Gun control

[welsh]

The computer killed my reply again - Invalid_Session. Must be a session time-out. Pity, I spent a lot of time thinking about this.

Shame. I suggest that you type a long message on word and then cut and paste. You can actually do this just before you submit if you think the message might not work. THis happens in role-play all the time.

Very well, rights are a product of mind and subject to circumstances. However, it does not make one's right for self-defense any less valid because we do not yet live in a society without violence. As for any effects that come further down the road as a result - that's why we have politicians, to come with acceptable solutions. Worrying about how me having a gun will impact nation-wide crime rate is ridiculous, I'm more worried about my safety now when I walk home at night from work.

Yes but that's the point. The individual has a gun because he's afraid and in the short-term that fear almost addressed. ALmost because while he has the sense of security, this might be a false sense of security. As Ancient has pointed out, someone may have you at gun point before you can respond.

But the issue here is that your own sense of self-preservation is an individual drive to get what's best. But what's best for you might not be what's best for society- and in that sense might be to your detriment. THis is a case of individual rational action leading to collective sub-optimal results (in a sense the prisoner's dilemma at a social scale). While the gun you have makes you feel safer, the more guns out there, the greater the violence- the less really safe you have.

If you mean to go back to the law of the jungle, the state of anarchy, than you are right. But according to Hobbes, the anarchical world makes life "nasty, brutish and short" - ironically much like Russia today.

No, that's not necessary. The people's right to bear arms has been protected in the United States for two centuries, and I don't see any signs of an anarchical world here..

Correct, but why? First- because the US has developed a stable political order based on a sovereign state. The definition of a state includes the monopolization on the legitimate use of force. In otherwords, the state alone has the means to control violence to resolve conflicts, not individuals. Second- because the US has developed markets and gone through industrialization. That relies on security of person and property.

Now look at the areas with the highest rates of homicide- inner city, minority areas. Why these areas? Well unless you're a racist, the argument is probably that poor quality of life, lousey education, poor social conditions. WHere one finds high rates of inequality (which is true in the US) one often finds high violent crime rates - There is a World Bank paper on this.

But the crime also compounds the problems of poor social and economic conditions. It is difficult to attract business to high crime areas. High crime here often means a parrallel economy- a problem in Russia as well as some inner cities. Where one deals in contraband, one is working in cash- means that guns are essential. Because these criminal groups operate beyond the bounds of the state in illegal networks, they utilize self-help. THus violent crime becomes part of doing business.

One way to respond to this is to reduce the number or access of guns on the street, to have stronger control over gun sales, and to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. APTYP, no one here has advocated a complete ban on guns, nor even on the right to self defense. But the core of this argument is that some constraint on that right to self defense in terms of access to dangerous weapons is essential if we are to live in a more peaceful society.

And I would agree, banning guns is not a panacea for resolving these issues. What is needed, and I think everyone agrees here, is better police enforcement and greater public safety. THe police do provide a perventative function, by deterring crime by being present.

For example, one reason why Gulliani cleaned up the streets was he had the police go after any crime. SO a transit cop sees a kid jump a turnstyle on the subway. Minor crime. Still the cop goes after him. He discovers when he searches the kid, that the kid is carrying drugs, or perhaps a gun, or perhaps a stolen item. Maybe the kid is pressured to give up a friend. That is how the crime was reduced in New York- more aggressive police that prevented crime and isolated and identified repeat criminals. ANd in that process the reduction of guns on the street, less violence, and more control.

Also compare- 200 years ago, the US was bordered and progressing into a dangerous new frontier and had recently had a revolutionary war in which the militia played a key role. A much more anarchic/ /Hobbesian world than exists now. Thus the argument of the 2nd Amendment "right to bare arms" may be increasingly anachronistic.

Because I didn't advocate unregulated guns being sold at a street corner like oranges. In fact, I think most of the important laws such as mandatory background check and age restrictions were decisive at preventing people who shouldn't have guns from owning them legally. And since stopping illegal guns is a problem for the police, not legislators, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

The police act under laws past by legislation. The easing of gun regulations comes from the legislation in response to constituents and public interest groups, like the gun control advocates or the NRA.

But then I think what you are advocating is not that much different than what I or Ancient (or even Gwydion) have been arguing. THe question is level of degree.

Well in United States a receiver is not a working gun (sometimes it's just a metal box with a few pins and holes in it), but it's what's considered a firearm here. In fact, you can buy any part of a firearm online and have it ordered by UPS, but to buy a receiver you have to go through a licensed firearms dealer.

