What will the Anti's blame for deaths now?


PDA






usmarine0352_2005
January 11, 2012, 07:21 PM
.

What will the Anti's say now that "guns" aren't even involved in the Top 15 of deaths anymore? They really like to say that "guns" are the highest cause of deaths in the US.




http://www.twincities.com/ci_19721262




.
Homicide drops off U.S. list of top causes of death

By Mike Stobbe

Associated Press

Updated: 01/11/2012 02:55:50 PM CST



ATLANTA - For the first time in almost half a century, homicide has fallen off the list of the nation's top 15 causes of death, bumped by a lung illness that often develops in elderly people who have choked on their food.

In the past decade, homicide's highest ranking was 13th. That was in 2001 and was due in part to the 9/11 attacks.

Murders have been declining nationally since 2006, according to FBI statistics. Falling homicide rates have been celebrated in several major cities, including New York City, Detroit and Washington.
.






.

If you enjoyed reading about "What will the Anti's blame for deaths now?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Gizards'n'Gravy
January 11, 2012, 07:37 PM
George Bush

RaceM
January 11, 2012, 07:48 PM
Smoking, drinking, fornicating (with other than your spouse), sugar, salt, obesity, lack of exercise, lack of fiber in the diet, etc. etc. ad nauseum. The greatest single cause of death is stupidity, and you can't fix that.

rcmodel
January 11, 2012, 07:54 PM
What will the Anti's say now that "guns" aren't even involved in the Top 15 of deaths anymore?Well, Homicide stats didn't ever mention guns specifically.

"Homicides" they count also includes knives, plastic bags, baseball bats, automobiles, kitchen cooking pots, gasoline, matches, rope, bare hands, cement shoes, garden tools, monkey wrenches, ice picks, and anything and everything else you could have used to kill someone.


But what will the gun grabbers say?

They won't say anything, just as always.
They have never ever in history used actual facts or stats to support their views.

rc

Stophel
January 11, 2012, 08:00 PM
It will always be guns. You seem to be operating under the assumption that these people actually care about what people die from and that they actually care whether or not gun control "saves lives". Their motives are NOT honorable and gun control is part of their agenda of the destruction of American Liberty.

JohnBT
January 11, 2012, 08:43 PM
Republicans, because they hate water, air, organic foods and Smart cars.

Neverwinter
January 11, 2012, 09:08 PM
But what will the gun grabbers say?

They won't say anything, just as always.
They have never ever in history used actual facts or stats to support their views.
You can't reason with people whose cognitive model doesn't accept data which detracts from their beliefs.


Sent using Tapatalk

ShawnC
January 11, 2012, 09:28 PM
I fully expect that the Brady Campaign and the like will do a full assessment of the data, come to a logical conclusion and accept that they have been wrong all this time. Then they will close up shop, shake hands with Wayne Lapierre and, just like that, we'll all have CCW.

I didn't think I was going to make it through typing all of that...

courtgreene
January 11, 2012, 09:58 PM
my guess is that they will gladly trumpet these findings. "if homicide is down, and we are tirelessly fighting the ownership of guns," they will say, "then we must be the reason, now let's do more!"
Reason, of course, will never enter into the equation.

Mike1234567
January 11, 2012, 10:01 PM
Twinkies and Ho-Ho's :)

dmazur
January 11, 2012, 10:06 PM
I fully expect that the Brady Campaign and the like will do a full assessment of the data, come to a logical conclusion and accept that they have been wrong all this time. Then they will close up shop, shake hands with Wayne Lapierre and, just like that, we'll all have CCW.

I thought I knew what was going on, at least around the edges. When I read this I thought some kind of alternate reality must have kicked in when I was sleeping...

OK, sarcasm. I'm up to date now. :)

Neverwinter
January 11, 2012, 10:10 PM
my guess is that they will gladly trumpet these findings. "if homicide is down, and we are tirelessly fighting the ownership of guns," they will say, "then we must be the reason, now let's do more!"
Reason, of course, will never enter into the equation.
Whatever they are doing isn't working. If anything, gun rights have been increasing recently, not decreasing.

Justin
January 11, 2012, 10:18 PM
Anti-gun activists will always be anti-gun activists. It doesn't matter if the number of total deaths resulting from guns is 13 or 13,000. For them, until the number of deaths from guns and gun-shaped objects is zero, they will not stop.

The trick is to make sure we live in a society where their voice is never anything more than a particularly noisy and irksome minority with no actual political power.

Owen Sparks
January 11, 2012, 10:30 PM
In my state more deer hunters are killed and injured by falling out of tree stands than by firearms.

Ignore ye not gravity lest the ground riseth up and smite the dead.

JRH6856
January 11, 2012, 11:22 PM
In my state more deer hunters are killed and injured by falling out of tree stands than by firearms.But they had a gun in their hands so it was a "gun related death.":rolleyes:

beatledog7
January 11, 2012, 11:26 PM
Along with other groups who wish to rob Americans of freedom, they will continue blaming anything and everything that they wish to curtail/control/ban, because they cannot allow their agenda to be sidetracked by facts, logic, or rational analysis.

bushmaster1313
January 11, 2012, 11:36 PM
I cannot believe you are all falling for the bogus homicide statistics.

It is a well-concealed fact that all death is caused by guns and that virtually all NRA dues are spent to bribe coroners into falsifying other non-gun causes onto 98.7% of death certificates.

medalguy
January 12, 2012, 12:05 AM
Twinkies and Ho-Ho's

Not hardly. Hostess said today they will be seeking Chapter 11 protection. Oh my, what will we do now?

Millwright
January 12, 2012, 12:06 AM
Hoplophobes - regardless of how low the number - will always decry the "gun death toll " ! Just as they will always ignore even the most conservative estimates of victim death prevention by firearms ! They will even cite those "defensive deaths" as being statistically significant as a "firearm death" ! IOW these luddites are convinced the demon lies in the inanimate device not in the mind of perp ! Take away the guns and they'll move on to some other instrument ! >MW

Tiberius67
January 12, 2012, 12:29 AM
.

What will the Anti's say now that "guns" aren't even involved in the Top 15 of deaths anymore? They really like to say that "guns" are the highest cause of deaths in the US.




http://www.twincities.com/ci_19721262












.

The 'Gun control' lobby isn't about guns....it's about control. They don't care about gun crime...in fact they welcome it as long as the people pulling the trigger are what the Reds called "socially friendly elements", that is professional criminals. They passionately hate and fear the common citizen, and want our guns so they can control us. In the furtherance of that goal there is no lie or tactic they won't stoop to...hence Fast and Furious.

Dr_B
January 12, 2012, 12:33 AM
They'll still use lower crime rates as a reason to ban guns. Anti-gun folks will simply say crime is down, so no one needs a gun; and if no one needs one, then they shouldn't be allowed to have one.

Kush
January 12, 2012, 12:52 AM
The anti gun people don't need a reason, they continue to complain about people being able to own "military style assault rifles" yet the murder rate with rifles is incredibly low(358 per year) compared to knives and other cutting and stabbing weapons(1,704 per year), blunt objects(540 per year), and people getting beaten to death or getting pushed(745 per year). Funny you never hear about knife or blunt object control groups.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

Lunie
January 12, 2012, 12:56 AM
The trick is to make sure we live in a society where their voice is never anything more than a particularly noisy and irksome minority with no actual political power.

