Understanding the principles of those who would disarm innocent people

[Nuclear Unicorn]

If a thing is legal the fact that it may be misused by a segment of the population with violent or physically harmful results then civil authorities should ban the access to that thing even from legal and proper use?

And anyone who refuses to accede to this ban becomes morally responsible for all violence and physical harm resulting from the continued production, sale, use, transfer and possession of this thing?


Is this a fair summation of the principle? If not I openly accept all politely-stated revisions and corrections. I wish to isolate and define the underlying predicate of the argument.

[mike_c]

1. I think a better way to state the argument is...

...that neither the paranoid fears nor the genuine enjoyment of a small segment of the population should be sufficient to justify circumstances that manifestly endanger the safety and lives of the rest of us.

[beevul]

2. Hmmm...

80+ million people - thats how many own guns - is not a small segment of the population.


If it were 15 or thirty thousand - that would be a small segment.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. For the moment

I would like to avoid discussing specifics.

There is certainly time and server sapce for that.

I'm looking to formulate the principle that guides the conerns of our fellow forum members.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. Not everyone who carries a gun for protection is paranoid

Some people may have legitimate safety concerns.

That being said, I refrain from using pejoratives and name-calling.

If someone gets snide with you feel free to respond in kind, I won't complain but I believe I have been reasonable (even if not agreeable) and polite. Ask for a response in kind.

[mike_c]

44. of course not, and before we devolve into a psychological discussion...

...perhaps I should substitute terms like "obsessive fears" or "overblown fears" for "paranoid." Still, I suspect that if there are 80+ million gun owners in the U.S. as one response up thread proposes, then the proportion that actually use firearms in NECESSARY self defense during any given year is likely a very small fraction of that number. Stated another way, most gun owners will spend their entire lives without having to use a firearm in self defense.

That suggests to me that most of those folks never actually need a gun for self defense, so the constant justification that they use for gun ownership is not well matched with their actual needs, i.e. they vastly overestimate the need for self defense. That's what I mean by "overblown fear." That some obsess about those fears regardless is obvious-- one only need read this forum occasionally. I've noted in the past that their obsessive fear of "home invasions" and other personal risks border on paranoia-- the evidence for that is the infrequent occurrence of actual circumstances warranting the need for lethal self defense.

I'm not name-calling. I'm describing what appears to be an actual phenomenon from my perspective.

[Kennah]

52. You mean like seat belts?

I've been driving since 1984, and while I've been in a couple of accidents the vast majority of the miles I've logged never required a seat belt.

[mike_c]

54. OK, I'll bite....

On the face of it, I'd agree with your argument as far as it goes. Yes, wearing a seat belt is usually a waste of time. But let's look a little past the surface of that argument.

First, the likelihood of needing a seat belt is probably quite a bit higher than the likelihood of requiring lethal (or merely injurious) self-defense, even if accidents remain statistically "improbable." At least, I'd think that's true for most of us who drive daily but confront murderous attacks, um, infrequently. One assesses one's real risks and acts accordingly, hopefully intelligently. Nonetheless, I often drive short distances without wearing my seat belt, but when I do, I acknowledge the risk. And you did admit that you've had "a couple of accidents."

Second, using seat belts is a generally beneficial behavior that is more likely to result in good outcomes than in causing harm. That changes the nature of the equation somewhat, especially when considered along with #3 below. There is little cost and potentially great benefit, so why not err on the side of caution if that's unlikely to cause harm in any event? On the other hand, widespread use of guns in interpersonal interactions has caused far more harm than good by any accounting.

Third, mandating seat belt use is not a particular burden for anyone. It doesn't cost anything to use your belt and the added cost to the vehicle is insignificant. If you can pay attention to the road and operating your vehicle instead of obsessing about the belt, wearing one arguably imposes no burden whatsoever. Widespread gun ownership, especially easily concealed handguns, manifestly DOES impose a terrible burden on society in the form of gun violence and crime. We wouldn't be having this discussion if that weren't the case.

[Kennah]

68. Good civils points to which I should respond

Carrying a gun for protection is usually a waste of time. However, as with a seat belt, if the need should arise, there's darned little that will serve in it's place.

On your first point, many if not most states require seat belt usage. Compliance rates certainly are not 100%, and I can only rely upon my own anecdotal experience. With about 4-5 million licensed concealed carriers, and not all of them carrying every time they venture outside, there is a far higher percentage of the population wearing seat belts than carrying guns for protection. The number of carriers has risen dramatically since 1987 when there were just 10 Right To Carry states. Today there are 40 RTC states, but neither the crime rate nor the number of justifiable homicides has risen with it.

On your second point, there is no support for the assertion that guns cause more harm than good. Defensive Gun Use, or DGUs, is a very hotly debated issue, but which numbers one embraces there are more DGUs than murders. England and Canada are frequently cited as examples of why guns are the problem, but I can point to any number of countries with higher murder rates and more restrictive gun laws than the United States. We could dissect the states on the issue as well, but as I'm sure you would agree crime is driven by a great many factors, many of which are social (jobs, opportunity, education, etc.)

On your third point, I would direct you back to my response to your first point. (I, you, my, your, I think I got that right.) It's impossible to know with any certainty, but at best it seems there were about 1 million carriers at the start of 1987, today there are 4-5 million, and the crime rate has not risen accordingly.

