Why do you believe that knife vs. knife is far preferable than gun vs. gun? A knife can be just as lethal, and in many cases more so, than a gun. Gun vs. gun is at the very least relatively equal, while knife vs. knife is less likely to be. Could you defend yourself in a knife fight? Even if you win, you lose.
The other point, that going after the source would disarm criminals, is also questionable. Guns are maufactured globally. Russia, Germany, The Czech Republic, China, all manufacture guns for import to the US. Some would still get through, and they would get through to criminals(by definition, at least). And even if you could stop all guns from coming into the US, there are still millions in existence. You could disarm the law-abiding population very quickly, leading to a multi-generational field day for those with criminal intent. How many years would be required before all the criminally posessed guns were gone?
[QUOTE=Blalron]
Guns are designed to kill or at the very least severely wound people.
[/quote
No. Guns are designed to deliver a metal projectile at high velocity to a target. If the target is a person, then the intended USE of the gun is to kill or wound a person. If the target is paper, then the intended use is probably to compete with others for how accurate your control of the gun is.
Disagree. More guns are used lawfully than unlawfully. As long as their use is lawful, then I’d say it’s a desirable thing.
For self-defense alone? I don’t know. But if you stack up all lawful uses of guns - hunting, target shooting, self defense - it exceeds the number of illegal uses.
Of course society is allowed to. Society is allowed to outlaw abortion, or permit abortion. Society is allowed to outlaw same-sex-marriage, or permit same-sex marriage. Society is allowed to criminalize marijuana, or legalize it.
In all cases, the question is not what is allowed, but what is wise.
It would not be wise to impose a complete moratorium on guns.
/minor hijack/ ExTank, regarding this whole “the plural of anecdote is not data” business. Data is the plural of datum, and datum means a fact or proposition used to draw a conclusion or make a decision. An anecdote is an, generally biographical, account of an incident. If that account is factual and used to draw a conclusion, would it not be then datum? And if there were more than one of these anecdotes which were factual and used to draw a conclusion, wouldn’t they then collectively be data? As such, cannot the plural of anecdote, in some instances, be data? /end hijack/
Data is objective and empirical, whereas anecdotes are perceived and interpreted events, caused by a myriad of factors (which aren’t always apparent to the subject/observer) and subject to human prejudice in the perception and interpretation of what happened, how it happened, and why it happened.
Even empirical results require interpretation to give them meaning, and again human prejudice can rear its ugly head (forcing a desired, predetermined result). But if that interpretation is false, you always have the empirical data to fall back on, to attempt to reinterpret it to attain valid, consistent, and reproduceable results.
And I do agree that if enough anecdotal evidence is accumulated, some basis for forming a rational hypothesis is justified, even if on a personal level. Extrapolation beyond that is certainly normal on a personal level, but not necessarily valid factually (hey, even a blind squirrel will eventually find an acorn).
Just don’t expect everyone else to subscribe to your interpretation of “facts,” because your experiences may be radically different than someone else’s under similar circumstances.
Der Trihs say that in her (his?) experience, a lot of pro-gun people think guns are magic. I cannot say whether or not it is a valid opinion, because I’ve not experienced the incidents which have led Der Trihs to form said opinion.
In my 33 years of being in the American Gun Culture (started shooting around age 5), I too have experienced a few people who thought that way, but I have found the attitude to be rare.
In either case, both opinions are irrelevant to a factual debate; I can’t even claim to have more extensive experience with the Gun Culture than Der Trihs in an effort to “leverage” my opinion somehow “above” his (hers?), even if, in my opinion, and taken from the context of Der Trihs’ words, I think I have a lot more experience with guns, and the people who own them, collect them, and shoot them.
Anecdotes are self-selecting and subject to bias (if not in the details of their telling, in the mere fact that they may be offered while the corresponding neutral or counterpoint positions may exist, but be silent), data usually implies some effort to fairly represent the statistics of the real world and try to eliminate bias.
Yes, I’m still afraid of you. You’re freaking me out. Please stay away from my kids, ok.
Ironically, if you simply owned a gun and didn’t feel the need to tell me all about it or how afraid “criminals” should feel, you wouldn’t be scaring me at all.
You’re splitting a hair, but I’ll grant it’s a pretty damned big one. Look at it like this:
Reducing gun crime (specifically the violent ones) is the goal of gun control legislation (I’ll forego ascribing nefarious motives to “gun grabbers” for now), by removing a potential conduit of illicit firearms to the criminally minded.
It is not intended to fill prisons and collect fines off of previously law-abiding, peaceable people who are now “criminals” becuase the line has been moved (non-violent gun crimes).
Since violent crimes committed with firearms are a subset of violent crimes overall, gun control schemes hope to see an overall reduction in violent crime by eliminating violent crimes committed with firearms. I think it would be fatuous to suggest that gun control schemes are intended to reduce other forms of violent crimes (those committed without firearms), even if my personal experience tends to suggest otherwise on the part of proponents of gun control schemes.
So while the U.K. overall rate of violent crimes decreases, it’s rate of violent crimes committed with firearms is increasing, which it was the U.K.'s Great Gun Grab that was specifically designed to put a stop to.
And for the doubtful (warning! .pdf). Look at section 5.9. I direct Mangetout’s attention specifically to this report, in which it clearly and unambiguously delineates Firearms Offenses to violent offenses.
So while **The Eggman[/b ] was technically wrong in claiming all violent crime in the U.K. has risen since the gun ban, I think it’s clear from the context of his post that he’s truly linking the rise in violent gun crimes with the gun ban.
Being a newbie (ballsy enough to wade into Great Debates), you can cut him as much or as little slack as you desire for imprecision in language.
