How to deal with school bullies

[KnightofChrist]

The way in which the question was structured asked those of us who believe in the right to bear arms to assume that we are wrong, wrong about a key issue  and those against that right are correct. The way the question was structured seemed to leave only one acceptable answer. Now of course pro-firearm advocates could still answer the question in favor of their cause. But they would likely be seen as advocating in favor of something that increases the murder rate.

People would still have the right to defend themselves. Gun control punishes innocent people for the crimes of a few, like a teacher who punishes the whole class because of one student. The harder it becomes for people to protect themselves the easier it becomes for criminals to take advantage of the weak. Criminals often use the cover of darkness and avoid places that are armed. Because the criminal is often a coward. This is one reason most mass-murderers don't target police stations and kill themselves when the police finally show up at gun free zones where they easily killed their victims. The sad fact of reality is evil men will only respect the innocent when they are protected by good men who are armed.

 

. 

 

[Ice_nine]

The way in which the question was structured asked those of us who believe in the right to bear arms to assume that we are wrong,

No, it's asking if you essentially believe that a "right" to own guns in unqualified and does that supersede the safety of the broader populace. I would ask anti-gun people the same thing in reverse.

Why argue whether gun control increases or decreases violence? If you believe in access to firearms is an unqualified right, that question becomes irrelevant.

[Socrates]

Question for the anti-gun-control folks: if hypothetically the murder rate would drastically drop if we adopted stricter gun laws, would you be against that? Is it so much so the principle of the thing?

Whether stricter gun control will be effective in decreasing homicide here in the US is debatable, maybe, just assume that it would be if you'd like to answer the question.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Ben Franklin

[Socrates]

I would rather discuss actual facts or at least data. There is a fair amount of such evidence that gun control rather than reducing the over all murder rate it increases the over all murder rate. The nations, states and cities with the strictest gun control laws have highest murder rates than nations, states or cities.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Gun Control is just as ineffective and is just as much a failure as the Drug War.

tl;dr.   BAN THE SCARY DEATH-WEAPON BOOM-STICKS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[KnightofChrist]

No, it's asking if you essentially believe that a "right" to own guns in unqualified and does that supersede the safety of the broader populace. I would ask anti-gun people the same thing in reverse.

Why argue whether gun control increases or decreases violence? If you believe in access to firearms is an unqualified right, that question becomes irrelevant.

I disagree, the way the question was framed was basically 'imagine your wrong are you still right?' But I did answer already by stating the right to self defense would exist even in the example you put forth. So yes for law biding citizens the right to bear arms should be mostly unrestricted. The people have the right (all rights are given by God) to defend themselves in all times and in all places from other people, other governments and their own government.

Nothing against you personally but I'm not so sure you're as unbiased on this subject as you believe. You have not asked anti-gun people the same question in reverse and you've shown in the past to have a bias against subject matter that is perceived to be 'right-wing'. It's no big deal, people have bias' even when they try not to.

 

tl;dr.   BAN THE SCARY DEATH-WEAPON BOOM-STICKS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think for most anti-gun persons it is about an irrational fear of guns. Why else would anyone be against protecting children with armed guards? The rich and powerful protect themselves with armed guards and no one really questions that because everyone knows people like the President should be protect by armed guards because people may try to shoot him. But doing the same for the not so rich and powerful is some how not acceptable.

Edited October 9, 2015 by KnightofChrist

[Era Might]

Guns and condoms are similar social phenomenon. Both are ostensibly about preventing an undesired act (violence or unintended pregnancy/disease), which they certainly do in specific instances, but the proliferation of both also becomes the ignition for the fires they are supposed to put out. Both can be advocated from practical angles...the number of deaths prevented by guns, or the number of diseases avoided or abortions prevented by condoms. But both are also ideological symbols, not just tools for social regulation. And, to state the obvious, both involve physical emission perhaps deeply tied to man's worst instincts (violence and lust). Both essentially appeal to man the animal, and are practical solutions to practical problems in society...though, when transformed by ideology, both become ideals, the representation of some spiritual good (liberty, freedom, justice, health, law, love, etc). Society is so deep in its own contradictions I'm never quite sure what to make of it, except to point them out.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Era Might

[Socrates]

From the standpoint of Catholic moral teaching, condoms and other contraceptive devices have no morally legitimate usage, while guns do (hunting, target shooting, legitimate self-defense, etc.)