Still, since I'm not familiar with Singapore laws I'll assume that ownership of a firearm, licensed or otherwise, is forbidden for civilians. Doesn't mean that it contributed to low crime rates - simply showing statistics doesn't work here, you must show a clear link between banning guns and dropping crime. Even if you will, I can always say "Well, that's Asia! It's an Eastern civilization at the other end of the world, what do you expect?".

AH! Culture! Bah. No the problem with this is that isolating Singapore alone won't work. In Singapore you also have rapid economic growth, high GNP per capital etc. It used to be a violent place. The crime of Mayhem was actually fairly popular (Mayhem = decapitation) but mostly because it was a sailors port.

To identify gun to crime ratios you would need to compare across many cases (Mills method of agreement and difference). Looking at Briosafreak's data I think one might find the correlation.

[

 

[Brother None]

I wasn't the one who started it all, and I think that after the last 3 years I've proven that I'm not a flame-happy maniac who needs to be expelled. But thank you for a vote of confidence, you dirt scum!

Oh, sorry dude, I was just kidding on that.

Still, remember an old rule, if someone flame-baits, you just ignore, you don't flame back. It's not that hard to keep personal insults out of a discussion, and that's all I am asking.

Man, Rosh'd roll off his chair laughing if he saw this message. Heh.

 

[welsh]

...
i'd like to respond to one thing, for now. I don't think that limiting nuclear power, and nuclear bombs should be done. Yes, nuclear bombs will probably destroy the world some day, and the more people that have one, the more realistic and the soooner that will happen. However, if a lot of countries have nuclear capabilities, the power balance will be disturbed, and the power of the USA will diminish, in fact, the power of every country with nuclear capabilities will diminish, and that is in my opinion, a good thing, because it will cause a new type of politics, where countries will have to be more and more considerate of everyone, because most countries will have nuclear capabilities.

Now, I'm going to watch the people flow in and try to tear me to shreds...

WHile I hate to say "gun control" here, you do realize that you are almost contradicting yourself between this and your position on guns.

In a sense, a few big countries nuclear weapons is kind of like a few big guys shotguns in a small village. In neither group is there a central control, and in neither group, those without guns are apt to be afraid of those with guns and will probably try to get guns if they can. If everyone has guns, or if every has nukes, are we better off?

ANd please- if we are to use this analogy, lets not get carried away with it.

Kharn- Rosh's flames are legendary.

 

[APTYP]

I
APTYP- my bad. I accidently fucked up your post while responding. This is one of those situations where being a moderator clashed with being a respondent. Sorry and I am trying to fix it- welsh

n response to guns giving one a sense a false sense of security- It's not false, although some not very smart individuals, overly influenced by mass media, might believe that with a handgun they will walk out of any dangerous situation and are more prone to dangerous behavior like strolling at night in a park. But this has nothing to do with self-defense - I was referring exclusively to life-and-death kind of situations.

As Ancient has pointed out, someone may have you at gun point before you can respond.

That's usually what happens in the muggings - a gun or a knife to your stomach, but if you are unarmed, you have a zero chance to fight back. If you are armed, there is some chance that an opportunity to take a safe shot will present itself. And of course that chance is much higher if you can see the danger - suspicious character(s) approaching you, someone lurking in a dark alley, an arguement that gets too heated. Sum it up, and you have a higher chance of survival

In response to guns in society and the right to self defense-
I'd only have control of my gun, not millions of guns out there. So I can't really decrease the danger to myself by giving up my only means of lethal response.

In response to Welsh's position stating that he does not support an absolute ban on guns-

Sure you do. You've been telling everyone for a while how wonderful a world would be if we were to give up the second amendment, and that you have statistics that speak in favor of it. You are clearly all for removing all guns from the United States.

As for constraints - like Gwydion said a dozen posts before me, there are already more constraints on guns than on any other item.

Thus the argument of the 2nd Amendment "right to bare arms" may be increasingly anachronistic

If it ain't broken, don't fix it. It's much harder to grant people new freedoms than to protect them, so unless we're gonna have twenty office shootings a day, it shouldn't even be an issue if law-abiding citizens should be able to own a gun.

In response to Welsh's comment about the role of legislation-
Legislators have little to do with stopping illegal guns other than fixing loopholes not thought of by those who passed previous laws, only with when a certain gun is legal or not.

 

[welsh]

Hey APTYP

Again, sorry about screwing up your post. No offense and it really wasn't intended.

I think some of these issues are starting to get recycled. So I am going to skip some of them.

It's not false, although some not very smart individuals, overly influenced by mass media, might believe that with a handgun they will walk out of any dangerous situation and are more prone to dangerous behavior like strolling at night in a park. But this has nothing to do with self-defense - I was referring exclusively to life-and-death kind of situations.

