Should I move to Australia if Obama wins?

Post Reply New Topic

Although I disagree with many of your viewpoints, I understand and sympathize with your fascination with well made instruments of high accuracy. And you seem to me to be intelligent. But your statement about guns merely to be machines for propelling projectiles through tubes is frankly quite strange in its basic denial of the purpose of those fast moving projectiles. A gun, theoretically could be used for cracking eggs for baking a cake but, deep down in your inner, inner being, do you really believe a gun was designed and made for anything else but injuring or killing an opponent?

You don't have to be conservative to support gun rights. I'm a Socialist, and I support the second amendment.

Here here!

And your point is?

Did this ridiculous thread really turn into a gun-rights argument?

I guess I'll have to state my case real briefly than.

Yes, Americans murder at a higher rate than other countries. It's not because we have more guns, it's because of our culture. If we didn't have guns, we'd still maintain a higher rate of stabbings, beatings, etc. It's not the guns, it's the Americans.

You're not going to get rid of guns, ever. So all you accomplish by making guns illegal is to make it so that ONLY CRIMINALS HAVE GUNS. As has been demonstrated in a number of instances, the presence of responsible citizens with firearms actually serves as a deterrent to crime. What we need is actually MORE responsible citizens with guns.

That being said, I absolutely hate guns. I do not own one, and feel very uncomfortable when one is present, even on a cop.

What I'm doing is rejecting the notion that an inanimate object can have intent independent of the person using it. For example, competition firearms are often wildly impractical for use as weapons, either by weight or configuration or delicateness, not to mention expense, they were never intended to do anything other than punch holes in paper as quickly and as accurately as possible. That being said, you could easily kill someone with one, same as you could easily kill someone with a kitchen knife, walking stick, baseball bat or tire iron, just to pick a few examples at random. The sword is a much better example of a tool that really only has the one purpose of doing harm to people (can't hunt with one), but even that item is used in various sport martial arts and competitions, and people who collect, own or compete with them don't have nearly the stigma attached to them as gun people do, I've yet to see anyone be accused of being a right wing sword nut or some such doggerel. The bow is probably the item with the closest parallels to the gun in why it was developed, both as a martial weapon and as a hunting tool and later a competition item, with the crossbow providing the equivalent version that didn't take much skill to use. At one point I seem to recall that the church did in fact attempt to enact "crossbow control", with predictable results. If anything, the gun can be thought of as a technological method of bringing the function of the bow to the common man and not just the trained soldier, and eventually completely eclipsed it's fore bearer in every way. The bow and crossbow simply got outdated, but that does not change their pedigree one bit, and it is just as irrelevant to me as what the designer of a particular firearm might have intended his creation to be used for, I determine what use any guns I own are going to be put to.

Hey, don't look at me, I was trying to turn it into a moderator hypocrisy thread, but it sort of got away from me. It's not like any PPR regulars don't know what happens if they bring up guns in a thread I'm involved in, my Avatar is usually a sufficient reminder if they forget.

...me too

It seems rather likely that an outcry against crossbows will emerge when kids discover one stashed in a closet and injure or kill each other with one or a protest about the right to have unregistered swords will appear when a psychotic student massacres a dozen or so schoolmates with one or a regulation against trebuchets or catapults or home made ICBMs will occur when they come into operation under conditions of high rage in a domestic fracas.

I agree that a high profile crime often leads to knee-jerk legislation, I personally subscribe to the philosophy that it's a dangerous world out there and all the laws in the world won't change that. The thing is, I don't let that get in the way of enjoying my life, just like I don't worry about the statistics when I get in my car, take a sip of Scotch, go on a hike, or do other somewhat dangerous but pleasurable things. Life IS risky, and I just plain don't GET people who sit around worrying about such highly unlikely scenarios as being shot with a .50 caliber rifle (California), stabbed with a C02 injecting anti-shark knife (England), or attacked by slingshot wielding marauders (NYC), let alone restrict my ability to own and enjoy these things because of that fear they have. It would seem to me that reasonable people would take responsibility for their own safety if they are that worried, so what I have to conclude is that they A: don't understand the issue, and/or B: don't want to have to think. I'm not even going to touch on why a government might want it's citizens to be unarmed, that's another thread.

Taking reasonable gun owners at their word it would seem to me that they probably are decent human beings who are just as distressed over the misuse of dangerous weaponry on helpless victims as anybody else. The possession of small arms to prevent totalitarian government impresses me as the last resort in seeing to it that a government stays in the control of a decent citizenry and probably not a very effective one. Therefore are gun owners more vigilant over any government to more or less turn citizens into slaves and are they more active in local and national government in seeing to it that the basics of a decent life are preserved outside of the issue of gun control? Do they participate in government more, or less than the average citizen since they seem very sensitive to government action? Is the proper stage for gun owners to act that final Alamo scenario or is it in full participation in seeing to it that all civil rights, not just the possession of firearms, is secure from an overbearing government?

