Guns

[Vigilante]

What I meant was that modern dictatorship involves lulling the people to sleep so they have no desire for rebellion... and I feel it's kind of happened already.

Truer words were never spoken.

The idea of armed citizens to protect the people from a potential dictator is IMO not a bad one. However as far as I can see:
-The imbalance between the force available to the state and the people nowadays would render a rebellion ineffective

Tell that to the US military. The rebellion in Iraq, one consisting almost entirely of small arms and home-made bombs, has created nightmares for them. It continues to be a nightmare and will be for the foreseeable future. These are simple civilians with simple arms using simple tactics. Most of modern warfare's truly great advances--nukes and submarines, for instance--aren't even relevant in dealing with civilian rebellion. The vast majority of Uprising VS State conflict involves rifles, handguns, grenades, and other small arms. And by virtue of America's possession of a vastly larger civilian population, we would pose an even greater threat than the Iraqis. Armed civilians are truly the sleeping lion. Prod the lion enough, suffer his wrath.

-The side-effects of wide-spread firearm availability have been so devastating the remote possibility of firearms being useful in a dictorship context no is longer a sufficient justification

Wide-spread firearm availability is only devastating if private, responsible citizens don't take advantage of their ownership. It is cliche to say that criminals will purchase guns illegally. This is a problem that every single country in the world has. If criminals purchase are able to purchase guns through legal avenues as well, this presents an even great problem. The problem begins to reverse itself, however, when responsible citizens start arming themselves.

As the rate of gun ownership among law-abiding citizens goes up, the risk involved in committing a crime goes up. As the risk involved in committing a crime goes up, the amount of people willing to commit that crime goes down. As the rate of people willing to commit crime goes down, fewer crimes will be committed. In effect, an increase in firearm ownership on the part of law-abiding citizens leads to a decrease in crime. To illustrate:

Ten men live on an island. One criminal owns a gun, the other innocent nine are unarmed. The innocent nine survive by collecting fruits, vegetables and coconut milk. The criminal must choose between collecting those same foods and using his gun to attempt theft from one of the innocent nine. The criminal will find it preferable to commit crime.

Ten new men live on an island. One criminal owns a gun, but now the other innocent nine brandish firearms. The innocent nine survive by collecting fruits, vegetables and coconut milk. In their spare time, they shoot rotten coconuts for target practice. The criminal must choose between collecting those same foods and using his gun to attempt theft from one of the innocent nine. The would-be criminal will find that digging for carrots ain't so bad after all.

This is just basic economics as expressed by the law of diminishing marginal utility. If you object, I invite you to disprove this 150-year-old theory.

If I'm not mistaken, the US has more privately owned firearms than any country in the world. (129 million in 1997 according to the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. The number is probably higher now.) You would expect with a number that high to see a great deal of instances of self-defense. And you do. I will repeat the statistic I offered earlier:

"Firearms are used defensively roughly 2.5 million times per year, more than four times as many as criminal uses. This amounts to 2,575 lives protected for every life lost to a gun."

To erase lawful ownership of firearms would be to erase those 2.5 million instances of self-protection. Every instance of an unlawful use of a firearm is regrettable, and there are many, but it is absolutely imperative to remember that those instances are far outweighed by the instances of legitimate self-protection. Every action contains a cost and, the actor hopes, a benefit. These are indisputably true categories of action as expressed by action's praxeological axiom. To ban firearms in the US would be to destroy the benefit and place the cost on a virtual podium. It simply doesn't make sense.

Obviously, the statistics I cited refer to America. Every country has its own problems involving guns. If you'd like to shrink yours, I'd invite you to promote the private ownership of firearms.

I recommend Sig-Sauers.

 

[Tuffguy]

The problem is you are referring to fine political debate without a grasp of the basic concepts... Getting into philosophy before getting around the basic mecanisms.

Although the deep meaning of the word democracy can be debated in some higher spheres, on this thread the word is obviously being used to differenciate between a variety of basic political models, with the USA featuring prominently as a perfect example of democracy according to all the internationaly recognised conceptions of the word on the geopolitical scene.

