

Sorry, but your entire set up is simply filled with holes.

[sharesunited]

34. Not making it. Having it. Having it is punishable because the harm which might occur.

[rd_kent]

40. Your ignorance is stupefying shares.

[petronius]

77. Having it is punishable because of the harm which did occur

Kind of like possessing stolen property - child porn cannot exist without a prior crime...

Your analogy might work if you used some law that was purely based on 'morality' - perhaps a law banning pornography in general - but I suspect most people here would oppose those as well.

[rd_kent]

35. Your ignorance is stupefying, shares.

[benEzra]

14. The fact that some would even consider lawful gun ownership and child porn to be similar

shows how out of touch with mainstream America gun prohibitionists are, and why the gun-control lobby is now in the pathetic state it's in.

You're comparing close to 40% of U.S. households to child pornographers, and half of those you're smearing are Dems and indies. And you wonder why no one except the MSM listens to the VPC or Brady Campaign anymore.

[rd_kent]

18. "shows how out of touch with mainstream America gun prohibitionists are"... +100000

Very well said.

[sharesunited]

37. Yes, I know that Americans love guns and ammo. They love them too much.

[rd_kent]

38. Your ignorance is stupefying share.

[benEzra]

70. And if those of us who support an individual right to own firearms

would only bow to our enlightened betters (i.e., you and the tiny minority who believe as you do), repent of our sins, and give corporations and the State an absolute monopoly on lethal force, then all would be sweetness and light, just like it was everywhere before firearms were invented.

Uh-huh.

The percentage of the population who believes in banning firearms is roughly the same (<1 in 5) as the percentage that believes in banning alcohol. Yes, the Temperance Movement still exists; it has just totally marginalized itself.

http://www.wctu.org/

Both the anti-alcohol and anti-gun groups are vocal, idealistic, consider themselves to be pretty mainstream, and have no idea how far out of the mainstream they really are. They also have also completely isolated themselves from real solutions to the very social problems they profess to care about.

Maybe next week, you can compare your fellow Dems and indies who own guns to SS concentration camp guards instead of to child pornographers. It will be just as likely to sway hearts and minds to your side.

[Euromutt]

86. Again, you are incoherent as to the mechanism whereby child pornography causes harm

You employ this phrase "inherently harmful" without defining how it is harmful; indeed, you repeatedly move the goalposts to evade counter-arguments, then put them back in place immediately afterward. That's not only incoherent, it's intellectually dishonest.

Again, the harm in child pornography is that it requires a minor to be sexually exploited in its manufacture. We don't criminalize child pornography because we're afraid it will harm the viewer; we ban it because its manufacture harms the subject(s). The dissemination and possession are outlawed for fear that it will stimulate demand for more child pornography, which will in turn involve the infliction of additional harm in its manufacture.

However, the depiction of fictional underage characters engaging in sexual activity is not illegal. If I were to draw Milhouse and Lisa from The Simpsons going at it like knives, I might receive some unwelcome attention from Matt Groening's lawyers, but I could not be prosecuted for manufacturing child pornography because the characters are not real people, let alone actual minors. Ditto if I wrote an exceedingly graphic description of Romeo and Juliet going at it (Juliet is 13 at the time, remember). The depiction of the character of Rose DeWitt Bukater having sex in Titanic was not child pornography even though Rose is supposed to be 17, because Kate Winslet--the actress playing the character--was 21 at the time the film was made. It's perfectly legal to make pornography with actresses who look underage, dress like schoolgirls, etc. provided they're actually at least 18.

Here's an analogy: freedom of religion protects your right to believe in a deity who requires human sacrifice, but it does not protect the act of human sacrifice itself.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Why are you are wasting bandwidth on sharesunited?

[rd_kent]

9. Agreed! shares is another one that should just be ignored, as there is NO interest in FACTS.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

62. I disagree...

His useless ramblings are materialized evidence of the gun-grabbers desperation. They are, literally, grasping at straws and 100% reliant on public ignorance on this issue. The more people learn and see real world data, the less power they have. When shares and jgraz get working it really a sight not to be missed. Satisfying to see them squirm and spin anything and everything.

I do kind of miss iverglas. Her arguments were at least defendable and structured well (at least until you break down the sophistry and eloquent runaround).

[rrneck]

20. Y'know, I've asked myself that same question.

The internet being what it is, you just never really know who you're really dealing with. Shares is about as non abrasive as they come and maybe I, like many others, mistake that veneer of courtesy for an ability to actually deal with the subject matter at hand.

The guns forum and R/T have a lot in common.

[proteus_lives]

23. PP is right.

You lead a donkey to water but you can't make him drink.