I think we agree that hand guns can give one a false sense of security, and that sometimes one might be placed in a situation of life- or-death. But again, there are a few issues that need to be considered. For instance restrictions might allow those more subject to life-or-death circumstances to be armed with hand guns, while leaving the person who is more likely to be threatened in the house with the right to keep a shotgun in the bedroom closet.

But there is also the question of whether the benefits of guns used in self-defense outweigh the costs of guns used to commot homicides.

As Ancient has pointed out, someone may have you at gun point before you can respond.

That's usually what happens in the muggings - a gun or a knife to your stomach, but if you are unarmed, you have a zero chance to fight back. If you are armed, there is some chance that an opportunity to take a safe shot will present itself. And of course that chance is much higher if you can see the danger - suspicious character(s) approaching you, someone lurking in a dark alley, an arguement that gets too heated. Sum it up, and you have a higher chance of survival..

Ok, now a couple of things. One being is how much of that can be avoided if a person is smart? For example, if you are in a heated argument, perhaps its better to walk away. If it is a heated argument and the person takes a swing at you, do you have the right to shoot him. Are you more likely to shoot him if you have a gun (as well as get into that heated argument).

What about alternatives- one is avoidance, but there are often other means of self defense than guns. In many states one is suppose to avoid using deadly violence if one make an exit. In many ways the law already constrains your use of deadly violence (regardless if whether you have a gun)

I'd only have control of my gun, not millions of guns out there. So I can't really decrease the danger to myself by giving up my only means of lethal response.

Actually you can. But this goes to the notion of individual action for safety leading to social wide increase in insecurity. But we have already discussed that.

Sure you do. You've been telling everyone for a while how wonderful a world would be if we were to give up the second amendment, and that you have statistics that speak in favor of it. You are clearly all for removing all guns from the United States.

As for constraints - like Gwydion said a dozen posts before me, there are already more constraints on guns than on any other item.

No actually I don't. I am not sure if Sander has, but I know Ancient has not made that argument. Even Gwydion has been willing to accept restrictions. THe question is more about what level of restrictions rather than complete bans. I disagree with Gwydion on the level of bans. Go back and look at our posts, not just selectively picking quotes but the different arguments and I think you will see that.

In many ways the notion that we have of the second amendment is an anachronism. But at the same time I have been fine with the idea of hunting, and even made a suggestion about collectors. What I would like to see is more registration and control over guns. But the extreme view often sees this as "Now they want restrictions soon they want bans."

Thus the argument of the 2nd Amendment "right to bare arms" may be increasingly anachronistic

If it ain't broken, don't fix it. It's much harder to grant people new freedoms than to protect them, so unless we're gonna have twenty office shootings a day, it shouldn't even be an issue if law-abiding citizens should be able to own a gun.

Why stop at 20, why not 30. Or why not 4? How many people is enough?

It is an issue because people keep getting shot, and people keep asking why its so easy to get guns.

Legislators have little to do with stopping illegal guns other than fixing loopholes not thought of by those who passed previous laws, only with when a certain gun is legal or not.

Come on APTYP, you know better than that. Legislators are also overseers of executives, they check rules, they make laws. They relax standards and they get tough on issues when its in their interests.

 

[Gwydion]

If you could get past your blind, rabid devotion to guns, you would see that I was specifically referring to murder for the reason that handguns are more brutal and therefore are partially to blame for our higher rates of murder.

If you were talking only about murder rates, then why did you bring up the ease with which someone can rob a gas station with guns?

Anyway, if that's true why then are the murder rates of Britain rising as gun control accross the ocean becomes stricter, and murder rates in America falling as firearms ownership becomes more popular than ever? If the trend continues, the murder rates will actually converge. Linky linky. For the record, the author of this article, Joyce Lee Malcolm, recently published a book called Guns and Violence: The English Experience that examines the history of gun control in England and the violence rates of the nation.

Again. Murder. the inclusion of guns in robberies can augment an assault to something much worse. Do you need a dictionary?

But the murder rate per 100,000 people isn't actually that much higher. Check out interpol numbers to see what I mean. Considering the number of guns in private ownership, that's a pretty small increase in the number of murders per capita. Linky linky.

Also, it doesn't take much courage to get a handgun and make a stick up, where as with a knife or barehanded, you need to be brave (or crazy) to actually rob the store. therefore, less criminals would be willing to commit a crime under this situation. These factors will ultimately help reduce crime.

Again, so much for your "only murder" claim above. Of course, as I mentioned earlier this simply doesn't jive with international crime statistics.

