The random, irrelevant musings of a law school graduate.
i'm generally all about giving people freedoms, but i'm starting to wonder about the good old right to bear arms. yes, i understand that people use them to hunt (though i'm not sure that's always safe anyway). and i know there are staunch defenders of this right. i mean, i guess it's ok. it's not like people have proven themselves incapable of handling themselves responsibly. maybe when that time comes we can revisit the issue.
posted by josh @ 5/05/2007 02:20:00 PM
Damon said...
If people only needed them for hunting, we could ban most the types used in crimes. But to really reduce this kind of violence, we have to (and I'm sure someone has) study the difference between the US and Canada. Culturally similar, but we constantly kill each other while they leave their doors unlocked in downtown Toronto. Maybe the national health care is a disincentive for violence since you know that person's hospital bill is coming out of your tax dollars?
d$ said...
I acutally am with the NRA on the bill to prevent "terror suspects" from purchasing firearms. Not for the same from-my-cold-dead-hands mentality, but I think that the current administration would just take advantage of this sort of power. There would need to be better guidelines as to who gets classified as a threat, even the article states that suspected terrorists would be allowed to purchase firearms to avoid compromising ongoing investigations... are there any real suspected terrorists who are not being activly investigated? That would be concerning.
Holmes said...
If you're a "terror suspect" why are you walking the streets in the first place? Sounds like another nonsolution from our government.
I think the sides are so entrenched here that no one is willing to give an inch. Gun rights people are afraid that regulation will just lead to outright banning, and really, the Left has done nothing to ease those fears. Rather, I think there should be a lot of regulation and a lot of encouragement of conceal carry permits and the like. Look, when you leave your personal safety and welfare to the government, you are in trouble. The police can draw chalk outlines, and that is about it. If we had extensive waits and training courses for gun ownership, just as we do for say, driving a car, we would ensure that the proper citizens are carrying weapons.
How many oppressed societies wish they had a few guns? The only thing that stopped the Rwanda genocide was the opposition group's use of weaponry. Not that we are close to such an event here, but it is an important symbol of a free society. The hunting issue is a nonstarter. I don't care if people can hunt or not, but I definitely encourage the mass slaughter of deer and I know Dicta is with me on that.
Two important facts- crime rates go down when legal gun ownership increases and the only deterrent to mass public shootings is increased conceal carry permit ownership.
Finally, we outlawed drugs, how's that working out for us? No drugs here, I'm sure.
josh said...
i would hope all suspected terrorists are being actively investigated. otherwise the entire administration's policy falls apart.
i agree that leaving your safety to a (corrupt) government is a bad idea. but i think it's the same bad idea to allow people to just protect themselves. i'm not sure there's a huge difference between government workers and other people. i think the question is whether you like your corruption organized or chaotic. for me, i think organized corruption is easier to avoid.
i also agree that in certain situations it's beneficial to have firearms (rwanda). after all, that played a role in this country's independence. BUT, like quartering soldiers, i think it might be a bit outdated now. we aren't close to rwanda. people might not all be happy with the government (maybe a few are), but the majority's lives aren't threatened by it.
of course, there's always the argument that it could happen. but the apocolypse might come this year too. the thing is, neither is likely. and if it really comes down to that, those who control biological weapons or wmds will control everyone. all the guns in the world won't protect you from a wmd.
the outlaw of drugs is different i think. drugs provide a desired feeling for the user, and they can be addictive. i've never heard of anyone getting high from putting a gun in his drawer. though i have heard of people getting high then using their gun.
finally, you KNOW i'm all about the mass slaughter of some deer.
Holmes said...
If you think we can waive a wand and guns will disappear, especially if there is still a drug trade, well, we just don't agree on enough reality then.
josh said...
oh i dont think that at all, but nor am i ready to just give up and say we shouldn't examine gun restrictions. it's a problem that will never be eliminated, but every little bit helps.
if you take away 1 gun, and that removal prevents a kid from playing with it and accidentally shooting someone, isn't it worth it?
like lots of issues, there's no right answer. i think it's a balancing test, which is why neither will ever convince the other his position is wrong. complete restriction will never happen, nor should it. but neither should complete freedom. we can dance around in the middle gray area all day. personally, i'd rather play some golf and make fun of fat people.
Holmes said...
Compressing the issue to one gun/one child can work with anything. If we remove one errant golf ball from the driving range and save one child, isn't it worth it? :)
josh said...
i know, that was a bad example. it's a total bleeding heart liberal argument, the kind i hate.
besides the fact that it's a straw man argument, it depends on the child. it's probably not worth saving some.
but i still think there needs to be some type of restrictions. for example, i bet you mary (or her schizophrenic friend) could get one, and that would be horrible. she can't even aim her sexuality straight, much less a gun. the only way that should be legal is if she promises to turn it on herself.
Unknown said...
I fear I am walking into a discussion I don't understand here. But being from a civilized society that doesn't, except illegally, have guns - I really fail to see where you guys are coming from.
