Looking for good arguments for a pro-gun society... difficult

[Ordinary_guy]

I appreciate all the input from you. And I also feel grateful for the (relative...) respect you feel towards each other and don't lash out at each other as I have seen in many other places.

While I feel that I know what kind of society I would like to see and how it could be made, and in that I include the right of every person and citizen to be able to defend himself and his family, I also feel that it's VERY difficult to have such world view where I live, with the almost impossible and irrational fear that most people seem to feel towards guns and weapons. It seems that the worst places for these tendencies actually are in the countries that ought to be most grateful for weapons. The countries that have managed to keep a peace for a relatively long time. But the citizens have been dozing off in their material comfort and illusional safety brought by a Strong State that makes you believe that it will keep you safe no matter what. But we need to remind ourselves that the basic safety and security must come from ourselves, not from an outside party. But with the exception of the need to keep together to fend off unfairness and people with ill intent. I just need to ventilate my mind a bit from these unreasonable ideas that seem to perpetuate even in the US that everything should be controlled by the State, "becuase it's good for you"... Ok, enough of the rant. Time for bed in my time zone...

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by manta49

. . . .

Do you really think all the problems in Chicago are just down to firearms policies, i would think there are a lot of issues in Chicago gangs unemployment drugs etc. While i am pro gun, like most things i like to look at both sides of the debate and make my mind up regarding pro and anti gun arguments.

Had you read my post carefully, you would realize that I did not say that "the problems in Chicago are just down to firearms policies." I've made it somewhat simpler by highlighting the part of my post that makes that point clear.

Originally Posted by manta49

. . . .

That's not a good argument for pro gun, follow that logic and there is no point in having any laws as some people will ignore and brake them. Some people should not have firearms legally violent criminals etc. The fact that they can obtain them illegally is not a good reason to have no restrictions on them being able to walk into a shop and legally buy a firearm. Just like saying there is no point in having drink laws, because as we all know some will drink and drive anyway.

If taken to its logical extreme, that might be true, but it's not necessarily true. The comparison to DWI laws is downright silly. There is no right, constitutional, statutory, or otherwise, to drink and drive. Nor is there any need to drink and drive. The right or need to own the weapons to defend one's own life is quite a different matter.

[Spats McGee]

This thread is not intended to be a discussion of knife or acid attack laws. Going further down that road will lead to infractions.

[johnwilliamson062]

If you are going to cite John Lott be prepared to address some of the issues with his research related to accusation he fabricated data.

[Lohman446]

As long as everyone gives up their guns including criminals, security forces, the police, the military, those protecting politicians, and the politicians I’m willing to give up mine. If guns are inherently evil and dangerous than entrusting them to anyone seems to be a logical flaw

[DaleA]

As long as everyone gives up their guns including criminals, security forces, the police, the military, those protecting politicians, and the politicians I’m willing to give up mine.

Hmmm....let me think about that for a bit.............

Nope. Still not gonna.

P.S. I suspect you were just having fun with me anyway.

[HiBC]

johnwilliamson:

If you are going to cite John Lott be prepared to address some of the issues with his research related to accusation he fabricated data.

I'm not questioning your intent,but the way this is presented ...I have a problem.Its vague and incomplete.It resembles smear propaganda. You give no source or specifics.

The casual reader will think "Hmm,John Lotts work is flawed and discredited" but they will not do the research to dig up and read the back story. It resembles a fake news cheap shot.

I'm not inclined to do research to validate something that you have not validated yourself. And please,no "Google it"
I request that you google it,post who made the claim,what the claim was,etc.
or I'm afraid I must dismiss your comment as "fabricated data"

[K_Mac]

But the citizens have been dozing off in their material comfort and illusional safety brought by a Strong State that makes you believe that it will keep you safe no matter what. But we need to remind ourselves that the basic safety and security must come from ourselves, not from an outside party.

Very well said. The illusion of freedom and safety under the watchful eye of a strong and benevolent government is powerful. The American Founding Fathers and thinking people throughout history understood that unless government answers to the people, who are able to limit governmental power, there is neither freedom nor safety. That is still true today. Without the freedom to keep and bear arms we at the mercy of others. Whether those others are good or evil it is dangerous, and it is not liberty.

