More gun control. (this time lets argue the effects)

[PVonAtark]

With the pevalence of gun control threds on the board right now, I just thought I would ask the question that no one has tried yet. To wit:

Can gun control work?

Heck, let's start with just handguns. If we banned all handguns in the U.S., would it reduce the number of crimes committed with guns? Would it reduce the fatality rate of violent crimes?

On the other hand, would we have an equally dramatic effect by arming and training every man, woman, and child in america. (I think it would be a heck of a deterrent to criminals if every potential victim were armed.)

Also, how would we enforce such a ban, is it logistically possible?

I personally believe that total handgun control would dramatically effect crime rates around the country. After all, handguns are a weapon that are specifically designed to kill people. (Anyone go hunting deer with a Browning 9mm lately?) If you take handguns away from everyone, it becomes much more difficult to commit crimes such as robbery, murder, etc. Also, crimes of passion would be less fatal overall. A person is much more likely to survive being stabbed with a knife than being shot with a gun.

Any takers?

[hightechburrito]

If we banned all handguns in the U.S., would it reduce the number of crimes committed with guns?
Not by much, if people wanted to commit crimes, they would likely aquire guns. Criminals wouldn't care if guns were banned.


Would it reduce the fatality rate of violent crimes?
No, violent crimes would be just as violent.


On the other hand, would we have an equally dramatic effect by arming and training every man, woman, and child in america.
I hope this was intended to be sarcasm. Doing this would just cause chaos.


Also, how would we enforce such a ban, is it logistically possible?
I think that gun control would at first be much like prohibition, guns are illegal, but still prevalent, but after awhile, it would be beneficial.


After all, handguns are a weapon that are specifically designed to kill people.
Don't forget assault rifles. People don't need a fully automatic rifle with a 30 round banana clip.


If you take handguns away from everyone, it becomes much more difficult to commit crimes such as robbery, murder, etc.
This would never happen. The 4th amendment may not apply anymore, but it is unlikely that congress would pass legislation that would take away guns from the people.

For the record, I think that people have the right to own firearms, but there needs to be much more restriction on obtaining one. And as I said above, all you should be able to own is a plain rifle or handgun.

[kelly1x]

the district of columbia banned handguns recently, and it had no effect in reducing the number of handguns on the streets. that is probably related to the fact that it's easy to go to maryland or virginia to get guns if you live in dc, but it's something. maryland has also introduced some great (in my opinion) legislation requiring trigger locks.

[Spiny Norman]

hightechburrito says:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If we banned all handguns in the U.S., would it reduce the number of crimes committed with guns?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not by much, if people wanted to commit crimes, they would likely aquire guns. Criminals wouldn't care if guns were banned.



Criminals don't care if guns are banned - but they do care if carrying a gun is a liability. If the presence of a gun draws attention, it weighs against carrying it. (Think of it as a two-pound badge saying "Arrest me!"). Besides, if a gun is a rare black-market item, the price goes way up, putting it out of the reach of a lot of criminals - the druggie trying to raise some cash for his next fix, for instance.

Anyway, that's the situation here in Scandinavia, where handguns are rarities and a handgun carried in public practically unheard of, unless you're a police officer. Crime stats are relatively low, so it might be a positive influence. OTOH, the difference in culture between Scandinavia and the U.S. is huge.

Would it work in the U.S. ? No idea.

[mazirian]

The "gun situation" in United States is quite bewildering for Europeans like me, with vocal lobbyists on both sides, the constitutional angle, etc.

I agree with Spiny (you're Danish, I believe?), while we have few or no problems with handguns or guns in general, I don't think our system would work in the US.

A few cultural differences:

1) Thanks to tight regulations and small public demand, there are very few handguns on the market. So handguns are very expensive and scarce in the illegal market too AND they have always been. I'd imagine it would be very hard to enforce handgun ban in the States with couple millons of them already in the streets.

2) To own, let alone to carry a handgun with you, you must go through a detailed background check. This usually takes weeks and you must have a really valid reason to get a permit.

3) Public attitude. People who own handguns (collectors, etc.) are regarded as... well, loonies.

4) There are a lot of guns in Finland: hunting rifles. These are seldom used in crimes, but are an unfortunately common weapon in domestic disputes and suicides.

We do have some problems with heavily armed criminals, especially biker gangs, like Hell's Angels and Outlaws, who are crazy enough to shoot each other with bazookas. And of course proximity to Russia causes problems with smuggling and the Russian mob.

All this doesn't mean we Finns are unfamiliar with guns. Most of the male population goes through 6-12 months of Mandatory Military Service (rough translation) and get to know assault rifles and other smaller and bigger arms.

We just don't get a hard-on while we handle them... :D

[Smartass]

Yes, gun control can work, and can be logistically accomplished. Of course, it would require some serious weapons sweeps, lots of home searches, a huge expansion of police forces and police powers, and the dropping of a number of rights that are generally taken for granted here.

In other words, we can make this country and its people safe from guns. The question is, will you want to live here once the job is done?

Personally, I like the idea of criminals thinking that every man, woman, or child may be carrying a gun. For the ones that aren't crazy, I would expect it to have a definite deturrent effect.

It all comes down to how much freedom you are willing to trade for how much safety. Lately, Americans have been pretty willing to give up freedom for dubious safety improvements. Personally, I hope this trend reverses soon, while we still have some freedom to be proud of.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

PV: If we "banned" handguns, there would be no significant decrease in crime. Now, to be fair, if you had a magic wand, and made all the handguns (except those in the hands of Police, Security and Military, I assume those are OK) go POOF!... there would be a significant, but minor decrease in some crimes.

Oh, and PV, handguns are not "made to kill people", if they are they are doing a damn poor job, as less than 1% of them have been used to do so, and to get the stat this high, we have to include Police shootings. Many handguns are designed especially for target shooting, many for "cowboy action shooting" a growing sport, some just to collect and NEVER fire, some ARE designed for hunting. But, true, most are bought "for protection", but by someone who hopes never to use it. And of course the Police, etc, buy a lot.

Look, in NYC they have "banned" handguns for decades now. In Switzerland, it is required by LAW that every ablebodied man keeps an Assault rifle in his home or business. Where would you be/feel safer in the center of a large park at Midnite? :D

[Glitch]

Study after study has shown that gun control results in more crime, and concealed carry permits reduce crime. As somebody mentioned if you could magically make all guns disappear, and make the illegal market disappear and not resurface then yes, it would have an effect, but does anybody seriously believe that this is practically possible? Otherwise, no. The only effect of taking guns out of the hands of people is to make criminals more brazen. Canada has a higher rate of "hot" burglaries than the USA because the criminals know that there are likely to be no deadly weapons inside to harm them. The same is true for states that have higher levels of gun control.

What does work are efforts like "Project Exile" that throw the book at criminals who carry guns by actually prosecuting the case, in federal court no less! Philidalphea (sp) has experienced a reduction in violent crime that is felt to be due to efforts like "Project Exile".

See:

John Lott - "More Guns, Less Crime" and numerous articles
Gary Kleck - Numerous articles

Morgan O Reynolds - National Center for Policy Analysis
W.W. Caruth III - National Center for Policy Analysis
James D Wright & Peter H Rossi - "Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms"

Paul Blackman - Journal of Firearms and Public Policy

Marianne Zawitz - "Guns Used in Crime" & "Firearm Injury from Crime" (Bureau of Justice)
Patsy A Klaus - "The Cost of Crime to Victims: Crime Data Brief" (Bureau of Justice)
Micheal R Rand - "Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self Defense, and Firearm Theft" (Bureau of Justice)

[PeeQueue]

Don't forget assault rifles. People don't need a fully automatic rifle with a 30 round banana clip.

