Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

Gun Control and Crime

45 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Last post

Wed, 2014-10-01 04:36

Smokeskin

Gun Control and Crime

A spin off from this thread: http://www.eclipsephase.com/comment/49949#comment-49949

LatwPIAT wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Now you're just making stuff up. Just by googling gun law crime relation I found for example this as the top two - both articles look at multiple studies: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?pagewanted=... According to the study, published last year in The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, European nations with more guns had lower murder rates. As summarized in a brief filed by several criminologists and other scholars supporting the challenge to the Washington law, the seven nations with the most guns per capita had 1.2 murders annually for every 100,000 people. The rate in the nine nations with the fewest guns was 4.4. http://people.howstuffworks.com/strict-gun-laws-less-crime1.htm It appears to be the same picture throughout: studies show either less crime with more guns, or no correlation.
A New York Times article is clearly proof that I'm making stuff up. If you're going to accuse me of being actively dishonest, I suggest you gather more proof of my dishonesty than "a New York Times article contradicts me", because otherwise you're just pulling accusations out of your ass to discredit me.

I did not just link to a NY article: I explained what I googled, and I gave 2 links from that search, both of which referenced several studies. The NY article is about what the US Supreme Court found when it surveyed the body of studies on gun control and the US Supreme Court has representatives from both sides of the political spectrum, and to the best of my knowledge HowStuffWorks is neither biased nor untrustworthy. Here's an excerpt from the HowStuffWorks article, referencing 2 studies: On the other hand, Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark, all countries with heavy gun ownership, posted low murder rates in the early 2000s compared to "gun-light" developed nations. In 2002, for example, Germany's murder rate was one-ninth that of Luxembourg, where the law prohibits civilian ownership of handguns and gun ownership is rare [source: Kates and Mauser]. Statistics within countries paint a similar picture: Areas of higher gun ownership rates correlate with areas of lower rates of violent crime, and areas with strict gun laws correlate with areas high in violent crime [source: Malcolm]. As I wrote elsewhere in the original thread, you have to be careful with correlations as they don't imply causation. But it is hard to get around the fact that strict gun control correlates with higher crime rates more often than not.

Wed, 2014-10-01 19:26

Lorsa

I find it very dodgy to use

I find it very dodgy to use number of guns per capita is correlating as anything gun-related. If we are talking about gun control, we really need to discuss the availiability of guns and the prevalence of civilians walking around with them in the normal lives (that is, how they are being used). Just take the mention of European countries with high gun ownership having low murder ratios. According to wikipedia, the European country with highest amounts of guns per capita is Switzerland. By reading a bit into gun ownership in Switzerland, it is easy to see that this is probably due to the conscripting of citizens into the milita, which then requires people in passive service to have battle rifles at home. However, also according to wikipedia, they do not seem to have any ammunition for these rifles at home, nor do they intend to carry them around "for personal protection". Next on the list is Finland. Anyone who knows anything of Finland will realise that with a prevalence of forests with wildlife in it, a popular past time is hunting, and most of the licences (which is required for gun ownership) are issued for just that. To my knowledge, Finns rarely carry around their weapons for personal protection, nor is gun ownership some form of "human right" (read mentioned in a constitution). Discounting Cyprus, we then arrive at Sweden. Like Finland, Sweden issues hunting licences. While I personally only know a handful of hunters, they are much more prevalent in the north, and they tend to own multiple guns, thus increasing our statistics. The availiability of guns in Sweden is something I would rate as very low. Unless you have a hunting licence, you need to go to the black market, and carrying a piece around town for some sort of personal protection is highly illegal. Nobody does that. I know absolutely 0 people that has ever used, intented to use, or even argued for that they should use, a gun in such a manner. While there are black market guns in Sweden (there is everywhere) and it HAPPENS that guns are used to kill (like in Malmö for example), in Lund where I live I could walk around town at night for years before ever having even passed by someone carrying a gun. The chances of me ever ending up staring down a barrel is lower than being hit by lightning. Twice. I am quite sure the gun cultures in most of those other "high gun, low murder" European countries are quite similar. Which is a far cry from USA. My point isn't that guns are necessarily bad, it is simply that if you want to look at correlation between guns and murder (or the like), you need to look at how they are being used rather than the amount. People having rifles without ammo, or hunting rifles that they can only aquire after some heavy licence programs, is another thing entirely than people having handguns for personal protection, be it in their home or in concealed carry when walking around in public areas.

—

Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]

Wed, 2014-10-01 20:14

Justin In Oz Justin In Oz's picture

My Experiences in Colombia

G'Day, I have spent a bit of time in Colombia. The country has had a civil war going on for decades. This largely springs from a very unequal distribution of wealth. Legal guns are difficult to find, illegal guns are very easy to acquire. My parents in law live in a rural setting. Most of the deaths due to the civil war take place in the countryside. I asked them if they wanted to have a firearm to protect themselves on their farm. They did not. They would prefer that the state function and that the police as the representatives of the state maintain the monopoly of the legitimate use of force. In other words, they would prefer that no one had fire arms and that they could peacefully tend to their dairy farm. On a personal note, I was robbed at gunpoint when in Bogota. From that situation, I do not think that my having a firearm would have likely lead to a better outcome. I could in no way be certain that I would have been "victorious", most likely there would have been some people dead or maimed. If I did survive "unscathed", I would be bearing the Mark of Cain for the rest of my days. As it was, I made an insurance claim - done. Australia, where I live, has a population the size of Florida. There is strong gun control here. You can get firearms, just not easily. You can not get semi automatics or automatic weapons. Australia has a yearly murder rate of 1.1 per 100,000. Florida has a murder rate between 4 and 6 depending on the year. The US as a whole has an rate between 4 and 5. From what I understand Australia has a lower unemployment rate than Florida. People having jobs are less likely to be driven to violence. I am just taking a shot in the dark here. I think that both of you guys have merit in what you are saying. I think that you are both wanting to reach a society which is a better place to live in. I think that what bring people to want to kill each other is a strongly multi-variable problem. I don't think that there is a single "switch" that can be adjusted to "make things all right".

Thu, 2014-10-02 01:52

Smokeskin

Justin In Oz wrote: I think

Justin In Oz wrote:
I think that what bring people to want to kill each other is a strongly multi-variable problem. I don't think that there is a single "switch" that can be adjusted to "make things all right".

I agree. This line of discussion started in the other thread because of some unreasonable claims in favor of control. One was that guns increased gun deaths - but that is a trick argument, obviously guns are the weapon of choice if they're available, and we should look at total violence. The it was claimed that there was a positive correlation between more guns and more violence (where in reality the correlation seems to be negative), and that this correlation was causally relevant (as you and Lorsa pointed out, it is very difficult to go from correlation to causation).

Thu, 2014-10-02 05:45

Lorsa

The true question that people

The true question that people seem to ask is "does easy access to guns make you more safe". How to interpret "more safe" is a difficult issue, I choose to read it as "less likely to be killed" and not "less likely to be robbed". So, under that assumption, I am 100% certain that I am more safe in any of the Nordic countries, that definitely do not have easy access to firearms, compared to most of the US of A, which does. Obviously we then get into the debate whether or not this difference is caused by the prevalence of easy access guns, or if it has other causes. I do believe that more lax gun laws in Sweden would make me less safe here. However, it is possible that me being allowed to carry a gun with me would make me more safe [i]in America[/i]. If that is true, then the question would be "how do we get a society where easy access to guns do not make you more safe". However, I still question whether individuals being allowed to carry firearms around town makes anyone more safe, ever. I also think that US really needs to revisit its constitution, and not only the second amendment. The right to bear arms (a bit unspecified what counts as "arms", as far as I know nukes don't count) was written in an era where your average firearm had an accuracy of shit and a reloading time of forever. One of the most common "arms" was still the sword. That is a whole other technology level than semi-automatic handguns, 1000 RPM automatic rifles, or ultra-accurate 2 km range anti-material rifles. It is, in my opinion, impossible to lean on an old law and claim it is unchangeable. Old laws just makes them... old. Society changes and you really need to revisit them. If we discount the technological aspect, the second amendment was also written in a very different culture. Back then, many countries still had dictatorships, including heavy abuses of the "common man" (read peasants). The creators of this law saw a real need for individuals to protect themselves against their own fascist government. That simply isn't the case in a democratic country (for this discussion I don't count corruption as oppression). In the days when the constitution was written, many countries had laws that a certain class, the nobility, had the right to bear arms, whereas other classes didn't. One way to equalise this would be to give the right to ALL classes to bear arms, which is what USA did. The other way, of course, would be to give noone the right. This is the way chosen by most countries in Europe, and I believe it is the way that works best in modern society.

—

Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]

Thu, 2014-10-02 07:17

Smokeskin

Lorsa wrote:The true question

Lorsa wrote:
The true question that people seem to ask is "does easy access to guns make you more safe". How to interpret "more safe" is a difficult issue, I choose to read it as "less likely to be killed" and not "less likely to be robbed". So, under that assumption, I am 100% certain that I am more safe in any of the Nordic countries, that definitely do not have easy access to firearms, compared to most of the US of A, which does.

But it is just not that simple. Incidents in the year 2010 per 100,000 population https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime.html Homicide: U.S. 4.8 UK (includes Northern Ireland) 1.2 Australia 1.0 Sweden 1.0 Rape: U.S. 27.3 UK (England and Wales) 28.8 Australia 88.4 Sweden 63.5 Assault U.S. 250.9 U.K. (England and Wales) 664.4 Australia 766 Sweden 936.6 Scotland 1449.7 So compared to the US per 100.000 people, there are 4 less murders in Sweden, but 36 more rapes and 686 more assaults. How do we stack that up and compare the numbers? If we don't look at the benefits from less rape (and I suspect other forms of crime are lower too) but only assault, that's a 171:1 assault to murder rate. If we compare that to an assault situation, would you fight back if it let you escape unscathed when there was less than 0.6% chance of death? If you would, then you'd prefer the US crime statistics since you prefer a 1:171 chance of death to assault. These differences are of course related to A LOT of things that don't have anything to do with guns: poverty, drug related gang activity, prison sentence length, etc. But I'd challenge the fact that you're safer in Sweden than in the US. Especially if you avoid the crime-infested areas of the US. It is a much more segregated society than we have here in Scandinavia.

Lorsa wrote:
Obviously we then get into the debate whether or not this difference is caused by the prevalence of easy access guns, or if it has other causes. I do believe that more lax gun laws in Sweden would make me less safe here. However, it is possible that me being allowed to carry a gun with me would make me more safe [i]in America[/i]. If that is true, then the question would be "how do we get a society where easy access to guns do not make you more safe". However, I still question whether individuals being allowed to carry firearms around town makes anyone more safe, ever.

That sort of inference is very problematic. How do you know that? Have you accurately factored in all the effects, and how people will change their behavior based on gun availability? There are a ton of ways you could be more safe. You don't even need to have one before you're safer. - a criminal pulls a gun on you, you do as he says and you're safe. If he pulls a knife, you're more likely to misjudge your chances and run, argue or fight and get killed. - a criminal wants to rob you. With only a melee weapon he worries you'll just run, so he knocks you down in a surprise attack. With a gun, he just threatens you and you comply without daring to run. And let's say that 10% of the population carried guns. Suddenly armed robbery, street violence and rape becomes really, really dangerous. Raping an unarmed woman is easy for most men, but if there's a 10% chance she's carrying a gun then the potential risk/reward for the wannabe rapist suddenly looks totally different. In street violence most of the time bystanders just walk by, and if they do intervene they can't do much anyway - with 10% having guns, bystanders are now a real risk. Of course there are ways in which it becomes worse - people with poor impulse control can do a lot more harm with a gun that without if they fly into a rage, the bullied kid that snaps shoots his classmates instead of just committing suicide, and such. But as you balance out these factors, how can you be sure of which way the end result with go? The world is full of example of regulation having the opposite effect of what was intented.

Lorsa wrote:
In the days when the constitution was written, many countries had laws that a certain class, the nobility, had the right to bear arms, whereas other classes didn't. One way to equalise this would be to give the right to ALL classes to bear arms, which is what USA did. The other way, of course, would be to give noone the right. This is the way chosen by most countries in Europe, and I believe it is the way that works best in modern society.

The state still has guns. Criminals still have guns. And even if no one has guns, people aren't equal. Some people are much stronger and better fighters than others, and the lack of guns hurts the weak much more than it hurts the strong. Especially women are in a tough spot. Without a gun a woman will typically not stand a chance against a male attacker, be that a rapist, a robber or a an abusive partner.

Thu, 2014-10-02 08:06

Lorsa

Smokeskin wrote:But it is

Smokeskin wrote:
But it is just not that simple.

It never is. It is also quite possible that my actual safety is different than my percieved safety. But since percieved safety is what makes me go out and enjoy a night out without much fear, I'd take that over actual safety, which may be more crippling to my daily life if it comes with the fear of percieved unsafeness.

