Guns, Damned Guns and Shotguns

[SPACKlick]

so Mr Brown, if that is infact your real alias, what benefits does society get from members of the general public having guns?

[another lurker]

Spacklick, you might find this to be interesting:

http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf


-----------------
It seems to me that many of the most zealous gun-owners fear a UN takeover, or something to that effect. They want their guns to protect from "future Hitler' and 'future Stalin'.

[Chilly P.]

[youtube]Ooa98FHuaU0[/youtube]

This is a great video. The US has experienced an approximately 50% drop in violent crime and murder in the past 20 years. You never hear about it anywhere; most people think we're still in the midst of a crime wave. A few nasty places gin up our numbers, but the median neighborhood - Springfield Suburb, Anystate, USA has a UK-comparable murder rate while enjoying substantially LESS violent crime than the UK.

Violent Crimes are apparently 350% higher in England and Wales than the United States. It's the "Knife Culture". And I'm not being tongue-in-cheek - that exact term was used by a Scottish Politico a few months back in reference to the surge of violence in Glasgow. Like the video author, I wonder why even more violent Eire and Scotland aren't included, but perhaps that's part of the devolution stuff going on there.

Just an aside, other things at work besides guns. Besides demographic shifts in population cohorts, there are two other explanations:

* Technology gave rise to the "Personal" Selling of Drugs, replacing "Territory" based selling - made possible by first beepers and then cell phones. Drug dealers now work to have the largest personal sales network, rather than controlling neighborhood blocks. Therefore, less drug turf wars.

* Video Games. Disenfranchised young men gather together in their homes to play EA Sports and WoW while eating doritos, instead of hassling passersby (and other groups of guys) as they idle at the bus stop and subway stations.

[another lurker]

Chilly P: How about overall standard of living? Do you think that affects crime rates?

[Chilly P.]

Yes, standard of living and inequality as well. And, as politically incorrect it is for me to say so, homogenous populations.

And good jobs for the unskilled and semi-skilled. To climb a ladder, you can't pull out the lowest rungs and expect those at the bottom to reach the top by themselves in one generation. Good working class jobs for parents lead to children with middle class clerical jobs.

[another lurker]

Chilly P:

I have been meaning to read Steven Pinker's new book The Better Angels of our Nature.

I also found this study to be an interesting read:

ftp://psyftp.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/ssh ... nCrime.pdf

As inequality rises, so do crime rates.

What's also interesting, and I am sure you are familiar with this, that a harder life leads to greater superstition. We here in the West do not need religion, as our lives are relatively comfortable. We don't need a god to hold our hand, and help us deal with the misery of living.

[bubblesort]

so Mr Brown, if that is infact your real alias, what benefits does society get from members of the general public having guns?

I am not Mr Brown, I'm a noob and haven't been around for weeks but I can tell you what benefits I see:

Child labor laws, a 40 hour work week, minimum wage and other benefits. Like your benefits? Thank the 2nd amendment.

These benefits were won by armed citizens like the Molly Mcguires standing up to the corrupt government in insurrections like the coal wars and the Shamokin uprising. Armed rebellion has happened many times in American history and sometimes it has worked to create social justice.

I am not advocating violence. I prefer non-violence. I am saying that this is the original intent of the second amendment, and we all benefit from it. The right to bear arms against tyranny should be preserved, because sometimes tyranny does push things to a point where violence is a necissary evil.

[SPACKlick]

so Mr Brown, if that is infact your real alias, what benefits does society get from members of the general public having guns?

I am not Mr Brown, I'm a noob and haven't been around for weeks but I can tell you what benefits I see:

Child labor laws, a 40 hour work week, minimum wage and other benefits. Like your benefits? Thank the 2nd amendment.

All of which exist in territories without the citizens having access to guns. Nice try.

These benefits were won by armed citizens like the Molly Mcguires standing up to the corrupt government in insurrections like the coal wars and the Shamokin uprising.

Molly McGuires in the USA are a myth, Violent revolt is singularly useful in the case of violent oppression and achieves little outside that context. I know nothing about Shamokin uprising so the following comes from 30 minutes of Google.
Guns didn't play a significant role.

