Gun Control Essay [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Gun Control Essay


R4lf
10-30-2011, 21:19
So I pride myself in the ability to read and discover both sides of an argument. With that in mind I in now way support what this individual wrote or think anyone should support him in any way, but I did read his essay and I was looking for some opinions from my fellow 2A supporters.

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm

If you happen to know of any forums that are strictly anti-gun mssion oriented let me know. I enjoy learning from my enemies. ;)


V/R,
R4lf

cowboy1964
10-30-2011, 21:25
No offense but why bother?

R4lf
10-30-2011, 21:41
No offense but why bother?

None taken, one of my closer friends says the same thing to me when I bring it up. I personaly find it easier to make my decisions, large or small, when I get all the facts. I find the concept so alien to me that not all people have guns. I knew of only one weapon in my house and I never interacted with it. Now that I'm older I am being more weapon friendly than the majority of my extended family.


V/R,
R4lf

MinervaDoe
10-30-2011, 21:50
It's really pretty simple. Read John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime." It proves that concealed carry decreases crime. I find liberals to be very hostile and closed minded on the subject though.
http://www.citizens4freedom.com/Portals/TeaParty/articles/experts-agree-on-gun-control.jpg

R4lf
10-30-2011, 22:03
It's really pretty simple. Read John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime." It proves that concealed carry decreases crime. I find liberals to be very hostile and closed minded on the subject though.
http://www.citizens4freedom.com/Portals/TeaParty/articles/experts-agree-on-gun-control.jpg

Oh no, Kim isn't such a bad guy. He's just not understood.


V/R,
R4lf

samurairabbi
10-30-2011, 22:22
That collection of essays is actually on the somewhat "reasonable" side of advocacy of limitations on civilian firearm ownership. It needs some updating, even given the probable politics of its authors.

It devotes considerable space to the supposed "collective right" doctrine. That "collective" theory of the second amendment is now dead. ALL opinions in Heller and MacDonald affirmed the "individual" nature of the 2nd amendment; the 5-4 splits in both decisions concerned the level of allowable limitations on that individual right. The "collective" theory had a potent run in its era, but anyone now supporting it after two US Supreme Court decisions UNANIMOUSLY rejecting it is more ideologue than legal observer.

The "balancing of interests" advocacy is a tactic FAVORED when trying to advance restrictions one favors, and OPPOSED when facing restrictions one dislikes. There are many issues on which many, left or right, would outright reject a "balance of interests" argument.

PAGunner
10-30-2011, 22:56
"Hand grip ID tagging"? LMAO, Oh this guy who wrote the essay is definitely a stoner, that sounds like something a stoner would come up with after taking one too many hits from the bong!

Lior
10-31-2011, 05:59
If you're interested in reasonable gun control, how about the idea of keeping dangerous criminals away from guns, i.e. by keeping them in prisons and morgues?

R4lf
10-31-2011, 07:25
If you're interested in reasonable gun control, how about the idea of keeping dangerous criminals away from guns, i.e. by keeping them in prisons and morgues?

Oh no, that makes too much sense. I always thought you were innocent until PROVEN guilty. Now and days it seems more innocent people are being convicted everyday.


V/R,
R4lf

TexasFats
10-31-2011, 13:36
Proper gun control in five steps.

1. Take a well-balanced power stance.

2. Get both hands high on the handgun.

3. Use a strong, two-handed grip.

4. Focus on the front sight.

5. Good trigger control.

Means that you will hit where you aim.

Learned that from one of Mas Ayoob's books.

tshadow6
10-31-2011, 15:36
That essay seems obsolete. It mentions support for the Brady Bill. It also cites the Supreme Court has not issued a ruling concerning the 2nd Amendment. Also, it appears to be written by a Japanese person. The Japanese are primarily a knife culture with a higher suicide rate than the United States.

unit1069
10-31-2011, 18:28
So I pride myself in the ability to read and discover both sides of an argument. With that in mind I in now way support what this individual wrote or think anyone should support him in any way, but I did read his essay and I was looking for some opinions from my fellow 2A supporters.

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm

If you happen to know of any forums that are strictly anti-gun mssion oriented let me know. I enjoy learning from my enemies. ;)


V/R,
R4lf

To quote another GT member who's already replied, "Why bother?"

The author immediately sidesteps the fact that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right of all law-abiding US citizens. This constitutional right includes handguns as well as rifles and shotguns. The fact that the author ignores this fact by resorting to the "not an absolute right" means next to nothing in my opinion, any more than shouting, "Fire", in a crowded theatre without just cause voids our First Amendment rights.

The author apparently has put a lot of effort into his web site but his anti-rights position and the method by which he seeks to argue for his specious position is slipshod and smacks of pandering to acceptable Leftist attitudes and agendas.

Why bother when you have the Heller and McDonald USSC decisions to read and offer for all Americans?

DaneA
10-31-2011, 19:29
No offense but why bother?

If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril.

If you know what the other side is thinking it is easier to battle them

mt920
11-01-2011, 10:08
If you know what the other side is thinking it is easier to battle them

I understand and agree with your approach... I plan to read the essay with an open mind; however, it won't sway my opinion about guns.

Spats McGee
11-01-2011, 14:43
The essays has more flaws than I really care to go into, but I'll name a few:

1) No mention of Heller or McDonald, or any of the other 2A cases out there.

2) The old "occupants in a house with a gun are 43x more likely . . . " line. I thought that number had been thoroughly debunked.

