Hand gun control

[Ibn Taymiyyah]

Why should civilians be allowed to own hand guns?!

I understand the whole “personal freedomâ€￾ thing. But we are talking about a device which has one primary use: shooting people!

Why would any reasonable civilian own such a device?!

We might as well make M16’s and RBJ’s legal for “law abiding citizensâ€￾?!

If you enjoy shooting with a hand gun, what’s wrong with going to a club and shooting all day long?!

If hand guns were banned in Pennsylvania, then Philadelphia would not have become one of the cities with the highest murder rates in the nation.

If hand guns were banned, then less police men would have been killed … policemen would not need to carry guns also.

Both sides agree that we have a morality problem. Well, then why make it legal for a bunch of immorals to own guns?!

[edonnelly]

If hand guns were banned in Pennsylvania, then Philadelphia would not have become one of the cities with the highest murder rates in the nation.

I'm not sure I've seen statistics that would support that claim. When it comes to murder rate, Washington D.C. is by the far the leading U.S. city (at well more than double that of Philadelphia), yet it also has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.

[Bert]

I would love to see statistics on how many crimes are STOPPED because of hand guns. I doubt that such a statistic is available because it could be used as an argument in favour of guns and that would not be very popular.

[Bob Manske]

What is this thread doing in the Academy?

[Bert]

I don't know! That's where I found it.

[MiguelM]

I understand the whole “personal freedomâ€￾ thing. But we are talking about a device which has one primary use: shooting people!

Not trying to play the devil's advocate (nor the angel's, for that matter ), but if you shoot a person who was going to shoot 10, then you in theory have a positive score of +9!

[edonnelly]

What is this thread doing in the Academy?

This is exactly the type of thread that the Academy was designed to handle. (Take a look at the Rules of the Academy.)

[Arvid]

I think Ibn Taymiyyah's point was that handguns serve absolutely no legitimate purpose, and the only thing they are good for is murder. I'll go farther than he does: I think they should be banned altogether! Please don't bring up the 2nd Amendment. It says: "A well-regulated militia being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Only one sentence, but the gun nuts can only seem to remember half of it!) Well, the people do keep and bear arms. We have several things the Founding Fathers never thought we could afford: a Standing Army, a Fleet in Being, not to mention an Air Force, a Coast Guard, and the Navy's own private army, the Marine Corps. Then when the Robber Barons got tired of hiring insensate thugs out of their own pockets to murder strikers and their families, they had a National Guard formed in each state, with arsenals equipped at public expense, for the Governor to call out and take the heat from the public for the resultant massacres. No "well-regulated militia" is going to defend the country from invading foreigners with handguns!

People always bring up police use and officer's sidearms in the military. If the police absolutely must be armed, and I see that even in Britain they've given in and armed their police, why can't they be carabinieri like in Italy? With a more useful weapon they might actually hit what they were aiming at once in a while. And if military officers are too good to carry a rifle and do something useful, let them carry swords like they used to. It doesn't seem to be generally known that officers carry handguns in order to shoot any of their men who try to run away in the back. Is this still the policy of the U.S. Army? If so, it should be publicly stated, and people should be told that that's the reason handguns are still being manufactured. See how popular that is with the general public!

Of course, this country is so in thrall to the NRA that nothing reasonable like the banning of handguns will ever take place, but it's worthwhile to think about why such "murdering pieces" are in so many hands!

[Bert]

I think Ibn Taymiyyah's point was that handguns serve absolutely no legitimate purpose, and the only thing they are good for is murder.

Yes, that was his point, and my point is that they can be (and are) used for defense as well.

[Rhuiden]

Please don't bring up the 2nd Amendment. It says: "A well-regulated militia being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Only one sentence, but the gun nuts can only seem to remember half of it!)

Why do you thing a well-regulated militia was necessary? Why did the Founding Fathers put this amendment in? The militia did serve as an aid in defending from foreign invaders during the colonial time but it also served to protect the people from an overbearing government. Insuring that the people would have the ability to rid themselves of this government, by force, should it become necessary.

I think Ibn Taymiyyah's point was that handguns serve absolutely no legitimate purpose, and the only thing they are good for is murder.

I think this is a comical statement designed to get a desired response. Further restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens will not accomplish anything. By taking handguns away for the law-abiding citizens means that only the criminals will have them....do you really think that they won't? And if a criminal knows that there is no possibility that none of his potential victims will be able to defend themselves gun violence will increase, not decrease in our cities.

I would propose that if we truly want to stop or significantly lower gun violence in our country today we should make it manditory that all citizens carry a handgun. Criminals would think twice before using a gun if they knew that many others people would also be armed. I have not looked at the stats recently but I think I remember that in states where citizens are allowed to carry concealed guns that gun violence is much, much, much lower than in states were there is no provision for legally carrying a concealed gun.

