Re: Gun Control

by Colme Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:20 am

Paper Tiger wrote:Think I'm beginning to understand you there. However, if you don't mind, can you please explain clearly what is a viable argument? Preferably w/ an example as well?

There are a whole bunch of rules governing what are not legitimate arguments, the basic ones are called fallacies. Anything that breaks these are bad arguments except in special circumstances.

From a anti-gun control perspective a legitimate argument could be:

"People need weapons to prevent the rise of corrupt governments."

However, a legitimate counter argument would be:

"We now have democratic institutions that account for and prevent the rise of (severely) corrupt governments."

my other point was that its TO LATE to make them illegal, in Japan they were banned 60 YEARS AGO before everyone had thier hands on one. now that everyone and their mother has a gun, they are readily available, illegal or not

To me this is like saying "Why clean my room? It's been dirty for so long there is no point." Nobody said this would be a quick solution, sure it could take decades to be fully effective, but compared to the alternative of not doing anything in terms of gun control, its still preferable.

by JAMSM Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:17 pm

Colme wrote:
If you're uncertain I think it speaks for itself.

I'm not uncertain as to whether my facts are facts. I spoke in undisputed fact, then worked from there.
I'm uncertain as to whether you're a tl;dr prick or are just referring to other 'facts'

by DemonEyesJoe Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:26 pm

Colme wrote:
my other point was that its TO LATE to make them illegal, in Japan they were banned 60 YEARS AGO before everyone had thier hands on one. now that everyone and their mother has a gun, they are readily available, illegal or not

To me this is like saying "Why clean my room? It's been dirty for so long there is no point." Nobody said this would be a quick solution, sure it could take decades to be fully effective, but compared to the alternative of not doing anything in terms of gun control, its still preferable.

again, i TOTALLY agree with you, but what about the deaths of all those who cant defend themselves when they are attacked by someone with an illegal weapon? this will never fly. i know what your saying and i agree, but, again, the backlash from it wont allow it to happen

by SkepticalDragon Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:45 pm

Doomguy wrote:I was waiting for this topic to spring up eventually. I'm willing to accept many things as opinions but this is not one of those times. There is only one TRUE purpose for the right to carry arms and that is to protect. Protect against robbers? Protect against gun wielding maniacs? That is small time the real reason is to protect people from the GOVERNMENT.

I will concede that that the right to firearms has numerous applications even in the modern world. But if untrained, unorganized, and underpowered individuals can take on any military (domestic or foreign) to me is argumentative... minimally you might be a nuisance to the overhead drones.

Doomguy wrote:A pistol is NOT going to stop a body armored soldier from breaking into your home. Gun registration only tells the government who has the big guns and therefore they would be the first target if God forbid America has another civil way.

Or... it could be a way of tracking where potentially risky individuals might have access to firearms or who is starting to excessively stockpile munitions.

Doomguy wrote:Stop looking at the issue with emotions and realize that crime is either a problem of poverty (stealing, gangs, terrible domestic issues), or simply the RANDOM acts of insanity (can't explain this one....ask a pastor?)

The mentally/emotionally disordered/troubled are less likely to be violent or commit crime... presumably the same factors that would cause a sane person to be violent or commit crime is about the same reason that would provoke an insane person. But yes the cycle of poverty has a dramatic affect on crime from my understanding of criminology.

Doomguy wrote:I wonder sometimes if people are either looking at the issue with emotions (understandable but false) or for control (Nazi Germany did the same thing and it worked well)

Godwin's law?

Doomguy wrote:Fearing you own government and relying on them to do what they feel is right is not a democracy. It's suppose the be the other way around, the government MUST fear their own people in order for anyone to have any say in matters.

I think democratic government is based on mutual understanding, confidence, and cooperation... where governance is at the consent of the governed and that government respects the liberty and dignity of everyone...

Doomguy wrote:People are people. Some are crazy and will kill for no reason and sadly there is no cure to that.

I agree there are some people (not assessing their mental/emotional health) who commit crime for little or no reason... or perhaps little to no reason that we can relate to. But I want to believe that this is a very small minority of crimes.

DemonEyesJoe wrote:banning guns is a bad idea, although gun related murders would go down it wouldnt lower crime.

Because I am basically pro-firearm rights I agree it is a bad idea. I tend to agree that firearm related violence tends to go down with gun control/bans. However gun control/bans affect on overall crime as I mentioned previously I consider inconclusive...

DemonEyesJoe wrote:as Doomguy said above much of the larger, more powerful dictators first banned guns before they took over. im no history buff, but, that old saying of history repeating itself...there has to be some merit to it

The United Kingdom and Japan have effectively banned firearms but they haven't had a dictatorial takeover. But again no one in the formal sphere of United States government is considering an effective ban on firearms.

DemonEyesJoe wrote:this is a bad refference that anti-gun people like to bring up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
this does not reflect overall crime.

No... it doesn't... I don't think anyone claimed that it did? But I could be mistaken.

DemonEyesJoe wrote:on the note of japan.
the gun no gun law was made in 1958!!! guns have had alot of time to dwindle down and not to mention, at the time, i dont belive guns were as glorifyed as they are now. also, police are on top of the anti-gun laws making sure its kept in control as much as they can. HOWEVER just becasue guns are banned doesnt mean criminals are not getting thier hands on them (which seems to be what people will think happen if they are banned in the US) http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/806/9PacRimLPolyJ165.pdf?sequence=1 scroll down and you will see that guns are actually rising.

