Guns, weapons and society

Great Debates
321

The CDC statistics are NOT crimes - they’re DEATHS!

DEAD - as in not breathing, lying in the ground rotting, ceasing to live. This is not something you can really quibble about. I mean, there are not coroners out there reporting some people as “mostly dead” or “slightly dead” or “very extremely dead”. This is not a gray area, OK? It’s digital - either you are alive… or you are dead. If a bullet caused the death - whether accidental, delibrate, whatever - it was counted as a firearm death. One-two-three-four-etc. It’s a simple counting exercise. No ambiguity. Got it? They didn’t count 28,000 gun deaths and kick another 4,000 under the autopsy table because they were tired and it was time for their coffee break.

322

On preview I see both pervert and Broomstick touched on these points. Here is a more detailed breakdown.

Your cite doesn’t support your argument that my statistics are unreliable. Here is your link again: NCPA - Crime and Gun Control - Crime Statistics Questioned The only place ‘gun’ is mentioned is in the title. The body of the article states:

You misquote the article by saying:

(Bolding mine)

The CDC publications detail causes of death which are determined by a coroner/physician, not the police. From my first link: National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 52, Number 3

I’ll explain your statistic to you. From the CDC: Causes of death attributable to firearm mortality include:

  • Terrorism involving firearms (homicide)
  • Accidental discharge of firearms
  • Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms
  • Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms
  • Discharge of firearms, undetermined intent
  • Legal intervention involving firearm discharge

Firearm suicide and homicide, the two major component causes, accounted for 57 and 38.4 percent, respectively, of all firearm injury deaths in 2001. 38.4% of
29,573 is 11,356. Your statistic relates to homicides only.

No, the number is probably correct, you just don’t know what statistic you’re quoting.

As for your cite, it doesn’t apply to these statistics. So what is the basis of your belief that these numbers are not over 99% accurate as they claim?

323

OK, I guess I’ll have to concede to you on this point. So where does that leave us?

I think the point you were trying to make was that the number of firearm deaths was decreasing over the last 10 or so years. But, accepting the statistics as quoted, there are still approximately 30k people dying yearly because of firearms. So why doesn’t it make sense to ban guns entirely and save the lives of 30k people? Sure, some number of this total will die by other means (particularly if someone wants to commit suicide) but that should be a relatively small number of the 30k total. But let me be generous and say that 5k people will die from other means after firearms are banned. Well, we are still saving 25k lives. That seems to be a good tradeoff to me.

324

Blah, blah, blah… You clearly know what I meant. I’m not in court and I don’t have to be exact. So why are you wasting bandwidth and everyone’s time with childish postings such as this, “little lady”? What point are you trying to make? That you think I am stupid? That you think that by playing semantic games that you win some prize? I already know (and as you should know by now, don’t really care) what you think. GOT IT? (to steal a phrase you used in next post). <roflol>

325

Amending the United States Constitution is a horse of a way different color than merely passing a law. It needs the approval of 2/3ds of both houses of Congress and 38 out of 50 state legislatures need to ratify. It’s not just a little technical detail being quibbled about, it’s rather important if you actually want your cause to prevail.

Being condescending isn’t scoring you any points here. I’m on the fence on this issue, I could go either way. I agree in principle that we’d all be safer if there weren’t any more guns. But I realize that a complete ban on all guns with an ensuing nationwide door to door gun confiscation is impractical and would cause more violence than it would prevent. Your plan of publicly hanging those who hold on to their guns is ridiculous, and makes you look more like a control freak than somebody who genuinely wants to reduce violence.

326

This was previously discussed back in posts 201, 202,203, etc.

As I have said previously, I only respond in kind as others do to me.

I see some of the problems that politicians have where they get a small part of what they said taken out of context. If you review the transcript, you’ll see that this muck about hanging was part of a response as to what might be needed to convince others to give up their weapons. It was tied to someone who USED a gun after the ban went into effect. If the penalties are not strong enough, then there isn’t going to be any any motivation to comply and the problem won’t be solved <shrug>. We’ll be right back where we started! To further clarify (which I did before but will again repeat), what I said was that public hanging MIGHT be a way to make an example of a few to convince the majority to comply. If everyone complies, then no hanging will be needed. But then of course, this is unlikely, since you have the sub-group, which has posted here to the effect that they wouldn’t give up their guns, no way, no how. So hell, maybe we’ll need a firing squad instead of hanging, though that doesn’t seem quite as dramatic to me.