[Ibn Taymiyyah]

When it comes to murder rate, Washington D.C. is by the far the leading U.S. city (at well more than double that of Philadelphia), yet it also has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.

This only supports my argument. Restrictive gun laws are useless. Hand guns should be banned all together!
Recently in Philly, they were trying to pass a restrictive law which limits gun purchase to one per month!
Why would anyone need to buy a hand gun every month?!
Note: The law was to exclude "collectors".

[Rhuiden]

When it comes to murder rate, Washington D.C. is by the far the leading U.S. city (at well more than double that of Philadelphia), yet it also has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.

This only supports my argument. Restrictive gun laws are useless. Hand guns should be banned all together!
Recently in Philly, they were trying to pass a restrictive law which limits gun purchase to one per month!
Why would anyone need to buy a hand gun every month?!
Note: The law was to exclude "collectors".

When was the last time that a criminal bought a gun legally? Criminals don't care what the law says so how does taking away (or limiting) the rights of law-abiding citizens fix the gun violence problem? IT DOESN'T!!

[edonnelly]

but it also served to protect the people from an overbearing government. Insuring that the people would have the ability to rid themselves of this government, by force, should it become necessary.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,..."

Seems like this issue was dear to hearts of our founding fathers.

I would propose that if we truly want to stop or significantly lower gun violence in our country today we should make it manditory that all citizens carry a handgun.

I would think Hillary and the gang would love this proposal. We could hear sob stories about the poor who can't afford guns, and they could raise taxes so that the government could supply these guns.

[Ibn Taymiyyah]

When was the last time that a criminal bought a gun legally? Criminals don't care what the law says so how does taking away (or limiting) the rights of law-abiding citizens fix the gun violence problem? IT DOESN'T!!

Here is the opinion of a pro restrictive gun law group.

Do gun control laws prevent crime? The NRA says no.
The gun lobby is bound by its role to encourage sales for its patrons in the gun industry to do whatever it can to discourage new laws to prevent gun violence, including making claims that are not factual. In fact, every other developed country in the world, including our neighbor Canada, has laws that severely limit the availability of handguns. These same countries also have crime and violence, much like ours in the USA. But, none of these countries has more than a tiny fraction of the rate of handgun crime and violence that we have. Further, the American states typically having among the lowest per capita rates of handgun violence are also considered among the states with the strongest gun laws. Clearly, laws to prevent handgun violence work.

http://www.ceasefirepa.org/faq#q9

[edonnelly]

Here is the opinion of a pro restrictive gun law group.

Is that your opinion as well? The opinion you quote is in direct conflict with the one you previous took ("Restrictive gun laws are useless. Hand guns should be banned all together! "). This new opinion (albeit, using an "A and B, therefore A causes B" type of argument) asserts that restrictive laws do work.

[Bert]

When it comes to murder rate, Washington D.C. is by the far the leading U.S. city (at well more than double that of Philadelphia), yet it also has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.

This only supports my argument. Restrictive gun laws are useless.

You're funny. First you lay out an argument why guns should be banned

If hand guns were banned in Pennsylvania, then Philadelphia would not have become one of the cities with the highest murder rates in the nation.

If hand guns were banned, then less police men would have been killed … policemen would not need to carry guns also.

Then when someone brings statistics that show the exact opposite, you say: See? That's what I mean. Funny.

[Ibn Taymiyyah]

Another myth …

Does the Second Amendment Protect the Right to Bear Arm?

From Tom Head

The Second Amendment reads as follows: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now that the United States is protected by a trained, volunteer military force rather than a civilian militia, is the Second Amendment still valid? Does the Second Amendment exclusively provide for arms to supply a civilian militia, or does it guarantee a separate universal right to bear arms?
Current Status

The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds.

The two cases generally cited as most relevant to the Second Amendment are:

U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875), in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an 1870 federal law punishing individuals for violating the civil rights of others, using the Fourteenth Amendment to justify federal intervention in law enforcement (which was generally left to the states). The test case was the 1873 Colfax Massacre, in which over 100 African Americans were murdered by the White League, a militant white supremacist organization that was extremely active in Louisiana in the decades following the American Civil War. Chief Justice Morrison Waite delivered a ruling stating that the law was unconstitutional. While the case had no direct relevance to the Second Amendment, Waite did briefly list an individual right to bear arms among those rights that would have been protected by the federal law.

U.S. v. Miller (1939), in which two bank robbers transported a sawed-off shotgun across state lines in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. After the bank robbers challenged the law on Second Amendment grounds, Justice James C. McReynolds delivered a majority ruling stating that the Second Amendment was not relevant to their case, in part because a sawed-off shotgun is not a standard weapon for use in U.S. civilian militias.