Finally, there are some very diverse groups of people carrying guns in our society. Police, law abiding citizens, and criminals. This last group is a very small percentage of the overall population, but they are responsible for most of the violent crimes.

It is true that one has to eventually become a first time offender in order to join the criminal population, but a law abiding citizen is rarely just walking down the street minding their own business when they suddenly stumble into a situation in which they commit a violent crime.

Of the 40K+ people killed on America's highways each year, I daresay a fair portion of them are licensed drivers with no prior criminal record.

[TPaine7]

113. A few observations...

First, the likelihood of needing a seat belt is probably quite a bit higher than the likelihood of requiring lethal (or merely injurious) self-defense, even if accidents remain statistically "improbable."

It is dangerous to argue from imaginary data; your point would be stronger if you had real-world data, or at least good evidence. Bias tends to skew human analysis in the absence of checks from reality.

At least, I'd think that's true for most of us who drive daily but confront murderous attacks, um, infrequently.

A case in point of apparent bias affecting analysis. You compare "driving"--being in a situation that puts you at risk for an auto accident--to "confront{ing} murderous attacks. What puts us at risk for facing criminal attack is contact with humans, especially criminals, not confronting murderous attacks.

Your analysis is skewed.

One assesses one's real risks and acts accordingly, hopefully intelligently.

I doubt neither your sincerity nor your honesty, but bias is typically a more devastating threat to sound analysis than lack of intelligence. With respect, I ask you to critically and honestly assess your analysis.

Second, using seat belts is a generally beneficial behavior that is more likely to result in good outcomes than in causing harm. That changes the nature of the equation somewhat, especially when considered along with #3 below. There is little cost and potentially great benefit, so why not err on the side of caution if that's unlikely to cause harm in any event? On the other hand, widespread use of guns in interpersonal interactions has caused far more harm than good by any accounting.

Your lumping of convicted violent criminals in with CCW carriers who have pristine records as certified by the FBI is noted. Why not address the cost of having these two classes carrying weapons separately. Don't you know that carry by the later class is--to use your words--"unlikely to cause harm in any event"?

Your analysis is skewed.

Third, mandating seat belt use is not a particular burden for anyone. It doesn't cost anything to use your belt and the added cost to the vehicle is insignificant.

Ownership and carriage of guns by the law abiding is not a burden either.

Widespread gun ownership, especially easily concealed handguns, manifestly DOES impose a terrible burden on society in the form of gun violence and crime.

And that burden is so terrible that most folks will never face a situation justifying potentially lethal force?! Criminal gun ownership does impose a burden, I agree. Other gun ownership provides benefits.

[Starboard Tack]

97. Seat belts were designed specifically to save lives

Guns are designed specifically to take lives.

[Kennah]

102. Given how infrequently that occurs, it seems the design is flawed.

Cars aren't designed to take lives, and yet they claim far more lives than do guns.

[Starboard Tack]

104. This comparison is ludicrous

but it would be interesting to know how many vehicle deaths were caused by people carrying guns. Just wondering.

[rrneck]

55. You're right.

If you put a thousand people in a room and told them that three of their number would be assaulted next week, five hundred of them would go out and buy a gun tomorrow.

It does seem strange that so many people let Wall Street run the economy of the entire planet off a cliff while obsessing about the remote possibility of being assaulted. That's because a physical assault is personal. It is a near threat, as opposed to the remote, albeit much more real and dangerous, threat of economic collapse from mismanagement and corruption.

Guns symbolize closure. They mean life or death, right here right now. So they occupy an inordinate share of our personal security concerns. I suspect our economic problems are driving gun sales as much as anything else. I can't prove it, but it feels like there is a lot of apocalyptic thinking going on out there.

[spin]

83. You remind me of a close friend I once had ...

He went to a church that had a visiting firebrand preacher.

The preacher called my friend Mel, who was 18, and another young man up to the pulpit. The old preacher glared at both of them and said, "One of you will be dead in a year. I would advise both of you to accept Jesus as your savior."

Well Mel refused but the other boy did accept Christ.

Mel and another fellow broke into a gas station one night and were busy stealing stuff. A neighbor across the street came home after working the second shift and noticed his dog barking at the gas station. Seeing the glow of a flashlight inside the building, the neighbor grabbed a .22 cal rifle and went to check the situation out.

He confronted both Mel and his partner. The partner went for a pistol that he had concealed in his jacket and Mel put his hands up. The neighbor shot Mel first and the other guy gave up. The bullet that hit Mel entered his heart and he died.

In your scenario, out of the thousand people 997 would not be attacked but 3 would. Everything's just coming up roses for the 997 but there are three people who will have a really bad day. Chances are, if one of those three had decided to buy a firearm, he would have a good chance of surviving the incident without injury. The other two would just be shit out of luck.

I know the odds and I carry. I don't ever expect to have to use a firearm in self defense but I can't guarantee that I will never have to use one.

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

[mike_c]

86. and that's why gun violence and crime are integral to our society....

All those unnecessary weapons distributed widely. It's completely irrational. Your argument is based entirely upon your fear of a low probability event.

[TheWraith]

89. My house catching on fire is a low probability event.

I still own smoke detectors. The assumption that just because something is rare, then it automatically can never happen to you personally--that's what's irrational.

[mike_c]

92. see my comments about seat belts elsewhere in this thread....

