# The War on Guns **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 17, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101 "2013-09-17T22:13:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/441 "2013-10-03T20:30:14Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > … if a majority of gun owners who could carry don’t carry Why the obsession with “a majority of gun owners”? Is the argument null and void if only 49% carry but suddenly becomes valid if 51% carry? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/442 "2013-10-03T20:44:22Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Why the obsession with “a majority of gun owners”? Is the argument null and void if only 49% carry but suddenly becomes valid if 51% carry? Because the post I was originally replying to referred to that idea that “most of those guns stay at home or locked away”. I don’t know what “most” meant to the poster in actual percentage terms (beyond a majority, which really is just a synonym in this context), so it seemed unreasonable of me to suddenly jump in with another, different percentage. It isn’t for me to put words in someone else’s mouth. So I was just replying to an argument using the words that argument used. I don’t think it’s obsessive to try and ensure that I attribute only the words that someone said to them. That’s just honest debate. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/443 "2013-10-03T20:47:21Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I don’t think it’s obsessive to try and ensure that I attribute only the words that someone said to them. That’s just honest debate. You’re right. Obsession was the wrong word. Fixation might be closer to how I feel about it. Could you please answer my other question, about 49% and 51%? ---
**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:** [October 3, 2013, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/444 "2013-10-03T20:48:59Z")
At this point I can’t decipher what you are trying to say - I’ve given it a try but it’s just not happening. First you said you were making an argument against being allowed to carry, but apparently the argument is against a certain supporting argument? Feel free to make your own actual argument at some point - I suggest using less qualifying appositive statements. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/445 "2013-10-03T20:52:25Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You’re right. Obsession was the wrong word. Fixation might be closer to how I feel about it. > > Could you please answer my other question, about 49% and 51%? I don’t think it’s reasonable to call a desire to attribute only someone’s words to them a fixation, either. But I don’t really mind being accused of having a fixation on honest debate, so, ok, whatever. To answer your question; it’s possible, I suppose. We’d need to look at the other effects of gun ownership to know, and actually get the statistics to see if the original claims are true, but it’s not out of the question as a theoretical point. On a practical basis, it’s unlikely that we’d be able to draw such a specific line. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/446 "2013-10-03T20:56:12Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > At this point I can’t decipher what you are trying to say - I’ve given it a try but it’s just not happening. First you said you were making an argument against being allowed to carry, but apparently the argument is against a certain supporting argument? Feel free to make your own actual argument at some point - I suggest using less qualifying appositive statements. Does **CannyDan’s** post help at all? Your second point is correct - the argument is against a certain supporting argument, not against carrying or ownership full stop. I’m not _providing an argument against_, i’m _disagreeing with an argument for_. I’ve made my argument repeatedly; in deference to your wishes I made it again in response to your last post. Out of interest, does “at this point” mean there was a part at which you could decipher what I was trying to say? Is there a particular post at which I lost you, having been understandable before that? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/447 "2013-10-03T21:22:42Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > To answer your question; it’s possible, I suppose. We’d need to look at the other effects of gun ownership to know, and actually get the statistics to see if the original claims are true, but it’s not out of the question as a theoretical point. On a practical basis, it’s unlikely that we’d be able to draw such a specific line. RT, I’m not sure I understand your point either (I thought I did at one point, but now am unsure again). Aren’t you basically saying, “Hey, Bone, you can’t assert that guns offer protection if most gun owners don’t carry them”? ---
**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:** [October 3, 2013, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/448 "2013-10-03T21:23:22Z")
Earlier you stated you were arguing against being allowed to carry. If you’re walking back from that then fine. I think what you are saying is that limited to those people who have the ability to carry and choose not to, that subset of people should not make the argument that carrying offers protective benefits at those times that they are not carrying. I think this took 400 posts too many but hey what the hell. The reason why this has been difficult is because the argument really makes no sense. Consider the contrary position. Is anyone actually arguing that protective benefits are realized when they are not carrying (answer: no)? No one has made this argument so if you are actually saying that people shouldn’t argue in favor of protective benefits when they do not in fact carry, the response would be _‘well no shit’_. That’s why your now stated argument makes no sense because you’re not arguing against anything that anyone has stated. No one has made the claim that they enjoy protective benefits when they in fact are not carrying (other than third party benefits). Because of this, and trying to make the whole narrative make sense, one would infer you are saying that because some people don’t carry and there are no protective benefits when you don’t actually carry, then other people who want to carry should be prohibited from doing so. But of course that makes no sense and you’ve rejected that argument so I’m left with a big ‘what the hell is the point then?’ > [@](#): > > Out of interest, does “at this point” mean there was a part at which you could decipher what I was trying to say? Is there a particular post at which I lost you, having been understandable before that? You stopped making sense to me at post #384. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/449 "2013-10-03T21:33:20Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > RT, > > I’m not sure I understand your point either (I thought I did at one point, but now am unsure again). Aren’t you basically saying, “Hey, Bone, you can’t assert that guns offer protection if most gun owners don’t carry them”? For those non-carriers and those around them, yes. They of course offer whatever protection they provide to carriers. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/450 "2013-10-03T21:48:25Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Earlier you stated you were arguing against being allowed to carry. If you’re walking back from that then fine. Where? I’m not arguing against being allowed to carry, i’m arguing against an argument which is pro-carry (and ownership). > [@](#): > > I think what you are saying is that limited to those people who have the ability to carry and choose not to, that subset of people should not make the argument that carrying offers protective benefits at those times that they are not carrying. I think this took 400 posts too many but hey what the hell. The reason why this has been difficult is because the argument really makes no sense. > > Consider the contrary position. Is anyone actually arguing that protective benefits are realized when they are not carrying (answer: no)? No one has made this argument so if you are actually saying that people shouldn’t argue in favor of protective benefits when they do not in fact carry, the response would be _‘well no shit’_. That’s why your now stated argument makes no sense because you’re not arguing against anything that anyone has stated. No one has made the claim that they enjoy protective benefits when they in fact are not carrying (other than third party benefits). Because of this, and trying to make the whole narrative make sense, one would infer you are saying that because some people don’t carry and there are no protective benefits when you don’t actually carry, then other people who want to carry should be prohibited from doing so. But of course that makes no sense and you’ve rejected that argument so I’m left with a big ‘what the hell is the point then?’ I’m not arguing that people have said they enjoy protective benefits when they’re not carrying. Effectively, I actually am saying that last thing that you’re saying makes no sense, and indeed, it makes no sense if all allowing gun ownership does is allow law abiding citizens access to guns. But that’s not all it does, I would argue; I would say that providing greater access to law abiding citizens to own (and carry) guns also provides greater access to criminals to own (and carry) guns. Thus the question of how many people actually carry is important because we need to judge how much protective ability is actually produced from allowing gun ownership versus how much is lost. So if we state for example (and with entirely made-up numbers which are 100% hypothetical are i’m only using for the purposes of making a point, and not intended to be a statement on reality) that a certain level of gun ownership lowers the general population’s protective ability by 5%, we would need to see a greater than 5% upswing in public protection to counteract it. The amount of people who own, and carry, in such a situation, would affect that percentage; we might say that for example if half of all gun owners carry, that’s an 8% increase in the overall protective ability of the public. Judging gun ownership as a good idea purely by that protective ability, we come out on top there. But if only a quarter of all gun owners carried, then we lose out. > [@](#): > > You stopped making sense to me at post #384. Thanks! So it’s when I say that **Lumpy** was talking about just carried guns, rather than all guns, that I first lost you? I think that’s demonstatable given that the examples he gave in that post were both examples of public situations, not ones in the home. ---
**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:** [October 3, 2013, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/451 "2013-10-03T22:00:25Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Where? I’m not arguing against being allowed to carry, i’m arguing against an argument which is pro-carry (and ownership). How do you reconcile that with this: > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Yes, i’m making an argument against being allowed to carry. \*As general advice you can disregard if you wish - make clearer statements. Use less qualifiers. Use less commas and avoid appositives. Avoid semi colons unless they are essential to your point. It would go a long way to making yourself more understandable. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/452 "2013-10-03T22:20:24Z")
By posting the context for that quote. [QUOTE=Me] Yes, i’m making an argument against being allowed to carry. The problem is that that argument was predicated originally on Lumpy’s claims - I don’t personally know how many gun owners carry. I don’t know how many gun owners who own carriable guns don’t carry. So since my argument was based on what others originally claimed, or my interepretation of what they claimed, it makes sense to not ignore what others have said since what i’ve said is dependent on them. To put it another way; my argument is based on Lumpy’s claims, not originated from myself. [/QUOTE] It’s an argument against being allowed to carry _predicated on **Lumpy’s** claims_. I don’t know whether what **Lumpy said is true. There’s a difference between what my argument is as regards gun ownership/carry, and the argument that I think arises from Lumpy’s** points. As i’ve said repeatedly, i’m not making that argument because I don’t know know that those claims are true. And thank you for the advice on clearer writing. ---