Also significant: A number of cities, including Washington, D.C., have at various times banned handgun ownership. The relevant federal circuit court has always found these policies to be constitutional, and the Supreme Court has consistently refused to review such cases on appeal.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncon ... ndment.htm

[edonnelly]

Also significant: A number of cities, including Washington, D.C., have at various times banned handgun ownership. The relevant federal circuit court has always found these policies to be constitutional, and the Supreme Court has consistently refused to review such cases on appeal.

I think your data is a little old there. You should read the case files on Parker v. District of Columbia (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/com ... -7041a.pdf), where the DC law was in fact struck down by a federal court as unconstitutional and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case (probably early spring 2008 with a ruling mid summer). That federal court decision is quite an interesting read if you are interested in the history of the meaning and interpretation of the Second Amendment.

EDIT: I should add, though, that I think discussion of the 2nd Am. is only of secondary importance (at best) to the original question posed, since the real question is should handguns be prohibited -- thus, the current law is immaterial, in my opinion. If what the law should be conflicts with what it actually is, then it is the law that should be changed; clearly it is the former issue that needs to be addressed first.

[GlottalGreekGeek]

First of all, one must be careful about statistics, especially very generalized statistics. For example (I'm making this statistic up in my head - this is NOT factual information) Boston were to have the highest murder rate, and the most restrictive gun control laws, that does not mean that the restrictive gun control laws were the cause of the high murder rate. It might be the case that if the gun control laws were loosened, the murder rate would go up. Furthermore, if, let's say, Los Angeles had the highest murder rate and the more permissive gun control laws. That is not proof that permissive gun control laws cause high murder rates. In order to make solid conclusions, one really has to look closely at many things in many different cities. As in many issues. people make up their minds before they do a thorough examination of the facts, and when they look at the complex details, they only remember the facts which support their position. Also, because of it's complexity, statistics can be twisted to justify just about any position. There's a reason the quote from whoever goes "lies, damn lies, and statistics".

I have not examined this issue deeply enough, so I can't say that I am informed as to the efficiency of gun control laws. Ideally, nobody would have guns. We do not live in an ideal world.

However, in response to Rhuiden's suggestion that everybody should be required to own handguns, I wish to bring up several points. First of all, some people might regard that requirement as a violation of their rights, for philosophical or religious reasons. Second, this is assuming that everybody has equal skill in using a handgun. An experienced shooter will still fare better than somebody who has never used a handgun before, and criminals will probably be more experienced. And if everybody has handguns, criminals will HAVE to use guns more intensely than they currently do to keep up. Criminals will also be encouraged, more so than they are currently, to use automatic weapons. Thirdly, and this point is most disturbing to be, it might increase the temptation to injure or kill others based on impulse. Say a husband and wife are going through a difficult period, and briefly, one want to seriously hurt the other. If neither have anything more more dangerous than a kitchen knife, they would have to put some effort to do serious harm, and that protects them from giving in to brief impulses. However, if they have handguns, the quickness it takes to inflict real bodily harm might tempt them to give in to a degree they couldn't have before. Therefore, I think the idea of requiring everybody to have a handgun is ridiculous.

Of course, that proposal is an extreme. I do not know what the best policy for handgun restrictions. Of course, I fully support strong restrictions on heavy assault rifles, since I see no legitimate purpose to own one unless you're a part of the U.S. Military.

Personally, I don't feel a need to own a handgun. I also feel safe walking alone at night, as long as I'm alert. And since I really don't know how to use a gun, I don't think having a gun would make me feel much safer (well, I suppose I could still scare somebody with a gun, even if I wasn't very good at using it).

[edonnelly]

However, in response to Rhuiden's suggestion that everybody should be required to own handguns, I wish to bring up several points. First of all, some people might regard that requirement as a violation of their rights, for philosophical or religious reasons.

I'm not sure how serious Rhuiden was when he made the proposal, but it is not inconsistent with past laws of this country. The "second Militia Act" of 1792 declared that

each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted)

was a part of the Militia and subject to being called into duty (basically being part of the Militia was analogous to our current Selective Service registration that all males must do at age 18). More interestingly, however, the Act also stated that each of these citizens was required to

provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service.

So certainly there is past precedent for requiring gun ownership, though the reasoning was obviously different that proposed by Rhuiden. Nevertheless, it is an interesting little bit of history to think about. It would be tough to argue that this law violated any of our Constitutionally-protected rights, since it was passed by the Second Congress, a large number of whose members were also members of the First Congress, which drafted the Bill of Rights in the first place.

[Kopio]

Hmmm....well.....

I have grown up in the Northwest, and there is a very prevalent gun culture here. I own two handguns, as well as two shotguns. I will inheirit about 10 guns from my father when he passes. It's a big deal for him to pass on a family tradition as such.

