Guns on campus: Where do you stand?

[Two Espressos]

Both are peaceful acts that do not harm or threaten other people. Neither act has a victim. Both are personal acts that other people of various political biases and irrational fears want to control, even though it doesn't affect them. Do you need more?

This analogy is terribly disrespectful and is perhaps even more bizarre than your prior one. Do we need more? Yes, we do. Though I cannot possibly see how one could equate homosexuality with concealed carry. When you use an analogy, it is helpful to use two things that can conceivably be linked.

[ZeeMore21]

You can vote me down as many times as you like Aaron...at the end of the day, I think your ideas are sick and disrespectful.

Edited June 29, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[Two Espressos]

Of course I am against those laws! Obviously it would not be a smart move to walk around downtown with a bomb, for fear of freaking people out and isolating yourself from society. Also, why carry the bomb unless you intend on blowing something up?

Why carry guns around if you do not intend to use them? And what if the bombs mentioned were concealed, and the bomb carrier did not plan to use them? Would his possession of bombs in a public area be justified then?

Things like "freedom to live" is a basic human right, and attacking someone is a violation of that, EVEN if the person you attack is carrying a deadly tool.

Okay, but what are you referencing with this? If you're referring to restricting concealed carry on a college campus...I don't see how that violates someone's "freedom to live."

If you aren't referring to concealed carry, then what are you talking about?

[ZeeMore21]

When you find any post where I say gun holding individuals should be hurt, you can get back to me. Seriously, I wonder why you still come on this site...your reputation is dreadful.

Well then you should refrain from your threats of violence against peaceful people. That is also stupid. In every universe, a gun is an object, and is not peaceful or violent. It is just a tool. In every universe, a human minding their own business and not threatening or harming anyone or anything is peaceful by definition. It doesn't matter what particular tool, equipment, or personal property they happen to have on their person. Sitting and studying alone is not violent; therefore it is peaceful. Your irrational fear of guns is your own problem, just like some republicans irrational fear of gays and lesbians. A gay person could become violent, but that is completely irrelevent and doesn't mean he will (obviously). Someone with a gun could get violent, and that also, doesn't mean they will. How is discriminating against one group of people different than discriminating against another, if neither is violent?

[Eigen]

Great post Mal83....like I posted earlier, I doubt the sincerity of people who feel the need to walk around with guns in public places. To me, it's all about conveying a political view. I rather people find other ways to convey these ideas than putting other people in danger.

I wasn't going to post anymore, but this post struck a chord with me- for someone who got upset at the use of "outlandish" to describe a viewpoint, it seems a bit over the line to, as a general statement, say you "doubt the sincerity" of people who feel a particular way. That's painting a viewpoint opposing yours with a very wide brush- and quite honestly, I really don't think its polite to use such a generalized assumption.

You feel in danger around guns, not having them around makes you feel safer. To others, raised in a different culture, having a gun makes them feel safer. To say that their viewpoint is insincere and all about political views...

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it. Up until then, you've been keeping the debate rather clean on your end.

[ZeeMore21]

By the way, only voted you down once in this thread. Also, me not liking your other thread has nothing to do with my reaction to you in this thread. I'm not idiot...I'm arguing against your words. There is no person I would let argue that guns and homosexuality are on an equal footing. Only someone ignorant would say something like that. Again, please show me where I said that I would harm anyone physically who owns a gun. You should be ashamed of yourself for putting words in my mouth. Coward.

1) You are the one voting me down in every post you see, merely because you didn't like a post I started a thread with.

2) You can think me wanting the freedom to mind my own business is sick and disrespectful, and I can think you hiring thugs to physically harm me if I do something you don't personally like is sick and disrespectful.

[Two Espressos]

1) You are the one voting me down in every post you see, merely because you didn't like a post I started a thread with.

2) You can think me wanting the freedom to mind my own business is sick and disrespectful, and I can think you hiring thugs to physically harm me if I do something you don't personally like is sick and disrespectful.

