The case against guns

[Collector1337]

The various people on this forum who find the idea of things getting different inconvenient to their prejudices are actually totally wrong.

Basic human nature does not change, true. But society does. The way people behave today is totally different to the way they behaved 1000 years ago, and is different to the way people behaved (and their attitudes, beliefs etc) pre WWII.

If you do not believe me, watch the lecture on TED by Prof. Steven Pinker on the history of violence. http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_ ... lence.html

Violence of all kinds is reducing over time. This is something that the pro-gun lobby have tried to use as an argument to say large numbers of guns do not lead to lots of murders, because the murder rate is dropping. Sadly for that argument, the murder rate is dropping irrespective of gun ownership increasing or dropping, since it is a long term societal change.

The percentage of the male populaton that is killed in war is also dropping, and very substantially. When you look to the lessons of history, it is vital that you take into account that society today is not the society of even 70 years ago, and is wildly different to the society of 1000 years ago. This is especially true when discussing violence and murders, since these have fallen dramatically.

So when some blithering idiot quotes Adolph Hitler as an 'expert' on history, and draws conclusions from what Hitler has to say, bear in mind that this "authority" had no knowledge of modern society, and any conclusions he drew was garbage in terms of the world of today.

Short answer, based on real data, is that no modern (since WWII) western society has ever, not even once, used the removal of guns as a precursor to going totalitarian. Using that mythical idea as a rationalisation for possessing and playing with lethal toys is total crap.

Maybe, since WWII was a relatively short time ago, "some blithering idiot" should give it some time, hmm?

[Blind groper]

Collector

It is simply a matter of comparing apples with apples. If you compare England today with England 1000 years ago, it is apples and oranges, since the societies were utterly different. If you compare England today with Rwanda today, it is also apples and oranges. However, if you compare post WWII Britain, Australia, USA, Canada, then you are comparing apples with apples. I am trying to get you guys back on track and into a groove of logic. Trying to compare the USA with Rwanda, or Hitler's Germany is simply irrational.

Violence has been reducing for longer than recorded history. That long term trend is over and above any trend due to number of guns. However, that does not mean, as Seth implies in his usual bullshit way, that number of guns has no effect. Large numbers of hand guns means large numbers of murders, which is why the USA has 5 times the per capita murder rate of my country.

[Seth]

Collector

It is simply a matter of comparing apples with apples.

Like you would know what that means.

If you compare England today with England 1000 years ago, it is apples and oranges, since the societies were utterly different.

Not really. Only the technology has changed. The social and political issue that facilitate and defend against tyranny haven't, not even a little. After all, our Revolution wasn't a thousand years ago, it was 233 years ago.

If you compare England today with Rwanda today, it is also apples and oranges.

No, it's not. The principles of liberty do not differ at all. The only thing that differs is where on the path to tyranny the UK is as compared to Rwanda. You have the idiotic notion that what happened in Rwanda can never happen in the UK. But it HAS happened in the UK and there is nothing preventing it from happening again.

However, if you compare post WWII Britain, Australia, USA, Canada, then you are comparing apples with apples. I am trying to get you guys back on track and into a groove of logic. Trying to compare the USA with Rwanda, or Hitler's Germany is simply irrational.

No, it's not. It's just that doing so completely demolishes your dogma, so you deny the applicability.

Violence has been reducing for longer than recorded history.

Really? Do you remember the Cold War, a war that threatened thermonuclear annihilation which we avoided by the hair on our chinny-chin-chins.

That long term trend is over and above any trend due to number of guns.

So, once again you demonstrate that your thesis of "more guns, more crime" is false. Thanks.

However, that does not mean, as Seth implies in his usual bullshit way, that number of guns has no effect.

Didn't say it had no effect Brainiac. I was quite specific in stating that the number of guns in the hands of LAW-ABIDING citizens is not, as you yourself have proven, a causal factor in gun violence.

Large numbers of hand guns means large numbers of murders,

Except it doesn't.

which is why the USA has 5 times the per capita murder rate of my country.

Where's your peer-reviewed research demonstrating this exclusive causal connection?

And you have to include in that research the number of people WORLDWIDE (not just in your cherry-picked first-world countries of your choice) who WOULD have been, or even MIGHT have been saved if they HAD been lawfully in possession of a handgun when they were attacked.