I do have a concealed weapons license and I do carry quite often. I rarely carry when I am alone, I usually carry when I am with my wife and grandkids. I feel more than competent at taking care of myself with regards to whatever negative situation I might get in. The biggest reason I carry when I am with my wife and grandkids is to ensure their safety.

I am not Dirty Harry. I don't carry because I think I'm "tough" or "manly" I carry so that I can protect those I love. Like I said, I rarely carry when I am by myself.

I was raised shooting guns. I have a 357 revolver that I have been shooting since I was 8 years old. It was my father's preferred sidearm for 16 years, and when I turned 21 (the legal age to own a pistol) it was my birthday present from my father.

I also like to fish and be outdoors a lot and I NEVER go into the woods without a pistol. A while back I was out fishing way up in the hills and I actually saw a cougar (and a big one at that), I was in my truck (and I stayed in my truck), but there have been recent cougar attacks (within the last few years) in areas I like to frequent. There are also plenty of black bears, not to mention crazy meth cooks that like to find spots way up in the woods to cook (these are by far the most dangerous animals you can encounter in the woods).

Rhuiden raised a very valid point about crime...criminals don't legally buy handguns very often. Most of the people that go through the legal process, have a background check run (which I did), were printed and put on file at the local Law Enforcement agency (which I have been) will never commit a handgun "crime", nor will they kill anyone. I hope I never, ever, ever have to use my handgun in self defense, but it is there for exactly that reason.

For me it is more about personal safety than anything else. That's why I own guns. I should also note that my father is retired military, as well as currently working in law enforcement. He has recieved many death threats as well as threats to his family because of his line of work, which is why he carries, and why he initially encouraged me to carry.

That's my two cents worth.

[Bert]

I have owned a rifle, though never a hand gun but I can certainly respect Kopio's position. Earlier I wrote:

I would love to see statistics on how many crimes are STOPPED because of hand guns. I doubt that such a statistic is available because it could be used as an argument in favour of guns and that would not be very popular.

I read a magazine article that listed several incidents where a crime was stopped or minimed because the victim had a gun. These incidents were compared to the newspaper notices about the crimes. It was amazing that usually no mention was made of the reason the criminals were foiled. Newspapers (and other news media) are not without bias. Ratings are more important than honest reporting.

[Ibn Taymiyyah]

I have grown up in the Northwest, and there is a very prevalent gun culture here ...

I was raised shooting guns ...

I have been shooting since I was 8 years old ...

when I turned 21 (the legal age to own a pistol) it was my birthday present from my father.

This is what this whole thing is truly bout. Culture. Nothing more.

The biggest reason I carry when I am with my wife and grandkids is to ensure their safety.

A while back I was out fishing way up in the hills and I actually saw a cougar

For me it is more about personal safety than anything else ...

I hope I never, ever, ever have to use my handgun in self defense, but it is there for exactly that reason.

You made it clear that this need for protection does not exist. You have never used your gun to fulfill this need. I hope and believe that you never will. Sitting in your car was the real weapon you used against the cougar, not your hand gun.

criminals don't legally buy handguns very often.

This is true, however, those on the other side of the argument have statistics showing the proportionality of lawful hand gun purchase with gun crime.

[Kopio]

This is what this whole thing is truly bout. Culture. Nothing more.

That's not the impression I got from the initial post....you asked the question "why would any reasonable person own a gun?" I think I did a pretty decent job of answering that question. For the record, I consider myself a fairly reasonable individual. As for the gun culture.....I don't see how being raised in that culture has negatively affected me. I was also raised in a flannel shirt culture. I own several of them. It gets cold in the northwest, they are warm, they protect me from my enviroment. I realize that a thick flannel shirt could be used for smothering someone, but I personally do not condone such usage, nor would I ever do so except in the most dire of circumstances!

You made it clear that this need for protection does not exist. You have never used your gun to fulfill this need. I hope and believe that you never will. Sitting in your car was the real weapon you used against the cougar, not your hand gun.

Yeah I guess you are right. It's a good thing that there's only one cougar in the woods where I fish, it's also a good thing that they only show up when I am in the car. I could tell you countless stories about friends out in the woods running into bears. None of them had to shoot the bear mind you, but isn't it just a little smarter to be able to protect yourself if you need too? C'mon!

This is true, however, those on the other side of the argument have statistics showing the proportionality of lawful hand gun purchase with gun crime.

Thank you for at least conceding this point. It is generally true. The amount of printed and registered gun users that commit crimes is pretty low.

I will however agree with you that there is a negative gun culture that abounds in the US. From the wanna be "Dirty Harry" types that pack 44's in shoulder holsters, there are also abundant "gansta" types that think it's cool to pack a gun and "cap" somebody who "disses" them. The problems is, how can we limit these people's access to guns while not inhibiting the rights of law abiding citizens who want to carry? I don't know if it can be done. As long as there is a black market, as long as there is theft, there will always be guns. Especially in America. Part of the reason we have such a gun culture in the US is because that is how our country was founded...armed resistance.