I've voted many of your posts down; it's not ZeeMore21. I've voted many (but not all--and there is reason for that) down not because I dislike your point of view, but because your posts have deliberately veered off topic and have not addressed the concerns of this forum.

Also, you've devolved into idiocy--cue your #2. When did ZeeMore21 ever state she wanted to physically harm you or hire thugs?

ZeeMore21, we should follow the advice of other posters and drop this topic. Aaron will not maintain decency.

[ZeeMore21]

Hey Eigen,

Then I do apologize for also seeming to generalize, not my intention either. I still don't believe that everyone who walks around with a gun in a holster is honestly trying to protect themselves. I think they enjoy intimidating people with their constitutional right to carry weapons.

I wasn't going to post anymore, but this post struck a chord with me- for someone who got upset at the use of "outlandish" to describe a viewpoint, it seems a bit over the line to, as a general statement, say you "doubt the sincerity" of people who feel a particular way. That's painting a viewpoint opposing yours with a very wide brush- and quite honestly, I really don't think its polite to use such a generalized assumption.

You feel in danger around guns, not having them around makes you feel safer. To others, raised in a different culture, having a gun makes them feel safer. To say that their viewpoint is insincere and all about political views...

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it. Up until then, you've been keeping the debate rather clean on your end.

[ZeeMore21]

Definitely agree here. It's hard to talk to bigots.

I've voted many of your posts down; it's not ZeeMore21. I've voted many (but not all--and there is reason for that) down not because I dislike your point of view, but because your posts have deliberately veered off topic and have not addressed the concerns of this forum.

Also, you've devolved into idiocy--cue your #2. When did ZeeMore21 ever state she wanted to physically harm you or hire thugs?

ZeeMore21, we should follow the advice of other posters and drop this topic. Aaron will not maintain decency.

[Two Espressos]

Definitely agree here. It's hard to talk to bigots.

I agree. Like a previous poster mentioned, debating with extreme libertarian, solipsistic viewpoints is not conducive whatsoever. I'm personally going to leave the discussion.

[Eigen]

Hey Eigen,

Then I do apologize for also seeming to generalize, not my intention either. I still don't believe that everyone who walks around with a gun in a holster is honestly trying to protect themselves. I think they enjoy intimidating people with their constitutional right to carry weapons.

Understood. I agree that there are certainly people like that, I just don't think they're necessarily the majority- at least not everywhere (read the above posts about Arizona and the culture there.

[ZeeMore21]

Right. I still would like to know why its necessary to bring a gun into a college setting, which is what started this whole thread. I'm having a hard time understanding why a student would need to be carrying one. It just seems that there are certain places where a gun is just unnecessary...like another poster brought up, do you really need a gun while you are shopping for groceries? Guns at homes are fine with me along with guns for sport...I do understand that there is a gun culture that spans hundreds of years in certain places. I just don't understand why, at the college level, people who may not come from that type of culture or background would have to deal with someone carrying a weapon. Its the fact that a college campus is a relatively safe atmosphere that would make students uncomfortable....I for one would be questioning the reason why certain students would feel the need to carry a gun into my lit class...what are they planning on using it for?

Although I shouldn't have generalized the entire gun-owning population, I am still waiting for someone to truly explain what is the idea behind bringing guns into the classroom...and not only say that people have a right to carry guns. Like I said earlier, people also have the right to feel safe...just like gun owners feel the need to secure/defend themselves. Just because you have a constitutional right doesn't mean you have to abuse it or rub it into other people's faces...which is what some people seem to want to do. Just like the right to free speech, there are certain limits on it. I can't go around saying derogatory things to people just because I have the right to free speech. When my free speech may harm another person, there is a problem.

Understood. I agree that there are certainly people like that, I just don't think they're necessarily the majority- at least not everywhere (read the above posts about Arizona and the culture there.

