Encyclopedia > Talk:Gun Politics
Talk:Gun politics
Redirected from Talk:Gun Politics
I'm not sure about the title [/Balance of Power] for that page. The page is supposed to discuss the role of privately owned guns in aiding people in (for better or worse) fighting against an existing government. Such a page should cover the widely held view among the "Founding Fathers" of the United States that widespread ownership of guns was important for the maintenance of a good government, as well as covering the widely held modern view that rebels with guns are a bad thing.
Anyhow, I'm not sure what to call that page.
|
Argument of an Pro-Gun Person
Why progressives should stop pushing for more gun control laws -- There are already thousands of them, too many of which don't work. Every ineffective law brings government into disrepute. -- Prohibition of something that large numbers of citizens want always fail, witness the war on the drugs. It merely increases the value of the prohibited item and changes the distributors from honest people to crooks. -- Gun control laws are highly divisive to no good end. Since they don't work well, why get everyone so mad about them? Progressives should instead start finding issues that make people happy. -- Treating gun laws[?] as a national issue exacerbates cultural conflict, such as those between rural and urban, east and west, wealthy and not so well off. Telling rural Westerners to get rid of their guns is like telling an urban blacks to stop reading African-American books. -- There is no evidence that members of the NRA murder people at a higher rate than non-members. It is insulting to gun owners to speak as though they did. Why progressives should stop pushing for more gun control laws (http://www.zpub.com/un/guns) By Sam Smith
Talk
I moved the bit on "why progressives should stop pushing for more gun control laws" to go under "Argument of a Pro-Gun Person", because it has (obvious) pro-gun bias.
Am I wrong to think that the Gun Lobby is mostly an American thing? We in Australia do have a pro-gun lobby, the "Shooters Party", but it seems to me to be a pretty minor and fringe force in Australian politics, not at all like the NRA in the US. I think in Europe its a pretty similar situation; there may be some pro-gun lobbies, but I've never heard of any. And I think most non-Western countries have pretty tough gun laws as well.
Finally, I don't think anyone claims the NRA members murder people more often than non-NRA members, but I would not be suprised if they murder people with guns (as opposed to by other means) more often. And having guns easily available in the community I'm sure increases the incidence of crimes committed using guns -- a lot of guns used in crime are stolen or diverted from legitimate users, so if there were less legitimate gun owners there would be less illegitimate guns also. -- Simon J Kissane
Actually, Simon, it would be astounding to discover that NRA members murder people with guns more often than non-NRA members. The demographics of murders (the vast majority of which have prior criminal records) and NRA members are wildly different. The vast majority of serious criminological research supports exactly the opposite conclusion from your other hypothesis, too: having guns easily available in a community has no correlation with crime in that community, and in fact, laws which have liberalized concealed carry have been shown to significantly reduce crime.
Let me make a meta-comment about this page: it's going to be very hard to write this page in a way that is satisfactory to all parties. One big difference between pro-gun people and anti-gun people is that pro-gun people tend to be much more involved with the issue, and to therefore have all the facts and figures at their quick disposal. So they won't stand for saying things like "I'm sure X, Y, and Z are the case." when the author isn't really sure in the sense of being able to cite research, but is really speaking colloquially for "I bet X, Y, and Z are the case."
On the other hand, being involved in the issue, the pro-gun people who have all the facts and figures at their disposal will tend to present them in a very pro-gun light. This makes for bias, too, of course, and the Wikipedia is no place for political agendas.
It seems as if at least some mention should be made here of the Brady bill.
- And of other recent gun policy changes. For example, academic research by John Lott shows a decrease in crime in states which have enacted liberalized laws for concealed carry -- this has been a major trend since the 1990s. All of this should be covered on the Gun Politics page as we flesh it out.
I think the opening statement is wrong. Guns aren't controversial anywhere other than the USA. They're simply regarded as bad. There is no equivalent to the NRA anywhere else (except maybe in Switzerland?). And certainly, nobody outside the USA campaigns to be allowed to use assault rifles or any such things. As an example, I was given the impression that bombs are more of a problem (or a sensation anyways) in Germany than guns.
- I was under the impression that in Israel, nearly everyone served a year or two at least in the armed forces and kept a weapon at home from then on, both for self-defense and national defense. Not sure if these are handguns or assault rifles. Was I mistaken? As for Switzerland, I've heard gun advocates claim that one reason Hitler didn't invade Switzerland is because of widespread firearm ownership by individuals. Wesley
. 128.193.88.60 --Revision need to be neutral and agreed upon. As this page was. Please stop reverting it to your personal opinion. --rmhermen
Are there no gun politics in Australia? I thought I heard that they just recently (in the last few years) passed a law outright banning guns in at least one or two provinces, with an attendant spike in violent crime. Wesley
A question like "Should some types of weapons be more heavily regulated or banned then others?" isn't NPOV. A neutral version of this question would be "Does the government have the lawful authority and moral right to regulate weapons". The original question presupposes this.
- but then does the government have the moral authority to ban drugs? or explosives? surely not. Could the gun lobby please add to their campaign my right to smoke a spliff? I'm a Brit, so this issue I know nothing about. I'll leave it to someone else to debate with you -- Tarquin 00:32 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)
- I think the best way to resolve this would be to include both questions - Something like:
- Does the government have the right to regulate weapons?
- If so, should it do so?
- If so, should some types of weapons be more heavily regulated than others, or even banned?
