Britain seems less interested in Locke and more interested in Hitler, if a glance at the anti-Semitic statism vomited from the BBC is any indication.

hahahahaha this is classic

@Acosmist: "There are much stronger intellects to fight"

And yet you don't have the balls to even respond to the simple questions posed by my limited intellect. I make a reasonable argument, I question your points, and you think you are too clever to bother responding? Do you realise how pompous, smug and self-righteous that makes you sound? I accept that my view may be wrong, whereas you have such a huge estimation of your own intellect, you think you can just parade your gun-nut views on here and then not even defend them when they fall under scrutiny? Sure, that certainly proves what a towering intellect you have.

"I don't have that intense will to argue"

Then you shouldn't go around branding people fascists just because they don't agree with your poorly-articulated views.

And the BBC, anti-semitic? Where do you get that from?

(Oh sorry no point me asking, you don't have to answer, do you? Your towering intellect proves you are right.)

>The average Garda on the street in ireland does not carry a gun. Thus we are protected by civil servants who are not equiped to kill us, we do not need guns to protect our rights as citizens because the government doesn't use guns to enforce it's rule, unlike in america.

I like this argument. Let the police (here in the U.S.) give up their guns, and then I'll think about giving up mine. (Well, I actually don't have any guns, but I still defend my and other people's right to have them.)

On the other hand, even the Gardaí (and the army etc) have guns stored away that they can call out if needed. So they'll still make sure that you know who the boss is if you get to uppity.

Arguably, the most important thing is to get rid of those nuclear weapons (none in Ireland, another thing to be pleased about). Then we could move down the list and eventually get rid of the guns of the police. Until then, it is just as well if people have the right to fight back if necessary.

in Hitlers germany before ww2 gun laws were very lax same as in iraq under sadam i didnt see anyone fighting back then

@toby bartels:
I know the Gardaí have guns, well a few for their special branch, and the army has a few, (not that the army is all the big or anything) but i doubt they would use them against law-abiding citizens.

So the question is what do you mean by uppity? if we didn't have the freedom of assembly and speech guarenteed in our constitution (and that can't be changed without a referendum, though i suppose could be over-ruled by EU law if the lisbon treaty passes) So we can march through the streets to complain about our government and call for new elections - if we feel the need.

and i'm sure if a large enough group felt this way the army would not open fire on them.

As for america, yeah, i doubt the average police man in america would want to patrol the streets without a gun until the residents he was expected to enforce the law upon didn't have the right to carry a gun.... nice circular issue.

>i doubt they would use them against law-abiding citizens

Perhaps not. The U.S. police are happy to, but perhaps the Gardaí are more well-behaved.

But considering that the definition of ‘law-abiding’ is entirely up to the government, that in itself means nothing. By ‘uppity’ I mean nothing specific, just whatever the people in charge don't like that day. Democratic elections and the rule of law can keep that in check somewhat, but in the end it's unpredictable.

However, I think that you can probably make a good case that, given the recent histories of the societies, there is far less risk of being attacked by the government in Ireland than in the U.S.. And it's not like the Second Amendment does any good when the government chooses to ignore its own constitution.

>i doubt the average police man in america would want to patrol the streets without a gun until the residents he was expected to enforce the law upon didn't have the right to carry a gun.... nice circular issue.

I don't know about Ireland, but British police didn't carry guns regularly, even when British civilians were allowed to own them. Government sets an example to society, and its agents, since they arrogate authority, should be held to a higher standard of responsibility (not a lower one as is usual in the U.S.).

Since Acosmist has no intention of defending his viewpoint, would any other forum members like to pick up his baton? With reference to our exchange at around 2:16 yesterday, I am particularly keen to hear:

1. An explanation of how, in _utilitarian_ terms, you could conclude that widespread gun ownership is a "net benefit".

2. Banning people from owning guns is an intolerable violation of their fundamental rights, yet banning them from owning rocket launchers and flamethrowers is not a violation of their rights.

@jamiet- possibly. im not fully decided on the issue.

Well iMurk I'd be happy to hear your views once you have had a think about it.

@jamiet- im glad to hear people can still hold an intelligent debate without flaming or being disrespectful.