When firearms were banned is irrelevant to me personally, except that a jurisdiction that has had longer time at effectively implementing such policies/laws are more likely to be further along in the effects of such policies/laws. But when the United Kingdom started to ban firearms they had grace/amnesty periods where civilians could without penalty hand over illegal firearms.

But on the last topic of this nature I support retooling, refunding, and reforming law enforcement agencies to enforce already existent firearm laws... like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

DemonEyesJoe wrote:and now for the last part in comparison to japan. this doesnt need facts or anything...how do you think guns get into japan? japan is an island that has had guns banned for around 60 years. America is in close relation to many other countries not to mention already haveing a (pardon me) FUCK TON OF GUNS ALREADY IN THE COUNTRY.

Merely because Japan is an "archipelago" doesn't mean that the Yakuza and other criminal/militant/terrorist syndicates have much difficulty getting their hands on munitions. However overall Japan has had relative success in reducing firearm related injury and crime...

DemonEyesJoe wrote:aif guns are banned in america i can promise you gun-murder crimes will SPIKE OH SO FUCKING HARD. what needs to happen is PROPER DOCUMENTATION AND TRACKING OF ALL GUNS IN THE US. but...*sigh*
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom
and
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom---atf

I don't think firearms will ever be broadly banned. However I doubt there would be a "spike" in firearm related crimes or homicide because of a ban... but it's possible... it could hypothetically plunge America into some kind of civil war. Which as I pointed out before is one of the background plots to "Deus Ex" (2000).

The NSF (National Secessionist Forces, a fictional terrorist/militia organization) are the lst remnants who fought for independence when congress passed more comprehensive gun control laws... and subsequently lost plunging the world into economic depression requiring UN peacekeeping and police forces to maintain the peace... But this is all off point.

DemonEyesJoe wrote:i know, its comedy central, but this guy is smart.

No doubt... as much as I enjoy the dailyshow and even somewhat admire keeping to the traditional roots of comedy, I keep in mind that he has a staff to make him look the best they can.

DemonEyesJoe wrote:and now something simple, america is never invaded

I will stop you right there... are you perhaps forgetting the War of 1812?

Remember... The British invaded and burned down the White House??? That whole incident???

DemonEyesJoe wrote:(as many of you know, china basicly owns us) because EVERYONE HAS GUNS, that is very frightening for anyone willing to attack a country when not only do you have to fight the military, but you also have to fight the citenziens who are just as armed as the military. americas military is LARGER THAN THE PAID MILITARY WE ARE OUR OWN MILITARY.

I will concede I have heard people say that a well armed population is a minimal deterrent to invasion. Most notably I remember a story about a military adviser telling the Japanese Emperor during the second world war that invading America would be too costly since there was a gun hiding behind every blade of grass... Not sure if that story is true or if I am accurately representing it. But I could see how trying to invade an armed population would be a nuisance... fighting the military as you press forward and fighting insurgency along your supply lines... that has to be difficult.

DemonEyesJoe wrote:so the question is, why doesnt anyone attack small island japan with all thier no-guns? well, 1:america has a partnership with them, 2:they have a great navy and 3:Gundams

Japan's self-defense force complements the military alliance the United States has with them. But the greatest deterrent to a conflict with Japan now I suspect is more economically based...

MiniSiets wrote:The second amendment only talks about the right to bear arms in the context of a *well-regulated* militia. It says nothing about the rights of individuals to bear arms, nor could it possibly take into consideration the fact that weaponry has drastically evolved from the days of muskets and bayonets. The embellishment of the US constitution like it's this holy grail of perfection is pure fantasy. The second amendment is called the second amendment because it was added to the constitution at a later date after it was already conceived. The founding fathers were not infallible and their laws are subject to change.

This is sort of true... I will explain. The Bill of Rights didn't immediately apply to the States as it does now, which has been called incorporation (in fact the second amendment has been one of the most recent provisions incorporated) which is a result of the fourteenth amendment. So in fact you could argue the authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights NEVER meant it to be a guarantee to firearms because it's scope was the federal government... it was meant primarily as preventing of the federal government from disarming states or individuals... but hypothetically States could disarm them till incorporation. But this is mostly irrelevant because America being born from revolution has kept it's revolutionary and frontier attitude... as a result all States have explicit mention in their bill of rights to the right of firearms... and the United States Supreme Court SINCE has ruled that the second amendment does effectively give people the right to bear arms (even if they are not apart of a militia/military like organization).

MiniSiets wrote:Your invocation of Godwin's Law is baseless. Not only do you fail to cite a credible source to support it, but even if I assumed it was true it doesn't guarantee that all governments can only implement gun control for this reason. Last I checked, Japan's strict gun laws haven't turned them into a genocidal totalitarian state.

Yeah... all they do now is draw animes about genocidal totalitarian states... never mind that joke failed.

Belsfir wrote:The second admendment is as follows: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Contrary to what you said, it DOES state the right of the individual to bear arms.

It did... but it didn't... for the reasons mentioned above. But it definitely does now according to the Supreme Court which is what matters.

Belsfir wrote:Japan, btw, has had its gun control laws for a long time now. The people were willing to it as well.

I'm no historian but I think Japan surrendering to the Allies was a big factor in that... The United States pushed very hard to disarm Japan in every possible way they could. But Japan now enjoying the prosperity of peace have been resistant to rearming themselves.

Colme wrote:
Anecdotes are not arguments.

Gun Control - Page 3 Antidote_by_spademm-d5daq16

Unless it's one of these...

oh wait... the spelling...

Colme wrote:
As an aside, why are most of the things explicitly labeled in this thread as facts not facts? Do people seriously not understand what facts are?