Smokeskin wrote:
Incidents in the year 2010 per 100,000 population https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime.html Homicide: U.S. 4.8 UK (includes Northern Ireland) 1.2 Australia 1.0 Sweden 1.0 Rape: U.S. 27.3 UK (England and Wales) 28.8 Australia 88.4 Sweden 63.5 Assault U.S. 250.9 U.K. (England and Wales) 664.4 Australia 766 Sweden 936.6 Scotland 1449.7 So compared to the US per 100.000 people, there are 4 less murders in Sweden, but 36 more rapes and 686 more assaults. How do we stack that up and compare the numbers? If we don't look at the benefits from less rape (and I suspect other forms of crime are lower too) but only assault, that's a 171:1 assault to murder rate. If we compare that to an assault situation, would you fight back if it let you escape unscathed when there was less than 0.6% chance of death? If you would, then you'd prefer the US crime statistics since you prefer a 1:171 chance of death to assault. These differences are of course related to A LOT of things that don't have anything to do with guns: poverty, drug related gang activity, prison sentence length, etc. But I'd challenge the fact that you're safer in Sweden than in the US. Especially if you avoid the crime-infested areas of the US. It is a much more segregated society than we have here in Scandinavia.

Again, it is not that simple that we can just compare the numbers. It depends a lot where the numbers come from. Are they projections on the actual amounts, or are they simply those reported to the police. My guess is that they would be the latter, in which case I would like to point out that rape is a crime that typically has a very large dark-number. It could simply be the case that more rape gets reported in Sweden than in US (which wouldn't surprise me very much). Same could be true with assault, some countries could be better at reporting it, thus increasing the crime statistics. Then we also have to look at what counts as rape, or assault, in these countries. Was the same "law" used to judge all countries, or were they based on each contry's own? For example, Sweden has some of the strictest rape laws in the world, and very recently moved some sex offenses that weren't considered rape before into the rape category. Unsurprisingly that increased our statistics a lot. Unless we judge crimes based on the same premise, we can't make quantative comparisons like that. Not to mention that we need to factor in statistics on unreported crime.

Smokeskin wrote:
That sort of inference is very problematic. How do you know that? Have you accurately factored in all the effects, and how people will change their behavior based on gun availability?

I don't know. I believe. Two very different things. If I knew, I would talk in objective terms, like... I know.

Smokeskin wrote:
There are a ton of ways you could be more safe. You don't even need to have one before you're safer. - a criminal pulls a gun on you, you do as he says and you're safe. If he pulls a knife, you're more likely to misjudge your chances and run, argue or fight and get killed. - a criminal wants to rob you. With only a melee weapon he worries you'll just run, so he knocks you down in a surprise attack. With a gun, he just threatens you and you comply without daring to run. And let's say that 10% of the population carried guns. Suddenly armed robbery, street violence and rape becomes really, really dangerous. Raping an unarmed woman is easy for most men, but if there's a 10% chance she's carrying a gun then the potential risk/reward for the wannabe rapist suddenly looks totally different. In street violence most of the time bystanders just walk by, and if they do intervene they can't do much anyway - with 10% having guns, bystanders are now a real risk. Of course there are ways in which it becomes worse - people with poor impulse control can do a lot more harm with a gun that without if they fly into a rage, the bullied kid that snaps shoots his classmates instead of just committing suicide, and such. But as you balance out these factors, how can you be sure of which way the end result with go? The world is full of example of regulation having the opposite effect of what was intented.

You're right, we do need to to look at behavior. For example, if I was a criminal that wanted to rob someone, but knew the majority of people carry guns with them, thus increasing the chances that I'd get shot, or even die, during my robbery, I obviously wouldn't try to threaten them with a knife. What I would do instead would be to shoot my victim first, before they can pull their gun, and THEN rob them. The same goes for all other crimes, if I believe people will carry around guns, I'll want to use mine first, to disable their ability to use theirs, and since I am the criminal, I am usually the one instigating the violence (otherwise normal people would have to go around shooting "suspected criminals", and there's no way [i]that[/i] is a more safe society). So by using your methodology of supposed behavior under the presence of guns, I would like to argue that it is indeed [i]more[/i] likely that I'll end up dead, as a criminal will rather shoot me than threaten me. If I have a choice, I'd go with the threat.

Smokeskin wrote:
The state still has guns. Criminals still have guns. And even if no one has guns, people aren't equal. Some people are much stronger and better fighters than others, and the lack of guns hurts the weak much more than it hurts the strong. Especially women are in a tough spot. Without a gun a woman will typically not stand a chance against a male attacker, be that a rapist, a robber or a an abusive partner.

Yes, the state still has guns, but the state really isn't the same oppressive entity that it used to be in the 18th century, no matter how much you try to argue the fact. Universal suffrage changes a lot of things, and the state is typically held A LOT more accountable for its misuse of violence today than it was 2 centuries ago. Criminals still have guns, yes. But they're not ALLOWED to have guns in a gun-controlled society, which is the difference. With a law that says noone (but specific people working for the state to keep order) is allowed to have guns, you do get the equality that the second amendment was striving for. Just in the reverse way. You are right that nature isn't equal (I wish that would come up in political debate more often). Perhaps then it would be better with regular physical and fighting exams, and then arm people according to how strong/weak they are, to even the odds?

—

Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]

Thu, 2014-10-02 09:09

Smokeskin

Lorsa wrote:

Lorsa wrote:
You're right, we do need to to look at behavior. For example, if I was a criminal that wanted to rob someone, but knew the majority of people carry guns with them, thus increasing the chances that I'd get shot, or even die, during my robbery, I obviously wouldn't try to threaten them with a knife. What I would do instead would be to shoot my victim first, before they can pull their gun, and THEN rob them. The same goes for all other crimes, if I believe people will carry around guns, I'll want to use mine first, to disable their ability to use theirs, and since I am the criminal, I am usually the one instigating the violence (otherwise normal people would have to go around shooting "suspected criminals", and there's no way [i]that[/i] is a more safe society). So by using your methodology of supposed behavior under the presence of guns, I would like to argue that it is indeed [i]more[/i] likely that I'll end up dead, as a criminal will rather shoot me than threaten me. If I have a choice, I'd go with the threat.

Criminals aren't so simple. While a criminal determined to take someone out would be more likely to resort to deadly force from the outset, I agree with that, most robbers are going to make a risk/reward judgment, as everyone does. And the gains for robbing someone just typically aren't big enough to justify a shoot-first execution. Killing someone means a large police investigation, risk of long prison sentence, and for most it carries a large psychological cost too. It seems to be another case of pros and cons - really determined criminals use more force up front, the "average" criminal is deterred. If that leads to more or less violence and murder is very difficult to say.

Lorsa wrote:
Criminals still have guns, yes. But they're not ALLOWED to have guns in a gun-controlled society, which is the difference. With a law that says noone (but specific people working for the state to keep order) is allowed to have guns, you do get the equality that the second amendment was striving for. Just in the reverse way.

I don't see why it matters what the law-makers intented. Sure, criminals aren't allowed to have guns, but if they do have guns, then the law-makers intent is a really poor comfort when you're faced with criminal with a gun. Or you're a woman facing a much stronger rapist and you don't have a gun. (btw I learned today that "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" wasn't said by Benjamin Franklin, a Founding Father.)

Lorsa wrote:
You are right that nature isn't equal (I wish that would come up in political debate more often). Perhaps then it would be better with regular physical and fighting exams, and then arm people according to how strong/weak they are, to even the odds?

That sounds like an overly complicated, highly bureaucratic solution... I'd rather have regular gun control than that. It's a minor issue after all. I don't think anyone can claim that guns do much in either direction on crime and safety on a societal level, and even if it does the total numbers doesn't stack up to much. Crime isn't a big factor, except emotionally, and if we want to adress it, then I'm sure there are things that adress it much more effectively. We have fairly strict gun control laws here in Denmark, and I don't see it as important to ease that up (not after we were allowed to buy silencers just a few months ago). I honestly don't know if it would do harm or good. Especially since I don't think many people would have a gun for self defense anyway. The unfairness of gun control does manifest itself for those in danger though. Say you have a stalker. Denying such a person a gun for self defense, I think that's highly immoral.

Thu, 2014-10-02 09:21

Lilith

RE...

Lorsa wrote:
Again, it is not that simple that we can just compare the numbers. It depends a lot where the numbers come from. Are they projections on the actual amounts, or are they simply those reported to the police. My guess is that they would be the latter, in which case I would like to point out that rape is a crime that typically has a very large dark-number. It could simply be the case that more rape gets reported in Sweden than in US (which wouldn't surprise me very much). Same could be true with assault, some countries could be better at reporting it, thus increasing the crime statistics.

I'm not going to weigh into this debate too much, just because I'm not sure how much I really have to offer with my own limited purview. That said, I can confirmed that rape in the US is vastly under-reported, primarily due to the stigmas forced (unfairly) upon the victims. In addition, due to the complexities of US laws, which vary from state to state, the "definition" of rape itself is an issue in of itself—the FBI only recently (as of 2012) updated its previously 90-year-old definition of the crime, after which the reports in rapes jumped significantly in some cities due to more crimes fitting that new definition. Regardless, as far as guns go, I can only attest to my own feelings. Having a gun doesn't make me feel safe. Maybe it's the writer in me, but I look at every gun at Chekov's gun; just knowing one is nearby feels me with unease that it's eventually going to be used, and someone won't end up the better for it. I admit, that's nothing more than personal emotions and paranoia, but if we're talking about "security" and "safety", I think a personal state of mind is more relevant than vacuous and faceless statistics—let's not forget that we're talking about people here, not numbers. Really, I'm less afraid of a criminal with a gun than John Q. Public waving around a firearm in misguided attempt to be a hero. The last thing I want is to get caught in the crossfire when some idiot thinks he can be Wyatt Earp. It's not the Wild West anymore, thank Christ.

Thu, 2014-10-02 10:00

#10

Erulastant Erulastant's picture

Smokeskin, please keep in

Smokeskin, please keep in mind that only a small proportion of rapes are violent crimes committed by a stranger. The majority of rapes would not be influenced by possession of a firearm. Most of those that would would not be prevented--if someone else who is visibly less armed gets attacked instead, it's not really prevention, is it? It looks like your statistics came (indirectly) from the DoJ, which means they're probably on reported crimes. In the US, only about 10% of rapes are reported, so it's pretty easy to imagine Sweden might have more reported and much less actual rape. When you talk about criminals still having gun access, (and therefore gun control doesn't help) you're reducing "criminals having guns" to a purely binary issue. Yes, criminals will still have access to guns. No, they won't have the same level of access. And if carrying a gun at all is illegal (rather than "if someone has a gun the police aren't even allowed to ask to see a permit" which is the case in some places in the US) then criminals have much more incentive not to carry because having their gun spotted could mean years in prison. Now I don't doubt that a "guns for everyone" policy could reduce crime. (I suspect there would be significant costs to this approach though). But it seems like we could also reduce crime by having a more active police force that spent its time preventing crime instead of making drug busts and gunning down black men. And fixing our existing crime prevention system seems like a better approach than encouraging vigilantism. I also want to point out that the fact that "Guns for everyone!" might work does not mean that "Guns for everyone who wants one!" works. Because if gun ownership truly increases public safety it should not be optional.

—

You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.

Thu, 2014-10-02 10:32

#11

ORCACommander ORCACommander's picture

The problem is the police do

The problem is the police do not prevent crime except within a very small radius around their physical presence. to prevent crime we have to go to the minority report route and people become guilty prior to the act. true their is a problem with mass armament and that the vast majority of people will be idiots and incompetent. Which is why my favorite form of gun control is that f you want to own a firearm you need to attend 6 weeks worth of trainings on how to care and use the things with an accuracy qualification at the end. I would postulate that wounds and maiming is worse than death. I really do hate the "Well the technology was different back then" argument. The law written as to have parity between between government and and the proletariat. Make everything but a musket illegal and then you have a disparity. Actually there are no federal laws and I can only think of 1 municipality that outright outlaws nukes. If i wanted to own a nuke all i would have to do was make sure my containment of it was regulatory compliant, read as prohibitively expensive. I can own high performance interceptors or bombers or even tanks but the reason why most people don't have these is because they are very very expensive. I think we have all agreed on that a gun is not inherently evil. it has no will of its own. it can not function without a human mind behind it. I will admit though that since guns are iconisized that they would allow people more confidence in doing actions they normally would not though. "gun crime" is is not a disease it is a sub-symptom of the larger symptom that is Crime in general. What causes this symptom? By and large economics and population pressure. Despite media claims the mass murderers, serial killers, mentally unwell are rare. These outliers and their pontification by mass media are what is ruining to me a very relaxing and enjoyable hobby. I honestly hope i am never in the position where i need to shoot, stab, or bludgeon somebody

Thu, 2014-10-02 10:46

#12

Smokeskin

Lilith wrote:

Lilith wrote:
Really, I'm less afraid of a criminal with a gun than John Q. Public waving around a firearm in misguided attempt to be a hero. The last thing I want is to get caught in the crossfire when some idiot thinks he can be Wyatt Earp. It's not the Wild West anymore, thank Christ.