[Euromutt]

83. For the benefit of any lurkers

I know it's an absurd argument, but I don't want any lurkers to get the idea that we don't respond to it because we don't have an adequate answer. As I said, I hoped we could thrash this out once and for all. Likely a vain hope, I acknowledge, but at the very least, this thread will produce something we can refer back to if and when this "argument" is brought up again.

[X_Digger]

7. Child porn is to the first amendment as murder via gun is to the second amendment..

ie, the production and distribution of child porn is a non-protected exercise of rights normally protected by the first amendment. Murdering someone with a gun is a non-protected exercise of rights normally protected by the second amendment.

The tools used to produce and distribute child pornography include computers and cameras. The tools used to murder someone with a gun include guns and ammunition.

Until someone starts claiming that cameras and computers need to be limited in order to stop child pornography, the idea of limiting guns and ammunition to stop murder is a false analogy between child pornography and murder.

[ManiacJoe]

29. Exactly.

[sharesunited]

31. Not quite. Mere possession of the images is a felony under state and federal law.

Because the product itself is deemed to be a danger to society, though it only exists as digital pixels.

Compare the thing itself to the other thing itself.

Which is more harmful?

[eqfan592]

32. Actually, I think it's because the only way to create the product in question...

..(child porn) involves an inherent level of abuse and exploitation of a child, and that's why it's illegal. The same cannot be said for a firearm (there is no child exploitation requirement for firearms that I am aware of ;) ).

[sharesunited]

36. The potential for harm is the underlying rationale. But guns get a pass. Not good.

[rd_kent]

39. Your ignorance is stupefying, shares.

[ManiacJoe]

43. Not the potential, but the actual.

Child porn is illegal because its creation process actually harms the child physically and/or psychologically.

Manufacturing of firearms harms no one. Normal "lawful" use of firearms harms no one.

The use of any object by a criminal is often harmful to his victim, regardless of which object being used as a weapon.

[sharesunited]

44. Potential future harm is what is sought to be prevented by the ban on possession.

But a similar concern for potential future harm from guns and ammo is missing, despite their lethality.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

53. So you are advocating a ban on an object you ASSUME will be harmfully used

you are assuming that people will commit a crime (or harm children) and then curtailing their rights based on that assumption.
Even more amusing is the realization that out of 300,000,000 guns a fraction of a percent are involved in harming children and THAT is your assumption that somehow justifies a restriction of rights codified in the constitution.
You are either precognitive or FULL OF SHIT.

If one possesses child porn... an exploitation was involved in making that porn and exploitation will be involved in meeting future market demand. If one possesses a firearm, no crime was involved in it's manufacture and no crime will be involved in the manufacture of future market supply. That is the DIRECT situation comparison.

[eqfan592]

55. Edited title to remove harshness.

It's been explained to you multiple times how it's not the potential for future harm that puts a stop to child porn, but the fact that the actual creation of child porn does harm to a child.

By your logic, pseudo-child porn would also have to be illegal, but it is not. An adult acting like a child in porn is perfectly fine. A child being in porn is illegal.

So your comparison totally falls apart.

As for concern with future harm from guns, it's there, but it doesn't mean we think it should be banned. I have similar concerns about future harm with knives, cars, swimming pools, etc. All of these items serve a purpose and can be used either responsibly or irresponsibly, and that's guns and ammo included. That doesn't mean we need to ban the manufacture of any of them.

[ManiacJoe]

81. The ban on possession of child porn

exists because it is illegal to make it (due to the harm during creation); and possession just encourages more manufacturing and thus more actual harm to the children.

There is no "potential future harm" after the fact. Duplication of the media harms no one. Viewing of the media harms no one.

[Euromutt]

99. Thereforore, a ban on cameras.

No cameras, no child porn with real subjects. That's the way it works in your mind, isn't it?

[Callisto32]

127. Not the POTENTIAL for harm...

when someone has kiddie porn, there has already been harm done in the making of that material. Is this really that hard?

[rd_kent]

33. Your ignorance is stupefying shares.

[X_Digger]

41. Child porn is the product of an illegal act.

The goal of making possession of child pornography illegal is to inhibit its production.

Guns and ammo themselves are morally and legally neutral.

aka, you're trying to shove the cart in front of the horse, by making possession of guns and ammo illegal in an attempt to stop production.

[sharesunited]

42. Harm was identified to cause. Ban imposed. Difference? One is despised, the other is cherished.

Affection for guns and ammo is the only reason for the disparity.

[rrneck]

45. Speaking of disparity

how do you propose to resolve the disparity of force between unarmed assailants and the unarmed individuals they would brutalize?

