Maybe someone else will take up your call for debate - it's not an issue I'm that involved with but....I would just like to say for me - gun control is not against the individual's right to bear arms. It is about gun "control." I don't think that everyone should be able to own any weapon available and I think there are other problems that should be addressed. The fanatical protection of the 2nd amendment without looking at technology progress (yes - I know it's an old argument but these are not your father's guns. I don't think our forefathers expected the internet, either) and, also to see what ISN'T working about gun ownership and if there are ways we can improve that without slashing away at personal rights --- I do not understand those that won't even discuss it anymore than I understand any other sort of fanaticism. (Obviously, Zaphod, you are willing to discuss it - here you are.)

BTW - I will come out of the closet. I mentioned a gun store in LA before that I was familiar with - I didn't add that I worked there.

A reasonable response? What fun is that! ;)

Tell me this: has working in a gun store influenced your opinion one way or another?

Have you ever had a customer who, in your opinion, should not have been allowed to own a gun? If so, why?

I'm not trolling you into a debate, just interested in your perspective.

Wish I could add something insightful to this but alas, I'm totally torn. Having grown up in rural areas (Montana and Oregon) with loads of guns around, in urban areas with heavy gun control (Vancouver B.C. and NYC), as well as having recently taken up visiting the rifle range, my views are muddled. Having been on the wrong end of a gun far too many times (3 times in rural towns by homophobes, once in NYC by cops), I have a strong dislike of them. Having been to Nicaragua and talking to people who were at the mercy of rebels and couldn't fight back in such a desperate time I totally understand the reason such weapons are needed.

Basically, I hate being shot, but I don't want the right to protective weaponry taken away.

'Basically, I hate being shot, but I don't want the right to protective weaponry taken away.'

I'm just as concerned that once the government disarms the citizenry, stripping us of the rest of our freedoms will be much less risky for them.

Oh, cool! I call False Dilemma.

This is not a matter of everyone can have whatever gun they want OR the government will take away all the guns....

I'm not sure what fallacy a hyperbolic leap from one false dilemma to a statement like this is:

I'm just as concerned that once the government disarms the citizenry, stripping us of the rest of our freedoms will be much less risky for them

I'll have to wait to find out. Especially when the statement comes from someone who supported an administration who was taking away those very same rights without a peep of complaint - much less the possible armed militia response available to that very same citizenry. (Or are you talking about some other "freedoms?"

There are two arguments that can be made in opposition to your "false dichotomy" claim.

a) The Slippery Slope, wherein the right to bear arms is taken piece by piece, gradually through increased regulation. Like putting a frog in a pot of water and slowly boiling him; the frog doesn't notice he's been cooked until its too late.

In practice, this argument is pure speculation.

b) The Individual's right. For example, assume I was wrongly convicted of a felony, and thus, lost my right to bear arms. I consider that a better example because it shows a clear-cut case whereby an individual, through no fault of their own, can be deprived on gun ownership, due to a well-intentioned, but misapplied regulation.

I find both of these arguments depend largely on the person you are talking to. Neither is very convincing to a person that does not intend to exercise their gun rights. I.e. they get the attention of fellow gun owners, but that's about it

My preferred argument focuses on the crime and injury statistics, which, in my view, largely support gun freedom.

The response I think is lukewarm because the assertions you make, at least the first two, have a strong foundation in their favor.

Concerning your first point, there are examples where regulation has failed, as well as examples where there is little control, but still much less violence than in the U.S. There really is no counter for such examples.

Your second is a little fuzzier, but still pretty solid. In my opinion, it depends on how the militia referred to is defined. When the amendment was ratified, a militia was formed by citizens who were expected to have their own weapons. Those that argue against this point define a modern militia, in which members are provided weapons.

Your third point is unsupportable I think, because it would be difficult to argue that we would be worse off if there were no personal firearms in the world.

I think most people that support strict control are content with the reasoning that guns kill people, therefore they are bad.

"Your third point is unsupportable I think, because it would be difficult to argue that we would be worse off if there were no personal firearms in the world."