There's also simple accidents to consider. A lot of people just handle their firearms very unsafely. Especially when hunting with the older generation, you see a lot of really unsafe handling. Now, to get a gun license you need to have a hunting license[*] first, and that includes a course on gun safety and safe handling, and there's an exam where you walk around a route, cross obstacles and shoot at some targets and they will flunk you for any mistake on gun safety. You have to check if the weapon is loaded when you pick it up, never point the muzzle anywhere unsafe, only touch the trigger when you're about to shoot, etc. They didn't always have that, and you can really tell. I did have one of my friends in his 30s swipe me with a loaded shotgun, but he's one of the least safety conscious people I know and his driving license is way more of a danger to society than his gun license. You don't have that in the US, do you? No mandatory safety training or anything like that? Btw, I think that the correct way to think about this is not "I'm less afraid of a criminal with a gun than John Q. Public waving around a firearm in misguided attempt to be a hero." It doesn't accurately reflect the changes that gun control bring about. The criminal might have a gun anyway. The criminal might be unwilling to commit a crime anywhere near potentially armed John Q. Public so you might be less likely to have anyone wave a gun OR a knife around anywhere. Take those Open Carry Texas people. They are provocative morons imo, but I think we can agree that the risk of a criminal making a move anywhere near them is close to zero - they're the least likely people to ever be in a position of making an attempt at being a hero.

Thu, 2014-10-02 11:08

#13

ORCACommander ORCACommander's picture

I do not knows of any

I do not knows of any municipality where training courses are required for civilian ownership or operation. hunting licenses are secondary to gun permits and have a few different classes. there are specific licenses for black powder, archery, trapping, rifle, handgun and shotgun. Most of this is to get more money out of you but also to stagger out the hunting season so only people with like arms are active at the same time to reduce accidents

Thu, 2014-10-02 11:44

#14

Lilith

RE...

Smokeskin wrote:
You don't have that in the US, do you? No mandatory safety training or anything like that? Btw, I think that the correct way to think about this is not "I'm less afraid of a criminal with a gun than John Q. Public waving around a firearm in misguided attempt to be a hero." It doesn't accurately reflect the changes that gun control bring about. The criminal might have a gun anyway. The criminal might be unwilling to commit a crime anywhere near potentially armed John Q. Public so you might be less likely to have anyone wave a gun OR a knife around anywhere. Take those Open Carry Texas people. They are provocative morons imo, but I think we can agree that the risk of a criminal making a move anywhere near them is close to zero - they're the least likely people to ever be in a position of making an attempt at being a hero.

I'm sure gun safety courses [i]exist[/i] here in the US, but as far as I know they're not mandatory in most states. Hell, to get a concealed carry permit here in NC all I have to do is pay $80 and go to to an 8-hour class. Gun permits rarely require more than a background check, and the NRA has been doing its level best to get that removed for ages now. As far as my "John Q." statement, I stand by it. Like, I feel like you overestimate the logical thinking ability of the average criminal (Perhaps I should say [i]American[/i] criminal? Maybe foreign gun-toting types are a margin more intelligent than my countrymen.) I mean, point one: your average sane, intelligent, rational human being [i]doesn't intend to commit a crime[/i], violent or otherwise. I'm not talking about petty things, either; anything you'd ideally want a gun to commit is not an act that your average human being would seriously consider doing, right? I mean, I know I'm risking a lot on my position by assuming basic human decency, but that's just how I'm wired, y'know? So already we're not dealing with someone that's concerned with doing what's "logical". We're dealing with someone that's desperate, uneducated, irrational, unstable, or any combination of the above. Your average person fitting that definition probably isn't going to even consider whether or not Victim A is armed or not, in which case your argument becomes moot because the crime would be committed one way or the other—the only relevant thing now (to me, anyway) is the danger posed to people nearby if these two idiots start shooting at each other. And the fact that Texas is [url=http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-... 2 in violent crimes in the United States[/url] behind California kinda supports my end, at least insofar as all those open-carry nuts don't seem to be deterring crime very much. So yeah. There's that. Part of it is a societal thing, though. It's been said we Americans are, on the average, more violent than other people. I'm not one to argue against that, given that I live here and see what goes on every day. Maybe we're just not as mature as you European folks who claim to have a better handle on your firearms. Hell if I know.

Thu, 2014-10-02 12:05

#15

Erulastant Erulastant's picture

Yeah, the mandatory safety

Yeah, the mandatory safety training is part of the gun control that US conservatives are so terrified of. So we don't have it.

ORCACommander wrote:
I really do hate the "Well the technology was different back then" argument. The law written as to have parity between between government and and the proletariat. Make everything but a musket illegal and then you have a disparity. Actually there are no federal laws and I can only think of 1 municipality that outright outlaws nukes. If i wanted to own a nuke all i would have to do was make sure my containment of it was regulatory compliant, read as prohibitively expensive. I can own high performance interceptors or bombers or even tanks but the reason why most people don't have these is because they are very very expensive.

...Exactly? The "Protect yourself against oppressive governments" part of the 2nd ammendment just doesn't apply anymore because a private citizen* can't afford a UAV, a couple of tanks, and nuclear first strike capability. (And I'm skeptical as to your claim that private ownership of these things is not illegal...) And the "technology is different" argument has merit the other way too! When the constitution was written, it was not possible for a single person to carry a weapon capable of killing dozens of people in a handful of seconds. The risks of a lone musketman trying to go on a killing spree are not comparable to the risks of a lone gunman today. It's probably a bad idea to argue for lack of gun control based on a theoretical well-armed society. Lack of gun control does not lead to a well-armed society, but to a sporadically-armed society (With the arms generally concentrated in the hands of those who are more privileged socially. See the US where white men are allowed to tote assault rifles almost anywhere, but black men are shot for looking like they [i]might[/i] have a gun.) *Discounting outliers

—

You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.

Thu, 2014-10-02 12:08

#16

Smokeskin

Erulastant wrote:Smokeskin,

Erulastant wrote:
Smokeskin, please keep in mind that only a small proportion of rapes are violent crimes committed by a stranger. The majority of rapes would not be influenced by possession of a firearm. Most of those that would would not be prevented--if someone else who is visibly less armed gets attacked instead, it's not really prevention, is it?

I never really understood the "if it doesn't stop all rapes it is not worth implementing" argument. There are still strangers being raped, some of which might be saved. And for being raped by someone you know, I imagine that this is often a desire for a specific person? In that case if she is a gun carrier, another target wouldn't be substituted. In any case, helping even a few avoid rape still seems a noble cause.

Quote:
I also want to point out that the fact that "Guns for everyone!" might work does not mean that "Guns for everyone who wants one!" works. Because if gun ownership truly increases public safety it should not be optional.

Mandatory gun carry, now there's something you could get some lobbyists behind ;) I personally don't think there's strong srgument for or against gun control in terms of safety, so I wouldn't support it. I wouldn't support a ban either, but I don't see it as a big issue. Even countries with strict gun control let people use guns for recreational activities, so what is the big deal?

Thu, 2014-10-02 12:50

#17

ORCACommander ORCACommander's picture

Lorsa you really are assuming

Lorsa you really are assuming people are better than what they are. Human decency only exists because of the presence of negative feedback. Criminals are fairly logical too. I need 200 dollars. No one is going to give me 200 voluntarily therefore I need a tool. More often that tool is a firearm. Less often its knife Like i said Eru, I do not know except for 1 or two places that explicitly banned nukes. Everywhere else is just caught up in red tape and regulations. tanks and jets? very much legal. granted most of the privately owned tanks are relics from ww2. Most of these put into circulation after ww2 ended and it was cheaper to buy one than to buy a bulldozer. Fighter Jet. There is at least 1 F4-Phantom in private ownership. If i wanted an F-22 or a an m1 Abrahms i probably would not get a military issue one. it would be the export version with the classified bits stripped out. and euro there was a weapon killing and maiming dozens in a few seconds back then. it was called a blunderbuss. today we call it a shotgun. the lone gunmen going on a spree is what i meant by outlier. These people are rare. And i am pretty sure the last couple were more glory seekers that did it to get attention on the tv because of how much attention their priors got. exactly smokeskin. what is the big deal? the big deal is a very small minority of nutters did something bad and that is now ruining things for everyone that wants to use one in a legitimate matter. And the mass media is not helping to keep people calm accelerated and educated. instead they see a stack of bodies and harp on it for 2 months t get their ratings higher blowing the problem out of proportion. Example: I should of never heard of the norway mass shooting a few years ago via the mass media. If i heard of it at all i should of heard of it from my one or two norwegian friends

Thu, 2014-10-02 13:24

#18

nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture

Interesting debate, and I'm a

Interesting debate, and I'm a little shocked how polite and level-headed everyone is!! With most crowds, it'd be down to name-calling and hair-pulling by now :) There are a few things to bear in mind when discussing the US in a gun control debate; 1) The US is not homogenous. The state I live in, I can buy a limited selection of long rifles and, if I meet some pretty rigid requirements, a handgun. However, the rules on bringing them out of the house are extremely rigid, to the point that I cannot even stop to buy fuel for my car if I have a firearm securely locked and disassembled in the trunk. If I were to cross the river, I can get a permit to carry a handgun with me everywhere but the post office if I can pass a two-hour course and a written exam, and I can hang any sort of gun I want inside of my vehicle where-ever I go. However, the state I live in has a lot of economic disparity, a lot of racial conflict, and as a consequence, a pretty high crime rate (to the point that a very famous crime drama was filmed, literally, down the street from my house), whereas state across the river is better known for farms, beaches, and back-country white folk. Yet if you look at US statistics, you see the crime rates of my city next to the gun laws of across the river, as though they're the same place. 2) The US really isn't homogenous. Nordic nations are what, 80% white, all within a pretty narrow economic band, with pretty similar quality of life? The US is very racially mixed, with both some of the poorest and some of the richest people in the world, frequently living within walking distance from one another. (I'm not joking; if I walk a quarter mile one way, I hit mansions, a quarter mile the other I hit heroin dealers and dilapidated rowhouses.) While diversity is perhaps one of America's greatest assets, it also breeds conflict, and some of that diversity is perhaps less beneficial than others :) I'd argue that the availability of guns is less of a cause of violent crime in the US than the lack of availability of social services, drug treatment, and basic necessities. If you took away the guns (and look to DC or Chicago for places where they did precisely that) violent crime does not go away. In fact, it gets worse because, as was pointed out, if I have a knife, I'm more likely to hurt you first to get you to comply, whereas if I have a gun, the threat of shooting is normally sufficient (per FBI crime stats). One of the best ways to normalize this data, from what I've seen, is to look at crime rates in prison. Whether you're in Denmark or DC, if you're in prison you have no access to weapons. So if gun control is effective, violent crime in US prisons should be comparable to violent crime in Danish prisons. (Of course, we know that isn't the case. US prisons seem to be some of the most violent you can find.) 3) Looking back at the Federalist papers and related sources, US gun access is not about personal safety. It's about a balance of power between the federal government, states, and citizens. An armed populace is not easily cowed. That's a totally different animal than protecting yourself from muggers.

Thu, 2014-10-02 13:34

#19

Erulastant Erulastant's picture

Smokeskin wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
I never really understood the "if it doesn't stop all rapes it is not worth implementing" argument.

But the "if it doesn't stop all gun violence it's not worth implementing" argument is fine? At any rate, my point was that citing statistics about rape does not really contribute to a discussion on gun control, because [i]even if[/i] Sweden had a higher actual (as opposed to reported) rape rate than the US, that would be due almost entirely to other factors.

Smokeskin wrote:
I personally don't think there's strong srgument for or against gun control in terms of safety, so I wouldn't support it. I wouldn't support a ban either, but I don't see it as a big issue. Even countries with strict gun control let people use guns for recreational activities, so what is the big deal?

The big deal is that if "self-defense" gun ownership does not actually increase public safety then there is no reason to allow it. There's a huge difference between allowing people owning hunting rifles for hunting and people owning handguns so that they can enact or threaten violence against other people. It is possible to accept hunting as morally permissible without some other good that it achieves. It is much harder to do this for the use or threat of violence against another person. If you don't think there's a strong safety argument for either side, why are you opposed to a ban? If free access to guns has no net effect on public safety, and only manages to break even because citizens are now threatening to shoot each other... how is this not strictly worse than the scenario where they aren't threatening to shoot each other?

—

You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.

Thu, 2014-10-02 14:04

#20

Lilith

RE...