@Jamie - I won't say 1 is true, because widespread ownership isn't a net gain. BUT, ownership of certain weapons CAN BE a net gain to individuals who use them for a) protection of property and b) hunting.

On issue 2. the difference is in the capabilities of said weapon. A flamethrower is a purely offensive weapon and NOT something that could be used by the sportsman/hunter. I also have no problem with a ban on assault rifles or any fully automatic weapon. A semi-automatic weapon carriable in ones hands is the most I think the general populace should be allowed to own. In short: one shot, one kill. Flamethrowers can kill entire rooms of people, as can large bore weapons like a tank cannon.

But you argument can be twisted the other way as well. If you are going to ban all guns then what's next? Knives designed for hunting or paramilitary knives like my Marine Corps K-BAR? The K-BAR is a killing weapon originally designed to not only be utilitarian in ature, but as a means of defending oneself should he be caught away from his firearm.

Yes, banning people from bearing arms IS an intolerable right as the Constitution of the United States declares it so and the United States Supreme Court for the last 233 years has upheld that constitutional right. We have this right to guarantee that a repressive regime will not be able to take over our country for our people will be armed to rise up against said regime.

As far as banning them goes because of the violent crimes and murders they are involved in... You do realize that, in most cases, the guns used in the commission of those crimes are black market, unregistered weapons. Banning gun ownership amongst private citizens will just make the black market that much more lucrative and will do nothing to stop gun violence. In fact, it would make it that much worse than if every household were required to have one person trained in the use of and own a weapon. It's a deterrent to the criminal if they know their opponent may well be armed.

And yes, I know the escallation argument. If everyone had a semi-automatic pistol, the criminals would just get automatic assault rifles. News flash, they already have access to them if they have the cash, but you typical home intruder doesn't have the cash to get a black market AK47 or UZI.

So banning semi-automatic handheld weapons is both a violation of my right to bear arms AND a bad idea as then the criminals would have them (they already do) and I would not and it would expose us to a potentially corrupt government running roughshod over our rights (the Supreme Court does that enough today).

"Any discussion of, say, Locke with these people would be throwing pearls before swine..."

I mean this nicely, Acosmist, but statement like that come across as a tad pretentious. Or have I missed the satire? You're not Rick from the Young Ones by any chance are you?

(Apologies in advance for the length of this post)

@Draugnar: First of all, welcome back. I am sorry I was a bit rude about you before when you were mouthing off about leaving the site. Maybe I should learn to control my mouth a bit too. (Well, my fingers, technically).

Second of all, thanks for making such a reasoned argument. I would like to respond (politely, and in the spirit of an informed debate) to what you've said, so here goes:


"I won't say 1 is true, because widespread ownership isn't a net gain."

I am glad we agree on this point. It is a shame Acosmist refused to explain himself on this one as I would have been interested in his argument.


"BUT, ownership of certain weapons CAN BE a net gain to individuals who use them for a) protection of property and b) hunting."

I think the "protection of property" argument is flawed. There are many cases of gun owners ending up being shot with their own gun, by an intruder. Having guns in your home does not make your home a safe place. Furthermore, just because someone breaks into your home (which is of course a crime) this does not give you the right to kill them.

I have some sympathy with the idea of guns being used for legitimate sporting purposes - I would argue that for public safety, such sporting use should be restricted to specific, designated, fenced-off areas, which people can only enter with permission - in order to limit the possibility of other people straying into the area and being accidentally shot. I also think that in between each use, the gun should be kept locked up at a designated gun club or similar, licensed, sporting club premises. People should not be allowed to keep sporting guns in their homes. Unless you plan on shooting deer in your bedroom?


"On issue 2. the difference is in the capabilities of said weapon. A flamethrower is a purely offensive weapon and NOT something that could be used by the sportsman/hunter. I also have no problem with a ban on assault rifles or any fully automatic weapon. A semi-automatic weapon carriable in ones hands is the most I think the general populace should be allowed to own. In short: one shot, one kill. Flamethrowers can kill entire rooms of people, as can large bore weapons like a tank cannon."

A handgun can kill entire rooms of people. It kills them one shot at a time, but it can kil them.


