The Official Gun Control Debate thread

[Kya]

Muzzle-loading musket.

That will solve lots of problems. Obviously the gun companies and the ignorant will say that is stupid.

[Steven S. Dallas]

yea maybe the ass wouldn't be the best place to aim...

Old habits are tough to break.

[teledave]

Similarly, if we said, that's it, no guns nowhere (except for law enforcement, the military, and certain other business licensees), the number of gun deaths would drop precipitously.

Personally, I think you are highly overestimating the effect that such laws would have. It's one thing to say "that's it, no guns nowhere" and entirely another matter to make that happen. Those members of our society with less than noble intentions would procure thier firearms if from nowhere else then from the military and law enforcement agencies.

[Steven S. Dallas]

Right. My theory does require that the army and the cops not start selling guns illegally.

Of course it's another matter to actually make it happen- it would be an enormous pain in the ass, and would cost lots of money and lots of people would lose their livelihoods. No question it's pie in the sky- but it could happen if we wanted it to. I don't like the idea that it's an intractable situation and there's nothing that can be done. And don't say, oh, well, if everyone had a gun, there would be no gun violence because the criminals would all be scared to commit crimes. That's the same argument people use in favor of capital punishment, and it's just not true. To paraphrase Chuck Klosterman, the concept of having more guns in order to reduce gun violence is like trying to combat teen pregnancy by lowering the drinking age.

[BigAirSkier1580]

YEAH! The death penalty totally discourages people from committing these types of crimes in countries that practice the death penalty!

Where did I say anything about the death penalty???

Oh yeah, I didn't.

[brice618]

That is a rhetorical argument that speaks to the root of the problem, and focuses the argument on the only possible solution. Attacking the gun is attacking a tool. It's the abuse of the tool that is the problem.

There seem to be a lot of people who attach all kinds of negative emotions to inanimate objects and then crusade against those objects when the real problem lies in people's behavior.

Agreed.

I still don't understand how it logically makes sense to blame the tool. Where did the gun become the "evil" object? The gun remains inert until the person squeezes the trigger. Doesn't that put the responsibility on the person squeezing said trigger? Like MP already said... No one is going to blame the candle that was used by the butler to kill Mr. Green in the ballroom for the murder. It is obviously not the candles fault and no one would melt the candle down and then say "problem fixed". If someone wants someone else dead badly enough... they will be dead regardless of whether there is a gun to facilitate the crime.

I want to have a gun because I enjoy them. I like them. I like the sport of shooting. I like hunting. If in some way the government (which I doubt will happen) decides to go nuts and I feel I need to protect myself then I will use my guns to do so. If some nut tries to break in my house and harm my family, you bet your ass I'll put a bullet in him. I don't want to have to defend my ability to own them... the government shouldn't be involved on my ability to own a gun until I start giving them a reason to be (insert felony here).

[Pow4Brains]

Dunno where this thread is at the moment, but if you take away guns IEDs will just become more popular with the nutjobs in this world.

[PNWbrit]

OH OH OH OH! I'll start...the revolutionary war!

SWEETNESS!

Come on LB.

Does the oft quoted phrase mean anything in the modern world?

If in some way the government (which I doubt will happen) decides to go nuts and I feel I need to protect myself then I will use my guns to do so.

- Fairly certain this is what every crazy on a gun toting killing spree or holed up with a swat team about to break down the door thinks.

FWIW - I was completely opposed to the post Dunblane ban in U.K. but think there's room for sensible, tighter gun control without removing anyone's theoretical rights.

[Spats]

This has come around before.

Here's a US DOJ (i.e. government) report which includes a survey of defensive gun usage in America. According to the surveys, guns were used to prevent a crime 1.5 million times in 1994.

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Now let's look at the rest of the numbers.

"Out of 30,708 Americans who died by gunfire in 1998, only 316 were shot in justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms." -Handgun Control, Inc.

Let's break that number down. 17,424 (57&#37 of those were suicides, so you're down to 12,968 people actually shooting other people. (I'll talk about suicide in a moment.) Most of this is gang or drug-related. When we talk about the danger of shootings in the home, we're talking about people shooting intimates: family members, children, boyfriends or girlfriends.