Is it too much to ask that one day our rights, sanctified and enumerated in the Constitution, are simply unquestionable? Regardless of the wills and wants of any group to try to limit the rights of others???

Justin
January 12, 2012, 01:04 AM
Is it too much to ask that one day our rights, sanctified and enumerated in the Constitution, are simply unquestionable? Regardless of the wills and wants of any group to try to limit the rights of others???

In case you haven't noticed, practically every civil right enumerated under the bill of rights has been under attack. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance and all that.

ArthurDent
January 12, 2012, 01:24 AM
My personal experience with "anti"s leads me to the following observations:

A typical "anti" sees guns as inherently evil. They feel this very strongly on a pre-rational level. Their "thought" process on this issue is based on emotions and gut feelings. Something like: "guns can be used to kill people, killing people is bad, I don't want to be killed, therefore I'm afraid of guns and no one should have them." They do not give any weight to the ideas that guns can be useful tools, can put food on the table or can save innocents by stopping the advance of that which is truly evil.

These people are your typical "sheep" of the "sheepdog" concept. You cannot reason with them because their opinions are not based on reasoning. Any attempts to even discuss the topic will drive many of them into a fear reaction or at least upset them greatly.

I personally know several folks like this. I was even trying to marry one up until a few months ago, despite all the red flags. (Other issues broke us up. It's complicated.)

I'd love to dismiss these folks completely, but the older I get the more I've learned to trust my own guts. I can't really fault them for doing the same thing. I can only hope that a little exposure to positive examples might change their perspectives.


As far as "anti"s who are in government, I see three types:
1) True believers (like those above),
2) Those who are pandering, and
3) Those who want absolute power.The 'Gun control' lobby isn't about guns....it's about control.This. (emphasis is mine.)

It seems to me that there are far too many on both the left and right that want to absolutely control every aspect of everyone's life, and will stop at nothing to achieve that control. Machiavelli would be impressed and humbled by the current state of affairs.

mgkdrgn
January 12, 2012, 11:24 AM
Basic flaw in your premise is the assumption that ANTI's are concerned about FACTS.

They are not.

Ky Larry
January 12, 2012, 12:13 PM
They can always blame 'the shoulder thing that goes up.' :rolleyes:

Striker Fired
January 12, 2012, 02:39 PM
dysfunctional frontal lobe?

PigButtons
January 12, 2012, 02:51 PM
They'll still use lower crime rates as a reason to ban guns. Anti-gun folks will simply say crime is down, so no one needs a gun; and if no one needs one, then they shouldn't be allowed to have one.
I was waiting for this particular response: Thank you DR_B, it is because of the massive sales of guns since the 'Bamster' took office that homicide is down. The real truth is that more guns in circulation means bad guys are thwarted by law abiding citizens more often and after a few close calls, (or news stories like the widowed mother killing an intruder recently), the violent decide to avoid being killed by the peaceful.

VT Deer Hunter
January 12, 2012, 03:03 PM
Number one killer is, sugar food and stupidity.

Lunie
January 12, 2012, 03:04 PM
In case you haven't noticed, practically every civil right enumerated under the bill of rights has been under attack. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance and all that.
Absolutely, I have noticed. Hence my sentiment.

We'd be doing well if we all guarded the rights of others as jealously as we guard our own.

ExTank
January 12, 2012, 03:14 PM
The anti's will always push the we hate guns agenda, although they might next go after more marginal sections of the shooting culture such as NFA with smaller support bases where it is easier to manipulate the public.

The Antis have long tried to use the divide-and-conquer technique, with some success (look at the former handgun bans in certain cities, and various state's Assault Weapons Bans).

Which is why I get hopping mad :cuss: when I hear of a gun owner disparaging "those guys;" whether "those guys" are dedicated AR (or "other Assault Weapon") shooters, or a 1911/semi-auto handgun shooter, or the Knob Creek crowd, "those guys" have guns that your typical bolt-action rifle/pump-action shotgun hunter doesn't use, and therefore doesn't see a need for.

:banghead:

So they throw "those guys" under the bus at the ballot box. Being one of "those guys," I get a little...passionate...on the subject of gun owner solidarity. :fire:

ball3006
January 12, 2012, 06:06 PM
Gun deaths go down...............gun ownership go up..........go figure.....chris3

JustinJ
January 12, 2012, 06:27 PM
Has it ever ocurred to others that "antis" do actually believe lives will be saved by firearm control and that is their reason for supporting it? Do we really have to demonize them in every way possible, regardless if true or not, just because they hold a different opinion than we do? I want to preserve the 2nd amendment too but I also believe we should be able to do so with a higher level of discourse than is found on AM talk shows. And its been my experience that most pro gun people won't bat an eye to oppose violations of liberties that they personally don't value.

Carl N. Brown
January 12, 2012, 06:45 PM
If gun control is a sincere but passionate belief system, doesn't that make it a religion, and by extension make gun control laws a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment?
AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

JustinJ
January 12, 2012, 07:00 PM
If gun control is a sincere but passionate belief system, doesn't that make it a religion, and by extension make gun control laws a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment?

Um, i suppose if one grossly expands the definitions of a "belief system" and of "religion" it could be considered one. Of course then being pro 2nd amendment could be as well. But statements that try and say "gun control is a religion" are nonsenical and are pretty much exactly what i'm talking about.

Justin
January 12, 2012, 07:16 PM
Has it ever ocurred to others that "antis" do actually believe lives will be saved by firearm control and that is their reason for supporting it? Do we really have to demonize them in every way possible, regardless if true or not, just because they hold a different opinion than we do?

Plenty of people still believe in Young Earth Creationism, that the world is flat, and that the large hadron collider will end life as we know it, too. That doesn't mean they should have a seat at the table for discussions about scientific research and policy.

The bottom line is that gun control in America has been an abysmal failure at lowering violent crime by every single objective metric that I'm aware of.

From the standpoint of objective proof, there's fundamentally no reason to believe that gun control is worth pursuing as public policy. I've encountered, and even tried to engage in reasonable discussions with, the small handful of career anti-gun advocates online, and based on their behavior, I don't see a reason to demonize them so much as to pity them for adhering outmoded beliefs rooted in antiquated notions of social engineering.


I want to preserve the 2nd amendment too but I also believe we should be able to do so with a higher level of discourse than is found on AM talk shows.

Agree absolutely. Now, if you can get them to adhere to the same level of discourse, I will be shocked.


And its been my experience that most pro gun people won't bat an eye to oppose violations of liberties that they personally don't value.

Red herring. At least for me, as I'm a big fan of personal liberty in general.

JustinJ
January 12, 2012, 07:43 PM
Plenty of people still believe in Young Earth Creationism, that the world is flat, and that the large hadron collider will end life as we know it, too. That doesn't mean they should have a seat at the table for discussions about scientific research and policy.

