Lumpy plays devil's advocate on gun control

[Lumpy]

In the AWB thread, I posted an open question to YogSosoth; I never got an answer and he hasn't participated in that thread since. Which is a pity because the more I think about it, the more it seems that in a few lines I managed to sum up the basic position of gun-control advocates:

Originally Posted by Lumpy

YogSosoth, if I understand your position correctly, it goes something like this:

* the government bans lots of things on the grounds that they're too dangerous to the public safety.
* Guns are dangerous, by intent.
* At least some guns then, are so dangerous that any potential good they do is outweighed by their potential harm; and therefore it is right and proper that the government ban them in the name of public safety.
* except those 2nd Amendment people keep insisting that guns have a special protection not afforded everything else that's dangerous.

Certainly this is logical on it's own grounds. So logical, and so seemingly reasonable, that my own rebuttal now seems inadequate:

Originally Posted by Lumpy

If this is correct, then I see a broader issue to debate- the issue of what the government should legitimately have the power to proscribe in the name of public safety. I think you'll find that a lot of people on this board are (small "l") libertarians, and leery of excessive government power and intervention.

The problem is that even given that the above premises were correct, it would still not address legitimate concerns: the idea that the government and it's officers can be privileged to possess power banned to the public at large, with all that implies for democracy; the question of real-world enforcibility of any form of prohibition (witness alcohol Prohibition, or the War on Drugs) and whether such prohibition not merely useless but counter-productive; and whether the supporters of an "assault weapon" ban are honest in both their intent and their assessment of the hazards of the weapons they propose to ban.

In short, I would like to hear some compelling arguments why the position I ascribed to YogSosoth (which he has neither confirmed or denied) is refutable.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

* the government bans lots of things on the grounds that they're too dangerous to the public safety.

That is an inaccurate statement. The government does not ban tools based on potential misuse.

Originally Posted by Lumpy

* Guns are dangerous, by intent.

That's an inaccurate statement. Guns are tools used for a variety of sports as well as for defense. Banning tools because they are dangerous is not the function of government.

Originally Posted by Lumpy

* At least some guns then, are so dangerous that any potential good they do is outweighed by their potential harm; and therefore it is right and proper that the government ban them in the name of public safety.

No gun currently under consideration for banning has a history of misuse in proportion to guns not considered for banning.

Originally Posted by Lumpy

* except those 2nd Amendment people keep insisting that guns have a special protection not afforded everything else that's dangerous.

The 2nd amendment SPECIFICALLY protects gun ownership. It's not open for debate.

[Captain Amazing]

I generally try to stay out of gun control debates, because I don't like the idea of making armed people upset with me, but I will point out, in regard to "the idea that the government and it's officers can be privileged to possess power banned to the public at large, with all that implies for democracy", that we already accept the idea that the government and tis officers are privileged to possess powers banned to the public at large. The government, and its agents, can take my money, tell me what I can eat and drink, how I can use my property, how I should educate my kids, what I can buy and sell, who I'm allowed to marry and who I'm allowed to have sex with. It can lock me up for the rest of my life, kill me, or send me off to war. These are all controls over our life that we don't let the average person who's not associated with the government have.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

In short, I would like to hear some compelling arguments why the position I ascribed to YogSosoth (which he has neither confirmed or denied) is refutable.

It seems to me the main problem with your argument is it assumes that gun control actually works. Look, if we banned semiautomatic pistols and the murder rate dropped by 90% the next day, I would be very tempted to switch sides. But that's never happened.

Instead, what happens is that some new gun control law is passed and there's no significant drop in crime. Rather than lobby to repeal the failed law, gun control advocates use the failure as an excuse to demand even tighter restrictions.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by brazil84

Instead, what happens is that some new gun control law is passed and there's no significant drop in crime. Rather than lobby to repeal the failed law, gun control advocates use the failure as an excuse to demand even tighter restrictions.

That is not as illogical as you make it out to be.

What gun control laws that have been passed are generally ruined by compromises to get them passed. With gaping holes in the regulations it is no surprise the regulations fail. As has been noted around here it is akin to wanting to ban automobiles but the law only bans red automobiles. Is it any wonder that injuries due to automobiles would not drop in that case?

So, naturally, gun control advocates want more restrictions such that it would actually have an effect. I am making no comment here on the second amendment issues or what laws might help. Merely noting it is not illogical for gun control advocates to press for tighter restrictions.

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Magiver

That is an inaccurate statement. The government does not ban tools based on potential misuse.

War on Drugs, anyone?

That's an inaccurate statement. Guns are tools used for a variety of sports as well as for defense. Banning tools because they are dangerous is not the function of government.

Actually, banning tools because they are dangerous (too dangerous, if you prefer) is a completely legitimate function of government. If the government doesn't ban (too) dangerous tools, how do we rid ourselves of them?

No gun currently under consideration for banning has a history of misuse in proportion to guns not considered for banning.

