Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philosophyabsurdity. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're probably looking for old friends, or old enemies. Don't panic! They still exist. Sure, they've forgotten about you. It's just the internet. But with passion, intellect and an enormous penis you can force your way back into their affections or the sex offenders register. So type a message. Expect a witty response. It's all for you... you just might have to wait 2 or 3 years.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Virginia Tech and Gun Laws; Someone had to do it
Topic Started: Apr 18 2007, 03:35 PM (3,151 Views)
ThePlague
Unregistered

No one is advocating "putting our energies into arming everyone". The only thing being advocated is a defense of the right to own arms free of government interferrence. If you like living in a place that doesn't respect those rights, that's great. Me, I like options, and don't appreciate even more government intrusions.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Quote:
 
The only thing being advocated is a defense of the right to own arms free of government interferrence.


If we're going to get nitpicky about who "the people" mean, and whether or not the men who signed the constitution had 9mm Glocks in mind, then I can get nitpicky about the above statement:

That's actually not a right. In fact, that entire statement is mentioned nowhere in the constitution.

Stricter gun laws doesn't infringe upon rights - they infringe on unfettered rights, which are mentioned nowhere.

Which is why existing gun laws cannot be found to be unconstitutional.

Again, Cyg is touching upon it but aside from (another) words-war from Plague everyone's come up empty-handed.

Why is a crazy American more likely to pick up a gun and murder people than a crazy Canadian? Or a crazy German? Or a crazy Brit?

Why can't you answer that, Plague?




Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

No idea. Just one of those flukes, I guess.

And unfettered access to a means of defending oneself is a right, whether recognized by the government in power or not. You have to remember that "rights" are not given by a government, they are inherent. The best one can ever hope for is that a given government does not infringe on those rights too much.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
CheapShades
Member Avatar
Twat Valid
ThePlague
Apr 24 2007, 04:16 PM
You have to remember that "rights" are not given by a government, they are inherent.

Rights have to be given by someone, or something, or else they are merely a philosophical concept. For rights to be "inherent", they have to originate somewhere. And if that's the case, from who have you/me/we derived any rights whatever from? God? Rights to anything can't just be "inherited" out of the blue. And if you don't believe in God, it seems to me that your argument fails at that point of admission. "Might makes right" then takes over as the working basis of the concept.
"Touch Her Soft Lips and Part" -- Henry V, Shakespeare
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Again, you've pointed to nothing in the constitution that says that. You just believe it should *mean* that.

And are you seriously claiming that the amount of mass shootings in the US are merely flukes?
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

I suppose they may be the result of not sacrificing liberty for some idea of security. If people are not denied access to guns then they will be misused with greater frequency than otherwise. Big surprise, just like it's more likely that a country having freedom of speech will have more slander and libel occur.

And it is in the constitution:

Quote:
 
the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Now, some want to throw that out because it is preceded by a clause that they see as giving the only reason for allowing individuals to arm themselves, namely a "well-regulated militia". Thus, only people part of the government shouldn't have their right to keep and bear arms infringed. This is exactly contrary to the original intent of the framers, but the wording can be parsed that way.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Doesn't pan out though, Plague. Canada has just as many guns - yet not as many mass shootings, thus blowing your not denied = more frequency theory out of the water.

And, again, you're interpreting "infringed" to mean unquestionned - which isn't necessarily what the constitution intended whatsoever. You're just forming it into what you think it should mean.

The constitution is open to interpretation, which is why gun laws are not unconstitutional.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cygnus-X1
Member Avatar
Davros Valid
Quote:
 
No one is advocating "putting our energies into arming everyone".


The NRA seems to have that goal, as do those who think that arming everyone would decrease crime. I've seen that argument put forth plenty since the VA Tech shootings.


Quote:
 
Now, some want to throw that out because it is preceded by a clause that they see as giving the only reason for allowing individuals to arm themselves, namely a "well-regulated militia". Thus, only people part of the government shouldn't have their right to keep and bear arms infringed. This is exactly contrary to the original intent of the framers,


I haven't said that a well-regulated militia is THE ONLY reason for allowing individuals to arm themselves, but, it is the only stated goal in Amendment 2, and, to ignore that is self-serving and arbitrary. And, again, the "original intent of the framers" that you refer to is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. It's clearly YOUR interpretation, and, not supported by legal documentation.

