Wow, I step away for a couple days to get some work done and see what happens!

Guess I probably should clarify that I'm not totally anti-gun or anything -- I have a .22 in my closet -- but I do lean more towards the left on this one. (FWIW, I'm a liberal libertarian, if that makes any sense to you...) I genuinely feel that I do so in the interest of my own personal safety and the safety of people I love, just as I assume everyone else does. As such, it seems like we could all arrive at a consensus, but I know I'm dreaming...

Just want to make a few points:

1. "Arms", in the second amendment debate, are for some reason assumed by gun-rights advocates to be handguns and semi-auto assault rifles. It's an arbitrary definition. ASSUMING "arms" equals hand-carried weapons (which I've still not convinced of), that still includes not just handguns and semi-auto assault rifles, but also shoulder-fired rockets, fully automatic midi-guns, sachel grenades, suitcase nukes -- are these not also protected under the 2nd Amendment? It's just that much more potential for mass murder, if you ask me. Sure, NYC would be MUCH safer with 3 million suitcase nukes trundling about in the hands of Joe American... :rolleyes: Imagine the damage a disgruntled ex-employee could do -- prolly take out an entire city block and kill thousands. Hurray for arms rights!! Hah, good luck defending yourself against that one.

Gun rights groups assert that the "right to arms" is absolute, but that's a fantasy. We would all do well to lose the absolutist fanatacism, recognize that the line is indeed arbitrary, and boil it down to WHERE that line should be drawn and why -- which is actually a determination of just how much killing power Joe American should have.

(In effect, though, the gun control vs. gun rights debate do that for us. It's just frustrating, for both sides, to not have a clear definition that lasts more than a coupla years.)

Again, though, I really do think the US constitution intended us to be free to own ANY weapon, without restriction. But, bright as they were, even they could not have forseen the destructive power of modern weaponry.

2. The assertion that more guns always make society safer is just wrong. In Denmark (my wife's native country) a few years ago, a policeman was shot and killed. It was a *huge*shock -- the first time it had happened in the entire country in like 10 years, if not ever, and it was easily the top story in the country for several days. (Law officers getting shot is, sadly, a pretty common occurance here in the States.) Nobody has guns over there. The violent crime rate is 1/10th what it is here in the US. You can walk through the middle of downtown Copenhagen at 2:00am without fear for your personal safety. (After living here for nearly 10 years, my wife still doesn't understand that it's a BAD IDEA to do that in a US city.)

Of course Danish culture is different than US culture. And no doubt there are situations where more guns equals less crime. But to assert as fact that it's always true (dunno that anyone here is, but it's certainly implied) just stinks of fanaticism.

3. The notion that citizens should have weapons specifically so that they can ignore laws with which they disagree is, well, disturbing. Somebody look up the definition of "criminal" for me. Or are you only a criminal if you break a law that you agree with? (huh???)

Oh well. Good debate!! :3eye:

Sorta but there are competing rights which the courts have found. My take on it is that just by starting contruction on a suitcase nuke, you're committing reckless endangerment. I dunno how much reckless endangerment is a part of the law though.

Argh, i'm a sucker for punsihment, one more before i head off for a well deserved break.

I haven't see a democrasy colapse due to the citizens to wield assult rifles yet. In this day and age i don't beleive it makes the slightest in a western democrasy. Law enforcement is a job for police, not vigilantes, if you want personal defense, carry a nonlethal weapon. Talking of simplistic, you paint criminals as people whos primary interest is kiling people, if thats not simplistic i don't know what is.

Pfft bullshit. Least in sth east asia. i spoke in detail to over 20 people who have done the kakoda trail, outer thailand, burma, cambodia etc. Some of them have been robbed. Based on their expereince and those of others they spoke to carrys arms means you are far more likely to get shot, these guys are ogranised, heavily armed and nervour, try and pull a pistol and you'll have a clip of AK-47 in you.. I cannot speak for america but that was the overwhelming advise i recieved. I intend to take it. Its not based on any bullshit you're trying to put into my mouth, its based on the experience of those who've been there and done that.

More space, machinery and technicial expertise is needed to produce a beretta replica than a block of herion.

As for CA guns laws, of course they cannot control guns, they're so easily avaiable across the border. Drug prohibition is of course a joke, like booze prohobition, guns are different in many, many ways.

