Guns

[Explodicle]

Poor countries have more crime - guns or not.

In other words, Guns don't kill people, people kill people?

Repeating memes might indicate that to argue your case, you can't think on your feet, can't post original arguments, and are victim to group think.

Based on my biased personal experience, less original statements are more often true than clever new statements. Not to make an appeal to the masses, but good ideas often become memes, and bad ideas often die with their creator.

Not true. Memes such as the one in question are slogans, mantras, etc., fabricated by people with agendas. It's basically PR, brainwashing, and laziness on the part of the meme spreader.

Consider: Guns empower people to kill people. Guns empower people to kill people at a distance. Guns empower people to have accidents otherwise not possible. Guns are the tool to kill.

There is nothing more irrelevant than the idea or notion that guns don't kill people but people kill people.

Explodicle, I like you when you do make good observations. This wasn't one of them.

My guess would be that laziness is the main factor, just because it can be frustrating to rephrase "inanimate objects are ethically neutral" every time this comes up.

I've definitely heard and considered the argument you're making before, although your wording is very original. The only one of those considerations that CAN'T be applied to any object is that guns are "the tool to kill". Since the purpose of an object can change rapidly and be hidden easily (example: IEDs), any rules based on the intent of an object are highly impractical. Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will use guns people will just use knives, bombs, poison...

[1713564861]

1713564861

[grondilu]

Since the purpose of an object can change rapidly and be hidden easily (example: IEDs), any rules based on the intent of an object are highly impractical. Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will use guns people will just use knives, bombs, poison...

Why did you strike this sentence through?

« Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will use guns. »

This is just plain truth.  By outlawing guns, the State makes peaceful people defenseless against violent people.  It is just silly.

[floeti]

TL;DR

If you permit guns for citizens, why don't you also give them the options to buy grenades, bazooka or nuclear bombs? I mean, they need to defend themselves right? What are they going to do with their 9mm if a criminal with a tank want to attack their house? You can't buy nuclear bombs at wal-mart because your society decided for a limit in weaponry. The difference between your society and mine is that my society used a more severe limit on weapons. No rights have been violated, we simply made stricter rules about that, that's all.

+10000

I live in europe, in a country where even possession of some larger knifes is prohibited by law. And you know what? It's one of the few things, I like about my country!
Most bitcoin-supporters make their minds up about some big companies paying corrupt politicans to make them turn laws in their favor. Has it ever come to your mind, that the gun and rifle producing industry might be doing just this? Think about, where is more money to be made, if you're selling guns (and ammuniton!) to all the people in the country, or if you're selling guns to just a few (like police, security, military)?

I want to live in a peaceful world, without guns, bazookas or even nuke bombs. I don't want to possess them and I even more do not want to use them, because if I did, people will get hurt or die and I think no single person should be entitled to judge about life or death of another person.

Often I read the argument, that people must possess guns to defend against the government. So you want to fight with your small guns against people with high end arms or even nuke bombs? Not very clever... If you want to change something about your government, change the people that give the power to the government.

[grondilu]

I live in europe, in a country where even possession of some larger knifes is prohibited by law. And you know what? It's one of the few things, I like about my country!

Yeah right.  Until you encounter someone who has a large knife despite law, and who is willing to use it:

http://galliawatch.blogspot.fr/2007/11/woman-fatally-stabbed-in-subway.html

I want to live in a peaceful world, without guns, bazookas or even nuke bombs.

Yeah and I want to live in a society where the weather is great everyday, beer is free and male-female ratio is one to ten.

Weapons are things that can be produced by human beings.  As long as they will be humans, you can not prevent those things to exist.

Often I read the argument, that people must possess guns to defend against the government. So you want to fight with your small guns against people with high end arms or even nuke bombs? Not very clever... If you want to change something about your government, change the people that give the power to the government.

Yeah it is probably not the best argument.  Recently in Mali I've heard that islamists have taken control on the north of the country, and have arrested armed citizens.

http://bdnews24.com/details.php?id=227315&cid=1

But still, I keep thinking it is probably more difficult, yet sadly not impossible, for a government to dictate law to an armed population.