I think smoke detectors are a drop-in replacement in that comment.

[Kennah]

93. I think the fire extinguisher is a better analogy

A fire extinguisher is a safety device used to cut a path through danger to get to safety.

I would not try to put out a house fire with a fire extinguisher. I would call the professionals once I'd gotten to safety.

[mike_c]

95. and when fire extinguisher violence becomes a prominent crime statistic...

...I'll be the first to admit how wrong I was to support fire extinguishers instead of guns.

I mean, come on. The problem with all these examples is that they attempt to isolate the choices involved-- in rather strained terms-- without dealing with the social costs of those choices. Fire extinguishers simply aren't too costly, not in social terms. Handguns are.

[Kennah]

99. See my response in #68

[TheWraith]

114. Your assumption here is all wrong.

Specifically, that guns automatically equal crimes involving guns, simply by existing. That's like automatically equating anyone who buys a bottle of booze with a drunk driver. The assumption that because something can be misused, it is, isn't valid. The 80 million people in this country who own guns aren't automatically crime risks simply for that fact.

[spin]

91. It's not a "fear" of a low probability event ...

it's the acknowledgment that low probability does not mean impossible.

I have been wearing a seat belt religiously for 50 years. During that period of time I have only been in three accidents, none of which was my fault. I was a passenger in two and was rear ended while stopped in traffic in the third.

The chances of my needing a seat belt when I drive my vehicle tomorrow is extremely small but I'll wear it anyway. i don't wear it because of fear or because of the law, I wear it because I believe in being prepared for any eventuality.

Our outlook on life may differ because I worked in a very technical field where we were well aware of Murphy's Law and its effects.

"Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong"and the corollary "at the worst possible time."

Murphy was an optimist.

[GreenStormCloud]

108. Low probability but very high downside risk.

The odds of being confronted by a robber this year are fairly small, but the disaster if it happens could be very great. In any event, my being prepared doesn't hurt you so what should you care that I am legally armed?

[rrneck]

100. Yep.

Long odds but high stakes. It sells both guns and lottery tickets.

It's a personal risk assessment you just can't make from a congressional committee meeting. People just hate it when you try. Democrats need to leave it alone.

[Starboard Tack]

103. Great story

which clearly makes the case for universal disarmament. Two guys had guns and your buddy Mel was killed.

[mike_c]

84. that's an amazing example....

It's been haunting me ever since you wrote it. It's a precise model of the situation we find ourselves in today-- where there is genuine need for three guns (in your model), 500 flood society. Simple probability dictates that some significant social costs will result, no matter how good intentioned or diligent the original 500 owners might have been.

The problem, as I've stated it, is that gun owners who justify their need for firearms for self defense are nearly all like those 500.

[rrneck]

96. of course those 3 who really do get assaulted

will really need those guns. That's why guns are a political third rail for democrats.

Statistics tell us how many. It does not tell us who.

Like the old irish proverb, " If I knew where I was going to die I wouldn't go near the place"

[PavePusher]

115. So tell us exactly who will need a gun to defend themselves...

and where and when, and we'll restrict them to only those situations.

Yeah....:shrug: :eyes: :silly:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. People living in high-crime areas or shop owners or stalking victims

aren't paranoid or overblown or whatever title you assign to them. Saying things in the terms you assign them imply a presupposition. I mean, let's face facts, a woman fleeing a stalker or a gay that has been harrassed by bashers has a legitmate concern. It isn't some abstract, ephemeral, academic mental exercise on their part. Ditto civil rights activists defending themselves from KKKlanners.

Perhaps the case could be made shop owners and families living in high-crime areas have no direct threat but a general threat still exists.

It seems IF we were to say "Despite the legitimate need..." would weigh the issue too far in the other side of the scales but again, I trying to avoid prejudicial terminology.

If I may:

Neither the presumed uses nor the genuine enjoyment of a small segment of the population should be sufficient to justify circumstances that manifestly endanger the safety and lives of the rest of us.

Also, if I may, one respondent to this thread stated that those who favor gun control do not advocate total bans on general ownership. It seems your position may conflict with that statement as presumed use and genuine enjoyment seem to cover all possible expectations of ownership. Would you mind offering your view on the nature of proper gun control in the thread entitled, "Reasonable Common Sense?" It would be appreciated.

[mike_c]

67. good points and I accept the revised statement wholeheartedly....

For the record, I am not opposed to all gun ownership. I AM opposed to much handgun ownership, but again, not all. You mentioned some instances where self protection might actually be prudent, although even in those instances, I would ask what proportion of stalking actually results in murderous assault, or what proportion of "gay bashing" results in physical attack (I'm presuming that most is verbal), and I'd hope that we could craft regulations that put the real risks in front of policy rather than people's perceived personal fears. The latter is used constantly to justify the huge numbers of handguns in our homes and on our streets, but as I've said elsewhere in this thread, it is rarely-- RARELY-- congruent with the actual needs of handgun owners.

[spin]

81. You are correct that most people will never need a firearm for self defense ...

the problem is knowing whether which category you will fall into. Are you in category (A) People who will never need a firearm for self defense; category (B)people who WILL need a firearm for self defense or category (C) people who have a definite need to carry a firearm.

Some people chose to believe that they will always be lucky and never need a firearm. Others prefer to be prepared and carry just in case.

