Terribly sorry, Al, but I’m neither sputtering nor nor sticking out my tongue. I haven’t resorted to insulting you personally either, although I admit I’ve come close. I did insult your argument, and your style of arguing, however.
There is actually relatively little point in engaging in a debate with someone who will never, ever, ever admit that he is on occasion mistaken in his beliefs or opinions, who is not open to new ideas or angles, or who has adamantly made up his mind before the discussion even begins that he (or she) will not concede one single point, no matter how wrongheaded it is. When, let us say, five intelligent people patiently spend several posts trying to explain to me that I have failed to grasp a point, or misunderstood something, I generally take that as a sign that I have failed to grasp a point, or missunderstood something. Continuing to insist in such a situation that I am absolutely correct and they are all wrong is not debating – it’s holding a monologue. That is in essence what I’m accusing you of.
Naturally, when someone stubbornly holds onto a point in that manner over a long period of time, it tends to reduce his/her opponent to red-faced, stuttering jello. It does not, however, prove that he is correct. It only proves that he is pigheaded.
No, not really. You’re supposed to go down to the corner store and buy a clue.
Of course I did. But in your response, you patently ignored again the point that I and several other posters have made over and over – the example is not about specifics. It is a metaphor. Guns and cars are very different and no one is suggesting that they should be regulated in the same manner, except you. They have one commonality: they are privately owned items that also have a potential to cause damage to others. Thus, cars are regulated in a manner that is appropriate for cars. No one here argues, for example, that requiring car registration for the operation of a motor vehicle is a serious imposition on their personal freedom, even though technically, it is. I could continue reducto ad absurdum by claiming that your argument against gun control is tantamount to arguing that cars should not be regulated, insured, or registered, or that it is totalitarian to insist that every American get a driver’s liscence to operate a car.
Look – the metaphor does not in and of itself justify stricter gun control legislation. At most, it implies that there is some – a little – logical justification for such legislation. That’s all. Hell, even using my own argument, you can say exactly this: “Sure, cars are regulated. But guns need to be regulated differently…” or some such thing. The only thing you would be admitting by allowing the logic of the metaphor is that there is a certain vague parallel between regulating the operation of a car, and regulating the operation of a gun. That’s it.
This is patently untrue. My first two responses included several arguments that were directly addressed to you. After watching several other posters try to get this rather simple metaphor through your head, I made two attempts myself. I’m fully aware of what you have been arguing and there really is no need to back up and go over it again. But in a sense you are technically correct: by your third response, I also had given up hope of getting my point through to you.
Let me try to put it another way: I bet if we were to switch sides, and I was to argue pro-gun, I could do it with the best of them. That is because I have come to understand the core arguments at a very basic level. I bet I could make a very daunting pro-gun advocate. Could you do the same – switch to the anti-gun side and effectively argue for it? If not, then you have not yet understood your opponents’ arguments to the extent necessary to argue against them.
(Here, let me help you out with a quick sound-bite response to the above: Weird Al: the reason you can switch sides is because the pro-gun position is so reasonable, and the anti-gun so foolish. Insert little green smiley face, avoid point of argument, and skip blithely on to next jibe.)
I can concede to Anthracite, for example, that she has some very strong points. I can concede to Freedom that my original arguments about Switzerland were incorrect, that he in fact was right, and that Switzerland is a good historical example (with certain reservations) of the pro-gunners vision of a well-armed yet peaceful society.
In my first post in this thread, I ranted that pro-gun advocates never concede that they may be incorrect on a specific point. Confronted with the strongest of arguments, they continuely try to weasel out. This is in fact very unlike me, since I never make such sweeping generalizations about others, and to be honest, I quite like Freedom, ExTank, Uncle Beer and the others here, to the extent that I know them. I also respect them. Yet here I sit, still waiting with baited breath for an example that contradicts the above contention. I asked you before, Al if there was not one single argument in favor of gun control that you felt had some sort of merit. You didn’t answer it then, and I’ll betcha a fiver you won’t answer it this time, either.
I have no statistics, but I’m quite certain that these tragic events do happen.
Well…err…perhaps it is not best to discuss it then, if we don’t know any of the actual facts.
Well, what were the details of the case? Was he threatened? Or was the boy running away, unarmed, at the time? How is this relevant?
You see…here is where your argument falters. You have already set up a situation that has all the information. In real life, many times the person in the situation will not have this information until ex post facto. I can say with pretty much 100% confidence that no gun owner here advocates shooting to kill an unarmed intruder, or an “18-year old sneak thief”. You can’t throw out “wrong for people to die just for being in the wrong house” and relate it in any way to “right to react without being required to gather information about intent beyond a reasonable doubt and a moral certainty” (my quote, not yours).
Very few people, not even I, are going to shoot to kill, or desire to even shoot to warn or at all, at an unarmed intruder who means no harm. The problem is when you are in that situation, you do not have access to the full information.
And in gathering the full information, you expose yourself to being seriously injured, raped, killed, or having the same happen to your loved ones. I do not say this is the most common outcome, nor even a likely one - it’s most often a very unlikely one. But being a rape “survivor” (if one can actualy survive it… :rolleyes: ) I can tell you if there is a 1% chance of an intruder in my house doing that to me, well, that is too high to be acceptable to me. And depending on the circumstances and their actions and responses to my action they may die. Whether they are the 18-year old sneak thief or the 35-year old sociopath.
And if someone threatened my little Fierra in my house, armed or not…ohh…that would be really really bad for them… :mad:
*Whew! Thank God. I thought you didn’t love me anymore.
Concerning the sword thang: bummer that we seem to be getting bogged down in this. I also think it’s a moot point, except for one small nit: one can’t claim equal lethality on the basis of differential levels of intent. To do so would be equivalent to claiming that water is as poisonous to the human system as arsenic – provided you drink enough water. I’m sure you grasp this point. In order to compare the actual lethality of the weapons involved, you must assume equality of intent.
I also doubt that swords and guns are even remotely adjacent on the list of lethal items, but I’m no expert here. Anyway, I understand that the argument is not yours, so I hope you don’t think I’m taking you to task too hard over it.
*Again, this is assuming that liberal gun legislation is the default position. I can just as easily argue that it is incumbent upon you to statistically (or otherwise) prove that we should maintain the status quo, given all the violence inherent in the system.
*I’m not being dogmatic about it, I’m stating it as an alternative possiblity. As far as “sensible gun control” goes, I think there is actually some value in keeping the phrase vague at this point. It gives opposing parties an opportunity to find a compromise over just exactly what “sensible” means.