Entirely irrelevant to the broad concept of gun control.

The 2nd amendment SPECIFICALLY protects gun ownership. It's not open for debate.

Actually, the 2nd amendment protects the right to "keep and bear arms". It doesn't say a thing about "guns" or "rifles" or "pistols" or "sports" or "tools" or "personal defense". It says "arms", which is a general term for weapons, especially weapons of war. Since arms such as cannons, grenades, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, etc. are far too dangerous to be in the hands of the general public, we happily infringe upon a person's right to keep and bear them while pretending we haven't busted the 2nd amendment to bits in the process.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

That is not as illogical as you make it out to be.

What gun control laws that have been passed are generally ruined by compromises to get them passed.

When you say "generally," are you claiming that just about every gun control law passed in the United States (and the world) has been ruined by compromises?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by brazil84

When you say "generally," are you claiming that just about every gun control law passed in the United States (and the world) has been ruined by compromises?

I do not have a comprehensive list of all gun control laws passed in the United States or the world. I will say the AWB was fatally flawed from the get-go. Or you have what they tried in Washington D.C. (recently stopped by the SCOTUS) and anyone could drive 10 minutes outside of Washington and easily sidestepped what they hoped to achieve in Washington. And so-on and so-forth.

Gun control, if done, would need to be on a national level and comprehensive (such as banning hand guns outright).

Of course there is the second amendment and not going to happen anywhere near so broadly so, by-and-large, gun control legislation is generally fatally flawed in my view. Perhaps there is some regulation out there that is useful (such has restricting machine guns...maybe [dunno myself, just guessing]).

[glee]

Originally Posted by brazil84

It seems to me the main problem with your argument is it assumes that gun control actually works. Look, if we banned semiautomatic pistols and the murder rate dropped by 90% the next day, I would be very tempted to switch sides. But that's never happened.

If there was a 90% drop in the murder rate in one day, you'd only be 'very tempted' to switch sides?

Strewth - how much does gun ownership matter to you?

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

I do not have a comprehensive list of all gun control laws passed in the United States or the world.

In that case, are you retracting your claim that gun control laws -- in general -- have been ruined by compromises? Because as stated, your claim would seem to apply to all gun controls in the US, and indeed in the rest of the world.

Or you have what they tried in Washington D.C. (recently stopped by the SCOTUS) and anyone could drive 10 minutes outside of Washington and easily sidestepped what they hoped to achieve in Washington. And so-on and so-forth.

Again, I am confused. Are you saying that the DC gun ban was ruined by a compromise? What exactly was the compromise? Are you saying that gun control on a state level can never reduce crime at all but gun control on a national level can?

I don't understand your position, but it sounds to me like you are playing the liberal epicycle game where excuse after excuse is manufactured for the failure of your policies. As opposed to accepting the unpleasant truth that those policies are fundamentally flawed.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by glee

If there was a 90% drop in the murder rate in one day, you'd only be 'very tempted' to switch sides?

Absolutely. Mainly because I believe that there is inherent value in private ownership of firearms. (and also to a some extent because the value judgment has already been made by the framers of the Constitution).

[Sinaijon]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Merely noting it is not illogical for gun control advocates to press for tighter restrictions.

Although not the topic of this thread, the thread in which the question was raised was not about tighter restrictions. It was about renewing restrictions that had already proved ineffective.

That _is_ illogical.

[Half Man Half Wit]

Originally Posted by Magiver

That is an inaccurate statement. The government does not ban tools based on potential misuse.
That's an inaccurate statement. Guns are tools used for a variety of sports as well as for defense. Banning tools because they are dangerous is not the function of government.
[...]
The 2nd amendment SPECIFICALLY protects gun ownership. It's not open for debate.

To my mind, there's an inconsistency in this argumentation -- on the one hand, you want guns to be seen as ordinary tools, on the other, you refer to their special status as given by the 2nd amendment. That doesn't seem to go well together -- if guns really were mere tools, why would they need constitutional protection?

The fact of the matter is, a gun does increase your lethality. Carrying it effectively means that you're mere seconds away from potentially killing or grievously wounding anybody in your line of sight. Now, I certainly believe that people can handle this responsibility towards their fellow citizens, and I trust on this every time I get into my car (though to have it considered a right, rather than a responsibility only to be accepted with the greatest reluctance if it is thrusted upon you by necessity of circumstance, to my European thinking, seems somewhat strange). Everybody accepts certain caveats when wanting to command a vehicle capable of dangerously high speeds, such as having to possess a valid licence, and registering said vehicle, yet one can hardly even make similar suggestions when it comes to handguns -- which are, arguably, of an even higher danger-to-utility ratio, at least for the majority of people (besides, intentionally shooting someone doesn't open the shooter up to the same immediate danger an intentionally caused car accident would).

