Is the damage to society from guns worth the freedom to have guns?

[JackBurtonJr]

Frank ... a forum question. How long until I get to wear big-boy pants and get a quote button?



But the aspect that I find curious is that (at least in the literature I've seen so far) none of your sources has attributed this change to firearms.

They mention numerous possible causes: our world-leading prison population, abortion, increased police. Don't you think these people are smart enough or capable of admitting guns played a part in this trend?

It's impossible to attribute a direct correlation to anything. But what it certainly proves is the gun control mantra of "more guns more violence" is an empty phrase.

 

[JagerRanger]

[snip]

Guns, most of which sit for days, months or years locked (hopefully) away, are the cause of death for ~30,000.

The fact that you lump suicides to the 'deaths causing by guns," says it all. You think people would quit committing suicides if firearms disappeared?

Are you aware of the fact that our homicide rate has been more or less the same for 50 years sans the gang-banger contribution to the statistics? Compare those to the murder stats in France, and US starts looking a good place to live.

"Lose every gun, and what changes?" is way to asinine of a question to even bother to response.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Frank ... a forum question. How long until I get to wear big-boy pants and get a quote button?

We are all such "big boys" here, including you, that we don't need to have quote buttons. We are sophisticated and computer savvy enough to know how to quote using manually added HTML tags.

So open the "post reply" screen. Then copy and paste what you want to quote into your reply window. Then put quote tags around what you want to quote.

Quote tags look like this {quote} ... what you want to quote...{/quote}, except with square brackets instead of the wavy brackets. Changing the wavy brackets to square brackets, you'd get this when it's posted:

... what you want to quote...

If you want to identify who you're quoting, the tags would look like this {quote=whoever} ... what you want to quote...{/quote}. Changing the wavy brackets to square brackets, you'd get this when it's posted:

... what you want to quote...

You can also highlight the copied quoted text in your reply window and click on the "quote" icon in the menu at the top. That would add the quote tags.

You can use the Preview Post function to make sure you've got it right.

 

[bikerdoc]

Citizenzen
I dont know your location or motives but I offer you a standing invitation to join me at a range, learn the saftey rules, fire a few rounds and absorb the mindset of my peers. You do like pizza and soda right?.

 

[Blondie]

Wow - neat discussion. My answer would be yes, the "damage to society" is worth the freedom. Whose to say that same damage would not occur but for this freedom? Sounds like guesswork. In any case, I feel the benefits of our freedom (and means of protecting it) outweigh the benefits of a controlled/restricted society. I'd rather have the freedom of speech, freedom to pursue happiness, freedom against unlawful searches, freedom to bear arms, etc. rather than live in a society with more perceived security.

Just my humble opinion, but I vote with it!

 

[citizenzen]

No one likes being vulnerable. No one likes other people demanding that they become vulnerable. Once the general population figured out just what the gun control movement wants the only way open to you guys was straight downhill.

And this is where culture comes in. Some countries were able to make the change, but I sincerely doubt the U.S. will ... even in my lifetime.

I actually accept that. I can't win every political battle. But that doesn't mean I should give up advocating for my side. Right to lifers haven't stop protesting 40 years after Roe v. Wade.

I accept that guns will be a big part of this culture and I accept the toll that these weapons will take. Frank mentioned that crime in Europe surpasses that of the U.S., and one of his sources singled out England as the worst country of those surveyed. Yet England's per capita murder rate is one-fourth of the U.S.'s. Their firearm related death rate is .46 (per 100,000) to the U.S.'s 10.27.

These numbers speak very clearly: the more guns, the more killed by guns, and the more killed overall ...

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study
Oxford Journals, American Journal of Epidemiology 2004

"The findings of this study add to the body of research showing an association between guns in the home and risk of a violent death. Those persons with guns in the home were at significantly greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a suicide in the home relative to other causes of death."

 

[citizenzen]

I dont know your location or motives but I offer you a standing invitation to join me at a range, learn the saftey rules, fire a few rounds and absorb the mindset of my peers. You do like pizza and soda right?.

How about vegetarian* pizza and beer?

That would be my preference.

While I appreciate the invitation, I'll stick to golf.






*And who here couldn't have guessed that?

 

[JackBurtonJr]

These numbers speak very clearly: the more guns, the more killed by guns, and the more killed overall ...

