177 replies to this topic

[caliban]

Seems sadly topical yet again...

Strictly controlled in Europe, many Americans are unwilling to give up permissive gun ownership regimes.


Owning a gun is often explained as a security precaution- should every immortalist own one?

Yet guns kill people - is curtailing their proliferation a life extension priority?

[maxwatt]

We don't outlaw driving cars, but we do require training, licensing and tests.

[Brainbox]

Heh, difficult topic. However...

I've always been in favor of a strict controlling of gun ownership. But actually, some discussions on this forum on this subject made me shift my opinion.

Like so many other issues, the inheritance of culture play's a major role here. I think for the EU it is evidently the best to have a monopoly on violence for governments. Simply because it did develop this way. For the USA it is best to have no monopoly on violence. Simply because it did develop this way. And developments never end.

There is some truth in the arguments of the gun lobby, in that guns do not kill, but people do. In Holland we had a similar tragedy last year, so our policy on gun ownership is not a guarantee to avoid development of derailed personalities.

But I still do think that driving a car is different. The intention of the act of car driving is different from the act of gun firing. And hence using this analogy is unnecessary shifting of focus and polarizing in this already hazardous ethical domain.

Edited by Brainbox, 21 July 2012 - 08:47 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

The United States has outlawed drugs, illegal immigration, counterfeit products, and numerous other things. They still come across the border into the country daily and the people that want things like drugs, have no problems getting them. What makes you think that outlawing guns or controlling them even more is going to take guns out of the hands of people that are already willing to break the law? Or in the case of the most recent shooting, the guy was determined to take lives and cause havoc. Who's to say he wouldn't have gotten guns anyways? Or failing to he decides to take his knowledge of explosives (remember his apt. was rigged) and blow the theater up instead.

We already know what happens when a killer is the only one in a crowded theater with a gun....

[niner]

We already know what happens when a killer is the only one in a crowded theater with a gun....

This would be the argument for the NRA's position that we should all pack heat all the time. As they say, an armed society is a polite society. (Which is also the argument for why Iran should have nuclear weapons.) The only flaw in this argument, other than the rash of suicides, accidental shootings, and murders of convenience that would occur if we were all armed, is that in this case, the killer was wearing ballistic armor- a jacket, helmet, neck cover, and leggings. Those kids in a dark theater would have had to be pretty good shots to take him out. I guess the next logical step would be for everyone to wear armor, along with carrying...

IMHO, it's a mistake to focus on this sort of crazy incident; things like this really would be hard to stop. In the two and a half days since the shooting, there have been about 85 gun homicides in the US. The ones nobody seems to care about. I think we could put a significant dent in those, and there are a hell of a lot more of them than there are from massacres. We ought to look at common sense reforms (interstate transfer, gun show loopholes...) to get cheap weapons off the street. We could do it, but the NRA/GOP don't want us to, and no one (with any power) really gives a crap anyway since it's mostly ghetto kids getting shot.

[rwac]

This would be the argument for the NRA's position that we should all pack heat all the time. As they say, an armed society is a polite society. (Which is also the argument for why Iran should have nuclear weapons.) The only flaw in this argument, other than the rash of suicides, accidental shootings, and murders of convenience that would occur if we were all armed, is that in this case, the killer was wearing ballistic armor- a jacket, helmet, neck cover, and leggings. Those kids in a dark theater would have had to be pretty good shots to take him out. I guess the next logical step would be for everyone to wear armor, along with carrying...

Well, the rules for countries are a lot different, and much more Hobbesian. "Iran" (more accurately, the Iranian government) doesn't have the same legitimacy as a democratic country.
In this case, armed people might or might not have made a difference, but Jeanne Assam certainly did. She was an armed volutenteer security guard, who was Concealed Carrying.

