SPOOFE Bo Diddly wrote:
Sir, I protest! Star Trek: TNG hand phasers are clearly shaped like Dust-Busters!
Me, I like the thought of wearing swords a lot! I think that bringing swords back into style would be great, and I have this hope that street thugs and gangs would recognize swords as more macho than guns… I doubt it, but I do have hope.
In the meantime, I will continue to carry my gun around when necessary.
This could happen, just reduce the charges a grade or two for any assault committed with a blade say over 24" and make some adjustments to the duelling laws (which I hear is still legal in CA)
Gangs line up on the street (a la westside story), announce their greivance and intent, draw their swords, resolve problem at hand.
I really believe that most of these types don’t have the balls to actually use a sword, first time they whack somebody and end up covered with blood their probably going to lose their lunch.
The gun-grabbers won’t be able to prove you wrong, they’ll just keep whining about how “guns kill”.
Sure they do. That’s why residential burglaries rose 16% in Morton Grove, IL, USA, the year after handguns were banned there – the burglars didn’t have to worry as much about getting shot, so they felt free to kick in more doors. Surrounding communities didn’t see that spike in crime, since they still had their handguns.
That’s also why I feel so safe wandering around Seattle – there’s a concealed-carry law here in WA (unlike IL), and the dirtbags know it. That’s why one of them turned and ran when, after he followed me into an alleyway with an evil grin on his face, I reached under my jacket for my .38 – he didn’t have to see it to know what would happen. Which is just as well, since I’d just moved to WA three days earlier and my guns were still in transit. :o :eek: 
Hey, LaurAnge? You go right ahead and put up a big sign in front of your house saying “no guns present or allowed on this property”. You can always call 911 if someone takes your word for it. The cops might even arrive within half an hour – don’t expect them to leave their guns in their car, though. 
Damn, how did I get mentioned here?
Guns: I don’t like em very much. Ears ring like hell. Firing a 38 nearly twisted my wrist.
However, this is mere trivia.
Let me try to bring order to this (okay I know its hopeless but I’m mildly obsessive about order):
We seem to have two issues
(I) Issue: Guns, Saftey: does gun ownership increase personal saftey.
Problem: data.
Questions:
(a) Extent gun ownership suppresses certain forms of crimes
(b) Extent gun ownership actualizes certain forms of crimes
© Extent to which gun ownership may (i) increase impact of certain forms of violence, e.g. domestic (ii) inhibit certain forms of violence, e.g. punching some guy at a traffic stop.
Hypothesis: All three categories are true. Real question is balance between effects. Does aggregate effect of (a) outwiegh (b)? (And the net impact of © in re pts (i) and (ii)).
This seems like a logical framework in which to examine the issue. If one avoids assertion and tries to stick to hard data, perhaps one can arrive --well not at conclusions as I suspect there is no data one way or the other for a scientific conclusion-- at an informed position.
(II) Issue, control (if so what form etc.) or not.
Problems: data, lack of clear data.
Questions to address hopefully through data and not assertion:
(a) To what extent can control effect criminal ownership of guns. It would be nice to address this w/o a priori assumptions.
(i) are there different forms of control or gun registration/regulation which need to be addresed differently. (i.e. let us not have blanket dismissals, but careful examination, perhaps there are compromises)
(ii) can’t think of (ii) but I don’t play that cat thing.
(b) to what extent control reflects on larger civil liberties (i) this issue may be two subjective to treat through data but (ii) comparative data may be useful however, (iii) have to control for different societal preferences unrelated to the issue of guns.
This in my, can anyone recommend past threads for me to read in which the various sides (i.e. unlopsided debates such as a recent one) come close to addressing the issue in this kind of framework?
The two big names to support either side seem to be Lott and Kellerman. Both have done studies, both studies are subject to extreme criticism.
I believe Lott’s work is more complete, and therefore more conclusive, than Kellerman’s. His data suggests that the benefits of even passive gun use (instances when the presence of a gun is made known - not fired - during a crime) far outweigh the total number of crimes committed, with guns, each year.
Kellerman’s data indicates a link between gun ownership and heightened death rates in the home, but he put a few very significant limiting factors - researching only cases in which someone was killed - that it doesn’t conclude whether or not you’re safer overall. In addition, other problems arose with his findings indicate that further study is necessary without prompting any substantial conclusions.
(If anyone wants a cite, I’ll go dig it up… I’m simply repeating information that had already been mentioned time and time and time again in older gun debates for Collounsbury’s benefit).
Hmm, I was really looking for particular past GD debates, I have read critiques of the two fellows cited.
I mean reccomendations on the better ones, I am well aware of searching of course.
Handgun Registration - Not so much devoted to Kellerman or Lott, but, as the name implies, discusses whether or not Handgun Registration would be able to reduce crime.
Gun Control revisited, revisited - This one’s a bit more Kellerman-related… although it’s very long, and very, very heated. It goes off on a lot of tangents, so be very wary of trudging through all this.
Is Gun Ownership a Right or a Privilege? - Another very heated debate, but this one clears up a lot of the NRA’s positions very nicely.
Then there’s the currently running thread about John Lott (which can be found here), which has been very helpful in clearing up his positions and studies.
Those four, I think, while very tangental and hostile, provide the bulk of information on the argument about guns and gun control.
LaurAnge said:
Why not? Do you think a grandmother could fight off a thug without a gun?
It’s quite possible. But that’s like saying that free speech is used more often by Neo-Nazis than by your average Joe, and so we should do away with it. And, as others have mentioned already, banning guns will affect those who care about the laws – and people who use guns to commit crimes have pretty well already shown they don’t care about those laws. So the criminals will still have guns, and the potential victims won’t.
71-Hour Achmed said:
Cite? (I lived in Morton Grove during this timeframe.)
Oh, and while you’re getting that cite, you might also want to put it in perspective by getting the same information about surrounding suburbs, the rest of the state, and the rest of the country.
I remember reading several years ago that firearms were used about 2 million times in 19?? (the year before the article was printed) to prevent crimes. Much of the time, the firearm was not fired, but just shown.
Around the same time I read that civilians shoot people by mistake less often than the police.
Sorry, no cites. I read these in print before I had a computer.
JohnnyLA
Try this site
[http://www.guncite.com/]
Information by Gary Kleck.
I don’t have enough time this morning or I’d print excerpts.
Zoff says:
I have to take issue with your issue. Guns for self-defense - I’m excluding those made specifically for hunting, target or hobby shooting - are indeed “made to kill people” or at least to inflict penetrating trauma. They’re designed to do so reliably and effectively - and if they’re unable to do so, well, then they’re piss-poor guns.
Obviously guns have no intent, but their designers certainly intended a specific use for them. Philips screwdrivers have no intent, but they’re carefully made to facilitate a specific action. And so are guns.
There might be perfectly good and valid reasons for using a gun for its purpose - self-defense and law enforcement comes to mind. Of course, a gun might act as deterrent without being fired - but deterrents generally only work if you act as if you’re ready to follow through if needed - i.e., use your gun for its designed purpose, injuring someone else.
As tracer points out, the damage needed to stop a perpetrator is very, very close to the damage needed to kill him.
Don’t pretend that guns are somehow “neutral objects”. Being armed means (or should mean) that you’re willing to defend your person with deadly force. And that you’re willing to take on the responsibility of making that judgment in real life. If I were to take a stand on Gun Control (something I’m trying to avoid as it’s a moot point where I live), I’d say that that’s a heavy responsibility to hand out without demanding some sort of training…
S. Norman
If guns are “made to kill people” then they are horribly misused by the average gun owner, since a extremely minute percentage of guns are ever used to kill, or even shoot at, a person. If I told you that Philips screwdrivers were made for stabbing people in the neck, I imagine you would point out that the overwhelming majority of those screwdrivers are never used for that purpose. So my belief, and accompanying rhetoric, would be proved false.