[sharesunited]

46. That situation poses less of a risk than claimed.

In fact, this claim is what heightens the risk to everyone through the gun proliferation which results from it.

[X_Digger]

51. You ignore 5500 years of history in one blathering post?

Before firearms, it was always the strong over the weaker.

Unarmed attacker vs unarmed defender.. who wins when the attacker targets those least likely to be able to resist? Imagine in your utopian (distopian more likely), unicorn and pony for everyone world where all guns magically disappear- imagine what happens when a strapping youthful offender targets a senior citizen, the disabled, the infirm, basically anyone weaker than themselves. What happens when you've stripped the means for those people to defend themselves from a thug?

Take a beating, possibly death, because it's the morally right thing to do?

You sicken me.

If you refuse to see that these are the consequences of the actions you propose, I don't know whether to assume you are incapable of rational thought, or are so caught up in your moronic, short-sighted, one sentence bubblegum philosophy that you honestly think criminals would give up violence if only nobody were armed.

[sharesunited]

54. 8 people were shot to death by 1 man yesterday afternoon.

How many instances of unarmed attacker vs. unarmed victim are you suggesting must occur to balance that out and surpass the value of those lost lives?

Sorry you're sickened, but this is what you are arguing for.

[eqfan592]

57. You're acting as if that was somehow the norm.

But multiple homicides like that are very rare, and in no way offset the defensive value of firearms. Sorry, but you fail again, as per usual.

[sharesunited]

58. Virginia Tech is right up the road in Blacksburg. 32 killed and many more wounded, crippled.

April 16, 2007. Less than three years ago. Not rare enough.

The more which occur, the more are spawned.

Guns solve problems. Guns settle grievances.

[eqfan592]

59. Virgina tech, which also happened to be a "gun free zone" at the time

How amazingly effective that was, right?

And your anecdote does nothing to change the fact that they are exceedingly rare. You are obviously of the mindset that no matter how many people may be saved by firearms, and how many crimes prevented or stopped, "If just one is hurt, then they should be banned." Does that about sum it up?

[sharesunited]

63. A gun free zone in a gun worshipping state is ineffective, true. Proliferation will triumph.

Maybe you are among those who say that all those students should have been carrying guns of their own?

Summation: The harm demonstrably being caused exceeds the benefit claimed.

Exceedingly rare?

Alabama, last March. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/10/shooting.alabama/index.html

Binghamton NY, last April. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30030756/

Pittsburgh, last August. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/05/pennsylvania.gym.shooting/

It's really not worth it.

[eqfan592]

64. You can link stories, so it's automatically not worth it?

That's your basis? Wow, that's laughable.

Something can happen multiple times and still be rare, shares. Especially in a country with over 300 million people in it.

Sorry, but epic logical fail on your part, as per usual.

And seriously, do you think anybody responds positively to your "gun worship" bull shit? You're the poster child for everything that's wrong with the anti-gun rights movement, and you've likely done more harm to your own cause than any of us ever could. Congrats. ;)


EDIT: Here's some information about defensive gun usage, in case you care to read it.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

[sharesunited]

66. You need to back out all the DGU's where a gun was the initiating source of the trouble.

Otherwise, it is heavily weighted in a misleading way.

Guns as solution to guns. A circular justification amounting to pro-gun propaganda.

[eqfan592]

67. Pure. Unfiltered. Bullshit.

You know why? Because you can't prove that the crime wouldn't have taken place if the criminal didn't have a firearm. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. Nations with very high crime rates but low gun ownership rates are proof of that. Criminals will either substitute some other implement, or they will get a gun through other means if they really must.

[rd_kent]

73. We should just ignore sharesunited, as he has proven time and time again his willful ignorance.

I, for one am only to going to reply to any of his posts with "your willful ignorance is stupefying shares" thats it, nothing more. Him and depakid and don caballero and onehandle.

All of them deserve the same treatment.

[sharesunited]

85. Please do. I don't want you to become any more upset than you already are.

[rd_kent]

93. Again, your ignorance is stupefying. I am exasperated, not upset.

[eqfan592]

104. Shares, your ignorance may be baffling at times....

...but if you ever think for one moment that I would waste the energy to get genuinely upset at you, then you're mistaken.

That you think that I or any of us here are "already upset" underscores your inherent ignorance, and the fact that you appear to be A-OK with it.

[X_Digger]

68. And how many lives were saved yesterday?

Let's start with the 108,000 from the lowest estimate of Defensive Gun Uses..

108,000 / 365 = 296 lives saved yesterday.

[sharesunited]

74. Are you able to back out the ones in which guns were the initiating source of the trouble?

The commingling of guns as salvation with guns as mischief obfuscates whatever "true" benefit you are trying to claim.

