# Save the guns law: What's the point? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 4, 2013, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016 "2013-09-04T19:15:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/81 "2013-09-08T19:38:49Z")
> [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > To use taxpayer funds to buy up valuable items of property, and then to merely destroy this property\*, is an extremely wasteful, irresponsible, and inefficient use of the resources with which they are entrusted. In any commercial setting, an executive who was responsible for engaging in such a practice with his employer’s money would certainly be fired at the very least, if not charged criminally for fraud and malfeasance. > > - See also: Obama’s “Cash for Klunkers” scam. That was no scam, it had a legitimate purpose – to get old fuel-inefficient cars off the road. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/82 "2013-09-08T19:41:24Z")
> [@The\_Niply\_Elder](#): > > The truth of the matter is that fewer and fewer people are gun owners, and that is a good thing as crime has been coming down because of it. > [@Bricker](#): > > Not at all. In fact, crime has been coming down because of the prayer program I started in 1992. > > Um… you first, if you’re going to ask for a cite. Post hoc, ergo propter prayer. I think our declining crime rate might be linked to our skyrocketing incarceration rate. Which might be too high a price to pay for it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/83 "2013-09-08T19:44:10Z")
> [@The\_Niply\_Elder](#): > > Lol, question ten on that survey: Would requiring mental health background checks on prospective buyers in all gun sales from federally-licensed dealers reduce instances of mass shooting incidents?. “No” came up as the most preferred choice at 45%. Either the survey was conducted by a website that attracts “not so smart people” (the most likely explanation), or police officers as a whole are pretty dumb. > [@pkbites](#): > > \*A full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally-armed citizen was present (casualties reduced: 80 percent; avoided altogether: 60 percent). I guess they **are** pretty dumb. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/84 "2013-09-08T20:09:29Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I guess they **are** pretty dumb. If you were able to find a survey that showed a significant majority of law enforcement officers supported strict gun laws you’d have posted it touting that they are the people in the know and should be listened to. As it is I’m not surprised by your post. _“Those that have an opinion different from my own are idiots”_ is the elitist attitude most on the left have. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/85 "2013-09-08T21:07:34Z")
Guns have rights too, you know. It is immoral and unconstitutional to go about destroying them as if they were inanimate objects. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/86 "2013-09-08T21:38:04Z")
I’m surprised they aren’t suing to give the guns to fetuses so they can defend themselves against abortionists. ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Blaylock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_blaylock/32/3235_2.png) [@Bob\_Blaylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Blaylock)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2013, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/87 "2013-09-08T23:44:28Z")
> [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > To use taxpayer funds to buy up valuable items of property, and then to merely destroy this property\*, is an extremely wasteful, irresponsible, and inefficient use of the resources with which they are entrusted. In any commercial setting, an executive who was responsible for engaging in such a practice with his employer’s money would certainly be fired at the very least, if not charged criminally for fraud and malfeasance. > > - See also: Obama’s “Cash for Klunkers” scam. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That was no scam, it had a legitimate purpose – to get old fuel-inefficient cars off the road. I dispute any claimed legitimacy to a government program aimed at _“get_[ing]\* old fuel-inefficient cars off the road”\*. I find nowhere in the Constitution that comes anywhere close to supporting any such function on the part of the federal government. In any event, if that was its purpose, then why did it apply only to cars 25 years old or newer? The very most fuel-inefficient and highest-polluting cars on the road are much older than that. Getting one 1960s- or 1970s-vintage car off the road would do more good, in this regard, than a dozen of the 1980s or newer cars that were actually eligible for this scam. Most of the talk in support of this scam, back when it was working its way through Congress, was economic. Getting people to get rid of old cars, and buy new ones, was supposed to help the automobile industry, which, in turn, was supposed to help the economy as a whole. This, of course, was based on [the Broken Window Fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window). The net result of this scam was to destroy valuable property, which can only be economically detrimental; leaving the economy as a whole, poorer by the value of the destroyed property. The economy can only be helped by creating wealth, not by destroying it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/88 "2013-09-09T02:35:50Z")
> [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > I dispute any claimed legitimacy to a government program aimed at _“get_[ing]\* old fuel-inefficient cars off the road”\*. I find nowhere in the Constitution that comes anywhere close to supporting any such function on the part of the federal government. Don’t peddle nonna that originalist bullshit 'round here. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Niply\_Elder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8e8cbc/32.png) [@The\_Niply\_Elder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Niply_Elder)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/89 "2013-09-09T04:04:20Z")
