Guns in America

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure you understand modern warfare as well as you seem to think you do. See Vietnam, Afghanistan (Soviet primarily), Iraq, and other examples of how a well armed population can be an absolute bitch to forcibly coerce even in the face of very modern armies.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I don't think you understand the point that was being made. It's not a question of "forcibly coercing" someone. It's the fact that you cannot escape a tyranny (or overthrow it) just because you have guns. In other words, restricting the right to vote does not require forcibly coercing anyone. You simply don't hold a vote, and no one has the strength to overthrow you if you own the armed forces of the country.

Obviously this doesn't hold if a country is in complete disorder (like Iraq for example.) But that is not part of the natural evolution of a country - that was a "catastrophic event" caused by an outside influence. A modern government in stable control cannot lose power simply because its citizens own guns.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
I didnt read most of this thread so I might be repeating what someone else said.

Hand guns SUCK. They are absolutely pointless. People use the excuse that "they need them for protection". Protection from what, other people with guns? That is [censored]. I dont think they'd need these guns if nobody had guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to assume you're not really stupid, but that you just stopped thinking briefly.

There are lots of ways stronger and more skilled people can kill weaker and less skilled people, without guns. For an extreme example, I think an 80 year old woman should be able to defend herself against a 30 year old ex-football linebacker who breaks into her house to rob her. A handgun might help her out a bit.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Bernard Harcourt article

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish we had more of his sort of clarity and logic:

NRA stands for the proposition that “it’s not guns that kill people, it’s people
who kill people.” The central idea here is that instrumentalities—in this case
handguns—are just that: instrumentalities. They are not to be blamed for what
people do wrongly with them. If you follow the logic of that argument, then
you would expect a member of the NRA to respond, when confronted with the
Nazi gun laws argument, in the same manner: “it’s not gun registration that
causes genocide, it’s people who cause genocide.”

There is no other conclusion to jump to here - simply that their logic is wrong and hypocritical. (This of course does not mean that guns should or should not be controlled.)

[DrewDevil]

Bringing Hitler/Nazi Germany into any argument is usually needlessly inflammatory.

I think you can make the point that it's a lot tougher to be a dictator/tyrant over an armed populace than an unarmed populace.

Also, I'm not sure I understand the argument about instrumentalities. I don't think anyone has ever argued that gun control CAUSES genocide--only that it facilitates genocide, for the genocide-minded.

[Rococo]

[ QUOTE ]


If I have a right to self-defense, how can anyone draw an objective limit on the means of self-defense? Is it OK to defend myself with a baseball bat, but not with a knife? With a knife but not with a gun? With a shotgun but not with a handgun? If I have the right to defend myself, why do I not have the right to use all of the technology and human intelligence available to me? And why do I not have the right to use all of the technology and human intelligence available to a potential attacker?


[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose that a weapon is invented which you would allow you to kill simply by blinking your eyes twice while looking at your target. Further suppose that the weapon is the size of a credit card, makes no noise, etc. In other words, it is virtually undetectable.

Do you seriously contend that your "natural right" to possess such a weapon should be unfettered. Such a weapon would be so dangerous, so prone to misuse, and so likely to lead to accidental killings that it simply would have to be banned to the extent possible by any well-governed society.

[daryn]

what could banning that weapon do? it would still find its way into the hands of criminals, and then we're [censored]. right?

[Rococo]

[ QUOTE ]
what could banning that weapon do? it would still find its way into the hands of criminals, and then we're [censored]. right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but that is irrelevant to my point. Benfranklin's position is that a society would be wrong to ban such a weapon, even if it were possible to do so effectively, because he has a natural right to defend himself with every bit of technology available to humankind.

[daryn]

yes, and i think he's absolutely right. if criminals on the street had access to such a superweapon, then i absolutely believe people should be given access to the same weapon to defend themselves.

think about it. say i was the only guy in the world with said superweapon. i would be a pretty powerful killing/robbing machine. but now say everyone on the street has one. oops.. my power has been diminished severely, because i now fear retribution.

[DrewDevil]

I think somebody needs to watch Raiders of the Lost Ark again.