[eqfan592]

75. Are you able to prove that guns ever ARE the initiating source of the trouble?

You love the "guns embolden criminals" line, but you've yet to produce evidence to support your assertion, while others have posted evidence that shows your assertion to be not factually correct on a large scale.

[sharesunited]

79. The choice of the guns speaks for itself. Convenient and effective.

No gun no crime, at least not the instance of the crime as recorded.

I'm supposed to prove that the same crime wouldn't have been committed using some other means?

You're the one asserting that gun-free crime is the menace which justifies arming the public and suffering widespread gunshot deaths and injuries.

In any event, I am not proposing rounding up the public's arsenal.

I just want to turn off the spigot of new guns and ammo.

I want to turn the public's arsenal into collectibles.

You have to stop the runaway train before you can back it up.

[rd_kent]

95. So, by your logic, there should be no crime in the UK, right?

I mean, guns are banned and very difficult to obtain so by YOUR logic, no guns = no crime, right? Is that the case in the UK? Uh, no, not at all.


Like I said shares, your ignorance is stupefying.

[Euromutt]

119. How are you going to get the criminal element to comply with your scheme?

Private ownership of firearms has been heavily regulated in western Europe for about 90 years. And yet, the criminal element has no difficulty acquiring handguns and automatic weapons, or even rocket launchers when they feel like it, courtesy of corruption and organized crime in places like Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania.

Similarly, Chinese organized crime has no difficulty filling their firearm requirements by corruption and shitty inventory control in armaments factories, but then again, even "legitimate" business in China isn't overly fussy whom it sells weapons.

So there are sources of firearms outside the United States, and as we know, drug traffickers are quite inventive in smuggling tons of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines and marijuana into the US every year. They could probably manage a few hundred thousand handguns and a few million rounds of ammunition as well.

So what's your cunning plan to get the criminal element from illegally importing and trafficking firearms to any and all comers (who will by definition, not be law abiding citizens)? How do you keep the spigot from leaking, just like it does in western Europe?

[X_Digger]

78. Irrelevant, unknowable, but probably miniscule.

Since 80%+ of defensive gun uses involve nothing more than the attacker becoming aware that their intended victim is armed, without shots being fired on either side, whether the attacker is armed is of little relevance.

I refuse to even consider your asinine assertion that 'guns embolden crime'- that's like saying Rush Limbaugh is fat because 'spoons embolden obesity.'

[burrfoot]

105. Shares!

How clear can this be? Until you can remove all guns from our society (and keep them removed), guns are the answer to guns.

I don't mean that flippantly. A gun is the only thing that will even give a victim a chance at (practical) equality to a victimizer who has a gun.

Before you ask law abiding gun owners to give up the guns they have, or give up the right to buy them in the future (i.e. your "turn of the spigot" argument); it is....unfair? immoral? absurd? (take your pick) for you not to have already removed guns from the hands of every criminal who might use one.

Anything other than removing the guns from the criminals first is, inherently, increasing the risk to innocent, law abiding people.

Not saving anyone. Increasing the number of people who are hurt/killed/otherwise victimized.

INCREASING it, Shares. Not saving anyone.

[rrneck]

52. Less of a risk for who? nt

[TPaine7]

61. The felon. That is who gun control protects in these cases. n/t

[rrneck]

71. Hmmm. Looks like Shares

is ignoring me again.

Actually, I was looking for a name. The name of a specific person who suffers more risk. People love to throw statistics around but when you ask exactly who will be impacted by the their proposals silence reigns.

Statistics can tell us how many, but they cannot tell us who. That's why trying to ban guns is such a political third rail. People hear some talking head spout a bunch of statistics and hear all about how the world will be better for somebody else if their policies are implemented, but they never hear how those policies will protect any given individual if s/he is assaulted.

Each and every individual makes a risk assesment for themselves and those around them. It's a personal decision, much like reproduction, sex, entertainment, education, speech and mobility. Everybody hates utopian technocrats and they certainly hate voting for them.

Like Tip O'Neill said, "All politics is local."

[sharesunited]

80. The 8 dead in VA yesterday all had names and, if they even had an opportunity

to make a risk assessment of their personal need for guns in their lives, either overlooked or misjudged the risk associated with the shooter firing first.

[rrneck]

82. Nice dodge.

If guns are banned and gotten rid of completely, who of the people that might have defended themselves with a banned firearm will experience more risk and what do you plan to do to eliminate that risk.

You are advocating public policy that puts people at risk and you offer them no remedy. I am giving you an opportunity to clarify your position. If you do not, it will once again be obvious to everyone (but you) that you are full of shit.

