Guns --- A Look On The Positive Side

[RandFan]

Yes, me too. But I'm not sure that what applies to hang-gliding applies equally to owning a lethal weapon. For example, the life one risks when hang-gliding is usually one's own. So I am not sure that exactly the same reasoning applies.

Let me understand, the point then becomes if the subject endangers others? What about recreational driving? That certainly endangers others. We could outlaw that without anything bad happening.

If the answer is "none" say "none". If the answer is "lots of great things", provide proof. Splendid. Then you are in a position to answer my question and tell me what these benefits are. What is it that we in the UK are missing out on?

Benefits are subjective. If you outlawed recreational driving you could make the same argument. Not everyone values recreational driving. That they don't or that you don't value guns does not mean that we do not. The benefits are subjective and not empirical.

Further, we value pools. Innocent children who do not choose to own a pool die in them. Perhaps they should be outlawed to protect the innocent. What value is there to a pool? Would "bad things" happen if we outlawed pools?

 

[Iconoclast]

So you want the freedom to only live next door to perfectly safe people?

I think you missed the point of my opening remark. Taking advantage of a "freedom" should not (by many posters' definitions) infringe on the freedom of others.

 

[RandFan]

But can it not be agued that his owning a gun impinges upon your freedom? For example -- and call me a big girl if you like -- but if I knew my neighbour owned a gun I would be a little scared of going out into my backyard, I can imagine my neighbour forgetting to check the whatsamajigger (I know nothing about guns) when he's cleaning his gun, the gun goes off, I fall down dead under the Hills Hoist.

I might as well admit it, I'm terrified of being around people with guns. In my country, the only time you'll generally be near a dude with a gun is if you happen to be walking past the Armagard Van (Armoured Bank Van) when they're making a pickup at the local bank, and I get a case of nervousness whenever I'm in this situation.

The fear is unfounded and irrational. How many people are accidently shot by their neighbor because he forgot to check his whatsamajigger (its called a safety)?

 

[CFLarsen]

I watched the video a while back. The DEA agent was being very presumptuous and arrogant when he said he was the only one professional enough to carry the pistol he had in his hand. Assuming that anyone who works for the police force or DEA is well trained in firearms use is just plain wrong. I do not know where you live, but here in the United States, being employed by the police does not mean they give more than basic training in firearms use. I was in the US Navy for twenty years. Whenever I completed periodic qualification on various weapons for submarine security, the training was in my opinion substandard. We were only allowed to load, aim, pull the trigger, and then set down the empty firearm when done. Nothing else.

You don't get it, do you? Despite his training, the gun went off anyway. It doesn't matter what he said, what matters is that the gun went off in a trained person's hands, in front of a classroom of children!

 

[Dr Adequate]

Suppose that negatives outweigh positives. So what? Should that be the litums test for a freedom?

I really don't know. I've not thought about it. And this is not what I was asking, darn it all to heck! I have said that I know the libertarian arguments for lax gun laws. What I asked is whether there are utilitarian arguments for guns. If you want to say: "No, but the libertarian arguments alone are compelling," then fine. But say it. If you want to say yes, say yes, and show me the evidence, better still. This is what I want. I am puzzled by your gun laws, but of all things I detest psychobabble --- I cannot merely say to myself: "A quarter of a billion Americans are just crazy and that explains that". I really want to know. There must be something you get out of it. Surely?

Can you tell me why freedom of speech is net positive? Or is it?

I could argue that it is positive, but I see no need. I too, in my little way, am fond of libertarian arguments, as I have said --- certainly one's position on every question should be libertarian by default --- and I should say that no-one has really demonstrated the downside of free speech, or that its result is net negative. If you want to argue for this, start a thread, have a go. On the other hand, we know the downside of guns. I want to know if there is an up side which outweighs this, or whether the final argument for people being free to buy guns is just that it is a good thing in itself for people to be free to buy guns. That would be the start of a different argument.

Let me ask the same question for the zillionth time. In your opinion, or anyone's opinion, is there or is there not a demonstrable net benefit to the USA from the proliferation of anti-personnel weapons in that nation?

Everyone wants to answer a different question to the one I asked. Maybe the question you want to answer is much more vital and important than the question I'm asking. Oops. My bad. But it's still a question. Surely there can still be no actual harm in answering it. Can there?

So ... does anyone want to answer my question, one way or the other? Who wants to finish the sentence I started?

 

[Iconoclast]

First of all, I would have to say you have an unreasonable fear of guns.

I'm not sure about that. In Australia we have no gun culture to speak of. To the average Australian, a person who likes to play with guns is just a "gun nut", which is a derogatory term. I realise that countries like USA with strong gun cultures don't look at this the same way, and I'm not trying to start a slanging match, that's just the way we tend to look at gun owners over here. Anyway, I don't think it's unnatural for a citizen of a country where guns are (essentially) never seen to get jittery in the presence of a person with a gun... or maybe I'm just a nig girl.

I think you would be doing yourself a favor if you were trained in their safe use just to ease your fears. You might even enjoy the experience. Has anything ever happened to you that resulted in your hoplophobia?

I actually shot a gun once, I think it was a 12 gauge. I can see how a person could get a feeling of power by having a gun in their hands, but it's not for me, and I certainly don't consider it "manly" to be able to weild such power. Likewise, I find the idea of killing animals for pleasure totally abhorrent, I'm not one of those weirdo vegetarians, I'm an omnivore just like god intended, and I have no problem with a cow being slaughtered for my dinner, but killing animals as entertainment is twisted in my mind. Again, I realise hunting as a sport is a part of North American culture, it's just not a part of my culture.

Assuming that anyone who works for the police force or DEA is well trained in firearms use is just plain wrong. I do not know where you live, but here in the United States, being employed by the police does not mean they give more than basic training in firearms use.