The ban on "assault rifles" had nothing to do with fully automatic weapons, which have been illegal for the most part for many years. That stupid ban just arbitrarily decided that any gun that looked a certain way was now illegal - e.g. my brother had a semi-automatic .22 with a flash suppressor on the barrel. He bought it because it looked cool and we used to do a lot of target shooting. All of a sudden it was made illegal. He also had a 30 round banana clip for it because .22 bullets are cheap as dirt (which is why we used them for target shooting) and it was a pain in the ass to have to reload all the time. What's the big deal about this gun?

The assault rifle thing was nothing but a political move; people said,"OOOO, he's getting rid of assault rifles, ain't he great?"

If you really want to kill people, any old deer rifle will probably be more effective than many of the guns banned.

For clarification: Semi-automatic guns are guns which require you to pull the trigger for each round you fire.
[/hijack]

PeeQueue

[Spiny Norman]

Glitch, though I've gotten used to more or less taking your word "ex cathedra" in matters like this, I think I'll have to disagree with you here.

Gun laws do not exist in a vacuum, they interact with the rest of the culture. If the general attitude to guns were to become one of disapproval (distaste ?) - then stricter gun laws could have an effect, and I believe a positive one (lower gun crime rates, at least). If gun control laws were met with widespread contempt and resistance, they'd probably achieve nothing but installing contempt for law in general in some people.

Or are you saying that (relatively low) Scandinavian crime rates would fall if we were to introduce more relaxed weapons laws ? While there's no way of knowing for sure, I have a hard time believing it. Of course, as mazirian pointed out, we have a very different attitude towards guns. They're generally accepted as necessary for police & military, hunters and target-shooters need them to pursue their sport, but they're not cool and they're kept away from daily life. (OK, hunters sometimes display some pride in their weapons. Target-shooters do as well - among themselves).

If you are (as I suspect) only referring to American conditions, I guess I'm really not qualified to comment.

BTW, this has to be one of the more interesting takes on the gun control debate so far!

[hawthorne]

The question of guns for protection is an interesting one, though I seriously doubt that empirical studies can answer it.

It is true to say that a criminal wishing to rob your house will be influenced by the presence of guns, but how is not clear.

He may be more likely to carry a gun himself, or be quicker to use it if he thinks you are armed.

In a neighborhood where there are lots of guns, this can mean that not having one increases your risk, but this does not mean that this would be true for all patterns of gun ownership.

Remember that many criminals are in a sense just doing their job (anti-social as it may be) and that the level of violence they tend to be prepared to use depends to some extent on the level of violence they expect to encounter.

picmr

[Lissa]

Even if we could ban guns how would we get rid of the millions that are already here? I can't imagine that the American people would just turn them over without a word. Guns can be pretty expensive. A member of my family is a gun collector. He has paid upwards of ten thousand dollars for a gun in the past, and would be mighty pissed if his investment were to be confinscated without any compensation.

As it's been said before, honest upright citizens might tun in their guns, but the criminals wouldn't, and aren't they the ones we're worried about?.

If the presence of a gun draws attention, it weighs against carrying it. (Think of it as a two-pound badge saying "Arrest me!").

Unless policemen/women are arbitrarily stopping and frisking people in the street they wouldn't know if a person was carrying a gun or not. Criminals don't generally advertise the fact that they're packin' a piece, especially if they're up to no good.

Also, crimes of passion would be less fatal overall. A person is much more likely to survive being stabbed with a knife than being shot with a gun.

Not necessarily. If someone wants to kill you, they will. If they've only got a knife, they'll just stab you repeatedly. Kitty Genovese wasn't killed with a gun. Guns just make killing more convinient and less messy. We can't take away all lethal weapons. Murder will still churn in the heart of man, no matter what impliment he is restriced to.

I am a gun owner. I feel safer at night knowing that if I hear somone creeping up the stairs, I can fire a warning shot, and hopefully scare them off. I pray to God that I never need to use it. I hope that I never have to shoot anyone. But I rest safer knowing that I can defend myself, if necessary. I would live in terror if that right was taken from me. I wouldn't have a weapon, but my attacker would. How horrifying!

Yes, I know that if I hear a bump in the night that I can call the police, and I will, but what about the ten looooong minutes before they get here? My bedroom door has a lock, but the door wouldn't stand up to a good kick. Without a gun, my only recourse is to throw perfume bottles.

Taking away the right to own a gun from everyone makes me think of when I was in grade school. Some kid spits his milk at another, so the teacher takes the milk away from all of the kids, and has them put their heads down on their desks. It wasn't fair in grade school, and I don't think it's fair to punish America at large for some people's behavior.

I groan when I see another gun tradgedy. I know that soon the calls will come for gun-control legislation that will do absolutely no good. I firmly believe that there should be some kind of law that states that legislation cannot be dictated by moral outrage.

I believe that there should be background checks. That's only reasonable. I believe that there should be free gun saftey courses offered to each new gun buyer. I believe that trigger locks should be included with all new handguns. And I believe in my right to own that gun.

Was it Thomas Jefferson who said "A person who will give up their rights for a feeling of security deserves neither?"

[Glitch]

Spiny: The answer is a sound maybe. :) Don't you hate that?

In the US, at least, felon surveys repeatedly show that the thing that criminals fear most is the "victim" fighting back especially if they are armed.

Drug dealers own guns for protection from other drug dealers and their own clients than for protection from the police. They simply don't worry about being shot by police officers. They know that if they aren't armed and don't go for a gun, it is highly unlikely a cop will shot them, and they'll be out in 2 years tops anyway, so it isn't worth dying for.

Rapists typically don't arm themselves because they have a developed condition of finding sheep. This gets a bit hairy to understand in the limited context I can explain here, but most criminals develop the ability to recognize a fighter and to recognize a passive person. This isn't so much a learned ability as a developed ability in the sense that they pick up on what works and what doesn't.

For example, police profilers know that if the rapist use items in the house to tie up/assault the victim he probably has done multiple rapes before, because almost all first timers bring their own rope or cloth and other equipment. However, they start to realize that they don't need to, because everything they need is in the house. Similarly, when they develop the ability by either just looking at somebody or by the interview (innocent seeming questions or interactions) they can tell if the person will fight. Rapists attack those that won't fight.

The exception to this is the rapist who attacks by home invasion. Here since he doesn't see the victim before the attack, he is rolling the dice. While she fight back or not? So what they fear most is that they choose the wrong house and they have a fighter, and one that is armed.

Burglars are the same. They typically don't want a confrontation. They just want your stuff. So what scares them is that in the middle of their heist they will be confronted with a hail of lead. But they know that if guns are illegal there is little to fear especially if they do bother to arm themselves.

But again, if the US there is a thriving illegal gun market. It would be exceptionally difficult to close down. If the same is true in Scandinavia then I would say, yes, having citizens with guns will reduce crime. If there is little to no illegal market then there is little need, and it would probably only have a marginal effect.

[Glitch]

last paragraph

...if the US ...

should be

...in the US...

Also, I wish to stress another possible factor in Scandinavian crime levels. In the USA, because of overload courts gun violations are not generally prosecuted. If this isn't true in Scandinavia, then this is another factor. Again, efforts like "Project Exile" are very successful are reducing gun crime without actually requiring the people to own guns. Both in conjunction would be, IMO, an awesome force against violent crime. So, if in Scandinavia, your courts throw the book at gun toting criminals then ... well, this is a good thing, and may account for decreased levels of violent crime on its own.

[Occam]

"Can gun control work?"