You also have to include an analysis of the correlation and causation between increased criminal victimization short of murder and the LACK of handguns in society.

Let us know when the study is completed. Until then, shut the fuck up.

[Blind groper]

To Seth, with a deep sigh.

You still persist in lumping the USA in with a whole bunch of societies that no sane person would want to be associated with.

I, at least, grant the USA the status of being a western and reasonably civilised nation. So I do not compare it to Russia, or Rwanda, or Hitler's Germany. I compare the USA to Britain, NZ, Australia, Canada, Sweden etc. In other words, to other western and reasonably civilised nations. That comparison makes the homicide rate in the USA look very very nasty.

[Seth]

To Seth, with a deep sigh.

You still persist in lumping the USA in with a whole bunch of societies that no sane person would want to be associated with.

Which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the subject. You are deliberately trying to elide salient examples of a disarmed populace being tyrannized and murdered because comparing such societies to an armed society like America totally disproves your thesis that guns in the hands of the citizenry are useless for preventing tyranny.

You are creating a hasty generalization fallacy by mendaciously excluding all relevant examples of a disarmed citizenry being tyrannized.

Moreover, you do the same thing with handguns by simply ignoring all examples of legitimate DGUs because they disprove your theory.

I, at least, grant the USA the status of being a western and reasonably civilised nation. So I do not compare it to Russia, or Rwanda, or Hitler's Germany. I compare the USA to Britain, NZ, Australia, Canada, Sweden etc. In other words, to other western and reasonably civilised nations. That comparison makes the homicide rate in the USA look very very nasty.

And that's why your argument is intellectually dishonest pettifoggery.

A nation of disarmed citizens, like Rwanda, laboring under tyranny and genocide, is not going to be "reasonably civilized" and therein lies the entire point.

If the UK were to fall under the control of a Hitleresque despot just like Weimar Germany did, then it would cease to be a "reasonably civilized nation" perforce. Then you would reject it as an example. Thus you are creating a tautology that says "any disarmed nation that's suffering under tyranny is to be eliminated from consideration because it's not "reasonably civilized."

Rwanda is an excellent example and so is Zimbabwe because comparing either to the US makes the US look like it's all fluffy bunnies and hugs. That's exactly the point and it's exactly that which you are trying most dishonestly to avoid discussing.

Neither Somalia nor Ethiopia were always tyrannical shithole death camps. They became shithole death camps because the body of the citizenry of both countries was NOT ARMED and therefore not able to take up arms and defend against Muslim religious zealots and other despots who overran the populace.

And the same thing can happen ANYWHERE the citizenry is disarmed, whether you believe it or not.

Nice self-fulfilling prophecy you've got going there.

[Blind groper]

You are deliberately trying to elide salient examples of a disarmed populace being tyrannized and murdered because comparing such societies to an armed society like America totally disproves your thesis that guns in the hands of the citizenry are useless for preventing tyranny.

You are creating a hasty generalization fallacy by mendaciously excluding all relevant examples of a disarmed citizenry being tyrannized.

Seth

The truth is that you keep using irrelevant and inappropriate comparisons because there is no valid comparison to make your point, because your point is plain wrong, wrong, wrong!

You cannot compare modern, western, civilised nations to Weimar Germany, or Rwanda, or any other non western, or distant past nation.

The world has changed enormously since WWII, and western societies have changed accordingly. With a few minor exceptions (all in the USA), there are no executions, torture, penal mutilations, slavery, serfdom etc. Overall, we now have an appreciation for human welfare never before achieved any time in history, along with an appreciation for giving everyone a chance to succeed in life. You cannot compare such modern attitudes to more 'primitive' societies elsewhere on Earth or in past histories.

However, if you look at comparisons that are valid, like modern western civilised nations, there is not a single case you can point to, where a government disarmed its citizens in order to become totalitarian. The mere suggestion is pure nonsense.

I know the truth is inconvenient to you and your ridiculous and self serving beliefs. The simple fact is that making all kinds of firearms available is very, very damaging to human welfare, and has no mitigating effects. We have any number of modern nations that permit the citizens to earn gun licences and then own firearms. Just not the most harmful firearms, like hand guns. Only in the USA is the government stupid enough to permit anyone who wants to, to buy hand guns on the second hand market with no background checks or any other restraints whatever.