3) The claim that a national registration system "would prevent [some of the illegal gun trafficking] by scaring those 'friends' into not buying the guns legally and selling them illegally, for if the guns are used in an illegal crime, that person can be held accountable." This makes no sense, and it's flat wrong, IMO. What he's talking about already sounds like a straw purchase to me, and those are already illegal. Besides, if someone's already willing to do a straw purchase for a buddy, he's probably not above filing a false police report and claiming that the gun got stolen, too.

samurairabbi
11-01-2011, 17:05
The essays has more flaws than I really care to go into, but I'll name a few:

1) No mention of Heller or McDonald, or any of the other 2A cases out there.

2) The old "occupants in a house with a gun are 43x more likely . . . " line. I thought that number had been thoroughly debunked.


1) That essay was put out before Heller was decided; on the internet, old info becomes immortal.

2) That "40-odd times more likely" shtick is one of the three classic statistical warp jobs that have lives of their own. If the shooter is even an ACQUAINTANCE of the person shot, then the shooting counts in that classification. That means that two thugs that know each other's names and have met just once fall into that juicy classification.

Spats McGee
11-01-2011, 18:15
1) That essay was put out before Heller was decided; on the internet, old info becomes immortal. . . . .
That's kind of what I figured. I should have added "and should be updated," I guess.

Lord
11-01-2011, 19:44
He says:

"The moral arguments why the 2nd is not absolute

First, it important to note that no right is absolute, even those supposedly granted by God and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights."

Do I not have the right to live and breathe? Is that not an absolute right?

The guy's a moron.

DaneA
11-01-2011, 22:52
Do I not have the right to live and breathe? Is that not an absolute right?

Nope we have the death penalty to deal with that.

DaneA
11-01-2011, 22:55
I understand and agree with your approach... I plan to read the essay with an open mind; however, it won't sway my opinion about guns.


Nor should it. If anything you should be able to strengthen your stance by being able to have an intelligent counter argument.

ithaca_deerslayer
11-02-2011, 10:21
The "balancing of interests" advocacy is a tactic FAVORED when trying to advance restrictions one favors, and OPPOSED when facing restrictions one dislikes. There are many issues on which many, left or right, would outright reject a "balance of interests" argument.

You intrigue me. Can you elaborate more about why this is favored by some, but rejected by others?

I understand that some would favor when it suits their goals, but reject when it doesn't. But I'm more interested in the contrast between favoring it and rejecting it outright.

Thanks :)

samurairabbi
11-02-2011, 11:30
You intrigue me. Can you elaborate more about why this is favored by some, but rejected by others?

I understand that some would favor when it suits their goals, but reject when it doesn't. But I'm more interested in the contrast between favoring it and rejecting it outright.

Thanks :)

I'll try; this IS a complex issue.

I'll start with an example from the current immigration enforcement uproar. Many believe the states are precluded from enforcing "supplemental" immigration law, because federal law pre-empts such state action. But, using California as an example, many of these same people support the state-level FFL licensing structure, and believe it a legitimate addition to Federal FFL regulation.

When judges sit down to decide a constitutional issue, you are never really sure of the doctrine they will use to decide it. They may decide that one side of the issue has absolute judicial priority, and decide accordingly. Or they may decide that they are functioning as a balancing act between all interested factions in the case, and call their role a balancing of competing interests. If the doctrine used for a particular decision results in a decision LIKE, then you may call it prudent judicial judgement. If the doctrine used yields a decision you DON'T like, then you may call it judicial activism.

Most of us are vulnerable to what I call Judicial Schizophrenia. We support "judical activism" when it breaks OUR way, and oppose it when it breaks against us. The same is true of judicial NON-activism. This schizophrenia is, I think, inherent in American political and judicial structure; we cannot get around it. The law, like life, is complex enough to give a judge great leeway in deciding what parts of the law take precedence in a case being judged; we are always guessing which aspects of seemingly contradictory law will prevail in a given case.

This changeability can haunt us when a string of decisions yields no pattern. I think the best example of what can happen is in the history of Discrimination/Affirmative-Action law. The elected officials have been content to leave this area to the courts. But the Supreme Court, in a 34-year string of decisions, has decided NOTHING; line up their decisions over that period, and what you get is a string of 5-4 decisions that seemingly are a throw-of-the-dice about which side will prevail in a particular decision. After several decades, we still don't know what is allowable; this uncertainty hits ALL factions in the continuing disputes. So the courts have retained their authority, but they still ain't done their job right!

ithaca_deerslayer
11-02-2011, 11:34
Nicely illustrated. Thanks!

cloudbuster
11-02-2011, 11:34
Oh no, Kim isn't such a bad guy. He's just not understood.


V/R,
R4lf

He's so ronery!

Bren
11-02-2011, 11:54
None taken, one of my closer friends says the same thing to me when I bring it up. I personaly find it easier to make my decisions, large or small, when I get all the facts. I find the concept so alien to me that not all people have guns. I knew of only one weapon in my house and I never interacted with it. Now that I'm older I am being more weapon friendly than the majority of my extended family.


V/R,
R4lf

If you want all the facts, that essay was no place to start. He fails to build a clear basis for his conclusions and attempts to shorten arguments that could fill a library to a few sentences. The result is poor writing and apparneltly groundless conclusion. he also seems to intentionally ignore the fact that his own arguments undercut his position as much as the opposite position, so it doesn't look like he's much of a critical thinker. If you want gun control info, read some books, for and against, instead of an online essay by someone who needs to spend more time learning before he teaches.