Hell yeah, in 1934 the Gun Control Act outlawed fully automatic guns, BAM there goes the Tommy Gun. It was only a few decades later when we figured out how to make a semi a fully in your own backyard. But no one can make a handgun or a semiautomatic in their backyard...unless you're the antagonist in 'In The Line of Fire'. In 1968 Federal mandate restricted guns further...it's worked in the past it will work again.



"Also, how would we enforce such a ban, is it logistically possible?"

Sure, first stop the bastard compaines who sell them to the public...yeah I'm talking to you, Keckler & Koch! And YOU Intertec! Then we stop the imports....you know who you are.
Then we just catch criminals like normal, take their guns away and DO NOT SELL THEM BACK TO THE PUBLIC! Within 10 years anyone who uses guns to hurt others will be without them. While those who use M-16's to target shoot will still have them...and they will want to protect them because you can't buy them anymore. Case closed.

[Needs2know]

I believe we will eventually have much more federal legislation controlling guns. I have a sneaking feeling that it is a given. Maybe not in the next 4 years if Bush wins the presidency, but it will happen eventually. I think public opinion is shifting in this direction. It surely didn't take but a few years to turn cigarette smoking into something almost criminal. Project Exile is an excellent step in the right direction. At least it is something that can be enforced. The effects of new and more stringent gun control laws will not mean a hill of beans if they are not enforceable.

Needs2know

[Bucky]

About ten years ago, handgun control was a debate topic on the cpollege circuit. It is, of course, possible that the situation has changed, although I would be somewhat surprised if there were drastic changes. I'm also afraid that I don't remember the cites from ten years ago. Anyway, I stopped being as opposed to handgun laws without changing my mind on the wisdom of owning one by facts such as the following:

1) Estimates are that a ban on handguns, even if totally effective, would simply mean that people would use long arms (shotguns, rifles, etc.) and thus dramatically increase the lethality of crime.

2) People who own handguns are about eight times more likely to be killed during a break-in than people who don't--false sense of security among those who are untrained, perhaps?

3) Handguns are woefully inaccurate. My room-mate, who was trained by the 82nd Airborne, says that the estimate for most handguns is about 50% accuracy from six feet by a shooter with training.

4) Criminals are more deterred by the presence of a dog than any other "security" device.

So, don't think that a handgun ban would really work, although I still wouldn't own one for "home protection." If I needed that kind of protection, I would load a shotgun with rock salt for the first shot (in case of an accident).

I agree with Glitch that more sure prosecution would be more likley to have an impact. A rule of thumb in the crime and punishment is tha surety of punishment is more effective in reducing/preventing crime than unenforced laws or harsh punishments which are seldom used.

Bucky

[Spiny Norman]

Glitch:

You're right, I truly hate having a "maybe" for an answer.

The Danish (have to reduce my scope to preserve just a bit of accuracy)courts generally do "throw the book" at gun-related crime, at least if it's premeditated (sp?). Crimes involving guns are relatively unusual and get a lot of media attention. And of course, the police really, truly hates the idea of armed criminals, so they'll put a lot of ressources into solving those cases.

The illegal gun market is definitely not "thriving", guns are hard to come by. Stolen military weapons appear in biker gang wars, politically motivated crime and well-planned robberies (money transports and the like), but they're not really practical for everyday crime, while handguns are the luxury trade - expensive and hard to get. (And liable to get stolen ;) ) The average robber gets no proper return on his investment in a pistol, neither does the burglar. I'll part with my wallet on the first glimpse of a knife (or even if the guy is big), and most burglars will run if disturbed. They don't have to render me harmless, I'm unarmed. They would probably take the greater risk by fighting me (at least, that's what they might think if the lighting was bad :) ).

This more or less leaves the psychos who don't judge the risks but want to hurt someone - rapists, psychos. Guns in the hands of of their victims would have stopped some of them - but if that would mean arming the rest of society, including the criminals and (perhaps) driving violent crime as a whole upwards, would it be the moral decision to make ? I dunno - I think we'll keep guns hard to get for everyone for the time being. It seems to work pretty well for us.

But of course, if the US can pull off the trick of disarming most criminals and still be able to let law-abiding citizens arm themselves, we might have to reconsider. And I guess cracking down hard on gun crime is a logical first step.

[momo]

This debate, either pro or con, never ceases to amaze me whenever I encounter it - it’s not what people say, but rather what they *don’t* say.

We’re fascinated with effect but we ignore cause.

Not that anyone’s brought it up yet (but it usually does come up eventually), but the whole constitutional argument is a red-herring. Everyone knows, gun-control advocates and opponents alike, that original reasoning behind the hallowed "right to bear arms" is an ahistorical concept in today's context (well, everyone except the militia groups I guess, but for all the things they're known for, intelligence is not one of them, so they're easily omitted for the sake of argument). In short, the reality that the second amendment reflects is not reality any more, ergo, Q.E.D., in your face, shut the hell up Billy Bob Buckshot.

So, why do Americans love guns, indeed, regard them as a divine right? Easy. The gun makers make sure they do. How? First, you need to recognize that military and law-enforcement contracts are not as lucrative as everyone else thinks they are. Volume means discounts. So, how do you increase profit with lower volume? Ask any first year business student: retail. How do you increase retail market share? Identify and exploit non-saturated markets. In this case, women are a good example. Give 'em guns to kill the rapists. So, now that I've identified the market segment, how do I market it effectively? Easy. I tell my prospective customers that I make guns for the military and law enforcement, and they kill bad guys real good. "Yes," says prospective customer, "there is evil out there - evil that the military and police fight every day. I need the same tools they have!" so he goes out and buys an Israeli 9mm machine-pistol with a folding stock, laser sight, and a 50 shot clip filled with armor piercing bullets. And I'll make sure to offer one for the ladies that's got a pretty pattern engraved into it. Maybe chrome plated.

Bingo. Now I'm selling my killing machines that were originally developed for the highly specialized missions of my low paying customers at 100 times the profit. God Bless America.

So, in the end it's all about technology and marketing, and American popular culture is all about shiny things -- this is merely an extension of that, and this is why guns are part of American culture. It's a well known fact that hunting rifles and shotguns do not kill people in the staggeringly high numbers that high-performance hand-guns do (contrary to what some posters here believe). Gun-control advocates don't give a rat's ass about Dad's hunting rifle, but the NRA and their ilk continually stoke the passions to convince Billy Bob otherwise. It exasperates me -- their arguments having nothing to do with hand-gun deaths in the United States -- I keep thinking that someday they'll say "Oh my, I hadn't thought of that," and promptly disappear in a puff of logic (with apologies to Mr. Adams - Douglas, that is). But they're merely the advocates and servants of the gun manufacturers who still, today, are looking for even more novel ways to push their highly-specialized products to market (Billy Bob thinks they do it in the name of his inalienable human rights, and they aren't about to tell him otherwise - hell, he's a no-charge lobbyist). And they'll forever fight any legislation to limit these lethal products all in the name of something that isn't real.

-whew-

That felt good.

-----------------------
"Maybe, just once, someone will call me 'sir' without adding, 'you're making a scene.’" - Homer Simpson

[PVonAtark]

In response to Lissa,

You pointed out that handguns are concealed weapons. This is why I feel that they have no purpose other than killing people. Yes, they can be used for "protection", but if that is the purpose then couldn't they be made more obvious?