And the number of criminals that commit crimes with handguns are ten times higher than the number of people that actually prevent crime with it. How do I know? Because I actually have a source to back my claims up and that actually will shed some light on your claims also. Surprise!!! it's a source

Uh huh. The problem is that the Dept. of Justice probably doesn't keep a real good tab on defensive gun uses. Why? Because a defensive gun use isn't a crime. Multiple studies from organizations ranging from Gallup to the LA Times have placed the number of defensive gun uses at 760k or more. I'll see if I can dig up the links for that.

Your use of tortured logic is appalling. A cop isn't just a citizen who has a badge and a gun that goes around making arrests. He is the legal enforcer of the law.

What's the difference? A cop isn't a member of a special class of people. They aren't super-citizens who inherently have more rights and priveleges. They're just citizens employed by the state to catch criminals.

As for him carrying a gun, when I say that we should ban handguns, I don't mean that cops shouldn't be able to have them either.

Never claimed that was what you were saying.

More fallacies. You truly are a blind, gun obsessed maniac. Not only are you jumping to a false conclusion and are providing no facts to back this statement up,

You're right, I didn't provide evidence that crime tends to skew towards urban areas and gun ownership skews toward rural areas. I assumed that was simply common knowledge. After having a look around, I can't really find anything to confirm or deny this. Since you took such incredible offense at the statement, maybe you can.

but by saying that the reason gun owners don't defend themselves as often is because there are more crimes in urban areas where there are less guns, you are also excluding many factors such as the number of actual guns per owner, what jobs these gun owners have, etc, and other factors not even related to guns.

You're right, I did exclude those factors. That's because those factors are irrelevant to the statement I made. Gun ownership more common in rural areas + crime more common in cities = fewer gun owning victims. That's a very, very simple equation, I can't imagine why you're trying to read so much into it.

Why didn't you include my quote on supporting rifles???

Uhh... Because that's not relevant to the discussion? Your aproval of bolt-action rifles doesn't have much to do with international crime statistics or the fact that gun registration in America has lead to confiscation.

Would it be because if you did, it would make your whole second amendment theory utter bullshit??? I thought so...

Huh? I'm sorry, how would your approval of bolt-action rifles negate the theory that a weakening of one aspect of the constitution weakens the whole thing?

Not only that, but you repeated that same slippery slope fallacy. Since it's obvious that you don't know jack shit about logic, here's a little site that could hopefully enlighten you:

Right. It might be a slipperly slope, if not for the fact that I'm arguing what has happened here. Registration has led to confiscation in California, that's fact. Why do you ignore that in your post? Is it because it means your whole "logical fallacy" claims are bullshit???

You truly are a straw loving motherfucker. A parent wouldn't purposely hurt their child by leaving a gun around, whereas a criminal would use a gun on purpose to commit a crime.

Wait a minute, I'm having some trouble with this:

A child accidentally shooting himself is not the fault of the gun, but the fault of the parent. This is according to your first post in which you stated:

Sure you have kids shooting themselves by accident, but that is just a major irresponsibilty on the parents part and not the gun.

And that's a totally reasonable statement.

But on the otherhand, you're advocating gun control because the gun makes it easier for someon to murder someone else, or rob a bank or gas station (Bear in mind these are all examples that you personally brought up).

Now it seems to me, that if a child can't shoot himself if there is no gun to shoot himself with. In this situation a gun is clearly a necessary component. It's true that parental negligence may also be necessary for this to happen, but it definitely can't happen without a gun. This strikes me as being very, very similar to your own gun control argument. You've argued that guns make it so much easier to rob a bank or gas station that they're almost necessary. After all, if someone isn't using a gun, a baseball bat behind the counter is enough to stop the robbery. That's what you said, right? Of course, in this situation, there definitely has to be another factor involved. Guns don't rob stores themselves, there needs to be someone holding the gun.

So why are you pushing for gun control in one instance and not the other? If guns are so important to both situations (and again you yourself said that guns are very important to people robbing gas stations and banks), why aren't you consistant when you lay the blame?

Also now that I reread that previous statement, what was the point you were trying to make? Are you trying to imply that I don't think criminals should be held responsible when they commit a crime with a gun because I believe that a parent should be held accountable for being irresponsible and putting their child in harms way by leaving a gun in their reach? Truly slanderous, pointless, and full of shit.

The point is clearly stated above. I'm pointing out an inconsistancy in your arguments.

Yeah, those handguns do make a rather nice compliment to the M-16's they carry.

My point exactly.

This is the last post I'm going to address to you as its obvious you are a dogmatic, shit-for-brains numbskull who can't argue properly. If there are any other supporters of handguns who would like to make a proper argument, please do us all a favor and do so.

Well, then I must say I have not lost out on much.

 

[Gwydion]

Again, I'd like to hear fromt eh Canadians as well as your sources about the effectiveness of registration.

