UB: *The best numbers I’ve seen indicate around 1.5 million DGU’s per year and come from a 1994 Department of Justice survey. *
In the interests of fair debate, I felt I should point out a few problems with this particular statement. I presume it refers to the 1994 National Survey on Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF—pdf file), where the DoJ conducted a telephone DGU survey similar to the Kleck/Gertz study that yielded the estimate of 2.5 million annual DGUs. As the linked summary of the report points out, the raw data from the responses indicated an estimate of 23 million (!) annual DGUs. When they applied the same filters as those used by Kleck and Gertz to screen out “unreliable” responses, they got the 1.5 million figure which, as the survey states, “is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz”. However, the NSPOF summary continues:
So that 1.5 million annual DGU figure which you considered to be the “best numbers” you’d seen turns out to be way out of line with actual crime data, sometimes to the point of ridiculousness. As I said, skepticism about all the DGU estimates currently being tossed around is very well warranted.
Yes, okay, mattk. I have lost track of the thread and haven’t had time to go back and look it up, so thanks for the correction. I remembered amrussel’s post about Indiana Jones and managed to mix the two up.
I dunno…it’s true that your first response knocked me spinning out of my chair, literally. I couldn’t believe that anyone would actually contest the argument that guns are more leathal than swords. When you later reposted and more thoroughly explained your meaning, I have to admit that while I still disagreed with you, I admired the fact that you were sharp enough to question a statement that I simply took for granted as true. In addition, the fact that you looked around for info yourself before requesting some from your opponent is much to your favor. On the other hand, there are limits – it will be a cold day in hell before you get me to accept the proposition that swords are more lethal than guns, slick statistical arguments to contrary notwithstanding.
Point, game, and match. Thank you for playing. Next? Weird Al:
It’s a metaphor, Al, a metaphor. The important point is that it is an instance in which a thing, considered in all cases to be the private property of an individual, is regulated for the sake of the public good. The actual specifics aren’t all that terribly relevant, and by focusing on them you miss the point. Since I’ve witnessed several posters now futilely and unsuccessfully trying to explain this to you, this represents my last attempt. Please reread my post and try to understand the gist of the argument.
This would be all fine and dandy, I suppose, provided there was little chance of guns on private property finding their way into the hands of criminals and thus being used against me, my family, my friends or other innocent members of the community. I assume you agree that those of us out there who don’t own firearms and have no interest in doing so are within our rights in requesting that those who do own them can make assurances for our safety, yes? Or do you feel that you are within your rights to make demands for, let us say, gun ownership, without concern for those around you?
Well, I can’t make claims for others of my ilk, but you are certainly correct when it comes to me. When I realize I’m wrong, I generally admit it and give my opponent right. That was precisely my point, and it is heartening indeed to see that you understood at least something in my last post.
However, as I’m sure you might willing to agree in a less heated moment, I and other gun-control advocates can’t possibly be wrong in all cases. Sometimes even we, misguided though we clearly are, must have some sort of valid point to our arguments. Yet I search in vain for any admission of that sort on the part of pro-gun advocates. You may notice even now that I have directly adressed every single point made by both you and Uncle Beer in response to my last post, while both of you have selected only a few of my arguments and pointedly avoided confronting my accusations directly.
Hell – you haven’t even bothered to ask me for a cite to back up my claims. Instead, you try to worm your way out of this most embarressing situation with a silly sound-bite response. Surely even you must admit that somewhere, among all the floatsam and jetsam of the arguments in favor of stricter gun-control in the States, there is at least one argument that you can sympathize with, or at least partially agree with, or at least see some small validity in…? No?
<<Explain to me exactly how or what criminals “lose” if you refuse to own a gun. >>
Maybe you misunderstood me. I said criminals WIN if I become so fearful that I have to go out and get a gun.
In other words, if you own a gun for self-defense than you are already a victim. “They” win,
What follows is an attempt to answer the OP, counter some arguments, and provide a case for gun control. Tomorrow, tilting at windmills…
Registration
This is why guns should be registered and controlled: on the one hand, they’re dangerous and they’re used to commit crimes; on the other hand, they can be owned and used by citizens without posing a danger to anyone or being involved in a crime.
If, miraculously, only one of those was true, there wouldn’t be an issue. Guns would either be totally banned, or totally uncontrolled. Unfortunately, as their use cannot (well duh) be so neatly categorised, it is in society’s own interests to ensure that, as far as possible, guns are only ever in the hands of those who will use them safely and legitimately (these are not synonyms). This is of course exceptionally difficult, if not ultimately impossible, for reasons that have been outlined above. However, simply because a thing cannot be done perfectly does not mean it should not be attempted, particularly as partial success will bring commensurate benefits.
Registration is one, and only one, method of achieving this goal. By a) limiting the number of potential gun-owners to those who have not yet proven their unfitness to possess a lethal weapon and b) providing an “audit trail” between a gun and its owner it limits the exposure of guns to those who would misuse them. It also introduces responsibility into the system, which is no bad thing. I understand that any training in the use of guns involves not merely instruction in technique but a heavy emphasis on their responsible storing, handling and use. I cannot see any problem, imposition, or infringement in requiring those who claim to be responsible, law-abiding citizens to a) take such a course and b) periodically demonstrate that they are still in possession of the weapon and storing it responsibly. To do so is to be responsible. Should, despite precautions, the gun be stolen, the owner would be required to report the theft speedily: it’s not a great imposition to ask someone to contact the police if they find they’ve been robbed.
Consider the benefits of such a system: not only are the opportunities for criminal theft of guns reduced, it also becomes easier to prove such theft. Responsible gun-owners gain access to guns with a minimum of fuss; education is provided in how to become a responsible gun-owner; irresponsible gun-owners are weeded out.
As my contribution to the OP, I would like to see a system of demand-led gun manufacture: i.e. guns are only made as and when they are ordered by registered citizens. I realise that there are practical problems with this, but then that’s true of so many worthwhile achievments. Obviously, the aim of this system is to reduce the number of guns in society over time, without removing them from the law-abiding.
Criminality
Among anti-control advocates, there seems to be a prevalent notion that society is split into two distinct classes, the law-abiding and the criminal. The law-abiding are always law-abiding: the criminal are held to have less rights, as witness WAE’s comment that:
To deal with these in reverse order: yes, this is supposed to be a bad thing. In fact, it is a bad thing. The assumption here is that anyone who breaks into your property (or, more importantly, whom you consider to have broken into your property) has forfeited their right to life, has simultaneously given you the right to take that life, and has lost the right to trial. Please note that I am not advocating that people who find their home invaded should surrender the right to self-defense. I do submit that there is a difference between B&E and attempted murder: comments like WAE’s seem to ignore this. It is important to remember that house-breaking as a crime is very low on the ladder: it is not done by hardened, successful gangsters, but by “novice” criminals. (See the KP thread for a cite for this). Extank suggested that anti-control advocates were firmly in favour of addressing the societal causes of crime: shooting dead 18 year-old first or second time criminals is not a blow against negative social factors, it is a tragic waste of a young life.