Yes, exactly my point! At some point, one man's right to bear arms becomes reckless endangerment of others. (Incidentally, this is exactly why it is other people's business what weapons I choose to keep -- allow me too much power and they are potentially put in danger.) Now whether to draw the line at suitcase nukes, assault rifles, or sharp pointy sticks is another question, but an absolute right to bear arms is a fallacy. Sounds good for NRA rallies, but it doesn't make sense in the Real World. FWIW, I think the courts "get it", but the public does not, at least not consciously.

But remember kids, suitcase nukes don't kill people; people kill people. (Sorry, need more coffee... :D )

At least one fundamental flaw with having this particular argument (as Undertoad has already pointed out) is that we are arguing about very different parts of the world.
First, jag (and, to a lesser extent, sludge), my right to carry arms is fundamentally different from yours. In the United States, we get (in theory, at least) to carry weapons for self-defense. The government doesn't get to take that right away (again, in theory). The Australian government doesn't work like that. That's fine if that's the way they think their citizens want their country.
But...
you still have yet to prove to me that guns are inherently bad. You say they are bad because they are designed to kill. I say they are good for exactly the same reason. My argument can be stated thus:
If someone wants to hurt me or mine, I will stop them any way necessary.
We have come to an impasse that we will not be able to surmount, two radically different ways of looking at the same thing. I have something for you to mull over though:
A gun is neither inherently good or bad. It is simply a tool. Yes, the primary purpose of that tool is to make stuff disappear in a wicked awesome conflagration of smoke, fire, and lead. But, I put it to both of you to prove that a gun is inherently bad. I will already state that I cannot prove a gun is inherently good. It seems that the intentions of the user of that tool are what matters.

*Discuss*

Yes, that's it! - in the hands of the bad guys, a gun is a horrid tool of great danger, terror, death etc. In the hands of the good guys, a gun is a tool for marvelous good, preventing danger and terror etc.

In the US you are Constitutionally a good guy (or gal) until proven otherwise. This frustrates local municipalities no end because we all know some of those good guys are actually bad. They want to limit gun usage but have no basis on which to do it. They're left to do things like creating arbitrary restrictions and limiting the number of permits and such. Studies show it doesn't work...

Let's play word substitution: "in the hands of the bad guys, a [thermonuclear device] is a horrid tool of great danger, terror, death etc. In the hands of the good guys, a [thermonuclear device] is a tool for marvelous good, preventing danger and terror etc."

Argh, I hate that argument, cuz it's so irrelevant -- EVERYTHING is a tool, with no inherent goodness or badness. A hammer is a tool. A rock is a tool. Cocaine is a tool. A torture device is a tool. A strap-on dildo is a tool. Some tools are good for pounding nails; some tools are good for killing people. What's yer point?

And ya know, it's true -- nukes are tools too -- but Joe American really does not need to have a nuke in his basement. Bad Idea. It's a question of HOW MUCH POWER Joe American should have before it endangers others. Not a question of whether guns are "bad", per se, but a question of whether guns in the hands of avg. Americans are bad.

As an aside, not really relevant to the arms rights discussion, but indicative of my feelings on the matter:

Guns just require too little effort, IMO. Maybe that's what pisses me off about 'em. Any schmoe can get $99 pawn shop special and cap me in the back of the head for the change I'm carrying. Doesn't matter how much heat I'm packing -- pull that trigger finger 1/2" when I'm not looking, I die. Too easy. Maybe it pisses me off cuz I'm a fairly big guy, which is a GREAT deterrant for fist fights, but means nothing vs a gun. If you're gonna kill me, I at least want to make you work for it. It takes a lot more rage and sweat to beat someone to death than *POP*; hence it's less likely to happen, as people are fundamentally lazy.

Ideally, my killer would be a 5th degree black-belt. You know, train his whole life for it. At least he would have earned it...

headsplice: Check my profile -- I'm an American, at least I *think* South Carolina still qualifies...

Not to disagree in spirit, but "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.."
(original Jeffersonian text before the politicians peed in the soup)

Everybody has the same rights "derived from that equal creation" . Those rights are inherent and inalienable, and I beleve those rights include the right to keep and bear arms. I suppose a people could elect to waive thier rights in this regard, since the powers of government "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed". But I'm too much of a libartarian myself to cotton to surrendering my rights "for the good of the collective".

My point is that everybody has the same rights, including those who have waived them voluntarily.

But it's not irrelevant, it's *true*. The fact that it undermines your line of argument is what bothers you.
See, this is that same old "prove you *need* something before we will let you have it" argument that is so perverted. The question isn't "are guns bad", guns or any other object aren't capable of being bad or good. You're looking for a shortcut past "malum in se", (which is such a hard call to make) so you can go directly to "malum prohibidum".