[GlottalGreekGeek]

As long as there is a black market, as long as there is theft, there will always be guns.

Unless a spectacular new weapon replaces guns in usefulness ... who still uses swords or pikes? (besides historians, Renaissance Faire people, hobbyists, etc). But that does not invalidate your basic point.

[BillD]

You made it clear that this need for protection does not exist. You have never used your gun to fulfill this need. I hope and believe that you never will. Sitting in your car was the real weapon you used against the cougar, not your hand gun.

Your logic is faulty. My house has never been broken into in the middle of the night by some crackhead looking to pawn my TV for his next fix. That doesn't mean the danger doesn't exist. It happens every day (and night) in every State in the Union. I legally own guns for hunting, target shooting, self protection, and just because I want them. I am also trained in their proper use. I have no desire to shoot anyone. However, if someone does break into my house in the middle of the night, I like knowing I have a reasonable chance to protect my family. In most cases, the police can't do much more than clean up the mess.

My next-door neighbor has fired his handgun in self-protection (after being fired upon). The assailant was wounded but not killed. My neighbor was not charged and the outcome was the right one.

Like all the other amendments in the bill of rights, the second amendment is a limitation on the prerogatives of government. In fact, the reason the Bill of Rights was drafted was to expicitly codify the most obvious rights of the people. In spite of all the caterwauling about the militia clause, the second amendment is even more universally prohibitive (with respect to government action) than the first. The first amendment specifies that "Congress shall make no law..." while the second amendment states that ...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." By anyone.

I have no problem with reasonable licensing requirements for concealed carry. However, I think it's very easy for the government to overstep its bounds here. I think the DC Circuit Court recognized this in Parker. This country was born in armed revolution against a sovereign government. The primary reason the second amendment was included in the Bill of Rights is that the Framers understood that this might become necessary again and it would be much more difficult for the federal government to supress and armed populace than an unarmed one.

Now I will freely admit that conditions in 2007 are vastly different than they were in 1789. The Framers accounted for that by giving us a mechanism to amend the Constitution. If enough people believe gun rights should be substantially restricted, they should push for a constitutional amendment.

Finally, the problem is not an overabundance of guns. It's an underabundace of common sense, morality, and social will to deal with the fundamental issues that got us where we are today.

[Geoffmar]

Why should civilians be allowed to own hand guns?!

I understand the whole “personal freedomâ€￾ thing. But we are talking about a device which has one primary use: shooting people!

Why would any reasonable civilian own such a device?!

We might as well make M16’s and RBJ’s legal for “law abiding citizensâ€￾?!

If you enjoy shooting with a hand gun, what’s wrong with going to a club and shooting all day long?!

If hand guns were banned in Pennsylvania, then Philadelphia would not have become one of the cities with the highest murder rates in the nation.

If hand guns were banned, then less police men would have been killed … policemen would not need to carry guns also.

Both sides agree that we have a morality problem. Well, then why make it legal for a bunch of immorals to own guns?!

A few quick points: "Gun Control" is a euphemism for "victim disarmament." Why? Think about the only people that will abide by 'gun control' laws - those who are not disposed to committing crime in the first place.

Second: You say 'why make it legal for a bunch of immorals to own guns." And I simply reply, then why is the government allowed to own them? Certainly a large proportion of government employees are 'immoral,' given the scandals that one incessantly hears about; why should they own guns?

Thirdly, to 'ban' something, one needs to be able to enforce this edict; indeed the only way, it seems, is to enforce it with guns! So you're simply calling for one group of people (those in power) to use guns to get rid of another group of people's guns (those who are not). Where's the consistency?

Lastly, think about the total amount of murders committed through "states" and you'll find, through RJ Rummels book "Death By Government", that around 170,000,000 (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM) people died at the hands of their governments during the twentieth century. Do we really think that the amount of 'private' killings even come close to this? Ill take my chances with an armed populace, rather than an armed government, and an unarmed populace. That's simply a mechanism through which tyranny is born.

[Ibn Taymiyyah]

"victim disarmament."!

Check out this poor victim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x78okyNM ... re=related

And this one too:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/15/univer ... newssearch

O but wait a second ... these killings mean nothing because they are insignificant in comparision with the 170,000,000 killed by governments!

[BillD]

"victim disarmament."!

Check out this poor victim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x78okyNM ... re=related

And this one too:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/15/univer ... newssearch

O but wait a second ... these killings mean nothing because they are insignificant in comparision with the 170,000,000 killed by governments!

Do you have a point?

[ioel]

Why should civilians be allowed to own hand guns?!

So they are able to protect individual rights. As well as - why should they not be allowed to? We should default with freedom. The burden of proof lies with the one wanting to restrict freedom. No defense of freedom needs to be given.