IMHO, it's a mistake to focus on this sort of crazy incident; things like this really would be hard to stop. In the two and a half days since the shooting, there have been about 85 gun homicides in the US. The ones nobody seems to care about. I think we could put a significant dent in those, and there are a hell of a lot more of them than there are from massacres. We ought to look at common sense reforms (interstate transfer, gun show loopholes...) to get cheap weapons off the street. We could do it, but the NRA/GOP don't want us to, and no one (with any power) really gives a crap anyway since it's mostly ghetto kids getting shot.

Nobody ever takes into account the crimes prevented by armed citizens. Usually other crimes such as burglary go up when guns are banned.

If you really want to save ghetto kids from getting shot and/or going to prison, perhaps the drug war would be a better place to start.

[niner]

Well, the rules for countries are a lot different, and much more Hobbesian. "Iran" (more accurately, the Iranian government) doesn't have the same legitimacy as a democratic country.

The latest issue of Foreign Policy has an article about why Iran should get the bomb. The author makes the case that it would improve stability in the Middle East, rather than harm it.

Nobody ever takes into account the crimes prevented by armed citizens. Usually other crimes such as burglary go up when guns are banned.

If you really want to save ghetto kids from getting shot and/or going to prison, perhaps the drug war would be a better place to start.

I'm not even remotely talking about banning, more like making it harder to drive in from out of state with a trunkload of pistols.

The Failed WOD would be a great thing to get rid of. It's a colossal failure.

[mikeinnaples]

We already know what happens when a killer is the only one in a crowded theater with a gun....

This would be the argument for the NRA's position that we should all pack heat all the time. As they say, an armed society is a polite society. (Which is also the argument for why Iran should have nuclear weapons.) The only flaw in this argument, other than the rash of suicides, accidental shootings, and murders of convenience that would occur if we were all armed, is that in this case, the killer was wearing ballistic armor- a jacket, helmet, neck cover, and leggings. Those kids in a dark theater would have had to be pretty good shots to take him out. I guess the next logical step would be for everyone to wear armor, along with carrying...

Tear gas as well. I know exactly how hard it is to concentrate and hit a target while being gassed. You would basically have to react fast or wait until he reloaded, or in this case, his AR 15 jammed and then empty your mag into him while closing the distance, hoping to stagger/injure/incapacitate him enough to avoid getting shot while doing so without having the gas F you up too much. If your were on top of a canister or near one, forget about it. Except for one specific Marine I knew (another story for another time), you arent doing jack with your eyes/lungs burning and snot free flowing out of your nose.

My point still stands though about already knowing the outcome when nobody can defend themselves. For all we know the outcome could have been like the other Aurora shooting instead if someone had been able to shoot back. At the very least maybe someone would have drawn fire / attention enough to allow more people to escape or buy time for LEOs to respond.

Oh... and not buying the Iranian / nuclear weapon argument. You will be hard pressed to find someone in the NRA that would agree to arming psychopaths.

[Brainbox]

Dr. Strangelove, anyone?

On a more serious note....

There is no solution, based on idealism, that will work in any place. Where both sides can have idealist motives, either against government monopoly on violence or against free arms. I would not want to walk around in certain area's of Kabul without personal protection of arms. Neither in certain area's of Chicago. In Clichy-sous-Bois (Paris riots 2005) I would dare to do so if accompanied by unarmed locals that I would trust. In fact, I'm planning just this to make a photography series.

It's just not possible to have a uniform solution to this question. And it is very easy to develop some form of judgement, something Europeans (and the Dutch in particular) are very good at.

One question I have though, which is kind of in line with Maxwatt's remark (and apologies for my initial "judgement" on that one). Is it correct that more people (gun carriers) in the US get killed by accident by own accidental fire than by intentionally shooting others?

Edited by Brainbox, 23 July 2012 - 09:36 PM.

[ihatesnow]

going by statistics to save lives swimming pools should be outlawed before firearms http://www.guncite.c...l_gcgvacci.html

[niner]

going by statistics to save lives swimming pools should be outlawed before firearms http://www.guncite.c...l_gcgvacci.html

Yeah, right. As long as you don't count murders and suicides. In a lot of places, swimming pools are more regulated than guns.