The question isn't "what does a gun become in the hands of an 'average American' (whoever *that* is, we are a populaton of extremes and variety, not averages). The question you should really be asking is "are <b>people</b> good or evil?"...a question that can't be answered in bulk. We have a process here for deciding that on an individual basis. It is based on evidence and credibility, and we call it the justice system.
Ah! The light begins to dawn! You want to preserve your personal physical advantage. The idea that you are as vulnerable as everybody else is what <b>really</b> bugs you about the right to keep and bear arms. But why should you be entitled to hold more power than your fellow citizens, who have the same rights you do? Just because you're bigger and stronger? You're not an inherently superior being just because you're a jock, you know.

Abstract absolute rights. Something i've heard throw about here before. They don't exist. Freedom of speach is not absolute freedom of speach. Its free as long as its not libel, or slander, or a threat or piss anyone off enough. Its limited freedom of speach. There is no such thing as absolute rights. You have no rights. When the shit hits the fan, your rights will be ignored. Look at two of the US suspects of terror. Locked up without trial, with access to lawyers. Every right you have is given to you until you piss someone off enough for them to take it away. You can't defend against that, people protesting in the streets won't change that. Our own apathy and greed destroyed the concept of a functioning democracy generations ago. We're at baseline politics now. At a macropolitical level the actions of individual are meaningless and the actions of groups are meanless unless they offer political power or money. Guns on thier own offer nether anymore. The tools of power have changed.


Man, you really are bitter aren't you? That statement shows more about your mentality than anything else. Guns are the big equaliser eh? Now i can take on that tough guy. What happens when someone gets a bigger gun. What happens when all thsoe bad guys you're just itching to blow away get bigger guns. What happens when they're nervous, they don't want to die, shaking hands on tigger fingers. Not good.

Issac Asimov.
Never heard a truer sentence.

EDIT: tools....knew i forgot something. Fundamentally a gun is desigend to kill people. That is in my book a bad thing, no matter who does the killing or why. There are many alternative forms of self defence that are designed to injure or incapacitate, killing should be a last possible alternative, not the first. Therefore guns, for your average joe are an unnessacary risk in terms of self defence.

Metropolitan Los Angeles has 4 times the number of people in metro Sydney (16 million vs. 4 million). Los Angeles city alone has 3.7 million. Based upon the populations alone, I'd say that there will be more guns in Los Angeles.

Now, is it likely that there are more drive-by shootings in Los Angeles? I would say so, based on numbers alone. As far as your chances of getting shot...you're not helping your case in using California, as Maggie noted.

I'd like to see some stats on that (though I would think them hard to find, if they're even kept).

Jag, when those new gun laws kicked in, do you think that the criminals said, "Dum de doo. I guess I'll have to turn in my gun now."? I'd wager that you probably still have the same folks with the same guns in the same clubs. I suspect the security you and others feel is probably a psychological effect, with no basis in fact.

It's only abstract to you because your rights in this connection are already gone. For me the issue is still quite concete, thanks. And nobody said "absolute" either; there's plenty of ways self-defense rights are abridged. Some I agree with, some I don't.

So you've set up a "straw-man" augument and then torn it down. Bravo.
(Will you be taking a class in argumentation when you get to college? You *are* going to go to college, right? We haven't heard much about that lately, and September is next month.)
Well, I can certainly see that the functioning of <b>your</b> democracy is impaired, whether we're talking obout the right to keep and bear arms or the right to see what you want on the Internet. But then "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance", as long as we're flinging quotes about. <b>Our</b> democracy still seems to be struggling along somehow...not perfect, but arguably still the best deal in town. YMMV.
I beleive the quote is "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetant", from the "Foundation" trilogy. Don't you see that when one employs a weapon in self-defense, it is against such an incompetant who has taken refuge in violence?

Dr. Asimov was an impressive polymath, a good science fiction writer and a delightful gentleman. I met him at a convention in NYC once; I don't think he'd be pleased at the way the words of his character Salvor Hardin have been abused since then. Hardin also said: "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right."

Oh, dear, we're back to this again. "Anyone who arms themselves for protection must be in the grip of blood lust." Of course, training with and carrying a blade among a disarmed population is noble, it's just <i>firearms</i> that are implicitly evil.

