What would you fight for?

I believe that any law abiding citizen should be allowed to carry. A criminal is not likely to consider the legality of carrying a gun, he'll carry one anyway. So why shouldn't the law abiding citizen be allowed to carry one to defend himself?
also, crime does decrease when there is a right to carry.
You may be suspicious of statistical data, but statistical data does show general tendancies, and if the general tendancy is for crime to decrease, than that means that crime is decreasing...
and allowing people to get guns doesn't make the fight against illegal weapons impossible, the laxity of law enforcement does a good job of that. IF the laws were enforced, we'd have no problem with illegal weapons on the street. We don't need new laws, we need the enforcement of the existing laws, unfortunately too many liberals don't understand that.
I don't think that liberals who think that we need more laws, limiting our freedoms in order to feel safe are amusing, i find them rather alarming. WE don't realize the importance of our rights until it is too late.
 
Here is an interesting question to ask: you, the law-abiding citizen are confronted by a criminal who pulls a gun on you. You carry a gun for your own protection and thus pull yours out when threatened by the criminal. Now, will the criminal, upon seeing that you, too, have a gun, be LESS likely to shoot you because you might shoot him in retaliation, or will he be MORE likely to shoot you out of fear, in the hopes that he can take you down before you get the chance to shoot him? Does both people having weapons discourage either side from using them, or does it escalate the conflict?
 
there is no doubt that the situation could escalate, however, statistically there is less of a chance. Now some of you may be skeptical of statistical data, however, if there are 100 gun related deaths one year, and then after passing a right to carry law that number decreases by 20%, that means that there are only 80. That is less. I know most of you can easily see that. However, i wanted to actually point out the obvious to help illustrate my point. I will admit that my opinion may be clouded a bit by the fact that i love math, however.
 
If you're going to quote statistics, it normally helps your credibility to actually provide them, along with the source from which you obtained them...
 
In response to Ghost, i was providing a defense for statistical data more than than my view on gun control which was in my opinion already sufficiently defended by myself and ripper.
And to TC, you can check them out at www.lp.org.
 
Zarathustra, look at this logically - if everyone can legally buy a weapon for any reason (you can't limit a criminal's rights to bear arms - after all, he's got the right to defend himself just as much as the next guy, non?), the fight against illegal weapons is lost by default - the illegal weapons market dies a natural death, but it doesn't matter because now any criminal can buy a weapon whenever he feels like it.

Secondly your statistics. The reason why I question them (even though I give you the benefit of the doubt as to their accuracy) is because they totally ignore other factors. You're saying that relaxing of gun control reduces crime, but you don't try to back this up by demonstrating to me that the state in question did not at the same time take steps to strengthen its police force, reduce unemployment, and so on. In other words, apart from proving that crime has gone down, you have to also prove that it's reduced gun control that caused it.

Meanwhile, you say that you are alarmed by people who would introduce more laws just to feel safe. I agree with you - authoritarianism is a dangerous thing. However, there must be balance between authoritarianism and anarchy. I feel that reducing gun control (especially when combined with the elimination of social welfare, another libertarian policy) is taking too big a step towards anarchy.
 
Originally posted by Ghost

Libertarian Party, it seems like an extreme-right party.
Click to expand...

Well they are all about personal freedom and limiting the government. :)

Originally posted by Quarto


Meanwhile, you say that you are alarmed by people who would introduce more laws just to feel safe. I agree with you - authoritarianism is a dangerous thing. However, there must be balance between authoritarianism and anarchy. I feel that reducing gun control (especially when combined with the elimination of social welfare, another libertarian policy) is taking too big a step towards anarchy.
Click to expand...

How do you figure that? The concept of Lasie Fare (or however you spell that blasted French term) worked in this country for 150 years. All you have to do is modify it into adapting with time. Taking away social policies that were only put into place to remove us from the Great Depression (which even I have to admitmight not have been that bad, at the time.) and afterwards by Presidents/Congress pushing for policies now that the public is used to them doing so. All we seem to do is have boom-and-bust economies, strife within our own country that our policies can't actually fix (take LBJ and his "War on Poverty" that was a rather failed experience, and that can be researched in most history classes on American History, as well as the book "Lyndon Baines Johnson: Triumph and Tragedy.")

Besides, the US is often critisized for our lack of government programs, but that's because we have another factor: we give more in charity than any other country on earth. Our private contributions to social programs often dwarfs other countries governmental support. (Which pulls up their taxes about 10% in some cases.) That can be learned in political science classes, and in the book "We the People"."