I don't criticize you for your decision to not carry, why should you insinuate that I have "obsessive fears" or "overblown fears" because I have a concealed weapons permit. It takes a hell of a psychologist to analyze a person that he has never met at a distance. My motivations are based on my own personal life experiences just as yours are. I will not make a idiotic comment about your personality or the personality of all those who oppose gun ownership or who want to enforce draconian gun laws. I'm sure you have your reasons and they may differ considerably from others who share your dislike of firearms.

[mike_c]

82. life is full of uncertainty...

We also can't ever know whether we'll be A) in the group of people struck by lightening or B) in the group not struck. Nonetheless, a prudent person doesn't drag a lightning rod and Faraday cage around with them everywhere. If the odds of needing lethal defense are so low that the overwhelming majority of gun owners will never use their guns for the most legitimate purpose they articulate to justify them, who then will actually be harmed by regulating gun ownership to reduce the number of unnecessary guns in circulation?

[spin]

87. The problem is that your proposal will reduce the number of "unnecessary guns" ...

in circulation by taking them from responsible people who do not commit crime. Criminals use firearms as tools of their profession and by nature avoid obeying laws. If you target honest people you embolden criminals.

Now if you were to propose targeting violent criminals and the firearms that they illegally own, I'm with you. I also support efforts to stop straw purchases and to focus law enforcement efforts on the black market for guns. I would even go along with the idea of using the NICS background check system for the sale of ALL firearms, including those sold by private citizens at gun shows and from their homes.

[mike_c]

88. by your own admission most of those people have no need for them...

...because most-- as in MOST-- will never have need for lethal self defense. So they genuinely have no need for firearms if self defense is the chief justification for owning them.

Making gun ownership more difficult would also reduce firearm availability to criminals, so I don't buy that old saw about how "only the criminals will have guns." But that's really not the point. If the odds of needing lethal self defense are so low that most of those 80+ million gun owners will never use them, there simply is no benefit to society in absorbing the costs of gun violence, accidental shootings, suicides, and so on in order to give a vanishingly small number of people one additional tool for self protection.

[spin]

94. So you would deny the few that do find themselves in a position

where a firearm could save their life, the right to own one.

You must look at people as just expendable pawns to be sacrificed for the better good.

My daughter, who was 17, used a large caliber revolver to stop an intruder who was breaking into our home with the intent of raping and possibly killing her. Obviously I hold a far different view on firearms and self defense than you. I'm not willing to just shake my head and say, "Gee, that's a shame that people have to die because the laws I got passed took their best means of self defense away. But I think we are all better off."

[mike_c]

98. well, we WOULD all be better off....

And as you've acknowledged, only a tiny percentage of the number of people who use self defense to justify gun ownership can actually cite that legitimately. Removing, say-- 50 percent or 70 percent of the handguns from public circulation would have an equally vanishingly small chance of actually impacting those people.

I do think you're correct though. A small number of people would likely suffer harm as a result. But the benefit to the rest of us would be HUGE. A safer society. Less gun violence. Fewer guns to fall into the hands of criminals.

My daughter and SIL recently moved to northern Europe from a moderately sized southeastern U.S. city. One of their reasons was significantly lower gun violence in their new home, which results from strict gun control. It works.

[Kennah]

101. Strict gun control in South Africa doesn't reduce violence

[GreenStormCloud]

110. Please explain why El Paso, TX had only three murders last year.

It is a major city, pop 750K+, with more guns than people. Why didn't all those gun cause lots of gun violence there?

[X_Digger]

111. If it were your daughter, would you feel the same way?

"Ah well, at least society is safer.."

If you daughter is the victim of a violent crime, potentially killed, not using a gun, is that any solace?

"At least she wasn't killed by a gun.."

[X_Digger]

109. We consider the possession of many things likely to never be used rational..

such as fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, life insurance, even seat belts.

There are two factors that most folks consider when deciding whether or not to make preparations for a possible event.

If the likelihood of the occurrence is high, then it's rational to prepare. I keep a spare set of batteries in my camera bag for that reason.

The second factor that affects such decisions is the severity of the possible outcome of not having the item. Having a kitchen fire and losing your house, possibly a life, without a fire extinguisher is a pretty serious consequence.

Just because something is rare does not mean it's irrational, 'obsessive', 'overblown', or 'paranoid' to prepare for it if the consequences of inaction are high.

[hack89]

9. 20 percent of the population is not a small segment. nt

[Atypical Liberal]

10. But what about...

What about the fact that 98% or more of firearm owners aren't involved in firearm-related crime?

Why should the vast majority of firearm owners be punished for the actions of a few?

[mike_c]

60. the crux of the matter is that you view restricting your access to guns...

...that you'll likely never need for self defense anyway as "punishment" while I see it as a rational response to the real risks we both face. I believe most of us are much more likely to be harmed by criminal use of firearms than we're likely to be benefited by personal use of them-- the social good of limiting access to firearms FAR outweighs the personal benefit that the vast majority of gun owners will ever actually realize.

Absent any real likelihood of needing a gun for lethal self defense, most gun owners simply want to keep their guns because they nonetheless harbor irrational fears or because they just like them. I don't think either motive trumps the broader social need for less gun violence.