And beyond that, since they are so firm in their desire for firearms, I am sincerely interested in their feeling about what can be the solutions to preventing the misuse of firearms by young children, mentally disturbed people and people driven temporarily into uncontrolled unthinking fury by totally frustrating personal situations. The gist of firearm organizations seems to be to permit unfit people to be equipped with extremely dangerous equipment. Do you feel that is a system beyond any human effort to control it? I am interested in real answers.

Hmm, a few tricky ones in there, but since this thread seems to be completely off it's rails, I'll try to dig into them. Personally, I skew fairly Libertarian so civil rights/civil liberties are just as high on my issues list as the gun stuff, guns are just a more contentious issue so I'm more prepared to debate on that subject. Unfortunately, in this country I'm often forced to vote for people with whom I disagree violently on social issues, but I've come to the conclusion that it's easier to start with someone who's pro gun and push them on the social stuff than try to push an anti-gun person away from gun control, it just seems to be really intractable in some people.

To get back to your questions though, I'd consider myself to be mildly politically involved, at the letter writing and internet campaigning level. If I thought that a politician or political movement actually posed a realistic threat to democracy, civil liberties/civil rights, or yes, gun ownership in this country, I'd get much more involved, I'm not one of those guys secretly hoping for a revolution so I can go out and shoot liberals or something stupid like that. Though I do believe that having an armed population is of some value against something like a coup or takeover by a foreign military, I don't think either of those situations is terribly likely here in the US. Though I will make use of the fighting tyranny argument because it does have merit, it isn't my primary reason for owning guns, maybe not even top 5. I think of it more as having the option if something really bad happened, in my area that could be civil unrest after an earthquake, something like our 1999 WTO protests getting out of control, or something totally unforeseen. Think LA after the Rodney King verdict, the police just cleared out and let the place burn, why would I place all my trust in them or any other agency when I can take responsibility for my own safety so easily? I do get a certain smugness when some of the more excitable lefties that I know (Seattelite, remember?) start spouting off about there being riots if Obama had lost or similar stupidity, since my unvoiced thought usually runs to "riots with what, biodeisel Molotovs, sustainable growth bats? Not in my neighborhood". I actually voted for Obama myself last year in the hope that long term it would help the Republicans to get their focus back on small government and fiscal conservatism and away from this religious garbage that has infected the party, though I can't say how optimistic I am feeling about that at the moment. Like Obama himself, I'll give them some time before I really make a decision on that one.

When you get seriously into guns, you find that it's hard to stay apolitical when you're being constantly vilified by one side of the political spectrum and being actively courted by the other, while having your intelligence insulted by all. Insulted blatantly by the left, in portraying us all as ignorant, backwoods redneck types that are all trying to compensate for something when we're not beating our wives or torturing animals, insulted more subtly by the right who assume that they own our votes, sort of like Black voters and Democrats. What's particularly galling is that we'll get dinged again for being "unwilling to compromise" with these same people that have worked so hard to build up that unflattering picture of us, and who on the whole are beyond ignorant on the mechanics of firearms. Don't even get me started on the manipulative language like "assault weapon" or "cop killer bullets", or even the slightly more benign gunshow "loophole", it should be a huge warning sign when a group has to rely on such cheap tricks to influence people towards their message. When people like me talk about media bias, this is one of the things we're talking about, when the mainstream media uses these words without qualification they are tacitly endorsing the message behind them, after all who could possibly be in favor of something that has the word "assault" or "cop killer" right in the name? All these things tend to drive gun people farther to the right than we might otherwise be, then the country ends up with GWB for 8 years at least in part because people like myself won't hold their nose to vote for Al Gore or John Kerry, both strong supporters of gun control.



I don't mind things like the NICS checks when you buy guns (that's the instant background check, FYI), which prevents felons, people judged mentally incompetent, and domestic offenders from buying guns. I don't mind having harsh penalties in place for knowingly straw buying, knowingly selling to a person ineligible to possess, etc. What I have a problem with is the knee-jerk approach of simply banning anything scary because it might be useful to criminals, who be definition aren't afraid to break the law in the first place. If anything, restricting access to firearms would make them more desirable to the criminal element because they would become even more effective at making others do what you want, better that both potential victim and potential victimizer have access to the same tools. Cars, cigarettes, fatty foods and alcohol all kill far more people than firearms, but none of those things are scary, and they have far larger user bases that derive utility from them than guns ever have. In short, I'm willing to take reasonable measures to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands, but beyond that I fall back on my earlier assertions that life is risky, and that people need to take at least a little responsibility for their own lives, and that includes being safe.