I think that there may be some misunderstanding regarding my stance on gun control here as well, so, for the record: I certainly don’t advocate this hard line “all guns are bad” Brady & Co. position. I think that if someone wants to own a gun, they ought to, and it ain’t none of my business (as I’ve stated before). I’ve no doubt that you, for example, are a responsible gun owner and I would hope to infringe upon your rights as little as possible. But with the preponderance of gun violence in America, it just doesn’t make sense to me to continue to argue in favor of liberal gun laws. In fact, in my opinion a truly responsible gun owner would welcome tighter restrictions as a means of keeping weapons out of the hands of “the criminal element” and insuring his community’s sense of security. That’s certainly the case over here, where few (or no) gun owners are particularly troubled by the “restrictive” legislation.
*Well, it certainly seems like a common-sense sort of assumption. And anyway, granting the lack of conclusive statistical evidence, why do you argue that there is no such connection (especially when it seems so counter-intuitive)?
Besides, maybe I should shut my mouth; after bemoaning the lack of statistical verification, russ showed up with some serious studies. I seem to have shot my fellow anti-gunner in the foot.
*It was? I wasn’t aware of that. I had heard or read otherwise, somewhere.
*Of course. I’m interested in stopping the bloodshed, not infringing on people’s rights. Should, for example, you convince me that gun crimes, or even violent crimes in general, go up when gun ownership goes down, I’d be arguing against gun control. And I’m even listening for such arguments, which in my opinion are the absolute strongest proffered by the pro-gun community.
I just honestly cannot get the argument to jive with my own personal experience. Having lived both in the US and in Sweden, I can tell you from direct, first hand experience that Sweden is much more secure. There are certainly lots of reasons for that, but one of them is almost certainly due to strict constraints on the possession and use of firearms. And even here, in some ways, the laws are more liberal than they are in the US. There is no required waiting period for the purchase of a firearm, for example.
Finally, this point:
Directly contradicts Anthracite’s earlier characterization of a break-in, which is more like this:
*And in point of fact, I’m more inclined to accept her version of the situation as the more likely.
amrussel: talk about misquoting. Are you sure that you’re not a professional politician?
You have said that registration may be one method. You haven’t raised any others. At all. So, since registration is the only possible method that you have mentioned, I felt that it was the only point that I should address. I don’t subscribe to the Pink Unicorn Theory. I asked you to demonstrate how registration alone (as in: isolated from other causes and effects) had any effect on the violent crime rate. Anywhere.
Australia is one case. However, it has yet to be shown, causally, that registration in and of itself is a reason.
Now, do you wish to continue to preen, pose and obfuscate, or address my points with substance?
I brought it up in response to your statement:
I guess that the American Lung Association are bad, bad people for not addressing heart disease, diabetes or leukemia. My point is that most of the pro-gun lobby, as a special interest group, picks and chooses its battles as necessary, just like any other special interets group. HCI is one view. Ours has the advantage of being right.
Funny, I have links showing violent crime in Australia is up. And every time they’re posted (by myself or others), the Aussies jump in and deny them. Thank you, no. I’ll take my evidence from a source other than a gun-control happy socialist regime on one continent with Monarchist roots on another continent. Like, for instance, the Bureau of Justice, here in the U.S.A.
And I never claimed that registration would have no effect on crime; I believe that, but never declared that it wouldn’t. You, who do not live here, and probably have a limited grasp of our culture, are arguing that it does and will. Links to Australia’s crime stats are not evidence that it does; they are just showing trends without causality implied. You assumed causlaity in your beliefs, and implied causality here on this board, and I asked for evidence.
I merely illustrated a range of possible “anythings”, from least to worst, from my point-of-view. Why are you getting hysterical?
I don’t understand. Are you saying that you would like to see licensing before registration? Along with? Are you sure you understand the differences between licensing owners and registering firearms? That they are indeed two separate issues?
Been there, done that. It’s called the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Sure, for those who can afford it. Not everyone can. Not everyone is able, such as renters. I cannot make the alterations to my apartment that you describe; the propert managers would have a conniption fit, and charge me for the removal of those modifications! So all things not being equal, I must rely upon a firearm for home defense until such time as I can afford my own house and any security precautions that may be installed. And I am quite average in that regard.
But passive defense also suffer deficiencies. They cannot take initiative or exercise judgement; once breached, they are no longer effective. I, as a functionally sentient human being, can evaluate and plan according to individual situations, and exercise discretion at will. In other words, I am an active, not passive form of defense.
And I much prefer to be in control of my own destiny, as much as humanly possible; to be an active participant, rather than a passive one.
And anectdotes are representative of what percentage of the number of self defense cases?
Apologies for mis-attributing; jdavidpope brought up the “win/lose fear factor”. Since you were kind enough to address it anyway, I’ll rebut.
It would seem that we have an impasse here, logically, and will have to agree to disagree until such time as more and clearer evidence exists. You are concerned about misuse of guns by all classes of people, but seem to feel the onus is upon all lawfull gun owners to justify their needs and desires because of the actions of a few, as you don’t think that any method can discriminate between classes of people.
So I’m going to borrow a phrase from Prime Minister’s Question Time: I refer my honorable friend to the answer I gave some moments ago: The Gun Control Act of 1968. While admittedly flawed, the National Instant Background Check system is an excellent step towards correcting those flaws, by allowing real-time identification of “undesirable classes of people” at the Point-of-Sale, and thus denying them firearms on the spot.
You also cite “classes of guns that can kill multiple victims in a few seconds.”
Another news flash: just about any firearm type invented after the mid-19th century falls into this category, from the revolver, the lever-action rifle, the bolt-action rifle, the pump-action shotgun, and any semi-automatic firearm. Again, the focus on instrumentality rather than perpetrator’s mentality. If I had a mind, I could wipe out a school bus full of kids with a standard pump-action shotgun, commonly used for bird hunting. Or a lever-action rifle. Or a semi-auto with several 10-rd. clips.
You’ve obviously never seen a Trabant.
And how many incidents of speeding, or how many accidents, were caused from someone deliberately going fast, or from accidentally missing the brake?
Not always; you’re quite the emotional hand-wringer to suggest that it is so. Can you yank the emotional chain any harder? You completely discount the times when killing is perfectly justified. Or the times when people kill paper targets. Or clay pigeons. Or hunt and kill animals in season. Which I’m willing to wager are 99%+ of the situations of firearms discharges.
Bullshit. At no time will any of those machines perform as described unless a human will operates it in such a manner to make it do so. AGAIN: you ascribe instrumentality to effect, not the human motivation behind the operation of the instrument.
Quite possibly it is a coincidence. America is unique among industrialized nations in its “High gun availability/High violent crime” status. But no hard evidence (or even soft, for that matter) exists to ascribe high gun availability to high violent crime.