"But your argument can be twisted the other way as well. If you are going to ban all guns then what's next? Knives designed for hunting or paramilitary knives like my Marine Corps K-BAR? The K-BAR is a killing weapon originally designed to not only be utilitarian in ature, but as a means of defending oneself should he be caught away from his firearm."

I certainly think there is no reason for a normal person to own a huge military knife designed for combat. I would support restrictions on these knives, as they are primarily intended as weapons. Why do you own one?


"Yes, banning people from bearing arms IS an intolerable right as the Constitution of the United States declares it so and the United States Supreme Court for the last 233 years has upheld that constitutional right."

I was arguing from the perspective of a UK citizen, where your constitution does not apply. I understand that the US constitution is something many US citizens feel very emotional about, but a lot has changed in the last 233 years, hasn't it? (By the way it's actually 217 years, not 233 - your Constitution's Second Amendment, the one about bearing arms, was not adpoted until December 1791)


"We have this right to guarantee that a repressive regime will not be able to take over our country for our people will be armed to rise up against said regime."

This has been the subject of intense debate, but many scholars believe it is clear from the wording of the Second Amendment that it was NOT intended to arm the citizens so that they could rise up against the government - but simply to provide an armed militia that the goverment could call upon if the United States were invaded, or in other times of need. Such a militia is no longer needed.


"As far as banning them goes because of the violent crimes and murders they are involved in... You do realize that, in most cases, the guns used in the commission of those crimes are black market, unregistered weapons? Banning gun ownership amongst private citizens will just make the black market that much more lucrative and will do nothing to stop gun violence."

Many guns now circulating illegally originated from a legal source. In your part of the USA, Draugnar, does the government regularly visit your home to check that all the guns you have ever legally bought are still in your possession? If they do not, what's to stop you buying a gun, legally, in a licensed gun shop, and then selling it on, illegally, to someone else?

Secondly, banning gun ownership amongst private citizens sends a powerful message that guns are DANGEROUS and that regular people should NOT have them.

It is certainly the case that if the US banned gun ownership, there would be a considerable and difficult transition period, due in no small part to the way gun ownership has become so accepted and commonplace in your society. Massive law enforcement resources would be needed to ensure that black market weapons were seized and destroyed. I do not claim this would be an easy task.


"And yes, I know the escallation argument. If everyone had a semi-automatic pistol, the criminals would just get automatic assault rifles. News flash, they already have access to them if they have the cash, but you typical home intruder doesn't have the cash to get a black market AK47 or UZI."

But this exposes another problem: Lots of US citizens own guns. Yet lots of burglaries take place. Why is this? If letting people have guns provides a genuine deterrent to house-breakers, why is this not reflected in your nation's crime statistics for burglaries and robberies?


"So banning semi-automatic handheld weapons is both a violation of my right to bear arms..."

But isn't banning automatic weapons, which you are in favour of, ALSO a violation of this right? Isn't banning flamethrowers and rocket launchers a violation of your rights?


"...and it would expose us to a potentially corrupt government running roughshod over our rights (the Supreme Court does that enough today)."

Why don't you rise up against the Supreme Court and shoot them all, then, since you believe this is your constitutional right?

Also, if one of the main justifications for letting you bear arms is that you could use them to overthrow a corrupt or repressive government, isn't this an argument in favour of you being allowed tanks and heavy artillery? After all, the government has tanks, right? So surely if you are going to exercise your constitutional rights and overthrow the government, you'll need tanks as well!

I'd like to back Draugnar up here
Issue 1) The net benefit of widespread gun-ownership is that the state has access to a trained militia force. This is incredibly important when foreign soldiers are stationed in a country and when there is little by way of professional army. The UK is fortunately not in this situation - we are lucky to live in a free country at a peaceful time. Not everyone is so lucky. Other net benefits are that your more adventurous citizens can make their way through the wilderness and use their guns to protect themselves from bears and to hunt for food - there is little wilderness and few bears in the UK.
Issue 2) An adult citizen of fairly normal intelligence can be taught to use a smoothbore musket in about a week. Safe and efficient usage of heavy weapons takes considerably longer, making them less effective weapons for a militia force (whilst they are just as effective at slaying bear they are also less useful for hunting for food and so the side benefit is also lessened).
Rights are culture specific and, to an extent, determined by history. In the UK we have the right to drink alcohol but no right to inject heroin. I see no more consistency here than in the American gun laws but no politician would attempt to ban alcohol because of the public uproar that would follow.
If you're happy with your country's laws then rejoice, if not then pray you live in a democracy and if you do then vote responsibly. Good luck.