For my part, I’ll just say to you: I stand corrected.
OK; what we unfortunately don’t know is what would have been happening to the rates of firearm-related violence if the ban had not occurred; is it reasonable to imagine that it would not have increased?
In fact, I’m wary of extrapolating small data sets, but look at that bar chart in figure 5.6 - the rate of increase in recorded firearm crimes (expressed as the gradient of the curve) appears slower after the ban than it was before.
Depends. Were conditions favorable to a growing criminal element (organized and otherwise) within U.K. society before or at the time of the ban? Were violent crime rates (firearm and otherwise) increasing or decreasing?
The timing of the ban, coupled with its justification (Dunblane), leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Mass shootings have an enormous psychological impact on a society, all out of proportion to the actual damage they typically inflict, and it’s that impact which can cause a knee-jerk “We need to do something NOW about this horrible situation” response.
And that something, that response, can be all out of proportion to the actual problem it’s meant to address. IOW: it might be “curing” a problem which doesn’t really exist.
Let me ask you this: before Dunblane, when was the last time the U.K experienced a mass shooting (not counting I.R.A. attacks)?
Hopefully, that trend at least continues; better if it stopped, or even reversed. But there does seem to be a demand for firearms amongst the criminal element; as the “supply” already in the pipeline dries up, how long do you think it will be before enterprising criminals begin smuggling firearms into the country?
Granted, due if anything to your overall smaller, more homogenous (racially as well as culturally) population, and your non-contiguous borders (island nation), the problem, if it comes to pass, will probably never be on the same scale as the U.S.'s.
But criminals, by definition, aren’t going to care how illegal firearms possession is.
You can make them quadruple-super illegal, and some segment of the criminal population will still want them, and what’s worse, they’ll be the absolute worst ones you’d NOT want to have them; anyone willing to jump through the excessive illegal hoops to aquire them will really perceive a need to have them.
Shooting at paper targets is “neutral” in my mind. Not all that bad, but not really all that good either. Certainly the number of neutral uses heavily outweighs the bad, but does the good outweigh the bad? I guess that’s purely a judgement call. Maybe you think the pleasure people get from simply possessing a gun and using it for target shooting is enough to outweigh the bad. In the same way, I think the pleasure people get from smoking marijuana and from legalized prostitution is “worth it”, but you may disagree.
Bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Hang on, let me ooze my way to the rooftop to shout loud and proud: “BULLSHIT!!!”
Yes, it’s concentrated in urban areas. Ever consider WHOM is commiting the crimes in the urban areas? Are you reasonably arguing that those individuals are the type that would even be aware of a concealed carry law, much less be the kind to apply and qualify for one? As Ron White said, “Ya gotta seperate it up a bit”.
I thought that was pretty clear. No surprise if it wasn’t, though, given the source. I specifically asked for crime per thousand stats for cities with and without concealed carry laws. How that is logically flawed? Not sure.
Oh, come on. Are you saying target shooting isn’t a legit reason for gun use? It’s neutral because it isn’t “good”? How about bowling? It can be just as much fun while being just as non-productive to humanity. If you want to argue for gun control, don’t fall into the “They’re having fun, STOP THEM!” group. Target shooting isn’t your beef with guns from the sound of it.
Hasn’t everyone already staked out their positions on this issue?
What can we, most of us anyway, agree on?
Most deaths by guns are caused by illegal guns in the hands of criminals. Many of those guns were at one time legal weapons. They were either stolen from legal gun owners, or bought by strawmen, or sold illegally, or otherwise “redirected” from individuals who have a legal right to own firearms. A few deaths are caused by accidental dischage of legal guns and a few lives are saved by legal gun ownership deterring crime. Both are fairly inconsequential numbers. They are not significant components of this debate.
Enforcing extant gun laws vigorously must be a high priority. It is not done too well at this time. Doing so, with sting operations and the like, would make a significant impact. Additionally, other means of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is desirable but must be balanced against the possible burden it places on those who desire to own guns responsibly.
So far so good, I hope. Now we get to areas of more substantial disagreements.
The debate as I see it, once removed of the fear of what the other side’s “real agenda” is, is what constitutes a balance. A total gun ban across the United States would do a fairly good job at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals since most criminals’ guns began as legal weapons, but the burden upon responsible gun owners would be unfairly large. It rightfully should be dismissed as an option. Local bans are just silly. Cities have very pourous borders. To those against gun control the current burden is already too large. But their fear that any additional or different control (even one that simplified some aspects of the process by providing consistency across the country) would merely serve as a rachet to complete banning, is also silly rhetoric. This fear also must be rightfully dismissed.
So the real question is, how can we do a better job at keeping legal guns from being “redirected” without imposing undue burdens on responsible gun owners? What constitutes an undue burden and what is reasonable regulation and requirements of responsible behaviors? The rest is public relations blather from both sides.
I understand and tend to agree with the rest of your post, but by your own explanation here, the statement “the plural of anecdote is not data,” as an absolute statement, is necesarilly false. In fact, all data is necessarily compiled of various anecdotes (each objective observation is still someone’s anecdote), although the converse is not true. This is just a pet peeve.
let me further clarify, I do not think that anecdotal evidence, even en masse, is inherently valid, but it is necessarily “data.” to suggest otherwise indicates a clear misunderstanding of the term.
Fair enough. I obviously use data as synonymous with “fact.” With an objective, consistently measurable piece of information. In which anecdotes are not; the original instance from which the anecdote springs is a fact, but the circumstances around it, as related by observers, yield sometimes wildly different conclusions. The inconsistency of those conclusions disqualifies it from being, in my book, “data.” It is instead (to me, at least) merely “information.”