Equally, there seems to be an assumption, as evinced by statements along the lines of “the majority of gun-owners are law-abiding” that there exist a class of “Good Citizens” who can be guaranteed never to misuse guns or break the law in any way. Sadly this is not the case. The only 100% accurate definition of “law-abiding” is “some-one who has not yet broken the law”. To pretend otherwise is to pull the wool over one’s own eyes. The fact that there is no guarantee of Good Citizenship mandates that controls over the purchasing and possession of guns be as tight as possible, and that the capabilities of guns available to the general public be as limited as possible.
Wherever possible, guns intended only to be used on ranges should be stored securely on the range, and not allowed to off-premises.
Inherent danger
This argument, popular though it is, must rank as them most widely accepted willful disingenuity in modern times. The argument is not about guns “of themselves”. What exactly is that supposed to signify, I wonder? That a gun locked in a steel box buried in a disused nuclear facility whose existence is known to nobody is not a threat? The issue is, and always has been, about guns and people, and people, as you acknowledge, are dangerous. More so when they have a gun, because any gun is a device intended to propel a metal projectile at such a speed that it’s impact has a fatal effect on the human body. Essentially, all guns have the capability of turning 1 second of panic or rage into an irrevocable, life-altering, life-ending reality. That is why they are dangerous. That is why they should be controlled.
Amrussell, it’s your calm and reasoned arguments that to a firearms owner like me, literally scare me to death.
Gun registration. There has been no evidence cited yet that a gun registration program will reduce the amount of illegal guns or guns possessed by those illegally under current law. In essence, gun registration will only impact those who can legally, under current law, possess a firearm. So, if it cannot be proven (is this a cart before the horse argument?) that gun registration will benefit my community, and me then I do not feel this will work and will refuse to acquiesce. Secondly, it has been proven, in New York, and in California, that gun registration could (has) lead to a confiscation of legally possessed and registered firearms. Many in the gun rights community see CA and NY as giving an inch and taken for a mile, so any talk of sensible registration is a non-starter.
** I cannot see any problem, imposition, or infringement in requiring those who claim to be responsible, law-abiding citizens to a) take such a course and b) periodically demonstrate that they are still in possession of the weapon and storing it responsibly.**
The unprecedented actions of having a government entity periodically stop by my residence to check on my firearms smacks of a totalitarian regime and gives me the willies! But, better yet, how exactly does this deter criminal misuse of a firearm? Will the (insert gov’t agency here) be able to apprehend criminals with their registered guns more easily? Why would I not report the theft of my firearms to the police? How would I claim my insurance so that I could replace them? Is it because I have something to hide? If I have something to hide, is it because I’ve done something illegal?
As my contribution to the OP, I would like to see a system of demand-led gun manufacture: i.e. guns are only made as and when they are ordered by registered citizens
So now a basic pump shotgun that a law-abiding citizen can buy at K-mart for $290 is going to cost $2,500. One, this prevents economies of scale, so many gun manufacturers will go out of business. Two, firearms are affordable only to the rich. Does this not sound elitist to you?
Criminality. Why does it seem that the responsibility for the determining a criminal’s intent rests on me to read his mind? If you break into my house, I’m not going to ask if this is your first crime or if you are a five time loser, I’m going to use every means at my disposal to stop you right there. If this means I have to live with causing the death of another human being, then that’s something I will have to deal with. I do not choose to suffer the alternative. After all, I am not breaking into * your * house, you’re breaking into mine!
** The only 100% accurate definition of “law-abiding” is “some-one who has * not yet * broken the law”. To pretend otherwise is to pull the wool over one’s own eyes. The fact that there is no guarantee of Good Citizenship mandates that controls over the purchasing and possession of guns be as tight as possible, * and that the capabilities of guns available to the general public be as limited as possible.* **
Emphasis mine.
So your supposition is that everyone is inherently evil. So, using this analogy, everyone should periodically undergo a routine search/interview by (insert government agency here) to determine if one’s inherent tendencies are starting to overcome their fear of being arrested and are planning on committing some criminal act? Is this supporting a more totalitarian regime I identified in my second paragraph? With the sentence I emphasized, you show your true colors. I read that sentence and think, this person does not want to limit criminals access to firearms, nor to really restrict my rights to own a firearm, he just wants to ban all firearms period.
I read an article by Reed Karaim (moderate gun control advocate) in the Washington Post (liberal bird cage liner) and I paraphrase; “I can only conclude a deeper psychology behind the [anti-gun hysteria] of some of my colleagues – it’s a view I describe as ‘the gun as serpent’, it’s a feeling that any attachments to guns is an attachment to the irrational, violent, selfish side of human nature.” Amazing.
I said nothing about your debating skills or experience. I asked a simple question.
Maybe you should also read the rest of the thread.
I AM for the legalization of many drugs. But why ALL drugs? You are assuming the fallacy of “opposite extremes”… i.e.- if you are not in favor of lots of Gun Control, you must be against ALL forms of Gun Control, which is simply not the case.
And what makes you think that owning a gun is a sign of “cowardice”? What makes you think gun-owners “live in fear” of criminals? You are simply using baseless justification to cover up for the simple fact that you are wary of guns.
The reason why I questioned your amount of participation in a Gun Control debate is because you posted a trite, overly-simplified “solution” to the problem… yet your “solution” is as full of holes as my underpants.
Svin: it might be more accurate to characterize Uncle’s posit in this manner:
“Though firearms are more inherently lethal than edged weapons on a one-on-one basis, in the reported incidents of attacks, edged weapon attacks have higher injury and/or mortality rates over firearms due to a higher sustained intent of the attacker.”
Note that I am neither convinced or unconvinced of the prior statement. But, as gun-control advocates have repeatedly pointed out, it takes considerably more effort to kill someone with a knife than with a gun.
“So in instances where someone was sufficiently motivated to attack with an edged weapon, they were more often able to inflict enough damage (immediate and eventually terminal) to kill the victim than in assaults with firearms.”
One thing gun-control advocates consistently overlook (or outright ignore) is the possibility of substitution effects of more inherently lethal weapons variants (such as sawed-off shotguns) for handguns if and when handgun bans are achieved.
I think that this is because many gun-control advocates tend to ignore the “intent” of any given motivated attacker (as opposed to an opportunistic attacker, such as may be the case in domestic disputes).
Amrussel:
Your conclusion doesn’t follow from any logical train of thought, or clear sequence of causality. New York has severely regulated firearms, and high levels of crime. As does Mexico, and Brazil.
Explain, please, the causal relationships between the overall availability of firearms (legal and illegal), arrest rates, conviction rates, incarceration rates, rehabilitative methodolgy of the incarcerated, socio-economic disparities, education levels of children and citizenry, political corruption…geez, I could go on for quite a while…developmental history, between each (please feel free to throw in any other countries, such as England, Australia and Japan, that you feel may help your case) in illustrating exactly how mere reduction of availability of firearms will yield a concomitant reduction in violent crime.