I understand the whole “personal freedomâ€￾ thing. But we are talking about a device which has one primary use: shooting people!

Sometimes shooting someone is necessary to protect individual rights. The law and the courts recognize this.

Why would any reasonable civilian own such a device?!

A reasonable civilian should be interesting in protecting individual rights.

We might as well make M16’s and RBJ’s legal for “law abiding citizensâ€￾?!

I'm not sure what an "RBJ" is. But my answer is, absolutely! Citizens can already own AK-47's and AR-15's (which are civilian versions of M16's). One of the points is that the people be able to defend themselves against the government. If they are not currently capable of doing so, then weapon restrictions are already to strict.

If you enjoy shooting with a hand gun, what’s wrong with going to a club and shooting all day long?!

I'm not sure what you are asking here. I agree there is nothing wrong with going to a club (like a shooting range?) and shooting all day long. Are you suggesting that shooting ranges or gun clubs would own guns rather than individuals? If so, would the clubs (and therefore the guns) not be owned by private citizens?

Both sides agree that we have a morality problem. Well, then why make it legal for a bunch of immorals to own guns?!

If there are a bunch of immorals out there, then I should be able to arm myself against them!
On the other hand, we ought not ban a tool because some people misuse it. Such responses may be appropriate in Kindergarten, but not among adults.

As for the 2nd amendment, a militia is a civilian body. The point of the amendment is that the people be able to defend themselves against a tyrranical federal government. Those who say the 2nd amendment is no longer necessary because the federal government has a strong military are missing the point. At the very least the States need to be able to maintain a militia with which they can defend themselves against the federal government.

[Ibn Taymiyyah]

Almost 25 posts without a single sound logical argument for making hand guns legal!

why should they not be allowed to? We should default with freedom. The burden of proof lies with the one wanting to restrict freedom. No defense of freedom needs to be given.

People should be free to do whatever they want by default?!
Says who?!
Please support this claim with opinions of wise people (philosophers, people of religion, law makers ... etc.)

Hand gun trade is not like post stamp collection!

Legal hand gun trade was proven proportional to illegal hand gun trade … and therefore, killing people.

The same does not apply to post stamp collection!

Also, the current discussion is regarding hand guns. People can “protect individual rightsâ€￾ (which is a myth in itself) with a shotgun ... etc.

[Bert]

Almost 25 posts without a single sound logical argument for making hand guns legal!

You not being able to see a logical argument is not because there is none.

[ioel]

Almost 25 posts without a single sound logical argument for making hand guns legal!

Except that you ignored most of my post. Besides, I still maintain that the burden of proof is on you. You have yet to present a sound logical argument for making handguns illegal.

why should they not be allowed to? We should default with freedom. The burden of proof lies with the one wanting to restrict freedom. No defense of freedom needs to be given.

People should be free to do whatever they want by default?!
Says who?!
Please support this claim with opinions of wise people (philosophers, people of religion, law makers ... etc.)

If there is a default, that is where it lies. Certainly we don't start with a tyrannic state of affairs and then start considering what liberties we might be gracious enough to allow. Rather, we start with liberty (rights), and only introduce laws against hurting people--more specifically, against violation of individual rights. Owning or trading a gun is not a violation of anyone's rights. On the other hand, taking the gun of someone who is not hurting anyone without their permission is stealing and is a violation of their rights, and should be punished.

The point is that we must not start out with the default of, say stamp collecting being illegal and then make people give you a logical argument for why they should be allowed to collect stamps. That is absurd.
As far as naming wise people who agree: Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard, and Ayn Rand, to name a few.

Hand gun trade is not like post stamp collection!

Whatever that is supposed to mean.
On the contrary, for lots of people it is very much like stamp collecting.
Even insofar as it is unlike stamp collecting, that's not yet a cogent argument against hand gun trade.

Legal hand gun trade was proven proportional to illegal hand gun trade … and therefore, killing people.

Killing someone in defense is permitted by law, and rightly so.
They are also useful for deterring crime.
Also they are useful for protecting yourself against bears, wild cats, wolves, etc.
Also they are useful for having an enjoyable time shooting targets and pop cans.
Your insinuation that their only purpose is for committing murder is an inappropriate hyperbole.

It is murder that should be (and is!) illegal. Not owning a hand gun.

Also, the current discussion is regarding hand guns. People can “protect individual rightsâ€￾ (which is a myth in itself) with a shotgun ... etc.

What exactly are you saying is a myth? that they can be used to protect individual rights?
As for the being able to use other weapons, yes, one could use a shotgun, but what right does anyone have to restrict what tool someone else uses to protect themselves and others? Or what right does anyone have to restrict someone else's enjoyable time shooting pop cans with a hand gun?