[TPaine7]

105. I'm having trouble understanding your position:

...that you'll likely never need for self defense anyway as "punishment" while I see it as a rational response to the real risks we both face. I believe most of us are much more likely to be harmed by criminal use of firearms than we're likely to be benefited by personal use of them-- the social good of limiting access to firearms FAR outweighs the personal benefit that the vast majority of gun owners will ever actually realize.

You believe we face a real and non-negligible risk of being harmed by criminal use of firearms. Yet in post 44 you mention

the infrequent occurrence of actual circumstances warranting the need for lethal self defense.

How can the frequency of "circumstances warranting the need for lethal self defense" be inconsequential while the risk of being "harmed by criminal use of firearms" is a viable, rational threat? Isn't being threatened with serious harm by criminals--with or without guns--a circumstance warranting the need for {potentially} lethal self defense?

[X_Digger]

112. Woops, that's quite a conundrum.. n/t

[guitar man]

106. What about those of us that have already been shot?

Yeah, I won the lottery on that one back in'86, took a .32 acp to the upper thigh from an armed felon... thug. Sometimes when it gets really cold and damp I'll need a cane to help me walk.

Do I harbor an "irrational fear " because I carry a gun in case somebody ever wants to take another shot at me?

[cleanhippie]

15. Does that mean we can exclude the "paranoid fears" of a large segment of the population too?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. Again, I humbly ask for

politeness.

Cut the guy some slack.

Pretty please, for me?

*bats eyelashes*

[cleanhippie]

47. I was quite polite.

Thats the best I got, sorry.

[spin]

24. Strange, I carry a firearm and I'm not paranoid ...

I doubt if I will ever have to use my concealed weapon for legitimate self defense. Unfortunately, there is always a ever so slight possibility that I might find myself in that situation. Therefore, I carry and am prepared.

I spent the time, effort and money to get a concealed weapons permit and to be honest when I got my first permit I lived in a more dangerous area than I do now. I only had one time where I felt I might have to draw my weapon but fortunately the situation defused itself. Still, I was damn glad I had a firearm with me.

I know quite a few people here in Florida who carry concealed and none of them has displayed any signs of paranoia to me. Many are retired police or have served in the military and most enjoy shooting as a hobby. If anything the people that I know who carry are confident, responsible people who are proactive and prepared.

I doubt that you are familiar with many people who have carry permits. If you were, you would understand how foolish you look when you claim that those who legally carry are all paranoid. Basically what you are doing to stereotyping which is never a sign of education or intelligence.

Stereotypes are generalizations, or assumptions, that people make about the characteristics of all members of a group, based on an image (often wrong) about what people in that group are like. For example, one study of stereotypes revealed that Americans are generally considered to be friendly, generous, and tolerant, but also arrogant, impatient, and domineering. Asians, on the other hand, were expected to be shrewd and alert, but reserved. Clearly, not all Americans are friendly and generous; and not all Asians are shrewd. If you assume you know what a person is like, and don't look at each person as an individual, you are likely to make errors in your estimates of a person's character.emphasis added

In conflicts, people tend to develop overly-negative images of the other side. The opponent is expected to be aggressive, self-serving, and deceitful, for example, while people view themselves in completely positive ways. These stereotypes tend to be self-perpetuating. If one side assumes the other side is deceitful and aggressive, they will tend to respond in a similar way. The opponent will then develop a similar image of the first party, and the negative stereotypes will be confirmed. They may be grow worse, as communication is shut down and escalation heightens emotions and tension.
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/stereoty.htm

[flamin lib]

57. Let's see . . .

"I doubt that you are familiar with many people who have carry permits. If you were, you would understand how foolish you look when you claim that those who legally carry are all paranoid. Basically what you are doing to stereotyping which is never a sign of education or intelligence."

In three sentences you have called someone a fool, impugned their intelligence twice and questioned their education.

Hey! Nuclear! Where's the call for civility?

[spin]

79. Currently millions of people in our nation have concealed carry permits ...

In Florida alone, there are currently 786,884 valid permits.

To say that all these people are paranoid is stereotyping and is foolish at best. It's similar to the comment about the size of a gun owner's private parts that used to be the regular insult used by those who favor draconian gun control in the Gungeon before DU became more polite.

[Starboard Tack]

90. Very well put

[ManiacJoe]

5. That would seem to accurately state

the views of most anti-gunners, as a broad sweeping generalization.

[flamin lib]

6. Try reframing/rewording to make your premise more easily understood.

Is this what you mean?

"If a thing is legal and if that thing can be misused with violent and harmful results, should civil authorities ban that thing even if it can be used without harmful effect? If that thing is banned is anyone who violates that ban responsible for all harm resulting from it's use?"

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. The first half comports with my treatment

But from what I've seen some arguing, pro-2A groups are responsible for any unlawful or careless uses of firearms. In other words, if one child accidently shoots another child the pro-2A faction is morally responsible for that death because they did not consent to a general ban on weapons.

I'm asking if that is a fair summation of their argument.

[flamin lib]

13. I can't speak for that few as I've never made that argument, however

if a thing is banned and if someone violates that ban I assume they are violating a law. My assumption is that such a ban would have force of law else it wouldn't be a ban it would be a suggestion. The question follows; is someone who willfully violates the law a moral person?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. What if the ban is in contention?

Society has not yet seen fit to impose the ban. Are those who advocate against the ban responsible (morally if not legally) for any harm caused by the failure/dalay in enacting the ban?

