Home > Uncategorized > Making Guns Illegal

Making Guns Illegal

I’ve posted about this before, but just to drive the point home…

Guns are a necessary evil. Not only do they give the populace the ability to resist tyrannical government if the situation warrants, but they allow people to defend themselves from those who wish to them or their property harm. We must remember, particularly those who don’t believe people need or should have guns, that the state has no duty to protect you from anything. It has been held by the Supreme Court on a number of occasions and all other federal courts as well. One nice and clear ruling, Warren v. District of Columbia, makes it quite plain. People have a duty to protect themselves, that’s why the second amendment exists. (once again, if you are one of the loony’s that thinks it only applies to a militia, every male resident of the US between the ages of 18 and 45 are members of the militia.)

Furthermore, I could construct a working firearm in my basement. There is no way to make guns disappear. If made illegal, only those willing to break the law will have them. That is, criminals. Making cocaine illegal hasn’t stopped it from being available, I would argue that it’s illegality makes it easier to obtain than if it were legal. Given that even a dope like me could make a firearm, and I would still be able to buy one if they were outlawed, I can’t see why anyone thinks it makes sense to give it a try. It’s working so well with drugs, fireworks and (once upon a time) alcohol.

You want to construct a weapon as dangerous as a gun? Take a look at the end of this video:

I’m assuming this guy is someplace where guns are restricted, both his accent and the fact that Discovery Channel Canada is filming him, lead me to that conclusion. That hasn’t stopped him from making an incredibly deadly weapon, one that could not be thwarted by anything other than packing some heat yourself. That spike makes it all the way through the ballistics gel, and any regular watcher of myth busters will be able to tell you that it is designed to be just like human flesh. i promise you that that device would kill someone a lot easier than my .45, a lot easier. Maybe not from so far away, but it would leave a huge hole.

So shut up anti gun nuts. Stop telling me how to live and mind your own damned business.

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. 2011/07/14 at 23:22

    Why can’t I have a nuclear weapon?

  2. 2011/07/14 at 23:39

    One thing I see is that it is infinity difficult and expensive to construct and maintain. It also isn’t exactly something a country could use on its own citizens to any great effect. Resisting a tyrannical government is not a situation that really calls for such weapons. Nor would they really help you protect yourself.

    It’s really one of those fallacy things we hear so much about.

    They can also be effectively eliminated from widespread possession and use. Guns cannot. Explosives of all kinds can be, but only to an extent. Again they don’t really have the strategic value the firearms do.

  3. 2011/07/14 at 23:59

    Much of Europe has done well in eliminating widespread possession and use. But I don’t see that as an issue here. After all, it doesn’t seem as though it was part of the original rationale that, ‘Well, we’ll never get these guns under control, so everyone can have one.” As it happens, our inability to control guns is why I favor ownership, but I don’t see that inability as something that has been assumed since the Bill of Rights.

  4. 2011/07/15 at 00:14

    I don’t think Europe has been that successful at it really. To the extent they have been successful I think that is largely do to the public not believing in a natural right to posses the means to defend one’s self and resist tyranny.

    You are right, the rationale has never been that they cannot be controlled, but that’s the reality. People do not react well to having their rights taken from them and that is what would have to be done here. The fact is, world history is littered with the results of governments having the means to subdue their populations. Here in the US the government by no means has the ability to do that and never will have.

    In Europe it’s probably pretty easy to get a gun if you want one. Otherwise law abiding citizens aren’t likely to do that, but criminals are. They still have bad shootings in Europe, even with strict gun control. I don’t call that doing well. Losing your hand as opposed to your whole arm isn’t doing well, its just doing slightly less unwell.

  5. 2011/07/15 at 00:15

    And I’d rather be shot than hit with the vampire spike this guy has. That’s a bad fucking machine.

    I want me one.

  6. 2011/07/15 at 16:24

    Guns are a necessary evil.

    I’d disagree on both points.

    Necessary? Says who? I live just fine without one, and I live in a “scary” urban setting – walking most places I go at all times of the day and night. I have not the slightest need for a gun.

    Evil? Again, says who? Guns are a tool. I don’t begrudge anyone having one if they’re responsible, rational adults.

    However, as with other potentially deadly tools (cars, dynamite, gasoline, etc), we sure ought to regulate them and not just hand them out willy nilly.

  7. 2011/07/15 at 18:54

    Nate, you should probably put some sort of parental advisory on these videos, because now my boys want to build weapons like this guy.

    Because apparently their .12 gauges aren’t enough.

  8. 2011/07/15 at 19:48

    I’ll rephrase it a little, I mean that they are like a genie that’s out of the bottle and can’t be put back in. The only real response to guns is another gun. Since they are a fact that we have to live with, it would be practically impossible and inadvisable to make them illegal, since such a law would impact for the better mostly criminals.