The fact is I may not... but that's a paradox and a poor attempt at humor.

Paper Tiger wrote:I said this in the last thread, and I will repeat it here - what works in Japan will not work in the US, all "gun culture" and "militia" reasons aside geography works against it. As in, Japan is a fairly small country with huge population, when you call the cops there chances are they already have a patrol unit near your vicinity. On the other hand the US is a huge country, with some rather large scarcely populated areas - for instance if someone from my household calls 911, the fastest we can expect a police presence is half an hour, and that is if the deputy runs his cruiser foot to the floor and does not wipe out in the process. If the US police forces had the manpower and the means and willingness to respond ANYWHERE in the country in mere minutes then Japanese-style draconian anti-gun measures may be applicable, but till then those who live out in no-man's-land still need the means to defend themselves against any and all threats, be them violent criminals or rabid wild life.

There are still rural areas of Japan.

Spoiler:

But this is a very valid point in my humble opinion, the United States still has massive unincorporated areas... America still has frontier areas when the sheriff goes to bed law enforcement shuts down for the night. I agree comparing Japan with the United States... or even implying that their policies/laws would be as effective in America is somewhat unfair as I previously mentioned. But the point is that gun control policies/laws can be effective if there is the political will for them to be effective. Right now America lacks the political will to enact gun control reform or to enable its police services to enforce the laws already there.

Paper Tiger wrote:Another point that I didn't see brought up - statistics are only as accurate as the criteria of what gets included in them - situations where simply producing a firearm causes the assailant to abandon and flee are usually not included, for the simple reason they cannot be confirmed and often are not even reported to the authorities to begin with. I've had such encounters, and about every female I know who carries has had at least one as well - lots of messed up people out there who see a lone individual in a dark-lit area as a perfect target, but when said target actually turns out to be armed all of sudden they become a threat and thus not worth further pursuing by your regular crime-of-opportunity perpetrator. A knife or even a vicious-looking machete does not have the same stopping effect, as it takes fitness and skills to use effectively, whereas at close range any handgun can be deadly to a criminal in the hands of even an inexperienced shooter.

I am not entirely sure what is counted and what is not counted. However I think even if incidents you mentioned are not tailed, overall reduction is still good.

Paper Tiger wrote:The above are simply the opinions of a mostly-regular Joe Shmoe who respects and obeys the law but does not rely solely on the law to guarantee his and his family's safety.

SkepticalDragon wrote:As a liberal libertarian I actually support the right of people to have firearms... There is plenty of room for reform of policy, law, and even treaty that can enhance American rights to firearms while helping to drive down crime rates.

I think it's respectable to want a firearm to protect yourself or anyone.. and you want your right to firearms unimpeded is fair. But I think its also fair to say that America can have it's cake and eat it too... that with a little bit of vertical thinking America can drive down these statistical gun related crimes.

MiniSiets wrote:
Colme wrote:
plantkingman wrote:The government can have all the gun control laws that they want. Criminals and other dangerous groups will always find ways of getting guns of all kinds and all calibers.

I haven't seen too many criminals running around with railguns and bazookas. I wonder why.
More importantly the fact that people will commit crimes regardless doesn't mean we should make it easy for them. I guess we should just legalize murder then since people are going to do it anyway?

I have never understood this argument... because it always makes me wonder... WHAT LAWS DO CRIMINALS OBEY!? As such I tend to consider it anarchist rhetoric or perhaps a failed attempt at arguing the law should be reasonable to law abiding citizens. The latter I might consider worth discussing.

DemonEyesJoe wrote:
Colme wrote:
DemonEyesJoe wrote:becasue only the military has the tech to build a railgun, oh, and this girl

and some higher tiers of organized crime probally DO have RPGs, but, good luck finding a time they would be used.

No, the reason people don't have these military-grade weapons is because they're illegal (and thus unavailable).

If you want to talk about usefulness, how about grenades? I can't say I've heard of two many criminals with those. Just ask Brick:

good point, but your falling back to my other point, have they EVER been available? my other point was that its TO LATE to make them illegal, in Japan they were banned 60 YEARS AGO before everyone had thier hands on one. now that everyone and their mother has a gun, they are readily available, illegal or not

During a darker time of American history criminal syndicates used assault weapons (like the fully automatic thompson submachine gun) that had a devastating scope.

Spoiler:

by Belsfir Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:58 pm

Colme wrote:
DemonEyesJoe wrote:becasue only the military has the tech to build a railgun, oh, and this girl

and some higher tiers of organized crime probally DO have RPGs, but, good luck finding a time they would be used.

No, the reason people don't have these military-grade weapons is because they're illegal (and thus unavailable).

If you want to talk about usefulness, how about grenades? I can't say I've heard of two many criminals with those. Just ask Brick:

If in your opinion that invalidates my opinion as a viable argument, so be it.

It's not my opinion that your argument isn't viable. Anecdotes used to make generalizations are never viable arguments.

You can find them and obtain them if you know the right people and have the right money. The reason why criminals don't have them or use them is because its very impracticable, the price to obtain it would be much higher than to create your own pipe bomb or something of that sort.

by Colme Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:04 pm

DemonEyesJoe wrote:again, i TOTALLY agree with you, but what about the deaths of all those who cant defend themselves when they are attacked by someone with an illegal weapon? this will never fly. i know what your saying and i agree, but, again, the backlash from it wont allow it to happen

There could very well always be crazy people who get there hands on guns (example: 2012 Norway shootings) but the numbers would be severely reduced. If hardly anyone has guns you don't have as much need for one to protect yourself. It's already unrealistic to expect everyone to always carry around a gun just in case, and it would be even more so if guns were restricted.

