Setanta wrote:
Quote:I believe that gun control only works on a macroeconomic scale. Only through starving the market does it result in effective reduction of crime.
I don't quite understand including this remark--it seems to me that gun control legislation has only that intent.
Agreed, and what I was refering to is that legislation has often failed to acheive that, and is subsequently touted as evidence of the lacking relationship of gun control to crime.
In a situation where a particular city proscribes guns, but a 5-minute drive to a neighbouring state is all it takes to get them the market starvation was not acheived, and these kinds of examples illustrate, at least to me, a failure of legislation more so than a refutation of it's validity as an ideal.
OmSigDAVID wrote:
That is a subjective issue,
bearing upon the minds and spirits of the citizens of America.
I believe that American citizens have much more respect for the rights of the individual, than Europeans do.
I wouldn't frame it as "respect for rights of the individual" as other counterpoints merely prefer different rights (all rights have counterparts).
I would agree that Americans tend to favor more liberty of personal expression, but the discord isn't really about respect. It's about where precisely to draw the line between freedom of individual expression and peaceful coexistence.
Reasonable people can differ on this wihout it being a matter of more or less respect. Just different opinions of the consequences.
For example, I don't think the armed populace protects the people more than it harms it, but you likely feel otherwise even though we may share the same idea of protecting a society.
Quote:I offer 2 thoughts on that:
1. Crimes of violence prevailed long before guns were invented.
2. Guns were among the very first machines with moving parts,
built long before electricity was employed. Just as bathtub gin
inter alia defeated the intentions of the Prohibition of the 1920s,
and just as independent minded citizens acquire marijuana today,
regardless of how many Billions of dollars were spent on the War on Drugs,
prohibition is defeated by cleverness n creativity of the human mind n spirit.
Re 1: Indeed, but more detructive weapons and greater population density can change the rates at which crime occurs.
Re 2: I agree, which is why I don't think gun control should be in any political platform in the US right now. It won't happen and if it did it wouldn't work.
The culture has to change first.
But I do want to dispell the notion that it's not possible. On A2K I have seen countless individuals claim that gun control is not viable at all and that people would just make their own en masse.
The further reaches of that position are just not true. There exists societies who have viable gun control in place.
I don't think it would work for the US right now, but it is not impossible.
Quote:
This may be true,
but this concept addresses the issue of what jurisdiction was granted
to government by the Founders who created government
and who limited its lawful powers in the Bill of Rights.
In other words,
if the Founders WITHHELD this jurisdiction from government,
upon the basis of their expressed belief that the citizens cud remove
government, as they had removed the Hanoverian Dynasty from America,
then government does NOT have that authority and can only exercise
that power by USURPATION, the way a dishonest accountant grabs
his clients' funds when they are not looking.
Like I said, I don't really care about the interpretations of current law on this. There exists mechanisms to change any of our laws, including the constitution so I'm disinterested in the substantial amount of
current law interpretation that many gun debates consist of.
My position is more of an abstracted ideal that I contend than a Constitution reading.
Quote:
I believe the argument is intended to mean that if guns were outlawed,
then the citizens wud be rendered defenseless from the depredations
of criminals or of animals, if those citizens obeyed the law.
This assumes the inability to enforce the legislation and just introduces more word play. No legislation can be effective without an effort to enforce it.
The degree to which gun control is enforced is a measure of the legislation's success in a society and not a refutation, on a theoretical level, of the legislation itself.
If the case is that success in enforcing the legislation is at question then less absolutism is needed and the matter should be dealt with with realistic nuance.
My conclusion is that it would be unlikely to be successful in the US and I don't think the US is ready.
But the mantra is just an inordinate absolutism that doesn't contribute to a genuine consideration of gun control.