[mikeinnaples]

A swimming pool is far more likely to drown someone than a firearm to shoot someone. Firearms don't shoot themselves, it takes intent of the person using it to do harm. A pool can and does kill people with no intent to do harm. Not a very realistic comparison in my opinion.

[Lister]

Perhaps this is not the right time to bring up the issue of Gun Control. Though, with now 3 mass shootings in the past 6 months in the US when is the right time? It’s never “too soon” to discuss saving lives; especially the lives children.

The mass shooting in Connecticut is a tragedy beyond words. What can anyone say to something as horrible as this but “Why, How?” These are the sorts of tragedies you expect to see in the Middle East or in war torn countries. How can something like this happen in the middle of the peaceful state of Connecticut? While my Heart goes out to the families, the victims; I can’t help but wonder why these horrible tragedies keep occurring.

For a community of people seeking everlasting life it seems to me that we should be at the center of a debate like this. You cannot hope to live forever if you cannot think and plan long term for eventualities big and small.

I’ve read a lot of public response in the past few hours and along with heartfelt condolences there is again drumming from the left for more Gun Control and drumming from the right for tighter security. What is the answer here? “There’s no single answer” true, but where does one start in all of this?

Quite a large number of people have suggested that Security and Police should be stationed at every school. I can’t help but think that this would only make matters worse. It seems to me that there’s a cultural fracture in the US that’s causing an out of control arms buildup.

Being as I’m Canadian I have little right to call for Gun Control or Tighter Security in the US. But I feel that a discussion should be tabled especially in the enlightened community of Longecity.

What do you think?

Edited by Lister, 14 December 2012 - 10:19 PM.

[Mind]

Despite the recent tragedies (and recent U.S. wars), the level of violence in the world has steadily declined (by orders of magnitude), see here. What was more pervasive violence (and awful torture) is now more sparse and acute (and more hyped because of omnipresent media). Despite what is often stated, gun (self-defense) rights were inserted into the U.S. constitution in order for citizens to defend themselves from authoritarian governments. Any reading of history will provide volumes of evidence of violence and mass deaths at the hands (and orders issued by) governments/dictators/kings. The knee-jerk reaction is to ban guns. I suspect this might provide some sort-of security benefit in some instances, but (historically speaking) it is also dangerous (plus these types of shootings are multi-factorial, removing one form of weapon would not be getting to the root of the problem). Personally, I would rather take my chances with random violence than cede all protection, security, and defense to (essentially) one person in the government. Others would disagree, I know.

The speculation behind Pinker's talk is that world-wide free trade and communication are behind the decrease in violence. If these trends continue, I think we will continue to see less violence. The better we know each other, the less fearful we are of each other, and the better we can help each other.

[Lister]

Despite the recent tragedies (and recent U.S. wars), the level of violence in the world has steadily declined (by orders of magnitude), see here. What was more pervasive violence (and awful torture) is now more sparse and acute (and more hyped because of omnipresent media). Despite what is often stated, gun (self-defense) rights were inserted into the U.S. constitution in order for citizens to defend themselves from authoritarian governments. Any reading of history will provide volumes of evidence of violence and mass deaths at the hands (and orders issued by) governments/dictators/kings. The knee-jerk reaction is to ban guns. I suspect this might provide some sort-of security benefit in some instances, but (historically speaking) it is also dangerous (plus these types of shootings are multi-factorial, removing one form of weapon would not be getting to the root of the problem). Personally, I would rather take my chances with random violence than cede all protection, security, and defense to (essentially) one person in the government. Others would disagree, I know.

The speculation behind Pinker's talk is that world-wide free trade and communication are behind the decrease in violence. If these trends continue, I think we will continue to see less violence. The better we know each other, the less fearful we are of each other, and the better we can help each other.

