Guns --- A Look On The Positive Side

[Dr Adequate]

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!" Nothing bad happened to the UK when we introduced strict gun control laws. Why would it? What would?

And yet there are people in the USA who seem passionately in favour of ready access to guns: but they don't seem able to say why. And of course I want to know --- if there is some clear benefit that comes with widespread gun ownership (great enough to outweigh the obvious negatives) then obviously I'd like that benefit for my country too. Indeed, if this benefit was to be demonstrated, you would see politicians worldwide calling for greater availability of guns, for the good of their respective nations, and the fact that this is not what we see suggests that this benefit, whatever it is, has not been clearly and unambiguously demonstrated.

What I should like, then, is to see the following sentence completed:

"The proliferation of anti-personnel weapons in the USA makes that nation more prosperous/safer/freer/more at ease with itself/etc than it would otherwise be, as is demonstrated by the following facts and figures..."

 

[Ed]

shooting is loud zen.

 

[Ed]

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!" Nothing bad happened to the UK when we introduced strict gun control laws. Why would it? What would?

And yet there are people in the USA who seem passionately in favour of ready access to guns: but they don't seem able to say why. And of course I want to know --- if there is some clear benefit that comes with widespread gun ownership (great enough to outweigh the obvious negatives) then obviously I'd like that benefit for my country too. Indeed, if this benefit was to be demonstrated, you would see politicians worldwide calling for greater availability of guns, for the good of their respective nations, and the fact that this is not what we see suggests that this benefit, whatever it is, has not been clearly and unambiguously demonstrated.

What I should like, then, is to see the following sentence completed:

"The proliferation of anti-personnel weapons in the USA makes that nation more prosperous/safer/freer/more at ease with itself/etc than it would otherwise be, as is demonstrated by the following facts and figures..."

Less glibly we might insert anything in these lines replacing "anti-personnel weapons". This is pretty vaccuous, IMO. Generally, in a free society one need not justify a freedom, it is up to the government to defend why a freedom is taken away.

Tell me, would internet porn survive this test? What would everyone do with all of that free time? 1inchrist could get a second job.

 

[Batman Jr.]

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

Less glibly we might insert anything in these lines replacing "anti-personnel weapons". This is pretty vaccuous, IMO. Generally, in a free society one need not justify a freedom, it is up to the government to defend why a freedom is taken away.

Tell me, would internet porn survive this test? What would everyone do with all of that free time? 1inchrist could get a second job.

It's expected that you justify a freedom when it is acknowledged to be an especially dangerous one. Let's bring this conversation above sophistry, Ed.

 

[Ed]

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

It's expected that you justify a freedom when it is acknowledged to be an especially dangerous one. Let's bring this conversation above sophistry, Ed.

Who makes that requirement?

 

[crimresearch]

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

Who makes that requirement?

'Justify a freedom'..especially a really dangerous one?

Like the freedom to share ideas provided by the printing press?

Or the freedom from superstition offered by atheism?

Or is it just limited by someone's distaste for the notion that mere peasants might gain the freedom to stay alive?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Perhaps the reason all three of crim's examples appear in the Bill of Rights is that someone felt those things were important, and the amendments were meant not only to secure those things, but also to justify them.

Although a few more paragraphs explaining the thinking behind them might have come in handy.

eta: sorry, two of crim's, plus the original gun thing.

eta2: I just ate a one pound chocolate bunny. I'm having trouble remembering to type the connections between thoughts. Sweet, sweet chocolate.

 

[Dr Adequate]

* coughs gently *

What I should like, then, is to see the following sentence completed:

"The proliferation of anti-personnel weapons in the USA makes that nation more prosperous/safer/freer/more at ease with itself/etc than it would otherwise be, as is demonstrated by the following facts and figures..."

Of course there's a libertarian case for lax gun laws: that's self-evident. But if I ask: "What good outweighs all those people getting shot?" then replying "We have the freedom to buy the means to shoot people!" is not wholly satifying. It seems a bit circular.

Moreover, an argument of that form would justify anything being legal --- so long as, in each case, you put more weight on the freedom to do whatever-it-is than on the negative consequences of doing it. How do we find the balance between life and liberty?

And in thinking about this, I thought of the question in the OP. What I wanted to know is: is there some utilitarian argument for all those guns? Do they help. in some way, to make the USA great, or a great place to live in, or what? Or might the USA get along just as well or better without them? What are they for?

So: does anyone want to finish the sentence I started?

 

[Nex]

I'm going to say that I never come to Politics, so if you don't see me here again, it's because I've forgotten all about it.

Ok.

It's my understanding that firearms were kept legal for citizens in my country out of the forefathers' recognition of the people's need to defend themselves against an oppressive government.

Sounds sensible.