Also, the whole 'if you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns'-argumentation is very valid, taken as such -- certainly, that guns are illegal won't prohibit anybody that already has illegal intent on their mind from acquiring them. The same argument, however, can be made for drugs -- if drugs are illegal, only criminals will get high. It also works for murder -- if you criminalize murder, only criminals will kill people. It's thus not an argument against gun control laws at all; it's an argument against all law.

There is, of course, the issue of personal protection the above argument somewhat glosses over -- drug use doesn't generally constitute a thread to anybody who could then defend themselves with drugs in turn; and you're explicitly allowed to kill people in the face of serious danger to life or health. Personally, I see no reason to arm myself because of perceived threats, both because I'm not sure about a handgun's effectiveness towards that end, and because I don't judge the danger I'm in big enough; but I admit that one can validly feel different about this, and if I were living in a neighbourhood where I'd have to be weary of standing on the window too long for fear of catching a stray bullet, I very likely might. Similarly, I see no reason why guns shouldn't be used for sport (though I suspect there may be ways to shoot for sport in a way nearly identical to the way it's now without guns that actually could harm anybody).

Thus, flat-out outlawing guns may not be the way to go, besides being probably near impossible to implement in America; but I can't really see any arguments against restricting their availability, possibly by requiring license and registration, and even excluding certain types of weapons/ammunition from general availability (though it may well be the case that the 'assault weapons ban', as presently conceived, is ill-advised -- I've read numerous persuasive arguments towards that end on this board).

So, uh, that's kinda my take on the arguments that are actually more or less already present in the OP, take it as just illustrating the whole thing a little from my point of view, and besides I've spent too much time typing this up by now to scrap it.

[Burton]

Clearly the framers of the constitution did nor foresee what the situation is now. The word "State" indicates they were thinking individuals should be allowed guns in order that they might create military bodies as required. It's also interesting that only abut 5 years later the Government led by Alexander Hamilton took a huge army to Western PA to put down an armed insurrection. i.e.the Whiskey Rebellion. Although by the time the Army arrived the opposition melted away.

[Max Torque]

Originally Posted by Half Man Half Wit

The fact of the matter is, a gun does increase your lethality. Carrying it effectively means that you're mere seconds away from potentially killing or grievously wounding anybody in your line of sight. Now, I certainly believe that people can handle this responsibility towards their fellow citizens, and I trust on this every time I get into my car (though to have it considered a right, rather than a responsibility only to be accepted with the greatest reluctance if it is thrusted upon you by necessity of circumstance, to my European thinking, seems somewhat strange). Everybody accepts certain caveats when wanting to command a vehicle capable of dangerously high speeds, such as having to possess a valid licence, and registering said vehicle, yet one can hardly even make similar suggestions when it comes to handguns -- which are, arguably, of an even higher danger-to-utility ratio, at least for the majority of people (besides, intentionally shooting someone doesn't open the shooter up to the same immediate danger an intentionally caused car accident would).

I just wanted to address this part: driving a car on public roads requires knowing a number of very complex things, including interacting with other drivers, how to read signs, signals, and pavement markings, rules of right-of-way, methods of parking and reversing, how to gauge speed and space cushions, how to drive in adverse weather conditions, and so on. That's why we have programs in place to license drivers. None of these complicated rules apply to firearms, which have a very simple "point and click" interface. "Don't shoot people" pretty much covers it. So, in my opinion, a licensing and registration scheme is unnecessary, will accomplish no safety purpose, and would be merely burdensome to ordinary law-abiding citizens.

[Burton]

I think responsible gun ownership is a little more than that.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

Actually, the 2nd amendment protects the right to "keep and bear arms". It doesn't say a thing about "guns" or "rifles" or "pistols" or "sports" or "tools" or "personal defense". It says "arms", which is a general term for weapons, especially weapons of war.

The Supreme Court would disagree with you regarding guns and the 2nd amendment.

[Blaster Master]

Originally Posted by Half Man Half Wit

Also, the whole 'if you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns'-argumentation is very valid, taken as such -- certainly, that guns are illegal won't prohibit anybody that already has illegal intent on their mind from acquiring them. The same argument, however, can be made for drugs -- if drugs are illegal, only criminals will get high. It also works for murder -- if you criminalize murder, only criminals will kill people. It's thus not an argument against gun control laws at all; it's an argument against all law.

This is a misrepresentation of the point of that argument. The concept is meant to entail someone who is currently a law abiding citizen and owns guns and, if the only change that is made is that gun ownership is banned, then these citizens, not wanting to break the law, will give up their guns; but those who are already breaking the law, like robbers, rapists, murders, etc. will have little incentive to hand over their guns, and so you've effectively disarmed the law abiding citizen at a much higher rate than the criminal.