[johnwilliamson062]

I'm not questioning your intent,but the way this is presented ...I have a problem.Its vague and incomplete.It resembles smear propaganda. You give no source or specifics.

We are discussing arguments one can take to a civil discussion of educated individuals. What I said is all I believe needs to be said in that context. If someone is too lazy to look up the details of the controversy they shouldn't cite him. He has plenty of good work that isn't directly linked to the controversy. There is a reason he hasn't published much in the last two decades.

The basics show up in his wikipedia article. It has been covered here before. If someone is too lazy to look up the details that is not my problem. There are pages and pages. Really, anyone at all interested in the RKBA discussion should be aware. Bring up John Lott to an educated anti-gunner and you'd better be prepared for them to try and jam it back down your throat. Many of the other posters in this thread who posted are aware of his work. I considered suggesting his work. My guess is the others decided not to for the same reason I didn't. They would prefer not to drag his baggage into any arguments.
Most people don't believe he performed an extensive survey, lost all records of it in a series of events, can not remember the names any of the graduate students involved in the survey, none of those graduate students were willing to come forward on their own, etc. Whether he did it or not, it is a big pile of baggage that contaminates all of his work.

His decision to register a pseudonym claiming to be a prior student and defend himself believing the faux anonymity of the internet would protect his true identity was just foolish early internet folly. Laughable, but also forgivable.

Fraud in research is more common then many want to believe, especially fabricating or simulating expensive and time consuming test/survey results. Lazy grad students sometimes fabricate results without their employers knowledge. Sometimes people pay to attach their names to research or come to be attached by some other agreement and really have nothing to do with the research, then get burned when the person performing research gets lazy. I sat at lunch with several faculty of a research institution one afternoon where they openly discussed how they were manipulating their current research in order to receive funding for continuation research when it was done. Mostly by choosing clearly incorrect statistical methods. One of those 'do they realize I am here at the table?' moments. Research was their job. They needed to make sure that at the end of their current project they had a lead in to another project in order to pay their mortgages.

[doofus47]

HiBC:

My interpretation? A nut job * walked into a Walmart to run up a body count,a wolf among sheep.No telling how many he would have killed before police could respond .As he killed the third,he notices armed citizens drawing lawfully held concealed weapons. OOPS! Now he is NOT a wolf among sheep.
He stops killing and walks away. Response time,seconds.Results:Killing stopped. Threat over...Armed citizens ,responsibly,did not fire a shot.

Whether or not HiBC's interpretation of the event (that the shooter was frightened away by the sight of defensive weaponry) is correct or not, the fact remains that the often-seen (on crime scene video) behavior of a shooter wandering aimlessly through a public space and shooting unarmed victims was NOT going to happen in this case. The lawfully carrying citizens would have delayed/deterred/driven off the shooter even if those citizens were only defending themselves. This is not theoretical speculation. I have found no video evidence anywhere of a criminal or mass-shooter advancing into the face of defensive gunfire. You won't either.

Ordinary_Guy, you ask if "a pro-gun society brings about a safer and just society".

To your main inquiry, I would say that:
1. No society is perfectly just nor perfectly safe.
2. Allowing ALL citizens the capability to use the most efficient means to defend themselves and their family members when confronted by unsafe or unjust situations (whether criminal / ad hoc or institutional) creates a baseline expectation of all citizens that they can control their own lives and that to some degree the community they build and inhabit is beholden to them and they are not dependent on a society that might be hostile to them.

I'm painting in broad strokes, but I'm trying to point out the fundamental empowerment that firearm ownership entails. Not everyone might feel that they need that type of empowerment; fair enough. Not always is that type of empowerment required to be exercised in any society:true. However, a society that feels its citizens are capable of owning and responsibly using that type of basic empowerment would seem to have a higher regard for the value and capabilities of each of its citizens. This level of appreciation of the value of each citizen would seem a good foundation for ordering a just society.

[44 AMP]

if you can find some GOOD sources of research with the indications that a pro-gun society brings about a safer and just society.

