This makes me wonder just why you take umbrage with pro-rights folks summing up the pro-control position to be “they all want to ban all guns”. Oh well. I’ll just take this as an admission on your part that you refuse to debate rationally.
Ummm, you might want to look a couple pages later:
Sez I:
Sez you:
**
Maybe yes and maybe no, but . . . . even assuming that guns have lots of costs and few benefits, it doesn’t logically follow that gun control legislation is justified.
Indeed, the link I put in the OP of this thread shows quite conclusively that there is quite a lack of justification*, according to the CDC. I’m still wondering how Minty Green wishes to address that.
(*“We don’t know” constitutes quite the lack of justification in my eyes. If anyone feels different, feel free to explain why.)
Does she really have a good chance of winning ? I would say criminals shoot better than commoners… I would say she has a bit below average chance of winning. Unless she flashes that gun before the guy gets too close… that means noticing him before. Still the chances are tipped to the criminal and if she notices before… she can act like Una.
The way you guys shout over Guns being life saviours one wonders how could europeans live without them… but alas… they do live without them ! Most countries restrict guns and gun sales. So guns are “better” in the US because Americans are sick and criminally prone ? Dont think so. How come ? Guns are necessary because they have become widespread in the US… not because they are “necessary”. Most normal countries live without them.
Zero of my friends have guns... my brother and a friend have been "lightining" kidnapped and had there cars stolen. Their credit cards stolen. A few acquaintances have been robbed or mugged at some point. I only know one girl who was raped... but she was raped by a known person. Not ONE of them died in a shootout or was killed by the criminals. I know its a personal example still I dont feel like carrying guns still. Criminals arent out to kill people... to risk your life to protect your money seems foolish to this unarmed civilian. (Mind you that I actually like shooting... having gone a few times to shooting galleries.)
My example of the kid bossing around the bus was to show what happens with young people with guns... policemen and law enforcement are usually well trained and accountable to ever act silly. Guns are means of empowerment. They empower suicidal tendencies... they empower criminals... they empower self defense and police too of course. Still guns allow for pretty reckless stupidity to happen. How come British policeman can live without them ?! Why have police in the US... everyone could get a gun...My dear fellow, “lots of costs and few benefits” is the very definition of when regulation is justified.
And I’ll just take this as an admission that you are full of crap. You know, as long as we’re just assuming ignorant things about each other on no reasonable basis. Whee! What fun!
No, the study simply shows that the effects of America’s quite limited gun control are difficult to measure, given the other massive factors that overwhelm any attempt to isolate the effects of, say, a 5-day waiting period. Go on, try to separate the Brady Act from the economic upswing of the Clinton years and try to quantify how much each one affected the crime rate. I bet you want a research grant too, don’t you?
Because that’s irrational. “We don’t know” important stuff about every major public policy. To demand perfect data prior to acting is a recipe for paralysis. And frankly, I don’t care one whit if you have to go through a mandatory background check before buying a gun, or if it’s more expensive for you to buy an assault weapon. Your inconvenience on those matters is a matter of complete triviality to me.
Una was smart but she also had some luck. If the cops hadn’t been there in Paris or the people hadn’t been coming out of that restaurant in the incidents she mentioned, she might have been hurt or worse.
I don’t agree that “commoners” are less able to shoot than criminals. Anyone buying a gun has a responsibility to learn how to use it safely. Nothing difficult about it.
I don’t see why I should put up with being kidnapped (“lightning” or otherwise) or robbed or molested in any way by some wannabe predator. That is just my attitude toward being victimized. Your own attitude may be something different and of course, you are welcome to it.
Regards
Testy
Depends on the “commoner”, doesn’t it?
If you have a citizen who has handled guns since, say, age 12, goes to target practice regularly, and so forth she stands a very good chance of being either the equal or the better of the Bad Guy. I was taught very early on that ANY weapon requires responsibility AND practice in its use, otherwise it’s likely to be more dangerous to you than to your enemy.
Then again, the very first time I picked up a gun at a shooting range and fired it, my first three shots were bull’s eyes. Guess I just have natural talent 
Alright, that wasn’t a handgun. But since I’d only use a handgun on someone directly threatening me I couldn’t run away from, it’s unlikely I’d be shooting over a significant distance anyhow.