Murder is not even a remotely fair comparison because it's not something that is legal in any civilized nation or something that anyone thinks should be legal. There's no debate about it and thus, by murdering someone you are a criminal. The fundamental difference is that gun ownership, in and of itself, does not imply criminality, but murder is, by definition, criminality. Is there any evidence at all that there is any causal relationship between gun ownership and criminality? In fact, I'd be surprised if legal gun ownership didn't actually have a negative correlation with violent crime.

Anyway, my point is that representing it as an argument against law, as some sort of argument for anarchy, is a strawman. Specifically speaking the AWB, as proposed, has already demonstrated that it will effectively reduce the ratio of legal gun ownership to criminal gun ownership without an impact on crime. You're removing rights from the general population but not providing any suitable conpensation. If the AWB could be shown to have a significant impact on crime, at least statistically significant such that it isn't just a potential anamoly, then one might be able to make an argument that the trade of rights for safety is a worthy trade; it would at least then be the old rights versus security argument.

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Magiver

The Supreme Court would disagree with you regarding guns and the 2nd amendment.

If the SCOTUS wants to pretend that bearing "arms" in relation to having a "well regulated militia" that ensures the "security of a free state" has nothing whatsoever to do with military armaments, they're free to do so.


From your perspective, how is it that the government can legitimately restrict access to a fully automatic (military grade) rifle, when an otherwise identical semi-automatic version is not restricted? What could the reasoning be behind the restriction, if not the fact that the fully automatic version is more dangerous when misused?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by brazil84

In that case, are you retracting your claim that gun control laws -- in general -- have been ruined by compromises? Because as stated, your claim would seem to apply to all gun controls in the US, and indeed in the rest of the world.



Again, I am confused. Are you saying that the DC gun ban was ruined by a compromise? What exactly was the compromise? Are you saying that gun control on a state level can never reduce crime at all but gun control on a national level can?

I don't understand your position, but it sounds to me like you are playing the liberal epicycle game where excuse after excuse is manufactured for the failure of your policies. As opposed to accepting the unpleasant truth that those policies are fundamentally flawed.

Not retracting anything. And the Washington gun ban wasn't ruined by a compromise in its own law but was thoroughly undermined by the simple expedient of driving a few minutes out of the city and obtaining a gun there. It would be like banning marijuana on the east side of a road while it is legal on the west side. I doubt you'd be surprised to see marijuana making across the road to the east side.

The policies fail because they are bad policies. I agree the AWB, as it was written, was largely a joke. Ignoring constitutional and practical issues for a moment an effective policy would have to be sweeping and on a national level. Something along the lines of banning all hand guns. A policy banning bayonet clips is predictably absurd and useless.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Magiver

The Supreme Court would disagree with you regarding guns and the 2nd amendment.

And the Supreme Court once ruled in favor of segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson). The SCOTUS is not infallible and while they tend to respect prior rulings they can and do overturn them (Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy).

We had a discussion on this a few months ago around here and while there was disagreement I think there is a very plausible and acceptable way to read the 2nd Amendment that can allow for gun control. Someday a different SCOTUS may agree.

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Magiver

The government does not ban tools based on potential misuse.

You've apparently never heard of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, or the Controlled Substances Act, or...well...dozens of laws really. The government frequently prohibits or closely regulates tools based on potential misuse. Anyone for a game of lawn darts?

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

You've apparently never heard of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, or the Controlled Substances Act, or...well...dozens of laws really. The government frequently prohibits or closely regulates tools based on potential misuse. Anyone for a game of lawn darts?

Yes, I understand your argument but you're referring to a child's toy. I have a house full of tools that are far more dangerous than lawn darts. Their existance is not regulated.

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Magiver

Yes, I understand your argument but you're referring to a child's toy. I have a house full of tools that are far more dangerous than lawn darts. Their existance is not regulated.

Then your argument becomes far less persuasive. Instead of arguing that "[t]he government does not ban tools based on potential misuse," you're now arguing that the government does not ban all tools based on potential misuse. The new argument is hardly persuasive.

And note that I'm not referring to toys at all except for my throwaway last line. Neither Oxycontin (Controlled Substances Act) nor Belgian waffle makers (Consumer Product Safety Commission) are toys, for example.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Not retracting anything.

Then again my question:

When you say "generally," are you claiming that just about every gun control law passed in the United States (and the world) has been ruined by compromises?

And the Washington gun ban wasn't ruined by a compromise in its own law but was thoroughly undermined by the simple expedient of driving a few minutes out of the city and obtaining a gun there.

Then again my question:

Is it your position that gun control at the level of states or municipalities is completely ineffective and futile?

Something along the lines of banning all hand guns.

I doubt that would have much of an effect either. For example, the recent handgun ban in the UK doesn't seem to have had much of an effect one way or another. And when your handgun ban doesn't work, I'm sure I can count on people to say "Of course it didn't work. People can easily use long guns in crimes. Or drive into Mexico and buy guns. We need even tighter restrictions."