ORCACommander wrote:
Like i said Eru, I do not know except for 1 or two places that explicitly banned nukes. Everywhere else is just caught up in red tape and regulations. tanks and jets? very much legal. granted most of the privately owned tanks are relics from ww2. Most of these put into circulation after ww2 ended and it was cheaper to buy one than to buy a bulldozer. Fighter Jet. There is at least 1 F4-Phantom in private ownership. If i wanted an F-22 or a an m1 Abrahms i probably would not get a military issue one. it would be the export version with the classified bits stripped out.

I'm not going to reply to a lot of that post for ... reasons. But I can certainly chime on civilian ownership of military vehicles. Surprisingly enough, it's legal to own things like tanks here in the US, with restrictions. First off, in any main battle vehicle like a tank the firing mechanism of the main cannon has to be removed, or at least disabled if it can't be. Secondly, just because you own it, doesn't mean you can drive it around right away. You need a Class B license on account of the weight, and you need a special permit on account of the width (pretty sure it's gonna take up more than one lane...). Plus since tanks are tracked and not wheeled, that requires [i]another[/i] special license (in most states), and that usually restricts you to pre-designated routes so you don't tear up public roads. You also have to pre-register the vehicle's movements if you [i]do[/i] intend to take it out, and you have to get that trip insured against any damage you may or may not cause. But yes, you can totally own one. Hell, Tom Clancy did! Aircraft is in a similar state; you can own one so long as all the weapons systems (and any classified components) have been stripped and rendered inoperable. As I understand it, you also have to buy the whole thing disassembled and then reassemble it in the country (classifying it as "Experimental"). You can't fly at supersonic speeds (if the aircraft is capable of it) unless you're over international waters, for obvious safety reasons. One of the weird parts is that the weapons systems removal is in according with national export laws, which doesn't specify that you can't reinstall them once you import them... that mostly applies to things like radar-locking systems, though, and you'd still only be able to do that over international waters. You radar-lock a civilian aircraft and well ... nice knowing you. As far as nukes go, [url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2122]it is completely illegal for a private citizen to own/make/transport/possess a nuclear weapon[/url], unless you have the authority to do so for the sake of R&D or on behalf of the DoD. That said, I remember there being an odd case years ago where a guy buying military surplus in bulk ended up accidentally obtaining a small production plant capable of making Korean War-era nuclear bombs—he was just lacking the fissile and raw materials necessary, but all the machinery was there. Micheal Moore did a bit about it on his show TV Nation, back in the day.

Thu, 2014-10-02 14:10

#21

ORCACommander ORCACommander's picture

pretty much there are few

pretty much there are few distinctions between guns. the reason people are so uptight about handguns is because they are concealable. Personally i'd rather a law abiding citizen conceal his firearm because it makes people uneasy. Rifles are in no way Morally superior to a handgun. they both accomplish the same purpose. chemically propelling a kinetic round down range. I can threaten people with rifles shotguns handguns machineguns ect. the only real difference is going to be how far away I would stand. most doing the threatening are untrained or uninformed and would stand within the disarm radius. rifles and shotguns have wider disarm radia than handguns Also there are areas where is handgun hunting season. Some people like it because it is a more of challenge with the reduced effective range and accuracy. Self Defense and castle laws are a whole nother can of worms. Personally I consider it the right of every sapient being to defend life, property, and those under his protection by [i]any[/i] means necessary. this includes the use of lethal force of which when that gets involved does it matter whether i used a pen or a 9mm Berretta? And Self defense Only activates [i]after[/i] a person becomes an aggressor. What you are calling Self defense gun ownership is actually the MAD principle of nuclear warfare to answer your final question is is better because those that are being responsible are not being curtailed by reactionaries and are pursuing their hobbies. EDIT: Lorsa I'll stand corrected on the nuclear issue And wow did not realize there was so much red tape. and ya i heard that firing mechanisms have to be rendered inoperable at sale. Do you know if there are any laws against repairing them after the fact? probably falls under the same laws as modifying a rifle to full automatic fire if so.

Thu, 2014-10-02 14:18

#22

branford

Erulastant wrote:If you don't

Erulastant wrote:
If you don't think there's a strong safety argument for either side, why are you opposed to a ban? If free access to guns has no net effect on public safety, and only manages to break even because citizens are now threatening to shoot each other... how is this not strictly worse than the scenario where they aren't threatening to shoot each other?

Why would, or should, the default position be a ban? Maybe it's my cultural lens as a white American attorney living and working in NYC, but I believe that the default position on any product or behavior is that it should be permissible for adults, unless and until the government has very solid proof that restriction, no less a ban, is absolutely necessary and the least restrictive means to achieve the required and reasonable goal. It does not matter if the issue is guns, recreational drugs, high fructose corn syrup, carbon emissions or anything else. The fact that arms are explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights simply raises the bar much, much higher before the government can restrict the ownership and use of firearms. I would note that I also strongly believe in the defense of self and others as a basic human right. My politics may lean left, but I see no nobility or righteousness in victimhood. The problem is that we are not all physically equal. Some are old or infirm, others smaller or weaker, and even if strong, few would have any chance against multiple assailants, particularly if they were armed, legally or otherwise. Simply, I respect firearms as an unrivaled equalizer. I have mixed opinions on the various ancillary gun control matters like registration, magazine capacity and storage requirements. However, I would strongly oppose anything remotely approaching broad limitations on the ownership and use of the vast majority of personal firearms.

Thu, 2014-10-02 14:23

#23

Smokeskin

Erulastant wrote:Smokeskin

Erulastant wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
I never really understood the "if it doesn't stop all rapes it is not worth implementing" argument.
But the "if it doesn't stop all gun violence it's not worth implementing" argument is fine?

No it isn't. I don't think gun violence is interesting at all - I think you should look at the harm from all violence. And there is simply no evidence that gun control has any net positive effect. The correlations seem to point in the opposite direction in fact, though it is hard to make any inference of causation from the data.

Quote:
At any rate, my point was that citing statistics about rape does not really contribute to a discussion on gun control, because [i]even if[/i] Sweden had a higher actual (as opposed to reported) rape rate than the US, that would be due almost entirely to other factors.

That's probably true that other factors are at play too. Guns are still one of the only tools available to women that lets them deter rapists - and stalkers, abusive partners and robbers for that matter.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
I personally don't think there's strong srgument for or against gun control in terms of safety, so I wouldn't support it. I wouldn't support a ban either, but I don't see it as a big issue. Even countries with strict gun control let people use guns for recreational activities, so what is the big deal?
The big deal is that if "self-defense" gun ownership does not actually increase public safety then there is no reason to allow it. There's a huge difference between allowing people owning hunting rifles for hunting and people owning handguns so that they can enact or threaten violence against other people. It is possible to accept hunting as morally permissible without some other good that it achieves. It is much harder to do this for the use or threat of violence against another person. If you don't think there's a strong safety argument for either side, why are you opposed to a ban? If free access to guns has no net effect on public safety, and only manages to break even because citizens are now threatening to shoot each other... how is this not strictly worse than the scenario where they aren't threatening to shoot each other?

I don't see why we should ban something if the ban doesn't make anyone safer. The default should be that everything is allowed, and we only ban things if there is a good reason for doing so. We're down to enforcing gun control because it makes some people feel good, which I think is a pretty poor reason for limiting other people's freedoms. And we're not just saying no to guns that some people might want for fun - there's also the mother of three with a violent ex-husband who needs protection but can't get a gun without breaking the law and who ends up in jail for illegal possession and her kids in foster care. If I was the politician who voted for that law, the cop that arrested her, the judge that ruled on her case, I'd feel like an evil person.

Thu, 2014-10-02 14:42

#24

Smokeskin

Erulastant wrote:Yeah, the

Erulastant wrote:
Yeah, the mandatory safety training is part of the gun control that US conservatives are so terrified of. So we don't have it.

Most gun nuts I know are very concerned about safety. Try to show a picture of someone posing for a photo with a gun with their finger on the trigger, they'll comment on it instantly. I guess the lobbyist are worried about gun sales and that's the real reason behind the lack of a safety license requirement.

Quote:

ORCACommander wrote:
I really do hate the "Well the technology was different back then" argument. The law written as to have parity between between government and and the proletariat. Make everything but a musket illegal and then you have a disparity. Actually there are no federal laws and I can only think of 1 municipality that outright outlaws nukes. If i wanted to own a nuke all i would have to do was make sure my containment of it was regulatory compliant, read as prohibitively expensive. I can own high performance interceptors or bombers or even tanks but the reason why most people don't have these is because they are very very expensive.
...Exactly? The "Protect yourself against oppressive governments" part of the 2nd ammendment just doesn't apply anymore because a private citizen* can't afford a UAV, a couple of tanks, and nuclear first strike capability.

As our troops abroad have learned the hard way, a population with simple weapons is still extremely hard to control. We don't need to be able to win in an open field military engagement to discourage tyranny, or to fight back if it got to it.

Quote:
It's probably a bad idea to argue for lack of gun control based on a theoretical well-armed society. Lack of gun control does not lead to a well-armed society, but to a sporadically-armed society (With the arms generally concentrated in the hands of those who are more privileged socially. See the US where white men are allowed to tote assault rifles almost anywhere, but black men are shot for looking like they [i]might[/i] have a gun.)

We don't have any data for a well-armed society, unfortunately, and as you have pointed out those could never exist (unless we made carry mandatory). We do have data for the actually existing sporadically armed societies without gun control, and the sporadically armed societies that exist with gun control. The numbers are hard to compare, but the correlation is generally that more gun control gives less safety. The argument isn't and has never been that we get a well-armed society without gun control.

Thu, 2014-10-02 14:47

#25

Lilith

RE...

Smokeskin wrote:
We do have data for the actually existing sporadically armed societies without gun control, and the sporadically armed societies that exist with gun control. The numbers are hard to compare, but the correlation is generally that more gun control gives less safety.

This sounds like bullshit. What are we talking about here, third-world countries run by dictatorships? Communist regimes? Like, I may not know a lot of things, but this just rings patently-false, or if true, the kind of truth that needs a big fat asterisk[b]*[/b] by it with a large footnote in the margin. Also, I'm sorry but this notion of "what about all the poor defenseless women that need guns to protect them" rings very disingenuous to me at best, and downright sexist at the worst. I'm not going to say there can't be situations where it's justified to use a gun in defense of yourself (or others), even if I, on a personal level, am opposed to the notion of taking a human life under any circumstances; all the same, just because you can rattle off a hypothetical scenario in which a hypothetical woman might hyopthetically need a hypothetical firearm doesn't lend credence to your position, and trying to appeal to some gender role-appropriate scenario about needing to protect women is, frankly, downright insulting to everyone. To clarify something here: I am not advocating that firearms should be banned. Would I feel safer if they were? Definitely. But if the people of this country, as a majority, decide not to do so? It doesn't affect me, at least not until I get shot, I suppose. I know plenty of people who own firearms and are people I would consider trustworthy with them. Hell, my mother owns a 9mm Beretta, and my former roommate was a gun nut who owned two or three pistols, a Mosin Nagant rifle, and an AK-47 (funnily enough as a side note, he's actually in favor of gun control, just because he hates most of the kind of right-wing nutjobs he meets regularly when he goes down to the firing range). I (hesistantly) agree that, unless it can be proven to be undoubtedly harmful, there's no reason to outright ban something (though I'm a-okay with restrictions a-plenty). That said, let's not be deceitful; by no means is gun ownership some god-given right (even now people debate to death the exact meaning of the Second Amendment here in the US, so don't tell me that the Founding Fathers would be totally okay with Joe Blow owning a fully-auto AR15), nor is some "higher" purpose being served for the public good by allowing gun ownership. I've yet to see any proof positive of this "negative correlation" regarding the effect of gun control here in the States, and considering how crippled gun control [i]is[/i] here, I'd probably find issue with most studies depending on where they're from and—more importantly—who funded them. There's a lot of money in guns here, and it's no secret that the people with the money are the ones that get legislation done in this country. This, more than anything, is why I give anti-gun control arguments such a fisheye; no matter what's being said, there's always this spectre of what's [i]really[/i] being said that looms over the conversation, and things like "owning guns will prevent rapes!" are the exact kinds of bullshit arguments that I not only find personally insulting, but also morally-repugnant.

Thu, 2014-10-02 15:03

#26

branford

Smokeskin wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
I don't see why we should ban something if the ban doesn't make anyone safer. The default should be that everything is allowed, and we only ban things if there is a good reason for doing so. We're down to enforcing gun control because it makes some people feel good, which I think is a pretty poor reason for limiting other people's freedoms. And we're not just saying no to guns that some people might want for fun - there's also the mother of three with a violent ex-husband who needs protection but can't get a gun without breaking the law and who ends up in jail for illegal possession and her kids in foster care. If I was the politician who voted for that law, the cop that arrested her, the judge that ruled on her case, I'd feel like an evil person.