Maybe, but then making something illegal only takes them out of the hands of people who chose to obey the law.

On this same point, does this mean that those who support gun rights also support legalization of drugs?

As someone who has never done drugs (seriously, I haven't... I know, it's hard to believe) I firmly support the legalization of drugs for similar reasons to the gun argument.

A person should have the right to personal freedoms, the "war on drugs" is a failure just as gun regulations are often ineffective (though not always), and we create more non-dangerous criminals by having anti-drug laws just as many who own guns aren't criminals. There is already a huge black market arms trade, banning guns would make it much worse.

On that same note though, regulations make sense. No one benefits from personal ownership of landmines, grenades or bazookas just as no one benefits from meth or crack.

Will there be drug related deaths? Of course, but there already are - just with the added benefit of gang violence, border wars and brutal militias of drug traffickers. Why not let Pfizer buy the copyright to Coke, package it in a shiny vial and sell it like they do all their other "party" drugs? (We all know a few prescription drug abusers).

"I think this would be better left to the states to decide individually, and enforce individually. Just like alcohol after prohibition, much of the power would be taken away from organized crime in states where getting high is a popular past-time. For the junkies who live in a state where drugs are restricted, they could vote with their feet.

I know this isn't a perfect solution, but I think it's better than what we are doing now."

I could live with this compromise. I also agree 100% with your assessment that the Fed. gov has no authority in the matter, save for the already horribly abused "interstate commerce" clause.

for the sake of the discussion:

"a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

To me the purpose of this is clear:

1. States are expected to be free to create Militias in order to protect their freedom.

2. The right for individual people to keep and bear arms is necessary for the state to be able to assemble a militia when needed.

It's true that this was done before the assembly line and industrial revolution, etc...

But what we're talking about is what really played out in Iraq. Foreign power (re:feds) comes in with brute force... citizenry takes up arms to defend the state. If for some crazy reason we are facing a Federal Gov't we will fighting urban gorilla style. Although the war machine may have become more powerful, if they want to try and forcefully control us, w/o wiping the city off the map, then to the streets the fighting will go.

So for me, the argument still holds, having an armed citizenry will make armed occupation one hell of a daunting task. There for, yes we should have the right to bear arms that will at least be capable of killing bands of soldiers. What quality and how that is regulated should be left up to the 'free state' to decide.

zaphod, that is one cute fuckin' dog. :)

i think i can add something to this despite my opinion on the 2nd amendment being pretty simplistic: that the reference to militias was absolute, and there is no reference to personal ownership, and furthermore that the militias being referred to were not in opposition to the official army, which in any case was incapable at that time of securing all of the territory of the colonies.

so, anyway: whenever anyone asks me, a jewish settler, why i don't carry a gun, i say there's no need, all my neighbors have guns.

this is an argument from "logical extreme", one i don't think is on norm's list of fallacies.

in israel, where pretty much every adult jewish male (and many of the females) is either in the army or has been in the army, and many of whom have personal weapons, gun crime is almost a non-statistic. you don't try to knock over a liquor store with a 357 when the owner was in all likelyhood a commando with weapons training and probably a weapon.

and it's that simple.

this is the difference between gun crime and terrorism, btw. my next door neighbor was shot in the head last week in a terrorist drive-by. the perp wasn't after money, and had no fear of jail or death. that's the difference.

Sorry for your loss :(

thnx. just a neighbor, you know, not close family. (where's the damn lugubrious icon?) he's still alive, amazingly, and scheduled for more surgery tomorrow, i think.

btw, syngas, about what you said about drug laws: i don't see how taking the lawmaking power from the feds and giving it to individual states would help with the issues you brought up, and which i agree with. you say "junkies could vote with their feet". leaving out the usual economic status of junkies and their ability to move, what if all the states agreed to keep drugs illegal? more than likely (what, send all the junkies to california?). square one.

is "off topic" viewed more leniantly in the forum? i'm hoping. although the reason this came up is the statistical relationship between drug abuse and gun crime.

