The Gun Debate itself: a synthesis

[Kevbo]

As for the middle:

I think most of the pro-gun people do not believe the anti-gun side when they say they are not out to ban all guns. I certainly don’t.

It has become a talking point recently that *“There are too many guns, in too many hands!” “These sorts of rampages are too frequent!” * I think I heard the President say this, and I have certainly heard this from at least two acquaintances. It seems to be taken as cannon by many.

I would ask those who agree with this statement: *What number of guns, in how many hands would not be too many? How many shooting rampages per decade are acceptable? *

Given that the problem we are trying to solve is due to one or two guns wielded by a tiny handful of individuals, I don’t see how any answer other than zero to both parts of the first question addresses the problem that stronger gun regulation purports to target.

If zero is indeed the answer, then the shrieking from the NRA sounds far less hysterical. TPTB are out to ban all guns, and this is just a foot in the door. That this is an ultimate goal rather than an immediate one is a distinction of no import.

If the answer is not zero, then when the next nutter eventually goes on his rampage (and does anyone actually believe there is any law that will stop this?) will the response be “Well we did what could be done already.” or will it be “N was still too many guns…it needs to be N/2 or N/10!”

Is anyone who just wants to reduce the number of guns “out there”, but doesn’t want to take away hunter’s guns really willing to accept one or two mass killings per decade? That is about the best you can hope for, because that is about what happens in England, which is a very small country. Or will each of these increasingly rare events bring cries for ever tighter gun regulations?

Remember that currently almost twice as many children die per year because their forgetful parents left them in a parked car than die in shooting rampages. Both are so rare that they always make the news…but the former only on the day it happened, and again for the trial result.

Every bird hunter knows that if you fire your shotgun at a flock or covey, you will always hit nothing. To hit something, you have to pick out one bird and shoot at it. Those who seek to end this violence are trying to stop one or two crazed individuals by targeting the entire flock of gun owners. The only way this can succeed is with the legislative equivalent of a punt gun…and that is a far cry from what has been described as middle ground, or reasonable measures.

[ExTank]

@Bricker

Can I add another aspect?

Some folks seem genuinely unaware of the many incidents in which armed citizens deter crime, so much so that they believe such incidents are rare or even non-existent. And this is not because of wilfull blindness: as a general rule, these kinds of incidents don’t seem to be all that newsworthy. But every month, the NRA’s “Rifleman” magazine devotes their first few pages to listing the incidents from the past month from around the country. Every month, at least ten stories are presented – and I don’t know a single one of those stories was ever played nationally. Unless you’re looking for them, in other other words, those stories don’t exist.

This certain plays into developing the mindset that gun possession for personal protection is of limited utility.

This is one of the greater tools in the anti’s arsenal. The few researches into defensive gun usage have been problematic. Kleck & Gertz in their study estimated 2.5 million to 3.5 million DGU’s a year, and that was in ~'98 or so. Even if they were off by a factor of 10, that would stil be 250,000 - 350,000 DGUs per year, balanced against 9,000 - 11,000 firearm homicides per year we’ve been averaging for a while.

[JXJohns]

@Jas09

While your general framing accurately represents the two extremes (ban all guns, don’t ban any guns) it seems to ignore the middle.

For example, I respect the utility of long guns for hunting and handguns for self defense. I would oppose any attempt to ban either. However, I don’t see the utility of 30-round magazines, except for recreational target shooting (a rather limited utility, IMO). **Similarly, it seems to me that the only utility of miltary-style weapons (variants that are designed to specifically look like military equivalents) is aesthetic. And, as we’ve seen, one of the risks of these weapons is that they appeal strongly to mentally unstable individuals that are unhealthily immersed in military fantasy. **The availability of these weapons give them a way to live out these fantasies in a way that a non-“scary looking” weapon would not.

So there are, I think, reasonable reasons to have a scale of utility and focus on those areas where the utility is lower and the risk is higher.

The problem with your logic is that by banning the guns that only look menacing but function as any other, you are leaving out entire categories that operate the same and can deal out similar amounts of carnage. Senator Diane Feinstein herself admits that since the AWB expiration in 2004 only 385 people have been killed in the 8+ years following by assault weapons which by her definition includes guns with high capacity magazines. That means that the rest of the thousands of murders and suicides during that same time have been completed using the very same long guns and hand guns that you seemingly are ok with. Any gun can kill. It doesn’t matter what it looks like.

