Eloquent and on target!
Laird
Gun Control - Pro
Gun Control - Pro
Sorry for my delay in posting responses to everybody's posts. My car broke down at school and due to general logistical hassles involved with that I'm staying at a friend's room and haven't been home, or had time elsewhere to give people's responses the attention they deserve, but I am going to respond when I can.
-
Allen M.
Gun Control - Pro
I know that this subject has been beaten ( or shot) to death, but I can't help but think of how a national attitude or mind set can obscure reality)
After I got out of the Army (Korean War), I settled in Framingham, MA and joined the Framingham Sportsmens Association, did a little pistol shooting and acted as legal counsel for a few years.
During that time I enjoyed reading about gun collecting and for the amazing history revealed by that, much as we as MA's learn history in our research.
I learned that certain handguns, made in the United States and shipped to Britain during WW2, were becoming highly prized by collectors.
My reading revealed that at the onset of the war, the United Kingdom was just about a disarmed nation(s).
When things were going rather badly during the war, and Churchill really feared invasion, the United States, was requested to produce handguns. As some of you will know makers such as Smith & Wesson, Colt, Remington and many others already manufactured some excellent firearms (in my opinion superior to UK's Webley revolver etc.)
These were shipped over in quantity for timely distribution as a defense or deterent to invasion; and indeed things were grim at that point.
I soon learned why these weapons were valuable to collectors.
Despite the grave need for the immediate distribution of these weapons, each was sent to a British Proof House for individual testing of the weaons.
This was a slow process consisting of worker's placing each weapon in a vice like holder and firing the same with a "Proof Load" (ammunition loaded with a larger than normal powder charge) to insure that each one was of sufficient quality so as not to burst under normal firing conditions) With a shortage of people to do this testing it was a ver slow process. Not only that; each weapon had to be stamped with a Proof Mark prior to distribution, which further delayed distribution.
The value for collectors was the proof mark, since relatively few ever made it out of the Proof House.
My point is that mindset can obscure reality.
Inspite of the fact that Proofing was indeed part of British Regulations, and the need for weapons desparate regulation over ruled reality.
Alan K
After I got out of the Army (Korean War), I settled in Framingham, MA and joined the Framingham Sportsmens Association, did a little pistol shooting and acted as legal counsel for a few years.
During that time I enjoyed reading about gun collecting and for the amazing history revealed by that, much as we as MA's learn history in our research.
I learned that certain handguns, made in the United States and shipped to Britain during WW2, were becoming highly prized by collectors.
My reading revealed that at the onset of the war, the United Kingdom was just about a disarmed nation(s).
When things were going rather badly during the war, and Churchill really feared invasion, the United States, was requested to produce handguns. As some of you will know makers such as Smith & Wesson, Colt, Remington and many others already manufactured some excellent firearms (in my opinion superior to UK's Webley revolver etc.)
These were shipped over in quantity for timely distribution as a defense or deterent to invasion; and indeed things were grim at that point.
I soon learned why these weapons were valuable to collectors.
Despite the grave need for the immediate distribution of these weapons, each was sent to a British Proof House for individual testing of the weaons.
This was a slow process consisting of worker's placing each weapon in a vice like holder and firing the same with a "Proof Load" (ammunition loaded with a larger than normal powder charge) to insure that each one was of sufficient quality so as not to burst under normal firing conditions) With a shortage of people to do this testing it was a ver slow process. Not only that; each weapon had to be stamped with a Proof Mark prior to distribution, which further delayed distribution.
The value for collectors was the proof mark, since relatively few ever made it out of the Proof House.
My point is that mindset can obscure reality.
Inspite of the fact that Proofing was indeed part of British Regulations, and the need for weapons desparate regulation over ruled reality.
Alan K
Gun Control - Pro
Shoulda let 'em rot...
But even the "liberty pistols" became collectors items worth quite a bit of ca$h. And we all know what those are and how cheaply made they were... right?
But even the "liberty pistols" became collectors items worth quite a bit of ca$h. And we all know what those are and how cheaply made they were... right?
Gun Control - Pro
Schol is done, now I'll be able to make replies. Here's my first, to panther:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
While your symbolic logic may be trivial to some, I'm a little rusty. Please explain it in English. Your answer won't affect my position or remarks. I'm just curious.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Eh, it really wasn't very important, just a remark about an offhand comment, but since you're curious I'll explain. (Ax(GunOwner(x)->Criminal(x))->~Ex(GunOwner(x) AND ~Criminal(x)))
Ax just means for all x, and for this particular sentence, it basically means for all people.
the -> is an if, the ~ is a not, and Ex means there is a person
The next segmment "(GunOwner(x)->Criminal(x))"
is saying the rule "if x owns a gun, then x is a criminal"
and the last big segment says "There is no person who is a gun owner, and is not a criminal"
since they're joined with the if the sentence says "if it's true that every person who owns a gun is a criminal, then there does not exist a person that owns a gun and is not a criminal" This is true implicitly because negating ~Ex(GunOwnerX and ~Criminal(x) yields the form Ax(GownOwner(x)->Criminal(x)). It really wasn't meant to be a big deal. I shouldn't have said it. I was just trying to point out that the proverb was the same as saying "a=a" and expecting it to mean something.
On to more important matters.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Your premise that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is the goal of gun control is incorrect. "Gun control" has but a single purpose. Mao was quite correct that all political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The real purpose of "gun control" is to transfer political power from the sovereign People to a corrupt elite that has commandeered the People's creation - government.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, that may be true for some people. It is certainly not true for me. I assure you that my purpose is not to transfer power to a corrupt elite. You may argue that this is what will happen, but to argue my motive is beside the question. I don't happen to believe it wil happen.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Your myopic analysis of stolen guns, supply lines and black-market economics completely misses the point (or was that the point). "Gun rights" are not an end in themselves. Guns are the teeth of liberty.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Can you explain further how guns are the teeth of liberty?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Modern liberal protestations notwithstanding, "gun safety", "protection of the children", "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" and similar phrases are simply emotional smoke screens meant to confuse the ignorant in a blatant move to obscure and obfuscate what is really going on.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am sorry if you feel this is my intent. It is not. I have no interest in obfuscation.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
As elucidated in the Declaration of Independence, we each have natural, inalienable rights (albeit occasionally limited on a right-by-right basis to ensure that others may exercise their natural rights - for example, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, breeding Ebola-infected pigeons, or using suitcase nukes as piñatas).
