# Gun Control: Bring it! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 4, 2008, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629 "2008-12-04T03:50:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629/141 "2008-12-04T23:01:00Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > The mass killings in American schools were done with registered weapons after all. And which of those mass school shootings would that be? Where were these guns registered? ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629/142 "2008-12-04T23:13:37Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Ok, I spent a few minutes at the site you recommended. > > Shockingly, and contrary to what you led me to believe, the Brady site is filled with studies from academics, the FBI, ATF, and the Center itself. I think what you meant to write earlier is that you dispute their evidence, just as they dispute yours. But that doesn’t really affect the argument about burdens of proof. They misapply evidence regularly. Let’s take the front page of their site, where they claim that the background check stops 300 purchases by “dangerous people” per day. Now, for that to happen, 300 people must have illegally tried to purchase a firearm. Ask them how many arrests have been made. After all, those 300 have filled out the form, signed their name, provided an address, etc. If they are all, for example, convicted felons trying to purchase a firearm - they have now committed an additional felony. How many were picked up? This is not evidence, it is hyperbole. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2008, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629/143 "2008-12-04T23:56:13Z")
> [@LouisB](#): > > Okay, that’s it: I’m gonna build my own damn gun; one that I’ve wanted for years. Get ready for the advent of the fully-automatic, belt-fed, water-cooled, swiveled mounted, Gatling barreled 8 gauge shotgun. Come take that one away from me, you flea flicking sissies. Does it come with cammo painting? Anyway, I want three. And do contact me if you go for 8-magnum. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629/144 "2008-12-05T01:04:49Z")
> [@Hampshire](#): > > I have to ask gun rights advocates like **ExTank** in all seriousness exactly what chain of events they think will unfold if a complete US gun ban were to occur? What precisely are you (I know you don’t like the words paranoid, afraid, or scared)… concerned about? **All too easy:** Congress puts together an economic stimulus package, or perhaps a worker’s relief package, extending unemployment benefits. In a move worthy of [William J. Hughes,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Machine_gun_ban_.28The_Hughes_Amendment.29) any or all of the Assault Weapon Renewal Act (the permanent version, new and improved, lemon scented, with 20% more restrictions!), The Brady Comprehensive Handgun Safety Act, The Moynihan Memorial Ammunition Accountability Act, get tacked onto it at the very last second. The O-Man signs it. He can wash his hands by saying, “Hey, we really needed this economic stimulus, and the American Worker needs relief in this time of recession. I had no choice.” He can say it with a straight face, and even really mean it. And then laugh his ass off and do the Happy Dance with Clinton, Clinton, Schumer, Feinstein & Biden. If anyone says anything against it, because of the gun-control provisions, they will be branded as haters, as “inhuman monsters incapable of feeling the plight of the American Worker,” etc., etc. All the usual lefty blather. > [@elucidator](#): > > Tell you what let’s do, **Bricker**. Lets play with bricks. You get two bricks for every time someone used a gun to protect himself from assault by evil, and I get one brick for every time some dumb fuck got drunk, got mad, or was just born stupid - and used a gun where no such threat existed. > > Who’s pile is going to get bigger, do you think? **Bricker’s.** [By a factor of approximately 4 at the time of the study’s publish date.](http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm) That’s a conservative estimate, published by a notoriously anti-gun-biased researcher. Your “pile” also includes _all_ homicides, suicides, accidents, and legal interventions (essentially, justifiable police shootings). If those trends have continued downwards the way they have, then today **Bricker’s** pile would be larger than yours by a factor of ~6. > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Suppose for a moment that 'luci is right though. Would that fundamentally change the equation? In other words, do you accept the premise that if guns do more harm than good they could be subject to further regulation? Sure. But they don’t, so your hypothetical is irrelevant and, frankly, pointless. > [@elucidator](#): > > Aside from the fact that this is a very, _very_ convenient mechanism, could you explain to me just how this comes about? Someone’s home is invaded and defended by a firearm, but the prospective victim doesn’t call the police? Huh? > > I think we need a bit more detail on this. Actually, we need a \*lot \*more detail, if you expect this to be taken seriously. You’re asking someone to prove a negative. And I think you know it. Ass. Crime statistics report _crimes._ Yes? You understand this? If a burglar kicks in someone’s door in the middle of the night, but the owner grabs a gun and scares him off, the police are _only going to report a breaking-and-entering, and maybe a trespassing._ Because, a few jurisdictions aside, it isn’t a _reportable crime_ to defend one’s self, family, or home with a firearm. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629/145 "2008-12-05T01:27:27Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Sure. But they don’t, so your hypothetical is irrelevant and, frankly, pointless. Thanks for being frank. But it wasn’t my hypothetical. And it isn’t irrelevant, since as you surprisingly concede, it is what the entire debate turns on. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629/146 "2008-12-05T01:55:03Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > …You’re asking someone to prove a negative. > > And I think you know it. Ass… For the record, first of the two of us to resort to name calling was you, butt munchkin. As far as reading my mind goes, show us your Certificate of Telepathy and maybe I’ll listen. You don’t want to read my mind anyway, too many big words, bubba. > [@](#): > > …Crime statistics report _crimes._ Yes? You understand this?.. Why, thank you for bringing it down to my level. Yes, I do believe I grasp that. But this doesn’t quite reach, now does it? We are given statistics, and then assured that these statistics must be regarded as much too conservative, since so few of these are reported. As statistical arguments go, that’s a mite flimsy. I mean, if you’re going to suggest that the numbers are suspect, then isn’t any extrapolation off of those numbers equally suspect? > [@](#): > > …If a burglar kicks in someone’s door in the middle of the night, but the owner grabs a gun and scares him off, the police are only going to report a breaking-and-entering, and maybe a trespassing… Really? And you have the encyclopedic and encompassing knowledge of police procedure, nation wide? And would it be different if the prospective victim explicitly mentioned the brandishing of a weapon? > [@](#): > > …Because, a few jurisdictions aside, it isn’t a _reportable crime_ to defend one’s self, family, or home with a firearm. Brandishing a deadly weapon is potentially a crime just about anywhere, it is a threat. Now, if the brandishee is protected against such charges due to the nature of the circumstances (self-defense), then he cannot justly be found guilty. But such determinations are not usually the purview of the officer on the scene, no? It isn’t up to him to decide, and make a ruling. From the link > [@](#): > > …Regarding the first belief, National Crime Victimization Survey estimates indicate that 83% of Americans will, sometime over the span of their lives, be a victim of a violent crime… Its going to take a whole lot of substantiation before I’m going to swallow that hairball. Oh, yeah. 83%? Who’s kidding who, here? ---
**Author:** ![Hampshire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hampshire/32/4887_2.png) [@Hampshire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hampshire)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629/147 "2008-12-05T14:36:12Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > **All too easy:** Congress puts together an economic stimulus package, or perhaps a worker’s relief package, extending unemployment benefits. In a move worthy of [William J. Hughes,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Machine_gun_ban_.28The_Hughes_Amendment.29) any or all of the Assault Weapon Renewal Act (the permanent version, new and improved, lemon scented, with 20% more restrictions!), The Brady Comprehensive Handgun Safety Act, The Moynihan Memorial Ammunition Accountability Act, get tacked onto it at the very last second. > > The O-Man signs it. He can wash his hands by saying, “Hey, we really needed this economic stimulus, and the American Worker needs relief in this time of recession. I had no choice.” He can say it with a straight face, and even really mean it. And then laugh his ass off and do the Happy Dance with Clinton, Clinton, Schumer, Feinstein & Biden. > > If anyone says anything against it, because of the gun-control provisions, they will be branded as haters, as “inhuman monsters incapable of feeling the plight of the American Worker,” etc., etc. All the usual lefty blather. Thank you for your answer. However, my question was not so much about “what series of events could unfold that would cause a ban are you concerned about?”, but rather “what series of events do you forsee happening after that ban is put in place?” that cause you concern. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629/148 "2008-12-05T14:44:08Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > This could be the largest exaggeration posted yet in the ten year history of hte SDMB. There are billions upon billions of rounds of ammunition expended in this country every year. A vanishingly small percentage of them end up in a human body. Only because it is illegal to shoot at humans. Or are you expecting to be attacked by a cardboard cut-out? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629/149 "2008-12-05T15:02:15Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Only because it is illegal to shoot at humans. Or are you expecting to be attacked by a cardboard cut-out? Do you think if it wasn’t illegal, a significantly greater percentage of those multiple billions of rounds would end up in human beings? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629/150 "2008-12-05T15:05:29Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Do you think if it wasn’t illegal, a significantly greater percentage of those multiple billions of rounds would end up in human beings? Do you think they _wouldn’t_? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629/151 "2008-12-05T15:05:48Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Suppose for a moment that 'luci is right though. Would that fundamentally change the equation? In other words, do you accept the premise that if guns do more harm than good they could be subject to further regulation? I am sorry if I come across as nit-picking here, but what do you mean by “ **could** be subject to further regulation?” Are you talking in a legal sense? As in, given the present constitutional structure, would a negative cost-benefit analysis of guns grant the government the power to further regulate them? Do you mean more regulation than is present now, or more regulation than is permitted now? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629/152 "2008-12-05T15:08:30Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Do you think they _wouldn’t_? No, I don’t think that there would be a major increase in the number of people shooting other people if it were not illegal. I would bet, and I don’t have the numbers handy, that the overwhelming majority of bullets ending up in bodies occur in situations of either combat, or in scenarios where society is in undeclared warfare. I just don’t think many people are sat there thinking “I want to pop a cap in Jimmy’s ass, but it is against the law.” Well, they may be thinking it, but if push comes to shove, I doubt they would do it. Wide receivers for the NY Giants excluded from this analysis, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629/153 "2008-12-05T15:25:22Z")
> [@villa](#): > > No, I don’t think that there would be a major increase in the number of people shooting other people if it were not illegal. I would bet, and I don’t have the numbers handy, that the overwhelming majority of bullets ending up in bodies occur in situations of either combat, or in scenarios where society is in undeclared warfare. I just don’t think many people are sat there thinking “I want to pop a cap in Jimmy’s ass, but it is against the law.” > > Well, they may be thinking it, but if push comes to shove, I doubt they would do it. Wide receivers for the NY Giants excluded from this analysis, of course. When push comes to shove, people generally don’t kill other people because there’s a (usually) equal force shoving back- people’s fear of a cellmate named Bubba, specifically. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629/154 "2008-12-05T15:32:45Z")
You have a very low opinion of the average person, then. Is that the only thing that keeps \*you \*from killing people? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629/155 "2008-12-05T15:34:26Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > When push comes to shove, people generally don’t kill other people because there’s a (usually) equal force shoving back- people’s fear of a cellmate named Bubba, specifically. We have a bottom line disagreement here. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629/156 "2008-12-05T15:54:45Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Suppose for a moment that 'luci is right though. Would that fundamentally change the equation? In other words, do you accept the premise that if guns do more harm than good they could be subject to further regulation? At some point, that balance scale will obviously tip in favor of more regulation, sure. But how do you balance it? Suppose, arguendo, we could show 1000 purse-snatches prevented by guns and 5 innocent deaths from guns? Someone might claim that the answer is obvious: human life is worth more than 1,000 purses, no matter their contents. So suppose, then, it’s one death and 100,000 purses stolen? The point being that crimes, both completed and inchoate, don’t have little weighted tags by which we may agree that they deserve some definitive weight in our analysis. But I find it curious that when we discuss the First Amendment, there’s seldom an effort to quantify this – even though the First Amendment protects virtual child porn, “hit man” instructions, and KKK hate literature, it’s exceedingly rare to hear arguments that talk about eliminating it or substantially modifying it. But the Second Amendment is apparently the red-headed stepchild of the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629/157 "2008-12-05T16:02:07Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > You have a very low opinion of the average person, then. Is that the only thing that keeps \*you \*from killing people? I’m not saying the average person would kill someone if it were legal; I’m saying there are would be a lot more killings, though. I suppose we have to define what context it becomes legal within; if rapists would face no stiffer penalty if they killed their victims afterward, it’s safe to assume a lot more of them would do so, yes? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629/158 "2008-12-05T16:02:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I find it curious that when we discuss the First Amendment, there’s seldom an effort to quantify this – even though the First Amendment protects virtual child porn, “hit man” instructions, and KKK hate literature, it’s exceedingly rare to hear arguments that talk about eliminating it or substantially modifying it. > > But the Second Amendment is apparently the red-headed stepchild of the Constitution. I think you are right that there are some who favor the repeal of the second, and I know nobody who favors the repeal of the first. But where I disagree is that I think a lot of what you are talking about is a matter of terminology. There are huge repeated arguments over the scope of the First - people may not talk about modifying it, they just talk about what counts as “speech” or “endorsement.” I am sure you would agree there is a huge spectrum of opinion over the coverage of the First amendment. For the majority of the debate, I think that spectrum is as big as the arguments over the Second. Which is almost inevitable, seeing as the issue addressed by the Second is narrower (not in an importance sense necessarily) than that addressed by the First. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629/159 "2008-12-05T16:04:25Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I just don’t think many people are sat there thinking “I want to pop a cap in Jimmy’s ass, but it is against the law.” I don’t know what qualifies as “many,” but I do think that some deaths are prevented simply because of the law’s existence. And I think there would be a small number of people who would kill a large number of people, rather than necessarily a large number of people who would kill one each (or a similar ratio). ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2008, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629/160 "2008-12-05T16:09:00Z")
No doubt. I am just disputing that would cause a significant increase in the percentage of the billions of rounds of ammunition that ended up in a human being. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-control-bring-it/475629.md?page=9)