wonderwench

Specious comparison.

Owning a gun harms no other person. It is a personal act.

Raping involves direct harm to another.

One does not have to experience a transgression against another individual to realize that such an act is a violation of their individual rights.

wonderwench

Another specious comparison.

A gun is a tool that one can handle with safety and responsibility - which the vast majority of gun owners practise.

Drugs are ingested, altering the mind and body. There is plenty of empirical evidence of the delterious effects.

Owning a gun is not inherently dangerous - the danger lies in how one handles it.

Kadath

Fair enough! I did admit you could call it a strawman if you liked. I shall throw one other example out; feel free to argue with it as well.
I don't have any tattoos, though my of my friends including my girlfriend do. I don't need one to know I don't want one. I have seen many people regret the permanent marks they have made on their bodies, and I don't pretend to think any of the things I hold important today will still matter to me in ten years, when I will likely have children and a mortgage.

__________________
it's quiet in here

cthulu23

I think that you make an important point here...."experience with guns" means more than just handling firearms. The experiences of a trauma surgeon or police officer with regards to weaponry will differ greatly from that of a sportsman but are equally valid.

wonderwench

A bit more apt comparison. A tattoo is a matter of personal taste, affecting the individual who will have it.

It is not to your taste - but I do not see you advocating for a ban on tattoos which prevent others from adorning their bodies.

ARTelevision

cthulu23: Yes.
As point of fact I did support the Brady Bill. That's exactly where I draw the line. The sad fact is that it has not reduced the rates of violent crime or murder. However, I accept the provisions for a waiting period and other regulatory provisions that it and other gun laws sustain. One can not paint all gun advocates with a broad brush.

__________________
create evolution

cthulu23

In the same way, the label of "anti-gun" is too broad....there is a world of difference between advocacy for tighter controls (waiting period, background check, etc), limiting certain weapon/ammo types and all-out abolition.

One tangential point: haven't the rates of cartain violent crimes been on the decline for the last decade? I'm not claiming that the Brady Bill is or isn't partially responsible for this decline, but it does tie into your statement about the continuance of violence post-Brady Bill.

wonderwench

Crime rates are affected more by the economy than then are by gun legislation, imo. There is quite a bit of evidence, however, that when conceal carry permits are easier to acquire, the murder rates falls - FL is a good case study.

ARTelevision

Here's a link from Newsmax. I know it's not a universally quoted source. I'm open to hearing about the stats others may have access to. If it's doing some good - so much the better.

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/8/1/183258

__________________
create evolution

analog

I think the problem people are having here is that it is not a universally transferable idea, and some of you are trying to do just that.

Just because Art's saying that experience tends to give one a higher degree of credibility does NOT mean that you have no credibility if you have NOT had experience.

A prime example: People always bitch about how "people who don't have kids shouldn't tell people WITH kids how to raise them." Society places a higher level of credibility in the parenting opinions of an actual parent, but that does not mean that if you are not a parent, you can't have any credibility.

Credibility can be gained in many different ways, without ever having a kid or tending for one- but we, as a society, will still place the most credibility in those with whom direct experience lies.

So, if you have kids- answer me this, and you'll know what I mean. If you had to pick a babysitter when you went out, and only had two choices- one, a woman of 30 who has a child of her own who is older than yours, or two, a woman of 30 with no children but who has "read up a lot on it and formed their own opinions"....

Which would most people choose? I think you know what I mean now.

roachboy

i am skeptical of arguments that run: if everyone is strapped, then the murder rate will go down---simply because:

i cannot see the value of the dodge city 1880 western film model for interaction betwen civilized beings.

second it assumes that, again like a western film, everyone who is strapped will have their six gun in a handy holster at thier side and be able to whip the thing out at the critical moment without fucking up.

third because i do not think it is necessarily a good idea for everyone to have a gun in a situation that generates some level of fear--it seems to be a handy way to bypass negociation and go straight to a situation where people are likely to end up dead....

fourth because i would not personally feel any safer if i had a gun on me--i would worry far too much that if i were to use it in a stupid situation, that through no fault of my own, quite apart from my intentions, some passer-by might end up dead or maimed because even if i were to take a sudden interest in weapons and go to a firing range and practice ad infinitum, it would seem to me that in moments of real stress, real fear, my control over the minutae of the physical mechanisms required to be in more-or-less total alignment so as to aim the thing properly could not be counted on, and again, someone passing by, or sitting in a nearby apartment watching tv or talking to a friend, maybe a kid, could end up dead or maimed because of a stray bullet...and because regardless of your experience with weapons like this, it cannot be deined that a gun is something of an abstract mechanism the projectiles from which rip through all bodies/materials without differentiation.

and it would seem that walking down the street and happening upon such a situation would not be comparable with being in a war scenario because in a war scenario, such situations are part of the expectations you bring into the game. surprise like what i talk about above seems to me totally different.

i do not know how i would handle the balance between my sense of personal space and its defense as over against mowing down some kid by mistake. i dont know if i could deal with it. but i **do** know that once the gun was out, i could not be certain of what was going to happen.

as for credibility, i would think that one should have it granted in this kind of scenario because it requires only that one have lived a certain period of time as a human being, be able to imagine scenarios, and know something about your own reactions.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

"An armed society is a polite societ."

For another viewpoint, roachboy, I recommend the very excellent scifi novel "Voyage from Yesteryear" by James P. Hogan.

roachboy

i think that quote is madness.
and it says nothing about the substance of the post.

but i will check out the scifi suggestion--thanks.

let's say everyone did have a gun, and a scenario unfolded like the one i outlined above, and your nervousness caused you to, say, mow down a kid--how would you deal with it? as "collateral damage"? and how would killing someone by mistake not be an infringement on the rights of another individual in a kinda radical way? wouldnt the possibility of errors, and the consequences of them, run straight against the fetishism of the isolated individual so important to a libertarian viewpoint?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

You are making a mistaken assumption that I would be nervous.