[E-Sabbath]

I should point out that Lawn Darts and the lot are regulated because they are _hazardous_, not dangerous. I have no doubt that were someone to start building Nambu 94 replicas, they would be put out of business quickly.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_94_8_mm_Pistol

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by E-Sabbath

I should point out that Lawn Darts and the lot are regulated because they are _hazardous_, not dangerous.

Lawn darts were considered hazardous because they were not used safely. A lawn dart doesn't inherently explode or anything. They just get tossed into people's eyes if you're stupid. They are exactly analogous to guns in that respect.

But even if you don't like the lawn dart example, what about, say, codeine? Safe use of codeine is no problem. But because some people abuse it, it is highly restricted.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

Then your argument becomes far less persuasive. Instead of arguing that "[t]he government does not ban tools based on potential misuse," you're now arguing that the government does not ban all tools based on potential misuse. The new argument is hardly persuasive.

And note that I'm not referring to toys at all except for my throwaway last line. Neither Oxycontin (Controlled Substances Act) nor Belgian waffle makers (Consumer Product Safety Commission) are toys, for example.

A gun as a classification of a product. It is not a toy, or an addictive drug or in anyway harmful to the user as a tool beyond it's intended use. You're comparing a safety regulatory agency to legislation directed at infringing individual rights. it's an apples to oranges argument.

[Todderbob]

Originally Posted by Half Man Half Wit

Everybody accepts certain caveats when wanting to command a vehicle capable of dangerously high speeds, such as having to possess a valid licence, and registering said vehicle, yet one can hardly even make similar suggestions when it comes to handguns

Difference: We register cars for taxation. There is no reason to register guns. It offers no benefit.

Maryland has caught exactly zero criminals based on their registration of pistols and "Assault Weapons."

Originally Posted by Half Man Half Wit

Also, the whole 'if you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns'-argumentation is very valid, taken as such -- certainly, that guns are illegal won't prohibit anybody that already has illegal intent on their mind from acquiring them. The same argument, however, can be made for drugs -- if drugs are illegal, only criminals will get high. It also works for murder -- if you criminalize murder, only criminals will kill people. It's thus not an argument against gun control laws at all; it's an argument against all law.

No, it's an argument against all law that doesn't serve a direct and vital purpose.

Including that of Drugs.

Originally Posted by Half Man Half Wit

though I suspect there may be ways to shoot for sport in a way nearly identical to the way it's now without guns that actually could harm anybody.

If you've ever shot a firearm and it's dummy counterpart, they're nothing alike.

Originally Posted by Half Man Half Wit

Thus, flat-out outlawing guns may not be the way to go, besides being probably near impossible to implement in America; but I can't really see any arguments against restricting their availability, possibly by requiring license and registration, and even excluding certain types of weapons/ammunition from general availability (though it may well be the case that the 'assault weapons ban', as presently conceived, is ill-advised -- I've read numerous persuasive arguments towards that end on this board).

What are the potential benefits of registration?

Licensing, I don't have a problem with -- in theory, it makes sense -- and so long as it was conducted at a local level, without any possibility of later gun seizure, I'd be perfectly okay with it. The problem is, throughout the world, Registration has led to banning and confiscation, and licensing has the real potential for the same. In light of that, I can't see a reasonable way I could support it.

[Todderbob]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

From your perspective, how is it that the government can legitimately restrict access to a fully automatic (military grade) rifle, when an otherwise identical semi-automatic version is not restricted? What could the reasoning be behind the restriction, if not the fact that the fully automatic version is more dangerous when misused?

They're not. In fact, I don't believe that case has made it in front of the supreme court, although I hope it does and gets oveturned.

Civilian Legal Fully automatic weapons have been involved in 2 crimes since 1934, one of which was a Police Officer shooting his CI, and that wouldn't have been stopped by the complete ban. In light of that, from your perspective, how can a ban be justified?

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Magiver

A gun as a classification of a product. It is not a toy, or an addictive drug or in anyway harmful to the user as a tool beyond it's intended use.

Neither is a fully automatic assault rifle, yet we already restrict those, pretty much without complaint. Conceptually, there's no difference between saying:

fully automatic assault rifles are too dangerous to be in the hands of regular folk
handguns are too dangerous to be in the hands of regular folk

The concept is the same, the difference is where you draw the line. The 2nd amendment doesn't actually guarantee your right to own "guns". It guarantees your right to own the subset of guns that the government deems safe enough for you to own.

Todderbob, I don't know if the ban is "justified" or not, but I do know that I'm glad that fully automatic weapons are comparatively hard to get.

[Todderbob]

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

Todderbob, I don't know if the ban is "justified" or not, but I do know that I'm glad that fully automatic weapons are comparatively hard to get.

Illegal to get new. However, that had zero effect on crime rates.

So, my question to you is, are you okay with the banning of things which have zero criminal impact being banned?

If so, why? How do you justify the restriction of liberties with zero gain to society?

