Gun Control

[Craig234]

Does anyone have statistics on the percentage of killings that are self-defense versus other for rural and urban areas?

I think there's a perception in the rural culture that's highly pro-gun while urban areas tend to see them more as a danger of criminals using them. Wonder how fact-based it is.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You make some good points here, and the links to actual stats are appreciated.

I'm afraid I haven't read through this whole thread, so some points in here may have been proposed by others. I apologize for that.

First of all, I think gun violence is a problem. About 30,000 people die each year from guns in the US, a rate that is MUCH higher than any other developed nation (about 2.5x higher than Switzerland, and 3x higher than Israel in homicides, the closest rivals). We also own about twice as many guns per capita as Switzerland.

Is it a problem? Sure.

Is it the biggest problem we have? Not even close.

The 30,000 number has to be taken in context. First, a lot of those are suicides. The impact on the suicide rate of reduced access to guns is debatable, but it's likely a lot of those who used guns did so just because it was the easiest way, and would have found another method.

Another large chunk of those are gang-related violence in the inner cities. The proper solution to that is cleaning up the gangs -- not banning guns that gangs don't even use from people who aren't in gangs.

As you also correctly point out, deaths from not just 'assault rifles' but all rifles are a trivially small number.

From all this, it seems to me that the attempt to reduce gun violence now being proposed make no sense. Mass killings, while awful, don't make up much of the real problem when compared to handgun violence.

Right. But they are very effective tools of emotional manipulation, and are used as such.

Thus, worrying about "assault weapons" and large clips is more or less pointless. Training and gun safety won't make much impact, as there are only about 600 deaths annually from accidents. Gun buybacks aren't effective, as you'd have to buy back 30,000 guns to prevent one murder.

The thing about training and gun safety, though, is that these are measures that can be instituted that are sensible, ban nothing, violate nobody's rights, and are wholly consistent with the constitution. As such, I see no reason not to do them, and potential upside if we do.

Mandatory additional punishments (5 years, say, as suggested by Steven Levitt) for any crime involving a gun might be the most effective option. It's a little draconian, and may not do much to prevent premeditated killings. It holds a chance of reducing murders committed during the commission of other crimes (robbery, for example).

I don't have any stats in front of me, but I'm pretty sure I've read studies that show that people who commit serious crimes don't really take potential punishment into account in most cases. May have been a comparison of states/countries with and without the death penalty.

 

[Craig234]

Yes, it is entirely possible that it will be less.

It's also entirely possible that it will be less, but still substantial.

Regardless, even if the analogy is not perfect, it makes a lot more sense than comparing guns to anthrax, which makes no sense at all.

As I have said three or four times now, you do not understand the analogy and haven't bothered to make much effort, so you can stop bringing it up.

We have precedent in this country for prohibiting things that people want. The same thing happens every time -- the items are hidden from confiscation, or made on the sly, or smuggled in.

Every time, huh? Point me to where the substance we ban and control globally - yellowcake for nuclear weapons - are not successfully banned.

But more importantly, once again, after much discussion pointing this out to you, you continue to pretend it's an issue that there is SOME black market.

When the issue isn't that, it's how much the availability is REDUCED to criminals.

Given that track record, if you think my analogy to drugs or alcohol is false, then try to prove it. Simply stating that it is false is uncompelling.

You make the claim, burden of proof is on you to support it.

You can't say 'a gun ban won't work any better than a heroin ban, YOU provide evidence saying otherwise or else I'm proven correct'.

I made the obvious point that the issues in the effectiveness between the two are not the same, and that you need to prove they are if you want to claim it.

6'4" 225 lb guy breaks into my house and confronts my 5'4" 130 lb wife and 4'6" 75 lb son. Who's going to win that encounter?

There's a reason why guns have been called "the great equalizer".

You've convinced me that shotguns should be allowed for defense in the home.

Oh wait, that's been the position of everyone here all along and you made a straw man.

And of course, all guns *won't* magically disappear if they are banned. They'll only disappear from people who follow the law.

Wrong. They'll also disappear, at least, from all those criminals who WOULD have had guns that were stolen from law-abiding citizens, but don't because they weren't there to steal.

So in that scenario, not only is my wife outsized, she may well be facing an assailant with a gun on top of it. She won't have one -- it's illegal.

So you've never heard of a shotgun.

It's supported by definition, and by practical example.

There are millions of people who use cocaine in the United States. They are all criminals, because cocaine is illegal.

If guns are made illegal, then law-abiding citizens won't have them -- because they did, they would no longer be law-abiding.

Anyone willing to break the law against breaking and entering or rape or murder isn't going to care about any law banning guns. He'll get it on the black market.

So, sorry, it is in fact very well supported.

Let me spell it out a bit more for you.

How many criminals won't have guns who would have because the supply for them to steal/buy fraudently/can't afford with price increases from reduced supply is worse?

How many fewer people who would have given into temptations if they had a gun, how many situations won't escalate to violence, how many fewer accidental shootings etc?

You have no info on any of this, all of of which affects the answer to your claim.

So no, it's not well supported at all. It's just an opinion asserted baselessly.

 

[Craig234]

Is it a problem? Sure.

Is it the biggest problem we have? Not even close.

What is up with you and straw men?

The poster you responded to you had said:

"First of all, I think gun violence is a problem."

NOWHERE did he say it's the "biggest problem".

No one raised that but you. No one claimed it.

But you raise it as a 'point'.

So, the only thing we should discuss in this forum is the one "biggest problem", whatever that is?

Every other topic should have posts say, 'is that a problem? Yes. Is it our biggest problem? No.'

What is the 'use' of that point? Zero.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

As I have said three or four times now, you do not understand the analogy and haven't bothered to make much effort, so you can stop bringing it up.

I understand it fully. You're entitled to your opinion on its validity, and I'm entitled to mine.

Every time, huh? Point me to where the substance we ban and control globally - yellowcake for nuclear weapons - are not successfully banned.

This is the same sort of invalid argument as anthrax.

Uranium is not an item generally desired or used by the average population. Banning uranium won't result in people getting uranium anyway because they never wanted uranium in the first place.

They do use alcohol and drugs. So they find/found ways to get them. Guns are analogous to alcohol and drugs in this respect. Anthrax and uranium are not.

But more importantly, once again, after much discussion pointing this out to you, you continue to pretend it's an issue that there is SOME black market.

When the issue isn't that, it's how much the availability is REDUCED to criminals.

That's your opinion.

Mine is that reducing the availability to law-abiding citizens by 100% while reducing availability to criminals by less-than-100% is a bad trade.

You can't say 'a gun ban won't work any better than a heroin ban, YOU provide evidence saying otherwise or else I'm proven correct'.

I can't prove that the two would be the same. I can point out the similarities in the demand for the items, and the fact that our porous borders are unable to keep out anything that's already illegal. The rest follows logically.

You've convinced me that shotguns should be allowed for defense in the home.

Oh wait, that's been the position of everyone here all along and you made a straw man.

Excuse me, but the comment to which you are responding above was made in reply to this comment from you: "2. No, if all guns could be made to magically disappear, it's incorrect that the only effect would be 'making violent crimer harder to protect against'. That is NOT all it would do. It would also make violent crime harder to commit."

In that context, my statement is not even remotely a straw man.

And I'll point out that there are people who want to ban all guns, and I believe the suggestion has already been made in this thread.

Wrong. They'll also disappear, at least, from all those criminals who WOULD have had guns that were stolen from law-abiding citizens, but don't because they weren't there to steal.

Yes, they will. Until the criminals can find a way to get them from some other source.

So you've never heard of a shotgun.

Context was: "if all guns could be made to magically disappear".

How many criminals won't have guns who would have because the supply for them to steal/buy fraudently/can't afford with price increases from reduced supply is worse?

A percentage much smaller than the percentage of law-abiding citizens who won't have them.

Or, as John Ross put it succinctly: "Giving violent criminals a government guarantee that their intended victims are defenseless is bad public policy."

 

[Charles Kozierok]

What is the 'use' of that point? Zero.

The use of the point is that the amount of effort, and the number of rights we're willing to restrict, should be proportional to the actual danger and the actual potential mitigation of same.

The number of deaths from guns has been exaggerated to ridiculous proportions by the media, especially over the last few months. So the relative numbers of people killed by guns and killed by other things is entirely relevant.

More people are killed in cars every year than by guns. I see no reason why draconian measures should be taken in one instance and not the other.

 

[Craig234]

The use of the point is that the amount of effort, and the number of rights we're willing to restrict, should be proportional to the actual danger and the actual potential mitigation of same.

That has zero to do with the statement it's not the 'biggest issue we face', as if you were disagreeing with someone who had claimed that who had said nothing of the sort.

That's what a straw man is.

The number of deaths from guns has been exaggerated to ridiculous proportions by the media, especially over the last few months.

Evidence? I've seen a lot of claims - all that I can recall were accurate.

So the relative numbers of people killed by guns and killed by other things is entirely relevant.

'the relative numbers of people killed by guns' and 'the biggest issue we face' are different things.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That has zero to do with the statement it's not the 'biggest issue we face', as if you were disagreeing with someone who had claimed that who had said nothing of the sort.

That's what a straw man is.

A straw man is an argument constructed by an opponent because it is easier to debate against than the point actually made in the first place.

In order for that to apply here, I'd have to be saying "it's not the biggest problem we face, so therefore we should do nothing about it". I am not saying that. I am saying that because it is not the biggest problem we face, it should not be the only problem that gets this level of attention, and for which we're willing to consider draconian solutions.

Evidence? I've seen a lot of claims - all that I can recall were accurate.

Seriously? What do you expect me to do -- paste 10,000 media articles about Newtown and proposed gun bans in here?

 

[highland145]

I already agreed with this. What more do you want to be said about this?

I'm saying that there may be a price to pay for living in our society with guns. Many thousands of lives vs the few wrongly convicted.

You have to balance potential harm vs benefits.

Cost vs benefit. What you said.


You're not getting rid of guns.

 

[Craig234]

I understand it fully. You're entitled to your opinion on its validity, and I'm entitled to mine.

As the person who made the point and read your response, I'd say I'm in the better position to say whether you understand it, than the person who doesn't.

It's sort of like this:

'Our businesses are great and productive. But the government has played an important role. The bridges and roads people use to get to your business? The energy system that delivers electricity to your business? The security from threats protecting your business? You did not build that'.

'He said the business owner did not build his business!!!!!'

No, that's not what he said. He was referring to the infrastructure the business benefits from that the government was essential in building.

'No he didn't he said the business owner didn't build anything'

No, he didn't.

'Yes he did!!'

You did not understand his point.

'YES I DID!!!'

That's what it's like.

This is the same sort of invalid argument as anthrax.

Uranium is not an item generally desired or used by the average population. Banning uranium won't result in people getting uranium anyway because they never wanted uranium in the first place.

Yellowcake is in huge demand by some people around the world, some in the US.

They do use alcohol and drugs. So they find/found ways to get them. Guns are analogous to alcohol and drugs in this respect. Anthrax and uranium are not.

The number of people who want alcohol and druge is more similar to guns - and irrelevant to the point I made.