Unleashed

Own guns, pro-gun.
Grew up in South Africa with everyone killing each other, so I feel unsafe without them around.

analog

If you are nervous having a gun, then simply do not have one, or do not ever use it. If you make a mistake while using a gun- assuming that you HAD to use it to begin with- then you face the consequences of your actions, just like with anything else.

It is irresponsible gun ownership and use that causes many of the gun problems in this country. Every time some fuckhead leaves a loaded gun under his/her pillow for their kid to blow their head off with, we hear about how horrible guns are on the news for a month. Bullshit.

roachboy

maybe so--but i did not know that training/practice/experience with a gun would eliminate chance.
particularly in really nervewracking situations.

maybe that is the secret of training with a gun--that you eliminate all contingency.

i mean, i have been playing piano for 35 years--i have a shitload of training--i play in situations i can control, but which remain nervewracking--i would wager that i have as high a level of control over that instrument, have put more time in with it, as anyone of my age has with a gun---and yet i find that arbitrary things still go wrong. that you cant eliminate chance.

but maybe you're right: maybe a gun is different from any other object, and the zone around it magically transforms people from agents capable of error into perfect beings who can talk with absolute assurance about all possible situations.

i didnt know that about guns.

i guess i missed out.

and not to worry--i would not carry a gun---i dont like them---but i still am agnostic on matters of legislation.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

analog

Your sarcasm aside, it is a simple fact that if having one makes you uncomfortable, or if you feel you cannot handle the responsibilities inherent to gun ownership, then you should not have one.

Some people cannot handle knives well, and repeatedly cut themselves if they ever try to chop anything (in food preparation)... and many of them simply do not use knives unless they must because they know their limitations.

There is no shame in knowing your limitations.

roachboy

i just dont see how this particular line of argument gets any of us anywhere, really--the thread was about a correlation between attitudes toward guns and bakc ground--i think we are confirming the correlation over and over.

i wasnt being particularly sarcastic---i was rephrasing the argument---what i find is that it is sometimes difficult to maintain an agnostic position because the particular attitudes of individuals who are passionate about gun ownership sometimes leads tham to make arguments that make others think--geez--is this really how people think about guns?--and maybe even prompts anti gun ownership people to move further into their positions because they think the other side is simply nuts.

the flip is also true---the people who have gradually backed me away from supporting gun control were those who grew up with them and who did not fall into logic problems in trying to explain their positions. **they** got me to listen, and to re-evaluate things.

btw---not liking guns personally is not a limitation. it is a position that is as coherent as your is--for people other than you.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Publius

Pro-gun/anti-gun, such a black & white choice isn't it? What about those of us who end up somewhere in the middle, like me for instance. Growing up in a very rural region of the mid-west I grew up with guns in my house just like everyone else that I knew as a kid did. Reflecting back on my childhood, though, I’ve realized something. When you grow up with guns in the house, you learn how to treat them with a great deal of respect and learn the proper do’s and don’ts of gun ownership (like never point one at anything you don’t want to kill, whether it is loaded or not). Like most kids I knew, I took gun safety courses and training exercises from our local chapter of the NRA and became quit a good marksmen too.

But herein lies the problem, many gun owners have never taken a gun safety course or ever been properly trained in gun ownership. Now, I share the common sentiment that most pro-gun people have, that any responsible adult should have the right to own arms, per the 2nd amendment. The problem I have is with the word “responsible” because as it is there is no real way to gage just how responsible a person will be with their guns. This is why I am in favor of gun handling training in all of our public schools, if nothing more then to teach people what to do if they happen to find a weapon lying around, and some form of gun “drivers licence” that shows that a person has satisfactorily completed a gun ownership safety and usage course (preferably one that is well established like those offered by the NRA). If a person is unwilling to take such a course then I don’t think that they should be allowed to own a gun because they have not demonstrated that they are a responsible citizen (just like people who don’t bother to resister shouldn’t be allowed to vote come election day). Would this be an undo burden upon gun owners? I don’t believe so as most people would be able to pass the course easily, and some of them could probably use a refresher course in gun safety anyway (I have met more then a few actually who I have wanted to smack upside the head for mishandling their weapon). So what does this make me? Pro-gun or Anti-gun? How about pro-gun for those willing to demonstrate that they are responsible enough citizens to exercise their 2nd amendment right.

wonderwench

In CA, one is not able to purchase a gun without having first taken a gun safety and handling course.

cthulu23

And we all know what a peaceful place California can be

kurty[B]

I agree with this.

I'm joining the discussion a bit late.

I've fired guns, I've been fired at. Once was trespassing on an old man's property, and him shooting his shotgun and telling my friends and I to leave (I was young, and he was probably shooting into the air, but it was enough to scare the crap out of me and get me off his property in no time flat). The other time was in middle school when a 15 year old who stole his father's gun and thought he was some sort of gangster with it decided he'd try and be tough, luckily he didn't know what he was doing, and had horrible aim.

Now, I know some of those people who experienced that middle school incident are completely anti-gun. My take on it... The kid wasn't a licensed gun owner, he stole his father's gun. I do feel that gun owners should be licensed, and new gun owners should be required to attend some sort of training on handling, firing, and respecting the weapon you will soon own, and I fully support background checks.

Now, taking away our right to have guns... Those who want to use them for the WRONG reasons will find a way to get access to one if they really want to.

I'm still on the fence about automatic weapons.

tecoyah

Fired guns....and sold guns (legally at retail).
If current laws were enforced adequately....I would have no problem with individual gun ownership. I do however....dislike Charleton Heston....lol

I will not own a gun....as I have kids.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha