Thursday, February 28, 2008 | Reason : Political | print version

US Treaty with Tripoli

by Joel Barlow

Thanks to Rob Singleton for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

This is an interesting piece of history that might be useful against those "the-US-is-a-Christian-nation" statements.

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

Article 11 states:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Here is the treaty in its entirety:

Annals of Congress, 5th Congres

Article 1. There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers.

Art. 2. If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war, shall be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party, they shall pass free, and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them.

Art. 3. If any citizens , subjects, or effects, belonging to either party, shall be found on board a prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at liberty, and the effects restored to the owners.

Art. 4. Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties, by which they are to be known. And considering the distance between the two countries, eighteen months from the date of this treaty, shall be allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers, belonging to such vessels, shall be sufficient for their protection.

Art. 5. A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel, condemned by the other party, or by any other nation, the certificates of condemnation and bill of sale shall be a sufficient passport for such vessel for one year; this being a reasonable time for her to procure a proper passport.

Art. 6. Vessels of either party, putting into the ports of the other, and having need of provisions or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the market price. And if any such vessel shall so put in, from a disaster at sea, and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and re-embark her cargo without paying any duties. But in case shall she be compelled to the land her cargo.

Art. 7. Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other, all proper assistance shall be given to her and her people; no pillage shall be allowed; the property shall remain at the disposition of the owners; and the crew protectedand succored till they can be sent to their country.

Art. 8. If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy, within gun-shot of the forts of the other , she shall be defended as much as possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized on or attacked, when it is in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to sea, no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port, within twenty-four hours after her departure.

Art. 9. The commerce between the United States and Tripoli; the protection to be given to merchants, masters of vessels, and seamen; the reciprocal right of the establishing Consuls in each country; and the privileges, immunities, and jurisdiction, to be on the same footing with those of the most favored nations respectively.

Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Art. 12. In case of any dispute, arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty, no appeal shall be made to arms; nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Consul, residing at the place where the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable referrence shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers; the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he, by virtue of his signature to this treaty, engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case, according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observance of the same.

Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211— corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796, by

JUSSOF BASHAW MAHOMET, Bey.
MAMET, Treasurer.
AMET, Minister of Marine.
SOLIMAN KAYA.
GALIL, General of the Troops.
MAHOMET, Commander of the City.
AMET, Chamberlain.
ALLY, Chief of the Divan.
MAMET, Secretary.

Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211—corresponding with the 3d day of
January, 1797, by

HASSAN BASHAW, Dey,
And by the agent Plenipotentiary of the United States of America,
JOEL BARLOW.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Thursday, February 28, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 478 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #135137 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 28, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Its so obvious with even a cursory glance at the foundation of America that it is not a Christian nation and that people who believe it are either self-deceptive,liars or ignorant.
Most are a combination of self-deception and ignorance. So even if this is presented to them it won't change their faith. That is of course the nature of faith.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

2. Comment #135148 by Devolution on February 28, 2008 at 3:22 pm

pffft who cares, its not like this John Adams character had anything to do with the founding of our country or anything. Everyone knows Jesus was the first American.

Other Comments by Devolution

3. Comment #135151 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 28, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Devolution
Yeah I know and then in Texas they wanted to teach Spanish.

"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Texas schoolchildren"

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

4. Comment #135157 by Goldy on February 28, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Wasn't this treaty trying to stop Barbary pirates taking slaves? I hear they were far ranging...

Other Comments by Goldy

5. Comment #135170 by Gymnopedie on February 28, 2008 at 4:08 pm

It scares me when a presidential candidate does not understand the founding of the country he or she is running for.

Pat Robertson and his crew spread some wicked poison a few years back spreading lies through the country that the Treaty of Tripoli is completely made up and spread a bunch of false quotes from the founding fathers (we've all probably encountered the one from Paine or Madison saying the country is founded on the Bible). Nearly every time I argue with a Christian who insists the nation was founded on the principles of Christianity, he or she always dredges up those old misquotes. It, yet again, scares me that all the preachers have to do is say something and countless others will assume it to be true. That shit spreads like a virus and is now part of the mainstream thought!

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

6. Comment #135173 by Arcturus on February 28, 2008 at 4:28 pm

"as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation"

This is not true anymore ... so they might say that while US was not founded on the Christian religion, it might become now a Christian nation. Look at what happened in Iran and their revolution.