Edited June 30, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[Mal83]

Well then you should refrain from your threats of violence against peaceful people. That is also stupid. In every universe, a gun is an object, and is not peaceful or violent. It is just a tool. In every universe, a human minding their own business and not threatening or harming anyone or anything is peaceful by definition. It doesn't matter what particular tool, equipment, or personal property they happen to have on their person.

So I'm going to go out on a very thin and weak limb by saying this, but I may or may not understand where you're coming from here...or at least understand why you are saying a gun is just an object or a tool. You feel like anything really can be used to cause harm which is why you used the "fists" example. I think a useful analogy would be the restrictions of certain objects onto airplanes. Right after 9/11 all kinds of sharp objects were banned but as time went on some have been allowed back on. For example umbrellas of any style, nail clippers, and scissors with a blade less than four inches are allowed on an airplane, but a box cutter and razor blades are not. It seems a little bit arbitrary, I can take someone's eye out a tiny pair of sharp nail scissors, or I can ram my pointy umbrella into someone's skull. These objects certainly aren't as lethal as a loaded gun and a pilot probably won't fly the plan into a building because he's being held up by a nail clipper, but sure they can cause serious harm to the passengers if used in such a fashion. So why allow a few things on board that can cause harm but not others that are similar? These objects are used properly most of the time, but then all it takes is one maniac to use them as weapons and then they're considered a weapon. A fist is also a weapon, if you're walking around with your hands clenched in some kind of punching position, you seem to be using your hands as weapons. I don't think anyone will dispute you that any object can be used to hurt someone physically, but if I had to choose I'd rather be punched in the face with your fist than shot in the head with your gun. A gun left untouched is neither peaceful or violent, I would say that's technically accurate and could really be said about anything, however where I disagree on a more abstract level is a loaded gun on someone's hip is not untouched, it's been prepared to be used, and the only way to use a gun effectively is to pull the trigger to release a bullet that is designed to rip through a human body rendering them lifeless. Are you pulling that trigger because you're a maniac who's snapped or are you doing it because you're a hero taking down that maniac in a public square? Either way, the outcome is the same, bloodshed and/or death, whether the action of pulling that trigger is maniacal or heroic, violence has still occurred. I mean if a gun is just like any other tool, why not carry a hammer for self defense? You are viewing a hammer and a gun as the same...as any old "tool," so to you it seems arbitrary and pointless to ban only guns or be fearful of guns and not hammers in public. Honestly, I do get that to some degree, but what really matters here is the broader view that guns are much deadlier than most other objects and therefore shouldn't be carried around in public. And you have to admit that it's just a fact that people use guns quite easily to kill people, it's just too easy to kill someone with a gun, I think that's what is scary about them, for a lot of people anyway, including myself. You can still be far away from someone and kill them with nothing more than a movement of your finger, you can't kill me with a hammer if I'm across the street from you. But I'm not discrediting the other side of the coin either, like I said in my post about gun culture, if you've been brought up to feel that carrying a gun in public is appropriate and as Eigen said, contributes to a safer society then that will be reflected in your opinion on the matter and it's just as valid as the other side.

I don't know Aaron, if this isn't at all an accurate interpretation of your "a gun is a neither peaceful or violent" point then feel free to let me have it. But I just figured I'd put it out there that there is a bit of logic here, it just might be a little muddled.

[ZeeMore21]

I don't believe an overwhelming presence of legal guns cause a safer society to be honest. People might say that now that there are illegal guns everywhere, people need to arm themselves at all times with legal ones. The thing is, if gun laws were stricter than they are now, this wouldn't be a problem. Illegal guns were all initially purchased legally, so this division that we are putting between legal and illegally purchased guns is a bit faulty. People want to propose lax gun laws-- which boosts the number of illegal guns circulating in this country-- then want to propose the right for them to carry guns everywhere and anywhere to keep themselves safe from these illegal guns. Makes no sense to me when these people are essentially responsible for this rise in gun crime. I don't see the right that gun supporters have to add on additional danger by bringing there guns to safe environments. If they are honestly scared of illegal guns, they should actually do something about restricting gun access...not just boosting gun ownership.