The article you are quoting is interesting intellectualy - the kind that attempts to challenge a undisputable fact just for the fun a brainstorming. It plays on the origins of the word, and with historical references and contexts.

On the political level, the USA is undisputably a democracy. Philosophicaly, it can be argued differently, for the fun of it. However, your original argument that the lack of presence of the word in the constitution was any kind of indication with regards to its democratic status is entirely flawed, since once again a state is democratic in nature, not by name or by organisation.

How is it an undisputed fact that America was founded as a democracy? Is it fact because it was taught to you at college or because Europeans believe it to be true? No way!

If the founding fathers stated that they are starting a republic, i'm sure they knew what they where talking about.

 

[charlie_hunter]

I think this discussion has been seriously deviated from the original topic of gun control. kudo's to those bringing it back in line!

i think the v-tech incident shows the world where america is currently at with its relationship with guns. innocent people pay a blood tax to hold on to archaic attitudes, laws and a religion (which is how many americans treat the constitution) created hundreds of years ago.

Port Authur happens in Australia and the government heavly restricts firearms, no such incident happens again. Dunblane happens and the UK restricts firearms, again, no such incident happens again. Colimbine happens and the Right of the US blame the parents, TV and Marylin Manson. V-Tech happens a few years later and no major debate is sparked.......in the future the same thing will happen again and again and again untill something changes!

other countries learn and move forward. America seems obsessed with living in the middle ages, afraid of English comming back or something?


i find it frustrating that innocent lives must suffer because of the violent majority and the false sense of insecurity that they feel in their safty.

 

[Vigilante]

My question is: Would there have been martyrs if the early Christians had followed and acted according to their 'constitutional rights'?

The entirety of this post was really well thought out. You turned what I thought was a clear answer into tangled pile of spaghetti. Well done.

The question you pose above is obviously rhetorical. The answer is "no." It seems to me, if I'm following your train of thought, that you are proposing pacifism. While I'm not so close-minded that I wouldn't consider it, I have a few issues with it.

God is, has been, and will be the same forever and always. That much is certain. If God has done something in the past, we can accept that it is within His nature that He might choose to do it again. This God that we serve has deliberately used His people to take the lives of others. The Israelites come to mind. Samson comes to mind. I'm nowhere close to a Biblical scholar (you're leaps and bounds more knowledgeable than me on this subject), so there may be others that I don't know about. But if it is possible that God used the Israelites to slay the wicked, it is also at least possible that God may choose to use the Americans, or Swiss, or Nigerians, or any other nation for that matter, to slay the wicked.

What then about the martyrs? While it's true that it has served God's purposes for His people to slay the wicked, it might also be true that it has served His purposes for His people do the opposite. Maybe those who sacrificed their lives did so as an act of obedience for that particular circumstance. In His wisdom, He asked our ancestors to kill. In His wisdom, He asked other ancestors to lay down their lives.

As far as I can tell, the Bible doesn't command absolutist self-defense or pacifism. Maybe the most accurate principle would be "pacifism when without an order of God to the contrary, and war with the order."

Maybe you can straighten this out some more?


Edit: Actually, Jesus' overturning of the tables of those who violated the synagogue wasn't the act of an absolutist pacifist, either. If He were, He would have merely reprimanded them. The plot thickens!

 

[joanna1]

How is it an undisputed fact that America was founded as a democracy? Is it fact because it was taught to you at college or because Europeans believe it to be true? No way!

If the founding fathers stated that they are starting a republic, i'm sure they knew what they where talking about.

But being a republic has nothing to do with whether or not a country is a democracy......... Why are you even mentionning it??? It completely, totally, and utterly irrelevant.

A "democracy" is, and I quote the cambridge american edition dictionnary again, "a country in which the power is held by elected representatives"..... In the USA the power is held by elected representatives. Surely you are not contesting that? Therefore it is a democracy. There's nothing more to it. It's not an insult or anything... It's a TECHNICAL term. Not one that carries a different meaning in different parts of the globe.


Republic, monarchy, democracy (direct and indirect), theocracy, the different modes of electing representatives, the distinction between imperative and representative mandates, ect... all simple technical concepts that carry no european bias in their definition I assure you...