Svinlesha: what makes you think that your arguments are particularly strong? Or even novel? Trust me on this babe; I’ve seen them and heard them before. They are no more effective today, when you have reitierated them, than the hundreds, if not thousands of times that we’ve heard them before. If we don’t reply to your satisfaction, that is not indicative of any moral or logical superiority on your part; to automatically assume so is the height of arrogance. I’[d just as soon say “get bent” and ignore you, if you weren’t generally nice and intelligent.
And if you make another “weasel out” comment, then this is going to The Pit. If I don’t address your points, maybe it’s because I’m tired of covering the same old ground, again, that was covered in the last GCD. And the one before it. And the one before it. And the one before it. And the one before it. And the one before it.
Also: my version of a break in scenario was not contradictory to Anthracites in my view; perhaps if you illustrated the differences…?
Anthracite said in closing (disregarding her Fierra commentary):
Emphasis mine. And I feel that that jibes pretty much with what I said; not having been the victim of a multiple raping, I may be a bit more dispassionate on the subject than she is.
Perhaps the laser beam pointing at the middle of the intruder’s forehead gives me an unjustified sense of security.
I never claimed that there was no such connection. I’m just unwilling to accept, prima facie, that there is on a “common sense” basis, counter-intuitivity notwithstanding. After all, by looking at the Earth’s horizon, I can reach the common-sense conclusion that the earth is indeed flat, and arguments for its generally spherical shape are really quite counter-intuitive.
I have learned, here on the Straight Dope, by rough and gentle example alike, to always apply a healthy shot of intellectual (as much as my tired old reactionary mind can muster) skepticism.
In the first place, I don’t think anyone used the word “metaphor” before you did, though I could be wrong; in any case, yes I had seen you use it before, but I didn’t make the logical connection. Perhaps this is my fault; however:
**metaphor ** n. a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action that it does not literally denote in order to imply a resemblance, for example he is a lion in battle.
Whether you meant gun as metaphor for car, or car as metaphor for gun, I just don’t see it. Maybe it’s just me. But my understanding of the gun/car issue was that it was an analogy:
analogy n.
agreement or similarity, esp in a certain limited number of features or details.
a comparison made to show such a similarity: to draw an analogy between an atom and the solar system.
The second definition, specifically. Guns and cars are compared, found to be similar in that they are both machines with moving parts that can “cause” death or injury, and thus the argument is made that guns should be licensed and/or registered, as are cars. I proceeded to argue that this was a poor analogy.
Now, I cannot of course read minds, but I think the person who first raised the issue in this thread, and people in general who make this argument, were and are making analogies, and this is how I have been treating it. I think it is a particularly bad analogy, and I have seen people raise it many times before, and while I am against gun control in general, I am just unusually obsessive about this idea in particular. Sort of the way I favor correct usage in general, but I am particularly incensed when people say “I could care less”.
So, if you think of this issue as a metaphor and not an analogy, perhaps you are wrong to do so, and perhaps I am just dense for not seeing it, but the fact is, I don’t.
:eek: Ok, you said something like this in another post, and then corrected it, so I am going to assume this is an innocent mistake.
Well, I would quibble about “cause”, but never mind, however you define it, it is common to both of them. This is perfectly reasonable; in fact above I even went a little further, noting they were both machines with moving parts.
Hmmmmmm…now I am at a bit of a loss to understand what we are arguing. As I said, I am not sure how you mean “metaphor”. If we substitute analogy for metaphor in the above paragraph, I could come very close to agreeing. I said it was poor analogy; poor could be translated as, say, 5 on a scale of one hundred, and that could be translated as “a little”. Though this is admittedly a stretch.
That would have to be a very, very vague parallel. As far as I can see, the only parallel between the operation of these two things is that they can both cause death or injury, but the same can be said about an awful lot of other things too. And, as I have said before, I think the operation of cars ought to be legal, but regulated, while the operation of guns ought to be illegal under most circumstances, and regulated when it is allowed, except for self defense.
A lot of truth in that statement…perhaps I could…ummm…play an anti-gunner on tv. It wouldn’t be easy for me though. As you may have gathered, I feel quite strongly about this issue. As for whether you would be a “very daunting pro-gun advocate”…I’ll take your word for it.
Well. I don’t know about gun control specifically, however you seem to be saying, both here and in the other statement quoted in the top of this post, that I am rigid and inflexible in my thinking, to which I take great offense. To attempt to show otherwise, I am going to do something I am loathe to do, and go off topic on a total 90 degree angle.
I used to be a faithful Roman Catholic. As a consequence of this, I was a religious conservative on a number of issues, most notably abortion. I am not going to get into the details of my intellectual journey, it is bad enough that I am mentioning this at all on a gun control thread, but long story short, when I was a teenager I forsook my faith and became an atheist, which evolved into my current agnosticism. I gradually changed my mind on much of the religious conservatism, including abortion; I still think it is immoral in most cases, but I do not support laws banning it.
The fact that I have not demonstrated flexibility in my positions in the 2 or 3 debates I have had with you is far from enough to make the assumption that I am a rigid ideologue, and if you have done so you are being quite sloppy with your assumptions. And BTW, please do not comment directly on any of the above stuff in this thread…like I said, it’s bad enough I bought it up at all.
A few other things:
SighAnthracite, I do so wish your attitude was more common, among women, and for that matter, men. If you don’t want to discuss this please forgive my asking, but did your experience as a rape victim lead you embrace your current views?
ROTFL! And hopefully we never will.
amrussel No I still haven’t forgotten you, but you seem to be plenty busy with ExTank anyway.
I know for a fact that homeless people get robbed, so I’m guessing that even having having a small amount of money or valuables in your home is enough to motivate some people.
And then there is rape and murder…
Most of us on the other side agree. We just think that it is a better situation to put that burglar on the short end of the stick instead of the homeowner.
IOW…
If things were our way, I have no problem with 10 sneak thiefs dying if it means that even one homeowner is able to save their own life in a moment of true need.
I’m sure that equation is different for others on both sides of the debate, and I’m not even sure where I would draw the line for myself. The difference to me is not one of good and bad, but one of choice.
The sneak thief can decide to avoid the situation while the homeowner is forced into it. If someone can’t be bothered to respect others, I can’t be expected to put their safety above mine.
Or my wife.
Or my mother.
Or my children.
It’s pretty simple, just don’t break into a home that isn’t yours.
The problem with that little bit of logic is that gun ownership is at an all time high, and gun crimes have been decreasing for years.
Awww…shucks
blushes
Well…there was a recent thread where someone put forth a far fetched scenario in the OP and pretty much all of us ridiculed it.
For me personally, the only place I come close to agreeing with the gun grabbers is on limiting the amount of guns you can buy within a certain time period.
My initial firarms purchase consisted of 2 rifles and a revolver. A couple of months later I bought a shotgun and .22 rifle at a gun show. Other that that, all my firearms purchases have been single purchases.