Gun control, like recreational or medicinal marijuana, abortion, the death penalty, etc., if often far more of a tribal or regional political or cultural issue, rather than anything to do with safety. Proponents of many of the law "gun safety" laws will sometimes even admit that their proposals would not save a single life. For instance, I would love to see ANY data that a magazine limit of 5, 7 or 10, rather than 15 or 20, will make anyone safer, except possibly multiple assailants engaged in criminality. Or how about the "Assault Weapons Ban" that deals with firearms that are involved in a statistically minuscule number of crimes, when used are almost always already possessed illegally, and where the government's own studies demonstrate that the Clinton ban had absolutely no effect on gun crime. A gun is an inanimate tool. It is neither good nor evil, and may be used for purposes that are vile and repulsive or entirely benign or enjoyable. I would no sooner support a ban on firearms than I would ban hammers or power tools (which account for greater number of deaths or injuries than rifles and assault weapons). The fact that guns may make some people "uncomfortable" is entirely unpersuasive. It's essentially the same reasons people used to ban interracial and same-sex marriage. Moreover, no one has suggested that gun ownership be mandatory. I have similar disdain for arguments akin to "if it saves just one child . . ." If that was true, we would have banned swimming pools long ago. I will, however, gladly entertain proposals to reduce the causes of all criminality, and mitigate its disastrous effects. Unfortunately, this is far more difficult and not readily distilled into bumper-sticker slogans.

Thu, 2014-10-02 15:38

#27

Smokeskin

Lilith wrote:Smokeskin wrote

Lilith wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
We do have data for the actually existing sporadically armed societies without gun control, and the sporadically armed societies that exist with gun control. The numbers are hard to compare, but the correlation is generally that more gun control gives less safety.
This sounds like bullshit. What are we talking about here, third-world countries run by dictatorships? Communist regimes? Like, I may not know a lot of things, but this just rings patently-false, or if true, the kind of truth that needs a big fat asterisk[b]*[/b] by it with a large footnote in the margin.

Look at the links at the first post in this thread for example. It's for developed nations, Western Europe, it's within states in the US and nearby cities with different gun laws. I found the links just googling "gun control correlation crime" or something like that.

Lilith wrote:
Also, I'm sorry but this notion of "what about all the poor defenseless women that need guns to protect them" rings very disingenuous to me at best, and downright sexist at the worst.

It is my honest belief that the most vulnerable are those harmed most by gun control. Women are physically at a great disadvantage compared to men, and on top of their valuables some men want to attack them to rape them too. Unless the average woman has a gun, she's a soft target for almost any criminal - he doesn't need superior size, weapons or to have his friends along as he does if he wants to dominate the average man. Give her a gun, and she's on an almost equal footing. More relevant in my opinion, some women find themselves with a violent ex partner stalking them. For them, violence is a very real risk, and in a straight fight most women won't stand a chance. The only real self defense and deterence option is a gun. And most men are only targets of crime from people who want money. Hand over your valuables and often it is over. I'd rather have proper insurance than a gun tbh. That's not the case for women; rapists, stalkers, abusive partners, they want to hurt them. I don't understand why you'd call this disingenous or sexist. That's just how it is. Women need guns more than men do.

Lilith wrote:
I'm not going to say there can't be situations where it's justified to use a gun in defense of yourself (or others), even if I, on a personal level, am opposed to the notion of taking a human life under any circumstances; all the same, just because you can rattle off a hypothetical scenario in which a hypothetical woman might hyopthetically need a hypothetical firearm doesn't lend credence to your position, and trying to appeal to some gender role-appropriate scenario about needing to protect women is, frankly, downright insulting to everyone.

Why is that insulting? This is not some hypothetical example. These things happen. There are women who are threatened and assaulted by violoent ex partners. Here in Denmark, they can't get a gun. They can't get even get pepper spray. They get a personal alarm, and that's it. Whatever happens between the time they press the alarm and the police arrive is entirely up to the abuser. I think this is the worst consequence of gun control laws, which is why I mentioned it. It's not because there should be more sympathy for women, but because being stalked by a physically superior single person intent on harm is the perfect case for allowing gun - the victim often knows it in advance so they can prepare and a gun can fix the problem. And this just tends to happen a lot to women. It's for the same reason we have women's shelters but very few men's shelters. I don't really see any need for gender symmetry, but can you come up with an example of men needing to defend themselves like this? Getting stalked by an ex-partner is rare. Being threatened because of trying to leave a gang, or criminal debt, or whatever gets men in trouble, having a gun is unlikely to help much - it is some help, sure, but you're likely to face multiple armed attackers, and the victim isn't really sympathetic anyway.

Thu, 2014-10-02 15:51

#28

Erulastant Erulastant's picture

branford wrote:Erulastant

branford wrote:

Erulastant wrote:
If you don't think there's a strong safety argument for either side, why are you opposed to a ban? If free access to guns has no net effect on public safety, and only manages to break even because citizens are now threatening to shoot each other... how is this not strictly worse than the scenario where they aren't threatening to shoot each other?
Why would, or should, the default position be a ban?

... Did anyone actually read what I said? If gun ownership and carry laws have no net effect on public safety, there is STILL a difference between the situation where people own and carry guns and the situation in which they don't--that is, in the former case, people are carrying guns and making an implicit threat against everyone around them. So is it not justifiable to ban that behavior for the (mental) well-being of everyone else? Handguns are tools that are [i]designed[/i] to threaten or enact violence against other humans.

—

You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.

Thu, 2014-10-02 16:29

#29

Smokeskin

Erulastant wrote:

Erulastant wrote:
... Did anyone actually read what I said? If gun ownership and carry laws have no net effect on public safety, there is STILL a difference between the situation where people own and carry guns and the situation in which they don't--that is, in the former case, people are carrying guns and making an implicit threat against everyone around them. So is it not justifiable to ban that behavior for the (mental) well-being of everyone else? Handguns are tools that are [i]designed[/i] to threaten or enact violence against other humans.

A ban is an explicit threat that if you even have a gun, armed men will come and threaten you to follow them, escalate to lethal force if necessary, and lock you up in a small room for years. That seems worse to me.

Thu, 2014-10-02 16:37

#30

branford

Erulastant wrote:branford

Erulastant wrote:
branford wrote:

Erulastant wrote:
If you don't think there's a strong safety argument for either side, why are you opposed to a ban? If free access to guns has no net effect on public safety, and only manages to break even because citizens are now threatening to shoot each other... how is this not strictly worse than the scenario where they aren't threatening to shoot each other?
[snip]
Why would, or should, the default position be a ban?
... Did anyone actually read what I said? If gun ownership and carry laws have no net effect on public safety, there is STILL a difference between the situation where people own and carry guns and the situation in which they don't--that is, in the former case, people are carrying guns and making an implicit threat against everyone around them. So is it not justifiable to ban that behavior for the (mental) well-being of everyone else? Handguns are tools that are [i]designed[/i] to threaten or enact violence against other humans.

No, they are not. Handguns, or any firearm, are designed to propel a projectile at velocity. Depending on the specific user and circumstances, they certainly can be used for crime, but given the hundreds of millions of guns and many millions of owners in the USA, more likely recreation, defense (sometimes as a deterrent without firing a single shot) against both man and beast, and to procure food. Moreover, until such time as violent crime and other oppression is totally eliminated, threats or violence by the innocent against others who seek to do them harm is wholly justified, lawful and appropriate. Owning or carrying a firearm is most certainly not a threat against anyone. You personally may perceive it as threatening, but that does not make it so. We do not, nor should not, ban anything because some are fearful. It does not matter if the topic is firearms, recreational drugs or same-sex marriage. We not limit someone's liberty in order to make someone else happier without strong evidence that it is absolutely necessary and first attempting far less restrictive options. Do you realize that many millions of Americans carry concealed firearms, including in places like NYC that has strong gun control? The vast majority of the time you probably don't even realize that people around you are armed, in addition to being law-abiding and peaceful. In fact, the crime rate among those who have legal carry permits is both lower than the national average and for law enforcement officers overall. In these instances, a gun is no different than a fire extinguisher. It's a safety device that you likely will not need and hope never to use. At best, your argument appears to try to justify limiting the open carry of firearms. I personally have no general objections to such a proposal, so long as concealed carry licenses are universally inexpensive, easy to procure, and cannot be denied at the whim of a bureaucrat.

Thu, 2014-10-02 17:18

#31

Erulastant Erulastant's picture

So are you claiming that

So are you claiming that every firearm is designed with the same use in mind? A hunting rifle is made for the same reasons as a pistol as an assault rifle as an AA gun as a Howitzer? Because I think we both know that that's simply not the case. Some firearms are designed for use against animals. Some are designed for use against humans. You say "deterrent" as if that means anything besides threat. A person openly carrying a firearm in an urban or suburban setting is [i]deliberately[/i] sending a message that they may be willing to shoot someone who behaves in a way they don't like. You may have the luxury of being able to assume that "a way they don't like" never includes your existence. Not everyone has that luxury. Why should the "right" to have the means to quickly and efficiently kill someone be protected?

Branford wrote:
We do not, nor should not, ban anything because some are fearful. It does not matter if the topic is firearms, recreational drugs or same-sex marriage.

Are you saying that the fear of people carrying guns is less valid than the fear of same-sex couples marrying or some kid smoking pot in their basement? Because of these three things, one of them has [i]some[/i] basis in fact. Unless you can show me even a single time when a gay marriage killed someone, stop throwing around false equivalences.

—

You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.

Thu, 2014-10-02 17:42

#32

ORCACommander ORCACommander's picture

the problem I am at least

the problem I am at least having in understanding you eru is that you seem to flop back and forth between positions in a single sentence, making it confusing as to which side you are supporting. Their purpose is to use chemistry and physics to achieve a result. and the result is high velocity kinetic impactor. I can achieve the same thing with a pneumatic nail gun. Here is a little bit of trivia. A hunting rifle is far more lethal than a Assault rifle or pistol? Why? They fire larger caliber ammunition, Achieve greater muzzle velocities, are more accurate. The definition of assault rifle is terribly funny because half the things that people use to call it that i say are a question of ergonomics than weaponry No a person carrying in the open is not going to shoot another person because they behave in a manner they do not like. they are only going to use it if the law permits it. And he has to be very sure about that if he is going to intervene in something. You can be charged as accessory after the fact if you misjudge the situation and accidentally help the perpetrator thinking they are the victim the gun problem's basis in fact is a foundation built upon sand. it never stands up under review. the studies can not show causation. and a large amount of studies have been discredited do to bias. The fact remains Guns do not Kill people, People Kill people. If guns have never been invented we would be using pointy blades and bows.

Thu, 2014-10-02 18:58

#33

branford

Erulastant wrote:So are you

Erulastant wrote:
So are you claiming that every firearm is designed with the same use in mind? A hunting rifle is made for the same reasons as a pistol as an assault rifle as an AA gun as a Howitzer? Because I think we both know that that's simply not the case. Some firearms are designed for use against animals. Some are designed for use against humans.

I'm claiming that all firearms are designed to propel a small object at high velocity. Some types of firearms are better suited to certain tasks or ergonomic and comfortable for certain individuals, just like any other inanimate tool. However, you claim that all firearms should be banned or heavily restricted "for the (mental) well-being of everyone else." That's not even remotely a discussion about the appropriateness of restricting very particular types of guns in certain environments. It's a fear and emotional based appeal that there should simply be no guns. This is one reason why gun rights supporters are unwilling to engage in compromise or debate. Not only are there currently numerous state and federal restrictions on the ownership and use of firearms, and the very limited public support for more restrictions is, at best, limited geographically and a mile wide and inch deep, supporters realize that any agreement to limit one type of firearm now is just one step towards their opponents goal of legitimizing all firearm ownership and an eventual ban similar to what has already occurred in the UK, Australia and elsewhere.

Quote:
You say "deterrent" as if that means anything besides threat. A person openly carrying a firearm in an urban or suburban setting is [i]deliberately[/i] sending a message that they may be willing to shoot someone who behaves in a way they don't like. You may have the luxury of being able to assume that "a way they don't like" never includes your existence. Not everyone has that luxury.

No, I mean "deterrent" as in an actual deterrent. A person legally carrying a weapon is threatening no one, despite you fear. The only "message" he or she is sending is that they have no intention of being a victim, in the same way having a fire extinguisher in your home or car sends the message that you want to protect yourself in the unlikely event of a fire. More importantly, it is entirely lawful and appropriate to protect yourself or others from serious harm. A firearm is one of the very few tools that effectively permits anyone to do so, regardless of size and strength, and even against multiple armed attackers. If you have a better device that adequately serves this function, I'm certain that not only gun owners, but law enforcement and the military, would be quite interested. Moreover, even in liberal gun states like Vermont and Arizona, in an non-sport or hunting environment, you cannot legally attack someone unless you have a reasonable fear of serious injury. This is true regardless of whether or not a firearm is involved. The fact that some very tiny minority of idiots have unlawfully attacked someone with a firearm, often one that was procured illegally and they cannot lawfully own because they are proscribed due to a felony conviction or mental illness, is a not a reason for millions of law-abiding gun owners to be deprived of a tool used for centuries and suitable for sport, provision and defense.