"While gun crime is down in the vast majority of states, it is up in New York, Virginia, New Jersey, Mississippi, Missouri, Arizona, Delaware, New Hampshire
Massachusetts, North Dakota, Connecticut and several of the smaller states"
http://www.guardian....-crime-us-state

Gun Control could be argued to be a slippery slope but to say it would lead directly to a complete rejection of protection, security and defense (individual) is a bit much don’t you think?

Violence is going down but there were around 554 homicides in Canada in 2011 versus 12,996 in the US. Per-capital that’s more than twice as much.

We still have plenty of legally owned guns in Canada. It’s not about controlling all Guns but rather controlling those 15 extra guns you have which you don’t need.

[Mind]

Individual gun ownership in Canada is as high as in the U.S. What is different between the U.S. and Canada that generates the higher homicide rate?

History and numbers (by many orders of magnitude) are on my side when considering the "slippery slope" type argument. The mass millions of deaths and vast sickening horrors committed by centralized authority dwarf the violence by crazed or violent individuals. It just does. It is usually when people say "it could never happen here" when the shit hits the fan.

Here is something to think about when arguing for more security through centralized authority. How did Anders Breivik easily kill so many victims. He dressed up as a policeman. His victims willingly and chillingly lined up for him. Why? Many have argued that they were conditioned to do whatever the "authority figure" said.

I am actually a "fan" more pervasive surveillance but I want open source voluntary distributed citizen surveillance. Not NSA surveillance. Not secret centralized-authority surveillance (which is very dangerous). I voluntarily cede my privacy to my fellow citizens. I have often thought about putting a streaming camera in the "Longecity office", so everyone can see when I am working for the org. If the TV company I work for would grant permission, I would have no problem with anyone reading any of my emails. In reality, society is evolving this way anyway with social media. Younger generations share more. They are more open. This is a good thing. It is citizen-based and voluntary. The better we know each other, the less fearful we are of each other, and the better we can help each other.

[Lister]

The UK has a pretty strict system of surveillance via CCTV but I’m not sure that’s a reason for their lower gun violence. Seems somewhat useless to me the majority of the time; initially you notice they’re there but eventually you forget entirely and they then lose a lot of their power.

Also Syria’s Gun Laws aren’t that much different to the US yet they’re not fairing very well by their government and those gun’s aren’t stopping the government from mass killing.

Best way to prevent your government from shooting up the country; give everyone a voice instead of a gun. Frances government fears its people (or appears to); could you say that’s because of Guns/Weapons?

Edited by Lister, 14 December 2012 - 11:58 PM.

[Mind]

Citizen based open source voluntary surveillance is better than centralized authority. That is my idea. The better we know each other, the less fearful we are of each other, and the better we can help each other.

[scottknl]

As a Canadian living in the US, I keenly feel the difference between the two societies. One big influence is the prevalence of "serial killer tv". During prime time almost every night there are 10 out of 12 channels in the basic cable package showing varying levels of graphical depictions of serial killings. Some look at serial killings from an emotional perspective and others look at the mechanisms of law enforcement, and yet still others are in a documentary style that just shows the facts. Every night it's a grim parade of violence whose consequences are inspiration for a new set of future serial killers that are grumpy about whatever the reason of the minute may be. It's no surprise to me that it happens here and there and every year gets more often. And don't get me started about the gang violence and police brutality that also plays into the mix.

The last time I checked CBC tv had a lot better content mix than is demonstrated by the US networks en mass.

Overall, it seems to me, to be a pretty high price to pay to have a check and balance in the US govt at the cost of dozens several mass killings each year. In Canada it seems quite rare to have such incidents, but that may be partly due to a 1/10'th smaller population.

Edit: Found an article detailing how many mass shootings occur in US:
http://abcnews.go.co...04#.UMvDQ39fZuk

Edited by scottknl, 15 December 2012 - 12:27 AM.

[Lister]

Overall, it seems to me, to be a pretty high price to pay to have a check and balance in the US govt at the cost of dozens of mass killings each year. In Canada it seems quite rare to have such incidents, but that may be partly due to a 1/10'th smaller population.