Then we can assume that when your home window is broken at about 3 in the morning you'll ask the police to leave their guns at the station house before they come over since they are bringing more guns into the situation?

BTW... we have many more guns today than ever before... and the murder/crime rate is dropping ever year. Guess your philosophy doesn't quite add up to reality.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Nor did I claim it or the University of Leiden study did. What both show is the crime rates are rising in gun restricted Europe while an increasing number of guns in private hands doesn't correlate to an increasing crime rate in the U.S.

But the aspect that I find curious is that (at least in the literature I've seen so far) none of your sources has attributed this change to firearms.

They mention numerous possible causes: our world-leading prison population, abortion, increased police. Don't you think these people are smart enough or capable of admitting guns played a part in this trend?

Several things.

[1] John Lott has done some work attempting to quantify the effect on crime rate of "shall issue" concealed carry permit laws (More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics), University of Chicago Press (June 1, 1998)). But the estimated effects, while measurable, were also small and on a State-by-State basis. I don't know if these effects would have been great enough to have a noticeable impact on national crime rate figures. Or to put it another way, at what decimal point place would the effect show?

[2] The deterrent effect noted by Wright, et al, might also be small as a component of overall crime rate. By still each crime foregone, is a crime that didn't happen and a person spared being a victim.

[3] Successful DGU results in a crime not committed. We know these occur because we have the reports in media and we have data such as FBI figures for justifiable homicides committed by persons other than law enforcement officers.

[4] On one hand we have crime rate statistics that tell us certain things. On the other hand we have information about actual successful DGUs, crimes prevented and real people spared being victims because they had guns. Different pieces of the same overall picture. Just as physics is trying to unify relativity at one end of the scale with quantum effects at the other, we will need a to find a theory that brings together crime rates and DGU events.

...Guns, most of which sit for days, months or years locked (hopefully) away, are the cause of death for ~30,000...

I submit that is a misleading figure. Most are suicides. If guns are unavailable someone intent on suicide has access to substitute instrumentalities. Furthermore, some countries with very high suicide rate (e. g., Japan and Sweden to name two) have very strict gun laws affording very limited access to firearms.

...Frank mentioned that crime in Europe surpasses that of the U.S., and one of his sources singled out England as the worst country of those surveyed. Yet England's per capita murder rate is one-fourth of the U.S.'s. Their firearm related death rate is .46 (per 100,000) to the U.S.'s 10.27...

There is more to violent crime than murder. An assault or robbery (stealing by violence or threat of violence) could result in the death of the victim, and even if the victim survives the cost to the victim and his family in medical, financial and psychological terms can still be enormous.

 

[JagerRanger]

[snip]

These numbers speak very clearly: the more guns, the more killed by guns, and the more killed overall ...

You clearly don't have a clue about guns and firearms statistics. I'm sorry, but you're not worth to have a dialogue with regarding guns.

Maybe we ought to change the subject to vegetarian issues. Been one for over 40 years.

 

[Snag]

Is the damage to society from guns worth the freedom to have guns?

The first thing I think of when I read this is damage to society from guns is not cause by the guns, it's cause by the crazy ass people.

 

[citizenzen]

Just block this troll, he's not here to debate, he's here to subvert. There is a difference, he is an insult to what we stand for ...

Dude. You sound like a bad parody.

But I suspect you're serious.

Please tell me that you aren't serious.

 

[citizenzen]

Maybe we ought to change the subject to vegetarian issues. Been one for over 40 years.

You got me beat. I'm just a rookie at ~25 years.

 

[citizenzen]

There is more to violent crime than murder. An assault or robbery (stealing by violence or threat of violence) could result in the death of the victim, and even if the victim survives the cost to the victim and his family in medical, financial and psychological terms can still be enormous.

I completely agree. And a review of the statistics should be able to reveal the differences in the crimes, the numbered injured, etc. I haven't dug into the data enough to understand the differences yet, but am open to seeing what the data reveals and will look into it further.

The first thing I think of when I read this is damage to society from guns is not cause by the guns, it's cause by the crazy ass people.

I'm sure I'll have to repeat this ad infinitum ... I have never suggested otherwise. I truly don't blame the gun. The gun is an inanimate object. The only question in my mind is whether we, as a society are capable of handling this weapon. As the thread title asks, Is the damage to society from guns worth the freedom to have guns? As someone who has never owned a gun and somehow manages to navigate this scary, scary world without one, I see the scale weigh on the side of too much damage.