- Andre Engels 07:50 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)
- AN interesting (though admittedly not NPOV) question is if the Government has no right to limit weapons (or restrict them to people with legitimate purposes) then do they have the right to limit weapons of other governments? It seems to me that the NRA should be campaigning for the right of Saddam Hussain to keep his weapons as much as that of militia groups in the woods. -- Chris Q 07:57 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)
Removed from article:
- Some advocates maintain that the "militia" meant the entire armed populace, and thus that it was intended to guarantee personal, individual possession of
128, usually we copy disputed text to the talk page -- rather than just deleting it. That makes it easier to resolve the dispute. --Ed Poor
(Ed, it was coming, we were editing at the same time).
Ed Poor: Some advocates maintain that the "militia" meant the entire armed populace, and thus that it was intended to guarantee personal, individual possession of arms. Other advocates maintain that only bearing arms was only intended for a government-sanctioned militia, such as the modern National Guard.
- The disagreement today isn't over what militia meant back then, but what militia means today. There is overwhelming tradition, writing, and evidence that in the 1500's through 1700's the militia was simply the armed body of the populus. Where the two sides currently fail to see eye-to-eye is on who is the militia in the 20th (and 21st) century. Is the still the populus, or is it now the National Guard?
I thought the disagreement was over what militia meant back then, because gun control advocates argue that "the Second Amendment was never intended to give gun rights to individuals" and that laws making it next to impossible for sane, law-abiding people to carry concealed pistols in, say, New York City are Constitutional. Others, like me, argue that the Second Amendment was intended to guarantee individual gun possession and that restrictive gun control laws are un-Constitutional.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying the Wikipedia should endorse my view. I'm just saying that the views of both sides should be represented, as well as their arguments. --Ed Poor
- I do not believe the above correctly characterizes the current state of the dispute. I believe that the following is the current state of the debate regarding "the militia".
- 1: Both sides agree that the 2nd amendment mentions the "militia".
- 2: Both sides agree that at one time, the militia was the common body of the population.
- 3: The two sides disagree over who the militia is today. "gun control" advocates say the current militia is the National Guard. "gun rights" advocates say the current militia remains the populus.
- 4: The two sides disagree over whether the militia clause is even relevant, i.e. whether "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a dependant clause on the "well regulated militia" part.
- If you have evidence that the "mainstream gun control" movement (to coin a phrase) believes that the populus was *never* the militia, I'd be a little surprised.
- A quick search on "militia" at handguncontrol.org turned up this 2nd amendment analysis: http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issuebriefs/second.asp. It argues that the second amendment never applied to the populace at large, and that at the time, the militia referred to state militias that were well regulated. Wesley
- Interesting Wesley, but confusing. Nonetheless, you appear to have found something that claims that the militia wasn't the population. They seem to be playing with words, because they say the militia was "able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45" who were "ordinary citizens" responsible for "supplying their own firearms". They all but say who the militia was, then they turn and say this wasn't the "populus at large". True, sure, women and blacks and children and such weren't part of the militia, but it certainly wasn't a narrowly defined group.
- I'm trying really hard not to examine the logic of their claims, but just read their claims on the face - They do say plainly that "Today's equivalent of a "well-regulated" militia — the National Guard", and I am saying that this is the key part that should be presented here.
No, I don't think that is the shade of disagreement, although I'm struggling to put into words the specifics.
To clarify, here are some of the aspects of the debate that I'm NOT discussing:
(A) whether 2nd amendment is a individual or collective right. (B) whether the "right to bear" clause depends on the "militia" clause. (C) who is the "militia" today?
I'm trying to narrow in on this question: "Who do gun-control advocates claim were members of the militia at the time the 2nd amendment was written".
From bradycampaign.org: ...each of the states had its own "militia" ... comprised of ordinary citizens ... supplying their own firearms ...
Now I'm going to paraphrase how I parse what bradycampaign.org is saying "The second amendment protects the right of the state militia, not of the individual. At one time the militia was made up of "ordinary citizens", but today the militia is the national guard. Therefore there is no individual right to own firearms."
To restate, I still don't see the gun control groups saying that the believe that militia weren't (a long time ago) made up of "ordinary folk" with their personal weapons.
Gun control argument
- The Second Amendment did not give the right for individuals to bear arms, except as part of a "militia", meaning a government-controlled body.
- Laws that prevent individuals from bearing arms today are valid, because they are not taking away Constitutional rights.
Gun rights argument
- The Second Amendment gave the right for individuals to bear arms, because the people who wrote the Bill of Rights used the word "militia" to mean "any citizen"
- Laws that prevent individuals from bearing arms today are unconstitutional, because they are taking away Constitutional rights rights.
I have never heard anyone on either side of the controversy say, "Well, the militia meant the general populace back then, so from the 1790s well into the 19th century individuals did indeed have the Constitutional right to bear arms without having to belong to any kind of government group. But times have changed, so I don't think people should have that right any more." And there's a very good reason no one ever makes that argument: because if the Constitution _orginally_ guaranteed a right, then that right can't be taken away except by an amendment. --Ed Poor
Is the above meant as a proposal for what the two sides intended? Should I show proposed edits?
- Yes, it's a proposal. I have summarized the controversy in the body of the article. Please, let's not try to suppress the fact that the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is disputed. Rather, I suggest we focus on refining the nature and details of that dispute. --Ed Poor
Quick change of subject, getting back to Simon's idea:
- having guns easily available in the community I'm sure increases the incidence of crimes committed using guns
Let's insert into the article the gun control argument Simon is mentioning. We could also present opposing arguments, if any. Also, comments from sociologists or the FBI or anyone else who studies crime statistics would be useful.
One of the issues addressed in More Guns, Less Crime is whether possession of guns by law-abiding people increases or decreases gun crime. While it is fairly obvious that illegal gun ownership helps career criminals prey on innocent unarmed citizens, it would be useful to find out through research whether the converse is true. --Ed Poor
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License
|
Search Encyclopedia
|
Featured Article
|