Defending liberty from oppressive violent dictators is a thing of the past in the west.

I am not advocating violence. I prefer non-violence. I am saying that this is the original intent of the second amendment, and we all benefit from it.

No, the original intent of the second amendment was to prevent an oppressive military government. It was written when the most state of the art arms were lit fuse grenades and unrifled muzzle loading flintlocks. Now we have missiles and rocket launchers, all sorts of devices. It's a different world.

The right to bear arms against tyranny should be preserved, because sometimes tyranny does push things to a point where violence is a necissary evil.

If tyranny ever pushed in a western civilisation, the rest of western civilisation would be down ont hem like a tonne fo bricks both with military and financial might.

[bubblesort]

so Mr Brown, if that is infact your real alias, what benefits does society get from members of the general public having guns?

I am not Mr Brown, I'm a noob and haven't been around for weeks but I can tell you what benefits I see:

Child labor laws, a 40 hour work week, minimum wage and other benefits. Like your benefits? Thank the 2nd amendment.

All of which exist in territories without the citizens having access to guns. Nice try.

Yes, but they do not exist, and would not have existed in America without the brave, principled stand of American civilians in armed rebellion against the US government.

These benefits were won by armed citizens like the Molly Mcguires standing up to the corrupt government in insurrections like the coal wars and the Shamokin uprising.

Molly McGuires in the USA are a myth, Violent revolt is singularly useful in the case of violent oppression and achieves little outside that context. I know nothing about Shamokin uprising so the following comes from 30 minutes of Google.
Guns didn't play a significant role.

You need to do some more research. The Molly McGuires are no myth, and civilians armed with guns against government thugs and soldiers were an important part of the Shamokin Uprising and many other incidents during this violent early period of the labor movement.

It has always bothered me that this part of history never made it to the high school history textbooks in the US. Where I am, in Pennsylvania, they do mention it a little bit, but only the parts of the fight that happened in PA (specifically Eastern PA, because they don't mention what happened in Pittsburgh much because I'm in the Harrisburg area, which is culturally more Eastern than Western PA). So we learn a little about things like the Reading strikes and the Shamokin uprising because they know we have ancestors who died in these conflicts. I didn't learn a thing about the Coal Wars in my high school history class. This is as much of an important part of our history as the Civil War, and it is wrong to forget the sacrifices made to secure our labor laws because it's politically inconvenient.

Defending liberty from oppressive violent dictators is a thing of the past in the west.

I'll give you that point. Fighting oppression with serious violent insurrections hasn't been done in the US for generations, because we have better non-violent resistance now. That said, in every non-violent movement there are small violent groups, threatening to grow larger and more bold if the non-violent approach doesn't work. MLK did his good work at the same time the Black Panthers were active. The non-violent second wave feminists in the US worked at the same time feminist Marxists were blowing up buildings in the UK. The gay rights movement started violently in Stonewall, and civilians there were not armed with guns, but violence was in integral part of the modern gay rights movement. That threat, the threat of violence, that is part of what makes people take non-violent direct actions more seriously. I'm not saying that we have more equality for minorities purely because of the black panthers, for example, but to say that groups like the panthers did not contribute to the process at all would be a much more difficult argument to make.

I am not advocating violence. I prefer non-violence. I am saying that this is the original intent of the second amendment, and we all benefit from it.

No, the original intent of the second amendment was to prevent an oppressive military government. It was written when the most state of the art arms were lit fuse grenades and unrifled muzzle loading flintlocks. Now we have missiles and rocket launchers, all sorts of devices. It's a different world.

Why do you think the kinds of weapons in question are important? The second amendment wasn't written for hunting, it was written to provide for the possibility of violent insurrection, if necessary. As crazy as it might sound, violent insurrection is still possible in the US, in spite of how much money and how technologically advanced our military is right now.

