Execution of a total gun ban

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Mandelstam *
aynrandlover, I asked you for an historical example of where regulation had led to successful banning. What you gave me was an incoherent and self-contradictory rant. On the one hand, you see the practicality of common sense regulation of various kinds in a mass society where the lack of regulation (on, say, speed limits) could result in serious harm. Here you’re agreeing to the desirability of what, in political theory, is called a “social contract” (you agree that a restriction of your “right” to drive 150mph is worth it b/c it decreases yours and everyone else’s chances of getting maimed or killed). So really, you ought to be arguing in the terms that Oblong does: debating what constitutes reasonable regulation and what does not. But instead, on this particular issue, you shift to the “slippery slope” argument (regulation leads to a ban) even though you acknowledge that argument as being inappropriate for other regulatory matters (driving, drinking, etc.). However your reasons for doing so are incoherent: e.g., you say there’s no reason to disarm a populace, but (except insofar as it is the outcome of the “slippery slope” argument) no one is talking about disarming a populace (as some of your allies have been eager to tell me). Here, IMO, is your most logical complaint: “In a heavily regulated society everyday life works to the disadvantage of the law abiding citizen.” That my well be true. But the question remains whether we are living in a heavily regulated society. To what extent will proposed regulations minimize domestic violence or accidents rather than prevent individuals from defending themselves or hunting? Should it be easier to buy and use a gun than a car? If gun control won’t stop criminal access to guns, what will? These are the kinds of questions you really want to be asking. Instead, by reverting to the “slippery slope” argument, without any convincing historical rationale for that argument (more on this below), you confuse yourself and inhibit your ability to argue logically.

Gee, thanks.
To start…
Anything outlawed completely is banned, no? Are you asking me to name things which are banned? I mean, gee whiz. Open up a state’s law book for a few examples. Or, perhaps a keen eye on some of our other amendments to the constitution will give you some insight into the matter.
If you are arguing, instead, that I am ignorant to make an association between regulation and banning then you clearly have an insight into law which I do not. This means things are just banned outright, instead of as necessary. As necessary banning will take the form of no regulation, little regulation, excessive regulation, and then complete banning. Outright banning follows no such course and things are declared banned…that is, legal today, eradicated tomorrow (grandfather clause or no).
If you are, as a third option, arguing that regulation does not necessarily lead to ban then perhaps you have a point. I do not recognize your point in this matter, however, because weapons in the public’s hands is the government’s greatest threat. Why? We can examine the issue from a few broad perspectives.

1. It makes the government uneasy because they need to use MORE force to subdue an armed populous. This is the “Conspiracy Theorist” argument, as it were, and represents an ill-intented ban on weapons. I like this one.
2. It makes the government uneasy because there are many irresponsible individuals in society. This is the “Pro-Regulation” argument, which I find irrelevant.
3. It makes the government uneasy because because there is no reason to possess weapons in a civilized society. This would be the “General Benevolence of Man” stand which dictates banning of private weapons.
   It is my contention that 2 leads to 3. That is, once one has accepted that heavy gun regulation is necessary, banning naturally follows. You do not find this argument to hold water. That is, you feel that one can stop regulating guns.
   “Slippery Slope” arguments are sometimes fantastic mis-representations but in this case I don’t feel that way. Why?–you ask? Simple.
   Utopia is impossible. This is self-evident because we all disagree on many things. Secondly, environment is a large part of social development; that is, the society we live in largely affects how we view the world. That may be even more clearly stated: the society we live in is our model for society itself. In other words, we relate externalities to the externality we know. Social anthropologists could point to reasons for this.
   Now, on these three things we find that regulation implies a future ban. This slippery slope is of the Unabomber type, if you have ever read the so-called manifesto. At any particular time there is a regulation on something. Within about twenty years an entire generation is brought up under this regulation, and the majority will find it to be a necessary law and in fact support it. But because we have already assumed (by regulation in the first place) that people are irresponsible it is hardly suprising that regulation has not eliminated all problems, only dampened a few. Thus, the newer generation pushes for further regulation, stronger than its predacessor to deal better with the problems not solved.
   This would stop, I agree, at such a time that the problems are essentially gone. This may not be a ban effect. In our particular case, firearm deaths are very small in relation to total population. That is, it is neglegible IMO. What keeps the hatred for them alive is, you guessed it, society itself. In a few years we will see more and more gun regulations. They get passed every year or so to some effect. My question to you would be, what makes you think it will stop before a ban? And, who may own firearms when it stops?
   As well, when you claim that no one is arguing about a total gun ban, I would refer you to other gun threads where we find people do, to Cecil’s column about the Second Amendment, and to the title of the OP.
   Gun Bans are possible here. They are possible everywhere. It is currently being implimented by default…that is, they are being excessively regulated to the point of ban. We’ve only been around a little over 225 years. I find it absurd that my “slippery slope” argument, in this case, is not applicable. To go from a society that barely cares whether or not an individual arms himself to a point where there are waiting periods, registration requirements (in many states) and an inability to publicly arm oneself (in many states) in such a short time sets off warning alarms in my mind. Obviously, someone doesn’t want me to have a gun. Or do you disagree here as well?