[Kasper]

Interesting discussion. What strikes me is the confusion between law and natural rights. It is certainly not internationally recognised that there is an individual right to bear arms, and to my knowledge most western countries vehemently deny such right. I suppose the best document in support of this statement is the ICCPR.

I'm also not certain about a default position conferring nothing but rights. Clearly Mr A's extensive rights may often infringe Mr B's rights. A common example would by Mr A's right to freedom of speech, and Mr B's right to reputation.

Under Australian law, e.g., the Constitution grants power to the legislature 'for the peace, order and good government' of the nation. Personally i would indeed agree that freedom is second to order. No freedom can be respected unless there is order. Freedom without order is anarchy.

As for gun control, i'm not too concerned what the US does. The only comment i would make is that the question does not, to me, seem to be what a reasonable person would do with a gun, but what a reasonable person in an unreasonable (frustrated/drunk/provoked/etc) state of mind could do with a gun at hand.

[ioel]

Interesting discussion. What strikes me is the confusion between law and natural rights. It is certainly not internationally recognised that there is an individual right to bear arms, and to my knowledge most western countries vehemently deny such right. I suppose the best document in support of this statement is the ICCPR.

Of course governments have a tendency to vehemently deny such right. It poses a threat to the government. That doesn't mean the right does not exist.

I'm also not certain about a default position conferring nothing but rights. Clearly Mr A's extensive rights may often infringe Mr B's rights. A common example would by Mr A's right to freedom of speech, and Mr B's right to reputation.

It's not clear what that first sentence means.
As far as the theory of rights regarding conflicts of rights: Rights never conflict. Needs and wants may conflict but rights cannot. If they conflicted, it would render the concept as less than meaningful.

In your example, specifically, there is no such thing as a right to a good reputation. A reputation must be earned. What B does have a right to is to be free from slander. That is, what we call A's freedom of speech does not include the right to commit slander, for that is a form of fraud. A does have the right to tell the truth about B. B has no right against that.

Under Australian law, e.g., the Constitution grants power to the legislature 'for the peace, order and good government' of the nation. Personally i would indeed agree that freedom is second to order. No freedom can be respected unless there is order. Freedom without order is anarchy.

Interesting. But order without freedom is abhorrent. I am reminded of Braveheart and their fight for freedom against Longshank's "peace and order". And Patrick Henry's cry of "Give me liberty or give me death."
I am not an anarchist. I do believe that government is necessary to protect individual rights. But we must establish order through freedom. The opposite, establishing order without freedom and then later granting freedom is unlikely to occur (This is what failed to happen in every communist country that claimed that this is what they were going to do.)

As for gun control, i'm not too concerned what the US does. The only comment i would make is that the question does not, to me, seem to be what a reasonable person would do with a gun, but what a reasonable person in an unreasonable (frustrated/drunk/provoked/etc) state of mind could do with a gun at hand.

...or with a knife, or behind the wheel of a vehicle, etc. Punish actual crimes. Don't treat the people as if they are small children. (E.g., don't take away everyone's car, just because some people are irresponsible.)

[Kasper]

Of course governments have a tendency to vehemently deny such right. It poses a threat to the government. That doesn't mean the right does not exist.

This is true. However it also does not confirm that it does exist. Rights have no independent existince as such (i think someone called Bentham argued against the existence of any natural rights) and exist when they are recognised. I suppose the question is one of recognition of the right by sufficient people. I may assert that i have the right to a million dollars, but few would agree. I may assert that i have the right not to be unlawfully imprisoned or imprisoned without trial, and most would agree with that. As far as gun ownership is concerned then, you could perhaps succesfully argue that the right exists in the USA and various other countries (middle eastern nations don't seem to be concerned), but that the right does not exist in other nations. The point is however that there is no inherent/natural human right to bear arms that is internationally recognised.

It's not clear what that first sentence means.
As far as the theory of rights regarding conflicts of rights: Rights never conflict. Needs and wants may conflict but rights cannot. If they conflicted, it would render the concept as less than meaningful.

In your example, specifically, there is no such thing as a right to a good reputation. A reputation must be earned. What B does have a right to is to be free from slander. That is, what we call A's freedom of speech does not include the right to commit slander, for that is a form of fraud. A does have the right to tell the truth about B. B has no right against that.

Well, first you say rights never conflict and then you say that freedom of speech conflicts with the right to be free from slander. Is the limitation on A's freedom of speech not created by the conflict with B's right to reputation/be free from slander?

Interesting. But order without freedom is abhorrent. I am reminded of Braveheart and their fight for freedom against Longshank's "peace and order". And Patrick Henry's cry of "Give me liberty or give me death."
I am not an anarchist. I do believe that government is necessary to protect individual rights. But we must establish order through freedom. The opposite, establishing order without freedom and then later granting freedom is unlikely to occur (This is what failed to happen in every communist country that claimed that this is what they were going to do.)