In defense of my good friend, Plague, however...


Quote:
 
Rights have to be given by someone, or something, or else they are merely a philosophical concept. For rights to be "inherent", they have to originate somewhere. And if that's the case, from who have you/me/we derived any rights whatever from? God?


Yes, rights are actually considered to be "endowed by our Creator." That much is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. And, further, the US Constitution clearly states that those rights not ennumerated therein are reserved for the people, or, for the States. Most versions of the US Constitution have a preface which mentions that the original debate, over the Bill of Rights, was whether including a list of ennumerated rights would imply, or be interpreted to mean, that only those rights which are listed are given to the people, when, in reality, the premise of the Bill of Rights is that ALL RIGHTS, unless specifically denied by written law, are assumed for the people or the States. If memory serves, it was T. Jefferson who didn't want a Bill of Rights at all, and Franklin and others, who eventually convinced the Congress to include it - the first 10 Amendments.

Quote:
 
Stricter gun laws doesn't infringe upon rights - they infringe on unfettered rights, which are mentioned nowhere.


And, I'm afraid I have to disagree with this as well. This seems like Bill Clinton's famous "that depends on what the definition of is is. A "fetter" is an infringement, so, shall not be infringed literally means shall not be encroached or trespassed upon (in order have a well-armed militia, in times when there was no standing Army.) However, once you've seen to the common defense, you've met your goal, and, hence, can reasonably do without psychopaths and convicted felons having AK-47's and missile launchers.
* This post is not a veiled, cryptic insult about anyone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Xx_SwordWords_xX
Member Avatar
Satan Valid
Does anyone have a gun I can borrow?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Rights don't have to be given by anyone, no more than mass or color has to be given by anyone. They are inherent characteristics.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
lori
Member Avatar
that chick, you know
Lori
I thought the debate was about stricter gun laws (psych test and such) being unconstitutional. When did the argument become that current gun laws were (or were not) unconstitutional?

Also, according to the Coalition for gun control,

Quote:
 
Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 76 million.


Even if you go by per capita, we still have three times as many guns, 63.3 times as many handguns. You can hardly argue that the number of guns is roughly the same.

Links for the stat:

Gun Control Coalition

Canada Safety Council
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Quote:
 
I thought the debate was about stricter gun laws (psych test and such) being unconstitutional. When did the argument become that current gun laws were (or were not) unconstitutional?



If stricter gun laws are "unconstitutional" because, as Plague maintains, the right to bear arms means the right to bear arms without government infringment, then it would stand to reason that any current laws in place regarding gun ownership are also unconstitutional.

However, everyone seems fine on existing gun laws...which is odd, considering the argument used against more.

As we have stricter gun laws, especially regarding handguns, our numbers come out lower for ownership because those are registered gun numbers. The number of guns in Canada is actually really hard to determine - I honestly wouldn't look towards the Gun Coalition for numbers because they are a supportive gun law group which bases their government funding on maintaining the relevancy of gun laws...

Quote:
 
About the Coalition for Gun Control

Founded in the wake of the Montreal massacre, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed to reduce gun death, injury and crime. The Coalition supports:

Legislation which includes:

possession permits which are periodically renewed for ALL gun owners
a cost-effective system to register all guns
a total ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines
controls on the sale of ammunition
tougher restrictions on handguns


And, more damning:


[/QUOTE]Currently the Coalition is focused on:

ensuring effective implementation of the legislation
research and public education
improving measures to combat smuggling and the illegal gun trade
protecting the legislation from legal challenges and attacks by the gun lobby
Quote:
 


Either way, we can also turn it around and completely blow the "If we were more armed we'd be safer!" argument out of the water by using those numbers. Americans - more armed. Americans - more likely to die by gunfire.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Xx_SwordWords_xX
Member Avatar
Satan Valid
Lori,

Taken from YOUR provided source:

Quote:
 
Canada-US Comparaison
Canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the United States, particularly with respect to handguns. In Canada, handguns have been licensed and registered since the 1930’s, ownership of guns has never been regarded as a right and several court rulings have reaffirmed the right of the government to protect citizens from guns. Handgun ownership has been restricted to police, members of gun clubs or collectors. Very few (about 50 in the country) have been given permits to carry handguns for "self-protection." This is only possible if an applicant can prove that their life is in danger and the police cannot protect them.