Think back to lawn darts. If people opposed the ban on lawn darts are those people responsible for any injury that arises as a result of the misuse of lawn darts?

[flamin lib]

20. That's not what your OP said. I can only respond to what you say,

not what you sorta' meant.

That said, how do you feel about lawn darts or if someone, like Joe Barton (R TX), advocates against pollution control of concrete plants and is successful, is he responsible for the health problems for those who live downwind of the plants?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. The second premise of the OP states --

And anyone who refuses to accede to this ban becomes morally responsible for all violence and physical harm resulting from the continued production, sale, use, transfer and possession of this thing?

I'm not sure where the confusion arises. My use of the word "accede" is appropriate.

[flamin lib]

58. Yer reachin'. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

63. Reaching for what?

I only asked for a clarification on where the confusion lies.

[flamin lib]

72. Quibbling over semantics. Unless there is disagreement about the way

I interpreted the OP, there is no confusion.

I'm not trying to be snarky or argumentative and it it appears so I sincerely apologize. Little black marks on a computer screen lack the body language sometimes important to prevent misunderstanding.

Frankly that's a major problem here; strongly held beliefs lead some to read more into a response than is really there.

[NewMoonTherian]

117. I think what Unicorn is trying to say...

with premise 2 is: If someone does not support a ban, is that person morally responsible for instances of misuse of the item in question?

For instance, I oppose the current restrictions on automatic weapons, but I do abide by those laws. I would oppose any proposed ban on semiautomatic weapons, and since one is not in place now I can't be in violation of it. So, would you call me complicit in the misuse of auto or semiauto weapons?

(This is just my interpretation. Unicorn can correct me if I'm way off base. Still, I'd like to discuss the conditions I've laid out here, as an aside.)

[Callisto32]

31. It depends upon the law.

Mala lex, nulla lex.

Does the law deal with a malum prohibitum, or a malum in se?

I would say that people that violate statutes that ban something not because it is inherently bad to do (like owning and using marijuana/guns/gun parts/bomb parts/explosive materials) are not engaging in an immoral act.

Mere statutory legality rarely has anything to do with weather or not an activity is immoral.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. You whip-out all that Latin legalese only to end the post

confusing "weather" for "whether"

tut-tut

:pals:

[Callisto32]

40. If it makes it better...

I was knee-deep into the Uniform Commercial Code for my "Sales and Leases" class. Law mode=/=spelling mode for me. I'm sure my exam answers are chock-full of spelling errors.

Edit:

P.S. It could have been worse, I could have written "a myriad of."

:D

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. Ooooh!...

I wanna go to Egypt and visit the myriads!

:P

[Callisto32]

43. Nice.

The really funny thing about that post is that I did my best to check the spelling of the Latin bits.

[Atypical Liberal]

8. This is precisely the principle.

It seems to me that anti-firearm people have the philosophy that because a few people misuse firearms, no one should have access to them.

It doesn't matter that 98% of people don't misuse them.

They want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[beevul]

11. And...

80 million people is a small number when talking about protecting rights, but 15-30 thousand is a large number when talking about murder and suicide by gun.

I never did quite understand that one either.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. Oddly, the pro-control side, normally eager to speak, seems quiet thus far

But I invite them to state their undergirding principle in their own terms.

[flamin lib]

16. Lack of participation could be foe a variety of reasons:

The OP is poorly expressed at best and difficult to understand. This from someone with a Master's in English (emphasis creative writing) and in Journalism (emphasis photography).
It is based on a logical fallacy, i.e. argumentum extremus; anyone who advocates for firearm regulation wishes to ban all guns.
It is flame bait.

[Atypical Liberal]

19. We've seen it here before.

I agree that the OP is poorly expressed and difficult to understand.

But as for anyone who advocates firearm regulation wishing to ban all guns, sorry, but that exact sentiment has been expressed here so many times that I just assume it is the case for all.

When I asked how many rounds were appropriate for a magazine, someone here said, "Zero!" Well, that pretty much sums it up for me.

Firearm regulation is a slippery slope and I'm going to fight gravity all the way down.

[flamin lib]

21. Assuming makes an ass of someone.

And it leads to knee-jerk reactions that tend to shut down all discussion. Try not to do it.

[Atypical Liberal]

29. At least I'm never disappointed.

The nice thing about being a pessimist on this issue is I'm never disappointed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. That's why I'm inviting correction and ask for politeness

It isn't flame bait if you are simply attempting to accurately restate someone's proposition.

And just because a subject may be controversial does not necessarily make it flammable. It only becomes flaming if others flame and I have asked both sides to remain cordial up to and including batting my cyber-eyelashes.

That being said, some of the comments I've seen and even addressed to me, advance the position that general ownership, even with background screenings, is too dangerous to permit. Or so they seem to imply but I'm asking for clarification.

Forum rules forbid anything that may seem like "calling out" so I cannot produce the quotes that inspired this thread. Yet, I was struck by the depth of the declarations. Rather than have that conversation lost as a sub-thread I wanted to see it receive its own treatment.

Now if those who would seek more refined gun control are of varied opinion as to what constitutes "reasonable" and "common sense" gun control I'll happily entertain a separate thread for them to define those positions amongst their own ranks.