If you were half as full of compassion and gentle good sense as you think you are, you would have a remedy for all the people who would suffer under your proposals. Your proselytizing is useless because you are proselytizing to yourself for the church of sharesunited, where callous and arrogant sanctimony reign supreme.

[sharesunited]

87. Not seizing your private arsenal. You can keep it, and I will even increase its value for you.

[rrneck]

88. That didn't answer any question at all.

Answer the question: What is your remedy?

Now, what's all this blather about seizing an arsenal?

[sharesunited]

89. Sorry I thought it was responsive. I don't propose taking guns and ammo away.

I propose halting sales of new product.

The nation will need to get by with the stockpile which is already out there.

[rrneck]

90. Oh. How long before the existing

stockpile of ammunition is depleted? Ballpark, of course.

[sharesunited]

91. I'm not sure that can be known. Some will be expended and some will go bad.

Lots of variables in the usage spoilage dynamic.

[rrneck]

92. Take a poke at it. Just a guess. nt

[rrneck]

97. Looks like you've run away again.

Let me help. The cessation of the manufacture of ammunition will result in the planned obsolescence of firearms. What you are proposing is time release firearms confiscation. For some strange reason you seem to think that promising to gun owners today that firearms won't be confiscated until some undefined future date they will be mollified enough to stop asking you embarrassing questions.

It won't. I never thought I would say this but, think of the children! You see, gun owners will have progeny. And they will be concerned for their safety as well. Now, lets assume for a moment that you actually care one whit about anybody but yourself I will ask you again:

What remedy do you offer those who will need to defend themselves if you deny an effective means of doing so, even at some undefined date in the future?

But at this point nobody really believes that. In reality you are only interested in luxuriating in your self image as a suffering martyr in the lions den of boorish, Neanderthal gun owners. You really don't care about people. You only care about one person - yourself. Otherwise you would stop dodging all these embarrassing questions and discuss the issue with some integrity.

"spoilage dynamic" :rofl:

[sharesunited]

100. You are overstating the need for proliferation and understating the cost.

What remedy can be offered to those who are shot and killed wrongfully?

Answer, none. They are expendable. You are not on the side of those victims whose names appeared in the paper and who lay cold in the morgue and the funeral home this very day.

You are championing theoretical persons other than them. Or you are championing guns and ammo themselves for their own sake. Oh defender of the meek.

[rrneck]

102. Who said anything about shooting?

Guns are gone, remember? What remedy do you offer?

If you are concerned about "this very day" then what remedy do you offer someone who is assaulted with a knife, club, hands or feet today?

What is your solution?

On edit: I'm going to bed so I won't answer until tomorrow.

[rrneck]

103. Somebody has to defend the meek. You clearly aren't doing it. nt

[sharesunited]

107. Only posthumously. My meek have been dispatched.

[eqfan592]

108. BUWAHAHAHA!

Oh, very clever! "Sharesunited: Speaker for the Dead!"

And tell me, would you speak for those who were left unable to defend themselves effectively should you get your way? Somehow I think not. After all, an innocent being shot to death is more tragic than an innocent being stabbed/strangled/beaten/etc. to death. Right, shares? That is, ultimately, your argument. You can try and frame it however you like, but when it comes down to it, you value the lives of the greater number of people who have defended the lives of themselves and of others with firearms than those who's lives have been taken by somebody armed with a firearm. And you also appear to be of the mindset that if a firearm is involved in a crime, the crime only took place because of the firearm and nothing else, never once stopping to consider if the criminal would have simply used some other means.

Take a look at this:

"The unique role of firearms in human society is that they are the only weaponry which allows the weak to defend against victimization and aggression by the strong. This obvious point is obscured to us because, of course, firearms can also be used by aggressors for unlawful violence. But the true impact of firearms on society is that only they allow victims to defend themselves on equal terms.
Visualize a confrontation that all too often occurs: a confrontation between a homicidal 200-pound man armed with a knife and a 115-pound woman. Even if the woman also has a knife, her chances of survival are minimal. Now imagine the same confrontation except that both parties are armed with firearms. The woman is still in serious danger but she is no longer a helpless victim. The man is also in serious danger if instead of retreating he persists in attacking her."

The above is from this article, that was posted earlier and that you commented on (and by commented, I mean you made a moronic remark without addressing the issues brought up).

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

If you can't understand the reasoning laid out so very clearly right there, then there's truly no hope for you.

[rrneck]

110. It's like wrestling

a goddamn greased pig.

I don't see how shrinks do this shit for a living.

[rrneck]

109. You offer those

for whom you choose to show your self serving brand of compassion no more of an answer than you offer me.

