Lumpy plays devil's advocate on gun control

[Lumpy]

In the AWB thread, I posted an open question to YogSosoth; I never got an answer and he hasn’t participated in that thread since. Which is a pity because the more I think about it, the more it seems that in a few lines I managed to sum up the basic position of gun-control advocates:

@Lumpy

YogSosoth, if I understand your position correctly, it goes something like this:

* the government bans lots of things on the grounds that they're too dangerous to the public safety.
* Guns are dangerous, by intent.
* At least some guns then, are so dangerous that any potential good they do is outweighed by their potential harm; and therefore it is right and proper that the government ban them in the name of public safety.
* except those 2nd Amendment people keep insisting that guns have a special protection not afforded everything else that's dangerous.

Certainly this is logical on it’s own grounds. So logical, and so seemingly reasonable, that my own rebuttal now seems inadequate:

@Lumpy

If this is correct, then I see a broader issue to debate- the issue of what the government should legitimately have the power to proscribe in the name of public safety. I think you’ll find that a lot of people on this board are (small “l”) libertarians, and leery of excessive government power and intervention.

The problem is that even given that the above premises were correct, it would still not address legitimate concerns: the idea that the government and it’s officers can be privileged to possess power banned to the public at large, with all that implies for democracy; the question of real-world enforcibility of any form of prohibition (witness alcohol Prohibition, or the War on Drugs) and whether such prohibition not merely useless but counter-productive; and whether the supporters of an “assault weapon” ban are honest in both their intent and their assessment of the hazards of the weapons they propose to ban.

In short, I would like to hear some compelling arguments why the position I ascribed to YogSosoth (which he has neither confirmed or denied) is refutable.

[Magiver]

@Lumpy

• the government bans lots of things on the grounds that they’re too dangerous to the public safety.

That is an inaccurate statement. The government does not ban tools based on potential misuse.

@Lumpy

• Guns are dangerous, by intent.

That’s an inaccurate statement. Guns are tools used for a variety of sports as well as for defense. Banning tools because they are dangerous is not the function of government.

@Lumpy

• At least some guns then, are so dangerous that any potential good they do is outweighed by their potential harm; and therefore it is right and proper that the government ban them in the name of public safety.

No gun currently under consideration for banning has a history of misuse in proportion to guns not considered for banning.

@Lumpy

• except those 2nd Amendment people keep insisting that guns have a special protection not afforded everything else that’s dangerous.

The 2nd amendment SPECIFICALLY protects gun ownership. It’s not open for debate.

[Captain_Amazing]

I generally try to stay out of gun control debates, because I don’t like the idea of making armed people upset with me, but I will point out, in regard to “the idea that the government and it’s officers can be privileged to possess power banned to the public at large, with all that implies for democracy”, that we already accept the idea that the government and tis officers are privileged to possess powers banned to the public at large. The government, and its agents, can take my money, tell me what I can eat and drink, how I can use my property, how I should educate my kids, what I can buy and sell, who I’m allowed to marry and who I’m allowed to have sex with. It can lock me up for the rest of my life, kill me, or send me off to war. These are all controls over our life that we don’t let the average person who’s not associated with the government have.

[brazil84]

@Lumpy

In short, I would like to hear some compelling arguments why the position I ascribed to YogSosoth (which he has neither confirmed or denied) is refutable.

It seems to me the main problem with your argument is it assumes that gun control actually works. Look, if we banned semiautomatic pistols and the murder rate dropped by 90% the next day, I would be very tempted to switch sides. But that’s never happened.

Instead, what happens is that some new gun control law is passed and there’s no significant drop in crime. Rather than lobby to repeal the failed law, gun control advocates use the failure as an excuse to demand even tighter restrictions.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@brazil84

Instead, what happens is that some new gun control law is passed and there’s no significant drop in crime. Rather than lobby to repeal the failed law, gun control advocates use the failure as an excuse to demand even tighter restrictions.

That is not as illogical as you make it out to be.

What gun control laws that have been passed are generally ruined by compromises to get them passed. With gaping holes in the regulations it is no surprise the regulations fail. As has been noted around here it is akin to wanting to ban automobiles but the law only bans red automobiles. Is it any wonder that injuries due to automobiles would not drop in that case?

So, naturally, gun control advocates want more restrictions such that it would actually have an effect. I am making no comment here on the second amendment issues or what laws might help. Merely noting it is not illogical for gun control advocates to press for tighter restrictions.