327

If only it were that easy.

Australia banned almost all guns in 1996. This made Guns difficult but not impossible to obtain. From the Australian Bureau of Statistics Year Book Australia 2002, Health Special Article - Suicide

Guns weren’t as available so they found other methods. The gun ban did nothing to decrease the number of suicides.

Australian Suicides

In fact, they went up.

I’ll readily admit that the U.S. and Australia are different and I can’t guarantee the same results here. What I can say is that this situation demonstrates what is possible, that removing guns will not stop suicides.

From 1995 to 2001, in the U.S., over 50% of the firearm deaths I listed were suicides. In 1993 only 47.8% of firearm deaths were suicides. Since it’s possible for the number of firearms to decrease and the number of suicides to increase, you cannot make a logical assumption that those lives would be saved. It’s possible but so is the inverse. You’ll have to decrease your estimate of lives saved to less than half of the total deaths each year.

In researching these statistics I’ve come across numerous articles claiming that when guns are banned (Australia and Britain) violent crimes increase. And I’ve come across just as many that claim crime has dropped in states (Texas and Michigan) that relax their restrictions on bearing arms. Accept or reject their claims as you like but there is no evidence that there is a correlation between the number of guns and the number of violent crimes and death. Ban guns and the number of crimes and death involving firearms will decrease sure, but that doesn’t mean the non-gun crimes and deaths won’t increase to match.

When Australia instituted it’s gun ban they had a buy-back program where they paid the owners for the guns they surrendered. There are an estimated 240 million guns in the U.S… If everyone was being ultra cooperative and agreed to receive $4 for each firearm, that would cost almost $1 billion.

I don’t have a very good idea of how much it would cost to add an amendment to the constitution but a figure of $100 million and up wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest.

I’m going to go out on a limb here because I’m not a U.S. Constitutional expert (anyone who knows feel free to correct me). The first ten amendments to the constitution, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights does not grant ‘We the People’ any rights. The Bill of Rights restrict the government from infringing on our ‘unalienable rights’.

By banning guns you will a) Deprive us of a fundamental right b) Spend upwards of $1 billion and c) you still won’t know if you will be saving lives, taking lives, or coming out ‘even’.

Please explain why this is a good thing.

328

People looking to kill themselves will always find a way to do so. Suicides were not my primary concern or focus. Murders, injuries and accidents are.

[QUOTE=tiglon1>From 1995 to 2001, in the U.S., over 50% of the firearm deaths I listed
>were suicides. In 1993 only 47.8% of firearm deaths were suicides.
>Since it’s possible for the number of firearms to decrease and the
>number of suicides to increase, you cannot make a logical assumption
>that those lives would be saved. It’s possible but so is the inverse.
>You’ll have to decrease your estimate of lives saved to less than half
>of the total deaths each year.

In researching these statistics I’ve come across numerous articles claiming that when guns are banned (Australia and Britain) violent crimes increase. And I’ve come across just as many that claim crime has dropped in states (Texas and Michigan) that relax their restrictions on bearing arms. Accept or reject their claims as you like but there is no evidence that there is a correlation between the number of guns and the number of violent crimes and death. Ban guns and the number of crimes and death involving firearms will decrease sure, but that doesn’t mean the non-gun crimes and deaths won’t increase to match.[/QUOTE]

Well, as we have seen far too often in this thread, people can make any statement they want, no matter how illogical. Doesn’t mean any of it is true or valid. We can’t rely on suppositions or “claims” as evidence of some unknown eventuality. Personally, I’d be willing to bet that your claims are wrong and that other violent crime will not increase were guns to be banned.