My compromise is to focus any new legislation on limiting those who can purchase guns, not what they can purchase. Better coordination of agencies regarding providing data tht powers the current NICS background checks. A change in HIPPA laws (if that is a roadbock) to make those undergoing treatment for mental disorders be reported to NICS to prevent them from legally purchasing guns as well. I would go as far as making laws that make doc or pharmacies mandatory reporters to NICS should they prescribe or distribute meds to those who are undergoing particularly violent or threatening mental disorders.

All that being said, I am perfectly willing to admit that I do not know crap about mental health problems or anything of that nature. Unlike many of those attempting to ban guns who have limited knowledge yet press on, I have no problems admitting my shortcomings in the mental health area.

[carnivorousplant]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

How many examples of defensive gun uses would not have been resolved in the same fashion if the defensive gun were a revolver?

Do you mean as opposed to a semi-auto or as a rifle? Probably none, unless one were shooting at a distance. Some folks can fire a revolver as fast as a semi-auto.

[Stealth_Potato]

@YogSosoth

Many times I’ve argued it with assault weapons and many times pro gun people refuse to answer the charge and come back with something akin to the belief that it doesn’t matter if it has a use or not, the argument should only focus on why the government should be allowed to ban it. If they can’t articulate that, they claim, then even if an item has no utility, it shouldn’t be banned. …

Why does one need an assault rifle? There is almost no situation in which one needs it for defense, thus it should be banned.

This is, actually, a pretty big part of the debate, and for many it is an argument that stands on its own: lack of positive utility is not a justification for a ban. For the folks on the pro-gun side, “why do you need it?” is a faulty question – it’s not relevant. Everything is presumptively OK, whether anybody “needs” it or not, until there’s a specific law against it, and you need to pile up some justifications in order to create such a law.

And, as people on the pro-gun side are fond of pointing out, that justification doesn’t exist in the case of “assault rifles,” as JXJohns points out. They’re enthusiast, gun-geek level weapons, and aside from a once-in-a-blue-moon spree shooter, they’re hardly ever used in crimes.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@ExTank

This is one of the greater tools in the anti’s arsenal. The few researches into defensive gun usage have been problematic. Kleck & Gertz in their study estimated 2.5 million to 3.5 million DGU’s a year, and that was in ~'98 or so. Even if they were off by a factor of 10, that would stil be 250,000 - 350,000 DGUs per year, balanced against 9,000 - 11,000 firearm homicides per year we’ve been averaging for a while.

And if they are off by a factor of 100 or 1000? Fantasy numbers can’t be corrected.

[Czarcasm]

How is this thread different from any of the other gun control threads?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@ExTank

This is one of the greater tools in the anti’s arsenal. The few researches into defensive gun usage have been problematic. Kleck & Gertz in their study estimated 2.5 million to 3.5 million DGU’s a year, and that was in ~'98 or so. Even if they were off by a factor of 10, that would stil be 250,000 - 350,000 DGUs per year, balanced against 9,000 - 11,000 firearm homicides per year we’ve been averaging for a while.

Shouldn’t that be balanced against firearm homicides and injuries? That’s another 75,000 or so.

[Stealth_Potato]

@Czarcasm

How is this thread different from any of the other gun control threads?

I figured this was aiming more at a debate about the parameters of the gun debate, as perverse and frightening as that may be.

[Czarcasm]

@Stealth_Potato

I figured this was aiming more at a debate about the parameters of the gun debate, as perverse and frightening as that may be.

I was hoping that it would be different, but I’m not seeing anything here in style and or substance that isn’t in the other threads, really.

[Blaster_Master]

I largely agree with the OP’s assessment and I’ve made a similar argument in some of the recent gun control threads. It’s easy to forget how our own experiences and beliefs about the utility of guns and other factors affecting that, like the police, affect our opinions on these laws. If you’ve grown up in a situation where you’re exposed to guns and their utility at a young age, you’re likely to not find them scary at all, and possibly even overvalue how useful they are in an emergency. Similarly, growing up in a situation where you’re in a fairly safe middleclass neighborhood with no visible guns other than on police, what exposure do you have to them besides what’s in the media and movies? You’re likely to find them more dangerous than they are and probably undervalue them in an emergency. I’d really like it if the debate could be framed in a greater understanding of how the two different sides see it so we can come to a reasonable understanding of those differences and get reasonable compromises on the laws we need.

Sure, I’ll even say that in a reasonable urban environment, where police are regularly patrolling and can respond quickly, it very well may be better off having tighter restrictions. Similarly, in a rural area, guns can easily save lives from criminals and animals and be useful for other purposes, and it would be disastrous to take guns out of those people’s hands. The problem is that effecting one of those hurts the other set. That’s why we need to have more centered and reasonable discussions about it.