First of all, lets look at assault weapons: If assault weapons were not useful in battle then why does every military in the world still use them? Second of all, the technological advantage of the US military only exists so long as civilian engineers allow it to exist. The best hackers and engineers in the world are in the US, and they usually aren't all that likely to wear a uniform. Our technologists are so good that the whole world runs on our standards for power and telecommunications (OK, a few things like electrical outlet wall hole configurations aren't standard, but everywhere uses standard voltages and TCP/IP and USB, for example). Technology is becoming more and more democratized every day, with hackers and home fabrication cultures growing constantly. This means that civilian hackers and engineers are increasingly likely to be able to fabricate weapons that can compete with the US military. You can make a cheap supercomputer out of video cards if you want to take a crack at breaking or making strong encryption or doing advanced engineering. With 3D printing you can build just about anything you want if you are clever enough. You can pretty much print the most important M-15 parts from schematics freely available on thingiverse.com, and print it on on a 3D printer that costs about $250 or so to build yourself, last time I checked. This technology is only going to grow and become more inexpensive as time goes on. Hackers are already running circles around the US government. Just look at what groups like Wikileaks or #antisec did, and continue to do. If you found a picture or video of somebody beating their child or dog, do you really think the government is the most efficient way to track the perpetrator down, or would you hope 4chan detectives take up the case? Me, I think 4chan investigations deliver justice much more swiftly and efficiently than police investigations.

The right to bear arms against tyranny should be preserved, because sometimes tyranny does push things to a point where violence is a necissary evil.

If tyranny ever pushed in a western civilisation, the rest of western civilisation would be down ont hem like a tonne fo bricks both with military and financial might.

I disagree. For example, we have the government indefinitely detaining, without charge, a half dozen teenagers in Oregon on suspicion of being in possession of 'anarchist literature'. We have governments raiding file sharers to protect big content interests left and right while completely ignoring individual rights and destroying the public domain with bills like the Disney/Yoko Ono Act that extend copyright to 90 years, but only if it's held by a corporation. We have the US military stopping people from taking pictures of the extent of the damage of the BP gulf oil spill to protect BP from public scrutiny. We have violent actions taken against peaceful civilian protesters in Occupy Wall St and just this past August police were executing civilians on the street for protesting against police brutality. USBC knowingly laundered money for viscous gangs and terrorists and they are not being prosecuted at all because they have too much money.

This is evidence of public resources that were set aside for the just use of violence to protect the public's interests being abused to protect private investment, in direct opposition to the American public's interests. To me that is tyranny. I don't see anybody coming down on the US government like a tonne of bricks over any of this yet. Barely anybody even noticed when Obama signed the new 2013 NDAA. If the oppression continues to get worse, at some point people might be left so desperate that they are forced to resort to violence in order to safeguard their liberty. I'm hoping it never comes to that, but if it does I would much rather the civilians be armed, because I trust the civilians to create justice before I trust the US government to create justice.

[another lurker]

bubblesort:

do you think guns should be regulated at all? Kinda like how we regulate lots of things for public safety

or should it just be a free for all? buy as many guns as you want as often as you want without a permit etc?

[SPACKlick]

All of which exist in territories without the citizens having access to guns. Nice try.

Yes, but they do not exist, and would not have existed in America without the brave, principled stand of American civilians in armed rebellion against the US government.

Your point is? We’d never have got where we were without living in trees, do you advocate living in trees?

You need to do some more research. The Molly McGuires are no myth, and civilians armed with guns against government thugs and soldiers were an important part of the Shamokin Uprising and many other incidents during this violent early period of the labor movement.

As I said, some of that was outside my realm of experience and comes from Google, but the Molly McGuires were never active in the US, that was a myth.

[spoiler]

Defending liberty from oppressive violent dictators is a thing of the past in the west.

I'll give you that point. Fighting oppression with serious violent insurrections hasn't been done in the US for generations, because we have better non-violent resistance now. That said, in every non-violent movement there are small violent groups, threatening to grow larger and more bold if the non-violent approach doesn't work. MLK did his good work at the same time the Black Panthers were active. The non-violent second wave feminists in the US worked at the same time feminist Marxists were blowing up buildings in the UK. The gay rights movement started violently in Stonewall, and civilians there were not armed with guns, but violence was in integral part of the modern gay rights movement. That threat, the threat of violence, that is part of what makes people take non-violent direct actions more seriously.[/spoiler] I'm not saying that we have more equality for minorities purely because of the black panthers, for example, but to say that groups like the panthers did not contribute to the process at all would be a much more difficult argument to make.