I mean if all new handguns were manufactured in only one color - day glo orange - and outfitted with a tiny radio transponder so that they could easily be detected with a simple radio scanner, wouldn't they still be just as useful in protecting your home? I think this would be especially attractive to gun collectors as it would allow them to "tag" their property in a distictive way. It would also be useful to police when searching for evidence or for criminals. (there's probable cause for you right there)

The main problem that I have with handguns is that they are so easily hidden in one's pants or jacket. This make commiting many crimes much easier. It would be much harder to rob a convenience store with a rifle. It would also be harder to mug someone at gunpoint.

I guess what I'm saying is that gun control doesn't have to mean we take all guns away from everyone, just the one that are most likely to be used for criminal purpuses.

The other point that was brought up by Lissa is that you can still kill people with other weapons. While true, what I was referring to was specifically crimes of passion. In a fit of anger, a husband pulls out his gun and shoots his wife. Later he tells police that he just wanted to scare her, He didn't really mean to kill her. Now, if the same man were to stab her with a knife, he would be unlikely to stab her 37 times. Thusly, she would have a better chance of survival.

[Glitch]

And they'll forever fight any legislation to limit these lethal products all in the name of something that isn't real.

Italics added by me.

So what things that aren't real are you talking about exactly?

Would that be the 3 million defensive uses of handguns per year?

Would that be the thousands of violent crimnals killed each year by lawful citizens owning and using handguns? (Of note, 3 times more than killed by police each year).

You just have to love the tautology you set up for yourself absent any facts to suggest the truth of it.

[sarcasm on]Yes, of course, it is obvious that it is gun industry making guns popular in the minds of people who see them as a means of protection and they do this with slick advertising campaigns. You know, I can't turn on the TV without being bombarded by gun manufacturer commercials. Radio, boy, you bet non-stop commercials. Magazines, everthing. You name it, all you see is all the marketing by gun manufacturers.[/sarcasm off]

Reality time. People are worried about violent crime happening to them, and it isn't gun dealers or manufacturers advertising to them that violent crime is reality. It is reality because it is reality. We see violent crime everyday in the media and some people have decided that they want to arm themselves against that. These aren't vigalantes seeing themselves on a crusade against evil. They see it as a form of defense. Are some people ill-informed and view their guns as a talisman of protection from evil? Sure. But not because of gun manufacturers marketing efforts. They are for the same reason that there are still morons who won't wear their seatbelts. Just plain stupidity, ignorance and laziness to actually learn about something.

PVonTark: I would fully support an open carry law. But the reality is that there are far too many hoplophobes who would get all squimish on seeing a gun carried by the next door neighbour. Hell, when people come over to my house and see my gun they instictively take a step back. When they hold it they typically hold it well away from themselves. It is a very natural reaction of the civilized side of modern humans who are not accustomed at all to violence or violent tools. This is whole reason behind the defensive mindset that I talk about so much. It is about getting in touch with that animal side so that when it kicks in and it will under violent attack it isn't your enemy it is your friend.

This is the reason that people who own guns manage to get themselves killed (especially men who also have this default "make the sucker pay for breaking in here" mode, whereas women have a default "get me the hell out of here" mode). They lack training of the mind. They have a false bravado that their gun will keep them safe. Hey, in the movies the good guy can shoot the gun out of the hand of a person at 50 yards... you mean that doesn't match reality ... too many people find that out too late.

[momo]

Glitch:

So what things that aren't real are you talking about exactly?

You just have to love the tautology you set up for yourself absent any facts to suggest the truth of it.

Who doesn't love tautology? :rolleyes: Although I wonder where I was needlessly repetitive.

The gun-control advocate does not want to take away your hunting rifle and shot-gun, nor would I think you’d debate that such weapons kill people in numbers anywhere near that of hand guns. But the pro-gun lobby ignores this, choosing instead to use rhetoric that, ostensibly, claims gun-control in any measure means that the government is gonna get your hunting rifle too. Of course, you’re a responsible hunter and practice gun safety, ergo, responsible gun owners (excuse me: lawful citizens) will be punished for the actions of the violent criminals.

Let me reiterate… I’ll even use your words:

3 million defensive uses of handguns per year…thousands of violent crimnals killed each year by lawful citizens owning and using handguns

IT’S THE HANDGUNS! My point was, why inflame the passions of the gun-owners by making part of the threat against them something that isn’t even part of the problem? It ain’t about rifles and shotguns used to kill your deer, elk, moose, mourning dove, whatever. It’s about highly specialized killing machines designed for specific missions/purposes in the hands of anyone who wants them. And if the self-same crazies didn’t have them, would you need one too? I guess you eloquently said it yourself: "reality is reality." Yet the NRA is gonna try and convince you otherwise: "gun-control is coming after law abiding citizens!" they say. Indeed, Chuckie was up in British Columbia just recently telling the Canadians exactly that. To their credit, most were just as confused about what he said as I was.

As far as marketing is concerned, rest assured that the good ol’ U-S-of-A can market handguns like no place on the planet. Pick up any of the myriad of weapon magazines at your local grocery store and tell me I’m wrong. And why use a boring old shotgun to protect myself when I can use a far more interesting (and redundantly lethal) machine pistol? And no, I wouldn’t use TV or Radio, as you caricatured, to market my weapons, for essentially the same reasons China doesn’t: my customers know where to look.

We can chicken-and-egg this all we want. The fact is that the U.S. consumes highly specialized handguns like nowhere else on earth. You can say this is because the U.S. has more criminals to fight, or because the criminals have more handguns than the lawful citizens. Either way, the constant is the stupid handgun, whether it’s in the hand of the good or the bad.

Then again, maybe I’m just a shivering hoplophobe. I’ve been called worse. :D

[UncleBeer]

Momo, you've posted so many outright fallacies, I hardly know where to start. For the most part I'm going to ignore you're name-calling and incendiary remarks except to say that they are uncalled for in a civil debate. Tossing out bellicose anti-gunner jargon does little to establish yourself as someone to be respected or taken seriously. On to the meat of my rebuttal.

You've claimed the "constitutional argument is a red-herring. I have to vehemently disagree with that. This is the crux of the entire issue. The constitution explicitly states that the government may not infringe upon my rights to own firearms. What's confusing you is function of the constitution; it exists merely to show your elected officials what the people will allow their government to do. It is not about rights or privileges granted to you by that government.

From your claim that the 2nd amendment no longer reflects reality it appears to me that you wish to repeal it entirely. I beg to differ. The intent of the 2nd amendment, as described in the Federalist Papers, was to give the citizens the means to overthrow a tyrannical government should it become necessary or desirable. An understandable goal when you consider our country's genesis just a few short years prior to the establishment of the constitution. As such, the validity of the 2nd amendment can never become outdated.

As to why Americans 'love guns,' your term and somewhat inflammatory, maybe you should consider how this country was founded and expanded. The simple fact is that the firearm is part of the American heritage whether you like it or not. I really don’t think you can lay it all at the door of firearm manufacturers any more than you can blame druglords for the American fascination with narcotics. One of the basic tenets of capitalism shows that supply is created to fill demand, not vice versa. You are arguing the point that through clever and voluminous advertising, the manufacturers have essentially created the demand; I'm sorry, the marketplace just does not work that way. By the way, just where is this supposed flood of advertising? I don’t see it.

so he goes out and buys an Israeli 9mm machine-pistol with a folding stock, laser sight, and a 50 shot clip filled with armor piercing bullets.
Let's just check this statement, item by item, for validity. What is a machine-pistol? A machine-gun or pistol is typically defined as a fully automatic weapon, that is, one that will fire more than one projectile with a single depression of the trigger. These are illegal and have been since the '30's. Folding stocks on pistols are also illegal. 50-shot clips have been banned. Armor piercing bullets are not available for civilian purchase. So, how did Billy Bob Buckshot just go out and purchase this? The answer is, he didn't, obviously. This is just another example of belligerent anti-gun rhetoric designed to obfuscate the truth and impart fear. Which, oddly enough is what you have accused gun manufacturers of doing. So, if Billy Bob can just go buy one of these off the shelf at the local sporting goods store, maybe I better have one too.