@ Parallel:

"The net benefit of widespread gun-ownership is that the state has access to a trained militia force. This is incredibly important when foreign soldiers are stationed in a country and when there is little by way of professional army."

Which countries are you referring to here? Not the USA I presume?


"An adult citizen of fairly normal intelligence can be taught to use a smoothbore musket in about a week"

A smoothbore musket? Who the hell these days owns a smoothbore musket, other than a historical re-enacter? So are you arguing that the right to bear arms only extends to historical weapons dating from 1791 when this amendment was passed?

@Jamie - just a couple of points. I'm at work and don't have time for a full debate (plus I suspect there is plenty we do agree on).

My point with "one shot, one kill" is that they make the difference between the semi-automatic, shotgun, or high-powered rifle and the flame thrower, rocket launcher, or nuclear weapon. With a "one shot, one kill" weapon, the room has time to react.

Regarding the K-BAR. I own one because I served my country as a Marine. It's my personal knife from my time in the service. I was lucky that Grenada ended before I enlisted, and Desert Shield/Desert Storm (the first Gulf War) was well after I mustered out. But the K-BAR is far more than a killing knife. Do a little research and you'll see just how useful it is. It's original design was as an all-purpose utility knife that could also be used for self defense.

I think this is where we differ. Certain weapons are best for self-defense or for hunting, while others are clearly offensive wepons with no practical application outside killing (i.e. what it kills isn't skinnable or edible when it is finished). Automatic weapons are offensive and you aren't going to eat a deer killed with one. Against a bear, a high-power rifle is your best choice. Same thing applies to flamethrowers et. al.

Regarding ownership vs. burglaries. You missed the point (whether intentional or not, I know not). I said they would be reduced if EVERY HOUSEHOLD were REQUIRED to have one. Burglars now are gambling with whether or not the homeowner has one and, in most cases, they are making a safe bet when they case a place in an affluent part of town. And your "lots" isn't many statistically speaking. Also, with gun ownership at an all time high, violent crime is at a 30 year low. How do you explain that?

With regards to a ban on assault weapons and the like. This doesn't violate my rights as the constitution guarntees me the right to bear arms, but does not specify that no firearm may be prohibited. I can own a firearm, just not any firearm I like. Additionally, the Constitution is laid out such that the rights are in order of precedence thorughout, starting with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Where my ownership of a weapon clearly intended for the killing of another human being comes into play, their right to life (even a theoretical "they") supercedes my right to own the weapon. therfore, a ban on assault weapons is perfectly valid and no reasonably minded person could make a valid argument for them.

Damn, that was longer than I meant it to be. Guess I'm not getting much work done today. :-)

well I own a knife, as a scout leader I need it for various useful things like whittling wood, and oh, i tell a lie, i never whittle, but it is in the scouting programme... (and i lost my knife in Austria)

That said knives with blades over 6 inches are banned in Ireland, mainly because the shorter the blade the less likely a stab wound is to be fatal, banning shorter blades would be rather limiting as sharp knives are needed for cooking, lots of utiliy there. Though long knives used by professional cooks must be properly secured if being transported. (so if you have one in your pocket on the street you can be arrested, though you're more likely to get a warning)

As for escalation, yes, if the potential theif knows all he needs to protect himself when invading your home is a 6 inch blade (which he can likely pick up in your kitchen) he's not going to bother buying a gun at all.

You point out that not all americans have guns in their homes, thus current gun laws do not help individual protection, they require those people who want to be protected to train in the use of guns, while virtually guarenteeing that those people who could invade their homes will be armed.

As i've said things are different in Ireland, and i'm glad to live in a state which limits the number of firearms in private citizens hands.

You can get a gun in ireland, most legal ownership is by farmers who usually have shotguns for protection of their animals (with hte approval of their local garda superintendant). Some gangs in a few cities (usually gangs related to selling drugs) are carry a variety of blackmarket weapons, usually to fight each other and protect their turf.

