I’m gonna pick one thing from xenophon out of this mire.
I’d like you to explain just how my guns make society less secure. You posit an outlandish overreach of cause and effect.
Uncle Beer:
Sure. First, though, let me make it clear that I’m not talking about your guns or any specific individual’s guns; I’m talking about the accumulated number of handguns circulating outside of law enforcement, and whether a larger number of such handguns promotes public security more effectively than a smaller number. I do not represent HCI, Brady or any other “antigun” organization, nor do I support any ideology which advocates a ban on handguns, nor do I wish to prevent or impede the legal purchase of handguns.
My point regarding the right to keep and bear arms versus public security is that, instead of encouraging active use of that right in daily activities, we as a society would do well to encourage non-lethal forms of self defense and personal safety. It’s my belief that the RKBA is vital to our interests as a nation, as are the first amendment rights to free speech, press and peaceable assembly, and as are the other eight BoR amendments. But I also believe that those rights are there not to promote the bearing of arms and the assembly of protest crowds and the publication of antigovernment speech, but to protect our liberty to pursue those actions when they are appropriate. (My other main point in this thread, of course, is that the slope aint all that slippery and it’s kinda flat and bumpy. But you didn’t ask about that point, so I’ll ignore it in my response.)
It may surprise you to know that I agree with that old chestnut of a bumper sticker that says “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” I also agree with the person (whoever it was) who said “God created man, but Colonel Colt made 'em equal.”
I’m not going to delve deeply into the history of firearms (odds are you know even more than I about that history, anyway), but I’ll make the assertion that the advent of available handguns* substantially reduced the level of both skill and personal effort required to injure or kill an opponent in a fight, and longer barreled firearms certainly reduced the level of skill and practice needed to kill at a distance. (If you’d like cites to support this, I’ll certainly dig them up, but I’m pretty sure you agree with me so far.) Rifled barrels improved the accuracy of long guns, improving the odds that a shot fired would reach its target, reducing required skill levels even further. When multiple barreled pistols and multichambered revolvers made it possible to fire several consecutive shots from a handgun without reloading, this opened up even further the degree to which an individual armed with a firearm could deliver mayhem.
*[sub]By “available” I mean at a cost and quantity sufficient to make them ready and affordable to that portion of the population which was not considered wealthy. By “hangun” I mean any short barreled projectile weapon using black powder or gun powder.[/sub]
The handgun makes it possible for aged, infirm, uncoordinated, immature and untrained people to be just as deadly in personal combat as a battle tested soldier. I don’t mean just as skillful or knowledgeable; I mean just as effective in delivering a single killing shot. A 12 year old girl with a .22 can make someone just as dead just as quickly as a trooper with an M16 and years of combat experience can.
So, let me answer the question “why would an increase in the number of handguns in public circulation decrease the security of the public?” It’s not the question you asked, UB, but it’s the one I intended to answer in this thread, so you’ll just have to put up with it.
I’m sure you’ll agree that public security (I won’t call it “social security” so as not to muddy the issue) is affected by more than a few things. Certainly one of the very most important factors is the rule of law. I completely understand the feeling among so many honest and forthright people (and I include you in this category, Unc, even as much as I disagree with so many of your positions) that an armed citizenry, made up of other honest, forthright and peaceful people, contributes to law and order rather than detracts from it.
But we know that not every person with a clean criminal record is peaceful and honest. We know that even generally peaceful and honest individuals are rarely absolutely peaceful, and even more rarely absolutely honest. The truth is that even good people still occasionally misbehave, and not-so-good people misbehave fairly often. We drink and get into arguments, we suffer road rage, we fight with our families, we escalate sports rivalries, we get jealous, we react unwisely to financial troubles, we provoke intemperately and defend too quickly. We screw up emotionally and resort to violence, and when we do we grab the weapons that are available to us and with which we have a high degree of comfort, and we use them.
The truth is that fractious behavior all on its own makes society less secure. The more egregious or damaging such behavior can be, the less security can be afforded to society. People engaged in such behavior, armed with weapons, are capable of inflicting mortal injury to others, even when they don’t intend to. Note that guns, sticks and knives don’t provoke fractious behavior; they merely enable individuals to cause injuries more effectively than is possible with fists, feet and teeth.