As a side note, at the expense of seeming harsh, others seemed to have understood my intent and wording.

[RSillsbee]

49. I understood your OP perfectly . NT

[guitar man]

23. fair enough

Since you've stated you don't want to ban all guns, what specifically would you like to see in the way of more regulation?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. That would be a whole other thread

And one that seems to be shortly arriving.

[guitar man]

27. true

And I think it might be fair to say that what you're looking for in your OP doesn't apply to people like flamin lib, only those calling for total gun bans.

[Callisto32]

33. I disagree.

I don't know where flamin' lib falls, and this is in no way a commentary about that poster's stance.

This line of reasoning applies to ALL prohibition/restriction. The question is framed in specific terms, but really seems to be asking. "If part of the world wants to ban stuff, and bad stuff happens when people use that would-be banned stuff, are the people that don't want to ban that stuff morally culpable for the misuse."

I think.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. That's pretty much it.

[guitar man]

36. ok, it's like a mine field lol

I've been trying to give the benefit of the doubt to the segment of the pro-increased regulation crowd that adamantly insists they don't want to "take anybody's guns away". If that is true, in the interest of debate, I'd like to hear what those individuals want and weigh it for myself.

[RSillsbee]

119. Even if they are telling the truth

About not wanting to take our guns. They aid the segment that doeswant to take our guns by pushing for tighter restrictions.

[flamin lib]

65. Indeed, you "think" which is the problem with the OP. It's hard to read

so everybody reads what they want into it. The OP is pretty clear about "not acceding to the ban" presupposing the ban is in place and not a "would be" ban.

[flamin lib]

61. That's not what this thread is about and out of deferance to the OP

I'll not wander off in some search for a little red fish.

However, out of curiosity, what have I posted that indicates I have a view on more regulation?

[guitar man]

70. my apologies

I think I might have you mixed up with another poster that posts here...all these stock avatars look the same after while :P

[guitar man]

18. It's more than merely "legal"

It's a right that is enumerated in the Constitution. That makes instituting a ban a much greater hurdle as any number of things from bug spray to bath salts may be legal or illegal.

So I think any statement of principal should outline conditions that rise to the level of depriving citizens of the enumerated right as set forth in the Constitution.

Just my .02

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. Obviously they have their disputes on that point and out of respect

I deliberately chose the word "legal".

If their genuine belief that the 2nd Amendment were treated as the true and proper interpretation then (strictly for the sake of argument) Heller/McDonald etc did not reaffirm a right. Instead the SC merely created a legal fiction but the net result of that fiction was to legalize ownership.

[guitar man]

30. there's never been a doubt in my mind

What the 2nd amendment meant or why it was written and put into the Bill of Rights, for the entire time I've been an active gun owner, Heller etc. notwithstanding.

[57_TomCat]

35. It is a fair summation...

of a principle that is believed by some but the principle is wrong.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. I think that many progressive view guns as a gateway drug to becoming a conservative.

You may wish to look at this article: http://guncite.com/journals/dk-ideo.html

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. That would be unfortunate if the perception were true

And I could think of several progressive rationales as to why banning something lest someone change political affiliation would not be sound progrssive policy.

[guitar man]

39. being a pro-2a progressive is tough sometimes

I get the feeling we sometimes get about the same treatment pro choice conservatives get :crazy:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. Yes, but supposedly one side places a premium on civility more than the other

Lately I'm confused concerning the soundness of that premise.

[GreenStormCloud]

50. Agreed. I try to be civil but sometimes the insults and sarcasm from...

...certain anti-bun posters gets to me. Civil discussion on such a heated topic are difficult to maintain.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. I understand and I am the last one to claim sainthood on this matter

There have been times where I have felt I was being condescended to not only over my views but even my gender as well. I let my emotions get the better of me. But I would like to think that even when we slip-up we would come to each other's side and recommit to what we know is best.

I know the whole I-help-you-you-help-me idea sounds crazy but that's just me.

[guitar man]

53. Anti-bun posters?

Perish the thought! I can sort of understand anti-gun, but who doesn't like buns? Heretics!!:P

:spray: :rofl:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

56. I saw that too but didn't have the heart

[guitar man]

59. aww, c'mon

ya got 4 of 'em! :D

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. And they're all to precious to give away!

:hug:

[guitar man]

66. Hey

I'm just happy I got two this time around :)

[GreenStormCloud]

107. That's OK. I can laugh at myself when the joke is on me.

It was a funny typo.

[Euromutt]

118. As one fella on the CalGuns forum put it...

"The problem with being pro-gun rights is that the Left hates guns and the Right hates rights."

[jeepnstein]

45. I'll play...

"If a Constitutional Right exists, the fact that it may be misused by a small segment of the population with violent or physically harmful results is sufficient cause for the civil authorities to abolish that right even from legal and proper use?

And anyone who refuses to accede to this suspension of rights will be held responsible for all violence and physical harm resulting from the continued exercise of this right."

There you go. So if someone engages in hate speech the best thing to do is just scrap the whole concept. Or if some church engages in a harmful practice like snake handling, we should shut down all the churches. If accused criminals refuse to testify against themselves we should scrap the Fifth Amendment.

Sounds pretty absurd, don't you think? It's pretty much contrary to every political principle I hold dear.

