"Nobody wants to take your guns." Yea right

I guess I should clarify my statement. A large percentage of people who identify as left-wing would like to see all handguns, shotguns and rifles confiscated and permanently banned. This is why "reasonable gun control," even if it isn't highly restrictive, is disingenuous and finding no support among people who uphold the second amendment. A perfect example of this is the dogged pursuit of an assault weapons ban that we know for a fact has no impact on homicide rates. Rifles, of any type, make up only 3% of homicides in the United States, so it wouldn't be a stretch to suggest that perhaps 1% of homicides in the United States are attributable to "assault weapons." The pursuit of such an ineffective regulation belies the true intentions of many on the left.

Let's briefly discuss the public safety angle, since most proposals for gun control are predicated on that argument. I will concede that, in the absence of any legal market for firearms and the confiscation of all guns, homicide rates would be lower--I think most gun rights advocates (including myself, obviously) need to concede this point, though not publicly. If you compare European and American homicide rates (gun deaths, excluding suicide), you will indeed find a significantly higher number of gun deaths in the United States. However, when adjusting for race, you will find that they are much more comparable, though gun deaths in the United States are still marginally higher. I know that bringing this up is taboo, but it is a valid argument--some groups of people are disproportionately more involved, as a percentage of the population, in gun violence. It's also true that a small number of urban areas--I believe the number is five--account for 80% of all homicide by firearms. For the sake of this argument, it doesn't matter what we think the reasons are, only that this is the case. Once you understand this facet of the argument, it should be easy to see why law-abiding gun owners who live outside of these war zones are resentful of any attempts to curb their freedoms when this genuinely isn't a problem for them--gun violence simply isn't the problem that it is made out to be, for most people. Ultimately, it is true to assert that homicides would be lower if there were virtually no guns in the general population, but the narrative that legal gun ownership is leading to slaughter on a massive scale is highly misleading and dishonest.

This brings us to the point of the OP, which is that proponents of gun control are lying when they say that all they want is "reasonable gun control."We know this is a lie because the only way for gun control to have any appreciable effects on homicide rates is if it ultimately results in a comprehensive confiscation and banning of firearms. In the United States, this would require a massive effort by the federal government, and I highly doubt it could be done without causing great harm and instability to the country, at least in the first 10-20 years (my argument is not resting on this assumption). Finally, the marginally higher homicide rates are something many of us are willing to live with because we strongly value freedom and are willing to accept the risks. We allow people to drive extremely fast vehicles, play football, drink alcohol, and many other dangerous activities because they are fun and we would rather have the choice than no choice at all. Some people will make bad choices with the freedoms they are given, and a smaller number will, unfortunately, be unlucky--this is a price many of us are willing to pay.

Finally, even if everything I said about homicide rates and gun ownership is false, it would have no effect on our position. The second amendment is actually in place to give the citizenry the ability to effectively resist tyrannical government. The founding documents of our nation, in addition to the numerous statements about guns by the founders make it very clear why we have the second amendment. Some of you have tried to argue that we could never resist the federal government with small arms, but history demonstrates why this response is false. Governments have been toppled by movements with no access to firearms, and even powerful governments (China, 1989) have come close to being toppled--firearms, particularly rifles, make it that much easier to resist tyranny.

At the end of the day, I suppose you could make the argument that access to firearms should be prohibited if it leads to ANY increase in the rate of homicide. I would suggest that, for the sake of consistency, it would be better to focus on other things that contribute to preventable deaths, given the numbers with which we are faced. Some people have a higher tolerance for risk, much of which is biologically mediated, so arguments based on abstract principles probably won't decide any of these issues, in either direction. Females, for instance, have little tolerance for risk or danger and virtually always fall on the side of public safety and security, no matter the issue. It's also interesting to note that testosterone levels and some conservative positions are positively correlated. You could also argue against my belief that an armed citizenry could effectively resist tyranny because neither one of us can know with absolute certainty what would happen--every situation is different.

I would also argue that any further, effective, "gun control" would necessarily result in much lower rates of gun ownership. As a result, the number of people with a vested interest in preserving the second amendment would naturally be decreased, thereby opening the door to a complete ban in the future. Essentially, as people who like our guns, it behooves us to have a solid consumer base from which to draw support against the left. It is not within our self-interest to see the number of legal gun owners go down; in fact, we would like to see it increase.

For the reasons I have listed, no amount of discussion will change either side's position because we are arguing from fundamentally different premises, both of which are rooted in subjective experience and preference; in other words, this isn't a failure of logic on either side, but fundamentally different premises. People on your side of the political spectrum will continue seeking more gun control, and we will continue resisting. Deceit, coercion, bribery, and whatever else is necessary to prevail will be employed by both sides--may the best man win.