What solution do you offer those who must defend themselves against an assailant armed with a knife, club, fists or feet?

[sharesunited]

111. This is a standoff until you belly up with their names.

I have names, do you?

Spill them.

Mine are dead.

[eqfan592]

113. Standoff?

WTF do you think this is? A school yard? Are you really so childish as to think an issue boils down to a list of names that any two people can generate? That's beyond ridiculous.

And do you honestly think I couldn't produce names if I didn't want too? Hell, there's dozens of them on this very forum alone. You know this as well as I do.

Honestly, this was the weakest attempt at an appeal to emotion that I've seen you make yet. What's sad is that is ALL YOU HAVE. That's what you've been reduced to. A sad little person, clutching a list of names, only able to look at them in a void, never able to apply apply context, reason or logic to any of it, something that is required for a rational mind to be capable of examining any issue with due consideration.

Take care shares. I'm sure your reply will be a real zinger.

[rrneck]

114. It's a fairly simple question. Can you not answer it?

What solution do you offer those who must defend themselves against an assailant armed with a knife, club, fists or feet?

The dead are, well, dead. They don't have any more interest in you now than you had in them when they were alive.

[X_Digger]

115. You want names? Here's names.. they're dead, too.

Tiffany Cody

A man will spend at least the next 41 years behind bars in connection with the death of a Vassar mother of two.

A jury convicted Barry Coleman of second-degree murder in the death of Tiffany Cody last year.

Christi Hokoana

Police had a 44-year-old Waikíkí man in custody in connection with the beating death of a 33-year-old Honolulu woman.

Kevin H. Dale, of an Ala Wai Boulevard address, was arrested at 2:20 p.m. Monday in connection with the death of Christi Hokoana.

Paula Doherty

A 56-year-old Medford, Massachusetts man has been convicted of fatally beating a woman that prosecutors said he robbed to get money for drugs.

Georgia Ann Sears

An arrest has been made in the beating death of an elderly Decatur woman.

Mary D. Pellegrino

Montgomery County authorities are looking to the public for help in solving the county’s first murder of the New Year — the beating death of an 86-year-old Lower Moreland woman

Errald Williams

A congenial presence known by the nickname "Sweets," Errald Williams couldn't turn down a request, friends and family said.

But they fear that generous spirit may have led to the 71-year-old's death.

The South Side man was found bludgeoned to death Tuesday night in his basement apartment in the 7400 block of South Champlain Avenue.

Earl Cavanaugh

A Lakeland man charged in the beating death of a senior citizen was sentenced to 20 years in state prison on Thursday.

Robert Allen Snyder, 20, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder Tuesday as part of a plea agreement.

Jesse Briggs

A Gilchrist County grand jury has indicted two men in the beating death of a senior citizen last month, but no decision was made on whether to ask for the death penalty.

Clarence Jones

As police continue to search for who killed their 86-year-old Detroit father for his wallet and a ride, the family of Clarence Jones has announced the creation of five college scholarships to carry on his good deeds.

Dale Detweiler

Billy Charles Wilson was charged on Monday with murdering a 66-year-old man in his Villa Rica apartment.



Okay, this last one isn't dead.. just permanently brain damaged..

Fred Rein

Police said a group of three teens lured Rein to a vacant house in Fort Worth, beat him with a bat, stole the pizza and took his money.

The two other defendants in the case were sentenced to only five years because they did not physically swing the bat.

Rein remains in rehabilitation and is permanently brain damaged.


So now, with your childish flailing out of the way, want to answer the question? What solution would you have offered these people, eh?

[sharesunited]

117. Most of these are meticulously clean stories which I must concede.

Thank you Digger.

If these victims were not assaulted in their sleep, then it is conceivable they could have saved themselves by shooting their assailants.

Good work. They are real to me now.

[rrneck]

118. Good for you.

What solution would you have offered them to fend off their attackers that would not involve firearms?

And what solution would you offer all the people who are still alive whom you would disarm?

Are you able to show some compassion? Or are you just going to...

[rrneck]

121. Where'd you go?

"meticulously clean"

So evidence must be carefully vetted for your approval, yet you are fine with indiscriminate policy proposals that overlook real people's individual circumstances.

The very personification of arrogant self serving partisanship and a callous disregard for human life.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

96. Despite your wildest wettest dreams, you cannot turn off the spigot... it leaks too much.

Well, considering quality well maintained firearms can last well over a century (there's millions of them)
And it only takes a few rounds of ammo to murder a few people (there's billions of them)
And guns can be made with common tools by hand or in machine shops.
And there is no way to know the true current # of firearms out there right now.
I'd say your plan sucks ass.