But I understand that it's in the Constitution, and I understand that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of private ownership. I'm content with being on the "losing" side of this argument.

 

[SuperNaut]

Is separating We the People and Society some sort of Cartesian Dualism?

Society is an abstract term that describes the relationships that large groups build. We the People have founding documents where we agree on the basics of these relationships. Our American Society has overwhelmingly agreed that freedom of the individual is of greater importance than the collective. These freedoms include individual gun ownership. There is no "damage" being done to society by gun ownership.

There are no competing founding documents that state otherwise and any other contrary voices are of a very small minority. The only way for this tiny minority to change these documents, and alter (damage) the basic freedoms that the majority enjoy, is to gather enough support to pass an Amendment.

Good luck with that.

 

[citizenzen]

John Lott has done some work attempting to quantify the effect on crime rate of "shall issue" concealed carry permit laws (More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics), University of Chicago Press (June 1, 1998)). But the estimated effects, while measurable, were also small and on a State-by-State basis. I don't know if these effects would have been great enough to have a noticeable impact on national crime rate figures. Or to put it another way, at what decimal point place would the effect show?

The wikipedia page for John Lott mentions and National Academy of Sciences study on the issue. Here an excerpt from the Major Conclusions ...

While much has been learned, much remains to be done, and this report necessarily focuses on the important unknowns in this field of study. The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime ...

I know gym won't believe this, but the truth is the only thing I really care about here. Anybody who wants to delve into it and share what they find is welcome to join me. I promise to not let my ideology get in the way of the investigation. Can others here promise the same?

 

[ArfinGreebly]

As A Society?

The only question in my mind is whether we, as a society are capable of handling this weapon.

Actually, we are, and we're getting better at it every year.

However, this "society" to which you refer is increasingly peopled by people who can't distinguish between emotion and thinking, between logic and feelings, between merit and desire.

And I submit that the root cause for this problem -- which underlies a host of social "ills" -- is way out of scope for a gun forum. For example, a strong correlation can be found between increased numbers of psych professionals in education and the declining quality of scholastic output.

So, if you seek to "fix what's wrong" with America, then you're starting at the wrong end of the problem.

When Johnny can't read, and Johnny can't think, and Johnny can't tell the difference between right and wrong, worrying about what tools little Johnny might use to murder his classmates is a bass-ackwards approach.

Turning out herds of klutzes, and then demanding bubble wrap and Nerf pads for everything with which the klutzes will now collide is about as wrong-headed as it gets.

You might better turn your considerable intellect to solving that, rather than using it as an excuse for constraining the rights of those who don't suffer from illiteracy, illogic, and amorality.

You're solving the wrong problem.

 

[citizenzen]

You might better turn your considerable intellect to solving that, rather than using it as an excuse for constraining the rights of those who don't suffer from illiteracy, illogic, and amorality.

You're solving the wrong problem.

This may very well be the case.

I can't help noticing however that other countries seem to do better than we do. Perhaps it's only for the short term and we'll prove to be right in the end.

However, we should be open to lesson we can learn from others.

I try to be.

 

[Tommygunn]

To me it's not even close how these two compare. Lose every motor vehicle and our world stops. Lose every gun, and what changes?

Nothing.
Murderers continue their trade with implements that have existed for centuries.

 

[taliv]

To me it's not even close how these two compare. Lose every motor vehicle and our world stops. Lose every gun, and what changes?

ask the rwandans?

Estimates were that between 250,000 and 500,000 Rwandese women and girls had been raped.[52] A 2000 report prepared by the Organization of African Unity’s International Panel of Eminent Personalities concluded that "we can be certain that almost all females who survived the genocide were direct victims of rape or other sexual violence, or were profoundly affected by it".[52]

you honestly think that could happen in a country where so many women own guns?

life can get downright unpleasant, but when your militia gets in a gunfight at every other house, my guess is your rape statistics drop by at least 2 orders of magnitude.

 

[1911Tuner]

Is the damage to society from guns worth the freedom to have guns? As someone who has never owned a gun and somehow manages to navigate this scary, scary world without one, I see the scale weigh on the side of too much damage.

The damage to society...or whatever you want to call it...is being done by a very small faction of society. Do millions of people who don't engage in criminal behavior cave in and surrender a Constitutionally protected birthright because of the actions of a few...or because of something that some whackjob might do at some point in the future?