Edited June 30, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[barber5]

Eeek, definitely a political discussion, but I figure I'll put my 2 cents out there:

Romantic notions of cowboys be damned, the actual, practical purpose of the police is not to protect but to come take an official, historical account of events after they've occurred.

You are the only person who can reliably be counted on to provide for your own safety or that of your family. If carrying a gun and knowing how to use it makes you squeamish or you're relying on the police to keep you safe, chance alone will probably protect you, but I don't think you should categorically damn well-trained individuals who would rather not rely on fate to keep them off the losing end of a violent crime.

Edited June 30, 2011 by barber5

[ZeeMore21]

Eeek, definitely a political discussion, but I figure I'll put my 2 cents out there:

Romantic notions of cowboys be damned, the actual, practical purpose of the police is not to protect but to come take an official, historical account of events after they've occurred.

You are the only person who can reliably be counted on to provide for your own safety or that of your family. If carrying a gun and knowing how to use it makes you squeamish or you're relying on the police to keep you safe, chance alone will probably protect you, but I don't think you should categorically damn well-trained individuals who would rather not rely on fate to keep them off the losing end of a violent crime.

I don't think anyone against guns on college campuses are damning gun holders. I think the argument is that there should be a time and place for guns. Just because people can own guns doesn't mean that they should be able to carry it everywhere and anywhere just because they feel like it. People who don't own guns should be accounted for as well. Like I said before, just because there is a boost in legal guns doesn't make the world safer, and this is obvious looking at the crime statistics for the United States. No one wants to admit we have a gun problem, but the fact is we do.

[wtncffts]

Eeek, definitely a political discussion, but I figure I'll put my 2 cents out there:

Romantic notions of cowboys be damned, the actual, practical purpose of the police is not to protect but to come take an official, historical account of events after they've occurred.

You are the only person who can reliably be counted on to provide for your own safety or that of your family. If carrying a gun and knowing how to use it makes you squeamish or you're relying on the police to keep you safe, chance alone will probably protect you, but I don't think you should categorically damn well-trained individuals who would rather not rely on fate to keep them off the losing end of a violent crime.

Alright, so I'm back in.

Just to briefly comment on the whole discussion around Aaron's views, as I said in a previous post, philosophical libertarianism is a legitimate, consistent viewpoint; I don't think to call it 'sick and disgusting' does anyone justice. Aaron clearly was not intending to denigrate homosexuality or liken it to gun ownership other than for the purposes of supporting his view that individuals of any kind should be free from coercive interference in their right to carry on their own business. I can accept his good faith. Obviously, I don't accept the argument, for many reasons, including that gun ownership is a choice and that, as I said in my earlier post, nobody to my knowledge has shown, or could show, I think, that homosexuality does any appreciable harm to society, other than to some people's moral sensibilities, while it's indisputable that the proliferation of gun ownership and use is significantly correlated with higher rates of homicide and violence. Whether the latter point outweighs whatever 'rights' individuals do have to carry guns is a value judgement; I think it does, while Aaron clearly does not.

As for the above reply, I'm sorry, but that's plainly absurd. Are you really arguing that the police are basically glorified journalists? What, pray tell, is the purpose of 9-1-1? I'm from Vancouver. The police patrolling the riot weren't 'taking accounts'. The value of a police force is both in its everyday duty of law enforcement and its deterrent purposes. Your second point, while you're legitimately entitled to believe so, seems to me clearly wrong. I do rely on police to keep me safe. I rely on government to make public policy which creates safer, more peaceful societies. I rely on neighbours and friends. Your argument is more suited to life in the hypothetical 'state of nature' of Locke, or more pointedly, Hobbes, than anything resembling modern, prosperous, ordered societies. It's precisely in such a 'state of nature' that life is more insecure and more subject to chance and fate, since, every individual being his own enforcer of law, his own judge, jury, and executioner, every individual is subject to the arbitrary and capricious whims of every other individual. Can you really tell me sincerely that there isn't a greater element of 'chance' in a totally armed society as opposed to a gun-free one?