To the best of my knwledge, only one scholar attempted to address many pf the issues I brought up in a natioanl-level study (as opposed to Dr. Arthur Kellerman’s “pick-and-choose” methodology which yielded the inflated, probably outright erroneous “43 Times…” figure) to evaluate gun regulation policies.
That was Prof. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime
Bad laws, poorly written and rarely enforced (except by the civic conscience of law abiding citizens [good one, BF]) will not alleviate the underlying intent of the segment of the population attracted towards a life of crime, or dissuade their violent tendencies (be they malevolent, or merely the level of violence necessary to insure a victim’s compliance with the perpetrator’s intent).
Address the issues of criminality and the psychology of violence, and you may also alleviate the problem of gun violence. You may also, in the process, alleviate malnourishment, child abandonment/neglect/abuse, substantially alleviate poverty, increase the education level of the general populace, sustain a healthier and more productive workforce, and thus a healthier economy, increasing the tax yield (while being able to lower individual taxes) and thus perpetuate the cycle of upward trending social viability.
God, I’m such a liberal wanker. :rolleyes:
I guess my only saving grace is my healthy mistrust of our current political system’s ability to effectively (especially cost-effectively) to clarify, identify, address and enact without running up massive deficits and turning the U.S.A. into a welfare state.
Now there’s a back-handed compliment. But unless these were your last words, I doubt I literally scared you to death.
Hmm. I meant to stress that registration was only ever intended to be a partial solution: I chose to address it because it had become an issue in this thread. Registration is a means of tracking the population of guns in the field, and of matching them to legally certified owners. In the short term, yes, this will not take guns out of the hands of criminals. In the long term, however, as illegal guns are removed from circulation, tight registration will reduce the number of guns that are released into the black market will be reduced. It’s not a quick fix: quick fixes are impossible. It’s a long-term measure intended to introduce a sea change to gun ownership patterns over(I would guess) a couple of decades. No magic wands here, just policies which require time and effort from all. Crazy ideas, crazy guy.
I knew I was going to get in trouble over this. Totalitarian regimes tend not to allow people to have guns, and when they wish to inspect your home, they kick down the door. A government which arranges a mutually convenient appointment, outlines the precise criteria which will be checked, allows an independent witness to be present, allows a window of opportunity to make any repairs or improvements required, gets the owner’s agreement that these are due and works with, not against, the citizen is not totalitarian. Now, I agree that I did not outline this previously. And you jumped to your own conclusions. All I ask is, think about how these ideas might be made to work, rather than assuming a worst-case scenario.
I’m not necessarily sure that the cost would jump to such a great extent. The demand for guns would remain unchanged: all that’s different is the supply chain dynamics. Think of it as a version of “just-in-time” order processing. It’s not an untried idea. Toyota pioneered it, I believe. It’s simply a question of good order processing. No major loss of economies of scale, or sharp rise in price. But, what if there is a negative effect and a gun company goes out of business? Less guns are made. Less guns are out on the streets. “Good Citizens” are still buying guns, however. So who’s going short? I would say, the black market. As against that, the workers lose their jobs. None of us can do more than speculate on their chances of re-employment, within or without the gun industry.
**
The responsibility rests with you because you assume it the instant you assume the right to dispose of that life. Rights and responsibility are inseparable, two sides of the same coin.
This is precisely the attitude I was talking about: criminals apprehended by private individuals are seen as having no rights whatsoever. The question isn’t whether you can “live with the consequences”: I know that the other guy certainly won’t.
No! No, no, no. My position is not that everyone is inherently evil. Sheesh. My position is that it is utterly impossible to determine whether or not an individual will at some point, use a legally purchased gun for an illegal purchase. Is that so incredible? Yes, the vast majority of gun-owners do not commit crimes. The converse of this is that some will. But I defy you, or anyone else, to move from the general to the particular and name the ones who will. Accepting that this is impossible, and not, in fact, wishing to ban all firearms period, I suggest controls over the types of guns available to the public, according to the capabilities (there’s that word again) of each type of gun to cause harm, with the intention of mitigating the inevitable damage.
It is amazing, but I confess I’m at a total loss to understand why you’ve mentioned it here. Unless… surely not…you’re trying to use the evidence of a non-psychologist who has never met me or heard my views to… ridiculous notion… label me as suffering from a hysteric, nearly delusional response to guns, which response manifests itself in my stereotyping all those who do not agree me. But no. If there’s one thing we can all agree on, it’s that stereotyping those who disagree with us as “irrational” is a cheap and shoddy debating tactic which all sensible people would shun.
Oh, and one last thing. If I knew you would only need one fragment of a sentence to see my “true colours”, I would have saved the two of us the effort and not written such a long post.
Just wanted to clear up one little point that my own psychic powers identified in amrussell’s otherwise lapidary post:
My position is that it is utterly impossible to determine whether or not an individual will at some point, use a legally purchased gun for an illegal purchase.
I think that’s supposed to be “illegal purpose”. Of course, my psychic powers may need dusting.
Yes…but what do they win? How do they win? This doesn’t make any sense to me.
Do “they” “win” because I am somehow lesser than them, or reduced in stature, because I choose to take responsibility for defending my own life and the lives of those I care about? Do “they” “win” because I have decided I will never be a helpless victim of crime again?
Whether or not you own a gun is not going to change your attractiveness as a target for criminals - unless they know you have a gun. By not owning a gun, you relinquish a large part of your right - and your responsibility - to defend your own body from being harmed and extinguished by others.
You seem to think I am “fearful” for having a gun for self-defense. Why, and how can this statement be made? I am fearful of crime - whether or not I have the means to protect myself. I am much, much less fearful for being able to protect myself, and would be much more fearful if I was not armed. How would not being armed improve my situation in a crime?
The crime that happened to me would not have happened had I been armed. Plain, and simple. Rhetorically speaking, why do the gun banners ask that I and others like me be unable to defend ourselves against crime?
I often wonder what the motives are behind the desire to remove the ability of women to defend themselves against rape and murder. Sometimes I don’t understand them at all. An arch-liberal friend I had once IRL a few years ago was vehemently against gun ownership of any kind. She actually said once that she prayed every night that Clinton would “order the National Guard to take everyone’s guns”. And this was an educated woman, an MS in Engineering, very well-read in philosophy, religion, history, etc; and very open-minded on most other topics. Yet, one day when she was relating over lunch about having trouble with a creepy neighbor she thought was seriously threatening her daughter, she exclaimed “I wish, somehow, a gun would have magically appeared in my hand last night so I could have defended myself.” Yes, she said the word “magically”. Oh, she still refused flat-out to get a gun, receive training, or even talk about the issue. She was waiting for the “magically appearing gun” to save her daughter from being raped next time.
Curious attitude. Yet one I have encountered very often in these debates.