-A monarchy, like GB (or Belgium, Spain), can be a democracy.
-Republics, like France, the USA, can be democracies.
-The republic can be federal (Germany, USA) or unitarian (France).
-It can be presidential (the USA, France leaning that way).
-It can be parlementary (Germany) The monarchy can be parlementary (GB)
-The position of head of state can be individual, or shared (switzerland has a commission of seven leaders).
-The representatives can be bound by imperative mandates, or have representative functions. The later offer more freedom (the USA)
-Direct democracy involves the people governing themselves (ancient greece, certain local autorities in Switzerland)
-There can also be elements of direct democracy in indirect democracies (like referendums or the right to petition...)
-Not all Republics are democracies (China) Not all monarchies are democracies. Therefore, the status of a country as a republic or a monarchy, to quote just 2 possible political organisational models, is completely irrelevant to it's status as a democracy. The confusion probably stems from the fact both France and the USA adopted the republican model at a time when the idea o democracy was emerging. Yet they are not linked, in any way.


-Some countries, like china, abuse the word democratic in their name to give the impression of putting the people first. This must not cloud's one's judgement when it comes to defining the word democracy.

PS: sorry for getting frustrated...

 

[joanna1]

Edit: Actually, Jesus' overturning of the tables of those who violated the synagogue wasn't the act of an absolutist pacifist, either. If He were, He would have merely reprimanded them. The plot thickens!

ITA this is where the bible is fascinating... It's complex and open to interpretation and very deliberately ambiguous on so many issues. That's why any type of black and white, one-sided view of any moral issue scare me no end. I find we simplify God way too much..

By sending his word in an art form, IMO he was encouraging us to think things through. Throughout biblical times, the solutions and answers provided evolved, and what was right in one place was wrong in another (with regards to use of violence particularly...) By giving us all different abilities, levels of understanding cultural contexts to be raised in he didn't mean for one answer to be right and another wrong.
God inspired the Bible, and since we cannot read his book in the light of his personal "life and context" as we would for a human author, we will never be able to grasp, or even make an educated guess, at his intentions! That's why collective brainstorming is so much fun.

 

[Tuffguy]

I got this from the same dictionary.

democracy
noun
1 the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves:

2 [C] a country in which power is held by elected representatives:

and this

republic
noun [C]
a country without a king or queen, usually governed by elected representatives of the people and a president:

It seems that the dictonary itself uses almost the same description for democracy and republic. This doesn't mean its accurate.

The distinction i am trying to make is this. A democracy may have elected officials just like a republic. However, the main distinction is the rights of the minority cannot be voted away by the majority with a republic.

 

[TwistTim]

to get back on track... you can do a search on Google Video for this interesting if impractical application.... UZI in a breifcase.... the handle is the firing mechanism..... only good that would be is if your in a business metting and a shooter walks into, you grab it and put a hole though him..... it just seems to clunky though...... what do you guys think?

 

[Luther073082]

The distinction i am trying to make is this. A democracy may have elected officials just like a republic. However, the main distinction is the rights of the minority cannot be voted away by the majority with a republic.

Actually I was told that in a true democracy the people vote on everything and there arn't really any elected representatives.

It became very inefficent.

Long live the republic.

to get back on track... you can do a search on Google Video for this interesting if impractical application.... UZI in a breifcase.... the handle is the firing mechanism..... only good that would be is if your in a business metting and a shooter walks into, you grab it and put a hole though him..... it just seems to clunky though...... what do you guys think?

I'd rather just carry a concealed pistol. . . Although honestly I just can't think of a comfortable place where I could conceal a weapon.

 

[Suomipoika]

to get back on track... you can do a search on Google Video for this interesting if impractical application.... UZI in a breifcase.... the handle is the firing mechanism..... only good that would be is if your in a business metting and a shooter walks into, you grab it and put a hole though him..... it just seems to clunky though...... what do you guys think?