I have trouble seperating truth from the hysteria sometimes. I don’t see this as my fault. I have spent countless hours arguing the issue and tearing apart ridiculous claims from HCI and the rest of the gang. At this point, they have lost all credibility with me. I have seen them lie outright about everything from the Kellerman study to the MM March attendance, to the 6 kids a day figure. I still can’t understand why they haven’t been pushing Project Exile across the entire country. I also think that any little compromise they win only motivates them to attack the 2nd Amendment with renewed vigor.
I don’t really know if strawmen purchases are a huge source of illegal guns. I just can’t tell. I also hate the thought of encouraging the gun control lobby.
But if Strawmen purchases are a large source of illegal guns, I see no problem with limiting purchases during certain time frames. One gun a month makes me a little queasy, but one gun a week with a once a year, 3 gun multiple purchase exception, is a plan I could live with.
[1] Despite what you may think, gun violence plays a very small role in America outside of the inner cities.
There are more children who die accidentaly in pools than by guns over here.
[2] Tighter restricitions are in place in the places where gun violence is the most concentrated.
People on this side of the arguement would love to see what would happen in inner cities if the loosened up the concealed carry laws.
As for Australia and England…I think we need two or three more years to judge the effect of the gun bans over there.
I love seeing how misunderstood American gun laws are.
There is no waiting period to buy a gun in America.
In certain states, you may have to wait to get a license. (like fucking NJ) In other cases you may have to wait for some paperwork to go through if you are buying a class III firearm. What really happens is that you go through an instant background check when you buy from a licensed dealer. In the majority of the time, the system spews out an answer in a couple of minutes. Some of the time you have to wait a day or two for the check to be complete.
It is my understanding that the longer checks stem from incomplete reports, such as recording an arrest, but not recording the outcome of the trial.
…And a big fat rise in other forms of crime. Currently, Australia’s crime rate is higher than America’s. So, pray tell, what’s the point of lowering the number of “gun crimes” if all you succeed in doing is raising all other forms of crime?
Second, the “burden of proof” issue that Svin seems intent on miscontruing…
You’ve just been watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail, haven’t you?
Nevermind.
See, when you claim that, the burden of proof is still on you. YOU have to show that there is violence “inherent in the system”, and you have to show that your solution will solve it. People who do NOT want the law merely have to show that, 1. There ISN’T the problem that you’ve described, and 2. Your solution wouldn’t solve the problem anyway.
So, here’s what YOU have to do:
Show evidence that there’s a crime problem that needs to be dealt with (given that crime’s at a low point, good luck).
Show evidence how the solution you advocate would solve that problem.
Until then, it doesn’t matter what the “supporters of the status quo” do… they can sit at home, eating cheese and watching Jerry Springer, and the burden of proof will still be on you, no matter HOW many times you cry fowl with gratuitous use of the word “liberal”.
I wasn’t the first to bring up registration, and it had been the sole point of debate (OK, the analogy had) for some time when I posted. So I, too, felt it was the only point I should address. Going back to my original post I identified the problem of gun control as one of ensuring, as far as possible within the constraints of e.g. the Constitution, Bill of Rights etc. that guns were overwhelmingly in the hands of legitmate purchasers, who could reasonably be expected to use them lawfully. Registration is an attempt to deal with this from the supply perspective, preventing guns passing from gun stores into the hands of criminals. The other broad route which I would advocate following is to crack down on the illegal gun market.
Australia is one case. However, it has yet to be shown, causally, that registration in and of itself is a reason.
Well, I might try the other option of indulgin in empty ad hominem rhetoric, if you like.
No, I brought that up in response to your statement that crime was caused by a myriad of complex social factors which were really the proper area for attention. And I agree that there are. But I think it’s possible to treat the symptoms as well as the disease.
.
Well, frankly, what can I say? If you’re only going to listen to the evidence you want to hear, you’re not debating. How dare the Australians attempt to correct your impression of their crime statistics? What an affront. The Australians have access to all the data, they’ve analysed it, controlled for other factors, and come to the conclusion that gun registration worked. Which aspect of their analysis do you disagree with? Where did the trained criminologists and statisticians go so badly wrong?
I merely illustrated a range of possible “anythings”, from least to worst, from my point-of-view. Why are you getting hysterical?
Fine. I have never said that I am against the use of guns for self defense. On the contrary, I’m strongly in favour of it, where the threat is clear. The only reason I brought up the point in the first place because I wanted to see an acknowledgment that there was a difference between a “criminal” and “someone who deserves to die”.
You offered not even an anecdote, but a description of how you would handle yourself in a hypothetical situation, and extrapolated from that that no-one using a gun for self defense would ever kill a non-threatening home invader. I offered two real events in return, one of which I admitted was hazy but the other of which happened very recently and was the subject of well-publicised court case, to show that in fact not all gun-owners are as calm as you in a crisis. Tony Martin, to answer Anthracite’s questions, shot the teen thief in the back as he was climbing out a window, fleeing the property. The thief was totally unarmed.
When did I talk about justifying needs or desires?
Great. But if it’s flawed, and it’s just an “excellent step towards correcting those flaws” then something else is needed, right?
I can’t bring myself to believe that there is absolutely no difference in the capabilities of any weapon developed since the mid-19th century. Think of the savings we could make to the defense budget if we could persuade our respective governments to stop wasting money buying these silly modern guns for their soldiers.
Good point. For some reason, when I think of cars, Trabants don’t leap to mind. Mind you, they rarely leap anywhere…
Doesn’t matter. I’m breaking with tradition by analogizing to cars without considering their dangerous properties. It was just an example of a machine.
Yes, I know not always. But I was talking specifically about how panicky, angry, home defense kind of situations. And in any case, “then someone dies” doesn’t discount times when killing is justified.
I know that! Absolutely, yes, human will is needed. But, my god, you do not rely on your human will to defend your home. You rely on human will plus a gun, because you know that if it comes down to it, the gun is the best tool for translating your will into direct action. My issue is, what if that will lasts for just as long as it takes to pull the trigger, and no longer? The gun will still do it’s job. Unfortunately, the panicky or angry person has now realised that there’s no threat, or that although they’re angry they don’t really want to kill the guy, but it’s too late. That’s because the gun is an inaminate object, and performs its function quickly and well.
How about ascribing high violent crime to high gun availability? Can you explain, in any case, why you think it might be a co-incidence that a society with widespread availability of tools which enable violent crime, has a high rate of violent crime? See, I start with the assumption that I can’t commit e.g. armed robbery, unless I have a gun. I would like to see evidence that people who commit armed robbery, or other gun crimes, would all, without exception, find a way to commit the same crime without their guns.