You love to change the topic, The topic was your assertion that there has never been one single item that has been banned that has not - let's quote you exactly:

"The same thing happens every time -- the items are hidden from confiscation, or made on the sly, or smuggled in. "

So, I provided ONE example which is all that's needed to disporve your universal assertion.

In response you changed the subject to irrelevant issues ignoring that you were wrong.

That's your opinion.

Mine is that reducing the availability to law-abiding citizens by 100% while reducing availability to criminals by less-than-100% is a bad trade.

And again you evade the subject by changing it.

The question wasn't which you value more. The point was that you completely neglected the issue that there is ANY reduction among criminals, implying there isn't. There is.

I can't prove that the two would be the same. I can point out the similarities in the demand for the items, and the fact that our porous borders are unable to keep out anything that's already illegal. The rest follows logically.

No, it does not. Don't abuse the word logic.

First, demand is not the only issue. There is a HUGE demand for unicorns. Show me one.
OK, also a huge demand for nuclear weapons, or nude pics of Sarah Palin, or the original constitution of the US, or audio from secret meetings in Obama's oval office negotiations. Perhaps you can point me to those.

Or are you going to change the subject back to how many people want something? OK. A lot of underage kids want cigarettes. Many get them. Can you prove that the laws restricting sales to them don't result in many fewer kids getting them than would without the laws?

And there's another issue with our 'porous borders'. They only let in things that exist. There's a reason that nearly all the guns Mexican drug cartels have are from the US, but practically no guns US criminals have are imported from Mexico - because the items have to have enough supply for the porous borders to matter. There isn't some huge supply of guns in other countries waiting to be smuggled into the US - which by the way even if there were a lot, would make them cost a lot more, where some can't afford.

Excuse me, but the comment to which you are responding above was made in reply to this comment from you: "2. No, if all guns could be made to magically disappear, it's incorrect that the only effect would be 'making violent crimer harder to protect against'. That is NOT all it would do. It would also make violent crime harder to commit."

In that context, my statement is not even remotely a straw man.

OK, I lost track of the condition that 'alll guns are gone' - after I'd just made the point that no one has suggested it and it's irrelevant, but I guess you still harping on it.

In the real world regarding your wife attacked scenario, of course, shotguns are an option.

You said: "Second, even if you magically made all guns disappear and magically prevent them from coming into the country, that doesn't get rid of violent crime. It just makes it harder to defend against."

I pointed out that that is incorrect, that it is NOT the only effect - it also reduces the supply from which criminals get their guns.

You did not respond to my point once again.

And I'll point out that there are people who want to ban all guns, and I believe the suggestion has already been made in this thread.

Point me to one person who has said they want to ban all guns, including the military, which is the conditon I stated that you responded to.

Yes, they will. Until the criminals can find a way to get them from some other source.

Which some will, but many fewer. Which is the issue at hand.

A percentage much smaller than the percentage of law-abiding citizens who won't have them.

Or, as John Ross put it succinctly: "Giving violent criminals a government guarantee that their intended victims are defenseless is bad public policy."

Wrong. Once again, first, you ignore my points about the many bad killings that can be avoided if 'low abiding citizens' don't have guns.

Second, John Ross also argues a straw man - remember the shotgun I mentioned? That is not 'defenseless'.

Third, to repeat yet again, all these guns with 'law abiding citizens' are supplying the criminials with guns used in crimes.

You conventiently want to dismiss that with a baseless claim that criminals will replace all those lost guns by making their own and smuggling them from Gunistan - wrong.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Craig, given the amount of time required to respond to a post of that length, and your tone, I will not be responding to you further on this. You "win".

 

[Craig234]

Craig, given the amount of time required to respond to a post of that length, and your tone, I will not be responding to you further on this. You "win".

That's your choice, but I don't concede the length is any longer than necessary to respond, nor that the tone is excessive - while admittedly not being warm and fuzzy.

 

[Screech]

If I may:

As the person who made the point and read your response, I'd say I'm in the better position to say whether you understand it, than the person who doesn't.

It's sort of like this:

'Our businesses are great and productive. But the government has played an important role. The bridges and roads people use to get to your business? The energy system that delivers electricity to your business? The security from threats protecting your business? You did not build that'.

'He said the business owner did not build his business!!!!!'

No, that's not what he said. He was referring to the infrastructure the business benefits from that the government was essential in building.

'No he didn't he said the business owner didn't build anything'

No, he didn't.

'Yes he did!!'

You did not understand his point.

'YES I DID!!!'

That's what it's like.



Yellowcake is in huge demand by some people around the world, some in the US.

The number of people who want alcohol and druge is more similar to guns - and irrelevant to the point I made.

The point you made is that Charles should not have used absolutes in his arguments, I would think; saying anything has "always" happened is often easily disproven, so certainly you "win" there. However, his point that drugs and alcohol are more similar and a more appropriate analogy to guns is arguably spot on, as you seem to agree in your last statement above. If you are then going to make the argument that anthrax or yellowcake is a more applicable analogy to firearms than drugs/alcohol and that we can keep it banned shows that we can ban firearms effectively, you are free to make that argument, but the rather absurd differences in supply alone of the materials in question makes the argument.......shaky, at best. If you want to pursue that line of logic, though, please do so: why is anthrax or yellowcake a better analogy than alcohol or drugs for trying to ban guns?

The question wasn't which you value more. The point was that you completely neglected the issue that there is ANY reduction among criminals, implying there isn't. There is.

No, it does not. Don't abuse the word logic.

First, demand is not the only issue. There is a HUGE demand for unicorns. Show me one.
OK, also a huge demand for nuclear weapons, or nude pics of Sarah Palin, or the original constitution of the US, or audio from secret meetings in Obama's oval office negotiations. Perhaps you can point me to those.