For the record, I'm also absolutely for keeping hunting weapons at the very least. I grew up in rural Ontario and nearly all the hunters I know are respectable people and very environmentally conscious.

You can find them and obtain them if you know the right people and have the right money. The reason why criminals don't have them or use them is because its very impracticable, the price to obtain it would be much higher than to create your own pipe bomb or something of that sort.

Actually, pipe bombs support my point too. Speaking of practicality, there is quite a difference between firearms (which are easily obtained and require only a trigger finger) and pipe bombs (which cannot be bought, require technical expertise and presumably days of work and risk).

by Paper Tiger Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:41 pm

Colme wrote:There are a whole bunch of rules governing what are not legitimate arguments, the basic ones are called fallacies. Anything that breaks these are bad arguments except in special circumstances.

From a anti-gun control perspective a legitimate argument could be:

"People need weapons to prevent the rise of corrupt governments."

However, a legitimate counter argument would be:

"We now have democratic institutions that account for and prevent the rise of (severely) corrupt governments."

Alright, then following your example:

"People need weapons to defend themselves when either police response does not occur in a manner expedite enough to do so effectively (as is the case in large rural areas), or the assault on them happens too quickly to allow for calling the police (such as being ambushed in a parking lot)."

How's that? Parts in brackets are practical examples of how/where said argument applies, feel free to leave them out for purpose of validity of the argument.

by Paper Tiger Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:54 pm

SkepticalDragon wrote:But the point is that gun control policies/laws can be effective if there is the political will for them to be effective. Right now America lacks the political will to enact gun control reform or to enable its police services to enforce the laws already there.

I think a lot of that is caused by the way things are presented: something bad happens and media plasters it all over, gun-uneducated masses freak out and start screaming "ban all guns & confiscate what's out there!", to which the gun-educated masses immediately respond proportionally with "over my dead body!". The government is actually looking for a middle ground, but as long both sides continue to see things just in black and white its efforts are gonna be flamed by both sides as "not enough" and "too much" respectively. If people calmed down a bit and thought about it rationally, I believe a peaceful agreement can be achieved.

SkepticalDragon wrote:I am not entirely sure what is counted and what is not counted. However I think even if incidents you mentioned are not tailed, overall reduction is still good.

And that was my point exactly - a firearm need not be fired to be an effective deterrent against crime, something fierce anti-gun activists completely fail to acknowledge.

SkepticalDragon wrote:I think it's respectable to want a firearm to protect yourself or anyone.. and you want your right to firearms unimpeded is fair. But I think its also fair to say that America can have it's cake and eat it too... that with a little bit of vertical thinking America can drive down these statistical gun related crimes.

Actually we should be able to do it. Step one, make the gun-awareness classes focus not so much on HOW to use the gun (that can easily be learned on one's own time at the range), but instead teach people WHEN it's acceptable to use said gun. And yes, that would include knowing all local applicable laws by heart, as tedious as that may be - IMHO if one is not willing to put such effort into the right of obtaining a firearm, they cannot be expected to use said firearm in a law-abiding way (mostly due to sheer ignorance than malicious intent, but end result is the same).

by Colme Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:36 pm

Paper Tiger wrote:Alright, then following your example:

"People need weapons to defend themselves when either police response does not occur in a manner expedite enough to do so effectively (as is the case in large rural areas), or the assault on them happens too quickly to allow for calling the police (such as being ambushed in a parking lot)."

How's that? Parts in brackets are practical examples of how/where said argument applies, feel free to leave them out for purpose of validity of the argument.

It's a good argument. My answer (similar to one I've given above) is that by limiting the availability of guns you disarm both parties. Sure there is the possibility of criminals still getting guns, but we know that incident rates drop significantly. While you're right to worry about people who might be attacked, we can't expect people to carry guns for their own safety, some people just wouldn't, so reducing the overall danger is preferable.

Also, your suggestions on training gun owners on when they should be used is great.

by JAMSM Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:49 pm

So now, what was the point in starting this discussion, Colme?
Just a question, a fancy, a piece of bemusement.

by DemonEyesJoe Thu Feb 07, 2013 8:27 pm

SkepticalDragon wrote:Alot of Stuff

by Belsfir Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:08 am

Colme wrote:
DemonEyesJoe wrote:again, i TOTALLY agree with you, but what about the deaths of all those who cant defend themselves when they are attacked by someone with an illegal weapon? this will never fly. i know what your saying and i agree, but, again, the backlash from it wont allow it to happen

There could very well always be crazy people who get there hands on guns (example: 2012 Norway shootings) but the numbers would be severely reduced. If hardly anyone has guns you don't have as much need for one to protect yourself. It's already unrealistic to expect everyone to always carry around a gun just in case, and it would be even more so if guns were restricted.

For the record, I'm also absolutely for keeping hunting weapons at the very least. I grew up in rural Ontario and nearly all the hunters I know are respectable people and very environmentally conscious.

You can find them and obtain them if you know the right people and have the right money. The reason why criminals don't have them or use them is because its very impracticable, the price to obtain it would be much higher than to create your own pipe bomb or something of that sort.

Actually, pipe bombs support my point too. Speaking of practicality, there is quite a difference between firearms (which are easily obtained and require only a trigger finger) and pipe bombs (which cannot be bought, require technical expertise and presumably days of work and risk).