[Jeremytt]

Hi, room. Let me begin by stating that socially, I’m a proud, card-carrying liberal. Those John Wayne types are very difficult for me to tolerate, because they represent the American past of tyrranny and prejudice.

That being said, the conservatives are right about one thing. Be honest with yourself. America has 200 million guns. How the Hell could any anti-gun law be effective? How do you get rid of 200 million guns?

[Dignan]

Ok, so the crack dealers aren’t going to put trigger locks on their guns, but, and I could be wrong here, isnt’ the point of trigger locks to keep kids from saying, “Hey, wanna see my dad’s gun” and then one of them ends up getting shot? That’s my understanding on the purpose of trigger locks. They’re expected to stop situations like that, not the one in Detroit.

2. Americans who fail to register would become felons without committing a crime.

Under registration, activity that is a common practice and has been perfectly legal since inception makes you a felon. Think about that. Possession of private property would subject you to felony arrest, if the property weren’t on the government’s master list. Boy, that doesn’t sound like the American way. No other evil is needed, there is no victim and no inherent criminal act takes place.

Uh, driving a car without a liscense is a crime, when it first started wasn’t it legal to drive without one, was it?

I am for trigger locks, for the purpose I stated above.

I am for banning assault rifles. I don’t see what the point of having semiautomatic weapons is. And for the hunting enthusiasts doesn’t a semiautomatic weapon kind of take away from the “sport” of hunting.

I think that guns end up in the wrong hands of a lot of people. For any of the New Yorkers, I was in NYC during the summer two years ago (99), in the MCI building (I think) there was a photo expo on “America’s Gun Culture.” There was some really creepy shit that I saw there. One of the quotes I can remember is something a little kid said about how, “guns only cause trouble when the wrong people have them, like minorities.” I also remember reading a quote by someone commenting that bullets that were made illegal in war by the Geneva convention are legal on the streets of America.

[mangeorge]

There will be no "total"gun ban. Nor will there be a militia. In spite of the efforts of the MMM and the NRA, we’re going to wind up somewhere in the middle.
Because it’s us middle of the roaders who decide this sort of thing.
Always have, always will.
Peace,
mangeorge (Liberal, no limo)

[sqweels]

Try as some of you might, the slippery slope argument remains totally unconvincing. Laws remain unchanged until enough people agree that there is a good reason to change and it is likely to pass constitutional muster. Successive laws don’t move inexorably toward an extreme simply because previous legislation appeared to point in a direction. Movement provokes backlash, and if the cons outweigh the pros, well people might actually notice that and vote against it.

There’s a mentality I’d like to call the “Rip Van Winkle effect”. That is, we can’t see the future, so some of us assume that we’re going to wake up many years hence and some horrible conditions will have arisen while we weren’t looking. But just look at how much scrutiny the government has been getting lately. The American people aren’t going to somehow all turn their backs and allow some draconian gun ban to pass. Get real.

[SPOOFE]

Try as some of you might, the slippery slope argument remains totally unconvincing.

I prefer what I call the “Wave Effect” argument. Gun laws will become more and more restrictive until it becomes blatantly obvious that they’re hurting far more than they’re helping… then laws will become more relaxed until the body count begins racking up again. Repeat.

I know, I know… I have no scientific or professional experience to back that up. But it’s an interesting notion. However, like any rational person, I’d like to avoid a negative situation in the first place. Trigger locks, in my opinion, should be sold with the gun, but not required to be used.

Also, I believe that we shouldn’t include gun usages as additional charges to a crime (in several other gun threads, it was mentioned how DA’s plea-bargain the gun-related charges away so as to get the “sweeter” deal… assault, second-degree murder, etc… placed on their record). If someone uses a gun in a crime, that’s an additional five years in jail. Period. If they FIRE it, another ten years… etc.