Cranky has stated an opinion in an earlier post, and someone has criticized what they feel is a weakness in it. Cranky responds by considering what the other poster said, granting that there is in fact some merit in the rebuttal, and will now try explain her meaning more thoroughly by referring to an example.
It seems clear to me from the context here, that Cranky is merely drawing a parallel for the purposes of explication. She has not introduced a point-by-point comparison of gun vs. car regulation (am I really writing this?), nor is she interested in doing so.
Half a page down:
Note that nowhere in her original post has Cranky even made this claim. She’s simply shown that there exists a regulatory framework around car ownership, appropriate for cars, and on that basis argued that there is thus nothing inherently illogical with the idea that perhaps this would be a good thing for firearms as well. In fact, she points out that most of the “responsible gun owners” around her do have to go through a certain amount of “rigmarole” in order to purchase their guns, but they’re okay with that. But you, Al seem to have a different agenda. You want to turn this into a point for point comparison, guns vs. cars, quite alien to the idea Cranky was originally tying to convey.
You’re now claiming that you feel regulating guns in the way one regulates cars would be a “vast improvement.” Compare to your last response:
Continuing:
Ah, I stand corrected. Here, at least, you seem to close to the point. If, indeed, the argument was that cars and guns should be regulated in a similar manner, you might even be correct. Unfortunately, no one but you has made that claim.
And then, STOP THE PRESSES! ATTENTION PRO-GUNNERS! YOU HAVE A TRAITOR IN YOUR MIDST!
Freedom, I, I don’t know how to say this, but…we seem to be in agreement. I would even grant the vast majority of your demands as well, I think.
Anyway, returning to the by this point totally irrelevant and idiotic continuing saga about cars and guns, we see a few posts down that Kimstu points out the invalidity of your use of analogy. A bit further on, Cranky affably retorts:
Again: as is clearly shown by her comments, Cranky is not interested in, or arguing for, a concrete point-by-point comparison of cars vs. guns. She is merely using the analogy to illustrate a basic principle: that sometimes even private ownership of an item is regulated by the state in some sensible manner, and thus it stands to reason that one can do the same with firearms. Nothing more or less. Meanwhile, you get into a pissing match, first with Kimstu, et.al., over whether or not the details of the comparison makes it a “valid analogy.” The match is long, irrelevant, and too tiresome to quote, so I hope you don’t mind if I skip it. It ends when Kim gives up all hope of making headway with you and concludes:
Enter Svinlesha, stage left.
Now, after all of this mess, I admit that it was foolish of me to think that I could wade in and try to clear it up; wiser posters had already abandoned the field. But I did, leading to the yet another pissing match with you, one that I’m not particularly enjoying and that I find honestly pointless and sterile. I say once again – you are not debating, you’re holding a monologue. So continue if you wish, arguing that cars and guns are “both machines with moving parts.” And for what it’s worth, I’ve been using the words “metaphor” and “analogy” interchangeably during this discussion: it isn’t a debate on semantics, I hope!
Anyway, concerning my accusation that your thinking is “inflexible”: I don’t know anything about your past and wouldn’t think of using it against you. You might actually be the most flexible fellah on the planet. But if so, you have failed to demonstrate it in these debates. My response is based purely on that very small slice of you that I’ve seen here, and nothing else. Thus, your history with the Church isn’t really all that relevant; if you want to prove yourself a flexible fellow, then do so here.
Oh, by the way: looks like I won my bet.
Tank:
Never thought I’d use that face here.
I’ve been thinking about that, by the way. I do wonder if I come off sounding a bit uppity at times. It’s really not my intention. I don’t claim moral or logical superiority, I just think that when I post an argument that I consider strong, or valid, and my opponent skips selectively over it to address some triviality (like: guns vs. cars – Should they be regulated in the same manner? Are they a valid analogy?), it strikes me as bad, if not downright disingenuous, debating tactics. I don’t know which arguments that I’ve made that are tiresome to you (except in the discussion with Al, above, which should by this point be tiresome to everybody), but I do know that I requested, for example, that some of the pro-gunners here help me out somewhere along the way, and at least admit that they found some small argument from the anti-gun side a bit compelling. I see now that I (thank God) must withdrawn my original rant, at least to some extent, on the basis of Freedom’s admission (quoted above). I would also like to point out that Free is the only one who actually responded to my original question by granting the possibility that we “gun-grabbers” might have a point about multiple weapon purchases.
You must surely understand that if I on occasion grant my opponents right, when they have made what I consider a strong, logical, or valid case for their position, then it must be particularly frustrating when the courtesy is not returned. I feel that I am also capable of seeing when my position is strong, valid, or logical: but in such instances I look in vain (most often) for any admission on the part of my opponent; generally, the debate devolves in such situations into bickering over hair-splitting trivialites.
Pit if you must, Tank: that would be a major bummer, but unfortunately I can only call them like I see them.
Actually, that part of my rant wasn’t directed specifically at you. Although I would be interested to know if there is a single argument in favor of gun-control that you believe has some sort of validity as well. And now, I’m going to get myself into trouble:
You see, that’s weaseling. You believe that you can quote the Lott study with impunity, but as soon as an opponent introduces a study that provides evidence against your claims, you dismiss it. In fact, dismissing the study cited by russ on the basis that it is produced by a “gun-control happy socialist regime” is nothing less than an ad homniem (sp?) attack, not worthy of what I believe are your true debating skills.
Regarding the rest of your response, I’m not just skipping over it now; this post is already too long, I’ve got other stuff I need to do, and so forth. So I’ll just let it drop for now.
Freedom:
Thanks.
Your reply deserves a longer response, but just for the sake of short hand, I agree that there is no point in citing hysterical figures from the HCI (granting that they are hysertical, about which I know little), and that it’s difficult to seperate the shit from the shinola in this debate. But I appreciate you at least giving the anti-gun crowd the benefit of the doubt in one instance, rather than tarring all of us over with a single brush, and I particularly appreciate you providing some evidence that that my rant was wrong.
SPOOFE:
Naw, I’m just arguing that the burden of proof, in may opinion, cuts both ways. I think it is incumbent upon pro-gunners to also present evidence that the status quo is the best possible solution. That doesn’t, however, absolve us anti-gunners from proving our point. The status quo is an inertial position, so to speak, that a society has come to; in and of itself, it has no claim to being the best, or most moral, solution.
I do so love that film.
What a revolting image. Anyway, I’m certain that’s what they will be doing – whether this a defensible behavior or not is a different issue.
What about the teen thief’s accomplice, who was also wounded but wielding a crowbar that he used to break in (who, BTW, had 35 previous court appearances, and had already served 4 separatejail sentences by the age of 30)? Or the fact that the teen, at the age of 16, already had 29 convictions? He was shot in the house and collapsed on the window sill trying to get out. If you’re going for the sympathy vote, methinks another supporting cause celebre is needed.