If we can spend a couple of hundred billion on Iraq, a country half a world away, I’d think that it would be worth spending at least as much here, if that is what it would take to get people to turn in their guns once and for all.

So are you saying that none of the first 10 amendments cannot be repealed? Since you brought this point up, you should provide a cite for this. Until then, I’ll operate on the assumption that there is no restriction on repealed ANY amendment to the Constitution.

a. Disagree. If the 2nd amendment is repealed, then any supposed “rights” it grants disappears.
b. $1 billion would be a cheap price to pay for the potential benefits.
c. I’m willing to drink the kool-aid and believe that lives would be saved by banning guns. If other weapons created equal havoc or problems, then we will have to deal with that problem(s) as it becomes necessary. But this is getting far out on the limb and is not really germane to this OP.

329

Only at the Federal level. One of the principles of our federal system is that a state may not have laws or a constitution that guarantee anything less than what is in the United States constitution, but the states may pass laws or write their constitution in a way that guarantees more rights. Here are some states I just picked mostly at random (though PA and NM are in there as I have an interest; all quotes taken from the NRA website):

New Mexico:

Pennsylvania:

Georgia:

Texas:

Washington:

Illinois:

Have I made my point yet? Simply annuling the Second Amendment of the US Constitution will not have an impact on the States. Not only will you have to get the US Constitution changed, but basically 50 individual state constitutions as well. Unless you can get the courts to rule that the Feds have complete jurisdiction over firearms, overruling the States, or something similar so that you are completely in the clear to take the sort of action you are advocating, simply annuling the Second Amendment and passing Federal laws will not do it. Witness the battle between the Feds and the States that have decriminalized marijuana, and increase that by a huge amount. That’s what you’ll get if you simply annul the Second Amendment.

Now, if you pull a combination Eighteenth Amendment and Twenty-First Amendment, you might be able to get somewhere. Though I would hope that history has taught us that changing the Constitution for trivial and frivious matters is a bad idea.

330

You have neglected once again to address the argument in any meaningful way. You heard a figure somewhere, and presented it as authoritative. The CDC figures which contradict you, you instantly dismissed as inaccurate. Why did you only respond that statistics were inaccurate when confronted with statistics that contradict your position, and what is the basis for that dismissal? Did you have any reason other than an inability to refute a position other than your own?

No, you behave that way to anyone who presents an argument you cannot refute. As you did here:

No, it has not been addressed. You have attempted to dismiss the argument and hope it will go away, but never directly addressed it. I suspect this is because you have no clue in the world about how to refute it, and are therefore hoping to pretend that it is not valid.

Therefore the point remains. If a prohibition on alcohol did not completely and finally eliminate the problems caused by alcohol abuse, what is your basis for believing that a prohibition on gun ownership will eliminate the problems of gun crime? Why is it that passing a law against something does not always make the problem go away?

Do you believe that guns are less easily concealable than alcohol? Do you believe that gun owners will tamely submit to handing their guns over to the government simply because the government tells them to? Do you believe that guns have a shorter “shelf life” than alcohol, and therefore are more perishable even if their owners choose not to comply with government edicts?

You have made an assertion (that banning guns will eliminate gun crime). You have provided no evidence in support of this, besides one statistic that you have already admitted is unreliable. You have consistently refused to discuss or recognize the consequences of your proposal, and have resorted to childish slurs and thinly veiled threats of violence against those who argue against you.

I look forward to your addressing the concrete issues mentioned in this thread. If you are unable or unwilling to debate in good faith, I suggest the Pit might be a better venue for our little discussion.

Regards,
Shodan

331

$4 per gun? Right! I can see why asterion picked that figure…it gives even numbers. But in reality, the government would have to pay a reasonable amount for every gun. This confiscation would be under the “Takings” clause, which SCOTUS has ruled on repeatedly. In my case, that would average well over $100 per firearm, based on purchase price minus depreciation. So you are talking something like $25 billion, averaged out across the US. Spending that amount of money to “potentially” save a few lives is ludicrous. Especially since the stats show that you in all likelihood won’t save any lives at all.