I didn't know that. This guy was an undercover agent, so I assumed he would do a lot of range work since he's in a job where a gun really could save his life.

I was in the US Navy for twenty years. Whenever I completed periodic qualification on various weapons for submarine security, the training was in my opinion substandard. We were only allowed to load, aim, pull the trigger, and then set down the empty firearm when done. Nothing else.

I realize there's different level of training, but I still assert that for even the most highly trained person (in any field) just a moment's lapse in concentration can make things go wrong, and when a weapon is involved things can go very wrong.

 

[RandFan]

You don't get it, do you? Despite his training, the gun went off anyway. It doesn't matter what he said, what matters is that the gun went off in a trained person's hands, in front of a classroom of children!

Yes, but this only proves that even educated or highly trained professionals can be stupid. There are lots of things stupid people can do to harm themselves and others. I'm not sure of the relevance.

 

[Tmy]

Somehow, I've managed to get through life without guns. I can't ever remember thinking "I know what would improve this situation --- more firearms!"

Have you ever gone shooting before? Its a blast! Plus theres the inflated sense of power. Sort of like how God must feel........when hes holding a gun.

(apoligies to the Simpsons)

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Guns --- A Look On The Positive Side

Have you ever gone shooting before? Its a blast! Plus theres the inflated sense of power. Sort of like how God must feel........when hes holding a gun.

(apoligies to the Simpsons)

I do get your post. However guns do appeal to an innate part of many of us. I know it is easily scoffed at and dismissed as a redneck phenomenon but it is quite real. And yes, guns are a blast (you decide the intention of the pun).

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, but this only proves that even educated or highly trained professionals can be stupid. There are lots of things stupid people can do to harm themselves and others. I'm not sure of the relevance.

He wasn't "stupid". The gun went off in his hands. That's the relevance.

 

[Tmy]

I dont own a gun, but I could see my buying one someday. I have gone shooting with friends and I found it enjoyable. Im accutally a pretty good shot.

Just cause I dont use a particular freedom doesnt mean that freedoms shoudnt exist.

 

[Tmy]

He wasn't "stupid". The gun went off in his hands. That's the relevance.

Guns dont spontaniously go off. They aint volcanos!

If they did, then the gun maker would be sued over that obvious design flaw. He had to have done something.

 

[RandFan]

He wasn't "stupid". The gun went off in his hands. That's the relevance.

Having grown up with and having owned many guns I can safely say that guns don't simply go off. Unfortunately this does not leave a lot of choices for this guy except as having failed to receive his Darwin award. Better luck to him next time. BTW, his claim is a common and rejected defense for many gun homicides.

Defendant: "But judge, the gun simply went off"

Judge: No, it didn't! Firing mechanisms and ammo are constructed in such a way so that the likelihood of them simply going off is near zero.

BTW, ever notice that the claim that the gun "simply went off" only happens while the gun is in someone's hand. They never go off while in a drawer or tucked under a mattress.

I'm still waiting on that relevance.

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes, but this only proves that even educated or highly trained professionals can be stupid. There are lots of things stupid people can do to harm themselves and others. I'm not sure of the relevance.

Surely the relevence is that a person who's just been shot couldn't give a rat's ass about the IQ of the person who shot him. I don't believe there are any restrictions on stupid people on the gun licence application form. When I see a person with a gun, how am I supposed to know his IQ? The only sensible conclusion to make is to assume that a person with a gun is "stupid enough" to accidently discharge it.

 

[RandFan]

Surely the relevence is that a person who's just been shot couldn't give a rat's ass about the IQ of the person who shot him. I don't believe there are any restrictions on stupid people on the gun licence application form. When I see a person with a gun, how am I supposed to know his IQ? The only sensible conclusion to make is to assume that a person with a gun is "stupid enough" to accidently discharge it.

I witnessed an idiot on the free way change lanes without checking their blindspot (gender deleted to avoid any offense) and struck another car sending the driver to the hospital. I witnessed another driver run a red light hitting a car and sending the occupant to the hospital.

It seems there is not enough protection from stupid people.

If cars are outlawed only outlaws will have cars.

 

[Tmy]

.

It seems there is not enough protection from stupid people.

Lets call them reckless instead of stupid. Mensa members still get into auto accidents.

 

[Tmy]

I witnessed an idiot on the free way change lanes without checking their blindspot (gender deleted to avoid any offense) .

On an unrealted rant. Whos stupid. The person who doesnt check the blindspot (which is hard to do SINCE ITS THE BLIND SPOT) or the person who stays in anothers blind spot instead of driving in a spot you can be seen in.

 

[RandFan]

Lets call them reckless instead of stupid. Mensa members still get into auto accidents.

But do they attempt to drive a four wheel drive over a cliff. That takes a special kind of intelligence.

 

[Iconoclast]

I witnessed an idiot on the free way change lanes without checking their blindspot (gender deleted to avoid any offense) and struck another car sending the driver to the hospital. I witnessed another driver run a red light hitting a car and sending the occupant to the hospital.

It seems there is not enough protection from stupid people.

Interesting you should bring this up now, because when I wrote above: "I still assert that for even the most highly trained person (in any field) just a moment's lapse in concentration can make things go wrong, and when a weapon is involved things can go very wrong", I was actually going to add that the same applies to driving automobiles; lose attention for a millisecond and you can die. Driving is an activity that is not taken seriously enough, and I'd guess it's the most likely place that the average Joe could suffer horrendous, horror-movie-like injuries. The presence of such distracting items as cup holders, refrigerators, and television sets in automobiles I find truly baffling.

 

[CFLarsen]

But do they attempt to drive a four wheel drive over a cliff. That takes a special kind of intelligence.

Are you saying that Mensa members never do stupid things?