Gun Control: Bring it!

[DanBlather]

@VinylTurnip

“Of course this stuff works. You don’t see any elephants around, do you?”

Only in Alabama where the Tuskaloosa.

[Hampshire]

@VinylTurnip

“Of course this stuff works. You don’t see any elephants around, do you?”

Touche!

[Grumman]

@Der_Trihs

And the choice you had was between Obama or McCain, not Obama and some ideal. Are you going to claim that McCain wasn’t “willing to cater to idiots at the expense of innocent people’s rights”?

Despite what certain Democrats would like to believe, the United States does allow people to vote for parties other than the Democrats and Republicans. “The Republicans do it too” is no excuse.

@neutron_star

Yeah, but in your feverish little mind, every gun control law is a bad gun control law, soo…

If you’d managed to read for another sentence, you would have realised why I consider that particular law a bad law, in ways that other gun control laws aren’t. If your goal is to reduce gun violence, then support laws that could actually reduce gun violence, otherwise it’s just meaningless security theatre like the TSA. How is that hard to understand?

[Sitnam]

@villa

And there is a fundamental difference, in my mind, between individual rights as protected under the Bill of Rights, and rights that directly impact others. Me owning a gun, or my freedom of speech, or me worshipping as I see fit, or me not being subject to a government taking does not remove any rights from you. My misuse of things guaranteed by those might, but the right itself, and its exercise, doesn’t, or at least not in any cognizable manner. Me holding you as a slave, on the other hand, directly impinges on your rights. It’s a different kettle of fish altogether.

At what point do you feel exercise of your right becomes unreasonable?

@villa

No I don’t. I think they have suffered a horrible tragedy that I would wish on few people if any. Not sure what that has to do with the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, though.

The Amendment makes the access of better weapons easier, weapons directly involved in their loved ones death. I certainly believe the most vocal proponents of Second Amendment Rights are the law abiding citizens that are NOT out there killing indescriminantly, but exercise of their rights certainly contributes something to the current situation for the rest. The mass killings in American schools were done with registered weapons after all.

[Bricker]

@VinylTurnip

“Of course this stuff works. You don’t see any elephants around, do you?”

This sentence attempts to improperly allocate the burden of proof, which is squarely on the side that wishes to restrict a right that is specifically guaranteed by the text of the constitution.

[Sinaijon]

@Una_Persson

But that was 5 months ago. What’s the root cause of the sudden spike right around and after the Election?]

Hunting season?

I’ve never actually numbers, but I bet there is a spike EVERY fall. It’s just the media notices it on special occasions.

[Clothahump]

I am a firm believer in gun control and have advocated it for years.

A steady grip, a good sight picture and a smooth squeeze of the trigger there’s your gun control.

[Idle_Thoughts]

Wait, so Obama wants to ban people from buying and owning guns? I’m so behind here it’s not funny. I guess that’s what I get for never following current events or politics.
But if that is the case (or anywhere near the case), I would be in the “Obama can have my guns when he pries it from my cold, dead fingers” group.
And I’ve never even shot a gun before, much less own any. Actually, I can go so far as to say I’ve never even HELD or touched a gun before.

[villa]

@Sitnam

At what point do you feel exercise of your right becomes unreasonable?

I don’t know the exact point. But I know me owning a hand gun does not impact your rights at all.

@Sitnam

The Amendment makes the access of better weapons easier, weapons directly involved in their loved ones death. I certainly believe the most vocal proponents of Second Amendment Rights are the law abiding citizens that are NOT out there killing indescriminantly, but exercise of their rights certainly contributes something to the current situation for the rest. The mass killings in American schools were done with registered weapons after all.

And it is argued Trim McVeigh was heavily influenced by the Turner Diaries. I still defend William Pierce’s First Amendment Rights.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

I suspect you’ll enjoy a nice four-bedroom house, with detached garage.

And I suspect I’ll be able to invite you to my new eight-story office building to see the pics.

Unless you’re imagining that “using” a gun to protect himself means “firing.”

In which case I grant that I’ll probably have a three-walled outhouse.

Your post implies you have the facts right at your fingertips, but, in your haste, neglected to provide them. Consider this an opportunity to correct that oversight.

[Zeriel]

@DanBlather

American Heritage Dictionary:

I’ve been looking for an 18th century dictionary on-line to see how they defined the word arm, but I doubt that the founders specifically meant “just” firearms. If so, they would have said so. I’m sure they meant to at least include swords.

I’ve always thought, given the concept of the militia back in the day, that the most reasonable meaning was “personal arms”–that is, stuff a person could grab from the closet and be ready to fight with.

I also appreciate the dictionary cite–I’ll dig up a counter-cite next time I’m in range of someone’s Army training manuals.

[VinylTurnip]

@Bricker

This sentence attempts to improperly allocate the burden of proof, which is squarely on the side that wishes to restrict a right that is specifically guaranteed by the text of the constitution.

Wow, it did all that?

Nah. Like elucidator, I accept that we are a gun-saturated society, for better or worse. I don’t want to restrict anyone’s right to strap on—I just ask that in return, my right to be amused by the inanities of firearm-veneration be upheld.

[Algher]

@elucidator

Your post implies you have the facts right at your fingertips, but, in your haste, neglected to provide them. Consider this an opportunity to correct that oversight.