I'd like to take other people's responses into consideration, and perhaps explain this more indepth-so please feel free to tear this apart. :)
 
If the stats aren't at the website, They were originally published by the Cato Institute, a washington think tank.
And i do believe that i said that i was in favor of the right to carry for law abiding citizens .
ANd i know i may be labeled as an extremist for this next one, but another, forgotten yet very important reason we have a second amendment is to protect our selves from the government. It is easy to tyrannize a people who have no way to defend themselves. Our right to bear and organize a militia is designed to hold the government in check.
I would also like to point out, i do not own a gun...i've never owned a gun...i will probably never own a gun. However, i do value my right to do so, for the reason that it is my right! .

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
 
I'll make a proper post tommorow, but I had a couple of things to throw into the pot...

Although I'm not American, all I've heard of the Cato Institute place makes it sound rather... biased... to say the least.

Secondly, all I managed to find on the Cato Institute site that had more than a passing relevance was this ( http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html ) study on concealed carry laws which, to put it lightly, appears to be rather light on anything approaching actual numbers. Concealed carry also isn't really the core issue at hand. I'd very much like to see these statistics if you could find them...
 
Originally posted by Skyfire
How do you figure that? The concept of Lasie Fare (or however you spell that blasted French term) worked in this country for 150 years. All you have to do is modify it into adapting with time.
Click to expand...
Laissez-faire, if I remember, but the spelling doesn't really matter ;). At any rate, note that the 150 years you're talking about were not an especially nice time to live. Note that in the so-called Wild West, there were no gun laws. The gun laws did appear, however, because it was an inevitable step to allow the place to rise out of anarchy.

Taking away social policies that were only put into place to remove us from the Great Depression (which even I have to admitmight not have been that bad, at the time.) and afterwards by Presidents/Congress pushing for policies now that the public is used to them doing so. All we seem to do is have boom-and-bust economies, strife within our own country that our policies can't actually fix (take LBJ and his "War on Poverty" that was a rather failed experience, and that can be researched in most history classes on American History, as well as the book "Lyndon Baines Johnson: Triumph and Tragedy.")
Click to expand...
Have you considered that these very policies which you criticise are in place to cushion the effects of those cycles. Note that the last few years have seen such incredible drops in the stock market that the Great Depression seems to be a joke. Now, you don't feel the effects of such depressions - because of the government's policies. Yet, you would like to get rid of those policies because, you say, all they cause is more trouble. Isn't that just a little short-sighted?

Besides, the US is often critisized for our lack of government programs, but that's because we have another factor: we give more in charity than any other country on earth. Our private contributions to social programs often dwarfs other countries governmental support. (Which pulls up their taxes about 10% in some cases.)
Click to expand...
I don't see how that matters, because clearly the amount of aid given is not anywhere near the amount that is actually needed. And certainly, you can criticise governments for mismanaging their aid policies, but to claim that this is proof that they should abandon those policies and let the private sector take care of things... well, that's like saying that because police often screws up, we should dismantle it and let private security agencies take care of things. I think that it would be far more worthwhile to consider how governmental aid programs could be improved.

Zarathustra, but you can't deny the rights of self-defence to anyone without seriously undermining the very concept you're trying to defend. I mean, who isn't a law-abiding citizen? There are three possibilities here -
1) People who commited crimes but have not been tried yet. You can't deny them the right to carry a gun, because they're considered law-abiding until you prove otherwise in court.
2) People who have been tried, and are in prison serving sentences. You can deny them the right to carry a weapon, but I daresay it won't make the streets any safer.
3) People who have been tried, have completed their sentences, and are now free. If you deny them the right to carry a gun, you're basically saying that you do not believe that their punishment actually changed anything - that even though they've paid their debts to society, you still consider them criminals. This is obviously discrimination, so it can't be done.

So, at the end of the day, what it comes down to is that anybody on the street is a "law-abiding citizen" who can buy a gun. If you want to prevent this, you have to take someone's rights away - even if you're a libertarian.

Oh, and as for having guns to defend yourself from your own government. It doesn't work that way - even if you are allowed to have a gun, no government would grant you the right to shoot at its representatives. Therefore, 'defending yourself' against the government means nothing more than breaking the law. This idea is, therefore, seriously misguided. The constitution grants you other legal ways of making the government listen.
 
Originally posted by Quarto

Laissez-faire, if I remember, but the spelling doesn't really matter ;). At any rate, note that the 150 years you're talking about were not an especially nice time to live. Note that in the so-called Wild West, there were no gun laws. The gun laws did appear, however, because it was an inevitable step to allow the place to rise out of anarchy.



Appreciate it. :) ...I'm still curious as to how you figure that the guns made anarchy. After all, most of the "famous" shootouts were between law enforcement and criminals. As for it not being a great time to live, by your definition of social ills, this isn't either.



