Some interesting bits posted on Facebook earlier....
====
====
Gun Control and Freedom.
- Thread starter Bob Hubbard
- Start date
KenpoTex
Senior Master
"b-bu-but...guns are just bad"
"No one needs to own a *gasp* assault rifle!"
"We should ban guns to make our streets safer for the children."
"The government/police will take care of us"
"You own a gun? Are you some sort of paranoid nut-job?"
"to protect yourself?...against what?"
"our subjects are "enlightened" enough that they don't want to be armed"
etc.
Don't cloud the issue with the facts Bob
"No one needs to own a *gasp* assault rifle!"
"We should ban guns to make our streets safer for the children."
"The government/police will take care of us"
"You own a gun? Are you some sort of paranoid nut-job?"
"to protect yourself?...against what?"
"our subjects are "enlightened" enough that they don't want to be armed"
etc.
Don't cloud the issue with the facts Bob
jamz
Orange Belt
History schmistory, we are much smarter than that now. Our government knows what's best for us and would never let us get hurt.
Now pipe down and trust them with everything!
Now pipe down and trust them with everything!
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Here is the truth as I see it about gun ownership, and the anti gun crowd:
Find me 25 "Anti Gun" people.
Put them each, one at a time in a room, on the table set a Cell Phone and a Gun.
Then Grab a Butcher Knife and leap across the table screaming, "I'm going to kill you mother ****er!"
Record the number of people who grab the phone and dial 911. And the Number who grab the gun.
Anyone wanna take bets on the larger number?
Guns, on the whole, are a tool which can be used for good or evil depending soley on the intent of the user. Nothing more, nothing less. They let a small, weak person stand up to a strong one on even footing, or they let a bully get stronger, when faced by lack of opposition.
Find me 25 "Anti Gun" people.
Put them each, one at a time in a room, on the table set a Cell Phone and a Gun.
Then Grab a Butcher Knife and leap across the table screaming, "I'm going to kill you mother ****er!"
Record the number of people who grab the phone and dial 911. And the Number who grab the gun.
Anyone wanna take bets on the larger number?
Guns, on the whole, are a tool which can be used for good or evil depending soley on the intent of the user. Nothing more, nothing less. They let a small, weak person stand up to a strong one on even footing, or they let a bully get stronger, when faced by lack of opposition.
The argument that the email makes (it was an email before someone posted it on their Facebook page) is a logical fallacy known as Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, or the Post Hoc Fallacy. It implies that the genocides and other crimes mentioned happened because the populace was unarmed. In other words, after the population was disarmed, they were murdered, therefore disarming them caused them to be killed. The illogic of the Post Hoc Fallacy can be shown by saying the same thing using different words, such as "The rooster crowed and the sun came up." Therefore, the sun was forced to rise by the rooster's crowing.
Populations have also been disarmed without resulting in genocide; therefore the causal link implied by the email is untrue - there is no causal link.
Furthermore, regarding the issue of gun control, most of us, even the most fervent gun rights advocates, do not want to live in a society that has no gun laws whatsoever. Most of us are reasonably comfortable with gun laws that ban ownership of weapons of mass destruction, or ownership by the mentally ill, and so on. We recognize that even the 2nd Amendment has limits, just as the 1st Amendment does.
With all that said, I am fervently in favor of the right to the private ownership of firearms. I own some myself, and I continue to use them safely. I do not intend to ever give them up, and I would oppose any such attempt by the government.
Populations have also been disarmed without resulting in genocide; therefore the causal link implied by the email is untrue - there is no causal link.
Furthermore, regarding the issue of gun control, most of us, even the most fervent gun rights advocates, do not want to live in a society that has no gun laws whatsoever. Most of us are reasonably comfortable with gun laws that ban ownership of weapons of mass destruction, or ownership by the mentally ill, and so on. We recognize that even the 2nd Amendment has limits, just as the 1st Amendment does.
With all that said, I am fervently in favor of the right to the private ownership of firearms. I own some myself, and I continue to use them safely. I do not intend to ever give them up, and I would oppose any such attempt by the government.
