Do gun rights have anything to do with democracy?

By its very nature, gun ownership is a democratic thing as it means a higher percentage of people are armed, thus distributing power over a wider range of people. Similar thing for concealed carry; power isn't as concentrated to the police and military when ordinary citizens can walk around packing heat.

It's not enough on its own, of course, since governments still have the superior technology in the military and the risk of a rebellion actually being effective is limited. Still though, for better or for worse, governments might be a little more afraid to strongly oppose the wishes of the public when the public is armed.

edited 24th Apr '12 7:45:45 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

If the definition of "democracy" is "everyone has equal ability to kill each other" I don't want to live in a democracy.

Why is it the assumption that when someone wants or has a right to gun ownership, that they want the right to kill everyone else? Guns are typically used for sport, sometimes used for self-defense. Yes, some disturbed individuals use guns to commit murder.

So, as a counterpoint, I am glad to live in a democracy where people have the right to kill in self-defense.

A lot of us who dont own guns assume it, because frankly the most visible of gun owners are the nuts whoscream constantly about how the gubmint is out to take all their guns, or people like Ted Nugent who make it very clear theyre the sort of person who should never be trusted within 500 feet of a firearm.

When you're framing gun control in terms of power, that power comes solely in the form of ability to kill people. The average person carrying a gun doesn't make them more powerful just because they can shoot eight out of ten clay pigeons on a range.

That too. Nobody cares about how well your new sniper rifle or shotgun fares on a range when it comes to sheer specs. They want to know breaching power. Power to kill at huge range accurately. etc.

The issue is not the guns themselves, but the enabling factor that the guns provide. It has been demonstrated through psychological research that the fact of possession of a firearm or other weapon makes one more inclined to engage in violence. A person walking around with a knife is equally susceptible to this tendency, but the damage they can do is limited by their reach and physical prowess.

Statistically, you are more likely to be shot by a person immediately known to you then you are by a criminal or the police. The (entirely valid) use of firearms for recreational purposes notwithstanding, using them for self-defense is a demonstrably counterproductive strategy.

The notion that private ownership of guns will in any way abet an armed revolution — or even an armed resistance to occupation — in the modern era is preposterous.

Also: Ted Nugent is an asshole. I gleefully anticipate him being Hoist by His Own Petard at some point, especially given that he is all but directly inciting violence against a sitting President.

edited 24th Apr '12 1:27:45 PM by Fighteer

The thing is, buying a gun doesn't make you part of an organization where other's actions or the organization's actions can be attributed to you.

For instance, if some asshole buys and wears the same brand of shoes that I do, I don't have to constantly defend that I'm not an asshole. Likewise, if I buy a gun, and Ted Nugent buys a gun, you can't fairly conclude that I'm like Ted Nugent.

Whether or not most people are likely to be able to defend themselves with a gun, having the right to own one gives you the power to have that advantage. You can receive training, become an expert marksman, and control yourself in an emotional situation. The fact that many do not do so does not diminish that with the right to own a gun, I can conceivably have more power over my own life in the form of self defense.

In an idealized situation, with nobody but law enforcement armed, the value of a firearm in self-defense is eliminated. Your primary concern seems to be, "What if the criminals have guns but I don't?" To which I would respond that possession of a gun for self-defense is statistically more dangerous to you and your family than to any hypothetical criminals.

Yes, a sufficiently trained, mature, responsible individual is unlikely to be one of those statistics. That fails to address the point that not all gun owners meet those criteria — not by a long shot. While I respect the principle, I would assert that it's better to be safe than sorry.

As for what constitutes mature and sufficiently trained? I would say that being or having been employed in law enforcement or the military are the only criteria I could accept as guarantees. Even then, you get some crazies, but at least there's a measurable standard.

edited 24th Apr '12 1:53:55 PM by Fighteer

Isometric testing should be part and parcel of the license, imo. Fail the test? No gun for you, Mr/Ms Unstable!

Oh... and a retest every so often: people change. As does eyesight.

edited 24th Apr '12 1:56:40 PM by Euodiachloris

Well, we could restrict private firearm purchases (without a law enforcement or military license) to hunting-style guns only. Handguns would be strictly out, as would assault rifles and other automatic weaponry. Shotguns... meh.

And no guns if you have a record of mental instability, violent felony or misdemeanor convictions, etc.

edited 24th Apr '12 2:01:47 PM by Fighteer

http://www.mendeley.com/research/metaanalysis-published-research-effects-pornography/

This study (among others) finds a link between pornography and negative behavior. Now, while people could conceivably use the Internet for communication and research and TV Tropes without ever looking at porn, most people do not.

To me, the same logic that you use to say that, "Well, yes, you could learn to become accurate and responsible with your firearms, but since most people don't, that weights toward keeping people from owning guns," applies, then, to the Internet. We shouldn't let people use it, because they (statistically) don't use it as responsibly as they should.

Last time I checked, pornography and the Internet don't kill people. Well, not deliberately anyway.