Have you considered that these very policies which you criticise are in place to cushion the effects of those cycles. Note that the last few years have seen such incredible drops in the stock market that the Great Depression seems to be a joke. Now, you don't feel the effects of such depressions - because of the government's policies. Yet, you would like to get rid of those policies because, you say, all they cause is more trouble. Isn't that just a little short-sighted?



Not at all. Those policies are set up as a cushion, I'll agree, yet I am one to argue that free trade will promote greater economic growth. If you take that as true, we wouldn't really have a constant cycle of boom-and-bust. We'd have either increase, slight decrease on occasions I'll admit (albeit rarely, under this concept), or consistant steady patterns. And actually, if I remember correctly (although, having not been alive I can't actually proclaim this as true-only from study) you can take things such as the recession in the 70's-80's. From what I've heard, people did indeed feel the pinch of that one.



I don't see how that matters, because clearly the amount of aid given is not anywhere near the amount that is actually needed. And certainly, you can criticise governments for mismanaging their aid policies, but to claim that this is proof that they should abandon those policies and let the private sector take care of things... well, that's like saying that because police often screws up, we should dismantle it and let private security agencies take care of things. I think that it would be far more worthwhile to consider how governmental aid programs could be improved.



Incorrect. The police are around to manage the governments responsibility of protecting people's rights, policies designed to give legs up for those on hard times is completely different. While for that matter, one could argue that money not being sent towards the governments misguided programs, could be redirected towards increasing ones own standard of living, and being given towards charity through private sectors. (Although I don't know if I'd say that.)



Oh, and as for having guns to defend yourself from your own government. It doesn't work that way - even if you are allowed to have a gun, no government would grant you the right to shoot at its representatives. Therefore, 'defending yourself' against the government means nothing more than breaking the law. This idea is, therefore, seriously misguided. The constitution grants you other legal ways of making the government listen.
Click to expand...

(Although I do not tend to think along the lines of the government taking my rights away, I do like to joke about it. However...) While I do see your point at that, should the government send some sort of militaristic force to take your rights away (since, presumably you would refuse to follow any such law), then shooting them wouldn't, obviously, be authorized by the government. But, even those in the Enlightenment and our Founding Fathers themselves said that, "One should always be allowed to take up arms against what they do not consider justice." (Although I do admit, that isn't a direct quote from the time period/frame.)
 
Originally posted by Skyfire
I'm still curious as to how you figure that the guns made anarchy. After all, most of the "famous" shootouts were between law enforcement and criminals. As for it not being a great time to live, by your definition of social ills, this isn't either.
Click to expand...
I agree - for the majority of the world, this is a pretty miserable time to live. What I disagree with you about, is the issue of how to make it better.
As for guns - well, the fact that criminals in those days could muster up sufficient gunpower to pose a serious threat to the authorities seems a pretty good indicator of anarchy.

Not at all. Those policies are set up as a cushion, I'll agree, yet I am one to argue that free trade will promote greater economic growth. [...] We'd have either increase, slight decrease on occasions I'll admit (albeit rarely, under this concept), or consistant steady patterns.
Click to expand...
Oh, free trade would certainly help all of us, but I think you're being over-optimistic. All the recent stockmarket problems were caused by government under-involvement, not over-involvement. Free trade is one thing, but deregulation of the economy (which is another libertarian goal) is likely to be dangerous.

And actually, if I remember correctly (although, having not been alive I can't actually proclaim this as true-only from study) you can take things such as the recession in the 70's-80's. From what I've heard, people did indeed feel the pinch of that one.
Click to expand...
And they are, I'm sure, eternally grateful that the libertarians were not in power at the time :p. Imagine how bad things would have been for them without social security.

(although, it should be pointed out, I'm not opposed to a privatised social security system - as long as it is strictly regulated by the government)
 
Originally posted by Quarto

I agree - for the majority of the world, this is a pretty miserable time to live. What I disagree with you about, is the issue of how to make it better.
As for guns - well, the fact that criminals in those days could muster up sufficient gunpower to pose a serious threat to the authorities seems a pretty good indicator of anarchy.
Click to expand...

The same could be said for now. Criminals get things like AK-47's, which is some significant firepower. (They'll sometimes even get body armor!) The same will always be able to be said. That's what criminals do, get weapons so they can kill each other/authorities. Gun laws will not change that, nor will any effort in human existance short of destroying all weapons, or things that can be used as weapons. (Impossible? Yes!)

Originally posted by Quarto


Oh, free trade would certainly help all of us, but I think you're being over-optimistic. All the recent stockmarket problems were caused by government under-involvement, not over-involvement. Free trade is one thing, but deregulation of the economy (which is another libertarian goal) is likely to be dangerous.
Click to expand...