For trigger locks, just increase the punishment for those who are negligent. That’s the point, right? Punish those who commit wrongdoings, and leave the responsible ones alone?

[JJohn]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dignan
Uh, driving a car without a liscense is a crime, when it first started wasn’t it legal to drive without one, was it? *

Cars are licensed and registered because they are used on PUBLIC (a.k.a. government owned and maintained) roads. The registration fees collected go towards road repairs and the bureaucracy known as the DOT. Farm vehicles, including tractors or pickup trucks, for instance do not require licensing as long as they stay off of the public right of ways. When cars were first invented there were no maintained roads and no revenues collected to repair them, hence no licenses required. Unless the government is going to create shooting ranges with my gun registration fees, I’m not in favor. The car licensing argument gets very old. Let’s try to compare apples to apples ok?
I am for banning assault rifles. I don’t see what the point of having semiautomatic weapons is. And for the hunting enthusiasts doesn’t a semiautomatic weapon kind of take away from the “sport” of hunting.

Since you obviously don’t know what an assault rifle is I will give you a break. There are no laws on the books that say all guns need to be used for hunting. Most of the rifles that I own have never killed anything except a piece of paper at 50 or 100 or 500 yards. Semi-auto weapons simply load a bullet for the shooter after every pull of the trigger. What difference is there from the gun self-loading a round or myself loading it by lever or pump action?

Since you have such contempt for the “sport” of hunting you obviously don’t care about my comment on your question concerning semi auto weapons. How a bullet is placed into a gun is irrelevant. Most states have regulations as far as how many bullets one may load in their gun when hunting. Whether hunting for ducks (State limit three rounds max) or Coyotes (five round state limit) the loading characteristics make no difference to the shooter. What matters is a quick, “humane” kill. Remember, it is the uniformed that wish to ban things simply because they don’t "get it.”

• I also remember reading a quote by someone commenting that bullets that were made illegal in war by the Geneva Convention are legal on the streets of America. *

The Geneva Convention banned soft-core bullets from war because of the damage that they cause when hitting soft flesh. The mortality rates of the wounds made by those types of bullets are much higher than copper-jacketed bullets. The jacketed bullets are “legal” by the Geneva Convention standards. They have the tendency to go through a body, causing a small wound channel and tend to disable a soldier rather than kill them. The goal in hunting is a quick kill, jacketed bullets do not offer such a thing.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by sqweels *
Try as some of you might, the slippery slope argument remains totally unconvincing. Laws remain unchanged until enough people agree that there is a good reason to change and it is likely to pass constitutional muster. Successive laws don’t move inexorably toward an extreme simply because previous legislation appeared to point in a direction. Movement provokes backlash, and if the cons outweigh the pros, well people might actually notice that and vote against it.

I find it interesting that the slippery slope argument is essentially, “This happens,” and the counter to the slippery slope argument is, “No, it doesn’t.”

Clearly some things are banned now that weren’t before. Thus, the slippery slop argument is applicable. Clearly the issue is whether or not it is applicable in this instance.

Gun deaths, according to the news a few weeks ago, number around 40,000 a year. Now, forgive me for being cold, but that amounts to 0.016% of our population lost a year (and this is a high figure, new census indications would shrink that even more). So what we’ve got here is a ton of regulation in place. We’ve got negligible problems with them. And yet, miraculously, there are still people who want more regulation.

Forgive me if I don’t see this as a regulation-leads-to-ban case. What else would it be? At what point do you feel the majority of Americans are going to say, “Well, that’s as good as its gonna get!” What fraction of the population in deaths must be reached before we say, “Ok, that’s enough laws. Time for some education.”

A guy gets stabbed in the street and no one cares. A child gets killed by a gun and its a national story. Propaganda, anyone? While I do think the average individual is good, I do not believe the average individual gives much thought to issues over instances. This is what lets dressed up tragedy replace objective facts.

Oh, and MA gun laws are screwy to say the least. I think you must register all firearms in the state, but I haven’t delved very deeply into it since I don’t own one right now.

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by Dignan *
I am for trigger locks, for the purpose I stated above.

I am strongly against mandatory use of trigger locks. If I, as a responsible gun owner and American citizen, choose not to voluntarily disable my weapon, then it’s none of anybody’s f-ing business.

Would you consider it reasonable to pass a law requiring single cylinder locks on the bedroom of every female child in a household, in order to reduce sexual abuse by a parent? The “cause” sounds really good on paper, and I’m sure it would get a lot of press and feel-good support from fanatical women’s groups and such, but it’s ridiculous. It would decrease safety (fire? medical emergency? I’m sure both of these are much more common than getting raped by your father), and intrude on the business of the parents (which is parenting) and their right to know what goes on in their homes.