Here's one that mentions some lost applications, as well as the money hole issue.

Looking for some links about the noncompliance problems.

ANd thank God for that. If you would believe some of the NRA rhetoric there would be people using automatic weapons for self defense in crowded streets.

I couldn't find the "fire automatic weapons into crowds" stuff anywhere on the website. Can you show me?

What would be the situation without regulation? More automatic weapons widely available.

Of course, I didn't mention that the regulation passed in 1934 is actually a tax issue. If you pay a tax and fill out the ATF forms, it's possible to legally own and use an automatic weapon. Oddly enough, these are very rarely used in crimes.

Quick answer-
What is the real cost and who pays for it- generally it would be gun owners- they pay for the licensing fees- just like car owners, so no great loss there. You enjoy it, you pay for it.

Even when the cost goes from an estimated two million to nearly a billion?

Well we can look at registration systems- if you look at the registration of other dangerous articles, one finds greater control of hazards. That's true in hazardous wastes and its true in automobiles.

See, now here's the problem though. Guns aren't toxic waste. Toxic waste is inherently dangerous, but guns aren't. Again, we only have to look at the low number of crimes vs gun ownership to see that we're talking about apples and oranges.

And cars aren't as regulated as you seem to want to admit. I dont' have to register a car as soon as I purchase it. In fact, cars from dealerships, at least in my area, come with free 30 day tags. You can drive the car around for 30 days after the purchase date without a license plate.

Can we really say that Canada's low crime rates are not derivative of gun registration?

We sure can. Canada's gun registration is pretty recent, but Canada's low murder rate isn't.

But it also shoots you in the foot. To a certain extent California is an odd case. YOu are talking about the 9th largest economy in the world, remember, and that produces a lot of guns. Even with strict gun controls, the sheer number of weapons in circulation matters. If you spend time out West, in California, it becomes pretty clear very soon that California is the economic center of that region. For example, without California, no Las Vegas.

So its a bad case. Otherwise, the argument seems to work on the position I articulated before and which both pro and anti- gun folks support- the cops aren't nearly effective as they should be. Why not, taxing policies. WHich I think answers your other point as well.

Canada's position at the top of the list is still a very big monkey wrench in your argument. I mean, they basically have registration by forcing every sale to go through a FFL and use the background checks, but there are still a lot of guns being used for crime in other states. Frankly, I don't think it's that easy to right off. If registration in California hasn't stopped the problem, why should we believe it will stop the problem anywhere else?

Considering that the historically most homicides are among acquaintances, that breaking up domestic disturbances are considered to be among the most dangerous activities cops do, sure, it would justify that expense.

But, acquintances is a very general term. It can mean dealers and their customers, or pimps and johns, or rival gang members even. You can't really make the claim that "acquintances" means domestic disturbances.

Yes, I have looked at the numbers at interpol as well. But I am not exactly sure how they support your argument. The goal here is to lower the number of homicides.

But you made the claim, repeatedly, that guns "empower" people to commit crimes or make it easier for them to do so. If that is the case, why is it only reflected in murder? I mean, the murder rate isn't so much higher that all the extra assaults or robberies we may see in other countries automatically become murders.

Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, the homicide rates of the US and Great Britain are converging. Homicide rates have dropped in the US recently despite very large numbers of gun ownership. Why is that?

Also you have to figure in other issues- crime has escalated dramatically in Europe. I mean, when I was in London the police didn't have to carry guns!

Yes, crime has escalated dramatically, even with the presence of gun control.

Sure, in Canada they beat the crap out of each other- maybe its the long winters, the cold weather and too much alcohol. But that doesn't help explain why we have so many violent deaths to guns here in the US.

It does help explain that guns don't directly contribute to crime, though, as you have claimed.

Actually many of the costs would be the same- issues of insecurity, loss of business, trauma to witnesses.

All of that would have been there if guns hadn't been used, though. Just the fact of a mugging or a stickup causes this, even if guns aren't used.

Actually I think it raises a point very well. How can you measure the cost of guns to the benefits of guns unless you account from these numbers?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

We have discussed this before- that the numbers on defensive use of guns are very questionable just in terms of methods conducted.

You've never really explained that well. I mean, Kleck's survey may be questionable, although you've also never explained that, but there are a lot of others out there that give very high numbers of defensive gun uses.

But lets go back to defensive use. How do you know that in many of those situations a gun was actually necessary. For example, a person with a bat, or even a loud voice, might have deterred a potential thief.

You're right, it's very hard to know that sort of thing.

I will even give you one. Studies have found that the major deterrent to theft of households was the fear of theives that the people inside might be there and have a gun. This was done by survey of actual prisoners.

