The Gun is the Problem

[cce1302]

I believe that "The Gun is the Problem" is a flawed premise. Most gun owners would agree with me in theory.

I also believe that all gun control laws, even laws that most of you support, are predicated on this flawed premise.


However, I am currently in a discussion on another board that is going nowhere. Gun butters are arguing for gun control using the same premise. I started the thread there to ask people to argue for their pet gun control without using the arguments of Brady/bloomberg/mom, but I'm getting a lot of "we've always done it" and "majority rule" and "you want all or nothing."


Does my position hold water? Is there a way to argue for gun control without basing the argument on the premise that the gun is the problem?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

If one believes in any kind of fundamental rights (free expression, association, religion - or lack thereof, etc.) then personal defense inherently is one of those rights. The gun/knife/stick/whatever is the MEANS to defend oneself and one's family. PERIOD.

Laws are enacted in order to prevent one from going from DEFENSE to OFFENSE. (I.E. using a gun/knife/stick and attacking someone else).

The only rational law that I can see that would proactively not allow the DEFENSIVE use of a weapon in order to prevent OFFENSIVE use of it, by its very nature suggests that the person being prevented had no capacity to tell the difference or to control themselves between defense and offense.

In other words - in order to create darn near ANY law regarding gun control, the presumption must be that the person is either a mental case or in some other way incapable of controlling the shift from defense to offense.

Which is why when people go "full Yeager" and run their mouth and exhibit no control - they do damage to our argument.

 

[CZB1962]

I think your argument is flawed. We as a society can say that mentally unstable people cannot own a gun and that does not blame the gun, it blames the mentally unstable person.

Purist like I presume you are will probably go on to say something like - we don't ban them from having other weapons like knives which means you single out the gun, therefore you are blaming the gun. It's a good argument but still a bit flawed IMO.

We only pick guns because guns, in the hands of an unstable person, can cause more damage faster than just about any other weapon. This does not blame the gun, it just recognizes its effectiveness.

 

[buckstopshere]

Agree with first paragraph from ArmedProgrammer completey. The rest is an example of what you're talking about.

People can go from defense to offense with any kind of weapon. Hammer, knife, bat, fist, etc... So we have laws against violence in general and you prosecute violence not the instrument. Letting the state decide who is mentally capability of staying defensive and not going offensive will be absolutely misused and would be against the very nature of an inalienable right that shall not be infringed.

I'm to the point where I'm about done arguing about this topic with anti gunners. It's akin to arguing with your child who doesn't like the rules of the house. They can lament and moan all they want but they're still going to eat their veggies.

 

[cce1302]

Good input so far.

Can you guys come up with any other premise that has to be accepted in order to agree to any level of gun control?

 

[CZB1962]

Good input so far.

Can you guys come up with any other premise that has to be accepted in order to agree to any level of gun control?

The only other argument I think has SOME validity is past VIOLENT felonies. This one is a bit tougher for me because as it is right now, they lump all felons into one group. The way I understand it felony tax evasion will land you in the same boat with a armed robber which is absurd to me.

I do think that if you have shown that you are willing to use a gun to harm others and not for defense, that society can limit your rights.

 

[Bartman]

Do you have to pass a background check to buy a chainsaw?

Gun control laws all build from one basic assumption: the fact that you want to purchase a firearm makes you more likely to commit a crime with one. There is an inherent presumption of guilt unless you are proven "innocent" by means of background check.

 

[CZB1962]

Do you have to pass a background check to buy a chainsaw?

Gun control laws all build from one basic assumption: the fact that you want to purchase a firearm makes you more likely to commit a crime with one. There is an inherent presumption of guilt unless you are proven "innocent" by means of background check.

When chainsaws become the weapon of choice for criminals then I will support a background check for that too. There is no other way that I can think of to stop a mentally ill or violent felon from buying a gun through legal channels.

I just think it is a small price to pay if it stops a crazy from killing someone. I know it won't catch them all but it has to help.

I have never had to wait more than 15 minutes to get my BG check.

We are never going to all agree on this but to me it is a balance between the crazies who want to ban all guns and the purist who want to allow anything.

 

[MisterChester]

If you try hard enough, you can turn anything into a weapon. Most of us drive cars that are essentially two-ton missiles while they move, and many people die because of car accidents. Do we need a background check for car operation? How about knives or hammers? I agree that not everyone should have a gun, the same way some people shouldn't have other potentially dangerous tools. It's not the gun, it's the person behind it. We shouldn't punish the law abiding citizens who are mentally stable.

 

[RockofStrength]

When chainsaws become the weapon of choice for criminals then I will support a background check for that too. There is no other way that I can think of to stop a mentally ill or violent felon from buying a gun through legal channels.

I just think it is a small price to pay if it stops a crazy from killing someone. I know it won't catch them all but it has to help.

I have never had to wait more than 15 minutes to get my BG check.

We are never going to all agree on this but to me it is a balance between the crazies who want to ban all guns and the purist who want to allow anything.

The problem being that our legal system originates from a mentality such as this:

it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer

It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever.

The second quote (from John Adams) in particular emphasizes the problem with laws that are likely to cause problems for otherwise honest and law-abiding people. By enacting laws that have even a fairly low chance of harming the innocent (i.e. an honest person fails a background check owing to clerical error/identity mixup) you undermine the citizenry's respect for law. Undermining law will ultimately result in more deaths, thefts etc than allowing those who are already determined to cause harm to others freer access to weaponry.