You have also claimed that rifles and shotguns are not used for killing as often as high-performance handguns are. I've got some news for you. High-performance handguns are not used in murders nearly as often as you think they are. The handguns used most frequently for murders are the cheaply designed and shoddily manufactured ones. The Hunting rifles and shotguns are most certainly on the gun control agenda. Just ask the citizens of Australia, or England. The slippery slope is not a fallacy. You should read what Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. has to say about handgun restrictions as the entering wedge.

…forever fight any legislation to limit these lethal products.
What lethal products? Guns in and of themselves are not lethal. It takes someone behind the trigger with the will to kill to make a gun lethal. I'm really tired of hearing how dangerous guns are and no blame whatsoever is placed upon a criminal acting upon his own free will. People kill, not guns is the truth, not just a trite aphorism. That's the reality the gun control advocates refuse to recognize.

You also made this statement, "gun-control is coming after law abiding citizens!" Absolutely true. The anti-gunners are trying to reduce my constitutional rights to access and ownership of legally manufactured and sold products. I have never been convicted or accused of a gun law violation. It follows logically then, that the gun control advocates are coming after law-abiding citizens. There is absolutely no way to truthfully deny this fact. Even if we put that aside, are you naïve enough to believe passing a gun registration or ownership permit law is going to prevent a single crime? The last thing any person intent upon committing a violent crime is going to be concerned with is registration of his weapon. In fact, many criminals actually steal license plates to use on their vehicles during the commission of their crimes. I seriously doubt they are concerned with violation of the motor vehicle code. Preposterous.

Either way, the constant is the stupid handgun, whether it’s in the hand of the good or the bad.
So, you'd have law abiding citizens give up their constitutional rights and their weapons. By your own admission you'd rather have all the guns in the possession of felons. That's absolutely ludicrous. I suggest you are the one who has been brain-washed by the gun-grabbing crowd. It's not the firearm manufacturers that have convinced legitimate gun owners.

Wake up.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

MOMO: I am sorry but you are wrong about gun control activists not wanting "dads hunting rifle"-- HCI has said it's eventual goal is the elimination of ALL privately owned firearms. ALL :mad:

And those of you who quote scandivnavian crime rates. Well, Switzerland has crime rates just as low, and they have a very strict Gun Law; Every Able-bodied Citizen MUST keep a fully automatic Assault rifle in their home or business. Hell, if you believed the Gun Contol crowd, those things are SOOOO EVIL, that if we even allowed them, the streets would be awash with blood overnite. You know, I just saw a TV show with a shot of Geneva, and I didn't see the rivers of blood...must be the red gain on my TV, gotta get that fixed.... :D

[JDeMobray]

And those of you who quote scandivnavian crime rates. Well, Switzerland has crime rates just as low, and they have a very strict Gun Law; Every Able-bodied Citizen MUST keep a fully automatic Assault rifle in their home or business.



Hum. So does Israel, but the NRA types never trot out the magnificent success of Israeli crime prevention via arming the masses.

In another thread, I posted a little something about some correlations (in fact, most of them) being non-causative.

The low Swiss crime rate probably has very little to do with their strict gun control laws, and a lot to do with their culture.

The high Israeli crime rate, again, most likely doesn't have everything to do with the abundance of arms.

It may be possible that the Swiss are a just a little bit different in cultural outlook than Americans. Maybe we can get some guns when we're older. :)

Otherwise, we'll just shoot our eyes out.

[SPOOFE]

I really have to give props to UncleBeer on this one... I doubt many other people would have been capable of responding as eloquently and truthfully as him.

Would gun control work? In theory, yes. But realistically, it can't be pulled off without an immense dedication of resources. Resources that just aren't available.

A handgun is about power. Whoever has a gun has power, and whoever doesn't have a gun does not have power. Those who use this power over others are already breaking the law, and another addition to the list of charges isn't going to give them any pause. Also, gun control takes power away from those who do care about the law.

End result of gun control? The criminals have all the power, and Joe Lawabider is left with a bullet hole in his gut.

However, if everyone had a gun... or, more importantly, if everyone POTENTIALLY had a gun... any criminal who'd want to use a gun would think twice.

I say, abolish all but the minimal aspects of gun control. We'd see a lot more deaths in the first week or so, but the vast majority of those would be fools stupid enough to start something in a crowd.

[momo]

Ahem.

UncleBeer:

You know, you're right. My original post was out of line. If anything, your 2729 posts to my 10 gives you a right to point that out, so I offer up my mea culpa and hope to learn from it. Satire is a double-edged sword, and context if the first casualty when its done without some modicum of tact.

By the same token, I got a headache trying to wrap my head around most of your counter-points, especially how I'd "rather have all the guns in the possession of felons." I have no idea how you came to assume that, so there's no point in even reasoning with it.

I've lived in England and in Canada, and no matter how you slice it or what books you quote, deaths by handguns in those countries are a fraction per capita of what they are here. Same is true for school-shootings. And no one I know in either nation stays awake nights wondering when the storm troopers are going to bust in and take their guns. But, to your point, firearms are not part of their heritage, either. And I doubt the movement to do so will start any time soon.

I was also wrong about another thing - the 2nd Amendment: I still hold that it represents the truest example of an ahistorical concept, but perception is reality.

At least in this thread it's clear that I'm the polar opposite of you by whatever scale we choose to measure with, and in realizing that, I also concede that emotions cloud objectivity - that's true for me as well as you. So on that note, I'll simply agree to disagree since we'll get nowhere. Unfortunately, I fear the same for any chance of real progress on this issue any time soon in this country.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

JD: I have to agree with you, it is the culture, and NOT the availablity of weapons that causes higher crime rates. that is really what I was pointing out: you can't point to Sweden, and say they have few guns & a low crime rate, thus, ipso facto the one causes the other. I think that if we went to Sweden and gave EVERYBODY a gun, the crime rate still would be low -but I shudder to think of the suicides.

And that is a big diff between Sweden & the USA: a drunk despondent Swede shoots HIMSELF, we Americans want to take a few down with us. I don't think gun control will solve this cultural Gap, more will just use their cars, running them into headon traffic.

[Glitch]

Momo: First, of all, it is difficult to discern exactly what you are saying because you are ranting. Some calm rational clarity would be appreciated.

Everyone knows, gun-control advocates and opponents alike, that original reasoning behind the hallowed "right to bear arms" is an ahistorical concept in today's context.

"Everybody knows" is not a logical argument.

So, why do Americans love guns, indeed, regard them as a divine right? Easy. The gun makers make sure they do.

Okay, so here is your statement of fact. Now you are going to go and prove it.

How do you increase retail market share? Identify and exploit non-saturated markets. In this case, women are a good example. Give 'em guns to kill the rapists. So, now that I've identified the market segment, how do I market it effectively? Easy. I tell my prospective customers that I make guns for the military and law enforcement, and they kill bad guys real good. "Yes," says prospective customer, "there is evil out there - evil that the military and police fight every day. I need the same tools they have!"

First, has it occured to you that perhaps people should be allowed to defend themselves against "the evil that is out there"? Has it occured to you that people are deciding that want to defend themselves on their own? You haven't demonstrated a brainwashing marketing campaign by gun makers to sucker in unsuspecting consumers into buying guns they don't need. On top of that you haven't demonstrated the lack of need.

so he goes out and buys an Israeli 9mm machine-pistol with a folding stock, laser sight, and a 50 shot clip filled with armor piercing bullets.