There's really nothing unique or magically evil about guns.  They're simply the weapon generally most effective and efficient in our time, and weapons of various forms have been around since the beginning of human history, and weapons have always had legitimate as well as evil uses.

There's really no historical evidence that the "proliferation of guns" has made people more prone to violence and murder.  Handheld firearms have been around for well over 600 years, and before that people killed with swords, bows and arrows, spears, maces, clubs, knives, and other such weapons.  The archaeological and historical evidence actually shows that rates of murder were actually a lot higher in ancient and medieval times (before the development of handguns) than in modern times.  It was actually highest in pre-civilized societies, committed with weapons we'd regard as quite primitive.

The main difference with guns is that they allow physically weaker persons a better chance at defending themselves against physically stronger attackers - making the playing field more even.

I maintain it's wrong to deny persons the means of self-defense, though tyrants often attempt to do so, whether it's medieval despots banning peasants from owning swords, or modern "gun control" measures.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Socrates

[Ice_nine]

I disagree, the way the question was framed was basically 'imagine your wrong are you still right?' But I did answer already by stating the right to self defense would exist even in the example you put forth. So yes for law biding citizens the right to bear arms should be mostly unrestricted. The people have the right (all rights are given by God) to defend themselves in all times and in all places from other people, other governments and their own government.

No, it's not framed that way. What you're failing to understand is that a right to self-defense is not equivalent with a right to bear arms or own guns. You could make a case that people should have the right to own guns (or tanks or landmines for that matter) but when you can't differentiate that from a right to self-defense, your argument is shoddy.

In addition if someone told me to assume, as a hypothetical, that unrestricted access to abortion would lead to less poverty and more happiness and less crime and the world would be just wonderful, and then asked if I would still be against abortion, I would say yes. Although crime is bad and happiness is good, the right to life is more important.

So if you want to try again, although this is quickly becoming an exercise in futility, does the right to own guns (NOT SELF-DEFENSE ERMAGERD) supersede the safety of the overall populace? There really is no wrong answer, I just need to know where one stands. Soc basically said "yes it does" with his safety and liberty quote, but arguing with him is a stupid idea so I see no need to really continue down that avenue.

Nothing against you personally but I'm not so sure you're as unbiased on this subject as you believe. You have not asked anti-gun people the same question in reverse  It's no big deal, people have bias' even when they try not to.

I haven't asked anti-gun people because where the hell are all the anti-gun people on phatmass or on this thread? Besides crosscut maybe? I've gotten into quite a few discussions and have asked anti-gun people the same thing. This is one thread and not a good sampling of my opinions on this particular subject. Feel free to pull up some older threads if you're bored and you'll see that. So you are wrong. And your judgments about me being anti-right-wing are laughable, and also wrong.

and you've shown in the past to have a bias against subject matter that is perceived to be 'right-wing'.

LOL. And your judgments about me being anti-right-wing are laughable, and also wrong. By the "past" I'm sure you mean maybe the last three or so threads I've participated in. Again, poor sample size. Any examples?

I also NEVER said I was unbiased, but that I'm not really partial to either side, only, I AM partial to seeing less violence in the world and am therefore willing to entertain whatever option will lead to that outcome. Thus open to either side, although you're not doing much for it.

I think for most anti-gun persons it is about an irrational fear of guns. Why else would anyone be against protecting children with armed guards? The rich and powerful protect themselves with armed guards and no one really questions that because everyone knows people like the President should be protect by armed guards because people may try to shoot him. But doing the same for the not so rich and powerful is some how not acceptable.

I don't know that the fear is entirely "irrational" but if you had a better grasp on how I really feel about gun control, you'd know that I understand and agree with much of this.

It's just comical that one simple question couldn't be answered. So at this point I don't really care as there's nothing I can really do anyway.

[CrossCuT]

I haven't asked anti-gun people because where the hell are all the anti-gun people on phatmass or on this thread? Besides crosscut maybe? 