Unlike positions on gun control those are facts. No matter how strong you, i, or anybody else feels about how much, if any, gun control there should be it is ultimately just an opinion. And even if ignorant of facts that still does not mean one has nefarious intentions.

From the standpoint of objective proof, there's fundamentally no reason to believe that gun control is worth pursuing as public policy. I've encountered, and even tried to engage in reasonable discussions with, the small handful of career anti-gun advocates online, and based on their behavior, I don't see a reason to demonize them so much as to pity them for adhering outmoded beliefs rooted in antiquated notions of social engineering.

Anti gun beliefs cover a wide spectrum and include many outside of those who make a career of it. But to be fair the extreme anti gun crowd have never been able to truly test their policies in the full sense in which they want them implemented. They generally pursue gun legislation as steps to further legislation with the ultimate goal of the complete removal of certain types of guns from private ownership. My position is ultimately that liberties, gun rights included, are more important than statistical drops in murder rates so wether or not extreme gun control will work in preventing some murders is not consequential to me. But really neither side looks at data objectively. They both think backwards in the sense that they look for facts to support their position rather than to form it. The truth is there are a facts that don't exactly flatter either position.


Quote:
And its been my experience that most pro gun people won't bat an eye to oppose violations of liberties that they personally don't value.

Red herring. At least for me, as I'm a big fan of personal liberty in general.

Its not a red herring but a commentary on hypocricy from people who love to yell about hypocricy. You may very well believe in the principle of liberty but most others only seem to when its convenient to protecting something tangible they value. I can't really go into detail without violating the board rules on political talkes but if you truly do believe in liberty for all i'm sure i don't need to.

Justin
January 12, 2012, 11:24 PM
Unlike positions on gun control those are facts. No matter how strong you, i, or anybody else feels about how much, if any, gun control there should be it is ultimately just an opinion. And even if ignorant of facts that still does not mean one has nefarious intentions.

Feel free to dig up the CDC-WISQARS info on gun deaths and compare it to the number of firearms owned in this country. The bottom line is that, even assuming a different gun is used for every crime committed, less than 1/10 of 1% of all of the firearms in the United States are ever used to commit a crime.

Now, if one adheres to the opinion that the only acceptable number of gun deaths in a country is zero*, I suppose that's an opinion, but it's one that is certainly not informed by a realistic view of human nature, technology, or the world in general, as even nations with the most stringent gun control laws still have gun crime. (Nevermind the fact that basic economics and criminal surveys have shown that in a situation absent of guns, criminals will simply substitute another weapon in order to victimize citizens, and will grow more brazen in their victimizations, particularly of the infirm and elderly.)


Anti gun beliefs cover a wide spectrum and include many outside of those who make a career of it.

There are many people who are simply not engaged in the debate who lean somewhat anti-gun due to cultural views and the like. There's a fundamental difference between someone who's not a shooter, and is therefore somewhat uncomfortable with guns, and ignorant of the current laws, and someone who's an actual prohibitionist.


But to be fair the extreme anti gun crowd have never been able to truly test their policies in the full sense in which they want them implemented. They generally pursue gun legislation as steps to further legislation with the ultimate goal of the complete removal of certain types of guns from private ownership.

This is dependent on how willing you are to believe their excuses for failed policies. Within the United States, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, and California have all experimented with extreme levels of gun control. Internationally, the United Kingdom has gun control that is so utterly strict that the UK Olympic Pistol Team has to travel to France just to conduct a practice session. In Australia, nearly all handguns are prohibited, and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are banned. In Saddam-era Iraq, the only people allowed to have guns were Ba'ath Party loyalists.

In all of those countries, enforcement of those gun control laws required actions on the part of the government that, hopefully, would not be tolerated in the United States, including registration, confiscation, and private property searches without so much as a warrant.

Oddly enough, all of these countries still had gun violence.

But even if they didn't, you'd have to be willing to set fire to the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th amendments of the Bill of Rights as well in order to enforce an effective gun control scheme in this country.


My position is ultimately that liberties, gun rights included, are more important than statistical drops in murder rates so wether or not extreme gun control will work in preventing some murders is not consequential to me.

This is the position that I adhere to as well. As a culture, we're willing to put up with avoidable deaths attributable to overconsumption of fats leading to heart attacks. According to the CDC, in 2009, we were willing to tolerate 2.3 million injuries annually related to automobiles, and over 30,000 deaths.

Could we avoid deaths by heart attack (one of the leading killers in the US) by instituting ridiculous controls on who can eat what? Sure.

Just as we could reduce or eliminate the number of traffic deaths and injuries by banning or strictly curtailing access to cars. But the majority of people in this country are willing to tolerate those annual death tolls.


But really neither side looks at data objectively. They both think backwards in the sense that they look for facts to support their position rather than to form it. The truth is there are a facts that don't exactly flatter either position.

You should spend more time at the CDC website. FWIW, there isn't a whole lot of direct evidence that more guns result in less crime, but this country has been experiencing not only a drop in violent crime since the early 1990s, but also a drop in accidental gun deaths as well, and in that time, not only have gun laws become more liberal, gun ownership has skyrocketed.

The bottom line is that education on the safe use of guns has become more pervasive (despite the actions of VPC, Brady Campaign, etc.) and that crime in general has gone down. Despite the protestations of the professional anti-gun activists, liberalization of concealed carry laws has not led to "blood in the streets" or "shootouts over parking spaces."

Furthermore, a 2003 meta-analysis by the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm) found that

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

Of course, they do include a disclaimer, but the fact that they were unable to find a connection is quite thought-provoking.

In any event, I have seen no evidence presented by anti-gun activists that their proposals have actually worked to reduce violent crime, and in the countries where stringent gun control has been enacted, it often requires the loss of other civil liberties just to be able to enforce such a law.

What I find peculiar about the anti-gun activists I've spoken to, including the aforementioned Brady Campaigner, is that they refuse to actually come right out and make a public commitment to seeing that the levels of gun control (and other infringements on liberty) be enforced in order to realize their ideals in the real world.


*Interestingly enough, the anti-gun activist and Brady Campaign Board Member I attempted to engage in conversation hewed to this belief, though she would refuse to state just how, exactly, we would achieve that goal, especially since she continually claimed that she "didn't want to take anyone's guns away."

Carl N. Brown
January 13, 2012, 12:30 AM
In the NAS report "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review" 2004, this comment was made by the NRC panel on critics of John Lott: "A second group of critics have argued that Lott's results lack credibility because they are inconsistent with various strongly held a priori beliefs or expectations. For example, Zimring and Hawkins (1997:59) argue that "large reductions in violence [due to right-to-carry laws] are quite unlikely because they would be out of proportion to the small scale of change in carrying of firearms that the legislation produced." The committee agrees that it is important for statistic evidence to be consistent with established facts, but there are no such facts about whether right-to-carry laws can have effects of the magnitudes that Lott claims. The beliefs or expectations of Lott's second group of critics are, at best, hypotheses whose truth or falsehood can only be determined empirically."