As with the WMD discussion above, what is the supply of all of these things? Unicorns are in a rather low supply; WMD are not floating all around the ghettos of detroit; the original constitution is in a rather low supply (can't make that in your garage or buy it from russia, ditto on unicorns, although certainly some ebay scammers might try!). Nudes of sarah palin....you can certainly find look-alikes on certain websites (easier to make a copy of the thing than the real deal) ; and the transcripts from the oval office, if they are recorded (not sure), are in a low supply as well.

Or are you going to change the subject back to how many people want something? OK. A lot of underage kids want cigarettes. Many get them. Can you prove that the laws restricting sales to them don't result in many fewer kids getting them than would without the laws?

This is most likely true; laws here are probably helpful to some extent. I am not sure what that extent would be.

And there's another issue with our 'porous borders'. They only let in things that exist. There's a reason that nearly all the guns Mexican drug cartels have are from the US, but practically no guns US criminals have are imported from Mexico - because the items have to have enough supply for the porous borders to matter. There isn't some huge supply of guns in other countries waiting to be smuggled into the US - which by the way even if there were a lot, would make them cost a lot more, where some can't afford.

Re the bolded: indeed, hence why there are no unicorns. Re the italics: I disagree--the ability for the supply is there, it simply doesn't occur that way now. Why? Because we have so may guns made here and sold here that there is really no need to go shopping elsewhere. However, if all american gun manufacturers were put out of business (no, you are not advocating this, I am merely bringing this up as an example), either they would relocate or be replaced by other gun manufacturers. Gun demand is not simply limited to the US, and if we shut down production here, there are enough places worldwide that getting them in mexico would not suddenly stop -- the source would simply change. For example, the most highly produced "assault rifle" in the world is not american -- it is the ak-47 (or so wikipedia thinks....), so obviously firearms would still be made and traded, etc, to some extent; the question is how much.

OK, I lost track of the condition that 'alll guns are gone' - after I'd just made the point that no one has suggested it and it's irrelevant, but I guess you still harping on it.

In the real world regarding your wife attacked scenario, of course, shotguns are an option.

You said: "Second, even if you magically made all guns disappear and magically prevent them from coming into the country, that doesn't get rid of violent crime. It just makes it harder to defend against."

I pointed out that that is incorrect, that it is NOT the only effect - it also reduces the supply from which criminals get their guns.

You did not respond to my point once again.



Point me to one person who has said they want to ban all guns, including the military, which is the conditon I stated that you responded to.



Which some will, but many fewer. Which is the issue at hand.




Wrong. Once again, first, you ignore my points about the many bad killings that can be avoided if 'low abiding citizens' don't have guns.

Second, John Ross also argues a straw man - remember the shotgun I mentioned? That is not 'defenseless'.

Third, to repeat yet again, all these guns with 'law abiding citizens' are supplying the criminials with guns used in crimes.

You conventiently want to dismiss that with a baseless claim that criminals will replace all those lost guns by making their own and smuggling them from Gunistan - wrong.

Re: stuff above:At the end of the day the debate, imho, comes down to this: is the potential decrease in self-defense ability acceptable for the decreased amount of guns that criminals have access to? The sad thing is, most people don't seem to want to actually debate numbers here and simply argue that "more guns" or "less guns" is better. I think we would need to know, for any significant piece of gun control legislation:
1) how many less gun/of what types s would criminals now have access to?
2) how many more crimes will certain criminals try to carry out, now knowing that potential targets may be less capable of defending themselves? (obviously this is very dependent on exactly what guns you are and are not banning; if you banned "assault rifles" but gave every law abiding citizen a shotgun, things would be different from simply banning the guns, etc)
3) How is a law-abiding citizen's ability to defend him/herself affected? (same as addendum above)
4) How many lives will be saved/crimes prevented because a generally law-abiding citizen did not have a weapon? (killing in a rage, drunken fight escalating, etc)
5) How many more (innocent) lives will be saved or lost, or crimes carried out or prevented, as a result of this legislation?

Unfortunately I imagine that getting any sort of hard numbers for 1 through 3 would be somewhere between difficult to impossible. I'm not even sure how you would go about getting data for them, really. 4 there is probably data for, but that stuff is generally not assualt rifleish.

Item 5 is the only one that really matters, in the end, and is basically a function of 1 through 4; I have yet to see any real evidence that the AWB was successful at anything, for example, but am open to seeing data to that effect.

One thing I noticed in the discussion above which makes this discussion potentially difficult is that it has all been rather circumspect--you and Charles were discussing rather general things like drugs or anthrax analogies and not detailed (to my eye anyway) proposals on gun violence, where the real discussion really needs to be on those details.

JMHO...

screech

 

[crashtestdummy]

You make some good points here, and the links to actual stats are appreciated.

No problem. I'm sorry for being lazy and quoting Wikipedia for some of them, but I felt that those particular stats were uncontroversial enough that people won't have a problem with the source.

Is it a problem? Sure.

Is it the biggest problem we have? Not even close.

The 30,000 number has to be taken in context. First, a lot of those are suicides. The impact on the suicide rate of reduced access to guns is debatable, but it's likely a lot of those who used guns did so just because it was the easiest way, and would have found another method.

Another large chunk of those are gang-related violence in the inner cities. The proper solution to that is cleaning up the gangs -- not banning guns that gangs don't even use from people who aren't in gangs.

As you also correctly point out, deaths from not just 'assault rifles' but all rifles are a trivially small number.