I’m not blaming guns for human nature, Uncle Beer, I’m only asserting that they are far more effective than other hand weapons, including other projectile weapons, when used to support some of the more egregiously bad consequences of human nature. Nor am I excluding other offensive weapons from my analysis; by all means, substitute “spears” for “handguns” and most of what I’ve said in this post still applies. I think if more people carried spears around with them we’d have a net decrease in public security, too. It’s just that spears aren’t nearly as pervasive or effective as handguns.
Although I’m not 100% certain of my opinion that the enabling effect of handguns on violent behavior greatly offsets their contribution to successful self defense, I’m sure enough of that opinion to hold it strongly. It would be interesting to compare, in a scientific manner, the number of unprovoked attacks against which a large group of individuals defended themselves in the course of a period of time with the number of occasions where individuals in the same group had physical altercations as a result of their own behaviors in combination with others’.
Weird Al Einstein, it’s probably going to be much later today before I can respond to your post, but I just want to apologize if I offended you with my paraphrasing. I think it was more accurate than you seem to have found it, but I assure you I won’t attempt it again.
I did see kalashnikov’s post. That’s why I posted Kopel’s quote. The implication (made by kalashinkov) was that Floridian criminals (or at least a subset of them) were suddenly afraid to go after “their own”, and started targeting outsiders. However, as Kopel’s research showed, while murders decreased, violent crimes as a whole still went up - and I rather doubt that non-residents constituted the majority of victims. Thus, concealed-carry seems to be less effective (though not wholly ineffective, and perhaps not without merit) than many seem to believe - the criminals were still, apparently going about their business, despite the new laws.
So…if you were a Floridian, would it comfort you to know that, even though the crime-rate in the rest of the nation is rising higher than in Florida, Florida still has the worst violent crime rate in the country? I don’t see how that is a “demonstrably positive” thing.
I’m not saying that concealed carry is ineffective, or that it has no effect on overall crime. I’m saying that arguments to the effect that such will reduce crime are generalizations at best (it clearly is not the case for all instances). Has there been any research, for example, to show that any reduction in crime-rate is specifically due to the enaction of concealed carry laws, or are there other factors involved? Without independent confirmation (especially since Lott seems to have been the only major research done to date), I remain skeptical.
Sorry, but any decision regarding “self interest” in relation to the interests of others is an ethical decision. I don’t think it’s reasonable to claim that the fear of being shot is going to make some criminals (and I quote you verbatim here) “give up on criminal activities” and then turn around and deny that their ethical dispositions are a factor. “Criminal activities” covers a sufficiently large section of experience that we’re necessarily talking about a way of life; if you’re going o assert that an incrementally higher degree of uncertainty regarding their safety is going to make people who’ve already shown a disregard for law and order change their way of life by becoming strictly law-abiding citizens, you’re gonna have to deal with their ethics.
Unless you can show how the increased uncertainty regarding the armed status of a potential mugger’s theoretical victims makes overall criminal activity “less easy” (as opposed to making muggings more dangerous), I’ll consider this objection countered.
If another study were done as I described to UncleBeer, with two groups (a control group and a gun-carrying group), which produced similar results, I would be more inclined to come to the conclusions Lott reached. By the way, I’m not going to turn this thread into an examination of John Lott or the Lott-Mustard study.
I’m not pitting the anecdote against anything (as I stated quite clearly); I’m using it as an example of the type of adversarial situation in which the defensive use of a firearm to prevent a robbery is problematic. Regarding Lott, please see my comments to ExTank and my comment immediately above. This thread is not about Lott. If you wish to cite the Lott-Mustard study to support a contention, then please cite the relevant text and supporting data rather than the overall conclusion.
Nope. Do you dispute that gun control laws do not have, as their sole design, the limitation of numbers of firearms, but instead are almost always directed at restricting types of firearms or controlling aspects of their sales, distribution or use? And that therefore my comments regarding the raw numbers of firearms cannot be taken as a commentary on gun control laws?