As for the whole notion of self-defense. At first, it seems intuitively right. After all, it's pretty self-evident that a gun is a deterrent to a would-be criminal, right? They pull a gun on you, you whip out your blazing pistol and they run away in fear, or better, you shoot them, non-fatally over course. Obviously, it would never be the case that, having seen your gun, they would shoot you first.

All sarcasm aside, Spitzer, in the book I mentioned I'm reading, concludes his chapter on the 'Criminological Consequences of Guns', the following, in part:

1. Handguns are a disproportionate component of gun harm... [they] are useful for self-defense, but the opportunity for a victim actually to deploy a handgun is so small

a percentage of the more than one million annual gun crimes (much less of all crimes) that it cannot be considered an adequate counterbalance to the handgun crime problem.

2. Homicide attempts would continue regardless of gun regulations. But the "weapon instrumentality effect" alone makes clear that significantly fewer would die and that injuries would be less severe... In addition, there is reason to conclude that guns facilitate some homicides that would not occur were guns absent.

5. Remembering that roughly 35 percent of all American homes already have at least one gun, there is little reason to expect any dramatic rise in successful defensive uses if the rest of the population suddenly decided to obtain guns. One could, however, expect an appreciable rise in homicides, suicides, accidents, and injuries from guns.

6. Greater gun availability in an area is associated with greater gun availability for criminals. Far from serving as a deterrent to crime, guns in the home are especially tempting targets for theft, particularly because most burglaries occur when no one is home. On an individual level, a gun in the hand of a victim can thwart or stop a crime. On an aggregate level, however, more guns mean more gun problems, even though many citizens believe that guns make them safer.

7. It makes no sense to consider self-defense, deterrence or related issues of gun ownership without considering the numerous other means by which citizens may protect themselves and their homes, both individually and collectively. Even though citizens often feel alone in the fight against crime, allies are to be found in neighbors, local governments, and law enforcement. To isolate defense and safety issues from this larger context is to fail to understand the dimensions of the problem to which guns are related.

I quote this because it renders many of my arguments in a clear and compelling way. Now, you can feel free to disagree with any of the assertions, though I'd suggest you have evidence to support your claims. If you're of Aaron's mindset, of course, none of these considerations are salient because the right to be let alone outweighs whatever societal effects a particular manifestation of that right engenders. I can accept that. I understand that some people simply have a 'live free or die' attitude, as it were. But if we're arguing about the empirical question over whether the presence and use of guns is causally related to a society with more homicides and violence, the answer is clear, at least to me. I think I made this point earlier, but let me reiterate: it's not, fundamentally, about my 'fear' or 'discomfort' around guns, and others' familiarity and comfort with them. That point is certainly important to many of the discussions going on here, but, as I said, public policy isn't and shouldn't be individualized. It's about choices, and their likely aggregate effects, with reference to a particular end. To me, it follows from the evidence that the societal benefits of restrictions on gun ownership and use are greater than whatever costs such restrictions might impose, but obviously some see the costs quite differently than I do.

[rising_star]

If, as you say, there are some locations in this country where guns make people uncomfortable (NOW I know why cops carry! haha) the owner could conceal it out of respect for other people's feelings. Here in Arizona, no one would think twice if someone was carrying, but in a big city, I would probably conceal just so as to not make people uncomfortable.

As someone who has lived in Arizona and does feel uncomfortable when people are carrying everywhere (for example, at the grocery store, in a bar, or in a coffee shop), I do wish you wouldn't generalize to include the entire state's population in a statement like the one quoted above.