**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:** [October 3, 2013, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/453 "2013-10-03T22:34:07Z")
Ok - I think your argument is more along the lines of: _The costs of carrying (potential misuse of firearms) may outweigh the benefits of carrying (protective/otherwise). If the number of people who actually carry is sufficiently small then the realized protective benefits would be correspondingly small. In those cases, a permissive carry environment primarily weighs on the cost side of the equation because those left carrying would be the bad guys. As a result, all carry should be prohibited if the carry rate is sufficiently low._ Is that about right? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/454 "2013-10-03T22:40:42Z")
Yes to the first part, no to the last sentence, because gun ownership as protection isn’t the only argument for gun ownership. That’s why I agree less reservedly to **CannyDan’s** rephrasing, because my argument isn’t against carrying or ownership because protection is just part of the picture. It’s just about the particular argument of protection. ---
**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:** [October 3, 2013, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/455 "2013-10-03T22:49:45Z")
Rather than try to parse this further I’ll just say that I don’t find the argument persuasive. A permissive carry environment is a goal in and of itself. In addition the benefits of carry will accrue whenever one chooses to carry and isn’t negated by those instances where they choose not to. In the scenario of more permissive carry environments the potential negative impacts have not been realized and therefore the supposed costs in the equation are insufficient to be informative. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/456 "2013-10-03T22:57:48Z")
A permissive carry environment being a goal in and of itself would be one of those other argument for gun ownership I was talking about. The benefits of carry will certainly accrue whenever one choose to carry, and isn’t negated by those instance where they choose not to. It’s not 2 - 2 = 0. But they don’t accrue as highly if one doesn’t carry so often. It’s 2 + 0 = 2 . I’m afraid i’ll have to ask you to expand on that last sentence. ---
**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:** [October 3, 2013, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/457 "2013-10-03T23:10:49Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I’m afraid i’ll have to ask you to expand on that last sentence. _In the scenario of more permissive carry environments the potential negative impacts have not been realized and therefore the supposed costs in the equation are insufficient to be informative._ 40 of the 50 US states are shall issue or constitutional carry. This is part of a nationwide trend towards more permissive carry. In other words, the scenario of a more permissive carry environment already exists. At the time these changes were debated, an argument was presented against a more permissive carry environment saying that it would lead to increased misuse of guns - the “blood in the streets” argument. This has not come to pass. So any reference to hypothetical costs associated with a more permissive carry environment are not based in reality and should not be used to support any argument. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/458 "2013-10-03T23:34:18Z")
But there’s a difference between a trend towards more permissive carry, and one towards more people carrying. The two aren’t the same. The number of people actually carrying could have stayed the same, decreased or increased at a linear rate as compared to an increase in permissiveness, or decreased or increased at a non-linear rate. ---
**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:** [October 3, 2013, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/459 "2013-10-03T23:41:12Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > But there’s a difference between a trend towards more permissive carry, and one towards more people carrying. The two aren’t the same. The number of people actually carrying could have stayed the same, decreased or increased at a linear rate as compared to an increase in permissiveness, or decreased or increased at a non-linear rate. That’s pretty much nonsense. When a state goes from no carry allowed to shall issue, the rate of people carrying only has one way to go. Staying the same or decreasing aren’t reality based options. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/460 "2013-10-03T23:48:34Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > That’s pretty much nonsense. When a state goes from no carry allowed to shall issue, the rate of people carrying only has one way to go. Staying the same or decreasing aren’t reality based options. Sure they are, because gun laws becoming more or less permissive aren’t the only things that affect whether or not someone carries a gun. The economy being bad for example might lead to less people wanting or able to spare the expense for a gun. A change in crime statistics in general up or down, might mean that someone might carry more or less. A particular nasty crime in someone’s local area might lead to them carrying more. So a trend in more permissive carry could well exist alongside a trend in decreased actual gun carry. Or increased. Or the same. We can’t conflate the two. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101.md?page=24)