If we have natural rights, they cannot (at some irreducible level) be justly subject to legislative or mob rule fiat.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed, wholeheartedly. I'm arguing where that irreducible level lies. Does it lie at the level of suitcase nukes, or does it extend to gun ownership? The inalienable right we have is what exactly, to "possess arms?" This is non-specific. Therefore the argument that the immutability of the law precludes gun control is moot, because gun control is different solely in degree from heavy weapons control,
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
The last thing a potential rape victim should do is willingly allow herself to be handcuffed by her kidnapper. Once captured, rape and death are probable. Escape is unlikely. But once the handcuffs are on, escape becomes impossible and rape or worse becomes a certainty.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For which variety rapes? What is "probable" in your estimation? Are you referring to a particular incident with the handcuffs? I find it curious to imagine a position where a rapist is in a position to politely requet that his victim put on handcuffs, yet is unable to physically force the issue.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Asking the People to buy into sophisticated disarmament arguments is like the kidnapper/rapist plying his prey with liquor, sweet talk and promises of a real good time - if only she'll put on the handcuffs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The only instance in which one person asks another to buy into something is when the former is trying to trick the latter. You have stated that you feel this is the case, but I have yet to see evidence that the motive for my argument is as you say.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Which of our inalienable rights are you willing to see vanish soon after guns have been outlawed? If you believe you can keep your freedoms after our guns are gone, think again. However, the proof that a people, armed with inferior weapons, can stand up against the might of a military super-power has already occurred. Afghanistan immediately comes to mind.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why do you think that's true? The People are already incredibly underpowered to defend themselves against the government. If the government's goal was to revoke freedoms, it could enforce whatever it wanted, armed citizens or no. Tanks and planes are more than a match for individual rifles. You cited Afghanistan as an example of inferior weapons defeating military power. I'm not aware of the situation in Afghanistan. Maybe you can fill me in on how the inferior weaponry triumphed?
[This message has been edited by Valkenar (edited April 30, 2001).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
While your symbolic logic may be trivial to some, I'm a little rusty. Please explain it in English. Your answer won't affect my position or remarks. I'm just curious.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Eh, it really wasn't very important, just a remark about an offhand comment, but since you're curious I'll explain. (Ax(GunOwner(x)->Criminal(x))->~Ex(GunOwner(x) AND ~Criminal(x)))
Ax just means for all x, and for this particular sentence, it basically means for all people.
the -> is an if, the ~ is a not, and Ex means there is a person
The next segmment "(GunOwner(x)->Criminal(x))"
is saying the rule "if x owns a gun, then x is a criminal"
and the last big segment says "There is no person who is a gun owner, and is not a criminal"
since they're joined with the if the sentence says "if it's true that every person who owns a gun is a criminal, then there does not exist a person that owns a gun and is not a criminal" This is true implicitly because negating ~Ex(GunOwnerX and ~Criminal(x) yields the form Ax(GownOwner(x)->Criminal(x)). It really wasn't meant to be a big deal. I shouldn't have said it. I was just trying to point out that the proverb was the same as saying "a=a" and expecting it to mean something.
On to more important matters.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Your premise that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is the goal of gun control is incorrect. "Gun control" has but a single purpose. Mao was quite correct that all political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The real purpose of "gun control" is to transfer political power from the sovereign People to a corrupt elite that has commandeered the People's creation - government.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, that may be true for some people. It is certainly not true for me. I assure you that my purpose is not to transfer power to a corrupt elite. You may argue that this is what will happen, but to argue my motive is beside the question. I don't happen to believe it wil happen.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Your myopic analysis of stolen guns, supply lines and black-market economics completely misses the point (or was that the point). "Gun rights" are not an end in themselves. Guns are the teeth of liberty.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Can you explain further how guns are the teeth of liberty?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Modern liberal protestations notwithstanding, "gun safety", "protection of the children", "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" and similar phrases are simply emotional smoke screens meant to confuse the ignorant in a blatant move to obscure and obfuscate what is really going on.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am sorry if you feel this is my intent. It is not. I have no interest in obfuscation.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
As elucidated in the Declaration of Independence, we each have natural, inalienable rights (albeit occasionally limited on a right-by-right basis to ensure that others may exercise their natural rights - for example, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, breeding Ebola-infected pigeons, or using suitcase nukes as piñatas).
If we have natural rights, they cannot (at some irreducible level) be justly subject to legislative or mob rule fiat.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed, wholeheartedly. I'm arguing where that irreducible level lies. Does it lie at the level of suitcase nukes, or does it extend to gun ownership? The inalienable right we have is what exactly, to "possess arms?" This is non-specific. Therefore the argument that the immutability of the law precludes gun control is moot, because gun control is different solely in degree from heavy weapons control,
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
The last thing a potential rape victim should do is willingly allow herself to be handcuffed by her kidnapper. Once captured, rape and death are probable. Escape is unlikely. But once the handcuffs are on, escape becomes impossible and rape or worse becomes a certainty.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For which variety rapes? What is "probable" in your estimation? Are you referring to a particular incident with the handcuffs? I find it curious to imagine a position where a rapist is in a position to politely requet that his victim put on handcuffs, yet is unable to physically force the issue.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Asking the People to buy into sophisticated disarmament arguments is like the kidnapper/rapist plying his prey with liquor, sweet talk and promises of a real good time - if only she'll put on the handcuffs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The only instance in which one person asks another to buy into something is when the former is trying to trick the latter. You have stated that you feel this is the case, but I have yet to see evidence that the motive for my argument is as you say.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Which of our inalienable rights are you willing to see vanish soon after guns have been outlawed? If you believe you can keep your freedoms after our guns are gone, think again. However, the proof that a people, armed with inferior weapons, can stand up against the might of a military super-power has already occurred. Afghanistan immediately comes to mind.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why do you think that's true? The People are already incredibly underpowered to defend themselves against the government. If the government's goal was to revoke freedoms, it could enforce whatever it wanted, armed citizens or no. Tanks and planes are more than a match for individual rifles. You cited Afghanistan as an example of inferior weapons defeating military power. I'm not aware of the situation in Afghanistan. Maybe you can fill me in on how the inferior weaponry triumphed?
[This message has been edited by Valkenar (edited April 30, 2001).]
Gun Control - Pro
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Van Canna:
Gun Control: The Seventh Paradox
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sensei Canna, is it your intent that I should rebut this article?
Gun Control: The Seventh Paradox
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sensei Canna, is it your intent that I should rebut this article?
Gun Control - Pro
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by uglyelk:
Actually why do I have to justify my owning a weapon?... Why do fire arms get subjected to such an intense level of scrutiny. ... People can kill with pillows,cutlery,non prescription medicine,electricity,water,etc I don't need any special permit to use these items. ... Why have I been singled out for firearms?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The reason that firearms are so different from the millions of other weapons that people can use, is that firearms are simply incredibly more effective, particularly in the commision of a crime. Guns have the advantage of devastating power at long range. Everything else you mentioned has at most one of these properties. Even a knife, deadly as they are, result in less systemic damage and death, given the same intent.
Actually why do I have to justify my owning a weapon?... Why do fire arms get subjected to such an intense level of scrutiny. ... People can kill with pillows,cutlery,non prescription medicine,electricity,water,etc I don't need any special permit to use these items. ... Why have I been singled out for firearms?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The reason that firearms are so different from the millions of other weapons that people can use, is that firearms are simply incredibly more effective, particularly in the commision of a crime. Guns have the advantage of devastating power at long range. Everything else you mentioned has at most one of these properties. Even a knife, deadly as they are, result in less systemic damage and death, given the same intent.