Add to that the price entailed in buying back all of the ammunition out there, the impact on the economy of throwing 10s of thousands of people out of work, and you have a disaster that will result in the loss of more lives than you could possibly hope to save. Basic cost-benefit analysis shows that your idea is counter-productive, even ignoring the wholesale gutting of the Constitution and fascist enforcement policies.

You refuse to address the really germane and applicable argument that demonstrates that banning something has never made it go away at any time in US history. Prohibition failed mightily, because people wanted alcohol, and were willing to ignore the law to get it. Banning guns won’t work, because peole want to own them, and will ignore the law to do so. If you want to decrease the number of gun deaths in the US, then work towards gun awareness and education. You can eliminate a very large number of the accidental deaths that way. Suicides are a wash…banning guns won’t stop them. So what you are left with is assaults and homicides by firearm, which you have no statistics to back up. The stats are inconclusive for either side. So, in the end, you have nothing to debate. If this was posted in IMHO, that would be appropriate. But here in GD, you gotta be able to back up your posts. You have failed to do so in any way other than to say “I believe it, therefore it must be true.” This is not debating…this is masturbating. Ohh…I made a funny.

Good luck in backing up your arguments…

332

I thought murder was illegal. And the the penalties were quite severe (up to and including excecution).

If harsh penalities for posession of guns will eliminate gun possesion, why haven’t harsh murder penalties eliminated murder? :confused:

333

As has been previously discussed - because penalties vary state to state and the maximum penalties are rarely applied. Also, in the eyes of the law, there are different classes of murder (1st degree, 2nd degree, justifiable homicide, etc.). But many criminals do seem able to plea bargain down to lower sentences with time off for good behavior. Our legal system is very screwed up. We often lock up drug possessors for longer sentences than someone who has murdered someone else.

334

I think you are wrong on this interpretation of the law. Are you a lawyer? Do you have any cites to back up your contentions on this point?

If you were correct, then no one would be very upset about Bush’s proposed Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. MA, CA, etc. could just say it is OK for gays to marry and be done with it. Similarly with marijuana laws. CA is in an on-going battle with the feds which claims that federal law classifying marijuana as an illegal drug supersedes state law (State statute authorized by voter passage of Proposition 215 in 1996 created an exemption from state laws that prohibit the cultivation and use of marijuana: it permits patients and their primary caregivers to possess and cultivate marijuana for personal medicinal use upon a physician’s recommendation or approval).

335

Asterion is mistaken in this instance. Otherwise, the 13th Amendment would be meaningless. South Carolina would just make it legal to keep slaves, and that would be that. Hmmmm…seems we fought a war or something over this… :smiley:

336

Constitutional amendment? About gay people? What the FUCK does that have to do with our country. Yep USA. Where the HELL is that stuff coming from?

The gay marriage stuff is a dodge and total bullshit. Does any one care?

I’m a married hetro liberal, and I will be keeping my guns. More so than ever before. IF THIS KIND OF CRAP KEEPS UP. I, as a good citizen will buy more guns and ammo.

Sorry, that was a rant, but had to say it.

337

Getting back to the OP of this thread: Making guns illegal.

[ol]
[li]We pass a law outlawing guns (I guess we assume police and military will still have them since iamme99 says they’re going to kill resisters).[/li][li]Law-abiding citizens turn in their guns, after which they are unable to defend themselves against criminals[/li][li]The violent crime rate rises as more criminals take advantage of gunless citizens.[/li][li]Turn-in resisters become criminals, and in defending their constitutional right, their actions create more violence.[/li][li]The police and military are just as inefficient as ever, and the criminals keep stepping up crimes of violence.[/li][li]More and more innocent people die.[/li][li]A few criminals die.[/li][li]More police and military die (re: what’s now happening in Iraq.)[/li][li]Either we start the second civil war, or a repeat of the lawlessness of prohibition ensues.[/li][li]Finally things “die” down (pun intended), and the criminals still have guns and will have long after my children are gone from this Earth.[/li][/ol]
So, that’s just IMNSHO, counter to the liststarters NSHO.