Robinson, where are you in this debate? Get back here!

@jbecker

Now that I know you are a settler, with neighbors getting shot dead, your perspective on Palestine makes a lot more sense. I hope there was no offense taken.

"the reference to militias was absolute, and there is no reference to personal ownership, and furthermore that the militias being referred to were not in opposition to the official army, which in any case was incapable at that time of securing all of the territory of the colonies."

Very valid point, but it presents to me a paradox.

If individuals have no innate right to arms, of whom are militias composed?

I.e. in this opinion, from what authority are members of militias armed? The state? If so, I fear you misunderstand the difference between militia and state guard.

The full text:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

I read this as two clauses:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

Key word: FREE state.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Read: individuals have inalienable right to bear arms

For what its worth, I have an equally extreme opinion of the 1st Amendment; for example, I consider the FCC illegitimate and unconstitutional.

I think several states would legalize and tax pot. This probably wouldn't eliminate gang related violence, but I think it would put a dent in it.

i disagree that it would even put a dent in it. i mentioned junkies for a specific reason: i don't think pot, the use or even the sale of it, has anything to do with gang violence. the real money, and the real danger to society, is the hard stuff.

which i also think should be legalized, but for different reasons. think "darwin awards". in fact, lets get to the nitty gritty. i say legalize all of it- including guns or tanks or whatever- and let the chips fall where they may. :)

but that's just me. i don't think anyone has the right to kill someone else over a disagreement. but as long as only governments have that right, and continue to use it so irresponsibly, i say let anyone get in on the act. heck, it's already the case, the world is chock full of small armies pushing some guy's (and it's always a guy) agenda.

Re: militia v. state guard/army:

Jefferson has some good points on this; most of which can also be found in the Anti-Federalist Papers.

The short answer: a militia is unlike an army or state guard, in that it owes loyalty to its own members, and not the state. For example, the POTUS holds direct command authority over militias, unlike the NAVY, ARMY or Marines.

This sometimes causes confusion: how can a "well regulated militia" exist without state authorization?

In the context of the 2nd amendment, "well regulated" refers to "full armed"; possessing the regalia of war. For examples, many militias voluntarily joined Washington and the Continental Army, but others did not. Washington had no authority to draft nor command the militias. It was an alliance of multiple independent forces; with differing loyalties, and oftentimes, differing agendas.

As Jefferson described it, the militia's purpose was to serve as a check against the state's use of force. Not unlike a posse during the Wild West era; the ultimate form of mob justice against tyranny.

Stupid Git raises an excellent point:

"Can a person own explosives? Automatic assault weapons? Tanks and fighter jets?"

I would argue that up until the mechanization of war (WWI and onward), it was possible for a privately-armed militia to match forces with a state army. Rifles, horses and artillery were available to both sides. NAVY not withstanding, a militia could match an army in terms of manpower, and also in terms of munitions, until fairly recently in our history.

However, in the 21st Century, the state has nukes; and any independent militia with comparable weapons would undoubtedly be deemed a terrorist group. The Jefferson argument of preserving liberty via force has lost a considerable amount of weight. My rifle and homemade cannon does little good against F22 jets, smart bombs and ICBMs.

And, I would be hard-pressed to defend my right to an ICBM as being protected by the 2nd Amendment.

However, I do think this shift in cultural perception is largely the result of technological changes, and that the underlying spirit of the 2nd Amendment would argue in favor of the individual having any weapon available to the state.

But, in real life, I don't want my loony neighbor to have a tank; and my neighbors don't want me brewing up Anthrax. As Git points out, some limit must exist, for the greater good.

But on the other side of the coin, the fact of the case remains that the individual no longer has the ability to physically defend their liberty from the state. And although this is "normal" in 2009, it was not normal in 1909, and certainly unacceptable in 1776.

Typo:

"For example, the POTUS holds direct command authority over militias, unlike the NAVY, ARMY or Marines."

Should read:

"For example, the POTUS holds NO direct command authority over militias, unlike the NAVY, ARMY or Marines."