I read the Zimring and Hawkins article, (Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins, Concealed Handguns: The Counterfeit Deterrent, 7 The Responsive Community 2 (Spring 1997)), and got the impression that their horror of Lott's thesis was because admitting a benefit from private arms would undermine the socially desirable goal of further restricting legal ownership to prevent the proliferation of private arms that the progressives abhor. Another author put it: "Zimring & Hawkins cite recognition of the legitimacy of defensive gun use as an impediment to the socially desirable goal of eliminating private ownership of handguns...." So I don't think my summation is off. Their reaction to Lott is comparable to a true believer's reaction to a blasphemer. What we are often dealing with is a religion based on the tenet that banning symbols through the power of the state will reform the behavior of people, a blind faith in voodoo criminology.

Impureclient
January 13, 2012, 12:50 AM
Plenty of people still believe in Young Earth Creationism, that the world is flat, and that the large hadron collider will end life as we know it, too.

That's a pretty ****ty thing to say in here considering there are people who believe in the Bible as the true history of Earth and take great offense to that. Way to group Creationism with garbage as you've done. Why not throw werewolves and zombies in there just to be more of a jerk. You'd think a moderator would understand that and not take a dump on others so easily. Yeah, I'm pissed at this place for allowing you to be in control of others conversations while you are a big a-hole yourself. Also, FYI, Creationist scientists do have a seat at the table for discussions about scientific research.

Earth being flat - That is just a silly one to mention.
The Large Hadron Collider - Same thing, silly to mention.
Creationism - Simple. Samples for submission to be dated are accompanied by a date the samples are "expected to be". If radioactive dating methods were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary. It's all faith based.....6,000 years or 4.5 billion....Which is your faith in?
Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii rock was dated at 1.715.3 million years old. This of course is from an eruption that happened in 1959. Yeah, great system to have your faith in. I'll keep my faith in the information from the book that has not failed, unlike mankind.

Way to turn a gun control conversation into a pissing contest on your negative view of Christianity, chief.

K&E Arms
January 13, 2012, 12:59 AM
The brady bunch will never give up, but they did get a little quieter after Starbucks told them and Washington ceasefire to piss off.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Justin
January 13, 2012, 03:45 AM
Way to turn a gun control conversation into a pissing contest on your negative view of Christianity, chief.

THR isn't about doing religious discussions, and the only thing I have to say on the topic is that there are plenty of individual Christians as well as Christian sects that don't buy into Young Earth Creationism.

I'm sorry that you read my post and believed it was meant to be an attack on Christianity.

Mike1234567
January 13, 2012, 09:39 AM
Since this has steered off in that direction anyway... I know many Christians who do not believe in "young earth". They understand that not "everything" in the Bible is fact.

Back on topic: The antis will blame believers of "young earth". :D

The-Reaver
January 13, 2012, 09:44 AM
The lung illnesses are clearly coming from burn powder...

Elkins45
January 13, 2012, 02:28 PM
Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii rock was dated at 1.7–15.3 million years old. This of course is from an eruption that happened in 1959. Yeah, great system to have your faith in.

I really don't want to get into this mess, but since I'm a geologist by training I just can't let this one pass.

There are several different methods of radiological dating which use different isotopes as their basis. Using an element with an extremely long half life, even if accurate to 99% still gives you tolerances in the millions of years. U235 dating just doesn't have sufficient discrimination for young rock, since the half life is in the billions of years.

Put a grape on your bathroom scale and it will most likely tell you the grape is weightless. Put a bacteria on your powder scale and it will tell you the same. Put a elephant on either one and you will get an answer that's off the scale. You may choose to believe whatever you like about the age of the earth, but you don't do yourself any favors with your chosen example, since it is well within the known tolerances of the system.

Elkins45
January 13, 2012, 03:46 PM
^^^^^ That's what I think too. I suppose I should have said that when I responded just specifically to the point about radio dating. I certainly don't want to attack Christianity since I embrace it myself.

Maybe the anti's can start to blame the "fundamentalist religious mindset" for wanting to own guns, since fundamentalism = hate and guns = tools of hate? <----- just to get it back on topic a bit.

JRH6856
January 13, 2012, 04:01 PM
Maybe the anti's can start to blame the "fundamentalist religious mindset" for wanting to own guns

They already are. Ever since folks in Arizona showed up at Tea Party rallies carrying openly.

Elkins45
January 13, 2012, 06:49 PM
They already are. Ever since folks in Arizona showed up at Tea Party rallies carrying openly.
Funny how the last high profile Arizona shooting was done by an insane Marx reader. Don't think anybody could call Laughtner a fundamentalist.

If they can't blame the tool then they will have to demonize the tool's owner...although I'm not sure if they really make the distinction. Most of the antis I know hate the gun owner just as much as the gun itself.

To them just thinking about wanting to own a gun makes you "unclean" or something.

JRH6856
January 13, 2012, 07:12 PM
Don't think anybody could call Laughtner [sic] a fundamentalist.ISTR. all the news reports started out with that assumption. Until they found out more about him, it was a given on several blogs, that he was a "fundamentalist, tea-bagging, gun-nut." I know some antis who will not be dissuaded and are still trying to reconcile that with Marxism.:banghead:

Impureclient
January 13, 2012, 09:54 PM
it is well within the known tolerances of the system

.....and here lies the problem. Them nutty tolerances.

Romeo 33 Delta
January 13, 2012, 10:00 PM
Trust me on this: "...but if it saves just one life".

They'll NEVER give up ... it's a mental disorder.

JRH6856
January 13, 2012, 11:46 PM
Young earth, old earth, either way, I'm pretty sure neither involves guns so the discussion doesn't belong here.

dev_null
January 13, 2012, 11:49 PM
*redacted*

Double Naught Spy
January 14, 2012, 12:44 AM
What will the Anti's say now that "guns" aren't even involved in the Top 15 of deaths anymore? They really like to say that "guns" are the highest cause of deaths in the US.

I believe you have misrepresented the position of the anti-gun groups. I don't see where any of them are claiming that guns were the leading cause of death. This goes for the LCAV, Brady, and VPC. The CDC doesn't list firearms as a leading cause of death either.

They do make claims that guns are amongst top leading factors in murders, suicides, and violent deaths in the US. This information is about right. The CDC notes that guns are amonst the top 3 injury related deaths.

So just because homicides fell out of the top leading causes of death, there position isn't likely to change. The reduced homicide information is not in conflict with their positions.

EnfieldEnthusiast
January 14, 2012, 06:47 PM
The anti-gun activitsts always see the negitive side of shooting & never want to see the positive sides of shooting.
Below is a link detailing conflicts of interest between Pro-gun Labour party polititions & the left-wing League Against Cruel Sports.Its interesting that not all Labour polititions were as anti-gun,as first though.This was from 2005,during the last governments reign ,when Blair was PM.At least then,some had common sense.

[URL="http://www.airgunbbs.com/archive/indexThe Labour Party supports fishing and shooting and you would be well advised to get used to it.”
The Labour Party supports fishing and shooting and you would be well advised to get used to it.”
Quote from the angry letter,from Martin Salter,then MP for Reading West.Well Martin if Labour supports shooting,why couldn't they give us back handguns in 2005 or earlier? Because Labour wants to appease all the do-gooders it can to get votes & not anger their voters in Scotland,who whine about the Dunblane massacre.