Good Lord - you don’t “flash a gun”. Don’t pull until you intend to shoot, goddammit! Posturing just gives the other guy an opportunity to try to take the weapon away from you.
The best defense is almost alway to avoid trouble - fight only when cornered. But when cornered and it really is a matter of life and limb don’t hold back, don’t indulge in bluff (unless that’s your only available weapon) or half measures.
A gun is not a “life saver”, a gun is a weapon. It’s an option. There are other options - last year a truck thief in my driveway got an introduction to crossbows. Me, I don’t like to restrict the options of responsible, law-abiding citizens without good reason.
See, there are two ways to view privileges. In one case, you don’t restrict a person’s privileges without a good reason to restrict them. In the other, you don’t grant privileges unless the person can justify a need for it. The US tends toward the first choice, Europe towards the latter. I don’t think one view in inherently superior to the other, just that they are two different options for ordering society.
Oh, my - now we’re all criminals? Thank you ever so much for that opinion.
Truth is, MOST gun crime in the United States is connected to the drug trade. If a citizen stays away from drugs it is very unlikely they’ll ever be a victim of gun crime. Most theft is connected to junkies looking for money for a fix - that’s about the only reason a sober citizen would need a gun, to defend against thieves. Or a woman against rape. Even so, most folks, even most folks with guns, would prefer to scare off a theif or rapist than to execute him. Putting a gun into a person’s hands does not generate impulse that weren’t already present.
Also - there are restrictions on gun sales and gun use here in the US. Nowhere is it legal for the mentally ill or felons to buy handguns. Here in Indiana those accused of “domestic violence” (i.e. “wife beating”) are not legally allowed to own a handgun. It is not, contrary to what the media shows, a free for all, nor is there blood running in the streets.
The US has never been a “normal” country - whatever that is. We’ve always been a pack of oddballs and it’s not likely to change.
Actually, some of the ARE out to kill people - you just don’t know which are which at a glance.
Actually, there ARE British policemen with guns. If they choose not to arm all of them that’s their perogative, but it’s a myth there are no armed police in Britain.
As for “suicidal tendencies” - my sister managed to kill herself without the use of a gun, even though guns are available in the US. The fact she had a history of mental illness prevented her from legally buying a gun - but obviously that did not prevent a suicide from occuring. Banning guns will NOT prevent suicide - it only reduces suicide from gunfire.
The criminals using guns are not supermen - all too often they’re between 15-25, uneducated, in a gang or mixed up in drugs. They also don’t know crap about guns or how to use them, which is why they can have an all-out gunfight and never hit their intended target (just innocent bystanders, all too often). They buy guns illegally - and they aren’t going to stop doing that just because a new law is passed. The problem isn’t the good citizens with guns, of which the US has many who manage to co-exist with weapons without dying, the problem is violent criminals.
So, explain to me again why my area, which has very liberal concealed carry laws and guns readily available to good citizens, has relatively few gun crimes and both the city of Gary, Indiana and Chicago, Illinois where handguns are NOT legal have very HIGH rates of gun crime? Why is Chicago - where it isn’t even legal to own a handgun, even for sporting purposes like target shoting - now leading the nation in gun deaths? How can there be guns in Chicago? They’re ILLEGAL! But obviously a law doesn’t stop the problem, does it? Maybe the root of the problem isn’t the guns themselves but the reasons people feel compelled to commit crimes of any sort.
As in the last thread, you are confusing the costs and benefits of guns with the costs and benefits of gun LEGISLATION.
Minty’s right, you can’t always examine every facet of public policy before you implement it. You figure out what the problem is, decide what you think the best solution is going to be, and attempt to fix the problem.
That said we should be careful about what new laws we decide to put on the books. The Volstead Act had a lot of good intentions but ultimately it led to lawlessness and a lot of corruption in the government. Who would have thought that the Gun Control Act of 1934 would make Anslinger’s dream of a federal marijuana ban possible?
Marc
As in the last thread, I have no idea what on earth you are complaining about.
When evaluating the costs and benefits of a proposed law, one should look at the costs and benefits of the law itself.
In the last thread, I made a little chart to explain. I suppose I’ll do it again:
Costs of Gun Ownership: A
Benefits of Gun Ownership: B
Costs of Gun-Control Leglislation: C
Benefits of Gun-Control Legislation: D
You can debate all day long about whether or not A outweighs B. But it doesn’t really matter because all evidence indicates that D is zero.