    I like how you say “guns are a tool”, because that’s perfectly true. A tool we have a constitutional right to. A tool “necessary to the security of a free state.”

  9. 2011/07/15 at 22:45

    The only real response to guns is another gun.

    Maybe, if gun owners were all 10 year old boys. In the real world, it’s quite easily to manage getting by with words.

  10. 2011/07/15 at 23:47

    Of course, but we aren’t talking about a situation where words can get you out of it. If you are about to be the victim of a crime, I don’t imagine there is much time to sit down over a lemonade and talk your way out of it.

    I prefer to have available a reasonable response/defense. I wasn’t referring to disputes with a reasonable person like myself who isn’t likely to turn to violence unless violence is threatened upon me.

    In the real world, words are not always the correct response.

  11. 2011/07/16 at 08:35

    The odds of being in a situation where you might be accosted with someone with a gun are what, do you know? I’ve seen that the odds of being a murder victim are 1:18,000. Of course, many or most of those people are killed by people they know and it’s not the random violence of which you speak.

    The odds are 1 out of 38 that you were a victim of a violent crime in 2006 if you live in Flint, Michigan.

    The odds are 1 out of 1,428 that you were a victim of a violent crime in 2006 if you live in Irvine, California.

    source

    Also, the chances of anyone being a victim of a violent crime depend greatly on their behavior. The hot-headed young man who sneaks around urban neighborhoods looking for drugs is at much greater risk than the young fellow who busies himself with family, work, clean fun and church.

    For those of us who find ourselves in the latter category, the odds are pretty good that we’ll never be a potential victim of violent crime and thus, we statistically just aren’t likely to need it at all.

    Add to that reality, there is also the chance (I don’t know how high or low it is, but it’s a chance) that your own gun could be used against you, or that it could malfunction or that, even if you have a gun and are a victim of random violence, that you would not have the chance to use that gun to assist you.

    If you think that I couldn’t/wouldn’t be able to successfully use words to stop the victimization, you’re statistically probably right, at least part of the time. But the same would hold true for a gun for protection.

    As I said, I walk some of Louisville, KY’s urban streets on a regular basis and have for over 20 years, very regularly (daily) over the last 11. Statistically, that raises my odds slightly that I might be a victim of violent crime. And, in fact, I have been in violent situations at least 4 or 5 times (for instance, happening upon a young man beating his girlfriend). In none of those situations did I come even close to needing a gun. My words and wits were sufficient for the task at hand.

    In the real world, words are not always the right response? Perhaps. In a one-in-a-million set of circumstances. But I don’t see that it’s especially wise or reasonable to set up my life for the one-in-a-million situation. I mean, sure, there MIGHT be a chance at some point in my life that I could be totally saved if I had a flame-thrower or a tank or a bottle of acid with me. But I’m not going to live on a daily basis as if that were likely.

    Same with guns. IF a person lives in a significantly more high-risk manner than I do and are not particularly adept at using their wits to resolve situations, then yes, they might feel safer if they carry a gun. But statistically speaking, it’s a long shot that they’d actually be significantly safer.

    That’s all I’m saying. I, for one, don’t come close to “needing” a gun.

  12. 2011/07/16 at 08:42

    I tried posting response and it doesn’t look like it went through. Let me try a shortened version:

    I wasn’t referring to disputes with a reasonable person like myself who isn’t likely to turn to violence unless violence is threatened upon me.

    My point is that the ODDS are extremely low of you coming across a situation with the following ingredients:

    wholly irrational person
    wholly irrational person willing to engage in violence
    wholly irrational person willing to engage in deadly violence
    wholly irrational person willing to engage in deadly violence which you can’t escape from
    wholly irrational person willing to engage in deadly violence at a time and place where there aren’t others around to assist
    wholly irrational person willing to engage in deadly violence in which you’d have the opportunity to successfully use your gun

    …the odds of THAT scenario happening are extremely low, perhaps a million to one or greater, I’d guess.

    And it doesn’t seem reasonable to me to plan one’s life around the fear of a million to one scenario.

  13. 2011/07/16 at 08:45

    Add to that reality, there is also the chance (I don’t know how high or low it is, but it’s a chance) that your own gun could be used against you, or that it could malfunction or that, even if you have a gun and are a victim of random violence, that you would not have the chance to use that gun to assist you.

    If you think that I couldn’t/wouldn’t be able to successfully use words to stop the victimization, you’re statistically probably right, at least part of the time. But the same would hold true for a gun for protection.

    As I said, I walk some of Louisville, KY’s urban streets on a regular basis and have for over 20 years, very regularly (daily) over the last 11. Statistically, that raises my odds slightly that I might be a victim of violent crime. And, in fact, I have been in violent situations at least 4 or 5 times (for instance, happening upon a young man beating his girlfriend). In none of those situations did I come even close to needing a gun. My words and wits were sufficient for the task at hand.