Gun Control - Pro
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scaramouche:
There was story in the newspaper a few years back that revealed that many of the police in Mexico City no longer had their handguns, having sold them on the black market. Also, I have seen numerous stories about cops in the U.S. taking drugs from evidence storage areas for illegal purposes. Items held by law enforcement have definitely been known to be stolen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If cops are selling their guns on the street we should probably be paying them more, or selecting more carefully. Yes guns are occasionally stolen, and occasionally stolen. Do you believe this is really a statistically significant phenomenon?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
In some ways firearms would be easier to conceal and smuggle. As they are just steel in many cases, they could probably not be found by drug sniffing dogs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course drug sniffing dogs wouldn't find guns. Guns aren't drugs. However, metal detectors work nicely.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
You could also hide guns in places that would ruin drugs, such as inside a gas tank, immersed in the fuel. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
On the contrary, drug traffickers sometimes use people to carry drugs around. They put the drags in plastic bags and have the people swallow them. It's entirely possible to bag up drugs in ways as sturdy as any gun (a steel box for example)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
They also take up less space than, for example, bundles of arijuana. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They take less space per item, but not per dollar value. A brick of marijuana the size of a gun is worth more than the gun. That's all that really matters.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Drug sources are often found via spotting agricultural activity from the air, and guns can be made in a machine shop, which can be easily concealed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A reasonable point. However significat amount of gun production would require a very large number of machines. Those machines must be purchased somewhere, and are tracable in that way. Drugs just require seeds and maybe some farming equipment. I don't think given these things that drugs are easier to produce
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Drugs can take months to produce (grow and refine). A good machinist can make a gun in a matter of hours. In some respects guns are much easier to produce than drugs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A good machinist can make one gun in a matter of hours. But how many guns can they produce, in say, a year? 100? 1000? 10000? If a machinist spends all day every day for a year making one gun every half hour, they can only make 17520 guns. The amount of cocaine you can producein a year is worth unfathomably more than that many guns.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Have you any hard data that supports your argument that in a country where both drugs and guns are illegal, guns would cost the same as the equivalent weight of crack, or any other illegal drug, for that matter?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, I have looked, but I don't believe this data is available in any particular format. But following the reasoning above showing that guns are more difficult to manufacture and sell, then the only way for them to be cheaper than drugs would be for them to be less in demand.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Also, a drug user's expenses will be greater overall, as an addict may buy drugs on a weekly or even a daily basis. Even if each dose was fairly inexpensive, it would add up to a huge sum over the months or years of regular drug use.
An illegal gun though, you could buy once, and quite possibly never have to buy another.
Thus, even if guns _did_ cost the same as crack per weight, you ultimately would spend less money being an illegal gun buyer. Thus, in the long run, even if they were as expensive as you (without supporting data)claim, illegal guns would be much cheaper than illegal drugs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Consider that a 9mm Walther P99 weighs 630grams. Cocaine currently costs $15,000 for a kilogram. That means that for 630 grams you're talking $9450, if they cost the same amount per weight. And yes, of course drug users eventually run up enormous amounts. But the reasons you gave are exactly why it would be harder to get a gun. It's much easier to find a way to get a few hundred dollars a week than it is to get almost $10,000 all at once. Particularly if you're a street criminal or addict. It's the same reason people take out loans to buy a house. Of course it's more expensive in the long run, but most people don't have the resources to simply buy one out of pocket. You can buy part of a $9450 amount of cocaine in pieces you think are useful. You can't buy a gun in useful increments.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Also, it is my understanding that some criminals rent guns from other criminals. If this is true, then a criminal who wants a firearm would not have to pay the full cost of such a weapon anyway.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How common is this phenomenon? Furthermore, the rent on a gun should be expected to rise proportionately to the initial price. Do you have any idea what criminals pay to rent other criminals guns? I don't. Even if you compare it to a gun that costs $500 now, you're still talking about an 18.9 fold increase to $9450 The rent should go up this amount as well. So if it costs $5 now to rent a gun, it would then cost $100 to rent a gun. If it's for a mugging, for example, the criminal isn't going to be making nearly as much profit, if any.
[This message has been edited by Valkenar (edited April 30, 2001).]
There was story in the newspaper a few years back that revealed that many of the police in Mexico City no longer had their handguns, having sold them on the black market. Also, I have seen numerous stories about cops in the U.S. taking drugs from evidence storage areas for illegal purposes. Items held by law enforcement have definitely been known to be stolen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If cops are selling their guns on the street we should probably be paying them more, or selecting more carefully. Yes guns are occasionally stolen, and occasionally stolen. Do you believe this is really a statistically significant phenomenon?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Of what quality? Can they make them rapidly enough for it to be profitable? You can make crack in your basement as well, it's true. However, there are reasons that refined drugs are smuggled rather than made localy. Mass production one piece at a time isn't a very good business strategy. But yes, I can't deny there would be a certain amount of this sort of thing. Is it unlikely that guns produced at home would be very distinctive, and thus easily traceable?Anyone with a good machine shop can make a functioning firearm.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
In some ways firearms would be easier to conceal and smuggle. As they are just steel in many cases, they could probably not be found by drug sniffing dogs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course drug sniffing dogs wouldn't find guns. Guns aren't drugs. However, metal detectors work nicely.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
You could also hide guns in places that would ruin drugs, such as inside a gas tank, immersed in the fuel. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
On the contrary, drug traffickers sometimes use people to carry drugs around. They put the drags in plastic bags and have the people swallow them. It's entirely possible to bag up drugs in ways as sturdy as any gun (a steel box for example)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
They also take up less space than, for example, bundles of arijuana. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They take less space per item, but not per dollar value. A brick of marijuana the size of a gun is worth more than the gun. That's all that really matters.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Drug sources are often found via spotting agricultural activity from the air, and guns can be made in a machine shop, which can be easily concealed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A reasonable point. However significat amount of gun production would require a very large number of machines. Those machines must be purchased somewhere, and are tracable in that way. Drugs just require seeds and maybe some farming equipment. I don't think given these things that drugs are easier to produce
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Drugs can take months to produce (grow and refine). A good machinist can make a gun in a matter of hours. In some respects guns are much easier to produce than drugs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A good machinist can make one gun in a matter of hours. But how many guns can they produce, in say, a year? 100? 1000? 10000? If a machinist spends all day every day for a year making one gun every half hour, they can only make 17520 guns. The amount of cocaine you can producein a year is worth unfathomably more than that many guns.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Have you any hard data that supports your argument that in a country where both drugs and guns are illegal, guns would cost the same as the equivalent weight of crack, or any other illegal drug, for that matter?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, I have looked, but I don't believe this data is available in any particular format. But following the reasoning above showing that guns are more difficult to manufacture and sell, then the only way for them to be cheaper than drugs would be for them to be less in demand.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Also, a drug user's expenses will be greater overall, as an addict may buy drugs on a weekly or even a daily basis. Even if each dose was fairly inexpensive, it would add up to a huge sum over the months or years of regular drug use.
An illegal gun though, you could buy once, and quite possibly never have to buy another.
Thus, even if guns _did_ cost the same as crack per weight, you ultimately would spend less money being an illegal gun buyer. Thus, in the long run, even if they were as expensive as you (without supporting data)claim, illegal guns would be much cheaper than illegal drugs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Consider that a 9mm Walther P99 weighs 630grams. Cocaine currently costs $15,000 for a kilogram. That means that for 630 grams you're talking $9450, if they cost the same amount per weight. And yes, of course drug users eventually run up enormous amounts. But the reasons you gave are exactly why it would be harder to get a gun. It's much easier to find a way to get a few hundred dollars a week than it is to get almost $10,000 all at once. Particularly if you're a street criminal or addict. It's the same reason people take out loans to buy a house. Of course it's more expensive in the long run, but most people don't have the resources to simply buy one out of pocket. You can buy part of a $9450 amount of cocaine in pieces you think are useful. You can't buy a gun in useful increments.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Also, it is my understanding that some criminals rent guns from other criminals. If this is true, then a criminal who wants a firearm would not have to pay the full cost of such a weapon anyway.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How common is this phenomenon? Furthermore, the rent on a gun should be expected to rise proportionately to the initial price. Do you have any idea what criminals pay to rent other criminals guns? I don't. Even if you compare it to a gun that costs $500 now, you're still talking about an 18.9 fold increase to $9450 The rent should go up this amount as well. So if it costs $5 now to rent a gun, it would then cost $100 to rent a gun. If it's for a mugging, for example, the criminal isn't going to be making nearly as much profit, if any.