Plus, now that most guns are gone, technology will be driven to create something to fill the vacuum. Eventually some defensive device will be created that will result in more deaths, and which will be easier to acquire, hide and use, and which will be more difficult to track.

Now, I am NOT a gun owner, although iamme99 has accused me of being a “rabid gun owner.” That just because I believe that banning guns is a bad idea. Equivalent to assuming I own a plane cause I don’t want to ban airplanes. :dubious:

From examining the organized anti-gun-lobby, I find most of their arguments to be illogical, full of personal fear, full of designs to make a too-powerful government that rules people with an iron hand. All the historical examples I have found show a civilization on the verge of internal collapse. Perhaps in the long run that may be a good thing, but in the short term we’re going to see a lot of population culling, and the wrong people will get culled.

From examinations of iamme99’s posts, I see the same things: ignorance, inflexibility, fear, power-hunger, misuse of authority.

On top of that we keep going around in the same circles. This isn’t a thread, it’s a necklace. And it’s turning into a noose.

What to do? I say we start a new thread, entitled Guns, Freedom and Power where we can debate this issue rationally.

I’ll start the thread and I promise to never say “This was MY thread, it’s MY way, now GO AWAY if you don’t like it.” Hopefully we will get the true spirit of the debate we hoped to find here.

338

Taking guns away from common citizens will restore the inequity that existed when those who were stronger and had bigger armies had all the power.

Power corrupts… etc.

The Colt 6-gun was called “The Peacemaker” because it allowed people to stop overt aggression against peaceful peoples. Of course, power corrupts, and “The Peacemaker” was abused. But, instead of the abuse resting in the hands of the few, it was spread out, and in so spreading it was reduced, AND, most importantly, it could be countered.

Another name for the Colt was “The Equalizer,” because it allegedly made the weak equal to the strong and it allowed the few to protect themselves from the many.

Today, in the USA we have a pretty good balance. There have been far bloodier times in our nation’s history, and in world history. The only time I can think of that was more peaceful was the immediate post WWII era, the late 1940’s and the 1950’s into the early 1960’s. An age of relative peace and great prosperity and relatively uncorrupt government. A time of relative ease in owning and acquiring handguns, when a 16-year-old in Greenwich, Connecticut could go to a local dealer and purchase a pistol, and people could carry guns on airplanes.

Society changed, and the need for more restriction became necessary. Some reasonable laws and some stupid laws were passed, and some good ones were ignored. Frankly, I think felons should not have firearms, people under 21 should not have firearms, firearm safety should start being taught in 1st grade, gun-control proponants should also not be allowed firearms, nor should they be allowed bodyguards that carry firearms. Firearms should only be allowed for non-criminal, reasonable, firearm-educated adults.

339

A much better idea than the OP of this thread:

First: Take away all the criminals guns. iamme99 seems to think this is possible, and it’s already illegal for them to have guns, so let’s do that first.

Then, after all criminals are put away and their guns are destroyed, the only need we will have for guns is the next time the country is attacked, so we store them in a central location with several local citizens having access for all.

340

Moderator’s Notes:

  1. OK, this thread has gone on for 7 pages already, and I think that’s enough for now. I’m not saying none of you can ever start any new threads in Great Debates about this or that aspect of the Second Amendment, gun control, self-defense, or the ethics of private gun ownership, but if any of y’all do, tone it down. If you can’t debate like civilized people, you won’t be debating here at all, got it? Also remember, if you want to carry on a “discussion”, and you can’t keep it at least somewhat civilized, there’s always here.

  2. Snakespirit, please do not play “junior moderator”. If you think a post needs to be reported, report it. There’s no need to mention it in the thread (and still less need to mention that you’re not reporting this post, but you may report some other post.) If you have reported another poster, then either a.) ignore their rules violations while continuing to debate them regarding their substantive points (if any) in accordance to the rules, or b.) walk away and let the moderators handle the thread. Again, if you just have to call someone out on their behavior, that’s what the BBQ Pit is for.

(Links from Great Debates threads to Pit threads, in order to indicate to the person being Pitted and other posters in the GD thread are permissible, as long as the linking posts themselves don’t contain flames.)