    In the real world, words are not always the right response? Perhaps. In a one-in-a-million set of circumstances. But I don’t see that it’s especially wise or reasonable to set up my life for the one-in-a-million situation. I mean, sure, there MIGHT be a chance at some point in my life that I could be totally saved if I had a flame-thrower or a tank or a bottle of acid with me. But I’m not going to live on a daily basis as if that were likely.

    Same with guns. IF you live in a significantly more high-risk manner than I do and are not particularly adept at using your wits to resolve situations, then yes, you might feel safer if you carry a gun. But statistically speaking, it’s a long shot that you’d actually be significantly safer.

    That’s all I’m saying. I, for one, don’t come close to “needing” a gun.

  14. 2011/07/16 at 08:47

    ? I’ve re-posted my original comment in two segments to see if that made a difference, and it appears to have taken the second, but not the first. The first has links in it, does that influence your comments being accepted?

    Anyway, hope that’s not too confusing. My links were to sources pointing out the low odds of being a victim of violent crime, especially if you’re not engaged in risk activities.

  15. 2011/07/16 at 15:14

    I’m on my phone now. When I get back hope I’ll check the moderation queue. I think if there are a certain number of links it holds it.

  16. 2011/07/16 at 19:26

    Is that the one you wanted approved? I saw there were a couple, but it looked like shortening or multiple submissions. Let me know if that’s the wrong one.

  17. 2011/07/16 at 19:33

    But in response to all of that I’ll just say that the likelihood of one being in a situation where a gun would be needed is largely irrelevant to me, and most other supporters of gun rights. The mere fact that disarming me would almost certainly change the course of events if I were placed in such a situation. I can’t imagine that I, the victim in this scenario, would come out better off.

    Your chances of being killed in a car accident are about 1 in 140, are those odds a valid argument against the extra cost of airbags?

    I would say your likelihood of dieing in a car accident would increase if airbags were gotten rid of, in a similar way I would expect the number of victims of violent crime to increase if potential victims were almost guaranteed to be unarmed. We can’t discount the deterrent effect of not knowing whether your victim will pull out a gun and end your life when you approach them with a gun or a knife or some such thing. I’d say we have fewer people in prison and fewer victims out there because robbery and such are ever so slightly more dangerous to commit than those crimes would be in a disarmed USA.

  18. 2011/07/17 at 23:23
  19. 2011/07/18 at 11:37

    The mere fact that disarming me would almost certainly change the course of events if I were placed in such a situation. I can’t imagine that I, the victim in this scenario, would come out better off.

    I can imagine it both ways. Can I imagine a scenario where there is a desperate crazy person intent on causing serious harm to someone and being in a position to do so and you being in a position to reasonably stop him by having a gun? Sure, it could happen, it HAS happened.

    Can I imagine a scenario where an armed person’s gun gets used against them? Sure.

    Can I imagine a scenario in which an un-armed person is less likely to react violently, which, in turn, causes the dangerous person to act less violently? Sure.

    I can imagine all manner of situations. We could guess all day as to what the likely outcome might be in a hundred different pretend situations. And those would remain guesses.

    So, I stand by my contention that I don’t NEED a gun, not in the slightest. If you want one to make you feel safer or whatever, that’s your right (as long as you meet reasonable regulations/parameters) and I’ve no desire to remove that right.

    I’m just pointing out that statistically, there is no proof that I can imagine where anyone can reasonably argue that we “need” guns for safety in 99.999% of normal daily life.

  20. 2011/07/18 at 11:54

    We can’t discount the deterrent effect of not knowing whether your victim will pull out a gun and end your life when you approach them with a gun or a knife or some such thing.

    We can’t discount that guessed-at effect, nor can we count on it. It COULD be, we might guess, that IF an assailant thinks people are armed, they might be less likely to try robbing someone. Maybe. I don’t know that is the case at all, but it could be. BUT, it could ALSO be the case that, knowing more people are armed results in more ROBBERS arming themselves and being even MORE likely to result to pulling a trigger, since it MIGHT be the case that their victim is armed.

    This, too, is a reasonable hunch, wouldn’t you agree?

    I don’t think we can discount the “wild west” effect that might result from more folk having guns. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem might seem to be a nail. If the only tool you have is a gun, then every problem might tend towards being answered with a bullet – both for potential victims and for potential assailants.

    Do you know of any studies that have been done (not gun-lobby studies, please) on both the DETERRENT affect AND the INCREASED VIOLENCE side affect angles?

  21. 2011/07/18 at 12:24

    The problem I see with what you just said, is that with all the hammers out there in the US today, (more than 100,000,000 by most accounts) a tremendous number of nails are not hammered in.

    It’s all a moot point because firearms have been ruled an individual right anyway.