[Cheesesteak]

@Magiver

That is an inaccurate statement. The government does not ban tools based on potential misuse.

War on Drugs, anyone?

That’s an inaccurate statement. Guns are tools used for a variety of sports as well as for defense. Banning tools because they are dangerous is not the function of government.

Actually, banning tools because they are dangerous (too dangerous, if you prefer) is a completely legitimate function of government. If the government doesn’t ban (too) dangerous tools, how do we rid ourselves of them?

No gun currently under consideration for banning has a history of misuse in proportion to guns not considered for banning.

Entirely irrelevant to the broad concept of gun control.

The 2nd amendment SPECIFICALLY protects gun ownership. It’s not open for debate.

Actually, the 2nd amendment protects the right to “keep and bear arms”. It doesn’t say a thing about “guns” or “rifles” or “pistols” or “sports” or “tools” or “personal defense”. It says “arms”, which is a general term for weapons, especially weapons of war. Since arms such as cannons, grenades, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, etc. are far too dangerous to be in the hands of the general public, we happily infringe upon a person’s right to keep and bear them while pretending we haven’t busted the 2nd amendment to bits in the process.

[brazil84]

@Whack-a-Mole

That is not as illogical as you make it out to be.

What gun control laws that have been passed are generally ruined by compromises to get them passed.

When you say “generally,” are you claiming that just about every gun control law passed in the United States (and the world) has been ruined by compromises?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@brazil84

When you say “generally,” are you claiming that just about every gun control law passed in the United States (and the world) has been ruined by compromises?

I do not have a comprehensive list of all gun control laws passed in the United States or the world. I will say the AWB was fatally flawed from the get-go. Or you have what they tried in Washington D.C. (recently stopped by the SCOTUS) and anyone could drive 10 minutes outside of Washington and easily sidestepped what they hoped to achieve in Washington. And so-on and so-forth.

Gun control, if done, would need to be on a national level and comprehensive (such as banning hand guns outright).

Of course there is the second amendment and not going to happen anywhere near so broadly so, by-and-large, gun control legislation is generally fatally flawed in my view. Perhaps there is some regulation out there that is useful (such has restricting machine guns…maybe [dunno myself, just guessing]).

[glee]

@brazil84

It seems to me the main problem with your argument is it assumes that gun control actually works. Look, if we banned semiautomatic pistols and the murder rate dropped by 90% the next day, I would be very tempted to switch sides. But that’s never happened.

If there was a 90% drop in the murder rate in one day, you’d only be ‘very tempted’ to switch sides?

Strewth - how much does gun ownership matter to you?

[brazil84]

@Whack-a-Mole

I do not have a comprehensive list of all gun control laws passed in the United States or the world.

In that case, are you retracting your claim that gun control laws – in general – have been ruined by compromises? Because as stated, your claim would seem to apply to all gun controls in the US, and indeed in the rest of the world.

Or you have what they tried in Washington D.C. (recently stopped by the SCOTUS) and anyone could drive 10 minutes outside of Washington and easily sidestepped what they hoped to achieve in Washington. And so-on and so-forth.

Again, I am confused. Are you saying that the DC gun ban was ruined by a compromise? What exactly was the compromise? Are you saying that gun control on a state level can never reduce crime at all but gun control on a national level can?

I don’t understand your position, but it sounds to me like you are playing the liberal epicycle game where excuse after excuse is manufactured for the failure of your policies. As opposed to accepting the unpleasant truth that those policies are fundamentally flawed.

[brazil84]

@glee

If there was a 90% drop in the murder rate in one day, you’d only be ‘very tempted’ to switch sides?

Absolutely. Mainly because I believe that there is inherent value in private ownership of firearms. (and also to a some extent because the value judgment has already been made by the framers of the Constitution).

[Sinaijon]

@Whack-a-Mole

Merely noting it is not illogical for gun control advocates to press for tighter restrictions.

Although not the topic of this thread, the thread in which the question was raised was not about tighter restrictions. It was about renewing restrictions that had already proved ineffective.

That is illogical.

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@Magiver

That is an inaccurate statement. The government does not ban tools based on potential misuse.
That’s an inaccurate statement. Guns are tools used for a variety of sports as well as for defense. Banning tools because they are dangerous is not the function of government.
[…]
The 2nd amendment SPECIFICALLY protects gun ownership. It’s not open for debate.