[Jason]

I'm using groper's insane obtuseness as an excuse to give him all the research he deserves: Memes.






"Der größte Unsinn, den man in den besetzen Ostgebieten machen könnte, sei der, den unterworfenen Völkern Waffen zu geben. Die Geschicte lehre, daß alle Herrenvölker untergegangen seien, nachdem sie den von ihnen unterworfenen Volkern Waffen bewilligt hatten."

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
--- Adolf Hitler



I wonder who has a better grasp of history: Hitler or Blind groper?

Nice.

[JimC]

Romantic delusions of heroic gun-owners opposing evil tyrants in the name of freedom...

Quite amusing, but utter and complete rubbish...

[Tero]

stand your ground, Florida


http://s12.postimg.org/ovoc9d0ql/Capture.jpg

[Jason]

Romantic delusions of heroic gun-owners opposing evil tyrants in the name of freedom...

Quite amusing, but utter and complete rubbish...

Not at all. At least in my case. I'm merely acknowledging historical facts - that many or most oppressive, dictatorial, and often genocidal, regimes engage in a campaign of civil disarmament. It's happened, oh, at least a dozen times in the 20th century.

[Seth]

You are deliberately trying to elide salient examples of a disarmed populace being tyrannized and murdered because comparing such societies to an armed society like America totally disproves your thesis that guns in the hands of the citizenry are useless for preventing tyranny.

You are creating a hasty generalization fallacy by mendaciously excluding all relevant examples of a disarmed citizenry being tyrannized.

Seth

The truth is that you keep using irrelevant and inappropriate comparisons because there is no valid comparison to make your point, because your point is plain wrong, wrong, wrong!

No it's not, you just don't like the fact that you're wrong and I'm right.

You cannot compare modern, western, civilised nations to Weimar Germany, or Rwanda, or any other non western, or distant past nation.

Yes I can, and do, and will continue to do because the comparison is apt and instructive.

The world has changed enormously since WWII,

Has it? How so, specifically? Has human nature changed? Has the nature of despotism and tyranny changed? Nope, not even a little. Only the tools have changed.

and western societies have changed accordingly.

Cherry picking again.

With a few minor exceptions (all in the USA), there are no executions, torture, penal mutilations, slavery, serfdom etc.

Horseshit. Human trafficking (slavery), torture, executions, and serfdom are more widespread than ever. It's an international industry nowadays. You just ignore that fact because it's not entirely state sponsored or directly sanctioned. Human nature remains much as it has always been.

Overall, we now have an appreciation for human welfare never before achieved any time in history

Indeed. Which includes concern for the welfare of each individual against violent criminal victimization that is facilitated by state-sponsored bans on defensive weapons...at least here in the US. The rest of the world? Not so much. Most of the planet doesn't give a flying fuck about individual security or rights because to all Socialist states the individual is irrelevant and only the collective matters.

, along with an appreciation for giving everyone a chance to succeed in life. You cannot compare such modern attitudes to more 'primitive' societies elsewhere on Earth or in past histories.

...which have absolutely nothing whatever to do with criminal victimization or the inherent natural right of each individual to be armed for self defense, which is the point of this discussion.

However, if you look at comparisons that are valid, like modern western civilised nations, there is not a single case you can point to, where a government disarmed its citizens in order to become totalitarian. The mere suggestion is pure nonsense.

Well, except perhaps for, oh, the UK, France, China, North Korea, the USSR, Russia, Bosnia, Serbia, Chechnya, Burma, Venezuela and a host of other totalitarian states of the last 100 years.

I know the truth is inconvenient to you and your ridiculous and self serving beliefs.

It's you who is in denial of the truth, so much so that you have to sculpt out a weak argument by dismissing every relevant example of dictatorial despotism and tyranny in history by cherry-picking your examples.

The simple fact is that making all kinds of firearms available is very, very damaging to human welfare, and has no mitigating effects.

Boy, all the actual evidence presented in these threads by me and others must be so very nettling to you given how thoroughly they debunk your idiotic opinions.