True, but here violence need not be lethal and need not involve guns, a riot with chair legs smashing public property is effective as the background to a non-violent protest. You haven’t given a specific reason for the guns.

No, the original intent of the second amendment was to prevent an oppressive military government. It was written when the most state of the art arms were lit fuse grenades and unrifled muzzle loading flintlocks. Now we have missiles and rocket launchers, all sorts of devices. It's a different world.

Why do you think the kinds of weapons in question are important? The second amendment wasn't written for hunting, it was written to provide for the possibility of violent insurrection, if necessary. As crazy as it might sound, violent insurrection is still possible in the US, in spite of how much money and how technologically advanced our military is right now.

Ok I mention the type of weapons because if a nutjob in his apartment hates the brown skinned residents of bakersville, he would have to travel to bakersville with a rifle and take them apart piece by piece, during which time he could be stopped. Or he could have access to an apache helicopter, a nuclear warhead and an RPG and just wipe bakersville off the map. The types of weapon matter because of what happens when the government is NOT oppressing the people violently (which as I said could no longer occur for international reasons)

I disagree. For example, we have the government indefinitely detaining, without charge, a half dozen teenagers in Oregon on suspicion of being in possession of 'anarchist literature'. We have governments raiding file sharers to protect big content interests left and right while completely ignoring individual rights and destroying the public domain with bills like the Disney/Yoko Ono Act that extend copyright to 90 years, but only if it's held by a corporation. We have the US military stopping people from taking pictures of the extent of the damage of the BP gulf oil spill to protect BP from public scrutiny. We have violent actions taken against peaceful civilian protesters in Occupy Wall St and just this past August police were executing civilians on the street for protesting against police brutality. USBC knowingly laundered money for viscous gangs and terrorists and they are not being prosecuted at all because they have too much money.

Ok, so governments over reach, and do criminal things. Note none of this is violent oppression of the people, it’s misapplication of government powers (subtle difference I’ll admit) I’ve never denied that, you’re argument doesn’t show how guns would be useful in preventing this?

[SPACKlick]

Just in general, I've yet to see, from any gun advocate, an argument of cost benefit that shows the public having access to all weapons/a subset of weapons provides more benefit than cost.

Costs - 1) Guns equalise fights (two men with a gun are more apparantly equal than two men without) and therefore fights must come to violence to be settled rather than being settled by social cues etc.
2) Guns allow the easier perpetration of crimes, including but not limited to; Murder, Burglary & Kidnap. For two reasons, 1) A gun disconnects the criminal from the victim and two a gun can become the defining factor in an event. "I couldn't stop him, he had a gun"
3) Guns cause accidental damage and death; misfiring, innocent bystanders etc.
4) Guns and Other more powerful weapons can kill from a long distance allowing more likely escapes from scene and providing less opportunity for defence than other weaponised objects.

What benefits does society get that could counterbalance this?

[windy]

If tyranny ever pushed in a western civilisation, the rest of western civilisation would be down ont hem like a tonne fo bricks both with military and financial might.

Not saying private gun ownership prevents tyrannies but the last time tyranny pushed in a western civilization, they had time to create all sorts of trouble before the rest of western civ belatedly came down on them, and even then another tyranny did most of the work.

[RemedyOfRuin]

I'm not sure where I stand with the whole "gun" issue. I don't feel comfortable with the image of Joe Blow cruising around in a tank, but I don't see any problem with anyone I personally know who owns guns.

Maybe, just maybe, the problem with guns is the perception that there is a problem with guns. If no one was vehemently one way or another, or if guns didn't have the appeal that they have to our young adults because they make someone seem more edgy and subversive, or if people weren't so frightened of the possibility that every person they pass walking down the street is packing, who would even bother with the expense, time, and effort of owning them? Who knows? That is not the society/culture we live in.

I love to run, especially at night. I run for 45 minutes to an hour most times. I have friends and family that feel concerned for my safety. Why? I don't buy into the fear. Every man I pass as I run is not a rapist, and I highly doubt they want my iPhone. But most people I know will not run at night alone, unarmed. Knives, gun, pepper spray....everyone is afraid to leave their homes. WHY???? I've never met someone who WANTED to hurt me, especially a stranger.