  22. 2011/07/18 at 16:50

    Well, as I’ve said, I’m not talking about a gun ban, just saying I don’t find them necessary.

    I wonder what you think, though, I’ve heard it reported (as wikipedia says…)

    Gun-related homicide rates in the United States are twenty to thirty-five times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it.

    Why do you think we are such a violent nation? We are a fairly Christian nation, we can freely own guns, we are a civilized nation, we are a free nation… why the violence, do you think?

    For the record, I sure don’t know, I’m just asking the question, although I do wonder if being a part of a people who largely believe in what many call the “myth of redemptive violence” plays a part in that? Or is that common throughout these other nations, as well?

  23. 2011/07/18 at 18:46

    I know that statistic isn’t true. Dig a little deeper and you can find some better data. I wonder if that isn’t misinterpreted somehow on wiki?

    I think we have a huge urban population. An urban population equal to most politically/economically similar nations entire population.

    The other thing is cultural and racial diversity. Given the broad, unparalleled spread we have here, I think it’s a wonder the violence isn’t higher. It’s not racism, its a natural human reaction to things that are different from themselves, whether it be race or whatever else.

    But I think the most notable thing is our violent crime rate isn’t that high. Our murder rate is. A majority of those gun related homicides are premeditated, family or friends type of issues. Not drivebys and such. I don’t imagine that the murder rate could be changed much even if guns were not around.

    With all that said, all types of violent crime are on the decline, while gun ownership is higher than ever. I don’t know that one causes the other, but it makes it quite clear to me that they are not as closely related as gun control advocates would have us think.

    I think it’s too bad that you don’t think the power to topple an oppressive government isn’t necessary. It can’t always or usually be done with hugs. It’s also notable that the military couldn’t really even be used to suppress the population of the US. We are simply too well armed.

  24. 2011/07/19 at 12:34

    …reasonable guess (continuing)…

    But it’s just a guess, at this point. I have not seen any studies supporting such a claim. My guess would be that it is a multiplicity of factors, including some good factors. That is, we ARE more free than other nations and that’s good (although that freedom can lead to some negatives). We ARE more diverse than many other nations and THAT’S a good thing (although diversity has the potential to lead to disagreements).

    But I’d guess that other factors might play a role. Poverty and education levels might have something to do with it. A widespread belief in the beneficial nature of violence might play a role. Wide gaps between the rich and poor might have something to do with it. A certain type of religious background might play a role in it (a belief, for instance, that “GOd/Allah is on our side,” and “It’s okay to do this IF God/Allah is on our side…” perhaps). Easy access to guns might play a role.

    I just don’t think we know at this point nor can tell definitively.

    You said…

    I think it’s too bad that you don’t think the power to topple an oppressive government isn’t necessary.

    I didn’t say that. Having the power to topple an oppressive gov’t IS good and necessary. I just don’t equate that power with guns AND I don’t equate our great nation (even with all its faults) to an oppressive nation. I believe in people power much more than gun power. And beyond even people power, I believe in God’s power.

  25. 2011/07/19 at 15:19

    I can go along with most of that, except the rich/poor thing, which seems like automatic regurgitation of liberal rhetoric.

    As for the rest of it, sure, I doubt religion plays a big role in violence in the US, but maybe.

    You must have more faith in the government than I do. I don’t take it for granted that we are not much oppressed. I fully embrace the fact that governments change and can do so rapidly. I think the fact the force could be met with force if the government turned to that is a huge plus.

    Like I said, few governments are toppled by hugs alone.

  26. 2011/07/19 at 15:35

    Well, it’s a good thing no one is speaking of toppling gov’ts by hugs, then, isn’t it?

    And to be sure, few gov’ts these days are toppled by guns alone, or even by guns, period.

    Or did you miss the Arab Spring?

    If you truly had an oppressive gov’t that was willing to kill her own people, mere guns would not do much to stop tanks and bombs. But if it makes you feel safer, you are free to hold on to yours.

    I just don’t place any more faith in guns than I do in gov’ts.

  27. 2011/07/19 at 16:33

    They have been a real problem in Afghanistan. they don’t have a lot of tanks or bombs. They can set up roadside ones, sure, but they are less effective than what you mention. 43 million armed Americans, less than 2 million soldiers and airmen in the military, many of whom might not fight against the population. You do the math.

    I like to be optimistic about the future, but i also like to be prepared for as many possibilities as I can. Just hoping it will never come to that won’t prevent it. I place no faith in guns, I place my faith in the ability of people to defend themselves, their families and their property, guns can play a role in those acts from time to time.

  28. 2011/07/20 at 08:42

    There’s still a comment of mine awaiting moderation, for what it’s worth…

  29. 2011/07/20 at 20:53

    I don’t have anything in the moderation queue or the spam folder, are you sure it accepted it? WordPress has been doing some funny things with the ‘post comment’ button the last few weeks.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: