Glorifying Guns?

The arguments put forth comparing guns with baseball bats, cars, golf clubs, etc. because they can be used to kill are spurious. Bats, cars, golf clubs have intended purposes. They are not purchased with the intent of killing or wounding someone. Comparing car accidents
with gun deaths is especially irrelevant because the "victims" agreed to risk travel in a car. And, again, cars are intended for transportation, guns are not intended for anything other than target practice and killing. And target practice is used to aid the ability to kill.

Second, it is not probable, but certainly is possible to kill someone with anything on earth. Therefore, it is ludicrous to point to water and a baseball bat and state that each can be used to kill. Or to a golf club and a pile of sand. (Something that explains everything, explains nothing)

Third, It is infinitely easier to pull the trigger on a gun than beat someone to death with a bat, or slice them with a knife. Anger plays a major role in homicides and a gun works from a distance. Guns even allow the physically weak to kill the physically stronger.

Which is why as a means of self defense, a gun can be a great equalizer in the face of real danger.

Guns, sporting accessories, automobiles, and what have you do not kill people. Inanimate objects do not kill people, period. Animals kill people. People and other living things die of age, disease, accident, or calamity. Living things kill one another, people included. People kill people and other living things, using whatever means falls readily to hand. The means by which the killing is accomplished is irrelevant; the means are not the problem, the problem is the killing, by whatever circumstance. A significant impediment to proactively dealing with the problem of people killing people is the tendency of people to focus on the symptom, not the disease. The problem of people killing people has been a problem as long as there have been people. Various prohibitions against lethal weapons have been imposed since the time of recording such on clay tablets, and no doubt before. As demonstrated more than amply by history and archaeology, people nonetheless have blithely gone on killing one another by whatever means, legal or illegal, purpose-designed or inappropriately employed, in passion or otherwise, as met the circumstances and exigencies of the moment. Guns are not the problem. People who do not understand, appreciate, or respect instruments of potential lethality and/or civilized behavior are the problem. Unless and untill that problem is addressed and resolved, any number of instrumentalities will contribute to the problem. In point of fact, the imposition of a prohibition on just about anything can become part of the problem ... take drugs. gambling, prostitution or alcohol for instance. Far from eradicating such, prohibitions on such merely engender a criminal subculture which itself exacerbates the problem. They key to solving the problem is 4-fold: education, opportunity, security, and tolerance. None of that lends itself to easy, feel-good, knee-jerk implementation. No doubt that ensures the problem long will remain an integral, if unpleasant, part of the human condition.

So if nukes don't kill people why don't people let me have one? Why is there a non-proliferation treaty? Remembering that nukes don't kill, people do.

The ole "guns don't kill, people do" mantra is best answered by "no duh, and that's why people shouldn't have guns".

Nah, CdK, I don't buy that excursion into Reducio ad Absurdam. I'd prefer access to firearms be subject to regulation and oversight designed to ensure competence with and respect for the items, and to hinder the availability of same to the immature, the criminal or the psychologically deficient, but that comes right back to the problem of getting people to deal with the problems of people. Inanimate objects are not the problem.

The point is that despite inanimate objects not being the problem the notion of denying them as tools to the people that are is valid.

That being said the fact that inanimate objects don't kill speaks very little about the issue of gun control. We seek to control many inanimate things due to the very obvious fact that it is people who use them to cause trouble.

We don't try to control nukes because we think inanimate objects kill people do we?

The reductio ad absurdum is the mantra that guns don't kill people.

Inanimate objects don't kill is the absurd conclusion that tries to discredit the notion of gun control despite gun control not being predicated on the absurd notion that inanimate objects kill people.

Before I had kids, I never thought of having a gun, because I was young, fit and foolish and thought the saber I kept under our bed was all I needed to protect me and my wife.

Once I had kids and the thought of having a gun to protect my family became more appealing, I realized that to prevent the nightmare of one of the kids killing themselves or their siblings, it would be necessary to keep the gun and the ammo so far apart and difficult to combine, as to render the weapon useless for defense against a sudden intruder. I got a big black dog instead.

When my boys reached teen years, I bought them sabers of their own to be kept under their beds. They thought it utterly cool and somehow the notion of my own band of sword wielding warriors defending home and hearth was comforting. Plus, we almost always had a big black dog.

Soon the last of my children will be out of the house and it will back to just me and my wife. I'll stick with my trusty saber, and big black dog simply because I don't really have enough of a fear of intruders to bother buying a gun.

We've twice, in our lives, had our house broken into while we were home. Unfortunately it never happened when we had one of our big black dogs (or perhaps the dogs always otherwise prevented it) but, thankfully the bastards were only interested in grabbing a few valuables and running away. In both instances, despite our home alarm sounding, the police would never have arrived in time to save us if the intruders meant us harm.