I'm not sure there are any, and I'm not certain the premise is sound, to begin with. Before I could agree with "safer and just" I'd have to know what is meant by those terms. And then I'd have to decide if a "pro-gun" society would actually bring that about. I can think of no historical example where a pro-gun attitude in society (meaning personal arms are tolerated and approved of) where that single factor brought about a "safer and just society" all by itself.

I think a pro-gun attitude allows for a safer and just society, but it takes more than that to actually create and maintain that society. Just as it takes much more than an anti-gun attitude to create an maintain a safe and just society.

Studies are wonderful things, but both sides do them, both sides come up with results that support their viewpoints, and both sides attack the other side's studies as inaccurate, incorrect, and irrelevant.

I think the only "study" that matters in this argument is the study of history. One doesn't have to even look deeply, its there to be seen, our entire history has been one of armed men oppressing unarmed men. Guns, or swords, or clubs or just disparity of force, those are a matter of technique.

Anyone who thinks that simply removing guns from the equation makes us safe is #1) ignoring the brutality that happened during of thousands of years where the sword, spear, bow, and axe were the tools, and guns didn't even exist. And, #2) they ought to go spend some time in a prison, (where there are no guns other than in the hands of the guards), and see how safe they feel there.

Its not the tools that matter, its the people using them.

Firearms do not guarantee a successful result. What they provide is the opportunity. You can't use as gun if you don't have one. But having a gun doesn't mean you will win, it means you might.

Sure, its a slogan, but its still true, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away".

And who shows up when the police to get there? People with guns!!! If guns aren't a good thing, why do the police have them???

There is almost nothing on this earth that cannot be put to an evil use by the mind of man. Evil is not a concept that ought to be ascribed to an inanimate object.

[Lohman446]

Guns and the monopolization of the use of force by the government have something in common: when they are used by good men and women for the betterment of society they are fine. When they are used for evil intent they are not.

I don't like monopolization of anything.

[Onward Allusion]

There's always Kennesaw, Georgia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by ordinary guy

While I feel that I know what kind of society I would like to see and how it could be made,...

To the degree you are posing a question about the society and not about guns, your inquiry may be about the differences in a society in which individuals retain power and rights against their neighbors and the state. A society of empowered individuals will have characteristics distinguishable from a society in which they don't.

If an individual has a right to speak, even when he is offensive, and to employ really effective force in his defense, and to travel and associate more or less as he pleases with the consent of others, a collection of those individuals may recognise that and act accordingly. That has a lot of implications for society.

A good friend is greek, big and genuinely dangerous with his hands. As a young man, he vacationed in the islands doing things young men do and fighting in bars (discoteques). He was horrified to learn that americans can carry firearms. "But then if I start a fight over a girl, the other guy could pull out a gun and kill me!" (as if it never occurred to him not to hurt someone).

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Onward Allusion

There's always Kennesaw, Georgia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

That's funny. An abomination to gun-control types

[Lohman446]

The “normalization of extreme violence” is not new. As late as the civil war military battles were picnic destinations allowing one to sit in the hills and watch. Public executions, often gruesome, were once public spectacle. While you may be right regarding technological advancements nearly every revolution carried out by commoners was done at a major technological disadvantage.

It’s not new. Your strategy is likely a good survival strategy but you underlying commentary ignores at least some historical narrative

[Brit]

Who cares what part of the gun owning crowd go armed all the time, or whether it suits any demographic dreamed up, by anyone.
I was born in the UK, in 1935, lived 3 years in Sydney Australia, and 30 years in Toronto, Canada.

As a US Citizen, I carry always, I shoot well, taught that skill for 25 years.
Working on the Doors of Clubs in Liverpool England for 5 years, got into lots of fights.

Here is my view on your request, I could care less about why people think it's a good idea to go armed. Just so long as it is my right to carry my fully loaded Glock 19 every day! Sixteen rounds of 147g Ranger T!
Do I quiver in fear, as I go about my business? Why would I, I am armed.

Countries where you have not got that freedom? I have been there, ain't going back.

[Spats McGee]

Last call to stay on topic.