Pipe bombs do not support your point... They are created with common household chemicals, for an example, nail polish remover. Coincidentally, Hara Hara Tokei, published in March 1974 by a far-left terrorist organization explains that “Anyone with a middle-school level knowledge of chemistry can do it”. (Whats even more ironic about that is that its a Japanese book...)

Please check the facts before making an assumption like that.

SkepticalDragon wrote:
Belsfir wrote:
The second admendment is as follows: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Contrary to what you said, it DOES state the right of the individual to bear arms.

It did... but it didn't... for the reasons mentioned above. But it definitely does now according to the Supreme Court which is what matters.

That's suggesting that the authority of the Supreme court exceeds that of the Constitution...

SkepticalDragon wrote:
Belsfir wrote:
Japan, btw, has had its gun control laws for a long time now. The people were willing to it as well.

I'm no historian but I think Japan surrendering to the Allies was a big factor in that... The United States pushed very hard to disarm Japan in every possible way they could. But Japan now enjoying the prosperity of peace have been resistant to rearming themselves.

After being toppled off from the top, and being nuked... Im pretty sure they loved the idea of peace.

Alot of talk about Japan...
Anyways, I wanna push onto this subject a little more... You guys all talk about Japan being an idol for gun control. Yet, how bad can things go if guns are smuggled or stolen in Japan? Whos gonna stop someone if they have a gun.. And nobody else does..

Things could go really wrong if someone stole weapons from a military base... Which has happened before: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%8E%96%E7%8F%A0%E9%A7%90%E5%B1%AF%E5%9C%B0%E6%AD%A6%E5%99%A8%E4%BA%A1%E5%A4%B1%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6

by DemonEyesJoe Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:02 am

somewhere back there i posted a research paper by the government showing how many guns are confiscated by the police in japan, MOST of the guns confiscated are actually MADE, or reconstructed

by Colme Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:33 am

JAMSM wrote:So now, what was the point in starting this discussion, Colme?
Just a question, a fancy, a piece of bemusement.

It's always nice to see what other people think and to test the strength of one's thoughts against others; if I'm wrong I'd love to know it.

Belsfir wrote:Please check the facts before making an assumption like that.

Oh a terrorist organization said making pipe-bombs was easy? You sure got me.

There's no need to be condescending. Paper Tiger and JAMSM are conducting themselves quite professionally.

Anyways, I wanna push onto this subject a little more... You guys all talk about Japan being an idol for gun control. Yet, how bad can things go if guns are smuggled or stolen in Japan? Whos gonna stop someone if they have a gun..

The police usually, since they still have guns.

by JAMSM Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:52 am

Eh. now, I'm not going to do heavy research for this post

I do know, however, that (already stated) the right to bear arms was amended to the constitution. I also know that the party pushing for it was the anti-federalists. now, excuse my ad hominem but the anti-federalists were disorganized. they didn't even want a federal government, and so they pushed guarantees that the government wouldn't do anything anyway, now, ten of the most sensible of these guarantees were accepted by the more organized federalists as reasonable worries of the american populous, and added, as the first ten amendments, to the constitution.

the second of these was the right to bear arms.

in a somewhat scrutiny filled light, can we not assume that this was mentioned by the anti-federalists at the time to retaliate against the government, should it be needed

that's all good and dandy, but
A. we don't need to retaliate against the government, there's too many systems already in place to prevent it from becoming corrupt enough that we'd need to retaliate
B. Egypt (as previously mentioned in this thread) successfully took over their government without the use of firearms

so then, what I'm trying to say is:

I fully back keeping guns, however...

the reasons put forth for doing so are total bs.

(Curveball, eh?)

by Belsfir Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:22 am

Colme wrote:
JAMSM wrote:So now, what was the point in starting this discussion, Colme?
Just a question, a fancy, a piece of bemusement.

It's always nice to see what other people think and to test the strength of one's thoughts against others; if I'm wrong I'd love to know it.

Belsfir wrote:Please check the facts before making an assumption like that.

Oh a terrorist organization said making pipe-bombs was easy? You sure got me.

There's no need to be condescending. Paper Tiger and JAMSM are conducting themselves quite professionally.

Anyways, I wanna push onto this subject a little more... You guys all talk about Japan being an idol for gun control. Yet, how bad can things go if guns are smuggled or stolen in Japan? Whos gonna stop someone if they have a gun..

The police usually, since they still have guns.

Sorry? I don't intend to offend anyone here in our debate, but I am quite concerned that the points presented are credibly cited. Tone of voice is not easily projected through text as it would seem for both for my point and yours being (?)sarcastic(?, on the part about the terrorist organization, correct me if your not).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Japan#Tables
It would seem so that the police are armed in Japan, but this is not true for some European nations which banned firearms. Anyways, I would imagine that they are much more faster in response there as well, as with here in America, its a lengthy wait.

Even if gun control laws are created, would they be effectual?
On a post of mine in the first page, I found an interview stating that some of the police would rather quit their jobs than to have the task of taking arms away from people.

That interview.

But, it seems there is more than that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/us/some-sheriffs-object-to-call-for-tougher-gun-laws.html

http://www.yumasun.com/news/law-84995-citizens-enforcement.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/virginia-approves-bill-to-undermine-obama-gun-control.html

Were gonna have issues if gun control laws are enacted...
How could gun control efforts be effectual if the police won't enforce it? We would be creating a division in our country, as there are gonna be people who will not let go of their guns and the police won't care. Who is gonna stop them? The Feds? Not to mention things could go violent if people did show up to confiscate them... Its a plan doomed to failure if even attempted.