An early draft of the charter contained support for examining the reintroduction of single shot .22 target pistols. Disappointingly, it did not make the final version of the charter, but it is encouraging that the issue is being considered at a senior level in the parliamentary Labour party.
It never happend because of the above reason.It amazes me how gutless polititions are & they themselves deny themselves the freedom to own handguns or semi-auto centrefire rifles.
If I want a rifle to hunt with or to shoot targets with,I chose my gun &should have the freedom to select any type,on the western civillain market.Not be told that a semi-auto centrefire has no useful purpose,because some naffing idiotic minister or anti-gun activit tells me,its inappropriate.
The antis in Britain wanted to ban lever-action rifles and bolts for hunting&target-shooting because they were not essential.Where the naffing hell are these peoples brains? Up their posterias more likely than not.

Tiberius67
January 15, 2012, 03:46 PM
Has it ever ocurred to others that "antis" do actually believe lives will be saved by firearm control and that is their reason for supporting it?

The only people in the Anti movement that believe that nonsense are the superstitious fools who think firearms have magical power...like Sauron's Ring....and compel their owners to commit crimes they otherwise wouldn't have. But they aren't in control of the movement, thier main role is to be used as propaganda. The actual leaders...Diane Feinstein, for example...own guns, they just don't think the rabble should have them. Chicago's Democrat government is violently Anti-Gun yet not only do they own guns the Mayor and City Council gave themselves police powers so they could carry them. Even Sarah Brady has been known to give them as gifts.

Do we really have to demonize them in every way possible, regardless if true or not, just because they hold a different opinion than we do? I want to preserve the 2nd amendment too but I also believe we should be able to do so with a higher level of discourse than is found on AM talk shows. And its been my experience that most pro gun people won't bat an eye to oppose violations of liberties that they personally don't value.

If one looks carefully at what anti's actually do rather than what they say they want...it's pretty clear the leaders of the movement think the only use for guns is to kill one's enemies, and they are projecting that belief onto their enemies, namely the common citizenry. The Democrats have mobilized all of thier assets in the MSM and academe to demonize gun owners, and make them social pariahs on the level of sexual deviants, a goal they have been fairly successful at. If gun people don't push back with all thier might they'll win....just like the Democrats succeeded at demonizing Bush, Goldwater, and many others.

Justin
January 15, 2012, 06:43 PM
There's no need to actually engage in demonizing the antis. As I've previously stated, they're more pathetic than anything.

drcook
January 15, 2012, 07:36 PM
Which is why I get hopping mad when I hear of a gun owner disparaging "those guys;" whether "those guys" are dedicated AR (or "other Assault Weapon") shooters, or a 1911/semi-auto handgun shooter, or the Knob Creek crowd, "those guys" have guns that your typical bolt-action rifle/pump-action shotgun hunter doesn't use, and therefore doesn't see a need for.

I worked with one of those hypocrites. He had a .22 for murdering innocent groundhogs out under his shed, but any other type of firearm was evil because they were designed to kill something (like his .22). He actually was very leftist in most of his beliefs, and "thick headed" in his others.

There are a whole generation of people who absolutely are frightened of inanimate objects and take very actively take part in the "control" aspect, otherwise (at least around here) there wouldn't be such a plethora of those home association neighborhoods where neighbors/the association can control so much of people's lives, meaning down to the color of your front door. I worked with another guy who lived in one of those places and they all had to have the same color front door, in the same architectual style. House after house after house. They all looked exactly the same. I guess it is easier for them to live if every aspect is controlled.

JRH6856
January 15, 2012, 07:50 PM
They all looked exactly the same. I guess it is easier for them to live if every aspect is controlled.They call it "equality".:banghead:

dev_null
January 15, 2012, 08:41 PM
Lumping all "antis" together is different from lumping all "gun nuts" together... how?

Mike1234567
January 15, 2012, 09:01 PM
^^^ It's different because the antis defend themselves and their families with rhetoric (cowardly BS) and the rest of us defend ourselves and our families with strength.

dev_null
January 15, 2012, 10:32 PM
Not my point, Mike. I'm saying that the rhetoric here often gets just as guilty of stereotyping and blind prejudice as the rhetoric used against us. Not very "high road" in my book. And more to the point, it is just as tactically flawed.

Mike1234567
January 16, 2012, 10:28 AM
You make a good point, D_N. We can all be ignorant and closed-minded at times. Try as I may to not have that weakness... I still catch myself now and then.

Elkins45
January 16, 2012, 01:17 PM
Lumping all "antis" together is different from lumping all "gun nuts" together... how?

Because they all have essentially the same impact on us--they either encourage or tacitly facilitate the infringement of our RKBA. Although their reasons and degrees of toxicity may be vastly different, their impact is functionally the same. And they're all just about equally emotionally-driven and equally resistant to logic.

A pile of six inch rocks may be a delightfully sparkling mixture of sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic varieties, but they all hurt about the same when someone throws them at your head.

Jonah71
January 16, 2012, 01:46 PM
To assume most gun control advocates use logic and honest statistics is a mistake. Almost without fail, on the rare occassion I do find myself wasting time talking to one, they get angry very quickly and end the conversation when verifiable statistic based logic is introduced.

JustinJ
January 16, 2012, 03:35 PM
Feel free to dig up the CDC-WISQARS info on gun deaths and compare it to the number of firearms owned in this country. The bottom line is that, even assuming a different gun is used for every crime committed, less than 1/10 of 1% of all of the firearms in the United States are ever used to commit a crime.

Are you saying that since the vast majority of guns are not used in crime their ownership is justified because not enough are?

Now, if one adheres to the opinion that the only acceptable number of gun deaths in a country is zero*, I suppose that's an opinion, but it's one that is certainly not informed by a realistic view of human nature, technology, or the world in general, as even nations with the most stringent gun control laws still have gun crime. (Nevermind the fact that basic economics and criminal surveys have shown that in a situation absent of guns, criminals will simply substitute another weapon in order to victimize citizens, and will grow more brazen in their victimizations, particularly of the infirm and elderly.)

Crime reduction is not an all or nothing proposition. While some criminals would certainly revert to other weapons if guns were not allowed there are also many crimes that simply could not be committed with out them such as Columbine and other mass shootings.

This is dependent on how willing you are to believe their excuses for failed policies. [QUOTE]Within the United States, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, and California have all experimented with extreme levels of gun control. Internationally, the United Kingdom has gun control that is so utterly strict that the UK Olympic Pistol Team has to travel to France just to conduct a practice session. In Australia, nearly all handguns are prohibited, and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are banned. In Saddam-era Iraq, the only people allowed to have guns were Ba'ath Party loyalists.

Local gun control can never be effecitve so long as firearms are readily available one state or town over. I absolutely oppose gun control but its not hard to see why city and state laws will never be effective. Using other countries as evidence of how gun control will or won't work in the US is extremely problematic. There are in fact countries with very draconian gun laws that have crime rates much lower than ours. They also have different cultures, governments and economies than us as all countries do. But that doesnt stop both sides from spinning data to support their views. We've all heard the pro gun statstics regarding Australia but many were extremely misleading as the following snopes article explains:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp


In all of those countries, enforcement of those gun control laws required actions on the part of the government that, hopefully, would not be tolerated in the United States, including registration, confiscation, and private property searches without so much as a warrant.