Furthermore, at some point to have even a remote chance at success your plan requires registration of all current firearms. A united states firearm registry would be logistically unfeasible. This is where your plan falls apart... well, plus the fact that guns are just easy to smuggle into America as drugs.

[sharesunited]

112. You want gun and ammo profileration. Based on your post alone.

I have you down for that.

Now stand aside.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

120. My post is a fafctual description of the current situation. Quit running from it.

These are problems your desires encounter.
Either address them with a strategy or admit your desire to "turn the spigot off" is futile.

#1) Millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammo exist. Either could easily last 50 years if stored well.
#2) Making your own ammo is not particularly difficult and only a handful of round is needed to commit crime.
My guess is guns and ammo will still be common for at least 50yrs.

And the Biggest problem: There is no way to know the current # if firearms out there.
Given that guns can be hand or shop made and smuggling is a problem in this country...
How will you ensure no new guns enter the market?

[rrneck]

116. Now stand aside.

Watch it. Shares is gonna get medieval on your buttocks. :rofl:

[rrneck]

72. HEY! I asked you a question.

Give me a name. Tell me exactly who is at "less risk".

If you want to ban guns, fine. What remedy do you offer those who would like to defend themselves with them and who will not get that opportunity if you deny them a firearm?

ARE YOU WILLING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR INJURY?

[X_Digger]

47. You really should read up on the history of legislation regarding child pornography

It's not my job to teach you about it, but I will help with a few sections of law-

See 18 USC 110 § 2256
See 18 USC 110 § 2251, 2252, 2252A

http://www.ussc.gov/r_congress/SCAC.HTM

I had to become familiar with these statues and NCMEC/ICMEC due to a project I worked on for the telecommunications industry (digital identification of pornography, guidelines for reporting child abuse including pornography, etc).

Just because you wish the analogy were valid doesn't make it so.

[PavePusher]

48. Also not quite.

A picture of child porn is illegal (bad). A picture of adult porn is (generally) legal (good). The picture, as a physical object, is nuetral, it is the subject matter (i.e. the intent) that is actionable.

A gun being waved BY a criminal is illegal (bad). At gun being waved AT a criminal is (generally) legal (good). The gun, as a physical object, is nuetral, it is the intent that is actionable.

[TPaine7]

49. I agree with you that secretly stashing the corpse of a murdered person should be forbidden...

even if you didn't commit the murder.

You should also not be able to secretly stash other evidence of a murder, for instance, videotape of a murder--even videotape of a murder you didn't commit.

That's the correct analogy.

[sharesunited]

50. Not quite. Because you can print it out and tack it to your front door with a legend which says

Look A Crime Occurred. And you would be committing a felony.

[TPaine7]

60. But if you *found* it and took it to the police, FBI, etc., there would be no crime.

I agree, however that you could put a copy of a murder photo on your door, but not a photo of child pornography.

Child pornography shocks decent people and is the product of a crime; gun possession does not shock decent people (police and Secret Service members are "guilty" of it), and a gun is not the product of a crime.

The analogy is faulty.

[sharesunited]

65. The shock component is undeniable. But that's not why the 1st Amendment doesn't protect it.

Plenty of protected speech is shocking to people.

No, it is the future, potential harm deemed to be caused by it.

Yet kit glove treatment for guns and ammo. Despite future, potential and LETHAL harm.

Must be gun love and ammo amore. No other explanation.

[eqfan592]

69. Umm, where did he say it wasn't protected because of it's "Shock value"?

He said it wasn't protected because it was the product of a crime. Not because of any "shock value."

He just mentioned the shock value as an aside.

Child porn is illegal because it's literally the product of a crime. Firearms are NOT!

[TPaine7]

101. Shock is subjective, and not the reason for banning child porn

Some people are shocked by the wearing of white after Labor Day.

Some core differences, off the top of my head:

1. Guns save lives; child porn doesn't
2. You can have a lot of good clean fun with guns--not so with child porn
3. The making of child porn requires violation of human rights; gun production and possession don't
4. Child porn feeds a demand for criminal activity; gun possession doesn't

Child porn is comparable to snuff films and videos of extreme non-consensual physical abuse of people or animals. I favor banning them as well.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

76. Someone was harmed to create the images. How do you overlook that fact?

[Callisto32]

126. Because that possession, by its very nature...

required a PRIOR act of harm.

[rrneck]

10. At its base the issue is still about

the disparity of force. Children are obviously smaller, weaker and less intellectually and emotionally mature than those who would exploit them. It is equally obvious that a child has no chance to resolve that disparity of force unaided. That disparity is so clear and obvious that a consensus regarding child pornography (a documentation of exploitation) is easily established. Furthermore, the existence of images depicting the abuse of children also serve as evidence of the crime. Since exploiting children is always wrong, the mere possession of child pornography is sufficient for prosecution. The tragedy is that it will be a prosecution after the fact, because the state was unable to intercede on behalf of the child to stop the exploitation before it happened.