I think we will not agree on this. I think order without freedom is less abhorrent than freedom without order. I'm not clear on what you mean by achieving order through freedom. You mean a 'natural' balancing out of rights perhaps? I think that order is a prerequisite for the recognition of rights, and rights without recognition have a shadowy existence at best.

As for gun control, i'm not too concerned what the US does. The only comment i would make is that the question does not, to me, seem to be what a reasonable person would do with a gun, but what a reasonable person in an unreasonable (frustrated/drunk/provoked/etc) state of mind could do with a gun at hand.

...or with a knife, or behind the wheel of a vehicle, etc. Punish actual crimes. Don't treat the people as if they are small children. (E.g., don't take away everyone's car, just because some people are irresponsible.)

Sure this is true. But having gun makes it easier for the damage done to get out hand, e.g. the school shootings that took place recently. The same damage could not have been done with a knife or a car.

[Arvid]

I know things seem reasonable from a distance, but you're never going to convince any of these rabid right-wingers here in the U.S., so there's no point in trying.

It's interesting how the very ones who are so adamant on the "right to bear arms" to resist coercion by government are also the ones who are always screaming "law and order" as a buzzword, and how "right to life" correlates so exactly with pro-death-penalty.

Unfortunately, due to the Electoral College system, where land votes instead of people, they have us all by the short and curlies!

[ioel]

Rights have no independent existince as such (i think someone called Bentham argued against the existence of any natural rights) and exist when they are recognised. I suppose the question is one of recognition of the right by sufficient people. I may assert that i have the right to a million dollars, but few would agree. I may assert that i have the right not to be unlawfully imprisoned or imprisoned without trial, and most would agree with that. As far as gun ownership is concerned then, you could perhaps succesfully argue that the right exists in the USA and various other countries (middle eastern nations don't seem to be concerned), but that the right does not exist in other nations. The point is however that there is no inherent/natural human right to bear arms that is internationally recognised.

I disagree with your understanding of rights. I think it is far more objective than you think. For example, the reason why you don't have a right to a million dollars is because wealth must be earned--this is a fact of reality; someone must pay the cost to produce that wealth. So it can't coherently be considered a right (to have it provided to you).

Well, first you say rights never conflict and then you say that freedom of speech conflicts with the right to be free from slander. Is the limitation on A's freedom of speech not created by the conflict with B's right to reputation/be free from slander?

You are mixing terms here. No one has a right to do absolutely whatever they want. When I speak of "freedom" as a positive good, I tend to mean "freedom to do as you will within your rights." To use one's abilities outside of one's rights is a wrong.

The point is that rights are the legitimate (and only) criterion by which to limit someone's actions. Yes, such limits are a restriction of freedom in an absolute sense, but not a restriction of freedom as a good. Maybe we can use the term "liberty" to refer to the latter meaning, as opposed to the former.

Inspiring cries and fights for freedom are not about gaining the freedom to commit theft with impunity. That's not what those people mean by freedom. Rather they mean what I have suggested we call "liberty."

I think we will not agree on this. I think order without freedom is less abhorrent than freedom without order.

Interesting. I suspect you may be using the negative sense of "freedom" here. Because as far as I can see, order is useful only insofar as it promotes liberty.

I'm not clear on what you mean by achieving order through freedom. You mean a 'natural' balancing out of rights perhaps?

There is a spontaneous order that arises through the exercise of liberty. But I will agree with you that protection of individual rights produces order that is essential for the exercise of liberty. I would agree there is some relationship between the two.

Sure this is true. But having gun makes it easier for the damage done to get out hand, e.g. the school shootings that took place recently. The same damage could not have been done with a knife or a car.

I don't know; it is possible to do a lot of damage with a car. But still, I don't see this as a matter of degrees. It is the principle of the thing.

[ioel]

It's interesting how the very ones who are so adamant on the "right to bear arms" to resist coercion by government are also the ones who are always screaming "law and order" as a buzzword,

If by "law and order" you mean "protection of individual rights", then the freedom to bear arms emerges logically from that. They are not at all opposed to one another.

and how "right to life" correlates so exactly with pro-death-penalty.

I will agree with you that it is interesting how there is a correlation on a person's stance on those two issues. At a first glance, the opposite position (killing innocents but protecting the guilty) seems more absurd. I personally do not have a strong position on the death penalty. I do see how, in principle, it can be a just retribution for a crime. On the other hand I can see the danger of the possibility of an incorrect verdict.

[Bert]

...these rabid right-wingers here in the U.S., ...

...the ones who are always screaming "law and order" as a buzzword, and how "right to life" correlates so exactly with pro-death-penalty.

You just gave the argument to end all arguments. (Or at least the argument to end all sense in continuing further discussion.)