Other Comments by Arcturus

7. Comment #135183 by rivetheretic on February 28, 2008 at 4:53 pm

the Treaty of Tripoli is completely made up and spread a bunch of false quotes from the founding fathers

Points to consider:

Often, when conservatives talk about the people who started the US, they are talking about the majority of colonists who were farming and fishing and whatever, not the relatively small number of people who led the revolution and put together the government. In other words, they are talking about all of the nutjobs that the Brits and others had the good sense to boot out.

Besides, they know that those who started the US were good Christians. Otherwise, how could they have started the greatest Christian nation the world has ever seen?

They assume their conclusions and then think up arguments to support them. This is apologetics, not rational reasoning.

Since they know they are right, they needn't check the validity of their arguments.

Other Comments by rivetheretic

8. Comment #135189 by NoSuchThingAsAtheism on February 28, 2008 at 5:09 pm

I don't see what difference it makes anyway. So what if the founding fathers *did* believe in mother goose - it doesn't make it true, nor is it a good reason to base modern day laws on the quackings of mother goose.

Other Comments by NoSuchThingAsAtheism

9. Comment #135191 by Gymnopedie on February 28, 2008 at 5:10 pm

rivetheretic,

I always make sure I know who they consider the founders. The ridiculous cultists known as the Puritans are a bit different than the secular founding fathers. Or maybe not. Depends on your relationship with Jesus, apparently.

If only they checked the validity of their arguments! Then they would add one more to the total of rational people.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

10. Comment #135220 by unothedog on February 28, 2008 at 6:14 pm

Here is some related info - http://ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php
Is America a Christian Nation?

Other Comments by unothedog

11. Comment #135337 by MelM on February 28, 2008 at 9:00 pm

It would be accurate to say that the U.S. is demographically a Christian nation; but, so long as the wall-of-separation holds, it certainly is not politically a Christian nation. The dominionist movement does not now have but is seeking dominating political power. Make no mistake, this is a fanatical religious cult that wants power. I do still believe that, if and when the vast majority of the American people figure out what's going on, they will reject the power grab.

The "Christian Nation" propaganda (as in HR 888), with its fake history, is trying to convince people that the founders really did want theocratic policies. I'll spare you all another link to "Liars For Jesus"; suffice it to say that, with abundant models, the U.S. founders could have built any sort of theocracy they wanted--but they didn't.

Others with more knowledge of history than I might be able to confirm that the U.S. was, when founded, the least theocratic country in the world and perhaps in world history. (Now that I think of it, if true, this would be a fantastic short-form rebuttal to the "Christian Nation" spin.)

Other Comments by MelM

12. Comment #135338 by robotaholic on February 28, 2008 at 9:00 pm

lol NoSuchThingAsAtheism- Quackings

unothedog- that was a great link thanks

Other Comments by robotaholic

13. Comment #135397 by thunder2384 on February 28, 2008 at 10:59 pm

I actually came upon this Treaty a few weeks ago and did some reading on it. It's a very good point to mention when someone claims the Fouding Fathers intended this to be a Christian nation. The one thing that kind of hurts its strength as a point though is that apparently in a later version of the treaty that particular phrase was not present. But, still, the fact that it was ratified unanimously (and published in newspapers at the time without any apparent uproar) is a strong point.

Other Comments by thunder2384

14. Comment #135419 by William Sierichs Jr. on February 28, 2008 at 11:51 pm

Re: Comment 135397

The "not ... founded on the Christian religion" is part of the ratified treaty. Some time after it was adopted, someone stole a page of the treaty containing that phrase and substituted an irrelevant paper in Arabic. So the phrase was/is always part of the treaty.

Barlow was a staunch church-state separationist. He wrote a book, "Advice to the Privileged Orders in the Several States of Europe," (1792, 1795 for separate parts) urging them to adopt the U.S. system of government. He devoted one chapter to attacking religion-government links.

Barlow apparently believed that the original principles of Christianity as founded by Jesus had been corrupted by power-mad clergy, so he defined the "Church" as "the government of a state, assuming the name of God, to govern by divine authority; or in other words, darkening the consciences of men in order to oppress them. In the United States of America, there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as a Church â€¦ [Although many Americans were religious] â€¦ In short, religion is there a personal and not a corporate concern."

"We have noticed hitherto only its most striking characteristics, in which it [the Church] appears like a giant, stalking over society, and wielding the sword of slaughter; but it likewise performs the office of silent disease and of unperceived decay; where we may contemplate it as a canker, corroding the vitals of the moral world, and debating all that is noble in man."