It worked for for other countries without struggle because the people were willing, but in our country, the fact we have been debating this for many years is conclusive proof.

http://www.largo.org/lawSup.html

This tells of when uniformed officers lined up on the steps of the Capitol greeting Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Benson and showing support for the semi-automatic gun ban, in 1994.

Only ten officers from one police department were present, they were lied to about the original purpose of their detail, and were faced with disciplinary action when they stated their objections.

Bet you haven't ever heard of this one:

When President Clinton went to Minneapolis on August 12 and posed with police officers the day after the crime bill was initially defeated, they had to bring in on-duty officers from four Minneapolis Police Department units and from surrounding suburbs because they could not find enough off-duty officers to volunteer to go up on stage with Mr. Clinton in support of his gun ban and crime bill.

Minneapolis P. D. sources told LEAA that White House aides even ordered officers working at the event in a perimeter security capacity to "get up on stage and fill up the holes"

by Paper Tiger Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:08 am

Colme wrote:It's a good argument. My answer (similar to one I've given above) is that by limiting the availability of guns you disarm both parties. Sure there is the possibility of criminals still getting guns, but we know that incident rates drop significantly. While you're right to worry about people who might be attacked, we can't expect people to carry guns for their own safety, some people just wouldn't, so reducing the overall danger is preferable.

While I can see where you're coming from, my main concern was not so much about the bad guys being armed w/ guns - even if both sides are armed as long as the encounter is on your own turf or you hold the element of surprise w/ proper training you can successfully neutralize the threat (forcing them to retreat does qualify as neutralizing the threat). What bothers me are the situations when there are multiple bad guys working together - once firearms are removed from both sides even if the baddies carry nothing more than knives confronting them directly becomes a really bad idea, because you no longer have effective means to at the very least keep all of them at bay till the cavalry arrives. In other words: "one person w/ one gun can potentially stop multiple firearm-equipped assailants, whereas one person w/o a gun cannot realistically be expected to stop multiple assailants even if they only come at him/her w/ blunt weapons".

Belsfir wrote:Anyways, I wanna push onto this subject a little more... You guys all talk about Japan being an idol for gun control. Yet, how bad can things go if guns are smuggled or stolen in Japan? Whos gonna stop someone if they have a gun.. And nobody else does..

We have the same issue here in the US, it's called "gun-free zones". The problem w/ them is that they are rarely enforced, meaning law-abiding folks follow their spirit while to a criminal a gun-free zone means that once inside only he/she has the guns and can therefore do as he/she pleases without worrying about possible resistance. IMHO a gun-free zone has no real meaning unless it can be ensured that anyone and everyone inside it is indeed disarmed - if need be fence it off and put scanners and armed guards at every point of entry/exit. Most schools, while labeled as "gun-free zones", are in fact not - and we know what happens when some nut-job chooses to ignore the posted signs...

by Belsfir Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:25 am

Paper Tiger wrote:
Colme wrote:It's a good argument. My answer (similar to one I've given above) is that by limiting the availability of guns you disarm both parties. Sure there is the possibility of criminals still getting guns, but we know that incident rates drop significantly. While you're right to worry about people who might be attacked, we can't expect people to carry guns for their own safety, some people just wouldn't, so reducing the overall danger is preferable.
While I can see where you're coming from, my main concern was not so much about the bad guys being armed w/ guns - even if both sides are armed as long as the encounter is on your own turf or you hold the element of surprise w/ proper training you can successfully neutralize the threat (forcing them to retreat does qualify as neutralizing the threat). What bothers me are the situations when there are multiple bad guys working together - once firearms are removed from both sides even if the baddies carry nothing more than knives confronting them directly becomes a really bad idea, because you no longer have effective means to at the very least keep all of them at bay till the cavalry arrives. In other words: "one person w/ one gun can potentially stop multiple firearm-equipped assailants, whereas one person w/o a gun cannot realistically be expected to stop multiple assailants even if they only come at him/her w/ blunt weapons".

Criminals would be more confident in their attacks if they knew that the victims cannot defend themselves. It would be safe to say then, that the possibility of a armed civilian would lower the criminal's confidence that they can achieve their goal, and possibly deter them from even doing it. In the case of multiple assailants, if one man starts to fire back at them, I would imagine that they would be more inclined to flee than if nobody was armed.

Paper Tiger wrote:
Belsfir wrote:Anyways, I wanna push onto this subject a little more... You guys all talk about Japan being an idol for gun control. Yet, how bad can things go if guns are smuggled or stolen in Japan? Whos gonna stop someone if they have a gun.. And nobody else does..
We have the same issue here in the US, it's called "gun-free zones". The problem w/ them is that they are rarely enforced, meaning law-abiding folks follow their spirit while to a criminal a gun-free zone means that once inside only he/she has the guns and can therefore do as he/she pleases without worrying about possible resistance. IMHO a gun-free zone has no real meaning unless it can be ensured that anyone and everyone inside it is indeed disarmed - if need be fence it off and put scanners and armed guards at every point of entry/exit. Most schools, while labeled as "gun-free zones", are in fact not - and we know what happens when some nut-job chooses to ignore the posted signs...

I don't see these supposed "gun-free zones" as being beneficial either. If someone had ill intent on using a firearm, why would they pay heed to these zones in the first place? The only effect I can see out of this is that the people who should be armed, will not be armed. Its like putting up a big sign over a school saying "Come here! Were defenseless!".

by SkepticalDragon Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:22 am

Belsfir wrote:That's suggesting that the authority of the Supreme court exceeds that of the Constitution...