Quote:
Why should the "right" to have the means to quickly and efficiently kill someone be protected?

I do not accept the premise of your question, particularly within the framework in which constitutional rights are reviewed in the USA. I proffer that the appropriate question is, "What is the factual and evidentiary basis to deny or restrict any adult the most appropriate and effective means to defend themselves from a serious threat, and if such basis exists, are other less restrictive means available?" The default position in a democracy should never be deprivation and prohibition. We are not subjects granted rights by the government, but free men and women who permit government to curtail freedom only when absolutely necessary.

Erulastant wrote:
Branford wrote:
We do not, nor should not, ban anything because some are fearful. It does not matter if the topic is firearms, recreational drugs or same-sex marriage.
Are you saying that the fear of people carrying guns is less valid than the fear of same-sex couples marrying or some kid smoking pot in their basement? Because of these three things, one of them has [i]some[/i] basis in fact. Unless you can show me even a single time when a gay marriage killed someone, stop throwing around false equivalences.

Your or others' fear and discomfort of firearms does not render anything a "fact," no matter the extent or depth of the emotions. Greater fear does not render such fear "valid" or rationale. I am saying that irrational fear is no basis to ban firearms, safe recreational drugs, same-sex marriage or anything else.

Thu, 2014-10-02 22:05

#34

Erulastant Erulastant's picture

ORCACommander wrote:

ORCACommander wrote:
No a person carrying in the open is not going to shoot another person because they behave in a manner they do not like. they are only going to use it if the law permits it. And he has to be very sure about that if he is going to intervene in something. You can be charged as accessory after the fact if you misjudge the situation and accidentally help the perpetrator thinking they are the victim

George Zimmerman. Michael Dunn.

Branford wrote:
No, I mean "deterrent" as in an actual deterrent. A person legally carrying a weapon is threatening no one, despite you fear. The only "message" he or she is sending is that they have no intention of being a victim...

By openly carrying a gun, a person is signaling that there are circumstances in which they would use that gun (Whether or not that is true). A gun is only a deterrent if people believe you might use it, which makes it a threat. Now the fact that you (As far as I know) have the good fortune to be someone against whom a gun will only ever be used if you are committing a crime [i]does not[/i] mean that is the case for everyone. Some people have very good reason to be afraid of white men with guns.

Branford wrote:
I'm claiming that all firearms are designed to propel a small object at high velocity.

What a wonderfully useless definition which completely ignores the human motive for creating weapons. Would you also say that the a rocket ship is designed to spit a large quantity of hot gas out of its rear? Or that a computer is designed to move electricity around? Yes, if you look purely at mechanics, guns are pretty harmless. But if you look at intent? Why have we made a small-object propelling device? To cause injury and death to living things. Originally "living things" basically meant exclusively other people--now some guns are made with the intent to be used against animals. Others are still designed and marketed with the expectation that if they are used, it will be against other humans. Handguns in particular are marketed for "personal or home defense", which means used to either threaten or enact violence against humans who cause you to feel unsafe. Now, if the presence of these weapons has a demonstrable positive impact on public safety, maybe we should keep them. But if they don't? If there is no net effect except to produce more killing machines?

—

You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.

Thu, 2014-10-02 22:59

#35

branford

Now I'm even more confused by your position

@Erulastant: You're no longer are just discussing firearms, but now all "weapons." Similarly, you're completely redefining the textbook definitions of deterrence and the willingness to engage in self-defense as conduct that constitutes a "threat." You are then citing anecdotes as evidence in order to justify your fear of firearms. I don't know where to even begin to address the problems with you position, as your issues are only tangentially related to guns. I most certainly know little about your personal life or experience, but you seem very, very afraid. Worse, you are demanding that everyone become pacifists, unwilling to defend ourselves or others, regardless of any tools used, whether it be a gun, knife, crowbar, bat, or possibly even our fists. You appear offended than man not only invented weapons, but that there use may sometimes be fully justified. Firearms are simply representative of a culture which you fear and detest. I even get the impression that you might find hunting for food "threatening" and therefore unacceptable, particularly if a firearm is used. Moreover, some firearms, including handguns, are definitely designed not to be used against another living creature. They are called target pistols and rifles, and millions are used for lawful and safe sporting activities every day. I do not believe they are used in any appreciable number or crimes or have resulted in any more than a historically de minimus number of accidental deaths. Lastly, gun supporters do not bear the burden to demonstrate that we may be better off with the presence of firearms, regardless of the Second Amendment. Rather, those who want to deny a simple and undeniably effective tool to their fellow citizens must not only seek democratic consent for such a proposal, but demonstrably prove both that it is absolutely necessary and no other means or methods will reduce (gun) crime other than restricting the rights of many millions of gun owners who've threatened no one, broke no laws, and responsibly use a tool with no self-will or agency. Edit: I would add the George Zimmerman was acquitted at trial as the jury determined he engaged in lawful self defense. Although you may disagree, his use of the firearm was determined to be appropriate. Conversely, Michael Dunn has been convicted of murder. It appears the relevant criminal laws have worked as intended. Would either of these cases been demonstrably different if the instrument used was a knife, metal pipe, explosive device, fists, or the decedents were run over by a car? Is someone any less dead if they are killed if a gun was not used?

Fri, 2014-10-03 01:00

#36

Erulastant Erulastant's picture

Branford wrote:You're no

Branford wrote:
You're no longer are just discussing firearms, but now all "weapons."

You are correct, I do not believe that weapons should generally be carried around in public, whether that be a gun or a sword or an axe. I do believe in the right to self-defense. I don't believe this entitles someone to carry a lethal weapon in public.

Quote:
Similarly, you're completely redefining the textbook definitions of deterrence and the willingness to engage in self-defense as conduct that constitutes a "threat."

I'd like to see the textbook definitions in question? You see, I don't have relevant textbooks. I do have access to a dictionary though...

merriam-webster wrote:
: the act or process of deterring: as a : the inhibition of criminal behavior [b]by fear[/b] especially of punishment

(emphasis mine)

Quote:
I don't know where to even begin to address the problems with you position, as your issues are only tangentially related to guns. I most certainly know little about your personal life or experience, but you seem very, very afraid. Worse, you are demanding that everyone become pacifists, unwilling to defend ourselves or others, regardless of any tools used, whether it be a gun, knife, crowbar, bat, or possibly even our fists. You appear offended than man not only invented weapons, but that there use may sometimes be fully justified. Firearms are simply representative of a culture which you fear and detest. I even get the impression that you might find hunting for food "threatening" and therefore unacceptable, particularly if a firearm is used.

I'm... not certain where all of this is coming from? There's a clear difference between using a gun for some useful purpose and carrying around a gun to "deter" crime.

Quote:
Moreover, some firearms, including handguns, are definitely designed not to be used against another living creature. They are called target pistols and rifles, and millions are used for lawful and safe sporting activities every day. I do not believe they are used in any appreciable number or crimes or have resulted in any more than a historically de minimus number of accidental deaths.

Are these the firearms that people are usually open-carrying? If not, they're not the ones I'm talking about.

Quote:
Lastly, gun supporters do not bear the burden to demonstrate that we may be better off with the presence of firearms...those who want to deny a simple and undeniably effective tool...

And if it's an ineffective tool? I'm talking about the use of guns for personal protection and public safety. If it doesn't work then all we're denying is the use of a completely ineffective tool, which shouldn't be a problem.

Quote:
Would either of these cases been demonstrably different if the instrument used was a knife, metal pipe, explosive device, fists, or the decedents were run over by a car? Is someone any less dead if they are killed if a gun was not used?

Of course it wouldn't be different. Of course they wouldn't be any less dead. Unless they are in fact less dead because it's easier to kill someone with a gun than with your fists. Side note: Personally? I'm not particularly afraid. I'm fortunate to live in a fairly safe area, and anyone planning to murder me knows that they probably won't get away with it. Not everyone is that fortunate. I value their lives more than your freedoms. (Or at least this particular freedom, which does not seem to me to be ultimately necessary)

—

You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.

Fri, 2014-10-03 02:17

#37

Smokeskin

Erulastant wrote

Erulastant wrote:
ORCACommander wrote:
No a person carrying in the open is not going to shoot another person because they behave in a manner they do not like. they are only going to use it if the law permits it. And he has to be very sure about that if he is going to intervene in something. You can be charged as accessory after the fact if you misjudge the situation and accidentally help the perpetrator thinking they are the victim
George Zimmerman. Michael Dunn.

Judging everyone based on a few bad examples isn't fair. And Zimmermann had an MMA fighter sitting on top of him, doing ground and pound (punching him in the face). I fight MMA too, and people who don't know how to defend against that have no chance. It's assault and self defense with a handgun is entirely appropriate.

Quote:

Branford wrote:
No, I mean "deterrent" as in an actual deterrent. A person legally carrying a weapon is threatening no one, despite you fear. The only "message" he or she is sending is that they have no intention of being a victim...
By openly carrying a gun, a person is signaling that there are circumstances in which they would use that gun (Whether or not that is true). A gun is only a deterrent if people believe you might use it, which makes it a threat. Now the fact that you (As far as I know) have the good fortune to be someone against whom a gun will only ever be used if you are committing a crime [i]does not[/i] mean that is the case for everyone. Some people have very good reason to be afraid of white men with guns.

I'd argue that there's no even remotely good reason to be afraid of white men with guns, just like there's no good reason to be afraid of black men with guns. I don't see how racism can ever be considered a good reason.

Quote:

Branford wrote:
I'm claiming that all firearms are designed to propel a small object at high velocity.
What a wonderfully useless definition which completely ignores the human motive for creating weapons. Would you also say that the a rocket ship is designed to spit a large quantity of hot gas out of its rear? Or that a computer is designed to move electricity around? Yes, if you look purely at mechanics, guns are pretty harmless. But if you look at intent? Why have we made a small-object propelling device? To cause injury and death to living things. Originally "living things" basically meant exclusively other people--now some guns are made with the intent to be used against animals. Others are still designed and marketed with the expectation that if they are used, it will be against other humans. Handguns in particular are marketed for "personal or home defense", which means used to either threaten or enact violence against humans who cause you to feel unsafe. Now, if the presence of these weapons has a demonstrable positive impact on public safety, maybe we should keep them. But if they don't? If there is no net effect except to produce more killing machines?

Personal and home defense are respectable uses for a tool. It seems that you're trying invoke a very different meaning by equating it to "threating or using violence against people who feel unsafe" - it invokes an image of someone who nervously pulls their gun on anyone that looks funny, which is obviously not the case. Self defense is more respectable than the recreational uses for say a swimming pool, which is far more dangerous for children than guns. A similar argument to yours could be: Water is a dangerous environment that humans can't survive in for even short periods of time. Water is inherently hostile to human survival, and unless it can be demonstrated that swimming pools have a positive impact, they should be banned.

Fri, 2014-10-03 02:40

#38

branford

Do you really approve of self-defense?

@Erulastant: You attempt to define "deterrence," but the operative definition of "threat" is what is at issue.