But the problem is, how do they know that the person has a gun in the first place? Why not wait till the person isn't home? Even if everyone had a gun, would that change the numbers significantly? Chances are thieves would time themselves more carefully, or choose other types of crime. Would that solution outweigh the benefits? You can't really say because your measurement of costs is so skewed in the direction of benefit.

What does this, any of this, have to do with gun registration? You see, this is why I'm having trouble understand your postion, Welsh. You say, I want registration and civil liability, but then you start talking about cost-benefit of guns in general, and automatic weapons. If you don't think the benefit of guns outweighs the cost, why are you arguing for only registration?

 

[APTYP]

But again, there are a few issues that need to be considered. For instance restrictions might allow those more subject to life-or-death circumstances to be armed with hand guns, while leaving the person who is more likely to be threatened in the house with the right to keep a shotgun in the bedroom closet.

But there is also the question of whether the benefits of guns used in self-defense outweigh the costs of guns used to commot homicides.

Why not let the person who is buying a gun to decide for himself if benefits outweight the costs as far as his life is concerned? And you know my view of far-going ramifications to the society - not my business.

What about alternatives- one is avoidance, but there are often other means of self defense than guns. In many states one is suppose to avoid using deadly violence if one make an exit. In many ways the law already constrains your use of deadly violence (regardless if whether you have a gun)

Fine by me. The right to use lethal force and the duty to use lethal force are not the same thing. And because most people are not killers, they'll probably choose the alternative over a kill anyway even if the law does not command them to.

But we have already discussed that.

Yes we did. Still, the discussion turns into people reiterating their opinions not convincing or being convinced by others struggling to find incredible evidences supported by a colorful array of polls and statistics.

THe question is more about what level of restrictions rather than complete bans. I disagree with Gwydion on the level of bans. Go back and look at our posts, not just selectively picking quotes but the different arguments and I think you will see that.

Okay, now I do. I think. Me stupid, me have to think for an hour to see the logic. Which reminds me, never go into discussions with you ever again, too much guessing of what you really mean and what exactly are you addressing and from what point.

But at the same time I have been fine with the idea of hunting, and even made a suggestion about collectors. What I would like to see is more registration and control over guns.

Which I see as redundant, prone to potential loopholes, and rather presumptious. But that's the point of a debate I guess, not to convince but to push your opinions. Hell, look at all them crazy people suggesting wacky shit in FO3 forum ever since back when!

But the extreme view often sees this as "Now they want restrictions soon they want bans."

coughassaultweaponsarenotforselfdefensecough

It is an issue because people keep getting shot, and people keep asking why its so easy to get guns.

Well people are generally misinformed or have too little information to make up an educated opinion by themselves. A prerequisite ignorant rabble in USA Networks shows comes to mind. And that's why I tried to stick to my arguement as much as possible since I'm not big on statistics and other social impact stuff (much of it is probably biased anyway).

 

[John Uskglass]

APTYP=Owned.

 

[John Uskglass]

Well people are generally misinformed or have too little information to make up an educated opinion by themselves.

Okay, so, dispite that all the facts are against you, YOU still charge blindly with the argument that "I am right, lets work around that!"

Which I see as redundant, prone to potential loopholes, and rather presumptious

True, but what are we going to do with bans? Sorry dude, but that one situation in Pulp Fiction is not common, dispite what the BBC has been feeding into your brain over the last few years.

Why didn't you include my quote on supporting rifles???

Because a Machete, a razor, a hacksaw and a broken Axe are more likely to be of use in a defensive situation. You honestly think that when one or two people enter your house/homeless boxville that you will have time to
A) Find wepon. You will not have room, nor will it be conspicuous enough to keep nearby.
B) Load wepon.
C) If worse come to worse, load another round.
And before you know it, your cute little brain is splatterd all over your cute little house. Sorry, but I dont think you have touched either a dangerous school, neighborhood or city in your life. At least that heeping pile of crap (Moore) lived in Michicgan.

You know what the fun thing is? I do not even own a gun, and have only fired 1 puny little .22 in my life! Cant spout rhetoric at me, can you? Also, I consider myself to have some serious Socialist leanings, so you cant cry Republic either!

 

[APTYP]

Owned? And who the fuck died and made you the judge of pwnage?

Okay, so, dispite that all the facts are against you, YOU still charge blindly with the argument that "I am right, lets work around that!"

Facts that are against me? What facts? Me and welsh were talking apples and oranges the whole discussion. He didn't even try to disprove the validity of my arguement for handguns, only to show that the costs to the society outweight the benefits, which I again and again dismissed as irrelevant.

True, but what are we going to do with bans? Sorry dude, but that one situation in Pulp Fiction is not common, dispite what the BBC has been feeding into your brain over the last few years.