 

 

 Im only commenting because I saw my name. I dont consider myself anti gun. Id consider myself pro Gun Control which I define as increasing laws that make them harder to be obtained by people with serious mental health conditions and a history of physical or gun violence. 

I stand with Elizabeth Warren and her three suggestions that are steps in the right direction for putting the safety of people first:

1) Close the Gunshow loophole, everyone gets a background check
2) End straw purchases: the one who gets checked has to be the true owner
3) Close holes in the background check database and stop domestic abusers from purchasing guns.

 

But to answer 

 You have not asked anti-gun people the same question in reverse 

Would said question in reverse be "Does safety of the overall populace supersede the right to own guns (NOT SELF-DEFENSE ERMAGERD)?

I would say Yes and reference the former portion of my post. I think that increasing control and monitors on gun purchases so as to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands would be best. I also liked the idea of addressing guns in the same way as cars; people need to be trained in the classroom and with the actual object as well as renew their license every year plus have insurance and all the other identification things.

So in this idealistic world, the only reason someone would "take your gun away" or prevent you from getting one in the first place would be the fact that youre a poo head abusive/violent/evil doer, or you have a mental/physical disability that would impede your ability to operate the gun properly. People with certain disabilities are not allowed to drive cars because it would be a danger so I dont see why we cant extent that same logic to weapons.

Edited October 12, 2015 by CrossCuT

[KnightofChrist]

 

No, it's not framed that way. What you're failing to understand is that a right to self-defense is not equivalent with a right to bear arms or own guns. You could make a case that people should have the right to own guns (or tanks or landmines for that matter) but when you can't differentiate that from a right to self-defense, your argument is shoddy.

I'll agree that at least it was not purposefully framed that way. I do not fail to understand the position that the right to self-defense is not always equivalent to the right to bear arms. However both are very much linked to one another. If the right to bear arms is restricted or denied it will lead restricting or denying peoples right to defend themselves. For example when their gun is the only real means they have to defend themselves. It is easier to understand perhaps if we look at other rights with the same logic. For example we have the right to speech but if the government restricted or denied the use of pencils, pens, ink, paper, keyboards or other tools used for speech most people will correctly to see such actions as restricting the right to speech and not just the right to bear the tools used for speech.

In addition if someone told me to assume, as a hypothetical, that unrestricted access to abortion would lead to less poverty and more happiness and less crime and the world would be just wonderful, and then asked if I would still be against abortion, I would say yes. Although crime is bad and happiness is good, the right to life is more important.

I would still be just as hard headed about that too. Because the question suffers a similar error as the one on gun-control. It asks us to deny an unbreakable link, the link between abortion and violence as the revised one of gun-control asks us to deny the unbreakable link between the right to bear arms and self defense. I did answer your question. And answered it in a very similar manner as you would answer the one about abortion. Although murder is bad, we don't have the right to punish innocent people for the crimes of others. Because the right to defend one's life (which is a part of the right to life) with a firearm is still good.

So if you want to try again, although this is quickly becoming an exercise in futility, does the right to own guns (NOT SELF-DEFENSE ERMAGERD) supersede the safety of the overall populace? There really is no wrong answer, I just need to know where one stands. Soc basically said "yes it does" with his safety and liberty quote, but arguing with him is a stupid idea so I see no need to really continue down that avenue.

I really don't know what you want from me. Your original question was "if hypothetically the murder rate would drastically drop if we adopted stricter gun laws, would you be against that? Is it so much so the principle of the thing?"  While I rejected the argument that the murder rate would drop. I answer the question, yes, and explained that people even in that hypothetical would still have the right to bear arms to defend themselves. You have changed the parameters of the original question. Whether you are able to see it or not the framing of the question forces me to answer the question a certain way.

I haven't asked anti-gun people because where the hell are all the anti-gun people on phatmass or on this thread? Besides crosscut maybe? I've gotten into quite a few discussions and have asked anti-gun people the same thing. This is one thread and not a good sampling of my opinions on this particular subject. Feel free to pull up some older threads if you're bored and you'll see that. So you are wrong. And your judgments about me being anti-right-wing are laughable, and also wrong.

There have been and I'm sure still are more than just Crosscut. Not asking the reverse question in general while you asked the other was for me questionable. Perhaps I'm wrong, but has seemed for some time now when we discuss topics that are political in nature you seem to me to have an anti-right bias. As I said no big deal, I really don't care.