Oddly enough, all of these countries still had gun violence.

But even if they didn't, you'd have to be willing to set fire to the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th amendments of the Bill of Rights as well in order to enforce an effective gun control scheme in this country.

I agree that the price of effective gun control is not worth the cost to liberty.

You should spend more time at the CDC website. FWIW, there isn't a whole lot of direct evidence that more guns result in less crime, but this country has been experiencing not only a drop in violent crime since the early 1990s, but also a drop in accidental gun deaths as well, and in that time, not only have gun laws become more liberal, gun ownership has skyrocketed.

Causes of crime rate changes is extremley hard to pinpoint and many mistakenly assign cause to effect. There is a very strong arguement that Roe vs Wade had a huge impact on crime reduction. Ultimately, i have a hard time buying the arguement that would be violent criminals are deterred by citizen gun ownership. They just don't think that way as most consider themselves bullet proof to begin with. If being shot by rival gang members wont deter gang bangers from gang activity how would anybody expect the chance of being shot by a law abiding civilian to deter them?

Ultimately, i agree that there are plenty of dishonest anti gun people who will lie and mislead to get their way but i don't agree they are all that way and i also don't pretend no such people exist on our side.

happygeek
January 16, 2012, 08:32 PM
Feel free to dig up the CDC-WISQARS info on gun deaths and compare it to the number of firearms owned in this country. The bottom line is that, even assuming a different gun is used for every crime committed, less than 1/10 of 1% of all of the firearms in the United States are ever used to commit a crime.



Are you saying that since the vast majority of guns are not used in crime their ownership is justified because not enough are?


You could say that as a crime fighting measure it'd make more sense to advocate for parole reform than gun control [after poking around Google for a few minutes I come up with a couple different percentages of parolees who re-offend, so far all much higher than 1/10 of 1%].


While some criminals would certainly revert to other weapons if guns were not allowed there are also many crimes that simply could not be committed with out them such as Columbine and other mass shootings.


You've heard of the Bath School Massacre, the worst school massacre in US history? The perpetrator didn't use a gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_school_massacre). The worst mass murder that wasn't terrorism in US history didn't involve a shooting either (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happyland_Fire). Columbine for that matter wouldn't have gone down in history as a mass shooting if the perpetrators had been as good at bomb making as the Bath killer. Yes it's awfully hard to stage a mass shooting without a gun, but it's almost as difficult if someone is shooting back; probably why the worst mass shootings happened in "gun free zones".

You also have to make the assumption that gun control schemes actually stop criminals from obtaining guns. The British experienced a spike in homicides in the years following their handgun ban (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb1109chap2.pdf, top of page 18) and noted here (http://www.ligali.org/pdf/home_office_gun_crime_the_market_in_and_use_of_illegal_firearms.pdf) that criminals were still getting ahold of handguns 9 years after the ban. The study was rather interesting, apparently some are manufacturing crude handguns that will still kill you at short range, but it didn't list what I was really curious about; a breakdown of where the smuggled guns had come from that a black market dealer had at arrest.

PastorAaron
January 16, 2012, 09:08 PM
People are weird. My father in law is anti hunting to the point it'd make you sick. He also eats mass farmed beef and cheers every time a goblin gets shot while doing evil. The flaw is assuming that people are reasonable.
I believe in guns, Jesus, a young earth, and an old principle: treat others the way you'd want to be treated. That said, the anti gun wave is in decline around these parts. I'm hoping it stays that way long enough for me to get all the guns on my list into the safe.

Double Naught Spy
January 16, 2012, 09:24 PM
LOL, y'all are still going through and trying to find new ways to bash the anti's, calling them names like ignorant and emotionally-driven when the basis of this thread is out of ignorance and most or a lot of the responses are emotionally-based with a lot of name calling?

Somehow I am not seeing the pro-gun crowd as being any better than the anti-crowd except for the fact that the group I like supports guns and the other group does not.

Thanks to dev_null for trying to point out the vast similarities which are rather ugly when you think about it.

Powerglide
January 16, 2012, 09:34 PM
Then let them do their thing cause I'm surely gonna do mine.In the end, we'll see who fares better, or lives longer.

JustinJ
January 17, 2012, 11:53 AM
You've heard of the Bath School Massacre, the worst school massacre in US history? The perpetrator didn't use a gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_school_massacre). The worst mass murder that wasn't terrorism in US history didn't involve a shooting either (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happyland_Fire). Columbine for that matter wouldn't have gone down in history as a mass shooting if the perpetrators had been as good at bomb making as the Bath killer. Yes it's awfully hard to stage a mass shooting without a gun, but it's almost as difficult if someone is shooting back; probably why the worst mass shootings happened in "gun free zones".

But they weren't good at bomb making as it is far more involved process that many lack the technical skill to accomplish. However, no such skill or effort is required to go on a shooting spree in a high school. Many people who lack the ability to make effective explosives would be unable to commit mass murder if not for firearms. Obviously some may exist who can and will use explosives so not all mass killings could be prevented by gun control(assuming gun control could limit availability of firearms to those who wish to commit such crimes) but it is a "either/or" logical fallasy to say all mass killings must be prevented to justify efforts to reduce their occurence.

You also have to make the assumption that gun control schemes actually stop criminals from obtaining guns. The British experienced a spike in homicides in the years following their handgun ban (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...b1109chap2.pdf, top of page 18) and noted here (http://www.ligali.org/pdf/home_offic...l_firearms.pdf) that criminals were still getting ahold of handguns 9 years after the ban. The study was rather interesting, apparently some are manufacturing crude handguns that will still kill you at short range, but it didn't list what I was really curious about; a breakdown of where the smuggled guns had come from that a black market dealer had at arrest.

Using the gun control model of one country to predict its effectiveness in another is extemely problematic. Depending on how one assigns cause to effect multiple countries can be used to argue in favor of both sides of the gun control debate.

happygeek
January 17, 2012, 01:09 PM
How much technical skill did the Happyland arson require?


Causes of crime rate changes is extremley hard to pinpoint and many mistakenly assign cause to effect.



Using the gun control model of one country to predict its effectiveness in another is extemely problematic.


Then how can anyone claim with a straight face that any gun control scheme will do anything?

I'm not claiming that England's handgun ban caused their spike in homicides in the following years, only that it failed to prevent it, or to prevent criminals from getting at least some handguns.

I doubt Justin is claiming that the growth in gun ownership and gun rights in general over the last two decades caused the massive drop in our homicide rate, only that the two correlated when the anti-gun logic says that should not be so.

JFrame
January 20, 2012, 12:09 PM
I doubt Justin is claiming that the growth in gun ownership and gun rights in general over the last two decades caused the massive drop in our homicide rate, only that the two correlated when the anti-gun logic says that should not be so.

Well said...! :cool:


.