[guitar man]

46. Exactly

Here's a good one for you. If tomorrow, someone, through speech blatantly incited a huge riot and a lot of people were killed, should we consider restricting everyone's freedom of speech, just to be on the safe side? I know, I know, the vast majority of Americans who choose to exercise freedom of speech are law abiding and would never consider doing such a thing, but, you never know, they just might....can't be too careful.

[flamin lib]

69. Well, yeah!

If someone incites a riot everyone should be restricted from doing the same.

This is a recurring problem here. It's a logical fallacy: if this one thing, then all things. If anyone considers any regulation, then everyone insists on total regulation.

[guitar man]

71. And therein lies the problem

Anytime someone commits a murder with a gun, especially a high profile mass murder, the cries for blanket gun regulation start, regulation which adversely affects the rights of people who have no intent to commit murder.

It makes just as much sense as would shutting down DU in response to a riot started by Glen Beck. :crazy:

[flamin lib]

73. I wouldn't have thought it of you but if that brush gets any broader

you'll have to get help splashin' that tar! ;-)

Nobody in this thread (that I've seen, mighta' missed one) has advocated anything near abolition of gun ownership. On the other hand I don't have enough fingers to count all the posts that claim ALL who support regulation want TOTAL abolition of ownership.

Yeah, there are a few (my wife being among them) but a damn few. Even at that, if sweet thang and I can get along, why is it so hard to get along here?

[PavePusher]

75. Maybe not in this thread...

but in this Forum? Site? Out in reality? Oh yeah, they're out there.

[flamin lib]

76. And they are no more hard headed, devoid of logic, prone to mis-interpret

a contrary opinion or use character assassination than any number of RKBA folks here.

[guitar man]

77. Where did I mention total abolition?

If you look at the post you responded to, my phrase was "adversely affects the rights". I said nothing of total abolition.

[flamin lib]

78. I'm quibbling over words but blanket regulation sounds kinda' like

total ban. My bad.

[guitar man]

80. Sorry

I don't always express myself as well with the written word as I'd like to, especially on an iPhone :)

What I meant by blanket regulation is for instance the current silliness of wanting to restrict all weapons to 10 rounds. I cannot see any logic in it at all. I'd much rather see specific regulation targeted at keeping guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them. Stop plea bargaining gun charges away for violent offenders and make them do hard time for it. If we have to let non violent pot smokers out of jail to make room for them, so be it.

And end the damn silly war on drugs, it's not working, and how many violent crimes occur each year because of it?

[flamin lib]

85. Ya' hafta' type more slowly 'cause sometimes I don't read so gud. nt

[jeepnstein]

116. That's not the game I'm playing.

The OP made a statement that she wished to have us tweak a bit. Her intent was to foster intelligent discussion. So I worked over her statement according to her request to frame it in a different light although I hope it still was true to her original intent. The OP clearly indicated a total ban in the original post. I just broadened the statement a bit to include any of the Freedoms some of us alternately hold dear or wish to eliminate depending on which way the wind blows.

Regulation is not necessarily a bad thing. It can help ensure that arms are not easily acquired by people who have no business being armed, such as the mentally ill or convicted felons. I don't even have a problem with magazine capacity laws as long as they reflect what is in common use by the police and military. Problem is an awful lot of people see regulation as a way to further their goals of eliminating the 2nd Amendment as anything other than words on paper. You'll never catch me being some kind of reactionary who instantly screams bloody murder at the mention of changing gun laws. I do have a problem with people passing laws that are intended to deny rights to folks who have no intention of ever using their arms in an unlawful manner.

Rights come with responsibilities. The overwhelming bulk of citizens in the United States can handle their rights quite well without constant intrusion from the state.

[rrneck]

48. They're just a little myopic.

There's nothing wrong with concern for the health and safety of others, but the nature of the gun debate is so circuitous that it's easy to get lost in it. The basis of that circularity is that anything that can be done to hurt somebody unjustly can be done to hurt somebody in self defense from that injustice. If a firearm is involved the same dynamic applies. Thus, if some evildoer very occasionally needs thirty rounds to kill a bunch of people it is about as likely that somebody will need thirty rounds to defend themselves against one or more evildoers. If we don't focus on the reality of the people and technology involved when we jump in the circle our ideology will determine where we pop out of it and we won't be able to produce a solution to the problem. The result is usually bad public policy.

Those who concentrate overmuch on controlling guns are more concerned about their ideology than the people it is supposed to serve. (In fairness, those who feel that a gun is a solution for social ills suffer the same myopia, there just aren't very many of them here. Certainly not for long.) Now why they are so wedded to their ideology becomes a matter of speculation and potentially an over broad characterization about anti gunners in general.

Some embrace and wear ideology like social plumage. They pulled it off the cultural rack because they feel it looks good on them and they like to hang around others trying to look good.

Others embrace an ideology to be a member of a particular group and spend their time defending membership of the group based on their understanding of the ideology.

Still others never actually embrace an ideology at all but merely use it as a foil to abuse those around them.

A very few have personally suffered and embrace an ideology because of that suffering. It's understandable but self serving.

Most people accept an ideology without ever thinking about it.

About the first four there is little we can do since their motivations are more emotional than rational. Their ideology is, for them, a matter of faith. But by confronting them we may have an influence on the last group, and they're the ones that matter. It's a tedious and maddening exercise and I usually don't have patience for it. That's why I'm not in politics.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.