LOL. And your judgments about me being anti-right-wing are laughable, and also wrong. By the "past" I'm sure you mean maybe the last three or so threads I've participated in. Again, poor sample size. Any examples?

I also NEVER said I was unbiased, but that I'm not really partial to either side, only, I AM partial to seeing less violence in the world and am therefore willing to entertain whatever option will lead to that outcome. Thus open to either side, although you're not doing much for it.

Ok

I don't know that the fear is entirely "irrational" but if you had a better grasp on how I really feel about gun control, you'd know that I understand and agree with much of this.

It's just comical that one simple question couldn't be answered. So at this point I don't really care as there's nothing I can really do anyway.

It's irrational to fear an inanimate object to the point of punishing the innocent for the crimes of others. Anyway, I answered your question and you didn't like it. This further lead me to believe you wanted to force me to answer yes I don't care if more people get murdered I'm still for guns. This the big reason why I felt a bias coming from you.

[Winchester]

 

3) Close holes in the background check database and stop domestic abusers from purchasing guns.

 

Funny story. A similar law was passed in my state in order to prevent individuals with a history of domestic abuse from carrying a weapon as part of their job. There were so many police affected by this that the law was changed. It would have crippled tax collection via gunmen law enforcement in the largest city in the state.

So the agency enforcing your personal preferences is brimming with those with a history of domestic abuse.

But badges and magic suits!

[CrossCuT]

Funny story. A similar law was passed in my state in order to prevent individuals with a history of domestic abuse from carrying a weapon as part of their job. There were so many police affected by this that the law was changed. It would have crippled tax collection via gunmen law enforcement in the largest city in the state.

So the agency enforcing your personal preferences is brimming with those with a history of domestic abuse.

But badges and magic suits!

Dang. The gun law isnt the problem and I still support it. Sorry not sorry abusive police officers.

[Winchester]

Dang. The gun law isnt the problem and I still support it. Sorry not sorry abusive police officers.

The law was modified.

You sort of missed the point, though.

[Era Might]

From the standpoint of Catholic moral teaching, condoms and other contraceptive devices have no morally legitimate usage, while guns do (hunting, target shooting, legitimate self-defense, etc.)

There's really nothing unique or magically evil about guns.  They're simply the weapon generally most effective and efficient in our time, and weapons of various forms have been around since the beginning of human history, and weapons have always had legitimate as well as evil uses.

There's really no historical evidence that the "proliferation of guns" has made people more prone to violence and murder.  Handheld firearms have been around for well over 600 years, and before that people killed with swords, bows and arrows, spears, maces, clubs, knives, and other such weapons.  The archaeological and historical evidence actually shows that rates of murder were actually a lot higher in ancient and medieval times (before the development of handguns) than in modern times.  It was actually highest in pre-civilized societies, committed with weapons we'd regard as quite primitive.

The main difference with guns is that they allow physically weaker persons a better chance at defending themselves against physically stronger attackers - making the playing field more even.

I maintain it's wrong to deny persons the means of self-defense, though tyrants often attempt to do so, whether it's medieval despots banning peasants from owning swords, or modern "gun control" measures.

The "proliferation of guns" is simply a particular instance of the proliferation of violence. The logic of guns (as weapons) is simply a particular application of the logic of violence...a logic which Christ pointed out when he told Peter, "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Reducing the problem of modern violence to historical murder rates misses the boat completely, for the same reason one could not measure the modern "culture of death" by comparing medieval rates of plague death. What has changed in modern times is not merely physical weaponry, but the entire technical logic of violence. The idea of a "primitive weapon" is actually strange, and gets to the heart of the logic of violence...as though refined violence were any less primitive or brutal (it's Kafkaesque, like imagining that institutionalized and beauracratized violence is somehow not primitive or inhuman since it is more complex or efficient, like Nazi gas chambers). Guns are not merely physical objects...even the idea that guns make the weak more effective against the strong is psychological conditioning...automatically, one must learn that one is "weak" and to live in fear of the "strong" or the faceless "attacker," and that there is a "playing field" of violence to which one is born a player. Of course, depending on one's place in the socioeconomic system, guns represent different things. It's easy to say that the proliferation of guns is not a problem when one lives in a context where there are stable institutions that have made violence either unnecessary or less common. There, it's fine to romanticize guns as hunting symbols and abstract safeguards against self-defense. When one gets outside that bubble of society, where social institutions are NOT working, then guns become themselves the social institution...as Mao observed, all power flows from the barrel of a gun. I'm no expert on these mass shootings, but I imagine many of them involve people who are alienated in some way from otherwise stable societies around them (a school, a gendered culture, etc). Weapon control is not a fix-all problem, but neither is the proliferation of weapons...and both have been important at various times in history, in different contexts (the romantic idea of individualist peasants with a right to a stash of weapons is hardly historical, as though peasants were proto-American gun-loving Second Amendment defenders...these were societies where being a peasant was to be accepted as your lot in life, as a religious duty in fact).