We have any number of modern nations that permit the citizens to earn gun licences and then own firearms. Just not the most harmful firearms, like hand guns. Only in the USA is the government stupid enough to permit anyone who wants to, to buy hand guns on the second hand market with no background checks or any other restraints whatever.

The US doesn't "permit" anything to do with guns because no governmental agency in the US has the lawful power or authority to "permit" the keeping and bearing of arms, including handguns. The word "permit" implies that permission can be denied by government fiat, whim or caprice. But the RKBA is a fundamental, natural, enumerated right upon which the government has absolutely no authority to tread. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you fail to understand?

That being said, the regulation of the exercise of that right is comprehensive and widespread and makes it utterly illegal, with severe penalties including a mandatory 5 year federal prison sentence for any disqualified person (criminal) in the US to possess ANY firearm or so much as a single round of ammunition.

That the US treats its citizens as innocent until proven guilty and recognizes that all the "background check" laws on earth will never stop any criminal intent on obtaining a weapon (which it's illegal for them to even attempt to do) from doing so because, well, criminals don't bother with background checks since going through one would prevent them from getting the gun.

Thus, the only thing a "universal background check" does is inconvenience law-abiding citizens by presuming them to be guilty of something until they prove they are not.

That's not how our system works.

You don't have to have a driver's license to buy a car, you just have to have one to operate it on the public streets. You can buy any car you want and drive it around on your own property without a license for your entire life if you please because the "keeping and bearing" of automobiles is a right. It's only regulated when you OPERATE the vehicle on a PUBLIC highway.

The same is true of guns. We have a right to keep and bear them (own and carry) on our own property in an entirely unrestricted fashion. We have a regulated right to OPERATE them anywhere that protects public safety quite well. We are also, in most places, regulated as to time, place and manner insofar as where we can reasonably exercise our right to keep and bear arms. The point being that firearms are one of the most-regulated consumer products in the US. However, all those regulations must be configured so as not to unreasonably deny the underlying fundamental, enumerated right to keep and bear arms for the purposes contemplated by the Founders when they drafted the 2nd Amendment, which include, according to the Supreme Court, the right to buy, possess, store and operate "arms" of every description, particularly including (but not limited to) those arms suitable for the individual soldier in combat, and specifically handguns in the home for self-defense.

So, your statement, "Only in the USA is the government stupid enough to permit anyone who wants to, to buy hand guns on the second hand market with no background checks or any other restraints whatever," is quite simply an outright bald-faced lie. I'd say it was ignorance, but you've been cited to the law often enough here to eliminate any chance that you fail to understand how the laws in the US work, which makes you nothing more than a liar.

But then we knew that already...

[Seth]

Romantic delusions of heroic gun-owners opposing evil tyrants in the name of freedom...

Quite amusing, but utter and complete rubbish...

Except when it isn't.

[Seth]

stand your ground, Florida


http://s12.postimg.org/ovoc9d0ql/Capture.jpg

Nice stand-alone JPG. Now, what's the source? That matters you know, because very often anti-gun bias is obvious in such "surveys" that renders them irrelevant, deceptive and untrue...like this one.

[Tero]

Don't know. Florida syg and google pictures might get it. It was in IGI message board.

[Blind groper]

Seth

You still have not given me a specific example of a western civilised nation (meaning USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, Britain, or any European country west of the old Yugoslavia) that has, since WWII, disarmed its citizens in order to become totalitarian. You have not, because you cannot. Your fear of gun control because it may lead to a government becoming totalitarian is paranoid, insane and irrational. It just will not happen.

You asked about how such western civilised nations have changed since WWII. The easiest way to provide a number for this change is to look at the Steven Pinker video I suggested you watch, on the history of violence. In this, the murder rates per 100,000 people, and the percentage of the male population lost in war are both shown, and both quantities are falling. They are falling in pretty much every western civilised nation, and (perhaps surprisingly) are falling on a global basis as well.

In addition, there is a major movement towards respect for those values enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Nations which, before WWII, had no interest in the subject, now pass their own laws to make those values inviolate. Note, though, that owning guns is not recognised as a right anywhere in the more than 200 nations on Earth, except in the USA. The US is in a minority of one.