ETA: Actually: Fully Automatic weapons are relatively easy to get (see: LA Shootout), legal ones are difficult and expensive.

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Magiver

A gun as a classification of a product. It is not a toy, or an addictive drug or in anyway harmful to the user as a tool beyond it's intended use. You're comparing a safety regulatory agency to legislation directed at infringing individual rights. it's an apples to oranges argument.

That didn't stop some gun control advocates from advocating banning handguns under consumer safety laws, or from trying to hold gun manufacturers responsible for any unlawful deaths committed with their guns,

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Magiver

A gun as a classification of a product. It is not a toy, or an addictive drug or in anyway harmful to the user as a tool beyond it's intended use. You're comparing a safety regulatory agency to legislation directed at infringing individual rights. it's an apples to oranges argument.

I was rebutting your argument, which was that tools are not banned because of user misuse. The fact that your argument is wrong doesn't mean guns should be regulated. It just means this one argument against regulation is bogus. If you disagree, explain why a medical drug which is safe if not abused is different from a gun which is safe if not abused. Obviously one is metal, one is heavier, etc., but I trust you understand how those distinctions are irrelevant to whether each is a tool that is highly regulated because of user misuse.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by brazil84

Then again my question:

When you say "generally," are you claiming that just about every gun control law passed in the United States (and the world) has been ruined by compromises?



Then again my question:

Is it your position that gun control at the level of states or municipalities is completely ineffective and futile?

"Generally" means (to me at least) "commonly but not always". That said I certainly do not have an authoritative list of all gun control laws passed anywhere in the US much less the world as a whole. If you do and can show the laws were generally not compromised feel free to debunk my ignorance.

I do think gun control at the state and especially municipality level are indeed ineffective. The whole point of gun control is to reduce crime and someone who wants to use a gun in a crime will not be deterred. The gun gives them a huge advantage in the commission of the crime over no gun. If obtaining a gun legally can be done 10 miles away of what use is a local ban? It is trivial to get around the regulations.

I doubt that would have much of an effect either. For example, the recent handgun ban in the UK doesn't seem to have had much of an effect one way or another. And when your handgun ban doesn't work, I'm sure I can count on people to say "Of course it didn't work. People can easily use long guns in crimes. Or drive into Mexico and buy guns. We need even tighter restrictions."

Well...

In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...Firearms_crime

Versus in the United States...

Number of Deaths Due to Firearms per 100,000 Population, 2002.

Weighted average: 11.5

SOURCE: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri...te-per-100-000

Rather large difference in my view.

[DrDeth]

[quote=Whack-a-Mole;10922511



In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population.



Versus in the United States...

Number of Deaths Due to Firearms per 100,000 Population, 2002.

Weighted average: 11.5



Rather large difference in my view.[/QUOTE]

You are comparing apples and oranges. Note in the first place we have "illegal gun homicides". In the next category we have "Number of Deaths Due to Firearms" which include "illegal gun homicides", suicides, accidental deaths and legal shootings (such as by police vs a deadly assailant). Those numbers= triple the straight "homicide with gun" rate.

Switzerland has a homicide rate comparable to England's, yet in Switzerland each able-dodied citizen is required by law to keep a fully auto assualt rifle in their home or place of business.

Mexico has stringent gun control laws, but yet has much high homicide rates.


If you take a look at this chart on wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime
You'll see that the USA has a homicide rate without guns nearly 4X that of England.

[JXJohns]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

I do think gun control at the state and especially municipality level are indeed ineffective. The whole point of gun control is to reduce crime and someone who wants to use a gun in a crime will not be deterred. The gun gives them a huge advantage in the commission of the crime over no gun. If obtaining a gun legally can be done 10 miles away of what use is a local ban? It is trivial to get around the regulations.

If you are speaking about the DC ban, once a resident leaves DC, they cannot legally buy a handgun in another state, without transferring it to an FFL into the district. If you are speaking of the ban in Chicago, it is illegal there to own a handgun that has not been registered. Registration ended in the 1980's. It doesn't matter where it was purchased.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

"Generally" means (to me at least) "commonly but not always". That said I certainly do not have an authoritative list of all gun control laws passed anywhere in the US much less the world as a whole. If you do and can show the laws were generally not compromised feel free to debunk my ignorance.

Does that mean "yes" or "no"? Anyway, if you are ignorant, then you should probably refrain from generalizing.

I do think gun control at the state and especially municipality level are indeed ineffective.

Ok, fine.

Versus in the United States...

It seems to me that you are being completely silly here. The reasonable thing to do would be to compare the UK both before and after its gun ban.

The fact is that the US and the UK are very different demographically.

Don't you think that the reasonable way to assess the efficacy of the UK gun ban is to look at crime rates both before and after?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

You are comparing apples and oranges. Note in the first place we have "illegal gun homicides". In the next category we have "Number of Deaths Due to Firearms" which include "illegal gun homicides", suicides, accidental deaths and legal shootings (such as by police vs a deadly assailant). Those numbers= triple the straight "homicide with gun" rate.