No it isn’t. This is precisely the point. I’m not trying to claim that the boy was a saint. Clearly he was a thief. The information about his, and accomplice’s, criminal record is not so relevant because it was, of course, unknown to Tony Martin at the time. As far I can see, none of the details you posted justify the shooting of this boy in the back. Yes, he was a petty criminal. Yes, he shouldn’t have been there. Yes, the owner had a right to defend his property. But to say that these facts justify his death? I don’t think so.
But I’m interested to see what other people’s opinions are.
I find the selective quotation in which you are engaging here to be intellectually dishonest; I am not accusing you of doing it intentionally, but you have done it. All you needed to do to show the complete exchange between myself and CAAOM on this subject was to quote my last response, which I will do here, to set the record straight:
CrankyAsAnOldMan: *You’ve got excellent points-- but no, I wasn’t implying this. I brought up this example merely as an analogy: intelligent, mature, responsible people willingly submitting to pain-in-the-ass governmental oversight and inconvenient regulations before being allowed to legally do something they’re perfectly capable of doing safely even without all the paperwork. I’m saying we do it for the right to drive our cars (for reasons I’ve stated), why is it considered such an incredible imposition to do it for the possession of guns? *
Weird_Al_Einstein: *In the US, how much of an “incredible imposition” it is to get a gun varies widely from place to place. As I said earlier, in Vermont there are no laws at all; in NYC, you have to jump through multiple flaming hoops to even have a chance to legally own a gun.
Naturally, opinions among gun owners and gun rights advocates vary as to how much of an “imposition” it is in various places. Many gun owners are quite uncomplaining and tolerant of all the rigamarole they have to go through.
My point, though, is that if the state wants to hold up hoops for you to jump through in order to get a gun, or drive a car, or whatever, it has to have a good reason for doing so. The reason it makes people get driver’s licences is (to oversimplify the matter) to prevent highway accidents. If the state wants to similarly impose on gun owners, it has to have a justification for doing so. *
Please note very carefully that when she said “…but no, I wasn’t implying this.” I dropped the whole gun/car thing. This was my last exchange with CAAOM; it was Kimstu who picked up the subject and rolled with it, and it was with her that I have had the bulk of this exchange. If you want to rehash that be my guest, but please do not resort to quoting only her, and not my responses.
Yes, I said it would be a “vast improvement”, in the sense that gauging out one eye is a “vast improvement” over gauging out both of them…I certainly wouldn’t advocate either one, though, and I challenge you to find anything in this thread in which I did advocate “that they should be regulated in the same manner”.
Yes, there is a reason I used the word “if”.
Here I am really raising my eyebrows. Once again, you selectively quote, showing us what Freedom would be willing to “go along with”, but not what he demands in exchange, and present this as evidence that he is a “traitor”. In fact, if he is a “traitor” then so am I, as I would likely go along with the same deal…the whole thing mind you, not just the parts you quote…if there were some way of insuring that it would stay that way.
Let me get this straight: To prove that I am “flexible”, I must agree with you on something?
And here are some more tactics you are employing which I consider to be intellectually dishonest. You are losing an argument; hence, you belittle the importance of the argument itself, calling it a “pissing match”, “irrelevant”, “idiotic”, “tiresome”, a “mess”, "pointless, and “sterile”. If you want to withdraw, just withdraw…saying “and it was a stupid game anyway” is just childish, remember nobody forced you to play.
And another thing that I find tiresome, this condescending intellectual pose you seem to have adopted, that you are the “adult” coming in to “clean up the mess”, trying to “patiently explain” to me why I am so obviously wrong, but you just can’t seem to “get through to me” because I am “holding a monologue” (perhaps saying “la la la” with my hands over my ears), so you “give up in disgust” and tell me to “buy a clue”.
All this stuff may be fun for you, but it is no substitute for a rational debate.
Well. Alright, I will give you the benefit of the doubt there, but the fact is, you do, to me anyway.
Please list for me exactly what arguments you consider strong or valid over which I have skipped selectively. If you want to, that is.
Why? They’re not proposing any laws (just stricter enforcement). It’s the Pro-Control types who are saying “More laws, more laws!” without EVER explaining WHY more laws are needed, or how the new laws would solve the problems. Indeed, they don’t even explain WHAT the problem is.
So, I repeat to you (since you seem to have missed it)…
**So, here’s what YOU have to do:
Show evidence that there’s a crime problem that needs to be dealt with (given that crime’s at a low point, good luck).
Show evidence how the solution you advocate would solve that problem.**
Here’s all the proof that the Pro-Gun side needs:
Crime is WAY DOWN even though gun purchases/ownership is WAY UP.
Project Exile. Proof that stricter enforcement will do wonders.
SPOOFE:Why? They’re not proposing any laws (just stricter enforcement).
Not quite true; gun advocates in many places are requesting changes in gun laws (liberalizing concealed-carry, for example).
1. Show evidence that there’s a crime problem that needs to be dealt with (given that crime’s at a low point, good luck).
Of course there’s a crime problem that needs to be dealt with: we still have a great deal of crime. The fact that it’s currently at a low point doesn’t mean there’s no problem anymore. Or do you really demand that somebody dig up Bureau of Justice statistics showing that yes, there is indeed more crime in this country than we’d like? I will if you insist, but it sounds pretty silly. Or are you arguing that crime levels are fine as they are and don’t need to be reduced? You’re probably in a pretty small minority in that case.
*2. Show evidence how the solution you advocate would solve that problem. *
Tightening control over gun transactions and enacting more strict requirements for possession and storage will result in fewer guns getting into criminals’ hands, as well as reducing accidents.
Of course that’s merely a common-sense argument, not the result of a controlled and comprehensive study that proves that the effects are as I say. No such study exists, and because crime is such a huge and complicated social problem, it would be tough as hell to carry one out. But my argument is at least as good as your hand-waving in the following assertion:
*Here’s all the proof that the Pro-Gun side needs:
Crime is WAY DOWN even though gun purchases/ownership is WAY UP.
Project Exile. Proof that stricter enforcement will do wonders.*
Pooh. If that’s “all the proof that the Pro-Gun side needs”, the Pro-Gun side doesn’t understand the difference between correlation and cause. (Fortunately, I think that most of the other people on your side are better reasoners than that.) Neither of those statements constitutes evidence that tighter gun control wouldn’t be helpful in reducing crime.
amrussel: if I only responded to your take on “registration”, it may be because your take was the only one I felt like responding to. I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to say “feel honored that I noticed you”, but would say pat yourself on the back for being articulate and intelligent enough to raise points worthy of commentary and debate.