I think we agree on much of the above. The actual homicide number is about 10k/yr, as I indirectly point out later. I will disagree on a minor point when it comes to both the gangs and the suicides: guns are simply a better tool at killing than other methods. Claiming that just as many would die without guns is akin to claiming that Ford would have made just as many Model Ts without the assembly line. If you were to magically eliminate all guns from the world, the number of knife killings and suicides by hanging would increase, but not by enough to replace it.

Right. But they are very effective tools of emotional manipulation, and are used as such.

I was only trying to counter some of that rhetoric. When you propose a change to a law, you have to consider what the point of that law is, and whether it really accomplishes that goal. Many people see the Sandy Hook murders as a call to arms against gun violence, when really they're almost unrelated problems. Preventing another Sandy Hook doesn't fix the larger issue of gun violence.

The thing about training and gun safety, though, is that these are measures that can be instituted that are sensible, ban nothing, violate nobody's rights, and are wholly consistent with the constitution. As such, I see no reason not to do them, and potential upside if we do.

Fine, but don't present it as solving the problem of gun killings, because it won't. With that argument out, though, I think you'll find enthusiasm for additional bureaucracy to be very low.

I don't have any stats in front of me, but I'm pretty sure I've read studies that show that people who commit serious crimes don't really take potential punishment into account in most cases. May have been a comparison of states/countries with and without the death penalty.

I've read some of those too. Most of them look at either the death penalty or mandatory minimum sentences for drug use. In the case of the death penalty, you're increasing what would be life in prison to death, but only after many years. In that case, there isn't a real sense of a difference in severity of punishment. Hell, your life expectancy as a drug dealer is actually lower on the streets than on death row. With drug use, your problem there is that the person is often an addict and unable to make rational decisions about their use and the risk involved.

The reason I reserve a small amount of hope for stronger punishments for crimes involving a gun is that it could increase small time crimes into more serious prison sentences, and perhaps convince people to not leave the house with their gun in the first place. Again, though, I really don't have data to back that up.

 

[Craig234]

Screech - I agree with you. Pointing out a flaw in one argument did not address the important issues in gun policy which you laid out.

You're right that there's a basic issue with our large number of guns, that half-measures are of limited value. From what I hear, the 1994 ban may not have had much benefit.

Assault weapons are a 'sexy' issue with public support because of mass killings, but as people (and my song quote) have said, the meat of the issue is handguns.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

A reason I called 'if you ban x, only outlalws will have x' a fallacy is because it fools many people into thinking it completely addressed the issue of 'banning x' when it does the opposite, preventing consideration of the primary purpose of the ban - how many outlaws will not have x if it's banned?

The implication of the phrase - without saying it explicitly - is that every law-abiding citizen will no longer have 'x' but every criminal who has 'x' will continue to do so.

I disagree with this assessment. I've always viewed the statement as "if this is made illegal, then people who do it legally now will suddenly become criminals because the activity they engage in is no longer allowed." I certainly haven't read it as "if this activity is banned, criminals will keep doing it at the same rate and everyone else will stop immediately." Generally it's used for things that large segments of the population feel they can't do without, whether it's guns or alcohol or pornography or whatever ill society is currently troubled by. As I said, the use of the phrase is often suspect, a means to prematurely end discourse without addressing the underlying issue at hand, but as a purely logical exercise, if you make something illegal, anyone who continues to do it is a criminal.

The answer about my owning guns is yet another fallacy, the 'ad hominem', having no relevance to the issue - if I don't, 'ya, see, you can't discuss the issue you hate guns', if I do, 'well that didn't prove anything'. It's just an attempt to bring in an irrelevant issue to avoid having to defend a position.

It's not irrelevant, nor is it an ad hominem. It's a question of your bias on the subject at hand. If I make a post in defense of gay adoption and someone else points out that my judgment is biased since I was raised by lesbian mothers, they have a valid point; I do have a distinct bias on that issue. I've always found that people are quicker to ban something if it requires no sacrifice on their part; it doesn't affect me negatively, so why should I care? That, to me, is a lazy argument, an inability to put one's self in the shoes of another and consider their perspective. In the case of proposed gun legislation, I'm more willing to consider the opinion of someone who has a long history with guns than someone who has never used one (I understand that this merely reinforces that you should ignore me given my virtually non-existent experience with guns, so take that as you will). When my friend, a gun-owning veteran, told me that he was perfectly OK with assault weapon bans and magazine restrictions, I considered his opinion more highly than most I've heard, as he not only has some expertise, but is willing to sacrifice something he currently enjoys doing if it will bring greater safety.

Second, the importance of the second amendment is easily attributable to how at the time that was our only national defense as a weak new nation - pretty strong issue.

That's changed greatly - we're now about 20 times the military of the biggest potential 'rival' and citizens with firearms are not an important part of that.

The founding fathers would emphatically disagree with you on that point. Thomas Jefferson had a few famous quotes about every generation needing a revolution. These guys were raised in a system where the government held absolute power and controlled it through military strength, and they fought to overturn that system. Why on Earth would you think they would be content with all military power being controlled entirely by the government? Granted, I'm not someone who thinks that we should do things the way the founding fathers did them just because of tradition, but the entire reason this country was founded was because the government wielded all the power; a concentration of guns in the hands of the American military and no ordinary citizens is just a continuation of the very ideals we rebelled against.

Third - and this is the oversimplify part - opposing SOME gun rights is not "opposing guns".

This is the same rhetoric as saying that people who vote against a military program are 'against the military' or that opposing a war means you're 'for the other country'.

First of all, unless someone opposes all guns everywhere including the military, you can't just say they're 'fighting against guns'. You have to be more specific and accurate about their position. Second, your simplified version is more of that ad hominem - 'you support a specific measure therefore anyone who isn't totally against guns has to disagree with you'.

