Paul:

First, sorry it has taken a while to get back and reply to this post; I’ve been a bit busy and strapped for time.

When it comes to the hunting, I suspect that a lot of people wouldn’t have a problem with some kind of paralyzing device. Yeah, it’s kind of gory to think of walking up to a sleeping animal and slashing its throat to kill it, but hunting’s gory anyway. When you clean something once it’s dead, it’s still a messy job.

I agree: if you’re willing to hunt, then you should be willing to kill with your hands; if gore puts you off, you shouldn’t be hunting. We should be willing to take responsibility for our actions and not remove something involving bloodletting to a distance. I think people who eat meat are not wrong to do so, but they should be willing to at least know fully how their meat is raised and slaughtered, even be able to do it themselves if they have to. Making something clean and neat is a kind of looking the other way.

But when it comes to the home-defense end of things, I think that a pro-gun-choice person would have a reasonable counterpoint. That counterpoint is simple: It’s not necessarily the fear of getting CAUGHT that might deter a bad guy. It’s the fear that they might get themselves killed.

I would disagree here: if one thing is clear, criminals do not factor a fear of death into their decisions, else the death penalty would be a stone cold deterrent–and it clearly is not. Especially if a criminal is armed, he would presume the he has the advantage of surprise and fear against those he would burgle, in addition to the usual human propensity to assume the ability to control a situation, and towards the belief in one’s own immortality. Indeed, one of the arguments I get against gun control is that criminals get a lot of their weapons by stealing them–which means that they seek out houses with weapons, rather than avoiding them. I presume the criminals simply try their best to choose houses which are not occupied at the time they break & enter–but they will not shy away from homes they presume have weapons–just the opposite. If criminals allow their fear of injury or death to deter them, it deters them only from entering houses with people in them, not houses with guns in them.

Jon:

… the cloud of darts seems a bit like cheating… maybe that’ because I am a target shooter.

Probably. After all, in hunting, using any gun at all could easily be seen as “cheating.” You’re already vastly changing the odds of your winning in your favor; the more advanced the gun (sighting scope, semi-automatic, etc.) them more one “cheats.” The challenge would be more in tracking the animal and getting within range. The cloud of darts would, at least, be more humane, in that you would never wound an animal that escapes, plus you would have the option of “catch and release,” where the sport is in hitting the animal, not wounding or killing it.

Would I give up my guns? No way. In no small part I view gun ownership as a form of resistance to one aspect of the death of personal liberty (wow, sounds a bit over dramatic doesn’t it?).

Hmm. Is this symbolic, then? In other words, it could just as easily be a car or telephone rather than a gun? I would argue that the symbolic value of a gun would be much less valuable than the lives it takes. If self-defense is covered by a non-lethal device, I would not see the liberty as being removed, rather simply covered in a different way.

Etoipi:

One other key use of a gun: To provide for armed resistance of an abusive government, should that eventuality ever occur… (Alas, this purpose begs for more serious arms than a simple hand gun… shoulder launched rockets and remotely controlled landmines come to mind). An effective militia would clearly need to have deadly force at their disposal.

I would disagree on that one, actually. When you think about it, an abusive government would not take power in such a way that would allow personal weapons to overthrow it. For such a government to hold power, they would need to command the military, and the military has an arsenal that positively dwarfs what personal weapons can offer as a means of resistance. Such a government would also need to command the support of a large or important segment of the population; it would not be “all the people” vs. the tyranny. Resistance fighters usually do not command a majority of the population, especially if the tyranny is home-grown. Not to mention that if such a government wanted to ban guns, they would not require a pre-existing ban or other legislation; they could just as easily attempt to enforce one after taking power–though I would think they would not do so, not in this day and age.

Nor would I agree that arming citizenry with advanced weaponry (seriously, this is what some of the more ardent pro-gun people argue) is a viable option. There’s a good reason most people, including most gun owners, do not object to bans on things like rocket launchers.

When it comes down to it, there are two ways out of a repressive government: an insurgency armed from outside sources, or non-voilent protest. Insurgencies are never armed by personal weapons in this day and age, they get their weapons from other sources. In the case of Iraq, they got them from government stores which the Bush administration left open to looting. In most cases, they are sold or given by sources outside the region in question.

Also, when it comes down to it, guns decide the overthrow of a dictatorship less and less often. South Africa, the Philippines, the Soviet Union… none of their tyrannies were ended by guns. You could probably name as many that ended without violent overthrow as you could name those which did, possibly even more–especially stable overthrows. And I challenge anyone to name a single overthrow of an oppressive regime in modern times that was achieved with personal firearms only. The idea of the citizen army using weapons from their mantlepiece is a romanticized though antiquated concept; given the advances in weaponry since Revolutionary times, it simply is not a viable scenario any longer. As I have pointed out, communications and transportation are far more vital to modern liberty than personal weapons are.