This hypothetical law would a) do much more harm than good, b) have the government needlessly intruding into the domain of the parents and trying to do their jobs, and c) be impossible to enforce without violating privacy and the 4th Amendment.

That’s how I view trigger lock legislation.
a) It would do more harm than good. There are only a few hundred accidental deaths per year that would be prevented by a trigger lock. It prevents the gun from the purpose it was designed for: Defense. It turns a practical tool for defense into a full-featured paperweight. Have you ever had an adrenaline rush? I mean a REAL one: a life or death situation where you just act and are unable to think clearly or attend to fine details for the duration of the event. I have. I can tell you that there is very little possibility of opening a trigger lock, loading your gun, aiming, and making a good defensive shot under those circumstances. And your attacker will NOT wait around for you to load in the name of fairness.

b) I don’t want the government trying to be my mommy or daddy. I already have a full complement of parents, and I don’t need more. Especially ones who live across the country from me and know nothing about me. It is none of anybody’s business whether I choose to use locks, and that requirement needlessly intrudes into my home and steps on my rights.

c) Not only is it impossible to enforce without violating the 4th Amendment, but it is also further infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

Summing up: Even if it’s passed, people won’t comply.

I am for banning assault rifles. I don’t see what the point of having semiautomatic weapons is. And for the hunting enthusiasts doesn’t a semiautomatic weapon kind of take away from the “sport” of hunting.

This kind of ignorance really gets under my skin. For the millionth time…

GUNS ARE NOT JUST FOR HUNTING! THE 2ND AMENDMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SPORTING! READ IT!

Assault rifles are capable of fully-automatic fire, and are already heavily regulated, and registration is mandated. Semi-automatic rifles are NOT, by definition, assault rifles.

F-ING EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE YOU GO MAKING STATEMENTS LIKE THAT ON THIS BOARD!

Actually, I owe an apology for that. Our lawmakers are guilty of the very same thing. They legislate out of ignorance, even redefining common-usage terms to make ordinary things sound more menacing than they really are. It disgusts me, and I have no respect for that way of doing things.

**I think that guns end up in the wrong hands of a lot of people. For any of the New Yorkers, I was in NYC during the summer two years ago (99), in the MCI building (I think) there was a photo expo on “America’s Gun Culture.” There was some really creepy shit that I saw there. One of the quotes I can remember is something a little kid said about how, “guns only cause trouble when the wrong people have them, like minorities.” I also remember reading a quote by someone commenting that bullets that were made illegal in war by the Geneva convention are legal on the streets of America. **

Once again, do you know anything about what you’re saying here? Or are you just regurgitating anti-gun rhetoric that you heard? By the way, our own government made the very same statement that troubles you so deeply: The so-called “saturday-night special” ban was simply a ban on inexpensive guns, regardless of quality (contrary to the propaganda you have heard on tv). The gov’t essentially said (paraphrasing): “guns only cause trouble when the wrong people have them, like poor people.”

[Dignan]

Fine, I am against guns that fire a lot of bullets in a short amount of time. Since I am not up on guns I don’t know (or care) whether these are semi-auto, auto, or whatever.

GUNS ARE NOT JUST FOR HUNTING! THE 2ND AMENDMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SPORTING! READ IT!

Uhhh, yeah, that’s why I said "AND", so that I wouldn’t have the hunters saying how they needed guns that fire so many bullets a second.

It seems ridiculous to me that people still need guns. Is there any statistic that says that people are safer by having guns? How many times are people actually able to “protect” themselves, does this outnumber the number of acidental shootings? People are attacking me for being “ignorant” well I think that it’s ignorant to be paranoid. If you need a gun so bad, and you’re going to be safe with it, then you shouldn’t have any problem registering or liscensing your gun. Don’t give me, “but the bad guys, blah blah blah”

I have read the second amendment. The constitution is open to be interpreted differently, I think this is one of those cases. How many years has it been since we were worried about the British invading?

Correct me if I’m wrong (Like I have to ask :rolleyes: ), but aren’t guns on military bases locked up and kept in some kind of place where everyone just doesn’t have access, you check out bullets and you’re responsible for everything. Why don’t we do something like that.