As a result, Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 76 million. While there are other factors affecting murder, suicide and unintentional injury rates, a comparison of data in Canada and the United States suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is roughly equivalent (1.8 times) to that of Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 14.5 times the Canadian rate. The costs of firearms death and injury in the two countries have been compared and estimated to be $495 (US) per resident in the United States compared to $195 per resident in Canada.




I am not sure what you are trying to prove...

Statistics showing that Canada has less guns and stricter control only reflects the lower per capita gun crime statistic.... so obviously, it works.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Ok, statistics can get confusing. According to this site, the firearm murder rates are:

US: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
CN: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people

US/CN: 5.55 (ratio of gun murder rates {GMR})

Which means the US has a rate of roughly 6x (5.55 to be exact) higher than Canada. However, considering that the handgun per capita is over 8x in the US compared to Canada (76 million handguns for 300 million people in the US, 1 million for 33 million in Canada), the rate per handgun is actually lower.

Handguns/person:

US: 0.253333333
CN: 0.03030303

US/CN: 8.36 (Gun Ownership Rate {GOR})

Dividing the two ratios leaves:

{GMR}/{GOR}= 0.664164646

Which means per person per handgun, Canada is actually more dangerous than the U.S. by almost exactly 50%. I suspect that analyzing rates on a per city basis would yield similar results.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Quote:
 
Which means per person per handgun, Canada is actually more dangerous than the U.S. by almost exactly 50%.



It's impossible to take that rate and decide Canada is more dangerous using simply handguns as that number (CN: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people) is simply "firearms".

Given that number was to represent 165 murders by firearm, if in actuality 80% of the US murder of firearms number was done by handguns, whereas if 5% of Canada's number of murders by firearms was handguns, your results would be different.

To properly do this, one would need exact numbers regarding handguns used in murders, as opposed to the blanket statement of firearms.

Try comparing apples to apples.





Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cygnus-X1
Member Avatar
Davros Valid
There's any number of other factors which might alter the ratio of gun-ownership to gun death. It's the big picture that's most telling. As of 1998, the US had 8.9X as many firearms as Canada, and 7.9X as many murders-by-firearm as Canada. Below is a graph of the relation between handgun ownership and gunshot death rate. You'll also notice, from the table, that, while the US has 7.9X as many firearm murders as Canada, the US also has almost twice as many murders without guns. So, while the correlation between gun ownership and murder is really impossible to rationally dismiss, there's also an argument to be made for American societal ills.


Posted Image



Posted Image

Gun Ownership and Death Statistics

Gun Deaths Cut in Half
* This post is not a veiled, cryptic insult about anyone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lori
Member Avatar
that chick, you know
Lori
Pestiferous
Apr 25 2007, 09:52 AM

About the Coalition for Gun Control

Founded in the wake of the Montreal massacre, the Coalition for Gun Control was formed to reduce gun death, injury and crime. The Coalition supports:

Legislation which includes:

possession permits which are periodically renewed for ALL gun owners
a cost-effective system to register all guns
a total ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines
controls on the sale of ammunition


And, more damning:


Currently the Coalition is focused on:

ensuring effective implementation of the legislation
research and public education
improving measures to combat smuggling and the illegal gun trade
protecting the legislation from legal challenges and attacks by the gun lobby


And the numbers were also quoted by the Canada Safety Council. I don't know much about either. But their intent doesn't gaurantee their statistics are less correct. Someone else find some numbers, are they skewed?

Either way, (Swords)

Quote:
 
I am not sure what you are trying to prove...


Exactly what I said. That the number of guns are not the same. I wasn't making a point about your gun laws and their effectiveness at all.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
Hold on - we're getting baffled by the minutiae. The fact is, England has extremely low gun deaths per capita in comparison and our regular policemen don't carry guns.

It's a better way to live. Can't we all agree on that?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

No. It's state nannying.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
I'm generally of the opinion that large numbers of our populace are imbeciles. I certainly don't advocate any foolish notions of equality, for example. If I had a gun, it would empower me - increase my offensive and defensive potential. If everyone had a gun, it would defeat the purpose.

Either everyone has instant kill weapons or no one does. We have very few shootings and I never feel as though I require firearms. Fear of violence curtails freedom more than restrictions on weaponry.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General · Next Topic »
Add Reply