Guns are meant to shoot. They can be used for good or for bad. Some people do, in fact, buy guns with the intention of killing somebody. Most gun buyers have no present intention of killing anybody.
I’m not pretending anything. Guns are neutral. You are personifying an inanimate object because of your dislike of that object.
A screwdriver is designed to insert a fastener into a board. A bat is designed to strike a baseball. A car is designed to transport its occupents. All can be used to kill.
Unlike these tools, which were designed for a different purpose, guns are designed specificly to KILL. The engineers who make guns design them based on the criteria that would make them most effective in a combat situation(light weight, rate of fire, stopping power, range). Just because people use them to shoot cans dosen’t change that fact.
People who train with firearms professionally (soldiers, cops) are trained to use them to kill. They are taught to fire at the head or center of mass, both of which would likely kill a person.
To say guns aren’t designed to kill is incredibly naive. Either that, or you are using your pro-gun bias to rationalize why they shouldn’t be banned.
On the other hand, you’re right about guns being neutral. It’s a mindless object, like a car or screwdriver. The gun dosen’t care who shoots it or what it is shot at. Blaming guns for killing people is like giving credit to the bat for hitting a home run.
Just for the record, I’m not against guns. I’m just for a common sense approach to using them. Laws should be designed to keep guns away from the people who will missuse them (or should I say use them, since thats what their for?). However, unless the law can garuntee 24 hour safety for every one us, regular law abiding citizens should be allowed to own weapons for their defense.
Wasn’t it Mr. Colt who said “God made man. Colt made him equal”?
I have to disagree. The fact that very few guns (again, let’s focus on self-defense weapons) are fired in anger doesn’t mean that they’re not designed for injuring people. They can’t serve their purpose if they’re incapable of doing so. Lots of objects are never used for their designed purpose, still we acknowledge what they’re designed for and don’t consider them “horribly misused”.
I’d wager that most fire extinguishers are never used to put out a fire, yet noone would deny that they’re carefully designed with fire extinction in mind. Same argument goes for airbags, airliner oxygen masks,and, for that matter, nuclear missiles: They’re designed to do something very specific, but not being used for it.
Or would you argue that a fire extinguisher is designed to serve as a wall ornament, seeing as most of them are never used to put out fires ?
Obviously. But people who buy a gun for self-defense are investing in the possibility to injure other people if the need arises. Or to use it as a threat. As I wrote, that’s quite defensible sometimes. Why not be honest about it ? We’re all grown-ups here.
Guns are by design tools for creation of penetrating trauma. Would you buy one that weren’t able to perform that function ? By extension, you might be able to force your will on someone else by threatening to use your gun. Again, this can be good or bad, but don’t tell me that tools for application of deadly force are morally neutral.
You have no idea what I like or dislike.
S. Norman
We’re starting to get away from the purpose of my comments. As I said in my first post the “guns are made to kill people” is not a comment on the mechanical specifications of guns, it’s meant to, in my opinion, inflame. It’s meant to imply that there is no good reason to have a gun and if you own one, there’s something wrong with you. But there are many purposes for a gun aside from killing a person. I grant you that an M-16 is made with the expectation that it will be used to kill or maim. But can you seriously say that .22 pump action rifles are designed to kill? Can you say a shotgun is designed with the sole purpose of being able to kill a person?
None of these examples are at all close to analogous. You state a priori that guns are used for killing, then refuse to accept any alternate uses because “guns are made for killing”. The difference between guns and fire extinguishers is that guns are used millions (billions?) of times a year for other purposes. That seems to belie your contention that they are only used for killing. Your response is “that doesn’t matter because they’re made for killing.” A fire extinguisher has no other use than to extinguish fires. Guns have many uses.