[This message has been edited by Valkenar (edited April 30, 2001).]
Gun Control - Pro
Yawn...
A lack of understanding in regards to how firearms are the teeth of liberty and the details of the war in Afhganistan only go to demonstrate a greater lack of knowledge on the purpose of privately owned firearms and the ideals, intents and words of the Founders.
Additionally, a belief in a "benevolent dictator" gives little comfort to those who, unlike you, see and feel the oppression from that dictator.
I gotta tell you, the trivialization of rape is despicable and disgusting.
The bottom line is that you hate and/or fear guns exactly because they are effective.
You state (and may actually believe) that this very effectivness needs to be controlled by the government for the people's own good. It doesn't matter whether you define "good" as the people's immunity to common criminal attack from others of their own kind, or by the more sinister definition of "good" as protection of the government from subversive people who would bite the "hand that feeds them".
I (and the other freedom loving people of the world) believe that the power of guns belongs in the hands of the people precisely because government cannot and should not be trusted to do anything that is in the best interests of the People.
On the other hand, you believe that government exists to manage the affairs of men because the annointed Ones in government know more, care more, are entitled to more and must be worshiped by the common man simply because that is the essential nature and order of the universe. For gun grabbers, such as yourself, arguments against gun-control tear at the very fabric of the universe because you believe that the People cannot (and should not) be trusted to manage their own affairs, and that therefore ultimate power belongs in the hands of government.
I (and the other freedom loving people of the world) believe ultimate power belongs to We, the People.
This is, therefore, a religious argument. One that will never be resolved. It is the religion of individual sovereignty vs. the religion of governmental sovereigty.
There is no middle ground.
So...
Stop "sweet talking" us.
Stop promising us a "good time".
We won't put on your handcuffs.
[This message has been edited by Panther (edited May 01, 2001).]
A lack of understanding in regards to how firearms are the teeth of liberty and the details of the war in Afhganistan only go to demonstrate a greater lack of knowledge on the purpose of privately owned firearms and the ideals, intents and words of the Founders.
Additionally, a belief in a "benevolent dictator" gives little comfort to those who, unlike you, see and feel the oppression from that dictator.
I gotta tell you, the trivialization of rape is despicable and disgusting.
The bottom line is that you hate and/or fear guns exactly because they are effective.
You state (and may actually believe) that this very effectivness needs to be controlled by the government for the people's own good. It doesn't matter whether you define "good" as the people's immunity to common criminal attack from others of their own kind, or by the more sinister definition of "good" as protection of the government from subversive people who would bite the "hand that feeds them".
I (and the other freedom loving people of the world) believe that the power of guns belongs in the hands of the people precisely because government cannot and should not be trusted to do anything that is in the best interests of the People.
On the other hand, you believe that government exists to manage the affairs of men because the annointed Ones in government know more, care more, are entitled to more and must be worshiped by the common man simply because that is the essential nature and order of the universe. For gun grabbers, such as yourself, arguments against gun-control tear at the very fabric of the universe because you believe that the People cannot (and should not) be trusted to manage their own affairs, and that therefore ultimate power belongs in the hands of government.
I (and the other freedom loving people of the world) believe ultimate power belongs to We, the People.
This is, therefore, a religious argument. One that will never be resolved. It is the religion of individual sovereignty vs. the religion of governmental sovereigty.
There is no middle ground.
So...
Stop "sweet talking" us.
Stop promising us a "good time".
We won't put on your handcuffs.
[This message has been edited by Panther (edited May 01, 2001).]
Gun Control - Pro
Grateful Slave
by Paine's Torch
Copyright 1993 ZENO Press, All Rights Reserved
<hr>
I am a grateful slave.
My master is a good man.
He gives me food, shelter, work and other things.
All he requires in return is that I obey him.
I am told he has the power to control my life.
I look up to him, and wish that I were so powerful.
My master must understand the world better than I,
because he was chosen by many others for his respected position.
I sometimes complain, but fear I cannot live without his help.
He is a good man.
My master protects my money from theft, before and after he takes half of it.
Before taking his half, he says only he can protect my money.
After taking it, he says it is still mine.
When he spends my money, he says I own the things he has bought.
I don't understand this, but I believe him.
He is a good man.
I need my master for protection, because others would hurt me.
Or, they would take my money and use it for themselves.
My master is better than them:
When my master takes my money, I still own it.
The things he buys are mine.
I cannot sell them, or decide how they are used, but they are mine.
My master tells me so, and I believe him.
He is a good man.
My master provides free education for my children.
He teaches them to respect and obey him and all future masters they will have.
He says they are being taught well; learning things they will need to know in the future.
I believe him.
He is a good man.
My master cares about other masters, who don't have good slaves.
He makes me contribute to their support.
I don't understand why slaves must work for more than one master, but my master says it is necessary.
I believe him.
He is a good man.
Other slaves ask my master for some of my money.
Since he is good to them as he is to me, he agrees.
This means he must take more of my money; but he says this is good for me.
I ask my master why it would not be better to let each of us keep our own money.
He says it is because he knows what is best for each of us.
We believe him.
He is a good man.
My master tells me:
Evil masters in other places are not as good as he; they threaten our comfortable lifestyle and peace.
So, he sends my children to fight the slaves of evil masters.
I mourn their deaths, but my master says it is necessary.
He gives me medals for their sacrifice, and I believe him.
He is a good man.
Good masters sometimes have to kill evil masters, and their slaves.
This is necessary to preserve our way of life; to show others that our version of slavery is the best.
I asked my master:
Why do evil masters' slaves have to be killed, along with their evil master?
He said: "Because they carry out his evil deeds."
"Besides, they could never learn our system; they have been indoctrinated to believe that only their master is good."
My master knows what is best.
He protects me and my children.
He is a good man.
My master lets me vote for a new master, every few years.
I cannot vote to have no master, but he generously lets me choose between two candidates he has selected.
I eagerly wait until election day, since voting allows me to forget that I am a slave.
Until then, my current master tells me what to do.
I accept this.
It has always been so, and I would not change tradition.
My master is a good man.
At the last election, about half the slaves were allowed to vote.
The other half had broken rules set by the master, or were not thought by him to be fit.
Those who break the rules should know better than to disobey!
Those not considered fit should gratefully accept the master chosen for them by others.
It is right, because we have always done it this way.
My master is a good man.
There were two candidates.
One received a majority of the vote - about one-fourth of the slave population.
I asked why the new master can rule over all the slaves, if he only received votes from one-fourth of them?
My master said: "Because some wise masters long ago did it that way."
"Besides, you are the slaves; and we are the master."
