Gun Restrictions and Your Rights

Bushead

Supply and Demand; busting out micro econ!

SGG does have a point. This would mean only rich people would be able to access guns and, in turn, be able to "defend" themselves.

Beemnseven

1. You only have to look at recent events to recognize the capability of evil in the human heart. If you cannot envision a state in which the law-abiding won't be at the mercy of the lawless, then I don't know what else to say.

2. What if a dozen people mean to do you harm? Is your right of self-defense limited to the type of weapon your opponent has? i.e. they have a knife, so I can defend myself with a knife, but if they have handgun with a magazine capacity of 15 rounds, legally, I may not possess such a weapon.

Beemnseven

Since the state of Iraq's government is in complete disarray and there's no semblance of a police force to adequately address the problem of crime, I'd say this is a poor comparison to use.

I will say that if guns were outlawed amongst the general public, there would still be crime, wouldn't you agree?

Sheriff Gonna Getcha

You predict that, absent legal gun ownership, the streets of America would be unbelievably chaotic with death everywhere. As a corollary, you believe that the U.S. government is incapable of protecting the people by itself (i.e., it needs gun owners to assist). So, with regard to Iraq, I don't see how you can simply blame their ineffective government for the violence. After all, you already believe that our government is incapable of keeping us relatively safe.

Obviously, there are many other problems in Iraq (sectarian strife) that we do not have. So Iraq, of course, is not completely analogous. But, I don't think there is a single person who believes that the proliferation of weapons in Iraq has deterred criminals.

I certainly agree. But, I also think that gun crimes would decrease as the availability of guns decreases and their cost increases.

TheMalcolmConnection

What makes me angry is that it seems like they think it's OK, since they too are suffering pain. That's TOTAL BS. I think that at least the majority of people here feel the pain of the Iraqi people who die in the war.

This was a LOCAL, non-government involved event and all you can say is basically: "Now you see what it feels like." **** that.

__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I've got to ask this one again Beems. So, you don't take issue with our central premise (e.g., that in a perfect world guns would be banned). Rather, you believe that it is impossible to get firearms out of circulation?

Bushead

Well i wouldn't take it too personally. This is going to be a generalization, but most people in the middle east get their information from the internet or from propaganda newspapers. Watch Thomas Friedman's report on the Root Causes of 9/11 with the Discovery channel, and you'll see Iraq citizens who think Americans were the ones who hijacked the plans, Al Gore is Jewish and thats why he didn't win the election, and all sorts of other odd things. Its no telling what they are reading

Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I saw that too Bush. Like all of Friedman's stuff, it was an interesting (and scary) documentary.

Bushead

I've seen all of his reports. I think they are really really good reporting and shows many sides of the story. He doesn't editoralize that much and its just insightful. Love him.

Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Yeah, he is definately curious and doesn't try to browbeat you into thinking a particular way. With regard to most Middle Eastern issues he definately tries to present both sides of the story. That he is Jewish and still able to maintain a high degree of independence on matters concerning Israel says a lot about his journalistic integrity.

Beemnseven

Would the world be a better place without the need for firearms? Of course.

What if there were no evil, no bad people? No disease? Complete world peace? Yes, all these things would be fantastic. But that's utopia, fantasyland. We don't live in that world.

And no, I don't believe it would be possible to completely remove guns from circulation -- even if it were possible, which I dispute, don't you think enterprising individuals would come up with a weapon of some sort for defense? Nature abhors a vaccuum. Human spirit and ingenuity would prevail and there will only be some other form of destruction to contend with.

Did we not learn anything from the prohibition of alcohol? Are we currently not learning anything from illegal drugs?

Beemnseven

Thank you.

Now, as to your arguments, yes weapons can be traced with serial numbers.

There would be a huge problem with confiscation. Can you imagine the carnage that would ensue when our own government begins the process of rounding up everyone with a gun, busting down their doors, using force to achieve their goals? Certainly, there will be those who willingly conceed. But the sheer number of private citizens and police who would perish in carrying out such a law would be catastrophic.

Guns may not be manufactured here, but the United States as of yet has no power to force their laws on other countries. The business of manufacturing would simply flow to areas where it is not illegal to produce weapons.

A limited supply will drive up the price, then you have the problem of the black market. Our discussion of the illegality of drugs in another thread already addressed this issue. The problem only gets worse at that point.

Beemnseven

Do I believe that the absence of an adequate police force contributes to a rise in crime in Iraq or elsewhere? Of course. Are the people of Iraq sufficiently armed to protect themselves against crimes of a domestic nature? Obviously not. Would crime disappear if there were no guns in Iraq? We both agree that would not be the case.

I never said the government is incapable of protecting its citizens against crime.

I believe it's an individual right and responsibility to protect yourself. The police cannot be everywhere all the time.

I think one of our fundamental differences SGG, is the extent of our individual rights. Our civilization recognizes these as life, liberty, and property. If you believe individuals have the right to life, liberty, and property, then you must also believe that we have the right to defend these things from the force of others who wish to do harm to us. If we are denied the ability to protect ourselves from the criminal element, if that is officially taken away from us, then we no longer have the expectation of these rights.

Now, you might say that the government is then burdened with this responsibility totally. The problem there, is that a government which is strong enough to give us everything we need, is powerful enough to take it all away. With federal protection, comes federal strings.

It's my belief that ultimately, each of us is responsible for ourselves. That goes from the very basic needs of life -- food, shelter, clothing -- to the defense of those items in the face of an armed attacker.