Guns attract psychopathic nutters like teaching attracts paedophiles and government attracts the power-crazed and the corrupt. That's not to say we ban teaching and government but it certainly does mean - for the good of all of us - that we have to control them.
Why is the NRA so set against this (is it purely commercial?).
I would love some enlightenment.
Holmes said...
They are set against it b/c they see it as a slippery slope. If a little is given on regulation, the next step is banning.
Nutters can just as easily carry knives. As we saw in Rwanda, you can do qutie a bit of damage with just a machete. The nice thing for criminals and nutters about taking away guns from regular citizens is that it lowers the cost for them. VT- gun free zone. Appalachian state (same situation) not a gun free zone and the shooter was disarmed.
Most of this stuff is hyped anyway. More children die from choking on grapes than from guns. It's just that a recent, dramatic event leaves a stronger impression in our minds.
I agree some regulation is in order. Training, licenses, waiting periods- that sounds fine. I'm going to start in my conceal carry permit whenever we move. I don't even own a gun yet :)
josh said...
holmes, i fear that we might actually be somewhat in agreement. perhaps the conversation flowed as it did because we are natural nemeses.
that said, i also would think about more thorough background checks with the possibility of denial if certain things show up in the check. i dont know exactly what those would be yet, but i'll fill you in when someone pays me to think about it.
Holmes said...
Oh, I guess so. Hooray for agreement! The Nazis could not have taken over without it. Er...
It's just that along with the regulation argument, the idea to ban or the supposed benefits from a total ban are always thrown into the mix. See Paul's argument above: "Here in our glorious nation without guns..."
I'm guessing if that same nation were to face some sort of existential threat, it could also not rise to its own defense. So there is a larger survival psychology as well. Just as Euros stood by while thousands were slaughtered in Bosnia, they will stand by if their own are slaughtered. Farfetched, right wing psycho talk? Perhaps. How does that surging Euro-Islamic (or even Canadian-Islamic) population feel about the use of violence? And Democracy?
Unknown said...
Hollmes, I wasn't intending to claim that it's better this side of the pond- just trying to understand the cultural difference.
I guess the arguments look different from each side: if there aren't guns it seems incredibly stupid to suddenly allow them - but if every one has guns it probably looks incredibly stupid to ban them so only the baddies get to keep them.
But, now you mention it, the "existential threat" argument does seem rather far-fetched to me, as to counter such a threat you'd need the organisation as well as the weapons - and unless there's an effective opposition party then all you have is mob rule of whoever has the most/biggest guns - potentially an even bigger threat? So probably a better argument for a robust political system and a separation of powers between the army and the executive than it is for individual arms.
Holmes said...
I guess I'm looking at it as a correlation, more than an ability to actually defend our nation. Clearly a 9mm handgun won't stop a Chinese tank. But when we lay down our weapons individually, we are sort of saying "I'm at the mercy of the next guy most willing to kill me." And then follows our national defense. A robust political system is well and good, until one group decides that system no longer works for them and they've imported a few guns themselves. Or they themselves go from the opposition party to those in charge.
I too wish we lived in a world where guns/weaponry were not needed. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world and never will. And it seems the aspirational thought of achieving that end can only lead to those enlightened folks who wish for a gunless society being eliminated over time.
Unknown said...
Enjoyed your company - but it's time for bed this side of the atlantic. Here's an entirely impractical parting shot:
Accepting it is impractical both politically and actually to lose the guns - control the supply of ammo (it's consumable, like batteries & printer ink, so feeds through the population faster). You buy one gun, get one clip and that's your lot forever.
Manufacturers get a short-term run.
Bad guys run out pretty fast. Only way to get more is steal from the good guys - then run out again. Ten years time, world peace.
Won't work, will it?
(yawn) goodnight
d$ said...
I like chris rock's plan.
"I think all bullets should cost $5,000. $5,000 for a bullet. You know why? 'Cause if a bullet costs $5,000 there'd be no more innocent bystanders... People would think before they killed somebody, if a bullet cost $5,000. “Man, I would blow your $!#@#$ head off, if I could afford it. I'm gonna get me another job, I'm gonna start saving some money... and you're a dead man. You better hope I can't get no bullets on layaway.”"
Holmes said...
Likewise, Paul. This was fun. And as Dicta will tell you, if it appears that I am a lunatic, it's because I am.
We can't even control effectively the international flow of nuclear fuels, so I think gunpowder and shell casings would likely fall through the cracks as well.
What if the paradigm for Mr. Rock was "Man, I would kill you, but I know you have just as good a chance of killing me."
Sucks to be the straight man in an argument like that. As I learned from the Daily Show, if your argument isn't funny, you're wrong.
Holmes said...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=452815&in_page_id=1770
Maybe we need to ban fertiliser as well. A nice article from across the pond.
when did i discover that i was god? well, i was praying, and i suddenly realized i was talking to myself.