In 1998, just under 1200 people killed one of their intimates with guns. Add the 134 children age 0-14 killed in gun accidents, and you have...

1300. That's a lot less than 30,708.
(Source: DOJ statistics. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm)

Divide that by the ~1.5 million crimes prevented by guns (see DOJ statistics above), and we get:

1154 crimes prevented by guns per gun homicide of a family member, intimate, or ex-intimate.

These are all numbers from official government studies which I dug up myself. I'm not cutting and pasting anything from anyone's website.

Now we tackle suicide.

From 1972 to 1995, the per capita gun stock in the U. S. increased by more than 50%. In 1972, the suicide rate was 11.9 per 100,000. In 1995, the suicide rate was -- 11.9 per 100,000. (It remained remarkably constant during this time, with a high of 13.0 and a low of 11.8.)

This clearly demonstrates that owning a gun does not cause people to commit suicide: the number of guns per American increased by 50%, yet we did not kill themselves any more often than before. So even if you believe the government should try to keep people from killing themselves, banning guns won't do it.

The numbers are out there, and it's easy to see the results. Like I said before, I used to be anti-gun until I realized that "gun control" was totally failing at its stated goal of keeping Americans safer.

Here's a last little tidbit: In what city do husbands kill their wives the most? (Per capita.)

New York, which has some of the toughest anti-gun laws around.

[Steven S. Dallas]

I still don't understand how it logically makes sense to blame the tool.

It doesn't and I don't think anyone makes that argument. There are lots of things you can't get legally because they're too dangerous- narcotics, to use the obvious example. We could say, sorry, responsible gun owners- there are too many bad people out there who abuse the gun having privilege, they've ruined it for the rest of us. And arguably, when we look at the cost (lives) versus the benefits (recreation?) of easy gun availability, we should ban them.

[Pow4Brains]

__________

[Spats]

Here's another thought:

How far would the shooter have got if anyone else in the building had been armed? Here's a law school shooting in Virginia that was stopped by armed students:

http://www.uwire.com/content/topops012402002.html

"Last week, a disgruntled student at Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va., went on a shooting spree. Peter Odighizuwa tragically shot six people, killing Dean Anthony Sutin, Associate Professor Thomas Blackwell, and student Angela Dales.

[...]

Most news reports pointed out that the situation ended when several students "confronted," "tackled," or "intervened." However, Tracy Bridges, Ted Besen, Todd Ross, and Mikael Gross did not merely "confront" Odighizuwa. Bridges and Gross separately ran to their cars to get their handguns once the shooting began. Bridges approached Odighizuwa with Besen's and Ross' aid. Gross was close behind. According to Bridges, "I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down." Bridges, Besen, and Gross had previously received police or military training."

[Dhelihiker]

Before guns, knives were a real problem.

[lemon boy]

Come on LB.

Does the quoted phrase mean anything in the modern world?

FWIW - I was completely opposed to the post Dunblane ban in U.K. but think there's room for sensible, tighter gun control without removing anyone's theoretical rights.

I don't oppose all gun control. I am very skeptical of almost all of it though and it has to go through a stringent LB screening process to ensure it's not mere cosmetic pissing in the wind nor highly invasive of my rights.

And…I went through a phase where I was really skeptical of whether or not the RKBA meant anything in today's world, especially stacked up against the truly AWESOME military might that modern armies wield. But then, a little country named Iraq came along and showed me that with only the most rudimentary of arms a population dedicated to its cause can absolutely prevent the most powerful military in the world from exercising its will. Heartening and frightening.

[P_McPoser]

This has come around before.

Here's a US DOJ (i.e. government) report which includes a survey of defensive gun usage in America. According to the surveys, guns were used to prevent a crime 1.5 million times in 1994.

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Now let's look at the rest of the numbers.

"Out of 30,708 Americans who died by gunfire in 1998, only 316 were shot in justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms." -Handgun Control, Inc.

Let's break that number down. 17,424 (57%) of those were suicides, so you're down to 12,968 people actually shooting other people. (I'll talk about suicide in a moment.) Most of this is gang or drug-related. When we talk about the danger of shootings in the home, we're talking about people shooting intimates: family members, children, boyfriends or girlfriends.