Now…Mr. Pope…I believe the reason some did not welcome you with open arms here was the tone of your first post, which seemed rather like you were making a pronouncement of sorts - a statement that This Is the Way Things Are, Q.E.D. This is not normally taken well, especially when one is a “newbie” to a particular long-running topic of debate. Boy, do I know that one well. And the lack of a specific cite for a specific number figure (“5 times more likely…”). I think if you care to stick around and talk about the issue, people will certainly want to talk nicely with you about it.
This issue was debated over about 5 or 6 solid pages recently. This is a great concept when discussed over hot tea in front of a warm fire, or on a message Board safe and unmolested in our homes.
This concept breaks down completely in real life.
Home break-in situations are sometimes fast-moving, panicy situations. You don’t know why this person is in your house, and if they are here to steal the VCR or to rape you and slit your throat because it’s “cool”. You don’t know if it’s a 16-year neighbor kid doing it on a dare, or a 35 year old thrice-convicted sociopath who collects human ears.
Maybe you don’t know if you can get to the phone without being attacked. Maybe you don’t know if the police will arrive before his semen pollutes your body. Maybe you don’t know if you will be another statistic on Page 3. That’s just it - IRL, you may have only two choices:
Take some responsibility for defending your own life and be prepared to use deadly force if you see fit, or
Lay there and pray.
Are all situations reduced to this? Most? I would guess not. But why is the burden shifted on me to make a judgement call that may lead me to sacrifice my life, so a criminal can have his “fair trial”? There is no guarantee of a “fair trial” that is being violated in a case of self-defense.
Am I even saying this is what should be done? That one should start shooting as soon as one hears a noise? No, and in the other thread in fact I explained in great detail what I would do - and I thought it was very reasonable.
But really, it keeps coming down to this - I am a female alone in my house. Why is the burden shifted to me to discover who is in my bedroom at 2:00 am, what their age and criminal record is, and what their full and honest intentions are? In a split-second of time? Why is determining these things my problem, or my task?
Oh good lord. At no point did I say that registration of guns would have any effect on crime levels. That would be stupid. I said that registration was one way, which would not by itself be sufficient, to ensure that the majority of guns in society were held by responsible, law-abiding citizens. I have not, evidently, taken part in many of these debates, but I think to detect a tendency to assume what the opponent’s arguments are rather than to actually read them. I agree absolutely that crime will only be solved by addressing the underlying causes, which you were good enough to list. I look forward to learning which programs addressing these problems are sponsored by any and all sectors of the pro-gun lobby, out of their overwhelming desire to redress the social iniquities of modern America.
Registration is directed at reducing the effects of crime, not the causes. Simply put, I believe that guns aggravate the effects of crime, as a result of their inherent capacity for lethality. I believe that it will take a long, long time to address all the root causes of crime, and that anything that can mitigate its effects in the meantime is a good thing. Happily, it is possible to pursue both these goals simultaneously: it is not an either/or choice.
You ask me to illustrate “exactly how mere reduction of availability of firearms will yield a concomitant reduction in violent crime” You’re kidding, right? It will yield a concomitant reduction in firearms crime, with a reduction in the associated fatalities. You tell me what you would rather criminals armed themselves with.
Ok,amrussell, I’m going to take a different tack. In your response to my post, you said “I meant to stress that registration was only ever intended to be a partial solution.” In your response to ExTank, you said “At no point did I say that registration of guns would have any effect on crime levels. That would be stupid. I said that registration was one way, which would not by itself be sufficient, to ensure that the majority of guns in society were held by responsible, law-abiding citizens.” My short response to that is, those two statements support the slippery slope actions carried out in CA and NY.
However, let us look at registration. There are 70million gun owners in the US. How big of a government agency will be required to oversee this? The FBI and the BATF currently can barely keep up with handling the instant background checks (FBI) and the registration and monitoring of compliance with Federal Firearms Laws (BATF) for licensed gun dealers (which by the way is down to approximately 104, 000, from 240,000 ten years ago). The FBI employs 27, 400 people, with an annual budget of 3.57 billion (FBI FAQ page). The BATF is significantly smaller, however it does employ 3,998 people (I couldn’t find their budget as of this writing.) For purposes of this argument, I will extrapolate from the FBI figures (3.57B / 27,400 * 3,998 =) 520 million for the BATF budget.
So, let’s crunch some numbers. IANAFrickin’ Accountant, so please bear with me if I’m off a little bit. If I take 70M people, and say had FBI + BATF = 31,398 Gun Registration Bureau (GRB) (no, I did not combine the GRU and the KGB on purpose, although it could be relevant ) agents (only, not counting support personnel) and divided one into the other I get 2,229 people per agent. This means that an agent would have to schedule/verify/visit up to 9 people per day during the standard work week/year. So, who is going to pay for this?
Well. I thought this thread was winding down, so I went off and devoted all my attention to my “government enforced morality” thread (and a lot of attention that was), and then I come back here and find that the joint’s still jumpin’. That’ll show me…
Ooooo-kay, let’s back up here, shall we? The whole gun/car issue came up when I responded to another poster who brought up an old gun control argument, which goes, roughly, “You have to get a license to get a car, so why shouldn’t you have to get a license to own a gun?” I pointed out that if you want a gun control regime similar to that for cars, then you will be supporting a system in which no license is required to simply keep a gun in your own home, which would be less restrictive than the laws already in place in a lot of places. This is a simple statement of fact, saying nothing about whether or not such a system is desirable.
I then went on to argue that driving a car in public is more dangerous than keeping a gun in your own home, with which I would hope you would agree, though one never does know, and that driving a car in public is more dangerous than carrying a gun in public, with which I imagine you would disagree, but never mind that for now.
Hence, what I was arguing against specifically was the logic chain A, therefore B, where A is the fact that you need a license to drive a car, and B is the supposition that we should have to get a license to own a gun.
Although, as you have no doubt picked up, I am against gun licensing in an absolute sense, I was not actually arguing against gun licensing per se, only that this A therefore B argument is invalid. Or rather, I was attempting to argue this and only this, though I may have gotten off topic in some of my later posts.
So…what point exaxtly am I missing?
Ummm…no. I certainly cannot make you any assurances, any more than you can assure me that a gun registration list won’t someday be used as a tool to facilitate confiscation. There are no assurances in this life.
As for the theft issue, the deterrent to theft is my own self interest…I paid good money for that gun, and I certainly don’t want it stolen. I can’t assure you that it won’t be stolen of course, but if despite my best efforts it is, are you suggesting I bear some moral culpability if it is used against you? Last I checked, if you have something stolen from you, you are the victim of a crime, not the perpetrator.
I do not agree with any such thing. You certainly can be wrong in all cases. You probably aren’t, but I don’t know that.
Ahhh…and now I must retract my previous statement, as your characterization of yourself as “clearly misguided” is of course correct. Unless…wait, is that a paradox though? Hmmmm…
I am not going to get involed in your argument with Uncle Beer…I don’t understand it, and I refuse to make the effort to try. You responded to my points…whether or not you “directly adressed” them is IYHO. What accusations of yours have I avoided, specifically?
And what claims have you made for which I should have asked for cites?