Here is my thinking:
A. The burglar knows you don’t want him to take the items he’s taking. Otherwise, he could just ask you for them.
B. The burglar has to assume, when you walk in on him, that you are displeased with his actions.
C. The burglar probably does not know what your disposition and capabilities are, and whether you’re armed with a fireplace poker or an AK47.
D. The burglar does not want to be caught, and certainly does not want to be shot. His fight/flight impulses are active at this point.
Now, would you consider this situation to be more or less hazardous to you than
a) walking into an empty room
b) casually passing the same burglar on the street
c) walking into the same room where your family is sitting down expecting you
If you consider it no more hazardous than these examples, then I urge you to reassess your own invulnerability.
OK. Let me try it again: Reasonable controls are developed in response to verifiable abuses of firearms or in anticipation of expected abuses of firearms. Sorry I phrased it so clumsily.
I quoted you verbatim, except for the part I added in brackets to show what remarks of mine you were referring by “that effect”. It’s the very last paragraph of your first post.
My point (and again, this should be obvious), is that I AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT that people are perfectly capable of making faulty assumptions about complex interrelationships. I think this is why researchers like Lott can make such hay out of weak correlations. Your statement, however, does not seem to present a coherent argument negating my contention that the democratic processes which inform the decision making regarding gun control legislation tend to limit the degree to which this 2nd amendment loving country will allow further qualification of the right to keep and bear arms.
And that’s how I want to debate.
Hi, I just wanted to apologize for not responding sooner, there was something I needed to do, I had to shut out all distractions, and this place is very distracting.
Anyway, I will get caught up here over the weekend, hopefully.
Take your time, WAE. Have a good Labor Day!
Interesting that you should say this. Just this week at work, they had a lunch hour video on protecting yourself called “Street Smarts” presented by a cop (from Chicago, I believe). He was definitely not suggesting anyone be a pushover…In fact, he advocated fighting back or fleeing in many cases…E.g., he said that you should never let someone take you to a “secondary crime scene” and must fight back in all ways to prevent this.
However, on the subject of guns, his belief was that they are a bad idea. He felt that pepper spray was far better. His reasoning was that most “intelligent people” (his adjective) will have too high a barrier to using a gun…They will tend to hesitate and this is often all the criminal needs to get the gun away from you and then likely use it against you.
Well, if I were a well-known political proponent of gun control and I read some of the more extreme stuff here on the SDMB written by the pro-gun crowd and I knew that the population of the SDMB is relatively well-educated and mild-mannered compared to the public at large, I think I’d want the protection of armed guards too!
The more serious answer is that it is not that she is putting her safety ahead of yours, but that she has much more credible threats to her safety that cannot really be avoided short of having armed guards. Also, those people are highly trained in the use of their weapons. If everyone who wanted a handgun was required to go through as much training with it (and as much of a background check, tight control of their weapons, etc.) as the secret service are, I don’t think that I’d be arguing for any more gun control! However, I believe that those on the other side of the debate would be hollering their heads off about what a restriction on freedom this is!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by jshore *
**
Yes, she has much more serious threats than I do, because I live and work out in a suburb. This was my choice, and safety was one consideration.
However, inner city folks have huge threats to their safety from criminals in their midst. A typical inner city resident may well be at the same level of risk as HRC.
december,
Perhaps I meant not only that she would have more threats but that they are qualitatively different…People would really be gunning for her in particular. The whole nature of the treat is quite different.
I’ve been spending the last day or so catching up around here. I knew I forgot something tho…ah, here it is:
It seems to me that by your definition of “ethical” every decision is an “ethical” one.
I don’t see why not. If I intend to rob you, but then decide not to out of fear you might be armed, I don’t see how my “ethics” figured into the decision at all.
Again, I haven’t the foggiest idea why.