Yes and no. Incorporation of the Bill of Rights happened as a result of the fourteenth amendment and has been a progressive incorporation, meaning that the second amendment wasn't incorporated till 2010... meaning that hypothetically before that date the second amendment to the United States constitution only affected the federal government.

In fact when I was in my political science studies back in 2007 one of my professors pointed this out and said that it was only a matter of time till this provision became incorporated because she couldn't imagine why the supreme court wouldn't incorporate it (because the supreme court does periodically reject incorporation, for example excessive fines)...

But because the constitution of the United States is by it's very nature a vague ideological or philosophical document (eg: it doesn't specify explicitly the supreme court's ability to interpret ... or how to interpret for that matter... that the supreme court can nullify or declare acts of governance unconstitutional... the procedures or standards of evidence for the supreme court... and the list goes on). Out judicial independence and the necessities that a social contract implies (which the constitution is) the United States Supreme Court has in a sense expanded its jurisdiction and authority greatly from when it was founded... which isn't so terrible because it puts living human beings as the guardians of the American social contract, which has become more or less a "living constitution" regardless if conservative constitutionalists like it or not... because as you may notice again the constitution itself is silent on if the constitution was intended to be a "living constitution" or not...

So yes "in a way" they are a bit above the constitution because they are the court of last resort in matters regarding the interpretation and implementation of the constitution. But no... the supreme court ruled in 2010 to incorporate the second amendment because of the fourteenth amendment. Also the supreme court justices (both conservative and liberally leaning) all firmly believe in the constitution in what it means for America... I imagine none of them see themselves above it. Which really if anyone is to have the "rule of law" (a complex philosophical/legal term, which some have argued no one has ever truly had) the law cannot be mere words on paper. I hope that gives you a satisfactory explanation.

Belsfir wrote:After being toppled off from the top, and being nuked... Im pretty sure they loved the idea of peace.

If you read the article I cited yes Japan being defeated or surrendering had a dramatic impact of their view of war, military, and nationalism. During the reconstruction period groups of Japanese who were formerly suppressed were able to take advantage of the "peace constitution" such as more liberally minded Japanese who saw the destruction that an ideologically driven state had on themselves and the world. It helped form a popular consensus that war, military, and excessive nationalism is self-defeating... which when more conservative minded Japanese have attempted to amend their constitution and laws to rearm Japan the people overwhelmingly rejected it.

Spoiler:

Belsfir wrote:Belsfir"]Alot of talk about Japan...
Anyways, I wanna push onto this subject a little more... You guys all talk about Japan being an idol for gun control. Yet, how bad can things go if guns are smuggled or stolen in Japan? Whos gonna stop someone if they have a gun.. And nobody else does..

As I mentioned before Japan has virtually banned all firearms (moreover for civilians)... and because I tend to be pro-gun rights I wouldn't want to live in a place where the population is forcefully disarmed. I respect and admire the Japanese for what they have accomplished but it's not my preference. The point of Japan and many of the other nations mentioned is this... gun control can be effective if the political will is there to make it effective... and yes gun control does impact gun related crimes.

by Colme Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:51 pm

JAMSM wrote:I fully back keeping guns, however...

the reasons put forth for doing so are total bs.

(Curveball, eh?)

I can get behind that, but the plan isn't to take away all guns, as you know. Razz

If more moderates like you spoke up we could have a discussion about what goes and what stays.

Belsfir wrote:I found an interview stating that some of the police would rather quit their jobs than to have the task of taking arms away from people.

So America has some cops who don't understand how laws work? That's unfortunate, but doesn't really prove anything (other than you need better cops).

Paper Tiger wrote:"one person w/ one gun can potentially stop multiple firearm-equipped assailants, whereas one person w/o a gun cannot realistically be expected to stop multiple assailants even if they only come at him/her w/ blunt weapons".

I understand what you're getting at, but it is still easier to escape multiple assailants when none of them have a gun. And again, not everyone can be expected to be packing heat in case a roving gang attacks them.

Belsfir wrote:Criminals would be more confident in their attacks if they knew that the victims cannot defend themselves.

However, criminals would be less confident if they didn't have guns. Lets not play arm-chair psychologist though, we couldn't possibly know these things.

Belsfir wrote:I don't see these supposed "gun-free zones" as being beneficial either.

The problem here is not the gun free zone, and you've already touched on it. You can't have a little 'gun-free zone' island smack in the middle of somewhere full of guns. The mayor of NY was complaining the other day about how his laws prevent guns from coming from the city, they flow in from around it.

by Belsfir Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:49 pm

Colme wrote:
Belsfir wrote:I found an interview stating that some of the police would rather quit their jobs than to have the task of taking arms away from people.
So America has some cops who don't understand how laws work? That's unfortunate, but doesn't really prove anything (other than you need better cops).

Its not that they don't understand, its either that they believe that such an act violates freedom of the people... Or, that they are afraid people would go violent if they go around asking for their weapons... Putting myself in their shoes, I wouldn't want to risk my safety over that.

Colme wrote:
Belsfir wrote:Criminals would be more confident in their attacks if they knew that the victims cannot defend themselves.

However, criminals would be less confident if they didn't have guns. Lets not play arm-chair psychologist though, we couldn't possibly know these things.

Its not all about the criminals having firearms themselves, I already pulled statistics stating that there are much greater weapons to use for a mass murder than a gun. Those being fire and explosives, which can be made under legal and undetectable measures.