Ah…so if I address your points it is a “silly sound-bite response”? Uh-huh. And what embarrassing situation am I in, exactly?
I would say that this depends on how it is attempted, and whether or not the attempt will in fact “bring commensurate benefits.”
So you say. Do you have evidence of registration actually doing this in the real world?
I was going to say, it sounds like what you are talking about here is licensing, not registration, but on re-reading it, it actually seems to be referring to the system already in place of not letting felons and people adjudicated to be insane own guns. In any case, what does this have to do with registration?
Again I ask, do you have evidence of this actually working in the real world?
Are you implying that there is no responsibility in “the system” right now? Certainly, by law you are responsible if you fire your gun and hurt someone or their property.
Now this does sound like a licensing scheme. Licensing and registration are two different things.
Others have adaquately addressed this.
That is the system we have in place today…it is not the same as registration.
Registered citizens? I thought you were talking about registering guns.
Others have adequately dealt with this, especially Anthracite, but let me just add that I don’t have the right to kill someone breaking into my house, I have the right to use deadly force, an important distinction.
This just sends a shiver down my spine. In a free society, you are innocent until proven guilty, and we do not, repeat not simply assume that everyone is going to break the law at some point. To base a law on such an assuption would be prior restraint, which is forbidden under the US constitution.
In the first place, “as limited as possible” would seem to imply a total ban on guns, something you said you weren’t advocating. In the second place, using the same logic, you could say that the fact that there is no guarantee of “Good Citizenship” mandates that controls over people must be as tight as possible…after all, you never know when one of those people will turn into a criminal, but as per what you said earlier, it is inevitable that it will happen.
I infer from this that you are opposed to the carrying of concealed weapons; let me know if I am wrong…
True but incomplete. A gun anywhere anytime is not a danger to anyone unless it is used.
And now you are ascribing mind control capabilities to an inanimate object. No gun has any such power. Only a person can “(turn) 1 second of panic or rage into an irrevocable, life-altering, life-ending reality.” A gun can’t make you shoot it. It will only be shot if you make a conscious decision to do it.
Again, please show me an example of this actually working in the real world.
The whole idea still turns my stomach. I don’t care how polite they are.
Are you an economist?
First, as I said before, I have a right to use deadly force, not kill. Second, I gained that right when you broke into my home, which is perfectly adequate evidence that you intend to do me harm. And I certainly do not have a responsibility to read your mind…I can’t.
And placing restrictions on people because of something they might do is, as I said before, prior restraint.
Again I ask, is there any evidence of this actually happening in the real world?
A years supply of Rice-A-Roni[sup]TM[/sup], the San Francisco Treat? A copy of our home game? I have been wondering about this myself…
Svinlesha, I now formally concede that you were correct
I don’t know if he was kidding, but I’m not. Once again, is there an example of this actually working in the real world?
amrussel has already done an excellent job in addressing you objections, but I just want to reiterate: the underlying implied accusation in your post that somehow all anti-gunners are pushing a secret, totalitarian agenda is simply tiresome. I (and most anti-gunners) advocate a state of individual freedom so radical that it would probably make your head spin. I can’t imagine why you would think that I have the slightest interest in “controlling” your life. I simply think that when it comes to firearms, which are dangerous weapons, some modicum of controls are necessary for the sake of the entire community’s safety. That’s all. After that, if you want to own a gun, ain’t none of my goddamn business, or anyone else’s: more power to ya. Nor do I pass judgement on why you want to own one. Again: ain’t none of my goddamn business. Period.
ExTank:
Hiya, Tank, nice to see you again.
First off, not to belabor an extraneous detail, but re: the debate concerning guns vs. swords, using the sort of logic you imply, I could conceivably argue that a paper plate is more lethal than a gun:
“Though firearms are more inherently lethal than paper plates on a one-on-one basis, in the reported incidents of attacks, paper plates attacks have higher injury and/or mortality rates over firearms due to a higher sustained intent of the attacker.”
Certainly if somebody was angry enough to try to kill me with a paper plate his intent might well be significantly higher than a less intent gun-wielder…so let’s just make this easy by supposing, as most rational people would in such a discussion, that all other things are equal, as in the sense of a controlled experiment. Of two people equally intent on taking my life, who is more likely to pose the greatest danger to my health: the one with the sword, or the one with the gun? It is on this basis that one should assess the relative lethality of the two weapons.
A point well-taken, but I don’t advocate banning handguns, so I don’t know if this applies to me, specifically.
*Ah, typical response. You seem to assume here that the default position is liberal gun legislation, and that to argue for a change anti-gunners must meet a thousand-headed hydra of detailed proofs. The argument, however, is disingenuous for two reasons:
Perhaps the shoe should be on the other foot: Perhaps the default position is that of sensible gun-legislation, and it is actually incumbent upon pro-gunners to argue that their system is the better one.
The statistics are in dispute: And you know this well, your Lott study notwithstanding. I have yet to see an undisputed statistical study from either side of the debate. Requiring such from russ is unfair, since you know that it cannot be provided. Additionally, citing the Lott study is a red herring, since you also know that the statistical research on which it is based is also disputed.
Finally, as russ points out, the argument does not imply that regulating firearms will in and of itself reduce violent crime, which has many other underlying causal factors. It is but one measure among many that hopefully will lead towards a reduction. amrussel:
Your point about the assumption of a clear dividing line between “scum-bag criminals” and the rest of us, often used by pro-gunners, is an important one. I’ve noticed it as well, but not quite been able to articulate it fully, yet.
Take heart! They may be giving you hell, here but at least you’ve made it to my All-time List of SDMB Heroes, and after a mere 36 posts!
Anthracite:
Your arguments are compelling and I find myself at a loss as to how to answer many of them. At the very least, I think that you are well within your rights to own and carry a weapon.
There is, however, one sense in which the bad-guys have “won,” in your case. To wit:
It would seem that your assailants have forever robbed you of your ability to move securely within society without access to a weapon. That is how they have “won.” And that sucks. But of course – speaking as an advocate of gun-control legislation, I wouldn’t want to take away your right to defend yourself, or to feel secure when you go out.
Clearly, none, in my opinion.
Weird Al:
Regarding the gun vs. car thang, I ain’t going there no mo. Your arguments are downright obtuse and you have clearly made up your mind on the question before entering the discussion, so please feel free to continue debating this issue with yourself, or with the nearest wall.
I would use the sort of pig-headedness displayed in your posts above as an example of my rant, but I know well that you are a special case. In an adjoining thread regarding governmental enforcement of morality, you have consistently opposed the clear and reasoned arguments of at least half a dozen of the most intelligent and articulate posters on the board, without the benefit of one single poster who supports your position. Most folks who encounter that sort of opposition generally take a step back at some point and reconsider. You are clearly not of that character, however, being rather exceedingly intransigent when it comes to maintaining an opinion, even in the face of overwhelming contrary arguments and evidence. Therefore, rather than address your post, I will simply suggest the following:
Well, this is intended to build on the system in place. So, convicted criminals and the insane may not register to own guns. So if they are found to possess one, they are ipso facto committing a crime.