[RodeoX]

I live in europe, in a country where even possession of some larger knifes is prohibited by law. And you know what? It's one of the few things, I like about my country! ...

I want to live in a peaceful world, without guns, bazookas or even nuke bombs. I don't want to possess them and I even more do not want to use them, because if I did, people will get hurt or die and I think no single person should be entitled to judge about life or death of another person.

Often I read the argument, that people must possess guns to defend against the government. So you want to fight with your small guns against people with high end arms or even nuke bombs? Not very clever... If you want to change something about your government, change the people that give the power to the government.

I have lived in Europe and it is a relatively peaceful place, America is not. All that peace talk would not amount to much if you are being pistol whipped. I could not support a government that says I can't defend my life.

The argument that we must be armed because we are obligated to replace our government, should it become corrupt, seems extreme.  But our government was founded by extremists fleeing oppression by governments. So how would we fight a modern army with small arms? Well, we would bleed a lot. Just like the FSA in Syria. My whole life I have watched America get it's ass kicked by irregulars with small arms. We would win. I know how alien that is to people around the world who follow the rules because it is a rule.

[floeti]

Yeah right.  Until you encounter someone who has a large knife despite law, and who is willing to use it.

Even then, it might be, that this person is stronger than me (either mentally or physically) and he will take my gun and use it against me. If I had no gun in the first place, it can't be used against me.

Additionally, the more weapons are in people's hands, the more it takes people to care for their own security. It's not just that you have to buy and maintain your weapons (a gun has to be cleaned, oiled, ?!, a knife has to be sharpened...), you also may not sleep, drink no alcohol, take no drugs, because if you did, it might pose you into a situation, where your attacker is smarter, faster or simply awake while you're not.

Yeah and I want to live in a society where the weather is great everyday, beer is free and male-female ratio is one to ten.

I think it's all peoples duty to make the world a better place.

Weapons are things that can be produced by human beings.  As long as they will be humans, you can not prevent those things to exist.

No, but with weapon control laws the probability of being attacked by a person with a weapon is far lower. The problem is, that these laws have to be implemented and enforced all around the world, to maximize their effect. It's the same thing with nuke bombs on a nation wide scale: If nations followed the pro-gun-arguments, all of them would need nuke bombs until one nation has more/better nuke bombs. Then all other nations do also need more/better nuke bombs. See where this leads?

Even without guns, people can hurt each other. The problem with weapons is, that they can lead to death or serious injury much faster. And death/some injuries are final. Even more final than a bitcoin-transaction, I think...

[caveden]

Weapons are things that can be produced by human beings.  As long as they will be humans, you can not prevent those things to exist.

No, but with weapon control laws the probability of being attacked by a person with a weapon is far lower.

It's naive to believe that gun control laws will take the guns out of the hands of those who don't care about the laws. I'm sure they won't. They'll just take the guns out of those who care about following the law.

I live in France, but I've grown up in Brazil. Both have draconian laws regarding gun-control, it's hard to tell which government is stricter on the matter. France criminality rates are much lower than Brazil. And I'm pretty sure that this has nothing to do with gun laws. For multiple reasons which I'll not try to speculate here, average people in France are just less prone to initiate violence themselves than average people in Brazil. They are more "honest", we may say. It really isn't a matter of France having better security forces or practices, of that I'm sure. Most buildings here have no security, I'm yet to see electric fences around houses, people carelessly leave their cars to sleep on the street, I see less policemen on the streets here than what I see in my home town in Brazil, private security is almost non-existent etc.

It's the same thing with nuke bombs on a nation wide scale: If nations followed the pro-gun-arguments, all of them would need nuke bombs until one nation has more/better nuke bombs.

Although I believe the best path to "world peace" is free trade, I'll just quote what I've written above again:

Sometimes I make a comparison that's not very popular, but IMHO it makes some sense: individuals bearing guns are comparable to states which have weapons of mass destruction. No single state with such weapons has ever been military attacked. India and Pakistan used to make war, once both got nukes, both got "calm". I bet the cold war wouldn't have remained cold if it wasn't for the fact that both sides had nukes. Going to war against a state which has weapons of mass destruction is almost suicide, even if you're also a state with such weapons. Trying to assault/rob/etc somebody with a pistol on his waist is also very dangerous, potentially suicidal, even if you also have a gun (okay, okay, I know ambushes and alike remain possible but these are premeditated murders, not general for-profit aggression... it's more rare).

I'm pretty sure that all governments who don't yet have nukes, don't lack them because they "follow the anti-gun-arguments", but more likely because either they aren't capable of building them, or they are afraid of international retaliation - which, by the way, is as hypocritical as the state saying that citizens cannot have guns, only state employees can.

[grondilu]

France criminality rates are much lower than Brazil. And I'm pretty sure that this has nothing to do with gun laws. For multiple reasons which I'll not try to speculate here, average people in France are just less prone to initiate violence themselves than average people in Brazil. They are more "honest", we may say.

My guess is that they are just less desperate.  As soon as the french social security system collapses, I'm pretty sure it will quickly get ugly.

It really isn't a matter of France having better security forces or practices, of that I'm sure.

Good point.  Gunned violence is indeed not just a matter of gun regulation.

[floeti]

I think the argument of seeing equal powers as peacekeeper does not hold: If both sides pile up more and more power the whole system on an absolute scale will become more and more unstable. Finally the tiniest event is enough for the system to go out of control. If both sides abandoned more and more power, the system becomes more and more stable on the absolute scale.

I'm pretty sure that all governments who don't yet have nukes, don't lack them because they "follow the anti-gun-arguments", but more likely because either they aren't capable of building them, or they are afraid of international retaliation

Why would nations who have nukes decrease their number then? Even on mutual agreement?

It's naive to believe that gun control laws will take the guns out of the hands of those who don't care about the laws. I'm sure they won't. They'll just take the guns out of those who care about following the law.

I didn't say that. But I think the overall probability encountering some criminal with a gun will go down.

[Schleicher]

Why would nations who have nukes decrease their number then? Even on mutual agreement?

Because maintenance is pretty expensive.

[floeti]

Why would nations who have nukes decrease their number then? Even on mutual agreement?

Because maintenance is pretty expensive.

Exactly! Now let's transfer this back to people and gun-space: I just don't want to maintain a gun! So let's agree on a mutual agreement, that we don't own guns.

[cmg5461]

Fuck it! Nuke them all! Mwahahahahaha!

see: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end

This is why we need nukes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[myrkul]

Since the purpose of an object can change rapidly and be hidden easily (example: IEDs), any rules based on the intent of an object are highly impractical. Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will use guns people will just use knives, bombs, poison...

Why did you strike this sentence through?

« Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will use guns. »

This is just plain truth.  By outlawing guns, the State makes peaceful people defenseless against violent people.  It is just silly.

True, but it's one of those "big bad anti-gun control memes" Because pithy truisms are bad, you know.

Why would nations who have nukes decrease their number then? Even on mutual agreement?

Because maintenance is pretty expensive.

Exactly! Now let's transfer this back to people and gun-space: I just don't want to maintain a gun! So let's agree on a mutual agreement, that we don't own guns.

I'll pass, I find gun maintenance to not only be inexpensive, but also a great "moment of zen".  Now, I agree, having to maintain hundreds or thousands of guns would probably be a little arduous. So, tell you what, let's each limit our gun ownership to 50, OK?

[myrkul]

This happened a weekend ago in Phoenix:

    ‘A 14-year-old boy shot and nearly killed an intruder who broke into his Phoenix home and pulled a gun on him while he was watching his three younger siblings, police said Saturday.

    The teen and his siblings, ages 8, 10 and 12, were at home alone when a woman rang the doorbell Friday afternoon, Phoenix police Officer James Holmes said.

    The teen didn’t open the door because he didn’t recognize the woman.