JustinJ
January 20, 2012, 12:57 PM
Originally Posted by happygeek
I doubt Justin is claiming that the growth in gun ownership and gun rights in general over the last two decades caused the massive drop in our homicide rate, only that the two correlated when the anti-gun logic says that should not be so.

That may very well be the case but many progun people do. I have no doubt that many in the antigun crowd community do in fact misrepresent facts and statistics, cherry pick data and often just plain lie. But our side is not free of such people and practices either. I wish neither side would do such things but since i'm in the progun community there isn't much i can say that may influence the anti crowd to have more integrity.

Justin
January 20, 2012, 01:24 PM
Are you saying that since the vast majority of guns are not used in crime their ownership is justified because not enough are?

What I'm saying is that from a statistical perspective, very few guns are used in crime, and many, many guns are used for all manner of legitimate activities from plinking to hunting to self defense.

Advocating the banning of guns because such a small number of them are used in crimes would be the equivalent of advocating for the banning of cars because a certain percentage of people die in gasoline-sparked fires every year.

Crime reduction is not an all or nothing proposition.

That's what you and I think. I've pointedly asked more than one anti-gun activist about this, and in the cases where they actually articulate a response, it's invariably along the lines of "we shouldn't stop until the number of gun deaths is zero."

If you don't believe me, go do the research yourself. There are full-time anti-gun activists with their own blogs who allow limited comments to be posted.

While some criminals would certainly revert to other weapons if guns were not allowed there are also many crimes that simply could not be committed with out them such as Columbine and other mass shootings.


The cost of enforcing a gun control scheme that could provably avert mass shootings would be so outsized in comparison to the crimes prevented that it's fundamentally not worth it from both a financial and civil rights perspective.

Local gun control can never be effecitve so long as firearms are readily available one state or town over. I absolutely oppose gun control but its not hard to see why city and state laws will never be effective.

Which perfectly illustrates why gun control is an expensive, civil-rights infringing failure. When it comes to arguing in favor of gun control, the result will always be that the goals of the policies will have to be shifted and expanded to play catchup with those who endeavor to acquire guns.

Using other countries as evidence of how gun control will or won't work in the US is extremely problematic. There are in fact countries with very draconian gun laws that have crime rates much lower than ours. They also have different cultures, governments and economies than us as all countries do.

Of course it's problematic, and for the reasons you've brought up, but it does offer a glimpse, however imperfect, into real-world gun control policies and their real-world effects.


But that doesnt stop both sides from spinning data to support their views. We've all heard the pro gun statstics regarding Australia but many were extremely misleading as the following snopes article explains:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp


I don't recall bringing up Australia in my posts, nor do I recall doing the copypasta dance with a chain email that was circulated sometime back in the late 1990s.

Justin
January 20, 2012, 01:34 PM
I doubt Justin is claiming that the growth in gun ownership and gun rights in general over the last two decades caused the massive drop in our homicide rate, only that the two correlated when the anti-gun logic says that should not be so.

Thank you for clarifying my point. :)

As the proud holder of a Junior Internet Forum Commenter Badge, I'm well aware that correlation does not equal causation.

However, the data does work in our favor as it does a good job of demonstrating the very fact that there is not, in actuality, a correlation between increases in gun ownership and higher rates of violent crime, which has been a constant refrain from the anti-gun camp since the 1960s.

JustinJ
January 20, 2012, 04:14 PM
What I'm saying is that from a statistical perspective, very few guns are used in crime, and many, many guns are used for all manner of legitimate activities from plinking to hunting to self defense.

Advocating the banning of guns because such a small number of them are used in crimes would be the equivalent of advocating for the banning of cars because a certain percentage of people die in gasoline-sparked fires every year.

The problem with that analogy, like the one in another thread regarding 'death by doctor', is that cars are far more utilitarian to far more people. Gun sports are fun and great. Cars get people to their jobs, grocery store, the hospital, away from natural disasters, etc. Yes, americans defend themselves with guns every year but ultimately having cars saves far more lives every year. And while you and I see value in guns the entire country sees value in cars.

The cost of enforcing a gun control scheme that could provably avert mass shootings would be so outsized in comparison to the crimes prevented that it's fundamentally not worth it from both a financial and civil rights perspective.

Which costs are you reffering? I don't think the economic cost would be that great given there is one to such shootings as well. However, the cost to our liberties is one I don't see as worth paying.

Which perfectly illustrates why gun control is an expensive, civil-rights infringing failure. When it comes to arguing in favor of gun control, the result will always be that the goals of the policies will have to be shifted and expanded to play catchup with those who endeavor to acquire guns.

The expense part is debatable but i fully agree that the civil right infringment is unacceptable. But again, all i was saying is that the antigun people have never really had their ultimate goal implemented, which i'm grateful for. Ultimately though local and state gun control is no indication as to how nation wide gun control would work.

I don't recall bringing up Australia in my posts, nor do I recall doing the copypasta dance with a chain email that was circulated sometime back in the late 1990s.

I wans't saying you brought it up but just using it as an example that our side does not always operate with high integrity. A recently locked thread, which i'm thankful for, is a perfect example of the backwards thinking that exists on our side as well. Backwards thinking in the sense that people form an opinion first and then look only for data to support it while ignoring all other. There are people who act that way on just about every side of every issue so it's disingenous to say such about all antigun advocates when we have people that do it too.

However, the data does work in our favor as it does a good job of demonstrating the very fact that there is not, in actuality, a correlation between increases in gun ownership and higher rates of violent crime, which has been a constant refrain from the anti-gun camp since the 1960s.

I agree. However, I'm sure i've seen it claimed many times by pro gunners that gun ownership rates and pro gun laws have been shown to reduce crime.

JFrame
January 20, 2012, 04:58 PM
Which costs are you reffering? I don't think the economic cost would be that great given there is one to such shootings as well. However, the cost to our liberties is one I don't see as worth paying.

The expense part is debatable but i fully agree that the civil right infringment is unacceptable. But again, all i was saying is that the antigun people have never really had their ultimate goal implemented, which i'm grateful for. Ultimately though local and state gun control is no indication as to how nation wide gun control would work.

I haven't exactly thought this through myself, but I'll float it out there for the brilliant minds of THR. :)

If we're talking about the total ban on firearms, how about looking at other "products" for which bans have been attempted? I'm thinkin' alcohol (Prohibition) and illegal drugs (The War on Drugs). Now, I'm not comparing the products by any means -- just the concept of imposing a permanent ban on a specific item.

Prohibition was an out-and-out failure. And IIRC, alcoholism actually went up during the time the law was in place (this is just something I recall hearing -- if I'm mistaken, I'll happily be corrected).

Up to this point, we must conclude that TWOD is on-going, and shows no sign of cessation -- I suppose "failure" is a relative term, but it certainly isn't won.

Without doing any sort of research, I have to assume that the effort to impose Prohibition was a huge financial burden on every entity attempting to enforce it, and TWOD is likewise, and continues to be so.

Given these experiences, can we likely believe that a total gun ban would be any more effective? The black market for firearms would skyrocket. "Gun Kings" would have their own fiefdoms for supplying either smuggled weaponry or home-grown garage machine-shop products. Another possible repercussion is that suppressors would become more prevalent (because people would want to conceal their ownership as much as they can).