Oz. Since registration, statistics show a drop in homicide rates, a drop in firearm homicide rates, a drop in the use of registered weapons in the commission of crime. That report concludes that the authorities should a) continue to enforce registration and b)take steps to reduce the number of illegaly held handguns.
There’s a difference between being legally responsible and actually being a responsible person. E.g. drunk drivers are legally responsible for their actions, but they don’t demonstrate any responsibility behind the wheel of a car. If people are going to be held responsible, it’s only fair that they be taught what responsibility means in this context.
No. I was trying to show that the requirements of registration would be no more than would be expected from a responsible, sensible person in any case.
Poor phraseology, I apologize for the confusion. Consider it to mean, citizens with registered guns. Oh, and this would be a good time to thank Kimstu for picking out the, ahem, deliberate mistake in my previous post. Cursed assonance.
The right to use deadly force includes the right to kill in that situation. On this topic, I would be very interested to see figures for home-entry crimes in the US, to get an idea of the scale of the problem, including a break down by type of crime. I ask because here in the UK the number of people attacked in their own homes by strangers is small: sufficiently small that no-one argues that guns are needed for self-defence. I would be honestly interested to know why these crimes occur more frequently in the US. I would also point out that there are various non-lethal precautions which can be taken to prevent home entry, alarm systems, window grills, secure locks, internal locks etc.
But the original point was, and is, that an 18 year-old sneak thief does not deserve to die for his crime, and that pro-gun advocates seem to believe otherwise.
If you notice, I don’t make the assumption that everybody is going to break the law at some point either. I said that: 1) the vast majority of legal-gun-owners do not commit criminal acts, e.g. suddenly snapping and killing their colleagues 2) A vast majority does not equal the entirety. 3) Therefore we can say with certainty that some, perhaps only one, gun-owner(s) will use his/their gun(s) for an illegal purpose. We don’t know which one. Does that not send shivers down your spine? And I do not think that deciding that, say, heavy machine guns should not be available to the public counts as prior restraint
Right. I said I wasn’t advocating a total ban on guns. Therefore the phrase “as limited as possible” must mean something else. Picking out half-sentences and saying, “Aha, these four words reveal what you really think and the hundreds of others were just a cunning smokescreen, you totalitarian you” and then launching nto a reductio ad absurdum argument doesn’t get anybody anywhere. Just to clarify, when I talk of what is possible, I mean what is possible in today’s society, without overturning the foundations of the justice system. Unbelievably, I’m trying to come up with proposals which will work in the real world. Just try to imagine I’m not actually insane, it’ll help. Failing that, don’t assume I believe anything until I say I do.
I don’t know how you can infer that. I am given to understand that many gun-owners derive pleasure from going to down to the range and shooting a variety of weapons. If that is the only use they have for their guns, keep the weapons securely at the range. If there are other uses, e.g. home defense, fine. How you get from that to concealed weapons is beyond me.
Wrong. By that definition of danger, you would feel perfectly safe to discover an armed stranger in your bedroom, knowing that there was absolutely no danger at all to you until the gun was actually used. Yes?
Oh please. And what if, half a second later, you regret that decision? That is why guns can “(turn) 1 second of panic or rage into an irrevocable, life-altering, life-ending reality.” The finger on the trigger is responsible for the cause, the nature and purpose of guns is responsible for the effect. Guns make it easy to kill, therefore killing happens more frequently when guns are present. Think about the following
[list=1]
[li]Guns don’t kill people, people kill people;[/li][li]Microwaves don’t defrost food in minutes, people defrost food in minutes;[/li][li]Cars don’t travel 300 miles in 4.5 hours, people travel 300 miles in 4.5 hours;[/li][li]Space shuttles don’t go into space, people go into space;[/li][li]Calculators don’t work out square roots in a fraction of a second, people do.[/li][/list=1]
Any machine which makes a process easier is going to increase the frequency with which that process occurs
It’s not about “politeness”. It’s about transparency and accountability. Not the usual hallmarks of totalitarianism. At the risk of getting into another argument about analogies, I have, yearly, to submit my car to a registered mechanic to prove, to the government, that it’s road worthy. And I have to pay for the privilege. Is that totalitarianism?
No. BF, are you? If so, can I ask how you arrived at the (IIRC) $2500 price tag for a shotgun? If you want credentials, WAE then I’m an eCommerce analyst and spend a fair proportion of my time studying supply-chain dynamics, inc. cost-effectiveness.
If we accept the definition of “do me harm” includes “nick my TV and petty cash” as well as “kill me and my family” then yes. If you are going to kill someone because you assume you know their intent, you have a responsibility to have (at the least) a better than evens chance of being right.
Hmm. That’s certainly true for an individual, but what about restrictions placed on society, for something that, owing to the large population, certainly will occur. E.g. speed limits in residential areas. They don’t restrict an individual because he might shoot down the leafy avenues at 50 mph and take out Granny, they restrict all of society equally because there is a certainty that one person in, say, a million, would. Do you see the difference?
You know what I’m going to say. We can say it together, if you like.
I don’t know if he was kidding, but I’m not. Once again, is there an example of this actually working in the real world? **
[/QUOTE]
Do you want to say it or shall I?
My god, I’m finding this responsive style of debating hard work. Can I ask, as a favour that someone put forth the arguments against registration (if anyone can be bothered with the topic) or gun control in general. Just so I can see it down in black and white? Cheers.
Oh good lord. And gun control advocates routinely accuse us pro-gun types of “slippery-slope” fallacies?
Uhm…news flash. They already are.
It’s not the “gun lobby’s” (high! how are ya!) stance, or goal, to totally eliminate all social inequity. It’s to protect the rights of citizens from the “gun control lobby”. The things that we in the “gun lobby” have and do advocate (collectively, not individually; I personally think that more can be done, but not within the limited mission of the NRA and other such organizations) are tougher sentencing guidelines, especially for repeat violent offenders, and for more uniform enforcement of existing gun control laws.
No, I wasn’t kidding. I was perfectly serious. Show, through causal analysis (instead of wishful thinking) how mere registration will reduce the number of firearms making their way into criminal hands. The only benefit of registratin that I can see is in aiding law enforcement in tracking the paths of firearms that criminals are getting, and in assisting criminologists and statisticians in spotting trends in firearms use in crimes.
These, in turn, can assist enforcement efforts of existing gun control laws, and, if necessary, help legislators in crafting, or modifying, effective gun control laws.
You missed the point; the question I wanted to see you address was how criminals might arm themselves in the presence of more restrictive gun control laws. Hereafter referred to as the “substitution effect”.
Exactly “how” people with “violent criminal tendencies” are getting guns have a plethora of answers, depending on who you talk to. One gov’t agency says around 60% are from home thefts; HCI, depending upon which piece of legislation they’re currently trying to push, will tell you anything from “strawman purchases” to “gun show loopholes” to Eddie Eagle passing them out in schools (okay, the last was a bit of exaggeration; HCI probably never said that).