Thus, there is no valid reason to enact gun-control laws.
Indeed, you admitted in the last thread that there was no point in passing laws that would not have a beneficial effect.
I am well aware of the differences between “the costs and benefits of guns with the costs and benefits of gun LEGISLATION.” What makes no sense is your claim that I am confusing them. All I said was that if “guns have lots of costs and few benefits” [your words], that would justify regulation. If you’re reading that as saying it would justify any and all regulations, no matter how ineffective or counter-productive, well, that’s just ridiculous. Not that these never-ending discussions aren’t already filled with plenty of ridiculous, preposterous, and downright lunatic statements, but still . . .
Nonsense. The evidence cited in the OP indicates that D is impossible to measure. That’s quite different from affirmatively determining that D=0.
Oh, really? Let’s test your claim ok?
Kindly explain in detail what the “definition of when regulation is justified” is and how I would test to see whether a regulation is justified or not.
**
Before I respond, let’s make sure I understand your position: Are you claiming that the efficacy of gun control legislation is “impossible to measure.”? Or only that the evidence cited in the OP so indicates?
No, lucwarm, I’m not going to play your little semantical game. As Graham Chapman would undoubtedly observe, this sketch is getting entirely too silly.
As for the measurability of the effects of gun control, I would posit that the effects of the quite limited gun control in America–which results in a market flooded with weapons and places no substantial impediments to persons who wish to obtain them, whether legally or illegally–are difficult to impossible to measure with any precision. Do you contend otherwise?
Interesting how you were SOOOO strident about the “very definition of when regulation is justified,” but now you refuse to describe what that definition actually is.
If by “semantical game,” you mean calling BS on you, then I’m guilty as charged.
**
I’m not sure what you mean by “difficult to measure with any precision.” But it doesn’t sound the same as “impossible to measure.” Can you explain what you mean? How much precision do you demand?
Actually, you are the one demanding precise data, so your question is a complete non sequiter as applied to me.
As for measuring the beneficial effects of gun control, I’m afraid that depends on the specific measure in question. I’m reasonably certain that you could track the effects of the state and federal assault weapons bans by carefully examining the rates of assault weapons use in crimes (keeping in mind that since the federal act and most state restrictions only limit new sales, resulting in only a slow decrease in the availability of such weapons). But most gun control measures–such as 5-day waiting periods–are so extremely limited in their effect that there’s no way you could ever hope to measure their effect.
There’s a portion of this statement that makes no sense at all—“no substantial impediments to persons who wish to obtain them . . . illegally”
What impediments then you would propose? I mean, if outright bans on certain types of firearms & proscription of possession by certain types of persons aren’t “substantial impediments” then just what might you consider an impediment? After all, you only propose additional “regulation,” right? And since, as you just admitted, regulation, up to and including situational proscription, poses no serious impediment, then just what is the purpose of regulation? It seems to me that you rather neatly admitted that “D” above indeed equals zero.
The only “regulation” remaining that would, in your stated view, pose a “substantial impediment” must then be a universal federal ban, coupled with immediate surrender and destruction of all proscripted firearms. Of course, we know that won’t work either, because those with violent criminal intent demonstrably do not voluntarily submit to the rule of law. Else we’d never need any of these discussions.
I’m not sure what corner you’re trying to argue out of, minty, but it’s a damned tight one.
Interesting points broomstick… it doesnt seem to hard for anyone to get a gun in the US criminal or law abiding ? A bit more tough legislation might be beneficial… State laws vary so much as too make control innefective ?
So the problem is “America” and drugs… not guns… I know its too wide an idea… but that is why Michael Moore’s film is valid. Gun Culture and America are different. He might have distorted some stuff… or overdone others… but his notion that America is different was spot on.
Still is America so different that only they cannot benefit from more gun control ?
As for Testy and his quick answers:
Bystanders that get shot during firefights are victims too… its not so simple. Guns = Choice. Sometimes Guns give no choice to someone who isnt involved. As for gun training… shooting cutouts isn’t the same thing as “combat” shooting.
You’ve come full circle to the question posed in the OP. The OP was drafted around a report that says the effects of gun regulations are not measurable. And the argument being made is, if you can’t measure it, then implementation of additional controls is less than useless.