[JJohn]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dignan
Fine, I am against guns that fire a lot of bullets in a short amount of time. Since I am not up on guns I don’t know (or care) whether these are semi-auto, auto, or whatever. *

This is the problem. You make uninformed posts yet expect everyone to give you a break. You offer your beliefs, yet you openly state that you have no idea what it is that you are talking about. Here is a quote concerning the banning of “Assault” weapons. Let us know if you would like to know what an assault weapon is:

Confronted with FBI data showing that rifles of any type are used in only 3% of homicides, gun-ban sponsor Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told the San Diego Union-Tribune (1/30/94) “I don’t doubt that at all. It is probably less than 3%.” On CBS’s “60 Minutes” (2/5/95) she said, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it.” Even the Washington Post, which supports the ban, admitted, “No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.” (9/15/94)

*It seems ridiculous to me that people still need guns. Is there any statistic that says that people are safer by having guns? How many times are people actually able to “protect” themselves, does this outnumber the number of acidental shootings? *

Surveys suggests 2.2-2.5 million protective uses of guns each year, of which 1.5-1.9 million incidents involve the use of handguns.*

*Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86(1):150-187 (Fall 1995).

People are attacking me for being “ignorant” well I think that it’s ignorant to be paranoid. If you need a gun so bad, and you’re going to be safe with it, then you shouldn’t have any problem registering or liscensing your gun.

You are being attacked because you do not make any kind of informed or otherwise logical argument. You don’t like or understand why some people like or want to own guns. Your contempt for gun owners and hunters comes through every post that you make. You clearly state that you don’t like guns that shoot a lot of bullets. What is a lot? 1, 10, 50? My guess is that one bullet is too many for you.

I have read the second amendment. The constitution is open to be interpreted differently, I think this is one of those cases. How many years has it been since we were worried about the British invading?

It’s not the British that we are worried about. It’s the thug that tries to break into my house. It is the rapist that attacks my Wife or your Mother. It is the crazy that threatens my life with no regard to the consequences of his actions. These are the things that I fear in life; I choose to defend myself. I respect your decision to wantonly give into the criminal element and offer your possessions for all to take without resistance. Please respect my decision to protect those things that are mine. I don’t know (or care)where you live, but don’t kid yourself into thinking that the police will save you from any of the previously mentioned events. Police “respond” to emergencies. They don’t prevent them.

[Dignan]

This is the problem. You make uninformed posts yet expect everyone to give you a break. You offer your beliefs, yet you openly state that you have no idea what it is that you are talking about. Here is a quote concerning the banning of “Assault” weapons. Let us know if you would like to know what an assault weapon is:

Go find the post where I said anything like, “I don’t know what I’m talking about, so just bear with me.” I know I don’t have much (any) knowledge about guns, I don’t need to have any knowledge about guns. Yeah, I openly state my beliefs, what you support the second amendment, but not the first?

Surveys suggests 2.2-2.5 million protective uses of guns each year, of which 1.5-1.9 million incidents involve the use of handguns.*

I don’t like guns (which there is nothing wrong with), but if there have to be guns I would prefer they are handguns.

You are being attacked because you do not make any kind of informed or otherwise logical argument. You don’t like or understand why some people like or want to own guns. Your contempt for gun owners and hunters comes through every post that you make. You clearly state that you don’t like guns that shoot a lot of bullets. What is a lot? 1, 10, 50? My guess is that one bullet is too many for you.

My argument is, guns hurt people, there sole purpose is to hurt things, sorry if that isn’t “logical” enough for you. I never said that I don’t like gun owners. If I have “contempt” for anyone, then it is the ones with the guns that fire a lot (you know damn well what I mean, try not playing stupid). I’m talking about Oozies or AK’s or guns like that. Yeah, maybe those specific guns are illegal, but guns that are like those are the ones I’m talking about. Like I said, I’m not a fan of guns, but thanks for ASSUming that “one bullet is too many for” me.

It is the rapist that attacks my Wife or your Mother. It is the crazy that threatens my life with no regard to the consequences of his actions. These are the things that I fear in life;

Like I said, paranoia.

Here is an article, by the AP no less: 40 percent of guns used in crimes were bought legally, newspaper reports

From gunfree.org:

An Emory University study found that a gun kept in the home was 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to commit or attempt suicide, than to be used in self-defense.

and another:

In 1996, the Australian federal and state governments agreed on new firearms laws that, in effect, banned military and repeating style rifles and shotguns. In 1998, 54 Australians lost their lives to gun homicides, while in the United States the number exceeded 13,000. The gun homicide rate in the U.S. is about 15 times that of Australia.