Militias are not members of the armed forces; they receive no pay or benefits from the state, and are not subject to direct command from the state (i.e. neither the Gov. of Florida nor the POTUS could order a Florida militia to help sandbag during a flood, or deploy to Afghanistan, unlike the state or national guard)

the emotional side of me fancies a world with no guns

Ditto

And the rational side of me knows that even if all weapons were destroyed, we would still throw rocks at each other.

"And although this is "normal" in 2009, it was not normal in 1909, and certainly unacceptable in 1776."

Ok, my desire to be poetic got the best of me. 1909 was after WWI, after tanks and mustard gas, after the point by which state force began exceeding any militia capabilities.

So in the interest of historical accuracy I should say:

"And although this is "normal" in 2009, it was not normal in 1860, and certainly unacceptable in 1776."

The point being, looking at all of human history, until very recently any shmoe could get on a horse and round up an army strong enough to challenge any state government. This was the case when the 2nd amendment was first written. This is no longer the case today.

@syngas

I agree 100% that "civilian grade" weapons can still make a mark; case in point- the Iraq insurgency is now entering its 6th year. See also: the IRA.

"Think about it from a practical perspective. Would the government use an ICBM to attack it's own citizens on it's own soil? Even if POTUS gave the command, would the military actually do it? I don't think so."

I like to think you are right, but I can't say for sure.

@jbecker

Democrat? This sounds like a Ron Paul Republican to me. Point being: go far enough left or right and you loop back to the other side (like an old-school Atari game)

but i never said it that well or that clearly in a modern context. good one.

Am I a democrat? Yes.

Am I a Democrat? No.

Sometimes that shift key can make all the difference JB ;)

too true, too true. but i see you caught the intent of my comment anyway- small "d" intended.

If Guns are Outlawed...

Hi Syngas! I've been away from my computer for a very long time. Today I finally got caught up and I received your message on my blog.. thanks.

I'm still not in the mood to discuss politics lately. I'm taking a break. I was tempted to comment on this topic, but there is no point discussing gun ownership with Americans. Even liberal Americans love their guns.

This notion of having guns in case we might want to overthrow our government reminds me of the wild wild west mentality which apparently is alive and well here in the U.S.A. ;)

Anyway, back to artwork. I've been very very busy enjoying working on some paintings.

Oh, by the way. My Dad used to have a bumper sticker on his pickup truck which read: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" (Read that phrase using a good-ole-boy southern Colorado accent).

It's great to see you back JoAnn, I was getting a little worried about your health.

My dad had that bumper sticker too. He never put it on his truck though. No sense attracting attention. BTW Southern Colorado doesn't have an accent. Everyone else does ;)

Thanks Jonathan and Syngas. I have a groovy little pic now instead of that disturbing silhouette of a man.

H.R. 45

So what about H.R. 45? Is this some kind of thunderbolt and lightning-very very frightening kinda thing? Or is this magnifico?

I guess that depends on if you interpret the Bill of Rights as a list of rights or privileges.

As far as I know, you don't need a license to speak your mind, peaceably assemble, worship, not board soldiers, remain silent, have a speedy trial, be tried by a jury, avoid cruel and unusual punishment etc...

All of the items that you listed do not kill people.

If slavery had been added to the bill of rights as a right as opposed to a privilege, that wouldn't make it right, would it?

Should driving be a right or a privilege? One can barely exist Without a car in today's society, so should that be a right which has no need for a license or regulations?

America's newest religion

Gun control in America

Supporters of the right to bear arms

People kill people JoAnn.

Slavery was not added to the Bill of Rights.

If you think driving should be a right, write to your congressman and ask him/her to propose a constitutional amendment saying such.

How Gun Control Works in America

People kill people using guns Syngas. People can also kill people driving. That is why both of these activities should be regulated and should require a license.

I didn't say that slavery was added to the bill of rights. I meant that if it was added to the bill of rights that wouldn't make it right.

There was a time when women couldn't vote. As society progresses, the laws change to reflect that progress.