Quote:
Threat: a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace

Carrying a firearm in order to deter is simply not an affirmative or implied threat, as both words are defined and commonly used, unless you believe the words to be synonyms. Does a police offer who carries a gun "threaten" everyone they see or meet? Is wearing an NRA t-shirt a threat? In any event, isn't deterring criminal violence a common good and shouldn't individuals contemplating violent acts against the innocent feel threatened that their acts might harshly rebound upon them? I would also add that the majority of individuals who carry a firearm do so concealed, not openly like police or the rare open-carry activist. It is not a visual "deterrent" or "threat" to anyone, except to the extent that criminals know that anyone could potentially resist them. It is just a means of protection. Is a legal, concealed means to defend yourself still a threat? Why? Is anything you fear an actual and legitimate threat simply because you fear it? You claim to believe in the right of self-defense, but this appears to operate only in theory. It is without a doubt that some individuals are smaller, weaker and slower than others. As most violent criminals are statistically young men, at the outset, most potential victims will be at an obvious and distinct disadvantage in any violent encounter. Assuming, arguendo, that firearms were banned in the USA, since hundreds of millions are still in circulation, criminals are still quite likely to be armed. Even where handguns are actually banned in placed like the UK and Australia, statistics indicate that violent criminals most often use knives. Assailants also often do not act alone. How would someone who is elderly, sick, small, weak, etc. (although healthy, young, innocent men also have a right to self-defense) have a chance to successfully defend themselves against multiple assailants armed with lethal weaponry (that need not be firearms) without the tools to at least partially equalize the odds? In addition to the fact that items like tazers and mace are often banned where firearms are restricted, they are also terribly ineffective. There is a reason why young, fit and (sometimes) highly-trained police officers carry a firearm (and often wear ballistic armor). Other than your own fears and some anecdotes from the nightly news, I do not see why you would deny anyone the right to carry proper defensive tools (you indicated that all lethal weaponry should be prohibited, even though firearms are usually the best option)? As to firearms specifically, you claim they are ineffective. In what way? Basic firearms are a very mature and reliable technology, that are capable of being used by individuals of all sized and strengths, with a minimum of training, and are capable of very quickly disabling multiple assailants, from a relatively safe distance, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, and without causing injury to the user. Firearms have successfully defended people for centuries, and they are the preferred means of protection for police and security forces (public and private) in the USA. Their effectiveness is beyond question, and uncontroversial laws already prevent felons and the mentally ill from legally possessing firearms. No citizen should be forced to accept a means of protection less than that employed by the non-military agents of the government, no less the security guards at McDonalds. The only "downside" that routinely occurs is that the assailant(s) ends up dead or seriously injured (although most defensive uses of a firearms occur without firing a single shot or with only minimal injuries). To the extent this is even a negative to most people, it is a more than acceptable risk that entirely is within the power of the violent perpetrator to mitigate. You also haven't addressed the issue of why firearm proponents should have to prove that firearms should not be prohibited, rather than the government bearing the burden of proving why they should be restricted and then only using the least restrictive means to accomplish the goal. Should pot users should have to prove that the drug is safe or the government demonstrate it is dangerous? Should individuals of the same sex (or race) have to prove that their marriage will not harm anyone or should the government prove that same-sex marriage will actually have a negative effect on society? I think the answers to all three questions are obvious. While we are exchanging some personal information, note that I, too, live and work in a very safe neighborhood. I live in midtown Manhattan and do not own a firearm. As an licensed and practicing attorney with numerous friends and colleagues involved politically and in the District Attorney's Office, I would have little difficulty procuring a carry license, and know peers who have done so. However, I literally live across from the United Nations in a high-rise doorman apartment, the crime rate nearby is virtually non-existent, my neighborhood resembles an armed camp, and police are friendly and ubiquitous. The police even congregated and rested in my building's lobby during last weeks General Assembly. I also walk to work in midtown with similar security. I feel no need to own a gun. I face no realistic threats, and police could respond within moments if I were in any danger. Nevertheless, not only could my circumstances change, not everyone's living situation is advantageous as yours or mine. Therefore, I would never seek to deprive my fellow citizens of the most effective means of ensuring the security of themselves and their loved ones. You claim that since your hypothetical murderers would likely be found and prosecuted, you value their lives more that the freedom to own and carry firearms. If subject to violence, my first concern is not whether the police solve my murder, but rather possessing the means to defend myself and hopefully not become a crime statistic. Simply, I value the lives of victims far more than those who would do them harm. Violent criminals should fear that their actions could lead to their death or serious injury no matter the victim or circumstance. Self-defense without the legal and effective means to do so is meaningless.

Fri, 2014-10-03 08:18

#39

Lorsa

branford,

branford, I would like to ask you to reconsider some of your rhetoric, which I believe not to be constructive for further discourse. It appears as though you are making claims that you are the divine arbiter for what counts as democracy, what sort of liberties people should have, or rather that having liberties is objectively better, and the default assumption. By making such claims, you make it very difficult for people such as myself to know how to approach your arguments. Should I demand that you provide evidence for your claims on how democracy works and how we get our basic human rights, or perhaps why fear could not be a reason for devising laws? Or should I treat these statements as merely opinions, and try to provide arguments why you should change them? Unless I know how you view these things yourself, it is difficult to know where to start. What course of action do you suggest? Like Erulastant, I don't believe you can simply reduce an item to its mechanical function. Items are designed with a specific intent in mind, and I believe it is from this intent we need to judge them. Nailguns are designed for carpentry, whereas firearms are designed to injure or kill biological life, including humans. While firearms [i]could[/i] be used for sport, their ultimate purpose is to deprive individuals of what I consider to be the highest liberty of all, the freedom to live. Why should we allow people to possess a tool whose main purpose is to deprive people of their freedom to live? The issue of gun control, as I am sure you are aware, is to regulate how and where firearms can be used. Sweden appearantly has tons of firearms per capita, which implies that indeed you are allowed to use them for hunting, sport shooting and the like. You are simply not allowed to carry them freely around town, and this is the use which we are debating, not their absolute presence or absence. With a "no-gun" policy, you can easily distinguish between those that are outside with the intent of robbing people of their freedoms (they will carry weapons) vs. those that are not. In this way, you get a chance to remove these freedom-depriving individuals from society [i]before[/i] they get a chance to do anything. Otherwise you will have to wait and can only judge intent [i]after[/i] they've killed someone. Like you yourself pointed out, I would rather not end up dead [i]at all[/i]. Civilians possessing guns for self-defence might act as a deterrent towards assault with fists or knives, but it provides a very poor deterrent towards guns. Smokeskin seems to argue that the psychological issues behind using a gun are so much worse compared to a knife that criminals intent on hurting you will rarely go that far. If that is true, then the same psychological issues would apply to the supposed victim, who would have equal trouble using the hypothetical firearm to defend themselves. Either we have to assume both victims and perpetrators are likely to resort to this sort of violence, or neither. I would also argue that individuals intent on harming others are more likely to head down the psychological road to using guns than a person who values the integrity of others. So, by allowing guns as a self-defense option, you deter attacks with fists and knives, but not attacks with guns. As you pointed out yourself, it is [b]far[/b] easier to kill, with little training required, with a firearm compared to blades and fists. Following this logic, it means I am less likely to be beaten, but more likely to be killed. You might think differently, but I prefer to be beaten over ending up dead. I prefer to loose a limb or two over ending up dead as well. In fact, the only thing I might trade for death is a life of constant pain and agony. By living in a culture where potential assailants have reason to assume that I am armed, the chances of me ending up dead as a result of assault increases dramatically. Thus, by allowing you the liberty to carry guns with you everywhere, the chances of me loosing the liberty to live is increased. Out of those two, I value the liberty to live vastly higher than that of carrying guns, and believe it to be a very good trade. Now, I am not saying that we should have the lack of guns as some sort of core democratic principle. I believe in society making decisions in a democratic manner, and as such think it should be up to a majority decision. It appears to me though, that this is not the case in USA, as you seem to be completely unable to change a text that was written in a different era and may not be relevant anymore. On the subject of fear, I would, like Erulastant, argue that comparing fear of firearms and fear of gay marriage and claiming them to be equally irrational is... well.. strange. I can demonstrate that guns can be used to kill, thus fearing this use upon myself is not irrational at all. In order to make them equal, you need to provide evidence for how gay marriage can be used to kill. I would gladly discuss wheter or not fear is a valid argument for legislation, especially as it relates to electronic surveillance, but I can not, in any way, see an equivalence between fear of guns and fear of gay marriage. Now, using your logic that people's liberty to carry around [whatever] should be preserved, I can only assume you are also in favor of people being allowed to carry around bombs with them, either in a bag while they are traveling on a subway train, or strapped to their chest? What about sarin gas? Am I allowed to carry that with me? Also, why does my liberty to carry a firearm magically end when I board a plane, go into the UN building, a police station or a school? Should I not be allowed to protect myself in whatever environment I might find myself in?

—

Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]

Fri, 2014-10-03 09:57

#40

Smokeskin

Lorsa wrote:

Lorsa wrote:
Like Erulastant, I don't believe you can simply reduce an item to its mechanical function. Items are designed with a specific intent in mind, and I believe it is from this intent we need to judge them. Nailguns are designed for carpentry, whereas firearms are designed to injure or kill biological life, including humans. While firearms [i]could[/i] be used for sport, their ultimate purpose is to deprive individuals of what I consider to be the highest liberty of all, the freedom to live. Why should we allow people to possess a tool whose main purpose is to deprive people of their freedom to live?

It sounds like you're making the same mistake by choosing a single aspect of guns and calling that their purpose. The main purpose for a self defense weapon is self defense, not to kill people. What you're saying is like saying that a swimming pool's main purpose is to create an environment that will kill people. The main purpose of a military sniper's or a mob hitman's weapon is to kill people, but that is very different from a weapon bought for self defense. I must admit I really don't see the argument that in self defense you deprive an attacker of their freedom to live. That's a liberty you potentially waive when you attack someone (I say potentially because you're obviously not allowed to kill an attacker under all circumstances).

Lorsa wrote:
Civilians possessing guns for self-defence might act as a deterrent towards assault with fists or knives, but it provides a very poor deterrent towards guns.

Being on equal footing with the criminal is a good deterrence. From what I know of criminal behavior, many select and probe their targets carefully to ensure that they have the upper hand.

Lorsa wrote:
Smokeskin seems to argue that the psychological issues behind using a gun are so much worse compared to a knife that criminals intent on hurting you will rarely go that far. If that is true, then the same psychological issues would apply to the supposed victim, who would have equal trouble using the hypothetical firearm to defend themselves. Either we have to assume both victims and perpetrators are likely to resort to this sort of violence, or neither. I would also argue that individuals intent on harming others are more likely to head down the psychological road to using guns than a person who values the integrity of others.

That's not what I meant to say. I don't think there's much difference in killing someone with a knife or a gun. I think you're referring to my response to someone claiming that if civilians were armed, robbers would simply shoot victims on the spot to rob them? What I meant was that potential robbers generally don't want to kill someone for their phone, watch and wallet. For one, a murder will result in a proper police investigation and if the police find you the sentence is much longer. Second, I don't believe that most robbers are psychopathic killers - they really don't want to kill people in cold blood. There's a big difference between armed robbery and first-degree murder. This means that for most potential robbers, if their victims were armed I think they would not commit the crime, rather than gun the victim down in cold blood.

Lorsa wrote:
So, by allowing guns as a self-defense option, you deter attacks with fists and knives, but not attacks with guns. As you pointed out yourself, it is [b]far[/b] easier to kill, with little training required, with a firearm compared to blades and fists. Following this logic, it means I am less likely to be beaten, but more likely to be killed. You might think differently, but I prefer to be beaten over ending up dead. I prefer to loose a limb or two over ending up dead as well. In fact, the only thing I might trade for death is a life of constant pain and agony. By living in a culture where potential assailants have reason to assume that I am armed, the chances of me ending up dead as a result of assault increases dramatically. Thus, by allowing you the liberty to carry guns with you everywhere, the chances of me loosing the liberty to live is increased. Out of those two, I value the liberty to live vastly higher than that of carrying guns, and believe it to be a very good trade.

But the thing is, the data doesn't support the idea that more guns mean fewer murders. For example this graphic: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/ [img]http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/12/FirearmFacts.png[/img] More guns, but fewer gun murders - the lowest number of gun murders since 1981. And that's fewer gun murders, which you'd imagine would be relatively higher due to more guns compared to total murders - so the net effect on society is likely to be even less. If the hypothesis that guns were that dangerous, why are we not seeing clear correlations that supports it? When gun control is relaxed, why aren't we seeing the predicted blood baths? Why did Washington DC see a relative increase compared to other cities in America in homicide when it banned handguns? The gun control debate has been going on for so long, and laws have become stricter and laxer, gun sales have gone up and down, and there still isn't a clear picture of the effects. How do you explain that? Why do you even need to explain the data and correlations to make them fit an anti-gun stance?

Lorsa wrote:
On the subject of fear, I would, like Erulastant, argue that comparing fear of firearms and fear of gay marriage and claiming them to be equally irrational is... well.. strange. I can demonstrate that guns can be used to kill, thus fearing this use upon myself is not irrational at all. In order to make them equal, you need to provide evidence for how gay marriage can be used to kill. I would gladly discuss wheter or not fear is a valid argument for legislation, especially as it relates to electronic surveillance, but I can not, in any way, see an equivalence between fear of guns and fear of gay marriage.

I think the point is that there is no evidence that firearms increase your risk of getting killed. That's why it is an irrational fear.

Lorsa wrote:
Also, why does my liberty to carry a firearm magically end when I board a plane, go into the UN building, a police station or a school? Should I not be allowed to protect myself in whatever environment I might find myself in?

You're not allowed to wear muddy shoes inside my house either. However, I'm not suggesting that the police come haul you away and lock you up for many years for having muddy shoes anywhere and everywhere.