[SPOOFE]

Go find the post where I said anything like, “I don’t know what I’m talking about, so just bear with me.”

Do you deny that you mistook the terms for “automatic weapons” and “semiautomatic weapons”?

I don’t like guns (which there is nothing wrong with), but if there have to be guns I would prefer they are handguns.

So you hate rifles because they don’t kill more people than handguns?

Handguns cause most of the gun deaths. They also prevent most of the crimes (compared to shotguns/rifles). Seems like your preferences are already being fulfilled. What more do you want, flying cars?

My argument is, guns hurt people, there sole purpose is to hurt things, sorry if that isn’t “logical” enough for you.

And the facts shown by JJohn up above show that guns help far more than they hurt. Sorry if that isn’t “logical” enough for you.

If I have “contempt” for anyone, then it is the ones with the guns that fire a lot (you know damn well what I mean, try not playing stupid).

Seems like you should be railing against people who act irresponsibly and break the law, NOT guns.

Yeah, maybe those specific guns are illegal, but guns that are like those are the ones I’m talking about.

Obviously, those AREN’T the ones you’re talking about, otherwise this argument wouldn’t be continuing. Why do you point to Uzi’s (the correct spelling, for future reference) and try to ban handguns? That’s like saying “Toxins are killing the environment!” and then trying to ban Windex.

Like I said, paranoia.

Are you suggesting that all the instances of burglary, rape, home invasion, murder, etc. don’t happen?

An Emory University study found that a gun kept in the home was 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to commit or attempt suicide, than to be used in self-defense.

Which would suggest that there are 8 million unintentional shootings, 14 million criminal assaults or homicides, and 22 million suicides each year. That’s… um… 44 million, or nearly a quarter of the population of America, each year.

Umm…

Umm…

Umm…

And WHY, exactly, do human beings still exist, if they’re dying off at such a rapid rate?

[xenophon41]

I know I don’t have much (any) knowledge about guns, I don’t need to have any knowledge about guns.

Note to lurkers and 2nd Amendment literalists:

The above sentiment is NOT typical of limited-gun-control proponents. Please don’t assume we are all willfully ignorant of the technical aspects of weaponry. Most of us recognize that social policy cannot be determined through ignorance.

Thank you; that is all.

[xenophon41]

originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly:

An Emory University study found that a gun kept in the home was 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to commit or attempt suicide, than to be used in self-defense.

Which would suggest that there are 8 million unintentional shootings, 14 million criminal assaults or homicides, and 22 million suicides each year. That’s… um… 44 million, or nearly a quarter of the population of America, each year.

The problem with this type of statistic is that the veracity of the “likelihood” estimates for gun use is really dependent on the fairness of your definitions and the accuracy of your figures, the most problematic of which is “defensive gun use.” SPOOFE evidently relies on Lott-Mustard, who in turn use Kleck’s study for it’s 2 million per year estimate, which is not only based on a purely anecdotal telephone survey (with no follow up), but also includes any incident where a gun is presented in response to an intruder or suspected intruder as “defensive gun use.”

Unfortunately, I can’t find a direct link to the Arthur Kellerman study at Emory University that Dignan mentions. I can say, however, that the study was focused more on public health than on any political agenda, unlike Lott-Mustard, and that the study has found some widespread acceptance as a legitimate scientific analysis (again, unlike Lott-Mustard).

If we’re going to argue about the danger of handguns and which controls are reasonable or unreasonable, could we leave the junk science out of it?

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Dignan *
Since I am not up on guns I don’t know (or care) whether these are semi-auto, auto, or whatever.

Gee, and people wonder why I feel the slippery slope argument is applicable to guns in general.

It seems ridiculous to me that people still need guns. Is there any statistic that says that people are safer by having guns?

Are you kidding? Banning guns will not get rid of guns, it will get rid of guns from private individuals who can take responsibility (or have it imposed on them in a court of law) for actions. The government, military, and probably the police force will still have them. Now, if it is your contention that guns are not needed in this society then cops won’t need them either. Only the military will need guns.

How many times are people actually able to “protect” themselves, does this outnumber the number of acidental shootings?

Cops protect themselves all the time with their guns. Are you seriously suggesting that guns can’t protect the individual weilding them?

People are attacking me for being “ignorant” well I think that it’s ignorant to be paranoid.

Paranoid about what? Every fucking year more laws get passed restricting guns. How is it paranoid to assume that this will continue? Every year there are more and more people born with a disproportionate amount of police officers being hired (not that there were enough to begin with). How is it paranoid to assume that a cop, at best, is likely to catch the guy after he’s taken your shit, stabbed you, whatever, when you could have prevented it right then and there.