Logical Fallacy - Tautologies

A tautology is a statement which is technically true, but which says nothing of substance. It is redundant, useless, and often repeated ad nauseum, like a mantra

Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

..statement which is technically true; without a human operator, a gun is harmless. However, that has nothing to do with the gun control debate, because the guns in question do have human operators. The debate is over human behaviour (does the criminal deterrent effect of private firearms outweigh the increased lethality that cheap, available handguns bring to stupid, random acts of drug-induced, alcohol-induced, or rage-induced violence?), not the silly question of whether a gun can kill someone without a human to pull the trigger. If someone opposed nuclear arms treaties by saying "nuclear weapons don't kill people, governments kill people", it would be considered absolutely preposterous, but for some reason, the same tautology scaled down to the individual level strikes many people as perfectly sound.

Rocket-propelled grenades don't kill people; people kill people.

Would the passing of HB 45 make you feel safer JoAnn?

People don't kill people, knives and frying pans, water, gluttony and bulls kill people.

2nd link corrected

People don't kill people, knives and frying pans, water, gluttony and bulls kill people.

Weak analogy. Of course knives and frying pans and gluttony are not analogous to guns and vehicles.

HB45 doesn't make me automatically feel safe as it would require some time for such measures to have any effect. We are not living in Australia, for example.. not even close.

If you met some scary looking character in a dark alley wielding a frying pan, how worried would you be versus meeting some scary looking character in a dark alley wielding a HK-47?

Pretending that frying pans, knives, and gluttony are anywhere near analogous to guns and rocket-propelled grenades is disingenuous, at best.

People don't kill people, knives and frying pans, water, gluttony and bulls kill people

Yet another tautology.

A tautology is a statement which is technically true, but which says nothing of substance

the majority of people die in bed. this is why i sleep hanging upside down in my closet.

We need some Penn and Teller enlightenment on the issue:

Penn and Teller: Bullshit - Gun Control

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOst7kC6q3A

To the original post...

2 and 3 I agree with, 1 is wrong. Counties without a freedom to carry fire arms have less crime related deaths.
That said I come down on the side of freedom and the idea that a little revolution is good from time to time and that governments should fear their people and people should not fear their governments.

Freedom is dangerous and freedom to carry weapons is particularly dangerous.

As the movie public enemy recently reminded me. Police agencies have often in our history acted more like gangs then public servants and often regualr people have sided with street gangs over the police because they were more protective of regular people.

Law enforcement have improved by leaps and bounds in the last 60 years but could still side with the powerful over the powerless and for that very reason our founding fathers wanted the public to have the ability to form militias and protect themselves when needed.

That said, I think the BS clip that JoAnn posted is Appropriately labeled as BS.

Guns don't make us safer either. the old west where everyone had a gun on their hip was not a safe place and our founding fathers definitely did not write the second amendment in hopes that Americans would shoot one another defending their color televisions or the $50 cash and a few credit cards they have in their wallets.

I knew that I should never have entered a debate about guns. The majority of even the most liberal liberal Americans love their guns. This is an area in which too many progressive candidates lose votes. Hell, even Hillary Clinton attempted to paint Barack Obama as someone who would take our precious guns away.

As for governments fearing their people, well, I do believe in democracy. But, I don't forsee U.S. citizens taking up arms against the goverment. Red, do you seriously forsee such a thing?

I don't forsee U.S. citizens taking up arms against the goverment. Red, do you seriously forsee such a thing?

I don't forsee it happening, but its nice to know its there, keeps the Man honest. Watch "Gangs of NY" or "Public Enemy" and you quickly realize our police forces were founded by hiring street gangs to be the official govt gang and folks like dillinger had the public ready to switch teams and support him over the police. That was the end of the depression when the Govt was siding with business. That senario is far off from our current situation but could happen pretty quickly in a worst case economic senario.

Take peoples Suv's and cable TV away and their patience won't last too long.

Great debate. I'd like to respond to Red Seven, re: crime rates guns v. no guns.