Please don’t tell me tools have morals.
Again, I don’t want to get into a semantic debate. The purpose of my comments are to show that the seemingly neutral “guns are made for killing” is not used for neutral purposes.
Guns are designed to kill diferent things. Thats why they come in different sizes:
.22 rifles are designed to kill small animals like rabbits and coyotes. Not as effective against larger game or people, but still deadly.
Shotguns are designed to fire a spread of pellets that makes it easier to kill small, flying birds.
Larger caliber hunting rifles are designed to kill deer.
The Barrett M82A1 is a special purpose .50 caliber military sniper rifle designed to kill trucks and small tanks a mile away. You wouldn’t use it to hunt varmints unless you took some perverse pleasure in seeing them explode in a red POOF.
I didn’t mean to imply that every gun is designed to kill a human. Most are designed to kill or destroy something, however. Except for maybe special target pistols designed for competion shooting.
That isn’t to say guns can’t be used for other things. Target shooting is fun (we had a gun range near our college where you could actually rent Uzis, Tommyguns, and Mac-10s - obviously you can’t leave the range with them). SWAT teams use shotguns to breach doors. And nothing follows up a good “Yea-ha!” like a couple of revolvers fired randomly in the air. Oh yes, you can also “pistol whip” someone or crack them in the head with the rifle butt if you don’t want to shoot them.
I guess that’s about it. I can’t think of any other non-leathal uses of guns.
I don’t understand your objection to “guns are made for killing”. A figher plane is designed to kill other fighters or ground targets. They have a very different design from airplanes designed for non-violent use. Why are guns any different?
That I don’t know. If you don’t hunt or target shoot for fun, then defense is the most likely reason.
I think some people definitely get a sense of power or secrity from owning or carrying a gun. Usually they are afraid of something (real or imagined).
Another argument I always hear is “to protect the people from the government”. This of course is BS because the government has access to more guns. They also have tanks and helicopters. It’s a little paranoid anyway, since the “government” is just people like the rest of us (as opposed to some ruling class like in a monarchy or dictatorship). Go take the civil service exam. Then you too can be “the government”.
Shifting back towards the OP a bit.
What we need to remember is that if the Colonies had strict gun control laws, there might never have been an American Revolution. Our Founders recognized this and instituted the 2nd amendment to ensure that the gov’t couldn’t disarm the populace, making future revolutions possible, and making the abuse of citizens harder to accomplish.
Think about some recent abuses around the globe, where governments drive people, based on race or religion, from their homes, making them refugees, or worse… Frankly, it’s a bit difficult to order soldiers / police to kick down doors and drag people from their homes if there’s a good chance a shotgun will be facing them as the door crashes open. (Sarge, how about YOU kick the door down this time?)
Nowadays, the argument seems to center around protecting yourself from criminals, because we believe that our gov’t is incapable of atrocities (sp?). That may be true, but it’s also true that screwing with an armed populace is an awful lot harder than screwing with a disarmed populace. While it’s true that the gov’t has much better arms than we do, something is better than nothing.
IIRC, I got that from Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America by Gary Kleck. Surrounding areas saw miniscule change in their residential burglary rates during the same period.
I myself lived next door in Park Ridge IL, where the city council, prompted by the League of Women Vultures (er, Voters), attempted to sneak in a ban on possession of ALL firearms in 1993. The Morton Grove burglary rate was one of the statistics that we (the vast majority of town residents who DIDN’T want to get f*cked the way MG had been) used to tell the city council to go piss up a rope. Eventually, after about a year of arguing, they passed a meaningless “we support gun safety” resolution and let the whole mess die, having better things to do like proposing a $5,000,000 waterslide park to one-up Niles’ waterslide park (which also, eventually, got shot down by the residents).
Now I live in Seattle, where the annual (per capita, not total) murder rate is considerably lower than Chicago’s, and (unlike Chicago) concealed carry is widespread and has been for decades.