Today, American citizens still have the freedom to arm themselves, yet within certain limits. We can't, as individuals, own plastic explosive or nuclear weapons or anything like that.

But the government can.

Advanced technology has rendered our right to bear arms completely moot. Should the government come to take your house, your car, or your kids, there's really nothing we could do about it anymore.

In conclusion, we lost our right to defend ourselves against our government years ago. There's no point in keeping firearms now. Make them illegal, and only the criminals will have them, which would in turn make it easier to spot who the criminals are.

Of course, the transition period would pretty much suck, but after a few years our society will settle into it and we'll be a little better for it.

That, or make ballistic missiles legal for citizen ownership. Gee, I can't wait to see the first gang war after that "freedom" comes into being.

 

[Kopji]

Nex
Yeah its bad over here, if you're an American you'd better be ready to post something nice about guns.

I have mine ready:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

I grew up in California and never thought much about guns at all. When I moved to Arizona, everyone here goes hunting and gets quite excited about their hobby. One of my buddies from work used to race his cousins along the canals down in Yuma, trading shotgun blasts of light buckshot at each other while leaning out the window.
So there ya go. Heeya.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Less glibly we might insert anything in these lines replacing "anti-personnel weapons". This is pretty vaccuous, IMO. Generally, in a free society one need not justify a freedom, it is up to the government to defend why a freedom is taken away.

Yes, well, we all know the downside to guns, don't we? It involves people getting shot. I don't need to belabour the point. That's the downside. I'm asking for the up side.

Tell me, would internet porn survive this test?

I think that the sort that involves killing people should be illegal. Do we have consensus? Good. Try to stay on topic. Tell me nice things about guns. Finish my sentence. Please?

 

[RandFan]

Advanced technology has rendered our right to bear arms completely moot. Should the government come to take your house, your car, or your kids, there's really nothing we could do about it anymore.

This is a common misconception. If the British army came to take your house, all your possessions and your family away circa 1775, there was really nothing you could do about it.

Please note that advanced technology didn't guarantee victory against barefoot villagers crouching in the jungles clutching rifles in Vietnam.

 

[CFLarsen]

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

Less glibly we might insert anything in these lines replacing "anti-personnel weapons". This is pretty vaccuous, IMO. Generally, in a free society one need not justify a freedom, it is up to the government to defend why a freedom is taken away.

So, it comes down to whether or not something is a "freedom"?

It doesn't matter how harmful it is. Once it's a freedom, that's it, babe. Never changes, no matter what.

That is what you are saying, isn't it?

 

[Mycroft]

I think that the sort that involves killing people should be illegal. Do we have consensus? Good. Try to stay on topic. Tell me nice things about guns. Finish my sentence. Please?

All of our freedoms are dangerous in some way or another. That's why we had the wisdom to set them aside and protect them from a majority vote.

 

[TragicMonkey]

All of our freedoms are dangerous in some way or another. That's why we had the wisdom to set them aside and protect them from a majority vote.

Yeah! Here I am, living large, and totally not allowing troops to be quartered in my apartment. Take that, society!

Sorry. Still got that chocolate bunny high.

 

[Grammatron]

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

So, it comes down to whether or not something is a "freedom"?

It doesn't matter how harmful it is. Once it's a freedom, that's it, babe. Never changes, no matter what.

That is what you are saying, isn't it?

Basically no, I really wish you read what actually was written on this thread prior to your post.

There certainly is a line between freedom and hazardous actvity but a gun is still on the side of freedom while some if its uses are not. I know it's a complicated point to take in but I am sure you can understand that.

 

[CFLarsen]

All of our freedoms are dangerous in some way or another. That's why we had the wisdom to set them aside and protect them from a majority vote.

Can you list the freedoms? Be as specific as possible.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry. Still got that chocolate bunny high.

Have you no respect for tradition? Chocolate bunnies are not to be eaten until Easter (Sunday) morning (after sunrise).

Playboy bunnies on the other hand are another matter.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Have you no respect for tradition? Chocolate bunnies are not to be eaten until Easter (Sunday) morning (after sunrise).

I was going to wait, but the bunny begged me to bite off his head. Really.

Afterwards, I did the same thing again, but to a chocolate bunny.

 

[Dr Adequate]

All of our freedoms are dangerous in some way or another. That's why we had the wisdom to set them aside and protect them from a majority vote.

Er, that would make a great speech to an audience which was already convinced that (w.r.t. gun ownership) this was "wisdom". Suppose for the sake of argument that I'm not.

People aren't answering my question. I ask what is the net benefit of this freedom to Americans --- and get the reply that it's a freedom in America. This does not answer my question. If I was asked to argue that guns are, on balance, harmful, would anyone be convinced if my argument was to point to the laws of my own country and say "It's a crime"?

CFLarsen --- please do not troll on this thread.