How do you see that? The stock market has gone down because of investor fears, and a blow to certain industries through illegal processes. The government's involvement, or non-involvement isn't the issue with the lowering of the economy. (Else, when they lower the interest rates, the economy would stop going down. It didn't.)

And the Libertarians are for the government having some regulation over the economy-it says Congress is to do that in the Constitution, and that's generally the document the Libertarian party goes with, so they wouldn't have a problem with some programs in the government's efforts to manage the economy.

Originally posted by Quarto


And they are, I'm sure, eternally grateful that the libertarians were not in power at the time :p. Imagine how bad things would have been for them without social security.

(although, it should be pointed out, I'm not opposed to a privatised social security system - as long as it is strictly regulated by the government)
Click to expand...

It'd have prompted them to go out and get jobs? Even ones they didn't think were "paying enough" or even earning what they thought they needed. Had the Liberatarians been in office, (as they're not in power, that's what they're against. :) ) they would have had a Free Trade system in any event, which, should you follow that concept, would have done a lot to prevent that problem anyways.
 
Originally posted by Quarto
Zarathustra, look at this logically - if everyone can legally buy a weapon for any reason (you can't limit a criminal's rights to bear arms - after all, he's got the right to defend himself just as much as the next guy, non?), the fight against illegal weapons is lost by default - the illegal weapons market dies a natural death, but it doesn't matter because now any criminal can buy a weapon whenever he feels like it.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it is not just illegal weapons, but illegal TYPES of weapons, that is a problem. Even if every man-on-the-street can go into K-Mart and buy a rifle or a revolver, that does not mean that the criminals won't still want to have AK-47s or other submachine guns.

I find it perfectly reasonable for any person who is not a special risk of running amok (becaue he is dangerously insane, for instance) to own and carry a Colt .45 or something similar, but I believe that access to military-grade weapons should remain restricted.
 
Types of weapons. Good weapon, bad weapon.

Assault weapon: Weapon used in an assault.

Assault with a deadly weapon: Being assaulted with a weapon that could kill you.

Baseball bat: Assault weapon.


There are thousands (more?) of LEGALLY OWNED fully automatic firearms in the U.S. NONE of which has ever been used illegaly. Are there illegaly owned full auto firearms? Yes. They are the problem. Since legal owners of full auto arms dont use them illegaly, then there is nothing wrong with legal ownership of full auto arms.

Bad guys are the problem. They are already prohibited from owning or aquiring arms, and are violating the law as soon as they put a finger on a firearm. But since the laws against rape, robbery, assault, burgulary, murder, theft, etc. dont stop them from plying their trades, what silly little "You can't have a gun law" are they going to obey?

The U.S. is the most free country on earth. There are those who abuse those freedoms to prey on others. If there was a strictly enforced shoot on sight curfew, burgulary would probably drop to near zero as soon as the word got around that the bodies of bad guys were piling up. But us good guys wouldn't be able to drive through the night to get to grandma's, so we wouldnt tolerate such an infringement on our freedoms, even though the drop in crime would be dramatic and immediate. We gladly trade away safety and security for freedom.

The right to defend yourself is one of the most basic rights there is. It is not given by a government, but by God.
 
Yes, I do believe that. It's definitely more free than Poland.

Now I dont mean free as in no cost. I mean free as in having rights. And having those rights came at a tremendous cost.

And if the U.S. is such a crappy place, why is everyone knocking themselves out to get here?
 
Originally posted by Ripper
Types of weapons. Good weapon, bad weapon.

Assault weapon: Weapon used in an assault.

Assault with a deadly weapon: Being assaulted with a weapon that could kill you.

Baseball bat: Assault weapon.


There are thousands (more?) of LEGALLY OWNED fully automatic firearms in the U.S. NONE of which has ever been used illegaly. Are there illegaly owned full auto firearms? Yes. They are the problem. Since legal owners of full auto arms dont use them illegaly, then there is nothing wrong with legal ownership of full auto arms.

Bad guys are the problem. They are already prohibited from owning or aquiring arms, and are violating the law as soon as they put a finger on a firearm. But since the laws against rape, robbery, assault, burgulary, murder, theft, etc. dont stop them from plying their trades, what silly little "You can't have a gun law" are they going to obey?
Click to expand...

May I ask what function a submachine gun that fires 50 bullets in a 15 second period has other than as an antipersonnel weapon intended to either intimidate, or to fire upon large groups of people? What useful function does it possess that cannot be served by a 12 shot semiautomatic pistol? If your desire is to intimidate people, then this not only makes you a bully, but it leads to an arms race--whoever has the "biggest" gun is the one on top. Unless you seriously expect to be facing off against several opponents who are also carrying submachine guns, I do not see a purpose for having one.

Handguns: YES

Machineguns: NO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top