Yes, weapons <b>are</b> an equalizer in combat between the bigger and stronger and the smaller and weaker. That's a trend since Ogg the caveman first picked up a stick. It's continued through the invention of the spear, the sword, armor, the longbow, and so on. Firearms have removed the last advantage of the brute.The possibility that ordinary people may be legally armed with concealed handguns makes comitting violent crime a much trickier and more dangerous affair--<b>for the criminal</b>. I like it that way. Too bad if you don't. But will you ever stop conflating the desire to not be helpless in the face of violence with the desire to <b>be</b> violent?

Sludge feels much better when he's the biggest guy in the joint, and doesn't have to worry that that guy over there who *looks* like a pushover might not actually be. And you seem unable to abide the idea that there are people with the freedom to legally choose to arm themselves, they all must all be slavering murderers looking for an excuse to unleash a bloodbath. (That's called "projection", and even if you don't get a class in argumentation, they'll cover that for you in freshman psych, under "defense mechanisms".)

Look, the process of licencing for concealed carry filters out the great preponderance of people likely to commit *any* crime, much less starting a random spray of fire at a disco (which is your violent fantasy) or sneak up behind Sludge and put a bullet in his head, depriving him of a dramatic struggle on some "Mortal Combat" field of honor, may the best man win.

Those are <b>crimes</b>. I know many folks licenced for concealed carry personally; they are gentle, careful, responsible people. I'm not uncomfortable around them in the slightest. Unfortunately you have little chance to learn the truth of that, since anyone who's armed where you are is by definition a criminal.

So spare me your "you must be bitter". That's a ludicrous red herring...especially after your jaded assertion that democracy is dead and our rights are dead abstractions. Methinks the pot calls the kettle black.

I don't remember linking that to arms rights. I don't remember linking it ot my rights either. Please stop attempting to put words in my mout, particuarly when you misinterpreting deliberately or not what i said.


Its called uni here. Yea most likely. THe way my marks are going 'I'll be able to get into my course either some breathing room. Either way what the heck does that have to do with anything? The style of my writing here is terrible. If i handed it in i'd get a D if i was lucky. The crap i write on here is nothing like my actual work, i write this entirely on the fly, no review time, no rewrites, no forward thinking about structure. I've got a bunch of opinionative stuff coming up for school, i might able able to twist one of them towards gun rights (taeacher asked me to submit a list of topics so...) so i might be able to write some real stuff on the issue, factually back up logically structured bulletproof stuff unlike the random rablings i'm usually posting.

Thats bloody debateable. TOu have two parties which squeese out a fair competition with anyone else, and your currant leader was elected by the supreme court. In fact just under 1 quarter of your population voted for him. Best deal in town my ass. The only truely effective democracy existed in Ancient Greece, its a pity our sociopolitical structure jsut would not allow such a system. These days Britan inho has the ebst system, although their judicial wing could do with some redessing. Representative democracy is flawed either way.



Pardon? Ok i went a little over on the bloodlust stuff, sure ill admit that but where did you pull the knife stuff from?

It merely makes the criminal more likely to be armed, more nervous and more likely to shoot you. Wonderful, now everyone is equal - until someone gets a bigger gun, a point which you don't seem to willing to address. If everyone is equal you're just as likely to be shot, what have you really gained?


Firstly i'm not sure where you got my "violent fantasty" from. I've got a friend with a plastic kneecap from an incident in a sydney nightclub.

Hehehehe. I'm not in the least bit jaded about it, i understand hw the system works and how to twist it to my advantage, Why would i be jaded? I find the whole thing quite fun really.

OK, cynical rather than jaded, then.
Oh...I see. Sorry, I thought you *meant* what you said here. If *you* call it crap, why bridle when I style it "blather"?

If this isn't your "actual work", and doesn't engage your attention, concern or craft, then I'll ignore it. After all, if your words here aren't worthy of *your* attention, they're certainly not worth mine.

Yes, i'm cynical.

Time? I do what i can. I've got school and getting back and forth from 6:30 to 4, homework on average is around 4 hours a night, going up to 6 or even 8 depending on the day. On top of that i'm doing some work on the side for a little spare cash. At the moment writing folio work alone has me writing on average a fully polished 1000 word essay every 2 days not to mention regional secuirty analysis papers on the Spratleys which will take up most of this week, i simply don't have time to polish my posts. I don't see why that invalidates them. either way this thread is going nowhere useful, i should be able to play with one of the topics enough to do an essay on this, ill post that later.