Edited October 14, 2015 by Era Might

[Socrates]

The "proliferation of guns" is simply a particular instance of the proliferation of violence. The logic of guns (as weapons) is simply a particular application of the logic of violence...a logic which Christ pointed out when he told Peter, "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Reducing the problem of modern violence to historical murder rates misses the boat completely, for the same reason one could not measure the modern "culture of death" by comparing medieval rates of plague death. What has changed in modern times is not merely physical weaponry, but the entire technical logic of violence. The idea of a "primitive weapon" is actually strange, and gets to the heart of the logic of violence...as though refined violence were any less primitive or brutal (it's Kafkaesque, like imagining that institutionalized and beauracratized violence is somehow not primitive or inhuman since it is more complex or efficient, like Nazi gas chambers). Guns are not merely physical objects...even the idea that guns make the weak more effective against the strong is psychological conditioning...automatically, one must learn that one is "weak" and to live in fear of the "strong" or the faceless "attacker," and that there is a "playing field" of violence to which one is born a player. Of course, depending on one's place in the socioeconomic system, guns represent different things. It's easy to say that the proliferation of guns is not a problem when one lives in a context where there are stable institutions that have made violence either unnecessary or less common. There, it's fine to romanticize guns as hunting symbols and abstract safeguards against self-defense. When one gets outside that bubble of society, where social institutions are NOT working, then guns become themselves the social institution...as Mao observed, all power flows from the barrel of a gun. I'm no expert on these mass shootings, but I imagine many of them involve people who are alienated in some way from otherwise stable societies around them (a school, a gendered culture, etc). Weapon control is not a fix-all problem, but neither is the proliferation of weapons...and both have been important at various times in history, in different contexts (the romantic idea of individualist peasants with a right to a stash of weapons is hardly historical, as though peasants were proto-American gun-loving Second Amendment defenders...these were societies where being a peasant was to be accepted as your lot in life, as a religious duty in fact).

Murder is wrong and evil, whether committed with a gun, a sword, a tomahawk, or one's bare hands.  

It seems you've managed to completely miss the point of my post, which was pretty simple.  I never claimed that killing with "primitive" weapons is worse.  My point was simply that the evil of violence and murder is constant through human history, and an unfortunate part of fallen human reality since the days of Cain - long before guns.  It's not something caused by the existence of guns or any other weapon.

"Gun control" rhetoric takes the focus away from human responsibility, and places the blame on an inanimate object - and on those who legitimately and peaceably own such an object.

All the pseudo-academic babble about the symbolism of guns or "gendered culture" is nonsensical and irrelevant.

And if you can handle armed attackers with nothing but your wits and fists, more power to you, but try explaining to a 70-year-old woman trying to protect against a young thug about needing guns for defense being just "psychological conditioning."

 

The reality is that "gun control" involves nothing more than giving yet more power to a powerful, heavily-armed State to restrict the freedoms and forcibly confiscate the property of law-abiding citizens, needlessly punishing millions of the innocent for the crimes of a few.  It's not anti-violence; it's about violence by the government to limit the rights and power of it subjects. (A very odd thing for a self-described "anarchist" to support.)

I might start taking the "anti-gun" rhetoric halfway seriously the day government disarms itself, and "gun control" politicians disarm their own security details.  But until then I'll disregard it as the hypocritical nonsense that it is.