We're not really in much disagreement about the need for the discussion to discuss the costs of each option and why one is more important, but that hasn't happened a lot here.

Well, that's true, and I apologize if I came across that way. That was a lazy argument on my part. I certainly don't think that people who are in favor of specific restrictions on guns are "anti-gun." I just don't think that most of the specific restrictions that have been proposed, such as bans on magazine size or optional buttstocks, handles or foregrips, have any actual impact on the guns that are being used to carry out horrific mass shootings or murders in general. I think that there are certainly valid arguments to be made in favor of a dramatic overhaul in safety regulations, licensing requirements and registration of all firearms, not to mention immediate reporting of all gun thefts. There are ways we can keep guns away from the people who would use them to do bad things. But there's no way that's 100% foolproof. And I'm always going to err on the side of personal liberty rather than safety. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety," as I'm sure someone said at one time or another...

 

[Craig234]

I disagree with this assessment. I've always viewed the statement as "if this is made illegal, then people who do it legally now will suddenly become criminals because the activity they engage in is no longer allowed." I certainly haven't read it as "if this activity is banned, criminals will keep doing it at the same rate and everyone else will stop immediately." Generally it's used for things that large segments of the population feel they can't do without, whether it's guns or alcohol or pornography or whatever ill society is currently troubled by. As I said, the use of the phrase is often suspect, a means to prematurely end discourse without addressing the underlying issue at hand, but as a purely logical exercise, if you make something illegal, anyone who continues to do it is a criminal.

I accept what you're saying for you, and I think you don't fall for the fallacy by interpreting the fallacy differently. But consider that not everyone interprets it the way you do.

I think the most common way it's interpreted is the incorrect reading that 'if guns are outlawed, only law-abiding people who use them for self-defense will follow the law and disarm, and all the criminals will ignore the law and still have their guns'. I think they don't consider things such as how reducing the guns law-abiding people have will also reduce the supply for criminals to steal (isn't the number something like 40% of guns used in crimes being stolen?)

There definitely is also the second interpretation you mention - which gets a reaction of resentment, if the law-abiding person keeps their gun then THEY'RE a criminal.

All the phrase does is paint a negative picture of the policy's effects - good guys no guns, bad guys have guns, good guys who resist the tyranny are made criminals.

The fallacy is in misleading that those are the only effects, without any consideration of the more beneficial effects.

It's not irrelevant, nor is it an ad hominem. It's a question of your bias on the subject at hand. If I make a post in defense of gay adoption and someone else points out that my judgment is biased since I was raised by lesbian mothers, they have a valid point; I do have a distinct bias on that issue. I've always found that people are quicker to ban something if it requires no sacrifice on their part; it doesn't affect me negatively, so why should I care? That, to me, is a lazy argument, an inability to put one's self in the shoes of another and consider their perspective. In the case of proposed gun legislation, I'm more willing to consider the opinion of someone who has a long history with guns than someone who has never used one (I understand that this merely reinforces that you should ignore me given my virtually non-existent experience with guns, so take that as you will). When my friend, a gun-owning veteran, told me that he was perfectly OK with assault weapon bans and magazine restrictions, I considered his opinion more highly than most I've heard, as he not only has some expertise, but is willing to sacrifice something he currently enjoys doing if it will bring greater safety.

I think generally it's the fallacy and ad hominem I said it is - in your case, I accept it's mostly not, unusually.

But I think you give too much weight to the issue. This is sort of the 'only blacks can argue for black interests, only women can argue for women's interests', and so on. When I saw that 'every woman of both parties voted to extend the violence against women act', all votes against it were men, it reinforced that sort of thinking.

There's absolutely no reason why someone who does or does not own guns can equally well reach a good position on gun policy. Experience shooting a gun does not make one better at the societal issues, the research, etc. There are things the gun experience provides - to give weight to, but it's not something that should influence your view of the person's comments on gun policy. Your friend supporting gun regulations while he owns guns may impress you, but is the converse true? If he opposed them does he still get more weight as being somehow better able to speak to the issue? Isn't it possible that his support for gun regulations is based on a poor understanidng of the societal issues like anyone else could have as much as some noble position against his 'own interests'?

There are things that are appropriate to give weight to and others, not so much. On gun policy, I don't think gun ownership adds much to speaking on the issue.

It is relevant for specific issues such as the effectiveness of various guns for self defense (can't do better than a shotgun usually), but not so much the main policy issues.

The founding fathers would emphatically disagree with you on that point. Thomas Jefferson had a few famous quotes about every generation needing a revolution. These guys were raised in a system where the government held absolute power and controlled it through military strength, and they fought to overturn that system. Why on Earth would you think they would be content with all military power being controlled entirely by the government? Granted, I'm not someone who thinks that we should do things the way the founding fathers did them just because of tradition, but the entire reason this country was founded was because the government wielded all the power; a concentration of guns in the hands of the American military and no ordinary citizens is just a continuation of the very ideals we rebelled against.

The founding fathers would not disagree with me on that point. Not only did Jefferson - who was a bit alone on some of this - say what you mention, he said very strong things against having a standing army, saying that democracy is incompatible with having one as I recall (it can be debated how ours is affecting our democracy - as we get misled into war over and over). But they wouldn't disagree that given the military we DO have, that the need for citizen militias to be our primary defense from foreign threats is greatly changed.

The ship has sailed on caring about the founding fathers' concerns about that as we have adopted a permanent military many times larger than any other in the world.

Anything they said was so far different than that situation - and if anything opposed to it - that it's hardly relevant to the security issue they had.

We have to re-apply the principles of freedom given our current situation where the need for citizens to go shoot the British invaders no longer exists.

That sort of updating of the constitution to fit changes in society is just what the founding fathers wanted.