Sure... *sigh*. Again, I think you need to get in touch with reality a little.

Now I'm selling my killing machines that were originally developed for the highly specialized missions of my low paying customers at 100 times the profit.

Survey says ... BZZZZT. Again, we need some clarity here. Are we taking about handguns or are we talking about submachine guns used by SWAT teams? You seem to be bouncing all over the place.

The handgun was not developed for an highly specialized mission in law enforcement. The H&K SMG was, for example, but never the handgun. The handgun for police and citizen alike performs the role of lethal force as part of the force continuum of self protection. The police have greater flexibility in evaluating a situtation as being one which requires possible lethal force (i.e. they can draw their gun with less provocation), but this hardly is what I would call a highly specialized mission.

SWAT on the other hand needs small arms, with good capacity, good stopping power, but with good mobility. Stealth is also highly desirable. Hence the H&K MP5 with built in silencer. But note that such a gun is illegal to the public. Joe Citizen cannot buy one legally.

So, in the end it's all about technology and marketing,

Sorry, you failed to show this.

Gun-control advocates don't give a rat's ass about Dad's hunting rifle, but the NRA and their ilk continually stoke the passions to convince Billy Bob otherwise.

I hope this really doesn't suprise you that a advocacy group will play to ANY possible supporter to get their support. Do you really think gun control advocates are innocent of this? If anything there are far more guilty because there are plenty of gun control advocates who DO want to come after hunting rifles and shotguns. These same gun control will lie with absurdities like "Gun control could have prevented Columbine". The NRA position of protecting rifles may be a 3/4s truth, but that is a whole lot better than an outright lie.

are looking for even more novel ways to push their highly-specialized products to market

You failed to demonatrate the highly-specialized aspect of your claim.

Who doesn't love tautology? Although I wonder where I was needlessly repetitive.

Umm... tautology has nothing to do with repetition. Allow me to demonstrate.

Guns are evil because guns are evil.

The gun-control advocate does not want to take away your hunting rifle and shot-gun,[quote]

I should hope not since I don't own one.

[quote]But the pro-gun lobby ignores this, choosing instead to use rhetoric that, ostensibly, claims gun-control in any measure means that the government is gonna get your hunting rifle too. Of course, you’re a responsible hunter and practice gun safety, ergo, responsible gun owners (excuse me: lawful citizens) will be punished for the actions of the violent criminals.

You will take note that this is the ONLY argument point for by the pro-gun lobby. The reality is that the handgun is the lethal force aspect of legal & ethical self protection. Gun control advocates are trying to take away the ability of the people to properly defend themselves.

My point was, why inflame the passions of the gun-owners by making part ofthe threat against them something that isn’t even part of the problem?

Because there are plenty of gun control advocates who DO want to go after rifles and shotguns. It is not a bold faced lie.

Perhaps you can explain why the gun control advocates inflame people's fears with bold faced lies?

And if the self-same crazies didn’t have them, would you need one too?

Reality time again. By self-same crazies, I can only assume you mean violent criminals. So, violent criminals DO have them. We DO have laws to keep them out of the hands of violent criminals. So, if we COULD get them out of the hands of violent criminals then of course, the citizenery wouldn't need them for protection. So, why do we need more gun control? We have all the laws we need to get them out of the hands of criminals.

"gun-control is coming after law abiding citizens!"

Because it is. We have sufficient laws to keep guns out of criminal hands. The problem is a lack of enforcement not a lack of laws.

As far as marketing is concerned, rest assured that the good ol’ U-S-of-A can market handguns like no place on the planet. Pick up any of the myriad of weapon magazines at your local grocery store and tell me I’m wrong.

And who do you suppose buys those magazines? People who are already gun owners or collectors. Not exactly the most intelligent marketing in the world if you want to "exploit non-saturated markets".

And why use a boring old shotgun to protect myself when I can use a far more interesting (and redundantly lethal) machine pistol?

Opps.. you just stepped on a big landmine there. The shotgun is not an effective self defense weapon at least compared to the semi-automatic pistol (why do you keep bring up machine pistols, do you know much about guns?).

First, of all the shotgun has a slower rate of fire than a pistol which is a big problem. Second, many people couldn't handle the kick of a shotgun. Third, a shotgun is far easier to disarm. Fourth, shotgun ammunition is much more likely to penetrate walls or windows and hit somebody else (this is especially true for slugs). Fifth, racking shotguns are more prone to jamming and can be difficult to operate under adrenal stress. Sixth, shotguns are two handed weapons which is a tremendous disadvantage should you manage to subdue your assailant. Seventh, you cannot carry a shotgun with you onto the street. Shall I continue?

And no, I wouldn’t use TV or Radio, as you caricatured, to market my weapons, for essentially the same reasons China doesn’t: my customers know where to look.

Why not? Don't you want to exploit non-saturated markets? Do you think women are clammering to buy gun magazines so they can see the ads for guns BEFORE they have decided if they want to buy a gun? This is your claim. You need to back it up. Of course, it is wrong, people who buy those magazines either already own a gun or the have decided to buy a gun (which you will note means that they did so WITHOUT see the gun makers marketing campaign).

Then again, maybe I’m just a shivering hoplophobe.

Based on your posts, I would say there is little doubt that you are a hoplophobe. I don't intend it as an insult, but feel free to take it as one if you wish.

[momo]

Glitch:

Rest assured there’s a lesson learned for me - I did indeed rant and I guess I should have given more thought to the risk associated with such an approach. Please see my apology a few posts back, as I’ll grant my original post was needlessly inflammatory and full of generalizations. It was intended to spark debate and insofar as that goes, it succeeded.

Secondly, and I’m sure this comes as no surprise, I don’t own a gun or weapon of any sort, so I’m also going to lose any argument dealing with gun semantics, or how one weapon is more accurate (and somehow more legitimate) than another. Obviously, I’m not enamoured with such details.

It’s also obvious that I’m the minority here (and a sucker for punishment), since whatever I say will be attacked with logic that is equally flawed as you believe mine is, ie: the availability of fully automatic weapons and ultra-lethal ammo is, to quote UncleBeer, "just another example of belligerent anti-gun rhetoric designed to obfuscate the truth and impart fear [since these items] are illegal." If that was a legitimate deterrent, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. About four years ago I lived in the beautiful state of South Dakota, where I attended a gun show (held, oddly enough, in the local High-School since it was the only building in town big enough to house it), going along with a friend who owned many weapons and was looking for some good deals. Indeed, there were many. As stated above I’m no expert, so I can only relate what I was told and what I saw. But at one particular table, supposedly "Chinese factory-new" AK-47s were laid out wrapped in oilcloth, and the vendor happily explained how easily and cheaply they could be modified for full-auto. "Illegal" extended-clips were readily displayed as well, and I was even given a price - of course, I’d get a break on that if I bought the gun too. At other tables, MAC-10s, Uzis, and all manner of exotic weaponry was on "display," tacitly illegal to sell, but my friend claimed that anything I saw was available to buy should I want it bad enough. I know there will be replies stating I’m making this up, but rest assured I am not.

You yourself state that "… why do we need more gun control? We have all the laws we need to get them out of the hands of criminals." So how ‘come we’re not? You say "lack of enforcement." Whatever. All I see is legislation attempting to put more controls on things like I witnessed, stalling on the hill. If legislation, be it the creation or the enforcement of it, is pointless, what can you do?