I freely admit to being a burnt-out crank on this issue, and rarely get this involved anymore.
No doubt that symptoms of and illness are treatable; I pop aspirin when I have a cold, because a cold is too general to treat as a malady. But here the “illness” analogy gun control breaks down. “Gun Violence”, as you seem to see it, is an immenently treatable symptom, and to a very limited extent I might agree. Yes, the original Gun Control Act of '68 did admirably identify the “undesirable classes” of society that were barred from ownership of firearms, but there was little, if any mandate to verify the information provided by a potential buyer until it was amended to include the National Instant [Background] Check System, or NICS, just a few years ago. I feel that some time may be needed to observe any measurable effects before we rush off all eager to pass new and more restrictive measures.
IOW: give the medicine time to work before pumping up the dosage.
Anyway, you seemed to be calling “any and all sectors of the pro-gun lobby” to task for not having “redress[ed] the social iniquities of modern America.” I defended by pointing out that the mission statements of the NRA and The Second Amendment Foundation are limited, as are those of the American Lung Assoc. et al. Special interest groups must husband their resources. There are other groups addressing drug addiction, urban decay, education, etc.
The folks from Oz weren’t correcting my impression; they were denying our Bureau of Justice’s take on the raw numbers supplied by the Aussie gov’t themselves. They just flat out denied them as “mere gun lobby propaganda” because the NRA picked up the BoJ’s findings and gleefully ran with them as agitprop. As if our BoJ could be subverted by the “vast right-wing conspiracy” of the NRA and 10’s of millions of gun owning, law-abiding Americans.
As did our BoJ, courtesy of the Australian gov’t. And the Aussie gov’t claimed it was gun registration because that was their proffered cure for a relativly non-existant problem until one sensational act at Port Arthur grabbed national headlines. Do you honestly expect any gov’t official, any elected figure, to come back and say "Well, gee folks; we fucked up. We crunched the numbers for the last decade or so and guess what? Registration did nothing at all."?
Instead, mere years after passage of the law, they came back and confidently pronounced, merely on the basis of a statistical trend, that gun registration, and bans on certain categories of firearms, were the cure. And yet here in the States, we have record high levels of gun ownership (psst: Bill Clinton was really on our side!) and a 35 year low of gun violence. Facts aren’t correlating to politically motivated statements on the causes-and-effects.
The BoJ did not come out and say that registration and bans weren’t the cause; they merely said that there was no evidence that registration and bans were the cause, and theorized that the rise in other forms of violent crime Down Under may be attributed to a “substitution effect”
And the folks down under were quite vehement, almost hostile, that a bunch of Yanks would proclaim that it may have been otherwise than their “official” take. Hence my aversion to people who claim, or at least seem to claim, that their gun control positions are, by default, the right and correct stance. You’ve kinda reinforced this several times; whether deliberate or not I can’t discern yet.
No, I didn’t. I extrapolated from the hundreds, if not thousands of gun owners that I have met and talked to over the last two+ decades of attending gun shows and gun clubs. I learned to develop the “bullshit filter” to differentiate between “tough talk” hot air and a true statement of intent, and have verified it by talking to a whole butt-load of “tough talkers” in a one-on-one basis.
I never claimed that no one would ever kill a non-threatening home invader; in my post dated 07-08-01, at 11:14 A.M., I merely asserted:
This, in its most strict interpretation, would imply that I thought that the “shoot-first-and-fuck-the-questions” attitude was at least a simple minority by dent of over two decades of experience around gun owners from everywhere from the midwestern, deep southern, southeastern, southwestern, Rocky Mountains, mid-atlantic and northeastern regions of the United States. That leaves the western, northwestern and pacific northwestern unaccounted for, granted.
While I am no “expert opinion”, and make no such claims, I feel that my experience around such people certainly gives me a more complete, if not more accurate, take on their mentality than others who, judging from the content of their posts, have not. But I am not asking you to merely trust my words alone; utilize a “bullshit filter” and go to the thread about home invasion Anthracite linked to for the beginnings of a larger picture of what gun owning homeowners are most likely to do.
And here we run into the crux of the problem with anectdotes, and non-frequent events. This was a very memorable event, no doubt given extensive media coverage over at least several days as the facts of the case were determined and played out, ad nauseum, on the telly. Much like our Columbine, and others. This gives the event a greater preponderance of signifigance than if it had been reported in a less sensational manner. But how representative is it? How frequently do such events occur? How often might the news report that an intruder was held at bay by a gun-wielding home owner until the police arrived to take the burglar into custody? Or that a home owner scared a burglar away by shouting “I have a gun! I’ve called the police!”
Not very newsworthy, or signifigant, yes? How do these events register on the radar scope of social consciousness?
In spite of several high profile mass shootings in our schools, our Dept. of Education, backed up by the BoJ, have released figures showing that our schools are safer now than ever before; less crime, less violence. This is reflective of what is happening in our society as a whole. But we still attach great signifigance, perhaps unduly so, by the inundation of images, repeated repeatedly, of high profile extraordinary events.
Not necessarily. Give the medicine time to work. A human body may respond within hours; a body as large and diverse as American society may take a little longer to show any results, positive or negative.
There is a difference between a lone individual attacking unprepared civillians and massed armies attacking prepared foes. As the average American gun owner isn’t planning on waging continental strategic warfare, ordnance of war isn’t particularly relevant. Yes, I can, with a double-action .357 revolver (6 shots) and my speedloaders, sustain a rate of fire sufficient to quickly eliminate at least a dozen unarmed, unprepared people in a public place, as the typical reaction is for people to go to ground.
With my 12 shot (11+1) Winchester 94 “Trails End” lever-action rifle, I can quickly and accurately pick off probably a half-dozen running people in a public place, should I ever slip my moorings.
Were I to have to fight in an actual war (again) I would prefer more modern weaponry.
And my issue is that your above described scenario isn’t necessarily representative; in the absense of any feel whatsoever as to its representativeness, it is an appeal to emotion.
Sure. Can you explain why another society, with high firearm availability, has very little violent crime? See, I start with the assumption, backed up by criminological precedent, that a person who wants to commit armed robbery will find a way to get a gun. I would like to see evidence that people who commit armed robbery, or other gun crimes, would all, without exception, be dissuded from aquiring guns by the mere presence of gun control laws.
I mean, if one can argue that if even one panicky homeowner with a gun is bad, I will argue that even one criminal with a gun (where non-criminals are unarmed) is as equally, if not more, bad. Since no gun control laws other than total bans, door-to-door searches and sealed national borders can even begin to ensure that there are no illegal firearms floating about for criminals to get a hold of, I am hesitant to restrict or otherwise hassle non-criminal aquisition of firearms, unless serious criminological research can show that it is warranted.