Of course, in this atmosphere, the likely unintended consequence of "if you make gun ownership a crime, only criminals will have guns" would be realized to some extent. Although, by definition under a total gun ban, anyone owning a gun would be a criminal.

And yes, I think the effort by all entities of law enforcement to try and impose a universal ban would be astronomical. With alcohol, it proved impossible to sustain. The same outcome might apply to TWOD. Would it be the same for guns? :confused:

I certainly agree with your premise that the cost in liberty would surpass any other consideration.


.

Erik M
January 20, 2012, 05:06 PM
From my college experience I can attest that anti's are people that were not raised around guns, and they believe on a fanatical level that the actual plastic and steel are inherently evil. As if touching a firearm will turn you to the dark side. Most that I would talk to did not like to debate, let alone you trying to change their mind. It just turned into a shouting match. The unfortunate side is that most of my instructors and professors were anti's.

JustinJ
January 20, 2012, 05:25 PM
JFrame, i don't believe for a second that the ban on drugs or prohibition is any indicator of how events would unfold during a gun ban. For example, legal select fire weapons are not within reach today of many due to their costs but there is no thriving underground black market for them. I'm not saying they aren't sold illegally but the numbers are miniscule compared to drugs today or alcohol during prohibition. Nor are there many people today making their own in the garage. For one penalities for using drugs tend to be much less severe than those for illegal firearms. People also crave alcohol and drugs for far different reasons than they buy guns. They are just two completely different animals. Also, if guns became illegal the current border protection services would just continue to look out for them as they do today anyways. That is already in place. Few people have the means or ability to make numerous guns at home but several drugs are a different story.

JFrame
January 20, 2012, 05:36 PM
JFrame, i don't believe for a second that the ban on drugs or prohibition is any indicator of how events would unfold during a gun ban. For example, legal select fire weapons are not within reach today of many due to their costs but there is no thriving underground black market for them. I'm not saying they aren't sold illegally but the numbers are miniscule compared to drugs today or alcohol during prohibition. Nor are there many people today making their own in the garage. For one penalities for using drugs tend to be much less severe than those for illegal firearms. People also crave alcohol and drugs for far different reasons than they buy guns. They are just two completely different animals. Also, if guns became illegal the current border protection services would just continue to look out for them as they do today anyways. That is already in place. Few people have the means or ability to make numerous guns at home but several drugs are a different story.


I understand that there has been an erosion of our gun liberties over the past several decades. It's sort of like the "frog in the pot of boiling water" analogy. We have been willing to surrender our liberties incrementally, because we have "such and such" left, which will "suffice."

However, calling for a TOTAL gun ban, I believe, is a completely different animal. I would like to believe, anyway, that there is that spark of the Founding Fathers left in Americans who would say, "Hell no," to a complete abrogation of gun rights. And yes, I do believe that a cottage industry of illegal weapons would arise to fill the vacuum of confiscation, were that to take place (and I doubt even confiscation would work, because there are simply already too many guns out there, and too many people who would be unwilling to surrender them).

Of course, this discussion is likely academic, because we've seen a seismic shift in gun perception in the past decade or so (not that we should ever let our guard down in regard to defense of the 2A!). "Gun control" has become a pariah in politics -- even some hard-core leftist politicians are afraid to utter the words for fear of arousing the populace.

It has gotten so bad, in fact, that Obama's Justice Department had to concoct a cockamamie scheme with BATFE to flood the Mexican crime market with thousands of illegal firearms, in a misbegotten effort to try and stir up a narrative for stemming the flow of guns across the southern border. You KNOW the leftists are getting desperate when they have to go to such outrageous (and criminal) extremes in order to try and revive a spark of anti-gun sentiment.

So, I am glad to say that this is a discussion that we can have in the luxury of the Internet -- although, as noted earlier, we should never let down our guard.


.

happygeek
January 20, 2012, 06:53 PM
So, I am glad to say that this is a discussion that we can have in the luxury of the Internet -- although, as noted earlier, we should never let down our guard.


+10

I talked to a guy at work today who said "Congress was never going to pass SOPA". The bill had something like 30 co-sponsors and may have very well passed if Google, Wikipeidia, and others hadn't brought it to the attention of tens of millions. Many Congressmen are now backing away due to the backlash.

SOPA/PIPA will be back I'm sure, but in bits and pieces and under a different name. So will most gun control schemes.

BTW, not necessarily picking on England, but not only did their homicides go up after their handgun ban, perversely their homicides by shooting went up (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0111/hosb0111?view=Binary, top of page 29). The old cliches "they'll just use something else" and "criminals will always get guns" seem to have held true there.

I don't blame their gun laws for their current violent crime rate though, IMHO it has a lot more to do with their laws concerning self defense in general.


Ultimately though local and state gun control is no indication as to how nation wide gun control would work.


It is and it isn't. Sure states don't have secure borders, but does the country?

JRH6856
January 20, 2012, 09:24 PM
I have several friends and lots of acquaintances who are anti-gun. They are also left-wing socialist and not religious (agnostic or atheist). I have come to realize, that they are not anti-gun so much as they are anti-death. Being not religious, they have no expectation of an afterlife. This one here is all they have and they don't want to live it as long as they can. As a result, they see the main goal of any society as protecting life, especially theirs. They are pro abortion because a high birth rate threatens their survival, they are pro environment because a poor environment is not supportive of good health, they want to stop global warming because climate change is contra-survival, they expect the government to provide free health care because they can't afford it and must have it to survive. They are anti-gun because guns kill.

What they fear is death--their own mortality. They are going to die and they know they can't do anything about it so they want society to do whatever is necessary to keep them alive as long as possible. And since they need society to do this, other members of society must be protected from the same dangers so that society can survive to pursue the purpose of extending life.

They have surrendered their individuality to become a contributing member of society. We all do that, but I think most of us here retain our identities as free individuals. But instead of identifying themselves as free individuals they have surrendered that individuality and find their identity in the society that they depend on for support.

Individual liberty and individual rights are replaced by "the greater good". What is good for the many is what best serves the needs of the individual and any individual needs that do not serve the good of the whole are devalued. "Give me liberty or give me death" is meaningless because liberty--freedom from societal restriction and the pursuit of individuality--is death.

Neverwinter
January 21, 2012, 02:24 PM
They have surrendered their individuality to become a contributing member of society. We all do that, but I think most of us here retain our identities as free individuals. But instead of identifying themselves as free individuals they have surrendered that individuality and find their identity in the society that they depend on for support.

Individual liberty and individual rights are replaced by "the greater good". What is good for the many is what best serves the needs of the individual and any individual needs that do not serve the good of the whole are devalued. "Give me liberty or give me death" is meaningless because liberty--freedom from societal restriction and the pursuit of individuality--is death.
The positions mentioned at the beginning of the post run contrary to this thesis. One is specifically about increasing individual rights, and two claim a definition beyond a reasonable definition of freedom(ie. freedom extending all the way from your fist into someone's nose).

They are against gun rights because they don't see the separation between the fist and the nose, so to say.

If you enjoyed reading about "What will the Anti's blame for deaths now?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!