To my mind, there’s an inconsistency in this argumentation – on the one hand, you want guns to be seen as ordinary tools, on the other, you refer to their special status as given by the 2nd amendment. That doesn’t seem to go well together – if guns really were mere tools, why would they need constitutional protection?

The fact of the matter is, a gun does increase your lethality. Carrying it effectively means that you’re mere seconds away from potentially killing or grievously wounding anybody in your line of sight. Now, I certainly believe that people can handle this responsibility towards their fellow citizens, and I trust on this every time I get into my car (though to have it considered a right, rather than a responsibility only to be accepted with the greatest reluctance if it is thrusted upon you by necessity of circumstance, to my European thinking, seems somewhat strange). Everybody accepts certain caveats when wanting to command a vehicle capable of dangerously high speeds, such as having to possess a valid licence, and registering said vehicle, yet one can hardly even make similar suggestions when it comes to handguns – which are, arguably, of an even higher danger-to-utility ratio, at least for the majority of people (besides, intentionally shooting someone doesn’t open the shooter up to the same immediate danger an intentionally caused car accident would).

Also, the whole ‘if you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns’-argumentation is very valid, taken as such – certainly, that guns are illegal won’t prohibit anybody that already has illegal intent on their mind from acquiring them. The same argument, however, can be made for drugs – if drugs are illegal, only criminals will get high. It also works for murder – if you criminalize murder, only criminals will kill people. It’s thus not an argument against gun control laws at all; it’s an argument against all law.

There is, of course, the issue of personal protection the above argument somewhat glosses over – drug use doesn’t generally constitute a thread to anybody who could then defend themselves with drugs in turn; and you’re explicitly allowed to kill people in the face of serious danger to life or health. Personally, I see no reason to arm myself because of perceived threats, both because I’m not sure about a handgun’s effectiveness towards that end, and because I don’t judge the danger I’m in big enough; but I admit that one can validly feel different about this, and if I were living in a neighbourhood where I’d have to be weary of standing on the window too long for fear of catching a stray bullet, I very likely might. Similarly, I see no reason why guns shouldn’t be used for sport (though I suspect there may be ways to shoot for sport in a way nearly identical to the way it’s now without guns that actually could harm anybody).

Thus, flat-out outlawing guns may not be the way to go, besides being probably near impossible to implement in America; but I can’t really see any arguments against restricting their availability, possibly by requiring license and registration, and even excluding certain types of weapons/ammunition from general availability (though it may well be the case that the ‘assault weapons ban’, as presently conceived, is ill-advised – I’ve read numerous persuasive arguments towards that end on this board).

So, uh, that’s kinda my take on the arguments that are actually more or less already present in the OP, take it as just illustrating the whole thing a little from my point of view, and besides I’ve spent too much time typing this up by now to scrap it.

[Burton]

Clearly the framers of the constitution did nor foresee what the situation is now. The word “State” indicates they were thinking individuals should be allowed guns in order that they might create military bodies as required. It’s also interesting that only abut 5 years later the Government led by Alexander Hamilton took a huge army to Western PA to put down an armed insurrection. i.e.the Whiskey Rebellion. Although by the time the Army arrived the opposition melted away.

[Max_Torque]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

The fact of the matter is, a gun does increase your lethality. Carrying it effectively means that you’re mere seconds away from potentially killing or grievously wounding anybody in your line of sight. Now, I certainly believe that people can handle this responsibility towards their fellow citizens, and I trust on this every time I get into my car (though to have it considered a right, rather than a responsibility only to be accepted with the greatest reluctance if it is thrusted upon you by necessity of circumstance, to my European thinking, seems somewhat strange). Everybody accepts certain caveats when wanting to command a vehicle capable of dangerously high speeds, such as having to possess a valid licence, and registering said vehicle, yet one can hardly even make similar suggestions when it comes to handguns – which are, arguably, of an even higher danger-to-utility ratio, at least for the majority of people (besides, intentionally shooting someone doesn’t open the shooter up to the same immediate danger an intentionally caused car accident would).

I just wanted to address this part: driving a car on public roads requires knowing a number of very complex things, including interacting with other drivers, how to read signs, signals, and pavement markings, rules of right-of-way, methods of parking and reversing, how to gauge speed and space cushions, how to drive in adverse weather conditions, and so on. That’s why we have programs in place to license drivers. None of these complicated rules apply to firearms, which have a very simple “point and click” interface. “Don’t shoot people” pretty much covers it. So, in my opinion, a licensing and registration scheme is unnecessary, will accomplish no safety purpose, and would be merely burdensome to ordinary law-abiding citizens.

[Burton]

I think responsible gun ownership is a little more than that.

[Magiver]

@Cheesesteak

Actually, the 2nd amendment protects the right to “keep and bear arms”. It doesn’t say a thing about “guns” or “rifles” or “pistols” or “sports” or “tools” or “personal defense”. It says “arms”, which is a general term for weapons, especially weapons of war.

The Supreme Court would disagree with you regarding guns and the 2nd amendment.

[Blaster_Master]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

Also, the whole ‘if you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns’-argumentation is very valid, taken as such – certainly, that guns are illegal won’t prohibit anybody that already has illegal intent on their mind from acquiring them. The same argument, however, can be made for drugs – if drugs are illegal, only criminals will get high. It also works for murder – if you criminalize murder, only criminals will kill people. It’s thus not an argument against gun control laws at all; it’s an argument against all law.

This is a misrepresentation of the point of that argument. The concept is meant to entail someone who is currently a law abiding citizen and owns guns and, if the only change that is made is that gun ownership is banned, then these citizens, not wanting to break the law, will give up their guns; but those who are already breaking the law, like robbers, rapists, murders, etc. will have little incentive to hand over their guns, and so you’ve effectively disarmed the law abiding citizen at a much higher rate than the criminal.

Murder is not even a remotely fair comparison because it’s not something that is legal in any civilized nation or something that anyone thinks should be legal. There’s no debate about it and thus, by murdering someone you are a criminal. The fundamental difference is that gun ownership, in and of itself, does not imply criminality, but murder is, by definition, criminality. Is there any evidence at all that there is any causal relationship between gun ownership and criminality? In fact, I’d be surprised if legal gun ownership didn’t actually have a negative correlation with violent crime.

Anyway, my point is that representing it as an argument against law, as some sort of argument for anarchy, is a strawman. Specifically speaking the AWB, as proposed, has already demonstrated that it will effectively reduce the ratio of legal gun ownership to criminal gun ownership without an impact on crime. You’re removing rights from the general population but not providing any suitable conpensation. If the AWB could be shown to have a significant impact on crime, at least statistically significant such that it isn’t just a potential anamoly, then one might be able to make an argument that the trade of rights for safety is a worthy trade; it would at least then be the old rights versus security argument.

[Cheesesteak]

@Magiver

The Supreme Court would disagree with you regarding guns and the 2nd amendment.

If the SCOTUS wants to pretend that bearing “arms” in relation to having a “well regulated militia” that ensures the “security of a free state” has nothing whatsoever to do with military armaments, they’re free to do so.
From your perspective, how is it that the government can legitimately restrict access to a fully automatic (military grade) rifle, when an otherwise identical semi-automatic version is not restricted? What could the reasoning be behind the restriction, if not the fact that the fully automatic version is more dangerous when misused?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@brazil84

In that case, are you retracting your claim that gun control laws – in general – have been ruined by compromises? Because as stated, your claim would seem to apply to all gun controls in the US, and indeed in the rest of the world.

Again, I am confused. Are you saying that the DC gun ban was ruined by a compromise? What exactly was the compromise? Are you saying that gun control on a state level can never reduce crime at all but gun control on a national level can?

I don’t understand your position, but it sounds to me like you are playing the liberal epicycle game where excuse after excuse is manufactured for the failure of your policies. As opposed to accepting the unpleasant truth that those policies are fundamentally flawed.

Not retracting anything. And the Washington gun ban wasn’t ruined by a compromise in its own law but was thoroughly undermined by the simple expedient of driving a few minutes out of the city and obtaining a gun there. It would be like banning marijuana on the east side of a road while it is legal on the west side. I doubt you’d be surprised to see marijuana making across the road to the east side.

The policies fail because they are bad policies. I agree the AWB, as it was written, was largely a joke. Ignoring constitutional and practical issues for a moment an effective policy would have to be sweeping and on a national level. Something along the lines of banning all hand guns. A policy banning bayonet clips is predictably absurd and useless.