Now, should someone enter my home with the intent to harm us, my dog will stop them, I will have to use the sword on them or we'll suffer the consequences. Assuming I survive, I'm pretty sure I will then go out and buy a gun.

We have many rights in this country, but how many are more important than the right to live our lives free of violence from others? Since there are too many miscreants in this world who refuse to honor this right, and the State cannot possibly guarantee us this right, we must at least have the right to defend ourselves.

I suppose that there are people who have suffered violence at the hands of others but who still refuse, on principle, to arm themselves. Good for them, but I don't see why that should influence my right to self-defense.

I have no desire to hunt or shoot at targets (although I accept that others may want to do so) and so the only reason I will ever have a gun is to protect me and my wife (and my big black dog). Because there are idiots who cannot responsibly own a gun, I should not be prohibited from having one.

Since the State finds it impossible to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, let alone to guarantee me my right of a life free of violence, it doesn't really make much sense that it should keep weapons out of my hands.

If the State wishes me to register the gun I buy, I'm A-OK with that. If they want me to wait five days before I can pick up my gun, that's A-OK with me as well.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the notion that registering guns will provide a future dictatorship with a list of the first citizens to be visited by governmental goon squads, but if I'm not all that worried about a murderer breaking into my home, I'm even less worried about a dictator assuming control of our country. And, as billy falcon suggests, I'm not really sure what any citizen with a gun would or could do if a dictator took over.

Nevertheless, I'm not going to argue with those who object to gun controls. Maybe they will have not only the opportunity, but the cajones to star in their own "Red Dawn" someday.

However should any gunowner misuse, or allow to be misused his or her gun, the full weight of the law should fall upon them. A husband who shoots his wife in anger isn't sufficently different from a murderous intruder to warrant any sort of leniency.

Finally, and as an aside, I am one righty who does not want the State to have the right to kill any of its citizens, however I have no problem with the notion of retribution. The same State simply cannot allow its citizens to dish out their own retribution, but I have no moral problem with someone killing the murderer of a loved one.

I suppose both of us have been hanging out at the extremes of our respective positions in this current exchange, CdK. And I am not per se an advocate of unretricted availability of firearms, any more than I would advocate unrestricted availability of motor vehicles or of chemical substances subject to abuse. I am unaware of any independent, academically sound, peer-reviewed, published study which proves that banning firearms reduces crime in the aggregate, or even significantly impacts guncrime ... only the non-criminal sorts are apt to broadly respect gun laws, or laws of any sort. True, firearms are involved in something like 50% or so of US suicides, but that is just an artifact, not a causal relationship. Lithuania, with near absolute prohibition of private firearm ownership has one of, if not the highest suicide rates on the planet. If guns make it so much easier for Americans to kill themselves, how do the Lithuanians manage that particular distinction?

And why can't I have a nuke?

I think my neighbors would not mind if I shot an intruder bent on rape or murder. I should think they would object if I blew him up with even a small nuclear weapon.

I think there is no justification for people to own weapons that cannot be used safely in any circumstances.

I don't think so. My extreme is that I think "gun control" makes sense as part of a complete and total ban on guns.




I am unaware of any independent, academically sound, peer-reviewed, published study which proves that there is no god.

It's not difficult to create a criteria that is impossible to meet.

The ole mantra about criminals not obeying gun laws is another one predicated on fallacy.

Criminals don't follow nuke laws either, so why not let the responsible citizens (such as myself) have nukes?

Why? The answer is blatantly obvious, it is because having a legal market fuels an illegal market.

The whole point about banning guns is not to make criminals suddenly turn them in but to reduce the illicit market through elimination of the legal market.

As to evidence of it working, well that's a bit of a no-brainer. The short-term benefit in a gun culture will almost always be insignificant. This is because the laws can't effectively remove guns from the hands of criminals. It can, however, severely limit the replenishing of the available inventory on even the illicit market.

Thusly, it has only long-term benefits and long-term benefits are hard to measure because of all the other societal changes that will take place.

Societal factors are the murky water. Crime has a hell of a lot more to do with societal factors other than guns than it does to do with guns.

This is why cross-cultural comparisons have very few lessons when societal factors are not taken into account.

Personally, I think America is far too obsessed with guns to successfully change course and join sensible nations.

With so many gun-nuts (like myself, I love guns) in America the end goal of starving the illicit market would be very difficult and take a very long time (throughout which it would stand a very good chance of being repealled and not reaching the benefit of the measure). So in America, I campaign for the right for responsible ownership and testing of nuclear devices.

"Because there are idiots who cannot responsibly own a nuke, I should not be prohibited from having one."

Vote yes for Craven's nukes.

Get in line.



Just because someone wouldn't use them safely is no justification for those of us who would care for nukes safely (and lovingly) to have them.