I'd like to provide an alternative scenario.
Put you and 20 people in a room. There are 2 doors. Behind one is a guy with a knife, hellbent on killing all of you. Behind the other is a guy with a gun, hellbent on killing all of you. Now pick which door you want opened. The answer is usually evident. Now, if you wanna say that you can arm the people in the room, do the same game. Do you want all of these strangers in the room with you to have knives or guns? Do you think that unleashing a gun fight into the room is SAFER for you than a knife fight?
As for the initial thread, I find it reallllyyyy disengenious. Linking complicated political instability and genocide with gun control policy is actually a little sickening to me.
A people that are unable to defend themsleves are a people soon conquered
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Actually... I disagree with that statement. We tolerate certain limits applied to the second amendment, but they violate the amendment itself.
The amendment AS WRITTEN states "Shall Not Be Infringed". No where in there does it say "With the exception of Felons" or "With the Exception of The Mentally Handicapped" or "With the exception of Hand Grenades"
I'm not gonna argue whether its a good or bad thing to impose those limitations, only that by the letter of the amendment doing so IS unconstitutional.
"Shall Not Be Infringed" is pretty specific wording, IMO... Lacking the word "Mostly" or "Except When" etc it doesnt really leave itself open to exceptions.
I agree that the 2nd Amendment, as written, is stated as an absolute prohibition on the federal government. However, the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that no right is absolute. The most commonly-used example is 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' as an exercise of 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech:
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."
And yet we cannot legally yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
So yes, the wording of the 2nd Amendment is absolute, but no right is absolute, according to the SCOTUS. A popular reasoning for why rights are not absolute (and cannot be) is that one can imagine an application of those rights that infringes on the absolute right of another. In the case of the guy yelling "Fire!" in the crowded theater, his exercise of his 1st Amendment rights directly endangers the rights of others to remain alive, due to the danger of being trampled.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
While comparing a knife to a gun to a warhammer to a laser pistol is like comparing Figs, Apples, Bannanas and Grapes... I'll play along:
YES
A wild knife, as opposed to a Gun, as seen on more than one occasion in that video can be rather more dangerous.
But The knife, like the gun, is a tool, and nothing more. You still need to know how to use it, and be able to use it properly.
More and more, however, I see your point, and I am all for gun control:
Feel free to beat your sword into a plowshare... cuz then I fully intend to subjugate you with MY sword.
I found this paper on gun control and why it cannot work recently. It's a long slog, but I found it good reading (YMMV). The conclusion, however, is straightforward and to the point:
http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf
This paper is entitled "IMAGINING GUN CONTROL IN AMERICA:
UNDERSTANDING THE REMAINDER PROBLEM," by Nicholas J. Johnson.
It was published by the Wake Forest Law Review. It's worth a read if you're interested in scholarly approaches to gun control legislation.
http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf
This paper is entitled "IMAGINING GUN CONTROL IN AMERICA:
UNDERSTANDING THE REMAINDER PROBLEM," by Nicholas J. Johnson.
It was published by the Wake Forest Law Review. It's worth a read if you're interested in scholarly approaches to gun control legislation.
You know that it has nothing to do with being a pacifist.
Besides, what fear should I have? That you will 'subjugate' me? Why would you do that? For what purpose? Should I be perpetually afraid of being 'subjugated' by some dark, faceless enemy? Why?
I agree that this is often the case. I have also been confronted by gun control advocates (in my own family) who believe that a gun, by itself, will somehow manipulate one's mind into picking it up and using it on a family member.
There are always those who take arguments to extremes, but they represent real fears that have at least some legitimate basis in reality.
The gun proponent fears that an unarmed populace is less able to defend itself against a government run amok.
The gun opponent fears that a gun in a home is more likely to be used in a moment of passion than if one is not readily at hand.
Both fears have at least some basis in reality.