HOWEVER, violent crime is inevitable in any society. I love our police...I really do. Officers have always treated me like a lady, ever courteous, gentle, and helpful. But they are people too; they have biases, agendas, and mental disorders like the rest of us that could lead to wrongful violence. As long as our police officers, military, etc., have arms, I think it's best that citizens have access to them as well....I think.

In short, as with any other material, the thing itself is not the problem. The weight our society places on the thing could tip the scales. If tomorrow, homemade bombs became more popular and "glamorous" than firearms, and several gang members, troubled teens, or stupid grown-ups started making them because of this, the argument of guns/no guns would no longer matter....I think. Is our system perfect? Hell no. And it never will be, because "we" aren't perfect. However, given the world we live in with its many peoples and many ideologies, I truly think that we're collectively doing the best we can do and making the best changes we can.

:P

[Chilly P.]

Chilly P:

I have been meaning to read Steven Pinker's new book The Better Angels of our Nature.

I also found this study to be an interesting read:

ftp://psyftp.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/ssh ... nCrime.pdf

As inequality rises, so do crime rates.

What's also interesting, and I am sure you are familiar with this, that a harder life leads to greater superstition. We here in the West do not need religion, as our lives are relatively comfortable. We don't need a god to hold our hand, and help us deal with the misery of living.

You need to do some more research. The Molly McGuires are no myth, and civilians armed with guns against government thugs and soldiers were an important part of the Shamokin Uprising and many other incidents during this violent early period of the labor movement.

Couldn't agree more. There was also the Carnegie Steel Strike, which was resisted but failed (thanks to PMC like Pinkerton, aren't we regressing as a nation?), and resulted into Americans NOT controlling their work schedules, but giving it up to management (unlike modern Germany, for example). However guns played a role in making the whole process difficult at least.

I also recall many "Decency Brigades" where the local big landowners, the local militia (usually comprised of the landowners and their proteges and restricted as to membership to ensure the ordinary laborers wouldn't be able to be members), and the Sheriff (again, usually also affiliated with the landowners), used violence and all sorts of illegal measures to reduce the freedom and working conditions of many workers, particularly in the West.

I see you are a bit of an old salt-of-the-earth leftie like me. Too bad all the air is sucked out of modern conversation by identity group whiners.

[Chilly P.]

Ah, sorry another lurker, I responded to bubblesort but not you, I guess the preview button is my friend.

Yes, inequality is a major factor, and I agree that a hard life or even periods of high stress engenders more superstitious thought. I live in a third world country now and superstition is everywhere, particularly when driving. They just got cars about a decade ago, there is no real driving test, so the high rate of accidents has more to do with road conditions, aggressive driving (ironic because in everything else they are very mellow), and inexperience culturally with cars. But instead I see a lot of Rosaries, and Santa Maria and San Expeditio statuary.

[another lurker]

bubblesort mentioned the coal wars

I remember reading about Blair mountain a year ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

he Battle of Blair Mountain was one of the largest civil uprisings in United States history and the largest armed rebellion since the American Civil War.[1] For five days in late August and early September 1921, in Logan County, West Virginia, some 10,000 armed coal miners confronted 3,000 lawmen and strikebreakers, called the Logan Defenders,[2] who were backed by coal mine operators during an attempt by the miners to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields. The battle ended after approximately one million rounds were fired,[3] and the United States Army intervened by presidential order.

Interesting stuff. A big coal company wanted to level the entire mountain, but thankfully, steps are being taken to protect it as an historical site.

[another lurker]

and Chilly P: wherever you are, be safe on those roads:p

[rayshul]

On a lighter note: http://www.theonion.com/articles/gorill ... tac,30860/

I'm still unsure on the gun debate but am enjoying the read here.

[another lurker]

Posting this here, b/c it's too good not to share:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5mgoA7Axvp0/U ... pCOLOR.gif

[mordacious1]

http://www.freewebs.com/sugartopaz/apps ... oid=404550