While I accept that it is possible to become accurate and responsible with firearms, the fact that most people don't is sufficient for me to wish to deny them that right unless they can demonstrate such ability.

edited 24th Apr '12 2:18:11 PM by Fighteer

I guess our disagreement is there, then. I tend to think that the right to have that kind of power and responsibility is more valuable than the number of lives lost because of it. To me (and I don't say everyone is going to come to the same conclusion morally), it's analogous to thinking that the right to free speech should be near absolute - even if that means that ignorant assholes can go around saying, "I hate gays" all day until a gay person commits suicide. Or I think the right to a fair trial with a presumption of innocence outweighs the lives lost to criminals who otherwise would have been sent to prison.

To me, the right to carry a gun, and learn to be responsible and proficient with it, outweigh the lives lost in the same manner as other rights. On the other hand, fair point on the loss of lives, and I truly do understand that other people may not agree with my own moral scales.

One point regarding the thought of "armed revolution": Again, ideally-theoretically I can get behind the point. However, it appears to me light weaponry is the last thing any revolution needs. Most revolution have foreign backers, simply because powerful nations often dislike each other and like to spit in each other's soups. And sometimes even for genuine ideological conviction. And the first thing those backers will provide are indeed handguns.

OTOH, revolutions and insurgencies just need the right sort of people to pull it off. And North American and European societies I think are just too comfortable for that. This isn't a bad thing: It's testimony to the success of our societies. But it's a fact. So to say... the Afghans didn't drive out the Soviets because they had guns. They drove them out because they were the right sort of people for that, and they got supplied by the USA anyway.

Tell that to Rick Santorum.

@Vericrat: There are analogues but also differences — for one thing, we do restrict speech when it leads to immediately harmful outcomes, such as bullying a gay person to suicide, or the classic, yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Furthermore, while self-defense is as basic a human right as speech, I do not see guns (or, indeed, any weapons) as integral to that right.

I studied Tae Kwon Do for many years and could most certainly kill someone in hand to hand combat or with a weapon, but I view it as my absolute responsibility not to use such power unless it is unavoidable. Moreover, if I do get in a fight and it is known that I am a martial artist, I am automatically held to a higher legal standard than some untrained bozo.

The simple fact that a firearm was involved in a violent crime elevates the crime to a much higher level than mere fisticuffs, and for good reason. Further, a person with firearms training should be held to a higher standard regarding the circumstances of its use than an untrained person — but by direct correlation, an untrained person should not have a weapon without good cause. Said cause should be greater than, "because I wanted one."

edited 24th Apr '12 2:46:40 PM by Fighteer

While I'm mostly content to say that we disagree on the core principle of whether or not the human lives lost to untrained gun owners is worth the right to own a gun, I want to clear up one or two things.

I wasn't talking about direct bullying, first off. I was saying more like if most students in a school simply expressed that they hate homosexuality and think that homosexuals are immoral, and never did it to the homosexual, but merely to each other. The gay kid then kills himself. Or, extending it to freedom of association, kids forming cliques, none of which include the gay person. I think that their rights to express their beliefs or organize in the fashion they want are more important than the suicide kid's life. If you're saying there are laws against that, I'm a)fairly certain that's not true, and b)completely against the existence of those laws. And I've fought time and again on these forums and elsewhere against bigotry toward homosexuals.

Secondly, again, I really just want to say that it seems like we're having a weight difference on these values. Just like I agree with the presumption of innocence, even though that costs us lives when a guilty man walks free and kills again, I agree with the right to bear arms even though a criminal might misuse it, or a citizen will occasionally hit a bystander when trying to defend himself.

Just out of curiosity, how does licencing the ability to drive a vehicle differ from doing the same for being able to shoot a gun? Both are potentially dangerous machines, both can be linked to ideas of freedom...?

I'd really like your view, Vericrat.

edited 24th Apr '12 3:15:09 PM by Euodiachloris

probably because the responsible use of a car theoretically shouldnt ever lead to a fatality. Proper, responsible use of a firearm doesnt necessarily mean someone wont end up with a bullet in the sternum

Cars are meant to transport people. Guns are meant to shoot things. You can drive a car maliciously but that's not its purpose. The only use of a gun is to commit or threaten to commit violence.

The problem with the idea of restricting guns to law enforcement officials is that law enforcement officials are not saints. Anyone else remember when the second highest ranking law enforcement official in the US was removed from his post due to improper sexual conduct with a child?

Granted, that's up there in squick. But... sexual deviancy doesn't have an awful lot to do with how responsibly you can actually handle a gun. Unless the gun is part of it, of course. Yick. I shouldn't have thought about that just before going to bed. Happy dreams: not.

The way I see it, even if proper, responsible use of a firearm winds up with someone being killed, that person was threatening someone else. Better the criminal than the civilian. So proper, responsible use of a firearm may wind up with someone dead, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

While admittedly it could be viewed as a somewhat simplistic view, when people say "depend on the police", I can't help but think "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

And even that's generous, in many places both urban and rural. A police officer can easily be more than an hour away, at which point you may not be in any condition to appreciate the officer's presence.

Getting back to the original thread, as Barkey said a while back, guns have as much to do with democracy as the people decide it does. IMO any other answer to the thread's title is misguided at best, as the world is not made up of only one type of person or one single government type.*