Gordon Nore
Senior Master
Agreed. By the reasoning suggested in the e-mail, Canadians can expect to be lined up by their government and exterminated at any moment. What is going unnoticed, or at least un-remarked upon in the article, is that in each society listed a specific ethnic group is being targeted, possibly with the knowledge, if not consent, of other groups whose ethnicity is reflected in the ruling authority.
Typically when I hear individuals defend their gun rights, they speak of protecting themselves, their families, and their property. Reasonable self interest.
So when I'm rounded up in Toronto, can I expect the denizens of Jimmy Mack's Anchor Bar in Buffalo to put down a chicken wing and pick up a rifle to come protect me?
If there is poutine and good Canadian beer in it for me, I'm there!
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
No, its more of a statement of "If you would try and force your beliefs on me and see me disarmed, once I was sure you were disarmed, nothing would stop me from doing the same to you." There is always someone to fear, be it a "Latin King" or a "Hell's Angel" or just some lunatic having a bad day... they dont NEED a REASON to Subjugate you... if you are weaker, and it suits their purpose, so be it.
Bill... I know that comment wasnt directed at me per se, but to clarify MY position, I don't personally think I need my weapons because of the government, so much as I think the government is trying to put me in a position of being a victim. When I am unarmed, even a small group of unarmed "citizens" who band together have enough might to take what is mine... be it money, property or life. If it's NOT as the Supreme Court says, the Duty of the police to protect me, and its not might right to protect myself, who's is it, I ask?
grydth
Senior Master
Respectfully, Bill, I believe the error you make is applying logic to the history and actions of the human species.
Many of the actions taken by humans, whether as individuals or as nations, bear little relationship to any rational or logical thought process. This is especially true with regards to violent actions.
The perceived status of a victim ( be it an individual in a house or the minority population of a country) as being defenseless plays a large role in the killer deciding whether to attack and murder them.
Whether it be group genocide or individual homicide, I believe the crime is much more likely to be consummated when the victim has been deprived of effective means of self defense.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Thats what I was was trying to convey, thanks!
Actually, I'm not applying logic to history, I'm applying logic to the argument, which is a different thing. I am not saying, for example, that the statements are untrue. I am saying the argument is invalid. That has nothing to do with mankind's tendencies.
The rooster example I used shows this. Roosters crow, and they are known for crowing at dawn. But we know that dawn comes whether there is a rooster to crow before it or not. Therefore, it would be a logical fallacy to claim that roosters crow at dawn, therefore the sun comes up.
This is the basis of the Post Hoc Fallacy.
The email specifies times in history when guns have been outlawed, and then notes a later time when a genocide happened in that country. This denotes a causal connection (the dawn broke because the rooster crowed). Yet clearly, not every gun ban has led to genocide. Therefore, there is no causal connection - or at least, the cause has not been shown in the email's argument. The argument is illogical - of the 'questionable cause' sort.
If one intends to argue that gun bans lead to genocide, then one must show the causal link. It is not enough to show first one, then the other, and claim a link. Roosters crow, the sun comes up. If I want to prove that roosters cause the sun to rise, it will take more than noting these two facts without any other form of support. It is not only not a proof, it's not even a logical argument.
I tend to agree with that statement. However, that is not the argument the email offered. It was the logical fallacy that I addressed.
As to your statement itself, be aware that asserting this requires evidence in support of your allegation. Does it? I am aware of one or two studies which tend to support that; and others which contradict it. At best, I would say that there is some logical support for that argument, hardly proof.
Again, I tend to agree with you, but again, I believe that there is evidence which points both ways.
I suppose that is why I tend to simply focus on the 2nd Amendment, rather than arguments about the public and private benefit concerning why there should or should not be gun control/confiscation/etc. I do not think there is conclusive evidence in favor of or against private gun ownership as regards crime; certainly none as it regards genocide (in the US, which is what I'm concerned with). And if I accepted that such proof could be produced, I would be committing myself to accepting the results if the proof demonstrated that gun control or confiscation was a good thing - and I won't do that. So I find it best not to tread that path - for me.