I do not see it as purely symbolic, but even if it was, freedom to do what you have ‘permission’ to do is not freedom at all.

In that case, we are not “free” now. You need permission for a lot of stuff–permission to drive, permission to work, permission to communicate in most circumstances that don’t involve talking… it depends on what you count as “permission.” If that means applying in order to do something, then half of what we do involves asking permission. If you mean allowing restrictions and regulations, then we have to ask permission on far more stuff. You do not have permission to own that rocket launcher, you do not have permission to drive a truck unless you pass tests and submit all kinds of papers. You can’t build anything on to your house without permission, can’t sell anything without permission (especially alcohol). The list is endless. However, those “permissions” exist for a good reason–to protect the public safety. I am not sure how allowing one form of self-defense to be substituted with another, possibly more effective, constitutes “asking permission” in any case.

On a more fundamental level, I do not agree with the notion that guns take lives. Some people attack others with guns, some people defend themselves and others with guns. No one has really yet made a solid case for how that balances out. It is a certainty that people can kill or harm others without them. In America (where I have the best numbers to work from) there is no real correlation between gun deaths and gun ownership, and a non-trivial negative correlation between gun deaths and overall homicides.

Frankly, I have not seen convincing studies done on this either way, and you don’t present any, either. That leaves only the sense that it is far easier to escape a knife or a club than it is to escape a gun–not to mention that guns are far more empowering, making an individual more easily aggressive. But if you have studies to quote, I would very much like to see them, to see if they are actual, scientific studies, or bias-driven statistic-stacking disguised as studies. I’m not saying that either of us is right or wrong in our assumptions–I could as easily be wrong as I am right–I would just like to see what the facts say.

As far as the use of personal firearms to overthrow a government… I don’t believe it has ever been done in modern times… but then there has never been a public as heavily armed as the American public at any time in history that I know of. I recently heard that private US citizens have more guns than all of the armies in the world combined. Given the effective range of a hunting rifle, any ‘ruler’ had better be willing to never step out-doors again for the rest of his life.

Um, as for leaders going out in public, you have just accurately described the current state of affairs, which is why the president and many other people have secret service details who make sure that the person they are charged with is not exposed to such threats. It’s common SOP for all leaders. As for Americans being more armed than anywhere else in the world, how would that make a difference? So, everyone in your band of rebels is armed with an automatic rifle. When they lob sarin gas at you, hunt you down with heat-sensing technology in armed helicopters, send in tanks and armed battalions far better outfitted than you are, outnumbering you ten to one, how is having three firearms instead of one supposed to help you, exactly?

The notion that criminals are not deterred by armed victims is not supported by any evidence I am aware of. … Several studies of prison inmates have shown that criminals are more deterred by armed victims than anything the government does.

Really? Love to see those studies. Please cite them. As for such a suggestion: a criminal only knows someone is armed if they can see the weapon or its outline on the person; this does not, I presume, apply to breaking and entering. In which case–One: a criminal may be deterred if they see a person who is armed and alert, but very few people are like that all the time, even with completely unfettered access to guns. Two: if a criminal simply assumes you have a gun, they only need to wait until they can get into a position to get the drop on you, as it were; once someone with a gun has the drop on you, being armed does you zero good. If everyone is armed, criminals will simply out of necessity change their tactics, not stop being criminals. Three: in other cases, involving breaking and entering, exactly how is any criminal to know whether a household carries a weapon or not? As I said, weapon or no weapon, the criminal waits for people to leave, then robs the house. After all, if half of criminals get their guns by stealing, then how can you reconcile that with avoiding homes with guns? Once again, it is empty homes they rob–and guns left in obvious places, unsecured, simply are gifts to these criminals. Maybe if people locked up their guns better, the criminals wouldn’t steal them so easily. If half of all criminals say they steal their guns, there is no way you can convince me that the same number of people successfully defend their homes with guns. Which means that having an unsecured weapon at home is far more likely to put it in the hands of a criminal than it is to protect your family with it–which happens rarely enough, as criminals strike most when people are not home.

BTW, have you considered what the effect on crime would be if this ’stun gun’ really was available? It would be horrific. rape and robbery would flat out explode. No more ‘put your hands up’ and hope they pull out a wallet instead of a weapon, Just zap ‘em and frisk ‘em. If it’s a woman…. doesn’t bear thinking about. And no fear of spending an extended prison term for murder or aggravated assault. Seriously, this would make guns look like nothing.

The charge of rape using a stun gun is no lesser than rape with a regular gun. Rape is rape. Penalties could be adjusted to make the penalties as strict, if you believe deterrent is a problem–so, problem solved. But let me ask you this: would you rather be robbed by a criminal who could kill you or one who could knock you out?