Well, that's true, and I apologize if I came across that way. That was a lazy argument on my part. I certainly don't think that people who are in favor of specific restrictions on guns are "anti-gun." I just don't think that most of the specific restrictions that have been proposed, such as bans on magazine size or optional buttstocks, handles or foregrips, have any actual impact on the guns that are being used to carry out horrific mass shootings or murders in general. I think that there are certainly valid arguments to be made in favor of a dramatic overhaul in safety regulations, licensing requirements and registration of all firearms, not to mention immediate reporting of all gun thefts. There are ways we can keep guns away from the people who would use them to do bad things. But there's no way that's 100% foolproof. And I'm always going to err on the side of personal liberty rather than safety. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety," as I'm sure someone said at one time or another...

I agree with you, it's a grayer issue than is convenient for politics. (You got the quote correct enough I'd be surprised if you didn't know it's from Benjamin Franklin).

Unfortunately, the discussion rarely gets to the good application of the freedom/safety balance, instead being mostly yelling with more extreme positions.

 

[blankslate]

I'm saying that there may be a price to pay for living in our society with guns. Many thousands of lives vs the few wrongly convicted.

And as I have pointed out there is another way to remove people who commit gun crimes from society besides the death penalty.... life sentences without the possibility of parole. The death penalty isn't necessary to remove murderers from society. Additionally a life sentence can be revoked if the person convicted is exonerated later. That's not really an option with the death penalty. This talking point has another thread for debate.

Cost vs benefit. What you said.


You're not getting rid of guns.

Why do you assume that a belief that magazine capacities beyond 15-20 rounds for a pistol or 30 round for a rifle or carbine has much more potential for harm rather then benefit to a society is an attempt to ban guns? If you're not a criminal and you want a firearm you should be able to buy one.

You shouldn't be able to walk around in public with more than 20 round capacity mags for your CCW pistol. If you need more than 20 rounds in the pistol not to mention the few extra magazines that you might be carrying for reloads, you've messed up somewhere.

Furthermore I've mentioned better law enforcement efforts in regards black market dealers and finding ways to lessen the chances that mentally ill people get access to firearms.
These last options would probably be even more beneficial than starting off with any sort of bans.

Yet the NRA in addition to opposing any form of new laws in regards to guns also probably doesn't mind that the main agency that would be responsible for going after black market dealers is underfunded and without proper leadership... that kind of neglect causes real problems...

 

[dank69]

Right, but "even if we save one life" is so extreme a position as to practically be a strawman. Is anyone saying that here?

Putting speed regulators and breathalyzer interlocks on cars would be seen as onerous, but would save a hell of a lot more lives than anything else being discussed here.

Funny enough, I have come out in support of breathalyzer locks on all cars.

Something like 1 in 75 drunk drivers at most is caught, I hear. I'd like them on all cars.

I just don't get this mentality. Treat everyone like criminals. I bet many more people are killed each year in car crashes by bad drivers than drunk drivers. Tragedies happen. I understand the desire to prevent as many as possible but I wish when people were discussing the possible solutions the first question asked about each of them was "does this restrict freedom?" If the answer is yes, everyone should realize that the soultion very well may not be worth it. Our country was founded by people who were willing to die for their freedom. These days everyone is all too eager to trade their freedom to prevent death, and in many cases, just to prevent possible hypothetical death. Everyone is going to die. So your choices boil down to death and more freedom, or death with less freedom.

 

[Craig234]

I just don't get this mentality. Treat everyone like criminals. I bet many more people are killed each year in car crashes by bad drivers than drunk drivers. Tragedies happen. I understand the desire to prevent as many as possible but I wish when people were discussing the possible solutions the first question asked about each of them was "does this restrict freedom?" If the answer is yes, everyone should realize that the soultion very well may not be worth it. Our country was founded by people who were willing to die for their freedom. These days everyone is all too eager to trade their freedom to prevent death, and in many cases, just to prevent possible hypothetical death. Everyone is going to die. So your choices boil down to death and more freedom, or death with less freedom.

It's not treating everyone like a criminal.

Take driving tests to get a license. Why don't we not require them, assuming everyone can drive and knows the laws, and not treat them like they don't?

Simply because the devices have only been used for convicted drunk drivers doesn't mean that using them is 'treating the driver like a criminal'.

You have to pass a driving and written test to drive - to make sure you can at least to some standard.

The device further makes sure you are fit to drive. Fact is, with one in 75 drunk drivers reportedly caught, there are a lot of drunk drivers and we need protection. Ones who are NOT convicted criminals. It's simple common sense - a few seconds when you start your car, in order to prevent a lot of drunk drivers from killing you.

I don't understand the mentality of making trivial things the basis of hyperbolic complaints about their being big 'freedoms'.

The right to criticize the government, of free association, of supporting political causes, of freedom of movement, freedom from police abuse, and others, those are real freedoms.

But what we hear about in these complaints of the 'tyranny' we're under are having to use more environmentally friendly light bulbs, wear a seat belt, take a few seconds to start a car. Last night, the Jon Stewart had a serious Texan couple saying they wanted to secede because of this tyranny, citing as their #1 example the right to text while driving.

It really trivializes the discussion of 'freedom' and to melodramatically play the 'people who have been killed in war for freedom' card over this type of thing?

Do you want to get rid of stop signs and traffic signals and speed limits as infringements on your freedoms, too? Why not?

Is it more important to have the 'freedom' to drive drunk without a device stopping you or the 'freedom' to travel on the road and not be at so much danger from drunk drivers?

Thousands and thousands of people a year are killed by drunk drivers, many more injured. The tradeoff seems clear to me that a few seconds to start the care is a low cost.