And "The existence of any kind of liberty is incompatible with the existence of any kind of church. By liberty I mean the enjoyment of equal rights, and by church I mean any mode of worship declared to be national, or declared to have any preference in the eye of the law."

He made other, similar comments throughout the chapter.

BTW, Barlow died in 1812 in Poland while trying to catch up with Napoleon in Russia so as to represent the U.S. to him.

Other Comments by William Sierichs Jr.

15. Comment #135453 by DamnDirtyApe on February 29, 2008 at 1:56 am

I concur that this will not change the atitudes of the hardcore faithful, this type of document NEEDS to be preserved. The most likely tool of control over the american people is their own history. Who controls the past controls the future, and if these types of historical document are accidentally 'lost' one day... It could be a very dangerous time.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

16. Comment #135487 by scooternyc on February 29, 2008 at 3:00 am

The most revealing question to the Christian who believes we were founded as a Christian Nation is:

"What is your self-interest in making the statement that America was founded as a Christian Nation?"

Additionally, it is inherently ANTI-AMERICAN to espouse positions of non-freedom.

Freedom is just that - without constraint of choice.

Laws are consequences to free choices.

Not all laws are necessary or appropriate.

Personal Outcomes infringing on the freedoms of others - are your life's choices at a cost to others, which is observably, not free and not without constraint.

Christians stating that America was founded as a christian nation seek only one thing: their version of sharia law.

Other Comments by scooternyc

17. Comment #135490 by Steve Zara on February 29, 2008 at 3:21 am

Additionally, it is inherently ANTI-AMERICAN to espouse positions of non-freedom.

Nothing like a little faith in one's country to help things along. I suppose its better than other kinds of faith.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

18. Comment #135509 by CJ22 on February 29, 2008 at 3:55 am

I always found this argument an odd one, from either side of the debate. Who cares what the 'founding fathers' intended? What's that got to do with today. It's dumbass logic like that that keeps gun manufacturers in business, when the 2nd amendment was clearly designed for a largely empty continent full of hostile forces, not today's America. The 'founding fathers' were a collection of elite, wealthy, land-owning, slave-owning gentry. If such people attempted to 'control public policy' today they'd get the political kicking they deserved.

Other Comments by CJ22

19. Comment #135590 by Ian Bamlett on February 29, 2008 at 5:50 am

when the 2nd amendment was clearly designed for a largely empty continent full of hostile forces, not today's America

I guess you haven't been to South Central Los Angeles. Or parts of Detroit or Philadelphia.

:-)

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

20. Comment #135612 by bamafreethinker on February 29, 2008 at 6:24 am

What's that got to do with today. It's dumbass logic like that that keeps gun manufacturers in business, when the 2nd amendment was clearly designed for a largely empty continent full of hostile forces, not today's America.

One cow says to the other "Ha, we don't need sharp claws or quick legs to defend ourselves form the wolves, we have the farmer. We can trust him to look out for our safety and protect us from those who wish to harm us. You see... he even carries us in this nice covered trailer instead of making us walk. Heck, I'm glad the farmer cuts off our horns, those things are good for nothing any more. Hey where are we going anyway?"

Other cow says, "A place called the butcher shop or something like that I think... dumbass!"

You may trust your government now to protect you and feel perfectly safe without a gun, but things can change. And never forget the old cliche, "If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns".

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

21. Comment #135635 by brue68 on February 29, 2008 at 6:58 am

Thank you, bamafreethinker. That is precisely how I feel.

Other Comments by brue68

22. Comment #135679 by nattyadams on February 29, 2008 at 7:47 am

If I recall correctly, Hitchens has referred to the conflict with the barbary pirates as our nation's first encounter with Muslim terrorists. Interesting way of looking at it. The pirates did, in fact, attack civilian ships and when asked what justification they could possibly have for so gratuitiously flouting the rules of engagement, they declared, without missing a beat, that all the justification they needed for dealing with unbelievers was found in the Koran.

Other Comments by nattyadams

23. Comment #135681 by al-rawandi on February 29, 2008 at 7:48 am

nattyadams,

Several of the Barbary Muslims were actually British converts.

The first evidence of British conversions to Islam.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

24. Comment #135694 by Gymnopedie on February 29, 2008 at 8:03 am

Iam Bamlett,

I live in Detroit and own no guns!

Even with that being said, citizens should have the right to bear arms. The issue only gets complicated when people want to own automatic rifles, ballistic weapons, etc... and with how to do background checks.