[ZeeMore21]

Just to clarify my earlier post, wtncffts, I was specifically calling Aaron's comparison of guns and homosexuality sick and not his libertarian views. I don't mind hearing viewpoints that are different than mine...I'm a mature adult that can handle debates. However, there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. We are talking exclusively about gun ownership...there was no point of Aaron to bring up homosexuality.

Although several posters did bring it to his attention that his analogy was disrespectful, he chose to ignore it, and that is when I became angry. Homosexuality is a very sensitive issue for me, I'm not gay, but I am close to many people who are, so the fact that the poster would even put a violent weapon on the same grounds as homosexuality was very unsettling. Perhaps "sick" was not the most respectful of adjectives, but the analogy the poster was trying to make to somehow justify the carrying around of a very lethal weapon was totally inexcusable and degrading.

Edited June 30, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[ZeeMore21]

Eeek, definitely a political discussion, but I figure I'll put my 2 cents out there:

Romantic notions of cowboys be damned, the actual, practical purpose of the police is not to protect but to come take an official, historical account of events after they've occurred.

You are the only person who can reliably be counted on to provide for your own safety or that of your family. If carrying a gun and knowing how to use it makes you squeamish or you're relying on the police to keep you safe, chance alone will probably protect you, but I don't think you should categorically damn well-trained individuals who would rather not rely on fate to keep them off the losing end of a violent crime.

Well, I might have qualms with the police, but in general, I rather depend on them than complete strangers I don't know that might not be qualified to be carrying around a weapon...let alone using it. I'm not saying that police officers don't make mistakes, because they definitely do. However, all police officers go through serious training on how to use their weapons in various kinds of situations. On the other hand, gun owners don't really have to go through any training. All they have to do is sign the necessary paperwork and they are home free. In the case of leaving it up to "the people" to protect themselves, we would all be depending on chance as well.

I think its this type of fear-mongering that you're offering on your post, to be honest, that is driving this gun culture we have in this country. Yes, the world is evil and dangerous and no one is disputing that. However, I rather try fixing the problem of gun violence than exacerbating it. This whole notion of "everyone for themselves" does not cut it if we want to live in a safe and stable environment. There has to be accountability.

Edited June 30, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[studentaffairsgrad]

At first, I was taken back when I saw the analogy between homosexuality and guns, as I have many gay friends like More does. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that the analogy could be negative or not, depending on how you view guns. If you view guns as dangerous killing machines, then you are probably going to look at the comparison to homosexuality as a negative and distasteful one. But, if you have a more positive view on guns, then you might interpret the analogy different. If I read it correctly, and give Aaron the benefit of the doubt, I think he used that analogy because gun control and homosexuality (unfortunately for the latter imo) are both controversial topics for a lot of people. He was just saying that regardless of where you stand on a controversial issue, you should not have a right to prevent someone from carrying a gun, or living their life as they feel comfortable just because you are not uncomfortable with the idea of it. I don't think he was making a sweeping generalization of gay people being violent, but saying something more along the lines of - they aren't doing anything wrong and should be allowed to live as they see fit, just as gun holders should be allowed to carry as they see fit. The problem I think where some folks are having an issue with this analogy is that the group in latter part of the analogy (gun holders) involves intent (because they can be peaceful or have the intent not to be), while the group in the first part of the analogy (homosexuality) doesn't involve intent - gay people are the same as heterosexuals in that we can all be violent, peaceful, neutral, etc. and should be allowed to live as we see fit.

Aaron, feel free to correct me if you feel I've misinterpreted your words.

I don't mean to take this discussion further off topic, but just thought that as a person who is on the fence regarding the issue of gun control, and as someone who doesn't have as strong emotions attached to the issue like others, me trying to put the debated analogy in perspective would allow some to see it in another light and we could thus get back to the real issue at hand - guns on campus. (Sorry for the run-on sentence!)

I would just like to remind people that we all interpret things differently based on our own experiences, opinions, etc. and it is good to try to see how someone on the opposite side of an issue might interpret something you say, so you can choose your words carefully and make sure you get your point across without it turning into something else you didn't intend.