If you need a gun so bad, and you’re going to be safe with it, then you shouldn’t have any problem registering or liscensing your gun. Don’t give me, “but the bad guys, blah blah blah”

Well, then, you should have no problem with us installing this telescreen in every room of your house so we can watch and listen to what goes on here. What, if you aren’t breaking the law you’ve got nothing to worry about, right?
:rolleyes:

I have read the second amendment. The constitution is open to be interpreted differently, I think this is one of those cases. How many years has it been since we were worried about the British invading?

Not since we’ve got bigger guns. WTF, you think the only thing that keeps one country from attacking another is benevolence or something? We won our wars, people knew it, and that’s the end.

Correct me if I’m wrong (Like I have to ask :rolleyes: )

That’s awesome Be sure to watch out for the grammar police, too, they troll through the boards now and then…

[JJohn]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dignan *

Go find the post where I said anything like, “I don’t know what I’m talking about, so just bear with me.” I know I don’t have much (any) knowledge about guns, I don’t need to have any knowledge about guns. Yeah, I openly state my beliefs, what you support the second amendment, but not the first?

You can spout off on anything you want pal, I don’t care. I agree with all amendments in the Bill of Rights. However, I don’t believe, as you do, that they are subject to interpretation. Could it be that you are a knee-jerk reactionist that has seen one too many RAMBO movies and therefore fear what you repeatedly have stated you don’t understand?

I don’t like guns (which there is nothing wrong with), but if there have to be guns I would prefer they are handguns.

Handguns kill more people than rifles do at a rate of about 97% to 3% again your flawless logic comes shining through. And further in your post you state that you don’t like Oozies [SIC] although it is a handgun also.

My argument is, guns hurt people, there [SIC] sole purpose is to hurt things, sorry if that isn’t “logical” enough for you. I never said that I don’t like gun owners. If I have “contempt” for anyone, then it is the ones with the guns that fire a lot (you know damn well what I mean, try not playing stupid). I’m talking about Oozies or AK’s or guns like that. Yeah, maybe those specific guns are illegal, but guns that are like those are the ones I’m talking about. Like I said, I’m not a fan of guns, but thanks for ASSUming that “one bullet is too many for” me.

I can ASSume anything I want to. Since you again and again repeat the fact that you don’t know what you are talking about, I find it hard to continue this debate. Why do you believe the things that you do? Do you let the media or HCI or gunfree.org mold your opinion and then stay completely oblivious to the facts in the matter? I can lay down fact after fact refuting every argument that you post, but since you have a closed mind to the issue, I find that the effort is not worth the reward. Anti gun types expect that their/your opinions on guns are somehow more worthy in the big picture than those opinions held by the gun owners themselves. You post that some guns are OK and others are bad. How do you draw the line? This is the kind of crap that gun owners have put up with for too long. “Reasonable” is the latest buzzword when it comes to the latest gun control legislation. We as activists are sick of compromising our rights to stave off further restrictions.

It is the rapist that attacks my Wife or your Mother. It is the crazy that threatens my life with no regard to the consequences of his actions. These are the things that I fear in life;

Like I said, paranoia.

As a one time victim of violent crime I can assure you that it is not paranoia. If I were emotional about it, I would say that your contempt for the issue is offensive to me. If it truly is paranoia, I would like very much to live in the world that you live in.

Here is an article, by the AP no less: 40 percent of guns used in crimes were bought legally, newspaper reports

Oooh, the AP! I refute that claim on the basis that 100% of all guns were legally purchased before they were used in a crime. Unless the guns were stolen off of an assembly line, someone legally purchased them. The manufacturers don’t give them away do they? In other words, another anti-gun meaningless stat.

And by the way…98% of all alcohol consumed by drunk drivers that later killed people was purchased legally. 95% of all cars involved in vehicular homicide were purchased legally… and so on.

From gunfree.org:

An Emory University study found that a gun kept in the home was 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to commit or attempt suicide, than to be used in self-defense.

Other claims include that a gun is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder.
The 43:1 claim is derived from a study of firearm-related deaths in homes in King County (Seattle), Washington. Although the authors of the study, Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay, originally warned that their study was of a single non-representative county, and noted that they failed to consider protective uses of firearms that did not result in criminals being killed, anti-firearm groups and activists use the “43 times” claim without explaining the limitations of the study, or how the ratio was derived.

