I may be wrong, but I think **DrCube **was actually pointing the double standard (i.e. that opponents of gun regulation are generally in favor of laws against drunk driving or marijuana, adamantly denying the Gateway Theory in one case but supporting it in the other) rather than making the case that gun ownership didn’t increase the chances of gun shooting, gun accidents, gun theft etc…, since it’s quite obvious that owning a gun cannot but increase the statistical chances that the gun may cause a problem.
I don’t have any problem with gateway theory itself. The problem is that once people start using gateway theory, they may be encouraged to experiment with other, stronger justifications of government action. Since the consequences of that are obviously too high, we obviously need to crack down hard on gateway theory.
The distinction I’m trying to make is one you’re missing when you say “average across populations”. The chances of someone getting shot may go up with gun ownership, but that doesn’t mean my chances of committing murder go up. I’m either a murderer or I’m not, the gun just gives me another option added on to the list of methods, including poison, stabbing, blunt objects, vehicular manslaughter, etc. The gun doesn’t cause me to kill the way alcohol causes me to wreck my car.
I’ll admit that guns will increase the chances of accidental shootings or theft especially among irresponsible owners, but that isn’t an argument against ownership itself, but rather an argument for more responsible ownership.
And lots of people who have fired a gun have never shot anyone either. The link between owning a gun and shooting someone is not a causal one.
You’re missing my point, too. Shooting intruders isn’t a crime, so it isn’t what we’re trying to prevent with gun laws. We’re trying to prevent murder or armed robbery, or mugging, or carjacking, et cetera. Guns may increase the chances of someone getting shot, but I’ve yet to see any evidence that they increase crime in general. Muggers will find other weapons to intimidate with when guns aren’t available. Owning a gun doesn’t make you a criminal the way driving drunk makes you wreck your car.
And Kobal2, no, it wasn’t sarcasm. I’m not trying to start another gun debate here, but I did want to point out that gun laws are an application of the “gateway theory”, whether that’s acceptable or not.
I’ve smoked lots of pot, but I’ve never tried crack, and I think that is typical of most users. In fact I am a living anecdote of gateway theory in action because I tried lots of heavier drugs, but that’s not because pot led me to other drugs, merely that I was interested in drugs in general and wanted to try new sensual experiences. I had lots of sex too.
When I lived in Baltimore, and pretty much ever since, there were hundreds of not 1000s of shooting a year in the City limits.
I’d guess that actual ownership of the guns used was very much in doubt in most cases, and when not in doubt as often as not the shooter did not own the gun.
I think that the ease of an act increases the probability that random person X will attempt it. And it’s a lot easier to shoot somebody in the heat of the moment than to poison them in the heat of the moment, given that not all murders are premeditated (or even close). So in a way, the presence of a gun (particularly if you’re actually packing) does cause a person to be more like to shoot somebody - even if the causative effect is much weaker than alcohol’s on car wrecks.
Sigh. I will instantly concede that when the gun changed hands to a thief, the probability of the original owner shooting someone dropped and the probability of the thief shooting someone increased.
In this instance, possession is 9/9ths of the issue - though of course, if the hypothetic owner hadn’t owned the gun originally, then the hypothetical thief wouldn’t possess it now.
To clarify I am talking about things that are not actually causally linked. IE Marjuana will make you try Heroin.
This doesn’t apply to being drunk behind the wheel of a car which WILL make you a terrible driver. It’s a bad example because there is a causal link.
IE, it’s unjust to try someone just for being on drugs out of a fear that it might lead them to more criminal behavior. We should just punish them for the other criminal behavior and not for some imaginary potential to commit crime.
Lots of people have driven drunk who didn’t have accidents (because, for example, they knew they were tipsy and were extra careful), and lots of sober people crashed their cars.
So, what gives ? If a guy shoots somebody, or his kid blows his head off, or the gun gets stolen, it’s solely that guy’s responsibility and guilt, the gun isn’t to be blamed at all, but if a guy crashes his car while drunk, it’s alcohol’s fault and drunk driving oughta be stopped even if there’s no actual harm done ?
To me, a mugger/intruder/robber/carjacker with a gun is way, way more threatening and intimidating than a mugger with a boxcutter, because the second one has to really work to off me. Put some effort into it. He also has to know how to use his boxcutter and be bigger and tougher than me physically, or be faster than me in full Rincewind mode.
By comparison, a mugger with a gun can kill me by squeezing his finger, can kill me even if he’s a wheelchair-bound anorexic, and can kill me from a hundred yards.
So, you know, it’s like Izzard said : guns don’t kill… but they help
Right. Just because it is a statistical or probabilistic link doesn’t mean it isn’t causal. In other words, alcohol raises the probability that the person drinking the alcohol will get into a wreck. Owning a gun doesn’t increase the probability that the gun owner will mug, steal, or kill with it, even if gun ownership in general causes the probability of muggings, theft and murder to rise (which I’m not sure is actually the case anyway). I mean, we all know somebody who smoked 2 packs a day that lived to be 100, but that doesn’t mean cigarettes don’t cause cancer. And Jim Fixx isn’t evidence that running is bad for you.
Not quite. For one thing, I’m with mswas, alcohol shouldn’t add to one’s sentence, if there is a sentence at all. There is no way to prove the accident wouldn’t have happened anyway while sober. For another thing, it is NOT the “alcohol’s fault”. You’ll notice that nobody is suggesting an alcohol ban. The fault lies with the person who got drunk and decided they would put other people’s lives in danger by driving. In other words, a person who drinks and drives is actively endangering other people besides himself. A person who buys a gun is not, at least not necessarily.
Everything you say here is true, and it cuts to the heart of this issue. Mugging is against the law, and rightly so. Furthermore, armed mugging is even more against the law in most places, i.e., carries harsher penalties. Again, rightly so. Mugging is a crime and a firearm exacerbates that crime. But owning a gun does not lead to armed mugging in any way or form. That’s what makes gun laws “gateway” laws.
Edit: I should say “gun bans”, not “gun laws”. There are several reasonable gun laws out there, but bans aren’t one of them.