The most cited example is the UK v. USA:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

This comes from the Daily Mail; not a great source, but an easy read.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

Here we have John Stossel's opinion.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Here is the hard data for US gun crime.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm

All in all, America has been a safer place to live in since 1993.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-07-015/EN/KS-SF-07-015-EN.PDF

Compared to data from the EU (PDF), America's crime has been trending lower, faster, than our disarmed friends in Europe.

I'm not about to argue that guns don't kill- that is precisely their purpose. However, the way I read this data, best-case an armed populace correlates with less crime; worst-case armed countries are no more dangerous than unarmed countries.

Speaking to the issue of "armed revolution", I think the common mistake is to envision a battle between armed rednecks and f22 jets and Abrams tanks. Clearly, the US military would destroy any militia in a direct battle. But those who remember revolution history know that American militias have never played by the traditional rules of warfare. And these same guerrilla tactics explain why the USA remains locked in war against two clearly inferior military opponents (Iraq and Afghanistan) despite nearly a decade of active battle.

In other words, if you want to imagine an armed rebellion in America, I'd wager it would look more like the streets of Baghdad than the fantasies of the "Turner Diaries". With nothing more than household chemicals, small arm fire, and good-ole'-fashioned spite, a small group of radicals can put quite a dent into a superior occupying force. See also: Ireland, Vietnam, et all.

I think it would look more like the streets of Iran, than any of those. If it got that bad support for shooting regular Americans would likely not last amongst the military.

Economic depression stolen elections, unfair labor practices, general strike, that sort of thing.

But like I said, that is very far off from our current situation.

To take your arguments in the order you presented them:

(1.Established gun regulation fails to decrease crime)

The US has the highest rate of gun deaths in the civilized world. Also, the highest number of assassinated federal leaders (presidents).

(2.It was the intent of the founders to guarantee the individual's right to bear arms.)

Actually, I disagree. It was the intent of the founders to provide for a 'well-regulated militia' to defend the state. There was a lot of discussion about the right to bear arms, and I believe the founders left the amendment somewhat ambiguous so that it remained flexible for future generations.

Unfortunately, Americans have become so enamoured with the 2nd amendment to suggest amending it would be like saying let's amend the ten commandments.

(3.Guns are beneficial to society.)

This statement puzzles me. Not only is it a sweeping generalization, it does not show how the 2nd amendment ties into it.

Frankly, the latest fiasco showing a person openly armed with an AR-15 outside a building at a political rally where the president was speaking, resembles snaps of the Middle East where people walk around nonchalantly holding automatic weapons. It shows to what extreme this right to bear arms has been taken.

Not even 18th century American colonialists did this except in the case of frontier settlements. And remember they were carrying single shot muskets, not automatic weapons.

The 2nd amendment needs amending, if for no other reeason than to show the US is not a banana republic.

Josh.

Josh:

1. I concede we have the highest rate of gun deaths in the civilized world. However, I defy you to name one regulation or restriction that has correlated to less violent crime over a ten year period.

This link uses the "Brady Bill" to illustrate this point, as one such example.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_brady_bill.html

1. The root of the issue-

You argue that the 2nd amendment protects a right to bear arms to a well-regulated militia, not an individual.

Two points:

a) Whom comprises a militia? How does it differ from an army? Hint: what is the government's role in each?

http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm

b) what does well-regulated mean in the context of 1770's English? Does it mean regulation, as in "the Brady Bill", or does it mean well-regulates as-in "fully armed", having the proper equipment?

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

3) I concede, this is a sweeping generalization and impossible to prove either way.

Josh:

Also, in the context of 18th century lawmaking, it must be remembered that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was aimed primarily at defence of the state against the British, Indians, and a federal union that might replace Britain as an overbearing master of the states.

I agree with this 100%.

I respectfully disagree with this:

The Constitution lays out that the militia is to be regulated by each individual state.

Where in the Constitution does it say this? It would seem as though we agree

I respectfully disagree with this:

The Constitution lays out that the militia is to be regulated by each individual state.

Where in the Constitution does it say this?