I did not understand his answer, but I believed him.
My master knows what is best for me.
He is a good man.
Some slaves have evil masters.
They take more than half of their slaves' money and are chosen by only one-tenth, rather than one-fourth, of their slaves.
My master says they are different from him.
I believe him.
He is a good man.
I asked if I could ever become a master, instead of a slave.
My master said, "Yes, anything is possible."
"But first you must pledge allegiance to your present master, and promise not to abandon the system that made you a slave."
I am encouraged by this possibility.
My master is a good man.
He tells me slaves are the real masters, because they can vote for their masters.
I do not understand this, but I believe him.
He is a good man; who lives for no other purpose than to make his slaves happy.
I asked if I could be neither a master nor a slave.
My master said, "No, you must be one or the other."
"There are not other choices."
I believe him.
He knows best.
He is a good man.
I asked my master how our system is different, from those evil masters.
He said: "In our system, masters work for the slaves."
No longer confused, I am beginning to accept his logic.
Now I see it!
Slaves are in control of their masters, because they can choose new masters every few years.
When the masters appear to control the slaves in between elections, it is all a grand delusion!
In reality, they are carrying out the slaves' desires.
For if this were not so, they would not have been chosen in the last election.
How clear it is to me now!
I shall never doubt the system again.
My master is a good man.
by Paine's Torch
Copyright 1993 ZENO Press, All Rights Reserved
<hr>
I am a grateful slave.
My master is a good man.
He gives me food, shelter, work and other things.
All he requires in return is that I obey him.
I am told he has the power to control my life.
I look up to him, and wish that I were so powerful.
My master must understand the world better than I,
because he was chosen by many others for his respected position.
I sometimes complain, but fear I cannot live without his help.
He is a good man.
My master protects my money from theft, before and after he takes half of it.
Before taking his half, he says only he can protect my money.
After taking it, he says it is still mine.
When he spends my money, he says I own the things he has bought.
I don't understand this, but I believe him.
He is a good man.
I need my master for protection, because others would hurt me.
Or, they would take my money and use it for themselves.
My master is better than them:
When my master takes my money, I still own it.
The things he buys are mine.
I cannot sell them, or decide how they are used, but they are mine.
My master tells me so, and I believe him.
He is a good man.
My master provides free education for my children.
He teaches them to respect and obey him and all future masters they will have.
He says they are being taught well; learning things they will need to know in the future.
I believe him.
He is a good man.
My master cares about other masters, who don't have good slaves.
He makes me contribute to their support.
I don't understand why slaves must work for more than one master, but my master says it is necessary.
I believe him.
He is a good man.
Other slaves ask my master for some of my money.
Since he is good to them as he is to me, he agrees.
This means he must take more of my money; but he says this is good for me.
I ask my master why it would not be better to let each of us keep our own money.
He says it is because he knows what is best for each of us.
We believe him.
He is a good man.
My master tells me:
Evil masters in other places are not as good as he; they threaten our comfortable lifestyle and peace.
So, he sends my children to fight the slaves of evil masters.
I mourn their deaths, but my master says it is necessary.
He gives me medals for their sacrifice, and I believe him.
He is a good man.
Good masters sometimes have to kill evil masters, and their slaves.
This is necessary to preserve our way of life; to show others that our version of slavery is the best.
I asked my master:
Why do evil masters' slaves have to be killed, along with their evil master?
He said: "Because they carry out his evil deeds."
"Besides, they could never learn our system; they have been indoctrinated to believe that only their master is good."
My master knows what is best.
He protects me and my children.
He is a good man.
My master lets me vote for a new master, every few years.
I cannot vote to have no master, but he generously lets me choose between two candidates he has selected.
I eagerly wait until election day, since voting allows me to forget that I am a slave.
Until then, my current master tells me what to do.
I accept this.
It has always been so, and I would not change tradition.
My master is a good man.
At the last election, about half the slaves were allowed to vote.
The other half had broken rules set by the master, or were not thought by him to be fit.
Those who break the rules should know better than to disobey!
Those not considered fit should gratefully accept the master chosen for them by others.
It is right, because we have always done it this way.
My master is a good man.
There were two candidates.
One received a majority of the vote - about one-fourth of the slave population.
I asked why the new master can rule over all the slaves, if he only received votes from one-fourth of them?
My master said: "Because some wise masters long ago did it that way."
"Besides, you are the slaves; and we are the master."
I did not understand his answer, but I believed him.
My master knows what is best for me.
He is a good man.
Some slaves have evil masters.
They take more than half of their slaves' money and are chosen by only one-tenth, rather than one-fourth, of their slaves.
My master says they are different from him.
I believe him.
He is a good man.
I asked if I could ever become a master, instead of a slave.
My master said, "Yes, anything is possible."
"But first you must pledge allegiance to your present master, and promise not to abandon the system that made you a slave."
I am encouraged by this possibility.
My master is a good man.
He tells me slaves are the real masters, because they can vote for their masters.
I do not understand this, but I believe him.
He is a good man; who lives for no other purpose than to make his slaves happy.
I asked if I could be neither a master nor a slave.
My master said, "No, you must be one or the other."
"There are not other choices."
I believe him.
He knows best.
He is a good man.
I asked my master how our system is different, from those evil masters.
He said: "In our system, masters work for the slaves."
No longer confused, I am beginning to accept his logic.
Now I see it!
Slaves are in control of their masters, because they can choose new masters every few years.
When the masters appear to control the slaves in between elections, it is all a grand delusion!
In reality, they are carrying out the slaves' desires.
For if this were not so, they would not have been chosen in the last election.
How clear it is to me now!
I shall never doubt the system again.
My master is a good man.
Gun Control - Pro
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther:
Yawn...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Innapropriate.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
A lack of understanding in regards to how firearms are the teeth of liberty and the details of the war in Afhganistan only go to demonstrate a greater lack of knowledge on the purpose of privately owned firearms and the ideals, intents and words of the Founders.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, unless you'd like to fill me in on the details of your opinion, there's little point in my discussing it with you. It will simply degenerate to "is not" "is so." Currently it is my position that guns are not "the teeth of liberty" and that if they were they'd need to be more effective against heavy weaponry.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Additionally, a belief in a "benevolent dictator" ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I went back and looked at my posts. I couldn't seem to find that term anywhere.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I gotta tell you, the trivialization of rape is despicable and disgusting.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This concerns me, because if you think that's what I was doing, then others might as well. I would like to know why you think I was trivializing rape? I never said that rape was not a horrible, horrible thing, possibly the most destructive thing you can do to a person's psyche.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
The bottom line is that you hate and/or fear guns exactly because they are effective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Untrue, on all counts. Present some evidence about my state of mind and I will consider what you have to say.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
On the other hand, you believe that ...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are wrong on nearly every aspect of your analysis of my beliefs.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
This is, therefore, a religious argument.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=religion
re·lig·ion (r -l j n)
n. Abbr. rel., relig.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
Certainly this doesn't apply.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
This doesn't either
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
No way.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
Nor this one.
A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
This one encompasses everything. karate in general as a matter of fact. Maybe we shouldn't discuss karate because it is a religion.
Panthey, please note that I have tried to remain civil. I have tried to avoid saying anything insulting, such as leading this post with "Yawn..." If you feel insulted by what I've said here, then reply and tell me so, and I'll delete it and make no further reply to you on this matter without your request.