 

[dank69]

Banning high capacity magazines is not the same as banning a firearm.

Again, banning high capacity magazines is *not* the same as banning a firearm.

Okay, conceded, but:

banning high capacity magazines doesn't restrict personal freedoms.

Yes, it absolutely does. You can argue about the degree but people will no longer be free to do something they once could do. This is a restriction of freedom no matter how small you may think it is.

You still have the 2nd amendment. There is no reason there cannot be laws regarding firearms as there are with speech.

I don't equate rights with freedoms and "having the 2nd ammendment" doesn't somehow make up for a loss of freedom. I am not even entirely sold on the "fighting words" exception to freedom of speech, either.

My justification is the same as for cars alcohol etc. the cost to society vs. the benefits.

Again, what benefit does banning large cap mags give to society? Realistically I only see a possibility for a tiny benefit. Not even a sure thing, just a possibility.

 

[dank69]

Right, but "even if we save one life" is so extreme a position as to practically be a strawman. Is anyone saying that here?

Putting speed regulators and breathalyzer interlocks on cars would be seen as onerous, but would save a hell of a lot more lives than anything else being discussed here.

I don't have time to re-read the whole thread to see if anyone here said it, but I do know you heard someone say it on the radio since you posted about it in post 28. It doesn't matter a whole lot to my line of argumentation anyway, since the number of lives saved doesn't change it anyway. I value freedom much more than life. I think the freedom of 350M people is more valuable than 1/10/100/1000 or even more lives. We send more than 1000 people to their deaths each year in defense of our freedoms.

When I inject the "save one life" idea into the conversation is is an attempt to break the IMO misguided belief that there is nothing more sacred than life, and with this being a tech forum, using video games is the most effective way to drive that point home. The save one life can be used to justify a ban on violent video games and movies. Some of our congressmen attempt to do this to this very day. It is my attempt to give pause to those calling for restrictions on weapons, because a major crux of the argument for restricting things like mag size is "you don't need it for anything except entertainment."

 

[Craig234]

Okay, conceded, but:Yes, it absolutely does. You can argue about the degree but people will no longer be free to do something they once could do. This is a restriction of freedom no matter how small you may think it is.

Technically, you're correct. But all kinds of restrictions of freedoms are good ideas - not every one fits the 'trade essential freedoms for a little safety' quote. See 'essential'.

Stop signs reduce your freedom, too.

Again, what benefit does banning large cap mags give to society? Realistically I only see a possibility for a tiny benefit. Not even a sure thing, just a possibility.

In my opinion, banning large cap magazines has a very small benefit.

Now, the Tuscon shootings are used as an example - the gunman was stopped when he tried to change clips. He'd shot out his 30 or 33 shot clip into people and people were killed by the bullets after 10 bullets. It seems clear if he'd had a 10 shot clip lives would have been saved. But that seems pretty rare to me and a small benefit.

However, the tradeoff has the other side to weigh - and I think the benefit of the 'freedom' to have large clips is even less than the benefit to not have them.

What real value is there to the freedom to have them that justifies one life lost?

I'm all in favor of the fact that freedom is best protected and understanding that we are going to have risks in order to keep them. It's a question of where to draw the line.

I've long said that overreacting to 'the terrorist threat' is a big threat to our freedoms, and that we should *get used to the idea* of a modest amount of terrorist violence because the measures needed to prevent 'all' of it are so onerous as to be too destructive to freedom. That tends to get a lot of angry responses. But think about it, we really do react very differently to things - with 30 people killed a day, how much more attention was given to the ex-officer who killed three? With thousands a year killed on our roads, how much more attention do we give to one airplane crash that kills 200? We give hugely disproportionate attention to any killing as 'acts of terror'. It's estimated 200,000 Americans a year are killed by medical mistakes.

So really, as I've said, a person can obtain a gun and walk into any crowded area - school, airport terminal, shopping mall - and kill some people. Yes, when it happens, our over reaction can try to make 'that' venue 'more safe', but what would it take to protect every venue all the time from that? It's entirely impractical.

It's far better for us to remember when the events happen that they also represent the fact that we DO have freedoms and freedoms require some danger.

Instead, various politicians and media figures would rather pander, by being scared to defend freedom and pretend it makes any sense to try to really stop those things.

But having said that, there are 'infringements on freedoms' that are so trivial the benefits outweigh them - I'd put 'big magazines' and the car alcohol tester on that list.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I don't have time to re-read the whole thread to see if anyone here said it, but I do know you heard someone say it on the radio since you posted about it in post 28. It doesn't matter a whole lot to my line of argumentation anyway, since the number of lives saved doesn't change it anyway. I value freedom much more than life. I think the freedom of 350M people is more valuable than 1/10/100/1000 or even more lives. We send more than 1000 people to their deaths each year in defense of our freedoms.

It was the leader of an anti-gun group protesting in Albany against an anti-gun group. They called themselves "Million Moms Against Gun Violence" or something. And like most other groups with "Million" or "Majority" in their names, they were anything but. I think there were 1,000 people protesting against the new gun law, and 75 supporting it.

Some of the objection was not just to the new law, but to the way it was ramrodded through the legislature. And she said she didn't care about that, because "if it saves even one life, it's worth it".

I have a feeling that if a draconian anti-abortion measure were ramrodded through the state legislature, and someone told her "if it saves even one life, it's worth it", she'd have a different view on the matter.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

What real value is there to the freedom to have them that justifies one life lost?

Impossible to answer, because justification is a matter of personal opinion.

The value aspect, however, is simple: convenience for sports shooters / practice, and greater ability to handle certain types of tactical situations.

If you want to ban them, ban them from cops also. See what the response is.