And what the hell are you talking about now? Maybe if you turn down the hostility you'll be able to express yourself better.

Because a Machete, a razor, a hacksaw and a broken Axe are more likely to be of use in a defensive situation. You honestly think that when one or two people enter your house/homeless boxville that you will have time to

While I'll assume this and the rest of the post goes to Ancient Oldie since this is his quote, I'll nudge a word or two - yes, you will have the time unless you live in an apartment (and when I lived in Russia, our neighbor came to us through the balcony when she woke up hearing someone messing around with her door locks). Burglaries often take place at night. Many keep their guns in the bedroom which is often located on the second floor of the house. It takes a while for the intruder to break in, which is associated with all kinds of weird noises, and unless he's here to massacre the whole family, he won't charge upstairs guns ready, giving you even more time to wake up and get your wits together.

And before you know it, your cute little brain is splatterd all over your cute little house.

...Terminator-style. What makes you think burglars start off with killing off the household residents?

 

[welsh]

Damn, my post got screwed up.

APTYP- what is this about you making an argument about the validity of hand guns. I thought your point was merely that because you thought you had the right to own a gun, and felt it was necessary, that's it. As for the rest of the society, you don't care. IS that it?

That's not an argument, that's a self-righteous opinion that absolves itself of any social responsibility.

I will try to respond a bit later.

Just a note, Gwydion, I think the London- New York comparison is interesting but I can pm you on that.

 

[APTYP]

I thought your point was merely that because you thought you had the right to own a gun, and felt it was necessary, that's it. As for the rest of the society, you don't care. IS that it?

That's not an argument, that's a self-righteous opinion that absolves itself of any social responsibility.

No, me not beliving in relevance of things I have no control over to a handgun issue is an opinion, and that's what you debated with me, trying to sell me a 'no guns today, world peace tomorrow' scam (never mind what you propose, that's how it looks like to me from your arguements). People having the right to use lethal force in self-defense is an arguement, and all you offered was a veiled attempt to liquify all rights for no reason other than 'common good' ("the road to paradise is paved with skulls") that looks like a proposal to Stalin for a mind-control campaign.

 

[Briosafreak]

welsh, Gwydion and others, you have a final round of replies than this thread will be closed.

Gun control threads will only be allowed in the Order forum, or in another hosted forum.

 

[Brother None]

Gun control threads will only be allowed in the Order forum, or in another hosted forum.

...*shrugs* Sure, the Order has never had much trouble with gun control threads. Same rules there as here, though.

Well, gents, you heard the man and understand his motives. Chop-chop.

 

[APTYP]

Nazi!

My applauds to Ancient Oldie and Craprunner for making it all possible. Welsh, if you want to continue, which I doubt you will (you probably don't have a nicest opinion about me now), use PM.

 

[welsh]

I thought your point was merely that because you thought you had the right to own a gun, and felt it was necessary, that's it. As for the rest of the society, you don't care. IS that it?

That's not an argument, that's a self-righteous opinion that absolves itself of any social responsibility.

No, me not beliving in relevance of things I have no control over to a handgun issue is an opinion, and that's what you debated with me, trying to sell me a 'no guns today, world peace tomorrow' scam (never mind what you propose, that's how it looks like to me from your arguements). People having the right to use lethal force in self-defense is an arguement, and all you offered was a veiled attempt to liquify all rights for no reason other than 'common good' ("the road to paradise is paved with skulls") that looks like a proposal to Stalin for a mind-control campaign.

APTYP- Taking things a bit extreme, aren't we? I have never argued "no guns" nor "no guns= world peace" and I wouldn't think your mind was so vulnerable to mind control. Here's a hint- if you used your brain more, it would be stronger.

Let me simplify what the argument was about- you said that guns offered the individual safety and security and that this was a fundamental right.

I responded by saying that guns given to the individual is a short term fix. At the long term, if everyone does just what you do, it creates greater insecurity, thereby potentially increasing your risk, not just to yourself but to everyone else. Costs and Benefits- your short-term benefits leads to longer term costs, not just for you but everyone else.

I also argued that the notion of self defense was a constructed one, and that if you are to argue that, then the bigger issue of the right to live matters. That somewhere there needs to be a line drawn between the individuals right to be secure and the right to have a gun as well as other alternatives. That the rights of the individual do not necessary overrule that of the soceity in which he lives. Thus a more moderate line has to be drawn.

But since you think that the right to buy a gun outweighs the right of someone else to live without the danger of gun violence, that means that all you really care about is yourself.

Which is why you can easily say why what happens to the rest of society doesn't matter, why statistics don't matter, why the other side of the debate doesn't matter. Why nothing really matters except your right to feeling secure.