Very well. Let's ban the sale of gasoline in plastic jugs because somebody might construct a firebomb. That would necessitate home delivery of fuel for our lawn mowers and string trimmers, et al and hang the cost. Then we'll have to restrict the sales of garden hoses and plastic jugs because they could be used to siphon gasoline out of a fuel tank and then used to construct a firebomb. Then, of course we have to strictly control the sale and possession of matches and Bic lighters because firebomb. And then, there's the glass bottles and old rags...but you get my drift.

Mayor Bloomberg has decided that New Yorkers are too fat...so he wants to ban the sale of soft drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces in order to force people to lose weight. I guess it never occurred to him that they could just buy two 16 ounce drinks 15 minutes apart...or maybe even arrange for a straw buy and make off with their contraband Dr. Peppers, careful to hide their faces lest the surveillance cameras identify them.

The British banned pointy knives. Unless they also ban possession of grinding wheels and files, there's nothing to stop the British people from making dull knives pointy. Homo Sapien Sapien clawed his way to the top of the food chain by being a toolmaker, after all. It's hard-wired. Where does the banning stop in the futile attempt to control people?

Is it starting to occur to you that banning objects isn't the way to resolve the problem? It should, because where there's a will, there's a way. If a man decides to obtain or create a weapon, he'll find a way. If he is determined to drink too much Dr. Pepper and eat too many Big Macs...he'll find a way. The Volstead Act banned the sale, possession, and consumption of alcohol...and people drank themselves stupid every day.

Thumbing one's nose at intrusive government regulations is a fine, old American tradition...and it's not likely to go away.

A glaring example of this was observed when the government was making noises over light bulbs, and gave consideration to banning the manufacture and sale of incandescent bulbs. The response was immediate and overwhelming. Three days later, you couldn't find an incandescent bulb anywhere. The people made a run on'em.

 

[1911Tuner]

In remembering a few quotes from Daniel Webster, I thought maybe some of them would apply to this question...for those amongst us who truly believe that Homo Sapien Sapien will somehow magically make the transformation from Morlock to Eloi when all the weapons are made illegal.

A country cannot subsist well without liberty, nor liberty without virtue.”
― Daniel Webster

God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and defend it.”

Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”

And finally...My favorite:

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

 

[bikerdoc]

Citizenzen

Vegetarian pizza and beer it is.

On golf, I stink at it. we can have a big party the day I break 120!

Your calm, reasoned manner, on this subject leads me to believe you are thoughtful openminded man (or possibly, and please dont be offended, a well trained cognitive infiltrator), either way your polite, likable manner leads me to ask you the hard question.

Would not the damage to society be better served by focusing on the misuser of the tool and not the tool.
Are you not outraged that we spend more on animal control than mental health?

Aurora, VT, and Columbine perps were all identified as needing help long before their act. Yet community and state budgets for mental health are slashed and facilities for both out patient or in patient treatment continue to dwindle to the point of non existence.

Are you not outraged that urban males drop out of high school, join gangs, and commit crimes?
Their crimes are heinous and damaging to their own community.
MS-13, Bloods, Crips, are proof that the dept of education has never educated anyone. Another govt solution that failed.

That the war on drugs has been lost.
Yet the damage to society is costly.

The root cause of the damage is not the tool. It is the person.
The person that was not mentored, guided, educated, or instilled with family and social values.

The damage to society would be better served by focusing on people than tools.

 

[1911Tuner]

Good observations, Doc. Unfortunately, it's become unfashionable to blame the perpetrator and instead concentrate on the tools that he uses to do his mischief...or to blame society itself for not giving him what he wants rather than demanding that he earn it...whether it's a pair of designer sneakers or self-esteem.

Take away the Morlock's sword, and he will still be Morlock...and Morlock eat Eloi.

 

[JackBurtonJr]

I



I'm sure I'll have to repeat this ad infinitum ... I have never suggested otherwise. I truly don't blame the gun. The gun is an inanimate object. The only question in my mind is whether we, as a society are capable of handling this weapon. As the thread title asks, Is the damage to society from guns worth the freedom to have guns? As someone who has never owned a gun and somehow manages to navigate this scary, scary world without one, I see the scale weigh on the side of too much damage.

Then... as the article developes, since alcohol causes so much more damage to society than firearms by any logical progression you must also be in favor of bringing back Prohibition.