And this is not to say that some things cannot be done. Lets just do the right things for the right reasons, as we find it necessary to do so.
I’m hungry. I’m going to go shoot something and eat it.
Then turn that frown upside-down! I already admitted to being a GCD burnout. If I get overbearing, tell me to “get bent”.
By-and-by: if people respond selectively, it’s probably because they have no signifigant quibble with the parts not addressed. Hell, they may have even been convinced, or be re-evaluating their thoughts on the parts not addressed. Or they may not have a counter for the parts not addressed.
And my comment that newbies to GCDs need to do their homework? Do a little back searching to see what’s been said, by whom and when?
You might see that several of us gun owners have conceded. Like I did here on 04-14-01 at 1:32 P.M. We are not opposed to any form of gun control; it’s just that we are opposed to any more forms of gun control without a demonstrable need.
Let me say that again, for emphasis:
We are opposed to any more forms of gun control without demonstrable need
And common sense and intuition do not attain the criteria of “demonstrable need”. They are the basis of directing research, which may or may not demonstrate need.
I find it obscenely unconscionable that in a supposedly “free” society, that the majority of the population, without ever having committed a severe enough breach of the general peace to warrant revocation of franchise rights, are obligated to justify themselves to their government with licenses and registration schemes because of the misdeeds of a vanishingly small percentage of the population. Your case for licensing and registration holds more water without comparisons to Australia.
How, exactly, is it better to die by knives or sharp instrument, or assaultive force, than by a gun? Please explain to me by what logic is it better to die by being stabbed or by “assaultive force” than by a firearm. All violent deaths are tragic. But let me build a picture for you, out of just two disparate pieces of data, as you don’t seem to have actually read and analyzed any of the numbers from the links you provided above.
Piece #2: From AIC: National Homicide Monitoring Program - Statistics - Homicide Victimisation Rates 1989/90-1999/2000, it is impossible to draw any clear picture of trends due to dramatic shifts from one year to the next. The only place that looks to possibly have benefitted from any gun control scheme, and that’s assuming causality, is someplace identified simply as “NT”, with impressively dramatic drops since '96.
So… overall for Australia, the homicide rates haven’t changed much, with an [overall] rate of 1.9 in 89-90 and 1.8 in 99-00. And, given that homicide by weapon-types shows that sharp instruments and assaultive force (I’m assuming that this is the “hands and feet” portion of the table listed in Piece #2, as it is the only one that has the “24%” rate that corresponds to “assaultive force”) have consistently led firearms as leading causes of death overall in Australia, your claim, taken with Mr. Graycar’s statement, that registration and licensing of firearms is reducing firearms violence in Australia, is unfounded.
If anything, it is a possible (I prefer the word “good”, but don’t wish to rush to judgement) indicator of my oft repeated “substitution effect”. And I didn’t coin that term. I first read it from a moderately anti-gun American criminologist.
Firearms have always been a lesser factor in homicide in Australia, occasionally swapping places with “assaultive force” every couple of years or so, and rising marginally above “knives and sharp instruments” once in the last decade.
Since the Port Arthur massacre, and its subsequent legislation, there has been a five-year-average 246% jump in the use of handguns in firearms homicides.
In spite of the acknowledged fact by Mr. Graycar that, since 1997, the year after Port Arthur until the release of the report last October, licensed owners account for less than 10% of firearms homicides, and unregistered firearms and unlicensed owners accounted for over 90% of firearms homicides.
And that firearms account for less than 1-in-5 homicides overall.
Exactly who are they tracking down there? It’s not the criminals, I can tell ya that much.
Think of what all that money could be doing, if not being wasted on tracking a protion of the population accountable for less than 10% of firearm homicide.
A specific problem that’s related to guns? A new problem that requires new legislation? Please, Kimstu… I apologize if I didn’t make myself clear, but yeesh, talk about stubborness.
The current “crime problem” is in no way spectacular, and is in no way indicative that the current laws are insufficient.
:rolleyes:
So how ARE things in Misconstrument Land?
Except you haven’t indicated a problem associated with this. You’ve merely gone off on a cryptically vague “we have crime… duh” comment.
Nor have you indicated HOW this “tightening control” will solve the problem, nor have you indicated exactly WHAT “tightening control” entails…
Given that Svin hasn’t provided ANYTHING to indicate why his contentions are the appropriate ones, I fail to see the criticism of my comments.
The point is that a lot of Gun Control proponents stick with vague comments and vague allusions when they refer to their goals. Hell, they don’t even know HOW the stuff they’re backing is supposed to work, yet they advocate it fervently anyway.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ExTank *
** amrussel:
But this is precisely the point of registration: crimes committed with legally purchased guns drop in frequency. The natural corollary is that crimes with illegally held guns, as a proportion of the total, must increase. If you ordinarily mix 3 parts tonic water to 1 part gin, but today find that you’re short of tonic water and mix it 2:1, the proportion of gin has increased, but not (necessarily) the volume.
OF course they’re tragic. But if the number of gun homicides goes down, other methods will assume a greater proportion of the whole. This does not imply increase, or parity, in the number of murders, and certainly does not prove a substitution effect.
NT would be Northern Territories.
Piece 1: Well, of course they account for a greater percentage, handguns being by far the least common registered weapon, when crimes with registered weapons fall. It’s exactly what would be expected.
Piece 2: Good for NT then! Its about a 75% drop, right after teh enactment of legislation: I don’t suppose for a minute that it’s solely due to the legislation, but it would be astonishing if it didn’t play a part.
Should I be impressed by the fact that he’s American? I guess it means he’s had a lot more crime to study. I believe in the substitution effect to a certain extent: for people planning a murder, a gun is just one possible tool, which they can cope with out. What I don’t believe is that the substitution effect = 100%. And if it doesn’t, then moves to reduce the availability of guns to criminals would result in a reduced murder rate. Specifically, reduced by 1-rate of substitution.
Yes. However, the important thing to note about firearms is that they are susceptible to registration in ways which knives, and hands and feet, are most definitely not.
They certainly do now. Before 1996, they averaged at 1 in 4. Since the legislation, that’s dropped by 20%. Knives/sharp instruments have increased by 9%. Blunt instruments and assault have fallen, by 5% and 17% respectively (this is not due to firearms legislation, obviously) while “other” has increased by a staggering 556%! This is due to a couple of mass murders resulting from carbon dioxide poisoning and arson (suspected murder), which skew the results massively.
Registration is about tracking guns, not people. It’s expected that most of those who register guns will be law-abiding, becasue the purpose of registration is to ensure that the guns stay in their hands. You see?
Only if you promise not to shoot yourself in the foot with it.
Never thought I’d use that face here.