Here, at least, we are in partial agreement. Yes, addressing all the myriad factors that may drive criminal behavior is a daunting task. However, the “…anything that can mitigate…” doesn’t necessarily follow. “Anything” can be, well, anyhting; from heightened owner awareness through public service ads and private sector owner’s organizations, to outright bans and a federal agent knocking on your door with a blanket John Doe search warrant.
So I disagree that “anything that can be done, should be done” is a wise course of action, especially considering the underlying constitutionality of the issue.
jdavidpope: you’re going to have to put up with a bit of snappishness from us “gun nuts” if you’re going to post blanket statements like yours. At least develop the ability to separate “fact” from “opinion”, and delineate such in your posts.
My post count may not be the highest here, but I’ve been around since March of '99, fighting an uphill battle in the absence of allies until others came along. Some of the earliest “debates” were downright hostile and ugly (against not only gun ownership, but against gun owners as well); fortunately, they seem to have become a lot more civilized in the past year or so, mostly because the gun control nazis went away.
Back to amrussel:
Have you ever heard of a little document called the Bill of Rights? The 5th Amendment? Under your registration scheme, “disallowed persons” cannot be prosecuted for failure to register, as it would be “self incrimination”; you can only get them on illegal possession.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 already provides for prosecution of these “disallowed persons” when caught in illegal possession.
Is this a case for owner licensing? Or gun registration? Registration of firearms will in no way “educate” anyone on anything other than how to fill out a gun registration form. Licensing, OTOH, may have an educational element to it.
So, if all things are equal (as you pointed out in the above statement) then why the need for registration?
Alarm systems are as, if not more, expensive than a firearm, and require a security service to monitor (and they don’t work for free). Window grills are also expensive, often unsightly (and thus against many community association’s building codes); door and window locks are only as good as the frame into which they are embedded and secured, so additional contractor work may be required to sufficiently enhance the structural integrity of door and window frames to make window grills, window and door locks, effective. Plus, all that enhanced security may, in and of itself, attract home burglars; after all, only someone with “expensive stuff to protect” would go to all that trouble and expense to turn their home into a fortress.
But, for a mere $300 dollars, a good quality .38 caliber revolver will protect you and your loved ones, and your home, either in your home or out and about in public, without all of that expensive advertising that your home is worth breaking into.
This is nonsense. Unadulterated hype and bullshit. I have yet to meet a pro-gun advocate, either here or IRL, that ever advocated summary execution of anyone on their property or in their homes. This was a straw man of the first order. An “18 year-old sneak thief” in my home would be greeted with an unpleasant surprise: me in my underwear pointing a .45 at him. Should he turn and run, I’d let him go. If he put his hands up and surrenders, he would be alive and well when the police come to collect him.
Should he decide to attack me, he would have a gunshot wound or two in his body. Whether he lives or dies would depend upon my marksmanship and the response time of any emergency medical service. But the underlying point is: he has no right to even be in my home, uninvited, in the first place. Should he flee or surrender, he will be unharmed. Only if he escalates the situation by attacking will he come to harm. Admittedly, quite possibly fatal harm. I find this attitude to be the most prevalent amongst the gun owners I have talked to, which are quite a few.
You mentioned earlier that we gun owners have “lost” by allowing criminals to “win” over us and our fears. Well, ipso facto, you are guilty of the same thing. You live in fear of “the lone madman” gun owner, which, statistically, is so small that it isn’t even a quantifiable category (if I’m wrong and it indeed is, please direct my attention to the relevant cite), all the while agreeing with us gun rights advocates that such people hardly even exist in the first place! At least us gun owners are “living in fear” of a numerically signifigant class of people who have, as a group, little or no respect for the laws of society or the rights of other human beings.
And, FYI: in the U.S.A., machineguns, even heavy ones, are available to the general public after going through a fairly hairy administrative and bureaucratic nut-roll. Fingerprints, photos, backround checks, administrative fees (“taxes”) registration of the weapon(s), etc. You are also subject to periodic check-ups from the BATF while you own such devices.
Silly. Talk about reductio. To follow and modify your above analogy: If I were walking down the street, and suddenly came upon a handgun lying upon the sidewalk, I would not be afraid of the gun. It is an inanimate object, and can do me no harm without someone picking it up and pointing it at me.
If I were to suddenly find an unknown firearm in my bedroom, I would be somewhat alarmed. Who’s gun is this? How did it get here? I would be concerned that either someone broke in while I was gone and dropped it, or that soemone in my household was carelessly leaving firearms lying about.
But at no time would I be in fear of the firearm.
But, if I were to suddenly wake up and find an armed intruder in my bedroom, I still wouldn’t be afraid of the gun; I would be afraid of the intruder, and fearful of his intentions. Note the word “intentions”, as it is not the first time that I have brought it up. Yes, I may fear that he is going to shoot me; I may fear rape, mutilation, and many other heinous crimes. If he just points the gun at me, takes the watches and rings from my dresser and leaves, I would heave a great sigh of relief. And change the bedsheets, and my underwear, before the police arrive to investigate.
But at no time am I afraid of his gun; I’m afraid of what he might intend to do with that gun.
Again, you’re ascribing motive, intent, to instrumentality; no firearm ever forced its wielder to pull the trigger. That’s why we have degrees of wrongful death categories; “manslaughter”, “justifiable homicide” “murder in the 2nd” “murder in the 1st”, etc., to differentiate the intent of the person behind the weapon.
A gun shoot bullets because people pull the trigger;
A microwaves defrost food because people put food into the microwave;
A car can travel 300 miles in 4.5 hours because people drive the car 66 m.p.h.;
Space shuttles can go into space because people launch and pilot them into space;
A calculator can work out square roots in a fraction of a second because people punch the buttons to make it do so.
At no time do any of the above devices ever, of their own will and volition, carry out their ascribed functions without a human presence and will directing them.
Demostratably untrue; here in the U.S.A., we have record high levels of gun ownership, and a 30-year low in violent crime, following an 8 to 10 year downward trend. We have less violent crime now than before the GCA of '68 was enacted. Coincidentally, we also had record growth in our economy during that period, extremely low unemplyment rates, and have kept inflation largely in check (causing real growth in income).
What, you want us to do your work for you? Hah!
Can I ask, as a favor, that you do a search of Great Debates using the keywords “Gun Control” and do a bit of back-reading? Have a pot of strong coffee or tea handy should you decide to do so. There are quite a few debates of various quality here.
So…I keep cool, and you are reduced to sputtering personal insults, taking your bat and ball and stalking off in a snit, turning back briefly to stick out your toungue and say: “…and everyone in the other thread agrees with me too…nyaah”…
Am I supposed to feel bad about this? As a way of cutting and running from an argument you are losing, this way is…well, not the worst, I suppose, but not the best, either. Certainly not the most grown-up.
Now then, on the consideration that after you calm down, you might change your mind and decide that you want to come back here and debate, I am going to invite you to, one more time, address my arguments.