The disparity of force between two adults is significantly less but still sufficient to allow an assailant to severely damage or end the life of another. It is less because an adult has the ability to reduce that disparity by, among other things, acquiring a firearm for self defense and being responsible for its use.

It would be just as unnecessary for an adult to own a firearm as it would be to make child pornography illegal if the state were able to intervene on behalf of those who are being abused. It cannot. It must wait either for evidence of the crime and prosecute the malefactor, or allow those with the wherewithal to take responsibility for their own self defense.

It is a pity that I have to add this: I am not advocating arming children. I have to add that codicil for the same reason Euromutt has had to start this thread. The entire issue is a red herring aimed at conflating firearm ownership with the abuse of children in an effort to cast the mere possession of a firearm as a crime and firearms owners as perverts. In light of yesterdays election in Massachusetts it might behoove those who consider themselves liberals to reevaluate their objectives worry less about ideology and more about the people their twisted ideology will effect.

[Tim01]

13. And alcohol? Tobacco?

Anti 2nd amendment people are such hypocrites.


Guns are the only thing a frail old woman can realistically use to protect herself from violent criminals. Guns allow the weak to defend themselves from evil people.
Alcohol is useless addictive drug that kills twice as many people as guns.
Result? People want to ban guns and keep alcohol.

[TPaine7]

25. It's embarassing that you have to explain this to an adult who presumably feeds and dresses himself

A consensus exists to protect that boy from sexual abuse and exploitation, but not from the gun which physically wounded him.

As you pointed out, there is a consensus for protecting the boy from being shot--shooting the boy is a felony.

The only explanation for the frightening examples of reasoning and argumentation we see on this forum is the gun control reality distortion field. It's a powerful force for inanity.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

56. Old strategy, new spin: SAVE THE CHHIIILLLDDRUUUUUNNN!!!11!11

[Recursion]

106. You're missing the key part about kiddy porn

It's actually not primarily about the distribution of it creating a market (at least not directly). SCOTUS had a relevant case last year about the crush videos: child pornography can be banned because production itself of the video is what harms the child. How does the manufacture itself of a gun harm a child? (Barring an industrial accident at a firearms manufacturer.)

[Euromutt]

122. Oh well, we gave it a good faith effort

I'm sure this absurd analogy will continue to crop up, seeing as how shares' confirmation bias will apparently not allow him to process any information that conflicts with his preconceived world view, but if nothing else, we now have a thread we can refer back to when we dismiss the child pornography analogy as the bullshit it is.

[rd_kent]

124. I am not sure WHY we continue with shares, or the regular others that just don;t get it.

It seems like we keep having the same six or eight anti-second amendment folks post the same same unsubstantiated shit over and over and we keep refuting it with facts and evidence, over and over. I have grown tired of them and the game they play. I recommend that we just ignore them and respond only to those that seem to have a grasp of reality and that can understand when facts and date refute their claims.

[Euromutt]

125. I'll admit I'm increasingly inclined to agree

Still, I don't think it's a bad idea to make one last dedicated effort to address the usual talking points before plonking the people in question. At least that way we can honestly say "hey, we tried reason."

[rrneck]

128. I'm of two minds.

On the one hand it's just tiresome as hell to pin somebody down that just feeds on your efforts.

On the other, that crew is the very walking, talking, breathing personification of the caricature that has been hung around the neck of liberals for decades. Punching through the cognitive dissonance or enduring a conversation that only feeds the hidden agenda of a bunch of trolls is useless in itself, but this is a public forum and a lot of people read it without ever commenting. The people in question need to be made an example of for the instruction of others with more sense.

I guess it mostly depends on how much patience you have from one day to the next since most conversations with them are little more than boilerplate anyway.

[Glassunion]

129. From my point of view...

Here is what these threads look like from the perspective of
my laptop. 

OP Here is a topic for discussion
|_ I agree
|_ I disagree where are your facts?
 |_ Here are your facts 
  |_ Ignored
   |_ What are fucking crazy or something?
   |_ Have you read the constitution?
    |_ Ignored
     |_ What does dog food have to do with the 2A?
     |_ How the fuck do you embolden a dog!?
      |_ Ignored
       |_ The stoopid!!! It burns!!
       |_ A Dog can't hold a samuri sword... 
       |_ Ah fuck it.. What am I doing here!?

[rd_kent]

130. Absolutely PERFECT! Thats it exactly!