I think that chewing on the thought of "putting a hole through someone" is sick and anti-Christ-like. Oh well, maybe it's just the non-bleeding-hearts who like the idea of making others' hearts bleed... (Or did I miss something? After all, "a hole though him" isn't exactly the same as "a hole through him". Pheeewh, for a second I thought you were daydreaming of killing a man..)

 

[Luther073082]

I think that chewing on the thought of "putting a hole through someone" is sick and extremely anti-Christ-like.

The bible makes it extremly clear that you are allowed to defend yourself. I'm not going to look for someone to blow away, but if he's going to shoot me or any other innocent people I'll introduce him to the one true God for judgement.

 

[Suomipoika]

The bible makes it extremly clear that you are allowed to defend yourself. I'm not going to look for someone to blow away, but if he's going to shoot me or any other innocent people I'll let him meet the one true God for judgement.

Tell me, would you be willing to die for your faith like the martyrs?

 

[Luther073082]

Tell me, would you be willing to die for your faith like the martyrs?

I can not truely tell you the answer to that unless I am put in that situation. I don't belive that anyone can, because people face death differently and most won't know how they would handle it until they have gone through it at least once. I would pray God gives me that strength. But either way it has very little to do with this conversation. The martyrs didn't just let themselves be killed, but they where forced to choose between renouncing Christ and death.

 

[TwistTim]

Yes, I would be willing to die for my faith, but I wouldn't die stupidly because someone wanted to kill me for something other than my faith..... what's the point? there is none.....

as far as putting a hole through someone.... it doesn't mean you have to kill someone, just shot them to incapacitate.... sometimes that might me justifiable homicide.... sometimes just shooting them in the knee would work.... as long as they stop shooting.....

and nowhere in the Bible does it say "Thou shalt not Dreamest thou of killing a man in a scenario wherest thou might have to deal with such a thing"......

my mind likes to play a lot of what ifs scenario's.... I tend to think though things I don't need to.... but I have a plan or comment handy also a lot of the time.......mostly stuff about the day.... sometimes it's funny.....

 

[Luther073082]

and nowhere in the Bible does it say "Thou shalt not Dreamest thou of killing a man in a scenario wherest thou might have to deal with such a thing"......

You read the King James Version don't you?

Suomipoika, here is the thing, in America we are very culturally independent people. We are taught to take matters into our own hands if someone isn't there to take care of the problem. IE if someone goes on a shooting spree against unarmed people and one of us has a gun we take matters into our own hands and we shoot him back.

And you have to understand that this is comming from a person who does not and never has carried or owned a firearm.

I might buy myself one when I have a family, espeically if I have a daughter. Got to have something to clean when daughter brings home guys.

 

[Suomipoika]

I can not truely tell you the answer to that unless I am put in that situation. I don't belive that anyone can, because people face death differently and most won't know how they would handle it until they have gone through it at least once. I would pray God gives me that strength. But either way it has very little to do with this conversation. The martyrs didn't just let themselves be killed, but they where forced to choose between renouncing Christ and death.

I think it does have relevance to this conversation. Martyrdom was really seen as sort of a test of faith at the times of the early church. The Apostles didn't urge the Christians to arm themselves for a battle against the persecutors. Some of the martyrs were even extremely eager about facing their death and giving a strong witness of Christ. You could also think about this following situation that I wrote in my previous post:

*********

Imagine that you are an American citizen making a time trip to the era of the early Church that is currently plagued with some serious persecution by the Roman empire and preparing to witness to Christ in the 'martyr way'. You walk up to the Christians saying, "Hey guys, I got some swords here. Take 'em. You have a constitutional right to arm yourselves against those evil tyrants". What do you think their response would be?

My question is: Would there have been martyrs if the early Christians had followed and acted according to their 'constitutional rights'?

*********

Well, you might realize that the question I presented above was rhetoric in nature.

And I do realize that all this martyr stuff might not be 100% equal with the subject of self-defence. On one hand I don't believe that total pacifism is a valid solution to anything, but on the other hand I'm extremely disgusted to see Christians promoting "I love justified homicide" banners. Whenever a justified homicide has to take place, it must be a necessary evil and the very last available option, and nothing, absolutely nothing to 'love'. Sorry, TwistTim, I shouldn't get too polemic if I don't know the other person's true intentions.