 

Our society has progressed towards that "better" quite well, absent mindless and unnecessary laws limiting the law-abiding from freely exercising their rights, especially the right to arms.
Yours, not as much.

 

Each person is welcome to their own opinion.

I happen to disagree with yours.

 

I don't agree with your comments regarding guns preventing a tyrannical government, but I respect the thought you put into your position.

Though, I think it is a bad point to go down the road of talking about other deaths not gun deaths. Logically by taking that path you are conceding that the deaths are avoidable and are a bad thing that should be prevented. You just want to talk about the 15* things on the list first. That is fine, but once those 15 issues are sorted gun deaths might be 16 and should be discussed, or you could try and solve all of the top 20 at once instead of laboriously going nowehre one by one.

- - - Updated - - -

Hence this thread is ridiculous.

 

And just why is an Aussie with no skin in the game even care about US gun laws? Answer that. But you won't. Typical. You're a lib plant who only wants to troll.

 

You seem to have taken offence by the suggestion that you live in america. If so, that was not my intention. Feel free to replace "your" with "american".

Just because you deem something relevant or irrelevant, unfortunately doesn't make it so.

As for the unjustified deprivation of civil and constitutional rights, again that is a matter of opinion, obviously if someone has deprived you (or an american) of said rights they believe its justified (or those rights do not exist anymore).

 

Why would an Aussie care?

 

I care about humanity, I do have skin in the game, I try to care about each individual equally regardless of their creed, race, colour , religion, nationality.

As for being a lib plant who only wants to troll. This forum is called "gun control" I am swimming with the tide, it just so happens it has attracted an inordinate amount of people who do not want gun control. Nonetheless it is an interesting topic debate even if you have to cop the occasional snide comment from an individual who clearly does not have enough confidence in themselves to be able to express their opinion wihtout resorting to such measures.

- - - Updated - - -

see my above post.

 

Then care about some other country with a much higher homicide rate.

 

I do. It is disgusting what is going on in some countries today.

I watched machine gun preacher the other day, shocking stuff. If you are offended by people caring about their fellow man, perhaps you need to take a deep breath.

 

No you don't. You behave as an antigun troll. Maybe you should give equal time to the biggest offenders. Here's a huge hint. Hit on countries like Columbia or Panama. They might even believe your BS.

 

Gotta love Mexican gun control !
Strictest gun control on the planet, one gun store for the entire Country, no personal CCW, only .22 LR, .25 acp, .380 acp for home defense, yet every criminal carries a gun, the drug cartels and enforcers all have RPGs and heavy machineguns, rocket launchers etc, supplied and aided by the Military and Police, is it not funny ? The success of Gun control in Mexico is often touted as a great success story ! a true fairy tale.

 

I thought they bought them from america?

 

I am anti gun,, for an individual who has difficulty understanding my points, considering me a troll might make it easier for you to digest.

I am not hitting on any country. This website is not "AMERICAN ONLY" from what I can see it has many flags on it.

To make it clear, any country imo that allows guns to proliferate and grow amongst the populace should tighten their gun laws (and how they enforce such laws). Every single country. That is my position on the issue, it has in no way ever meant to be a geographical picking on exercise that you are trying to turn it into. Other countries have similar and different problems with guns and they could all be helped with less guns, not more guns as you and others on here like to argue.

 

Then spend some time on the other countries. Otherwise you have no points other than being a fine example of hypocrisy.

 

I told you whenever I am speaking on guns, its not meant to be read in an american only context. You have a narrow view of the world, I can not help that, accordingly, I can not help how you misinterpret my global comments as something local in respect of your own district.

Only you can answer and solve why you are so defensive.

 

BS. We are going to be all over Aussie social problems. I'd suggest you spend your time on other endeavors. BTW how do Aussies treat those boat people except like crap. Hell, you don't need a gun when you just let them drown.

 

I have not let anyone drown?

Your ability to differentiate between american people and the american government seems to be great then your ability to differentiate between australians and the australian government.

 

LOL we haven't shot anyone either. eh?

 

But your country does. Yep, lets talk about Aussie social problems.

 

I am glad we cleared that up. You are welcome to continue, I am enjoying the meltdown.

 

No meltdown. But you might want to mention how 50% of those with disabilities live below the poverty line in Australia. You don't have to shoot them, just neglect them do death. I'd learn how to spell hypocrite.

 

The difference being - I do not go around typing "you went and shot someone". Whereas you did accuse me of downing people.

Really.

- - - Updated - - -

If you say so chief.

 

I do say so and the lack of rebuttal says HYPOCRITE. You have plenty of troubles at home. Stay there.

 

I am in australia, we are discussing things over the internet fyi.