Per-capital it's still more than double; edging towards triple. Knowing a lot more about each other Mind is interesting... That may be a tougher one to implement though that a simple set of Gun Controls (IE limiting the sale of Hand guns/Assault weapons).

Remember that when you hold a gun many people feel a sense of Power. It could be said that some of these mass shootings are due to empowerment of the wrong people...

[niner]

This is getting to be routine. Some hands will be wrung, and then we'll go back to our bizarro world where guns are easy to get, because every one needs a gun to protect themselves from everyone who has a gun. That and protecting ourselves from the government... or the Red Dawn scenario.

[Mind]

My opinions are certainly influenced by my upbringing - living in the country, being self reliant, guns in the home, in fact everyone I knew had multiple guns, yet no one shot each other. There were no mass murders or murderers. What is the difference between then and now? Between that environment and this environment? From my own experience, it boils down to culture. My farming community was close knit, mostly religious, hard-working, honest. These values were mutually reinforced. Everyone knew each other. People generally understood each other. Arguments were settled in other ways. Troubled individuals received support.

The culture has definitely changed. We are as a whole, less religious, less family-oriented, less community-oriented, not as hard working or self-reliant. The media/entertainment complex has changed as well and probably reflects society to a good degree. I am not saying we should go back to the "good ol' days", just saying it is something to consider when trying to come up with solutions.

I know other people grew up in other situations with no guns, and for most, everything was fine in those environments as well. I can see how many would just focus on the guns, banning them - seeing that as the ultimate solution. It would probably help in some situations, IMO, but I don't think it would be a panacea.

My opinion is also influenced by history. I just cannot ignore the horrific history of humans being corrupted by the power of centralized authority - wiping hundreds of millions of innocents off the planet. I just can't ignore it. With rapid technological progress in the present day, the situation is even more precarious. The level of checks and balances needs to be even more extreme, in order to protect the general population. We certainly have better tools in the form of cheap sensors to increase our level of self-defense, on a community and individual basis. But we need better monitoring of centralized authority. Open source surveillance (of the "government") is one option.

[scottknl]

In the large Canadian cities I've lived in we would normally have a handful of murders each year, most of which were committed with knives. Often people would survive the beatings and knife attacks. People still argue and make up, but have a much greater chance of surviving when things do get out of hand. Oddly enough, we haven't had overt government corruption over the 150 year Canadian history that required the people to take up arms against our govt. Seems like a funny thing to be vigilant about, eh?

If I remember my US history well, the US has only taken up arms en mass during the civil war, and we know how well that turned out. As a check and balance owning arms seems to be a flawed strategy with a persistent price to pay every year in lives lost against the possibility that maybe one day you could use it to good effect against a bad govt. Does it keep the govt honest? Ummmm I don't think so.

[Mind]

As I asked before. Canadians own a lot of guns, but do not use them to kill each other as often as in the U.S. Why?

As far as corrupt governments go, and the murder of hundreds of millions of people, repeatedly, I can't ignore history. Someone has to at least bring it up. Someone has to remain vigilant. If that makes me "the goat" or "the kook" that is fine. I have a thick skin.

[PWAIN]

Then perhaps we should actively campaign against efforts for longevity and immortality. Given many reigns of terror are only brought to an end by the death of a tyrant and the amount of deaths that occur at their hands, seems like a no brainer. Do you really think a government with all the tech weapons at it's disposal will be stopped by guns?

[niner]

Then perhaps we should actively campaign against efforts for longevity and immortality. Given many reigns of terror are only brought to an end by the death of a tyrant and the amount of deaths that occur at their hands, seems like a no brainer. Do you really think a government with all the tech weapons at it's disposal will be stopped by guns?

Anti-aging/immortality doesn't work that way. It doesn't make you "immortal" in the popular sense, able to withstand bullets and bombs. Those dictators usually die at the hands of another person, not from old age.