And no way do I think facing a martyr's death would be a piece of cake.

 

[Luther073082]

Well first of all justified homocide is a necessary evil but we view it as one we should be prepared for.

Secondly the early church didn't encourage fighting against their persecutors for one simple reason. THEY COULD NOT WIN IF THEY DID FIGHT. I mean your looking at the might and power of the Roman empire with its legions of well trained, and battle hardened troops with armor and full body shields and javelins and gladius's. Vs. a small group of hundreds who might be able to just afford a sword with little to no training or experience.

You can't win that battle so you might as well go down proclaiming Christ through your death then to fight and lose.

If I'm carrying a gun and Sun Cho or whatever his name was comes in blasting people, I CAN win that battle.

 

[Suomipoika]

Right, they would've stood no chance if they'd began a fight against the emperor's forces. But on the other hand, there was Paul and Romans 13 very emphatically telling them not to arm up against the powers-that-be. And you can clearly see that spirit in all of the history of the first Christians. They took what we today read in our Bibles as Romans 13 very seriously and thus they saw that martyrdom was their part if faced with such serious persecution. Based on your reading of the New Testament, can you imagine Apostles having a meeting and deciding that "no, there's no way we could beat the emperor's forces, so let's move to plan b, where facing martyrdom is an option"?

 

[Luther073082]

Right, they would've stood no chance if they'd began a fight against the emperor's forces. But on the other hand, there was Paul and Romans 13 very emphatically telling them not to arm up against the powers-that-be. And you can clearly see that spirit in all of the history of the first Christians. They took what we today read in our Bibles as Romans 13 very seriously and thus they saw that martyrdom was their part if faced with such serious persecution. Based on your reading of the New Testament, can you imagine Apostles having a meeting and deciding that "no, there's no way we could beat the emperor's forces, so let's move to plan b, where facing martyrdom is an option"?

I don't think it took a meeting or discussion to establish that.

They arn't going to arm themselves because it would be a pointless excersize. Look you are talking about two different things though. You are talking about going from a group of followers just trying to worship Christ and staying in hiding into an all out bloody war against the Roman Imperial Legions (of doom)

I'm talking about a thief or a random pointless killer or something like that. He isn't after me because I'm a Christian and he's not legal he is illegal in what he's doing anyways. Standing there and taking it doesn't teach the world anything about Christ.

Imagine if these very same Christians had a thief break into their house. One man. Would they have killed them or at least hurt him to stop him from hurting them. Of course! If I remember right Jesus even told his diciples to sell everything in order to have a sword with them before walking through a dangerous area.

Letting a bandit rob or kill them isn't going to spread the message. Bravely facing persecution does.

 

[Suomipoika]

I don't think it took a meeting or discussion to establish that.

They arn't going to arm themselves because it would be a pointless excersize. Look you are talking about two different things though. You are talking about going doing anyways. Standing there and taking it doesn't from a group of followers just trying to worship Christ and staying in hiding into an all out bloody war against the Roman Imperial Legions (of doom)

I'm talking about a thief or a random pointless killer or something like that. He isn't after me because I'm a Christian and he's not legal he is illegal in what he's teach the world anything about Christ.

Imagine if these very same Christians had a thief break into their house. One man. Would they have killed them or at least hurt him to stop him from hurting them. Of course! If I remember right Jesus even told his diciples to sell everything in order to have a sword with them before walking through a dangerous area.

Letting a bandit rob or kill them isn't going to spread the message. Bravely facing persecution does.

Right. Now I think I'm on the same page with you. But definetily not killed him (the thief) unless by a very unfortunate accident. Rather, injured him if needed and then taken him into their house and taken care of his wounds and told him about Christ, without a grudge for him having broken into their house and trying to hurt them (that is, in a Christ-like manner). And that attitude is very seldom found among these so-called neo-conservative gun-loving "rid the earth of evil scums" Christians.

As for the persecution stuff, you can read my post (number 180 in this thread). I had a nice discussion going on with Vigilante there, and I'll continue when I have energy to write a lenghty response again.