Yawn...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Innapropriate.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
A lack of understanding in regards to how firearms are the teeth of liberty and the details of the war in Afhganistan only go to demonstrate a greater lack of knowledge on the purpose of privately owned firearms and the ideals, intents and words of the Founders.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, unless you'd like to fill me in on the details of your opinion, there's little point in my discussing it with you. It will simply degenerate to "is not" "is so." Currently it is my position that guns are not "the teeth of liberty" and that if they were they'd need to be more effective against heavy weaponry.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Additionally, a belief in a "benevolent dictator" ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I went back and looked at my posts. I couldn't seem to find that term anywhere.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I gotta tell you, the trivialization of rape is despicable and disgusting.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This concerns me, because if you think that's what I was doing, then others might as well. I would like to know why you think I was trivializing rape? I never said that rape was not a horrible, horrible thing, possibly the most destructive thing you can do to a person's psyche.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
The bottom line is that you hate and/or fear guns exactly because they are effective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Untrue, on all counts. Present some evidence about my state of mind and I will consider what you have to say.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
I feel that kinds are no different in kind from bazookas, nuclear bombs or anything else. These things only differ in their effectiveness. Since you apparently agree that a suitcase nuke is too effective a weapon to allow people to have, I don't see why you think that simply because I draw the line in a different location, you think I'm in favor of a dictatorship.You state (and may actually believe) that this very effectivness needs to be controlled by the government for the people's own good.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
On the other hand, you believe that ...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are wrong on nearly every aspect of your analysis of my beliefs.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
This is, therefore, a religious argument.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=religion
re·lig·ion (r -l j n)
n. Abbr. rel., relig.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
Certainly this doesn't apply.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
This doesn't either
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
No way.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
Nor this one.
A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
This one encompasses everything. karate in general as a matter of fact. Maybe we shouldn't discuss karate because it is a religion.
Panthey, please note that I have tried to remain civil. I have tried to avoid saying anything insulting, such as leading this post with "Yawn..." If you feel insulted by what I've said here, then reply and tell me so, and I'll delete it and make no further reply to you on this matter without your request.
Gun Control - Pro
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Valkenar:
Innapropriate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(sic) My apologies. I grew weary of the nit-picking. If we're going to continue this discussion, it should focus on fundamental issues and principles.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
I wrote:
Additionally, a belief in a "benevolent dictator" gives little comfort to those who, unlike you, see and feel the oppression from that dictator.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
It doesn't matter whether you define "good" as the people's immunity to common criminal attack from others of their own kind, or by the more sinister definition of "good" as protection of the government from subversive people who would bite the "hand that feeds them".
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Valkenar responds:
It is certainly not true for me. I assure you that my purpose is not to transfer power to a corrupt elite. You may argue that this is what will happen, but to argue my motive is beside the question. I don't happen to believe it will happen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A belief in the "benevolence" of government, as you have stated, doesn't require the illusion of a Republic, Democracy, Plutocracy, Aristocracy or Dictatorship... Believing that government won't do you harm is ignoring the historical facts that rampantly trample such an assertion.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
"For which variety rapes?"
Which leads me to the conclusion that in your mind some varieties are less heinous than others... and since you are so fond of making the distinction of where we each chose to draw the line, I maintain that all rape is heinous. On the other hand, I feel that the classification into "varieties" trivializes some types (for lack of a better term) of rape... taking that to the extreme of the spectrum, as is a complete ban on private ownership of firearms, leads me to think that perhaps some types are "acceptable". Just as regarding gun-control, I feel that no type of rape is acceptable.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
(hint: likely to happen or be true)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
(Note: definition of "religion" snipped for brevity, since it completely ignored the crux of the argument which was: Do you believe in individual sovereignty or governmental sovereignty? Therefore, I'll rephrase...)
Would you deny me my inalienable Right, endowed upon me by my Creator, to own a gun?
If "no", then we have no argument.
If "yes", then you are my enemy -- plain and simple.
At least be man enough to try to take it from me yourself instead of hiring others to do it for you.
No collection of men has more rights than any one of them has individually. If a single man does not have the lawful right to deprive me of my life, liberty or property, then neither does a collection of men (regardless of size or organizational structure) have such a right.
If you as an individual don't have the lawful right to deprive me of my rights (in this case by taking away my gun), then the government doesn't either.
But what, then, is law?
Bastiat said it best:
"It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense."
http://users.netonecom.net/~gwood/TLP/ref/the-law1.htm
It would serve you (and anyone else) well to read Bastiat. He does not focus on firearms, but rather on the bigger picture of the evil of socialism. The message is clear. Socialism must be avoided at all costs by whatever means.
Real Americans intend to keep their "means".
Real Americans will pay any cost to prevent socialism.
<blockquote>"Life, faculties, production -- in other words individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation and are superior to it. Life, liberty and property do not exist because men
have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place".
-- Frederic Bastiat</blockquote>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Second, I see no reason for you or anyone else to delete your opinions or beliefs... and wouldn't ask or wish for such a thing. I rather like having the beliefs and opinions of those who advocate trampling the Rights of others posted openly.
Third, just as I believe in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, I also believe in your Right to state your opinions and beliefs without seeking my (or anyone else's) permission. Post away...
Finally, you are correct that we've only decided to draw the line in a different place. You've made it clear that you believe that you (and those of your ilk) can take away my inalienable Rights, while I don't believe you have that right.
I (and other freedom loving people) am willing to die for my belief... Are you? How's that for drawing a freakin' line?
Innapropriate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(sic) My apologies. I grew weary of the nit-picking. If we're going to continue this discussion, it should focus on fundamental issues and principles.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Afghanistan wasn't used as my opinion, it was used as an example. There are others, but Afghanistan is fairly recent and an excellent example of the concept of firearms being the teeth of liberty. While I agree that it would be my place to inform you of the details of my opinions, it is not my place to educate you concerning the history of firearms, the various fights for liberty around the world, or the words, intents and ideals of the Founders. Those things are, therefore, left as an exercise for the reader. (IOW, do your homework before you enter the discussion and don't expect others to do your homework for you.)Well, unless you'd like to fill me in on the details of your opinion, there's little point in my discussing it with you. It will simply degenerate to "is not" "is so." Currently it is my position that guns are not "the teeth of liberty" and that if they were they'd need to be more effective against heavy weaponry.
I wrote:
Additionally, a belief in a "benevolent dictator" gives little comfort to those who, unlike you, see and feel the oppression from that dictator.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
AND I wrote:I went back and looked at my posts. I couldn't seem to find that term anywhere.
It doesn't matter whether you define "good" as the people's immunity to common criminal attack from others of their own kind, or by the more sinister definition of "good" as protection of the government from subversive people who would bite the "hand that feeds them".