Edited June 30, 2011 by studentaffairsgrad

[barber5]

Well, I might have qualms with the police, but in general, I rather depend on them than complete strangers I don't know that might not be qualified to be carrying around a weapon...let alone using it. I'm not saying that police officers don't make mistakes, because they definitely do. However, all police officers go through serious training on how to use their weapons in various kinds of situations. On the other hand, gun owners don't really have to go through any training. All they have to do is sign the necessary paperwork and they are home free. In the case of leaving it up to "the people" to protect themselves, we would all be depending on chance as well.

I think its this type of fear-mongering that you're offering on your post, to be honest, that is driving this gun culture we have in this country. Yes, the world is evil and dangerous and no one is disputing that. However, I rather try fixing the problem of gun violence than exacerbating it. This whole notion of "everyone for themselves" does not cut it if we want to live in a safe and stable environment. There has to be accountability.

Strawman much?

Fear mongering wouldn't have included the statement that luck alone will probably protect you, it probably would have been more like "carry a gun or you're doomed."

The vast majority of people will not be a victim of a violent crime, to a large extent because we have a reasonably evolved society and criminal justice system that keeps people disinterested in committing crimes, particularly violent ones, against other people.

If you happen to become a victim of a violent crime it's almost certain that the police will not be able to intervene while the crime is occurring (I don't actually have stats on this, but do you disagree?); nevertheless, the existence of the police itself surely lowers all of our chances of becoming victims--see reasonably evolved criminal justice system--which is why you won't find me advocating for "everyone for themselves"

Finally, I didn't get anywhere close to creating a dichotomy between relying on the police or relying on complete strangers: I've said I think the police are essential and the main thrust of my argument was that you should rely on YOURSELF and take responsibility for your own safety and that of your family. While you're right that an element of chance (a vanishingly small chance, recall, no fear mongering here) will still remain no matter what you do, being capable of defending yourself might tip the odds in your favor if you're in one of these unlikely scenarios.

[ZeeMore21]

Eeek, definitely a political discussion, but I figure I'll put my 2 cents out there:

Romantic notions of cowboys be damned, the actual, practical purpose of the police is not to protect but to come take an official, historical account of events after they've occurred.

Don't quite think that I am exaggerating your point here given your first sentence. You argued here that police officers serve only to take down historical accounts. That is not the complete truth, so therefore I said you were fear-mongering. I still would like to know how the prevalence of guns offers a safer environment. If this was the case, I wonder why this country ranks so high in crime compared to other countries.

[ZeeMore21]

Also, I don't really think you can say that I was trying to do a straw man. I was arguing against the statement you made...you never elaborated on your position in regards to the police. You offered your own basic version of what you think the police do...and I think your intent was to make it seem that we can't depend on the police for anything. Only until your last post did you make any clarifications.You also never discussed the fact that chance also rules over the scenario of people taking care of themselves with the use of a gun. Just because you walk around with a gun doesn't necessarily mean you are safe or that nothing bad will happen to you.

Edited June 30, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[barber5]

Alright, so I'm back in.

Just to briefly comment on the whole discussion around Aaron's views, as I said in a previous post, philosophical libertarianism is a legitimate, consistent viewpoint; I don't think to call it 'sick and disgusting' does anyone justice. Aaron clearly was not intending to denigrate homosexuality or liken it to gun ownership other than for the purposes of supporting his view that individuals of any kind should be free from coercive interference in their right to carry on their own business. I can accept his good faith. Obviously, I don't accept the argument, for many reasons, including that gun ownership is a choice and that, as I said in my earlier post, nobody to my knowledge has shown, or could show, I think, that homosexuality does any appreciable harm to society, other than to some people's moral sensibilities, while it's indisputable that the proliferation of gun ownership and use is significantly correlated with higher rates of homicide and violence. Whether the latter point outweighs whatever 'rights' individuals do have to carry guns is a value judgement; I think it does, while Aaron clearly does not.