Belsfir wrote:
According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

There we go... Taken from an older post of mine here. There is also only a small difference from gun victims to CQC weapons, and fire and explosives are much higher on the scale, rendering the point about criminals using guns being more dangerous as false.

Colme wrote:
Belsfir wrote:I don't see these supposed "gun-free zones" as being beneficial either.

The problem here is not the gun free zone, and you've already touched on it. You can't have a little 'gun-free zone' island smack in the middle of somewhere full of guns. The mayor of NY was complaining the other day about how his laws prevent guns from coming from the city, they flow in from around it.

The above point you made could be applied to a national scale.

(It would seem that this argument is starting to cycle around. I had to pull my previously posted data a couple of times already. I don't see this going anywhere anymore.)

by Colme Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:02 pm

Belsfir wrote:Its not that they don't understand, its either that they believe that such an act violates freedom of the people.

That is not understanding. Their job is to enforce the law, which often means going into danger. If there are police officers that can't grasp this they should be let go. If they won't do their jobs there are plenty of other people looking for work.

Belsfir wrote:Those being fire and explosives, which can be made under legal and undetectable measures.

As I understood it, creating improvised explosives is illegal. Also, none of your statistics indicated that 'fire and explosive' killings come anywhere near the amount of gun crime, just that when they happen (which is hardly ever) they are devastating.

Belsfir wrote:The above point you made could be applied to a national scale.

No, it really couldn't. Unless you honestly believe transporting anything illegal across the American border is easy.

Belsfir wrote:(It would seem that this argument is starting to cycle around. I had to pull my previously posted data a couple of times already. I don't see this going anywhere anymore.)

This happened once, and only because you don't seem to understand what your own statistics indicate (see above).

by Belsfir Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:00 am

Colme wrote:
Belsfir wrote:Its not that they don't understand, its either that they believe that such an act violates freedom of the people.

That is not understanding. Their job is to enforce the law, which often means going into danger. If there are police officers that can't grasp this they should be let go. If they won't do their jobs there are plenty of other people looking for work.

Belsfir wrote:Those being fire and explosives, which can be made under legal and undetectable measures.

As I understood it, creating improvised explosives is illegal. Also, none of your statistics indicated that 'fire and explosive' killings come anywhere near the amount of gun crime, just that when they happen (which is hardly ever) they are devastating.

Belsfir wrote:The above point you made could be applied to a national scale.

No, it really couldn't. Unless you honestly believe transporting anything illegal across the American border is easy.

Belsfir wrote:(It would seem that this argument is starting to cycle around. I had to pull my previously posted data a couple of times already. I don't see this going anywhere anymore.)

This happened once, and only because you don't seem to understand what your own statistics indicate (see above).

My own statistics indicate that in mass killings, that guns are only used half of the time, that guns don't stray too far from CQC weapons, and that explosives and fire turn out a higher death toll... I don't see how you can misinterpret this, and I clearly understand what this means. I have to re-post my data because the points which I refuted with it have been brought in. This has also occurred more than once already.

No, it really couldn't. Unless you honestly believe transporting anything illegal across the American border is easy.

Well... That seems a bit oblivious to the state of our current border security. Many families with small children often cross our southern border illegally quite frequently too...

As I understood it, creating improvised explosives is illegal. Also, none of your statistics indicated that 'fire and explosive' killings come anywhere near the amount of gun crime, just that when they happen (which is hardly ever) they are devastating.

Obviously making IEDs are illegal, but how are they gonna be counter acted? They are made with simple house cleaning chemicals, who is gonna know that they will be used to make a bomb? Also, and once again, guns are only used in half of mass murder crimes.

This argument is really not progressing anymore. I appreciate the opinions of others and the amount of research on the topic. I have learned many a new thing in our debate as well. However, I fear that if it continues, it will merely become a cesspool of a discussion.

by Colme Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:30 am

Belsfir wrote:My own statistics indicate that in mass killings, that guns are only used half of the time, that guns don't stray too far from CQC weapons, and that explosives and fire turn out a higher death toll... I don't see how you can misinterpret this, and I clearly understand what this means. I have to re-post my data because the points which I refuted with it have been brought in. This has also occurred more than once already.

I'll spell it out for you, since you haven't paid attention. Although "fire and explosives" may cause more deaths in an individual incident there are far less incidents with them than guns. The other half of the time guns aren't used isn't "fire and explosives" so you cannot combine the two points.

Belsfir wrote:Well... That seems a bit oblivious to the state of our current border security.

You've never actually crossed the American border, have you? Even the Canadian side is absurdly heavily patrolled and guarded.

Belsfir wrote:Obviously making IEDs are illegal, but how are they gonna be counter acted?

So you're suggesting we only make things illegal that can be counter-acted in ever single circumstance? I guess we should legalize murder then, since we can't stop every single one.

Belsfir wrote:This argument is really not progressing anymore. I appreciate the opinions of others and the amount of research on the topic. I have learned many a new thing in our debate as well. However, I fear that if it continues, it will merely become a cesspool of a discussion.

It's alright, I understand that we're challenging you beliefs here, but don't pretend that "the argument isn't progressing." If you don't have the answers, that's fine, but don't try to dismiss the entire argument when you run out of legitimate arguments to make.

by DemonEyesJoe Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:44 am

i just love dumb anti-gun bigots

http://kotaku.com/5981327/hundreds-of-confused-anti+gun-people-think-im-a-gun-nutand-that-this-is-my-gun

http://kotaku.com/5982984/anti+gun-people-who-cluelessly-mocked-me-still-live-in-fantasy-land-still-dont-know-how-to-apologize

by Sponsored content