Which is why there really is no argument here. You win simply because nothing else matters. Selfishness overrules all else.

I can see why most of the board has given up with this thread. It's useless to argue against extremism.

And no, please don't bother PMing me. It's not personal ATPYP. It's a question of utility. I don't think the time is worthwhile and I just have other stuff to do. You have your opinion, I think its shallow, but hey, you're call.

That said, I don't think this thread should be closed. In the end this debate will not end here, but will just be carried over to other threads or boards. Better we concentrate all of it in one place then spend too much time chasing each other around.

Finally, one for the anti-gun side- http://www.vcp.org

 

[APTYP]

You win simply because nothing else matters. Selfishness overrules all else.

When the question comes down on a hard edge - "you or everyone else", I choose me. Call this selfishness if you want, I call this self-preservation.

Okay, now I'm done.

 

[Ancient Oldie]

Alright, my final say is this, I have seen three perfect examples of an intellectual honest and engaging person (other than me of course ), an intellectual dishonest person who has skewed my words and taken them out of context so badly that even I don't know what I said, and one mentally fucked-up sociopath who I sure as hell wish I never meet in the middle of night for fear of being mistaken as someone shady and getting shot...

Having said that, this thread has been all work and no fun. In fact, it's been as frustrating as trying to masturbate without using my hands. My final thoughts on gun control, just read what I've written previously, my opinion hasn't changed.

Now I'm going to have to disagree with Welsh for the first time and hope for the love of God that the mods lock this thread before I get banned or I my brain just blows up for attempting the impossible...

and no it has nothing to do with my hands...

 

[Gwydion]

My final thoughts:

Gun control is clearly a clouded and emotional issue. Ultimately, though, we must weigh the evidence for ourselves to determine truth, we must not rely on emotional pleas. Here is a rundown of a few of the things we know. With each point, I have provided my perspective or explanation.

1) Guns can be used for crime. Of this there certainly is no doubt. Of course, there's nothing wrong with this in and of itself, there are a lot of objects that can be used in a crime. Cars, gloves, masks and knives are just a few off the top of my head. The fact that an object can be used in a crime is certainly no grounds for legislation.

2) Guns can make crime easier. Again, this is true. Anyone can come up with a hypothetical crime or find an example of a real crime in which a gun made the crime easier. However, the same could be true for any of the objects I listed for item number one. All of those could contribute, just as guns can.

3) America has higher murder rates than many western nations with strict gun control. This is true. I do not know what accounts for this discrepency, but Ancient Oldie and Welsh have suggested that it is because of guns. That's a pretty bold claim to make. Welsh said something interesting in a PM he sent me when I brought up the converging murder rates of the US and Britain:

"In short there could be a thousand reasons why we find crime rates converging. For example, a decline in crime in New York may be due to longer prison terms, economic growth, changing demographic structures. In London, it might be due to less control over commerce through the port, greater income disparities, more drug related crime. "

And he's right. We don't know why the murder rates of these two nations are converging when Britain has historically always had lower rates, even before gun control. Just as surely, the mere fact that the US has a higher murder rate is not evidence that guns are a social problem

4) The rates of other violent crimes in America are not out of line among western nations with gun control. This is an issue that no one has addressed yet. If guns making crime easier really were a major factor, why isn't that reflected in other crimes? In response to this point, both Oldie and Welsh said, "it's murder we're talking aobut," when clearly there was more being discussed by both parties. I suppose the point is easier to evade than it is to answer.

5) Guns are used defensives a significant number of times every year. How often is not known; there is no government organization that actively records these incidents. Oldie posted a link claiming sub-100k, but that seems unlikely. After all, if a gun is so easy to use in crime, why would it be so hard to use defensively? The same qualities that make a good an offensive tool should make it a good defensive tool. Additionally, studies by Kleck and others have placed the number of defensive gun uses closer to 2 million a year.

6) The number of crimes committed with guns is far smaller than the number of gun owners in the US. The number of gun owners is another statistic that's hard to pinpoint. There's no government agency that keeps track of this, but the NRA has made estimations from 60 million to 80 million. Despite my opponents' characterization attempts, the NRA's numbers aren't out of line with the UN's numbers on the number of guns in private ownership.

Considering all of the above, it's startling how sure my opponents are that gun control is a good thing. At this point, it's hard to establish any clear benefit to it, when the time and manpower would be better spent improving the police, which has been shown to correlate better with crime.

Finally, for all of the jabs Oldie has taken, I couldn't resist a parting smack of my own. For all his "intellectual dishonesty" smoke and mirrors, this is the guy that couldn't even figure out if he was talking about just murder or if he was throwing other crimes into the mix. He's a winner, folks!