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Valkenar responds:
It is certainly not true for me. I assure you that my purpose is not to transfer power to a corrupt elite. You may argue that this is what will happen, but to argue my motive is beside the question. I don't happen to believe it will happen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A belief in the "benevolence" of government, as you have stated, doesn't require the illusion of a Republic, Democracy, Plutocracy, Aristocracy or Dictatorship... Believing that government won't do you harm is ignoring the historical facts that rampantly trample such an assertion.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
There is a huge difference in someone accidently using a suitcase nuke as a piñata (which would kill every living thing for a radius of several miles while also leaving the land uninhabitable for quite some time) and the private ownership of small arms for personal defense of one's liberties against those (whether private or government thugs) who would try to take away those freedoms and liberties. An accident with a suitcase nuke has enormous repercussions for many people, while the extremely rare (and getting rarer) accident with a firearm cause harm to a few localized individuals... Going beyond accidents, the destructive power of a maliciously used suitcase nuke again causes harm to a large number of people, while the illegal use of a firearm results in a much smaller affected group. A group which, if not disarmed by the gun-grabbers, has the opportunity to mitigate that damage and in many cases even prevent that assault.I feel that kinds are no different in kind from bazookas, nuclear bombs or anything else. These things only differ in their effectiveness. Since you apparently agree that a suitcase nuke is too effective a weapon to allow people to have, I don't see why you think that simply because I draw the line in a different location, you think I'm in favor of a dictatorship.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Oh, idunno... How about:I would like to know why you think I was trivializing rape? I never said that rape was not a horrible, horrible thing, possibly the most destructive thing you can do to a person's psyche.
"For which variety rapes?"
Which leads me to the conclusion that in your mind some varieties are less heinous than others... and since you are so fond of making the distinction of where we each chose to draw the line, I maintain that all rape is heinous. On the other hand, I feel that the classification into "varieties" trivializes some types (for lack of a better term) of rape... taking that to the extreme of the spectrum, as is a complete ban on private ownership of firearms, leads me to think that perhaps some types are "acceptable". Just as regarding gun-control, I feel that no type of rape is acceptable.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
You're the one that posted www.dictonary.com... look it up.What is "probable" in your estimation?
(hint: likely to happen or be true)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Hmmmmm...You are wrong on nearly every aspect of your analysis of my beliefs.
(Note: definition of "religion" snipped for brevity, since it completely ignored the crux of the argument which was: Do you believe in individual sovereignty or governmental sovereignty? Therefore, I'll rephrase...)
Would you deny me my inalienable Right, endowed upon me by my Creator, to own a gun?
If "no", then we have no argument.
If "yes", then you are my enemy -- plain and simple.
At least be man enough to try to take it from me yourself instead of hiring others to do it for you.
No collection of men has more rights than any one of them has individually. If a single man does not have the lawful right to deprive me of my life, liberty or property, then neither does a collection of men (regardless of size or organizational structure) have such a right.
If you as an individual don't have the lawful right to deprive me of my rights (in this case by taking away my gun), then the government doesn't either.
But what, then, is law?
Bastiat said it best:
"It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense."
http://users.netonecom.net/~gwood/TLP/ref/the-law1.htm
It would serve you (and anyone else) well to read Bastiat. He does not focus on firearms, but rather on the bigger picture of the evil of socialism. The message is clear. Socialism must be avoided at all costs by whatever means.
Real Americans intend to keep their "means".
Real Americans will pay any cost to prevent socialism.
<blockquote>"Life, faculties, production -- in other words individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation and are superior to it. Life, liberty and property do not exist because men
have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place".
-- Frederic Bastiat</blockquote>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
I have remained civil and making a statement of boredom with your debating tactics by "yawning" and awaking from my catnap is far less condescending and arrogant than your "familiarization" of my nickname.Panthey, please note that I have tried to remain civil.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
In no way was that a personal attack. I've already apologized based on the fact that you perceived it to be a personal attack.I have tried to avoid saying anything insulting, such as leading this post with "Yawn..."
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
First, I'm not insulted by the discourse and debate... never have been and never will be. Those who are gun-grabbers tend to show their true colors and Communistic tendencies with little prodding on my part.If you feel insulted by what I've said here, then reply and tell me so, and I'll delete it and make no further reply to you on this matter without your request.
Second, I see no reason for you or anyone else to delete your opinions or beliefs... and wouldn't ask or wish for such a thing. I rather like having the beliefs and opinions of those who advocate trampling the Rights of others posted openly.
Third, just as I believe in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, I also believe in your Right to state your opinions and beliefs without seeking my (or anyone else's) permission. Post away...
Finally, you are correct that we've only decided to draw the line in a different place. You've made it clear that you believe that you (and those of your ilk) can take away my inalienable Rights, while I don't believe you have that right.
I (and other freedom loving people) am willing to die for my belief... Are you? How's that for drawing a freakin' line?
Gun Control - Pro
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Believing that government won't do you harm is ignoring the historical facts that rampantly trample such an assertion.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Certainly I wouldn't deny that governments of done some unspeakable things. Yet unless you are arguing for anarchy, you are accepting that governments can perform services that do more good than harm. Thus the argument is whether gun control constitutes something that would do more good than harm. And the reasons I cited were from an earlier post. All I've seen of your argument is the assertion that individual gun rights are crucial for liberty, which is a conclusion and not a fact.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> the destructive power of a maliciously used suitcase nuke again causes harm to a large number of people, while the illegal use of a firearm results in a much smaller affected group.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Isn't that just an argument to draw the line at nukes because they're more effective than guns? How is that fundamentally different from drawing the line at guns because they're more effective than knives?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
... How about:
"For which variety rapes?"
Which leads me to the conclusion that in your mind some varieties are less heinous than others.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That conclusion is incorrect. The reason I asked about the which variety you were referencing is because the variety of rape changes whether or not death is probable. Date rapes, for example do not result in the victim's immediate death. This doesn't mean I think that the rapes themselves are less heinous, merely that I wish to point out that the result of any loss of control is greatly influenced by the specific circumstances of the rape.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
You're the one that posted www.dictonary.com... look it up. ~
(hint: likely to happen or be true)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Obviously what is "likely" depends on the situation and the person, unless you're taking an utterly podantic 51% definition of probable. E.G. if someone told you that on a particular lottery you'd have a 30% chance of winning you'd think "gee, that's a pretty good probability" even though it's not more likely to happen than not. The real reason I asked about that probability was because even if you have a 80% probability of surving through some act (such as allowing yourself to be handcuffed) most people would think it's a pretty poor decision. So yes, if we want to be pedantic about terms we can use 51%. In that case, I contend that in fewer than 51% of cases where a rape victim is incapacitated, they are murdered.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Would you deny me my inalienable Right, endowed upon me by my Creator, to own a gun?
If "no", then we have no argument.
If "yes", then you are my enemy -- plain and simple.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, if this is what you think it comes down to, then my question is where you got the idea that the inalienable right is so specifically to own a gun, no less and no more.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
At least be man enough to try to take it from me yourself instead of hiring others to do it for you.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I assume this is meant in reference to what comes next, rather than being a statement that one is less of a man if he enlists the help of others in getting done what he think is right, rather than simply getting himself killed trying to do it alone. The I fail to see what being "man enough" has to do with it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
If you as an individual don't have the lawful right to deprive me of my rights (in this case by taking away my gun), then the government doesn't either.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A> I am not this argument. Some aspects I agree with, others I don't. Please see my first post.