I don’t know what to make of this statement:
If muggings are more dangerous, and other crimes stay the same, how is overall criminal activity not less easy. You might counter that a criminal will simply switch to less dangerous crimes like theft. To which I would respond, first, that’s a good thing imho, I’d much rather be the victim of theft than robbery. And second, I would reiterate again what I’ve already said: Presumably criminals who commit “confrontational” crimes now do so because it is easier than the other kind. Does this not make sense to you? If so, then if confrontational crimes become more difficult, there is a chance that a criminal who has already decided that non-confrontational crimes are too difficult will, when confronted with the fact that confrontational crimes have become more difficult, decide to give up on both kinds.
It depends on where. In DC, for instance, gun control laws most certainly are designed to limit the total number of firearms. Also, laws that are not specifically designed to affect the total number do so nonetheless, by holding up hoops for people to jump through to get a gun, so that some people are deterred from trying.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by xenophon41 *
**
And that therefore my comments regarding the raw numbers of firearms cannot be taken as a commentary on gun control laws?
The two things certainly do have a relationship, almost invariably an inverse one.
**
What you have left out here is that the burglar is not expecting you to be there at all, and in fact is trying very hard to time his burglary so that you are not home. If you are, he has made the kind of mistake which, if repeated too often, would tend to cut short any burglary career. Also, we presume that one reason the burglar is engaging in burglary as opposed to a confrontational crime like robbery is that he is deterred by the greater legal penalty for doing so. Not to mention the penalty for possibly killing someone in the act of doing so, if he is happens to be carrying a gun. In some states, he could be eligible for the death penalty. Given all this, my question would be, is there any evidence to support the idea that a burglar would rather shoot a homeowner when caught in the act, as opposed to the seemingly much more sensible option of running away?
First off, I think you should be specific regarding your definition of “abuse”. I would define it as causing harm to other people, or putting them in immediate danger of same, excepting cases of self defense. Second, for a control to be reasonable, I think there should be some requirement that it be shown that it is having the desired effect in reducing the abuse. I have never heard of a gun control law being subject to that requirement. Third, as regarding “expected” abuses, if you are penalizing me now for something I might do in the future, that is prior restraint. If you are penalizing me now for something somebody else might do in the future…well, what do you think of that?
The first sentence was verbatim. The brackets in the second one threw me off. I went and looked back at my first post. I see I made a vbcode error. I think the fact is, when I get to the end of a long response, I get sloppy.
Ok. You seem to be saying that we are not on a slippery slope to no gun rights “(b)ecause compromise is in the very nature of our political system.” Well, yes but compromise is in the nature of every democratic political system. Including that of, say, Canada. Or the U.K. Or Japan. Or any other western democracy so often cited by gun control advocates as models for the US to emulate.
Of course our own political system is unique. We do have more in the way of checks and balances. So I believe there is something to your argument. But that doesn’t mean it can’t happen here. When the income tax amendment was first passed in (iirc) 1916, a top income tax rate of 90% was unthinkable. The initial rate was ~1%, applying only to the very wealthy. Higher and broader income taxes came about gradually, and always as the result of compromise.
This is called the ratchet effect. What people who support gun rights have been doing is making a string of “compromises” with people who never say they want to ban all guns (at least not these days), but who will never be satisfied with any lesser level of control. I believe it is perfectly possible for a right to gradually be “compromised” out of existence, even with the kind of compromise that is “in the very nature of our political system.”
A very important point that I made in support of this was, “People are perfectly capable of making faulty assumptions, or (especially) being misled, about the relationship between gun ownership and safety”, which implies that an “extremist” position today can be tomorrow’s democratic “compromise” as more and more people come to base their views on guns on demagoguing politicians and “information” put out by HCI et al, which you dismissed with a flip answer.
You then said:
The key phrase here is “this 2nd amendment loving country” which I will interpret to mean that we are nation with a large number of people who support gun rights, which is perfectly true. However, my point is that it won’t necessarily stay this way. People are affected by HCI propaganda, junk “science” like the Kellerman study with its thoroughly debunked, yet still widely believed and repeated (on this board no less) “43 to 1” sound bite. You might say that people are too smart to fall for this kind of thing, but think about it. Are we really that much smarter than the Canadians, Brits, Japanese, etc, etc? Well…maybe we are. Though I haven’t seen any hard evidence of it. I certainly don’t want to rely on it.