Fri, 2014-10-03 11:26

#41

branford

@Lorsa:

@Lorsa: Unfortunately, I do not have nearly the time today to expound at length about my position like last night. However, note a few points. I most certainly do not consider myself some "diving arbiter" of anything, guns or otherwise. However, like you, Erulastant and others, I have strong opinions, and as this is an off-topic forum with a discussion of a contentious issue, so long as decorum and civility is maintained, I believe that the self-moderation that may required in the other forums is unnecessary. I debate and argue to earn my living. Feel free to challenge any of my statements, evidence, statistics, opinions or even basic premises, and I will do the same. The issue of the mechanical purposes, or perspectives as to the capabilities of firearms, are ancillary issues and misses the central points of the gun debate on both sides. Nevertheless, you pose a apropos, but nevertheless wrongly perceived, question, "Why should we allow people to possess a tool whose main purpose is to deprive people of their freedom to live?" I would posit that the correct question is "Has the government conclusively proved that the private ownership and use of firearms by those without evidence of violent mental instability or prior criminal conduct is absolutely necessary for the function of the State, and if so, can the purported negative effects of such firearm ownership be mitigated or eliminated by lesser or other means than bans or restrictions." Of course, any course of action must also procure a democratic mandate. I think our differences about "democracy" and the gun debate can be mostly distilled between our approach to the two facially similar, yet very different, questions. I believe that true democracy is meaningless without liberty and freedom. Hence, and I readily admit this is a very American perspective (amplified by my legal training and experience), any man (and woman) should be free to do or possess anything unless and until their their duly elected and empowered government conclusively proves that restrictions are necessary, and that such restrictions go no further than is necessary to achieve the relevant goals. My analogies to same-sex marriage and recreational drug use was not to form some sort of moral equivalence or level of fear response, but to demonstrate that the government bears the burden of demonstrating harm and least restrictive means whenever is tries to limit our activities or possessions. Like you, I believe the freedom to live is paramount. However, my focus is on providing innocent people with the most effective means to guarantee their life and liberty in the face of those who would violently threaten them. In the USA, in the vast majority of jurisdictions, it is only legal to use a firearm for self-defense when you face the risk of death or serious bodily injury. While a gun is certainly no guarantee of your safety, as this would be impossible, given the current level technology, firearms are the most widely effective means to even the odds in any violent encounter. The criminal misuse of firearms by a tiny number of people, and an even smaller percentage of those who lawfully carry, should not deprive everyone of one of the best tools for self-defense, no less means for hunting and recreation.

Fri, 2014-10-03 14:03

#42

Lilith

RE...

@Smokeskin: First off, Europe is not the US. It's been said before, but there are a multitude of factors beyond gun control laws (demographics, geographic locations, cultural norms, etc.) to consider that these articles don't satisfactorily address. Just because Europe can handle its guns without slaughtering each other doesn't mean the same will hold true here. Texas has the highest rate of gun ownership and the second-highest rate of violent crime. Obviously your solution isn't working, so the applicability of the articles you referenced is questionable in a general sense. Just because a few cities are abberations is moot; if anything they're the exceptions that prove the norm. Second, you know what most bugs me about the argument that gun ownership benefits women? The fact that, here in the US, [url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/160223/men-married-southerners-likely-gun-own... are three times more likely[/url] [url=http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-an... own a gun than a woman[/url]. By your logic, then, for every one woman you arm to defend herself from a potential attack, that's 3 potential rapists that now have weapons of their own. Besides which, again, you're ignoring that the majority of rapes are not committed by complete strangers in the night, and frequently happen in circumstances by which the attack doesn't [i]give[/i] the victim the chance to defend herself. So really, the number of women you're proclaiming the defense of doesn't really seem statistically-comparable to the number of women who's lives have now been threatened—either by accidental discharges or intentional murder by spouses/lovers—who are far more likely to be the ones holding the gun in the first place. Again, I'm not arguing for an outright ban, but your logic of "more guns makes everyone more safe" doesn't ring true in the slightest. In fact, here in Eagleland [url=http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journa... exact opposite seems to be true[/url], especially since [url=http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf]the most likely weapon to be used in a murder is a handgun[/url]. My problem here isn't so much with the concept of gun ownership, but rather the fallacious argument being used to defend it, which certainly isn't being supported by your suspect data.

Smokeskin wrote:
The main purpose for a self defense weapon is self defense, not to kill people. ... The main purpose of a military sniper's or a mob hitman's weapon is to kill people, but that is very different from a weapon bought for self defense.

That's not the purpose of the [i]weapon[/i], it's the purpose of the [i]user[/i]. This is especially relevant when the mob hitman is using the same 9mm pistol as some shmuck trying to take up target shooting: same gun, different intents. Either way, it's still weapon, and you're still splitting hairs. Let's cut the pendantic arguments, please. Quibbling over what exactly a gun is designed to do is insulting to everyone here. A gun is not a tool; it is a [i]weapon[/i]. Weapons are designed, by nature, to damage, harm, or kill. You can [i]try[/i] to equate a gun to a tool, but the difference between a gun and a hammer is that, while the hammer was designed for the intent of something [i]besides[/i] killing someone, the same can't be said about gun, which is why it is classifed as a "weapon", not a "tool". Trying to mince about the definition beyond that point is petulant.

branford wrote:
The criminal misuse of firearms by a tiny number of people, and an even smaller percentage of those who lawfully carry, should not deprive everyone of one of the best tools for self-defense, no less means for hunting and recreation.

In 2011, there were 11,101 gun-related homicides. That same year there were 467,300 not-fatal firearm victimizations. In terms of the US population, I suppose that, yes, this qualifies as a "tiny number" of people. Then again, being caught in possession 1,700 milligrams (or 1.7 grams, less than the weight of a dime) is enough to get certain people sent to jail for 10 years. So I guess numbers are just a matter of perspective.

Fri, 2014-10-03 15:09

#43

branford

@Lilith:

@Lilith: Your implication that every man is a potential rapist is "surprising" and I understand that you do not like the argument that gun ownership benefits women. Nevertheless, you do not appear to dispute the very undeiable fact that some people are unable to adequately defend themselves against a violent attack by a stronger or faster assailant, no less more than one attacker and/or who is armed, with or without a gun. Sadly, women, more often than not, are the weaker party when subject to violence, and may likely account for the fact that they are one of the largest demographics of individuals now purchasing firearms for self-defense. The fact that a firearm is not a perfect solution to defend against all violent encounters is certainly not a reason to deprive other women (or men) of one of the best means to defend themselves when confronted by serious violence. The perfect is not the enemy of the good. Any "weapon," including a firearm, is most definitely a tool, just the type of tool that you do not like or approve. But I agree, arguing over definitions misses the forest for the trees in the gun rights debate. You apparently disapprove of firearms, at least in most instances, because they can easily "damage, harm or kill." I do not disagree that firearms are usually more than capable of inflicting injury. More importantly, however, I do not believe that it where the argument ends. There are times when it is lawful, appropriate and even necessary to inflict harm on another. When an innocent is threatened with death or serious injury, stopping that threat is entirely justified, with or without potentially lethal force. This basic tenet of self-defense is universal even in tight gun control jurisdictions like much of Europe. A firearm is simply one of the most efficient and expeditious means to even the odds in favor of the innocent party. This is true regardless of whether firearms are also the preferred weapon in criminal homicides. I would additionally observe that general rate of violent crime in locations like England with strict gun control is often the same or higher than the USA. In fact, I believe the weapon of choice in England is the knife. I doubt you would argue that if threatened by someone with a knife, you would be far better off defending yourself with a gun. You also do not dispute that given the large and heterogeneous population of the USA, the number of people who own or carry firearms, and the amount of firearms in circulation, the number of actual cases of criminal misuse of a firearms is extremely small, and the number of individuals who lawfully carry firearms involved in crime represents an even smaller subset of that already low number. These basic facts cannot reasonably justify depriving or seriously restricting firearms to a very large and relatively peaceful population. This is true regardless of the U.S.'s Second Amendment. I also fail to understand your analogy with drug sentencing. Not only do I agree that the mandatory sentences for non-violent drug crimes are far too high, it runs counter to my position that the government must demonstrate actual harm before deprivation of property or liberty. It would be ridiculous to suggest that one foolish government policy is a basis to justify additional foolish policies concerning guns or anything else. You claim you are basically not against gun ownership, but repeatedly and strongly advise that you support strict gun control. I admit that I'm quite curious where you draw the line and if the restrictions you support are really little more than a de facto , rather than de jure, ban? Who do you believe can own a firearm, what guns are permissible, and how and where may they be used?

Fri, 2014-10-03 15:33

#44

Smokeskin

Lilith wrote:@Smokeskin:

Lilith wrote:
@Smokeskin: First off, Europe is not the US. It's been said before, but there are a multitude of factors beyond gun control laws (demographics, geographic locations, cultural norms, etc.) to consider that these articles don't satisfactorily address. Just because Europe can handle its guns without slaughtering each other doesn't mean the same will hold true here. Texas has the highest rate of gun ownership and the second-highest rate of violent crime. Obviously your solution isn't working, so the applicability of the articles you referenced is questionable in a general sense. Just because a few cities are abberations is moot; if anything they're the exceptions that prove the norm.

I've have beem referencing several American studies too. It is not a few exceptions.

Quote:
Second, you know what most bugs me about the argument that gun ownership benefits women? The fact that, here in the US, [url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/160223/men-married-southerners-likely-gun-own... are three times more likely[/url] [url=http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-an... own a gun than a woman[/url]. By your logic, then, for every one woman you arm to defend herself from a potential attack, that's 3 potential rapists that now have weapons of their own. Besides which, again, you're ignoring that the majority of rapes are not committed by complete strangers in the night, and frequently happen in circumstances by which the attack doesn't [i]give[/i] the victim the chance to defend herself. So really, the number of women you're proclaiming the defense of doesn't really seem statistically-comparable to the number of women who's lives have now been threatened—either by accidental discharges or intentional murder by spouses/lovers—who are far more likely to be the ones holding the gun in the first place.

I have mentioned both rape, stalking and abusive (ex)-partners. I have also repeatedly stated that I don't believe that there is an advantage (or a disadvantage) as a whole for society from guns - the data just doesn't support either way - but that my main issue with gun control is on the personal level when you deny someone who is in danger and needs a gun for protection. The fact that a lot more men than women want guns doesn't change that. Most men don't need a gun to dominate most women. But most women will need a gun to protect themselves against most men. Why are you so upset at the idea that women have a self defense use for guns?

Quote:
Again, I'm not arguing for an outright ban, but your logic of "more guns makes everyone more safe" doesn't ring true in the slightest. In fact, here in Eagleland [url=http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journa... exact opposite seems to be true[/url], especially since [url=http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf]the most likely weapon to be used in a murder is a handgun[/url]. My problem here isn't so much with the concept of gun ownership, but rather the fallacious argument being used to defend it, which certainly isn't being supported by your suspect data.

I didn't say the data supported that more guns made everyone safer. I have argued against the claim that the data supports that fewer guns make everyone safer. What I have said is that the general correlation is that more guns make people safer, but the picture is murky and there is no strong evidence for a causal relationship. Why don't you read the factcheck.org link I posted above and see the experts say the exact same thing?

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
The main purpose for a self defense weapon is self defense, not to kill people. ... The main purpose of a military sniper's or a mob hitman's weapon is to kill people, but that is very different from a weapon bought for self defense.
That's not the purpose of the [i]weapon[/i], it's the purpose of the [i]user[/i]. This is especially relevant when the mob hitman is using the same 9mm pistol as some shmuck trying to take up target shooting: same gun, different intents. Either way, it's still weapon, and you're still splitting hairs. Let's cut the pendantic arguments, please. Quibbling over what exactly a gun is designed to do is insulting to everyone here. A gun is not a tool; it is a [i]weapon[/i]. Weapons are designed, by nature, to damage, harm, or kill. You can [i]try[/i] to equate a gun to a tool, but the difference between a gun and a hammer is that, while the hammer was designed for the intent of something [i]besides[/i] killing someone, the same can't be said about gun, which is why it is classifed as a "weapon", not a "tool". Trying to mince about the definition beyond that point is petulant.

If you could tell me what a "self defense tool" looks like and it was different from a weapon, you'd have a point. But you can't. So you choose the worst intented use of the weapon/tool and decide that is the one we should all use. What you're doing is implying that everyone who has a gun for self defense or hunting is out to kill someone. I find that extremely offensive. I have not bought my rifle only because they can kill people, in any way or form. My rifle can be used for target shooting, hunting, and shooting people. Which purposes do you think I bought it for? My kitchen knives can be used for cutting meat or stabbing people. Which purposes do you think I bought them for? I'm frankly getting a bit tired of your constant accusations. I'm sexist, dishonest, I want weapons because they can kill people, pedantic. Could we stick to the arguments and not throw insults?

Fri, 2014-10-03 22:01

#45

kindalas

Moderation Time

[color=red]We have gone from crime, to guns, to violence, to control all the way to rape and potential rapists in this thread.[/color] [color=red]I'm closing this thread before it spirals all of the way to a disaster.[/color] [color=red]Kindalas[/color]

—

I am a Moderator of this Forum [color=red]My mod voice is red.[/color] The Eclipse Phase Character sheet is downloadable here: [url=http://sites.google.com/site/eclipsephases/home/cabinet] Get it here![/url]

Topic locked