You make a much better point asking if an entity like the US Military could be stopped by a few small arms. What are we going to do, shoot the JDAMs out of the sky?

Regarding Canada and the apparently lower incidence of mass shooting there, I'm curious as to how difficult it is to obtain firearms there. It's insanely easy in the US, and the weak control regime that we have is easily circumvented. Is there any other developed nation in the world that makes it as easy as we do for citizens to get guns? Is there a Canadian NRA?

[PWAIN]

Anti-aging/immortality doesn't work that way. It doesn't make you "immortal" in the popular sense, able to withstand bullets and bombs. Those dictators usually die at the hands of another person, not from old age.

Tell that to the Kim Yongs, the Mugabwes, the Castros, The Chavezs, the Khameneis etc etc. There are plenty that are smart enough to not get killed and in some cases be handing down power to their kids. Problem is the kids are not always as adept as the parent and eventually you get the collapse of the regeime. Many have been deposed BECAUSE they were getting old and this was seen as weakness - it only takes one smart one with immortal life to keep things in check indefinetly. Saddam would still be in power if it hadn't been for outside intervention.

Ultimately we are working towards a future where even bullets will not stop the many distributed backups of the dictator - what then? Sure that is some time away but is it before or after Minds US government fears are likely to come to pass?

[PWAIN]

In Australia, we have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. The following is a list of annual deaths resulting from firearms total.

2008: 225
2007: 404
2006: 229
2003: 287
2002: 293
2001: 326
2000: 324
1999: 347
1998: 312
1997: 428
1996: 516
1995: 470
1994: 516
1993: 513
1992: 608
1991: 618
1990: 595
1989: 549
1988: 674
1987: 694
1986: 677
1985: 682
1984: 675
1983: 644
1982: 689
1981: 618
1980: 687
1979: 685

These figures were taken from here:

http://www.gunpolicy...egion/australia


Given Australias very fast growing population, it is probably also worth posting this (annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population):

2010: 1.04¹⁷
2009: 1.02
2008: 1.05
2007: 1.91
2006: 1.10
2003: 1.45
2002: 1.49
2001: 1.68
2000: 1.69
1999: 1.83
1998: 1.67
1997: 2.31
1996: 2.82
1995: 2.59
1994: 2.88
1993: 2.89
1992: 3.47
1991: 3.57
1990: 3.48
1989: 3.26
1988: 4.06
1987: 4.25
1986: 4.21
1985: 4.31
1984: 4.34
1983: 4.20
1982: 4.56
1981: 4.15
1980: 4.67
1979: 4.71

It would be intresting to see similar figures from the US.

[PWAIN]

Country	Civilian firearms per 100 residents[97]	Number of homicides by firearm[98]	Homicide by Firearms --rate per 100,000 population[99]
United States of America	89	9,960	3.2
Switzerland	46	51	0.7
Sweden[100]	31.6	92	1.0
France[101]	31.2	682	1.1
Canada	31	554	1.6
Germany	30	690	0.8
Mexico	15	26,757	22.7
Australia[102]	15	229	1.0
Turkey[103]	12.5
England and Wales	6	41	0.1
Japan[104]	0.6	506	0.4

  

The above table taken from here: http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

Is also pretty intresting in my opinion. I think you really have to ignore all the facts to deny a correlation between gun numbers and gun deaths.

Edited by PWAIN, 16 December 2012 - 10:29 PM.

[rwac]

If instead of firearm homicides, we consider the number of violent crimes, then the US isn't even in the top 10.

 The-most-violent-country-in-Europe-Britain-is-also-worse-than-South-Africa-and-U.S.-Mail-Online-Mozilla-Firefox-1252012-91729-PM.bmp.jpg   202.76KB   4 downloads

http://www.dailymail...Africa-U-S.html

I think all those countries have stronger gun control than the US. When people aren't allowed to have guns and defend themselves, violent crime is more common.