And don’t forget that ratchet effect. Gun control measures are presented as a way to make us more secure from crime, security being something people demand from their elected representatives in a democracy. So when a gun control law is enacted, and fails to have the desired effect (as is the case so often), we are told that nore gun control is now needed to get the desired level of security. This can be presented as closing a loophole ie “closing the gun show loophole”. This is pretty much how the existing gun control regime came into existence, and plenty of people are still pressing for more.
Fascinating. I would be curious to know his evaluation of his own intelligence. That said, of course a gun is useless if you are not willing to use it when you need to. However, as I understand it in most self defense situations merely brandishing the gun is enough. People have defended themselves in this way, though of course it is underreported in the media as it is not nearly dramatic as either a case where the gun is fired, or actually taken away from the person as the cop suggested it might.
Speaking strictly for myself, I consider myself intelligent, but I can’t see that I would hesitate to absolutely blow someones brain out if he were coming at me with a knife, or for that matter trying to take my gun away from me in that kind of scenario.
Cite?
This is an extremely offensive comment.
Not really. This morning I had a choice between left-over chili, ham and eggs, cold cereal or no breakfast. I decided on a steak biscuit at the company cafeteria. (Also had coffee.) While my choice to remain a meat-eater implies the acceptance of an ethos which allows the raising of livestock for food, this particular breakfast decision required no direct ethical considerations on my part.
Except that we’re talking about people who have demonstrated a disregard for the social mores which stigmatize criminal activities; they have made a previous ethical decision to ignore those mores. And, as you keep pointing out, presumably they pursue crime (confrontational or not) because it’s easier than laboring or otherwise working for a living. To expect them to be deterred from criminal activities in general because, somewhere out there Weird Al might by packing a pistol is more than a bit pollyannish, as it presumes an easy willingness on their part to follow social restrictions which they’ve previously disdained.
Y’know what? You’ve convinced me that Lott was full of shite when he asserted that the issuance of CCW permits causes criminals to switch from assaults and armed robbery to other types of crimes. I was willing, when I started this thread, to accept that some of his data, incomplete as it was, indicated that this might be a possibility. But, congratulations, WAE, as a result of your arguments I believe that a statistically insignificant portion of criminals will be deterred from crime in any way because of such permits. In any case, I think your argument that “muggings more dangerous” = “crime less easy” is unsupported.
But it is not a relationship involving mutual effects; “gun control laws” are one factor which could affect the “raw numbers of guns”, but it is not the only such factor. Conversely, a state could see a reduction in raw numbers of guns without an increase (or even with a decrease) in the scope of gun control laws, and one can advocate a reduction in the numbers of firearms without advocating any new laws or restrictions. Therefore, while any argument regarding the benefits and costs to society of profligate gun use can contain commentary on the effect of gun laws, it is not ipso facto a discussion of gun laws.
In which direction would this seemingly sensible option take the would-be burglar? Assume a typical house layout.
I leave you to consider the implications on your own. If you still think that this is not a hazardous situation to the person who discovers the burglar, then I’ll rest my argument, because you’re intractable. (Remember, I haven’t been arguing that a burglar caught in the act will invariably shoot the discoverer. Rather, I’ve been refuting your assertion that this is not an unusually hazardous situation.)
I disagree. I think I should not be specific when I’m giving a general definition of what “reasonable” restrictions should be based on. I certainly agree, however, that those attempting to draft such restrictions should be as specific and precise in their intent as possible.
I absolutely, unequivocably AGREE with you on this point.
I think a “penalty” is something applied by the state as a result of a legal infraction. I think “prior restraint” cannot, by definition, be applied to any restriction encoded into law. “Expected abuses” would be those foreseeable types of gun-related activities which the legislators believe need to be restricted due to their detrimental effects on society.