I’m called naïve when I believe that gun registration or permit law would help prevent getting guns into the hands of the wrong people. Canada has had the Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) law on the books for a long time now. I even remember as a young boy getting mine after attending the required gun safety course, and being proud of the achievement. Gun registration has been a more recent development and has not been universally popular, but the main gripe concerns the recurring annual cost associated with it, and not the threat of gun removal. Whatever your opinion, you can’t argue with the statistics (eg: 151 shooting deaths far all of 1998 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/State/Justice/legal01.htm))- in fact, it’s the one item no-one’s challenged me on yet.

Finally (yes, I’m really done here): you’re more than willing, it would seem, to take personal accountability for gun ownership. Yet, at the same time you fight legislation that would ask you to do exactly that. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: the gun-lobby can claim gun laws can’t work by making sure all other efforts fail.

[Mr.Zambezi]

"Can gun control work?"


Hell yeah, in 1934 the Gun Control Act outlawed fully automatic guns, BAM there goes the Tommy Gun.


1) Very, very few crimes are or were committed with fully automatic weapons. It may have stopped a few gangland shooting.

2) Several increasingly strict gun control acts have been passed since then and gun related crime has gone up, not down.

3) Wasn't the problem of mafia slayings caused by the prohibition of something else? Interesting that prohibiting alcohol created so many greater problems.

If you make something more scarce, such as guns or alcohol, you increase crime. THe less guns, the more they are worth. The more they are worth, the more incentive to smuggle them. The more smuggling and black market action, the more crime.

Enforce the existing laws, hammer criminals who use guns and you will see a crime decrease.

[Mr.Zambezi]

"Can gun control work?"


Hell yeah, in 1934 the Gun Control Act outlawed fully automatic guns, BAM there goes the Tommy Gun.


1) Very, very few crimes are or were committed with fully automatic weapons. It may have stopped a few gangland shooting.

2) Several increasingly strict gun control acts have been passed since then and gun related crime has gone up, not down.

3) Wasn't the problem of mafia slayings caused by the prohibition of something else? Interesting that prohibiting alcohol created so many greater problems.

If you make something more scarce, such as guns or alcohol, you increase crime. THe less guns, the more they are worth. The more they are worth, the more incentive to smuggle them. The more smuggling and black market action, the more crime.

Enforce the existing laws, hammer criminals who use guns and you will see a crime decrease.

[Mr.Zambezi]

"Can gun control work?"


Hell yeah, in 1934 the Gun Control Act outlawed fully automatic guns, BAM there goes the Tommy Gun.


1) Very, very few crimes are or were committed with fully automatic weapons. It may have stopped a few gangland shooting.

2) Several increasingly strict gun control acts have been passed since then and gun related crime has gone up, not down.

3) Wasn't the problem of mafia slayings caused by the prohibition of something else? Interesting that prohibiting alcohol created so many greater problems.

If you make something more scarce, such as guns or alcohol, you increase crime. THe less guns, the more they are worth. The more they are worth, the more incentive to smuggle them. The more smuggling and black market action, the more crime.

Enforce the existing laws, hammer criminals who use guns and you will see a crime decrease.

[Mr.Zambezi]

"Can gun control work?"


Hell yeah, in 1934 the Gun Control Act outlawed fully automatic guns, BAM there goes the Tommy Gun.


1) Very, very few crimes are or were committed with fully automatic weapons. It may have stopped a few gangland shooting.

2) Several increasingly strict gun control acts have been passed since then and gun related crime has gone up, not down.

3) Wasn't the problem of mafia slayings caused by the prohibition of something else? Interesting that prohibiting alcohol created so many greater problems.

If you make something more scarce, such as guns or alcohol, you increase crime. THe less guns, the more they are worth. The more they are worth, the more incentive to smuggle them. The more smuggling and black market action, the more crime.

Enforce the existing laws, hammer criminals who use guns and you will see a crime decrease.

[Mr.Zambezi]

"Can gun control work?"


Hell yeah, in 1934 the Gun Control Act outlawed fully automatic guns, BAM there goes the Tommy Gun.


1) Very, very few crimes are or were committed with fully automatic weapons. It may have stopped a few gangland shooting.

2) Several increasingly strict gun control acts have been passed since then and gun related crime has gone up, not down.

3) Wasn't the problem of mafia slayings caused by the prohibition of something else? Interesting that prohibiting alcohol created so many greater problems.

If you make something more scarce, such as guns or alcohol, you increase crime. THe less guns, the more they are worth. The more they are worth, the more incentive to smuggle them. The more smuggling and black market action, the more crime.

Enforce the existing laws, hammer criminals who use guns and you will see a crime decrease.

[Mr.Zambezi]

"Can gun control work?"


Hell yeah, in 1934 the Gun Control Act outlawed fully automatic guns, BAM there goes the Tommy Gun.


1) Very, very few crimes are or were committed with fully automatic weapons. It may have stopped a few gangland shooting.

2) Several increasingly strict gun control acts have been passed since then and gun related crime has gone up, not down.

3) Wasn't the problem of mafia slayings caused by the prohibition of something else? Interesting that prohibiting alcohol created so many greater problems.

If you make something more scarce, such as guns or alcohol, you increase crime. THe less guns, the more they are worth. The more they are worth, the more incentive to smuggle them. The more smuggling and black market action, the more crime.

Enforce the existing laws, hammer criminals who use guns and you will see a crime decrease.

[Mr.Zambezi]

"Can gun control work?"


Hell yeah, in 1934 the Gun Control Act outlawed fully automatic guns, BAM there goes the Tommy Gun.


1) Very, very few crimes are or were committed with fully automatic weapons. It may have stopped a few gangland shooting.

2) Several increasingly strict gun control acts have been passed since then and gun related crime has gone up, not down.

3) Wasn't the problem of mafia slayings caused by the prohibition of something else? Interesting that prohibiting alcohol created so many greater problems.

If you make something more scarce, such as guns or alcohol, you increase crime. THe less guns, the more they are worth. The more they are worth, the more incentive to smuggle them. The more smuggling and black market action, the more crime.

Enforce the existing laws, hammer criminals who use guns and you will see a crime decrease.

[Glitch]

Secondly, and I’m sure this comes as no surprise, I don’t own a gun or weapon of any sort, so I’m also going to lose any argument dealing with gun semantics, or how one weapon is more accurate (and somehow more legitimate) than another. Obviously, I’m not enamoured with such details.

Respectfully, then you shouldn't try arguing it. I don't argue pro or against drug legalization for one simple reason ... I don't know a damn thing about it. Same thing with creationism vs. evolution. You'll never convince anybody arguing from ignorance.

It’s also obvious that I’m the minority here (and a sucker for punishment), since whatever I say will be attacked with logic that is equally flawed as you believe mine is,

Then demonstrate the flaws or leave it be. Either you can counter it with logic and facts or you can't. If you can't then you cannot make the claim that it is flawed with any level of credibility.

But at one particular table, supposedly "Chinese factory-new" AK-47s were laid out wrapped in oilcloth, and the vendor happily explained how easily and cheaply they could be modified for full-auto. "Illegal" extended-clips were readily displayed as well, and I was even given a price - of course, I’d get a break on that if I bought the gun too. At other tables, MAC-10s, Uzis, and all manner of exotic weaponry was on "display," tacitly illegal to sell, but my friend claimed that anything I saw was available to buy should I want it bad enough. I know there will be replies stating I’m making this up, but rest assured I am not.

Supposing for the moment that this is true. Did you call the police? If not, why not?

Again, I wish to reiterate that the problem isn't the law the problem is the enforcement of the law. Efforts like "Project Exile" are having consider influence on violent crime rates.

You yourself state that "… why do we need more gun control? We have all the laws we need to get them out of the hands of criminals." So how ‘come we’re not? You say "lack of enforcement." Whatever.