CJ22,

The founding fathers established how America is to be run, I think that is quite important. The point is we use their writings as a political guide, not their lifestyles as a guide to live by. There are some parts of the Constitution that are absolutely unwavering, while others made need revision in the future.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

25. Comment #135704 by Ian Bamlett on February 29, 2008 at 8:14 am

Comment #135694 by Gymnopedie:

I live in Detroit

I am so sorry. You have my deepest sympathies.

;-)

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

26. Comment #135758 by bamafreethinker on February 29, 2008 at 8:57 am

I live in Detroit and own no guns!

And the fact that many of your neighbors probably do own guns, coupled with the fact that the would-be criminal doesn't know which household is the gun-toting kind, you may be safer because of the right to bear arms - even though you choose not to do so.

I agree that the intent of the founding fathers matters a great deal and the fact that they were rich slave owners is irrelevant. It's sad in a way, but they were more intelligent/educated/enlightened than the average American is, even 200 years later. And since the constitution is what we've agreed to use as a backbone for our legal system, other documents that help shed light on the way they perceived how our nation should be help us interpret the constitution and, in some cases, battle with liars and thieves.

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

27. Comment #135785 by Cartomancer on February 29, 2008 at 9:11 am

Ugh! What is it with Americans and their guns?

Why is it that people who live in the civilized nations of Western Europe, most of East Asia, Canada and probably many other places don't seem to feel the need for copious quantities of firepower in every home, yet for the belligerent tribes of Merica it is considered vitally important?

Well, actually I can answer that question to my own satisfaction. I'm more pointing it out to flag up the vast difference in the tone of the debate either side of the World Pond. It has an awful lot to do with historical devlopments, social memory and self-identification. It probably stems from the fact that we Europeans acquired firearms in the late middle ages and had a strong tradition of centralised governmental control over force following the medieval experience of rogue barons and feudal underlings trying to challenge the power of the king with their armies. Contrawise the United States had a settler mentality, and in many ways still does, where armed citizen militias were considered the order of the day.

I have spoken to numerous Americans about this, and it never ceases to amaze me just how unremarkable the possession of deadly weaponry is taken to be among them. In England at least, and I suspect in most of western Europe, most people are frightened of guns. I know I start to physically shake in the presence of them, even in museums. They are seen as sinister and sordid tools of brutish violence - the preserve of the criminal underclass, the thuggish paramilitaries and the only slightly less thuggish scions of the military itself.

I guess the military is rather more respected over there too - here they're seen as a bunch of thick, interfering buffoons who are ill-suited for anything other than mindless square-bashing and causing international relations disasters. It's an unworthy and outdated stereotype I know, but it's the one many of us have. In modern Britain it's only really military families and the far right who laud soldiers as "heroes". That mentality seems far more common in the states. As far as I can tell the soldiers themselves just see it as a job to be done.

Mind you, it seems that we Britons are far more enamoured by the archetype of the dashing James Bond style spy than the yanks, most of whom see spies as deeply sinister and corrupt, so we do have some gun-friendly popular images in our national consciousness.

As for widespread gun ownership making people safe from violent crime, I think the statistics firmly confound that assumption. Just look at Japan, where violent crime rates are among the lowest in the world, and private gun ownership is both illegal and considered deeply suspect. Even the Yakuza, the Japanese organised crime syndicates, hardly ever use guns. I remember my brother telling me once about a Japanese criminal who held up a bus driver using... his fist! Obviously there are social and cultural differences, but generally speaking the most violent societies are the ones where weaponry is freely and readily available.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

28. Comment #135804 by al-rawandi on February 29, 2008 at 9:23 am

cartomancer,

Would you trust the US govt.

You own a car don't you? How many people are killed in auto accidents every year? Will you be banning cars for bicycles?

If guns kill people
....

pencils mispell words
and spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat.

There is a great deal of gun violence in the US because we have a lot of different races here, along with a great deal of economic disparity.

Everyone in Switzerland has a gun. They are all reservists (potentially) yet there is almost no gun crime there.

You are using faulty logic. Post hoc ergo propter hoc at its worst.

Gun society
Lots of murder
Must be the guns.

Wrong.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

29. Comment #135812 by jshuey on February 29, 2008 at 9:26 am

CJ22:

You clearly are not aware of history, or else you haven't thought things through.

The "founders" included merchants, craftsmen, small farmers, clergymen, newspaper publishers, etc. Those who fit your description were a distinct minority.