Feh. Please don’t insult anyone’s intelligence by presenting only the pro-control arguments as demagoguery. Whether HCI, NRA, the FBI, the PTA or the ASPCA or anyone else eventually “wins” the war of rhetoric depends entirely on the credence given to any particular view by a majority of the electorate. I submit that “compromise” almost by definition leads away from extremes. If we get to the point where there is a democratically supported ban on a specific type of weaponry it will be because that’s no longer considered an “extremist” position by most. I think that’s very unlikely in the first place, and in the second place is an example of one side of a national debate losing influence rather than a slippery-slopery fall into a totalitarian abyss nobody wants. (I think your income tax example fails to illustrate a slippery slope as well, given that the highest tax bracket has been incrementally reduced since the mid 70’s.)
Well, when some of the pro-gun lobby are saying things like “You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingertips” and then making these slippery slope arguments, you can imagine it doesn’t have to go much further before some wacko takes “preventative action” to protect his gun rights from being taken away. Look what has happened to some abortion providers. I think the threat of violence is quite real.
That led to Carjacking…
Years and years ago, automobiles weren’t all that difficult to steal. Perhaps the earliest didn’t even have locks, I’m not sure, they might have sold aftermarket security devices, or they might have used chains to secure the steering wheel.
Eventually, though, the concept of door locks and keys to start the ignition developed as standard features of automobiles. Still, many people left their keys in the ignition, with the logical premise that’s a good place for them. Eventually, though, a shift in perception resulted in the belief that leaving the keys in the car somehow made the owner responsible for the actual theft of the car.
A further refinement, since it was possible to ‘hotwire’ a vehicle with nothing more than a screwdriver (Hood locks didn’t come into vogue until even later) was the advent of the locking steering column, which pretty much made hotwiring more difficult, but not much, since a skinny screwdriver, of the type used for hotwiring even, could be utilized to snap the lock and the ignition switch, and away they went.
Today, there are digital access codes, remote kill switches, and for the unfortunate owner of a stolen car, Global Positioning Systems to track the location of the car. Unique electronic “keys”; Alarm Systems, The Club and other refinements to auto theft protection have made it extremely difficult to steal a car in this day and age.
So, what has the modern, urbane, sophisticated criminal come up with as a solution? Surprisingly low tech. They shoot you in the head while you’re in your car, and then steal it, bypassing 75 years of progress. Pretty simple.
IIRC, Florida responded by repealing the law requiring rental cars to have special plates identifying themselves as such, thus making it impossible for criminals to target them.
Can you critique a slippery-slope argument while using one yourself?
Probably not very effectively. Can you point us to whoever is doing that here?
I am presuming an easy willingness to “follow social restrictions which they’ve previously disdained” when failing to do so can get them seriously injured or killed. Does this not make sense to you?
And exactly what, pray tell, led you to this conclusion?
Because?
No, it is not the only factor. How is this relevent?
Well golly, a lot of things could happen. Uma Thurman could come to my house and give me a full body massage. Not likely to happen though.
Yes, one could. How is this relevent to our debate?
We are really getting into some hair splitting now. How about, “A discussion of factors affecting gun posession, including but not limited to gun laws”?
From the inside to the outside. The exact compass direction depends of course on the orientation of the house.
When have I ever said that this is not a hazardous situation for anyone involved in it?
When have I made any such assertion?
Well. I suppose speaking for your own self you can be as specific as you like. I certainly agree with the second sentence.
Well then, can you cite an example of a gun control law ever being subject to post-passage scrutiny as to whether or not it was effective in cutting down on the specific abuse it was meant to? By the state I mean, not some private organization.
Given that the definitions of “extreme” and “extremist” vary with time, none of this is really contradicting what I have said. While the NRA may indulge in demagoguery, HCI is a far, far worse offender imo.
So do I, actually, but that is beside the point. A slippery slope argument does not have to be “likely” to be plausible.
Both of those descriptions can easily refer to the same thing.
Ummm…hello? Are you only going to consider the movement of tax brackets since the 70s? We had an income tax for some 55 years before that too. And I don’t know if you’re even right about that…I seem to recall that really significant reductions didn’t start until the 80s, under Reagan.
I can:
Please read carefully the parts I have underlined.