> [@Bob\_Blaylock](#): > > I dispute any claimed legitimacy to a government program aimed at _“get_[ing]\* old fuel-inefficient cars off the road”\*. I find nowhere in the Constitution that comes anywhere close to supporting any such function on the part of the federal government. > > In any event, if that was its purpose, then why did it apply only to cars 25 years old or newer? The very most fuel-inefficient and highest-polluting cars on the road are much older than that. Getting one 1960s- or 1970s-vintage car off the road would do more good, in this regard, than a dozen of the 1980s or newer cars that were actually eligible for this scam. > > Most of the talk in support of this scam, back when it was working its way through Congress, was economic. Getting people to get rid of old cars, and buy new ones, was supposed to help the automobile industry, which, in turn, was supposed to help the economy as a whole. This, of course, was based on [the Broken Window Fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window). The net result of this scam was to destroy valuable property, which can only be economically detrimental; leaving the economy as a whole, poorer by the value of the destroyed property. The economy can only be helped by creating wealth, not by destroying it. Complete utter nonsense. Cars older than 25 years old are likely to be considered classics, and driven very little, not to mention that their rarity makes their value pretty high. The prime target of the program was to rid cars in the 15-25 years old range, since they are still likely to be used closer to the average and pollute the most due to their poor maintenance. As for your pathetic Constitutional elitist quote, I recommend that you stop listening to incompetent right-wing propagandists who couldn’t be trusted with not letting the milk burn on a stove, much less have any comprehension of what it means to effectively run a government. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Niply\_Elder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8e8cbc/32.png) [@The\_Niply\_Elder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Niply_Elder)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/90 "2013-09-09T04:13:55Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > If you were able to find a survey that showed a significant majority of law enforcement officers supported strict gun laws you’d have posted it touting that they are the people in the know and should be listened to. > > As it is I’m not surprised by your post. _“Those that have an opinion different from my own are idiots”_ is the elitist attitude most on the left have. I’m sorry, but the survey had question 9 that asked: “Should citizens be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed to buy a gun?” and question 10: “Would requiring mental health background checks on prospective buyers in all gun sales from federally-licensed dealers reduce instances of mass shooting incidents?”, in which case, the self-selected group that frequents the website [PoliceOne.com](http://PoliceOne.com), responded both “No” for those questions. I’m sorry, but this clearly means that this particular group of individuals simply does not understand cause and effect. It most likely means that they are likely to be persuaded by right-wing paranoid propaganda, and are not really actually giving any thought to the questions. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/91 "2013-09-09T05:19:13Z")
> [@The\_Niply\_Elder](#): > > I’m sorry, but the survey had question 9 that asked: “Should citizens be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed to buy a gun?” and question 10: “Would requiring mental health background checks on prospective buyers in all gun sales from federally-licensed dealers reduce instances of mass shooting incidents?”, in which case, the self-selected group that frequents the website [PoliceOne.com](http://PoliceOne.com), responded both “No” for those questions. I’m sorry, but this clearly means that this particular group of individuals simply does not understand cause and effect. It most likely means that they are likely to be persuaded by right-wing paranoid propaganda, and are not really actually giving any thought to the questions. No, you’re incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Sanity\_Challenged](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de053/32.png) [@Sanity\_Challenged](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sanity_Challenged)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/92 "2013-09-09T16:43:52Z")
> [@The\_Niply\_Elder](#): > > I’m sorry, but the survey had question 9 that asked: “Should citizens be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed to buy a gun?” and question 10: “Would requiring mental health background checks on prospective buyers in all gun sales from federally-licensed dealers reduce instances of mass shooting incidents?”, in which case, the self-selected group that frequents the website [PoliceOne.com](http://PoliceOne.com), responded both “No” for those questions. I’m sorry, but this clearly means that this particular group of individuals simply does not understand cause and effect. It most likely means that they are likely to be persuaded by right-wing paranoid propaganda, and are not really actually giving any thought to the questions. _ **They** _ are being persuaded by paranoid propaganda? A claim was made, a cite was provided backing that claim, and you reject because…well obviously, _because!_ Facts are only facts if they agree with your completely unsupported opinion, right? How about you take a stab at supporting your argument. Provide a cite for actual street-level cops (not top-level brass in politicized roles) supporting gun control and showing that this particular survey and others like it are outliers in the real data. How about a cite for “requiring mental health background checks on prospective buyers in all gun sales from federally-licensed dealers [would] reduce instances of mass shooting incidents”? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/93 "2013-09-09T17:18:39Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > If you were able to find a survey that showed a significant majority of law enforcement officers supported strict gun laws you’d have posted it touting that they are the people in the know and should be listened to. > > As it is I’m not surprised by your post. _“Those that have an opinion different from my own are idiots”_ is the elitist attitude most on the left have. One big flaw in your thinking – remember that in the USA the right to guns has become the focus of what has grown into a belief system, quite removed from rationality. In gun control debates, Americans who believe in guns ignore or dismiss foreign data, generally pleading American exceptionalism and often making arguments that are not based on fact and reason. I would expect that surveys of American law enforcement officers would be biased simply because a significant portion of the participants would share in the American belief in guns. Look further afield and you certainly will find a very different attitude toward gun control by police officers. For example, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (for those who don’t know, Ontario borders on the industrialized Great Lake states, and if Ontario were a USA state, it would rank fifth in both population and GDP) support strict gun control to the point of wanting the government to maintain a registry of the ownership of all rifles and shotguns. Of course one could argue that just as the American belief in guns contaminates the positions taken by police in the USA, the Canadian belief in gun control contaminates the positions taken by police in Canada. The way past this problem is to steer clear of argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad auctoritas, and instead be open to looking at the actual data, which for the most part comes down to fewer guns leading to fewer gun deaths and more guns leading to more gun deaths, with the USA having a tremendously higher rate of gun deaths than any other G20 nation. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/94 "2013-09-09T17:42:33Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > One big flaw in your thinking – remember that in the USA the right to guns has become the focus of what has grown into a belief system, quite removed from rationality. In gun control debates, Americans who believe in guns ignore or dismiss foreign data, generally pleading American exceptionalism and often making arguments that are not based on fact and reason. You’re saying that people who don’t share your beliefs are not rational, and don’t make arguments based on fact or reason. Is that about right? > [@pkbites](#): > > As it is I’m not surprised by your post. _“Those that have an opinion different from my own are idiots”_ is the elitist attitude most on the left have. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/95 "2013-09-09T20:24:32Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > One big flaw in your thinking – remember that in the USA the right to guns has become the focus of what has grown into a belief system, quite removed from rationality. And yet the ones engaging in faith-based witnessing in this thread are the anti-gun folks. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/96 "2013-09-09T21:25:21Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You’re saying that people who don’t share your beliefs are not rational, and don’t make arguments based on fact or reason. Is that about right? Nope. I’m saying take an objective look at the data in all similar nations, rather than cry exceptionalism or give credence to arguments to authority or popularity. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/97 "2013-09-09T22:16:09Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Nope. I’m saying take an objective look at the data in all similar nations, rather than cry exceptionalism or give credence to arguments to authority or popularity. Not sure how this is related to gun buybacks. Do you have examples of other nation’s gun buyback programs that you feel have been neglected to be mentioned? Not sure how to interpret your previous statement then - are you saying that unless one looks at international data and treats the US as just one of many other countries to compare to the rest of the pool, then one is behaving irrationally and not based on facts or reason? That the only way to act rationally based on facts or reason must be based on international data. Let me know if this is what you’re saying, or else you may want to walk back your previous post. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/98 "2013-09-09T22:45:58Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Not sure how to interpret your previous statement then - are you saying that unless one looks at international data and treats the US as just one of many other countries to compare to the rest of the pool, then one is behaving irrationally and not based on facts or reason? That the only way to act rationally based on facts or reason must be based on international data. Let me know if this is what you’re saying, or else you may want to walk back your previous post. The poll I linked to was an opinion poll of thousands of law enforcement officers who gave their opinion based on what they know and observed during the course of their careers. Statements that they were influenced by right wing politics is just arrogant elitism attempting to belittle the view points of others because it is opposite of the posters. I know what I know and think what I think by what I’ve seen on the streets of Milwaukee/Milwaukee County the past 31+ years. Because conservative politics and the NRA hold close to the same opinions as I does not neutralize the fact that I came upon my own opinions independently of those institutions! ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/99 "2013-09-09T22:47:19Z")
I think you meant to quote Muffin. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2013, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016/100 "2013-09-09T23:06:26Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I think you meant to quote Muffin. No, I was trying to post what I think the answer to your question is, even if Muffin and some others won’t admit to it. Their attempt to dissect the motivations and intellect of officers that answered the poll are insulting at best. It kind of reminds me of a joke Gallagher told once about how he got an F on a test that asked him his opinion on something. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/save-the-guns-law-whats-the-point/668016.md?page=6)