You ignored my first link, so here is another quote to help out Bricker:

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck, Ph.D.

The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate, for two reasons. First, cases of respondents intentionally withholding reports of genuine defensive-gun uses were probably more common than cases of respondents reporting incidents that did not occur or that were not genuinely defensive. Second, the survey covered only adults age 18 and older, thereby excluding all defensive gun uses involving adolescents, the age group most likely to suffer a violent victimization.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

A national survey conducted in 1994 by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the estimates from the National Self-Defense Survey. This survey’s person-based estimate was that 1.44% of the adult population had used a gun for protection against a person in the previous year, implying 2.73 million defensive gun users. These results were well within sampling error of the corresponding 1.33% and 2.55 million estimates produced by the National Self-Defense Survey.

The one survey that is clearly not suitable for estimating the total number of defensive gun uses is the National Crime Victimization Survey. This is the only survey that has ever generated results implying an annual defensive-gun-use estimate under 700,000. Not surprisingly, it is a favorite of academic gun-control supporters. If one is to make even a pretense of empirically supporting the claim that defensive gun use is rare in America, one must rely on the National Crime Victimization Survey, warts and all.

Now, here is the Fed report mentioned above:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
firearm to defend themselves or their property.

Note that the DOJ data is MUCH lower than the survey conducted by Kleck and the Police group cited above.

[Richard_Parker]

@Bricker

This sentence attempts to improperly allocate the burden of proof, which is squarely on the side that wishes to restrict a right that is specifically guaranteed by the text of the constitution.

Well, gun control people point to all the evidence of preventable gun deaths. Your counter to that is to point to all the evidence of crimes prevented by guns. So the burden is actually on you, isn’t it?

But more importantly, does it even matter? If stricter gun control measures led to a net increase in overall social welfare, would that justify them in your mind?

[Algher]

@Richard_Parker

Well, gun control people point to all the evidence of preventable gun deaths. Your counter to that is to point to all the evidence of crimes prevented by guns. So the burden is actually on you, isn’t it?

Actually, gun control proponents do NOT bring out evidence. They ask for gun control, and are then pointed towards places in America with strict gun control - but where gun crime is still strong. They then say that is because there is not ENOUGH gun control, and ask for more. None of their gun control laws appear to have reduced crime.

There have been studies (Lott & Mustard for academically rigorous, Kleck for less so IMHO) that show that defensive gun use is quite effective in reducing violent crime.

@Richard_Parker

But more importantly, does it even matter? If stricter gun control measures led to a net increase in overall social welfare, would that justify them in your mind?

How are you measuring social welfare? Is this the old issue of “giving up essential liberty for safety” arguement?

We accept a fair amount of death in our nation, rather than control it. Allowing higher speed limits kills people. Private pools are deadly. Alcohol and tobacco both take down a fair number of citizens both directly and indirectly. None of these is specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

[Richard_Parker]

@Algher

Actually, gun control proponents do NOT bring out evidence. They ask for gun control, and are then pointed towards places in America with strict gun control - but where gun crime is still strong. They then say that is because there is not ENOUGH gun control, and ask for more. None of their gun control laws appear to have reduced crime.

Can you point to a particular legislator so I can examine the record of his or her rhetoric on the subject? Or are you talking about message board posters?

@Algher

How are you measuring social welfare? Is this the old issue of “giving up essential liberty for safety” arguement?

I’m not defining it. I’m saying that is the underlying premise of the argument being made. So if we don’t agree on that premise, there’s not much point if debating what the facts actually show.

[Algher]

@Richard_Parker

Can you point to a particular legislator so I can examine the record of his or her rhetoric on the subject? Or are you talking about message board posters?

I’m not defining it. I’m saying that is the underlying premise of the argument being made. So if we don’t agree on that premise, there’s not much point if debating what the facts actually show.

I would say that the political leaders of the anti-gun crowd are Senators Metzenbaum, DeConcini and Feinstein.

The NRA equivalent is The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc.)

I was responding in general to what I have heard from the anti-gun crowd over the past 20+ years I have been opposing them in political, campus, debate and message board theaters.

As for the definition of social welfare, if you can not define it then do not use its “improvement” as a justification for increased limits on my rights. I will say that increases in gun control in America will not improve my life, nor the life of my children.

[Richard_Parker]

@Algher

As for the definition of social welfare, if you can not define it then do not use its “improvement” as a justification for increased limits on my rights. I will say that increases in gun control in America will not improve my life, nor the life of my children.

Respectfully, you’re missing the point. I’m not asserting that argument. Others are. I’m saying that I don’t think pro-gun people care either way. Not all individual rights must be justified in terms of their overall effect on society. It might be a net wrong to have 5 kids instead of 2, but that’s not a conclusive argument for family planning laws.

I doubt those legislators and organizations are the straw men you make them out to be, but I’ll take a look and report back as to whether they offer any facts to back up their claims.

[Richard_Parker]

@Algher

Actually, gun control proponents do NOT bring out evidence.

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.

[UncleBeer]

@elucidator

Are swimming pools designed with that end in mind? If the answer is no, you’re in the running for the SDMB Really Bad Analogy Award for 2008. Because a gun is designed to punch holes in things, and one of the things most frequently punctured is people.

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.