I will be patient with you to a degree, momo. But don't huff and puff about "arguments as flawed as yours" and expect an answer of "Whatever" to be taken with any seriousness. To put it bluntly, put up or shut up.

All I see is legislation attempting to put more controls on things like I witnessed, stalling on the hill.

You do? Consider for a moment the utter illogic of what you are saying.

1) The gun show you saw had items which were ILLEGAL. This means that there are laws on the books making them illegal.

2) Laws designed to prevent what you saw aren't being passed.

Sounds like a contradiction to me. Which is it? Is what you saw illegal or legal but the laws aren't being passed?

In any event, there are piles of laws dealing with the lawful purchase, registration and ownership of firearms. If they were prosecuted we would be throwing violent criminals to the dogs. Again, efforts like "Project Exile" are doing just this and having great effect.

If legislation, be it the creation or the enforcement of it, is pointless, what can you do?

Again, "Project Exile". Enforcement is not pointless. It works.

I’m called naïve when I believe that gun registration or permit law would help prevent getting guns into the hands of the wrong people.

Then prove it. You can't just state it. Prove it. I have posted some material on the problems with registration on Gadarene's thread. Feel free to comment with logic, reasoning and facts.

Whatever your opinion, you can’t argue with the statistics (eg: 151 shooting deaths far all of 1998)- in fact, it’s the one item no-one’s challenged me on yet.

Sure I can. Canada (I am Canadian citizen, by the way) has never had all that many firearms deaths in any event. Also, the homicide rate in Canada has been dropping since 1992. It has jumped around between 2 and 2.6 /100,000 people for 22 years!



Finally (yes, I’m really done here): you’re more than willing, it would seem, to take personal
accountability for gun ownership. Yet, at the same time you fight legislation that would ask you to do
exactly that. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: the gun-lobby can claim gun laws can’t work by making sure
all other efforts fail.


__________________
"Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably.
The lesson is, never try." - Homer Simpson

[Action Jackson]

To UncleBeer and Clitch, just to fill you in, full automatic weapons are legal to own in the U.S.. They are a class III weapon, they must have been registered prior to the enactment of the McClure Volker machine gun act. They can only be purchased from a licensed Class III dealer. You will have to undergo a FBI background check it takes about two months, and pay a $300 transfer tax. High capacity magazines are legal to sell they are illegal to manufacture, so the ones out there are legal. A folding stock on a pistol is legal, however it causes the pistol to be reclassified as a short barreled rifle (barrel under 16 inches). Short barreled rifles are Class III weapons and have all the same requirements for ownership as full automatic weapons. Armor piercing rounds are legal to buy, I have several boxes of Hurtenburg 9mm AP rounds. The only bullet that was outlawed was the Teflon coated bullet, considering that it was only manufacture as an experiment and never went into production, the law seems useless.

Now, to the things seen at the gun show, AK-47s, MAC-10s, and Uzis in a semiautomatic version are legal to sell. In a select fire (Full Automatic) version they are legal to sell see paragraph above. The, they are easy to covert myth, that the gun nazis keep throwing around is not true. They can be converted by a skilled gunsmith with a good machine shop. This conversion is a re-manufacturing of the weapon using some of the parts from the initial weapon. Anyone that could do this could make the weapon from scratch. As far as Joe Sixpack converting one, if he did get to fire at full auto more likely than not it will blow up in his face. In one case the government tried to convict a man of owning an illegal machine gun. They did this by loading 7.62 X 39 with very sensitive target primers to get his SKS to slam fire. The case was dropped after the gun blew up during the demonstration.

Now this they won’t come after Dad’s hunting rifle, that’s true. However they will come after the high powered sniper rifle that was formerly known as Dad’s hunting rifle.

Back when I was in college I was fairly liberal (that is young and stupid) gun control wasn’t much of an issue, and I didn’t think much about it. As part of my good works for the community I taught drafting to convicts at a local prison. This is where I formed my opinions on gun control. The convicts were all for gun control since they got their guns illegally anyway. They referred to gun control as the Criminal’s Safety Act, or The Rapist Safe Sex Act. They didn’t fear being shot by the police that is generally a rare thing, you have to give them a reason to shoot you, at least back then, I don’t know about today. However, they feared running into a home owner armed with a firearm, because that person is going to be scared and fill you full of holes the moment they see you. Considering this is how they looked at it having firearms to protect yourself seemed to be a very good idea. I currently have my CCW permit and carry at all times that are legal in this state.

It is interesting to note that feminist talk about empowering women, yet are dead set against women owning or carrying firearms. A woman with a firearm is my idea of empowered. My grandmother at 74 years old defended herself against an intruder using a M-1 Garand. A four foot four inch 74 year old woman with a combat rifle was more than a match for a young punk. Of course it didn’t hurt that she was meaner than a badger with PMS.

[Glitch]

Uhhh.. thanks for the filling in. Not exactly sure what I needed filling in on, but thanks none the less for the sentiment.

[SPOOFE]

Glitch and Mr. Zambezi bring up excellent points...

The impression I often get from gun control enthusiasts is this: They scream about guns being evil, point to some coincidental statistic or event (taking advantage of the Columbine tragedy is horrendous in my mind), and then cower in a corner with their ears covered so as not to hear any sort of counter-arguments.

There is a large lack of enforcement of existing gun laws; enforcing them to the point that gun control advocates would be satisfied would take a lot of money. Like many things going on in this country, it's a political issue... the correct, expensive method is overwritten with a newfangled (and cheaper) political agenda that gets some Senator re-elected and, alas, has no effect... until an upgraded version of the same measure is brought up six years later.

The only counter to a gun is another gun... or a bullet-proof vest. A gun is easier to carry. And DON'T say "just get rid of the guns in the first place!"... because unless we're willing to commit billions to that task, there's no way to get rid of guns, especially from the criminal element. In fact, any attempts to get rid of guns would only wind up disarming those willing to obey the letter of the law... which, in turn, empowers the criminal. Seems kinda counter-productive, doesn't it?

[JDeMobray]

"unless we're willing to commit billions to that task, there's no way to get rid of guns, especially from the criminal element. . . Seems kinda counter-productive, doesn't it?"

Yes, imagine spending billions of dollars to just save a few lives. I'd much rather have six or seven new Joint Strike Fighters. They look better on postcards.

[HorseloverFat]

I think its terribly ironic that the legal handgun market creates the black market through its cast offs and shady sales. The more the pro-gun people sell the 'society isn't safe' message, the higher the sales of new weapons and the larger the blackmarket until every man, woman, child, chimp, and dog is armed to the teeth. This is your classic cold war standoff, and its unfortunate that the pro-gun people can't see past their own rhetoric the same way the superpowers couldn't not so long ago.

[Weirddave]

I would be interested if some of y'all yould comment on this related topic I started. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=24480) I do see one thing I wanted to point out to momo. The militia refered to in the 2nd ammendment has nothing to do with the so called "militias" in Montana and elsewhere. Also, those interested can get Cecil's take on the 2nd ammendment here. (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_123.html)

[SPOOFE]

Yes, imagine spending billions of dollars to just save a few lives

Imagine getting rid of all the restrictive legislation that hampers innocent people and empowers criminals. How much would that cost... oh, NOTHING. Sheesh...

And the legal handgun market doesn't create the black market... the aforementioned legislation does. Remember prohibition? Remember how that created organized crime? It's history repeating itself.

[Glitch]

I think its terribly ironic that the legal handgun market creates the black market through its cast offs and shady sales.

It does? Really. That's interesting. I suppose you have proof to back that up right?