[YogSothoth]

@Stealth_Potato

This is, actually, a pretty big part of the debate, and for many it is an argument that stands on its own: lack of positive utility is not a justification for a ban. For the folks on the pro-gun side, “why do you need it?” is a faulty question – it’s not relevant. Everything is presumptively OK, whether anybody “needs” it or not, until there’s a specific law against it, and you need to pile up some justifications in order to create such a law.

And, as people on the pro-gun side are fond of pointing out, that justification doesn’t exist in the case of “assault rifles,” as JXJohns points out. They’re enthusiast, gun-geek level weapons, and aside from a once-in-a-blue-moon spree shooter, they’re hardly ever used in crimes.

I think its obvious why but then I’m on the wrong side of the debate I guess. I think those should be banned because they are too dangerous and do not proportionately serve the needs of those who are justifying it with defense. Then the other side says “So? We might” and the debate ends. You can’t even hide these things so there’s no reality to the fantasy of pulling out your assault rifle to stop some madman on a rampage. And considering the misses, two people with assault rifles trying to kill each other will probably result in more deaths, not less

Why do they need it? They don’t, and that’s a good enough answer for something that can kill a dozen people in a few seconds

[carnivorousplant]

@Czarcasm

How is this thread different from any of the other gun control threads?

Well, nobody has killed anyone yet…

[carnivorousplant]

@Blaster_Master

Sure, I’ll even say that in a reasonable urban environment, where police are regularly patrolling and can respond quickly, it very well may be better off having tighter restrictions. Similarly, in a rural area, guns can easily save lives from criminals and animals and be useful for other purposes, and it would be disastrous to take guns out of those people’s hands. The problem is that effecting one of those hurts the other set. That’s why we need to have more centered and reasonable discussions about it.

Well said, Sir.

[GiantRat]

More people are killed every year by cheeseburgers than “assault weapons.” We can take the approach of characterizing inanimate objects as being evil (seriously, that gun doesn’t care who you are), or we can look at the fundamental causes behind violence. The terrifying assault weapon doesn’t give a shit about you… and neither does the cow that died to give you a quarter-pounder. They’re both equally un-living.

Cheeseburgers and guns have both played a role in early deaths. I still love them both.

And steak, seafood, salt, swine, saltwater taffy, and sex are also worth it.

It makes sense to take a second look at prospective gun owners. Background investigations? Sure, no complaints here. From my perspective, it just doesn’t make sense to blame the weapon when it’s the jerkoff behind the trigger who caused the problem.

I wish to hell a responsible gun owner had been armed in Newtown last week. Sometimes, putting a bullet in someone is a good thing.

[carnivorousplant]

@GiantRat

It makes sense to take a second look at prospective gun owners. Background investigations? Sure, no complaints here. From my perspective, it just doesn’t make sense to blame the weapon when it’s the jerkoff behind the trigger who caused the problem.

What about gun shows? Perhaps one should have a license to buy and sell.

[HoboStew]

@GiantRat

More people are killed every year by cheeseburgers than “assault weapons.”

God damn I am so sick of these moronic “arguments” put forth. Can you pro-gun people please circulate a newsletter to each other that explains CHEESEBURGERS ONLY HARM THE CONSUMER. NOBODY EVER WENT INTO A MALL AND MURDERED 20 PEOPLE WITH CHEESEBURGERS. STOP DOING THIS STUPID SHIT.

[Bone]

What about cigarettes?

[BigAppleBucky]

@artemis

No matter how many police we hire, they can’t be everywhere. . . .

Look out. That contradicts the leader of the NRA who just said he wants a cop in every school and by implication in every place children congregate. So schools, playgrounds, Chucky Cheese for birthday parties, movie theaters, swimming pools, YMCAs, etc. etc.

[ExTank]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

And if they are off by a factor of 100 or 1000? Fantasy numbers can’t be corrected.

Name another study or survey that counters that number.

Go ahead, I’ll wait.

The low end was 108,000 by a guy who thought the Kleck & Gertz study was too permissive; it came under fire for being too restrictive and discounting too many legitimate GDUs.

Several other studies/surveys over the decades have been in the 250,000 - 1.5 mil range.

Whose numbers would you believe? The F.B.I.'s? Don’t hold your breath, as they don’t collect those kinds of statistics. I’m not sure of any law enforcement agency, federal, state, county, or municipal, that does.

So, in the absence of any countervailing evidence, how do you summarily dismiss the only evidence we do have?