B> I'm not saying that we should make gun control laws because we have no right to take your gun. I'm saying that the right to take your gun should be supported by the law, so that it's possible to do so. If I individually tried to take your gun, clearly I would simply get shot.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
It would serve you (and anyone else) well to read Bastiat.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I just read the essay found at the url you posted. It was interesting, and I'b happy to read more. I'd also be happy to start a thread generally about government.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
He does not focus on firearms, but rather on the bigger picture of the evil of socialism.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Socialism need not figure into this debate. A ban on guns is inline with the government's function as Bastiat puts it. Specifically, the protection of life. Taken literaly, an unbreachable right to life, liberty and property would mean that we must allow individuals to possess nukes. Since we agree they shouldn't, then there must be circumstances under which it's acceptable to limit the right to property (nukes or guns) in exchange for better protection of life. Thus, as I keep saying, this argument isn't about the fundamental rightness of arms control, but about the proper extent.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I have remained civil and making a statement of boredom with your debating tactics by "yawning" and awaking from my catnap is far less condescending and arrogant than your "familiarization" of my nickname.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sorry, that was an honest mistake that I didn't even realize I had made until you pointed it out. I wasn't intending to call you "Panthey." As much as you may have a distaste for my general debating manner, please believe that childish manipulations of a person's name is not part of it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Third, just as I believe in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, I also believe in your Right to state your opinions and beliefs without seeking my (or anyone else's) permission. Post away...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course, but it's been repeatedly established and held that while all opinions are acceptable, insults are not. I was attempting to forestall and minimize and misunderstandings leading to the latter.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Finally, you are correct that we've only decided to draw the line in a different place. You've made it clear that you believe that you (and those of your ilk) can take away my inalienable Rights, while I don't believe you have that right.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think I've made that clear at all. I think that's something that you've drawn from my words which isn't there. I'm not saying I have a right to take away any of your rights. All I'm saying is that since it's understood that some limitation is acceptable (in the case of nukes) that it is reasonable consider what the extent of that limitation should be.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I (and other freedom loving people) am willing to die for my belief... Are you?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not interested in getting into a contest over how far I am willing to go to defend my beliefs.
Even if I were, how does my willingness to die for my beliefs affect in any way the correctness of those beliefs?
There's historical fact, and then there's historical analysis or opinion. Whether or not guns are the teeth of liberty is a conclusion that you could draw based on a series of facts such as "x many soldiers were killed by y many civilians," but in and of itself, it is not a fact. Since you seem to so firmly believe this maxim, I think it only reasonable that you be at least somewhat more specific about why this might be so, unless you wish to concede the argument.While I agree that it would be my place to inform you of the details of my opinions, it is not my place to educate you concerning the history of firearms, the various fights for liberty around the world, or the words, intents and ideals of the Founders.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Believing that government won't do you harm is ignoring the historical facts that rampantly trample such an assertion.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Certainly I wouldn't deny that governments of done some unspeakable things. Yet unless you are arguing for anarchy, you are accepting that governments can perform services that do more good than harm. Thus the argument is whether gun control constitutes something that would do more good than harm. And the reasons I cited were from an earlier post. All I've seen of your argument is the assertion that individual gun rights are crucial for liberty, which is a conclusion and not a fact.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> the destructive power of a maliciously used suitcase nuke again causes harm to a large number of people, while the illegal use of a firearm results in a much smaller affected group.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Isn't that just an argument to draw the line at nukes because they're more effective than guns? How is that fundamentally different from drawing the line at guns because they're more effective than knives?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
... How about:
"For which variety rapes?"
Which leads me to the conclusion that in your mind some varieties are less heinous than others.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That conclusion is incorrect. The reason I asked about the which variety you were referencing is because the variety of rape changes whether or not death is probable. Date rapes, for example do not result in the victim's immediate death. This doesn't mean I think that the rapes themselves are less heinous, merely that I wish to point out that the result of any loss of control is greatly influenced by the specific circumstances of the rape.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
You're the one that posted www.dictonary.com... look it up. ~
(hint: likely to happen or be true)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Obviously what is "likely" depends on the situation and the person, unless you're taking an utterly podantic 51% definition of probable. E.G. if someone told you that on a particular lottery you'd have a 30% chance of winning you'd think "gee, that's a pretty good probability" even though it's not more likely to happen than not. The real reason I asked about that probability was because even if you have a 80% probability of surving through some act (such as allowing yourself to be handcuffed) most people would think it's a pretty poor decision. So yes, if we want to be pedantic about terms we can use 51%. In that case, I contend that in fewer than 51% of cases where a rape victim is incapacitated, they are murdered.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Would you deny me my inalienable Right, endowed upon me by my Creator, to own a gun?
If "no", then we have no argument.
If "yes", then you are my enemy -- plain and simple.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, if this is what you think it comes down to, then my question is where you got the idea that the inalienable right is so specifically to own a gun, no less and no more.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
At least be man enough to try to take it from me yourself instead of hiring others to do it for you.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I assume this is meant in reference to what comes next, rather than being a statement that one is less of a man if he enlists the help of others in getting done what he think is right, rather than simply getting himself killed trying to do it alone. The I fail to see what being "man enough" has to do with it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
If you as an individual don't have the lawful right to deprive me of my rights (in this case by taking away my gun), then the government doesn't either.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A> I am not this argument. Some aspects I agree with, others I don't. Please see my first post.
B> I'm not saying that we should make gun control laws because we have no right to take your gun. I'm saying that the right to take your gun should be supported by the law, so that it's possible to do so. If I individually tried to take your gun, clearly I would simply get shot.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
It would serve you (and anyone else) well to read Bastiat.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I just read the essay found at the url you posted. It was interesting, and I'b happy to read more. I'd also be happy to start a thread generally about government.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
He does not focus on firearms, but rather on the bigger picture of the evil of socialism.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Socialism need not figure into this debate. A ban on guns is inline with the government's function as Bastiat puts it. Specifically, the protection of life. Taken literaly, an unbreachable right to life, liberty and property would mean that we must allow individuals to possess nukes. Since we agree they shouldn't, then there must be circumstances under which it's acceptable to limit the right to property (nukes or guns) in exchange for better protection of life. Thus, as I keep saying, this argument isn't about the fundamental rightness of arms control, but about the proper extent.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I have remained civil and making a statement of boredom with your debating tactics by "yawning" and awaking from my catnap is far less condescending and arrogant than your "familiarization" of my nickname.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sorry, that was an honest mistake that I didn't even realize I had made until you pointed it out. I wasn't intending to call you "Panthey." As much as you may have a distaste for my general debating manner, please believe that childish manipulations of a person's name is not part of it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Third, just as I believe in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, I also believe in your Right to state your opinions and beliefs without seeking my (or anyone else's) permission. Post away...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course, but it's been repeatedly established and held that while all opinions are acceptable, insults are not. I was attempting to forestall and minimize and misunderstandings leading to the latter.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Finally, you are correct that we've only decided to draw the line in a different place. You've made it clear that you believe that you (and those of your ilk) can take away my inalienable Rights, while I don't believe you have that right.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think I've made that clear at all. I think that's something that you've drawn from my words which isn't there. I'm not saying I have a right to take away any of your rights. All I'm saying is that since it's understood that some limitation is acceptable (in the case of nukes) that it is reasonable consider what the extent of that limitation should be.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
I (and other freedom loving people) am willing to die for my belief... Are you?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not interested in getting into a contest over how far I am willing to go to defend my beliefs.
Even if I were, how does my willingness to die for my beliefs affect in any way the correctness of those beliefs?