Switzerland has a homicide rate comparable to England's, yet in Switzerland each able-dodied citizen is required by law to keep a fully auto assualt rifle in their home or place of business.

Mexico has stringent gun control laws, but yet has much high homicide rates.


If you take a look at this chart on wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime
You'll see that the USA has a homicide rate without guns nearly 4X that of England.

Yeah...the US has a higher homicide rate. And guess what? Far and away the weapon most used in homicides are guns in the US. Indeed for 2005 ALL other weapons (besides guns) used in a homicide combined together were less than guns. (cite)

Certainly absent the ability to use a gun some of those gun homicides would move to some other weapon. But then a gun is far and away a better tool for killing someone than those other weapons. I think it is more than reasonable to assume if there were no guns those homicide rates would drop dramatically.

And Mexico? Seriously...that country is a disaster and teetering on collapse. Corruption is rampant, drug lords are running the show and last I heard the Mexican military sees over 14,000 (IIRC...I can look it up) desertions a year and those guys often walk off with military weapons to sell to drug lords.

Mexico is really more akin to a third world country and all that entails. For comparison I think the UK is far more similar to the US. But if you want to use Mexico then I want to use Japan.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by brazil84

Does that mean "yes" or "no"? Anyway, if you are ignorant, then you should probably refrain from generalizing.

I do not know why you insist on pushing for a black & white answer here. Not all questions can be answered that way. From what I have seen of various US laws aimed at gun control they are almost always lacking and I would not expect them to be useful in reducing crime in any notable way. Is it possible there was a good gun law made sometime, somewhere? Sure but since I do not keep the legal codes of all 50 states for the last 200 years locked in my head I cannot say definitively.

So I use common sense and the experience I do have from what I have seen and read about. If you want to keep dancing around with unreasonable demands for authoritative listings on ALL the world's gun laws and their consequences have fun but you're not getting it as it doesn't exist.

Try your smoke and mirrors game somewhere else. I'm done with responding to your posts here till you have something of substance to say.

[Max Torque]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

For comparison I think the UK is far more similar to the US.

Why? Because we both speak English? That's about where the similarities end. The US shares an actual border with Mexico, you know, and I'll wager we have more people in the US with close family or cultural ties to Mexico than we have with the UK.

Demographically and culturally, the US and UK are quite different. First, there's the population thing; England has nine population centers with over half a million people, while the US has thirty-three. Big cities breed crime, don't ya know. Plus, the US has a greater mix of languages and ethnicities, what with that whole "melting pot" thing, and people who are different from one another often find a reason to dislike one another. Now, immigration has been up for England in the past 15-20 years or so, and crime has risen accordingly, so they may yet catch up. And of course there's history to consider: because of Britain's past liberal use of the death penalty, the criminal society has morphed into one that tends to favor property crime over personal violence.

If I were you, I'd drop the UK and go with Canada instead.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Max Torque

Why? Because we both speak English? That's about where the similarities end. The US shares an actual border with Mexico, you know, and I'll wager we have more people in the US with close family or cultural ties to Mexico than we have with the UK.

Well...sharing a common language is big since we can easily share cultural things like movies and books and so on. Not to mention much of our notion of things like law stem directly from British Common Law so our very foundation as a country is in no small part evolved from the British. As for sharing a border with Mexico so what? Mexico I think would be deemed far more foreign to most Americans than England would. Sure the US has a very large Mexican immigrant population but the melting pot factor takes generations to process through.

Demographically and culturally, the US and UK are quite different. First, there's the population thing; England has nine population centers with over half a million people, while the US has thirty-three. Big cities breed crime, don't ya know. Plus, the US has a greater mix of languages and ethnicities, what with that whole "melting pot" thing, and people who are different from one another often find a reason to dislike one another. Now, immigration has been up for England in the past 15-20 years or so, and crime has risen accordingly, so they may yet catch up. And of course there's history to consider: because of Britain's past liberal use of the death penalty, the criminal society has morphed into one that tends to favor property crime over personal violence.

If I were you, I'd drop the UK and go with Canada instead.

To be sure making comparisons with other countries is dicey as there are many factors that can bear on crime rates and an apple-to-apple comparison is not really possible. That said I do not think the lessons other countries learn should be totally ignored as a result. When doing the comparison it is appropriate to look for factors that affect what we see but the comparison can still be made as long as we keep the caveats in mind.

Not sure Canada is a closer model than the UK for comparison's sake but no reason Canada shouldn't be looked at too so we can see what we might learn.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

I do not know why you insist on pushing for a black & white answer here.

Because I don't understand your position. You seem to be claiming that virtually all gun control laws have been ruined by compromises, and you simultaneously seem to be claiming that you are ignorant of most gun control laws.

That's a contradiction, and I would like to know whether still claiming that most gun control laws have been ruined by compromises or now you are claiming that you do not know one way or another.

If you want to keep dancing around with unreasonable demands for authoritative listings on ALL the world's gun laws

I'm not making such a demand. Please don't strawman me.

Anyway, you never answered my question:

Don't you think that the reasonable way to assess the efficacy of the UK gun ban is to look at crime rates both before and after?

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Max Torque

Demographically and culturally, the US and UK are quite different.

That's absolutely true. But what's annoying to me is that your typical gun control advocate can easily recognize why places like Oregon or New Hampshire are different from places like California or New Jersey. And yet they are essentially blind to the differences between the US and the UK. Or the US and Canada.

[glee]

Originally Posted by Max Torque

And of course there's history to consider: because of Britain's past liberal use of the death penalty, the criminal society has morphed into one that tends to favor property crime over personal violence.

Um, the last execution in Britain was in 1964. 45 years later, why would criminals here still be affected by that?

[glee]

Originally Posted by brazil84

Don't you think that the reasonable way to assess the efficacy of the UK gun ban is to look at crime rates both before and after?

Perfectly reasonable.
However you may be surprised to hear that gun restrictions started here in 1903.
There were further laws on registration and banning in 1920 and 1937, before the 1967 law covering shotguns, the 1988 Act on rifles and finally the 1997 Act banning almost all handguns.
it is interesting that the handgun ban affected only an estimated 57,000 people - 0.1%of the population, as the vast majority of Brits have never owned a gun.

OK, this covers just the timeframe from the latest Act:

Since 1998 number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 4,001 in 2005/06. "Injury" in this context means by being fired, used a blunt instrument, or as a threat. In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 46 and 97 for the past decade, standing at 50 in 2005/06 (a fall from 75 the previous year). Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales. Over the same period there were 107 non-fatal shootings of police officers - an average of just 9.7 per year.

Given that no beat police here are armed, the UK population is happy with the almost total ban on guns.

[Dante]

Originally Posted by brazil84

I'm not making such a demand. Please don't strawman me.

Are you saying you won't ask for a list of gun laws?

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Dante

Are you saying you won't ask for a list of gun laws?

No. I'm not asking for a list at the moment, though. Will I ask at some point in the future? I don't know.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Dante

Are you saying you won't ask for a list of gun laws?

Well let's see...

WaM: "What gun control laws that have been passed are generally ruined by compromises to get them passed." (post #5)

brazil84: "When you say "generally," are you claiming that just about every gun control law passed in the United States (and the world) has been ruined by compromises? " (post #7)

WaM: "I do not have a comprehensive list of all gun control laws passed in the United States or the world." (post #8)

brazil84: "In that case, are you retracting your claim that gun control laws -- in general -- have been ruined by compromises? Because as stated, your claim would seem to apply to all gun controls in the US, and indeed in the rest of the world." (post #10)

WaM: "Not retracting anything." (post #20)

brazil84: "Then again my question:

When you say "generally," are you claiming that just about every gun control law passed in the United States (and the world) has been ruined by compromises?" (post #25)

WaM: ""Generally" means (to me at least) "commonly but not always". That said I certainly do not have an authoritative list of all gun control laws passed anywhere in the US much less the world as a whole." (post #35)

brazil84: "Does that mean "yes" or "no"?" (post #38)

WaM: "From what I have seen of various US laws aimed at gun control they are almost always lacking and I would not expect them to be useful in reducing crime in any notable way. Is it possible there was a good gun law made sometime, somewhere? Sure but since I do not keep the legal codes of all 50 states for the last 200 years locked in my head I cannot say definitively." (post #40)

brazil84: "You seem to be claiming that virtually all gun control laws have been ruined by compromises, and you simultaneously seem to be claiming that you are ignorant of most gun control laws.

That's a contradiction, and I would like to know whether still claiming that most gun control laws have been ruined by compromises or now you are claiming that you do not know one way or another." (post #43)



After that I gave up with him. Maybe I am misreading something but I feel I answered his questions and he persisted in re-asking the same thing over and over for some strange reason I cannot fathom.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by glee

Perfectly reasonable.

Thank you.

However you may be surprised to hear that gun restrictions started here in 1903.

No it's not a surprise.

Since 1998 number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 4,001 in 2005/06. "Injury" in this context means by being fired, used a blunt instrument, or as a threat. In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 46 and 97 for the past decade, standing at 50 in 2005/06 (a fall from 75 the previous year). Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales. Over the same period there were 107 non-fatal shootings of police officers - an average of just 9.7 per year.

Given that no beat police here are armed, the UK population is happy with the almost total ban on guns.

I'm not sure what your point is. You don't seem to dispute that the UK handgun ban did not have much of an effect on crime. Are you claiming that some earlier gun law had a big effect? Or were those earlier laws "ruined by compromise"?