Please be advised, if you choose not to respond to me, I will not take your silence as a concession, only as an indication that you don’t want to play. But please address the topic and resist the temptation to stoop to personal insults. If you feel you must, take them to th Pit, where I may or may not follow you, depending on my inclinations.
Now then: Did you read my last post? Especially the three paragraphs I start off by saying: “Ooooo-kay, let’s back up here, shall we?” I distilled the whole gun/car thing down as basic as I could right there. Now, I note with interest that since you joined this thread on page three, there are a number of places where you claim to have directly addressed my arguments, yet you have in fact done no such thing. You certainly did not address those three paragraphs; in fact I note, again with great interest, that it was directly after I posted them that you decided to stop addressing my arguments.
amrussel: I haven’t forgotten you. It’s just going to take me a little longer to respond to you.
Svin: I didn’t ignore you earlier; I just plain overlooked you.
To address your points: yes, logically, you could say attacks with paper plates have higher rates of injury death than those with guns, because only a crazy mo’ fo’ would think to attack anyone with a paper plate.
But as far as being used in violent crime, paper plates are probably waaaayyyyy far down the list of preferred weaponry, while I think that firearms and edged weapons (not just swords; that was never my contention) probably are pretty close together (maybe adjacent?) on that same list.
And my statement was a thought experiment; you recall the sentence right after I wrote it?
A higher level of physical effort might be indicative of a higher motivation, or it might be merely a case of “nearest weapon to hand”.
I wasn’t arguing the comparative lethality of the instruments, anyway. I was pondering the relative levels of intent between attackers. Perhaps knife-wielding assailants stab victims dozens of times, whereas gun-wielding assailants merely shoot victims once.
Anyway, it’s a moot point as far as I’m concerned.
However, I must take exception to the following:
I think that asking for a preonderance of evidence before the encatment of sweeping social policy isn’t at all unreasonable. Look at the debates over abortion, taxes, military spending, prohibition and The War on Drugs for similar examples.
This isn’t a reason; it is entrenched dogma that “sensible gun control” is automatically, by whatever virtue you care to claim, the inherently sensible and correct position. I, and the “gun lobby”, aren’t looking to change the status quo, Brady and Co.are. Since they are the ones agitating for “more than the satus quo”, I feel that the burden of proof (not necessarily overwhelming, just a preponderance) is upon them.
Thank you for making my point for me. In the absense of any evidence linking mere general availability to levels of criminal violence, why is it assumed automatically that such a relationship exists? If I require anything, of anybody, it is because as a free citizen of a country in which the government governs by the consent of the governed, I feel that any further restriction upon my rights as a citizen be justified, by those wishing to change or restrict my rights, to not only my government, but to myself as well.
And you will never, ever see and “undisputed statistical study” of anything, much less on a topic as severely polarized as gun control. And red herring my ass! Lott’s study was praised by non-partisans in the scholastic community; only Brady and Co. blasted it because his methodolgy was recognozed as generally flawless (by his peers, not I; I couldn’t tell one-way-or-another) by his peers.
But, being that there are no absolute (or even convincing) studies showing that more gun control will be any more effective than existing gun control, I, and others, resist the clarion call of emotional ploys and hand-wringers for more gun control.
And if it doesn’t? Will you stand besides me and millions of American gun owners petitioning for its repeal? Or will you join the ranks of Sarah Brady, and say “well, that didn’t work, what more can we do?”? Why not direct that initial impetus towards the real underlying causes of crime and violence, instead of wasting time and energy on “instrumentality”, or the window dressings of “gun control”?
So, you admit that it won’t work “merely” by itself, and then accuse me of stepping onto a slippery slope when I say the same thing. Funnily enough, this problem, like all big problems, is best approached from a number of different avenues. In terms of a demonstration, 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.
So why bring it up? It’s a massive red herring to say “don’t treat the symptoms, treat the underlying cause” when the underlying cause is so superbly difficult to treat. “No doctor, don’t give the patient any painkillers! Cure his cancer, that’s the solution. What? No, it’s not my stance or goal to cure cancer. But you should do it, and only it, because you’re the one trying to fix the problem.”
Australia, Australia, Australia. Check out that link, tell me registration doesn’t reduce gun crime.
This is hysteria. Did I propose these things? Should the phrases I use be read in context?
One of the features of registration, as I see it, would be that only those with licenses need apply.
Because there are advantages in coming right out and saying what you expect from people, as a means of ensuring that things stay equal.
I know these things cost money. I know there are many who can’t afford them. Are these people a target for burglars? I don’t know. But there are those who can afford them, and who are worried about security. If you rely on a gun, you’re planning on letting criminals into your house, then scaring them off or shooting them. Preventing entry, is, to mind, a valid alternative.
There has never, in the US, been case where a homeowner concerned for his/her safety shot first and killed an unarmed individual? When I was very young (early eighties) there was a case in Miami of a lost tourist who got shot dead when he knocked on a door to ask directions. The killer plead self-defense and got off. It made waves over here because he was Scottish. But I can’t name names as it was a while ago. In the UK, on the other hand, a farmer called Tony Martin shot-gunned a sixteen year-old thief in the back and killed him. What you and I don’t know is how many people in America would react like you, and how many like Tony Martin. There’s a difference between what people say and what they’ll do.
For the record, I absolutely agree that people have a right to defend themselves, and should do so when threatened. The reason I raised this issue was to make the point that it’s still wrong for people to die just for being in the wrong house.
Actually, I didn’t mention that bit, but fair enough. Another way to say “hardly even exist” is to say “do exist”. Existence isn’t an analogue state. And no, I don’t live in fear, nor would I in the US. It’s not fear to take sensible precautions against a certain event. And while this is unlikely to happen to an individual, making individual actions “fearful” it’s certain to happen to a member of society, making society’s precautions, i.e. not allowing classes of guns that can kill multiple victims in a few seconds, not fearful but sensible.
NO! I am not ascribing intent to the gun. I am describing the effects of the gun. Cars go fast because that is the effect they are designed to produce. Therefore I can say, cars make people go fast. The don’t force people to go fast, they enable people to go fast. If you’re in a car and you hit the gas, you’re going to go fast regardless of whether you wanted to show off your acceleration or were aiming for the brake and missed. Bullets come out of a gun and fly for the target whether or not you’d planning this for years or you panicked for a second. Then someone dies. Yes, the panicky person made it happen. But would it have happened without the gun? It’s an AND gate kind of scenario.
At no time do human presence and will make these things happen, unless the appropriate machine is there.
Demonstrably true. Step back from the problem a bit. America has higher rates of murder than any other developed country, and higher rates of gun ownership as well. Is that really nothing more than pure co-incidence? Or is it that, with more widespread access to killing devices, more killings take place?
Stating your case is my job? There aren’t enough hours in the day.
) agents (only, not counting support personnel) and divided one into the other I get 2,229 people per agent. This means that an agent would have to schedule/verify/visit up to 9 people per day during the standard work week/year. So, who is going to pay for this?
Unless…wait, is that a paradox though? Hmmmm…