    Soon after, the teen heard a loud bang on the door, rushed his siblings upstairs and got a handgun from his parent’s bedroom.

    When he got to the top of the stairs, he saw a man break through the front door and point a gun at him.

    The boy shot the 37-year-old man, who was taken to a hospital in extremely critical condition and underwent surgery. The man was upgraded to critical condition and is expected to survive and be booked into jail within the week on counts of aggravated assault and burglary, Holmes said.

    He said the suspect did not get a shot off. He declined to release his name until he is booked into jail.

    The woman who rang the home’s doorbell got away.

    Holmes hailed the teen’s actions and his parents for teaching the kids to never open the door to strangers.’

Thanks to the guys over at the Silver Circle Underground, where I got this story.

[vampire]

This happened a weekend ago in Phoenix:

    ‘A 14-year-old boy shot and nearly killed an intruder who broke into his Phoenix home and pulled a gun on him while he was watching his three younger siblings, police said Saturday.

    The teen and his siblings, ages 8, 10 and 12, were at home alone when a woman rang the doorbell Friday afternoon, Phoenix police Officer James Holmes said.

    The teen didn’t open the door because he didn’t recognize the woman.

    Soon after, the teen heard a loud bang on the door, rushed his siblings upstairs and got a handgun from his parent’s bedroom.

    When he got to the top of the stairs, he saw a man break through the front door and point a gun at him.

    The boy shot the 37-year-old man, who was taken to a hospital in extremely critical condition and underwent surgery. The man was upgraded to critical condition and is expected to survive and be booked into jail within the week on counts of aggravated assault and burglary, Holmes said.

    He said the suspect did not get a shot off. He declined to release his name until he is booked into jail.

    The woman who rang the home’s doorbell got away.

    Holmes hailed the teen’s actions and his parents for teaching the kids to never open the door to strangers.’

Thanks to the guys over at the Silver Circle Underground, where I got this story.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2012/02/jersey_city_teen_killed_in_gun.html
http://www.11alive.com/news/article/243398/3/11-year-old-girl-killed-in-gun-accident
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/child-killed-mistakes-real-gun-toy-10061613
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/texas/girl-9-killed-in-dads-gun-accident

Duh.

[myrkul]

So in reply to a story where a well-raised child responsibly and intelligently used a weapon to defend his siblings, you respond with stories of  mishandling firearms?

That's an argument for gun training, not gun control.

[vampire]

So in reply to a story where a well-raised child responsibly and intelligently used a weapon to defend his siblings, you respond with stories of  mishandling firearms?

That's an argument for gun training, not gun control.

Gun training is a form of gun control, i.e. without a license you can't own a gun.

[myrkul]

So in reply to a story where a well-raised child responsibly and intelligently used a weapon to defend his siblings, you respond with stories of  mishandling firearms?

That's an argument for gun training, not gun control.

Gun training is a form of gun control, i.e. without a license you can't own a gun.

Licensing is not training. Licensing usually requires training, but all it really is is a permission slip.

[cbeast]

Fuck it! Nuke them all! Mwahahahahaha!

see: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end

This is why we need nukes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would live in Calaskawaii.

[Distribution]

So in reply to a story where a well-raised child responsibly and intelligently used a weapon to defend his siblings, you respond with stories of  mishandling firearms?

That's an argument for gun training, not gun control.

Gun training is a form of gun control, i.e. without a license you can't own a gun.

Licensing is not training. Licensing usually requires training, but all it really is is a permission slip.

Very true. I addressed this earlier. People absolutely need to be taught from a young age to respect guns. Because we don't use them everyday (probably) it's a little more difficult, but I often compare them to learning how to use a car. If a kid grew up only knowing what he sees about cars on tv, they go fast, blow up, flip over and have the passengers come out unscathed. But most parents teach by example (and then they're later taught more formally) that 99% of using a car is safety, it's safety belts, blinkers, windshield wipers, and maintaining the tires. It's the same with guns. The majority of "knowing how to use a gun" is knowing gun safety, which is about as prevalent in popular media as checking tread depth on tires.