Finn, I have several big dogs, a couple of which happen to be black, and all of which are self confident and assertively territorial. I consider them my primary intruder-disuasion system. I don't know that they have or have not caused badguys to seek an easier mark, but I know they're effective against itinerant pedlars and preachers. I also have some nifty knives, swords, pikes, halberds, warhammers, and daggers ... but I consider most of them more as display pieces - collectors items. I have some bows and firearms which fall into the same category. I also have an assortment of currently in-service examples of a variety of implements which commonly qualify as weapons. I don't consider weapons of any sort a primary security measure. For that, I have my wits, the dogs, the fence, the yardlights, the door locks, and the house alarm. Oh, and there are some geese, too ... they make a helluva racket on the approach of strangers.


Anything may be perverted to misuse. I consider myself a responsible, competent, recreational firearm enthusiast. I see no valid moral, ethical, or Constitutional justification or rationalization by which I, or any other law abiding, responsible, competent adult, may justly be deprived of my legal pursuit of that interest on the basis that some pervert the implements peculiar to that interest to misuse.

Good points, Craven, exept that the bad guys can and will still get guns. So they shouldn't be the only civilians to have them.
And if this administration has taught me anything, it's that we really can't be so trusting of our government anymore.

Comparing firearms to nuclear weapons is simply foolish.

The converse of this foolish argument is that there are idiots who cannot responsibly own an automobile, a boat, a butcher knife, or a hedge clipper, and therefore these articles should all be banned.

I am not comparing them. I am illustrating the fact that your axiom is not an acceptable axiom through the use of a deliberately different example.



The converse of what argument? All I did is illustrate the fallacious nature of an axiom you used.

Its converse is that such fallacious ploys are appropriate.

The comparison is actually quite good. Baseball bats and cars and golf clubs are designed for a certain purpose, to play baseball, to transport people from one place to another, and to play golf. Any of these objects can be used to kill someone unlawfully. A knife is used to cut things. If you use a knife to cut a person, that's illegal. And it's exactly the same with guns. Guns are designed to put holes in things. You can use a gun to put holes in a target or in an animal during hunting season. If you use a gun to put a hole in a person, and it's not self defense, that's illegal.


The point is that many objects can be used to kill. And a gun is just another object.


Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in Rwanda with machetes a few years back. People get stabbed and bludgeoned and run over every day. It doesn't matter whether it takes a few more muscles to stab someone than it does to pull a trigger. People who are determined to kill will find a weapon and use it. The ease of use makes guns ideal defensive weapons for women. Women generally have weaker upper body strength, and as a rule a man can overcome them physically. I don't see how anyone can be against a weaker person having a means of self defense against a stronger attacker.

This is not exactly true. In a gun culture like America it's likely that we'd not be able to starve the market to the point where most bad guys couldn't have guns but that doesn't mean that it is an inherently flawed measure as it works efficiently in manly places (as an aside, several of which I've lived in and know well).



The thing is, it's not impossible to make it so that they don't have them either (for the most part).

It's also not always impractical. Many nations have successfully starved their illicit markets.

I happen to think that in the US it is not practical and therefore do not advocate it stateside but many of the pro-gun rhetoric is sill fallacious drek.

I oppose it while hypocritically using it as my platform for my nuke campaign.

Vote for me to get nukes, I promise to clean up after them and take them for walks.



This is an excellent argument in favor of me having nukes!

A well armed* populace is the best defense against tyranny.

*Dunno 'bout you but that sooo means nukes to me.

Neither do I. Hardly anyone will argue against the right of self defense. Why do they continue to argue against having the means of self defense.

Perhaps because they believe that starving the illicit market of its sources will provide better collective defense.

I forget the term for it but there's a concept in which what is good for the individual is not good for the group.

e.g. hoarding food is good for the individual but can contrinute to economic panic.

I personally don't think that in the US banning guns can successully starve the illicit market but there are those who do.

And those people are not arguing against self-defense but rather in favor of what they see as a measure to increase collective self-defense.

I and many others think their measure will not be successul in doing so in America but that doesn't mean they argue against self-defense, but rather in favor of a means through which they believe an improvement on collective self-defense can be realized.

It's as fair to say that gun-control is against self-defense as it is to say that anti-gun control is.

Being against gun control is to be against a measure that some believe would improve collective survival.

Who's right in what scenarios is a matter of opinion, but I think it important not to characterize it as being against what it purports to be for in merely a different way.

An example of this is how I am also against people labelling supporters of war as being "pro-death". They usually believe that the war will spare lives in the bigger picture and whether they are right or wrong their intentions are not neccessarily malicious.

An unarmed "collective defense" is an interesting idea. I think I'm going to disagree, though. The person or persons against whom we might have to defend ourselves is the agressor. They chose to be agressors when they perceive themselves to be stronger than the victims. They may not always be correct, but the choice is theirs to make, not ours. With or without guns, it will normally be the stronger attacking the weaker. With superior weapons the weaker has the opportunity to defend him or herself.