As for the above reply, I'm sorry, but that's plainly absurd. Are you really arguing that the police are basically glorified journalists? What, pray tell, is the purpose of 9-1-1? I'm from Vancouver. The police patrolling the riot weren't 'taking accounts'. The value of a police force is both in its everyday duty of law enforcement and its deterrent purposes. Your second point, while you're legitimately entitled to believe so, seems to me clearly wrong. I do rely on police to keep me safe. I rely on government to make public policy which creates safer, more peaceful societies. I rely on neighbours and friends. Your argument is more suited to life in the hypothetical 'state of nature' of Locke, or more pointedly, Hobbes, than anything resembling modern, prosperous, ordered societies. It's precisely in such a 'state of nature' that life is more insecure and more subject to chance and fate, since, every individual being his own enforcer of law, his own judge, jury, and executioner, every individual is subject to the arbitrary and capricious whims of every other individual. Can you really tell me sincerely that there isn't a greater element of 'chance' in a totally armed society as opposed to a gun-free one?

As for the whole notion of self-defense. At first, it seems intuitively right. After all, it's pretty self-evident that a gun is a deterrent to a would-be criminal, right? They pull a gun on you, you whip out your blazing pistol and they run away in fear, or better, you shoot them, non-fatally over course. Obviously, it would never be the case that, having seen your gun, they would shoot you first.

All sarcasm aside, Spitzer, in the book I mentioned I'm reading, concludes his chapter on the 'Criminological Consequences of Guns', the following, in part:

I quote this because it renders many of my arguments in a clear and compelling way. Now, you can feel free to disagree with any of the assertions, though I'd suggest you have evidence to support your claims. If you're of Aaron's mindset, of course, none of these considerations are salient because the right to be let alone outweighs whatever societal effects a particular manifestation of that right engenders. I can accept that. I understand that some people simply have a 'live free or die' attitude, as it were. But if we're arguing about the empirical question over whether the presence and use of guns is causally related to a society with more homicides and violence, the answer is clear, at least to me. I think I made this point earlier, but let me reiterate: it's not, fundamentally, about my 'fear' or 'discomfort' around guns, and others' familiarity and comfort with them. That point is certainly important to many of the discussions going on here, but, as I said, public policy isn't and shouldn't be individualized. It's about choices, and their likely aggregate effects, with reference to a particular end. To me, it follows from the evidence that the societal benefits of restrictions on gun ownership and use are greater than whatever costs such restrictions might impose, but obviously some see the costs quite differently than I do.

I appreciate your response. You're right that my first post was un-nuanced with respect to the full function of law enforcement. In my last post I outlined what I believe their deterrent function actually is.

You're also right that my characterization was decidedly Hobbesian, but that was not on accident: I was only meaning to argue that the function of the police in most small-scale crisis situations (muggings, aggravated assaults, murders) was to jot down the details after the fact. These are events that are more or less straight out of the state of nature, violating social contracts and being out of the reach of the Leviathan as it were.

You're also right that there are certain trends which seem to contraindicate the use of guns for self-defense which is why I'm not advocating for everyone to go out and strap a revolver to their thigh and have at it. I would guess (but don't have clear evidence for) that if more people who were using firearms for self-defense actually knew how to use them, the data would attest to increased efficacy.

"They pull a gun on you, you whip out your blazing pistol and they run away in fear, or better, you shoot them, non-fatally over course. Obviously, it would never be the case that, having seen your gun, they would shoot you first."

Lastly, you're absolutely right to give a sarcastic account of what many people think an encounter with a criminal is going to be like. Good training will give you a much more realistic picture of what is likely to happen (you'd probably be told about people shot 30+ times who were still able to continue attacking) and it should but may not teach you that you shouldn't draw a weapon unless you fear you or others are in mortal danger and you are prepared to use lethal force.

Edited June 30, 2011 by barber5