In 1998, just under 1200 people killed one of their intimates with guns. Add the 134 children age 0-14 killed in gun accidents, and you have...

1300. That's a lot less than 30,708.
(Source: DOJ statistics. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm)

Divide that by the ~1.5 million crimes prevented by guns (see DOJ statistics above), and we get:

1154 crimes prevented by guns per gun homicide of a family member, intimate, or ex-intimate.

These are all numbers from official government studies which I dug up myself. I'm not cutting and pasting anything from anyone's website.

Now we tackle suicide.

From 1972 to 1995, the per capita gun stock in the U. S. increased by more than 50%. In 1972, the suicide rate was 11.9 per 100,000. In 1995, the suicide rate was -- 11.9 per 100,000. (It remained remarkably constant during this time, with a high of 13.0 and a low of 11.8.)

This clearly demonstrates that owning a gun does not cause people to commit suicide: the number of guns per American increased by 50%, yet we did not kill themselves any more often than before. So even if you believe the government should try to keep people from killing themselves, banning guns won't do it.

The numbers are out there, and it's easy to see the results. Like I said before, I used to be anti-gun until I realized that "gun control" was totally failing at its stated goal of keeping Americans safer.

Here's a last little tidbit: In what city do husbands kill their wives the most? (Per capita.)

New York, which has some of the toughest anti-gun laws around.

Very well written spats. Goes to show I suck at judging someones beleifs over the internet.

[Jer]

Obviously the gun companies and the ignorant will say that is stupid.

That's stupid.

Padded Room douchebags!

[Nitro]

__________

I was waiting for someone to throw this moron into the thread.

[MeatPuppet]

YEAH! The death penalty totally discourages people from committing these types of crimes in countries that practice the death penalty!

I'm a big fan of caning, myself. I'm totally serious about this. Check out the crime rate in Singapore.

"Singapore has 12 times the population of Vancouver but just half the crime rate."

http://www.langara.bc.ca/prm/2003/singapore.html

But I don't see that catching on over here anytime soon.

[rideit]

In Peru, a country of 30,000,000, guns are extremely hard to find, and ammo is severely controlled. As a result, they have ~ 100 gun deaths a year, and almost 0 that involve 'random' shootings.

Take that how you want to.

How many are there here in the US? Per Annum?

[Nitro]

In Peru, a country of 30,000,000, guns are extremely hard to find, and ammo is severely controlled. As a result, they have ~ 100 gun deaths a year, and almost 0 that involve 'random' shootings.

Take that how you want to.

How many are there here in the US? Per Annum?

Have you been to Peru? If you have even a little wealth, you are living behind guard post and in a compound always looking over your back. Peru would be a very bad example. Never trust stats from a country run by the Drug Cartels.

[Jer]

How many are there here in the US? Per Annum?

How many skier days are there here in the US? Per Annum?

Padded Room?

[rideit]

So, why are you posting in this ski-related thread?

[rideit]

Have you been to Peru? If you have even a little wealth, you are living behind guard post and in a compound always looking over your back. Peru would be a very bad example. Never trust stats from a country run by the Drug Cartels.

Have I been to Peru!

HAAA!!! (I have a business there, I go three times a year, at least. I will be there next week.)
BTW, Peru isn't run by the Cartels, Colombia is. Get your facts straight. In fact, Garcia is being protested throughout the country right now due to his Coca eradication efforts.

http://www.livinginperu.com/news-360...nst-government

Yes, Peru has it's problems, but random gun fatalities is NOT one of them, and this is a country with a VERY violent recent past.
That is my point. Less access, less fatalities, pure and simple.

Edit: This coming trip will be my thirteenth in four years. I spend more time there than I do with my family back east!

[Jer]

So, why are you posting in this ski-related thread?

Why are you dodging my question about skier-days?

If you outlaw skiing only outlaws will ski.

[MeatPuppet]

Have you been to Peru?

I'm pretty sure he's been at least once...maybe twice. I could be wrong.

I'm sure he can speak for himself.


Edit: Damn, he beat me to it!