So before we make broad generalizations about how likely a gun is to do this or that, lets check our studies and see how they were conducted. I can assure you however that no gun of mine will be used in a criminal act. Couldn’t the argument be made that if someone truly wanted to kill themselves and a gun was not readily available, they would find another way to do it?

In 1996, the Australian federal and state governments agreed on new firearms laws that, in effect, banned military and repeating style rifles and shotguns. In 1998, 54 Australians lost their lives to gun homicides, while in the United States the number exceeded 13,000. The gun homicide rate in the U.S. is about 15 times that of Australia.

So many social/economic factors are at work in comparing Australia and the United States. Lets compare apples and apples OK? Look at England, their gun laws effectively ban all citizen owned firearms. Countries like Switzerland, Israel, or Norway, have significantly lighter restrictions of firearm ownership yet their crime rates, especially those crimes committed with a gun are proportionally much smaller than England’s. How can that be???

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by xenophon41 *
…SPOOFE evidently relies on Lott-Mustard, who in turn use Kleck’s study for it’s 2 million per year estimate, which is not only based on a purely anecdotal telephone survey (with no follow up), but also includes any incident where a gun is presented in response to an intruder or suspected intruder as "defensive gun use."

Ok, and how exactly would you define a “defensive gun use”? Suppose eight or ten guys are standing around my car and sitting on it. When I tell them to get off, they get all riled up, circling around me, tell me they’re going to kill me. Further suppose that I draw my gun and say something to the effect of “good luck”, after which, miraculously, they leave.

Is that a defensive gun use, or not? If not, why not? The presence and display of a loaded gun changed a situation from a potentially life-ending incident for me into a random altercation in which nothing happened. I most certainly consider it a successful defensive use, even though the body count was zero.

By the way, for the record, that is not one of the hypothetical worst-case scenarios that get bandied about here. This is a real incident that happened to me in 1993 in Albuquerque, NM.

**Unfortunately, I can’t find a direct link to the Arthur Kellerman study at Emory University that Dignan mentions. I can say, however, that the study was focused more on public health than on any political agenda, unlike Lott-Mustard, and that the study has found some widespread acceptance as a legitimate scientific analysis (again, unlike Lott-Mustard).

If we’re going to argue about the danger of handguns and which controls are reasonable or unreasonable, could we leave the junk science out of it? **

I agree, the junk science should be eliminated from this debate. To that end, please refrain from quoting Kellerman. As MaxTorque so eloquently pointed out in this thread, Kellerman’s 43:1 statistic is based on body count. If somebody didn’t die, then you didn’t use a gun. What sense does that make? The basic conditions of the so-called study are designed to skew the data, by discounting nonfatal gun uses, thus giving the impression that they are ONLY good for killing. A fact demonstrated by my story above. I feel that the presence of a loaded .45 saved my life that night, without taking one in exchange, and without even being discharged.

[Mr.Zambezi]

I feel obligated to point out again that gun violence is declining!

Should you feel that this is due to gun laws, I refer you to the JAMA study that showed no correlation between the Brady law and gun violence.

The “problem” is declining, and we are panicking? I wonder, if your cancer tumors were shrinking, would you be looking at radical surgery?

[xenophon41]

Ok, and how exactly would you define a “defensive gun use”? Suppose …<description of 1993 Albuquerque incident>…?

[list=1][li]Would you have confronted the group if you had not had the weapon available?[]Would the group have threatened you if you had not confronted them?[]If I were conducting a scholarly study to determine the frequency of DGU’s in this country, should I accept your anecdote at face value? (Not that I doubt your story, mind you; I’m asking if anecdotes should count as compelling evidence.)[/list=1][/li]

I agree, the junk science should be eliminated from this debate. To that end, please refrain from quoting Kellerman. As MaxTorque so eloquently pointed out in this thread, Kellerman’s 43:1 statistic is based on body count. If somebody didn’t die, then you didn’t use a gun. What sense does that make?

[list=A][]I didn’t cite Kellerman; Dignan did. I criticized Lott-Mustard, and expressed regret that I could not find a link to Kellerman’s study. Fortunately, I found this link posted in the thread that you cited, so I can say categorically that[]Kellerman’s study was designed in such a way that it would have shown a correllation between gun ownership and a reduction in the risk of gun-related homicides, if such a correlation existed. Since the reverse correlation exists, that is what the study showed. So thereforeI think I will begin to quote Kellerman whenever I damn well want to, and feel justified in doing so.[/list=A]