I appreciate the lengthy reply, Dox47, but I see no clear solutions to the problems which are real. That you do show concern that guns should be kept out of the hands of incompetents is encouraging and it seems to me that a good deal of real progress could be made in finding acceptable means to do so agreeable to all concerned. I am well aware that other factors in current life also cause a great many serious injuries and deaths but surely it is obvious that each one of these problems require individual consideration and search for solutions. They do not excuse each other from solutions.

There is a general observation that should be made about people who favor guns and people who abhor them which is completely separate from the specific admiration for efficient instruments.

The deep separation lies within basic attitudes towards society. In effect many gun owners have given up on the possibility that a cooperative society can solve social problems to general satisfaction. They feel that society has failed to give them the basic security that community organization must provide for a decent life. There are obvious justifications for this feeling. Police brutality is rampant throughout the USA which may be the product of rogue individuals but police organizations are infamous in neglecting correction to this corruption. Government is reluctant to diminish its powers to protect individuals from repressive regulation. Money, to a huge extent, is power within the USA and it can buy both justice and political power to the detriment of the average guy and, as is clear from daily reports, corrupts everything it touches and there is little or no recourse for the average person.

This is apparent to the pro-gun sector and it is not a delusion. Political efforts to countervail the overwhelming power of wealth quickly acquires the label of socialism or communism and since most US citizens view themselves in a life long lottery to become millionaires they have been propagandized into anti-communal action by the forces that control the media. This directly leads to a badly maintained infra-structure, insufficient funding for general education, a health system wonderful for the wealthy but totally inadequate for a very large sector of the populace and finally a criminal justice system insufficient in many ways to provide general personal security.

Thus, in effect, many gun owners acknowledge that the community has failed in its basic obligations and their only resort is to see to their own personal safety. This is a major tragedy since that means a good many people have given up on proper social interaction and pursuit of proper cooperative community action. Although society can still function in a crippled manner under these conditions it does not make for a very good life.

I Just wanted to clarify, what I was getting at isn't some sort of justification for gun deaths, but more of an effort to get people to put them in perspective. It get's tiring hearing about how my beloved hobby is the scourge of humanity and is responsible for all of society's ills, when in reality McDonalds' products kill far more Americans than do Smith and Wesson's, the hyperbole just gets a little old. The anti-gun people always wrap themselves in the cloak of saving lives as a justification for their proposed restrictions, how many times have you heard that line "if it saves just one life..."? My point is that if these people were really interested in saving lives, they'd dedicate themselves to a more productive approach such as clean water or drug policy reform, there are many causes with much greater "bang for the buck" than gun control, and without the divisive political battles that will only end up badly for everyone (again, 8 years of GWB). I'm convinced that the primary motivator for gun control advocates is fear, caused in no small part by their ignorance of the subject matter, and ironically one of the reasons that they accuse us of "clinging" to our guns. Of course what's even more ironic is how they'd expect their restrictions to be imposed; at gunpoint, cause they sure as hell aren't convincing many folks with their reasoning ability.

So how would you propose that you abolish poverty, hmm? Seeing since that would save lives, how would you go about it? Personally, I'd prefer to abolish large golden handshakes and lower pollies' pay to help pay for such a thing, but how likely do you think that's going to happen? A public servant holds their own agenda above that of the public's, on average.

As for alcohol, cigarettes, cars, and so on, well, cigs should be banned, IMNSHO, and more stringent penalties for drunk drivers. As for cars, well, bigger stringency for road awareness rather than actual technique (I've never attempted a parallel park since my test, and don't intend to tempt fate) should be implemented. Of course, a good percentage of these deaths are due to human stupidity, which makes me wonder, in my darkest moments, whether eugenics isn't an option.

Even so, anyone who trumpets the right to bear arms is suspect, in my opinion. Crossbows are also useless at anything other than killing (unless you count the fictional trope of using it as an ad hoc piton for a piece of rope).

Why are they suspect? A gun, as I keep on saying, has no other purpose other than to wound or kill or intimidate. In theory, you could use it to break a window or destroy a door lock, but those are extremely peripheral to the intended purpose of a gun. Most people who want to keep a gun holds life very cheaply, whether they be criminal or civilian.

And since when, Dox47, have you seen anyone taking responsibility for anything, whether they be pollie or pauper?