As for the 2nd Amendment in particular, its roots are in English common law much prior to the revolution. Most of the founders who spoke or wrote outside of the First Congress which passed the Bill of Rights indicated that the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the people whould always have a defense against their government...not from each other!

Of course by picking and choosing which provisions you like you are playing into the hands of those who would unravel the 1st, 4th or 5th Amendments, for instance.

Finally, you are overlooking the intent of the founders and the genius with which they applied it. Their goal was to circumvent those temporary passions which sometimes seize hold of a people by providing for checks and balances to slow abrupt change. The separation or powers, electoral college, election of Senators by state legislatures, and amendment process are some of the tools they used.

And oh, that amendment process. Rather then tear up the Constitution that protects your ass against the dominionists and their like, if there is a part or parts that you believe are outdated those evil old men provided a slow but certain method to fix them.

Methinks you may be your own worst enemy.

Other Comments by jshuey

30. Comment #135819 by Gymnopedie on February 29, 2008 at 9:30 am

So I sense a disagreement brewing here... One school of thought is that if everyone owns a gun or (more importantly) everything thinks everyone else owns a gun, there will be less crime. The other school of though is that if there are no guns, there will be far less crime.

Cartomancer,

You bring up a completely valid and interesting historical point, but I don't think that sort of thing crosses the mind of an average person when they purchase a gun. I think that attitude subtly colors the mind of Americans, but I think the difference in something like gun ownership and crime rates between countries are based on more than historical trends. What exactly this is, I'm not exactly sure.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

31. Comment #135833 by Cartomancer on February 29, 2008 at 9:38 am

Actually, Al-Rawandi, I was not making any statements about causation. I simply said that there was a correlation between easy availability of weapons and incidence of violent crime. This might be the availability causing the crime, or the desire for crime causing the production and hence availability of weapons, or it could be (and I think it almost certainly is) a complicated nexus of factors resulting in this particular phenomenon. My point was that the opposite assertion - more guns makes society SAFER - doesn't even have the evidence of a correlation that MIGHT indicate causality. Switzerland is a very peculiar outlier as far as the general trend goes.

Of course the incidence of violent crime is mainly linked to societal stability and economic disparity - I wouldn't claim otherwise - but if so and the availability of guns has nothing to do with it then what advantage can there be to having them all over the place and exacerbating the problem by increasing the deadly power each criminal can possess. Without guns violent criminals would use whatever weapons they had to hand, and knives, fists, coshes, chair legs and what have you are far less deadly than machine-tooled modern instruments of death.

And, actually, no, I don't own a car. In fact I am petrified of road travel and generally walk wherever I need to go if at all possible. I use public transport when this is not possible. I think a massive reduction in the number of personally owned vehicles would be a very good thing for both safety and environmental reasons, not to mention the reduction in oil dependence that would emasculate the power of the Middle East oil barons, so yes, if I had my way cars would be banned or severely curtailed. But cars do have a function apart from killing people. Guns don't.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

32. Comment #135838 by al-rawandi on February 29, 2008 at 9:41 am

carto,

Well I can say you are consistent.

Switzerland shows that Guns are not the direct cause of violence. Israel too, everyone is a reservist and owns an assault rifle. The people they shoot are usually Palestinian school children, so we can see it isn't the guns, but the racial and religious hatred.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

33. Comment #135847 by Cartomancer on February 29, 2008 at 9:46 am

I am all for a sophisticated and thoughtful approach, based on careful, in-depth studies, to the reduction of violent crime. I agree that there is no logical path from simply having guns to actually using them on people.

But in societies where there is a tendency for violent crime, I think that limiting the potential for lethality is a helpful stopgap measure until the underlying tensions can be resolved. If this results in us permitting the Swiss and the Japanese free access to guns but not the Americans and Israelis then that seems a perfectly pragmatic and sensible solution to me, and to hell with the macho posturing and whining of the Charlton Heston crowd...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

34. Comment #135870 by SharonMcT on February 29, 2008 at 10:06 am

Al:

I'm very much enjoying your posts on the Fleabytes thread, as I do most of the stuff you write on a variety of topics. But I do have to ask a few questions here, if you don't mind.

How do you compare cars to guns? What other purpose does one have for a gun other than to shoot or threaten to shoot? I have another purpose for a car other than to use it as a weapon. I cannot see how you can compare the value of these 2 items.

I don't necessarily disagree that people can be allowed to own guns, but there are so many problems that come along with this. Guns can kill people too quickly and efficiently, IMO. And I do realize that murder will still occur without guns. I don't think guns cause violence.