 

[buckstopshere]

When chainsaws become the weapon of choice for criminals then I will support a background check for that too. There is no other way that I can think of to stop a mentally ill or violent felon from buying a gun through legal channels.

I just think it is a small price to pay if it stops a crazy from killing someone. I know it won't catch them all but it has to help.

I have never had to wait more than 15 minutes to get my BG check.

We are never going to all agree on this but to me it is a balance between the crazies who want to ban all guns and the purist who want to allow anything.

Are you talking about criminals or mentally ill? Criminals do not care about a background check, be it for a gun or a chainsaw. That will solve nothing as a criminal with intent to do harm will do harm by any means necessary.

How do you define then mentally ill? Not all mentally ill are criminals and to lump them together is unfair to those with mental illness. How many people suffer from PTSD that do no harm on a daily basis to anyone? It's not just vets returning home from wars.

The best remedy is to live your life, let others live theirs. Arm yourself if you see fit or don't if you don't. Bad things happen and ultimately you as an individual are responsible for your own safety.

 

[Bartman]

I take no issue with a weak person giving up his rights for the perception of safety. The problem comes when that person demands that others give up their rights as well.

 

[cce1302]

When chainsaws become the weapon of choice for criminals then I will support a background check for that too. There is no other way that I can think of to stop a mentally ill or violent felon from buying a gun through legal channels.

I just think it is a small price to pay if it stops a crazy from killing someone. I know it won't catch them all but it has to help.

I have never had to wait more than 15 minutes to get my BG check.

We are never going to all agree on this but to me it is a balance between the crazies who want to ban all guns and the purist who want to allow anything.

Thank you for illustrating my thesis that the premise of gun control is that guns are the problem.

 

[cce1302]

The problem being that our legal system originates from a mentality such as this:





The second quote (from John Adams) in particular emphasizes the problem with laws that are likely to cause problems for otherwise honest and law-abiding people. By enacting laws that have even a fairly low chance of harming the innocent (i.e. an honest person fails a background check owing to clerical error/identity mixup) you undermine the citizenry's respect for law. Undermining law will ultimately result in more deaths, thefts etc than allowing those who are already determined to cause harm to others freer access to weaponry.

Thanks for that. Your Adams quote got me browsing in an old book (Bartlett's Familiar Quotations).

I came across a bit of Latin--a legal maxim that would do wonders for our legal system:

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.

The act is not criminal unless the intent is criminal.

 

[CZB1962]

The problem being that our legal system originates from a mentality such as this:

The second quote (from John Adams) in particular emphasizes the problem with laws that are likely to cause problems for otherwise honest and law-abiding people. By enacting laws that have even a fairly low chance of harming the innocent (i.e. an honest person fails a background check owing to clerical error/identity mixup) you undermine the citizenry's respect for law. Undermining law will ultimately result in more deaths, thefts etc than allowing those who are already determined to cause harm to others freer access to weaponry.

There is no perfect law. You can carry your analogy out with any law. I might be wrongly accused of (insert crime here) so there should not be a law against it.

 

[CZB1962]

Are you talking about criminals or mentally ill? Criminals do not care about a background check, be it for a gun or a chainsaw. That will solve nothing as a criminal with intent to do harm will do harm by any means necessary.

How do you define then mentally ill? Not all mentally ill are criminals and to lump them together is unfair to those with mental illness. How many people suffer from PTSD that do no harm on a daily basis to anyone? It's not just vets returning home from wars.

The best remedy is to live your life, let others live theirs. Arm yourself if you see fit or don't if you don't. Bad things happen and ultimately you as an individual are responsible for your own safety.

I said it won't stop every bad person but you cannot possibly argue that it does make it just a little harder for a criminal to get a gun. At least he cannot walk into the local gun shop and be done in 30 minutes.

There is no perfect answer for defining who will snap and who will not. I realize that this is tricky and could be abused. Of course we should guard against abuse.

Let me turn it around. Joe has been severely depressed and has told his family that they would all be better off dead. Would you allow him to walk in and buy a gun?

 

[ModernGunner]

It's not the gun. It's never the gun.

It's the criminality.

That's the short and long and sum total of it. There is no valid 'counter-argument'.

 

[CZB1962]

Thank you for illustrating my thesis that the premise of gun control is that guns are the problem.

I never said chainsaws were the problem. I just said that if they became the weapon of choice then background checks FOR THE PERSON WHO MAY HARM OTHERS WITH THEM were Ok with me.

We can spin this back and forth all day. The bottom line is you want no restrictions...period and I am OK with some very minor, very reasonable restrictions. The older I get the less I see things as all or nothing. There are shades of grey in just about everything.

 

[CZB1962]

It's not the gun. It's never the gun.

It's the criminality.

That's the short and long and sum total of it. There is no valid 'counter-argument'.

It's not enriched Plutonium, it's the individual, state, nation, that has the enriched Plutonium. So do we NOT want to regulate enriched Plutonium now?

 

[T.Lex]

There are some people not allowed to live around schools or be around kids at all. It is because of their actions.

Some people are not allowed around guns, because of their actions.

In both cases, generally, a court has made the determination in an adversarial proceeding where both sides are allowed to present evidence. If one side presents enough evidence that the person at issue did something that disqualifies them from having a gun, so be it.

I think that's a good process. It isn't the gun, it is the person.