Lastly some paramilitary groups have heavier weapons still usually to assault British Army personnel, but most of those weapons have been destroyed in the last decade. Independent International Commission on Decommissioning - run by a canadian general.

Also regarding the self-defence thing. For protecting your home land mines are an obvious choice, it is very difficult to use them offensively. Why are they not legal?

and Finally, the American constitution is a dynamic document, it can be amended to suit the times. Thus in a time where the american governemnt controls the most powerful militrary forces in the world do you really think a handgun is going to be enough to overthrow your government? Do you really think a armed militia is going to be needed to defend your country? (apart from mexicans crossing the southern border looking for work) I submit to you my humble opinion - the american constitution is out-dated.

<gun rant>

the arguments FOR gun-control really are not logic-based guys... any logic or reason based test will prove that the pro-gun arguments do not hold water.

its an emotional issue... The American psyche and culture is attached to its 'guns'... its been part of the 'manifest destiny' and westward expantion history of the people and you cant detach Americans' collective memory from their guns. The fact is, that its a very vocal minority in particularly the rural areas of the country that continue this thinking and the urbanites dont care enough to stop it...

the fact is, the 2nd Amendment is in fact what? an 'amendment'. which means it was 'added' or 'changed'. from the original Constitution... and through another Amendment, it CAN be repealed... just like th 18th amendment was. and the BS about protection is easily refuted by statistics showing more Americans dying in assaults and robbery cases than almost anywhere else in the world... the reasons are well expounded on above.

and the militia argument is a joke.

so in the end - what I would love to hear once from a proponent of guns-on-demand is a simple admission that they just WANT it that way and that it has NOTHING to do with reason or logic - its a cultural thing and they could care less what arguments you bring forth ;)

</gun rant>

ps. I hope I never have to run for Congress in the US... if my future theoretical opponent dug this up and managed to attach it to me, I'd lose ;)

In Switzerland every farmer has a modern rifle in his house (in my experience they are kept in the closet in the guest room). The Swiss swear that it was the combination of stinking great mountains with a well armed peasantry (my word, they call themselves citizens) that kept out the Germans in the early 40s. Some of them think they should try the same tactic nowadays.

@orathaic - real quick regarding land mines. Land mines are indiscriminatory int hat no one has to pull the trigger. You need to compare apples to apples, but then I've read plenty of your strawman arguments to know you won't do that in this debate either.

The swiss are entirely surrounded, their mountains are still formidable defences, but i imagine that the combined militrary forces of their European NATO neighbours could pull off an assault on the alpine nations, however it would be almost as difficult to secure as oh say the mountainous Afghanistan... hmm...

@Babak - so how do you explain the fact that legal gun ownership is at an all-time high while violent crime is at a 30 year low? Please explain how legal firearms availibility is contributing to gun violence in America when the stats say otherwise.

Actually, the fact that it is a constitutional admendment makes it much easier to leave as it is than to change it. Other laws are easier to alter based on circumstance, changing the constitution is meant to be difficult, so no matter what government you have it is the people who get to decide their basic rights. As it turns out no american government has had the balls to propose a constitutional admentment altering this right. (requries 2/3s of congress of both houses, and then must be sent to each state for approval requireing 3/4ths of the states...)

have you read "Freakanomics"... the most sane and logical reason for the drop in crime rates I've found was in THAT book.

the answer is 'legalized abortion'. (now there's another hot button issue for you)

now I'm being a tad facetious because obviously a big part of the reduced crime rates has to do with a better policing and criminal justice system. Much higher funding through the 90s (yeah, Clinton!) to combat crime, as well as one of the longest periods of fast economic growth powered by the chip and then the internet revolutions. (productivity increases alone in the economy are unparalleled by any other period except maybe the industrial era)

so my top 4 reasons in no particular order would be:

1) faster economic growth starting in the early 90s
2) legalized abortions starting in the 70s
3) better policing methods
4) increased federal funding for local criminal justice expenditures (Clinton's budgets)


show me one study linking higher gun ownership to reduced crimes. these two statistics may be true, but there is no correlation.

I'm also not one that believes higher gun ownership rates means more crime per se... but I do think it means more murders and more deaths.

the swiss rock. 'nuff said.