If a person stabs another or beats them, it can take a lot more time and effort to actually kill them. During this time, the potential murderer has some time to re-evaluate things and perhaps not kill the other person. A person has to make a much bigger commitment to actually kill someone by a method other than a gun. I think this time can be valuable, especially to the person being stabbed or beaten.

I much prefer living in a society that doesn't see the need for a gun in every house. My chance of dying by accidental or purposeful discharge of a firearm must be greatly reduced if there are fewer firearms, surely? I know if there are fewer cars on the streets, my chance of dying by car is lower. I know the value of cars, but what significant value do guns have to my life again?

Edit:

Cartomancer beat to everything I wanted to say and said it in a much better fashion as well, so feel free to ignore this post. ;)

Other Comments by SharonMcT

35. Comment #135891 by al-rawandi on February 29, 2008 at 10:26 am

Sharon,

I compare cars to guns, in that they both can cause death.

Guns are tools. I can hunt with a gun, for sport and food. I don't think this basic right should be abridged because the government refuses to address poverty in the inner city. These two are unrelated.

Secondly there are many different types of guns. The guns I have would not be very good for committing crimes. Shooting large game at 100 yds or more, yes. Holding up a liquor store, no.

I would also like to point you to some studies about crime rates in areas where people are allowed to license and carry firearms. I am not sure of results but you should take a look.

Guns may have no value to your life, thus you are not obliged to own one. But if guns provide value to my life, I would respectfully ask that no one infringe on my right to do so.

If we allow the govt. to take guns away from people, we have allowed them to deny people a constitutional right.

Once we start surrendering constitutional rights, we are in serious danger.

So what if it is temporary. Many of Hitler's policies were temporary. Most rights are curtailed under the guise of "temporary actions" and then people are surprised when the rights are never returned.

I hope this helps. Tell me if you need more clarification.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

36. Comment #135911 by Shaden on February 29, 2008 at 10:48 am

Cartomancer,
"Without guns violent criminals would use whatever weapons they had to hand, and knives, fists, coshes, chair legs..."

I think you're assuming that making guns illegal would take guns away from said criminals. What kind of criminal would you be if you couldn't break the law and possess a firearm?

Other Comments by Shaden

37. Comment #135919 by AlexanderHeritage on February 29, 2008 at 10:54 am

Cartomancer:

I'm not even going to bother going into your biased and dishonest appraisal of gun crime and it's corelation with legal gun ownership around the world. True, you've properly identified the fact that it's a "nexus" of influences that cause crime in any country to rise and fall, but you failed to point out (though you already knew - thus implying intellectual dishonesty on your part) the fact that there are countries with a 1:1 ratio of legal gun ownership and higher that have little or no violent crime e.g. Sweden. Moreover, you assert that there is no corelation running in the opposite direction, to wit: A decrease in the legal availability of firearms being associated with an increase in violent crimes. In Mexico Ownership of any firearm larger than .22 caliber is prohibited and it takes an enormous amount of effort to acquire one, nevertheless, Mexico's murder rate is THREE TIMES that of the U.S. In Russia, private ownership of handguns is entirely banned and it's murder rate is FOUR TIMES that of the States'. Before I'm accused of fudging the numbers these do not include murders occurring in what is the semi-war zone of Chechnya. This is hardly the be-all and end-all of the argument, but it's funny how people like to skew the argument in their favour by failing to mention truths they ALREADY know.
For an analysis of crime and it's causes for the casual reader - as well as the single best exposition of the technique of regression analysis available - I can recommend "Freakonomics - A rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything" By Stephen Levitt. Regress analysis is the only proper tool for teasing out the truth of the question challenge "Does banning the ownership of guns reduce gun-related death?". Regardless, your supposition that corelation in gun-crime and gun-ownership only runs in one direction is garbage.

But that's not what really wound me up about your first post. It was this:

[quote=Cartomancer]I have spoken to numerous Americans about this, and it never ceases to amaze me just how unremarkable the possession of deadly weaponry is taken to be among them. In England at least, and I suspect in most of western Europe, most people are frightened of guns. I know I start to physically shake in the presence of them, even in museums. They are seen as sinister and sordid tools of brutish violence - the preserve of the criminal underclass, the thuggish paramilitaries and the only slightly less thuggish scions of the military itself.