[manta49]

Here is my view on your request, I could care less about why people think it's a good idea to go armed. Just so long as it is my right to carry my fully loaded Glock 19 every day! Sixteen rounds of 147g Ranger T!
Do I quiver in fear, as I go about my business? Why would I, I am armed.

Countries where you have not got that freedom? I have been there, ain't going back.

Lots of people go about their business everyday unarmed without quivering in fear. Me for one, its up to the individual i could carry a firearm if i wanted to i choose not to if others do that's up to them. A citizen having a right to carry a firearm is great, but that's a right few countries have but lots manage to have low crime and murder rates.

So now when we settled that, let me ask you if you can find some GOOD sources of research with the indications that a pro-gun society brings about a safer and just society.

You will get plenty of opinions but little good independent sources / evidence showing that a pro gun society is a safer society. That doesn't mean its not, it depends who you ask. You could post on a anti gun forum asking the opposite ( sources of research with the indications that a pro-gun society brings about a less safe and just society ) and get plenty of opposite views and opinions you will have to make your own mind up.

[K_Mac]

manta we can argue all day about your views on how unsafe it is to live in the USA and the superiority of the UK model, but that is not the topic of this thread.

My having the ability and right to defend against a violent attack does not make the threat of violence more likely. It simply increases the chance of me and mine surviving a lethal attack. This notion that law abiding citizens with guns is part of the prevailing violence that plagues the US and most everywhere else in the world is nonsense. It is far easier to blame guns and focus on "gun control" laws than address the causal problems that will not go away by taking my guns.

And for the record manta I don't live in fear. I live in a statistically very safe location. I carry a gun every day because as OldMarksman mentioned in another thread 'it is not the odds, but the stakes.'

[manta49]

manta we can argue all day about your views on how unsafe it is to live in the USA and the superiority of the UK model, but that is not the topic of this thread.

My having the ability and right to defend against a violent attack does not make the threat of violence more likely. It simply increases the chance of me and mine surviving a lethal attack. This notion that law abiding citizens with guns is part of the prevailing violence that plagues the US and most everywhere else in the world is nonsense. It is far easier to blame guns and focus on "gun control" laws than address the causal problems that will not go away by taking my guns.

Its as well i never disagreed with anything you posted above then, we agree. As i said its up to the individual you chose to carry a firearm i don't, and don't feel the need to, like i would guess the majority of Americans.

As for of topic it was inserted in post 10 and not by me.

[Brit]

Manta.
As a scouser, I never go to the North, Belfast is a No-No for me. Dublin always.
No, still fresh IRA Slogans on the Gable ends. The troubles are still just below the surface.
Or so I have been told.
We here in Florida can obtain a CCW license, quite easy, the crimes committed, enough reason to take away one of those Licenses, are few and far between.
I first heard that statement "An armed society, is a polite society" was from a transplanted South African in Toronto, many years ago.
I believe it.

[pax]

Just came across an article from 2016 that speaks rather clearly to the issues in this thread. It’s at https://ijr.com/2016/01/510415-10-ch...n-perspective/

Strong recommendation for taking a look, as it gives some very interesting global perspectives.

K Mac and Manta especially might find it useful.

pax

[manta49]

Manta.
As a scouser, I never go to the North, Belfast is a No-No for me. Dublin always.
No, still fresh IRA Slogans on the Gable ends. The troubles are still just below the surface.
Or so I have been told.
We here in Florida can obtain a CCW license, quite easy, the crimes committed, enough reason to take away one of those Licenses, are few and far between.
I first heard that statement "An armed society, is a polite society" was from a transplanted South African in Toronto, many years ago.
I believe it.

My work would take me to all areas of Belfast with no problems. That's work, but like i would say most city's there are places / areas you would avoid going for a drink etc.

As for a armed society is a polite society i don't buy that, i am sure there are plenty of polite unarmed Americans.

[manta49]

I will give it a read. I don't think lots of guns in a country makes much difference to crime or murder rates one way or the other. It will make a difference to what is used to murder people, murders with firearms will be higher but the overall murder figure per year will remain similar.