I guess the military is rather more respected over there too - here they're seen as a bunch of thick, interfering buffoons who are ill-suited for anything other than mindless square-bashing and causing international relations disasters. It's an unworthy and outdated stereotype I know, but it's the one many of us have. In modern Britain it's only really military families and the far right who laud soldiers as "heroes". That mentality seems far more common in the states. As far as I can tell the soldiers themselves just see it as a job to be done.
[/quote]

Just briefly I'd like to point out that it was those "Interfering buffoons" that saved this nation state from destruction (twice) and that, on the contrary, they are not merely suited to square-bashing and causing international relations disasters. Indeed, square-bashing is an exercise in military coordination and international relations disasters like Iraq (which I presume you refer to) are caused by the government. Who in the name of Jebus do you think the army should obey? The government? You? Itself? If it did what it wanted it would only be a huge armed gang. If it did what you wanted you'd be a dictator. If it does what the government wants then it's doing what our elected official want. Don't like it? Then change the government.

Go back to your books. Learn the difference between corelation and causation and read a little history.

Otherwise, in the words of encyclopediadramatica:

"GET THE !&^*(#)(&) OFF mY INTERNETS!!!111111"

Other Comments by AlexanderHeritage

38. Comment #135921 by al-rawandi on February 29, 2008 at 10:55 am

Shaden

Good point. Most guns that are used in truly disgusting crimes are bought on the black market.

Where would one buy an automatic Kalashnakov?

Russia, that's where. Or maybe some South American Country.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

39. Comment #135922 by al-rawandi on February 29, 2008 at 10:57 am

If you really wanted to stop gun crime,

You would make it totally illegal for any African American to possess a fire arm.

Why not do that? That would cut way way down on gun crime.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

40. Comment #135934 by Ian Bamlett on February 29, 2008 at 11:08 am

Al wrote:

make it totally illegal for any African American to possess a fire arm.

Why not do that? That would cut way way down on gun crime.

Come on Al, you're better than that! Of course it wouldn't since all the weapons used by gangs to kill each other over drug turf wars etc are illegal.

But I am being picky I know - you're main point no doubt is that most gun crime is committed by Black/Hispanic gangs killing each other in drug infested Ghetto's - an uncomfortable fact for the gun restrictions crowd who think taking away my right to own a gun as a law abiding person would change things. It wouldn't change a damn thing.

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

41. Comment #135945 by bamafreethinker on February 29, 2008 at 11:16 am

I suspect in most of western Europe, most people are frightened of guns. I know I start to physically shake in the presence of them, even in museums.

I've been to gun & knife shows where there were thousands of guns from full-auto assault weapons to 200 year old shotguns with thousands of rounds of ammo laying around on every table (along with a few thousand very sinister-looking knives and swords). There may have been a police officer at the main entrance checking the guns entering the show, which received a nylon cable-tie that prevented the action from working, but that is pretty much it as far as security. Of course many patrons had permits to carry concealed handguns, so there were plenty of loaded weapons there. My ten year old son and 13 year old daughter were tagging along as well - they were brought up to respect (not fear) guns and they were taught how to handle guns safely.

I guess it all boils down to having faith in the general population that gives us enough peace-of-mind to not be afraid in such situations. Besides, a would-be criminal knows full well that if he tries to pull a stupid stunt, he would be lying on the floor with a few dozen holes in him before he could say "John Wayne".

If the US decided that it would try to confiscate guns, who do you think would be giving up their guns? Certainly not the criminals.

I do agree that guns provide an effective tool for killing people and that is unfortunate, but taking guns away from the innocent and leaving them in the hands of evil-doers accomplishes nothing. Taking the actions necessary to eliminate as much as possible the need/desire to commit gun-related crime, however, is the only way to insure the safety of the innocent, IMO.

I would guess that a person with an irrational fear of guns would also feel that religion is a handy thing to keep around to help control morality? Would such a person suppose that if the entire Japanese population woke up tomorrow with a shiny new gun on their bedside table, they would suddenly start killing one another? I doubt it.

It seems to me that it's almost all about society and almost nothing about guns.

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

42. Comment #135947 by al-rawandi on February 29, 2008 at 11:18 am

Ian Bamlett,

Of course I am better than that.

The point was that if guns that are currently possessed by people are the problem, you could avoid curtailing rights by simply taking them away from a population of people that have an endemic problem with violence.

And I know it wouldn't solve the problem. Sort of like taking guns away from anyone wouldn't solve the problem.

The only thing making guns illegal would do, is mean that when one of these drug crazed thugs breaks into my house to steal my DVD player to sell for money to buy crack, and when he is interrupted shooting a loved one, and I would have no recourse but to shout for help.

The home should have sanctity. If you break into my home, and I have reason to believe you intend to do harm, or may inadvertently cause harm, it should be legal to use lethal force. And a firearm should be one means to inflict that lethal harm.

Stop murders? Stop a cycle of drug use and violence that plagues our inner cities.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

43. Comment #135951 by Cartomancer on February 29, 2008 at 11:23 am

Alexander,

Once again I reiterate that I was not trying to imply causation, merely point out correlation. Since you failed to notice this I must come to the somewhat uncharitable conclusion that you were deliberately reading my posts with an eye to finding something to disagree with.

Continuing in this vein I must also note that you have quoted what I said but failed to read it properly, and in so doing come to a somewhat distorted appreciation of my sentiments. I was merely pointing out that there are prevalent negative stereotypes of the military in this country, not that I necessarily believe those stereotypes to be accurate. You might have noticed that I said "they're seen as" rather than "they are", and I followed up with "It's an unworthy and outdated stereotype I know, but it's the one many of us have". Quite how this can be interpreted as me assenting to the stereotype I am at something of a loss to understand.

Furthermore, none of this has even the slightest bearing on my main point, which is that firearms are, de facto, more lethal than pretty much any other type of weapon, and reducing the overall numbers of them available in society will therefore reduce the overall lethality available for consumption. It might also help to breed a culture where firearms and violent methods of problem-solving are not fetishised, and thus improve the overall stability, civility and pleasantness of society.

And, yes, the successful criminals will inevitably manage to acquire the illicit firearms for themselves, but a) with fewer available the less adept and more amateur criminals, who make up the majority, will not, and b) in a culture where firearms are considered unecessary for criminal activity (such as among the Japanese Yakuza) they will be less frequently employed and loss of life will be much lower.

Furthermore, Alexander, I would like to chide you on your terribly bad form. Resorting to base insults when my own post was nothing but civil - tut, tut, how rude. Assuming that I "must have known" about crime statistics for places like Sweden and Mexico is a leap too far on your part - I did not, and I thank you for pointing that out to me as much as I upbraid you for trying to tar me with the brush of dishonesty. I would be the first to admit that my knowledge of the issue is not that great, and if there is proper, well-founded statistical analysis which substantiates the claim that reducing the number of weapons available will not reduce their employment, then I would be more than willing to investigate it and change my mind. On a site like this I believe that goes without saying. Such contemptible incivility as you have demonstrated does you little credit.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

44. Comment #135952 by Steve Zara on February 29, 2008 at 11:24 am

Comment #135919 by AlexanderHeritage

I'm not even going to bother going into your biased and dishonest appraisal of gun crime and it's corelation with legal gun ownership around the world.

I am sure, in his time, cartomancer has probably been called many things by many people. (I would expect it would include terms like "intelligent" and "erudite"). However, I have seen no evidence of dishonesty from him, and if he has a bias, it is towards logic and reason.

I know cartomancer can defend himself perfectly well, but I could not allow this comment to stand without indicating my support.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

45. Comment #135954 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 29, 2008 at 11:25 am

The right to bear arms

All people have the right to bear arms because, well other people have guns so you need to protect yourself.

All countries need atomic bombs because, well other countries have atomic bombs so they need them to protect themselves.

No??????

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

46. Comment #135956 by Bonzai on February 29, 2008 at 11:27 am

I am sure, in his time, cartomancer has probably been called many things by many people. (I would expect it would include terms like "intelligent" and "erudite").

Yeah, I'm beginning to find him very sexy. :-)

Other Comments by Bonzai

47. Comment #135957 by al-rawandi on February 29, 2008 at 11:27 am

ThoughtsCommonToad,

Do you regularly hunt with an atomic bomb designed to kill deer?

No?????

Take that logic elsewhere.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

48. Comment #135958 by Steve Zara on February 29, 2008 at 11:29 am

Comment #135956 by Bonzai

Yeah, I'm beginning to find him very sexy. :-)

I can't comment, as I am married, but if I could, I would agree.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

49. Comment #135959 by al-rawandi on February 29, 2008 at 11:30 am

cartomancer,

Will you be banning smoking? Drinking?

If not, hit the road.

It isn't about intent.... it is solely about results. If someones dies, they die. They care little about the manner in which they die.

Cars kill FAR MORE people, will you make that illegal? It isn't the intent that matters, it is the fact people die.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

50. Comment #135960 by Steve Zara on February 29, 2008 at 11:32 am

Comment #135959 by al-rawandi